Skip to main content

Full text of "A text-book of the history of doctrines"

See other formats


^■m< v., 'ii,-Yji,- VI .'(^ 

BfcS- 111 ■ '■ •'■i.'i : is 



(•Jorttell Ittittcraitg Slibtarg 



A B., A.M.. COLUMBIAN COLLEGE. '71 .-73 







3 1924 092 343 338 


jmm«m ^ 



Cornell University 

The original of tiiis book is in 
tine Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 


T E X T . B O O K 







By HENKY B. smith, D.D., 




AND Nos. 314 & 216 MERCER STREET, 
Undbe Gbamd Cettkai Hotbi.. 


"Nee pigebit autem me sioubi hsesito, quaerere, nee pudebit slcubi erro, discere." 


" Ideoque utile est, plures (libros) a pluribus fieri diverso stilo, non diversa fide, etiam 
de quasstionibus eisdem, ut ad plurimos res ipsa perveniat, ad alios sic, ad alios autem 
sic." — Idem. 


Entered, according to Act of Confess, in the year 1861, by 


In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 



The first edition of Htigenbacli's History of Doctrines was 
published in Germany in 1841. Mr. Buch's translation of this 
edition appeared in Edinburgh in 1846 ; a second edition, com- 
prising a part of the additions to the second German edition 
(1848), was issued in 1850 ; and a third, without further revision 
or alteration, in 1858. Meanwhile, the German work was so 
favorably received, that it appeared in a third, and a fourth (1857) 
edition, each containing improvements and additions. 

All these improvements are comprised in the present revision, 
together with citations from other authors, and references to the 
more recent German, as well as English and American literature. 
Among the works most freely used in making these additions are 
Gieseler's Dogmengeschichte, 1855 ; Neander's ChristlicheDogmen- 
geschichte, edited by Jacobi (translated by J. E. Kyland, London, 
1858) ; and, particularly, the second edition of Baur's Dogmen- 
geschichte, 1858. The latter work, though affected by the theo- 
logical prepossessions of the author, recently deceased, exhibits a 
thorough knowledge of the different shades of opinion, as well as 
of the general characteristics of each period. The additions thus 
made to the Edinburgh edition, and to the text of Hagenbach, in- 
crease the matter of the volume about one third. What is added 
to Hagenbach, is uniformly indicated by brackets; and this includes 
some references and citations by the English translator. The sign 
f is usually prefixed to the name of a Boman Catholic author ; the 
sign ■•■''■ prefixed, is intended to commend the work. The Edinburgh 
translatioa has been revised throughout ; in some instances it was 
found necessary to rewrite whole sentences and even paragraphs. 
Those passages, too, have been translated, which were there omitted, 
because " they were found to be of such a nature as to convey little 
definite meaning in translation." 

The value of Dr. Hagenbach's work is attested by the constant 
demand for new editions in Germany, in the midst of much com- 
petitioa. It has, as a text-book, its peculiar merits and advantages, 
in giving a candid and compressed statement of the main points, 
fortifying every position by exact and pertinent citations from 
the original sources. The theological position of the author is on 
the middle ground between the destructive criticism of the school 
of Tiibingen, and the literal orthodoxy of the extreme Lutherans, 
■while he also sympathises with the Reformed rather than with the 

iv Preface by the Editor. 

Lutheran type of theology He enjoys the highest respect and 
consideration for his learning and candor. And among the works 
published upon the History of Doctrines, this is still perhaps the 
one best adapted to general consultation and profitable use. Mun- 
scher's Lehrbuch, as edited by Von Colin, Hupfeld and Neudecker (in 
the successive parts, 1832-38) is valuable chiefly as a collection of 
materials ; Euperti (1831), Augusti (4th edit., 1835), and Lentz 
(1834), have been superseded. Baumgarten-Crusius' Compendium, 
1840-46 (the second volume edited by Hase), and Engelhardt (1839), 
show an abundance of learning, but are deficient in the method 
essential to a text-book. Meier's Lehrbuch (2d edit. 1854), and 
Beck's (1864), simply present the results in a concise form. Giese- 
ler's Dogmengeschichte, edited by Eedepenning, 1855, extends only 
to the Reformation, and is rather intended as a supplement to his 
Church History. Baur's work is pervaded throughout by the theory, 
that dogmas are destined to be resolved into philosophical ideas. 
Noack's Dogmengeschichte (2d ed., 1856) has the same tendency, 
with less learning and method. Neander's History of Dogmas, ad- 
mirable in many respects, has the disadvantages of a posthumous 
publication ; it devotes less than a hundred pages to the history 
since the Eeformation. 

Some of the other works of Dr. Hagenbach are, his Lectures on 
the Church History of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, 
and on the History of the Eeformation, 3d ed. in 6 Parts, 1856-7 ; 
Theological Encyclopeedia, 4th ed., 1854 ; Lectures on Ancient 
Church History, to the Sixth Century, 2 vols., 1855-56 ; and Lec- 
tures on the Church History of the Middle Ages, 2 vols, 1860,-1. 

Among all the branches of theological study, the History of 
Doctrines has been the most neglected in the general course of in- 
struction in our theological schools. There are not wanting some 
healthful indications of an increasing sense of its value and import- 
ance. Without it, neither the history of the church, nor the history 
of philosophy, nor the present phases and conflicts of religious belief, 
can be thoroughly appreciated. It gives us the real internal life of 
the church. It renders important aid in testing both error and 
truth. It may guard against heresy, while it also confirms our faith 
in those essential articles of the Christian faith, which have been 
the best heritage of the church. In the fluctuations of human 
opinion, the History of Doctrines shows the immutability and pro- 
gress of divine truth. 

H. B. S. 

Union Theological Seminaet, 
New Yosk, Jan. 21, 1861. 



1. DBfinition 13 

2. The Relation of the History of Doetiinea to Church History and Dogmatic 

Theology i 16 

3. Relation to Biblical Theology 16 

4. Relation to Symbolism... 17 

5. Relation to Patriatics 18 

6. Relation to the History of Heresies and the General History of Religion 19 

7. Relation to the History of Philosophy, the History of Christian Ethics, and 

the BKstory of Dogmatic Theology 21 

8. Auxilary Sciences ; 22 

9. Importance of the History of Doctrines... , 23 

10. Mode of Handling the History of Doctrines 23 

11. Arrangement of the Materials 25 

12. Division into Periods 26 

13. Sources of the History of Doctrines : a. Public Sources 30 

14. b. Private Sources 33 

15. c. Indirect Sources 38 

16. Works upon the History of Doctrines 36 





§ 17. Christ and Christianity. 44 

18. The Apostles 45 

19. Culture of the Age, and Philosophy 49 

20. Rule of Faith— The Apostles' Creed fit 

21. Heresies 62 

32. Judaism and Elhnicism ii 




§ 23. Ebionites and Cerinthus—Docetae and Gnostics 55 

24. Sfontanisra and Monarchianism 60 

25. The Catholic Doctrine ^2 

26. The.Theology of the Fathers 63 

27. The general Doctrinal Character of this Period 74 





g 28. Truth and Divinity of the Christian Religion in General 75 

29. Mode of Argument 77 

30. Sources of Knowledge 82 

31. Canon of the Sacred Scriptures 83 

32. Inspiration and Efficacy of the Scriptures : 86 

33. Biblical Interpretation 92 

S4. Tradition 96 




35. The Being of God 99 

36. The Unity of God* 102 

37. Whether God can be Known 104 

38. Idealism and Anthropomorphism — Corporeity of God 106 

39. The Attributes of God 109 

40. The Doctrine of tlie Logos: a. Before the Christian Era, and in other Sj'stems. 113 

41. 4. The Christian Doctrine of the Logo-i, in the Writings of John 116 

42. c. The Theologumenon of the Church concerning the Logos to the Times of 

Origen 117 

43;' d. Origen's Doctrine of the Logos 123 

44. The Holy Ghost 125 

45. The Triad 128 

46. Monarchianism and Subordination 130 

47. Doctrine of the Creation 133 

48. Providence and Government of the World 136 

•49. Angelology and Deraonology 138 

50. The Angels '. 139 

51. The Devil and Demons 142 

52. The same subject continued 145 

Contents. vii 




53. Introduction 148 

54. Division of Human Nature and practical Psychology 149 

55. Origin of the Soul 151 

5S, The Image of God 153 

57, Liberty and Immortality : a. Liberty 155 

58. 6. Immortality 158 

69. Sin, the Fall, and its Consequences ^ 159 

60. The Doctrine of Sin in General 160 

VU. Interpretation of the Narrative of the Pall 162 

62. State of Innocence and Fall 163 

63. The Effects of the Fall 1G4 



64. Christology in General 169 

65. The God-Man 170 

66. Further Development of this Doctrine 173 

67. The Sinlessness of Christ 178 

68. Redemption and Atonement (The Death of Christ) 179 

69. Descensus ad Inferos 187 

10. Tho Economy of Kedemption , 188 



g 11. The Church 193 

72. Baptism 197 

1 3. The Lord's Supper 203 

74. Idea of the Sacraments 211 



§ 75 The Second Advent of Christ — Millennariaiiism (Chiliasm) 213 

76. The Resurrection 217 

77. General Judgment. — Hade.s. — Purgatory. — Conflagration of the World 221 

78. State of the Blessed and the Condemned. — Restitution of all Things 224 

viii Contents. 


YEAR 254 TO THE YEAR 130. 




; ?9. Introduction 228 

80. Doctrinal Definitions and Controversies 229 

81. The Dogmatic Character of this Period. — The Fate of Origenism 229 

82. Teachers of the Church in this Period 230 

83. The Eastern Church from the Fourth to the Sixth Century. — ^The Schools of 

Alexandria and Antioch 239 

84. The Western Church. — Augustinianism 239 

86. The Heresies 240 

86. Division of the Material ; 242 








87. The Hypostasis and Subordination of the Son 2^3 

88. The Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. SabeUius and Paul of 

Samosata ^__ 248 

89. Subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Distinction of Persons in 

Arianism 2^3 

90. The Hypostasis and Homousia of the Son. — The Doctrine of the Council of 

Nice 250 

91. Further Fluctuations until the Synod of Constantinople 252 

92. The Causes of these Fluctuations. — Arianism and Semi- Arianism on the one 

Hand, and Return to Sabellianism on the other. — M.iroeUus and Photinus.. 254 

93. Divmity of the Holy Spirit , 258 

Contents. ix 


• 94. Processiou of the Holy Spirit 263 

95. Final Statement of the Doctriue of the Trinity 264 

96. Tritheism, Tetratheism 267 

97. Symbolum Quicumque 269 


93. The True Humanity of Christ. — Traces of Dooetism. — Arianism 271 

99. The Doctrine of Apollinaris 272 

100. Nestonanism 275 

101. Eutychian-Monophysite Controversy 277 

102. Progress of the — Theopaschites 279 

103. Various Modifications of the Monophysite Doctrine. — Aplithartodocetse, 

Phthartolatri, Agnoetae 281 

104. The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ— Monothelites 282 

106. Practical and Religious Importance of Christology during this Period....... 284 



lOG. On Man in general 286 

107. On the Doctrine of Sin in general 290 

108. Consequences of the First Sin, and Freedom of the Wai (according to the 

Theologians of the Greek Church) 293 

109. The Opinions of the Latin Theologians before Augustine, and of Augustine 

before the Pelagian Controversy 295 

110. The Pelagian Controversy 298 

111. First Point of Controversy : Sin. — Original Sin and its Consequences 298 

112. Second Point of : Liberty and Grace 301 

113. Third Point of Controversy : Predestination 303 

114. Semipelagianism and the later Teachers of the Cliurch 303 



§ US. Introduction 311 


1. Apologetic and Normal Doctrines. — Prolegomena. 


§ 116. The Idea of Religion and Revelation 311 

117. Writings in Defence' of Claristianity '. 313 

118. Miracles and Prophecy 314 

119. Sources of Religious Knowledge. — Bible and Tradition. 315 

120. The Canon 317 

121. Inspiration and Interpretation 319 

122. Tradition and the Continuance of Inspiration 323 

2. The Doctrine concerning God. r 

123. The Being of God 525 

124. The Nature of God 327 

125. The Unity of God 330 

126. The Attributes of God , 331 

127. Creation 332 

128. The Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to the Doctrine of the Trinity 334 

129. Design of the Universe. — ^Providence. — Preservation and Government of t'ae 

World 334 

130. Theodicy ". 337 

131. Angelology and Angelolatry 338 

132. The same subject continued 341 

133. Devil and Demons 342 

3, Soleriology, 
% 134. Redemption through Christ (The Death of Jesus) ,, s46 

4. The Church and its Means of Grace. 

g 135. The Doctrine about the Church • 352 

136. The Sacraments 355 

137. Bnptism 356 

138. The Lord's Supper 361 

5. The Doctrine of the Last Things. 

§ 139. MiUennarianism. — The Kingdom of Christ 368 

140. The Resurrection of the Body 369 

141. General Judgment. — Conflagration of the World. — Purgatory 373 

142. The State of the Blessed and the Damned 376 

Contents. xi 




(scholasticism in the widest sense of the word). 



§ 143. Character of this Period 381 

14i. The Relation of the Systematic Tendency to tlie Apologetic 382 

145. The Polemics of this Period. — Controversies with Heretics 383 

146. The Greek Church 38i 

',47. The Western Church 380 

148. The Age of the Carlovingians -, 386 

149. Scholasticism in general 389 

150. The Principal Scholastic Systems. — a. First Period of Scholasticism to the 

Time of Peter the Lombard 39 1 

151. b. Second Period to the End of the Thirteenth Century 395 

152. t. Third Period. — The Decline of Scholasticism in the Fourteenth and Fif- 

teenth Centuries 399 

li53. Mysticism 401 

154. Philosophical Opposition to Scholasticism 406 

155. Practical Opposition. — The Forerunners of the Reformation 408 

156. The Connection of the History of Dootrin^ with tlie History of the Church 

and the World in the present Period 411 





g 157. Truth and Divine Origin of Christianity 414 

15S. Reason and Revelation, Faith and Knowledge 416 

159 Sources of Knowledge. — Bible and Tradition 421 

160. Che Canon of the Bible and Biblical Criticism 424 

161. Inspiration 425 

162. Interpretation of Scripture. — The Reading of the Bible 428 



(moLVDma oosmoi-oot, anseIiOloot, dbmonoloot, etc.) 


g 163. The Existence of Qod 432 

164. The Comprehenaibffitjr of God 438 

165. The Nature of God in GreneraL— (Pantheism and Theism) 441 

166. The Attributes of God. — a. The Relation of God to Time, Space and Num- 

ber. (The Omnipresence, Eternity, and Unity of God) 445 

167. h. The Belation of God to Existence. — Omnipotence and Omniscience 448 

1C8. c. Moral Attributes 452 

169. The Doctrine of the Trinity : Procession of the Holy Spirit 453 

170. The Doctrine of the Trinity in General 457 

171. The Doctrine of Creation, Providence, and the Government of the "World. - 

Theodicy 469 

112. The Angels and the DevU 416 


Comp. Eageribach, Encyclopaedie, 4te Aufl. a. 239 fif. Kliefoth, Th. EinleitUDg in die Dog» 
mengeschiohte, Parchim, 1839. F. Dorienbach, Die Methode der Dogmengeseli. in the 
Studien uud Elritilien, 1 842. Kling, in Herzog's Encyclopaedie, under Dogmewgeschichte. 
[Hagenbacii's History of Doctrines, reviewed in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vi., 1849.] 



The History of Doctrines is that branch of theological science, 
which exhibits the gradual development and definite shaping of the 
substance of the Christian faith into doctrinal statements (defini- 
tions, dogmas).' It also sets forth the difierent forms which the sys- 
tem of doctrines has assumed in the course of history ; the changes it 
has undergone as influenced by the culture of difierent periods; and 
it likewise illustrates the religious value which it has always main- 
tained, as containing unchangeable elements of "truth in the midst 
of all these transformations." 

' On the meaning of the word Soyfia (statutum, decretum, praeceptum, 
plaoitum), see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. Mimscher, Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte, edit, by von Colin, p. 1. Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Lchrbuoh der christlichen Dogmengesch. p. 1. Auffusti, Dogmengescbiohte, 
§ 1. JS^lee, Dogmengeschiclite, Prolegomena. Nitssch, System der christ- 
lichen Lehie, 6th edit. p. 52. Hagenbach, Encycl., 4th edit. p. 240 sq. J. P. 
Lnnge, Dogmatik, p. 2. Gieseler and Neander, Dogmengesch. p. 1. The word 
Sojiia signifies in the first place,* decree, edict, statute. Comp. (Sept. vers.) 
Dan. ii. 13 ; vi. 8 ; Esth. iii. 9 ; 2 Mace. x. 2 ; and in the New Testament, 
liiike ii. 1 ; Acts xvii. 7 (where it has a political sense only), Acts xvi. 4 
(used in a theological sense, denoting the apostolical rule for the gentila 
Christians) ; Eph. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14 (in these passages it has a theological 
sense, not referring to Christian belief and Christian doctrine, but to the 
Old Testament Jewish ordinances ; comp. Winer, Grammatik des Neutesta- 
mentlichen Sprachidioms, 5th ed. p. 250, 6th ed. p. 196). Its use in the 
sense of substance of the Christian faith, can not be established from any pa.<v 
sage in the N. T. ; the words employed to express this idea, are : evayyeXiov, 
KJjpvyjua, Xoyog tov 6eov, etc. In the writings of the Stoics, doyiia (decre- 
tum, plaoitum) signifies: theoretical principle, Marcus Aurelius elq kavT. 2, 8 ; 

14 Intkoduction. 

Tav-d aoi dpniru aei Soyfiara Iotu. Cic. Quaest. Acad. iv. 9 : Sapientia 
neque de se ipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decretis quee philosopbi vocant 
doyfiara. Witb this signifioatioQ is concieoted the usage of the teachers of 
the Church, who first in the sphere of Christianity employed the word 66y^a 
(also with the predicate rb delov) to designate the whole substance of doctrine, 
Compare the passages from Ignatius, Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 1, Strom, 
viii. p. 924, edit, of Potter), Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., in Suicer, 
Thesaurus, sub voce. They also sorae'.imes called the opinions of heretics 
66yiJ,ara, with the epithet fivcrapd, or others of similar import, but more fre- 
quently 6o^ai, vorjiJ,aTa ; oomp. JTlee, 1. c. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4, 2) 
already makes a distinction between the dogmatic and the moral, and under- 
stands by Soyfia that which relates to faith, by Trpa^ic; that which refers to 
moral action : 'O Trjg OsocrePeiag rponog kit, 6vo tovtuv avvea-fjue- Soyiidruv 
evaePcov koL npa^ecov ayaOuv. The former are tiie source of the latter. In 
a similar way Seaeca describes the dogmas as the elements of which the body 
of wisdom is composed, as the heart of life, Ep. 94, 95. Thus Socrates (Hist. 
Eccl. 11, 44) says of Bishop Meletius of Antioch : Heo'i dnyuaTog diaXeyeadai 
■inrsperiOsTO, iMvrjv 6e ttiv ridiKT^v didaanaXtaVTo'tg aKpoaralg Trpoa^Keiv, 
(Scribendum videtur Trpoaelxsv vel TTpoGTJyev; Vales.) So, too, Gregory of 
Nyssa says of Christ and his mode of teaching, Ep. 6 : C^iaipwv yap elg 3vo 
T?}v riov xpi'dTiavZy TTokiTeiav, elg tr rh rjOmov fiepog nai elg ttjv doyfidruv 
dKgiPeiav. A peculiar definition of S6yp,a is given by Basil, De Spiritu S. 
c. 21 : "hXXo yap 8oyj.ia nal dXXo Krigvyp,a' rb fiev yap aiunaTai, ra 6e 
KfjpvyjiaTa 8rip.oaieveTaL (esoteric and exoteric doctrine). According to Eu- 
sebius (Adv. Marc. i. 4), Marcellus had already used the word 66yp,a in the 
sense of a human, subjective opinion : Tb rov doynarog ovofia dvdptoTTivrjg 
eXei ri povXfjg re nal yvdip,7]g. Only in modern times (Nitzsch says, since Dd- 
derlein) did the usage become general, in accordance with which 66yp.a does 
not designate ipsa doctrina, so much as sententia alicujus doctoris, that is, doc- 
trinal opinion rather than a defiiiite doctrinal position. With this explanation 
of the word, is intimately connected the definition of the idea of the science 
of the History of Doctrines, as well as, its worth and mode of treatment. 
(Comp. § 10, and Gieseler's Dogmengeschichte, p. 2.) [Gieseler here says, 
that dogma designates a doctrine, which, as essential to Christianity, claims 
acceptance among all Christians. The dogmas of any Church express its 
views of what is essential in the Christian system, in distinction from subjec- 
tive opinions.] 

' In respect to this, there is need of guarding against two extremes. The 
one is that of those who descry a perversion of doctrine, in every departure 
from certain fixed conceptions, in every change of expression and statement ; 
on the false assumption, that none but biblical terminology should be intro- 
duced into the doctrinal system, they look upon these alterations in such a 
way that the whole history of doctrines becomes to them only a history of 
corruptions. The other extreme is that of those, who assume that there has 
been only a constant and sound development of truth within the Church, and 
who will not concede that, together with the healthy growth, diseased condi- 
tions have also been generated. Genuine science has respect to both ; it finda 

§ 1. Definition. 15 

progress, clieclcs, and retrogression, genuine formations and malfoiinations. 
(Thus, e. (/., it would be incorrect to reject the doctrines of the Trinity, of 
Oi-iginal Sin, of the Sacraments, etc., because these words do not occur in the 
Bible ; although we may lawfully inquire whether foreign ideas may not hava 
crept in with such definite formulas; for with 1,he development of a doctrine 
also grows the danger of crippling or of exaggerating it.) We must, 
then, distinguish between formation, the deforming, and the reformation of 
dogmas ; and this last, again, is different from mere restoration and re- 

Just here the position of the Catholic and of the Protestant in relation to 
the History of Doctrines is quite different. According to the former, dogmas 
have been shaped under the constant guidance of the Divine Spirit, and what- 
ever is unhealthful has been rejected under the name of heresy ; so that we 
can not really talk about a proper development of doctrine : compare the re- 
markable concession of Hermes of Bonn, as cited in Neander's Dogmenges- 
chichte, p. 28 [viz., that it is contrary to the principles of the Catholic 
Church to treat the history of doctrines as a special branch, since this pre- 
supposes the changes made by a developing process ; and, . consequently, 
Hermes had doubts about reading lectures on the subject]. Protestantism, 
on the other hand, perpetually applies the standard of the Scriptures^ to the 
unfolded dogma, and allows it to be a doctrine of the Church only so far as 
it reproduces the contents of the Scripture. But it is a misunderstanding of 
the Protestant principle which would lead one to reject every thing which is 
not verbally contained in the Scriptures. From such a standpoint, as finds 
the whole of dogmatic theology already complete in the Bible, the possi- 
bility of a History of Doctrines must be denied, or it must be made to be 
only a history of errors. 



The History of Doctrines is a part of Church History, but sepa- 
rated from it on account of its wide ramifications, and treated as an 
independent science.' It forms the transition from church history to 
ecclesiastical and dogmatic theology.' 

' Comp. § 16, and Hagenhaeh, Encyclop. p. 239. Church history also 
treats of the history of doctrine, but, in relati(jn to the whole ecclesiastical 
life, it appears only as the muscles greet the eye upon the living body, while 
the knife of the anatomist lays them bare, and dissects them out for scientifio 
uses. "ITAe difference between the history of doctrines as a separate branch of, 
theological science, and as a part of ecclesiastical history, is merely one of 
form. For, apart from the difference of extent, which depends on external 
considerations, the subject of investigation is the same in both cases, — different 
poles of the same axis. The History of Doctrines treats of the dogma as it 

16 Intkoduction . 

develops itself in the form of definite conceptions; ecclesiastical history views the 
dogma in its relation to external events.^' Ifase, Church History, New York, ed^ 
pref. p. iy. v. Comp., also, Neander Dogmengesch. p. 6 : " Church History judge» 
phenomena hy their external influence, the History of Doctrines by their in- 
ternal importance. Events are, incorporated into Church History only as they 
have a diffused influence, while the History of Doctrines goes back to the germs 
of the antagonisms." Thus, the History of Doctrines gives up to Church His- 
tory the narration of the external course of doctrinal controversies, and takes 
for granted that this is already known. 

* Many think that the History of Doctrines is an appendix to dogmatic 
theology, rather than an introduction to it ; but this arises from incorrect as- 
sumptions about the nature of dogmatic theology, and from a misapprehension 
of its historical character (one-sided conception of dogmatic theology, either 
from the biblical or from the speculative point of view). The History of 
Doctrines is the bridge between historical theology on the one hand, and 
didactic (systematic) theology on the other. Ecclesiastical history is pre- 
supposed ; dogmatic theology, both of the present and the future, is the aim 
and end of its researches. Comp. Neander, 4, 5 ; " The History of Doctrines 
mediates between pure apostolical Christianity and the Church of the present 
times, py exhibiting the development of Christian doctrine." 



The History of Doctrines presupposes biblical theology (the doc- 
trines of the New Testament in particular) as its basis ; just as the 
general history of the church presupposes the life of Jesus and the 
apostolic age. 

Those writers who reduce theology in general to biblical theology, and 
ignore dogmatic theology, are consistent in regarding the History of Doctrines 
as a mere appendix to biblical theology. But in our view biblical theology 
is to be considered as only the foundation of the edifice; the history of doc- 
trines the history of its construction; and dogmatic theology, as a science of 
doctrines, is still engaged in its completion. It is no more the object of the 
history of doctrines to expound the doctrines of the Bible, than of ecclesias- 
tical history to give a complete account of the life of Christ and his apostles. 
But as the history of primitive Christianity is the only solid foundation and 
starting-point of church history, so the history of doctrines must rest upon, 
and begin with the theology, first of all of the New Testament, and, still 
further, in an ascending line, also of the Old Testament. It is, of course un- 
derstood that the relation in which biblical theology stands to biblical exo« 
gesis and criticism, also applies as a standard to the history of doctrines. 

§ 4. Kelation to Symbolism. 17 



The History of Doctrines comprises the Symbols^ of the church, 
since it must have respect, not only to the formation and contents of 
public confessions of faith/ but also to the distinguishing principles 
set forth in them.' Symbolism may, however, be separated from the 
history of doctrines, and treated as comparative dogmatic theology. 
It stands in the same relation to the history of doctrines, as the 
church statistics of any particular period stand to the advancing 
history of the church. 

' On the ecclesiastical usage of the terms avuJSoXov, aviihdXXetV, aviiBdX- 
XeaOai, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, p. 1084. Crevzer, Symbolik, § 16. Marhei- 
ncke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. tow.ard the beginning. Neander [Church 
History, Torrey's transl.- i. 306.] \Pelt, Theol. Encyclop. p. 456. Maxiraus 
lauriiiensis (about the year 460), says in Horn, in Symb. p. 239 : Symbolum 
tessera est et signaculum, quo inter fideles peifidosque secernitur.] By sym- 
bols (in the doctrinal sense of the word, but not its liturgical or artistic sense) 
are meant the public confessions of faith by which those belonging to the 
same branch of the church recognize each other, as soldiers by the watch- 
word (tessera militaris). 

- The earlier symbols of the church (e. g., the so-called Apostles' Creed, 
the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), were the shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) 
of the Catholic church, in contrast with heretics. It is evident that these 
symbols are deserving of special consideration in the history of doctrines. 
They are in relation to the private opinions of individual ecclesiastical wri- 
ters, what systems of mountains are in relation to the hills and valleys of a 
country. They are, as it were, the watch-towers from which the entire field 
may be surveyed, the principal stations in the study of the history of doc- 
trines, and can not therefore be arbitrarily separated from it, and consigned 
to an isolated department. Just as little should the study of the history of 
doctrines be restricted to symbolism. See, Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte 
der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 108 sq. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, 
i. s. 32 sq. : "The ecclesiastical dogma lies between the doctrine of the 
church and the church symbols ; it is~their living centre, mediating between 
them : and hence it can be considered as the church doctrine in a narrower, 
or as the church »ym^ol in a wider, sense." 

' Since the Reformation, the symbols are to Protestants, not only, as they 
wore to the Catholic church in ancient times, a barrier erected against here- 
tics — although Protestantism has also united with the old church in keeping 
up these boundaries ; but Protestants were also forced to give prominence in 
special confessions to the characteristic peculiarities of their faith in opposi- 
tion to the old church. These confessions of faith, moreover, had regard to the 
differences which arose out of controversies within the pale of the Protestant 

18 Inteoductios'. 

church itself (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions at variance 
with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). 
And so, too, the Catholics exhibited the doctrines of their church in a special 
confession of faith. All this led to the formation of a separate branch of 
theological science, which was first known under the name of Theologia 
Menctica or Polemics, and in later times has taken the more peaceful appel- 
lationof Symbolism, which last name has not so much reference to the strug- 
gle itself as to the historical knowledge of the points at issue, and the nature 
of that struggle.* When the history of doctrines comes to the time of the 
Reformation, it becomes of itself what has been meant by the word symbol- 
ism ; i. e., the stream of history spreads of itself into the sea, the quiet con- 
templation of the developing process passes over into a complicated series of 
events, until these are seen to lead into a new course of development ; and 
thus the ancient history of doctrines is adjusted in relation to the modern. 
Baumgarten-Crusius has also indicated the necessity of unitirig symbolism 
and the history of doctrines, Dogmengesch. i. s. 14 sq. Comp. Neander, 
Dogmengesch. i. p. '7 : [Symbolism sprung from a dogmatic, and the History 
of Doctrines from a historical, interest : the latter has to do with the his- 
torical process leading to the results, which Symbolism compares, etc.] 



Ab the History of Doctrines has to do with doctrines chiefly as 
the common property of the church, it can consider the private views 
of individual teachers only so far as these have had, or at least striven 
after, a real influence in the formation of the church doctrine. More 
precise investigations about the opinions of any one person in con- 
nection with his individual characteristics, and the influence of the 
former upon the latter, must be left to Patristics (Patrology). 

On the definition of the indefinite term Patristics as a science, comp. 
HagenhacK, Encyclopaedie, p. 248, ss."" Even if we enlarge its sphere, so as 
to make it embrace not only the teachers of the first six centuries, but all who 
have worked upon the church, either in a creative or reforming spirit — since 
church fathers must continue as long as the church (Mbhler, Patrologie, s. 20) ; 
it is evident that a large proportion of patristic material must be incorporated 
into the history of doctrines ; the very study of the sources leads to this. But 

• Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemics (Christliohe Polemik, Ham- 
burgh, 1838) as a distinct science, falling within the historical sphere of Symbolism. 
Comp. Hagenbaoh, Encycl. p. 281 sq. 

i" The distinction made by some writers, especially Roman Catholics, betweeu Patristics 
and Patrology (v. MdMer, Patrologie, p. 14), appears to be rather arbitrary. [Protestants 
usually end the series of the fathers of the church with the sixth century, Roman Catholics 
extend it to the thirteenth. The latter distinguish between fathers, teachers, and authors 
The scholastic divines are Doclores.\ 

§ 6. History of Heresies. 19 

we would not maintain with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengescliiclite, p. 12), 
that the History of Doctrines already comprises the essential part of Patris- 
tics ; for the individual characteristics which are essential to the latter, can 
have only a secondary place in the former. Thus the object of the latter is 
to know Augustinianism, that of Patristics to know Augustine. How the sys- 
tem is related to the person ? is a biographical (patrological) question : what 
is its relation to the doctrine of the church ? is the inquiry in the History of 
Doctrines. The opinions, too, of individual theologians are of importance ia 
the History of Doctrines, only so far as they have had an appreciable influ 
ence upon the formation of the doctrinal system, or have in some way acted 
upon it. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 11. On the literature of this subi 
ject, see § 14. 

. §6. 


Since the doctrines of the church have for the most part been 
shaped in conflict with heretical tendencies, it is evident that the 
History of Doctrines must also include the History of Heresies, 
giving prominence to those points which have had an influence in 
completing or adjusting the forms of the doctrine, because they 
contained essential elements of the doctrinal development ; or, to 
such as have set the doctrine itself in a clearer light, by their very 
antagonism.' To learn the formation and ramifications of heretical 
systems themselves appeals to a different interest, which is met either 
in the so-called History of Heresies' or in the general History of 
Eeligion. Still less is it the object of the history of doctrines to 
discuss the relation between Christianity and other forms of religion. 
On the contrary, it presupposes the comparative history of religion, 
in the same manner as dogmatic theology presupposes apologetie 

' In the ecclesiastical point of view, the history of heresies may be com- 
pared to pathology, the history of doctrines to' physiology. It is not meaut 
by this that every heretical tendency is an absolute disease, and that full health 
can only be found in what has been established under the name of ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy. For it has been justly observed, that diseases are frequently 
natural transitions from a lower to a higher stage of life, and that a state of 
relative health is often the" product of antecedent diseases. Thus the obsti- 
nacy of a one-sided error has often had the effect of giving life, and even a 
more correct form of statement, to the doctrines of the church. Comp. 
Sckenkel, das Wesen des Protestantismus (SchafFh. 1845), i. p. 13. Baur, 
die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. p. 112. Neander, Dogmengesch. 
B. 16. On the relation of heresy to orthodoxy in general, see Dorner, 
Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. s. 71 Note. [See also Rothe's Auf^uga 

20 Introduction. 

d. christl Kirche, s. 333, for the difference between the chnrch view and 
the heretical view of doctrines.] 

• The phrase History of Heresies, has been banished by a more humane 
usage; but not the thing itself, any more than Polemics. The very able 
publications of recent writers on the Gnostic systems, Ebionitism, Mani- 
chieism, Montanism, TJnitarianism, etc., and the lives of some of the Fathers, 
are of great use to the historian of Christian doctrine ; but he can not be 
expected to incorporate all the materials thus furnished into the History of 
Doctrines. Thus the first period of the History of Doctrines must constantly 
recur to the phenomena of Ebionitism and Gnosticism, since the problem of 
the church doctrine then was to work itself out between these two perilous 
rocks. But the wide-spread branches of the Gnostic systems, so far as they 
differ from one another (e. g., as to the number of the aeons and the succes- 
sion of the syzygies), can not here be traced in detail, unless, indeed, we are 
to seek in the slime of heresy, as it is collected e. g. in the Clementina, for 
the living germ of Christianity ! Holding fast, on the other hand, to the 
Biblical type of truth, so far as heresy is concerned it will be sufficient to 
exhibit those forms in which it deviates from this type, and to delineate its 
physiognomy in general outlines, as they are given in church history. In 
the same manner Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the 
christological controversies of the second period. But after they have been 
overcome by the Catholic Church, and fixed in sects, which, in consequence 
of further conflicts, were themselves divided into various parties, it can be no 
longer the office of the History of Doctrines to follow them in this process. 
This must be left to monographs on the heresies. For as soon as a sect has 
lost its doctrine-shaping power, it falls simply into the department of sta- 

• Just as it is no part of the functions of systematic divinity to defend the 
truth of the Christian religion, since Apologetics (the Evidences) must do 
this work beforehand (see Hagenbach, Encyclop., § 81) ; so, too, the history 
of doctrines has nothing to do with the conflict of Christianity with poly- 
theism, Islamism, etc. But the history of these religions is indispensable as 
an auxiliary study. The notions of the Jewish sects, the myths and symbols 
of polytheistic religions, the systems of Mohammed, of Buddha, etc., are still 
more foreign to the history of Christian doctrines than the heresies of the 
church. Works of Reference : (7>-eu2«r, Symbolik und Mythologie der alten 
Volker, Darmstad, 1819-23, 6 vols. Stuhr, allgemeine Geschichte der Ke- 
ligionsformen der heidnischen Volker: 1. die Religionssysteme der heidnis- 
chen Volker ^es Orients. Berlin, 1836. 2. die Religionssysteme der Hel- 
lenen in ihrei 'eschichtlichen Entwickelung bis auf die makedonische Zeit. 
Berlin, 1838. Grimm, J., deutsche Mythologie, Gottingen, 1835. 2. Aufl. 
1844. Giyrres, Mythengeschichte der Asiatischen Volker. Hichier, Phan- 
tasien des Orients. Eckermann, Dr. K., Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte 
und Mythologie der vorztiglichsten Volker des Alterthums, nach der Anord- 
nung von Ottfr. Mttller. Halle, 1845, 2 vols. [A. Wuttke, Gesch. des 
Heidenthums, 2. 8vo. Berl. 1852-3. Hegel, Phil, der Religion (Werke). 
Sepp, Das Heidenthum, 3 Bde. 1853. L. Preller, Griech Mythologie, 2, 
8vo. 1854. J. J. I. DoUinger, Heidenth'im und Judenthum, Regensb 

§ 7. History of Philosophy. 21 

1357. C. C. J. Bunsen, Gott in d. Gesehichte, 3. 8vo. 1857-8. Schelling, 
Phil, der Mj^thologie, 2. 1857. C. O. Mtlller, Mythology, transl. by Leitch. 
Ijond. 1844. Chs. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, four parts, Cam- 
bridge, 1855-9.] 



Although the History of Doctrines has elements in common with 
the history of philosophy,' yet they are no more to be confounded 
with each other than dogmatic theology and philosophy." The his- 
tory of doctrines is also to he separated from the history of Christian 
ethics, so far as systematic theology itself is able to make a relative 
distinction between dogmatics and morals.' And even to the history 
of scientific theology, it has the relation, at the utmost, of the whole 
to the part, since the former may indeed have its place in the history 
of doctrines (in the general portion), but can by no means be sup- 
planted by it.' 

' This is the case, e. g. with the Alexandrian school, the Gnostics, the 
scholastics and modern philosophical schools. Still the object of the history 
of philosophy is distinct from that of the history of doctrines. Comp. 
Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 8. Works of Reference : Brucker, J. Historia 
Critica Philosophiae, Lips. 1742-44, 5 vols. 4to. ; 2d edit. 1766, '67, 6 vols, 
tto. [The History of Philosophy drawn up from Brucker's Hist. Crit. 
Philos., by William Enfield, Lond. 1819, 2 vols.] Tennemann, W. G^ 
Geschichte der Philosophie, Leipzig, 1798-1819, 11 vols. [The "Lehrbuch" 
<if the same 'author is published in English under the title : " A Manual 
(•f the History of Philosophy, translated from the German, by the Rev. 
Arthur Johnson, Oxf. 1832 ; revised edition bj Morell, in Bohn's Library.] 
R^nhold, E., 'Geschiehte der Philosophie, Jena, 1845, 3d edit. 2 vols. 
Rltter, II., Geschiehte der Philosophie, Hamburg, 1829-53, 12 vols. [The 
Ancient Phil, translated into English, by Alex. J. W. Morrison, Oxf. 1838~ 
39, 4 vols. 8vo.] Fries, Geschiehte der Philosophie, i. Halle, 1837 
Schleiermacher, Geschiehte der. Philosophie, edit, by H. Ritter. (Comple e 
works, iv. 1), Berlin, 1839. [T. A. Rixner, Plandbuch d. Gesch. d. Phil. 3 
Bde. 1829 ; Gumposch, Supplement, 1850. E. Zeller, Die Philos. d. Grie- 
chen. 3 Bde. 1846-59. J. E. Erdmann, Gesch. d. neueren Phil. 3 Bde. (6 
Theile) 1834-53. K. Fischer, Ncuere Phil. 2 Bde. 1853-4. Albert 
Schwegler, Hist, of Phil., transl. by J. H. Seelye, New York, 1856. J. D. 
Morell, Phil, of the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1856. H. M. Chaly- 
baus. Hist. Entwickelung . . . von Kaut bis Hegel. Trans. (Edinb. and 
Andover) 1856. H. Ritter. Die christl. Philosophie ... in ihrer Geschiehte, 
2 Bde. Gottingen, 1858-9. Erdmann, Grundriss, 2. 1868. Ueberweg, 

2. 1865.] 

' " By the obliteration of the distinction between the History of Philosophy 
nnd the History of Doctrines, the essential nature of Christianity is funda- 

22 Introduction. 

mentally obscured" Dorner, Person Christi, i. s. 108 ; comp. Neander, Dog- 
mengesoh., s. 9 : — [" Philosopliy develops conscious reason of and by itself; 
theology is employed upon data historically given — the truths that repose in 
the divine word, and have passed over into Christian consciousness."] 

* Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 9. 

* Comp. I 11 : Neander, Dogmengesch., s. 6 : Gieseler, s. 16. 



Although the branches of theological science ahove enumerated 
are strictly distinct from the History of Doctrines, they are, never- 
theless, connected with it as auxiliary sciences.' Arcli(Bology^ and, 
in the second line, the sciences auxiliary to church history," may ha 
added to their number. 

' Ecclesiastical history itself may be viewed in the light of an auxiliary 
science, since the history of forms of church government, of worship, of the 
private life of Christians, etc., are connected with the history of doctrines. 
In like manner Patristics, the History of Heresies, the General History of 
Religion, the History of Philosophy, and the History of Christian and Jf^a- 
tura.l Ethics, are to be numbered among the auxiliary sciences. 

" From the connection between the doctrines and the liturgy of the 
church, it is obvious that Archaeology must be considered as an auxiliary 
science, if we understand by it the history of Christian worship. This m.ay 
easily be seen from the use of certain doctrinal phrases (e. g. OeoTOKog etc.) 
in the liturgies of the church, the appointment of certain festivals (the feast 
of Corpus Christi, that of the conception of the Virgin Mary), the reflex in- 
fluence of the existence or absence of certain liturgical usages upon the doc- 
tiinal definitions of the church (e. g., the influence of the withholding of the 
sacramental cup from the laity upon the doctrine of concomitance, comp. § 
195), etc. Works of Reference : Bingham, /., Origg. s. Antiqu. Ecclesias- 
ticee. Halse, 1751-61. [Bingham, J., Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
and other works. Lond. 1834, ss. 8 vols.; a new edition by Richard Bing- 
ham. Augusti, J. Ch. W., Denkwtirdigkeiten aus der christlichen Archaeo- 
logie. Leipz. 1817-31, 12 vols. [Christian Antiquities, translated and 
compiled from the works of Augusti by the Rev. Lyman Coleman, Andover, 
1844.] Rheinwald, F. H., kirohliche Arehseologie. Berl. 1830. [Schone, 
K., Geschichtforschungen tlber die kirchlichen Gebrauche und Einrichtun- 
gen der "Kirche. Berl. 1819-22, 3 vols.] Bohmer, W., christlich-kirch- 
.iche Alterthumswissensohaft, Bresl. 1836-39, 2 vols. [Sicgel, Handbuch d. 
shristl. Idrchl. Alterth timer. 4 Bde. Leipz. 1835-8. Ouericke, Archaologie. 
Leipz. 1859. J. E. Riddle, Manual, Lond. 1839. William Bates, Lect. on 
Christ. Antiquities, 1854-7.] 

' These are, besides those already mentioned, Universal History, Ecclesi- 
aatical Philology, Ecclesiastical Chronology, Diplomatics, etc. [Comp. the 
introductions to works on ecolesiastical history. Gieseler, Text-Book of 
Church Hist., edited by H. B. Smith, New York, vol. I. pp. 19-20, 560-2,] 

§ 9. Impoktance of the History of Doctrines. 23 


Bnesii, Prolusiones de TheologisB Historicse et Dogmaticje oonjungendse Necessitate, Lips. 
1759, in his Opuso. Tlieol. Lips. 1773-92. Illgen, Cli. T., iiber dea Werth der cl.ristU. 
Chen Dogmengesohichte, Leipz. 1817. Augusti, Worth der Dogmengeachiohte, in his 
Theologische Blatter II. 2, p. 11, ss. Eageiibadh, Enoyclop. § 69. Niedner, Das 
Reeht der Dogmen, in his Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1851. [Comp. KUng, in tlia 
Studien uud Kritiken, 1840. Medner, Zur neuesten Dogmengesoh. in the Allg. Mo- 
natssohrift, 1851. Engelhardl, in the Zeitschrift f. d. historische Thoologie, 1853. X 
Murdoch, in the Christ. Monthly Spectator, vol. ix. pp. 27 sq., 249 sq.] 

The value of the History of Doctrines,- in a scientific point of 
view, follows in part from 'syhat has already been said. 1. It helps 
to complete the study of church history in one of its most important 
aspects. 2. It is an introduction to the study of systematic theol- 
ogy.' Its moral and religious influence, its practical benefits, are 
the result of its purely scientific worth. In general, it exerts a 
shaping influence, by bringing into view the efforts and struggles of 
the human mind in relation to its most important concerns. But 
it is of special use to the theologian, preserving him both from a 
one-sided and rigid adherence to the letter (false orthodoxy), and 
from the superficial love of novelty which is characteristic of a con- 
temptuous and impatient spirit (heterodoxy and neology)." 

' Comp. § 2. 

' Comp. §10. The importance of the history of doctrines in both these 
respects has frequently been overrated. Every theological party has appealed 
to it in support of its peculiar views, or dreaded its results, both equally un» 
■worthy of a scientific spirit. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, I. p. 16-20. 



Xkaib, die Form der christlichen Dogmen- und Kiroheuhistorie in Betracht gezcgen, in 
Baur's Zeitschrift fur speculative Theologie. Berlin, 1836. Parts 1 and 2. Kliefoth, 
Th., Einleitung in die Dogmengesohichte, Parohim und Ludwigslust, 1839. 

But only that mode of treating the History of Doctrines leads to 
these beneficial results, which brings to distinct consciousness, not 
only what is changeable in the doctrinal 'statements, but what is 
permanent in the midst of the changes ; that which moves through 
the transient with a revivifying energy : in a word, that which is 
essential and unchangeable in the Christian system of redemp- 
tion. Only such a mode of handling the subject, viz. : historical 

24 Intuoduction. 

pragmatism, exhibits the external causes of the variations, in union 
with those dynamical principles, which work from within outward. 

The-foUowing are the different mothods in which the History of Doctrines 
may be handled : 

1. The merely statutory, which tates in what has been established by the 
church as decisive truth, and excludes all that differs from this as decisive 
heresy ; the logical standpoint of Eoman Catholicism. History here is ^m- 
ply the recital of the protocols of the dictatorship of faith, exercised onca 
for all. 

2. The exclusive biblical, which starts from the position that the biblical 
statement of doctrine in its simple form is sufficient for all times, and which 
then convinces itself, either that it finds in the Bible, according to a tra- 
ditional exegesis, the orthodox formulas that were later developed (e. 5'., those 
about the Trinity and Original Sin); or, in logical accordance with its exege- 
tical exclusiveness, excludes vv'hat is not verbally contained in the Scriptures 
(biblical supernaturalism on the one side, or biblical rationalism on the other) 
— the standpoint of an incomplete Protestantism. With this method of 
handling the matter is usually conjoined 

3. The pragmatic and critical, which explains all that goes beyond the 
Bible (or even what surpasses popular reasoning) by all sorts of accidents and 
externalities, by climatic, or social and political, relations, personal sympathies 
and antipathies, passions, cabals of courts, priestly deception, superstitition, 
and the like : the standpoint of the vulgar rationalism, in which, too, for a 
long time, the merely formal biblical supernaturalism shared. 

4. The one-sided speculative treatment, which sees in the whole develop- 
ment of doctrines a higher, but naturalistic, process, carried on and out by an 
internal necessity. Thus, every dogma at some period puts out its blossoms, 
and then fades away and gives place to another. Here the religious and prac- 
tical worth of doctrines is underrated, as is their philosophical value by the 
previous tendency. The error at the basis of this method is in considering 
Christianity as the mere development of a process of thought, that is, as a 
mode of philosophy ; but it is rather a moral force, resting on historical facts, 
and. continually working upon personal agents. Neander (Dogmengesohichte, 
s. 15) correctly says: "While a superficial pragmatism concedes too much 
influence to the individual, the speculative method sets it wholly aside, 
regarding individuals as nothing but the blind organs of the idea, necessary 
momenta in its process of development." 

5. The theological method considers the doctrinal substance of the Scrip- 
tures as a living seed, capable of the most prolific development ; in the midst 
of the most unfavorable influences, it retains the formative energy, bv which 
it evokes new and living products, adapted to the times. It always (like the 
second method) recurs to the Scriptures, and measures the products by this 
canon ; but those plants which spring from biblical roots it will neither drive 
back into their roots, nor cut off. It has respect (like the third method) to the 
external circumstances, and those conditions of personal life, under which the 
doctrines have been developed, and is far from denying these influences, often 

§ 11. Arrangement of the Materials. 25 

BO palpable and tangible ; only it does not rank them to higli as to get lost, 
with such pragmatism, in a mere atomistic tendency, instead of this, it takes 
for granted (with the fourth method) that there is a dynamic process of de- 
velopment, which, however, is not purely dialectic or logical, and hence not 
subject to dissolution — for this* were only a more refined atomism (as is seen 
in Strauss's method). But, as religious truth can be only approximately ex- 
pressed in speculative forms,* it also seeks after the beatings of the heart of 
the religious life, in the midst of both the coarser and the finer muscular sys- 
tems, that it may thus grasp the law of the whole organism. This is the noble 
and scientific standpoint of genuine Protestantism ; for that alone is true 
science which knows the real nature of the object, which the science is to 
exhibit. He who misconceives the nature of religion [as contrasted with 
philosophy], though he may have all historical knowlege and speculative 
tact, can not adequately narrate the History of Doctrines. 

§ 11. 


The object of the History of Doctrines is to exhibit, not only the 
history of the Christian system as a whole, i. e., the whole substance 
of Christian truth, and the doctrinal tendencies expressed in its definite 
statements, but also the history of dogmas, i. e., the development of 
these particular doctrinal statements, opinions, and representations 
of the faith, to which the church theology of each period has given 
expression.' Both these points of view ought, then, to be so com- 
bined, that the general shall be made more clear by the special, and 
the special also by the general. This is the import of the division 
of the materials into the General and the Special History of Doc- 
trines. This division can not be vindicated, if the two are put in a 
merely external relation with each other ; but they must be so pre- 
sented, that the General History shall be seen to be the root of the 
Special ; in the relative proportion, too, in which it is treated, it 
should sustain merely the relation of an introduction.' 

' "TAe Christian dogma (as a whole) approves itself as a thoroughly organic, 
and, at the same time, as an infinitely varied, system of dogmas ; it is just as 
much a single dogma as it is also a world of dogmas. And this is the test of 
a complete dogmatic principle, that all genuine dogmas can be derived from it, 
and referred back to it." 3. P. Lange, ubi supra, i. s. 29. 

' The division into the General and Special History of Doctrines has been 
assailed in recent times (Baur, in his review of Munscher's Lehrbuch, von 
Colln's edition, in the Berlin wiss. Jahrbiicher, Febr. 1836; s. 230, and by 

* Compare the striking remark of Hamaan, cited in Neander, u. s. p. 3 : [" The pearl 
of Christianity is a life hid !n God, consisting neither in dogmas, nor in notions, nor in 
rites and isages."] 

26 Intkoductioh. 

Klee, in his Dogmengesch. s. 9), and justly, so far as the two are merely 
coordinated without internal relations, and the one handled after the othel 
has been fully presented (as in Augusti and Baumcfarien-Crusius) ; for in 
this way, the one half has the aspect of an extended History of Doctrines, oi 
of a chapter of church history, while the other becomes a system of theology 
in a historical form ; and, moreover, repetitions can not be avoided. But 
even 3funscher has the correct view, bringing forward the general and the 
special in each period, so that the former stands as an introduction to the 
latter, and the one becomes the t^t of the other; and this is undoubtedly 
the best method. (Comp. Neander's Dogmengeschichte.) The so-called 
General History of Doctrines is the band which binds into one whole the 
history of the particular doctrines, since it exhibits the points of view under 
which they are to be considered, the conditions under which they originated, 
etc.* Or, would it be better, with Klee, to treat merely of the history of in< 
dividual doctrines, without prefixing any general summary, and without any 
division into periods? This loads to disintegration. The method' chosen by 
Meier appeal^ most strongly to the artistic sense ; he tries to mould the his- 
torical material in such a way " that the course of the history may correspond 
as exactly as possible with the course of development of the dogma itself, in 
which the general and the special are always acting as conditions, the one 
upon the other ; and so, too, that the different aspects of the dogma can 
always be brought forward just at the juncture where there is manifestly some 
decisive or new point of development." But, still, in this mode of treatment 
the materials are apt to be too concisely used. Such artistic handling de- 
mands compression, and must demand it ; while the history of doctrines ought 
to give the materials as completely as possible for the aid of the student. 

§ 12. 


Comp. Bagenlach's Essay in the Theologiselien Studie nnd Kritlken, 1828, part 4, and 
his Enoyclop., p. [Comp. KliTig in the Studien und Kritiken, 1841.] 


The Periods of tlie History of Doctrines are to be cletermined by 
the most important epochs of development in the history of the 
theology. They do not quite coincide with those adopted in ecclesi- 
astical history,' and may be divided as follows :' 

I. Period. From the close of the Apostolic Age to the death 
of Origen (A. D. 80-254): the Age oi Apologetics." ' 

* So far, the General History of Doctrines is like the History of Dogmatics; but yet it 
is not to be identified with it. It comprises a broader sphere. It is related to it as is the 
History of Moral Law to the History of Jurispridence, as is the History of Art to the His- 
tory of .^Esthetics, as is the History of Christian Sermons to the History of Homiletics (aa 
a science). 

§ 12. Division into Periods. 27 

II. Period. From tlie deatli of Origen to John Damascenua 
(254-730): the Age of Potemcs.' 

III. Period. From John Damascenus to the Keformation 
(730-1517) : the Age of Systems (scholasticism in its widest 
sense) .5 

IV. Period. From the Keformation to the Kise of the Philos- 
ophy of Leibnitz and Wolf in Germany (1517-1720) : the 
Age of Polemico-ecclesiastical Symbolism, or of the Conflict 
of Confessions." 

V. Period. From the year 1720 to the present day : the Age 
of Griticism, oi Speculation, and of the Antagonism between 
Faith and Knowledge, Philosophy and Christianity, Keason 
and Eevelation, including the attempts to reconcile them.' 

' Events that mate an epoch in church history may not have the same 
Bignificance in respect to the history of doctrines ; and so conversely. It is 
true that the development of doctrines is connected with the history of 
church government, of Christian worship, etc., but the influences which they 
exert upon each other are not always contemporaneous. Thus the Arian 
controversy occurred in the age of Constantine, but it was not called forth 
by his conversion, which, on the other hand, is of so much importance, that 
it determines a period in ecclesiastical history. On the contrary, the views 
of Arius arose out of the speculative tendency of Origen and his followers, 
in opposition to Sabellianism. Accordingly, it is better in this instance to 
make the epoch with the death of Origen, and the rise of the Sabellian con- 
troversy, which are nearly coeval.* And so in other periods. 

' The numerical differences are very great. Baumgarten- Crusius adopts 
twelve periods, Lenz eight, etc. JHunscher follows a different division in his 
(larger) Hand-book from the one in his Text-book^=— in the former he has 
seven, in the latter only three periods (ancient, medieval, and modern times). 
Engelhardt and Meier have adopted the same threefold division, with this 
difference, that the latter, by subdividing each period into two, has six 
periods.f It is alike inconvenient to press very different tendencies into 

'* This is conceded by Neander, although he prefers, as does Gieseler, to retain in the 
History of Doctrines the periods of general church history. 

f [Neand&r's division is : 1. To Gregory thie Great, subdivided by the times of Constan- 
tine, and forming respectively the Apologetic period and the Polemic and Systematic 
periods. 2. To the Reformation, subdivided by Gregory Til., comprising a transition 
period and the scholastic era. 3. From the Reformation to the present time. Gieseler 
separates the ancient from the medieval periods by the Image Controversy, taking A. D. 
726 as the epoch. Baumgarten-Crusius, in his Compendium, makes six periods, skillfully 
characterized : 1. Formation of the System of Doctrines By reflection and opinion (to the 
Council of Ni ;e). 2. Formation by the Church (to Chaloedon). 3. Confirmation of the 
System by the Hierarchy (to Gregory VII.). 4. Confirmation by the Philosophy of tha 
Church (to the end of the fifteenth century). 5. Purification by Parties (to beginning of 
■»ab eigthteenth century). 6, Purification by Science (to the present time).] 



long periods, and to have too great a number of divisions. Thus it is on« 
of the chief defects of Mtinscher's Text-book, that the first period extends 
from A. D. 1 to 600. The periods in the History of Doctrines may be of 
greater extent than those in ecclesiastical history (see Baur in the review 
above cited), because the whole style of the system of doctrines does not 
undergo as rapid changes as Christian life in general ; but natural bounda- 
ries which are as distinct as the age of Constantine, should not be lightly 
disregarded. Klee coincides most nearly with us, though he considers the 
division into periods as superfluous. Vorldnder also, in his tables, has 
adopted our terminology. Comp. also the review of Lenz's Dogmengesch., 
in the Litt. Blatter d. allg. Lit. Zeitung, for Jan., 1836. Rosenkram (Ency- 
clopsedie, 2d edit., p. 259, ss.) makes, according to philosophico-dialectic 
categories, the following division : 1. Period of Analytic Knowledge, of 
substantial feeling (Greek Church). 2. Period of Synthetic Knowledge, of 
pure objectivity (Roman Catholic Church). 3. Period of Systemati* 
Knowledge, which combines the analysis and synthesis in their unity, and 
manifests itself in the stages of symbolical orthodoxy, of subjective belief 
and unbelief, and in the idea of speculative theology (Protestant Church), 
The most ingenious division is that of Kliefoth, though it is not free frona 
faults peculiar to itself : 

1. The Age of Formation of Doctrines. 

2. ■ " Symbolical Unity 

3. " Completion 

4. " Dissolution 




Rom. Catholic . 









On the grounds on which this division rests, see Kliefoth, 1. c. Pelt (En. 
cycl. p. 323) combines this with our division. 

' In answer to the question. Why not commence with the first year of 
our era ? comp. § 3. The year 70 here assumed is also only approximative. 
"We call this period the age of Apologetics, because its theology was chiefly 
developed in the defense; of Christianity against both Judaism and Paganism. 
The controversies which took place within the church itself (with Ebionite?, 
Gnostics, etc.), had respect for the most part to the opposition of judaizing 
teachers and pagan philosophers, so that the polemical interest was con- 
ditioned by the apologetic. The work of Origen ixepl apxGiv is the only one 
in which we find any independent attempt to form a system of theology. 

* During the second period the conflict became an internal one. The 
apologetic interest in relation to those outside of the church ceases almost 
entirely with the conversion of Constantine, or, at any rate, recedes into the 
background as compared with the polemical activity (a converse relation to 
that of the previous period). The history of ecclesiastical controversies,- from 
the rise of the Sabellian, down to the close of the Monothelite controversy, 
forms one continuous series, the difi'erent parts of which are so intimately 
connected that it can not easily be interrupted. It is concluded by the work 
of John Damascenus [sKdeaig niaTSug). This period, with its numerous 
conflicts, its synods for the definition of doctrines, is undoubtedly the most 
important for the History of Doctrines, if this importance be measured by 

§ 12. Division into Periods. 29 

the efforts put forth to complete the structure, whose foundation had been 
laid in the preceding period. The followina; periods, too, are employed either 
in completing and adorning what was here constructed, or else in efforts 
to restore when not to demolish it, in the most wonderful succession and 

' This period, which we call the scholastic, in the widest sense of the 
word, may be subdivided into three shorter periods. 1. From John Damas- 
cenus to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury; during this period John Sootns 
Erigena takes the most prominent position in the West. 2. From Anselm 
to Gabriel Biel, the age of scholasticism properly so called, which may again 
be subdivided into three periods (its rise, ripeness, and decay) ; and, 3, 
from Gabriel Biel to Luther (the period of transition). But we prefer an 
arrangement which facilitates a general view of the subject, to such articula- 
tions. Mystical and scholastic tendencies alternately rule this period ; even 
the forerunners of the Reformation adhered more or less to the one or the 
other of these tendencies, though they belong to the next period in the other 
half of their nature. 

' We might have fixed upon the year 1521, in which the first edition of 
Melancthon's Loci Communes was published, or upon the year 1530, in 
which the Confession of Augsburg was drawn up, instead of the year 1517 ; 
but, for the sake of the internal connection of the events, we make our date 
agree with the normal epoch of ecclesiastical history, especially as the Theses 
of Luther were of importance in a doctrinal point of view. Inasmuch as 
the distinguishing principles of the different sections of the church are 
brought out very prominently in the Confessions of the age of the Reforma- 
tion, the History of Doctrines naturally assumes the character of Symbolism ; 
what may be called the statistics of the History of Doctrines, as has already 
been stated (comp. § 4). From the second half of the sixteenth century, 
the history again assumes the form of a progressive narrative ; up to that 
time it has rather the character of a comparative sketch of opinions — a broad 
surface and not a process of growth. The age of Polemics, and that of 
Scholasticism, may be said to re-appear during this period, though in differ- 
ent forms ; we also see various modifications of mysticism in opposition to 
one-sided rationalism. We might commence a new period with Calixt and 
Spener, if their peculiar opinions had tlien at all prevailed. What both of 
them wished to effect, fi-om different points of view, shows itself in the 
sphere of doctrinal history in the period which we have adopted as the last. 

' A definite year can here least of all be given. The tendency to a dis- 
solution of the old forms begins with the English deists as early as the close 
of the seventeenth century. In Germany the struggle with the established 
orthodoxy is prepared by Thomasius and the Pietists ; both elements of 
opposition — the rationalistic and the pietistic — at first work together, but 
are separated after Wolf begins to teach philosophy in Halle. The nega- 
tive, critical, and rationalistic tendency does not, however, become vigorous 
until the middle of the century ; and hence many date the new period from 
1750. But, in general, it is very perceptible that the bonds of strict sym- 
bolical orthodoxy began to be relaxed even in the first decennia of the cen- 

30 Inteodtjction. 

tury ; this is manifest in the abolition of the Formula Consensus in Switzer- 
land, and in the attempts at union in Germany ; and also in the fact that it 
was more frequently asked, What are the conditions of a living Ohiistianity 3 
than, What aie the differences in the confessions of faith ? In the period 
that preceded the Reformation, apologetic tendencies came first, and were 
followed by the polemic ; now the order is reversed ; we first have the 
polemic period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and then the 
apologetic of the eighteenth, in which the question was, whether Christianity 
is to be or not to "be. None of these agencies are indeed isolated; and the 
nearer we come to the present times, the more varied and involved becomes 
the conflict. Thus we can subdivide this last period into three parts. The 
first, from Wolf to Kant, contains the struggles of a stiff and unwieldy dog- 
matism (in part, too, a supernaturalism on a deistic basis), with an undefined 
illuminatism [Aufkldrung). The second, from Kant, , strives to insure the 
predominance in science and the church of a rationalism, negative as to doc- 
trine, and chiefly restricted to morals, in opposition to both the old and the 
new faith. In fine, the third period, most fitly dated from Schleiermacher, 
constantly looking at the real and vital questions about Christianity, brings 
into view the most diverse tendencies, partly reactionary to restore the old, 
partly idealizing aT>d mediating, and again tearing down and building up all 
anew ; and thus it is the introduction to a new period, for which history has 
as yet no name. 

§ 13. 


a. Public Sources. 

Everything may be considered as a source of the History of Doc- 
trines, which gives sure expression to the religious belief of any given 
period. In the first rank stand the public confessions of faith or 
symbols (creeds) of the church ;' in connection with them the acts 
of councils,'' the decrees, edicts, circular letters, bulls, anil breves of 
ecclesiastical superiors, whether clerical or secular,' and, lastly, the 
catechisms,' liturgies,' and hymns," sanctioned by the church. 

' Comp. § 4. The ancient creeds may be found in the Acts of Councils 
mentioned Note 2 ; the three creeds commonly called oecumenical (the Apos- 
tles' Creed, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) are also reprinted in the collec- 
tions of Protestant symbols ; comp. Ch. W. F. Welch, Bibliotheca Symbolica 
Vetus. Lemgovite, 1770, 8. Semler, J. S., Apparatus ad Libros Symbolicos 
Ecclesise Lutheranae, Hal. 1755, 8. Collections of Symbolical Books (they 
become important only since the fourth period) : a) Of the Lutheran Church : 
Libri Symbolici Ecclesise Evangelicaa ad fidem opt. exempl. recens. J. A. IT. 
Tittmann, Misn. 1817, '27, Libri Symbolici Ecclesise EvangelictB, s. Con cor. 
dia, rec. C. A. Hase, Lips. 1 827, '37, '46. Die Symbolischen Bucher der Evang 
Luther. Kirche, von /. /. Mailer, Strttg. 1846. Libri Symbol. Eccl. Luth. ed. 

§ 13. Sources of the history of Doctrines. 31 

F. FrancJce, Ed. stereotyp. Lips. 1847. Libri Symbo]. Luth. ad edit, princ. 
etc. ed. //. A. O. Meyer, Gott. 1850. b) Of the Reformed : Corpus Libror. 
Symbolicor. qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum Auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt, 
ed. J. Ch. W. Augusti, Elberf. 1828. Saramlung Symb. Bucher der ref. Kiche, 
von /. J. Mess. Neuwied, 1828, 30, 2 vols. 8. H. A. Memeyer, Collectioo Con- 
fessionnm in Eoclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum, Lips. 1840, 8. Die Bekeunt- 
nisschriften der Evangel, ref. Kirche, mit Einleitung. und Anmk. von E. G. A. 
Bochel, Leips. 1847. [Harmonia Confessionum Fidei Ortiiodoxarum et Re. 
form. Ecclcsiarum, cte. 4to.Genev. 1581 : an English translation, Cambr. 1586, 
Lond. 1643. Corpus et Syntagma Confess. Fidei, ete. 4to. 1612, and Geneva 
1654. Sylloge Confess, sub Tempus. Reform. Eccl. Oxon. 1801, 1827. The 
Harmony of Prot. Confess, of Faith, edited Rev. Peter Hall, 8vo. Lond. 1842. 
Butler^s Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, ete. 8vo. Lond. 
1816.] c) Of the Roman Catholic . Dam, Libri Symbolici Ecclesife Romano- 
Catbolicse, Vimar. 1835.— Streitwolf et Klener, Libri Symb. Ecol. Cathol, 
Gott. 1835. [Sacrosancti et CEcumenici. ConcTrid. Canones et Decreta, ed. 
W. Smets, Bielefeld, ed. 4, 1854. Canones et Decreta Cone. Trid. acced. 
declarationes ... ex BuUario Romano, edd. A. L. Richter et Fr., Schulze, 
Lips. 1853.] (Comp. the works mentioned § 16, Note 9.) d) Of the Greek : 
E. T. Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesise Orientalis. Jen. 1843, 8. Append, 
adj. H. T. C. Weissenborn, 1849. (Comp. Pitzipios, I'Eglise Orientale de 

" Acts of Councils : J. Merlin (Par. 1523, fol. Coin. 1530, ii. Par. 1535). 
Grahbe (Coin. 1508, f.). L. Surius, Col. 1577, fol. iv. The edition of Sixtua 
V. Venice, 1585, that of Binius (Severinus) Col. 1606, iv. f. Collectio Regia, 
Paris, 1644 (by Cardinal Richelieu) xxxvii. f. Phil. Labbeus and Gabr. Cos- 
sart, Par. 1671, '72, xvii. f Balluzii (Stephan.) Nova Collectio Conciliorum, 
Par. 1683, f. (Suppl. Cone. Labbei) incomplete. Harduin, (Job.), Concili- 
orum Collectio Regia Maxima, sen Acta Conciliorum et Epistolse Decretales 
ac Constitutiones summorum Pontificum, grajce et latine, ad Phil. Labbei et 
• Gabr. Cossavtii labores baud modica accessione facta et emendationibus pluri- 
bus additis Par. 1715, xi. (xii.) fol. — Nic. Coleti, S. S. Concilia ad regiara 
edit, exacta, etc. Venet. xxiii. -with additions by Mansi vi. f. — *Mansi (J. 
Dom.), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Flor et Venet. 
1759, sqq. xxxi. f. Comp. Ch. W. F. Walch, Entwurf einer vollstandigen 
Geschichte der Kirchenversammlungen, Lpz. 1759. Fuchs, Bibliothek der 
Kirchenversammlungen des 4 und 5. Jahrhunderts, Lpz. 1788, 4 vols. 
Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica quam moderante D. Augusto Neander adornavit 
Herm. Theod. Bruns, I. (Canones Apostolorum et Concil. Sacul. iv. v. vi. 
vii.) Pars. L Berol. 1839. [D. Wi/Hji*, Cone. Mag. Brit, et flibern. Lond. 
1727, 4 fol. Hefele, C. J., Conciliengeschichte, 3 8vo. 1855-9. E. H. 
Landon, Manual of Councils, 1846. W. A. Hammond, Definitions of Faith 
and Canons of Six CEcuraenioal Councils, New York ed. 1844. L. Howell, 
Synopsis Conciliorum, fol. 1708.] The so-called Apostolical Constitutions 
belong here for the ancient times : Constitutiones Apostoi. Text. Gi'aec. 
rerognovit Gulielm. Ueltzen. Sverini. 1853. [Cf. Bunsen's Hippolytus, voL 
3. The Didascalia or Apost. Const, of Abyssinian Church, by Thos. P, 
Piatt, published by the Orient. Transl. Society, vol. xxxix. Beveridgft 

32 Inteoductiok. 

Pandectae Canonurn ss. et Conciliorum ab Eccles. Grtcfi, te'^y «*.<•. 2 fol. 
Oxon. 1672. De Lagarde, Constit. Apostolorum 8. Lp«, 186'.;.] 
' Partly contained in the Acts of Councils. 

a) Decrees of Civil Governments exercising authcritt la Eoclesi- 
siTicAL Affairs (viz. emperors, kings, magistrates) : Oodex Theodvsianus, c. 
perpetuis commentariis lac. Gothofredi, etc. Edit. Nova in vi Tom. digesta, 
cura Kitteri, Lips. 1736. — Codex Justinianeus, edid. Spangenherg, 1797. 
liallusii (Steph.) Collectio Capitularium Regum Francoium, etc. Par. 1780, 
ii. f. Corpus Juris Canonici (editions of J. H. Bohmei, 1747, and A. L. 
Eichter, 1833). Codicis Gregoriani et Codicis Jlermogeniani Fragmenta, ed 
G. Hdnel, Bonn. 1837, 4to. Under this head come also the regulations 
concerning the Reformation, the agendas and the religious edicts of Protest- 
ant governments, which, at least formerly, were in a great measure based 
upon doctrinal principles, ^m. Ludw. Richter, Die Evangelischen Kirchen- 
ordnungen des 16 Jahrh. Weimar, 1846, 4to. 

h) Papal Decretals : Pontificum . Eomanorum a Clemente usque ad 
Leonem M. Epistolse Genuinse, cur. C, F. G. Schonemann, T. i. Gott. 1796, 
8. — Bullarium Romanum a Leone M. usque ad Benedictum XIII. opus, ab- 
solutiss. La'ert. Cherubini, a D. Angelo Maria Cherubini al. illustratum et 
auctum et ad Ben. XIV. perductum, Luxemb. 1727, ss. xix. fol. — Bullarum, 
Privilegiorum et Diplomatum Roman. Pontif. amplissima Collect, opera et 
stud. Car. Cocquelines, Rom. 1739-44, xxviii. fol. [The Bullarium is con- 
tinued by A. Spetia, 1835, sq. 9 tom. folio.] Eisenschmid. romisches Bul- 
larium, oder Auszuge der merkwiirdigsten pabstlichen BuUen, ubersetzt und 
mit fortlaufenden Anmerkungen. Neustadt. 1831, 2 vols. 

* Catechisms become important only from the period of the Reformation, 
especially those of Luther,theHeidelberg, the Racovian, the Roman Catholic 
catechism, etc. Some of them, e. g., those just mentioned, may be found in 
collections of symbolical books (note 1) ; others are separately published. 
Comp. Langemack, Historia Catechetica, Stralsund, 1729-33, iii. 1740, iv. 

' J. S. Assemani, Codex Liturgieus Ecclesiae TJniversse, Rom. 1749-66^ 
xiii. 4. Renaudot (Eus.) Liturgiarum Qrientalinm Collectio, Paris, I7l6, ii. 
f. L. A. Muratori, Liturgia Eomana Vetus, Venet. 1748, ii. f. 3f. J. G. 
Volbeding, Thesaurus Commentationum select, et antiq. et recent, etc. Tom 
ii. Lips. 1848. T. S. Mone, Lateinische u. griechische Messen, 2 bis 6 
Jahr. Frankf. 1849. Compare the missals, breviaries, liturgies, etc. AugustPs 
Denkwtirdigkeiten der christlichen Archaologie, vol. v. Gerbert, Vetus Lit- 
urgia AUemanica, Ulm, 1776, ii. 4. [IT. A. Daniel, Codex Lit. Eccl. Univ. 
in Epitome redact. 4 vols. Lips. 1847-51. J. Pinius, Liturg. Ant. Hisp. 
Goth. etc. 2 fol. Rom. 1749. W. Palmer, Origines Liturg. or Antiq. of the 
Church of England, 2 8vo. 1845, J. M. Neale, Tetralogia Liturg. Lond. 
1848. Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies ; Historical Sketches. New 
York, 1855. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena. 3, 8vo. 1854.] 

' Rambach, Anthologie christlicher Gesange aus alien Jahrhunderten der 
Kirche, Altona, 1816-22, iv. 8, and the numerous psalm and hymn-books. 
IIow much sacred songs have contributed to the spread of doctrinal opin- 
ions, may be seen from the example of Bardesanes [Gieseler, i. § 46, ^,. 2, p, 
138], of the Arians, and in later times, of the Flagellants, the Hussites, etc.? 

§ 4. Peivate Souroeh. 33 

from the history of the sacred hymns of the LuthoTan, and the sacred 
psalms of the Reformed church, the spiritual songs of Angclus Silesius, of 
the Pietists and Moravian brethren, and (in a negative point of view) from 
the dilutions found in many modern hymn-books. Comp. Augusti, l)e an- 
tiqnissirais Hymnis et Carminibus Christianorum sacris in historia dogmatum 
utiliter adhibendis, Jen. 1810, and De audiendis in Theologia poetis, Vratist. 
1812-15. TiTa/m, ^., Bardesanes Gnosticus, primus Syrorum Hymnologus, 
1820-8. \Buc.hegger, De Origine sacrae Christianorum Poeseos, ,Frib. 1827, 
4. Hoffman, Br. H., Geschiohte des deutschen Kirchenliedes bis auf La- 
thers Zeit, Breslau, 1833. [/. M. JVeale, Hymni Ecclesise e Brevariis, etc., 
Lond. 1851. Mohnike, hymnologische Forsohungen, 4 Bde. 1855 sq. T. 
J. Mone, Lateinische Hymnen, 3 Bde. 1853 sq. Baniel, Thesaurus Hymuo- 
logious, 5 Tom. 1856. Koch, Gesch. des Kirchenlieds. 4 Bde. 2d. ed. 1853.] 


h. Private Sources. 

Next in order after these public eources come private sources of 
tlie History of Doctrines. These are : 1. The worlds of the fathers, 
theologians, and ecclesiastical writers of all the Christian centuries ;' 
hut in these we are to distinguish between scientific and strictly 
doctrinal works on the one hand, and practical (sermons) and occa- 
sional writings (letters, etc.) on the other." 2. The works of secu- 
lar writers, e. g., the Christian philosophers and poets of any period.' 
3. Lastly, the indefinite form of popular belief, which manifests 
itself in legends, proverbial sayings, and songs, and representations 
of Christian art, viewed as memorials of certain religious views, may 
also be numbered among these secondary sources." 

' Comp. § 5. Concerning the distinction (which is very relative) made 
between fathers, "teachers, and ecclesiastical writers, see the introductions to 
the works on Patristics, e. g., Mohkr, p. 17-19. The fathers of the first 
centuries are followed by the compilers, the scholastic and mystic divines of 
the middle ages, and these again by the Reformers and their opponents, the 
polemical writers of various sections of the church, and the later theologians 
in general. Their particular works will be referred to in their proper place. 
"Works of a more general character are : Fah'ricii, J. O.. Bibliotheca Eccle- 
siastica, Hamb. I7l8, f. Cave, W., Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia 
litteraria, Lond. 1688, 91. Oxon. 1740, 43, Bas. 1740. C Oudin, Com- 
ment, de Scriptoribus Ecclesia3 Antiquis, Lips. 1722, iii. L. El. Dupin 
Nouvelle Biblioth^que des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, Par. 1686-1714, xlvii. 8 
[transl. by Wotton a,nd Cotes, 3 fol. Dublin, 1733]. Bibliotheque des Auteurs 
scpares de la communion de I'eglise Romaine du 16 et l7 siScle, Par. 1718, 
'19, iii. Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiquo du 18 siecle par Claude 
Pierre Goujet, Par. 1736, '37, iii. 8, comp. Richard Simon, Critique de la 
Bibliotheque, etc. Paris, 1730, iv. 8. Cci^lier, Remy, Histoire Generale des 


34 Intkoductioit. 

Auteurs Sacres et Ecclesiastiques, Paris, l'729-63, xxiii. 4 J. G. Which, 
Bibliotheca Patristioa, Jen. 17V0, 8. Edit. Nova Auctior et Emetidatioi 
adornata a /. T. L. Dansio, Jen. 1834. Assemani, I. S., Bibliotheca Orien- 
talis, Rom. 1719-28, iii. in 4 vols. f. Oelrichs, J. Q. A., Commentarii de 
Scriptoribus Ecclesise Latinse, Lips. 1791, 8. Schonemann, C. F. G., Biblio- 
theca Histoi'ico-litteraria a Tertulliano Principe usque ad Gregorium M. et 
Isidorum Hispal. Lips. 1792, '94, ii. 8. Bossier, Ch. F., Bibliothek der 
Kirchenvater, Leips. 1776-86, x. 8. Augusti, J. Ch. W., Chrestomathia 
Patristica ad usum eorum, qui Historiam Christianam accuratius Discere 
Cupiunt, Lips. 1812, ii. 8. Royaards, D. H. /.., Chrestomathia Patristica, 
Pars. L Traj. ad Ehen. 1831. Fngelhardt^ Litterarischer Leitfaden zu Vor- 
lesungen uber die Patristik. \Winter, Patrologie, Miinchen, 1814. \Gold- 
witzer, F. W., Bibliographie der Kirchenvater und Kirchenlehrer, vom 1. 
bis zum 13 Jahrhundert, Landsh. 1828. \M6hler, Dr. J. A., Patrologie oder 
Christliche Litterargeschichte, aus dessen Nachlasse herausgegebs. von Reith- 
mayr. 1st vol. Regensb. 1839, 8. Dam, J. T. L., Initia Doctrinse PatristiciB 
Introdnotionis instar in Patrum ecclesiae studinm, Jen. 1839. Bohringer. dia 
Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, 
Zur. 1842-58. 2 Bde. 8 Theile. .[Patrologiae Cursus Compl. accur. J. B. 
Migne, Paris ; in the course of publication, 140 vols, issued.] 

A. Best Collections of the Works of the Fathees : Magna Bibliotheca 
Veterum, primo quidem a Margarito de la Eigne composita, postea studio 
Coloniens. Theolog. aucta, etc: (virith Auctuarium by F. Ducaeus and Fr. Com- 
befisius) 1664-72, v. fol. — Maxima Bibliotheca Vett. Patr. et. Lugd. 1677, 
xxvii. fol. — And. Gallandii, Bibliotheca Gra;co-latina Vett. Patrum, etc. Venet, 
1765-81, xiv. f. Corpus Apologetarum Saec. sec. J. C. Th. Otto, ed. 2, Jen, 
1848-50, iii. *Bibliothr Patrum Grascor. Dograatica, cura J. 0. Thilo, 2 
Tom. Lips. 1853, sq. [Bibliotheca Patrum Eccles. Latin, ed. Gersdorf, xiii. 
Tom. 12mo. Corpus Hsereseologicum, ed. F. Oehler, Tom. v. Berol. 1856 sq. 
Angela Mai, Patrum Spicilegum Rom. 10 8vo. Rom. 1839-44, and Patrum 
Nova Bibl. 6 Tom. 1852, sq. Martene et Durand, Vet. Script. Coll. Paris, 
1724-33, 9 fol. J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium ss. Patrum, 2 fol. Oxon. 1698. 
DAchery, Spicilegium, 13, 4to. Paris, 1656. Spicilegium Solesmense, ed. 
J. Pitra, 4 Tom. 4to. Paris, 1853, sq. Comp. J. G. Dowling, Notitia 
Script, ss. Patrum, etc. 1839.] Philological Aids. : J. Q. Suiceri, Thesaurus 
Ecclesiasticus, Amst. 1682 (1728, Traj. 1746), ii. fol. — Du Fresne (du 
Cange) Car. Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infimse Latinitatis, Paris, 
1733-36, vi. f. [New edition, ed. G. A. L. Henschel, Paris, F. Didot, 
1840-'50, 7 vol. 4to.] 

B. Collections of the Works of Ecclesiastical Writers during the 
Middle Ages (more important for ecclesiastical history in general than for 
the history of doctrines in particular) : Meibomiu.i, Basnage, Muratori, Ma- 
billon, *Martene et Durand (Thesaurus Anecd. v. f.), *Pertz (Monumenta, 
1826-35), etc. Comp. the Literature as to Church History in Hase's His- 
tory of the Church, p. 181 of the New York edition. For the East: 
Scriptores Byzantini (Par. 1645, ss.) and latest edition by *Niehuhr, Bonn. 
1829, S3. 

C. Collections or the Works op thb Reformers : Bretschneider, Corpus 

§ 14. Private Soukoes. 35 

Reformatorum, Hate, 1834-59, 27 Tom. 4to. (containing as yet worts of 
Melancthon only) ; the works of individual reformers will be named in theii! 
proper places. 

D. On Modern Dogmatic Litekatuhb : Walch, J. G. Blbliotheca Theo- 
logica, T. I. Jen. 1757. Winer, G. B., Handbuch der theologischen Litteratur, 
S. 290, ss. Bretschneider, Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dogmatik 
Vorkommenden Begrifle, us. s. w. Lpz. 1841-8. 

' Since the earlier theologians, e.g. Origen drew a distinction between what 
they taught the people iiar' olKovofitav, and what they propounded in a sci- 
entific manner ; and since popular language in general does not make any pre- 
tension to dogmatic precision, practical works are not of so much importance 
for the history of doctrines as strictly dogmatic works. But, like all litur- 
gical and ascetic writings, they may be regarded as concrete and living wit- 
nesses to the dogmatic spirit of a period. — Homiliarium Patristicum, edid. 
Ludov. Pelt et A. Rheinwald, Berol. 1829, delude H. Rheinwald et C. Vogt, 
Ber. 1831. — Lentz, E. G. H., Geschichte der Christlichen Homiletik, ii. 
Braunschw. 1839, 8. Paniel, Pragmatische Geschichte der Christl. Bered- 
samkeit und der Homiletik, i. 1, 2, Lpz. 1839, 8. During the middle ages, the 
sermons of Berthold, Tauler, etc., in the time of the Reformation, those of the 
Reformers, etc., come into consideration. W. Beste, Die Kanzelredner d. altest. 
Luth. Kirche. Leips. 1836. Modern homiletical literature also gives a more 
or less faithful representation of doctrinal tendencies. 

° Oomp. § 13, note 6. As sacred hymns were numbered among the public 
sources, so poetical works in general may be considered as private source, e.g., 
the works of some ,of the earlier poets, of the so-called Minnesingers, Dante's 
Divina Commedia, and many others. In like manner a comparison of the 
poetical views of Milton, Shakespeare, Gothe, Byron, or the romantic school, 
with the doctrinal opinions of the church, might lead to interesting results, 
A history of Christian poetry in its whole extent, and with constant refer- 
en.ce to the theological spirit of each period, does not as yet exist. 

' The influence which popular belief (with its remnants of heathen super- 
stitions) may have exerted upon certain dogmatic notions, e. g., concerning 
the devil and hell, is deserving particular attention (comp. Grimrn's deutsche 
Mythologie). The spirit of a theology also manifests itself in the silent 
monuments of art : ecclesiastical buildings, tombs, vasa sacra, pai"ntings, e. g., 
representing the general judgment, or the Deity itself (comp. Gri'meisen, C. 
tiber bildliche Darstellung der Gottheit, Stuttg. 1828), in coins, gems, etc. 
{Mitnter, Sinnbilder und Kuntsvorstellungen der alten Christen. Altona, 1825, 
4. Bellermann, die Gemmen der Alten mit dem. Abraxasbilde, Berlin, 1817. 
Piper, Mythologie der Christl. Kunst. Weimar, 1847. [Didron^s Christ. 
Iconography, transl. in Bohn's Lib. 1852. L. Twining, Symbols of Early 
and ModiiBval Art. 1852. Mrs. Januson, Sacred and Legendary Art. 3 vols. 

36 Intboduction . 

§ 15. 

c. Indirect Sources. 

We can not always have access to direct sources, but must fre- 
quently have recourse to such as are indirect, i. e., accounts or re- 
ports which have been transmitted to us by other writers, as is the 
case, for the most part, with the opinions of heretics,' whose writings 
were destroyed at an early period. In like manner, the works of 
some of the Fathers are either entirely lost, or have come down to 
us only in a corrupt form.' In the use of both the direct and indirect 
sources, much critical skill is needful." 

" Hence the accounts given by different writers of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, 
Gnostics, Manicheans, etc., frequently vary from one another, and even con- 
tradict each other. 

' Thus, in the case of Origen, of whose writings we frequently havo 
nothing but the translations of Rufinus, or the relations of Jerome and 

' Not only the criticism of the text and words, in respect to the genuine- 
ness and integrity of the writings (cf. Dam, Initia Doctrines Patrist. § V-20), 
but also the criticism of the contents, in relation to the greater or less cred • 
bility of the authors. Comp. Hagenlach, Encyclop. § 49. 


[Cf. C. F. Baur, Epochen der kirohlichen Gesohichtschreibung. 1852.] 

As all the sources are not at the command of every one, and as 
their study, generally speaking, will only be fruitful after we have 
acquired a general outline of the history which xe intend more fully 
to investigate, we must have recourse, in the first instance, to the 
works of those who, by their own historical researches, and in the 
application of the historical art, have placed the treasures of science 
within the reach of all who desire to be learners. The History of 
Doctrines itself has been treated as an independent branch of theo- 
logical science only in modern times ;' yet some of the earlier writers 
of church history," as well as the theologians,' have prepared the way 
for it. Besides those works which treat of the History of Doctrines 
exclusively,' we have to compare the modern works on ecclesiastical 
nistory,' as well as the monographs upon the Fathers and upoij 
particular doctrines,' and also those works on dogmatic theology,' 
and Christian ethics/ which combine the historical with the sys- 

§ 16. Works upon the History of Doctrines, 37 

tematic. Lastly, the literature of symbolism' forms (according to 
§ 4) a part of the literature of the History of Doctrines. 

' The History of Doctrines was formerly treated in connection witli eccle- 
siastical history, or dogmatic theology (comp. §2); Semler and Ernesti first 
showed the necessity of separating the one fi'om the other. The former at- 
tempted this in his historical introduction to Siegm. Baumgarten's Glaubens- 
lehre, Halle, 1759, iii. 4. His design was (according to i. p. 101) : "io expand 
the views of divines or stvdiosi theologies in general, and to show the origin, 
nature, and true object of dogmatic theology." In the same year J. A. Ernesti 
published his programm, De TheologifE Historicoe et Dogmaticas conjungendas 
Necessitate et Modo uuiverso, Lips. 1759 (Opusc. Theol. Lips. 1773, ed. 2, 
1792, p. 567); he does not indeed speak of the History of Doctrines as a 
separate science, but it is not difficult to perceive that he felt the necessity 
of its being so. Comp. also C. W. F. Walch, Gedanken von der Geschichte 
der Glaubenslehre, 2 edit. Gott. 1764, 8. 

'•' Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, etc. (Editions of Valesius, Par. 
1659, iii. Reading, Cant. 1720, iii. f. — Manual edition of Eusebius by Heini- 
chen, Lips, 1827-28, iii.) [English translations of Euseb., Socrat., Sozora., 
Theod., and Evagrius, published by Bagster, Lond. 6 vols.] Eufinus, Snlpi- 
cius, Severus, Cassiodorus, Epiphanius Scholasticus. Writers during the Middle 
Ages: Gregor. Tui'onensis, Beda Venerabiiis, Adamus Bremensis, Nicephorus 
Callisti, etc. (comp. the literature in works on ecclesiastical history). Since 
the Reformation : the Magdeburg Centuriators under the titlp : Ecclesiastica 
Historia per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdeburgica, Bas, 
1559-74, xiii. f. \C(es. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, Eom. 1588-1607, 
xii. f. \Odoricus Raynaldus, Annales Eccles. Rom. 1646-1674, x. f. (both 
edited by Maiisi, along with the Critica Historico-Theologica of Pagi, Luocas, 
1738, '39, xxxiii. f. — J. G, Arnold, Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie, 
Fkft. 1699, iv. f. \Nat. Alexander, Historia Ecclesiastica, Par. 1676-86, 
xxiv. 8, Venot. l759, 1778, ix. f. \Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, Paris, 
1691-1720, XX. 4 (continued by Jean Claude Fabre, Paris, 1726-1740, xvi. 
4, and Al. de la Croix, Par. 1776-78, vi.) Par. xxxvi. 12, 1740, '41. \Tille. 
riwrit, Menioires pour servir a I'Histoire Ecclesiastique des 6 premiers siecles, 
justifies par les Citations des Auteurs Originaux, Paris, 1693, ss. xvi. 4. L. 
Moshemii, Institutionum Historiaa Eccles. Antiquioris et Recentioris libri 
■]V. nelmst, 1755, 1764, 4 [transl. by J, Murdock, 3 8vo. 2d ed. New 
York, 1849]. Walch, Ch. W. F., Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und 
Ruligionsstreitigkeiten, Leipz. 1762-85, xi. Baumgarten,J. S., Untersuchung 
theologischer Streitigkeiten mit einigen Anmerkungen, Vorrede und fortge- 
sctzten Geschichte der Christlichen Glaubenslehre, herausgegeben von Dr. 
J. S. Semler, Halle, 1762-64, iii. 4. By the same : Geschichte der Religions- 
parteieti, herausgegeben von J. S. Semler, ibid. 1766, 4. 

' Thus the works of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian and Epipha- 
nius contain much material for the History of Doctrines in their refutation 
of heretics ; much, too, is found scattered about in the polemic and dog- 
matic works of ancient and mediaeval times. Thus, in the work of bishop 
Faeundus, of Hormiane, Pro Defensione trium Capitulorum, libri XH (in Gal- 

38 Introduction, 

landi BibL Patrum, Tom. XL, p. 665, sq.), in tliat of the monopliysitc, 
St-ejyhen Gobarus (in Photii Bibl. Cod. 232), as well as in the treatise of 
Abelard, Sic et Non (edited by G. L. Henke and G. S. Lindenkohl, Marb., 
1851). More definite preparation for the History of Doctrines is found in 
■works published after the Reformation : f Petavius {Dion.), Opus de Theo- 
logicis Dogmatibus, Par. 1644-50, iv. Antw. 1700, vi. ''This work is no 
less ingenious than profound, and deserves to be riiore carefully and frequently 
studied than is generally done." Dorner. [The first volume of a new edition 
of Petau, expolitnm et auctum, collatis studiis C. Passaglia et C. Sohradci 
was published at Rome, in 4to., 1857.] f Thomassin, L., Dogmata Theo- 
logica, Par. 1684-89. f Dumesnil, Lud., Doctrina et Disoiplina Ecclesiae, 
ex ipsis Verbis ss. codd. concc. PP. et vett. genuinorum Monumentorum 
sec. seriem temporis digesta, iv. Col. 1730, f. lo. Forlesius a Corse, In- 
strnctiones Historioo-theologicae de Doctrina Christiana et vario Rerum Statu 
Ortisque Erroribus et Controversiis, etc., Amst. 1745, f. Gen. 1699, and ia 
his Opera, Amst. 1703, ii. f. (vol. 2). The design of this work is to prove 
the agreement between the doctrines of the Reformers and the opinions of 
the earlier Fathers (especially in opposition to Bellarmin). Thei various Loci 
of Chemnitz, Ilutter, Quenstedt, Baier, and of Joh. Gerhard in particular, 
contain much historical matter : J. Gerhard, Loci Theol. (Edit, of Cotta) 
Tub. 1762-89, xxii. 4. Works which form the transition to the treatment 
of the History of Doctrines as a separate science : Lor. Reinhard, Introductio 
in Historian! Prsecipuorum Dograatum, Jen. 1795, 4, and J. S. Baumgarten, 
Evangelische Glauhenslehre, Halle, 1759, '60 4 (the above mentioned preface 
to this work by Semler). 


G., auafiihrliohe Geschichte der Dograen, Lpz. 1796, (incomplete). Wun- 
demann, J. Gh., Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des 
Athanasius bis Gregor den Gr., 1st and 2d vol. Leipz. 1798-99. * Miinscher 
W., Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Marb. vol. i. and ii. 1797, 
3d edit, without any alteration, 1817, '18; vol. iii. 1802, 1804; vol. iv. 1809 
(only to the year 604) ; the first treatment of the History of Doctrine in the 
pragmatic method. Bij the same : Lehrbuch der christichen Dogmenges- 
chichte, Marb. 1812, 1819, 3d edit., mit Belegen aiis den Quellenschriften, 
Erganzungen der Litei'atur, historisohen Notizen und Fortsetzuugen versehen 
von * Dan. von Colin 1st part, Cassel, 1832, 2d part, ibid. 1834 (edited by 
Hupfeld); 2d part, 2d section (also under the title: Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte von der Reformationszeit bis auf unsere Tage), by 
Ch. Gotth. Neudecker, Cassel, 1838, 8 [Munscher' s Manual, translated by T. 
Murdock, New Haven, 12 mo., 1830.) M'imter, Friedr., Handbuch der 
altesten christlichen Dogmengeschichte, from the Danish, by Evers, 1st vol. 
Gott. 1802, 8 (incomplete). * Augusti, J. Ch. W., Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte, Leipz. 1805, 4th edit. 1835. Bertholdt, L., Hand- 
buch der Dogmengeschichte, herausg. von Veit Engelhkrdt, Erl. 1822, '23, 
ii. 8. Ruperti, F. A., Geschichte der Dogmen, oder Darstellung der Glau- 
benslehre des Christenthuras von seiner Stiftung bis auf die ncueren Zeiten, 
insbesondere ftlr Studierende der Theologie und zu ihrer Vorbereitung auf 
ihre Prtlfung, Berlin, 1831. * Baumgarten- Crusius L. F. 0., Lehrbuch 

§ 16. Works upon the HiaxoRY of Docteines. 39 

der christlichen Dogmengeschichtc, Jena, 1832, ii. 8. Lentz, C. G II. 
GescliicLte der christlichen Dogmen in pvagmatischer Entwicklung, Helmst, 
1834, 1st vol. f Khc., H., Lehrbuch der Dogmengcschiohte, 1st vol. Mainz 
1837, 2d vol. 1838. Engelhardt, J. 0. V., Dogmcngeschiohte, ii. Neusl 
] 839. * Meier, Karl, Lehrbuch der Dogmengesohiohte ftli- akadernischp 
Vorlosung.en, Giessen, 1840. (* Saumgarten-Crusius, Compeiidiiim dei 
christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Lpz. i. 1840, ii. 1846 (edited by Ilase). * F. 
Ch. Baur, Lehrb. d. christl. Dogmengesoh., Stuttg. 1847 [second edition 
1858]. Karl Beck, Lehrb. d. christl. Dogmengesch. Weimar, 1864. L. 
Nooxk, Die christl. Dogmengesch. nach ihrem organischen Eiitwicklungs- 
gange, Erlang. 1852, second ed. 1856. *i>. J. C. L. Gieseler, Dogmenges- 
chichte (posthumous, edited by Redepenning) Bonn, 1855. * Dr. A. Neander, 
christl. Dogmengesch., edited by Dr. J. L. Jacobi, 2 Thle. Berlin, 1857-8 
(translated by J. E. Ryland in Bohn's library). [-ST. Sclimid, Lehrbuch d 
Dogmengesch. Nordlingtn. 1860.J 

Tables; ffagenbach, K. R. tabellarische Uebersioht der D. G. bis auf die Eeformation, 
Basel, 1828, 4. VorVinder, Karl, tabell. ubersichtl. Parstellung der Dogmengesch. nach 
Neanders dogmengesch iohtl. Torlesungen. Per. i. Hamb. 1835, Per. ii. 1837. 

" Works of Modern Authors on Church History, ■which includk 
THE History op Doctrines : ScMochh, J. M., christliche Kirchenges- 
chichte, Lpz. 1768-1803, xxxv. 8, since the Eeformation (continued 
by Tsschirner), 1804-1810, x. 8. Henke, allegemeine Geschichte der 
Christlichen Kirche nach der Zeitfolge, Branschw. 1788, ss. continued by 
Vater, ix. (in several editions). Schmidt, J. E. Ch., Handbuch. der Christ- 
lichen Kirohengeschichte, Giessen und Darmstadt, 1801, ss. vi. (2d edit. 
1825-27) vii. vol. by Rettberg, 1834. *Neander Aug., AUgemeine Geschichte 
der Christlichen Eeligion und Kirche, Hamb. 1825-52, i.-vi. in 14 parts 
[The sixth vol. edited by K. F. H. Schneider, from MSS. 1852. A new 
edition (the third of the earlier volumes), 2, 8vo. with preface by TJllmann, 
Gotha, 1856; translation by .Joseph. Torrey, fe, 8vo. Boston. 1849-54, re- 
printed in Bohn's Library, London.] * Gieseler, L., Lehrbuch der Kirchen- 
geschichte, Bonn, 1824-57, 3 vols, in several parts (i. 4th edit, in 2 parts, 
1844; ii. in 4 parts; iii. 1, 1840). [Of Gieseler's work, vols, iv.-vi., are 
edited from his MSS. by E. R. Redepenning; the 5th vol. to 1848; the 
6th vol. is the History of Doctrines, to 1517. A translation of this His- 
tory, to the Reformation, by Francis Cunningham, was published in Phil. 
1836. Davidson and HuWs translation, in Clark's Library, Edinburgh, 
5 vols. 8vo. 1846-59. A new edition, revised and ed. by Henry B. Smith, 
New York, 4, 8vo. 1855-60, to 1648 ; the fifth and last volume is in prepa- 
ration]. K. Hase, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengesch. Lpz. 1833 ; 8th ed. 1857 
[translated from 7th ed. by C. E. Blumenthal and C. P. Wing, New York, 
1855]. H. E. F. Guericke, Handbuch d. Allg. Kirchengesch. Halle, 1833 ; 
8th ed. 1855, 3. 8vo. [voh 1, comprising six centuries, translated by W. G. T. 
Shedd Andover, 1857]. Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Christl. Kirche [post- 
humous, ed. by Bonnel], Berhn, 1840. A. F. Gfrorer, Allg. Kirchengesch. 
Stuttg. 1841-46, iv. Ch. W.Niedner, Gesch. d. Christl Kirche, Lpz. '46'o6. 

40 Intkoductiok'. 

y^ iT'. A'wrfe, Leiirb. d. Kircliengescli. Mietau, 1840; several editions [trans, 
lated by Schaffer. Ibid. Haiidbuch d. Kirohengesch. i. in tbree parts, 2d. 
ed. 1858]. Fh. G. A. Friche, Lehrb. d. Kircheng. i. Lpz. 1850. {W. B. 
Lindner, Lehrb. d. Kircheng. 3. 8vo. Leips. 1854. /. G. V. Engelhardt, 
Handbuch', 4, 1834. J. L. Jacohi, Lehrb. i. 1850. M. T. Matter, Histoire 
universelle de I'Eglise, 4, 8vo. 2d ed. Paris, 1838. Milnei^s Church History, 
4, 8vo. ; several editions. H. H. Milman, Hist, of L;itiu Christ, 6. 8vo. 
Lend. 1854-Y, New York ed. in 8 vols. 1860. If. Stehbing's Hist, of 
Church, to 18th cent. 6, 8vo. 1842. Philip Schaff, Hist, of Christ 
Chnrch, vol. i. New York, 1859. Foulke's Manual, 1851. Chs. Hardwick, 
Middle Ages and Keform. 2. 1853-6. J. C. Robertson, Ancient and Medi- 
seval, 3 vols. 1854-66 Waddington, through Ref. 6 vols. 1835, sq. New 
York ed. of first 3 vols, in one.] 

[Roman Catholic WbBKs : F. L. von Sfolberg, Gesch. d. Eel. Jesu, 15 
Bde. 1806-19; continued by Kcrz and Briscliar, 52 vols, in all, the last in 
1860. Gasp. Sacharelli, Hist. Eccl. Rom. 1772-95, 25 vols. 4to. Th. 
KalerJcamp, Mtinster, 5 Bde. 1819-34. J. J. Bitter, Handb. 2 Bde. 5th ed. 
1854. /. Akog, 5th ed. 1850. J. A. Aunegarn, 3 Bde. 1842, '3. DolUnger, 
Church Hist, to Ref, transl. by Fd. Cox, 4. 8vo. Lond. 1848. Bohrbacher, 
Hist. Universelle do I'Eglise, Paris, 1842, sq. 29 vols.; Henrion, in 25 vols. 
Balma, Praelect.Hist.-Eccl. Rom., 3 vols. 1838-42.] 

[Tables of Church History: J. 8. Vater, 1803; 6th ed. Thilo, 1833. 
J. T. L. Dam, 1838. Lob. Lange, 1841. C. D. A. Bonai, 2d. ed. 1850. 
Henry B. Smith, Hist, of the Church in Synchronistic Tables, fol. New 
York, new ed. I860.] 

Works on the Church History of Particular Periods : a. Ancient Times. 
Moshemii Commentarius de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M. 
Helmstad. 1753, '4 ; [vol. i. transl. by B. S. Vidal ; vol. ii. by Jas. Mm-doch, 
2. 8vo. New York, 1852. Philip Schaff, Hist, of Apostolic Church, etc. 
8vo. New York, 1853. H. H. Milman, Hist, of Christ, to Abolition of 
Paganism in the Rom. Emp., New York ed. ] 842.] Bothe, Anfange d. 
Christ!. Kirche. 1857. A. Bitschl. d. Altkathol. Kirche. 1850. W. Burton, 
Lect. on Eccl. Hist, of First Three Cent, in his Works, vols. iv. and v., Oxf. 
1837. K. R. Hagcnhach, die Cliristl. Kirche d. drei ersten Jahr. 1853. F. 
C. Baur, Das Christeuthum . . . in d. drei ersten Jahrh. 1853. H. W. 
J. Thiersch, Gesch. d. Christl. Kirche; trans, by Carlyle, Lond. 1852. Com- 
pare also the works of M. Baumgarten, Lechler, Schwegler, Dietlein, Volkmar, 
Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, L. JVoack, etc. b. Middle Ages (especially in relation to 
Scholasticism). J. B. Bossuet, Einkitung, in die Allg. Gesch. ; German, transl. 
by J. A. Cramer, Lpz. 1757-86 [in French, and English, numerous editions. 
/. T. Bamberger, Synchron. Gesch. d. Kirche u. Welt ira Mittelalter, Regensb. 
6 Bde. 1850-4 ; also a French edition., M. B. Haureau, De la Philos. Scho- 
laatique (crowned), 2 Svo. Paris, 1859. F. Chastel, Lo Christianisme et 
I'figlise au Moyen Age. Paris, 1857.] c. The Time of the Reformation (in 
addition to works on the History of the Reformation) : Planck, J. C, Ges- 
chichte der Enstehung, der Veranderungen und Bildung uusercs Protestant- 
ischen Lehrbegriffs, von Anfiing der Reformation bis zur Eiiifilhrnng del 
Concordienformol, vi. 2d edit. Lpz. 1791-1800. d. Modern Times : By t/n 

§ 13. Works upon the History of Doctrines. 41 

same, GescWchte der Prot. Theol. von der Concordienfonnel an bis in die 
Mitte des 18. Jahrh. Gott. 1831, 8. Corap. Wakh,J. G., Histor. u. Theolog. 
Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiteu in und ausserlialb der Lutherischen 
Kirche, Jena, 1733, x. 8. 

" Works whicli treat on particular subjeats (monograpbs) will be mentioned' 
in their proper place. Essays in which the systems of individual Fathers are 
more fully discussed, will be found in the works of Rossler, Augusti, Mohler, 
etc., mentioned § 14, Note 1. 

' Works on Dogmatic Theology which also consider the History of 
Doctrines, or include it : Seller, O. I., Theologia Dogmatico-Polemica, cum 
Compendio Historise Dograatum, Ed. 3, Ei'l. 1789, 8. Qruner, J. i^.,Insti- 
tutionum Theologise Dogmaticas lib. iii. Hal. 1777, 8. Boderlein, J. Ch., 
Institutio Theologi Christiani in Capitibus Religionis theoreticis, Ed. 6, Alt. 
1V97, ii. 8. Staudlin, C. Fr., Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte 
(Gott. 1801, 1809), 1822, 8. * TTeysc/ieiic?-, J". J. Z., Institutiones Theol. 
Christ Dogmatiose, addita Singulorum Dogmatum Historia et Censura, Hal. 
1815, ed. 8, 1344. *£retschneider, C. G., Handbuch der Dogmatik der 
Evangelischen Kirche, ii. 8, Lpz. 1828. B^ the same: Vorsuoh einer sys- 
tematischen Entwicklung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Be^ifi'e, 
nach den Symb. Bflchern der Luth. Kirche, Lpz. 1841. *IIase, Karl, Lehr- 
buch der Evangelischen Dogmatik, - Stuttg. 1826, 8 (4th edit. Lpz. 1842). 
*Bi/ the same : Gnosis oder Evang. Glaubenslehre fur die Gebildeten in der 
Gemeinde, wissenschaftlich dargestellt, 3 vols. Lpz. 1827-29. [JTnapp, G. 
Ch., Vorlesungen tiber die Christliche Glaubenslehre, herausgeg. von Thilo. 
2 edit. 1837 ; translated into English by Leon. Woods, And. 1831, and often 
republished.] D. F. Strauss, Die Christl. Glaubensl. in ihrer gesch. Ent- 
wicklung, ii. Tub. 1840. Ch. E. Weisse, Philos. Dogmatik, oder Phil. ds. 
Christenth., i.Leipz. 1855, § 180-247. [Dan. Schenkel, Die Christl. Dogmatik, 
vom Standpunkte des Gewissens, ii. (in 3 parts), Wiesbaden, 1858-9. G. 
Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk, 3 Thle. Erlangen, 1853, sq. J. P. Lange, 
Christl. Dogmatik, iii. Heidelb. 1849-52. A. D. 0. Twesten, Dogmatik d. 
Evang.-Luth. Kirche, 2d ed. ii. 1834-7.] /. H. A. Ebrard, Christl. Dogmatik, 
ii. 1852. F. A. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubensl. iii. 1856, sq. Aug. Hahn. Lehrb. 
d. Christl. Glaubens. 4te. Auft. ii. 1858.] On the History of the Protestant 
Doctrine : *De Wette, W. A. M., Dogmatik der Evangelisch-lutherischen 
Kirche nach den Symbolischen Biichern und den altern Dograatikern (the 
2d part of his Lehrb. der Christ. Dogmatik) 2d edit, Berlin, 1821, 3d edit. 
1840. Klein, F. A., Darstellung des dogmatischen Systems der Evangel. 
Prot. Kirche, Jena, 1822, 3d edit, revised by Dr. Lohegott Lange, ibid. 1840. 
*Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, oder Dogmatik der Evangelisch-lutherischen 
Kirche, Lpz. 1829-58, 9th edit. Al. Schweizer, Die Glaubensl. d. Evang. 
Ref. Kirche, aus den Quellen, ii. Zurich, 1844 [Die Protestantischen Central- 
dogmcn. ii. 1856. D. Schenkel, Das Wesen ds. Protest, aus d. Quellen. iiL 
Schaifh. 1546-51]. Works on the History of Dogmatic Theology : 
Heinrich, Ch. G., Versuch einer Geschichte der versohiedenen Lehrarten der 
Chiistl. Glaubensvvahrheiten und der merkwiirdigsten Systeme und Compen- 
dien derselben, von Christo bis auf unsere Zeiten, Lpz. 1790. Schickedam, 
J, II- einer Geschichte dei Christ. Glaubenslehre und der merk 

42 Intkoduction. 

wflrdigsteE Sjstemej Compendien, Normalscliriften und Katechismen der 
Christ. Hanptparteien, Braunschw. 1827. Fl'iigge und Staudlin, Goscliichte 
der theol. Wissenschaften. Herrmann, Gesoh. d. Prot. Dogmatik, von Me 
lane, bis Sylileierniaclier. Lpz. 1842. Oass, Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, iii. 
Berl. 1854-62. [Frank, Prot. Tlieol. 2. Lpz. 1862-5. Dorner, 1866.] 

' StaudUn,K. F., Geschichte der Sittenlehrc Jesu, 3 vols. Gott. 1799-1812. 
*De Wette, Christliche Sittenlehre iii. 8, Berlin, 1819-24. The shorter Com- 
pendium of the same author: Lelirbuch der Christlichen Sittenlehre und der 
Geschichte derselben, Berlin, 1833, 8. 

' Comp. § 13, note 1, and § 4 (on the importance of Symbolism). 
* Mdrheineke, Dr. Phil., christl. Symholik, oder historisch-kritische und dog- 
matisch comparative Darstellung des katholischen, lutherischen, reformirten 
und socinianischen LehrbegrifFs, Heidelb. vol. i. part i. ii. 1810, part iii. 1813, 
(also under the title : daa System des Katholicisraus) ; also his Lectures, 
edited by Matthies, and Vatke, 1848. By the same: Institutiones symbolicajj 
doctrinam Catholicorum, Protestantium, Socinianorura, ecolesise Grsecse, minor- 
uraque societatt. ohrist. summam et discrimina exhibentes, Berol. 1812, ed. 3, 
1830. Marsh. Herb., the Churches of Rome and England compared : trans- 
lated into German by/. C. Schreiter, Sulzb. 1821, 8. * Winer, G. B., com- 
parative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchen- 
partheien, nebst vollstandigen Belegen aus den symbolischen Schriften der- 
selben in der XJrsprache (mit angehiingten Tabellen) Lpz. 1824, 4to., new 
edit. 1865. f Mohler, J. A., Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatischen 
Gegensiitze der Katholiken und Protestanten, nach ihren oiTentlichen Be- 
kenntnissschriften, Mainz. 1832, edit. 6th, 1843, 8. On the other side : Baur, 
Ferd. Chr., Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantisinus nach den 
Priucipien und Hauptdogmen deJ' beiden Lehrbegrift'e, Tiib. 1834, 8. Nitzsch 
K. Im., Prot. Beantwort. der Symbolik Mohlers ; in reply : Mohler, neue 
Untersuchung der Lehrgegensiitze zwischen den Katholiken und Protestanten, 
Mainz. 1834, 35, 8 ; and also : Baur, Erwiderung anf Mohlers neueste Pole, 
mik u. s. w. Tub. 1834, 8. — Kbllner, Ed., Symbolik aller christlichen Con- 
fessionen, vol. i. Symbolik der luth Kirche, Hamb. 1837. vol. ii. Symbolik 
der romischen Kirche, 1844. Guericke, H. E. F., allgem. christl. Symbolik 
vora luth. kirchl. Standpuncte, Lpz. 1839 : 3d ed. 1861. H. W.J. Thiersch, 
Vorlesungen llbor Kath. n. Protest. 2d ed. 1848. A. H. Baier, Symbolik 
d. PkOmisch-Kath. Kirche, 2. Greifsw. 1854. Matthes, Comp. Symbolik, 
Lpz. 1854. R. Hoffmann, Symbolik, oder system. Darstelluno- d. Svmb. 
Lehrbegriffe, Lpz. 1854. \ Hilgers, Syrabolische Theologie. Bonn. 1841. 
[J/. Schnechenburger, Yergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen u. re- 
formirten LehrbegrifFs: herausg. von Ed. Gtlder, Zwei Theile. Stuttg. 1855.] 
For the editions of the symbolical books, see § 13, 1. 





§ 17 

On the Life of Christ in general see the earlier Harmonies of the Gospels; [William New- 
come, Eng. Harmony, repr. Phil. 1809 ; E. Eobinson, in Greek, 1831, in English, 1846 ; 
L. Carpenter, Lond. 1835; J. G. Palfrey, Bost. 1831; Stroud's New Greels: Harmony, 
1S53. Cotiip. Davidson, S. in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce,] and the modern worlds of jETess, Hose, 
Paulus, Strauss, and (in reference to the latter) Weisse, Meander, Wilke, Kuhn, T/ieile, 

• Lange, Ehrard, etc. [Voices of the Church, in reply to Dr. Strauss, by the Rev. J. E. 
Beard, Lond. 1845.] Concerning the internal or apologetico-dogmatic aspect of his life, 
which forms the basis of the History of Doctrines, comp. (Reinhard) Tersuch uber den 
Plan, den der Stifter der christhchen Eehgion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarfj Wit- 
tenberg, 1T81, new edit, with additions by ffeuiwr, Wittenb. 1830 (primarily a reply to 
the Wolfenbiittel Fragments). [Plan of the ]?ounder of Christ, from the German, by 0. 
W. Taylor, 12mo., Andover, 1831.] Herder, J. (?., Vom Erloser der Menschen, nach den 
drei ersten Evangeiien, Riga, 1796. By the same : vom Sohne Gottes, der Welt Heiland, 
nach Johannes, Riga, 1191. (Comp. Werke zur Rehgion und Theologie, vol. xi., or 
CbristUohe Schriften, part 1). Biihine, Oh. F., die Religion Jesu Christi, aus ihren 
Urkunden dargestellt, Halle, 1825-27. * Ullmann, uber die Siindlosigkeit Jesu, in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 1, reprinted, Hamb., 1833, 6th edit., 1S45-. [Dr. Ullmann 
on the Sinless Character of Jesus, in Clark's Students' Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts, 
taken from Selections from German Lit. by Edwards and Parle, Andover, 1839 ; ibid. 
Essence of Christianity, translated by Rev. J. Bleasdell, London, 1,860.] By the same : 
Was rietzt die Stiflung der christhchen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus ? in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 579-596, and reprinted in his treatise : Historiseh oder 
mythisch ? Beitrage zur Beantwortung der gegenwartigen Lebensfrage der Theologie, 
Hamb. 1838). Fritzsche, Gh. J^., de dva/iaprriaiif Jesu Christi, Commentationes 4, (repr 
in Eritzschiorum Opuscula Academica, Lips. 1838, p. 48, seq.) "= Schweizer, Alex., iiber 
die Dignitat des Religionsstifter.s, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1834. Lucke, F. two pro- 
gramms (against Hase) : Examinatur, quae speciosius nUper commendata est seatentia dt 

44 First Peeiod. The Age of Apologetics. 

mutato per eventa adeoque sensim emendato Christi consilio, Gott, 1831,4. ODtlieothel 
side: Mase, Streitsobriften, Leipz. 1834. — Strauss and his opponents. (The Literature in 
Theile and elsewhere.) [Neande/fs Life of Christ, transl. from 4th ed. by J. McOIintoek 
and C. E. Blumenthal, New Yorli, 1848. Hose's Life of Jesus, transl. by J. F. Clarke, 
Boston, 1860. Sirauss's Life, transl. 2, 8vo., Lond. 1854. W. H. Furness, History of 
Jesus, Boston, 1850; ibid., Jesus and his Biographers, 1838.- — Sepp (Rom. Cath.) Daa 
Leben Jesu, iv. Regensb. 1843 sq: in French, 1854. J. P. Lange, Das Leben Jesu, 
Heidelb. 1847. A. Ebrcurd, Kritik d. evang. Gesoh. 3d ed. Erlangan, 1850. C. F. Von 
Ammon, iii. 1844. B. Bauer, Evang. Gesch. iii. 2d ed. 1855. J. Bucher (Rom. Cath.) 
Leben Jesu, i. 1859. Paulus, 2 Bde. 1828. Krabbe, 1838. Weisse, Evang Gesch. iL 
1828 '29. Ewald, Gesch. Jesu u. seiner Zeit, 1855. A. TholucJc, Glanbwurdigkeit. 1837. 
T. Young. The Christ of History, repr. New York, 1855. Alexander, Christ and Christi- 
anity, repr. New York, 1854. [Isaac Taylor] Restoration of Belief, 1855. W. H. 
Mill, Christian Advocate Sermons, Camb. 1844 '49. G. Volkmar, Die Religionjesu 
und ihre erste Entwicklung. Leipz. 1857. Gess Lehre von der Person ChristL 1856.] 

With the incarnation of the Eedeemer, and the introduction of 
Christianity into the world, the materials of the History of Doc- 
trines are already fully given in germ. The object of all further 
doctrinal statements and definitions is, in the positive point of view^ 
to unfold this germ ; in the negative, to guard it against all foreign 
additions and influences. We here assume, on the basis of the 
evidences, that what Jesus Christ brought to light, in relation to 
the past,' was new and original, i. e., a revelation, and, in relation 
to the future, is theoretically perfect, not standing in need of cor- 
rection or improvement." This is the principle which stands at the 
veiy head of the History of Doctrines, and by which we are to judge 
all its phenomena. We can not, therefore, separate Christ's doc- 
trine from his person. For the peculiar and untroubled relation in 
which Christ, as the Son of God, stands to the Deity, as well as the 
spiritual and moral renovation which were' to flow from himself, as 
the Saviour, unto mankind, form the kernel and central point of 
his doctrine. It has not the character of a system made up of cer- 
tain definitive notions, but it is a fkct in the religious and moral 
sphere, the joyful news {evayyeXiov KrjQvyn-a) of which was to be pro- 
claimed to all men for their salvation, on condition of faith, and a 
willingness to repent and obey in newness of life. Jesus is not the 
author of a dogmatic theology, but the author and finisher oi faith 
(Heb. xii. 2); not the founder of a school, but in the most exalted 
sense the founder of a religion and of the church. Hence he did 
not propound dogmas dressed in a scientific garb, but he taught the 
word of God in a simply human and popular manner, for the most 
part in parables and proverbs. We find these laid down in the 
canonical gospels, though in a somewhat different form in the gospel 
of John from that in the synoptical gospels.' One of the objects 
shared by evangelical interpretation, by the histories of the life of 
Jesus, by apologetics and biblical theology, is to asc ertain the pecu- 

§ 17. Cueist and Christianity. 4S 

liar contents of these gospels, to reduce them to certain fundamental 
ideas and one uniform principle. 

' " The office of the Saviour was not to propound doctrines, or to set forth 
doctrinal formulas, hut to manifest himself, and to reveal his unity with the 
Father. His person was a fact, and not an idea." Schwegler, Montanisrans, 
p. 3. Our Saviour, indeed, adopted many of the current opinions, especially 
the Mosaic doctrine of one God, and also the prevailing opinions and expecta- 
tions of the age concerning the doctrine of aligels, the kingdom of God, etc. 
But to consider him merely as the reformer of Judaism, would be to take a 
very narrow view of his work ; see Schwegler, das nachapostolischc Zeitalter, 
p. 89, ss. On the relation in which the History of Doctrines stands to the 
doctrine propounded by Jesus and his apostles, see Dorner, Entwicklungs- 
geschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. i. p. 68, Gieseler's Dog- 
mengeschichte, s. 4, 29 sq. 

* A perfectibility of Christianity is, from the Christian point of view, im- 
possible, if we mean by this an extension or perfection of the idea of religion 
as tanght by the Son of God ; for this is complete in itself, and realized in 
the incarnation of Christ. There is, therefore, no room within the History 
of Doctrines for a new revelation, which might supersede the Christianity of 
its founder. (Comp. the recent controversy aroused by Strauss upon the 
question whether and how far the entire religious life (and this only as the 
first point in the debate) can be said to be perfectly realized in any one 
individual ? [This is the point which Strauss debated in the form, that 
no one individual of a species can fully realize and exhaust any general 
idea or conception, e. g., an incarnation, a perfect religion. See Dorner, 
Gosohel, SchaUer, and others, in reply.] 

* In the synoptical gospels we find more oi doctrina Christi, in John more 
of doctrina de Christo — hence the former are more objective, the latter is 
more subjective. But though we concede such a subjective coloring, on the 
part of the fourth Evangelist, in his conception and narration of the words 
of Christ, yet this does not afi'ect the credibility of his report, or the religious 
truth of what he imparts; comp. Ehrard, das Evang. Johannis, ZUr. 1845. 
Upon the extent to which the divine dignity of Christ is manifested even in 
the synoptic gospels, see Dorner's work, cited above, p. 79, ss. [Comp. also, 
W. T. Qass, Die Lehre von d. Person Christi, 1856, and Lechler in Stud, 
und Kritiken, 1857. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologic, s. 204 sq. Hahn, Theol. 
ds. neuen Test. i. 205. Weizsacher, Lebenszeugniss ds. johanneischen 
Christus, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1857.J 

§ 18. 



Necmder, Geacbichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirolie dure h die Apos- 
tel, vol. ii. sect. 6. [History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Churcli by 
the Apostles, translat. 'by J. K Kyland, Edinb. 184:! (reprinted in Phila.). vol. ii, boolf 
vi, : The ApostoUo Doctrine.] Matihaei G. Ch. B., der Eeligionsglaube der Apostel 

46 EiEST Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

Jesu, nach oeinem TTrsprunge und Werthe, vol. i. Gott 1826, 8. Bohme, Oh. F., die 
Religion dor Apostel Jesu Christi, aus ihren Urkundeh dargestellt, Halle, 1829. 
Khulcer, Johannes, Petrus und Paulus, Riga, 1785. Schmid, T. Oh. E., Disaerta- 
tiones II. dfi theologia Joannis Apostoli, Jen. 1801. * Usteri, L., Entwickelung des 
Paulinifchen Leiirbegriffs in seiaem Verhaltniss zur biblischen Dogmatik des N. Test. 
Zurich, 1824. 29, 31, 32. Sdhne, A. F., Entwiekelung des Pauliniselien Leiirbegriffs, 
I Halle, 18:i5. Baur, F. Oh., der Apostel Faulus, 2d. ed. 1866. Fromman, Der johan- 
I neische Lehrhegriff, 1839. Kosllin, der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und dor Briefa 
i Johannis und die verwandton neutestamentliohea Lehrbegriffe. Berl. 1R43. Steicfer, 
TF., der ersta Brief Petri, mit Beruksiolitigung des ganzen biblischen Lehrbegriffs, 
Berlin, 1832. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrb. 1856. Vl/rich, M., Terauch ciuer Einthcilung 
der biblischen Dogmatik des Neuen Testaments, in Rohrs Krit. Predig'erbibliothek, 
xix. 1. ^Tholuck, Remarks on the Life, Character, and Style of the Apostle Paul, in 
Clark's Students' Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] In general: Zdler, Aphorismen iiber 
Christenthura, Urchristenthum und Unchristenthum, in Schwegler's Jahrbiioher der 
Gegenwart, 1844 (June). Schweglcr, A., des nachapo.=itolishe Zeitalter, Tub. 1846. 
Dieikiv, W, 0., das Urchristenthum, eine Beleuchtung der von der Sehnlo des Dr. 
Baur in Tiibingen fiber das apostolische Zeitalter aufgestellten Vermuthungen, Halle, 
1845. Dorner, 1. u. Sckwegler, Apologetisohes und Polemisches (against Domer) iu 
Zeller's Jahrbueher, 1846. Planck, Judenthum und Urchristenthum, ibid. 1847. B. 
W. T. Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, Frankf 1852. Baumqarten, Die 
Apostelgesoh. Halle, 1852 [in Clark's Library, 1856.] E. Reitss, Historie do la 
Th^ologio ohretienne afi si^cle apostolique, Paris, 1852 [2d ed., 1858.] F. Oh. 
Baw, Das Christenthum und die christL kirche'd. 3 ersten Jahrb. Tub. 1853. Lech- 
ler, Das apostol. und nachapostol. Zeitalter (a prize essay), Haarlem, 1854 [2d. ed., 
1857.] Herm. Messner, Lehre d. Apostel. Lpz. 1856. 
[E S;7ira&J-, Der Apostel Paulus, Lpz. 1830-33, 3 Bde. Pear-son, Annales Paulimi, 1688. 
W. T. Conybeare and J. Eowson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Lond. 1852, 2 
4to. New York, 1856. Parel, Paulus und Jesus, Jahrb. f deutsclie Theologie, 
1858. On Paul and Seneca ; Ohs. Auberiin, Etude critique, Paris, 1858: Baur in 
Zeitschrift f wiss. Theol. 1858. H. H. Milman, Character and Conduct of the Apos- 
tles, as an Evidence of Christianity, 8vo. Lond. F. Trench, Life and Character of St. 
John, Lond. 1850. Luthardt. Das Evangelium Johannes, 1853. X. F. T. Schneider, 
Aechtheit d. Evang. Johan. 1854; G. E. Mayer, Aechtheit d. Ev. Job. 1854; comp. 
Lechler in Stud. u. Krit. 1856 ; F. G. Baur iu Theol. Jalirb. 1854, 1857, JBilgenfelA 
in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858 and 1859, and in Theol. Jahrb. 1855; Weizsdcher 
in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1859. Diisterdieck, Die 3 Joh. Briefe, 2 Bde. 1852-4. 
A. Hilgenfeld, Paulus und die Urapostel, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol 1860. Comp., 
also, the controversy between Baur and Hase and Hilgenfeld, on the principles of the 
Tubingen School, various pamphlets, 1855-7. J. P. Lange, Das apostol. Zeitalter, 
1853. L. Noack, Der Ursprung ds. Christenlhums, 2 Bde. Lpz. 1857. R. 0. LuOer- 
6ec7c (Rom. Cath.), Die Neutestamentl. Lehrbegriffe, 2 Bde. Mainz. 1852. SohafTg 
Apostolic Church, u. s. p. 614 sq. KosUin, Einheit u. Mannigfaltigkeit der neuteat 
Lehre, in Jahrb. fl deutsche Theol. 1857-8.] 

As little as their Master, did the first 'disciples of the Lord pro- 
pound a dogmatic system. But as they made the doctrine primarily 
taught by Christ himself the •subject of theoretical contemplation, 
and as their heart^s and lives were practically penetrated by it, 
and as (Jhrist's spiritual personality had been, as it were, formed 
in them anew, we find, in the writings of those endowed with 
liigher gifts,' the beginnings of a systematic view of Christian doc- 
trines. And this in such a way, that while Peter and James (in 
this respect to be compared with the .synoptical writers) simply 

§ 18. The Apostles. 47 

relate in an objective manner what was delivered to them ;' . an 
internal and contemplative view of Christianity prevails in the writ- 
ings of John, and a practical and dialectic tendency in those of 
Paul, who was later called to be an apostle." And . these may be 
said to be types of the subsequent modes of theological thought and 

' When we speak of the apostolic doctrine in general, we must not forget 
that we do not refer to the twelve Apostles, of whose doctrinal views we possess 
but very imperfect knowledge. For it is yet contested whether the James and 
Jude, whoso Epistles are in the canon, belonged to (he twelve apostles, and 
whether they are the brothers of our Lord. On the doctrinal system of James, 
see Dorner, u. s. p. 91 sq. (Comp. Herder, Briefe zweier Briider Jesu in un- 
serm Kanon ; Wieseler,m the Studien und Kritiken, 1842,1. p. VI, ss.; * ScJiaff, 
das Verhiiltniss des Jacobus, firuders des Hernn, zu Jacobus Alphsei, Berl. 1 842 ; 
and the commentaries.) [Za^-iimer, vi. 162-202 ; Wright, 11^., in Kitto, Cy- 
clop, of Bibl. Literat.] On his relation to Paul, see Neander, Gelegenheit- 
schriften, 3d ed., p. 1 sq. Accordingly, Peter and John alone remain ; but 
the second epistle of the one, and the second and third epistles of the other, 
were verjr early reckoned amongst the Antilegomena [Wright, W., in Kitto, 
1. c. sub voce] ; the genuineness of the second epistle of Peter in particular 
has again been impugned in modern times ; and even his first epistle, though 
without suflBcient basis, has been the subject of doubts. Comp. De Wettc's 
Einleitung ins N. Test. § 172, 1Y3. [JVcander, Hist, of the Plant, and 
Train, of the Cli. ii. p. 33, 34. Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce.] 

' If the first epistle of Peter is genuine, it is undoubtedly of greater im- 
portance in a dogmatic point of view, than that of James, who gives a 
greater prominence to practical Christianity, and seems to ignore its christo- 
logical aspects, though he occasionally evinces a profound acquaintance with 
the nature of faith and the Divine economy (ch. i. 13, ss. 25 ; ii. 10, etc). 
l_Dorner, 1. c. contests this position ; but Hagcnbach says that he attri- 
butes views to James which are not distinctly his.] But dogmatic ideas 
appear even in the writings of Peter more as a lai'ge mass of materials as 
yet in their rough state. "Tra vain do we look in his writings for those 
definite peculiarities, so manifestly impressed upon the works of John and 
Paul." Be Wette, 1. c. Comp. however. Ranch, Eettung der Originalitat 
des ersten Briefos Petri, in Winer's and Engelhardt's Kritische Journal, 
viii. p. 396. Stciger, 1. c. and Dorner, p. 97, ss,, and especially Weiss^ 
Der Petrinische Lchrbegriff, Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie, Berlin, 1855. 
"It bears upon it the impress of the apostolic spirit," Meander, 1. c. ii. p. 33.] 

" John ,and Paul are then the prominent representatives of the doctrinal 
peculiarities of primitive Christianity. In estimating the views of the 
former, besides his epistles, we have to consider the introduction to his 
gospel, and the peculiarities before alluded to in his relation of the discourses 
of Christ. (On the book of Eevelation, and its relation to the Gospel and 
the Epistles, the opinions of critics have ever been, and still are different.)* 

" While for a long time the Gospel of John was held to be genuine, but not the Apoca 

48 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

The manifestation of God in the flesh — union with God through Christ- 
life from and in God — and victory over the world and sin by means of this life, 
which is a life of love— these are the fundamental doctrines propounded by 
John. (Gomp. Lucke's Commentaries on John's writings ; RickWs Predigten 
tiber den ersten Brief; TholucVs and De Weite's Commentaries on his 
gospel ; Paulus, iiber die 3 Lehrbriefe.) [Neander, 1. c. p. 240. ss. '-Hence 
every thing in his view turned on one simple contrast : — Divine life in com- 
munion with the Redeemer — death in estrangement from Aim."] Paul difl'crg 
from John materially and formally, a. Materially : John rather piesents the 
outlines of theology and christology, Paul those of anthropology and the doc- 
trine of redemption ; nevertheless, the writings of John are also of the high- 
est importance for anthropology, and those of Paul for theology and chris- 
tology. But the central' point of John's theology is the incarnation of the 
Logos in Christ; the working element of the Pauline doctrine is justification 
by faith. 6. Formally : Paul lets his thoughts rise up before the soul of the 
reader, reproduces them in him in a genetic order, and unfolds all the re- 
sources of dialectic art, not obliterating the traces of his former rabbinical 
education. John proceeds thetically and demonstratively, drawing the reader 
into the depths of mystic vision, and announces Divine things in the tone of 
a seer, and addresses himself more to the believing mind than to the under- 
standing. John styles his readers children, Pauls calls them his brethren. 
(Comp. on the difference between Paul and John, Staudenmaier on Joh. 
Scot. Erigena, p. 220, ss.) A peculiar theological tendency is represented, in 
fine, in the JEpistle to the Hebrews. It is related to the Pauline doctrine with 
a prevailing leaning toward the typical ; as to its form, it holds the medium 
between the modes of Paul and John. [Neander, Hist, of Plant, and Train. 
ii. p. 212-229.] (On the conjectures respecting its author, comp. the Com- 
mentaries of Bleek, \^Stuart\ Tholuck [translat. into English by J. Hamilton 
and J. E. Eyland, Edinb. 1842, 2 vols. ; and Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c, 
Bub voce]. On the three primary biblical forms (the Jacobo-Petrine, the 
Johannine, and the Pauline), see Dorner, 1. c. p. 7 7. 

