Skip to main content

Full text of "Outlines of the history of dogma"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book tha^ was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world^s books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for Ihe copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain, A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in Ihe public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to Ihe past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usskge guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public doruain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
preveni abuse by commercial parlies, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Mcikt^ nofi-comwcrcial itsip of the- files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-com mere ial purposes. 

+ Refntin from tjitlomtiieii querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a (aige amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help, 

+ Maintain attribution The Google ''watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep ii legaf Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http: //books, google , com/ 



or THK 



TITE English tTAn&lAtioa of my '^Gnindruvi 
der Di>gmcu|^«cliieliU3** bas teea made, 
in accordance with my oxprcsscd wish, by my 
former \m\n\ and esUwmed fritnd^ Mr, Edwin 
Knox MiU'lu^lt, Ft is my pl^fu^nt duty to ex- 
prt«e5 to him here my heartiest thanks. 

English and ^Vmerican theological litcmturo 
poBS€«B excoUeut \vorbs but tbey are not rich 
[n product*) within tbo nvhUn of tlio Hi>;1or>' of 
Dogmn. I mny thcrtiforo pcrhnpA hope that 
my '"Grundriss" will supply' a want, I shall 
lie nio6l happy* if I can with thiA liook do my 
English and American friends and fcUow*work- 
ore eomv tM>rvioo — n small nittn-n for th<> rich 
henofil wbieh I luivu n-aiied fruiu their biU>ra, 
In reality^ bowovci', thero no longer exiatt* any 
lUbtinetion botwem Qennan and Kln^Ii&h tbetj- 
logical science. Th^ cxcbfingo is now 00 bri>df 
that ravntifio thvologionn of all rvaugelical 
lands form already one Concilium. 

AnOLF Raknack. 


ktotheDtw^ipliD^ I 

I. IdnaodAiinof iheUlaUMjof Lhogma 1 

Q, KuTsihvur the UiMUiryofDoguift ... 8 
oppoaitiottfof tlio HiBtoryof Dofftii* - . . 10 

111. Xntxodoctarj tO 

JV. Tb*Oa^polof JttiuChriAacaviliagCoHiaOvni 

TMUmoDj If 

V. Hw Q«i)«n] Prooluiittiloii eoooenLni: 4mm 
CbtiA la tliePintO«D«4m£ionuf J n» AUlKtVblB 18 

VI- Tbn Oirrmt Eii>oiUi<iDof tli«OldT)Mtaifi«Dtai]d 
the Jpmnh Future Htip9, bi Uielr JD«w1dc ou tlie 
EAjrlioit FonnoktioD iiT UieChrifldan Moawge . 1^ 
Vtl. Tba RoligiotM Ccmofptiom And the BoUgtottM 
Fhlkitopby of the OoUmUMc Jews In tbrtr Bmt* 

VUl- Ttin RHigicnifl DiEpcwilioii ot thn nmeloi luut Rn- 
L in the Finit Tiro ConhniAi mid thv Ocmt«tii< 
pontj Oneoo-Ronan FkiAu<o|ihy uf Btiiipoa . . 82 



t» tUPAlATIOIt. 

Chft0«r 1.— Histoncd Sorr^ ....,, 89 
Chi|il«r IL— 4>roiind CommoD to CSiriaiiana ftsd Attitude 

TakviF} t4>iiHii1 Jijd4iafii 4<P 

Chapt^ UL — T)t« Comuiott l-\itli and tlw BocintiliiRs of 
S^ir-It«oOKDitioo in that Oontlle CliriatiaiiiQr 
which WM li> Develop into OfttboUcim . i3 



niApt^rTV— Attf-miii of the OnotUra Co Conttnirt lui 
AFHHU>lir IkK'triiie of t^Biili aii'l to Produce* a 
Cliriftiau TIil^Iok? ; or, the AcuU &c<c'ulariEaiioc] 
of UtJ-iMiiniihj W 

CShaptcff V. — M4ij< ii^ti'H Altotupc U* tk^t Avldcr Ulc Olil Tc»- 
tiuii«nt «ft ilii9 Fouuilatton or thnOfuprl, to Piinfy 
TraiJitfoD, &di1 (■> IMorm OirUtinnit^ c«] tltn 
BMboftbvPuOiAoGaqvJ 70 

QiApbcr VI. — Bupplument: ThoCbriatuuiityof tbuJvwinb 

ChiifUiuis 74 

B<x>K II. 


ChHiitrrT— niKtorif^dSurrey , 61 

Suciion L EtiUiUinhTumt of Chrixtianity a» a Churdt and 

nbjLpt«r U- — Tlie S^ttin^ bWth of tlw ApoBtolto Kulea 
(rConii8) fur Kc«lv*iu4Uc«J CJtrlAliitAlly. Hue 

CaUiolkChuroli M 

A, Tli« fiecfttftfas *^ the BAptifttnaJ CoikfefiaEoi) luto 

tbe ApOitoUc Rula of Faith W 

R The Itoooguitioo of a Soli"<:tlon i>f W«II-kiLown 
t5orl|ituro« ii» Virtunlly Ui<li>itguji{ to tho Old 
TratAiiicnt ; I. o,, Aa a CojupibitlaD of A|Mj«tottc 

8rri]>Lur04 8g 

CL The TraaefamuttoD <-r Hit* Epiiioopal DJBco In the 
Chuicli iDlo tho Apo*ii>Lc Ofl!cH. llirtoiy of ttie 
Tmn»fonnAtionof theldnof LlwChurvh . . 95 

Olupter 111— Cntittmiatlnn: Tho Old C^riniiuiity and 

ihit S«>w Cliiin^h too 

Sedion H £MaU^Mm«nl </ CAH>f«afiff|r a§ DoetHng and 
it$ {hndaai Sentliiritation. 

CbbptM- IV.— Ecclt^iafltlnl DirfitUoiir nnA Plillotophy. 

Tho Apotofflfttfl ....,, 117 

Chapter v.— Eh^QhiofcB of ui EcclttEiudco-Tliecvbgicid 
BipMltlon imd RfivUioD of Uiv ItuW ol Filth Ui 
C^ipc«ltiocitoGiK4tkiHni fta th? tVmTip|»«itionof 
tW :?4*w TnitAm«iil ftn.! UivCbriuiimD Phlt«AO]ihj 
of LhuApolof^lMM^ IiVDieus. TertuUion. nippol^- 
toa, Crprino, Xomtiin iai> 



- Vt.— TnuuConualion o* Gcc1«eE«MicftJ Trnditicm 
Into a PldluHO|jJiy of RuLlj^ioo, or Uie Oiiglu or 
Svicntifir &>rt<ciiitflicftl Tlif^oio' and Dogroatla* ; 
CkmcfitiUKlOri^n . . 14tt 

Qiaplar Vn.— ItovUivti Kv«ult of TliMilrigkiU S[iciculjitioti 
witliui thfiReftliu of tJwKuleoIKu tlKorOiA Din- 
ing ctf Uie fiockelwUoal UootrUul Nomi tfcrotsgh 
Uio2U»e|iUtficieoltli«lA9o«'OtH»tciI«gy . 161 

PART n, 



CbapterL— Uutoricaiaarvoy IfiS 

CtupUxU.— Tliie Faiulwii«tiUl Co0CO[iUon o( SalvnUcoi 

ttDilaOeDcmlSkcCclioltiiv DiJCtriitr urFiLitb - 200 
CtupUr m. — Hio &onf<!>o» of Ktiowl4>i]Hv ui4 Uw Anthori ' 

Um, orScrtptnrv, Tmilitioa, uid tlu- Chur^b . S1Z 

A- Tfc< iVe wp p oatf ^wM </ W^ IhKtrttie of ikUmtion. or Sut- 

VTtti ITtCOlOffff. 

dupcerlV.— Tlw Fmuj:<]KjaiUo<ui and ConcvfrUooA of 

God. Ih« Cnwtor, an the Di!(j>«fiiwr of Sdntioo . S16 
OiapUr v.— The pKeuppnsiUoow uxl Djinc«pCuMis of Man 

B. 7%t DoeiHne of Rrdi^ptiort liirotiok ihe Ftnon of lAe 

Ood Xan in th nitt^frkal Dfrrlopmtni. 
dnptar V1-— Thi' DooU-in^oftbo NooMaiiy And Rnhlit/ of 
IM«fDctioQ throuieh the iDOMTUtloQ of Uw Son 

of God «8S 

Chipt^r VII.— The* Divtrtop of Ihe Horooroioii of th^ Son 

of Uwtwitb(;(xl JliTOftetr . . . . . U> 

I UiiUl Ojuiffllol NlcttT* **> 

n. Until (loath of CooBtDintliut , ^ Mi 
in. I'ntH t>MicriH <rf ("«oi.l«titii»ple. 8Ht, 883 . . «• 
8BpplptTU<nl : Tb(t DoL'lrlDe of tbo lldy Spirit 
•odof UwtTrinitx ^^ 

Chapter vm, —nii- Doctrine t>I Uw PwlLvt Ek|iuiUtx 

Aa lo NnturT< of t|jt> IncvttiaU^ Soti of Ood and 

Iliinijuiity fifT4 

ChAptvr IX. — ContiDUiition : Tbe Doctriito of Uw PemmHl 
Voionx of tbi? DlrLne ao<l Uunmu Nnturva in tlw 

IjiCAmAteSoDof ihd S80 

I. HivNnlvrian CuulruVFnij ttO 

rr, Tho Eutjrchiiui Contrororqjr S37 

m, Tlio KtoQupfayEutQ ControTcnioA juul tb<t Atli 

Couxicil 9M 

rV- The MouergiBtit and MouoUiulilit^ Cc«itroTmd«. 

theOtliCoimctl iind Johnof DamaacuA . . 800 

C. The TfTJiifOrot Enjoynu^t of Rt^^mptitm. 

Chapter X.—TboMyHterltH,;w<IAIait(TnAkiaUiT]wfU , H05 
Chapter XI.— CoDiiluatoD: »k«tcli of Oie UliAoric ISegin^ 

i:LuiCH<i( tlK*(>rtJuxJox HyHUTEu • . » . Aid 

BiXtft U 



n<07f TOB KAMA OT TlIX CnVKfril, 

Chapter I.— HiBloricfll Survey ...... 336 

Cbaptar IT,— Occiic^itAl Chrisiiautty vulOccidonUl The- 

ologiuw (H-Ton) Atiictii^tino dS9 

CaiapMr III,— Tho World Hi Alorlcnl Po«ldOllor AuKUatlue 

4U Ruf<irEuar of dirlatfjui VitAy . , . . 335 
OliApt&r IV.— TTie Wcrld- Historical PobIUoq of A.t]|nM< 

tioe M TeAcber of Uio Church . . S43 

I Aii^Rtino'ttDootHDoof UMF^rttnaiJlAfltThiD^ ^5 
11. IhD ihjnatlA CcpaMMt Tbo W<trlc "DeCtvliato 
Dol." Tho Doctilae oJ tbo Cliurcit nail of Uu» 

lf«wxi of Gnico 8S4 

m. The Polafftan CcnU^ Dodrino of Oraoe and 

ofSlti . , , , , . . . »C3 

IV. Ati^iafititio's fixpnditioo of th^ Sfmbol. Tlw 

^ :<4fw IJortriooof K^^llgton 870 

ChftpUr V-— llliitory of iXiginA In tlio Occldcnl tUJ tlt« 

r^lDTking nf thf MhhUa A^m (4Jta-A04) . S8B 



L CcnktcAb«t«v«n8aini<rclBtfiABinBuid Augu*tini> 

uism .86a 

11. nn>goTy ibo Or«al (500-601) 897 

QupUr Vr~nfiiliny of Dc^inftiii UwlHirnioTUMirArlo- 
ringiaii RoaaiHUDoe 803 

I, A. The Adoption ConUomniy . ^ . . 804 
I. B- The Prwi<'«tliuttioii ConlrOTtntj- . . . SOft 

U. Ountro^^imj nluut dir Filiotjuc and about IniAeca SOT 
in. Th^ D«Ynlnpnmit. h\ Pnv^tivt* nnd in Thiwwy, of 
tlheSfaffi (Doffma cf tbo KiichAnst)niid of Pmuuioc 809 
Gb^rtcr \1L— Blaior; of QofimA in Ui« Timcf of Cltignx, 
Aiueim and Bcrmiud lo Uw Bud of tbu IStfa 

Cmturj MO 

r Tim Itiviml at Viidy ..... 407 
IT, OnllkA HUtoryof KcfdofJiMitinAHjiw .412 

ni. TltoRi^TivjilofScifno* 41J 

IV. WOTkupontbeDojcma 428 

A. The Bfrengnr OcmtitvvonQr . .428 

B. Auetflin*!* Doclriiir <>f Hiilli!ifACt(i>ii nitd tlii^ Duc- 
trioM of tho AtOEkcmiMit nf thn Thwkk^JAmi of thi> 
UthContuiy 437 

C3i^l>t«r VUl— Hietory d Vo^dm in the 'Hmeof ih* Mco^ 
dietDt Orders tITl tho nfyricniov gf the iflth 
Cmtmrr wi 

I. Ou lh4 Hirt«r:y of Hviy 484 

11- Oti tlt» t1ii*t^»7 of R«vU«iii0licfil Iaw. Thtf> Dfirr^ 

trinAof OieCburch 44tf 

III. Onth« Dlsboryof £ocloils«tic9dBolMiGe . 4S9 

IV. ThoRcoDintiiiftof rr4Tgmatic»intDSoliola«tiC9 . 401 

A. Tlio WorhlDs Ofvt of Um Trndlitotud ArtlcuU 
Fidoi 4«S 

B. The BcholMtk DocUlbe of the Sftcrunenta , . 468 

C. l%«RoT[alngof AufuatlnUDlsmLDtbeDLrfctlou 

of the DoctHoe of Meritoriom Works - . W 

Book m. 


ChnpUTt—Hi«rtorlcAl Surrey 501 

ChMpU-TH.—ThL- taiulDg of th^ Dogma io Rotnon On- 

tlK>)Ki0m 510 


I- —Idea and Aim of thb Histobv of l>0GaA, 

K Rei.t<]io>J ia a |>moticrkJ affair \ritb mankind, k^"«*«i1'" 
itince it hsB to do with our highest happiness and 
with Uioee fucuUies trbkb pertain to a holy life. 
But in crery religion them tacuixim are closely con- 
nected with siHne deSnite faith or with some deS- 
uite f uW, which are referred hack t*i Divin<* Itf^t^e- 
taifon. Chmtianily is that religion in which the 
tttpulse anil power to a ble«&ed and holy life 10 bound 
op with faith in God a^ the Father of Jesim ChriM. 
So f ar Ets this God is believed to bo the omnipotent 
Lord of heaven and earth, the Christian religion 
ioclude^t A particuW l:non'led(/e of Qod, of the world 
and of IhA iMirpnao of ^^rt^itiv) thirgn; ko far, how* 
ercTt aa thia luligion tcxurhcet tlint Qod (»iii ho truly 
knoivii uuly in Jeau» Christ, it U IuM*p£iruhl« froui 
historical knowledge. 

«, The inclination to fonnuhito the content of ^^ul*^ 
religion in Articleji of Faith U an natural to Chris- 
tianity as tl>o irlTort to verifi/ Xbism artidos with 
rer«*r«nrA ict noieocu «nd t<) history. On the ollioi- 






At Solu- 

bani] the imiv^trAJil MnrI ffiTpiM-tiAtiintl charnctor nf tho 
ChrtvUnu roU^pou imjH>fHie« u]>on itei ibdhorcnta the 
duty of Hiiilinj; a st^itvmt^t of it which will not be 
fmpoirocl by our wavering knowledge of nature and 
history; and, indeed, which \rill bo ablo to nuiintaiu 
itself before every possible theory of nature or of 
history. The problem which thus aiiHea permila, 
indeed, of no absolitto eoluUon, sinoo all kuowled^ 
is rtjifttive ; and yet reU^on cdsaye lo bring her ab- 
fioluto tmtb Into the spliere of illative knowledge 
and to reduce it to atatenient tbere. Hut history 
teachen, and every thinking ChriHtian te^tttleA, that 
the problem does not come to its aolutioo; even on 
that aoconnt the progressive efforts whirh have 
been made to boIvo it nrc> of value. 

3. The inued tlionJUKh-golng tilt<'iii}it ni Kuliilii^u 
bitlierto is that which the CaiJielic Church m»de, 
and which tlie churches of tbe Itefomifttion (with 
more or licaa restrictions) hav^ c(>nlintie(l to tnalco, 
viz. : Accoptinff a collection of ChrUtian nud PrO' 
Christian writing and oral traditions a^t of Divine 
origin^ bo deduce from them a eytitem of doctrine, 
arranged in SL-ieiklille fimiL tor aLH>Iogiaii^ pur^]iM3K, 
which aboiild have aa its cont^'nt tbo knowledge nf 
God and of tlio world and of the nioana of salvation ; 
than to proclaim this complex system (of dofjttui) 
AA the rompfindittm of Ohristianityj U^ dt^nand nf 
evQTy mature meml>er of the Ohuwh Ji fftithfid nn» 
fi^ptniit-v uf it, and ui the sumt^ time Ui maintjiiu thii 
tlie srirno Jtt H nocoAsary preparation for the hlu»^ctl' 



'Pfx)nij&o<I b)- tlic rclSgion. Willi tliis augmra- 
tliQ Chrtjstdjui broUierhoocl> wlio^o <^^liiir&cter 
afi "Catholic Church" i« «fi»entiaUy irdicated under 
thia conception of Christianity, took a definite and, 
ns WAS siippod^d, incont^table attitudo toward the 
ifcioncc of nature nnd of history, oacpreesed ita relig- 
ious faith in God and Chrifit, and yet ^are (inas- 
much aa it required of all tt» inemberH an acceptance 
nf tfi(«e articles of faitJi) to the thinking part gf \he 
community a sy^em vrhir-h is cHpal>]e of a wider and 
in<h*tfH] l>otmi11f«ft dflvolopnient, Thwt aro.tfi dog- 
matte Christianity. 

4* Thii nitn o{ ilt& kislorff of dogtna isy (I) To ex- 
plain tb» origin of thm dogmatic Chrbtiauity, and, 
{H TLodmcrihclisdeifelopmerit, 

5. Tho hi-ntortj of the nw of dogmatic Christian* 
)ty would lieern 1o closo wh«n a woll-formulated ^'a- 
t«ai ot bolioF liiul been oHtnblmhiHl liy eciomtific 
in«uu<^, «iid had boen mado the ** articulna t'ottJftii'U-^ 
tivufi it^ctt'Atif^" mid £ia tiuuli liud b^-n iinpocKxl upon 
tbo entire Church. ThU took place in tho transition 
froui tho itd to tho 4th century when the Logoa- 
CEu-i^toIot^y wai4 catahlislied. Tho development of 
dopma m in abstraeto without limit, but in rr>n- 
erria it hast como to on end. For, (a) tlio Ortvk 
Ohiiroh nutiiilaiim thitt itft rop'nti<ni of dogma ha^ been 
complete since the end of the " Imago Controversy **; 
(b) Iho Komon Catholic Church lcavc« the jtossibil- 
ify of tho fonnnlating uf nt^w donnas open, hut in 
tlie Tridentino Council and still more in the Vatican 

mm of 




lias it in fact on potiUca] j-rtmuda rounded out fta 
dogma an a l^al Hy&t«iu wliich above all dciuaudd 
obcdieiice and aidy feondanty conscious faith; the 
Ionian Catbolic Churrli luia con8e<]u<?iitIy abandoned 
tbe oriional motive of dogmatic Christianit}' and 
bflfi plaeod a wholly now mutivi* in iffl st^ad, rotaiti* 
ing tJw more a^mblance of tho old; {c] Tho Kvari' 
geiical churches have, on tho one hand, accepUHl a 
greater pare of the formulated doctrinea of dogmatic 
Christianity und m^ek to groimd them, like tin* Cath- 
olic Churrh, in tlie Holy Scriptures, But, ou tlio 
otlier hand, they took a diftei'ent view of tlie author- 
ity of the Holy Seriptnres, ihoy |mt aside tradition 
as a aourco in raattora of belief, thoy queaiioaod tho 
ttiguilicancti of tho euipirica] Church ob regurdd the 
dogma, and above all they tried to put forward a 
formulation of the (Christian religion, which goes 
directly back to the "true uriderstandtng of th& 
Word of Ood" Thu« in principle the ancient dog- 
matic conoeption of Christianity was aet aside, while 
however in certjiin mattere no fixed attitude woa 
takeu toward ttie eajne and reactiuns began at once 
and stilJ c?ontinoe. Thereforo is it oanounced tliat 
^;^'[' the hiHtory of Protestant doctrine will be eichidc^l 
Biddiini. from the history of dogiiui, and within tho fonn<^r 
will bo indicate only the position of the Reformera 
find of iho chiircluv^ of the R^^foronLtion, out of which 
the Ifttor mniplicfttoil dc\'dopTiiciit grow. lionco tlw* 
liUTjiry of 4logma cun bi; tri*jiied ast relatively a cum- 
l>lct«d dL8cipliu&. 


G. Tbo claim cf thr Chun*h tliat tlio dogmiM ure ''^'^^ 
bimpiy tbi.» t-xiKwHiMn of tlK> ChriHtiKii rci-clntion, I^i"«i5 
becflu«4> (lo<]t»'«?d from the Holy Scripture*, m nol I umj*' 
coniirmed by hu^ricAl invoi^tit^itiou. On tho con- | 
trjujt it bocomoM clo&r tbot dogmatic Cbristianity 
(tli« d<^ina») in it» conooplion ami in Ob construe- 
lion was fAr work of the liriltnic spirit ftpon the 
Qospel »or7. Tht* infcUectuiii medium b}' which in 
Mrty timoe men Bou^t to make tho Goepel compre- 
hensilkle mvl to ^«tab1iR}i it Msrureljr, beoAme inaep- 
arttbly blcjndod Mnlh tho content of the Bome. TliU£ 
uriitw tbo dogTiin« in who»o forinniioQ, to be Hure, 
other lactova (tbo words of iSaoroU Scripture. re:iuire- 
mmtA ot the eult, and of tbeorgacizHtion, |K>liiicaI 
and social envinmraent* Uie impulse to push things 
to tlK*ir lo^iciil con»iM)uencet^, blind cuutom, etc.) 
l^uyn} H purt. yi-t m> that tho desiro and effort to 
formulote tlic inuiii prinoiploA of tho Christian ro- 
ili'tnption, ftiid to<-x[)lnjniitut dovuLop Uirm, lUNnired 
tiio upper h;md, at \e»»X in tht> c^arlier tiines. 

7. Jurt iiA XlKf fortniLliitiiij^ of tho ditgma proved to ^"J^*;,'J!, 
be an ilhision, m tur ii8 tbu ^vno was to bo tJie pure d[^^ 
exposition of the Qospel, so also cjoi^s biRtorical invea- ^ 
ligation d««tmy the otiier ilhision of the Chureb, 
vlx. ; that the dogma, idwa}'^ baring been the sntne 
therein, have simply been explained, and that eccle^ 
nafltacol theology has never h^d any other aim than 
toezpbUn the iincbjuiging dogma and to rofuto tlio | 
bosvtica] t«?acbing p^H^f«ing in fn>in vitliout. The I 
formuhitiug of tiMtdogmH imlieaUw rutbrr ihui th4><- 


olog)- cuiiHtrucl*?c! tliu <Ujgiim, Iml tbat i\w C!nin.*fi 
muBt eviT coud-al the luWr uf tbo tlit^togiimtf, 
wbicb thua placi« them in an imfortunalo pliglit. 
In each favorabltf caso tho rceolt of their labor ba» 
boen declared to be a reproducft'on and ihej^ them- 
B^Ivos have been robbed of tb«tr best sorv-jcoj st» sk 
rulo ID tbo progresA of history lh<>j fell under the 
coD<iemDatioQ of the dogmatic Bcbeiue, whose foiin- 
dittioQ they themBe-lvea had laid, aiid so entire gener- 
rationa of theologians, aa wiAl as Ibp chief leaders 
theiQofi have, in th<^ further de\-elupmGnt of dopma, 
bet^n Aftt^rwn.r<lFi marked anri declared to bo heretica 
or held in BU8pioion> Dogma baa evor in the prog- 
rvaa of hi*(tor^- devoured ita owii progonitom. 

H. Although dogmatic Chri«tiimi1y him never, in 
the procesis cf its development, lortt ila original style 
and character aa a work of the apirit of perishing 
antiquity upon Gospel t*oil (st^le of the Orrek 
apf^loffists and of On'f^in). yet it experienced fimt 
through Auguelino and later through LntlHT a 
dt?e|)er and UK^re ihurough tnuisfonnatiou. Both of 
tbeHe men, the tatter more Uian the former, cham- 
pioncnl a new and more euamjelictil concTeption of 
Cbridtianity, puided chielly by Pauliniftm; Augus- 
tint* howev(*r hardly attemptet] a levisiiju of the tra- 
ditional dogma, ratlier did he co-ordiuate the old and 
the uew; Luther, inJeed, attempt^ it> but did not 
carry It tlirougb. Tlio Christiau qticLlily of the 
dogma gained throut^h the influenee of each, ami tho 
old traditional a^^tit^^ni of dogma wai3 relaxed uoznit- 


tbuf was wy much lb<?* csiw in rrob-tftantism 
that one dees well, an remiirkml abovi^^ no lunger to 
ooiwiiler the symbolicdl t^acbio^ of the Prote&taot 
cburcli«8 (lA wholly h recasting of the old dogma. 

9. An ondfirdtanding of Uie dogmBtic^-biHtorifr ^^^^ ^ 
proooB oajiDOt bo seoiin>d by isolating tbo special i^o*™* 
doctrinal and considering them separately (Special 
HlHtofy of Dogma) after that the ^oclu have been 
prerjoufdycharacterizjed ((general Ui&tory of Dogma). 

It 10 much better to consider the " general ^ and the 
" sp^Krial " in each period nnd to treat the periodB sep- 
arnt^ly^ and aa inut^h a** p<«siblG to prov« the specnal 
doctrinee to be tho outcome of tbe fundamental i<leaA 
and molivea. Il id not poesible, however, to make 
more than fo«r principal divisiona, via, : I, Tbe Ori- 
gin of Dc^na. II. a. The Development of Dogma 
in aca>rdaj>08 with tbe principles of its original con- 
ception (Oriental Development from Ariftnif<m to the 
Iniug»-Oontrov<»r>&y). IL b, Tbe Occidental Devel< 
opmcnt of Dt^miL under thi^ iiiflu«-nce of Augwitine*d 
Chrijftiiuiity aui\ the Konuin |>a]Mti |x>HticH. II. c. 
Tho Tfaroo-fold Issuing of Dogma (in tlie cburchw* 
of the R*rfonnation— in Tridentino Catholicism— and 
in the cntici8in of tbe ratioriuli^lic ago, i.e., of 8o- 

10. The hiHtory of dogma, in that it ftota forth tbe 
procuM of tho origin aod duveJopinent erf the dogma, 
o£ren tbe r«ry hmi means and nKHhodi^ cf freeing 
the CbuTch frooi dogmatic Christianity, and of hant- 
oning tfae iuevitiible prcc*u«t cf emancipation, which 



began wiUj Aui;uAtiiit.>. But the LiHlorv of doi^iua ' 
teetliittf h\ai to tlw nnitf^ luii] i^;uttiiuity of tlic 
Christian faith iii the progr4'««< of tU history, in 8o 
far AH it proves that corUiin futiilnmvntal itUvi^t i»f this 
Qospel have never been lo^t and have di^fiiHl ull 





The imrmtJTft of dl» History of Dogma 1)ogins f\r^% 
in ttio ItSth century with Mc«lic*im, Walch, Emuiti, 
Le«8tn{fi uuil Somler, 8itico Oatholiciiuu in gi^ncru) U 
not flttMtl ft^r a critjcal hnnilling of the «ul)joct> al- 
though Ittimcd works hn^c Uxm writt<Mi by imlivid' 
uhI Cnthi»1ic thifolt^niui (RjkixmkiH BrUunriiii, Pi-Ui* 
r\\x», T\\o\\\\m^\i\y KtiJm, Schwanc, Barh, L^to.)* JUid 
sinoo Iho Prot^^^taut ehurdii^ tvmain«H) until tho 
18th <.viitur^' tuidor tho bail uf coiif^wHiotmlisni, id- 
tliou^h iniportaDt txjutribiition^ W4.^n* mudu in tho 
liino of thii R^fonmttioii (Luthtfr, Olctihiuijuid, Mot- 
anchthon, Flnciii*, Ilyj>criu*, ChcimnitB) to tlur criti- 
cid iPJiUiiiuut of tho HiT^tor^' of Doginn, hitR^i in jHirt 
tipOTi ttio labors of tho critically (liH)>oe<o<l liiimHiiiF^t^ 
(L. Vulla; EranmuH, etc). But without Iho Ifarnwl 
materiul, which, on tho on© baat!, tin.* Benoilictino 
and otboT Ordera had gadiered togethm*, anri. on th^ 
othor, the Protestant Coaaubonus, Voeeiiw, Pcai'son, 
Dalluun, 3]jaiiheiui, Qrahe, Ba^naK^f etd and with- 
out the grand impute which pietinni gave (Qott- 
friiHt Anioli), thu woilc of the IStli century would 



bav« been incon^UU^rabte. K;itlonaU)!cin robbed Ihu 
bUtory of rloginii of it^ 4Kx^c;<iu»tiad iiiU^'n^t nud 
gave it ovffr to n critical truiitmtnit in ^tIiicIi it» 
daifcoew vra» lighted up in port \>y tbo lamp of 
common nnd«4vtAi>ding and in jmrt by the torch 
of getieral hialoricnl contcmphttion {ftr^t Hiettory of 
Dof^ran b)' Liitigv, I7^i}, pnrvioiio vroHcfi by Siiinler, 
Boeder, liofllcr, rfc-, lln-n the lii^toiy of Dogma 
bj- Miinschor, Haudb. 4 Bdd, 17EH' f,, an coccellent 
Lehrboch, 1, Aiifl. 1811, 3. Aufi. 18:J3, Miinter 
2 Bdd. 1802 r, StaudUn ISOO and I8«, Auffusti 
1A0.*> imd 1$3^ QieseW, e«lit«d by R^^^penning ^ 
Bdd. Id^A). Tbo valuable hAJidbookn of Bniutigar- 
tvn-OruKiu» 1833, 4.«f. 1840 and 184<}, nod of Mujer 
1840, 4*^. 18M, murk ilio tnint^ition to a ctuHs of 
works in which aa inner underHtiiuOing of the pro- 
ot«» of tb© History of Dogma hiw been won* for 
Trbieh Lefwing had akewly fitri\'en, and for which 
Honlcr, Sohlci^mirt^'iicir und ihty HnmsiniicinU <m the 
one »ido, aiKl TU*g<rI an<l Sv-brUing ou tb« utbcr, Imd 
pn-pMrud tlic wiiy. EiKHrb-making ^wiv tbv writings 
of F- Cbr. Biur (Ulirb. 1847, i.e. 1807, Vorlw. 
3, ThL I86i ft), in irbidi tlio (loj^mfttico-bistorio 
Lppooott* coDcoiv4?d to be 8uro in u ori<.'-»id(Hl wny, 
'wikK, «irt Ui H[imky IivihI ovf*r ngjiin (rF. nNo Stntn^M, 
GUiabcq«dohw 2 Bild- 1840 f. JCiirb^iineko 1840). 
Prom ibc S<rhl<?ionnJicher jHjinl of viow, 10 NvmnVr 
(£. Till. 1867) and HAgMibfich (J840, i.e. ISg:). 
^Dcmier (History of tb^ Doctrino of the PtTSon of 

t, ifi;iyi\*-. 18*5-5:1) uttoujpiwl lo uniut Uk'^I 










aiu] 8cEiloiemuicLor< Fvivu tlir Lutlit-mn Oonfcs* 
ftional ^tnndprttTit K1ii^fr>th (Riiil. in <1. D. G, t8:tfl}, 
Thi>nuuii«K (^ B(M, 1874 f. ftnd 1HK7 wlitod liy Bon- 
wtrlwh I B(L), Sduiiid (IJtfi'J i.r. I»v87wJ. by Hiiuek) 
and, with rcBorvalions, Kahnis (Tho Foith of tbo 
Church, 1K64). A inarko^] ndvanoo 18 indicabod fa 
tlui Hintory ut Do^uk by Nitzsch (1 B(]. 1870). Fop 
a rwmv't uiulor«t«ruling wiwdally <if tbp ori^n of 
do(fnm tlio liilKjra t>f Rotliv, Rit«tc)il, Rmian, Over- 
beck, r. Engelbardt, Wt,-i»acker nnA lU\'illo arc 



U Til" gOH[)«l nj>|H'*iT^J ill thi; "fulmjw of timo," 
And the Oo9pei is Jesftn Chrixt In thi^io ^ntoiices 
the aiii]Oimo«mfint tg raiulo ttitit thu G<j»pifl 10 tho 
cJimaz of uii univ('T^4 dovolapmont and yot that it 
h»4 it« powtir in a pergonal Lifo. Jt«ti0 Christ " de- 
stroyed not,*' but "fiilfilloiL" Ho witnose^ a new 
lifo before Qod and in Qod, but within the confines 
uf Jtidamtn, and upon tbo null uf the OUl TiHtataont 
vrhoso tiiddi'n treuKuroH ho itncm'er^l. It can he 
shown, that cvorvthitifc Ihat Is "lofty and Ppintual'' 
in the IValms aiid Proph^to, an<l everything that had 
been gained through t)io dpvr»l<)pment of Grocian 
ethice, ifl reafiinm^d in tho pliun and "implo Qoapol; 
but it obtainad ita powor tJ>en% brcaunc it U^cnmo 



life and deed ia a Pergou, who«> gi-entne«4 conBista 
BhK> ID this, that he did laot remould hia earthly en- 
vironment, nor encounter any mi(»)eqii^nt rebulT, — 
in other worde, that he did not boooin« entanglMl in 
bi« tinio0- 

%, Tvfo gtmomtious hitor thoro existed, to he sure, 
no united luid humo^nfN>u» Cfiunit^ but there 
were &attteT«d throughout tho wido Bomun empire 
coafederafed oongregutioim of Chrii«lian believerB 
(chnrcbes) who, for tlie most part, wer^ GentiTe- 
bons and eondomnod the* Jowi&h nation and roli^oo 
ae apostate; they Hppro|>ri<itcHl the Oltl Twluini^it iis 
ttieim by right mid coriKidunMl theciBelTos a *'Dew 
natien'', and yot m the "ancient creation of God "» 
while in ell dcpartnientfi of life and thought certain 
flacrnxl forms were gradually hein^ put forward. 
The exfetenco of thew oonf^xieratod Gx>nHle Cbrintian 
conununitic« IB the prolimitukry condition to ihcrido 
of dogmatic Christiiinity. 

Tbo organization of ttio^ churcho^ began, indeed, 
in the apo^lic timofi and thijir iMxiuliiiT oon^titution 
hi neffalively indtotted by the froeing of the Gospel 
from the Jewish church. While in IsliuniAni the 
Arabic nation romnined forconturieethe main tmnk 
of the ivdw tmM\^wu^ it la an ojttonir^hing fact in the 
btetory of the Ooppol, that it soun left ii^ native hoiI 
and wont forth into Uie wide world and realized its 
universul character, not through the trant^formation 
of the Jowtsh Ti'lijdoin but by developing into n 
world^nJigion vjjon GrctcO'Iionian miL Thv Oo^* 


ttutn Jmt* < 


ouruKEs or the histoky op dogma- 

pet became « nortd-reluj90$t in (Aat^ haviftff a 
me^i'/tuje for atl mankiml, it pn'ttcbcd it lo Greek 
and barbarian^ and ucconiinglif aUacked il^lf 
ia Mf! apiriUiat tmd potUical life *tf Ihe u-crtd' 
wide Ropmn empirr* 

3. Sipco the Ovspvl in its originnl form was Jew- 
lab and was prearhtMl only to tlio J(?ws. tbero lay in 
thui transition, wbich was broti^bt ubout, in part 
gradiinlly And withoitt diHtiirbnnce, one! in part 
tltrou(ch n severe crisis, conaeqiiences of the moat 
Htrinp'iit kiiiil. Frcjin llio stamlpoint -^f the history 
of tUo Church ;vu<\ of dogmas the brief history- of Iho 
Quajiel witliin tlie houDdsuf Falu»tiiiiaa JmliuHm id 
aooonlinply a p^ileontological epocb. Ami yel this 
remains tlic rta^sictil cporJj, not only on account of 
the Founder and af the original testimony, hut quite 
i*»uj;ii^aiH- as much because a Jmvisii Christian (Paul) recog- 
nixod the Oospel ad the powor of Ood, which was 
nblo \o save both Jew and Qrook, and becau^ be 
desigUfKlly seven^d tbo Ooi>]>e1 frotn tho Jewish na- 
tional religion imA prochiimud the Chrmt as the end 
of the Law. Then otlior Jewi»li Christianas personal 
diadpled of Jesui!, indeed, followed him in all this 
(aea also the itJi Gospel and the EpiRtle ta dm 
Hebrewe) . 

Vet there is in reality no chasm botweea the older 
brief epoch and the succeeding period, »o far as tijo 
Uospel is in itself univer^listic, and this character 
vefy soou be«mio munifeftt. But the meansi by 
which Pall) and bit» H^nnpatJiiBera set forth the uiii- 



Ki'x'li niHl 



"Vvtnyil dinmcler of th« 0<«|x.4 (j-uxivlu^ tliat Uie OM 
Todtaiuiuil religion had beeu fulfilled and done away 
with) wi\A liltl^ uodoratood, and, vice wrsa^ th« 
nuuuKfr aud incAns by which the Goiiiik Christiiuis 
came to an aocoptaiice of Ui« Go8i)e], can only in 
port ho ftttributod to tho pr«Jtching of Putil, So far 
aa wo now i>as9C«o in the Now T<*ttl(iinont ^ifwiun- 
tiai writings in wbiclj tho Gu»]KtI i)i t9o thuroug^ily 
thought out that it m prized ax tho s^tppfanterot Lho 
Old Teetamect religic^i, and ivntingsf which at the 
BaniQ time are not deeply touched wit)] tlie Greek 
ffpirit, doo8 tJitfi literature differ radioaQy from all 
that follows. 

4, Tho growing Qcntile Church, notwithstanding (,f^*;ij 
Paul's HigniScant relation toward it, did not com- "^S^i 
prehend, nor really experience the crisis, out of L-robieat. 
whicli tho Pauline conception of the Gospel amae. 
In tho J«9wi9h propaganda, within wbk-ii tlie Old 
Tcfltam^at had long sinoe become liberalized and 
tfpirituali£«d, tlie Gentile Churcli, eutering and grad- 
ually aubj^vting the samo to iteelft »e1duin f«lt the 
problem of the roconciUatton of the Old Toiitament 
with tlje Qoapel, mnoe by meana of the allegorical 
method tho prx)|.<4^uila ha4] freed tliein^lves from 
thfi lettpr of tho bm% hvit had TUit i^-ntirfOy uvr^rrnmo 
it* fffnrit; indeed thoy hml Kimpiy cavi off thoir 
nattooal ckamcter. Move*! by tlw? Inj^tile power of 
the Jow4 and later ako of thn Ootittto^ ai:d by the 
t^orscioiWDiss of ijihcn*nt «tren^th to or^miizo a 
■* |K-opb " for ilwi'lf, the Church ud a matter of course 



look on tbo form of the thought and Ufo of the world 
in wliicb iL lived, casting aMid** overythiug polyUio- 
istJc, immoral had vulgar. Thun arose the new or- 
gaaizatioDii^ which with all tboir newno^a boro tceti- 
monj to tli4>ir kinship with tho origiital Palestinian 
ohurchoft, in »u far us, (1) tlio Old Tosstamcnt vftm 
\i\aymm rooognticod n^; a primitive rov^Ulion, and 
in »o ftir MS (^) tho KtroDg eLpirituaJ monotheism, (3) 
tliv ouUlncB of th« pTocluina(io[i conoeming Jmtis 
Chn8l> (4) tho corL9CioiL<rncs!« of a direct and living 
(ellowehip with God through tho gift of tho Spirit^ 
(5) the expectation of the approaching end of the 
world, and the eanifet conviction of the pon^onal 
rotfpOQiiibility and aocotmtahility of each individual 
eoul were all likovriEQ maiotainod. To those is to 
boaddcHi finally, that the carli4?«t JowiKh-Christian 
procUmation, yest the Ooepel itself* beaiB the stamp 
of the fipiritual epochs, oat of which it aroce,— of thd 
BflUenic age, in which the nations exchanged their 
wux^B and religiom wore transfonnod, and tho idea 
of the worth and accountabili^ of every eonl bceanw 
widopreed; so that the Hellenism which ooon 
prf«eed 90 mightily into tho Churdi waa not abeo- 
Inlely strange and new. 
S, The history of dogma has to do with the Qen- 
*'fMiu^ tile Church only— the hiiU^^rj- of theology begina, it 
is truo, with Paul — , but in order to onderstaad bia- 
torically the haab of th« formation of doctrine in the 
Qf-ntilo ChuK^h, It iTinat take into oonstderatton, aa 
already atatod, the following as aateceJcnt cundi- 



tifliift; (1) The Oortpel of Jesus Christy (J) Ifie "jHHg<^] 
general and eimttUancotts proclamation of Jesuit 
Christ in the first generation of believers, (3) 7%e 
rurrrnl nudersfandini^ and ejpaifitwn of the Old 
TMtanwnt rind th^Jftcinh anticipations of the fu- 
ture ivid tfivir rj>cvululions^ (4) The r^igious con- 
ceptions and the reh'tjioits jjhttosopky of the Het- 
leuistic Jeer*, (5) The rtligioits attitude of the 
&redcs and Romans during the first tico centu* 
rt&s, and the current Qrcsco-Roman philosophy 
of religio^t. 

IV.— TuK Qospfii. or jEsut; Christ A<x.'0»r>iKO 

TO Hia OVN TftSTIllON^*. 

The Ooepe! ia tlie good nows of the rei^ ot the ffy* {^*^ | 
Almifirlity and Holy God, the Father and Jw<1ki^ of ^S^Sf^T 
Uio \vorld and of oaeli individual houI. In this n>i0n» 
which makod rn^n citiawua of the hearenlj kingdom 
and giveo Uient to realixe tiioir citiEenabip in the aj>- 
proaching eon* Iho life of ever}' num who givpe him- 
Belf to Uod is Becuro, even if he ^liould immediately 
lose the world and hm earthly life; while those 
who Httk to win the world luid to keep thoir lifo fall 
into tho hand« of tho Jnd^^, who o^nuloinnH thom to 
1ic]l. Thitf n^ign of Ootl, in thai it riAee above all 
ceremoDieci and sMututcs, placo8 nwn luitler a tan\ 
which is old and yot new, vi£. : Wholo-lioartod loi^e Uf« to 
lo God and to eiie*8 neigiibor. In this lovo, wher- 
ever it rontmis tlie thoughts in tlieir deepest »pftngs, 
Umt l}ett*'r Justice ia exemplified whioh corrmpoadfl 





I God** «0T* 

Intoow of 

U'lmf And 
IK^nI In 

to the perfection of OotL The way to secure this 
rightoouBtie^ is by a change of hcarl, i\e, by self- 
denial and bumilit}' before God and a heart-felt 
trufft in bim. In Hudi liumility ntid IriiAt in Ooil 
tbo soul maiizeti ita own tuiwortliinew, Tho Gk«pe], 
however, calls even siunera, who are eo disposijj, 
unto the Idngdom of Qod, in that H n^sureti tbem 
Batisfaction with his justice, i.e., ^mrante<« them 
the forgiveneBs of the Hna whicli have hitbcrto 
Bepamt«d thorn from Qod. In the three-fold form, 
Iwwever, in whirh the Gospel is sot forth, (Ood'a 
eovereignty, higher jiiaticc [law of love] and for- 
giveoeo} of lun) it is inE^oparably counectfxl with 
Jesua Christ For in the procliunation of the Qo»- 
pei, Jefiiirt Christ everywhere called men unto him- 
eeir 111 him is the Oo^pel word and d^td; it is 
liTA meat mid drink and, therefore, is it heroine \i\^ 
IKimouiil UfOf atid into this life bo would draw all 
men. He ia the Son^ who kmowa tho Father, Mt^n 
should see in him how kind the Lonl in; in him 
they may expericrice tlio power and sovereignty of 
God over the worid and bo oorafort*id in thi» trust; 
hi[i), the meok and ^^ntlo-hcarlod One, should they 
follow; and iiifwmurh as lift, thi> holy and piiro Oiirt, 
calls aiiin<<m unto himself, tlu^y idioald bo fully m^- 
sured tJuit Qod tlinni^^h him forgiven sin. 

This close connection of his Oospel witb hia per- 
50», Jesua by no means mado prominent in trards^ 
but Wi liit* di^cipk^ to (.-xpt^riencti it. He called 
bimself the tiou of Man uud luU Uiem uu to the con- 



that he was their Master and Mos^jah. JMui.ako- 
Tliorebj- he gave to his lasting eignificanco for Humi 
aiu] for hU peoplo a comprehon*ible «ix]>re»aiou, mid 
at the close of hm lif^ in an hour of great fnolemnily, 
ho said to them that Uib dtwth also like his life was 
an imperisbable service which he reiulered to the 
"many'* for the forgiveness of sins* By this ho 
raided biroaielf abov^ tht^ |i1anoof all oth^^m, ulthotigh 
they may already be bitt brcthruu; he dnimod for 
hiiiuft-]f au unique) oiguifK'uiic'e as ihij ItftieemfjrixuA 
MthQ Judge; for he inter[)ret<Hl his death, like all 
Im RufTeriiig, as a triumph, iu5 tht* tnuiAitioD to his 
glonj^ and bv pn^vcd hia power by actually awaken- 
ing iu hisdiscJploA tho eonvictioEi tJiat he still livi.ii 
aimI Lf Lord ovtjr the dead and tin? living- The r^ 
ligion of tho Qoeipel r^tits upon tins fiiitb in Josus 
CIiHm, t.f< Iijulcing u|iuti him, tliat liihtorU-al Per* 
son, the believer is couvinoed thai God rulotf hctfiran 
and iiirtli, and that Qod» tho Judge, ift nbto Father 
and Redeemer. Tlio reliKi^^ri <jf ^^ Qotspol isthe re* 
ligion whieh frees mi^tfi fn>m all logalit}', which, how- 
ovor, at tho imme tiino laytt uptm th^m tho highest 
mora] obligutiotts — tlio simptc^ and tho Bovorwst — 
Aod lays bare tlie contnuUrtion in wlitch m'ory man 
finds bimKelf b& regards ihm%. But ft brings re- 
demption out of such necce^ttiea, in that it leads 
men to thegraeions Qod, leaves them in his hand^s 
and drawfi their lifo into union with the incxhauatiblo 
nod bleoAed tifotif J«autf Christ, who baa overcome 
tlie world and called sinners to himself. 







C'<*iif»'irt of 

Tnv- !»- 


v.— Tub Genbrac Proclamation cokcbrnikcj 
Jksu9 CiiRidT IK Tiifi First Oknkhation tjir 


I. M^n httd lenrnod to know Josns Christ noil burl 
found him to bo the Mecaiah. In tho firat t^ro K«^rt- 
^TatioDH foltuwjng bioi ovTiythitig wa» imid ulxmt 
bim which mmx ivwe in any way aWo to say* Inas- 
mucli afl they knew Iiitn to be the Risen On^ they 
exalted him as the Lord of the world and of histttry, 
sitting at Iho right hnnd of OckI, nfl tlio Way, t]ift 
IVulh and tho Life, as tlio Ptinco of Life and tbo 
living Power of a new existonfo, a» the CoDqueror 
of death and the King of a coming new Icingdom. 
Atthoagh stnmg indiviHiial foeling, fipeHal experi' 
enoe, Scriptnral leamiiiK and a fantastir tend<*ncy 
gave from th<^ beginning a fonn to the ronfrw^ion of 
him, yd eommon charactorifflicfl of tho prochunation 
can bo deBnitelj pointed ont* 

H. The content of the diHeiplee' belief and the ;^- 
eral proclianation of it on tlio i^und of the ceilainly 
of the reaurrectioa of Je^iis can bo Bet fcHlh an fol- 
lows: Je«U8 is tho Messiah pn^mifiwl by the pmpheta 
—he will oome ngnin and eHtablinh a visiblfi king- 
dom, — thoy who bf^liovG on him and sunviiJer thcrra- 
fiotvoe entirely to this belief, may feel afisured of th<* 
grooo of God and of a share in his fatum glon\ A 
new community of CbrJstian l>eliovpni thus organised 
ilftolf withm the Jowiflh nation. Ami tbis new fmM- 
monity believed ilsclf to be the true Israel of the 



ifmic timcA ttud lived, ficcE>i^ingly, in all their 
llioii^litii aud r«ie)liiga in the future. Thus could all 
Uio JoA'i^ apocalyptic expectatiotis retain their |iovp< 
ir for tho limo of the second coming of Christ, For 
16 (ulfilminit of tixot^ hopes Die now OL>tntmui]ty po»- 
A gTifinint<?4) in tlio ^wrriliriA] d^tttJi of C)irii;t» 
a«iU9oirt tho iniuiifold manifof^tntioni; of th<f Spirit, 
whioh wvro visible iipoti tlic mniiW-rs tip<.ia their 
e&tnmco irico tho brothor-hood (from tho bogirning 
thin intrudiicticti »oiiui; tohiivo bcL>Q HCCoinpAtni-d hy 
bapti»ia) ftnd in thoir gathering together. Tho pos- 
iD of thft Spirit v^as an ae^uninoo to vnxch imli' 
▼idnal thftt )w whh not only » "* drsripli* " Init iil*>n i% 
"cvjloi Boint," luid, o^ micfa, n pH^:^ mid Icing of 
Ood. Fuith in tlit- Otjd uf Ij»ntvl Ijutmnr fttitJi in 
Qod tlio Father; addod to this vaft faith iu J(]«n8t 
tlio Cltriet «nd Son of Ood, and tho witnc^tw of tbo 
gift of the Holy Spirit^ i.e. of tho Spirit af Qod and 
Christ. In tho fitr\<nglh of thU faitJj m^n lived iu 
tho f«Ar of tbo Juilg« nnd in tnwt ia Ood, who hnil 
nlrcmdy l)c^in tho redemption of his own p<^1e. 
TIjo pr<idnmHti<in tnnKX-niing Je^ii^ tlK> CliHM, 
ro»;t«d hr^t of all ciitifvly upon Xbv Old Ti>3ft;unODt, 
yet it had it8 stm-tiug-prjint in tho exoltaticu of 
JouUH throuf^h bw rvtiurrection from thu dead- To 
pvnvK* thwt thf* mitire 0!d Trntuntpnt poinfH toward 
him, and that hie person, hie work, hie fate were the 
actual and reibAl fidfilnient of the Old Tcf^tamciit 
prophecies, was tlie chief intermt of helievt>rH» in so 
far a£ they did Dot give thenitielveB entirety to ez- 

of Hftiit, 

or nivt* 


llrrljr tin f 



ta Apfflnol- 

poctations of the future. This icferenc© did not 
mrvi) at onee to make clear th^ mcaniug nnil worLti 
of Uiw Mi-Hsijuiic^ work — thiw it did nut Rvin to m.Hxl 
— but mthor to i^t^bli^^h iUu M<:«»inli-Hljip o( J<»uh. 
Hiiw^ivfrr, the OH Twtaiin^tit, «n it wh» ihtyu iitvfer- 
*ilj>od, grivo uo(»[4ion, through the fixing of tho por- 
ttoa luid dii^ijitj <jf Christ, r<>r ivideaitig tJic i»(?upo 
of tlte thought of Ismor« pcirfvctcn] UK>ocrm^y. And^ 
tn addition^ fnith in the exaltation of Je«u» to tJie 
right blind of God caused men to think of tlie bogin- 
ningr of hifi exiatetioe in harmony therewith. Tlien 
tbo fact of the HUceessfiil Gentilo oonveraion threw a 
ncvr light upon the scope of hiH work, i.e. upon its 
Miguifiotnco for uU mankind. And Hnally the per- 
sonal clainiB of JesxiB let! men to rellect on his pecn- 
liar relation t*> God, the Fallier. ()i\ thepe four 
pointB specuUtion be^an already in the apoi^totic age 
jood it went on to forranlate now RtatementA conewm- 
jing the person and dignity of Christ. In procLaim- 
iug Jeflils to bo the CItrist nieu ceaAod thereby to 
prodatm Ibo Gospel, hccuuse the ri^/»".'i' Ji'i^-ra otrrt 
it^TtUaro ^ V^'ToD? was to be included Jis a mtitt^r of 
oourso andi^odid not ed^pecially engage the thoughts. 
That thl« must be for tlie future a questionable 
digression ig plain enough; for since everything 
depends upon tho appropriation of the Person of 
JosuH, it is not possible for a pervoual life to be 
appnipriated through opinions alwut the Foraon, 
but only through the record of the concrele Per- 



3. Upon the basin of tlie i>laiii words of JcAiut aimi J}™' |, 
in tbtJCOQfidouKneKsof Ute [KtH^csnoD of tli^^ S[>int tat-n ^Vi^T?^ 
were already aflgureil of n ;>r€Wii( posxexsion of tii« 
for^veiipfw nf hiu, of ri^htMrMnrnvmn Itoforo Oixl, of 
tb« fuU knowledge of the Divine Will aud of lh« onll 
Into Ute futiuv kingdom, Ju the aci| Hiring; of Uiena 
blesBings, mrely not a few malized tJie contieqtienceH 
of the first coming of iJie Ue»»ah, j.p. bin work, and 
they referred eapeeially the foi^ivoneas of ain lo 
the death of Christ, and etenial lifo to hi8 resiirrec 
tion, Btit no tl^wiriea toudiiug Uu^ relation of Uie 
blefieiuga of tbo Qoei>el to tlio history of CliriBt wort 
propounded ; Paul was the first to develop a theology 
upon the bBBisof the death and r^urrectionof Christ 
and to bring it into relations i^nth the Old Testa- 
ment reliKion. 

4. Thifl tbeolo^ waa conatruded in opposition to ^JJ^ 
the legAlisiio ri(£ht«oU£ui«B8 of the phariae«A, ue,, to 
the official relJtfion of Uio Old Te&tament, While ita 
form was thereby somewhat conditioned, it** power 
rested in the oertaint)' of the new Ufe of tlie Spirit, 
which the Risen One offered, who tlirough his death 
overcame the world of the flesh and of ain. With 
ih*' thought that rightpouftnftsa ccim^^s through faith 
in God who raiei^ Jeaue from the dead and fulJillod 
the Law by the legal way of the crucifixion of the 
Cbriat upon the croaSt Paul "wrenched the Oospel 
from its natire soil and gave it at the same time 
through hJK Oiriwtologioal s|.>tH*nlition and hii* carry- 
log out of the contmiit of tktdi and spirit, a charac* 



toriHtit^ Hbuii|i wlii<rh ^van i'OIJlItn<llen^ib1lf U> tlit* 
Oreokft, alUiougb thvy were illy prt^partnl to nw'cpt 
bia Bpocinl mimner of reconciliug it with the Luw, 
Tbrot^ Pauit who \vm the fint tlioologian, tho 
question of the Law (In theory and practice) and 
till? principles of TOi«);ioaurj activity iiccordiogly bo* 
came the niMorbing thomc-^ in tho Christina coaimu- 
nitL«< Whilt! bo prochLimud frcvduua from tbo Liiw 
liud bapii3HHl tho hciuth<>n, forbidding tlieni to bocoiiiQ 
J<*w«, othora now for tln» first time conscioualy macio 
the riKliteousn€68 of CUriatian believers dependent 
upon the piinctilioiitt ohKerTancd of tlio Law and re- 
BaAthca joctod pHol A0 on apofltlo and ob % Christian. Yot 
*^*B^iIin''* ^ chief disciples of Jemw vroro coRrinced, porbaps 
^""^ not a litt3*> iuHuoDced by tht> eucootu of Paul, mid 
conceded to the heathen tbo right to become Chria- 
tians without first becoming Jews, This well at- 
t^iated fact is tho Btrongest evidence that Christ had 
nwabened among hi^ pergonal diflciplee n faith in 
himwif , which waa dcar«r t«> them than all the tra- 
dittODfl of the fathom. Yet thoru wero nmoo^ tbuAO 
who ACcept4Hi the Puuline niistiiou various opiniotifi 
as to tho attitude vrhich one should take townnl 
beatben Chritttians in ordinan,' life ixnd intercourj»*>. 
Heie opiDioQit held out for a long timo. 

As surely as Paul bad fottght hia fight for tJie 
wkotc of Obristendom, so sure also is it that tlte 
tmiiefomitttion of the c^ginul form of Chrifitiaaity 
into its unirersal fona took place outride of his 
Activity (proof>' the Church at Bomv). The Juda- 


Itj Oc- 




^m of tUe dt»9p(>ra wu:» luii^ »iuue Rurrountletl bv a 
retiniie of liidMjr^ Oredati brelhrwi, for whom lh« 
|)articular and uational forms of tbi< ULd Te^t^ni^at 
roiigiou were hardly oiiaUmt (aoo VIL), And, far- 
ther, thu Jiukiam itself had begun to tnuwfonn for 
the Jews th^ old religion into & univcri;u1 »nd ^jttrit^ 
tuU rcligioD wilhc»ut cji^ting tv^idi^ it.-^ f^nii?^, which 
wens rather coti»tderod uigniiioaut i^'uibob* [inyftlisr- 
tafi). The Gospel, being recH^ivwl IdIo thcwo circles^ 
iCOnqdeted Himply and akuo!;t tiuddooly the process of 
fiinritualizin;^ the old religtou, and it stripped off the 
old forms as HhellR, replacing them nt once in part by 
new U^raiB {t^-g.^ circtunctsion \b cirouEQcieioD of the 
beart, likowiao abo baptism ; the Sabbath ia the 
glorious kiugilom of Christ, etc.). Ttio ouhrArd 
wilhdraM'ul fr^m the Eynagogue Is also bore a clear 
proof of the power and flelfnxtnHcioiumetts of the new 
reliffion. The same developed itself mpidly in ood- 
sequenee of the hatred of the Jews, who adhei^ to 
the old failii, Paul cxertod ad iutlueuce, and ibe 
dfistruction of Jerusalem clwued up entireljr th© ob- 
aciiritieA which still remained. 


TfoN or THK Christian Message. 


L Althougl] tho method vt the podiuit, the casuis- eI^^ 
tic hiuidling of tlH» Law uiid the extortiou of the tv cimrvik 




d^poit mettning of tlio pn^phcvii^, b;i<l l>ocn in prii 
ciple JoEti awny witli liy Jtwus Cliriat, ibc old 
sclioril-«txogeeid stiU nmimner] ;kctive in the Cliri«* 
tian c1ltl^olu■^ aud e^p^cially Uio unhiNtorical locnl- 
inetliot] iQ tlw cxiKWiiiom of tbo Old TcstHmcnt, ftit 
well as the alto^Hstic ami the Hn^giula; for a tuurred 
text— ajid ju* siicJi Ibc OM TesUiinent wan t^jmAerod 
— ever iiivitotf uku iu the t-xpfwitioTi of it lodiBrc 
gnnl iU hiKtorical conditiirDg mid Jnt^^riTct H nocord- 
ing td) tlie n(^i^J4 of 1)i«» ttm«. F^ftooiiilly whorevctr 
tlw prooftt of thg fitlfltnivnt pn>ptu>cj, t.4?., of tlio 
Mn^j^ioli-rliip tjf JcGifiuf w»s oL»oaTn«d, tho rw»ivod 
jxttut of vie;v oxorc-i^cnl lt» tuflucrioc, od well upoD 
UiD ojcpottition of Uie Old TostAinout as upon tbe 
conception of the person, fate and deeds of Jeeus. 
It gave, nndfir tho strong impre«flioii of the hiatory 
of Jesus, to many Old Testfunont passages a foreign 
BODSO and onriched, on t^o othor linud, tbe life of 
JwuH vridi m>w facts, bbruwing tbo emphasis upon 
details^ which were often unreal and seldom of prime 

% Tbe Jewish apocalyptic literature, aa it flour* 
iahod after the time of Autioehus Epiphan<». waa not 
forbidden within the oirclos of the flret betievereof 
tho Qoflpcif but ratbor was it rctAincd and read as 
na cxplttnation of tbi' prophecies of JeeuH and, as it 
wero, cultivated. Although the oont^it of the same 
appeared modified and Uie uncertainty regarding the 
parson of the Mcf^i^Ui who wait to apfjear in judg- 
neitt was done awaj- with, the earthly »enauou« 




bc^xtH ^ere by no nicnii» wholly rcpreffiod. Confusod 
pictun-^ filliHl tlio imK\\ throAh^niiHl to clxtmro tlio 
plain and cHrnoHt tk'T^criptian of the jiidgiQcnt whirb 
erery inilividuiLl «oiil is mire of, and drove many 
frienda of the G<wp(*l into h reKtl^rgs tiimioil anil into 
& dotQetatioD of thn i^tato. Consequently the ropro- 
dliodcD of the c»cliatologiciil diHcoutBcs of Ji^euu be- 
came mdeiinite; e\x^ thmg» wUoUy formgn wen* 
mingled Iherennth, utid the true aim of the Climtian 
life and hope began to waver. 

'X Through Iheap^Tcalyi^tiP liu^mture, tixn artiflrial ^^'J^; 
ojcog4^it:» and lUe H^i^rtda, a ma^ of mytbolo^cal 
and |ioetic(d id«Aa crowded into the Chri&tiau com- 
DUnltles and were leptimiaed. The motit imper- 
'tent Tor the toicveeilin^ times were the t^pecuUticns iQ 
regard to Uie Uetwiah, which were drawn in [>art 
from the Old Testament and the apocalyjiKes and in 
part W9n> oiitit^trti^tM in no4v»nhmon witti methoda 
whose right no one quc*il)oued and whoae udoption 
voemod ki ^ive security to the faith. Loug hwcv iu 
thft Jewifdi it^ligion men bad ^ven to everylhin^ 
tbat ia aad that happenii an eKistenoe within the 
knowledge of Ooit but they had in reality conflnecl 
this repr^entatioii to that only which 18 really im- 
portant. Th« JuKancicg religiouit Uirmght had »l)ov<» 
all includod indtvidnn1.<( »W, that ii4, the mo^t pTomi- 
nenl, within this Bpeculation which should glorify 
(Jod, and 90 a pnvvxistence was aHcribed also to the 
leMiah, but of such a nalnro that by virtu© of it 
abides witli QodduriughU earthly mani/eslO' 


f rlbml Id 



/toA. Iri oi>pv«it]t>ii to tltifi, tho Helleuic kloas of 
pTO-exiateDco ix>ototl Uicitifio1vc« in the diAtiiiguiiUiiiiif 
of God and matUT; spirit uud de&h. According to 
the anme the Spirit in pre-exiBtent and Tisibla na- 
ftnre in only a shell which it uasumo^. Here ^^ai} 
the soil for ideas about tlie tDcaruation, tlio n9»uiii)i' 
tion of a wwoiid natiins eic^ In tlio tinier of (Christ 
the^a HoUouic ideaa iuflucucod the Jt^vri&h and thufl 
botli w«ra ao epi^eohd abiuad that even t\i& nioBt prom- 
ineitt Chmtian toachers adopte<l them. Tho rolig- 
ious tvnvictions (neo V, 2), Uiat, (1) the ostabtigli- 
meut of the kingdom of Qod upon the eartli and the 
wndintc <^f J'^ha ha the perfect Mediator was fn^m 
«l«mity the highest puqioso in Qod'a plan of salva- 
tion, that, {i) Ibo glorilied Ohriet has e»tvr«sl iuLo 
hiflOHTi proper poeitioD of OoddikedoiDinioii, thiit, 
(3) in Je»uf4 Ood han revealed himw^if, ai)d tJiat he 
tlier«foro excels all OIJ Testament mediators, yes, 
tJie aniiel'powors themselves — th<,'Po convii^tions were 
lact ^jr^i (iiiit ^vitJitntt tlu> inflii<>nf-rt of Hi^llenic 
tJio^fht) that Jeftiia pre-exi»tvd, i.e. that in him « 
luttveiily Boiug i^f hke rauk wiUl Qod, otdt^r thiin 
tlie world, yea even itH crenting Princii*lk?, has ap- 
iiriUh'i«i« poAnKi and assumed our tloab- The religious root of 
tliiit BpocuUtioQ Uy in fi«nt«noee such w I. PcL 1» 
20; its forma of statement were varied oxen acoord- 
ing to th« intelligeaeo of the teacher and hui famil- 
iarity with the apocalyptic theology or with tho 
IlelleDtc philasjphy of reht^cm, iu which intermedi- 
ate beings (above all the Logos) played a great rule. 




Ouly the Founh EvnngeJist— he liardly belongs to 
the \bt oentmy— siw wiUi |>vrf<K.-t cU^inuHM that tlie 
pr^«anhl/ Ctiriirit iini^t ho c^tabliisbed fu» ^t^ ^ iv 
V'Xi "^^^^ ^ ^*^''i ii* ordiT not to^idaoger tiie content 
nml fti^iifimnoii of tii» rorebitinn of Qod in Chmt. 
In udditioD tlioro pre%'nit€<l in \ri<)o circW such con- 
ciTptkiU0 uImi us roco^iizod in n spiritual coDununJ- 
cation at hi» baptism ilw equipment of tlie man 
Jcstu (sM) ti»e gonealogie^ the beginning of tbe 
Qoflpel of Hark) for bis office, or found upcm the 
bnsift of laa. vii. in his miraculous birth (from a 
virgin) tlw gvirm of h^^ unique boing, (The rifl« 
and iipcttad of Ui» rt^prcaicntnlion is ^^holly imliAtinct 
tu ua; Putil )«kvni» not to bhvo known it; in Itie be- 
ginning pf tbo '24 ouutury it ia almost UDivon$ai.) 
On tbo otlu.^r liand, It i» of grout aignifii'anoe that 
every t«ac}wr who rooogniEod Hie new in CbriHtian 
ity ns religion MctOx^ pr^-oxiHtoiKO to Chrit^t. 

Sujypf^m^tii^ — A r^foiwicv U> Uio witnwwof jirc^b- 
ocy^ U> tlw current vxpoaitum uf tbo Old Tcc«t<in]cpt, 
to »|Ax:aly{>t)u ^r^itin^ ami valid itivthu).-4uf i^ijjucu- 
lation \rt^ not Hofllricnt to vUiht up cv&r)' ne\r point 
which cropped out in tbo atihti-inont of tb^ CJliristiun 
ni€0tfi^e. Thci>arlioKt krotbor-boods wero i^nthusias- 
ttr^ luul propbeb; in tlio midst of thorn, etc. Under i^^'*nf,: 
su(^b conditions facts wcro producod outright contin- 
ually in tbo bi;rtofy {e.g-t aa particularly wei^ty, ^^^tS^ 
the ascension of Cbrit^t and his desceot into h&\X). 
It in farther Dot po»<iblo to point out tiie motive to 
Huch prodtKtioQSf which firet only by the crtmtioo of 



Ulo New Tu»turw»it Ouion n.^iu:bi^(1 n by m: im>nn» 
complote^mlt f,e,t now U^cAtno vmiolic-fl by oompro- 
heQuibie mytbologumeiia. 


VII.— Tub RELiomtrs Conceptions and the He- 


Jew8 in Tiibir Brakino OS THE Teanspor- 


L From the remna»ta of JewiHli-Alexandrian lit- 
erature (ref4*ren<;e ia altio mado to the Bibylline 
OrBclefi afl well as to Jo8RpliuH) atul frtmi the great 
propa^Sanda of Judaiam in the Ora>oo-KomaB world, 
it may be iufeircd that there waa a Judaieni iu the 
diaspora to whose ronsciousnefifl the rultufi and the 
oerenonial law dinappenred entirely behind the mooo- 
thei&tic wonibip of Qod without inuijc^, behind the 
moml instruction and tlio f«ilh in a fiituro reward 
beyond- CircujnciftioD itself waft no longer abao- 
lutely required of tlioMi cutivcrtiM) to Judaism ^ one 
waa abo hati>iile<! v^iih tlie deaiiHin^ intli. The 
Jewish religion aeenied hero trnnHforRied into a eom- 
mon huiHAn fnoralHy and into a monotheintic coa- 
moloqif. AccordinKty th<* thought of the theocracy 
n* wiOl ftx Iho M<*K^nnio hoi^e grew dim. Tho hitter 
did not enttrcfly fail, howorer, but the prepbecies 
were vnluwl chiudy for lliu pixxif wf theautic|uity of the 
Jewish monotheism, and tho thought of the future 
yp(>nti(ti4.^lf iu thtM'Xpodatianof ihedtstnictionof the 
Rotuuu empirt;, o( tho hurniug uf Ui^ world and— 



f.ion fnt 



what ia wei^tiost— tho geneml judgment Tbat 
vrliich ia ftjwwifically Jewish prwwrviHl itself umler a 
high rt^rtl for the OW Teslaiaoiit, whicli wi\h con- 
eidorcd us Uio fotnitaia of iiLl ivLedoin (uIaj for Die 
Qroolc philoffopliy finil the vl«m(*ntK of truth in the 
non-Jvwish religions), Muoy intelligent men nl»o 
uUm.tvuc] punctiliuusly tiic Law for tho Hiko of it« 
synibolicul j^ignificacco. Such Jcvn^ together with 
tlwir contorts from the Greeks, formal a now Juda- 
ism Qpon the foundation of the old. And thaw prs- 
pnr^d tho soil for the ChriMtianizing of tli« OitbIch, 
Afi well ne for tlie iM^tablislinumi within tho ompiro 
of a grwit Ch^titc Churdi froo frotii tbo Lrw ] undor 
the influOQcc of On>ek ctilturo it dovdoped into a 
kind of univprtia) iKxriety with a mouothoit^tic burk- 
groiiud. As religion it laid fi^idt^ the nattoual form^, 
iwt itself forward as the muit perfcx^t form of tliat 
"natiirnl" religion, which th© Stoa had dii^cover^. 
Bat in that way it bocamo moro morc§li«Uc and lost 
n part of the rcUffioiuf vut^rgy, which Uic prophets 
and psalmists pooeocBDcl. T1il« innor nnton of Juda< 
ittm and the Hdk-ni^ttir philosophy of religion indi- 
cates fl grait julvanoo in the htatory of religion and 
culture, hnt the same did not load to strong religious 
crmaiiou:*. Its productions pOHsod over into ** Cbrifl- 

?, Tht> Jew hih- Alexandrian philosophy of religion 
bad it*i moflt noted defender iu Fhib^— tho [)eifw?t ft^hf'S 


Grook rmd tli^ sincere Jew, who tuniod i\u: rt-tigiotw 
philork>phy of bis tlmi' iu the directiuu of l^mo- 





Lcrf AloHi'- 


Plalonism Bnd pix^parcnl tbp way for « Chriijttan 
fliefilogy. which wiu* aWo lo rivftl linn phihwoidiy. 
Philn wfti^a PljitoTiint iumI a Btoic, hut at tho mimo 
time ft rcTolntii.'^'|fIiilcH(>pher; be pkoed tlio iiunl 
end in thiit wliirh is above reuufon and thorefore ttw 
higliCKt power in ttte J>ivine commimication. Oil 
tho othpr hand, ho «nw in th« human ^in'f »onn*- 
thinjj: Divino and bridicc^d over tho contni^t bet^-oc^u 
(r/ifl mid oiywtnio«/»iVf7, lifrtnWfti^n nfttiim j*nd lii«t*>ty, 
by monnscf tho pcnionnl imporrtonal I^ffos^ out of 
which ho cxpliiinf^d religion ami Uw w<irl*l wbotw 
mnt<?ri»l. it is tnio, rcinninoil to him wholly i»t'ri»h- 
ahlu iwid ©vil- Ilia othionl kriid^^ni'ios had, therefore, 
in prineipio a strong a^ootic churnctor, howover much 
Le mi^ht (ininnl tho oarthly virtuoa lu) rolativo, Vir- 
Um^ is frtodom from tho f^onwuf^nit nnd it ii; tnndo |x?r- 
fcct tkrcptigh tho lom-h of Pivinitj'. This touch tur- 
poMon III) luit)wlL-dgo; thu latltM', liovrovur, is to he 
highly priM>d as tb© waff, Modilatioii upon the 
world is by Philo dependent upon tho n<»od of hap- 
piness and froodom> which ia higher than all reason. 
Ono may say that Philo in tlior<?foro th© firn1 who, 
Aflaphiloeophort gaveto this need a clear oxprcvsion, 
bocauso ho waa not only a Orook, bnt nlfw n Jew 
fmbuod with tho Old To«tainont within whose view, 
it IK tnic, the sjntbems of the Messiah and uf the 
Lopofi did not lay. 

X Tho prartiml fiiadamental conceptions of the 
Atoxandrian philosophy of T^ligion munt, in diifoponl 
dogreco, have found an cntranoe very oarly into 



tfaa j0idsh*ChrLfttian tirclcB of Uio diaspora, and 
through tLo mnay ai&o into tht; Gontil^-Chnt^tian ; or 
rather the soil wiui ulri^ady proparcil wh;:n?vor tiieee 
thoughts became widespread. AJt<3r the begiimin^ 
of tho ^d G&ni\xry the philosophy of Philo eleo b^ 
carno iDflucntial through Ohri^tmn teachers, €»pe- 
dally his Lo<joS'<i:/c trine, tut Uio oxpreeKioa of the 
unity ot religion^ zmturo and history; and abovt alt 
kit fundatn^nici herrnmeutic principles. TheBTs- VAi-aumia 
tems of \ alentbe and Origen presuppose the synteni ^*^£;^ 
of Philo. Hid fine dtiahsm and atlf-goriral art (*" the 
BiblioaJ alchemy *") bccAmo ncc^taUc also to the 
learned mtm of the Church; to tiiid the spiritual 
meaning of the siictckI toxt^ in part alonginde the 
letter and in part outside, was the watx^h^%-ord of 
Rciendiic Chrifitian theology, which in general waa 
pOEcaihIe only upon »Qch a basis, Mnoe it strove, with- 
out reeognizing a rtlaiive standard, to unify the 
mooBtrous and discordant materia] of the Old Testa- 
ment and tlje Gospel, and to reconcile both with the 
religion and scientific culture of the Greeks. Here 
Pbilo was a master, for be firnt in the lai^gesfc flense 
p(^iin>d lh<? new wine inlo the old wineskins— a pro- 
rr^urfi in it« u1tinintf> intention jiistifie<l, ftin<« hiH- 
tory Ib a unit; biit in iU pedantic and acholaatio 
execTutioQ the fwm« wa» a tiinirce of illuflionfi, of an- 
nuity and finally of Htultiticatioo. 

4j t . In the cig^ of Cicero and Auguvtua tbo pooplo*^ 
jtpilBtoT roHgiou fiiiil thu rvligiuu8 ^iitw m guuund wii» uLuioBt 
aacwitu- cntircrly waiitirig Id cultured ciroki^, but uftcr the 
ondof ihc* Itfti'vnturj' of our oraa rc-vtvulof thoroltg- 
ioua seiwe is noticeable in tbt? Gneco^Roman world, 
whirh afFect^l mM gr«di^ of Hocieiy and HO^mEMl aft^^r 
tlio middle of tho 2d century to grow stronger from 
d^cetLDitun to dix^nuJUCD. Puzwllel ivitb it yrvni tbe 
Dot f ruitlei4fi utt4>mpt to rc«toro the old national culte. 
nrligiouH usfig««t, omcW, ot coU^vn. Meanwhile tbe 
new religious needs of the time did not voaoh a vig- 
ovohb or untroubled oppression through Ibis effort, 
wbioh was made in part frc»ni aVivi* and in part by 
artificial moane> Tho muno sought, fiu* more in ac- 
conUiiico wilh tbv wlioUy clitiogod cuuditiou^ of tbo 
timw, to find new Conns of gratification (int4.inniD- 
gling fuid intorcuurse of nations —downfall of tlio old 
ropublicOD constitutions, inmitutioUH mid clasHCS*— 
monarchy and absolntism — t^ocial crises and patiper- 
ista — influence of philoiK>phy, religion, morality and 
law— coMOOpolitiuiisnk And humaa rigbtfl— inilux of 
Oriental cu1t«— knowledge of tbe world and sa- 
tiety)* Under the influence of philfiwphya dispo- 
sition toward vifmulht:ism wasdevdo|KHl out of tho 
downfall of Uie political cults mid tiie syncretism. 



R^Hgion and individhut mo^wUiti/ became moro 
ckft4(^1y united: Spirit uahzatiou of the adts^ eti- 
nvbliuifo/man^ idea of ethical i>erisonality^ of tan- 
Bcienc^ and of purity, R^pptiiance and pardon 
bocatne of importauco, aUo inner imton with the 
DiTinitj', longing for reivlation (ascf^tt'ti^rm and 
wgsterioHs ritf^s as tt meanft of appi^pviating the 
Dtviu^\ yearning after a painless, eternal life l*e- 
yoncl the ^ravo {H])ntIieoHi») ; the eartlily life as a 
phantom life {ir^ttia and A^dftrtLatsi), Just as in the 
%A century ttie tuorat nwing wha iho fttronger, Hf> in 
the 3d centut7 tito religioua iucxoofied more and moro 
— thirst for lifff* PuIytbeEsnt waa not thereby over- 
couK\ but only aboved aalde upon a lovrer plana, 
where it was as active aa ever. The niititeti mtpre- 
mitm re^'ealed it^ fulreea in a thousand foraifl (demi- 
gods), goin^f upward (apotheotii^ emperor cult, 
'^dopnintis ac deu» nosier") and downward (mani- 
fc^tationa m nature and la hbtorj-). Tba aou) it^f 
ifl a super-earUily being ; the ideal of tlie perfect man 
and of the Leader (H<Hl<^mfr) was developed and 
souglit after. The now remained in part concealed 
hy the old cultiu» fonnft, which the state and pio^ 
pmtrH^tivl or n>*t*ir(»d; th«re wnn a fivling-Jirmmd 
nfler form« of cxprcAtfion, and yet llio vr)«s tho 
tnkqitic, tUv piotis aud tho patriot [rapiluhitcd to the 
cuHi;«h lra<litions> 

t. Tlie fominlion of social orf^anizations, on tJie 
onf^ hand, and the founding of tbe monarchical 

world-wide Roman t^nipire, cm the other, ha^l the 
8 ' 

aruf tfriTiU^ 
lE.r Moru 

^Kimi Or 

OMID Kat' 




greataHt significaDoe as regarda the development of 
aomctbinic new. Everywhere there i«pmnK til* that 
ooemopolilan feeling, which p<iint» bi^yond itaM^lf, 
there townrd the practice of charity, lierc toward 
the tiniliug v( maukiud under orie head lujj tlio wip- 
ing out of national litic«. The Church appropriikted, 
piece for piece^ tbe gnyit apparatui* of tin* oarthly 
Roman empire; in its coimtitution, perhaps, it also 
fuiw the portrayal of the Divine eoononij. 

3. Perhaps the moat decifiivo factor in the change 
of tlic reli^ous-ctbical attitude waa the philoaophy, 
wbiih ill uhiioHt utl it^ schiiols hiul moreoud more 
brought 6thic» for^rard and doepi'tied the same* 
Upon tlie mil of StoiH»m, PosidoniuE, Seoeai^ Epic- 
tetuti and Morcun Auretius. and upon the Boil of 
Platonif^m, mon like Phitarch huA n<*hievod an ethi- 
cal<outLook> which in ltd principlce (kuowlod^, rce- 
ignation, tru&t in Ood) v.-(m ob^carOi yet in some 
particulars ccniooly admits cf 1mpro\*einont, Com- 
mon to tbcm all i)« the gruat tuIug put upon the souL 
itm<ria' A roliiEicvim bent, the dc^irt^ fur Divine H»;i^tuQce, 
for redemption and for a life beyond, comes out dis- 
datrtly in some of them; meat clearly in the tfeo- 
PtatoDiBta and (hooe vrlio onticipntoil them in the M 
niitury (prejwtmtion by Philo). CbHract^^rrinticfi of 
lbj«f mode of thought are the dualistic contrajstinR of 
the Divine and the earthly, the abfitmct idea of God, 
the iii^sertion of Um> uiiknivn^ahlerieoA of God, Bk(*pti- 
elnm in m^rd Ut ft^nw-^^spt^rii^iicie and <Hstru»t of 
tlie power* of reason; at the aame tinu) groat rcadi- 



ne6B to iuvcostigate and to utilize tha resultfl of the 
previous i^cieQtiBc labora; and farth«r, tbo demand 
for freedom from the flensuoua throuffh nsoeticiem, 
the vrant of an autbority, UiUef id u higher revoU- 
tltni and Ui^ fuaiu^ uf ivli^uu, scionix* uiid mytbol- 1 
Pgy, Already meu bogan to le^timizo th« relig- ' Rfti^ioun 
ioua fanlosie vritiiin tUo realm of philoMipliy, hy I i^iw" 
rcadiing back and seizing the myths as the vehicle 
of the (l6ep*>ftt wisdt>m (romajiticiRm) , The thea* 
aopbical pliilosophy which had thua eqtiippod itself 
waa from the tittuiilpoiDt of nattiral scicniceacd clear 
tbinking in many way^ a retrogression (yet not in 
all particnIftTS, the Neo-Plalonic paycbo!og-y is 
far^ better tlian the Stoic); but it wa^i an expreeaiaa 
for tbe deeper reh'^ious needs and the better self- 
knoM-lrdge. Tho innor life with itK deRire^ was now 
alto^tber the eta rting- point for all thought conccm- 
in^ Ihe world. Tbougbt« of the divine, graciuua 
Piovidence, of tbe kinship of all men, of the common 
fraternal love, of ibe ready and willing forgiveness I 
of wnmg, of the indulgent f»atience, of the insiight ', 
into their own weaknesses wpre no !esa tbe product 
of the practical pbilcwophy of tbe Greeks for wide 
circi«e, Uian tbo conviction of the inherent sinful- 
ness, of tbe need of redemption and of tbe value of a 
human aoiil which finds ilt» rest only in God, But Betruiii™ 
men pos^es^ed no sure revelaiimi^ no comprehensive *^^^" 
and »ati^fictor3' rHitjious cammuniort, no vigorous **"""*- 
and n^ligtniift f/enitis and no eon<*eption of hhtorjf, i 
which could Uike the pliioe of tho no longer valuable \ 


political Lititory; m^^ii porsstr;.s<;d no artilude and 
tboy did not ^i b(>>*oiK) iIjo wjiverin^; botw^^eD tlio 
foar of Qod nnd tho iloiiiaitiim of Rfiturv*. Yd with 
thi^ philoitopftff, the hi<fh*tH the aj/e had tit tiffcr^ 
the Ooitpei allied itsetf^ and (he stages of the 
EcciemaMical Hillary o/ Dogma during the first 
jSrc centuries correspmd fo the fttagat of the 
Heltenuttic Philosophy of Keiigion within the 
itamt^ piflrind. 

.to&oduc- Aflan IntrcHluction ti tho Btudy of the hisioiy of 
wjjWfT dogma the following works are to be esi^HMally com* 
incndf^^d: 8eliur&r» Ocschiclite dc« jtidischt'n Volkj* 
im ZoituIUrr Jo:4\i Cliri^ti, i. Bd. 1JSIS5 (Enirlitli 
trrtij«lntion jmUlirilH^I by T. & T. Chirk), W<4x»r, 
Syotcm dor ultr^yn^^^o^alcn palurttin^^nHifHrlicri Thrr- 
olpgio, 18S0, KiieiicJi, Volk»n*-Ii4;toD iiiwl Wcllnj' 
ligioD, 1S93. AVolthatifion, Abrins dt^r Gcschichto 
Israel's und JitdtiV (Skiazen und Vorarl)eitoii, K 
H«£t, 18*4), W«6J*, Lolirbucb der bibl TbTOliv 
gi«, 4. Anfl.. 1884, [ViUUvm]M>rgorj Dns SrlWlbt^- 
wufit^oSn J««ii itn Licht dor moK^ianiAclion Hoff- 
nungt^n Aoinfjr Zoit, I6&8. Lebv*n JcMU von Kcim, 
Wel«* and olliers and ihe Einl^itttngt^n fn i\ti$ N, 
T. vo« H-MisH, Hilgt'iifclJ* Mangold. HoIUjiiaiin tuut 
Woife*. W^.'izsttckcr, ApoatoIiHohefi Zoitalt^rf 1886. 
Ri*ttmu Hint. doB Orig. da Ohrixtianisnu% T. IL- 
IV- Prtmd<»ppr. T)a8 Urohrisfcetidum, 18*47, Dies- 
ti^, Oc«cbichto dc« A. T. i. dor christl Kircb«t 



I86!l, Siegfricil, Philo v. Alex. 187.V BigR. Tho 
Chrliitiiui PIrtUiiiiirti* of Alexarwlrh, I &8iV Die 
UotersuolumKOii von FrcudmUinl C Hellenbtisclie 
Studiuri ') anil lit*nutyn. Br»iioiii^r> La Rt^Hgioa 
Ronmino d^AugiuBlo atuc Antouins, 3 voIb,, 18?i. 
KvviDtf, La R^tiKton A R^iiiit* mjna Ivm Sev^ree, 
18d6 (German by Krttg^^r Ihjsw). Friedlfttiden Dar- 
BtelluBgenaitu der SittcngKchiclite Homs in der Zeit 
TOO Au^iit his m AunigaDg dor AnUmiDO, 3, Bdd. 
fi. Aafl. Marqunrdt, Romit^^^Iic Staatftvorw»lhmg, 3. 
Bdd. isrrt. Uvpcild St^hmidt, Di^* EUdk dc>r tdt^n 
Qnechon, 2 Bdd, ISS'i, IlcmKC^ Dio Lebre vom 
Logos, lb72. Hin:cl, Uutorvudiuag^ti zu Ciixm's 
philoe, Schpi(i«n, 3 Thle 1877. Die Lebrbacber 
der GiL-^hichU' der PhilosopMo vou Zeller, Ueber- 
w^, Stmmpell and uUiers. 

|>art 1* 





mHE first ct^nturv <rf the oiri«onco of Oentilf- '???"]•• 
X Christum ouinmunitiosis oh/iradcriaod, (U by , ^^^Jj»^»- 
the rapid retirement of Je\vish Christisuit}", (2) by I 
reli^oua enthusiaKm and the str^igth of tbe future 
bope, (3) \>y & severe tnorality declaoM from the 
Masters' teaching, (4) by the manifold form And 
fre^om of tixpr^v^H^tori uf hvliufr on thi^ ham» of plain 
formtLlatf and ever iucrc^uiiig tradition^ (h) by the 
tack of a dofiniuj auUkority, in the trau»itioD to b| 
recognized outwanl authority amcing the chnrchefl, 
(ti) by the Uck of a political conn«<^tion among the 
Tsrioud oommo&itiots nnd by lui o^jutization whicJi 
waa firm and yet permitted individual liberty^ (7) 
by the development of a peculiar literBiy activity, 
daiming 8»»ent to it* newly produced facte, (8) by, 
th6 r«prodactioD of detached phraseH and individual \ 


(rLf«reiic«B from tlio A(x»etolical toadiinp:, wiUioui 
ackutr tiiifU*rAtfiriil)ii^ of tlio 8iuiic*, (!') by tbo crojh 
ping (Jill (if llitjcin ti^iitltf iH<M whit^h *«(^rvM in ('vory 
\fity U> hj^uil^ii tho pr<xY)tu4 iLln^itly iM^giin <kf fitHtng 

of tlio lime,— with Hellonisjn,— as woU a-s by tiumcr* 
ooa ntk-niptr^ to wroncb tbo Go6]X'l fn>.' fvxjm it« 
Eiativo»ottiii4CiLnd to introduce <}IomoDtfi foi^ign to 
it, AnJ finally, ubova all. it belongLHl to the (Hel- 
\&a\c) r^roH^inUitiQti to conj^iiW knowledge, not aa 
& (charUmatic) nupplcincat to fuitlii but &« of like 
eaeenco with it. 