* The further development of the History of Doctrines will show that the 
tendency represented by John prevailed during the first period, as seen in 
the unfolding of the doctrine of the Logos, and in its christology ; it was not 
until the second period that Augustine put the Pauline doctrine in the fore- 
ground. This statement would need to be entirely changed, and such a 
view would be a mere optical deception, if the results of the criticisms of the 
Tubingen school (Baur) were as well made out, as they might seem to be on 
a superficial inspection. According to this scheme, Christianity could not 
have had any such primitive purity and dignity; that is, it could not have had 

lypse {Lucke), the latest negative criticism ha-s reversed the relation {Sckwegkr); and in 
oppoeition to this, the genuineness of bofh works, including the Epistles of John, has been 
recently defended by Ehrard. Comp., however, Bleek, Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik Berl 
1846, i. s. 182, sq. ; and LucTte, in the second edition of his work on John. We cm not 
regard the acta upon this matter as by any means closed, for, from a wholly impartial 
gtand-point, much may be said in favor of the identity of the evangelist and the author of 
the Apocalypse. [Comp. J. T. ZoUer, XJrsprung des vierten Evang. in Zeitschr'fl £ wisa 
TUeol. 1860.1 • 

§ 19. Culture of the Age and PHiLosorHT. 49 

for its chief object to defend from the beginning its character, as a specific 
divine revelation, against any possible corruptions and perversions ; bnt it, 
fii'st of all, would have had to unwind the swaddling bands of a prosaic 
Ebionitisra before it became etherialized, passing through the Pauline ten- 
dency into the spiritual gnosis of John ; a process, for which, according to 
that theory, a full century was needed. We should not then find at first any 
common organism, spreading itself out on various sides in the fullness of a 
rich life, but only a small series of differing phenomena, mutually dissolving 
each other. But, now, history shows that great epochs («. g., the Reforma- 
tion) wake up the mind in all directions, and call out different tendencies at 
one stroke ; though they may occur in a relative succession, yet they follow 
one another so rapidly that we can comprise them in a synchronistic picture. 
Thus, De "VVette says [Wesen des Christl. Glaubens. Basil, 1846, p. 256] : " A 
more exact acquaintance with the New Testament documents shows us that 
the primitive Christianity here described had already run through three stadia 
of its development ; that at first (according to the rijpresentation of the first 
three Gospels, particularly that of Matthew) it is a Jewish Christianity ; then, 
with the Apostle Paul, it comes into conflict with the Jewish particularism ; 
until at last, in John, it wholly overcomes its antagonism with the law." It 
must also be conceded, that in the course of this historical process, now one, 
and now another, of the tendencies preformed in primitive Christianity, ob- 
tains the leading influence ; and that a series of centuries not yet closed is 
necessary, in order that what has actually been revealed in principle may bt. 
worked over in all its relations to the individual and to society at krge. Thus 
the Pauline type of Christianity remained for a long time a hidden tres^ure 
in the vineyard of the Lord, until in the period of the Reformation it was 
seen in its full significancy. So, too, the more recent philosophy of religion 
has recurred to the profound spiritual vision of John. Lastly, in respect to 
the striking contrast between the apostolic times and the post-apostolic — so 
much less productive in the sphere of doctrines, it is not unnatural that a 
period of stagnation should succeed one in which men's souls were thoroughly 
aroused in all directions ; and to this there are also analogies in history, e. g., 
that of the Reformation. Besides this, it has been remarked that the office 
of the post-apostolic times was not so much to form doctrines as to build up 
the church ; next, with the period of apologetics, commences the real work 
in the elaboration of the doctrinal system. Comp. Dorner, ubi supra, p. 130 sq. 

§ 19. 


Souverain, Le Platonisnee deovile, Amst. 1700 ; in German, uber den Platonismus dor 
Kirchenvater, mit Anmerkungen vonLoffler, 2 edit. 1792. In reply: Keil, DeDoctoribus 
veteris Ecclesiie, Culpa oorruptae per Platonieos Sententias Theologiae llberandis, Com- 
ment, xii. (in his Opusc. Acad. Pars. II). Fichte, Tm., De Philosophiae Novsb Platonicas 
Origine, Berol.'1818, 8. Ackermcmn, Das Christliohe im Plato und in der Platonischen 
Philosophie, Hamb. 1835. Dahne, A, F., Geschichtliehe Daretellung der .Judiseh-Alex- 
andrinisohen Eeligionsphilosophie, in 2 parts, Halle, 1834. F. 0. Baur, Das Cliristliolie 
dea Platonismus, odur Socrates Und Christus, Tubingen, 1837. G/rurer, KjiliscLe 

&0 FiKST Pbkiod. The Age of Apologetics. 

Geschiehte des IXrcliristenthums, vol. i; also under the title: Philo und die Alexandria 
isohp Theoaophie, 2 parts. Stuttgart, 1831. By the same: Das Jahrhundert des Heila, 
2 parts. Stuttg. 1836 (zur Geschichte der TJrchristenthums). G-eorgii, iiberdie neuesten 
Gegenaatze in Aufi'assung der Alexandrinischen ReligionsphUosophie, insbesonders dea 
JiidLsi'beu Alexaudriniamus, in Illgeris Zeitschrift fiir Historische Theologie, 1839, part 
3, p. 1, S3, part 4, p. 1, ss. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophio, vol. viL Bitier, 
vol. iv. p. 418. Schleicrmacher, Geschichte der PhUosophie, p. 154, ss. [Sitter, Die 
Christliche Philos. (1858), i. Zapitel 2 and 3. Susemihl, Genetische Entwicklung d. 
Platon. Phil. 1855. Plato contra Athcos; x. Book on Laws, by Tayler Lewis,^'Sevr 
York, 1845 ; of. President Wookey, in Bib. Sacra, 1845. Caesar Morgan, The Trinity 
of Plato and Philo. F. RoMou, de la Philoa. ohez les Bomains, 6 articles in the An- 
nales de la Philos. Chr6t. Paris, 1857, '8. R. Ehlers, Tis atque potestas quam Philoso- 
pliia Antiqua imprimis Platonica et Stoioa in Doctriua Apologetarum Seculi IL habuerit 
Cottin. 1859.J 

Though the peculiar character of Christianity can not be under- 
stood, if it is considered, not as an actual revelation of salvation, hut 
merely as a new system of philosophy, yet, on the other hand, it 
must be admitted that, in its forms of thought, it attached itself 
to what was already in existence, though it filled it with its new and 
quickening spirit, and thus appropriated it to itself.' This was espe- 
cially the case with the Alexandrian culture, which was principally 
represente I by Philo.'' This already appears in some of the New 
Testament writings, especially in the doctrine concerning the Logos,' 
although in the most general outlines ; but afterward it exercised a 
decisive influence upon Christian speculation.* 

^ "It is a thoroughly unhistorical and untenable assumption, that the prim- 
itive Christianity was unphilosophical, and, as such, undogmatic, and that it 
had to be indebted to the world for the faculty of philosophizing and of form- 
ing dogmas." Lange Dogmatik, p. 41. But it is also historically true that, 
before Christianity created a new philosophy by its own living energies, it 
attached itself to the prevalent forms of thought, and that so far the world 
did " hasten before'' the church in the process of forming doctiines. Comp, 
Lange, 1. c. p. 42, and Gicseler, Dogmengesch. 44, sq. [Gieseler here defends 
the early Christian teachers in making use of philosophy ; 1. Because the 
times demanded a philosophical treatment of Christianity. 2. That this be- 
came injurious only when these philosophical opinions were held to be mat- 
ters of faith, and not speculations. 3. The Christian philosophers did not 
intentionally, but unconsciously, introduce philosophical postulates into the 
Christian system.] 

" Comp. Grossmann, QuiBstiones Philonese, Lips. 1829. Theile, Christus 
nnd Philo, in Winer's und Engelhardt's kritisches Journal, vol. ix. part 4, p. 
385. Scheffer, Qnsest. Phibn, Sect. 2, p. 41, ss. Ziccke, Commentar zum 
Job. i. p. 249. (Comp. § 41 on the Logos.) Uditions of Philo: Tnrnebus 
(1552), Hoschel (1613), the Parisian (1640), * Mangey.(l742), Pfeiffer (5 
vol. Erl. 1820), Riohter, 1828-30 ; Tauchnitz's edition, 1851, sq. Compare 
the Commentary to Philo's book, De Opifioio Mundi, by J. G. MtlUer, Berlin 
1841. [Philo Judaeus, transl. in Bohn's Ecclesl, Library, by Yonge, 4 vols.] 
£dw. von Muralt, Untersuchungen tlber Philc in Beziehung auf die del 

§ 20. EuLE OF Faith. The Apostles' Creed. 51 

(Petersburger) Aiadetnie gehorigen Handschriften, 1840. ICreuser in tlio 
Studien n. Kritiken, 1831. M. Wolff, DiePhilon 'sche Philos, Lpz. 1849 ; 2d 
ed. 1858. PMlcmis eTttf^cei Paralipomena Avmena, Venet. 1826; ibid. Scr- 
inones Tres,ed. Venet. 1832. Articles on Philo, in Christ. Rev. 1853 ; Naitli 
British, 1855; Eclectic (Lond.) Nov. 1855; Journal of Class, and Sacred 
Philol. 1854. Comp. also Michel Nicholas, Des Doctrines Religieuses des 
Jiiifs pendant les deux Siecles anterieurs a I'ere chretienne, Paris, 1860. S. 
Klein, Le Judaisme, ou la Verite sur le Talnaud. Paris 1859. Lutterbeck, 
Neutestamentliche LehrbegrifFe, i., p. 393-437.} 

' That which was a mere abstract and ideal notion in the system of Philo 
became a concrete fact in Christianity — a spiritual and historical fact in the 
sphere of the religious life ; on this account " it is alike contrary to historical 
truth, to deny the influence of the age upon the external phenomena and the 
didactic development of the gospel, and to derive its internal origin and true 
no.turefrom the age." — Liicke, 1. c. Comp. Dorner, 1. c. Introd. p. 21, ss. 

* Much of that which was formerly (from the time of Souverain) called 
" the Platonism of the Fathers," is by modern research reduced to this, "that 
the general influence exerted by Platonism was the stronger and more definite 
influence of the general heathen culture." Baumgarten-Crusius, Compen- 
dium, i. p. 67. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmcngesch. p. 44. Thus the charge of 
Platonism often brought forward against Justin M. is found on closer exami- 
nation to be untenable; comp. Semisch, Justin der M. ii. p. 227, ss. It ap- 
pears more just in the case of the Alexandrian theologians, especially Origon. 
But here, too, as well as in reference to the partial influence exerted by Aris- 
totelianism and Stoicism upon certain tendencies of the age, it ought not to be 
overlooked, that during this period "philosophy appears only in a fragmen- 
tary way, and in connection with theology^ Schleiermacher, 1. c. p. 154; 
comp. also Redepenning, Origenes (Bonn, 1841), vol. i. p. 91, ss. [Comp. 
Fr. Michelis, Die Philos. Platons in ihrer inneren Beziehung zur geoffen- 
barten Wahrheit. 1 Abth. Milnster, 1859.] 



• MarheineJce, TJrspruBg und Entwieklung der Orthodoxie und Heterodosie in den ersten 
3 Jahrlwnderten (in Daub und Creuzer's Studien, Heidelb. 1807, vol. iii. p. 96, S3.) 
f Mahler, Einheit der Kirche oder Princip des Katholicismus im Geiste der Kirchen- 
vater der ersten 3 Jalirhundorte, Tiib. 1825. Fossitts, J. G., De Tribus Symbolia Dis- 
sertt. Amstel. 1701, fol. Kirig, Lord, History of the Apostles' Creed, with critical ob- 
servations, 5 edit. Lond. 1738. (Latin translation by OleaHus, Lips. 1706, Bas. 1768.) 
Sudelbach, die Bedeutang des Apostol. Syrabolums, Lpz. 1844. Stockmeier, J., uber 
Entstehung des Apostolischen Symbolums, Zur. 1S46. [Bishop Pearson on- the 
Apostles' Creed. Witsius, H., Dissertation on what s commonly called the Apostles' 
Creed. Transl. from the Latin by D. Fraser, Edinb. 1823, Dissert, i. — Heylyn, P., The 
Summe of Christian Theology, contained in the Apostles' Creed, London, 1673, foL— • 
Barrow, J., Exposition of the Creed, (Theolog. works, vol. v.) Oxf. 1838, Sect. 1. 
Meyers, De Symbol. Apostol. Treviris, 1849. Hahn, Bibliothek. d. Symbole. 1842. 
W. W. Harvey, History and Theology of the Three Creeds, 2 vols., 1855. Articles oa 
the Apostles' Creed, in Meroersburg Review, 1849, and Princeton Review, 1852.J 

&2 First Period, The Age of Apologetics. 

Before scientific theology, under the form of yvwai^, developed it- 
self with the aid of philosophical speculation, the faith of the Apostles 
was firmly and historically established as mon^, by bringing together 
those elements {oToixela) of Christian doctrine which were accounted 
essential. T!he' K-fjpvyfia d7ro(TToAt«6i/, the napadoai^ dnoaTo>.iKrj, -was 
first transmitted by oral tradition, and, afterward appeared in a 
, written form.' What is commonly called the Apostles' Creed (apos- 
tolic symbol), is most probably composed of various confessions of 
faith, used by the primitive church in the baptismal service. Though 
it did not proceed from the Apostles themselves, yet it preserved the 
principles of apostolic tradition in broad general outlines." 

' Comp. the rules of faith of Irenseus, Adv. Il£er. i. c. 10, [Grabe, c. 2.) 
Tertull. De Virgin, vel. c. 1 ; De Praescript. Hser. c. 13 ; Ad vers. Prax. c. 2. 
Orig. De Princip. procem. § 4. Mimscher edit, by von Colin, i. 16-19. On 
the importance of tradition and its relation to Holy Scripture, comp. below 
§ 33 and 37. " The rule of faith was not gained by the interpretation of 
the Scriptures, but taken from the apostolic tradition handed down in the 
churches." Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 50. 

" The fable about its apostolic origin, mentioned by Eufinus Exposit. 
Symb. Apost. (in Baron. Annal. anno 44. No. 14 [TVttsius, 1. c. p. 3], was 
doubted by Laur. Valla, and afterward by Erasmus ; some of the earlier 
Protestants, however, e. g., the Magdeb. Centur. (Cent. I. 1. 2, p. 66), still 
attached credit to it. Comp. Basnage, Exercitationes Histor. crit. ad annum 
44, No. 17. Buddei, Isagoge, p. 441, where the literature is given. Ifean- 
der (Torrey's) i. p. 306. Marheineke, 1. c. p. 160 \Heylyn, 1. c. p. 8, ss. 
Jiarrow, 1. c. 218, 219, Gieseler's Text-Book, i. 80, 152.] 



lUig, Th. de Hseresiarchis ^vi Apostolioi, Lips. 1690, ITOS, 4. [Burton, Edw., Theolog. 
Works, vol. iii. v The Bampton Lecture on the Heresies of the Apostolic age. Oxf. 
1837. Comp. the Introduction where the literature is given. [Lardner's Hist, of 
Heresies. Sariori, Die . . . Secten. 1855. J. B. Marsden, Christ. Churches and 
Sects, 2 vols. 1854, 1859. a. Volkmar, Die Quellen der Ketzergesch. 1855.] 

Every departure from the apostolic canon of doctrine was consid- 
ered, in relation to the church, as aipeatr, heresy.' Even in the 
apostolic age we find false teachers, some of whom are mentioned in 
the New Testament itself,' others in the works of early ecclesiastical 
writers.' Concerning their personal history and doctrine many 
points are still involved in obscurity, which, in the absence of trust- 
worthy historical evidence, can not be easily and satisfactorilv 
cleared up. 

§ 21. Heresies. 53 

' A'peaig (from alpeZodai), and axt<'f'-a, were at first synonymous (1 Cor. 
*i. 18, 19), but in later times the one was used to denote a departure from 
the faith, the other to designate a disruption in consequence of difl'erences 
of opinion concerning liturgy, discipline, or ecclesiastical polity. The word 
atpeaig did not originally imply blame ; it is used in the New Test, as a vox 
media ; comp. Acts v. 17 : xv. 6 ; xxv. 5. [Burton, 1. c. p. 8.] Ecclesiasti- 
cal writers themselves call Christianity a secta (Tertull. Apol. i. 1, and in 
many other places) ; and even Constantine gives the Catholic church the 
name alpeaig (Euseb. x. c. 6). On the contrary, in Gal. v. 20, the same 
term is used in connection with ipidslat, Sixftoraalai, etc, comp. 2 Pet. 
ii. 1 {TipevdoSiddaKaXoi). Synonymous terms are : kTepodidaoKaXla, 1 
Tim. i. 3 ; vi. 3 ; ipEv66vv[iog yvuaig, ch. vi. 20 ; iiaraioXoyia, ch. i. 6 ; the 
adject. alpETiKog, Tit. iii. 10. Comp. Wetstein, N. T. ii. 147. Suicer The- 
saurus, sub voce. On the various etymologies of the German word Ketzer 
(Ital. Gazzari, whether from KaOapog, or fi'om the Chazares — like bougre 
from the Bulgares ? or even from Katze ?) comp. Mosheim, Unparteiische 
und grilndliche Ketzergeschichte, Heliiist. 1746, p. 357, ss. and Wacker^ 
nagel, Altdeutsches Lesebuch, p. 1675 ; Jac. Grimm's review of Kling's 
edition of Berthold's sermons, in the Wiener Jahrb. Bd. xxxviii. On the 
use which heresies may be to science, Orig. Horn. 9 in Num. Opp. T. ii. p. 
296, says : Nam si doctrina ecclesiastica simplex essot et nullis intrinsecus 
h»reticorum dogmatum asscrtionibus cingoretur, non poterat tam clara et 
tarn examinata videri fides nostia. Sed idcirco doctrinam catholicam con 
tradicentium obsidet oppugnatio ; ut files nostra non otio torpescat, sed exer- 
citiis elimetur. Comp. August. De Civit. Dei xviii. c. 51. 

" On the different parties in the church of Corinth (which, however, 
caused only schisms in, but not separations from the church), comp. Schen- 
kel, Dan., de Ecclcsia Corinthia primaeva faetionibus turbata, Bas. 1838. F. 
Ch. Baur, die Christuspartei. [Neander, History of the Plant, and Train, 
i. p. 268-282. Hillroth, Comment, on the Corinth, transl. by Alexander, i 
p. 11. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, Cyclop, of Bibl. Lit. sub voce.] With 
respect to the heretics mentioned in the N. T., the attention of critics has 
chiefly been directed to those alluded to in the Epistle to the Colossiana, 
and in the Pastoral Epistles. Concerning the former (were they theosophis 
Jewish Essenes, or Jewish Christians ?) comp. Schneckenhurger in the appen- ■ 
Jix to his treatise' on the Proselytentaufe, p. 213. Sohmer, Isagoge in 
Epis't a Paulo ad Coloss. datam, 1829, p. 131. Neander, Apostolische 
Gcsch. vol. ii. [History of the Plant, and Train, i. p. 374-381. Alexander, 
W. L., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce.] Among the latter, Hymenoeus and Pldletus 
only are mentioned by name, as denying the doctrine of resurrection, 2 Tim. 
ii. 17, 18. [Burton, 1. c. p. 135, ss. Ryland, J. E.,\x\ Kitto, 1. c. sub 
voce] But the inquiry relative to the character of these heretics is inti- 
mately connected with the critical examination of the epistles themselves. 
Comp. Saur, F. Ch., die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulu;^, 
aufs neue kritisch untersucht, Stuttg. 1835. On the other side : Haumgar 
ten, Mich., die Aeohtheit der Pastoralbriefe, Berlin, 1837; comp. also the 
reply of Baur in his treatise : Ueber den IJrsprung des Episcopats, Tilb, 
1838, p. 14, ss. Comp. also Schwegler, 1. c. and Z>t«<Z«mj Urchristenthum- 

54 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

[Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c. art. Timothy, Titus. C. E. Scharling, die 
neuesten Untersuchungen tlber die sogenanten Pastoralbriefe. Aus dera 
Danischen iibersetzt, Jena, 1845.] Concerning the JVicolaitans, Rev. ii. 6, 
15, and those that held the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. ii. 14 (comp. Iren. i. 
26, and the erroneous derivation from Nicholas, Acts vi. 5), see the com- 
mentaries on the Book of Revelation [comp. Davidson, S., in Kitto, 1. c] 
(Ewald, p. 110). Torrey's N'eander, i. p. 452, ss. History of the Plant, 
and Train, ii. 50. Gieseler, i. 88. Burton, 1. c. Lect. v. p. 145, ss. Lee, 
B., in Kitto, 1. c. Schaff, p. 671. Stuart, Comm. on the Apoc. ii. p. 
62, ss.J 

' The heresiarch Simon Magus, who is described in the New Testament 
(Acts viii.) as a man of an immoral character, but not as a heretic, is never- 
theless represented by Clem. Al. (Strom, ii. 11, vii. 17), and Orig. (Contra 
Cels. i. p. 57), as the founder of a sect; by IrensEus (Adv. Hier. i. 23, 24), 
and Epiphanius (User. 21), even as the author of all heresies. Concerning 
Lis adventures and disputation with Peter, many fictitious stories were current 
among the earlier writers (see the Clementine Homilies, and Justin M. Apol. 
1. c. 56.) — On Simon Magus and the two Samaritans Dositheus and Menander 
(Euseb. iii. 26), comp. N'eander, i. 395, 454. [History of the Plant, and 
Train, i. 67-74. — Burton, 1. c. Lect. iv. p. 87-118, and note 40 ; hy the sa'nie : 
Lectures on the Ecclcsiast. Hist, of the First Cent. p. 77, ss. Schaff, 215, 
376^ 655. Gieseler, i. 56, § 18, note 8, where the literature is given. Alex- 
ander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c] (MarheineJce in Daub's Studien, 1. c. p. 116). 
Dorner says, 1. c. p. 144 : " The accounts given of Simon Magus, Menander, 
and Dositheus, who have become almost mythical, at least prove that in Syria 
Gnostic tendencies made their appearance at an early period." [Volckmar, 
Simon Magus, in Theol. Jahrbiicher, 1866, 2d Heft] The assertion of 
ll-,gesippus (Euseb. iii. 32, iv. 22), that the church had not been stained with 
any heresy previous to the time of Trajan [irapdEVog icadapa Kal ddid(f>9opog 
e/jeivev rj eKicXfjata), is not to be understood, as if no heresies at all existed, 
but that, till the death of Simon (a. p. 108), the poison of heresies had not 
pemtvated into the church. The judgment of Hegesippus, too, refers to the 
locality of Palestine. Comp. Vatke in Jahrb. f. wiss. Kritik, 1839, s. 9 sq. 
Dorner, u. s. 223. Mangold, Die Irrlehrer.d. Pastoralbriefe, 1856, s. 108, ff. 



There were two eirors which the new born Christianity bad to 
guard against, if it was not to lose its peculiar religious features, and 
disappear in one of the already existing religions : against a relapse 
into Judaism on the one side, and against a mixture with paganism 
and speculations borrowed from it, and a mythologizing tendency, 
on the other. Accordingly the earliest heresies, of which we have any 
trustworthy accounts, appear either as judaizing or as ethniciung 
(hellenizing) tendencies. But as Jewish and pagan elements wero 

§ 23. Ebionites and Cekinthus. DooEiiE AND Gnostics. 5Ji 

blended with eacli other at the time of the rise of Christianity^ 
manifold modifications, and transitions from the one to the other, 
would be likely to occur. 

Concerning the different forms of heathenism (occidental and oriental), as 
■well as the earlier and later periods of the Jewish dispensation, comp. Dorver, 
Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 4. ss. [Dean 
Trench, Hulsean Lectures on the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathenism, 
Am. ed. 18£3. Maurice, The Religions of the World, 1853.] 



Gicseler, von den Nazaraern und Ebionitec, in Staudlins und Tzschirners Archtv. vol. ir. 
St. 2. Credncr, tiber Essaer und Ebioniten und eineu theilweisen Zusamiiienhanf» 
derselben (in "Winers Zeitschrift filr wissenschaftl. Theol. 1827, parts 2 and 3). 
Lange, Loieg., Beitrage zur altern Karchengesohiohte, Leipzig, 1826, 1st vol. Baur, De 
Kbionitarum Origine et Doctrina ab Essenis repeteuda, Tiib. 1831. Schneckenhurger, 
Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament, Stuttg. 1832. A. Schiiemann, Dis 
Clementineu nebst don verwaudten Schriften und der Ebionitismus, ein Beitrag zur 
Kirchen-und Dogmengesohiohte der ersten Jahfliunderte, Hamb. 1844. Schwegter, 
ubi supra. A. Milgevfeld, die Clement. Recognitionen und Homilien. Jena, 18481 
[Bunsen's Hippdytus, vol. 3. A. Ritschl, in AUg. Monatsschrift, Jen. 1852. Hilgenfeld, 
in the (Tiibingen) Theol. Jahrb. 1854. Clementinorum EpilomiE Duas, ex Tischendorf, 
(ed. A. R. H. Dresaol. Lips. 1859. Rossel's Theologische Schriften Bd. i. Clement. 
Homilise, ed. Dressel, 1853.] Schmidt, Cerinth, ein Judaisirender Christ, in his Bib- 
liothok fur Kritik und Exegetik, vol. i. p. J 81, ss. Paulus, Historia Cerinthi, in In- 
troductio in N. Test. Capit. selectiora, Jen. 1799. Memeyer, A. R., De Docetis, Hal. 
1823. ito. Lewald, De Doctrina Gnostica, Heidelberg, 1819. Lucke, F., in the Theo- 
logische Zeitschrift, Berlin, 1820, part 2, p. 132. *Neander, Genet. Entwicklung der 
Vornehmsten Gnostisehen Systemo, Berlin, 1818. Matter, Histoire Critique da Gnos- 
ticisme, Paris, 1828, ii. [2d ed. 1840. Gieseler, review of Neander, in the Hall. Lit. 
Zeitung, 1823, and of Matter, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830. Mojiler, Ursprung d. Gno3> 
tieismus, Tiib. 1831. Lidlerleck, Neutest. Lehrbegriffe, B. iL pp. 3-79.] *Bawr, 
Chrisliche Gnosis, Oder die Christliche Religionsphilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen 
Entwicklung, Tub. 1835. [Comp. Gieseler, I § 43, ss. Neander, L 344-50, 396-99, 
630. Hose, § 35, 15. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophic, p. 160-65. Schaff. 
653. Bwrion, Bampton Lecture, Lect. ii. to be comp. with Potter, J., in Kitto, Cyclop, 
on Gnosticism. Norton, A^ on the Genuineness of the Gospels, vols. ii. and iii. 1844. 
The articles in Herzog's Encyclopedia. Especially iWed«er, Kirohengesch. s. 215-257. 
Ritter, Gesch. d. Christ. Phil. i. 109 sq., and Christi. Php. i. s. 263 sq.] 

The Judaizing tendency was chiefly represented hy the Ebionites,' 
of whom the Nazarenes'' were a variety more nearly approaching the 
orthodox faith, and with whom were connected other Judaizing sects 
of a more indefinite character.* Cerinthus* also belonged to this ten- 
dency, and makes the transition to that form of Judaism, blended 
with heathen Gnosis, which we find represented in the Clementine 
Homilies!' A strict opposition to the Jewish-Ebionitic tendency 
manifested itself first in the DwetcK^ and afterward in various rami- 

56 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

ficatioLs of the Gnostics.'' Of the latter, some were more sharply op 
posed to Judaism', others even returned to Ebionitish errors,' whila 
Jfarctow," who occupied a peculiar position, endeavored to go beyond 
the antagonism between Judaism and heathenism, but, despising ah 
historical mediation, he built up a purely imaginary system of Chris- 

' On the derivation of Ebionites from t'':«.i and their history, comp. Orig. 
Contra Celsura II. toward the commencement; Irenceus, Adv. Hser. I. 20. 
Tert. Prtescr. Hfer. 33, De Came Christ!, c. 14. JSuseb. iv. 27. Epiph. Haer. 
29, 30. Jlieron, in Matth. viii. 9 ; xix. 20 ; (c. 66) xviii. in Jesai. ; Cat. Script. 
Eccles. c. 3 ; and the works on ecclesiast. history. [Torrey^s Ifeander, i. 344. 
J^iedner. s. 215. Hurton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 183, ss.] Different opinions as to 
the origin of the Ebionites ; Schliemann, p. 459, ss. (according to Hegesippus 
in Euseb. III. 32, and IV. 22) dates it after the death of Simeon of Jerusalem. 
According to the school of Tubingen [Schwegler), Ebionitism is as old as 
Christianity. Christ himself was an Ebionite, and Paul took the first step 
beyond Ebionitism. The Judaizing tendency, which was firmly rooted 
in Ebionitism, may indeed be traced back to primitive Christianity : not all 
Christians were, like Paul, able to comprehend the universal character of their 
j-oligion. But this Jewish-Christian tendency existed for some time, along with 
tho Pauline, as a more imperfect form of Christianity, without being regarded 
as heresy. But having once been out-flanked by the freer spirit of the Pauline 
doctrine,* it had either gradually to wear out (its adherents withering into a 
Jewish sect), or to grow rank, blended with other (Gnostic) elements (as was 
the case with the Ebionitism of the Clementine Homilies, comp. note 5). 
The former kind of Ebionitism has been called " vulgar Ebionitism." Its ad- 
herents were characterized by their narrow attachment to Jewish tradition, 
seeking to impose the yoke of the law upon Christians, and this prevented 
them from forming a higher idea of Christ than that involved in the Jewish 
conception of the Messiah. Accordingly, when they declared Jesus to be the 
son qf Joseph and Mary, this opinion did not proceed (as in the case of the 
Artemonites, § 24), from a rationalistic source, but had its root in their 
spiritual poverty and narrow-mindedness. Witli their Jewish notions con- 
corning the law and the Messiah would accord the sensual, millennial expecta- 
tions of which Jerome (1. c. but no other writer) accuses them. 

' Origen (Contra Cels. v. 0pp. i. p. 625) mentions two different kinds of 
Ebionites, of whom the one class approached the orthodox doctrine of the 
church more nearly than the other. These more moderate Ebionites were 
for a long time held to be the same, to whom Jerome and Epiphanius give 
the name Nazarenes, which was earlier applied to all Christians. They 
taught that the law (circumcision in particular) was obligatory on Jewish 
Christians only, and believed Jesus to be the son of the Viro-in, though a 
mere man ; of course they rejected his pre-existcnce. Comp. the treatise of 

* " Orthodoxy, when surpassed by the culture of the age, and deserted by public opinion, 
becomes heresy." — Ease. And since there is no standing still, it is natural to iuCor that 
Ebiouitism became retrograde, in the direction of Judaism. Di/rner, ubi supra, p 304, sq, . 

§ 23. Ebionites and Cerinthus. Docet^ and G-nostics. 57 

Oieseler, 1, c. [jBurton, 1. c. p. 184]. According to the most recent researches 
(of Schliemann), however, the Nazarenes were never brought into the same 
class with the Ebionites, and Origan's distiaotioa refers only to the difference 
between the common and the Gnostic Ebionites (comp. note 5). Diflerent 
are the opinions of Schwegler, Naohapostolische Zeitalter, p. 179, ss., and 
Dorner, 1. c. 301, ss. According to Schwcgler (Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 
179 sq.), the position of the Nazarenes was only "the earliest primitive stage 
of development of Ebionitism." He, as well as Hilgenfeld (1. o.) rejects the 
distinction made by Schliemann. It is simplest, with Dorner (ubi supra, 
p. 301 sq.), to assume that the Ebionites degenerated into Judaism, and thus 
became heretical Nazarenes (Jewish Christians). 

' Elcesaites, Sampscei, etc. Epiph. Hser. 19, 1-30, 3, 17 (Euseb. iv.). "It 
seems impossible accurately to distinguish these different Jewish sects, which 
were perhaps only different grades of the order of the Essenes, assisted, as we 
are, merely by the confused reminiscences of the fourth century." (Ilase, 1. c. 
p. 7, 90.) [Ritschl on Elkesaiten in Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. 1853 ; and 
Uhlhorn in Herzog's Real Encycl. article, Elkesaiten.] 

■* Iron. i. 26, Euseb. H. E. iii. 28 (according to Caius of Eonr.e, and 
Dionysius of Alexandria), Epiph. Haer. 28, comp. Olshausen, Hist. Eccles. 
Veteris Monumenta Prsecipua, vol. i. p. 223-225. [^Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 
174, ss.] According to Irenaeus, Cerinthus is allied to Gnosticism, and 
remote from Ebionitism, maintaining that the world was not created by 
the supreme God. He denies, however, in common with the Ebionites that 
Christ was born of the Virgin, but on difi'erent, viz., rationalistic grounds 
{impossible enim hoc ei visum est). According to the accounts givfn by 
Eusebius, his principal error consisted in gross millennarianism, i. j , in 
a Judaistic tendency. Comp. the treatises of Paulus and Schmid, ani, on 
his remarkable, but not inexplicable, mixture of Judaism and Gnosticism, 
JBaur, Gnosis, p. 404, 405. Dorner, 1. c. p. 310, claims that there was a 
peculiar class of Cerinthian Ebionites, who, in his opitiion, form the trara- 
tion to the Clementine Homilies. 

' As Cerinthus blended Gnostic elements with Jewish notions, so did 
section of the Ebionites represented in the Clementine Homilies (i. e., homi- 
lies of the Apostle Peter, which are said to have been written by Clement 
of Rome). Comp. Neander's Appendix to his work on the Gnostic systems, 
and Church History (Torrey), i. 353, 395. \Lardner, N., Works, ii. 376, 
377. Narton, 1. c. ii. note B. p. xxiii.-xxxvii.] Baur, Gnosis, p. 403, and 
App. p. 760, and his programme referred to above. Schenkel, however, has 
broached a different opinion in his Dissert, (cited § 21, note 2), according to 
which the Clementine tendency w6uld belong, not to the Judaizing, but to 
a rationalizing Monarchian tendency (comp. § 24) in Rome (comp. LucJce's 
review in thfe Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1838, parts 50 and 51, and 
Schliemann, u. s. p. 357 sq.) Dorner, 1. c. p. 324, ss., gives a striking 
description of this tendency, which passes over from Judaism into Paganism. 
The investigations upon the Clementina are by no means concluded : comp. 
Hilgenfeld, ubi supra, where, too, in the Introduction, is a. review of what 
has thus far been done. 

° The Docetse whom Ignatius, Ad. Eph. 7-18, Ad Smyrn. c. 1-8, already 

58 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

opposed, and probably even the A.postle John (1 John i. 1-3 ; ii. 22 ; iv. 2^ 
ss., 2 John T ; on the question whether he also alludes to them in the pro- 
logue to his gospel, comp. Luckc, 1. c.) may be considered as the rude fore- 
runners of the Gnostics ; for, although they have the general Gnostic character, 
yet the Docetae are sometimes spoken of as a special Gnostic sect; Baur, in 
his Christ, d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 207. \Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 158, ss.J 
The Doocta; form the most decided contrast with the Ebionites, so far as 
this, that they not. only maintain (in opposition to them) the divinity of 
Christ, but also volatilize his human nature, to which the Ebionites were 
exclusively attached, into a mere phantasm (denying that he possessed 
a real body). Ebionitisra (Nazareisra) and Docetism form, according to 
Schleiermacher (Glaubenslehrc, vol. i. p. 12^), natural heresies, and complete 
each other, as far as this can be the case with one-sided opinions ; but they 
quite as easily pass over the one tc the other. Comp. JDorner, Geschichte 
der Christologie, p. 349, ss. 

' What Docetism did in the doctrine concerning Christ alone, the more 
completely developed system of Gnosticism carried out, in its whole spiritualiz- 
ing tendency, into the extreme most opposed to Judaizing Ebionitism. It not 
only contains docetio elements (comp. the Christology in the special History 
of Doctrines), but in its relation to the Old Test, it possesses a character 
more or less antinomian, and in its eschatology it is adverse to millennarian- 
ism. It opposes the spiritualistic to the literal, the idealistic to the realistic. 
To resolve history into myths, to dissipate positive doctrines by speculation, 
and thus to make an aristocratic distinction between those who only believe, 
and those who know, to overrate hnoujledge, especially that which is ideal 
and speculative {yv&ai^) in religion — these are the principal features of 
Gnosticism. On the different usages of yvStoi^ in a good and a bad sense 
[yvCdOLg 'ijievduivvfiog}, yvojarrj^, yruariico^,) comp. Suicer, Thesaurus. 
Sources: Irenaeus Adv. Haer. (i. 29, ii.) Tertullian Adv. Marcion. lib. v; 
Adv. Valentinianos ; Scorpiace contra Gnosticos. Clem. Al. Strom, in differ- 
ent places, especially lib. ii. iii. vi. Euseb. iv. 

' The different classifications of the Gnostics according to the degree of 
their opposition to Judaism {Neander) ; according to countries, and the pre- 
ponderance of dualism, or emanation, Syrian and Egyptian Gnostics (Gieseler) ; 
or Gnostics of Asia Minor, Syrian, Roman (sporadic) and Egyptian Gnostics 
(Matter) ; or lastly, Hellenistic, Syrian, and Christian Gnostics (Hase), pre- 
sent, all of them, greater or less difficulties, and require additional classes (as 
the Eclectic sects of Neander, and the Marcionites of Gieseler). But JBaur 
justly remarks that the mere classification according to countries, is too 
external (Gnosis, p. 106; comp. too Dorner, p. 355), and hence designates 
the position on which Ncander's classification is based, as the only correct 
one, " because it has regard not only to one subordinate element, but to a fun- 
damental relation which pervades the whole" p. 109. The particular obiec- 
tions to the division of Neander, see ibidem. The three essential forms into 
which Gnosticism falls, according to Baur, are : 1. The Valentinian, which 
admits the claims of Paganism, together with Judaism and Christianity. 2 
The Marcionite, which makes Christianity preponderant ; and, 3, the Pi,eud<f 

§ 23. Ebionites and Cerinthus. Docetm and Gnostics. ,*S 

Clementine, which espouses the cause of Judaism in particular (see p. 120). 
But respecting the latter, it is yet doubtful whether it should be reckoned 
among the Gnostic tendencies. Schwegler (Montanisnus iv. s. 216), in 
making Judaism the common root of Elionitism and Gnosticism, is correct, so 
far as this, that Gnosticism was shaped in divcrfe ways by the Jewish philoso- 
phy. But this philosophy was struggling to get beyond what was me''ely 
Jewish and legal. The peculiar and fundamental characteristic of Gno&tiaisra 
remains in its Paganism, though this, too, might react into Judaisir, as well 
as the latter wander off into Paganism. " Common to all Gnostic sscis is 
their opposition to that merely empirical faith with which they charge the 
church, as being founded on authority alone." Dorner, p. 353. [Further 
particulars will be found in the special history of heresies (comp. § 6) and in 
the history of the particular systems of Basilides (a. d. 125-140), Valentinus 
140-160), the Ophites, Carpocrates and Epiphanes, Saturninus, Cerdc, Mar- 
cion (150), Bardesanes (170), etc.] The element of knowledge (the specula- 
tion) in religion is the chief matter ; and so far it has its correlate in the Jew- 
ish law-works (Dorner, s. 354). On the great importance of Gnosticism in the 
development of theological science and of ecclesiastical art (see Dorner, s. 355 
sq.). On particular points, see further, Gundert, Das System des Gnostikers 
Basilides, in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. Bd. vi. and vii. ; Uhlhorn, Das 
Basilidianische System mit Eticksicht auf die Angaben des Hippolytus dar- 
gestelit, Getting., 1855. 

[Hilgenfeld on Basilides, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1856, and Baur, Loid. '856. 
J. L. Jacobi, Basilidis. . . . Sententise ex Hippolyti libro. Berol. ' 852. 
Pistis Sophia, Opus Gnosticum Valentino adjudicatum e. codice MS. Goptico 
. . . ed. J. H. Petermann, Berol. 1852; comp. Kostlin in Theol. Jahrb. 
1854. Colorbasus-Gnosis (the Valentinian Kol-arbas), Volkmar in Zeit- 
schrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855. On Bardesanes, in Cureton's Spicilegium 
Syriac. see Journal of Sacred Lit. 1856. Die Philosophumena und die Pe- 
raten (Ophites), R. Baxmann in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1860. On tho 
general subject comp. Bunsen's Hippolytus, and especially Niedner, in his 
Gesch. d. Kirche, s. 217-253. Niedner's division is the best : 1. Most nu- 
merous (in Valentinus and others) ; Christianity has the primacy, but other 
religions, Jewish and ■heathen, are different degrees of the development of the 
true religion. '2. (Marcion) Christianity sundered from its historical con- 
nections; the ojly revelation. 3. A syncretism, identifying heathenism and 
Christianity {'Jarpocrates), or Judaism and heathenism (the Clementina). 
Gnosticism is an attempt at a philosophy of religion, identifying the history 
of the world and the history of religion. Comp. Neander's Dogmengesch. 
i., 43-59.] 

• Comp. Dorner, I. i. p. 391, ss. 

"Ibid. p. 381, ss. [Ritschl, d. Evang. Marcions, 1847: VolcTcmcr, d. 
Gersdoi'f Rep. 1852. FrancJc, d. Evang. M. in Stud. n. Kritiken, 1855. 
Hilgenfeld, Bas Apostolikon Marcions, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855.] 

6'"> First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 



Werrmdorf, de Montanistis, Gedani, 1751, 4. Kirchner, de Montanistis, Jen. ISSa 
* Beinichen, de Alogis, Theodotianis Artemonitis, Lips. 1829. A. Biischl, Entstelung 
der altkath, Kirohe. Bonn. 1850, s. 176 sq. F. G. Baur, Das Wesen des Mont, in 
Zeller's Jahrb. 1851. Giesekr, Hippolytus, die Monarehianer, und. d. romische, 
Kirehe, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853. Schwegler, F. C, der Montanismus und die chiist- 
liche Kirehe des zweiten JahAunderts, Tiib. 1841-8. [Neander, Hist, of the Church, 
L, 509 sq., 575 sq. Sase, §67. Niedner, 253 sq.] 

Besides this antagonism of JudaismandEthnicism, another might be 
formed on the basis of the general Christian system ; and its contrasted 
extremes likewise run out into heretical tendencies. In the estab- 
lishment of the peculiar doctrines of the religion of Christ, questions 
necessarily arose, not only concerning the relation of Christianity to 
former historical forms of religion, but also about its relation to the 
nature of man and his general capacities of knowledge. Two opposite 
tendencies might ensue. On the one hand, an exaggerated supernat- 
uralism might manifest itself, passing the boundaries of the historical 
revelatio'i, making the essence of the inspiration of the Spirit to cpn- 
sist in extraordinary excitement, interrupting the course of the his- 
torical development, and endeavoring to keep up a permanent disa- 
greement between the natural and the supernatural. This is seen in 
what is called Montanism,' which took its rise in Phrygia. On the 
other hand, an attempt might be made to fill the chasm between the 
natural and the supernatural, by trying to explain the wonders and 
mysteries of faith, adapting them to the understanding, and thus 
leading to a critico-skeptical rationalism! This appears in one class 
of the Monarchians (Alogi ?)' whose representatives in the first 
period are Theodotus and Artemon.^ The Monarchians, Praxeas, 
Noetus, and Beryllua* commonly styled Patripassians, differ from 
the preceding in having more profound views of religion, and- form 
the transition to Sabellianism, which comes up in the following period, 
introducing a new (more speculative) mode of thought. 

' Montanus of Phrygia (in which country the fanatical worship of Cybele 
prevailed fiom an early period) made his appearanco as a prophet (Paraclete) 
about the year 170, in Ardaban, on the frontiers of Phrygia and Mysia, and 
afterward in Pepuza. He was rather distinguished as an enthusiastic and 
eccentric character, than for any particular dogmatic heresy ; and thus he is 
the forerunner of all the fanaticism which pervades the history of the church. 
" If any doctrine was dangerous to Christianity, it was that of Montanus. 
Though noted in other respects only for a strict external morality, and agree- 
ing with the Catholic church in all its doctrines, he 'yet attacked the funda- 


mental principle of ortliodoxy. For lie regarded Christianity, not as complete, 
but as allowing and even demanding further revelations, as seen in ChrisCs 
words ahotit the p)'romised Paraclete.'^ Marheinecke (in Daub and Creuzer's 
Studion), p. 150, where lie also points out the contradiction in which the 
positive Tcrtuliian involved himself by joining this sect. Millennarianism, 
which the Montanists professed, was in accordance with their carnally minded 
tendency. In this respect they were allied to the Ebionites, (Schwegler). 
Notwithstanding their Anti-gnostic tendencies, they agreed with the Gnostics 
in going beyond the simple faith of the church ; but still, their eccentricities 
were seen not so much in speculation as in practical Christianity. Yet 
Montanism could not keep clear of Gnosticism ; but here its peculiarity con- 
sists in the position, that this gnosis is attained, not by man's faculty of thought, 
but in an ecstatic state. " Catholic truth is an evenly flowing stream, grad' 
ually swelliny from many tributaries; the Montanistic illumination is a 
spring, suddenly gushing up from the ground ; the former is conditioned by 
the idea of a complex continuity, the latter clings to a disconnected and 
atomistic view of spiritual influences." Schwegler, p. 105. This sect (called 
also Cataphrygians, Pepuzians) existed down to the sixth century, though 
condemned by ecclesiastical synods. On its connection with the general 
tendencies of the times, see Baur, ubi supra. This does not interfere with a 
recognition of the individuality of Montanus as an essential element (Neander 
describes him from this point of view). Sources : Eusebius (following Apol- 
lonius), Epiphanius, Haeres. 48. Torrey''s Neander, i., 508-537. Neander's 
Dogmengesch., p. 49 (against Baur). [Gieseler's Church History, i., 140.] 

* This term occurs in Epiph. Heer. 51, as a somewhat ambiguous paro- 
nomasia on the word Logos (men void of understanding notwithstanding their 
understanding !), because the Alogi rejected the doctrine concerning the Logos, 
and the Gospel of John in which it is principally set forth, as well as the book 
of Revelation, and the millennarian notions which it was used in vindicating. 
It may be generalized in dogmatic usage so as' to be applied to all those who 
rejected the idea of the Logos, or so misunderstood it, as either to regard 
Christ as a mere man, or, if they ascribed a divine nature to Christ, identified 
it with that of the Father. It is difficult to decide to which of these two 
classes the proper Alogi mentioned by Epiphanius belong, comp. Heinichen, 
I. c. ; on the other hand, Dorner, p. 500, defends them from the charge of 
denying Christ's divinity, and considers them as being the point of depart- 
ure for the twofold shape in which Monarchianism showed itself. At all 
events, we mnst not lose sight of these two classes of Monarchians (comp. 
Neander, Church Hist. (Toi'rey) i, 577; Antignosticus, p. 474. Schwegler^ 
Montanismus, p. 268 ; Dorner, 1. c), though it is difficult to make a preeiso 
distinction between the one and the other. 

' Theodotus, a worker in leather (6 aKVTEvg) from Byzantium, who reside' 
at Rome about the year 200, maintained that Christ (though born of a Virgin) 
was merely a man ; and was excommunicated by the Roman bishop, Victor, 
Enseb. V. 28. Theodoret, Fab. Hajr. ii. 5. Epiph. Hseret. 54 [dnoanaana Trjg 
iXoyov alpiaeo)g). He must not be confounded with another Theodotus 
(rparre^iTfjg), who was connected with a party of the Gnostics, the Melchise- 
dekites. Theodor. Fab. Heer. II. 6. Dorner, p, 505, ss. Artemon (Artcuius) 

62 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

ehargtd the successor of Victor, the Eoman bishop Zephyrinus, with having 
corrupted the doctrine of the church, and smuggled in the doctrine of the 
divinity of Christ. Comp. Neander, i. 580. See § 45, below. Heinichen^ 
1. c. p. 26, 27. [^Burton, Lectures on the Ecclesiast. Hist, of the Second and 
Third Cent. (Works, vol. v.) p. 211, ss. 236, ss. 265, ss. 387, and Bampton 
Loct. Notes 100 and 101.] The prevailing rationalistic tendency of this sect 
(Pseudo-Rationalism) may be seen from Euseb. 1. c. {Heinichen, ii. p. 139). 
Ov Ti al deiai Xkyovai ypa(j)al ^r]TOvvreg dXX' biTolov oxrtiia avXXoyiafiov 
eif Tijv TTJf dOeoTTjTog Evpedxj avaraaiv, (piXoTTOvug dotiovv-Eg . . . 
naraXLTTovTEg 6e rag ay tag tov deoii ypaipaq, yeuiierptav eTTiTrjdevovaLV, cjf 
av kic TTJg yfjg ovreg ical sic r^jg yfjg XaXovvrsg koX tov aviodev kpxofiEvov 
dyjoovvreg. The homage they rendered to Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, 
ar.d Galen, og laug vtto rivuv koL npoaKweXTai. 

* Praxeas, from Asia Minor, had gained under Marcus Aurelius the repu- 
t".tion of a confessor of Christianity, but was charged by Tertullian with 
Pat,-ipassiaiiism, and combated by him. Tertull. Advers. Praxeam. lib. II. 
[translated in the Christ. Examiner, Boston, 1843, No. 119]. JVoetus, at 
Smyrna, about the year 230, was opposed by Hippolytus on account of similar 
opinions. Hippol. contra Haercsin Noeti. Theodoret. Fab. Hjer. iii. 3. Epiph. 
User. 57. — As to Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, whom Oi'igen com- 
pelled t: recant, Euseb. vi. 33 ; comp. Ullmann, de Beryllo Bostreno, Hamb. 
1835, 4. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, part 4, p. 1073 (comp. § 42 and 46). 
[Prpxeas in Neander, i. 513, 525. Burton, 1. c. p. 221, ss. 234, ss. Noetus 
■!n Neander, i. 584. Burton, 1. c. p. 312, 364. — Beryllus in Neander, i. 593> 
Burtsn, 1. c. p. 312, 313. Schleiermacher on the above in his Essay oa 
Sabellianism, transl. in Am. Bibl. Repos. i. 322-339 ; cf. his Kirchengesch. 
131 sq. 154. Baur, Dreieinigkeit, i. 132-341, and in the Jahrb. f. Theologie, 
] C45. Bunseii's Hippolytus.] 

§ 25. 


The Catliolic doctrine' was unfolded in opposition to these her- 
esies. Though the orthodox teachers endeavored to avoid heretical 
eiTors, and to preserve the foundation laid hy Christ and his Apos- 
tles hy holding fast to the pure tradition, yet they could not wholly 
free themselves from the influence which the civilization of the age, 
personal endowments, and preponderating mental tendencies have 
rxer exerted upon the formation of religious ideas and conceptions. 
On this account we find in the Catholic church the same con- 
traats, or at least similar diversities and modifications, as among 
the heretics, though they manifest themselves in a milder and less 
I'lrensivo form. Here, too, is, on the one hand, a firm, sometimes 
painful adherence to external rites and historical tradition, akin to 
legal Judaism (positive tendency), combined in some cases, as in that 
c? Tertullian, with the Montanist tendency. On the other hand wa 

§ 26. The Theology of the Fathers. 63 

find a more free and flexible tendency allied to the Hellenistic ; 
Bometimes more ideal and speculative, kindred to the Gnosticism 
(the true Gnosis contrasted with the false), and, again, critico-ration- 
alistic, like Monarchianism, even when not identical with it.' 

' On the term catholic in opposition to heretic, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub 
voce KadoXiKog. comp. 6pd66o^og, 6p6odo^[a. Bingham, Origg. Eccles. i. 1, 
sect. 7. Vales, ad Euseb. vii. 10. Torn. ii. p. 333 : Ut vera et genuina 
Christi ecclesia ad adulterinis Hasretioorum coetibus distinguerefur, catholicm 
cognomen soli Orthodoxorum ecclesiaj attributum est. — Concerning the nega- 
tive and practical, rather than theoretical, character of earlier orthodoxy, see 
Marheinehe (in Daub nnd Creuzer) 1. c. p. 140, ss. 

" This was the case, e. g., with Origen, who now and then shows sobriety 
of understanding along with Gnostic speculation. On the manner in which 
the philosophizing Fathers were able to reconcile gnosis with paradosis (di»- 
ciplina arcani), comp. Marlieineke, 1. c. p. 170. 



Steiger, De la Foi de I'ifeglise Primitive d'apris les ficrits des premiers PSres, in tha 
Melanges de Theologie Edformeo, edited by himself and Havernick, Paris, 1833, !•' 
cahier. [Bennet, J., The Theology of the Early Christian Church, exhibited in Quota- 
tions from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, Lond. 1842.] Dorner, 1. u., 
Schwegkr, Naohapostoliscliea Zeitalter. A. Hilgenfdd, Die Apostolisohen Vater; 
TJntersuohung uber Inhalt nnd TJrsprung der unter ihrem Namen erhaltenen Scbriften, 
Halle, 1853. [Patrum Apostol. Opera, ed. Dressal, Lpz. 2d ed. 1864. J. Ohevallier, 
Epist. of Clem.Eom., Ign.etc. 2ded.Loud. 1851. A'orto's Genuineness Gospels, vol. i. 
Note P. pp. ccxxxix.-cc'xxi. J. B. B. Lubkeri, Theol. d. Apost. Vater, in Zeitschrift 
£ d. Hist. Theol. 1854. Hilgenfeld, Das Urchristenthura, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 
1858. E. de Pressense, Hist, des trois premiers SiScles de I'figlise Chr^tienne, 2. Paris, 
1858. J. J. Blunt, Lectures on Study of Early Fathers, 2d ed. 1856; ibid. Bight Use 
of Fathers, 1858. Ginimlhiac, Hist, du Dogme Cathol. dans les trois prem. Siecles, 
2. Paris, 1850. B. Reuss, Hist, de la Th&l. Ghret. 2. 1853, 2d ed. 1860. Rihchl, Die 
Altkath. Kirche, 2d ed. 1857. Joh. Ruber, Piiil. d. Kirohen-Viiter, 1859. Abbe Frepel, 
Les P^res ApostoUques et leur "fipoque, Paris, 1859. Anti-Niceue Lib. i. 1867.] 

While the so-called Apostolical Fathers (with few exceptions) 
were distinguished for direct practical efficiency, preserving and con- 
tinuing the apostolic tradition,' the philosophizing tendency allied to 
Hellenism was in some measure represented by the apologists, Justin 
Martyr,^ Tatian,' Athenagoras,' TheopMlus of Antioch," and 3Iinu- 
cius Felix' in the West. On the contrary, Irenonus,'' as well as 
Tertullian,' and his disciple Cyprian' firmly adhered to the positive 
dogmatic theology and the compact realism of the church, the former 
in a milder and more considerate, the latter in a strict, sometimes 
sombre manner. Clement" and Origen," both belonging to the Alex- 
andrian school, chiefly developed the speculative asjiect of theology. 

64 First Pekiod. The Age of Apologetics. 

But these contrasts are only relative ; for we find, e. g., that Justin 
Martyr manifests hoth a leaning toward Hellenism and also a Juda- 
izing tendency ; that the idealism and criticism of Origen are now 
and then accompanied with a surprising adherence to the letter ; and 
that Tertullian, notwithstanding his Anti-gnosticism, strives in a re- 
markable way after philosophical ideas. 

' The name Patres Apostolici is given to the Fathers of the first century, 
who, according to tradition, were disciples of the Apostles. Concerniiig their 
personal history and writings, much room is left to conjecture. 

1. Barnabas, known as the fellow-laborer of the Apostle Paul from Acts 
iv. 36 (Joses) ; ix. 21, etc. On the epistle ascribed to him, in vvhich is 
shown a strong tendency to typical and allegorical interpretations — 
though in a very different spirit from, e. g., the canonical Epistle ti; the 
Hebrews — comp. Henke, Em., De Epistolae quse Barnabse tribuitur An- 
thentia, Jense, 1827. Rordam, De Authent. Epist. Barnab, Hafn. 1828 
(in favor of its genuineness). Ullmann, Studien and Kritiken, 1828, 
part 2. Hug, Zeitschrift ftlr das Erzbisth. Freiburg, part 2, p. 132, ss., 
part 3, p. 208, ss. Twesten, Dogmatik, i. p. 101. Neander, i. p, 657, 
against it : " a very different spirit breathes throughout it from that of an 
apostolical writer." Bleek, Einleitung in den Brief an die Hetraer, p. 
416, note (undecided). Schenkel, in the Studien u. Kritiken, x. p. 652 
(adopting a middle course, and considering one part as genuine and an- 
other as inteipolated) , and on the other side [Hefele, C. T., Das Sends- 
chrciben des Apostels Barnabas aufs Neue untersucht, iibersetzt und 
erklart. Ttib. 1840. — Lardner, N., Works, II. p. 17-20 ; iv. 105-108 ; 
V, 269-275 [for its authenticity). Cave, W., Lives of the most eminent 
Fathers of the Church, Oxf 1840, i. p. 90-105. Burton, Lect. on the 
Ecclesiast. History of the First Cent. (Works, iv. p. 164, 343 {against it). 
Davidson, S., Sacred Hermeneutics, Edinb. 1843, p. 71 (for it). Rylnnd, 
J. E., in Kitto, Cyclop, of Bibl. Liter, art. Barnabas (against it). [Wil- 
liam Lee, Discourses on the Inspiration of Holy Scrip, repr. New York, 
1857, Appendix E.] 
2. Hermas (Rom. xvi. 14), whose TT0Liir)v (Shepherd) in the form of visions 
enjoyed a high reputation in the second half of the second century, and 
was even quoted as Scripture (ypacj>rj). Some critics ascribe the work 
in question to a later Hermas (Hermes), brother of the Roman bishop, 
Pius I, who lived about the year 150. Comp. Gratz, Disqu. in Past. 
Herm. Part I. Bonn, 1820, 4. Jachmann, Der Hirte des Hermas. 
Konigsb. 1835, "The immense difference between the apostolical writ- 
ings and the immediate post-apostolic literature is more apparent in the 
work of Hermas than in any other ,•" Schliemann, Clement, s. 421. 
Schwegler, in his Nachapost. Zeitalter, s. 328, sq., judges differently. 
Comp. Dorner, s. 185, sq. There is a variety of opinion about the re- 
lation of this work to Montanism, Ebionitism, and the Elcesaites; cf. 
Uhlhorn, in Herzog's Realworterb. On the manuscript discovered by 
Simonides, and published by Anger and Dindorf, 1856, see UhlhorTi, 

§ 26. The Theology of the Fathehs. 65' 

n. s. Comp. below, Note 6. [Dressel's edition,, after Tisclienilorf, 1856. 
On these editions, compare Gersdorf s, Leipz. Rcpert. Jan. and Aug, 
1856. Dindorf, in Gersdorf, 1856, and Jan. 1857. Ilagemann, Der 
Hirt des Hcrmas, in the Theol. Qaartalshrift, 1860. Anger, on the 
-^thiopean version of Hermas, in Gersdorf's Rep. Oct. 1858. Comp. 
JVeandcr, p. 660. Lardner, iv. 97, 98, etc. Ryland,J, E., in Kitto, 1, c. 
Stuart, Comment, on the Apocalypse, I. p. 113-121, where an outline 
of the whole work is given.] 

3. Clement of Rome (according to some the fellow-laborer of Paul, men- 
tioned Phil. iv. 3), one of the earliest bishops of Rome (Iren. iii. 3, Eu- 
seb. iii. 2, 13, 15). The first epistle to the Corinthians, ascribed to him, 
is of dogmatic importance in relation to the doctrine of the resurrection. 
Editions : dementis Romani quae feruntur Homil. xx. nunc primum m- 
tegraj, ed. Alb. R. M. Dressel, Gott. 1853. Comp. R. A. lApsius, De 
Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. priore. Lips. 1855. [E. Ecker, Disquisitio — de 
CI. Rom. prjor. ad Rom. Epist. Traj. ad Rbenum. 1853.] The so-called 
second epistle is a fragment, probably by another (Ebioiiite?) author. 
[Lardner, 1. c. ii. 33-35.] Comp. also Schneckenhurc/er, Evangel, dei 
^gypter, p. 3, 13, ss. 28, ss. Schwegler, Naohapostolisches Zcitalter, p. 
449 ; on the other side. Darner, p. 143. In the dogmatic point of view, 
those writings would be of greatest importance, which are now univer- 
sally considered as supposititious, viz., the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
(dfiiXiai KX7jiJ,evTog, cf. § 23), the Reeognitiones dementis (dvayvupia- 
fiol), the Constitutiones Apostolicae, and the Canones Apostolioi ; on the 
latter, comp. Krabbe, i'lber den TJrsprung und Inhalt der Apostol. Con- 
stit. des Clemen. Rom. H.amb. 1829 ; and \Drey, neue Untersuchungen 
liber die Constitutiones und Canones der Apostol. Ttib. 1832. TJhlkorn, 
Die Homilien u. Recognitionen des Clem. Rom. Gotting. 1 8.54. [Hilgen- 
feld, Kritische Untersuchungen, 1850. E. Oundert, in Zeitschrift f. d. 
Luth. Theol. 1853, '4. W. Oureton, Syriac version of Clem. Recogni- 
tions, Lond. 1849. G. Volkmar, Clem, von Rom. und d. naehste Folge- 
zeit, in Theol. Jahrb. 1856. Clem. Rom. Epistolse Binse de Virginitate, 
ed. J. T. Beele, Lovan. 1856, comp. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1856. Nean- 
der, i. 658. Lardner, ii. p. 29-35 ; 364-378. Burton, 1. c. p. 342-344. 
Ryland,.J. E., in KittO, 1. c. art. Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers.] 

4. Ignatius [9eo(pdpog), bishop of Antioch, concerning whose life comp. 
Euseb. iii. 36. On his journey to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom 
under Trajan (116), he is said to have written seven epistles to different 
churches (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna), and 
to Polycarp, which are extant in two recensions, the one longer, th'j 
other shorter. On their genuineness, and the relation of the longer to 
the shorter, comp. /. Pearson, Vindicife epp. S. Igii. Cant. 1672 [new 
edition by Archdeacon Churton, in Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol. 2 vols. 
Svo. 1852, with preface and notes adapted to the present state of the 
controversy]. J. E. Ch. Schmidt, Die doppelte Rcccn.'sion der Briefn 
des Ign. (Henke's Magazin. iii. p. 91, ss). K. Meier, Die doppelte Re- 
cension der Briefe des Ignat. (Stud, und Kritiken, 1836, part 2). Roike, 
Die Anfiinge der Christlichen Kirche, Witt. 1837. Aru'lt, m Studien 

66 First Period. The Age of Apologetics. 

und Kritiken, 1839, p. 136. Baur, Ttibinger ZeitscTirift, 1838, part 3, 
p. 148. Huther, Betraohtung der wichtigsten Bedenkeii gegen die 
Jjlchtheit der Ignatianisohen Briefe, in Illgeri's Zeitschrit't fiir liistorische 
Theolog. 1841-4. Comp. § 23. Ch. Dusterdieclc, Quae de Ignatianarura 
Epp. Authentia, duorumque Textuiim Eatione hucusque prolatse sunt 
enaiTuntur, Getting. 1843, 4to. — The whole investigation has entered 
into a new stadium in consequence of the discovery of a Syriao version, 
by W. Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Ep. of S. Ignatius, 
etc., Lond. 1845. Comp. C. C. J. JBunsen, Die Drei achten und die 
vier unachten Briefe des Ign. 4to. Hamb. 1847 ; ibid. Ignat. von Antioch, 
n. seine Zeit. Sieben Sendschreiben an Neander, 4to. Hamb. 1847. 
Against Bunsen, F. C. Baur, Die Ignat. Biiefe, Tiib. 1848. On the 
Catholic side, G. Denzinger, Die ^chtheit des Textus der Ign. Briefe, 
Wtlrzh. 1849. Against the genuineness, Vancher, Recherches Critiques, 
Gott. 1856. Latest Editions: J. H. Petermann, Lps. 1849; Corpus 
Ignatianum, by William Cureton, 4to. Berl. 1849. Most, important for 
the History of Doctrines is the polemic against the Docetse (cf. § 23, 
s,x\A. Dorner, p. 145). [W. CMretora, Vindiciae Ignatiana;, the genuine 
Writings of Ign. vindicated against the charge of Heresy, Lond. 1846. 
Comp. the discussion in HilgenfeWs Apostol. Vater., and Uhlhorn on 
the Relation of the Greek to the Syriac Recension in Zeitschrift f. d. 
Hist. Theol. 1851, epitomised in the Theol. Critic, 1852. Weiss, in 
Renter's Repertorium, Sept. 1853, and in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1859 
(Nov.). R. A. Lipsius, in the Zeitschrift f. d. Hist. Theologie, 185i'. 
condensed in the Journal for Sacred Lit. (Lend.), 1857 ; Die Zeitschrifl 
f. Luth. Theologie, 1848 and 1852. See also articles in the Quarterly 
(Lond.), 1851 ; the Church Review (New Haven), 1849 ; the Edinburg 
Review, 1849 ; the British Quarterly, 1856 ; the Christian Remem- 
brancer, 1857. On the Epistles of Ignatius among the Armenians, see 
Neumann, Gesch. d. Arm. Lit. s. 73 sq. Ante-Nicene Lib. i. 1867.] 

6. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, according to tradition a disciple of the 
Apostle John, suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius (169). Comp. 
Euseb. iv. 15. One of his epistles to the Philippians is yet extant, but 
only a part of it in the original Greek. Comp. Wocher die Briefe der 
apost. Viiter Clemens und Polycarp, mit Einleitung und Commentarien, 
Tubingen, 1830. [Lardner, ii. p. 94-109. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, 1. c] 

6. Papias [acpoSpa afimpbg uv rbv vovv, Euseb. iii. 39), bishop of Hiera- 
polis in the first half of the second century, of whose treatise Xoyicov 
Kvpiaiccov i^riyrjoig we have only fragments in Euseb. 1. c. and Irenaeus 
(v. 53). As a millennarian he is of some importance for eschatology. 
[Fragments of Papias in Lardner's Credibility, vol. ii. ; supposed frag- 
ments in Spicileg. Solesmense, i. Transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib. i. 1867.] 

Complete editions of the writings of the Apostolical Fathers : * Patrum, 
qui temporibus Apostolorum floruerunt, 0pp. ed. Cotelerius, Par. 1672, 
jep. Clericus, Amst. 1698, 1724, 2, T. f. Patrum App. 0pp. genuina, 
ed. B. Russel, Lond. 1746, ii. 8. Clementis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. 
Polycarpi, patrum apostolicorum quae supersunt, acccdunt S. Ignatii et 
S. Polycarpi martyria, ed. Guil. Jacobson, Oxon. 1838 [3d ed. 1847.] 

§ 26. The Theology of the Fathers. 67 

J. L. Frey, Epistolse Sanctorum Patrum Apostolicorum dementis, 
Ignatii et Polycarpi, at(^ue duorum posteriorum Martyria, Bas. l742, 8. 
Patrum Apostolorum Opera, textum ex editt. praistantt. lepetitum 
recognovit, brevi annotat. instruxit et in usum prselect academicar edid. 
f*C. /. Hefele, Tub. t839, 4th ed. 1856. Comp. Codex N. T. deuter- 
onomius s. Patres Apostolici, rec. ed. De Muralto, vol. i. (Barnaba; et 
Clementis Epistolse) Tur. 1847. Patrum apostol. Opera ed. A. R. M. 
Dressel, accedit Hermae Pastor, ex. frag, grascis, auctore C. Tischendorf, 
Lips. 1863. Ittiff, Bibl. Patr. apost. Lips. 1690, 8. [Wake, Arch- 
bishop, the genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, transl. Lond. 
1737, 7th ed. 1840, New York, 1810. W. ChevalHer, Epist. of Apost. 
Fathers, and Apolog. of Just. Mart, and Tertul!., translated 1822; 2d 
ed. 1851.1 
As to the extent to'which we can speak of a theology of the Apostolical 
Fathers, s. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 81, note. It is certain that some 
of them e. g., Hermas, entertained notions which were afterward re- 
jected as heterodox. The older divines, and those of the Roman 
Catholic cliurch in particular, endeavored to evade this difficulty by 
calling those doctrines archaisms, in distinction from heresies* 
' Justin Martyr (born about the year 89, died 176), of Sychem (Flavia 
Neapolis) in Samaria, a philosopher by vocation, who even after he had 
had become a Christian, retained the rptpuiv, made several missionary jour- 
neys, and suffered martyrdom, probably at the instigation of the philosopher 
Crescens. His two Apologies are of special importance ; the first designed 
for Antoninus Pius, the second probably for Marcus Aurelius (yet the num- 
bering varies, see Meander, i. 665, and Semisch, ubi supra, p. 911). He is 
the first ecclesiastical writer whose works manifest an acquaintance with 
the Grecian philosophy (in which he had formerly sought in vain for the 
full truth and peace of mind.)]- Though he is anxious to prove the superi- 
ority of the religion of Christ, and even of the Old Testament dispensation, 
to the systems of philosophers (by showing that the latter derive their views 
from Moses), he also perceives something divine in the better portion of the 
Gentile world. It must, however, be admitted that the tone prevailing in 
the apologies is much more liberal than that which is found in the Cohorta- 
tio and Grsecos (TrapaiveTiicbg npbg "EXXijvag)- Neander, i. 666, is there- 
fore inclined to consider the latter as spurious, on account of the hard tei'ms 
in which paganism is spoken of, and Mohler (Patrologie, p. 225) agrees with 
him. Yet the state of mind in which the author wrote his apologies would natu- 
rally be very different from that in which he composed a controversial treatise, 
especially if, as Neander suggests, the latter was written at a later period of 

* It ia certain that Pseudo-Dionyaius, whom some writers numoer among the Apostol- 
ical Fathers, belongs to a later period. On the other side, Mohler and Hefele reckon tlie 
author of the Epistle to Diognetus among the Apostolical Fathers, which was formerly 
ascribed to Justhi. Hefele, PP. App. p. 125. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 1 C4 ; Kleine Sohriften, 
i. p! 19. On the other side : Semisch, Justin M. p. 186. [Comp. Just. M. Ep. ad Diogn. 
rid. Hoffmann, 1851, aad Otto's review in Gersdorfs Eep. 1852. Translation of i\m 
Epistle in Journal of Sao. Lit. 1852 and in the Princeton Rep. 1853. Otto ed. 1852.] 

f On his philosophical tendency, see Schleiermacher, L c. p. 155. 

68 FiBST Pemod. The, Age of Apologetics. 

his life. These writings, as well as the doubtful "koyoq rrpbi ''EPJ^rjvai 
(Oratio ad Grsecos) and the ''EmaroX^ npbg Aioyv-qrov falsely ascribed to 
Justin M. (see note p. 67), and also the treatise nepl fiovapxiaq consisting 
in great part of Greek excerpts, set the relative position of Christianity and 
Paganism in a clear light. The Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo has refer- 
ence to Judaism, which it opposes on its own .grounds ; its genuineness was 
doubted by Wetstein and Semler, but without sufficient reason, comp. Nean- 
der, i. 668, ss. The principal edition is that published by the Benedictines 
under the care of *Prud. Maran, Paris, 1742, which also includes the writ- 
ings of the following three authors, along with the (insignificant) satire of 
Hermias. Otto's edition, 1846, iii. see § 14, note 1 A. Comp. Justin Martyr, 
his Life, Writings, and Doctrines, by Carl Semisch. Transl. by J. E. Ryland, 
Edin. 1844. [Lardner, ii. p. 126-128, 140, 141.] Otto, de Justini Martyris 
scriptis et doctrina commentatio, Jen. 1841. ;ScAii)e^;e»-, nachapostolisches 
Zeitalter, p. 216, sa. [John Kuye, bp. of Lincoln, Some Account of the 
Opinions and Writings of Just. M., 2d ed. A. Kayser, De Doctrina Just. M. 
1850. Volkmar, Ueber Just. M. 1853, and Die Zeit Just. M. in Tlieol. 
Jahrb. 1855. Hilyenfeld, ibid. 1852. The Oratio ad Graecos, not by Just. 
Nolle in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1860. Prof. Stowe, Sketch of Just. M. in 
Bib. Sacra, 1652. W. Reeves, Trajisl. of the Apologies, with those of Ter- 
tuUian and Minucius Felix, etc., 2 vols. Lond. I7l6 ; H. Browne's of the 
Dial, cum Tryphone, Lond. lY55. Just. M.'s Opinions in A. Lamson's 
Church of first Three Cent. pp. 1-68, Boston, 186'5.] 

* Tatian [Dorner, i., 437, calls him "the Assyrian TertuUian"), a disciple 
of Justin M., became afterward the leader of those Gnostics who are called 
the Encratites. In his work entitled : Xoyoq npbg "EXXrjvag (Ed. Worth, 
Oxon. 1700), he defends the '^philosophy of the barbarians" against the 
Greeks. Comp. Daniel, H. A., Tatianus der Apologet, ein Beitrag zur 
Dogmengeschiohte. Halle,. 1837, 8vo. \Neander, i., 672. Lardner, ii. p. 
347-150. Otto's Corpus Apologet. 1851. Dr. Giles, Lond. 1837.] 

' Little is known of the personal history of Athenagoras, who was born at 
Athens in the last half of the second centur)'. Comp. however, Clarisse, De 
Athenagorae Vita, Scriptis, Doctrina, Lugd. 1819, 4, and Mohler, 1. c. p. 267. 
His works are : Legatio pro Christianis (npeafisia Tzepl XpiOTiai'uv) and the 
treatise: De Resurrectione Mortuoruni. [Lardner, i\. -p. ^93-200. Torrey's 
Neander, i., 78 and. 673. /. C. Otto in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1856; 
his Supplicatio, ed. by L. Paul, Hal. 1856 ; works in Otto Corpus Apologr 
vol. vii. ; translated in full in Giles' Writings of Christ, of Second Century, 
Lond. 1837 ; and in Ante-Nicene Lib. ii. 1867.] 

• Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (170-180). The work which he wrot« 
against Autolycus : rttp), Trjg tCiv Xpiariavuv maTeug, manifests a less 
liberal spirit, but also displays both genius and power as a controversialist. 
Bossier, Bibliotbek der Kirchenvater, i. p. 218, numbers it among the most 
worthless works of antiquity, aid Hase calls it a narrow-minded controversial 
writing, while J/fiAZer praises iu excellencies. There is a German translation 
of it with notes by Thienemann. Leipz. 1834. [Edition by J. J. Humphrey, 
Lond. 1852. On his use of the N. Teat, see Otto in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. 
Theol. 1859.] 

§ 26. The Thkolog-s oi the Fathers. C& 

• Ecclesiastical writers vary in tLeir opinions concerning tbe period in wliich 
Minvcins Felix lived. Van Iloven, Hosslei; Russwurm, and Ileinrich Meier, 
(Commentatio de Minucio Felice, Tui'. 1824), suppose him to liave been con- 
temporary with the Antonines. Tzschirner (Geschiohte do Apologetik, i. p. 
-257-282), thinks that he lived at a later time (about 224-230) ; this scorns 
to be the more correct opinion. Comp. Hieron. Cat. Script, c. 53, 58. 
Lactant. Inst. v. 1. A comparison of the treatise of Minucius, entitled Oetavius, 
-with the Apology of Tertuilian, and with the work of Cyprian, De Idolorum 
Vanitate, favors the view that ho wrote after the former, but before the latter. 
This work of Cyprian appears in some parts to be a copy of the writing of 
Minucius ; that of Tertuilian bears the marks of an original. The dialoguii 
between Csecilius and Oetavius is of importance in the history of apologetics, 
as it touches upon all the objections which we find separately treated by 
the Other apologists, and adds some new ones. In his doctrinal opinions, 
Minucius is distinguished by a liberal, Hellenistic manner of thinking ; but 
his views are less decidedly Christian than might well be wished. We seek 
■almost in vain in his book for direct christological ideas. Editions : Edit, 
princops hj Balduin, 1560 ; before this, considered as the 8th book of 
Arnobius. Since that time, editio'ns by Elmcnhorst (1612), Cellarius (1699), 
Davisius (1707), Ernesti (1773), Russwurm (with Introduct. and Notes, 
1824), Luhhert (with Translation find Commentary, Leipz. 1836.) [The 
Oetavius of Minucius Felix, 'cd. by Rev. H. A. Holden, Oxf. ] 853. Earlier 
English versions, James, Oxf. 1636; Combe, 1703 ; Reeves, 1719 (in "Apol- 
ogies of Fathers") ; Balrymple, Edinb. 1781. Edition in Gersdorf's Biblio- 
theca, vol. xii., xiii.] 

' ireraesMS, a disciple of Polyearp, bishop of Lyons, about the year 177, 
died in the year 202, '' a clear-headed, considerate, philosophical iheoloffian" 
(JIase, Guericke). Except a few letters and fragments, his principal work 
alone is extant, viz., five books against the Gnostics : "'EXejxo^ nal dvarpoTzf] 
rrjg i[)Ev6o)i'VfWV •iVbjaswg; the first book only has come down in the original 
languaa;e, the greater part of the remaining four books is now known only 
in an oW Latin translation. The best-editions are those of Orahe, Oxon.l702> 
^and * Massuet, Paris, 1710; Venet. 1734, '47:- A. Stieren, Lips. 2. '53. 
Com.p. Euscb. v. 4, 20-26. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 330. [J^eander, i., 671. 
Davidson, 1. c. p. 83, ss. Lardner, ii. p. 165-193. Burton, v. p. 185, and 
passim. Bennett, 1. c. 28-33.] Buncker, des heil. Irenasus Chi'istologie, im 
Zusammenliange mit dessen theologischen nnd anthropologischen Grundleh- 
rcn, Gott. 1843. Comp. also what Borner says concerning him, ii. 1, p. 
465. [The best edition of Irenaens, by W. W. Harvey, 2 vols. Cambr. 1857. 
Schaft''s Kirchenfreund, 1852, on Irenaaus; Bohringer's Kirch engcsch. in 
J5iogra.phie6n, i. Supposed fragments in Spieileg. Solesm. i. 1852. Life and 
Writings of I., Eclectic (Lond.) Sept. 1854. J. Beaven, Account of Life and 
Wiitings of St. Irasn. Lond. 1841. HUber's Phil. der. Kirchenvater, 1859, 
pp. 73-100.] 

<• Tertuilian (Quintus Septimius Florens) was born in Carthage about the 
year 160, and died 220 ; in his earlier life he was a lawyer and rhetorician, 
and became afterward the most conspicuous representative of the anti-specu- 
lative, positive tendency, Comp. Neander, Antignostieus, Geist des Tertuilian 

70 FiKST Period. The Ach of Apologetics. 

und Einleitung in dessen Scliriften, Berlin, 1825, 2d ed. 1849, especially the 
striking chavacteristic which he there gives of Tortullian, p. 28 of first edition, 
cf. p. 9 and following of the new ed., and Neander's Hist, i., 683, Torrey's 
translation). Mimter, Primordia Euclesia; Africanse, Havn. 1829, 4. Hessel- 
berg, Tertullian's Lehre, aus seinen Scliriften, Gotha. 1851.) "A gloomy, 
fiery character, who conquered for Christianity out of the Punic Latin a 
literature, in which ingenious rhetoric, a wild imagination, a gross, sensuous 
perception of the ideal, profound feeling, and a juridical understandinr, 
struggle with each other." [Hase). Gfrorer calls him the Tacitus of early 
Christianity. " Notwithstanding Ms hatred against philosophy, Tertullian it 
certainly not the worst of Christian thinkers." Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 
218; compare his further characteristics, ibid. His declaration: "ratio 
autem divina in medulla est, non in superfioie'' (De Resurrec. c. 3), may 
give us the key to many of his strange assertions, and to his remarkably 
concise style (quot pseue verba, tot sententiae, Vine. Lir. in Comm. 1). Of 
his numerous writings the following are the most important for the History 
of Doctrines: Apologeticus — Ad nationes — (Advers. Judaeos) — *Advers. 
Marcionem — * Advers. Herraogenem — * Advers. Praxeara — * Advers. Va- 
lentinianos — * Scorpiace advers. Gnosticos — De Prsescrlptionibus adVers. 
HiEreticos)— De Testimonio Animse — *De Anima — *De Came Christi — 
*De Resurrectione Carnis — (De Poenitentia) — (De Baptismo) — De Oratione 
etc. ; his moral writings also contain much that is doctrinal, e. g., the treatises : 
De Corona Militis — Do Virginibus velandis — ^De Cultu Feminarum, etc. 
Editions of his complete works were published by * Rigaltius, Paris, 1635, 
fol. ; by Semler and Schutz, Hall. 1770, 6 vols, (with a useful Index Latini- 
tatis) ; by Leopold, Lips. 1841 ; by Oehler, Lips. 1854, iii. [Neander, 1. c. 
ii. p. 362-366 ; p. 293-296. Burton, 1. c. v. p. 223. a. passim. Lardner^ 
ii. p. 267-272, a. passim.] The later church did not venture to number Tert, 
zealous as he was for orthodoxy, among the orthodox writers, on account of 
his Montanistic views. In the opinion of Jerome (adv. Helvid. 17), he is not 
a homo eeclesice (comp. also Apol. contra Kuffin. iii. 27), and though he 
praises his ingenium, he still condemns his heresy (Apol. contra Rufinum, iii. 
27.) [A portion of Neander's Antignostikoii is published in Bohn's edition 
of Neander's Planting and Training. Tertullian in Bohringer's Kirchengesch. 
in Biographieen, Bd. i. Various treatises translated in the (Oxford) Lib. of 
Fathers, vol. x. (2d ed.) Bishop Kaye, Eccl. Hist, of Second and Third 
Centuries, illustrated in the Life of Tertullian, 3d ed. 1848. Ungelhardi, 
Tertullian uls Schriftsteller in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1852. T.'s Do 
Corona Idilitis, od. O, Curry, Cambr. 1853. Apology, transl. by II. B. 
Brown, Lend. 1655 ; W. Beeves, 1716; edited with English notes by H. A, 
Woodham, 2d ed. Cambr., ind Chevallier. Prescriptions, transl. by T. Betty. 
Oxf. 1772. Address to Scap. Tert. transl. by Dalrymple, Edinb. 1790, 
Oeuvres de Tert. en Franqais, par M. de Oenoude, 2d ed. iii., 1852. On 
Oehler's edition see Klussmann in Zeitschrift filr wiss. Theol. 1860; and 

*The works marked with * wore written after his conversion to Montanism, thoao in' 
eluded in ( ) at least tinged with Montanism ; comp. Nbsselt, de Yera aetate Tertulliaiii 
Scriptorum (Opuso. Faso. iii. 1-198), 

§ 26. The Theology of the Fathers. 71 

Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1856. Leopold, Doctrina Tortnll. do Baptisms, in 
Zeitsohrift f. wiss. Theol. 1854. A. Ores, Les Idoes de Tertull. sur la Tr:i 
dition. Strasb. 1855. Tortullian and his Writings, Christ. Kuview, July 
1856. Hiibsr, Phil. d. Kirclienviiter, pp. 100-129.] 

' Cyprian (Thascius Ca^ciliiis) was first a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage ; 
■was converted to Christianity in 245 ; became bishop of Carthage 248, and 
suffered 'martyrdom 258. He possessed more of a practical than doctrinal 
tendency, and is, therefore, of greater importance in the histoiy of polity 
than of doctrines, to which he contributed but little. He did not so much 
theoretically develop the doctrines respecting the c/tarcA.and the sacraments^ 
as practically carry them out in his life, upholding thera in the midst of 
storms. In his doctrinal opinions he rested on the basis laid by Tertullian, 
but also sympathized with Minucius Felix, as in his work, De Idolorum 
Vanitatc. Accordingly, along with his numerous letters, his work entitled 
De Unitate Ecclesiaj, is of the first importance. Besides these there are : 
Libri III. Testimoniorum, De Bono Patientias, De Oratione Dominica, etc. 
Comp. Hettbercf, Cyprian nach seinem Leben und Wirken, Gottingen, 1834. 
Huther {Ed.), Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche, Hamburg, 1839. Editions: 
Rigaltius, Paris, 1648, fol. *Fell, Oxon, 1682, and the Benedictine edition 
by Steph. Baluze and Prud. Maran, Paris, 1726, fol. Goldhorn, Lips. 
1838, 9, 2 vols, in Gersdorf Bibliotlieca. [J'Crabinger's edition of Cyprian, 
De Unitate, etc., 1853, and of his Libri ad Donatum, Do Domin. Orat., etc. 
1859. Life and Times of C, by Geo. Ayliff"e Poole,, Oxf. 1840. Shepherd, 
Hist, of Clmrch of Eome, Lond. 1852, contests the authenticity of all 
Cyjjian's Epistles; ibid. Five Letters to Dr. Maitland, 1853-4; of. Christ. 
Remembrancer, 1853 and 1857; Dublin Review, 1852; Quarterly Review 
(Lond.), 1853; and Journal of Sacred Lit. 1856. Nevin on Cyprian and 
his Times, Mercersb. Review, 1852-3. Cyprian's Treatises and Epistles, in 
Oxford Lib. of Fathers, vols. 3 and l7. Articles on Cyprian in Rudelbach, 
christl. Biog., and in Bohringer, Kirchengesch. in Biograph. Dodwell, 
Dissertationes Cyprianicaj, 1704. Bp. Sage, Principles of Cyprianic Age, 2, 
8vo., Edinb. 1846. C.'s "Unity of the Church, by J. Fell, Oxf. 1681 ; Disc, to 
Donatus, by J. Tunstall, l7l6 ; whole Works, by N. Marshall, I7l7. An- 
nates Cyprianici a J. Pearsono, rep. in Fell's edition of Cyprian, fol. ] 700.J 

Novatian, the contemporary and opponent of Cyprian (or^f iitKXrjaiaaTMTJg 
iTnaTrjfi.rjg vnepaamaTrjg, Euseb. vi. 43), must also be considered as belong- 
ing to the extreme limit of this period, if the treatise, De Trinitate, De Reg- 
ula Veritatis s. Fidei, which goes under his name, proceeded from him. It 
is by no means correct, as Jerome would have it, that this treatise contains 
nothing but extracts from Tertullian. " This author was at all events more 
than a mere imitator of the peculiar tendency of another ; on the contrary, 
he shows originality; he does not possess the power and depth of Tertullian, 
but more spirituality." Neander, i. 560. Editions : Whiston, in bis Ser- 
mons and Essays upon Several Subjects, Lond. 1709, p. 327. Welchman, 
Oxon. 1724, 8. Jackson, Lond. 1728. \Lardner, iii. p. 3-20. Bennett, 1. 
c. p. 47-49.] 

'° Clement (Tit. Elav.), surnaraed Alexandrinus, in distinction from 
Clement of Eome (note 3), a disciple of Pantsenus at Alexandria, and hia 

72 FiEST Peiuod. The Age of Apologetics. 

successor in his office, died between 212 and 220. (Conip. Eusot). v. 11, vi. 
G, 13, U. llieron. De Vir. 111. c. 38.) Of liis works the following three 
form a whole : 1. Aoyof npoTpe-nriKO^ Tifjbg "KXXrjvag. 2. Uaidayuybg in 
throe books ; and 3. Stromata {tuv Kara Tfjv dXTjOr] <j}iXoao(l)iav yvuartKuv 
vnofivTjudruv CTpw^jbardg) — so called fi'om the variety of its contents, like a 
piece of tapestry — in 8 books: the eighth of which forms a special homily, 
under the title : rig 6 aui^ojMevog irkovaiog, Qnis dives salvetur. The 
VTTOTVTTuaeig in 8 books, an exegetical work, is lost. Concerning his life 
and writings, comp. Hofntede de Groot, de Clemente Alox. Griining. 1826. 
Von Colin, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedia, xviii. p. 4, ss. Daehne, de 
yvuaei Clem, et de Vestigiis Neoplatonicse Philos. in ea obviis. Leipz. 1831. 
JEylert, Clemens als Philosoph und Diohter, Leipz. 1832. Baur, Gnosis, p. 
.002. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 430.) [^Lardner, Works, ii. 220-24. Neander, 
i. 691. Bennett, 1. c. p. 33-30.] Editions by Sylburg, Heidelberg, 1592. 
*Pot.ter, Oxon. 1715, fol. Yen. 1757. R. Klotz, Lips. 1831, 3 vols. 8. 
[Bishop Kaye, Account of Writings and Opinions of Clem, of Alex., Lond. 
1889. Christ. Rev., July, 1852. Journal of Sacred Lit., 1852. Leutzen, 
Erkennen und Glaubcn. CI. v. Alex, und Ansolm v. Cant. Bonn, 1848. 
Reinlcens, De Clem. Alex. Vratislav. 1851. Reuter, Clem. Alex. Theo'.. 
Moralis. Berol. 1853. //. Laemmer, Clem. Alex, de Logo dogtrina, Leips. 
1855. Clement and the Alexandrian School, in North British Review, Aug. 
1855. Abbe Herhert-Diiperron, Essai sur la Polemique et la Philos. da 
Clem. d'Alex. Paris, 1855. Alleged fragments of Clem., Nolle in The \. 
Quartalschrift, 1859, s. 597 sq. Opinions of CI. Alex, in Huber's Phil. d. 
Kirchenvater, 1859, pp. 130-184. Lamsori's Church of First Three Cent., 
Boston, 1865. Alibe J. Cognat, Clement d'Alexandrie, sa doctrine et sa 
polemique. 8vo. Paris, 1859. Frepel, Paris, 1865.] 

" Origen, teurnamed ddafiavrivog, ;\;aA/t£i'Tepof, was born at Alexandi-ia, 
about the year 185, a disciple of Clement, and died at Tyre in the year 254. 
He is undoubtedly the most eminent writer of the whole period, and the best 
representative of the »piritnalizing tendency, though not wholly fres from 
great faults into which ho was led by his genius. "According to all appear- 
ance he would have avoided most of the weaknesses which disfigure his writings, 
if understanding, wit, and imagination had been equally strong in Mm. His 
reason frequently overcomes his imagination, but his imagination obtains more 
victories ooer his reason^ Mosheim (Translat. of the treatise against Celsus, 
p. 60). Accounts of his life are given in Euscb. vi. 1-6, 8, 14-2], 23-28, 
30-33, 36-39, vii. 1. Hieron. De Viris lUustr. c. 54. Gregory Thanmacnrg. 
in Panegyrico. Huetius in the Origeniana. Tillemont, Memoiues, art. 
Origepe, p. 356-76. SchrdcJch, iv. p. 29. \_IVeander, i. 593. Lardner, ii. p. 
469-486 and passim.] On his doctrines and writings, comp. Scknitzer, 
Origenes, fiber die Grnndlehren der Glaubenswisscnschaft, Stuttg. 1835, 
* Thomasius (Gotlf), Origenes, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengoschichte des 3 
Jahrhundorts, Nilrnberg, 1837. Rcdepenning, Origenes, eine Darstellung 
seines Lebens and seiner Lehro, 2 Bde. Bonn, 1841-6. The labors of Origen 
embraced a wide sphere. We can only refer to what he did for biblicai 
criticism (Hoxapla), and exegesis {ajjiieiMaeig,, 6/utA(o«, cf. Philocalia), 
•lis well as for homiletics (which appears in his writings in the simplest forms) 

§ 26. The Theology of the Fatheks. 73 

His two principal works of doctrinal importance: nept dpxuv (De Principiis, 
libri iv.) edit, by Hedepenninff, Lips. 1836, and Schnitzer's translation before 
mentioned ; and Kara KiXaov (contra Celsnm) lib; viii. (translated, with 
notes by Mosheim, Hamb. 1745). Minor treatises : De Oratione, De Exlior- 
tatione Martyrii, etc. Complete editions of bis works were piiblisbed by 
* Car. de Za i?2(e, Paris, 1733, ss. 4 vols. fol. and by ZommatescA,Berl. 1831-48. 

\_Fischer, Commentatio de Origenis Tlioologia et Cosraologia. 1846, 
Greg. Nyss. Doctrina do bominis Natura cum Origen. comparata, E. O. 
Moeller, Halle, 1854. Origen and the Alex. School, North British, 1855. 
Mosheim's Comment, in Murdock's edition, ii. pp. 143-209. Articles on 
Origen, by S. Emerson, in Bib. Kcpos. iv. ; £. Sears, in Bib. Sacra, iii. ; 
British Quarterly, by R. A. Vanghan, 1845", A.Lamson, in Christ. Examiner, 
X. and xi., rep. in his Church of first Three Centuries, Bost. 1860. Abbe E. 
Johj, Etudes sur Origene, 1860. Huber's Phil. d. Kirchenvater, 1869. pp. 
150-184.J The doctrinal systems of Clement and Origen unite under a more 
general aspect, and form what is called the theology of the Alexandrian 
Bohool. The distinguishing characteristics of this theology, in a formal point 
of view, are a leaning to speculation and allegorical interpretation of the 
Scriptures; as to their matter, they consist of an attempt to spiritualize the 
ideas, and idealize particular doctrines, and they thus form a striking contrast 
with the peculiarities of Tertullian in particular. Comp. Guericlce, De Schola 
■quas AlexandriiB floruit Catechetica. Ilalas, 1824, 2 vols. [Neander, 1. c. ii. 
;p. 195-234. Baur, Gnosis, p. 488-543.] 

The Philosophumena, ascribed to Origen, and published "by Edm. Mliller, 
Oxf 1851, under his name ('^piyevovg (f)iXoao(^ rj Kara traaiov alp- 
iaeuv 'iXeyxog, e codice Paris, nunc primum ed.), is with greater probability 
assigned to Hippolytus, who had been held to be a bishop of Arabia, (misled 
by Eusebius, vi., 20) but who died, as bishop of Portus Eomanus, a martyr's 
death, it is said, under Maximin (236-238). This work would then be the 
same with the IXeyxog Kara -naawv alpiaecov, ascribed to Hippolytus (edited 
by Duncker and Schneidewin, Gott. 1856-9), which is by others attributed 
to the Roman presbyter, Caius [Baur, in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1853), which is 
also found under the name XafivpivOog [Fhotius, c. 48). Comp. 0pp. et 
Fragraenta, ed. /. A. Fabricius, Hamb. 1'716-'18, 2 vols. Haenel, De liip- 
polyt. Gott. 1839. * Jos. ^wnsere, Hippolytus u. seine Zoit. Leipz. 1852-3. 
[English edition, 7 vols. 8vo.] Oieseler, nbi supra. Jacobi in Neander's 
Dogmengesch. p. 54, and in Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, 1831. * Bol- 
linger, Hippol. und Callistus. Regensb. 1853. Ritsclil, in Theol. Jahrb. 1854. 
Volkmar, Hippolytus, 1855. [Comp. articles in Theo. Critic, 1852; Edin- 
burgh Rev. 1852-'o3; Christ. Rembr. 1853; Dublin Review, 1853, 1854; 
North British, 1853 ; Christ. Review, 1853 ; North American, 1854 ; Journal 
of Class, and Sacred Philol. 1854 ; New Brunswick Review, 1854 ; British 
Qu. 1853 ; Westminster Review, 1853. Comp. also, Ch. Wordsworth, 
Church of Rome in Third Cent. 2d ed. 1855. Lenormant, Controverse sui 
les Philos. Paris, 1853. Cruice, Etudes sur les Philos. 1852.] 

74 TiRST Period. Thk Age of Aj'Ologetics. 

§ 27. 


It is the characteristic feature of the apologetic period, that the 
whole system of Christianity, as a religious and moral fact, is con- 
sidered and defended on all sides, rather than particular doctrines. 
Still certain doctrines are more discussed, while others receive less 
attention. Investigations of a theological and christological nature 
are unquestionably more prominent than those of an anthropological 
character. The Pauline type of doctrine does not come to its rights 
as fully as does that of John.' Hence, too, the emphatic prominence 
given to the doctrine of human freedom, to an extent which could 
not afterward be approved." Next to theology and christology, 
eschatology was more fully developed in the struggle with millen- 
narianism on the one side, and the skepticism of Grecian philosophers 
on the other.^ 

' Corap. § 18, note 4. 

' Origen expressly mentions the doctrine concerning the freedom of the 
■will as a part of the praedicatio ecclesiastica ; De Princ, prooem. § 4, ss. ; 
comp. the Special History of Doctrines, below. 

' This has its natural grounds. The doctrine of the Messianic Kingdom 
ruled the first period. This turned upon the point that the Lord was twice 
to come ; once in his manifestation in the flesh, and in his future coming to 
judgment. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was treated with 
special predilection. And yet much was left open. Thus Origen expressly 
says that angelology and demonology, as well as various cosmological ques- 
tions, had not been adequately defined in the doctrine of the chuniL ; Dfl 
Princip. prooem. § 6, 7, 10. 

( I 





§28 ■ 

*liischimer, Gesohichte der Apologetik, vol. i. Leipz. 1808. By the same: der Pall dea 
Heidelithums, vol. i. Leipz. 1829. Clausen, S. N., Apologelse ecclesias (Jhristianae 
ante-Theodosiani, Havn. ISlT, 8. G. H. van Senden, Geschichte der Apologetik von 
den friiliesten Zelteu bia auf unsere Tage. Stuttg. II. 8. [Bolton, Apologists of 
Second and Third Centuries, repr. Boston, 1853. Giles, Heathen Records and the 
Script. History, 1857. Ehrenfeuchier, Apologetik, in Jahrb. f. deiitsohe Theologie, 
ISST. Freipel, Les Apologistes, 2. Paris, 1861. De Pressense, Hist, de I'Eglise, iii., 
iv. Werner, Gesch. d. Apologetik, 3. 1862-5.] 

The principal 'task of this period was to prove the Divine origin 
of Christianity as the true religion made known by a revelation/ 
and to set forth its internal and external character in relation to 
both Gentiles and Jews. This was attempted in different ways, 
according to the different ideas which obtained regarding the na,ture 
of the Christian religion. The Ebionites considered the principal 
object of Christianity to be the realization of the Jewish idea of the 
Messiah/ the Gnostics regarded it as consisting in breaking away 
from the traditional connection with the Old Test.' Between these 
two extremes the Catholic church endeavored, on the one hand, to 
preserve this connection with the old revelation ; on the other, to 
point out the jiew and more perfect elements which constituted the 
peculiarity of the Christian system. 

' Here we must not expect to find a distinction made between religion itselJ 
and the Christian religion (natural and revealed), or look for a precise defini- 
tion of the terra " religion." Such definitions of the schools did not make their 
appearance until later, when science and life being separated, learned men 

76 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

speculated on the objects of science, and reduced experimental truths to gen- 
eral ideas. With the first Christians. Christianity and religion were iden- 
tical [Augusti, p. IQ?); as, again, in modern times, the principal object of 
apologetics must be the proof that Christianity is the religion, i. e., the only 
one which can satisfy man (comp. Lechler, iiber den BegrifF der Apologetik, 
in the Stadien und Kritiken, 1839, part 3). This view corresponds with the 
saying of Minuciu» Felix, Oct. c. 38, toward the end : Gloriamur non con- 
scquutos, quod illi (Philosophi) summa intentione qusesiverunt nee inveniro 
potuerunt. Ignatius ad Rom. iii. : Ov Treiaiiovrjg epyov dXXa [leyeOoig 
iariv A xpi-C'''>'0'Viafj,bg, orav luafJTai vnb Koaiiov (of. Hefele on the passage). 
Justin M. also shows that revealed truth, as such, does not stand in need of 
any proot^ Dial. c. Tryph. c. 7, p. 109 : Oil yap fiera dnoSei^Ecog ■nETToirjVTai 
TCOTS (ol TrpofjJTai) TOt>f Xoyovg, are dvcoripo) irdoTjg d-nodeL^ewg ovreg d^co- 
maroi [idpTvpeg Trjg dXrjOeiag. Fragm. de Resurr. ab init. : '0 fisv rr/f 
dXrjdelag Xoyog kaTiv iXevdepog Koi avTe^ovaiog, vnb firjdefiiav ^dawvov 
eXeyxov OiXwv niitreiv, firjdk ttjv napa Tolg dKOvovai 6i' dnodei^eug 
i^eraaiv vnofieveiv. To yap evyevlg avrov aal TrenoiObg avru) tw 7rejiii/)ai/Tt 
TTiareveadai 6eXet...Ildaa yap dnodei^tg laxvporipa Kdi maroTepa rov 
dnodeiKvvfiivov Tvyxdvei' el ye rb Trporepov dmaTOvp.evov npiv tj t^v 
dTtoSel^iv eXdelv, ravTrjg KOjiiaOelarig Irvxe. TcioTEug, Kal tocovtov k^avq, 
dnoiov kXeysTO. T^c 6e dXrjOelag laxvporspov ovdtv, ov6& maroTepov 
ware 6 -nepl TavTr]g aTcoSei^iv alrCiv ofioiog iari tu> to, (paiv6fj,eva aladrjasai, 
Xoyoig diXovTi dnoSeinvvaOai^ 6i6ti, (paiverat. Tuv yap 6id rov Xoyov 
Xap,j3avofievuv Kpir-qpiov eariv rj aiaOrjaig' avr^g 6e npirripiov ovk. eart 
TrXrjv avTTJg. Nor do we find any definitions about the natui'e and idea of 
revelation (contrasted with the truths which come to us by nature and 
reasoTi), nor the abstract possibility and necessity of revelation, etc., because 
such contrasts did not then exist. Christianity (in connection witli the Old 
Test.) was considered as the true revelation ; even the best ideas of earlier 
philosophers, compared with it, were only the glimmer of anticipation. 
Comp. Justin, M., Dial c. Tr. ab initio. Tert. Apolog. c. 18 (De Testittt. 
AnimsB, c. 2), speats very decidedly in favor of the positive character of the 
Christian religion {Jiunt, non nascuntur Christiani), though he also calls 
the human sou], na'uraliter Christiana (Apol. c. 17), and ascribes to it instinct 
preceding all teaching, by which it can, as a pupil of nature, attain to a 
knowledge of the Divine in nature; De Testim. An. 5. Clement of Alexan- 
dria also compares the attempt to comprehend the Divine without a higher 
revelation, to the attempt to run without feet (Cohort, p. 64); and further 
remarks, that without the light of revelation we should resemble hens that 
are fattened in a dai'k cage in order to die (ibid. p. 87). We become a 
divine race only by the religion of Christ (p. 88, 89), comp. Pa3d. i. 2, p. 
100, i. 12, p. 156, and in numerous other places. Clement indeed admits 
that wise men before Christ had approached the truth to a certain extent 
(compare the next section); but while they sought God by their own wis- 
dom, others (the Christians) find him (better) through the Logos ; comp. 
Pied. iii. 8, p. 279. Strom, i. 1, p. 319, ibid. i. (3, p. 336. The Clementine 
Homilies, however, depart from this idea cf positive revelation (17, 8, and 
18, 6), and represent the internal revelation of the heart as the true revcla- 

§ 29. Mode of Aiig,ument. 77 

tion, the external as a manifestation of tlie divine (5py?J. Cora. Bnumgarteri' 
Crusius, ii. p. 78S ; on the other side. Schliemann, p. 183, ss. 353, ss. 

" According to the Clementine Homilies, there is no specific difference 
between the doctrine of Jesns and the doctrine of Moses. Comp. Credner. 
1. c. part 2, page 254. Schliemann, p. 215, ss. Hilgenfeld, p. 283 (?). 

' A^ most of the Gnostics looked upon, the demiurge either as a being 
that stood in a hostile relation to God, or as a being of limited powers ; as 
they, moreover, considered the entire economy of the Old Test, as a defective 
and even a perverted institution, they could, consistently, look upon the 
blessings of Christianity only as a deliverance from the bonds of the demiurge 
(Comp. the §§ on God, the Fall and Redemption.) 




[Comp. Baw, Dogmengesoh. s. '?6-9; and his Christeuthum in d. drei ersten Jahrliuud. 

s. 351-451.] 

Accordingly, the Christian apologists, in opposition to the hea- 
then, defended the history, laws, dbctrines, and prophecies of the 
Old Test, against the attacks of those who were not Jews.' On this 
basis they proceeded to prove the superiority of Christianity in con- 
trast with the Jewish as well as the Pagan systems, by showing 
how all the prophecies and types of the 0. Test, had been fulfilled 
in Christ ;" not unfrequently indulging in arbitrary interpretations 
and fanciful typologies.' But as the apologists found in the Old 
Test, a point of connection with Judaism, so they found in the 
Grecian philosophy a point of connection with Paganism ; only 
with this difference, that whatever is divine in the latter, is for the 
most part derived from the Old Test.* corrupted by the craft of 
demons,'' and appearing, at all events^ very imperfect in comparison 
with Christianity, however great the analogy." Even those writers 
who, like TertuUian, discarded a philosophical proof of Christianity 
because they saw in philosophy only an ungodly perversity,' could 
not but admit a profound psychological connection between human 
nature and the Christian religion (the testimony of the soul)," and 
acknowledged, with the rest, that a leading argument for the divine 
origin of Christianity was to be derived from its moral effects." 
Thus the external argument from miracles'" was adduced only as a 
kind of auxiliary proof,, and it was even now no longer acknowledged 
in its full authority." Another auxiliary proof was derived from 
the Sibylline oracles,'" while the almost miraculous spread of Chris- 
tianity in the midst of i>6rsecutions,'° and the accomplishment of 
the prophecy relative to the destruction of Jerusalem," were, like 
the raovai argument, taken from what was occurring at the time. 

78 First Pekiod. Apologetico-Dogmatic Pkolegomena. 

' Tliis argiimcnt was founded especially upon the high antiquity of the 
eacred books, and the wonderful care of God in their preservation ; Josej,Uus 
had argued in a similar manner against Apion, i. 8. Comp. the section on 
the Scriptures. 

" Comp. Justin, M., Apol. i. c. 32-35, Dial, cum Tryphone, § V, 8, 11. 
Athenag. Lug. c. 9. Orig. Contra. Cels. i. 2 ; Comment, in Joh. T. ii. 28. 
0pp. iv. p. 87. 

' Ep. Barn. c. 9 : The circumcision of the 318 persons by Abraham (Gen. 
xvii.) is represented as a prophesy about Christ. The number three hundred 
and eighteen is composed of three hundred, and eight, and ten. The numeral 
letters often and eight are I and H. {r]) which are the initials of the name 
'Irjoovg. The numeral letter of three hundred is T, which is the symbol of 
the cross. And Clement of Rome, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
which is genei'ally sober enough, says that the scarlet line which Rahab was 
admonished by the spies to hang out of her house, was a type of the blood 
of Christ, c. 12. So, too, Justin M., Dialog, cum. Tryph. § 111. According 
to the latter the two wives of Jacob, Leah and Eachel, are types of the Jewish 
and Christian dispensations, the two goats on the day of atonement types of 
the two advents of Christ, the twelve bells upon the robe of the high priest 
types of the twelve apostles, etc. Justin carries to an extreme length the 
symbolism about the cross, which he sees, not only in the O. T. (in the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, the rod of Aaron, etc.), but also in nature, 
in the horn of the unicorn, in the human countenance, in the posture of a 
man engaged in prayer, in the vessel with its sails, in the plow, in the 
hammer. Comp. Apol. i. c. 55, Dial. cum. Tryph. § 97, and elsewhere. 
Comp. Minuc. Felix, c. 29, who, however does not make it the basis of any 
further argument. Irenmus sees in the three spies of Jericho the three persons 
of the Trinity, Advers. Hajret. iv. 20. It would be easy to multiply these 
examples ad infinitum (comp. § 33, note 3). As to the way in which the 
Septuagint translation was nsed by Christians in the interpretation of Mes- 
sianic passages, see Gieseler Dogmengesch. p. 61, sq. [Thus Clement of Rome, 
Epist. § 42, cites the passage Isaiah, Ix., 17, as referring to bishops and deacons ; 
while it reads, apxcvrdg and emaKdnovg — which may be only because cited 
incorrectly from memory. The Christians, too, often accused the Jews of 
falsifying the Hebrew ; for example, the noted passages in Justin, Dial, cum 
Tryphone, where he says that they left out in Psalm 95 (Hebr. 96, 10) — 
inb Tov ^vXov, after 6 Kvpiog iPaaiXevaev ; and Tertullian and Irenseus both 
cite the passage after Justin ; and so in similar passages, alleged to be in 
Ezra and Jeremiah.] 

* Justin, M., Apol. i. c. 59. Cohort, ad Graec. c. 14. Theophil. Ad Autol. 
iii. 16, 17, 20, 23. Tatian Contra Grsec. ab init. and c. 25. Tertullian, 
Apok c. 19 : Omnes itaque substantias, omnesque materias, origines, ordines, 
venas veterani cujusquo stili vestri, gentes ctiam plerasque et urbes insigncs, 
•"anas memoriarum, ipsas denique efiigies litterarum indices custodesque rerum, 
et puto adhuc minus diciraus, ipsos inquam deos vestros, ipsa templa et oracula 
et sacra, unius interim prophetae scrinium vincit, in quo videtur thesaurus 
collocatus totins Judaic! sacraraenti, et inde etiam nostri. Clem. Alesand, 
Paed. ii. o. 1, p. 176 ; c. 10, p. 224 ; iii. c. 11, p. 286. Stromata, i. p. 055; 

§ 29. Mode of Argument. 79 

vi. p. "752, and many other passages, He therefore calls Plato outright, 6 if 
'Eppaiuv (piXoawpng, Strom, i. 1. Comp. Baur, Gnosis, p. 256. Oriff. Con- 
tra Cels. iv. ab init. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 101, 102. 

' Jvntin M. Apol. i. c. 54. Thus the dempns are said to have heard Jacob 
■when he blessed his sons. But as the heathen could not interpret the pas- 
sage, Geo. xlix. 11 : Binding his foal unto the vine, in its true Messianic sense, 
they referred it to Bacchus, the finder of the vine, and out of the foal they 
made Pegasus (because they did not tnow whether the animal in question 
was a horse or an ass). In a similar manner a misinterpretation of the 
prophecy relative to the conception of the virgin (Is. vii. 14), gave rise to the 
fable of Perseus, etc. (comp. § 49). 

' Justin M. calls in a certain sense Christians all those who live acoordintr 
to t^e laws of the Logos (reason ?) Apology, i. c. 46. The Platonic philosophy 
is in his opinion not absolutely different [aXXorpla) from Christianity. But 
before the coming of Christ there existed in the world only the scattered 
seeds {Xoyoq onepfMaTUidg) of what was afterward manifested in Christ as 
absolute truth, comp. Apol. ii. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. c. 20, p. 376 : 
Xupl^erai de t) iXXrjViKrj dXfideia TTJg Kad' rijM&g, el nal rov avrov iiereiXTjcpEV 
6v6i.iaTog, Koi fieyiOei yvcjaeug ical d-noSd^ei Kvpiuripa, koI Oda dvvdfiei 
Kol Toig dfioioig. (He speaks, however, of philosophy as such, and not of the 
Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, Aristotelian, or any other particular system, Strom, 
i. 7, p. 338); comp. Baur, p. 520, ss. On the other contradictions found in 
Clement of Alexandria, in judging of paganism more favorably at one time 
and less so at another, comp. Baur, p. 532. Minucius Felix, c. 16, in oppo- 
sition to the scholastic wisdom of the ancient philosophers, recommends the 
philosophy of good sense which is accessible to all (ingeiiium, quod non studio 
paratur, sed cum ipsa mentis formatione generatur), and speaks with disdain 
of mere reliance on authorities ; nevertheless, he himself appeals to the doc- 
trines of philosophers, and their partial agreement with Christianity, c. 19, c. 
21, c. 34. Such language forms a remarkable contrast with the attack he 
mak^s upon Socrates (scurra Atticus) c. 38, to whom others assigned the ■ 
highest rank among the ancient philosophers. 

' Tert. De Praescr. 7, 8 : Hse sunt doctrinse hominum et dsemoniorum, 
pruricotibus auribus natoe de ingenio sapientise secularis, quam Dominus 
Btultitiam vocans, stulta mundi in confusionem etlam philosophorum ipsius 
elegit Ea est enim materia sapientise secularis, temeraria interpres divinse 
naturae et dispositionis. Ipsse denique haereses a philosophia subornantur 
. . . Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosoloymis ? quid Academise et Eccle- 

siae ? quid haereticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonia 
est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. 
'''^iderint, qui Stoicum et Platonicum et dialectum christianismum protulenmt. 
Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nee inquisitione post 
.^■vangelinum. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. TertuUian 
calls the philosophers — patriarchae hasreticorum (De AnimaS ; Adv Hermog. 
8), and Plato, omnium haereticorum condimentarius (De Anima, 23). 

' Tert. De Test. Anim. 1 : Novum testimonium advoco,immo omni litteratura 
totius, omni dootrina agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto homine majus, 
». 8, totum quod est hominis. Consiste in medio, anima .... Scd 

80 First Pemod.. Apologetico-Dogmatio Prolegomena. 

non earn te advoco, quae scbolis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, academicis 
et porticibus Atticis pasta, sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et 
impolitam et idioticara compello, qualem te babent qui te solam habent, 
illam ipsam de coinpito, de ti'ivio, de textrino totam. Imperitia tua mibi 
opus est, quoniam aliquantulae peritise nemo credit. Ea expostulo, quEo 
tecum hominis infers, quae aut ex temet ipsa, aut ex quocunque auctore tuo 
sentire didicisti. Ibid : Non es, quod sciam, Christiana: fieri enim, non nasci 
soles Christiana. Tamen nunc a te testimonium flagitant Christiani, ab 
extranea adversus tuos, ut vol tibi erubescant, quod vos ob ea oderint et 
irrideant, quae te nunc consciam detineant. Non placemus Deum prsedican- 
tcs hoc nomine unico unicum, a quo omnia et sub quo universa. Die testi- 
monium, si ita scis. Nam te quoque palam et toto libortate, quia non licet 
nobis, domi ac foris audimus ita pronuntiare : Quod Deus dedorit, 'et si 
Deus voluerit, etc. Comp. Apol. c. 17 ; De Virgin, veland. c. 5 (tacita con- 
scientia naturae). Neander, Antignosticus, p. 86-89. Schwegler, Montanis- 
mus, p. 28, ss. 

' Justin M. Apology, i. c. 14 : 01 irdXai fihv nopveiaig ;\;atpoi'T£f, vvv 
6e a(t)(jipoavv7]v jj.6vrjv dana^ofievor ol ds koI fiayiKoXg Te;\;vatf ^pufMEVoi, 
ayaOS> Kol dyevvrjTU) Cegj eavrovg dvareOeiKoreg' XPW^'^'^^ ^^ "'*' KTTjiid- 
Tuv ol TTopovg iravrbg ^.taXXov arepyovTeg, vvv ital a exofiev eig noivov 
4)ipovTeg, Km. navrl deofievCf> Koivuvovvreg' ol fiiadXXrjXoi (5t aal dXXrjXo- 
(povoi KoX TTphg rovg ovx 6fiO(f>vXovg dta to. edrj karlag KOivag p-Tj TtoLovpevoi, 
vvv p,eTa TfjV km^dveiav tov Xptarov dpodiairoi. yiv6p,£voi, nal vnep t&v 
sxOpcjv evxopevoi ical rovg ddtKuig p,iaovvTag ■neWeiv TreipujiEvot, oirug ol 
Kara rag tov 'S.pia-ov naXag vnoQrjpoavvag Pii^aav-eg eviXindeg (Lai, avv 
TjHiv Tu>v avTuiv rtapa tov ndvTUv deano^ovTog Qeov tvxsIv., Dial, cum 
Tryph. § 8, 30. Orat. ad Graeoos, 5. Epist. ad Diognetum, 5. Athena.^. 
Leg. c. 11. Tej-i. Apol., ab init. Minucius Felix, c. 31, 37, 38. Orig. 
contra Cels. i. c. 26. 0pp. i. p. 345. They were in practice compelled to 
have recourse to this argument by the accusations of the heathen, which 
thuy endeavored to refute. [Comp. Tholuch, Wunder in d. Kirche, in his 
Vermischte Suhriften, i. 28 sq. ; the works oi Middleton and Warburicm ; 
NewmarHs Essay, prefixed to his translation of Fleury i., in opposition to 
Isaac Taylors Ancient Christianity. Bp. Kaye on the Cessation of Mira- 
cles, in the preface to his Life of Justin Martyr. Blunt on the Early Fathers. 
Comp. Christ. Eembr. 1858. Christian Review (New York) on Ecclesl. 
Miracles, April, 1860. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 3, preserves the argumenx 
ofQuadratus: "The deeds of our Saviour were always at hand, for they 
were true ; those who were healed, those who were raised from the dead, 
were not merely seen cured and raised, but they were always at hand ; an J. 
that, not merely while our Saviour was on earth, but after he had gone away 
they continued a considerable time, so that some of them reached even to 
our times." See Bolton's Apologists, u. s.] 

" Not only were those miracles adduced which are mentioned in Scrip- 
ture, but also some which still took place. {Just. M. Dialog, c. Tryph. c. 
39, 82, 88. Iren. ii. 31, 32. Orig. Contra Cels. iii. 24, 0pp. i. p. 461.) At 
the same time the Christians did not directly deny the existence of mirajles 
in the heathen world, but ascribed them to the influence of demons (ibid. 

§ 29. Mode of Argument. 81 

■and Mlnucius Fel. Oct. c. 20); the heathen, on the other hand, attributed 
the Christian miracles to magic. Comp. Tatian Contra Grsecos, c. 18. 
Orig. Contra Cels. i. 38, 67, 68, iii. 24-33. We find, however, that Minu- 
cius Felix denies the reality of miracles and myths in the pagan world, on 
the ground of the physical impossibility of such supernatural events, a ground 
which might, with equal propriety, have been taken by the opponents of 
Christianity. Octav. c. 20 : Quaj si essent facta, fierent ; quia fieri non pos- 
sunt, ideo nee facta sunt ; and c. 23 : Cur enim si nati sunt, non hodicque 
nascuntur ? 

" Though Origen, in speaking of the evidence derived from miracles, as 
compared with that from prophecy, calls the former the evidence of power, 
and the latter the evidence of the spirit (Contra Cels. i. 2), yet he subordin- 
ates the former to the latter. He was well aware that a miracle has its 
emphatic effect only upon the person we wish to convince, only when it is 
performed in his presence, but that it loses its direct force as evidence with 
those whose minds are prejudiced against the veracity of the narrative, and 
who reject miracles as myths ; comp. Comment, in Job. 0pp. iv. p. 87. So, 
too, the Clementine Homilies do not admit miracles as evidences, while they 
lay greater stress upon prophecies. [Credner, 1, c. part 3, p. 278, comp. 
with p. 245). Origen spoke also of spiritual and moral miracles, of which 
the visible miracles (admitting their importance as facts) may be considered 
as symbols; Contra Cels. ii. p. 423: "I may say that, according to the 
promise of Jesus, his disciples have performed greater miracles than himself; 
for still the blind in spirit have their eyes opened, and those deaf to the 
voice of virtue, listen eagerly to the doctrine concerning God and eternal 
life ; many who were lame in the inner man, skip like the hart," etc. Comp. 
Contra Cels. iii. 24; where he speaks of the healing of the sick and of 
prophesying as an indifferent thing (jisaov), which considered in itself does 
not possess any moral value. 

" TheopMlus Ad Antolycum, ii. 32, 36, 38. Clem. Cohort, p. 86 ; Stro- 
mata, vi. 5, 762. Celsus charged the Christians with having corrupted the 
Sibylline books (Origen Contra Cels. vii. 32, 34). JEditions of the Sibyll. 
oracles were published by Servatius Gdlloeus, Amstel. 1699, 4, and by Angela 
Mai, Mediolani, 1817, 8. On their origin and tendency, comp. Thorlacius, 
Libri Sibyllistarum veteris ecclesiaj, etc. Havnise, 1815, 8, and JBleek, in the 
Berliner thcolog. Zeitschrift, i. 120, ss. 172, ss. [Mai published Books, ix.- 
xiy. in his Script. Veterum nova CoUectio, vol. iii. Lucke Einleitung in die 
Offenbarung Johan. 2d ed. M. Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. i. Blondel 
on Sibyl. Oracles, transl. hj Davies, Lond 166,1. Oracula Sibyllina, ed. P. L. 
Courier, Paris, 1854 ; ed. with a German version hy Friedlob, Lpz. 1852 ; ed. 
by Alexander, 2 Tom. Paris, 1841-53. Volckmann, De Orac. Sibyl. 1853] 
The case of the 'TcTaanijg, to which Justin M. Apol. i. 20, and Clem. 1. c. 
appeal, is similar to that of the Sibylline books. Comp. Walch, Gh. F. W., 
do Hystaspide in vol. i. of the Comment. Societ. Reg. Getting. But the 
oracles of the heathen though a partial use was made of them, as well as of 

tlieir miracles, were attributed to demoniacal agency"; Minuc. Fel. c. 26, 27, 
Clement. Homil iii. 9-13. 

"^ Origen Contra Cels. i. p. 321, ii. 361, De Princip. iv. Justin, M., himself 

b2 First Pekiod. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

(and many others) had been converted by witnessing the firmness which 
many of the martyrs exhibited. Comp. his Apology, ii. p. 9(5, and Dialog. 
cum Tryph. § 121 : Kal ovSeva ovSettots ISelv eanv vnoi-ieivavra 6ia rrjv 
npbg rbv i]Xiov manv dnoOaveiv, dia <Je t6 ovofia tov 'Itjoov kK navrbg 
yevovg dvOpumuv koI vnofieivavTag Kol vnoiievovTag TT&vra Tzdaxeiv vnep 
TOV fiTj dpvfiaaoOai avrbv I6etv kan k. t. X. 
" Origen contra Celsnm, ii. 13, 0pp. i. p. 400. 



Ordli, J. G., Selecta patrum eoclesije capita ad elaTjjjjTiK^v sacram pertimentia, Turici, 
1820. Comp. his essay: Tradition und Seription, in SchuUhess iiber Rationalism, und 
Supranaturalism. Christmarm, W. L., iiber Tradition und Schrift, Logos und Kabbala, 
Tubingen, 1825. Sdumkel, D,, iiber das urspriingliche Terhilltniss der Kirohe zum 
Kanon, Basel, 1838. Sack, Nilzsch und LUcke, Ueber d. Ansehen d. heiligen Schrift 
und ilir Terhaltniss zur Glaubensregel . . . drei Sendschreiben an Prof. Delbrilck. 
Bonn. 182'7. J. L. Jacobi, Die Ktrchliche Lehre von der Tradition, etc. 1 Abth. Berlin, 
1841. [J. S. Priedlieb, Schrift, Tradition und kirchliohe Auslegung (for the first five 
centuries), Bresl. 1854. Kuhn, Die Tradition (early testimonies) in Theoh Quartal- 
schrift, 1848, Daniel, Theolog. Controversen. Willimn Goode, Divine Rule, repr. 
Pha. 2 vols. 1843. Palmer on the Church, vol. 2, pp. 11-93. K B. Pusey, Rule of 
Faith. Perrone, Protest, and Rule of Faith, 3 vols. Rome, 1853; in French, 1854. 
Wiseman (Cardinal), in his Essays, ii., p. 108, sq. H. J. Solizman, Canon und Tra- 
dition, 1859.] 

The original' living source of the knowledge of all Christian truth 
was the Spirit of Christ himself, who, according to his promise, 
guided the Apostles, and the first heralds of Christianity, into all 
truth. The Catholic Church, therefore, considered herself from the 
first as possessing this spirit ; and consequently, that the guardianship 
of the true tradition, and the development of the doctrines which it 
teaches, were committed to her.' A work which only the first church 
could perform, was to preserve the oral tradition, and to collect the 
written apostolical documents into a canon of Scripture. It was not 
until this canon was nearly completed that the tradition of the 
church, both oi-al and written, came to be considered, along with the 
sacred canon, as a distinct branch of the one original source.' 

' The doctrine concerning the Scripture and tradition can, then, be fully 
understood only when taken in connection with the dogma concerning the 
church (§71). 

' On this account it is not correct to represent Scripture and tradition as 
two sources flowing alongside of each other. On the contrary, both flow 
from one common source, and separate only after some time. The same 
term Kav6v (regula scil. fidei) was first applied to both. For its usage comp. 
Suicer (Thesaur s Ecclesiast. sub voce) and Planck, H., Nonnulla de Signi- 
ficatu DiLonis in Ecolesia Antiqua cjusque Serie rerite constituenda, Gott, 

§ 31. Canon of the Sacred Sckiptures. 83 

1820. JVitzsch, System der ohristlichen Lehre, § 40, 41. [Lardner, Works, 
V. p. 257.'] 

According to the Montatiists, there are various historical stages or periods 
of revelation, viz., 1. The law and the prophets; the period of primitive 
revelation, which extends to the manifestation of Christ, and corresponds to 
the duritia cordis, 2. The period of the Christian revelation, ending with 
the person of Christ, and in the circle of the Apostles, and corresponding to 
the infirniitas camis. 3. The period of the revelation of the Paradete, 
extending to the end of time, and corresponding to the sanctitas spiritualis. 
Conap. Tertull. De Monogam. 14; Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 37. (This, 
however, refers primarily to the moral, and not to the doctrinal.) 

§ 31. 


[Cosin, Scholastic History of the Canon, Ua, Lond. 165T, 1672. Bu Pin, History of the 
Canon and "Writers of the Boolis of the Old and New Test., 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1809- 
1700. Schmid, Historia Antiq. et Tindicatio Canonis T. et N. T. Lips. 1775. Jovies, 
New and Full Method of settling the Canonic. Authority of the N. Test. 3 vol.'!. 
Akxander, Canon of the 0. and N. Test, ascertained. Philad. 1828. *Lardmer, N., 
Credibility of the Gospel History (Works, i. to iv. and v. to p. 251). Alexander, W. 
L., on the Canon, in Kitto, Cycl. of Bibl. Liter, where the literature is given.] J. 
KircKhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons bis auf 
Hieronymus, Zur. 1844, IL 

fF. C. Baur, on the primitive sense of Canon (not, having the force of law, but, writings 
definitely set apart) in Zeitschrifl f. wiss. Theol. 1858. W. J. Thiersch, Die Kirche im 
apost. Zeitalter, und die Eatstehung der N. Test. Schriften, 1852. Oehler, art. Kanoa 
in Herzog's Realencyol. £. F. WasteoJi, Hist, of Canon of N. T. Lond. 1845. Testi- 
monia Ante-Nicaena pro Auctoritate S. Script, in Routh's Reliquiae Sacras, Tom. v. 
1848, pp. 336-354. Most Ancient Canon of New Test. E. Oreswell, in Theol. Critic, 
Sept. 1852. Oredner, Die iiltesten Verzeichuisse der hell. Schriften, in Theol. Jahib. 
1857. Jan. Van Gilse, Disp. de antiquis. Lib. Sacr. Nov. Test. Catalog. Amstelod. 
1852. P. Botticher, Versuch einer Herstellung des Canon Muratorianus, in Zeitsclirift 
f. d. luth. Theol. 1854. O- Gredner, Gesch. d. N. Test. Canon, ed.' Volckmar, Berliu. 

Before the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, that 
of the Old Testament/ long since closed, was held in high tsteem in 
the Catholic church. The Gnostics, however, and among them the 
Marcionites in particular, rejected the Old Test.^ Gradually the 
Christian Church felt the need of having ^he writings of the ajKJS- 
tles and evangelists in a collective form. These writings owed their 
origin to different causes. The apostolical epistles were primarily 
intended to meet the exigencies of the times ; the narratives of the 
so-called evangelists' had likewise been composed with a view to 
supply present wants, but also with reference to posterity. These 
testimonies of primitive and apostolical Christianity, in a collected 
form, would seiTC as an authoritative standard, and form a barriet 

84 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Peolegomena. 

against tlie introduction of all that was either of a heterogeneous 
nature, or of a more recent date, which was trying to press into 
the church (apocryphal and heretical). The Canon of the New 
Testament, however, was only gradually formed, and closed. In the 
course of the second century the four gospels were received hy the 
church in the form in which we now have them,* with a definite 
exclusion of the gospels favored by the heretics.* In addition, at 
the close of our present period, besides the Acts of the Apostles 
by Luke, there were also recognized 13 Epistles of Paul, the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, which, however, only a part of the church con- 
sidered to be a work of Paul," together with the first Epistle of 
John, and the first Epistle of Peter. With regard to the second 
and third Epistles of John, the Epistles of James, Jude, and the 
second of Peter, and, lastly, the Book of Eevelation, the opinions as 
to their authority were yet for some time divided.' On the other 
hand, some other writings, which are not now considered as forming 
a part of the Canon, viz., the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, 
and the Shepherd of Hermas, were held by some (viz. Clement and 
Origen) in equal esteem with the Scriptures, and quoted as such.' 
The whole collection, too (so far as it was had), was already called 
by Tertullian, Novum Testamentum (Instrumentum) ; and by Origen 
'/) Kaivfi dLadrjKj].' 

' A difference of opinion obtained only in reference to the use of Greek 
■writings of later origin (Libri Ecclesiastici, Apocrypha). The Jews them- 
selves had already made a distinction between the Canon [?] of the Egyptian 
Jews and the Canon of the Jews of Palestine, comp. Munscher, Handbuch, 
vol. i. p. 240, ss., Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 86 -sq., and the introductions to 
the 0. Test. Melito of Sardis (in Euseb. iv. 26), and Origen (ibid. vi. 25), 
give enumerations of the books of the O. Test., which nearly coincide. 
[Lardner, ii. p. l^S, 159; 493-513. Stuart, Critical Hist, and Defense of 
the O. Test. Canon, p. 431, ss.] The difference between what was original, 
and what had been added in later times, was less striking to those Christians 
who, being unacquainted with the Hebrew, used only the* Greek version. 
Yet Justin M. does not quote the apocrypha qf the O. Test, though he fol- 
lows the Septuagint version ; corap. Semisch, II. p. 3, ss. On the other 
hand, other church writers cite even the fourth Book of Ezra, and Origen 
defends the tale about Susanna, as well as the books of Tobias and Judith 
(Ep. ad Julium Africanum); although he also expressly distinguishes the 
Book of Wisdom from, the canon, and assigns to it a lower authority (Pro- 
log, in Cant.). [Comp. Fritzsche, Kurzgef. Coram, zu den Apocryph. des 
alt. Test. 185"8-6. J. H. Thornwell, Arguments of Rome in behalf of the 
Apocrypha, 1845. Stowe, on Apoc. in Bib. Sacra, 1854. Book of Judith, 
in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1856. Volckmar, Composition des Buchs Judith, 
Theol. Jahrb. 185Y ; and on Book of Ezra, Zurich, 1858, comp. Hilgenfeld, in 
Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. B. A. Zipiius, Das Buch Judith, Zeitschrift 

§ 31. Canon of the Sacked Soeiptures. 85 

f. wiss. Theol. 1859. j4. von Gutschmidt, Apokalypse des Ezra, ibid. 1860. 
Bleek^ Die Stellung d. Apooryphcn, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853.] 

'■^ Comp. Neander's Gnostiche Systeme, p. 276, ss. Baur, Christliche 
Gnosis, p. 240, ss. The Clementine Homilies also regarded many statements 
in the O. Test, as contrary to truth, and drew attention to the contradictions 
which are found there, Horn. iii. 10, 642, and other passages. Comp. Cred- 
ncr, 1. c. and Baur, p. 317, ss.pp. 366, 367. [Lardner, viii. 485-489. Norton. 
1. c. iii. p. 238.] 

^ It is well known that'the words evayyeXiov, evayyeXtarrig, had a very 
different meaning in primitive Christianity ; comp. the lexicons to the N. 
Test, and Suicer, Thes. pp. 1220 and 1234. — Justin, M., however, remarks 
(Apol. i. c. 66), that the writings which he called dTrofiVTjiJ.ovevfiaTa of the 
Apostles, were also called evayyeXia. But it has been questioned whether 
we are to understand by evayyeXca the four canonical gospels ; see Schweg- 
ler, Nachapoatol. Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. (Against him, Semisch, Denkw. des 
Justin, Hamb. 1848.) Concerning these dTT0fiV7jfi.,imd the earliest collections 
of the Gospel-narratives (6 nvocog), the Diatessaron of Tatian, etc. comp. the 
Introductions to the N. Test. [^Oieaeler, Uebor die Entstehung und frtihcsten 
Schicksale der Evangel. 1818. Lardner, JV., On the Credibility of the Gospel 
history. (Works, i. iv. v. to p. 251.) Norton, A., On the Genuineness of 
the Gospels, vol. i. Tholuck, A., in Kitto, l.'C. art. Gospel.] 

* Irenceus, adv. Haer. iii. 11, 7, attempts to explain the number four on 
cosmico-metaphysical grounds : ''EneiSfj reaaapa KXiiiara rov Koafiov, iv o) 
ia/j-ev, elal, ical rtaaapa KaOoXiKo, irveviiara, narsaTrapTai 61 rj inK^rjaia 
inl TTaarjg rffg yfjg. S,Tv^og 6k ical arfjpiyp,a eKKXrjaiag rb evayyeXiov Kal 
TTVivfia ^uijg k. t. X. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2, 5. Clement of Alex, in Euseb. 
vi. 13. Origen in tom i. in Johan, 0pp. iv. p. 5. For further testimonies of 
antiquity comp. the Introductions {de Wette, p. 103) [and the works of 
Lardner in particular]. 

' Orig. Honj. i. in Luc. 0pp. T. iii. p. 933, multi conati sunt scribere evan- 
gelia, sed non omnes rocepli, etc. [The principal spurious gospels are the 
following: The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus; the Gospel of Thomas the 
Israelite ; the Prot-e\angelion of James ; the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary ! 
the Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate ; the Gospel of Marcion ; the 
Gospel of the Hebrews (most probably the same with that of the Nazarenes), 
and the Gospel of the Egyptians.] On these uncanonical Gospels, and on the 
Apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy and Passion of Christ, compare the intro- 
ductions to the N. Test, and the treatises of Schneckenburger, Hahn, etc., 
Fabricius, Codex. Apocryph. N. Test. iii. Hamb. 1719, and Thilo, D. I. C, 
Cod. Apocr. N. Test. Lipsiae, 1832. Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch. 
[Lardner, Works, ii. 91-93, 236, 250, 251 ; iv. 97, 106, 131,463 ; viii. 524- 
535. Norton,], c. iii. p. 214-286. Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. c. art. Gospels, 
spurious, where the literature is given.] The Acts of the Apostles became 
generally known at a later period. Justin Martyr does not refer to it, nor 
does he cite iny Pauline epistle, though Pauline reminiscences are found 
in his works ; see Semisch, p. 7, sq., and also his Apostolische Donkwur • 
digkeiten. On the Gospels of Marcion see the treatises of Franck (Studies 
und Kritiken, 1855), and Volckmar, Das Evang. Marcion's, Leipz. 11)52. 

86 First Period. Apologbtico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

[B. Harting, Queest. de Marcione, Trajecti ad Ehenun, 1849. Hilgenfeld. 
XJntOrsuohungei), Ualle, 1850, and in Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1855. Ritsckl, 
Das Evang. Marcion und die Kanon. Evang. Ttibing. 1817. Marcion and 
liis Relaiion to St. Luke, in Church Review, Oct. 1856. Rud. Hofmann, 
Das Leben J:3u nach den Apokryphen, Leipz. 1851 ; comp. 0. B. Frothing- 
liam in Christ. Exam'. 1852. Evangelia Apocrypha, ed C. Tischendorf,L\f7. 
1S53; couip. Ellicott in Cambridge Essays, 1856. Giles^Vae UncanonicEl 
Gospels, etc., collected, 2, 8vo. Lond. 1853. C. Tischendorf, Acta Apost. 
Apoc. 1851 ; comp. Kitto's Journal of Sao. Lit. 1852.] 

' Comp. Bleek's Einleitung zum Briofe an die Hebraer. Berlin, 1828. 
De Wette, Einleitung ins N. Test. ii. p. 24*7. [Stuarfs Comment, on the 
Epistle to the Hob. 2d. ed. Andov. 1833. Alexander, W. £., in Kitto, 1. c. 
sub voce, where Ae literature is given.] 

■" The Canon of Origen in Euseb. vi. 25. [Zardner, ii. 493-513.] The 
controversy on, the Book of Revelation was connected with the controversy 
on millcnnarianism. Comp. Lucke, Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung 
in die OfFenbarung Johannis, und die gesammte apokryphische Litteratur. 
Bonn, 1832, p. 261, ss. and 2d ed. [* Davidson, S., in Kitto, I. c. sub voce 
Revelation. • Stuart, Comment, on the Apocalypse, i. p. 290, ss. A. Hil- 
genfeld, Die jiidische Apokalyptik in ihrer gesoh. Entwicklung. Jena. 1857.] 

' Clem. Strom, i. 7, p. 389, ii. 6, p. 445, ii. 7, p. 447 (ii. 15, ii. 18), iv. 17, 
p. 609, V. 12, p. 693, vi; 8, pp. 772, 773. Orig. Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. 
0pp. iv. p. 683. (Comment, in Matth. 0pp. iii. p. 644.) Horn. 88, in Num. 
T. ii. p. 249. Contra Celsum i. 1, §63, 0pp. i. 378. (Comment, in Job. T. 
iv. p. 153), De Princ. ii. 3, T. i. 82. Euseb. iii. 16. Munschcr, Handbuch, 
i. p. 289. MohLer, Patrologie, i. p. 87. [Lardner, ii. 18, 247, 528; ii. p. 
186, 137 ; 249, S03, 304, 530-532.] The Apocryphal book of Enoch was 
put by Tertullian on a line with Scripture ; De Cnltu. Fem. i., 3. [On Enoch, 
comp. the treatises of Dillman and Ewald, 1854; KostUnm Theo. Jahrb., 

• Teitullian Adv. Marc, iv., 1. Origen De Princip. iv. 1. Gieseler in Dog- 
mengesch. p. 93. 

§32. I 


S(»:ntag, G. F. K, Doctrina Inapirationia ejusque Ratio, Hiatoria et usus popularia, Heid- 
elberg, 1810, 8. Rudelbach, A. G., die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, 
mit Berucksiohtigung der neues'en Untersuohungen darflber von Schleiermacher, 
Tiuestm, und Steudel. (Zeitachrift fUr die geaammte lutheriaohe Tlieologie und Kirche, 
edited by Rudelbaoh and Guerilce, 1840, i. 1.) Ckedner, De Librorum N. T. Inspirations 
quid statuerint Chriatiani ante aeculuna tertium medium, Jen. 1828, and liis Beitrage 
zur Einleitung in die Bibl. Scliriften, Halle, 1832. W. Grimm, Inspiration, in Gruber 
and Ersch, Encyclop. sect. ii. vol. xix. [B. F. Wesicoit, Catena on Inspiration, 
in his Elements of Goapel Harmony, 1851, and Introd. to Gospels, I860.] G. 
Wordsworth, Insp. of Holy Script, 2d ed. 1851 (also on the Canon). WiWam Lee, 
The Insp. of Holy Scripture, Lond. 1854; New York, 1857. Patristic Teat, to In- 
Gt-u-ation, in Princeton Review, 1851. A. Tkohtclc, Die Inspirationslehre, in ZeitachritV 
£ wiss. Theol. (transl. in Journal ol'Sac Lit. 1854), and in Herzog's Realencyclopadie. 
R. Eoihe, Studien und Kriiiken, 1859, 1860; and, Zur Dogmatik, 1863. 

§ 32. Inspiration and Efficacy of the Sceiptuees. 87 

That the prophets and apostles taught under the influence of the 
Holy Spirit, was the universal belief of the ancient church, founded 
in the testimony of Scripture itself.' But this living idea of inspira- 
tion was by no means confined to the written letter. The Jews, 
indeed, had come to believe in the verbal inspiration of their 
sacred writings, before the canon of the New Testament was com- 
pleted, at a lime when, with them, the living source of prophecy 
had ceased to flow. This theory of verbal inspiration may have 
been, in its external form, mixed up to some extent with the hea- 
then notions concerning the fiav-iKr] (art of soothsaying),^ but it did 
not spring from them. It showed itself in an adventurous form in 
the fable about the origin of the Septuagint version, which was cur- 
rent even among many Christian writers.' The fathers, however, in 
their opinions respecting inspiration, wavered between a more and 
less strict view.* Verbal inspiration is throughout referred by tliem 
more distinctly to the scriptural testimonies found in the Old, rather 
than in the New Testament ;' and yet we already find very positive 
testimonies as to the inspiration of the latter." They frequently 
appeal to the connection existing between the Old and the New 
Testaments,' consequently implying that the two parts of Scripture 
belong together. Origen goes to the opposite extreme, and main- 
tains that there had been no sure criterion of the inspiration of the 
Old Testament before the coming of Christ ; that this inspiration 
only follows from the Christian point of view;« All, however, in- 
sisted on the practical importance of the Scripture, its richness of 
Divine wisdom clothed in unadorned simplicity, and its fitness to 
promote the edification of believers.' 

' 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. i. 19-21. 

' Philo was the first writer who transferred the ideas of tlie ancients con- 
cerning the [MavTiKr) (comp. Phocylides, v. 121, Plutarch, De Pytliise Oracu- 
lis, and De Placitis Philosophorum, v. 1), to the prophpts of the O. Test. (De 
Spec. Legg. iii. ed. Mangey, ii. 343, Quis div. rerum Her; Mangey, i. 510, 
511; De Praem. et Pa3n. ii. 41 7, comp. Gfrorer, 1. c. p. 54, ss. .Ddhne, 1. c. 
p. 5,8). Josephus, ou the other hand, adopts the more limited view of 
verbal inspiration. Contra Apion, i. V, 8. [For a full view of the opinions 
of Philo and Josephus, see Lee, u. s. Append. F-.] The influence of heathen- 
ism is wholly denied by Schwegler (Montan. p. 101 sq.); against this, Semitsch, 
Justin Mart. ii. p. 19 ; Baumgarten-Crusius, Comp. ii. p. 62 and 53, with the 
remarks of llase. At any rate, " the Jewish and heathen notions of proph- 
ecv only gave the forms, into which flowed the church idea of the Holy 
Spirit in the Soiiptures." The idea of the fxavTHcrj was carried out in all its 
consequences by one section of the Christian church, viz., the Montanists, 
who attached chief importance to the unconscious state of the person filled 
with the Spirit, comp. Schwegler, Montanisraus, p. 99. Allusions to it are 
also found in the writings of some fathers, especially Athenagoras, Leg. c. 9. 

88 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

Kar' hia-aoLV ro>v iv avrolc; XoyiafiCJv luvr'jaavTog avrovg rov deiov 
nvEvjMTog. Comp. Tert. Advers. Marc. iv. c. 22. Origen speaks very 
decidedly against it; Contra Gels. vii. 4. 0pp. i. p. 596. 

° The fable given by Aristcas was repeated witli more or less numerous 
additions and erabellisbmcnts by other writers, comp. Joneiyhus, Antiq. xii. c. 
2. Philo, De Vita Mos. 060. Stahl, in Eichhorn's Repcrtorium fUr biblische 
und morgenlandisohe Litteratur, i. p. 260, ss. jEichhorn, Einleitnng ins Alte 
Test. § 1.59-338. Bosenmiiller, Ilandbiich fur Litteratur der biblischen 
Kritik und Exegese, ii. p. 3,34, ss. Jahn, Einleitnng ins Alte Test. § 33-67. 
Berthold, § 154-190. De Watte, i. p. 68. Mimscher, Handbuch, i. p. 307, 
ss. Gfrorer, p. 49. Ddhne, i. 57, ii. 1, ss. [^Davidson, S., Lectures on 
Biblical Criticism, Edinb. 1839, p. 35-44. The same in Kltto, Cyclop, of 
Bibl. Literat. art. Septuagint.] According to Philo, even the grammatical 
errors of the LXX. are inspired, and offer welcome material to the allegor- 
ical interpreter, Ddhne, i. p. 58. Comp. Justin M. Coh. ad Grfec. c. 13. 
L'cniBus, iii. 21. Clem, of Alex. Strom, i. 21, p. 410. Clement perceives in 
the Greek version of the original the hand of Providence, because it pre- 
vented the Gentiles from pleading ignorance in excuse of their sins, Strom. 
i. 7, p. 338. 

* Philo had already taught degrees in inspiration, comp. De Vita, Mos. iii. 
(Tom. ii., p. 161, ed. Mangey). The apostolical Fathers speak of inspiration 
in very general terms ; in quoting passages from the O. Test., they use indeed 
the phrase : Xsyei to nvevfia Tb dyiov, or similar expressions, but they do 
not give any more definite explanation regarding the manner of this inspira- 
tion. Comp. Clement of R. in several places; Ignat. ad Magn. c. 8, ad Phil- 
adelph. c. 5, etc. Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis, § 16. Justin M. is the 
fiist author in whose writings we meet with a more definite, doctrinal expla- 
nation of the process, in the locus classicus, Cohort, ad Graec. § 8 : Oore yap 
(pvoEL ovre dvOpunivy ivvoia ovtu jxeydXa koI Oeia yivijaiceiv dvOpuTToig 
dvvaTbv, dXXa txj avuiOev km rovg dyiovg avdpaq TTjviKavTa icarElOova'q 
, fiupea, olg ov X&yuv kderjoe TEXVfjg, ovSk rov epLOTLiccJg ri ical (j)iXoveiicug 
elnelv, dXXa Kadapovg kavrovg rfj rov Oelov nvevpuTog napaaxslv kvepyeia, 
Iv' avrb rb Oelov tf ovpavov Karibv rrXiJKrpov, uarTrep opydvu iciOdpag TLvbg 
fj Xvpag, Toig diKaioig dv6pdai xP'^l-i'^vov, t^v tcov Oeiuv ripXv ovpavluv 
dnoKaXvifiy yvCoaiv 6ia tovto Toivvv cianip k^ kvbg arop-arog koI piag yAwr- 
rrjg naX irepl deov, koI Trepl Koafiov KTcaeuig, kol nepl -nXdaeug dvOpdnov, 
Kal nepl dvOpunivTjg ipv^rlg dOavaalag ical Trig I'-^to, rbv jiiov tovtov peX- 
Xovorjg 'iaeadai Kpiaeoyg, Kal mpi TrdvTUtv Hyv dvayKalov rjplv kariv eldtvai, 
aKoXovOug Kal avptpuivug dXXrjXoig kSiSa^av r)fiag, Kal ravra diacpopoig TO-joig 
TE Kal xpovoig TTjv Oelav 7jp,lv diSaoKaXiav napEoxi^KOTEg. Whether Justin 
here maintains a pure passivity on the part of the writer,.or whether the pecu- 
liar strueture of the instrument, determining the tone, is to be taken into con- 
sideration, see Semisch, p. 18, who identifies the view of Justin and the Mon- 
tanistic ; Schwegler ; Montanism, p. 101; and Neander, Dogmengeseh. p. 
99. [" Justin transfers the Platonic relation of the T^ovg to the voEpov in 
man, to the relation of the Xoyog to the ansppa XoyiKov, the human reason 
allied to the divine."]. From the conclusion at which Justin arrives, it is also 
apparent that he limits inspiriition to what is religious, to what is uecossarT 

§ 32. Inspiration and Efficacy of the Scriptures. 89 

to be known in order to be saved. — The theory proposed in the third book 
of Theophilus ad Autolycum, c. 23, bas a more external character ; he as- 
cribes the correctness of the Mosaic Chronology, and subjects of a similar 
nature, to Divine inspiration ; [lib. iii. c. 23 : inl ttjv dpxrjv Tfjg tov Koafiov 
KricEug, yv dviypaipe Muarjg 6 depdncov tov Oeov 6ia TxvevjxaTog 'Kyiov^ 
Comp. also Athenag. , Leg. c. 7, and c. 9 (where the same figure occurs ; 
dael avXrjTTjg avXbv kinxvevaai). — The views of Ireticeus on inspiration were 
equally strict and positive, Advers. Hscrot. ii. 28: Scripturse quidem perfects 
sunbquippe a verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictfe, and other passages contained 
in the third book. Tertullian De prescript. Hteret. 8, 9, Advers. Marc. iii. 
6. Apol. c. 18 (comp. however, § 34). — Clement of Alexandr. calls the 
sacred Scriptures in different places ypa<pag OeoTTVevarag, or quotes to yap 
OTOfia livpiov, TO dyiov nvuvfia iXdXriae TavTa, etc. Coh. ad Gr. p. 66, 86 ; 
ibidem, p. 67, he quotes Jeremiah, and then corrects himself in these words: 
[laXXov de kv 'lepefxia to dyiov nvEvp,a, etc., and likewise Paed. i. V, p. 134 : 
' O vofiog did Muaiug idodrj, ovx), VTrb Muasug, dXXd vnb p^ev tov X6yov, 
6id M.u>CEOig 3e tov OepdnovTog avTov. [Clement, Pasd. lib. i. § 6 : Atd 
tovto apa fiva-rnciog to kv tu 'AttootoXu "K.yiov ■nvtvp.a, Trj tov Kvpiov 
aToxp^fiEvov <p<i)vjj, TdXa vp,ag knoTiaa (1 Cor. iii., 2), /leyet.] On the 
infallibility of the inspired writings, see Strom, ii. p. 432, vii. 16, p. 897. 
Cyprian calls all the books of the Bible divinse plenitudinis fontes, Advers. 
Jud. pr£ef. p., 18, and uses in his quotations the same phraseology which 
Clement employs, De Unit. Eccles. p. Ill, De Opere et Eleem. p. 201. [De 
Op. et Eleein. ; "Loquitur in Script. Divinis Spiritus Sanctus;" "Item beatns 
Apostolus Paulus dominicje inspirationis gratia plenus." De Unit. Ecci. : 
" Per Apostolum praemonet Spiritus Sanctus et dicit : (1 Cor. xi., 19), Oportet 
et hsereses esse."] 

" Thus, Justin Mart, speaks only of the inspiration of the Old Test, with 
emphatic interest, although he undoubtedly carried over the idea of inspira- 
tion to the New Test., see Semisch, ii., p. 12. That he held the evangelists 
to be inspired, see ibid. p. 22 (against Credner). Comp. Jacobi, ubi supra. 
p. S7, sq. 

' The doctrine about inspiration, as set forth in the N. Test, writings, stood 
in close connection with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and his work. But 
the fathers did not think so much of the apostles as writers, as of the power 
■which was communicated to them to teach, and to perform miracles. It was 
only by degrees, and after the writings of the N. Test, had also been collected 
into one Codex (see § 31, 9), that they adopted concerning the N. Test, 
those views which had long been entertained about the verbal inspiration of 
the O. Test. » Tertullian first makes mention of this Codex as Novum In- 
strumentum, or (quod magis usui est dicere) Novum Testamenium, adv. 
Marc. iv. 1 ; and he lays so much stress upon the reception of the entire Co- 
dex as a criterion of orthodoxy, that he denies the Holy Spirit to all who do 
not receive Luke's Acts of the Apostles as canonical (De Prseser. Hair. 22). 
The general terms in which Justin Maityr speaks of the divine inspiration 
and miraculous power of the Apostles, as in Apol. i. c. 39, and of the spiritual 
gifts of Christians, Dialog, cum Tryph, § 88 ; and the more general in which 
he describes the inspiration of the old poets and philosophers (cited in Sonn 

90 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

tag, u. s. 6 and 9) belong to this subject only in a wide sense. Tertullian. 
bowcver (from his Montanistic stand point ?) draws a distinction between iho 
two kinds of inspiration, viz., tbe apostolical, and that which is common to 
all believers (De Exhort. Castit. c. 4), and represents the latter as only partial ; 
but he docs not refer the former kind of inspiration to the mere act of writing. 
But in the writings of Irenceus we find a more definite allusion to the extra' 
ordina,ry assistance of the Holy Spirit in writing the books, with a special 
reference to //jc 7Ve«« Testament writers; Adv. Haer. iii. 16, §2: Potuerat 
dicere Matthaeus : Jesu vero generatio sic erat ; sed praevidens spii'itus saactus 
depravatores, et praamuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum per Matthceum ait : 
Christi autem generatio sic crat. [Comp. Westcott on Gospels, 1860, p. 383 sq.] 

' Iren. adv. Hasr. iv. 9, p. 237 : Non alterura quidem vetera, alterum vero 
preferentem nova docuit, sed unum et eundem. Paterfamilias enim Domi- 
nus est, qui universee domni paternse dominatur, et servis quidem et adhuc 
indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem ; liberis autera et fide justificatis con- 

gruentia dans praecepta, et filiis adaperiens suara hasreditatem Ea 

autcm, quae de thesHuro prot'oruntur nova et Vetera, sine contradictione duo 
Testamenta dioit : vetus quidem, quod ante fuerat, legislatio ; novum autem, 
qua3 secundum Evangelium est conversatio, ostendit, de qua David ait : Can- 
tate Domino canticum novum, etc. Comp. iii. 11, and other passages. In 
his fragments (p. 346, Massuet), he compares the two pillars of the house 
under the ruins of which Sampson buried himself and the Philistines, to the 
two Testaments which overthrew Paganism. .Yet still Irenaitis had an open 
eye for the human side of the Bible . He wrote an essay upon the peculiari- 
ties of the style of Paul, in which, among other things, he explains the syn- 
tactic defects in the sentence of the Apostle by the velocitas sermonum 
suoTum, which again he connects with the " impetus" of his soul. Comp. 
JSfeander, Church Hist. 3d ed. p. iVl. Clem. Al. Psed. p. 307 ; "A/i^u Se 
T<j vd|U<.) 6ir\K.6vovv tSi Aoycj eZf TTaidayuyiav Trrjg dvOpunoTTjTog, 6 ^ilv 
610, MwcrsGjf, 6 6l'6l 'ATToaroXuv. Comp. Strom, i. 5, p. 331, iii. 10, p. 543. 

' Ori^. De Priucip. iv. c. 6, 0pp. i. p. 161 : Xeicreov ds, on to ruv 
7rpo0r/rtKo5i' Xoyuiv evdeov ical rb nvevnaTiKbv roij MwataJf vofiov eXafiipev 
i-^i6rjfiriGavTog 'Irjoov. 'Evapyrj yap Trapadeiynara nepl tov deoTTVcvarovg 
f 'I'Qw Tffif TxaXaiag ypacfjag irpb Trijf imdrifMLag tov XptoTov TrapaaTTJaai ov 
vdvv 6vvaTbv rjv, dXH' fj 'Irjoov irndrjiJ-ta 6vva[i&vovg vnoTTTSveaOai tov 
V'liy,v Kal Tovg TTpOffirjTag <l>g ov Oela, elg T0Vfj,(paveg rjyayev, ug ovpavt(o 
Xdpiu dvayEypafifieva. From this point of view Origen acknowledges the 
inspiration of both the Old and the New Testaments, De Prino. prooem. c. 8, 
0pp. i. p. 18, lib. iv. ad. init. ; Contra Cels. v. 60. 0pp. i. p. 623 ; Horn, in 
Jerem. 0pp. T. iii. p. 282: Sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem, spirant, 
nihilque est sive in lege, sive-in evangelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a pleni- 
tudine divinae majestatis descendat. In the 27th Hom. in Num. 0pp. T. ii. 
p. 365, he further maintains that (because of this inspiration) nothing super- 
fluous could have found its way into the sacred Scriptures, and that we must 
setk for divine illumination when we meet with difficulties. Comp. Hom. in 
Exod. i. 4, 0pp. T. ii. p. 131': Ego credens verbis Domini mei Jesu Christi, 
in lege et Prophetis iota quidem unum aut apicera non puto esse mystcriis 
vacuum, nee puto aliquid horum transire posse, donee omnia fiant. Philoca- 

§ 32. Inspiration and Efficacy of the Scriptures. 91 

lia (Cantabrig. 1658), p. 19: npiirei (5k to, dyia ypdii^MTa maTSusiv jiiT/ds. 
uiav KEpaiav 'ix^iv kcvi)v ao^ta^ Qeov- 6 yap h-eiXdp,evo(; ifxal tw dvdpu-rrcj 
KoL Aeywv Ovk d(^di]ay kvumov fiov Ksvog (Exod. xxxiv. 20), noXXS) rrXeov 
avrbg ovdiv Kevbv ipei. Comp. Schnitzer, p. 286. But yet the historical 
and chronological difficulties attending the attempt to harmonize the gospels 
did not escape the critical sagacity of Origen. He acknowledges that, taken 
verbally, there are insoluble contradictions in the narration of the Evangelists 
(comp. Ilom. X. in Job. 0pp. Tom. iv. p. 162, ss.), but comforts himself with 
the idea that truth does not consist in the aufiariKolg %apaKT^pcrti', Thus, for 
example, he notices the difference in the accounts, of the healing of the blind 
men (Mattli. xx. 30 sq. Mark x. 46 sq. Luke, xviii. 35 sq.). But in 
order not to concede inexactitude, he takes refuge in strange allegories (com- 
pare Comm. in Matth. 0pp. Tom. iii. p. 372). Another way of escape in 
• respect to doctrinal difficulties was open to him, in the assumption of a con- 
descension of God, training his people, as a teacher, in conformity with their 
state of culture at each period (Cont. Celsum, iv. 71 ; Tom. i. p. 556). Like 
Irenseus, Origen also grants that there are inaccuracies and solecisms in the 
style of the Biblical writers (Opp. iv. p. 93), and so, too, different stybs of 
writing in Paul (Ep. ad Rom. x. Opp. iv. p. 678, 6). "In general," sayn Giese- 
ler (Dogmengesch. p. 98), " Origen appears to understand by inspiration, not 
the pouring in of foreign thoughts, but an exaltation of the powers of the 
soul, whereby prophets [and apostles] were elevated to the knowledge of the 
truth ; and this view was held fast in the school of Origen." Comp. ako Uia 
passages there cited, from which it appears that Origen, with all his exag- 
gerated views of inspiration, also admitted that there were uninspired pas- 
sages in the Scripture, and thus distinguished between its divine and human 
elements. [The passages are such ,as 1 Cor. vii. 6, 10, etc. And Gieseler 
adds, that Oi'igen "did not follow out such hints any farther, but in other 
passages declared all the Holy Scriptures, including the writings of the 
Apostles, to be unconditionally inspired."] 

' Jrenoeus compares the sacred Scriptures to the treasure which was hid 
in a field, Adv. Haer. iv. 25, 26, and recommends their perusal also to the 
laity, but under the direction of the presbyters, iv. 32. Clement of Alexandr. 
describes their simplicity, and the beneficial effects which they are calculated 
to produce, Coh. p. 66 : Tpa^al de al delai Kal T^oXiTslai aucppoveg, avvro- 
fioc auT-qpiag oddl, yvfival KOfifiuiTLKrjg kclI Trjg eKTog KaXXiipuviag koI 
jrup-vXlag nal KoXaiceiag vndpxovfrai dviarwaiv dyx^f'Svov virb Kaniag rbv 
avdpu)TT0V, vnepcdovaai rbv oXiadov rbv (iiwTiKbv, fiia koL ry avr^ (poyv^ 
TToXXd dspanevovaai, dTTOrpenovaai fiev rjfiag rfjg STn^Tjfiiov dndrrig, nporpe- 
novaai 6e ip^avCJg dg Trpovnrov OGnrjpiav. Comp. ibid. p. 71 : 'lepd yap 
(bg dXrjdu)g rd, lepanowvvra Kal Oeoiroiovvra ypd\iiiaTa k. t. X. Clement 
did not confine this sanctifying power to 'the m'cre letter of Scripture, but 
thought that the XoyiKol vofioL had been written, not only &v nXa^l XcOivaig, 
dXX' iv KapSiaig dvOpuTiuv, Psed. iii. p. 307 ; so that at least the effects 
produced by the Bible depend upon the susceptibility of the mind. The 
language of Origen is similar, contra Cels. vi. 2, p. 630 : ^rjol 6' b delog 
Xoyog, OVK avrapneg elvai rb Xeyofievov (iiav KaO' avrb dXrjOeg Kal man- 
KUTaTOV y) npbg rb KaOiKeaOai dvOpumvrjg ipvx^g, idv firj Kal dwan'ig rtj 

92 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Pkolegomena. 

deoOev Sody rw Xeyovn, Kol %apif inavd'qay roZg XEyo[J,ivoig, Kol avTT] ovit 
ddeel iyyLvojl ivt] rolg dwaiixuc; Xeyovai. Accordingly, the use of the 
Scripture was universally recommended by the old Christian teachers, and 
the apologists call upon the heathen to convince themselves out of the Scrip- 
tures of the truth of what was told to them. [Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 
§ 23, on the General Use of the Bible : Justin, in his Coh. ad Graeeos, calls 
apon the heathen to read the prophetic Scriptures. Athenagoias, in his 
Apology, presupposes that the emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son have 
the Old Testament. All the Scriptures were read in the public services of 
Christians: Tertull. ApoL.c. 39. Origen against Celsus (vii.) defends the 
Bible from the charge that it was written in a common style, by the state- 
ment that it was written for the common man. Comp. C. W. F. Walch, 
Kritische Untersuchung vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den Chris- 
ten in den vier ersten Jahrh. Leipz. 1779. W. Goods' s Divine Rule, etc., ubi» 



Olshausen, fiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 1824. Bosenmuller, Historia Interpretat 
N. Test. T. iii. Ernesli, J. A., Be Origene Interpretationis grammatiose Auctore, 
OpusQ. Ci'it. Lugd. 1164. JIagenbach, Observat. circa Origenis methodiim interpre- 
tandffi S. S. Bas. 1823, of. the review by Sirzel, in Winer's Krit. Journal, 1825, Bd. 
iii. Thmiasius, Origenes, Appendix I. [Davidson, S., Sacred Hermeneutics, devel- 
oped and applied; including a Hist, of Biblical Interpretation from the earliest of the 
Jfathers to the Reform. Edinb. 1843. Comp. also Credner, K. A., in Kitto's Cyclop, 
of Biblical Literature, sub voce. Fairbairn's Hermeneutics, 1858. ' Frankel, Einfluss 
dcr palestin. Exegese auf d. Alexandr. Hermeneutik, Leipz. 1851.] 

The tendency to allegorical interpretation' was connected in a 
twofold manner with the theory of verbal inspiration. Some writers 
endeavored to brijig as much as possible into the letter of the sacred 
writings, either on mystical and speculative, or on practical religious 
grounds ; others, from a rationalistic and apologetical tendency, 
were anxious to explain away aW. that might lead to conclusions 
alike offensive to human reason, and unworthy of the Deity, if taken 
in their literal sense. This may be bfst seen in the works of Origen, 
who, after the example of Philo,' and of several of the fathers, espe- 
cially of Clement' first set forth a definite system of interpretation, 
which allowed a three-fold sense to Scripture ; and accordingly 
they distinguished the anagogical and the allegorical interpretation 
from the grammatical.* The 'sober method of Irenmus, who defers 
to Grod all in the Scripture that is above human understanding,' is 
in striking contrast with this allegorizing tendency, which makes 
every thing out of the Scriptures. 

' " WUh their hiyh opinion about the inspiration of the sacred ivritinffS, 
r.nd Ike dignity of a revelation, we should expect, as a matter yf course, to 

§ 33. Biblical Inteuphetation. 93 

meet with careful interpretation, diligently investigating the exact meaning. 
But the very opposite was the fact. Inspiration is done away ivith by tlie 
w-ost arbitrary of all modes of interpretation, the allegorical, of which we may. 
consider Philo the master P (Ofrorer, Gescliichte des TJrchris,tonthums, i. 
p. 69, in reference to Philo.) However much this may surprise us at first 
Bigh|, we sball find that the connection between this theory .f inspiration, 
and the mode of interpretation which accompanies it, is by no means unnat- 
ural ; both have one common source, viz., the assumption that there is a 
very great diff'erence between the Bible and other books. That which has 
come down from heaven must be interpreted according to its heavenly 
origin ; must be looked upon with other eyes, and touched with other hands 
than profane. Comp. Ddhne, on Philo, p. 60. Here it is with the Word, 
■as it was afterward with the Sacraments. As baptismal water was thought 
to avail more than common water, and the bread used in the Lord's supper 
to be different from common bread, so the letter of the Bible, filled with thp 
Divine Spirit, became to the uninitiated a hieroglyph, to decipher which a 
heavenly key was needed. 

" Comp. Ofrorer, Diihne, 1. c. [and Conybeare, J. J. The Banipton Lec- 
ture for the year 1824, being an attempt to trace the history and to ascertain 
the limits of the secondary and spiritual interpret, of Script., Oxf. 1824]. 

' Examples of allegorical and typical interpretation abound in the writings 
of the apostolical and earlier Fathers, sec § 29, note 3. [Comp. Davidson, 
Sacred Hermen. p. VI, ss. Barnabas, 1. 7 : The two goats (Levit. xvi.) were 
to be fair and perfectly alike ; both, therefore, typified the one Jesus, who 
was to suffer for us. Tlie circumstance of one being driven forth into the 
wilderness, the congregation spitting upon it and pricking it, whilst the 
other, instead of being accursed, was offered upon the altar to God, symbol- 
ized the death and sufl'erings of Jesus. The washi-ng of the entrails with 
vinegar, denoted the vinegar mixed with gall which was given to Jesus on 
the cross. The scarlet wool, put about the head of one of the goats, signified 
the scarlet robe put upon Christ before his crucifixion. The taking off the 
scarlet wool, and placing it on a thorn-bush, refers to the fate of Christ's 
church. Clement of Alex. lib. v. p. 557: "The candlestick situated south 
of the altar of incense signified the movements of the seven stars making 
circuits southward. From each side of the candlestick projected three 
branches with lights in them, because the sun placed in the midst of the 
other planets gives light both to those above and under it by a kind of 
divine music. The golden candlestick has also another enigma, not only in 
being a figure of the sign of Christ, but also in the circumstance of giving 
light in many ways and parts to such as believe and hope in him, by the 
instrumentality of the things at first created." Comp. also pp. 74, 75, 79, 
80.] For a correct estimate of this mode of interpretation, comp. Mbhler, 
Patrologie, i. p. 64 : " The system of interpretation adopted by the earlier 
fathers may not in many, respects agree with our views ; - but we should 
remember that our mode of looking at things differs from theirs in more than 
onepcint. They knew nothing, thought of nothing, felt nothing, but ChriH 
—is it, then, surprising that they met him every where, even without seeking 
him ? In our present state of culture we are scarcely able to form a cprreci 

94 First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

idea of the mind of those times, in which the great ohject of commentators was 
to show the connection between the Old and the New Covenant in the most 
vivid manner.'" The earlier fatliers indulged unconsciously in this mode of 
interpretation ; but Clement of Alex, attempts to establish a theory, asserting 
that the JMosaic laws have a threefold, or even a fourfold sense, rerpaxug 
dt- TjiMV tKArj-irriov tov v6jj.ov ttjv PovX.rj(nv. Strom, i. 28 (some read 
Tpt;y;tjf instead of TETpaxuic;)- [Comp. Davidson, 1. c. p. 79.] 

* Origcn supposes that Scripture has a threefold sense coiTesponding to 
the trichotomistic division of man into body, soul, and spirit (comp. § 54); 
and this he finds, too (by a petitio principii), in the Scripture itself, in Prov. 
xxii. 20, 21 ; and in the Shepherd of Hermes, which he values equally with 
Scripture. This tlireefold sense may be divided into : 1. The grammatical 
[a(J/iaTiK6f] = body. 2. The moral \^vxi-K6q\^=ioa[; and 3. The mystical 
[7rv£i;j[tar£/i:o^}=: spirit. The literal sense, however, he asserts can not always 
be taken, but in certain cases it must be spiritualized by allegorical interpre- 
tation, especially in those places which contain either something indifferent 
in a religious aspect (genealogies, etc.); or what is repulsive to morality (e. g., 
in the history of the patriarchs); or what is unworthy of the dignity of God 
(the anthroponiorphitic narratives in the book of Genesis, and several of the 
legal injunctions of the Old Testament). Comp. Philo's method, Gfrorer, u. 
s. Davidson, p. 63. But Origen found stumbling-blocks not only in the Old, 
but also in the New Testament. Thus he declared that the narrative of the 
temptation of our Saviour was not simple history, because he could not solve 
the difBcuIties which it presents to the historical interpreter. [The gospels 
also abound in expressions of this kind ; as when the devil is said 'to have 
taken Jesus to a high mountain. For who could believe, if he read such 
things with the least degree of attention, that the kingdoms of the Persians, 
Sc3'thians, Indians, and Parthians, were seen with the bodily eye, and with 
as great honor as kings are looked upon ? Davidson, 1. c. p. 99.] He also 
thought that some precepts, as Luke x. 4, Matth. v. 39, 1 Cor. vii. 18, could 
be taken in their litei-al sense only by the simple (dicepaioig). He does not 
indeed deny the reality of most of the miracles, but he prizes much more 
highly the allegory which they include (comp, § 29, note 10); see besides 
the De Princ. lib. iv. § 8-27, where he gives the most complete exhibition 
of his theory, his exegetical works, and the above-mentioned treatises, with 
the passages there cited. Both tendencies above spoken of, that of interpret- 
ing into, and that of explaining away, are obviously exhibited in the writ- 
ings of Origen. Therefore the remairk of Luche (Hermeneutik, p. 39), " that 
a rationalistic tendency, of which Origen himself was not conscious" may 
account in part for his addiction to allegorical interpretation, can be easily 
reconciled with the apparently contrary supposition, that the cause of it was 
mysticism, based on the pregnant sense of Scripture. " The letter kills, hit 
the spirit quickens ; this is the principle of Origen. Hut who does not see 
that the spirit can become too powerful, kill the letter, and take its place ?'" 
Edgar Qulnet on Strauss (Kevue des deux Mondes, 1838). 

' Irenceus also proceeded on the assumption that the Scriptures throuo-h- 
Dut were pregnant with meaning, Adv. Haer. iv. 18 : Nihil enim otiosum, 
nfc sine s'gno, iieque sine argumento apud eum, and made us<> of typical 

§ 34. Tradition. 95 

intorpretation. Nevertheless, he saw the clangers of allegorizing, and con- 
demned it in the Gnostics, Adv. Hter. i. 3, 6. We are as little able to 
understand the abundance of nature as the superabundance of Scripture, ibid, 
ii. 28 : Nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissirai a verbo De 
ct Spiritu ejus, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. El 
non est mirnm, si in spiritualibus et ooelestibus et in his quje habent revelari, 
hoc patimur nos : quandoquidem etiam eorum quae ante pedes sunt (dico 
autem quae sunt in hac creatura, quae et contrectantur a nobis et videntnr et 
sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hsec ipsa comniit- 

timus. Oportet enim eum pras omnibus prsecellere E( de enl r&v r^f 

KTiaeug 'ivia [ihv avdneirai, tw OeSi, evia 6e Koi slg yvuaiv kXr\Xvde rfjv 
fjHETepav, TL xaXe-rrbv, el Kal tCjv kv ralg ypa<paig ^rjTovnevuv, oXuv tuv 
ypa<puv TTVEVfiaTiKwv ovaiov, evia filv emXvo/j-ev Kara %(zpfv 6eov, tvia 6k 
dvaKeloETai tui Oeio, nal ov jiovov alSivi iv roj vvvl, dXXa Kal iv tS) ^eX- 
XovTi ; Iva del juev 6 6ebg SiddaKT], dvdpunog de 6id Travrbg [lavdavq napa 



Pelt, Tiber Tradition, in the Theologische Mitarbeiten, Kiel, 1813 ; K. R. Kostlin, Zur Gesch. 
des Urchristeuthums, in Zeller's Jahrb. 1850. Jaoobi, ubi supra. Comp. § 30. 

Notwithstanding the high esteem in which Scripture was held, the 
authority of tradition was not put in the background. On the con- 
trary, in the controversies with heretics, Scripture was thought to 
be insufficient to combat them, because it maintains its true position, 
and can be correctly interpreted (i. e., according to the spirit of the 
church) only in close connection with the tradition of the church.' 
Different opinions obtained concerning the nature of tradition. The 
view taken by Irenceus and Tertullian was of a positive, realistic 
kind ; according to them, the truth was dependent upon an external, 
historical, and geographical connection with the mother churches." 
The Alexandrian school entertained a more ideal view ; they saw in 
the more free and spiritual exchange of ideas the fresh and ever- 
living source from which we must draw the wholesome water of 
sound doctrine." It must, however, be acknowledged, that the idea 
of a secret doctrine,* favored by the Alexandrian school, which was 
said to have been transmitted along with the publicly received truth 
from the times of Christ and his Apostles, betrayed a Gnostic ten- 
dency, which might easily endanger the adaptation of Christianity to 
all classes of society. On the other hand, the new revelations of the 
Montanists in like manner broke loose from the basis of the historical 
(traditional) development.' In contrast with these tendencies it was 
insisted, that tradition is to be measured by Scripture, as well in re- 
spect to doctrine as to the usage of the church;" this particularly 
appears in Cyprian. 

96 First Period. Apologetioo-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

' On the necessity of tradition see Irenceus, i. 10 (p. 49, M.), ii. 35, p. iVI* 
iii. Pref. c. 1-6, c. 21, iv. 20, 26, 32. (OrelU, i. Pfogram. p. 20.) Especi- 
ally remarkable is the declaration, iii. 4, that the nations had been convert''d 
to Christianity, not in the first instance by the Scriptures (sine charta et 
atramento), bnt by means of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and the faithfully 
preserved tradition. See Tert. Adv. Marc. 6, v. 5, and particularly De Pi'ai- 
scriptione Hsereticorum, where he denies to heretics the right of using Scrip- 
ture in argument of the orthodox.* Comp. c. 13, seq. ; and c. 19, he says: 
Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nee in his constitutendum certarnen, 
in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut par (var. paruni) incertse. 
Nam esti non ita evaderet conlatio scripturarum, ut utramque partem parem 
sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat, illud prius proponi, quod nunc solum dispu- 
tandum est : quibus competat fides ipsa : cujus sint scripturffi ; a quo et per 
quos et quando et quibus sit tradita disciplina, qua fiunt Christiani. Ubi enim 
apparuerit esse veritatem et disciplinis et fidei christianse, iilic erit Veritas 
scripturarum et expositionura et omnium traditionum Christianarum. Comp. 
c. 37 : Qui estis? quando et unde venistis? quid in meo agitis, non mei? The 
renouncing of tradition is, according to Tertullian, the source of the mutila- 
tion and corruption of Scripture; comp. c. 22 and 38. But even in its in- 
tegrity Scripture alone is not -able to ward off heresies ; on the contrary, ac- 
cording to God's providential arrangement, it becomes to heretics a source of 
new errors; comp. c. 40, 42. — Clement of Alex, expresses himself thus 
(Stromata, vii.'15, p. 887) : As an honest man must not lie, so must we not 
depart from the rule of faith which is handed down by the church ; it is 
necessary to follow those who already have the truth. As the companions of 
Ulysses, bewitched by Cii'ce, behaved like beasts, so he who renounces tra- 
dition ceases to be a man of God ; Strom. 16, p. 890, comp. p. 896. — Origen, 
De Princ. prooem. i. p. 47 : Servetur vero ecclesiastica praedicatio persucces- 
sionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita et usque ad praBsens in ecclesiis perma- 
nens; ilia sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica 
discordat traditione. 

^ Iren. iii. 4 (2, p. 178, M.) : Quid enim ? Et si de aliqua modica quses- 
tione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in 
quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab iis de prsesenti quajstione sumere quod 
certum et re liquidum est ? Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas 
reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradi- 
derunt iis, quibus committebant eoclesias ? ete. Tertul. Paerscr. c. 20 : De- 
hinc (Apostoli) in orbem profecti candem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus 
promulgaverunt, et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condi- 
derunt, a quibus, traducem fidei et semina doctrinse ceterae exinde ecclesife 
mutuatae sunt et quotidie mutuantur, ut ecclesiae fiant, et per hoc et ipsas 
apostolicae deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad 
originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantae ecclesiae : una est 
ilia ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes, etc. Comp. c. 21. 

* On the expression Praescriptio, Semler, in the Index Latin, p. 482 : Ex usu forensi 
significant refutationem, qua, qui postulatur, adversarii accusa tionem disjioit aut in eum 
retorquet; and TertuU. himselC Prsescr. o. 35 • 

§ 34. Tradition. 97 

' Clem. Alex, Strom, i. 1, p. 323 : Ta (j)pea-a i^avrXovfitva disidiarepov 
vdcop avaSiduoi- rpSnerai 3s elg cpOopav, o)v fiSTaXaiiPdvei ovdei^- ital rbv 
aidrjpovi^xpilOLg KaOaputrepov (pvXdaau, fj cJe dxpi^a-ria lov tovtu) jevvTjruir). 
IvveXovTL yap (pdvar rj avyyvfivaala 'i^iv 'i^Toiel vyieivrjV Ka\ nvevfiaai 

KOi (TU>p.a(7lV. 

■" Ibid : AvTUca ov TroXXoi^ dnsKdXvipev (A 'Irjoov^) a firj noXXiov 7)v, 
dXiyoig dk otf Trpoarjiceiv rjTzitJTaTO, rolg oioig re eaSi^aaOai ical Tvnudrjvai 
npbg avrd- to, 6e dnopprjTa, Kaddrtep 6 Oebg, Xoyu) moTSverai, ov ypdp,- 
p-a'^i .... dXXa yap to, fivarripia p-variKuig TiapadiSo-ai, Iva ^ iv 
arnfiari. XaXovvrog Kal 8 XaXeiraf jj.aXXov 6s ovk iv (l>(,)vy, dXX' iv tu> 
voeiaOai k. r. X. Comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1 (from the ^th book of the 
Hypotyposes), and the notes of Valesius and Ileinichen. Origen, Contra 
Gels. vi. § 6. 0pp. T. i. p. 633. The so-called Disciplina Arcani stands in 
a somewhat wider connection with this ; comp. Frommann, G. C. L. Th., 
De Disciplina Arcani, quw in Vetere Ecclesia Christiana obtinuisse fertur, 
Jen. 1833, 8 ; and Eothe in Herzog's Eealencykl. [also, Hcidelb. 1841, and 
Gieseler, Text-Book, i. 232, note.] 

' Comp. § 24, § 30, note 2. Jacobi, u. s. p. 125, sq. On the Gnostic tradi- 
tion, see Kostlin, ubi supra, p. 6, sq. 

° Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. V86 ; vii. p. 891. Origen, Horn, in 
Jerem. i. (Opp. iii. p. 129) : yidprvi^ag del XafieXv rag ypa(l)dg- djidpTvpoi 
yap al imfioXal fjixuv Kal al i^eyrjasig dmaToi. elatv (this in relation to the 
doctrine of the divinity of Christ). Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, c. 9 (in 
relation to the doctrine respecting God). 

The opinion of Cyprian was developed in the controversy with the Romish 
bishop Stephen, who appealed to the Eomish tradition in support of his views 
concerning the baptism of heretics. Cyprian, on the contrary, jnstlv went 
back from the dried up canal to the source, to the oldest tradition, viz., the 
Sacred Scriptures (divinse traditionis caput et origo), Ep. 74, p. 215. In the 
same place, and in the same connection, he says : Consuetude sine veritate 
vetustas erroris est. Comp. Ep. 71, p. 194 : Non est de consuetudine prae- 
scribondum, sed ratione vincendum. It is interesting to observe that, e. g., 
Irenseus does not as yet know any traditio humana within the church which 
could in anyway contradict the traditio apostolica; such a tradition is known 
by Irenseus only among the heretics ; and Tertullian (as Montanist) had al- 
ready combated the authority of custom with almost the same weapons as 
Cyprian ; comp. De Virgin. Veland. 1 : Christus verltatera se, non consue- 
tudinera cognominavit. Qiiodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit hseresis, 
etiam vetus consuetudo. Huiher, Cyprian, p. 139, Ss. Bettberg, p. 310, Pelt, 
1. c. Oess, Die Einheit der Kircbe im Sinne Cyprians, in the Studien der 
Evangelischen Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs, 1838, ii. 1, p. 149, ss. On the 
ambiguity of the word Tradition (a doctrinal, Gnostic, and ritual tradition 
may be distinguished), see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 103. [The Ah^xandrians 
claimed to have the Gnostic tradition, which was not the common property 
of all Christians: this was opposed by Irenaius and Tertullian. Tertullian 
advocated the authority of tradition in respi ',t to rites, but demanded (De 
Jejunio, c. 10.), Tanto magis dignam rationem affere debemus, quaiito careiit 
Scripturoe aucto;itate. Cvprian, Ep. 74, ad I'ompejum, against ihc llouian 


9S First Period. Apologetico-Dogmatic Prolegomena. 

claim, says that, ea facienda esse, quae scripta sunt ; and continues : Si ergo 
aut in Evangelic pi'SBcipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus con- 
tinotnr, observetur divina hsec et sancta traditio. And he compares divine 
tradition to a canal, saying, that when it dries up, the priests must go back to 
the fountain and the Holy Scriptures ; and this in respect to church rites.] 

It was held ihut faith (niarig, Mes) is the medium by which we apprehend 
the revelations made known to us, either by Scripture or by tradition. The 
question, however, arose in what relation the TTiarig stands to the more de- 
veloped yvwffif? While Trenceus does not go bej'ond faith, but without 
excluding its scientific exposition (comp. DuncJcer, p. 16), the theologians of 
the Alexandrian school, e. g., Clement, endeavored to assign a higher position 
to the yvibaiq. But we should mistake him, if we were to conclude, from 
some of his expressions, that he attached an inferior value to the Ttiarig. In a 
certain sense he looked upon it rather as the perfection of knowledge (reXewTrig 
liadrjaeug), Psed. i. 6, p. 115. Faith does not want anything, it does not limp 
(as arguments do) ; it has the promise, etc. Also, according to Strom, i. 1, 
p. 320, faith is necessary to attain unto knowledge. It anticipates knowledge, 
)i. 1, p. 432 ; comp. ii. 4, p. 436 : Kvpiurepov ovv Trjg emaTrijj,r]g t] mang 
Kol iorlv avTTJg Kpir^piov. In the same place he distinguishes faith from 
mere opinion, eluaaia, which is related to faith, as a flatterer to a true friend, 
or a wolf to a dog. — Revelation (6i8aaKaXia) and faith depend on each other, 
as the throwing and catching of a ball in a game; Strom, ii. 6, p. 442. — On 
the other hajid, Clement maintained the necessity of a well instructed faith 
{maTig irepl rf^v fiddrjaiv), Strom, i. 6, p. 336 ; and insisted, in general, on an 
intimate connection between Trtarig and yvutng, ii. 4, p. 436 : UiaTTj toIvvv 
f) yvuaig' yvuarr] 6e t] mang- deia rivl aicoXovOia te not avraKoXovOia 
yiverai. Faith is described as an abridged knowledge of necessary truth; 
yvcjaig is characterized as a firm and stable demonstration of the things al- 
ready apprehended by faith ; Strom, vii. 10, p. 865, sq. From this point of 
view he valued knowledge more highly than faith, Strom, vi. 14, p. 794. 
TlXeov 6e koTL rov maTsvaai rb yvwvai. Nevertheless, he could distinguish 
this true gnosis from the false gnosis of the Gnostics ; Strom, v. 6. p. 689, 
12, p. 695, vi. V, p. 771, vii. 10, p. 864 (here again faith appears as the basis 
of true knowledge). On the diff'erent names and kinds of knowledge, see 
Strom, vi. 17, p. 820. Comp. Neander, De Fidei Gnoseosque Idea secundum 
Clementem Alex. Heidelberg, 1811, 8. Baur, Gnosis, p. 502, ss. Origen, 
De Princ. in Prooem. 3 ; 0pp. i. 47, concedes that the Apostles, who preachtd 
to the unlettered, left the investigation of the grounds and reasons of their 
positions to those who should be endowed by the Holy Spirit with special 
gifts, particularly with eloquence, wisdom, and science : Illud autem scire 
oportet, quoniam Sancti Apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes de quibusdam 
quidem, quaecunque necessaria crediderunt, omnibus manifestissime tradi- 
derunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ah his inquirendam, 
qui Spiritus dona excellentia merercntur : de aliis vero dixerunt quidem, quia 
sint ; quomodo autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt, profecto ut studiosiores quique 
ex posteris suis, qui amatores essent sapientiae, exercitium habere possent, in 
quo ingenii sui fructum ostenderent, hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad 
recipiendam sapientiam praepa'arcnt. Comp. the conclusion, p. 49. 




§ 35. 


It can never be the object of a positive religion to prove the ei ■ 
istence of G-od, inasmuch as it always presupposes the knowledge 
that there is a God. Christianity stood on the basis of the Old Tes- 
tament idea of a God, — now purified and carried beyond the limits 
of national interests, — as a personal God, who, as the creator of 
heaven and earth, rules over the human race ; who had given the law, 
sent the prophets, and manifested himself most perfectly, and in the 
fullness of his personal presence, in his Son, Jesus ChrisV Conse- 
quently the believing Christian needed as little, as his Jewish con- 
temporary, a proof of the being of God. But in the further develop- 
ment of the Christian system, it became necessary, on the one hand, 
that Christians should defend themselves (apologetically) against the 
charge of atheism which was frequently brought against them ;" on 
the other, they had to demonstrate to the heathen (polemically), 
that their pagan worship_ was false, and consequently in its very 
foundation was a' denial of the living God (atheism).' When, 
therefore, the writings of the fathers contain any thing like a proof 
of the existence of God, it is either the spontaneous expres- 
sion of religious feeling in a rhetorical and hymnological form,' 
or it is intimately connected with other definitions about the 
nature of God, with the doctrine of his unity, or with the doctrine 
concerning the creation and government of the world.^ But the 
fathers of this period generally recurred to the innate knowledge of 
God (testimonium animffi, Xoyog anepfiaTiKog), which may be traced 
even in the heathen,' and on the purity of which the knowledge of 
God depends.' With this they connected, but in a popular rather 
than a strictly scientific form, what is commonly called the phys- 
ico-theological, or teleological proof, inferring the existence of a 

100 First Period. Doctrine respecting God. 

Creator from the works of creation.' More artificial proofs, such as 
the cosmological and the ontological, were unknown in this period. 
Even the more profound thinkers of the Alexandrian school frankly 
acknowledged the impossibility of a strict proof of the existence of 
God, and the necessity of a revelation on God's part.' 

' The distinction, therefore, between Theology and Christology is only 
relative, and made for scientific purposes. The Christian idea of God always 
depends on faith in the Son, in whom the Father manifests himself. " The 
doctrine of the Logos was the stock out of which Christian theology grew : the 
divine nature in itself was treated only incidentally and in fragments -^^ 
Semisch, Just. Mart, ii., p. 247. We find, however, in the writings of some of 
the earliest fathers (especially Minucius Felix) a kind of theology which bears 
much resemblance to what was subsequently called natural theology, being 
more reflective than intuitive. Others {e. g. Clement) looked at every thing 
as mediated by the Logos; Strom, v. 12, p. 696, comp. also note 9. 

' Comp. e. g. Minuc. Fel. Oct. c. S, and with it cc. 17, 18, also the Edict, 
Antonini, in Euseb. iv. 13 ; the phrase d)?' dBkwv KarrjyoQOvvTeg, however, 
may be diflferently interpreted. Comp. Heinichen, i. p. 328. 

^ This was done by all the apologists, each in his turn ; comp. as examples 
of all, Minuc. Fel. c. 20, ss. ; Tertullian, Apol. c. 8, De Idolotatria. Cyprian, 
De Idolornm Vanitate, etc. 

* Thus the passage in Clem, of Alex. Cohort. 54 : Qebg 61 Tr&jf- av elnoifu 
oaa TTOiei ; bXov Ids tov KOOfiov. ''Ekecvov spyov karlv Kal ovpavbg Kol rjXiog 
Kal ayyeXoi Kal dvdpuTtoi, epya tuv daKTvXuv avTOv. "Oarj ye rj dvvafug 
TOV 6eov ; Movov avrnv rb j3ovXrjfia KOOfionoua- fiovog yhp b debg molrjaev, 
iTrel Kal fiovog ovrug iarl Oeog. -iiXui tw PovXeadai drjfiiovpyei, ical tui fiovov 
edeXfjaai avrbv eneTai rb yeyevrjaOat k. r. X. Comp. TertuU. Apol. c. 17, 18. 

'Comp. the following §§. 

^ Tertullian, Advers. Judaeos c. 2 : Cur etenim Deus universitatis conditor. 
mundi totius gnbernator, hominis plasmator, universarum gentium sator, 
legem per Moysen uni populo dedisse credatur, et non omnibus gentibus at- 
tribuisse dicatur ? et seq. Comp. Apol. c. l7 : Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ao 
talibus quibus continemur, quibus sustinemur, 'quihus oblectamur, etiam qui- 
bus exterremur? vultis ex animse ipsius testimonio comprobemus ? Quae licet 
carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidini- 
bus ac concupiscontiis evigorata, licet falsis deis exancillata, cum tamen re- 
sipiscit ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et sanitatem suara 
potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine, quia proprio Dei veri : Deus mag- 
nus, Deus bonus, et : quod Deus dcderit, omnium vox est. Judicera quoque 
contestatur ilium : Deus videt, et : Deo commondo, et ; Deus mihi reddet. 
O testimonium animse naturaliter christiansB 1 Denique pronuutians hsec, non 
ad capitolium, sed ad coelum respicit, novit enim sedem Dei vivi.— De Testim, 
Animas, c. 2 : Si enim anima aut divina aut a Deo dataf est, sine dubio dato« 
rem suum novit. Et a novit, utique et timet,- et tantum postremo adauctorem, 
An non timet, quem magis propitium velit quam iratum ? Unde igitur na- 
turalis timor animse in Deum, si Deus non vult irasci ? Quomodo timetur 

§ 35. The Being of God. 101 

qui nescit offendi ? Quid tiinetur nisi ira ? TJiide ira nisi ex animadvcirsione? 
Uride animadversio nisi do judicio? Unde judicium nisi de potestate? Cujua 
potestas summa nisi Dei solius ? Hinc ergo tibi, anima, de conscientia suppetit 
domi ac foris, nuUo irridente vel prohibente, praedicare : Deus videt omnia, 
et: Deo comraendo, et: Deus reddet, et: Deus internes judicabit, et seq. 
Conip. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 88, 89. Justin M. also speaks of au 
innate idea of God, Apol. II. 6 : T5 Gsof ■npoaayopevixa ovk dvojid koTCv, 
dXXa TTpdyiManog Svae^rjyQTOv t:[i(f>VTog ttj (pvaei rC)v dvOpdnuv 66^a. Comp. 
Did. c. Tr. c. 93.— r Clem of Alex. Coh. vi. 59: Tldoiv yap a/na^anXut, 
dvdp(x)noig, fidXiara Ss rolg nepl Xoyovg IvdiaTpipovaiv (qui in studiis liter- 
arum versati sunt) iviaraKTat rig dnoppoia OeLKrj. Ov dr} x<iptv Kol aKovreg 
[ikv dfioXoyovaiv 'iva re elvai Qebv, dvuXedpov koi dyevvTjTOV tovtov dvij 
TTOV TzEpl TO, vioTa TOv ovfiavov ev Trj Idtg, ical oiKeia -nepLun^fj Hvrug ovra del. 
Oomp. Strom, v. 12, p. 698 : Qeov [ilv yap E^cpaaLg ivbg i]v tov navTOKpd- 
Topog Tzapd iraai rolg &v(ppovovai navrore (pvaiKri' ical rijg aiStov Kara rfiv 
deiav npovoiav evepyea'tag dvreXafipdvovro ol ■nXeiaroi, ol Kal fi^ riXeov 
dTTrjpvdpiaicoreg npbg rrjv dXriOetav. 

' Theophilus ad Autolycum, at tlie beginning : " If thou sayest. Show me 
thy God ; I answer. Show me first thy man, and I will show thee my God. 
Show me first, whether the eyes of thy soul see, and the ears of thy heart 
hear. For as the eyes of the body perceive earthly things, light and dark- 
ness, white and black, beauty and deformity, etc., so the ears of the heart 
and the eyes of the soul can see God. God is seen by those who can see 
■ him, wli£n they open the eyes of their soul. All men have eyes, but the 
eyes of some are blinded, that they can not see the light of the sun. But 
the sun does not cease to shine, because they are blind, they must ascribe it 
to their blindness that they can not see. Thus is it with thee, O man ! The 
eyes of thy soul are darkened by sin, even by thy sinful actions. Like a 
bright mirror, man must have a pure soul. If there be any rust on the mir- 
ror, man can not see the reflection of his countenance in it : likewise, if there 
bo sin in man, he can not see God. Therefore, first examine thyself, whether 
thou be not an adulterer, fornicator, thief, robber, etc., for thy crimes prevent 
thee from perceiving God." Comp. Clem, of Alex. Psed. iii. 1, p. 260 : 
'Y^avrov ydp rig kav yvdirj, Qebv B'iaerai. Minuc. Fel. c. 32 : Ubique non 
tantura nobis proximus, sed infusus est (Deus). Non tantum sub illo agimus, 
sed et cum ilio, prope dixerim vivimus. 

* Theophil. ad Autol. 5: "When we see a well appointed vessel on the 
sea, we conclude that she has a pilot on board ; so, too, from the regular 
course of the planets, the rich variety of creatures, we infer the Creator." 
Clem, of Alex. (comp. note 4). Minuc. Fel. c. 32 : Immo ex hoc Deum 
credimus, quod eum sentire possum us, videre non possumus. In opeiibus 
enim ejus et in mundi omnibus motibus virtutem ejus semper prEesenteni 
adspicimus, quum tonat, fulguratj fulminat, quum serenat, etc. Comp. c. 18: 
Quod si ingressus aliquam domum omnia exculta, disposita, ornata vidisses, 
utique prasesse ei crederes dominum, et illis bonis rebus multo esse meliorem : 
ita in hac mundi domo, quum cojlum terramque perspicias, providentiam, 
ordinem, legem, crede esse universitatis dominum parentemque, ipsis sideri" 
bus et totius mundi partibus pulchriorem. Novat. ab init. 

102 First Period. Doctrine respecting God. 

' Clem, of Alex. Strom, v. 12, p. 695: Nal ft^v 6 dvapLeraxupioroTa-ot, 
TTEpl Qsov Xoyog ovrog kariv eTTsl yap dpx^ navrbg npdyp.aTog dvaevperog, 
•ndvrug nov ■fj npurr] kclI irpeofivrdTr) dpxu dvaduKTog, r^Tig Kol TOig aXXoig 
urraaiv alrla rov yeviaOai k. t. X. Ih. in calce et 696 : 'AXX' ovoe 
k-Kiarriiixi XanPdverac Ty d/noduKTM^- avrrj yap ek Trporepuv ical yvupi- 
fiu-ipuv avviaTarar rov Se dyevv-^TOV ovdiv npovndpxEi' XeiTTerai 6f\ Oei(f 
XdpiTi nal jiovui tG> nap' avTOv Xoyo) rb ayvuoTOV votlv. Strom, iv. 25, p. 
635 : 'O jjilv ovv Qebg dvanoSeiKTog civ, ovk. Lariv eniar'qiiovLK.og- b 6s vlbg 
aocpia tb karl nal imarrifxr] k. t. X. Likewise Origen, Contra Gels. vii. 42 
(0pp. T. 1, p. 725), maintains in reference to the saying of Plato, that it is 
difficult to find God : 'Mjiug 6e dno(paiv6fj.e6a, on ovk avrdpKTjg ij dvdpcomvrj 
(pvaig bnuaTTOTavoiiv ^riTTJaai rbv debv, Kal evpeiv avrbv Kadapug, nfj 
(ioTjdrjdelaa vnb tov ^TjTOVfiivov evpiaicofievov roXg bfxoXojovoL fiera rb nap' 
avTovg noiEiv, otl deovrai avrov, ip.<pavi^ovTog iavrbv olg dv Kplvy evXoyov 
elvai 6(t)6rjvai, dig necpviie 6ebg fiev dvOpuno) yivuoKeadai, dvdpunov 6t 
i>vxfi Kti ovaa ir au^aTi yiyvuoKeiv rbv Oebv. 



Since Christianity adopted the doctrine of one God as taught in 
the Old Testament, it became necessary to defend it, not only 
against the polytheism of the heathen, but also against the dualistic 
doctrine (borrowed from heathenism), and the Gnostic theory of ema- 
nation.' Some proved the necessity of one God," though not in the 
most skillful manner, from the relations of space,' or even from anal- 
ogies in the rational and also in the animal creation.* The more pro- 
found thinkers, how^ever, were well aware that it is not sufficient to 
demonstrate the mere numerical unity of the Divine Being, and 
tried to give expression to this feeling by transporting the trans- 
cendental unity into a sphere above the mathematical monas.'' 

' Both the hypothesis of a drjuiovpyog, apxuv, .Jaldabaoth, etc., who ia 
subordinate to the Supreme God (debg diiaTovoiiaarog, (ivdog), and that of 
the unfolding of the one God into manifold simple ecous, or pairs of aeons, is 
contrary to monotheism. On the more fully developed systems of Basilides 
and Valentinus, comp. Irenffius, Clem, of Alexandria, and the works quoted § 
23 on the Gnostic systems. Against the Gnostic dualism especially, Irenseua 
(ii. 1) ; Origenes De Princ. ii, i. ; Tert. Adv. Marcion. i. (As to the mode 
in which thi orthodox chm-ch tried to unite the belief in the Trinity with 
monotheism, see below.) 

' Justin M. simply acknowledges this necessity, by considering the unity 
of God as an innate idea, which was afterward lost. In his opinion mono- 
theism is the first true criterion of religious pi'inciples, Coh. ad Grsec. c. 36 : 
^vvarbv fiavdaveiv vfidg eva Ka) novov elvai OebVy 8 npGiTov iarc rfj^ 
dXijdovg OeoaePetag yvu)pLa[j,a. 

§ 36. The Ukity or God. 103 

To tliis class belongs the proof adduced by Athenagoras, Legiit. pro 
Ohristianis, c. 8 : "If there had been two or several gods from the beginning, 
they would either bo in one and the same place, or gach vvonld occupy a 
separate space. They cannot be in one and ^the same place, for if they bo 
gods, they are not identical (consequently they exclude each other). Only 
the created is equal to its pattern, but not the uncreated, for it does not pro- 
ceed from any thing, neither is it formed after any model. As the hand, the 
eye, and the foot are different members of one body, as they conjointly com- 
pose that bod}', so God is but one God. Socrates is a compound being, sinco 
he is created, and subject to change ; but God, who is unci'eatcd, and can 
neither be divided nor acted upon by another being, can not consist of parts. 
But if each god were supposed to occupy a separate space, what place could 
we assign to the other god, or the other gods, seeing that God is above the 
world, and around all things which he has made? For as the world is 
round, and God suirounds all beings, where would then be room for any of 
the other gods ? For such a god can not be in the world, because it belongs 
to another; no more can he be around the world, for the Creator of the 
world, even God, surrounds it. But if he can be neither in the world, nor 
around it (for the first God occupies the whole space around it), where is he ? 
Perhaps above the world, and above God ? in another world ? or around 
another world ? But if he is in another world, and around another world, 
he does not exist for us, and does not govern our world, and his power, 
therefore, is not very great, for then he is confined within certain boundaries 
[after all, a concession !]. But as he exists neither in another world (for 
the former God fills the universe), nor around another world (for the above 
God holds all the universe), it follows that he does not exist at all, since there 
is nothing in which he can exist." 

■" Minuc. Fel. c. 18: Quando unqnam regni societas aut cum fide coapit, 
aut sine cruore desiit ? Omitto Persas de equorum hinnitu augurantes prin- 
cipatum, et Thebanorura prsemortuam fabulam transeo ; ob pastorum et 
casae regnum de geminis memoria notissima est ; generi et soceri bella toto 
orbe diffusa sunt, et tam magni imperii duos fortuna non cepit. Vide cetera : 
rex unus apibus, dux unus in gregibus, in armentis rector nnus. Tu in coelo 
summam potestatem dividi credas, et scindi veri illius ac divini imperii po- 
tostatem ? quum palam sit, parentem omnium Deum nee principium habere 
nee terminum, etc. Comp. Cyprian, De Idolorum Vanitate, p. 14. 

' Clem. Psed. i. 8, p. 140 : Ev 6e 6 Qebg, koX Insiieiva tov ivbg Kal vnep 
avTrjv fiovdda. Along with the idea of the unitT/ of God, Origen speaks of 
the more metaphysical idea of his simplicity, De Princ. i. 1, 6 (0pp. T. i. p. 
51, Redepenning, p. 100): Non ergo aut corpus aliquid, SMi-in corpore esso 
putandus est Deus (against this, compare Athenagoras), sed intellectualis 
natura simplex, nihil omnino adjunctionis admittens: uti ue majus aliquid et 
inferius in se habere credatur, sed ut sit ex omni parte fiovdg et ut ita dicam 
ivdg, et mens et fons, ex quo initium totius intellectualis naturje vel mentis 
est. Strauss, in his Glaubenslehre (i. 404 sq.), gives a compressed sketch 
of the attempts of thd fathers to prove the unity of God. [Origen, Contra 
Cels. i. 23, in the a posteriori method ; from the analogy of armies and states. 
Lactantius, Div. Inst. i. 3 : Quod si in uni exercitu tot fuerint imperatore% 

104 FiitST Period. Doctrine respecting God. 

quot legionts, quot coliortes, quot cunei, quot ate, etc. Cyprian, De Tdol, 
Van. 5 : Nee hoc tantum de homine mircris, quum in lioc omnis natura coii< 
Bcntiat. Rex unus ert apibus, et dux uniis in gregibus, et in armentis rector 
linus : multo magis muudi unus est rector, etc. They also derived an a 
priori argument from the infinitude and absolute perfection of the Oivine 

§ 37. 


The idea of a revealed religion implies that so much of the nature 
of God should be made manifest to man, as is necessary to the 
knowledge of salvation ; the church, therefore, has always cultivated 
the Xoyog -nepl eEoi5 (theology). On the other hand, the inadequacy 
of human conceptions has always been acknowledged (in opposition 
to the pride of speculation), and the unfathomable divine essence 
ndmitted to be past finding out ; some even entertained doubts 
about the propriety of giving God any name. Much of what the 
church designated by the term mystery, is founded partly on a sense 
of the insufficiency of our ideas and the inaptitude of our language, 
and partly on the necessity of still employing certain ideas and 
expressions to communicate our religious opinions. 

When the martyr Attains, in the persecution of the Gallican Christians 
under Marcus Aurelius, was asked by his judges what was the name of God, 
he replied : 'O Oebg ovojxa ovk ex^t wf avOpurrog, Euseb. v. 1 [edit, ffeinichen, 
t. ii. p. 29, comp. the note). Such was also the opinion of Justin M^ 
Apology, ii. 6 ; whatever name may be given to God, he who has given a 
name to a thing must alw.ays be anterior to it. He, therefore, draws a dis- 
tinction (with Philo, De Confus. Ling. p. 357) between appellatives (jrpoa- 
prjaEig) and names [bvojiara). The predicates TTarrjp, Oeog, Kvpiog, deaTTOTTjg, 
are only appelatives. Therefore, lie also calls God dpprjrog Trarrip ; other 
passages are given by Semisch, ii. p. 252, ss. When Justin further says 
(Dial. c. Tryph. c. 3) that God is not only above all names, but above all essence 
(kjrhcEiva rrjg ovatag), it is to be remembered that he'is there speaking as a 
heathen from the Platonic standpoint. But elsewhere he speaks of an ovaia 
of God, e. ff., Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, and even ascribes to him (in a certain 
sense) a fiopcf>ri. Apol. i. 9 ; comp. Semisch, ii. p. 252. Theoph. ad Autol, 
i. 3 : "h.KOve, o) dvdpune, rb fitv el6og rov Oeov, appTfov koX dvEKcjipaaTov, 
Kol i-ifj 6vvdjj.evov d(p6a?^fioTg aapidvoig bpadrjvaf (56fj/ ydp kariv axuprj-ng, 
fityidei dicaTdXi]iTTog, vipei drrepivorjTog, laxvi davyKpiTog, ao(j>la davfifii.- 
fiaoTog, dyaOoavvxi dfiifirjTog, KaXonoita dvEKSirjyrjTog- el yap (piog avrbv 
eiTTU), TTOLTjixa avTOv Xeyu- d Xoyov einu, dpxrjv avrov Xtyu (comp. the note 
to this passage by Maran)- vovv edv etTru, cfipovrjdtv ctvTOv Atyw nvevfj.a kav 
eiTTU, dvanvorjV avrov Xiyw ao<f>tav idv eino), yEVvrjua avrov At'yw loxvi' 
iav iiTTo;, icpdrog avrov Asyw -npovoiav idv e'incj, dyaOoavvrjv avrov Xiycr 

§ 37. Whether God can be named and known. 105 

PaaiXeiav eav eimo, 36^av avrov Xeyo)- iivpiov kav elnu, icpir^v avrbv / eyw 
KpiT-qv iav eiTTO), diKaiov avrbv Asyw narepa iav elnu, to, Travra avrbv 
At'yw TTvp iav dnu, rijv dpxrjv avrov Aeyw k. t. X* Comp. i. 5 ; Ei yap 
TU) TjX'iu) iXaxtaru ovri aroixdo) ov dvvqrac avdpunog dreviaai, did, rrjv 
vnepPdXXovaav dipurjv Kal dvvafuv, ircjg ov'x). \LdXXov r^ rov deov ddi^g 
dvEKcppdarci) ovaxt avdpunog dvrjrbg ov Svvarai, dvrunrjaai [oomp. Soherer, 
Le Ditheisme cle Just. Rev. de Theol. 1856]. According to Iren. ii. 25, 4, 
God is indeterminabilis, nor can any one fully comprehend his nature by 
thinking; comp. Duncker, p. 11. Minvc. Fel. c. 18 : Hie (Deus) nee videri 
potest, visu clarior est, nee comprehendi, tactu purior est, nee 83stimari, sensi- 
bus, major est, infinitus, immensus et soli sibi tantus quantus est notus ; nobis 
vero ad intellectum pectus angustum est, et ideo sic eum digne sestimamus, 
dum insestimabilem dicimus. Eloquar, quemadmodum sentio : magnitudinem 
Dei, que se putat nosse, minuit; qui non vnlt miriiiere, non novit. Neo nomen 
Deo qu£8ras : DEUS nomen est ! Illic vocabulis opus est, quura per singulos 
propriis appellationum insignibus multitudo dirimenda est. Deo, qui solus 
est, Dei vocabulum totum est. Quem si patrem dixero, terrenum opineris ; 
si regeni, carnalem suspiceris ; si dominum, intelliges utique mortalem. 
.Vufer additamenta nominum, et perspicies ejus claritatera. Clement of Alex- 
andria shows very distinctly, Strom, vii. p. 689, that we can attain to a clear 
perception of God only by laying aside, di' dvaXvaeug, all finite ideas of the 
divine nature, till at last nothing but the abstract idea of unity remains. 
But lest we should content ourselves with the mere negation, we must throw 
ourselves {dnopplxpui^ev eavrovg) into the greatness of Christ, in whom the 
glory of God was manifested, in order to obtain to some extent (djiriyiTTS]) the 
knowledge of God (i. e., in a practical and religious manner, not by specula, 
tion) ; for even then we learn only what God is not, not w/iat he is (that is 
to say, if we speak of absolute knowledge). Comp. also the 12th and 13th 
chapters of the 5th book, from p. 692 ; in particular, p. 695, and c. i. p. 647 : 
AijXov'yap firjdiva dvvaadai napa, rbv Tfjg ^ufjg xpovov rbv debv evapyug 
KaraXaPiadai ; he, therefore, gives the advice, ibid. p. 651 : T6 6e dpa ^Tjrelv 
TiSpl 6sov dv p,rj elg spiv, dXXa elg evpeaiv reivy, aurrjpiov kari. Compare 
on this, Baur, Trinitiitslehre, p. 191, sq., who remarks, that what is a6- 
stract in the idea of God is not declared by any of the older teachers of the 
church, Origen himself not excepted, more strongly and definitely than by 
Clement. But he by no means confined himself to the abstract. Origen, 
Contra Cels. vi. 66, 0pp. i. p. 681, sq. shows that what is individual can not 
be described ; for who in words could tell the difference between the sweet- 
ness of figs and the sweetness of dates? And De Princ. i. 1, 5, p. 50; 
Redepenning, p. 89, he says : Dicimus secundum veritatem, Deum incompre- 
bensibilem esse atquo insestimabilem. Si quid enim illud est, quod sentire 
vel intelligere de Deo potuerimus, multis longe modis eum meliorem esse ab 
eo quod sensimus necesse est credere. " As much as the brightness of the 

* From these expressions we must not infer that the name of God was indifferent to 
Christians ; on the contrary, the names given to God in the Scriptures were held to ba 
most sacred : hence Origen contends against the position of Celsus, that one might call the 
highest being, Jup'ter, or Zeus, or Sabaoth, or any Egyptian or Indian name : Contra Cela. 
vi. Opp i. p. 320. 

106 FiKST Pekioi). Doctrine Respecting God. 

sun exceeds the dim light of a lantern, so much the glory of God surpasses 
our idea of it." Likewise Novatian says, De Trinit. c. 2 : De hoc ergo ac 
de eis, quae sunt ipsius et in eo sunt, nee mens hominis quae sint, quanta siiit 
et qualia sint, digne concipere potest, nee eloquentia sermonis humani aequa- 
bilcm majestati ejus virtutem sermonis expromit. Ad cogitandam enim et 
ad eloquendam illius raajestatem et eloquentia omnis merito muta est et mens 
omnis exigua est : major est enim mcnte ipsa, nee cogitari possit quantus sit : 
ne si potuerit cogitaii, mento humana minor sit, qua' concipi possit. Major 
est quoque omni sermonc, nee edici possit : ne si potueiit edici, humana ser- 
nione minor sit, quo quum edicitur, et circumiri et colligi possit. Quidquid 
enim de illo cogitatum fuerit, minus ipso erit, et quidquid enuntiatum fuerit, 
minus illo compauatum ciroum ipsum erit. Sentire enim ilium taciti aliqua- 
tcnus possumus ; ut autem ipse est, sermone explicare non possumus. Sive 

enim ilium dixeris luoem, creaturam ipsius magis quam ipsuni dixeris, etc 

Quidquid oranino de illo retuleris, rem aliquam ipsius magis et virtutem quau» 
ipsum explicaveris. Quid enim de eo condigne aut dicas aut sentias, qui om- 
nibus et sermonibus major est ? etc. This Christian scholasticism which per- 
vades the first period, forms a striking contrast with the modern assurance of 
the old and new scholastic mode and style ! Nevertheless, the fathers (and 
Origen in particular) also admit a spiritual vision of God, which is now medi- 
.ated by Christ, but will at last be direct. Comp. infra, on Eschatology. 



The educated mind desires to abstract from the nature of God 
every thing that reminds it of the finite or composite ; sometimes it 
has even taken offense at the idea of the substantiality of God, out 
of a refined fear of reducing him to the level of created beings ; but 
thus it runs into danger of dissipating the Deity into a mere abstract 
negation. In opposition to this idealizing tendency, the necessities 
of religion demand a real God for the world, for man, and for the 
human heart ; and the bold and figuj-ative language of pious emotion, 
as well as popular symbolical and anthropomorphitic expressions, 
compensated for what the idea of God lost in the way of negation. 
Both these tendencies, which have always advanced equal claims iu 
the sphere of religious thought,' have their respective representatives 
in the first period of the History of Doctrines. On the one hand, 
the Alexandrian school, and Origen in particular, endeavored to re- 
move from God every thing that seemed to draw him within the at- 
mosphere of the earthly, or in any way to make him like men.' On 
the ither hand, TertuUian insisted so much on the idea of the sub- 
stantiality of God, that he confounded it with his corporeity 
(though he by no means ascribed to him a gross, material body, lik.a 
that of man).^ 

§ 38. Idealism and Anthe rroMOEPmsM. 107 

* On lliis subject even the ancient pliilosDphers entertained differing 
Opinions. The popular, polytheistic form of religion was founded (as is every 
religion) on anthropomorphism. Xenophanes of Colophon, the founder of 
the Eleatic school, endeavored to combat anthropomorphism as well as poly 
theism. Com-p. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 714 (Sylb. 601, c.) : 

Ejf 6ehg tv re deiolai koI dvdpuTrolaL fieyiaTog, 
Ov n 6ijj,ag 6v?]ToZaiv ofiouog ovds v6-q[j,a, k. t. A. 

and Strom, vii. 4, p. 841 ; other passages in Preller, Hist. Phil. Graico-Eom. 
Ilamb. 1838. Bitter, i. p. 450. [English translat. by Morrison, \. p. 430.] 
ScJileiermacher, p. 60. — The Epicureans '(though it is doubtful whether 
Epicurus himself seriously meant to teach this doctrine) imagined that the 
gods possessed a quasi human form, but without the wants of men, and un- 
concerned about human sufferirigs and pleasures. Thus they retained only 
what is negative in (the ghost of) anthropomorphism, and lost sight of its 
more profound signification (the human relation of God to man). Comp. 
Cic. de Natura Deorum, i. 8-21. Reinhold, \. p. 367, note. Bitter, iii. 490. 
[Engl, transl. iii. -442.] — Different views were adopted by the Stoics, who 
represented God as tlie vital force and reason which govern the universe ; 
but though they avoided anthropomorphitic notions, they regarded him aa 
clothed in an ethereal robe. Cic. de Nat. D. ii. 24. Bitter, iii. p. 576. 
{English translation, iii. p. 520, ss.J 

.° Clement opposes anthropomorphism in different places : " Most men talk 
and judge of God from their own limited point of view, as if cockles and oysters 
were to reason out of their narrow shells, and the hedgehog out of his rolled 
up self." Strom, v. 11, p. 687 ; comp. vii. 5, p. 845 ; c. 7, p. 852, '53 : "OXoq 
aKofi Kot oXog dcpOaXiwg, 'iva Tig Tovroig ;!^p75cr?yTai rvlg dvofiaaiv, 6 Oeog. 
Ko9' liXov roLVvv ovdefxiav au^ei OeoaiPelav, ovts ev vfivoig oiire iv Xoyoig, 
dXX' ov6k ev ypatpalg tJ Soyfiaaiv rj jj,'}] npsnovaa nepl tov Qeoij in6Xr]ipi.g, 
dXX' elg raneivag kcu daxrjfJ-ovag iKTpsnofiivrj svvolag re kclI vnovoiag' 
o9sv T] ruv ■noXXuv sv(j>rjfiia Sva^rjp,iag ovdhv 6La(pkpsi 6ia rfjv rrjg dXrjdEiag 
dyvotav k. t. X. (on prayer). Origen begins his work, Trept apx^v, immedi- 
ately after tb^ Prooem. with objections to anthropomorphitic or material 
ideas of God : " I know that many appeal even to Scripture to prove that 
God is a corporeal being ; because they read in Moses that he is a consuming 
fire, and in John, that he is a Spirit {rrvevfia^fifn). They can not think of 
fire and spirit but as something corporeal. I should like to ask them what 
they say of the passage in 1 John i. 5 : " God is light ?" He is a light to 
enlighten those who seek the truth (Ps. xxxvi. 9) ; for " the light of God" ia 
nothing other than divine power, by means of which he who is enlightened 
perceives truth in all things, and apprehends God himself as the truth. In 
this sense it is also said, in thy light- we shall see light, i. e. in the Logos, in 
the Wisdom, which is thy Son, we see thee, the Father. Is it necessary to 
suppose that God resembles the sunlight, because he is called liffht ? Can 
any sensible meaning be attached to the idea, that knowledge and wisdom 
have their source in " the corporeal light?" (Schnitzer's translation, p. 13, sq.) 
But the spiritualizing tendency cf Origen led him frequently so to explain 

108 First Period. Doctrine Respecting God. 

even the more profound sayings of Scripture, as to leave only an abstract idea • 
this appears in what follows the above extract, where, in order to exclude all 
conceptions of a divisibility of the Spirit (of God), he compares a participation 
in the Holy Spirit to " a participation in the medicinal art," although further 
on he grants that the comparison is inadequate. Here manifestly " the under- 
standing prevails altogether too much over the imagination" (comp. the judg- 
ment of Mosheim, cited § 26, note 11.) Novatian also expresses himself in 
very strong and decided terms against anthropomorphism, De Trin. c. 6 : 
Non intra hasc nostri corporis lineamenta modum aut figuram divinas majestatia 
includiraus. . . . Ipse totus oculus, quia totus videt, totus auris, quia totus 
audit, etc. — Even the definition, that God is a spirit, has, according to him, 
only a relative validity : Illud quod dicit Dominus (Juhu iv.) spiritum Dcum, 
puto ego sic locutum Christum de patre, ut adhuc aliquid plus intelligi velit 
quam spiritum Deum. He thinks that this is only figurative language, as it 
is said elsewhere, God is light, etc., omnis enim spiritus creatura est. 

' The first Christian writer who is said to have ascribed a body to the 
Deity, is Melito of Sardis, in his treatise nepi evaofidrov Oeov, which is no 
longer extant; comp. Orig. Comment, in Genes., (0pp. T. ii. p. 25) ; Euseb. 
iv. 26, and Heinichen on the passage ; Gennadius De Dogm. Eccles. c. 4 ; 
and Piper, Uber Melito, in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1838, i. 
p. ,71, where a similar view is cited from the Clementine Homilies. \_Cureton, 
in his Spicilegium Syriacum, Lond. 1855, publishes an apology under the 
name of Melito, which is free from anthropomorphism ; but it is the work of 
a later author. Comp. Jacohi in Neander's Hist. Doctr. p. 103 of Ryland's 
translation, and in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1856.] It is more certain 
that Tertulliart ascribed to God (as also to the soul) a body, which he did 
not, however, represent as a human body, but as the necessary form of all 
■existence (comp. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 165, and 
Schwegler's Montanism, p. 171 note), De Came Christi, c. 11: Ne esse 
quidem potest, nisi habens per quod sit. Cum autem (anima) sit, habeat 
necesse est aliquid per quod sit. Si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit 
corpus ejus. Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis. Nihil est incorporale, 
nisi quod non est. Advers. Praxeam, c. 7 : Quis enim negabit Deum corpus 
esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua eflSgie. 
Sed et invisibilia ilia quaecunque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum corpus et 
suam formam, per quae soli Deo visibilia sunt ; quanto magis quod ex ipsius 
substantia raissum est, sine substantia non erit ! Comp. Ifeandcr, Antignos- 
licus, p. 451, and Dogmengesch. p. 109 (p. 110 of Ryland). But Tertullian 
himself draws a definite distinction, which excludes all grosser forms of 
anthropomorphism, between the divine and the human corpus, Advers. 
Marc. ii. 16 : Discerne substantias et suos eis distribu sensus, tam di versos, 
quam substantise exigunt, licet vocabulis communicare videantur. Nam et 
dexterara et oculos et pedes Dei legimus,- nee ideo tamen humanis compara- 
buntur, quia de appellatione sociantur. Quanta erit diversitas divini corporis 
et humani, sub eisdem nominibus membrorum, tanta erit et animi divini et 
huraani differentia, sub eisdem licet vocabulis sensuum, quos tam corruptorioa 
eflScit in homine corruptibilitas substantiaB huraanaa, quam incorruptorios in 

§ 39. The Attributes of God. 109 

Deo efficit incomiptibilitas substantias diviiifc.* On the antliropomorpliism 
of Cyprian, see Rettherg, p. 300. Irceneus, with great sobriety, rejects both 
anthropomorpiiism properly so called, and false antbropopatliisra. In nr 
respect is God to be compared to liuman frailty ; thoug-li his love justifies us 
in using human phraseology when speaking of him, nevertheless we feel that, 
as to his greatness and his trne natnre, he is elevated above all that is human. 
God is simple, and in all things like himself (simplex, et non compositus et 
simili membrius, et totus ipse sibiraet ipsi simites et jequalis.) Comp. Adv. 
User. ii. 13, 4, and iv. 5, 20. DancJcer, 1. c. p. 25. £aur, Christ. Gnosis, p. 
46G; Trin. Lehro, p. IPC. 

§ 39. 


[Comp. Domer, Die Uuveranderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbucher f. deutsohe Theologie, i. 2, 

ii. 3. iii. 3.] 

Neither the existence of God, as we have already seen, nor hia 
attributes, were at first defined with scientific precision." The 
Catholic church simply adopted the concrete idea of a personal God, 
as propounded in the Old Test., though in a somewhat modified 
form." But by degrees metaphysical ideas, borrowed from the schools 
of philosophers, were transferred to the God of the Christians ; and 
on this point, too, opinions are found to oscillate between the philoso- 

* Munscher, ed. by Colin, i. p. 134, adduces this passage to sbow that TertuUian ia 
justly cbargeable with real anthropomorphism. It rather proves the contrary. It must 
also be borne in mind that the corporeity of God and anthropomorphism are by no 
means synonymous. It is possible to conceive of God as incorporeal, and yet in a very 
anthropomorphic way as a very limited spirit, hke the spirit of man. On the other 
Iiand, the substantiality of God may be taken in so abstract a manner as to exclude all 
that is human and personal (so the Stoics). Tertulliau combines both these modes of 
representation ; but after all that has been said, it is the awkwardness of his style and 
mode of thinking, rather than any defective religious views, that has brought him into the 
repute of being a crude anthroporaorphist. [This may be clearly seen from the following 
passage : " Divine affections are ascribed to the Deity by means of figures borrowed from 
the hmnan form, not as if he were indued with corporeal qualities : when eyes are ascribed 
to him, it denotes that he sees all things ; when ears, that he hears all things ; the speech 
denotes the will ; nostrils, the perception of prayer ; hands, creation ; arms, power ; feet, 
immensity; for he has no members, and performs no office for which they are required, 
but executes all things by the sole act of his will. How can he require eyes, who is light 
itself? or feet, who is omnipresent ? How can he require hands, who is the silent creator 
of all things ? or a tongue, to whom to think is to command ? Those members are neces- 
sary to men, but not to God, inasmuch as the counsels of man would be inefficacioua 
unless his thoughts put his members in motion; but not to God, whose operations follow 
his will without effort." Comp. Wright, W., in KiUo, Cyclop, of Bibl. Literal, art. An- 
thropomorphism.] TertuUian undoubtedly was struggling after more profound views 
than are even suspected by many who speak of his theology in depreciating terms. For 
tlie same reason too much is conceded to Cyprian, hj Rettberg, u. s. Comp. Baur's Trinitats- 
lehre, p. 188 no:e. Ou the distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. 
'•■— "gilder, Dogmengesch. [p. 106 of Ryland]. 

110 First Period. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

phical tendencies above described. Some connected their notions of 
the omnipresence of God with conceptions of his corporeity, aa 
space-filling and displacing other bodies ; others, on the contrary, 
maintained that he was exalted above space, or that he is to be con- 
ceived as abolishing it and taking its place." The doctrine of omnis- 
cience was to ^ome extent mixed up with anthropomorphitic ideas, 
and even Origen put limits to this attribute of God,' as well as to 
his omnipotence.' In harmony with the spirit of Christianity, along 
with the holiness of God,' his love and mercy were made specially 
prominent.* But it was to be expected that collisions would arise, 
which could be harmonized only by the attempt to take more com- 
prehensive and elevated views ; as, for example, to reconcile the 
omniscience (especially the foreknowledge) of God with his omni- 
potence and goodness,' or his punitive justice with his love and 

' Thus ^Justin Martyr generally makes only a passing reference to the 
divine attnmtes, and in contrast with the common humanizing of deity found 
in the poetic and plastic mythology." Semisch, ii. p. 258. Justin, too, 
emphasizes the immutability of God, as one of his fundamental attributes, 
calling him (Apol. i. 13) rbv arpeTrrov ical del ovra deov, 

' The Catholic church preserved a right medium between the anti-judaizing 
Gnostics, who spoke of the demiurge as a being either subordinate to the 
Supreme God, or standing in a hostile I'elation to him ; and the judaizirig 
Ebionites, who, retaining the rigid physiognomy of Judaism, misapprehended 
the universality of the Christian doctrine of God. But here, as elsewhere, 
there is a wide diflference between the North African and the Alexandrian 

° Comp. (§ 36, note 2) the passage cited from Athenagoras on the unity 
of God. With him agrees Theophilus (Ad Autol. I. 5), who compares the 
world to a pomegranate ; as this is surrounded by its peel, so is the world by 
the Spirit of God, and kept together by his hand. Cyprian, De Idol. Vanit. 
p. 15, finds fault with the heathen because they attempt to confine the 
infinite God within the narrow walls of a temple, whilst he — ubique totus 
diffusus est, — the image of a space-filling substance apparently floating before 
his mind. 

* Philo had previously identified God with absolute space,* and called 
liim his own limit (comp. the passages bearing on this subject in the work 
o'i Dahne, p. 281-284, and p. 193, 26'7, ss); Theophilus, too. Ad Autol. ii. 3, 
calls God his own space [avrbg eavrov Tonog iariv). He does not confine 
the omnipresence of God to his local presence in one or another spot, but con- 
siders it as his uninterrupted activity known only from his works ; comp. i. 5. 
Clem, of Alex., too, opposes the localizing of God, Strom, ii. 2, p. 431 : Oir 
yap kv yv6<p(o (a needless conjecture of Rossler's here is, iv ^povu) rj tott&i 

* Comp. the opinions of the Peripatetics (Sextua Empticus adr. Physicos, x. p. 639^ 
ei Fabricius). 

§ 39. The Attributes of God. Ill 

6 &ebg, dXX' vnepdvo) Kot tottov koL xpovov koI Trjg roji ■ yeyovoruv I6i6. 
rrjrog- 610 nv3k iv fispei /caTaylveral nore, ovre irepiexoiv ovre nepiExoiievog, 
i] Kara bpia/xov riva rj Kara dnoTOfiriv. According to Oriffen, God sustains 
and fills the world (which Ongen, like Plato, conceives to be an animate 
being) with his power, but he neither occupies space, nor does he even move 
in space, comp. De Princ. ii. 1, 0pp. i. p. 11. For an explanation of popular 
and figurative expressions, which suggest the occupying of space and change 
of place, vide Contra Cels. iv. 5, Oppl i. p. 505. and comp. also p. 686. Con 
cerning the expression that God is all in all, see De Princ. iii. 6 (0pp. i. p. 
152, 153). Schnitzer, p. 239 sq. 

' Jiist M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 127 : '0 yap dpprjTog Trarrjp ical Kvpiog r&v 
ndvTUv ovre noi d<plKrai, ovre TrepnTaTeZ, ovre KaOevSei, ovre dviaTarai, 
dXX' kv T^ avTov xupa ottov ttots fievei, d^v bpuv Kal 6^v dicovuv, ovk 6(f>- 
OaXf.olg av3e uaiv, dXXa 6vvdp,Ei aXeKTU- K,al navra k(f>opg, koI navra 
yivuJKEi, Kol oiidelg r]fiwv XiXrjeEV avrov. Clement, Strom, vi. 11, p. 821 : 
'0 ydo Toi Bebg navra oldev, ov jiovov to. ovra, aXXa iial rd Ea6fj,eva Kal 
dig EOrai maarov rdg te knl /xipovg lavr'iaEig npoop&v Trdvr' E(popa kal 
Trdvr' knuKOvei, yvjj,v^v eouOev rrjv ipvxfiv pXincov, Kal rrjv knivoiav ttjv, 
EKaarov TTjg Kara iikpog e%et 61 aiCivog- Kal SnEp km t&v dEdrpuv yivsrai, 
Kal tm Tu>v EKdarov [lEpwv, Kara rtjv kvopaalv te Kal irepiopaaiv Kal avvS- 
oaaiv, rovro knl tov Qeov yivErai. 'AOpoug re yap navra k&I acaarov 
kv fispsL (iLo, npoafioXxj npoajSXEnei. Origen De Princ. iii. 2, 0pp. i. p. 49, 
proves that the world is finite, because God could not compi-ehend it, if it 
were infinite ; for that only may be understood which has a beginning. But 
it were impious to say, that there is any thing which God does not compre- 

° Origen De Pi'\)c. ii. c. 9, p. 9Y {Redep.^. 10.) : 'Ev r^ inLvoovfiEvij ^PXV 
ToaovTov dpiOucv i -^ PovXrjfMari avrov vnoarrjaai, rbv Oeov vospuv ovacQv, 
oaov "qdyvaTO diapkEoai' nEnEpaiyiJ-ivTjv yap Eivai Kal rqv Svvafiiv rov 
6eov Xekteov k. t. X: But in other places Origen expresses himself in a very- 
appropriate way concerning the Divine omnipotence; Contra Cels. v, (0pp. 
i. p. 595), he shows that God can do all things, but wills nothing which is 
contrary to nature (napd (pvaiv), ovrs rd dnb KaKiag, ovre rd aXoyug ys- 
• vofiEva. 

' The holiness of the divine will is the highest law in Tcrtullian's view. 
His highest moral law is, not to do the good for the sake of the good, but 
becaus.3 it is commanded by God. (Comp. De Poenit. c. 4). 

* The notion of Clement of Alexandria is remarkable, evidently bor- 
rowed from the Gnostic doctrine of an dppev6dr]Xvg, viz., that the compassion 
of God pi'esents the female aspect of his character, Quis Div. Salv. p. 956 ; 
to which there is an analogy in the Old Test, Is. xlix. 15 ; comp. JSfeander's 
Gnostische Systeme, p. 209. The works of Clement, in particular, abound 
with passages referring to the love and mercy of God. He loves men be- 
cause they are kindred with God, Con. p. 89 : llpoKEi-rai ds dsl ru) Betj 
Tfjv dvOpunuv dyiXrjv au^ECV. Comp. fctrom. vii. p. 832. God's love fol- 
lows men, seeks them out, as the bird the young that hfis fallen from its nest, 
Coh. Ii, Psed. i. p. 102. 

' Origenes contr.a Cels. II., Opp. i. p. 405, Comment in Gen Opp. ii, p. 

112 First Period. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

10, 11. For more particulars," comp. the doctrine respecting Human Lib- 
erty, § 57. . 

'° Here, too, was another point of distinction between Gnosticism and the 
orthodox Christian's view of God ; the former did not know how to recon- 
cile the agency of God in inflicting punishment, with his character as loving 
and redeeming; on this account they felt compelled to separate objectively 
the just God of the Old Test, from the loving Father of Christians (so Mar- 
cion). In opposition to this unwarrantable separation, Irenaeus, Tertul- 
lian, Clement, Origen, etc., insist particularly on the penal, justice of God, 
and show that it can very well be reconciled with his love. According 
to Irenaeus, Adv. Hser. v. 27, penalty does not consist in anything positive 
which comes from God, but in the separation of the sinner from God [x-Upia- 
fibg 3k tov Oeov ddvarog). God does not punish nporjyrjTtKu)^, but eiraiio- 
Xov6ovaTjg Si' eKeivrjg (ryg dfiapriag) Tfjg KoXdasug. Tertullian considers 
the penal justice of God first from the judicial standpoint of the inviolabil- 
ity of law ; distinguishing between true love and benevolent weakness, he 
shows that the goodness and justice of God are inseparable ; Contra Marc, 
i. 25, 26; ii. 12 : Nihil bonum, quod injusfum, bonum autera omue quod 
justum est. Ita si societas et conspiratio bonitatis atque justitiae separatio- 
nem earum non potest capere, quo ore constitues diversitatem duorura 
deornm in separatione ? seorsum deputans deum bonum et seorsum deum 
justum ? Illic consistit bonum, ubi et justum. A primordio denique crea- 
tor tam bonus quam Justus. .. .Bonitas ejus operata est mundum, justitia 
modulatum est, etc. Comp. c. 13-16 (negabimus Deum, in quo non omnia, 
quiB Deo digna sint, constent). Then he draws a distinction between, mails 
Bupplicii s. poense, and mails culpae s. pecoati. God is the author only of the 
former ; the devil is the author of the latter. — To defend himself against the 
charge of anthropomorphism he says : Stultissimi, qui de humanis divina 
prsejudicant, ut quoniam in homine corruptoriae conditionis habentnr hnjus- 
niodi passiones, idcirco et in Deo ejusdem status existimentur, etc. — Clement 
of Alexandria adopts partly the same juridical view, Strom, iv. 24, p. 634 ; 
but, in enumerating the causes which induce God to inflict penalties, he 
speaks of the legal principle as being the last. He puts first the educational 
design, to make men better, and to warn and restrain others ; comp. Pasd. 
i. 8, p. 40. This is distinctly set forth, Strom, vii. p. 895 : 'A.XX' ihg -rrpbg 
TOV SidacKaXov fj tov Trarpbg ol TralSeg, ovTug rjiielg -nphg Trig Trpovoiag 
KoXa^6jj.e0a. Qebg 6t ov TinupelTar 'iciTi yap r) TLfiupia icaKov dvTw 
TTodomg' KoXdi^ei fiivTot npbg Tb xpriainov Koi koiv^ koI iSla Toig KoXa^o- 
p,ivoig. Origen, moreover, says, that God is rhore ready to do good than to 
punish ; Horn. I. in Jerem. (Opp.iiii. p. 125) : 'O Oebg elg ayaOo-nouav np6- 
Xupog koTiv, elg 6e Tb KoXdaai Tovg a^lovg KoXdasug fiEXXTjTrjg. He gives 
the sinner always space for repentance ; eodem loco. Origen refutes at great 
length the objections of the Gnostics, De Princ. ii. 5 (0pp. t. i. p. 102, 
Schnitzer, p. 109), by proving (in agreement with Tertullian) that their dis- 
tinction between "benevolent" and "just" is altogether untenable, and 
showing that the Divine penalties are inflicted for paternal objects by a wise 
physician ; at the same time, he applies the allegorical interpret? tion to those 

§ 40. The Doctrine of the Logos. 113 

passages of the Old Test, which speak in an anthroporaorphitic way of the 
wrath and vengeance of God; comp. also Contra Gels. iv. 71, 72, p. 556, 
(see also § 48). 



a. The Doctrine hefore the Christian Era, and in other Systems. 

*Lucke, Historical Examination of the Idea of the Logos in his Commentar. uber das 
Evangelium Joh. vol. i. 3d ed. p. 249, ss. [Tlioluok, Commentar zum Bvang. Joh. 
ch. i. Die Logoslehre. 7th ed. p. 52, ss. transl. by C. P. Krauth, Phil. 1859.] *Dorner, 
Entwieitlungsgesehichte der Christologie. Stuttg. 1845, pp. l-65;[oomp. Bibliotheca, 
Sacra, vi. 156, sq.; vii. 696-132, by Pro£ Stuart.] Von Bohlen, Das alte Indien mit 
besonderer Euclisicht auf jEgypten (ii. Konigsb. 1830), i. p. 201, ss. Sluhr,'D\e Re- 
ligionssysteme der heidnischen Tolker des Orients, p. 99, ss. Eleuker, Zendavesta im 
Kleinen. Th. ii. p. 1, ss. * Baumlein, Tersuoh die Bedeutung dag Johann. Logos aus 
den Religionssystemen des Orients zu entwickeln. Ttib. 1828. [Goldirooke^s Essays. 
J. R. Ballantyne, Christ, contrasted with Hindu Philoa. 1859. J. Mullens, Relig. 
Aspects of Hindu Phil, (prize essay), 1860. 0. F. Kosppen, Die ReUgion Buddhaa 
IL 1358, '9. Barthelemy St. Bilaire, Bonddha, I860.] J. Bucher, Des Apostels Johannes 
Letire von Logos, SchaSh. 1856. [Burton, E., the Bampton Lecture on the Heresies 
of the Apostohc Age, Lect. vii. Comp. also Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the 
Messiah, 3d edit. i. 522-529, ii. 415, 432, et passim.] 

F. Ch. Baur, Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieiniglteit und Menschwerdung Gottea 
in ilirer gesohiehtlichen Entwieklung, Tub. 1841-43, 3 vols. vol. i p. 1-128. *G. 
A. Meier, Die Lehre von der Trinitat. Hamb. 1844, i. p. 1, ss. Beltway, Die Torstel- 
luug veh der Pnexistenz Christi in der altcsten Kirche, in ZeUer's Jahrb. 1848. 
* Duncker, Zur Gesoh. der Logoslehre Ju.stin des Mart, (reprint from the Gottinger 
Studien, 1847), Gott. 1848. Lcemmer, Clement. Alexandr. de Xoya doctrina, Lips. 
1855. [Konig, Die Menschwerdung, 1846. R. J. WiVyerforce, Doctrine of the Incar- 
nation in Relation to Mankind and the Church, 1851. Maurice, Religions of the 
"World. , Trench, Unconscious Prophecies of Heathenism. Robert Go^rdon, Christ as 
madf) known to the Ancients, 2, 8vo. Edinb. 1854. Casar Morgan, Trinity of Plato 
and Philo Judajus, new ed. by Holden, 1853. John Oxlee, Trinity and Incarnation 
on the Principles of Judaism, 3 vols. Lend. 1815-1850. Comp., also, Liebner's Chris- 
tologie, i. 1849; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1853, sq. ; Nagelsbach, der 
Gottmensch, i. 1854; Kuhn, Kath. Dogmatik, il s. 9-41.] 

We are obliged to conceive of God, on the one hand, as a purely- 
spiritual essence exalted above all that is finite, and, on the other 
hand, since he reveals and imparts himself to the world, as hav- 
ing a definite relation to the created universe. This double neces- 
sity, in the progress of thought, led to the idea of an organ (medium) 
by which Grod creates the world, works upon it, and reveals himself 
to it. This organ was supposed, on the one side, to have its ground 
in the divine nature itself, to stand in the most intimate connection 
with it, and, on the other, to be somehow or other distinct from it. 
In order to ascertain the origin of this idea, we need not go either to 
remote oriental sources, the wisdom of India and the religion of Zend,' 
nor to the occidental systems of philosophy, that of Plato ia particu- 

114 FiKST Period. Docteine Kespecting God. 

lar.'' We may find traces of it in the more definite and concrete form 
which, at the time when the apocryphal writings were composed, 
was given to the personifications of the divine Word and the divine 
Wisdom found in the Old Test/ especially, however, in the doc- 
trine of Philo concerning the Logos,'' and in some other ideas then 
current.' Here is prefigured the form into which Christianity was 
destined to bring the living and fructifying spirit, in giving ex- 
pression to the profoundest truths of the Christian faith. 

' "/< is easy to see that the Christian idea can not he explained hy an ap- 
peal to the Indian religion^ Dorner, p. 7. The Trimurti of the Indian 

Brahinanism : 

Sun (Light) 

Water (Air?) 
Preserver (progressive development) 

Seeva (Kala) 








Comp. Von Bohlen and Stuhr, 1. c. Among the Egyptians we find tho 
following, corresponding with these deities : 

Brahma = Phtha 
Vishnoo = Kneph 
Seeva — Neith. 

The word by which Brahma created the world is Om (Oum), see Van 
Bohlen, i. p. 159, ss. 212. In the system of Zoroaster, Honover is represented 
as the Word by which the world was created (Duncker, Logosl. Just. Mart. 
Gijtt. 184'7), the most immediate revelation of the god Ormuzd; &eQ Kleuker, 
1. c. and Stuhr, i. p. 370, 371. [^Burton, i. c. Lect. ii. p. 14-48.] '^ Since, 
in the pagan systems of religion, the natural is most intimately 'blended with 
the divine, their triads are altogether different from the Christian doctrine of 
the Trinity ; in the former the triads only denote the elements {moments) of a 
developing process, and are therefore most fully found in those religions which 
occupy a very low position, hut disappear when the identification of the divine 
with the natural is got rid of in the further development of the religious sys- 
tem.'' Meier, 1. c. p. 4. Comp. Dorner, 1. c. 

' The relation in whicji Plato (especially in Timseus) imagined God to 
stand to the creating vovg, presents only a remote analogy ; likewise the 
passage bearing on the Adyof from the Epinomis, p. 986, which Euseb. 
Prsep, Evang. xi. 16, professes to quote from Epimenides (given by De Wettc, 
biblische Dogmatik, § 157). Comp. Tennemann, das platonische Philoso- 
phem vera gottlichen Verstande, in Paalus' Memorabilien, Stuck i. and his 
System der platonischen Philosophic, vol. iii. p. 149, ss. 174, ss. Bockh, 
Ubcr die Bildung der Weltseele im Timseus des Plsto (in Daub und Creu- 
zer's Studien, vol. iii. p. 1, ss. Bitter, Geschichte der Philosophic, ii. p. 291, 

§ 40. The Doctrine of the Logos. 115 

BS. 318, ss. [Burton, 1. c. Lcct. vii. and note 90 in particular.] Neander, 
Hist. Doctrines (Ryland), i. 132. On the doctrine of the Logos among tin; 
Stoics {airepiiaTiKbg ^oyog), see Buncker, Logoslehre, p. 28 sq. 

* The oldest form of revelation which we find in the Old Test, is the 
direct Tkeophamj, which, however, was adapted only to the age of childhood. 
In later times God speaks to his people in general, or to individuals, some- 
times by angels (especially the n^n- tjNVtt) , sometimes by human mediatorii 
(Moses and the prophets). But the intercourse of God with the prophets is 
carried on by the medium of the Word of the Lord, n-pi -irn which descends 
upon them. This Xoyog {prJiJ-a tov deov, tov Kvpiov) is poetioilly personified 
in several places ; Ps. cxlvii. T6 ; Is. Iv. 11 ; in an inferior degree, Ps. xxxiii. 
4 ; oxix. 89, 104, 105 ; Is. xL 8 ; Jer. xxiii. 29 ; comp. Luoke, 1. c. p. 257, 
258. Like the Word, so the Wisdom of God ("Ksri ao(l)i.a) is personified : 
Job xxviii. 12-28, and in very significant terms (in contrast with folly), Prov. 
ch. viii. and ix. On i?:^ (Prov. viii. 22) and the signification of vwk (viii. 
30), comp. UmbreWs Comment, p. 102, 106; on the personification of Wis- 
dom in the apocryphal writings (Sir. i. 4, 24; Baruch iii. 15, ss. iv. 1 ; 
Wisdom, vi. 22, to ch. ix.) see Lucke, 1. c. p. 221, ss., and Bretschneider, 
Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik der Apokryphen. Leipzig, 1805, 
p. 191, ss. The strongest example of personification is in the Book of Wis- 
dom, so that it is diflScult to define exactly the distinction between this per- 
sonification and the hypostasis, properly so called, especially ch. vii. 22, ss. 
On the relation of this hypostasis to that of Philo, see Lticke, 1. c. Dorncr, 
p. 15 sq. Grimm, Coram, tiber d. Buch d. Weisheit, Leipz. 1837. [Gfrdrer''s 
ITrchristenthum, Bd. i. See the discussion between Lucke and Nitzsch, in 
the Theol. Stud, und Kritiken, 1840, 1. On the Angel of Jehovah, Christ. 
Rev. New York, 1859, and Bib. Sacra, 1859. On Wisdom as a Person, 
Prof. E. P. Barrows, in Bib. Sacra, 1858. On the Logos, Daub in Stud. u. 
Krit. Bd. vi. ; Journal of Sac. Lit. iii. ; Journal of Class, and Sacred Philol. 
Lond. vol. i.; Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. 1849.] 

* " Philo^s doctrine of the Logos is the immediate prelude to the Christian 
idea of the Logos" ; Semisch, Just. Mart. ii. p. 267. [Comp. Jordan Bucher, 
Philonische Studien, Tubing. 1848, who discusses in particular the question 
of the personality of the Logos in Philo.J On the question whether Philo 
ascribed personality to the Logos, swDorner, i. p. 21, ss. ; while most writers 
reply in the affirmative, Dorner entertains the opposite opinion. Thus much 
is certain, that Philo makes a distinction between the ov as such, and the 
Xoyog TOV ovrog, who is superior to the 6vvdfj,ecg, Xoyoi, and dyyeXoi. This 
Logos he also calls SevTfpog deog, even deog, directly but without the article, — 
vlbg -rrpeajivrepog, vlbg p-ovoyev^g, npuToyovog, — eIkuiv, OKid, irapadeiypa, 
(i6|ffl, ao^ia, i-triOTrifiri tov deov. According to Philo, the Logos is the 
essence and seat of the ideal world {liia tuv IdeGiv 6 Osov Xoyog). As an 
artist first makes a model of that which he purposes to make, so God first 
sliaped the world ideally; see his De Mundi Opif. § 5, and the explanations 
dJ. G. Mailer (Philo's Buch von der Weltschopfung, Beri. 1841), p. 149, 
«s. In the same manner the Logos is the mediator of the revelations of God; 
the theophanies were possible through him ; he is called the TrapdKXrjTog, 

■ nn'\/llnri'tr ^tri-r 'nr TrncnRct^-rfif ArrnAnf jr-nfi fl-^oV, He takcS CarC of all that 

116 First Period. Doctrine Kespecting God. 

is good, as dpx^ koI iT7)y7\ KaX&v npd^euv. Philo was acquainted with the 
distinction between the Xoyog ivdidderog and the Xoyog TTpo<j>opiK.6g, though 
he employs these terms. only in anthropological relations, De Vita Moys. lib. 
iii. (Paris, p. 672, c): 'Ev dvdpwnu 6' 6 fitv (Adyof) iarlv evdidderog, h 61 
T:po(j)opi,Kbg, Kol 6 fiev old rig Trriyfj, h dt yeyuvbg an' inEivov piuv. But 
he represents the Divine Logos as analogous to the human. Inasmuch as 
the Logos is the Divine idea, all spiritual and sensuous existence derives its 
origin from him ; as a power of nature he pervades the world, is immanent 
in it as the world-spirit. That Philo frequently personifies the Logos, does 
not necessarily imply that he ascribes to him a real hypostasis, and hence 
there should be great caution iu the interpretation of single passages. But 
the most recent researches (since Dorner) have shown that Philo, in some 
places certainly, comes up to the idea of a real hypostasis (Alleg. iii. 93 ; De 
Somn. i. 584, 585 ; Quis Rer. Div. Haer. 509, and elsewhere); comp. F. 
Keferstein, Philo's Lehre von den gottlichen Mittelwesen, Leipz. 1846; also 
Semisch, Justin der M., p. 274. JSaur, Dreieinigkeits-Lehre, i. p. 59, ss. 
Meier, Trinitatslehre, i. p. 20, ss. ; and the works of Oroasmann, Scheffer, 
Gfrorer, Bdhne, and Bitter, referred to in § 19. [Michel Nicholas, Les " 
Doctrines religieuses des Juifs, Paris, 1860, Part 2d, Chap. 2, pp. 178-216, 
contends that the doctrine respecting the Word (Logos) could not have been 
derived from either Babylonian or Platonic sources ; that it had its origin in 
Palestine, and passed thence to Alexandria. It is a result of the Jewish 
views respecting God. " The doctrine of an intermediate being between God 
and the world is a part of the theology of the Talmud ; but this intermediate 
being is there designated, not by the name of the Word, but by that of the 
Shekinah,"— p. 215.] 

* Traces of the doctrine of the Logos are also found in the Samaritan 
theology, and in the writings of Onkelos and Jonathan, comp. Lucke, 1. c. p. 
244. Concerning the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists, and the Memra and 
Shekinah, vide Bretschneider, 1. c. p. 233, 236. JBaur, Gnosis, p. 332. De 
PF«<<fi, biblische Dogmatik, § 157. [.Barton, 1. c. Lect. ii. p. 51-55.] DoT' 
tier, u. s. Qfrorer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Stuttg. 1838, p. 272 sq. 


h. The Christian Doctrine of the Logos in the Writings of John. 

Sncher, des Apostel Johannes Lehre vom Logos (§ 40). 

Christianity first gave to the speculative idea of the Logos 
practical and religious relations and significance.' The Gospel of 
John, in accordance with the doctrine of Paul," which differs only 
in the form of expression, applied the term Logos to the complete 
and personal revelation of God in Christ. This Christian Logos of 
John was no longer a mere abstract idea, but with all its ideality it 
was at the same time a great religious truth and historical fact ; and 

§ A3i. The Theologumenon of the Church. 117 

on this account it was from the first the peculiar and living root of 
Christian theology. 

It is true that Philo himself made use of the idea of the Logos for prac- 
tical and religious purposes, inasmuch as he accommodated it to the Hebrew- 
religion in connecting it with the idea of the Messiah. But this connection 
was nevertheless very loose, and the idea of the Messiah itself was altogether 
abstract, and in the sense of the Jews, not historically realized. (" The idea 
of the Messiah becomes in Philo hut a dead coal; only the phlegm remains," 
Dorner, p. 49.) In contrast with this the Christian idea of the Logos on the 
one hand (the speculative and divine), and the idea of the Messiah on the 
other hand (the national and human), both appear historically realized in 
the person of Jesus of Nazareth 6 Aoyof aap^ iyivsTo). Bucher, ubi 
supra, p. 214 : " The Logos {in John) is not a mere mediating principle, 
hut also an independent creator of the worldV In Philo the Logos is vlKq 
npuToyovog, in John vlbg iJ,ovoyev^g : ibid. p. 211. On the relation of the 
Christian doctrine of the Logos to the heathen systems of emanation, see 
Duncker, 1. c. p. 23. 

' Though the term Aoyof does not occur in the writings of Paul in the 
sense in which it is understood by John, yet the idea of a divine pre-exist- 
ence of Christ is clearly expressed by him, especially Col. i. 15-17; ii. 9. 
Similar expressions are found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. i. 4, ss. 
(Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 47 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Kom. viii. 29.) Concerning the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as propounded in the New Test, see Meier, 1. c. p. 24, 
ss., and Hellway, ubi supra. 


c. The Tlieologumenon of the Church concerning the Logos, to the 
Times of Origen. 

[Bwrton, E , Testimonies of the Ante-Nioene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, etc. 

(Works, iL)] 

But Christian theology in its further history did not stand 
still with tliis idea of the Logos, as historically manifested in the 
Messiah. That which appears in historical manifestation, it en- 
deavored to grasp as having its ground in the very nature of God. 
A deep religious interest was unquestionably here at work, but it 
frequently yielded to speculation, and was mixed up with foreign 
philosophemes. Those heretics who adhered more closely to Juda- 
ism (the Ebionites), as well as the Alogi, Theodotus and Artemon, 
were most remote from speculations of this nature, since they set 
aside the very substance of this Christian gnosis, the idea of the 
Ijogos, by denying the divinity of Christ. The distinction between 
God the Father and the Logos was likewise abolished by the other 
section of the Monarchians, Fraxeas, Noetus, and Beryllus, with- 


out, however, denying the actual revelation of Grod in Christ, wliioh 
they insisted upon with all emphasis.' The Gnostics, on the con- 
trary, connected the idea of the Logos with their fanciful doctrine 
of emanation and of teons, and thus played over into the realm of 
speculative mythology." And so it became incumbent upon the 
fathers to defend the speculative element in opposition to the former 
class of heretics, the historical in opposition to the latter, and to 
preserve both these elements for the practical religious interests of 
tiie church." Justin,^ Tatian^ Athenagoras* Theophihis,^ Clement 
of Alexandria,' endeavored to illustrate the existence of the Logos, 
and his relation to the Father, by the aid of figures and analogies, 
borrowed from the external world and the nature of man. Tertul- 
lian' strove to explain the mystery, wrestling hard with language ; 
while Ircnceus. opposed to all gnosis, on the one hand set aside 
hair-splitting queries, and on the other held fast to the trinitarian 
faith of the church as the direct expression of the Christian con- 

" Compare § 23, Note 1, § 25, Notes 2 and 3, and the dissertation of 
lleinichen there cited. The orthodox church identified the idea of the Lo- 
gos and that of the Messiah, but the doctrinal tendency of the Ebionites, 
as well as of the Gnostics, separated them. The former, adopting the idea 
of the Messiah alone, lost sight of the spiritual import of the doctrine of the 
Logos; the reverse was the case with the Gnostics, who held a mere idea 
without substance, a shadow without body. — Concerning Artemon, whose 
opinions rank him among the Monarchians, Schleiermacher (in his essay : 
Ueber die Sabellianische und Athanasisch& Vorstellung, transl. in Bib. Repos. 
1835, p. 322), observes, that he appears to have retained the doctrine of the 
unity of God with more seriousness, and greater desire to promote the interests 
of religion, than the more frivolous Theodotus ; vide Zeitschrift von Schleier- 
macher, de Wette and Liicke, iii. p. 303, 304. He there shows also the dif- 
ference between this tendency, and that of Praxeas and Noetus, already al- 
luded to, § 24, note 4. Comp. also § 46, note 3, and Gieseler in Stud. u. 
Krit. 1853. [On Beryl see Fock in the Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1846.] 

' Even if we look at it numerically alone, there is a great difference between 
the catholic doctrine of the Logos, and the views of the Gnostic sects. Be- 
fore the doctrine of the Trinity was further developed (see below) the Loo-os 
was considered by the orthodox church to be the only hypostasis ; while the 
Gnostics imagined heaven to be inhabited by a multitude of ceons. — Accord- 
ing to Basilides there are 365 heavens [ovpavoi, the lowest of which is under 
the dpx(^v) ; and he assigned an intermediate position between the supreme 
(rod and the Logos to the vovg, and tauglit that the Logos emanated from 
the latter. Further emanations of the vovg, were the (ppovrjacg, ao(pia, diva, 
fiig, 6iiio.coavvri and elpijvrj, and, these five aeons, together with the other two 
vovg and Xoyog, in all seven, formed, along with the dsbg apprj-og [dvuvo- 
uaarog) the first 6-) dodg.—BtiU more ingenious is the system of Valentinus, 
[He asserted that from the great first cause (primitive existence, (ivObg 

§ 42. The Theologumenon of the Cbukch. 119 

rrpuTTarwp, TTpoapxrj) successively emanated male and female feons (vovg or 
uovoyevijg and aXr]6Eia, Adyof and fu?}, avOpunog and iicKXrjaia, etc.), so 
that 30 iBons (divided into the oydodg, 6eKdg, and (JcotJe/caf) form tlie ttXtjp- 
Ujia. The vehement desire of the labt of the asons, the aotpla, to unite itself 
with the I3v06g, gave existence to an immature being (r] kutu ao(pia, evOv 
\i7jaig,dxaiJU)d) which, wandering outside the pleroma, imparted life to matter; 
and formed the drjiiiovpyog, who afterward created the world. In order -tu 
restore the harmony of the pleroma, the two new teons, Xpiardg and rd 
rrvevfia ayiov were made; and last of all 'Irjaovg (aWTTjp) emanated from all 
the aeons, and as the future ov^vyog of the achamoth was appointed to lead 
back into the pleroma alike the £Eons, and all spiritual natures.] (Comp. 
Neander, Matter, and Baur, in the works mentioned, § 23.) [Giesder, Texlr 
Book, i. § 45. Niedner, i., p. 201 sq. Burton, 1. c. Lect. ii. p. 36-41. 
Nm-ton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vols, iii., note B : On Basilides and the 
Basilideans, p. xxxviii.-xlix. Basilides' System, O. Uhlhorn, 1855, cf. Hil- 
genfeld, Judisehe Apokalyptik, 1857, s. 289, sq. Baur, in Theol. Jahrb. 
1856. On Valentinus, see Volokmar in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855 — 
the relation to it of the Colorbasus-Gnosis, mentioned by Epiphanius. Peter- 
mann's edition of the Pistis Sophia, Berlin, 1852. Bishop Hooper on V^den- 
tinus, AVorks pp. 307-345.] 

' The apostolical fathers hold fast to this practical religious interest ; though 
they do not make any use of the peculiar doctrine of the Logos (Semisch, ii., 
p. 275 sq.), yet there are single, scattered declarations, which offer the out- 
lines of an iuiuianent doctrine of the Trinity {Meier, Gesch. d. Trinit. i., p. 
47, sq.) Thus particularly, Ignatius ad Polyc. i : Tovg Kaipovg Karafiavdave, 
Tuv vmp Kaipov npoadoKa rdv dxpovov, rvv aopaTOV, tov cSt' 'i)nS,g bparhv, 
rhv aif)T]Xdcf>rjTov, rdv dirddij, tov 8i' rjn&g naOrjTbv, rdv Kara navra rpoirov 
ndvra dt' Tjixag viTop,eLvavTa. 

' Justin* follows Philo tp a great extent, yet more as to form than sub- 
stance, with this difference only, that he identifies the Logos, by whom God 
has created the world, and manifested himself in the theophanies, with his 
incarnate Son, even Christ Jesus. Comp. Apol. ii. 6 : 'O 6k v'lug iiieivov 
(Oeoii), b i.i6vog XeyofMevog Kvplug vlbg, 6 Xoyog irph r&v noirjfidTOJv, nal avvuv 
iial yevvufiEVog, ore ti)v dpx^v Sl' avrov ndvra EnriaE Kal EKoaiXTjaE- Xpia- 
rbg p,BV Kara rb KEXptoOai ical Koafirjaai ra Tzdvra 6i' avrov rbv QEbv 
XkyEraf uvofj^a ical avrb TTEpiex"'" ayvtoarov orjp.aaiav ov rponov Kal rb 
Qebg 7:po!7ay6pEVfj,a ovk bvojxd kariv, dXXa rcpdyiiarog dvaE^riy-qrov EfMhvrog 
T5 ^vOEi ru>v dvOpuTcuv 66§a. 'lijaovg Se ical dvOpdmov nal aurfjpog ovoiia 
Kal arjiiaaiav Exet. He then proceeds to the incarnation itself. Justin rep- 
resents the generation of the Logos as npoEpxeoOai. drro rov narpbg, as ysv. 
aaOat, rrpoPdXXEadat (Dial. c. Tr.yph. c. 61), and adduces several illustrations 
in support of his views. Thus man utters words without any loss of his 
nature ; fire kindles' fire without undergoing any diminution, etc. (The 

* " T%e apostolical fathers make no itse of the doctrine of the Logos, but adhere to simple 
aphoristic, amd undeveloped declarations about the divine dignity of Christ ;" Semisch, ii., p 
275 sq.; compare, however, Meier, Gesch. d. Trinit. i., p. 47, sq., who sees (p. 51) in these 
moat ancient representations an advance from the general ideas of revelation, reconciliation, 
etc., to the beginnings of the immanent Trinity. 

120 First Peeiod. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

addition, aXX' ov rotovrov, {» not genuine, see the note in the edit, of Maran" 
8i qnis tanien retineat haec verba, scribonda sunt cum interrogation is nota, ut 
in edit. Loud.) On the other hand, he rejects (Dial. c. Tryph. 128) the 
illustration taken fi'om the sun and its beams; we can neither speak of an 
aTroTEfiveadai, nor of an eiCTeivsadai ; see Dorner, ii. 1, p. 428. On the 
difi'erent understanding of the word Logos, now as the creative Word, and 
npw as reason, and on the relation of Justin's doctrine of tlie Logos, on the 
one hand to the Old Test, conceptions, and on the other to the Platonic and 
Stoic philosophy, see Duncker, Logoslehre Just. p. 14, sq. [Comp. Bull, 
Judicium Eccles. Cath., App. ad. c. vii., § 6. Faber^s Apostolicity of Trini- 
tarianism, 1832, i., 48, sq., 89 sq. ; 143, ii., 144, et passim.] 

" Tatian Contra. Grsec. c. 5, uses illustrations similar to those of Justin. 
The Logos was immanent (yTTEarrjoe) in the Father (God), but derived his 
existence [Trporrrjda) from his will, and thus was the 'ipyov TrpcoTOTOicov of 
the Father, apx^l joii koojiov. He is begotten Kara jiepiafiov, not kut' 


' Athen. Leg. c. 10. calls the Son of God (in contrast with the sons of the 
heathen gods) Xdyog tov rraTpbg iv IS&a not kvepyeia' npbg avrov yap koI 
61' avTOv navra eyivero, ivbg ovrog tov narpbg koI tov vlov. The distinc- 
tion between iv Idea and iv ivepyetu corresponds to that between Xoyog 
ivSidOeTog and Xoyog Trpo^opiitog. Comp. Baur, p. 170, sq. Dorner, p. 
440, sq. 

' Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10, treats most fully of the going forth of the 
Logos from God, and he is the iirst writer who uses the distinction between 
the X. ivdidde-og and X. TTpo(f>opiK6g in this deiinite form (^Baur, p. 167) : 
"E^oiv ovv 6 debg t6v kav~ov Xoyov ivdiddsTOv iv Tolg Idtnig anXdyxvoig, 
iyevvrjaev avrbv fieTO, Trjg iavrov ao<piag i^epev^dfievog* npb tiTiv oXuv. 
Likewise c. 22 : Ovx ug ol Tioirj-al Kol iivdoypdt^oL Xiyovaiv vlovg Oevv t'« 
avvovaiag yevvcofiivovg, dXX' ug dXr\deia dirjyeiTai tov Xoyov, tov ovtu 
dianavTbg ivdiddsTOV iv Kapdia.deov. Ilpb yap ti ylveadai, tovtov el^s 
avfijiovXoi', iavTOv vovv Kal ^povrjaiv ovTa' inoTe 6e rfOiXTjaev 6 debg noirjoai 
baa iPovXevaaTO, tovtov tov Xoyov iyivvTjae rrpocfiopiKov, npcoTOTOKOv tto- 
arjg KTiaeug' ov KsvcoOelg avTog tov Xoyov, dXXa Xdyov yevvrjaag, Kal tH 
Xoyo) avTov SiairavTbg bfiLXCov. 

' In the writings of Clement the doctrine of the Logos forms the central 
point of his whole system of theology, and the mainspring of his religious 
feelings and sentiments. Without the Logos there is neither light nor life 
(Coh. p. 87). He is the divine instructor of man {rraiSayiiiyog). Paed. iii. 
12, p. 310 : JldvTa 6 /.oyog Kal -rroiel Kal 6i6daKEi Ka\ naiSayuyer iTnrog 
dyeTai x<^^i-'''V "■'^^ Tavpog dysTai fyyij- drjpta Ppoxi^ dXioKSTar b 6s 
avdpuTTog fiSTaTrXdaasTai XoyCy (L dripia TiOaaaeveTai Kal vrjicTa deXed^BTai 
Kal TTTrjvd KUTaavpeTai k. t. X. Comp. the beautiful hymn elg rbv naida- 
yuyov at the end of his work. [Bennett, I. c. app. K. p. 268, where both the 
original and an English translation are given.] God has created the world 
by the Logos ; yea, the Logos is the creator himself (6 tov Koap-ov Kal 
dvdpuTTOv 6rjp.Lovpybg) ; he gave the law, inspired the prophets; from him 
proceeded the theophanies; Paid. i. 7, p. 132-134; ii. 8, p. 215; ii. 10, p. 
• With reforonoe to Psalm xlv. (xliv.) 1 ; i^ripev^nro tj nap&ia /zov Xoyov dyaOov. 