Trat tbo groat iDAJority of Cliriiftifinjs hiid conx' 
'tochri?- nnon belief Ea indicated by tbls fact, tonong otli^ai^^ 
thiLt gnOAtioEsm was gradually i^xpellL^i from the 
cburcbea^ Ai^unuice of tbe knowledge of the true 
Qod» conaciousneBd o( roHpoimibility to bim, fntUi laj 
Cbmt, hope in elemnl lifo, exaltation above tbe pr^i- 
ent worid,— these wcro fundAmontal tbougbtd. If 
we euter into dvtaila tbt) £i>Uk>wiQg j^tjjiitfi may be , 

QoipcL 1. The Qospelr being founded upon a revelation, 
id ttfee reliable me»sa(^ of tbe true Qod, tiie faithful 
acceptance of which gmimntecB salvation; 



2. Tlii> nxil corttoDt *>( thin tm«»a^ is ^pirilual 
tjotlioiKin, thn Htinniiimmu'itt <i( Uio ru^urrectioD 
ftnd ot4*rmJ life, lu woll an Ibo pruclamatioo uf uioral 

towurd Ood and of ntlcAteU clausing througl) liap- 
tistn in nnui^mbrane^ of the rewan) of good aird 

d^ T1ii« mi.'aMugi' oomi^ to lis tbrtfugli J^&uti Christ, 
who ''in Ukxaii hu(t ibt^-v" in tJio c'lmiiniMiioDMl fvi< 
Tiour and utimdit in u iH-ouliar rulutioneliip wiUi Qml. 
He it» tho Hedct^m^r (^i^r^') b<<cau&& ht? haa 1>n>u^hi 
kiwwiedgo of Qod luid Uio g:ift of otoroal life 
rf^tfif and C"^'. and <«pociLiIly r^^ct^ rff C»\s^ tho ex- 
pnBsion for the summa of tlie Gospel)- Ho is alM> 
Uie hiffhtfttt Prototype of every ethical virtiit>. tho 
Ijiw-Qiv4>r and tlio Law of th^ p^rfoct lif^, aiid 
accordiaifly iho Cooquoror of domonn luid the Judgo 
uf Uiu worl<] ; 

4p Virtue m ixb8tineiico (a renunciation of tbcgood 
tbiDgs nf thiti world, lu which the ClirUtiuu 18 a 
BtmoKor, and whoso d^j^tnictioD is awniteil) and 
brotherly lovo; 

5. Tba mea«uig« of tlie Cbrtttt 1* entniiit^td to 
cfaosen mcUt to apoedds, and mort; especially to on« 
aposUe; ibeir preaching i^ the preaching of the 
Christ. Ator^ver, the £5pirit of tiocJ i^eproduceft hia 
gifta and graces in tlie ^'ftainta,'' and thus etjuipe 
special "proi>1ieta and Icach^rrs,** who n>ceivd com 
inunication»4 for thi> i^dific-AticiTi of ot}K!*rfl* 

if, ChriAtiau wondiip ]i« th^ oJloring of npiHiUiftl 

D>nti*nl nf 




TMilt MA 

(ill Aiw»' 




QuIb of 




eacrifice without regard to statutory rites aiid c«re* 
inoni«fl; the holy offices and »uoiDtiDg>;, wliicli uru 
connectod witb tlio Christian cult, bare Uuir sHttuo 
in this, thut spiritual blutf»iu{f*5 aru tbvruwilli iui' 

7. The barrieis of aex, age, position and nation* 
ality voiiit^h eutirely for Christian^ as Cbristiuji«; 
tho OhnHtinn lirothorhood rests upon the Divine 
elootion and ia orj^uuis^vl ihrough the ^fU of the 
Spirit; iu regnnl to ibe groimd of electJoD thoro 
were divers views; 

8, Since Christianity is the only true religion and 
ia not a national reli^on, but belongs to all mankind 
and portJiitm to our inin<»t life, it foUo\T» that it can 
have no special alliance with the Jewish i-^oople, or 
with their peculiar cult- The Jewish people of to- 
day^ et lea^t, aland in no favored relation^ip witli 
the God whom Jetius has revealed; whether they 
formerly dici is doubtful; this, however, 10 certain, 
that God has cast them oH, and that the whole 
Divine revplation, so far as there was any rev^-la- 
tioD prior to Ciirist (the majority believed in one and 
looked upon the OJd Toatament as Holy Scripture) 
bad as its end the colling uf a ^'uew nation" and 
the spreading of the revebttiou of Uod through hia 





Socrcsb: TbewrUUigttof tUciso-cvUtfO ApocAolIc FUUirrr. 
InicTCDcca drawn lrvj«u Uic Worka of Ui« Apoio^Uts of Hie 3d 
c««Uity; RibadU. &>1)itahuog cW iih-kAth Kir<^p, 2. FA- 
imi &kiK«Uiftrdt, Dm Chrlstootburo JuHtitu, 1878: Ptlcl* 
damr, Dae Urebrt«ti:AfJiuiD, )8ST, 

I I. The Christian Communiiies and the Chutxh, 
— Both the outlines and tbo chanurtor of the founda- 
tions of CliristiaiiilT wore tixed by those dmcipleei of 

I the faith, who wore members of wetl-ordered Chris- 

I tian comiuunitiea, and who ac<M?pt«d the Old TtstA- 
ment nn nii ori^nal Divino revelation Hiitl priz<?fi 
tho Oospol Iradition as a froe ruoesogo for all, which 
i^ould be kept faithfully pure. Each littlo hiother- 
boud Hbould, through the strength of ita fiittb, the 
certainty of its hope and tbo holy ordering of its life, 
as well ari through love aud i^eace, be an ima^ of 
the holy Church of God, which is in heaven and 
whose meinberft are scattered over tbo earth; it 
shouldp eJfio, in t^e parity of its daily life and in the 
genuinene»4 of ile brotherly kindneiw be an en^^ample 
totboBewho are ''without/' i.e. to the alien vrorid. 

I In the recently discovered Teaching of tlio Apo8- 
ttee " we como u]>on the sphere of ioterec^t in tbora 
rommt!niti<ii< whn hnd not yet l>ef»n tnflnonoed hy 

\ pfaUoaophieal speoulation. They awaited the nHura 

piHte or 




of tlio Chmt, antl urged a holy life ("Two Ways," 
(Ie[M.'ti<Ittnce of itfl eUiical ruW upon the Jewiab- Ales- 
andrian ^omic ^r\<\ Uie Sermon <^n t1ie Mount) and, 
without ouiwarvl uniou and a ciHiiinon i>otity, tboy 
recognized t1iuu)i4o1vi.« eit belonging to ihe new uiid 
yet original creation of God, to the Chmx^li, wliicU 
is tiic trufi Eve, the Bride of tlie beuvenly Christ 
(Tertnll. A|»olog. 3t>: corpus :iumu^ de co^tscientm 
rtiiigionia el dtsciplinaB unil-ute ft apet fasdere; 
II. Clom. 14 ! jr<i*uO*Trc tA #/iij/Hi ro5 war/iA^ t^ftttur i^Afit^a 

S. TA^ FoMrirfoJion^ of the Faith, i-e, of the 
(>ODf(«tiofi>^ n>#|xx4ing tlie Oij^ Oot) anil Jo»ii» and 
also tbo Holy Spirit, wore liud by the " Christian- 
iaod** Old Tcettnmcnt Scriptures, togethcrr with tbo 
upoculypsc^A mu) the ever increasing trAditlons cod* 
cx^ming tbo Christ (lii« ethical aud c^Latol<^cal di»- 
coun^^e^ on tho one ude, and the proclamation of 
th<r liijitory of Jfieus 00 tbe other). Prophecy waa 
pr»v>ni hy ULCi>kigy. Alreiidy at an ivirly lUte short 
*'iSS£.^ artickft ol f&ith bad hewn formulutod fi r^^Aivrntt, i 

tft«aj1, ^ »*rTtc, rf «>*■ rij* e»#rwf, etc-)- The cbuTch 
at Ilom4> biLd fonnulated beforo &.I». 150 tbe foUow- 
""^/J" ing creed, which w&s the busift Cor all futare creeds: 




atfdtrraTiK Ev<nythiiig that had been prophwif^ con- 
the CbiiKt ID tbo Old T«^>t?t(uni'ut, uud thiit 
(^tan t««tiG«d couoemiug him in tlio primitive 
Gospel, wa« wfi^rml hack to the concurrtnt teach- 
ii^ and tefitimouy of the twelve ftpostlefi (^^^'*rt 
xtipiou fill riav iff ™T"flr'i>u/v) , Tli^ ris9 of this roart ot 
appeal, which wne the beginning of the idea <d 
' Catltolic tradnioii^ !» hi^oricuUy obncuru luid reste 
upon fui a priori. Of like authority, thougti not 
JdontitiKl with it^ is Paul with his Cpi^tlea*, which 
wore, moreover, diligently read- 
s' The Pri^icipttl Elements of ChriMianitsf were 
\ faith in Qod, Uio ^taz^ni^. And in hm Son, on tbe 
ground of the fulfilment of prophecy nnd of tlie apoe- 
tolic uttcftfUHl t<jachiug of tliu Loni, tht- dj».'iplino in 
aocordanco with tho eftand&rd luid down by the Muh- 
, ter, baptism culmiuating in a common gucrificial 
prayer, tho communion meaJ, and tlie certain hope 
of the near ooming of Christ's gluriout^ kingdom* 
plw confosttionFi of faith wore vory manifold; tii^re 
L not ns yet nny dcitnite doctrine of faith ; imngi- 
[nation, 8[iemhitton fmd the exckufively spiritual 
int<Tpr«tulion uf tlw Old Tc«tuiiiont luid the wid«6t 
1 ; for man uiti^i ijiit-ncb iUv Spirit. In the 
! of pruyer the cougn^tieiu exprudtwd that 

Conn of 

M.-un Rlrv 





which they posaoased io God und in Christ; and th© 
duty of 8acri6cii]j{ thiu world for tliti hoped-for future 
appoared as the practical fiide of faith iteelf. The 
var>'ing coDcoptioris of (ud\'ii1inn grouped themselves 
about two coDtroSf which wcro only looeoly con- 
DOCt«(l; the cm© wh» Ibcud chictty by th<? dh^posttion 
and the UnAt-itiatitui, the other by tbc inleliwt. On 
Ui© one «idc, acojrdingly, aalvaliou was believed to 
ocHwifit in the approaching glorious kin>;^lotn of 
Christ, which ahould bring >oy upon the earth to the 
right«oik8 (IhiB reatietic JevriGh concc-ptioo wrs de- 
rive directly from the apocolypBcn; Chiliosm, and 
honce tbo in(epe«t in the msorrDCliofi of theph^jticut 
&fid!y). Oq ttie Ubct udis ^vatiim wa» held to con* 
^^TjS^ sirt in a deEnite and full kno^rtedge of God (and the 
world), wi M«;aiu9( Ihu errorsof hcathvnisrD ; and tliia 
knowledge disclosed to faith (-rirrr^) and hope the 
gift of Itfo and all iouiginaUo blflesinga (leea €iii- 
fba^B waa aocu«dingly placed on the ronurectioti of 
tfaefAyaieaKocfjr)- Of tb«M bhesiiig^ the bro^Kr- 
bood vae already tn fomeaAm cC the fdrgivenees of 
fiin and of ri^t«ounMBB» ii sd bv as tbeir» was a 
Ivotherbood of aunls. But tb«t« two lilmiiiimi ^- 
pear«d to be mdaiigeral aft to tbetr worth h^ eoipha- 
afauag the aMral fuiBt of viaw, ia accoffJ an ca with 
lAkketanalUfev locked wpoi. (br thr moat ptft, 
aa Ihe wages aod the reward of a perfect monl liie 
Uvfid in ooe'ia own fitmigtfi b ia tme that the 

IhinnLhl ■■! iilill|iii I, IImI iihihnin Iii miiai 

monl cnaiko (tfe aew hirth) vhkfa ia nal- 





izmI in btipti^tiK l>utit wi\» over io danger of being 
crowtled out hy ihf^ other LhougLt, that th«re nro do 
bloonngfi Ui Balvation save roveakKl knowledge nn^l 
tlio elemal life^ but ratlier only a catalogueof dutics^^ 
in which the GJoppel is set forth ae the Xew Law (a* 
cetic boliiK^iss and love) . The ** Chnstianixing " of the 
OKI Tcetamcut ^rvod to promoto this Grouk conc^ip* 
tion. The lAcH. it ie true, wa» already prcfifntthat 
thi4 Ooi<|>(^, ID i^ far lui it ti4 Invr (»','i"v^), inc^lndes iJio 
gift of svdviition (ti^.'<"V vr;" J^r""' ^v«/«j*^ — vr'v/^r rf^ 
iAw^tpiox — Christ liimwlf ii* Hut L?iw) ; but tl)ii!» rep* 
rc^eutatlon was alwa}^ doubtful and wa-s (irnidnally- 
abaadoncd. Tbo ^ttinj^ forth of tho Oot^iiel uuder 
tbo eonccptioiks: rviS-rcv (Giwl and wtwld), i-o^'f^'"*' 
(etema] life), viju^^ (moral iluty). appeared as plain as 
it %ra^ oxUiiuntivo, luitl in ev<!Ty relation the ?<V'<r iraa 
held to bo coujirmcd, »inoo it exhibitt^ itvotf in kiiowl- 
«dgo && well »« in hope anil in ob(.*tlicna<; but in 
r«ali^ it is only siVtff t^v i^^^fi^f, a preparation^ be* 
cauKo the blessings of 9oiv&i\ox^ (the fiafftlua rou i^t^ty 
Bsi well a» tbo ^f&ttpirh) are oonforred in the future. 

In thm hoj«* nf th^ fnhinv walvatifjn is wt forth 
AM rc«ili}*.ing it«e1f in a hrnihcrhooti^ while in the 
uwrnl-gno»tic view it ie considorrd as an intiiru4i' 
tial posseesfoD* and reward rind piinii^itnent are 
represented aa coordinated with it, wiiieh roftulte in 
emptying the conceplirin of Ooil of its content. The 
moral view of ain, forgiveness and righleouanees in 
Clement, Itaniabas and Polycarp is r>rerlniil hy Pau- 
Vino phnuM^a and formulas; but the uncertain^ vrith 




ouTLiKBis or run uiitroKy of dogua. 

lit f.iM 

which tJi«i60 nr^ quoted indiojitcw that thoy wero not 
really undorstood, la IIcruiA« aiul IL Clement tbo 
grauud of tbo forgiveness of sin m tho spontaneouK 
energizioK fitTdv*nt, The wide-spread idea thai priev- 
oua eins could not be forgiven tboeo who had been 
bflpti?^, but that tight hidh might b« condoned, 
indicateathn romplote trnnntition tf> a barren, th*»- 
rotic&l momlit^m, which was, however, etill overlaid 
by an ajK>calj^ptic etilhusitunii 

4, The Otil Tesiami-nt us the Source o/ the Knowt- 
■j«uij^«L j.rf^^ ^y Ftiith contributed, ( \} to the development of 
the motiotlieistiecoHmology, (2) to the setting forth of 
the proofft of prophecy and of the antiquity of Chris- 
tianily ("older than the world"), (:i) to the establiah- 
iDg ^f n\i the eccleaiaatical ideas, righta auU cere- 
monieB, which were considered net.'eHaar)', (4) to the 
deep^iiog of the life of faith (Piaaims and prophetical 
fi^agnicntfi], (5) to the refuting of Judaism as a 
nation, i".*-. to tlio prcving that this people had been 
«iat off by Ood, and that thoy bad oithrr never had 
any covenant with liim (Barnabas), or had had a 
covenant of wrath, or had forfeited their covenant; 
that they bad never uiiderBtood the Old Testament and 
were therefore now deprived of it, if, indeed, they 
had ever been in posaeasion of it (tlie attitude of tho 
Church na a whole toward tho Jewish jx^plo and 
tlieir history npiM^nr** (o lmv<* 1v>*mi originally iu4 in- 
deflnito as Hut nttiindo of tbo ^nonitc^ townrd tho 
Old Tt-nlaiiu^iit). AHvnipls b» iXJrri'Ct ihii Old T*»l«- 
meiit and to give it a ClirisLiau Mnwo were not want- 



ing; in the formation of tho New Testament there 
wen ludiinentai^' efforta tovi-aixl this end, 

5, Faith Knowltdgc waa above all a knowledge 
<^ Qod as the only eupematural, spirttual and aJ- 
mjgbty Hetng: Uod \^ the Creator aiid Uuler of 
the world and is tliereford the Lord. But inas* 
much as he created the world as a beautifuK wdl- 
ordered whole (moaothoistic theory of uaturti) for 
the sako of luau, he is at thu eanw tiino tlw Qod 
of goodness aud of redetitptioji {^<h ^cvrj/^), aud 
only through the knowledge of the identity of the 
Creator and Redeemer Ood docB faith in God iis 
the Father reiich its perfection. Retlemption, how- 
ever, wa?> necc**iiry, lx*iii»8e tuankuu] aiul Uio world 
m tho vorj begiuuing fell tinder tho dominion of 
dem<jas. A general und acceptable theory in re- 
gaid t4i the orlgEu of ihiu domiuit^u did by do means 
ezi^t; but Uio conviclion was &ced and universal, 
that the present condition and oounie of the world is 
not of God, hut of the devil. Still, faith in the al- 
mighty Creator, and hope in the rofitoration of the 
earth did not allow theoretical dualism to make any 
headway and practical dualism dominated. The 
world is g;xHl and belongs to God, but ttie |)re»unt 
course of it is of the deviL Tbu» men's thoughts ob- 
Diltated between the conoeption of the world as a 
beautiful aud orderly whole, and the impreesion of 
the proiectnt fvil eoumn of things, of the haaetiees 
of tho tfemtuous ond of the dominion of demons in 
the world. 

tbilor. aid 





Lonl (LDd 

nivnn to 



C. /"aiYft in Jesu9 ChriH as the Redeemer waa 
cicaoly identified with faith in Oo<i ax the lieileemer. 
Joeufl i» JiiVi^'c ttnd «wt-^> Hke God, anil the same 
wotAb were often used without indicattne whether 
th<* roferemr© wiw to him or to God; for in the Ro* 
voolcr nttd M<?Hint*»r of wlvfttion (JoBUd), th© Autlior 
(Ood) lA rcprea^-atod ithc pnrpoeo of tudvatioit luid 
ttie rerelation of it coiuddo) ; prayer, howe^■u^, was 
made to God through Christ. This titlcgiven to Jeaua 
(** Christ *") becjinie indeed a mem name, since there 
waa no real knowl<?dgeof thi3 meaning of "Mesaiah," 
Th^reforo the (.Ji>iitile Ohriatiiuifl were obliged 
through other meane to find erpressiona for tho dig' 
Dity of Jesus; but Uiey poHs«ffled in Uie fidl eaclmto- 
logical traditions valuable reminiecences of the orig- 
inal apprehension of the PerBon of Jesut. In the 
confeBsion that (Jod has rhoeen and specially pre- 
pared Jeans, that hn !a the *' Angel" and ** Servant^ 
of Q^, ood that be ehall judge maukind, and simi- 
lar exprefisioiifl, other ullei^auces were made coiicom- 
ing Jefius, which sprang fn>m the fundamental idea 
that be was the "Chri&t" called of God and en- 
trusted with an oiRce. In aiddition there was a 
traditional, tliou^h not common, reference to Iiim aa 
"The Teacher." 

The titJo"Sonof Ood" (not "Son of Man") was 
traditional, aud waa maintained without any waver* 
ing» Ont of this grew directly the conception that 
Jesus l>plong3 to tlie sphere of <Jod aud that one 
mu2st Ihiakuf hini"'i'tf »M/'l "'"i" (II. Clem. I). In 




this phrafiing of it th« iD<lin?ct theoloffia Ckristtt in 
reffani to wfiii^k ihere uvit tio tvav^ritigt found WC' 
prrcinioD in cln^ntoAl i<>rmt^. It is nc<<^i<wir>" t<> tltink 
o( JcMCf »9 onv Uiiiika k}( Qoi^ 0) Writtist* Uk b tht> 
God^oxaltal LoTtl aiul Judge, (:£) boc&uso lio brought 
trao knowlcnl^ and life uud b&M dolivi^rxKl mankind 
from tbo domiuion of demons, from error uDd hid, or 
will ileliver tlii>]]i, Therefiire h^ is aonift, I'jpi"^, *«Jc 
^/witf^ </«i jUivy ac thu^, fivmiuus <tc deu9t V>ut not '5 
*<*f. He is •'oor II<>po,'* "our Fiuth,' tbo IIiKb- 
Priert of our prayorn, ^uid " our Life/* 

Starling from thi» Uihih Iherv wero divom tlie<irU« n^ttoe.] 
in r^^nl to ihi' Person of Jc^ti^ whicli howuvur nil J*»»- 
boro tt ocrUiiQ iiruiloicy to tbo Diiive rikI iho philo* 
SfipbiCTil Grwk - thoiilngifw", but Uidro were noiini- 
vcTBulIy «crcpt4yl '^//fwfri'nc*". Wiitnayili»tin^jtib\ 
huro two priQciiml typt*?: JcMis wmb KhiUimI ti|K)n uo 
the mail n-bom God biid obutfK-n and iu whom tlie 
Spirit of God (Ibe Oodbpud itself) dwelt; bo wais 
in accordance with his own testimony, adopted by 
OckI and rlothtnl with audiority (AtlopHon Chn*- 
foio^y) ; or Jceiis utia K)nke«l upon as a h^AVonly 
spiritual Being (tho bigbcst boavoaly spiritiLal 
Being next to Qod), who beoinie incamute &nd, 
after tlie completion of hie work upon the earth 
returned to tlie heavens {Prwunialic ChriaMo{pj ; ivtiChni- 
the transition here to !h« Tjtgtis ChristoUtify was 
easy), Thrw two difTer^nt nbri?«ologTflR (tho Dpi- 
fic<l man and Ibis Dtviuo HMu^ Appiinriug in tlio 
form of a luau) wetv however brought cloael^' Ut- i 




gGther HO soon aa tlie implantod Spirit of Ood in 
the man JoHiis yfttn lookf^d upon as tlie pre^exisU^nt 
Son of Uuil (Jiermua), and so soon as the title "'Hon 
of O^k),'' kn nppIi^Hl to that Hpintiial Bein^, wn» 
donvod from hin (mimculuua) iucamutiim— lx>th, 
liowovvr, wvr*> uuuniaitivd, NutiviUibtaiidiij^ Ulcm 
transition forms tlio Iwu Cltri«tol< »gie(* niny bo clwirlj 
distin^iishcd: Li thcmioca^ the oioction (vnipha»i« 
upon Hie tnintcttloua oooun-onco at Uic biipiisni) aiid 
thooxaltatioato Qodurocharact^mtic; inthootht^r, 
» tUiirt* dtxHiH^im; for fiH y**t tlnrro wjw no two* 
Diittiro th*?ory {Jc»ii»* divinity wn« look<^d upon 
II (^ft, or eW lii» hiunaii ft^rin ii6 a leniiiorHry Ut1>e; 
naclo). Tlie doclaration: Jceijs wan a mere man 
[ti^M^ HvOpivzo^) vras undoubtoiliy fron» th<» bogjnnitig 
and stwayH bt^dy objectioDablo; Ilkewjiw wim th« 
denial of tho " i> ff-^/^j* * ; bnt tho ihwiritw whJHi idon- 
^"J^^ "^ \ tifii?d the Person of J9«U8 with the Gorlhond {n/Ut^ 





morlaWiitn) ^vrro not cast aside vrith the sumo aiwiir- 
anco, A fonuaJ thforyot tho idontity r>f Gwl and 
JiMUH dufw not K(H.^m to Jvivoi lioon wide-sprnul in ttw 
Charcb at la^^^ Tb^ ju'<xvpUiiiot> of tho cxTat4Vic4T at 
least of oiie beavixnly, otonijil, 0|>intual Boin^ clow> 
tn Gcd WJW flomantWI nntrigbt by th*» Old TotttM* 
iDOnt Scriphircis n« men iitidrn*t<iod thmn, no tlirtt »11 
wero conBtnujiwl to rocc^iizc f/iiV, wbrthv^r r>r not 
tiMjy had any UiBia [or nJC(jDciIing tlieir Chrifltc^mgy 
wiUi ituit houvoiily Being. 

Tbe pDf^umntic Chn«tology vtihk nlwayt^ foiuid 
wherever m^n gave tbemaelTce to tbe Httidy <jf the 



Old T^tet^ment and wherever faith in Christ as tlio 
corapleUi revi3Uition of Oixl wan the foremoftt thouKht, 
i.e. it \s found in all the important and tMhit^tixl 
Christiaa writers (not in HonnA», but in Clomniit, 
BamaboA, l^atiufl, etc }. Because thifi Chnntol- 
ogy fleemed to be directly demanded t>y the Old Tes* 
tameot as then expounded, l)ecauAe it alone iiniUM] 
and TOconciled creation and n?dt^inj:ition, hecaii^ it 
fumialied the proof tliat Uio w'orld and roIiKi^ have 
tlie ftamo Divinft Sotiive, Itnainn^ the moi^l oKirt»»no*l 

■primitivt^SoriptuKA ehao:ipiou«d it, and, CUially, hf>- 
aum it K^vc nxiiu fur the iutnxlucljou of the Lo^h^- 
itation, it wa» tlie Christology of the fnture. 
Tlio adoption Uhri&tology, however, proved it«ftlf 
sufficient over against the considemtion of tL« t^ 

^latiou of reliffioh to the co^tios, to hnmajuty and 
itn history, ns wM fift owr agaiii-^t th« Old Tci^tu- 
moat. And tho advocates of the pnoiunatic Cl>ri»- 
tolc^' did not set it forth as a doulilful thiHilogu- 
tnenou; their expo«iition» of it (Clement, IgnatinSt 
Buruabaa, Justin), on the contrary-, indicate tluit 
they could not conceive of a Chri^tiani^ without 
faith in the divine ^iritnal Beiiif;, Christ, On the 
other hand, in the litur(;iea] fnigments and pruyera 
that have ooiii<; down U> u^^ vvc find little rvSnTcnt^ 
to thi? pnj-ujjyk^nee; it suiTiwd thai Jt^^uH la uxjw 
the ii>pf*'^ to whom prayer may bo addressed. 

The repreeeatationB of (he work of Chriflt (Christ 
afl teacher: Giving: of knowled^^ proclaiming of 
Aenewlnw; CThriHtaASaviuur: Qiving of life, oon 





quenng of demons forgi\'ing of pottt r^ina in the time 
of error) wert* (wiuiertwl by sonii? (fcllomn^^ currwit 
traditign, usin^ the Pauline Epistlus) with his d^^tii 
a^il reeurrectiun, by others they were affirmed wilh- 
out direct reference to these fa^7t«. ludependeiit re- 
fleciioDS upon Iho close union of the tiaving work *>( 
Christ ^vith thi< facta net forth ixx his j>ivac!nii^ are 
nowhere found; and yet the repre**enlati<>n of the 
free endurance of suff^ric^, of the crooi, and of the 
blood of ChriHt, was accepted in many communities 
a» ft holy myslerinm, in which the ileepcet wisdom 
and power of the Oo^peL is concocileil (I^atiu»), 
although tho deatli on (be crow and tho forgiveneaa 
of sill wero by no tnuinH i-vurywhvro (us in Cloment, 
Folycarpand BaniukkF^) in^t^parably Jfiiiic<l together 
(Hermaa knows nothing vhnt4)V6r about such a 
tmion). The peculiarity nnd the individuality of the 
work of the historical Christ were moreover menaced 
by the idea that Christ h^d 1>ecu tlie rovotiler of Ood 
ia the Old Tcstamrmt, 

All the fact* |)crtuini<ig lo th*i hUtor}' of JeauR, 
t^iiv^ the real and the imagined, rocijived an exaRicerated 
Bigiiifi<*aooe when reitorutod in the work of instruc- 
tion and when attfickod by heretics. To the mirac 
uloufl birth, death, resurrection, exalt^titrn ttnd return, 
was added definitely now the aaeonsion on ihi^ iOih 
day and^ lecw (3eflnitcty, the descent Into hetl, while 
the history of thft luiptism wa« more and more ig> 
noreil. Thi- reality oi these occurrences was strongly 
empluuuzed ; but they liud not yet become " dogmas^' ; 




fortbey were oeitbur maeporably connectod with th« 
idoa of salvatioi), iiur wei-e Uicy de£lutU?ly outliucnlf 
norwati th«/u»ya^ie re«tri€ted iii ltd artisUc exuber- 

7. That tbe TTorAA/p o/ (7ofi should bo a pure, 
^liiritual exerci^ without cor^iuoute^, wa« takeu for 
^raiiti?<I. Kveiy divine senp'ico urafi looked upon M 
a spiritual offering (of Ih&uks) acGompanu>d with 
fastiDg and deeds of oompaaaionato to vs. Tlie 
Lord's Supper (eucharist) was held to be an offering 
in the i^trict^et sense of the word, and everything 
which wae asiwciaUK! with it (e.f/. assistance of 
the poor) became imbued with the idea of sacrifico. 
Thwirnforward tha in^iitutional idrui fntind a widft 
niu^S uotvrith&tuudiug ihe t^^Bcmtiol ctpintuality of 
wivahip. Slartiu)^ willi th« idea of the ^tfmhotirult 
""nqreleries" which were ho neceAsary to the Gree^ks 
were wkiq cRtabii^lied. Baptism id the name of the u^pi^oil 
Father, Son and Spirit waa esteemed sa the invstory 
tlirough which the sins of blindueAS are wliully net 
it^idt^, aiid whieli only thonoc-fotwnrd, h4>wciTer, 
iinpowt« obtigatiuns (mortal &ind, committed after 
liafjii^n), wen3 cunuidered luipardoitidilo, and yet 
purduiiing power was rftflerved for God who hvn 
and there exercises it upon the eaxth through iu- 
Hpired men. The idoa and practice of u ** sec- 
ond repentance'' were bom through the fitreea of 
neoefieity, be<?anie however wido-spread, and were 
then eelabUHhed by the prophetical book of IIenn«»). 
Baptism was called '«f/'<ir-V and f ccrcirpi^r (no infant 



mad Hym- 


|]H]>H^m); tliG uniting of hAptiMn tvUh the gift of 
Uie Holy Spirit bcaiitiL* Hoiiii?w)mt iinocrUutt. Tbo 

hOl*d*8 S^}yp(Tt' was Viewud IW ^dpfiaxoy A^ai'aaia^^ qb 

A myat^rioivf commutiicatTOti of gnosia aiid of life 
(seetho 4nicbnri&tic prayer in die Didach^; the for- 
IpvcncM of Minn in $wt tlietv meniicmii)): it ivns ot 
onoo n communion mofil unci u tvK'rifi<'ifU meaJ, 
ReaLEi^in and H^iiibolit^in were lierc niingleil tigfttlicr, 
jiLHt n» were tlio idoas of grnco and of sacrificial 
ofToring. Hellouic conccptionawirly crowded in Ikto 
j(Bee Ignatius, Jutitin, Apol. I., the cloee), 

Cbnrclt organization, as .^}irh^ oxercised nn in- 
fluoQoo upon tbo form of tJio&tatomout of belief until 
about tb« y^cir l&O. And yet the high edteeni in 
wluch the (^Kwtles, prophets and teachers were held 
laid the foundation for f uttire dovolopraenta ; besides, 
Ignutiui) had already deelared that ther attitude 
toward the hishop determined the attitude toward 
God nnd toward Cliriet, and othor teacherfl insisted 
that ono must f<jnow the *'ancionts", tho dieciplcs 
of tlw niKUftlefi, in iill tJtingT«- 

fljr^UvB of 

This survey indicates that th© decisive premisoi 
for tlie evolution of tllo Catholic systom of doctrine 
wor^ already in eristence before the middle of the '?<! 
century aud before the heated contcet with ^osti* 

The poconis whicJa have oome liowu to us from 
tbe iBt century of tho Gentilo Church are of a very 



varied character from the point of view of the his- 
tory of doguia. In th<» huiavhe we havea catecJiiao) 
for the Clinatiiiii tif^, ciejxsiideiit upon a Jewisli- 
Orcok CAtoohiiun, whI t)rin^tig out in the prayers 
and rf<^l<-6iiM>iiim1 fliKd'jtliiie thiit which is specifically 
ChHtitij&ti. T!iu liaruahas-EpiaiU^ probohly of jVl- 
exundrituj uri^iii^ teaches iho currect (Chi"l»lJau| 
interpretation of the Old Testament, castfi aaicle 
verhal interpretation and Jiidmmi ^a of tbe devil, 
and follows PanI eAsentifilly a8 reganl^ Chrifitolotcy- 
The f^nio OhriftloInffT," ^^ repn>8^ntf*I in the Roman 
J. Vietnenl' Epistle, which adso eontaina Pauline 
reminittoences (iu regard to atonement and juatifi^ 
cation), but theiw aro conceived from the moral 
standpoint. It is classically reprefti*nt*>d in Hennas 
Paxtor and in tbe //. Cletnenf-KpiMIe, where the 
eAchatolojjpcal element is ako very pn'^minent- The 
CliHatology of the former in the adoption; tbe 
author of tbe II. Clem. Gpiat. haa no oc^slatont 
(^i«lo)ogii\ but fol Iowa various motives. Tljt? the- 
otogy of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as 
he, in the contest with the ^oaticii, made the facts 
of salvation prominent and drew hia own gnosis 
from the hiatoi? of Christ rather than from tbe Old 
Testament. He sought to make Joaua Christ, MTf^ 
»»"5jMi and f^Td rf4^K«, thocentreof ChriBtiauily. The 
Epbtleof Polycarp is chai-acterislitrott aoxfunt of ita 
dependence upon oarlior Cliristian writings (Paul's 
E^istloft, I. Pet«r, I- John), and on account of its 
ooQsorvativo attitude towarl the moet valuable tm 



I. Cli»- 


11, l'l*v 



fm^f^ ditloDS. The Prccdicalio Petri umrkaUie tranmiion 
from llie primilive CliriBliiui Iitomry activity to the 

ap<Jogetic writera (Christ as ^^^'-^ and i'V^*)- 







Souroee: The writfnx^ of Jtuilin nud thn mt\j Oatliolio 
Fktiipn, tqs«Uufl- witlt Epipliauiiu and Tht^cnrt Fmg- 
akenbi ooUm)!^ bjr HilKcn'f^J. KetBorj^^Aoh. 18^. Di-«crifi- 
tioiMi by Kiiuidi^r. GnoHlLtt-Jie System. 1>4I8, BftUr, UDiviai. 
1^35, LipAius. GntnticUmmt, iSflO, Mocller, Kuauiologii^ iu 
clw gfW}j. Kiivhi-, 1800 : vide ftlHO Ki?iiau. UiaL du*. One, 
dQClulstlaniftme**. T. V -VU. 

1. ONOHTir!*i« ift ftmnnifftttation f>f U)f> K'^'atfEyn- 
cretio mo^iMiioiii cif tlio ^d mid 3d oenturiw, which 
svnn (NXlifficiinHl hy the iut43rc)i;Lii|^ of tintioiinl n4ig* 
ions, hy th<^ contact of Orient and OccUlt^nt, and by 
the iafluonco of Oreek i>Iiilo90pliy iqKm religion in 
general. It aimed at the winning of a irorld-relig^ 
iorit in which inon should he ntUnl, not on tho b^stfl 
cif citizon^hip, but scoording to tho t^truidard of thoir 
int«1h>ctunl JUid morti! aptjttii1«. Tho Oiwi>«!l w»s rw> 
ogin»Hl ^ts a \vor\t\'TiAt^on only in 3^> far ai< it could 
be severed from thd Old Tc«tAm«nt religion and tbe 
Old Toetomont, and bo moulded by the religious 
pbHocH^phy of tbe Gre«k» and grafted upon the 
ftxiHting cultufi-vLHclom and practit^v uf ikocult mys- 





terioB. Tiio niomua by vrbioh thja arUficial union 
was to be Uixmght alx>ut wai* the atieiiioriatt aittliv^tl 
I 08 u»od lung since by the GreeJc religioua phili^eo 
Iphera. Tb« posHibilit)- of the rieo of a Chrimti^n 
^osticiam lay in tbi», that il\o Cbristian commu- 
iiitiivL La*! ererywhere fallen hoJr toUio ht^ritageof 
the Jewifili |n'<ij>Mganda, vrbori* iboro wtw n1iva<]y nn 
exutmraiit tc^iiduncy to ft]>iritunli£C the 01<) Tcst'Ltncnt 
i^Uguin, find wlwfjT* Ui*; hitolUictujU rit^n?^ ia n^ig- 
ioii liad \on^ been unbriilltHl. FEcside^, Xht Godpol of 
Climl, and es)K<:tally Cbn^t himift^lf, hud made such 
an ovcrwhobning impression that men were pos- 
hotMi^I by tlitf KtTtmgc^t iiajmW^ toKuIxirdinute their 
highest oonc«ptiuud to him, whcneo, ii>9 ico ofton, the 
•^ vicitis vict(f$'i lt<fmn dat " attfiincil it* right, Fi* 
mdly the Christian pi^cachin^ fn^m the beginiiing 
[>n>nii»iHl a gnosis of Uie wi^lom of (jod, ^pe 
ciiUly that of Paul nn antinoiniaQ gnoiifia, nnd the 
ehijrchi<8 in the empire eoncuivoil the CfariHtinn 
wiwdrjai tw i*'r"i ^rftiia^ in aox^Hancp with their 
GroolE oonoopHpn^; tbcy ooDihmcd tho myetcnotifl 
wjtli A nuirvtJIgtiJt <^)ciiiic«ft the spiritual with the 
m(^t Htgiiiflmnt rites, and sought in this way, 
through their organisatian aiid through their " pbil- 
odophical Iife'*> to realize that ideal for whicli llie 
Hdlenic religious spirit was then striving, — namely, 
a communion* or feUowsbipf which^ upon the baais 
of a Divine o^vehition, comcK into tlio poswiwion of 
the bighoat knowledge and therefore rcatizes the 
holiest life, audwliichoommunicatwthi^kDowledge^ 



ovriAsn or the iiistoby of dooka. 


not through mtionnl (li^tni^Hion, but tbrongli my8* 
turiuu^ vfllcaciouft consccmtioEm ai)i) rovuniotl iloc' 

3. Wv aro now {jropurotl to oeBC^rt, thut in giios- 
l!ci»m Uiu Acute dtagv uf a prucue^ waa renctivil, 
wliich began enrly in tlie Cburcb and which under* 
wuiit » 8low ami distinct evolution under tht* Cntho* 
lie ^j'sUrni. Tbo gno^tic^ ^yevG the tkeolotiians of 
tho Ut coutury; Uiey wore tlie fint to traiuform 
ClimtiAnity into a »y«t4>iu of doctriuoA (dogmuH); 
they vrure the Hmt to treat tradiliunnud thf* primitive 
Chrisftiiui ScTij>turett HjHteiiiatically; they nndrrtook 
to set forth Uhrifltianity^ a^ t^e absolute religion^ and 
th«y tlierefOTe placed ii in opposition to the otJiur ro* 
li^Lon8, totliat of the Old Te«tanient aa well (rtotalon< 
t/i Judji)«m); but the absolute ivHgiou, which tlio: 
CDiiplod with Chri^ w«8 to theiu i^ea<»ntlal]y idvni 
with the teaulUofth4)pliilo8ophy of religion, for vrhich^ 
ttiej had now foimd the busis in a revelalion: They 
to wore accordingly a irJtiss of Christians who e^sui^'ed 
thnAigh a fiharp onaot to conquer Christianity for 
Hirlkiuic culture, ami Hellenic culture (or ClinHtiau* 
ity, and they tlic^rithy al>nTidonMl thr Old Tumbiment 
in order to fitly clorw up tlie broach between Uio two 
op|Kwlng for4^i.«*, Clirirttifiulty bt'canii^ an u<x-ull thy- 
euftT^m- *>*<»phy (I'^vealed int'taphy«ioM and apparition philoH- 
'^^' ophy, panueated with the Platonic spirit and with 
Paulino idcttfl, coojatructed out of the nrnteria) of 
an old «>idtu>i-wiMlom wht^h wnia aniuirpcl thnnigh 
in}nit4frio« and th<t illuiniDod undi>n4tiu)ding, di>fino<l 






by a kfviii mill, iti iviH, irtus rrilir-ipcm of iho Old 
Tofttwnuiit n.4]^ion mid tho itciLnl f;uU) of tlto Churcb. 
C<^ifKM|ueuUy una lA obli)^ to verify in tfav proDii- 
nent giiostic schools the Hamitic cosmologioU prin- 
ciple^^ the HdleDic phtlo^phjrAl ideas and Uie 
kiiowled^ of tlio rodemptioit of tiio world ihrougli 
ChriKt* And ono must also Uiko uccount of tbeBO 
Uiiv'ir fftctont: Tlio >ipvriilAtiv<f philoec^bicfil, Ulo 
oiUioh'invjiticid and tho duali±»iic affcctic* TJio con- 
juucUou ot tlivvw dijiueiiUt, Uio eulin? Lrucu«funiuittoa 
of every ethical problom into a coemological i>njb- 
hm and, fbiallyt tlu^ viow that huinan hi»toT>' is 
but H oontiiniatioti of natural hiiU>r>-, oepeciallj that 
r^GDiptioD h lilt tbo ta^ od in tho drama which 
hjul it« origin in tho Qodhead ibM^lf and iu devdop- 
mrnt in tbc world — all Uioso nn> not peculiar to 
^lOQiicism, Liut a 8taj^ itt tbu i^-uorul development 
which was in many wa\'8 rchiUKl to PhilontHm and 
which aiiUcipatoil Noo-PlatoiiiMm and CatboliciBjn. 
Out of tli« crns8 mytliolo^)* at an Oriental religion, 
by tbo trim^ormutiDn of tlio ci>Tirr4*t^ forma into 
^MCulativo aud othit^ idooK, aucIi tm " Abj^se", ''Si- 
hnoo", *^Lcjg*w\ -^Wietdom", "Lifo" (the Suoitic 
namcH woro ortoti retained], there was formed a mj- 
Ibology of notions in which the juxtapoBilion and tho 
number of these ideas were determined by the pro- 
ptnindinc of ft ftcbeme. Thus was produced a philo- 
Bopbical, drama ti co-poetic n^pi^osoDtation similar to 
iht^ rialuuic, but f^r iiujiv i-uinjJir^it^^ mul ihtTi-futw 
more faotastical, in which Uioj^e oiighly ixjwers, the 





oiiTi^rnw or thk hirtory or dogma. 


Bpintiial and the Kood, Hpp^ire<1 to ba^e been braufcht 
into nn unholy alliance with tlie material niid tho 
bnitOf from vrhich hon^vcrr fiiiallv tho spiritual, h»- 
0irit«d by kimlixKl powera which are too uxaltod evi>r 
to be abased, is Bfter nJl n?iidi«rwl tree. The good 
and the heavenly which is de^aded to the material 
\h the humati Bpirit; and the sublime Power which 
eeli* it free is the Chriet. The Oospel history is not 
the history of Christy Imt a collertion of allegoriral 
ropreaent^tions of the great Divine world'history. 
(*brUt baa in tnith no history ^ hie appearance in 
thi» world uf cr.nifuHiou and ddufion is biH own act 
and the etiligbtctimoiit of the ^ pirit» a« reffards jU»elf, 
Jit tbe effect of this act. This illunainatioti itt^lf in 
life« but it is dependent upon asceticiani aiid upon a 
fturrfitwler to the myHterioH orthiined by ChriHt, in 
vrhich i>ne cornea into comDiunion with a pra^sens 
Huntt^n, and which in a mysterious way gradually freo 
the spirit from the world of Dense. This spiritualiz- 
ing process should also be actively cultivated. Absti- 
wuwi. tty n^u^^ ig thereforo the watx'h-cry, Cbristianity is 
ttceordinsly « speculative philosophy wliich n*deema 
the vpirit (pw-TfC ttuirr,/*^'!^), iDafimucb as it enlig^ht- 
ons and consecrates it aud directs it unto the truo 
way of life. The gnods is free from tlie rational- 
istic i»l^n?et of the stcfl. The powers which (five 
vigor and life to the spirit rule in the supersensiblo 
worll. The only guide In thi» world is a /I'i^^tfiff 
(uiit oXH<*t. phih>t«opb3') n*stiu{r ii|>oii a ix^v<)1iitiim nrd 
idlted with fit^Tt^tY^^j-u. This fundamt>«ital pruicipW 



Aro jiooordingly llie foUowing; (I) Th© flupersensi- 
Llc, iiKlefijiiU- and otornal nature of tho dtvioe pn- 
nioixlial B^io};, (d) tbe evil (iit>t real) luatUfr oppoB^ 
to the diviae Being, (3) the pleaitude of the divine 
powers (flons) which, viewfd partly as powers, partJy 
a8 ix?jJ ideas, partly as reiiilively iiuli^pendeut beings, 
ropnwent ia nta^^A the dovebpiin^nt ami rovoUtion 
of tho Divinity, but which at the *tamo timo axo 
int^iiil^ U> make j>uHHib)i- tlie ImiiMtioi) from tJio 
higher to 111© lover, (i) the cosmos a^ a mixture of 
tnatter witli sparks of the divine Being, and which 
originatod from the descent of the latter into tho 
fonnrr, i,e. from a reproilien^ilJo unflortaktng of a 
Kithordiiiat^ Kpirit, mi-rely fhronijh tJio Divino i;iif- 
fcnmcc, (5) tho fnyjinp of tJio itpiritiud eleniL'nfo from 
their uuioti with tiuitlvr, or thu m-parvtton of tho 
goo<l from the eensuouh \\'orld through tho Christ- 
Spirit, which isiactivo in holy conaccmtiou!^, knowl- 
edge ami adooticism — thus arisi>« tbo compleU^ gnos- 
tio, the iuiIepi-iiLlout world-froo spirit, who livea iii 
God and propar^ ilinmplf for <*tomit7, Tho rewt of 
mfinkind arc «irth-bom [hylik<rn»)» Yet Icfuling 
tofbchcm (School of Vulontiniw) diHtinguish «lm>lHs- 
tween bylikore nud [xsyrhikerM; the Litter were tho 
doeTH of the law, wljo Uved by law and faith, for 
whom the ccimmon faith is good ^tough, that is, 
nGmsftary. The contre of gra\aty of the gnofitic 
B}'«tom did not reel in ita changing details, which 
arv HO inipoifecUy known (u lus hut in ittt aim and 
in it« pt:»tulat«ja. 




3. Til© pliASoa of gHOsticiwm were aa variegBled as 
possiMo (brutlii-rhooda^ nsoetic order?s cultufl of myti- 
teriofi, secret 8cboo1», froo devotional associatiout^, 
performiuic^d by CLrtHtwn 8windlora imd boLnij'Lsl 
botrtLyore, nttontpti* in 4«titblii4li now roligionii n£iov 
tho pattern miil umk^r tim iiiUncjico of tho Cbnstino 
roligioji). AcunxHiigly Ui(^ rdutiun of gnoEliciKni 
to tluit wbiob vras comniou to all ChnstiunH imd to 
the iudividuol CbriHtitiri uommuuiticH wjik exceed- 
ingly varied* On tbo oiic band, ^[iiogtictsm pene- 
trate to th« very liemrt uf tboc^o CbriHtiHti <^hurchfis 
in ^bicb docetio itnd dniiliHticascotic miluences 
were largely ut work and wber© there wae a strong 
tendency lo vary thy origiiml form of the kerygma; 
on the other tuvndf Uiero were gnrjetic commiiiiitiea 
that remajneil apart and indeod abborroil aU tUlimicos 
with others. For the hiHtory of dogma lb(> right 
wing of gnostioifim nnd the renl Htetn, the great 
guoatic school eocte (Ba&iltdiants Valontiniana) come 
especially under cotik iiJu ration , The latter wi»lied 
to establinb a higher oi^rr of Cbrmtiims above the 
c<)nimon psychikeni, who wore barely endured. I^ho 
content was mainly with those and they wore tho 
theologian ft from whom later generationR lenrncil 
and wiiro tho 4rat to write olemeutary wcrhtt on 
dogTmttii^, etliicti, and ACientiQc and txegelical troa- 
tiaeH; in Hhort, tliey laid the fonitdAtions of Cbris- 
tJAii Iheologinil lilcratiin.* ami Ix^gan the elaboration 
oCChrit^ttau tr<ulitioij. The i^xpulsion of tbene gnoB- 
ticft and of the right wing (Eucmtit*-ti, "Oocette," 



Totian) could bo accomplished only slowly and it 
was a ivtiult of the consolidating of the Christiaii 
eommuniti^t into the Catholic Church which was 
called forth by thiA Rnostic movement. 

ThftrifiGof gnosticism ift fully <^jq>lain€?d from the 
(^*iM*rul conditioiaB under wliich Chriatiat: prcia<>hmg 
flourinUed on Romau aoil and from itA own attnictiuu 
Es a sure atmouBcemi^nt of knowledge, life and dis- 
cipline, attributed directly to a Divine Person who 
had appeared upon tlie earth. The Church fatbera 
bold distracted Judaism, together ^T]tb tlie demons, 
raaponsible for its rifte; lat<*r tliey attribnto it to Uie 
Saroaritau mcesioli, Simon, tbou to the Greek phi- 
Io8opher9, and finally to those who show theni&elvee 
diiiobedient to ecclesiiiatical diivjpline. In all Uiis 
there was aparticula ^■<rl as may be easily shown; 
the syncretiam which led to this Christian ^00* 
ticiam undoubtedly had one of ita principal centT«6 
in Samaii tan -Syrian territory and the other in Alex- 
andria; but it mual not bo overlooked that the coii- 
_ditiona were everywhere preeeiLl io the empire for a 
DntaneouB developmentn On that account it is im- 
possible to write a history of the development of 
^oBticiam, and it would be 80t even if we knew 
more tlian we do alkMit tbe [inrticular systems. We 
can distinguish only between Jowish-Christiati and 
Oeotile- Christian gnc&tica, and can group the latter 
only accortiinp toUieir greater or leaa departure from 
the commoa Christian faith as exemplified in their 
Tar>']ng attituJe toward tlie Old Testament and the 







UirJ ihftt- 

tlBU Ofl«» 

nrTi.TKRR or trk msrftHT of oooma. 

domiurgo, anil tfa<^n (*eek o»t of tbisi to form from an 
itnMiuiivl rf^iilin}^ nf tbn (?)LnsLliiui writingfi un Mca 
of "gmwiio." That Uie ontiro mnny'Sid^^d move- 
uioDt, ill wliioh lloUeuiani, vriUi tiil ilm ^ood atid Laid 
c|niditlofi, m>ii);bt to ndnpt the (^o^pel, should grado- 
lUEr ticttviine a Cbristian, or^ rather^ an ecdeeiafitical 
liVAVinont, Uy in the tmture of the ca^te. But it U 
not thon^tjro po«nble to in^Mip tbe sr^tenis in the 
M OMitiif^ ^imnQki(pl<*«Bjr mvcmiing to n Cliris^tUn 
9liu»\lanl, am(v attMni>C8 like tfant of CAipocmtee be- 
Uw^ ti> tho C'oHiiY and not tu the later times. 

4. AItbo«gblhodifl«i«ic«»be<weaDgiia0tic Chris- f 
tiui^ and tte eonmaa cpctoriwtirii! Uth, as wvfl 
i* lb* hivr cccfcottMical tbcolngj, appear t& pari 
ftiitiat ttt so btf a» ia tlw latter abo the 

fhW kwln%« Id order t» BttbdM Ife 
«3 te as Ike cvrrrv vaa na* 

I: 1^ A is 





Tostnmemt, tbu» njoc1ii:g dualmo), (3) that the 

CburcJi niaintAiQcd tbe unity taid the paritj of lia- 

kintl and therefore tho simplicity and univenial 

icy of the Christian s-ilvation. and (4) that it 

Crvon,* rittjompl to inti'o<luc* new, Ork-iitel 

niytholopicft, FruiJod in this by the onrly Christisiti 

oonscioii^oftx niul n o«>rtAiii imloprtnclt^nt jndgmcmt. 

However, tlio Chiirrh in ib* conl^Mt wilh gnosticiflm 

k-unicd II irrent ilvnl frLHii U, Tlw jiriiiriprLl tHjintr^ priiwiMi 

^ Ptiltrtji im- 

which wcro under aisciisftion mny lio briefly flum- dw dikw 

marized nj* follows (Ihewonl "positive" iLppcndod to 

ftgnoKtic |>ropoAitir>D itidic«tc« that tlie doctrine tmd 

a poaifire iiiflu«nco in tho duvol»pmi>Dt of the 

Cburt'h xHew and doctrino) t (I) Christianity, which 

ic Iho only tnic and aboohjtc rcligioD, contnint* n re* 

vealvd syt^tem of duetHii« (ix)«f.)> (2) tJie Koruidor is 

Chri»t (|KW.), but Wirist aione^ and Christ, only m 

far aa* ho wiis imidc nmnifc^t (no O. T. Chriat). 

Thb matiiftH^Ution i» it«elf ttie r«ilcn][)tT<jn,— -tlio 

tAAcbiDg ix thi^ pmoliimation f>f tliis and of the ntc* 

CHCory prt*(iippD*i]tioiiH (poa.), (3) tho Cliriftti^ui tcuch- 

i|]|C iei 1(1 W (IiMliK^^Ht from the ajHjAtoHt' Irndituiti 

crittcaUy treat<-(l ; the same 18 found in the a^XMtoliu 

wriUngH and in an esoteric doctrino tmn^mittod 

by tho apostleet (poa.) ; as an open doctrine it i^ oon- 

dcnsod in th^ retrntajidei (pos.), as »n esoteric doo- 

trin^ it ia tnui«mitto<l hy jtpjuiintMl teaeherK, (4) tiie 

primitive revolution (jiposit^ilic Scripturcfi), oven bo* 

fsuife it ift Midi, itiu^L \k vx(KitiiidiHl by nietiiiH fjf tho 

allegory, in order to draw out ft^ det*per moBning 




O. T. 



va*>«r At 


(pos,)^ (5) US to tho srpAnite fKiHions of th« rrf^uJa 
ft* tho gnoctie« undonttocd thvtn, U>o fi^lowing aro 

(a) The di^pcuity between iho supremo God aud 
Um) Oontor of tho world, And tho conT^uent contrast 
of rMoni|>tion ai^d crvatiiHi. i.e., the sepontioa of 
Um> mediator of n-velation and the mediator of crea- 

(h) tlio dt«tiDguii3hii^ of the Siipromo God from 
tlw Qod of tbo Old TvKlaimmt, aod tbi' cutisix|umit 
TOJoction of th« O. T,; f,«, the declaration that the 
O. T. i(M» Dot contain a revehitioD of the Supreme 
God. unlcM it be in certain paTt&, 

(c) tho doctrine of the Bbt^utenea^j aikd et^^iiity of 


(d) the affirmation that the pieeont world came 
int^) oxiKtenoo throu^a fall into kiii. i.e. through 
an tmdortftking anttgoni^ic to God, and that it ia 
tbereforo tho product of an evil» or intermediate 

(e) the doctrine that evil h inberoit in matter aad 
ift a phyiticnl agevk^, 

(f) the «cccf>l«nco of ooik#, t>. of ivod powen and 
bearenl)' persooii^ in wliom the absoluteoeas of the 
Divini^ unfoMa hsctf, 

(g> tlH> afBrmation that Christ prodaimed a hith- 
erto uuknovvn Divinity. 

(h) thrt doctrine that in Jeeu^ Christ, the hearmly 
Ki>n— the giKwtiQs righ^ saw rcdetsptioQ in hia 
r^rmm^ but they Rducod hi» Fcnoci to a morr seU*- 1 



exJatont Aejnj;— Ohmtnnd thotnimitn inanif«i8tatu»i 
of bim ar4> to bo dourly dietlni^iiftlHKt unti to each 
uittiire » ^disiincic agerc" nas Uj bo {^vcii (uot 
doc^itmi, but ih€ Iwo-natiire doctrine idchnracter- 
irtic). j\ocordnit$ty 8onus U8 Biiailidt^d, ri<<xj^i:tt-i) 
DQ taal iinioa wliaWvcr betwouu Cbri^t iind the inuii 
Jceu», whom thoy ollK>rwUe ttCC4?pt«0 ub a reel man. 
C>tJior«. tw uportiongf tho VAlentinians — their Clme- 
tologj" wjin exceedingly complicated antl varied— 
tnu^lit thut thebodyof Je»iisw»0a Iieuvenly*p«yciu' 
cal form, and tjiat it only apparently catne forth 
from tbe womb of ,Mary. Others finally, like Sator* 
nil, explained tliat the entire visible manifeBtation of 
ChriMt waa only a phanla^nia, and henee they [jueA- 
tioDed th« reality of his birth, 

(i) the transformation of tho ^■■^«s*^a (that the 
Iwaveiily Chun'h wan looked upon us im eon was 
nothinf^ a<^w) into tb^ cotlegtusn of tbt' piieuinu* 
tikera, who alon^ shall enjoy the highest blessednen, 
while the hylikem Hhali Anffer destruction and the 
pAyehikera witli their li-Ui) iriirtt^ shall obtain only an 
inferior bl€»«odnc^ 

(k) the rojcdion of the ivbole of primitive Chri»- 
tJan eacbfttology, especially the return of Christ and 
the resurrection of the body; with this waB coupled 
the aCGrmation that in the future one sbouH expect 
<m\y Uie freeing of tlie spirit from the veiled life of 
the a€ms««, while the spirit it±te1f iti enUghtened an^ 
aaaured of God and already puffit*««ea trnmortnlity 
and only awaits an entrance into the pleixana, 




Churcli ia 
of i'uvu- 





(]) tlie dualmtie etbicn (rigid aaoetifloi) which kere 
and there may liave %*eer«Hl over into libertiTiimn. 

How strongly giiostiriftm antioipatMl PHtboHoihim 
becomoe uppareut «>flpeduU>- fn«m ita CUri^Uilu^^ euid 
it« doetrioe of reilcJUj'tiou, frum lUi ma|;ic<ult niiil 
its doctrine of tJie Hacmmente, abd from its ftcieutific 



Hju^** UARCTf>N flhoold nM be classed with fni^tios lik^ 
*™'*P* Basiiides and Valeiitiniia ; for (1) ^^ *"•** guided by 
DO metophysico], ol^o by no apologoticuL, but ooly 
by a purely noteriolugicul iutcrwt, (S) im tbcrvfon^ 
pLaced the wiiole ejnpha«i» upon the pure Uoepel and 
upon faith (not ujkon knowledge), {^) he did not em- 
ploy philoHophy— at least not as a main principle^ 
in his «m«>ptioD of Cliristianity, (4) he did not en- 
deavor to found ecboola of philoeophere. but to re- 
form, in a^-oonlauce xviUi tlie inw Pauline Qonpot, 
the churches whoi^e Christianity he believcMl to be 
le^liatic (Judaistic) and who, aA be thoagbt, deoiied 
^dSSr^l * '"* *f™*' When he failed in thia, he fonoed a 
church of hitiown. Wholly captivated by the nov- 
elty, uni(|uen<3^ and glory of the grace of Qod in 



Christ, W Wliovci! ilint the wli/iqi nti1itlicw?» of 
Paul iLriw iuiii Ou»ptO, WL>rki» luid fuith^ flt?«]i um] 
spirit, 8iu uiiJ rigbt«ouf(iK^s6) iimat bo muib tbe 
foun<)ation of roligioiis conceptiotut, uud tlmt these 
antitheses must be appr;rtti>i]od IkiUvcl-u the right- 
eou%, nri^ry flixl of ihi> Old Ti^stjiiiniiit, wh<^ m iden- 
tical with tho Creutorof tiio world, wnd Uw God of 
th« Ow|H?l, who «nu» unknown biiforc Christ, and 
wbu l8 nothing but Love and Mercy, Thi* orafifl cnMDma- 
duiUiflm— a Paulmiain without <iialoclic». Old Tt^ta- 
ment, ot the Je^vijih-ChristiJUi vivw of history— waa 
put forth by Marcion, not without his Wmg infla* 
onc*d by the Syrian gnomx (CVrd(>). With th<» etbi- 
oal ijontraat of tho eublimo aud good on the one »>c1o, 
mid thtj {K?tly, ju9i iun\ hnrd oii ttiooUit^ llivtv wtU5 
joined tho contrast l>etwixfn the eternal, spiritual And 
tho limited, sentient, in a way which thrcnti^iod to 
ilvbJkie tho problem ?igsin to a i|uefltion of co^uology. 
In detail, tho following points uro i-^pocially impop- 

1. Tho Old Tcntninont waft vxponndvd by Marcion ^^J5u**JJ 
acordlug lo iW verbal aenne ami with a i-ojwtion of ^*™"«' 
all allegorical iDtorpr^tatiouft; bo acci^ptoil it na a 
rovolation of tho Creiator of tbe world and uf the God 
of the Jewu; but tfvcn on tlm ac<<ount hu pbiced it 
in sharp antitlifwia to th^ Ckmpcd i»[^ tbo '' Antith^- 
eaa") the contt^nt cf which ho discoverod *ol<»ly to 
the utt^^miKtM of Jwiis and ii» the Tauline Epi»t]^4s u*onU*Slj 
aft'Vr that hi^ liad purified thern from Ripposed Jew- ki^'iajX 

III* Hq-I* 

hh int^rpolatioaa. Those interpolations were^ ac- (i<»p«l 



P»iAiAE« the Old Tostttmoat. 


cording to lii8 idon* of lon^ »(tnD(lii)g. sitico the 
twdlvv npojctli^ did not nndonttf^ml Jwim nnd mis- 
<}on0tnjod hm Gt^cpcl, mnlciTi^ it to oorr(w]>oiid with 
Paul, who W115 Cflllcd hy Chrifit 
to ti^Htoru Uio tnio OoepoT, was tlic crilj ont^ wlio per 
coivod thflt Jestus bad proclaimed a liithorlo unknown 
God of gnic« in of^xiaition to Jehoviib. As hia 
preaclunj; has also been obscured, he, Marclon, has 
l>eoT» nnthoriv^ to r^tore thp pnre GcapeU This 
was tJio miBsion whicb !^farcion*B church nttribiitod 
to him, nnd it guvo hi» "^ Aiititlun9L*» '* a sort of cuuon- 
icikl nuthorit}'. 

*^. Marcion'is cone(!iption of God und his Christol- 
ogy reaemhla tho gnotitic in »o far aa ho also empha- ^ 
sized most clearly the newneiw, uniquoucwH and ab;i>-^^H 
lutono8Sof Christinnity in opjioftition to tho Churc'h 
nt largoi ho surpri«aod the gn"r*ticv, however, in iwj 
far a» ho concuivwl miuikind U} U* whtlly Ujo oIT' 
Fpring of tho Crwitor of tlio world m>i (otind in 
inau*6 nuturo nothing akin to the God of IjOvo. 
But lovo and gracd aro acrx>rdi[ig to Mnrcion tho 
entire 3«ub»tun<^ of tho Godhoiwl; rodornpti^ri is th<! 
most inooiiiprohtf[itfib!<r act of tho Divino mi.>rcy, an<] 
^vorythin^ that tlw? Chrifttian [>o»n<tiffeit ho owc« to 
Christ atonet vi'ho \» tho manifestation of tho good 
God himwlf. Through hit( suffmug ho purchased 
from Uio Creator of tho world those who believe on 
Vooeutia him» and won tbem for him^lf. Tlio rigid doco* 
ttBCi, bowoverf which M&rcion taught, — tlie dixriara- 
tion tliat tbo «onk» only of men will be Bavod,— the 

r«iuiiciatj<»3 af the return of ChtiBt and tiie increaa- 
ingly bard asi^ticiflm, evmi to th« prohiUUion of mar- a«*h- 
riago (in spilo of ilio tlioiijfht that OalV love should 
contml thft '* trnw " Ufft) , ai* piwif« tlutt M»in'Km wtw 
to a otu^in exlorit ilcfeuocloE^ iigquiLst Hcllunictm ; on 
the otiier haiLtl, In;* (^fvcliitbilogiml iilciui iii()JCH(e Uiut 
be WHS soekiiig to return to tbe inoiiaroby of the 
good Oo(I. 

X Willi the view of rodtorini; liio Oiurch of Uio ^^p^y 
puro Qi«pel aiid of gatlimng t^igt'ttur tho rodoi^m<?d *^**^ 
who uivt hntcul by ihn G*w! of thirt worMj Miirrion 
cntt^icx] ccrtiiiii cviingcliciil writingEi of a. ptirtiiruljir 
chftmct«r to be collected (Laku\i Qon^tel ajid 10 
PnuHno Epiatlee), laid down <*ertain principles for 
their interppetation aiid drew tlio commuuitiw* into 
a closer. thouK^ trfivv, orKiiDiuhtion, Iiia^uiuoL as 
ho n^ject^l the Old T^wlament* together with all 
'^natunU'^ ntltf^n, philoi^ophy mid &wcrot Iraditioti, 
ho WAit ul>H^(1 to miffw^r tlie question, Wtmt ifl 
Clirifltian? out of the hbitorJcal records. Here, aa 
in many other respects, did he auticijkate the Cath- 
olio Church. 

4. Tbe profound oon<M>ptton that the taws which owmuon 
m1© in nntiin^ and hi>*tjir^' «n<i the coui^m? of Hvil "JSS^* 
rightooumieifif arc n rofli?cti<.m *>( the elcIa of Divino 
Dicrcy, and tlmt humblv faith mid fervent love aio 
the very opposite or self-complaoent virtue and lielf- 
righteousness — thii^couc^ptioit, which dcmiuatodthe 
Christianity at Maroion, aitd which reetrained him 
from every rationalistic attempt ut a aystem, was not 



dearly maintained hy his churcU m time went od. 
In iirder to clcwe up Itie brwichiw Hiid lo remove the 
inoonBistenciefi of his conceptiotip*, some of liis pupils 
advanced to a doctrine of ttireo principleet otbere to 
a vulvar dualiau), withocil Iumvitvui riurrvinlt^riii^ eij- 
Ap-iJM tii-ely the fundamental idejis oi Uioir master. Apelles. 
however, Mar<^ion'* gn«tl0i*l pupil, rettimed to the 
Gonfe^ion of tho ouu Goil, without in oUier rospoets 
Burrondmnif tli« master's conooptionif: And, indeed, 
he further dov<^ped uoma vulual>lu idua«t, ut whidi 
Mardoti had only liinted. 

The Church fatben strenuoiialy i>]i|K>m^d Mitrcioit 
as the worst of heretics. In its conte^rt mtb him tlie 
early Catholic Church doctrine wan developed iu 
»peo ia I < li reotioDa- 



L PRtiimVR Chrisfiiinity appeared eimply aa a 
Christian Judaism, tlie oatabliahm^nt of a universal 
religion upon tlie Old Testament Uism; accordingly 
It retained in so far aa it wna not Lelleni^etl — and 
that was never fully acccmplishod^tlio Je^vi&h im- 
prettd of it« origin ; above aU it rL'laantx] tho Old TeJS* 
tamcoit as a primitive revelation. Heni^e the diapo- 
sitiOD made of tlie Old Teatament waa wholly Chris- 
tian, proocoding on tho aRaumption that theCIim- 
tiiuiH am thfl true Urael, that the Old ToiiUmont 







reFoT^ to tbe Chri^lijui ot^iiiintion and te&chuigi 
iU)A thiN whether ft mow cr \v^ tt*Alietir or spirituul 
inter|>r«tAlioii of it vnm in vogue. TLu qucvjtion ns 
b> dm |>Htioi|>l«4 of iiit4<riinrULt]on wtm a proMtim 
within tJie Church, so long as no euporiarit^ wnd 
cuucoItO to tbe Jewish tuition as such, cuid until thu 
abrug»lioti of the Jewish ceremoniee anU law« wns 
JDsiatod up^TO. Therefore the terra "Jetrisli^Chri^- 
tiauity ** IB applicable exclu»ive1y to those ChristiatiB 
wlio really retained, entirely or in the Hmallefit part^ 
the national aud poiiiical fonuii of Judaiem and 
inaist«d iijKiu Uio oloorvui<;u of the Modaio Law 
without motlification 3n ossential to Christianity, at 
least to tbo ChriHtiauity of the Jowish-boru ciuvertA, 
or wlio indt*c<I rejected tliene forms, hut orknowl- 
edRod the preroKalivo of i\w Jowisdi /?*o/>/e also in 
Chrifttianiiy (Pii]»iiw in »pit« cf hi** Hiiliasm; the pb»iu^ di- 
anthor of Uns Didaehe, in apite of hii* trflnsferenco 
of the Old Testauient priestly rights to tho Chria- 
tian pri:>pbetfl; Hemia^t, in spite cf tlie waning an- 
cient (Jreek philcisophy ; the adoption Christoiogists, 
in spite of their rejection of the Logo6«, are not 
Jewifth ChrLitiaiiti; Paul, however, i& becaURe of 
Romans XI. ). The strong draft made upon the Old 
T«eiameul in favi^r of the Catholic cultus-, doctnne- 
and d]8cipliiie-»yBtem, is »o litdea bigu of the ad- 
vance of Jewish Christianity in tbe (Jhurch at hu-ge, 
that it mtlier nnis parallel to the Advancing Hellen- 
1810, aiul was CJilIcd forth by it. The forraub, **the 
UfW law," in the Cfitholic (^httn^h i^t not Jewiftb, 





tvjr Ov#^^ 

for Somi> 


wf Amiiiic 

butauti-Jowuli, j'ot it loft rvora for Uk« glipping (n 
of mopt* nnil mom of tho Old Tfsfattit^nt nmimnnd* 
monU ii\U> ilut Clmrcb. 

2. Jowisli Christmnitj', «no<s a mightj luitngnniet 
of Paul, wj%»y tlirougli his UljorH and tJie labfirs vt 
othor teacbont, iia well as through the native torco 
of thfj OiHipel, overconte. lu tho foil of Jertitulcm 
thia cunqueet was compbled. Since then Jewish 
ChHstmnity 1ms not hoen a factor in tin* liiMN^n- of 
the Church, whilo Juflaiftm hoB remained ftuch (in- 
QuBiico Qf Judiiisni upon tht? churL-lio?* vf tho fnrilivil 
Orient, in tlie 4tb iind 5th c^'iilurk^). Hovvovcr. 
Jewish Chrifitiund (Ebiouite^, NAauvni^) ojcii^tcd fur 
some time, and among them tbo diKtinctioDB re- 
mained which word ainvady formuUited in the apoA- 
tolic ago- Sepnrate<l from tho mmn Church ori^- 
nally, not on nccoimt of *" doctrine", but on Account 
of principlee of sociul Church lifr, of morahi and 
mtsaionary practice, there were among them the fol- 
lowing pointe in controvers}': (1) Whether the obwerr- 
anoc of the Law waa a condition, or the determitiini; 
conditioii, of thy roreption of the MeHsiaiiie ftalva- 
tion, (9) whether the aaine waa to bo Tcqulre<I also of 
Qtsntile-boru converta, in order to their recognition 
aa Chrifitiana, (:j) whether and to what extent one 
might hold ft^llowship with Gentile Chriatianawho 
do not oij*ervo thft Law^ [4) whether Paul waa a 
cho^n servant of Christ, era God-hated int<:rlopor» 
(5) whether Joatua ^^-aa a aon of JiMwph, or wtw mirao- 
ulout^Iy l>cgi>tteii of thu Uoljr Spirit. ThuA there 




vai»'::Aiid9i of belief within Jewish ChmtiaDity 
(not twx> dearly distinguished partios). There ae«lD8 
to liave beep little literary activity among tliMO Jew* 
iidi Chri^ians, who were exiwllpd by tho Jow8, (boo» 
howovor, Symuaohus) ; their Ocwpel was tho Hobrow 
QoiH|H<l which WAS rcUitod to thti Byuoptic** (te**timoiiy 
of Ju^ttn^ Origeu. Ku^ehiu^i, Jerouie, Kpiphaniut^). 
Justin Btill recognized tltc liberal Jewish Chris- 
tiana vrho observed the Law for thetni^vcd alone, 
and were friendly toward the Otmtile ChristiaD^, us 
Chrifitian brf^thren. As yiH no Clirifttolo^'cal rrfwvl, 
no Jaw Ti^tament, divided th^ni, and ovgu in tbuir 
tiocliut^flo^ud expeclationa, Qeaitile And J«wisli 
ChriatlnnK coidd HtiU come to an underHtandlng, 
Oiut the more Jewish Christianity withdrew from i\\ty 
world ID gtiieral and the more firmly tlie Oittlnjlio 
Chiin^'h fixwi ilfl doctiine and di.sci[»Iine (add to tliiB 
tlio foriiuilion iA the Now TeAtaiiiejit canon) and 
fi>nnu]atod ita Logo^Cliristolog-y, tho moro foreign 
tuid beretioit did Je^vi&L Cluititianily H[>|war; and 

tor IronsDUS it was even ptacc^tl in the same catc- 
witb gnosticiMn. Certain (.h-ienttl fatherSt 
howovor, pass 8 l)etter judgment u]ion it. 

;j, Judjii»m waj* in the tst century a verycompli- 
eutdd liiTair cm iiocuuut of foreign iniiuetioott (Hi>lJ(<n- 
intic Jiidainm, Bamaritaud^ "Bectd'*). Accordingly 
tboro wore alrvady "gno^ftiu" Jtiwitsli Chri^liuns, 
C faUo teachers " at Coloese, see aUo the I'astoral 
Epiutles; on Uie other band^ Simon Magus, Menan- 
der) who introduced into Chri&tiaoity angelological 




trom C«a- 


V»nr i.\itn- 






)H>t In ^ 

iiiiD »r 

mm 1 tin 

speculations (tb«se were aUo familiar to th<^ pimr* 
isees and the writerfl of apocalypse**) and gave nir- 
roncy to coemioiogica] idfafiand mytliR, ihroitgli i»tli 
of whioti they sublimatxfd tUo idea of God, bii^octiyl, 
corrected or transformed tlie Law (rejection of the 
blood offering) and gave an impulse to a pociillar 
asoeticism and cullua of mysterififl. 'Vh^y continued 
until far into the Bywintine ag*?. Cerintli (c. lOO) 
retained certain e-»t4ibli.ihod laws (circumcisiou) and 
ptmafihod A pn**>***ly *«^i«iiou«, roalistic fiitiim Icing- 
clom; but, on Uio otbor liaiid, bo diatitif^iinbed tbo 
4U}iruuie Ood fnJiii tbu Creator uf llm wwrM, fnjely 
criticised the Law and distinguished in tho Red(>cmcr 
Uio man Jesus fW>m tbo Chri»t whom he identified 
wiib the Holy Spirit. Another branch of thia Jew- 
ish Christianity is to be founil in the Paeudo- 
Cleniynline Writing*. Tbon^iii, an append fmin tboir 
aotu'ctSf tJic attempt va made by mcantt of Ktoic ra- 
tfoniiti^m, on tlie ou^ rdde, and Oritmt^d oiytboli^c 
coemelogy on the other, to fortify njmhgtticaih/ Ibo 
oonception that tbo OoKpid ia ttio re^torfition ef tbQ 
pur© MoBivie doctrine. The contradiclory ropnswn- 
tatJon>t of stoic nataraH-nm and a positix'o revelation 
thi^>ngb propliotn iiro to bi> miitt^d throiigb tJic idea 
of the one Prophet, who fnjm Adfini down hjw np- 
poftrcd ID dilTerent fonns- The Oonpol wa^ twiievod 
to bo the rc^tenttion of the pntnittvo and univer^ 
relif^on^ which in mmply Mo^rigm fre^ from all ita 
peculiar ebfimcteristica (cireuuietsion. stittuteH re- 
3pe<4ing offerings) Christ Im t])e ont* trne Prophet, 



who, as it seems, was identified with the first Adam. 
Tlie stoic idea of the ^'t** wai; nco^pted, but it waat 
justified through a dualistically-cunctived «>ii-Hpec- 
idatioD, ID vrliich the wirly SemitJo principles cropped 
out {mascuL IDC -feminine; nmitmlisution of the ethi- 
cal contraJictioiis in tlit* Kuprt^me Gruii). Platonic 
e]em<*nts are LjirtUy di»(n5niibto. But along with 
tiie apologotical toudimcy, th« polemical ie strongly 
marked, This is directod, under th€ fomi of a refuta- 
tion of Simon M^us, a^ninst evi?ry phuae of Gentjle- 
Chnt^tinn giiuxticiNin (ni>io ugitiniit Aiiircioii)» wHiIa 
tJic primitive ^vritiugn doubtlt^OA coobuncd n polemic 
Hgitiii^l PauL TL« {kolemic and t!iu nicmiH mude luw 
of provu tbat tho Catholic Church wait ulii^ttdy in ex- 
ii^tenoe. ThtTOforothe P»eudo-Cl<fnK'ntinG Writings 
belong to tho 'Sd isjniury. Accordingly it is pmbabk 
that th<?f compilers Irnil l>efore lbi^m<»Hrli©r, anti- Paul- 
ino vrriting^. Mon>ov<»r it in prubiiblo that tho lost 
rodnctoD wrro in no n<eii>c JcwiEfh CJiristiauis that^ 
al»Ot Iho rtlwvo-nvMiHom^ clmmcterislics iire not 
iiscriiiahlc to H group of writortf, u» such, but thai 
they belong to them only accidentally^ ihai primi- 
tii>'e JewtHh Christian writingH [taj^seil through rari- 
oi» handw Jiitd wok* laiuK'nntl^- tnini«mitt«<l and ro- 
vi0od. TliiM l>oing »o, iho locking for a " Pseudo- 
Clt^montiue SyMU;m " i» n ^^uitkv«^ undcrtidcing; it 
were bettor to accept tbc last narrator iw a Catholic 
Christina who made use of what«wr interested hina 
and other*!, hut who was by no meatm a disciple of 
Irenteus or Origon. Whether under such conditjoiut 


tlne WMt- 



It l« |KiM]bl« to iliKlin^iHb the ^o»fLJc, Jewj«h- 
ChrijitiM), iukI utiti-I'aulim* nounxtn in c|iie8tioiiAblo. 
A tUiril Kr<fii)i which dul not hAVfs Lq a true m^n»MS 
ljkt> iho foniitir, n Miomry tixltiii^Mca \u eompoMKl of 
Lbo KIkiHuiituH (in Sj-ha, iitmhinfj; lownnl R^Mne aI 
tbo b^fuiiliiic of tli4) ltd c«ntiuy). 'Hictto Pi*ctc suiii 
JiiwUh'diHKtfmirt HH wliolly set ftsiiit* tlie Old TttitA* 
tiKHit tlirough tlidJT ''uuturo-spoculittioiitf "; wbudid, 
faovroror, mlnin tbo idoa of pn)iihocy, wipodally of 
JtMiiifl ikH H pTttp)ii>l, Init wlui followod It n9w proplwt 
thftt hftd |ii4*/ocliHl ivH|;ioii thrtiiigU |>cuittiitinJ nnd 
ciiltiw vmliiiArnxv (wiuUiiugv) m\ Uu^ biuiin uf ii tioiv 
•(*rl|min^ n<v«Utio». A eoHee of di^nwnts bctong- 
lUK to tliin lut loni^ir ('fan^tiAti Jewi»b-(.l3rUtuinity 
^ourcvo: ll]ppoly|ii»s EuvaobiiLS^ Epipli&iiiu«),— vix. 
Ktfld tUtniothoiMit* ivirtml critkn^ni of ttio OM T«»- 
buuMht, r»>i*vti*«i of lO.vnt offering, prvihibitioo of 
wiuvs fTv<qu«al wAshtogis coiinivAac« in rc«poct to 
UMirUgiN prrvrniioa of tin* HvoiBiiio Uim in tbo 
totBWte of th«ir proplK't, dboanliBg of aftoMDMil 
Um ilimI, w U Mvms* alHo of tlv Mm of m Idn^ 
ikwv bigb rafiuil for Ite nbUvw of tbrir pvoplNft 
— ^nttppMV apuii in lahoitaB. Uuil wka id & tDMsntv 

nlUll l» tbt «ftbnr. TU in>im Chnrch truoUcd 
MmV TUT mo* abcnl tUa atMcnSiiML 





Rlliichl. Euutrhimg d«r allkaUil. KU^fae^ IS&T. Bcnvi, 
OTigi&ra,T. V-VIL 

THE Becoud WDluryot tho cxifitonco of Gentile- ^^^^ 
Chrifltifoi Churt'bes !« c)iamct^riz»(I b>' the w&iSilfe. 
victorious contoet with the guostic«, Marcion and 
the early Cliri§tiaii eittbusiajun ; that u, by Ibe de- 
dJning of tlae acute boUemzing ten<loticy on the one 
side, nnd by the suppression of the primitive Cbritt- 
liaa freoiioin of fxprension, diRcipliae and, in part, 
liO]ic vAifO on tli(^ 4>th{>r. An important part of prim* 
Itivo ChriHlianity whb* rescued by Ihe conaerviny forxJO 
of tniditiun (faith in the Creator and H<;dcmicr 
Ood); but men specnlatod fill thi* mon* freely abont 
t^e w<]rld and it^ wiftdoin, »iiico Uiey Mie\'o<l tbat 
they pOAdVawed in tbo apostolic Scriptur^M, in the 
apostolic creod, in the apostolic offiois the deBnito 
Hft5inran«»af whatift "Cliristian". Tbpsnbj>ctivigm 

of Chri«ttaii pi&ty was curbed und the fanciful myth- 
6 SI 

cLniii !■:• 

A CliurdL 


creating tendency was restrained, likevriee also the 
ft<*c£>jiUiic*o iii wholly foreign umttTial i\a doctriDHl 
teaching; but the indiviilual was made subject to a 
Aarred priniitivfi record and to the priwit, mnoe he 
traa put under the ri^d episcopal restraint of tbo 
one^ holy, apostolic, Catfiolic Churchy which men 
idcntiflerl Willi tJie kingdom of Christ as a praparB- 
tion for Heasednefls, Tlie gnostic nystemfi were 
finally refuted; but men then made for themselves 
oat of the kery^ma And with the help of Greek 
philosophy H Rrt^ntifio ftyntem of faith, which wa« a 
suporlutive weilium for commending the Church to 
the intellectual world, but which was nothing but a 
mystery to the laity, obecuring their faiih, or inter- 
preting the Gospel in the language of the Greek phi* 
loeophy of relij;^on. 

S. The problem of the history of dogma for the 
l^eriod from about 150-300 A.D<, is a double one; 
Fiisti it has to describe th« origin of Catholicism a^ 
a Chnrchf i.e. the rise aud development of the apos- 
tolic-Catholic Htandards (liuleof Kaith, New Testa- 
ment^ Ecclesiastical Office; standards r^ardingtho 
holiness of the Church), by whic^ the scattered 
[ (churches wens gradually fused into one frmpiri^d 
' Church, which, however, was hold to bo the apos- 
tolic^ inie and Holj/ Church, Second, it ha» to 
describe the rise and development of the ncienWJic 
system of faiths as tiiis grew up on the circumfer- 
ence of the Chuix^li for apologetical pnrposos, n<'t it 
lis true as a foa*igu growth, but rather in cJosest 



I oonoectiou with the aims tA the earliest Oentilo 
ChrigUaDitj {see Book I- Citap. 3) ; to tkecribe how 
thi«, vrbtch wa« originally through revelation sin* 
pl^ an iufsurcd monotbeifttic cosmoLog}', Logc«-«ioo' 
trine and naonU thi^olog}', became in the cuntent with 

IgnoHticifim amalgamated with the ideas of salvaticm 
ia tlie aociont mytrteriee, oa the one side, with the 
Church kerygma and the Old Testament ideas on 
the other (Treiu^Ufl, Hippol^'tus, Tertnlii9Ui).aiid was 
Bfem tnuutformcd Icto a complicated ayFtcm (philo- 
BC^hi<3l, korygaiutjcal, BibUi,^ aud primitive-Cbris- 
Ittau^eechatclogical elementA) ; bow, farther, under 
the influence of the Alexaftdnann, it was recast into 
BD Hellenic, syncretic suslem in the interest of 
Catholic gnostics (t>'pe of Phila and Valentine), and 
how^ then, the great breach between scientific dog> 
BUtica and the traditional faith wa^ made niaDifoet, 
Irhich already in the 3d century luul received euch a 
thorough solution that the aims of Bcicntitic dog- 
mattce and a part of its teaching (above all its 
LogOfl-doctriiw) were adopted as Me /nitk i\f the 
Church; whil4» othor things were east aMdo or con- 
tooted, the roaliatio propositions of the koiygma 
were shielded fn;m the bpiiitualijung tendency that 
woold transform them, and the right of distinguish- 
ing between a syKteni of faith for thinking minds 
and a failh for unthinking minds (tlms Origen) was 
fundamentally dini«d. The four stages of the do- 
velopai«nt of d4>gina (Apc^ogista, oarly CatJielic 
Fathom, Alcxiin<)rino:4, Mifthodius together with 




his followers) corre^ipond to the prt^reesive retlg* 
iooB and phiI(«oF>hioal deTelopmentof i^^i^nism dur* 
tog that tinw.: PUiloAOfihicHi theory nf monU»^, idua 
of SftlvatiOQ (thoolofo' luid pmciioo of myst<>rio»], 
Noo-Platoulsm and re^ctioiiaiy nyacroturm. 






Buipor '''hb three npoAtoUc normR (Rnlo «f FaJlh, Kow 
TtMii^i^at. Tmt^imont, tifficc)— eoolrouamfl» III,: Ibu,, Tortul- 


liau, de prae*c, 'il. 3^, 'M*) — found tlieir way luU* 
tile different provmcial cburcbea at different titnes, 
but the three always went togother. ITiey had tlieir 
preparatory &tage« iu the brief kery^matic cx)tifc6- 

* Dr jrrtiiT ffl: *0>niilai trmnrm itnttrinnmt ffUM turn te^f^44 np09^ 
iolMt matrMb^i4 rt vngtntt$ib^it fl^rt nn^tlrtt rrrtfcli dfpvtandan. 
*tt tin* dv^itt Itntntfm quod trcir-tttu aA dfufori*, nputott n VhrUt-%^ 
OhrWm#iiil«v occ^'f-* tl&-. ^i'i't*^mitM^mt4 (rvcl^t^ Katwinni iti^^vte, 
quid dtititi^ eum Aftif«nit fM>4V« tedt*tU ronto o ff m r Jf . I'fjvmdnfni 

cum tvon^lirU tt apv*loUc44 httrrtt inf«rff, t^df potat fldm^ ttxm nqwt 
9tgnnt. mvlo ^WnVh tvufJr, furAttrtttlii jiiucii. m/trtfriam uJhorfolitr, ti 




, in the authority of the ^'jptif^ and of (1m> apoa* 
lolic tntditiofi, ss woll lu? in the «pi»tUi« r«ad in Il»» 
churches, «n4 fiimJly in the ilcfcrcncc i^on-n to 
apo^tluH, [irupbistH uiiil tvuchcr^t i\ch Ui thty *'eldvni" 
and Iv€iderM oE the iuclivfduftl churx^hcs. 

A. The Itecasting of Ihe Baptismal Conjession Bwimi^i 
into the Apostolic Rule 0/ Faith (Caspari. Quellen 
X, Qesch. des TAtif>i3'mlKi1s, 4 B1UI.). From the 5r<ft 
there was id the Olmroh a ker^'gm;* (projiching) of 
Christ (see Book I,» Chap. 3 Hih 3) nml bripf confee* 
aiona] fannulHA« (Futbor, Son juid Spirit); and mpe- 
daliy in the Roman chiirL'h,ntIuaatBioco ± UO A,D., 
^deGnitd haptifitaal cunfe»^ii:ui (probably oIaj in Asia 
f). These coDfeaaiotis were ''the faith** and 
vrere roudidered the quintessence of the apostolic 
pK<w^ing and wore, theroforCi roforrotl back to 
Christ and ultimatolj- to Gwl hiiiiscOf. But every- 
thing indeed which seemed inaJioiiable was loc]ki>d 
upon as an apostolic rule of Cnith, t\g, the Christjaa 
interpretation of the Old Tesiamentv Uowevi^, 
probably notliinij was Jijrfd, save that the Roman 
fi^'mbol and the ethical rules (rTfTnjr^ yt,f>»>tt^ stood at 
Icoflt upon the samo piano oe the kcrygnia of Christ, 
From the bofonning, however, in the ivurk of in- 
structioUf in exhortations and, above hU, in the con- 
tests with false teachings men enjoined: airw^/ff*^*- 

xa) ^jiw^ r{c ««p4iU^M>c ^ft&v jrWvn (l.(7h)m. 7; ci. 
Pdyc. epist. J. 7; the PadtomI Epistles, Judo, If;- 
nalian Letters^ also Justin). As the danger from I 





U<ii4'r oil J 
J hPtof Ao- 
Icwt Bap- 
I UfiniiL 


truc»ti«.nsni tecnnie iicut^?* men n»>C68earily caine to 
niiJivut thftt n*iith4>r ih« nonUmt A.nd ^ynupniM of 
"tlui rooeivotl fnith " ("tlio ivnnid doctrmo"), nor 
itet i II terjjn^ Lilian w;u4 ttei^ured to lliviii. Tlit^rv wiu^ 
nood^ it MocinocI, of a tixe*! ouliccrd stamlanl^ in 
otcIm' to bo able to fliiprore doctrinos 8uck uk ttiat 
of tlio <]ilToroii<.*u Uiwi^eu tlio 8uprom« God and tlio 
CroAtor-G<k<l, iir t^iUTh an that of (tocvrtii^ni, and to 
bo able to mnfnUiiu tho tru(> otmcsiptifjn >!:« aporiolic 
dootriQO — thoy n<jcdcd a dfJiniMj/ init^rprefnt (»/jf>rf- 
folic creed. Under these drniinstiUK'v;* Un- (larifo 
ularly clinm^ly alliwl cliurcbc^ of Asia Minor ami 
Rome, \vh<j«e exporiouce h known to U8 throu^b 
IretueUM (be is hardly tlio fii-ut \iTitor on tliL> subject), 
fior«pt«>il thiN fixM Romftn bfipHum.-il onnfewimi fw 
apostolic in 8ucli n wiLy t1ii«t tlicy proclnimod iho 
current njili-gn*M5tir jviU-rpn-tati tin of it fu« ita aeif* 
evident conl^^iit, and th« (-xix>niidi-d iTwfission iia 
'^fidetcathotica"; i.e. tlieysiv't it i^pas a etundnnl 
of trutb in ratitlora of faith and niado Hs accojitanco 
tbo ounditien of nicmliorHhtp in thv Church. Tliis 
procodurc*, by whicb tht» (**»ntiv» i>f jfrnvity of Cliris- 
tianity vriw «}iifte<l> (llio hitter, however, wae pro- 
MTrveil froiri viitirt^ iliiwohiiion) n-»t» iijton twd un* 
provor a«8<Mlion8 aud fin exchfing^. It i?< not provon 
thiit liny coufi-ssion ot thm kiud emanated from the 
&p()»tle3 and that tiny churches founded by the Epos- 
i\m always pnser^'ed their teaching vrithout modi- 
ficatione^ ami the confoeslon itdelf whs ezc1mu^i>)d 
tor an cxpoMition of it. Pinaliy, the conclubioii that 




from tbe virtual figreenwat in doctrine of a group of 
churchf^ (bishops) there existed a Jidts cuthotica 
was unjustilied- 57u« action e^tabli^tcd the Caih- Oiihoiie 
otic argumetit from tradition and haA deiermiiufd JjJSu^ 
t7« fnndarnentat significance unUi the present 
time: Tlie tHjuirixial riglit, ou Uje oite tiide, U> mt- 
QOimoe the creed as complete and pluin^ and, on the 
other side, to make tt^io elastic that one can reject 

ery nnconifartable meanings in^ to Uw |>rv«ont day 
l^risticof Catiiolicianu It i» txUo clmnicttria- 
that rm*n i<imtify CIiHstiwnity u'ith u »j-HU>m of 
fiuitli wliich the hiity crrttiiaot uiideratAnch TIkc lat- 
ter are therefore of)t)revtded and referred back Ujthe 

T^^rtuUian liovolopeil iho metlioil of Ireuo^ua still 'JJJ^^i'iJ^ 
farther As Ukt lait*»r (uimd the chief gnostic ^I'lilSS^ 
teiid]ingi« nlivjiily n>rnt4Hl in tJir luLptij^rnal confer- 
fiioo, whilo lui yet only tho oommon «v>nwo t^ the 
Church protnttod a^indt thetn; oo Die forraor* 
cmbncing ihe confesHlon all the more firmly a»au* 
thority (or tb« faitb, ioumX in the regnla alrL*»(ly the 
croatiou of tbo unii-oi^o from notliirig, tbc iniedintor- 
ship of the Lngou in erwition, the oxistence of the 
sanift brfor^ nil rrpiitnn.*^ ft d<'finiti» thoory in regRi-d 
to hit) incamaticm, il>c prvAching of a nQ7yi lex oud 
of u ntna prorni^jtio, lujil fuuilly also tho triuituriaa 
eooDomy and the correct teaching in respect to tbe 
natures of Christ (de praejccr. 13; de virg. 1; adv. 
/Vox., 2, etc.) . Hi* ** regula " is an apostolic fer et 
doclrina^ tn%'iolable for every Cliristiiui. 