§ 42. The Theologumenon of the Church. 121 

224. 229 ; iii. 3, p. 264 ; iii. 4, p. 269 ; comp. 2Y3, 230, 293, 29Y, 307. 
Strom, i. 23, p. 421, 422 ; vii. i. p. 833. In liis view (as in that of Philo), 
the Logos is the dpxispevq, even apart from the incarnation, Strom, ii. 9, p. 
433, 500. He is the face (Trpoffwrrov), of God, by which God is seen, Poed. 
i. 7, p. 132. The Logos is superior to men and angels, but subordinate to 
the Father; principal passage, Strom, vii. 2, p. 831 : On earth the righteous 
man is the most excellent being; in heaven, the angels, because they are yet 
purer and more perfect. TeAetUTar?; tJr) Kal ayiuiTdrrj ical Kvpiurdrri Kol 
TiyenoviKUTdTTj Kal PaatXiKuraTT] Kal evepyeTiKurdTT] fj vlov (jivaiq, 57 to 
liov&j TravTOKpdropi ■npoaex^'^'''dr7]. Avrrj fj fieyicTTj vnepox^), rj ra ndvra 
diardaoETai Kara to deXrjfia tov narpbg, Kal rb -ndv apiara olaKi^et, aKaixdro) 
Kal aTpvTCO dvvdfiei Tzavra ipya^ofiEvr], Si' uv kvepyei rag dnoKpixpovg kvvoiag 
i-mPXeTTOvaa. Ov yap e^iaTarai nbre r^f avrov nEpiunrig b vlbg tov Qeov' 
ov fiEpi^ofievog, ovk aTrorenvofievog, ov fiETafiaLvutv sk tottov elg tottov, iravTrj 
6e 6JV ndvTOTe, Kal fj,r]6ap,7i Trepiexop^evog, SA.o^' vovg, bXog (pS>g nuTpwov, oXog 
6(j)0aXfibg, ndvTa bpuv, ndvTa aKovuv, eiSoig irdvTa, dvvdfiei Tag dwdfieig 
epevvuv. Tovtio ndaa v-noTeTaK-at. OTpaTia dyyeX(DV re Kol Oewv, tS> Xoyu 
Tu TTaTpLKU) TTjv dylav olKOVon'tav dvadedsiyjiivo) 6ia Tbv imoTd^avTa, 81' 
idv Kal TtaVTEg avTOv at avOpwnof dXX' ol p,EV KaT' iniyvcoaiv, ol de ovdsno)' 
Kal ol fiev (hg cpiXoi, ol 6e dig olKe-ai ttiutoI, ol de <l)g dnXug olKETai. (The 
true knowledge of the Logos is the privilege of the true Gnostics.) Divine 
■worship is due to the Loges, vii. '!, p. 851, Quis Div. Salv. p. 956. [Comp. 
Bennett, 1. c. p. 123-126. Burton, E., Testimony of the Antenioene Fathers 
to the Divinity of Christ (Works, ii. p. l7l, ss.)] On the mode of genera- 
tion Clement speaks less explicitly than the before-mentioned writers. (On 
his relation to th.em, see Munscher, Handbuch, i. 422.) He attaches more 
importance to the immanence of the Logos. In his opinion, the Logos is not 
only the word of God spoken at the creation, but the speaking and creative 
Word ; see Dorner, p. 446. He also holds along with the concrete idea of 
the individuality of the Logos, another notion of a more general import, ac- 
cording to which the Loges is identical with the higher spiritual and rational 
life, the life of ideas in general; by this idea of the Logos the ante-Christian 
world was moved, comp. Strom, v. p. 654 ; hence the charge of Photius 
(Bibl. Cod. 109), that Clement taught the existence of a twofold Logos of 
the Father, only the inferior of whom appeared on earth ; see Baur, Trinit. 
Lehre, p. 195. Accordingly he who studies the writings of Clement merely 
for the purpose of deducing a strictly doctrinal system, will not be satisfied, 
and like Munscher (HandbuCh, i.^p. 418), he will see in him ''mere declama^ 
tion,from which no definite idea can be derived." On the contrary, he who 
takes in his total religious system would feel more inclined to adopt the lan- 
guage of Mohler, that Clement has " has treated and sung about the dogma 
concerning the Logos with greater clearnesv, than all the other fathers of this 
veriod, but especially with unusual depth of feeling, and the most ardent en- 
thusiasm.'' (Patrologie, p. 460, 61.) Comp., also, Lmmmer, 1. c. 

' Tert. adv. Prax. c. 2 : Nos unioum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac 
tamen dispensatione, quam oeconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius 
sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine 
quo factum est nihil. C. 5 : Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipso sibi 

li!2 First Peeiod. Docteine KespectinG God. 

ot mundus et locus et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrinsecua 
pi'Eeter ilium. Ceterum no tunc quidem solus : habebat enira secum, quani 
habebat in semetipso, rationera suara scilicet, etc. C. 8 : Protulit eniin 
Deum sei-monera, sicnt radix fruticem et fons fluviuna et sol radium ; nam 
et ista; species probolc sunt earum, substantiavum, ex quibus prodeunt. In 
e. 9, tlie Son is even called a portio of the Father. Comp. Neander's Anti- 
g-nosticus, p. 4*76, ss. " We find in Tertullian, on the one hand the effort to 
hold fast the entire equality of the Father and the Son— on the other hand, 
the inequality is so manifestly conceded or presupposed, it is every where 
expressed in so marked, and, as it were, involuntary a way, and it strikes its 
roots so deeply into his whole system, and modes of expression, that it must 
doubtless be considered as the real and inmost conception of Tertullian's 
system ;" SchwsgUr, in his Montanismus", p. 41 [but comp. Meier, Oesch. d. 
Trin. i. 80, sq. ; Dorner, i. 477, 564-601.] According to Dorner, p. 588, 
Tert. uses the word fiUatio in a threefold sense ; that which is ne'w in the 
system of Tertullian, and of importance m reference to later times, is this, 
that he employs the term " Son" (instead of " Word") in order to denote 
the personal existence of the Logos ; see p. 600. At the same time there 
is in Tertullian this peculiarity, that he distinguishes the three factors {mo- 
menta) of the Trinity as so many periods of time; Adv. Praxeas c. 12, 13 ; 
JBaur, p. 176 ; Meier, p. 80, sq. 

° Iren. Advers. User. ii. 28, p. 158 : Si quis itaque nobis dixerit : Quomodo 
■ergo filius prolatus a patre est ? dicimus ei : Quia prolationem istara sive ge- 
nerationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine 
vocaverit generationem ejus inenarrabilem existentem, nemo novit, non Va- 
lentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Basilides, neque Angeli, ne- 
qne Archangeli, neque Principes, neqne Potestates, nisi solus qui generavit, 
Pater, et qui natus est, Filius. Inenarrabilis itaque generatio ejus quum sit, 
quicunquc nituntur generationes et prolationes enarrare, non sunt compotes 
sui, ea, quaj inenarrabilia sunt, enan-are promittentes. Quoniam enim ex 
cogitatione et sensu vcrbum emittituV, hoc utique omnes sciunt homines. 
Non ergo magnum quid invcnerunt, qui emissiones excogitaverunt, neque 
abscouditum mysterium, si id quod ab omnibus intelligitur, transtulerunt in 
unigenitum Dei verbuin, et quem inenarrabilem et innominabilem vocant, 
hunc, quasi ipsi obstetricaverint, primas generatianis ejus prolationem et 
generationem enuntiant, assimilantes eum hominum verbo emissionis (scili- 
cet /loyw TTpo(f)OpiKC)) . In the opinion of Irenasus, faith in the Son rests 
simply on the napaSoaig. The Logos is both reason (wisdoni), and the 
Word (adv. Hoer. iv. 20, 1) : Adest enim ei (Deo) semper Verbum et Sa- 
pientia (Fil. et Spirit.), per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad 
quos et loquitur dicens : Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem 
nostrara. The Son is in every respect equal to the Father ; Adv. Hajr. ii. 
13 : Necesse est itaque, et eum, qui ex eo est Logos, imomagis autem ipsum 
Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et inpassibilem esse. — In accordance with his 
practical tendency, Irenaous has less to say of the Logos ^rior to his incar- 
nation, than of Christ the God-man (of which, infra). In his opinion, the 
Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father 
(iv. 6, 6) ; or (after an unnamed author) the Son is the measure of the 

§ 43. Okigen's Doctrine of ifiE Logos. 123 

Father (mensura Patris filius, quoniam et capit eum), iv. 2, 2 ; he even 
calls the Son and the Spirit the hands of God. Comp. Mohler, Fatrolosriej 
357, ss. Mdnscher, Ilandbuch, i. p. 411, ss. Dorner, Tp. 467, ss. Jiaur, 
p. 172, ss. [Burton, I c. pp.75, 77, 102, etc.; Bull's Judicium; Faber's 
Apostolicity of'Trin.] 


d. Origen's Doctrine of the Logos. 

After TertuUian had employed the term Son in reference to the 
personality of the Logos more distinctly than had previously been 
done,' Origen decisively adopted this terminology." and was led to 
the idea of an eternal generation.' Though he kept clear with all 
strictness from any notion of physical emanation/ yet he was, on 
the other hand, pressed to a subordination of the Son to the Father.' 
Consequently his definitions by no means satisfied the consciousness 
of the church, but led to new misunderstandings, and were the 
source of new, wide-reaching controversies.' [Comp. Niedner, 
Kirchengesch., 279-282.] 

' Comp. § 42, note 9 

" Tom. i. in Joh. App. iv. p. 22, ss. He finds fault with those who, in a 
onesided raanner, merely adopt the term Logos (t'm o'e fiovrjg T^g Xoyog npoa- 
t]yoptag lardfievoi}, and are not able to infer the identity of the terms Lo- 
gos and Son from the other predicates applied to Christ; who also restrict 
the teim Logos to the Word, imagining that the T:poa<popa. na-piKri consists 
olovel kv avXXalialg. In his opinion the Logos is not merely the Word, but 
a transcendent, living hypostasis, the sum of all ideas, the independent per- 
sonal Wisdom of God ; comp. in Joh. i. 39, 1. c. p. 39 : Ov yap Iv ipcXalg 
(f)avTa(7iaLg tov dsov ttjv vnoaraoiv ex^i rj aocpla avrov, Kara ra dvd- 
Xoya Tolg dvdpuntvoLg kwofjiiaai (pavrdafxara. Ei 6e rig olog re eoTiv 
daufiarov vnoaraatv noticiXuv 6eupTiiJ,dT0v, nepiExovruv rovg rSiv oXojv 
Xoyovg, ^ioaav koI olovel efiipvxov kirevouv elaerai rrjv virip iraaav 
Kriaiv ao^iav tov 6eov, KaXug nepl avrfjg Xiyovaav '0. 6ebg eKTiae /if, 
K. T. X. Comp. De Princ. i. 2, 2 : Nemo putet, nos insuhstantivum dicere, 
cum filiam Dei sapientiam nominamus, etc. ; and thus he calls (Contra Cels. 
vi. 64) the Logos, ovaiav ovaiuv, Id&av ISeuv; comp. Thomasias, p. 113. 
What is true of the Logos in relation to creation holds good also of the Son. 
He is the organ for the creation of the world. As the architect builds a 
house, or a vessel, according to his ideas, so God created the world accord- 
ing to the ideas which are contained in Wisdom ; comp. Horn, xxxii. in Joh. 
(0pp. ix. p. 449), and De Princ. i. 2 (0pp. i. p. 53). God never existed 
without the Wisdom (the Son) ; for, to maintain the contrary, would virtually 
amount to the assertion, that God either could not beget, or would not be- 
get, either of which is absurd and impious. With all his love for abstrac- 
tions, Origen here calls images to his aid. Besides the already used-up 

124 First Period. Doctrine Eespecxing God. 

comparison with the sun and its beams, he employs a new one of a statue 
and a copy on a reduced scale ; this comparison, however, he refers rather t<! 
the incarnate Son (Christ in the flesh), than to the ante-mundane (the Logos). 
But with him both run into each other. 

" It is difficult to determine whether this idea of generation is consistently 
carried out, since it is not quite evident whether Origcn refers it to the 
Mature or the will of the Father ; see Baur, p. 204 ; on the other side, comp. 
Porner, p. 640, ss. 

* De Princ. i. 4 (0pp. i. p. 55): Infandum autera est et illicitum, Deum 
patrem in generatione unigeniti Filii sui atqne in substantia ejus exsequara 
alicui vel hominum vel aliorum animantium gencranti, etc. ; and again (Rede- 
penning, p. 112): Observandum namque est, ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas 
fabulas eorum, qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinum natu- 
ram in partes vocent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est dividant, cum hoc 
de incorporea natura vel leviter suspioari non solum extrernoe impietatis sit, 
veruni etiara ultimse insipientiae, nee omnino ad intelligentiam consequens, ut 
incorporeae natural substantialis divisio possit intelligi. " As the will of man 
proceeds from his reason, and the one is not to be separated from the other, 
so the Son proceeds from the Father. Origen did not make use of the com- 
parison with the human word (speech), which was previously employed. He 
also considers the generation of the Son as eternal, because God did not at 
any time begin to be a Father, like fathers among men. Corap. Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. p. 143 [the passage is in a fragment in Eusebius, contra Mar- 
cellum, 1. c. 4. In another passage (in Athanasius De Decretis Cone. Nic. 
§ 27) he says: "As light can not be without its brightness, so God can 
never have been without the Sod, the brightness of his majesty."] 

' See below, § 46. 

' Particularly was the expression vlbg rov deov, which, in the New Testar 
ment, is undeniably used in respect to the historical Christ,* confounded with 
the metaphysical and dogmatic usage of the schools;. and here were the 
germs of new controversies, which in the end led to a recognition of the dif- 
ference on the biblical basis. On the other hand, from the speculative stand- 
point, we may, with Dorner, in this doctrine of the eternal generation, descry 
a thankworthy progress. To attain to this " mystery, which contains the very 
kernel of Christianity, subordination has the character of an auxiliary doc- 
trine." It is (Dorner says in his first edition, p. 42), "a necessary aid in the 
substitution of several actual hypostases in God, for the doctrine of the Logos, 
as previously held, which only vaguely maintained the distinction of hyposta- 
ses in GodP 

* " The more I endeavor to realize the manner of thinking and speaking in the New Testa- 
mad, the .more decided is my opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, can not be 
directly and absolutely called God in the New Test, without completely destroying the mono- 
theistic system of (he Apostles." Lucke, Siudien und Kritiken, 1840, i. p. 91. [But see, in 
reply, Nitzsch in the saoae journal, 1841. Comp. also, G. L. Mahn, Die Theologio des N. 
Test, 1854, § 87.] 

§ 44. The Holy Ghost. 125 



Keil, ob die iiltesten Lehrer emen Unterscliied zwischen gohn und Vater gekannt? in 
Flatts Magazin fiir christliclie Dogmatik und Moral, vol. iv. p. 34, ss. [JBterton, R, 
Testimonies of tlie Antenicene Patliera to the Trinity, the Divinity of tlie Holy Ghost 
(Works, ii.), comp. the Introduet. where the literature is given,] Georgii, dogmen- 
geschichtliche Untersuchungen iiber die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M. in the 
Studien der Geistliohkeit Wurtembergs, x. 2, p. 69, sa. Basselbach, in the theolo- 
gische Studieu und Kritiken, 1839, p. 376, ss. Kdhmis, Die Lehre V9m heiligeu 
Geiste. i. Halle, 1847. [Harems Mission of tl\e Comforter, new ed. 2 vols. 1851.] 

The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost, like that of the Son, 
was considered important from the practical point of view,' in refer- 
ence to his prophetic agency (in the more comprehensive sense of 
the word), to the witness which he bears in the hearts of believers, 
and, in fine, to his living power in the church." As soon, however, 
as the attempt was made to go beyond the Trinity of revelation {i. 
e. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), and 
to conceive of the essence of the Holy Spirit in itself, and the rela- 
tion in which he stands to the Father and the Logos, difSculties 
sprung up, the solution of which became problems of speculative 
theology. By some, the Wisdom of the Old Testament, from 
which the doctrine of Logos was developed, was called nvevna dywv^ 
and made coordinate with the Word.' Others either identified the 
Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague manner 
as to the distinction between thenj,* and the Holy Ghost (imperson- 
ally viewed) appears as a mere divine attribute, gift or agency .« But 
the pressure of logical consistency led gradually to the view of the 
personality of the Holy Ghost, and his definite distinction from the 

' Tn the Old Test, the B-riVs n^n (Gen. i. 3) appear at first as the crea- 
tive power of life, comp. Psahn civ. 30, and other passages; as the Spirit 
of heroism, Judges, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25, etc. ; as the Spirit cf insight and 
wisdom, Exod. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31, Job xxxii. 8, Isaiah xi. 2 ; especially as the 
Spirit of prophecy, Numb. xxiv. 2, 1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xix. 20, 23, etc. ; also as 
the good, holy Spirit, Psalm li. 13, cxiiii. 10. In the New Test., too, the 
nvevfia ayiov is made equivalent to the SvvajJtg vxl^iaTOV, Lnke i. 35, and to 
the (To^ta, Acts vi. 3, 10. Specifically Christian is the making the Holy Spirit 
equivalent to the Spirit of Christ, as when it is said that the Spirit descends 
upon Christ (Matt. iii. 10, and the parallel places), and is given to him without 
measure (John iv. 34), or that he proceeds from Christ and is given to tho dis- 
ciples (John XX. 22), or is promised to them as the Paraclete, John xv. 26, etc. 
It has been held essential to the Christian faith (from the time of the pen- 

126 First Pebiod. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

tecostal outpouring, Acts ii.), to believe that the Sp:rit abides in tlie church 
(2 Cor. xiii. 13), and thus that all believers have part in the Spirit, who mani- 
fests himself as one, externally in the different gifts (charismata, 1 Ccr. xii. 
4, etc.), and internally working as the Spirit of sanctification, of trust, and of 
love ; and who is also a pledge and seal of the grace of God, 2 Cor. i. 22, 
V. 5, Eph. i. 14, etc. Compare the works on Biblical Theology. 

^ It is not to be forgotten that the trias of revelation was held in a com- 
plete form long before the church came to clear statements about the essential 
trias. (Comp. Note 1 of the next section.) In the former the Holy Ghost 
has his definite position along (coordinate) with the Father and the Son, 2 
Cor. xiii. ].S, JIatt. xviii. 19. In the apostolic fathers, we find only isolated 
declarations as to the Holy Ghost. Justin M. makes particular mention of 
the TTvevfia npotpTjTiKov (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in 
his Apology, nine times in Trypho, see Semisch, ii. p. 335, Note), while he 
does not speak of the influence which he continues to exert upon believers 
(ibid. p. 329). On the other hand, in Justin the Logos, as the Xoyog anepfiart- 
icog, takes the place of the Holy Spirit, since to him are ascribed good im- 
pulses in the minds of believers. (Comp. Duncker, Christl. Logoslehre, p. 31.) 
Jrenceus, iii. 24, 1, calls the Holy Ghost the " communitas Christi, confirmafio 
.fidei nostras, scala ascensionis ad Deum ;"* comp. iii. 17, v. 6, v. 10, and § 71. 
At the same time, he considers him as the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distinc- 
tion between him as the principle which animates and inspires, and that ani- 
mation and inspiration itself. Adv. Haer. v. 12, 2 : "Erepov eari TTVofj ^ufjg, 
f) hal ipvxiiiov dnEpya^ofiivT] rbv dv6pG)nov, ical erepov nvevfia ^uoiroiovv, 
TO Kol TTVEVfia-iicbv avTov dnoreXovv .... erepov de eari to notridev 
TOiJ TTOifjaavTog- rj ovv ttvotj TTpnoKaipog, rb 6e nveviia devvaov. Comp. 
Duncker, p. 60, sq. ; Kahnis, p. 255, sq. 

' Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7 : '0 8e Oebg 6ta tov Xoyov avTOv koX TTJg ao(ptag 
moiriae ra ■ndvra ; here ao(j>la is either synonymous with Xoyog, or forms 
the second member; in the former case, there would be no mention of the 
Spirit ; in the latter, he would be identified with the aocpia ; and this agrees 
with ii. 15, whc^re Oi-cg, Xoyog and aocpia are said to compose the Trinity; 
comp. § 45. Iren. iv. 20, p. 253 : Adest enim ei (Deo) semper verbum et 
sapientia, Filius et Spiritus .... ad quos et loquitur, dicens : Faciamns 
Lominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram ; and again : Deus omnia 
verba fecit et sapientia adornavit. [^Burton, 1. c. p. 49-51.] Comp. iv. 7, p. 
236 : Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, i. e., FiKus 
et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subject! sunt 
omnes angeli. Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 6 : Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea, quae 
cum Sophise ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species 
suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, 
Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erarit cogitata 
atque disposita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim cis 
deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et 
tenerentur. Comp. cap. 7, and the formula De Orat. i. ab initio : Dei Spiritus 

* A similar Image is made use of by Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. 9, when he says: 
'Avaijiepofievni el; tu. v-^-q Si,u. rr/; /iTjxaviig 'lijaoij Xf>iaTov, oa lanv aravpdc, axoiviu xpu/ievot 

§ 44. The Holt Ghost. 1^7 

et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis at ratio sermonis et spiritus utrum- 
que Jesns Chiistus, doraius noster. 

* From tlte time of Souverain (Platonismns der Kirchenvater, p. 329, ss.), 
most historians of doctrines have supposed that, the fathers in general, and 
Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the 
Spirit. Several of the more recent investigators have also come to the sarrPe 
conclusion. Ihus Georgii (in the work referred to above), p. 120 : "This 
much is evident, that in Justin the relation between the Logos and the 
Pneuma is indefinite, in flowing lines ; as in him the Spirit has little, if any, 
diiferent functions fi'om those of the Logos, so a distinction between them 
could not, in his view, be demanded by any dogmatic necessity, but could 
only be occasioned by the conflict, in which the doctrine of the Spirit, as 
handed down by the Path ere, stood in relation to that of the Logos." Comp. 
Hassclbach, ubi supra. On the other hand, Semisch and Kahnis (p. 238, sq.) 
have tried to defend the Martyr against this objection. One of the principal 
passages is, Apol. I. 33 : T5 nveviJ,a ovv koI t)jv SvvaiiLv rfjv napa tov deov 
ovSev dXXo vofjaat dEfiig, t] tov Xoyov, og ical irpuroTOKog ru OeC) kari, comp. 
c. 36. He indeed there speaks of the -nveviia in Luc. i. 3.5 ; and it can not be 
inferred that he always identifies the Logos with the Spirit. But still there 
is here this confounding of the two ; and it can not be explained by saying 
that the Spirit means spiritual nature in general, nor by assuming that the 
Logos forms the body for himself in the womb of Mary. And when Tertul- 
lian, Adv. Prax. c. 26, uses similar expressions, this goes to prove that other 
fathers besides Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinctness. The 
same is true as regards the manner in which Justin ascribes the inspiration 
of the prophets, sometimes to the Logos, sometimes to the Pneuma, Apol. L 
36, and elsewhere. (Only it should not be forgotten that, even in the biblical 
usage, the distinction is not held with sharp doctrinal consistency.) The 
confusion of agencies leads to a (relative) confounding of the Persons. That 
Justin (in opposition to the baptismal formula and the common confession 
of the church) formally put a dyas (two persons) in place of the triad, can 
not be justly alleged ; for he himself in other passages names the Father, 
Son, and Spirit (Apol. L 6, 20, 66), and assigns the third place to the Spirit 
(comp. 646) : "Sai still it is none the less true, that his philosophical princi- 
ples, logically carried put, lead only to a dyas, and that he could not doc- 
trinally establish the difference between the Son and the Spirit" Duncher, 
u. s. 38. There is unquestionably a real confusion in Theophilus, ad Aut. ii. 
c. 10 : Ovrog (6 Xoyog) Siv nvevfia 6eov Kal dpxft ical aocpia koI Sivafiig 
viptOTOV Karripx^TO eig rovg Trpotp^rag, iial Si' avTuv kXdXei rh irepl rfjg 
TTOirjiyeug tov kooiiov Kal tu>v XonrS)v dnavTUV ov yap fjaav ol npo(j>rJTai, 
Sre 6 Koafiog iyiveTO' dXXa 7] ao(pia rj kv uvtS) ovoa rj tox) Oeov, Kal 6 
Xoyog b dyiog avTOV, b del avfiTrapuv avTW. Comp. the passage in Note 
3, above. 

' J'tcsiin M. incidentally calls the Holy Ghost simply duped, Coh. ad 
Grace, c. 32, though he assigns to him (Apol. i. 6), the third place in the 
Trinitv. On the question : what relation was the Holy Spirit thought to 
sustain to the angels? comp. Neander, Church History, and History of Doc- 
trines, p. 172 (RyJand's translation); Studien und Kritikon, 1833, p. 773, 

128 First Period. Doctrine Kespecting G-od. 

Bs. ; the latter essay was written in opposition to Mohler, Theolog. Q.iartal- 
schrift, 1833, part i. p. 49, ss. (comp. § 50, below). Athenagoras calls the 
Holy Spirit dnoppoia, Leg. c. 10 and 24, comp. Kahnis, p. 245. In general, 
there are many passages in the fathers, " which bring the Holy Spirit very 
near to the creature ;" Kahnis, p. 249. 

' Tert. Adv. Prax. 8 : Tertius est Spiritus a Deo ct Filio, sicut tertius a 
radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a 
sole apex ex radio. Ibid. 30 : Spiritus S. tertium nomen divinitatis et ter- 
tius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is assigned to the Spirit, 
when he is considered as — Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, Prsescr. 28 : comp. 
Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 14. Origen, Comm. in Job. T. ii. 6, 0pp. T. iv. 
p. 60, 61, acknowledges the personality of the Holy Spirit, but subordinates 
him to both the Father and the Son, by the latter of whom he is created, 
like all other things, though distinguished from all other creatures by divine 
dignity : 'H|U£tf nivroiye rpeig VTroardaeig nei66fievoi TvyxdvEiv, rdv 
narepa Kal ibv vlbv Kal rb dyiov irvevfia, ical dyEvvrjTov p^-qSiv 'irepov rov 
narpbg elvai Tnarevovreg, cog evasfiiaTepov Kal dXrjdeg TTpoaie[ieda, t6 ndv- 
Tuv did Tov Xoyov yevofievuv, to dyiov nvevna ndvTOV sXvai rifiMTepov, 
Kal rd^ec ndvruv rtjv vnb tov naTpbg did XpiOTOv yey evrjitevuv. [^Burton, 
I. c. p. 99, ss.] Comp. T. xiii. 25, p. 234 ; and 34, p. 244 : Ovk aTonov 6e 
Kal Tb dyiov rrvevfia Tpeipeadai Xeyeiv. Nevertheless, there is an infinite 
chasm between the Spirit of God, and other spirits created by God; comp. 
Coram, in Ep. ad. Rom. vii. (0pp. iv. p. 593). But in another passage, 
(which is extant only in the translation of Rufinus, De Princ. i. 3, 3, 0pp. 
i. 1, p. 61, Redep. p. 123), Origen says, that he had not as yet met with any 
passage in the Sacred Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit was called a 
created being; though afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc., blamed him 
for maintaining this opinion ; comp. Epiphan, 64, 5, Hieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94, 
quoted by Munscher, ed by Colin, p. 194. Schnitzer, p. 43. Neander, 
History of Church (by Torrey), i. p. 593. Thomasius, p. 144, ss. {Redepen- 
ning, Origenes, ii. p. 309, sq., and the other passages there adduced. [Burton, 
1. c. p. 89.] . 



[The works of Dorner, Baii/r, Meier, and Burton, previously referred to. D. Waterland^i 
Works, new ed. Oxford, 1842, vols. ii. and iii. G. S. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinita- 
rianism, 2 vols. Lond. 1832. WiUiam Jones (of Nayland) Works, new ed. 1826, 
vol. I The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. W. Berrimomn, Historical Account. 
1725. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, and his Judicium Eool. Cath. ; Works by 
Bwrton, 8 vols. 1846.] 

The doctrine of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the 
doctrine of primitive Christianity,' but ' has in the New Test, a 
bearing only upon the Christian economy, without any pretension 
to speculative significance, and therefore cannot be rightiy under- 

§ 45. The Triad. 129 

stood but in intimate connection with the history of Jesus, and 
the work which he accomplished." Accordingly, the belief in the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost belonged to the Regula Jidei, even 
apart from any speculative development of the doctrine of the Lo- 
gos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles' creed, 
in this historico-epic form, without being summed up in a unity. 
The Greek word T^idg was first used by Theophilus ;° the Latin 
term trinitas, of a more comprehensive doctrinal import, is found 
in TertuUian. * 

' Matth. xxviii. 19 (if the haptisraal formula be genuine) ; 1 Cor. vii. 4-6 ; 
2 Cor. xiii. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, 
deWette's biblische Doiimatik, § 238, 267, and especially Lucke in tlie Stu- 
dien und Kritiken, 1840, 1 part. [Pye Smith, the Script. Testim. to tlie 
Messiah, iii. p. 13, ss. ; iii. p. 258, ss. ; Kiiapp, 1. c. p. 119, ss., 132, ss.] 
Gieseler, Dogmengosch. p. 118, and Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 130, also 
distinguish correctly the practical element of the doctrine and its relation 
to the economy of the divine dispensations, from its speculative const uction. 
[Neander : "This doctrine of God, the Creator, Rodoemor, and Sanctifier of 
humanity in Christ was essential to the Christian consciousness, and there- 
fore has existed from the beginning in the Christian church."] 

' On this account some of the more recent wi'iters on doctrinal theology, 
as Schleiermacher and Hase (2d ed. p. 626) handle the Trinity at the end 
of the system. A purely economic view of the doctrine is found in Ignatius, 
Epistle to the Ephesians, 9, where he says, " We are raised on high to the 
Father by the cross of Christ, as by an elevating engine, the Holy Spirit 
being the rope" — a massive, but striking comparison. See above § 44. 

' Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15 : Al rpeXg rjiJ,§pai [-rrpb] rwv (fx^arripGiv yey- 
ovviai TVTTOL elalv TJjg rpidSog rov deov Kal tov Xoyov avrov naX Trig 
ao(j)iag avrov. Terdpro) 6k tvv:& [tottoj] karlv avOpu-rrog 6 TrpoadErjg 
TOV ^urbg. "Iva y, Xoyog, ao(j}La, dvdpunog. Here we have indeed 
the word Tpiag, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity ; fpr 
as dvdpunog is mentioned as the fourth terra, it is evident that the Tpiag 
can not be taken here as a perfect whole, consisti^ig of three joined in one ; 
besides, the term aocpia is used instead of to irvevfia dyiov. Corap. Suicer, 
Thesaurus s. v. rpidg, where the passage from the (spurious) treatise of Jus- 
tin, De Expositione Fidei, p. 379, is cited {Uovag yap kv Tpiddi voelrai nal 
rpiag iv fiovadi yvupi^ETUi k.. t. A.) ; this passage, however, proves as little 
cencerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise ^iXona- 
Tptg erroneously ascribed to Lucian, from which passages are cited. Clem. 
Strom, iv. 7, p. 588, knows a ayla rpidg, but in an anthropological sense 
(faith, love, hope). On the terminology of Origen, comp. Tkomasius, p. 
285. [Corap. Burton, 1. c. p. 34-36, where the subject is treated at great 

* TertuUian De Pudic. c. 21 : Nam et ecclesia propi'ie et principaliter ipse 
est spiritus, in quo est Trinitas unius divinitatis. Pater et Filius et Spiritus 
S. ; accordingly, the Holy Spirit is the principle which constitutes _ the unity 
, ' 

130 FinsT Period. Doctrine Eespbcting God. 

of the persons; or (according to Schwegler, Montatiism, p. lYl), the spirituj 
substance common to the persons ; comp. Adv. Praxeara, 2 and 3. [Burton, 
]. c. p. 68, ss.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this usage. 
Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism). Novat. de Trinitate. 
{Burton, 1. c. p. 107-109 ; p. 116-123.] 



The strict distinction which was drawn between the hypostases 
(persons) in the Trinity, led, in the first instance, to that system of 
Subordination, in which the Son was made inferior to the Father, 
and the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son ;' which system 
also carried with it the appearance of tri theism. The orthodox 
were obliged to clear themselves from all appearance of tritheism, in 
opposition to the Monarchians, who abandoned the personal distinc- 
tions in order to hold fast the unity of the Godhead, and thus 
exposed themselves to the charge of confounding the persons (Patri- 
passianism), or even to the imputation of a heretical tendency deny- 
ing the divinity of Christ.^ Origen now carried to such an extreme 
the system of hypostases, including the subordination scheme, that 
orthodoxy itself threatened to run over into heterodoxy, and thus 
gave rise to the Arian controversy in the following period. 

' Justin M., Apol. i. c. 13 : vibv ainov rov ovto)^ Qeov fMaOovTE^ 

(scil. rbv Irjaovv ^piarbv) Koi kv devrepa xuipa exovre^, nvevfid re npo- 
(firjTiKbv kv rplrxi rd^ei, comp. i. 6, and i. 60. There are also passages in 
the wiilings oi Irenceus which appear favorable to the idea of subordination, 
e. g.. Adv. Haer. ii. 28, 6, 8 ; v. 18, 2 : Super omnia quidem pater, et ipse 
est caput Christi ; but elsewhere he represents the Logos as wholly God, and 
no subordinate being (comp. § 42, note 9). " It can not he denied that 
Irenceus here contradicts himself, and it would he a useless labor to remove 
this contradiction hy artificial interpretation." Duncker, p. 56 ; comp. p. 70, 
BS. Dorner, p. 409, ss. Tert. Advers. Prax. c. 2 : Tres autem non statu, sed 
gradu, nee substantia, sed forma, nee potestate, sed specie : unius autem sub- 
stantise et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus 
isti et form* et species in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputan- 
tur. Comp. c. i, ss. 

" Thus Justin M. says, Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56 : The Father and the Son 
arc distinct, not yvojfiy, but dpidfm ; and Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 10), 
from the proposition that, if I have a wife, it does not necessarily follow that 
I am the wife herself, draws the conclusion that, if God has a Son, he is not 
the Son himself. He repels the charge of Tritheism, Adv. Prax. 3 : Simpli- 
ces enim quique, ne dixerim impudentes et idiota, quae major semper creden- 
tium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus Diis seculi ad unicum 


et Deum vtium transfert, non intelligentes unicum quid em, sed cum ma 
mconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam. Niimerum et dis- 
positionem ti-initatis, divisionem praesumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex seme- 
tipsa derivans trinitatetn, non destruatur ab ilia, sed administretur. Itaque 
duos et tres jam jaotitant a nobis prajdicari, se vero unius Dei cultores prsesu- 
munt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter coUecta hmresin faciat, et trinitas 
rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Comp. o. 13 and 22, where he 
expressly appeals to the point, that Christ did not say that he and the Father 
were one {unus, masculine), but one (unum, neuter), and he refers this unity 
to a moral relation — the dilectio patris and the obseqnium filii. In the 
same way N'ovat. De Trin. 22 : Unum enim, non unus esse dicitur, quoniam 

nee ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur Unum 

autein quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis 
societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per 
amorem, et per dilectionem. [Burton, 1. c. p. 120, 121.] He also appeals to 
Apollos and Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 8 : qui autem plantat et qui rigat, unum sunt. 

' Concerning the difl'erent classes of Unitarians, coinp. § 24, and § 42.* 
It is self evident, that all who held Christ to be a mere man could know 
nothing of any Trinity. These may be called deistico-rationalistic Antitrini- 
tarians ; God in his abstract unity was, in their view, so remote fiom the 
world, and confined to his heaven, that there was no abode for him even in 
Christ. Widely different were those who, apprehensive of lessening the dig- 
nity of Christ, taught that God himself had assumed humanity 8»i him, but 
did not think it necessary to suppose the existence of a particular hypostasis. 
The name modalistic Antitrinitarians would be more appropriate, in their 
case (thus Heinichen, de Alogis, p. 34) ; or, if the relation of God to Christ 
be compared' to that in which he stands to the world, they might be called 
'pantheistic Antitrinitarians, for they imagined God, as it were, expanded or 
extended into the person of Christ. Among their number are Praxeas and 
Beryllus, the forerunners of Sabellius, the former of whom was combated 
fty Tertullian, the latter by Origen. The opinion of Praxeas, that the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same (ipsum eundemque esse), 
which virtually amounted to the later dfioovawg, was interpreted by Tertul- 
lian as implying, ipsum patrum passum esse, ^dv. Prax. c. 20, 29, whence 
the heretical appellation Patripassiani. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 
103j p. 588, and Testim. of the Antenic. Fathers to the Trinity, etc., p. 68-83. 
N'eander, 1. c. ii. p. 260-262.] PJiilastr. Haer. 65. The views of Noetus 
were similar : Theod. Fab. Haer. iii. 3 : "Eva (paatv elvai Oebv Kal -naripa, 
Tuv 5Xo)v drjfiiovpyov, d(j)avTJ fiev orav iBkX'q, (paivoiievov 6e fjvlKa av fim'i- 
XriTar koI tov avrov aoparov eivai Koi Spcjfievov, koL yevvrjTbv Koi dyevvij- 
Tov dyevvTjTov fiev i$ dpxrjg, yevvrirbv Se ore kK irapOsvov yevvrjdrjvai 
^dsXrjae- aTraOfj Kal dddvarov, nal ndkiv av nadrjTbv koi dvTjTOV. 'Anadrjg 

* Origen already distinguishes two classes of Monarchians ; the one spoke of Jesua 
merely as a praeognitum et prffidestinatum, hominem, while the other class taught the 
divinity of Christ, but identified the divinity of the Son with that of the Father. See 
Origen Epist ad Tit. fragm. ii. ed. Lommatzsch, Tom v., in Neander's Tj:ist. of Dogmaa 
Pytend's transl.), p. 149, note. 

132 First Period. Doctrine Iikspecting God. ' 

yap uv, (pTjat, rb tov aravpov TrdOog kdeX-fiaaq vTr([ieive' tovtov koi t-to/ 
6vOfid^ovai KoL Trarepa, npbg rag %psta5" tovto KaKsIvo KaXovfievov. Corap. 
Epiph. Hser. vii. 1. \^J3urton, Bamptbn Lect, note 103, p. 589, 590.] 
J)orner, p. 532 : " It is worthy of recognition, that Noetus already completes 
patripassianism, and takes away from it the pagan illusion, whereby the 
divine nature is made directly finite, which we find in thesystemof Praxeas." 
Beryllus endeavored to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from 
Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difi'erence after the as- 
sumption of humanity, Euseb. vi. 33 : ^fipvXXog 6 fiiKpii) ■npoadev dt6r]Xu- 
uevog BouTpSiv TTJg 'Apafitag imoKonog, rbv iKKXrjaiaoriKbv napEKVpenuiv 
Kavova, ^Eva riva Trjg nioTSUg napei.a<}>epetv k-neip&TO, rbv awTfjpa koI KvpLov 
fjfiuv Xeyeiv roXjj,u)V /irj n pov ^eardv ai kut' id lav ova tag 
•rTRpiypa(pT]v npb Trjg elg dvO puTTOvg et: idrjiilag fXTjds liifv 
dBOTTjTa Ibiav ex^iv, dXX' ifino Xir ev o fievriv avTS) 
uovrjv TTjV narpiK'^v . Comp. Zfllmann, in the Dissert, quoted § 24, 
note 4, and Fork, Diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur (Dreieinig- 
keitslehre, p. 289), Beryllus ought to be classed with Artemon and Theodotus ; 
Meiei- (p. 114), however, supposes a certain distinction between them. Comp. 
Domer, p. 545, and Ifeander, Hist. Dogm. : " The most natural conclusion is, 
that Beryl, did not wholly belong to either bf the two classes (of Monarchians), 
but held an intermediate view, which agrees with his historical position." To 
those who adopted the tendency of Noetus belong Beron and his followers, 
who were combated by Hippolytus ; comp. Domer, p. 536, ss. 

* On the' one hand, Origen asserts that the Son is equal to the Father 
Horn. VIII. in Jerem. ii., 0pp. iii. p. 171 : Tidvra yap oaa rov Oeov, roiavra 
iv avTU (ylu) eariv. He ^so speaks of the three persons in the Trinity as 
the three sources of salvation, so that he who does not thirst after all three 
can not find God, ibid. Horn. XVIII. 9, 0pp. iii. p. 251, 252. Nevertheless 
the subordination of the Son is prominently brought forward, and forms, 
together with the strict hypostatic distinction, the characteristic feature of 
Origen's doctrine. The Son is called devrepog Oeog, Contra Cels. v. 608 ; 
comp. vii. 735 : "Aftof r^f devTepevovarjg fierd rbv Oebv tuiv oXuv Ttiifjg. 
De Orat. i. p. 222 : "Erepof Kar' ovalav Kal vTTOKeifisvog iari 6 vibg tov 
■naTpog. The kingdom of the Father extends to the whole universe, that of 
the Son to rational creatures, that of the Holy Spirit to the holy (Christians)i 
De Princ. I., 3, 5 : "On S fikv debg Kal TTaTrjp avvex^^v to, -rrdvTa (pddvei 
el a eicaa T ov t(ov ovtuv, fiETadidovg iKdaT<j) dnb tov l6iov to elvaf 
wv yap eoTiv. 'E/LarTWV de npbg tov ttaTepa 6 vlbg (j)Odvo)v eth jxova 
TO, XoyiKd' 6evT Epo g ydp kari tov nar p6 g. "Ert 6t 
7/TTOV t6 •nvevjj.a to ay lov snl fiovovg t ov g ay iovg 
6llKVOviievog. "Q.ote KaTa tovto fisi^uv ^ dvvafiig tov iraTpbg Trapa tov 
vlbv Kal 1 h nvevna t6 dyiov, TzXeiuv de f) ror; vlov napd to TTvevp,a t6 dyiov, 
Kal TrdXiv 6ta(j>£povaa fiaXXov tov dyiov -rrvEvfiaTog rj dvvafiig napd to. aXXa 
ayia. Comp. also. In Job. Tom. ii. 2, 0pp. T. iv. p. 50, where stress is laid 
upon the distinction made by Philo between Oeog and 6 OEog. How far this 
system of subordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from 0i-o>en de 
Orat. c. lo, 0pp. T. i. 222, where he entirely rejects the practice of address- 
ing prayer to Christ (the Son) ; for, he argues, since the Son is u particslai 

§ 47. Doctrine of the Creation. 133 

hypostasis, we must pray either to the Son only, or to the Father. only, or to 
both. To pray to the Son, and not to the Father, would be most improper 
(droTrwTarov) • to pray to both is impossible, because we should have to use 
the plural number : TzapaaxioOe, evEpysTTjaaTE, ETTixopfiyfiaaTE, aoJaaTs, 
which is contrary to Scripture, and the doctrine of One God ; thus nothing 
remains but to pray to the Father alone. To pray to the Father thrpugh tho 
Son, a prayer in an improper sense (invocatio ?) is quite a different thing 
Contra Gels. v. 4, 0pp. i. p. 579 : Haaav ntv yap dhjaiv koL TTpodEvxfjv ita) 
h'TEv^iv Kal EvxapiGTiav avaTTEfinreov rG> t-nl Txaai OeG) 6ta tov &tu ndvriov 
dyyEXoiV apxiEpkuq, Ejj,tpvxov Xoyov Koi Oeov. AETjaofiEda 6b kol avTov tov 
Xoyov, Kol EVTEV^oixeda duril), koi ev^aptCT^crcljitev koX Trpotrei/fo/ieGa 6e, tav 
dwcijiEda KaraKovEiv r^g nepl npooEvx^? KvpwXs^iag koi KaraxpfjaEug (si 
niodo propriam precationis possimus ab impropria secernere notionem). 
Comp. however, § 43. Eedepenning Origenes, ii., p., 303. Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. 149. On the subordination doctrine of the Trinity in Hippolytus, 
see ibid,, p. 157, Jacobi's Note [and Bunsen's Hippolytus.] 



C. F. Rossler, Philosophia^yeteris ecclesias de mundo, Tubingae, 1783, 4. [Weisse, PW- 
losophische Dogmatik, 1855, pp. 670-112. H. Bitter, Die christliohe Philosophia, 
i. p. 266 sq.] 

Concerning the doctrine of creation, as well as the doctrine of Grod 
in general, the early Christians adopted the monotheistic views of 
the Jews, and, in simple faith, unhesitatingly received the Mosaic 
account of the creation (Gen. i.) as a revelation.' Even the de- 
finition e^ ovic ovTcoVj which was introduced late into the Jewish 
theology (2 Mace. vii. 28), found sympathy in the primitive Chris- 
tianity." The orthodox firmly adhered to the doctrine that God, 
the almighty Father, who is also the Father of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, is at the same time the creator of heaven and of earth,' 
and rejected the notion of the eternity of matter,' in opposition 
to the Gnostics, according to whom the creator of the world is dis- 
tinct from the Supreme God, as well as to the opinion of some 
Christian teachers, and of Hermogenes,^ that matter is eternal. 
But the speculative tendency of the Alexandrian school could not 
be satisfied with the empirical notion of a creation in time. Ac- 
cordingly Origen resorted to an allegorical interpretation of the 
work of the six days (Hexaemeron),* and, after the example of Gle- 
menf (who, however, is doubtful, at least, hesitating), he pro- 
pounded more definitely the doctrine of an eternal creation, yet 
not maintaining the eternity of matter as an independent j)ower.' 
On the contrary, Irenceus, from his practical position, reckoned all 

134 First Period. Doctrine Kespecting GtOd. 

questions about what God had done before the creation among the 
improper questions of human inquisitiveness.' 

' Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii, 10, sq.) first gives a fuller exposition of the 
Mosaic narration of the creation. The Alexandrian school, on the other 
hand, deviated from his literal interpi'etation ; comp. Notes 6 and 8. 

" Comp. Hebr. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that passage. Accord- 
inglv the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, lib. ii. mand. 1 : UpStrov ndv-ruiv 
moTEvaov, on elg hariv 6 dedg, 6 to, navra KTcaag koI KarapTicag, Ka'i 
Troirjaag e/c tov fifj ovrog sig rb elvai to, Travra. Conf. Euseb. v. 8. But 
the idea of creation does not come out as distinctly in all the fathers. 
Thus " in Justin the Christian belief in the creation from nothing is never 
definitely brought forward against the opposing views of emanation and of 
dualism ;" Duncker, Zur christl. Logoslehre, p. 19. He uses the expression, 
6r)fj,iovpyfiaai tf dfi6p(f>ov vXjjg, Apol. i. 10. Yet God produced the ma- 
terial itself, and from this shaped the world ; Coh. ad Graec. c. 22. 

" The popular view was always, that the Father is the creator, though 
the creation through the Son also formed a part of the orthodox faith. 
Accordingly, we find that sometimes the Father, sometimes the Logos, is 
called the creator of the world (6t]ij,iovpydg, noiTjT^g.^ Thus Justin M. 
says, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16 : 'O noirjTfjg tuv oXcov Oeog, comp. Apol. i. 61 : 
ToC naT phg tUv oXo>v koX SeanoTov 6eov. On the other hand, Coh. ad 
Grsec. c. 15 : Tov tov deov Xoyov, 6i' ov ovpavog kal y-rj /cat naaa iyivero 
KTiaig, comp. Apol. i. 64. Likewise Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 10 : "Ore iv 
tS) Aoyo) a{)TOv 6 6ebg TrenoirjKS rbv ovpavbv koI rffv yiyv koI to, iv avTolg, 
E(p7]- 'Ev apxQ iTToirjaev. The phrase iv apxfj was understood in the same 
sense as dia Trjg dpxrjg, and apx't] explained to denote the Logos, see Se- 
misch, p. 335. Thus Irerueus also taught, iii. 11 : Et hsec qnidem sunt 
principia Evangelii, unum De'im fabi-icatorem hujus uni\ersitatis, eum qui 
ct per prophetas sit annunciatus et qui per Moysem legis dispositionera 
fecerit, Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantis et praeter hunc al- 
terum Deum nescientia, neque alterum patrem. On the other hand, he says, 
V. 18, 3 : Mundi enim factor vere verbum Dei est; hie autem est Dominus 
noster, qui in novissimus temporibus homo factus est, in hoc mundo existens 
et secundum invisibilitatem continet quse facta sunt omnia, et in universa 
conditione infixus, quoniam verbum Dei gubernans et disponens omnia et 
propter hoc in sua venit. Irenasus often speaks pf the Son and Spirit as the 
hands of God, by which he created all things ; on this, see Duncker, p. 68 
against Baur. That Clement of Alexandria called the Logos, as such, the 
creator of the world (with Philo), has already been remarked, § 42, note 8. 
For the various appellations tronjTrig, Kriarrig, drjfiiovpyog, see Suicer under 
the latter word. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 21, p. 320 ; note 50, p. 410.1 

* Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato: EZ dh debg 
dyevv^Tog Kal vXrj ayevvr]Tog, ovk en b 6ebg noiijr^g Taiv oXwv iart. 
Comp. iii. 19, sq. and Iren. fragm. sermonis ad Demetr. p. 348 (p. 467 in 
Grabe). [Comp, Burton, 1, c. note 18.] Teit. adv. Hermogeneni, see th^a 
following note. 

§ 47. Doctrine of the Creation. 135 

" Hcrmogenes, a painter, lived toward the end of the second century, 
probably at Carthage. According to Tertullian (Adv. Hermog.), he main- 
tained that God must have created the world either out of himself, or out 
of nothing, or out of something. But he could not create the. world out 
of himself, for he is indivisible ; nor out of nothing, for as he himself is the 
supremo good, he would have created a perfectly good world ; nothing, 
therefore, remains but that he created the world out of matter ah'cady in 
existence. This matter (vlrj) is consequently eternal like God himself; both 
principles stood over against each other from the beginning, God as the 
creating and working, matter as the receptive principle. Whatever in the 
matter resists the creating principle, constitutes the evil in the world. In 
proof of the eternity of matter, Hermogenes alleges that God was Lord from 
eternity, and must, therefore, from eternity have an object for the exorcise of 
his lordship. To this Tertullian replies (Adv. Hermog. c. 3), God is cer- 
tainly God from eternity, but not Lord; the one is the name of his essence, 
the other of power (a relation). Only the essence is to be viewed as eternal. 
But it was only on this point of the eternity of matler that Hermogenes 
agreed with the Gnostics ; in other respects, and especially in reference to 
the doctrine of emanation, he joined the orthodox in opposing them. Comp. 
Bohmer (0ml.) dcHermogene Africano, Sundise, ]832, and Neander (Tor- 
rey's), i. 565-8. Antio-nosticus, p. 350-355 ; 424-442. Leopold, Hermo- 
genis de origine mundi seutentia, Budissse, 1844. 

' De Piincipiis iv. 16, 0pp. i. p. 174, 175 : T/f yap vvvv ^wv olfjaeTai 
TTpurTjv not devTEpav koI Tplrrjv rjixipav, konepav re koI nputav %wpJf 
ijXiov yeyovevai itdl aeX'qvrjg koL darpG)v, k. t. X. Corap. § 33, note 4. 

' According to Photius Bibl. Cod. c. 9, p. 89, Clement of Alex, is said to 
have tanght that matter had no beginning (yXi]v axpovov) ; with this state- 
ment comp. Strom, vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Oi; to'lvvv, wanep nvkg vnoXafiPd- 
vovoi rrjv dvanavaiv tov deov, Trmavrai noiojv b Oeog- ayadbg yap wv, si 
Tiavaerai ttotb dyaOospyoiv, iCal tov 6ebg elvai Tzavaerai. But in other" 
passages Clement most distinctly acknowledges that the world is a work of 
God ; e. g., Coh. p. 54, 55 : 'Movog yap o 6ebg inolrjaev, i-rrel not fiovog 
SvTug iarl deog' TpiXS) tS> (iovXeadai drfficovpyel, Kol tw [lovov iOEXrjaai 
avrhv enerai to yeyevrjadac. 

* Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the heathen and 
lieretical sense), De Princ. ii. 4 (Redepenning, 164), and in other places, e. 
<7., Comment, in .Joh. xxxii. 9, 0pp. T. iv. p. 429; but, though from his 
idealistic! position he denied eternity to mutter, which he held to be the root 
of evil, he nevertheless assumed the eternal creation of innumerable ideal 
worlds, solely because ne, as little as Clement, could not conceive of God as 
unoccupied (otiosam enim et immobilem dicere ilaturam Dei, impium enim 
simul et absurdum), De Princ. iii. 5, 0pp. T. i. p. 149 (Kedep. 309) : Nos 
vero consequentur respondebimus, observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes: 
Qnoniam non tunc primum, cum visibilem istum mundum fecit Deus, coepit 
operari. sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit alius mundns, ita et antequam 
his esset, fuisse alios credimus. It might be questioned whether Origen, in 
the use of the pronoun "■nos''' in the subsequent part of the passage, intended 
to enforce his own belief as that of the church, or whether he employed tha 

136 FiHST Period. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

plural number merel}' in his character as author; comp. Rossler, Bibliothek 
der Kirchenviiter, i. p. 177, and Sr.kniteer, 1. c. Comp. also Thomasius, p. 
153, ss., 169, ss., Redepenning, ii. 292 sq. 

° Iren. ii. 28, p. 15/ (ii. 47, p. 175, Grabe): TJt puta si quis interroget: 
Antequam mundura facerot Deus, quid agebat ? dioirnus : Quoniam ista 
responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus bio factus est apotelestos a 
Deo, tomporale initium accipiens, Scripturae nos decent; quid autem ante hoc 
Dens sit operatus, nulla scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hiEO responsio 
Deo. Respecting the important position which the doctrine of Irenaeus con- 
cerning the creation of the world occupies in his theological system (in 
opposition to the Gnostics), see Duncker, p. 8. 



Though the doctrine that the world exists for the sake of the 
human race, may degenerate into a selfish happiness scheme, yet it has 
a deeper, ground in the consciousness of a specific distinction between 
man and all other creatures, at least on this earth, and is justified 
by hints in the Sacred Scriptures.' Accordingly, the primitive 
Christians considered creation as a voluntary act of divine love, in- 
asmuch as God does not stand in need of his creatures for his own 
lory.'' But man, as the end of creation," is also preeminently the 
subject of divine providence, and the whole vast economy of crea- 
tion, with its laws and also its miracles, is made subservient to the 
higher purpose of the education of mankind. The Christian doc- 
trine of providence, as held by the fathers of the church in opposi- 
tion to the objections of ancient philosophy,'' is remote, on the one 
hand, from Stoicism and the rigid dogma of a elfiaQfiEvri held by the 
Gnostics,* and on the other from the system of Epicurus, according 
to which it is unworthy of the Deity to concern himself about the 
affairs of man." Yet here, again, the teachers of the Alexandrian 
school in particular endeavored to avoid as much as possible the use 
of anthropomorphism,' in connection with the idea that God takes 
care even of individuals, and to uphold in their theodicy the liberty 
of man,' as well as the love and justice of God." 


' Matth. vi. 26 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10. 

" E. g. Clement of Alex. Paed. iii. 1, 250 : 'Avsvde^f 6e iiovog 6 6ebg koI 
^aipei fidXiara fiev Kadapevovrag rjfiag hpuv ru) TTJg diavoiag Koafiu). 

' Justin M. Apol. i. 10 : Kal navra ttjv apxfiv dyadhv bvra 6rjjj,iovpyrjaai 
avTov k^ aiiop^ov vXrjg 6i' dvOpunovg SediddyfiEda. Comp. Athen. De 
llesurr. c. 12. Iren. v. 29, 1 ; iv. 5, 1 ; iv. 7, 4 (Comp. Bunrker, p. 78, 79). 
Tert. Advers. Marc. i. 13 : Ergo neo mundus Deo iudignus, nihil cteuimDeus 

§ 48. Providence and Government of the World. 137 

indignum se fecit, etsi mundum liomini, non sibi fecit. Orig. Contra Cels. iv. 
"74, p. 558, 559, and ibid. 99, p. 576: KkActo^ h&v ovv Aeyero), on ovv 
dvOpu-nu, dig ov6s Xeovri, ov6' olg dvoud^ei. 'HfiElg 3' ipovfiev Ov XeovTi 6 
dTjfiLovpybg, ov6e dsTU), ov6e SeXflvc ravra TrenoirjKev, dXXa ndvra 6ia- rd 
Xoymbv i^ioov. 

* See the objections of Csecilius, in Minucius Felix, c. 5, ss., and, on the 
other hand, the oration of Octavius, c. 17, 18, 20, 32, and especially the 
beaatifal passage, c. 33: Nee nobis de nostra frequentia blandiamur ; multi 
nobis videmur, sed Deo admodum pauci sumus. Nos gentes nationesque 
distinguimus : Deo una domus est mundus liic totus. Eeges tantum regni 
sni per ofiicia ministrorum universa novere : Deo indiciis non opus est; non 
solum in occulis eju^sed et in sinu vivimus. Comp. Athen. Log. c. 22, in 

' On the opinion of the <3nost!o Bardesanes respecting the elfMapfiivTj 
(fate), and the influence of stars, comp. Photius Bibl. Cod. 223. Euseb. 
Praep. vi. 10. JVeander, Gnostiche Systeme, p. 198. [JVeander, History of 
the Christ. Relig. and Church during the first three centuries, trans, by ^. J. 
Hose, ii. p. 97 : " He (Bardesanes), therefore, although, like many of those 
who inclined to Gnosticism, he busied himself with astrology, contended 
against the doctrine of such an influence of the stars [elfiapfiiv/j) as should 
be supposed to settle the life and affairs of man by necessity. Eusebius, in 
his great literary treasure house, the Praeparatio Evangelica, has preserved a 
large fragment of this remarkable work; he here introduces, among other 
things, the Christians dispersed over so many countries, as an example of the 
•absurdity of supposing that the stars irresistibly influenced the character of a 
people."] Baur, Gnosis, p. 234. C. Kuhner, Astronoraiae et Astrologise in 
doctrina Gnostic. Vestigia, P. I. Bardesanis Gnostioi numina astralia. Hild- 
burgh, 1833. [Comp. also Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 46, n. 2, and Hurton, Leot. on 
Ecclesiast. hist. Loot. xx. p. 182, 183.] 

' Comp. especially the objections of Celsus in the work of Origen : God 
interferes as little, with the afi'airs of man, as with those of monkeys and flies, 
etc., especially in lib. iv. Though Celsus was not a disciple of Epicurus, as 
Origen and Lucian would have him to be, but rather a follower'of Plato 
(according to Neander), yet these expressions savor very much of Epicurean- 
ism. [Comp. Lardner, "Works, vii. 211, 212.] 

' According to Clement, there is no antagonism of the whole and ita 
parts in the sight of God (comp. also Minuc. Eel. note 4) : 'AOpooyg re yap 
ndvTa KoX maoTov iv iiepei fua TrpoaPoXy npoapXinei, Strom, vi. p. 821. 
Comp. the work of Origen contra Cels. * 

' The doctrine of the concursus, as it was afterward termed, is found in 
Clem. Strom, vi. 17, p. 821, ss. Many things owe their existence to human 
calcula:tion, though they are kindled by God, as if by lightning (r?)v evavacv 
elXri^oTo). Thus health is preserved by medical skill, the carriage of the 
body by fencing, riches by the industrial art {xprinaricjTiKTj rexvr]); but the 
divine npovoia and human avvepyeia always work together. 

• Comp. § 39, note 8. In opposition to the Gnostics, who derived evil, 
not from the supreme God, but from the demiurge, Irenceus observes, Adv. 
Hffir. iv. 39, p. 285 (iv. 76, p. 380, Gr.), that through the contrast of good 

138 FiKST Peeiod. Doctrine Kesfecting God. 

and evil in the worlcl, tile former sliincs the more brightly. Spirits, he hiP- 
ther remarks, may exercise themselves in distinguishing between good and 
evil ; how could they know the former, without having some idea of its 
opposite ? But, in a categorical manner, he precludes all further questions: 
Non enim tu Deum facis, sed Deus te facit. Si ergo opera Dei es, manum 
artificis tui expccta, opportune omnia facientem : opportune sutem, quantum 
ad te at i net, qui efficeris. Praesta autem ei cor tuum moJle et tractabile, et 
custodi figuram, qua te figuravit artifcx, habens in temetipso humorem, ne 
induratus amittas vestigia digitorum ejus. . . .And further on ; Si igitnr tradi- 
deris ei, quod est tuum, i. e., fidem in eum et snbjectionem, recipies ejus 
artem et eris perfcctum opus Dei. Si autem non credideris ei et fugeris 
raanus ejus, erit causa imperfectionis in te qui non obedisti, sed non in illo, 
qui vocavit, etc. At all events, the best and- soundest theodicy ! Athenogo- 
ras (Leg. c. 24) derives the disorders in the world from the devil and demons 
(comp. § 51); and Cyprian (Ad Demetrianiim) from the very constitu- 
tion of the world, which begins to change, and is approaching its dissolution. 
To a speculative mind like that of Oriffen, the existence of evil would present 
a strong stimulus to attempt to explain its origin, though he could not but 
be aware of the diflBculties with which this subject is beset. Comp. especi- 
ally De Princ. ii. 9 (0pp. i. p. 97, Eedep. 214, Schnitzer, p. 140); Contra 
Celsum iv. 62, p. 551 (an extract of which is given by Bossier, vol. i. p. 232, 
Bs.). Different reasons arc adduced in vindication of the existence of evil in 
the world ; thus it serves to exercise the ingenuity of man (power of inven- 
tion, etc.) ; but he draws special attention to the connection between moral 
and physical imperfections, evil and sin. Comp. the opinion of Thomasius 
on the theodicy of Origen, p. 57, 58. ' 



Sulcer, Thesaurus, s. v. oyyc/lof. Coita, Diaputationes 2, suceinctam Doctrinae de Angelis His- 
toriam exhibentes. Tiib. 1765, 4. Schmid, Hist. dogm. de Angelis tutelaribus, in Illgens 
histor. theol. Abliandlungen, i. p. 24-27. Keil, De Angelorum malorum et Dsemonioruni 
Cultu apud Gentiles, Opusc. Acad. p. 584-601. (Gaab), Abhaudlungen zur Dogmen- 
gescliichte der iiltesteu griechischen Kirche, Jena, 1790, p. 97-1.S6. Usieri, Pauliri. 
Lehrbegriff. 4th edit. Appendix 3, p. 421, es. — [Dr. L. Mayer, Scriptural Idea of An- 
gels, in Amcr. Biblic. Eeposit. xii. 356-388. Moses Stuart, Sketches of Angelology 
in Robinson's Bibliotheca Sacra, No. I. 1843. Kitto, Cyclop, of Bibl. Liter, arts. An- 
gels, Demons, Satan. L. F. Voss, Zeitschritt f. Luther. Theologie, 1855. Liiclce, in 
the Deutsche Zeitscbrift, 1851, review of Martensea. Twesim, transl. in Bibliotheca 
Sacra, by H. B. Smith, vols. i. and ii. 1844, 1845.] 

The doctrine respecting Angels, the devil, and demons, forms an 
important appendix to the statements about creation, providence, 
and the government of the world ; partly because the angels (accord- 
ing to the general opinion) belong as creatures to the creation itself ; 
partly because, as others conceivOj they took an active part in tha 

§ 50. The Angels. 139 

work of creation, or are the agents of special providence. The doc- 
trine of the devil and demons also stands in close connection with 
the doctrine of physical and moral evil in the world. 



Though the primitive church, as Origen asserts, did not establish 
any definite doctrine on this subject,' we nevertheless meet with sev- 
eral declarations respecting the nature of angels." Thus many of the 
earlier fathers rejected the notion that they took part in the work 
of creation/ and maintained, on the contrary, that they are created 
beings and ministering spirits." In opposition to the doctrine of 
emanation and of aeons,' even bodies were ascribed to them, of finer 
substance, however, than human bodies.^ The idea of guardian an- 
gels was connected in part with the mythical notion of the genii,' 
But no sure traces are to be found during this period of a real wor- 
ship of angels within the pale of the Catholic church.' 

' De Princ. prooetn. 10, 0pp. i. p. 49 : Est etiam illud in ecclesiastica 
prsedicatione, esse angelos Dei quosdam et virtutes bonas, qui ei ministrant 
ad salutera liominnm consummandam ; sed quando isti creati sint, vel qualea 
aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto designatur. 

' " The doctrine respecting angels, though a very wavering element of the 
patristic dogmatics, is yet handled with manifest predilection," Semisch, 
Just. Mart. ii. 339. Comp. Athenagoras Leg. 24, and Note 1 to the next 

° Iren. i. 22 and 24 (against the opinions of Saturninus and Carpocrates), 
comp. ii. 2, p. 117 : Si enim (Deus) mundi fabricator est, angelos ipse fecit, 
aut etiam causa creationis eorum ipse fuit. IIT. 8, 3 : Quoniam enim sive an- 
geli, sive archangeli, sive throni, sive dorainationes ab eo, qui super omnes est 
Deus, et constituta sunt et facta sunt per verbum ejus. Comp. also iv. 6, 7 : 
Ministrat ei (patri) ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua i. e., Filius et Spir. 
S., vei-bum et sapieritia, quibus serviunt et suhjecti sunt omnes angeli. Comp. 
Buncker, p. 108, ss. and Baur, Dreieinigkeit p. 175. The latter, from the 
manner in which the earliest fathers frequently bring the angels into close 
connection with the persons of the Trinity, sees evidence that their views 
respecting this great mystery itself were yet very mdefinite. 

* '■^Justin M. regards the angels as personal beings who possess a permanent 
existence,'" Semisch, ii. p. 341. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128 : "On fiev ovv elalv 
ayyeXoi, Kal dd [livovreg, nal fifj dvaXvofievot elg muvo, i^ ovtrep yeyovaaiv, 

a-nodedeiKTM Athenagoras. Leg. c. 10 : n/l,^9of ayyiXuv koX 

XeiTOVfyyuv (jjajisv, ovg b iroiTjTTjg Kal Srjfuovpybg KOOfiov 6ebg (5ta tov nap' 
avTOv Xoymj diiveifis nal diera^e nepi re to. aroixda elvai Kal roiig ovpavovg 
Koi rbv Koaficv Kal r,\ iv avTU) Kal t^v tovtuv evra^iav. Comp. c. 24, and 

140 FiEST Period. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

Clem. Strom, vi. 17, p. 822, 824 ; according to him the angels have received 
charge over provinces, towns, etc. Clement, however, distinguishes the ay- 
ye/lof (singular), n-n- ^nVb, from the other angels, and connects him in some 
degree with the Logos, though assigning to him an inferior rank. Comp. 
Strom, vii. 2, p. 831-833. He also speaks of a mythical Angelus Jesus, Pasd. 
i. 7, p. 133, comp. G. Bulli Def. Fidei Nic. sect. 1, cap. 1 (de Christo sub an- 
geli forma apparente). 0pp. Lond. 1703, fol. p. 9. \_Pye Smith, Script. Test, 
to the Mess. i. p. 445-464J. — On the employments of angels comp. Oriij. Contra 
Gels. v. 29. (0pp. i. p. 598), and Hom. xii. in Luc. 0pp. iii. p. 945. 

' Philo had already transformed personal angels (e. g., the Cherubim) into 
divine powers, see Dahne, p. 227, ss. Justin M. also informs us, that in his 
time some had compared the relation in which the angels stand to God to 
that which exists between the sun and its beams (like the Logos) ; but he 
decidedly rejects this opinion. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128. Comp. Tert. Adv. 
Prax. c. 3 (in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity) : Igitur si ct mon- 
archia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scrip- 
tum est: Millies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant ei : 
nee ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia vir- 
tutum procuratur, etc. 

' Justin M. attaches most importance to the body of angels as analogous 
to that of man. Their food is manna, Psal. Ixxviii. 25 ; the two angels who 
appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 1. ss.) differed from the Logos who accom- 
panied them, in partaking of the meat set before them, in reality and after 
the manner of men, comp. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 57, and Semisch, ii. p. 343. As 
regards their intellectual powers and moral condition, Justin assigns an inferior 
position to the angels, Semisch, p. 344, 345. Tertallian points out the differ- 
ence between the body of Christ and that of the angels, De Carne Christi, c. 6 ; 
Nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, 
ut a morte suscitaretur. Si nunquam ejusmodi fait causa angelorum corpo- 
randorum, habes causam, cur non nasoendi acceperint camera. Non venerant 

mori, ideo nee nasci Igitur probent angelos illos, carnem de sideribus 

concepisse. Si non probant, quia nee scriptum est, nee Christi caro inde erit, 
cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat, angelos camera non pro- 
priam gestasse, utpote naturas substantife spiritalis, et si corporis alicujus, sni 
tauien generis ; in carnem autem humanara transfignrabiles ad terapus videri 
et congredi cura hominibns posse. Igitur, cum relatum non sit, uiide sump- 
serint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro, non dubitare, hoc esse proprium 

angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere Sed et, 

si de materia necesse fuit angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de 
terrena materia, quam de nllo genere coelestium substautiarum, cum adeo 
terrenae qualitatis extitcrit, ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. Tatian, Or. c. 15 : 
Aaifioveg 6e navreg aapKiov fiev ov KeKTTjVTat, TweviiaTiKi] ds Lotlv avrolg 
fj avfirrrj^ig, (hg nvpbg, ihg depog. But these ethereal bodies of the angels can 
be perceived only by those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not by the 
natural man (the psychical). In comparison with other creatures they might 
be called incorporeal beings, and Ignat. ad Trail, calls them daoifid-ovg 
ipvaeig. Clement also says, Strom, vi. 7, p. 7C9, that they have neither ears, 
nor tongxies, nor lips, nor entrails, nor organs of respiration, etc. Comp. Orig- 

§ 50. The Angels. 141 

Princ, in prooem. § 9. On the question, whether the fa!hers taught the spir* 
itual nature of the angels at all, see Semisch, ii. p. 342. 

' This idea is already found in the Shepherd of Hennas, lib. ii. mand. vi. 2 : 
Avo eldiv ayyeXoi fiera, tov dvOpoJirov, elg Trjg diKaioavvTjg koI £tf T?yf 
trovqpidg- iial b fiev rfiq diicaioavvTjg dyyeXog Tpv4)Ep6g ion ical alaxvv-rjpbg 
Ka\ irpaog iial Tjovxiog. "Orav ovv ovrog sm t?)v Kapdlav aov dvaj3y, evdiug 
Aa.A« fiera aov nspl diKaioavvqg, nepl dyveiag, Trepl aeiivoTrj-og Kol nepl 
avrapKeiag, koL nepl navrbg Ipyov dinatov, koI Trepl -nda-qg dpeTTJg kvdo^ov. 
Tavra navra drav elg r'rjv Kapdiav aov dvaPfj, yivcjoKe, on b dyyeXcg TTJg 
diKatoavvqg fieTO, aov kanv. Tovtu) ovv mareve kol roXg epyoig avrov, nal 
eyKpaTTjg avrov yevov. "Opa ovv ical rev dyykXov rrjg novrjpiag rd epya. 
Ilpiorov navTUV b^vxoXbg kari Kal micpbg Kal a(ppuiv, ical rd epya avrov 
rrovripd icaraarpecpovra roiig dovXovg rov Oeov- orav avrbg ircl r^v aapdiav 
aov dvaf3rj,yvco6i avrbv stI ruv kpyuv avrov. (Fragm. ex doctr. ad Antioch.) 
Comp. the Latin text. Justin Mart. Apol. II. 5 : 'O 0ebg rbv -ndvra Koauov 
noiTJaag Kal rd eniyeia dvOpumoig vnord^ag .... rr\v fiev r&v dvOpionuv 
Kal t(a>v vTrb rbv ovpavbv npovotav dyyeXoig, ovg' inl rovroig sra^e, ■nape- 
6u)Kev. We have already seen (note 4), that Clement and Origen assign to 
angels the office of watching over provinces and towns ; this is connected 
with the notion of individual guardian angels ; comp. Clem. Strom, v. p. 700, 
and vii. p. 833, and the passages quoted above from Origen. Schraid, u. s. 

° Col. ii. 18, mention is made of a dprjOKEia rdv dyyeXcuv which the 
apostle disapproves; comp. Kev. xix. 10. xxii. 9. The answer to the ques- 
tion, whether Justin M. numbered the angels among the objects of Christian 
worship, depends upon the interpretation of the passage, Apol. i. 6 : ''AOeoi 
KSKXfjfieda Kal bfioXoyovjiev rCtv roiovruv vop,i^njj,evu)V BeHv ddeoi elvai, 
dXX' ovxl rov dXrideardrov Kal irarpbg ducatoavvrjg Kal aiixfipoavrig Kal 
tC)v dXXuv dpercov, dveTriiiuirov re Kaniag deov- a XX' & k elv 6v re Kal 
rbv nap' avrov vlbv eXOovra Kal 6 id d^avr a rip^dg 
T ovr a Kal rbv r G)v dXXtjv 'enofj-evuvKal e § o fj, o i ov /^ ev uv 
dyaduv dyyeXuv aTparbv,TTvevfid re rb tt po<jirir i Kbv 
aeP 6 fied a Kal n poa kvv ov fiev , Xoyw Kal dXrjdecg, rifxHvTeg. The 
principal point in question is, whether the accusative rbv r&v aXXuv. . . . 
arparbv is governed by aefH/jieda Kal ■npogKvvavp.ev, or by didd^avra, and, 
consequently where the punctuation is to fall. Most modern writers adopt the 
former interpretation, which is probably the more correct one. Thus Se- 
misch, p. 350, S3. Mohler (Patrologie, p. 240) finds in this passage as well 
as in Athen. Leo-. 10, a proof of the Komish Catholic adoration of angels 
and saints. But Athenagoras (c. 16) rejects this doctrine very decidedly in 
the following words : Ov rag dvvdfieig rov deov Ttpoaiovreg dspamvoixev, 
dXXd rbv TTOiTjrfjV avrCJv Kal deanorrjv. Comp. Clem. Strom, vi. 5, p. 760. 
Orig. Contra Gels. v. 4, 5 (0pp. i. p. 580), and viii. 13 (ib. p. 751), quoted 
by Munscher, ed. by Von Colin, i. p. 84, 85. [Gieseler, i. § 99, and note 33. 
*Burton, Testimonies of the Antenic. Fath. to the Trinity, etc., p. 15-23. 
On the Gnostic worship of angels, comp. Burton, Bampton Lect., note 52.] 

- » In au earlier essay in the Tubingen Quartalschrift, 1833, p. 53 sq., Moliler rejected 
the inti rpretation, that the worship of angels is here spoken o£ 

142 First Peeiod. Doctrine Kespecting God. 

According to Origen, the angels rather pray with us and /or us, corap. Contra , 
Cols. viii. 64, p. 789 ; Horn, in Num. xxiv. (0pp. iii. p. 362). On the order 
*nd rank of the angels in Origen, see Redepenning, ii. p. 348, sq. 



The Bible does not represent the prince of darkness, or the 
wicked one (Devil, Satan) as an evil principle which existed from 
the beginning, in opposition to a good principle (dualism) ; but, in 
accordance with the doctrine of One God, it speaks of him as a 
creature, viz., an angel who was created by God in a state of 
holiness, but voluntarily rebelled against his maker. This was also 
the view taken by the orthodox fathers.^ Everything which was 
opposed to the light of the gospel and its development, physical 
evils," as well as the numerous persecutions of Christians,' was 
thought to be the work of Satan and his agents, the demons. The 
entire system of paganism, its mythology and worship,* and, accord- 
ing to some, even philosophy,' were supposed to be subject to the 
influence of demons. Heresies' were also ascribed to the same 
agency. Moreover, some particular vices were considered to be the 
specific effects of individual evil spirits.' 

' Concerning the appellatives tbib, aarav, aaTavag,6idpo?.og, b dpx^v tov 
Koaiiov TOVTov, 6atij,oveg, Saifiovia, fieeX^efiovX, etc., the origin of the doc- 
ti'ine and its development in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dog- 
matik, § 142-150; 212-214; 236-238; BaumgarUii-Crusius, biblischa 
Theologie, p. 295; Von Colin, biblische Theologie, p. 420 ; Ifirzel, Com- 
mentar zura Hiob, p. 16. The fathers generally adopted the notions already 
existing. Justin M., Apol. min. c. 5. Athenag. Leg. 24 : 'Qg yap Oeov <pa- 
fiev KoX vlbv TOV Xoyov avrov Kal Trrevjua ayiov . . . ovTWf Koi krepag elvai 
6vvd[iuc K.aTF.iX'qfifieda nepl rrjv vXtjv exovaag Kol di' avTTJg, filav fikv ttjv 
avrlOeov, ovx oti dvTiSo^ovv tl iarl rip Oeii), <l)g t^ (piXia Tb vecKog Kara 
TOV 'EfineSoKkia, Kal t^ W'^P?- '"'^^ KaTO, to, (j>aiv6fieva (inel Kav el dv- 
OeiaTTiKBi Tl TO) Oeat, inavaaTO tov eivai, XvdeioTjg avTOv t^ tov Oeov dvvd- 
uei Kol laxvi Tfjg ovoTaaeug) dXX' oti t(j tov Oeov dyaSw, 6 KaTa avfi- 
(hprjicog iaTiv avTU), Kal avvvndpxov, dig XP^"' oi^iiaTi, ov avev ovk eotiv 
(pvx ug fiepovg uvTog, dXX' dig" kut' dvdyKTjv ovvovTog TrapaKoXovOrffiaTOt, 
rjyioji&vov Kal avyKexp'>>Ofievov d)g tw trvpl, ^avOut elvai, Kal tw alOepi,, 
Kvavu) tvavTLOV ioTl to TTepl ttjv vXtjv exov rrvevfia, yevofievov fiev 
vTTO TOV Oeov, KaOb ol Xomol vtr' avTov yeyovaaiv ayyeXoi,. Kal ttjv ivl 
Ty vXy Kal Tolg Trjg vXrjg elSeai maTevadfievov SioiKrjaiv. Iren. iv. 41, p. 
288 : Quum igitur a Deo omnia facta sunt, et diabolus sibimet ipsi et reliquis 
factus est abscessioriis causa, juste scriptura eos, qui in abscessione perseve- 
rant, semper filios diaboli et angelos dixit maligni. Tert. Apol. c. 22 • 

§ 51. The Devil and Demons. 143 

Atque adeo diciinus, esse substantias quasdam spiritales, ti( c nomen novum 
est. Si-iunt daemonas pliilosophi, Socrate ipso ad dsemonii arbitrium ex- 
spuctante, quidni? cum et ipso daemonium adhaosisse a pueiitia dicatur, de- 
Lortatoiium plane a bono. Deemonas sciunt poette, et jam vulgus indoctum 
in usum raaledicti frequentat ; nam et Satanara, principem hujus mali gene- 
ris, proinde dc propria conscientia animae eadem execramenti voce pronnn- 
tiat. Angelos qnoque etiam Plato non negavit. Utriusque nominis testes esse 
vel magi adsunt. Sed quomodo de angelis quibusdam sua sponte corruptia 
torruptior gens dsemonum evaserit damnata a Deo cum generis auctoribus et 
cum eo quem diximus priccipe, apud litteras sanctas ordine cognoscitur. 
Corap. Orig. De Princ. prooem. 6 (0pp. T. i. p. 48), who, however, leaves 
all other points problematical, as he does in the doctrine respecting angels ; 
it is sufficient to believe that Satan and the demons really exist — quae autem 
sint aut quo modo sint, (ecclesia) non clare exposuit. It was not until the 
following period that the Maaichees developed the dualistic view, that the 
devil is a distinct and essential evil principle, in the form of a regular system, 
although traces of it may be found in some earlier Gnostic notions, e. g. the 
Jaldabaoth of the Ophites, comp. Neander's Gnostische Systeme, p. 233, ss. 
jBaur, Gnosis, p. 173, ss. [Neander, Hist, of the Ch. (Torrey) i. 345, comp. 
Norton, 1. c. iii. p. 57-62.] In opposition to this dualistic view, Origen 
maintains that the devil and the demons are creatures of God, though not 
created as devils, but as spiritual beings ; Contra Gels. iv. 65 (Opp. i. p. 553), 
— ^As to the extent in which Platonism and Ebionitism participated in the 
Christian demonology, see Semisch, Just. Mart. p. 387 sq. 

° Tertullian and Origen agree in ascribing failures of crops, drought, 
famine, pestilence, and murrain, to the influence of demons. Tert. Apol. c. 
22 (operatio eorura est hominis.eversio). Orig. Contra Gels. viii. 31, 32 (Opp; 
i. p. 764, 65). He calls the evil spirits the executioners of God {6rifiioi). 
Demoniacal possessions were still considered as phenomena of special impor- 
tance (as in the times of the New Test). Minuc. Fel. c. 27 : Irrepentes 
etiam corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mantes, 
membra distorquent. Concerning these 6aiiJ.ovt6Xi]TT-oi, fiaivofievoi, ivepyov- 
lievoi, comp. in particular Const. Apost. lib. viii. c. 7. A rationalistic 
explanation is already given in the Clementine Horn. ix. § 12 : "OOev noXXol 
ova elSoreq, nodev ivefyyovvrai, ral^ t&v 6aifi6vo)v Kanal^ vnndaXXofievaig 
imvoiaig, (bg roj rfjg ipvxrjg avruv XojLOfiS) avvTiOEVTai. Comp. moreover, 
Orig. ad Matth. xvii. 5 (Opp. T. iii. p. 574, ss.), De Princ. iii. 2 (Opp. T. i. 
p. 138, ss., de contrariis potestatibus). Schnitzer,^. 198, ss.; Thomasius, 
p. 184, ss., and the passages cited there. 

" Jmtin M. Apol. c. 5, 12, 14 (quoted by Usteri, 1. c. p. 421). Minuc. 
Fd. 1. c. : Ideo inserti mentibus imperitorum odium nostri serunt occulte per 
timorei.i. Naturale est enim et odisse quem timeas, et quem metueris, infes- 
tare, sv possis. Justin M. Apol. ii. toward the commencement, and c. 6. 
Corap. Orig. Exhort, ad Martyr. § 18, 32, 42 (Opp. T. i. p. 286, 294, 302). 
r>ut Justin M. Apol. i. c. 5, also ascribes the process against Socrates to the 
hatred of the demons. The observation of Justin, quoted by Irenseus (Advers. 
Iljer. V. c. 26, p. 324, and Euseb. iv. 18), is very remarkable : "Otl npb uev 
»^f Tov Kvptov naoovaiag ovdinoTE eToXfirjaev b laravdg pXao<t>r]ii'iiaai rbv 

144 First Period. Doctrine Eespecting God. 

Qsbv, are firjSenu eZtJwf avtov rrjv naraKpcaiv (comp. Epiph. in Hser. Seth. 
ianor. p. 289); thus the efforts of the powers of darkness against the vic- 
torious progress of the Christian religion could be more satisfactorily 

* Ep. Barn. c. 16, 18; Justin M. Apol. i. 12, and elsewhere; Tatian, c. 
12, 20, and elsewhere (comp. Daniel, p. 162, ss.) ; Athen. Leg. c. 26 ; Tert. 
Apol. c. 22, De Prseser, c. 40 ; Minuc. Fel. Octav. c, 27, 1 ; Clem. Al. 
Cohort, p. 1 ; Origen Contra Cels. iii. 28, 37, 69, iv. 36, 92 ; v. 5 ; vii. 64 ; 
viii. 30. The demons are present in particular at the offering of sacrifices, 
and sip in the smoke of the burnt-offering; they speak out of the oracles, 
and rpjoice in the licentiousness and excess which accompany these festivals. 
(Comp. Keil, De Angelorum malorum s. Dsemoniorum Cultu apnd Gentiles; 
Opusc. Academ. p. 584-601. Miinscher edit, by Von Colin, i. p. 92, ss.) 

' According to Minuc. Fel., c. 26, the demon of Socrates was one of those 
evil demons. Clement also says of a sect of Christians, Strom, i. 1. p. 32C : 
01 6e Kal npbg KaKOv av ttjv (juXoao^iav EiaSedvKivaL rov (iiov vofii^ovciv, 
ml Xv^-q rS)v dvdpuTTUv, irpog rivog evperov novrjpov, which is manifestly 
nothing but an euphemism for SiapoXov ; comp. Strom, vi. 822 : Ilajf ovv 
ovK aronov ttjv ara^lav koI ttjv ddiiciav upoaveiiovTag tS) Sia(i6Xui, Evape- 
Tov npayfiaroc, tovtov Tfjg (piXoao(j)iag, donfjpa txoleZv ; comp. also Strom. 
i. 17, p. 366, and the note in the edit, of Potter. Astrology, etc., was also 
ascribed to demoniacal influence ; comp. the same note. 

" Comp. Justin M. Apol. i. 56, 58. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesise, p. 
105 : Hsereses invenit (diabolus) et schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, 
veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem, etc. 

' Hermas, ii. 6, 2, comp. the preceding §. Justin M. Apol. ii. c. 5 (Usteri^ 
p. 423)... real elq dvdpunrovg (povovg, noXsiiovg, [loixsiag, aKoXaaiag Kal 
TTaaav Kaidav eaneipav. Clem, of Alex, designates as the most malicious 
and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon {KoiXiodatfiova 
Xixvorarov), who is related to the one that works in ventriloquists (tw ^y- 
yaCTTptjuv^Gj), J'sed. ii. 1, p. 174. Origen follows Hermas in classifying the 
demons according to the vices which they represent, and thus unconsciously 
prepares the way for more intelligible views, gradually resolving these con- 
crete representations of devils into abstract notions. Comp. Horn. 15, in 
Jesum Nave (0pp. T. ii. p. 434) : Unde mihi videtur esse infinitus quidem 
numerus contrariarum virtutum, pro eo quod per singulos pene homines sunt 
spiritus aliqui, diversa in iis peccatorum genera molientes. Verbi causa, est 
aliquis fornicationis spiritus, est irae spiritus alius, est avaritiae spiritus, alius 
vere superbiaj. Et si eveniat esse aliquem hominem, qui his omnibus malis 
aut ctiam pluribus agitetur, omnes hos vel etiam plures in se habere inimicos 
putandus est spiritus. Comp. also the subsequent part, where it is said, not 
only that every vice has its chief demon, but also that every vicious person 
is possessed with a demon who is in the service of the chief demon. Others 
refer not only crimes, but also natural, desires, as the sexual impulse, to the 
devil ; Origen, however, objects to this, De Princ. iii. 2, 2 (0pp. T. i, p. 3 39; 
Redepenning, p. 278 sq.) 

§ 52. Satan and Demons. 145 

§ 52. 


The fathers held different opinions as to the particular sin 
which caused the apostacy of the demons.' Some thought that it 
was envy and pride,'' others supposed lasciviousness and intem- 
perance.'' But it is of practical importance to notice, that the 
church never held that the devil can compel any soul to commit sin 
without its own consent.* Origen went so fir, that, contrary to the 
general opinion, he allowed to Satan the glimmer of a hope of 
future grace.' 

' The fathers do not agree about the time at which this took place. On 
the supposition that the devil si.'dnoed onr first parents, it is necessary to 
assififn nn earlier date to his apcis'asy thap to the f.ill of man. But, accord- 
ing to Tatlan, Orat. c. 11, the fall of Satan was the punishment which was 
inflicted upon him in consoqucuco of the part he had taken in the first sin 
of man (comp. Daniel, p. 187 and 196). From the language of Irenceus 
(comp. note 2), one might suspect that he entertained similar views ; but it 
is more probable that he fixed upon the period which elapsed between the 
creation of man and his temptation, as the time when the devil apostatized. 
Thus Cyprian says, De Dono Patient, p. 213 : Diabolus liominem ad iraagi- 
nem Dei factum impatienter tulit; inde et puvut primus et perdidit. 

' Iren. Adv. liter, iv. 40, 3, p. 287 : 'Eif/jAutre to -KXaajia rov Oeov, and 
Cyprian, 1. c. Orig. in Ezeoh. Horn. 9, 2 (0pp. T. iii. p. 389) : Inflatio, su- 
perbia, arrogantia peocatum diaboli est et ob hsec dolicta ad terras migravit 
de coelo. Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 324, p. 293 (ed Bokker.) : 01 fiev Xot-nol 
{ayyeXoi) k(j>' oiv avrovg inoirjae Kal dierd^ro b deog efisivav avrb^ de. 
(sc. 6 didjioXoc) ivvj3piae. 

' The passage in Gen. vi. 2 (according to the reading oi dyyeXoi tjw Oeov 
instead of ol viol rov Oeov) had already been applied to the demons, and 
their intercourse with the daughters of men. (Comp. Wernsdorf, Exercitatio 
de Comraorcio Angelorum cum Filiabus Ilomiuura ab Judseis et Patribus Pla- 
tonizantibus credito. Viteb. 1742, 4. Keil, Opusc. p. 566, ss. Munscher 
edit, by Voh Colin, p. 89, 90. Sulcer s. v. ayysAo? i.-p. 36, and kyprijopog 
p. 1003). Thus Philo wrote a special treatise De Gigantibus ; and all the 
fathei's of the first period (with the exception of Julius Africanus, see Routh, 
Reliquite Sacrse ii. p. 127, ss.) referred the passages in question to the sexual 
intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men. This, however, holds 
only of the later demons, who became s;uliject to the devil, and not of the 
apostasy of Satan himself,, which falls in an earlier period (note. 1). Con- 
cerning the apparent parachronism, comp. Munscher, Ilandb. ii. p. 30, 31; 
Fn accordance with this notion, Clement, Strom, iii. 7, p. 538, designates 
QKpaaia and emOvfiia as the causes of the fall.--The above mentioned 

146 First Period. Doctrine Kespecting God. 

views about pagan worship, and tlie temptation to sensuality (§ 51, and ibid, 
note 7), were connected with these notions respecting the intercourse of the 
demons with the daughters of men. The fallen angels betrayed the mys- 
teries of revelation to them, though in an imperfect and corrupt form, and 
the heathen have their philosophy from these women. Comp. Clem. Strom, 
vi. 1, p. 650. [Comp. on Gen. vi. 1-4 S. R. Maitland, on False Worship, 
1856, p. 19 sq., and in British Magazine, vol. xxi. p. 389. C. F. Keil, in the 
Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1855 and 1859; Engelhardt, in the same (against 
Keil) 1856, for the angels. Kurtz's Essay on the subject, 1856, and in 
hisfiist. of the Old Test., and Delitzsch in reply to Kurtz, in Renter's Ke- 
pertorium, 1857. Bibliotheca Sacra, 1850, p. 167. Journal of Sacred Lit. 
(Lond. 1858, Oct., for the angeis.J 

^ Ilermas, lib. ii. mand 7 : Diabolum autem ne timeas, tiraens enim Dorai- 
num dominaberis illius, quia virtus in illo nulla est. In quo autem virtus non 
est, is netimendus quidera est; in quo vero virtus gloriosa est, is etiam timen- 
dus est. Omnis enim virtutem habens timendus est; nam qui virtutem non 
habet, ab omnibus contemnitur. Time plane facta Diaboli, quoniam maligna 
sunt: metuens enim Dominum, timebis, et opera Diaboli non facies, sed ab- 
stinebis te,ab eis. Comp. 12. 5 : Potest autem Diabolus luctari, sed vincere 
non potest. Si enim resistitur, fugiet a vobis confusus. — [For as a man, when 
he fills up vessels with good wine, and among them puts a few vessels half 
full, and comes to try and taste of the vessels, does not try those that are full, 
because he knows that they are good ; but tastes those that are half full, lest 
they should grow sour : so the devil comes to the servants of God to try them. 
They that are full of faith resist him stoutly, and he departs from them be- 
cause he finds no place where to enter into them : then he goes to those that 
are not full of faith, and because he has a place of entrance, he goes into 
them, and does what he will with them, and they become his servants. 
Hermas, 12. 5, Archbp. Wake's transl.] Comp. Tatian, c. 16 : Aatnoveg ds 
ol Tolg dvdpunoig eirLraTTOVTeg, ovk elaiv al tuv dvOpunuv ipvxat k. t. X. 
Iren. ii. c. 32, 4, p. 166. Tert. Apol. c. 23 : [Omnis hsec nostra in illos do- 
niinatio et potestas de norainatione Christi valet, ct de coramemoratione eornm 
quae sibi a Deo per arbitrum Christum imminentia exspectant. Christum 
timentes in Deo, et Deum in Christo, subjiciuntur servis Dei et Christi.] 
Oriff. De Princ. iii. 2, 4 ; Contra Cels. i. 6, and viii. 36 (Opp. i. p. 709) : 
'AXX' ov xptOTLavbg, 6 dXrjdiog j^ptCTTtavo^- Kal vnord^ag iavrbv fibvcf) t(j 
6f.u> Kol TU) Aoyu avTOv nddoi ti av virb tuv dai^wvMV, are Kpelrruv 
datfiovuv Tvyxdvuv, and in lib. Jesu Nave, xv. 6. In the former passage, 
De Princ, Origen calls those the simple (sirppliciorcs) who believe that sin 
would not exist if there was no devil. Along with the moral power of faith, 
and the efficacy of prayer, the magic effects of the sign of the cross, etc, 
vpere relied on. But what was at first nothing more than a symbol of the 
power of faith itself, became afterward a mechanical opus operatum. 

' Even Clement, Strom, i. 17, p. S67, says: '0 de didfioXog avre^ovaiG; 
u)v Kol fiETavorjaai olog re fjv koX KXtipai, Kal 6 alriog avrbg TTJg KXoTrfjg, 
ovx ^ M KwAvffOf Kvpiog, but from these words it is not quite evident 
whether he means to say that the devil is yet capable of being converted. 
The general opinion as earlier held, is expressed by Tatian, Orat. c. 15 : 

§ 52. Satan and Demons. 147 

H ruv Saiiiovuv vnoaraaig ovk e^si fieTUvoiaq tSttov. Comp. also Justin 
M. Dialog, c. Tryph. c. 141. — Origen himself did not very clearly propound 
his views; De Princ. iii. c. 6, 6 (0pp. i. p. 154) : Propterea etiain novissimus 
inimiciis, qui mors appellatur, destrui dicitur (1 Cor. xv. 26), ut neque ultra 
triste sit aliquid ubi mors non est, neque adversum sit ubi non est inimious. 
Destrui sane novissimus inimicus ita intelligendus est, non ut substantia ejus, 
quse a Deo facta est, pereat, sed ut propositum et voluntas inimica, qua; non a 
Deo sed ab ipso processit, intereat. Destructur ergo non ut non sit, sed ut 
inimicus non sit et mors. Nihil enim omnipotcnti impossibilc est, nee in- 
sanabile est aliquid factori suo. § 6. Omnia restituentur ut unum sint, et 
Deus fuerit omnia in omnibus (1 Cor. xv. 28). Quod tamen non ad subitum 
fieri, sed paulatim et per partes intelligendum est, infinitis et immensis laben- 
tibus sseculis, cum sensim et per singulos emendat'io* fuerit et correctio prose- 
cuta, prseourrentibus aliis et velociori cursu ad summa tendentibus, aliis vero 
proximo quoque spatio insequentibus, turn deinde aliis longe posterius : et sic 
per multos et innumeros ordines proficientium ac Deo se ex iniraicis recon- 
ciliantium pervenitur usque ad novissimum inimicum qui dicitur mors, et 
etiam ipse destratur ne ultra sit inimicus.] He here speaks of the last enemy, 
death, but it is evident,. from the context, that he identifies death with the 
devil (this is signified, as cited, e.g^ Munscher Handbuch. ii. p. 39, by the 
use of the parenthesis) ; he speaks of a substance which the Creator would 
not destroy, but heal. Comp. § 3, and Schnitzer in the passage ; Thomasius, 
p. 187. On the possibility of the conversion of the other demons, comp. i. 6, 
3 (0pp. i. p. '70) : Jam vero si aliqui ex his ordinibus, qui sub principatu 
diaholi agunt, malitiae ejus obtemperant, poterunt aliquando in futuris saeculis 
«on erti ad bonitatem, pro eo quod est in ipsis liberi facultas arbitrii (?)... 





To bring man back to himself and to the knowledge of his own 
nature, was the essential object of Christianity, and the condition 
of its further progress.' Hence the first office of Christian anthro- 
pology must be to determine, not what man is in his natural life in 
relation to the rest of the visible creation, but what he is as a 
spiritual and moral being in relation to God and divine things. But 
since the higher and spiritual nature of man is intimately connected 
with the organism of both body and soul, a system of theological 
anthropology could be constructed only on the basis of physical and 
psychical anthropology, which, in the first instance, belongs to natu- 
ral science and philosophy, rather than to theology. The history 
of doctrines, therefore, must also consider the opinions held as to 
man in his natural relations." 

' Comp. Clem. Pffid. iii. i. p. 250 : ^Hv apa, i>g Solks, Tvavruv iieyiaruv 
liaOrjfidTOOV rb yvuvai avrov kavrbv yap rig kav yvurj, debv eiaerai.. 

' At first sight it might appear indiflferent, so far as theology is concerned, 
whether man consists of two or three parts ; and yet these distinctions are 
intimately connected with the theological definitions of liberty, immortality, 
etc. This is the case also with the doctrine of preexistence, in opposition to 
traducianism and creatianism, in relation to original sin, etc. Thus it can 
be explained why Tatian, on religious grounds, opposes the common defini- 
tion according to which man is a ^wov Xoyuov, Contra Graecos, c. 16 : 
"EoTiv dvOpuTTog, ovx uanep KopaKocpuvot SoynaTi^ovtnv, fwov XoyiKbv, 
vov Kol ^TTidT^/iJjf SeKTtKov Ssixd'^aeTai, yap kot' avToijg koX to, aXoya vov 
Koi emaTrjfirjg dsKTiKa. M.6vog 6^ dvOpunog elicuv Koi bfioiuaig tov Oeov, 
Xiy(D 6e dvOpunov ovxl t6v onoca rdig t^dioig TrpdrrovTa, dXXa rbv Trop^w 
fiiv avOpumTrp-og, Trpbg avrbv dk rbv debv KexupTlnora. 

§ 54. Division of Human Nature and Psychology. 149 
' §54. 


Keili Opusc. Acadetn. p. 618-647. Dundcer, Apologetarum secundi Saseuli de Essentiali- 
bus Naturie humanSB Partibua Plaeita. P. I. II, Gott. 1844-50, 4to. [Franz Be- 
litzsch, System der biblischen Paycbologie, Leipz. 1855. J. T. Beck, Umriss d. bibli- 
schen Seeleulehre, Stuttg. 1843.] 

That man is made up of body and soul, is a fact wliicL. we 
know by experience previous to all speculation, and before we ex- 
press it in precise scientific terms. But it is difficult to define 
the relation 'between body and soul, and to assign to each its boun- 
daries. Some regarded the i)vxri as the medium by which the purely 
spiritual in man, the higher and ideal life of reason, is connected 
with the purely animal, the grosser and sensuous principle of the 
natural life. They also supposed that this human triad was sup- 
ported by the language of Scripture.' Some of the earlier fathers,' 
those of the Alexandrian school in particular,' adopted this tricho- 
tomistic division, while others, like Tertullian, adhered to the opin- 
ion, that man consists only of body and soul.^ Some Gnostic sects, 
e. g., the Valentinians, so perverted the trichotomistic division, as 
to divide men themselves into three classes, the %otKot, ipvxi-iiOL, and 
iTvevixariKoi, according as one or the othef of the three constituents 
preponderated, to the apparent exclusion of the others. /Thus they 
again sundered the bond of union with which Christ had encircled 
men ;is brethren.' 

' "Its, li-s:, h*"i ; ffa'pf, '^vx% ■nve.v^a. Comp. the works on Bibl. Theol., and 
tlic commentaries on 1 Tliess. v. 23 ; Heb. iv. |12, etc., also Ackermann^ 
Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 4. [Beck and Delitzscb, u. s.] 

' Justin M. fragm. de Eesurr. § 10 : OlKog to aufia ipvx^, nvevixarog 6k 
IJJVXT) olicog. Ta rpta ravra roXg eXmSa elXiKpivfj ical txIotiv ddidnpiTov 
iv TGJ deu ?;^ov(jt audrjaeTat. Comp. Dial, cum Tryph. § 4. Tatian, con- 
tra Grajc. Or. c. 1, 12, 15, Irenceus, v. 9, 1 : Tria sunt, ex quibns perfectus 
homo constat, carne, anima at spiritu, et altero quidem salvante et figurante, 
qui est spiritus, altero, quod unitur et formatur, quod est caro ; id vero quod 
inter baeo est duo, quod est anima, quaj aliquando quidem subsequens spiritum 
elevatur ab co, aliquando autem consentiens carni decidit in terrenas concu- 
piscentias. Comp. v. 6, 1, 299 : Anima autem et spiritus pars hominum esse , 
possunt, homo autem nequaquam : perfectus autem homo commixtio et 
adunitio est animae assumentis spiritum Patris et adraixta ei carni, quae est 
plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. Accordingly, not every man is by nature 
made up of three parts, but he only who has received the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, as the third. Concerning the distinction between Pnoe and Pnuema, 
comn. § 44, and Duncker, p. 97, 98. 

150 FiKST Period. Anthropology. 

' Clement (Strom, vii. 12, p. 880) mates a distinction between the ipvx^ 
XoyiKrj and the 'ipvxrj aufxariK'^ ; he also mentions a <e»i/bZc? division of man 
(analogous to the decalogue), ibid. vi. 16, p. 808 : "Etrrt 6e Koi deKag rtf 
TCEpi Tov dvOpunov avrbv rd re aladrjTripia Tzf.vre koL rb (p(ovrjTiKbv koI 
rb anepfiarcKov, ical tovto Stj crySoov Tb Kara rfjV irXdaiv nvevfiarLKOv, 
cvvarov 6e rb TiyefioviKbv rrjg if^vx^^, ncu deKarov rb dia rrig rrtarewf 
■n-poayiv6j.i,evov dyiov TTvevfiarog ;^;apa«T7;p«TTtK6i' Idliofia k. t. X. ; the more 
general division into body, soul, and spirit, forms, however, the basis of this. 
Clement, after the example of Plato (comp. Justin M.' Coh. ad Gr. 6), divides 
the soul itself into these three faculties : rb XoyiariKov (voepov), rb dv^iKov, 
rb imdvuTjTiKov, Psed. iii. 1, ab init. p. 250. The knowing faculty he sub- 
divides into four functions : alaOrjaig, vovg, eTrcaTrj[j.T], vnoXTjiptg, Strom, ii. 
4, p. 435. Clement regards body and soul as 6id(popa, but not as evavria, 
so that neither is the soul as such good, nor is the body as such evil. 
Comp. Strom, iv. 26, p. 639. For the psychology of Origen, see De Princ, 
iii. 3 (0pp. i. 145 ; Redepenn. p. 296-306). On the question whether 
Origen believed in the existence of two souls in man, see Schniizer, p. 219, 
ss. ; Thomasius, p. 190, 193-195 ; Redepenning, ii. p. 369, note 3. In the 
view of Origen the tpv^'^ as such, which he derives from xjjvxeadai, is inter- 
mediate between body and spirit; "a defective, not fully developed power'' 
(Redepen. ii. 368). He affirms that he has found no passage in the Sacred 
Scriptures in which the soul, as such, is spoken of with honor ; while, on the 
contrary, it is frequently blamed, De Princ. ii. 8, 3-5 (Opp. i. p. 96, ss. 
Bedep. p. 211, ss.). But this does not prevent him from comparing the soul 
to the Son, when he draws a comparison between the human and the divine 
triad, ibid. § 5. For the trichotomistic division, comp. also Comment, in 
Matth. T. xiii. 2 (Opp. iii. p. 570), and other passages in Mimscher ed. by 
Von Colin, i. p. 319, 320. Origen sometimes employs the simple l;erm 
" man" to designate man's higher spiritual nature, so that man appears not 
fio much to consist of body and soul, as to be the soul itself, which governs 
the body as a mere instrument; Contra Cels. vii. 38 : 'AvOpu-og, tovtectl 
ipvxT] ^pujtisvjy acoiiari (comp. Photins Cod. 234, Epiph. Hser. 64, 17). Con^ 
sequently he calls the soul homo, homo = homo i^iterior, in Num. xxiv. , 
comp. Thomasius and Redepenning. 

' De Anima c. 10, 11, 20, 21, 22 : Anima dei flatu nata, immortalis, ccr- 
poralis, effigiata, substantia simplex, de suo patiens varie precedens, libora 
arbitrii, acoidentiis obnoxia, por ingenia mutabilis, rationalis, dominatrix, 
divinatrix, ea una redundans ; Adv. Hermog. c. 11, and Neander, Antignos- 
ticus, p. 457. Concerning the value which, from his strong realistic position, 
he attached to the senses (the key to his theological opinions) comp. ibid. p. 
452, ss 

' Ireu. i. 5, 5 [Mimscher, edit, by Von Colin, i. p. 316, 317); comp. also 
N'eander's Gnostiche Systeme, p. 127, ss. Baur, Gnosis, 158, s.1., 168, ss., 
489, ss., 679, ss. 

§ 55. Origin of the Soul. 151 

§ 55. 


Ifubus MiiUer, Lehre von der Sunde, Ste Austr. ii. 495, sq. J. FrohscTiammer, Ueber den 
UrspruHg d. measohliohen Seelen, Miinchcn, 1854. Joh. Marcus, Lelirraeinungen 
uber d. Ursprung d. mensoH. Seelen in d. ersten Jahrh. d. Kirolie. 1854. J. F. Bruch, 
Lehre der Preeistenz, Strasb. 1859. Edward Beecher, Conflict of Asros, Bost. 1853. 
Preiixistence of the Soul, from Kail's Opuscula Acad, in Blbhoth. Sacra, xii. 1855.] 

The inquiry into the origin of the human soul, and the mode of 
its union with the body, seems to be purely metaphysical, and to 
have no bearing upon religion.' But, in a religious point of view, it 
is always of importance that the soul should be considered as a 
creature of God. This doctrine was maintained by the Catholic 
church in opposition to the G-nostic and heretical theory of emana- 
tions." Origen's hypothesis of the pre-existence of the soul is allied 
with Platonic views.' On the other hand, TertulUan maintained 
the propagation of the soul per traducem in connection with his 
realistic and materializing conceptions of its corporeity {Traducian- 

' Tims, Origen says, De Princ. proosm. 5, 0pp. i. p. 48 : De anima vero 
utrum ex serainis traduce ducatur, ita ut ratio ipsiys vol substantia insorta 
ipsis serainibus corporalibus babeatur, an vero aliud habeat initium, et hoc 
ipsnm initium si genitum est aut non genitnm, vel certe si extvinsecus corpori 
inditnr, necnc : non satis inanifesta pvaedicatione distinguitur. 

^ Traces of tlie theory of emanation are found in ihe writings of some of 
the earlier Fathers. Jwsfe'w Jf., fragm. de Resurr. 11: 'M ^e.v ■^vx^l eanv 
d(l)9dprog, fi&pog ovaa tov Oeov koL eufpvorjfia. (Whether this is Justin's 
own opinion, or a thesis of the Gnostics, which he combats ? — See Semisch, 
Just. Mart. p. 364.) Comp. the Clementine Homilies, Hom. xvi. 12. On 
the other hand, Clement of Alex, adheres to the idea of creation, in Coh. p. 
"78 : Movof 6 TOJv oXuv drj^iovpybg 6 dptaroTexvag narvjp toiovtov dyaXp.a 
Ijitpvxov Tjiiag, tov avdpunrov 'i-nXaaev ; and Strom, ii. 16, p. 467, 4^68, where 
he rejects the phrase (itpog Qeov, which some employed, in accordance with 
the principle : 6e6f ovSefiiav £%« npdg rj[iag (pvawrjv cxiaiv. Comp. Orig. 
in Joh. T. xiii. 25 (0pp. T. iv. p. 235) : I,(p66pa sarlv daefieg op-oovacov -fj 
dyevvTiTG} (jyvaei koX TTap.fiaiiapia elvai X&yeiv rovg npoaKWovvrag iv ttvev- 
nan TW eeoi. Comp. De Princ. i. 7, 1. 

" Clement, Coh, p. 6 : IIpo 6e Trjg tov KoafJiov KaTafioXrjg rjp.elg ol tw delv 
iaeaOat ev avTU) TrpoTspov yeyevvrjp.e.voi tu Qeto' tov Oeov Xoyov to, XoyiKO, 
■nXdniiara fjiielg- 6i' bv dpxat^oiiev, Bti iv dpxy & Xoyog rjv; this perhaps 
should rather be understood in an ideal sense. [Clement rejects the view that 

the soul is generated, in Strom, lib. vi., c. 16 : ov KaTo, ttjv tov ampfiaTog 

KaTajSoXhv •yfx'Wftevov, ug avvdyeadai noX dvev tovtov tov deaaTOv dpiOp.hVf 

152 First Peuiod. ANTHEOPOLoaT. 

6i' uv i] Txaaa ivkpyeia rov dvOpumov kniTeXeLTai. So, too, Atlionagoras, 
De mort. Resur. c. 17. Comp. Marcus 1. c.J But Origen, following the 
rythagorsean and Platonic schools, as well as the later Jewish theology, first 
spoke of the preexistence of the soul as something real : (Comp. Epiph Ilasr. 
64, 4 : T?)i' tpvx>]v yap rfjv avOpwnsiav Xtyei -rrpovTrapxetv.') He brought 
liis doctrine into connection with that of human liberty and of divine justice, 
by maintaining that the soul comes into the body as a punishment for former 
sins : comp. De Princ. i. V, 4 (0pp. i. p. 12, Redep. p. 151, Schnitzer, p. 12). 
— " If the soul of man is formed only with the body, how could Jacob sup- 
plant his brother in the womb, and John leap in the womb at the salutation 
of Mary?" Comp. also T. xv. on Matth. c. 34, 35, in Matth. xx. 6, 1 (0pp. 
T. iii. p. 703), and Comment, in J oh. T. ii. 25 (0pp. iv. p. 85. Redep. ii., 
20 sq. \Origen says his view is not directly contained in Scripture : De 
Princ. i. c. 1 : Nam per conjecturam facilis assertio esse videbitur; scrip- 
turarum autem testimoniis utique ditiicilius aflfirmatur. Nam per conjectunis 
ita possibile est ostondi. He also speaks in some passages as if his opinion was 
undecided : lib. ii. in Cant. Conticor : Et si ita sit, utrum nuper creata veniat, 
et tunc primum facta, cum corpus videtur esse tbrmatum, sed causa faoturae 
ejus animandi corporis necessitas extitisse credatur; an prius et olira facta, 
ob aliqnam causam ad corpus sumendum venire existimetur : et si ex causa 
aliqua in hoc deduci creditur, quae ilia sit causa ut agnosci possit, scientise 
opus est.] 

* De Anima, c. 19 : Et si ad arbores provocamur, amplectemur exemplum. 
Si quidem et illis, necdnm arbusculis, sed stipitibus adhuc et surculis etiam 
nunc, simul de scrobibus oriuntur, inest propria vis animse . . . quo magis 
hominis? cujus anima, velnt surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propagi- 
nem dcducta et genitalibus feminse fovcis commendata cum omni sua para- 
tura, pullulabit tarn iutellectu quam sensu ? Mantior, si non statira infans ut 
vitam vagitu salutavit, hoc ipsum se testatur sensisse atqne intcllexisse, quod 
natus est, omnes simul ibidem dedicans sensus, et luce vieum et sono auditum 
et huraore gustum et aSre odoratum et terra tactum. Ita prima ilia vox ile 
primis sensuum et de primis intellectuum pulsibus cogitur. . . , Et hie 
itaque concludimus, omnia naturalia aniraae, ut substantiva ejus, ipsi inesso ct 
cum ipsa prooedere atque proficere, ex quo ipsa censetur, siout et Seneca 
saepe noster (De Benef. iv. 6) : Insita sunt nobis omnium artium et setatum 
semina, etc. Comp. c. 27. Neander, Antignost. p. 455, and the whole sec- 
tion. YTertullian, De Anima, c. 36 : Anima in utero. seminata pariter cum 
came, pariter cum ipsa sortitur et sexum, ita pariter ut in causa sexus neutra 
substantia tenetur. Si enim in seminibus utriusque substantia, aliquam in- 
tercapedinem corum conceptus admitteret, ut aut caro, aut anima prior semi- 
naretur, esset etiam sexus proprietatum alteri substantia} adscribere per 
temporalem intercapedinem seminum ; ut aut caro animiB, aut anima carni 
insonlper(it sexum.] 

§ 56. Thk Image of God. 153 



\_Thomasitis, Christ! Person und "Work, i., 185 sq. Bp. Bull., Treatise on the State of Man 
before the Fall.] 

Man's bodily preeminence, as well as his higher motal and religious 
nature, frequently referred to by the fathers in a variety of forms,' 
is appropriately described in the simple words of Scripture (Gen. i. 
27) : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God 
created he him." This form of expression has been always employed 
by the church." But it was a point of no little difficulty to determine 
precisely in what this image of God consists. As body and soul could 
not be absolutely separated, it was represented by some, that even 
the body of man is created after the image of God,' now in a more 
gross, and again in a more refined figurative sense ; while others re- 
jected this view altogether. All, however, admitted, as a matter of 
course, that the image of God has a special reference to the spiritual 
endowments of man. But, inasmuch as there is a great chasm be- 
tween the mere natural properties, and their development by the free 
use of the powers which have been granted to man, Trenceus, and 
especially Clement and Origen, still more clearly distinguished be- 
tween the image of God and likeness to God. The latter can only 
be obtained by a moral confiict (under the ethical point of view), or 
is bestowed upon man as a gift of grace, through union with Christ 
(in the religious aspect).* 

' Iren. iv. 29, p. 285 : 'EtJet 6s rbv dvdpunov npiiTOV yeviaOai, Kal ye- 
vojievov av^rjaM, naX av^rjaavTa dv6po)d?jvai, Kal dvdpudevTO. n^irjOvvdyvai, 
ical TTXrjdvvOev-a kviaxvoai, Kal Iviaxvaavra do^aadfjvai, Kal do^aadevra 
ISelv rhv kav-ov deaTTonTjv. Yet in other places Irenseus distinguishes less 
exacMy; see Duncker, u. s. 99, sq. Min. Fel. 17 and 18, ab init. Tatian, 
Or. contra Gr. c. 12 and 19. Clem. Coh. p. 78. According to the latter, man 
is the most beautiful hymn to the praise of the Deity, p. 78 ; a heavenly plant 
((pvTov ovpdviov) p. 80, and, generally speaking, the principal object of the 
love of God, Pffid. i. 3, p. 102, comp. p. 158. Paid. iii. 7, p. 276 : ^vaei yhp 
6 dvOpuTTog viprjXov ion ^uov Kal yavpov Kal rov KaXov ^riTr)Ti.K6v ; ib. iii. 
8, p. 292. But all the good he possesses is not innate in such a way, but 
that it must be developed by instruction {^dOrjoig). Comp. Strom, i. 6, p. 
336 ; iv. 23, p. 632 ; vi. 11, p. 788 ; vii. 4, p. 839, and the passages on human 
liberty, which will be found below. 

" Some of the Alexandrian theologians, however, speaking more definitely, 
taught that man had been created, not so much after the image of God bim- 
eelf, as after the imago of the Loc/os, an image after an image; Coh. p. 78 : 

154 First Period. Anthropologt, 

'H f.iev yap tov deov e'lKibv 6 Xoyoq avrov, koX v'lhg rov vov yvrjaiog 6 deio^ 
Xoyog, tpioTog apxirvnov (pu>g- eIkuv de tov Xoyov 6 ardpunog' dXrjdii'bg 
6 vovg 6 kv avOp(l>-u>y b Kar' elKova tov Oeov Koi Kad' duotuaiv 6ia 
TovTO yeyev^adaL Xeyo/ievog, txj Kara Kapdiav (ppovrjOEi tu) Oelo) napU' 
Ka^ofxevog Aoyo), Kol TavTXi Xoymog ([■cinark the play on the word XoyiKog). 
Comp. Strom, v. 14, p. 703, and Oiig. Comment, in Job. p. 941 (Opp. T. iv. 
p. 19, 51); in Luc. Horn. viii. (Oppi T. iii.). 

" This notion was either connected with the fancy that God himself has a 
bvidy (see above), or wiLh the idea that the body of Christ was the imnge 
after which the body of man had been created. (The author of the Clemen- 
tine Homilies also thought that the body in particular bore the image of God, 
comp. Piper on Melito, 1. c. p. 74, 75). Tert. De Came Christi, c. 6 ; Adv. 
Marc. V. 8; Adv. Prax. 12. Neander^ Antign. p. 407, ss. [Just. Mart, makes 
the image to consist in the whole man, including the body. Tertullian, Adv. 
Marcion, lib. ii. : Homo est a Deo couditus, non impeiiali verbo, ut coetera 
animalia, sed familiari manu, etiam pioemisso blandiente illo verbo : Faciamus 
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.] The more spiritual view 
was, that the life of the soul, partaking of the divine nature, shines through 
the physical organism, and is reflected especially in the countenance of man, 
in his looks, etc. Tatian, Or. c. 15 {^Worth, c. 24) : ■ivxr] fJ-sv ovv tj tSiv 
avdpunviov TToXvfj-sprig ioTi Kal ov fiovofieprig. 'LvvdeTT) (al. avverr] accord- 
ing to Fronto Ducffius, comp. Daniel, p. 202) yap ioTiv ug elvai (pavepav 
avTfjv 6ia aojpaTog, ovte yap av avTrj (paveiri ttote %wptf acj^aTog ovte 
dviaraTat. fj aap^ X'-'P'-^ ''/"vt^f- Clem. Coh. p. 52, Strom, v. 14, p. 703 : -ivxriv 
6e t}]v Xoymfiv avwdev Efi-nvEvadrivai vnb tov Oeov elg TrpoiJtJTTOv. On this 
account the fathers of the Alexandrian school very decidedly oppose the more 
material conception of a bodily copy of the divine image. Clem. Strom, 
ii. 19, p. 483 : To yap kut' ELKova koi dfioioaiv, iig Kal n-poadsv slp^Kafiev, 
ov TO KaTo, awjia firjvvETar ov yap dip-ig OvrjTbv ddavdro) k^ofioiovadar 
dXX' fj KaTa vovv nal Xoyia/j,6v. On the other hand, it is surprising that 
the same Clement, Pad. ii. 10, p. 220, should recognize the image of God in 
the procreative power of man, which others connected with demoniacal agency 
(§ 51) : 'EilnCjv b avBptiiTTog tov Oeov yivsTai, Kadb slg yevEmv dvOpcjnov 
dvOpuTTog avvEpyEi. Origen refers the divine image exclusively to the spirit 
of man ; Con. Cels. vi. (Opp. i. p. 680), and Horn. i. in Genes. (Opp. T. ii. p. 57). 

* The tautological phrase, Gen. i. 26 : *.sr?»=ns 'skVsb, induced the fathers 
in their acumen to make an arbitrary distinction between eV.s (blki^v) and 
ri;*'! (buoluaig ; comp. Schott, Opus'cul. T. ii. p. 66, ss. Neander sees in this 
(Hist. Dog. p. 1 90) : " the first germ of the distinction, afterward so important, 
between the dona naturalia and supernatnralia." Trenceus, Adv. Hajr. v. 6, 
p. 299, V. 16, p. 313 : 'Kv Tolg -npoadEV xpovoig iXsyETO filv Kar' eIkovo 
Qsov yEyovEvat tov avOpunov, ovk idEiKvvTO 3i- eti yap dopaTog fjv b Xoyog, 
ov kut' ElKova b dvdpwnog syEyovEi. Aid tovto Srj Kal ttjv biioiuaiv paSiag 
unsfiaXEV. 'Ottote dk aap^ tyevero 6 P.oyof, tov Qeov to, di.uj)6TEpa ettekv- 
puas- Kal yap Kal Tr)V eUova eSei^ev dyqdcog, avTbg tovto yEvofiEvog, onEp 
ijV 7] Ehiiv avTOv- Kal TrjV biioluaiv fiefiaiug KaTEOTTjOE ovve^op,oi6aag Thv 
avOpuTTOV TU) dopuTU Tra-pl. According to some, the language of Clem. 
Strom, ii.p. 499 (418, Sylb.) implies that the image of God is communicated 

§ 57. Fkeedom and Immortality. I55 

to man evdeug Kara ttjv yivEOiv, and that he obtains the likeness varepov 
Kara t^v reXeiuaiv. According to Tert. De Bapt. c. 0, man attains unto 
likeness to God by baptism. According to Origen, who everywhere insists 
upon the self-determination of man, the likeness to God which is to be ob- 
tained, consists in this, ut (homo) ipse sibi cam sibi earn propria; industrise 
studiis ex Dei imitatione conscisceret, cum possibilitate sibi perfectionis in 
initiis data per imaginis dignitatem in fine demum per operum expletionem 
perfectam sibi ipse similitiidinem consummaret ; Dc Princ. iii. 6 1 (0pp. T. 1, 
p. 152 ; Red. p. 317 ; Schnitzer, p. 236). Comp. Contra Gels. iv. 20, p. 522, 
23. But Origen again uses both terms indifferently, Horn. ii. in Jer. (0pp. T. 
iii. p. 137). 


freedom: and immortality. 

a. Liberty 

Worter, die christl. Lohre tiber d. Terhaltnisa von Gnade und Freiheit von den apostol;- 
sehen Zeiten bis auf Ausustinus. 1. Halfte, Freiburg im Breisg. 1856. [LaTiderer, 
Verhiiltuiss von Gnade und Freilieit (dogmatioo-hislorical), in the Jahrbucher £ 
deutsche Theologie, 1857, p. 500-603. Kuhn, Der vorgebliohe Pelagianismus der 
voraugustinisohen Kirohenvater, in the (Tiibingen) Tlieol. Quartalsehrift, 1853. J. B. 
Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, Lond. 1855, pp. 398 sq. Ncarider, 
Hist. Dog. (Rjland) p. 182 sq.] 

Freedom and immortality are those prerogatives of the human 
mind in which the image of Grod manifests itself ; such was the doc- 
trine of the primitive church, confirmed by the general Christian 
consciousness. All the Greek fathers, as well as the apologists 
Justin,^ Tatian^ Athenagoras' Theophilus,* and the Latin author 
Mmucius Felix," also the theologians of the Alexandrian school, 
Clements and Origen,'' exalt the avre^ovaiov (the autonomy, self- 
determination) of the human soul with the freshness of youth 
and a tincture of hellenistic idealism, but also influenced by a 
practical Christian interest. They know nothing of any imputa- 
tion of sin, except as a voluntary and moral self-determination is 
presupposed. Even Irenaeus^ although opposed to speculation, and 
the more austere Tertullian,' strongly insist upon this self-determi- 
nation in the use of the freedom of the will, from the practical and 
moral point of view. None but heretics ventured to maintain that 
man is subject to the influence of a foreign power (the stars, or the 
eifxapfiivrj) ;'° and on this very account they met with the most 
decided opposition on the part of the whole church. 

' Justin M., Apol. i. c. 43 : '&l\iap\isvT(v (pafitv dnapdIiaTov tuvttjv 
elvac, Tolt, ~a KaXa eKXeyoiiivoig ra d^ia inLTifua, koL • olg ifioiug t^ 

156 First Period. Anthropology 

ivavTla, to a^ia inixsipa. Ov yap djcmep to. dXXa, olov 6iv3pa Kol re- 
rpdnoSa, iirjdiv dwdfieva npoaipKoei TrpdrTeiv, kirolriaev b Qzhq rbv av- 
Opunov ov6e yap fjv d^iog dfioiPrjg rj k-naivov, ovk d(j)' iavrov iXo^uvoq 
TO dyaObv, oAAa rovro yevofievog, ovd' el Kaicbg vnfjpxe, diKaiug KoXdaeuq 
irvyxavev, ovk, dcp' kavrov roLOVTog <x>v, dXX' ovdev dvvdfievog elvai erepov 
nap' 3 iyeyovei. This is most decided against all necessarianisrn. 

' Tatian, Or. c. 7 : Tb 6e iKarepov riig noirjaecjg eldog avre^ovaiov 
yeynve^ rdyadov (pvatv iirj exov, S ttA^v [rraAtv] /idvov napd tS> QeC>, ry 
6e eXevOepia Trjg Trpoaipeaeug vnb rwv dvOpunruv ^KreXeiovfievov onwg 
6 fxev (pavXog dixaiug KoXd^rirai, 6i' avrbv yeyoviig fioxOilpog- 6 3e 6i- 
Katog %aptv roJv dv6payadr]fidTUiv d^'iug iTTaiviJTai Kara, Tb avre^ovaiov 
Tov Qeov fifi TTapafidg to povXrjfia. Concerning the critical and exegetical 
difficulties connected with this passage, see Daniel, Tatian dor Apologet. 
p. 201. 

' Athen. Leg. 31 ; comp. De Eesurr. 12, 13, 15, 18, ss. 

* Ad Aiitol. ii. 27 : 'EXevdepov yap Kal avre^ovacov eTroiTjaev b Oebg 
dvdpuirov, in connection with the doctrine of immortality, of which in the 
next §. 

' Octav. o. 36, 37 . Neo de fato quisqnam aut solatium captet ant excuset 
eventuin. Sit sortis fortuna, mens tamen libera est, et ideo actus hominis, 

non dignitas judicatur Ita in nobis non genitnra plectitur, sed ingenii 

natura punitur. The liberty of man gets the victory in the contest with all 
the adversities of destiny : Vires denique et mentis et corporis sine laboris 
exercitatione torpescunt; omnes adeo vestri viri fortes, quos in exemplum 
prsedicatis, asruninis suis inclyti floruerunt. Itaque et nobis Dens nee non 
potest snbvonire, nee despicit, quum sit et omnium rector et amator suorum ; 
Bed in adversis unumquemque explorat et examinat; ingenium singulorum 
perieulis pensitat, usque ad extremam mortem voluntatcm hominis sciscita- 
tur, nihil sibi posse perire securus. Itaque ut anruni ignibus, sic nos dis- 
criminibus arguimur. Quam pulcrum spectaculum Deo, quum Christianus 
cum dolore congreditur, quum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta com^ 
ponitur ! quum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis irridens insultat ! 
quum libertatem suam adversus reges et principcs erigit, soli Deo, cujus est, 
cedit, etc. ! Moreover, in Minucius xi. 6, it is intimated (though the opinion 
is put in the mouth of his opponent), that the Christians believed, that God 
judges man not so much according to his conduct, as according to predesti- 
nation ; but he refutes this, as a false accusation. 

° Clom. 'Coh. p. 79 : 'Tfiuv iariv {fj fiag. Tutv ovpav&v) lav OeXrjariTe, 
T&v Trpbg TOV Bebv rrjv Trpoaipeaiv eaxiJKOTUV. He then shows (p. 80) 
how man himself, in accordance with his own nature, ought to cultivate the 
talents which God has given him. As the horse is not for the plow (after 
the custom of the ancients), nor the ox for riding, as none is required to do 
more than bis nature will allow, so man alone can be expected to strive after 
the divine, because he has received the power of doing it. According to 
Clement, too, man is accountable for that sin alone, which proceeds from free 
choice, Strom, ii. p. 461 ; it is also frequently in our power to acquire both 
discernment and strength, ibid. 462. Clement knows nothing of a gratia 
irresistibilis, Strom, viii. p. 855 : Ovte fjjfjv aicuv cuOfjaeTat 6 T^^omvog 

§. 57. Fkeedom and Immortality. 157 

ov yap eariv aipvxo^' dXXh Trav-bg [idX^ov movaiug koI TrpoatpsTiKSig 
anevaei npbg aurripiav 6tb koI rag tvToXag eXaj3ev b avOpconog, dig dv e| 
avTOv bpfiTjTiKbg npbg bnorepov av koI (iovXono twv te alpercjv not ruv 
(pevKTOJV K. -. A. 

' Comp. the whole of the third boot of the work Dc Priricip. According 
to Origen, there is no accountability without liberty, De Princ. ii. 5, Ecd. p. 
188 : " If men were corrupt hy nature, and could not possibly do good, God 
would appear as the judge not of actions, but of natural capacities" (comp. 
■what Minucius says on this point). Comp. De Princ. i. 5, 3, and Contra 
Gels. iv. 3 (0pp. i. p. 504) : 'Kperfig filv kav dviX'^g rb iicovawv, dviuXeg 
avTTJg Kol TTjv ovaiav. Nevertheless, this liberty is only relative ; every 
moral action is a mixture of free choice and divine aid. Comp. § 70, auJ 
the passages quoted by Redepenning, Orig. ii. p. 318. 

' Iren. iv. 4, p. 231, 23'2 (Gr. 281) : Scd frumentum quidem et palese, 
inanimalia et irrationabilia existentia, naturalitcr talia facta sunt : homo vero, 
rationabilis et secundum hoc similis Deo, liber in arbitrio factus et suae potes- 
tatis ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum, aliquando autem 
palea fiat ; Irenaeus then founds the accountability of man upon this argu- 
ment. Comp. iv. 15, p. 245 (Gr. 318) ; iv. 37, p. 281, '82 (Gr. 374, '75) : Ei 
(pvaei ol fiev <pavXot, ol 61 dyadol yeyovaaiv, ovO' ovtoi enaivsTol, bvTsq 
dyadoi, ToiovTOL yap Kaxeaicevda6t](Tav ovt' eicelvoi iMEfinTol, ovTbig yeyovo- 
reg. 'AXX' inei&rj ol -navTeg rrig avrrjg elai (pvaeug, 6vvd(ievoi re Karaaxelv 
Kal npd^at rb dyadbv, kol dwdficvoi ndXiv dnoPdXelv avrb naX fifj noirjaar 
diKaiug Kal nap' dvdpuiroig rolg evvojxoviihoig, Kal -noXv Trporepov -napa 
QeS) ol fiev enatvovvTai, Kal d^lag rvyxdvovai ^laprvpiag rrjg tov KaXov 
KaOoXov eK.Xoy7jg Kal imijiovrjg- ol de KaramuvTai. Kal d^iag rvyxdvovai 
^rjfiiag Trjg tov naXov Kal dyadov dnoPoXTJg. Comp. also iv. 39, p. 285 
(Gr. 880); v. 27, p. 325 (Gr. 442). But, according to Irenajus, the freedom 
of man is not only seen in his works, but also in his faith, iv. 37, p. 282 (Gr. 
376) ; comp. also the fragment of the sermon De Fide, p. 342 (Gr. 467). On 
Eippolytus and his view of freedom, see Neander, Hist. Dog. p. 183. 

» TertuUian defended the idea of liberty especially in opposition to Mar- 
oion : " How could man, who was destined to rule over the whole creation, 
be a slave in respect to himself, and not have the faculty of reigning over him- 
self 3" Advers. Marcion, ii. 8, 6, 9 ; comp. Neander, Antignost. p. 372-373.* 

'° ^^ According to the Gnostics, there is a fate which stands in intimate con- 
nection with the stars, and is brought about by their instrumentality," etc. 
Baur, Gnosis, p. 232. But the doctrine of human freedom is of importance 
in the opinion of the author of the Clementine Homilies, e. g., Horn. xv. 7 : 
'EKaoTOV 6e tuv dvBpb)TTun> eXevespov moir]aev kx^iv TfjV i^ovmav kavrbv 
dnovefJ-eiv d) PovXerat, rj tw napovri KaKU>, fj tS) iikXXovri dyadu), comp. 
also c. 8. Horn. ii. 15 ; iii. 69 ; viii. 16 ; xi. 8. Credner, 1. c. iii. p. 283, 290, 
294. Sehtiemann, p. 182, ss., 235, ss., 241. 

* Even the opponents of the doctrine of human liberty, as Calvin, are compelled to 
acknowledge this remarkable consensus Patrum of the first period, and hi order to aocouut 
for it, they "are obliged to suppose a general illusion about this doctrine I "/i is at any 
rate 'aremwrkabh plmomeam, that the very doctrines which afterward caused disrupiMna in tin 
Christian church, a/re scarcely ever mentioned in the primitive church." Daniel, Ta,uaQ, p. 200. 

158 First Period. Anthropology. 



• Olshausen, antiquissimorum eeclcsise gra3ca; patrum de immortalitate gententise reeenson- 
tur, Osterprogramm, 1827, reviewed by UUmann in Studien uud Kritiken, i. 2, p. 425. 

The theologians of the primitive age did not so completely agree 
concerning the immortality of the soul. They were far from denying 
the doctrine itself, or doubting its possibility. But some of them, 
e. g., Justin, Tatian, and Theopliilus,' on various grounds supposed 
that the soul, though mortal in itself, or at least indifferent in rela- 
tion to mortality or immortality, either acquires immortality as a 
promised reward, by its union with the spirit and the right use of 
its liberty, or, in the opposite case, perishes with the body. They 
were led to this view, partly because they laid so much stress on 
freedom, and because they thought that likeness to God was to 
be obtained only by this freedom ; and partly, too, because they 
supposed (according to the trichotomistic division of human nature) 
that the soul receives the seeds of immortal life only by union with 
the spirit, as the higher and free life of reason. And, lastly, other 
philosophical hypotheses concerning the nature of the soul doubtless 
had an influence. On the contrary, Tertullian and Origen, whose 
views differed on other subjects, agreed in this one point, that they, 
in accordance with their peculiar notions concerning the nature of 
the soul, looked upon its immortality as essential to it." 

' On tlie question whether the view advocated by the aged man in Justin, 
Dial. c. Tiyph. § 4, is the opinion of the author himself or not? — as well as 
on the meaning of the passage: 'AXXa firjv ov6i anoOvrjoKecv (prjiA ndaag 
To,^ ■ipvxo.g eyw, comp. his commentators, Olshausen, 1. c. Rossler, Bibl. i. p. 
141; i/oA/c/-, Patrologie, i. p. 242 : i)aTOeZ, Tatian, p. 224 ; Semisch, u.Z&%. 
Tatian speaks more distinctly, Contra Grsec. c. 13 : Ovk iariv dddvarog rj 
ipvxrj KaO' eavTTjv* , 6v7]Trj 6e. 'AXXa, SvvarM fj avrrj km firj dnod- 
vrjaiiEiv. OvrjaKEi fiev yap Kal XvExai, fiBTo, tov aufiarog jxtj yiviianovaa 
Tr)v dXriOuav. 'Avlararai 6s elg varspov ertl avvreXeia Toij Koafiov avv 
Toi auiixari, ddvarov Sia Tifj,(A)plag iv dOavaaia Xa^fidvovoa. IldXiv 6e ov 
QvrjaKEi,, Kav npbg Kaipbv XvOfj, rijv kniyvuaiv tov deov TrenoiTmEvr). KaO' 
^avTTjV yap aiioTog eotI Kal ov6ev ev avr^ ((xoteivov .... (Job. i.) . . . . 
ivx^ yap OVK avrfj rb nvEVfia ^aioasv, iadtdj] 6s vn' avToti, k. t. X. . . . , 
'Zvl^vyiav 6s KEKrrifiEVTj tyjv tov 6eIov nvevfiaTog, ovk botiv dporjdrjTog, 
dvEpxs-^ai 6b TTpbg ansp avTrjv odT/yet X'^P''"' """^ TTVEVfia. Theophilus (ad. 
x\ut. h. 27) starts the question : was Adam created with a mortal or immor- 

* Kaff {avT^v is wanting in the most recent manuscripts, vide Daniel, p. 228, on thi» 

§ 59. On Sin, the Fall, and its Consequences. 159 

tal nature ? and replies : neither the one nor the other, but he was iitted for 
both [Sektikov diupo-ipuv), in order that he might receive immortality as a 
reward, and become God (yevrj-ai. deog), if he aspired after it by obeying the 
divine commandments; but that he might become the author of his own 
ruin, if he did the works of the devil, and disobeyed God.* Irenwus also 
speaks only of an immortality which is given to man, see Adv. User. ii. 64 : 
Sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem et eodem modo se habens solus 

est Deus Et do animalibus, de animabus et de spiritibus et omnino de 

omnibus his, quae facta sunt, cogitans quis minime peccabit, quando omnia, 
quae facta sunt, initium quidem facturae suae habeant, perseverant autem, 
quoadusque ea Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit. Non enim ex nobis, neque 
ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundem. gratiam Dei datur. Sicut autem corpus 
animale ipsum quidem non est anima, participatur autem animam, quoadus- 
que Deus vult, sic et anima ipsa quidem non est vita, participatur autem a 
Deo sibi prsestitam vitam. 

" The opposition which Tertullian raised to the above doctrine was con- 
nected with his twofold division of the soul, that of Origen with his views 
on prefixistence. (For the latter could easily dispose of the objection that 
the soul must have an end, because it has had a beginning.) Comp., how- 
ever, Tert. De Anima, xi. xiv. xv. Among other things, Tertullian appeals to 
the fact that the soul continues active even in dreams. According to Orig. 
Exhort, ad Mart. 47 (0pp. i. p. 307), De Princ. ii. 11 ; 4, p. 105, and iii. 1, 
13, p. 122, it is both the inherent principle of life in the soul, and its natural 
relation to God, which secures its immortality. To this is to be added his 
view about self-determination, and the retribution based thereon. Comp. 
Thomasius, p. 159 ; Redepenning, ii. 111. 

The whole question, however, had more of a philosophical than Christian bearing; as the 
idea of immortality itself ia abstract negative. On the other hand, the believer by 
faith lays hold of eternal life iu Christ as something real. Tlie Christian doctrine of 
immortality can not therefore be considered apart from the person, worlc, and king- 
dom of Christ, and rests upon Christian views and promises; see, below, in tlifl 



Walch, J.^ G. {Th. Ch. LilienOiat), De Pelagianlsmo ante Pelagium, Jen. 1738, 4. Ejusdem, 
Historia Doctrinse de Peccato Originis; both in his Miscellanea Sacra, Amstel. 1744, 
4. Sorn, J., Commentatio de sententiis coram patnim, quorum auctoritas ante Augus- 
tinum plurimum valuit, de peccato originali, Gott. 1801, 4. f Worter {Landerer ami- 
Huher], u. s. § 57. • 

However much the primitive church was inclined, as we have al- 
ready seen, to look with a free and clear vision at the bright side of 
man (his ideal nature), yet it did not endeavor to conceal the dark 
Bide, by a false idealism. Though it can not be said, that the con- 

* About the view of the Thnetopsyohites (Arabici), compare below, on Eschatology, 
§ 76, note 8. 

160 First Period. Anthropology. 

Bciousness of human depravity was the exclusive and fundamental 
principle upon which the entire theology of that time was founded, 
yet every Christian conscience was convinced of the opposition be- 
tween the ideal and the real, and the effects of sin in destroying the 
harmony of life ; and this, too, in proportion to the strictness of 
claims set up for human freedom. 

Thus Justin M. complained of the universality of sin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 95 . 
The -whole human race is under the curse ; for cursed is every one who doe* 
not keep the law. The author of the Clementine Homilies also supposes that 
the propensity to sin is made stronger by its preponderance in human his- 
tory, and calls men the slaves of sin [dovXevovrsg iTnOvfila) ; Horn. iv. 23, 
X. 4, Schliemann, p. 183.— Clement of Alexander directs our attention, in 
particular, to the internal conflict which sin has introduced into the nature 
of man ; it does not form a part of our nature, nevertheless it is spread through 
the whole human race. We come to sin without ourselves knowing how ; 
comp. Strom, ii. p. 487. Origen also conceives of sin as a universal corruption, 
since the world is apostate, Contra Cels. iii. 66, p. 491 : Sa<pu)g yap (paiverai, 
on TTavreg fiev avOpunoi, wpbg rh dfiaprdveiv necpyKafiev, 'ivioi de. ov fiovov 
Tr£(l)vicaaiv, dXXa kolI eWiofiivoi slalv dfiapTdveiv, Comp. iii. 62, p. 488 : 
'AdvvaTOv yap (j>ap,ev elvai avOpojnov fier' dper^g an' apx^g TTpog rbv Oebv 
dvu j3/l£7r£tv KUKtav yap v(biaTaodai dvayKalov npuTOV ev dvOpCmoig. 
Nevertheless the writers of the present period do not express as strong a sense 
of sin as those of the following. On the contrary, jnbilant feelings prepon- 
derated in view of the finished work of the Saviour ; counterbalanced by 
external contests and persecutions, rather than by internal penitential strug- 
gles. It is as one-sided to expect in the first centuries the experience of hc,t«3C 
times, as it is to misconceive the necessity of the later developments. 

§ 60. 


Suicer, Thesaurus, sub lifiapTuvu, ufidffTiijia, u/itigTia, u/iapru^c;. Krahbe die liChre von 
der Siinde und detn Tode, Hamburg, 1836 (dogmatico-exegetioal). * Mailer, Juliw, die 
Ohristliche Lehre von der Sunde, Breslau, 1844, 2 vols. [3d ed. 1849: transl. in 
Clark's Foreign TheoL Library.] 

Though sin was recognized as a fact, yet definitions of its precise 
nature were to a^ great extent indefinite and unsettled during this 
period.' The heretical sects of the Gnostics in general (and in thin 
particular they were the forerunners of Manichseism), with their 
dualistic notions, either ascribed the origin of evil to the demiurge, 
or maintained that it was inherent in matter." On the other hand, 
the Christian theologians, generally speaking, agreed in seeking the 

§ 60. The Doctkine of Sin in General. ]61 

source of sin in the human will, and clearing God from all respon 
sibility.' Such a view easily led to the opinion of Origen, that 
moral evil is something negative.* 

' A definition, allied to that of the Stoics, is given e. g. by Clement of 
Alexandria, Paid. i. 13, p. 158, 159: Uav rb Tzapa rbv Xoyov rbv dpObv 
TOVTO d^idpTTjiid icTi. Virtue {apsTTj), on the conti-ary, is fitdOeoig xpvxt]^ 
avfupoivo^ v-nb rov Uyov nepl oXov rbv fiiov. Hence sin is also disobedience 
to God, AvTiKa yovv on ijiMaprev 6 npStrog avOpunog, Kol Trapfiicovae tov 

Qs.ov. He further considers sin, urgin;^ its etymolog)', as error C)g t| 

avdynrjg elvai rb -nXTuxneXovpsvov nav 6ia rfjv tov Xoyov diafiapTiav yivo- 
Hevov Koi e'lKOTug iiaXelaOai dfidpTrjfia. Comp. Strom, ii. p. 462 : To 6e 
dfiaprdvEiv kK tov dyvoeiv Kpiveiv 6 ti xpfj noielv avviaTaTM r\ tov dSvvaTslv 
TTOielv. The different kinds of sin are, ineiOvfiia, fofiog, and rjSovri. One 
consequence of sin is th'e X-qdrj Tfjg dXTjOdag, Coh. p. 88, and, lastly, eternal 
death, ib. p. 89. Tertullian puts sin in the impatience (inconstancy) of 
man, De Pat. 5 (p. 143): Nam ut compendio dictum sit, omne peccatum 
impatientijB adscribendum. Comp. Cypr. De Bono Pat. p. 218. Orig. De 
Princ. ii. 9, 2 (0pp. T. i. p. 97 ; Redep. p. 216) also believes that laziness 
and aversion to efforts for preserving the good, as well as turning fi'on) 
the path of virtue (privative), are causes of sin ; for going astray is nothing 
but becoming bad ; to be bad only means not to be good, etc. ; comp. 
Schnitzer, p. 140. 

" Now and then even orthodox theologians ascribe the origin of evil to 
the sensuous nature : ^\\\\s ■Justin M. Apol. i. 10 (?) ; De Resurr. c. 3, see 
Semisch, p. 400, 401. On the other hand, comp. Clem. Strom, iv. 36, p 
638, 39 : Ovkovv evXoyiiig ol KararpixovTEC rfjg •nXdaeug koi Kani^ovreg rl 
auifia' oil avvopdvTeg t^jv KaTaaKevrjv tov dvdpdnov dpOrjv npbg Trjv ovpa- 
vov Oiav ysvo^evrjv, ical Trp> tuv alaOi]aeo)v dpyavonoitav npbg yv&aiv 
avvreivovaav, tu re fiiXrj koi fiEprj Trpbg to KaXbv, ov Trpbg rj6ovr]v EvOera. 
'OOev imdsKTiKbv yivErai TTJg TifiicordrTjg tu) Beo) ijivxrig to olKr}T7)piov 
TOVTO K. T. X.. . . 'AAA' ovTB dyudbv tj '4>vx^ (pvoei, ov6e av Kanbv ^vaei r! 
aHfia, ovdk firjv^ 8 firj lariv dyadbv, tovto evOtojg Kaiwv. E^crl yap ovi 
Kal fiBOOTTiTEg Tivsg K. T. X. Comp. Origen, Contr. Celsum, iv. 66 : T66b, 
T^v vXrp^ .... TOtg OvTjroIg eiinoXLTEvop,Evrjv ahiav Elvai r&v KaKuv, Kad' 
rinag ovk dXtjOig' t6 yap sKdarov 'rfyefioviKbv alnov Trjg vnoaTdarjg iv avT& 
KUKiag koTiv, fjTig eotI to KaKOV. 

° Clem. Strom, vii. 2, p. 835 : KaKiag 6' av -navTi] trdvTug dvatnog (§ 
Qeog). Orig. Contra Cels. vi. 55, p. 675 : 'Hfisig 6£ <l)anev, oti icaKo, p,EV rj 
Trfv KaKiav Kal Tag an' avTyg npd^eig 6 dsbg ovk inoirjije. Comp. iii. 69, p. 
492. Nevertheless, he holds that evil is under God's providence ; comp. De 
Princ. iii. 2, 7, 0pp. i. p. 142. 

' Orig. De Princ. ii. 9, 2 (0pp. i. p. 97), and in Job. T. ii. c. 7 (0pp. iv. 
p. 65, 66) : n&aa fj Kaidfl ovdsv eotiv (with reference to the word ovSev in 
John i. 3), etteI koI ovk ov Tvyxdvti. He terms evil avvTcnaTaTOV, and the 
fall ji.ei'wtTtf (diminutio). J. Mailer, i. 132 (first ed.); Qom\<. Redepenning, 
ii. 3??. 

162 First Period. ..Vnthropologt. 



The documents contained in the five books of Moses were to tha 
eiirly church the historical foundation, not only of the doctrine of 
the creation of the world and of man, but also of the doctrine of tha 
origin of sin, which appears as a fact in the history of Adam. Some 
writers, however, rejected the literal interpretation of this narrative. 
Thus Origen (after the example of Philo)' regarded it as a type, 
historically clothed, of what takes place in free moral agents every 
where, and at all times." It is difficult to ascertain how far Irenwus 
adhered to the letter of the narrative.^ Tertullian unhesitatingly 
pronounced in favor of its strict historical interpretation.' Both the 
Gnostics and the author of the Clementine Homilies rejected this 
view on dogmatic grounds.' 


' Philo sees in the narrative rpoiroi rijg ipvx^d vide Ddhne, p. 341, and 
bis essay in the Theologische Studien und Krit. 18.33, 4th part. 

" Clement considers the narrative of the fall partly as fact, and partly as 
allegory, Strom, v. 11, p. 689, 90. (Serpent = image of voluptuousness).* 
On the other hand, Origen regards it as purely allegorical, De Princ. iv. 16 
(0pp. T. i. p. 174) ; Contra Gels. iv. 40, p. 534. Adam is called man, be- 
cause : 'Ev Totf doKovai ■nspi tov 'AdajJ. slvai (pvoioXoyel Muiid^f ra -rtepl 
-Tjg TOV dvOpcoTTov (p{>oe(og . . ovx ovroig irepl kvog rivog, wg irepl bXov roi) 
y&vovg ravTa (pdaKovrog tov delov Xoyov. Concerning the further applica- 
tion of allegorical interpretation to the particulars of the narrative (the 
clothing our first parents in skins as a symbol of the clothing of the soul 2)) 
comp. Meth. in Phot. Bibl. cod. 234, and 293. On the other side, see Orig. 
Fragm. it Gen. T. ii. p. 29, where both the literal interpretation is excluded, 
and this allegorical exposition is called in question. 

' According to the fragment of Anastasius Sinaita in Massuet, p. 344, 
Irenceus must be understood as having explained the temptation by the ser- 
pent (in opposition to the Ophites), TrveviiaTiKug, not loTopiKuig, but it is not 
evident to what extent he did so. Besides, objections have been urged to the 
genuineness of this passage ; see Duncker, p. 115, note. But Irenaeus speaks 
elsewhere plainly enough of the fall of Adam as an historical fact, iii. 18 (Gr; 
20), p. 211 (Gr. 248) ; iii. 21 (Gr. 31), p. 218 (Gr.259),ss. Thus he labors 
to defend the threatening of God : "For in the day that thou eatcst thereoi^ 
thou shalt surely die,'' from the chronological point of view, by taking the 
word "day" (as in the account of the creation) in the sense of "period," for 
" one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one 

* That the serpent was the devil, or the devil was in the serpent (which is not expressly 
declared in Genesis), was generally assumed, in acoordanoo with Wisdom, iL 24, and 
Eev. xiL 9 {6 fi^if o dpxcuog) ; probably also with reference to John, viii. 44. 

§ 62. State of Innocence and Fall. 163 

day." Adam and Eve died during that period on the same day of the week 
on which they were created and disobeyed the command of God, viz., on a 
Friday within the first one thousand years ; Adv. User. v. 23, 2. See Duncker, 
p. 129. 

* Tert. Adv. JudiBos, ii. p. 184 ; De Virg. vel. 11 ; Adv. Marc. ii. 2, ss., and 
other passages. He insists upon the literal interpretation of the particulars 
of the narrative, as they succeeded each other in order of time, in his De 
Resurr. Carn. 61 : Adam ante nomina animalibus enunciavit quam de arbore 
decerpsit ; ante etiam prophetavit quam voravit. 

' On the Gnostic (Basilidiati) doctrine of the fall {avyxvai^ apxiKfi)com^. 
Clem. Strom, ii. 20, p. 488. Giescler, ,^iaA\&x mid Kritiken, 1830, p. 396. 
Baur, p. 211. The author of the Clementine Homilies goes so far in ideal- 
izing Adam, as to convert the historical person into a purely mythical being 
(like the Adam-Cadmon of the Cabbalists), while he represents Eve as far in- 
ferior to him. Hence Adam could not sin, but sin makes its first appearance 
in Cain ; vide Credner, ii. 258, iii. 284. Batir, Gnosis, p. 539. Schliemann, 
p. 177. On the other hand, the Gnostic Cainites rendered homage to Cain, 
as the representative of freedom from the thraldom of the demiurge ; while 
the Gnostic Sethites considered Cain as the representative of the hylic, Abel 
as that of the psychical, and Seth as that of the pneumatic principle, the ideal 
of humanity. Neander, Church History (Torrey), i. 448. 

§ 62. 


With all their differences of opinion ahout the original endow- 
ments of the first man,' and the nature of his sin," all the catholic 
teachers agreed in this, that the temptation of the serpent was a real 
temptation to sin, and, accordingly, that the transgression of the 
command given by Jehovah was a fall from a state of innocence 
followed by disasters to the human race." On the other hand, the 
Clementine Ebionites denied that Adam could have sinned;* and the 
Ophites thought that by this event (at least in one respect) man was 
elevated to his proper dignity, — a transition to freedom; inasmuch 
as the prohibition had proceeded from the jealousy of Jaldabaoth, 
but the act of disobedience had been brought about by the interven- 
tion of wisdom (Sophia), the symbol of which is the serpent.' 

' These were especially exaggerated by the author of the Clementine 
Homilies (see the preceding |). Adam possessed proph'fetic gifts, Horn. iii. 
21, viii. 10 {Credner, ii. p. 248, Baur, p. 363, Schliemann, p. 175, Hilgenfeld, 
p. 294), which, however, TertuUian, De Resurr. Cam. c. 61, also ascribed to 
him. The Ophites taught that Adam and Eve Lad light and luminous bodies, 
Bee Baur, p. 187, The theologians, previous to the time of Augustine, at- 
tached less weight to what was afterward caWed justitia originalis. According 

164 First Period. Anthropology. 

to Theophilus of Antioch (ad Aut. ii. 24, 27), Adam was vrjniog, and had tc 
be treated as a child ; he was neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of 
either mortality or immortality. Clement of Alexandria maintains the same, 
Strom, vi. 12, p. 788 : "They may learn from us (he says in opposition tc 
the Gnostics), that Adam was created perfect, not in relation to his moral 
excellencies, but in respect to his capacity of receiving virtue ; for there is 
certainly a difference between a capacity for virtue and the real possession 
of it. God will have us attain to bliss by our own exertions, hence it belongs 
to the nature of the soul to determine itself," etc. (in Baur's Gnosis, p. 493). 
He accordingly restricts the original endowments (Strom, iv. p. 632) to what 
is purely human, a basis for action ; OvSsv yap tuv ^upaKTTjpi^ovruv Tr\v 
dvdpuiTTOV iSiav re Kal iJ,op(j)^v iveSerjaBV avru. 

' Justin M. attributes the fall mainly to the cunning malignity of Satan ; 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. 119, p. 205. A beast (drjpiov) seduced man. On his 
own part he added disobedience and credulity ; comp. Semisch, p. 393-94. 
Clement of Alexandria conceives that it was sensuality which caused tiie 
fall of the first man ; Coh. p. 86 : '0(pig aXXriyopelrat fidovrj 'enl yaorepa 
Epnovaa, KaKia yrjtvj] elg vXag Tpeipofievi]. (Thiersch conjectures the 
reading, Tpenoixivrj, in Rudelbach's Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1841, p. 184.) 
Comp. Strom, iii. 17, p. 659 (470, Sylb.). Clement does not (like the En- 
cratites whom be combats) blame the cohabitation of our first parents as in 
itself sinful, but he objects that it took place too soon ; this is also implied 
in the passage Strom, ii. 19, p. 481 : Ta [lev aiaxpa, ovrog Trpodviiug etXero, 
kTTonEvog r^ yvvaiKi. Comp. § 61, 2. 

' The notion that the tree itself was the cause of death (its fruit being 
venomous), is rejected by Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 25 : Ov yap, ug olovrai 
Tiveg, ddvarov slxe rb §vXov dXX' r] TrapaKorj. 

* Comp. § 61, note 5. Adam could not sin, because the dstov nveviia, or 
the ao<j)ia itself, having been manifested in him, the latter must have sinned ; 
but such an assertion would be impious ; comp. Schliemann, u. s. Yet the 
Clementina seem to adopt the view, that the image of God was defaced in 
the descendants of the first human pair; comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 291. 

' The Ophites are in confusion about their own doctrines ; for now they 
render divine homage to the serpent, and again say that Eve was seduced 
by it. Epiph. Hser. 37, 6, .Bawr, p. 1 78, ss. 



Death was the punishment which Jehovah had threatened to in- 
flict upon the transgressors of his law. Nevertheless the act of 
transgression was not immediately succeeded by death, hut by a 
train of evils which come upon both the man and the woman, 
introductory to death, and testifying that man had become mor- 
tal. Accordingly, both death and physical evils were considered 

§ 63. The Effects of the Fall. 165 

as the effects of Adam's sin ; thus, e, g. hy IrencEus and others. 
But opinions were not as yet fully developed concerning the moral 
depravity of each individual, and the sin of the race in general, 
considered as the effect of the first sin. They were so much disposed 
to look upon sin as the free act of man's will, that they could 
hardly conceive of it as simply a hereditary tendency, transmitted 
from one to another. The sin of every individual, as found in ex- ' 
perience, had its type in the sin of Adam, and consequently ap- 
peared to be a repetition of the first sin rather than its necessary 
consequence." In order to explain the mysterious power which 
drives man to evil, they had recourse to the influence of the demons, 
strong, but not absolutely compulsory, rather than to a total bond- 
age of the will (as the result of original sin).° Nevertheless we 
meet in the writings of Irenceus with intimations of more profound 
views about the effects of the fall." Tertullian and Origen aided 
more definitely the theory of original sin, though on different 
grounds. Origen thought that souls were stained with sin in a 
former state, and thus enter into the world in a sinful condition. 
To this idea he added another, allied to the notions of Gnostics and 
Manichees, viz., that there is a stain in physical generation itself." 
According to Tertullian, the soul itself is propagated with all its 
defects, as matter is propagated. The phrase "vitium originis," 
first used by him, is in perfect accoi'dance with this view.^ But 
both were far from considering inherent depravity as constituting 
accountability, and still farther from believing in the entire ab- 
sence of human liberty.' 

' Iren. III. 23 (35 Gr.), p. 221 (263 Gr.) : Condetnnationem autem trans- 
gressionis accepit homo tsedia et terrenum laborem et inanducare panera in 
sudore vultus sui et convert! in terram, ex qua assumtus est; similiter autein 
mnlier tajdia et labores et gemitus et tristitias partus et servitium, i. e. ut ser- 
viret viro suo : ut neque maledicti a Deo in totum perirent, neque sine incre- 
patione perseverantes Deum contemnerent (comp. c. Si, p. 264, Grahe). 
Ibid. V. 16, p. 311 (423, (rra&«-) .... propter inobedientise peccatnra sub- 
secuti sunt languores hominibus. V. 17, p. 313 (p. 426). V. 23, p. 320 
(p. 435) : Sed quoniain Deus verax est, mendax autem serpens, de efFectu 
ostensura est morte subsecuta eos, qui manduoaverunt, Simul enim cum 
esca et mortem adsciverunt. quoniara inobedientes manducabant : inobedien- 
tia autem Dei mortem infert, et sqq. (Hence the devil is called a murderer 
from the beginning.) But Irenaius also sees a blessing in the penalty inflicted 
by God, iii. 20, 1 : Magnanimus (i. e. fiaKpoOvfiog) fuit Deus deficiente ho- 
mine, earn quae per verbum asset victoriam reddendam ei providens. He 
compares the fall of man to the fate of the prophet Jonas, who was swallowed 
by the whale in order to be saved. Thus man is swallowed by the great 
whale (the devil), that Christ may deliver him out of his jaws; comp. 
Duncker, p. 151 According to Cyprian, De Bono Patientise, p. 212, even 

166 First Period. Anthropology. 

the higher physical strength of man (along with immortalit}') was lost hy 
the fall ; Orige.n also connected the existence of evil in the world with sin. 
Comp. above, § 48. By death, however, the Alexandrians do not mcas 
physical death, which, on their postulates, they must regard as a blesfeing 
but moral and spiritual death. Clement, Strom, iii. p. 540, and the passages 
fi'ora Origen in Qieseler's Dogmengesch., p. 182. [Comm. in Matth. P. xiii, 
§ 7 : in Joan xvii. § 37. On the Ep. to the Romans, lib. vi. § 6, Origen de- 
clares the death, effected by sin, to be the separation of the soul from God : 
Separatio animse a Deo mors appellatur, quae per peccatum venit.] 

" Though Justin M. uses strong expressions in lamenting the univer- 
sal corruption of mankind (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 95), yet original sin, and the 
imputation of Adam's guilt are conceptions foreign to him. At least mai" 
has still such right moral feelings, that he judges and blames the sin of 
others as his. — Dial. c. Tryph. c. 93 : To yap aA Kol di' oXov SiKaca koX 
"rrarrav Sutaioavvriv napexsi kv navrl yevei dvOpunruv Kal eari ixav yivo^ 
yvupi^ov OTi fiotxeta naKov, koI nopveta, Koi dv6po(t>ovio, Kal baa aXXa 
roiavra. Compare what follows, according to which only those filled with 
the evil spirit, or wholly corrupted by bad education (and hence not the 
posterity of Adam as such) have lost this feeling. Accordingly every man 
deserves death, because in his disobedience he is like the first man. Dial. c. 
Tr. c. 88 : "O (seal, yevof dvdpdinuv) dnb tov 'Adafj. imo Odvarov koI 
nXdwiv rrfv tov 6(f>eo)g insnTcoKet, napa t^v ISiav airlav iicdaTov avruv 
TTov-qpevaajievov. C. 124 : Ovtoi (scil. avdpwnoi) bfxoioyg tu> 'A6afi Koi ry 
'Eva E^ofioiovfifvoi Odvarov iavrolg epyd^ovrai, k. t. A. Compare 
Semisch, 1. c. p. 397-399, who goes into the interpretation of these passages. 
See ibid. p. 401, in reference to the difficult passage, Dial. c. Tr. c. 100, in 
which many have found an argument for original sin : Hapdevog ovaa Eva 
Kal acpOopog tov Xoynv rov dnb tov o(j)eo)g ovXXa(iovaa, na p an o^v 
Kal OdvaTOV e t e k e ; is Te/tTstv here metaphorical ? [On the difficult 
passage, Apol. i. cap. 61, see Rndelbach Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1 841, s. 
171 : especially Landerer, Jahrb. f. dentsche Theol. 1857, s. 518 sq. ; Just. 
M. oTi Erbsiinde, Theol. Quartalschrift. 1859. The passage in the First 
Apology, chap. 61, reads; tTretJ?) t^v rrpCiT^v yeveaiv rjfj,iov dyvoovvreg 
Kar' dvdyKrjv yeyevvfjueda i§ vypag onopdg Kara jxi^iv ttjv tuv yoviojv 
^pbg dXXriXovg, Kal iv Ideal ipavXoig /cot ■novepalg avarpocpaXg yeydvanev, 
oncjg uj] dvdyKTjg reKva firjde dyvoiag fiEV(jop,ev dXXd npoaipiaeug Kal 
imaTrjfXTjg d((>iaEOjg ts djiapTiiov vrrep uv TTpojjfj.dpTop.ev Tvxionev tv tw 

vSarc iTTOVofidi^srai tw kXojiEV(x> avayevvrjdqvaL rb tov naTpbg deov 

5vofia. That Justin taught the necessity of internal grace, see Landerer, in 
the same essay, s. 522.] According to Clement of Alexandria, man now 
stands in the same relation to the tempter, in which Adam stood prior to 
the fall, Coh. p. 7 : EZf yap b andreiiv, dvudev fihv ti)v E-iJov, vvv de fjdri 
Kal Tovg aXXovg dvdpoinovg elg ddvarov imo(liepuv ; comp. Paed. i. 13, 158, 
159. Clement indeed admits the universality of sin among men, Psed. iii. 
12, p. 307 : Tb fiev ydp i^afiapTdveiv naacv efupvTov Kal kolv6v; but the 
very circumstance that some appear to him by nature better thaii others 
(Strom, i. 6, p. 336), shows that he did not consider man as absolutely de" 
praved, nor throw all into one mass of corruption. No one commits iniquitj 

§ 63. The Effkcts of the Fall. 167 

for its own salce, Strom, i. 17, p. 368. But he rejects the idea of original 
sin, as already imputed to children, most strongly, in Strom, iii. 1(3, p. 350, 
'57 : Keyeruiaav rjjuv JIov snopvevGEV to yevvridiv iraidinv, rj TtQg vno ri)v 
rov 'Adafj, vnoneTTTUiiev dpav rb fi-qSKV ivepyrjCTav, He does not regard 
the passage, Ps. li. 5, as proof. (Comp. the above passages on liberty and 
sin in general). 

' Athen. Leg. c. 25. Tatian, Contra Grsec. c. 7, and the passages quoted, 
§ 58. Besides the influence of Satan, Justin M. also mentions bad edu- 
cation and evil examples, Apol. i. 61 : 'Ev edeai (l)avXoLg ical Txovqpalq 
dvaTpo(palq ysyovafiev. 

* Irenseus Adv. Haer. iv. 41, '2, and other passages quoted by Duncker, 
p. 132, ss. According to Duncker, the doctrine of original sin and hered- 
itary evil is so fully developed in the writings of Irenseus, " that the 
characteristic features of the western type of doctrine may be distinctly re- 
cognizedP IrensBus indeed asserts that man, freely yielding to the voice 
of the tempter, has become a child, disciple, and servant of the devil, etc. 
He also thinks that, in consequence of the sin of Adam, men are already 
in a state of guilt. On the question whether Irenfeus understands by that 
death which we have inherited, merely physical death (V. 1, 3 and other 
passages), see Duncker, 1. c. [The doctrine of Irenseus, in its approxima- 
tion to Augustinianism is given in the following passages {Landerer in 
Jahrb. filr deutsohe Theologie, 1857, s; 528) : Adv. Hajr. V. 16, sv t(o 
TrpcjTG) 'AfJa/i npoaenoxpanev, fir] noi^aavrsg avrov rrjv iv-oXrjV, kv 6e tG) 
devripo) 'A3afi aironaTriXXdyrifiev vm]K00i jMXP'' Gavdrov yevofievoi. Ovde 
yap dXXu) Tivl f\fiev dipuXerat dXX' r) iitelvo), ov not rrjv IvroXriv -nape- 
drjiMSV : so in iii. 18 : Perdideramus in Adam — secundum imaginem et simi- 
litudinem Dei esse ; and in III. 22 : Queraadmodum ilia (Eva) inobediena 
facta et sibi et uni verso generi humano causa est facta mortis: V. 19 : 
et queijiadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, 
salvatur per virginem]. 

" On the one hand, Origen, by insisting upon the freedom of the human 
will, forms a strong contrast with Angustine ; as he also maintains that 
concupiscence is not reckoned as sin, so long as it has not ripened into 
a purpose; guilt arises only when we yield to it, De Princ. iii. 2, 2 (0pp. 
T. i. p. 139, Hed. p. 179), and iii. 4 (de Humanis Tentationibus). But, on 
the other, he formally adopts the idea of original sin, by asserting that the 
human soul does not come into the world in a state of innocence, because it 
has already sinned in a former state ; De Princ. iii. 5 (0pp. T. i. p. 149, 
'50, Bed. p. 309, ss.) ; comp. also Redep. ii. 322 ; concerning the genera- 
tion of man see Horn. xv. in Matth. § 23 (0pp. iii. p. 685) ; Horn. viii. in 
Lev. (0pp. ii. p. 229, and xii. p. 251) : Omnis qui ingreditur hunc mundum 

in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur (Job xiv. 4, 5) Omnis ergo 

homo in patre ei in matre poUutus est, solus Jesus Dominus mens in banc 
generationem mundus ingressus est, et in matre non est pollutus. Ingres- 
sus e^t enim corpus inoontaminatum. And yet subsequent times, especially 
after Jerome, have seen in Oiigen the precursor of Pelagius. Jerome (Efv 
ad Ctcsiphont.) calls the opinion, that man can be without sin — Origenis ra 
musculus. Comp. in reply, Worter, u. s. p. 201, [and Landerer, u. s.] 

168 FiEST Period. Anthropology. 

° Tert. De Anima, c. 40 : Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur 
donee in Christo recenseatur ; tarodiu imniunda, quamdiu leoenseatur. Pee 
catiix autein, quia immunda, vecipiens ignominiam e^; carnis societate 
Cap. 41, he makes use of the phrase vitium originis, and maintains that evil 
has become man's second nature, while his true nature (according to Tertul 
lian) is the good. He, therefore, distinguishes naturale quodammodo from 
proprie naturale. Quod enira a Deo est, non tam extinguitur, quam obum- 
bratur. Potest enim ohumbrari, quia non est Deus, extingui non potest, quia 
a Deo est. 

' That, e. g., TertulUan was far from imputing original sin to children as 
real sin, may be seen from his remarkable expression concerning the baptism 
of infants; De Bapt. 18, comp. § 72, and Neander, Antignosticus, p. 209, 
ss., 455, ss. — His disciple Cyprian also acknowledges inherent depravity, and 
defends infant baptism on this ground • but yet only to purify infants from 
a foreign guilt which is imputed to them, but not from any guilt which is 
properly their own. Ep. 64. Comp. Rettberg, p. 317, ss. Cyprian calls 
original sin, contagio mortis antiquiE, in Ep. 59 ; but says that it does not 
«nnu] freedam ; De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum, c. 2, 





Martini, Versuoh einer pragmatischeu Geschiehte des Dogma von der Gottheit Cliristl 
Eostook, 1800, 8vo. *X>orner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Chriatologie, Stuttgardt, 
1839; 2d edit. 2 Bde. 1845-'53. [Baur, Dreieinigkeitslehre, 3 Bde. Tubing. 1841-43. 
G. A. Meier, Trinitat. 2 Bde. 1844. L. Lange, Antitrinitar. 1851.] 

The manifestation of the Logos in the flesh is the chief dogmatic 
idea around which this period revolves. This fact, unvailing the 
eternal counsels of God's love, was regarded by the first teachers of 
the church, not under a partial aspect as the mere consequence of 
human sin, nor as exclusively conditioned and brought about by sin, 
but also as a free revelation of God, as the summit of all earlier 
revelations and developments of life, as the completion and crown 
of creation. Thus the Christology of this period forms, at once, 
the continuation of its theology, and the supplement and counterpart 
of its anthropology. 

Irenasus decidedly keeps in view the twofold aspect under which Christ 
may be considered, as both completing and restoring human nature. Both 
are expressed by the terms avaKe<paXaiovv, dvaice<j)a?Mi(x)aig {i. e., the repeti- 
tion of that which formerly existed, renovation, restoration, the re-union of 
that which was separated, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce). Christ is the 
sum of all that is human in its highest significance, both the sum total and 
the renovation of mankind, the new Adam ; comp. v. 29, 2 ; vii. 18, 1, and 
other passages quoted by Duncker, p. 157, ss. He frequently repeats the 
proposition, that Christ became what we are, that we might be what he is, 
e. g., iii. 10, 20, and in the Praefatio : Jesus Christus, Dominus noster, propter 
immensam suam dilectionem factum est quod sum us nos, uti nos perficeret 
esse, quod est ipse. [Irenseus, iii. 18 : Filius Dei, existens semper apad pa- 
trem, incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in se 
ipso recjapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem prsestans, et quod perdideramus 
in Adam, i. «., secundum imaginera et similitudinem esse, hoc in Christo Jesu 
recipcremus. Comp. v. 16.] Irenseus also says that Christ represents tlie 

170 First Pekiod. Christologt and Soteeiologt. 

perfect man in all the stages of hnman life. Similar views were entertained 
by the theologians of the Alexandrian school ; see the passages quoted about 
the Logos. — On the other hand, TertuUian, De Carne Christi, c. 6, thinks that 
the incarnation of Christ had reference to the suft'erings he was to endure, 
(At vero Christus mori missus nasci quoque neoessario habuit, ut mori posset.) 
According to Cyprian, the incarnation was necessary, not so much on account 
of the sin of Adam, as because of the disobedience of the later generations, 
on whom the former revelations did not produce their effect (Heb. i. 1), De 
Idol. Van. p. 15 : Quod vero Christus sit, et quomodo per ipsum nobis salus 
venerit, sic est ordo, sic ratio. Judaeis priraum erat apud Deum gratia. Sic 
olim justi erant, sic majores eorum religionibus obediebant. Inde iliis et 
regni sublimitas floruit et generis magnitudo provenit. Sed illi negligentes, 
indisciplinati et superbi postmodum facti, et fiducia patrum inflati, dum divina 

prfecepta contemnunt, datam sibi gratiam perdiderunt Nee non 

Deus ante praedixerat, fore ut vergente saeculo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex 
omni gente et populo et loco cultores sibi allegeret Deus multo fideliores et 
melioris obsequii ; qui indulgentiam de divinis muneribus hanrirent, quam ac- 
ceptajn Judaai contcratis religionibus perdidissent. Hujus igitur indulgentiae, 
gratis disciplinaeque arbiter et magister, sermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per 
prophetas omnes retro illuminator et doctor hnmani generis prsedicabatur. 
Hie est virtus Dei, hie ratio, hie sapientia ejus et gloria. Hie in virginem 
illabitur, earnem, Spiritu Sancto cooperante, induitur. Deus cum homine 
misoetur. Hie Deus noster, hie Christus est, qui, mediator duorum, hominem 
induit, quem perducat ad patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit, ut et 
homo possit esse quod Christus est, Comp. Rettberg, p. 305. In this last posi 
tion he coincides with Irenasus. 

§ 65. 


Along with more indefinite and general expressions concerning the 
higher nature of Jesus,' the elevation of his doctrine and person' and 
his Messianic character,' we find even in the primitive church allu- 
gions to the intimate union between the divine and the human'inhia 
person. But the relation in wiiich they stand to each other is not 
exactly defined, nor is the part which each takes in the formation of 
his personality philosophically determined." The earlier fathers en- 
deavored, on the one hand', to avoid the low views of the Ebionites 
and Artemonites (Alogi), who considered Jesus as only the son of 
Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in accordance 
with the catholic confession, admitted a supernatural conception'). 
On the other hand, they combated still more decidedly the tendency 
of the Docette, who rejected the true humanity of Christ.' They also 
opposed the opinion (held by Cerinthus and Basilides), that the 
Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism — 

§ 65. The God-Man. 171 

according to which the divine and human are united only in an ex- 
ternal, mechanical way ; and the etill more fanciful notions of Mar- 
cion, according to which Christ appeared as Deus ex machina ;' and 
lastly, the view of Valentinus (also docetic), who admitted that Christ 
was born of Mary, but maintained that he made use of her only aa 
of a channel (canal), by which he might be introduced into this 
finite life.' 

' Thus in the letter of Pliny to Trajan (Ep. x. 9*7) : Carmen Christo quasi 
Deo dicece. — The usual doxologies, the baptismal formulas, the services of 
the Christian festivals and of divine worship, bear witness to the divine hom- 
age paid to Christ by the primitive church ; comp. Dorntr, 1. c. p. 273, ss. 
Even art and Cliristian customs testify the same ; ibid. p. 290 sq. [Comp. 
Milnter, Sohone, Bingham, Piper, Didron, Jameson, in their works referred 
to § 8 ; also, especially, Louis Perret, Catacombes de Home, 5 fol. Paris, 
1851 (by the Institute).] The calumnies which .the Jew of Celsus brings 
•against the person of Christ, that he was born from the adulterous intercourse 
■of Mary with a Eoman soldier, Pantheras, are refuted by Origen, and the 
miraculous biith of the Saviour vindicated in view of his high destination (in 
connection with the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul); Contra Celsum, 
i. 32 (p. 345-51). 

' According to Justin the Martyr, the excellency of his doctrine elevates 
Christ over the rest of mankind (Apol. i. 14) : Bpaxd^ 6e koI avVTOjji,OL -nap' 
avTOv Xoyoi yeyovaoLV ov yap ao(j)iaT7iq imfjpxey, dXXa Svvafiiq Qeov b 
XoyoQ avTov fjv, and this human wisdom would be- sufficient by itself (ac- 
cording to c. 22) to secui'e to Jesus the predicate of the Son of God, even 
though he were a mere man. But he is more than this : ibidem. Origen also 
appeals to the extraordinary personal character of Jesus (apart from his divine 
dignity), which he considers as the bloom and crown of humanity ; Contra 
Gels. i. 29 (0pp. T. i. p. 347, in reference to Plato De Eep. i. p. 329, and 
Plutarch, in Vita Tliemistoclis) ; — "Jesus, the least and humblest of all Seri- 
phii, yet caused a greater commotion in the world than either Themistocles, 
or Pythagoras, or Plato, yea more than any wise man, prince or general." 
He unites in himself all human excellencies, while others have distinguished 
themselves by particular virtues, or particular actions ; he is the miracle of 
the world ! c. 30 (altogether in the sense of the modern apologists). Minu- 
cius Felix does not go beyond the negative statement, that Jesus was more 
than a mere man ; generally speaking, we find in his writings little or noth- 
ing positively christological ; Octav. 29, § 2, 3 (comp. with 9, 5) : Nam quod 
religioni nostrse hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia 
veiitatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terre- 
num. Nae ille miserabilis, cujus in bomine mortal! spes omnis innititur; totum 
enim ejus auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. Comp. Novatian De Trin. 
14 : Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in ilium ponitur, cum spes in 
homine maledicta referatur ? Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i., 53 : Deus ille sub- 
limis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incoguitis regnis, et ah omnium 
principe Deus suspitator est missus, quern neque sol ipse, neque uUa, si sentiunt, 

172 First Period. Chkistology and Sotekiologt. 

sidera, non lectores, non piincipes mundi, non denique dii magni, aut qui 
finqentes se deos genus oinne moitalium teiritant, unde aut qui fueiit, potuc 
runt noscere vol snspicuri. On the Christology of the apostolical Fathers, 
see Dorner, 1. c. p. 144, ss. 

' Justin M. Apol. i. 5, 30, ss. ; Dial. c. Tr. in its whole bearing, Novatian, 
De Ti'in. c. 9. Orig. Contra Cels. in various places. 

* Thus Justin M. defended on the one hand the birth of Christ from the 
virgin in opposition to the Ebionites, and on the other, his true humanity in 
opposition to the Gnostics ; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 54 : Oijk laTW 6 Xp. avdpunog 
i§ dvOpGnTiiXv, Kara t6 koivov r&v avdpui-nuv ysvvTjdeig. Apol. i. 46 : Aia 
6wd[ieug tov Xoyov Kara rrjv tov irarpbg -navruv Koi deairdTov deov 
PovXfiv 6ia napdivov dvOpunog a-rTEKvrjOrj. Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 403, ss. 
Iren. iii. 16 (18 Gr.), 18 (20 Gr.), p. 211 (248 Gr.) : "Hvuaev ovv icadug 

■npoecpa^EV^ tov dvdpuTTOv t(3 Oeu Et fifj avvrjiwdTj 6 dvdpunog tw 

ee<3, oiic av I'jdvvijdr] fiEraaxelv Tijg d( "Edet yap tov fieaiTriv 
Qeov TB Kol dvdpdnoov 6id Tfjg Idiag Trpbg knaTepovg olKeioTTjTog eig (piXiav 
Koi dftovoiav Tovg djKpoTepovg avvayayelv kol 0e(li fisv napaoTrjaai tov 
avdpwnov, dvOpunoig de yvcopiaai Qeov, c. 19 (21), p. 212, 13 (250): 
"Qanep yap rjv dvdpunog, iva TreipaaOy, ovTCjg Koi Xoyog^ iva do^aady- 

fiavj(a.i^ovTog fiev tov Xnjov iv tu neipd^eaOai Koi OTavpovodai 

ical dnoOvrjOKeiv avyyivofiivov 6s tQ dvOpuina) iv tgj viKav Koi vnoiiiveiv 
KoX xpTjareveadai kol dviOTaadai kcll dvaXafifidveadai. Irenoeus also advo- 
cates the true humanity of the Saviour, in opposition to the Docetas, and his 
true divinity in opposition to the Ebionites. As Adam had no human 
father, so Christ is begotten without the act of a man ; as the former was 
formed from the virgin soil, so the latter is born of an undeflowered virgin. 
Contrasted with the sinful flesh of Adam is this sinless nature; a spiritual 
{nvevfiaTiKog) man is set over against the carnal (psychical, ipvxLKog); iii. 21, 
10. Buncker, p. 218, ss. Comp. Novatian, De Trin. c. 18 : Quoniam si ad 
horainem veniebat, ut mediator Dei et hominum esse deberet, oportuit ilium 
cum eo esse et verbum carnem fieri, ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet 
terrenorum pariter atq'ue c<Blestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens 
pignora, et Deum homini et hominem Deo copuiaret, ut mcrito filius Dei 
per assumtionem carnis fiilius hominis, et filius hominis per rcceptionem Dei 
verbi filius Dei effici possit. Hoc altissimum atque reconditum saoramentum 
ad salutem generis humani ante sajcula destinatum, in Domino Jesu Christo 
Deo et homine invenitur implen, quo conditio generis humani ad fryctum 
seternse salntis posset adduci. - 

" Comp. § 23, 24, and § 42, note 1. On the mild manner in which Jus- 
tin M. (Dial. c. Tryph. § 48) and Origen (in Mattb. T. xvi. c. 12, 0pp. iii. p. 
"732, comparison with the blind man, Mark x. 46), judged of the view of the 
Ebionites, see Neander's Church History (Torrey), i. p. 344. But Origen 
expresses himself in stronger terms against them in Horn. xv. in Jerem. ib. 
p. 226 : 'EToXfiTjaav yap fiSTCl tuv itoXXuv tuv dvdpumvuv KaK&v K.a'i 
Toi)TO elnelv, oti om ioTi Oebg 6 [lovoyevrig b npuTOTOKog -ndcrig KTiaeug' 
imicaTapaTog yap, Bg t^v kXmSa exei in' dvdpconov. But even common 
Ebionites supposed that a higher power had united itself with the man Jesus 

§ 66. FuRTHEE Development or this Doctkinb. 173 

at his baptism, though it was indeed only an (abstract) power. The Ebiou ■ 
ites, whose views are represented by the Clementine Homilies, difl'ered from 
the former by asserting that Jesus had from the beginning been penetrated 
with this higher power; hence he is in one rank with Adam, Enoch, and 
Moses, who all had the same prophetic character ; comp. ScUiemann, p. 
200, ss., 483, ss. Concerning the birth from the virgin, it is remarkable 
how little the primitive church hesitated abont adducing analogies from 
pagan myths as a kind of evidence, though the reality of the fact was held 
fast. Thus Orig. Contra Gels. i. 37 (0pp. T. i. p. 355— Plato, a son of 
Apollo and of Amphiotyone) ; in the same connection an analogy is drawn 
from nature (in the case of the hawk) in opposition to the blasphemy of 
Celsus, c. 32, p. 350, mentioned above; comp., however, c. 67, p. 381.* 

' Against the Docetaj comp. the Epistles of Ignatius, especially ad Smyrn. 
2 and 3; ad Ephes. 7, 18 ; ad Trail. 9, also the before cited passage of 
Irena3us, as well as Tert. Adv. Marc, and De Carne Christi ; Novatian, Da 
Trin. c. 10 : Neque igitur eum hEereticorum agnoscimus Christum, qui in 
imagine (ut dicitur) fuit, et non in veritate ; nihil verum, eorum quae gessit, 
' fecerit, si ipse phantasma et non Veritas fuit. Some have thought that there 
is a leaning toward Docetism in the epistle of Barnabas, c. 5. But it is 
only the same idea of the Kpv-^tq which occurs in later times, e. g., in the 
(apocryphal) oration of Thaddeus to Abgarus, apud Euseb. 1, 13 : 'Etrjut- 
Kpvvev avTov t7]v dedrTjra, and elsewhere. 

' Tertull. De Game Christi, c. 2 : Odit moras Marcion, qui subito Chi'istum 
de coelis deferebat. Adv. Marc. iii. 2 : Subito filius, et subito missus, et 
subito Christus. iv. 11 : Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia 
apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. 
[On Basilides and Marcion, see Ry land's Neander's Hist. Dog. p. 193-5.] 

' KaOdnep vdup 8ia auXfivog bdevei, comp. Neander, gnost. Systeme, p. 
136, ss. On the Docetism of the Gnostics in general, see Jiaur, p. 258, ss. : 
" JBasilides is nearest to the orthodox view ; Marcion departs farthest from 
it ; and Valentinus, with his psychical Christ, occupies an intermediate posi- 




Oieseler, J. 0. L., Commentatio, qua Clementig Alexandrini et Origenia doctrinse de cor- 
pore Christi exponuntur, Getting. 1837, 4. [Ldmmer, Clem. Alex. Doctrina de ^oyv, 

Though the Christian and Catholic doctrine, in opposition to all 
these heretical theories, rested upon the simple declaration of John : 
6 Aoyof aap^ eysveroj and thus preserved the idea which is peculiar to 

* On the different recensions of what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, comp. 
King, p. 145. The phrase : oonceptus de Spiritu Sanoto, is wanting in the earlier reoen- 
eions, and one reads : qui natus est de Spiritu Saneto ex Maria virg. Comp. King, p. 1 45 

174 First Pekiod. Christologt and Sotbriologt. 

Christianity, viz. that of a necessary union between the Divine and 
the human ;' yet the doctrine of the Godman was modified by the 
influence of various modes of thought and speculation. Thus it is 
not quite clear from the phraseology of the fathers prior to Origen' 
(with the exception of Irenaeus' and Tertullian)* how far they 
thought the soul of Jesus to be a part of his humanity. Nor does 
Clement of Alexandria make a strict distinction between the human 
and Divine in Christ.' Concerning his body, the theologians of the 
Alexandriiin school adopted views essentially allied to those of the 
Doceta3, although they opposed the grosser forms of Docetism. 
Clement maintained that the body of Jesus was not subject to the 
accidents and influences of the external world with the same physical 
necessity as other human bodies ;° and Origen went so far as to 
ascribe to it the property of appearing to different persons under 
different forms.' On the other hand, Origen was very definite upon 
the doctrine of the human soul of Jesus,' and, generally speaking, 
endeavored, more exactly than his predecessors, to define in a 
dialectic method the relation between the Divine and the human in 
the person of Christ.' He also first made use of the expression; 

' Novat. De Trin. c. 10 : N"on est ergo in unam partem inclinanduin et ab 
alia parte fiigiendum, qiioniam nee tenebit perfectam veritatcm, quisquis 
aliquam veritatis excluserit portionem. Tarn enirn sciiptura etiam Deuro 
adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominera adnuntiat Dcum, etc. 

' Accordiug to Justin M., Christ had a soul, but not a vovg. Its place 
was supplied by the Adyof In his view, Christ is composed of Xoyog, ■^jjvx'q, 
and oujMa, Apol. min. c. 10, comp. Semisch, p. 410. 

" Buncker (p. 207, sq.) endeavors to make it probable, from passages' 
quoted by him (especially iii. 22, 1 ; v. 6, 1), that Irenieus taught the perfect 
humanity of Christ as regards body, soul, and spirit; he also adduces the 
passage v. 1, 3, to which others have attached the opposite sense, comp. 
Gieseler on the passage, Dogmcngesch. p. 187. [Gieseler here states, that 
the fathers of the church soon came to feel the necessity, in a doctrinal point 
of view, of maintaining that Christ had a proper human soul, as otherwise he 
could not be a real man, nor our example, and his sufferings must be wholly 
denied, or else ascribed to the Logos. Irenceus first refers to it distinctly, v. 
c. 1 ; ho gave his soul for our souls, his flesh for our flesh ; and i/n^A^'? here 
can not mean merely the sensuous soul, for Irenaeus does not distinguish 
between i/'^A'^ and nvEvfia. Tertullian expressly says, that Christ assumed » 
human soul as well as a human body; De Carne Christi, c. 11, 13; Adv. 
Prax. c. 16. Origen, De Prinoip. ii. c. 6, first goes into full investigations 
on this point, making the rational human soul the necessary medium of the 
incarnation, since God could not be immediately united with a body, etc 
Comp. &\so'Neander'8 Hist. Dog. (Ry land's) p. 197-8.] 

* Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 30, takes the exclamation of Christ on the cross: 
My God, my Gol, why hast thou forsaken me ! as a vox carnis et animse ; 

§ 66 FuETHEK Development of this Docthine. 175 

cf. De Carne Christ), c. 11-13: Non poterat Christus inter homines nisi 
homo videri. Redds igitur Christo fldeni suam, ut, qui homo voluerit ince- 
dere, animam quoque humanje conditionis ostendcrit, non faciens earn car- 
noam, scd induens earn carne. Comp. De Resurr. Carn. c. 34, and other 
less definite passages (only in relation to the assuming of the flesh) which 
are given by Munacher von Colin, i. p. 261-63. 

' He indulges in harsh contrasts, e. g. in Coh. p. 6, and p. 84 : IliaTevaov, 
aoOpoTTE, dvdpuinu koX Qeu>- TTiarEvaov, avdpune, tu Ttadovri nal npooKwov- 
liivu Gsw ^(jvrr mffrevaaTE, oldovXoL, tw vsKpu- ndvreg dvdpuTvol, marev- 
aare fiovu) rC) Trdvrcov dvdpuTTUV Geu)- marevaaTe, K.aX iiiadhv Xd(3eTe 
auTTjpiav lii^rjT'qaaTE rbv Bebv, koI ^^cerai. if •ipvxfj vp.uv. He docs not 
make the distinction drawn by othere, according to which the name 'Irjaovg 
is used only of the man: on the contrary, Pcied. i. 7, p. 131, he says : '0 de 
■qfiirepog naidayuyog dyiog Oebg 'Irjaovg, 6 ndaTjg rfjg dvOpunoTrjTog KaOr]- 
yenwv Xoyog. He also applies the subject, 6 Xoyog, to his humanity, Paed. 
i. 6, p. 124 : '0 Aoyof rb avrov v-rtep r)p.u>v i^i^^ev alfm ; comp. iii. 1, p. 
251, and Gieseler, 1. c. On the question, whether Clement of Alex, believed 
that Christ had a human soul, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 187. [Clement, 
Strom, vi. p. 775, says that the .God-man had no ndOrj ; in Pasdag. iii. 250, 
he distinguishes in the human soul, the rational (XoycariKOv), the principle 
of resentment {6vhlk6v), and the principle of desire {hndviiTj-iicdv); and says 
that the two last were not in Jesns.] 

' Pajd. ii. 2, p. 186 (Sj'b. 158), he most decidedly maintains, in opposition 
to the Docetas, that Jesus ate and drank like other men, but very mode- 
rately; comp. Strom, vii. 17, p. 900, where he calls the Docet* heretics; 
hence the charge which Photius (Bibl. Cod. 109) brought against hiin, viz., 
that the doctrine that Christ's body was a phantasm, is propounded in his 
work entitled the Hypotyposes (jirj aapicudrjvai rbv Xoyov, dXXd 66^ai), Is 
justly considered as unfounded. But, after all, Clement refines the true 
human body of Jesus into little more than ^ kind of phantom, Strom, vi. 
9, p. 775. (Sylb. p. 158, given by Gieseler, 1. c. p. 12), where he speaks of 
the eating and drinking of our Lord as only an accommodation to human 
nature, and calls it even ridiculous (y&Xuyg) to think otherwise ; for, ac- 
cording to him, the body of Jesus was sustained by a divine power, but not 
by meats and drinks. Clement admits that his body was bruised and died ; 
but still he maintains that the passion was only apparent, inasmuch as the 
suffering Redeemer felt no pains; comp. Pted. i. c. 5, p. 112, and Gieseler 
on the passage, p. 13. Clement also teaches that his divinity was veiled dur- 
ing his manifestation (Kpyipig) in the flesh, Strom, vii. 2, p. 833, though he 
does not use these very words. In accordance perhaps with these views, he 
asserts that Jesus was without comeliness, Psed. iii. 1, sub finom, p. 252, in 
deference to the passage Is. liii. ; yet, on the other hand, he elevates the 
body of Jesus far above all other human organisms ; for the Sa^ iour did not 
manifest that beauty of the flesh which strikes the senses, but the beauty of 
the soul, and the true beauty of the body, viz. immortality.* The assump- 

* This is also alleged by Tertullian, De Carao Chrhti, e. 9 : Adeo neo humanae hones- 
tatis corpus I'uit, nedum coelestis claritatis. For had it been otherwise,, how could the 
Boldiera have dared to pierce this fair body 1 

176 First Period. Christologt and Soteriologt. 

tion of the perpetual virginity of Mary (Strom, vii. 16, p. 889-890, and 
the (apocryphal) passage there cited :■ Tetokev km ov reroicev, may be traced 
to the same docetic tendency. Different views are entertained by Tertull. 
De Carne Christi, sub finem (in Potter's edition, on the passage from tlir 
Clementina), who nevertheless quotes the same dictum. A real Docetism 
has been inferred from the Coh. ad Graecos, p. 86, where tlie assumption of 
humanity on the part of the Logos is compared with the putting on of a 
mask, and the taking a part in a drama : at any rate, this is no real be- 
coming man. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 191. 

' Gennadius, De Dogm. Eccles. c. 2, incorrectly numbers Origen among 
those, qui Christum camera de coelo secum affere contenderint (cf. Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. p. 191) ; but his doctrine too is not quite free from Docetism. 
It is most fully given in the Comment, in Ep. ad Gal., preserved by Pamphi- 
lus ; comp. Gieseler, 1. c. p. 16, 17, and Contra Cels. i. 69, VO. (0pp. i. p. 
383, '84) ; ibid. iii. 42 (p. 474) ; De Princ. ii. 6, § 6. Horn, in Gen. i. (0pp. 
ii. p. 55) : Non sequaliter omnes, qui vident, illurainantur a Christo, sed sin- 
guli secundum eam mensuram illuminantur, qua vim luminis recipere valent. 
Et sicut non sequaliter oculi corporis nostri illuminantur a solo, sed quanto 
quis in loca altiora conscenderit, et ortum ejus editioris speculoe intuitione 
fuerit contemplatus, tanto amplius et splendoris ejus vim perc-ipiet et caloiis : 
ita etiam mens nostra quanto altius et excelsius appropinquaverit Christo, ac 
se viciniorem splendori lucis ejus objecerit, tanto raagnificentius et clarius 
ejus lumine radiabitur. With this view he connects the transfiguration on 
the mount. Contra Cels. ii. 64 (0pp. i. p. 435), and Comment, in JIatth. 
(0pp. iii. p. 906) ; Gieseler, p. 19, ss. Comp. contra Cels. iv. 16, p. 511 : 
Ei(T{ yap 6i.d(l>opot olovel tov Xoyov ftopcfjal, KaOoyg kKaarui tuv elg imaTrj- 
(iTfv dyofi&vo)v ^aivETM & Xoyog, dvdXoyov t^ S§ei tov elaayofisvov^ rj tv 
iXiyov npoKOTTTOVTOg, rj &m ttXeTov, fj kol eyyiig rjdrj yLvofxevov TTJg dpsTrjg, 
r; Koi iv apery ysyEVTjfievov . 

' De Princ. iv. 31 : Volens Filius Deo pro salute generis humani apparere 
hominibus et inter hothines conversari, suscepit non solum corpus humanum, 
ut quidam putant, sed et animam, nostrarum quidem animarum similem per 
naturam, proposito vero et virtute similem sibi, et talem, qualis omnes volun- 
tatos et dispensationes verbi ac sapientise indeclinabiliter possit implere (Joh. 
X. 18; xii. 27. Matth. xxvi. 28). Origen held it to be impossible that the 
Logos should be directly united with the body : the soul is the intermediate 
link : De Princ. ii. 6. Comp. contra Cels. ii. 9, quoted by Miinscher, ed. 
by von Colin, i. p. 263, where he infers the human soul of the Saviour from 
Matth. xxvi. 38. — Origen's theory of preexistence would force him to ask, 
why the Son of God assumed this very soul, and not any other ? comp. 
Contra Cels. i. 32, (0pp. i. p. 350) ; De Princ. ii. 6, 3, quoted in Munscher, 
p. 265, ss. ; comp. Doruer, ii, 677, sq. According to Socrat. iii. 7, the Synod 
of Bostra, a. d. 240, maintained in opposition to Beryllus the proposition : 
efiipvxov elvat tov ivavdpuTrrjaavTa. — On the christological views of Origen 
in general see Dorner, ii. 2, p. 942, ss. 

' Origen observes that in the Christology a twofold error is to be guarded 
agaihst : (1), that of excluding the Logos from Christ, as if the eternal Logos 
and the historical Christ were two distinct personalities; (2), that of includ- 

§ 66. Further Development of this Doctrine. 177 

ing the Logos wholly in the man, as if he did not exist apart from him ; De 
Princ. iv. c. 30 : . . . . Non ita sentiendnm est, quod oninis diviuitatis ejus 
majestas intra brevissinii corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbnin 
Dei et sapientia ejus ac substantialis Veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit, vol 
intra corporis ejus coercita et conscripta brevitatem, nee usquam praiturea 
putetur operata : sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis esse debet confessio, ut 
neque aliquid diviuitatis in Christo defuisse credatur, et nulla penitus a 
paterna substantia, quae ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio .... Cap. 31 : 
Ne quis tanien nos existimet per hsec illud affirmare, quod pars alibi vel 
ubique : quod illi sentire possunt, qui naturam substantite incorporeae atque 
invisibilis ignorant. Comp. also Contra Ceis. iv. 5 : Kav o 6edg tuv oXuv ry 
kavTov dvvdiiei avyKa-afiaivq rS> 'Irjoov eia rbv ruv dvdpunuv piov, Kav 
6 kv dpxy npba rbv Oebv Xoyog, Oebg ical avrbg u>v, spxrjTai ~pbg rjiiag, ovk 
e^edpog yivErai, ovde naTaXetnei Trjv kavrov tSpav ua riva (isv ronov 
KEvbv avTOv elvai, Irepov 8s trX-qpr), ov nporepov avrbv 'i^ovTa. The Logos 
in his incarnate state is like the sun, whose beams remain pure wherever they 
may shine (Contra Gels. vi. 73). Nevertheless, Origen asserts that he laid aside 
his glory ; in Jerem. Horn. x. 1 (0pp. iii. p. 186). The Father is th« light as 
such, the Son is the light which shines in darkness; comp. Comm. in Joh. ii. 
18 (0pp. iv. p. 76), and De Princ. i. 28. The humanity of Christ ceased to 
exist after his exaltation ; comp. Horn, in Jerem. xv. (0pp. iii. p. 226) : Et iiai 
rjv dvdpoinog (6 auirfjp), dXXa vvv ovdafiug iariv dvdpuirog. Comp. Horn, 
in Luc. xxix. (0pp. iii. p. 9'67) : Tunc homo fuit, nunc auteni homo esse ces- 
savit. See Dorner, 1. c. p. 67 1, ss. Thomasius, p. 202, ss. Bedepenning, ii. 3 1 3. 
" See Bm-ner, I. c. p. 679, note 40. The phrase in question occurs (so fat 
as we know) only in the Latin translation of the Homil. in Ezech. iii. 3 (Deus 
homo) ; but it is implied in other passages, e. g., Contra Cels. iii. 29 ; vii. 17. 
Comp. Thomasius, p. 203, note c. The Greek term was first .explained by 
Chrysostoin, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. 

A special question arose concerning the risen body of Clirist, in its relation to the body 
which he possessed prior to the resurrection. According to Ignatius, Justin, Irenceus, 
Teriullian, Cyprian, and Novafian, Jesus had the same body after the resurrection 
which he had before it. Comp. the passages in the work of C. L. Miilkr, De Resur- 
rectione Jesu Christi, vitam £et. exoipiente et aacensu in ooelum. Sententias, qua in 
ecolesia Christiana ad flnem usque' aseouli sexti viguemnt. HavniiE, 1836, 8, p. 77 ; 
some merely modifying statements of Irenseus and Tertullian, p. 78. But Origen 
taught, on the other hand, in more definite terms, o. Cels. ii. c. 62 (Opp.i. p. 434), 
that the body of Jesus had undergone a change, and, in support of his opinion, ap- 
pealed to his miraculous appearance, when the doors were shut: Kal tjv ye /lera rf/v 
dvaaraaiv airov uairepel iv /ledopit^ Tivl T^f 7ruxvTriT0( tov irpb tov Trudovg auftarot; 
Kal Toil yv/ivTfv toiovtov ao/uaro'c (jiaiveaBai tjivx'T''. Comp. c. 64, 65, p. 436 : Tbv /jyikcti 
iXOVTo. Ti xoipvrdv ipadrjvai, TOif ttoXKoI;, oiix oloi re t/aav airbv jUiTTEiv ol rpurepov 
avrbv IMvref ■Kavrec .... Aa/zirporipa yip rf/v oUovo/iiav TeXeaavrnc 1/ finoTTjc 
pv airoH. Miiller, p. 83. Origen does not seem to have believed that the ascension 
of Christ effected a further change ; for he probably means by the ethereal body, 
which he ascribes to him in his state of exaltation (c. Cels. iii. 41, 42, 0pp. i. p. 474), 
the same which ho had when he rose from the grave. Comp. Miiller, p. £2 .»ud p. 131 



178 First Pekiod. Chkistologt and Sotekiologt. 



Ulimann, fiber die Sundloaigkeit Jesu, 5th edit. Hamb. 1846. [Ullmann, on the Sinlesf 
Character of Jesus, in Clark'a Student's Cabinet Library ofUseful Tracts.] I'litzsche, 
de dva/iapTTjaif Jesu Christi, Comment. IV. comp. § 17. 

The intimate union between the divine and human in Christ, as 
held by the primitive Church, excluded every possible idea of the 
existence of sin in Mm, who was the spotless image of Deity. 
Hence Irenceus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen assert the sinless- 
ness {dvafiaprrjaia) of Jesus in the strongest terms," and even those 
of the fathers who do not expressly mention it, at least take it for 
granted. In the scheme of the Ebionites and Artemonites, this 
sinlessness was not necessarily affirmed, although there are not any 
definite declarations to the contrary. On the other hand, Basilides 
found it difficult to reconcile the sinlessness of Christ with his 
Gnostic system, according to which every sufferer bears the punish- 
ments of his own sins; though he used every possible means to con- 
ceal this defect in his scheme.' 

' Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 11, 17, 110, et al., Iren. in the next§. Tert. De 
Anima, cap. 41 : Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato 
Christus, qu^ et Deus Christus. Arnohius, Adv. Gentes, i. 53 : Nihil, ut 
remini, magicum, nihil luinianuni, praestigiosum, aut subdolum, nihil fraudis 
delituit in Christo. Cleni. Al. derives (Paid. i. 2, p. 99) the prerogative 
of Christ as the judge of all men, from his sinlessness. In Psed. iii. 12, 
p. 307, he 'speaks indeed of the Logos as alone dvafidpTrjTog, but as he 
makes no distinction between the Logos and the human nature of Christ 
(comp. the preceding §), it would follow that he regarded Jesus as sinless, 
which is confirmed by what he says, Strom, vii. 12, p. 875. (Sylb. 742) : 
Etf fiev ovv fiovog b .avsTTLOv/iriTog (which implies still more than avafidprrj- 
TOf) ^1 dpx^g b Kvpiog, b (piXdvdpunioq, b koI di' fjfiag avdpuTrog. Concern- 
ing Origen, comp. § 63, note 5 ; Horn. xii. in Lev. (0pp. ii. p. 251) . . Solus 
Jesus dominus mens in banc generationem mundus ingressus est, etc. In De 
I'rinc. ii. c. 6, § 5, 6 (0pp. i. p. 91), he endeavors to remove the difficulty 
which arises when we assume the absolute sinlessness of our Lord, in contrast 
with the other assumption of his free spiritual development : Verum quoniam 
boni malique eligendi facaltas omnibus praesto est, ha3c anima, quae Christi 
est, ita elegit diligere justitiam, ut pro imrpensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter 
ei atque inseparabiliter inhsereret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immen- 
sitas ct dilectionis inextinguibilis calor omnem sensum eonversionis atque im- 
mutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio ernt positum, longi usus afFectu jam, 
vetsura sit in naturam ; ita ot fuisse quidem in Christo humana et rationabilis 

§ 68. Kedbmption and Atonement. 179 

anima credenda est, et nullum sensum vel possibilitatem earn putaudura est 
jiabuisse peccati (comparison with iron always in tlie fire). Christ possesses 
sinlossness as something peculiar to himself : Sicut vas ipsum, quod substan- 
tiam continet uiiguonti, nullo genere potest aliquid recipere foetoris, hi vero 
qui ex odore ejus participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, 
possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant foetorem : ita Christusvelut vas ipsum, in 
quo erat unguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut contrarium reciperet odorem. 
Participos vero ejus quam proximi fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes 
et capaces. Conip. Contra Cels. i. 69, 0pp. i. p. 383 : Aib npbg rolg aXXoig 
Kol fieyav dyuviarrjv avTOV (pa^isv ysyovEvai, 6ia, to dvOpumvov aufia, 
nsneipaaiievov fiev dfioiog ndatv dvOpuiroig nara ravra, ovkkti 6e (l)g dvOpoy- 
Trot ftera dfiapnag, dXXa TravTi] %wpic djiapTiag. (Hebr. iv. 15, where 1 
Pet. ii. 22, and 2 Cor. v. 21, are also quoted). The term dvafi,dpTTjTog first 
occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (^Qallandii Bibl. ii. p. 466). 

" Comp. Clem. Strom, iv. p. 600 (Sylb. 506) ; and the comment oi Jacohi 
in Neander's Hist. Dog. (Eyland), p. 207, in connection with the statement 
of Hippolytus. Comp. also Neander, Gnost. Syst. p. 49, ss. Baur, Versoh- 
nungslehre, p. 24. 



(The Death of Christ) 

Dissertatio Historiam Doctrine de Redemtione Ecclesi^, Sanguine Jesu Christ! facta, ex- 
hibens, in CoMs edition of Gerhard's Loci Theologici, T. iv. p. 105-132. W. G. L. 
Ziegler, Historia Dogmatis de Eedemptione, etc., inde ab eoolesias primordiis usque ad 
Lutlieri tempora, Gott. 1791 (in Comment. Theol. ed. A. VeUhwen, T. v. p. 227, seq.) 
* Bohr, K. die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrluinderten, Sulzb. 
1832, reviewed in the Neue Kirchenzeitung, 183.S, No. 36. Baur, F. Gh. die christ-- 
liche Lehre von der Versohnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von d(.r 
altesten Zeitbis auf die neueste. Tubingen/ 1838 (p. 1-67). [Thomasius, Christi 
Person und "Work, iii. p. 158 sq. 1859. William Thomson (Fellow of Queen's Col- 
lege), The Atoning "Work of Christ ; Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1853 , Leot. VI, 
Theories in the Early Church.] 

The incarnation of the God-Man, in and of itself, had a redeem- 
ing and reconciling efficacy, by hreaking the po"wer of evil, and re- 
etoring the harmony of human nature, through the life-awakening 
and life-imparting influences -which proceeded from this manifesta- 
tion of deity.' But from the very beginning, on the basis of apostolic 
Christianity, the redeeming element was put chiefly in the sufferings 
and death of Christ. The first teachers of the church regarded this 
death as a sacrifice and ransom {Xvrpov), and therefore ascribed to 
the blood of Jesus the power of cleansing from sin and guilt," and 
attached a high importance, sometimes even a magical efficacy, to 

180 FiEST Period. Cheistologt and Soteeiologt 

the Siigti of the cross.' They did not, however, rest satisfied with 
such vague ideas, but, in connection with the prevailing views of the 
age, they further developed the above doctrine, and saw in the death 
of Christ the actual victory over the devil, the restoration of the divine 
image, and the source and condition of all happiness.'' But, how- 
ever decidedly and victoriously this enthusiastic faith in the power of 
the Redeemer's death manifested itself in the writings and lives of the 
Christian fathers, as well as in the death of martyrs ; yet this faith 
had not yet been developed into the form of a strict theory of satis- 
faction, in the sense that the suiferings of Christ were a punishment, 
necessarily inflicted by divine justice, and assumed in the place of 
the sinner, whereby the justice of God was strictly satisfied. At 
least several intermediate links were wanting, ere the doctrine could 
assume this shape. The term " satisf actio" occurs, indeed, first in 
the writings of Tertullian, but in a sense essentially different from, 
and even opposed to, the idea of a vicarious satisfaction. Nor was 
the death of Christ, as a reconciling power, considered as an isolated 
truth, dissevered from other aspects of it. The same Origen, who, 
on the one hand, along with the notion that the devil had been 
outwitted in this matter, likewise developed the idea of sacrifice as 
applicable to it on the basis of the Old Testament typology,' on the 
other hand, spoke just as definitely in favor of the moral interpreta- 
tion of Christ's death, which he did not hesitate to compare with the 
heroic death of other great men of primitive times. He also ascribed 
a purifying power to the blood of martyrs, as Clement had done be- 
fore him.' And besides, he understood the death of Jesus in a mystic 
and idealistic sense, as au event not limited to this world, nor to one 
single moment of time, but which occurred in heaven as well as on 
earth, embraces all ages, and is in its consequences of infinite im- 
portance even for the other worlds.' 

' " Christianity is not only the religion of redemption, inasmuch as it real- 
izes the idea of the union of the divine and the human in the person of 
the Ood-Man, hut also the religion of complete and absolute reconciliation^ 
Baur, 1. c. p. 5. Concerning the relation in which redemption stands to 
reconciliation, ibid. [Baur here says: The two ideas of redemption and 
atonement (reconciliation) are usually distinguished, by referring the former 
to the idea of sin, and the latter to the idea of guilt. . . .Even if one should 
be transferred from a state of sin to one of sinlessness, it would not follow 
that the guilt of his sin had been removed. . . .The removal of this guilt 
can be conceived only as a divine act, and the ground of its possibility can 
be found only in the idea of God.] On negative and positive redemption, 
see Neander (Church History, Torrey's transl. i. p. 640). According to Jus- 
tin J/., the renovation and restoration of mankind is brought about by the 
doctrine of Christ, Apol. i. 23 ; revdjUEVOf avdpunog ravra rmag iSi6a^ev 
in' dXXay^ koI knavayuy^ rov dvOpumeiov jh'ovg. Comp. Apol. ii. 6 

§ 68. Kedemption and Atonement. 181 

(sec note 4, below); Coh. ad Gi'sec. 38, Dial. c. Trypli. §121; §83. 
laxvpbg 6 Xuyog avrov ■neneiOe noXXovg icaTaXtnelv daifiovia, ot? tJovAe- 
vov, Kol im Tov iravTOKpaTopa Bebv 3i' avrov ■kiotsvuv. Also ^ 30 : 
Atto yap tuv daifioviuv, a iariv aXXoTpM rfjc; deoaePeiag tov Oeov, olg 
TxdXai npoasKvvovfiev, tov Qebv del 6id 'Irjaov Xpiarov avvrrjprid/jvai ira- 
paicaXovfiev, Iva fierd to EtnoTphpai npog Oebv 6i' avrov djiufioi . ufiev. 
Boi]6bv yap ekuvov reai XvTpuTfjv KaXov^iv ov Kal rfjv tov dv6p,aroq 
laxvv ita\ T(i SaiiiovLa rpifiei k. t. X. If Justin emphasizes the negative, 
Irenmvs speaks rather of the positive aspect, iii. 18 (20) [quando filius Dei 
incarnatiis est et homo factiis, longam hominum expositionem in semet ipsci 

recapitulavit] ; 20 (22), p. 214 Filius hominis faotus est, ut assuesceret 

homincra percipere Deum et assuesceret Deum haljjtare in homine, sec. pla- 
citnm Patris. The work of redemption was carried on through all the ages 
and stages of life, which Christ represented in himself, so that death appears 
as the crown of the entire redemptive work, ii. 22, 4, p. 147 : Omnes enim 
venit per semetipsum salvare : omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in 
Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et seniores. Ideo per om- 
ncm venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes ; in parvu- 
lis parvulus, sanctificans banc ipsam habentes setatem, simul et exemplum 
illis pietatis efi'ectus et justitiia et subjectionis : in juvenibns juvenis, exem- 
plum juvenibus fiens, eosque sanctificans Domino ; sic et senior in senioribus, ut 
sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veri- 
tatis, sed et secundum ffitatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis 
quoque fiens ; dcinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex 
mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, princeps vitae, prior omnium et 
prsecedens omnes [v. 23, 2 : Recapitulans autem universum hominem in 
se ab initio usque ad fiuem, recapitulavit et mortem ejus]. Comp. v. 16. 
[Comp. also Irenjeus Contra Hseres. v. 16 : 'Ev rolg npoaOev ^povoig iXsyero 
uev Kar' eluova Qeov yeyovevai rbv avOpunov, ovk ideiicvvTO 6e. en yap 
doparog fjv 6 Xoyog, ov Kar' e'lKova I) dvOpunog syeyovei 6id rovro 6rj Kal 
T?)v ujioiuaiv padiug dTTij3aXev, dnore 3e adp^ tysvero 6 Xoyog rov Qsnv, 
rd dfufiOTEpa insKvpuae' Kal ydp Trjv SMOva tSet^ev dXrjdoig, avrbg rovro 
yevonevog, unsp t^v i) elicuv avrov. Kal rijv Sfiocuacv (i£(iaiug KariarTjoe, 
avvR^ofioiuoag rbv dvdpionov tw dopdrco Ilarpt.] — Comp. Tert. Adv. Marc. 
12. — Clem. Coh. p. 6, p. 23: 'Hiielg de ovk 6pyrjg dpefijxaTa en, ol rfjg 
TiXdvqg dTre(!Tiaap.evot, dtaaovreg 6e enl rfiv dXjjdeiav. T^avrrj roi rjiielg, ol 
rijg dvofiiag vloi irore, did Trjv (piXavOpt^rrlav tov Xoyov vvv viol yeyova- 
fiev rov Qeov. PcBd. i. 2, p. 100: "Eanv ovv 6 nat6ay(oybg rjfiwv Xoyog 
6id napaiveaewv depanevriKbg riov napd (bvaiv rfjg il^vxfig Traduiv. . ..Aoyog 
6e o narpiKbg p.6vog earlv dvOpu-nivuv larpbg dpfXOorTjfidroyv Ttaiuviog Kal 
enuSbg ayiog voaovarjg ipv^^g. Comp. i. 9, p. 147 ; i. 12. p. 158 ; Quia 
Div. salv. p. 951, 52. (Comparison with the merciful Samaritan). Origen 
also (Contra Cels. iii. 28, 0pp. i. p. 465), sees in the union of the divine and 
the human in Christ the beginning of an intimate connection between the 
one and the other, which is to be progressively developed in mankind : "On 
dn' Iks'lvov fip^aTO Oeia Kal dvdpunivri avvv(l>aivea6ai <j)vaig' cv' i) dvOpu- 
rnvq Ty tipbg to OuoTspov KOivuvcg, yevrjTai Oeia ovk ev fiovo) r^ 

182 First Period. Christologt and Soteeiologt. 

'l7]aov, dXXa kuI ttSoi roig perd tov niareveiv dvaXafi- 
Bdvovai Ptov, bv 'Irjaovg ididaSev .* 

^ Barnabas, c. 5 : Propter iioc Dominus sustmuit tradere corpus suum 
in exterminium, ut retnissione peccatorum sanctificcmur, quod est sparsiona 
sanguinis illius, etc., comp. c. 1, 11, and 12. Clemens Horn, ad Cor. i. c. 7 : 
'ATEviaunev elg to alfia tov Xpiarov Kal i3(,)fxev, (jf eariv ti^wv tw 6eu) 
(alua) avTov, uri 6ia ttjv rjHETspav auTTjpiav ekxvGIv navrl tu Koaficp 
fiETdvoiag xdpLV vnriveyKev, comp. i. c. 2, where the nad^fiara avrov gram- 
mically refer to Oedg. {Mohler, Patrologie, i. p. 61.) [Comp. also Clem. 
Rom. c. 49 : Aid ttjv dydTrrjv, tjv saxev npbg Tjiiag, to alfia avTov eduKev 
vnep riii&v 6 ;^;p«Tr6c 6 Kvpiog tjimuv iv deXfip,aTL 6eov, Kal ttjv adpKa vmp 
TTJg aapicbg rjficiv, Kal ttjv ipvxf[v vTrip tuv '\pvxS>v rjixiov.] Darner, in his 
Christology, i. 138, says: '■'■Every interpretation of these passages is forced, 
which does not find in them the idea of substitution ; and this, not only sub- 
jectively, the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, but also, objectively, that his 
substituted experience and acts also had their corresponding objective conse- 
quences." Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6 : M?/(5glf nXavdado). Kal to, enovpdvia 
Kal T] 66^a tS)v dyyiXuv, ical ol dpxovTsg bpaToi ts Kal doparoi, eav prj 
maTEvauaiv slg to alfia Xpiaroii, Kdasivoig Kpiaig eotiv. (He also de- 
fends the reality of his bodily^ sufferings in opposition to the Docetje, c. 2.) 
Comp. Hofling, die Lehre der Apostolischen Vater vom Opfer im Christlichen 
Cultus, 1841. The following passage, from the Epistle to Diognetus, is pecu- 
liar, from its pure apprehension of the redemption that is in Christ, as an act 
of love proceeding from the divine compassion, not as reconciling Lis wrath ; 
{Hefele, Patres Apost. p. 316) : 'ETTsi Sk ■KE'nX'qptxiTO \i.ev rj ■fjfiETEpa dSiicid Kal 
TsXEtug TTEtpavEp(OTO, fiXOe dt b Kaipbg, ov Bsog ttpoeOeto Xoittov (pavEpuaai 
TTjv iavToii xpiT^TOTTjTa Kal 3vva[itv, (hg [rjj^'] ■vTrspfiaXXo'varjg <i>iXavOpuTxiag 
ula dydnT] [tov Oeov], ovk eiiiarjaEV r^fiag, ovde d-nwaaTO, O'vdE Efj,V7]aiKditriaEV ^ 
dXXh EfiaKpo6v[j,rjaEV, 'qveoxeto, avTbg Tag 'fjp.BTipag dp,apTLag ansSt-^aTO' 
avTog Thv 16lov v'lhv d-rcedoTO Xvrpov v-nsp i^iCiv, Tdv ayiov virlp dvop,wv, 
Tbv aKaKov -vnEp twv kuk&v, rbv diKaiov ■v'TTsp tuv dSiKOV, tov d(p6apT0V 
v'TTtp Twv (pdapTuv, Tbv dddvuTov -vTiEp TU)V BvT^Tuiv. Tt yap aXXo Tag 
ajxapTiag f]p,U)V rjSvv^dr] KaXvipai ^ ekeivov diKaLoavvr] ; ev t'ivi diKaiuOrjvai 
■dvvaTbv Tovg dvofiovg rjiidg Kal das/Jetf, ff ev fiovo) rw vlio tov Qeov ; comp» 
also c. 7 and 8 : . . . . ilig au^oiv enefitpev, iia n sidcov, o'v P la^ofievog . 
0ia yap O'v npoaBOTc T(3 Gecj .... God is rather called by him, dopyrjTog. 
[Comp. Neander, Hist, of Church, i. 642.] According to Justin M., the 
object of Christ's incarnation was to suffer for mankind, Apol. iii. 13 : At' 
i]liag avOpuTTog ysyovEV, mug Kal TCi)v naduv tuv ■fuj.ETspuv avp-HETOxog 
yEVOfiBvog Kal laaiv TTOirim]Tai. Comp. Apol. i. 32 : At' alp-aTog KaOatpuv 
TOvg moTB-OovTag a-VTO). i. 63 : Dial. c. Tryph. § 40-43, and § 95. Justin 
also calls the death of Jesus a sacrifice {r:poa<popd) ; comp. the passages quoted 
by Bdhr, p. 42, and Semisch, ii. p. 418, ss. On the question whether Justin 

* " Inferences might be drawn from these ideas of Origen, not in accordance with the 
simple truth of Scripture; but they may also bo so interpreted as to agree with the ex- 
ample of wholesome doctrine. The latter is undoubtedly better and more charitable than iht 
former," Mosheim, transL p. 297. 

§ 68. Bedemption and Atonement. 183 

referred the power of the death of Christ in canoeling sin to the whole life 
of the believer, or restricted it to the epoch preceding his deliberate cntraneo 
into the church, see Somisch, p. 422, sq. ; comp. Ep. ad Diognetuni, c. 9. The 
■writings of Clement of Alexandria also abound in passages upon the efficacy 
of the death of Jesus ; Coh. p. 86 ; comp. Bdhr, 1. c. p. 76 ; ibid. 88 ; Pajd. 
i. 9, p. 148 ; ii. 2. p. Ill (dirrhv rb alfia rov nvpiov), and other passages. 
A mystical interpretation of the crown of thorns, PiBd. ii. 8, p. 214, '15 (with 
reference to Hebr. ix. 22), a passage which Bahr has overlooked. In the 
treatise, Quis Dives Salvus, 34, p. 954, the phrase occurs : atfta Qeov naidb^ 
(not naidbg rov Qeov) ; hence the assertion of Bahr (p. 116), that the Luth- 
eran phrase, "Ike blood of God," would have met with opposition on the part 
of all the fathers of this period, must be restricted. On theefficacy of his 
death, see Strom, iv. 7, 583, and other passages. On the other hand, it is 
worthy of notice that Clement, as Philo had done before him, and Origen did 
after him, applies the idea of the high priesthood of Christ in an ideal sense 
to the Logos, without reference to the death which he suffered in his human 
nature; comp. Bdhr, p. 81. 

' The fact that the heathen charged the Christians with rendering, homage 
to all that were crucified (Orig. c. Cels. ii. 47, 0pp. i. p. 422), shows, to say 
the least, that the latter held the cross in high esteem. On the symbolical 
signification of the cross, and the earlier fanciful interpretations of the alle^ 
gorists concerning the blood of Christ, comp. § 29, note 3 ; and Gieselei-, 
Dograengesch. p. 196, sq. On the eflFects of the cross upon the demons, see 
§ 52, note 4. 

* " The notion that the death of Christ represented the victwy over the 
devil was so congruous with the entire circle of ideas in which these times 
moved, that they could not abandon it." Baur, 1. e. p. 28. Baur also main- 
tains that this mode of considering the death of Chi'ist was transplanted fi'om 
the Gnostics to the church, by simply converting the person of the demiurge 
into that of the devil (?). This view is represented in this period by Trcnmus. 
His train of thought is the following : Man came under the dominion of the 
devil by violating the diviue commandment. This state of bondage lasted 
from Adam to Christ. The latter delivered men by rendering perfect obedi- 
ence on the cross, and paying a ransom with his blood. God did not rescue 
their souls from the power of the devil by force, as the devil himself had 
done, but secundum suadelam (i. «., according to Baur, 1. c, the devil was 
himself convinced of the justice of the manner in which he was treated). 
But Duncker, p. 237, and Oieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 201, refer the suadela 
more correctly to man, who was delivered from the power of the devil by the 
better conviction he had gained through the teaching of Christ. Comp. the 
passage, on the previous page, from the Ep. ad Diagnetum, dif tteiOoov, ov 
(iia^. [Comp. Dorner, i. 479 (also against Baur). Dorner makes use of 
the passage from the Ep. ad Diog. to refute Baur's interpretation ofjienteus.] 
And as man now voluntarily abandoned the service of the devil, under whose 
sway he had voluntarily placed himself, the jural relation in which God stands 
to man was restored ; comp. Iren. Adv. Hser. v. 1, 1 : [Et quoniam injuste 
dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natui a essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit 
nos contra naturam, sues proprios nos facie ns discipulos, poteus in omnibus Dei 

184 First Period. Christologt and Sotekiologt. 

vcvbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsum cooversua 
est apostasiam, ea quas sunt sua redimens ab eo non cum vi, quemadmodura 
ille initio dorainabatur nostri, ea quae non eiant sua insatiabilitur rapiens ; sed 
secundum suadelam, quemadmoduin decebat Denm suadentem, et non vim 
infurentem, accipere quae vellct, ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque 
antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.] From this Iieiiteus infers the necessity of 
the Saviour's twofold nature (here the views of IreniBus appproach most 
nearly those of Anselm in a later period), iii. 18, 7 : "livuasv rbv avOpunov 
tG) Oeio. Et yap [ifj dvdpconog iviKTjae rbv avTi-rraXov tov avdpunrov, ovk 
av diicaiiog iviKrjOrj b kxdpbg ; comp. v. 2], 3; iii. 19, 3: "Qairtp yap fjv 
dvOpuTTog Iva TTELpaaOii, ovrcog Xoyog 'iva do^aadfj, etc. (comp. § 65, note 
3). Eoth elements are here, viz., the perfect obedience of Christ, and the 
shedding of his blood as a ransom (v. 1, 1,: T&i iSiui ovv alp,aTi Xv-puoafievov 
ijfiag TOV Kvplov, koI Sovrog ttjv rpv^rjv vTT&p ruv rjnerepuv rpvxHv, ical Trjv 
odpKa TTjv kavTOv avrl tuv rjneTEpoiv aapKuv, etc.) : and thus Irenseus has 
in his system the negative aspect of the doctrine of redemption ; and to this 
is added the positive one, the communication of a new principle of life, iii. 
23, 1. ■ Comp. Baur, 1. c. p. 30-42. Bahr, p. 55-72. On the other hand, 
the idea of a sacrifice is in his writings kept in the background, see Dunclcer, 
p. 252 : " The idea of the vicarious sufferings of the Lord, in the sense that 
thereby satisfaction is rendered to the divine justice, injured by our sins, and 
that thus the punishment, which ought in justice to have been inflicted upon 
all men, is canceled — this idea is not found in Irenasus, any more than the 
corresponding notion of an exchange or compact with the devil, by which ho 
receives, as it were, a legal compensation for the men he gives up." [Ncan- 
der, i. 642, qualifies this statement about the views of Irenrous, by adding, 
" but doubtless there is lying at the bottom the idea of a perfect fulfillment 
of the law by Christ; of his perfect obedience to the holiness of God in its' 
claims to satisfaction due to it from mankind." And Thomasius, iii. 176, 
cites from Irenaiiis, iii. 18 : "We were God's enemies and debtors, and Christ 
in his priestly work fulfilled the law" — propitians pro nobis Deum ; and, also, 
xvii. 1 : Et propter hoc in novissimis temperibus in amicitiam nos rcstituit 
Dominus per suam incarnationem, mediator Dei et hominum factus ; pro- 
pitians quidem pro nobis Patrem, in quem peccaveramus, et nostram iuobedi- 
cntiam consolatus, etc.] 

' On the peculiar usage of the term satisfactio, comp. Munscher, Hanb. i. 
p. 223. JBdhr, p. 90, ss. On the question whether Justin M. propounded 
the doctrine of satisfaction, see Semisch, p. 423, 424. The answer to it 
must mainly depend on the interpretation of vnip, which frequently occurs 
in his writings ; Apol. i. 63 ; Dial. c. Tryph. § 88, and other passages quoted 
by Semisch. He distinctly says that the curse under which Christ was laid, 
was only apparent. Dial. c. Tryph. §. 90 ; comp. § 94 : "Ov-nep ovv rponov 
TO arjjislov 6id tov ;j;aA«:oi; otpeug yeveadai 6 Oebg iiceXevaR, Kol dvacriog 
toTLV, ovTO) Sfi Kol EV- Tu) vopGi Kardpu KEiraL Kara rcjv rrravpovixevuv 
dvdpuTTCOv OVK ETi 6e Kai Kird tov Xpiarov Qeov Kardpa 
Kelrai, 61' ov adi^ei irdvTag Tovg Kardpag d^ia npa^avrag. 8 96: Ka« 
yap TO elprjfiivuv iv tui vofUf)^ on iTTCicardpaTOC nag 6 Kpyitdfitvog ini 

§ 68. On Eedemption and Atonement. 185 

^Xov ovx wf rov Qeov Karapunivov tovtov tov tOTavputit- 
vov, Tjfiuv Tovol TfjviXnida iiCKpEfiafitVTjv dnb Tov-aTavpuOivTog Xpiorov, 
d/l/l' fcj(7 TTpocinovTog tov Beov to v(p' vfiuv ttuvtuv koI tuv dfioMV vplv 
. . .iieXXovto yiveadai. § m ; 'O TTadTjTog r'jiiSiv koL OTavpudslg XpioTog 
ov KaTTipadf] vTTO TOV vofiov, dX?<,d fiovog autaeiv Tovg jxr^ a^iOTaas- 
vovg -7jg iricTeug avTov iSriXov. The agony of soul in Getbsemane, too, 
according to Justin, only made indubitable the fact of Christ's human nature, 
and set aside the subterfuge that, because he was the Son of God, he could 
not feel pain as well as other men ; of. Dial. c. Tryph. § 103. [Comp. 
Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey's trans.) i. 642 : " In Justin Martyr may be' 
recognized the idea of a satisfaction rendered by Christ through suffering — 
at least lying at the bottom, if it is not clearly unfolded and held fast in the 
form of conscious thought.'' So, too, Thomasius, Christologie, iii. 169.] 
From Tert. De Pcen. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, De Pat. 13, De Pud. 9, it is evident 
'• that he applies the term satisfaction to such as make amends for their own 
sins hy confession and repentance, which shows itself in worhs ;" but he never 
understands by it satisfactio vicaria in the sense afterward attached to it. 
That Tertullian was far from entertaining this view may be proved, from De 
Cultu Fem. i. 1, and the interpretation which he gives to Gal. iii. 13, Contra 
Judaeos 10 ; he there represents the crime that had been committed as a 
curse, but not the hanging on the tree (for Christ was not accursed by God, 
but by the Jews) ; thus also Contra Marc. v. 5, and other passages which are 
quoted by Bahr, p. 89, ss. In other points his views resemble those of 
Irenaius, ibid. p. 100-104. 

° On the relation of these two representations of the matter, viz., that of 
Irenseus, that it was a victory over the devil (which assumes in Origen the 
still more mythical character of an intentional deception on the part of God), 
and that it was a voluntary sacrifice, not having respect, like the former, to 
the idea of justice, but resting rather on the love of God ; compare Baur, p. 
43-67 ; Bahr, p. Ill, sq.; Thomasius, p. 214 ; Redepenning, ii. 405 ; Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. 203. On the question whether Origen taught an intentiona' 
deception on the part of God, see (against Baur) Redepenning, p. 406, note 
5. The idea is original that it was a torment to the devil to be obliged to 
keep near him so pure a soul as that of Jesus ; he could not keep it, because 
it did not belong to him. Comp. Origen's Comra. in Matth. T. xvi. 8 (0pp. 
i. 726), and the other passages. Comment, series, § 75 (on Maith. xxvi. 1, 
0pp. i. 819), and on Matth. Tom. xiii. 8 and 9, in which the giving up of 
the Son by the Father appeal's as an act of love, in distinction from the 
treachery practiced on him by Satan through his agents (different interpreta- 
tions of the expression TrapadidoaOai used in both places). Origen's inter- 
pretation of Is. liii. 3, comes nearest to the view entertained in later times by 
Anseira, Comment, in Joh. Tom. 28, 14. 0pp. iv. p. 392. Bdhr, p. 151.* 
But still Origen differs from the church doctrine of satisfaction iu the man- 
ner in which he explains, e.-ff., the sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, 

* But it should not be overlooked that Origen immediately afterward connects thia 
passage with 1 Cor. iv. 13, and applies to. Christ in a higher degree what is tliere said ia 
reference to the apostles, and also adduces still other examples from ancient times. 

J 86 FiKST Period. CnRisTOLoar akd Soteriologt. 

and the exclamation of Christ on the cross: My God, my God, etc. Bithr, 
p. 147-149, and Redepenning, p. 408, sq. [On Origen's views, comp. Thom- 
son's Bampton Lectures, ubi supra; and Origen, in Joan. Tom. ii. 21; in 
Matth. xvi. 8 ; and in Rom. ii. ] 3 (p. 493) : Si ergo pretio emti sumus, ut 
etiam ]'aulus adstipulatur, nee ab aliquo sine dubio emti sumus enjus eramus 
sorvi, qui et pretium poposoit quod voluit, ut de potestate dimitti-rat quos 
tencbat. Tenebat autem nos Diabolus, cui distraeti fiaerarans peccatis nostiis. 
Poposcit ei'go pretium nostrum sanguinem Christi. That Origen also 
brought the death of Christ into relation to God, see his comment on Rom. 
'iii. 24 (Thomasius, iii. 180) : Nunc addit [Paulus] aliquid sublimius et-dicit: 
proposuit eum Deus propitiationem, quo scilicet per hostiam sui corporis 
propitium hominibus faceret Deum ; and his Horn, in Lev. ix. 10 : Tu, qui 
ad Christum venisti, qui sanguine suo Deum tibi propitium fecit, et recon- 
ciliaidt te patri, etc.] 

' Comp. T. xix. in Joh. (0pp. iv. p. 286), and the passage before quoted 
from T. xxviii. p. 393 ; Contra Cels. i. 1, p. 349 : "On b aravpuOelg hiG)v 
TOVTOV rbv Odvarov vnip tov ruv dvdpojncov yivovg dvedi^aro, wdXoyov 
Toig dnoOavovai vnip -naTpiSuiv irfl tu afiiaai XoifUKa icparTjaavra Kara- 
OTripura rj d<poplag rj dvazTAoiag. These human sacrifices were thought to 
be connected with the influence exerted by the demons, which was to be 
removed by them ; see Baur, p. 45, and Mosheim, in a note to the transla- 
tion of that passage, p. 70. The death of Christ also gave an additional 
weight to his doctrine, and was the cause of its propagation ; Horn, in Jerem. 
10, 2, comp. £dhi; p. 142, who observes that no ecclesiastical writer of this 
period beside Origen distinctly mentions this point. This idea bears, indeed, 
the greatest resemblance to the modern rationalistico-moral notions concern- 
ing the death of Christ. He also compares the death of Jesus with that of 
Socrates, Contra Cels. ii. 17, 0pp. i. p. 403, '4, and represents it as a moral 
lever to elevate the courage of his followers, ibid. 40-42, p. 418, '19. 

' Clement, too, saw in the death of the martyrs a reconciling power, 
Strom, iv. 9, p. 596, comp. p. 602, '3 ; hkewise Oriff. Comm. in Joh. (0pp. 
iv. p. 153, '54), Exhort, ad Martyr. 50, 0pp. i. p. 309 : Tdxa de Koi utamp 
Tifii(fi a'ifiaTi TOV 'Irjaov i]~yopda6r]iJ,EV . . . . ovTug rGi rifito) a'ifiaTi ruv 
fiapTvpuv dyopaaOriaovfal rcveg. 

' On the basis of Col. i. 20 (Comment, in Joh. i. 40, 0pp. iv. p. 41, 42) : 
Ov fiovov inep dvOpunuv dnidavev, dXXa Kol vnep tuv XonrHv ?.o-yiKuv. 
De Princ. iv. 25 (Opp. i. p. 188; Bed. p. 79 and 304). There are two 
altars on which sacrifice is made, an earthly and a heavenly ; Horn, in Lev. 
i. 3 (Opp. ii. p. 186); ii. 3 (ibid. p. 190); comp. £dhr, p. 119, ss. Baur, p. 
64. Thomasius, p. 214-217. Redepenning, Orig. ii. p. 463. 

Trom all that has been sajd in reference to the subject in question, it would follow that 
the primitive church held the doctrine of vicarious sufferings, but not that of vicarious 
satisfaction. But wo should not.lay too much stress upon the negative aspect of this 
inference, so as to justify, or to identify it with, that later interpretation of the death 
of Jesus, which excludes every thing that is mysterious. Comp. Bcihr, p. 5-8 and 

§ 69. Descensus ad Infebos. 187 

§ 69. 


Vietdmaier, J. A., Hiatoria Dogmatia de Deacenau Christi ad Inferos, Altorf. 1762, 8. 
Semler, J. A., Observatio historico-dogmatica de v'ario et imparl veterum Studio in 
rocolenda Hiatoria Desoenaus Cliriati ad Inferos, Hal. 1775. J. Clausen, Dogmatia de 
Desccnsu Jeau Cliriati ad Inferoa hiatoriam biblioam atque eccleaiaaticam composuit, 
Hafn. 1801. Comp. Pott, Epp. oath. Exc. ili. [Comp. also Pearson, On the Creed, 
T. art. and Eeylyn, on the Creed, VI. art.] J. L Konig, die Lehre von Christi Hollen- 
fahrt, nach der h. Sohrilt, der aiteaten Kirohe, deu christlioheu Sj'mbolen und nach 
ihrer viel umfassenden Bedeutung. Prankf. 1842, E. Guder, Die Lehre von d. Er- 
scheinung Christi unter den Todten, Berl. 1853. [F. Huidekoper, The Belief of the 
first Three Centuries concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld. Boston. 1854. 
Archd. Blackburn, Hiat. Account of Viewa about the Intermed. State. 1T70. The 
Bevealed Economy of Heaven and Earth, Lond. 1853. V. U. Maywahlen, Tod, 
Todtenreich, etc. Berl. 1854; transl. by J. F. Schon, The Intermed. State, Lond. 
1856. The Intermed. State, by the late Duke of Manchester, Lond. 1856. T. KSr- 
ier, Die kath. Lehre d. Hollenfahrt Jea. Christi. Land'ahut, I860.] 

We have seen that the fathers of this period, with the exception 
of Origen, limited the direct efficacy of Christ's death to this world. 
But several writers of the second and third centuries thought that 
it was also retrospective in its effects, and inferred from some allu- 
sions in Scripture' that Christ descended into the abode of the dead 
(underworld. Hades), to announce to the souls of the patriarchs, 
etc., there abiding, the accomplishment of the work of redemption, 
and to conduct them with him into the kingdom of his glory." 

' Acts ii.*27, 31 (Rom. x. 6, 1, 8), Eph. iv. 9. ] Pet. iii. 19, 20 (in con- 
nection with Psahn xvi. 10). — On the clause descendit ad inferos in the 
Apostles' creed, which is of later origin, see Rufin. Expos, p. 22 (ed. Fell), 
King, p. 169, ss. Fott, 1. c. p. 300. G, H. Waage, De JState Articuli, quo 
in Syrab. Apost. traditur Jesu Christi ad Inferos Descensus, Hasr. 1836. This 
clause is first found in the creed of the church of Aquileia, and was brought 
into wider use through Rufinus. [Comp. Harvey on the Three Creeds; 
Pearson, 1. c. p. 237 : Church Review, 1852 ; Christ. Rev. 1855; Southern 
Presb. Rev. 1854 : Bibl. Sacra, 1855, 1856, 1869.] 

' Apocryphal narrative, in the Ev. Nic. c. 17-27. [Thilo, Cod. Ap. i. p. 
667, ss.) JJlhnann, Historisch oder mythisch ? p. 228. An allusion is found 
in the Testament of the XII Patriarchs, Grahe, Spic. PP. Skc. i. p. 250. 
On the passage in the oration of Thaddeus quoted by Ens. i. 13 : Karifiri 
elg Tov adrjv koL ddaxioe ^payfibv rbv e| alUvog fifj (Txiodevra, koI dv&OTT] 
Kal ovvqyeipE VEKpovg rovg d-rr' aluvoiv KBKOifirjiisvovg, Kal nUg KaTsjBT] 
uovog, dvePrj 6e fisra noXXov Sx^ov npbg rbv narepa avrov, comp. Vales. 
— The passage from the fuller recension of Ign. Ep. ad Trail, c. 9, ii. p. 64, 
is doubtful ; and that from the Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. ix. c. 16, refers 

188 First Period. Christologt akd Soteriologt. 

properly to the apostles. Justin M. also supposes that Christ preaehed in 
the nether world, Dial. c. Tryph. § 72 ; though he was not compelled to 
this, on account of his views about the Xbyoq airepiiariKog, in relation to 
the heathen; Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 414. More definite language is first 
used by Iren. iv. 27 (45), p. 264 (347), v. 31, p. 331 (451). Tert. De An, 
7 and 55. Clem Strom, vi. 6, p. 762-67, and ii. 9, p. 452 (where he quotes 
the passage from Hernias) ; the latter is inclined to extend the preaching of 
the Gospel to the Gentiles in Hades. Orig. Contra Gels. ii. 43 (0pp. i. p. 
419), in libr. Eeg. Horn. ii. (0pp. ii. p. 492-98), especially towards the 
close. Comp. Xdniff, p. 97. Among the heretics we may mention the 
opinion of Marcion, that Christ did not deliver the patriarchs, but Cain, the 
people of Sodom, and all those who had been condemned by the demiurge. 
Iren. i. 27 (29), p. 106 (Gr. 104) (Neander, Hist. Dog. 250). [On the 
opinions of the Fathers, comp. also Pearson, 1. o. p. 238, 245, ss., and Hey- 
lyn, 1. 0. p. 264, ss.] Other Gnostics wholly rejected the doctrine of the 
Descensus, and explained the passage in Peter of Christ's appearance on 
the earth. 



Beuhner, H. L., Historia antiquior Dogmatis de modo salutis tenendse et justificationis, etc. 
Wittenb. 1805, i. Worier, Die christl. Lfehre xiber das Verhiiltnisa von Gnade u. 
Freiheit, etc. Freib. 1856. \Landerer, as cited before, ia the Jahrb. £ deutscbo 
Tlieologie, etc.] 

From what precedes, it is evident that the primitive church uni- 
versally believed that Jesus Christ was the only ground of salvation, 
and the Mediator between Grod and man. But all were required to 
appropriate to themselves, by a free act, the blessings which Christ 
obtained for them ;' and the forgiveness of sins was made dependent 
both on true repentance," and the performance of good works.' 
Sometimes expressions are used which seem to favor the doctrine of 
the meritoriousness of good works.* Nevertheless, all agreed in 
making faith (in accordance with the apostolic doctrine) the conditio 
sine qua non of salvation," and in celebrating its blessed power in 
bringing about an intimate union (unio mystica) between man and 
God." Though the will of man was admitted to be free, yet it was 
also felt that it must be assisted by divine grace,' and this, when 
carried out, led to the idea of an eternal decree of God ( predeati- 
nation), which, however, was not yet viewed as unconditionaL 
Origen, in particular, endeavored to explain the relation of predes- 
tinatiou to the freedom of the human will so as not to endanger the 

§ 70. The Economy of Eedemption. 189 

' This follows from the passages above cited on human liberty. Justin M^ 
Dial. c. Tryph. § 95 : Et jxeravoovvTe^ inl rolg rjfj,apTrjfievoi.g Kal smyvovTeg 
rovTov slvai rhv Xpiarhv koL (pvXdaaovTsg avTOv rag ivroXag Tavra (prjaere, 
afpeoLt: vimv tUv afiapnuv 5ti ^arai, TrpoEmov. Comp. Orip. Contra Ccls. 
iii. 29. 0pp. i. p. 465 (in connection with what is cited § 68, Note 1), ac- 
cording to whom, every one who lives in compliance with the precepts of 
Christ obtains through him friendship with God, and is vitally united to him. 
' The very circumstance that, in the opinion of the primitive church, sins 
committed after baptism are less easily pardoned (Clem. Strom, iv. 24, p. 
634. Sylb. 536, C), and the entire ecclesiastical discipline of the first ages 
prove this. — As regards p,eTdvoia, Clement knows the distinction after- 
ward made between contritio and attritio, Strom, iv. 6, p. 580 : Tot; juerd- 
voovvTog 6i rponoi dvo' 6 fiev Koivorepog, (f)6Pog inl rolg TTpaxOsioiv, 6 6h 
IdiaiTEpog, f] dvaunrta 7} wpbg kavrfiv rfjg ipyx^lg sk. avvEidriaeug. — On ixerd- 
voia comp. also Pasd. i. 9, 146, and quis Div. Salv. 40, p. 957. 

' Hermas, Pastor, iii. 7 : Oportet eum, qui agit posnitentiam, affligere ani- 
man suam, et humilem animo se preestare in omni negotio, et vexationes mul- 
tas variasque perferre. Justin M. also lays great stress upon the external 
manifestation of repentance by tears, etc. Dial. c. Tryph. § 141. Cypr. De 
Opere et Eleem. p. 167. (237 Bal.) ; Loquitur in scripturis divinis Spir. S. et 
dicit (Prov. xv. 29) : Eleemosynis et fide delicta purgantur ; non utique ilia 
delicta, quse fuerunt ante contracta, nam ilia Christi sanguine et sanotifieatione 
purgantur. Item denuo dicit (Eccles. iii. 33) : Sicut aqua extingiiit ignem, 
sic eleemosyna extinguit pcocatum. Hie quoque ostenditur et probatur, quia 
sicut lavacro aquse salutaris gehennge ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis atque 
opevationibus justis delictorum flamma sopitur. Et quia semel in baptismo 
remissa peccatorum datur, assidua et jugis operatio baptismi instar imitata 
Dei rursus indulgentiam largitur (with a further appeal to Luke xi. 41). 
Tears are of much avail, Ep. 31, p. 64, Retth. p. 323, 389. Origen, Horn, in 
Lev. ii. 4, 0pp. ii. p. 190, '91, enumerates 7 remissiones peccatorum : 1, tiiat 
which is granted in baptism ; 2, that which is obtained by martyrdom ; 3, by 
alms (Luke xi. 41) ; 4, by the forgiveness which we grant to those who have 
trespassed against us (Matth. vi. 14) ; 5, by the conversion of others (James 
V. 20 ) ; 6, by exceeding great love (Luke vii. 47 ; . 1 Pet. iv. 8) ; 7, by pen- 
ance and repentance : Est adhuc et septima, licet dura et laboriosa, per poeni. 
tentiam remissio peccatorum, cum lavat peccator in lacrymis stratum suum, 
et fiunt ei lacrymae suae panes die ac nocte, et cum non erubescit sacerdoti 
Domini indicare peccatum suum et quEBrere medicinam. On the merit of 
the martyrs, comp. § 68. The intercession of confessors yet living is opposed 
by Tert. De Pud. 22. Cyprian also limits their influence to the day of 
judgment, De Lapsis, p. 129 (181). — Concerning/ a first and second penance, 
see Ilermce Pastor, Mand. iv. 3, Clem. Strom, ii. 13, p. 459 : Ka( owe old' 
bnorepov avrolv xelpov ^ to eidora afxaprdveiv t) fieravoriaavTa k(p' olg rmap- 
rev TTXrjiJ.fisXeiv avdtg. The different views of Tertullian before and after his 
his conversion to Montanism may be seen by comparing De Pcenit. 7 with 
De Pnd. 18. On the controversy between Cyprian and the Novatians see 
the works on ecclesiastical history. 
* Even in the Epistle of Polycarp, the giving of alms is praised ;ts a work 

190 First Period. Christology and Soteriologt. 

that saves from death (appealing to Tob. xii. 9) ; and hints about the doc- 
trine of works of supererogation (opera supererogatoria) are found in the 
Shepherd oi Hernias, Sirail. Lib. iii. 5. 3 : Si praiter'ea quaa non mandavit 
Dominiis aliquod boni adjeceris, majorem dignitatem tibi conquires et hono- 
ratior apud Dominum eris, quam eras futurus. Origen speaks in a similar 
manner, Ep. ad Rom. Lib. iii. 0pp. T. iv. p. 507 (he makes a subtle distinc- 
tion between t\\& unprofitable servant, Luke xvii. 10, and thugood and faithful, 
servant, Matth. .xxv. 21, and appeals to 1 Cor. vii. 25, concerning the cpm- 
mand to the virgins). 

" During this period, in which theoretical knowledge was made prominent, 
faith was for the most part considered as histon'co-dogmatic faith in its rela- 
tion to yvCiaLg (comp. § 34). Hence the opinion that knowledge in Divine 
things may contribute to justification, while ignorance condemns. Minucius 
Fel. 35 : Imperitia Dei sufficit ad posnam, notitia prodest ad veniam. Theo- 
philus of Antioch also distinctly recognizes only a fides historica, upon 
which he makes salvation to depend, i. 14 : 'A-nodet^iv ovv Xafiuv rS)v 
yivofiev(i)v Ka) TTpoavaTze<l>(,)VTjfievcjv, ovk dmaTU, dXXa maTevo) TTEidapx&v 
Oeio, d) El (JovXel, Kal av vnoTdyrjdi, Tnorevuv avrS), jir] vvv d'mad'ijaag^ 
■neiaOqg dviunevog tote ev aluviocg Tificopiaig. But though it was reserved 
for later times to investigate more profoundly the idea of justifying faith in 
the Pauline sense, yet correct views on this subject were not entirely wanting 
during this period, comp. Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Cor. 32 and 33 : 'B-fxeXg ovv 
did OeXfiiMTog avrov [sc. GsoO] kv 'K.piaTut 'Irjaov KXrjdevTeg ov 6i' iavruv 
diKaiovfieOa, ovSe 6id rrjg ruierepag aopiag tJ avveaewg ^ evaejSelag rj epyuv, 
wv KarsipyaadfieOa &v baiOTrp-i Kapdiag' dXXa 6ia rfig wiaTEug, 6i' ■^g 
ndvTag tov an' aiwvog 6 navTOKpdTup Oebg idiKaiuaev. Comp. 37-39. 
Irenoeus, too (iv. 13, 2, sq.), distinguishes clearly between the righteousness 
of the law, and the new obedience which comes from faith ; Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. p. 216. Tertull. Adv. Marc. v. 3 : Ex fidei libertate justificatur 
homo, non ex legis servitute, quia Justus ex fide vivit.* According to Clement 
of Alexandria, /ai<A is not only the key to the knowledge of God (Coh. p. 9), 
but by it we are also made the children of God, ib. p. 23 (comp. § 68, note 
1), and p. 69. Clement accurately distinguishes between theoretical and 
practical unbelief, and understands by the latter the want of susceptibility to 
Divine impressions, a carnal mind which would have every thing in a tangi- 
ble shape, Strom, ii. 4, p. 436. Origen in Num. Horn. xxvi. (0pp. iii. p. 
369) : Impossible est salvari sine fide. Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. 0pp. iv. p. 
617 : Etiamsi opera qnis habeat ex lege, tamen, quia non sunt lediflcata 
supra fundamentum fidei, quamvis videantur esse bona, tamen operatorem 
Buum justificare non possunt, quod eis deest fides, quae est signacnlum eorum, 
qui jnstificantur a Deo. 

° Clement, Coh. p. 90 : "n rfig dyiag Kal fiaKaptag TavTTjg dwdp,sug. Si' 
fig dvOpuTToig avp.-noXirEvsTai Geof k. t. X. Quis. Div. salv. p. 951 : "Oaov 
yap dyana rig tov Bsbv, romvrio Kal ttXeov Evdorepu> tov 0eoxi irapadvETai. 
Ideal quietism, Pajd. i. 13, p. 160: TsXog de ioTi dBoaelieiag jj didiog dvd- 

* It was natural, too, that Marcion should insist upon the Pauline view, in opposition 
to the Jewish dependence on works ; see Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), p. 209. 

§ 70. The Economy of Eedemption. 191 

navaig h r^j Geoj. Comp. iii. 1, p. SYV, '78 (in reference to riclies in God), 
Strom, ii. 10, p. 467, '68, iv. 22, p. 627, 630. 

' Tert. Ad Uxor. i. 8 : Quoedam sunt divinse liberalitatis, qusBdam nostra 
operationis. Quae a Domino indulgentnr, sua gratia gubernantnr; quae ab 
homine captantnr, studio perpetrantur. Cf. De Virg. Vel. 10; De Patient. 1, 
Adv. Hennog. 5. Justin M. and Clement of Alexandria are favorable to 
synergism. Comp. Just. Apol. i. 10, Dial. c. Tr. § 32. Clem, of Alex. Cob. 
i. 99. Strom. V. 13, p. 696, vii. V, p. 860 : 'Qq cJs h larpbg vydav -napli- 
Xerai rolg avvepyovai -npog vyeiav, ovrug ical b Bebg rfjv dtSiov 
auTTjpiav rolg ovv spy ovai npbg yv&aiv ts kol evnpayiav. Quis. 
Div. salv. p. 947 : 'QovXoixivaig [ilv yap b Qsbg rolg ipvxalg avvenmvel. 
So, too, Orig. Horn, in Ps. (0pp. T. ii. p. 571) : Tb tov . Xoyiitov dyad-bv 
lUKTOV eariv tic re Trjg TTpoaipiaswg avrov nal TTJg avinrveova'rjg deiag 
dvvdjiecog tw to, KaXXiara TxpoeXofiEVUi ; comp. De Princ. iii. 1, 18 (O'pp. i. 
p. 129), and 22, p. 137 (on Eom. ix. 16, and tbe apparent contradiction 
between 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21, and Rom. ix. 21). Cyprian, Do Gratia Dei ad 
Donat. p. 3, 4 : Ceterum si tu innocentise, si justitiaj viam teneas, si illapsa 
firmitate vestigii tui incedas, si in Deum viribus totis ac toto coi-dc suspensus, 
hoc sis tantum quod esse ccepisti, tautum tibi ad licentiam datur, quantum 
gratiae spiritalis augetur. Non enim, qui boneficiorum terrestrium mos est, 
in capessendo munere coelesti mensura ulla vel modus est : profluens largiter 
spiritus nuUis finibus premitur, nee coBrcentibus claustris intra certa inetarum 
spatia frs8natur, manat jngitcr, exuberat ai33uentur. Nostrum tantum sitiat 
pectus et pateat ; quantum illuc fidei capacis aifcrimns, tantum gratiae iuun- 
dantis haurimus. De Orat. dom. p. 144 (208) ; Adv. Jud. iii. 25, ss. p. 72, 
42, ss., p. 77, ss. 

" Hernias represented the predestination of God as dependent on his fore- 
hnowledge, Lib. iii. Simil. 8, 6, likewise Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. § 141. 
Iren. iv. 29, 2, p. 267. Minuc. Fel. c. 36. Tert. adv. Marc. ii. 23. Clem. 
Al. Pasd. i. 6, p. 114: Oldsv ovv (6 Bebg) ovg iceKXrjKsv, ovg aeauKev. 
According to Strom, vi. p. 763, it is men's own fault if they are not elected. 
They resemble those who voluntarily jump out of the vessel into the sea. 
" Thus the practical sense of Ci/prian rebelled against the doctrine of rigid 
predestination, of irresistible grace ; he could not with so bold a front admit 
all the consequences which are found in the stupendous fabric of Augustine^s 
system" — '■^ That the bishop of Hippo still thought that he discovc-d his own 
orthodoxy in the writings of Cyprian, may perhaps be ascribed to I'tis joy at 
finding in him the premises, from which he drew the conclusions. Rettberg, 
p. 321." 

° Origen is far from believing in the doctrine of reprobation. De Princ. 
iii. 1 (0pp. i. p. 115. Eedep. p. 20), he calls those heterodox who adduce 
the passage relative to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and other passages 
of the Old Test, of similar import in opposition to the avTE^ovaiov of the 
human soul. He explains God's dealings with Phaiaoh from physical 
analogies: the rain falls upon different kinds of soil, and 'auses different 
plants to grow ; the sun both melts wax and hardens clay. Even in com- 
mon life it sometimes happens that a good master says to his lazy servant 
spoiled by ind iJgeuco : I have spoiled you, not meaning that such was his 

192 First Period. Christologt and Soteriologt. 

intention. On'gen (as Schldermacher in later times) sees in what is called 
reprobatio, only a longer delay of the grace of God. As a physician often 
employs those remedies which at first apparently produce bad eft'eots, but 
heal the disease (homoeopathically ?) radically, instead of using such as effect 
a speedy cure, so God acts in his long suffering for men ; he prepares their 
souls not only for the span of this short life, but for eternity, ibid. p. 121. 
[Redep. p. 26.) He adduces a similar illustration from the husband- 
man (after Matth. xiii. 8), and then goes on, p. 123 : "ATretpot yap, 'IjiMV, 
ihg dv eliTOi Tig, al ijjvxal, koI dizeipa to, tovtuv rjdrj koX ■nXelaTa uaa ra 
Kiv^Hara Koi al npodsaeig Kal al ^niPoXal koI al dpfial, uv eicfiovog olKovofioi, 
apiarog, kol rovg Kaipovg imaTapevog, Kal to, dpfioi^ovTa l3orj6rip,aTa koI 
Tag ay(,r)'ag koI Tag bdovg, b t&v bXuv deog Kal nar-qp. See ibid, the inter- 
pretation of Ezek. xi. 19, and other passages. On the connection between 
Origen's doctrine of predestination and his doctrine of the preSxistence of 
the soul, comp. De Princ. ii. 9, 1 (0pp. i. p. 99) ; Ked. p. 220), in reference 
to Jacob and Esau. Origen also held, like the other fathers prior to the 
time of Augustine, that predestination was dependent on foreknowledge, 
Philoc. c. 25, on Rom. viii. 28, 29 (quoted by Munscher, edit, by Von Colin, 
i. p. 369). " All the fathers of this period agree that God so far predestines 
men to blessedness or condemnation, as he foresees their free acts, by which 
they are made worthy of reward or punishment; but the foreseeino-, these 
acts is not the cause of them, but the acts are the cause [ground] of the fore- 
knowledge." Gieseler, Dogmcngesch. p. 212. 





BenJce, K Th. C, Historia antiquior Dogmatis de TTnitate EcclesliB. Helmst. 1181. 
\M6hler, die Einheit der Eirohe. Tub. 1825. *Rotlie, Rich., die Entwicklung des 
Begriffs der Kirohe in ihrem ersten Stadium. (The third boolc of his worli: die 
Anfange der christlichen Earehe und ihrer Terfassung. Wittenb. 1837, i. vol.) Gess^ 
die Einheit der K;irche im Sinne Cyprians (in Studien der evangeUschen Geistlichkeit 
"Wiirtembergs. Stuttgart, 1838, ii. 1, p. 141). Euther, Cyprian, comp. § 26, note 9. 
Scherikel, see § 30. In reference to Rothe's work : Petersen, A., die Idee der christ- 
lichen Kirche. Lpzg. 1839-44, 3 vols. 8. Jul. Mullur, Die unsichtbare Kirche (iii 
the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. chr. Wiss. 1850, No. 2). J. KosiUn, Die katholische Auf- 
fassung von d. Kirche (ibid. 1855, Nos. 33, 46, 1856, No. 12). Miinchmeier, von der 
siehtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, Getting. 1854. [xirihur Litton, The Church in 
its Idea, etc., Lpnd. 1851. Schtrer, Esquisse d'une Theorie de I'Eglise chretienne, 
^ 1844. W. Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Am. ed. 2, 1841. On Cyprian's view, 
Nevin in Mercersb. Rev. 1852, three articles. Th. Kliefoih, Acht Biicher von d. 
Kirche, 1854, sq. Mauier in Herzog's Realencyclop. Bd. vii. Ritschl, Die Begriffe 
sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirohe, in Stud, und Krit. 1859, reviewing Miinchmeier. 
J. H. Priedlieb, Schrift, Tradition, etc., Breslau, 1854. Thos. Greemiiood, Cathedra 
Petri, 4 vols. Lend. 1856-60. Bishop Kaye, Government and Discipline of the 
Church in the First Three Centuries, Lond. 1855. F. C. Baur, Das Christenthum d. 
drei ersten Jahrh. 1860, p. 239, sq.] 

A holy Catholic Christian church, lohich is the communion of 
saints, was the expression used in the Christian confession of faith 
to denote the feeling of Christian fellowship which prevailed in the 
primitive church, though no exact definitions concerning the nature 
of the church are found previous to the time of Cyprian.' Among 
the many images under which the church was represented, none . 
was so frequently employed as that of a mother, or of Noah's ark. 
The fathers uniformly asserted, both in opposition to heretics, and 
to all who were not Christians, that there is no salvation out of the 
church,* but that all the fullness of the Divine grace is to be found in * 
it." Clement of Alexandria, too, and Cyprian, yet more emphatically 
and in a realistic sensei, gave prominence to the unity of the church.' 
The definitions of the latter make an epoch in the history of this 

* This strongly defined church feeling is very marked in the writings of Irenaus. 

194 FiEST Period. Church, and its Means of Grace. 

doctrine. But he did not sufficiently distinguish hetween the his- 
torico-empirical, visible existence of the church (its body), and the 
idea of a church wJi^ch is above the change of mere forms, and 
which is ever struggAng tor a complete expression of its essence. 
This is shown in the Novatian controversy. Thus it happened that 
the apostolic Christian doctrine of a universal priesthood was more 
and more superseded by the hierarchical aspirations of the bishops, 
and the internal was converted into the external.' The false ideal- 
ism of the Gnostics, and the subjective, heretical, and schismatical 
tendencies of separate sects, especially of the Montanists and the 
followers of Novatian (the primitive Puritans), form a striking con- 
trast with this false external unity of the Catholic church.' 

' " The general character of the earlier period (^previous to the time of 
Cyprian) is that of abstract indefiniteness. What the theologians of this 
period say concerning the nature of the church is so frequently void of clear- 
ness and precision, that it is almost impossible fully to ascertain their real serk- 
timents on this point; it is not uncommon to see the same fathers evading, 
or even rejecting, consequences which necessarily follow from their generat 
reasonings. They thus evince a fickleness {?) which prevents us from forming 
any decided and certain opinion as to their ideas of the nature of the church" 
Eothe, 1. c. p. 575, abridged. 

° On the terra iKKXrjoia in general (corresponding to the Hebrew n'ltr" 
hrf., n-!V, «-;pK) Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 32 ; Eph. i. 22 ; Col. i. 18, 
24 ; comp. Suicer, Thes. sub voce; Rothe. p. 74, ss. ; and tlie anonymous 
work, Zukunft d. evang. Kirche, Leipz. 1849, p. 42 : "The solemn and em- 
phatic meaning of the words, called, calling (icaXuv, KXfjaig, KArjToi), which 
sound oat to ns fiom all parts of the writings of the New Testament, may 
have essentially contributed in lending to the word ecclesia, formed from the 
same root, its significance, as designating the whole company of the elect, the 
called." The phrase iKicXrjaia KaOoXiKrj first occurs in the inscription of the 
Ep. Smyrn. de mart. Polycarpi about the year 169 (Eus. iv. 15). Comp./^re. 
ad Smyrn. 8 : "ilanep oirov av y Xpiarbg 'Irjaodg, enel fj KadoXiKTj eKKlrfaia. 
How great an importance the fathers were accustomed to attribute to the 
church, may be seen from Irenceus, Adv. Hasr. iii. 4, 1, and iii. 24, (40). The 
church alone contains all the riches of truth : out of her there are nothing 
but thieves and robbers, pools with foul water : Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et 
spiritus Dei, ubi spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia (oomp. Huther, 1. c. 
p. 4, 5) ; iv. 31, 3, where the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot was 
transformed, represents the imperishability of the church ; and other pas- 
sages (comp. § 34, notes 1 and 2). Clement of Alexandria derives the terra 
and the idea of iicit.Xrjaia from the elect forming a society, Coh. p. 69, and 
Pasd. i. 6, p. 114 : 'Hg yap rb 6sXrjfia avrov epjov ecttJ Ka\ tovto Kodfiog 
dvond^BTar ovTwg Kal T-b jiovXv^i.a avrov dvOpumuv earl aurrjpia, Kal tovto 
''E.K.nXrjaia tcmXriTar ol6ev ovv ov<; kekXi^kev, ovg aiauicev. Comp. Strom, 
vii. 5, p. 846 : Ov yap vvv rbv rorrov, dX?.a rb ddpoidfia tuv sKXeiCToiv 
''EKK^.rjaiav icaXo) k. t. X. Clement describes the church as a mother, Paed. 

§ 71. The Chukch. 195 

i. 5, p. 110 ; and as both a mother and a virgin, c. 6, p. 123 ; in speaking of 
this subject in other places he indulges in allegories, p. Ill, ss. The church 
is the body of the Lord, Strom, vii. 14, p. 885 ; comp. p. 899, 900 (765 
Sylb.). Though Clement asserts that only the true Gnostics (oi ev rg 
imaTTjjxxi) form the church, yet he does not so much contrast with them 
those who have only faith, as the heretics who have only opinions (olrjaig), 
and the heathen who live in total ignorance (dyvoia), Strom, vii. 16, p. 804, 
(760 Sylb.). Origen also, though, generally speaking, he judges mildly of 
heretical or sectarian opinions (Contra Cels. iii. § 10-13), knows of no salva- 
tion out of the church, Hom. iii. in Josuam (0pp. ii. p. 404) : Nemo semet- 
ipsum decipiat, extra banc domum, i. e. extra ecclesiam nemo salvetur, and 
Selecta in lob. ibid. iii. p. 501, 502. Yet with him every thing turns upon 
a living union with Christ : Christus est lux vera .... ex cujus lumine 
illuminata ecclesia etiam ipsa lux mundi efficitur, illuminans eos qui in tenebris 
sunt : sicut et ipse Christus contestatur discipulis suis, diccns : Vos estis lux 
mundi ; ex quo ostenditur, quia Christus quidem lux est Apostolorum, Apostoli 
vero lux mundi. Ipsi enim sunt non habentes macularn vel rugam out aliquid 
hujuscemodi vera ecclesia (Hom. i in Gen. 0pp. i.p. 54). Consequently, a dis- 
tinction between the true and the false church ! As to the views of Tertul- 
lian, we must make a distinction between those which he held prior, and those 
which he entertained subsequent to his conversion to Montaiiism. Comp. TVeoj;- 
der, Antign.>p. 264, ss. The principal passages relative to his early opinions 
are: De Prescript, c. 21, ss. 32, 35; De Bapt. c. 8; De Orat. c. 2, where 
the above figures about the ark of Noah, and the mother, are carried out at 
length (see Munscher, ed. by von Colin, i. p. 70). So, too, Cyprian, Ep. 4, 
p. 9 : Neque enim vivere foris possunt, cum domus D6i una sit, et nemini 
Balils esse, nisi in ecclesia possit. He, too, adduces a profusion of similar im- 
ages. Comp. note 3. 