KU Wiclit- 

HpTiwI (III 

HHifit Writ- 
Itiffi Rac- 

Oiily in the course of the 3ti ivntury diil tins (.'aUi- 
olio Rtftndanl Ixtcomo wiil^^HproHil In tJio Chtiri-li. 
Ocment of AIoxatidriA did not yot know it (for 
him the '^ii'^v r^v ixxAf^aiiii vfiit* tins onti'gncwtic in- 
Ccrpn^tatlon of tbo Holy Scriptureci) ; Orlgwir how- 
ever^ camo very dww accepting it (sec^, */« princip. 
pra^f.)^ i.e. io tho bogini]lti{< of the 3<] century tho 
AiuXAodrian Church waif foUuwiu^ tho Roman, aud 
j^mHnally l»oj'ftmo '* Catholic", I^nt^r sHll the Syrian 
chtirehctt alflo followocV as the documentary Boarco 
of Uie Apostolic: CoiiHtitutloiu^ proveo, which knowB 
DoUiing of tho "uptwlolic rulo of fulth" in the 
Oecid^mtal »ea9e. Ouly at tht* end of tho 3d century 
did the Catholic Church t)c>come a reality through 
tlie common fipostolic lex and dintingruifih it«>]f 
sharply from th<^ her«>tical partiee ; romote churches, 
itidetxl, piohahly came first through NiciM to an ac- 
ceptance of an "apostolic rule of faith." But even 
the Nicene creed was not accepted at a Hiugle stroke. 

B. Tlie JieA-ognition of a Selection of Weil- 
Icnovm Scriptures as Virtually Belonging to the 
Old Testiamejii: i.e. asa Compilation of Apostolic 
Sei^piur^ (eoo the "Introductions to the N, T," 
by Rti4Jt48^ HoIt£inanu, WeiBB). By the side of tJie 
Jjflw and the Propheta {^'t /Se^iXfc) there waa in the 
chiirchea the Word of the Lonlj or briefly "J >f>/'t«»?", 
which was indiflpuUihlo. The worda and deeda of 
the Lord ("tlie Qo8ptO") were recorded in numer- 
ous, oft-TtiV]»od »crtpttircii( closely mlated to each 
othur,wh!cii were called tlie ** Lord's Writiiiga", also 



"Jifr/^". tlieo—yet trot till aft^r Uie middle of tbe ^ 
oentury- — '*<i«rj^iiii " and '* *'ff";i*^^i'w«i/faT<i r&v ain*- 
irriJiw"; ttwBo wvre pubUdy rood at least afl^r O- 
140 (JtutiD). Tho Ja8t niuned title expi^esaea the 
judgment, tliot eTer3rthiDg which waa reported of 
the Lord could be traced directly or indin^ctly to 
thd apo^tlda. Out of theBe tiuniorouH t^van^ncjU 
writings tUere were in certain eliuroliofi, ulrvudy 
before the middle of the 'id century^ four th^t wvr« 
promin^it— our/resfiii Gospeh— which, e.g.^ very 
soon after ICO were worked over by Tatiao into a 
single Qoeipel (Diate^^aron) . Alx^ut the t<ame lime 
tliey took on their final form, more than likely i» 
R^rtTiiv Trtgf'lhf^r with thw*e writinjca th^ K|ii»dJtf« 
of tho apoctle Paul, which had Luen eoUeeted uurlier, 
wera r«ad iti the churchea, »\e. by the leaders, aa 
the RpintJeH of Clement, Bamaba», Ignatiuii and par- 
ticularly PoJyoarp testifj". While however the UoS' 
pels had a direct relation to the keiyj^a and met 
therequirementaof tradition (Ignatiun, Jtietiii),such 
was not Uio enao with 1}:o Paulime HlpiRtliw. Finally 
uU dvfinite wi-iptural pn>ductiui]a of |iro]>hot]c t<pirita 
(^>**/fjaTityM»o'*[) \vure revered an itiBpittnl Holy Scrip 
tures, whctlier Uiey were Jewish apix^alypscs with 
high-ftounding namea, or the writings tif Oirifctian 
prophets and toadienf. The n'^P^ ^"n^ primarily 
tlie Old Testament, but with, ** ti tOpto^ Jtfytt** i/ifpe^ni 
or simply '^r'0» apocalyptic versee were rIso citad. 
Of like worth, but different in kind, wba tho dta- 
Koa: ^ '0/ii»i Urti i* x^t rw/yciry (fulfilling uf proph- 





ecy — elliical rules). Many teachers gliiiUy npoke in 
the word** of the apiwtle Paul, without aocording 
thoin tUo Ramo rank as the Scriptures aud tho Word 
of tUe Lord (were llio KpisUfiB of Paul publicly read 
ia the churches beforo c, 180?), 

Marcioiij who rejected the Old Testament aii<I the 
prophetic proofs, formetl a new collection of tk-rip- 
tures aud guve it canonical rank (Luke's Gciepel, 10 
Pauline EpistW). At the same time pmhably, or 
a little litter, the gnostic scliooT leaders did the some, 
favoriug the writings in widest circulation amoogf 
the churches, but with new aclditioDs (Valentin us, 
Tatian, Encratit«s), Ererywhere in i^ut^h circles the 
Epistles of Paul came to the front; for they were 
thi^Iogical. ftolpriolo^cal. and could be interpreted 
as dna1i]4tic. The new criticjilly coHHtitiit^^tl (ii>IW- 
tions^ which the gnostice i>et over against the (.}|d 
TeftUiiuent, were clothed with tlio same authority aa 
the Old TefitajBent and were allcgorically iuterpreted 
in harmony with it (still, besides, secret tradition and 
secret scriptures), A^aiu, a reference to XhQrr^fi 
and the it''if>tov did not suffice for the leaders of tlio 
churches. It was necessary, (1) to determine which 
ovaii^elical writings (in which recendiou) were to 
be taken into cuitbideratiou ; it was necessary, {'i) to 
deprive tbo heretics of everything which could not 
be discredited as new and fake; it wra neceesary, 
(3) to put forth such n collection of writings as did 
not overturn tbo cviiienmi from tnidili<m, but on the 
oontraiy by their iuhertftit 4Uiditi<M even udded 



vrt*ig(i1. At firtit Utey ixinlliitMl Uit^iiuM^vui to Uie 
proclainatioiii of IIk* fcur Ooei)M>lt« ait L]>e ooty auUivn- 
tic apostolic rw^unls of llju LortI, nie»e were al- 
ready h«Id ill mi vfttee^tn f^ noarly equal to tlmt of 
the OM Tefttament. that the iniin«iiitt; Ktritle ti^ocs- 
euiy lo il«c]m\< Ui» wonU iind UitU-ra Imly wiua 
scAFCply rf»cogii)zo<l iw nn innovation; bctitd^^ whnt 
the Muster hml Niid wji8 fn>iii U:o begiiuiiug cqiirM- 
f'lvt) lioly. Many ami, iniU*od, most uf UiecbuKlics 
abode by thiftdoc'iHiou tmtil ffu- into the fkl ceutur}'; 
see, fur ez&m}>k\ tbo docuitivntary hettim ot Jie A|K>e- 
tolicOonf^titiition^; AomoOrientiil church^ mnlinuotl 
to nso tlio DiAtoB9wroD. No tM?fM>ini nolloctioii catno to 
bo cetccmod, nnd tho four OoApehi iircr^ joined to tbo 

alongside of tbm> stood the to«timony of pnouniftlic 
BcribbliDgis cter however having d^^reaising dignity 
(ilontanUt controvcffiy), 

Bnt wh^TPTpr Iln> i^onl^wt ivith berfwy wrtB mrwtt 
vohomontly cjuritHl <m and tlii? ^>n»olid»tton of tJuf 
churdiee uprm tttjtl^lr i^rinoiplr-H wun morit intelli- 
gently undoitalceji — in (Aftia Minor and) Romo, a 
new Ctitholic'tipo^fMic c<}tiection of scriptures 
was opixwed to tlw now gnostic CQll^ctioa, more in 
def(?Dc:e tbuu iu attiwlc. Thu Epistles of Paul wen» 
addod to tlii» four G^wpok (nnt without floni« ivcniplce 
in trftnafomiing t»cri]>tauv£» which were written for 
spvciiU uccitsiouv into Dirinu omclm ind couoeol* 
ing tbeproc<Mft even of transformation) nnd confl» 
quently inchided under the ai^ument frum tradition, 

^iiur 0<*- 





BO tbat through the medium of u vory Rv^Mit Ivook, 
the Acte of the Apoetlw*, they were nssocialod with 
the HUpposeil preaching of the twelve apostles, t\e. 
8iit»n1mateU to it. Th« Paul ffacctiontKl by the 
twdve npoetlea id tho Acts, and made hardly recog- 
nlzahle by the Pastoral Eplstlca, thus became a wit- 
iwflfl of Uie ''iJflf/', ^!d riv. t^f oT-^^vxtf^, i.e. one was 
under oUigatioii and had the right to understand 
him to aooordanoe with tiia Acts of tlie Aix)fitl«8, 
whiidi fturely rairw into tiift nnUeettoi) only fattt^ de 
fnieux ai^ waa obligi^d to support a tmdition for 
Wyoud ita oirn wordd. TU© two-, mors properly 
thre(>-fold new apoetolje collectton (Go^b, Acta, 
r^ I^uliiw Kpisllea), &ow j^aced as the Sew Testa- 
tnent on the aatne plane with the Old Testament and 
pn<^ntly raided alMjve tin* Lttu^r, already recofcniiM 
tiy In^nfBUft and Terlollian (in pmotitie. not inthMJty, 
tlio Ooepela and the Pauline Epistlctt setifoed to bo 
uT e^tual wt>rtb), gradually came into time la tlio 
Churches. Ike^niDjf in tbe (Vrident, and when thia 
wtft once acctuupliahed the rt:suJt could hardly be 
difltorted. WhereaB a fourth and fifth ingredient 
ooaU D«ver rvallj win ■ perfectly firm foHD. Pir«t, 
HMn ttod|;ht to ttrvDgtlwn th* hifftorj of tW apoatiw 
bf IBMU19 of KTiptare* written far the twelve apov- 
Hm. It was oAtunl that tfaer aboold wiah to lure 
«ik1i dcriptoiTft, and then tbere were hi^y ertewped 
»cri|itun3e frocn Christian prophets and laaeba 
flBOQgfa to saggeet tfanr a cCT p UiMw f tb«T could tioi 
be i^borvd), but witboot any apnlnlic atMhorit^r (la 



\1wH;ti'ict Mttiar). Thuff »ro»* tb^? grmip of Catholic 
Epi^tles^ tot the most pnrt iltiiioRiiauttHi upufitolic, 
origiiially anonymou» n-ritings (most scholars held 
tbem to bo pHOUtloDpnou^), ^v-liocje uncient authority 
oould be r^cued only by aflcribing tliem to the 
twolvo upoetles. This group, bo^^vor, with the 
exopption of two «pi&tLce, did not bccomo lazed as 
rogardtf its extent or its dignitj" imtil the 4th ocnturj" 
and oven later, and thia without therehj really en* 
dacppring— Btrange to say— the respect given to the 
eutiri) collection. Second, the ftpocalypees preaented 
thems&lved for admission to the new colWtion. But 
tho time whieh produced thorn was wholly govte by 
and indcoi) combated them, and tho natuio of tb« 
new collection required apoBtolit\ not prophetic 
sanction; the latter rather excluded it. The apoca- 
lypBee of Peter and John oould, therefore, alone come 
under consideration. The former waa quickly re- 
ject^ for some unknown reason and the latter was 
finally '^t 3f J By/><ij reecuod Cor the now collection, 

A closed Kew Teetanteni there waa not Ui tbe 
churchee in the 3d centiuy; bat where there was at 
band a Bectmd ooUection, it waa used Tirtually as tlie 
Old Testament and no quetitions were raised. The 
inconipteti> collection served ad hoc everj- purix)Be 
which, as oao might think, the complete alone could 
Borre, Catholicism never came, however, to be a 
religion of the book. The words of the Lord re- 
mained th<* standnr<) for tho gntdanoe of Hf^*, ^nd 
thedevelopmeol ijf doctrine pursued ite own ouurae 


Ijrinvw vt 
ivUr kid 

If. T. la 

M Ceb- 




At «U timoe, being mfluQQ€«d tyoiy in a sooondoiy 
way by tliv Now To»taniont. 
^, Results: (1) Tlio r^ew Tefltttinent coaserTi>d the 
JJJJ™^' inoHt valuable piirt of the primitive literature; but 
it gBTO over to destnictiou olmcMt all tlio renmmintc 
litemtuTo &a being arrogant or corrupt ; (2) the New 
T«etument made an eud to the pro<lii<?tioR of inspir^ 
writings, but it also made &u ecclesiastically profane 
literature possible ajid like^vise set fi^etl limits to it; 
(3) tJie New Testament obscured the hifitt-ric neiwe 
and the historical orii^in of its own docuntenta, but 
it at the same time occasioned the necessity of a 
thorough -going sttuly of thc«e doctimetit^ luid pro- 
vided for their active indudnoe in the Church; (4) 
the Kew TeatAment re]>re««ed the cnthtuiAstic ton* 
dea^ to the production of *' facta " ; but, in ruquiring 
that all the tftat^okentB in ita own documt-^ts should 
be conflidered entirdy harmonious, clear, sufficient 
and spiritual, it n«cefiHitated the learneil, theological 
production of new fact^ and mythological concep- 
tiona; {i) ihio Kow Tcatamcmt set boundaricK to the 
tiini^ of revelation, exalted the upuotvlic age mifi 
the apoutloe thcin>(c1vi«H to an un^ip|>roiichablc buiglit 
and tlioreby iielpcd to lower the Uhrijrtiau ideal and 
requireuiottt^ but it Ukewitto pTO«crvcd the knaivl- 
edgc and power of tho same, and became a goad for 
the con»eionco^ (r») the Kow TostHment gtiitrdo<l 
cffcctivclythc hceitatingonnonicalcBtocni forthoOld 
Testaoiifnt; but it Ukcwin? made it tm offi.^Kif to 
exalt tho Cbnatiau rovulatiou above that of the Old 



xeetamoQt, and to brood over the specific meoiiitig 
o( Iho formi'ir; (7) th<? New Teetamont oiioounigcd 
the fdUil toD<l(.'ii(.'y to idcuiify dm 'Musters words 
with ap(j»toIic tradition (teocbtcg of the apo^tlce), 
but through tile aicc^planoo of the Pauline EpifitW ii 
eel as a standat^ the loftiest cxpreaaiou of the con- 
BciousDeevi of redeuiptiotif and through the caQoulza- 
tion of I'uuliDiem it iotrotluced most valuable leareti 
into the history of the Church; (8) throu^b thecUim 
of the Catiiolic Church that both TeAtamenta be- 
lojiprnl lo Lor alone, sh** pobhod all othor Chri.'itian 
churches of tln?ir title-right to theiu; but wbi!<» ^iw 
made thu 'St^w Tt»lmnent a norm, she couatructvd 
an armory from whl<^ in the time to cotne the 
ehaipc^t weapons have been drawn out against hor- 

C The Tran^/ormadon of the Kpiscopat Office 
in ihe Church inio thp Apoaiolfc Officf*. HixUtrif 
of the Tratutforfnatimi of the Idea of the Church, 
i^ho uUiin^lhul Wig tipo^tlitf funnulateil a rule of 
B%Lftb wa» not mifflcieDt; it waa nec:eft9ary to sliow 
that tbo Church iiad k«pt tho same pure ainl tliat fcho 
pofleoe»«l within herw^lf a living court of appi.'Al to 
decide all points under coutrox'cmy. ()riginAll3' men 
flimply nrfurrMl to ihvt ohurclnfK f<niud<yl by t)>i> upoa- 
tlce> in whidi thfh true teaching wim U> be found, and 
to tiiG connection of thwro vith tlie dfccipKw of tbo 
apofttlM and ihe "ancjenta". But this appeal r>f- 
tvToi CO aW'luto certainty; ben<^ Iremeus anii Ter- 
toUian, iofluimoed by tho inijiodiutf develu|>iuent of 

nisi Ion nf 

i>ttk» tvta 





the episcopate in Roiuu aud b/ tlju aiiciuiit r^pect 
once givpii to tlio (tpo«llea, propUots and leacherB 
now transferred to the bitihap«, «o conceived of tbo 
same that the " ordo episcoporum pvr succewonem 
ah initio decurreiis^ guarnnt^^M] tothem Uu^inviola- 
l>iHt5' cf ttie apoalolic inLoritaiicoH ^Vith eoob ihi» 
I Uitfttisi ^>ftciUaled between an liiatorical (tbi> diurchea 
4 are tho^ founded hy tbe apoetles; tbe biabopei are 
the discipli?^ of the disciptos of the apostles) and a 
dogmatic a^pec^. Yet already vritli Iren.^u» tbe lat- 
ter is clearly prominent: " epiacopi cum episcopatus 
I aitct^esAtonfi cerium I'eriiatischat'ismaaccfiper-unt" 
V (tbo cbiiricLiim of truth depends upon tbo office of tbo 
J bisliijpn wbicb ivbta upon th^ apofttotic 9W?ctAsion) , 
ThU thesis is simply a dogmatic expression for the 
eialUMl place which the epiBcopate bad already 
actually won for itself; it did twt, moreover, orig- 
inally in any way entirely idontify apostles and 
I bishope; it reiiuhinod alito mit^t^rtaiu iu iU applint* 
* tion to the inUividuat Meihogib and left riH>[u nlill 
for tbu auciout |>*u'ity: ttpirilua^ ecdfjsia^ fidik^. 
Calixtus of Hornet however (v. Tertull» de pudic; 
Hippor^ Fhilo^. IX.)t claimed for himsotf full apes* 
tolic regard and iipoatolic powers while Tcrtullian 
allowed to him only tho toruti magi,\U*r»i. Tn tlio 
Onont and in Alexandria tho apottolic character 
of the bi&bopK was i|uite !ato in ginning n>xigtii- 
tion, Igvatiufl knew notbtng about it (tbe bishop 
is the representative of God unto bis own cbunh) 
and uoitbcr did Clement, and uven the basal docu- 



ment of tho Apost. ConBtihition^ is silent. Yet in 
tbo timo of Or{gv<n tlm ilnctrino begau to C8tjibli«h 
tt»clf in Al^^xjmdria. The iJon of tho Church wfis 
grcntly influenocd b}' tlitu development. OriginiUly 
the Cburcti WAS tbo heiavonly Brfilo of Christ, Uto 
abidiug-pUu^ of the Holy Spirit; and itfi Christian 
claitni^ rested upon itti poEtfefision of the Spirit, upon 
it» faith in God* itfi hope and its M-ell-ordered life: 
Ue who belongB to the Churcli is sure of his 
bkesodneas {Holy Church) > Then tho Church be- 
came the visible ^tablishmcat of ibis CQiife^sion qI 
failb {fidea in f^gula posita e^t, habet legem et 
salulem de observadone tegt^) ; it is the legacy of 
the apostles, and itfi Christian oluu-acter resta upon 
ita powM»ftion of the true apostolic teaching {Catkotie 
Church in the fiense of itniversidity and pureneea 
of doctrine, — the form of cxpreseion sinco the end of 
the M century). One must be ii member of this em- 
pirical, oneapoBtoUc Church in order to partake of 
BAlTaticoi, since here alone ii9 found that knowledge 
which ^vee bl^eaedne^. The Church ceased to bo 
the aure trommimioti of salration and of the Kaiuta 
and becsme the condition of ealvation (v. tho fol- 
lowing chapter), This conception of the CLurdi 
(Iimueus, TertuUian, Origcn) which represents the 
development of the churches into the o?ie definite 
CInircb — a creative act, to be suret of the Christian 
flpirit— IK not evangelic* neitbor {« it hterar«:hic; 
it liJDi norer cDtiroty di»appearv<<] from tho CHitlwlic 
chmchoe^ But ulmoat from the bv^iDDing it was in- 

■ THf4nf 






IIuoqcukI bv Iho hierarchicnlChxtrch idea, The ktter 
vrftH only hiutod at by [roQieuB and TertuUian (th© 
Wl mm^yl tiiinUy cont^ndod ogmnst it and la tbia 
eoiUoEitlon hooTTti ruvertcd to the primitive Churcli 
Ulon: ^jnntu^*!^\Kiii\Bccciesiat universal prieelbood) ; 
It was fttrilu^r developed by Callxtos and oth^ 
Rooum prieite, M)wcially by Cyprian, while the 
AiNciLiutriftEui lik<ndrd tlie earlicat Oburrh idt>A vith 
II myslie'philocM|>hic'Vil ooii€<eptioa» and Ongexi, al- 
tbough gnvitly impnv<j«d by the empirical Church, 
ne\~fir k«i »i^i of its relative ai^ificance and office. 
U»liitiw nod Crprian cocuitnKl«d the faiarareh)«al 
OhlTcii Mm out vt eJEi^ting reUtioos and the exigett- 
c4it vhk-h tbvw impceed \ tbo latter rDcmded oat tho 
tttAndard </ th<» fonaer, Imt od one point, tuuehiofc 
IIm ja0li6rAlioti of thd ««ulhly rhararter of Use 
Cbur^i, hm U^g^ beUnd, whilo Calixtu^ had nm>- 
lut«ty wlivwal to its c o niffc tkMi (v. the foUorwii^ 
ckftflit). TV msvs werv w> grcttt in the 3d («n*l 
taiy ^t it was Dcyrbece safflcieDt— save in bohted 1 
rm—iMilba tfi niim^ir iMriiiMnii lliii PaiTnlii 

«■» iMaf Oiy «# ^Mkiy* ife OT^r to s«*fd <^ < 

falte^CnttPcha^aiBaln&efa^f pvodaisedl 

ttm fla i««ctiad liM« bpcmripd «KABri0 





theae [undamental facta itself the apostolic legacy* 
According to Cypriiin the Church i* tbo ee»t of tsa\* 
VBtion {extra <ju am nuiia ja/nor), ft«ft single, ori/an- 
tied con/ederah'on. It rwti* wholly aod wlely upon 
the episoopate, which, as the cxmtinuatioQ of the 
apofitolato, equjp]>eil n'ith the powers of the apoe- 
ties, 18 liio beaiTir of theM powers. The union of tho 
individual wiUi God auni Ohnst is Ihc^refore con- 
ooivithlc ^m)y in the form of Hubordinatiou t^ the 
isiiopet. Tlie attribute, however, of tho imit^' of 
Church, which is of equal fii^iiic-ance witli that 
its truth, since the unity comes only through love, 
lee^ lisdU primarily in the unity of the *>p\^* 
te. Thiii liBA bocD from the bc^nning a unit 
IU>d it remninK ii unit Htilli in fto fur nit Iho bUhope 
'^rv int4nll(<il l>y Go<l and continue in brotherly inter- 
change. Tliv iiKlivi[|u])] bisbopfi un? U> iv i^oDi^iderod 
not only as loailers of liieir uwn particular cl]ureh«8, 
but as ibo foundation of tho one Church (^'ecclosia 
fin opiacopo e^t"). Thence it follows farther, that 
tlw> hiftiiopft *if tlKfcse clmrcho* fmm<lcJ by tJjo npo«* 
tloit poi^^efis no tonj^^r any pe<*uHnr dimity (ftll bif^b- 
ope are e<|ual, oinco Ihey are piirtnkcn* «f th« one 
office). The Roman chair, however, came to have 
n peculiar signiticajioe, since it was the chair of the 
apostle upon whomChriBt first conferred the apoa- 
tolic glftd ill order to indicate clearly the unity of 
the«0 gifts imd of tlio Chupoh ; nnd fttrthor wh^i, to- 
Cao0o hifttorically the Church of this chair wa^ the 
root and molber of th« o«f Ca(Ao/*c Church. In a 


Bou upon 




severe Carthaginian critiiR, Cy])rian so appealed to 
Ilomc as if comtnunion with this Church (its bishop) 
wa» the guAranteo of the tnith ; hut latter ho ilRint^it 
tbo cJaitua of tho Koiuau bishoji to b{h>ciuL righto 
over uUwr charchi-« [cout^el with Blephijii). Fi- 
nally, although he pUced tlie unity of the orgajiiza- 
tion of tho Church above the uaity in arlicLo^ of 
faith, tho esaenco of Christiaiuty was guardeil by 
him tci thta ^xteiit^ that hi^ doiiiandMl of Uie bi«hoti8 
ovory wh^tn:! si ChriMtiau vitoadfiutnoftfi. otherwbto thoy 
ipso facto would forfeit their office Cypriau ulsto 
a.H vt^t knew nothing of a (.^luiracter ittdeltbiiifi vt the 
bi^hopft, while Catixtus and otlu^r Kormin hishcps 
vlndicatixl tho sanio to tJiom. A consequence of his 
theory wus, that ho c1oscl>' idontifitHi heretics and 
Bchiunatiot, in whit^h tho Clnin'h did not th<ni fal- 
low him. Tbo grcMit onn epiwojnd Cliuroh, \rhiob 
hoprewppoflod wn» l>y-th<^'byo a fiction ; ttuch a homo- 
genous oonfcdorftticn did not in reality exist; Con* 
stantine liims^lf could net complete it. 



lBd)t< ihf Lltrmliim on MmitiiniHin axuI Novatianljun. ] 

L TuE denial oi Hie claims of Uio ethical l)f«, the 
""SittulS^ paliTig of tbi' primitive Cliristian hojics, the lfg*d and 
peliticaL forms under whioh Uio churcheb protected 




theniselvoB ag^timt tJie world and .^aitHt liereeiee 
.calltf] forUi Boon after ib^ middle of the ^il century, 
'fiisC in Asia Mini>rt thtu iti otiier CliriTftian oommu- 
nitiAK^ft nuiotion whtc^li smight 1;i^i*Htfihlmli«<>r mtlior 
to ro-€Btabli»li, tho primitive timcH luid conditions 
and to pruUx't Cliristljuiitjr' from thu mHTulanKifig 
tondoncy. The rcsuH of iliis crisis (tJio flocalled 
Montain£«t crisis and ttio like) wa», thnt the Church 
^awerUd its«lf nil tlm more »trotiuoLiKly us a I^al 
oripLniuition which kuw it« truth in its historical 
And ikhJM^ivA fourii1utti>n> thui it nccvirdiiigly g>iv«* 
new Mp)ili<!{uioe to the attrilttilo of hfiUtifsfty thiU It 
exprcanly authorized a dout>1e gtjite, — a spiritual and 
A secular, — within itself, and adouhle monihty, that 
it ^xcltiuiged its character as the possessor of certain 
&al\'&tion for that i>th«.^r, viz. to bo an indit^i^eiiBabl^ 
condition for th^ tranKmiHsion of Kalvntion and to btt 
an inxtitiatioD for wlucation. Tho UontfiniittM w«r« 
oompollod to witlidraw {tho New Tcitianent hjid 
.lUreadT thon-hy lioro gi>od service), ai* well as all 
'^hriMtiana who madi* the truth of the* Church de^ 
pondent upon a rigid maintenance of its moral claima> 
Tho consequence wm that at the end of the 3d cen- 
tnry two grwit ChrisHnn communities pnt forth 
claims to bo the tnic Catholic Church: viz. thcca- 
tiuiml Church confi<<k-nit<Ki hy Cou^tantiiie and tho 
KovAtiaii churchc»4 which we refused with the rem- 
mnt of Hontfmiflm. Tho be^nnings of the ^mt 
schism in Rome go bfick to th* time of HippolytUB 
and CalixtuD. 






2. Th« Montaiiint o[>i>oaitioii had iindi^rgotio a 
IfnNit trmiHtornuaioD, OrigimiUy it wiis tlu- »tupen- 
(liHiMimilfirUkinKof a Cbns^timi in^plRl (Montaiiu^). 
who witli Uio luwistiuioo of |>rOplKI' :-^ - u-lt culk-J 
upon to ntttlisHi for ChriMliaiiity Huy ricli prophetic 
ptxmiwftof U)o Fourth Go(i()o1. Hty interpreted these 
in Mcunlatioo witii Ua* A|)0(-»ly|«t>, uml prxicUimcd 
tbilt the Pttraclotu lioil ai>pivLn^ in hi« own person, 
in whom fihfto CbriaU yoa. <^v4>ii God Alinigb^', had 
como to hxA ovm iu order to lead tlit>m into all tnitb 
and to itnthor t<igi>lhor iiiti.> o»f (M hi^ KnUt«r\*d 
flooIcA. AtViirdiiiglj' it vrtw Montnmjtt' liighcwt aim 
to loiul Hw Christians fortli froui Ujcir civic rclaliotu» 
and couuiiuuiid iuwiX*inUims iind to fonn a ncWpn] 
bonkogioieouit brutlKThood which, separate from the 
work), ithould pFppiiro it«idf for tho dMwont of the 
ti(vi\-uul^' Jt^^rusalcnv Tltc opposition which this ax* 
ikrhibuit pni|>hi>ii(^t! miv«Ango ifnin»mit4^rc«d fruni tli« 
loihdMW 0^ Iho c-hun.'btf^ aud th^^ i>&r»e«ution» iind«>r 
Marcua Aundiuv, icit«'ii^rit<d ih«^ already liv«djr im> 
ohaKdogteal wpocbitivma lutd turiva^ed thedasure for 
BMttynl^wi. Tliat which the uiovDmeut loit> hovr* 
<Ttr, in dotiniteDCAs (in w Ear a4 the realiiatioai of 
tte ideal of tmiting all ChristiaDa was iiot accom- 
pUahed, «xvop4 for a hriof pmod and widiin ruirrow 
limita) it gained again aftet c< ISO iaaaniiKb as 
Iha pcodamatkiD of it invosicd earoeat souls with 
gtvator pow«r and courage, viudi earrvd to retard 
(ba growing aeculariiiDg landencT within tht- Church. 
la Aaia and Phrjrgia many Christian cuDunuaitiea 



ftcku(»rl«()gf<c) in corpor*^ t.)i© Divine Tnimicn of th« ^JSJ,*^* 
prc^jbotii; in oihvr provincs^ii iu;»om1>Ii<M vroro formed ^^'^^ * 
iu wliicb ihv currout UKichmgv of tbucw proplicU^ 
were coLsiderod us a Go«]k>1, At tho aamv time viltI- 
ous ixio(lii!cfitiou» vr(m> going oti (^v-mtukthics of tbo 
confe«ftor« iu Lvodh. Tbo Roman bij^liopM ciuiio iicar 
odcnowliHl^iug tho new prophocioB). In tbe Mod* 
Umi^t churches (c, 100) it was no longer ft quoirtioit 
€f a Dew oriffiniAttian io the strict i4on«c of tlio word, 
or of 41 radic^ iv^foriuHiioii uf thu ChrisliAU orgtmi- 
zatioos, but rather^ \vh«rov(>r tbe laoTomciit can be 
dourly tracud, wore thiMi^r ijuestions already pufili^d 
asido, eveu whi>ii thoy woro activo and influential. 
Tb« original |7rophit» lind is^t no iMjaiida to thi-ir on- 
tliufliiucm; ihrnt iv(si\i Libto noiloJiniUi Hmitd to tlroir 
high ]>ret«!£itiioiid: Ood and Cbriat had apjxaared in 
tbeiu^ the Prtsva saw CliHst living lu female form; 
tbeie prophets made the most extravag^mt propheciCB 
and spoke in a loftier tone titan anyone of tJio apC6- 
tlo«; they subverted jipostoUc r^^aUatioas; they 90( 
forth, it^rdW'^ of evory tradition, nt^w conunand- 
menttf for the Christian lifo; thoy raikd at the great 
body of Chmtittn bolievera; tLey thought theii mil tco 
to be tho tiist and Uierefore the higbe^i prophets, Uio 
bearetH of xha final rovolation of (Jod. But after 
they bad passed off tho »Uigo, thoh: foHowem sought 
an affreement with tho common Christian church«tt. 
They reco^iT^l the ^^at Chiircb imd ht^gged to be 
reoognizod by it. They were ti'ilUng to bind thirm- 
[ eetvee to thv apoHtolic rtt/ula and tu tbu Kow Tu9- 

AjU Ail- 


tamiMit; they do longer henitateLl to accept ih$ 
eoolumufftidl or^aniK^ition (the bisbo)»). And thej 
aooonJiDgly d>itikau(ItM) tli^ reoognition of i\mT own 
propliotAf wli^ui ihoy iiow nought to cotntn^nd na 
auci-4>W4i>rri .of tlie enrlicr pix>plicte (pro|)lietic miccen- 
»ioa) ; Uw " new "* prophecy in really a later revHa* 
tivit^ wUU-.h^ AA Uie Cliurch tindorAtandn i1, pn^ufv- 
poBnt the earlier; and the later revelation i^ertAins 
simply atid 8oIoly (iii mldition to the oonRrmation 
whioh it ^veA hi tho Ohtir^li teaching a* oppoffrtd tn 
tbo gtiotftio) to iho iKiniiii^ tiunttioiut of ChriAtinn 
diM'ipiinr which it dwidw in tbe intercut of a more 
ri^d oh^rvance. Thorein Uy the significance of 
the now pro|ilieTy for its adhervntA in the «npir« 
and acccntingly they had bvstowod tbeir faith fr«dy* 
Thiw^ tin belief that in Pbirsia tl» Paraclete 
hftd given r«T«UtIcais for tW mtira Churrh in order 
to eelabli^ a rrlAtivdy »orciv regimes (rcfrainii^ 
Aram eeoottd mKirij^Eet aeteter fm$i rcf^ulations, 
Migbtier itteelatioti <rf Chmtianity in daUy life, 
^ reftdmcee for marTyrdom), the ortgiDAl en* 
Rceivvd its detith-blow. But tfab fltfoe 
I Bher all a nu|^ilry power, eiBae CbriilcfidoCD mt 

ki^ge male. 

%ommri the 

liiiiDi|o ef 

of the Cbvtcb and ts 

190 asd «», ti>e 


ta tfaei 




Mica ttyHia, cpiMxifJuU*) ilid uot bclp tbo Mouta- 
niatfl. The bif^hajw altHcked the form of tho tiuw 
prophecy aa an innovatiot], threw suspicioa on iU 
ooDtentn, intorpreted the earlier faturc hopes as ma- 
tartalistic and aeiuiiiom, and declared the ethical de- 
mauds to be eitrem^, legalitilif, cciY^moniaL. Jewiflb, 
contrary to the New Toetainont, aiid ev*>n hoAUioniab. 
They Aot over a^'aiaiit the ctaijud of the Moiitaui«tB 
to &ut1ieDti<! divine oraclefl, the newly fonned New 
Te«!itaiiH>nt, declared that every reqiiirement waa to 
be found in tLo Lleclarationn of tlie two Te^lamentfi 
and thiiR cK^arl}' 4lefinetl a rerelation epochs which 
Qxtondod to tb« prt^wmt lim^ only through the Xow 
Toatanietit, the apotftolic toacbing Riid the apostolic 
ofHce of Ijiwhopt* (in this contest the new ideate were 
for the first time maiJe perfect^ (1) thai the Old Tes- 
tament contained prophetical elements, tJie New 
Tofttamout was not prophotic» but ai>aHtoHc, (3) that 
n|)0>;t4f1ie dip^iity eoidd iint bo rejirh*^ by any pemon 
of the pr<went day)- They began finally to diatin- 
guiah between the morality required of the cleigy 
and that required of the laity (thus in the question 
of one ^nfo). In this way they discredited that 
which had once been dear to the whole of Christen- 
dom, but which they could no longer make uw of. 
In Buy far u» they t^pellod the allegtxl miRiiHe, they 
reniterod the thing itaolf l<ttii niitl lixiu powerful (chil- 
iHHm, ppipliec}', ri^lit i>f l;tity to h|>eak, r>|^id sauc- 
tity), vritliout being able t*> entirely suppresH it. The 
most vehement a>nte«t l^otween the parties was in 


n^i^nrt] to the qtu^on of Uie for^nv*^^^ of flin. The 
Mi>ritiiiii>itA. oUu*rwit4u ju'kunwlEHl|{in^ the lnaliop»i 
nf^crikHj tlii» riKlit to tho Holy Spirit alone {»\e., to 
Uiodo who ixmttcM the Holy tipirlt) . — -for i\u: |KJwer uf 
i\w Hpirit U not nooottwirily attochod to tbo olHcii — 
filial rl^C(■^nizn.l no hiunnii ri^bi ill the forf^ivt^ni^tsH uf 
titui, which ixwUul fiir iiv^re on llm (rart?) la/itig hold 
of lh<' Uiviiift mercy ("j>oie^/ ffcc/^Hia (spirit^n) 
doHftrr deiictfit Hvtt mm facfam ") . They Uiorefore 
upcUod from tlioir churcliu^ all who hod coinmittol 
mnrtiil «iim, cHimmittinir tlioir aouIh u» I^lmI Tho 
btHlio|w 1)11 tUo othor hiuidt ooutriuy to thoir owii 
|kniioi|k1«, W010 obligvd to umiDtuiu tluit baptiuii 
ftJoiHt oloiuwcw from sin, nud to vindicate tlii'< right 
ooDvo}*itd by tiK> |K>ti'«r of Iho keyiA by a reference to 
ibo ugKMtolic oSloo In ontor to protect tlio Ktandiiig 
of tfa« evor l«w holy churclH« Against tho diiwlu^ 
tiiui whi«Oi w\iidd hikvo nttiilltHl from thft ivirlior r/w 
l^ioHv Onlixtut« wah th<> fimt to inako uiw of the right 
of tlu* bi!tlu>)fe4 Ut for^tvu -tiuH iii iht- widt-^i »etnw, 
nixt to lo^Unitt ttii» ri^rlit «twi 1o mortal shi8. Ho 
fras opposed, not only by tho Montiinist> Torttdlian, 
but in Riuiie it»df by a Ter>' high itH-Ic«i:ti;tiad rival 
bishop (HippL)lytu»). Tho Mi^biiiis!^ wore coui- 
pellwl to witlMlfAW with tlu>ir "di.A-il-{iropbL>c>'", but 
they withdKivr williugly from u Ohuivh vrUich had 
IwcoDW ** im^plrUiul ~ (ptiychic). Tbo bi^Aopa a»* 
•etlod Iho tttiibil)t,v of tho Church nt ttio cxp(«i8* of 
iti Chri.'ttiiinity. Id the place of tbo ChrutiaDity 
wittch hiid the 8|)irit iu iu midstt c«mo tho Chucdi 



and thv HpirituHJ offiiv. 

3. Meanvvhile the carrying out of the pret^iwoDH 
of the binhops U> the right to forgive bid^ (oppwed 
\a part by the churches and Ui& Cbristiau heroes, 
Uie <»nfcew>tB) and tho cxtcoaiou of the ftain« to 
niorUil »in» (contrary to th« early practit.*e, the caily 
conception of baptism and of tlio Chiirch) wn« at- 
tended by great difficulties, although tb« hisho^A 
encountered not only the early practice of tlie prinai- 
tire rigid discipline, but also a wicle-*ipreful laxnea^. 
The extension of the forfpveness of sina to adultereTs 
WB8 the occasion of the schism of Ilippolrtus, After 
the Dociau peraecutioo, however, it wim neveusary to 
declaim oreu the greateHt ein, Hpostasy, as pardona- 
ble, likewise to enlarge the ancient conceaBion that 
one capita) sin after baptism migfal atill be panlons- 
ble (a practice founded uiK>a the Hernias Pastor) and 
to abolish alt rights of spiritual persons [coiift«sors), 
i.e. to make thv forgiveiie^is of siu depL^ndent u|k>« 
a regular, casuistii*, bisboply action (Cornelius of 
Rome and Cxi^rian). Only then was the Church 
idea radically and totally changed. The Church in- 
cludofl the pure and tbe impure (like Konh's ark) ; itn 
mconbera are not colloclively holy and every one is 
by no moons aura of bleesednoBs. The Church, eolely 
in virtue of its eudowmeuts, is boly (objective), and 
these have actually Uen conferred, to^Uier with tlie 
pure teaching, upon the biahctps (priests and judges 
in ttie name of Qod) ; it is an indiftpen^ble ^alva- 


AvhiTiiv to 




tion jnfititut«t m that no oue will bi* bles^ who 
romaiim wiUiout; it ift idai xovMae fideu but not 
fidfihum, ntthor w it ft iniinhig-*sf»h<y>l and oultiw* 
injfttitiito r^^r Kilvatioii. It [lOH^^^iseQ altto, in iidditii.>u 
t4j luipiiiun, u necijuil euro fur HJii, ni luit«l ijijuTurtii'v; 
the theory, howovor, wji8 etiil caiifuwHi nii<l unwr- 
tuiD. Now fur the iirnt tiiiitt won; th« dorgy luid 
laity »Iiarply disliDguishwl religioxislff ['^ecctesia 
est numems episcoporum")^ imd the Roman biah- 
op* stnmpml tho clergy wftli « cliftnwtcr iniMihilig 
(not Cyprinn), Now rtlw> bcgiiii the theological 
8pvcii1atioii in rt-gnrd U> thc^ ri^Iiitiuu uf tlie Churchy 
SA a coinmtiniun of saints to Iho empirical holy 
Churdi, to the iiiHdor tM>ciiliirinng of Cbrifllianity 
tampered by fcho ** means of grace,'* But all this 
couh) ln>^ Iw (K*oom|ili«hpd withurtl a t^jont cMiTit^r* 
agitation wlitch K'gixn ut Bomo {yoruftan) and 
•oon KprcAcl mnong all the prcJviDciftl i-hwrchcft- 
Novutian roqulrod only a minimum, the unpardoiin- 
bl«nc«a of tho sin of apo^tusy (upon thct earth) , oUwr- 
wiso th*> Clnirch would no moro bo holy. This 
nuDimmn, bowi'%'(>r, hiid tho wuno Higui^eancti as the 
far mon» nulicnl il<nim:i(U of t\w Mortaniifbt two 
goacniiion.-i lieftjro^ Thi^r^ wim in it a vital rcmnnnt 
of th(? aneietit Cliureh iilmt, altlu>ujj;li it w;ift ^Irungo 
Umt a Churt'h should consider itself pure (kJitJiapoi) 
and \Tuly ei^angirlicat, inorely hocau»> of itaunwill- 
ingnott^ to toloratd jipot;tAtfw (later |>orha|>» other 
mortal ^inDerrf) . A B«:ond Catholic Church, stretch- 
ing from S])ain to A«ia Minor, arowo, who«o archAte 





fragmeotB of Ibo old discripliiitv however, did not 
help it to beoomo a moro independent earthly (lyi^tein 
of life; nor did it renlly distinguish itself from tbfi 
odicr Churoh, altUougb it declared tho miaistratiooa 
ut Uie i»atue invalid fpiuctice of re-baptiBin) . 

With wisdom, forewiglit and relative severi^ the 
biabopd in tlic^ crisi]^ brought their chtiiv.liesarouEid 
to a nowattittido. As it was, they could uso only 
ODO hlHhop'ji Church and thoy loomed to consider 
thonuKilvoM rightly aa ilA pupils and iu itji fthoep. 
At ilic naiiit> thno Uio Church had tak(?n on a 
fumt Iti whEi-h it c<inld he a powerful support to 
the stale. HesiileA, its iiiiter hfe wan much better 
organized tliaii formerly in the empire, and the 
treflj^uro of the Gos)>el was atill ever in ita keeping 
(thoimageof ChrJBt,th<^ jwsiirancoof eleriialHfo» tlie 
oxareiso of meiv^') as odou thij monothuif^m and piety 
of the Psalniie»ta n^muiiitd a!ivo ^itliiQ the htvrd and 
foreign shell of the Jevtlsh Church- 

^'ote I. The Friesthooti. The rounding out of the '^^*'**- 
old Catholic Ciiurch idea is clearly niaiiife^ti>d in the 
completed development of « [iric^tly order. Hier- 
onrgical |iriiHtK are found f\nd among th*^ gnostics 
{Uorcion'rt foUuwcnt) ; in tlio CImrtdi tho prophoba 
(Didache) and th«i lm,'al iiiinii^tei-s (L Clemeut) wen» 
fomterly likened to tlie OM Te^uiment priests. Ter- 
tulliau firat calls tho bishop a prie»t, and from that 
titn« iinlil about 350 Uie priestly character of the bish- 
ops and preshyterH was evoJved vory vapidly in the 
Orient, as woll uh io the Occident; so strong indeed 




waa the inSuctieie of heathenism at Uim point tluit an 
ordo o/pritxtly aH/tKHtanta (lower onlination) arvm 
(in the Occident tiret), Tbocomplt]rl©(l tdoRof priest 
meets Uflfiriit in Cyprinn, in tho Roman bitihop^ofthnt 
timi!, and iu the ilocurm^nt wbicii liuti itt tliu biLfiis uf 
the AponloUc CouMtitutioiis. The bishops (second- 
ftrily ulfio the presLyters) wore held to be the repre- 
Bentntiveaof tJie Church before God (they alone aro 
|)ormitU*<I Ui bring the off^iring) and rppr(«antativ<» 
of God before the Chun>h (th^y alone grant or with- 
hold tlw i>ix'iuo ^aco au judges ia tho jJace of Qod 
luul CliriHt ; tlioy are the dopoBJtarieA of the myaler- 
fes, who dmpetir^e a gPHce which they thought to lie 
an an<jtntiu(c ef a nuiterialititic w»rt). In fiupport of ^/ 
tbiA claim, appfvU \vi\» made increa8i&gly to the Old 
Testamont priosta nti^l th^^ ontiri* Ji^wish oil Uuh sys- 
tem, natnnUly to a eupploaientary way. Doors and 
windows were thus Ibrowri upeii, a« r«^arJa the 
ngbtu mid dutiea of the priests, toward bi^tJienism 
and Judaism, after that they bad di»rf?^JLrded the 
exhortatlou of the aging Tertidlian to return to a 
common prieathood. Tithe*i, cleanHings and finally 
^bbatii ordimw»ces (transferred to Sunday) xv^re 
gradwiiUy o^tabliehefl. 

Note *', 'jTAp StivriJIcifti Offf^ring. Triefithoodand 
Baorlfiee condition each other. The Hacriticial idea 
had from the begiDniitg tho widetft play in the 
Churvh (»w^ Book L Chnp. 3, Sec. 7); therefore 
the i«>w conception of tiie prieat mnat of no^vwity 
iniliKuco the (xmcoption of tho ftaorifice, evon though 



the old ropre^entAtion (pur« uaprifico of ihi^ i^pirit, 
ftacrificQ of pmitto, tbo wholo Ufo a mcritlco) Ktill 
nrtnmiwd. TbU mi1u«iici> iiuuiifcated iU«lf i» two 
wa\-St (1) witbin the Chrlslian Hfe of wcriflco 
wa8 introdu<%<l tbe s]>ocia] acts of faj^ting, of vol- 
uiilHr>' ceIilMtc>\ of nmrtyr<Iom, elo, more find nion» 
pnHninently (see among others Hermn^) and these 
receive*! a meritorjoufi, and ©ven ** ewtigfflction ** 
sjgniiicatHH} (aco Tertul.) -, this devclopmont nppcara 
complete in Cyprian. To bim it i^^ »?lf-u\-ideat tbfit 
the Chridtioii, who cannot ronain sinless, must 
tbrtrtigh penance (atoning ><flcrifioe) reconcile the 
an^ry Ood, l>wds done, where siwrial sins are not 
to 1m» emne*!. entitle on© to a special reward. Next 
to peinitontial exercised, tho givin^^ of alms is the 
moat effective means (pm^'cr without alms is barren 
and fnitt1eea)< In tlie writing, DfojK-rcetvlctfmos., 
Vypnan has given an ebiborate theory, one mi^t 
say, concerning alms aa a fneans of grace which a 
m«n can provide and which God tufceph. Follow- 
ing the Docian persecution the npern tl elefimotfynnc 
crowded into the abcfolTition eysteEii of the Cliurc-h 
anil tiecure*! therein a linn footiog; One can — througb 
God's indulgence— win a^m for himself bis Cbris- 
tinn standing throagb works. If men had renuiinod 
wholly »ati«fiwl with thi*, th*> entire system of morale- 
ity would bnve been encompassed by it- Hoitce it 
wtiM neeeiwar}' to 4^nliu-g<A the conception of ffraita 
dm^ atui not a>< hiUiorto la make it depend wlcly 
upon Itie wicmmcnl of ba{>ti^n. Thts w»e first aocotn- 






plitthud^ however, by Augustine; (2) the idea of 
Humfico ujidorwont u clumge in lUecullua. Here 
aiso is Cxprian epocU-makiug. He Snit cIoarLy »^ 
flodntj^^l fcho gpocific oflfmng of tb© T^rd*B Suppor 
witli iltty epoeific; prWtlKxxI; ho first doclared tho [ 
pu»i(to tlomijiiy mi*\ ubfu ibo isantjuis Chri^ti and 
tho dominicii hosHa tho L»bju<rt of the eucbariiftto 
offering, and thereby roiiched the ulea of the priestly 
re-enactitiB of the sacrifice of Christ (i nfiva^n/^ ruQ 
atojiatov cat rotf aT/iamc aIho in the ajiostolir f.hiiri*h, 
re^latione) ; he placed the Lonra Supper dwidiMlly 
uuder the point of view of tho inoorporatioo of tho 
Church and of tho individual with Christ, and cer- 
titidd in a dear why for the tintt time that tho 
commemoration of those taking part in the offering 
{vivi ct defuiicti) had a epecial {deprecatory) siic 
nifieance. The peal effect of the naorifinal meal for 
tho»o partJoipatiug was. however, the makiug of 
prayePB for each other more efficacious; for uutothe 
forgiveness of sins in the fullest sl'uso thi** act could, 
notwitbstanding all theenridmient and lofty repre- 
aentatiohft of the ceremony, not be referred. There- 
fore tlio claim that tho eorvice wa» the re-enactoient 
of the AflC^iile4^ of Christ remained etill a mere claim; 
for agftin^t tbo c:ouc«ptioii so doaely relat<»d to the 
coitus uf the timet^ that participation iu tbu service 
cIoAn^Oil from »in be in the mynterieH of the magna 
mater and of Mithras, tlie funibuaental eccleHiasticfd 
principle of l>Hpli#m firul ri'iH>ntanci> sI^mxI in iipix^si- 
tjon. Ahh MtM'litifial nt-t ihc Lord'» Sup]x;r never 



attaint to equa] importance with baptism; but to 
the popular imagination thifi solemn ritual, modelled 
after tbo ajtoi-^ni myetorica, must havo gnin^ ibc 
lugbeot eigniticonco. 

Aoi€ J. Means of (/race. Baptism and Eucha^ 
riM, That whidi sine© Au^uj^tine hae been called 
" mctfLDH of grace " » the Church of the 2d aiid 3d cen- 
tury did uot pua&(^s». save in baptism: According to 
the strict theory the baptiz^ could not expect auy 
DOW bcetovral of mcauB of grace from Chri&t, be 
must mther fulfil the law of Clu-ist^ But in practice 
^ men poissecnsed in iibr^olution, from tlie moment when 
'moital Bins were aUielved, a real means of grace, 
whoBO significance wan acn^ned l>y baptism. Ke- 
Bection upon this means of gi-ace remajned aa yet 
wholly uncertain, in eo far aa the tboiight tbat God 
nbfiolvea the ainncr thTx>ugh the pric«t vroe croHAed 
^ by the other (bw ubove)^ that tlie p('uiU*Dtial wcte of 
einners tbe lather mMnue forgivent?8>;H The ideaa con- 
ceniing baptism did not e««eiitia]ly change (Uoetling, 
Sacrament der Taufa 'i BJd, tH4G), Forgiveness 
of ain& was looked upon in general as the remit of 
baptiam (however, here al^^o a moral consideration 
entered ; The sins of the unbaptized are aiDs of blind- 
neae; therefore it hi (it that God should fibsolre the 
peoiteDtfrom them) ; actual sinle^^nertts which it was 
neceeaary now to pre««rve, wa^ considered the result 
of fortfivenesa. Often there ut mentioned in oonnec- 
tioD with tbe remissio and the consecutio €etemi' 

iatiit the absoluiio morti^ regencraiio homiuis, 



r^ititutfo ad simf'Utudijtem dei^ constscutio sptri- 
his saficti {** lairaerjtm regenerationiH €i aanrtfji- 
cntiofiis"), nn<l a11 po««iblo bloai^ingn; n« woll. The 
over'iucreafiing i^Drichmcnt pf the riiiiul is id port a 
coHMMiuoQCO of tlio purpose to Bynibolizo lboc§o pr^ 
BuppoH^ rich ofFccte of baptiKm; in ptirt it owes itu 
Driinn to tho di*iro to wrjrlhily t-'i|iiip tht* great mys" 
teritnrK An expUnation of the t^parate acte had 
almady h^^n (con ftr mat ion b^ the bishop). The 
wator wae looked upon as a symbtil and vohicle. 
The introductiou of infant biiptisni ilea whtAly ia 
the ilaric (in tho timo of Tomillinn it was nlitwly 
wido-Hpread, hut condemned by him, de bapt. 18, 
because be held tliat tlie ctmctaito was inilicatal 
by reason of the pondus of the act; Origen referred 
it back to the »|>o«t]e«). The Attempts of some to 
repent bapti«n were rG|wllctL The Lord'o Supper 
was looked upuu not oidy b» an offurin^^ but also tw 
a divino gift (Monogrnphicn vou Doellhiger 11420, 
Kahnis 1851, Ru<rokort 185G)> vrboeo effc»cl, howov<frj 
was never etridly definwl, becau»o the rigid scheme 
(hnpttsmal grm^e, bnpttHinal dntion) t^xcluikni such. 
Imparting of tlie Divino lifo Uiroiigl> the Holy Sup- 
per wn^ tho chief rcprcttODtAtion, cl<;acly ronnoct^^l 
with purely FupcrF^tltious iOwis (^rf/>/iaf"v -irtM^^-ttrtf) : 
tho BpJritUAt Jind the pliytiicul vroru strangely mixed 
(the bread na f^€tm^ communication and r<u^;). No 
Church father made a clear discrimination here: 
The refilistir became t4piHtuali«tir and the npfHtu- 
alistic mystical; but the foi^voEMTSS of sin» re- 



troat^xT <»fitinO}' from vxo.w. In AC(vir«lftiioo with tiiU 
the rrproM-ntalioti of tho relation of tho visible rlo- 
utetitd to Ltib Ixxly of Clmtit be^au to take form. A 
problem (whoth4>r t^ymlmliral tir realiRtic) no one 
drcamciluf: Tho symbol U the inhoreuitly pob^rntiui 
my&lcry (vehicle), and tho mystery ajiart fmtn tbe 
symbol vriu uicnncoivahK Tlir* fioiib of Christ i» 
itBolf ^^j^pirif* (tv> onif |K>rhafH thou^lit fff tbif hin- 
toricjil Ixxly) -y but tliat tht^ spirit bt^cotnt^!i penx^pliblo 
ukd tang1l>1o, tra» e\-en the disttn^isbln^ mark. 
Tho anti-gD<)«Elic fathers rt^oogniz^xl thnl tfio con- 
8U0nit«cl \>TCAi\ wnM compcp^ of two iiisojmrablo ole- 
mentM, — ono Ciirtiily and Ibo olber hwiTOnly,— and 
IhuftflAW in tlvf H^icrAm^iiL tbat wliii^h vran d^.micMl by 
diQ^nofltioAf vk. : Tho uuion of tbo Hpiritiinl luid the 
fleshly aiid Wic warrant for tho reAurructii>a of iho 
fle«h which in itonrlsliod by tho blood of tbo Lord 
(eTtm 80 Torttdlian, who has fuUciy boon c1hi«%hI us 
a pun symlxJisO- Justin sfx^ke of a tranuforma- 
tton, but of n transformation of tbo T>articipAnt6; tho 
idea of tlu> trnusf<irmatimi of thiv i*U^mrnlA whh^. how- 
ovor, dlix^ikly tiikiiip fonu, llio Alcxandri^nr^ snw 
here, jiH 111 uveiytbiii^ which tbo CIuir'Ii Ht hirgi^ 
did, tb(» mystery behind the myst^^ry; llioy aixt>mmo- 
dat^ themselves to the mlmimstration, but tbey 
wifihofi to bo sucb HpiritUi-tl ChriMiunis that iht^y 
might lje continually nouriftbod by the Logog and 
might partake of n ixitjwiMoi eucbarist. Evory- 
wht^re tlw ;Hrr\'i<v wiut dcpnrting from its original 
fiigaiticam^L* <ind was laudt- moru and niorv precise ab 



r^ardu its fonn and t^outent. both by the loarrnKl 
and ignorant (i>ractice of infant coaumimion Uwtified 
to by Cyprian). 

Magical mysterieg, Ruperstition, authoriUitivo 
fixitii and obedience on th43 one aide* and a biglily 
roaEIatic re|ti-eaeiilatioEi of tbe freedom, ability aiiil 
reBponalMlity of tho individual in rnvrsi] mattcn^ on 
the other side, is the mark of Cutholic Cliri»t«TK)oin. 
In n>ligiou8 matters authoritatively and supuniti- 
tioudly bound, therefore panaive; in moral inatt^^n^ 
fr*sc iu:d loft to themBdlves. Uwrefore active. 

That tho Itoman church led the way throughout 
in thia |>roc««i8 of broadening the chunebeo into catb- 
olici^ i* an historical fact that can ho unqutwtiona* 
bly provon. But the phikwophic-scientific B}-stcm of 
doctrine, which was evolved at the name time out of 
the faitJi, ih not tbe work of the Roman church awl 
ita bisbofs. 








TOD UtU). 

L The fipologifttfl wiBhitiR to declare mi<l defend Ttm 
the ChrtJ^lianity of tiie churchee aUrod Uierwfore in 
all tbingv upon the bnsis of the Old Tetitanient, em- 
phainzed th9 imivenuilism of the Christian revolH' 
tion and h^d ftist to tlu» traditi^xial eAf^fuito^o^. 
TtM)j rojoctcd gnrK^ciLim aud saw iit the mural 
power which fnith gave U> the uucultured a priuci- 
pai proof of it« geDuuion(;«i8< But atUEious to pivifciit / 
Chrir^tianity to the i^lucat^ as the bigheRt ani nuTv»i chrfMtui. 
philowphy. tlioy elalwratt-d 08 tnily Christiofi tbe ^["^ 

pel cflat of thought with whirh th« Gentile C!hrift-) 
tiang from the begmning hnd fttnmpod tbe Qospd,/ 
thereby niaJciog Chrlsliajiity rational wtd giviitJ 
tc u form which appealed to the common scnee of all 
oanie«tf thinhing and ronaoning mco of the timivJ 
Besides, they know how to uaethe traditionAl, pcei- 
tive mat^Hal. the Old Testameqit as well aa the hi»- 
tcry juid worship of Chriftt, eiinpty a* a veri^caiion 
Aod attestation of thlr4 rAtioniil roHgtuu which b^d 





beoii liitbf^rto viiutin|{ euiiI had beon .-tougbt for witli 
fervent desire. In tlm ai>o1ogotic tlNH>logy Chris- 
tianity lA conceived as n religioim deA'^lopnt^tit 
brought about by God lanmelf luid corTxwponding 
Ut the iiritnUire coudition of man and pbici*(l in 
the Bharpeat contraat mth all polylheii^c national 
religions and oepemonial obaervunceH. With tho 
greatest energy tho apoloKi-'fts procljiiin^^ it to \te 
tho rolitrioD of Uic ^jnrJt. of froodcni and of atiftoltito 
morality. Th<r wliolo p<i«itivo mnt^nul of Chritttian- 
lly, how(^ver, vriu* triuinformod into u greut »chejne of 
evi*!enc*^; rvli^ion did not obtain (t« content from 
historical facta — it received it from Divine revela- 
tkin» whi(?li in 8df'witDottt4iii^ in Ute cn>atur&-rwiM>n 
and fnH^fduni of mankind— but tho hi^toricul facta 
ft^trvo ft)r i\w nft^^sfatiitn of r<T]i>^c>n, f<ir itrt i^hirida* 
Hon, iM ii^iinjit it^ imrtiiil obiACurutioD, untl for itn 
unfrerrinl spreading. 

And that wha what tlio majority wore seeking. 
In what rt^i^on and morality coiLHiitt, that they 
bcshi'VHl tii*?y kin?w; but that tbewe are realiii^ 
thut tbcir ruwardd und puriifdrnKnitiit aro s^ire, that 
tht4 Inie rittigion cocoliidfw ^tl fnmw of ]H>lytboi»tin nfid 
idoUtry, wco-o clmnis for whitth thi^y luul no (juiinrn- 
t<Ti>. Christianity iw im actual rctrlutuni bi^u^dit 
tho ocrtaiuty they dcsirod. It fpivo to the highest 
product of Greek philosophy and to tlie sovereignty 
cf theieftic morality victor)' and pf^rmanonco ; it gave 
to this philosophy tvt knowh>dgo of tlit^ \vorld and ait 
morality for tho Urst tim<j tho oouragiif to fn*v itnolf 



from tbo polythoiflm of tlic past imd to deaecnil ttom 
tiw pUue uf tlw lottiuccl to 11m pluiu uf Uio cijiuuum 

The BpoLogMs wwo id coDtra^t vrith the gtiot^tict^ 
comtervatite^ iuftBi&uch og tlioy wvw not reiilly <]]^ 
posed to inv«wli{<atv lit m^y point tho triulitiori» uf the 
Church or tj nrnko th« content of tli« };3LiD<r (-tfimpro- 
hemiblc. Th« ni^inont from proph4K:>', novr hovr- 
ever foniiuliit4xl in the most uxtcrtuil vruy, iLlIied 
them with tho Church at Ini^. Tbo ^DOKtic^ sought 
in the Qo^pttl a new retigioit^ the apulugiet«« by 
metumof the Gospel were it^ufinned in their relig* 
ioHS moral ser4^ff. Tl^e former emphasized the ro* 
demptive idea and made everything Kubordinate to 
it; tirolattcr brought nil within the radius of natural 
rcligioti and ndegutod tbo rcJtjinptive idoa to the 
eircumferoDCO. Both bellenized the Qospel; but 
only the speculations of the apologists were at once 
kgitimized, be<?autie they directed everything against 
pi>lrth^igm atij left the Old Teslament and the 
kory^ma untouched and cmphofiized ia tbo clearest 
nvuuti^r freedom aui respoiisibilily- Apologitilfl and 
gnostics carried forward the work which the Alex- 
}indrian Jewish thinher (Philo) had bepm as regards 
to the Old Tetitanei^t religion ; but they divided the 
work, so to spoak, lietweon them: The latter devot* 
lag tbeinaolvce rather to the Plutonic- roJigiouif Aide 
of tho problem and tho former to tho stoic-rational- 
ir^tic side. The divhion however oould not be sharply 
made; no apologist entirely overlooked tho n>dump* 


tic* oau- 


VToriG of 


Twit i^,b- 


tive idea (re<^lemptioii from the f>ower of the ilemonn 
can bo wrouj^lit mily by tlie Logod). W ith Ireiuou» 
Ijogins ugatii in tlw* tlii><i!ogiL-aI work of tho UlmrcJi 
t\m Uutidiu^of Uiu two jrrobloniH; not unly thocou- 
t«t»t witli i^iKwtici^ni n;ax1t3 thU iieee^aarjt but tin? 
spirit of lli« ago tiiniei] more and more from the 
stoic morality to iho Ncio-PUloiiic my*itiHstn, wilhin 
wliotiu ylioll lay coacoulod the iinjiuke toward religion. 

3. Christiiiuity is philosophy aod ret^etatioiL' ' 
Thi« i« thd thoflitt of i»vory «]v>lo^«t frc>ni Arixtiiiofl 
Apoioiii '*' Minucius FeliJC. In the (Wlnnitioii timt it ifl 
Ijhi]i;i4opliy, thv ikpolo^l»1;t oiicniHti-R'il llie wido- 
spread opinion amonj^ tho churcbois that U is tht 
antttheHJB to all worldly wisdom {«oo tho U«timonj 
of CoIbub) ; but they reconciled this difference throa^ 
i\\Q friendly undcmtjiiiding tliat Christianity in oF 
flupomatural origin and aa rovelation, notwilliatand- 
ing ite rational oonti-at, cannot bo apprehended aaTO 
by a divinely illumined understanding. On the 
principles underlying thiiit cwnct^ption the apdlogiRta 
were all a^rwd (Aridtidcti, Justin, Tatian, Mdito, 
Athenn^raH, Theophilui^ ToHulIInii, MinueiTj!* Feli% 
and othernt whoiso writings aro uttHbat^I to JuHtin). 
Th« at»iugedt impre^w <>f stoic morality and mtional- 
ism !s found in Minuclud; Ju^tln'^ writings (Apol- 
ogy and Dialogue^ bavft tbo mcmt in common with 
ibo fftith of tho cburcbcs. On the other hand Justin 
and Atbenagorad think the moat favorably of pbiloe- 
opby and of philoaophera^ while in the suf'cofvlin^ 
time tbo judgment bocome ever barshor (alroudy 1^ 



Tatian) witlxiut changing the v'wvr of the philosophic 
content *>f Clinetiunity. The genera! conviction may ftimoi^T. ' 
be tliu* *iumamriif»d; Christianity ia pLU<»8ophy, he- 
CHne@ it has r rational eli^mt-^toud bocauAO it f^ivoHU 
satisfactory anJ gcncniJIy compreheodible andw^r to 
ithofie qiia^tioni^ in regard to which all txuephlloao- 
[pheiti have excrciBed tUemselvefl; hnt it ip not a phi- 
I loaophy,— inde«*l it is the (liroct aiitithosit! to pliikisv- 
ophy, m far lui it i» free from uU inero notions and 
opinions Ajifl n^futra polytheism, r^., on^mit«« 
from ji rtivolatioD, tborcforo has n mipomattjrnl, Di» 
vini? origin, upon which fUially thu truth nuil cer- 
tainty of its teaching alone refit Tbi» contrast with 
philosophy shown itself also above all iji lh« unpliil* 
ceophical form in which the Ctu-isttan preaching 
'Went forth. Thw t.he'*ift pr^rmitA in detail various 
rfudgm^nta in roganl to the concrete relation of 
Christianity mid phi1oe«f>p1iy, antl it urged tbo npolo- 
glate to labor at the problem, why then the rational 
needf^d to bo reveaio<l at all? The following general 
convictions howm*cr may also bo hid down here: 
(!) Chri»tia&ity is, acounliii^ to the apologists, rev- ktrit^- 
elation, t.*. it ib th« DixHn*^ wiwlom which frnm of , •>«i<*- 
.old hii* IxTon proclnimod tlm^ugh the j>rophets and 
I throtig^h it¥ origin <iK^utu IrunlworDuiicsti, 
ritpAtfjift t> atso clearly evidenced in the fuffilmetit 
of the teords of the propheh (the cvid<>nc« from 
prophecy aa the only sure evidence; it liaB nothing to 
do with the content of religion, but is an accimipani- 
ment to it). A& Divine wisdom Chrlgtianit}* HtafkrlH 



OBJ/ Km- 

oppottc^l to Jill EuitunLl unci pliilor^jihicvil knowledge 
ami iimkefi an ond io such. (2) Chrifitiiinity is the 
inaiiife^itatii^n which accords with the uatural, thou(jh 
diirkeued reason of uuuikind; it includes all iho 
esseiitidi Blem<^te of phili.)sophy — it in therefom ihe 

philosophy (^ "af** ^^fJiff /iAh^m/mi^ ^ ,9aip^t»fuii^ ^i^i't^^fin) 

— Hud it as»ifit« oiankiud to rctdixc tho truths nhicJj 
philosophy L-ontaiQtf. (3) I&jvel&tiun of the ratiomil 
was and ia nece^sarjs becau^ mankind ha^ fallen 
nuder the dominion of demons, (-1) The efforta of 
the jihiloflophei's to discover the true knowledge have 
boon fniitlofiB, which ia above all elo^hrly shown by 
the fact that neither polytheism nor the vrid^apread 
immorHHtybas i>een overthrown hy them. So faras 
the philoBophers bave discxivered any tnith, they are 
]iidoht(?d for it to the propbets (thus the Jewiiih AWx- 
aitdrian philosopliers aln^dy tatitfht) from whum 
they horroWMHl it; it i}^ to itny t!io h'tfud, iiticv^tain 
wh4>ehcr tliey lOso have cojiie to tho kuvwksJgn of 
any fnt^ieut of the truth through Uie nporudie activ* 
itj' of the Lo^os (aec- Justin on Socrates); €«rtaiii \s 
it, however^ that many apparent truths of tlie philos* 
opliers are tlie aping of truth by evil spirits (to ttiocto 
al«o the whole of polytheism was refi^rrod, which in 
partly also the aping of Chrtittian infttitulioz:i4). {!>) 
Tho uckxiowlcHlgmont of Christ if* «imply included 
Id the acknuwli»lgtneul of tho proph4?tJc wiiulom; a 
now content tho t«acliing of iUn [jroph^ta did not 
reoeJTO tbrengh Christ; be only gave it currency 
ttud utKfrgy (triumph over the dumims; Justin and 



Teitulliau recognize a new element m the UoBpel)- 
(C) Tbo practical testing of Christianity' lies^ (a) in 
itd apprebensibilitj' (the luil^arned and wom«n be- 
coniewiw>), (b) in tbe expulsion of cl^hions, (o) in itB 
ability to produce a holy Ufo. In tbo apologii&bi 
Cbriatianitjr accordingly despoUed iintu|uity, t\r. tbo 
proceols of thu uionatiieistic kDowltn)|^ and vlliic«» of 

i^i{i\XBXirx]. Udat438 it«olf froiu tlw bogiuniugof ciiri*iiaii- 
tbo world. Everylliing Inn* ftud jjood that ouuikind *^ ^^^^ 
«xtoU ramo tlimngb Divino r«'v<»lali(m, but is, itt tbe 
»auKi tiiiKs truly liumim, bociiuiw it iii only r dearer 
«TXpn:«i9i^n uf tbat wbiclt men find within tbciitsc^JviM. 
It U at tho RATiio tinK> Christian^ Klnce CbrlKtianity 
b nothing but the t^iching of rL>v<'h(f ioii. One cjinnot 
think of anutlicr form in wbicL the claim uf Chm- 
tianity to be Uio world- religion cctnctt out iw strongly 
<b0QCO tJw» ftffort Uy n>c*oRHlt< th<> world -rmipi re with 
tho nc%7 rdigioo), nor ciui one think of a ifocon<l form 
in which the* ^pocific coiitrul of tbe traditional Cbrj»- 
tian ity i6 m tltorougbly noutraliiod. But it^ truly ?^Jj^,^ 
epoch-making character lay in thi^, that the spiritual »iul]^if . 
culture of tbe mce appeared notv to be reconciled and 
allind with rf^ligion: RRT*»Iation is wholly an out- 
ward, mirafntlous communioation (paaajvity of the 
proplurtd) of rational triitb ; but rAliua»l truth — ibei^ 
tic cosmology and mornlity— was net fortli dimply 
dogmatically ami a» Uje common pos^esajoo of man- 
3. Tho "dogmaa"* of Chri«lianity—thi* conception 



^fSSa-^ *^ ^^^ other, ^t"l»pa^ w^re fiiiit intrcHiuced into 
philc«opliiL-iil liui^UHge bj' tlie upologtstd— are tboae 
ratioiml trutlis which «re revealed by tlie propheta in 
tlict Holy Srriptnros, nnil urb^ch nro rII summed up 
in Christ ('V^i^rJ^ ^«j^i# jial vfl/i«f) And have as their 
consequuat true virtue and ytcniHl life (God, liberly 
and nrtue, eteraaJ reward and eternal punishment, 
i.e. Chmtianit>' aa a monotheistic coflmolog)', a^ a 
doctrine of liberty ami morals, a» a doctrine of v^ 
dftmptiim ; tlio latter liowfiver is not olfijirlj' si^t fortli). 
The instruction is referred back to God, (ho estah- 
lishineni of a virtuous life (of rightecusue^) ttod 
must needs have left to men. The prophets and 
Christ are therefore fountaiaa of righteousneas, in 
so far as they are Divine teachers. Chrifitianity 
may be deflnod as the Go<l-tran8mitt4Hl knowledi^ of 
God, and as viHnoiis conformity to rational law. in 
the longing and striving aftor et4>rua1 life and in the 
c«rlaiuty of reward. Through the knowledge uf Uie 
truth and through the doing of good, men become 
righteous and |)artake of the highest bleaseduent. 
Knowledge rc^ts upon faith m the Divine revela- 
tion. Tliis roveUtion has also the genius and tlie 
powor of rodemg»tion, in so far as the fad ta un^ineS' 
tionabli> tliat mankind CAtmot without U trtiimph 
over the riominioii of tlm dt^mons. All Uus lacou- 
ceived from the Greek fttandpoiut. 

(a) The dogmas whlcJi aet fortli the knowledge of 
God ajid of tbt> world arc dominttteil by tlie fiiuda- 
mentnil tbonghl, tJiat over agnhiKt t\ui world as a 



crented, coii(lition<?d and tmufiieot existence litanda 
the Self -Existent, Unchangeable and Eternal, who is 
thi? prttiial Cause of the world. He has no attri* 
but«K, which art> attributable to the world; tlicroToro 
he in CJUiltod ubove erery name aud hiL% in faininclf 
no distlnctlona (the Platonic expressions concerning: 
God woro held aa incomi)arfibly good). Ho i« ao- 
tDrdiDgly one and alone^ spiritaai and fnidtli'te 
and thurtTforo j}er/eci; in puHtly negative predi^^tes 
he if^ bcwt rhAnirUTT7^H) ; and ytii ho In Oriffiit (Cause) 
and tho Fulnc:*t of nl] K^-xwtancKm^ ho in Will Bid 
/fi/t*, tliercforo ulmi tltt) kind Qivur. Tbtj following 
theseci n^main fixo<1 with iho apologists us rc^iirdti 
the relation of QvA to tho world: (1) that God is to 8"n>ni«T 
be thoufifht of primarily HJi the tinal Cmt^e^ (2) that 
the principle of the ethicully ^ovd is the Principle of 
the world, {3) thftt tin? Priiuiplo of th^ world, f\*. 
the Qodhoadf n^ immortal nnd ctcntid, forms tbo 
ooutraBt Uj till! world as tho ix^rlKliublo. Tho dogmas 
GdiccniLug God are not ect forth from the stand- 
point of tho nxlc^^nod Chun'b, but on the basis of a 
certain conception of the world on the one hand, 
and of the moral nature of man on th^ othf r ; whidi 
latter however ie a manifeetation within the ooeuios. 
The cocuuoB i» everywhere permeated with rtuai»u 
and order (opposition to gnoHticibm); it bears tlie 
stamp of the Logos (as a reflection of a higher world 
and lifi H product of a rationed Will). The material 
also which lies at tho basiif of it» ojmpoeition is not 
nvi!^ Imt wiM croaUid by Qod, Still the apologists 




dirt not niako God the jinmcth'ato crpjitor of tho 
worltl, but thft |j(*rfti-iiMfl«) Divino Ri^jwon iM»rOf*ptil>lo 
ill iJic ^vorUl tiud iDrtcrtcd iHrtw^^ni GcmI and tho 
worliL Thifl wus duiw wtUi iiu rtfcrunw lo Climt 
find with no thought (in Uiu gnostic ^unso) of sopa* 
niting Q^kI >iud tho world; tho coiic^ptioD of the 
liOgua \vi\H rdroiiidy nt hjuid lu tho rcligiotifl phJlos- 
opliy «f the* <lay, wu\ thw lofty itloji of God required 
A b^ing, whi<^h v^hotikl nkproao^nt the acttiality And 
tho moiiy-iddod wrtirity of Ood, without doing rio- 
loucetohis undiaiig<?ubl(]<nots8 (u ftnor dualism: The 
^1,fUTii«. Lo|;^B m the hyp'jf^liu^if^ nf tho iictive otipr^ijiin}^ 
RoruKinf which lujikcs it po^ihlo to think of tJio Ood- 
hoitd itwelf aa renting <"-(/'^">'"''; ho ii* hotb tho re- 
vemling Word of Ciod, tho IHvin© mnnifoftting him- 
0olf audibly and visibly upon tho earth, und tho 
crt^tiug Rfviiwri whicJi i'Xprc-«3K*« himrwif in tbo work 
of his own hmids; he is tht? Principle of the world 
ami of rei^lation at the saitic time. All this is 
not now; yet tJie Logos was net proclaimLKl by the 
aprklopst^ as a k'w«'t'v'f>"', but as the bure«t reality). 
Boyoud tho carrying out of the thought tbal the 
|>riQci|d<} of the coemoa is alao tho principle of reve- 
lation tbo majority did not go- tboir d^pendenoo 
. npon tJio faith of tbo UUurch is ovidtmcod, bow- 

W^^ evor, by their faibim to clearly dititinguish hot\i'Oea 

Huuryof the f>igos aud the Holy Spirit, Tho history of thy 
TjiigfU4 itt Afi foUrtWA: Oof] was never Uiht^nc; ho f^vfir 
bad tbo Ixigop within himt^vlf n« hiB rc«won and rw 
the potontialily (idea, cuerg>') of tho world (uotwith- 



Btamlinc M n^i^TitWe ftpsertionsi. Q<kI m\d tbo worUl 
wi^ro H<>mobow bovmd Uif^icir). For thn ttftko of tJ»* 
croation Oo<l put tli^ 1ȣ^)H forth from himself {tMrnt 
bUu toriU, iKfniLlLti^l biiu to gi> fi>rL3i), t.«. tluvugh a 
ftao siiii|j[o act of his niQ generated him out of his 
ovm Bciti^. Ho is now Ati indopt^udiMit h^-pootasifl 
{^iCi h dttfo) -whoisQ pjiil cdHOuco {"(ttiu) ia identical 
with tliAtnf GocI; he ik not «o|ifirat^ from God but 
oiily sovoredT and ik al«o not a ni«TV> mode or attribat« 
ol Ood ; but IA tbo indopendont rcAiitt of tbe sedf- 
iJitfo1din{^ of God| tind, ultboiigh boing tJio compen- 
dium of the Diviiio Rl^ihod, bo did not rob the Father 
of bi» reason; ho ia Qod itnd Lord, possessed tJie 00- 
^ftence of the Divine Nature, although be is a second 
being by the &id© of Ood {^fiO^tt^ fr»/i(4^ r<, fUi\v f^rtrrt* 
t^)\ but hij4 pon^oDality bad a boginning {"/mi 
ierttpuSf <:umpatri/iiins nvnfuif," Tertuil.). Hlucv 
then ho had a begiiiuing> and the Father did not, ho 
is, aa compared v^ith the Father, a Creature^ tiio 
begotten, created, manifoffted Ood. The suborrh'na- 
tion liefi, not iu biA pR^euoe (for monolhriHrn wi>idd 
then havo bcon destroyed), but in tbo maunci- of hU 
oftgtn (frr*'*' «r/>«r<Sr«jift» t*", ira?/»^(). Till* madc it 
poeaiUe for him to gi> fortti into tJie Unite as rea* 
Aon, revelation, and activity, while the Father ro* 
mnins in Um> ob?«ciinty of his uneJiftngeablcnoKft. 
Wttb (ho K<)ing forth of Uk- Logos be^inns the rcali- 
OTtion nf ihf ^vorhl*id4>A. H<> ik the Creator and to a 
dogrco tbi* Prototype of tbo worW (the one mid spir- 
itutU tieiug uiiunig the idoy ifoiitimeiit cix:»turi-^), 



Ofnuer , 




wbtch bad iltt uri^iii fn)in iu>t]iiijg. Man ttt tli« tnie 
aim ID Uio creaticn of ihc ivorW, and Uie true aim of 
mail is to atUitt unto the Diviiio oe^iicc through 
the rcetton (i^i4^ <^i OkhI) aiid frutnlom croatod vritb- 
in him. As apirit-embodied brings men are neither 
mortal uor immortal, but cajmblo of death and of 
etemal Ufo. In the doctrines, that God ia the abso- 
lute Lord of tlio material world, that evil ia not in- 
herent in matter but originated in time and Uirougb 
the free decision of Uio spirit OmgtO), finally that 
tii^y world advaiicoc4 towon] tho li(cht, duuli^ni itp- 
|MAr<^ U^ \wi fiindurnttntally ovcroonK* tn tho oos* 
mologj-. Yot it waa not ovorcomo in bo f«r lua tho 

I wmtiunt wtm actuttlly tookoil u|xm] &h uvil. The 
apolo^i^t^ b<.>UI thlH t^*nching in ivtgiirit to God, the 
LogoH, ihu world and mankuul aH tho e^fwutiHl con- 
tontof Cbriittiaiiity (of the Old Testament and of the ' 
preoching of Chri»t). 

I (b) The doctrinoB concoming froedom, virtue, 
rightcouMiow nn*l their reward wcro so held that 
Goil vfnA luoki?d up<jn Biiiiply u» CrL*4itur and Judge^ 
and not as tlio priuciplo of a new life (reminiHOonoea 
in JuBtin). The ^^^apaU ih at the same time reward 
and gift Hnkt^cl witli correct knowledge and virtue- 
Virtue is witlidrawal from Uio world {man muet re- 
nounce hie natural inclinatluns) aud c-xaltation in 
every resj^ci aliovo the M3!i£fa<i anil Vw^. The moral 
law ia the law for llio perfect cxalUxl spirit, wliicht 
inasmuch a8 it i^ the lofti^t boiDg upon the ifirUit 
18 too lofty for (he isame. The spirit eliould hastou 




from tfac earth t^ the Katlier of Lights; in equanim- 
ity, fnlness, purity and goodni^cw, which aru the necv 
ttwary «<iD0oqti4!ii<s>i <>f ri(;ht ktio\\lod^\ it should 
make it mfinifc^t timt it hu4 nltvtuly ovcrcomo Iho 
world. Tho vicious die die eternal death, tlio \'irtti- arw&nu. 
ouBobtiiin thoc^it^Tua) ]ih (strong emphasis upon the 
Idea of the jiidi^mt-nt; recognttion of the resurrec- 
ticHi cf the body of the virtiHuis: the idea of nght- 
eouanesa is not pushed beyond Uit* tegai requii^e- 

(c) Ood is Redeemer in so far as he (altlioagh tlie 
ccsmoA and tl>© roason are sufficieiit revelations) liae 
still sent fortli direct miracidons dispensatituiH of tlie 
tontb. Imufmiich as the fallen aniicela at ihe very 
lic^nnin^ gainol Ihn mastery dvvt mankinil And 
cntanglod moji m KOuKtuiUty and polytheiiitn, Qod 
mni lilft jiroplieta to culi£;litoii uiau'ti ^urkeiii^ yvF' 
ceplion and to Rtrea^hen hia freedom. The Logos 
worked directly within Uiem, and many a|xilc^ii4l« 
in tlieir writings were satietied witti a refon^noe to 
Uio Holy Scripture and to the evidctici^^ from proph* 
«cy. Rut idl ind«w] rocognizod with Jn^n the 
cornpiote rcv^atiofi of the Logo* in Jt'^un Chri/tl^ 
tliititigh wlimn pru|>)irc>' i» fiiltilk-d and the truth 
made easily acoessible to all (»domtiun cf Christ as 
the reveolftJ Logos). Justin still uioru ^.aluiu^ly 
defendeil tlie adoration of a crucified "maa'' and 
adHod many thingH fmm the traditiona concerning 
Chriat that make their appearancQ first again in 




FAITH IS arposmoK to onosticwm on thk 
PBBsuprosmoN op the kbw tkstamkxt axd 


irpM?u» I, Iren^bus. a pupil of Polycarp and a toncher 
from Asia Minor, who resided in Lyons and wa« 
convereant with iho troditiona of tho Koman cLui^, 
aet forth in bis great aati-^cGtic work t!m apuB" 
tolic Donns of tbe Catholic Church and also twoxX^ 
an attempt to develop a »yat«m of Church doctriiuf. 
jP*7o*'I*i' Ho sought to combine the apologefic theototffj with 
«ll"fo? ft theohfficat refHsion of thebftptismtd confession: 
f4«iofi. be took from thv two Tesfa>\ients that mnti^rin] 
vrbich :wrv«d not alond to att06t hh philutojjbicjtl 
teucblug; like the (Ciio^ticrt he placed the thought of 
tho realized redemption in the centre an<l thought 
Uiorcbynt tho same time to eipross th<^ pWwf/itmr 
Christiah eschatolofjicat fiopes^ In this way nrowf 
« " fjiitli " c)f iinHmitf*^! oxtcnt, which wan U* Ihi tht* 
faith of ibo Church, of Uki IcfLmod and nnldanied, 
cumpu!)c^] of the mc^t divrra uk^mitnts — Ihc phlkf- 
Hophico-ofiologoUc, Biblical, Chn&to»ophii.\ giiofitic- 
auti'i^nc^tio and mHUtriali^itii' ftLntustiad (Uio pistis 
idionid at t]i«jeaiiii' time bo ILl^ gnoc^ui mid vico v«nM; 




all oonedcMisnew that mtiunal thcologj and fides 
€r€den<ta iira irrocopcilablc ma^itudm was want- 
ing; ovorything stofxl itponan even platw; wiwriila- 
tion W1U4 mintriiKt^J and y^t was not dlBCRrded). 
This oompHciit^d structure received its outward ^??*£^^ 
unity through the reference of uJ] deolarHtioi^s to the 
rule of Faith and ihc two Ti^tjimi?i]td, aiid its in- 
ward imity through tlic b-trong empluufis of two fun- 
damental thougLtu: Viat the Creotor-Ood is also 
the Redeenier-Qoil, €md that: JefN^ Christ U fke 
Redeernet' *"Wi/ on thi^ ncc^/untt beea?t»e he is the 
i*icar7utic Ooit [filiu-s dti fiHua hoifiiuijt factvs). 
In the carrj'iug out of the latter thmight^ Iren^pus is 
superior to bis pupils, Tvrtiillian and Hippolytns. 
For the former €4^pociiU)y ^t\^ entirely incompetent 
to unite the apologetico-rational. the historico-re* 
demptive, and the escbatological rangea of thought, 
but he developed, conformably to hie juristic temper 
and equipments, a well-rounded system in certain 
particulars, which was very influential in the mib- 
aeqiient times (terminotogj' of the trinitariau and 
ChristologicjildMi^rinas; giving Occidental dogmatics 
a jumtic trend). 