" The common opinion, that the proposition : quod eztra ecclesia nulla aalus, or : .de eccleeia, 
extra quam nemo potest esse salvus, was for the first time laid down iy Augustine, in 
the fourth century, in the Donatist controversy, is irtcorreci. It was only the necessary 
consequence and application of earlier principles, and was distinctly implied in the form 
which the doctrine of the chv/rch had asswmed since the time of Irenceus. Hence we find 
in the writings of the latter many allusions to it, though he does not make me of this formula 
of terror." Marheineke (in Daub und Creuzera Studien, iii. p. 187). 

° On the unity of the church, see Clem. Al. Paed. i. 4, p. 103 ; c. 6, p. 
123 : ''Q. Oavfiarog fivcriKov- slg filv b tuv oXuv TraTrip- elg 6e Ka\ b tuv 
oXuv /loyof Kal to nvevna t6 aywv iv Kal rb avrb navraxov- jiia 6s iJ,6vr] 
ylvsTac fi'^TTip napOevog k. t. X. Strom, i. 18, p. 375, vii. .6, p. 848, and 
other passsages. Concerning the opinion of Tertull. comp. the passages 
before cited. Cyprian wrote a separate work on the doctrine of the unity 
of the church about the year 251 : De TJnitate Ecclesise, with which, how- 
ever, several of his extant letters (see note 4) should be compared. He adds 
some new images to those used by TertuUian, as illustrative of this unity : 
the sun which breaks into many rays; the tree with its many branches, and 
tlie one power in the tough root; the orae source which gives rise to many 
brooks : Avelle radium solis a corpore, divisionem lucis unitas non capit : ab 

196 First Period. Church, and its Means of Grace, 

arbore frange raraum, fractus germinare non poterit ;' a fonte prseoide rivum, 
priBcisus arescet. Sic ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios 
sues porrigit, etc. He also carries out at great length the image of the one 
mother: lUius foetu nascimur, illius lacte nutrimur, spiritu ejus animamnr. 
He who has not the church for his mother, has no longer God for his father 
(De Unit. Eccles. 5, 6). After the analogy of the Old Test, faithlessness 
toward the church is compared to adultery. The Trinity itself is an image 
of the unity of the church (comp. Clement, 1. c.) ; also the coat of Christ 
which could not be rent, the passover which must be eaten in one house ; the 
one dove in Solomon's Song ; the house of Eahab which was alone preserved, 
etc. Quite in consistence with such notions, but harshly, he maintains, that 
martyrdom out of the church, so far from being meritorious, is rather an 
aggravation of sin: Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est.... 
Occidi talis potest, coronari non potest, etc. Comp. Rettb. 241, ss., p. 355, 
ss., p. 867, ss. Huther, p. 52-59. (Comp. the passages quoted by Mm- 
■icher, 1. c. p. TO, ss.) • 

* If the genuineness of the epistles of Ignatius (even of the shorter recen- 
sion) were fully established, they would prove beyond all dispute that s ibmis- 
sion to the bishops was considered as a doctrine of the church at \ very 
early period. Comp. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. 8 : IldvTsg tw kmaKonu diwXovOeiTe, 
(bg 'Irjaovg Xpiarbg tw TTarpi, etc., ad Polyc. c. 6 : Ti5 emaKoiro) Trpoa&x^Te, 
iva KoX b Qebg vfuv ; ad Eph. c. 4 ; [IlpETTEi vfiiv avvrpixeiv rij roii kmaico- 
TTOV yvufiy, onep Kal noisiTS. Td yap d^iovofiaorov vfiiov TrpeoPvTepiov, 
Tov deov a^iov, ovrug avvrjpfioaTac rw imaKOTTU, ihg %op(5aJ Kiddpa.'] ad 
Magn. c. 6 ; ad Philad. c. 7 ; ad Trail, c. 2 : ['AvayKaiov ovv edriv . . .avev 
TOV emoKonov fiTjdev Trpdaasiv ip,dg, dXX' vnoTdaaaaOe Kal tS> -npeofivTE- 
p/w.J Comp. Rathe, p. 445, ss., and Bunsen, p. 93. Iren. iii. 14, iv. 26, 
(43), V. 20. On the succession of the bishops : iii. 3 (primacy of the Eomish 
church) ; comp. with it Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), i. 204. [Gieseler, 
i. 150, note 10; Kuhn (R. C.) in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, p. 205.] 
Though Tertullian at first appeared willing, De Prsescr. c. 32, to concede to 
the church of Rome the precedence over other churches, yet, after his con- 
version to Montanism, he corabatted the pretensions of the Romish bishops, 
De Pud. 21 ; he there alludes particularly to the words of Christ addressed 
to Peter : dabo tibi claves ecclesise — and maintains that the word tihi refers 
to Peter alone, and not to the bishops. He supposed that the spiritually- 
minded (jTvev^iaTCKOi) were the successors of Peter, and distinguished be- 
tween the ecclesia spiritus per spiritales homines (in which the Trinity 
dwells), and that ecclesia, which is composed of the sum total of the bishops 
(numerus episcoporum). On this ground (but not in the purely apostolic 
sense) he defended the idea of a spiritual priesthood. Neander, Antignosti- 
cus, p. 258-59, and p. 2'72. On the contrary, Cyprian conceives that the 
true priestly dignity is expressed in the episcopal power itself (not indeed in 
that of the Romish bishops exclusively, but in that of all the bishops collect- 
ively, which he views in its solidarity, as if it were one man), and thinks 
that the unity of the church is represented by the successors of the apostles; 
so that he who is not with the bishops, is not with the church. Comp. 
eepecially the following epistles : 46, 62, 55, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 76 (c. 2), 

§ 72. Baptism. 197 

Bee HulJier, p. 69, ss. Rettherg, p. 367, ss. Gess, p. 150, ss Neander, ' 
Church Hist., i. 214 (Torrey's transl). Here, however, the Alexandrian 
school takes a different and contrasted view. According to Origen (Com- 
ment, in Matth. xii. 10), all true behevers are also mrpoi, of whom holds 
good the word spoken to Peter. Comp. De Orat. c. 28, and Neander, Hist. 
Dog. (Ryland), p. 224. 

' Wherever the term sKKX-qaia occurs in the Clementine Homilies (Horn, 
iii. 60, 65, 67, p. 653, ss. ; vii. 8, p. 680 ; Credner, iii. p. 308 ; Baur, p. 373), 
it is to be understood in a limited sense. They do not rise to the idea of a 
catholic church, although they indicate the tendency to a strict, hierarchical 
church constitution ; comp. Schliemann, u. s. page 4, 247, sq. Concerning 
the Ebionites, Epiphanius observes, Haer. 30, 18, p. 142 : Siivaywy^v de 
ovTOi KaXovai t7jv kavruv enKXriaiav koX ovx), iKKXrjCTiav. CoTnp. Credner, 
ii. p. 236. The Ebionitic tendency converted the idea of a church into that 
of a Jewish synagogue sect, the Gnostics refined it into an idealistic world 
of seons {Baur, p. 172) ; there a body without life, here a phantom without 
body. For the views of the Montanists concerning the church (vera, pudica, 
sancta, virgo : Tertull. de pudic. 1), which, as a spiritual church, is com- 
posed of homines pneumatici, see Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 47, ss. 229, ss. 
The Montanists made no more distinction between the visible and invisible 
church than did the catholic church ; but they prepared the way for it. 
See Schwegler, p. 232. 



Voss, G. J., De Baptismo, disputt. xx. 0pp. Amstel. 1701, fol. T. vi. Matthies, C. St., 
Baptismatis Kxpositio biblica, historica, dogmatica. Berol. 1831. Walch, J. G., Ilis- 
toria Paido-baptismi 4 priorum sseoul. Jen. 1739, 4. (Misc. Saor. Amstel. 1744, 4.) 
[Robinson, the History of Baptism, Lond. 1790. Bailey, S., The Sacraments. P. 1. 
Baptism. Lond. 1844.] J. W. F. Eofiing, Das Sacrament der Taufe, nebst anderen 
damit zusammenhangendeu Aoten der Initiation, 2 Bde. Erl. 1846. [Edward Beecher, 
Baptism with reference to its Import and Modes, New York, 1849. Bunsen's Hippo- 
lytiis, vol. iii. Wall, W., Hist, of Infant Baptism, 2 vols. 1705, 2 vols. 1S62. Leopold 
on Tertullian's views on Infant Baptism in the Zeitschrift £ d. Hist. Theol. 1854, p. 
172. On Origen on Infant Baptism, see Journal of Sacr.Lit. 1853; Christian Review 
. (Chase), 1854. E. B. Fnsey, in Tracts for the Times, No. 67, 3d ed. 1840. Chrono- 
logical Catena on Baptism, Lond. 1852. W. Goode, Effects of Infant Baptism, 1851. 
E. J. Wiiberforce, Doctrine of Holy Baptism, 1851. J. B. Mozley, Primitive Doctrine 
of Baptismal Regeneration, Lond. 1856. J. Gibson, Testimony of Script, and Fathers 
of first five centuries to Nature and Effects of Baptisih, Lond. 1854.] 

The doctrine of baptism stands in intimate connection with the 
doctrine of the church. From the founding of Christianity great 
efficacy was attached to baptism in relation -to the forgiveness of 
sins and to regeneration.' Some of the fathers, especially IrencBus, 
Tertullian, and Cyprian, in treating of this subject, as well as of 
the doctrine of the church, often indulged in exaggerated, fanciful, 

198 First Period. Church \nd its Means of Grace. 

and absurd allegories, and symbolisms,' while Origen draws a more 
distinct line between the external sign and the thing signified.' In- 
fant baptism had not come into general use before the time of TertuU 
lian • !ind this fiithcr, the most strenuous advocate of the doctrine of 
original sin, nevertheless opposed psedo-baptisin, on the ground that 
the age of innocence does not need cleansing from sin.* Origen^ on the 
contrary, is in favor of infant baptism.' In the time of Cyprian it 
became more general in the African church, so that the African bishop 
Fidus, appealed to the analogy of circumcision under the Old Test, 
dispensation, and proposed to delay the performance of the ceremony 
of baptism to the eighth day, which, however, Cyprian did not allow." 
The baptism of newly converted persons was still frequently deferred 
till the approach of death (Baptismus Olinicorum).'' — Dming this 
period a question arose, intimately connected with the doctrine of 
the nature of the church, viz., whether the baptism of heretics was 
to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the 
Catholic church was to be rebaptized ? In opposition to the usage 
of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, 
the principle was established in the Eomish church under Steplien, 
that the rite of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and 
its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church (i. e., the 
Eomish church).* Baptism was entirely rejected by some Gnostic 
sects, while it was held in high esteem by the Marcionites and 
Valentinus. But the mode of baptism which they adopted was 
altogether different from that of the Catholic church, and founded 
upon quite another principle.' The idea of a baptism of blood 
originated with martyrdom, and found, response in the sympathies 
of the age." 

' Concerning the baptism of Christ and of the Apostles, comp. the works 
on Biblical Theology, and in reference to the mode of baptism (immersion, 
ibrinula, etc.), see the works on Archseology. Augusti, vol. vii. As to the 
words used at baptism, baptism in the name of Christ alone seems to bo more 
ancient than in the name of the three persons of the Trinity ; comp. Hojiing, 
p. 35,sq. On the terms: pdTrTi(yjj.a, [ianTiaiJ,6g, XovTpov,(po)7iafi6g,(j(j)payL^, 
and others, comp. the Lexicons. Respecting baptism as it was practiced pre- 
vious to the appearance of Christ, see Schneckenburger, tiber das Alter der 
jlldischen Proselytentaufe und deren Zusammenhang mit dem johanneischen 
tind chvistlichen Ritiis, Berlin, 1828, where the literature is given, [and Ilal- 
ley, R., Lect. on the Sacraments, P. i. Baptism, p. 111-161]. Like the Apos- 
tles, the first teachers of the church regarded baptism, not as a mere ritual 
act, but as having its objective results. "Baptism was to them not merely a 
significant symbol, representing to the senses the internal consecration and 
renewal of the soul, but an efficacious medium for really conveying to be-- 
lievers the blessings of the gospel, and especially the benefits of the sacrificial 
death of Christ." Semisch, Justin d. Mart. ii. 426. 

§ 72. Baptism. 1D9 

* On the magical influence which the Clementine Homilies ascribe to 
water, in connection with the notions widely spread in the East, comp. e. y., 
Horn. ix. and x. ; see Baur, Gnos. p. 372. Credner, 1. c. ii. p. ^SC, and iii. 
p. .S03. Concerning the Ebionites, it is said by Epiph., Indicul. ii. p. 53 : Tc 
j)dwp avrl Oeov 'ix^vai, comp. Hser. 30. Together with the symbolism of tha 
cross, we find in the writings of the apostolical fathere a symbolical interpre 
tation of water: Barn. 11. Ilermas, Pastor, Vis. iii. 3; Mand. iv. 8 ; Simil. 
ix. 6. Justin M. (Apol. i. 61) contrasts regeneration by the baptismal water 
with natural birth tf vypa^ anopag. By the latter Ave are rhiva dvdyn.rjg, 
dyvolag ; by the former reuva irpoaipiaeug nal emcrrifirjg, dcpiasug te 
dfj.ap~iu)v ; hence the Xovrpov is also called ((xoTiafiog. Comp. Dial. c. Tr. 
c. 13 and 14, where the contrast between baptism and Jewish lustrations is 
urged. Theoph. Ad. Aut. ii. 16, applies the blessing God pronounced on the 
fifth day of the work of creation npon the creatures which the waters brought 
forth, to the water used in baptism. Clement of Alexandria, Pajd. i. 6, p. 1 13, 
connects the baptism of Christians with the baptism of Jesus. He became 
TeXeiog only by it. And so it is with us : 'BaTmi^onevoL (l>VTi^np,eda, (pcorii^d- 
usvoi vloTTOiovfJ-sda, vlovoLovjJiEVoi reXELOvjXEOa, TEXeiovp,evoi dnaOavari^o- 
ueda. Baptism is a ^apiUjUo. Comp. also p. 116, 117, where the baptized, 
in allusion to the cleansing power of water, are called divXil^ofiKvoi (filtered). 
On account of the union between the element and the Logos, or his power 
and spirit, he also calls baptism vSup Xoyucov ; Coh. p. 79. All former lus- 
trations are abolished by baptism, being all included in it, Strom, iii. 12, p. 
548, '49. Iren. iii. 17 (19), p. 208 (224). As dough can not be made of 
dry flour without the addition of some fluid, so we, the many, can not be 
united in one body in Christ without the cement of water which comes down 
from heaven; and as the earth is quickened and rendered fruitful by dew and 
rain, so Christianity by the heavenly water, etc. Tertullian wrote a separate 
treatise on this subject, entitled De Baptismo. Though he rejects the notion 
of a merely magical and mechanical blo^tting out of sins by baptism, and 
makes the efficacy of baptism dependent on repentance (De Poenitentia, c. 6), 
yet he takes occasion, from the cosmical and physical importance of water, 
to adduce numerous analogies. Water (felix sacramentum aquae nostrse, qua 
abluti delictis pristinse csecitatis in vitam ajternam'liberamur !) is in his view 
the element in which Christians alone feel at home, as the small fishes which 
follow the great fish (IX9TS). Heretics, on the contrary', are the amphibious 
generation of vipers and snakes that can not live in wholesome water. Water 
is of great importance for the whole universe. The Spirit of God moved 
npon the face of the waters — so upon the waters of baptism. As the church 
is compared with the ark (see the previous §), so the water of baptism is con- 
trasted with the deluge, and the dove of Noah is a type of the dove — the Spirit.* 

* Concerning these manifold allegorical interpretations of fish, Ao^e, etc., comp. Munkr, 
Sinnbilder der Christen, uni Augusti in his essay: Die Kirchenthiere, in vol. xii. of hia 
work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church. But Tertullian rightly .says in reference 
to himself: Vereor, no laudes aquae potius quam baptism! rationea videar congtegasse 1 
[See also the works of Didron, Piper, Twining, etc., as referred to ia § 8, supra. On the 
representation of baptism in the Catacombs, see Ferret's work, ubi supra, and Dublin 
Review, Deo. 1858.] 

200 FiKsr Period. Church, and its Means of Grace. 

As power is inLerent in all water, it is indifferent what kind of water is 
used. The water of the Tiber possesses the same power as the water of 
Jordan ; still water produces the same effects as running water, De Bapt. 4 : 
Omnes aqusB de pristina originis prajrogativa sacranientum sanctificationis 
consequuntur, invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de ccelis et 
aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, ot ita sanctificatae vim sanctifi- 
candi combibunt. He also compares (o. 5) the baptismal water with the 
pool of Bethesda ; as the latter was troubled by an angel, so there is a spe- 
cial angel of baptism (angelus baptismi), who prepares the way for the Holy 
Spirit. (Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua 
emundati sub angelo Spiritui Sancto priBparamur.) — [On Tertullian, corap. 
Leopold, in Zeitscbrift f. Hist. Thcol. 85i ; and Bibl. Sacra (Andover), 1846, 
p. 680-91, 1848, p. 308, sq.] Cyprian spoke of the high importance of 
baptismal water from his own experience, de Grat. ad Donat. p. 3. He does 
not indeed maintain that water purifies as such (peccata enim purgare et 
hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat ot Spiritum S. Ep. 74, 
p. 213), but his comparisons make the impression of a magical efficacy of 
water. The devil was cast out of Pharaoh, when he and all his host were 
drowned in the Red Sea (the sea is a symbol of baptism, according to 1 Cor. 
X.) ; for the power of the devil only reaches to the margin of the water. As 
scorpions and snakes are strong on dry land, but lose their strength, and must 
vomit their poison, when thrown into water, so the unclean spirits. In short, 
whenever water is mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, the Punic symbolism 
is at once applied to it — " it is, there/ore, not at all surprising, that the rock 
in the wilderness, as well as the Samaritan woman at JacoVs well, and many 
others, are regarded as types of baptism^' Rettherg, p. 332. 

' The terra avfiPokov itself, which Origen uses Adv. Gels. iii. (0pp. i. p. 
481), and Comment, in Joh. (0pp. iv. p. 132), indicates a more or less dis- 
tinct idea of the difference between the image and the thing which it rep- 
resents. Nevertheless (ovShv fiTTOv), from the last-mentioned passage it is 
evident that he also considers baptism as something Kar' avro, viz., apxi] naX 
TTTjyrj xapiai^driov Oeliov, because it is administered in the name of the divine 
Trias. Gornp. Horn, in Luc. xxi. (0pp. i. p. 957). 

* The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage 
of the primitive church are doubtful, and prove nothing : viz. Mark x. 14 ; 
Matt, xviii. 4, 6 ; Acts ii. 38, 39, 41 ; Acts x. 48 ; 1 Cor. i. 16 ; Col. ii. 11, 
12. [Comp. m. Bcecher, Baptism, its Imports and Modes, i. 1849. Leonard 
Woods, Works, Andover, 1850, vol. iii. N. L. Rice, Baptism, its Mode, 
Subjects, etc., New York, 1856. R. Wardlaw, Scriptural Authority of Inf. 
Baptism. Ripley, in Christ. Rev. Oct. 1841. R. Hailey, on the Sacraments. 
I. Baptism, (Gong. Lect. England.) Waterland's Works, ii. l7l, sq.] Justin 
Mart. Apol. i. 15, speaks of iiaOrjTeveaOai Ik naiSuv, but this does not 
neccssarilv involve baptism; comp. Semisch, ii. 431, sq. Nor does the 
earliest definite passage in the writings of the fathers, Iren. Adv. Hser. ii. 22, 
4, p. 147 (see § 68, note 1), afford any absolute proof. It only expresses the 
beautiful idea that Jesus was Redeemer in every stage of life, and for every 
stage of life; but it does not say that he .redeemed children by the water of 
baptism, unless baptism is interpreted into the term reiiasci (comp., howevei, 

§ 72. Baptism. 201 

Thiersch, in the Zoitsohrift f. d. Luth. Theol. 1841, p. 177, and Hofling, Die 
Taufe, p. 112).* Just as little can this passage prove any thing against the 
usage. That, on the other hand, infant baptism was customary in TertuU 
lian's times, is proved by his opposition to it. De Bapt. 18. He alleges the 
following reasons against it : 1. The importance of baptism— not even earthly 
goods are intrusted to those under age ; 2. The consequent responsibility of 
the sponsors ; 3. The innocence of children (quid festinat innocens setas ad 
remissionem peocatorum ?) ; 4. The necessity of being previously instructed 
in religion (Ait quidem Dominus : nolite eos prohibere ad me venire. Veniant 
ergo dum adolesount, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant dooentur ; fiant 
Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint) ; 5. The great responsibility which 
the subject of baptism takes upon him (Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, 
magis timebunt consecutionem, quam dilati6nem). From the last-mentioned 
reason he recommends even to grown-up persons (single persons, widows, etc.) 
to delay baptism till they are either married, or have formed the firm resolution 
to live a single life. Comp. Mander, Antignosticus, p. 209, 210. [Bobinson, 
1. c. ch. xxi. p. 164, ss.] 

' The views of Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. v. (0pp. iv. p. 565), in 
Lev. Hom. viii. (0pp. i. p. 230), in Lucam (0pp. iii. p. 948), were connected 
with his notions concerning the stain in natural generation (comp. § 63, note 
4). But it is worthy of notice, that in the first of the above passages he 
calls infant baptism a rite derived from the Apostles : [Ecclesia ab apostolis 
traditionem accepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim ilii 
quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quod essent in omni- 
bus genuinse sordes peccati, quas per aquam et spiritum ablui deberent] And 
so it was held to be, in the third century, in the North African, Alexandrian, 
and Syrian-Persian church ; Mani among the Persians appealed to infant 
baptism as customary (August, c. Julian, iii. 187); comp. Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), p. 234. [On Origen's views compare Journal of Sacred 
Lit. 1853, and Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. iii.] 

° See Cypr. Ep. 59 (written in the name of 66 occidental bishops ; Ep. 64, 
edit. Fell, Oxon). Cyprian maintains that infants should be baptized as soon 
as is possible : it is, however, remarkable that his argument in favor of 
infant baptism is not founded upon the guilt of original sin, but upon the 
innocence of infants. Tertullian, on the other hand, urges this very I'eason 
in opposition to infant baptism. But Cyprian looks more at the beneficial 
effects it is designed to produce, than at the responsibility which is attached 
to it. As we do not hesitate to salute the new-born, yet innocent babe, with 
the holy kiss of peace, ^^ since we still see in him the fresh handiwork of God" 
BO we should not raise any objection to his being baptized. Comp. Bettb. p. 
881. Neander (Torrey's transl), i. 314. 

' On this custom, comp. the works on ecclesiastical history and antiqui- 
ties; Cyprian, Ep. 76 (69, Edit. Ox. p. 185), where some very thorny ques- 
tions are raised respecting sprinkling. [Munscher, 1. c. i. p. 464.] Against 
the delay : Const. Apost. vi. 15, so far as it proceeds from depreciation or levity. 

* Gieseler, in his Dogmengesch, maintains that renasci can here be understood only at 
baptism; Neander, Hist. Dog. (Ryliind), p. 230, is more reserved. 

202 FiEST Period. Church, and its Means or Grace. 

TerluUian allows even laymen, but not women, to administer the rite of bap- 
tism in cases of emergency; de Bapt. c. 17. Comp. Const. Apost. iii. c. 9-11. 

' Clement of Alexandria recognizes only that baptism as valid which is 
administered in the catholic church : T6 pdnTiafia rb alperiicbv ovk oIkbIov 
Kol yvrjOLOv v6wp, Strom, i. 19, p. 375 : so, too, Tert. De Bapt. c. 15 : TJnus 
omnino baptismus est nobis tam ex Domini evangelio, quara ex Apostoli lit- 
teris, quoniam unus Deus et unum baptisma et una ecclesia in coelis. . . . 
Hseretici autem nullum habent consortium nostras disciplinae, quos extraneos 
utique testatur ipsa ademptio cotnmunicationis. Non debeo in illis cognos- 
cere, quod mihi est praeceptum, quia non idem Deus est nobis et illis, nee 
unus Christus, i. e. idem : ideoque nee baptismus unus, quia non idem. 
Quem quum rite non habeant, sine dubion on habent. Comp. De Pud. 19 ; De 
Prosscr. 12. — The Phrygian synods of Iconium and Synnada (about the year 
235) pronounced the baptism of heretics invalid, see the letter of Firmilian, 
bishop of Cffisarea, to Cyprian (Ep. 75), Eus. vii. 7. [Manscher ed. by von 
Colin, i. p. 473.] A synod held at Carthage (about the year 200), under 
Agrippinus, had used similar language ; see Cypr. Ep. 73 (ad Jubianum, p. 
129, 130, Bal.). Cyprian adopted the custom of the Asiatic and African 
churches, and insisted that heretics should be re-baptized ; though according 
to him this was not a repetition of the act of baptism, but the true baptism ; 
comp. Ep. 71, where he uses baptizari, but not re-baptisari, in reference to 
heretics. Concerning the subsequent controversy with Stephen, comp, 
Neander, Church Hist., i. 319, sq. Retlberg, p. 156, ss. The epistles 69-7r 
of Cyprian refer to this subject. Stephen recognized baptism administered 
by heretics as valid, and merely demanded the laying on of hands as signifi- 
cant oi paenitentia (with oblique reference to Acts viii. 17). The African 
bishops, on the other hand, restricted this latter rite to those who had once 
been baptized in the catholic church, but afterwards fallen away and returned 
back again ; and they appealed to the custom observed by the heretics 
themselves in confirmation of their view. Such lapsi could, of course, not 
be re-baptized. The African usage was confirmed by the synods of Carthage 
(held in the years 265 and 256). Comp. Sententiaj Episcoporum Ixxxii. de 
baptizaiidis hasreticis, in Cypr. 0pp. p. 229 (Fell). [On the whole contro- 
versy comp. Miinscher ed. by von Colin, i. p. 472-75. Laurence, Lay 
Baptism invalid, 1712, sq. Anonymi Scriptoris de Eebaptismate liber, in 
Routh's Itoliquiaj Saorae, v. 283-328. Waterland' s Letters on Lay Baptism, 
Works, vi. 73-235. Shepherd's Hist, of Church of Rome, 1852.] 

" Theod. Fab. User. i. c. 10. On the question whether the sect of the 
Cainiant, (vipera venenatissima, Tert.), to which Quintilla of Carthage, an 
opponent of baptism, belonged, was identical with the Gnostic Cainites ; see 
Neander, Antignosticus, p. 193; Church Hist. ii. 476 ; Hist. Dogm. 229-31. 
Some of the objections to baptism were the following : it is below the dig- 
nity of the Divine to be represented by any thing earthly : Abraham was 
justified by faith alone; tlie apostles themselves were not baptized,* and 
Paul attaches little importance to the rite (1 Cor. i. 17).— That the majrrity 
of the Gnostics held baptism iu high esteem, is evident from the circumstance 

* To the remark of some : Tunc apostoloa baptismi vioem implesse, quum in navicuJa 

§ 73. The Lord's Supper. 203 

that they laid great stress on the baptism of Josus, see Baur^ Gnosis, p. 224 ; 
but they advocated it on very different grounds from those of the orthodox 
church. On the threefold baptism of the Marcionites, and further particu- 
lars, comp. the works treating on this subject : respecting the Clementin? 
Homilies, see Credner, iii. p. 308. 

" Orig. Exh. ad Mart. i. p. 292, with reference to Mark x. 38 : Luke xii. 
60. Tert. De Bapt. 16 : Est quidera nobis etiam secundum lavacrum, unum 

et jpsum, sanguinis scilicet IIos duos baptisraos de vulnere perfossi 

lateris emisit : quatenus qui in sanguinem ejus crederent, aqua lavarentur ; 
qui aqua lavissent, etiam sanguinem potarent. Hie est baptismus, qm lava- 
crum et non acceptum repraesentat, et perditum reddit. Comp. Scorp. c. 6. 
Cyprian Ep. 73, and especially De Exh. Martyr, p. 168, 69. According to 
him the baptism of blood is in comparison with the baptism of water, in 
gratia majus, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius ; it is, baptisma, in 
quo angeli baptizant, b. in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, b. post quod 
nemo jam pecoat, b. quod fidei nostras incrementa consummat, b. quod nos 
de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquai baptismo accipitur pec- 
catorum remissa, in sanguinis corona virtutum. Heretics are profited neither 
by the baptism of blood, nor by that of water, but the former is of some 
service to the catechumens who are not yet baptized. Rettherg, p. 382. 
Comp. also Acta Martyr. Perpet. et Fel. ed Oxon. p. 29, 30, and Dodwell, 
De secundo Martyrii Baptismo, in bis Diss. Cypr. XIIL* 



Schulz, D., die christL Lehre vom Abendmahl, nacQ dorc Q-rundtexte de? N. Test. Lpz. 
1824, 31 Cexegetieal and dogmatic). Works on the History df this Doctrine: *Ma/r- 
heineke, Phil.. Ss. Patrum de Preesentia Cliristi in Coena Doniini sententia tripljx, s. 
sacrae Eucharistise Historia tripartita. Heidelb. 1811, 4. Meyer, Karl, Teraucli einer 
Gescliiclite der Transsabstantiationslehre, tnit Vorrede von Dr. Paulus. Heidelb. 
1832. jDSllinger, J. J. J., die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den 3 ersten Jabrhun- 
derten. Mainz, 1826. ' *A. Ebrard, des Dogaia vom h. Abendmalil und seine 
Geschiohte. Frankf. 1845. Engelhardt, J. G. W., Bemerkungen iiber die Gesch. d. 
Lehre voin Abendmahl in den drei ersten Jahrh. in Illgen's Zeitschrift f. d. hist. 

fluctibus adspersi operti aunt, ipsum quoque Petrum per mare ingredientem satis mersum. 
TertuUian replies (De Bapt. 12) : aliud est adspergi vel intercipi violentia maris, aliud 
tingui disoiplina religionis. 

* Thoagh the parallel drawn between the baptism of blood and that of water has a 
basis in the whole symbolical tendency of the age, yet in its connection with the doctrine of 
tlie fathers it appears to be more than a mere rhetorical figure. Like the comparison 
instituted between the death of the martyrs and that of Jesus, as weU as the notions con- 
cerning penance, it rests upon the equilibrium which the writers of that period were 
desirous to maintain between the free will of man, and the influence of Divir.6 grace. 
lu the baptism of water man appears aa a passive recipient, in the baptism of blood ha 
acts with spontaneity. 

204 First Period, Church, and its Means of Grace. 

Theol 1842 *Hofiing, J. W. F., Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer in Leben 
und Cultus der Christen. Eriang. 1851. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl. Leipz. 
1851. Eiukert, L. J., Das Abendmahl, sein "Wesen und seine Gesoh. in der alten 
Kirche. Leipz. 185G. 
[Rinck, W. F., Lehrbegrifif vom heih'g. Abendmahl in den ersten Jahrh., in Zeitschrift f. 
d. hist. Theol. 1853, p. 331-334. Juliiis Miiller, article Abendmahl in Herzog'a 
Bealencyclop., of. StroM on the Zeitschrift t'. luth. Theol. '. 854. Jeremy Taylor, on 
the Real Presence. Walcrland, on the Eucharist, worlis, iv. 476-798, v. 125-292. 
Hampden's Bampton Leets. (3d ed. 1848), Lect. viiL Robert Bailey, The Sacraments, 
Part IL (Cong. Lect. 1851). Robt. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Eucharist, 1853 (of. 
Christ. Rembr. 1853. Church Review, New Haven, 1854). W. Goode, Nature of 
Christ's Presence in Euch. 2, 1856. F. B. Pusey, The Real Presence, 1853-7. PhUip 
Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Lond. 1855-7 (cf. Christ. Rembr. Jan. 1858). 
Turton (Bp.) on the Eucharist, and Wiseman's reply (rep. in his Essays), 1854. 

The Christian church attached, from the beginning, a high and 
mysterious import' to the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper, 
as the symbols ^of the body and blood of Christ (Eucharist),' 
to be received by the church with thanksgiving. It was not 
the tendency of the age to analyze the symbolical in a critical 
and philosophical manner, and to draw metaphysical distinctions 
between its constituent parts — viz., the outward sign on the one 
hand, and the thing represented by it on the other. On the con- 
trary, the real and the symbolical were so blended, that thft symbol 
did not supplant the fact, nor did the fact dislodge the symbol.' 
Thus it happens that in the writings of the fathers of this period we 
meet with passages which speak distinctly of signs, and at the same 
time with others which speak openly of a real participation in the 
body and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some lead- 
ing tendencies.' Ignatius, as well as Justin and Irenceus,* laid great 
stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos 
and the elements ; though this union was sometimes misunderstood, 
in a superstitious sense, , or perverted, iu the hope of producing 
magical effects." TertuUian and Cyprian, though somewhat favor- 
able to the supernatural, are, nevertheless, representatives of the 
symbolical interpretation." The Alexandrian school, too, espoused 
the latter view, though the language of Clement on this subject 
(intermingling an ideal mysticism) is less definite than that of 
Origen.'' In the apostolical fathers, and, with more definite refer- 
ence to the Lord's Supper, in the writings of Justin and Irenceus, 
the idea of a sacrifice already occurs ; by which, however, they did 
not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice of Christ (in 
the sense of the Komish church), but a thank-offering to be pre- 
sented by Christians themselves." This idea, which may have had 
its origin in the custom of offering oblations, was brought into con- 
nection with the service for the commemmoration of the dead, and 
thus imperceptibly prepared the way for the later doctrine of 
masses for the deceased.' It further led to the notion of a sacrifice 

§ 73. The Lord's Supper. 205 

whicli is repeated by the priest (but only symbolically), an idea 
first found in Cyprian." It is not quite certain, but probable, that 
the Ebionites celebrated the Lord's Supper as a commemorative 
feast ; the mystical meals of some Gnostics, on the contrary, bear 
but little resemblance to the Lord's Supper." 

' " That the hody and hlood of Christ were given and received in the Lord's 
Supper, was from the heginning the general faith, and this, too, at a time when 
written documents were not yet extant or not widely diffused. And this faith 
remained in subsequent times ; the Christian church has never had any other ; 
no one opposed this in the ancient church, not even the arch-heretics." Ruchert^ 
Abendmahl, p. 297. 

* Respecting the terms Evxapiaria, avva^ig, evXoyia, see Suicer, and the 
lexicons. With the exception of the Hydroparastates (Aquarii, Epiph. Hser. 
46, 2), all Christians, in accordance with the original institution, used wine 
and bread ; the wine was mixed with water (Kpafia), and dogmatical signifi- 
cancy was attributed to the mingling of these two elements (Justin M., Apol. 
i. 65 ; Iren. v. 2, 3 ; Cypr. Epist. 63). The Artotyrites are said to have used 
cheese along with bread (Epiph, Hser. 49, 2). Comp. the Acts of Perpetua 
and Felicitas, in Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 122. Olshausen, Monumenta, p. 
101 : Et clamavit me (Christus) et de caseo, quod mulgebat, dedit mihi quasi 
bucceilam,.et ego accepi junctis manibus et manducavi, et universi circum- 
stantes dixerunt Amen. Et ad sonum vocis experrecta sura, commanducans 
adhuc dulcis nescio quid. Conoerning the celebration of the Lord's Supper 
in the age of the Antonines, and the custom of administering it to the sick, 
etc., see Justin M. Apol. i. 65 : [Jlpoff^epsrai tw TrpoEffrwTt rcjv d6eXipCJv 
dpTog, Kcu TTorriptov vdarog KCbl Kpajxavog' kclI ovTog Xafiwv, alvov kclI do^av 
Tu Jlarpl T(3v dXuv 6ia tov dvoiiarog rov T'tov Kal tov Tlvevfiarog tov 
'Ayiov dvanep-TTei, Kal evxapiariav virep rov icaTTj^iioaOai tovtuv nap' 
avTov ^7tI noXv TTOieiTai .... evxetpiOTTjaavTog 6e rov TTpoea-ioTog, Kal 
iTTev<j)7]nri(TavTog navrbg tov Xaov, ol KaXov^evoi Trap' inuv 6 laKOV o l 
6 iSoaa IV tKdaT(^ tuv napovr (ov jxeraXaP elv a-Fb rov 
eii;^;op£(TT7/Sex'T0f aprov Kal otvov Kal vdarog, Kal roTg 
ov napovaiv dno^ipovoi. 66. Kal ij rporprj avrTj KaXeirai Trap' tjjuv 

Ev;^;ap^(TT^a iVeamcfer, Hist, of the Ch. transl. i. 332.] On the 

liturgical part of this ordinance in general, see Augusti, vol. viii. On the 
communion of children, Neander, Hist. Dogm. 242. 

' " It is only in consequence of the more abstract tendency of the West and 
of modern times that so many different significations are assigned to what 
the early eastern church understood by the phrase rovro sari. If we would 
fully enter into its original meaning, we ought not to separate these pos- 
sible significations. To say that the words in question denote transubstantia- 
tion, is ioo definite and too much said ; to ir terpret them by the phrase, cum 
et sub specie, is too artificial, it says too little ; the rendering : this signi- 
fies, says too little, and is too jejune. In the view of the writers of the 
gospels (and after them of the earliest fathers^ the bread in the Lord's 
SrppER WAS THE BoDT OF Christ. But if they had been asked whether the 
bread was changed J they would have replied in the negative ; if they had 

206 First Period. Church, and its Means of Grace. 

been told that the communicants partook of the body with and under the 
form of the bread, they would not have understood it; if it had been as- 
serted that then the bread only signifies the body, they would not have been 
satisfied." Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1st edit. vol. ii. p. 437. Comp. Haumgarten- 
Crusius, ii. p. 1211, ss., and 1185, ss. It is also noteworthy, tliat in this 
period t.hoie is not as yet any proper dogma about the Lord's Supper- 
"There had not been any controversy ; no council had spoken;'' Ettckert, 
s. 8. Yet the germs of later opinions were certainly there. 

* Ignat. ad Rom. 7 : "Aprov Qeov diXo), a. t. X. ; this is incorrectly re- 
ferred to the Lord's Supper ; it can only be understood of that internal and 
vital union with Christ, after which the Martyr longed ; comp. Ruchert, p. 
302. But here is pertinent, ad Smyrn. 1, where Ignatius objects to the Do- 
cetce : Ev;\;ap£(7Ttaf Ka\ Trpoaevx'rj^ aTTexovrai 6ia rb firj hjioXoyuv ttjv 
evxapiariav adpKa elvai tov auirripog tjij,Cjv 'Irjdov 'Kpiaroii, rijv virlp 
ajxapTMV r]fiQiv Tradovaav, J]v rfj ;t;p7;(TT6r7;r< 6 Trarfjp j^ysipev (comp. ad. 
Trail. 8. ad Philad. 5. ad Rom. 5). Some understand the word elvai itself as 
symbolical. Comp. Munscher ed. by Colin., i. p. 495, and, on the other side, 
JEbrard, 1. c. 254 : and Engelhardt, in Illgen's Hist. Theol. Zeitschrift. "/^r- 
»o<iW teaches that flesh and blood are present in the Lord's Supper; but he 
does not teach how they came to be there, nor in what relation they stand to 
the bread and the wine ;" Ruckert, p. 303. Justin, Apol. i. 66, first makes a 
strict distinction between the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper and 
common bread and wine : Ov yap ug icoivbv aprov, ov8e Koivov Trofia ravra 
XafiPdvofiev, dXX' ov rpoirov dia Xoyov Qeov aapaonoLrjdelg 'Irjaovg Xpiarbg 
6 awTTjp rjfiuv Kal adpica aljia vnip aurrjpiag rjfiuv eax^v, ovrcoc Kal 
TTjv Si evx^j^ Xoyov rov Trap' avrov evxapccTTjdeiaav Tpocp'^v, tf ^g alfia Kal 
adpaeg Kara p-eraPoXriv rpi(f>ovrai rjixuv, ekuvov rov aapKOTroirjdevrog 
'Irjaov Kal adpKa Kal alfia idtSdxOrjiiEV elvai. He does not speak of a change 
of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, see Ebrard, p. 257 
(against Engelhardt). In Ebrard's view, the phrase Kara p.erafioX'^v is the 
opposite of Kara Krlaiv, and denotes that natural food is accompanied by that 
provided by our Saviour for our new life, comp., also, Semisch, ii. p. 439, ss., 
and Riiclcert, p. 401. The passage is obscure, and it is remarkable that all 
the three (later) confessions, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Re- 
formed, find their doctrine expressed in Justin, while his doctrine is fully ex- 
pressed by none of them. " That he teaches a change is not to be denied, but 
yet only a change into fiesh that belongs to Christ, not into the flesh born of 
Mary ; there is not to be found in him a word about what the church after- 
viiird added to the doctrine ;" Ruckert, p. 401. Irenmus, iv. 18 (33), p. 250 
(324, Grabe) also thinks that the change cons-sts in this, that common bread 
becomes bread of a higher order, the earthly heavenly; but it does not, 
therefore, cease to be broad. He draws a parallel between this change and 
the transformation of the mortal body into the immortal, p. 251 : 'fif yap 
dnb yrjg dprog npoaXafifSavonevog rrjv eKKXrjaiv [eTrf'/cAjjatv] rov Qeoij 
nvKETi KOivbg aprog iarlv, dXX' £i);^;a;pt(TT/a, ek 6vo npayfidruv avvEarrjKvla, 
i-iyeiov re Kal ovpaviov, ovrwg Kal rd aufiara rjfioiv fieraXatiPdvovra rrjg 
tix'^P'^orlag firjKEri elvai (j)daprd, rrjv kX-nida rrjg elg aluvag dvaordaeug 
ixovra. Comp. v. 2, p. 293, '4 (396, '97), and Massueti Diss. iii. art. 7, p. 

§ 73. The Lord's Supper. 207 

114. Irenseus also defends the real presence of the body of C'ifist in the 
Lord's Supper in opposition to the Docetse and Gnostics, iv. 18, § 4 : Qaomodo 
constabit ois, cum panem, in quo gratiae actse sint, corpus esse Domini sui et 
oalicem [esse oalicem] sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum fabricatoris raundi filium 
dicunt ? Comp. the Greek passage from Joh. Dam. Parall. : Uchg ttjv adpKa 
Xeyovaiv eli; (pdopav ^wpsti' Koi fj,?] iierixeiv Trig ^'^V^t ■'''5^ <^'t^ '''o^ ailifiarog 
rov Kvpiov Kol ~ov a'iiiaTog avrov Tps(j)OiiEvrjv; fj ttjv yvdfirjv aXXa^druaav, 
Tj TO npoacptpeiv to, eiprjfiiva napaiTetaOuaav rifiuv 6e avn<po)voq rj yvufir] 
Txj evxapi-OTig,, koi tj evxapioria Pepaioi ttjv yvuixrjv. Comp. 33, § 2 
{MiXnscher, von Colin, i. p. 496). But the reason which he urges in favor of 
his views, viz., that the Gnostics can not partake of the bread and wine with 
thanksgiving because they despise matter, shows that he regarded the ele- 
ments as more than merely accidental things, though they are not merely 
bread and wine. Comp. Thiersch, die Lehre des Irenasus von der Eucharistie, 
in Rudelbach and Guerickes Zeitschrift, 1841, p. 40, ss. ; in reply, Ebrard, 
p. 261. 

' The fear of spilling any part of the wine {Tert. De Corona Mil. 3 : Calicis 
aut panis nostri aliquid deouti in terram anxie patimur, and Orig. in Exod. 
Horn. xiii. 3), may have originated in a profound feeling of propriety, but it 
degenerated into superstitious dread. Thus, too, the fair faith in an inher- 
ent vital power in the elements (ipdpp,aKov ddavaaiag, avTiSoTOv tov [if] 
amOavelv) was gradually converted into the belief of miraculous cures being 
effected by them, which easily made the transition to gross superstition. The 
practice of administering the Lord's Supper to children may also be ascribed 
to the expectation of magical effects. Comp. the anecdotes of Cyprian, De 
Lapsis, p. 132. Rettberg, p. 337. — The separation of the Lord's Supper from 
the agapas, which had become necessary, the custom of preserving the bread, 
the cofnmunion of the sick, etc., furthered such views. 

° It is remarkable that Tertullian, whose views, generally speaking, are 
so realistic, shows in this instance a leaning toward the sober symbolical in- 
terpretation according to which the Lord's Supper \i figura corporis Christi, 
Adv. Marc. i. 14 ; iv. 40. In the latter place (see the connection), he urgea 
the symbolical sense to refute Marcion : if Christ had not possessed a real 
body, it could not have been represented (vacua res, quod est phantasma, 
figuram capere non potest: — how near to saying, it is in)possible to partake 
of a phantom as such) !* This sentiment accords with what is said as to its 
significancy as a memorial in De Anima, c. 17 : vinum in sanguinis sui me- 
moriam consecravit. Nevertheless, Tertullian speaks in other places (De 
Eesurr. c. 8, De Pud. c. 9) of the participation of the Lord's Supper as an 
opimitate dominici corporis vesoi, as a-de Deo saginari ; with these expres- 
eione, comp. De Orat. 6 : Christus enim panis noster est [spoken in refei'ence 
to the daily bread in the Lord's Prayer], quia vita Christus et vita panis. 

* Respecting the manner in which Tertullian viewed the relation between the sign and 
the thing signified, comp. aa a parallel passage, De Resurr. Carnis, p. 30. Riickert, (p. 307) 
correctly remards that Tertullian here follows the usus loquendi of the New Test., and that 
any one might just as well in all simplicity speak of the body of the Lord, as of the Good 
Shepherd, and the true vine, wiUlout being obliged always to say, in the way of caution, 
that it is meant figuratively. 

208 FiKST Pekiod. Church, and its Means of Grace. 

Ego sum, inquit, panis vitse. Et paulo supra : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qu 
descendit de coelis. Turn quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur (not est) •* 
Hoc est corpus meum. Itaque petendo panem quotidianum perpetuitatem 
postularaus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore ejus. He also is not wanting 
in mystical allusions («. g., Gen. xlix. 1 1 : Lavabit in vino stolam suam, is in his 
opinion a type, etc.), and adopts the notions of his age concerning the magical 
effects of the Lord's Supper. But these do not prove that the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, or any of similar import, was known at that time, since the same 
expressions occur about the baptismal water. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, 
p. 517, and Baur, F., Tertullian's Lehre vom Abendmahl (Ttibing. Zeitschr. 
1839, part 2, p. 36, ss.) in opposition to Rudelhach, who finds (as Luther bad 
done before him) in Tertullian the Lutheran view of the point in question. 
On the other hand, CEcolampadius and Zuingle appealed to the same father 
in support of their opinions ; comp. also Hbrard, p. 289, sq., and RucJcert, p. 
305, sq., against Rudelbach, Scheibel, and Kahnis. Cyprian's doctrine of the 
Lord's Supper is set forth in the sixty-third of his epistles, where he combats 
the irregularity of those who used water instead of wine (see note 1), and 
proves the necessity of employing the latter. The phrase ostenditur, used ia 
reference to the wine as the blood of Christ, is somewhat doubtful. But the 
comparison which Cyprian makes of the water with the people is rather for 
than against the symbolical interpretation, though in other places (like Ter- 
tullian) he calls the Lord's Supper outright the body and blood of Christ, Ep. 
57, p. 117. The rhetoric, bordering on the dithyrambic, with which he speaks 
of the effects of the Lord's Supper (the blessed drunkenness of the communi- 
cants compared with the drunkenness of Noah), and the miraculous stories 
he relates, should protect him from the charge of an excessively prosaic view. 
But in connection with the doctrine of the unity of the church, he attaches 
great practical importance to the idea of a communio, which was afterward 
abandoned by the Romish church, but on which much stress was again laid 
by the Reformed church; Ep. 63, p. 154 : Quo et ipso sacramento populus 
noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta el 
commolita et commixta panem unum faciunt, sic in Christo, qui est panis. 
coelestis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus et 
adunatus. Comp. Betiberg, p. 332, ss. 

' In Clement the mystical view of the Lord's Supper preponderates, 
according to which it is heavenly meat and heavenly drink; but he looks 
for the mystical not so much in the elements (bread and wine), as in the 
spiritual union of the soul with the Logos ; and thinks that effects are pro- 
duced only upon the mind, not upon the body. Clement also considers the 
Lord's Supper as a avfifioXov, but a cvuPoXov iivarmov, Paed. ii. 2, p. 184 
(156, Sylb.); comp. Paed. 1, 6, p. 123: Tavrag fijuv olKsiag rpo(pag d 
Kvptog x°PVy^^ '^'*' adpKa dpeyei. Kal alfia iicxet, Kal ovSev elg av^aiv role; 
■KaiSioig evSer u rov napadd^ov fivcTrjpiov k. t. X. The use of the terms 
dXXrjyopelv, d7][iiovpyetv, alvtrreadai, clearly shows that he sought the mys- 
tery, not in the material elements, but in the spiritual and symbolical inter. 

* Comp., however, De Anima, 40 (above § 63, Note 6), and liiickert, p. 210-'12 (with 
reference to Dbllinger, p. 52). 

§ 73. The Lord's Buppek. 209 

prctation of the idea hidden in the elements. His interpretation of the sym- 
bols is pecnliar : the Holy Spirit is represented by the cropf, the Logos by 
the alfia, and the Lord, who unites in himself the Logos and the Spirit, by 
the mixture of the wine and the water. A distinction between the blood 
once shed on the cross, and that represented in the Lord's Supper, is found 
in P»d. ii. 2, p. 117 (151, Sylb.) : Aittov te to al/Ma tov Kvpiov t6 ^lev 
yap koTLV avTOv aapaiKOV, w r^f fdopa^ XeXvTpup,eea- rb 6e irvEviiariKhv, 
rovriaTLV (L KsxplaneOa. Kal tovt' iarl meZv rb al^a tou 'lr]aov, rffq 
Kvpiaicfjg fiETaXaPe'LV dcpdapatag- laxvg 6e tov Xoyov to nvevfia, die alfia 
aapiiog. Comp. Biihr, vom Tode Jesu, p. 80. [Bdhmays: "The mean- 
ing of Clement is, that what the blood is for the flesh and the body, its Ufa 
and power, that is the irvevim for the Logos. It is, as it were, the blood of 
the Logos. By the blood of Christ poured out upon "the cross we are ran- 
somed ; by the blood of the Logos, through the nvevfia, wcare anointed and 
sanctified"]. In what follows, the mixture of the wine and water is again 
said to be a symbol of the union of the nveviia with the spirit of man. 
Lastly, Clement also finds in the Old Tost, types of the Lord's Supper, e. g., . 
m Melchisedec, Strom, iv. 25, p. 637 (539, B. Sylb.)— Among the Anteni- 
cene falhers Origen is the only one who decide.dly opposes, as aKepawTF.pog, 
those who take the external sign for the thing itself; in the ii. Tom; 
on Matth. 0pp. iii. p. 498-500. "As common meat does not defile, but 
rather unbelief and the impurity of the heart, so the meat which is con- 
secrated by the word of God and by prayci', does not by itself (roi Idiu Aoyw) 
sanctify those who partake of it. The bread of the Lord profits only those 
who receive it with an undefilcd heart and a pure conscience." In connec- 
tion with such views Origen (as afterward Zuingle, and still more decidedly 
the'Socinians) did not attach so much importance to the actual partici])atior 
of the Lord's Supper as the other fathers: Ovtu 6s ovte ek tov fjbr] (payeiv 
Trap' avTO t6 ht] (paysiv drrb ' tov dyiaadivTog Xoyu 6eov kqu evtev^ei 
dpTOv vGTEpovfiEOa dyadoii rivog, ovts ek tov (payslv nEpiaoEvo^EV dyadSi 
Tivf t6 yap aiTiov T-fjg voTEpr^OEug rj KaKia eotI Kal to, dp,apTr]iiaTa, Ka) 
Tb aiTCOV Trjg TTEpcooEvaeog rj SiKaioavvr] ioTl Kal Ta Kadop6ufia-a, ib. p 
898 : Non enini panem ilium visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus 
suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum, in cujus myaterio fuerat panis ille 
fragendus, etc. Comp. Horn. vii. 5, in Lev. (0pp. ii. p. 225) : Agnoscite, 
quia figuras sunt, qua in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo taniquarn 
spiritales et non tamqnam carnales examinate et intelligite, quae dicuntur. 
Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, laidunt vos et non alunt. Est enim et 
in evangeliis littera. . . .quae occidit eum, qui non spiritaliter, quae dicuntur, 
adverterit. Si enira secundum litteram scquaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est : 
Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem mcum, occidit hseo 
littera. Comp. Hedepenning's Origenes, ii. p. 438, sq. On other passagi-s, 
in which Origen seems to incline to the conception of a real body (espe- 
cially Cent. Celsum, viii. 33)i, see Rtlckert, p. 348. 

' Concerning the oblations, see the woiks on ecclesiastical history, and on 
antiquities.- — The apostolical fathers speak of sacrifices, by which, however, 
we are to understand either the of the heart and life [Barn. c. 2), 
or the sacrifices of praver and alms {Clem. 6/ Home, c. 40-44), which may 


210 First Period. Church, and its Means of Grace. 

also include the gifts (dwpa) offered at the Lord's Supper ; comp. also Iffnat 
ad Ephes. 5 ; ad Trail. 1 ; ad Magn. 1. Only in the passage ad Philad. 4, 
the evxapi-<yTia is mentioned in connection with the dvaiaarfjpiov, but in 
such a manner that no argument for the later theory of sacrifice can be 
inferred from it ; see Hofling, die Lehre der apostolischen Vater vom Opfer 
im Christlichen cultus, 1841. More definite is the language of Justin M. 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. 117, who calls the Lord's Supper Qvaia and npoacpopd 
and compares it with the sacrifices under the Old Test, dispensation.* He 
connects with this the offering of prayers (evxctpiOTia), which are also 
sacrifices. But the Christians themselves make the sacrifice; there is not 
the slightest allusion to a repeated sacrifice on the part of Christ ! Comp. 
Mrard, 1. c. p. 236, ss. Irerueus, Adv. Hasr. iv. 17, 5, p. 249 (324 Gr.), 
teaches, with equal clearness, that Christ had commanded, not for the sake 
of God, but of the disciples, to offer the first fruits ; and thus, breaking the 
bread and blessing the cup with thanksgiving, he instituted — oblationem, 
quam ecclesia Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei, qui 
alimenta nobis prsestat, prirnitias suorum munerum, etc. The principal 
thing, too, is the disposition of the person who makes the offering. On the 
difficult passage, iv. 18, p. 251 (326 Gr.) : Judaei autem jam non offerunt, 
manui eilim eorum sanguine plense sunt : non enim receperent verhum, quod 
[per quod ?) offertur Deo.f Comp. Massuet, Diss. iii. in Iron. Deylingii 
Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92, ss., and Neander, Torrey's transl., i. 330,J Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), p. 238. Origen knows only the Xine sacrifice offered by 
Christ. It is fitting, however, for Christians to offer spiritual sacrifices 
(sacrificia spiritualia). Horn. xxiv. in Num et Hom. v. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 
200): Notiindum est quod quse offeruntur in holocaustum, interiora sunt; 
quod vero exterius est, Domino non offertur. Ibid. p. 210: Hie obtulit 
sacrificium landis, pro cujus actibus, pro cujus doctrina, priBceptis, verbo et 
moribus, et« disciplina laudatur et benedicitur Deus (as in Matth. 6, 16). 
Comp. Hofling. Origenis Doctrina de Sacrificiis Christianorum in examen 
vooatur. Part 1 and 2 (Erl. 1840-41), especially Part 2, p. 24, ss. Redeperi- 
ning, Origen. ii. 437, and Ruckert, p. 383. 

° Teri. De Cor. Mil. 3 : Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die 
facimus. De Exh. Cast. 11 : Pro uxore defuncta oblationis annuas reddis, 
etc., where he also uses the term sacrificium. De Monog. 10, he even 
speaks of a refrigerium, which hence accrues to the dead, comp. de Orat. 14 
(19). Hero also we might be reminded that Tertullian, as the Christians in 
general, called prayers "sacrifices" (even the whole Christian worship is 
called by Tertullian sacrificium, see Ebrard, p. 224) ; on the other hand, it 
should not be overlooked that in the above passage, De Monogamia, prayers 

* Namely, "as a thank-offering for the gifts ofTiainre, to which was then added ihanlcs- 
giving for all other divine blessings. . , . The primitive chvifch had a distinct conception of this 
connection between the Lord's Supper a/nd what might be called the natural aspect of the pass- 
over." — Baur, 1. u. p. 137. 

\ Ju3t before, it is said : Offertur Deo ex creatura ejus ; and, § 6 : per Christum i ffort 
ecel ;sia. 

J Neandor considers the reading j)«r qwd oflfert'ar as unquestionably correct. 

§ 74. Idea of the Sacrament. 211 

and sacrifices are distinctly separated. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 155. 
Hojling,^. 201-15. Huckert, SiG. 

'° Cyprian, in accordance with his hierarchical tendency, first of all tha 
fathers, gave to the idea of sacrifice such a turn, that it is no longer the con- 
gregation that brings the thank-ofi'ering, but the priest, taking the place 
of Christ, -who offered himself a sacrifice : vice Christi fungitur, id qnod 
Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ec- 
clesia Deo Patri. But even Cyprian does not go beyond the idea- of the 
sacrifice being imitated, which is very diflferent from that of its actual 
repetition. Comp. Bettherg, p. 334, and Neander, 1. c. i. p. 331. Ehrard, 
p. 249, directs attention to the obliquities in Cyprian's modes of statement. 
[Comp. Marheineke, Symbolik, iii. 420.] 

" Concerning the Ebionites, see Credner, 1. c. iii. p. 308 ; on the Ophites, 
Epiph. Hser. 37, 5. Baur, Gnosis, p. 196. 

If we compare the preceding statements with the doctrines afterward set forth in the 
confessiong of faith, we arrive at the following conclusions : 1. The Roman Catholil 
notion of trausubstantiation is as yet altogether unknown ; yet there are hints point- 
ing that way, as well as the beginnings of the theory of sacrifice. 2. The views of 
Ignatius, Justin, and Irenasus (which Ruckert calls meiabolism) can be compared with 
the Lutheran, only so far as they stand in the middle between strict transubstanlia- 
tion and the merely symbolical view, and hold fast to an objective union of the sen- 
sible with the supersensible. 3. The theologians of North Africa and Alexandria 
represent the type of doctrine in the Reformed church, in such a way that the posi- 
tive side of the Calvinistio doctrine may bo best seen in Clement, the negative view 
of Zuingle in Origen; and both the positive and the negative aspects of the Reformed 
doctrine are united in Tertullian and Cyprian. The Ebionites might then be con- 
sidered as the forerunners of the Socinians, the Gnostics of the Quakers. Tet 
caution is needed in instituting such comparisons, for no phase of history is entirely 
identical with any other, and partisan prejudices have always disturbed the historical 
point of view. 



The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper existed 
before a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been 
formed, so as to include both.' The terms,piov and sacramen- 
tum are indeed already used to designate both ;' but they are quite 
as frequently applied to other religious symbols and usages, which 
implied a high religioiis idea, and also to the more profound doc- 
trines of the church.' 

' The New Testament does not contain the idea of sacrament, as such. 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper were not instituted by Christ as two con- 
nected rites; but each in its own place and time, without a hint of a rela- 
tion of the one to the other. In the apostolical epistles, it has been thought 
that a connection of tl e two is indicated in 1 John, v. 6 : that it does not 

212 FiEST Pekiod. Church, and its IJJeans of Grace. 

refer to the two sacraments, see LuMs commeTitary on tte passage. More 
pertinent is 1 Cor. x. 4 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. ] 3). Yet still both these rites, 
being instituted by Christ, assumed special prominence, as did also theif 
relation to each other. 

" As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic 
terminology (comp. the phrases : novum Testamentum, trinitas, peccatum 
originale, satisfactio) so he is the first writer who uses the phrase sacramen- 
tum baptismatis et eucharistise. Adv. Marc. iv. 30. Comp. Baumgarten- 
Crusiui, ii. p. 1188, and the works quoted by him. The corresponding 
Greek term iivarfipiov occurs in Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Clem. Paed. i. p. 
123 (comp. Suicer, sub voce). 

' Tertullian also uses the word sacramentum in a more general sense, 
adv. Marc. v. 18, and adv. Prax. 30, where he calls the Christian religion a 
sacrament. Comp. the Indices Latinitatis Tertullianese, by Semler, p. 500, 
and by Oehler. [ITalley, 1. c. p. 9, 10.] Equally varied is the use of the 
term iwarripiov. Cyprian does not recognize au exclusive terminology on 
this point. He speaks indeed, Ep. 63, of a sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
but also of a sacrament of the Trinity (De Orat. Dom. where the Lord's 
prayer itself is called a sacrament). On the twofold sense of the Latin 
word, sometimes denoting oath, sometimes used as the translation of the 
Greek term fivar'qpiov, see Bettherg, p. 324, '25, and compare Buclceii, 
p. 316. 





{Gorrodi) kritische Gesohichte des Ohiliasmus. Zur. 1781-83, iii. 1794. Munscher, W^ 
Entwieklung der Lebre vom tausendjahrigen Reiche in den 3 ereten Jahrhunderten, 
in Henkes Magazin. vol. vi. p. 233, Ss. [Comp. the article on Millennium, in Kitto'a 
Cyclop, of Bibl. Liter., where the literatiire will be found. W. FloerJee, Die Lelire 
vom tausendjahrigen Reiche. Marb. 1859.] 

The disciples of Christ having received from their master the 
promise of his second coming (uapovffta), the first Christians looked 
upon this event as near at hand, in connection with the general 
resurrection of the dead arid the final judgment.' The book of 
Eevelation (which many ascribed to the apostle John, while others 
denied this, and even contested its canonicity)," in its 20th chajjter, 
gave currency to the idea of a millennial kingdom, together with 
that of a second resurrection, also found in the same book ;' and the 
imagination of those who dwelt fondly upon sensuous impressions, 
delineated these millennial hopes in the most glowing terms. This 
was the case not only with the Judaizing Ebionites* and Gerinihus' 
(according to the testimony of some writers), but also with several 
orthodox Fathers, such as Papias of Hierapolis, Justin, Irenoius' 
and Tcrtullian. The millennial notions of the latter were supported 
by his Montanistic views.' In Cyprian we find only an echo in a 
lower tone of the ideas of Tertullian.' The Gnostics were from 
the first unfavorable to millennarian tendencies,' which were also 
opposed by some orthodox writers, e. g., the Presbyter Caius in 
Kome, and by the theologians of the Alexandrian school, especially 

' Comp. the works on Biblical Theology. On the importance of escha- 
tology in the first period, and its necessary connection with christology, see 
Borner's i?erson Christi, i. 232, sq. ["The Chris}.iah hope in the Christ 
that was to come grew out oif faith in the Christ who had already come." 

214 First Period. Eschatologt. 

" The Christian principle celebrated its apotheosis in the eschatology. For 
the whole universe is ordered in reference to Christ. What is not a part of 
the eternal kingdom, must at the end of all things be entirely rejected, 
become powerless and worthless."] The distinction between the second 
coming of Christ and the first, was founded on the New Test. Justin M. 
Apol. i. 52 : Avo yap avrov napovaia^ Trpoeii^pv^av oi Trpo4>rJTaf fxtav fiiv 
r}jv rjdrj yevofisvriv, dig drifiov koI TTa97]-ov dvOpunrovi, ttjv de devrepav, 
orav |ti£ra do^rjg ef ovpavCyv ftETO, Trig d.yyeXi,KTJg avrov arpariag •napa- 
yev-^aeadai iceicrjpvKTai, ore koI to. acofzaTa aveyepel navruv tCjv yevo- 
fxevuv dvOpuiruv k. t. X. Cf. Dial. c. Tr. 45. Iren. i. 10 (he makes a dis- 
tinction between sXevaig and napovala), iv. 22, 2. 

^ See above § 31, note 7, esp. Euseb. vii. 25, and the introductions to the 
commentaries on the book of Revelation ; Lucke \_Stuart, i. p. 283, ss.J 
According to the latest criticism, the author of the Apocalypse was indeed 
the real John ; but, because entangled in the Ebionitish and Jewish modes 
of thought, he cannot be the same with John the Evangelist ; compare Baur 
(in Zeller's Theol. Jahrb. 1844), and Schwegler's Nachapost. Zoitalter, p. 66, 
sq. In opposition to them, Ebrard endeavors to harmonize the standpoint 
of the Apocalypse with that of the Gospel ; see his Evangel. Johannes und 
die neueste Hypothese tiber seine Entstehung (Zurich, 1845), p. 137, sq. — 
We can not regard the acts in this controversy as definitely closed. 

" Comp. the commentaries on this chapter \_Stuart, ii. p. 469, ss., 474]. 
From JustMs larger Apology, c. 52, it has been inferred that, though a mil- 
lennarian, he hold to only one resurrection (ra aufiara dvepyeZ ndvTUv ruv 
yevofj-EVUv dvdpuTruv) ; so Munter (alteste Dogmengesch. ii. 2, p. 269), and 
also Oieselcr, Dogmengesch. p. 241 and 247. But in the Dial. c. Tryph. c. 
81, Justin teaches a double resurrection; comp. Semisch, ii. p. 471, sq. He 
calls the first resurrection holy (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 113), but the second, the 
general. Trenceus, too (v. c. 32), and Tertullian (De Resur. Cam. c. 42, and 
De Anima, c. 58) teach a double resurrection; or (in the case of Tertull.) a 
progressive resurrection (?) ; comp. Gieseler, u. s. page 241. ["The wholly 
pure will rise at once ; those, however, who have contracted great guilt, 
inusf; make amends by staying a longer time in the under-"world, and rising 
later ;" aiid thus he interprets Matth. v. 26.] 

* Jerome, in his Comment, on Is. Ixvi. 20, observes that the Ebionites 
understand the passage, "And they shall bring all your brethren for an 
offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in 
litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts," in its literal sense, and apply 
it to chariots drawn by four horses and conveyances of every description. 
They believe that at the last day, when Christ shall reign at Jerusalem, and 
the temple be rebuilt, the Israelites will be gathered together from all the 
ends of the earth. They will have no wings to fly, but they will come in 
wagons of Gaul ; in covered chaiiots of war, and on horses of Spain and Cap- 
padocia ; their wives will be carried in litters, and ride upon mules of Numi- 
dia insitad of liorses. Those whojhold ofBces, dignitaries, and princes, will . 
■".ome in coaches from Britain, Spain, GanI, and the regions where the river 
Rhine is divided intp two arms ; the subdued nations will hasten to meet 
them. But the Clementine Homilies and. the Gnostic Ebionites, far from 

§ 75. The Second Advent of Christ. 215 

adopting such gross notions {Credner, I. c. iii. p. 289, '90), even oppose them ; 
see Schliemann, p. 251 and 519. 

' Eusob. iii. 28 (from the accounts given by Caius of Rome and Dionysius 
of Alexandria). According to Caius, Cerinthus tanght : Me™ r-^v avdara- 
oiv iniyeiov elvat to PaaiXeiov rov Xpiarov koI ndXiv t-mOvfiiai^ koI 
Tjdovalg iv 'lepovaaXrji^ rrjv adpKa noXtTEVOfj.ivrjv dovXevsiv, tliis state 
would last a thousand years : according to Dionysins, imyeiov eaeaOai rrjv 
Tov Xpia-ov PaoiXdav Kal uv avrug upiyETO (piXoaufiarog uv ical -rrdw 
aapKiicbg, iv rovroi.g dveipoiroXelv eaeadai, -yaoTpbg Kal tuv vnd yaar&pa 
nXT}aiJ,ovi7>v, TOVTeari airioig kol noTOig ical ydfioig nai 6i' uv evcftTjixurepov 
TavTa u/jdrj nopieTcdai, kopralg kol dvaiaig ical Ispeiojv a<jiajaZg. Comp. 
vii. 25, and Theodoret Fab. liar. ii. 3, and the works referred to in § 23. 
[^Burton, Bampton Lecture, vi. lect. p. 177-179, and note 76.] But thfit 
chiliasm did not come into the orthodox church through Cerinthus, is shown 
by Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 234. [This is declared by JEusebius, Hist. 
Eccl. iii. c. 28; and Tlieodoretus and others. But Eusehius (iii. 39) accuses 
Papias of having spread raillennarianism, from a misunderstanding of the 
apostles, and calls him on this very account aipodpa OfiiKphg rhv vovv. But 
Justin (Dial. p. 306), writing at the time of Papias, says that it was the 
general faith of all orthodox Christians ; and that only the Gnostics did not 
share in it. Comp. Irenseus, v. 25, 26. TertuU. c. Marc. iii. 24 ; and the 
apocryphal books of the period.] 

° "/ft all the works of this period {the first two centuries) millennarianism 
is so prominent, that we can not hesitate, to consider it as universal in an age, 
when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to 
sujfer for Christianity .■'' Gieseler, TextBook of Church Hist., New York 
ed., i. 156 ; Dogmengesch. p. 231, sq. Comp., however, the writings of 
Clement of Eomc, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophi- 
lus of Antioch, in none of which millennarian notions are propounded. On 
the millennial views of Papias, see Euseb. iii. 39 : XtAjrfcSa nvd (ptjaiv krSiv 
taeaOai fiera ttjv ek veiipGw dvaaraacv, aiOfiariKiog Trjg tov XpiOTOv fiaai- 
AEiag ETxl TavTTjal Trjg yj^f VTToaTr]aop,EV7]g. Comp. Ham. c. 15 (Ps. xc. 4), 
Hermas, lib. i. Vis. i. 3, and the observations of Jachmann, p. 86. — Justin, 
Dial. c. Tr. 80, 81, asserts, that according to his own opinion and that of the 
other orthodo?c theologians (et -ivig slacv 6pdoyvup,ovRg KaTo, ndvTa xptOTi- 
avoi), the elect will rise from the dead, and spend a thousand years in the 
city of Jerusalem, which will be restored, changed, and beautified (in support 
of his views he appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel) ; at the same time he 
admits that even orthodox Christians (r^f KaOapag Kal EvoE^ovg yvup.'qg*) 
entcrrtain different views, comp. Apol. i. 11 ; he there opposes the hope of a 
human political kingdom, but not that of a millennial reign of Christ. Justin 
holds an intermediate position between a gross, sensuous view {avfimElv 

* Various writers bave endeavored to remove the contradiction between tliese two 
views. Bossier, i. p. 104, interpolates thus: many otherwise orthodox Christians, Dallceus, 
Munscliar (Handbuch, ii. p. 420), Muntefr, Schwegler (Montan. p. 137), interpolate^ the 
word /xi} [comp. Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 52, note 19.] Semisch, in opposition to this, ii. p. 469, 
note; "Justin does not assert that aU, but that only the all-sided, the complete believe-a^ 
are chiliasts." 

216 First Peeiod. Eschatologt. 

ndXiv Kol cvfupayelv, Dial. c. Tr. § 51) on the one hand, and a spiritual 
izing idealism on the other. [Comp. Seifiisch, C, Justin. Martyr, his Life, 
Writings, and Opinions, tvansl. by J. E. Eyiand, ii. 370-376.] Irenceus, 
Adv. liter. V. 33, p. 332 (453, Gr.), defends chiliasm, especially in opposition 
to the Gnostics. He appeals, e. g., to Matth. xxvi. 29, and Is. xi. 6. — On the 
highly sensuous and fantastical description (carried out with genuine Rabbinic 
taste) of the fertility of the vine and of corn, which is said to have originated 
with Papias and the disciples of John, see Munscher, od. by von Colin, i. p. 
44. Grabe, Spic. Saec. 2, p. 31, and 230. Corrodi, ii. p. 406. [Iren. Adv. 
Hffir. V. 33 : "The days will coine in which vines will grow, each having ten 
thousand branches ; and on each branch there will be ten thousand twigs, 
and on each twig ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in each cluster ten 
thousand grapes ; and each grape, when expressed, will yield twenty-five 
jiierp^-at of wine. And when any one of the saints shall take hold of a 
cluster of grapes, another (cluster) will cry out: I am a better cluster, take 
me, and on my account give thanks to the Lord. In like manner, a grain 
of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and each head will have ten 
thousand grains ; and each grain will yield ten pounds of clear fine flour ; 
and other fruits will yield seeds and herbage in the same proportion." 
Respecting the millennarian notions propounded in the Sibylline oracles, the 
book of Enoch, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, etc., see Stuart, 
Comment, on the Apocalypse, i. p. 50, ss., 87, ss., 107, ss. Comp. also ii. p. 
488, ss.] See also Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 235. ^ Dorner tries to gi\t a 
more spiritual turn to this-chiliasm ; he does not view it as necessarily con- 
nected with Judaizing tendencies ; see his Lehre von d. Person Christi, i. 
240, sq. note. [He views it as the counterpoise to the Gnostic abstractions, 
and as containing a genuine historical element; and particularly opposes the 
views of Corrodi, which have been too implicitly followed by many German 
church historians.] On the Sibylline Oracles, the Book of Enoch (probably 
a purely Jewish product), the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, and the 
New Testament Apocrypha, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch, p. 243 [also Stuart's 
Apocalypse; Hilgenfekl, Die Judische Apocalypse, ISSS.] 

' TcriuUian's views are intimately connected with his Montanistic notions. 
His treatise, De Spe Fidelium (Hieron. de Vir. illuss. c. 18, and in Ezech. c. 
36), is indeed lost; but comp. Adv. Marc. iii. 24. Tcrtuliian, however, 
speaks not so much of sensual enjoyments as of a eopia omnium bonoruni 
spiritualium, and even opposes the too sensuous interpretations of Messianic 
passages. Do Resurr. Carn. c. 26, though many sensuous images pervade his 
own expositions, comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 499; Church Hist, in 
Torrey's transl. i. 651. On the question, how far we may implicitly rely on 
the assertion of Euseb. v. 16, that Montanus had fixed upon the city Pepuza, 
in Phrygia, as the seat of the millennial reign, and on the millennarian 
notions of the Montanists in general,«see Gieseler, Church History, § 48. 

" Respecting his doctrine of Antichrist, and his belief that the end of tho 
■world would soon come, comp.Ep. 58 (p. 120, 124), 'Ep. 61 (p. 144); Exh. 
Mart, ab init. p. 167. Tert. adv. Jud. iii. § 118 (p. 91), see Rettberg, 
p. 340, ss. 

' Ibis is evident both from the nature of Gnosticism itself, and the opp'> 

§ 76. The Eesukeection. 217 

sitioii whicli Irenmus made to it. Some have even ascribed the ovigm of 
Marcion's system to his opposition to millennarianism ; comp. however, Baur, 
Gnosis, p. 295. 

" Concerning Caius and his controversy with the Montanist Proclus, see 
Neander, Church Hist. i. p. 399. — Origm speaks in very strong terms 
against the millennarians, whose opinions he designates as ineptae fabulae, 
figmenta inania, doyftaro dronuraTa, iiox6r]pd, etc., De Princ. ii. o. 11, § 2. 
(0pp. i. p. 104) ; contra Cels. iv. 22 (0pp. i. p. 517) ; Select, in Ps. (0pp. 
Tom. ii. p. 570) ; in Cant. Cant. (0pp. T. iii. p. 28). Munscher ed. by von 
Colin, i. p. 44-46. Respecting Hippolytus, who wrote a treatise on Anti- 
christ without being a real Millennarian, comp. Photius, Cod. 202. Hmnell, 
de Hippolyto (Gott. 838, 4), p. 37, 60. Corrodi, ii. p. 401, 406, 413, 416. 



Teller, G. A., Fides Dogmatis de Eesurrectione Camia per 4 priora secula. Hal. et 
Helmst. 1166, 8. Flugge, Gh. W, Gesehiehte der Lehre vom Zustando des Men- 
schen naoh dem Tode. Lpzg. 1799, 1800, 8. \Habert Beckers, Mittheilungen aua 
den merkwurdigsten Schriften der verflossenon Jahrliunderte fiber den Zustand der 
Seele nach dem Tode. Augsb. 1835, '36. -fC Earners, des Origenes Lehre von der 
Aufersteliung des Fleisches. Trier. 1851. [Bush, Anastasis, New York, 3d ed. 
1845; comp. Bibl. Repos. 1845. Bolt. Landis, Doctrine of the Resurr., Ptila. 1848.] 

Though traces of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, 
which is set forth by the apostle Paul in such a majestic manner, 
may be found in some conceptions of greater antiquity,' yet it 
received a personal centre, and was made popular even among the 
uneducated, only after the resurrection of Christ.'' During the 
period of Apologetics this doctrine of the resurrection (of the flesh) 
was further developed on the basis of the Pauline teaching.^ The 
objections of its opponents, proceeding from a tendency limited to 
sense and the understanding, were more or less fully answered in the 
Epistle of Clement of Borne to the Corinthians, as well as in the 
writings of Justin, Athenagoras, Tlieophilus, Irenceus, Tertullian, 
Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and others.* Most of the fathers believed 
in the resuscitation of the body, and of the very same body which 
man possessed while on earth.' The theologians of the- Alexandrian 
school, however, formed an exception ; Origen, in particular,' en- 
deavored to clear the doctrine in question from its false additions-, 
by reducing it to the genuine idea of Paul ; but, i-t the same time, 
he sought to refine and to spiritualize it after the manner of the 
Alexandrian school. The Gnostics, on the other hand, rejected the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body entirely ;' while the false 
teachers of Arabia, whom Origen combatted, asserted that both soul 
and body fall into a sleep of death, from which they will not awake 
till the last day," 

218 First Period. Eschatologt. 

' Comp. Herder^ Von der Aufersteliung (Wevke Znr Eeligion und Theol- 
ogio, vol. xi.) — Miiller, O., liber die Auferstehungslehre der Parson, in the 
Studien xmd Kritiken, 18.35, 2d part, p. 477, ss. Corrodi, 1. c. p. 345. On 
the doctrine of Christ and of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv. ; 2 Cor. v.), and 
on the opponents of the doctrine in the apostolic age (Hymeneus and Phile- 
tua), see the works on Biblical Theology. [If'ries, Ueber Auferstehung in 
the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1855, p. 400, 
sq. Tracy, in Bibl. Sacra, 1845. Yeomans, in Piinceton Repert. 1845. 
D. R. Goodwin, in Bib. Sacra, 1852. John Brown, Resurr. to Life, Edinb. 

° It naturally excites surprise that, while Paul represents the resurrection 
of Christ as the central point of the whole doctrine, the fathers of the 
present period'keep this fact so much in the background ; at least it is not, 
with all of them, the foundation of their opinions concerning the resurrection 
of the body. Some, e. g., Alhenagoras, who yet devoted a whole book to 
the subject, and Minucius Felix, are entirely silent on the resurrection of 
Christ (see below) ; the others also rest their arguments ^jhiefly upon reason 
and analogies from nature (the change of day and night, seed and fruit, the 
phoenix, etc., Clement of Rome, c. 24, and Ep. 11, 9). 

'' It belongs to exegetical theology to inquire how far the New Testament 
teaches an dvdaraaig -fig aapKog, and what is the relation of the adp^ to the 
au)jj,a and to the avdaraaig rwv VEKpCJv. Comp. Zyro, Ob Fleisch oder 
Leib das Aaferstehende, in Illgen's Zeitschrift, 1849, p. 639, sq. At any 
rate, the expression resurrectio carnis soon became current, and thus it passed 
over into the so-called Apostles' Creed. 

' Clement, Ep. i. ad Coi'. c. 24-26 (comp. note 2). Justin M. adopts the 
literal interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and, in 
the form, that it will rise again with all its members, Fragm. de Resurr. c. 3 
(edited as a separate programme by Teller, 1766 ; extracts in Rossler, Bibl. 
i. 174). Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 146, ss. Even cripples will rise as such, but 
at the moment of the resurrection, be restored by Christ, and put into a more 
perfect condition; De Resurr. c. 4, and Dial. c. Tryph. c. 69. Justin founds 
his belief in the resurrection of the body chiefly upon the omnipotence, jus- 
tice, and benevolence of God, upon the miracles of Jesus in raising the dead 
while he was upon the earth, and also, in fine, upon the resurrection of 
Christ himself;* and shows, in connection with it, that the body must neces- 
Earily participate in future rewards or punishments, for body and soul neces- 
sarily constitute one whole; like two bullocks, they make one span. Alone, 
they can accomplish as little as one ox in plowing. According to Justin, 
Christianity differs from the systems of either Pythagoras or Plato, in that it 
teaches not only the immortality of the soul, but also the resurrection of the 
body. But as Justin investigated this subject more thoroughly, he was 
necessarily led to the discussion of certain questions which have generally 
been reserved for scholastic acumen, e. g., relating to the sexual relations of 
the resurrection-bodies, which he compares to mules (?) [Quest, et Resp. p. 

• On the other hand, he fails to take notice of ihe analogies from nature, which otheni 
adduce; as Semisch, p. 148, has remarked. 

§ 76. The Eesukkection. 219 

423 : Tamotsi membra genitalia post resurrectionem, ad prolificationem utilia 
lion eruut: ad i-eminiscentiam tamen ejus facient, quod per ea membra mor- 
tales acceperint generationoin, auctum, et diurnitatera. Indiicimur namque 
per ea ad cogitationem tarn prolixaj sapientias Chrisii, quae ilia (hciiiinibus 
per mortem intercedentibus attribuit, ad eorum per generationem) augendo- 
mm conservationem, ut sobolis creataj successione, genus nostrum in iramor- 
talitate (perducaret)]. — The arguments which Athenagoras adduces in hia 
treatise De Rcsurr. (especially c. 11) are partly the same which were in 
after ages urged by natural theology in support of the doctrine of immor- 
tality ; the moral nature of man, his liberty, and the retributive justice of 
God. Concerning the resurrection of the body, he has regard to the objec- 
tions which liave been made to it at all times, on the ground of the natural 
course of things (the fact that the elements of one organism may enter into 
the composition of another, etc.). He is, liowever, comforted by the idea 
that at the resurrection all things will be restored, nphg rrjv tov avrov 
ocdnarog ap\xoviav koX avaraaiv.- — Theophilus, ad Aut. i. 8, uses similar lan- 
guage. — Irenceus, Adv. Hser. v. 12 and 13, also assorts the identity of the 
future ^¥ith the present body, and appeals to the analogous revivification 
(not new creation) of separate organs of the body in some of the miraculous 
cures performed by Christ (e. ff., of the blind man, the man with the withered, 
hand). He alludes particularly to those whom Christ raised from the dead, 
the son of the widow at Nain, and Lazarus (but makes no mention of the 
body of Christ himself!).* That TertuUian, who wrote a separate work on 
tliis subject (De Resurrectione Carnis), believed in the resurrection of the 
body, is what we might expect, especially as he made no strict distinction 
between the body and the soul. In illustration, he acutely points out the 
intimate connection existing between the one and the other during- the 
present life : Nemo tam proximus tibi (animae), quem post Dominum diligas, 
nemo magis frater tuus, quae (sc. caro) tecum etiara in Deo nascitur (c. 63). 
In his opinion the flesh participates in spiritual blessings, in the means of 
grace presented to us in unction, baptism, and the Lord's Supper ; it even 
participates in martyrdom (the baptism of blood) ! The body, too, is created 
after the image of God (comp. above, § 56, note 3) ! He uses the same 
illustrations of day and night, the phoenix, etc., which we find in the writings 
of others, and maintains the identity of the future with the present body, c. 
52 : Certe non aliud rosurgit quam quod seminatur, nee aliud serainatur 
quam quod dissolvitur humi, nee aliud dissolvitur humi quam caro, cf. 6, 63. 
He endeavors to meet the objection, that certain members will be of no use 
in the future life, by saying that the members of the human body are not 
only designed for the mean service of the visible world, but also for some- 
thing higher. Even on earth the mouth serves, not only for the purpose of 
eating, but also to speak and to praise God, etc., c. 60 and 61. Minucius 
Felix makes Cseoilius bring forward the objections of the heathen to the pos- 
sibility, both of an incorporeal immortality, and of a resm'rection of the body, 
ell: Vellem tamen sciscitari, utrumne sine corpore, an cum corporibus, 

* Irenseus takes the word " flesh" in 1 Cor. xv. 50, which was often quoted against the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, to vasscaflesMy seme. 

220 First Period. Eschatologt. 

et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an innovatis, resurgatur ? Sine corporc ? hoc, 
quod sciam, nequc mens, neque atiima, nee vita est. Ipso corpora ? sed jam 
ante dilapsum est. Alio corpore 3 ergo homo novus nascitur, non prior ille 
reparatur. Et tamen tanta aetas abiit, saecula innumera fluxerunt ; quis unus 
ab inferis vol Protesilai sorte reraeavit, horarum saltern permisso commeata, 
vel ut exemplo crederemus ? — Every one expects that Octavius vcill say that 
Christ is tliis Protesilaus; but in vain! The arguments which he adduces, 
c. 34, in reply to these objections, are restricted to the omnipotence of God, 
■which created man out of nothing, and this is certainly more difficult than 
the mere restoration of his body ; to the above analogies from nature (expec- 
tandum nobis etiam corporis ver est) ; and to the necessity of retribution, 
•which the denicrs of the resurrection are anxious to escape. — The notions of 
Cyprian on this subject are formed after those of TertuUian, comp. De 
Habitu Virg. p. 100, and Rettherg, p. 345. 

' See the passages quoted in the preceding note. 

" Clement of Alexandria had intended to write a separate work Tzepl 
dvaardaeog, comp. Paed. i. 6, p. 125 (104 Sylb.) : according to Euseb. vi, 
24, and Hieron. apud Rufinura, Origen composed not only two books, but 
also (according to the latter) two dialogues (?) on this subject, comp. contra 
Cels. v. 20 (0pp. i. p. 592), De Princ. ii. 10, i. p. 100, and the fragments, 0pp. 
T. i. p. SS-SV. Clement of Alexandria, in such of his writings as are yet 
extant, only touches upon the doctrine of the resurrection without discussing 
it. The passage, Strom, iv. 5, p. 669 (479 Sylb.), where he represents the 
future deliverance of the soul from the fetters of the body as the object of 
the most ardent desire of the wise man, does not give a very favorable idea 
of his orthodoxy on this point. But his disciple Origen maintains, Comm. 
in Matt. (0pp. iii. p. 811, '12), that we may put our trust in Christ without 
believing the resurrection of the body, provided we hold fast the immortality 
of the soul. Nevertheless he defended the doctrine of the church against 
Celsus, but endeavored to divest it of every thing which might give a handle 
to scoffers : on this account he rejected the doctrine of the identity of the bodies 
(which is not that of Paul). Contra Cels. iv. 57 (0pp. i. p. 548) ; v. 18 
(ibid. p. 590) : Ovts ftev ovv rjnel^, ovre ra dela ypafiara avralg (pjjoi. cap^ 
UTjdeiiiav jisTapoXrjV dveLXrj(pviai.g rijv snl to PeXnov, ^rjaeadai rovg irdXai 
anodavovrag, dnb T^f yrjg dvadiivrag. '0 6e K.eXaog (jvKO<f>avTei fji-tag 
Tavra Xiyuv. Cap. 23, p. 594 : 'Hfielg fi&v ovv ov (pafiei' rb 6ia<pdapev 
aufia hraDipxsodaL elg rf\v i^ o.px?jg (pvoiv,' dig ovSe rbv dia^Qapevra 
KOKKov Tov airov iTravepxeaOai eig rbv kokkov tov oitov. Aeyofiev yap 
oianep inl tov kokkov tox) oitov kyeipeTai aTaxvc, ovto) Xoyog Tig 'iyKenat 
TU) auifiaTi, d(f)' ov pj] ^OeipofXEVov kyeipeTai Tb aup-a kv dcpdapaia. The 
appeal to the omnipotence of God appeared to him an aToniijfd-^Tj dva^i^- 
pijoig, p. 595, according to the principle el yap alaxpov ti Spa 6 Osbg, ova 
ioTi debg ; but the biblical dbctrine of the resurrection, if rightly interpreted, 
includes nothing that is unworthy of God, comp. viii. 49, 50 (0pp. i. p. 777, 
sq.) ; Selecta in Psalm (0pp. ii. p. 532-36), where he designates the literal 
interpretation as (pXvapla tttuxclIV vorjfidTUiv, wid proves that every body 
liiust bo ada/pted to the siiTrOunding woVld. If wo would live in water, W8 
ought to be made like iish, etc. The heavenly state also demands glorified 

§ 77. GsNEiiAL Judgment. 221 

bodies, like those of Moses and Elias. In the same place. Origen gives a, 
raore correct interpretation of Ezeeh. xxxvii; Matt. viii. 12 ; Ps. ii-i. 1, and 
other passages, which were commonly applied to the resurrection of the 
body. Corap. De Princ. ii. 10 (0pp. i. p. 100, Red. p. 223) ; Schnitzer, p. 
147, ss. On the other side : Hieron. ad Pammaoh. ep. 38 (01) ; Photius 
(according to Method.), Cod. 234. The opinion held by Origen's later fol- 
lowers, and of which he himself was accused, that the resurrection bodies 
have the shape of a sphere, is supported, as far as he is concerned, by only a 
single passage (De Oratione, 0pp. i. 268), in which, moreovei', he refers to 
other (Platonic ?) authorities ; conip. Redep. ii. 463 ; Ranters, ubi supra, 69. 

' Thus the Gnostic Apelles maintained that the work of Christ had refer- 
ence only to the soul, and rejected the resurrection of the body. Baur, 
Gnosis, p. 410. [That the Gnostics believed in the immortality of the soul, 
appears certain; but their notions concerning matter made them shrink from 
the idea of a reunion of the body with the soul, and led them to reject the 
(^octrine of the resurrection of the former. But they have unjustly been 
charged by the fathers with a denial of the resurrection in general. Comp. 
Burton, Bampton Lecture, notes 58 and 59, and Munscher, ed. by von Colin, 
i,p.51, 52.] 

' Respecting the error of the Thnetopsychites (as John Damascenus first 
calls them) about the year 248, comp. Euseb. vi. 37 : T^v dvdpuneiav ipvxrjv 
T£Wf fj-ev Kara tov ivsarura Kaiphv afMa t^ TeXevry avvanodvTjaiieiv roTg 
auiiiaai koX avv3ia(li6eipEadai, avdig de ixore Kara tov Trig dvaardaeug 
Kfupbv avv avToTg dvaPiuaeadai. 




Bawmga/rien, J. S., Historia Doetrinse de Statu Animaram separatarum, Hal. \1Si. 4. 
Ernesti, J. A., de veterutn Patr. Opinione de Statu Medio Animarum a corpora 
sejunot Bxours. in lectt. aeadem. 'ia Bp. ad Hebr. Lips. 1795. [Jac. Wirdet, 
Irpa/idTEv; ImaToliicos de Vita Funotorum Statu ex Hebrasorum et Graecorom 
comparatis Sententiis oonclnnatua, Loud. 1663, '64. Thorn. Samet, De Statu 
Mortuorum et Rosurgentium, Lond. 1757. Comp. Knapp, 1. o. p. 463, 464, and 
p. 478, and the references § 69.] 

The transactions of the general judgment, which was thought to 
be connected with the general resurrection, were depicted in various 
ways. Some ascribe the office of Judge to the Son, others to the 
Father, botli in opposition to the Hellenistic myth of the judges in 
the under- world.' The idea of a Mades (%-n«»), known to both the 
Hebrews and the Greeks, was transferred to Christianity, and the 
assumption, that the real happiness, or the final misery, of the de- 
parted did not commence till after the general judgment and the 
resurrection of the body, appeared to necessitate the belief in an 
intermediate state,, in which the soul was supposed to remain from 
tlie moment of its separation from the body to this last catastrophe." 

222 First Period. Eschatologt. 

Tertullian, however, held that the martyrs went at once to parjidise, 
the abode of the blessed, and thought that in this they enjoyed an 
advantage over other Christians ;' while Qyprian does not seem to 
know aboufany intermediate state whatever.* The Gnostics rejected 
the belief in Hades, together with that of the resurrection of the body, 
and imagined that the spiritually minded (the pneumatic) would, 
immediately after death, be delivered from the kingdom of the 
demiurge, and elevated to the ■r:Xripodpi,a^ The ancient oriental and 
Parsic idea of a purifying fire already occurs during this period in 
the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This purifying 
fire, however, is not yet transferred to this intermediate state, but is 
either taken in a very general sense, or supposed to be connected 
with the general conflagration of the world." 

^ Justin M. Apol. i. 8 : II/laTajv de h\ioLwq l^r\ ''?aSd\xavQov koI Mivu 
KoXdoEiv Tovg ddiKovg nap' avrovg iXOovrag, fnielg 6e rb avrb npayfid 
(f>ap,sv yevfiaeadai, dXX' vtto tov Xpiorov. For the further views of Justin 
ahont the general judgment, see Apol. ii. 9 ; Semisch, ii. p. 474, '75. Tatian 
contra Gr. 6 : AiKd^ovai Se r/filv ov Mivug, ovde 'PaddfiavOvg .... 
doKip-aarfig 6e avrbg b TTOiTjT^g &ebg yivsrai. Comp. c. 25. 

" Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 5, makes the souls of the pious take up a tem- 
porary abode in a better, those of the wicked in a worse place. He even 
stigmatizes as heretical (§ 80), the doctrine that souls are received into 
heaven immediately after death ; but he admits that they possess a pre- 
sentiment of their future destin}', Coh. ad Graic. c. 35 ; comp. Semisch, p. 
464, note 3. The good, even before the final divison, dwell in a happier, the 
evil in a more wretched abode ; Dial, cum Tryph. § 5. On his opinion, that, 
at the departure of the soul from the body, the former fall into the hands of 
evil angels (Dial. c. Tryph. § 105), see Semisch, ii. 465. Iren. v. 31, p. 331, 
(451, Gr.) : At '^vxcu dnepxovrat elg rbv tottov rbv upMfievov avrdlg dnb 
TOV Beov, Kaicel li^XP'- """^f civaardasug (potTS)ac, nepiiiivovaai rfjv dvdaraacv 
eneira drcoXafiovaai to. ouip-ara Kol bXanXfipug dvaardaai, TOvrkoTi auiia- 
TiKutg, icaOug koI 6 KvpLog dviarrj, ovrug iXEvaovrat elg rfjv bipiv tov Qeov 
(in connection wil,h this, the decensus Christi ad inferos, and Luke xvi. 22, 
etc.). Tertullian mentions (De Anima, 55) a treatise in which he says he 
has proved, omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini. The 
treatise itself is no longer extant ; but comp. De Anima, c. 7 (aliquid tormenti 
sive solatii anima prascerpit in carcere set; diversorio inferum, in igni, vel in 
sinu Abrahse) ; and c. 58. Tertullian rejects the notion of the sleep of the 
Soul, which is not to be confounded with the error of the Arabian false teach- 
ers ; he also opposes the opinion, founded upon 1 Sam. xxviii., that spirits 
might be conjured up from the abode of the dead, by appealing to Luke xvi. 
26 (comp. Orig. Horn. ii. in 1 Reg. 0pp. ii. p. 49O-'08). 

' Tert. De Anim. 55, De Resurr. 43 : Nemo peregrinatus a corpore statira 
immoratur penes Dominnm, nisi ex martyrii prserogativa, pavadiso scilicet, 
non inferis deversurus. — On the meaning of the different terms : inferi, sinus 
Abrahse, Paradisus, see Adv. Marc. iv. 34 ; Apol. c. 47 ; Orig. Horn. ii. in 

§ 77. General Judgment. 223 

lleg. 1. c. and Horn, in Num. 26, 4; Munscher, von Colin, i. p. 57, 58, 
Gieseler, Dograongescli. 225. [Tertullian gives the most information about 
the underworld. He describes it (De Anim. 55) as an immense space in the 
depths of the earth, divided by an impassable gulf into two parts. The part 
assigned to the righteous he calls sinus Abrahse, that of the wicked ignis, 
and sometimes infeii So, too, IlippolyfUK, in a fragment, 0pp. ed. Fabri- 
cius, i. 220. Paradise was a difl'erent place from this underworld; it is far 
• above this earth, separated from it by a glowing girdle : thither Christ went: 
and there, too, martyrs go at once ; Enoch and Elijah were also transported 
thither. Oriffen held that, before Christ, no souls, not even those of the 
prophets and patriarchs, went to Paradise; but when Jesus descended to 
Hades he transferred them into the lower Paradise (in contrast with the 
upper),,or the third heaven. The souls of pious Christians also go to this 
Paradise — which Origen identifies with the bosom of Abraham.] 

* Cypr. adv. Demetr. p. 196, and Tract, de Mortalitate, in various places; 
he expresses, e. g., his hope that those who die of pestilence, will come at 
once to Christ, p. 158, 164 (where he appeals to the example of Enoch), 166. 
Rettberg, p. 345. 

' Neander, Gnost. Systeme, p. 141, ss. [" The Gnostics taught that the 
soul of the perfect Gnostic, having risen again at baptism, and being enabled 
by perfection of knowledge to conquer the Demiurge, or principle of evil, 
would ascend, as soon as it was freed from the body, to the heavenly Pleroma, 
and dwell there for ever in the presence of the Father : while the soul of him 
who had not been allowed while on earth to arrive at such a plenitude of 
knowledge, would pass through several transmigrations, till it was sufficiently 
purified to wing its flight to the Pleroma" Jiurton, Bampton Lecture, v. 
Lect. p, 1.31.] 

° Tlie views of Clement on this subject are expressed in still more general 
terms, Pjed. iii. 9, toward the end, p. 282 (Sylb. p. 241), and Strom, vii. 6, 
p. 851 (709 Sylb.) : <bafzkv 3' rjiieli; dyid^Eiv rb nijp, ov to, Kpea, aXXa rag 
dfiapTuXoijg ^pv^dg- nvp ov to Trdfupayov nal jidvavaov, dXXa to (ppdvijiov 
XsyovTsg, TO duKvovfievov 6id ipvxijg TTJg Siepxofiivqg to nvp. From the 
whole context it appears that he speaks of the purifying eflScacy of a mysti- 
cal fire, even during the present life, perhaps in allusion to JIatth. iii. 11, 
Luke iii. 16. — Origen, on the other hand, referring to 1 Cor. iii. 12, considers 
the fire which will consume the world at the last day, as at the same time a 
Trip iiaddpatov, Contra Cels. v. 15. No one (not even Paul or Peter himself) 
can escape this fire, but it does not cause any pain to the pure (according to 
Is. xliii. 2). It is a second sacraraentum regenerationis : and as the baptism 
of blood was compared with the baptism of water (see above, § 72, note 10), 
BO Origen thought that this baptism of fire at the end of the world would be 
necessary in the case of those who have forfeited the baptism of the Spirit; 
ill the case of all others it will be a fire of test. Comp. in Exod. Horn. vi. 
4 ; in Psalm Horn. iii. 1 ; in Luc. Hom. xiv. (0pp. iii. p. 948) ; xxiv. p. 961 
in Jerem. Hom. ii. 3 ; in Ezech. Hom. i. 13 ; comp. Redepenning on p. 23a 
Guerike, De Schola Alexand. ii. p. 294, Thomasius, p, 250, 

224 FiKST Period. Eschatologt. 

In respect to the end of the world,, opinions ■wavered between annihilafiov and re-format 
tirni. Most of the fathers seem to have held to the latter vie-w, but Justin (in oppo- 
sition to the Stoic tenet) believed in a real annihilation ; ApoL i. 20 and ii. 7. Comp 
Semisch, ii. 475. 




Cotta, J. F., Historia succincta Dogmatis de Poenaram Infemalium Duratione, Tiib. 1744. 
Dietelmaier, J. A., Gommenti fanatici uTroKaTaaTuaeuf ttuvtuv Historia antiquior. 
AUorf. 1769, 8. 

Various modes of statement were used to denote the state of the 
blessed. The idea that different degrees of blessedness are propor- 
tionate to the different degrees of virtue exhibited in this life, was 
in harmony with the views of most of the fathers of this period con- 
cerning the doctrine of moral freedom ;' and was also congruous 
with the idea of further progress after the present life. Origen in 
particular developed this latter notion,' and also endeavored to avoid 
as much as possible all sensuous representations of the pleasures of 
the future world, and to place them in purely spiritual enjoyments.' 
Notions more or less gross prevailed concerning the punishment of 
the wicked, which most of the fathers regarded as eternal* From 
the very nature of the case it is evident, that purely spiritual views 
on this subject could not reasonably be expected. Even Origen 
imagined the bodies of the damned to be black.' But as he looked 
upon evil rather as the negation of good than as something positive, 
he was induced, by his idealistic tendency, to set limits even to hell, 
and to hope for a final remission of the punishment of the wicked 
at the restitution of all things, although in popular discourse he 
retained the common idea of eternal punishment.' 

' According to Justin M., the blessedness of heaven consists mainly in the 
continuation of the blessedness of the millennial reign, the only difference 
being the enjoyment of immediate intercourse with God, Apol. 1. 8. Semisch, 
ii. p. 477. Different names were given even to the intermediate states 
before the resurrection (comp. the preceding §, note 6). This was also the 
case with the abode of the blessed. Thus Irenoeus, v. 36, p. 337 (460, Gr.), 
makes a distinction between ovpavog, ■napdSeiaoq and TroAtf, and endeavors 
to prove the existence of difi"erent habitations fi'om Matth. xiii. 8, and John 
xiv. 2. Clement of Alexandria also adopted the idea of different degrees of 
blessedness. Strom, iv. 6, p. 579, '80 (488, '89, Sylb.) ; vi. 14, p. 793 (668, 
Sylb.) ; and Orig. De Princip. ii. 11 (0pp. i. p. 104). 

' According to Origen, 1. c. the blessed dwell in the aerial regions (1 
Thess. iv. 17), and take notice of what happens in the air. Immediately 
after their departure from this earth, they go first to paradise (erudifionia 
locus, auditorium vel schola animarum), which (like Plato) he imagined tf 

§ 78. State of the Blessed akd the Condemned. 225 

be a happy island ; as they grow in knowledge and piety, they proceed oji 
their journey fi'om paradise to higher regions, and having passed through 
various mansions which the Scriptures call heavens, they arrive at last at the 
kingdom of heaven, properly so called. He too appeals to John xiv. 2, and 
maintains that progress is possible even in the kingdom of heaven (striving 
and perfection). The perfection of blessedness ensues only after the gen- 
eral judgment. Even the glory of Christ will be completed only when ho 
celebrates his victory, as the head of the church, dwelling entirely in thosa 
■>\ho are his. Comp. in Lev. Ilom. vii. (0pp. ii. 222). Comp. Eedeqxnning 
Origenes, ii. p. 340, ss. Gieseler, Dograengesch. 230. 

° In the same place, De Princ. ii. 11, 'Origen describes in strong terms the 
sensuous expectations of those, qui magis delectationi suse quodaramodo ac 
lihidini indulgentes, solius, litterae discipuli arbitrantur repromissiones futnras 
in voluptate et luxuria corporis expectandas. He himself, .attaching too 
much importance to the intellectual, supposes the principal enjoyment of the 
future life to consist in the gratification of the desire after knowledge, which 
God would not have given us if he had not designed to satisfy it. While on 
earth we trace the outlines of the picture which will be finished in heaven. 
The objects of future knowledge are, as we might naturally expect, for the 
most part of a theological character ; as an allegorical interpreter, he would 
think it of great importance that we should then fully understand all the 
types of the Old Test. p. 105 : Tunc intelligit etiam de sacerdotibus et Levitis 
et de diversis sacerdotalibus ordinibus rationem, et cujus forma ei'at in Moyse, 
et nihilominus quae sit Veritas apud Deura jubilseoriim, et septimanas anno- 
rum ; sed et festorura dierura et feriarum rationes videbit et omnium saorifi- 
ciorum et purificationuin intuebitur causas ; qufe sit quoquo ratio lepra; pur^ 
gationis et quae lepra) diversas, et quae purgatio sit corom qui, seminis proflu- 
vinm patiuntur, advertet; et agnoscet quoque, qua et quant® qualesque 
'Virtutes sint bonse, quasque nihilominus contrariee, et qui vel illis aftectus sit 
hominibus, vel istis contentiosa remulatio. The knowledge, however, of meta- 
physics, and even of natural philosophy, is not excluded : Intuebitur quoque, 
qutB sit ratio animarum, quseve diversitas animalium vel eorura, qnaj in aquis 
vivunt, vel avium, vel ferarum, quidve sit, quod in tarn multas species singula 
genera deducuntur, qui creatoris prospectus, vel quis per hajc singula sapien- 
tia) ejus tegitur sensus. Sed et agnoscet, qua ratione radicibus quibusdara 
vel herbis associantur quaedam virtutes, et aliis e contrario herbis vel radicir 
bus depelluntur. We shall also have a clear insight into the destinies of 
man, and the dealings of Providence. Among the teachings of God in that 
higher state will also be instruction about the stars, "why a star is in such 
and such a position, why it stands at such and such a distance from another," 
etc. But the highest and last degree is the intuitive vision of God himself, 
the complete elevalion of the spirit above the region of sense. The blessed 
need no other food. Comp. De Princip. iii. 318-321, and Tom. xx. in Joh. 
(0pp. iv. p. 315) : "Ore ^ilv 6 iupaKCig tov vlbv, ewpane rov ■narEpa- bra 6e 
£jq 6 viof opa TOV Trarepa, koX to, napa tu TTorpt uiperai Tig, oIoveI op-oMg 
'Tut vlS) avTomfjg 'ioTai tov naTpbg Kol rwv tov naTpbg, oviiiri dnb tTj^ 
e'lKovog kvvo&v to, nepl tovtov, ov fj elicoov eutl. Kal voni^co ys. tovto 
dvai 70 -iXog, otuv napaSiduai ttjv (iaaiXBLav & vlbg roi Oeu) imI naTpl, 


226 First Pekiod. Eschatologt. 

Kol ore jLVETai 6 Oebg to, ndvTa ev iraaiv (1 Cor. xv. 28), Hedepen. Orig. 
ii. 283, sq. The views of Origen form a remarkable contrast with the sen- 
suous and rhetorical description of Cyprian, ■v/hich are indeed connected 
with his hierarchial and ascetic tendency, but also have a more churchly 
character, and enjoy greater popularity, because they are adapted to the 
wants of the heart (the meeting again of individuals, etc.); De Mortalitate, 
p. 166 : Quis non ad suos navigare festinans ventum prosperum cupidius 
optai-et, ut velociter caros liceret amplecti ? Patriam nostram Paiadisura 
computamus ; parentes Pafriarchas habere jam coepimus : quid non propera- 
mus et currimus, ut patriam nostram videre, ut parontes salutare possiinusf 
Magnus illic nos carorum numerus expectat, parentum, fiatrum, filiornni fre- 
quens nos et copiosa turba desiderat, jam de sua imraortalitate secura, et 
adhuc de nostra salute solicita. Ad horum conspectum et complexum venire 
quanta et illiset nobis in commune Isetitia est! Qnalis illic coelestium reg- 
norum volnptas sine timore moriendi et cum seternitate vivendi ! quam 
summa et perpetua felicitas 1 Illic apostolorum gloriosus chorus, illic propli- 
etarum exultantium numerus, illic martyrum innumerabilis populus ob cer- 
taminis et passionis victoriam cofonatus ; triumphantes illic virgincs, quae 
concupiscentiam carnis et corpoi'is continentiaB robore subegerunt ; reniune- 
rati misericordes, qui alimentis et larg-itionibus pauperum justitiae opera fece- 
runt, qui dominica praeceptse servantes ad coelcstes thesauros terrena patrimo- 
nia transtulerunt. Ad hos, fratres dilectissimi, avida cupiditate properemns, 
ut cum his cito esse, ut cito ad Christum venire contingat, optemus. 

• Clement of Rome, Ep. 2, c. 8 (comp. c. 9) : Mera yap to e^eXdeiv rjiiag 
EK Tov Koafiov ovK ETi dvvdfiEda iicEi E^ofioXoyfiaaaOai rj fiETavoslv eti. 
Justin M. also asserts the eternity of future punishments in opposition to 
Plato's doctrine, that they would last a thousand years, Apol. i. 8, Coli. ad 
Gr. c. 35. Thus Minuc. Fel. c. 35 : Nee tormentis aut modus ulliis aut ter- 
minus. Also Cyprian, ad Deraetr. p. 195 ; Cremabit addictos ardems sem- 
per gehenna, et vivacibns flammis vorax poena, nee erit, unde habere tor- 
menta vel requiem possint aliquando vel finem. Servabuntur cum corporibus 
Buis animse infinitis cruciatibns ad dolorera. P. 196: Quando istinc excessum 
fuerit, nullus jam pcenitentise locus est, nullus, satisfactionis eft'ectus ; hie 
vita ant amittitur, aut tenetur, hie saluti seternse cultu Dei et fructu fidei 
providetnr. — The idea of eternal punishments is different from that of a total 
annihilation, which was propounded by Amohius at the commencement of 
the following period. Some are disposed to find the first traces of this doc- 
trine in Justin M., Dial, cum Tryph. c. 5, where it is said that the souls of 
the wicked should be punished as long as kctt' av avrag ical elvat Kal KoXd- 
^EaOai b Gecif OeXxi. (Comp. on this passage Semisch, ii. p. 480, 481.) Comp, 
also Iren. ii. 34: Quoadusque ea Deus et esse et p^rseveraie voluerit ; and 
Clement Hom. iii. 3. 

' In accordance with the analogy of Scripture, fire was commonly repre- 
sented as the instrument by which God executes his punishments. Justin M. 
B^jeaks in various places of a irvp aluviov, dafSEOTOv (Apol. ii. 1, 2, 7, DiaL 
c. Tr. § 130). Clement of Alexandria, Coh. 47 (35), calls it nvp auApovovv; 
Tert. Scorp. 4, and Minuc. Fel. 35 (afterward also Jerome and others), call 
it ignis sapiens. It will be sufficient here to quote the passage of Minucius 

§ 78. State of the Blessed and the Condemned. 227 

Illio sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes fulminum 
corpora tangunt, nee absnraunt. Sicut ignes ^tnae et Vesuvii mentis et 
ardentiiim ubique terrarum flagrant nee erogantur, ita poenale illud incen- 
dium non damnis ardentium pascitiir, sed inexesa corporum laceratione nutri- 
tur. Comp. also Tert. Apol. c. 48, and Cypr. ad. Demetr. 1. c., who thinks 
that the sight of these punishments is a kind of satisfaction to the blessed for 
the persecution which they had to suffer while on earth. [Cyprian, Ep. 65 
(Baluz. 62, c. IV). — Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, 
aliud missum in carcerem non ^xire inde, donee solvat novissimam quadi'an- 
tem, aliud statim fidei et virtutis accipere mercedera, aliud pro peccatis longo 
dolore cruciatum emundari et purgari diu igne (another reading is, purgari 
diutine), aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse, aliud denique pendere in 
diem judicii ad sententiam Domini, aliud statim a Domino coronari. Comp. 
Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Rjland), p. 263.] — Hell was represented as a place ; 
thus by Justin M., Apol. i. 19 : 'H 6s yeevvd karc ronog, evda iioXdl^eaOai 
(liXXovai ol ddiKug (iiuoavrsg koX (lij maTevovTEg ravra yevrjoeadai, baa 6 
deb^ did Tov Xpiarov idi6a^e. — As Origen imagined that spiritual enjoy- 
ments constitute the future blessedness, so he believed the condemnation of 
the wicked to consist in separation from God, remorse of conscience, etc., De 
Princ. ii. 10 (0pp. i. p. 102). The eternal fire is not a material substance, 
kindled by another, but the combustible materials are our sins themselves, 
coming up before the conscience : the fire of hell resembles the fire of pas- 
sion in this world. The separation of the soul from God may be compared 
with the pain which we suffer, when- all the members of the body are torn 
ont of their joints (an undying dissolution of our very essence I). By " outer 
darkness'' Origen does not so much understand a place devoid of light, as a 
state of ignorance ; so that this notion about black bodies seems to be an 
abcommodation to popular ideas. It should also be borne in mind, that 
Orio-en supposed that the design of all these punishments was medicinal or 
educational, in expectation of future reformation. 

° De Princ. i. 6 (0pp. i. p. 70, 71, quoted by Mimscher von Colin, i. p. 
64, 65). The ideas here expressed are connected with Origen's general 
views about the character of God, the design of the divine punishments, 
liberty and the nature of evil, as well as with his demonology, and especially 
with his triumphant faith in the power of redemption to overcome all things 
(according to Ps. ex. 1, and 1 Cor. xv. 25). At the same time, he fiankly 
confessed that his doctrine might easily become dangerous to the uncon- 
verted ; contra Celsum, vi. 26 (0pp. i. p. 650). He therefore speaks at the 
very commencement of the xix. Horn, in Jerem. (0pp. T. iii. p. 241), of an 
eternal condemnation, and even of the impossibility of being converted in the 
world to come. Nevertheless, in the same Horn. (p. 267), he calls the fear 
of eternal punishment (according to Jerem. xx. 7) d-ndr'T], beneficial indeed 
in its effects, and appointed by God himself (a pedagogical artifice as it were). 
For, he says, many wise men, or such as thought themselves wise, after 
having apprehended the (theoretical) truth respecting the divine punish- 
ments, and rejected the delusion (beneficial in a piactical point of view), 
ha\e given themselves up to a vicious life ; so that it would have been much 
belter for them to believe in the eternity of the punishments of hell. Comp. 

;r?ii'-iii -•-• 'r 


FROM THE YEAR 254-730. 





De Wetie, Christliche Sittenlehre, vol. ii. p. 294, ss. Mwnscher, Handbuch, vol. iii. Section 
1. [Baur, F. C, Die Christliche Kirche vom Aufang des vierten big zum Ende dea 
sechsten Jahrh. Tubingen, 1859. U. von Laeaulx, Der Untergang des Hellenismus. 
Munohen, 1854. Isaac Taylor, Ancient Chiistianity, 4th ed, 2 vols., 1844] 

During the considerable space of time embraded in this period, 
the Polemics of the church were developed much more prominently 
than either the apologetical tendency as in the preceding, or the 
Bystematic tendency as in the next period. In the time which 
elapsed between the Sabellian and the Monothelite controversies, 
which nearly coincides with the limits here assigned, an unbroken 
eeries of contests is carried on tvitJiin the church, about the most 
important doctrinal points. While in the preceding period heretical 
tendencies separated from the church as a matter of course, here, 
on the contrary, victory for a long time wavers, now to the one side, 
and again to the other. Orthodoxy, however, prevailed at last, 
partly from an internal necessity, yet not without the aid of the 
secular power and of external circumstances. 

It is just as one-sided to ascribe the victory of orthodoxy to the combination 
■of political power and monkish intrigues, as it is to deny these factors alto- 
gether. Much as there was of human passion and dogmatism intermingled 
with this strife, yet it is not to be wholly derived from such impure sources 
but there must also be recognized a law of internal progress, determining the 
gradual and systematic unfolding of the dogmas. 

§ 81. The Dogmatic Character of this Period. 229 


The three main pillars of the Christian system, Theology, Chris- 
tology, and Anthropology, were the principal points debated in the 
councils, and defined in the symbols. The controversies here to 
be considered are the following : a. In reference to the Doctrine of 
the Trinity (Theology) : the Sabellian and the Arian controversies, 
with their branches, the Semi-Arian and the Macedonian! h. Rela- 
tive to the two Natures of Ohrist (Christology) : the Apollinarian, 
Nestorian, Eutychian-Monophysite, and Monothelite controversies! 
c. Concerning Anthropology and the Economy of Redemption : the 
Pelagian, Semipelagian, and (in reference to the Church) the Dona- 
tist controversies. The first eight took their rise in the East ; the 
last three oiigrnated in the West, but both east and west recipro- 
cally felt their efi"ects ; so that there were frequent divisions between 
the oriental and occidental church, till at last the controversy 
respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost brought about a lasting 

The controversy about the Worship of Images, carried on in the East, 
and partly, too, in the West (only the beginning of which falls into this 
period), belongs, in the firfet instance, to the history of worship; but it also 
had an influence, especially in tlie West, upon the doctrinal definitions of the 
nature of God, the person of Christ, and the significance of the sacraments. 
But the further development of the doctrine of the sacraments, and of escha- 
tology, was leserved for the ne.xt period. Concerning the external history 
of those controversies, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 



In proportion to the development of ecclesiastical orthodoxy into 
fixed and systematic shape, was the loss of individual freedom in 
respect to the formation of doctrines and the increased peril of 
becoming heretical. The more liberal tendency of former theolo- 
gians, such as Origen, could no longer be tolerated, and was at 
length condemned. But, notwithstanding this external condemna- 
tion, the spirit of Origen continued to animate the chief theologians 
of the East, though it was kept within narrower limits. The works 
of this great teacher were also made known in the West by Jerome 
and Kufinus, and exerted an influence even upon his opponents. 

230 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

The principal followers of Origen were Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 
Pamphilus of Cifisarea, Gregory Tha.umaturgus, bishop of Neocsesarea, and 
others. Among his opponents Methodius (bishop of Lycia, and afterward 
of Tyrus, died in the Diocletian persecution, a. d. 311) occupied the most 
conspicuous position, although he too adopted many of Oiigen's views, e. g., 
in his Symposion ; see Neander's Church Hist., i. "721 (Torrey). On the 
further controversies relative to the doctrinal tenets of Origen under the 
Emperor Justinian I., and their condemnation brought about (a. d. 544) by 
Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 
Banters, u. s. (§'76), in his first part, or historical introduction. 

§ 82. 


Among the theologians of the East who either exerted the great- 
est influence upon the development of the system of doctrines, or 
composed works on the subject, are the following : Eusebius of 
Ccesarea,^ Eusebius of Nicomedia,^ but principally Athanasius,' 
Basil the Great,* Gregory of Nyssa,^ and Gregory of Naziamzum' 
(the last three of Cappadocia); next to them, Ghrysostom,^ Cyril of 
Jerusalem* Epiphanius,' Ephrdm the Syrian,^" Nemesius," Cyril 
of Alexandria,''' Theodore of Mopsuestia," Theodoret, bishop of 
Cyrus;''* in the West: Arnobius,'" Lactantius," Hilary of Foi- 
tiers,''' Jerome/' Ambrose," and above all, Augustine." These were 
followed. by others of greater or less importance : John Cassian," 
Vincens ofLerins,'' Salvian," Leo I. surnamedthe Great," Prosper 
of Aquitanie'-^ Gennadiusj" Fulgentius of Ruspe" Bo'ethius,'" 
Gregory the Great/" and Isidore of Seville.^" The last is of im- 
portance, as he brought together the dogmatic material already in 
existence, and was thus the forerunner of John of Damascus (in the 

' Eusebius (Pamphili), bishop of Csesarea (author of the ecclesiastical his- 
tory), was born about the year 261, and died 340. Of his dogmatical works 
the following may be mentioned (in addition to the prologue to his ecclesi- 
astical history): EvoyyeXiK^f aTtodei^eu^ napaoKevrj (Praeparatio Evangelica), 
Ed. i. of Steph. 1544, ss. Cum not F. Vigeri, 1628. Col. 1688, (ol—'Evayye- 
Xiicrj dnodEL^ig (Deraonstiatio Evangelica), Ed. of Steph. 1545. Cum not. 
Rich. Montacutii, 1628. Lips. 1688, fol. — Karo Map/ceA/lot;, ii. — IlepJ r^q 
KKKXrjaiaaTiKfjg OsoXoytag, tuv npbg MapKeXXov. — Epistola de Fide Nicaena 
ad Csesareenses. Some exegetical treatises also belong here. [Eccles. Hist, 
edited by JS, Burton, 4 vols, with notes, Oxford, 1841 and 1845; Annota- 
tiones ad Eus. Hist. ed. Burton, 2, Oxon. 1841. Prsep. Evang. ed. SJ. Bur- 
ton, 4 Oxon., 1841 ; this and the Demonstr. Evangelica, and Contra Hiero- 
clem et Marcellum, ed. T. Oaisford, Oxou. ; on the Theophania, Syriac ver^ 

§ 82. Teachers of the Chuech in this Period. 23] 

Bion, by S. Lee, Lond. 1842, and translation, by the same, Cambr. 1843 
Treatises by Eusebius in Mui'is Patrum Nqv. Bibliotheea, Tom. 3, 1853.— 
The first fasciculus of a new, critical edition of the Eccles. Hist, of Eusebius 
by Hugo Lsenuner, Beil. 1859.] 

" Easehius oj Nicomedia, at first bishop of Berytus, and afterwards of Con- 
stantinople, died A. D. 340. He was the leader of the Eusebian party in 
' the Arian controversy. His opinions are given in the worlds of Atlianasius, 
Sozomen, Theodoret (comp. especially his Epistola ad Paulianuip Tyri Epis-, 
copum, in Theod. i. 6), and Philostorgius. Comp. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. 
p. 109, ss.* [Comp. Semisch, in Herzog's Rcalencyclop.J 

' Athanasiun, called the father of orthodoxy, was born at Alexandria about 
the year 296, was bishop of that city from the year 326, and died a. d. 373 ; 
he exerted an important influence in the formation of the Nicene Creed, and 
took a promirtent part in the Arian controversy. Of his numerous dogmati- 
cal works the most important are : Adyof Kara 'EXXrjvuv (an apoloo-etical 
treatise) ; Aoyof nepl r'^g ivavdpcjnrjaeoc; tov Qeov aojov koI -rjjg Sia 
adonarog irpbg rjfidg ini(j)aveiag avrov. — "~EiiOeaig TTtareug (Expositio Fidei 
Nicajnas). — Upog rovg imaKonovg Alyvnrov koI Aifiv/jg, kmoroXfj iyicvicXi- 
libg Kara 'KpiavuiK — Oratt. V. contra Arianos. — Homilies, Letters, etc. 
The principal Editions are : that of the Benedictine monks (of Montfaucon), 
1689-98, ii. f. ed. N. A. Giustiniani, Patav. et Lips. 1777, iv. f. Festal 
Letters, by Cureton, from the Syriac; in German, by Larsow, Giitting. 1852. 
Comp. Tillemont, T. viii. Bossier, Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, vol. v. 
Monographs : \Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, 
Mainz. 827, ii. 8. Hohringer, die Kirche Christi, i. 2, p. 1, ss. [On Atlia- 
nasius, Comp. Bp. Kaye in his Council of Nice, 1853. His treatises aa;ainst 
the Arians, translated by John Henry Newman, with notes, in the Oxford 
Library of the Fathers, vols. 8 and 19, and hie Historical Tracts in the same 
Library, vol. 13. His Four Orations against the Arians, previously translated 
by S. Parker, 2 vols. Oxford, 1713. His Opera Dogmatica Selecta, ed. by 
Thilo, in his Bibl. Patr. Grasc. Dogmatica, vol. i, Leipz. 1853.] 

* Basil of Neocaesarea, surnamed the Great, was born a. d. 316, and died 
A. D. 379 ; he is of importance in the Arian and Macedonian contioversies. 
H\s principal writings are : 'AvarpEnTiKog tov dnoXoyrjTiicov tov 6vaae(3ovg 
Evvojj,iov (libri. v. contra Eunommm), Ilep^ tov dylov TnevfiaTog, numerous 
Letters and Homilies (in Hexaemeron 11: in Ps. xvii : Diversi Argumonti 
31 ; Sermones 26). Editions of his works were published by Fronto Dn- 
cceus and Morellius, Par. 1618, 38, ii. (iii.) f. ; by the Benedictine monks in 
the year 1688, iii. fol. and by *Garnier, Paris, 1721-30, iii. f. ; by De Sin- 
ner, Paris, 1839, iii. Monographs: Feisser, De Vita Basilii, Gron. 1828. 
*Klose, C. R. W., Basilius der Gr. nach seinem Leben und seiner Lehre, 
Stralsund, 1885, 8: ibid. Animadvers. in S. Bos. Opeia. 1843. A. Jahn, 
Basilius M. platouizans, Bern. 1838, 4. Bohringer, i. 2, p. 152,. ss. [Basil, 
Opera Dogmat. ed. Thilo in Bibl. Patr. Graec. Dogm. vol. 2, 1854. Select 

* The homilies of Eusebius of Emisa (who died A. D. 360), are only of secondary impor- 
tance relative to the doctrine of the descensus ad inferos. Opusc. ed. Augusii, Elbecf 
1829. fhilo, liber die Schriflen des Euseb. von Alex, und des Euseb. von Emisa, 
EaUe, 1832. 

2^ Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Passages from Basil, Lond. 1810. Complete works, ed. Gaume, Paris. On 
Basil, corap. Christian Review, New York, 1853 ; and on his Life and Lot- 
tors, the North American Review, 1860, by Dr. Proudfit.] 

' Gregory of JVi/ssa, a brother of Basil, a native of Cappadocia, died about 
the year 394. His principal work is : Aoyog Karrixq-Lnh^ b ^tyaq. — He 
also composed dogmatical and exegetical treatises on the creation of the 
World and of man, wrote against Eunomius and ApoUinaris, and was the au- 
thor of several homilies, ascetic tracts, etc. Though he strictly adhei'ed to 
the Nicene Creed, yet he was distinguished for the mildness of his disposi- 
tion ; " the profoundness of his scientific knoivledge, as well as his peculiari- 
ties, assign to Mm the first place among the followers of .Oi'igenV (ITase.) 
His works were edited by Morellius, Par. 1615, ii. f. Append, by Gretser, 
Par. 1618. Of the Benedictine edition (Paris, 1780) only the first volume 
appeared. Some newly discovered treatises against the Arians and Macedo- 
nians were published in A. Maii Sciiptt. Vet. Coll. Rom. 834, T. viii. 
Monographs : Rupp, Jul., Gregors, des Bischofs von Nyssa, Leben und 
Meinungon, Leipz. 1834. Bohringer, i. 2, p. 275 ss. Heyns, Do Greg. Nyss. 
Lugd. Bat. 1835. \^E. G. Mailer, Greg, l^yss. Doctrina de horainis natura, 
cum Origen. comparat. Halle, 1854. J. JV. Stigler, Die Psychol, des Greg. 
V. N. Regensb. 1857. Gregory on Celibacy and eight discourses, Greek and 
German, in Oehler's Bibl. d Kirchenvater, 1859.] 

° Gregory nf J^adaneum, snrnamed the -theologian, was born about the 
vcar 300 at.Arianzus, near Nazianzum, was afterwards bishop of Constantino- 
ple, and died a. d. 390. His principal works are: In Julianum Apostatam 
Invectiva duo (published separately by Jt/bratayae, 1610,4). — Aoyoi 6eoXo- 
yiKoL — He also composed numerous orations, letters, poems, and shorter 
treatises. His works were published by Morellius, Paris, 1630, ii. f. (Lips. 
1690). Of the Benedictine edition only the first volume appeared, [vol. ii. 
■ 1840.] Monographs: * Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz, der Theologe, 
Darmst. 1825. Biiringer, i. 2, p. 357, ss. [Ullmaun's Life of Greg. Naz. 
transl. in part by G. V. Cox, Lond. 1851. His dogmaiio works in Thilo's 
Bibl. (u. s.^ Hergenrother, Greg. Lohre von d. Dreieinigkeit, Regensb. 1850. 
Comp. Jo-.irnal of Sacrod Lit. 1852; West. Review, vol. 56.] 

' Chrysostom was born at Antioch in Syria about the year 344, occupied 
the episcopal see of Constantinople, and died a. d. 407. His practico-exeget- 
ical and homilotical writings are more valuable than his strictly dogmatical 
works; at the same time, he is of importance in the history of doctrines on 
account of this very practical tendency ; e. g., his views on the freedom of 
the will are in strong contrast with tTicse of Augustine. In addition to his 
numerous homilies and sermons, he wrote: Ilept lepoavvqi;, lib. vi. (edited by 
Bengel, Stuttg. 1825, by ,Zeo, Lips. 1834), De Providentia, lib. iii. — Editions 
of his complete works were published by Savile, Eton. 1612. Fronto Du- 
cceus, Par. 1609—36. '^Bern. de Montfaucon, Paris, 1718 — 31, xiii. foL 
Venet. 1755, xiii. f. ib. 1780, xiv. f. — Monographs: *]Sfeander, der heil. 
Chrysostomus und die Kirche des Orients in d^-ssen Zcitalter. Berlin, 1821, 
22, ii. 8vo., 2d ed. 1833. Bohringer, i. 4, p. 1, ss. [Paris edition of Chry- 
snatom ed. Gaume, xiii. Tom. Neander's monograph, vol. i. transl. by /. C. 
Stapleton, Lond. 1845. Life of C, by Neander, Bohringer, etc., Best. 1864. 

§ 82. Teachers of the Chuech in this Peeioii. 233 

Perthes^ Leben. Chrysost. 1854. Homiliae in St. Mattli., Gr. cum vartls 

■ Lection., ed. F. Field, 4 Cantab. 1829 sq. ; Homilies Ep. ad Corinth, cura 

F. Field, Oxon. 1845-9, 4 vols.; in Ep. ad Gal., ad Ephes. Phil. Col. etc., 

ed. F. Field, 1850-5. Ilis Homilies, transl. in O.xford Libr. of Fathers, vols. 

4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, 28, 33, 34. Abbe J. B. Bergier, Histoire 
de St. Jean Chrys, sa vie, ses oeuvres, son siecle, Paris, 1856. Life of C. by 
J. D. Butler, Bibl. Sacra, vol. i. Comp. Fadie in Kitto's Journal, vol. i. ; 

5. Osgood in North American, vol. Ixii ; C. P. Krauth in Evang. Rev. vol. i. ; 
Sermons of C. in Christ. Eev. vol. xii ; Life and Writings, Eclectic Rev. (Lond.) 
1850. — Select Passages from C. by H. S. Boyd, Lond. 1810. His work on 
the Priesthood, transl. by H.. Holliev, Lond. I'728 ; by J. Bunce, Lond. 1759 ; 
hyH. M. Mason, Philad. 1826. Abbe Rochet, Hist, de C. 2. Paris, 1866.] 

' Cyril of Jerusalem, at first a Eusebian, went over to the Nicene party; 
he had already combated the strict Arian Acacius ; he died a. d. 386. He 
was distinguished for his Catechetics (347), in which he propounded thft 
doctrines of the church in a popular style. His five Mystagogical Discourses 
are of most importance in the dogmatic point of view. His works were 
edited by Mills, Oxon. 1703, f. and by *Ant. Aug Touttee, (after his death 
by Prud Maran), Par. 1720, f. Ven, 1763, f. Comp. von Colin, in Ersch u. 
Grubers Encyklopadie, vol. xxii. p. 148, ss. [Opera i, ed. Reischl, 1848, 4, 
ii ed. Jos. Mupp, Monachii, 1860. Van Vellenhoven, Specim. th'eol. de Cyril, 
Hieros. Catechesibus, Amst. 1837. The Lectures of Cyril, transl. in Oxford 
Lib. of Fathers, 1838, vol. 3. Extracts from thirteen works in MaVs Nova 
Bibliotheea, vol. 2, 1853. De Cyril. Hierosol. Orationibus, J. T. Plitt, 
Heidels. 1855. Coram, in Evang. Lucae e mss. apud Mus. Britann. ed. Rob. 
Payne Smith, 1858, transl. 2 8vo. 1859.] 