Tho jctniug of theoM id^aof salvation with tJie 
thougb1<« ot the Ni-'w TetiUunent (sal vatiou- history) 
and with the apologetic rationaliMn was the work of 
IrcDmus, ChriMianilif i> to Aim real redemption^ 
hroughl fiboui by the Creator-OofL This n.ft]om|i- 
tion is to him reeapihtlaiio^ i.e. restoration to a 
living unity of that which has been unnatarally 




lIOD FUf]' 

separated tbmuf^b dvath aiul mn\ tw[MMnu1ly, Ht< re> 
gaixls mankind, thoriMtomtio& of hmimti nuturti unto 
the Divine image tlirough t)i4 gift of iniporishuble- 
oaRS. TbiB t^alvation ih accompliBhed» not throtigb tlie 
Ia^^ in itself, but solely through Jobus Christ, and, 
indood, through Jt«ufl ClirUt iu eo far as h« was (Sod 
and hecauu man. In that he took ujxiu hiuir^olf hu- 
mAnity ho TiaH inseimrahly united and blended tho 
fianiuvrith Divinitj'. The incarnafion i> therefore^ 
akrng tn'ih ihe dortrine of the uniftjof Qod the 
fundawi'ntal dogma, TIiub tiio biHtoricnl Clirist 
f&timdA (oA with tb^ gnf^tit-^M and Mnrr^ion) nt tho 
ooutrv, uot ii» tlie tcaoher (although IrenjciiH* rfttion^l 
Hc^unue in luaiiy r^«pwt9 iiitijmected hiif raolitilio 
tbtory of rwlemplion), Uit by virtue of his constitu- 
tion u» tho God-niun. All ol>w iii the Holy Scriptiin^ 
\B prepurutory history (not dimply ciphers in tho 
evidooco from ijropliecyl, and tlio h]«tor>' of Chris' 
(Iccrypnn) Inuixolf iw fho unfolding of tfiv pn>ce^» 
of the incarnidioit {m^t Hixnp}y iht fulfilment of 
prophecy), Altlioui^lj tliu iijNjtogiKUt In reality did 
Dot pose the question " cur deuft homo " at all, yot 
Iivmcus m^le it fundiinif'nlitl and an^wenxl it vritli 
tho iiitoxicatinK slfttemeiil : " Tlmt wo nnght bc-como 
Oodrt". Thifl nnsw-or waj* afcoidiiigly lii(fldy Mutii:- 
c^tuKv. factoiy^ bocnuim. (1) it indicated a spociiic Christian 
benefit from sulviitioiii {$) it was of like nmk with 
tile ^oftic oonoeption; Indeed it even wect beyond 
the Utter in it^ c-onipassof territory' r^gardinj; th'iR- 
catiuUt t^} i^ lucl tbo cechatologicul ireud ot Chritt' 

tho / 

h«a<iy AC 



tieuity Imlf-vray, yet at tlio »uuio tiriK* it <x»ul<1 Uke 
lit*} jtlnce of ih& fatitdstic-^scluitolof^icnl i^xiR^ctutirmi^ 
(4) it exproBscd tho m^-Btic NoD-Plalonic troad of the 
timo and gav^ tke same the greateet sati»fac1jOD» (A) 
it replaced tho watiing int«llectiuiUfnn (rationalism) 
by the cerlain hojie of a siiperiLHtiirul transfonnatioii 
of our nature, whirh %\'i)t make it irapalilo of appro- 
priating that which i^aliov^ it^aM>n, l^) it gave to the 
tnulitioiifil hiatorioal utieninces conooniing Christy 
and the entire previous bistcry as well, a firm founda- 
tlou and a defintt^j aim, ajid uutde jHM^iblti the cun- 
coition of a gradual unfoMinff of the hit^torr of 
BalvaticHi (uixvi-itflU fliii'^; appropriation of Pauline 
idcfis, difltinKuifihin}^: of the two Testaments, N-ital 
int^iTAt in thrt kory^ma). The moml and ertoliato- 
logical interest was now balanced by a refd religious 
and Cbri»tolo^:ical interest; The restoration of hu- 
man nature unto the Divine image jj^r adoptioneni. 
"llirough his birtb as a man the eternal Word of 
Qod secured the legacy of life for thoBO who, through 
the natural birth, had inherited death ". The carry- 
tngout of this thought ia indeed crosseil by many 
thingif foreigi: to it. Ironama and hia pupils warded 
oGT tlie lumUi hijlleiiijuitiiin by the briiigfug hi of the 
two TesUnientft, by the idea of Uie unity of creation 
and redemption, by thoir opposition to docetiHm; 
they mugbt the Church anew that Chrifltianity ift 
faith in JMUfi Christ; but on the other haml they 
promoted the holloniiRation by thoir euperetitiouff 
conception \}£ redemption, and by turning the; iutvr- 

uvT Pupila 

lit Ui-llfiit- 

^M orrusKfl OF- thk historv of iwwiia. 


Doctrluv of 

lliKd for 
All Tlmi* 

e^t lovrnnl flie naturefl mther tJian towanl tJie living 

2. Tlit^ onrly CnthcJic f»th<<rH, in oppoftition to Uie 
gnostic tliofi^H, det^'bired that dualism do^troys the 
omnipotoncu "f 0*>tU thtrofori? in g«>ncral tlie idwi of 
Ood, that Uk* etnrLiiatlcDH aro u tn^thologiciil fanoy 
and endanger Uie unity of the (Jwlhead, that tho at- 
tempt to ascertain the inner Divine constitution i» 
audacious, that the gnoaticB ooulcl not avoid phK^inir 
th« final origin of ain in the pleroma, that cnti<-iam 
of the constitution of the cosinoa id impertinent, llio 
saiQQia much rather aii evidence i>f wifidom and good* 
nee0, tb^it doeeti&m givea the lie to the Deity, that 
the freedom of man is an nndeniablc fact» tJiat evil 
is a necessary mean^ of correction^ timt f^oodnesaand 
jtiAtioe do not exchulc* each o(hor, otc, Ev^trywhere 
they argue accordingly for iho gnoeiio domiurgo ob 
against the gno&tic Redc^uior-Ood. They refer 
above all to the two Tostainents, and Jiave therefore 
been eulogistically called "Scnptiire theologians''; 
but the ''religian of the Scriptures ", whereby the 
lattfit \r wilfully interpreted a^ iiispii-ed t«»timouy 
(Irenrous IooIch ankanoA at thti gnostie cxo^^air, hut 
oomoe very uvut milking ubo of it) gi\wn uo guarantee 
of conlwfl witli the Ot>»p<^l- Tlio relation hetweeu 
the rule cf faith and the Scriptures {now super-, 
now ftub*ordioatioii) al»o did not come to a clear 
J In tbt> docfnne of Ood tho main outlines woro 
firmly driiWTi for nil tinv«. A middle way t>olwoftn 



the rttftarovfti of knowlecl^ and ad over'<*uriou» 
epeciilation wiw much prised. In Irona^ua arc found 
toideticiefl to mnke luve^ t.e. Je^fus Chrii^f^ the prin> 
ciple of knowledge. Qod ia to bo knovni throiigl] 
tevelation, whereby the knowloc^ of the world i^ 
ilodanxU now to bo sufficient, and now inBufficicut; 
For IrenffiUR. th« apolr^^st, it i« fiiiflicieDt^ for Tre- 
iifoua, tho Chrjfitoloffiat, it is not^ but a God with- 
coit a creation is a pbaxitom ; alwayb mu«t the cob- 
miaU precede the religious. The Creator-Ood is 
the atArtin^'lx>int. blaApbemyof tba Creator is the 
highest t^la^ph^tny. H<*iice nho tho apologetic idea 
of God 18 YirtimUy made une of (God the neffation 
and tho Cauao ot tho ooBiuoa); but Irenmua ii trtill 
enthu^d by it, »i»ce a real iiit«r««t la at hand as 
reganlti the hbtorical revelation. Especially was it 
point«d out agaiLHt Marcion, that goodness rocjuirefl 

In the Ijogos-doclrhte Tertullian and Hippolytua Loffo»t)o«i^ 
manifoHt n doe|M^r apologetic int^rept than ln\iin»iw, u^un jpua 
They adopt tho whole mas8 of apologetic mat4>rial ""- 
(Tereulh Apolog. £1); but they give it a more par* 
ticular reference to Jesus Christ (Terlull. de frame 
Christi and adv. Prax.), Accordingly TeHidllaD 

' foshiottetl tho fonnuhLs of the Inter orthodoxy, io 
that ho introduced tlic concoptioits substance and 
P#r«oii, juul nohritfavtanding hiff ver^' olabontt^ enb- 

, ordiaiitionitfn and hiit merely i?conomical con^nctioD 
of tho trinity, ho still hit upun idi-as ixnicemiug tbo 
nlatioDs of the three Poreonti wbioh could bo fidly 


FOfttD Dftl, 

jreco^Dizcd upon tlie^oil of tlie Kicoiie Oeeil ("uua 
jtfubstantia^ ir^a pr^rnoncf "). Tim unity of lh4» God- 
boA<l wdH ^t fortJi in tlio unn auhatftntia; the din- 
positioQ of Uwj ono aubsUiucu aiuunj^ tho three Per- 
SODB (frintfo^, 7/>e(iEc tin^t hy Thtsophilua) did not 
clestroj the iiaitf (tbe giio^tio eoii>i-ti]>ectilation 18 
ben confined to throo in number). Already it vrm 
cctfuddorod n hftnu^* 14) mnintain that Ood U a fitim4>r* 
iool unity. But tlto »4?1f uiifohling (»ut jxirti tinning) 
of tlitj QiMlhi^i) hnd iujtfl(? a W|jiiitiiiJg (Uk* ixvlIixii 
tion of the world-id<a is fttill ever tho main-i'pnTj^ ot' 
tho iauor Divine disvpositin]; the ho^» bocami* 
difttinctr l)6iug (** «*^cuiK/f« o c/co constUutus^ perse 
t^ratis in sita/orma")*, since lio Sh derivalio, bo in 
bopoi-h'o of tbe Doity {** pater toia mMmWKi''). 
Thcroford cotwith;4t]LQdiijg bi» anity of Btiit^Htani'X) 
(unruif ftu09iattthv — ■V'""'i^r"v) lie lirta Ui« chfimc- 
terisfcic of ti'mponUity (tbo Son is nut thi-t world'idea 
itself, although bo ]>08fw«4Fk'fH tho aumo) : He, tbe 
Streanii whun the rovQlation has iiccuii]pli>ihf?d its 
aim, will finally flow tutcic into iU Founbiin. This 
form of etntomont i» io itself im yot not nt nil dietin- 
guiahablo from tho Hollonio; it vrne not fitted to 
preserve fmth in Jeeim Christy for it i» too low; it 
bae Lt« impcriaiice merely in the identificAtion of tbe 
historical Clirist with this Logofi. Through this 
Tertullian united the acientitic idealistic cosmology 
with tho «loclarAtious of the primitive Chmtian 
tradition con^eniiog Jeeus, ao that both were to 
him like the wbt^Uy di^iiuiiar wingv of one and the 





euue building. The Holy Spirit Tertiillmn treftted 
nwrely nocorcHng to tho schrmaoi the Logo^^-doctriiie, 
-^n lulvancv upuii llii' iipobgiatB,— yut vritliout any 
trace of an indepeixleDl interest (" tertiue est spiri* 
iusadeoetjilio ", '^vicarin ri»//ii ", »nWnlJRat«to 
the Son m the latter is to the Fatlior, yet fitill '* itnius 
aubsinntifp ") - Hi]n>olylua ^mjkliaAiTwl th*" 4*r<*>ituro- 
diaracturof tlio Lofj^H still atrongor (PhHo«. X, ^3: 

Mr^v ri r^dtt^jio)^ but did not attribute an indepen- 
dent j>ro«opoit to tUo Spirit (udv. Noct. 14: ^»* ^««^v 

WhiU) Tortiilliun mid HippolytuiK »mp1ynild th^ 
CbrUt of thv kiirygLnno tti iIk* coinph?U> T^if^a<'doc- 

'trine already at liaiid^ Irona}u& tocik hfs point of do- 
parture from tho Ood-Chiist, who became ninu, Th© 
^ Logoa ' ' to bioi \^ more a predicate of Clirist than 
thi) fiubject \U,i\i. HiTt dei'laratioiLg concominf; 
Christ were won fnun ihi* »itjiiulp<>n)t of th** doctrine 
of red«niption; tho tiptdogotic Logoe-doctrine oven 
truubk^d hini; hut ho could not riil bitni»lf of it^ 

pftlnce redemption la recopt'tnlfttio of tho crenlion, 
and siuce John 1 : 1 touches that Christ is tho Logo». 
Hoverer, he rejected from principle «vcry -/»"^"^i(> 
emanation and theological apocnhition, Girist ja 
the eternal Son of Ood (no temporal coming-fortli) - 
he is tho etomal aclf-r«vcIntion of the Father: thoro 
exii^tti UrUvLt'^u him and Gud no Keparutiuti. Yet «u 

.greatly did hctitrive to reject the eon-ftiMCuULtJOD — 




Ml Ex< 

ho alBo could not qutto ifiM> tbo Divitio Jc Christ in 
the reilemptioii; ho whh ohljgc^l to \£xv& liim n piirt 
in tho Croatian, nnd thrn hi> taufpht nothing cHffori*nt 
from Jufltiii Aiii TertuUian. But be nlwuys liwl tlic 
incarnation in view, wboee subject must bo tho full 
Divinity. *"God placed himself iu tlie relation oE 
Father to tlie Son, in order to (rest**, after the like- 
rn*a8 of hi* Son, nwn who nhonM W his s*ons". Per- 
haps the incnniattou waa to Irotia?uft tho higli«st 
ezprciwion of puqxMO in tho eonship of Christ, tn 
regani to the Holy Spirit Irenroua siioko with the 
(frentofit indefinitenosH ; not once id r/nds found in hia 

In tlio toac-hinj;;; of Irenieus concerning /ftp destiuy 
of mankind, their nriffijial atatfi, fall and ain^ tba 
divergent linoa of thought become vQxy opparcnt 
(ft^wloi^utico-nioralifttic, Biblico-i-enUstic), aiid have 
chamcterifttically remaineil so for the doctrine of tlio 
Church, Otdy the lirst is clearly dewloped. Kvery- 
thing croatod, therefom also raoDt i» in tlic begin- 
ninif imptrfiH^t. Perfection coiddonly Ih.* the destiny 
(native cnpncity) of muikim), Tlii^ eml in ri^i&xl 
tlirough the free decision of man up>n tho hnAu« of 
hiH O^xl-^ivffu r^[dicit> (iina|;e of Qud). The priiii' 
Itivc wiu\ »tumbhxl and fell into death; but \m fall 
18 cxcuHrtblo (he wna tempted, he yn\s ignorant, ho 
ii!low«Hl bini^elf to be Hcduwd pnetextu immortali'- 
tattA), and even tdleologically neceoasajy. Difiobedi- 
ence ha^ been ndc^antngoouB for the derelopni«nt of 
man. In order to become wise he must ace tiiat dia- 



by PahI. 

Dbodionoo workn deoth; h^ must lenrD tJie dir^tanoe 
ruMi xintl Ood, uiii) the ri^^bt um uf fn^vdom. 
It IB a <n»j»tion of lifo and ili?uth ; tJio cousequi'iice of 
ffin is that which is realty ilreadfaL But the gocxl- 
EneBBof Qod ^hon^ed itaoU at once, a» well in the r&* 
■ moval of the tree of life, as in Uio orilaiumg of Urn- 
poral death. Mau re^^na hia dediiuy, wht-u ht; do- 
cidcst freely for tlie good, aud tliat he cazi still evttr 
do. Tho -iignitiCAncB of the prophets and of Christ 
reduces itself hei'e, s\n by the apologist^i, to the ietifk- 
ing which streiifrthenfl freedom (8o taught Ti^rtul- 
liaji and RippolytLig). The second course of tJiought 
by IisuuQus il^iwod out of the guot^tic-anti-i^noiftio 
roOApiiiihttiott' theory nnd war influenced liy Paul, 
This encompa.'^os i^nllro humanity i\» the sinful 
Adaxn, who Imving fallen onco cannot help himj^.^lf. 
All <^eiid(Kl God in Adam; through Eve tho 4<ntire 
race baK horome subject to doatb; the origioal end 
h forfeit<*d and God alone can help by descending 
agiun into communion with ua and ixstoring ub to 
likenem with hia Being (nob out ef frcedum does 
bLeafledned» flow, but out of communion with God, 
"in quantum deusnxdUusiudiaeL in tanUtjn homo Ountfiro- 
iudiget dei rommuuioPW^\W. U, 1), Chrint, aa 
tho i^ociiiid Adatn, n»di*rfmia tht? first Adam (** Chn'slitx 
iiberfafetn re^tauramt"), in that ho at«p for atop 
rMtorod in /ronum, what Aibun Itnd done iu malum. 
(Tho testimony of prophecy Sa h«ro changed into a 
^biatory of destruction and aalvation). ThJ?^ rcli^ 
proconceived hiatorioJ viow ia carriud out in 



ttKfO Me- 

an alniDt^t nAturiiliKttc wiiy\ troui tbo ociisegueneo 
of tho niitilcjitjiMtiiHis of ovory indivuhiiil rtiAn Tro- 
njctiM wnw prcTwrv'cd only by liii* morul trmn of 

Tlio idou of tb^ (7oc^-man tlotnttuitol this entiro 
scheme. Eccl«?b'iaHiic-id CbnHtuIo^fy, 8o far as it oni' 
plta^r-M tbe onen^as of tbtj Pivino iliuI Inmmii in 
(7hriAt. HtJ)ii<ls to-day still by IreniPiiH (Torttillian <lid 
Dot eo <<lear1y aoo tko neceBBityof tbeotieae^). Joeud 
Cbriat vere homo vere dcuj, i.e.* (I) b* i» truly 
tile Word of God, God in kind, (2) tbia Wonl be- 
ciune truly man, (3) llie incarnate Word ih aa in?*ep- 
amble unit^'. Tbi» m carri^ out agaimtt the 
"obioiiitcH^ and VAlentinian^. \rbo taught tbo de- 
MM>tktof oa« of tbo manyoonti. Tbe Son atandd in 
natural, nml not in adoptod kinship (Hjo vir^n 
birtli ih rtraptfulafio: Eve ajjd Marj'); hia body \h 
subxUistkiUrj identical with ours; for dnc*'li**m 
menaced the r^lempticpn jti&t aa did "ebioniti-sm". 
Therefoni niu^t Cbrist, in onler to l)e able to ro*toro 
t!]t> wbolotnan, al^u) pa'w through a full hunniTi lifa 
fn>ra birth lo naaturo ago and to deatb. Tho unity 
l>vtwt>(*ii tbo L<^co4 nud hia hutnan nature Ircn^un 
called, "aditniiio rerhi dei ad ptasma" and "com- 
mintioetcommixdodeiet hnminis". It ia to him 
p<>rfoct; einro h<? iHd not care to distinguish what 
the man did from what the "Word .lid. On th<? con- 
tniry Tortnlliun, ih>|H>niWt npon Trfmmiifi, but not 
viowing the ruoliritie dootrtno of rodc^mption »9 tho 
key to Clirintiduity, uoed it ia true th« forinuln, 




"homo deo mixfim'*, but net iLnderstandiug the 
"homo pactum" in Uiustnct souse. ileb|peakti (udv, 
Prax*) of two substaztcKe of Christ [cofjjoraUs ei 
spiritnalis}^ of ihe^ conditio dnantm :tuMantia' 
mm " which iii their intefcrity persist, of the "du- 
ptex AtatuH domint, nos t:oNrr&r«, sed ctiJunciuH 
in una peraona — deuset homo". Here iauln^^ly 
the ChaloeUou (juristic) t«niiiiiulogy, TcrtuUiaii 
developed it in endeavoring to want oflT the thought; 
Uod traii»fornied hiiaself {m »ome patripft8sionist««) ; 
but ho did not soc, althougli bo iisod tho old fomiulag, 
"dewcrucifixii3'\ ^'tuisci sevuft deus'*^ that the 
roAlifitic nHlvmption beeoKnen moro »;troi3g)y mfwncxrd 
through tho Hhiirp :K^|>arution of the two iiaturce, 
U)an through tJi«j ucceptuni>j of a tnin^furnuitii-n. 
Indeed he only as&ertu the oneneKs and rejects the 
idea that CbrUt \ii" itfrtiaviqnid^. Buteven Iro- 
meuH could not persuade bimHelf, B^inat hia own 
bfttt**r judgment, to di\i<)e the one Jemia Christ after 
thu mauoer of tho gtiofetics: (1) There are not a few 
|ini«age« in the New Tefltament, which con bo re- 
ferred only to the humanity of Jesuri (not to the God- 
mati), if the real Divinity on the other band is not 
made to suffer {i*o f^g. the descent of the Spirit at 
hij4 luiptiftm, liii^ tromblinK fuid sl^jikins:), (2) Ire- 
n^wi »W> conceit^ of Chriftt in «ich a way ar to 
moke him the new Adam {** perftcttta homo**), who 
potiaoH»Li8 the Logus, which ia (vrt^uii mcU xa \\m 
hint^ry of Jetiu» wiis inactive. The gnostic disiin- 
guiding of thu JeJtub piUibilis uud th« Christus 

Two flub* 


NjIi OMl- 




Of F«f<& 

Work iit 

ds«'*79 was by Tertullian explirilly, ajid by Irea^UA 
J isdtroctly, logitimjauxl. Thus anue the occlesUix- 
l^ticnl t^onuttiro doctrL&o, Hipi>olytu8 gtoocl be- 
1 two^D th« two pidor tOAchors. 

Ilowovvr, tlio oneness vriuf »till tho pri^otratinK cod- 
coptSon of Ircnwua. Since Clirihi becaino what we 
uas ho a« God-m3ui likowiso pns^wil Ihrough mtd 
suffered wbat we should have Huffvred. Chri&t it* 
not<«i]y "^/uj et »alvator'\ but also hiswhoW life 
is a work oj retlempiion. From his eonceptioD to 
bis burial evorytliiog was inwardly nooeseary. Ire- 
ojeus ia the father of tbe " theulogj' of facUi^ in the 
Church (Paul ei3Qpha8ized only tlie death and the 
rtfiurrection}. The intiueDce of the gnoids i^ unmiH- 
talcnhle, and ho even Uf>ea the same exprat^ianH a8 the 
(Cri<iAtio4 whi'U ho conceiv*?« rodempliou as fully lu^- 
CK>m|>U»lic<t, — oa the ono side, in the mere manifest 
tation of Jc^^ua Chrit^t a^^ tlie second Adam, on tlio 
otli«r, in tiLe mere knoirled^e of this manifestatiOTi 
(IV. 36, 7: ^ ^«nrf:tf Turj viti^/ riiTf ifta^t^ f^ti^ ^\r d^^ap^i^), 

Slill he otnplini^irx^ the personal meritorious aertnce. 
He look^.^) lit the work fi^Pi many )Kiint8 of viow 
(lending: liAirk inU) comnnuiion, n-fttoration of fmo- 
dom, roiKniptian from death luid Uio devil> propitin- 
tiuii of Ootl) ; Ihu d^uiiuutiiig '>ni3 ts the pnx'uriri^ 
of the «^f*xf'*tOi (lulopliou unto Divine Hfe). But how 
un<:«r1ain nil is to him, ho betrays in I. ID, 3, when 
bo attributes the (iiiefitiou, Why did Ood becotne 
tlash? to tixoBe who wU bare nothing to do with 
the t^imple faiih. ile can also still ever real aatia* 



|ill4 fit 


G^ vritb thf> liofw of tbo aocond coming of Christ 
and the iT«inTOotioa of Uie budy. Between this 
hope and the deiiicaticTii-idt?8 Ilc« tlio Paulino viimr 
(gncfiis of the dentli on the CKm); Ireiueiu uxor* 
cisod bimself to prov^ itJ4 l€^tim»t^n««i4 (tho (1<>«11i 
of Christ 19 tho true redoniptioii)v -Still ho hi\A not 
reached tUo idt^u of tho ntoaoiu^Qt (the* rcdcinptioit 
money is not paid to the deril upon hiii " with- 
drawal'*); vritbiD the r€capitu]ation*tbeory he ex* 
pre^HOs the idea, that through disohedieace upuQ the 
tr*se Adara became a dobtor toward God, and through 
obediooco upon the tree Ood l>cK?ani^ reconHI^d. 
BoHectdooa OQ a eubatitutioual aacrifiCTi arc not found 
In Ireoieus; s^dom do wi^ find thu iOva of BQcrifictal 
doatb. i'^i^veneea of sins he did not really R?0(^*g- 
niao, iiut only tlie itetting atiide of sins and their 
OonaKCiuercfw. The redeemed become tbrouKh Christ 
bound together into a tnie unity, into true faumanily, 
intothe ChuTob, whoso bead Christ h. In TertulLian 
WAd Hip[>oly tu»t the aiime polute of view are foimil, 
vxoept that tbe mystic (i-ecupltulating) form of the re- 
demption necedflfi. The^- oBciUate con amore between 
tho nUiunal and tlie Pauline repre^ntation of re- 
demption C'fo/fuit Chridiani tiominis ei ptmdus 
H fntctus fnors VhrisW*^ adv. Mnrc. HI,, 8); hut 
Hippidj'tuft (PhiK«'>|>h, fin.) f^ave a claaeical exprfe- "JSESK?* 
*don Ui the deificwtiuu brought alwutby Chritt, iuler- "^uli!*'" 
kweavjng th«rou-ith llie rational wrboma (knowledF^ 
Tedeoia'<). Moro i^hnrply rorao out in Tertullian 
tbti couooptioofi, cuip\^ rt^tiu^ pevcQii, etc.; bo 


(:ailit I 

Krmmy of. 

hais abo already "^aitsfacere <ieo'\ **wm(«m'\ 
^'proinereri dcum ", whiL^li Cypriiui carried out muru 
precii*ely. Finally wt fiad in Twrtullian the por- 
trayal of Christ as the Bridogrooni ;tnil tbo indirid- 
tml aoul aa tho brido, a fatal modifit^ntion of tho 
primitive Cbri»tiuji rL'i>rv»uDtaliou of tbu Church o^ 
the boJy of Christ, under tlie inlluuncv nf Ihi? Hel- 
leDie peprefientatiou (wee also thts guuestio-), that the 
Deity in the h(ml>au<l of the iN>uh 

Very striking in tJift inipivsflion maile upon one by 
tho e^chatotogy of the oarly Catliolic fatben»; for 
it corre8iK>mls ueithev with their rational thoology* 
nor with their mysticism, but i» aiill wholly archaic* 
They do uol, however, repeat the »aine in any urgent 
way (perliaps on account of the churches, or the re- 
ff«ia, or the Apocalyi>pe of JohiO> but they and the 
Latin fathers of the ^d^ and of the beginning of tho 
4th, oenttu'y tive and move altogether iu tho hope 
of tho earlieat Chrietian churchea (like Fupia^ aiid 
JiiBlin). The Pauline eechatology they felt as a dif- 
ficulty, tho primitive Chrieitian, logother with ite 
f;:ro8»e><t chtlia^u, uat at all. This i» the cloarc^t 
proof itiat these thealo^ans wi^re only bAlf-hearted 
about their ration^ and mystic theology, which ilxoy 
hod t>e<^u compelled to a^lopt in tKir a>ntcrft witb 
tho giJo»i!4< Thry had in fiict two Chri»t»: Tho 
returning Christ, who should oonqtuer tho antichrist 
and set np h\^ judgmont t^eat as tho victorious 
King, and the LoifOB, who was lookeil upon, now as 
a Divine Lencher, now aa God-man. This very oom* 



ft inn 

fiHcudoD M-commeiutixl iho uow diurcdi iloctriQi>. 
The (It'tailn of tlic <«tcl)utoU<gicjU ]io|k» in Ircofcud ivrKIRS 
<1*V., dot nldu Utdito}^ Tertulliiui and Uippolnua Cu? 
(f/tf onftcAr.) uni in tlio maiu u^ stexeotyped, in par* 
txuJars Bs ^^'arenuR, as in the earlier tiuics. The 
JobdiiDean Apocalyp^, together witli its l<.>-am«(] ox- 

L [nsitioDs, stands with Dnaicl in tho forcgi-ounil l«\x, 
or rather aovon tbou»aud y^sar^ heuthen ivirthly 
power, anUchriHt, adie In Jonisuleni, caini)atKu of tho 
returning Christ, victory, resurrwlion of Chri^tiani!, 

tvisiblo kingdom of joy, gi'in^nil re^^urrection, jntig- 
Unt, Unnl i^d). But after the Montauistio crim 
thoto iirose in tlio Oriont flu opiKu^tion mov«m(*nt yrgjji 
a^inxt thiH dnuna of tlH> futun^ {th<i " ^Ici^oi ") ; the 
li^aruc^l hiftliope^of the Orit?nt in tho Ikl conttiry, aIjovo 
aIltJioOrigoiiitftd,op[}OEBtHlit,yes, even choJobanueaa 
^jKtcalypso (Diouysiuff Alex.) ; tbcy fonnd however 
teoAcioiLj opppiwcn^ among tho "simplice^ et idiO' 
te" (Nopofi in E^'pt). Th« Christian i*«»ple of the 
OrifTut «!>«> n:iwiUingly sufF<*r<Hl thmiiMi.Uvfv^ l^i l>e 
robbod of thoir old faith^ they wore obligt^^l however 
to Habtnil gTfiduidly (thi5 Apocalypso dis^ppoiirv oft4m 
ill tlwi Oriental church canoE), la the Occi<lent 
cltiliasm remained unbroken. 

There remains fltill the doctrine couc^rnhiff the 
two Testaments. Tlio crcsitiori of tlie New Teeta- 
ment throw a new ]>(fht tiiK>n tlio Old Te«tameiit. 
Thin ^iftnd«d now no longt^r ^^Jniply ti> n OirHtiAn 
book (Barnabas, Juj^in), auil alao not as a Ijook of, 
the Jewidi (Jod (Uarcion), but by tho »idi- of the old 


f^r Tt(4 



conception that it in Christian in f^very line and 
fitands upon tbo i«timmit of Uio Cliristian rovol&ticn, 
yra» pcHOrfiilly wtablinhed the oU>cr whicli is iu- 
oouKJiitf^nl with it, Utat it was a preparatory stage 
to Cbri)4t and the Now Tcstitinout. Thi» tiovf, in 
which An historical coQCoiitiou faintly appears, was 
first set forth by the Valontiniaofi (ep, Ptolmncei 
Oil Ftnram). Men vHrinil «<H*on!irg to nccoceity; 
Now the Old T»tt4inient ii; held (o contain tho whole 
truth in tho fonn vi propLwy, now it is a Urf/isitalw 
in sermtuteiH by the sido of the now legisdaiio *» 
tibertafem^ an old tninsi*Mil covenant, which pn*- 
pared the way for the new, and whose content ia the 
hiatory of Ood'a podagtigy of the human race. — in 
©very portion of saving value and yet traneient, aad 
at the same time the forecast of the future and typi- 
cal. As over ai^HiuBt tbe gnoatic attacks tb© fath«n} 
tried to set forth the incomparablenesa of the cere- 
monial laws, and Paul Ib diBtort^d for the purpose 
in order to prove by him also devotion to the law. 
Prophecy, type. ]wdflpogy were the deciaivo points of 
view, and ouly when men wei-e roatriclod by no op> 
IHMitiou did UtL-y admit that certain (>M Testament 
ro4|nits?ments ha^l been ahro^ted. In all thi» there 
lay, notwithstanding the confusion »nd th« contra- 
diction whioh perfliflla even until the present time, a 
n^l step forward, MeJi began t<» make di^tlnrtions 
ill tho Old ToAtatnont, they hit upon the idea of ad- 
TancIn|;stageo of truth, of hi^Uirittitt'ouditiona (Ter- 
XvXlhtti. de oraL 1: '* quitUfuid retro fuenttt autde' 



olI flail ■- 

mututum I'.it per Chrifttum tit tinumvisi^t^ aut 
iuppietian ut reUqua lex, aut implflttm iti pro- 
ph^ta, aut per/vetum ut fides ipsa "). laaauuch 
as two Teetamenta were now accepted^ the Hpedfic 
fiiBDifiriuirfi of iho Christian covftimnt became mord 
prumiaoiii (Tfrtull. *' hx el propheiae iisque ad 
Johanncm " j th« apo^tlcft greater Uian the prophcte) ; 
true, the new Covenant iveb »tiU ever treated us 
"fax", and thobopelet^ question was accordingly 
discussei], whether Christ h^ li^litened or weighted 
tllo old Uiw? Tho iK^loffoi^ical Hnlvatlon-histcry, 
HA it wuH first [w>t forth by IroniPiis and iut-*rtwinftd 
with the toutin»)ny uf pro|>lkoc-y, mmlo a trtMii<3nd\»ut» 
im|irev±iioit (uO initio — Moaea-CkHat) -^ the Tcrlul- 
liaii addition (Ith Hta^: pas'acMus im navH» teais- 
iator) did not gnin acceptkiioe, yet it has over re- 
Appcarod in tlie hi^toi'y of tlie Church, nmce even 
Christ and Paul cannot bo iocliul^d in the schema 
of now law-giTera for tho Church life. 

3. The valuo of the work of th« old CatJwIic l[>""**i 
latiwra to iht. Church— iu tJie Oouideul NovaUaii '^^i^^H^ 
worked out tlio TertuUian CtinatologT, Cyprian ea- 
tabliabed tlio re^fulct as developed into a italvalioil- 
history and mmh a pai't of the Terlulllan fonnnta^ 
current iu larger circle***— <lid not cfiusitit in tlntir 
conatruotioD of a ayatou of d<»ginatioi', but izi thtjir 
refutatiou of tliu £:noaia and lu Uiu Ui^ugical fmg- 
ment^ which tln^y left, r'.e, in the aiiti-gnoBticttlly 
inti^rprol-Hl " ndr of fnith ", which wjw rmipl«l with 
tbu cliiof i«t(ittiiitjiita tjf tlic ^[xilugutic th49iili)gy (vide 


above all C7priazi*s writing, '^ teHttmvnia'; horw 
the doctrino concerairiK Uie two TeslamvtiU, av In>< 
f,.4Uoua hrul (luvifloped it, furuw tlio gruutitl-plnn ia 
wliich the particular articles arc introduced, DoC' 
triuitl parages from the ratiozifil tlioology cbango 
with tile ker}'giDatic facts; ©veryliiinj?, howevor, is 
proven from th» two TcBtamentA; fAitti iind Ibecl- 
ogyare not at a tension]. In order lobecomoaCatli- 
olio Chritttiau ono waa obliged above all lo believe the 
following arlicleB, whicb »tand in idiarp contrast to 
^J^U7.*r' ^^^ opposing doctrine : (I) tho unity of CJod, ('-i) the 
ciiriituauL identity of t)i(^ iii^b^t God aikI the Creator of tbo 
world, i.e. tJie identity of tlie Mediator of creation and 
of rrtiemption, (;i) tb*t identity of this iLigrhoHt fiod and 
the Oo(i of tJio 01<1 Tctttuuent and the aeooptanco of 
tho Old Tc-it^inieut an Qod'aold ljCH>k of revelation, 
(4) tho creation <>f tlie world out of nothing, {.%) tiio 
unity of tho lujmnn race, (<i) tho origin of evil from 
mtin'8 freedom and the in:Llii.nabIe eliararter of that 
freofloin, (7) tho two Tt>j*lanieijts, (A) Christ asOod 
Hiul man, tho nnity of hiM |wrHiinality, tho e>vu*ntinl 
character of Uis Divinity, tlio rwlityof h:» human- 
ity, the vvtily of hii» f»te, (!f) llu? rL*clt?jnption and 
covenant through ChH»t aa the new, linal manifuiuta- 
tion of Qi)d*»t grae{3 to tdl mo», (10) the resiirroction 
of tho QQtiro mun. In closest coniioction with tbeira 
dectrincB stands tlie Lo(p?i>4-(loctrine. yita the latter 
form«Kl luwumrftbly tho foundntion of their eontenta 
;uid jn&t claims. How it was carried out will be 
indicated In Chapter VII. On thu airrying outof ' 



tlitH, hiiwever, Ituiig jJho tlit; 4kx.^ibioti of Ibe wuight- 
ieiit f)uwnonA, ^betlier the Clu'i&tian faith hr Id 
formi-r timcv )«b<Hilii ro8t upon the hopo of the n^lum 
(if Chmt and upon Uih glorious kingdom, w in Uie 
faith in the God-man, who has brought fuU knowl- 
edge and trdDBformed tho nature of man into the 
Dirine nature. 


OftiaiK OF iK^lCNriKIC BOCtBBlASTirAt T]lROL< 

Queticke* dv blIioIu cjiue Alc-i. flomii ciitwht-ilea, 1834. 
Bigg. The Christiau FlatfinisiH of Alti., isyo, Witru-f. 
Kthik dcfl CImupu*. I'm. R«<ltfp*-imiiig. Origuna, 18-U, t 
Doslv, PhltoiDpUieaOrie^ut^ 16^. 

1. Tiiic ^o9;tW »hnrp1y Oiftttn^iiBheJ pietie (uid 
gao«{s; Ircnicus iind TortuUian madoUAcof science 
and specula iiuu only from ni-Hjt>s»ity unit in order to 
refute them, reckoning tuat to faith iti^If wbidi they 
needed for theolo^cal exposition. In tho main tbey 
were ^atistiied with tlie aTjfJionty, hope and iioly ordi- 
nanciua of lifo; ttiey wore building; upon a htiilding, 
which thoy tbcmaolvea did not care for. But uitcr/ 
tlie end of Ote 2d century tkens hegan to be in the! 
Church a movement toward a sctotitific religion andj 
toward a tbeologicsl ecieuco {dchooN in Asia Minor, I 
Oaf^udocia, Edeesa, Aelia. CABtroit Rome; alogoj, 


110 0UTI4NBS or TRR IlIffTOnT OP rKKiHA. 

Clxninnt A 

AlexaniW of CappOf^locia, Juliim AfncfmuK, Tbeolc- 
tiBt, TkooJociiui echoole)- It wn» tbo iitixHigo«t in 
Uk- City of i^iouce, AK'XHDilriH, wlwru ChriAtiAiiity 
becariw t!io huir of Tbilo ami wL^re evidently, until 
towfinl tho yoar ^00, there bud not been a Grm organ* 
ixntiiif] of Cliri«tian» upon exclusive principleB. The 
Ali^xitivlriaii churfl) (*onnw into tlw* light of hifttor^' 
to|^*tbor with tho Alt^xumJrinn CbriHtinii Moho<jJ (c. 
lOO); in tho Inttcr Uic entire IWlenic wciofic« vroA 
tnuglit and adapt<K) to tlie sorvfco ot tlio Ooi^>ol and 
Uif> Church. Clemtint, tho pupil of Pantffl&ud, pro- 
duooil in kifi Stromata t}m firet Christiari ecclettiasti* 
csl work, in which tho Groek philosophy of religion 
iKirTi?id not onlj nji fi|Ki]<igi^tic und polpmir prirpoue, 1 
but wan iho means of first reatricHn^ Chrieii- 
anity to thinking uicn {as 1^ Pbilo aud Valen- 
tiuiiH). Kcch<»«tii8ticji! litoraturo wan in ita^lf un- 
fjuitiliar to Clement ; he acknowledged its autliority. 
becaUHo the Iloly Scripture*^ Hppeare<l to him aa a 
revelation: but it waa hiA conHcions purpose to 
work their content out phlloAophioally and to nmko 
tbem hiA own. Tho ]mi\n bt i^ivvu; it i» to l>e 
recoined into gnosis, i.e. a doctrine It* to be de- 
veloped which will Hitittfy HcientiHc denmmlff by a 
philosophical view of the worM and of etliics, 
Gnoftid doG6 not conflict with fiiith, hut on the con* 
trftry it KiipporU HTid ^^iilighUrsi it^ not only in oer» 
tain pointA, but it IJftct it up into n higlior sphere out 
of llie domain uf uuthority, into tho Pph^ix? of pura 
knowledge and inner ^ritual harmony flowing 



^ I from tlie love of God. Pi«ti« hhcI (^hokU, bowovur, 
ftTe bouDd togctlicr in lh)», tlui.t both have tbeir cehi- 
tent in the Holy Scriptures O'ut iiix-iructiceClemeuiifi 
not an exact Scriptiire-theologianUkeOrigcu), Into 
Ibeso ScripUiros tho hij^liwt aim and the entire app4- 
ratuHof the idealistic Greek philoftopliy U n^nd; Uiflj 
are at the same time rvfi^rrod to Clirivt und occti^i* 
astica! Obriittianity — M>fm^4^ Uionf wa^ aucli inAk^x- 
andria at tlmt Umo, The apologetic purpo^*, whidj 
Justin htv\ hai], is h(*re transformed into a 8>-^U'mati* 
tiO'theolo^r. The poaitive material is acturdingly 
not shoved into the proof of prophec>\ but, bs by 
Philo and Valentinti^ id carried over with infinite 
pains to dcicntifio dogmatici^. 

To llie n\vH of the LogOH wlio i» Clirivt, Cleiuuiit, 
in that he exalted it to the htgtio»t phuciple of the 
religioua view of the world and of the exposition of 
Christianity, gave a far richei content than did Jua- 
tin, ChriiitijiQity is thf? doctrine of the creation, 
edacation and perfecting of thei human mce through 
the LogOB, whocw work roachcft its climax in the per- 
fect gnofitic, Riid who ha^ made uat* of two roeuns, 
the Old Te^tameatt and Hellenic philosophy^ LogOB 
in everywhere, whereTor men rifle above the pUne 
of nature (tlie LofroA h the moral and rational priii' 
eiple in all ittagosi of the dnTelopment) ; but the 
authentic knowledge of him can bo won only from 
rwvtjirttioii. H^" i!s Uit?law tX tlie wurlO, Uir t*yu:her, 
or in Christ the hieroiirge, who Uirough holy ordina* 
tions oondueta to knowledge; finally, for the perfect^ 


Ua la Lav. 



the Iricl^ to imioii with Owl himselC. Aside from 
thn Holy Soriiiturcw the Greek cnrabination of knowl- 
ed^ atkI ceremoTiial ordinatioii made it possible for 
Cletn<"Tit to let tvoU^ftinfllicAl Christiftnity ]\b£q cur- 
rent- The PcrleBiaelical jpioetic rises, ho to »peak« 
by meanHof aji attached t>alloon totlie Ulvmerefllms; 
he leaveft behind him ever)"Uiiog earthly, historical, 
Htitutory and author! tfttive, yea, finally, the Logos 
hiiTu^tf, while ho Atrtij^leA upward in love and 
kiiowled^; bill the rope romaiitB fant beneath, while 
the pure gnostic on the contntry ae\'ei"ed it Thi» 
exaltation if; accomplli^hiKL in i^iidiiid aiayra (l*hilo), 
umlnr which scheme the whole philosophical ethics 
is set forth, from rea^^nable moderation to the excesa 
of conaoiousnees and of apathetic love. Rccletf4ia»ti* 
dd tmjiition ih ab*o mti forth; hut hme u» yonder tho 
true gnoHtic shoultf upon th<^ higherivta^ ovorccunc 
till? luUTT. WhviL tho rtpirit'tt wiii^ iire ^ruwu lie 
n€ed« no cniU^lu'H. AltJiough Clement su<?c«e(lc(l 
vi^ry poorly in arranging tJic unwieldy materia] 
tinder hi« pro|>osteil scliomo— he stuck fo^t in the rnid^t 
ofhiwnndertjiking— yethiKpnrpiwr is perfeelJy plain. 
While Ironi»n« wholly naively blended discordant 
ntfitcriid nnil thcrcfgrc won no religious freedom, 
Cleinont aflvauajil lo freedom. H« wa» the first to 
give Attention to fAe prahtem of fntnre thfHilogy : 
In connection with the hii^bcrieal depoKitr!, throngh 
which we are whnt wo are, and in eonnection with 
tho Chri^ioa eommunion, npon which we are 
thrown beeaude it i** the only iinircrsnl moral-rotig- 



iow cutiiinmkiou, io win for uitnielvtH frt>.Hlorii ixiitH 
independeDuo vfitii llio Oospol iind Ut so M't fortii 
tUisGuttpul Uiut it »hHllapi>var the liigbeet message of 
the Logo^i wbo iiuik<« IiimRolf Iciiowii in all ming 
above DAture, fmd tlurroforo iii the wIh>1o hif^tor? of 
inftnldntL Truly tlw* drutgor wnn fiir Clnmonl at 
lirtiid, thnt thv idail of the r^olf-.-^uffiHwit Hellenic 
Heer should r<lU]e ttm v^Ecii Uwt dt^'kix^ iLiat \ns livcf 
in Christ by tLi« grucc of God; but the dungcr of 
secularization wa^ in tlie trHmni^lleil exposition of 
Irenwuft, which pliux^d value upon mitliontictf that 
hn.v« nothing to do with tiu'<Jo*»|H>Uand jlIU^mI farte 
porttuning to tetdvaticm ihait op|>reefi u«, in nnoibor 
wrty, indt^, but none the \ce&. If tbo Qoapcl ij< to 
give frectlom and peace in (lod an^l prejiiirf- uh for an 
ut«mal life in union with Christ, th^n Clcinc^nt un- 
derstcod it ir that aent^. Hi^ vtha virt?iaUy an at- itt™|jiHi 
t^npt to fuse tlie aim of the Gospel to niako U8 rich ^oK|>«i'?na 
in Qixl And f^ ^cniii fnim him pawvr and lifii, with itiiit* 
the u\oai t>f the Platonic philosophy to raine onotL^If 
{w K (vvK (Spirit above the world uuto Qod, aiul thi^i to 
biiid together Uie inatructtoxi» pertaining to a bleeped 
life which are found in Um^ one and in th« '>ther. Bat 
Ori^^i yrtm tlie 6rst to i*iiccoed in putting tliia into a 
fiystematic form, in which tbo nioe^t scrupulous Bihli- 
otsm and the moi^ coufviimtiouit regard for iiw rul6 
of faith are conjoined with the philo«ophy of religion. J 
2. Orisen waa tJio most influential tlieologlan in 
the Oriental cbnrch, the father of theobgica! Bcioncts 
the autbor of ecclwiaatical dogm&tio^. Wlint Uio 



i 'rrti*crvo 


iJcal TTwo- 



apologiHtA, gnosti<« and old Cntholic t1iM)Iogiai» 
bad tttught, \i*} broiight togiuthcr un<[ comlnnod; liiO 
reco^iifi'ti tLc" proMtnn nml Uil^ prublvnu, iJtf hiHtori- 
cal and thu itpeculiitivc. Hp j^ibiirply tlistmguiBhel, 
with the cleartwt vision, betweeu eorlwiutttical faith 
and eocle^ifuitical th^olog}', and spoko one thing lo 
tlift pf>o])lB and another to the discerning. Hianni- 
versal Bpirit did not wish io destroy Hnytbfng» but 
everywhoTO to conBor\*o; ho found on every band tbal 
which h valuublu and bo kiiuw buw U> give to c*%'«ry 
truth it« pUkCe, bo thia in th© pistil or in the gnouiB; 
no one ithoidd be "offended", but ChriBtitin truth 
fthould triumph over the systenw of tho U^Jlenic phi- 
t<>40|ttH«rA and tlie old Catholic gnostics, over thfi 
fui|>enititioQ of tho heathen and Jews and ovor tlio 
dofet-tiTe preBentation of ChristiAn imitorians^ Tbie 
Christian truth bore aa gnonis tv wj-l*latonic marlrs, 
and indeed to surh a higJi degree that a l*orphyry 
(rommended the theolog)- of Origen, and rejected oiJy 
the intermingled "atrange fables". Origin pnsnp' 
[Kin>H the ml** of faith in a firmly outlined fomi (seo 
bin principal work, ^tf"^ "rtf"*")* together with tli<^ 
two Tnttaments: lie who has theac bas tlh^ truth 
which mak(« blet^ned, yet there is a de^'^T, mcr(^ 
gratifying conception. Upon its summit all con* 
tni8tH Ixyi^omo men> 8hxidc«4, and in the al>?olulo bar* 
mony which auch a view givrs, one leams to c^titinuite 
the relative. Thus ia OHgen an orthodox tradition- 
nlifit, a 8trong Biblicid tbtHjogtnji luotbmg bhould 
po&A cunvnt which ^^ " ^ Scripturcw), a kt&m 


J 55 

faitb iulo idL*4i^ coinplc^-d Uk* Ktmctiirt> of tlie worU 
that U within, uiid fiually lot nothing pass save 
knciwled^ of God nnd of mli in cloeeet union, which 
<ixiilte Hit ahovo the world and conducU unto deiftca- 
iio[i. Zviio and l*l«to, however, should not be llie 
k*jidont» hut Christ ; for the fonner did not overcome 
l«olytheitan, nor make the tmth generally aooe^it^c, 
iH)r give a sy&t^'m of instruction which nuide il pos* 
ftiblo for the unlearned to become nuy bettor than 
thoir nrttnml ability iH>nnitf«. Th»t ClmwtiAnhy is 
for both chiwu^st, — rt'ligion for Uio ecouinou infui with* 
out |M>lyth<;i^i |(>f Connie with |iirtiiree« and tsigns) 
aud roligfoii forUio thitiking mind, — Orifct^ ri-cog> 
nisad m ite ]m]x*riority owr idl other roliiHon^ and 
Bystems. The Ckrisfian religion ia the only reliff- 
ion irfctch is also truth in mylhtcal form. Theol- 
■ ogy it IB truo is obliged — rut aXwAyn, iso id«o lier© — to 
cmanci{Mto itecif from the posiiivo trnitv (dmracter- 
iKtic of tile jXTsitiw ridigieii) beluLging to c^xtomal 
levehttioD and elttluuw; but in Christianity this \» 
aocompliidiod under the guidanco of Holy Scripture 
which e«mbli»hef; the poeitive reli^on for the mas^aet^. 
The gnoHis neutralizes everything empirically hist^H^ 
ioal, if not indeed always in niattors of fact, yot 
wholly ao ae rv^arda ita wortli. It aablu»aU« firht 
from Uio i^mpirical history' a liigber tranflcOTdenlal 
hUtor>', which liepins in eternity and rtwtft btdiind 
the empirical; but in n^litj it iiiiblimate« thistranB- 
ceodental once again, and tiiere remains uow only 


TruMi In 

Ian Km-:: 


_rrt ht* 


the* unchiirif;(<vil)1t» frrvl mul t1ii> irnvitj^il Hotil. This ii4 
nicwt clciirly l»rougbt out in Origcn'i* Cbrirtology. 
B^urk of IIk^ liLnU'riciil Christ ri.-]Ris(<« tho l^UthuI 
Logout; ho ^tIio uppOAiTiL Itntt a^^ pbv'tiicnm aiid iv* 
(Ii>€m(T^ appttnv <ii] II JtiiptT vivw ua tlio Umoliyr — 
bteeHuxl aru the ndvanced ont^ wlio need no more tke 
phyRiVian, tlic« fih&phord nnd tht* recleem^r ! — but the 
toocher ia Buotly no longer nccceerLF}* to thoeo n'ho are 
bi.'coiue ^rf tvt ; hucU rent in Gud. Tliua i*t i?cck*i- 
HAticaJ Cliristiunity hen> »lTippcd off a« a busk acd 
throivTi aside like a cmtrh, Tbat which in Justin is 
proof of prophecy, in Inin:BU>« Balvation-liitrtory, van- 
iithos in Oriifen for the ffnoBtic. or in only a picture 
of a *i[iirituaj history. In Uio Jbrnl anatyaiA tlicro 
faila In biabigb-flying, aU'Oomprcheusive t>ihtc'?t tho 
fvenm of ^xlM aiid Fear of the Judge. 

The *i>'*'toni was iotencled to l)e Atrongly monistic 
(that trhJch wa.s cnmt^d out of nothing ban only a 
trAiiHittiry i<igiiiticanco as a phuv of purifkvition) ; 3*et 
in fart thf^re dwdt within it a duaUMio *>l(MiniTnt, 
Tlio doaiinatiiig nutitboflia is Qod and croatod tbin^. 
Ttti' itiTipbiU^Iy hiy in bm duubli^ vil^w of ttii* s[nrjtua1 
(il bi'loTig^ 00 tJio one slde> aa the outgoing of Ootl'n 
naturo, to Qod bim«e]f, on tlie otiior Miles (^ tliat 
which hivA hoeu croal^^df it stauda in opposition to 
God), whiob k«>]jtt croppirgoul in iJl Noo- Platonic 
iiyflt«m8. PantheiBm was to be wardttl off, and yet the 
aujjennundaue cliarncU^r of the human apint waa to 
Iw atoutly nmintainr<h Thiii spirit is ihe /rtr^ heav- 
«nlj' tjon, conwiou9 of Iho right way, but uncertain 



in itfi ntrU'iuj^. I>ivi»t7 uri^ii), <tiviti6 end, uiul free 
chuiix* cutintituto ii«t ct^K^iicti. Tlit* kjtut in Ut^d buw- 
cvor, iu llifit jiioiucut when thft npirit couk* furUj in 
nuuiifa^tutioD. Thore U tlioix^fore a Li»Uiry prior to 
temporal h^fon'. The systeni is divided into three 
|mrt«; (1) fl<wl nnd h\4 outgoings (9) the fall of the 
croated apirit aiui llic cooBoqucDcca, (3) redemption 
tuid rofitoratioit. That freedom will only be a b^u- 
blance, if tJie Hpirit must £aaUy attain imto ite end, 
Drig^ did not obaerve. In carrying out hi8 i^cheine 
ho waH HO earno^ that he even limited the Divine 
omnipotence ami onmi^^iffnce. Out of the Holy 
SeripturiMi IhoGod-world drama is educed (tioeret tra- 
dition which rftilJ played a grout rule in Cleaieut eti- 
tirdy recedra*)- Ab the cosintw m Fpiritnal, ptiycliJc 
and materiA), aq iiIao tli<? Holy JScnptun^o, tJie .necorid 
rercJation, con^ii^t of tlieae thrt»o partft. Thereby 
woH agocuroiiiottiud^voii farox«fl:o»L8; itha^, (1) to 
diMYftV^r tiw vorlud t^(«timi>, whirh^ hoW4>v<>r, ih tho 
Kboll, ('J) ihty |isychic inortil e4c«]ieu>, ('I) tho pnoiimfitiCi 
Here aud Ihrre thitt piirumatic bi alviiu Uikuu into 
conRidoration ami tlio verbal ^onm niii^l even bo ciwt 
A»ide, wbon^by only one is ]«nnitt4Mt to tlisu^over the 
deep4^ eotiso. Tliis Btblicnl alchcrmy Origtn devd- 
opod wiUi ttiegT^tL«t virtuosity. 

(a) God in tlio Chte, who stands over iigHiuvit tit« 
mmiff tli;it point bade to him n^ the Caum>; ho i» tho 
abvuhitv ExirttoQce luid i^pintua] Bein^, who stouda 
over agaiimt *x>nditioned exiHt^^nrea. He i** different 
from the nmiiy, yet the onler, Uie de|^nd«iice and 

vlilnu iato 





the longing nt th^ many te'W of him. Ood afi the 

Ah^Iut^ Cntiiw, vniii eolf-cottuciovumvcB and willj 

IB m^ forth a» mvw living uml^ no to Apottk, db inoro 

persoiitd by Origori thfUi by tlio gno»>tici; and the 

NW'Platoiii«te. But Otxl in ever ciiuaality, and 

therefore never to be tho«glit of apart from revola- 

ticai. That he creates belangs to bi^ being, vhicli ig 

revoabd iTid*«Kl ovon in tbo uiAny. Since however 

all fwelatiou mudt bo partial, l^rigcu permits no 

limitleea ocmceptiona to be appliai lo the Omniscience 

and (imnipoieno?; God can only what he will; be 

O'^ Hm cannot do tliat ^vbich i» in JtBelf contradictory aJid 

Onnte- IS not able to become existent (all miruclm are natii- 


ral); he cannot imlewl nwka tbe (Tvalixl iilwoUiU'ly 
good, aincothe conception c^ the created includoaa 
privalio of being ; be con moke tbe Aaiu« only potoi^ 
tiiilly goo*l; fur tlw Idea n^^ver giMW f^rth witliont re* 
mrve into the 8ul>9tance which giveB it lonn- Freo- 
dotn hIso places liniitatjoiis upon God, whicli he, it is 
tnio, impu6c«l u|K)D himself. Tbu^arori'lativo ideas 
applied to tho id«a of God. G04I ir« lovo' and go<)dne«ui; 
rightcousnoiMf m n inanifoMliitioii of bii^ g(Hxb(c««. 

Since God i?* ctcmfiny rvvcftW, Uic world i» eter- 
nal, but not this world, yet Ute world of »pirjt». 
With thia vrurldp however, God va united through 
th« LfOgiu^t into whom, laying aeidu bij^ ubtiolute 
apathy, God once again entered. The LogoH 114 
God hifDMilf and at tho ttuuo time lhi> t^jtality and 
thi' cnvitor of tho many (Pliito), a vpocinl hyp<mla»i^ 
like indeed tbe Belf-coii«cioWfDO0S of God and the 



icy nf lh« worlil. The Loj{u§ la the |>erfect lik^ 
Lof OihI ('-B(>»v<r("v'). He haa tiotbmg corporeal 
ubout bim and J3 therefore tnie God, yet a second 
God (no tdiaring of Divinity, «'' mos^i /i«r»uA('<i>, dUd 
jt4T' cj^<j£o> #r<iv). H© *6 ft^/oWen of tbo essence of th*» "Jl,^ . 
FatJier fmm ©U^mity; 1.1if>n> v,'tui nn tinui wh^^n tio 
vrasDott juid bo ovor goc^ fortli from tho Fiuhcr*fl 
being through tht; Divjno cutrntnLining will. But 

Levon becaurto ho is substantia substantiahter s^ib- 
^isfens^ ho iB aft euch no ir/^^,r»«; he is an t>iTnxTfi>^ 
the Father is r/>'ir'>' ahfn*. Acconlinj^Iy ho 18 the 
first BlHgo in tbo lmu»ition fn>m ibe One to tbo V.^tS? 
many; frrim the Hti«nd|Hiint of Qod tbo rrtajta J/uiou- 
tfT*-*, from our etim<l[>oiat tbo nvmif^^At, (x^^wntiul Owl. 
For u»ul«iK" tl]un?foi-f tlijvw iIk- vt<eejitml liki.'tK*i»» oi 
tiio Fiithcranii 8on oxiii»t; liis tiucfimigetiblt-nu^ is 
tjicrcf ore only ^chlti^1^ dincoit Joe» not n^idoin tbe 
Qutou^ie. FCvT}r^'wki>rL.' in thi» tf|>oculntioii in regard 
to tbo Li>ifO»-Cr(^utor, then^ U no thought of the 
Logo»*R*jtl<wmvr. Thir Holy Spirit a\i^> — th*» rule of 
faitb n€GC<*e<iti&t4<<l bim^b incbided in tUc Oodbcod 
us a third uiu'bjtngcjtblu bcirag und rtckuncd bs n 
tliird Ht«gi> Hud byiMJKbiBJs* Ho i^ htHToino through 
tbe 8oD tmd i» related to bim a>i tlie Son to tbe 
V^ther. Hitf sphere of activity is the snuUletit — 
strangely enough, indeed, thu most imi>orta!it. The 
FVUbor id t]l<^ principlo of exietcuco, tho Sou of 

rreason^ the Spirit of tbut which i» ho)y> Tlji^t grad* 
nnta) trioity is a trinity of revelation, but even oa 

ttbat Acooant also iitiinJiivtit mid pci-^fttcnt} since C^od 




CAD novoT be thought of apart from roveliitloa. Thi> 
Holy Spirit is tlie iransition to Uie fulness of 8piriti« 
ami iilwiA, whinh, cn^atod through tbo Son, am in 
tnith tiiu uiifi>l<]iDf; of hiEt own (uliiu^. Tho chorftc 
Lcrititic of c^'eated sj'irlta ia iJju bec<imitig (aJvtij)cis 
f^(rx</^-), ».e, freedom (opposition to the heretical 
gno6i»)> But the freedom i^ i^titl relative, j\r in u 
brood »eiue Ih^y are free; fimilajD(^fnt<i]ly howover 
tliore {exists tlio ri^d DVCC«Hity for thecniitod ^^pirit 
to reiLch the giW. FrootJwni th<TnTfoixt i» sub »pecie 
aetcrniiaiiji o<xw(.Hjiry rvidutton. Out u£ freedom 
Orij5<^Ti Kou^ht 1*1 unik'i^trind the HCUiiil world ; for to 
thospiritd belong al*> liuiuun spirits; lljej wcr^ all 
cnxiU^l from rterniiif (Ood is ever a Crwitor), orig- 
inally alike in subdtfincc; but their duties uro differ- 
ent and then^fore Uieir dovt-lnitnient. In iu» far an 
th4?y iirocha»goabloi«piriti« thoy are all cukIowcmI mlh 
a kind of oorportiali^. la the fact itftolf of being 
(jrvat^'d (hciy? 18 ordaiD0<l for angels and men a kind 
of materiality. Aja to how tbey might have do^'eh 
tiped thcmHelvcM Origeu did not 0pecuUt«, but only 
as to how they have developed. 

(b) Tliey ehould alt attain tinto a p^rsist^iit ejist* 
ence, in order to make room Ihon for new creationa. 
But they fall tiito idleoca^ und di:^lx^ii*noe {pre- 
existent fall iuto sin). To curb and purify them the 
visible worhl waa created; thid ij4 oho a hoiit^ of 
oorroctioR and the ^irita are. tliroagh th'^ hcndage 
of theeoul, Bhut up in divent bodice, tho gro«M«tof 
which bnve dovilj*, tho An«iai angels, the medium 



Man Ooo- 

Soul, ud 

men, whc are mi{>]>orteH niid ftndan^red by devils 

lUhl iiij(i:old (n<'rt.*|^toIlCO of |W|«iIar re]ire*tenlationn). 

Life* iv< H <]iKcijilini\ H ciinflirt iiuder tlie pemiissinn 

And loiidtng uf God, u*bich will eml with tlio con* 

qu<mt aiitl dct»tructioD of evil. Thiin Lfimbly, Atmoeft 

BuddbistioUly, did Origeii thfnk of iho world—ho ift 

Iiotvovor fuiKhmii^ntiiLly fui oplimii^t Mnu con«i«t8 

of H|)irit» Huul uui] body (ufter Pluto aui) becaueo tbo 

spirit cuimot bo the principle of faction antaj^onistic 

-to God. The w>nl ih triM^to^) jtiKt as inoonNiBtimtTy as 

thu Lofi;o«4: It iftftfipinl grown <x>UI luidyot no ftpirit. 

It WAff thim coDcvivod in <mk-r toiitakc the foil concciv- 

ablo»Aiid yot to ^lanl the into^ity of tho roii^iiublo 

soul). Man's rontlictoon£ti«t« in thciitrivingof thoBe 

powers inhoront in his con^ilitutioii to g^iin dominion 

over hia envirotimont. Siii iiilieros on ths one aUb 

in Uw ottrthly stwto (in K.>rtlity n]\ must be sinners) ; 

on tbo otlKT, it IB the product of froodom, bat ieoreD 

tLfiroforu conqtwriiblo vrln^n God iiin!i»t«. For wi^- 

out him uotLiug is giXHi. 

(c) Biit wo mur^t help oursdvc«; God helps as fiodit-ini 

teacher, fii'st through the laws of natare, then 

through the laws of Moses, then through the Gospel 

(to«ach according to his kind And ac?^onling to tho 

m'^a.-iuro of hU rPO<-plivtty); tho jxrrfoct bo helps 

through ih<.* t'lcnml (JosjwU which hu^f no out^ shell 

and DO representation. Revelation is a manifold* 

gradual rendering of help, which <«meB to the assifit- 

ance of the ^irowing crejdure (the significance of tho 

f>^o/i/4f lAniul).^riH\)igin?^d). But th*? Logos must liim- 



self api^^ar ainl lielp- His work must be as conipll- 
cvitoii iiH tliu iii*d w : Hi> niuftl oxiiiljil to the one class 
the tniu victory uver dofttti and Hw il<*nions, inuat, as 
tbo Ood-mai], brin^ an olTerinu wliicli iv|>n^#ont» the 
oxpiation of sin^ m^wi p»y tlw* pricfi of r«Ufl»ii>1i«n 
wliicli ehall end tho domitiioti uf tho devil- -in ishort 
111) niUHt bring a i^onipivlK'tisibl^* rc^dvinptiun in 
"rftfttfa-- (Origea firfil introduced into the Gentile 
Ctiurcb H theory of reconciliation and alonetnent; 
but one should consider in what age he wrote.) To ■ 
otlii^ra, bowi>\'er, he must, lui Divine tt^aober and 
riionnirge, disclow^the depths of knowledge and bnr|f 
to ihGm a npvr principle of life, fw> tlial they may 
abai'e bi» lifw ar.d, interwoven ^viih the Divine Being 
biuiHelf, n>ay booome divine, Ketum to communion 
with God ia befe, as yonder, the goal; yoaider 
through facts toward wbicb man directs bin faith; 
hero through knowledge and love, which, striving up 
beyond th« CrucUied, lajrs boMupoQetentaUifeasthe 
L<>fi;os himself enoouipoEM^ it. The " fact^*' arcaiao, 
as with the gnof;tics, noi simulation or an ininfferent 
tosia of tnitfa. but arc truth, though not the truth- 
TbtLri be PM'oueile'il faith and the iihilo^ophy of n^Ug- 
ion. Uo can commend the cosmic si^^nlScance of 
the doatli lU] the cm^ n work which enix^mpafiSM 
aU 6})irtt«, and yot Hso abovo this occurrence by 6peo- 
ulatioais which bavo no hi«toiy. 

In accordance therewith hi» Chriftoloj^' taken it^ 
fonu; its dunkHprn^tic b ita oomplexity: The tU-- 
tloGiDcr WW aO that CUrtatiaoft can think him to haiv 



beeo. For tlw gnoo^ic he U ihc divine PriiK-iple, 
the Teacher, tlio Ftrftt-Bcrni. tlio kuowabW, Divioe 
Roason. TlKs^pnwticktirtwftno'* ClmtsUiIogA'*": From 
Chrtet on begun tbo pcrfoct indwelling of th<^ LoguB 
in muiikiniL Hure, tlivn-furo, uinther Hit' Divinity 
nor tbo buinjiniU" of Clirist is a qucitioa or a prob- 
lem. But for the imperfect Christian Christ i;* the 
Qod-maii, and tlie gnostic ift id duty bound to solvo 
t)u^ pivthi^.m vvbii^li thin dxpression oflTers and to 
giinrtl xha ^olniion from i-nora on tiie right and on 
tlio Mi iii^iiMi docetidiu and obioniti^oi). The 
iLogos conld unite it^lf with the body only through 
he medium of a liuman soul. Tbia soul was a pure 
unfallou spirit, which had do^tineil itself for the soul 
in otAvt to a«rvi> the pun>os«e of redemption. It was 
A |¥iim Kpiril fumlainoiitiiJly miit«i with the T.ipgD8 
fkml Iwc'iunu Uk^i, by rcoseu of it« moral worthiaoee, 
a iimlium fur the incarnatiQU of tJie Logos (olowst 
inner union, but roally perfect ouly tJirougb iactvaant 
eserci^e of will from both Htdee; therefore no ming* 
Ueik), TIn» LoRoa remains unchangeable; only the 
wi}\ hungers and fluffers, inai»much as it» like the ei«miil 
body, l« truly human. But beoauae both are pure 
aad thrir nulwtAnoo i» iti iteelf without qualitiee, Lia 
Lbody wa» still ti4rtnaU\j totally different from ours 
■(Oloment is still more docctic). The body could at 
any moment lu^Aumc sitch a chnracter as the Kitiia- 
tioi) re<|uir4id, in nnter to make tbo strofliccrat imprcH* 
wijfti iiiJiniililF^in^nt |M'rsiintt, The Ijognei w^tnabto tiot 
fihut uj) within tho body, but wrought owrynhere ofl 


164 0UTMKK3 OF TltK lIl^TOftV OF IKKiUA. 

liilliftjrW aiul utiiUxl ittwif witb iJl pioos bouIb. It 
\si trua this union witri witli n^nu tw do0o as vitb tfae 
80ul of Jo»u«, AJid Uin &anie was truo as legarcla his 
body. Tliu Logos illumined and deified Uie Km! 
gradutdl}- dtiriiiK the ^^artbly lif^, and the ^oid thty 
body. Tho futKiions and th«> attributoe of Uio in- 
camnto Ix^ivi fomi » gradation, in tlio kuowlt-^l^o 
of whith beliuvors progrow. The union becanie ho 
cbse (*wfHiw«, fiwtfK, awv«ffff) that the attributos 
are intcrtlmTigwl in the Holy Scripturep, Finally 
Je«u^ ui>}>oun4 tram^fomied into Spirit, receired into 
jiuiuud the Grxlht^Kl, thf Munn^ trith the LogffS. But tho 
^^^ union ia fviniinru^^nlnllyvtbic/dundfinany not unique. 
All conc^Tiibl^ hi:n^iof< nro hero touched upon, but 
guanlfKi by o^kutions (Jottuni llw hcflvouly man— yet 
all men uro boii\>.iitly; tin.' iMlopliou Christok^' — 
but the Lc^ot^ bc^hiiid it; tho coucn^icm of two Logai ; 
tlie gnotdic HO^i^ring o( J<»uft luid the Christ; mo- 
nophywte c^omminyliTig; dor^tium), save only modal - 
ism. Thnt in » «i:iVr(/i^cCbn#tology»o much room 
woA toft for thu buimmity im lh<* imj[M>nuut thiug; 
the idea of llic iufamaiion i» Accepted. 

Thi* nidt^mptivc adaptutionft aro iu all thw alraady 
indicated : Fri'^'doin fuiil faith uro in the van. An in 
Oliriat the human »onl gnidtuilly united ilm^lfwitli 
tho LogO0. so man r9ceive*» graci? gradually, iu koop- 
ing wtUi hin |jrofp«aft {Ncio-P1»(oiiio |jfogr«wiv9 
AUiges of kiifiwksl^t^ from wiinpli' ^i^-no^^and H<fn«ii* 
oils !hing-i imw.ird; yet fcslaiiy and viKioim ns^od*?; 
tlivriT iitlrttluthjitis shailovry). Ev<.Tyu<bon»abluiid- 




ingoC freedom and enligbteDm^nt ik neccBHirj, and 
tJie occU>dn;u4lu-4i1 fnith romatnfi Uie startiug-poiut also 
vi tlio " thoorctic Hfc*', until thi^ comce to joyous aa- 
cetic onU-'mplatioi}, in wbich the L/igos is the fm&d 
and bridogrocin of tiio muI Umi ie now dcjti^ in love 
aiul rwtfii in Dirinity. Rogeneniiliun Origen recog- 
ized only a& a proca^; but in him ami Clement ai-o 
found statomontA join^ to the New T^tAinant (Ood 
SB Love, as tho F»,th(?r, regonoration, ndoptiort) wliiel), 
free from tho ahncklcii of the sy&teoa, set forth the 
evangoliail aunounwmeiit id a surpriaingly pertinent 
way. In tbo luglipst sen^' iLere are uo" means of 
grace", I>ut tlio Bymlwla whidi accompeny the l>e- 
stovral of grace are not equally good. The flyslein 
of Diimerout; mf<Hat4>rs and interc^ASors (angels, 
mttrtyra, living saints) Origon fii«t brought actually 
into of>cratiou and cnconriL^i] pra^'cm to tht»e (u« 
legiLnlf} praying to Chriat Urigen was veiy reticent). 
According to Origen all epirite will, in the form 
of their indixadual Uvea, bp finally rwiCTie<I and glor- 
ified (apokatJifltasis), in order to make way for a now 
world-epoch. The sonsuoua-eechatological expecta- 
lions are fn ioio banished. The doctrine ci the 
reeurrection of the body Origen adopt^l (rule of 
faith), but he conceived of it in mich a wAy that a 
corpua apiriMe will riae» in which all sen80-facul- 
UeB, yeit nil tho menibort» wbicb havo 8&n«uoin« func* 
1ino0f win Im> wanting, nnd which will fthSne brightly 
like the angela and stais. Tho r^oiils of thoeo who 
Ijuve fallen jialeep will go at odicv to pnriuliMT (do 



1€A 4)iniJ!rRR or thr nntrnitv or ixxima. 

Mlcc|jiiif; of tbo N»ul); tlio miiiIa whicli nro uut yet 
purifioil vrill pMM into n tww c^imlition of pi]uij4h* 
meiit (purgutory), wliioh will purify tlioiii »»tiU far- 
tlior (tlir icrrorseof cunscicncc ib licll). Only»o fwr, 
hownver, did OrigiMi ?u,-cei>t Ihu ecek^iastlc-Al (lootHno 
of dnmnatiou; nfc \n»t all n^parit^, the dewotu them- 
8i>lvi'»<,, will return to Gwl |mriScd. Yet i» bi8 doc- 
trine i^tiotiTic: '' for tJio ootninoti man it is enough to 
Irnrivr thntt^in will Im? |utniHh4'4l". T}ii>a ityKli<ni drckro 
fivm tijo field tho licn^lic giiostio theolop\' nnd Inter 
duminntvd tAiu <!ccJoi«i(wijni1 lliiHOoi^y of tlio Orient. 
Biit Uw Churc'Ii cuulil not f*»r nny Icrngth of limo np- 
provo of jiU tlio Icacliiug tif Origeii or contort itifclf 
with his ahaqj discriminrttion lx»tw«m faith und tlio 
scit'nee of faith. It wi\s^ obligod to tr>' to unito both 
fui4l in put tliom njxifi tho «nm<> phino (lik© Irenrouif)- 



OR rne dkkixino of the boclesiastical doc- 


TuR Logoft-Chrifitology alcne permitted a uniting 
df faith and Bcieace, correeponded to the doctrine that 
Qod became man in order that we might become gode, 
Aiid thuA aupportt^ Ohrialiantty from without and 
from within. But it wad by no moans wide-epread 



in tlie chur€)u?s tn tbe year I HO, 4jr even iAti&r; mtbor 
vax it in part uitkiiowii, tind in port fonrocl &£ 
heretic; -gIlO«^lic (il»^tructii>n of tbv Divine moniircliy^ 
that i6« OD the otlier band, of the Divinity of CIiriHt) ; 
Tertul). adv. Prnx. 3: '^Simplices ^uiq^te^ ne rlixe- 
rcm inprHdentcs ei rdiotac^ qvae mai&r ^empi^r 
pare credtrniiHru cW, ijnoniam W ipsa reguta Jidci 
a pluribus diis Baenth ad tmicton ei veimm deitm 
trofis/erU nor* iulellt)jfuteH unicufn qaidetn^ Sfd 
cum jnw •r*uv*/jM e«*€ creileftduin^ ej^paveACtttit ad 
oianosiin . , , tlaque duoti el /iva iam iaditant a 
nobfM prfidicariy ne ivj^o nniits dei cuttore^ ptxte- 
aumuni . . < mouarchi<im rnquiunt icnemit^'*, 
Th« (wtjibliHliuivtit of tlio Lugv»<Cbmto1ogy with- 
in the AuM of the Church— and indeed aa nrticu- "^^L^ 
' Sirinl.i 

lus /uudamentulis—vroB accompliiJied after severe 
cooflicta duruig the coarse of a hundred years (till 
about 300). It (lignitied the tranFformatton of the 
faith into a ayatem of beliefs with ad Uellenic-pbilo- 
ojpbical cast; it »hoved the old cscliAloIoglcul i^epre- 
Bentationa aside, aiid oven »uppreis<ed tbem; it put 
bac^ of the Christ of hiistory a conceivable Christ, a 
principle, and reduced the hiatoricaS Hgute to a mere 
appearance; it referred tJie Christian to "nature**" 
and naturalistic maguitudos, inat^rad of to tht^ Per«oai 
and to the ethical; it gave thofaitbof tbeChriiitianaa 
definite trend lowani the contemplation of ideas and 
doctrinal formulas, and prepared tlie way, on the one 
fdde for the monaatic life, on the oilier for tbo chap- 
eroned Chniitianity of Uii* imperfectfUctivo laity; it 



ltt|tiliiiii/JKl A liiiiiclnHl (|U4WtionB in nK^pbysicA, 
iNTMiniihiK)', '^nd iijittinil KCTieniw jih «*c<:k«ifUHtirul, ami 
dmimndiHl, unck-r Uinml of kiHH of blisM, » dt^finite 
RtiHHori U vrvul no far (Imt dicii prouchod, iufitwd of 
Mill, niUiur fnllh in tlutfrnUi, and it Atiint^l reU^cti 
Wtillo It npiHHkrod (n brojidoii it. Hut in that Jt made 
thn bnnil wilh niitund Hrit'mv jH^rfi'd i1 mftHMl Chriii- 
tiaidty U> IW world -ftiid-i'v^-rylHMly^ti rolipon and 
tm^luiriHl xUx} \vny for Uir m<t «>f C?iiiiMaiitino. 

Tho triindono>4<M in tb«» Uliundi. which atroTo agunat 

j>blliiHo|ililoul CUriHtiimily iind tin' tA>f^o^-CHiriMtolu^% 

inmi 4irdU^I nwHurchinn (mi ^rsl ToHidHiin). Tlie 

rumw WAM not hn\t{n\y chopwi, »inco inrtny monarcli- 

tatiM nrkiiowliHl^^l a n^cODtl liypiwlJuiK yvi made 

LUh^of it fortvorytliinffoxcepiforChrirtoloKy. Two 

t«<mWu"ltiH t^ni Ih> diHlinKuiidioil iumiii>r tbo nuuinrxji- 

tiuiH ((^vthotUilCliriitloK^t-tc, Boi^k L objip. 3, i^ubC): 

/TIko aJf^ption^ vrhich Uxik«t1 upim iln^ IHritM In 

I Ctlriit M a |M)wor jind r<tiutiHt rnun the hninan per* 

/ tOD of Jesw vrhirh vra^ di^itlod, and the modali^iic^ 

^ which held ChH^ \o W* a nianifoetatira i>[ God tba 

V^fttbor. Both coAtMUxl tb<^ U v» Chri^iolo«7 m 

""fBOBftMni": Uw fit«1 thtotigh an avtrwvcl int«f^vt 

t& th^ hiijiUvK«l Tt'i^NiM^itatiou of Christ (Srikoftic), 

the r>i\«hI lutbD Islvnwt vimaomtAf and of Uw Di- 

%^RBr|ViDity utf Cbrivt tlolhMid«ttri««, paastag lBlora<4i 

OlhNv if«r» (^lfAofwv uainlainiDg the fundamental 

|kriiKi|>k» ot tha Ittfe ti( faith (na^tfan- "ehkaitic% 

■orgMattc); telaAtr thi^ New Testam^it had v«- 

labHilMd laMtf an aii^ tW cmUmvi waa in rain : for 



although thore aro poasa^c^ in the Xow Tt.'HUiinejit 
in faror uf Utr^e<t tbe&ea, ilie oilier |iA^i6fige« wlikh 
maintain tlie pre-existence of CJirist ad a 3[K!cml 
hypoHtasts outwoigb tlicni — at least according to 
tlw iiktorprctatioD then ciirreiil— and it soerned hcU* 
«vu]oQt that llic "luVi-^r" iu thi? ^xpro8Mio»s slwuld 

(pnoumatic), (tLu>ro{ort? Uic S/nopticd in acc^ord- 
anee with Jobu). In all ei?clt9«Lm»tiCHl pru\-iDa:9 
ttwro wfn? ntonarohian contents; but we know thom 
only in part. 

(1) The Ji^x^tton of Dpiavtic itonarcliian- 
fiaiH, or Adoptionism^'^ln) Tl»» alofjoi (niekriimw; 
aouroes: Ii^ivqiw, Hippolytu*, Epipbauiua) in Ajiia 
Minor were a p»ny of iho radical diiti-HtmUuiiii- 
tic o|>|>o&illon, whirli rejectai ail proi>hory in Uie 
Cfaurcli ; they appeared at a time when there wa'* as 
yet no Now T^etaint'iit, They criticised tlie Joliaii- 
nwui writing on hi^t^^rit^l croniids and n>ject<>d th«n 
cm rirm^int itf tJittir prrHThimatinn of tli(> Pju^u<tetA 
and tho np0Oidypw\ at the nunw tluio proving the in- 
uoctiracA' uf the LLtotoHca] ntirrativcsi m tho Jnhjuiuvfiii 
Goepel* But tlicy criticised al^ the docctie^iii of the 
QcepcK hoMitat^:^ at the Logos, and decided that the 
untmu writiiijfs, which, on the one hand^ contained 
Jewish-natumliatic elements, on the other, doeetic- 
gnostiCt must have ori^nat^l witlt Cerinthus. Their 
own Christology was fash ic*ucd after the Synaptics: 
TLl' minuTuIom) birtli, the deKceiit of the Spirit upoa 
Jeaiu, hill development, the ex&ltatiiAi tbroui^h hia 


rv«urre(?lion wMisHtute lun iligiiity. The earliest op- 
ponenta (IiTim^us, IIijnK»lytua) tr\>iitoJ tliwo in a 
tneasuro rfi*ped fully, siucu these "'alogoi " did good 
mPrvicHvHgiiintft tli<v MnntanisU Rut. on^ must say, 
notwithfltAmling tho high ci^teom vrhich tho *" ftlogoi " 
hud fur »uttnd hisUiricfJ mticiPini) t^t their relig- 
ious innjHmtion t^mild not have been of a very lii|i:h 
order; for they were neither ajKicalyptio entlttisiasta, 
nor Diystica: Wherein then consisted the pi/wer of 
their piety? 

(f/) Tiie sniue ««i be said of the Roman-adoption 
pariieat of the Thcodotians^ who stood in evident 
alliaDce with the *'atogoi'* (tho cobbler Theodo- 
tUB end bi« party, Theodotud the baolcer, tlie 
Art«moDite(^). Thoy established themHelves after 
about ISii in Rome (the elder TheodotuH was from 
Byjuinttnin. a mun of unii^ua] culture): but already 
hi>d bishop Victor oi Rome expelled Tbeo<lotu« (c. 
195) from tho Church, bccau^o be held Christ to bo 
a il'do^ avOpiuTstis' — ibo first aiso wiioroa Christian who 
stood upon th^ ritle of faith i» dieoiplinLHi i\» an 
uu&ound leachfcr. Thoorfolua tiuight lis did the 
"alogoi^ conceniinjj: Chriftl (r/jw**/r< of the miracv- 
lonsly l>om man JesuH, o<|tiipppd by hi** bftptinn and 
prcparcHi for his exnhntion throng tlio rownrrcction ; 
strese upon iho ethical proof), but rt.^(xjgnized the 
Jobaaiioan Gospel alrendy as Holy Scripture, and 
carried on hi^ Scripting argument in the same Bound 
critical wayaA Aid the latter(Deut. 16: 15; Jer. 17: 
9; laa. £3: 2seq:: TAfitl. 12: 31; Luke I: 35; .Ine, 



B: 40; Acfa 2: 22; I. Tim. ii 5>. Under their mOBt 
dif^tinnfuislied piipil Thtyxlotits, the tuuilcer, Ui4) 
ailoptiomi^ta zo^ilously cultivated the critici^ru of 
thft Kiin-ml Urxty 4>nipiri(nil f&riimro nml ruititnil 
{)li4)noin<m» (lint with P1rtt<^), luifl t^tooil a» a BK^ho^J 

H. K, V, "js), Tlmr txiXomfi 1*1 foiirni a aixixrch 
(bishop \atalis) was rooti fniMr«t<Nl (at liio tinu-of 
bitfliop Zopliyr]Da»); lh<n' roinuiDOcl as iifSci>re Mith 
iin tiTer-dwindlifig army. Out of their thesis, tlmt 
tiio Holy spirit, whi:»;fi ]iyjifB;1iiKii4 (na oUrniitt Si.m of 
Qo<l, Hcc HcmiJLi wboeto Climtologj Ihcy followed) 
tbey Acknuwlecl^l, »ioin\ liiglier ttian Jesius sittoe 
the latttT ifl only aii ruJoptod Ooil, their oppcmentA 
maije a capital hercHy, IitasinLich a? tliey as^ibecl 
lh« OM Testament tlMM^^ihaiiies to this eternal Son 
of Gul nnil iKti>k Molrhisodec to l>c n maiiif^s- 
tation of th4> otumal S<»», thoy XTi>ri» call^.'-d Mi>1oIii»* 
ciltscA, becaode they praytnl to him. Of tlie lmmo<l 
labont of these men nothing i^malrift to u^. Hippo- 
l^tu-s informs U8 that some <]f them would not conoocle 
timt Clirist i» a God, even aftor his nwunvctifwi ; 
others acknon^kMlifod the ^fvx^^tfif, It becaniodoar in 
thoiYinli^t thitt fm ii)li;in<v witlt tbo »irrif^nrN> of Arix- 
totlcf, RticHtl, iiiul GnltTO, n-iM» not coni|jiiitib1o with the 
Chiircli, but uti tbv cuntrar^' tbat il ik^inandsaD alli- 
niico with PUto, ami that the otO Chri^tology of 
Ht»nnfl»— tho adcqitioDitttii appealed to such docu* 
inent»— waa no longer satisfactory. Some decaJe« 
later tbere appeared ia Ronie la the porsuii of Arto* 



173 OUTLISKfi *>fr THR HlftTORV OP noOMA- 

mou a »till more imixirUiiit Hdir|jliuiimt tenchort of 
whom, liowovtTt litlb is tciK^vri, H»> also put usido 
tho [irodimto " Oixl " i\h npi^lieil to CUriftt, l«it >m.'4iiiii« 
not to lin%xi n^nxjd rigidly iu nil particulftis with tito 
A(K<i>uou' Tlie<>rlotiiiu>«- About tho y«ar ^5<\ udopiii^iinni wnn 
i*ig* '™ inftigiiificaiit in Roino (Cjr]jriaii ia BHf>nt; yet nee 
Novation, de trinif.)\ Imt in the l)cri(i(^iit il codIir- 
u«l for a long tiiiio in the Cliurch fonnul^is, aft 
^spirttiis ttntuiHS ilei fitiuSt caro Jesua^spiritutt 
tttinrfus i'litiKtus — »pirHus rami mixftt^ JfjniJt 
Chi'istus" (thi-(9UKb tlio r<?iiiltn^ of Uw lilgbly t*ft- 
teemed Hennas] ; uiid iiipt iii±itriiciive tliiil Ati^unliuu 
still a short time before bia ci>nverHion thoui^bt the 
a<la]>t]on Cbn»t<iU^^ 1o Iw Iho Cntholic. Therefore 
the orth^Mlox Chri:^tologi(?n] forraulaK were still liltlo 
known in the fourtli ceotury in the OcctdenUtl laity- 

(c) From the writiiigB of Origon coo gathere thjit 
there were aJoptioniet« also iu the Orieotp Orlgeii 
treated them aa misguided, i'.p, as Himple-miitded 
Christian brethren, who neeiled frii^inlly iiwtniction ; 
did lio not himtioU make use of the iiJoi>tii>u view in 
hi8 c<>m|>lirati-sl Cliristolotfy (ACCH)rdintrly ho vriiKlat?r 
uujuittJy ebuMod with tho adoi^liiiniHtH; ngjiiiiKt thiA 
^K^S."' PAini>hilusdr-'fombH! him)? Buryllurt of Bootrrt, the 
iiiL>iifUv]iim] U«itcbi.<r whit woti a large following in 
Arabia anil Syria, became couvtnocd of the Irutb of 
the Logoft-ChriHtology through OHgen (E»»^h. VL. 

tnuL la 
Off OCA. 



iTOTfiJi^v), TLiOM Egyptian chiliosl^, wbom Diony- 
siua of Alexandria opposed, atul whittle toicbtng ^tp^ 

actaiowloclged a^ nececwarv, may have favore<l dynam- 
ical WTireeentntiorw. But no great adoption move- 
i»niit wni< undertaken in the iftrii^nt, save by Paul of 
Samoetato, laotropolitan of Auliocli (Kuseb. Wl, 
£7-30; other matcnal in Routh, Itel Sncr. lIL)i i^Q 
imtionaJ Syriiio bihhop^ w!jt> op|>G»ed the (Ireefes and 
tlK'ir ifoience as well as tht^ Rotnana and their cbiircli. 
Thftt tVii) gn«t Oriental i^neral councils at Antioch 
jtrov^vl inoifoctive a^in»t bim, and only ihe Uiird 
Condc<qnii4««l juid dopoaed him (\"Gry probjihly "iG^} ia 
ui evidence of Uow lllUe even yet tLe Alfxandriaa 
dogWiitics bad found acceptance in the Orient. Paul 
vriu a leiirned theolo^an (unttpiritnal, vain, sbrcrwd, 
sophistical; a ''man of the ivorld" hift oppcmi^nte 
c-allod him), who wished to break th<^ pr>wor of tho 
Hdlt'Tiic (Platonic) philiMOiihy in tlirt (Tliun^h iiiiH to 
maintain ib<> old toaeliia^- In later timc« bo ap- 
poHmtotheChurchaaa hen- lie of tli^firHtoirdcr, like 
u Judns, obioiiit^, Xi>ft1or1aii, monothdlto, i^tc. His 
conception wax tiiU: Uod is to he thought of dim- 
ply as individually personal {;> jr^ffffw-ur), U i^ tnao 
diat in QfHJ a Logos (Son), j.e. a Sophia (Siitrit), can 
tN> (listinfifinHluM] — both ara ctthorwi^i aIho t^j Xttt iden- 
tified— but th<u(C aro offrihuffiA. Ood from eternity 
octiit r>rlh tliv Ta^^O0 fn.tni him!«.-ir. »o that uiie I'uu 
cull him Sun, but bo ttuiaiiid mx imiMxmmd powvr. 



He wurkoJ ixi Moses and tbo pio]:ibefSf /tuUw Ka\ 
dtQ^/i'^k'Twf in tlio Sod of David, bora of the virgin. 
The Kedeemer 18 a man £rom " beiioatlj"^ but the 
Lc^os from above worked nitbin bim (in-dwelling 
by ixieiuin of an inttpiration workiit^f from without, 
»oUmt Iho L<)ffOEi Lopomoft tUt""iunw mau " of tho 
Rodecinur). Tbo ^^'iiniiiiinkin which t\\\w ariBcti \a a 

o(ifftatfi(yri If stitjiau) ; tlie LogO« did DOt dwdl in JtMllH 
QVtrtiaJlut^^ hut *'ir^^"t'''r^rn; therefore i»hoa1wayBtol)e 
difttingiit-sUad froui tfio latter an tho ^i^oater- Tbo 
Rcdoemer if« tXivt mail wrought upon br tho Lo^a; 
l>ut ho poMBOttMHl in a unique way tho Divine fcraoo, 
ju»t a3 bi£« pwitKm in unique. Hift testimony heara 
witnees to his endowments. Between two |>eraoiiA — 
therofoTO aI^j between (iot) and Chrint — unity of din- 
position and of will alone is jx^sible. Such unity is 
rcidi;u3d only through lovo; hut «l80 <jnly that which 
coRicw fn>ni lovo haft valinr; that whirh ia gain«^ 
throuffh " naturo " in indilTerout, Jotmn hy rouaou uf 
tile uiii^luii^^:kljlenef^ of hxa luve at;d will ib like (3od 
anil has hecomo one with hltn, iniuimuci] as he not 
only himiielf ronuiined witliout nin, hut through con- 
flict and endurance ororcanie the ttinti of our progen- 
itors. Like Its bo howover advuncLKl and perainted 
in tho r-^^mflnnation of i\w good, »o al^o did t^e 
Father endow htm with might and iniruculouAdeeda* 
by whidi bo nmdo known bin ini**wi'rvin|; will tmvan] 
QoiL Thus bp bc-cuuio tbo Rodoumor anil vntertsd 
into au indiwHilnbli; and eti-^rual uulou with Ow}, be- 



€nuso Ills lovo can nuvor fail As a reward of his 
victorious lovo Lw Lm^obtJiiuotl a iinmi* Hbove every 
name, juf1fnu<*at ami Divitie diguity, mj timi aiie may 
call him " llie Gud tora of tho virgin", wliich hv him 
ever been in GkHl's flocr^^ avid proclafnation (through 
grace and coDfiminliotj d^d he attain unto Oo^Jhomt ; 
the stepe were here ^dfj birth, baptitoii, and resurroc 
tion). This evajigeJtcaJ CUrialolog}', which was Uic 
only oue to oon»ciouAly cast a^ide the religious 
physics, Paul suppoii^d by Scripture proofs and z«d- 
ouflly refiitwl its opiKaii^nts, espei^ially the "old ^x- 
(iciHitoro". the AIoxHiJtlriantt. Hi* did awny witli all 
Church hturf^i^i^ i*J which Ui« esseatial Divimty of 
ChriHt wa*» proclaitued; he would know nothing of 
"fiuU^ilanccJs", but held fast to the living Ter^ou, 
llib teaching iras considered heretical in the highest 
degrGoby tlie learned Hellenic hifUiopH: He has be- 
trayed tlie m>*st*ry! In thenonrowionofHiac bi»liopH 
against bim tbe physical Logoa-doctriuo wixa sot fortli 
in broad terms asamoftt iin^xirUutt [ijirt of ihtfapod- 
tolie and Catholic Church faith. At the ^ynod the 
word * i^fiOQUto^ " was also expre«*ly cast aside, evi- 
dently because Paul bad UHed it for tlio Logos in 
crder to prove by it that God and the LogoK ar© one 
subject. With Pa ul's deposition and removal (^«^) 
it wna decided tliat no Catholic Cliritftian dnro fuiy 
mora doubt ibe Diviue/>/iyAf-<( uf the R^leeiniir. But 
the teachuig of Paul did not Hiiccuinb in Antiocli 
witliout leaving it^ tnice IxiLind. Lucijui and his 
renowned profceMional scLtxilt th« t^rtbplace of 



176 OOTLiM» or TMK H]E>TfJU¥ OF DfK-HA. 

AriiuiiKni, wci^ fruotifiotl l>y the epirit of Paul, 
llowuver, %\iv doctrim^ In W<11v di.nflguivd in Arimi- 
l«m by TCoson of ItH ct^mbinatioD with the bypo^ta* 
photiniu. tjsed Jop*^»^'<'/*«. On tlw* contrary Photituis and Uio 
gn>At Aiitiochittiis — altliou^b tho latter a,ckiK>wl«lg<?d 
tho Nioeno symlxil— ^iGarucd llioir bei^t loagon from 
Paul: So-cnlled KeiitoriaDii^iii bad iu root^ in Paurs 
loaching, find in it Paul vroa vnce more condemood. 
Huw long uubrokou ttduptioii views buki their 
eway in outlying Ont^atal ohurchi^B i» indicate by 
the Acta Anhelat\ wrilUii at tbc^ U-^nning of the 
fourth centm-y. Whiil ita author, a clerical teacher* 
BHyualutut ObriHt iH vory lik^ the toachin^ cf PauL 
But in tho groiit centra of Chri»tiiuiity adoptionism 
was lot^dly broken down by nbout 2?0, 

(2) Tfie I^fjectioii of Hodalistic 3£fmarchian' 
fan. Not adoption um, but nio(bilt>4»i wa« the dan> 
A^rouB oppoiiout of tho Logot^-ChriMology between 
180 and 300, the doctrine according to which the 
Oodliejid itw^lf in »HH*n itir-HmAt<> in Chrisl, and he 
bimsolf conBidorod the very and only Qod. ^Vgainst 
jthis viuw Tcrtullian, Origira, Kovutian, and espe- 
cially nipiJolytusconti^ndodmOBtenergoUcully ("pa* 
tnpusftiaui", tlicy wore first called by TertulUan; 
in Uio Orioul lattr the most oonmion axpretision was 
" SahoUiajii "). Hippolytus Hayn tiiat in bin time the 
question a^tatc<d tie wbolo Church (Pbilott, \X,ti 

//)^Jio(.<riv), 411(1 Ti;rUilHun and Origcii ti,t8tify that 
the majority of ObriHtiiui ]>i*opIu think ''monarch- 



ianically". In Romo. from Victor to Calixtiis, 
modalisni vrag tho official doctrine; amoD^ tlio Mon- 
tfuiijctA oii<b*!inlf thoufflit modniiiitirtilly; tho Marci<v 
Ditc church al^o Icnncil towunl this viow, and in Uio 
CbUioUc Church from tbt) tvLrli^t Limus ou many 
forniulBti were used wliiL'h tw^rv^ to promote this 
lonii of thought, which indeed in reality be^-t agreed 
with the plain. UDreflec;ting fsitli (^ ^<^v ti°^ \pt*TT^s), 
Bnt an exoliwive modaliftttc dotirine wa** firat de- 
velop<d in opposition to ^oaticitfm and the Logca- 
Chrifllology, (l) in order to ward off ditheism, (2) in 
order lo maintain the full Divinity of Chriflt, (3) in 
order to sever all connection with gnoEitici»ni. Now 
for Uie Brst time men nouglit to eatahlish thia fnitJi 
energetically lM^ dortrine. Hctciitiiic theologians came 
ia its deff^nce. Bnt to thia r(*ligimuiW)n<»ption more 
thfta to nny othor contact with thought and bciouco 
must aeedfl pn>ve detrhueutftl : It waa llie beginning 
of the end; however, the daath-Btruggle contlnuefl a 
long time. The atoic philoHophy with itH pantheiisni 
and itd dialectical formulaa waa called in to ase^i^t 
(the adoptioni^td reUod in jiart ui)on Arintotle; 800 
above). The contrarersy thuit proAcnted a phaso 
which makes it appear related to the ooutrcrersy of 
the Flatoni>4ta and common stolon about the Idea of 
God (whether the X^i/'V-fl^^^v >» the lutimut^ God, or 
whether there »till t«tatid^ behind fiini an apathetic l^ 
as ^c^t). The oldectt defendera of modali»m, how- 
ever, had at the same time an expreaM Biblical in< 


Pnctriru* In 
Hoint* troni 
Viotflc i« 


VI ml 

(a) BoTi0 aL»o vrero ^Um Minor an^ Rome the 
fiivt thotttroA of tbo controvfrrey. In Uio former v^tis 
Noctus (he, however, was probably finally excom- 
mtinicAt^l), in tbe latt^ bis pupil Kpigonus (about 
SOO), wbo won Iii9t KleomeneB, then Sabetlius to b\» 
cnuFM?. AgaiDflt tbem nippolytuftcnme for^'ai^; l>u( 
tbtt btHbi'ps of Home favored tJie Bcbool (above wil 
Zepbyriuufl). C^Uxtus(2l7-22'J),ori^ally amodaU 
ist, Bou^t to satisfy nil partieB by a compromise 
formula and found himself thereby obliged to excom- 
municato Tlippolyttia (rivnl bifiho[>) as well as Sabel- 
Iiu8. His formula oaexna to have paci6ed tbe major- 
ity. How imperfect om* know1ei1g« of tbis matter 
is, is iudicated by tbe circumstance that Hippolytus 
ia wholly silent about tbe modalist Praxeas in Rome 
(see Tertullian). Probably the latter came to Ki^me 
b^ore Epigonus (perbaps even under Eleulherus), 
but had not at ti\stt time aroused opposition. SiiiC« 
bo al&o wont to Carthage and va» an out-and-out 
[uiti'^loiitani»t, TeriuUian u^ed his name in order 
to combat the iioman modalism in general (alx>ut 
310). Certain is it that Victor, who excommunicated 
Theodotus, did so, not from tbe standpaint of the 
Logos-Christology, bnt rather from tlmt of niodali^on^J 
Yet it ia to be obeenred that tbe two monarchias ' 
TiewB are more nearly related to each other than 
id either of them to tbe Lof^oB-Chrisiology. Both 
defend tbe redemptive historical view of ttie Pentoti 
of Christ, an againitt the nalimibstic hislorfcal, ajid 
ofli^ pass froai into mcb other (aa to Bcryllui^ ouv 



can qii«««tioii w)ifit)ier he vaa ad adoptionist or a 
tmxIfiliHt; in tho writiiigHfiF ()rig«^ not a few jiiw- 
wigoft loave u& in iloubt which party he h ouutouiJiiig 
ng&inat; the comproniiAo furuxula of CnlixtuH lit a\f^o 
varlcgnt<Hl). The simpU'tit forra of modali&m \h re}}- 
roecritod hy Noetus (^ee llippoljtm): Christ in tiid 
FMh«ir biiiii^elf, who was lv>ni aiid ilie^l. If Chnt^ 
iftUDt till.* Father, then i^ Iio tiot God. Next totlio 
ninnothf<i»ti<r inU^tyiKt (np[lrtn^nti4 vom c^allixl diHttn) 
WOB the intoTK^t in the f(iU T>tvinity of Chrtnt (f oaxu&- 

xmc tfAaat i^ji^V ^y^^f), ScnptlirC CVidoUfW WttB Ex- 
3: 0; )iO: 2 seg; Isa. 44: ft; 45: $, 14; Baruch 3: 
3lf; Jna 10: 30; 14: 8 se^; Rom. 9:5; thcJohun* 
nean Goftpt4 wan w^rognirx^d ; but VWmpc /itk* ^fy" 
iff/*-* fljr ^iiiutf tf;j^p>;>c(. Tho conception "I^igon" 
waa rigidly n^jvcU^ SjJtM-^ulativel^ Iho ido-n of *^*'^'**^ 
Qod is gruimdod (in Kleomenefi) upon the thought 
that Qod itf jnvUible if he wiHbo», visible how<Tvc-r 
wboii lio pcniiil.>him3olftob<* ftpon; intajiKihk* whun 
ho <I*w** not \vi[*h t4> bo toiirbe*!, twrnriblr whon 
Iio prciHimtk hinuuilf to bo toucliod; uulx^>tti>n 
ftiid begf>tt«;n; nun-tal aud imDiorUiI (old Chnrcb 
fomiuhkd jiLStifled by the »toic idea of God). Tho 
FiUhiT HO far as bo deigned to ho liom is the Son; 
both are therefore only nominalfrf to he diHtin- 
guiahed; hut lh« distinctioD i* also an historical, re- 
demptive one. in favor of ihiG identity they called 
to mind the Old Twtaniont thoopbanios. That they 




after tlio manner of the ftloics attributed to tlio God- 
httwl itself Uic i'lf^mcntof tiiiiteness cannot lx> ]iimvuil 
It is tlii>()l(] n;iivo inoialiRm, wiiirh Im ii<froi?xjUt«d 
to II theory (oth<*rwiMO, <]b!>;orvit tlint aU rnrly Chritt* 
tifui m-itetv^ who w^ro not [JiilooophicA), know only 
am Uirth of the Son, that from the virgio)» The 
tln>ury was wrecks! in tliis, tliat m the ficwpela 
without doubt two subjects (Father and Son) are 
preatippoBOcl. Tlovever the modAliat8 hanlly do 
clarod nneqnivociilly : Th& Fath<?r suffered; th©/ 
eiud, tJie Sou, who suffored, ia id<mtical witli the 
F&thor {bishop Zephir'riuuH : ir*^ "7^« ?"« ^t'-y Sftari^ 
■/jjjrj'.y jcai ith^v «'Vro> trtpa wO/J/wi ytv^r^y Mt ir^'^fiv, bllt: 
wN;f J MTT^fi ivc/Aincv, dtM & oMf). More comjilioatod ia 
the doctrine of ""pTajceas" and tho formulae of Ca- 
lixtiis; they indicate a trace of tlifi diffieultiefl: 
** Logos '* is no siibstanoe, it 18 nothing elao than 
sound and word, PrGXcas« in tendency and in Scrip- 
ture argument nt une with No<]ttuf, made, however, 
a dearer distinction betwot-n the Fnthenuid th&tSon: 
God through the iisi«< of tlie flcdi made him- 
B^f into the Sort: the Jlestt vmlces fhe Fafher into 
/A* Sow, i. P. in the Person of the Redenm**r the flesli 
(the man J«ena) is the Son, tho Spirit (God, Christ) 
is the Fntlier (riUition of Luki> 1 ; 35). That tchich 
iccit born i« the Son; tho Spirit (God) crcmld not suf- 
fer; BO far m lie entered into the Qmh ha sluirod the 
sufFerini^ {**ptit€r r^»}apassu:9 vst Jih'rt^}. Aa kx)d 
as the diHtini^uiBhing of c<ir<r (filius) amlspirifug 
Ipntef') WEia taken fitrictly mcdalifmi pasmw nver 


run LAVtxa ok the roirwriATtos. 


into adoption mm, Thiw U^>k lAntv in pwrt through 
Oalixtiw, wl>o in bh formulu of rooonLnliution uc- 
oqiUMl Hiv Lo(^ {\mX 110 n (K<»igiiiitio» of thu FHtbor 
al^o) and an ndupliou ek'mi.'nt {Xhm Mippolytus bA8 
well ul)tien'od)f but hy ineiinn iff it lu-lnatty trails- 
ferred ihe faith of liie Homaa church to the Lo^^os- 
Chnstolog}', aiid to the ph^ftinxleitimtion dcctrinp — 
exoommuEkicAtiDg his old fHood Sabollius. Yet tho 
gnoHtical Aubordiiifiiiouiriui of TuTtiiUiau aud Hippo- 
\ytuA could }ici:er gaiu uccti|itan<7« in Rome (Culix- 
tua' fonnula: tuv Av^pf auriv that alM'^aMvMai varipa 
(stoic ^r^^^ft^f) xal rttripA 4ir^ihun fUr MoXvjtttrvr^ ff 9i 

ty di M/i\ rt\ w'/t^ CftTiifjitrt- ttt\ rd nivra fiftttt nr-i tithttA 

iE'>ni. Aal r"urr> cfv«( T*'f tr/'^ji/^v' Jno. 14: 11. Tv tdv 
yvp fiJUr4jit^av^ ixifi i^rh i^0paiK9^^ rvurtt that tuv oU*^ 
tv ^ tv tip ulur jffu^^t'v f>f Dime rovTa tlvai foif imrf/sv ' w 

jmT 0vr<K Tii* irtfT//ut mf/itrtXpnl^/Mif t^ tf£f> ' mu ;^^ 4/^f 

Cert&ia i» it tliut tho ItianiMl imd infln^Mitinl Kova- 
tUn (rff- iritiit,) dirl much toward bringing nbout 
Iho fiDid iibandonmoDt of tho Logoa-Chri&tology to 
ibo Occidunt. About tliij ytsai 2G0 the BomaD hlB- 





tmti Hr«^ p^ fftfr^/'a, Cyprian iimrkixl |HiUi]iiidHtaa- 
Uui a^ » |A»ttiUmtlu1 lieretsy like MHrL^j^jnitiAui, nud iut 
hinindf 8Kove(l into a wcond rec<MiRion cif Uio Ronum 
aymlx)1 (Aqnik^jit) Uit pbrtiw :'* CrWo ih deo patre 
omniftottfuic^ iHfml/Ui tt im}Msmhili'\ liowever, 
Ui« Lc}goK-Cliri»<Uilo|Q- hail novrr f(>ii»(] a ootif^niRl 
toil lu tlio O^viilont ; mtm lot it \ivum. but they liold 
much morv llnnly — in thm thtrrc iviw ii rtstl iiitcrvat — 
to the article of faiUi : Christ E» truu, oom|ileU) Go<l» 
and there is oiily one. Ucxl* ThiK attitthle nf tho Oo 
cident became of mmt decisive sigiuficfLUoe in tho 
Axuui controveray : The Ntcone doctrintt in, not Rfl a 
philoKophirnl Mpi^nlntiiiii, liit hm thp dintf-t^ Mymlxdi' 
cal fiLith, cut iniitdi the proj^rty of t!i» Orcidontal 
cfaurch *A iXw> third wiiturj-, vm th«; CluihxHloti ductrino. 
AooordlDgly many Occidental learh^ni, who vrora 
not infhienoed by Plate an<i the Orient, u»ed in 
the thir.1 ami fonrth centuries modaltslic formulas 
ocd4e^ without hctsitatiun, ab(jv(3 all Coauivjilian. Tim the- 
A'^itfm-i ologyof the Omd<*nt until An^mtinit Mbowfl in gen- 
end a cningUng of Cio^roniitn morality, nuMMive* 
primitive ClirifttiaJi i*flchaUj!ogy, am] unrL^fltx-tiog 
ObrUtology witJi more or )g«0 latent modatisin (one 
Ghxl in tluj dtricteftt Bense; Chri^l Ood and man) 
and pra<.-tical Church politicK (pcniumtial inBtitute)» 
which ia wholly foreign to the Orit^t (Amobiofl, ' 
Lactantius, Commodiaii). They were no myation, 
iu |jiirt op|>oi£i^tc« (»f KfO-I'latomam. How hnrd it 
would have been for tbem t> mabe tbemwlvee at 
bom^ in the »poculatti>nd of tbe Orient tn indicated 



the ol<lHo4U> 
turn in 

by the energetic, but abortive attem)>t of II jlarius and 
i\w thmk3^cal barbarism (»f Luoifer It is well 
uudf^nitood that tnodalism did not continue in the 
(^>cirUlont a» a MMrt, no long an in Uio Orient; it found 
in tin* hittdr, «wn in the pmviulinif f<^rmi>f t<^achin|> 
esi)Acially ^'here the Logos wa» accepted, a shelter. 

{h) The acofluntft r>f tlifl old modniiam %n 
Orient are very turbid ; for i^iibaaqiiently everything 
ts colled "SabeUianJHn", which |)ortftiii8 tothoiiiT- 
niil And endnring hy()niita:«in of tlio Ri>n {^.g. Mnrnol* 
las* doctrino ). Ah'oady in lh<« third ccditnr>' in the 
Orient ftpecnlatiim concerning the muduUdttc Lh««e» 
increased grently and wan carried <nit into manifold 
formii, nn<l Iho hiettorianfi of the moveoient (Kpipha- 
nit]0, Atliaiia^ufl, etc.) add thereto etill other disoov- 
ored fornix. JnAt as ene can n^rite no history of the ^^^^ 
Log(M-C1)m1i>1ogy in tlie Onimt fmm Origun t*i 
Athaii<i»iuft^ih(; tiourcoe hihve been dc<rtJX»ycd — 80 
ulae mw cam write ng hitttory irf UKMlnliain. It is 
eetlAtn that the contmt t)egan later in the Orient, 
but it XTod more passionate aud imduring and led to 
(he devcIoi>in<*nt of tlio Origenistic Chmtology in 
the direction of Arianifim (iiltM>a]ttitlietic), TbeHrat 
graat agitation took plibce in the Pontapolie, after 
that Origott oombated the ^singular*' modalists as 
Chriatian toethren and sharply cTiticiHed biahopa 
(RoDoan), who made the difltinctton between Father 
and Bon merely nomijxal (the condemnation of Origen 
at RomeunderPontianufimnyalN) have had reference 
to hii4 ChriBtology). Perhaps SabelHiw himWr near 

H[Blonr of 

la Oj'tput. 

\H\ nrruvKft op TUB uiftTonv nr nnoHA. 


Uie end of hin life went (again?) frotii Koino into 
tho PoiitniKfiirt. He was alrwuly dead whoii Diony- 
ftiuH of AloxAndria combated SabeUianiam Uion^. 
Hu if* ti U> diHtin^ialiod frv»ru Ncji'tim by hiw more 
careful thiH>lo}fii'aldc4lnciioiiB and by hifi regard for 
tho Holy Spirit: To one Bfiiug are attarlied thivio 
mmios^ [Fntlior, Smu and Spirit), oihorwi^ jwlytbi'- 
i»m would I)e estatiU^hc^I ; tlm Uirtio names ar> at the 
Kanii^ iimo thron irnt^iyiex. Tht* oik? Hnin^ im to b«» 
oaUod I'fiiWrujcx— a dofii^^aatioa for t]u> beiai; of Ood 
blnu^lf. However Uija Being in uH at tbt^ mine 
moiuentFuthoranil Son, but in Ibree coDtiecuUvc, in* 
terrhan^ng eiierpiw (proHOjwuB) he acts as Creator 
and Law-giver, ns K^Kloemer^ m Qiiickoner (tbrougb 
tbii* t«fichini^ tie cotico|itiou " Pro«opon ", ** Person " 
bivmnftdiHcn^litJi*! in IbiiOni^iit). Wbotberitwaa 
poNHiblc tor SfLbolliuti to aurj- tbr^Kigh tbo tboiight of 
Mtrict t4uctTrt**ioii, we do not knaw, Purbaps he Btill 
pt-nniltiid tbe Pr06O|>oii of th<* FaUa>r to continue 
lurtivo (tli« Sabc'llinng fell back upon tbo Old Testa- 
ment Scripturi>r^, but niso nT>oD tbo Qotipel to tlio 
Kgyptiiin« an<l other n[)ocrypba— a proof that tho 
C«tbolic caiiOH had not yi^ o)!»tabli4bod \tmU ia tho 
Pttcitapoliit). T])i> dj:ftingiti«bcd itself from tbe ear- 
lier moOallf^m, notbya utrengbrpiLutboi^Tic t^idency, 
Dor by a ni>w doctrine of tJie trinity (})otb came 
tbereto first later iu tbo fourth centurj', if the modi* 
ficatioDH were not introducetl by tbo bidtorians), but 
by the attempt to explain the euooeesion of tbo Pro- 
fK>poais by ihdf attention given to tbe Holy Spirit (seo 



alwvc) iMiA Uy Uio dr-iwiu^ tit a furiunl [>jirjt]1v] be- 
twoun tlio Pn.w>iMrti iif tin; FiUb<jr iiud lliu two oilier 
PiXMwpoQs, whidi indood tcndod towtin.1 tLejiocopl- 
ance of a Movdi-l^w^ biick of llie Pronfupon (^tj^ri^^ uod 
nhiftntjio^)^ who iii^veT roveal» himself, but bect^mea 
known only through hi»* nclivity (this view in fuvored 
by Scaik'k>nwacbcr, Tliool. Ztechr, 1832 D- 3). Coe- 
incdo^ IH iutrodiicDtl by Siibelliue ba u ptinillel to 
soteriolo^. without tUe prvfen-nce being given to 
tlie Father, anil thereby in a [lecutiju- manner tbe 
way wa.s propnnMl f^ir the Athanasiurt Ckrisiolony^ 
t.e tJio Au^iiitiniAn. Thin i» die di^ciMvc aignifi- 
nutoo of SabelUonium in the Orient- It prei^ored 
tlwrretheway for tbo ^fif^t>«s»9\ for tbatlbe SabeUians 
made iise of this word (on the other tiantl also I'aul 
of Samosata) ia clear. While within mfxlaliam there 
wi» hitherto no firm connection Ix^tween cosmolu^ 
and soteriolojo't under Uic later Sal^ollianisni the 
liintorj' <jf Uk» world and of rwb>mptitin K-tvimt* r>rjf> 
kiVtoi^' of the (Bclf rey-onlitig Ood; thi^ K^-nmo of 
e<|ualraiik with tlw Lo^pxi-Clirintulog^'. In dilToivtit 
way» Marcellus und Athana.siu» sought toroconcilo 
the main principlus of tuodulism tmd the Logcit- 
Cliriatolog}- : Tbe former fHiU^, tbo ktt^r eucecwleJ 
in that be almcfit entirely excluded the world-idea 
from th« Logod-idea* t.^. r«etor«(l the Ijygoa (as tbe 
SaboUiana tbe (>'««), to tbo being. ye«> to the nitiBerical 
unity of God. 

(c) Ili^^ton/ of (}riental theology untU the be- 
ifinning of the /ourth ceHturg.--Tbe next confle- 






qtience tjf modaliiuii wa« that Ihi' foUowoni of Orig«i 
gnve to the Logoe-Chmtoiog^'ufibyaig Hiilx>rtli nation 
caet. DioDyuiuf of AWsK&ndna went &o far as to aet 
forth iu a doctriaal letter the Son flimply as a cr«i- 
tion, which ifl related to the Father an Iho vine to tbe 
gftrdf^er nntl a8 Iho boat to the builder (Athana- 
mm, fie xentent. f>ian^.). Hfx wfis cUtnoimccil by'"* 
Roman volltrfi^o of tlw wimo nanw (nhont 20*0; th« 
latter |>ul)li>iho<l a turning, in whicli he very cbarac- 
t^ittticully bnuKKnl irifHlnliftm nn nh^rtnty; firtit> on 
Ihe ground of Itn tiRiiiity vritli th^? Clirintolc^' Uien 
cum^iit ill AU^xandria, which ho howovcr totaUj 
amund<!r«tood and repn^^zitixl in its coarsest fonn; 
seoODdt OD aeooQnt of itn tHtbeirfm. And witlKnit 
any adjiiJifmAnt, bp prt>c1fltniecl ih^ prtmilox, thni 
ono n)ti»t boliovo in tho Fiith^^r, Son, nnd Spirit, and 
tbiTw tlirvu an) ab the numo tinto oni*< Thi? Atexan- 
drian college, [nceesitiiig now tJie oUu^r »i(lo of tbe 
OrigenifitiG Cbristokigy, humbly submittttig, ex- 
plained that it had notbiDg againet tbe word i^pooij^ 
tff^; the Father was always Father, the Son always 
SoQi and the latt<*r in related to the former as the 
beAm ia to tbe light, the stream to the fountain; they 
even went farther ond expbtinod that in tb« very 
designation "Father*' tbe Hon is included; bat in 
the dtplomatic writing the bishop allowed bimi^lf a 
mental reaervation; he woiibl have been obli>c(^] to 
Bet A>ddo thft Neo-Platnnic pbilriw^iliy, i.e. arirmoo, 
if he bnd rrjoctod every ftf*t*fn^^ in the Qodhcad. Tbi« 
eontrowmy vrtm a prelude to the Ariun, it ended 


quickly lu III i(^ culitiiiiali'jM JiO not roqtiimLlRt Alc^x* 
aiKlrLuii« to rMtrict their K)>L-culatioiiK, Tbvy wore 
be«id4>i ttlM» very luixiouft to nspliuv tho oM Himple 
t^iiU in tbe churches (when it becutne inconvenient) 
ky tbe pbiUBophicral (DionyKiua labored in Eg>-ptian 
Tillageo a^in^t ebilintim-, Lia op|KWont ira^ >t«>poB; 
EuBob., U. K. Vll, :24, ^3)» Imt at theaanw time to 
refute tbe empirical pbilosopby (Dionyeius' Tract 
on natun> against Uie atomic tb^ry). Tbe LogoB- 
ftn<) ChrisLuii-iJoctrin^ waft workixl out by tlie tenders 
of tbo «atocbetU<al scliool in tho spirit of Orii:e» 
(finor philoAophii^ po1ytbc-i»m) ; but out of the ccm* 
pffebenBivo literature ivc have only iimigniflcant frag- 
Uienltt: FieriuHt tbvjuiiiorof Orig<*», vipivwly iletog- 
nat^d Uie Fathc^r and Logiid u-h two "•''tt'tt anil two 
yr'/^iftf and subordinated th© Holy Spirit ^'ery givntly 
to tbe Soiit ns the third vW^i. He tntigbt tbe pro* 
exietODce of souls and cootefited tbe vi^rhBl bohh* of 
eonioScnpturo puii^tgw a^ not autboritativo, Tlio- ^JJJjf^^ 
ognonttLH (in tl»c timo i»f Dinctetian) cotnpojwtl a com* orimii^ 
pruljetiHivi^^ il<Hnna1i<' work, which ns a BrHtem fiur- uc* «f 
pofttfcd Miat of Ori^n imd had a form that bae been 
la use until lo-dny. He moreover doveloped Origen- 
isan in the direction of AriuH. Another Orieenist, 
lliorakas^ eatahUshod an order of monks, in wboae 
celibacy ho eaw eoiuethiiig new in ChriMtion ethics 
and, Eia it Hoejus, empba^ixed more Htronf^ly tbe aub* 
etuntial unity of the Fatlter and Son. At ail eventA 
Peter (f as martyr 311), bi^op of Aloxandria, did p^ht, 
this. In him tbe Aloxmulrian Uabop uguiu ia- 


ctiiied U>wanl th<*vi*>wsof ti>e 1>omctxii]H, wlio had 
(v;it(1i.-inni)Ml Orig<*ti. tTntW ivlmt cmnimj^tttncw Uiia 
b:ipi:M>n(Hl in unknown. But from hi:; oxtant writ- 
ings it U oli^iu- thitt hi^ KiihHtiliitAil BiblicH) T^Alism 
(hwiory of the orootion Mid the full) for the Ori- 
gutii:«lit' cinritualirttu m\t\ ih^igiiiLk'^ liiir« as t^^^a 
Ti^'i EAAi^itxti,^ rztAiMi'i<:. Ti't Uii^ HMiLlioD oTi tile part 
of PeUrr was still not a radical ono; ho only rounded 
off tho poiiite; h« bfrgan in Alc-xanilria tho fir^W/- 
fnent Ix^twecD tborcAlli^lio faith <^thoHim[^t4>-ratndMl 
nnd the KritMitifir fiiilli^ liy nn'iiiiu <if fiiibtracliop^ and 
additions: Thrit which %viu licforo his mtn<l wqb a 
cojurorduri/ fiiith whivli »houM bo ut the same tinie 
ocjcletiiiwticfil iind »cicntilic. But tlio time for thiA 
was not yet i4 hiuid (tH^ the Cnppndocmns) ; f I'eedom 
Btill fuIlmI ill tluKilog-y, which hittor, it is true, wna 
pushing on toward ita^ c^oniplol^ f;oculanKntioii nml 
Bubni<?r6i(in. Alrftuily OA-^ir^- futiiro coD<-optioD was 
cun'cnt; but thi^ro vtjuv wanting as yet a defiullu 
utati*moi]l of tfiL'in and a flxod viiluo •, yes^ th^y were 
hooked u [Kin zu>nnbibliciLl, l>y nifUiyatiUafisiispieiouff. 
The state of the doctrine of faith is best reflecttKi 
iu the works of GiegiJrj' Thnunmturffufi, tho on- 
tbusiastic pupil of Orig&n, the nio0t iufluvutud 

■ ThlU «in^. ^,vM- ff^-flto. ^<flii. bnvaifityov. ^Aitmffif^ vp6eu*av, 

frattiK yiyyia^m, >r^^, ^tif/iti^iof. ijg t^ K/ieSac rtnr friir^Hit. ^a rob 

«k 4r« «iN ^ Irr c^ fr, *r*^ unf f^nf^i', ^Ty>nrrvc. atuMoLmK, 
6jtv9fro(^ oUdrprac- 174 t^ tttOrirnCt dUt oirtr'uu, oifoin ourw/f^, 



ttkeotogian in Abia Minor. Oue seM bere that ilio 
"^fideDtiflc" iterff tn"inbl«l before tlie flue polvtiieiain 
which it introduced, and farther that CluiBtol<:gy 
becamepurephilusophj: The symbol which Qrvgory 
riisramjuated amouf^ the churches hardly corrcspond^Kl 
in ft *dnglfl*M>nt4»nce with the Btblicjil stjil-^rar-rh*^ it 
id a oompaadium of the pur^at spooulationtt, n>oidl> 
ing Uie Gospel only in the wcrda, Fathor, Sou, Atid 
Spiritp Therein Christian faith wa£ expectod to rw* 
cgDizG ii»v\t iman more! 

No wonder that a rcractfon mi in> if ind^od a tamo 
one. By tho Kide of Potc^r of AlexundrJA thero ap- 
pec&rod lu^ro And tli<>rf> in ihtt Ori«*nt iilunit ihi^ 3'<^r 
'^(H) oppoficntrt of Origcii wlio <*ompo1lQd tlioec who 
still hoitiin.'d hiiti u> <i>iii«> t4i htn dofviiti?. Tho meet 
eigntflcant ami influential nf tliene opi)onait« was 
Methodius (alx^ut 300). He was* no enemy of Pkto 
itnd of »j>cculati*)ii— (luite the contrary ; but bo wiidied 
to faaimoDiio Uio Biblical re^linni and tho vorlial 
«eiiftO of tho rule of faith \vith ^icvicc — a. ?i<?n* Iro- 
nicutt, he vrantod a oomtinti-iil fnith which wotild be 
purely eccWlaAtical and j)uii>ly ftcieiitlfic. Moruorcr 
nil tho ht'retical points of Origeiiiwn iau8t Ik? n>uiided ^ISfflLi 
i]ff, in order that the lattr-r may In? tjioreby introduced 
in tht8 fonn into tlw^ eccli«ia'*tind faith {:!if}r^'uhttife 
realism: Mf^tbodim h/iil nwl Inrnwux), Above all 
tho p«M]inijmi of OHi^cn am n<f;iiri1ii tho^^-orld {witli- 
la the r«j«niel<>gy) mut<l l*c fu.-t *u*idc ; Mnttcr and tho 
human bKlr were upprovod by God and ivill there- 
fore' bo glorified and rmuiin ot4>nia]. In accordance 

100 orruNKS OF Tiin histort of doqha. 


with thtft thft OrigroJiifttic U*.irliing i^oncvrming Iho 
OftonirtI rn>ation of sfaril^. ooric(>miii;^ flw* fttll id a 
pro-cxLsU'iit state, concerning iJie (^hamctor and pur- 
pose* of tiM worliU etc., woro ^et n8i<Ie. In tlio place 
of th<ji i?stmo th(imi/jv/tco-n»Aliiitic UfHobin^of Ir^mi&UA 
OODcvmiDg AtLun (iiuuiktnd) w?ih iTj;ntf\«lHCcd, but 
wafiBlill moTO inysticjilly i1eviiK»iHHt ami bixjuglit into 
an alliance with tht^ rerapitulAiiou-tboor>-. Man- 
kind bcforr* CliriKt wi\^ Athim (in need of rockinptioOt 
but in tbe ccHiditioa of cbildnim). Tbrougb tke 
(wonfl Adiun tl>»» Lngn»iinlt'.wluinm>lf willing. But 
Mi?tbodruM went n »:t'>p fjii'tliur; tliiT nrw nviiikind 
iUi it wliolr 1!^ tlit> s<HX>iid Adjim. Kv< rv mir nbk>u1d 
become CJiHfit, Inosinucb a» tlie Logon unites Itself 
with every said as with Christ (tiie da^eent of tlto 
Logo» from heaven and his de^tb unm\ bir r(^[>eat€d 
for every «ouI — namely witbio). This comes to pai» 
not m mtir-h ihnjnghkntiwl^dgoaA tliroii^h virginity 
and itocotiem. Tbo tlicorotic optimism wnw aLso bal- 
imcvil by tJiu renin Lciat ion tif tlit.? world t<x|)nt<^«d in 
No iH;clC!*ia5tic In^fore M<*thfrfiin3 iiad so 
prized virffinity 08 lie, 80 prized it as a ineana of 
m>'fitic union vrith tlie OwUiejid (virginitj- U tbo 
end oi tbc incarnation). In that tbf^ rralUm of tbo 
doctriiio of fiiitJi wafl horo botrtiij up with the Origen- 
istic spccidiition, tbc two-foldnoita of fiiith nud the 
sciencxt nf fitith reduced to one, theorelic^il optimiftm 
(as r^^ttbt the i^enHiioufl wnrld) joined to tlie practi- 
cal renunciation of tho woi'ld, and i>vc-r>'thinp niaile 
dependent upon tJie m^'stic union witli (be Ginlhead 

"*"'"■ virginity. 




ivitboiit H doniftl cif ilir^ ol>joctive signi^f^Anro cif 
CbriBt ne the l^odoomor (altbcnig^li this ig puiLh<Kl 
iuto the bEick'grourif]), ilit; dc^iatict^of the future 
in itB main uuUinee triiunpliod. 

That which Motbodiua had done for dogmatios ^^^i?*"" 
aa developed doctrine tho bishops did about the 'l^i^^ 
year 300 for the rule of faith, in bc far as thoy in* 
tKnluc^ tW scientific Logo«-doctnn« into llio in- 
Btnictional symbol, thereby ncutrulieing Um^ diMinc 
tiuu betwoeu fuith luid Kt'iciitiJjc doguuUit^ and 
placing tiie chief contribution of Hc4Loiiic»pociilutioii 
nnder the protection of the apostolic tradition. The 
Oriental symbols of thiB time (symbol of Ci^area, 
of Alexandria, cf the hjx biahops n^^inst PhuI of 
Orogory Thaumaturgus. etc.) juit theitiBelves for- 
vrard as the iDErontvetible apo9toli<r faith of th« 
Chorch find ure the philot^ophicjd cou&tructionn of 
the rulo of faith: Tlie exefjeiktU'Spwnlatii^ iheolo^ 
gy was i"i*frwi«r<Tt/ inh Jaith itself. Thiji came 
(o paM through the Logos-doctrine; the dogma waa 
now fotind and e«3tablisheil> A divine Bering has 
act^oiJy iipp«irc(l upc>n tho <mrtfa, and bi£ appoar- 
MiOD w tho koy t4t onoiitilogA' mid sot^^riolog^'. How- 
ever, thodo fiindauic-uUit tho^ots were accepted coily 
iu lliowidttst circloB, But men could not reat with 
lhi», so long m it was not definitely determined how 
the divine Being, who hJui api>oarod Ui»on tho earth, 
ia nilsiteil lo th(> Ingfiost Hiviutly. la thu divine 
Hv'iti^ whi> hoff* nppeiired upon thi< t.'ni'tTL th*^ Divlmty 
liimsirlf, ur 10 he a subordlnatey second Divinityr 

ti abm- 


pan 2. 





Wttbub, E^lw. vxu.'fiT nuHeL IlL»lori« iler Ketcunrien, 

rm fl- H«fi^u\Coii<7nicngi.-«eiii, a, Auft,.Bd. i-rv. hia- 

torivi of the Hodud Eiaplrt*. by TiLWiuotit, Gibbon. 4tid 
Sftiiko, H^tUIc, Die K^lt^lon £. Koiu. uuu^r den Scrvrvm 
IQ«nD&D by Kroner, IWHJ), Domor, Entn\ \}vsch. d L v, 
d PervoD CQkriatl, l&ia. 11. 8chutu.. Die L t. d Gouiieil 
ChrisU. IB8t, 0%H», HymtK)1ik •!, j^ruKU, Kitvhr, 187^ Deoi* 

THE ChrUtian roligion in tbe Sd century made "^Jf.JJ^lf 
no oompromu^o vritli 1U13' of the pagan relig- 
ioiiA and k^pl far away from the numerous interseo- 
tiona out of wblcb, under tbo ini^ueace of tbo mono- 
Uit^mtic pbLlosoi>ky of reiiglott, 11 iivw rrlitjiou^ntiot 
deTeI<jped ilaelf. But Ui« spirit cf Uiie rcngiou^noeii 
entered into tlte Ohurvli anil pruduotxl fonns of ex- 
|>rMsion En doctrinv Hiid rultiis to caorraspond with 
itsdf* Thetmtrnnentof primilive CbriHtmoity— the 

Uoty Scriptures — and thie tOBtam^nt of ]mtic|ui^ — 
18 10s 



IM nuTLnrw OF the rnfiTOBT ov docma- 

the New-PUtoDic ffpeculaKon— were by the end of 
the 3d century intimately and, b» it seemed^ iiutep- 
araUf united tn tlie ^n^i churcbes of tlie Kaat* 
Through the aooeptouco uf tliu LogosChrietologj 00 
tbo central d^jfpiin of tlw Churchy tfao Churcb ductriuo 
wadf e^'en for the hiity, Qnnly rxioted in the soil of 
UelleTiJKm. Tliereby it bucame a myater}" to the 
groat majority' of Christians, But mrHteries were 
oreD fujuglit after. Kot llie frenhnefui and cleomcHa 
of a n^ligioD attractod nveu — then? must needs be 
something roQaed and cotxi|>li€at«d, a atructure ID 
BartfMiiie fityle, to content lb<jse who at that time 
winhBcl to have all the idealif^ic imtincta of their 
nature sati8iie<l in religion. United with tliis deture 
waa the grcatwt revfirenee for all tmditiot)^, a ecnU> 
rneot jwciilinr lo eixjc-hfl uf r«>Ntiirati(fli. But, an al* 
wayti, tho old bocamo oovr by coudervaiioa and the 
new WHfi placed under tho protection ot thu old. 
What the Churcb utilized in doctrine, cultuif and 
organization was '^apoeU^Hc*', or claimed to be do- 
iltj<rcd from the Holy Scn|iturc». But in reality it 
legitimized in itA mid^t th» Hellenic 8i>eciilation, 
the «ut»rBtitioufl views and fnutums of pagan mya- 
tety-worship and Ibo inetitutiona of tlie decoying 
Hlate or^auiration to whifh it attached iteelf and 
which roceive<l ni"'W BtrciiRth thereby, lu theory 
uionotlieistic, it threatened to become ]>oIytheistic in 
pniolice and to ^vo way to tho whole a|>pamtu» of 
hivr or mnlformorl reliprlfHW. lnKl«>H4l of a mligioti of 
piir<< ruatf^iu and i«ttvcre«l moraUty, »uc)i lu tho npol- 



offUts line! oiKv^ represented OhriHlianity io be^ ib& 
biitor lioeume lh<* religion of the mo&l poir^r/ut c<m- 
BecrafioHft, of the most mystfrrii^ntf media and of 
a p^nsuous ttatt^fittf. The teQdency towanl the in- 
rontion of mechanicalty-atoning conaecmtiosH (sao- 
riiiiiontd) grew ftinstantly mor« proiKPunced and of- 
fotide^l vigiHxntf^ly thinking; tH^Uif^n evi^i. 

Tli<f uctii^kt4kii<)ii of th<t k>ca] cutte, rnatiDOira and 
cuntomisiiiiMt necti^ load fiuaJly to a complete secu- 
larizing and tipltttlng or the Church (into national 
clnirchos); but for tho time the uniting force ^as 
stronger than the dividing. Tiio a<*knowledgrnient 
of tbe snnio authonltce and fomuiUjFi;, the likf- rojtard 
for thf^ ftfunn Knr-rftmmtal i^m^iorratirnA, thh homir 
at the co<iri40 |x>lythoittni, and tho tondcucy toword 
Q^ctiicitm for ilieftalceof tlie lift* beyond^ fcinnod, 
together vriUi tho homogeneoos and n'Olt^compiictcd 
epwcojial organization, the common be^ift of the 
churohott. All tho»o clonwnts woro not ftufficiont, 
hovrevoTt to preserve the unity of tho ehurchoft. If 
CoitHtnntinft hml not thrown ntM)4it th<<m a npw bond 
by rntEting them to tbu Church of the frnpirc, tho 
5|>lit wbidj oiw> olifti;r^A5* fnnii the Mh cvntur^' 
would hAve tAkon plarv much CArlicr; for itic «piK0- 
pKl-motropolitnn orgimizfition carriod within it»elf a 
centrifupal element, and the aKCOticiPm in which all 
earnest tJiinketH found Oi^nselvesiatone, could not 
hutdisBolve tlM> historic? condititme upon which tho 
religiuu n»t(-"d, anddccilroy the conununal veneration 
of Qod ; besideSf differences crept more and moro Into 

CiUk «la. 

otMl with 


■M Obriatiiinity ii% 
pleto eocularlzf 


Ui6 expounding of the authoriLio» and doctnnee. 
which rcndored their internal liarmoiiy quoetionablo. 

Taking on*j's fltand at tlit^ muI of tho 3d oontiny 
one cuuiiot avoid tlio iroprcMMtoii, thul occlooiafttical 
)' at thftt lime vtuh thrwitwaJ with cotn- 
eocularlzatioD and wlih oxtental iirid iiit«mai 
rii& diuigor from within jn»t prior to 
the Dicxrlt'tiaii persecution, Eujw.^biu?i hitnsetf biis cb- 
tablitthed (H. E VIII, l). Ho at1niit»«— at leaiitaB 
rf*gHr<ii* tho churcho«of ihv Oriont — that thoy tbroat- 
oned to inio^^lo with tho ivorhl, luid thnt pure pagan- 
ism Yaunlcd it^tttf mitong Uimn. Thu DiodtjtiEUi 
persecution adilod thij external danger, and it cannot 
be said that it was the «tn>tigt}i of the Cburch alona 
which triiiinpbwl over tho danger. 

AlT\?a4l3^ at that tim^ the Church woh a hifihops' and 
til cok gift ni^* churdi. But the pcnv^^r wtiich, a« mat- 
tors then stood, wab olatio able to support ciiorgot* 
icidly the dLHlltJCtivo ebfu-act4Tr of ilio ruligion — ilw' 
otcgy^^Bme vorj- near diasolvingit and handing it 
over to the world. 

In conclading "Part I'* it was deAcribed how 
phlloAiiphic theology gaiiial the vietorj* within tha 
Church and how it naturalized its theses in the 
vertf ftyrmulas of the faith, "Ebionifim" aud 
"Salxolliuiitiin'' were conquered. The bannerof the 
lfGo-PliiU>nic philcftophy, liowever, wa? ini^ed in 
spitu of tJko shaking off of gnosti^^inm. All thinkers 
still rwnainwl iindtir tla- inthtenc-e of Origen. But 
gJDCO thp Hyvt^'Jik of tliiit tnaiL wnj* in it«4*lf aln>ady 

n£VKU)i*»icNT or micTinxK or ixcarxation. ltJ7 

*'"^ 'jffiiSS? 

bct4fnx1ox, the developfuout of tlie Alexanilrtan the- ^j^^ 
ology threatened llie Churcli with furilier dangers, oam ' 
OriK^n had kept fn^oAiB and piiitis unmixed; be 
tliou^ht to Jink lopfpther in a conservative sf-nse 
ev(*rj"thing v^tiaWe and to Win^ to a kind of equi- 
librium the dtvem factoni (cofimolotfic and noteti- 
ologie); hv had ^ven to hU tlietklo^y by a atrict ad- 
herence to tho eaci^d toit a Bihlioal Rlanip and 
demanded tliroughoul Scripture proof. WiUi 
epigonof, however, occurred fhanges ever>"w!iere: 
(I) The pupilaaa well as the oppoue-nta of Orij^eo en- 
deavored to place pistiB and gnosis again upon the 
same plane, to ndd some pbilosnpliy to the formulaa 
of faith and to subtract something from the gnoeiA. 
Precisely thereby a st^t^ation And couftimon was 
tUreatening, which Orig«Mi had rnrefidly nard<^tl off. 
llie failh it&olf berjtmc obeicnro and tininlf^Uigihlc to 
the laity ; (?) The cosmologic and purely pbilosopbic 
interests obtained in theolopy a preponderance over 
tbft Hoteriologic. In accordance therewith Christol- 
ogy became agnin in a higher degree a philosophic 
Logos -doctrine (as with the npologists) and the idea 
ct the cosmic GiA tw IIr-! lower, subordinate (>od 
alongside the highest OchI, tiireatened monotheiam 
outright. Already here and ther^— in opposition to '^JSi^ 
" SAbellianism " — articles of faith were bein^; com- 
posed, in which tliere waa no mention of Chriat, biit 
in which the Logos alone was glorified in a profu- 
5iou of philosophic predicates as the manifested, but 
subordinate Qod; already the incarnation was cele- 


l&^ orTiJSRfi or THE HisTORv OF nooiiA. 


lirated as tlie i-iHiii^ of the Bun which iltttntine^ all 
men; nli'Oftily nien ^ecmeil defiiroufl of adar^h^K \>ht- 
noniotia and vic*vn>g<»nt* to the Neo-Flau>ni<* ii]o» t>f 
tbo one unnnmnhXii Being find hia i^nidiHl uud inotv 
orlttm iniiiitirciuH powei'A, wbiU-tli<Ty i.HU!in,'lLv! iHX u lUi 
a cbaplet of pbiloHophic artjiicial ospreeaons; (3) 
Even the Holy Scriptures gavo wny H&niewhat in 
these endeavors; yet only in n formal mnniK^r and 
without forfeiting their value. Th<a theology which 
was fonnod out oi thes^ elenienf^ {e. g. Euaehius of 
CeDBurea ia ita ropreeentativc) lot ever^'tliiug paso 
tltat kept within tlie bounds of Origi>nifiui. IXa n^p- 
reseolatira^ a>niudered themselves iib cons^rvntit-rA^ 
flinoo they rejected every more precnso definition of 
the doctrine of God (doctrine of the trinity) and of 
Cliri»t liH an innovation (antipathy toward preciao 
d^HiiUion <jf hitliei-to not preoiselj deHnet! dogmas boB 
always animated tbe raajorit^' of ilio Church, Biiice 
preci&e delUtition is innovatioii), and since they eiert- 
e<] themfielved solely for the sake of science and the 
" faitii " to Rive fonn to tlie Logus-Joctrine in a cos- 
mologlc senne and to subordinate ever^'thing inward 
and moral Xn the thought of the freedom of choice, 

Neither thoughts of an heroic asooticiam, nor real- 
istio Diystin ji^m in the seofto of MeihodiUB, nor deduc- 
tions frc^m ihe heterodoxies of Ongen could aid here. 
Theology, and with it the Church, aeeined to be irre- 
trievably swallowed tip in the current of the times. 
Bui in tho beffinnini^of the fourth century there ap- 
peared a man who saved Uie Church Rerioiisly threat- 


eaed by inward strife nnd outwiirc! persecution — 
Constantino— »to at the Hame timo there a)>peare<) an- 
other man who i>i'CAen'ed the Church from the com- j 
|i1<Tt4« ftA*<-ulAn7ation of it* most fnmlnmental faJtli — 
Atlionasiitt. Truo^ reaotiODa against the Logoe-doc- 
trme iu the direction of th^ couiplute alieuaitouoT 
the Son of Ood from tlio Father were probably at no 
time lacking in the Orient ; but AthanasiuB (a^istefl 
by the West, the bighopa of which hijwever did 
not at first reco^ise the pith of tlie question) first 
ABf^red to tJie Christian religion its own territar}' 
upon thf |>nM>ccupi«d soil of Greek speculation and 
brought ewrytbiug back to the thmight of redemp- 
tion thrcugh God himfwU, i.e. throitgfa the God-man, 
who is of (he satne essence with God. He was not 
concerned about a farmula, but about a decisive basin 
for faith, ^x)iit redemption unto a divine lifn by tJio 
Qod-man. Upon this surety alone, tliat the Dlvino 
which appecurcd in Christ baa the natm« of the God- 
head it«ii;lf, and only on Chat accoimt is able to ele- 
vate us to a divine life, can faith receive its power, 
life its law and theology' its direction. But while 
Athana^ius placed faith in the God-num* wbtcli alouo 
fpeeft ns from death and sin, abov* avorx^thin^ pWv / 
he at Uio game time gave to pruetioat piety, which/ 
then vtrell-nigh excluaively liveil jtt monkJah a^^cviU 
clsm, tlie highcBt motire. lie united ibe 'ffivr<»'t^tu^ 
which guarantees the deification * of human nat-l 

I Lou 



OtVMI 10 


Fjilltisr ol 


MO mrri-iyiis or the histobv of T>nnvA. 

lire, iu t1i« clo«ost ivIationM with tho niunkbih as- 
OArtimm Aitfl liftinl thi^ lAtt4fr out of iU Mtill Kiilit^rrs- 
Doan, t>r insecure ppbort^ into tin* pulitic life of tho 
Churcrli, WUilo liu tvmbiituil Lliv r>rr:ittfji of tho 
XAjrn^jni^tfttM^ the Neo- Platonic cloctrmc uf il dTOCi-mling 
trinity, txs ptxffxn nnd as a d<faia1 of tins vssiCDve of 
OirtbliAnitj'. hofil^o in like nm&ncr comh&t^Hl mcr- 
l^tically tho U»iiil"iiry to worhllylivin^. llo b»>camp 
tho ffithdr ot <TC*rWiiuiti<»«l orthtnloxy and tho patron 
of occtimiiwtic^il mfmn^tici^ni : Ho tonight nothing 
netVi now only wiu^ tlio tloitty, tho oourgj- imd <^3ic<]u- 
8iv«inc8» of Iii8 con<.T;itiona and nctionA M a lime 
when everything thrcnlonoil to (lij«<>!ve. He waa 
alao not a sciontiRc theolo^inn in tlio »triet seme, but 
ho ^w«*oi>clwl from theology to pw^ty nni1 foiinrl tho 
fitting worcl. Htt hon<ini<] woionfJo, ov<*n tli^it of Ori- 
gin, but hu uciit WyotKl th«; int^-lligrnt tliought of 
bis limo. WJiilo acknowledging itfl premSses, ho 
added to thorn a new eh^mdtt wliich Hpocnlatiou has 
nevor been ablo fully to rosolvo. Notliing won hero 
more unintelligible to tho thi>ught of tho day than 
the assumption of tho essential ononot;^ of th? i^haage- 
le^ and of tho working Divinity. Athnnrwiuj* fixod 
a gulf betwet^Q the Logo^, of which the philosopbere | 
tbougbtf and the Logos, who^e redeeming power ho 
proclaimed. That which he expressed conceiTJing 
tli^ latter, wliile announcing the my3t<*ry empbat- 
ioally Aiid powr-rfully and in no way indulging him* 
Bdlf in now diHtin<!tion8, appcarnl to tho GroekA on 
offenct- :iiid fixiliHhno?i». Ifut be did not shun this. 

DIvruiPMEtfT or DOCTttIKE or ItCCARKAnOK, 201 

n?[iroa<.'li, ruUu<r duX bo circuui«criUr for tbe Chris- 
tian faitli within Uie alrouljr ipven speculution ils 
ovu t4>tTi1or>\ aiKl thuit iliil be find tbe way to vrard 
off tlio isjinpl4»k> holl<»]izAtion ai»l HeciilaiizaticD of 

Th« hlBtory of dogina in the Orient elnce Xicaa '^d^i- 
afaoTTS two intonningLed crjursec* of developnient- In "'"'■^ 
tlie firftt placw, llio iilca of the Ood^miin hccanio defl* 
aitely do&iod in cvtjry diroctioti Trom tlio t^iint of 
view of tbfi ri9<Ioni[>tinn oF tbo huniAn moo luito n 
divino lifo — tltd CTWfd of Athaniuuuit — (liiKtor}' of 
dogniJi in the ptrictcf*t vtivfv of tbo wonl). Secondly, 
tbo aim wfts to dctemilD^ liow mticJj of iJic speca- 
bitivo &y»^m of Origoii, t,e of the '/*7i^*<*i r^^^Ui'a, 
would bo cuduraUo in tho church<»; in otli^r words, 
in what mci»;uro tJio Stw^rcd Scriptures and rule of 
fiittJi would U^iv II icjiM^nlAtivt^ nstab-mont nntl ftiiiHt- 
DAliiation. Tlio troutmunt of l)uth prubloinn Vk'tm 
rendertd diniicult b^' i\>unt1o» rondiiiMj^ (uIihi jioliti- 
cal OTic«), but fibovo all was it obscured anJ vitiat«d 
becau>w tboCburcb wa«nei>'er allowod to concede to 
itself a theologioal handling of dogma, and because 
at the ^i%m& time the gi^at majority cf Christians 
in fact dGaKiun<^ every effort leading to now forms 
a>»aa apoataity from tlie faith, since tbe voine was 
~ Innovathm, The »erablance of the " nemper 
f m " muBt ever bo ki^pt u{>, aJncc the Church 
in ft« "upotttolic iuheritimou ' ituroly po coooa cfl ever}*- 


Tiwoiflj- , thing Rxed and final. Tho theology and the thi*o 
umLiu^t losiann — eve-n th<s best of them — cainfi thowhy ilur* 

*3f ' 



iog their lifetime and after tUeir death into tho 
worat invdicivimTut ; during Hfo they were omtvidcrctl 
innovators, and after death, when tbe dogma hnd 
progn3e»i^d above and boyond them, they cnnie oft^it 
enough wlioliy into disci'edit, for tlio moiv jirociarfy 
perfected ilo^ma now bijcame tlie Atandard which 
ir»ft jip])Uivl ovMi t4i tlH' t1u>ologiaoK of i\ui onriU^vt 
iirac^, Tho Cliitrch found n.«t only when dogma- ^ 
buildiuff ci^a»«fil and when by the nide of the com- ' 
plet«d dognui. a schohistifH>-m)*Btical theolo^ and a i 
harmlefls Knti'|i)amn 8C]en<^ mjoceeded which no 
longer 1oucho<l the dogma, but eitber explained it a» 
Bottkxl, or indifferontly laid it aside. Thus wn^ 
gniiKid nt Wt wbjit tho " «>nfti'rvwtiv<« " ha<! ulnar's 
longoil for. But rital \ii*ity had in Uie mean time 
wiLbdrawi) friJiJi l]i«? d^i^fma and r^^arded them no ' 
longop in trutli m tho sphere in which it liveJ, as its 
ortgiual and living expnf^sion, but looked U|X)n them ! 
08 tht» Kiiorod inhrnt^moL^ of antiquity luid ei^ the 
prinuiry condition to the (^njoym^nt of tho Christiaa 


Periods of the Ilistorff of Dotfma in the Orient. 

Coa^tantine made j^isssibSe a unity in (he develop- 
mttit of tho Churoh into dogma (ecumenical Hynods 
^B/onim piiblirnm: \a pla.cie of tho symholaof the 
pTfivincial ohurdiea a homogouoous dogmatic confoe- 


tuou w»» intriHluofXt); but Ibo unification of %\w 
cliurchcs in tito strict seni?G nover bec&mo perfect, 
aiid tile Icndoiioy to a jK^culiar individuality of the 
natiotuil c-bun!h«i i^w irtronger in {lirec^t contrafit to 
Bystantinistn, but it was ovorooiu^ in tlie Occident, 
since tlioi'e tbo okl itomiin empire look it?f u|^ in Ui© 
Koman t^hiirch. While the East crumbled to piccea 
and lalain finally wholly wrv»cked the creation of 
Alexander the Great, ttepamting Gi^eckttand Semite 
llio W^t and the Cast fell more and more n|Xirt 
Yet til! the end of the dogma-bi)i1diii^ |»eri(xl in the 
Kaat, che West took the tuo^tt active tujd often de- 
cisive interedt in di^nuitic decisi-oas. 

L Period from 318-381 (363): FreciBoly defining ^^^ 
the full DiviniQ: of the Rwleeraer: Athana.'fiufi, 
CoDi^t^intiiie, the Cappadocianft, TlieodoetiuB. Uiiho- 
dox>' conquerfl ttireueh the tirmnew of Alhana^iuit 
and a few m«n in the Weat, Ihrouffh the coi)nto of 
world-wide bi&torio evente (audden end of Ariuft^ 
Julian and Valens: appearance in the East of Theo- 
doHiu^ from the We»t) and tluough the abiliti,* of the 
Cappadcxrians to place the creed of Atlianasius— not 
witlKitit deductions, tx^ bo sure — under tlie proti^ion 
of tln> ()rig«nift1i(! strijiiioe. 

11. Period from tttiSHi^l: The indopondont tlioo 
logic iK'temou (^l^r^'txf^ ^gfJuo, Origuu) wart alroady 
violently combated; tlie eodesjafitical letdera abon- 
donod it and threw them^clvefi more and more into 
the arm» of communal and monklnh orthodoxy. The 
most viotopt ijuarrelB^ behind which the queation of 


204 orn-rxBs of thk ristoby of ncxmA. 



l>ower hiiiee iimU^ nrow lietwov-n Antjocli and Alcx- 
Hiidria ov^r tlio Christotopriil do^rna. Tlws corrwt 

^^^SUuiT' i!<>ctrin(>Oi>n*iii**r«»ci ni Kpb«ii«, 141*; but, imih^l witli 
ilm tyranny iif tliu AluxmiJriuii [riilnardits it iniiHt 
uvijilH ifltitre Ujo fail* of tlii! ]j»tt4»r mill tnuiii|ili uvor 
emperor ami etato. Notliing was left ta tJie om* 
pcror hut to iinirluiin llio Occi<IontaI tT*sxi as tUo 
orthodox one (tln.^ ChakWoiiK wliicli at Eirat n'an 
utraDge to tlio OriiMit iiuil »rvtiiu.h1» not vrithout rea- 
son* to Iw liorcticiJ. 

TT[. Pentxl from 4.M-£6?: Sorlitioa Mul «chiffm 
iij tho Orient un iic<K»unt of ihe Cliiilcedon rulditiun ; 
mouoph^'Hitkin is oxeotHliugly oiiorgistic; iit liret ur- 
tlioiloxy u-ns at ii Ions. But )«iK.^cututivo Platouif«m 
bad oxbfiuf^t^xl itsolf; iti it» pliico hftd roniooTetnin 
thp CT>ninion *»rioiic*» thn vVriHlnU^linti flittlwrtit^ and 
flcholntitidiun; on Iho olhcr wide a myHtoriow>pliy 
which know bow to mnko M^niothing oiit of every 
formula fl'jd every rilo, Tlut«i? p^iworw HUi^cocitod in 
interprdiiig thi' f^tmiiiUi thn( was forced ujkjii them 

L'cSSSr (Leotitiusof Byzantium, tlic Arwiptigit©). Ju^tlinian, 
rejecticg this and Ihat, codifiinl th*? dogma iwwell as 
tb« law, and cloeM not only the hoIiooI of Atlifaia^ 
hut al&o tboeo of Alcscfindrifi nnd Antioch. Origin 
and tlio thoologiauH vi Atitioch wcix> cotidemued. 
Theological »4ctenco ivmained a tickncQ ooly of the 
siKsoDd order — itcholaaticidiB and the cultn8-m3r»t]- 
ct^m, theee indeed in their fimdainontal prinoiple 
luul aim hftti^n^lftx, wnm ontwatilly howftvi^r en* 
tirely oorrvct. Tliv Church did uot ronow tb& a^ta- 



lion, for it ba^ always vruihel i>eace, and piety had 
long 411100 Uirown it8elf iuto monasticiam and the 

TV. PoHihI fmm riS^J-flftii: Th^ inoiioUmlfftic qimr- 
rolti, primurilj- purtly uftorplay portly rc|>otiUan of 
tlu^ uM t<trife, w^a; Ujrii iiut uf cuii^ ictioiL, biil of 
po1itic44. Horc o\m tlioWe^t nitt^t lliully come to 
the ri'fii'uo with a bloo(lli<»8 formula. 

V, Period (ixan 7^0-843: In Lrulh Ui« tronflicte of in »i:*c« ft- 
this period (Iinagt^-<!out(36t) show already that the 
hiHtorr of dogma is at f^iid ; there existed still a 
OOD9ict about irliat accmcd to be the practicai iMUa 
of the history of dc^frim» iibout th^ right of being 
allowed to porceivti aiid vmicmt^^ ia n tliounand Hen* 
soous objects the d«>iScfition, the unification of the 
heavenly and earthly. Be;iide8, here is seen plainly 
fit Uif^ ooni^liision ivhat seems a siibordiikate factor 
In the whole history of dogma, but is net, m, : The 
fi^t between the etoto (the emperor) and Uie Choi'cli 
(the biahopB and tnonks) for supremacy, in rei^pect 
to which tlie formation of dogma and cuttus is of tlie 
highest imjKirtance. The state must finally abandon 
tho introductiuD of ita Btate-religinn, but tn return 
for tliis eon<?>eflaion it remains the victor iu tho field. 
Thu Chuixrh rutaios ita cultua and itrt peculiar, 
practicid fructifyiuK of the dogiih-t, bul U Iwcumee 
definitely de[endeut, a prop, a |jh)>-thiug, In eerlaiu 
way)^, indecnl alM^ tlie palladium of tlie ?itate and 
of tho nation. 


206 OnT1.Dffl» OF THE ntSTORT Ot DOGUi. 



ElOTrituuui, Orctgovil K7M. A<inimt1a<« fl«» siduto AdlpUo.. 
Iftrft. Hohult*. l>»lir<* V. A Oottboll Chrlsli. IH«I, Riterhl, 
Die chriatl. Lehre v. tl, R^chlletl. imJ VereOii.. 2- Aufl- 

B<i- 1, a 8 ir. 

I. In tlie dogmatic oooflicU from the 4th to tlio 
Sfti^oiivM^ oeutuiXf i\ in clear thul at that timo men 
wore contending about Chmtologj' with tt:e oon- 
«cio»9nefta that it coutaina the t^'f^dnce of the ChrU* 
tinn religion, Kvorytliing clao wua asflerted ooly ia 
vn^o ^KprfWKiOTiH and on thiit nrcinnt hiul not the 
▼aluo of a diigmatic docUimtion in tlio HtriGtwt senso 
pf Uio vrtinl. Atx^onliuijly fur vrthinioxy Uio f^^lltiw- 
ing fiindanieJital conc€[>tIc»n of ^alvfttion obtalaoci: 
The salvatEuo offorod by Cliristiiujity consiat^^ in the 
redemptioii of tlio hunaan rac(t fii>m a cundition of 
perialuthIoiK'«fi auil ^ui, conK47qUL>nt upoti it, imto a 
divtno lifo {i,e. on thoono i;idp d«ificjition»*on tho 
other blissful i>njo)in«nt of God], urhioh hnB iJroiuly^ 
token place thnjugh tho Uiciirnution of tbu Soa of 
Chxt and which accrm^ to humanity try roason of tho 
imUflSolrthIo union with him Christianity is that 
raligioii wbioh freoB from death and k^ad^ men to a 
parlioipatiou in tlio Divine Ufe and r,tK>'itre^ per 
adoptionem. Red<^rnptiau, tlioroforc, is conceived 


aa Ih© abi^Htlon of the natural 9tate through a mi- ''^;]^'*' 
raculous traoaformatiun (Lic-incAtion m tho cotitral hi^uI^o 
thought); the r^ligtoLia^ boictit of salvatioD is clofi- nutios. 
nitely duttinKuishod from ihv tnoml, and the idea of 
atnji^menl *w7cordinifly remRins rucliitKmtary ; for the 
prt-scnt »Uito only a jirorisional enjoyment of eolva- 
tiun is pn%tijjposeci (Lalllng, knowledj^e uf God aud 
of salvation, victorj- over the demon», helpful com- 
municationd from Qotl, enjoyment of the niyRteri<?6). 
Accordingly ihc^ fundamental confession in that of 
Irenfeus : " Wo become <iivin*> for Christ's Bake, sinoo 
he also for our Hakes baa become ]iiuDaii'\ This 
confoaoioQ, rightly rreighed, ilemand** two prind[)a] 
dogmaa. do more and no leeti : " ChrlHt is ^^^'t o>v'/''«ca^<, 
thie *«"C t'lMOifj^to^ haa taken human nature into his 
own heing and fasbiouod it into oneness with bizn- 

But thetie dogmas wen* imrriw! through only lifier 
serore confliota; tboy nvtvor gaiuod a perfectly cleur 
stamp and never obtained tho exclusive dominion, 
which they demand. The reoaons for this an) a« 

(1) The fonnulas which wen? roquirHl, boing neti\ 
had tho di>int of the Church ii^uuiHt thorn, which 
HiKpocbxl <fV4si tho ho^t of innovations; 

(ft) The pur<* cxjKK^itioa of faith i» nt all timcuf the 
most diJlicult problem; bututthHt time itwaso^piy 
cifllly bamporo^J by apc^ogetic, aa woll as by olhur 
foroi^^ i'on^idorationfi; 

(3) Tho orthodox formulae conflicted withev^y 



philoftopLiy; tbey proved an offonce to disciplinotl 
scholii^tic thinking; but it wa^ n long tiDKj beft^re 
uion reco^oiized in the incomprehensible tlivcharac- 
t^rristica of thai which in Holy ainl Diviort; 

(4) Tho Gonoepticn of tbo Bolvatiou obtitincd 
tJirou(;h die Qod-mau was Joined to Uiv sclii^mu of 
"aalural tlienlogy" (moraliara), i.e- ^afted iipen it; 
natural theology endeavored tlienoefortli to build 
upon tiie ilogma and to bring it^df iutu coiiformi^ 
with it; 

(A) Tlw my>itii>al dootritii* <^f AalviiHon and 16; new 
foruniku) had not only no Scriptural authority in 
their favor, but conflfdod aUo with th« evtuigdiail 
idea of JeauA Christ; New Te«4taniont iilv«w and 
reoaiui«cfiuo(!8, Biblical theologoraooa la general of 
tlio most varicti kind, liavo always surged about the 
gronini; untl nrnttirtyl dojfina and pn>v€<ut4Ml th^r 
uxclusiivo dominution; 

({;) Th© peculiar fonu of the Occiilonlal ChriatUogy 
ititerf«?rod as a disiurbhig element with tho Oriontal 
hibtor^' of dogma. Thmwn upon \U^ own ru«uurco9, 
the Orient would have boon obliged to icgitimiae 
m^nophyt^li^ni; the Qo«pel, tho Occident and the 
emperors preventflil it frnni doing fso. An incorrect 
formula triiunphci), hut it nxxivod a cori'cct inter- 
pretaiiou', vice vcmu^ at tlie eiul gf thi* fourth ctrn- 
tury, the correct formuhi of AthanaHius triumphed, 
but under an interprf^tation which waa influenced by 
tlio secular »?ienco of Uie CapjHuhKrianB. Each re- 
sult had tbo hiatoritjal eoiiai>ijiicinco that the orthodox 


Church rttDimaed in contact with Biblical theoli^Qr 
and vrith adeace (floholȣtic)8m). 

3. Since th« doctrinii c'f wJviition wHi» k©iit strictly ^SSS^ 
within Uio flchcmo of the myistico-rculistic idi>A of 
roduniptiQUt it wan lu iUwU iiidiflrviuiiL tu Uie moral; 
but on «vcr>' »i(lo tni-u w^tra euro Ihat Ctiridtiunity 
itLio cmbmccd the* hi^Iio^t momlity. Ac€orJirgly 
the beneSts of luOvutioti wero adjudged ooly to mor* 
ally good men» but tho morally good ooncoived ua 
tho product of tbo fn^o Hgoncy of man mid i«e tho 
condition of j^onctiitciUton to bo rultiUcd by him, 
whereby God »t the mo«t wtut conceived of hk n£^il;t- 
ing (thit; coticunut puFiitive inontlity; ihts M^gative, 
ftBoeticism, was regwrJod as tho direct preparation 
for deification *). The dogmatic form of the Chrift- 
tiiui religion wa», thotxforo, bcdanoed by the idpA of 
freedom of etoction (Soo already Clom. Alex. Pro- 

trep. If 7; '^ *^ Cf^ iJ/Joff* ^TifpaytW vf 3i3d^xnlo^^ Tr* 

ri «*l C'> i!'^</'f>^ ttiff **^/«fijr^tf5),and thi^ Is onlytbo 
fihort«f%t expre«sioi] for Uio vholo natural theology 
which tlt6 Church uppropriatol from the ancient phi- 
losophy and treated a« tlw sttp^vident prefiuppoeition 
of its specific doctrine^ rMrkoning up<)n a general nn- 
dorstending of the Bamo> Coneoquonlly Grook ChriB- 
tiaiiity oscillates bt*Uvgvntwo pol*.*e, which are simply 
co-ordinate with each other. Dogmas in a strict 
sense exist only within the doclxine of nKlcmption; 
on the other hand, there exidt imly presuppositionJt 
and eonrepiioiis (w far, deTiaticHifi in aimpla nmt^ 



fend Vcr- 


ten are here not inBtipportable). But mnco the 
Qr^k natural philofiophy stood in oonflict in not a 
fevr points witli tho lottcM: and spirit of tbo Holy 
Scriptures, aijcl willi lb© rule o£ faith (a*, above uJ], ^ 
thetheobfor of Origin proved), problems must ; 
bore also, which in an iDcrea^ing measure were 
0olTed in detail in favor of Pibltcal realism and 
Biblical verliAlism, nontrar}' to reason and an idealis- 
tic viow. eren thougb in r/euerol the rationalistic* 
moralsoheme remained unscathed (vid. dogmatics of 
John of Damascus; Sophronius uf Jerusalem: A<iv- 
^tii.ntf ^ci'it^ futtt'i''/.'iu ■«! !n:'i'tt'ny) , An entirelj' subor- 
dinate part was played by the primitive Christian 
teohatolof^y alonj^ide of tbo reiieniption-niysticism, 
rationalism and Biblicism; gradually, however, it 
aUo wiu aided by BibliciMm (of. the liiatory of th4> 
Apocalypse in tlie Greek Cliurch) ; mea be^^au again 
to add aporvilyptic )dea» to dogmatics, vrbich how- 
ever remained without any real effect. The valua- 
ble juirt also of tlie old esrhatotogy, the expectation 
of the judgmrnK never played the part hi Greek 
thfiofogi/, which is due to Uiis highly important riim* 
nant> la spite of the rejection of Iho OriKonistio 
eachatology there remained iu Oi-eek d^JKuiatics a 
slight trace of the conception of history as an evolu- 

Z. As a result of this examinatifin it follows that 
after sifting the authorities and sourca"* of informa- 
tion, (A) tbat onebaatotrecitnutund tlKH^Io^y ns pre* 
fiup(KMitig the doctrine of redomplioik ; thiA, howovor, 

HKvia^rwKyT op nomtiNB ok incarnation. 511 

JoIjil of n^ 

diviJutf itjwif into th<> doctrine of OodanA the doc- ^^r^JTii?' 
triti« of iiion. FRrtLor, (B) tli<» doctrine of redemp- j """^^ 
tioniteolf mostbotroiitud in its historic (f'-7'f7o/?njrnf ' 
lis tfao doctrine of tlio trinity axvd Ohri^tolc^'. The I 
condufeiou form» (C) tiio doctrino of tUe myBt«riee, ■£!|^''"' 
in vrLicb alrt^ady in this life the coming deificatioii * 
of the tcmix'ral in r^proaented and can be enjoyed. 
To thin filioutd be added a sketch of the history of the 
origin of the orthodox gystem^ 

Note: Only Uirough AriBtotelianiaindidtheOi^ek 
Cbtirck after Ortg<en arrive again at a dogmatic 
syisbQm, which wati, however, by no means a nni- 
versa! syatem (John of Damaiicus)- A knowledge 
of the history of Greok do^ia is therefore to bo 
gained, aside from the acts and decisions of HjTiodfl, 
(3) from the DiimeroitB works ctt the incarnation of 
the Soa of God, ("i) from the cat«chotical writingB, 
(3) from thi- Hpo1<^^tic trouti«cfS (4) from the mono- 
graphs on iho "six day«' work " and niuiilnr coni|)0«i- 
tions as well bb from the excgi^tical worku, (5) from 
the moni^crapbfl on vii^inity, monastitrism, perfec- 
tion, the virfaiea and tho r&mrrcction, (^\) from 
monographs on the myetorids. cultus and priest^ 
bood, (T) fxom QormoDs, In luing thcso nources 
this fact with others is to be considc^rod, that tho 
fatherB frequently wrote i5r'jifir-»a»f, and ibiit the 
official liUrrAtiiro (^yn<Kl literature) in an incroaa- 
ing measure bri8tl«^ with faUificationa and is per- 
meated with conscious uutrulli iind injustice. 






8n ^* IntTiKlui^tidnA to thft Olrl aod Ncvw TiwtAimrito. 
Jooobi. PU< Ic. L. V. d. Tru^iliou u. h, iyclxriii. I. Alith.. 

IWT- IIiJuuiaDD. Kaijna u, TrulUluD, 18Ct*. 80dcr. Drr 
Bogrirr a )Uthr>IioiUt <1. K., ISS\. Sooberg, Stwiiffti a, 
(ro«t:h. d. Ik^i&d. K., 1963. Ri-uter, Au«u«lin. Studioa 

The oxtciit and vnltio of tho Cfitholic authoritiea 
wad ulrc^id]' a<.^eiJlially oatabliftbcd at tbe begiuntug 
of the 4th cotitury. Although jkurhnps not their mu- 
tual rehition aud tho inannor of their expoBition, 
Unil^rnoJith tho (Ci^>iit cviiilnMt 1>otwr>Qii tho mor^ 
libortii t]icoI(>gj' fuiii yuro tniditi^niJiJimi \ny aIso a 
diilen-iit cuiax'i'tiou of the m]lhuntti<s«, hut tliJH uvvtxT 
found a «tak^meiit Cluirigeft took pluco during the 
period K-twtxri Eudekius and Jolui of Damiu$cuB, 
k^Mjping in«co with the p rowin g tnulilJomJii^m; but 
no one iind«rto>k lo niakft im in\'mit<>r,v, u pnKif that 
4>ppono]itN of Uicmnthod, worthy of uotict-s fiiitod to 
podm off thiT cxintiiij^ titatc of tlic Church ha tbo tra- 
ditional [r-i|xwioHc). The seclH alone protcHte<) and 
contLuu4Ml Ui agitate. 

1. The Ilohj Scriptures had a unique authority. 
To depend upon them alone was in roiility not un- 
catholic; Soripttim-piviof nritt migliiahvnyH demand. 
But an outjroly oocepted agroomont, evon rxffpocting 


lovUviiT of 

tile t'xltrnt of Uio BiUo, dill not oxJ»t (hoq tlit> »^chool 
of vViitiix'li with itM critioifim of the canon), Aa 
regHTilH tho 01*1 Tci*(tJinHmt Ihy lt«*briiic canon only 
was, in theory, for a long time oon»idored the stand- 
arJ in the Orient; neverthelews in practice, tho writ- 
ings which were copied with the DLX had value. 
Only in the ITth century throuKh Roman iuJluence 
did the ecttialisuition of the canonical and detiterct- 
canoniral writings t^kft plar^ in the Orient, yet not 
in the form of an official declaration. In the Occi- 
dent Uie uncritical view of Augustine gained the 
victory over the critical one of Jerann? (aynods at 
litppOf 393, and Carthage, 3i>7|, which had only a 
slight after-effect. Into the Alesflndrian canon, 
moreover, were also introduced apoadN^iscd like 
Tlei'mas and Gam. — Re^nling the New Te^ilatnent, 
Kufi«btus made rather a rotative end to a highly in- 
secure Htate of afi'airs. With the three categories 
which be adoptod one couhl not cuntent oneself^ and 
the early decree of provincial churches had an after- 
effect, especially in the Orient. Yet aft^r the mid- i^m^m 
dh of the 4th century there prevailed (save in tJio **'^^*,'^^* 
Syrian chnrchw) in tlio Oi-ient an easential agree- *^'"'/' 
mont in rt^pnrd to the Xcw Tdatomont. Only the 
Apocalypse of John remained still for a long time 
ejccluded; flight fluctualioiw were not wanting. 
IIow the Occident came to Acca^t the Kpistls of 
Jsmes, of IL Peter and III. John is entirely in the 
dark. The Bpntle to tha Hebrews was received 
throngb tke ceWbrated mediating-men of the 4tb eon* 


Id OrkjDt 

tury. AujfUfitinA'ii vii^wsi in n^gai-d li^ tlio oxtont of 
ihis 'Sow Tiwttemcat Imabeeti thfiauLbontutivoMand- 
ttnl fi>r tliu whole Occideut (see aJ:^ thtf ^ocallvd 
" Docrot. GiOiiah"). However, an eccIeaiAalicul judg- 
mont un this ([itostion, excluding ovcry duubt, did 
not tuku [>laco imtil the Tridoiitino council. 

All iirodicfltosroncprrnng tin* Holy SrriphireA dia- 
iijjf".Yin*d hnhirnl thiitof tlwirf/r/'i'rrf/'rtfjfj* (workeof tho 
Holy Spirit); in^piralion iti the liiglicast sodeq waa 
now rwtHcted to thorn. From tJioIr iu»pirution came 
thi* itumuTid for spirituGihtic (nllcgorioil) exegesis, 
and also tuv coHforuiirig tho coutont of the t«xta to 
each other as well as to tho accopUKi do^iiatic t«Qch* 
ing. Yet th<» letu^r slu>u1cl nUi> Im* holy und ooiitaiu 
that which i» moi^t holy (ngainst Origcn); laymen, 
eager for mimcl«^ imd critics (Antiochiaiia) took 
Bides in fnvor of thu [ott^T and of history. A safe 
method was wanting: Opposing views were the 
spiritual exegesis of tho Alexandrians, the Idstorico- 
critical one of the iVntiochiani) which sought for n 
Sxed tj*pe, thp liti*nili^iir, n>a]i«ttc one of barbarian 
monks and of iftunly thc<>)oginns (Epiphnniua). 
Very grudimlly n ixjiiiprotniHu \\u» luado ia the 
Orient in regnrd to the most important Scripture 
paasagOH ftitd their iiiti^rprotatione. The Origenifitic, 
and still moro tho ^Vntiochirin oxc^o^is wujt represed 
hutnotvanquiidied.the Htomlistic, reahstic one^made 
jvUatabk through myotic fancies, pushed forward (see 
Juliu of Damascus, and his interpretation of GcHh 
1-3-) TLe Oocidont became accpiainled with the 




JBpfrltual, scientific nietbod of tlie Cappadtx-iaiui 
[tliroLigh Hilary, Ambrofie, Ji^rome^ aiicl KuHnutt. 
Eofuro lujil afterward there wai* a coniplet*^ lack of 
system; r^cAnil (or tlu3 letter went hand in hand 
with fdl^gorit^Al fanHoA and obiliaatic interattt^. 
bJeronif} v^im too <?o^vardly ta tuach his contompo- 
'niricti Uic 1jett<rr view^ and Ait^fustine, aUbougb be 
k^mod from the Qreeks, never rose above the latter 
and did not even reach them. He introduced into 
tlio Occident tlw Sci-ipture-theology with it** waver- 
ing thre^ and four-fold senses and above all tlie Htrict 
BibbciKm, lUtlimigh bo hitiiAolf knew timt reli^oua 
trath ift an inward adauraiice to which the Scriptures 
can ottly /chk/, and Uiat Uiere exiela a Cbrlstian fn^ 
doni whit^h m «Lso indqiendent of the Scriptures {de 
doclrina Chriatmna). Thn^mj^h JuniUuseHpecially 
tlw more mothodica! Antiochian e^e^^cisis exerted an 
influence over Iho Occident, without being ablo to 
remedy the lack of melhod and the tendency to apol- 
ogetic rendeniip^s on the part of the comnwotatora, 
Aftwr-nll the aripturea received in fact a position in 
the life of the Clnirch in the Occident, different frcon 
their position in the Orient (formerly it was other- 
■vise; WW e^ff^ Cyril of JeniHalcni); rhey occupied a 
'nowi prominent plftci*, Tbi^ in to In? i^xi>Iaiitcd pri- 
marily from tho influonco of Au|j^iirtioe and from tbo 
fihCtth&C trcclctti^tstical tlo^nuticH in the Occident was 
never so OKaertive a8 in the Orients Jutft a« Uio ex- 
tent of tbo Scriptur(*s wa^ never securely s^^ttled, &o 
also Ibeir pro|R-rlie8 were not. TIm prcdioato of iner- 







^iJJI^IJ^: n;iic>' twi intletHl Ui Mibmii to Rcn^Jo restrictions and 
iiwn <iiil not really tM>mo to a doar cti!i<vpii<>n of tlio 
Buffi*!ii?ucy of tJio StTiplureH, In rt*gur<l to tho two 
TeutjiUieulH llit^n? n-uuiiiit^d \lw Xiuiv viiiulu? cleur- 
n«w ns foniierly {the O. T, in A Chrifltian IhkjIc as 
well as tliO N. T. — the O. T. throughout ib a record 
of tlie propliccJCH— th(f 0. T. is tho book which cod- 
tflin», with certain rofftrictioiiH nnrl under definite on* 
cunibranoi!B), i}i*i voriticA of thia fuith, Jind it lm» li>d 
and It^aJs pedaj^i^cfklly to Christ). 

B. Traditiwi. Scripture did not succeed (at least 
not in tho Orient) in ridding itself of the i^ondittons 
under which it oiiginjited, and in becoming a fully 
independent authority- Tlie Church, ita doctrin«« 
and institulitmn, wa*i in ibielf tlie source of knowl- 
odge and tho guarantee of the authority of tln> truth. 
Everylliing in it is fiiadamen tolly apostotic, because 
Jt is of apostolic origin. Hencu it is plaia why the 
making of an inventory of tradition could not take 
plaoa It remained de facto aln'a}!) elastic; what 
the apofllolic Church found nece6sar>' ia apoBtolic, 
theivforo ancient. But at first one did not forego 
distinotioas and proofs- 

Tiadition was above all ibe faith of the Church. 
The symbols were considered apoHtoUc; yet only the 
Boman church proclaimed itfi creed as apostolic in 
tbi* strict^i^t eien^e (composed hy the apostlea]. Bnt 
the content of the Niceae and Chalcodon crooda 
was oonsidercd oa apostolic, yes, as the legacy of tho 
apoetW i^-ffv^^f andaa tJie quintesaeoce of the Holy 

TklOi of 



ScripturoM. Yet the roiation between Scni>turo and 
S}'mtf(jt» reiiiiiin^Hl olagtic. In tlio Oiiont tlio so* 
called OoDKtuitinopclitan crucd became lliu chief 
symbol; in the 0<Ti'Iont, jipotftliw'i^nnHl hvld Uift 
first j>]nco and waooxploincd uccordini; to tli<> furmor. 

But tbe R*giilnti<Mi.-« uW of Lliu orgual&ition uud ^t^J||fiu 
ciHUiA Wen.* plat^iHl under (he protraction of apo»tolic 
tradition, aiul one [x>mte(] its [iroof to their geiiend 
t^irced and tUm to tlio leg^^nds conoeniing thr? apos- 
tles, Bt^tiide^, Rieo be^cnn in the 4th ci-ntury— not 
without infliieneii frtvni t}m Mid*^ of OH^^i^ and 
Clement — to introduce the oonceptiouB of tin npoettolic 
xvfuiAiirti uffta^tP^^ in the wholly uikcei'taLn <H>ulenC of 
which llioT oven included dogmatic teaching — bow- 
e^'er, very rarely trinitarian and C'hri^tological watch* 
wenld — ih© underntaiidinK of which was not every- 
body's ooncem (thus* e«ipecially the Capiiadociiinft). 
But ihifl £[DO«tie eono«ption of tradition (»ocrot tradi- 
tion), idth<r(i^U it became more and more nettled, woa 
yet felt to be dangerous ; Mae waa made of it In dog- 
matic discuaHions only in extreme caaes [e. </., in tJio 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit), and it waa otkervi-iM 
api>lied to the mysteries and their ritual oxpoeitioRfl. 
i SiiKW it u'flA iindi^rsttifHl Utat th4> di>K*isivi> authority 
was Totfted in thu CliurcK iUnAt by virtue of ttrt union 
with ibe Holy Sprit (Au^^untinc: "^tgo ctxtntjeiio 
von credereniy ni$i me catholicae eccte9io€ cotnmo- 
veret uuciontas*')^ ihe queelions must ari^e: rtir^-^not 

(I) Through whom mi wheu dees the Church ^^ 



(?) How are the innovattorm in Ui<> Chiircli,ospe- 
oially witbiii the roolm of tluctrino, to bo intcrprotod 
if Uie autWrit^' uf ttic CUiin-h U Iwlguil ctitirelv in 
Its npoetoUcity, i^e. \u ll« i)f"rnuiiK*iiC(>? Ik'lh qu*«- 
tion8, however^ wok^ ncvciriliBtiiictly put» luid Uiciv- 
foro only v<Trj' vnifiiiily aiisv-'ortMl. Fixod was it that 
th« ri'vrcBOtitution uf the Clinn-li wiw wvttwl iu Uio 

ihoory trf Cyitriim hml nut at uW Ikm^oiho rotuinon 
pra|>erly uiid Uie itlmt liad ui'vt-r cri^>|)vil mil tlmi Uio 
individual bii^hop \» infallible. But already there 
wm attributed a cc*rtain iiuspiraticii to th<f jjroviDcial 
synorlftp Co!i»tantino first call^xl an tw^mienical synod 
and (I<.'dan.xl iU ilcdfiionA to bo without error. 
Slowly tUo iliouffht of ihtt infjilHblc iiutburity of tho 
Nioeno 4:ounoil crept iu during tb^^ 4tli otTutUT^- imd 
waft later on Irautiferred to tbu following i>»uiicibi, 
in sucb a way, however, that ont^ .nynod (:id) waa 
stamped post fadmn as ecumeiiicid, and tho dif- 
ference between them arnl the provincial ^ynodfl re- 
maiuK] for a long time unttettbHl (Was tlie Hynoil 
of ArJoft ecuiueuic?). Thi'oiigh Juatiuian tho four 
ODUDdla vrere placed upon a» unapproachable beiffht, 
and after the 7th cmmcil th« principle establi^etl 

■ itself firmly in the Orient, that tho sources of knowb 
edge of Chrif-tian tnitliare the ScriptureB and the 
decree* of the f*eveii ecumenical councila. Even to- 
day m^^ ar»tin\4^ fmiuently in the Orient zn air ns, 

j if tbo Church did not posses or uood any other.a 
Bui tliia apparently dimple and oonttijitviit de\'elop- 


Qieiit ftolveil hy no meana all the diflicultieB, because 
ocHuinU were not atwa^'^ at hund autl othei' aullior- 
iti<<^Al:40 hat! still to he^ Utki*ii into anrount. How / 
duwild onu tici if tho Cburc-h \m» not yet Bjiokeu? 
Do«li not nn eapocial auUioril}- bel<mc; U> the occu- 
pants of the great afkoettolic episcopal chaira^ or to 
llio bi^o]>H of Uie ca^iit^ls? 