" Epiphanius of Besanduc, near Eleutheropolis in Palestine, bishop of 
Constantia in the isle of Cyprus, died at the age of nearly one hundred 
years, A. D. 404. His work against heretics: KXpeakuiv LXXX, iniKXrjdsv 
navdpio^ eh' ovv KiPconog (Adv. Hter.) is among the secondary sources of the 
history of doctrines. The theology of Epiphanius consisted in rigid adhe- 
rence to the orthodox system rather than in the development of original 
thought. It is represented in the treatise : Jlspioxr] Xoyov tov 'Em<l). tov 
dyKvpuToiJ naXovfievov, with which may be compared his Aoyof etf t7)v 
Kvpiov dvdcTaaiv, eig ttjv dvdA7]ij}iv tov Kvpiov Xoyog, etc. There is art 
EDITION of his works by *Petavius, P:ir. 1622, fol. ib. 1630, f. Edit. auct. 
Colon. (Lips.) 1682, ii. fol. [Two new editions of Epiphanius are in progress, 
by Oehler and Dindorf. Epiphanii librorum adversus HoereSes prooeni. 
Cum prajf. G. Dindorfii ; Epiphanii Opera, ed. G. Dindorf, 5 vols. 1855-63. 
the 5th volume contains Petavii Animadversiones. Fberhard, Betheiligung 
Epiph. am Streit fiber Origenes. Trier. 1859.] 

" Fphram, Propheta Syrorum, of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, abbot and dea- 
con in a monastery at Edessa, died about the year 378. He gained a high 
reputation by his exegetical works, and rendered signal service to Syria by 
the introduction of Grecian science -and dogmatic terminology. Opp. ed. 
■*J. S. Assemani, Rom. 1732, 46, vi. fol. Comp. C. A. Lengerke, de Ephrajmo 
Sc. S. interprete, Hal. 1828, 4. [H. Burgess, Transl. of Ephram's Hymns 
and Homilies, 2 vols. Lond. 1853, and of his Repentance of Nineveh, 1854 

234 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

J. Alsleben, Das Leben des Eph. Syr. Berl. 1853. Comp. Kitto's Journal, 
1853 and 1854; Cardinal Wiseman, Essays, vol. iii (from Dublin Eeview) ; 
Cburch Eeview, 1852 ; Rodiger in Herzog's Realencyclop., and in the Hall, 
Encyclop. ; Asohbach's Allg. Kirchen-Lexicon ; Zeitschrift d. deutscher nior- 
geniiind. GeselJschaft, Bd. ix. Alsleben has in preparation a new edition of 
Ephriim's works.] 

" Nemesius, bishop of Eraisa in Phcenicia (?) lived about the year 
400. His treatise : Jlepl cftvaeug avOpunov was formerly attributed to 
Gregory of Nyssa. Oxen. 1671, 8. Comp. Schrockh Kirchengeschichte, 
vol. vii. p. 157. 

" Cyril of Alexandria, (died a. d. 444), is well known by his violent pro- 
ceedings against Nestorius, and by his Monophysite tendency. Besides 
homilies and exegetical works, he wrote Anatheraatismata against Nestorius, 
treatises on the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ, IXept TTJg ev TTveviiari 
Kot aXr]6ei(f, npoanvvrjaEug koI Xarpeiag, xvii. books — Kara dvdpuTrofiopcpiToJv 
— and a work in defence of Christianity against the Emperor Julian in 10 
books, — Extracts of it are given by Rbssler, vol. viii. p. 43-152. Edition^s 
of his works were published by *J. Aubertus, Lut. 1638, vii. fol. and A. Mali, 
Collectio T. viii. 

" Theodore of Mopsuestia was born about the year 350, and died a. d. 
429. Of his writings we have scarcely more than fragments. Theodori quae 
Bupersunt omnia, ed. A. F. Wegnern, Borol. 1834, ss. Comp. Assemani Bibl. 
Orient. T: iii. pars. i. p. 30. Theod. Ep. in Nov. Test. Comment, ed. 0. F. 
Fritzsche, Turin, 1847 ; De Incarn. lib. xv. frag., ibid. Comp. R. E. Klener, 
Symbolas, liter, ad Theod. etc., Gott. 1836, and Fritzschc, O. F., de Theodori 
Mopsvhesteni Vita et Scriptis. Comment. Hist. Hal. 1836, 8. A sketch of 
his (liberal) theology is given by Neander, Church History (Torrey), ii. 
p. 352, 422, 653. [In the Spicileg. Solesmense of Pitra, i, 1853, fragments 
of a commentary on Paul are ascribed to Hilary (cf Christ. Rembrancer), 
which Jacobi vindicates for Theod. Mops, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1854. 
Theod. Mops. Doctrina de Imagine Dei, by Dorner, 1844. — Comp. Dorner'a 
Person Christi.] 

" Theodoret was born at Antioch, and died about the year 457. His 
dogmatico-polemical writings are of importance in the Nest'orian and Mono- 
physite controversies. Theodoret and Theodore are the representatives of 
the liberal tendency of the Antiochian school of Antioch. The following 
work is among the sources of the history of doctrines : AlpsTiKTJg KaKOfivdiag 
iniTOfi'q, LiB. v. (Fabulaj Hsereticae). He also composed several exegetical 
writings. There are editions of his works by J. Sirmond, Lutet. 1042, 
iv. fol. Auctuarium cura J. Garnerii, ib. 1684. f. — and J. L. Schulze and 
Nosselt, Hal. 1769-74, v. vols. 8vo. [Theod. Comm. in omnes bcati Pauli 
Epistolas, in Bibl. Patrum. Oxf. 1852. Theod. Grsecarnm Aft'ectionum 
Curatio, ed. J. Oaisford, Oxf 1839. Theod. Eccl. Hist, libri v. ed. J. Gais- 
ford, Oxf. 1854.; translated in the edition of Euseblus, etc. 6 vols. Lond. 

" Arnobius (in part considered in the previous period), born at Sicca Ve- 
ncria in Numidia, the teacher of Lactantius, lived towards the close of the 
third, and at the commencement of the fourth century. He wrote a work 

§ 82. Teachers of the Chuech in this Period. 235 

nndev tlie title : Adv. Gentes libr. vii. whicli was edited by J. (J. Orelli, Lips. 
1816, Add. ISU. — His writings contain many hetoM'odox. assertions, like those 
of his disciples; Hildehrand, Hal. 1844; Oehler, Lips. 1846. 

'" Lueircs Coslius Firmianus Lactantius (Cicero Cliristianus), was born in 
Italy, became a rhetorician in Nicomedia, was tutor of Crispus (the eldest 
son of the Emperor Constantine) and died about the year 330. He wrote : 
Divinarum Institutt. libri. vii. ; De Ira Dei ; De Opificio Dei vel do forma- 
tione hominis. — Editions of his works were published by Bunemann, Lips. 
1739, by Le Brun and Bufresnoi, Par. 1748, ii. 4, and 0. F. Fritzsche, Lips. 
1842-44. Comp. Ammon F. G. Ph. Lactantii Opinioncs de Religione in 
Systema redactie. Diss. ii. Erl. 1820. Spyker, de pretio institutionibus Lac- 
tantii tribuendo, Lugd. 1826. On the position of Arnobius and Lactantius in 
the church development, see Meier, Trinitatslehre, i. 91, Note : " Coming out 
of time, blossoms appearing in the autumn, disfigured imitations of a period 
long since past." 

" Hilar'!/, (Hilarius), bishop of Pictaviuni (Poitiers) in Gaul, died A. d. 368. 
Besides commentaries on the Psalms and on Matthew, and several minor 
treatises, he wrote ; De Trinitate libr. xii. Editions of his works were pub- 
lished by the Benedictine monks. Par. 1893, f., by Maffei, Ver. 1730, ii. f., 
and by Oberthur, Wtlizb, 1785-88, iv. 8. A. Maii, Soriptt. Vet. Coll. T. vi. 
[Hilar. Pictav. Opera, 2 imp. 8vo. Paris, 1844. Fragments ascribed to him 
in Spicileg. Solesra. i. 1853 ; see above, Note 13 ; and comp. Zeitschrift f. d. 
luth. Theol. 1855, s. 551, sq.] 

" Sophronius Fusebius Hieronymus (Jerome) was born about the year 331 
at Stridon in Dalmatia, and died as a monk in a monastery at Bethlehem 
A. D. 420. In his earlier years he was a disciple of Origen, but became his 
opponent, with a blind zeal for orthodoxy ; he possessed greal talents, and 
was a man of profound learning. ("i?i3 made the West acquainted with 
fjfreek ecclesiastical erudition, and with the Hebre-wV Hase^ He rendered 
greater service to biblical criticism and exegesis (by the Vulgate version), as 
well as to literary history (by his work De Viris Illustribus), than to dog- 
matic theology. As to the latter, he rather preserved it like an antiquarian 
relic, rescued from the Origenistic deluge, than exerted any living and origi- 
nal influence upon the healthy development of doctrines. His controversial 
writings are partly directed against those who opposed monachism, the wor- 
ship of relics, celibacy, MarioJatry (of which he was a great fiiend), etc., and 
in part have respect to the Pelagian and Origenist controversies. The fol- 
lowing are the principal editions of his works : 0pp. cura Frasmi, Bas. 1516, 
ix. f. ; that of the Benedictine monks (by Martianay and Pouget), Par. 1693- 
1706, V. f.; and that of Vallarsius, Veron. 1734-42, xi. f. Ed. 2. Venet. 
1766-72, IV, (Luther judged unfavorably of him.) Comp. i?'ncA«, Kirchen- 
gesch, 104. [Collembet, Gesch. des Hieron. nach d. Franz. 1847. Osgood in 
Bib. Sacra, v. Comp. Princeton Rev. April, 1864.] 

" Ambrose was born a. d. 340, was archbishop of Milan from the year 374, 
and died a. d. 398. He was the chief pillar of the Nicene orthodoxy in the 
West, and exerted considerable practical influence upon Augustine. His 
doctrinal writings are : Hexaemeron, lib. vi. ; De Officiis, iii. ; De Incarna- 
tionis dominiciB Sacramento ; De Fide, libri v. ; do Spiritu, lib. iii. ; and 

236 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

several others. He also composed some exegetical worts', though some, 
under bis name, are spurions (Ambrosiaster). The principal editions of his 
works arc that of Amerbach, Bas. 1492 ; and the Benedictine edition, cura 
iV. Nuriti eXJac. Frischii, Par. 686-90, ii. f. Comp. Bohringer, i. 3, p. 1, ss. 
[Herzog's Realenoycl. by .Bohringer. Arabrosian MSS. in Quarterly Review, 
vol. 16. North Amcr. Rev. 1855. His De OfBciis Ministr. ed. by Krahin- 
ger, from new MSS. Ttib. 1857.] 

" Aurelius Augustine was born at Tagaste in Numidia, A. d. 354, died as 
bishop of Hippo Regius, a. d. 430 ; on his eventful and deeply interesting life 
compare his autobiography, entitled Confessiones, libri. xiii. (a manual edition 
of which was published at Berlin 1823, with a preface by JVeander), and 
Possidius (Possidonius) ; on his writings compare his own Retractationes. A 
great part of his works consists of polemical writings against the Manichees, 
Pelagians, and Donatists. All his works, and their different editions, are 
enumerated in the work of Schonemann, T. ii. p. 8, ss. A. Philosophicai 
WORKS : Contra Academieos — De Vita Beata — ^De Ordine ii, — Soliloquiaii. — 
De Immortalitate Anima;, etc. B. Polemical writings : a) against the 
Manichees : De Moribus Ecclesise Cathol. et Manichaeorum, ii. — De Libero 
Arbitrio, iii.— De Genesi contra Manich. — De Genesi ad Litteram, xii. — 
De Vera Religione — De Utilitate credendi — De Fide et Symbolo, et al. 

b) against the Pelagians and Semipelagians : (they are contained for the 
most part in vol. x. of the Benedictine edition), De Gestis Pelagii — De Pec- 
catorum Meritis et Rcmissione — De Natnra et Gratia — De Perfectione Justi- 
tiffi Hominis — De Gratia Christi et de Peccato Original! — Contra duas Epis- 
tolas Pelagianorum — Contra Julian, lib. vi. — De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio — 
De Correptione et Gratia — De Prajdestinatione Sanctorum — De Dono Per- 
severantise — Contra secnndam Juliani Responsionem, opus imperfectum, 

c) against the Donatists : (in vol. ix.) contra Parmenianum iii. — De Baptis- 
mo vii. — Contra Litteras Petiliani iii. — Catholicos (de unitate ecclesise), 
et al. C. Dogmatical works : De Civitate Dei ad Marcellin. libr. xxii. 
(*A manual edition was published by Tauchnitz. Lips. 1825, ii. 8) — De 
Doctrina Christiana lib. iv.- — Enchiridion ad Laurentium, s. de fide, spe et 
caritate — De Fide — ^De Tiin. xv. D. Practical works (De Catechizandis 
rudibus). E. Exegetical writings, Letters, Sermons, etc. Editions of his 
works were published by Erasmus, Bas. 1529. x. 1543, 56, 69 in xi. ; by 
the *Benedictine monks, Paris, 1G79-]'701, xi. (in 8 vol.) Antwerp 1700- 
1703, xi. f. Append. ; by Clericus, ib. 1703 i.—J. B. Albrizzi, Ven. 1729-35. 
xii. f. 1756-69. xviii. 4. 0pp. Omnia, supplem. ed. Hier Vignier. Par. 1654, 
55, ii. f. — * Wiggers, pragmatische Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pcla- 
gianismus, Berl. 1821. Hamb. 1833, ii. 8. *Bindemann der h. Augustin, 
2 Bde. Burl. 1844-54. Foujoulat, new edition, Paris, 2 vols., 1866. Boh- 
ringer, i. 3. p. 99, -ss. 

[In the Oxford Library of Fathers, vol. i, Augustine's Conf. edited by 
T. B. Pusey, who also edited the original, 1842 ; his Sermons, vols. 16 and 
20; his Treatises, 22; Psalms, in 4 vols.; and John, 3 vols. Kloih, der 
Kirchenlehrer, Angustinus, Aachen, 1854. Life and Times of A. by Philip 
Schaff, 1854. Life, etc., London, 1853 (Bagstor). Wiggers, August, ana 
Pelag. transl. (vol. i.) by.iJ, Emerson, AnJovcr. Trench^ Essay on August, 

§ 82. Teachers of the Cuurch cn this Peeiou. 237 

as Interpreter, etc. Articles on Augustine, Princeton Rep. 1854 ; Am Bibl. 
Kcpos. vols. 3 and 5, and 7 of 2d series ; Christ. Rev. 5 and 15 ; Bi'it. Quart 
6; North British, 1855 (by Fraser, rcpr. in his Phil. Essays); Journal of 
Sacr. Lit. 1858; Zeller in Theol. Jahrb. 1854.— .7. B. Motley, The August. 
Doctrine of Predestination, Lond. 1855,; Comp. Christ. Remombr. 1856. 
Th, Oangauf, Die metaph. Theol. des hell. August. 1851-3. J. Nlrschl, 
Wesen des Bosens nach Aug. Regensb. 1854. Roulet, De I'ldce dn Pcehe 
dans St. August. Montauban, 1856. John Baillie, St. Aug. a Biog. Memoir, 
Lond. 1859. Aug. Confessions, with Litrod. by Prof. Shodd, Andovcr, 1860. 
A new ed. of Aug. published in Paris, 1836-40, 11 vols.; 1849 in 16 vols., 
■and at Venice, vol. viii. 1854. Two hundred new sermons, in Mai, Patrum 
Nov. Biblioth. vol. i. Aug. De Civit. Dei, ed. Strange, Co!. 1850, 1 ; transl. 
by S!. H. Lond. 1620 ; by Mannell, Lond. 1577 ; a new French version, by 
Saisset, 4, 12mo. Paris, 1855. — Kling, in Ilerzog's Realencyc.] 

" John Cassian, a pupil of Cbrysostom, was probably a native of the 
West, founded Semipelagianism, and died about the year 440. De Institut. 
Coenob. lib. xii. — Collationes Patrum xxiv. — De Incarnatione Christi, adv. 
Nestorium, libr. vii. The principal editions of his works are : Ed. princ. Bas. 
1485. Lugd. 1516. 8. Lips. 1733. Comp. Wiggers, vol. ii. and his Diss, de 
Joanne Cassiano, Rost. 1824, 5. L. F. Meier, Jean Cassian, Strasb. 1840. 

"" Vincens of Levins (Lirin.), a monk and presbyter in the monastery in 
-the isle of Lerina, near the coast of Gallia Narbonica, died about the year 
450. Commonitoria duo pro, Catholicse Fidei Antiquitate et Universitate 
adv. profanas omnium Hsereticorum Novitates. There is an edition of tliis 
work by Jo. Costerius, et JSclm. Campianus, Col. 1600. 12. denuo edid. 
Herzog, Vratislav. 1839. Commonitor. adv. Hseres. juxta editt. optim. recog- 
nitum, Notisque brev. illustr. a clerico dioccsis AugustanEe, Aug. Vind. 1844 ; 
comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 208 sq. and Gengler, Ueber die Regel des Vinconz, in 
the Tub. Quartalschrift, 1853. Der Katholik, 1837. [Hefele in Theol. 
Qnartalschrift, 1854. His Commonitory, transl. by Reeves, 1716, and at 
Oxford, 1841. Enchiridion, ed. Krabinger, 1861.] 

" Salvian, a native of Gaul, wrote : Adv. Avaritiam lib. iv. ; and a work 
on 'the doctrine of providence which is of importance in dogmatic -theology : 
De Gubcrnatione Dei (de providentia). Editions; Bas. 1530. *Venet. 
(Baluz) 1728. 8 (together with Vine. Lerin. Par. 1684, 8.) [Oxford ed. 
12mo. 1633.] 

" Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, died a. r. 461. He is of importance in 
the Monophysite controversy, by the influence which he exerted upon the 
decisions of the council of Qhalcedon. He wrote Sermons and Letters, Ed. 
I.Rom. 1479; Rom. 1753-55, cura P- Th. Cacciari. Comp. Griesbach, 
J. J., Loci Theologici coUecti ex Leone Magno. (Opusc. T. i. ab init.) 
*Perthel, Pabst Leo's L Leben und Lehren. i. Jena, 1843, 8. Bohringer, i. 
i, p. 170, ss. Arendt, Leo d. Grosse, Mainz, 1835. [Migne's edition, 3 vols. 
1845. St. Cheron, Vie de Leo. Comp. Greenwood's Cathedra Petri, i. 1856.] 

"' Prosper of Aquitaine opposed the Pelagians in several writings ; Car 
men de ingratis, and others. 0pp. by Jean Le Brun de Marct and Mangeanl, 
Par: 1711, fol. Wiggers, ii. p. 136, ss. 

'" Gennadius, a presbyter at Massilia, died about the year 493 : De eccle- 

238 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

siasticis Dogmatibus, edited by Elmenhorst, Hamb. I'Zli, 4 ; it is also found 
among the works of Augustine (T. viii). 

"' Fuk/entiusvtas born a. d. 468, at Telepte, in Africa, and died A. d. 533, 
as bishop of Ruspe. Contra Objectiones Arianorura — Do Remissione Pecca- 
torura — Ad Donatura, de Fide orthod. et de diversis Erroribus Hsereticorum 
There is an edition of his works by */, Sirmond, Par. 1623, fol. (Bibl. Max.. 
Patr. Lugd.'T. ix. p. 1.) Yen. 1742, fol. 

'" Anidus Manlius Torquatus Severianus Boethius was born at Rome 
A. D. 470, and beheaded a. d. 524, in the reign of King Theodoric. He wrote : 
De Trin. etc. ; De Persona et Natura (contra Eutychem et Nestorium) : — • 
Fidci Confessio, s. brevis Fidei Christianae Coniplexio. He also composed 
several philosophical writings, among which that entitled De Consolatione 
Philosophica, lib. v., is remarkable, inasmuch as it shows how the ancient 
philosophy of the Stoics was associated with the speculative dogmatic theol- 
ogy of the Church without being much influenced by the spirit of true Chris- 
tianity. Schleiermacher even questions : " whether Boethius ever was in 
earnest about Christianity ;" Geschichte der Philosophic, p. 175. [De Con- 
sol, an English version, by Chaucer ; by lord Preston, 1695, 2d ed. 1712; 
by Ridpath, Lond. 1735. F. Nitzsch, Das System des Boethius. I860.] 

'"' Gregory the Great (bishop of Rome, a. d. 590) died a. d. 604. Protest- 
ants conunonly, but arbitrarily, regard him as closing the papistic period. 
0pp. Par. 1675. Venet. 1758-76. — Wiggers, do, Gregorio Magno ejusque 
placitis authropologicis ; Comment. 1, 1838, 4. G.J. Th. Lau, Gregor I. 
der Grossc, nach scinem Leben und seiner Lehre. Leipz. 1845. Bohringer, 
i. 4, p. 310, ss. [G. Pfahler, Gregor d. grosse und seine Zeit. Bd. i. Frankf. 
1852. Neander, in his Plistor}', and in his Memorials of Christ. Life (Bohn), 
p. 386, sq. Marhgraf, De Greg. Mag. Vita. Berol. 1845. Gregory's Au- 
gusts nian!sm, Wiggers, in Zeitscbrift, f. d. hist. Theol. 1854. V. Luza.rche, 
Vie de Greg, le Grand, Paris, 1857. G's Morals on Job, in Oxf. Libr. of 
Father's, 18, 21, 23, 31 ; his Dialogues transl. in the Metropolitan (Bait.) 
1854. King Alfred transl. Gregory's Pastoral (in Alf. Regis Res Gestse), 
Lond. 1574. — Opera Omnia, ed. Migne. 5 imp. 8vo. Paris, 1849.] 

'° Isidore Hispalensis died a. d. 603 ; he attempted previous to the time 
of John of Damascus to arrange the doctrines of the church in the form of a 
system, bnt his work is only a compilation : Sehtentiarum sive de Summo 
Bono, libri. iii. 0pp. ed. Faust. Arevalo, Rom. 1797, vii. 4. He wrote, more- 
over, some independent works on doctrinal subjects : Liber Questionum sivfl 
Expositionis Sacramentorum — De Natura Rerum — Exhort, ad Pcenitentiam— i 
and also several historical, canonical, and practical treatises, particularly Origi- 
num sive Etymologiarum, libri. xx (ed. Otto, Lips. 1833). Oudin, Comment 
vol. i. p. 1582-96. [Isid. Hisp. De Natura Rerum, recens. G. Becker, BcroL 
1S5V, corap. Gersdorfs Rop. Oct 1857 ] 

§ 84. The Western Chukch. Au<justinianism. 239 

The Schools of Alexandria and Antioch. 

MUnier, Dr. F., iiber die antioelienische Sohule, in Staudlina and Tzschirners Archiv. i. 1, 
p. 1, Sfi. \Niedner. Kirchengeschiohte, p. ill sq. Ncander, Hist. Drijr. 265 sq. 
Vacherot, 3. Pans, 1846-51. St. Hilaire, Paris, 1845. Simon, 2. Paris, 1861.] 

During this period an important change took place in the theo- 
logical position of the school of Alexandria. Formerly it had been 
the representative of a spiritual and living Christianity, and of that 
idealistic theology, which did not rest satisfied with the popular and 
sensuous apprehension of truth ; during the present period the dog- 
matic tendency of the school of Egypt reacted into a compact realism. 
As it had once been the task of the Alexandrian school, so it became 
now the oflSce of the School of Antioch, to defend a more liberal 
theology against rude and narrow polemics. The consequence was, 
that the teachers of that school shared the same fate with Origen — 
they were treated as heretics. The school of Antioch, however, so 
far from resembling the earlier Alexandrian school, in giving counte- 
nance to the arbitrary system of allegorical interpretation, adopted 
the grammatical interpretation, to which [as well as to biblical criti- 
cism in general] they thus rendered signal service. But on this 
account they have also sometimes been charged with a want of 

The change of opinions respecting classical literature, which many thonght 
irreconcilab'e with the spirit of the gospel (the dream of Jerome in his Epist. 
ad. Eustachium, comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianzura, p. 543), could not 
but exert a prejudicial influence upon the critical judgment of commentators. 
But where this last was wanting, only a limited gain could accrue to 
Christian theology from speculation, even when sti'engthencd by Christian 
principles. [Cf. Hergenrother, Die Antioch. Schule, Wftrxb. 1866.] 



About the same time a new epoch in the history of doctrines begins 
with the appearance of Augustine. From the dogmatic point of 
view the West now assumes a higher degree of importance than the 
East, which exhausted itself in the controversies respecting the na- 
ture of Christ and the worship of images. The Carthaginian and 

240 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Eoman realistic tendency (a tendency earlier represented in the wes- 
tern churches,) gradually gained the ascendancy over the Hellfinistic 
idealism of past ages ; the philosophy of Aristotle su])planted that 
of Plato. Augustine embraced in his theology the seeds of two sys- 
tems, which more than a thousand years afterwards were to wage 
open war against each other. The Roman-Catholic system was 
based on his doctrine of the church (in opposition to the Donatists) ; 
the system of evangelical Protestantism rests upon his views o.n sin, 
grace, and predestination (in opposition to the Pelagians). But 
both these systems appear organically conjoined in his own person, 
and have a basis, not only in his personal career and experience, but 
also in the position which he occupied relative to the church, and to 
his opponents. [Comp. Neander, Church History, and Hist., Dog- 
mas (Ryland), p. 267 sq.] 



[BoMr, Epoohen d. kirohlichen Geschichtsehreibung:, 1852; Die ChrislL Eirohe, 
vom 4n. bis 6n. Jahrh. 1859.] 

Among the natural heresies which prevailed during the first pe- 
riod, the Ebionitic (judaizing) may be considered as entirely sup- 
pressed.' The G-nostic (anti-judaizing) tendency, on the contrary, 
■was more firmly established in the system of Manes (Manicheism), 
■which, as a complete dualism, planted itself by the side of Chris- 
tianity, from its very nature belonging to that form of oriental and 
pagan philosophy which had not yet disappeared." The system 
of the followers of Priscillian must be regarded as a continuation of 
Gnosticism, though modified by Manicheism ; it spread in the West 
in the course of the fourth century, but was suppressed by violent 
persecutions.' The Paulicians, too, manifested a leaning towards 
Gnostic and Manichean notions, though they at first appear to havp 
been impelled by a practical necessity, to attempt a return to tne 
simplicity of apostolical Christianity.* These heresies, that are, as 
it were, the younger branches, which the old stock of Gnosticism 
continued to shoot forth, and which attained a higher importance in 
the next period, are to be carefully distinguished from the heresies 
which arose in consequence of dogmatic controversies ; the latter, by 
the antagonisms which were called forth, had an essential influence 
upon the doctrinal definitions of the church, and in fact evoked these 
definitions to mediate between the extremes. Here belong the here- 
sies which arose in the struggle about a dialectic treatment of the 
separate doctrines, and which essentially contributed to the doctrinal 

§ 85. The Heresies. 241 

statements made in this period, viz. : 1. The hsre&ins of SabelUus 
and Paul of Samosata, with their opposites, the Arian, Semiarian, 
and Eusebian heresies (which continued to prevail among the Groths, 
Burgundians, and Vandals, long after they had been condemned), 

2. The heresy of the Pelagians, who never were able to form a dis' 
tinct sect, but by means of a modified system {Semipelagianism) 
kept a back door open to creep now and then into the church, from 
which they had been excluded by the more strict doctrinal decisions. 

3. The Nestorian heresy, with its opposites, the Monophysite and 
Monothelite heresies. The Nestorians, after having been defeated 
in Europe, succeeded in winning over to their party the Chaldees, 
and the Thomas-Christians in Asia. Monophysites prevailed among 
the Jacobites and Copts, and the Monothelites have dragged out a 
wretched existence even to the present day among the Maronites 
in Syria.^ 

' A Judaizing view lies at the basis of SahelUanism, as a heathen tendency 
is also manifested in Arianism ; yet the Jewish element is no longer bound 
to what is national, as it was in Ebionitism. Yet the whole conflict strikes 
rather into tlie sphere of dialectic thought, than into that of primitive religious 
opinions. The notions of the Pelagians concerning the meritoriousness of 
works bore some resemblance to Judaism, but they did not in the popular 
mind originate with it. 

° Mamcheism is distinguished from Gnosticism by a more complete de- 
velopment of the dualistic principle ; this also accounts for its rigid and uni- 
form appearance, while Gnosticism is divided into many branches, and admits 
of more variety. There is far less of historical Christianity in Manicheism' 
than in Gnosticism : it rests on its own historical foundation, which is here 
and there an imitation of Christianity, and hence it forms (like Mohamme-' 
danism at a later period) a separate system of religion rather than a sect. 
Comp. Beausobre, Histoire de Manichee et du Manicheismo, Amst. 1734, 2 
vols. 4to. *£aur, das manichaische Keligionssystem, Tub. 1831, Trechsel,. 
J''., Uber den Kanon, die Kritik und Exegese der Manichaer, Bern. 1832. 
Colditz, F. E., die Enstehung des manichaischen Eeligionssystems, Lpz. 
1837 (where Manicheism is compared with the Indian, Zoroastrian, and other 
systems of religion). [Cam'p.' Mosheim^ s Commentaries {Murdochs version), 
vol. 2, 251-412. History of Manes in Mats Patr. Nov. Bibl. 1853, vol. iv. 
On the Manichees, Note F to Pusey's edition of Angustine's Confessions.] 

' On the history of the followers of Priscillian, which is of more impor- 
tance in the history of the church than in the History of Doctrines, because 
they were the first heretics persecuted with the sword, comp. Snip. Sever. 
Hist. Sacr. ii. 46-51. Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey) ii. 710-718. Baum- 
garten-Crusius, i. p. 292, ss. J. H. B. Lubkert, De HBeresi J'riscillianista- 
rnm, Havn. 1840. [Manderuach, J. M., Geschichte des Priscillianismus, 
Trier. 1851. Bernays, Snip. Sev. Berl. 1861 : cf. Christ. Ex. 1862] 

* Further particiilai's may be found in SclimlJ, Fr., Ilistoria Pauliciano- 
ruiii Orientaliuiii, Hafn. 18v;6 ; in an essay iu Wiiici's and Eiigflha.d.'s Juiir- 

242 Second FfittioD. The Age of Polemics. 

tiai 1827, vol. vii. parts 1 and 2 ; Gieseler, m the Slndien and Kritiken, 
J.J9, ii. 1, and Neander, Church History (Torre}'), iii. 246-267. Sources: 
Petri Siciili (who lived about the year 876) Historia Manichseorum, Gr. et 
Lat. ed. M. Raderus, Ingolst. 1604, 4, newly edited, with a Latin translation, 
by J. C, L. Gieseler, Gott. 1846, 4. Photius adv. Paulianistas, s. rec. Mani- 
chseorum libr. iv. in Oallandii Bib). PP. T. xiii. p. 603, ss. 

° On all these heresies, which have a peculiar bearing upon the develop- 
ment of doctrines during this period, comp. the special History of Doctrines. 
Concerning the external history of the controversies themselves, see the works 
on ecclesiastical history. 



Eespecting the dogmatic material of this period, we have to dis- 
tinguish betv?een : — 1. Those doctrines, which were shaped by the 
controversy with the last-named heresies ; and, 2. Those which were 
developed in a more quiet and gradual manner. 

To the former class belong Theology proper (the doctrine of the Trinity), 
Christology, and Anthropology ; to the latter, those parts of theology which 
treat of the nature of God, creation, providence, etc., as well as the doctrine 
of the sacraments, and eschatology ; though it must be admitted that they 
exerted an influence upon each other. We think it best to begin with the 
nistory of the first class of doctrines, as there was here a strictly polemic 
movement, and then to treat of the more esoteric (acroamatic) doctrines. 
The fiist class may bo subdivided into two divisions, viz. : the Theologieo- 
Christological on the one hand, and the Anthropological on the other. The 
controversies respecting the doctrines belonging to the former of these two 
divisions were carried on principally in the East, tbcse concerning the latter, 
in the West 








Lactantius. Dionysiua of Alexandria, and the Origenists. 

The term Logos, respecting whicli the earlier Fathers so little 
agreed, that some understood by it the Word, others the Wisdom 
(reason, spirit), was so indefinite that even Lactantius, who lived 
towards the commencement of the present period, made no dis- 
tinction between the /loyof and the nvevna^ From the time of 
Origen it fell increasingly into disuse, and in its place the other 
term, Son, which is used in the New Testament in direct referenca, 
to the human personality of Christ, was transferred to the second 
person of the Godhead (previous to his incarnation). The disciples 
of Origen," in accordance with the opinions of their master, under- 
stood by this second person a distinct hypostasis subordinate to the 
Father. Such is the view of Dionysius of Alexandria, though he 
endeavored to clear himself from the charges brought against him 
by Dionysius of Borne, by putting forth the doctrine in a less offen- 
sive form.' The doctrine of Origen now met with a peculiar fate. 
It cottttidted, as we have seen, of two elements, via., the hypostasis 

244 Second Peeiod. The Age of Polemics. 

of the Son, and his subordination to the Father. The former was 
maintained in opposition to Sabellianism, and received as orthodox ; 
the latter, on the contrary, was condemned in the Arian controvergj-. 
Thus Origenism gained the victory on the one hand, but was defeat- 
ed on the other ; but it was thus proved to be a necessary link in 
the chain, and became an element by which the transition was made. 

' The theology oi Lactantius was an isolated phenomenon in the present 
period, and has always been regarded as heterodox. (Concerning his pre- 
vailing moral tendency, see Dorner, p. 777.) Lactantius, after having 
opposed the gross and' sensuous interpretation of the birth of Christ : ex 
connubio ac permistione feminse alicujus, Instit. Div. iv. c. 8, returns to the 
meaning which the term Word (sermo) has in common life : Sermo est 
spiritus cum voce aliquid significante prolatus. The Son is distinguished 
from the angels, in that he is not only spiritus (breath, wind), but also the 
(spiritual) Word. The angels proceed from God only as taciti spiritus, as 
the breath comes out of the nose of man, while the Son is the breath ■which 
comes out of God's mouth, and forms articulate sounds; hence he identifies 
Sermo with the Verbum Dei, quia Deus procedentem de ore suo vocalem 
spiritum, quern non utero, sed raente conceperat, inexcogitabili quadam 
maj,estatis suse virtute ac potentia in eflRgiem, quae proprio sensu ac sapien- 
tia vigeat, comprehendit. There is, however, a distinction between the word 
(Son) of God and our words. Our words being mingled with the air, soon 
perish ; yet even we may perpetuate them by committing them to writing — ■ 
quanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in aeternum et sensu ao 
virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxerlt. 
Lactantius is so far from the doctrine of the Trinity, that he finds it neces- 
sary to defend himself against the charge of believing not so much in three 
as in two Gods. To justify this dual unity (or belief in two divine persons), 
he makes use of the same expressions which orthodox writers employed in 
earlier and later times for the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity : Cum 
dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nee utrumque 
Eecerniraus : quod nee Pater a Filio potest, nee Filius a Patre secerni, siqui- 
dcm nee Pater sine Filio potest nuncupari, nee Filius potest sine Patre gene- 
rari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, 
unus spiritus, una substantia est. He then comes back to the illustrations 
previously used, e. g., those drawn from the river and its source, the sun and 
its beams ; and more boldly (wholly in the Arian ^ense) he compares the Son 
of God with an earthly son, who, dwelling in the house of his father, has all 
things in common with him, so that the house is named after the son, as 
well as after the father. 

" Thus Pierius, the master of Pamphilus of Csesarea, was cliarged by 
Photius (Cod. 119) with having maintained that the Father and the Son ara 
two ovaiai koI (f>vaBi,g. Nevertheless, he is said to have taught evaePug, by 
employing those terms in the sense of vnoaTaaeig ; but, 6vaaePcJg, he made 
the TTvevfia inferior to both the Father and the Son. In like manner TheO' 
ffnoetus (about 280) was accused of making the Son a Kriafia; but this' is not 
in accordance with the other (more orthodox) teachings of that theologian 

§ 87. The Hypostasis AND SUBORDINATION of the Son. 245 

(Phot. Cod. 106) ; comp. Dorter^ p. 733, ss. Some disciples of Origon, e. <?., 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, even manifested a leaning towards Sabellianism ; 
according to Basil, Ep. 210, 5, Gregory taught Trarepa Kal vibv imvoig,, 
fiiv elvai 6vo, vnoardaei 6e ev; comp., however, C'ieseZfi?-, Dogmengesoh. 
147. Methodius of Patara avoided the use of the term bfioovawg in refer- 
ence to the preiixistence of the Son, yet he seems to have admitted his eter- 
nal preexistence, though not in the sense of Origen ; comp. 0pp. edit. 
Comhefis. Par. 1644, p. 283-474, and Dorner, 1. c. 

' This is obvious, especially in the opposition of Dionysius to Sabellian-> 
ism (see the next section). Of his work addressed to the bishop of Eome, 
and entitled : "E/te-y^of Koi 'ATToXoyia, Lib. iv., fragments are preserved in 
the writings of Athanasius {nepl hiovvalov tov in. 'AX. liber. : 0pp. i. p. 
243), and Basil ; they were collected by Constant in his Epistt. Eom. Pontt. 
in Gallandi T. iv. p. 495. See Gieseler, i. § 64 ; JVeander, i. p. 699 ; Miin- 
scher (von Colin), p. 197-200. Schleiermacher (see the next §) p. 402, ss. 
According to Athanasius, p. 246, Dionysius was charged with having com- 
pared (in a letter to Euphranor and Ammonius) the relation between the 
Father and Son to that in which the husbandman stands to the vine, the 
shipbuilder to the ship, etc. The Arians even asserted (see Athanasius, p. 
253) that he taught like themselves : Ovk. del tjv 6 Geof naTrjp, ovk dd i]V 
f> vlog' dXX' 6 fiev debg ^v x^'P^? ''"O'l' Xoyov avrbg 6e b vlbg ovk fjv rrplv 
yevvTjOy' dXX' f[V ■nore ore ovk jjv^ ov yap atSiog iariv, dXX' varepov 
imyeyovev. He also called the Son fevof Kar' ovaiav tov Trarpog. Comp. 
however, the expressions quoted by Athanasius, p. 254, which go to prove 
the contrary. But the bishop of Rome (not without a Sabellian leaning, 
Bee Borner, loi) insisted that Dionysins should adopt the phrase ojj-oovaLa 
(Homousia), to which the latter at last consented, though he did not think 
that it was founded either upon the language of Scripture, or upon the ter- 
minology til! then cun-ent in the church.* Orthodox theologians of later 
times (e. g., Athanasius), endeavoring to do more justice to Dionysius of 
Alexandria, maintained that he had used the aforesaid offensive illustrations 
only Kar' o'ucovofitav, and that they might be easily explained from the 
stand ho took against Sabellianism; Athanasius, p. 246, ss. ; see on the other 
side, Lbffler, Klaine Schriften, vol. i. p. 114, ss. (quoted by Heinichen on 
Eusob. vol. i. p. 306). It can also be justly alleged that Dionysius had a 
practical I'ather thau a speculative mind, and that his main bias and inten- 
tion was different from that of Arius. The thesis of subordination, which 
was the centre of the Arian system, was to him only a ^'suspicious and hasty 
■inference from the distinction between the Father and the Son ;" see Borner, 
p. 743. sq. [Fbrster, De Doctrina Dionys. M. Berl. 1865.] 

* An intermediate position was taken by Zeno of Verona (a contemporary cf Origen ani' 
Cyprian), wlio, in Horn. i. ad Genes, in Bibl. Max. PP. iiL p. 356, ss., (ompared ttia 
Father and the Son to two seas which are joined by straits; comp. Dorner, p. 764, ss. 

246 Second Period, The Age of Polemics. 



Sabellianism, and Paul of Samosafa. 

Ch. Wormius, Historia Sabelliana. Franoof. et Lips. 1696, 8. SchleiermacTiir, iiber den 
Gegensatz zwischen der sabelUanisehen und atbanasianischen Vorstellung von der 
Trinitat (Berlin. Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, Part 3). Lange, der Sabellianismus in seiner 
ursprungliohen Bedeutung (Illgens Zeitschr. fur historisehe Theol. iiL 2. 3). — Feuerlin, 
J. G., de Hseresi Pauli Samoa. 1741, 4. Ehrlich, J. G., de Erroribus Paull Samos. 
Lips. 1745, 4. Schwab, de Paull Sam. vita atque doctrina. Diss, inaug. 1839. 
[Schldermacher^s Essay on the Discrepancy between the Sabellian and Atbanasian 
■ Representation of the Trinity, trans., with notes, by Moses Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 
first series, vol. v. Comp. Dorner, 1. 127, sq., on Sabellius; and on Paul of Samo- 
sata, i. 510, .sq. Neander, Hist. Dog. {Byland), i. 164. L. Lange, Antitrin. vor d. 
Nic. Syn. 1851. Waterland's Works, i. 517, aq., ii. 703, sq.] 

Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle 
of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, 
such as Praxea?. Noetus, and Beryllus ; and maintained, in opposi- 
tion to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that 
the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were only so many 
different manifestations and names of one and the same divine being. 
He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a 
Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (the 
Trinity of manifestation). In illustration of his views, he made use 
not only of various images which his opponents sometimes misinter- 
preted, but also of such expressions as were afterwards transfeiTcd 
to the terminology of the orthodox church.' Thus while he avoided, 
'on the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and 
recognized the divinity manifested in Christ as the absolute deity; 
yet, on the other hand, by annulling the personality of the Son, he 
gave the appearance of pantheism to this immediate revelation of 
Grod in Christ ; since with the cessation of the manifestation of 
Christ in time, the Son also ceased to be Son. The doctrine of 
Paul of Samosata is not, as was formerly the case, to be confounded 
with the notions of Sabellius ; it rather approached the earlier 
(Alogistic) opinions of Artemon and Theodotus, which, as regards 
the nature of Christ, were not so much pantheistic as deistic' 

' Eas. vii. 6. Epiph. Ilser. 62. Athan Contra Arian. iv. 2. and other pas- 
sages. Basil, Ep. 210, 214, 235. Theodoret Fab. Hser. ii. 9. According to 
Epiphaniug, Sabellius taught that there were : iv fiia vnoardaei rpetf 
ivepyeiai (pvoiiaaMi, dvofiara), and illustrated his views by adducing the 
human trias of body, soul, and spirit, and the three properties of the sun, viz. 


the enlightening {(fxoTiaTiKov), the ■warming (r6 OaXTTov), and the periphery 
(to 7repL(fiepeiag uxrifio.). But it is difficult to determine how far he applied 
the one or the other of these characteristics to the persons of the Trinity, 
and carried out the analogy in all its particular. According to Athanasius, 
iv. 25, he also referred to the manifold gifts coming from the one Spirit, as 
illustrative of the Trinity. What is objective in the matter consisted, in hia 
view, in the divine cc moiny, in the modes in which God is revealed to the 
human race. God is called Father in relation to the giving of the law; ho 
is called Son in relation to the work cif redemption ; and Holy Spirit in 
relation to the inspiration of the apostles, and the quickening of believers; 
hence the charge of the orthodox (Athan. iv. 25. Basil. Ep. 210, 214, 235. 
Aug. Tract, in Job. § 3), that Sabellius had limited the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity merely to the wants of the present world {npbg rag kudoTOTS XP^'^^)- 
These three different modes of the Divine manifestation (according to. 
Athanasius, iv. 13) be regarded as a TrXaToveadai, or tKTsiveaOai (the figure 
of an arm stretched out and brought back). But it is difficult to ascertain 
the precise distinction which he made between these different modes of man- 
ifestation and the "monas" (unity), the avrodeog, whom he called vlonditop 
(Athan. De Syn. 16) ; and the relation in which this monas stands to these 
modesof manifestation, and to the Father in particular. To judge from some 
passages, Cjuoted by Athan. iv. 25, he seems to have considered the terms 
Txari'ip and fiovag identical ; while elsewhere (iv. 13) the Father', who is 
designated as the jxovag, forms a part of the Trinity, comp. Dornei; p. 706, 
»s. The Logos also occupies a peculiar position in the system of Sabellius. 
While, in his opinion, the Trinity only exists in relation to the world, the 
C eation of the world is brought about by the Logos, to whom Sabellius, like 
t'.c earlier writers, applies the predicates hSidderog and irpocpopiKdg, see 
Dorner, p. '711, ss. Thus, according to Sabellius, Ged is inactive as silent, 
and active as speaking (Athanas. iv. 11). On the entire system of Sabellius, 
as well as on the sense in which ho used the terms ■npoaunrov (whether bor- 
rowed from the theatre ?) and &p.oovaiog, see Schleiermacker, 1. c. Baum- 
(jarten-Crusius, i. 1. 200, ss. JVeander, translat. ii. p. 276, ss., and Hist, of 
Dog. p. 180. Mohler, Athanasius dor Grosse, vol. i. p. 184, ss. As regards 
the historical manifestation of Christ, it must be admitted that its theo- 
losjjcal significance is not impugned by Sabellius, inasmuch as he regards 
the Saviour as the immediate manifestation of God. But Clirist possesses 
jiei-soTiaiity only during this historical appearance in the flesh. That per- 
Kooalitv Hcitbor es:i*ted previous to his incarnation, nor does it continue to 
exist ill hf'.ftven, since that divine ray which beamed forth in Cbrist returns 
K'fain to *^od. Nevertheless, Sabellius seems to have expected the second 
I'oming of Christ {^Schkifrmoclwr, p. 174). It is even doubtful whether he 
makes the return of the Logos to God to occur at the ascension of Christ, or 
only -when the kingdom of God is completed. On tie connection between 
Sabellianism and Ebionitism, see Dorner, p. 726. [This is seen in that 
Sabellius makes the revelation of Christ a mere means, and not an end; in 
his calling the Sou a ray (aKTiva) of the monas, on account of which he 
«vas accused of dividing the divine essence ; and then the difficult question 
Isince he allowed no distinctions in God), whether the whole God was in tha 

248 Second Pebiod. The Age of Polemics. 

person {Prosopon) of the Son in such a way that he was not elsewhere active 
(iuring the incarnation — a question which led him to speak of the Son in 
terms approximating to Ebionitism.] According to Epiphanius, the opin- 
ions of Sabellius were principally spread in Mesopotamia, and in the vicinity 
ofEome. A sect of Sabellians, properly so called, did not exist. 

" Paul, a native of Syria, bishop of Antioch from the year 260, was, after 
S64, charged with heresy at several synods,* and at last removed from his 
ofBce (269-72). Of his dispute with the presbyter Malchion, a fragment is 
preserved in Mansi, vol. i. p. 1001, ss. Comp. the different accounts given 
by Epiph. 65, 1, and Euseb. vii. 27. The writers on the History of Doctrines 
vary in their opinions respecting the relation in which he stands whether to 
Sabellianism, or to the Unitarianism of the Artemonitcs (see Euseb. v. 28, ab 
init.) ; comp. Schleiermacher, p. 389, sq. Bavin garten-Crusius, i. p. 204. 
'Aiigusti, p. 59. Meier, Dogmengesch. p. 74, 75. Dorner, p. 510. The 
difference between Sabellius and Paul of Samosata may be said to have con- 
sisted in this, that the foi'mer thought that the whole substance of the Divine 
being, the latter that only one single Divine power, had manifested itself in 
Christ. Trcclisel (Geschichte des Antitrinitarismus, vol. i. p. 81) agrees with 
this, calling Samosatianism "the correlate of Sabellianism, according to the 
measures of the mere understanding.'' The divine here comes only into an 
external contact with man, touches human nature only on the surface; 
7'hile, on the other hand, the human element comes to its rights more than 
in the system of Sabellius. At all events, we can hardly expect any serious 
and persevering attempts at a doctrinal system from a man whose vanity is 
so prominent. Though the charge that he countenanced Jewish errors to 
obtain favor with the queen Zenobia, is unfounded (Neander, ii. p. 270), yet 
it is quite probable that the vain show he made of free-thinking principles, 
?ind his idle pretension of taking a stand above the parties, were in as full 
accordance with his ostentatious nature, as in other times and under other 
circumstances this has been found to be connected with an arrogant and 
pretentious orthodoxy. Even to make a heresy, a definite theological char- 
actor is needed ; frivolity is but an external appendage of any party. At 
any rate, it is false to use the terms Sabellianism and Samosatianism promis- 
cuously. Generally, those who denied the distinctions of persons in the 
Trinity, were called llarpnraaaiavoi in the West, and ^aj3t:?^XicivoL in the 
East. Comp. Athanasius de Synod. 25, 7. 

* On the two Antioch Synods, 2G5 and 2^0, see Domer, p. 769. [Their desreps, 
though not in a strict dogmatic form, were roceivod as orthndcs:-— iiouab ocat-atnirig 
expressions which were avoided after tlio Council of Nice. Thu Sur, is cui:.ih«>-,d to be 
God in essence and hypostasis (ovnia Kac {iTiocrdcLi) ; his prooxistorjie is irt'iorx'.y s:«ted 
— he was always with the Patlicr; through him, not as inetniin.sat waizXy, nor «£ an im- 
personal "VViadom, the Father created all things, etc. Sabslijijisia aud Si.aiosatiai;.ii£a 
ITS eioluded by these and like positions.] 




[Whitaker's Origin of Arianism. Lond. 1791. Newman's Arians of tho Fourth Century- 
Maimbourg, Hist, of Arianism, by W. Webster, 2, 1768. J. A. Stark, Versuoli einer 
Gescli. des Avian. T. G. Rassencamp, Historia Arianae Cont^oversise, 1845. Bp. 
Kaye, in his Coimcil of Nice, 1853. Albert de Broglie, L'Eglise et I'Empire Romaia 
au iv. si^cle, Paris, 1856, i. 329-397; ii., ch. vii. ; iii., eh. iv. Stanley. W. Kiose, 
in Herzog'a Realenoycl.] 

The system of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, forms the most 
.striking contrast with that of Sabellius. Arius, in endeavoring to 
define objectively the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, 
carried the idea of a subordination of the one to the other, and, in 
the first place, of the Son to the i'ather, so far as to represent the 
former as a creation of the latter." Tliis opinion, wliich he promul- 
gated at Alexandria, met with the most decided opposition on the 
part oi' Alexander, bishop of that city.° This contest, which was at 
first merely a private dispute, gave rise to a controversy, which 
exerted greater influence upon the History of Doctrines than all 
former controversies, and was the signal for an almost endless suc- 
cession of subseq[uent conflicts. 

' Sources : Arii Epist. ad Euseb. Nicomed. in Epiph. Haer. 69, § 6 
Theodor^t Hist. Eccles. i. 4. Epist. ad Alex, in Athan. De Synodis Arim. e 
Seleuc. c. 16, and Ep. Hser. 69, § 7. Of the work of Arius entitled QaXsia, 
only some fragments are preserved by Athanasius. — According to the Epist. 
ad Euseb., bis opinion was : "On 6 vlbg ovk koTiV dyswriTog, ovde uepog 
dyevv^Tov Kar' ovdeva rponov, dXX' ovts i§ vTiOKecjj-ivov rcvbg, dXX' oti 
deXrifiari PovAy vneOTT] irpb xpovuv ical npb aluvwv, nP^riprjg 6eug, 
liovoyevTjg- dvaXXoMTog, nai nplv yevvrjOy rjTOi KTiady tjtoi OptaOg rj 
OsfieXiudy, OVK rjv dyevvrjTbg yap ovk fjv. His views are fully settled on 
the last (negative) point ; though be is laboring in what precedes to get at 
a satisfactory mode of statement. "We are persecuted," be continues, 
" because we say that the Son hath a beginning, while we teach that God is 
avapxog. Wo say on ef ovk 6vtuv tariv, because he is no part of God, 
nor is he created of any thing already in existence" (he rejects accordingly 
the theory of emanation, or the notion that Christ is created from matter). 
Comp. the letter to Alexander, 1. c, where he defends his own doctrine 
against the notion of Valeutinus concerning a -rrpofioXr'i; against that of the 
Manichees about a nepog; and lastly, against the opinions of Sabellius; he 
there uses almost the same phraseology which occurs in the letter to Euse- 
Liius. The same views are expressed in still stronger language in the frag- 
ments of the aforesaid work Thalia (in Athan. Contra Arian. Orat. i. § 9) : 
Ovk, dFj. 6 6ebc nar^ip fiv, dXX' v arepov yeyovev ovii del fiv 6 vlbg, ov yap 

250 Second Period. The Age or Polemics. 

^v TTplv yevvTjOy- ovk eariv iK tov -rrarpbg, dXX' i^ ovk ovtuv -jTrEOTT] icai 
avTog' OVK iariv Wiof Tjjg ovalag tov Ttarpoq. Kriajia yap eari koI 
noirjfia, Koi ovk iariv dXtjdtvbg debg 6 Xpiarbg, aXXd fxeroxy Kol avrbg 
ideoTToi'^drj. Ovk ol6s rbv Trarepa dKpi[3(og b vlbg, ovte bpa b Xoyog rbv 
Traripa reXeiug- koI ovre avviel, ovre yivuiaKei dKpijSCjg 6 Xoyog rbv Trarepa' 
OVK hoTLV 6 dX'Tjdivbg Kal iiovog avrbg tov -rrarpbg Xoyog, dXX' dvofiari 
fiovov Xeyerai Xoyog koX <J0(pia, Kal ^dpiri Xeyerai vlbg Kal dvvajug' ovK 
iariv drpenrog (bg b Tror^p, dXXa rpenrog kari <pvaei, ug to, Kriafiara, koI 
Xelnei avru) elg KardXTjtpiv rov yvwvai reXeiwg rbv narepa. Contra 
Arian. i. § 5 : Etro deXrjffag Tjfidg (6 debg) drjjMovpy^aat, rare 6e TTenofrjiCEV 
tva rivd Kal (l)v6p,a'oev avrbv Xbyov Kal ao<plav Kal vlbv, 'iva ijnag 6i' avrov 
drjiitovpy^oXI- — He proves this from the fignralive expression, Joel ii. 25 (the 
ScptuagiYit reads, "the great power of God," instead of "locusts"). Comp. 
Neander, Church History, ii. p. 767, ss. Borner, p. 849, ss. Baur, Trin- 
itiitl. p. 319, ss., 3'42, ss. Neander, Hist. Dogra. (Ryland), p. 301. Meier, 
Trinitat. p. 134 ; the latter says, p. 137,* that Arius represents the reaction 
of common sense against the tendency to recur to the forms of Platonic 
speculation." But compare Baur, ubi supra, who finds also a speculative 
element in Arius. [The previous statements had resulted only in bringing 
out the extreme positions, without reconciling them. Arius laid hold of one 
of these, that the Father alone, is unbegotten, and the Son begotten, and 
carried it to its logical results. If begotten, then not eternal ; if not eternal, 
then original in time, etc. Arianism is an abstract separation between the 
infinite and the finite. Comp. Baur's Dogmengesch. 2d ed. 1858, p. 164.] 

" Concerning the opinion of Alexander, see his letter to Alexander, bishop 
of Constantinople, in Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i. 4, and the circular letter Ad 
Catholicos, in Socrat. i. 6. Miinscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 203-206. He 
founds his arguments chiefly on the prologue to the Gospel of John, and 
shows, iiera^v irarpbg Txal vlov ovdiv elvai Sidarijua. All time and all 
spaces of time are rather created by the Father through the Son. If the 
Son had had a beginning, the Father would have been dXoyog. The genera- 
tion of the Son had nothing in common with the sonship of believers. Christ 
ia the Son of God Kara (pvaiv. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch. p. 212. 



The Doctrine of the Council of Nice. 

Munscher, TIntersuchung, iiber den Sinn der nioaisohen Glaubensformel, in Henlces Neues, 
Magazinl vi. p. 334, ss. Wcdch, Bibl. Symb. Vet. Lemg. 1770, 8, p. 75, ss. [Fudu 
Bibliothek d. Kircheuveraammlungen der 4n. und 5n. Jahr. i. 350. Ailianasii Epis- 

* Thus Arius, on the doctrine of Origen, contended against its speculative side, in the 
eternal generation, while he adopted his vie"w of the subordinjitiou of the Son to the Father. 
Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 308; and Neander, Hist. Dogm. p. 303: "The profound 
idea, espoused by Origen, of tlie eternal generation of the Son, without any beginning, 
could not be comprehended by the commonplace understanding of Arius." 

§ 90. The Hypostasis and Homousia of tjhe Son. 251 

tolse de Deerot. Synod. Nic. in Oxford Lib. of Fathers, vola. 8, 19. Kayds, Som« 
Account of the Council of Nice, 1853, oomp. Christ. Betnembmncer, 1854. 2'eiamits, 
Theol. Dogm. Tom. ii. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nic. De Broglie, L'Eglise et I'Em. 
pire Romain, ii. 1-71. Mohler, Athanasiua, 2 Thle. Mainz, 2d ed. 1844. K. W. 1 
EessUr, Athanasius, der Vertheidiger d. Homousia, in Zeitsohrift, f. d. liist. Theol 
1856, trausl. in Preab. Qu. Review, 1857. "W. W. Harvey, Hist, and Theol. of tha 
Three Creeds, 2. Lond. 1854. Voigi, Die Immanente Trinitat, und Athanasius; in 
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. Analeota Nic^na, fragments on the council, Irom 
the Syriac, by B. H. Cowper, Lond. ISoT ; of. Journal of Sacr. Lit. Lond. Jan. 1860, 
p. 380. Yoigt, Lehre ds. Athauasius, 1861.] 

The Emperor Oonstantine the Great, and the two bishops of the 
name Eusebius (viz. : of Ctesarea and of Nicomedia), having in vain 
endeavored to bring about a reconciliation between the contending 
parties,' the First General {(EcumenicaV) Council was held at Nice 
(a. d. 325), principally through the intervention of the bishop Ho- 
sius of Corduba. After several other formulas, apparently favorable 
to Arianism," had been rejected, a confession of faith was adopted, 
in which it was established as the inviolable doctrine of the catholic 
church, that the Son is of the same essence (d/ioovawg) with the Fa- 
ther, but sustaining to him the relation of that which is begotten to 
that which begets.' 

' Comp. Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Ariuin, in Eus. Vita Const. 
ii. 64-72 ; and on the attempts of the two bishops to bring about a recon- 
ciliation, see N^eander, 1. c. p. 783, ss. 

' One of these is the confession of faith which Eusebius of Csesarea pro- 
posed, Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 11, comp. Neander, 1. c. p. 797, ss. It con- 
tained the expression : 'O tov deov Xoyog, debg Ik Oeov, (pug eK cpurbg, fw7/ 
Ik ^urjg, -rrpuiTOTOKoq Trdarjg KTiaeuig, Trpb ixavTuv tuv aluvuv, Ik tov 
TTUTpog ysyevvr]fj,evog. According to Athan. De Decret. Syn. Nio. 20, they 
^t first only wished to decide, that the Son of God is elitcov tov iraTpbg, ofiowg 
TS Kal aTTapaXXaKTog KaTO, rravTa tw naTpl koI a-rpsnTog KaY ael, koI kv 
avTG) elvai ddiaipETUig. 

' IliaTEvofiev elg eva Qebv, iraTepa navTOKpaTopa, ndvTUV bpaTdiv re koX 
dopdTCOv TTOiTjT-^v Kal elg eva Kvpiov 'hjaovv XpiOTbv tov vlhv tov Beov, 
yevvrjdivTa en tov naTpbg fiovoyevrj, tovteotlv Ik r^f ovaiag tov -naTpbg, 
Qsbv Ik esoti, (pwg eK (pUTog, 6ebv dXrjdtvbv Ik Qeov dXriOivov, yevvrjdivTa 
ov TTOirjOevTa, bfioovaiov tS> Trarpi, 6i' ov to, ndvTa eyeveTO, tu ts ev 
T<i ovpavu) Kal to, ev Tfj yy, Tbv 6i' fifJ-ag Tovg dvdpwnovg Kal Slo, rqv 
ilfiBTspav auTTjpiav KaTeXdovTO Kal aapKudivTa Kal ivavdpunrjaavTa, 
TradjvTa Kal dvaOTavTa Ty TptTfj rjfiEpa- dveXdovTU elg Tovg ovpavovg, Kal 
^pXOuevov KpXvai ^cjvTag Kal veKpovg. 'Kal elg to ayiov ■nveviia. Tovg 6k 
XeyovTag, otl fp) -^OTe ore ovk fjv, K-al rrplv yevvTjd-rjvai ovk fp), Kal oti 
ef ovk Svtwv EyeveTO, t) If kTepag vnoaTaaedig rj ovalag (pdoKovTag elvac, 
^ KTiOTbv 7] Tpenrbv ■q dXXoiutTbv Tbv vlbv tov Qeov, dvaOep,aTi^ei r] dyia 
KaOoXiKT) Kal drroaToXiKT] iKKXrjaia. Athan. Epist. De Decret. Syn. Nic.^ 
Eas. Cses. Ep. ad Caesariens. — Socrat. i. 8. Theodoret, Hist. Eocl. i. 11. 
Munscher von Colin, p. 207-9. £aur, Trinitatl. p. 334, ss. Meier, p. 146, 

252 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

ss. ' Dorner, p, 849. [The Nicene creed, says Dorner, showed to Christian 
theology the end at which it was to aim, even if it did not perfectly realize 
that end. Arianism had pressed back towards Ebionitism ; it had lost tha 
idea of the incarnation, putting between God and the creature a fantastic, 
subordinate God, which separated rather than united the infinite and finite. 
It made a perfect revelation or manifestation of God impossible. The Nicena 
fathers met this, by proclaiming the real and proper divinity of the Son, etc.] 

Respecting the definitions of the phrases ^f ovaiag and b[j.oovawg, comp. 
Athanasius, 1. c. We find that even at that time a distinction was made be- 
tween sameness and similarity. The Son is like the Father in a difl'erent 
sense from that in which we become like God by rendering obedience to his 
laws. This resemblance, moreover, is not external, accidental, like that be- 
tween metal and gold, tin and silver, etc. 

[Baur, Dogmcngesch. 2te Aufl. 1858, p. 164, gives the following as the 
substance of the Nicene and Athanasian belief. To the Arian hypothesis it 
opposes the eternal generation and consubstantiality (Homousia) of the Son, 
on the basis of the following arguments; 1. The Father would not be abso- 
lute God if he were not in his essence begetting and so the Father of a Son 
of the same essence. 2. The idea of the divinity of the Son is abolished, if he 
is not Son by nature, but only through God's grace. If created, he were 
neither Son nor God ; to be both creature and creator is a complete- contra- 
diction. 3. The unity of the finite with the infinite, of man with God, falls 
to the ground, if the mediator of this unity is only a creature, and not the 
absolute God.] 

§ 91. 

Fwrther Fhictuations until the Synod of Constantinople. 

But the phrase b^ioovawg did not meet with universal approval.' 
In this unsettled state of affairs the party of the Eusebians," who 
had for some time previous enjoyed the favor of the court, succeeded 
in gaining its assent to a doctrine in which the use of the term 
Sfioovaiog was studiously avoided, though it did not strictly inculcate 
the principles of Arianism. Thus Athanasius, who firmly adhered 
to this watchword of the Nicene party, found himself compelled to 
seek refuge in the West. Several synods were summoned for the 
purpose of settling this long protracted question, a number of for- 
mulae were drawn up and rejected," till at last the Nicene and Atha- 
pasian doctrine was more firmly established by the decifiions of the 
second oecumenical synod of Constantinople (a. d. 381).* 

' Several Asiatic bishops took offense at the term in question ; Socrat. i. 
8, 6. Munscher von Colin, p. 210. They considered it unscriptural (Af'fif 
aypari)0f), and were nfraid that it might give rise to a revival of the theory 
of emanation. But the expression iti T'/jf Dvaiac was iDore favorable to that 

§ 91. Fluctuations until the Synod of Constant(nople 253 

theory than the term ofioovaiog, comp. Meier, 1. c. p. 147. — RespectiTig the 
further course of the external events, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 
Leading Historical Facts : I. The banishment of Arius and of the bishops 
Theonas and Secundus. The fate of Eusebius of Nicoraedia and Thoo^nis 
of Nice. II. Arius is recalled a. d. 330, after having signed the following 
confession of faith : elg Kvpiov 'Itjaovv Xpiarbv, rhv vlbv tov deov, tov i^ 
avrov TTpb irdvTuiv ruv aldvuv yeyevvrmsvov, Bebv Xoyov, 6c' ov to, ndvTa 
eyivsTO k. t. A. (Socr. i. 26.) Synods of Tyre and Jerusalem (a. d. 335). 
III. Banishment of Athanasius to Gaul. The sudden death of Arius at Con 
stantinople (a. d. 336), prior to his solemn roadmission into the Church. 
Diflferent opinions concerning this event. IV. Death of the Emperor Con- 
stantine the Great at Nicomedia (a. d. SSI). (Socr. i. 27-40.) A remark- 
able change had taken place in the views of Constantine towards the close 
of bis life. The Arians were iirmly supported by his son Constantius, who 
mled in the East fiom a. d. 337. 

' Concerning this name, see Oieseler, i. § 82. Athanasius himself fre- 
quently calls them ol TVEpl 'EvatPwv ; by other writers they are classed with 
the Arians, whom they joined in their opposition to Athanasius. 

' I. The four confessions of faith drawn up by the Eusobians, and 
presented at councils in Antioch from the year 341 (in Athan. De Syn. 
c. 22-25. Walch, p. 109. Miinscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 211, ss. 
Giescler, i. § 82, note 4) ; in all of these the word bfxoovaiog is wanting, but 
in other points they were not favorable to Arianism. II. llie formula 
jiaKpoaTixog, by the council of Antioch, a. d. 343, in which Arianism was 
condemned, Tritheism rejected, the doctrine of Athanasius found fault with, 
and, in opposition to it, the subordination of the Son to the Father was main- 
tained. III. The synod of Sardica, (a. d. 34V, or, according to others, a. d. 
344)* Socrat. ii. 20 ; but the western bishops alone remained at Sardica, the 
eastern held their assemblies in the neighboring town of Philippopolis. The 
Formula Philippopolitana, preserved by Hilary (de Synodis contra Arianos, 
§ 34), is partly a repetition of the formula iiaKpoartxog. IV. The confession 
of faith adopted at the first council of Sirmiura (a. d. 351, in Athanas. § 27, in 
Hilary, § 37, and in Socrat. ii. 29, 30) was directed against Photinus ; see be- 
low, § 92. V. The formula of the second council of Sirmium (a. d. 357, in 
Hilary, § 11, Athanas. § 28, Socrat. ii. 30) was directed both against the use 
of the term bfioovaiog, and against speculative tendencies in general: Scire 
autem manifestura est solum Patrem quomodo genuerit filium suum, et fil- 
ium quomodo genitus sit a patre, (comp. above, Irenajus, § 42, note 9) ; but 
it also assei-ts the subordination of the Son to the Father in the strict Arian 
manner: Nulla ambiguitas est, majorera esse Patrem. Nulli potest dubium 
esse, Patrem honore, dignitate, cla:itatc, majestate et ipso nomine Patris ma^ 
jorem esse filio, ipso testante : qui me misit major me est (John xiv. 28). 
Et hoc catholicum essp, nemo ignorat, duas Personas esse Patris et Filii, raa- 
jorem Patrem, Filium subjectum cum omnibus his, quae ipsi Pater subjecit, 
VI. These strict Aiian views were rejected bj the Semiarians at the synod 

* Kespecting the chronology, see Wetzer, H. J., Restitutio veriP Chronologiaj Rerum ex 
Controversiis Arianis inde ab anno 325 usque ad annum 350 exortarum contra cl|iror.ol(> 
giarn hodie receptam exiiibita. Francof. 1827. 

254 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

of Ancyra in Galatia (a. d. 358), under Basil, bishop of Ancyra; the decree! 
of this synod are given in Epiph. Hasr. 73, § 2-11. (Munscher von Colin 
and Gieneler, i. § 83.) VII. The confession of faith adopted at the third 
synod of Sinniutn (a. d. 358), in which that agreed upon at the second synod 
(the Arian) is condemned, and the Semiarian confession of the synod of An- 
cyra is confirmed. Comp. Athan. § 8. Socrat. ii. 37. VIII. Council of the 
western church at Ariminum (Rimini), and of the eastern at Seleucia 
(a. d. 359). 

* Symbolum Nio^No-CoNSTANTiNOpoLiTANUM : HiaTEvofiev slg eva Oebv, 
naripa navTOnpaTopa, ttoitjttjv ovpavov Ka\ yTJg, oparwv tb ttuvtiov 
KoX dopdriov. Kat elg eva uvpiov 'Irjaovv 'Xpiorbv, tov vlbv tov Oeov jov 
fiovoyevrj, tov iK tov naTpbg yevvrjOevTa npb ■ndvTUV tCjv aluvuv, 
(p&q kit (pcoTbg, Oebv dXrjOivbv iK deov d^TjOivov, yevvTjdevTa ov TTOirjOevTa, 
dfioovatov Tw TTUTpl, 6i' ov TO, navra tyiverro' Tbv di' fjfidg Tovg dvdpionovg 
Koi dia T7jv rjfiETepav a(i)TT]piav KaTeXOovTa ek twv ovpavdv, Kal 
aapiiudivTa iK TTvevfiarog dyiov Kal Mapiag Trjg ■napBevov, koX 
evavOptnTrqaavTa' OTavpuOivTa 6e vnep fjnuv enl Hovtiov HiXd- 
TOV, Kal nadov-a Kal Tacpevra Kal dvaoTavTa tv rg Tph-Q rjiiipa KaTa 
rag ypaipdg' Kal dveXdovTa elg Tovg ovpavovg, Kal KadE^6fie%'ov e/c 
de^iHv TOv naTpbg, Kal rrdXiv spx6[ievov jiterd db^Tjg Kplvai ^wvTog 
Kal VEKpovg- ov Trjg (iaaiXeiag ovk eoTai TiXog. Kal elg to dyiov 
TTvevfia, etc. (Concerning the further statements as to the nature of the 
Holy Spirit, see below, § 93, note 7.) 

Munscher edit by von Colin, compares this symbol with the Nicene Creed, 
p. 240. "Comp. J. C. Suicer, Symbolum Nicseno Constantinopolitan, exposi- 
tum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum, Traj. ad Rhen. 1718, 4. 
[Comp. Cardinal Wiseman, Account of Council of Constantinople in the 
Arian Controv. in his Essays, vol. 3.] 



Arlanism and Semiarianism on the one hand, and return to Sahel- 
lianism on the other {Marcellus and Photinus). 

Klose, 0. Ii. W., Gesohichto und Lehre des Eunomius, Kiel, 1833. Sy the same: Gesch^ 
ichte upd Lehre des Marcellus und Photinvis, Hamburg, 1837. 

From the very nature of the controversy in question, it followed 
that the difficult task of steering clear both of Sabellianism and 
Arianism devolved on those who were anxious to preserve orthodoxy 
in its purity. In maintaining the sameness of essence, they had to 
hold fast to the distinction of persons ; in asserting the latter, they 
had to avoid the doctrine of subordination.' The Semiarians,' and 
with them Cyril of Jerusalem' and Eusebius of Ccesarea* endeav- 

§ 92. The Causes of these Fluctuations. 255 

ored to avoid the use of the term ijuoovatof, lest they should fall into 
the Sabellian error ; though the former asserted, in opposition to 
the strict Arians (the followers of Aetius, and the Eunomians),* 
that the Son was of similar essence with the Father (hiioiovawg). 
But Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and his disciple, Fhotinus, bishop 
of Sirmium, carried their opposition to Arianism so far as to adopt 
in substance the principles of Sabellianism. They modified it, 
however, to some extent, by drawing a distinction between the 
terms Logos and the Son of God, and' thus guarded it against all 
semblance of patripassianism.' 

' Chrysostom shows clearly the necessity, as well as the difBculty, of 
avoiding both these dangers, De Sacerdotio, iv. 4, sub finem : 'Av re yap 
^ilav Tig «Tr^ OeorrjTa, npog rrfv eavrov napdvoiav evOeug e'iXKVoe Tfjv 
<j)(0V7jv b SapiXXiog' dv ra dieky ndXiv &TEpov pev rbv Ilarepa, erepov 6^ 
Tov Tlbv KoX TO ILvevpa 6e rb dyiov hepov dvai Xeyuv, i(f)ea~rjKev "ApEiog, 
dg napaXXay^v ovaiag eXkuv ttjv iv rolg Trpoaunroig 6ia(popdv. Aet 6i 
Kal TTjv daePfj avjx^OLV eKStvov, Koi ttjv uaviuSj] tovtov diaipeaiv arro- 
OTpefeadai Kal (^evyeiv, ttjv fisv deoTrjTa Tlarpbg teal Tlov Kal dyiov 
HvevpaTog filav dfioXoyovvTag, irpoaTideVTag 6e Tag Tpeig VTrodTaaeig. 
OvTU) yap aTTOTBLXioai 6vv7]a6pe6a Tag dp(p6TEp(A)v E(ji66ovg. 

' Tbe leaders of the Semiarians [oiioiovaiaaTai, ri\udpuoi) were Basil, 
bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea. Comp. the confession 
of faith adopted by the synod of Ancyra (a. d. 358), in Athanas. de Syn. 
^ 41. Manscher ed. by von Colin, p. 222. 

° Cyril, Cat. xvi. 24. He rejects, generally speaking, the too fine-spun 
speculations, and thinks it sufficient to believe : Elf Oebg 6 UaT^p- dg 
Kvpiog, 6 fj.ovoyevrjg avTOV viog- Sv to TTvevpa to dyiov, b TTapdKXrjTog. 
Christ says, he that believelh on him hath eternal life — not he who knows how 
he was generated. We ought not to go beyond Scripture, nor turn either to 
the right or to the left, but keep in the via regia, fMrjTe 6ia to voiiil^eiv Tip,dv 
Tbv vlbv, iraTEpa avrbv dvayopEvaupsv, prjTS 6id to Tip,dv Tbv ira-epa 
voul^eiv, Iv Ti drjpiovpyrjpaTUV tov vlbv vnonTEVoufiev, xi. 11. Instead 
of bpoovaiog, he would prefer op-oiog KaTo, navTa, iv. 1, but comp. tho 
various readings in the work of Toutee, p. 53, and Mmischer ed. by von 
Colin, p. 224-226. Socrat. iv. 25. He also maintains that it is necessary 
to hold the medium between Sabellianism and Arianism, iv. 8 : Kal fi^TS 
d-rraXXoTpiuayg tov rtoTpbg tov vlbv, firjTe avvaXoi(l>^v tpjaadp,evog vIotto- 
Topiav -KiaTEvcxig k. t. X. Comp. xvi. 4, and Meier, die Lehre von der Trin- 
Aat. i. p. ITO. [Cyril's chief aim is to hold fast the individual existence of 
the Son and the Father, without so annulling all internal relations, that the 
Trias is destroyed, and the Son degraded to the level of creatnres by the rjv 


• Hm. Hist. Eccl. 1, 2, calls the Son tov Trjg peydX^g PovXrjg dyysXov, 
rbv Trig dppriTOV yvuprjg tov TraTpbg vnovpybv, rbv dsvTSpov peTa Tbv 
irar&pa aiTiov, etc. In Panegyricus, x. i. he also calls him ti2v dyaduv 

256 Second Pekiod. The Age of Polemics. 

(Ssvrepov oLtlov, an expression whioli greatly offended the orthodox writers;* 
but at another place he gives him the name avToOeog, x. 4. On the forma- 
tion of compound words by means of the pronoun avro, of which Eusebiua 
makes frequent use, comp. the Demonstr. Evang. iv. 2, IS, and Ileinichen, 1. 
c. p. 223. In the same wort, v. 1, p. 215, the subordination of the Son to 
the Father is stated ; he calls him, iv. 3, p. 149, v'lbv yevvTjTbv, but yet says 
that he is npb ^povuv aMvluiv ovra nal irpoovra koL tu narpl (hg vlbv 
fiiairavrbg avvovra ; yet again he speaks of him as Ik rijg rov narpbg 
avEK<ppdaTOV not dnepivo'^TOv (iovXrjg re Kal dwdfiEug ovaiovfievov. For 
further particulars see Munscher, ed. by von Colin, p. 227-29, and Hand- 
buch, iii. p. 427, ss. Martini, Eus. Caes. de Divinitate Christi Sententia, 
Eost. 1795, 4. \Ritter, Eus. Caes. de Divinitate Christi placita, Bonn. 182S, 
4. Hoenell, de Eusebio Caes. relig. Christ, defensore. Meier, 1. c. i. p. 167. 
Baur, Trinit. 472. Dorner, 792 : '• Hii system is a play of colors, a, reflex 
of the unsolved problems of the church at that time." 

' Concerning the strict Arians : Aetius of Antioch, Eunomius, bishop of 
Cycicum, and Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, comp. Philostorg. 
iii. iv. Epiph. Haer. 76, 10. Kespecting the life, writings, and opinions of 
Eunomius, see Klose, 1. c. Neander, Church History (Torrey's transl.), ii. 
399-409. Comp. Dorner, i. 3, p. 853, ss. Meier, i. p. 176, ss. Baur, 
Trin. i. 360, sq. 

' Aihanasius showed how little the idea of similarity of essence (homoi- 
ousianism) was adapted to satisfy the mind, when, among other things, he 
calls to mind that many things may be of similar nature without having 
sprung from each other (as silver and tin, a wolf and a dog) ; De Synod. § 
41. The Semiarians, with the Arians, maintained that the Son was created 
of the will of the Father; the opposite of this appeared to them to be mere 
compulsion or force. In reply, Athanasius held up the idea of an internal 
necessity, founded in the very nature of God, to which the category of force 
does not apply. He compared the relation to that of the shiniug of the 
light. Orat. contr. Arios, 11, 2. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 311. 
JVeander, Hist. Dogm. (Byland), 322. [^Voifft on Athanasius and the Im- 
manent Trinity, in Jahrb. f doutsche Theologie, 1858. Hessler on Athana- 
sius, transl. in Presb. Qu. Kev. 1857. Baur, Dogmengesch. 2d ed. p. 165, 
says of the Semiarians, that they had a half-way position, reducing the abso- 
lute ideas of the two parties to indeterminate terms, and running back into 
the old subordination and emanation views.] 

' The opinions of MarccUus (who died about the year 374), are derived 
partly from the fragments of his treatise against Asterius (de Subjectione 
Domini, edited by Rettherg, under the title: Marcelliana, Gott. 1794,8), 
partly from the writings of his opponents, Eusebins {Ka~a MapKeXXov Lib. ii. 
and TXEpl rfjg iiciiXriaiaaTiK.rjg 6eoXoylag) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Ca\ xv. 
27, S3), and partly from his own letter to Julius, bishop of Rome (Epiph. 

* Comp. the note of the scholiast in the Cod. Med (in the editions of Valesins and 
Geinichen, iii. p. 219): KaKiJ^ Kavravda deoXoyei^, Kvaej3is, Tcepl rov avvavupxov ndl avval* 
6iov Kol GV^TTOiijTov rCyv Ij7^(j>v vlov rov deov, SevTepov avrbv diTOKa?,uv atvLov rCtv dyaduv. 
aVva'iTLov ovra Koi awdij/iiavp-ynv T^ mirp'i rCiv bXuv, xal ifiooiaiov, and the more recent 
DOte in the Cod. Mazarin., ibidem. 

§ 92. The Causes of these Fluctuations. 257 

User. T2, 2). The earjier writers are divided in their opinions concerninc» 
the orthodoxy of Marccllus : the language of Athanasius is very mild and 
cautions (6ta tov npoawirov fiuSidaag Epiph. liasr. 72, 4) ; though he does 
not directly approve of his sentiments. Basil the Great, on the other hand, 
(according to Epiphanius, 69, 2, and 263, 5), and most of the other eastern 
bishops, insisted npon his condemnation; most of the latter writers consid- 
ered him a heretic, comp. Montfaucon, Diatribe de Causa Marcelli Ancyrani 
(in Collect. Nova Patr. Par. 170V, T. ii. pag. !i); Klose, p. 21-25, Gieseler, 
i. § 82, note 10. Maroellus had formerly defended the term o^oovaiog at 
the council of Nice. When, in -the course of the controversy, and of his 
opposition to the Arian sophist Asterius, he seemed to lean more towards 
Sabellianism, this may have occurred without his being directly conscious of 
it; comp. Haumgarten Crusius, i. p. 277, 278. [Ueber die Orthodoxie des 
Marc, von F. A. Willenberg, Munster, 1859.] Concerning the doctrine 
itself, Marcellus returned to the old distinction made between Xoyog evSidOE-, 
rog and Trpo(popiK6g ; he imagined, on the one hand, that the Xoyog was 
rjavxd^(JV in God, and, on the other, that it was an ivepyeia dpaa-iKTj pro- 
ceeding from him. Inasmuch as he maintains the reality of the Logos 
(whom he does not consider to be a mere name), in opposition to the Sabel- 
lian view of a rpiag ^iCTecvofiEVTj koI avareXXo^evrj, and rejects the idea of 
ffeneration adopted .)y the jouncil of Nice (because it seemed to him to 
infringe Jpon the divinity of the Logos), he occupies an intermediate posi- 
tion between the one and the other. He also endeavored to re-introduce the 
older histoi'ical signification of the phrase vlbg Oeov, as applying to the per- 
sonal manifestation of the historical Christ, and not to the preexistcnce of 
the Logos; for the idea of generation can not be applied to the latter. Ho 
consequently interpreted the Biblical phrases, Col. i. 15, and the like, in 
which Christ is spoken of as the image of God, to the incarnate Logos; so, 
too, the npuToroKog ndaTjg KTiaeug; comp. Meander, Hist. Dogm. .317. His 
disciple Photinus, bishop of Sirmium (to whom his opponents, with poor wit, 
gave the nickname ^Koreivog), adopted similar views, but carried them to a 
much greater extent; he died about the year 376. His doctrine was con- 
demned in the aforesaid formula [MaKpoarixog, and again at the council of 
Milan (a. d. 346). He himself was dismissed from his office by the council 
of Sirmium (a. d. 351). The sect of the Photinians, however, continued to 
exist till the reign of Theodosius the Great. From what has been said con- 
cerning him by Athan. de Syn. § 26, Socrat, ii. 19, Epiph. Hier. 70, Hilary 
(Fragm., and De Synodis), Marius Mercator (Nestorii Sermo IV.), and Vigil. 
Tapsens. Dialogus), it can not be fully ascertained how far Photinus either 
adhered to the principles of his master, or deviated from them. Comp. on 
this point Manscher, Handbuch, iii. p. 447. J^eander, Church Hist. ii. 395, 
425. Baumffar ten- Crusius, p. 279. Gieseler, i. § 82. Base, Church Hist, 
in Wing's version, 114. £^lose, p. 66, ss. He too asserted the co-eternity 
of the Logos (but not of the Son) with the Father, and employed the terra 
Xoyondrup to denote their unity, as Sabellius had used the word viondTup. 
He applied the name " Son of God" only to the incarnate Christ. The only 
difference between Marcellus and Photinus probably was, that the latter 
developed the negative aspect of Christology more than his master, and con- 


258 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Bequently considered the connection of the Logos with the historical' Christ 
to be less intinaate. Hence his followers were called Hoinuncionitse (accord- 
ing to Mar. Mercator, quoted by Klose, p. 76). Thus Photinus corresponds 
more with Paul of Saniosata, and Marcellus with Sabellius. So, too, Photi- 
nns viewed the preexistcnce of Christ in a merel}' ideal way, referring it (as 
the Socinians afterwards did) to predestination. In these controversies it is 
very striking, as Munscher has said, " that theologians then but little under- 
stood the distinction made by Marcellus aad Photinus between the term* 
Logos and Son of God. In refuting their opponents, they invariably con- 
founded these expressions, and thus might easily draw dangerous and absurd 
inferences from their propositions. But, at the same time, it is evident that 
their own arguments would take a wrong direction, and thus lose the greatest 
part of their force." Munscher, Handbuch, 1. c. Comp., however, Domer, 
i. 3, p. 864, ss. Baur, Trinit. i. p. 525, ss. Meier, i. p. 160, ss., especially 
on the transverse relations in which Photinus stood to his teacher in respect 
to christology. \^Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te aufl. 1858, p. 168 ; Marcellus 
distinguishes the Son from the Logos, and makes the Logos itself to be both 
quiescent and active ; the Sonshlp of the Logos has both a beginning and an 
end ; with Arianism, he sundered God and the world as far as possible. The 
doctrine of Paulinus is the same, excepting that, like Paul of Samosata and 
Arias, he adopted the view that the human Christ was deified by means of 
Lis moral excellencies. Zahn, Marcellus. Gotha. 1867.J 

§ 93. 


\Kdhnis, Geseh. d. Lehre vom Heiligen Geiste. Ed. Burton, Test, of Ante-Nicene Fathers 
to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 1831 (Works, vol. 2). Hare's (Archd.) Mission of 
the Comforter, 2d ed. 1851. Owen's Works, vols, iii and iv. The Personality of the 
Holy Spirit, against Sabellianism, W. G. Child, in Christian Review (N. Y.) 1852, 
pp. 515-537.] 

The Nicene Creed decided nothing concerning the Holy Spirit/ 
While Lactantiun still identified the Word with the Sjjirit," other 
theologians regarded the Spirit as a mere divine power or gift, or at 
least did not venture to determine his nature in any more definite 
way, though accustomed to teach the divinity of the Son in un- 
equivocal terms.' But Athanasius correctly inferred from his prem- 
ises the divinity of the Holy Spirit,* and was followed hy Basil, 
surnamed the Great, as well as by Gregory of Nazianzum, and 
Gregory of Nyssa." At last the General Council of Constantinople 
(a. d. 381), influenced by Gregory of Nazianzum, adopted more pre- 
cise doctrinal definitions concerning the Holy Spirit, especially in 
opposition to the Macedonians invEv^aTo^dxovg').' Though the term 
6iioov(jioi- itself was not applied to the Spirit in the canons of this 
council, yet, by determining that he proceeds from the Father, they 

§ 93. DiviTiTT OF THE HoLY Spieit. 259 

prepared the way for further definitions, in which honor and power 
equal in every respect to those of the Fathet and the Son were as- 
cribed to him.' 

' The opposition to Arius would necessarily lead to more precise defini- 
tions ; for Arius (according to.Athan. Orat. 1, § 6) maintained that the 
Spirit stood as far below the Son as the Son was below the Father, and that 
he was the first of the creatures made by the Son. But it did not appear 
wise to complicate the matter in question still more by contending about the 
divinity of the Spirit, since many of the Nicene Fathers, who consented that 
the term bfioovaiog should be applied to the Son, would not have so easily 
admitted it in reference to the Spirit. See Meander, Church History (Tor- 
rey), ii. p. 419 sq. 

' See above, § 87, note 1. 

' There were here again ,two ways — the one falling back into Sabellian> 
ism, the other a continuation of Arianism. Lactantius, on the one hand, 
separated the Son from the Father (after the manner of the Arians), and, on 
the other, confounded the Spirit with the Son (as the Sabellians did). Some 
writers followed the same course, while others ascribed a distinct personality 
to the Spirit, but asserted that he was subordinate to both the Father and 
the Son (the Arian view). Gregory of JVazianzum gives a summary of the 
different views entertained in his time in the fifth of his theological orations, 
which was composed about the year 380 (De Spir. S. Orat. xxxi. p. 559) : 
" Some of the wise men amongst us regard the Holy Spirit as an energy 
(li-epyeta), others think that he is a creature, some again that he is God 
himself, and, lastly, there are some who do not know what opinion to adopt, 
from reverence, as they say, for the Sacred Scriptures, because they do not 
teach anything definite on this point." Eustathius of Sebaste belonged to 
this latter class ; he said in reference to the Macedonian controversy (Socr. 
ii. 45) : 'Eycj ovre debv dvond^eiv rb nveviia to dycov alpovnai, ovre 
KTiofia KaXelv ToXiirjaaifU. Comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz. p. 380. 
Neander, Church Hist. ii. 342. Eusehius of Ccesarea was the more willing 
to subordinate the Spirit to both the Father and the Son, as he was disposed 
to admit the subordination of the Son to the Father. He thinks that tho 
Spirit is the first of all rational beings, but belongs nevertheless to the Trini- 
ty; De Theol. eccles. iii. 3, S, 6. Hilary was satisfied that that which 
Bearcheth the deep things of God, must be itself divine, though he could not 
find any passage in Scripture in which the name "Ood" was given to tho 
Holy Spirit; De Trin. lib. xii. c. 65; Tuum est, quicquid te init; nequo 
alienum a te est, quicquid virtute scrutantis inest. Comp. de Trin. ii. 29 : 
De spiritu autem sancto nee tacere oportet, nee loqui necesse est, sed si.leri a 
nobis eorum causa, qui nesciunt,non potest Loqui autem de eo non necesse 
est, quia de patre et filio auctoribus confitendum est, et quidem puto an sit, 
non esse tractandum. Est enim, quandoquidem donatur, accipitur, obtinetur, 
et qui confessioni patris et filii connexus est, non potest a confessione patris et 
filii separari. Impcrfectum enim est nobis totum, si aliquid desit a toto. De 
:quo si qnis intelligentiaj nostrse sensum requirit, in Apostolo legimus ambo : 
Qiiouiam estis, inquit, filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra 

260 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

clamantem : Abba pater. Et rursum : Nolite contristare Spir. S. Dei, in quo 
Fio-nati estis. . . Unde quia est et donatur et habetnr et Dei est, cesset hiin 
Rermo caluraniantium, cum diount, per quem sit et ob quid sit, vel qualis sit. 
Si respousio nostra displiccbit, dicentium : Per quem omnia et in quo omnia 
sunt, et quia spiritus est Dei, donum fidelium ; displiceant et apostoli et 
evaangelistae et prophetse, hoc tantum de eo quod esset loquentos, et post 
haec pater et iilius dispiicebit. — He also advises us not to be perplexed by the 
language of Scripture, in which both the Father and the Son are sometimes 
called Spirit. " He grossly confounds the terms : Deus Spiritus, Dei Spir- 
itus, and Spiritus S., and, though he believes in the separate subsistence of the 
Spirit, he does not go beyond the idea that he is a donum, a munus." — Meier, 
Trinitiitsl. i. p. 192. Cyril of Jerusalem, too, endeavors to avoid all fur- 
ther speculations as to the nature of the Holy Spirit not contained in the 
Scriptures, though he distinctly separates him from all created beings, and 
regards him as an inseparable part of the Trinity ; but he urges especially the 
]f)ractical aspect of this doctrine in opposition to the false enthusiasm of 
heretical fanatics. Cat. 16 and 17.* 

* Athanasius (Ep. 4, ad Scrap.) endeavored to refute those who declared 
the Holy Ghost to be a Kriafia, or the first of the TTVevfidruv XeiTovpyiKuv, 
and who were called TpomKoi, TTvevfiaTOfia^ovvreg. He shows that we com' 
pletely renounce Arianism only when we perceive in the Trinity nothing that 
is foreign to the nature of God {aXXorpiov ^ k^uOev emiiiyvvfisvov), but one 
and the same being, which is in perfect accordance, identical, with itself. 
Tpiag de kariv oiix ^'J? ivofiarog [lovov Kal (pavraaiag Xe^eug, dXXa dXrjdel^ 
KoX vndp^ei rpidc; (Ep. i. 28, p. 677). He appealed both to the declarations 
of Holy Writ, and to the testimony of our own Christian consciousness. How 
can that which is not sanctified by anything else, which is itself the source 
of sanctification to all creatures, possess the same nature as those who 
are sanctified by it ? We have fellowship with God, and participate in -the 
divine life, by means of the Holy Spirit ; but this could not be if the Spirit 
were created by God. As certain as it is, that we through him become par- 
takers of the divine nature, so certain is it that he must himself be one with the 
divine being {ei de Oeonoiel, ovk d[i(pipoXov, drt t] tovtov 4>vaig deoii eari). 
Ep. i. ad Scrap. § 24, p. 672, 73. Neander, I. c. p. 420. Meier, i. p. 187, ss. 
[Voigt on Athanasius in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1858.] 

' Basil the Great, on a particular occasion, composed his treatise, De 
Spiritu Sancto, addressed to the bishop Amphilochius of Iconium (comp. 
with it Ep. 189 ; Homilia de Fide, T. ii. p. 132 ; Hom. contra Sab. T. ii. p. 
195). He too maintained that the name Ood should be given to the Spirit^ 
and appealed both to Scripture in general, and to the baptismal formula in 
particular, in which the Spirit is mentioned together with the Father and 
the Son. He did not, however, lay much stress upon the name itself, but 
simply demanded that the Spirit should not be regarded as a creature, but 
be considered as inseparable from both the Father and the Son. He spoke 

• As one shower waters flowers of the most different species (rosea and lilies), so cm» 
Spirit is the author of many different graces, etc. Cat. xvi. 12. He is tI/uov, rh dya6ov, 
fisyoi jrapd. OeoC av/ifiaxo; ical TrpoaTUTin, fisyai 6i.ddaiia?MC inK^Tjaia;, /isyag iKEpaaxwiift 
inip li/iuv, etc., ibid, c, 19. Hence, his glory far snrpasa.-a that of all angels, c. 23, 

§ 93. Divinity of the Holt Spirit. 261 

in eloquent language of the practical importance of the doctrine of the Holy 
Spirit (as the sanotifier of the human heart), De Spir. S. c. 16 : Id 6e fiiyier- 
rov TeKfj,ripiov r^f Trpbg rbv -naTepa koI vlbv rov nvevimrog avvacpeiag, 5ri 
ovTijg exeiv Xeyerai -rrpbg rbv Qeb-0, dg npbg tKaarov exei rb nvevim ri 
iv riixlv (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11). In answer to the objection, tliat the Spirit ia 
called a r/ift, he remarks that the Son is likewise a gift of God, ibid. c. 24 ; 
comp. Klose, Basilins der Grosse, p. 34, ss. His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, 
in the second chapter of his larger Catechism, starts from ideas similar to 
those of Lactantius, that the Spirit (breath) must be connected with the 
Word, since it is so even in the case of man. He does not, however, like 
Lactantius, identify the Spirit with the Word, but keeps them separate. 
The Spirit is not to be considered as any thing foreign which enters from 
■without into the Deity (comp. Athanasius) ; to think of the Spirit of God as 
similar to ours, would be detracting from the glory of the divine omnipo- 
tence. " On the contrary, we conceive that this essential power, which 
manifests itself as a separate hyjiostasis, <i&n neither be separated from the 
Godhead in which it rests, nor from the divine word which it follows. Nor 
does it cease to exist, but being self-existing {avTonlvqTov) like the Deity, it 
is ever capable of choosing the good, and of carrying out all its purposes." 
Comp. Rupp, Gregoi-. von Nyssa, p. 1G9, 70.— The views of Gregory of 
Naziamum agreed with those of these two writers, though he clearly per- 
ceived the difficulties with which the doctrine in question was beset in his 
time. He anticipated the objection, that it would introduce a 6tbv ^ivov 
itat aypaipov (Orat. xxx. 1, p. 566. , Ullmann, p. 381) ; he also acknowl- 
edged that the doctrine jn tliis particular form was not expressly contained 
in Scriptui'o, and therefore thought that we must go beyond the letter itself.* 
He, therefore, had recourse to the idea of a gradual revelation, which, as he 
conceived, stood in connection with a natural development of the Trinity. 
"The Old Test, sets forth the Father in a clear, but the Son in a somewhat 
dimmer, light: the New Test, reveals the Son, but only intimates the divin- 
ity of the Spirit; but now the Spirit dwells in the midst of us, and manifests 
himself more distinctly. It was not desirable that the divinity of the Sou 
should be proclaimed, as long as that of the Father was not fully recognized; 
nor to add that of the Spirit, as long as that of the Son was not believed." 
Gregory numbered the doctrine of the Holy Spirit among those things of 
which Christ speaks, John xvi. 1^, and recommended, therefore, prudence in 
discourses on this dogma. He himself developed it principally in his con- 
troversy with Macedonius, and showed, in opposition to him, that the Holy 
Spirit is neither a mere power, nor a creature, and, accordingly, that there is 
no Other alternative except that he is God himself. For further particulars 
see Ullman, p. 378, ss. 

° The word Ilvev[j,a-ojxdxoi has a general meaning, in which it compre- 

* Comp. Meier, Trinit. — Lehre, i. 190 : " The want of a sufficiently definite interpretation 
of Scripture was one oftfie chief tiinderances to the recognition of the consuhstdntialiiy {Hom- 
ousia) of the Son. To conduct the proof from depths of the Ghristiam consciousness, appeared 
to many too adventwous, especially in view of the tendencies of the Orient at that epoch ; they 
Iwd doubt* ab&ui ascrioing to the Holy Spirit identity of essence, and paying worship to hiin 
without express declaraiion of Christ and the aposHes." 

262 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Lends, of course, the strict Arians. But the divinity of the Spirit Teas eijuall^ 
denied- by the Semiarians, while their views, concerning the nature of the 
Son approximated to those of the orthodox paity ; the most prominent thoolo 
gian among them was Macedonkis, bishop of Constantinople (a. d. 341-360). 
Soz. iv. 27, says of him : EZajy-ysiro fJs rbv vlbv Osbv elvai, koto, ndvra re 
KoX kut' ovaiav onoiov tw Trarpr to re ayiov Ttvevj-ia aixoipov tuv avriov 
Trpsafieluv dnecpaivETO, Stdjcovov iral vnrjpeTrjv KaXCiv. Theodorct, ii. 6, 
adds that he did not hesitate to call the Spirit a creature. His opinion was 
afterwards called -the Marathonian, from Marathcmius, bishop of Nicomsdia, 
His followers appear to have been very numerous, especially in the 'vicinity 
of Lampsacus, see Meier, i. p. 192. The Macedonians, though condemned at 
the second CEcumenical Council, continued to exist as a separate sect in 
Phrygia down to the fifth century, when they were combatted by Nestoi'ius. 
The objections which the Macedonians either themselves made to the divin- 
ity of the Spirit, or with which they were charged by their opponents, are 
the following : " The Holy Spirit is either begotten or not begotten ; if the 
latter, w-e have two unoriginated beings {6vo to, avapxa), viz, the Father 
and the Spirit; if begotten, he must be begotten either of the )<'ather or of 
tlie Son : if of the Father, it follows that there are two Sons in the Trinity, 
and hence brothers (the' question then arises, who is the elder of the two, or 
aie they twins ?) ; but if of the Son, we have a gi'andson of God (deb^ vlcovog"), 
etc. Greg. Orat. xxxi. 7, p. 560, comp. Athanas. Ep. i. ad Serapion, c. 15. 
In opposition to this, Gregory simply remarks, that not the idea of genera- 
tion, but that of iKTTopevoig is to be applied to the Spirit, according to John 
XV. 26 ;'and that the procession of the Spirit is quite as incomprehensible as 
the generation of the Son. To these objections was allied another, viz., that 
the Spirit is wanting in something, if he is not Son. But the Macedonians 
chiefly appealed to the absence of decisive Scriptures. Comp. Ullmann, p. 
390, '91. 

' T6 Kvpiov; rb ^uonoibv, rb iK rov narpbg eKnopevoixevov, rb ovv Trarpl 
Kal vlu) avfinpoaKvvovfievov, koI avvdo^a^oiievov, rb XaX^aav 6ia tUv Trpo- 
(jifiTuv. Comp. § 91, note 4. 



Walch, J. G., Historia Conlroversise Graecorum Latinonimque de Proces.?ione Spir. S. 
Jenae, 1151, 8. Pfaff, Ghr. Matth., Historia succincta Controversise de Prooesaione 
ilpir. S. Tub. 1749, 4. [Twesten, trans), in Bibliotlieca Sacra, iiL 613, iv. 33, aq.] 

The formula of the council of Constantinople, however, did not 
fully settle the point in question. For though the relation of the 
Spirit to the Trinity in general was determined, yet the particular 
relation in which he stands to the Son and the Father respectively, 
still remained to be decided. Inasmuch as the formula declared 
that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not indeed ex- 

§ 94. Procession of the Holy Spirit. 2G3 

pressly deny the procession from the Son ; but yet it could he taken 
in a negative (exclusive) sense. On the one hand, the assertion that 
the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, 
seemed to favor the notion that the Son is subordinate to the 
Father ; on the other, to maintain that he proceeds from both the 
Father and the Son, appeared to place the Spirit in a still greater 
dependence (viz., on two instead of one). Thus the attempt to 
establish the full divinity of the Son would easily detract from the 
divinity of the Spirit ; the effort, on the contrary, to give greater 
independence to the Spirit, would tend to throw the importance of 
the Son into the shade. The Greek fathers, Athanasius, Basil the 
G-reat, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, asserted the procession of the 
Spirit from the Father, without distinctly denying that he also pro- 
ceeds from the Son.' Epiphanius, on the other hand, derived the 
Spirit from both the Father and the Son, with whom Marcellus of 
Ancyra agreed.' But Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Tlieodoret would 
not iu any way admit that the Spirit owes his being in any sense to 
the Son,° and defended their opinion in opposition to Cyril of Alex- 
andria.* The Latin fathers, on the contrary, and Augustine in 
particular,' taught the procession of the Spirit from both the Father 
and the Son. This doctrine became so iirmly established in the 
West, that at the third synod of Toledo (a. d. 589) the clause 
fiUoque was added to the confession of faith of the council of Con- 
stantinople, and so the dogmatic basis was laid for a schism between 
the eastern and western churches." 

' In accordance with the prevaiHng notions of the age, the Father was 
considered as the only efficient principle {ptia dpxrj) to wlioni all other things 
owe their existence, of whom the Son is begotten, and from whom the Holy 
Spirit proceeds, who works all things through the Son,, and in the Holy 
Spirit. The phrase : that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, was 
maintained especially against the Pneumatomachl. It was asserted, in oppo- 
Bition to them, " that the Holy Spirit does not derive his essence from the 
Son in a dependent manner, but that he stands in an equally direct relation 
to the Father, as the common first cause; that, as the Son i.v begotten of th£ 
Father, so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." Neander, Church 
Hist. ii. p. 420, sc[. 

'' Epiphan. Ancor. § 9, after having proved the divinity of the Spirit, e. g., 
from Acts v. 3, says : apa Oebg «« naTpbg nal vlov rb -rrvniifj-a, without ex- 
pressly stating that he eKTropevsTai i/i tov vlnij. Comp. Ancor. 8 : Hveviia 
yap Qeoij Kal iTVEVjj.a tov Trarpbg Kal irvuvfia vloi), ov Kara riva avvBeaiv, 
Kaddnep iv rjfuv xpvxfj nal oCiiia, aXk' kv fiiau narpbg Kal vlov, ek rov 
narpbg Kal tox) vlov, rpirov ry dvoixaaia. Marcellus infori-ed fiom the 
position, that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the 
sameness of the last two in the Sabellian sense. Eusebius, De Eccles, TheoL 
iii. 4, p. 168 (quoted by Klose, uber Marcell. p. 47). Concerning the views 
of I'iioiinus, see Klose, 1. c. p. 83. 

264 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

' Theodore of Mopsiiestia in liis confession of faith (quoted by Walch, Bibl. 
Symb. p. 204), combatted the opinion which represents the Spirit as 6ia rov 
vlov rriv vnap^iv £tA,?;f/)6f. On the opinion of Thcodoret comp. the IX, 
Anathematisma of Cyril, 0pp. v. p. 47. 

' Cyril condemned all who denied that the Holy Spirit the proprium 
of Christ. Theodoret in reply, observed, that this expression was not objec- 
tionable, if nothing more were understood by it than that the Holy Spirit ia 
of the same essence (buoovaiog) with the Son, and proceeds from the Father; 
but that it ought to be rejected if it were meant to imply that he derives hia 
existence from the Son, or through the Son, either of which would be con- 
trary to what is said, John xv. 26 ; 1 Cor. ii. 12. Comp. JVeander, ii. 422. 

" Augustine, Tract. 99, in Evang. Joh. : A quo autem habet filiiis, ut sit 
Deus (est enira de Deo Dens), ab illo habet utique, ut etiara de illo procedat 
Spir. S. Et per hoc Spir. S. ut etiam de fiho procedat, sicut procedit de 
patre, ab ipso liabet patre. Ibid : Spir. S. non de patre procedit in filium, et 
de filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit, 
quamvis hoc filio Tater dedcrit, ut quemadmodum de so, ita de illo quoque 
procedat. De Trin. 4. 20 : Ncc possumus dicere, quod Spir. S. et a filio non 
procedat, neqne frustra idem Spir. et Patris et Filii Spir. dicitur. 5, 14 : 
. . . Sicunt Pater et Filius unus Deus et ad creaturam relative unus creator ot 
unus Deus, sic relative ad Spiritum S. unum principium. (Comp. the whole 
section, c. 11 and 15.) 

° This additional clause made its appearance at the time when Recared, 
king of the Visigoths, passed over from the Arian to the catholic doctrine. 
The above synod pronounced an anathema against all who did not believe 
that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. Comp. Mansi, 
ix. p. 981. 

§ 95. 


The more accurately the divinity both of tbe Holy Spirit and of 
the Son was defined, the more important it became to determine ex- 
actly the relation in which the different persons stood to each other, 
and to the divine essence itself, and then to settle the ecclesiastical 
terminology. Atlianasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, 
and Gregory of Nyssa in the Greek, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, 
and Leo the Great in the Latin church, exerted the greatest influence 
upon the formation of the said terminology. According to 'this 
usage the word oijaia (essentia, substantia) denotes what is common 
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; the word vnoaramg 
(persona) what is individual, distinguishing the one from the other.' 
Each person possesses some peculiarity (Mtdrj/f), by which it is dis- 
tinguished from the other persons, notwithstanding the sameness of 
essence. Thus, underived existence (dyewrjaio) belongs to the Father, 

§ 95. Final Statement of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 265 

generati(3n (yEwrjaig) to the Son, and procession (ticr:i)pevm<;, iniefiipig) 
to the Holy Spirit." When Augustine rejected all the distinctions 
which had been formerly made between the diftereut persons, and re- 
ferred to the triune Godhead what had been before predicated of the 
separate persons (particularly creation), he completely purified the 
dogma from the older vestiges of subordinationism ;° but, as he re- 
duced the persons to the general idea of divine relations, he could 
not entirely avoid the appearance of Sabellianism.' Boithius and 
others adopted his views on this point.' 

' The writers of this period avoided the use of the term npoauTTov, -which 
■would have corresponded more exactly with the Latin word persona, while 
vnoa-aaig means literally substantia, lost it might lead to Sabellian inferences; 
but they sometimes confounded v-rroaTaaig with ovaia, and occasionally used 
■<pvaig instead of the latter. This was done e. g. by Gregory of Nazianzum,' 
Orat. xxiii. 11, p. 431, xxxiii. 16, p. 614, xiii. 11, p. 431 ; Ep. 1, ad 'Cledo- 
nium, p. V39, ed. Lips, quoted by Ullmann, p. 355, note 1, and p. 356, note 1. 
Gregory also sometimes attaches the same meaning to vnoaraaig and to 
■npoaamov, though he prefers the use of the latter ; Orat. xx. 6, p. 379. Ull- 
■mann, p. 356, note S. This distinction is moi'e accurately defined by J3ad', 
Ep. 286, 6, (quoted by M'anscher ed. by von Colin, p. 242, 243) : Ovaia 6i. 
Kal vTTOOTaaig ravTTjV kx^^ '^^'^ diacfiophv, fjv kx^-t to KOtvbv irpbc to kpG' 
EKaarov olov Jif e^et rb fwov npbg rbv deiva dvOpunov. Aia tcvto ovctav 
\iiv [liav inl rrjg OeoTrjTog bfioXoyovfiev, uare rbv tov elvai Xoyov firj 6ia- 
ipopug anoSiSovaf VTToaraaiv 6h i6id^ovaav, iv' davyxvrog rjulv koI rerpa- 
vuHEVT] rj Ttepl IlaTpbg nal Xloii Kal dyiov IlvEVfiarog tvvoia ivvndpxxi 
K. T. X. Comp. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix. 11, p. 530, in Ullmann, p. 355, note ?. ; 
and Orat. xlii. 16, p. 759, quoted by Ullmann, p. 356, note 3, where the dis- 
tinction between ovaia and vnoaraaig is prominently brought forward. Je- 
fome, moreover, had objeoiions to the statement that th.eie wore three 
hypostases, because it seemed to lead to Arianisra ; but he submitted on this 
point to the judgment of the Roman See ; comp. Ep. xv. and xvi. ad 

" Greg. Naz. Orat. xli. 9 : Ilavrffi oaa 6 TraTTjpj tov vlov, tt?Jiv TTJg 
dyevvrjaiag- navra oaa b vlbg, tov nvevfiaTog, irXfiv Tr^g yevvrjaeiog k. t. X^ 
OraL XXV. 16: "Idiov 6e naTpbg fiev rj dyevvrjaia, vlov de rj yivv-qaig, 
nvevfiaTog 6e rj eicTTeiJ,tpig ; but the terras IdiOTijg and vTToaTaaig were some- 
times used synonymously, e. ^r., Greg. Naz. Orat. XXxiii. 16, p. 614. Ull- 
mann, p'. 357. 

' Snch vestiges are unquestionably to bo found even iii the most orthodox 
fathers, not only in the East, but also in the West. Thus, for instance, in 
Hilary, De Trin. iii. 12, and iv. 16. He designates the Father as the juben- 
tem Deum, the Son as facientem. And when even Atliaiiasius says, that the 
Son is at once greater than the Holy Spiiit and equal to him ( nei^uv Kal 
iaog), and that the Holy Spirit, too, is related to the Son as is the Son to thfe 
Father (Oont. Arian Orat. ii.), " <Ae idea of a snbordinaiwn lies at the basis 
of such declarations-" Gkseler, Dogmengesch. p. 315. 

* Augusiinus Contra serm. Arian. c. 2, no. 4, (Opp. T. viii ) : Unus quippe 

266 Second Pekiod. The Age of Polemics. 

Deus et ipsa trinitas, et sic uniis Dous, quoraoclo uniis creator. — He also re- 
ferred the theophanies, which were formerly ascribed to the Logos alone, to 
the whole Trinity. lu support of this view, he appeals to the three men 
who appeared to Abraham ; De. Trin. ii. 18. He also thinks that the send- 
ing of the Son is not only a work of the Father, but of the whole Trinity. 
The Father alone is not sent, because he is unbegotten (comp. the passages 
quoted by Meier, i. p. 206, ss.) [Nee pater sine Slio, nee filius sine patre 
misit Spirit. S., sed eum pariter ambo miserunt. Inseparabilis quippe sunt 
opera trinitatis. Solus pater non legitur missus, quia solus non habet aucto- 
rem, a quo genitus sit, vel a quo procedat. Contra serm. Arian. c. 2, n. 4. 0pp. 
ed. Ant. 1700. Tom. viii.] The distinctions between the persons are, in hia 
opinion, not distinctions oi nature, but of relation. But he is aware that we 
have no appropriate language to denote those distinctions, De Trinit. v. 10 : 
Quum quieritur, quid tres, magna prorsus inopia humanum laborat eloquium. 
Dictum est tamen : tres personse, non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur. 
The persons are not to be regarded as species, for we do not say, tres equi arc 
unum animal, but tria animalia. Bettor would be the comparison with three 
statues from one mass of gold, but this too limps, since we do not necessarily 
connect the conception' of gold with that of statues, and the converse ; ibid, 
vii. 11. He brings his views concerning the Trinity into connection with 
anthropology, but by comparing the three persons with the memoria, intel- 
Isctus, and voluntas of man (I. c. ix. 11; x. 10, 18; xv. 7), he evidently 
borders upon Sabellianism ; it has the appearance of mere relations, without 
personal shape. [Conf. 13, cap. 11. — Vellem ut hasc tria cogitarent homines 
in seipsis. Longe alia sunt ista tria quam ilia Trinitas : sed dico ubi se ex- 
erceant et ibi pvobent, et sentiunt quam longe sunt. Dico autem hiBc tria ; 
esse, uosse, veile. Sum enira, et novi, et volo ; sum sciens et volens ; et scio 
esse me, et vclle ; et volo esse, et scire. In his igitur ti-ibus quam sit 
insfcparabilis vita, et una vita, et una mens, et una essentia, quam denique in- 
separabilis distinctio, et tamen distinctio, videat qui potest.] On the other 
hand, the practical and religious importance of the doctrine of the Trinity ap- 
pears most worthily, where he reminds us that it is of the very nature of dis- 
intei'ested (uncn\ious) love to impart itself, De Trin. ix. 2 : Cum aliquid amo, 
tria sunt ; ego, et quod amo, et ipse amor. Non enim amo amorem, nisi 
amantem amem : nam non est amor, ubi nihil amatiir. Tria ergo sunt ; 
amans, et quod amatur, et (rautuus) amor. Quid si non amem ni^i meipsum, 
nonne duo erunt, quod amo et amor?. Amans enim et quod amatur, hoc 
idem est, quando se ipse amat. Sicut amare et amaii eodem mode id ipsum 
est, cum se quisque amat. Eadem quippe res bis dicitur, cum dicitur : amat 
se et amatur a so. Tunc enim non est aliud atqne aliud amare et amari, 
sicut non est alius atque alius amans et amatus. At vero amor et quod 
amatur etiam sic duo sunt. Non enim cum quisque se amat, amor est, nisi 
cum amatur ipse amor. Aliud est autem amare se, aliud est amare amorem 
suum. Non enim amatm' amor, nisi jam aliquid amans, quia ubi nihil ama- 
tur, nuUus est amor. Duo ei-go sunt, cum se quisque amat, amor et quod 
amatur. Tunc enim amans et quod amatur unum est. ..Amans quippe ad 
amorem refortur et amor ad amantom. Amans enim aliquo amcre amat, ct 
amor alicujus amautis est._..Eetracto amante nuUus est amor ut retracto 

§ 96, Tkitheissi, Tetratheism. 267 

aniore nullns est amans. Ideoque qiiantam ad invicom rcforuntur, duo sunt. 
Quod autem ad se ipsa dicuntur, ct singula spiritus, et simul utruinque unua 
spii'itus, et singula mens et simul utrumque una mens. Cf. lib. xv.* 

Boethius, De Trin. (ad Symmach.)t c. 2 : Nulla igitur in eo (Deo) diver- 
sitas, nulla ex diversitate pluralitas, nulla ex accidentibus multitudo, atque 
idcirco nee numerus. Cap. 3 : Dons vcro a Deo nullo differt, nee vel acciden- 
tibus vel substantialibus dilFei-ontiis in subjecto positis distat; ubi vero nulla 
est differentia, nulla est omnino pluralitas, quare nee numerus ; igitur unitas 
tantum. Nam quod tertio repotitur, Dous ; quum Pater et Filius ct Spir. 8. 
nuncupatur, tres unitates non faciunt pluralitatem numeri in eo quod ipsas 
sunt. ..Non igitur si de Patre et Filio ct Spir. S. tertio prsedicatur Dens, 
idcirco trina prsedicatio numerum facit. .. Cap. 6 : Pacta quidem est trinitatis 
numerositas in eo quod est prcedicaiio relationis ; servata vero unitas in eo 
quod est indifferentia vel substantias vel opcrationis vol omnino ejus, quse 
secundum se dicitur, proedicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet unitatem, 
relatio multiplicat trinitatem, atque ideo sola sigillatim proferuntur atque 
separatim quae relationis sunt; nam idem Pater qui Filius non est, nee idem 
uterque qui Spir. S. Idem tamen Deus est. Pater et Filius ct Spir. S., idem 
Justus, idem bonus, idem magnus, idem omnia, qua; secundum se poterunt 
prajdioari. — Boethius falls into the most trivial Sabollianism, by drawing au 
illustration of the Trinity from the cases in which we have three names foi 
the same thing, e. g., gladius, mucro, ensis ; see JBaur, Dreienigkeitsl. ii. 
p. 34. — The orthodox doctrine of the western church is already expressed 
in striking formulas by Leo the Great, e.g., Sermo LXXV. 3 : Non alia sunt 
Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed oinnia quascunquo habet Pater, habet 
et Filius, habet et Spiritus S. ; nec unquam in ilia trinitatc non fuit ista com- 
munio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere. LXXV. 1, 2 : 
Sempiternum est Patri, cosetorni sibi Filii sui esse genitorem. Sempiternum 
est Filio, intemporaliter a Patre esse progenitum. Sempiternum quoque est 
Spiritui Sancto Spiritum esse Patris et Filii. TJt nnnquam Pater sine Filio, 
nunquam Filius sine Patre, nunquam Pater et Filius fuerint sine Spiiitu 
Sancto, et, omnibus existentise gradibus exelusis, nulla ibi persona sit anterior, 
nulla posterior. Hujus enim beatae trinitatis incommutabilis deltas una est 
in substantia, indivisa in opere, concors in voluntate, par in potentia, sequalis 
in gloria. Other passages are quoted by Perihel, Leo der Grosse, p. 138, ss. 



In keeping the three persons of the Godhead distinct from each 
other, much care was needed, lest the idea of ovaia (essence), by which 
the unity was expressed, should be understood as the mere concept 

* As to the mode in whioh Augustine made his doctrine of the Trinity intelligible to the 
congregation, in his sermons, see Bindemann, ii 205 sq. 

f It is doubtful whether the work De Trin. was really by Boethius; we cite it undei 
the customary name. 

268 Second Period. The Age of Polemics 

of a genus, and the vnoaTaaig viewed as an individual (a species) fall* 
ing under this generic conception ; for this vcould necessarily call uj' 
the representation of three gods. Another misunderstanding was 
also to be obviated ; for, in assigning to God himself (the av-odeog) 
a logical superiority above Father, Son, and Spirit, it might appear 
as though there were four persons, or even four gods. Both of these 
opinions were held. John Ascusnac/es of Constantinople,' and John 
Philopouus' of Alexandria, were the leaders of the Tritheites ; while 
the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Damianus," was accused 
of being the head of the Tetratheites (Tetradites), hut probably by 
unjust inference. 

' Ascusnages of Constantinople, when examined by the Emperor Justinian 
concerning Lis faith, is said to have acknowledged one nature of the incarnate 
Christ, but asserted three natures, essences, and deities in the Trinity. Ths 
tritheites, Conon and JEugenius, arc said to have made the same statements to 
the Emperor. 

" The opinion of PhUoponus can be seen from a fragment (AiatTTjrrig) 
preserved by John Damascenus (De Hseresib. c. 83, p. 101, ss. Phot. Bibl. 
cod. 15. Niceph. xviii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Munscher, 
ed. by von Colin, i. 251). In his view the <pvai.g is the genus which com- 
prehends individuals of the same nature. The terms essence and nature are 
identical ; the term vndoTacng, or person, denotes the separate real existence 
of the nature, that which philosophers of the peripatetic school call drofiov, be- 
cause there the separation of genus and species ceases. Coinp. Scharfenberg, 
J. 6*., de Jo. Philopono, Tiitheismi defensore, Lips. 1V08 (Comm. Th. ed. 
Velthusen, etc. T. i.), and Trechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken 1885, part 1, 
p. 95, ss. Meier, \. c. i. p. 195, ss. [Philoponus applied the ideas of Aris- 
totle to the Trinity ; he connected the two notions (jivaig and eldoq — con- 
founding the common divine essence with the notion of species. ScO 
Neanier, Dog. Hist. p. 310. Baur, Dograengesch. p. 170: Philoponus 
maintained that nature, in the church usage, signified the special as well as 
the general, and that we might as well speak of three natures as of three 
hypostases ; but yet he did not say there were three gods.] 

* In his controversy with Peter of CalUnico, patriarch of Antioch, DamU 
anus maintained that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost 
another, but that no one of them is God as such ; they only possess the sub- 
sisting divine nature in common, and each is God in so far as he inseparably 
participates in it. The Damianites were also called Angelites (from the city 
ofAngelium). Comp. Niceph. xiii. 49. jSc/trdcA^, xviii. p 624. Mimscker 
von. Colin, p. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 364. Meier, Trin. Lehre, 
p. 198: "Such systems of dissolution are the signs of the life of these times; 
they exercised themselves upon dead forma, seeking help in them, instead of 
first trying to fill out the stiff definitions of the dogma with the living con,' 
tents of the Christian ideas, which sustain the dogma^ — Tritheism may be 
viewed as the extreme of Arianism, and Tetratheism as the extreme of 
Sabelhanism; comp. liusse, Anselm, 2 Thl. p. 289. 

§ 97. QuicuMQUE Symbolusi. 269 

§ 97. 


J. O. Yossius, De tribua Symbolis, Amstel. 1642. Diss. ii. Waterland, Dan. Critical His- 
tory of the Athanasiaxi Creed, Cambridge, 1'724. 28. 8. [Works, 1843, vol. iii. 
pp. 9 7-2 7. -i.] Dennis, John, the Athanasian Creed. 1815. Comp. Munscher, ed. b^ 
von Colin, i. p. 249, 50. Bawmgtwkn-Crusius, i. 124, 231, ii. 124. [Wm. Whiston, 
Three Essays, 1113. J. PedcUff, The Creed of Athanasius illustrated, etc.. Lend. 
1844. The Athanasian Creed, Mercersb. Review, April, 1859. W. W. Earvey, 
Hist, and Theol. of Ihe Threa Creeds, 2 vols. Home, Hist. Ath. Creed. 1834.] 

The doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity appears most 
fully developed, and deiined in a perfect symbolical form, in what is 
called the Symholum quicumque (commonly but erroneously called 
the Creed of St. Athanasius). It originated in the School of Augus- 
tine, and is ascribed by some to Vigilius Tapscnsis, by others to 
Vincentius Lerinensis, and by some again to others.' By its repeti- 
tion of positive and negative propositions, its perpetual assertion, 
and then again, denial of its positions, the mystery of the doctrine 
is presented, as it were, in hieroglyphs, as if to confound the un- 
derstanding. The consequence was, that all further endeavors 
of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions in a dia- 
lectic way, must break against this bulwark of faith, on which 
salvation was made to depend, as the waves break upon an inflexible 

' According to the old story, Athanasius drew up the creed in questiou 
at the synod held in Rome in the year 341. This, however, can not be, 
Jirst, because it exists only in the Latin language ; secondly, from the ab- 
sence of the term consubstantialis [bfioovaiog) ; and, tliirdly, from the moro 
fully developed doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit (the procession from the 
Son). It was generally adopted in the seventh century, uuder the name of 
Athanasius, when it was classed, as an (Ecumenical symbol, with the Apos- 
tles' and the Nicene Creed. Paschasius Qucsnel (Dissert, xiv. in Leonis M. 
0pp. p. .386, ss.) first pronounced it as his opinion that it was composed by 
"Vigilius, bishop of Tapsus in Africa, who lived towards the close of the fifth 
century. Others attribute it to Vincens of Lerius, in the middle of the fifih 
century. Muratori (Anecd. Lat. T. ii, p. 212-217), conjectured that its 
author was Venantius Fortunatus (a Gallican bishop of the sixth century); 
and Waterland ascribes it to Hilary of Aries (who lived about the middle of 
the fifth century). [Comp. Oieseler, Church Hist, ii, p. 75 (§ 12), note 7, in 
the New York edition ; he supposes that it originated in Spain in the sev- 
enth centurj ] 

270 Second Peeiod. The Age of Polemics. 

1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut teneat catholi 
fidom. 2. Qiiam nisi qiiisqiie integram inviolatamque servaverit, abi 
dubio in seternnm peribit. 3. Fides autcm catholica haec est, ut ui 
Deum in Trinilate et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. 4. Neque con 
dentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. 5. Alia enim est pen 
Patris, alia Filii, alia Spintus Sancti. 6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sa 
una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, tequalis raajestas. .1. Qualis Pater, talis Fi 
talis et Spir. S. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spir. S. 9. 
mensns Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus S. 10. ^]ternus Pi 
seternus Filius, ajternus et Spir. S. 11. Et tamen non tres a;terni, sed i 
seternus. 12. Sicut non tres increati, nee tres inimensi, sed unus incre 
et unus immensus. 13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, oi 
potens ct Spiritus S. 14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentus, sed unus or 
potens. 15. Ita deus Pator, deus Filius, dcus et Spir. S. 16. Et tamen 
tres dii sunt, sed unus est Deus. 17. Ita dominus Pater, dominus Fi 
dominus et Spir. S. 18. Et tamen non tres domini, sed unus dominus. 
Quia sicut sigillatim unamquamque personam et Deum et dominum conf 
Christiana veritate compelliinur, ita tres Decs aut dominos dicere catho 
religione prohibemiir. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nee croatus, nee geni 
21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, non creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spi; 
a Patre ot Filio non creatus, nee genitus, sed procedens. 23. Unus ( 
Pater, nee tres patres ; unus Filius, non tres filii ; unus Spiritus S., non 
spiritus sancti. 24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, i 
majus aut minus, sed totfe tres personte coaeternse sibi sunt et cosequi 
25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitati 
Trinitas in. unitate vcneranda sit. 26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de 1 
itate scntiat. (0pp. Athanasii, T. iii. p. 719. — Walc/i, Bibl. Sj'mb. Ve 
136, ss. ; it is also contained in the collections of the symbolical books j 
lished by Tillman, JIasc, and others.*) 

* While salvation, at this extreme point in the development of the doctrine, appeal 
be made dependent on the most refined points of dialectics, it is pleasing to hear c 
men, such as Gregory of Nazianzum (see Ullmann, p. 159, 170, Neander, Chrysost. ii. 
raising their voices during this period, who did not attach such unqualified value to 
mere orthodoxy of the understanding, and who were fully convinced of the limiti 
human knowledge and the insufficiency of such dogmatic definitions, Greg. Orat. 31, 3 
577. Ullmann, p. 336, comp., however, p. 334, S5. Rufnus also says. Expos, p. 1: 
the sense of IrenfBus) : Quomodo autem Deus pater genucrit filium, uole discutias, ne 
curioaius ingeras in profundi hujus arcanum (al. profundo hujus arcani), ne forte, dum i 
cessai lueis fulgorem pertinacius perscrutaria, exiguum ipsum, qui mortalibus di 
munere concessus est, perdas aspeotum. Aut si putas in hoc omni indagationis ge 
nitendum, prius tibi propone quae nostra sunt : quae si eonsequenter valueris expe 
tunc a terrestribus ad coelestia et a visibilibua ad invisibilia properato. — Moreover, in 
midst of tliis dialectic elaboration of the materials of the faith, we can not mistake 
presence of a yet higher aim — that, viz., of bringing to distinct consciousness, not onlj 
unity of the divine nature, but also the living longing of divine love to impart itsell 
other words, the effort to maintain both the transcendent nature of God and his immm 
in his works — the former in opposition to polytheism and pantheism, and the latter ti 
abstract deism. So far such formulas have also their edifying side, as giving witnes 
tlie struggle of the Christian miud after a satisfactory expression of what ha.T ita 
reality only in the depths of the Christian heart 

I 98. The True Humanity of Chkist. 271 

§ 98. 


Traces of Docetism. — Arianism. 

It was no less diificult to determine the relation of the divine to 
the human nature of Christ, than to define the relation between the 
three persons and the one nature of God. For the more decidedly 
the church asserted the divinity of the Son of God, the more the 
the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son had to be guarded, so 
as not to abridge either the true divinity or the true humanity of 
Christ. In opposition to Docetism, the doctrine of the human 
nature of Christ had indeed been so firmly established, that no- one 
was likely to deny that he possessed a human body ; and when Hilary, 
orthodox on all other points, seems to border upon Docetism, by 
maintaining that the body of Jesus could not undergo any real 
sufferings,' he only means that the sufferings of Christ are to be 
understood as a free act of his love. But two other questions arose, 
which were beset with still greater difficulties. In the first place it 
was asked, whether a human soul formed a necessary part of the 
humanity of Christ ; and if so (as the orthodox maintained in 
opposition to the Arians)," it was still asked whether this soul meant 
only the animal soul, or also included the rational human spirit (in 
distinction from the divine). 

' Hilary wishes to preserve the most intimate union between the divine 
and human natures of Christ, so that it may be said : totus hominis Filius est 
Dei Lilius, and vice versa; for the same reason he says concerning the God- 
Man, De Trin. x. 23 : Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed 
non habuit naturam ad dolendum. (He compares it to an arrow which 
passes through the water without wounding it.) — Comment, in Ps. cxxxviii, 
3 : Suscepit ergo infirmitates, quia homo nascitur; et putatur dolere, qr.ia 
patitur: caret vero doloribus ipse, quia Deus est (ihe usage of the Latin 
word pati allowed such a distinction to be made). — De Trin. xi. 48 : In forma 
Dei manens servi formam assiimsit, non demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens 
et intra se latens et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestateni ; diun se usque 
ad fonnain temperat habitus humani, ne poteiitcm immensamque naturam 
assumptao humanitatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtus incircum- 
scripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret cam usque ad patientiam connexi 
sibi corporis obedire. He opposes the purely dooetic interpretation of the 
Impassibilitiis, De Synodis 49 {Dorner, ii. 2, 1055) : Pati potuit, et passibila 
easo oQu potuit, quia passibilitas naturse infirrais significatio est, passio autero 

272 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

est eorum, qnse sunt illata pcrpessio. He mates a distinction between pas« 
sionis materia et passibilitatis infirmitas. Hilary, moreover, ascribes a human 
soul to Christ, but says that he received neither that soul nor his body from 
Mary ; on the contrary, the God-Man has bis origin in himself: comp. Dor- 
ner, p. 1040, ss., and the whole section. 

^ Atlian. Contra Apollin. ii. 3 ; "Apstog 6e odpKa fiovTjV Trpbg dnoKpvipTjv 
TTJg OeoTTjTog bfioXoyeV aVTl 6& rov kauddev iv rjpZv dvdpunov, tovteoti njg 
rpyx^ig, Tuv Aoyov ev ry aapal XLyu yeyo2>ivai, ttjv tov nddovg voijaiv koI 
rrjv i^ adov dvdoTaaiv rg Oeottjti npoadyeiv roXfiuv. Comp. Epiph. Hasr. 
69, 19, and other passages quoted by Munscher von Colin, p. 268. This 
notion was very prominently brought forward by the Arians, JEudoxius and 
JEunomius ; respecting the former see Cave, Historia Script. Eccles. i. p. 210; 
concerning the latter, comp. Mansi, Cone. T. iii. p. 648, and Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. 300. [The doctrines of Arius were expressed still more definitely by 
•Eunomius. The Son can not even be said to be like God ; since likeness and, 
unlikeness can only be predicated of created things. Generation from the 
divine essence is inconceivable ; an eternal generation is unimaginable. The 
will is the mediating principle between the divine essence and agency. The 
Son of God was created according to God's will ; he was eternally with God 
only as predestinated. Ibid.^. 316. In the Confession of Faith oi Eunomius, 
it is stated that the Logos assumed man, both body and soul ; but, doubtless, 
an ovK has dropped out — '■'■not a man consisting of body and soul;" this 
appears from a citation of Gregory of Nyssa from Eunomius, and also from a 
fragment lately published by Mansi.- — Baur, Dogmengcsch. p. 161, says that 
Eunomius widely diverged from the original stand-point of Arius, in main- 
taining that essence of God could be completely conceived — particularly in 
reference to the point, that God must be tinbegotten. Thus Arianism logic- 
ally leads to putting the infinite and the finite into an abstract opposition to 
each other. It presents the contrast of the Aristotelian with the Platonic 
mode of thought.] Another party of the Arians, however, rejected the 
notion that the Logos had been changed into the soul of Christ, and supposed 
a human soul along with the Logos. Comp. Dor^ner, ii. 2, p. 1038. But 
even some orthodox theologians of this period used indefinite language on 
this point previous to the rise of the Apollinarian controversy. Comp. Mimr 
icher von Colin, p. 209. Dorner, 1. c. p. 1071, ss. 



Apollinaris, bisJiojp of Laodicea, who, in other respects, had a 
high reputation among orthodox theologians, conceived that that 
higher life of reason which elevates man above the rest of creatinn, 
was not needed by him, in whom there is a personal indwelling of 
deity ; or rather, that the place of this human reason was supplied 
in an absolute way, the Logos, or vovg deiog^ being substituted.' His 

§ 99. The Doctrine of Apollinakis. 273 

intention seems to have been to honor Christ, not to detract from 
his dignity. He was opposed by Athanasius, and still more by 
Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, whose efforts led to 
the adoption of the doctrine that Christ had a perfect human nature, 
consisting of a body and a rational soul, together with the divine 
nature." The council of Constantinople (a. d. 381) "condemned 
Apoilinarianism as heretical. 

' ApoUinaris was led by Lis dialectic culture* to suppose that he might 
establisli his argument with mathematical precision (yeufMeTpiKolc; dnodei^eiri 
Kal dvdyKai^). Of the writings in which( he explained his views, only frag- 
ments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius 
'Byzantinus (who lived about the year 690) ; they were the following: nepl 
aapKuaewg Xoyidiov (dnodsi^i^ nepl rijg dsiag . ivaapKcoaeug) — to Kara 
KEtpdXaiov j3i(3X'lov — nepl dvaardaecog — TTtpl mareug AoyiStov — and some 
letters (in Qallandii Bibl. PP. T. xii. p. 706, ss. Angela Mai Class. Auct. 
T. ix. p. 495, ss.). Comp. Dorner, ii. 976, and Neander, Hist. Dogni. 320. 
ApoUinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational human soul, 
that the hviman being thus united to the Logos must either preserve his own 
will, in which case there would be no true interpenetration of the divine and 
the human, or that the human soul must lose its hberty by becoming united 
to the Logos, either of which would be absurd. " He chiefly opposed the 
TpETTTOV, or the liberty of choice in christologyr — Dorner, 1. c. p. 987. In 
his opinion Christ is not merely avOpumoq Evdsog ; but God become man. 
According to the threefold division of man (the trichotomistic anthropology), 
ApoUinaris was willing to ascribe a soul to the Redeemer, since he thought 
that was only something intermediate between body and spirit, and the 
^ysfioviKov of the body. But that which itself determines the soul (<:rd 
avTOKivrj-ov), and constitutes the higher dignity of man, the vovg (the ipvx'fl 
XeyiKT]) of Christ, could not be of human origin, but must be purely divine ; 
for his incarnation did not consist in the Logos becoming vovg, but in be-^ 
coming adp^. (Whether and how far Christ brought the crapl itself from 
heaven, or received it fiom Mary, see Baur, 595, note, and Dorner, 1007 sq, 
[Dorner says that ApoUinaris held that the Logos was always potentially, or 
had the destination to be, man, since he was the type of humanity ; but yet, 
that the assumption of the form (flesh) of man occurred only at his birth.]) 
But as the divine reason supplies the place of the human, there exists a 
specific difference between Christ and other men. In their case every thing 
has to undergo a process of gradual development, which, can^not be without 
conflicts and sin (ottov yap T&Xeiog dvOpcjnog, kKsl Kal dfiapria, apud. Athan. 

. i. 2, p. 923.^ Comp. c. 21, p. 939 : d/iaprta EWTToaraTog). But this could 
not take place in the case of Chriot : ovSejiia doKTjaig iv XpiarG)- ovk dpa 

■ vovg eoTiv dvOpunivog. Comp. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhet. adv. Apollin. 
iv. c. 221. At the same time ApoUinaris supposed the body a!::d soul of 

* Baumgartm-Orusim, ii. 160, sees here a twofold Platonism; not only the disniiction 
between voif and ifivxv, but also that in place of the voiJf comes a higher potence, but of 
the same nature. 


274 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Christ to be so completely filled and animated with, the higher life of God, 
that he took no offense at such expressions as " God died, God is born," etc. 
He in fact believed that we do not adequately express the unity unless we 
say "Our God is crucified," and "the man is raised up to the right hand of 
God." lie even maintained that, on account of this intimate union, divine 
homage is dlso duo to the human nature of Christ, 1. c. p. 241, 264. Ilis 
opponents, therefore, charged him with Patripassianism. But it certainly is 
a mere infeience made by Gregory of Nazianzum, when he attributes to 
ApoUinaris the assertion that Christ must have possessed an irrational, 
animal soul, e.g., that of a hoise, or an ox, because he had not a rational 
human soul. On the other hand, ApoUinaris, on his side, was not wanting 
in deducing similar consequences from his opponents' positions, accusing 
them of believing in two Christs, two Sons of God, etc. Comp. Dorner, p. 
985, ss. Ullmann, Greg. v. Naz. p. 401, ss. Baur, Gesch. der Trinitiitl. i. 
p. 685, ss. 

" Athanasius maintained, in opposition to ApoUinaris, Contra Apollinar. 
libri ii. (but without mentioning by name his opponent, with whom he had 
personal intercourse),* that it behoved Christ to be our example in every 
respect, and that his nature, therefore, nmst resemble ours. Sinfulness, which 
is empirically connected with the development of man, is not a necessary 
attribute of human nature ; this would lead to Manieheism. Man, on the 
contrary, was originally free from sin, and Christ appeared on that very 
account, viz., in order to show that God is not the author of sin, and to 
prove that it is possible to live a sinless life (the controversy thus touched 
upon questions of an anthropological nature then debated). — Athanasius dis- 
tinctly sepurated the divine from the human (comp. especially lib. ii.), but 
he did not admit that he taught the existence of two Christs. Comp. 
Neander, ii. 433. Molder, Athanasius, ii. p. 262, ss.f Gregory of Nazian- 
zum (Ep. ad Cledon. et Orat. 51) equally asserted the necessity of a true and 
perfect human nature. It was not only necessary, as the medium by which 
God might manifest himself, but Jesus could redeem and sanctify man only 
by assuming his whole nature, consisting of body and soul. (Similar views 
had been formerly held by Irenfeus, and were afterwards more fully devel- 
oped by iVnselm.) Gregory thus strongly maintained the doctrine of the 
two natures of the Saviour. We must distinguish in Christ aXXo nal aXXo, 
but not aXXog ual dXXog. Compare the Epist. ad Nectar, sive Orat. 46, with 
his 10 Anathematismata against ApoUinaris, and Ullmann, p. 396-413. The 
work of Gregory of Nyssa, entitled Xdyog dvTipprjTiKbg npbg to, 'AnoXXiva- 
oiov (which was probably composed between the years 374 and 380), may 

* On the character of this book, see Dorner, i. 984, note. [It was written after the 
death of ApoUinaris, and veiy much in it has reference rather to what the tendency 
became, than to views actually avowed by ApoUinaris himself] 

•j- Mofder compares the doctrine of ApoUinarLs with that of Lutlier. This is so far oo> 
rect, as that in Luther we certainly find similar declarations ; see Sctienkel, Das Wesen des 
Protest, i. 313. Yet such parallels cau seldom bo fully carried out. Others have tried to 
find other correspondences with ApoUinaris in later times; Dorner has compared hia 
views wilh those of Osiander (p. 1028), and Baur with those of Servetus (Gesch. d. 
Trin, iii. 104). 

§ 100. Nestoeianism. 275 

be found in Zaccagni Collect. Monum. Vett. and Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. vi. p. 
517. Corap. Gieseler, i. § 83, note 30. Rupp, p. 139.— He opposed the 
followers of Apollinaris {^.vvovataarai, Aifioipirai) in his Ep. Hsr. 11.-^ 
The doctrine of Apollinaris was also condemned in the West by Damasus, 
bishop of Rome (comp. Munscher von Colin, p. 277), and once more by tha 
second GEcumenioal synod of Constantinople (a. d. 381, Can i. vii.). The 
later disciples of Apollinaris appear to have developed the doctrine of their 
master in a completely Docetic manner. Comp. Mohler, ubi supra, p. 264, sq. 

§ 100. 


JUbUmsU, P. E., Exercitatio historico-theologiea de Nestorianismo. Berol. 1124. — Tiibin- 
ger Quartalschrift, 1835, ii. part 1. [Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theologie, 1854. N". and 
the Council of Ephesus, by H. A. Miles, in the Christ. Examiner, Best. 1853.] 

The attempt to maintain the integrity of the human nature of Ohrist 
together with the divine, necessarily led from time to time to the 
inquiry, whether that which the Scriptures relate respecting the life 
and actions of the Kedeemer, his birth, sufferings, and death, refers 
only to his humanity, or to both his divine and human nature ; and, 
if the latter, in what way it may be said to refer to both ? While 
the teachers of the Alexandrian school asserted in strong terms the 
unity of the divine and the human in Christ, the theologians of An- 
tioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, made a 
strict distinction between the one and the other.' At last the 
phrase, mother of God (peoroKog)' which the increasing homage 
paid to Mary had brought into use, gave rise to the controversy 
respecting the relation of the two natures in Christ. Nestorius, 
patriarch of Constantinople, disapproved of this phrase, maintaining^ 
that Mary had given birth to Christ, but not to God.' Cyril, 
patriarch of Alexandria, opposed him, and both 'pronounced ana- 
themas against eacli other.* Nestorius supposed, in accordance 
with the Antiochian mode of thought, that the divine and the 
human natures of Christ ought to be distinctly separated, and 
admitted only a avvd^eia (junction) of the one and the other, an 
evoiKTiaig (indwelling) of the Deity. Cyril, on the contrary, was led 
by the tendencies of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) school,' to main- 
tain the perfect union of the two natures ((pvaiK^ 'ivuatc;.) Nestorius 
was condemned by the synod of Ephesus (a. d. 431),° but the con- 
troversy was not brought to a close. 

* Diodorus died a. d. 394. Some fragments of his treatise : Tipof rovg 
SwovaiaaTag, are preserved in a Latin translation by Mar. Morcitor, edit. 
Baluze, p. 349, sS:.\Qarner, p. 317), ?,nd Leontius Byzautinus. Comp. Mm- 

276 Second Period. The Age oS" Polemics. 

scher, edit, by von Colin, p. 280 : Adoramus purpuram propter indutiim et 
templum propter inhabitatorem, etc. — The opinions of Theodore are express- 
ed in his confession of faith, which may be found in Acta Cone. Ephes, 
Actio vi. quoted by Mansi, T. iv. p. 1347; in Marius Mercator {Garner, i. 
p. 95); Mumcher von Colin, p. 280. On his controversy with ApoUinaria, 
see Fritzsche, p. 92, 101. Comp. Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 446-95 (Tor- 
rey). Fragraentum ed. Fritzsche, p. 8 : 'AAA' ov% rj deia (j>vaig ek ■napdhov 
•yeyevvijTat. ■yeyevvTjTai, de iic r^f Tzapdevov 6 iK rrjg ovatag rfjg napdtvov 
avordg- ovx 6 Oebg Xoyog ek Tijg Mapiag yeyivvjjTai, yeyivvrjTai 6e Ik 
Uaplag b ek anepnarog Aafild' ovx ^ ^s6f Aoyof &k yvvaiKbg yeyevvrjTai, 
yeysvvTjTai de ex, yvvaiKbg 6 ry rov dyiov TrvEVjuarof dvvdixei dianXaaOelg 
iv avT-q- ovK EK [irjTpbg TersKTai b bp.oovaiog tw narpl, durjTuyp yhp ovrog 
Kara ttjv tov fiaKafilov Uavkov (fiovrjv, dXX' 6 iv vOTEpoig Kaipoig, iv t^ 
firjTpilxjL yaarpl t^ tov dyiov nvevfiaTog diaTrXaaOelg, are Kol 
dndraip 6ia tovto XeyofiEVog. 

' Concerning the ecclesiastical meaning of this term, which came gradually 
into use, see Socrat. vii. 32. Munscher, edit, by von Colin, i. 286. The 
absusd discussions on the partus virgineus (comp. e. g., Rufinus Expos. 20), 
•where Mary, with allusion to what Ezechiel says, is called the porta Domini, 
per quam introivit in mundum, etc., belong to the same class. Neander 
(Hist. Dogm. Ryland, p. 331) says that the controversy took an unfortunate 
turn from the beginning, because it started from a word, and not from a doc- 
trinal idea : " thus the fanaticism of the multitude was inflamed, and political 
passions had the greater play.'' 

' Anastasius, a presbyter of Alexandria (a. d. 428), preached against the 
^ise of the term in question, and thus called forth the controversy. He was 
followed by Nestorhis (a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; Socrat. vii. 32. 
Leporius, a presbyter and monk at Massilia, and follower of Pelagius, had 
previously propounded a similar doctrine in the West, see Munscher, edit, by 
Von Colin, p. 282. The views oi Nestorius himself are contained in iii. (ii.) 
Sermones Nestorii, quoted by Mar. Mercator, p. 53-74. Mansi, iv. p. 1197. 
Garner, ii. p. 3, ss. He rejected the appellation " mother of God" as hea- 
thenish and contrary to Heb. vii. 3. Resting, as he did, on the orthodox 
doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, he could say : Non peperit 
creatura eum, qui est increabilis; non rocentem de virgine Deum Verbura 
genuit Pater. In principio erat enim verbum, sicut Job. (i. 1), ait. Non 
peperit creatura creatorem [increabilem], sed peperit hominem, Deitatis in- 
strumentum. Non creavit Deum Verbum Spir. S sed Deo Verbo tem- 
plum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine, etc. But Nestorius by no 
means refused to worship the human nature of Christ in its connection with 
the divine, and strongly protested against the charge of separating the two 
natures : Propter utentem illud indumentum, quo utitur, colo, propter ah- 
sconditum adoro, quod foris videtur. Inseparabilis ab eo, qui oculis paret, 
est Deus. Quomodo igitur ejus, qui non dividitur, honorem [ego] et digni- 
tatem audeara separare ? Divido naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam (quoted 
by Garner, p. 3). And in the fragment given by Mansi, p. 1201 : Ata rbv 
tjiopovvTa rbv (fiopov^vov aefi(a, dta rbv KekpVfiivov irpoaKvv& rbv (paivo- 
fisvov ax^piarog -ov (j)aivofiivov fledf dta tovto tov jtt^ ^&)pifo/ie»ov tIJ* 

§ 101. Edtychian-Monophtsite Controversy. 277 

Ttfirjv ov %&)ptC&)- ;^wpt4'w raq ^vaeig, aXX' evSt ttjv vpomvvrjaiv. He pre- 
ferred calling Mary Oeodoxog or XpcaroruKoc, instead of eeoroKog. Comp. 
the other passages in Munscher ed. by von CoUn, p. 284-286. Baur, Gescli. 
der Trinitat. i. p. 727, ss. 

On the external history of this controvei'sy, see the works on ecclesias- 
tical history. — It commenced with a correspondence between Nestorius and 
Cyril, in which they charged each other with respectively separating and 
confounding the two natures of Christ. Cyril was supported by Coelestine, 
bishop of Rome, Nestorius by the eastern bishops in general, and John, 
bishop of Antioch, in particular. — Tn the progress of the controversy Nes- 
torius declared himself willing even to adopt the term deoroKog, if properly 
explained. Comp. the Acta, and especially the Anathematismata themselves 
in Mansi, v. p. 1, ss., and iv, p. 1099 ; in Mar. Mercator, p. 142 {Garner, ii. 
77, i-s.), reprinted in BaumgarterCs Theologische Streitigkeiten, vol. ii. p. 
770, ss. Gieseler, Lehrb. der Kirchengesch. i. § 88, note 20. Munscher 
von Colin, p. 290-296, 

° "^s the Alexandrians exalted the v-rrep Xdyov, so did the Antiochians 
the Kara Xoyov ;" Neander, Hist. Dog. 334. On their differences, and the 
inferences which each party drew from the views of the other to its disad- 
vantage, see ibid. The dvTLfieTddTdaig rcjv dvofidruv was carried to an 
extreme by the Alexandrians, while the Antiochians distinguished between 
what is said doyfiariiciog, and what is spoken navrjyvpiKug. 

° The acts of the Synod are given in Mansi, iv. p. 1123 ; Fuchs, iv. p. 1, 
b'. The synod was organized in a partisan way by Cyril. — A coiintcr-STr.od 
was held under John, bishop of Antioch, in opposition to Cyril and Memnon ; 
these in their turn excommunicated John and his party. The Emperor 
Theodosius at first confirmed the sentence of deposition which the two con- 
tend'ng parties had pronounced upon each other, but afterwards Kestorias 
was abandoned by all ; for John of Antioch liimself was prevailed upon to 
give his consent to the condemnation of his friend, after Cyril had proposed a 
formula, the contradictions, of which, with his former Anathematismata, wore 
but poorly slurred over (comp. Munscher ed. by von. Colin, p. 297). Tho 
consequence was the separation of the Nestorian party (Chaldee Christians, 
Thomas-Christians) from the catholic church. On the further history of the 
Nestorians, see J. S. Assemanni, de Syris Nestoi ianis, in Bibl. Orient. Rom, 
1728, T. iii. P, 2. " We niay call the view of Cyril {acc()rding to which the 
human is changed into the divine), the magical aspect of the union, and that 
of Nestoi- ius {according to which the two natures are only joined together) tM 
MECHANICAL." Borner, 1st ed. p. 90. 

§ 101. 


. The doctrine which separated the two natures of Christ, had heen 
rejected by the condemnation of Nestorius. But with the growing 
influence and power of the party of Cyril, led by Dioscurus, Cyril's 

278 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

successor,' the still greater danger arose of confounding, instead oi 
separating the said natures. The party zeal of Eutyclies, an aichi> 
niandrite [abbot] at Constantinople, who maintained the doctrine 
of only one nature in Christ," caused new disturbances. After 
Dioscurus had in vain endeavored to force the Monophysite doctrine 
by violent means upon the eastern church,' both he and his senti- 
ments were at last condemned at the council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451). 
In the course of the controversy, Leo the Great, bishop of Eome, 
addressed a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople.'' On the 
basis of this Epistola Flaviana, the synod pronounced in favor of 
the doctrine of two natures, neither to be separated nor confounded, 
and, in order to prevent further errors, drew up a formula of faith, 
■which should be binding upon all parties.' 

' Respecting his character and violent conduct, especially towards Theo- 
doret, see Neander, Clinrch History, ii. 500-522. The acts of this contio- 
versy are given in Mansi, T. vi. vii. (Ancf. Mai. Script. "Vett. Coil. T. vii. and 
ix. Coll. Class. Auct. T. x. p. 408, ss.) \^Liberatus Breviarium Causse Nestor, 
et Eutychian. in Mansi, ix. 659. Walch's Ketzerhist. vi. Baur, Dreiel- 
nigkeit, i. 800. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 99 sq.J 

" Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Dorylseum with the revival of Va- 
Icitinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constanti- 
iicph in the year 449. See Mansi, vi. p. 694-754. According to the acta 
of this synod he taught : Msra t^v ivavdpuinrjaiv tov Oeov Xdyov, tovteoti 
Iter a rrjv yewTjOiv tov Kvpiov rjfiuiv ''Irjaov XpiaTov,iJ,iav (pvaiv npooKweiv 
Kal ravT^v deov aapKuOevTog Kol ivavOpton'qaavTog' He denied that the 
flesh of Christ was of the same essence (o/jioovoiog) with ours, though he 
would not be understood to teach that Christ brought his body with him from 
heaven. But when his opponents brought him at last into a corner, he went 
so far as to admit the sameness of essence in respect to the body. But he 
could not be induced to confess his belief in the existence of two natures, a 
divine and a human. He maintained that there had been two natures only 
TTpb rfjg ivuaeuc; ; but after that he would acknowledge only one. Concern- 
ing the agreement between his doctrine and that of Cyril, see Munscher edit 
by von Colin, p. 301. 

' These TJolent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the 
Synod of Robbers, a. d. 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum, ovvodog XfjaTpiK/fj), 
the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593, ss. Fuchs, iv. p. 340, ss. 

* The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359 (separately published 
by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1V80, 4, comp. Grieshach, Opusc. Acad. T. i. 
p. 52, ss. Munscher von Colin, p. 302) : Salva proprietate utriusque naturae 
et substantiie et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humili- 
tas, a vii'tute infirmitas, ab seternitate mortalitas ; et ad resolvendum con- 
ditionis nostrse dsbitum natuia inviolabilis naturas est unita passibili, ut quod 
nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator dei et hominum, 
homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. 
In Integra ergo veri hominis porfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, tolas 

§ 102. Progress of the Controversy. 279 

in suis, tolas in nosti'is, etc. . . Qui enim venis est Deus, idem verus est homo, 
et rnllum est ia hac unitate mendacium, dmii invicem sunt el humilitas 
hominis et altitude deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur raiseratione, ita 
Lomo non consumitnr dignitate. Agit enim utraque fovma cum alteriua 
comraunione, quod propriura est: Vorbo scilicet operantc, quod verbi est, et 
«avni exsoqnente, quod carnis est, etc. He tlien ascribes birth, hunger, naked- 
ness, sufferings, death, burial, etc., to the human, miracles to the divine na- 
ture ; the passage in John xiv. 28, refers to the former, that in John x. 30, 
to the latter. Comp. on Leo's Christology, Perlhel, u. s. 146 ; Saur, 807 sq. 
' Mansi, vii. 108, ss. : ... . 'ETrojuevoi roivvv roig dyioig ■narpdaiv, Iva koI 
Tov avrov dfioXoysXv vlbv rbv iivpcov fjiiS)v 'Irjaovv Xpioruv avfKlxfjvug 
dnavTsg eKdlddoKOfiEV, reXeiov rbv avrbv iv deorrjTi Kal rtXeiov rbv avrbv 
iv dvdpunorrj-i,, Otbv dX'!]6u>g not dvOpumov dXrjdwg rbv avrbv hi' tpvxvg 
XoyiKrjg ical aunaroc, bfioovaiov tw Ilarpi Kara, tt]v deorrj-a, koi biioovaiov 
rbv avrbv rjfuv Kara t^v dv6po)n6r7jTa, Kara, rzdvra ujioiov fjiuv X'^P'^i 
diiapriag- npb aluvcjv jiev ek tov Tlarpbg yevvrjdivra Kara r7]v deorrjra, 
ett' iaxdroyv 6e rwv r}jj,epCiiv rbv avrbv 61 fumg Ka) Sih rfjv rjiieripav 
auTTjpiav Ik Maptag ryg TiapO&vov rfjg Osotokov Kara rrjv dvdpbyTroTTjra, 
tva Kal Tibv avrbv Xpiarbv TtoV, Kvpiov, novoyevrj ek 6vo (pvceuv {iv 6vo 
(pvaeatv)'^ davyxvrug, drpiTTTO)g, ddiaipirug, dxi>^ptoTug yvoypi- 
^ofiEvov avSap,ov rfjg ruv (pvaeuv dia^opag dvyprjiJ,ivTjg 6id ttjv evcooiv, 
cu^ofj-ivrjg 6e fiaXXov rijg i6i6rrjrog EKarepag (pvoEwg Kal slg ev npoaunov 
Kal fiiav vnoaraaiv avvrpExovarjg' ovk elg 6vo Trpoacj-na i.i£pi^6pevov, t] 
6iaipoviJ.EVov, dXX' eva Kal rbv avrbv Tlbv Kal povoyEvi], Qebv Xoyov, 
Kvpiov 'Irjaovv Xpiarov KadaTTsp dvuOEV ol npo<pfjrai nEpl avrov Kal avrog 
Tjpag 'Irjoovg Xpiarbg k^etiaidEvaE- Kal rb ruv naripiov ripiv -rrapaSiduKE 

We can not fail to see a dogmatic parallel between these Cliristolouical de- 
cisions and the theological determinations of the council of Nice, with this 
difference only (demanded by the difference of the objects in view), tliat the 
latter understood by (pvaig that which belongs to each nature separately, but 
by vnoaraaig, npoaunov, that which both have in common ; the reverse__is 
the ease in the decisions of the synod qi Chalcedon. 

§ 102. 


But the authority of the decision of the council of Chalcpdon was 
not at once generally acknowledged. Many conflicts ensued' before 
the doctrine of "two natures in one person" was received as the or- 
thodox doctrine of the church, and finally inserted into what is com- 
monly called the Athanasian Creed.' The ekact medium, however, 
between the two extreme views was not strictly preserved. For by 

* Concerning this different reading, comp. Mansi, p. 106, 115, 840. Wakh, BibL Symb, 
p. 106. 

280 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

the admission of a new clause, viz., that one of the divine persons 
had been crucified (Theopascliitism), into the creed of the fifth CEcu- 
menical Synod (a. d. 553),' the Monophysite notion gained the as- 
beiadeucy within the pale of orthodoxy. 

' The Henotkim of the Emperor Zeno, a. d. 482, in Evagr. iii. c. 14 (sep« 
arately published by Berger, Wittemb. 1V23, 4), was intended to bring about 
^ reconciliation between.the contending parties, but was not followed by any 
permanent success. Comp. Jablonsky, Diss, de Henotico Zenonis. Francof. 
ad Viadr. 1737, 4. Manscher v. Colin, p. 306, 7. It was taught that Christ 
was bfioovaiog tw -narpl Kara rrjv deorrjTa, koX dfioovaiog Tjfuv Kara Trjv 
dvdpunoTrjra. The predicate OeoTOKog was vindicated for Mary ; and the 
Anathematismata of Cyril were justified. 

" Symb. Athan. pars. ii. — (Comp. § 97). 

27. Sed necessarium est ad ajternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque 
Domini nostii Jesu Christi fideliter credat. 28. Est ergo fides recta, ut cre- 
damus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius, Dens 
pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante sajcula genitus : 
homo ex substantia matris in sasculo natus. 30. Porfectus deus, peifectus 
homo, ex anima rational! et humana carne subsistens. , 31. ^qualis Patri 
secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. 32. Qui, licet 
deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem 
non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. 

34. Unus omnino non confusione substantiarum, sed unitate personae. 

35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita et Deus et homo 
unus est Christus. 36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, 
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 37. ascendit in coelos, sedet ad dexteram Pa- 
tris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. 38. Ad cujus adventum omncs 
homines resurgere debent cum corporibus suis et reddituri sunt de factispro- 
priis rationom. 39. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam astern am : qui vero 
mala, in ignem ajternum. 40. Usee est fides catholica, quam nisi quisquam 
fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. 

' Peter FuUo (6 'yva(pevg) was the first who introduced the clause Oebg 
iaravpuOri into the Trishagion, at Antioch, 463—471. [On the rpiadyiov 
see Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 110, note 12.] — In the year 533 Justinian pronounced 
the phrase, unuin crucijixum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trin.itate, to be 
orthodox (Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. 6) : he did so in agreement with John II., bishop 
of Rome, but in opposition to his predecessor Hormisdas. — The decree of the 
council is given in Mansi, ix. p. 304 : Et rcg ovx bfioXoyu rbv ia-avpdijiivov 
aapid 'Kvptov tj^mv 'Irjaovv Xpiorbv elvai debv dXrjdivbv koL Kvpiov Tfjg 
S6^r]g, KM tva rj/f dyiag rpiado^ 6 roiovrog dvadsfia earu. — This victory 
of the advocates of Theopascliitism was only the counterpart of the one which 
the friends of the phrase deoroKog had gained in former yeais. Thus such 
expressions as "God is born, God died," came gradually into use in dogmatic 
theology. It was in this sense that, e. g., the author of the Soliloquia Ani- 
ma) (which may be found in the works of Augustine) c. 1, offered the follow- 
ing prayer : Manus tuse, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me, niaiius 
iuquam illae, quas affixfB clavis sunt pro me. 

§ 103. Modifications of the Monophysite Doctrine. 281 



Bisseler, J. C. L., Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum veterum Tarise de Christi Pertma 
Opiniones imprimis ex ipsomm effatis recens editis iliustrantur. Parts I. II. Gott 
1838, IV. 

The Monophysites themselves were not agreed on the question 
whether Christ possessed a corruptible or an incorruptible body ? 
The Phthartolatri (Severians) maintained the former ; the Aphthar- 
todocetoe (Julianists) asserted the latter, in accordance with their 
monophysite premises respecting the nature of Christ. Diiferent 
views obtained among the Aphthartodocetje themselves on the ques- 
tion, whether Christ's body was created or not, and led to the for- 
mation of two distinct parties, the Ktistolatri and the Aktistetce.^ 
The omniscience of Christ necessarily followed from the Monophy- 
site doctrine. The assertion, therefore, of Themistius, deacon of 
Alexandria, that the man Jesus was ignorant of many things 
{Agnoetism, Mark xiii. 32 ; Luke ii. 25), was rejected by the strict 

' Sources: Leont. Byzant. (in (7a//aric?u Bibl. Patr. xii.) Niceph. Callisti, 
lib. xvii. Gieseler (in the 2d Part of the dissertation cited before) endeavors 
to prove tbat the view of the Julianists was by no means purely Docetic, but 
allied to that taken by Clement of Alexandria, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, 
etc., and that it also bore resemblance to the opinions entertained by Apollina- 
ris. Xenaias (Philoxenus), bishop of Hierapolis, and the contemporary of 
Julian, bishop of Ilalicarnassus, appears as the representative of this view, 
comp. p. 7. — Difi'erent meanings were attached 1o the word <pOopd, which 
was made at one time to denote the frailty of the living body, and its sr.s- 
ceptibility to suffering, at pother to signify the dissolubility of the corpse; 
ibidem, p. 4. 

'■' On the orthodox side, Gregory the Great (Epist. x. 35, 39) declared 
against Agnoetism. On the controversy in the West, with Leporius, a monk 
of Gaul (about 426), who also taught Agnoetism in connection with the doc- 
trines of Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), 339^ 
[He contended for the unconditional transference of the predicates of the 
human nature to the divine, and consequently for such expressions as " God 
was born," "God died ;" he also taught a progressive revelation of the divine 
Logos in the human nature to which he was united, and Agnoetism.] 

Though the orthodox church was far from giving the least countenance to Doootism, 
yet the ideas entertained by Origen in the preceding period (see § 66, note 6), viz., 
that Christ rose from the toml with a ghrifitd body, found many more friends in tha 

282 Second Period. The Agi; of Polemics. 

present period. Not only Uilary, whose views, gouerally speaking, coie . nearest to 
those of the DoeetK, but also Chrysostom, fheodorei, and most of the eastern theolo- 
giiins, with the exception oi Ep?iram the Syrian, Gregory o/Nyssa, and Cyril ofJera- 
salem, adopted more or tlio notion of Origen. Thus Chrysostom says in reierenca 
to John xxi. 10 : kfaivero yap uXki^ f^^PfVi '^^^-^ i^^^^fl, aA?Uf) axV/^^rl ; in support of 
his opinion he appealed especially to the appearance of Christ when the doors wera 
shut, etc. On the other hand, the last named fathers of the eastern church, as well 
as the western theologians, Jerome in particular, asserted that Christ possessed tho 
Tery same body both prior and anterior to his resurrection. Cyril firmly maintains that 
Christ was tv aCiua-L naxel. Augudine and Leo the Great, on the contrary, endeav- 
ored to reconcile the notion of the identity of Christ's body -jvith the idea of its 
glorification. ' Thus Leo says in Sermo 69, de Resurrect. Dom. cap. 4 (T. i. p. 73). 
resurrectio Domini ron finis carnis, sed oommutatio fuit, nee virtutis augmento con- 
Eumta substantia est. Qualitas transiit, non natura deficit: et factum est corpus 
impassibile, immonale, incorruptibile. ..nihil remansit in came Christi infirmum, ut et 
ipsa sit per essentiam et non sit ipsa per gloriam. Gregor'ifthe Great and others used 
similar language. — Most of the theologians of this period also adhered to the opinion, 
that Christ had quickened himself by his own povjer, in opposition to the notion, enter- 
tained by the Arians, viz., that the Father had raised him from the dead. For the 
doctrine of the two natures in Christ led them to imagine, that the union subsisting 
between the divine and the human was so intimate and permanent, that both hia 
body and soul, after their natural separation by death, continued to be connected 
■with his Divine nature, J;he body in the grave, the soul in Hades. Nor did Clirist 
stand in need of the angel to roll away the stone ; this took place only in consequence 
of his resurrection. — His ascension was likewise brought about by an independent 
act of his divine nature, not by a miracle wrought by the Father upon him (generally 
speaking, theologians were accustomed at this time to consider the miracles of Christ 
as works achieved by his Divine nature). The cloud which formerly enveloped all 
the events of Christ's life, was now changed into a triumphal car (nxvi^"), which 
angels accompanied. Com'p. Athan. De Assumt. Dom., and for further particulars 
see Muller, 1. o. p. 40, ss., p. 83, ss. 

§ 104. 


Comhefisii, T., Historia Monothelitarum, in the second volume of his Nov. Auctuarium 
Bibl. PP. Grseco-Latm. Par. 1048, fol. Walch, Historie der Ketzeitien, vol ix. 
p. 1-606. 

The attempt made by the Emperor Heraclius, in the seventh cen- 
tury, to re-unite the Monophysites with the Catholic church, led to 
the controversy respecting the two wills in Christ, kindred to that 
concerning his natures.' In agreement with Cyrus, patriarch of 
Alexandria, the emperor, hoping to reconcile the two parties, 
adopted the doctrine of only one Divine-human energy {iiepyeia), 
and of one will in Christ." But Sophronius, an acute monk of 
Palestine, afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem (a. d. 635), endeavored 
to show that this doctrine was inadmissible, since the doctrine of 
two natures, set forth by the synod of Chalcedon, necessarily imj)lied 
that of two wills.' After several fruitless attempts had been made 

§ 104. The Doctkine of Two Wills in Christ. 283 

to establish the Monothelite doctrine,* the sixth (Ecumenical Council 
of Constantinople (a. d. 680), with the cooperation of the bishop 
of Kome,' adopted the doctrine oitivo wills, and tivo energies, as tha 
orthodox doctrine, but decided that the human will must always ba 
conceived as subordinate to the divine. * 

In this -way the controversy was removed from the province of pure 
metaphysics into the moral and practical sphere, and thus brought into con- 
nection with the anthropological disputes ; as there had also been occasibn 
for this in the Apollinarist strife (see above). But this did not help the 
matter itself. 

When the Emperor Ileraclius, in the course of his campaign against 
Persia, passed tlirough Armenia and Syria, he came to an uniJerstanding 
with the Monophysite loaders of the Severians and Jacobites, and induced 
Sergius, the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, to give his assent to the 
doctrine of ev 6iXTjj.ia koI fiia kvepyeta, or of an evepyeia Beardpiicrj. Cyrus 
(a Monophysite), whom the Emperor had appointed patriarch of Alexandria, 
effected; at a synod held in that place (a. d. 633), a union between the dif- 
ferent parties. The acts of this synod are given by Mansi, Cone. xi. p. 564, 
ss., as well as the letters of Cyrus, ibid. p. 561. 

' See Sophronii Epist. Synodica, which is given in Mansi, xi. 461. Those 
Monophysites who maintained the doctrine of two natures, and of only one 
will, were quite as inconsistent as most of the orthodox theologians in the 
Arian controversy, who held that the Son was of the same essence with the 
Father, but asserted the subordination of the Spirit. 

* The Greek Emperor at first endeavored to settle the matter amicably, by 
the ''EiKdeaig [i. e., an edict issued by the Emperor Heraclius, a. d. 638, in 
which he confirmed the agreement made by the patriarchs for the preserva- 
tion of ecclesiastical union], and the TvTrof \i. e., an edict issued by the Em- 
peror Constans II., a. d. 648, in which the contending parties were prohibited 
from resuming their discussions on the doctrine in question]. See Mansi, x. 
p. 992, p. 1029, ss. Afterwards Martin I. and Maxiraus were treated with 
the most shameful cnielty ; for further particulars see JVeander, Church. Hist. 
(Torrey), iii. 186-192. 

' Pope Honorius was in favor of the union, but his successors, Severinus 
and John IV., opposed it. The latter condemned the doctrine of the Mono- 
thelites, and Theodore excommunicated Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, 
till the 'doctrine of two wills and two energies was at last adopted at the 
first synod of the Lateran, held under Martin I., bishop of Eome, in the year 
649, see Mansi, x. p. 863, ss. : Si quis secundum scelerosos htereticos cum 
una voluntate et una operatione, quae ab htereticis impie confitetur, et duas 
voluntates, pariterque et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanam, quaj in 
ipso Cbristo Deo in unitate salvantur, et a Sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipsoi 
praedicantur, denegat et respuit, conderanatus sit. (Comp. Gieseler, 1. c. § 128, 
note 11. Munscher v. Colin, ii. 78, T9.) 

' This council (also called the First Trullan) was summoned by Constan- 
tinus Pogonatus. The decision of the synod was based upon the epistle of 
Agatha, the Boman bishop, which was itself founded upon the canons of the 

284 Skcond Period. The Age of Polemics. 

above Lateran synod (Agathonis Ep. ad Imperatores in Mansi, xi. 233-286), 
confessing belief in dua naturales voluntates et duae nalurales operationcs, 
non contrariae, nee adversse, nee separataj, etc. This was followed by the 
decision of the council itself (see Mansi, xi. 631, ss. Munscher, von Colin, 
ii. p. 80. Oieseler, 1. c. § 128, notes 14-17). Auo cpvaL/cag OeXrjaeLg i^rot 
OeXriiiaTa iv X-piarui Koi 6vo (f>vaiK.a.g kvEpyeiag ddiaiperuig, drpeTTTCog, 
a/iBoiaTug, davyxvTug, Kara ttjv tuv ayiuv ■nar&puv SidaaKaXiav 
KT/OJTTOfiev Kai 6vo (pvaiKo, 6eXrjfiaTa ovx vTrevavria, p,?] yevoiro, Kadwg 
ol daefielg e(j>r]aav alperiKor akX' i.'nop.e.vov rh dvdpumvov avrov deX7]fia, 
Koi li^i dvTtninTOV, i] avrnraXalov, [laXXov fiev ovv Kal vnoTaaa6p,EVov tgj 
'6si(^ avTOv Kal ■navadevsi deX'qjj.aTi. — Respecting the insufficiency of these, 
and the indefiniteness of the other canons of the council, see Dorner, 1st ed. 
p. 90, ss. — The Refoimers did not accept the decisions of this council The 
Monothelites (Pope Honorius included) were condemned. They continued 
to exist as a distinct sect in the mountains of Lebanon and Antiiebanon 
under the name of Maronites (which was derived from their leader, the 
Syrian abbot Marun, who lived about the year 701). Comp. Neander, 1. c. 
p. 197. [^Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te Aufl. p. 211, says of this controversy: 
Its elements on the side of the Monothelites were, the unity of the person or 
subject, from whose one will (the divine will of the incarnate Logos) all 
must proceed, since two wills also presuppose two personal subjects (the 
chief argument of bishop Theodore of Pharan, in Mansi, Tom. xi. p. 667); 
on the side of the Duothelites, the point was the fact of two natures, since 
two natures can not be conceived without two natural wills, and two natural 
modes of operation. How far now two wills can be without two persons 
willing, was the point from which they slipped away by mere suppositions.] . 

§ 105. 


Unedifying as is the spectacle of these manifold controversies, ia 
which the person of the Kedeemer is dragged down into the sphere 
of passionate conflicts, yet it is still cheering to see how the faith 
of Christians in those times was supported by that idea of the God- 
Man, which was above all such strife, and how it attributed to the 
doctrine of the one and undivided person of Christ its due import in 
the history of the world. 

" All the Fathers agreed, as it were with one mind, that to Christ belongs 
ywt merely the limited importance attached to every historical personage, hut 
Ihat his Person stands in an essential relation to the whole human race J 
on this account alone could they make a single individual the object of an 
article of faith, and^ ascribe to him a lasting and eternal significancy in relar 
ticn to our race." Jjufru-r, 1st ed. 1. c. p: 78 ; compare the passages from 

§ 105. Importance of Chkistology during this Period. 285 

the fathers there cited. [They say, e. g., that Christ is tlie primitive type 
after which Adam and the whole of humanity were created ; the principle, 
the apx'Ui of the whole new creation, in which the old is first completed ; 
the airapxr) of the whole (pvpafia of humanity, penetrating all ; the eternal 
head of the race — a member of it indeed, but yet its plastic and organizing 
principle, in virtue of the union between divinity and humanity in him per- 
fectly realized, etc.] 



§ 106. 


The Platonic doctrine of the preexistence of the human soul, 
■which none but Nemesius and Frudentius favored,' was almost 
unanimously rejected as Origenistic." Along with physical Tradu- 
cianism (favorable as was this 4octrine in certain aspects to the 
idea of original sin, see § 55), Creatianism was also able to obtain 
more authority. According to this view, every human soul was 
created as such, and at a certain moment of time united with the 
body, developing itself in the womb. Yet the most influential 
teachers of the church, as Augustine and Gregory the Great, 
expressed themselves with reserve on this point.^ In the West the 
threefold division of man (§ 54) gave way to the simpler division 
into body and soul, on the mutual relation of which different views 
obtained among the fathers of the present period.* Nor did they 
agree in their opinions respecting the image of God, though most of 
them admitted that it consisted in reason imparted to man, in his 
capacity of knowing God, and in his dominion over the irrational 
creation." There were still some who imagined that the image of 
God was also reflected in the body of man ; but, while the Audiani 
perverted this notion in support of gross anthropomorphism," others 
gave to it a more spiritual interpretation. The immortality of the 
soul was universally believed ;' Lactantius, however, did not regard 
it as the natural property of the soul, but as the reward of virtue." 

' The former did so as a philosopher (De Humana Natiira 2, p. 76, ss. of 
the Oxford edit.), the latter as a poet (Cathemerin. Hymn. x. v. 161-168). 
[Cf. Aur. Prudent. Carmina, ed. Alb. Dressel, Lips. I860.] 

' Cone. Const. A. D. 540, see Mansi, ix. p. 396, ss. : 'H iicKXrjata roTg 
deioig Ltto^&vt] Xoyoiq (pdaicet ttjv tjiv^fjv cvvdrjiMovpyrjOfjvai tgj autfiari' 
Kol ov TO jxev TTporepov, to 6e vOTSpov, KaTO. Trjv 'Qpiyevovg ^pEVoliXafieiav. 

' Lactantius maintains, Inst. iii. 18, that the soul is born with the body, 
and distinctly opposes Traducianism De Opif. Dei ad Demetr. c. 19 : lUud 

§ 106. On Man in General. 287 

quoqne venire in quajstioncm potest, utnim aniina ex patre, an potius ex 
niatre, an vero ex utroque generetur. Nihil enira ex Lis tribus vcrura est, 
quia neque ex utroque, neque ex alterutro soruntur animse. Corpus enim ex 
corporibiis nasci potest, qnoniam confertur aliquid ex utroque ; de aniniis 
aniiua non potest, quia ex re tenui et incomprehensibili nihil potest decedere. 
Itaque serendarum animarnm ratio uni ac soli Deo subjacet : 
"Denique ccelesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, 
Omnibus ille idem pater est," 
ut ait Lucretius ; nam de radrtalibus non potest quidquam nisi mortale gene- 
rari. Nee putari pater debet, qui transfudisse aut inspirasse animain de sue 
nulio modo sentit; nee, si sentiat, quando tamen et quomodo id fiat, habet 
aninio comprehensum. Ex quo apparet, non a parentibus dari animas, sed 
ab uno eodemque omnium Deo patre, qui legem rationemque nascendi tenet 
solus, siquidem solus efficit ; nam terreni parentis nihil est, nisi ut humorem 
corporis, in quo est materia nascendi, cum sensu voluptatis emittat vol reci- 
piat, et citra hoc opus homo resistit, nee quidquam amplius potest; ideo nasci 
sibi filios optant, quia non ipsi faoiunt. Cetera jam Dei sunt omnia : scilicet 
conceptus ipse et corporis informatio et inspiratio animas et partus incolumis 
et qusecunquo deinceps ad hominem conservandum valent ; illius munus est, 
quod spiranius, quod vivimus, quod vigemus.- — ^In opposition to Traducianism, 
he appeals to the fact, that intelligent parents have sometimes stupid chil. 
dren, and vice versa, which could not well be ascribed to the influence of the 
stars ! — In accordance with this opinion Hilary asserts Ti'act. in Ps. xci. § 3 : 
Quotidie animarum origenee [et corporum figulationes] occulta et incognita 
nobis divinEe virtutis molitione proccdunt. [See, also, Ti'act. in Psalm, cxviii. 
cap. i. : Igitur vel quia in terrse hujus solo commoramur, vel quia ex teria 
instituti conformatique sumus, anima quas alterius originis est, terraj corporis 
adhsesisse creditur.] I^dayius, and the Semipelagians, Cassian and Genna- 
dius, adopted substantially the same view, see Wiggers, Augustin und Pela- 
gius, i. p. 149, ii. p. 354. Pelagius taught (in S3'mb. quoted by Mansi, iv. 
p. 355) : Animas a Deo dari credimus, quas ab ipso factas dicimus, anatho- 
matizautes eos, qui animas quasi partem divinae dicunt esse substantias ; Au- 
gustine agreed with him as far as the negative aspect of this pi'oposition was 
concerned, Eetract. i. 1 : (Deus) animuni non de se ipso genuit, sod de re 
nulla alia eondidit, sicut condidit corpus e terra; he here refers, however, 
directly to the creation of our first parents. But Augustine does not 
expressly state, whether he thinks that the soul is newly created in every 
case; on the contrary, he declined to investigate this point: Nam quod 
attinet ad ejns (aniiiii) originem, qua fit ut sit in corpore, utrura de illo uno 
sit, qui priuium creatus est, quando factus est homo in animam vivam, an 
semper ita fiant singulis singuli, nee tunc sciebam (in his treatise Contra 
Acadcmicos) nee adhuc scio. Comp. Ep. 140 (al. 120), ad Honorat. (T. ii. 
p. 320). When Jerome (Contra Error. Joann. Ilicrosolym. § 22) derives 
Creatianism from the words of Christ in John v., "My Father worketh 
iiitherto," Augustine will not allow tJds argument to be valid, since the 
working of God is not excluded even upon the Traducian hypothesis ; comp. 
Neander, Hist. Dogra. (Ryland), 365. [The opinion of Augustine upon this 
point has been much debated : BoUaruiine and Staudenmaier contend that 

288 ' Secx)np Period. The Age of Polemics. 

he was for creation ; Melancthoti, Klee, and others reckon him among tba 
Traducianists ; Gangauf (ii. s.), Wiggers, and Ritter say that he was unde- 
cided. Bellarmine cites for Creatianism, Epist. 190, ad Optat. cap. 14 : Ilii, 
qui aninias ex una propagni'i asserunt, quam Deus primo horaini dedit, atque 
ita eas ex parentibns trahi dicunt, si Tertnlliani opinionom seqnuntnr, profecto 
eas, non spiiitus, sed corpora esse contendunt, et corpulentis seminibus exoriri, 
quo perversius quod dici potest? But this applies strictly only to Tertul- 
lian's coipulenta semina. He recognizes the connection between Traducian- 
ism and original sin, De Lib. Arb. lib. iii. cp. 56 : Doinde si una anima facta 
est, ex qua omnium hominum animae trahuntur nascentium, quis potest dicere, 
non se pecasse, cum primus ille peccavit. In his De Anima et ejus Orig. lib. 
1. cp. 19, Num. 34, he says that he could accept Creatianism if four difficul- 
ties were removed ; and in De Orig. Anim. cp. 28, he designates the chief 
of these difficulties, in connection with the doctrine of the salvation of chil- 
dren not baptized : Sed antequam sciam, queen am earum potius eligenda sit, 
hoc me non temere sentire profiteer, earn, qiise vera est, non advevsari robus- 
tissimce ac fundatissimse fidei, qua Christi ecclesia nee parvulos homines re- 
centissime natos a damnatione credit, nisi per groetiam nominis Christi, quam 
in suis sacramentis commendavit, posse liberari ; comp. De Gonesi ad Lit. 
Lib. X. cp. 23 Num. 39, and Epist. 169 ad Evodium, cp. 13. In Epist. 190 
ad Optat. cp. 17, he says : Aliquid ergo cortum de animae origine nondum in 
soripturis canonicis comperi. And in Genes, ad Lit. x. 21, he says: Jam de 
ceterarum animarnm adventu, utrum ex parentibus an desuper sit, vincant, 
qui poterunt ; ego adhuc inter utrosque ambigo, et moveor aliquando sic, 
aliquando autem sic] — The phrase mentioned before (note li) : tjjv ipvxrjv 
awdriiiiovpyridfivai tcj od^ari, which was used by the Greek church, and is 
also found in the works of Theodoret (Fab. IIa;r. v. 9, p. 414), implies" the 
doctrine commonly called Creatianism. Yet Traducianism continued to be 
professed not only by heterodox writers, e. g., Eunomius and Apollinaris, but 
also by some orthodox theologians, such as Gregory of Nyssa (De Horn. 
Opif. c. 29). The last directs our attention to the fact, that body and soul 
belong essentially together, and can not be possibly be imagined to be sepa- 
rated from each other : k.XX' evbg ovrog tov dvOpioTiov, tov 6ia ij^v^ilg re 
Kal CTcOjuarof ovveaTrjKOTog, [liav avrov Kol koivtjv rrjg Gvardaeiidg rfjv 
dpx^v vTTOTiQeaOai, (Lg av fiTj avrhg iavrov irpoyevearepog re kol veurepog 
yevoiTO, TOV fisv aufiariKOv TrpOTEpEvovrog iv avTU>, tov 6e ET&pov i(f>vaTe- 
pt^ovTog, etc., which he proves by analogies drawn from nature. The views 
of Anastasius Sinaita on this point are very materializing (Horn, in Ban- 
dini Monura. Eccles. Gr. T. ii. p. 54, in Munscher von Colin, i. p. 332) : T6 
filv aCiva iic TTJg yvvaiiieiag yrig {Thiersch conjectures yovfjg, see the review 
in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1841, p. 184) Kol aifiaTog avvioTaTav r; 6e 
■\pvxri <Jia TTJg anopdg, tianep did Tivog eiicjjvq^fiaTog ia tov dvOpwirov 
appriTug iieTadiSoTai. According to Jerome, Ep. 78, ad Marcellin. (Opp, T. 
iv. p. 642, ap. Erasm. ii. p. 318), even, maxima pars occidentalium (probably 
of earlier times ?) held the opinion, ut quoraodo corpus ex corpore, sic anima 
nascatur ex anima et simili cum brutis animantibus conditione subsistat. But 
Jerome himself rejects all other systems, and designates Crtatianism as th<t 

§ 106. On Man in General. 289 

orthodox doctrine ;* Epist. ad Pammach. (0pp. T. iv. p. 318, ap. Erasni. ii. 
p. 170): Qiiotidie Dens fabnoatur aniraas, eujus velle focisse est et conditoi 

esse non cessat Noli despicere bonitatem figuli tui, qui te plasmavit et 

fecit ut voluit. Ipse est Dei virtus et Dei sapientia, qui in utero virginis 
cedificavit sibi domum. The advocates of Creatianism saw in the birth of 
every human being something analogous to the miracle of Christ's incarna- 
tion on its physical side, without putting the one on a level with the other 
(which Jerome would have been the last to do) ; those who adopted Tradu- 
cianism were compelled to consider Christ's birth as an exception to the rule; 
and even this exception seemed to require some limitation of the position, 
that Christ's human nature is consubstantial with ouis. Many theologians, 
therefore, preferred obviating these difficulties, following Augustine's ex- 
ample, by directing attention to the impossibility of comprehending the 
origin and processes of existence. Thus Gregory the Oreat, Epp, vii. 59, ad 
Secundinum (0pp. ii. p. 970), says : Sed de hac re dulcissima mihi tua car- 
itas sciat, quia de origine animse inter sanctos Patres requisitio non parva 
versata est ; sed utrum ipsa ab Adam descenderit, an certe singulis detur, 
incertum remansit, eamque in hac vita insolubilem fassi sunt esse quajstionem. 
Gravis enim est qusestio, nee valet ab homine comprehcndi, quia si de Adam 
substantia cum carne nascitur, cur non etiara cum carne moritu? Si vero 
cum carne non nascitur, cur in ea carne, quae de Adam prolata est, obligata 
peccatis tenetur? (he thus deduces Traducianism from- the doctrine of orig- 
inal sin, the correctness of which he assumes, while the latter, on the con- 
trary, was generally inferred from the former.) 

* Hilary of Poitiers asserts (in Matth. Can. v. § 8), that the soul, whether 
in the body or out of the body, must always preserve its corporeal substance, 
because every thing that is created must exist in some form or other (in 
aliquo sit neeesse est) ; reminding us of the views of Tertullian. Yet else- 
where he views the soul as a spiritual, incorporeal being; comp. in Ps. lii. 
§ 7, in Ps. cxxix. § 6 (nihil in se habens corporale, nihil terrenum, nihil 
grave, nihil caducum). — Augustine fjankly acknowledges the difficulty of 
defining the relation in which the soul stands to the body, De Morib. Eocles. 
Cath. c.' 4 : Difficile est istara controversiam dijudicare, aut si ratione facile, 
oratione longura est. Qucm laborem ac suscipere ac subire non 
opus est. Sive enim utrumque sive anima sola noincn honiinis teneat, 
est hominis optimum quod optimum est corporis, sed quod aut corpori 
simul et animse aut soli animse optimum est, id est optimum hominis. — On 
the psychological views of Augustine, comp. Schleierniacher, Geschichte der 
Philosophie, p. 169, ss. [also Gangauf, Metaphysische Psychologic des heili- 
gen Auguslinus, Augsburg, 1852]; on those of Claudius Mamertus and Boe- 
ihius, ibid. p. 174. — According to Gregory the Great, man is composed of 
body and soul (Mor. xiv. c. 15). The principal properties of the soul are. 
mens, anima et virtus ; comp. Lau, p. 370. 

* Zeo the Great likewise declares it to be the doctrine of the church (Ep. 1.5, ad Turrib. 
0pp. Quesnt.. p 229, quoted in Munscher ei. by von Colin, p. 331, note 11: niiliioiica 
fides. . .omnem liomiuem in corporis et animse substanti am /ormcwi intra mateina visuei-a 


290 Second Period. The Age -Gf Polemics. 

' Greg. Nyss. in verba: Faciamus honiinem, Orat. 1, 0pp. i. p. 143! 
'Xioii]Ou\itv avdpuTTOV Kai' ehiova rjixerlpav rovriaTi, duaofitv avru Xcr/ov 
■tzepiovaiav . . .Ov yap ra vdOrf elg ttjv tov Qsov elicdva TrapeX'^(f>07], dXX' 6 
■Xoyioiiog rCiv tradCJv deanoTTig. Athanasius speaks in the same manner, 
Orat. contra Gent. § 2. Cyrill. Hier. Cat. xiv. 10. The dominion over the 
animals was included. Gregory, 1. c. says : bnov t] tov dpxeiv 6vvajj,ig, kkel // 
TOV Beov e'lKuv. Comp. Theodoret, in Genes. Qua;st. 20. Chrys. Horn. viii. 
in Genes. (0pp. ii. p. 65, ss.). Aug. De Catechizandis Kudib. xvii. 20; De 
Genesi contra Manich. c. 17; de Trin. xii. 2; Sermo xlviii. (De Gura Animac); 
Quse est iinaL;o Dei in nobis, nisi id quod melius reperitnr nobis, nisi ratio, 
intellectus, memoria, voluntas. — The Semipelagians, Oennadius and Faustus, 
made a distinction between imago and similitudo, see Wiggers, ii. p. .356. — 
Gregory the Great regards the image of God, in which man was created, as 
Boliditas ingenita (Mor. ix. c. 33), which was lost by the fall (Mor. xxix. c. 
10), see Lau, p. 371. On the other traits of the first man as to body and 
soul, ibid. p. 372. Whether there is here a hint of the doctrine of donum 
superadditum, afterwards fully developed ? ibid. p. 376. 

" Audceus (Udo), who lived at the commencement of the fourth century 
in Mesopotamia, a rigid and zealous ascetic, seems to have fallen into these 
notions through his essentially practical tendency ; comp. Epiph. Hser. 70, 
who speaks very mildly of Audajus and his followers : ov ri e%ciji' TraprjXXay- 
uevov TTJg niaTSUig, dXX' ipOora-a fiEV maTeviov avTog re «ot ol dfia 
avTU. Theodoret takes the opposite view, Hist. Eccles. iv. 10 (naivCtv 
evpeTfjg doyudrcov), comp. Fab. H»r. iv. 10. Schroder, Diss, de Haeresi 
Audianor. Marb. 1716, 4. Meander, Kirchengeschichte, ii. p. 705. 

' Augustine, Scrmo xlviii. : Anima etiam non moritur, nee succumbit per 
mortem, cum omnino sit immortalis, nee corporis materia, cum sit una numero. 

° Lact. Instit. Div. vii. 5 (in Munscher von Colin, p. 336, comp. p. 338). 
jHfemesius likewise (cap. i. p. 15), accedes in this point to the opinion of the 
earlier Greek theologians : 'EPpaTot 6e tov avdpoiTTOv e^ dpxfjg ovtb Ovtjtov 
6fioXoyoviJ,ivoig, ovts addvaTov yeysvrjadai rpaaiv, dXX' iv fieOopioig inaTE- 
pag (pvaecog, iva dv fitv Tolg aufiaTLKoZg aKoXovOrjay ndOeaiv, Trepineoxj ical 
Talg aojfiaTiKalg ^iet afioXaXg- kdv de to, Tfjg ''pv^iig TrportjUTjcr^ KhXd, Trig 
ddavaaiag d^iuOy, k. t. A. On the other hand, Gregory the Great teaches, 
that even if the soul lose blessedness, it cannot lose the essentialiter vivere 
(Dial. iv. c. 45). The body of man, too, was originally immortal, and became 
mortal through sin ; comp. Moral, iv. c. 28, sq. Lau, ubi supra, p. 371, sq. 
[Comp, Wiggers, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1854.] 



Concerning the nature of sin, the generally received opinion was, 
that it has its seat in the will of man, and stands in the most 
intimate connection with his moral freedom. Augustine himsell' 

§ 107. On the Doctrine of Sin in Geneeal. 291 

defended this doctrine (at least in his earlier Writings),' which wag 
opposed to the Manichean notion, that evil is inherent in matter. 
Lactantius, on the contrary, manifested a strong leaning towards 
Manicheism by designating the body as the seat and organ of sin." 
The ascetic practices then so common, sufficiently indicate that the 
church tacitly approved of this view. Athanasius regarded sin as 
something negative, and believed it to consist in the blindness and 
indolence of man, which prevent him from elevating himself to Grod 
Similar (negative) definitions were given by Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nyssa.' But sin was most frequently looked upon as 
opposition to the law of God, and rebellion against his holy will,* 
analogous to the sin of Adam, which was now generally viewed as 
an historical fact (contrary to the allegorical interpretation of 

' Aug. de Duab. Animab. contra Manich. § 12 : Colligo nnsquam nisi in 
voluntate esse peccatum ; De Lib. Arb. iii. 49 : Ipsa voluntas est prima caus?i 
peccandi. — In many other passages be regards sin from the negative point 
of view as a conversio a majori bono ad minus bonum, defectio ab eo, quod 
gumma est, ad id, quod minus est, perversitas voluntatis a summa substantia 
detortae in infimum. See the passages in Julius Muller, die Lehre von der 
Siinde, i. p. 340, ss. 

" Lact. Inst. Div. ii. 12, vi. 13; De Ira Dei 15: Feme esse sine delicto 
potest, qiiamdiu indumento carnis oneratns est. Cujus infirmitas triplioi 
modo suhjacet dominio peccati, factis, dictis, cogitationibus. 

' Athan. contra gent. 4 (0pp. i. p. 4) ; "Ovra Se. iari to, KaXa, ovk ovra 
6& TO. ^avXa- ovra de ^ri)ii ra KaXa, Kadori &k tov ovrog deov ra rrapa- 
Selyiiara ex^r ovk, ovra 6e ra Kana Aeyw, aadoTi i-mvoiaig dvOpunov ova 
ovra dvaninXaaTai. Ibid. c. V, p. 7 : "On to kukov ov napa deov ovde iv 
deJJ, ovre t| ap%^f yiyovev, ovre ovaia rig iariv avrov- a/l/ld dvdpconot 
Kard areprjaiv rfjg tov KaXov 4>avTaaia<; iavroXg e-mvoelv rjp^avro ical dva- 
izXaTTELV rd ovk 5vTa Kac amp (iovXovrai. Comp. that which follows. 
Athanasius traces the sinful propensity of man to indolence, c..3, p. 3 : 01 6e 
avdpuTTOi KaroXiyuprjoavTsg tuv Kpeurovuv, Kal dKv^aavreg -nepl rr]V 
TOVTGiv KaTdXrjtpiv, rd Kyyvrepu iidXXov tavrSiv ^^rirrjaav. Indolence is 
allied with sensuality, because it clings to what is nearest, viz., the bodily 
and the visible. Comp. the subsequent part of the chapter. In the same 
manner Basil M. Hexaemeron Horn. ii. p. 19 (Paris edit. 1638), says: Ov 
ufjv ov3t Tzapa Oeov rb kukov ttiv yeveaiy £%av evaepig eari Xiyetv, did 
TO iMfjdkv Tuv ivavTiuv Tcapd tov tvavriov ylveaOai, ovre yap r] ^ufj ddva- 
Tov yevva, ovre 6 OKOTog (pUTog eariv dpx% ovts fj voaog v-veiag Srj^i' 
ovpyog. ... .Ti ovv cpafisv; "Oti kukov eariv ovx>- ovaia i;&aa km efiipvxog, 
dXXd SidOeaig iv ipvxy ivavriug 'ixovaa vplg dperfiv did t^v dno tov 
mXov d-oTTToiaiv Tolg padvfioig EyyLvop.£vri.— Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Cate- 
chet. c. 5 (0pp. iii. p. 53) : KaOdnep yap rj opaaig cj)vCEUv ia-iv hipyeia, 
r] de nfipucig arepriaig eoTi TTJg ^vaiKrjg ivepyeiag, ovTug Kal f) dperri npbg 
rfjv Kaiiiav dvOearriKev ov yap eariv dXXrjv Kauiag yeveaiv evvorjoai, ■i} 

292 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

dpsTTJg dnovmav. Comp. c. 6, c. 22, c. 28, and the Dial, de Anima ei 

* That sin was in contradiction with God's purposes, was the practically 
weighty position held fast by the church in all its different definitions of sin. 
"Auffustine, too, every where remains true to this denial of the divine origina- 
tion of sin. Though the opposite opinion has been often imposed upon him 
in past and present times, on account of his doctrines of the moral incapacity 
of human nature and of the divine predestination, yet this belongs to these 
groundless inferences which have been so freely drawn, especially from this 
great teacher of the church ;" Julius Muller, i. 308. A more precise defini- 
tion is given by the theologians after the time of Augustine. Thus Gregory I. 
makes a distinction between peccatum and delictum : Peccatum est mala 
facere, delictum vero est bona relinquere, qua? summopere sunt tenenda. 
Vel certe peccatum in opere est, delictum in cogitatione ; Ezech. lib. ii. Hom. 
9, p. 1404. He also distinguishes between peccatum et crimen ;* every 
crimen is a peccatum, but not vice versa. No one is sine peccato, but many 
are sine crimine (Tit. i. 6, 1 Joh. i. 8). The peccata only stain the soul, the 
crimina kill it; Moral, xvi. c. 12. The iniquitas, impietas, etc., are also re- 
presented as modifications of sin; Mor. xi. 42, xxii. 10. The deepest root 
of all sin is pride ; pride produces envy, wrath, etc. The seat of sin is both 
in the soul and in the body ; the devil is one of the chief agents in inducing 
man to commit sin ; comp. Lau, p. 379, ss. 

' Augustine still endeavors to reconcile the mystic interpretation of para- 
dise with the historical ; De Civit. Dei, xiii. 21. Moreover, he sees all indivi- 
dual sins comprised in the primitive sin ; comp. Enchiridion ad Laurentium, 
c. 45 : In illo peccato uno. . .possunt intelligi plura peccata, si unum ipsum 
in sua quasi membra singula dividatur. Nam et superbia est illic, quia homo 
in sua potius esse quam in Dei potestate dilexit ; et sacrilegium, quia Deo 
non credidit ; et homicidium, quia se prsecipitavit in mortem ; et fornicatio 
spiritalis, quia integritas mentis humanae serpentina suasione corrupta est; et 
furtum quia cibus prohibitus usurpatus est ; et avaritia, quia plus quam illi 
sufiicere debuit, adpetivit; et si quid aliud in hoc uno admisso diligenti con- 
sideratione inveniri potest. Gregory the Great adopts the literal interpreta- 
tion ; Mor. xxxi. comp. Lau, p. 3Y7, ss. The devil tempted our first parents 
in a threefold manner, gula, vana gloria, and avaritia. The attack itself was 
fourfold, by suggestio, delectatio, consensus, and defensionis audacia ; Mor. 
iv. c. 27. 

* Thit distinction, bowever, bad beer already made by Augustine; see oelow, § 111, 2. 

§ 108. Consequences of the First Sin. 293 

§ 108. 


A JJahn, Eplirara der Syrer fiber die 'Willensfreiheit des Mensohen, nebst den Theorien 
derjenigen Kirchenlehrer bis zu seiner Zeit, welche hier besondere Berucksichtigung 
verdienen. (in lUgens Denkschrift der hist, theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Part 2, 
Leipz. 1819, p. 30, ss.). [Comp. Landerer, Verhaltniss von Gnade und Freiheit, in 
Jahrb. f. deutsohe Theologie, 1857, s. 556, 572 on Chrysostom, i 519-61. Kuhn, d. 
angebliohe Pelagianismus der voraugustinischen Kirehenvater, in Theol. Quartal- 
sehrift, 1853. Wbrter, Christl. Lehre iiber d. Verhaltniaa Ton Gnade i. Freilieit. 
Band i. 1856. Band iL 1, I860.] 

Even those theologians who kept themselves free from the in- 
fluence of the Augustinian system, held that the sin of Adam was 
followed by disastrous effects upon the human race, but restricted 
these evils (as the fathers of the preceding period had done) to the 
mortality of the body, the hardships and miseries of life, also admitting 
that the moral powers of man had been enfeebled by the fall. Thus 
Gregory of Nazianzum in particular (to whom Augustine appealed 
in preference to all others) maintained, that both the vovg and the 
^vxri have been considerably impaired by sin, and regarded the per- 
versionof the religious consciousness seen in idolatry, which j)revious 
teachers had ascribed to the influence of demons, as an inevitable 
effect of the first sin. But he was far from asserting the total 
depravity of mankind, and the entire loss of free will.' On the 
contrary, the doctrine of the freedom of the will continued to be 
distinctly maintained by the Greek church." Athanasius himself, 
the father of orthodoxy, maintained in the strongest terms that man 
has the ability of choosing good as well as evil, and even allowed 
exceptions from original sin, alleging that several individuals, who 
lived prior to the appearance of Christ, were free from it.' Cyril of 
Jerunalcfu also assumed that the life of man begins in a state of 
innocence, und that sin enters only with the use of free will. Sinii- 
rtii- views were entertained hy Ephrd'm the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Basil the Great, and others.* Chrysostom, whose whole tendency 
was of a practical and moral kind, insisted most of all upon the 
liberty of man and his moral self-determination, and passed a severe 
censure upon those who endeavored to excuse their own defects by 
ascribing the origin of sin to the fall of Adam.' 

' Orat. xxxviii. 12, p. 670, xliv. 4, p. 837, xiv. 25, p. 275, xix. 13, p. 372, 
Carmeo iv. v. 98, aud other passages quoted by Ullmann, p. 421, ss. Coriip. 
especially the interesting parallel which is there drawn between Gregorj' and 
Augustine, aa well as between the expressions of the former in the original, 
aud the (corrupt) translation of the latter. '■'•Oregory by no means taught the 

294 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

doctrines afterwards propounded hy Pelagius and his followers ; hut if all 
his sentiments he duly considered, it will he found that he is far more of a 
Pelagian than of an Augustinian ;" Ullraann, ). c. p. 440. 

" According to Methodius (in Phot. Bibl. Ood. 234, p. 295), man does not 
possess the power either of having desires, or of not having them {h'OvjislaOai, 
7} fifj ivOvjielaOai), but he is at liberty either to gratify [^pfitsOai) them or 
not. Comp. Nemes. De Nat. Horn. c. 41 : Haaa to'ivvv avdyK-q rbv lixovra 
TO PovXeveaOai Kal Kvpinv elvai npd^euv. EZ yap jirj Kvpiog bit] npd^huv, 
TrepcTTug 'ixsi to jSovXeveaOai. 

' Athan. Contra Gent. c. 2, p. 2 : "Ef dpx^g ftev ovic fjv icaKia, ov3e yap 
ovde vvv iv Tolg ay'ioic IotIv, ov6' bX(og imt' avTOvq vnapxet avTrj. cf. 
Contra Arian. Or. 3 (4). 0pp. T. i. p. 582, 83 : IIoA/Lol yap ovv ayioi 
y&yovaai icaOapol TrdaTjg afiapTiag. (He alludes to Jeremiah and John the 
Baptist : but they can not properly be called -noXXol.) Nevei-theless, death 
has reigned even over them, who have not sinned after the similitude of 
Adam's transgression (Rom. iv. 14). 

* Cyr. Cat. iv. 19 : ''RXBovTtg elg t6v6b t6v Koafiov dvajxapTriToi, vvv Ik 
frpoaipeaewg dfiapTuvopev. 21 : AvTS^ovaiog bcjtiv rj tpvxrj, Kal b didPoXog 
TO \Mhv VTcoPdXXeiv dvvaTaf Th de kclI dvayndaai napd ■napoaipeaiv ovk 
exei TTjv i^ovaiav. Cat. xvi. 23 : EZ yap Tig aPXenTuv firj KaTa^iovTai 
Trig X"'P'-'^°?i M f^BfKpeadio tQ ■nvevp.aTi dXXd Ty eav-ov aTnaTig,. ( Oudin, 
Comm. p. 461-404, attempted in vain to contest the genuineness of the cate- 
cheses favorable to Semipelagianism.) — Concerning Ephram, see the above 
dissertation. — Basil the Great delivered a discourse TTep), tov avTS^ovaiov, 
the authenticity of which was denied by Gamier (T. ii. p. xxvi.), but in 
modern times again defended by Pelt and Rheinwald (Homiliarium Patrist. 
i. 2, p. 192). In this, though he admitted the depravity of mankind, he 
asserted that human liberty and divine grace must cooperate. Comp. also 
the Horn, de Spir. S. and Klose, 1. c. p. 59, ss. [cf. Landerer, ubi supra, p. 
556]. — Gregory of Nyssa also takes for granted a universal bias to sin (Do 
Orat. Dom. Or. v. 0pp. i. p. 751, ss.), but finds no sin in infants; Orat. do 
infantibus qui.pnemature abripiuntur (0pp. iii. p. 317, ss.). 

' See Horn, in Ep. ad Rom. xvi. p. 241 ; in Ep. ad Hebr. Horn. xii. p. 
805. D; in Evang. Job. Horn. xvii. p. 115 C; in 1 Epist. ad Cor. Horn. ii. p. 
614, D; in Ps. 1. Horn. ii. (0pp. T. iii. p. 869, D) ; all of which are quoted 
by Mibnscher von Colin, i. p. 363, ss. ; see also ep. ad Phil. Horn. i. ; especi- 
ally on Phil. i. 6. "Chrysostom was so zealcus for morality, that he must 
have considered it a point of special importance to deprive men of every 
ground of excuse for the neglect of moral efforts. His practical sphere of 
labor in the cities of Antioch and Constantinople gave a still greater impulse 
to this tendency. For in these large capitals he met with many who sought 
to attribute their want of Christian activity to the defects of human nature, 
and the power of Satan or of fate" Neander, Church Hist. (Toirey), ii. 058. 
Comp. his Chrysostomus, i. p. 51, p. 283, ss. But Chrysostom urged quite 
as strongly the existence of depravity in opposition to a false moral pride. 
Horn. vi. Montf. T. 12 (in Neander, Chrysostomus, ii. p. 36, 37), comp. Wig' 
gers, i. p 442. 

§ 109. The Opinions of the Latin Theologians. 2^5 

§ 109. 


During this period, as well as the preceding, the theologians of 
the Western church were more favorable than those of the Eastern, 
to the Augustinian doctrine. Even Arnobius speaks of a connatu- 
ral infirmity, making man prone to sin.' Hilary, atid Ambrose of 
Milan, taught the defilement of sin by birth ; Ambrose appealed 
especially to Ps. li. 5, in support of original sin, but without deter- 
mining to what extent every individual shares in the common guilt." 
Nevertheless, neither of them excluded the liberty of man from the 
work of moral reformation.' Even Augustine himself, at an earlier 
period of his life, defended human freedom in opposition to the 

' Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i..27: Proni ad culpas et ad libidinis varies 
fippotitns, vitio suinus infirmitatis ingenit£B. 

" Hilar. Tract, in Ps. Iviii. p. 129 ; in Ps. cxviii. litt. 22, p. 366. 6, and 
Rome other passages (in Munscher von Colin, p. 354). [Hilary in Psalin. i. 
§ 4 : Ad hajc nos vitia naturae nostra propellit instinctus. In Matth. xviii. 
13 : Ovis una hoDQO intelligendus est, et sub homine uno universitas sentienda 
est ; sed in unius Adas errore orane honiinum genus aberravit.] Ambrose, 
Apol. David, c. 11. 0pp. i, p. 846 : Antequam nascamur, maculamur conta- 
gio, ot ante usuram lucis, on'ginis ipsius excipiraus injuriam ; in iniquitate 
concipiniur : non expressit, utrum pareiitum, an nostra. Et in deliotis gene- 
rat unumqueraque mater sua; nee hie declaravit, utrum in delictis suis mater 
pariat, an jam sint et aliqua delicta nascentis. Sed vide, ne utrumque intel- 
ligendura sit. Nee conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, qnoniam et parentes non 
carent lapsu. Et si nee unius diei infans sine peccato est, multo magis nee 
illi materni conceptus dies sine peccato sunt. Concipinmr ergo in 
parentuin et in delictis eorum nascimur. Sed et ipse partus habet eontagia 
Bua, ncc unnm tantummodo habet ipsa natura contagium. [Ambrose, Apol. 
David. J 71 : Omnes in primo homine peceavimus ct per naturee successionom 
culpa} quoque ab uno in omnes transfusa est successio.] Comp. De Poenit. 
i. 3. 0pp. 3, p. 498 : Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse 
ortns in vitio est, sicut habes lectum, dicente David : Eece enim in iniqiiita- 
tibu.'! conceptus sum et in delictis pcperit me mater mea. — In Ev. Luke i. 17 
(0pp. i. p. 131); Epp. Class, ii. (0pp. iii. p. 1100), and some other passages 
(in A/urcgcher von Colin, p. 355 ; after another edition) ? 

" Hilar. Tract, in Psalm cxviii. lit. 15, p. 329 : Est quidem in fide ma- 
w.ndi a Deo munus, sed incipiendi a nobis origo est. Et voluntas nostra hoc 
projiriara ex se habere debet, ut velit. Deus ineipienti incrementum dabit, 
quia consummaticncm per se infirmitas nostra non obtinet; meritum tamen 
adipisccndas consummationis est ex initio voluntatis. Comp. also Arnobius, 

296 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Adv. Gentes, ii. 64 : Nulli Deus infcrt necessitatein, imperiosa formidine nul- 
1am tenet. . .65. Quid est enim tam injustum, quaiu rcpugnantibus, quam 
invitis extorquere in contrarium voluntates, inculcare quod nolint et quod 
refngiant animis. 

* De Gen. contra Manich. ii. 43 (c. 29): Nos dicimus nulli natura nocera 
peccata nisi sua; nos dicimus, nullum malum esse natuiali, sed omnes natu- 
ras bonas esse. — De lib. Arb. iii. 50 (c. 17): Aut enim et ipsa voluntas est 
et a radice ista voluntatis non receditui-, aut non est voluntas, et peccatum 
nullum habet. Ant igitiir ipsa voluntas est prima causa peccandi, aut nullum 
peccatum est prima causa peccandi. Non est, cui recte imputetur pec- 
catum, nisi pecoanti. Non est ergo, cui recte imputetur, nisi volenti. . . 
Quascunque ista causa est voluntatis : si non ei potest rosisti, sine 'peccato 
ei ceditur ; si autem potest, non ei cedatur, et non peccabitur. An forto 
fallit incautum? Ergo caveat, ne fallatur. An tanta fallacia est, ut caveri 
omnino non possit? Si ita est, nulla peccata sunt: quis enim peccat in 
60, quod nullo mode caveri potest ? Peccatur autem ; caveri igitur potest 
Comp. de Duab. Animab. contra Manich. 12, and with it the retractationea 
of the different passages ; also de nat. et grat. 80 (c. 67). 

§ 110. 


* Wiggers, O. F., Tersuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pela- 
gianismus, Berlin, 1821. Hamburgh, 1833, ii. 8. [Vol. i. transl. by Prof Emerson, 
Andover.] ^Lentzen, J. A., de Pelagianorum doctrinse principiis, Colon, ad Rhen. 
1833, 8. J. L. Jacohi, die Lehre des Pelagius, Lpz. 1842. [Tlieod. Gangauf, Metaph. 
Psychologie des lieil. Augustinua. Augsb. 1802. Neander, in his Church Hist, and 
Hist. Dogm. 345-75. Jul. Muller, Der Pelagianismus, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855. 
Bindemann's Augustinus. Zeller, in Theol. Jahrbucher, 1854. F. Schaff, The Pela- 
gian Controversy, BibL Sacra, 1848. Hampden's Bamptou Lectures, Leet. iv.] 

Towards the commencement of the fifth century, Celestius and. 
PeZagiiMs (Briton, Morgan .?) made their appearance in the West.' 
The views which they held were partly in accordance with the 
opinions hitherto entertained by the theologians of the Greek 
church, but in part carried to a much greater length in the denial 
of natural depravity. Some of the propositions, on the ground -of 
which the presbyter Paulinus accused Celestius at the synod of 
Carthage (a. d. 412), had been previously defended by orthodox 
theologians ; others were directly opposed both to the doctrine of 
Scripture (and especially that of Paul) and the general belief of tLa 
church, and thus threatened the fundamental doctrines of the G-cs- 
pel.'' It is, however, difficult to decide how far Pelagius accorded 
with all these assertions, since he expressed iiimself very cautiou'lj." 
But it is certain that what is coiumonly called Pdagicmis-ni doe.s 
not so much represent the single notions of a single individual, as a 

§ 110. The Pelagian Controversy. 297 

complete moral and religious system, which formed a decided con- 
trast to Augustinianism. In this conflict the former system was van- 
quished so far as this, that, in consequence of the turn which the 
controversy took, and of the great authority of Augustine in the West, 
his doctrine gained the victory over that of Pelagius* The followers 
of Pelagius formed not a sect properly so called. But Pelagianism, 
though condemned, retained its advocates, especially as but few could 
fully enter into all the consequences of the Augustinian system, and 
find in them real inward satisfaction. It will be necessary, in order 
to examine more fully the antagonistic elements, to divide the sub- 
ject matter of controversy into three leading sections, viz. : 1. Sin ; 
2. Grace and Liberty ; and 3. "Predestination. 

On the personal character and history of Celestius and Pelagius, see 
Wiggers, p. 33, ss. 

The 6 or 7 Capitula (the numbers vary according as several propositions 
are separated or joined together) are preserved in Augustine De Gestis 
Pelagii, cap. 11 (comp. dc Poccato Originali, 2, 3, 4, 11, c. 2-10), as well as 
in the two commonitoria oi Marius Mercator [comp. Gieseler, § 87, note 4]. 
They are the following (ooiiip. Wiggers, i. p. 60) : 

1. Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died whether he had 

sinned or not ; 

2. Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race ; 

3. New-born infants are in the same condition in which Adam wa& prc- 

vi.ous to the fall (ante prsevaricationem) ; 

4. Neither does the whole human race die in consequence of Adam's 

death or transgression ; nor does it rise from the dead in conse- 
quence of Christ's resurrection ; 

5. Infants obtain eternal life, though they be not baptized ; 

6. The law is as good a means of salvation (lex sic mittit ad regnum 

coelorum) as the gospel ; 

7. There were some men, even before the appearance of Christ, who did 

not commit sin. 
If we compare these propositions with the doqtrines of the earlier theolo- 
gians, we find that the third was held by some of the Greek Fathers {e.g., 
Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, see above, § 62, note 1); 
that the fifth, in a modified form, was substantially defended by Gregoiy of 
Nazianzum and others, viz., that unbaptized children are at least not con- 
demned on that account (comp. § 72); and even as to the seventh, bold as it 
may appear, something like it, though in a different connection, was maintained 
by the father of orthodoxy himself (§ 108, note 3). On the other hand, the 
isolated way in which the sin of Adam is ^ iewed in the first two and the 
fourth pi'opositions, all connection between this sin and that of his posterity, 
even in relation to the mortality of the body, being denied, would have been 
condemned as heresy before the tribunal of the earlier theologians. But 
none appears so heretical, so much opposed to the doctrine of Paul and the 
Gospel, as the sixth. And, lastly, the denial of the connection subsisting 

298 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

between the resurrection of Christ and ours (in tie foui'th proposition) must 
have offended the common feelings and consciousness of Christians. Yet it 
may still be a question, how much here is to be ascribed to inferences, mada 
for them by their opponents. See Neander, Church Hist. ii. 679, sq. ; Hist. 
Dogra. 352, sq. 

' Augustine perceives no other difference between Pelagius and Ceiestiua 
(De Pecc. Oiig. c. 12) than that the latter was more open, the former more 
guarded, the latter more obstinate, the former more deceitful, or, to say the 
least, that the latter was more straightforward (Hberior), the former mora 
cunning (astutior). Prosper of Aquiiaine calls him, therefore, coluber Bri- 
tannus (in his poem De Ingratis, append. 67. — comp. Wiggers, p. 40). — ■ 
J^eander (Chrysostomus, vol. ii. p. 134) judges more mildly of him; ^'■Pela- 
gius is deserving of all esteem on account. of his honest zeal ; his object was to 
combat the same perverse antichristian tendency which Augustine oppiosed. 
But he was wrong in the manner in which he sought to attain his object" etc. 
Comp. Church History, ii. 573. "As he appears in his writings, he was a 
clear-headed, intelligent man, who possessed rather a, serious and moral turn 
of mind, than that disposition which feels itself compelled to dive into the deptlis 
of the soul and of the spirit, and to bring to light hidden things," p. 579. 

* The Principal Points in the External History of the Conteo- 
VBRSY ABE ." The Condemnation of the doctrine of Pelagius at Carthage, a. d. 
412. He repairs to Palestine, where Jerome becomes one of his most zealous 
opponents, and, conjointly with Paulas Orosius, a disciple of Augustine, 
accuses him at a synod held at Jerusalem (a. d. 415), under John, bishop of 
Jerusalem. John, however, did not pronounce his condemnation, but re- 
ported the whole matter\to Innocent, bishop of Piome. — Synod at Diospohs 
(Lydda), under Eulogius of Caesarea. The plaintifl's were -Heros of Aries, 
and Lazarus of Aix. Acquittal of Pelagius. Dissatisfaction of Jerome 
with the decisions of this synod (Synodus miserabilis! Ep. 81). — Under 
Zosimus, the successor of Innocent, Pelagius and Celestius entertain new 
hopes. — Synod of the North-African bishops at Carthage, a. d. 418, and con- 
demnation of Pelagius. — The Emperor Honorius decides the controversy. — 
Zosimus is induced to change his views, and publishes his Epistola Traetoria, 
iu which the Pelagian doctrine is condemned. Julian, bishop of Eclanum 
in Apulia, undertakes to defend Pelagianism (respecting him see Wiggers, i. 
p. 43, ss.). — He was anathematized at the synod of Ephesus (a. d. 431), in 
(accidental ?) connection with Nestorius. Still the opposite system of Auorus- 
tine was not accepted in the East. [See Worter, Pelagianismus. 1866.] 



Sin. — Original Sin and its Consequences. 

\J. NirscM, UrspTung und Wesen der Siinde nach d. Lelire des heiligen Augustinua, 
Regensb. 1854. Jfiiander, Church History, ii. 564-625; Hist. Dogm. 362 sq. JuUul 
Mailer, Lelire von d. Siinde, ii. 417-494. Niedner, Gesch. d. Kiro'. e, 3,36-346. 
Voigt, De Theoria Aug. Pelag. Getting. 1829. LenUem, De Pelag. Doetr. Prinoipiia 
Colon. 1833.] 

§ 111. First Point of Contkovekst. 299 

Pelagius, starting from the standpoint of mere reflection, or of 
the understanding in distinction from the reason, with a tendency 
preponderating to the ethical view of man's nature, looked upon 
every human individual as a moral person, complete in and bounded 
by himself, and sharply separated from all others. Hence sin would 
necessarily appear to him as the free act of the individual, so that 
in his view there could be no other connection between the sin of 
the one (Adam) and the sin of the many (his posterity), than that 
which exists between an example, on the one hand, and a voluntary 
imitation of it on the other. Every man at his birth is accordingly 
in the same condition in which. Adam was. Neither sin nor virtue is 
inherent, but the one, as well as the other, develops itself in the use 
of freedom, and is to be put to the account only of him who exer- 
cises this freedom.' Augustine, on the contrary, with more profound 
conceptions, which, however, might easily prevent a clear insight 
into the personal and moral relations of man, considered the human 
race as a compact mass, ft collective body, responsible in its unity 
and solidarity. With a predominant bias towards religion, he 
directed his attention more to the inner and permanent state of the 
soul, and its absolute relation to God, than tp the passing and 
external actions of the individual. This tendenc}'-, proceeding from 
the experience of his own heart and life, led him to conjecture a 
mysterious connection subsisting between the transgression of Adam 
and the sin of all men — a connection which loses itself in the dim 
beginnings of nature no less than of history. Mere suppositions, 
however, did not satisfy his mind ; but, carrying out his system iu 
all its logical consequences, and applying a false exegesis to certain 
passages, he laid down the following rigid proposition as his doc- 
trine : "j4s all men have sinned in Adam, they are justly subject to 
the condemnation of God on account of this hereditary sin and the 
guilt thereof." " 

' Pelag. lib. 1. De Lib. Arb., in Aug. De Peoc. Orig. c. 13 : Omne bonum 
ac malum, quo vel laudabiles, vel vitnperabiles sumus, uon nobiscum oritur, « 
sed agitur a nobis : capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine 
virtnte ita et sine vitio procreamur, atque ante actionem propi-iae voluntatis 
id solum in homine est, quod Dens condidit ; he even admits' the preponder- 
ance of good in man, -when lie (according to August. De Nat. et Grat. c. 21) 
speaks of a naturalis guccdam sanctitas, which dwells in man, and beeps 
watch in the castle of the soul over good and evil, and by which he means 
conscience. Comp. Julian (quoted by August, in Op. Imp. i. 105) : Illud quod 
esse peccatum ratio demonstrat, inveniri nequit in seminibus. (122) : Nemc 
Baturaliter malus est : sed quicunque reus est, moribus, non exordiis accusa- 
lur. Other passages may be found in Munscher, ed. by von Colin, i. p. 377, 
8S. [L. ii. 66 : In omnes autem homines mors pertransiit, quia una forma 
judicii prevaiicatores quosque etiana reliquae comprehenJit setatis; quae tamen 

300 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

mors roc in sanctos, nee in innocentes ullos sasvire permittitnr, sed in eoj 
pcrvadit quos prajvaricationem viderit aeraulatos.] Comp. Wiggers, p. 91, ss. 
Augustine himself protested against the expression peccatura naturae, or pec- 
catum natiirale, which the Pelagians imputed to him, and always substituted 
his phrase — peccatura origiiiale. The Pelagians considered bodily death not 
as a punishment of the first sin, but as a physical necessity, though Pelagius 
himself conceded at the synod of Diospolis, that the death of Adam was a 
punishment inflicted upon Adam, but only upon him. Aug. de Nat. et Gr. 
21 (c. 19), Op. imp. i. 67 ; vi. 27, 30. Yet Pelagius did not deny the power 
of sin ; he even asserted an increasing degradation of the human race ; but 
he explained this from the long habit of sinning and bad example. Epist. ad 
Demetriadem, c. 8 : Longa consuetudo vitiorum, qu£e nos infecit a parvo paula- 
timque per raultos corrupit annos, et ita postea obligates sibi et addictos 
tenet, ut vim quodammodo videaiur habere naturce. 

' A list of the works in which Augustine combattcd the Pelagians, will be 
found in Miinscher, ed. by von Colin, p. 373. The passages bearing on this 
question, which can be understood, however, only in their own connection, 
are also given there, p. 377, ss. (Comp. D6» Pecc. Mer. i. 2, 4, 21 ; Opus 
Imp. vi. 30 ; De Pecc. Mer. i. 10 ; De Nupt. et Concup. i. 27, ii. 57-59 ; Op. 
Imp. i. 47 ; de Nupt. et Concup. i. 26 ; de Pecc. Orig. 36 ; de Con. et Grat. 
28. In support of his views he appealed to infant baptism : De Pecc. Mer. 
i. 39, iii. 7 ; contra J*ul. vi. 6 ; de Pecc. Mer. i. 21 ; Enchirid. 93 ; to the 
formulas of exorcism: de Pecc. Orig. 45 ; and principally to Rom. v. 12.) 
Wiggers, p. 99, ss. [De Civit. Dei, 14, 1 : A primis horainibus admissum 
est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam 
in posteros ohligatione peccati et mortis necessitate transmissa. — De Corrept. 
et Grat. x. (28) : Adam, quia per liberum arbitrium Deum deseruit, justum 
judicium Dei expertus est ; ut cum tota sua stirpe, qua; in illo adhuc posita 
tota cum illo peccaverat, daranaretur. — De Pecc. Orig. c. 38 : Deus nihil 
fecit nisi quod hominem voluntate peccantem justo judicio cum stirpe dam- 
navit, et ideo ibi quidquid etiam nondum erat natum, merito est in prjevari- 
catrice radice damnatum ; in qua stirpe damnata, tenet hominem generatio 
carnalis. De Nupt. et Concup. 11, c. 5 : Per unius illins voluntatem malam 
omnes in eo peccaverunt, quando omnes ille unus fuerunt, de quo propterea 
singuli peccatum originale traxerunt. De Civit. Dei, viii. 14: Deus enim 
« creavit hominem rectum, naturarum auctor non utique vitiorum ; sed sponte 
depravatus justeque damnatus, depravatos damnatosque generabit. Omnes 
enim fuimus in illo, quando fuimus ille unus.— Nondum erat nobis singilatim 
creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus; sed jam natura erat 
Beminalis, ex qua propagaremur ; qua scilicet propter peccata vitiata, et vin- 
culo mortis obstricta, justeque damnata, non alterius conditionis homo ex 
homine nascetur. Ibid. xiv. 15 : Adam faciendo voluntatem suam non ejus, 
a quo factus est, universum genus huraanum, propagine vitiata, culpce et poenoR 
fecit ohnoxium. Ibid. xxii. 24 : In originali malo duo sunt, peccatum atqw 
supplici-i,m.^ — On Augustine's interpretation of Rom. v. 12 {in quo omnea 
peccaverunt, Vulg.) see Op. Imp. ii. 47, ss., 66, contra duas Epp. Pel. iv. 7 
(c. 4) ; Julian, on the other hand, gives the fallowing explanation : in quo 
omacs peccaverunt nihil aliud ind' tat, ^uam : quia omnes peccaverunt. Au- 

§ 112. Second Point of Conteoveest. 301 

gustiue's exposition was confirmed by the synod of Carthage (a. d. 418). 
Comp. Munscher von Colin, p. 381, 382. But it would be a great mistake, 
an atomistic procedure, to ascribe the whole theory of Augustine to this 
exegetical error. Deeper causes gave rise to that theory, viz,: 1. His own 
experience, moulded by the remarkable events in the history of his external 
and internal life; 2. Perhaps some vestiges of his former Manichean notions, 
of which he might himself be unconscious, e. g., that of defilement in the act 
of generation (comp. De Nupt. et Concup. i. 27 : Concupiscence, he says, is 
not attributed to the regenerate as sin, but as far as nature is concerned, it is 
not without sin, hence every one conceived and born in the way of nature, is 
under sin until he is born again through him — quera sine ista concupiscentia 
virgo concepit) ; 3. His realistic mode of thinking, which led him to con- 
found the abstract with the concrete, and to consider the individual as a 
transient and vanishing part of the whole (massa perditionis). In connection 
with this mode of thinking, other causes might be, 4. His notions of the 
church as a living organism, and' of the eflects of infant baptism ; 5. The 
opposition which he was compelled to make to Pelagianisra and its possible 
consequences, threatening to destroy all deeper views of the Chi'istian system. 
— Thus, according to Augustine, not only was physical death a punishment 
inflicted upon Adam and all his posterity, but he looked upon original sin 
itself as being in some sense a punishment of the first transgression, though it 
was also a real sin (God punishes sin by sin), and can, therefore, be imputed 
to every individual. But it is on this very point, first strongly emphasized 
by him, viz., the imputation of original sin, that his views differed from all 
former opinions, however strict they were. — He endeavored to clear himself 
from the charge of Manicheism (in opposition to Julian), by designating sin 
not as a substance, but as a vitium, a languor; he even charged his opponents 
with Manicheism. So, too, Augustine could very well distinguish between 
the sin, which is common to all men, and proper crime, from which the 
pious are preseived ; Enchir. 64 : Neque enim quia peccatum est omne 
crimen, ideo crimen est etiam omne peccatum. Itaque sanctorum hominum 
vitam, quam diu in hac mortali {al. morte) vivitur, inveniri posse dicimus sine 
crimine; "peccatum autem, si dixerimus quia non habemus, nosmet ipsos 
seducimus, et Veritas in nobis non est" (1 John, i. S). — Respecting his views 
of the insignificant remnant (lineamenta extreraa) of the divine image left in 
man, and of the virtues of pagans, see Wiggers, p. 119,. note. 

§ 112. 

Liberty and Orace. 

Felagius admitted that man, in his moral activity, stands in need 
of divine aid, and could, therefore, speak of the grace of God as 
assisting the imperfections of man by a variety of provisions." lie 
Eiipposed, however, this grace of God to be something external, auJ 

302 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

added to the efforts put forth by the free will of man : it can even 
be merited by good will." Augustine, on the other hand, looked 
upon grace as the creative principle of life, which generates as an 
abiding good that freedom of the will which is entirely lost in tha 
natural man. In the power ot the natural man to choose between 
good and evil, to which gi'eat importance was attached by Pelagius, 
as well as by the earlier church, he saw only a liberty to do evil, 
since the regenerate man alone can actually will the good.' 

' Concerning this point Pelagius expresses himself as follows (in August, 
De Grat. c. 5) : Piimo loco posse statuimus, secundo velle, teitio esee. 
Posse in natura, velle in avbitrio, esse in offectii locamus. Primum illiul, i. e^ 
posse ad Deum proprie pertinct, qui illud creaturse su£e contulit ; duo vei'o 
reliqua, h. e. velle et esse, ad houiinem referenda sunt, quia de arbitrii fonte 
descendunt. Ergo in voluntate et opere laus hominis est, iuirao et hominis et 
Dei, qui ipsiu^ voluntatis et operis possibilitatera dedit, quique ipsam possibi- 
litatem gratijE suae adjuvat semper auxilio. Quod vero potest homo velle 
bonum atque perficere, solius Dei est. Hence man also owes to God, that he 
can will, as is said in what follows : quod possumus omne bonum facere, 
dicere, cogitare, illius est, qui hoc posse donavit,(\m hoc posse adjuvat. Comp. 
c. 18 : Habemus autem possibilitatem a Deo insitam, velut quandara, ut ita 
dicam, radicem frnctiferam atque fecundam, etc. The freedom of the will is 
common to Jews, Gentiles, and Christians; grace, according to Pelagius him- 
self, belongs exclusively to Christianity. Pelagius also rejected the proposi- 
tion of Celustius, "gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari." \_Mdnsc.her von 
CiJhn, ■. p. 38G.] 

' Pelagius considered as means of grace especially doctrine (as the man- 
ifestation of the divine will), promises, and trials (to which belong the 
wiles of Satan) ; but Julian strongly denied that the will of man is first 
created by grace (fabricetur, condatur) ; he sees in them nothing but an 
adjulorium of the undisturbed free will. Comp. Aug. de Grat. Clir. c. 8. Op. 
Imp. i. 94, 95. [Munscher, 1. c. p. 387, 388.] Julius 3Idller justly remarks 
(in bis work on Sin, 1st ed. p. 475) that Pelagius has not the idea of develop 
ment ; " he has not the conception of a life unfolding itself; he only recognizee 
the ■v.echanical concatenation of single acts." Distinction of formal and real 
freedom. Comp., too, Neander, Hist. Dogm. 369, on the different stages of 
the divine revelation of grace [corresponding, in the view of Pelagius, to its 
pi'ogressive dctenoration]. 

' Augustine, on the contrary, maintains: Non lege atque doctrina inso- 
nante forinsecus, sed interna et occulta, mirabili ac ineffubili potestate operari 
Deum iii cordibus homimim non solum veras reveiatioues, sed bonas etiara 
voluntates (De Grat. Chr. 24). He recognizes in the grace of God an inspi- 
ratio dilectionis, and considers this as the source of every thing. Nolontcm 
pi'eevcnit, ut velit ; volentem subscquitur, ne frustra velit (Enchir. c. 32). — ■ 
He understands by freedom the being free from sin, that state of mind in 
which it is no longer necessary to choose between g6od and evil. The saraa 
view is expressed in his treatise Do Civit. Dei xiv. 11, which was not written 

§ 113. Thikd Point of Controvkrst. 303 

against tlie Pelagians : Avbitrium igitur voluntatis tunc est vere liberum, 
cum vitiis peccatisque non servit. Tale datum est a Deo : quod amissum 
proprio vitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, roddi non potest. Unde Veritas dicit : 
Si vos Filius librriivit, tunc vere liberi eritis. Idque ipsum est autem, ac si 
diceret : si vos Filius salvos feccrit, tunc vui'e salvi eiitis. Tnde quippe liber- 
ator, unde salvator. Comp. contra duas Epp. Pel. i. 2. The freedom of the 
will is greater in proportion as the will itself is in a state of health ; its state 
of health depends on its subjection to the divine mercy and grace. — Contra 
Jul. c. 8, he calls the human will servum proprias voluntatis arbitrium. — Such 
expressions were so much misused by the monks of Adruinetum (about the 
year 426), that Augustine himself was compelled to oppose them (especially 
in his treatise De Correptione et Gratia); in general, he himself fi'equcntly 
appealed, fi-om a practical point of view, to the will of man (see the next §). 
[For a more detailed statement of Augustine's views respecting grace and 
the freedom of the will, see Munschcr ed. by von Colin, i. § 93, and p. 388- 
398, where further passages are quoted.] At any rate, it was not the view 
of Augustine th'at man is like a stone or stick, upon whom grace works 
externally; he could 'conceive of grace as working only in the sphere of 
freedom. Comp. Contra Julianum, iv. 15 : Neque enim gratia Dei lapidibus 
aut lignis pecoribusve prsestatur, sed quia imago Dei est (homo), mentur 
hanc gratiam. De Peccat. Merit, et Remiss, ii. § 6 : Non sicut in lapidibus 
insensatis aut sicut in iis, in quorum nafura rationem voluntatomque non 
condidit salutem nostram Deus operatur in nobis. [Julius Mailer, in liis 
work on Sin, i. 458 sq., shows that Augustine spoke of freedom under three 
■ aspects ; 1. As spontaneity, in contrnst with external force. This always 
exists ill all men. 2. Power of choice, liberum arbitrium— as in Adam 
before the fall — an equal power of deciding between the alternatives of good 
and evil. But this is a low, weak state of the will. 3. The freedom with 
which the Son makes us free — the determination of the soul to what is good 
and holy — the non posse peccare — the felix necessitas boni — the union of 
freedom and necessity.] 

{Baur, Dograengesch. 2d ed. p. 179 sq.: In the system of Pelagius every 
thing depends npon the principle of the freedom of the will; this is the 
determining and fundamental conception in his doctrine of sin and of grace. 
Freedom, as the absolute capacity of choice (liberum arbitrium), to determine 
equally for good or evil, appeared to him in such a degree to be the sub- 
stantial good of human nature, that he even reckoned the capacity for evil as 
a hmium naturce, since we can not choose good without in like manner being 
able to choose evil (Epist. ad Demetr. c. 2, 3).] 




[J.'B. Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination. Lond. 1855.] 

Augustine held the doctrine of hereditary depravity, the guilt of 
which man has himself incurred, and fr(>m which no human powf l 

304 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

or human determination can deliver ; from which only the grace of 
God can save those to whom it is imparted. From these premises 
it would necessarily follow that G-od, in consequence of an eternal 
decree, and without any reference to the future conduct of man, has 
elected' some out of the corrupt mass to become vessels of his mercy 
(vasa misericordias), and left the rest as vessels of his wrath (vasa 
irse) to a just condemnation. Augustine called the former predesti- 
natio, the latter reprobatio, and thus evaded the necessity of directly 
asserting the doctrine of a predestination to evil (predestinatio 
duplex).' On the whole, he endeavored to soften the harshness of 
his theory by practical cautions.' But the doctrine in question 
became to many a stone of stumbling, which orthodox theologians 
themselves (especially those of the Greek church) endeavored by 
every possible means to remove.* This prepared the way for those 
practically well meant, but theoretically vague and unfounded 
schemes, which Semipelagianism (see the following Section) brought 
to light. 

' De Prsed. Sanctornm S"? (c. 18) : Elegit nos Dcus in Christo ante mundi 
constitutionem, prsedestinans nos in adoptionem filiorum : non quia per nos 
sancti et immaculati futuri eramfis, sed elegit prsedestinavitquo, ut essemus. 
Fecit autem hoc secundum placituin voluntatis sua3, ut nemo de sua, sed de 
illius etga se voluntate glorietur, etc. In support of liis views he appealed to 
Eph. i. 4, 11, and Eom. ix. : he spoie, too, of a certus numerus electorum, 
neque augendus, neque minuendus, De Corrept. et Gr. 39 (c. 13). [De Dono 
Perseverantiae, c. 14 : Hsec est prsedestinatio sanctorum, nihil aliud ; prse- 
scentia scilicet et praeparatio bencficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur, 
quicunque liberantur. Coteri autem ubi nisi in massa perditionis justo divino 
judicio relinquuntur ? De Corrept. et Gratia, c. 13 : Hi ergo, qui non per- 
tinent ad istui^i certissimum et felicissimum numerum (prsedestinatorum) pro 
meritis justissime judicantur. De Prfed. Sane. c. 19 : Dicet (apostolus) ideo 
nos electos in Christo et prsedestinatos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus 
sancti et immaculati. .. .non quia futuros tales nos esse prasscivit, sed ut 
essemus tales per electionem gratise suae. . .c. 10 : Si quseratur, unde quisque 
sit dignus, non desunt, qui dicunt, voluntate huraana ; nos autem dicimuft, 
gratia vel prEedestinatione divina. Schmid, Dograengesch. p. 59. Jiaur, in 
his Dogmengesch. p. 184, cites the following passage from De Correps. et 
Gratia, c. 9, as bringing together the series of divine acts in respect to the 
elect : Quicunque in Dei providentissima dispogitione prassciti, prfedestinali, 
vocati, justificati, glorificati sunt, non dico etiam nondum renati, sed etiam 
nondum nati, jam iilii Dei sunt et omnino perire non possunt. This, says 
Baur, exhibits what is hardest and most incomprehensible in the doctrine of 
Augustine.] — He refutes the objections of the understanding by quoting 
Rom. ix. 20, and adducing examples from sacred history. Even in this life 
worldly goods, health, beauty, physical and intellectual powers, are distrib- 
uted unequall}', and not always in accordance with human views of merit, 
ibid. 19, c. 8. Christ himself was predestinated to be the Son of God; Ds 

§ 114. Semipelagianism. 305 

Pred. 31 (c. 16). He even calls Christ the prfeolarissiraum lumen prjedesti- 
Jiationis et gratiae ; Neander, Hist. Dogm. 374. 

Augustine teaches a predestination to punishment and condemnation, 
but not a direct predestination to sin ; comp. Enchiridion, c. 100. The pas- 
sage, 1 Tim. ii. 4, brought to prove the univei'sality of grace, he explains as 
.meaning that no age, condition, sex, etc., is excluded from grace, and adduces 
in illustration, Luke xi. 42, where "omne olus" means every kind of herbs; 
comp. Enchiridion, c. 103, and Epist. 107 (Ad Vitalem): comp. A. Schweher, 
Centraldogmeii, i. 45. [De Dono Perseverantise, c. 8 : Cur gratia non secun- 
dum merita hominum datur? Kespondeo, quoniam Deus misericors est. 
Cur eigo, inquit, non omnibus ? Et hie respondeo, quoniam Deus judex 

' De Dono Persev. 57 (c. 22): Praedestinatio non ita populis prsedicanda 
est, nt apud imperitam vel tardioris intelligentiee multitudinem redargui 
quodammodo ipsa sua prsedicatione videatur ; sicut redargui videtur et prajs- 
cientia Dei (quam certe negare non possunt) si dicatur hominibus : " Sive 
curratis, sive dormiatis, quod vos prasscivit qui falli non potest, hoc eritis." 
Dolosi antem vel imperiti medici est, etiam utile medicamentum sic alligarc,, 
ut ant non prosit, aut obsit. Sed dicendum est : " Sic currite, ut compreheu- 
datis, atque ut ipso cursu vestro ita vos esse praeeognitos noveritis, ut legitime 
curreretis," et si quo alio modo Dei prEescientia prsedicari potest, ut hominis 
segnitia repellatur, 59. . .de ipso autem cur'su vestro bono rectoque condiscite 
vos ad proedestinationem divince gratice pertinere. 

* Notwithstanding the condemnation of Pelagius at the synod of Ephesus, 
the system of Augustine did not exert any influence upon the theology of the 
Eastern church. Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote (against the advocates of 
Augustinianism) : irphi; rovg Xeyovrag (pvaet aal ov yi'Wjug nraieiv Toi>g 
avOpuTTOvg, 5 books (Photii Bibl. Cod. 177, some Latin fragments of which 
are preserved by Mar. Mercator ed. Baluz. Fritzsche, p. 107, ss. On the 
question whether it was directed against Jerome, or against Augustine ? see 
Fritzsche, ]. c. p. 109, and Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), ii. 651, and Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), 387). Theodoret, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, and 
others, continued to follow the earlier line of the dogmatic development. 
Bee the passages in Mimscher von Colin, i. p. 408-410, and comp. § 108. 



9ejfcken, J., Historia Semipolagianismi Antiquissima, Gott. 1826, 4. Wiggers, de Joh. 
Cassiano Maasiliensi, qui Semipelagianismi auctor vulgo perhibetur. Commentt. iL 
Rost. 1824, 25, 4j by the same: Versuoh einer pragmat. DarsteUung dea AuguStiuia- 
mua und Pelagianismus. Vol. ii. Neander, Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. iii. p. 92, ss. 

In opposition botli to the extreme Angustinians (Predestinarians)' 
and to Augustinianism itself, a new system was formed, upon which 
Monachism undoubtedly exerte'd a considerable influence (as ita 


306 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

deepest roots are essentially Pelagian), but which also proceeded in 
part from a more healthy, practical, and moral tone. Its advocates 
endeavored to pursue a middle course between the two. extremes, 
viz., Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and to satisfy the moral as 
well as the religious wants of the age, by the partial adoption of the 
premises of both systems, without carrying them out in all their 
logical consequences.'' The leader of the Gallican theologians (Mas- 
silienses) who propounded this new system, afterwards called Semi- 
pelagianism, was John Cassian, a disciple of Chrysostom,^ whom 
Prosper of Aquitania and others combated.* He was followed by 
Faustus, hishop of BJiegium,'' who gained the victory over Imcidus, 
a hyper-Augustinian presbyter, at the Synod of Aries (a. d. 472). 
For several decennia Semipelagianism continued to be the prevailing 
form of doctrine in Gaul," till it met with new opposition on the 
part of Avitus of Vienne/ Cesar of Aries' Fulgentius of Ruspe' and 
others. After a variety of fortunes, Augustinianism obtained the 
preponderance even in Gaul, by means of the Synods of Arausio 
(Orange) and Valence (a. D. 529), but with the important restric- 
tion, that the doctrine of predestination to evil was not adopted." 
Boniface II., bishop of Rome, in accordance with the measures 
adopted by his predecessors, confirmed these decisions (a. d. 530)." 
"Gregory the Great transmitted to subsequent ages the milder aspect 
of the Augustinian doctrine, in its relations to practical Christianity 
rather than to speculation."" 

' Under (doctrinal) Predestinarians, are usually included the monks of 
Adrumctum, in the province of Byzacene, in North Africa, and Lucidus, 
mentioned below, who taught the doctrine of a prsedestinatio duplex ; still it 
is satisfactorily proved, that (historically) "a sect, or even a separate party 
of Predestinarians who dissented from Augustine never existed''^ (as was for- 
merly erroneously supposed). Comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 329, ss. 347. This 
error was spread by J. Sirmond, Historia Prsedestinatiana (0pp. T. iv. p. 
267, ss.), and the work edited by him under the title Prjedestinatus, 1643, in 
which the Piaedest. Haeresis is mentioned as the ninetieth in the order of 
heresies (reprinted in Gallandi Bibl. x.). Comp. also Walch, Historie der 
Ketzeieien v. p. 218, ss. Neander, Church History, ii. 641-3. Gieseler, i. 
§ 113, notes 4, 9-11). [On this work, Prasdestinatus, see Neander, Hist. 
Dogra. 381 ; the Jesuits were charged with having forged it. Baur, Dog- 
mengesch. 155, note, says that Neander maintains, without sufficient reason, 
that the second part of the book (it is in three parts) was not by the author 
himself, but was a current A ugustinian treatise. Baur says that the whole 
work was really by a Semipeiagian, and intended to make Prodestinarian« 
jsra odious by carrying it out to the most re\'olting consequences : e. g., 
"the predestined may sin ever so much and resist, without his own will he 
will attain salvation ; and on the other hand, he who is destined to dea^th 
Etrive-s in vain ;'' illustrated in the instances of Judas and Paul.] 

§ 114. Semifelagianism. 307 

* According to the reports made by Prosper and Ililari/, scil. Prosperi 
(428, 29), to Augustine (in Wiggera, p. iss,. Munscher, ed. by von Colin, i. 
p. 411), the treatise of Augustine, entitled De Correptione et Gratia, had 
excited some commotion among the Gallican theologians and monks, in con- 
sequence of which he wrote the further treatises De Praed. Sanctorum, and 
De Dono Perseverantiae. Though these Galilean theologians differed in 
some particulars fi'om Cassian (see Wiggers, p. 181), yet there was a con- 
siderable agreement between their doctrine and his. Comp. also* Neander, 
ii. 633. 

' Comp. above § 82, note 21. Of his Collationes, the thirteenth is the 
most important. Prosper complains of his syncretism, Contra Collatorera, 
c. 5 : lUi (Pelagiani) in omnibus justis hominum operibus liberse voluntatis 
tuentur exordia, nos bonarum cogitationum ex Deo semper credimus prodire 
principia, tu informe nescio quid tertium reperisti. — This tertium consisted 
in the following particulars : a. Cassian, who detested the profana opinio and 
impietas Pelagii (see Wiggers, ii. p. 19, 20), regarded the natural man 
neither as morally healthy (as Pelagius did), nor as morally dead (like 
Augustine), but as diseased and morally weakened (dubitari non potest, 
inesse quidem omnia animse naturaliter virtutum semina beneficio creatoria 
inserta, sed nisi hsec opitulatione Dei fuerint excitata, ad incrementum per- 
fectionis non poterunt pervenire, Coll. xiii. 12). 6. He insisted so much 
more than Pelagius on the necessity and spiritual nature of divine grace 
(Coll. xiii. 3), that lie even ventured to assert that men are sometimes drawn 
to salvation against their will (nonnunquam etiam inviti trahimur ad salutem, 
comp. Inst. Coen. xii. 18. Wiggers, p. 85). But in opposition to Augus- 
tine, he restricted only to a few (e. g., Matthew and Paul) what the latter 
would extend to all, and appealed to the example of Zaccheus, Cornelius the 
centurion, the thief on the cross, and others, in proof of his opinion. In 
general, he ascribed the ascensus to God, as well as the descensus to earthly 
things, to the free will of man, and looked upon grace as rather co-operans, 
though he does not express himself very distinctly.. Only we must take care 
not to refer all the (merits of the saints to God, so as to leave to human 
nature nothing but what is bad. c. He understood the redemption through 
Christ in a more general sense, and thus rejected the doctrine of predestina- 
tion (in the sense of Augustine and the hyper- Augustinians). The assertion 
that God would save only a few appeared to him an ingens sacrilegium (Coll. 
xiii. V). An outline of his complete system is given by Wiggers, p. 47-136. 
[1. Man is not dead in sin, but diseased ; freedom is not lost but lamed. 2. 
Freedom and grace concur, sometimes the one leading, and again the other ; 
the initiation is usually in the will, but God draws some against their will ; 
grace is internal. 3. Predestination on the basis of prescience. Comp. 
Baur, Dogmengesch. 187, who says that the result was merely that the two 
antagonistic positions of predestination and free will stood over against each 
other, unreconciled. But still the result was to show, that as tlie divine 
always stands above the human, so it is essential to the church system that 
the absolute importance of grace should not be yielded, at least in the formal 
statements of doctrine,] 

' Auguitine himself combated Semipelagianism in the above work* 

308 SecoIJd Period. The Age of Polemics. 

Wiggers gives a sketch of the controversy between Prosper on the one hand, 
and Cassian and the Semipelaginns on the other, p. 136, ss. 

' Faustus first presided over the monastery of Lerina, which was for some 
time the chief seat of Semipelagianism. On Vincentius Lerinensis cormp. Wig- 
qers, p. 208, ss. ; on Faustus and his doctrine, ibid. p. 224, ss., 235, ss. Re- 
specting the doctrine of original sin, the views of Faustus come nearer to 
Augustine's opinions than do those of Cassian ; on the other hand, his ideas 
of the nature of grace are more external (Pelagian) than those of the latter; 
comp. Wiggers, p. 287. — But he bestows more attention upon the third 
point of controversy — doctrine of predestination. H6 decidedly rejects the 
doctrine of unconditional election by making a distinction between predeter- 
mjnati'on and foreknowledge, the former of which is independent of the 
latter; De Grat. et lib. Arbitrio i. Wiggers, p. 279, ss. Faustus uses e. p. 
the following arguments, which savor strongly of anthropomorphism : When 
I accidentally cast my eyes upon a vicious action, it does not follow that I 
am guilty of it, because I have seen it. Thus God foresees adultery, without 
exciting man to impurity ; he foresees murder, without exciting in man the 
desire for its commission, etc. Wiggers, p. 282, 283. In speaking of the doc- 
trine of unconditional predestination, as propounded by his opponent Lucidus, 
he used the strongest terms : lex fatalis, decretum fatale, fatalis constitutio, 
6riginalis definitio vel fatalis, and looked upon it as something heathenish ; 
Wiggers, p. 315. He believed in universal atonement. [Among the modi- 
fying Augustinians, says Baur, Dogmengesch. 187, was the author of the 
work De Vocatione omnium Gentium, who, in a peculiar manner, while 
holding Augustine's view of grace, conceived of original sin in a merely 
negative way, as the want of good, or as the mere following of natural 
instinct. The will remains the same, its object is difl'erent ; to the good it 
can be directed only by God ; but every one can obtain this direction, since 
tliere is a universal as well as special efficacy of grace.] 

' Comp. Gennadius Massiliensis and Ennodius Ticinensis, in Wiggers, p. 
350, ss. A summary view of the Semipelagian doctrine in general, and its 
relation to both Augustinianism and Pelagianism, is giyen in the form of a 
table by Wiggers, p. 359-64. 

' Wiggers, p. 368. 

° Wiggers, p. 369, concerning his book De Gratia et Lib. Arbitrio. 

' Wiggers, p. 369, ss. Fulgentius, carrying the doctrine of imputation 
still farther than Augustine, consigned to everlasting fire not only those 
infants that died without being baptized, but also the immature foBtus; De 
Fide ad Petrum, c. 30, quoted by Wiggers, p. 376. But in reference to pre- 
destination, he endeavored carefully to avoid all exaggerations which might 
give ofi«nse to Chiistian feelings (Neander, Church Hist. ii. 650). After the 
interference of the Scythian monks, he expressly blamed those who asserted 
the doctrine of predestination to evil, though he maintained himself a prse- 
dest. duplex (but in a different sense) ; Neander, 1. c. p. 652. Grace is 
in his opinion preeveniens, as well as comitans and subsequens. (Ep. ad 
Iheodorum de Conversione a Seculo, quoted by Wiggers, p. 386.) 

" Mansi, T. viii. p. 711, ss. Aug. 0pp. T. x. part ii. Append, p. 151, 
£s. Wiggers, p. 430, Munscher ed. by von Colin, p. 417. The eonclusio» 

§ 114 Semipelagianism. 309 

is the most important part : [Hoc etiam secundum catholicam fidem, credi- 
nins, quod aceepta per baptismum gratia omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante 
ct cooperante, qu£8 ad salutem pei'tinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter 
laborare valuerint, adimplere.] Aliquos vero ad malum divina potestata 
prredestinatos esse Hon solum non credimus, sed etiamsi sunt, qui tantum 
malum credere velint, cum omni detestatione illis anathema dicimus. On 
the synod of Valence, see Mansi, viii. 723, ss. App. p, 162. 

" Among the earlier popes Cekstine and Gelasius I., had condemned '' 
Semipelagianism : Hormisdas, on the contrary, pronounced a very mild 
judgment in opposition to the Scythian monks, without, however, denying 
the doctrine of Augustine. See Bonifacii II. Epist. ad Csesarium, give^j by 
Mansi, T. viii. p. Y36, and App. 161, ss. 

"^ Comp. JVeander, Church Hist. ii. p. 144. Wiggers, de Gregario M. 
ejusque Placitis Anthropologicis, Rost. 1838. Lau, p. 379, ss. The views 
of Gregory are most fully developed in Moralia. iv. c. 24 ; comp. xv. c. 15, 51 ; 
ix. c. 21, 34, and many other passages. Along with strict Augnstinianism, 
we find in his writings Semipelagian modifications. For his views respecting 
the doQtrine of grace, see Mor. xx. 4 ; Horn, in Ezech. i. 5. Lau, p. 403, ss. 
He also distinguishes between gratia prseveniens and subsequens. The former 
is operans, but at the same time cooperans. The gratia subsequens is a help: 
ne inaniter velimus, sed possimus implere. See Mor. xxii. c. 9 : Sancti viri 
sciunt, post primi parentis lapsum de corruptibili stirpe se editos, et non vir- 
tute propria, sed prseveniente gratia superna ad meliore se vota et opera 
commutatos: et quidquid sibi mali inesse conspiciunt, de raortali propagine 
sentiunt meritum ; quidquid vero in se boni inspiciunt, immortalis gratise 
cognoscunt donum, eique de accepto numere debitores fiunt, qui et praeve- 
niendo dedit lis bonum velle quod noluerunt, etsubsequendo concessit bonura 
esse, quod volunt. — Gregory further maintains, that grace can be lost, Mor. 
XXV. 8 (we know what we are, but we do not know what we shall be); while, 
on the other hand, he appears to ^assert the irresistibility of grace (Mor. ix. 
9 : sicut nemo obstitit largitati vocantis, ita nullus obviat justitiae relinquen- 
tis); again, he says that the humble will accept, the proud reject the gift 
of God (Mor. XXX. 1; Evang. lib. ii. Hom. 22); comp. Lau, p. 410, 411. 
[On Gregory, compare Wiggers, in the Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie, 1854, on 
the History of Augustinian Anthropology after the Condemnation of Scmi- 
pcirfgianism, p. 7-43. Gregory agrees with Augustine on _ the primitive 
state. As to the fall, he asserts a -primitive weakness in Adam; he calls 
origiual sin a disease, and admits a certain necessity of sinning; free will is 
Dot annulled, but weakened; man can withstand grace; predestination is 
only of the elect — yet he denies the absolute decree. "Bonum quod agimus, 
ct Dei est, et nostrum ; Dei, per prajvenientem gratiam'; nostrum, per obse- 
quentem liberam voluntatem." " Suprema pietas prius agit in nobis aliquid 
sine nobis, ut subsequente quoque nostro libero arbitrio bonum, quod jam 
appetimus, agat nobiscum : quod tamen per impensam gratiam in extremo 
judicio ita remunerat in nobis, ac si soils praecessisset ex nobis."] 

It is worthy of notice that in this protracted controversy the ohjeotive aspect of anthro- 
pology waa far more aeveloned than the subiective The doctrine of the economy of 

310 Second Pekiod. The Age of Polemics. 

redemption still remains in an imperfect stO/te, as may be seen, e. g., from the inda 
finite manner in which the terms justificare and justificatio (= justum facere, sea 

Wiggers, p. 380) were used, and from the want of proper definitions of the nature of 
faith. Wiggers, therefore, justly closes his account of this controversy by saying: "^ 
more profound examination of the nature of faith would even then have given a very dif' 
ferent appearance to Christian anthropology." It should further be observed, that the 
Augustinian doctrine of predestination rested on the premises contained in his views 
of original sin. Adam was free hefore the fall, and consequently stood out of the 
sphere of predestination, though God foreknew his transgression (Aug. do Civ. Dei 
xii. 21). Later theologians first extended predestination (the supra-lapsarians) even 
to Adam, and thus completed the doctrine of predestination in a speculative way. 
Thus it was reserved for the Reformation to finish the work which Augustine left 
incomplete ; the Lutherans, by developing the doctrine of faith and justification, the 

Calvinists, by developing that of absolute predestination. On the other hand, the 
Eoman Catholic church either placed itself in opposition to its own father (in the Coun- 
cil of Trent and among the Jesuits), or simply adhered to the doctrine propounded by him 
(the Jansenists). Neamder, Dogmengescb. 369, has drawn attention to the fact, that 
with Augustine justification and sanctificatiou run into each other, while Pelagiua 
views justification in a more external manner. 






§ 115. 


The doctrinal views on fundamental points, which had been 
matured by controversy, exerted more or less- influence upon the 
development of other dogmas. Thus, the further theological defini- 
tions respecting the nature and attributes of God, creation, etc., 
were moulded by the views on the Trinity ; those which relate to 
the atonement of Christ, and the significance of the Lord's Supper, 
were closely connected with the opinions held concerning the person 
of Christ ; those respecting baptism and the sacraments as means of 
grace, were determined by anthropological definitions ; and, lastly, 
eschatology was influenced by all the other doctrines together. 
Even the more general definitions concerning the nature of Chris- 
tianity, the canon and its relation to tradition, etc., are in some 
way or other connected with one or another of the fundamental 

Nevertheless, we are justified in treating of these doctrines separately, 
inasmuch as in some respects, at least, they -were not affected by the con- 
tests, and present themselves rather in continuity with former views. 


§ 116. 


Though the theologians of the present period had not the concep- 
tion of a merely abstract religion, without a positive historical basis 
and shape, yet we meet in the writings of Lactantius with a mora 

312 Second Period. The Age of Polemics. 

precise definition of tlie word religion, which was borrowed from the 
Latin. He applies the term in question not only to the external 
forms of worship (as TertuUian had done before him), but — though 
with an incori'ect etymology — to the union and fellowship of men 
with God, which he also regards as something purely human.' 
Faith in revelation was required as a necessary condition.' 

' Lact. Inst. iv. 28 : Hac eiiim conditione gigniniur, ut genevanti nos Deo 
justa et debita obsequia prsebeamus, hnnc solum noverimus, hunc sequamur. 
Hoc vinculo pietatis ohstricti Deo et religati sumus, unde ipsa religio nomen 
accepit, non, ut Cicero interpretatus est, a relegendo. Coinp. iii. 10 : Sum- 
mum igitur bonum hominis in sola religione est ; nam caetera, etiam qu83 
putantur esse homini propria, in cseteris quoque animalibus reperiuntur. 11: 
Constat igitur totius humani generis consensu, reb'gionem susoipi oportere. 
He compared it with sapientia (iv. 4), from which it is not to be separated. 
By sapientia he understands the knowledge, by religio, the worship, of God. 
God is the source of both. The one without the other leads to such errors, 
as paganism represents on the one hand in the unbelieving philosophers (the 
apostate and disinherited sons), and, on the other, in the superstitious mul- 
titudes (the runaway slaves). — Augustine {oUovis the terminology of Tcitul- 
lian ; he contrasts religio with fides or pietas ; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii. 2, 
see Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. p. 75 1, and comp. Nitzsch, tlber den Religions- 
begriff der Alten, Thewlogische Studieu und Kritiken, i. 3, 4. [Redsloh, 
Sprachliche Abhandlungen, 1840. J, G. Miiller, Bildung und Gebranch d. 
Wortes Religio, in Stud. u. Krit. 1835, Heft, i. Lechler, Idea of Religion, 
transl. from Stud. u. Krit. 1851, in Bibl. Sacra, Andover, 1852, by W. 
Stearns.^^ — Concerning the nature of religion, and the question whether it 
principally consists in knowledge, or in the form of worship, or whether it 
consists in spiritual fellowship with God, see the controversy between Euno- 
mius and his opponents in § 125, and Neander, Church History, ii. p. 401. 

'■' On the necessity of faith in revelation in general, see Rufini Expos. 
Fidei (in Fell's edition of Cypr.), p. 18 : Ut ergo intelligentias tibi aditus 
patescat, recte primo omnium te credere profiteris; quia nee navem quis 
ingreditur et liquido ac profundo vitam committit elemento, nisi se prius 
credat posse salvari, nee agrioola semina sulcis obruit et fruges spargit in 
terram, nisi ci'edideret venturos imbres, afFuturum quoque sob's teporem, 
quibus terra confota segetem multiplicata fruge producat ac ventis spirantibus 
nutriat. Nihil denique est, quod in vita geri possit, si non credulitas ante 
praecesserit. Quid ergo mirum si accedentes ad Deum credere nos primo 
omnium profitemur, cum sine hoc nee ipsa exigi possit vita communis? Hoc 
autem idcirco in principiis praemisimus, quia pagani nobis objicere solent, 
quod religio nostra, quia quasi rationibus deficit, in sola credendi persuasione 
consistat. Comp. Augustine, de TJtilitato Credendi, c. 13 : Recte igitur 
catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est, ut accedentibus ad religionem 
fides persuadeatur ante omnia. He too shows, that without faith there can 
be no friendship even among men (c. 10), no filial love and piety (o. 12). 
Augustine knows of no other religion than positive, Christianity, and insists 
that reason should submit to it ; for faith precedes the knowledge of reason, 

§ 117. WiuTiNGS IN Defense of Christianity. 313 

1, c. c. 14; Delude fateov, me jam Chvisto credidisse et in atiimnm indnxisso, 
id esse verum, quod ille dixerit, etiamsi nulla ratione fuloiatur. Reason would 
never have saved man from darkness and misery, nisi summus Deus, populari 
guadam dementia divini intellectus auctoritatem usque ad ipsum corpus 
humanum declinaret atque submitteret, cujus non solum prmceptis, sed etiam 
factis excitatSB animse redire in scmetipsas et respioere patriam etiam sine 

disputationum concertatione potuissant Mihi autera certum est, nus- 

quam prorsus a Christi auctoritate discedere, non enim reperio valentiorem 
(contra Academ. 1. iii. c. 19, 20). Comp. de Vera Rel. c. 5; de Moribus 
Eccles. Cath. c. 7 : Quare deinceps nemo ex me quserat sententiam meam, 
sed potius audiamus oracula, nostrasque ratiunculas divinis submittamus 
affatibus. Comp. Bindemann's Augustine, ii. p. 113 sq. 



In proportion as the polemical tendency of the present period pre- 
vailed over the apologetic, the proofs of the truth and divinity of 
Christ's religion lost originality, and most writers were satisfied with 
the mere repetition of former statements.' The attacks of Porphyry, 
Julian the Apostate, and others, however, called forth new efforts 
in defense of Christianity ;" the accusations of the heathen, when 
Christianity was established as the religion of the world upon the 
ruins of the Western empire, induced Augustine to compose his 
apologetical treatise De Civitate Dei. 

' Among the apologists previous to the apostasy of Julian, Arnohius (Ad- 
versus Gentes) deserves to be noticed. His argument a tuto, ii. 4, is as fol- 
lows nonne purior ratio est, ex duobus incertis et in ambigua exspocta- 

tione pendentibus id potius credere, quod aliquas spes ferat, quam omnino 
quod nullus ? In illo enim periculi nihil est, si quod dicitur imminere cassura 
fiat et vacuum : in hoc damnum est maximum, i. e., salutis amissio, si cum 
tempus adveuerit aperiatur non fuisse mmda.ciu.m . . . JSusebius of Cassarea 
-likewise defended Christianity in his Prsepar. and Dcmonstr. Evang. (§82, 
note 1) : Alhanasius in his Xoyog Kara "EXXrjvag, etc. ; Julius Formicus 
Maternus, De Errore Profanarum Religionum (between 340 and 350). 

" Eusehius, 1. c, Theodoret, Augustine, and others combated Porphyry: 
Eusebiua also opposed Hierocles in a separate treatise. Cyril of Alexandria 
wrote 10 books against the Emperor Julian, who charged Christianity with 
contradictions.— The dialogue entitled Philopatris, formerly ascribed to Lu- 
cian, may have been composed under the same emperor, see Neander, Church 
History, ii. p. 89. On the apologetic writings of this period, see Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. 274 sq. [Tlie Spanish presbyter, Iroiius, Historias adv. Par 
ganos. The last important work in the Greek church against the heathen 
was Theodoretui, '-&XX'r]ViK&v dipamv-iKf) nad-rjiMdruv, about 440. .Against 

314 Second Period. The Age of Poijlmics. 

the .Jews, Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. ; Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. Oi'at viii, ; 
Augustine, Tract, adv. Judaeos.] 

[Jiaur, Dogmengesch. 158. says tliat Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesaren, and 
Augustine elevated apologetics, by representing Christianity as the perfect 
religion in comparison with all others — viewing it in the light of the philo- 
sophy of religion and of the general religious history of mankind. Augus- 
tine's work, De Civitate Dei, is the grandest attempt to consider Christianity 
as realizing the idea of a divine plan and order for the -world — as containing 
the immanent idea of the world and its history; even the greatness of the 
Roman empire is fully seen only in its relation to Christianity.] 


[Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed. 1844, iL 233-336, The Nicene Miracles.] 

Since the Christians were constantly accustomed to appeal to 
miracles and prophecies in support of the truth of their religion, it 
became important to define more precisely the idea of a miracle. 
Augustine did this by defining miracles as events which deviate not 
so much from the order of nature in general, as from that particular 
order of nature which is known to us.' "With regard to prophecies, 
many passages of the Old Test, were still applied to the Messiah, 
which had no reference to him, and the truly Messianic passages 
were taken in a narrower sense than historical interpretation re- 
quired." The apologists also appealed to Chri