An». K The ChtircU aUo KjMNika tlirougli unon- 
imoue mici^^iit tostimonk's, Tb« citinK *'( Uin 
"ftttJirrft" irt hnportantf ovrii di^Uivft. WhAli^'Vrrr 
liutt ujiivDrwuHty and tmttquity U true. Bi^fiidc^, th*; 
cx>iu.<eptii>u ijf "antiquity ** jcvw over more elastic. 
Originally the disciplea of the apoHtlm were the 
^^ancieuta", then tliey counted abio the 3d unrl llh 
gcfionition!^ nmon^ the " ancients", then Origin and 
hiftdisoipW vcre ihe "ancient" oxponnders; thially 
t]i» u'hol^ nnl4*-n<Mj«tj*nliin* ftpoi>h wun e4>iiiti(U*ni<l 
doAtfic untitiiiity. But kIuco one ccnld injtk^f unw of 
rather Utile fn>ia ihiH period^ ajipiral Wii» Udciii to 
Athanai)3u» and Ihe fatheraof the lUi ^^ntury, juM 
a** to Ihe " ancienta". and at tlie Riimo time to nunior- 
oua rid£4incjili(Mi8 nndcr tlie naine of tlic fiatlier» of 
Oio 'id juid 'Ml eenturk^. At the c\)uncito one oountoci 
moTQ and moru only tho vDic«ii« of i\u» •* luici^Qttt " and 
om{k1<iyoil ver^' ^*ucml ex plana tioiis bk cinlirm the 
now fonnuhw luid wnt^^Iivronls. Things canto tfauB 
Co be decided mora aiul more accordiugtoauthori- 
tiee, which ono ladcod frMjuently first cr^ttcd. The 
council ivaa tlierefore infallihle, only and in so far 
aa it did net te^irh anything else but the *' falliers ". 

Bov JKt 
liiu out 




('hflir» of 

Th(' infjtlliliilitip' wws tlit^ix-foro primurily not a direct 

Ann. S. Augutttinc rocJillocl lo i»intl iho <^pccia1 
uuthurity of llio afHJsUilic irliuim [aW llir Orit'tiUil) 
on tho ([ucBtioit concerning tho «xteiU o( Uio HoJy 
Scriptures. But in tlie Orient this authority vras 
iiicrr^rd )Ti Hint uf ihi.- ctmirK of tb<; eapiUU and 
thon^fon.^ OoTist^UitinopIit movwl to llio fruiit, lieing 
atroTi^ly ultucki'd liy the Ruman bishop. The HoinAii 
diair alonff y^OA alile nut only to |>rea6rve ita uuclvnt 
authority in the OccideJit, but also to bei|^t«Q it 
(only apo^lolic chair in the Occident, Peter and Paul, 
fall of tlh> AVf^l-Koinan empire, the centre for tJie 
n'mnant of Romanism in the West) and (tlianlcA to 
llui favrtrahle divumstancea of pf>Uiica1 am! eroltwi- 
aKtioil bUftory) to fortify the aaiaealao in the Orient, 
uuibrr great fluctuation to be ftun*. To the Honiaji 
hifiliop wa» always attached an authorily peculiar in 
kind, without it» being possible to detoe tlie same 
tnoro cloHoly- It only ceased in the Orient, when 
Orient and OcoidiMit poftsefised ncthinif more what- 
ever in oniHmon, But Ijofore the same became ex- 
tinct tbt> Koman biahop, in league with the eaatem 
R^im'iii einjH-rur, had ^ine<l the point that in the 
Orient attempts at e priraacy of any bishop, espe- 
cially the Alexandrian, should be suppreesed, to 
which suppri'Hi^iontlie Chrisl-Jogical conte**ta contrib- 
uted. The great chairs of the patriarchs in the 
Orient, weAk«i«cl through scLidme, partially deprived 
of tlieir real importancor atood iu theory la equal 


l>oeition3 towanl one aDOtber. Their occupanta al^o 
repreeentof] in tbeir co-opemtionH a kind of ilogmatic 
atithorit>\ which however waa defined neither in 
iUdlf, ucr ill its relation to tJ^e ec»Tiieaical councils 
They form simply a reliquc of futtiquily, 
Fr^m Htalcmf>nt« made it foUow4, that the ftbility 
fcraofimit new revelationa to the Church did not 
ig to the councils; rather aro the same rendered 
[lefcitimate tlirouf^h the preservation of the apostolic 
I legaey. ITi^^rftfope did the d<^hu*ation and adoption 
(of fiov? formulafi (of the '-/"""'"rr'n'^ of the onenoes of 
the trinity, of the two naturee, antl so on) ccusc 
•ucb grwit difficmltiGs, When at hist the Xiceoe 
doctrine guined the victory, itwus accomplished only 
becauiM^ the Nicene creed itaelf had become a piece 
of antiquity and because one endeavoredt poorly 
enough, to deduce from the Kicene all Inter formulas 
by ^viog out (as Iren^us haul once done) aspre- 
acrihcdt togothor with the text, also a dotbiite expo- 
sition of tho Hanic. The nhiHty of the coimcils even 
to explain tho <loctrineB autJjeniically had not beon 
dearly declared in the Orient; therefore the oxcuae 
has only Heldotn been made for the earlier eafitem 
fathers, that at thoir time the dogmn hnd not been 
oxplainod and dofinilely fonnulattxl. Whereas a 
wceteni man (Vincent of Ijeriniirtb) iei his Coni- 
mouitorlum, after having aasertod the criteria of 
tbe true traditjoo {that which has lieen believed 
eveiywhere, ulwax-H and by all), and after having 
warned men aguin«t theheresica of oUierwise ortho> 

iCot Au- 





dox ffttbors, ndmittod an '* organic" progre89 in doo* 
trino (from the more uucerUia to -tho moro certain) 
nnd i>rocUimoi) iUe ooiuicils as agcnte^ in Uii« 
prt)gre*ii {^'excitata hicreticorum novitatihtiir"). 
Auguatino cxpreAdly taught, ilialAO long aA un<H|uiY- 
ocal dedhlonH on a quc^tiou had not been given, the 
bond of union Ix^tween diflH(^riting bi^opfl should bo 
iDAinteJnofl. Tht' R^man bishop hj» ftlwaya acU^l 
acoording to thi» niK I'ut ImH roscrvod for himself 
tlw dociHioviH nnd tho ttnio Fttr ih^ ftaiiu^. 
I The oono«ption of tradili^iti in thorcforo ontirolj 
|vagtj«. The Uierarcliical oK-mcnt doea not pl«y in 
I tJteorif the fifftt part. The apcHtolir Hiioceaaion has 
even in the Occident not been in theory of such great 
importance for the coniirraing of tradition. At Uio 
coimcilrt, since the time they were calleil. the author* 
ity ijf tho hi»ho{i8 ha bearern of tradition wrta ex* 
huuutod. Still, perhaps that \tt paying too niuob. 
l^verythiug was very obscure. But in so far as tli^j 
Oreefcc Church has not changed since Jolin of Damas- 
cus, Uio (Jreek oven at the present time has a per- 
fectly definite conHcioUAnt^fl of tho foundation of 
religion. By tho Hido of tho Holy Scripturos, the 
foundation of religion is tho Church itself, not an llv* 
inf^ power, hut in ita immt>v4ihle ductrincft ami time- 1 
biU]or(<fl oixiers. The Scriptureti alao an* U> W w- 
plaincd according to tradition, tiiit.the tradition is 
primarily always two-foW, — tho public ono of tho 
councik and fathon*. iixtH iht^ »i<!ret ono which con- 
fiimfi the my 0t4>riei«, tboir ritual and lUintorpNrffttion, 



3. The Church. A» guarantee of iLo true faiUi, q^^^ 
and a'immiatratorof the mysteri^, theChurcli abore rJS* 
all came into consideration, Fiirthemiore, men re- 
flcclod about it when Ihey thought of llie Old Testa- 
ment a»d faUe crburch of the Jews, of heresy and the 
orgiuiijratiou of ChrUtJanity, as aLto of the prwiimp- 
llou of the Roman binhop (CUrint aJone la tite head 
of the Churrb). A^in, the Church waa repr^i9ent«d 
in cnt4xiieticat inatnictJon ae tlie communion of tlio 
true faith and virtue, outside of which tJioro could 
not niuiily Im* n winn nncl piouii porwm, and ttto Bfbli- 
cft! declaration reganliug it wna that it wa« the only 
and holy one, guided by tbo Uoly Siiirit^ Catholic 
in opixxdtlon to the numeruus impioim iiniann of the 
heretics. Very evidently men ideatitied tJierel>7 the 
empirical church vrith the Church of the faith anti (^!,VSj 
virtue, witliont, however, cominic to a closer ri'flet- 
tion on rorjiiis rvrwm et jiermt'jttum antl without 
drawing all the cooBciiuertces which th<f identilioatioD 
demanded. In s^^ile of nil this tbe Church wa^ uot ' 
primariiy a dogmatic conception, beloupng to the 
department of thr doctrine of ealvation itself; or it 
became bo oidy wbeu men thought of it as the instl* 
tution of mysteries, from which, moreover, tlio monk 
was permitted to emancipate himself. Through tlie 
rcdtnctions under which the Oreokd viewed the duties 
of the Church and through the mttural tlieoli^', 
id this diaregnrd to be explained. TIte Church i« 
the humau run? es the totality of all individuals who 
nccept salratiot^ The doctrine of aalvtiiiuu cxhawted 

riiLiiyli lit 


iteclf in tho conceptions: Qod, tiiunftDily, Christ, tho 
'^gJ^J* myrfloj'ii'?!, the individtifil. Tbc cotict^ptiaii of th« 
Not^mfti Church as tho mothcT of believers, a^ a diviuo crea* 
tion, as the body of Clirist waa not worked out dog- 
maHcall3\ Tbe m>*6tical doctrino of redemption also 
and the doctrino of the cuchari&t did not aa&ist the 
Church to fi dogmatic position (it in wiuiting, for ex- 
ample^ in John of Danmscus). ItA organization, 
thorough as it is, waa not perff rted beyond the grade 
of hitihopa and wan M^ldom treated dogmatically. The 
Charch ifl not the tx^jucrAt of tlio itpo^ttoH. Init of 
Chriat; thoroforo ite importonoo 00 an institution of 
worship tukue tb© first rank. 
All thi« bVkB reference 10 llio Orieatal Churclh In 
"»!iopii5- tho Occidents, through the Donatist contest, the 
foundation waa laid by the Church for new and rich 
conoeptionB- The Church i1«>elf waa at the end of 
tho oorly period divid<fd into Uiroo groat parts: The 
weetem Churchy the Byzantine, Uii> Bemitic eadtem; 
and tlift tatter wa» cleft into inanifi:ild pflrls. Each 
part CL^n!iidi<reil iti^olf tjie one Catholic Church ami 
extolled lis i>articular palladia. 



Katural theolo^' with all the fatliers waa eAae^n* 
tially the same tbing; but il Rhowa Hhadea acconling 
aB PlaUinifim or ArUlotcUutiiAui predi^niinatcd und ac 


cording to the measure in wliicb tho letter of the 
Bible ejierted an influenod. 



The matu pnucipl«a of Uie doctriDe of Ood, ob Ibo '*™^J5"'^' 
apologietd and aad-gnoelic fathers had catabUtdu^d 
them, remained ilnii and were directed particularly 
ngaiiiBt Manictueiani, but were hanlly touched by the 
<!evelopment of the doctrine of the trinity, since the 
Father as fiZv r^c Ai'/r^r«ff alone camo into considera- 
tion hAT». Tot witli tlie growing Biblicinm and the 
monkuh barluiriiim, anthropomorphic conceptiona 
forced theoibelvea more and more iaU> theology. 
Concerning the question cf man't^ abihty to know 
Qod, Aristotelians (Kunomius, Dicdorus of Tarsus^ 
e»l)eciaUy since the be^nning of the Gth ceDtwry)aDd 
PlatonUts oontondtMl with each otlier, and yet wcro 
fundjim^m tally agreed. That man knows Cic*l only *^n,'i;^^/'"' 
through rcvclaticm, more oxaott3' through Christ, wob 
geiit>ntl]y iiltuwi^l, but to this deolaiatii^u an a rulo 
no further contfequQices were given and menSA* 
cended from tlic world to Goil, making tiso of the 
old proofs tkiii gupplemcutin^ thi^m with tho ontclog- 
iwil arguioGDt (AuguAtino). Neo-Platonic theolo- 
gians a£eume<1 an immoJiate, intuitive perception of 

Qod of the highest onJoTj but they nevertheless per- 




Moml At- 


fected very precisely the Bcholaatic form of this 
knowlodtpa (the Areopagite: Kegation, exaltation, 

Tlio loftiost oxproBsioQ for the being of Ood was 
at» ^ut that 1j« is "iiot-tbe-woild", the spiritual, 
immortal, apathetic Substance (the ^''v), to whidi 
abne real bein^c bebnf;^ (AriBtoteliana thonght of 
causo ftnd i>ur|>i^se', without con*eotiD^c mdically 
tbc Platonic sdiomo). His e:oQdn(>fl9 \s porfoctioii, 
unonviouj^oHi^ itnd cniatin^f wilt (ailtUtiouA tiimlinff 
to a bettiT oonoo|>tion by AugtiBtiuc: Ooil n^ love, 
whith fn.H^ m4*u tnni\ self-Bt^kiii)^). The Htirlbutw 
of Ood wero treated accoi'dingly hia expTesfiioas of 
cftitsajity and power, in which tlie purpose of salvia* 
tion was not taken into account (OriK^n'fl coiice|)ticm 
boTAme toin])on*d, i.e. carreotoil}. By tho sido of tbo 
nuturaliittic conoeption of Ood o^ tho "f^if stood tho 
muralietic one of Kewarder and Judgi^; upon tLia 
also tho idea of re<!cniptioii had hardly any notice- 
able infhience (less than with Ongen), since "re- 
\vnrA " and "^ punishment ^ were treated aa one. Yet 
Augustino rd00gni2al the worthlet»neBfl of s theoU 
ogy which plftcvw Ood only at the b<ig:inning and ttie 
end find nmlcort moo indopondont of him^ inMoad of 
acknou1ctlgi]i^O<Hl ;ts Hiv Power fur good anil the 
Sourccof tlio i>en^^nal, blesaed life. 

The cosmolog}' of the fatherfi maj' be thus stated : 
God, Hiohiui carried in htniseU tlio wur1d< fn^tn 
eternity, hns through the LfOgos, which L-nibrfice» all 
ideas, iu freo a^-deiteriuiuation creutod in nix days 


Oah, K-HL 

out of iicitJiin^ ihis w«r]c), which hnathftil n Iw'arinniag 
iftad wiLI havu an (inc!; it wiut crmtikl aftor the pat- 
tern vf au upper world, which wna hrouf^ht forth by 
biiTi, antl tui8 [I8 culmination iu man (n order to 
provo his own kindness anil to permit crexduice to 
participate iu hj^ hlit^^. In thin thesis the hvuvsiee 
of Origon wore 6«t Oftide (cspocially bis pdiwimium)- 
Stilt mt^n iVu\ not siiccfiod in entirely jtimtifyiii^ 1h« 
vorbal menning of Gen, 1-3, and in tho rcprci^imln- 
Hon of «ii upp<.T worhl (<w«/<wt i^i'ip'^'), whotw inwur 
copy tliD oarthly is, tht^ra rcinitiu<Hl a significant 
piecoof lIiL»N(W-Phitonic-OrigonUlit'ductrino, which 
was then yrcAtly Amplified^ uft*'r the Aret'prigito, by 
tho Plutouiziiig ni>'^ic». But tho pantheiBtac horo* 
wero acaroeiy felt thor^wfter, if only in some 
"waytbe vorbal moaning of Oon> 1-3 seemed to bo 

enrod. The Iheodicy — still always neceesary on TViodioy. 
it of Mamcbfeism and fataliiim — sought to bold 
its ground through empirical considerations, hut 
fiince it too must be natural theology it revcided its 
ancient t-oot in an oft-e^trnnging CAFiuistry mid in 
doubtful clairafl. Men referrod to tlio neceB^tty and 
fitue«a of the fi-eLnU'm of the creature which must 
hare aa a conHequenoe wickednettg and evil, to tho 
harmIe«isneaB of evil for the noul, to the unreality of 
wickedness and to tho value of evil a^ a meanB of 

In r«gard to tho heavenly spirits tho following ^^^,"!J'*' 
]M>lnt« vrnre »et41e«l: Tliat ihey wero treated by Oi^, 
tliat they are five and lack material bodioH, that 


Ih(iy have [>a!^sed through a crisis in which a part 
bnvo fallen, thnt Oo<] xi^e^ the gcKxl K]nnU 48 iti^ru- 
mentK in gov^nifiig tfao wtirltl, that tho oxihU-hoo of 
widcecln«ss in tlio world iit to bo traced )Mu<k to tho 
wicked epirit8> who«i God jiUows to liave ibeir way 
and wbu are lucorrlgible and have almost unllmiiod 
I»ow(?r orer tho world wbirh only the crcwj* can break 
and who are going to receive damnation (against 
Origen), After tlio Uli century, however, liie poly- 
theistic tt^denry became stronger and fttrong^x 
toivard angols and demons, and alre^ady by about 400 
A. i>. tho piety of mouka and U^ntien waa noiiriahed 
more h}- iJieee than byOod. While tho nynoi of 
LitiHliced aUml 3(10 declared angcl-wor»hipto bo jdol- 
oTSSS *^>% ***>1I ^^^ veneration of an^b became more firmly 
cetAblifthed (gtuirdian-angelH> faith in their interce«- 
Alcn) and was en^lesiRstionlly fixed attlieTlhoonncil, 
7g7 (vpo^vyt^ati) , It contributed much towanl thi8» 
that the " ecienttfic *" theology in the form of tho Xeo- 
Flatonic mysticism, after about M.'o; iucrai(f««l tlw 
oetccin giveu to angels, and tliat they wore rcoeivod 
i&to the system as meet important factors (butaee 
alniiidy Uiv Alexandrian theologians) : The angob hi 
gnulcd nudcftarv, on tho one side, the nnfolding of 
the heavenly, on the other, the mediators bct%\-oen 
tho heavenly ^uid ni«u. Tu iheearthly hicmrchy wit3i 
its grad«i», agenciee and cottBecrations, cormponds a 
hoavmly, grailwl hierarcliy witJi bwivenly sacrificee, 
iaterceesionEt, etc. ; in divine worsdiip bo*h unite 
(vjd, tlio ArooivLgit«> and bis expounders). Thua 

HEVELopuRST OF Dommnc oir i?fCARXATK>N. M9 

&TO«e— truly jiFl^r fong prei«iraiion — a now cccle^i' "Ji^'^ 
wtical th<K«ii|iby which wils jniivly [mgiin iiml which '■■*™*^'V' 
ycBA finaUy u aliituj^rfuccil cxpres^iuD for ju^loriDK 
tho iclm nf <'rfyiti(kn nitil n<«1«rm[itiim nni) for rovivinj; 
the funbuftic pimth^^ii^m which tlio ki»irn> tiiooeopby 
iti j)4;ri»hing iui1tr[iitty hiut cre-ali^I : Eveiythrng fliut 
(*xi»tsstiv*»mHout frum 0<m1 in fiiunifold nKliatiotifi 
luid uiudt, since it is remote iiii<i isolated^ h^ purifi 
and returned to God. Tbiti has taken placo in nec- 
essarif praces^s which were no repreaontwl that all 
needs, even the moet barbaric, were token into eon- 
fid<'mtion, and nil nuthorities oud forms n'ero r&* 
8pcc'U*d. But tho HvLng tiod, beeidei) whom thc! soul 
posACSMW Hotliing, tliruatened thereby to disapfear. ' 



Tub common oonviction of the orthodox fathers Di»irtii«or 
may he stated (konewhat na follows: Man, created 
fifter the ima^ of Qod, h a free self-determining 
being. Ho has been endowed wiUi reason, in order 
to decide in favor of the good and to enjoy immortal 
life» Having indulge himself and hLUI ever in- 
dulging hinufelf in sm, misled, or of hia own free 
will, ho has mifiMd tbin destination without, how- 
«Ter, having forfeited the privilo^und power of a 
T{rtiiniij4 life and the t-apfibility of Jmmortidity. 

9^ orTLiNwt OP me histort or dooma- 

Tfarougli tUt> OhrUtian revelation, wliich comei to 
tli4) aid uf Ibo ditrkenet) reason with full kDOvrledge 
of Crod, (hut Ability b»s b^n ntr^ngthened »itd Uw 
imtnortnlitr reetorcd and proSfcrcil. Upon gcKxl or 
0vit tlitToft^rv tijo jitdgniLmt ittvidi^B, Tht- will hws^ 
strictly apt^aking^ no moral quiilit}'. In rogurd U^ 
^t" dulaila t)ierL« vrori? varying opinionH: (I) \\Tmt was 
^H^*^ the original inheritance of nian, and what luBdedti- 

Bation? (2) IIow far doee natui-e go. and where does 

thogift of ffrace b^in? (li) How far-r«a4«iiing nre 
tbo conae<iiicnccfi of nio? (1) Is mere frcc<)om clmr- 
ac-tonstte of tlio boiiig of nuui, or dixm it inhere lu 
bis aatore to bo good? {b) Into what clement^ is 
the banian peraonalitj to be Jix-idtd? («") In wlml 
doee tite Divine likeneaH consist? and so forth. 

The varioim answers are nil eornpromi^ofc; {o) Ito- 
tweon tho rctigioufiBciontific theory (doctrine of OH- 
geu) and Gen. 1-3; (6) betweeu tJie moralinUc luu- 
fiidoratiouH and n regard for the redemption through 
Chriut; (c) between dualiHin and the recognition of 
the body as a neeeasar)' nnd gtxid orRan. 

!, The idea of inborn freodi:tm in«*nti'al; with it 
reason is included. It constiUitea the Divine im- 
age, which therefore n^eana indcpGndencc as regerds 
God. Wliethyr there belongs to the natnre of man 
only the BeneuoueneBS of the creature, t>r whether 
be is endowed with reason and evtm immortality, 
remained in controvemy. However, the controversy 
was quite inimatiTial, eiincA the glorious nattire of 
man waA aft^r all 4>vlh- cooaidered a gift uf grace. 



and thifi gift of grace wa^^ coni^idifret] hv tho majori^ 
a^ natural. Tho beting of man wjlh repre^iited aa 
tricbotomoim, byotliereos iljchutomous. TheGre^k- 
Origotiistic ooucitp^'on of the body qa a prison vob 
fjimlly ufBciolIy ix^jt^c'tiHl— man iw ratber, qv&d turn 
spintufU bcin)^, a mkrooown anil tlie hotly ifi t\hn> 
Owi-jfiveu — but Uw? siuiic uuvt-r ccui^d to bftvo 
lui aft6r*cfrect^ bocAUAo the po^itivo mcmUty was 
nlwayHobligwl to givv way to the negative (aacoti- 
cUm), i.f.t bccutu^KT it rwwivod in tho conception of 
tlio oj^ra sujier^roifutorin an ascetic cAst The 
laUsT Nco-Platoiiic myetcrioBOpbiBts, indcod^ know 
bow to tnoko guoil use of thi? iditi uf the glorificutioti 
of the bodj', but in tnilh the corporeal waa still con- 
sidered by them as something to be '^ absorbed,'' even 
though they no long*?r dared to shake the verbal mean- 
ing of tlie foniuilji of the " resurrection of the body". 

C^ru*ominy the origin of individual souls (the soul 
14 no part of Qod \ but in reality many theosophiste 
after all considered it as such) tho jtrc-t^xiM^nt view 
of ()rigi3n wan expre^ly condemned^ f>63» hut the 
tradiician theory wag not aUe to carry tlie day; 
ratlier did llio creation theory (continued creation 
of individual fuiulj<) horomo dominant, 

Aa regiuds thiT Godlikcnostf, men still eeutiniied 
III the luitiaomy, timl g*>odiii*fl ami purity can be 
tho product only of human freedom; ttiat, however, 
tbo likeness imprinted by crentJon cannot reaido 
in the possibilHas xdrivsque^ but in a defi^mina- 
tion of reason and freedom, and that it has in port 




«iai« in 

233 omLnocfl or the nieroRy op rooirA. 

been lost. AcconliDgly tl]<? cont^^ptiotu nho regard- 
ing the primitive cnndition of man wore aa hazy 
as hy Tren^im. On the one side*, th** perfection of 
man was eaid to have been practically realised at 
the beginning and wan Uitor rratorc^ \>y Cbriat; CD 
the otht^r, tbo primitive condition wn& Baid to bare 
been the cbild-Like stato i>ut of which man had firBt 
to develop himself unio perfection and which he 
therefore in reality could never lose, but only im- 
prove (thud eBpooinlly and emphatically theAntio* 
chiaite). The CnppndociAna stiU taught in the main 
much like Origcu ; but Inter men were forced to bind 
themselvea trtrictly to Genofiis, and the speculative 
conceptions were cultivated aa much as the rational- 
istic onee of the Antiochians. Doubts about the 
primitive condition of man resulted in indefinite f^on• 
ceptiona of aHceticism, which have never hoeii cleared 
up in the Greek Chiu<ch: Some saw in aaceticUm 
the natural con»titutiooat cH>nd!tion of man, others 
(especially the ^Vntiocbians) conceived of it as some- 
thing superterreatria! and superhuman. 

2. It was acknowledtred that the human race aineo 
itAori^fin,, nln(Hs A<h\tn (otpnws rejection in the 
0th contttry of the doetrino of Origon B3 to the 
fall in A pre-txistent stale), has turned away from 
the good (caupe: Not a created sinful power, not 
matter, not the Divinibr, not inheritance of the sin 
of Adam— Adam was for the majorilj' tlie tj^pe, not 
the progenitor of sinnoffl,— but abuw> of freedom by 
reoBon of deiiioinuc Ix^trayal, and transmission of 


buul cunUiutn. Bi*6i(leMf tudt^d^ with the ijjrtjority the 
UDAuMued tbou|;;ht Atil) remained in tlie bac'kgrtJiUKl, 
tbit tli« tnduooment to turn from Ool comes with a 
oertaiu noc^c^ity from the sensuous tiaturo and tlie 
creature intirmitiea of man ; tbst is, from a conjoin* 
ing of the man anA his liability to cltMitti — Im) it nut* 
upa! (the Aii1iochiaii»), or acquircn] iiin,>i]£^h mi&- 
ttikes, or iiilierit«(l> One finds, therefore, i u the »iiiie 
others the contradictory cxpre^ions, that goodni^ss 
19 natural to man and that sin is natural to him)- 
O-enc^ie ami Rom. forceil the Greeks more and 
mortt to givr- to tho fiUl of Adam, again^it their t>]n' 
plricc^mtionalifitic thocry, a world-hi»toric impor- 
tance. But tlie Augusiinian doctrine of hereditary 
Bin they have not accepts during all the cen- 
tttriee; they have even declared it plainly to l>e Mant- 
clm&ism. Therefore, since they were prevented from 
suppiirtinK the OriKi^ntstic doctrine, and ^iiicc tho 
Rihh^ foriiat1i> tho cionKiHgmnit ratioimlUm nf t]i« 
Antiochiat) theolo^^iAna, they rcmaiue<l inv(>Ivcd in 
nothing hut tiucurtaintirA- Ifostof ihein pnK'lhimcd 
universal mortality (hereditary deatli), the darken- 
ing of kDowI(Mlg<> (therefore polytliei^m) ami ft c«^ 
tain weAi:i>niiig of freedom on account oC the Call of 
Adam, onlar^iri^ the hdtiT even to almost complete 
low4 of froTKlom whon thoy lltonght of tho work of 
Cbriwtt but Imrdly mentioning it velicn they vrroto 
agniusl th(> UiinichuMum. But since tlwy nov^r la* 
tended to put iu the plac? of the moral idea of mu 
tlio mlitfioii!^ and ^itieo the pbiloikfphuiiieooa, evil is 

HoULBtu V. 



lU'lUUvl to 

(V Orenlur- 


the ncHi-boiug, uovc^r enlirdy lofl Uieir moinary, and 
ajnco iht^y alwa^'s fi4t tho con6i'H|iK'na-» of HJn nioro 
90VonJy tli;m sin itooU— to whioli c^iimMfVnLtioTi tWir 
ouneojitioii of tbo work of Christ alsM> Icil tlicm — 1lM?y 
vrunj iivvcr ublo lo givv to Uk^ ^iivtt}- of «»in, r\c. tv 
gniitt a flati^fuctor}' L>3cpre»aii>ri : Stu ift n bntl single 
(loetl ; it is UL^ciJ^nt zin<l HguJD futaliiy ; it in tlie con- 
ftoquciiro of the liability to doatli; but it is iiottJio 
drtfulful txiwcr which destroys unioa with Qod. 

Tbo influoTtoo of natiirnl th^ogy (and of the 
mlioDnlisin mid mvAticisni akin to it), prc-omiticnt 
in tho doLlriiio vt Ood and man, upoD tlw fu'tuiil 
dogmatia tivicbiug was fundamt^Dtal: 

(1) Man ifl M tbmugh redemption to that dM* 
tination which he can alao reach hy virtue of hifl 
freedom (danger, thjit of loolcing iipim rexleniption 
merely oa an afleiatanoo) ; 

- {'^) Man, as the imago of God, aa indcpondcnt 
being also as repanls God, can havo no other tela* 
tiona Ici him than as Xo the Creator and Judge; God 
himself i» not hia life, but the law of God is bis rule 
of conduct (tiaiiyt^r, that of looking upon the Gospel 
and salvation as knowledge and law, upon punish- 
ment as the greatest miAfortune, and upon ropont- 
ance as Uie can»Q of pardon) ; 

(:f ) The doctrines al^o ro^^arding Qod, the Redeeo:- 
er, muflt ncedi^ be treated according to th^ rationalte- 
tic srhcme (mtjonality of tbo doctrine of tlie trinity, 
of th€t dtictrinn of the ro*iirroctiori of tbo body, etc.); 

(I) In the lattt uualyKiit man con gathor notlitng 



from history; 1ml to laston-, imieed, beiotiBs the ^*m*^ 
it'ifu^ iv^sa/^xt'^; ths view therefore* Wfts not entirely i^ p"<"< 
jtJcUHl, tiutt there in a standpoint from which th& 
historical Chriat, fliitco bo is Mily ao aasislin^ 
t«acbvr, luui ni> mi>jiuiD^-. Mttn, who ihrou|fh guoe» 
and fiHciHi('if«ni han l>t;^come u moral hero, ^tauilfi free 
by Ihu tiiilo of Ooil ; hi- IOV1-0 Otxl and Qod litvtvi htm ; 
in him vill a Uhmt bo born. The most vital piety 
of tlio Greek fAtlii^nt and the ino^t cnorgi^tii? attempt 
to make themaolves nt home in ptli^ion. havii oven 
been the leiLfit Kaf^f^anl n^inRt their lonin^ th^i 
hietortcal Christ. Still it vrns n cl&nger which ^xtly 
thrvutoticd* Divinity hnsdc^LTncled, Qod hiis Ivcomo 
man hi the historiiMvl Jtvu8; faiili in tliis Immen&o 
fact — "thciicw€«t of all the now, yoss the only now 
fact im<l»?r the inin '' (John of Damiu^euti) — as voll lut 
the mystery and terror of de^ith rei^tricted idi ration- 
alism. Jfoii must lit' ri'iif^etite^d and ham b^en r^.* 



tiW THE 60K OK 0OI>. 

Thk tnoaniatlon of QoA alone bAlanc^I the wIiot« ^vih^ *'^ 
system of natural theolog>\ Hocaosc men believed ouu. 


Theory of 


In itj4 rmlity, thoy nlj^ luw^^rlM ite n^cocMity. Tbey 
i«fi'm"»d it to (l«uth, to the Oominioti of demoQ^. to 
ain nnd error, iin<l not flt^ldtim in this cotin^ticn thfpy 
made, ntg^iriHng the wiokedii«««4 of man, ii«69rtiond 
wbicli rc^M AugiutiDO. Dut whim a ilofinito thoory 
wufl givoti, tho i(li«a of tho abolition of ixTriahabk^nMB 
and of IIk' Ating of dtnith aloDo ht^UI out; for tbo 
doctrine of friTcdom oxctudtxl an lapiation of ^in 
and> ou tlio other Bide* brought hoii»> tho thoufirlit 
\hni h(iHrt'f«*H n'pi^ntanr'o hwfrtw Go<l fnw* from ftin 
(tljiutf f-.f/. AthjiriJu«iuK, do iixMim. VII.). Aft<-r Tro- 
Da'U.i, Atliiinjir«iii^ ^lI'^t |ini|Hjund<Hl n dufitiili? theory 
of tlw incarnation (I. r.). Ho lia^ea it, on the one 
hand, u|>oii the g<»04]no?is of O04], Le.^ upon hi» mlt- 
tiHMTrtion And honor; on tlio other, upon the ro/uic- 
<jucnc<*Hoi i*in, i\e. iKTrinhablonoits. Theso Hie Loffo» 
only i>« uhh* t<i n^movo^ ivho ahw^ originally ci"Oiit<Hj 
ovi>rything out {>f uotbing, Rogardlng tbo mooaa, 
Atluuijutiutt haa rtioourso to aJ) the Biblical coucep- 
tiona (sacrificial dmth, expiation of guilt, etc.) ; but 
bo only carriiu* out Fitrictly tlio tiiought, that in the 
act of incfirnatic»ii it»wlf liee the changing frcmi Uio 
doom of dc^itb to ^^fi/fria, in m> far im the physical 
union of tW humim with the Divine (the dvreUing of 
Qod in tbo flo-^b) ol(^vn1<»t linmanity into the sphere 
of blitfw ^iiid of tho iitfi^^'iifi. The tonsequenc*j of 
the incarnation is. therefore, primarily a tranafcff- 
nuiti^n into llio inijiorishflble (renewal of the Divine 
likeneaiB). but Bocondarily al><o tlie refttoringof the 
knowledge of God, in m> far as the turthly apjiear- 



anoeof Divinity (in Christ) mukeH DiTiiiity recogniz- 
able to the ilullcet evG itnd thereby eaiwlicsUtf poly- 
tbeism. Atliana^iua, in aBserfciiig this double result^ 
was aim ahlo to cxsilain Uio luirticulnr rc«uU of the 
inoamiitiou: Ouly tho«o are btmofitod by it who 
know Ctod luid who re^lato their Uv«fl aixordiug to 
thitf kiiiv\vK<dgi;. Tlu} aj>ot!KH>tii8 of human iiutiirc ^^"x*™ 
(participalicHL in (9od through Bon-ahip) and not 
knowledge wa9 to Athanafiiuft the main point. 
Tlierefore hifi whole concern wa^ iiitli th«^ exact 
d4^tonntning of tb* queetion, how the iJivino whieli 
hio-anio uiAD was ooik^titiiteJ, and into whut con- 
uiKrtionfl with hunxiinity He entered. On the con- 
trary tbo Ariiiiitt and, later, the Anttochianti placed 
tbe principal stress upon the knowlerlgo; they perse- 
vere<l in the rattonaliBtJc Hcheme. On thfit \er^' ac- 
ccxtnt tbey had not in general a derided interest in 
the two questions, and when they bad. they answered 
thorn in another way. It is plain thnt the groat 
dogmatic contentions have their root hcrcm ; ^'ub- 
Kt^uitiul participation in God, or knowledge^ of him 
which afisifttn freedom— Christ tho Divinity^ or the 
intelligent R^^wkpo of thu world and tbe Divine 
Teacher — Christ the inseparable God-man, or tbe 
inspired man and the dual Being. Athanasiiis had 
on his side the highoflt Orook pioty^ his oppooenta 
tbe mure intelligible fomiidfis und> in port, the kttor 
of the Bible. 

No other Oi'eek father has answered the question oSSal.'' 
why God lieuame man so clearly m Athaoaaiuft. **™'* "*"' 

IkMl of 




drarary o* 

lo bonir- 



Next to him conw« the PUtcmiat, Qrepory of Nyaea 
(larieo cat^himu), mi\cQ in general the whole concep- 
tion of doctrine 13 ;)Ofisih1oonly upon thelutAisof PU- 
toDlsm. Gregory ui ei-m^ points BtrongtUened tlw 
deduct ioii.s, in many itistanoea, however, bt^ followed 
Methodius, In contending with Jews and pa^^ann 
lie fihoW8 that tlio intimation is the besl form of 
redemption; he conceive the whole sinful fttate a« 
deathj and givo*, tlierefore, to this conception a widor 
scope (all tiimititf away from Ood to the non-4^iAt- 
eut ttenfiuouEi Ies duath) \ ho viewed tin- inciinititioii an 
Cidly mxx>mp1is]ied flmt in the ret^nrrecdon of Chrli^t 
(t)rJK*>cislic declaration : K<>d4^niptiun pre8iip]>o»vft 
8i>t^amtion froni the body); ho exproAsly taught thjit 
Chritit did not affsumo the nature of an individual 
man, hnt, a^ second Adam, bnman natun^ iti^elf, so 
th^it nccorditig l*> thiw myKtio-Plutonio view, every- 
fhinf/ hum^in I1A.4 blciidinl with tho Diviniijr; h^con-^ 
cei vod of tho w1jo1<^ fttHctly as a i^yaico-phamiacolog' 
it'jil procww: Humanity became thoroughly pone- 
tratc>d hy thu Wvon ot Divinity (Uie countcr-wtigbt 
18 tlie demmid for the ?;|>on1aneouft (uIEillinfc of the 
law); he h]'(>Ti^Tit thr WL^nimi^nti* into tho Hoju^t. r<*- 
hition with tl>e incnmntion. Bnt, finally, ho gave n 
ptkntlieistit; tun^ to ttiiv R^Ttli»itu- and, Ut all rutioual- 
ism. ai^mronlly hostile idea, which deprives it of iU^ 
peculiarity and ia quite in accord with a rationalis- 
tic conf-'option : ChrisV« incamation is an act of 
ronmic importance; it roaches an nK-onciltation and 
restitution over the whole world {rom IIjh bighrid 



AJi^l» doim to Uie deepest dc|Jth8. Xhuit it dis* 

so1y«b, fts wit]) Origcn, into a nocossar; cosmical 

process; it boconioft a special coa^ of tbe gw^rftl 

ornnipnwncA of iha Divinn m rTvation. Tn th^ 

O06D1OS tho alicnatkm from God is »c>t forth in iho 

aatiiv iimiJiitfr jlh llio rt?t»rn Ui Iiim. On*gury luwistvd 

in traaHtiiitting to futurity tbi» p(mthf>i»tit* idea, 

wliicb be liini8olf tadtHxl ui^ver (juito dourly lliought 

out ft> n8 to F^puratc it from iti4 historical conditiotin. 

The pjuitbciatic doctrine of redemption appears in 

aft^r tirnt?^ in ii double form (piuitheistic moiiophy- 

»itcc» tbc Arropngifc and his diaciplcs. otc.) ; EitJier '^J!Vi^^'' 

thu work of Iho liistoriciU Chriiii a])pcari as a Bpecial 

Instanoo, i>, ok a symbol of tlif? gocer&J purifpng 

and sanctifying artivity which the Logos in eommoa 

with tiio ^lulod orders of super-&i?nimoiiit crcature<i, 

nnd at th** snme time for tbem, rontiinially eflFedfl by 

irtfMii>4 <){ holy ngi>ni?i<« — orinstantly witli the thought 

of tho ]ac«miitioii tbc uqiod of tssch individual bool 

with thL* r/>got4 is conccrivod of, iu which there is 

r©pefttwl what oocurrtKi in regard to Oirist. A third 

fomi etiU L8 th« view, that tho liumaniQ^ of Christ 

WBfi a liearenly one, i\e. that the Logos always car- 

riwl humanity within itself. Evon nnconcealed pan- 

th<ti«ni (nAturc n« a wbulo 16 of one «ee>enco with 

Divinity) w«i» not WButiiig. 

But nil tbi£ lay only in the background, while the 
thought that Chrint kiok u]>on himself humiinity an 
gtAienUiy CfjnwiveJ spread iu tbo Ear*! and West, and 
dwtrayod Uio idea of a moral uiiicxi of tbc iJivinity 

^in ACil 


vritii fin iudividual man, from wliicli, of cotirdo, the 
certainty uf our imrticJpatioTi io Qal canaot bo in- 
forn^^l, Thoae who taoglit thU morn! union (Anti- 
oohiantt) ordinarily coniwivcil nKli.'U)|>tii>n, nut aa a 
nx^tiUitioiL, tLiQ ufiCtituiity oCwUicli tbt*^ iliduutexucUy 
fevi, but as a loading up to a new stati?^ as tlie clom of 
thti Divint* piHiuj^jg:}*, Whcruoii the Uiooh>gianK foU 
lowiug Atlianaaiug ami Ui\3^ry always couceivod of | 
tho iucarufttion ss a n«C(*i^8Jiry rei^tittitiOR aiiJ niforred 
it tlu>rof(>ro to Kin nnd di-alli. Aeoordingly tlioy firm* 
ly niuintaiiicil, ho fiir un tXmy won} not muilt<t by pan- 
theitsin, thiU thu iucumation wjia aii hfi^toriual doed 
of (Hifathwimble l>ivin« c\imi«i38ioii, by mcauj» of 
wbicli liiimanity Ims bo«u ro8ton>d to Divi]i«> ltfe> 
Supplement. Mvii attetuptod to fit tbo facte of tbe 
jmiii' Lif* history of Jeaua into tbo work of r^Hlnnntion, whioh 
j^^ ind^Mxl ^afi a buooovh u« rognrtw tbo rcBiurection, but 
uot wholly «o in any other oinglo pomt. Th« death 
on tbe croitB romuintjd hi particular uniatelligihlOf 
although Paidino points of view were continually 
repeated; for by tbo iucAmation erer)thinjc ha^i 
roally been ^ven and death could at the mmi \)o hut 
tho conclusion of the " bccotniug flesh" (tbo aacrifl- 
cial view moreover haa wldom siact) Origen been far- 
ther fertilized according to the echeoie of the Qreek 
mystoriei!). NoverthuIiMt; tbcro can be no doubt 
that death was considered a blisBfu! mvBtery, before 
which one should bow down, and it is after all a 
question whelber the dogmatic reticence here of the 
Greeks ia less worthy in <yintrust with (he bold reckon- 




iog and bargainiug of tfao Occid^raUil thfx>1ogifuiB. 
Tlie liitter mdco TortiJUan and Cyprian bavo over *'^{2£"2 
coDsUltired the e»dummN> of d^vktli a^ a service, the 
valoo of tvhidi i^tiould b» ftppruitiod id jurit^tic formu- 
Lis; tboy have lookcil ujh^d <lc«i(h 9ua Huii^Jadio and 
ptamiio del and ii]f[i!K«d to it the Tiew gaiuod by the 
eont<*iiiplntion of tlio l(!guJ scheme of atooumiiit (abo- 
lition of tiuSeriQg and {^uuiahmcnt for guilt through 
the expiation^ ue. through the merit of Christ's death 
which pncified un angry QoiV Calcidating the value 
to Ood of Christ's <lcatht Ambroeo, AugufitaD<', the 
gr«at popt») . Monx»vtT siiic-o Aiitbi'^rHT tJioy coiu^ist- 
entJy advanced to the iwsumption, that the expiatloD 
(tlio merit) of Christ was made as v»on, ^ince hu- 
iDanity v^ the debtor and t^inco any aerviceB rendered 
cim Im> asrrilMi^l only to the man, wlio, to be iiiiio, 
received bi»t wortbinoaa from bia Divinity, Tbirruby 
the W«at ulietint4.'4 itself from the East: Here la Qod 
who lui8 taken humanity into union with bis being, 
in condeciuotLce of which bis constitntion as Ko- 
doemctr; yonder ih man, the propitiator, whose cndur- 
aace of death ha^ a Divin^j vuliie. But the Weiit, it 
ia tnie, did not {X)««em4A« yet a strict theory. It also 
8tit) Bcccptcd tho gnoetic-eaHtcm conceptions that a 
nuiiK)tn n'Uf< paid U> thv devil, who thereby was do* 



AOd Bob. 





PriDoipfU Murcifv; l^c Church hii(OTiftn» of the ith &ad 
atJi <;enluf icB luid iliu workn of tlio futhen of the 4Ui ocntuiy^ 
Gw-atkin. SttidiH of AriAaiam. 1S&9; HAhler, Athodkdn*. 
laST ; ZnhD. Unrcvlt. . 1867 ; Hahn. DitilmtJipk d, SpntHsk fi. 

I Is tlio DivjDo, which ha» H]>ptvirvtl upon the f?artli 
and reunited man mtU Ood, idoniical with the high- 
©fit divine Being who riales heaven and earth, or is 
the Bame semi-divine? That was the decisive ques- 
tion of the Arian controversy. 

l^—^From ih^ BHjinning of the Conit'overjfi/ untf! 
the Councit o/^tccwi. 

At Anlioch, ^8, the LogOB-doctrine had been car- 
ried tJirongh, hnt the ^'^ttioato^ was rejecte<L Yet the 
It^Acy t>f Puul of Siunofiota did not perieh. Lucicin, 
tho must leornotl i^xcgcto of hia time, took it up and 
(omidcd a popuhir, inUuimtial cxe^etico-tJieological 
school, which for a long time held aloof from the 
Church, but later made ite peace with the ftame, and 
becai&o the foster-mother of Arianimn, Luoinn 
«tnrtod from ndcptionism ; the high v^duo which he 
pluood upon the dcvcli>pjnent of Citriet (trp^itoitij) 
pruviia this. But Lo condoacendwl to introduce the 
hypostatic Logos, still as /."p-i-^rfT/^/j, ,ia created^ 
cupablu and in need of <]evelopm»itf which ia (o be 


ahartilj ^liHlinjirinfdied from the etermil, impeniottal 
I^iOgoA of God. Tlio ego id Christ ia therefore a 
ht*avenJy pre-oxislecit Being (no longer man, as with 
Paitt) — by thift admiaalon Luciau made hia ih-'kl^ 
wtlh the dogma and the Origenhftfl— but hunmu 
qiuilitios were attribute to thfi maniOf the incanjaiion 
became n men? jk88Tiiniiig of tlie fle^h, and by mciiiiB 
of die Aridtot«lifiQ dJak^ctica ftnd Biblioiii ■*x<'^<t^i& 
A iWiriiml pHnoijil^^ was now pmpriiimh-d hi w Inch 
tho utibe^tteu CtviUof (tho "Eternal") wad |]!uced 
hi hharp contract wi1.1i aII crenU*d beiugtt, coiine- 
qucntly also with tlic Ijogtis-Christ, and llief>lo^' 
bop*inn> "technology", that i*, ii doctrine of tlip \m- 
begott4>u and tho b^gottcm vrm worlcDd out in ^yllo* 
giiiniH fottiided upou th(^ hcly L^odox, without goBii* 
ino iiiu*rei;f in th<* thought of ivid<>niptinii, y«t not 
without moml cnci^y, and thi** wn* Kpmul nbro^id 
Ity diw:i[>U'?4 cl^wdy alliwl mid j^roud t>£ liicir dialtH:- 
tics and their vxcget)c»l art. 

To these Ariiis also helooged, who at a ripe age 
becanio di^con aiw] jin^hytor in Alexandria, Thori\ 
Hi tliiit tinn\ a 1o»d<iu'y vfjw rtjpnwjntod in thoopti^- 
copAto which miKtnutod tho t*'*^ip'*~*^ t^^s ' FMi^vta^^ 
^A»wftv( nnd put nAidc the thought of tiiv diffcnmoe 
between Faih<^r and Ivogos. Although Ariu^ hwl 
for soino time conihitf^d Chri»tA>logicid i^rrora alaig 
with his bishop Akjctuider, yet about the j'CfLr 318 
bo began to differ with the lattar. and the bishop 
found it nwwwftry ub^iut Z^d to condemn And dopo6<< 
AriuB and uomo of tho other ctor^y. nt a ayDod hi»]d 






in Aloxandrin, on Aoi'ount of Uiuir Chrtst4jlog}\ 
But lio ?;toppe(l into i\ witep's n««t. T\i& followcrr^ of 
Lumu and above nil tJio iDfluential EuB^bius of 
Nir^yim^lia tix>1c ileeicloilly t1i& part of Ariiii;, and tbe 
ninjority of the Oriental bisljops wero indeod in 
M/mpatliy with hiin (aJw> Euwbiusof CouuBa). Let* 
t«rH were ^vritten on botb mdofi to guin AiwLBtance; 
tf}'noi]a alao were held. Anns was aW^ und^r pro- 
teat to take up a^JQkJ<i work in Alexandria. ^Vh«n 
Cbniitantine. H23, became mier also of the Orient, the 
contest Hprend to all the ooaet pmvincefl of tlie R»«t 
(Th&lia of Ariu8^ derision of Jews one) hcntlicn). 
The etnpcTor nought at fir»t to rticonirilo both particK 
by u Ictt47T delivered by tho court-hiishop, HosiuK, of 
Cordova (thodii^pute innu idto, unbecoming quarrel). 
But the letter hml no effect, and IIoBius, who cbom* 
pioned tbe Tertu II inn -Cyprian docrtrine of tb*> trin- 
ity, probably at tliatvorj' tinio camo to nn ngroonient 
with Alexander. Throngh him t3io emperor a)»o 
waft gained over and tbe Niceno cleclE^lnti preparot] 
for. FollowtufT his advioOi Uouatantiuo called a 
council at Nion;a. 

Alexandor^i4 doi-trino (vid. bis two I^ittcrs and tho 
f'pixt, Arii ad Kus^h.) was, afl a matter of fa^rl, 
v«wntia)ly iOeutiefd ivilh tho later one of AthamiHiuB ; 
but it was u<it clear in tt« formuUtiona. KH|>eciully 
did he hardly raise tho ^/iwiHnoi to a rallyinp-cry, 
dince the same wbh repudiated in tbe Kast llosiua 
probably introchK^ed it a« a transition of the West- 
em uniu:s:tabslarttia€. Alexander*i} formul&B were: 


fo& <>*rtu ^ u!*!^. AJexaoder iiaserted tbe eternal c<hex- 
ist^noe without beginning of llio Father and tlie Sob 
{iutlueiice of IrcDfrus?) Ho inchidcH] tho Son id tlie 
beiug uf the Fwtber h» a neccHsiiry coiiblitUL^itt part; 
itie refuted tbeteneb;, that the Son is not eternal, that 
he waa cnmted out of notbiDg, tbut he ie not f*»att 
Qod, that he chanjirea, that he ha8 paaaed through a, 
moral development and U only adoptoi) Son. He 
consciously contended for the common faith in thd 
Church, for the Divinity of Christ, and \xe rejwted 
aboTo liU tbe dittleclicH iihout "beguttpo" and ""tin- ^{^ 
begottim"' Hi' fjui^tod in furor of hii; vievr tbo Scrip- nt^MwSl 
turu proofs (John I: 1-3; 1: 18; 10: 30; 14: S, 9 ""^ ^^^ 
and 3$; Hath. 3: 17; 11: S7; L John 5: 1; Col. 1: 
la. 16; Rom- 8: SS; Heb. 1: t ieq.: Prov. 8: 30; 
PfiA^a: 7; lia: 3; 35t 10; Uvt.hZi R). Hewasfood 
of using the favorite cxprvKoion of Qrigcn : The Son 
ia th<? porfi^ct n-lk'i'tiou; but wen Ihu foUuwingex- 
pretMsion dot-e not satisfy him: i^ ^»'^ x*H"*^^P^*^^ ^ 
xar^p. He approaches Sabellianism, but de»iree to iP^JSJfl 
reject it strongly, and fLS8i>rt« that the Father id 
nevprth«*WA gra'At^T flmn tJt« Son who Wlonge to 
hia being. He waatD to »[}o tho '^ coming forth " of 
such a Sou revon^l us a mystirry ; It is a question of 
faith, not of sp«^>culation. Still ho often UJ^ee unin- 
telltgible, coiifus<.>d and contradictory expreflBionA, 
ftmonjj vrhich vrtvnx n<trfu^ iti^y^via is out wanting^ 


which nonlrast unfavonibly with tbe plain, dear 
i^enteticeii <jf Ariiia, for whom it w^m an eo^y tisk 
to show that the doctrine of Alexander waw neitlior 
ppotecte*! a^inst <hiaU8jn (two "r'*";'"). iM>r agnin^t 
gnostic eniaiiMtionism (if/)"jS"i<, dtt^pptna)^ nor a^iiiKt 
Sabclliauiaiu (yi-'T-jra^/^), nor agniuHt the repiMfsontu- 
lionof tht^corport^uUty ofGui], and had the oUjirocler- 
jflticTttof achuiD&loon and wn^ Biblically untenable. 

Ariua tatight the following (soc hia own letters 
iind the lettent of his fnonds, the fraffmenU of Uie 
Thalin, the chanu^tcrizntion in Aloxiuider and Atha- 
nasiiis, the writingi^ of tho Int^rr Arians) : 

(I) Tho one Ood, bc4i<li^[4 whom thoro i&aoothor^ 
itt iilunv unbogutU^n, withoitt bi^giiiinng, i^tonial; \w 
h ine-x)iR«s8ibt<> luid inooTTijinihcn^ibk'; furthcnnoro 
ho in tlte C1U10O and creator ui ull tliinijp^. In thirso 
attribuioA conswu* hi» niiture (the unbt^tU^n Qon- 
orator) > His activity in in crvattntf ("to Uigirt" Ia 
only a «yiionym), KTerytbing whioh i*, Imu htcn 
create — not imt of tlie nattiro of <lt>d (olherwiw? hi- 
would nut 1)0 Himple and »<pir!tual}, but out of Uf^ 
own f rtw will. Accordingly ( JxhI h3£ not ajivays boon 
Faliior, cW the creat^^rl wonld t)e<'ternal; the crwitinl 
also can never receive the <>Bsence of Qod; for this 
pnwiflitly Ift uncreated. 

(3) Within thift Ood dwell, na initcparahlo powers^ 
KPdtoGOL WiodoDi and Lo^:o«; tli»t» are beeide many created 

whIiuRoo (^* Before the wc^rlti waa, Ood created out of his 
tt(d Not ^^^ £j^ ^m ^^ in^lependcut Beiiig {"Wf'tf, C'lr^^tw^ic), 


Him trwFiL 



as an instnunent fur tlio prodactJou of tlio otber 
crealun:«» \r\uf nct'ordinj^ to S<Tipture i» called Wis- 
dom, Boij, LikcrR*»i4, Word; Uku idl crL^aturca bo was 
created out of nottiiu)^ iind bad a Ix^i^iiuiuigp There 
tvofl therefore a timn wh«^ tbiH Son wn^ not. H« is 
<inly cnlltHl innppropmtcly "Son"; the other crotl- 
tiirvtf uro ;ib40 c^lbd thuK i>y 8criptuTc< 

(4) This "Son" tJioreforo i«. according to biij ^^ g^ 
leing^ an mdependont magnitude, totally distinct 
from tho " FatliL-r". He ha^ noith^r one being with 
tho Fftlln^r, nor IiW<t f)iiii]]titM of imCnre {olhorwisG 
tbor& ^^'ould bo two Gudra), Rittbi*r hae bo n froo will 
and 1» c»]thbUT of diaii^^iug. But be bun rvM^lvod 
permunontly upon tlio good. Thus by virtue of his 
choice he has become undiangi^ablo, 

{(>) The "Sou", tbon, is not very Qod, and be has 
Divine qualities only as acijuirod und only in part. 
Biwatu^ hft in not Mi>miL], hii^ Icnnwiodge also ia not 
pt-rfoct. To hint, thorcforc^ i« not duo liko honor 
uiUi tho Failier. 

(6) Still h© differs from all croaluree; be is the ^r^^ 
tri^jiit tiitw*t ttirough irhum everytliing baa been *^'^'''"* 
crentei] ; ho stands in im especial relationship of grace 
to G<jd. Tlirough Gocr»» oommunioation and bis own 
progr««^ bo btug beoomo Qod^ so that tre may €<iU 
him ''only begotten Qod^. 

(?) Tbix Son has truly assumed a human body> &«ivui7 
The attributes, which tJie biHtorical Christ mani- ^''^' 
festod, show that the Logos to which they helongod 
is a boing capable of suffering and is not i^erfecl. 

Vtry 0«L 







B4r Spinl; far A* CbntfiM teOvtcs » &nw 
MyvBte aD4 Hthmm *^-*» pw ii<<,, t ); the Holy 
Spfrii «M cnited lhna«h *e 8m 

(19 Sor^terepvooCiCarthHedoetriimwvn: Dmt. 
• ;4;a9: »;Pn>v.S: »; Pk«S: 8; Matii. H: 2ft; 
Hk- Ur »; Math. »^ 41; tfl: IS; Lk. ?r $^; IS: 
\9\ iobBll;»l; 14; »; 17:3; Acta<: »; I. Cor. 
1: t4; 15: t8; Col. 1: 15; PbO. t; t mq,; B^ I: 
4; 3: t\ Jotm U: 77; 13::ei;Uatb. W: 39; 27: 44, 
Vie, ntiil«c4iadlr tbsaopUit AaltrioB nbomall ^ 
feoded thin doctrinal ooooqitiim- W jtb atrict Aiun- 
bm llm trflrliti^m orkminif frntu Pnxil And Lodan had 
mnttt w«^ght; with U>i^ more libotBl party (EnaobiiiB 
of CcMwa) tlw! doctrii»c of tttbordinsHcn »« tiut^i 

AtltiuiJiHlaB* doctrine, in ita dognuUicoecJontific 
clHinoAtion not imptmant, wns groat in its victorious 
porM V4>ninrt> in tlic< faith. It com[nid^ really only 
onetenvt: Ood htmget/ has finterfdinfo human it^f. 
It in root^l wholly in tho tlioaght of rodcraption* 
JiiduiBjn unil fm^atiiiuii havo not brought hack hu- 
manity IdIo communion with (Jod: Only God could 
duify i», i-^M adcipl u« aa hi>* *w»ns. He who dt-ni*?** 
thiit ChriHi U rory Oml. in hlill » Ji-w ur a hmtlion. 
AthjmiifitiA Ikfui in fuel no bngorn Ijojo^^^'^tniio; ho 
isnClirlHtohiKUn. Ih> thinkx only and nlwnys of that 
Chri/tt who U OihI, Ih> iHd not c«rc fi>r it formula; 
OTon tht.^ i[^m"tV4ii'c ia n4>t ho i>fUMi ufu^d hy Uini ns one 
might thlak< Hia tiuiiu princitihtt luv tho fullowing : 


(IJ if Christ U God— and tliat he miiiit be as R&- 
deemer—then he has a^ such nothing creature-tifce in 
bim ami belongs in no seniie to create exiiiteoces. 
Athanasiiifi makes just as atnct a diatinction ho- 
tvreen created and uncreated as Arius> but be seta 
the Sod aside aa belonging to God in opposition to 
the world. 

(2) Since the Divine in Christ is not created, 
it can &]«o not ho postuUitod of the world aud 
the rrejiti<kii of Ua; ivorld; licetidrv^ God m^h no 
modintion for thif cn^iition of tho W(>rld. <vOna&- 
queutlj' the idt-a of tlir Divine, vrluj \um redeeniftsd 
man. Is to h& separati>4l from ti»e idea of the world; 
the old Logoe^docirme was done away wiUi. Nature 
and revelation were no longer coD»idi.-ri^] identical. 
The Logoft'iSoD is tlm principle of salvation, not the 
pHnciplct of tiK» world. 

(3) But sinec Divinity i» a unity (>*»Af) and tlio 
Sou dovK t»ft livlotig to tlio %viir1d, ho rnii;«t Ix'Iuug tu 
this very iinily of Um> unbcgotu-u Power which is the 

(4) The very name "Father'' signifiea that there 
is present in Divinity a second being. God has 
always been Father; h*> who ojilb* him this, mimos 
tile Son niao; for tho Father is Falber of Ibe Bon, 
and not pro|>vrly Father of tho world, for it tins been 
created; imcrt^itted, however, is the Divine triaa, ci- 
isting in itni^. 

(6) Consequently the Son is r/«^^it rwi r«r^wf, be* 
gotten out of the beirg of tiod, as the light from the 


Old Ldcw^ 

rather Im- 


tlO OtTtlJKH OP TUB HIl^ruRV OP |Kh3MA. 


Sim, through an hiner noc«4Hity. He In the Wkan^im 
I^OOeedinK from the divine Being. "To be b«guU 
ton " iiieaoii noUjing else than to have complete par- 
tk-ipation by nature in the whole nature of the 
Father, without the Father thereby sutTering lo9c» in 
iwiy way. 

(fi) Therefore the Arinn nsBertlons are falao; the 
San ift rathor (a) alike et^MTial witJi f.lift FftthiT, (ft) 
out of the bL'ing of tlu^ Futhur, {cj in nW ptrbi na to 
nature otjually etidowetl witli the Father, and be it» 
all thi8 bectmse he has one ^fi(i the same essenc*' 
with the Father and /firms triih him a .stncf unitff 
— " essence", howover, in Teg.^*d to Ood ni^juis noth- 
ing else than "being". It irt not true that the 
Father is one BeiDg iu bimttelf ami the Son iuiotbt>i 
in liiuuielf, imd that the€to two huvo like c)uaUt30«— 
Hint would annul the unity f.'( (he Divudly, tait Uk* 
Father is the Divinity; this Divinity, however, con- 
taitiA within iliel/ as setf-miHldent and tu<lf-ef1iciont 
product a "griir^ forth" which also pts-soss^wl from 
et^miity, flnd not 1>y virtue of a <^(km!iuiiiit'a1ion, the 
«nmv divine [uduro — the true Son, the likcnoM^ pro> 
<.-<?(Hling from the divine Being. Fatlier »rd Son cu^ 
one Being, which includes in itself the dintinotion 
between ^px^ and fivv^fta, couseciuentiy between prin- 
ciple and derivation and, in thin sense, a KubordJ- 
mition, which however hm uothinj< to do with the 
K«d)orflinntioin of tho crAatefl — tliia ia the nioAntng of 
tho 'J/w'^'Winv in AthaaofLiufl. 

(7) All creature-(jiia1itieo whidi tbe Scriptures 


ascribe to Jc«ud C1iri»1 have rofirreace tcei-ely to hi;* 
human naturi', Thu onillatkiii alwi rt'few to tlu' 
same; i.e. to our exaltutiou: for the unioa tir tlw. 
Qod-Logo6 with Viumio) natiiro was from thu Ufgiu- 
DiDga »iuli^tatit]Hl fijid perfect ono (Moryod ^tf<r?o2av) : 
The body becani*? his body. Proverbs «: ^2 fl<?g, 
alBO has refer^ce to the lDcaniBt4» Logoo. 



Moth <loctrin<s nro furmalljr in UiU rc«p4>ot nllhB, Uiot In 
Ukcm Ttfllf[lmi nnd ihiHiUi^y Jirc miHt latlinnu>ly mloj^liHl luid 
inxmnib.i) ii]H>u tliti Lu^;u»-dLictrlmv Uut ArlnQlsm Ia a utiiuii 
of aiJ(j[jllojjUni wHIi tttrOrl^'QUltc-NvD riuujDic ilocU'iiii*of 
ttia AubonlliiAli^ Lugun whk'h iii llw BpirltuaJ |>rlDci|iU< uf lh« 
wurld. CHiri<>J out bj mr^u:i ft tlir n?Aiiurc<« of iliv ArUlo- 
lellnn dialectics, the orthixlos doctTinv U a uikWu tif tlii.' nl< 
moiit luodoJJMic&ll}^ colonxl d^igiuu. tltat Jnua <;iirl»t i« CKiO 
in ktad. vitlL tlw Orij|;enidtic Ooctriue of Um Lo|p]|i iw tJio 
|iCTfccl llhicncBa of Uir PutJicT' In tbc fcnucr, tlif* priiict|icU 
•trcM won plnood upoii the co«mo1<ig^icnl qdiI ralionAl'rlhiciJ 
aldct {tlciwcDdiDg tfitiiEj:. cnligliCc^mbg cwd 4tT<T!ifilliriiiii|; of 
fraodom) ; ID ihf- latter, upcjti 1J113 thought of n^di^iujiti ad. but 
iKuW A (khysioul niDwptioii. Id the foriDcr, Uto fnriiiuhu 
' AM ttppnnnjtly ftve front conniinnoo rmd r?aDtroiHotioiiA ; Ikiit 
tlio iipopul&tUi» iii>-tholoi^. iitriciljr vitwvLL ia oa ImuI m (hm- 
aiU»^ furthcrmarv. cknly aa ooAmolof-iAEuiArQ the Ariuufi mono 
tli«Uta ; tts iJiiralogians and in rrligioc thoy a» polyclivlKlc , 
finally in Ui« baclfi^rmind li<^ deep contlltdicticir:.) : A H*.d \r\io 
ifl 110 Sod. a Logos which i« no LogoMn ft TOonotJieitn whaoh *^iUlJ?*|ir" 
dout not ffselmli* polylliflbtm. Iwi* or thrm* w*^ iirlu> atp to be A^*"^*""!* 
Adoml. whil4> trcitljr only nnr diffrrm from the f-rM|ur«M. tm 
Sodu(!aAb1o b^in^ who only bi^ytiiiM Ood &n btHxtorioif mvii, 
and vho u nebtbur Ood nor puan. BmI^Im. thvrv vriui no vig* 
oro%u rvli^oui intprmt. and also 1113 rval philOHOphic-al intar* 
eit, much nioro wm evi<rythlD|f hollow and funuahntic. vtvn 


a puerile milhiistiiuin fur opurtiug with HutkIoi ttnd vWUiuicI 
A diil<ISfili ■H4r-«ul11t'it!Dcy id sotting tit ^<>rk nnmoAJiing liyl' 
lu^isnia. Tlip cipiKimsitei M-f'n< cjuittr riglit : TliiflilootntiP Ir^iU 
bock U> jMguuiimi^ A relative rnlut.- only in dur to it. wIlob, 
cuiuiQ^ iu cuDtait'l with luic'ultEinx! und litu-bArian ruLtionR, it 
wtu obU^d to strip off it3i]ihiUari[rikirjU giiniip-ntu jld(1 in Uint 
way vrask abh' U* pnw lUn-lt off nwntiolly ua lulojttiotiUm, as 
thi- ^cnrTOtion of rhn*t by tlw* hiiIp of OvmI lut^ni ni»T«i Bib- 

Orthcdirdc Itcjil piuvagni (Grnimn jidciplianiiimk . ThcrortJKiilo:^ <loCTlrin«>. 

VaUi« uid on tlic fontnirvH pc mw i t o it* Inrtiiig Tnitro thnnjiili it* main- 
UrnuDiHM^ thQf&ith Lhftt in Chniit Gnl hlmnn^f him nx]<-<'niiH[ 
fiiiinltitidaDdbniiiglit un iutu commumuiiL witJi luTii>r[f. Bnt. 
Hiaiw the tj(>d in Christ wru* conueivud uji "alter <V" ^ "^ tlw 
Fiitlu*r. And MintM* redi^iiplion waBconceirtJ in a inyHtico- 
phjucal fcwm, ibi-w teBuJt*d, 

Ita gfl lfr L Kurmulvi* the direct ^iceiu^lng of vrbich b i>TiJt-iit 

FijnuiilttH. (oic^ — thTEie} , oQd Idea^* nhieli l>o ronoeiv«d. but tinly 
jutH^rtixl Id worda. Thcret>y in Uw pLa<.<i' uf Ui« kn&triedge of 
Uoii which Ctirlst had promLsod. was put a mysteiy. and Lhia 
wait toticn?cogui2iedn« tJiD moet profound knowledge. IJy the 
ft[d» of the miracle, as cliaractcrlsUc of retlgioo, voa placed 
thi^ Tnlrncle of ideas as cJiaracterlBlic of the tnio theology ; 

3. TlioMserilon that th? renoii Id dirlet La the Lo^oe, OD9 
beiii^ ivlUi ihHj. t.-i)tjld Iri* luaioiatEwd only when on« ruwraed 
the hiterpretatltiUMi'f a1) ^vauKclical rv|wri0vi>EiurmhLfl; lilm, 
and uaderutood hU hi«t<iry doc^tLcally, TJiet^ff^n^. Ihr iu- 
Iruduoliuu of Lho atnurd, uud tiii* iLUutiJIouuti^^ut i'f Lhtr hiHlor- 
iLttl OiTLfet ill h\» muaL taIujiIi'Iv Iriit*. is tlie v\iiJ«i<i[ui:Tjiw of 
tlie urlhodoA dtx'lrluv. But tlw ctatttj tliut Jt^uit t.^hri»t haft 
l«] mva buck iu Oud. lud |j;ivt-n tu thpi» Ditiiit^ lifv*. waa 
>tiU uuftinUinnt. TUiv cuuviclitia of f&itJi vr«a onvird by 
Atluutaaiufia^iiiffl ftdpcb-iQi> vhich. upon the whole, did not 
apprKiiato tlio inwjird uAtuir of religion, wlilcli nought in 
retiglcm mily itiMruct^oa. ood fliuJIy found Mbtiofttotion in 
an eiii^>ty dlalwctici. 



It m riuj U> nnif tlint with AnuK, im wdl ns wilh AUuuui 
»taK,tiioccpntiiulli^iioniifU]cl n-ciLkm^APH How f ixim Uiv n-HVptiom 
«f OrlgeoiUm, thnt U, frxmi chi? Krlnntiflc thtot<)gy^ Withfiut 
thbi, tlint l«> wlthoLit (hi' iloctrinr* '^t l\w prc-eitHtcnt, hypo- 
sUtlcml Logo*, ArlaDiHni would linvc btr^i juloptlciDltm, or 
puro ntlooalUtn, oiid AthnQn«lu:i wpglil harr hvon TotixkI 
dUurr to turn to iiHxIntinia, or to relinquish tlio lOcv of Uic 
Diviav *" taaum " of C'LrJit. 

At the synod of XIca3a (335) Uio homouaios 
(Hosius) fiiuUly c^onquon^d, thanks to the awkward 
tactics of the Arianfi and KuBobJatis (Origeninlic 
middle part}'), to tlio dwiaiv&neas of the L>rtlioikix 
and to tho determination of the emperor. Int^ tha 
Caceareau creod tho watch-worde /■**v*j^'>^a "-j rr-ti^-v/t- 

Berted, the Arian fummlas expres&Iy condemned, and 
this creed was made the hivr of the Church- Almost 
all the bisho|B (300? 318?) eubmitted, Arius luid a 
few companions wore excx)mmunioated and their fol- 
lowers persecuted. AthitnHsiUB attended this sj'nod 
OB deacon, probably not without taking lui important 

t. — UntH the Death of Con^tantins, 

Thi:^ victory hnd hix*n gaiutMl too quickly. Neither 
formally, nor eMcntially had it been suflfioriitly 
worked out, therefore tho contest had reeiUy only 
begun. Men saw in the honioit^io^ an utihiblicnl, 
new formula, the makinp of two Gods, or th(» inlro- 
duction of Sabellianism, and, iu addition, the death 





of cloar ecionco- Among lli^^oppoDOtitx^vlio together 
oatno rorwnn) iis cotidorvativt-^ two parttos now be- 
CHmo olonrly pmmiiiont, tho ArinnK ati'l the Origon- 
wtt% (KunoUiuiin) to whom tlio imlifft rents joincO 
tliL'tiiw^lvort. Biti iluay wtJTV utiik«l in tho cuDtobt 
Agninst ortJjoilaxy (pnticipal cbompion agninst it 
waa Eiii4obittH of Nicoiuctlia). 

CotuJtiuitinti soon imdtTslood that he would have 
to come to fui a|^*onicnt with tiiu anti-yieeno roaJi- 
tion, which nftor 3'^H WH^iinto nnti-Athotiai^iiiTi, for 
the young bieliop vewi tin* mont decided Xiccno, 
Ft^nuniil dlfrvmia^H urucio at u liino \rht*n Ihi* nmhi* 
tion ntjil power of tho eocliMiui»ti»4 could tinalljr 
rtx^kou upon the higlimt gratJficaUcai. In 3Hfi Atha- 
tmaiUH waa declaretl deposed at TyvQ. and in ^^6 be 
was Imnit^hed by the em|)oi"or to Trier. Tlie 8oloron 
rocoptiou of ArtUB into the Church wvia frustratcil by 
his death- In 337 Cunatanliuo died, rtfilly approv- 
ing the pmnntlgfititig, undor thu coror of the Nicono 
crood, of hostile doctrines. 

Hit* sona divided i\w onjpire, Athana-^iu» (137) 
roluniofl. Hut CoiwtmitiUB, the ruler of the EjlsI. 
rightly utulerstood tliiil he could not govern with 
orthodoxy, aad lio did uot feel hinisolf bound, like 
bis father, to the Nic\mc i^rvvtl. Ho dcposod tho 
orthtrdooc hi&hop of the cupital; ICusebiuH of Nia> 
niinlia tixik hitt place. In QcsFurea an Arian, AcaeiuA, 
Mucotfoded KiiscbiuR; AthanAsius was de|>o»od, hut 
hft autkpi|iatiH) hiM Itfinifthmcnt liy Flight U^ Roin^ 
(31^0], iMLving Egypt iu wild diaordor. Tho Kuho- 


binns werenot mogtora of tbo situation, but the West 
iras true Niccne und tho strotif^hoM of OriontAl ortlio* 
Joxy. The Eiu^ebian:^ did nyt wwli to bre»k with 
the West J they vrero, thureforc obliged to tiy to 
quiotly push asido the Nic«no croed, replacing in 
nifire pretence tbo homoiis^ioa by better Biblical 
formuhui nDil dcmancUug tlio ciLrrj'iiig out uf thu do- 
poAitlon of Athanttsitu^. It was of grctut advantage 
to the Orientals that a strict Niocno and u (ricmd of 
Athait&Rius, Marcellud of Anc>Ta, did not sanction 
iba rommon foundation of t))f* t«uobin^, tb^ philo- 
tiophiciiI-Origoalstic Logos- doctrino, but docOnrod tho 
LfO^oB to tie the Powur of Ood, which only at the in- 
carnation had Ijecomc divino Fimvoq nod "Sjn", fo 
wder to rehini lo the Father when ont.*e bo bad fin- 
ished liis woric (tlio Orientals saw in this doctrine 
"SabelLinnihin ''). Julius of Romt^ and Athanaaius 
d«chuvd Man^llua to be orthodox, and proved thei^ 
by that they woro ooooorned edoQo about redemptive 
faith and laid aside the fonnuhis set up by tbo 
(Jriontalb at jVntioch (341). ultb'iugb Ibe lattor now 
fwin^illy renounced Arianbun and coitablijihed a doc- 
trine which t'outd be taken for Nioene. 

Politioal rmsons coaipeUocl Coiifit-witiiis to ba obljg- *a^i^ 
ing to hie orthodox brotht^r^ CVnstaniKf tlio ruler of 
the Wottt, The great council of SaivUca (3J3) waa 
tnteodetl to restore uni^ of faith in the empire^ 
Uut the Occidentals refused the prolimiDary demand 
of tlio Orientab u> acfcnowledj^* the ilejjoflition of 
Alhanasius ami Manjellus, and prochiimed after tbo 

SW ovTUMm$ or thb sivroBT ctw mmhu- 


ciddm of tbD Orkotib <to Fhilippopolii^ tlw doporf- 
tlon of Ittf hadan, tnlcinfj: tbvjr fnsitton r^^y oixb 
ihe boiiift o( 1h0 Nk-wnB crr^, Hm ofipments reit- 
ArmtMl Um lih Autlocbum funnula. Cocwtantius 
bimwrU Miiin to bav« mktmvlod lli«ia for & time; 
h«cvrul[>Iy feared to Imbiteblf brotlier wfaowaseo- 
dwvoriittE togaiii tin- naproinacy. Tlio Orientals re- 
IteratMl onca mure in a Iodj{ fonuuU tbeir orthodoxy 
(Ajiliocb, 344) an<l tbo minimum of tboir demands. 
AUh'>4iKt) Uw Wrai At thp Milnn nynod^ (^fi-SIT) 
rcjtficUMt Uio doctrltw of I^Jiotinae of Birmiom, who 
ftimi Umi ibxTtrino of liirt muMtc^r, AfarciunaA, had do< 
toIojmmI u utrictly lulo^itian couoeplioii (th« Logos 
nowr boouno a iKintoTi), it yot nnnuinod utherwiae 
6niit whilo in tbo Ea^tt political IfislmpB abeady 
moditutod iM^aco with Athanm^im. The htttor troA 
rwtorod by Conrntantiim, who wh^ hnrd prcBst^ by 
iho Porviiaiui, und Iw ynm gm?«t€tl with groat rojoic- 
ingv in AbiiiDdriH (34U). AUiut 348 it appourcH) us 
if oniiodoxy Imd oonquorud; ouly MarceUu^ and the 
mn'tt fht'*"'*ft»\- hoohkkI «till to (five offi^uco. 

But tluT death of Conatana (330) and the defeat of 
the lumnxtr Miit^nt^ntiuH (:tfi3) changed ereo'lliing. 
It OoiiHtantius during tht^ IahI years vmaobligod to 
luiw Iwroru a f«w biahojM, liio o^vc mibjecte, whu 
had niled Iuh brot3ior, he now na &o1e ruler was de- 
t<TniiiiiHl t** govern tlK> Church and pay back tbo 
hiitnilintlons. Alroaily \n 361 (^) Slnnian aynod) 
i||^ OrieiitAl bifttioi^ lu«d a^tumo^I toaotioa. At the 
i^wU of Arloi (Sft3) and Milan (356) th« WiMt^ru 


episcopate was obligtKl to come to tonn»- At first 
notliiug further wiut demfui<Ioil of it than tho (xm* 
demnatioQ of Athanasiue. but this meunt a direr* 
genodon th« qiieetion of fuith, and the bisbofr; Al- 
lowed it to bo forced upon thvui (a fow oxooptione: 
PauliDUs of Trier, Lucifer of CagUari, Eusebius of 
Veroelli; abio Hoi^iiis, Liberius, IIilariu» Imil xo go 
int06xi)«)> AtbaDa^iufi antieipnt*d hisdeposiliou by 
flight into Che desert (35(1). Union ^^eemed rentored^ 
but it wad afl ntata (>oc)^iaHticifan, against which 
orthodox Weetera bUhopa fiercijly inveigh^, now 
only remeinbcriiig tbat emperor attd state should 
not meddle with religion. 

The lutioti of the rictors was only a seemiog one, 
for it became apparent that it did not go beyond 
negationA, Strict a^grec^eive ArianiFm again came 
forward in A^tius arid RimomuiH nnd wanted to 
carry through the "anomoian " doctrine (rti«;/in*»ff »al 
MM Kdwrami MAtoi}ai^f), In Opposition lo thie* tH^mi* 
Arianiiftm phicvd Itself in i4harp contract (tbi* *'un^ 
changeable lifcene6»'\ o^wm* t^t'^t 7:firTa ta: lar-i r^> t>r'f^ 
««^), These hcsooiusians (Oeorgios of Laodicea, 
Eustathius of Bebaste. Kuaebiua of Emem, Basiiiua 
of Ancyn») haij loamed that the Son must be, aa to 
being, of tike ^s^tcnce with the Father ^ as acientiBc 
men (co^mt^lu^ianti) tliuy did nut wi^h to ahandoD 
the oodmic potentiality of tiie Logoaand the deacend- 
ing trinity. They understood how, with the 8crJp- 
tiirea as a biisia ami in tNnnu^etion wiUi Cbri*itology, 

t4j Ao formtilat*.') their ductrini* timi it made un im- 




BmIIIiu of 





preeftion evwi upon Nicene Occidentaltt. wbo, to be 
8urf», wero «till Imlf uHoU in flcic^titic theology. Th^ 
third pnrty vraa Uint of tbc politicinntK %rho Hpplaudtxl 
thiit foruiulu which Liud tliu ImtsI pruBpuct uf settling 
ttwj TOnte«t (UreaciuB fjid Va]«nfi: ^jwros wta t^s 
j-^/tf^c). The period from 357-301 is the time during 
wliioh the emperor, openly dropping the Nicene 
ci'eod, sought for a diristologi<^al imperial formula, 
and propoeod ^vith all eaorgy to osirry it through at 
the Bynodfl> Here, Oually, only the *'^-pt>t"i *«T*i th^ 
Ypft^'h " could be pxeaented ; for with tliie unmeaning 
formula, the Arian», wmi-Arians and even the ortho- 
dox could mak^ friends, nine© it directly contra- 
dicted no doctrine. Thcj Siimian aynoda had not as 
jret aecompliahf^d what tliey ought, and they even 
efaowod a |>a«aing tondencj' to strirt Aiianiem, At 
Aacyra (358) the semi-Ariaiiti rallied iwiwer fully. 
Twofrr^at contempomnwufi sniods in tlie Kastimd 
Weet (at Selencia and Rimini) were expected lo pro- 
cUim tlie ^th Simiian fonnula, a dogmatico-poUtical 
maat^rjiioce of the eni|ieroi\ But when the one ae- 
sumod a homoiuBian, ths other an orthodox attitude, 
tl]«j W€FO torroriswd, kept in euapouse, and the bo- 
moiutdan imperial crued was forced upon them in 
cccchnnge for concurronco in the expiUflion of strict 
Ariani^m (synods at Nice and Oonstantiuople 360], 
Aftf^iwani all honioiiif^inns n-ere nererthelefis ban- 
ihIiimI frmm iho >nflu€*Titial ivKtitiona, so that, in Bpita 
of tlie expulsion of Aetiusr an Arianiam, modei^ted 


through want of priDciple, Actually establishes! iUielf 
ill the Church a8 tlic 8tatc rdigion. 


3.— LX/7 the Co\tt4eilsat Cottstcntitiople^ 381, 583. 

In tJw }'Our '^U CoDstantiu8 dlod< Julian «uc- ^^^ 
ct*o<l«d hii», mid iic<<orrIii]glv, ii»t(«ul of tbo arlificial jni'tlD^eib- 
union, Uio ixtiil parties j^ucnwd^^d ngiun to tboir righte. 
But tbo lioiDoiufiiiuig worn no longor tbo *' middle 
party*", no longTP tlio '^PODwetni'ntives'' in th« old 
sooso; for in opposition to ArinniiMii, thoy had i]o«p- 
otuMl anil tttn-ngtbvtwd th^^ir dix-lritjo (cunscrvtitiro^ 
pceseed elatitidty). Con»cri'aUvo »mil conciliatory 
were the komoimis vbo inclinod tcwiinl Arian- 
ism. Here th» change in th<> Orient-— tit first, in* 
deed, only in tbc minds of th*) mtmi prominent theo* 
logians — is shoxm. 77io /iomoiWi<i»Ai tlii^eipW of 
Origont distinguished nliko for occlc«imticfd fcoling, 
ascciicijiin ami parts Mrrrncv, t-upituhited to the 
homousios^ im aUiunco vrhich HiUinii:» zealously 
lu'ged forward. 

Julian permitted the bini^od bishops, thereforo 
alwi Athnnasius, to letum, Tho »;3mod of Alexandria 
(363) marks tho tnmii^-point in 9o far aa Atlia- 
tia^Iufi there admitted that tho Xlccno creed suns 
phrase should be valid; that is, Iw? oxpreesly re- 
nounced the phrase '^one being" {one hypoetaEua) 
and thuf* allowed such an interpretation of tho 
4>i*iwmo^ as made it '*one essence" (instead of "one 





S60 ouTLiSBs oy tiik Hj3T*>nr or fkkiua. 

fceiBfl"). which canHtitutel Uiereforfl three hypoftti- 
see. But thU couceedtoD ainl the great louieuoy 
toward those who oace haii eiguod the 4th Sirmian 
fonnula provcbed the Uispleiwuro of ^me of the 
Lwirvf. promiDent OccidentaUi (Lucifer) ami martyrs of ihe 
faith. la the West one felt that the old doctrine 
(the Btibstjuittal unity of tlie Deity in the rock and 
thflplup;\lity it* the myflt*^ry) had boi>ii invi^rlixl (iho 
trinity of tho divjno Porftorin In the* nick ami the 
uiiily itt thv probluia), and Athanadiui* hiiiiM'U was 
Di>t able to add real friaids to his new scicntiflc 
friivids in Ai<hi Minor, Capi^ivlocia and Antiixrh ; for 
now the ecii.'uoo of OrigGu had btt^o ri\«'ia*d for ortho* 
^fu^*^ doxy. The greet thtulo^ans, ApoUiuarir^ ^f Lfuxliom 
^^^iii« nnd tlu» thrdo Cuppadociaiu*, startod from Origi^n und 
pidnriMW ^\iQ 'ipkinvri^tat \ b«t tlicy nocogiuttwl tjic <'/*vouatfft n<nv 
and wcroftWi? t4* I'-nry on xIk'U philcj^t^phical itpouu- 
lattouH with it and hy the !^id<^ of ii; for one could 
say that tliero are throe hyi>i is tastes, and iitill be ortho- 
dox- By creating a firm tormiiioIo><y, thoy buc- 
oeecUvl at the stmu^ timi> iti [imdiu-inj; ap^vin'Titly 
oloar formuW^ O^t/tifi now rcooiviyt tht.^ middle Mcrntw 
between thct abalract idea of ^'bein^c'' aud th& <-(>»- 
cr^ idea of "individual Iwlng"; so, however, that 
il very strorgty inclinod to the former. TvAat^utf re- 
odived tlu* middle sense betwiv^n pciir^on aiid attri- 
bute (accident, i.e. modality), in 8uch avray* how- 
iWiitt tluil tho. con^i^ption <*f j>ei«<Mi waa tho i*lnjngf»r. 
//yvfftfip^^n-, 0lnee il BomidM SjLbtdli;Aii like, was 
avoidcdf but not i-cjocteJ. The unity uf tho Deity, 


which the C'appailoeiAtiH woi* coocemed about, waa 
&r»1 tho Rame aH AttiAika^iiis and the- O^viilentaU liftd 

fomiiLla. Til f>nWr ti> ruiuK-r cUuir tlu^ nwl difT^-retico 
in the Persons within tJio unity of tJi<* Boity, Oreg- 
ory of Nywa addod to them rpotot f'xapiioM^ (f^^ir^wt 

jf«t/*a<r^y'E'r''CJtf<vr, iSatftrti tStCa-iam)^ find ind<wl tO Iho 

Fnllwr fho ff/f-^ffta (jiot n* Ix^in^, hut ftn nirxle t>f 
botng ["/^T'.'l of tho FiitUor), to tlK*So4i Ow* r'^-^-trt — 
mrcn thoohlc-r bonioiti^bLiirt IiaiI \x^m licro more re* 
ftorv(?d than Grfgorj' — auO lo tho Spirit ''T«/»r(iOTf» 
The? OriiceniHtir-Neo- Platonic trinit>--Bpoculft(i..m b<v ort(j»!iao 
came rebabilitated. Tbo I^gos idea i^aiu come to n^S^j 
the froDt. T\\e unity of the T^eity was again proved 
from the monarchy of the Falhw, imt irtym tho i'pjt- 
t»y*f»tf. Thua "flcionco" formod its ullianco with th^ 
Niceue-doctrme, Whilo in tht- licginrntig wicritists 
—also among the heathen — uckiiovrk-dgiHl Artu^ to 
be in the rifc^t, now men became champions of the 
Ktcene doctrinB, to whom eren a Lihaniu^ extended 
the palm branch. They stood upon the soil of a 
•cientific oontempUtion of th4> world, w^ere in ac- 
eord with Platot Origcn nnd Libannis, and rvifutud 
EunomiUH amhlEt Uiu iipplauw uf tlw pbihjui^iherv. 
At the fiame time it \vas a victory of Noo-1'latonism 
ovor Arislotpliaii di alert ics. Thus orthodosy in 
union with science had from about 370-301 a beauti- 
ful ftpring-time, followed, however, by d<?structivo 
■iorma, or, rath«r, by tho blight of traditioDaliam, 
Hen dreamed the dream of an otemal union between 





tailh AHti Kcicuc'a. True, it whs not unilisturbed. 
Till- lilil-fuiUi orUioiloxy in tlio Occidi*iit and in An- 
tioob remained dietriwtful, oven n.^peHent- In Anti- 
och a kind of Bcbism broke out between the old and 
thenew BcientiBo ortbodoxy. Th« latter conaidi>i-ed 
tho former Sabetlian, altbougb it could hardly shake 
iifT iht} j^uftpidon uf Upiichitig " homoiuHi^in"* 

But nt>i only diil 6ci<;iice pn*pare Uae victory for 
tbo hotnutiBtoH^ tbe couTMe of the world's eventfl did 
IK) as vrell. In V'alena the Orient obtained a power- 
ful AriRti emjieror. The Cirth<Mlo« am] homaiu- 
Bions bed to go into exile, and tliv>y drow nearer U' 
each other. Thi.*y again Hought support from tlae 
ortbodox W'iiei, Libcrfus of Ilome waa not dltfin- 
cUned, ajid Bosiliiw of Cjeaarea wjia after 370 in vig- 
orous activity. Yt.*t Damaseu!* of !i<ime retmnetl lo 
tlio i>hl barnli standj^iiinl, and it tuhhU^I steverHl 
vynodu (in tho itoventuv) to eotivint*o blm of tbo 
orthodoxy of tbe new t>Ttbodox Oriejitala, The^e a! 
]a«t si^ed (at Antiixb :i7'j) the formuLi^ of faith of 
DamnscuB. without, however, bdng ablo to aetUe the 
Hchiwn in Antiocb. But the subtMrription was already 
It 8iH|Uc-nco of the worhl-biiitorical events that in the 
y*"*ir .1:5 in Uio \Wst the youthful flratian, wholly 
d(TVt>t<ti U} tin? Cburoh aud ortUodojty (Daruo^cus, 
Ainljnje^i') KiicrAi'dud the U>lorant Valenliniau, and 
after 378 bccanio ftole ruler {Valeus died at Adri- 
anoplo conUmding agaimRt tbo Uoths), In the year 
379 the orthodox yi>aniard Theodosins yva» elevated 
to ho oo-rcffcnt nnd 4Mn|)eror of tbe Orient. He was 


clotormtnod to govern the Church Hko ConatJintius, 
but ill Uiv t»cii!^vi i^i fttrici Occidoritnl ortliodoxy : Tlit» 
eclvbrat^Hl edict of Thes^onlca sJiowed tlite in the 
yoar 380 (toeued by the cmjieror immoduttoly after 
hb 1>u|)ti«m *). Ho ilcprU'i^l thi> Ariaiis of all tlieir 
chuirhcti m Coztstantitioplf) imd forbadij tho Iiun>tioa 
in g«n«<ra1 to urdniliip in 1W citicts- Hut Ibo xoon per* 
ccivixl Ihttt ho cmilil rule in the Orient only ^ritli 
Oi^ianiui urtlKHldxy, Unit ho (lun> not »H>ty tlie severe 
stauilard of tlie We^t, uud Ihut ho must win half- 
frieiidft^titirelyowr. Huc-jtlkid, thi^rcforot in 3^1 an 
OricntiJ txiuicil n\ th43 capital and appointe<l as pre* 
aiding offit'or Melctiiis, thftt i«, Um Iwuior of tho now 
orth<Klox piuly in Anliooh. Thtfroh}' hu of cxiurAo 
llfuvc offence to tlio Oc'etdi-ut^tln and Kgyptiants t>ut 
fie<!ured to himself the Cappaflocians and the Asia 
Minor thtolngians. At the synod the contrast waa 
80 strongly expre^tfted that a niplim* was near at 
hand (lh<* now prtfiiding officer, On^gory Xauao- 
nm, hiul to iWAigii). But fmiilly thii«t>'ni)d (liSO Ui>di- 
cpft) prooUimi^ tbo Niceiii^ doetriuo sattx phra^e^ the 
cuniplt?te honioouoiou of the three Ferboua, mid abo 
ojEpo1l€d the Macedonians. In fact, however, ** espial- 
ity of being ^ conquered in the sense of " wpjality of ca- 

■'Oiitrla* |4>pufijf , . . M fnJtf ralnniii* rttlgitmf vrtnri. ^vm i^ 
riii<tmi1r4rvfni^fo«tficf^timfnuUiiu«r>B9infirtJf tvi'pii^ tu^'< nri nuji^ dfr jpfo 

dpirVru atmfU imam dfitatm tub part n^aintatf tt m/t pia trinlttt* 
^vianut. Nunc lejfcsi fr^m'^* CkriHmnnntm tuthtAicorum namm 
fubem%9 nmpirtli. rrH^unm vm* dtirtnittM maiiu^iv <«rfCo"n(« It^rrttri 
dinrfaatit ififamiaia mtsllnfrr. dir^mi j^nni^pA n'HfJcfo, po^ ttiam mohtM 

Countfl at 


OmiI of 



sCEce", not unity of esfience. Hut the iijinbol, which, 
dinci* a1>i>iit 4riO in tlie Orient and S30 in tlte Occident, 
ig conxirlon^ U> tM> that of thus Kynod and obtained th» 
highest cobMidomtion in tlio< Church and which ba« 
tiupphiutcd the Nio«^<^ an l>eing only a mere nominal 
GOtlar^meut of It^ in not the symbol of thU synod, 
wliicJi, moreover, \tbh only by a f/iiui pro quo after- 
ward stamped as ttnun<*ni(*al. Thft wx^alled Con- 
titantinopolitan c^rocKl is older; it is tlio liaptitunal 
Hymind of J*^nisalf*m, proliahly <Hlit^l hy Cyril soon 
aftor HAS whtm h*i at'ix>mi>liiAhod hm trauaitiou from 
vcini-Ariouittm to the '*>f^in*udif,v. In it the **-' r^v 
wff/dcrrtf' sar/jrtp " is wanting, and it contains a formula 
about tho Holy Ejpirit which doe^ not (irocUum tho 
orthodox doctrine, but avoids the question at isBue 

XtiAf^iivf 3\A Tvif !r^<i^rw>). How H oamo into tiie reo- 
Urdu wf lb*? tt\iiod (lhn>UKh Cyril? E(>iplianiua?) and 
bow it afterwards became the symbol of the <»uncil 
in (juit^i obHcnre^ Still eccle»iafttical legend-making 
ba* hero cicrciMd a strange jiMice in ap}Krnding to 
the Kynod of tlio newly orthodox bi8b<ip^ a tiiyinbol 
in which tho nnti-Arian aimthoinua and Nicotu> 
wntch-wordu rur& wanting. In n^lity und^r the 
cover of tho 'Vj"'*''"T'"v inou iniItH?d ixjutinued in tho 
Orient in a kind of homoiusiamsmt whidi is to 
thie day orthodox in all their churchee*' 

*OoncanilDg the ^nbol mco toj uilde Id U«noR^i R EDcy^l<V' ^ 


Tho OccidciJl w;i^ blglily tiirtplfywed willi the £SiSSj 
cToante ot thi) MyitCNl, nince, among other tltings» it {j^!S^i 
bad furknowlodgiisl thi} orthotloxy uf mcu who in 
Rome* were ^IroD^Iy siijttK-ctod. Ropnvientatiotm 
wemniAfV, nw.^htKm wtw t}]n>Ati'n<^. Rut tb^Ori«<nt 
wiui no longer iliAjioHotl to Wnd further under tho 
di]giitiitic ruli^ uf E{4>iiiG, iiiul TIkxhIosiujst ki.v)>ing Uio 
two halvi» of the 4>uipinj 8ci>ftratc, n<iuAiDO<] finn 
Riid prudent, imd oroidtHl coitM>nting to a geueral 
council, wbii'b Qratian (Ambnwe) wislaxl to call. 
In the year 382 thej" drew ncarvr together, since in 
Romo, RS well lis in C->nsi4intinoplo, synods were 
coDtvmponLDootisly in ocEwioni nod »inco these showed 
tlnmmclvui mora cuiiciliHtur^' rvgiirdlug pervutul 
questtoofl— to this point flio controvert' hf>d nar- 
rowed down inOMnuch ad the vVntiocbiim sc-litHin 
continued. But, ulxjve a]1 tliifl, cirtnimHtance greatly 
coDtribiit^ to a roconciliAtion; the flpirituii) In^er 
of the Occidontf Aiabroiao, went to Bchool to the 
science of tlic Cuppttdocinns i^nd booime powerfully 
ioBuonctMlby iL 

In the ymr 3JJ1 perhaps Diuo-t<TDtha ot tbeOnent 
was Arian, Tltoodcttiiui eaduHvored to frighten 
them, later, however, also to win thera (synod of 
3S3 at Constantinople; ^ven Runomiiip^ was invitod). 
Bat soon ho nbaudonEKl tho gontlo method and Am- 
brose B^conded him in the Wtwt. Ouedaru tkftfnino 
tliat most of the Arian and semi-Arian Oiwk bish* 
o\>6< did iiubniit; only the extreme left romaim^l firm 
iKuQomiua)* More rapidly thjiu Hellenism did A rtiut 



i»iii diooiit anion}? the (SreelcB. Trne, the orthodox 
lapnon, altvayn conser\'ative, considered ilie ortbo- 
dox forniula more as a Deowsary eril iind an inox- 
plicablo mystery tliaii as an cxpreeeion of thutr faiUi. 
The Tidorj' uf grthodusy was ii tiiumph of priesti 
and thfM>lo)^aiifl over the indeed dwply rooted faith 
of the people; hut it did not make thia faith any 




supplkmknt: tlik dfktrlne of the holy spibit 
ani* of the Tkikitv. 

L Since tha eiirly days, alongside of a belief in the 
Father nnH Sou, th^rewaA a belief in the UolySpirit; 
but what tlie Intter wa^, or wliat mj^nitlcance it has, 
b<*<!amo w)i<)Uy ohnrure tifior fchi^ dt'w^lining of Mon- 
tanitini and tbu rvtirin{< of the coinhinotH^n *'flptrituA- 
etrtWiii ". The ttcSentiflc Uieolojjy of Uie apulo^lsto 
did, in genorn], not know what to do witli it, and 
even in the 3d century the majority viewed the Holy 
Spirit nx a [Mwer. However, already IrcnzenA and 
Tortiilliim Iritnl (*o hoMor it as it divine power witlun 
th« Deity. TortuUiaD lulmitted it as "Ood" mul as ' 
^P^nujn'^ into hi:* dedcendin^ but consubetantio] ' 
trinity {fitio tntbiei-lnn). Now the Neo-l*latonic 
8{>4K;uhition, scic^iii^o, aUo found Uiree Divine by- 
poetoaee necoKsary. Orj(p?u in aocordance with audi 
foUowing the Biblo took the Holy Spirit into bis) 
th^logy A4 tho third ronfltAnt Hiding; to lut «urfi aft oj 
creature flubordinAtu U* Um Son, govoming tb« mudl 

DKvKr^jrMBKT OF iKKnrRiMc or incarkatiox. 26} 

mi Bph«rt\ the rircic of tho siinrtititKl. The maiiner 
o( il\H\K)^\iig of Uie doctrine of t}je Holy B)>int bj 
T«rtullian aitil Onfceii, wholly aiuilo^iis to their 
treatment of th*» lA>g<«-4lorrrinp, rtliijwin tlint in ^n* 
oral thoro il]<i not exist a specific Cbmtian iutoriMt 
in this poiut of iloctriDei. Tlmt SiibrlliuH »]:k> wua 
ubli^Hl to tuko into vicvr tUti Uoly Spirit i» only a 
proof that ihe cliiiuifl of the (feneral scientific doctriuD 
of tlj« trinity and of th« UiUical formulaa coulO no 
iontp^r Im* |ift*«rfHl ovfir. 

Kuvertboloisa within tho cliurches nnA nmong tb(i 
majoritv of tUo bi^hope no notice wnjf taken of IIh^tm 
scholarly advance**, even by the bi*giuDuig of tbLt4c]i 
century; the Nioene creed itself nav^y ^vce nplaod 
to tho belief in tli© Holy Spirit, without addition or 
exptjitiMtioii. AthAu]i?iii»ilitrini;tliGfu^t4tLSTtdc<m'ver 
tliouurht uf it. Whoover ponsidorod it Divine in the 
full n i l(-euK>d it a power; he who conceived it ad 
|iGr«onaJ, took it for something quit^ subordiruite : Id 
fact it was really only a woixl and it remained &ach 
wilhiii the trinity even aflerwanl- 

Tlie>4 Aiiticited the farther formulation of the 
iloctnoe, »ince, hy tho conceftsion of the inferiority 
of the Holy Spirit, they were aile to support easily 
the subordination (if the Son. Exactly f>.>r this rea- 
son, however, thi* orthodox becanie titeiightful. 
Athanaflius, aft«r about 358, gave his att<?ntioii to 
the Holy Spirit uid iiov«r wavered a moment in re- 
^rd to the formula: Since be mu^ be worshipped, 
bo iH ^r d>i4*«jjtf<irc tike thi^ 8ori. and bdongH in no 



Till 4U 



tbf« Alki, 

V9 0UTI.1NRK OP TUP KlftTtmV Of t>4HiUX. 


iri HotiH) to tlio worlJ (f^pp. ati St^rap.). At the s3*rK>il 
****^ 1 of Ali'iandria tbm docirirj© of thd ITcily Spirit waa 
ptacoci under tbo protcdieii of the Kiccnc crood^ llti 
who denies it is a tiypocTitical Artuii (tho attompU, 
it w truG» to (liAcritiiinate botwcun tho agency of the 
Holy Spirit and that of the 8oii» r«>maine<I empty 
woi^la). But ihitA tilronKly did the Occident nK:n*e 
to this foriniili— in the Orii^nt not only Hi*" AHftim 
but ul^o thv m-'iui AriiiUB mxw in it ;l umuifivit mno- 
vatiou; even th^ifie wh^ m Ihe dot-trine of Ibi* 9i>u 
accepted tlie JionioiiHic« refut^ to acknowledge the 
novum^ and ixhtk under MiuvdoniiiK, hinhop of Ccm- 
stantinaple, a finu stjind. Yet int)re — even the Cftp- 
padocian8, altlKiutfh thoy countenanced the formuU, 
and oonfc;iiu<d the lack of all tangiUo tradition, ad- 
riiicd iho (jfrt^otttit caution and oouaidi^rod it necoflHary 
to ketfp hack the fonnula at 6r»t 4u a mystery, ap- 
pealing to the fact that it was indeed sntttaine^l only 
by ii srofMoffi^ Sy/tfi^ii^, In tiieir emhnrra8Hmei)t in as- 
siting lo the Holy Spirit a proper kind of being in 
ri^lation to the Fathor, they dinrtdnd to attrihiiUt to 
him, w^oordiu^toJohu, tho eternal '"?<^*^'f and N--i/i- 
(■'>r<f. But uft4>r^G*'3 th[> tbts^loj^iana iu the Occldtrut 
701*0 Indi^fatigahle in Imposing upon the half-won 
Oriontul brethren tho Holy Spirit m "••J^ tifi»i>"tTM^^ 
and. in union with the Ciijipadocians, thoy succoodoiL 
It is true tlmt f^tlU in tho yi^ar 3^1 the Moccdouinna 
(pnoiimAtf^tnruThoi) wrrm invitwl to tiio Hyvio<1, but 
oaly to h<KU* tlicir condomnation And to bo cxpdlod. 
Tho aiuitht?ma» i>f D:u]Lt»«cu£< birotifcthi^Dcd the nitua- 


10 OrWnt. 


Irlni aT 

liou. HoDcefortb one vrus no buffer ])CnuitUHl io 
teach thAt th«i Holy Spirit U Mubordiiuite to the Soik; 
inddcd, eincc to the Greek Uu? FaUier roinaiiied iho 
root of the Dviiy, itiu humuiuiiuo of Hiv Sjiiril srceiuecl 
safely Si-curod only whon he U tracotl ba<rk to Die 
Father idone, the Soq thpn*by not being Udcoti nt all 
into acojunt. 

2. The OflppaiWianH. anrf Wfare thwii thf»ir groat 
tettcb«r Ai>ollmHn)«, c^UiUUHeO thoorUuHlox clix-tnn« 
of tho trinity (vid< pnge 300): On« Diviac ci<nciico 
fit Mrci^ 8ti1>ji-ctc<. iho i.t[UJil nuUircT of which fxriituiui^ 
in iimv coik.stib^truitifility i^ ili^thictly sUnnpt'd in 
their quiJitiu»i mul iictivitii?^; their diScnmcx^^ in th« 
ebnracteritfticaf o( thoir mode of hcing ; hut the Failicr 
nkine i« <irn"v, the two other* fl/rcarrf, yet not »» tho 
world ii» (roolly TortiiHinn Und niroiwly ustwJ tho for- 
miUon *^ imtun; ** nud "^porson "; l*i lum, h^Jtrovor, tho 
trinity wns gtiU oiUirvly a trinity of rovohttiou, not 
of immanonoe). By tn«aii8 of tho trinity. »o thoy 
now sail], CliriAtianity ie; distiDguLHhiHl from tho 
poi^ polythi-ium ruul tbo '* stark"* Jowitdi mono- 

Evor ifinoii the [ippo-iLronc« of tho homoinsians, re- 
gunl Uk ChrivtoEugy uxiTtwl in tltu Oriv^ot an ioQu- uu &>&r- 
eiico upon t\tv €«tabh»hinont of tho tloctrine of the 
Iriiitty (thorf altro aaturtMmd p<.*rson; '^'ii"i*»fin origi- 
iwted there> Bud hIm the tuminR to aivount of Ui« 
analogy of tbeconiT|>1ionH •* humnnity ^ and "^ Adiun * 
in thoir rehition to the individiiul iruin.) A nubor- 
dinatioQ iiitd Amtoteliiui eleuktiut rvuuiioed lu tho 



ftiM Oool- 

trinity-dootrino of Oriental orUicxloxT, Aiid in Uia 
later ChriHlologicAl ooiiictsi tUo latu^r vriu» drn^-n iDto 
BympaUiy with It (however not strvngly; for H liiul 
grown already too ^ttibborn). A fow Apolliiiariau 
moitophysitflW work^il fiftor t^SO ujioii the coQceptionft 
"oattiro** aud ^penKm** in Cliriiftolc»^ in an Aristo- 
Wimi wii^-, am] thiiH alwi umverl in tho doctrine of 
tho trinity at trithoism or at mtxlrtliwm {f'Vftf^ 
/':ruTratf(vi A.-^lcwi^n-ii^rs Jo!iann<.*s Pbilop^>nu9, PctcroE 
KnllSnico; figiiiu?1 thv^ Lwntius of Byzantium mad 
Johu cf DamAsciun). Tlio hxiivr^ in ojipodition to trU 
itiol^in, ^in-t^ to llic dogiim of t)in trinity a tum Ap- 
proQcliing tiio Oct'itltTiila! (^oncvption (iho 'i7"*>vijtf^ is 
formally ilivhirirKl iH]invuhmt 1ji thi> y^^^^^^t thn Jv 
fUi^'ltHp of tho throo Pitwohh is* Ktroiiyly c^ipba»izcd, 
tlierebv the p*/»':/*'^\*ftt, but not numJu^tfrf and a-^fl^flMt j 
the cUfference exiiiting only for the iirt^^'it); tliis con- 
ception, howeTOr» remainecJ witliout effect, since ia 
tlio mo^i diMrisivc ]x>iQt it nllowod Uie floe BUbonliaa- 
tionism t'^cuntinuo: John ulsotauglit tlmt the Spirit 
I»oocM>dilh aion4' from ik^ Father {i.e. ikmugh tho 
Son). Tho FtitbcT, tbvrofon, roniainatlio V/'S of tho 
Deity. Con£*e<^uej]tly it la t}ue Hpirituul picture wbieli 
Ihe Orient, and again nnotber wbicb the Occident, 
formed of ibe trinity; in the fonner the Fatber re- 
mainvd iJie nwt nf Iho two a/TBar-i ; tbo full n^oiproc- 
ity of M tiircuA Per>ont« tippeuiod to tbo Orientalsito 
j«(j|uirili^ ttio monarchy, and ««pooiid)y ihe d«dnc* 
tion of tbo Spirit from tho Bon to jtJopftrdijDct U>o 
bomuu»[o[i< Hem Pbotiuis (807) struck in> neiircli- 


ing for A <kiginatjc point of dwpiito, unci reproorlied 
the OocidenUla, who taught tho imrnan^nt^ pro- 
cca^f'o of the Spirit Fmm tho PuUier aitd Sou^ vpitb 
innovations, even with XanicluBan duali^un, and 
hoigbtoned tbifi reproach with th« atill twvon^r charge 
6t fakifyirg tho holr symbol of Coaistantinople by 
tbB addition of "filioquc '\ This word was really an 
innovation therein thikt had originatod in Spain. A 
ooDtot bn;ke out whii^ haa novor been mottled, and 
in which to tho Oreck even tha ""^i* mi «rfo^" bcr;unt* 
suBpictoQs. The Oc<?icIeatal», hoivever, wero obliged 
to cling to Uieir doctrine, becamw, iicoording to their 
spiritual picture of the trinity', thfy found the true 
fnitli rtxpn^Hftl only in th*' full unity, ihereforo alao 
only in tbe full reciprocity of the Perfiona. The 
Greeks did not undertrtand this^ because secretly they 
always r^^maineil coamologicully iutereeted, juKt as 
the doctrine of Uie trinity, under inceciBant scientific 
treatment, tub» remaine<l tho vehicle which the phi- 
loHophy of anticitiily ha5 handed down to the Slavic 
and Gonwmit* nutioDK: It «>ntairui tlie Christian 
idea of the revelntion of Qod in Jcdus and tiie teeta- 
inent of the mi^nent {dilloaophy in a mobi peculiar 

In the Occident tho doctrine of the trinity had not 
as a nilo been troutetl kk an object of »t[W<ndatioih Tho 
nmtst waathe mfefit things diMTimi nation between 
nnbetanco nnd |Mr«Mti wuk uridi^nctood moro in th* 
tKfnecofa (through the jurii<pmdrnce) current /of una' 
dixtinctioo. Augustine in hi» gnvii work, " de trin- 



Cmii'«t u*- 


■Ad vr«a»3 

Docinnc of 


itdte ". luteDiUnl t^.^ ^ve exprc-^ion to this c^oaceI»tiOD 
of the trinity by moarii i>f (Xoo-PIat<iQic) wnonco, 
but he wua giti(]o<l liUo by hit» roligtou:» conHciotuncflB 
whicb Juiew only tWM^ Ood.* Tlit couatH|uuiictj was 
a eotnplote obLitLTutioD of overy DMimaiit of tfubonUnn- 
tioniam, the changing of the Fer»oDs into relatioofi 
(the old Occidentil mydalism merely veiled) ; but 
at tlid s»ino timfl there arofv rtiHi a imiRH of oontm- 
dtotozy mid nbiiiii'd formulas as to caiiBo a ehuddor 
even to the autht^r himself » now exulting in the in- 
oomprcben&ible and nmv skeptical (the three together 
are equal to vn^\ the abt^olutc simple mueit be under- 
stood a^ triple; th<s Son takes an actix'e part in his 
generation; sunt /nrrnper inricetn^ Muter aotua: the 
economical functions, also, are never to bo tbouglit 
of ad fteparnto— tberoftfre : dtvfum trst ^fres per- 
«;wa<f", Ui*n ut iliud dt\:i'rctii7\ xrd nc tacrretitr) » 
ThiH confeifBion and the analogies whioh Aupistine 
makcH uae of n^aj-ding the trinity' (they aie alto- 
gether mo<Iali8tic) (tliow that he himi^f never coulil 
have hit n|>on the trinity, if he had not been l»ound 
to tradition* His great work, iu ivhich uaturaUy 
aUo tlje prcjccaeion of the Spirit from the Father and 
Son IB gmphaaised— for in every act all three bxq 
ooncemecl— became tlie high school for the technico- 
logical cultivation of the intellect aiid the mine of 
BchoUiitic divinity in the Middle Ages, Through 
AuguKtinA, first the HiKinish church, then otlvpr* abio, 

ilocuinn vt (ill- CruLly> mv HntUv Znilw^briTl t Klrcboopneb. T, tn ftf. 
owl VI, W vrf . 




permitted thoms^^lvos to be inducod to proclaim the 

The pariicloxicnl formuliw of the Au^oEttininn <!oo- ''"^T'*' 
tritii- uf tlie iriuity, whidi dvixy uvury couiiixtic'u 
With the hbftory of rcvelaticn and with refiBou, but 
poaBcaiu their truth in the endeavor tosuataiii com- 
plete monotheism, became wide-spread in the Ooci* 
dent and wore comprised in the so-c-aHwI Symholum ^^IJSJ^?^ 
^thanasianutn^ which aroso g^^diudlj during the 
early part of the Middtfi Ag«a, and waa on its recep- 
tion {8th to »th centurj-) proclaimed as holy Church 
doctrine* "Ho who will be saved must believe 
them", i.e. must subntt to them. In the Athana»iiai] 
OTOod as a sjnibol etaiids foremc«t tlie tran»forma- 
tion of tho trinity doctrine, a» an i»wardTy-t>be- 
adopted thought of faith, into im ix?ol«eiaatical 
law, upon the obetervancti of which eajvatiou de- 
pends. WiUi AUiaiiasiu^ the 'ijuw^fl^oc was the de- 
oUi\'o tltought of faith; with the Cappadociaus tho 
inleltoctually over-subtle theological dc^ma; with 
tJjo later Grpoks the Imllr^wed rolic; with thelat^r 
Oocidontale tho «KH:loaia6tiail law which demands 

*Oa CbP ^Athiiiiutuinnj " m Ktflliir>r, )9|faho1lk t SI a&q, aad Uw 
■ork>or r«ilki»<l0n).ew«lDa« Ufif^r Oau&Aovx <M3)^ LubIv OOTO. 

S74 ocTUffEO or tub uistort of doova. 



Sources: Tim fraRnx^nta of ApollinjiriM, the wriUas* g( 
Atbiniiflius, of Vie Ca|ipiuli)clui» aud of tlie AntiochiiuiJi. 

TiiR qut-Ktioii af the DivinUy of Chrint vraa ©uly 
proiianUory lo the rinoi4tiou of tbo nnion of tho Divine 
nml huintin in Clirifit Into Uiitt ]irob)imL tlie wliole 
of iIogrn£ili<>* Dowod. Ircmeii^, and afterwawl Atba- 
lULsiuti, had ralablifiliGd the Divinity of Uie Redonn- 
CT with r«<»;pdet to tW(an]ition, i.e, npon tJiat asMimp- 

But tho qu^tiim of ihv uniim prrouppuuxl not only 
A preciae conci^ption of the Oivinity, lut aJso of the 
humanitfj of the Reddemer. True, in the K^oettc 
contest tho reality of tho ^'ip^ of Christ iiad been 
flfyriimd (Ti>rtull,, de came Clirisii); yot n fin*^ 
doeotiAm hnd iri »p\t& of it continued to cvist, and 
tluit.not only witli the Alexandrians but alao with 
ati tcdcherSn Scnrccly one of Uiem tboiiglit of a per* 
fed huniAD solf-coniicioiusnefls, and not a single ono 
Attribut€Ml to tho human nature of Chrif^t all thif lim^ 
tatiouf^ which surround our natnro. Origon cer- 
tainly — and not AS tho finiiV^-attribiittfd tii Christ a 
human ^rt'ii and ft freewill; but h(> no^^^lcd a connec- 
tion IwlMi^en the 0ml' Logiir^ ami iiiiitter, hnd hv hau 
«Uo\i*u ddiuitcly in hU Chmtolog}'— in ho fornshe 


did not »^parnt«« tho Jt«ii8 find tlio Cliriftt — Uwt llio 
tuoct ovirl^mt itccoiiinn rcnuiiiiK uctivc whcii otio 
coDccivoB tho ^p't Ikjcaubd wliwlly iimtoriAl, an with- 
out quality aiid Ciij^blo of uvory aUribule. 

Witb thoOri^niiH^tic Uicolo^Jiuis, aiid among tlio ."""^ 
Christian p&ople gcnorully, exifltv<l At ihc beginning **'»^<» 
of (be 4tli (Hriitury iho moi^t varied cMjDCf*ption8 r«h 
garding t.)K> incJtrnHtion and humftnity of Oimt, 
Only a few thought of n httmim ih>ii1 luul miiny 
tliougtit of lJiL< flwh uf Chrittt ^%» huuvuiiLy, nr na n 
traii8f<jmiatiou of thd Logos, or as a vesture. CrAfld 
docotie conoopttoiis wore noftcnod hy Nw>-PI«tiwiic 
spccuiativo idcaL» (tlw tiniti'no?fS u momc^nt uitliin 
the unfolding DoUj ih;olf). Xo ono in tho Oriont 
roally thought of two nftturcit; one otomaJ God- 
incaniritc n^itiir^ one nnturo having become Qod- 
hicamJLti', n Piviriii natniv hHvfng Ikmmi cliarigtHi for 
a time itjto human nature, n Divine nature ihvelling 
in th« huinati, i.e. clotliod in tlio covering of human- 
ity — ibw*} won> tho provailing couc^ptioiua« and tho 
an«were wi^ro jtmt iiA ciinftiKod to Hinglf* igtiOKtiong 
(Wns ihny t1fii<ih horn of Mary, or th<i LogoH witli tho 
Hoish? WuA till? Chriftt miul^ mjtn, or <tid he iiNsnmo 
litniiati naluro? How much can bo wanting to Uifs 
Datum and it t^tiil be conftidtrrKl hujnatiV) and to tho 
Biblical cotisitk>nition» (WLo 8nfffrG<l? \Vlio hiin- 
gerod? Who died? Who ac-kuowiedg^ his igno- 
mnm? Th* (3nd nr thf* man, or tho Ood-man? 
Or ill ro4ility c«rc not all tlii^«o *rViVij onl}' apparent, uc, 
uooiiiiiijic?). A more or Iciw fine duc^ctinni whs nko 



in concrete taught in the Occident, But by tlio 
ftide of it, afU>r Tt^rtullJnii and Novatinn^, nUrn\ iii>on 
the bnjii>i of thri Kyinkiot tli^ juriKiie formula: Tiro 
Bub»tADC(:9, tjuc pprsun. Tlii^ formulrt, art thoii|fh it 
woro a protection and boumldry tliougtit, wn« novor 
further invefttigalcMl; but H whb <losttnod to become 
eome lUy the saving phrase in the con0ict« of ihe 

TI10 unity of th& sup^rnAturul p^rMonnlity *rf Christ 
wns here the common i^tctr ting point, Bow to pro- 
vide a pl^ico for Lumiuiity in it wjl9 Ui« problem, 
which in its i^hnrpiK^M and gmvtty ApcUiiiariH of 
Laodicea fir^t dit^'crucd. Thir Aiians bad ^ivmi iho 
impulse, einoe they concoivod tho humtuiity ot Christ 
morelyaa *^^p' in order to expreH4 th4> full unity of 
tho poraonRlity of the ItaWmer *tni] iit tlie game 
time to bo aUotoattributo to tJioir baJf divine Logos 
the ]imiu>d kuowlinlgo and cfi^Mbility of tT^ufTuriug 
found in the Cliriat, They thrt»w it up to tlic ortho* 
dox, that their doctrine loads to two Sous of Qod^ 
or to t%vo natures (wbicb wore »till (HJimidered iden- 
ti(*al). Apollinaris now rfn-ognizt^ that this rpproach 
was justiliod ; be made tlie problem of hi« theology : 
(I) To oxprccs juAt fi» strict a unity in the person of 
Chrintas ATianldm did in iUf Logo» clothed merely 
with the "'V^, (3) To unite with ilthe /liW humanity 
of Chriflt. Here is the problem which occupied tlie 
Church of the ZA century, and indeed Apollinarift «ur 
voy<»d it in ibi wbolo range astheohitf problooi of 
Climliiu) tliuolo^^y, ua tho nucleus of aUi*vpro6diou8of 


faith, and ho treated it acconlinely mth the greatest 
iugouutty aud with a dialectics that nnticipiit«d all 
tenuiijulo^ieo of the futui«. With the orthodox 
(AthiiDaiiluH) he found fault, becau^ they, in order 
to escape Uie objectionn oi the Arians, and in Apito 
of thoir better int^ntionH^ ronntantly dLscriniitiated 
in Chiii^t betwoon what the maji uud what the Ood 
did; thoTvhy ii4 tlu> rlualtty I'^tJihlUliiHl mid n*d(*mp- 
tion 14 matlu dependent tlH)r«^>n; for Chriat mii.*^! tfo 
htiw btMni inado aia:i, tliai everyUiiu^; whicli 19 vnlid 
of liumunity is aldo validof the Dcthyand vice versa 
(tni<S AthaiiH8iu5 n«vcr used tho expr(«sioii ^u« f'^ttt 
likeOrigen; liut ho was obligtxl aguinst bis will to 
divide the unity of tho J>>ri>c aaf/xutdt!^ in its applica- 
tion). Ho conmtrcH) tho Arinn« hocjtiuw thoy also 
take itwfty the comfort of ^c<]cmpti^l^ in eo far a« 
Clirist did not a»»unie t-nlirc huiiTajiityt but otiJy tho 
flc«h. He hiaiftolf, holding fast to the idea of luiity 
OS to a rudder, but not rojolL'ing like an Arialotetian 
in the mystery of the faiths as did Athamutius, e^tah- 
hfilied the doctrine that the Qod'1x>goH had taken 
unto himself huraaji fleHh and n hiimiui bouI (tvhich 
cou&tilute human nature as naturt^), but not a buoiao 
Logos, i\e.— a» wo diould now i^xpre^s it— aot that 
which in man constitutee the (individnal) person, 
therefore not free will. With tlie thus-oonstitiited 
human nature, however, the Log08 was able to fuse 
into a complete unity, hocauM> thero nev^r axtdled 
two mibjeda; for die rocks which Ajiolliuaria had 
re<:ogtii»d a3 daogeroufl were: 




(1) TIi<^ id<?a of twQ Sons* i,e, tbo ae[>aratm|- of 
tho man nvii) the Ood, the JoAiia and th« Cbrist (** two 
naliiiva arc two Scwis "), 

(2) Tliu cuuceptiou Uiai Jeeua wad lui <(«'#/i|"™v 

(3) l^lie idea Uiat lie hnd a free, rhangeable natnreH 
The ftubjecl must l)o iwnoved from llio human 

natiiiv of Clirmt, Mb<^r\vit<a one would iirrivi^ at a 
double- being (li^'briJ, minolAur); H'Iwr(ia>Lb]ttconc<>p- 
tion rend<M^ tli© /■<« y*"*"*" T^vi-^pn* *w<v"*'»''^ clear. 
i^w» Thin A|K>11iiiiirif4 prove<I soteriologlcaUy (what th« 
man <Hd Qod must bAYO done aind AtifferecU othor^ 
w>ni the Kunie baa no pover to save: ■'>V"=''" WvaTwr 
Ku iDHTii/'/r? T,iy iStifaro> ; tlw Deity bociimc through Christ 
the ^"^^ and i^;'t>c of tli^ entire bumnnify ; tbo btimnn 
nntiiro boetuno through Chrirtt ihc* ffA^-rof th« Deity), 
Biblicjilly — \w wim A vcrj- iMv- vxvj^U* — tind afpccuhi' 
lively (tlic hutiifui imlui-e U always tlie Udng inovod, 
the Divine is the mover; tliis relntion'^hip coinoa in 
the >^r"f aaptiofU's to it5 perfect developinimt and 
mamfeBtatioa; Christ iu the heavenly Adam, who 
consequently pn^^eutWH im'nmntion iKilontially; in a 
hidden way he alwaj's wna ^"'^-f f'"'fl^*"*j bisfloeliifi 
^o^iTtof to bin Divinity, becaitiMj lie was fltt4*d for 
incarnation; therefore is the incarnation in oo way 
accidental and differs from all nier(> inffpiration; the 
Lo|^» \h always Mediator — t^^'Tr^^ — bet^veen Deity 
ani! humanity; however, one does not know bow fat 
Ap^lUnaria vent bore). 

If llie uiyatery two » one (see (he parallel to the 


mystery, tlin^^ ^ one) is at all to be (la4crit>ed, then 
the doctrine of j\pollinariii, measured by tbe premip- 
pf>»]tionft iind nims of tbe Oreek conception of Chrfs- 
tianity ns rrli^im, tit pt^rfect. For tliis rofuH>n, too, 
ho futind fHillifiil di^v-iplui^, tinil h11 monuplij'iijtvn, 
yes, oven tbe pious Gn^k orthodox are at tbo txittom 
AiWIinarii^D : Tbe a<x.-eptaitc<^ of an individual binn»n 
personality io Cliritt doea away with his power a*( 
Redeemer, juHt as the idm of two unmixEKl natuiM 
robe tile incAmation of ite «ifect. For that reaaon 
ApoJlinaris struck out the human ^-j^ tiko all Grp«k 
bolievvrH bt^foro and ufti^r bioi — liv, how^~vri upvnly 
and i>nt»rgotic*aUy, 

Bat tbu di'DULcd for a complete human naturo once 
proclaimf^d could no Ion|;^>r hi* pjl>;«.h1 over in i^ilenco : 
One could still Bay accurding to AptiUinarifs that 
the htininn '^^'C would not bo Bavod; tho dortrino 
of Ood ab*o appealed to tottor, if Qod wan cumIo 
to luive sufTorcd. Therefore Uiq/uU huinftiiUy waa 
alronuly acknowledged at tlio Synod of Alexandria, 
3<f^, aud thtt Cap|»dociaiid tut^ against thi^ir rcvcml 
tcaclier, who was obliged (375) to witb^h^aw from the 
Chnrrh, Init formn<) n rbim^Ji of hlftown; t3io Woat 
nko condomnod him. Tbo full hcmousioaof Christ 
with bimuinity wa» vxallcd to ]iductriit>i'. Cvrtainly 
the gospfrl rt^porU hiul a p?irt tliuroin ; but tliat which 
the Cappadocianji were able to eBi np in oppo^tion 
to ApoUioaria were only wretdied formulaa, full ^^SSff*" 
of oonlradietiona: Therfi are two naturea^and yot 
ooily one; there are Dot two Sons^ but the Divinity 



2B0 oimjNHs or thk BtsroRV op nrKiMA, 

ads in Christ in one way. the humanity in another; 
Cliriftt hml huiiiAii fiv>e<lnni, hut acted under Oivino 
EKWoibiity. Ill rt'ality th^^ Cappadoci&ns thought like 
A|>oHiiinn.^, but t1ic?y hud to makt> a placo for the 
"perfect mail", whil« the Greek piettf did not do* 
DMUid tht8 consideration. The ^von^igntj of faitli 
had dictated Iho doctrine to Aiiolliuari:^; he add«^d 
to the AthauJittJML vtiovfjatv^ the corrcttpuudin^ Chris- 
toTo^; tiki* A tliiiniiKiiiff hi> h(>*iitjtt4Ml it ni^ ivurriRoo 
for the «ako of hiif fnith. Hift opponents, hotvcvor, 
in upholdinK ^hv full hiuniLnity (humun Hubject) did 
after all u grmt Borvicc to ttie Cluird) of the future. 
Thoy were now obliged to try anJ reconcile the oon* 
trodictiona (not two Sons, and yot tvro inilependent 
nature). In what form that was to issue no one 
knew as y«t. 



flfniroPi: T\\» ^rrltln^ of Cyni and af tlict AntiofrhJatiiL 
the Actaof Uie couj^cilfL. H«rrle,C(>iiotlic^gccch,. BtMnnd II- 

I- The Se:t(i)rian Controvers^.^Hovf can the 
complete God and the complet^^ man be unitod in one 
being? The mast r^ous opponents of Apollinarifl 
werohia compatriots, and in part abo hin philoaopb- 
ical »yni|»\t!iiKer», the Antioehiana. Tliey deduced 
from Uie formula, ** complete Qod and complete man", 


liie colli** '<iin*nc© of two dJlTorout tintuir^ Diixloni^ 
of Tarsus and abovo nil Tliuodoi^ of Mop»iu«stiu, 
di^tiiijfuiaL^ for their sottcr tlieologj', exccMvat oxc 
gmit^ ftnd severe iu;c4»tiHimi, \wr^ thorongli Nion^ij^ 
but tboj at tJic eiuno timo rightly t'ooogni&oi] tbnt 
oumplote huiufiiiity vrithi>ut rrvotloui utid (:buijgi.*-iibtu* 
nv!S» VA i\ diimLTH; cou^itiiiODtly Deity luid buimin- 
ity uro coDtrust^^ aii<l ciLunot by any meam be fu»od 
iuto one (incupableof sufferiuf;, capable of Bitfferini^. 
In accord tberewitb they c<MiBtnicted their Chris- 
t4>logy, which wjis therefore not fashioned according 
to sotcriv^logicnl conceptions, but rather by Utc ovnn- 
goticul picturv uf ChriHt. Chrii$t oonsiKt^ uf two Hup- 
amte noturtw (no fwy^f ^^x^) ; tho GoJ*Lo|^ as- 
sumed the nature of an individual man, that is, he 
dwelt therein: this indwelling wa^ net subBtantial, 
and alfio not merely inepirutiona], bnt xa-raj^dfity, i.e. 
Ood unitod and joined {toi/Sftt^) bimaolf to the man 
JwoA ID on especial maiiDor, yet anologoua to his 
union with pious vtmls. The Logos dwelt in Christ 
aa in a temple; liin hmnan miture remained sulietan- 
tially what it was; but it developed itaelf gi-adually 
to a perfect condition and constancy. The unmi was 
therefore only a relative one {crtuirt^ fr^t-ru^) and it 
waa io the boginniog only relatively perfeclj it is in 
itself a luoml uuion ; but by the veriflcatiou and ex- 
a3tation on^. adoraMe subject was finally and forever 
exhibited {j[^ft^o vit tfv*t(v*, /*» t^^ itfiuw^ti^^*), Tbo 
odcre uwsa the lator formula: ^ Tico uaturee, ofte jier- 
Bon " ; but with him tlko unity of ttwi persuti id merely 

of T^nas 

■lore of 




otii^ of EimnoB, of honor And lulomlion; in no sense a 
ftiilMtantinJ unity. He hae quite dktinctly hvoper- 
sowfy Ijwwiirt'T tu^i rififnrr-^ (pori^on — ruitiire) and, 
bottidoB, for iHsliuvcrm fui (ulumble ^cp'i*nl/1z»^^ Of an 
fneornattan, tlierofore, one may not ik*liiiil«ly apeiUc, 
but only of an flfiAiimption of the man on tbe part of 
the L<^?oB. The fnnrticmji of JextiH CbriBt are to he 
Htrictly dMrthxiiet] bt^tween tho Deity and humanity. 
To call Mary ftcof^jov ia nbsiinl, 

This doctiine 10 difitiiig:uiflhocl from tbat of the 
SamoBatianii only by thi> ossertton of the perscmal- 
ity of the Otxl-Loj^js in Chri&t In truth is Jesus— 
invito 77i£orfoiTj— nevertheless an 'uffpomo^ Mto^, 
That the Antiochiana contented tbemselven with 
tbiB vaA a oonsoqiience of their rRtiona1i»m. How- 
ever dorier^'ing of ncknowtod^mont thoir spiritual 
concfiptii>a uf the problem is, still they vrere farther 
nmioved from the conception of redemption as a 
new birth and as fort^veneae of Rjn, thun tho repre- 
gcntati\^H of the realiatic idea of redemption. Thc^ 
know of a Perfwrtor of humanity who oonducta it 
tlirou^h IcttowliMlgo and &£oeticiam unto a new larti* 
^iTifK, but tJiey knew nothing of a Realorer. But 
triiire they did not doc^tically explain away, or by 
accomnKidation fiet forth the human quatitieA of 
Christ, tliey held before the Church the picture of the 
hittonea.1 Christ, ^t a time when the Church was 
obUgtv! to depart in itn forniidjij^ of dof^trini^ farther 
and fnrther from tho Biune. Tru(>, n picture conld 
havo no grent vfttxi in which they emiyhatjiisad tlio 


■W of 

pointti of empty Ereedinn aud capacity of aiSeniig 
equally witli \vj»doni aiid asceticism. 

Their opponents, the AlexAtidrtana, relied upon 
tho tradittou wbicli onibarrasBod the Aiitiochians, 
thai Christ pofisefised th« l>iviiio physiA aud that be 
really becainc man; tJieir deductions lucked till 431, 
an<1 even later, apprdientiiUle clearoeas; but that 
CouJd not be otherwise; and their faith va& all the 
flurer. Cyril of AleJcandria, in many reftpeclA d^ 
serving of littlo a&teew, strove for the fundamental 
Idea of piety, likv Atbanaoius, and had tradition on 
bis »ide. Thin piely deiuaadfld only a stTung «i;d 
Bure declaration of Uie mystery, nothing more (*w^S 
nfioatuvii^&ut ri ilppi^Tfw), Upon the theoret t ml Hiate- 
roent oE the faith Cjrrit never wasted many wordn; 
but he was immediately in ilanger of transgn^sin^ 
the HiDita of hia idea of faith, ^vhenever he sought 
to explaiu the mystery, and his termiDotogy was In- 
definite. His faith did not proca?d frcwn the biator- "^i^** 
ioil Christ, but from the Gtjd who wa» made man. 
This God waa incoTporated in the ivmplete himau 
tiature^ end yet be remained thexaaie. Ha did tiot 
transform him^telf, but Im tonk hunumily iuU> Uio 
unity of his being, without loain^ nuy of tbo hittor. 
He was lb« wiiiie afLenvanls hw before, tlie one »ul> 
jecL \\liat Ihe body ^uffere<l, he sufiTered. There- 
fore Cyril uaod with special preference the following 
pbras(«! tU m) ^ ^M^^ namvly. tlio Qod-Logoa, iJw 






jitti drfiiitrati. Hence: i^wirit ^au^ {uttf oriiaraaiv aod 
fifa^uet^ rati 6to^ ^yatr /n^apnaft/)/!^^^ The dilTerence be- 
tween futf** and (tt^^aais Cjril hiirdlj- touched upon* 

With him ftj<n-c mid ifir^araaif coincide' as I'Ognrdii tb« 
Divine nature; as regards the human imturc tlioy do 
not. He r^cUd the idea that Christ l>ec<imean 
individual man. although he acknowledgf^d nil the 
constituents of hitmiiiiity in Chriet. Christ is the 
TjogoB which hoaaSRUmod human natur-c; only thus 
itun he bti thv RodocTm(;r. Before the inctunutiou 
tli4;rtf werei according to Cyril, two naturt», thcrc- 
cft4jr only OTi*, to wit: The God-incuraate, which is 
distin^ished as ^tiuf^h //vi^. The Deity's capacity 
for frnffering i». to be iwire, not the canfleqnmico of 
tiio unity; but the Loj^s euffcrs in Atjy oti^n floeh. 
Nov<rrlhc]t?w ho is ->!■'*■ tfrow/iw^nV mid Uritry i.s ^<*T«*iiv, 
For tint n^Rw>n, also, can tlie <"',"l Chri^ti h\ iho 
euchari8t |pvo DlTiuo Ufo ; for th«* &amo h tiWM until 
the Deity* 

ThiB conception in at the bottom pure monopbys- 
iti»m; but it does not wish to be eo. luid, in <t-^ert- 
tngrtbo humanity of Chnst 00 not to bo cxplniuod 
away, it guards aguinst the cunj^c^quunt ntonophyii* 
itic formuhi. Cyril was reriUy orthcxloi, that is, he 
tau^t what lay fid a consequent in the orthodox doc- 
trine reapectiuff Chrint, But tbe contradiction is 
apparent — both naturoa werfi to l)e prcdu^t, una- 
bridged and unmixod^ i&oludivo of a huiD&n LogoSi 
and yet there should be but one Qod-inca.runt« na- 


ture, and the human pait is subjectiess. It is also 
apparent tliat the picture of the real Cliribt cannot 
be mflintAin^ Ivy thta view : Doc%tic explanations 
must neceesarily be admitted {i.e. acconimodatiou) . 
Bnt tliiB rloctrino is nftcr oU moro valuable Uian 
that of tlio ChaloHloa cmed, because by it faith can 
make it cJoar lo iti^clf that Chmt assumed the ermi- 
plei^ hmnan nature, substaiatially uniied ii with 
hinwelf and elevatoil it to the Diviao< The contro- 
versy broke out in Constantinople through the vain, 
bluHtering, but not ignoble hiahop Keatorius (4^), 
who, hat^ hy the Alexaudriana i\» an Antiochiftii 
anil ODvied for his chair, stirred up hatred impru* 
clently by hia sennoUK atul by hi» attacfc^^ ujpon tln^s^ 
fovoriog Cyril, and specially by branding the won! 
AciiTr!^4v and the like as liimtheninh fabW. He HCtitght 
now to emdicale I he ** rott^aness of Ariu^ and A pt>l - 
linaris^ ; aa a Chriatologian, however, be liy no nic^Lua 
stcKjd at the extreme left of orthodoxy, hke Theoilare* 
He stirred up an agitatioa in the capital ; the monks 
and the imperial ladies were against bim, and C>ril 
now took a hand in it. The furmuhis which o«ch 
nsed did not sound very difTerently — NeatoriiiM him- 
self waa rather inclined to agYoe, with rcMtrviilionfi, 
to tbe^tT^i^^vi but behind tht- fernmUfv Uittrt? h«y a 
deep dogmatic and eccleaiastico-pelitiod commi(^t. 
Cyril fought for the one God-incarnate nature, and 
for primitcy in the Orient. Ho was able to gain orer 
for hinwelf tlic Roman bishop, to whom at that time 
the liiHhnp of Coniftantinophi itemed a more power- 



OoiMtEuv. fui rivfll than ihfl ono of Al4^andria, Ccrfft»tiiw, 
abo |>orBOQaUy irritaU^d at NostonDU, repuiliiitiHt hm 
own CUnBtoIfjigicAl view wlik-Ii « ippr^ai hf^^il very 
Dcsarly to that of Ne&tornifl, jcined the aaatbematiza- 
tjon of Cyril an<l demajided of Nestoriim n n^catibL- 
tion. Cyril, hurling coimtor-aQathfimai agiiin^t 
Ncfttorius, compolloct the calling of agienoral cotincil 
hy thn i>mi><irtjr who fnvnrod bim. But ho waw a1>1o 

Cffljicii ctf to dinvt tJuT gcrjoral Q<>imdl at K|>bcviius (*3J) in 
ftuch it iiimiunr, lliat Innu the beguuiiujf it be^ati to 
8plit. The ctorraee of the EgyplinB-Romau party 
wr^rc riwognizied aftenvnrds as tlie dccreps of tho 
council, while the emjx'n^r did not oripn^lly reoog- 
ni^ <^itlicr Ihc^ao, or tho derreea of the Antii.>chian 
pktty. Cyril ftllowcd no new sj-mbol to bo o«tnb* 
Haluxl, but cauaed the dcpoBitioii of Xv-gtoriue and tbc 
dK^bu'»tioTi of hiA owu duciriue as orlliudux. CoU' 
trarj'wise tht> Council which was held by tho Anil* 
ochian ftympathizei-a dej>i«cd Cyril. The wiiporor 
nt firftt confinneil both tI<*jjofti lions and aa regurils 
Ni^loriuK tbi* niatUr reM^^il t]i<*ro. He? di*'<! in cxilo, 
But Cyril, inflm<atiu] at Ci>urt, succix»k<d in niniu- 
taining himself, aud in order not to loao hia uiUli- 
enoo» ho «ven formed in th« year 433 » union wlih 
tho Antitx^hianfi, wboae ainbic^ouB creed stood, nc- 
cnrdin^ U) tlie text, nearer to tho Antiochian t)u*ol* 
ogy- Yotfor that very rea^>n CVri! ivmnin^d master 
of the tJritimiimi, and ]m kn«w how toittrengttKm mom 
ajid mcro the Aloxaudriiuidoctriuoaad tb^ ixv-letiiiia 
tical dom illation. 


tiBVKi/)Piit!*T or bocTRWE OF ikcahxatiok. S87 

^. The Eul^chian Controversjf (vid. Mhtim, Acrta ^^ 
of the CounciU, VI., VIL).— Cyril diwl in tho yoar 
44 4, and thero nrere people in Im owti party who hiid 
f)(^vor for^ven th« union of 433 nrhirh hd mndo 
llirough the do»iro to rule. Dioecuroe bocatno bin 
oiicceflEH^; he was not cquiil to him and y<?t he ^vhs 
not unlike bim> DiosciiroA enileavored to carry out 
tlie dcbeme of bi» pre^l^^et^or in th^ eliAir of Alexan- 
dria, to make of Fi^ypt a domain, to raU) tlio Cliurch 
of tlio Orient an pope and ti> act4ij4Uy ^iihjeet tn him- 
»alf «mp<ii-i>r and stato. Alrvad^* ThoophiluB and 
Cyril had rolled upon tUo tno;ikfi and Ihe itui&see in 
tliiEi matter, and also upon Ui« Kidman bishop, who 
had an equal inter^^t in suppn>Aeiin^ the hishop of 
Constantinople. They Iiaci, furtliennoip, relaxed tho 
union with Oreek science (contf^^t ii^^in^st Ori^en- 
ism), in order not to dt^plr-aflo Iho (;re;ii jiuwor of 
tlio age, pious barborism, DioB<mro6 ecoin«d to 
roally gain hie object under the vre&k ein|»oror The- 
odo^ius II. (council of Ephesut;^ 4^y) ; but close upon 
the grealofit nclory foUowod the cataatroph**. ThiB 
was hrou^ht about by the powerful cn^]ir»ui Pulcheriu, 
and ber cowiort Marcian, who recalled to mind onva 
mord the Byzantine state-id^a of ruling the Church, 
and through Loo L, who at the dociaive moment 
rolinquiishcil tlii* tniditioiinl ]>o1icy of the I^iman 
chair U> aBtri»t Ak-xandria against Constant! Dople, 
made common cuutfo with the emperor and biidiop 
of the capital and overthrew Dioscuros. But at the 
luomeub of hi^ fall, the oppodtion bet^^'een tho hith- 





erto united lowers (omi>?ror and po[)e) watt dofttinod 
to come out. Botb woutod to take advantage of the 
victiiry. The emperor was uot wiUiiLg to surrviider 
tho Church of the Orient to the pope (who had been 
called upon for aAfttstanc4>), although he not up Uio 
dogmatic fomiTdii of the pope aa Uie only mcuna of 
Baviitg the Orit^nUl CliiircTh; ju»1 i\u- prtpoonttld not 
Quduro tlijit thv patrifindi of tho ojtpit/il tdiotdd i^up- 
plant the oilier f>atriiLrchif of the Orient, tlmt tbi^ 
church ftft a creature of the emperor fihould lie at tlio 
lattor's beck Aiid will, and that the chair should bo 
plrwx4 on a lovel with thai of St. Potor's. In con- 

tviTOdjof 8CUU0UCO of tho Chttlcedon council tho state indeed 
mrtmontanly trinmphf«l ovur t}w CliurcJi, hnt in fir- 
ing to tho 4amo ittf own dofpn^tic formuU, ivhich had 
m^ru thjitL ludf the faithful agxiiii^i it, it nplit tho 
en]ptn\ hi;d the foiindatioQ for tho i4tx<x.i8sion of largo 
pravincL>i8, Houtli and north, t>tTt!Ugthecod it^ most 
powerful adversary! the biMhop of Home, at a mo- 
mf!nt when hy the fall of the West Roman ojnpire 
the latter vf&& placed at tlie hoad of the Occident, and 
thus prepared a omdition of affairs, which limited 
tho ByxuDtino dominion lo the euKtuni Muditcrrm- 
ncan coa^t provinoes. 

Thet^ are the general circumstam^eti under which 
tlio Eutychiiin controversy occurrt*d, and thereby 
ia declared what an important part politica had 
in it. 

K^'x'*" Through Iho union of 433 tho CbristologJcal ques- 
titm had already become stagnant. According to 


Ih© int^rprcttttion ff th* formitlfi, o^■e^ybotly coiild 
bo taken for ii hcrotic. TIlo AlcxiindrjUQ tloctrine, 
wbicb really tallictl with tU^.* faith of Iho OrionUilii, 
made in fact nion^ uiid mon> pTogro«» iii «pito of iho 
energetic coiinter-efforie of the honest ami best-hated 
Theodore; &nd Dio^uroHcarri^l himivelf like a chief 
bifthop over Palnsline and Syria. The erapepor 
surrendered tho Church to biin outright. DioBcuroe 
persecuted the Autiochiaa 8>*mpatlii>-.era<, t^^ndt^avored 
to extenuinate the phraw "two natuie^", aud even 
allowed creeds to pasa which sounded sUKpiciouidy 
A])ollinar]stic. But when the old Archimandrite 
Eulyches in Constantinople expre*wxl his Cyrilliau 
Chriwtrilnto' in t4yTnft like tlw* following: '* My Ood ift 
not of like oeaencowith us^ he baa no ^^fa u^^'^ptosott^ 
but A tfiu^a ay$p<^ittftn'"^ peTdoual opuoneuts (Donuiua 
of Anttodi, then Eiiiiehiua of Dorylceum) took this 
occasion to denounce him to the patriarch Flavian, 
who, himself no decided Chrlstolo^an, profited by 
the opportuiuty to get rid of an eccJeeiastic favored 
by thr» rtmri. At a nynoil ui ComttAntinopto (44>1) 
Eatych«»t wad condeiuued ad a Yalentinian and ^llf^Jjil; 
Apollitutrint, although he iifber tfonae he^itHtioii uc* 
tnowlodged Uie formula: "Out of two naturee, one 
CluiBt". From both eicie**, the court, the capital 
and the Romun bishop wrru now set in motion, 
DitjeruroB amw that the mominii for Aettlin^; the ques- 
tion of powi>r hufl <?Dm4>, but not K^s did T^eo I, 
Wlule tho former obt;iiae<l from tho ooipcror the 
calling of u couiirEI wid w;m bt-irig i^quipped for it 

iLvtnnnl kt 



vriih unheard-of Borereiguty as lite true pope, the 
latter now eaw— *iii spite of the decision of his prede- 
aeeeoT, Cf&tostiun, in fnvor of C^il — in Eutj^hcd tbo 
worst lieretic, in Flfivian hi» tkar, persecuted friend, ' 
luiil i4r>nglit tf> fniAlmt^^ iiin roiincil )iy niim^roftiA 
letter* to iufim'^tinl pcryooA And l» Vp-roto to FIaviou 
the celebrated e|>irttl«, tu wliicb, aft rt«|>ectA CfariA- 
tology,heTe«f«d toward the Tertullian>Augii3tinian 
oouoeption. In this leltertbodoctnnoof twonahirefl 
Ib atrictly carried otit {"^agit utraque forma cum 
atterins commt^moue^ tfuotl proprium est verbo 
seiL operants quad v^rbi est et canu> ^rs^qnenii 
qnod camis ^f"*)* nnd the oM Ootidcntal, juri«|{o 
ejLpedieut expoiuidcd, tlwi oiie mubt WUeve lu 
one Person, which has two deparatc* naturoB (sab- 
staincefi) at tta dif^io^al* — an eipttlient which is 
trul}' neither luooophyxitic nor NtjAtorian, since it 
sbarply dirtingniAg between Ibo Petaon and the 
two natttreft, and tbareftacv really introdooea tliroo 
mafiniludes; but it iMHaiiUy standi oearer to Noato- 
rianisra and doea not do justice to the decicdTe inter- 
eat of faith, bat eixclndea er«fy comrrefe form of 
tlioci^ aod oooaequently ±^t]<£e6 neitber piety dot 
intellect. Bendee tbta Leo knowii tmty tbe bonnes 
ci dooetinn and SamcvatianiMn. I-^o ofmainly ao 
knowbdgea in b>» lettcea tbe inteeaat of omr redemp- 
tko; but be gvre an iatezpivfatiaii which Cyiil 
wivukl hatv Blnai^T repudiated. 

In Ati|:uat {u^) tbt> ^jwi cooodl of Epfavraa aB- 
aamUrd under l>ioecurut>' direction. Bomc wis nt 



6rBt ireatect sa non-«*xtgU>nt, Ui«n htimblod iii tbo 
persona of its ]cgat<M<, tvbo, moroovor, nctcd with 
UDcertaJBty. Dio&ciircK ptit tlirougli Uiv rt'sbltitiou 
that the matter must sU>p mth tht» Bycods of Nic^ki 
and RjfhnHiui (431), which expn?»*ed the oiil cPO©d: 
"After the inainiation there exists oiM incarnate 
nature"; no symbol was established; Eiitycb^ was iSaImLuS/ 
reinatatcd and, on the hoeia of the Nioono crood, tho 
chiefs of tbo Autiuchiau»i but at tbe same time Fla- 
Tian, Emebitui of Doiylceum, Theodoret. and Dom- 
nii» of Antioch weie deposed; in ahert, tbe Church 
wari tJiOD>u(cb1y purified from " Netitorianiam'*. Ail 
this was done ^itb abnoat uoanimitx'. Two years 
hiUtt ibi* tinaniaiily was declared as enforced by 
nianv biidioiiQ ^rbo bad taken part {latrociHiutn oimD^itw- 
Kphemiunty aays Leu). Ditxscitroo certainly, with 
tbe aid of bis titucitioal monkB, ieiTuriz4)d the synod, 
buta farstn>ii^r prespure was afterwards necesBary 
atCiialoedon. l>ioeiCimisin reality raised tbe faitb of 
five Ori^it to a tiled ntandard, and tbe inconspAraMe 
victory wbicb boenjoj-ed had, tinleaa foreign |H>woni 
(Uie state, Rome) should iotorfere, tbe guaiantee of 
permanence. But Dioscmx^s roused against hJmraU 
ttie pope and Uie Byzantine Btate-idea^ and did not 
calculate uj)on the wide-spread aversion to the right 
winiz of bi» army» tJ>o madced Apollimiri^tfi. He 
robahiUtJitjtil Kiityoli4>i^ withmit pxpi-f«e<ly mndffmn- 
ing tho doubtfid t<7nn« wbicb ho itnd hit» foUowere 
hubitually xihgA. 
On the ^>fih of July (450) Ptddienu and Marcian *&i l<%. 


succeeded Thecxlofliua; until then Leo had vainly 
eudeavorod lo raiflO oppoailjon to Uie oounci)* Kow 
MnrciuUi wlig wait dotcrmincd to brook the indepea- 
dence d{ tiw Alexandrian bitiIiopi>, stood in need of 
him. Leo desired llm mndeaination of Dioscuros 
and the acceptance of bia on^ didactic epistle wiik- 
oui a council: but the emperor veoB obliged to io- 
6iat upon one, in order lo bring About a wholly new 
order of LUIngB, Such a ouo could succeed onlj' if a 
new dogmatic formula were eatabliahed, which plncccL 
the EgyptiiinB in the \rrong and still ditl not yiel<l 
tlie |K>int to the Antiocbianz^ Politics oounfiellod the 
formula of the Occident (Lwj'ft) aa tiie only way outn 
chih^oSf '^^^^ council iwdly toot place at Chalcedon in 461; 
to the pontificial legatee were conceded the placeo of 
houurj Leu had iu^tructed them to den)^te nothing 
from the diffnit>' of Itome. The greater part of the 
500 to 600 bifthopfl were like-minded with Cyril and 
DioHCurog, highly oppoaed to all Net^torianisjn, hos- 
tile to Theodorot; but the emperor dominated the 
oounoil. It was sottled that Dioacurofi muKt be do- 
pooed and a dogmatic formula in the sense of Leo*aac- 
oopteil, ainca the decree of 44li was aanuUed a? having 
been "e^ttorted"- But it wae jnat a« sure that the 
memory and iloctrine of Cyril miiat not Iw sacrificed. 
Dio»ciiro4 tlwroforo waa depotov] jift«r a mo^t shame- 
ful pnx'H^rc, not aa an heretje, but on aef\>iinl of hifi 
di);ol>oi1icn<*e and irrof^hinticw^ The mnjurity of 
thebiidioiKsdiwivowuil their past bL-fore tbr fiuv uf 
the imi>orlnl connnlsaionur^ and abiujd<juiM) Uiouciiroti 

and the docrpe of 44^; biit onl^r l>y fals^ reprf-s^ntft- 
tioTWund tlircjilfi <)iJ llio bialiopt nllovr (honiBclves to 
he induced to ucknowlotlge t)io rnuon of L«.hk which 
evety Oriental cmild not hut undt^r^tand a» NiTalo 
rian, aiad to j^unctrou the il4)ctriiie tlmt rIso after the 
incarnation tliere were tn-o naturoH e^^isteat in Christ* 
Kven at the laRt liour it wnff attenipfM — although in 
vftin — to exalt to a dogma a morolv notional dirtinc- 
tion between the imture«. At the 0th ftlltiag the de- 
creeH of 2ih^ :)8i and 431 wore confirmed and their 
sufficiency acknowledged* hut it was remarked, that 
OQ account of tho heretics (who, on the one side, te- 
jected the ^lot^^"^ and, on tiie otiier, (ieaired to intro- 
duco a a^'Yyumi and t/^iat^ of tlio natiirt***, " irrationally 
inveatiapf only one nature of the tieah aad t)ie I>ei1y 
and cuudidering the Divine nature as capable of 
suffering '') it was necessary to admit the letters of 
Crril to Nei<torinR and the Orientala, a8 well as tlio L^urvuf 

Cyril utl 

letter of Leo. The declaration i^eadA: ttth'i ^W ^^ '^Z'*' 

fijw rboiirrv u>4riu«TAvf«f, <4va#f/ui?fTfi (thiB was the Bficri* 
fiee of the thoughts of the boart), 'Et^fxt¥4n t«/*w- r*?* 

iit) Sr^^ftatvov dJip^f T'lv c't^*!'^ then it reads: f'" **' tJi- 
later correction, favoraUc to mouophyttitifim)<4<T^7^- 

Tivf, ^T/riisrw^, «3iai/jfT«Jt*y ti^AVitfrwv p't**ffiZ*'l'**^ *"''*dii]tvv r jf 
Tin' fPtJiTtidi' AitynfHif ds^/Hj/ifi^ 4l4 T^v fwffifrv, tfivCitCE/]^ 



3i ^dXt"v rff f'^;iJn^rof (ta^/Mti fu<rc«t, haj c/f fp ir^tfutu* 
Mai ttiAv 6ic^trT^dtv ffo^r/rixoo^^^ vf^ tit ^» ifp'/iru^a 
fMtfit^^ijUVftv ^ dtatp"*''ruw¥y 6JM fnu uti ti* aitikt Q\iitt jmI 

By ttuH fHstimiioT) tx)twix>n nature juid |m>[«oq tbo 
ptiwi>r i»f Hw myMory of fnitJi wjw [lanilyxoiK H con* 
cinvnl>lc myfttorj «(Uiljli-^ho*lf nnti yet Uic ctcomcm 
of th« AiiliucliSnn c<nicvptiun of Uio hiiiiiunity of 
3m\i» was after a)I not rmi.^otl. The TormulfL is 
oegutiveiind cold; the pious saw their comfort, th« 
r>ft»(T« ft»T:Ki^ vanish. Horr fthuU our nature profit 
hy what occurred in tlie Person of ChyUtf Th*» 
hated ^moTfdifim*', or th^ mysticism cf tho union of 
the Lo$^ with every human sonl» M?\^mc<i to bo the 
conseqaenee- And, bo8itl<», uno \x\va oxp«:t«d to be- 
liere in a pT*>'*ff liwrfSffr^^fs, of which Intherto in the 
Orient only a few liad known anythiDgl The gain 
in having now fiectirod tho fnU humanit>' of Jesiu 
aaan inoont^ihl« artiHn of fjiitli, invahiablefortbe 
fntore, was too dearly bought, Pcnco was also not 
rwtored. Bin[)rror and p<)po were at vunjuic© over 
the t^^th cvuioii, dvo^i if Uiey did not allow ibe nln^ 
ter to oomo to a rupturo, and the Uhiirch of the 
Orient fell into di»«ohttioD. 

3. The- Jitotiojihffsite Contests and the Slh Coun- 
cii. (Manai, T, VII~IX; LiK>ftt, Leontiu^i von By- 
EADZ, 1S8T).— The century ijotwcon t ho 4th and Bth 
couDciU )«bow'» i\Ki tnoHt compticutiid and confused 
relatione; during the time the dogmatic situation 
also constantly changi^a, so tliat a short survey is 



intpoBsil^Ia Therefore only a few principal points 
can be lieratrtated. 

(I) The opponentii of the Chaloedon creed, the *^5|S" 
tnonAp1ij'»it««^, were 8iip«*rior to the ortiiotiox in 
Bptritiial poller t\ni activity. In Egrpt, parts of 
Syria and Aniionia, they kept Ihe upper hand, and 
the omperon* sueoeetlwl tit^itlier Ijj" thrL'-«it» nor by 
coQceesion^ io fcaiuing thein over for uiiy len^ of 
titnr>; the^e pmvinom rAiher ftli^aiiitod theni«plv«e 
moro and mckre from the empire iwid jomc<l the 
monopli^'nitir coiifosKiori vritJ* Uivir niittrmaUty, prw- 
parator}' to (ouuding hidepcndetit national rhiircht^8 
bcAtile to the Gredc. In the main persf^veriug 
steadfastly in the doctrine of Cyril and rejecting 
the farlhcr-refiohm^ Apollitiarian-Eutychian form- 
uliiB, Um m<mophj"sihi« »i!iinvix1 by iuwanl Mpintiinl 
moTeuientH that in their inid^t alcH:<? the dogmnticol 
lef^cy L>f tho Clitirch vra» »til! alive. The uewly* 
awakened AriKtotdUAiii^ni, which as Rchola^tteiMU 
took the place of Platonism, found among them 
Icflnipdilefemlers, who (John Fhiloponus), tobe«ure, 
approm^hwi in their ^iM-ciilation very nt ar to tritb»- 
i«m. In refford to the Chriiitological <](io«Hon there 
were two main teudenciei^ {Oieflrler, Comments qua 
Monoph. opin. llhisilr., 2 Part., 1S35 seq.). Tlieso 
(Sevenw, Severiant^, " Agnoetianft", " Phartola* 
treans") wore mUly opposed to the Chalcedon creed 
only JI8 a formal innoviiti<»i. bat agr^ even lo a 
notional diKtinrtion hi*t^«-een the two natures in 
Christ, and, «tiU mort>, were sealoiuly adxious to 

S9C orruxBS or the HmroHv or uuqxa. 


kwp i\w itJiturH?*^ iiniiiixoJ ant) to lay Htit«u upon ilio 
cnvtUjni-T^hip uuJ t^prniptibility (lu theory) of Uie 
body of Cbrfst as well as upon the liaiitn uf lmovrl> 
edgo of the soul of Christ, so thiit they ofFetnled even 
the orthodox* Th^y might have l>eeii won, if the 
Chalcedon fomiuhi, i.c, the epistolar)' teat*hing of 
Leo, had heen aacriSced. The othen, on the con- 
trary (Julian of ilalicarDasscfe, '* Akiiatotcd," '' Apb- 
tharto(lokete»4"), rejotiing it i^ truetho tr»imforma- 
ttoo of thu one nature into tlie other, drew all the 
cooaequenctw «f the fvwmf ^«rLr^': From the mi>ment 
of the a;9sumptw the body also should l>c consid- 
ered aft imi^erishalJe and, indoeil. as ^n^^^oat^x^; all 
the attribulos of the Doily wore transforrod to the 
hunaan nature; accordingly all alTcctionB aud re- 
stnctioDA, which one observes in llie evangelical pic- 
ture of Ghri8t> were assumed by hira fi-eely -nrra 
jrdpiv^ but were not the neceftsarj* consequences* of his 
nature. Thi8 cKJnce])tioD, itttluenced solely by Itie 
idea of redemption, alcoe <xfrrf>ftponiU to the ol<! 
tradition (Ireiieeu6, AUianadiud, Ore^ry of NyB.,suT 
etc-)- Finiilly there were ahiu nut-h nionoplivMU^A — 
yet certainly they were not mmierout*— as ndvanccd 
to ft {HUitlieistic e^poculation (*• Adiapboritet*"); Tbe 
creature is in a mysterious manner ftlt<^etber con- 
fiubfitantial with Ood; the i>wat^ ^ofrtt^ in Cbri«t is 
only the expro^ion for tho ^naral oonitutifttintiHlity 
of his nature and the Deity (Stephen bur Suduili; 
thoniysticH; influenc^j npon the 04:ddt>nt; Sootus 
Krigeua). Since tlK* fith Council and still more riinoo 


the advent of blaiu, tlio nionopliyidti<' cliurche^ have 
pined away iu isolation, the viM national and rdig- 
uniafaimtioitimaiiil the barren i^banta^yoCUie monks 
have d^tlivercd them ovor to barUnrisni. 

Oi\ Sinoe ooereiou had no i>ffect, a fow emiMirorM Hi^nfikon 
aoag^t, in order to maintain ihc unity <if Uim t-mjfirv, 
to sappreva temporarily ihe Clialcivlun crettl (Bn- 
cyclica of BaeiliticuR, 4 *G) , or to avoid it (Heijolikoii 
of Zeno, 4^2). But Uie oousoqucnco of tliJu policy 
always wji8 that they won over only a part of the 
monopliy^itf^ luid tJinl tlio^y Ml out with Rinno aiid 
tlie Ocetdimt. Thiih tiroMS <>n tlii^ i»cc*oiint of the* 
Henotikon, a thirty-Hvo yvtkT^* w^liism witli liomc 
(4$4-dl9), which served only to mako the popeatill 
more indejiendvnt. The em]>eror8 could not rench a 
deci&ion to sacrifico triUior Rom^ *jv tlio Oriont, and 
finally thi-y lost both. In the year $]!« the Cbaloe- 
ilmi CTMvl wttft fully n'^toKtd, tn Al)iaii<*e with Romo, 
by tiu> oniporoT JuAtiu, wh<» wa» inSiwnood by his 
U(^phl^w Justtiilan. But tho thvoptL^nhitf iHJiit^^t ch^^^^n- 
(enl^gement of Ibe tmhagion by the addition: "' 
ffrw/pwih)9 ^i >jj^*, i.e., the validity of tho fonnula: 
"One of tti4) trinity wat4 crucifW*: Th«y are not 
idt^uticaU for tlio orio wah a cultiHh innovation and 
ooulij bo iindorbitoo<l in h SjilMftliitn wuy^ whilo th^ 
otbor ttf goot! ortliodoxy) hHoiv^a, aincc 518, that in 
the Occident i-vory Cyrilliiiu explanation of the 
Chaloedon creed waarcgardal with suspicion, while 
the orthodox in the Orient woukl tolerate the Chal- 
oedon creed only with a Cyrtllian interpretation. 


of IlyjuiD' 



liopinji: t)]cn>by 8ti11 always for h reooQCiluitioii witb 
tho monupUynitcft- 

{H) Wbilc in the 5th cf-ntiiiy tlic CJiiUccdrm ortho- 
iluxy tiiid tcpuu tlio whi)lc no iiuloiJ duipriatk- rt*pr9- 
eentativtf in ttio Oricmt>— tho atrongLWt proof timt it 
WBS foreign to tlio i^pirit of tho Oricmt — several ap- 
pearM tifliT tliuLogittningof llio Ctb century. The 
fomiutahml not only in iiini? l>LK*ome more vpnf»ra- 
ble, but tbo fttudy uf Arif^totlo kIm^vo all fiiniieh^d 
wcapoDA for itn defence. Tbo Acliolusticisiu not i>nly 
pennitled ibc nsUmtiou of the Ciuik'odon dUtiaction 
between natum and pt^rson, but <3vui] iilsu tve]eome<] 
it and ^VG to the fomitila fitill a strong Cyrtl- 
licn intei^rrfatiojt. This wa^ brought about by 
the Soythian monk, L^ioiitins of RyEantium, the moel 
eminont dogmnti^ of tho ^th contury, tbo fororuuuer 
of John of Daiujufcua, and tbo tfr^iclior of Jualiniaii. 
He pjicified the Cburcb by a philoHophically conreir- 
able pjcpOHttion of the Chalcedon trreed and bnriefl 
the do(ona in acItdaHttcal technicalitiea. He Is the 
father of the Chriatological npW'ortht)doxy, just as 
tho CappndocianB were the faih^roof the trinitarian 
ncw-ortliodoxy. Through his doctrine of the en- 
hypiiJiUisis of the human nature, be piud^ in the 
form of a liue ApoUinarlaniam, foil regard to the 
idwi of redemption. 

(4) Henwforlb the policy oi JuKtinian, the royal 
dogmatiat, munt l>e imdi^rAtoofl r»i a r»liginu8 poliey. 
By tmeiampled lueb ln^ had brought thf? whole t-m- 
pint under hiA A^vay, and be wiciiied in like inaiiriifr to 


tattle dnally the lavr mid tbo tltiginaiicA of tlieem- 
plro< Tlie following points of view ^ided him: (a) 
Strict adl»<Mi£iii to llw> lerbal ie^rl of the Ohalnedon 
crovd i\H 11 ciipiLnl clocieioii e<]uiU lit standing? to 
tboae of NirAta, Ci>n&Uii]t)jio|>)t« aiid Ejtbesub, (h) 
Strict Cyrillifin interpretation cf tbe nymbol (the 
emperor whk itjcLinod to go as far x\^ a}kIilhart<KLoket- 
iffln), in orrlor to gain over the monopbyflite* and to 
f;>ltow hia own inc1inAtion< Tbo moans to it wi.-ro: 
(a) Numorotiu imfwriid n'lifpouft odictK in tiio >4miiw 
of tho Chrit^tolof.'y of Lcontiun, {h) Public n^liffious 
dEHfXJunteti, (r) Tbtjcarryiin; out of the theopascbitic 
formula, (r/) Hnppit^tdon of every more liberal and 
more independent Ibeologj-; tliereforo, on the one 
dde, that of Ori^n, ivho had many ^yinimthizcrr^ 
Binont: tim monophy^ilic mnnlcg, eeponally in Paltw* 
tine, and, on tho otl^or aide, of tho AntiocLiiui thcol* 
' ogy, wbii^b abo still posaesfted numerous adberenta 
(uB tlie emperor liad c1o»;ed the Bchool at Athens, ho 
he intended likewise to clofie all (Jhri&tinn wnentific 
Bchools; only the scholastic should remain), (p) 
Enforced naturalization of the new-orthodoxy in llie 
Ocddent. Tlieexecution of these plans waa rendorwl 
difficult: (1) By the secret monophysitiG co-regency 
of the empress Theodora, (2) By tLe refusal of the 
Occident to oonaent to the rejection of the Anrioch- 
iaiiB) i. e. od the** three articles'" (person and writ- 
iogs of Theodore, anti-CYrillian writingH of Theo- 
doret, letter of Ihas to Maris). In the later condem- 
nation of tile Antioobiaiw. the Occident (FacundttA 



300 orTr.ixR« of thic nreTOBV of noc«A, 

tit nnil 

of Hvnniam') rij^liUj' nxrognizcd an atUmipt to do 
Mv/ny with Iho iloctrino of th*i two niLtitrtvt, tm I^eo 
hml mi^Jint U, nnd to tfubntihitc hi ito place n fnic 
moDophj'Aitii^D. Hgwevi^, th^ emptrivir fuutid in 
Bomo a cbaractorlasfi pope (Vigiliii«), who, in gmlU 
tying the emperor, coverwl huiiflelf with diegmce 
and jpopanlizwi bm pcjsition in tbp Oecident (in^>fit 
«chif;mt; in the Ocoidpnt). The enipopor obtninixl 
th? €un(]4ininati<>ii of Origon arnl of iJit? " tlirev *'li«p- 
Wns"; ho rostorod tho do|j:niniic idoiuf of tlio two 
Bphi>9i<k]i roundly of 43L and 4Ut witlioiit touching 
tho ChttldKlcii rri'f.'d, fuul ho cauAinl all tJiis to be 
8niictionud by olRtlient LitfLops ut tlio 51b t'ouncil 
in CottfllantinuiJo, SAit. But in ^pito of tbo fact thut 
onp could now spGflk with CjtiI of onjf Go(J'inr«mate 
nnturo (by tJn>pidoi»f tbc*d<K*trinoof thcUvonnt^irce) 
luitl Ihnt tbo Bpirit of OriuJit<tl doginiLtJMii Iiml bhi)9 
gained tho victory, tbo iiioinjphyBito> would nut bo 
won ; for tlio Cbaloodon ch^lhI wi\» too much df^tcstvd 
und tho mitag^vuirirns hiid long ptitir^becumenfitioiiah 
4. Thir Motterfjisfir ami MonofhcMic ContrO' 
rrrfiii^fi, fhf^ (ifh Council ami Johti rt/ Damaxctis 
(Mun«i,T. X- iiiid XL)'"Wilh the dcrwionftof tbo 
4tb iLud 5lli c'uunviU, tliti diK^trinu vt one wiU in 
Christ would ngroo, 110 wdl «« th« doctrine of ttvo 
wills. In fact 1>eforo tbo Gtb oontury, no ono lind 
spoken of two wilU in Chri»^t; for tbo Anticx^hiiui^ 
aIbo had said, as once Paul of Samosata, that tlie 
human will was entirely blendod with tijo I>ivino 
will (uDity of will, not sing)onc»i« of vrU\). But 


the tiheolo^ of Leoiitius Wiided on the wtiolo lo^^'»^l 
thedocirine nf two "ilK Yet il wouk! hardly liavo 
conw to A coiitniverKy — the do^ma hiul it\roiit\}\ siiico 
55), been tturroutluivtl to th^.^olc^cid ticioncn? (ijcho- 
laeticiam) and thd cultus (m^dliciam)— if politico 
bad not \nkim po3ftf«8ioD of the (|ue^tlon. 

The patriardi of the capital, Ser^ius^ couQ^eUed 
the jkoivcrful emperor HeracliuA ((iUMWl). to 
Htren^icn bis recoD<|ii^rod tiTiilory in the south 
and ^sint hy ninkitig a^lvanona t<> th<^ mouophjKibw 
with th« formula: T)t» Ood-maii, oonHUtirg of two 
natuitvf, eJToctwl evprythiiig with ortc 0<>d-tiK.anuito 
energy. Upon this haaia a tinfon was really formed 
in 633 vritb maiiy inono{)hj'8iti.^9p But oppoeitioa 
arose (Saphronius, aftorwoixl bishop of Jenwolem), 
and Sc-n^k^ in union with Honortua of Rome now 
fiought to dct juftti'^Q ti) nil by ^ivinff out tho watch- 
word : One ethould l>o ailont in regard to the cncr^oe 
^tlitit Chruit Liad wily one ^^v" v^fui ntill ruu»id«red 
8olf-6viciont) . Thuft abin ran aii imperial i.slk't, the 
ektbesis (G38), Kut not only in the Oa:idt>iit wero 
the coR80qucnc€±4 of the docti^iiial letter of Leo rfr 
mcmborod, but in the Orient the ublepit th^^oIo^Rna 
(^liixlmun the Confeikaor) wero alino to atbiched to 
the Chaloedon creed through Ar{ftt4>toliuTi ftcbohMS- 
Uciam, thatUjry rla»mHl tlu-f^tV/ with the fKif»r^ inot 
with Uie P&r»in) and therefore demanded the duab 
ity. Now even monotheleiism was conderontrd hi a 
Roaum synod, "Ml (Pojv John IV.J. The Orientals, 
who rejecteil tlti» i'kthwia, S^ to Carthage and 





Bome and i)r<ri>iire(I« iu union witli clio |x>|}Ot» formal 
rvvoLution. TIiik, iii<U«0(1, wni4 tliw»rt4><l (tlio i]ii€«* 
iion vrtM a» to the frvcilom of the Church in rchition 
to tL^ sUiU-; Ulu attitri uoiitinuccl iu Uie inui^- cou- 
trovor^y), Yel tho om|H?r(>r found himself obligod 
to surrcudor tho i^kthoat^, rcpkoiug it by the Ojpos 
which forbmli*, uiulirr uovi-^ro p6zialti(!vt, tk<^ coatro* 
vorsy over ftm^ or two will«. Bnt R^^me diii not 
cooAont to tliiii ttitlwrr. At i}n,' Lutorfiii itynodf 640 
(Murtin I>), which many Orifiitjih* ntbctiilcd, th« ooa* 
upiracy cuntinttrd a^luiit tho <<iiif>eruri who darud 
to giv© ordtTft to tlio Churc'h> The twowiU doc- 
trine iTtis fonnulatcd in strict iangiuige, hut^ 
»tranKely I'Jiou^h, tho ri^ht of tlio corn>ctIy under* 
stood ftwitono*?"! /iff p-iffcc ta'/ l^ob Xi'/you ^aap^atM^ wa* 
ooncodod. A liirgit iiunitxir of Coii»tAntino{>olitan 
I^Htriurc.h^ of the Ultnr dtivt% were rt*iKh*annxI, MiU'* 
tiu khowal aCgns, like a second DioMrui-oit, of niliiig 
»iid Mtirriiig uj> tlic churcli^ of tJie Orivnt, but the 
emperor Cou^tmna, the «tovereign of tbo pope, atic- 
oeod&d in 8iibiluiug him l*>b'di. DisIiouonHl and 
disgrnce^l, \w dictl in th<r Ch(M^mc*in«. MjLximim 
the Ccnfvtu^jr nlm had to tuffcr. ComAan^ hood 
found in Rome uionj nocoinuiothiting pitpLie, and 
renniine>d until hi8 death (OGK) nmfitorof tJie situa* 
tion. nijtkiiig the typo^ *f( iniportauco aiid putting 
forward the rLUwoniibl^ c'xpcdiont, thnt the two nat- 
ural willrt had ljec<»me, in acpotdanre with the hypo- 
Btatio union, oiii? hypostatic will. 

The fuactiuu ^rliicli followed in CouBt4Uitiaopl6 ia 



not perfet'tly clettr. P«riia[i» boaiu^ one needed no SSS^'J^ 
to p»y rciraril to tbo moDophy»itOB, p«rhapft 
cati&c* " science *' wjut f nvorahW t<> tHo dootrinv nf two 
wills, pcrbfipe bct'QUw men dwircd tofcttor» tliroiig;li 
dogmatic concowioms tlm uu<.-orUiin OcctOviiUil |fO»- 
seeaious and bind tbitn moro tinnly to tlio capital, 
the emperor Constantinc Pog^matiiH inad^) rKlv-urcea 
and &ouglit to cntitv tlio powerful popu Agutbon 
to new ne^tiatiomt. The latter ^ut a doctiriiiiU 
epiatld ad Leo I. odoo hnd, whidi proclniinvd tlie in- 
fallibility of the Homnn ohair iintl tbo djotlnilrtitmi. 
At Lbe 0th c^niiiril in Coii^ftjuitiiiopki (OftO) it Tin» ^^j* ^ 
curriwl through Aflcr diverse prupoi^ild of intorin«d!- wi>te,«* 
ation and under prolost, which however filially ci'^iut-d^ 
i-e, the formal eoEsequcmcw* of the decree of 451 
were deduced (two nRtiirat ^th^rtvra and two natiirftl 

OnGrviee aJfur^^riuf^ VTftixTtvf^ Ajftfti^fv*^, Atfuj^frvfi ID 

the one Chmt; theywcro not to be considered aa 
dmtradictory, for thi? hum^ui will Tollowtt ^ind does 
Dot resist nor contradict, rather is it Bubject to the 
Divine and ahnighly will; the human will is not 
suspended, hut, on the other hand, a comnmnionlion 
tAkc« place: It is the will of the Ood-Lo^tio, just 
aa the bunian nature, without auspen&ion, iieverth«- 
lew ])ecame tJie nature of the Ood-Lpgoti). At 
Iho same time many uf the OmslantinopoJitan ]»atri- 
archs and pope Honerius were oondomn^Hl. Tbuft 
Rome again didated its formuln, Ijalanced theTith 
cv}imcil by the 6th and ttiBiauaterl itt^lf into tbe 
Oriont, But the agroemont was of abort duratioD* 



JcrFm or 

Already at the aecond Tmtlan council in nir2 the 
Orient took a fitrong poaiUou agaiiiut Homo in mnt- 
tem of cult — aud Lbefie wera already tbo nioru do* 
clftive til bigs. 
Tho form^itajit of tlie By?-aiitino dogmatics are Oi> 
DunjucuA cideiital; but Uio spirit, which iu 431 and 553 had 
oxprttiu^od itHolf, rvtuinod in tlio interpret at ion of 
thi> fiirTniil;\i4 tho ii|i|x>r Imml. and tlio t^jltus nnd 
my»tic Hyi^icm havi* always Ijccn umlcr^tooil mono- 
phyttitic^Uy. On tlivuiienidv, this was shuwD i)i the 
iiniigo-<.x>nlrovcr&y, on tho otlior, in the Clirifitotogio- 
al do^iintic8 of Jolin of Dntnnscns, In spite of the 
ilyophysitical aud dyolJiolf>tic»l formula iind the 
eliarp difitinctioD botwoon nuture and p<)rfion, a Gee 
Apotlinarianij;n:» or monophynitiMm, luut becm here 
preiH^rvcd, in so far at» it i» tiiught ihnt the Qod- 
IjOi^jk df^HuntLHl Imnmn tiaturo (i^ot of n niitn) in 
Biich a muuuer that the Miino was lii-Ht iudividualizcd 
by the God-Logog. Tii^it U the iatormediate thing 
already recognized by Leontiuft, which ha* no h3Tio- 
Btaaifl of ita own. yet in aJao not withcnit one but 
jtoaeeeaeB in the h^-poetasia of iho Logos its indopea- 
deiuce. FiiiUiermoro^ tho di^tinctioD botvrooD th« na* 
tnrea was adjusted by the doctrine of Uie rt/»i/o;pifaif 
and th(^idionia43-communication. The ;t«T«aocf« (oixii- 
wtfr^% fiv7-,JSt'4t^) of the attributes of the two naturea, the 
Damaacan will so dohnitttly conceive that he (ipeaka 
of an c\- JJJpjJ* ri-M p//'iuv xffii2<^'^Tt\', The flesh in- 
directly biTcainctntly Gotland ihi^ Deity pervades tho 

DBVBU>riiE.vr of dootbinb of IKCARKATION. 305 




Already in the 6th century the dogmatic devel- 'j^'^™; 
opment of the Greet Churcli was condutied and lu^^^^*- 
even before that each advance wna obli(r<^] tocoi> 
tend againBt aversion and auttpicion. The reason 
lor it lay in the trodilionaliBro or, more correctly, in 
!tbe ritnaii^mt which more uud more gained the 
upper hand. 

Thia rituali^n also has a tender, religiDUd, even ^^^^IDf'^* 
ChriatJan root It oriKinated in the endeavor to '*'**"*' 
point out and realj/j^ th^^ enjoymoni of aD alrendy 
present salvaticn^ which Bpringe from the luuno 
source from which the future redemption flows'—from 
the aod-lncaniBte rervoo vt Ckridt— ^and which, 
therefore, i« tlio &ame in kind ai; the latter, (h-igin- 
ally men tliought, touching the present enjoyment of 
iialvation, more of spiritual bleesinga, of knowledge, 
of tha Atrengtliening of freedom unto good works, 
etc But siuco the future r^«mption wafi repre- 
sented aa a mysteiioua diuflcatiou*, it was only con- 
sistent that tiiey should coimider the knowledge also 
aa mjaterioua and to be communicated hy holy cod- 
aecralioii^ and ihal, in accordance with the idea of 
a future j>Av;TtV'<i/ union with tlie Deity, they alioiild 



endeavor to rorSfy for tlie present tiiiiQ also the way 
uoto, and (orolastc of, tins divineness. 

Thift t4>mIwK7, however, leads directly oror to tho 
pfkjLfrmiziDff: ef Chri»tiiinity or, rather, i» ulreedy n 
ftymjit^mi tif it. Hho ii'i^*^^tf \^CitTrv»if, ^ofrrafatyia\ tJjO 
Intli^r, liawovor, nriginiiUy n ^hntlowy tinioti of tJio 
HpiritiuiUiTidaoiiKtiouii, tetidftmijreand more to mngic 
ami jnggtorj*. In this the ritual fs tho chief thing; 
nothing, however, is moro seofiitive thun h core* 
mony ; it dot« not l^ar the sUght««t ehau^. hx m 
far DOW as the formiilaH of ftijtli lofii inuro aiid more 
thoir flignificane^ M pdlh^jftv and bMAtno in ever 
higher degree oonfltitiientfl of the ritual, expressing 
atth<T :«amo time Ujtr uKuiiJTig jitid purpose of it, i.r., 
to make divine, they iRinnittod no longer of any 
change, ^licrever the dognia appoar vuluablo 
only ofi » rolic of olden timoft, or only in ritualiiatic 
ceremony, there the histiiry of ilofnca is at an end. 
sir«ft- ^ In ite phieo conw* the mysfagogic fheologif, und 
ThcutoKT.I in4(^] tii^, Inttcr, togotlior and hi dofte union with 
8ChoUu»ticj»m, took alrea<ly la the nth r^^ntury ttio 
place of tJio history of dognia. Th<9 m}'slAgogic 
thwlogy, however, haa two (iide8. On the one Hide, 
in croatinK for \i^\t upon the earth a new world 
and in ma.kmg of thiitgs, porti^^ns and tinier mys* 
teriouft ftymhols and vehicles, it leacU to the relig* 
ion of necromancj', i.e, hack to the IowL*3t graile of 
religion; for to the masaes, and finally even to 
tlieologians, the s]>irit vanishes nnd the ptiletimat 
the oonfiecmted nv-iiter, rrmains. As the Neo- 


Flaktnic philuK>j>hjr dvginicmtcHl itilo Migioua bar- 
bnrism, »o aleo Qreck Clirlstianitx, under Uio in* 
fluence of the expiring antiquity which bcquemth^d 
to it ilfl highest ideals aiid idt>l«, became imap©- 
wwi^ip. On tho other Hide, the mystagopic theol- 
<>ffy rotuitiA for tho "knowing onos'' its primitivo 
pQfktht^iatic gi=nn, the f uiid«Diental tliought that Ood 
and natiins, in tJie deepest Benne, are one, and thAt 
nature ift the unfolding of the I>eity. Tlie Cliristiau 
inysUgi)gii; tlieoU^gians alw more or les8 clcarlj' 
thoufilit out and retained these ideas. Through 8pecu- 
lation AHfl a3f!f^tici»n one enn emaneipate onMM^If fmin 
all mediums, medintora and vohiclea. MyBleriodO- 
phy takes tb^« place of Uieniysleries; these, likeevery- 
thing concrete and hi»loricHjj become for the know- 
ing ones pure eymboU, and the hititorieal redemp- 
tion through Obrist eBpecially is explaiuod awaj. 

It is not strajige that two such diffei-ent formd aa r»niiwt«n). 
pantlieifim niid fetishism, although balanced by ritu- 
alism, abovld be tho fiaa] product of the devolopment, 
Bince both wuTQ lodged already in the be(;iniiing of 
the movement and are blood-relations; then they 
have their i^oot in tJie conception of the substantial 
unity of (3oil and nature, Tlse history of the ilevcb 
iqiment of Uio myHterie«i and of the tlieoloj^' of my-s- 
teriee, etrictly taken, does not belong heris tlwreforo 
only a few biutn will follow. 

I. At the beginning of the 4th oentury the Chnn^h ^^^&i 
already poMWftised a ffreat array of m3-sterios» Uie SSTStt* 
number and bounds of whidi, however, bad by no 



meaUH beeu deliiiit^Jy ddtermined. Aiacm^ lliem 
baptism^ UigeUier with tb^ accompanying unctioo, 
and tbe euchariBt -were Die most v^teenitiil^ from 
thcMO also ftomo of the other mysteries have boon 
oviJvoil. Sj'i«bi>Iii* cftrmnoiiif*!*, orijonally int^ndncl 
to aeoompauy thtso niyictorjop}, Ijocidiho indisp^ndojit. 
Thtiii coofirmiiLiou hud itri <iri^n, winch Cypriaii al- 
reaily ininibere<l aa a special *'8acramentHm'\ Augtis* 
tiiio iK>ititfi<l it out 09 socrrttnentum chrisiitaiis, and 

tllO AltopUgJto eallod it .'J'JffrrJi't'n TiiT^rr,isi'/^u>u. La|^r 

men spoko hIko of H myfttory of tbu sign of tho 
erQa«» of rolicft, of cacorcism, of nnuringA, <*lc,, and 
tho Aroopo^pUf cnunicratci« «ix myKtorivH: ^t^ric- 

rc^tttutrfiwv, /rrj^u^ii'Jf rfA[(fi><f<wv^ and M'"'^~/'f« '=i ^^"^ U/k^i- 
jir<(jrjr^/x/wuv. The enuincratiun was vory arbitrary;/ 
my&ti^ry WAS anything aonifuauA wlicrulry soint^tlnng ^ 
lioly might bo IhiHiglit or enj^yt-d. Tlioy corro- 
spundvd t4> ibo ho»v<>uly inyNt^rioM, whicli Imvu Uioir 
source in tin* trinity luid incamntion. A» CMich ft*ct 
of njvvlaliou h Aniy«u?ry, in so far *u* the Pivlno 
bMM tlirough it entered into tlm sensuous, so in turn 
is each schsuouh medium^ i><ven a word or action, a 
myslory, ho i^oon rut t\w »i«u»iioiis i» a symtx>l or 
vehicio — th«rro hrw ni^vcr been a Btrict diBtinction bo* 
tveou tlM>m — of tho Di%"ino, Tho <rffoct» of tho myv 
terioa were? cdchrntcd in the highest terms nn union 
witli tbu Deity; but since tticy cannot n^toru loat 
€onimu^iiun with God (unly Christ anil freedom aro 
able to do that) , strict dogmatics was abb to aay very 


little about tJiem. The true effect is purely ono <^ 
feeling, i.e. 18 experienotK) in the faiitaHy: Men 
Haw, beani, scaett, aiid felt the oeEeetint, bitl n diet- 
lurbe4! conscienc4^ they could not cxmiftirt with tho 
inyHteriecf, nor did one hardly try to do so. 

Od this haHi», »ince tho coame iastinct of tbo 
maMe9 |in?«fled forward, nivsUTriosojihy was <iovrf- 
Oped* lt8 nx»i« aro iis old as the K^ntik^ Church and 
two ooiiVDr[ririf^dt>vi>l4ipmiMiU miiy U< di»;rv>m^), thif 
Antiochimi nnd tlti> AleKundrinn. The iir^i ( l^ntiuit, 
thtf Ap<itttoli<: Coiit«tIttitioiii«, ChrywvitLiiii] atiiiclien 
itself lo Uie cult and priMts, tlie fterond to tlie tnio 
gno8tic, i.e. to tli*» monk. Tli<* first t^^iA in Divine 
worship and in tho iirieet (bishop] the truo Ixiqueflt 
of tho Qod-incamato lifo of Christ and binds tfao 
layinan^ vt^^n-CHliiAtrntimly ]kaM»iiv4V tolbi^otilhiH hier- 
arcbioal syateni, )>y n-htoh odc l>cconiOA eonj^<cratcd 
to luuuurtiilily ; die m^^iud detfiixrvt lii form iiKU'|ieii- 
dbui virtuosos of religion. The Ale-xandrian inyste- 
riosc^hy is hetero<loi, but it did uoi iioglect & sin^e 
phase of the positiiv roli^on, mther did it make 
U80 of th4?m all by th^ side i*t the grai^liiah*d ni]- 
ritnelng knowledgo (eacrifioo, blood, roeoDoiliation, 
atonein<Mit( punficalioti^ pttrfectiod, meiana of aa]va- 
tton, mediator of ^Ivation) ; Inie, viewing them all 
as transition ^ntutf^s, in order to gain tiirough t^pecu- 
lation and aiKreticiam a standpoint fn:»m which eadi 
vehicle juid sacramiKkt, ovor>'tbinc holy which ap- 
pean nnd&r a ecnsuonif cov^r, hivtim^-ff profaiia, Imh 
eause the eoul now lives in tbo tno«t holy and bo- 

<«i|iliy : 



mux Alrx- 


310 orTU»K!« or tub nihtouy or doo»a. 
oauso iu oach man a Cbriat liliould 1>& bom ; ira/>au#i^ 

Thfl tivo in^'sterioeopbien, ih^ liierikrchical aikd the 
gnortticj convert iu the iiiyrttidMii of tho great im- 
known Dionj-i«iti8 Arvopiigita (I'lvliniiDary ^tngi^ 
are represented by Muthixlius, Grefp>T7 of Nysan^ 
MacnriiiA), wfio, on thii on4> HH\if, viewed thu cult Aiid 
|M-i(;dthoQj JiH iin ourtlily |MirfilU<1 to the beavt'Dlj" 
bierarcby (Us tht^ |^r»iK*(l world (}f hj^irlLi ua tli«> uu> 
folding of t]K> Deity), an Uic other, adoptcil the iu- 
dividuali*iiiioftheNiH)-Plntmiicmy8ticmni. Through 
Maximiis Cotifi.«iH)r thiA combination iwcAtiio tli« 
powor which ruled the; Church, triod U> uionorchiw) 
it, und inoctdntoi! it with tJio monkish ruKiMtun^M* to 
th« fttat« — Uio only form in which the Orcck Church 
w»A i.)t in uble to luv^ert il8 [iulv[>endeQOO. 
Kjfjjy fl* I The poT-iUtar churai'trr of my^torioflojihy, nn a 
*"*■'** ispeculatiou n>|;anlingtho mnkiu^of the Diviiio per 
Ctipti ble to thi> MDSCfl luid t Jie mak i iik of tlio »^08uoua 
Oivind, coiiUl in no myv^iwy Iw moro fitrongly ox- 
IpanMMd tUiin in tho cuvhttii«f (StcilK, Abondmahlif- 
l^i'o d. jcfioch Kirt'lut, i- d. Jahrb. /, deufAch*' 
ThetU., Bd, IX-XIM.). This*. lonK^ince rocogniz*^! 
m the^^imil \\\)tm which the euhlimoAt spirituaUsin 
can extend it.^ hand to tho moett massive sensualism, 
became 8o dovelopi^h tliat by it tlio Chrii^totoKieal 
formula, tlio fiinilAmmitid ilo^ina, ap|»oarod Alivi) and 
oomprvhoiiMble. Witlnnit giving to the aip<>culalioR 

uu Uit> Lfunl'^f 8u|i|ier a »frtV//v i'l^^^^^^^i^^i^ cn^t, 
the same was so treated in general, 4%pt5cijiLly aftor 


Cyril or AlejcAadrij)) that it was ctmsideted a^ tlie ^bliSaii- 
myfttor; which restP directlj- upon the incamutiou ***"" 
and porpctuat^ the mystery of tlie ^/r^rr^^. All other 
myak^ricd, tn 80 far ni^ they also contain the hlencltn^; 
into one of tlio lK<ftvoi)1y and ^artht^s e^xxHi hi reali^ 
only by rmu.ton of the L<)nl*s Sui>p(.*r- Hutvonly la 
^ivcn III! cx|ire73if trunamutalion \}{ the nciiauouB into 
tlie divinobodyof Christ; for this conception gained 
moro and mor^ ground, abi>Iiehod symboliflm and 
lly carnM.1 it8 paint a1togi>tb«r. TIk) tratiAub* 
"sbmtiation of the consocmlwl brood into the body o( 
CliH)it i« the cuntinuation of tho procoHi; of th© in- 
comation* Thereby puro tnonophy^ific fcrmuliui 
wvni luwd in rvUitiun tu ihu I^nl's Suppur — liit^hly 
diaractoristJc — ani gradually tJio couciiptiori evon 
made its wuy, tlmt tho body into whicb tbu bread 
is tran^fonnod is per asmmplwnem tbo very 
body of Christ, home by the virgin, of which for- 
merly hardly any ono had thought aiDoe the older 
thLX^logifins also understood under ^-V^ XfftirTv^ some' 
thinj;; ''pneumatic'*. But iu« liie Lord*» Supper as a 
tiacTamont wa^; unit^Ml in tho cloewKt manner with the 
dogma of the iucamation and the ChriHtoIogical for- 
muhi (hence the sem^itivene^^ of this formula), ho was 
it likewise connected as a Hacrilioie with tbe doath on ' 
the croes (repetition of thedocrificoontheoroea; bow- ijf^'^_ 
Qver, the conception bait nut been so detlnltely ex-/ t^'^(>^ 
pressed in the Oreek Church as in the Occident)] 
Accordingly it re-enacted the most im^KfrUuit bistort 
ical eventa, not aa a remembrance, but au u oontinii* 



latioii, «.r. 11 repotition, wlioroby tliosc fucte woro 
MepriveO of tbmr mciuitrjg ;mcl »igtiilicaiii». At the 
aatno time tlje iinmoml uiid irrQli^oui; thirst after 
'roalitiea*' changed tbe Bacred act into a repast, in 
which one bit the Deity to piccoa with tbe teoth 
{thiiH already C^rysoslom; oi^mpktiifli of tha do<N 
tiino of the Lord's Sup|K>r by John of ]>»maficud). 

-i. The whole Oevelopinont of GrocW ChrititiiuiiCj 
into ima^^wonihip, swponiiiUon and poorly vf»itcd 
polytLeiHrn niay, however, also K? conceived iis th« 
victiiiy of a relii^ion of tJie second order, which is 
always prpval*?nt in the Church, over tbe ffpiritual 
rdigion. Thi< former became legittmlzod and was 
fuaed with tbo do<:i7'ina publtca^ although theolo- 
^an8 enjoined certain precatitionH. As tlie pagan 
tempEes were reconsecrated and made into Christian 
churches, bo wah the old pBguniam preserved as 
an(cel% saint-, image- and amulet- worship. Tbe re- 
ligion wUoBft stn^n^b had once- lM<en tbe abomination 
of idolft, finally surrendered to idols and became in a 
certain mi<ddure morally obtuse. True, the connect- 
ing links are found in the tloftrina pubtira\tBelt\ti}r, 
"siSS"' (l) Tbia was constmcte*! out of the material of thu 
*^'^'' Gr»3ek philosophy; bnt this phikwopby was ir^le^ 
twined by a thousand ihrea<1s with tbe mytbolt^' 
and suponitition, {'i) Tt Muictiouod tlu> Olil Toftta- 
mcnt> thougli oritpmdly prci^cribing a spiritual inter 
pr^UitioD of it; but ibe letter of tbe Old Te.-^tjiuioiii} 
which in fact oxpn!»9ud n snbcniinate religious sivigo 
ol develipmeiit^ became more and more powerful 


an^l made advances to tjie inferior tondencW of the 
Clnirch, which it then appeare<l to logiliiniw.', (3) 
ThnnrtAof bapliAinHnd theLord^H Supper, conceived 
as mjBtijritfl, op*^«d iu geueral the doors aad win- 
iovnA to Um lumad of the myBt^ry-uutaaoce, (4) 
TIk- faitti ill ang^A and ilemtias, banded dovrn from 
iLnti(|uiiy aiirf prolected by the ductrina ptihtira, 
grew nioiv and mora powerful, was fofltt^red in a 
(TTude form by the i]ioiikit> in a spiritiinl forni by tho 
J^do-PhitoQic t]i6o1ogiaua, and Uiroat«nod moro and 
mcHXf to bor^une tlio inm sphere of pii^ty, buhind 
which theinuoiKi^ivnbWOiKlHJidthe (in cour^etjut^ive 
of Uiu CJiurcb doctrine) jiist rts inconceivable Christ 
wm hiddoii in the diirkneeSr (5) The old idea that 
then> are "saints" (a!>ofltle3, prophet.'i, ecclwiastical 
l«ichi*rs. nijiHyrM) hjid aln-ady very <^y l>4xni oul- 
ttvat^ in Ku<;h a manner that thoAe aaitita inteixx'dod 
and mado aUmement for men and took uovr mom 
and luore ihe place of the dethroned gods, Joining 
themselves to the ongel-hoetts. Among them Mary 
Hti3ppod into the fore-ground and slie— shenlonc — bits 
been spocially benefited by tlie trend of tho develop- 
ment of the dogma. A woman, a motlier now iijv 
penrod ncMkr thu Duity, and thereby at hidt wtis ofForod 
the pOMibility of briii]^iii^ ttt rtK-ogoitiori the thing 
after all mot^t foreign to original Cliristiaaity— tlio 
Holy, the Divine in female form— Mary i)eotuDe the 
motherofOodj the one who bore God*, (fi) From the 

• OrmivirnlnK ftnflvl^ronbJp. In to fur lu lEh- nacrl* atrvr u toHdlalon 
uf tin* iKUonu cjf aUTQlUMi. w EJit Armp&tf itfl : coDovnxiDji Ibo fliMWul «l 

Worship of 

W Vtr^n 



earlicAt tim(% tli^Atli had been narrec) U» ChmtiaQ»a8 
tJjis birtli-bour of tnio lif*»; aet'ordiugly oveij'lliitnf 
wbidi had auy ccmuectiou wiU> the death of Ciiria- 
iian heroes obtained a real Hanctity. The antiqtie 
idol and amnltit buiiines-i made itself at heme, l>ut iia 
rolie- and l»ne'ivorHhip in th« mo»t dltigu^liiig fonn; 
in the contxruit txftween ihv insiiotincaiit, frii^ht- 
fiil f^inn Hill] itH n'1i(|ficniii worth ClinHltmiH iTuidt* 
|ihiiu to tlieniMflvon tlio luftiiiotw of thoir faith, and 
tlitf juore uiiusnlhetio a ntllc Hp|iu»ivdt the hi^h«r 
muHt be itA worth to ihoHe who recogiiizied in ttie (tid- 
embodiDient and obliWrntion of all seTiHitoiis cJiarms 
gtJI^i^ tho guanuiU-*^ of it^ holinow*. (*) Finallj Ihe Cliurch 
or oth^i^ uponitd it«4 dours to that Unindloi^s de:?dro to live in 
li world of minicloKj to oiijoy tlie holy with the fixt) 

«h «aDnirr> W DUtjmMii d* trttiit It., '.— Thn vonhlp of Mlstt 
<ebuvdk« 4?4m9cor&ti<«1 to a oortain uldlf vu nlrrAitr br AlKml tli« jrar 
no hlffhiy duwLopvd; but Id \hv 4th tynlirrr t^ouni'^r vCtort* wrv pot 
VAfillUE <bIjp) cmc wmwninir »ni^pL'ir<>nif^L]', v" tin' Kyiuxl of Uudlct**), 
The Gallic iiHc!«t Vltrnaniiut fltpwlAtlr foui:h( «f>tii4L lU ■• abo aaaJui 
tlw womlilp of nOli^ii. Rui ilii^ (itnHt, rTiKiiiuil l«iuni-'n' f Ji-mrri*-) ilrtrlarNl 
■CiktUtl Vl|[|lAiitliji aivl HiTki^l itiil n 'ilti^jluh'x *^^ •utlLaln'. nH-FViu^ toOLiJ 
tbe ABHtiii. but ocuuMiil]Djf lo i^p KoJiiliiTif^irffi-fK^ (■i»r<i'r<rtfitJ, "nj" n^Uc 
biiiltM*, ab^rwly In bLcmrn in i\ir 41b iimtitrx. niM litrirfvi'r only tti tliv 
niQnu|f'ijv|llr AC* ^ 1^ ^'^1 Iv'tflhl, PliuiUy nuti vliiin'h bjul i<> li«tu \\m 
reHo. nnd (hr 7th ocnon of tlw 7th rjiiindl (Kinnrnn^l nm! i>r>|i-riinly miti-' 
tlODfO Ute ncolMlVtltiAl itvp nf n^liit*- Itul f be |U lticl|>al luin In tltU fvii- 
l{lt« of Um MMKid ordt-r warn pJjk^^-il Ifjr Kn-ry l^U-- tilof-- ^t^'oiac « daff- 
iHoT'Taf iaWllltttda.^«T4dH.Blrnlvh-vor4 lib- A*taaw4Tt«; *'TIli* imlilporib* 
baWCOTOod rppmenlB dM rhcJt^ nijrili^ry nf tlti> tnrAnmtlv^ii " (:Juhn of 
r<iWmif In bid bomlllHiOD litury). OrB- SiX wm prfcirtv^l to hi^r uiil ui 
■din pAKIeJpailcDijf Uary ID tb?w<iriEOf i«lpiDl»t]Db t>iu> I'ljxl^i C<Mp^' 
Ci«lly foll<m'lnff Cyril of MnbndrlA: r*^ w «ln«djr IrvintiiH niirl AOio- 
l>ailTjt. rtmhrarr. .ffininn Muy olrtAlnori AiiK'r<HlHt*t«7fFvinVDnD»pU«i 
In UDflttloo, tt 4ufilJc4.te of Ihc hlitory of Cbrlil (1*«4'4idit uid rnHCH Of 
MAtir): alu WW «fliuldmit an Uidl^Muabl^ iiH>(lJdrjirr. Silllwltb iha 

OnaJnobf illil aol lFflWi>n>v ~i|u<?«a of bubTHi ' Ami 'mfitbor nf ■ormnn * 
na wItJi Iba tAUn (Btiumlk. 7L G«Cb. iS«r MorlvJiTi^^iniux L d. Slui. 
U. K/1L IWO: Ubb. SpnUtlU il«r eriofh. Klrck^ 0, l«l>. 


wenflfts, to receive uiiraeulouH hints frain the Deky, 
Even tb€ niiMtt cultured Church fathers of later tJmee 
HA not know huw any longer to Jiscera betw<^n Uio 
real And unroal ; tlicy lived iu n vrorld of ma^c and 
IrtoH^d orimpl^ti^ly the tie 1)et.w(ipn ivli^on iitid nujral* 
ity (npid<T fn'»m a-'^colidtmi), joining the Ifttt^r thurohy 
tint uiorv cliJM'ly iritlj tho swiuniuii;*- Tlic ccrononk*id 
out of tho ^ly ptt»t of rcjligion, litUe inodifiiHl, came 
to the Burfao? again: Consulting of oracU« of all 
binds, judgments of Goci. prodj^cv, etc, Tho syn- 
ods. origiiLally hc^tib to th«mf pructices, finally con^ 
sented to them. 

Tbo Dc%vly gDiQctl peculiarity of tJio Grwk Church ,fjj^jff^|^ 
found ib» pluincat i-iprci^iuii in hnayv'U^rahip niJi\ tSlv^^ 
tlio irrtagf'-controversfj. Afti^r im.'tg<t-wonUii|» had 
feloivly crept iato the Church, it rwn;i\"od a mighty 
invi^ratioD and coDfirinutioii, imLi*ard of in aati- 
qaity, by tho dogma of ihe incnmation and tlio cor- 
rmpoitding tTvntm<>nt of tho oiichariftt (Atnc^if tho 5th 
century), Gliris^t ii* t-'**^* of Gud, tinJ jrct si living 
being, yew, ^iv'iv x*^''**'*'''-, Ohri^t Iuls renOvixnt, 
through thif incanmtJon, th«* Divine appreh^ngiblc to 
tho Kvn«(«; the co»}«ocrat«d vloments are tUMs of 
Ctirii«t, iind yet, at tho ^oino time, tho body of Cbriiit 
it>4olf. ThcM* iih'HM cadh^d tip a now w<irlf1 for <*on- 
toniphition. Evvrr}-thing Mufiaoiw, which pertninod 
to the Churclii bccfuuu not ouly a H^ymbol, hut ahfo a 
vehicle of holy things; tbuft felt tho moiik^anil lay- 
men and thui^ taught tho thoologiant;. But among 
(^muou^ things the ima^e nIiou'b phiinefjt the union 



of the holy with tlio miiicriiO. Tnia^ri of Olirist, 
of Mary iinti of Miinttf ^rc^tf alrmuly iu th<i fith (Itb) 
cftiitury >v(»rrtlii|)|fttl aflur tlio mititjtRi fitchion; meu 
wen* HHivo ctiuagh la fiuioy llmniSDlvcs now secure 
from jHi^aniKiii. unil tlit^ tnuit^forrod tlieir tlogmiilic- 
al roprosoiitatioa from the ileifitHj matter in an oape- 
cio] mamier to the inia(^, in which— the Aristo- 
t^^Iiim fju^hoTa sties nleo wan called in toaii.1 — they were 
iiWctoBoo tho voritftblc marriage of Qoiihly ntattvr 
und iho heavenly (holy) /orrn (beeitlee^, the BUpersti- 
tioug t>el{ef in imnf^H not painU'd by hund). Moduk- 
ticJsni fob-ti-Tcd iinagi^ worship iirnl trjulol with it; 
schola^ics iLiid mystic*; gave it dogmatic form. 

But moritutin^m also lulviincred Ihu stnigfrlo of the 
Church towrinl intlepondonco, in (^ontrm^t with Jtis* 
tiniiin'ti ntiite txinrttltution wliich fctUmxl the Church. 
In the 7tli centnrf the ertiltwi^stioo-monkiwh ruslitt- 
ance to Bymritiiun rolruaU^tl bohirnl dyothcletigin, 
just m in tlio 5th and Gtli ccuturioa it had fled 
behind mouophynitism ; it j^w more and moro 
[Miworful and monght Ut gain ixvl<«iaMtind froedoin, 
which iJio Ot-cidirut jJready ]Mirtly oiijoyod. Power- 
ftd but barlHiruus irtnpertjr^ <Midf^kvored to put itn tsinl 
to thlH effort by substituting the army for piiestM 
and monks, and to break the independence of the 
Church by Mriking at its i)0culiarity— tlie imitge- 
wordhii). Thus oriKiuAted the friyhtrul imaffe-co'i- 
/mtvr^jf, whic)i lastwl moro tlian aoentiiry. In it 
the omperore fought for the nbeolutinn of the «tatOy 
and hud it» mi uUy ^nly a single powirr, tlnj military; 


for the remaining alltt^, luunoljs religious enltght' 
t^nment aiid the primitive traditioD of the Church, 
whicU sjxjke a^inst the images, wero powerless. 
Tho inoiikbt and bisJi<^pH had on tlieir ^idts tbt^ mltiin^t 
art and e«ioDco of that tim« (John Dam^., Thoo- 
dorus Sludita), the Iloiuan bishop aiul, ftirlh^nitorc, 
pioty luid living tradition; thej" fought for Uie cen- 
tral clogmfl, which they saw eicmpHfiud in thoimag^ 
^vorslijp, and for Uie freodotn of thu Church. The 
latter they oould not obtain. The oiit€oni(?<, mther> 
WAS) that tho Chiiroli retiiin^ it« pectilUrity, but 
dofinit^y loai ib% iJidi^pcndcncc with rcfcrcncQ tc tho 
Htsite. Die 7ch council al Nicotia (757) saiictionixl 
ima^'Worehip [n^n^afttf* lal ri^^Ttir^v xftti^jivvi^at^ nzti- 

/t^y^ 'S ^"'f ^'jatt , , , if Tjft vm'/bv^ f 'J<^ M Tif "/nurd* 
Tvtoy St<i,^aiytt). It* Ui^ii^nl <levvli>pcnent in it» princa- 
pftl poiiltH wAH obviouftJy ooncliulod- Tlu> Divine and 
Holy, OA it dvaoecdcd throii{;h tlie tnciimation into 
the soDftiioLis, created for Itmlf in the Church n »>*«- 
tern of 8eusuou&*super8on8uoits objecK which offer 
tlunuelvce for maD*8 gratificatiou. The image-tbe- 
osophy corre?fi>oiid8 to tlio Noo-Platonic idea (joined 
with thd ircrnrnatiun-idw) r>f the One, unfolding him- 
tttJf in n multiplicity of graduated ideas {prolotype8), 
roachiiig down even to the cartlily. To Thf^<»rus 
Sttidita the image was idmobt more important than 
tho correct dogmatic watch-word; for in the anthen- 
tic imago on© biia tl>e rati Cluist and Uie rt^al holy 
thing — only the material is diHerent. 

Ctiurch not 


1. A Christian ivystcm upon the foundntion of 
Uio four pniicipli-e: Goil, wurM, frmnloiii »»d Holy 
ficv\\}ttum, tondiug towitrd th« ifodrhia pubtim^ 
and making u:h.' af tlw total yioW of thu 7^A>Jt'"^ 
;r(v^«ui, Orij^^u IxKiuouthed; yot it iraK in many da- 
tttilfl lictton.ifb)x itiid «fi a mHooop of thi^ fnith itwaa 
intended to outbid faith ib^lf. M^^roov^r the idea of 
tho historical rod^^mption thniugh tli? tnio Qod, Je«ii9 
Christ, WA8 not tlio All-conmjlllug oiie. 

^, Tho Church could not ront HatUfiod with the 
By»tcm. Itilomatidof], fl) Tlioidcmtity of thocxproM- 
hions of fnitli U'ith the ftcieui'4) of faith (4^^;fMwiully 
idmy< MetluHliiiK), ('i) Surh ft poiitnrtiim ni tho ii*w of 
tho 'EUiiixi vtt^iix tbftt tho roiidifttic mmtotioni* of the 
rtyiita fidci tuiA of ihifi Bihlo i4)ould remain intact 
(the oi>|>(?nonlH of OHgrni; Kpiphanlui^, ApolHnari^, 
thc'inoiik^^Thcophihid, Jurom«)f (^) Thointruductton 
of tJio idea of tlia real imd historical redemption 
through the Ood-man as the central id<?a ( Alhanafliua 
ftiid hisfoUowors). These dem An (lf4, thoroughly car- 
ried out, broke down tho syatem of (>ri^^ll• which at 
tho bottom vrae a philoaophtail H>'steni, But break 
it down, no one of tho cuttiircJ Chnt^tianfl at Hrnt 
either would or could; for they eetitoated it as the 


sciettce from which one dare not depart and which 
tb<> Christian faith ne^ed for itn dofenco. 

3, In cousoqucrnco thor-oof, indiatinctneaa And !r©e- 'SifJ^ 
dom ruled till ihe <.>nd vt the 4th century in tho Ori- oimS? 
ental Church, into wbicbt since Constanline, the old 
work! had ^ined an ontrance. To be sure, through 
Arius and Attian^sius the iilea of redemption had 
bocoTno a critical problem, and later it obtained 
roougniiion c^ftontiuUy in the conception \b-hich the 
Chmtian fiiibh at that time demanded; but every- 
thing on the peripher}' waft entirely tnsecnre: A 
wholly apiritualifltic philosophical interpretation of 
th« Biblo stood mde by^idewith a coarse realistio . 
one, a maieiw) anthropomorphism by the Bide of a 
OliriwtJan-tinu^l Nw^PIatonism, the modified rule of 
faith by the nida of it* letter, BoIwmtu woro innnm- 
erablti shades; Meer&tiiau and rudder were wanting, 
and ttie reli^on of the (»erx«id order, thinly veiled 
paganism, forced itflclf by its, own power, not (mly 
into the Church, but aW into the Church doctrine. 
Hiuht well did llie Cappiuiocians (Oreffory of Nyasa) 
maintain the s^^ienco of Origen in tho miiUt of at* 
tooka right nnd left, and tliey lived in the oon%'ietiou 
that it was poaaible to reconcile ecclesiastical failb 
with free science. EoelesiaAticjdly inclined laymen 
like Socrates arknowledgoil them to be in the right, 
and at the sanic time Oroek theology penotratwl into 
the Occident ajid became then* an important leaven. 
But by tho Midoof it Ujere i^rvw up, tnfpoxHnlly iifti^r 
i}ns fall of ArLJUiiMn, in doao uUianoo with tHul^ar- 


[tttn a tnotikish An<l oommuDAl orth^ox3\ whidiwiw 
vory1ioHt]lu to ihti imVpondoni ocoUwiJiHticul Koionoo, 
jiml tlii.^ IjUUrr Burvly iio({1ocUk1 m^ ia<wns uf wonling 
olT llj« bolerodox Kolleni^ni. Wcro there not <ivou 
bitjlioptf (8^-n<Miu8}, wlio citlicr gave u difforout in- 
torpretatioEL to the principal dcgmua, or denied them? 
4. Under such circuniAtancQs tbe Bitoation nar* 
row^ (town to ft conie«t agattuit Origin. His nfim^ 
oignifiod n pnnciplo, the wcU-lmovm ubo of the 
'Eii^vtx^ R<irJ«'a in ecclmiuBticol science. In PaWtine 
it was tho passionate, learn^Kl and narrow Epipha- 
niuH, who disturbed ihc circW of the monkish ad- 
mirers of Origen^ together with bishop John of 
JeruMaleDi. In Egj-pt the biahop Theophilos found 
himsetf ob1ig«<d, in oixler to retain liis influoncet to 
BumMidcr Ortgeii to the monks and to condemn him. 
Tbm i» one of tht* ino^t coDiKK|Ut'iithi] fiicti^ m the 
history of theolgg>". Of not Ica« conscquenco was it, 
that the greatest th(x>l<^un of the Occident (Jerome), 
living in the Orient, once an admirer of Origen, 
made common can^e vriih Theophihis, in order to 
preaervehifiownocclceiaFticnl Authoriir, andatauipod 
Origou a» a hijretic- In the controyerey ioto which 
bo on that account fell witlj hiA old friend KuJinuB, 
the Roman bishop took a part. Origen was also con- 
demned in Roma (3f)9) and Rufinus wa» cenHunxI. 
However, it did not come as yet to general (^cIoi*ias- 
tical Action against Origen. Tho oontrovoi-xy wjig 
loiit Hi^lit of in tlio cont«iFt of Tlieophihir* ngainift 
ChrjHosU>ut. Kven In the bih and 6tli century Orl* 


gCD had numerous admireis among the monks And 
1ftyni€u in the Orient, and Uia heterodoxies were 
partly hushed up bv tbcm, partly approved. 

5, The gr^t c<ontrovtirF;y about tho Christolo^ieo] 
dogma in ilw fiUt ooutury tioxi ftilunocd nil othor ccj«i- 
tc«t9. But th« diiTcroncc between the AlcxfUidriuns 
AUd tho AutiocJiiaiuft^viLBubto agtucm) scituitific ouo. 
The former took their position upon tradition and 
speculation (tunocming the realintioaUy con<7oivm) 
idea of redemption) , counting still on some adherents 
on the left wmg who irclineil towanl the Origen- 
isticNeo-Plntonicpbilotsophy ond wbo woro lo Watcd 
if they hid their hoterodoxie^ behind the mysticiHrn 
of the cult; the latter were sober exegete« with a 
critical tendency, farorinK tlie philosophy of Arift- 
totte, but roje>ctinfC the spirituatizinL^ method of Ori- 
gen. The heterodox elenwfnt in tlie AlexandriiuiA, 
in BO far aa tliey had not fully tUruwn tbemaelretf into 
the arms of traditionalism, pointed still in the direc- 
tion of pantlielsnt (re-interprelation of the retjuta) \ 
in the Auti(.x^hianR it lay in the concoptioit of the 
central dogmas. Forced to stand on goard against 
the old hereeie« which had wholly withdrawn 
to the I*^»1, the Antioc^hian^ remained tlui "rtnti- 
gnoatic" theolo^anft und boruited timt they carried 
ou the battJet4 of the L/ml. The Uf«t of Uioni, T\\\\j- 
doret, appended to his cTompendium of heretical fables 
A 5th Book: *'«*(«»* J^/^^wv ^irrrftptj", which miiTrt bo 
rocogniwd as the fir«t gyrteraatic effort after Ori^cen, 

and which apparently had great influence upon John 





of Danm^u& The "epitome" ia o( great impor- 
tance. It unites the triaitarian and Chmtoio^oil 
dogiDas with the wlwle circle of dogmas c1ei>0Qding 
U|K>n tho creed. It ehowtt an attitude aa obviously 
Biblical, as it is eoclei^iaHlicdl aiiJ reHcKmaUe. It 
keope emBry^vbere to the "goldea moan". It is al- 
most complete aiid also pjiyw eBpeciii! rognrd once more 
to the realiHtic e^cbatology. It admitted uene of the 
offenflivA doctrines of Origen, and yet f)rig«i waa 
not troat4>d as a heretic. A system this epitomo is 
not, hut the miifoim soberaeafl aiiJ clearue«« iti the 
treatment of details and the careful Biblical ])roof9 
give to tho whole a unique wUunp. It could aot of 
ccturso MttKfy; in the fir^t plaee, on aecoimt of the 
por«ou of ltd author, and then bc^cau^e ever\-tkiu^ 
' myatif^^d mid Keo-Flatonie i«wniitin(c In ittt <1o(*trinal 

ft. After Uie Chalt^tslon ciei^l uU ecioncv qiune lo 
a stand-^till in the ortlKxIoi Church : There were no 
longer" Antioohiana", or" Alexandrians "*; free theo- 
logical work iliod out alnio^t completely, Howe\'er, 
the century pntcwJing the Stli council allows two 
romarknblit A]>[M>iirnnoe#. Fir«t, a mynteriosophy 
gained more and more ground in the Ohurch, which 
did not work at do^nni* Inn 8lo<>d with one foot upon 
the ground of iho religion uf the uocond order (super- 
stition, cirit), with the other upon Neo-Plaloniam 
(the iwendo-Areoprtgit^t ; second, a scholofiticism 
grew ap, whicli prrt«ipj>onoil the dogma ah ^wu iind 
appropriated it by mcana of approhensible dietitic- 


tioDB (Loontius of Byzantium). ]u the spiritof both 
tondoDci^o J ustmiau carried od bis religious politics. 
liBl>*iDg thereon be closed the fichuul of Atbeiis, 
uUo th«old eocleBiastical scboole, the Origenifitic and 
AntiochiiLD, The Mb council sanctioaed the con- 
demnation of Orii^en (in 15 anathrmaA bL8 heterodox 
S0iitenc&8 were rejected) and the condemnation of the 
•' throo chapters". Henceforth there was no louger a 
theological ecietice goiog back to fir^t priiiciplen. 
There existed ouJy a mysticism of cult (truly, with a 
bidden heterodox trend) and scbolustidsm, both m 
ain ways in doHest csmnectioo (Maxbnus Con- 

asor). Thereby a condition was readied fop which 
the "conservatives '' at all timeu had longed; but 
through the condemnation of Origou and the Anti* 
ocbians one was now defencoleEA agaimit tbi3 massiTe 
Biblicib-m and a tuipcrstitiauii i^mlism, find that woa 
a result which originally men bad not dix^ired. !n 
the imaf^- worship, on the one aide, and the fussy 
literal iraciHlation of Gen. 1-3, on the other, in re- 
vealed the downfall of tbeological science, 

7. A^ to the /ii^^j^fff, Iho Cappadiiciani! (in addition 
to Atbauaaitw and Cyril) ab^vu all wl^i^ cuimidered 
author) tati ye; as to the jufTTttrtaj-ta^ the Areopagite 
and Maximua; aa to ^lU^o^ia^ Aristotle; aa to the 
Vif<, Chryaofltom. But the man who compreheiidctd 
all ihaM>, who tranHferre*! the fl<holafltia>dialivrti(* 
method, tvhich L<H>ntiua bod applied to the doj^ma 
of ibe uu^ruatioii, to the whole C(>tu|iaM of " the di- 
vine dcginas** aa Theodoret had e«itaUialied them, 



CH^fAflcwl ■ 


•nil Chry- 



^Sn ^'^ John of DmniufiOu^^ Through him tlio Grook 
T^rthwioi Church ^aineO its^rthmluxtiyvlom, buto^Uit? Qroc^k 
Church flloDC. The work of John wo« tionc llio Ic«M 
important for tht> Ocriduut, It butumo the foimda* 
tioD of medieval theolog}'. John was alx)\-o M a 
Gcholaatic. Each difficnlty was to liim only a chal- 
longe io artfully split tho concoptionn nnJ to find a 
nei/r conception to which nothing in tlio vrorUl corre- 
sponds, except ju»t that difficuhy which is lo be 
removed hy tJjo new conception. Th<i fimdametital 
question also of the science of the Jliddlo Ages waa 
already propountled by him: The queHticn of nomi* 
stithm and rftalimii: he solved it b}' a modified Aria- 
totelianiHu. All ductrine^ had alrend^' been provided 
for him; b« finds thom in tlio docroce of coimcils 
and tho wcrks of tho ackuowlod^^d fatberH, He 
coudiden-d it the duty of r^cit^nco to work tbi^m over. 
Thereby the two principal d<^nu)» wen* pUm-nl within 
tho circle of tho teachings of tbo old anti-^o^^tically 
interpreted i^ymboL Of th^ all^orical explanation 
of tho Holy Scriptiirofi a vory modoet ueo is made. 
The letter of Scripiur^j dominates on tho whole, at 
any rate much more decidedly than with the Cappa- 
dooians. In cun^ueuce of thi^, the natural theol- 
ogy is alflo closely concealed; highly reatiHtic Scrip- 
ttaro nftrratioiift, which are piausly received, twine 
thcm»olvi>ed ai^und it. Bui what ia most porplexin^; 
— the strict connection which in Athanasiim, Apol- 
ILnarlfl and Cyril unites the trinity and tlie inrama- 
tion, in general, ihe dogma which is a^^ociated with 


tlio beaiefit of ^Ivatioo, id oiilirely disdoU'ciJ. John ■'^JJ 
hi^ tnnumrmbk* tlo^ia^ which iinmt l)e bclieve^l; ^lumu*^ 
but Uti^y lilutij uo longer cKmr, undrr n coiisisUrnt 
iirTiNJK*, Tho iMid 1o which tii(> tlogniH ijii<<«* r^iiritrili- 
ut^H) ti& a nicnnj; 9tiU rcmninccl, hiit the nimni^ aro 
chmi{^l ; it is tlie ctUt, the iiiy»ti.'ne0, mXA^ which thv 
4lJ> book *U»o overllowi*. Conwxiin>ntly the sy^tciu 
Inek^ iin inward, vitui tiuity. In reality it is not an 
oxphkuutiun of faith, but tin explanution of its pro- 
sa^positiaoFi, antl it ban iU unity in the /oiiti of treat- 
ment, in the \ii^h a nitqu tiff of the doctrines and In 
ihc Jioijf iicrfptur4-3. The dogmas have become th« 
fiacred legacy of theclassicalantifiuityof the Church; 
but tJiey have Hunk, mi to epealc, into tho ground. 
Image-warftkip, mysticism and scholasticism dom- 
inate tbe Church- 

mnnr* nf 
lUttory of 
iWnm In 

rilHE history of dog:nia in the Occident during 
-L. ihi^ thousanil years between ttio migration of 
tliti natiouH aii(] tl)i> Koformatiou xews ovolvi^d fram 
tliG following c»!em<.tiita; (1) Fn)m tlifldirtlinrtivciKMni- 
linrily of Oooidi»ntiil CliriMtinnity im w]jrow>nlctl by 
TortiillifLH, C>"i>ruin» LrLcUmtiiia, etc., {i) From th<T 
HoUenic tlioolog}- i»tro<liiCfHl by tlio theologians of 
the 4th coiituo'i (3) From AiigiiB*timaiiiMn, i.e. from 
the (-brifltiHiiity of AiigHHtinc, (4)— in a Hocondary 
degree— From the new nccdfi of the Romano-Qer- 
manic nntions. Tho Roman hi^)r>p 1»0T7Hm« to fui 
incrcasiTig mcaauro tho decisive nuthority. The his- 
tory of dogma in tb^ Middk' Age« in the history of 


tho ilogmn uf tho Boman Church, although theology 
had ito homo, not itx Italy, but in Xorth Africa 
and France, 

9, The carrying out of Hpiritual Tnonoiheiani, ttu^ 
dincloBurflof individualism and thedeUnoationof tho 
inward pix>ceB0 of (lie Cliritilian life (ain and gruee) 
indicat43 the importaitee of Adguetine as a pupil of 
tho Neo-PlatoniatA mi<l of PhuI. But nince he also 
championed the old dognia and at the »ame time 
brought forward new problems and aimit for the 
Churr^h a* thf» kinK<1<>nt of floil n|Km ihi* «^art]i, hia 
rich tnind boro within it»oif all iho U^aioun whoee 
living strength determined the hit^tory of dogma Ed 
the Occident. Eren the system of momlity and the 
sacra men tal supemtitioti, which later almost sbBorbed 
Aupieitiniani^ni, were placed by Augustine among 
Iht; first ]>Hneip]eF4 of bin doc^rinij of religion. Ah » 
n<5W ekment, Ai-iatoU^lianiiun wax add^d during tho 
later Middle AgeA, luid tbitt titrejigthened tho aforo* 
said system of morality, but on the other hand It 
bi^ehoially limited the Neipplatonic my»ticisro. 

3. The piety of Augiistino did not live in tho old 
(l<^:iDa, but ho respected it a» authurity and usod it 
ft>ibuilding-mali>nal forhw dortrifw of Tvliginn. Ac- 
cordingly dogma in Uic Ocoidoni liocamc, on the one 
didu, Chvrch discipline ami /arrund, on \ho other* 
far-n^aching frans/or mat ions within theology it* 
self. The oonaequenco was that during the M)d> 
die Agee, in spite of all changofit men Burrendernl 
themselv^a to the illusion of »imp1y pei^inting in the 


Hiiltn*' will 


Id HtolovT 



dogtna of th<> 5th conhiiy, bocitiiso tho n^w was either 
not nxxignisc^l n» Mich* or wav reducn^ to n mcra Rd* 
mhiitftrative rulo in tbc iiulco<l stlU ctititrovorbed au- 
tbority of tbo Ronmu biahop. Tbo Roformntion, t.^, 
tbe Tridentin^ council, BM put an end to thi» stale 
of affairEL Only since the 16th century, therefore, 
cGJi the histork' of dogma In Uie Middle Agee be sep- 
arated from the history of thf^ohgtf, mkI d«ecribcd. 

4< Ettptvially to be obson-wl itrc, (1) Tht^hiHtory of 
pietiam (Augiifitine, iJemartl, l^'mncus Bo-caJ)ed re- 
fomiore before the Rofornmtion) in ita AigniHcanoe 
for the recftstmff of doKma. (2) The doctrine of tlic «ac- 
rfiinwit**, (3) SHi>niififi tliryilogy (An^fttimmnd Am- 
totloi^yft/d^ et ratio) in itemtluouoc u])on tho fn:iucul- 
tivtttSoD of doctrine. Btuk of Uietw di^^^h^ptneiiU 
thoi^Iay intlie lat«>rMlddlo Agesthoqut^tlonofp^- 
sonnl turety of faith and of pet'sofiol Chnstian 
cliftract{*r, which was n>prc«HNi by tho activo powL-r 
of tho ti»ibk* Church. Tho latter wu8 tho ^ilunt co- 
«ffi<nent of nil vspiritual and thi?>olrig'i<*ri1 movenKintit 
until St Ixxvmu! plainly audible in the contest ovot 
the right of tlio pc^pOn 

6, Di\i8ion: (T) Occidental Christianity and Oc- 
cidental Thix>Iogy before Augustitie, {i) Au^pslino, 
(3) Pitn^isioDul Adjustment of Prffi-Augufltinian and 
Au^stinian CThrtKHjuiity until Gregory T, (4) Tho 
Carolinian Revival, (5) Tlio Clugnian^Bomurdino 
Epoch, (0) Epoch of tho McnJioujt Ordurn, of 8cho' 
lo^ticiftm and of the RL^forniers before the Ref orma* 




UI^TODymua. Iti^rt. vmter. l>oaaiiAtini^ JH8:f, NiUHch. 

!- OcciDKKTAL Christianity, in contradistinction "^j^^S^JJ*; 
toOricnUiI, was determined by two perMtitalitie^ — pIJiS* 
Tortullian aud Augwatine— and, in addition, by the 
pcJicy, eoDBcioufi of ita aim id serving and ruling, of 
th^ Ri)man Church and its bit^hops. 

2- The t^hrisliaiiity of TertuUian waa determined ^^^^"^' 
tliroiiglk contract by the old, enthiisiHAtic and strict ''^^"^"•"' 
faith ATtd Uio antignofttic rule of faith< In accord* I 
ftnetiwithhiKJumtic-trainiiif^hor^nd^ftvonyi toS(x-iir(» 
ovcr)'vrlwro in religion legal axioms and fonnutoA, 
mid he oiuK'eived tla^ relatIon^hi|:> between Ood und 
)lun us that of vivii law. Furthermore htii tlieoto^ 
bcarsA syllogisi if 'dialectical Htamp ^ it docs not phil< 
oeophizc, but it reanoos, alternating betwiM^n argu- 
ments ex ttuffon'Me and e mtir^ne. On tho oth«r 
hmid, Tcrtullijui fny^ufntly fttivjngly impnMWOft ono 
by hui paj/chotiiificat ohAfrt^tioH and tndeod liy cm 
nricat i*»ychalogif^ Finally hia wriliugw nuui- 
iSeettLpracticaty evan^l tail aXiiluiOf dctormui<!d by 
the fearof God a» tho Judge, and au insifitanci! upon 
will and actioHt which tho spticulative Gioeka lacked. 

330 omuriEa or tue ki^tort off dooua. 


In all theso poiiitfl aiKl in their mixture hisCbritt* 
tiauity becume typical for th« Uocidoot- 

3. The Chrifliianity of TertuUiaji, blunted in many 
respectfi and nKirnlly tihaJJow ('' de opere et eleemox- 
j/ft/j("),yotcl*^riciUly worked out {"de tinitate eccle- 
«tnr«")t liocaRieiiHtumliz(Ml in the Occident througli 
Cyprian, tlie ({r«Kit auU^mty uf Latin Cbristcndom; 
eido by side with it tbot Ci(*oruiiian thoolog}' mlh 
a[)OC^y|)ticalmJditiuu», re[ii-eei4MtUHl hy MiuucLu^iuid 
Lactantius, malntaiDed itself. B«lt^ioti vras "tJie 
law", but lifter tlic Church had under compuUion de- 
cUrod oil sinti pardonablo (NoTatJon crisin], nOi^on 
was alfio tho occlesioDtical poQit«Titial iii^^tituto. No 
thlkoloffiim, hdwovi^r, In^fori* Aii{jfUj:tino wtm ublo to 
really adjust "t^x^ wid **vema**, Iq Bomo and 
CurtbagD ihvy UiUtrtHl at tho strotigtlieDiD£r of tlie 
Church, at tJae ct>m)KJHiiig i>f iiii i^ccUw iiwtical rulo of 
iDondj^ po^«it>lo of fulHIniout, and at tho ixliiralioii of 
the LUtnmuuity through diriuoM^nrice and pL^it«n* 
tial niW. Tho nia»**-Cliri?rtianity freatcd tho cWgy 
and the saonunontm, tho clergy i^ondiiied the moo- 
grwl iv1i|^ionfor the taity. Tlic furmulus were al- 
most entirely TertuUiaiuc, yot bits spirit ^*Ufl boiog 
crushed ant. 

1. The Occident and tho Orient were already sop- 
aratefl in the age of Coiastantine, but the Arian con- 
test brought them again together. The Occidental 
ortliodoxy aiippor1«d the (Oriental and received fram 
It two gr«at gifts: Scienti/fc (Origenlattc) theology 
and monasticism. These wor« in reality a ningle 


for Diouastici^m (the ideal of ilirincly iiis^pirecl 
celibacy in cloete uiiioti with OocI) id the practical ap- 
plication of tliat "science'*. Tbiis tlio Occidental 
tUeoJojiy of the Wt half of Iho 4ih century is rvpre- 
Reniad hy two lines which coarerpo in Au^5tJne: 
Thfi line of the Oreek Bcholarei (Hilary, Victor- 
inu» Rlietor, RiifinuR, Jerome) and the lino of tlie 
genuine I^tin srliolni^ (Optatiui, Parian, Pniden- 
tin*0- In lioth linf^, how<^ver, muRt Anibiv»*^ be 
named ua th^>1oj>:ica]ly Iho most tm]>ortaut fore- 
rumier uf AugUMtin<f. 

5. The Greek Bchulars transplanted tbe scientific *"»*^f^ 
(pnennmtic) exegesis of Philo and Origen and the ^j^JjTilS^" 
Bpeculativa orthodox theology of the Cappa<locjan» ^iv^ 
into tho Occident. With the finit they mlenc^nl the 
i1<mht4 in n^gnrd 1o the Old Testament and mot the 
cDdet of Manicha^iem, ^vith the eecond lhey> o*(})o- 
cially Ambrose^ relaxed the tenAioit wLtch oxihUhI 
until aft«r thu year 381, between Iheorlbodoiy of the 
Orient and that of theOcx^ideut Through three sue- 
re«fiivc contribulionti Orwfc »pL*cuIaltau entt-red into 
the theoloj^ of the Occideutj (1) Through Ainhirtw, 
VictonnuH and Angtistine, (2) Through Boetbiu» in 
the tith century (hero Arifltotoltaa)^ (3) Through the 
Areopagttv in the ^h century. In Victei-iiiUft is al- 
ready found that combination of Neo-FlatoniHm and 
Paulini^m, whicJi forms the foundation of the An* 
gustinian theology: in Ambrose i» already conspicQ* 
ens thjU union of Kpooulati<in and religions indivEd* 
noliam, which ohameteri>o« tbo grooi Africiui- 


l^blem of 


C. The real jiroblem of ilie LaUd Church was the 
appIicntioD of tX\e Christian law, nncl th** ecclaBiaati- 
eol treatmont of 6iuT)&r^. In ilie Orient they laid 
greater wtrlgbt uptm Uio dTeeUi ot the cultiia a» a 
ftiogte Institution and upon Hilent »elf-educatioii 
through aBceticisim aiid jTayer; in the Occident tJiey 
had a (CTpnter soiiw of atatulintf iti relipous relfttions 
to law, in whirl) tiuy vn^ro r«?^i>i>nmble totheCburcb, 
but aUo mi|3Eht ox|Hvt from it »tat*nkni'jTnta] and pro* 
catorj aemiataactt tlirou^h individiml a|)|>ro[>riatioa. 
The aeuAe of Hin ua ^peu i^iilt waa more Atronglj 
dev<*ki>e(L TJiit* reacted upon tlieir conception of the 
Churcli. As r^igards the development of tlie latter, 
OptatuA (de ^rhr^tmate Dmiiiti^taf^vi) waathe fore* 
runner of Auguntine, afi regards t\m fltrirter eonG(^>^^H 
tion of Bin, Am1>roM^, 

The Douatifit controvors}", in which the Montaniftt 
and Nevatiun controverfties were c^ontinued under a 
peculiar limitation, had ite root» in personal quar- 
rels; but it 80on acquired an imf^orUnceon principle. 
The Oonatitit imrty (in the course of development it 
became an African national party, nasumed in opijo- 
&itio» to tho state, frbich opproeaed it, a free, eodo^ 
Biaalical attitude and eveu cultivated a revoluliou. 
enthuftLBHrn) denied the validity of an ordination 
adminifitetvd by a traittr^ and therefore also tb6 
validity of tlie sacraments which a l)i8Uop, OO&g^ 
cratod by a traitor, udminUtorod (ccnaequfTDtly th« 
dc^nimid for ro-baptitmi) , It wait tho but rvmnnntof 
^eold demand that in theCburoh not only the In* 


Btitution, but above all tho perBons muHt be boly» 
and the Donatintfi were able to app(*al for their thesea 
to tbe c<elebrateti Cypriai). At least a minimum of 
|>Gr«oniU worthiuese in ibe clorj^' should atiU be 
DeoesBiuy, in Drilt-r lliat the Ciiurcb might mnain 
the true Church. In oppoBition to it the Catholics 
(Irew the oonse<|ueni.'e^ of the " objective*' Church 
idea. Optatus above hll a^tHertetl that Uie trutlt and 
holine^H of tlieC'hiirvh residei in thc^ Aacrament^* and 
that tlkeri>fore the persoiuJ quality of the ^minid- 
Irator is inunaterial {^^carU-ar'a una esfy ctiivssanc* 
tiiws de /tacr<i mentis cotti'^fttur^ non tie snp^rrbm 
' personai'um pimderatur") ; he furtbennore showed, 
tliat the Church, in contrast with the conveuticle of 
the Donati^U, held the guarantee of ttstnitliin it8 
Cnihoticlty. Thi>3' alAohit iiiton an evangeltf^alprin- 
ci|ile in eio Far a^ tboy empbafri^ed /oiV/i at Hxe stdo 
and with Lbu nm^aiiiviiU iu <i|>|Hwiiiou Xo punfODnl 
aa[ictit>'. TbuA already prior to Au^stinc the fotuid* 
ation for Uie Roman Cattiolie doctrine of Uio Church 
and tJie sacraments wail Uid by Optatiis. But Am- 
broeo wpocially bad ompha.MZi.^1 fnitlt in coniKH^tion 
iriih A d«opor ooaiceptioti of tciu. 8iu?o T^iFtiallian 
tlw ccaception of m\ ua vifium ori^ini^ and as nin 
against Ood wm^ known in the Occident. An)bn)fi0 
oxtondod the view in both directions and npproctalod 
accordingly tho importance of tlie Pcuilino idea of 
Qratitit JHstiJicatio^ and remi^io peccatomm Cti- 
lufi mihi pntilext^ quml non Just ffiramur rx operi- 
bu*l^* . . , tjioriabQrinVhriiio; nonghriabor^ 




qui'a ivsUut sum^ s&d gtorftibor, ijuut rt<lemptus 
sum"). Itmwof epochal aiguificanf* tliai people 
in tiie Oci*i(]i>nt became attentive to Paulino idticui of 
ain and ^:ic^ law and e:o0p«>l, at the very time 
whf^n thf^y ej: torn ali zed tbu coDCGjitiou o{ ike Cliuroh 
and ero^t^id a doctrine f>f thm (tfLcrAmont«, Ambrciso ' 
bimsetf, it is true, wo« strongly iiillucRCXfd hy the 
cotnmoii Catholic %'iowif rwpocthig law, virtue aod 





The mope vitAl oofK^ption of Ooc1» ll^e ntrong f««1- 
iitg of reepoQ»ihiUt5^ to the Jud^, tho oortdcioUBueas 
<*f Qod fis a moral Power rcatnunt^ or rollLXcd by no 
BpeciUationa tioiiceraitif^ feature, th« conception of 
Christ as the man wboiw work for uk po»fiC^is8 in the 
»iRbt of God an infinit4* valuts ihta placatio (raftV 
/actio] D^r through hi» death. tbeChurt^haf^ a peda- 
gogical institution Bec»ir(>ly wlying upon th«^> metiriA 
of fifUvation ^the eacramcntc^), the Holy Scripture oa 
lex Det\ the sj-mbol us tho surer content of ductiiuot 
the^onooivingof tlie ChriHttRU lifof^>tn tho pointeof 
view of guilt> atonement luid ruent, even if conceived 
moro ecclffliastically than religioiwly,— in tliete are 
repreeeut^d the ijeculiaritiea of Occidental Chris* 
ticmity prior to AxigusHite. He affirmed and yet 
trauofomiM tboni. Above all the soteriologicnt quc«- 
tion awaited a solution. By the side of Afnnictiwiui, 
<)rtgeniHtic-Ne(>-Plat4inic anil Htiuc-rationalif^tio con- 
ceptions of evil and of reilempticm tlier^ flickered 


alsonttiir tbi^ year 100 here and there in the Occident 
Pauline conceptiona^ which, Bs a nlle^ covered moral 
laxiticB^ yet Devorthelcas in eome I'epreeeotativee 
were expressions far evangelical convictions which 
did not barmoni^e with the times and would there- 
fore of necessity be fatal to the Catliolic Ohnrch (Jo- 
viDian). If oDe ooti^iders in addition that about ttic 
year 400 pa^nniitm wai* rtlill » power, «tu» can ocin- 
prtjhL^nd ivb;;t u problt^m awmtod Au^intine! He 
would not ba^u buvu ab!o to m>1vu it for tliu wIkjIu 
Occidental Church> had the latter iiol been fttill a 
nuit at that lime< Tho Western Roman empire 
T^tiU ozi^tCHl, and it almoat ^eetm^iw though i» miser- 
able cxi8t«nce» had only boon prolongod to make the 
u-orld'hi«toricid work of Atigu^tinc* poe»;iUo. 



Biad<?muain» dcr b. Aug.. 3 B(3n., I^U4-tf9. nAhrlaicor. 
AugtiBtia, -i. AulL, ISTTr IU>uU.% Ausuflt. SmdtnD, IKST. 
Unnuick, Aug. 'a ConfnfiOQcD, tSSa Bigg, The ClirUtifla 
rinloDiKUof Alex., 18S(L 

Okb may «ook to construct Augufitinianism from f^T^!^ 
the prwnijws of the currtnt OwidGutal Christianity ^"^'^' 
(see the previous chapter) or from the course of the 
trjiming of Aiifipislino (th^ P^g^n fntlie^r, Uio pious 
ChriMtiim mother, Cicero's Uortonsias, Manicba*iiaiit 
AriiUitvliauism, Nf\>*]*lutujiism with its myslicism 

336 uUTtjtMCii or Tim hi^tukv ov do<*ma. 

llili.-HU n. 
Thi nfi at 

and flkopticiem, the iufluecco of ^Vmbroso and of 
uioiiattUcism), but DeitLer of tbese uM-tbods of pi-oced- 
ure, nor erem both of tbetn, will entirely Hccompliah 
tJieond in viow> Au^n^tino in religion discovered 
religion; he roco^iiizod liit* hwirt as the lowest, the 
living Qatl a'* tho highlit grood; lie jiot^^sseil an on- 
cbaiitiiig ability and facility for (^x|>rvA(*ing inward 
obHervHtion»s : 1u Uiiit coiiHitit Lis individuality and 
hia greatne^. In the love of Otxl and in the sub- 
dued grief of hiH hotil he found that elation which 
lifts niun above tiie world and makt^ him nnothffr 
being^ while \*v'\ox to liim tboolo^i^is had dn^iam^d 
lltnt man must ln>^i>m<t fihother being in urAvv lo bo 
able Lo bo wivod, or hud coiiWiJt<Hl th^^mnelvcti with 
i4tn%^iiigafti?r virtut;. H^ i»uiKintU*d ujtturo mid i^ntco, 
hilt bound together rcli^on and mckralitj- and garo to 
the idm of iho g(K>d a new meaning. He dc»trc>y«d 
tlto phantom of the popular anticjue psychology and 
nioralism; ho diacanled the intolleetuali^m and 
optiiiMMin of antiquity, but allowu^l tUo formcrr to ro- 
viro fignin in tlic^ piouct thought of the man who foand 
in the hiving Qod true exit^toncti; juid In terminat* 
ing Christian pL^miam, he at the £«anie tim« jKisscd 
l>oyond it tlirongli tlio surety of pardoning grace. 
But more than all, he b^^1d before every soul it8 own 
glon' and rwponHibility — G<wl and Ibe *oul, tlio soul 
ami iti? Ootl. H^ re^cn^l religion from itx eom* 
munfd And oultus form and rc«torc<l it to the bonrt 
as a gift and au n grnciouii life. Lo%'0, unfeigned 
humility and strength lo overcome thp world, tJie«o 


Are the elements of religion and ite bleBsednet^ ; they 
sprint; from the actual poRsession ot the loving God. 
** Happy ari> lUo mon whfl oonsidor Thoe th«ii" 
fttninglii, wlio from tht?ii- li<Mirt wulk in Thy HtcpA**. 
Tbitt EiitAba^ Au|{iiatiiiu |ntuicheJ lo the Cbriutiauity 
of faifl time and of all titneo. ^ 

L The Pne-Augtistinian pioty was a waverfng be- 
.tween fear and hope. // lived not in the faith. 
Knowing and doinfc good, it taiighL brin^ salvation, 
after that mail has i-eceived for^venoas for paxt itu^u 
Ihiough baptism; but man d<H<A not cxpenoncro aul- 
Tation. Neither bapltHiu nur aHcelieiHjn fruetl from 
fear; men did not feel 8tro»(; enough totrunt in tlieir 
own rirtue, norjcinUy «nd iH^lioving enough to take 
comfort in th© f^mce of 0<xl iti Christ. Ftvirand 
hoiM> n^mainrtl ; iht*y wi-iw tn*nk<*niIuiiK foiy?iw, Tbi>y 
Ahook tho world uiid built ttio Clmrah ; but they ^voro 
notabloto creal^^ for iho iDfli^'idiitil a bicwwsl lifi>. 
Augnsiino advance) from slnti to :tin and f/i/tW, from ^"*^' <"* 
baptism to grace^ Tb«> exolunivoness and firmni>«s » 
vrjth which he afTiliated tlio ^lilty tmm and the Uv* 
iufc God Ui tlio new teaohint: whtcb di»tinguiflbeis 
him from all his pnxlwN^swrtr*. " Agnm>ilThe*», Tbee 
only, Jiavo I rtiunwl" — ^Thou, O Lord, haei crontod 
U£i In lliy liktuit^Hd, mid tiur b«iirt )» restless till it 
finds its rest in Thee^— *^a quod iubes^ tt iitbe 
quod vis'* — ^^eo^quod qni^que novity uon f»-uiturt 
niti et id dilitjii^ neque quittquam in i^, qttod per- 
cifiii, j>cnnufiet nisidilnctione^. This iatiso mighty 
oonconi whic4i Im oar caught from the Holy Scrip- 

FW (LDll 


All fttn til 




All hi All- 


turen, from Uie deepuat coutemplaticii of Uie human 
hwiri ftud from the specitlAtiau coDceniing tho firel 
uud UdtUihit^. Injtepirit devoid of Oodni/ lb Mui 
tlLat the Spirit exiHUi U the only (^ood remaining. 
Sin it4 the nphere and the form of tlie inner life uf 
OTcry natural man. Fnrthernioro, all ein is sin 
Aftaictst Ood; for a croaU^d spirit ha» only onrhifit- 
ing n>lati<«whip, nain^'ly thnt to (iotl, Sin is* tlio 
(iiK|HXiition to 1)0 an iud(<i>oudutii bdug {«npri^ia)'j 
Uicrcfore ii* ilfi form di^irv and tturctit. In tlu9 un- 
rest is revealed the never appeased fu^t and /ear. 
The latter h evil, the furmer when striving «fter 
blisfl (hlt«fledn<^8) is gooil, but wben htriving after 
pcrislinblegooilsi&evil. WemuM strive to ht happy 
["infelic(9 esse nolunivs^ed necv^lepossumus"} 
— thia atrlving io tho Ufo bestowed upon oa by Qod 
which cannot \>e lost — but there in only oue good, oiu: 
blisfl and r/u^ rest: *' Mihi tidhaer^re d^o bonum 
est.^'' Only in the atmot^phere of Qod docvi tlieaoul 
live and re^^t. But the Lord who creatixl im baa to- 
ducrmul uh. Thi*outrh gracM? and love which have 
l>eori rovoalad in Christ, he ciiUa un buck from dia- 
imctiou to hinieolf, mako«4 ex ttoicntibtis i-olcntes and 
lieatowu upon ua thereby an iBcompreliensible new 
being v^hich consista of faith and love. Theee orig- 
inate in Qod ; they are the means by which tlie li^'ing 
Qod imparts himself to us. But faith i^ faith in the 
"t/m/ia grafisdalti^', and love is joy in Qod ld«^tidoc1 
with that hiunility which renounce all that ia indf- 
vidua). Th« buu) rt-gaitt^ 1ht<m favont tvt a ptirpetiial 


gift anil a holy mystery, in which it acquires evciy- 
tliing t-hat Uotl requires; for a heart endowed wilb 
faiUi athl love acijutroe that jitstice whicli prevails 
Iwfom Ooil And prNWMM«« tliat |icAai whinli Axalla 
aboro amnHft nnd fcnr. It onruiot indnod for a mo- 
in^tit for^H' Dial it is «till eutan^li-^l with iht^ world 
and in sin, yot it always asBociatcft grace witli sin. 
Sin and misery overcome by FaiUj, humility luid love 
— that is Cbrifitian piety. In tbo abMorhing thouglits 
o( faith irhicb thua oootinually recur tlie soiJ is at 
rwit and y^t it ever strives irTC|>r?«tfibly upward. 

Id this mode of fWing nnd thinking roHgion dis- 
closed ittfclf moro deeply, and the Augiwtiuiuu typo 
ot pitay bLxramd the authoritative'' standard in the 
Occident till the Reformation, yes ereo till this day; 
howe\'er a */miWm/ic, ono mif-ht almot^t say a nnr- 
rt»t ic olfin^ni is hidden therein which is not found 
ID th^ Goepel. 

2, In tho fon^oiRg the pioty of AugOBtine iff only 
oue-i<idodly dt^ftiiod. Thore vruh aUo in tua pict>'a 
Catholtc Bjnrit; ym^ he liiiit croaled that intermin- 
gling of thofnx«tf individual fturrender to the Divin« 
with tJie constant, obediont &ubmit»ion to the Church 
aa an irtstitution endowed with tlio meanA of gmee, 
so character] fllic of Occidental Catholicism. In de- 
tail lhi^ fulluwing |>oiiiUi are t^fe^^lally to be empha- 
siieiL in which be affirmed the "Catliolic" clement, 
and oven onbancrcd tlio SAnio: (I) Pint, he tmns- 
formal th<* hutliority wf Uh? Church into n rcliKioua 
l>ower and gave to {tnMiail n^hgiui) a diK'trino con- 

AuKwH In- 
imti ritHy 





OrvAn of 



cerning the Church. In thia he vraa guided by two 
considemtionB, viz. : SkepticJHta and an appreciation 
of the value of ecc^IeeiaHtical oonimiinJon osan hiator- 
jad power. lu tlie lirat pUoe, he waitconTinced thftt 
tho itfoUtod iadiviiiual could uot by any m4>au» atrivo 
atn full aiid aafe utidemtauditig of ihi3 trutli of lh« 
revealed k'nchin^c — >l (;ref<eDbi Umi iimtiy stumbUnf^ 
blocks; likt) a^ he theivfore tlircfw himftell into tho 
mitia of the nutlionty of ihis Church, tK> ho Umglit in 
genoml, thai the Church stanrts for the tritth of 
thfifaiiht trhn'fi the individual is not nhU' Ut fTC' 
ogniztf the xttmfij aud that uccunliiiKly '^^ <jf (luth 
4ir^ at thc< MLDie time hk'1» of olxslieiicc. In Uie vec* 
ond place, while brralcing with muridiii^Eii ho rocog- 
nised that the gralia had had an hUU»rical effdcl oiid 
bad majIotlioChuivli itsorganLsin. Insight into tlio 
position of tho Church in tJje tottentig Ronum em- 
pire stri^ngt.Wiiod thiH viftw. Rut mil only tm itkeptic 
and hitftoi'i'ui did AuguHliuo rvco\piiiDo tho import^ 
uucu i»f ihv Chan b, but fdm» by virtue of hin i&tron^ 
pioty. This piety wanttnl external authority aa 
©very liviugreligioua faith hns always wanted itand 
will want it. Augitsttiio found it in the t^^tinaon^- 
of th^* Chuirh. i'i) Althotifph he uDe^iuivccally ac- 
knowlcKlg^ in lii« Confoi^ionH: Ri>1ipioa in the pos* 
94^B»ing of tho living Qod, yet in tho int4trpi\<1»tioQ 
of hitf thix>li^gy h(* exchanged tli« living Ood for 
tho gratia^ the latter for the 8acranieiitt«, and thus 
n.jmpre«*ed, a» it were, that which is moat living, 
uitd moat frve into a material bene^t entru»*t«Ml to thel 


Cburcb. Mi^«d by tlie burning conQietH of the time 
(Uonatist oontrovGrfly) he thun paiil the liMLTimt 
tributo to curroot itleaB and founded tbo sacmmeDtal 
Cliurcb uf tbu MJddltf Agvti, But wlivrt^ver hv gc^ea 
beyond Uie sacram^Dta bbck to God himself, there 
in subeieqiient timen be ba» always been in danger 
of neutralising Hie im|x>rtani^ aW of Christ and of 
lotting himaolf in the ab^'Mt of tlie tltongbt of Uie 
0old-offi<^ieBcy of God (d4ictrin<? of pnvlisHt i nation) . 
(3) Altbougji bo ocknowledgtM] nitii iill faia heart ^^^S!!!?^' 
tbe gratia gratis data and, cun9efiu«ritLy, th«' sover* 
m^ty of faith, yet he al^o tmitotl with it Uio oUl 
scheme, that Uie ultimate destiny of th€ single indi* 
Tjdual dopt'iid^ ui)oii " mortte " and upon tlioeo only. 
He nivnrdiiigly MAW in i}\4^ tti^rt'/fi rc«nlting from 
tbe fitle^ varilafe formaia^ whiob indood nro Dti 
munern^ tlio hieu i»f all ChriMiiin dc-vvlo}>imTnt, aixl 
he thereby not only made it easy for futurity to re* 
tain the old scheme under the cover of his worde, 
but >w himself al8o failed to perceive the real L-«^nce 
of faith {i.f.^ stefldfast confidence in Qod, result- 
ing from the asftururuH> nf tli« forgiv6n<?iw of sin) afi 
tbe higlbMit gift of Ood. Hirt doctrine, howovoTj of 
iuatilled lovu vtraa lu-utral txs rt^gunbt tliu liist^jrical 
Christ. {4) Ahhougli Augu«tiiiewaj* ablotott^tifv '*".!?"?"^ 
to the joy of that ble0e«daeM« which the Chrit^tiuu ^^* ''^^ 
already poraessoB tn faith and in love, yet be w&b 
not able to present a defmite aim to the present life; 
ho ftliarw) in general the traditional Catholic dispoei* 
tion of mind, and the quietiam of liia pio^ imparttid 


to ChrifttiHU ariivity do new im|)u1»ieH. Tli^it it 
»]ioii)d recoive tojcb through the work "de civitate 
rfet '* W3W in realily not intended by AugwtiQe* 

Augii4linc'z^ thi:><)1og>' is to l>o understood upon tite 
bosU of the pcctiliiir form of hi& pii^iy. His rL>li|potis 
thivkrion firo in pnrt nothing oW thnn tTidoretionlly 
o]q>lAiii<Hl fnunc-si of mind wnd oxpcricnco*. But 
in OH^fif weru at^ coUtx^ted Uie mariifoli] rvligioue 
oxpericncce auti mornl rortectionsof llio old world: 
The psahuH and Paul, Plato and the N<H)>PlatonifttH, 
the moralislH, TertuUian and Ambrose, — all aro 
found Rffain in Augustine. 



Aiutwtjo* The tit)oi<ni r?liurf*h nxpoumliyi it* ll»Wog>' from 

uSrtJSL. ^o <WTitTO:i iif Chritftologj* and tlio docta-ino of 

frwidirtii {diMitnnv of momU) ; Augti»tiiio drow tlie 

two ojutn*!* t<)g*>llii.T, Tfifi good became to him the 

aria for Uie contemplation of all bkssingR, Mom] 

gocxl and roiloniptivc good idiould incUido tvirh othor 

{ipsa virtus et praemium xnrtutis). Ho brought 

d<^(m»tic» down from tlie heavens; yet did not dis- 

canl tho oh] conception but nmalgomatod it with 

tho uuw. In liia^ ititc^rpr<;U&tioiLH of tho synibu] this 

^^. uDioa ia most clearly miuiife^t. Through his prae- 

'plTciiij?' CatJiolic development and conversion, then through 


bb conflict wth DonatUm and PeULgitmif-m, Cliris- 
tiuBJty appeared to Urn in a Dew form; but inae* 
much as he considered tbe Ajrmbol an tbe essencp of 
dootnoo, hifl conception of doctrine necefiBarily bo- 
came complicated'^ a uixiou of llie uld Catholic Ibeol* 
ogy and of the old eccleeiaatical scheme with his 
uevr thoughts on the doctrine of faith compressed 
into the frame of the »ymUfL This mixture of ele- 
menta, which the Occidental Church hsLS prefterved 
until this day, aubaequontJy caused ooatradictions 
and raudercd the old dogma impreteionleBS. 

In detail the following diacrepancieB in the theol- 
ogy of Augustine are e«ipecial1y to be noted: (1) The 
diBcropanciea between symbol and Scripture. Those 
who placo Scriptums above the symbol, as well as 
thone who pn^ftcrilie the ojjpiiHite order, can rof rar to 
him. AugustiuL^ i»tren(^houcd Bibliciftm and at the 
same timo n\tK> tlie poAitionof those ecolestasticfi who 
wiOi TeituJlian refuted the Bibliciats. (2) The dis- 
crepancy between the principle of Ejcripture and the 
principle nf salvation. Augustine taught, on the 
one liantl, that imly the tuhstance {i.e. salvation) is 
of importanrft in tlio Kcripturea; yen, he advjinced 
as for aoflnetimoa ob that ^irituatiam which nkips 
tfver tlieScri^jturee; on the other hajiO, hu could nut 
rid himi^f of the tltought tliat every word of tho 
Scriptures is abfloltito rcvobition. (3) The discrep' 
oncy between his ocmceptioofi of the eesenoe of rdig- 
ion ; on the one hand, it is faiths love, hope ; yet, on 
tlut uthor, loowledgo and super-terr^trtal, immortal 

cIh Id Ua 


Hfo; ii eboultl aim to e^curo bkeBeduciBs through 
gmce, Hud again LhruiigL tlie amin inteileciuaUs, 
Faith aa conceiv«1 by Pflul Jiiid a non*co»niic mys- 
ticism contend f€r the primary. (4) The ili»crq>- 
aacy Ixrtweca the doctrine o£ prcilestiiKHl gruce nxxd 
a doctrino cf fp^iico tluit is osi^tTntinlly an ^rcWiaii- 
ticu.1 Hiiil HHcruni^ntal doctrine. (5) Dii^irropunctOA 
wiLhiii thi? pnQci|)al tiii^-s ot thought. Thus in tbo 
doclriuf or graco llio thought of ih*^ gratia per 
[propti'r) Christum not iiifriHjui^ntly tvnili<*t*i mtli 
tho coiicciitiou uf fl gmce flDwing independently from 
Christ out of tho oripiual \mne <>f 0«d hb tie sum* 
mum honnm and ^Kwww/n ^.*ijt*\ Thns, in his 
0ccli»insttcn) doctrinct tho hicrarchicnl-fljurrcunojital 
biMal dutiiuDt it) not rccuncILc'd ^%-tth ik liberul, uni* 
vor»a] view, >;urh fw orjgiimted with tho apologiste. 
'JUJJJI' Ouo mn distinguish lIinM>plnneH in Ihc tlieology 
cjcond of Augustiuo: Thy prtxlt'^iliniirimi, the fioteriologic, 
_ »^gj™- and the pbini? of tbu anlhoritj' and of the socramentH 
liuMriv. ^( ^jj^ Chiirch; but on^ wowld not do him joAtico, 
if one should doacnbc thoso olovations soporately* tor 
in his Kiiuinniry of tli«? wholu tlit>y itrcr nnit<Td» Just 
bcoautie hiit ricli spirit embraced all th<*m difieropan* 
cie8 and cbaractoristically represented tliem aa ex- 
periencea, has he boctHno Oie- father of the Church 
of the Occident. Tlo in the fatlior of the Roinjui 
Church and of tho l^fonuatioii, of Bihliciat^ and of 
my^tioN; yes, ev«u tht- i^uai^Mauce and modern 
empirical philosophy (j>»ycholog^'] are indel>to<l to 
bim- New dogma^^ in the strict eeuae, bo <\xA itot 


ininxliice. It waa left to a ver>' much luU-r jwriml 
to fonimlate strictly cletinil^i dogmna out of llio tran«* 
forniatiou wrt^nght by him in the old ili:>gn]atic 
nmt^rifi], t.e, Uie conilemnation of Pelat^anbn) and 
tlie new cloctrinci of tho Mu;mment8. 

1. Augustin^\H Doctrine of the Fir»i and Last 

Slfibocli. In d. Zbichr, f. PbiL u. phil KritUc, Itt^. H, 1«I 
If. GousauT, McfUpbyv. F^yt-fkol. il, li. Aug., 1852. SLurx. 
lUft^in, il. b. Aug.. 188^. Svipi*x. DuiiAun.0. AUtt. HvUph.. 
\m. Kftlil Priirat <i- Wntrnn b. Aug.lS^a. KOhiwr. A-'b 
AbsclmuuDK V, a. ErlO«. ln^drutung ChrJali. 1990. 

The fear of the IxirJ ia lh« bc^inuiug of wiwloni : ^J^j^^^ 
With the life of player Augugtiue uniloil on inwrntl "•''*^»'- 
coatemplation whicli led him, the pupil of the Neo- 
P]at4ni»l8 and of Paul, to a new psyc^hology and 
th6otog>'. Hft liocamc^ tha"nUfir Arit^toielt*^^ in 
tnakmg the iiinor lifo tho starting-point for tLougbta 
cutic^ming the worM, He firat ah&olutely put away 
the iiiUTe-objective (nime of mind ami with it the 
antii]ue-clawica], at the ttome time, however, tho 
remnanti^ of tJie polytheistio view alw. He was 
the fir*t mouotheijitic theologian (in tke strict 
«en«o of thti vrord) tunong the Cliurch futhem, 
isiaco hu lifted tlw Neo-Plutonio pbilodophy above 
bh»M.4f. Not imfamiliar with the realm of knowl- kU,JoJ£ 
edge of tho objective world, ho yet wished to know ^s5S?. 
but two tlung8> Qod and the Jtonl; for bis skepticism 
bfid diiwolvod tlu> world of external idicnomena, but 




in the flight (>f thcrun |ilii::tiom<:rnfi tijo facU of Uie 
ianor lifo huJ, after putiiFut Htnigglos, n>fnaiu«d to 
bim BS facts, Even tf there exists no evil and no 
Ghxl, there 8till exintA aDque^tioiiably the fear oS evil 
Oatof thiR« I.e. through |>»Tcholog]cjil aiialysift, on« 
can Hiid the soul mid OckI mid sketch a piottireof ihii 
vrorld. Uod<:o tho eki^ptic can arrive at the knowl- 
edge of truth, fc^r wUicti the murrow of the aoul 

The fundamental form of the life of the tioul h fiie 
deAii'o for happ]nt?»8 {ctipido^ amnr) as a tlcfsire for 
hItf*M«CHlni^Af4. All iiicHtULttariH ara only (IfViOoiirncaitft 
of thw fuudamontal form {tat ruceptivity und on 
activity') luid thfty are valid for ihio sphotB of the 
spiritua] lifo as ^till as for that of the sensuous. 
The will is connected with theise incHcationa, never- 
theleaa it is a power rising ahove sensuous nature 
(AugustJne is an indeterminiflt)< In coticreto ii is 
indeed bound to the s^suoua instincts, i.e. not free. 
Theoretical freedom of olecliou beoomca real freedom 
only when the cupidrlas {ttiuvr) boHiliaa become the 
nihng motive for the will, i.e. only Me good wiii ta 
free. Moral gooilnesi' and freedom of mil coincide. 
Tlio truly froo will Una its frci^dom in the impulse of 
t\w goiKl {hflatd necesitifas hojti). TIuh Ivindage is 
frocdom, bcoaiufc It withdra^vit the will from the do- 
miiiluu of the lower iiifitijiL'tsaiid readizt?:^ th<j di:<»tiiiy 
and c1i3iN>8ition of man to be tilled willi true exist* 
encu ajid life. In attachment to the good, therefore, 
IB rotilizi^d ihe higher appeiituSt the true instiiR''t of 


about his own ileiilrnctif»u, if tie followi^ hi» lou'or in* 
^tiucU, ForlhfiHcliiK'sof thought Aiigu»tin« claimed 
Aitici viiliditr, for he know that ev^ry maiir meditat- 
iDg about hiinccif, niiiii<t nflfinn them. With tbcm 
Auffiiatiiic uuit«dthi>ro»u]t« of the Ntfo-PlatCPDic cue- N«vt^- 
moJq^cal i!])ec-iihitic>n; but tlio simple i^eatnees of %'^!™* 
hi* living conc(^ption of God worked powerhUly upun &!i^U. 
them and coerced the artificially gained elementa of 
the doctrine of Ootl ngain find agaiD iDto the sim- 
plest ooofcBBion: "Tbo Lord of beaven and earth ia 
love; be i» tJio «Jvatiouof tbo soul; whom abould y« 

Through the Keo-Platonic speculation (through ^^^JJ; 
proof of the nothingn^s of phenomena and throuj^h o»rJ% 
progreasive elimination of the lower nphcre^ of tho 
eedASUOU« and conceivable) Auguatine arrived at the 
conception of the one> unchangeable, eternal Being 
{iucorporra trerilas^ ^piritatis aubsiaRtiUt iux in- 
oommufabi/is). At the same time thi.s summnm 
esse aluno L-orrc^pondd to the simplicity of the high* 
QBt object of the souPs deaire. Thia ^nmmuiu es9€ 
alane is in realit>' ilie lieing^ sinco <»vftry otli*^ \mtig 
haa the quality of Don-being, and can indoe<1 not rx- 
ijit but really pt'iislies. Uitt, on tlie other haiul, itt^ui 
also be conceived aa the development of the Rolo Sub- 
Rtanoe, as the radiant artistic expreiwion of tho latter, 
and in thi? (.inception the metaphysically dissolved 
phenomena aad the int^roAt therein recur in an ^e- 
tb^o form. Yet this naturol feeling ia still only 



MS orTiJsss OF THi msfOBT or dooxa. 

Uui mbiblishiug of tlio Augii^^tininu cojicvptioit* Ho 
doWQOt KUrrujidor tiimaeLf to ft, but mtliL^r [>a«i»eA 
over atonoo to tbe obH(.'rratioD, that Uio soul titriviM 
(or this bigbi'tit Being aad se^s it in all lower good 
with indettructiblfi, noble coacupifieenc^ ; v^' uftin' 
<iU it h^siiates to s^z& the ^ame. Here adreadftil 
M.Niiitrflof paradox proeontcd itsolf to him, which he designate 
1MB" montttrutti"^ viz., that thti wilt dots not ac^fu* 
ally want^ what it woiifft^ or rather what it seems to 
tvaui. Tog*rthtr with the whole weight of man's in- 
dividual responsibility Augustinec^inc-eiTedtbisAtata 
of the case, which wns ajnoliorated by no jBAtliotIo 
Gonaideration, yet at timcB v^qa eo Binooth to hitn 
(the otittinoei with light aud ahaduw aA the " pul- 
cArum", as the simile of the fulneBci of life of tho 
universal One), ilencff metapliysics ivas trans- 
formed for him into ethics. Through the fooling 
of re«i>onsibi!ity, Go<l (iho summum esse) appcttrfxl 
to him an tliu sutnmum t>onum; mid thi> rwllixh, in- 
dividiud life, which determine*) the will, a» the evil, 
TbiH s^iiminupi Ionian Is not only tho cuu^Uint rest- 
ing'pUhco fur tho rostJc^a thiuki-r, and tha intoxicat' 
iDg joy of life for thu lifi^-lovingmortalf but itisalBO 
an expression for th<T afca/Z-ftr, for that which sliall 
become thd ruling fuiidamentjil motive of tho will, 
(or that which Bhall givo to tho ^'ill its froodom oud 
therewith for tb© firat time Ha jwwer over tiie sphere 
of the natural, for that which shall free the inde- 
Btmctible inclination of man towiird the good from 
tho misera »iecessitas peccandi — expretu«ion of the 





good< Thvm For bim all inf«rercea of the intellect 
and all oudomoEifttic vrmppiug^ flroiipe<l fmm tho 
ooDceptioa of tho good to tbo jfruuud. For tbig 
linA of thoiig^bt nUo bv Hfiimiyl f^mrnil vnliiHty. 

Bat BtiU luiothcr cxpcricnoo now fallowed and it 
M^rntKl hJI uiiiLl}'?»i?^. Yoiwlcr ffotxl uut only cvii- 
froatcd bim as Uio "ahall bu", but hv folt bimifolf 
seized by it nfl love mid lifted out of tlio minury of 
tbe TOonstroufl contradiction of existence. Accord- 
ingly tb^^rancf-plion of Ciod received an entirely new- 
meaning : Tbe good ivbich ia nble to do this, the Al- 
mtgbty, is Person, m Love, Thesummunt r-s^f i&lbe 
holy good in Person, working npon the will aa al- 
mighty Lore. JSetaphyw^ and ethics are tratis- 
formed into religion. Evil is not only prtvotio 
suhAfautiap BiiAthereioTQ not mere priv^tiio *oni, 
hut pwllfstmiftSH tjtriratio t)f^ ; theontological defect 
in the ort,*aturo oxistenco and tbe moral defect in tho 
Ifood iH a defect in the attitude of love toward Ood^ 
but to possess God is e^'er}■thiIlg, in Ivingf good being, 
free-will and pejice, ilenceforth a slrBiun of DiviDd 
thought Howeil forth fr«ely from Augustine. It is 
jttst »a inherently natural to Ood to be gr*atia^ im> 
puiuigbimaelf in love, as tob^C4ii»a causatrix nou 
t<nt^<tta; man however live^t by the grace o/ iove. 
That ho — (TmbarniwH-'d by at njoiieilroa» ^xiflteu(<c 
which points back to a Berioits fall into sin — can live 
only bygmoe^ may 8tiU be explained; but that the 
(mioe o( love really exista is a tninsdcndimt fact. 
Ma'i doiw not Arrive at freedom thivugb indivpen* 






300 outm:(b» i>}f rut hikfoky of uogua. 

Ooil u the 

dcmce OS rogarile Ood, but through <lcpciicl«iof> qpon 
him: Only thiit lovo which liius broti bc»tow«i] upon 
hitu by Ood rcDclera imin bloMHMl aud good. 

Id tin* dotuilod doductioiusof Auf^usttne reepecting 
God and tli(? bouI tke noteii of metaphysics, etlucs 
and of the d4}epeHt Chridtinn cxperienoo vilvAto with- 
in one anotlier. God is the only " re» ", which may 
bo oajoycrl (f rut ^ alien i rvi aniore inhaerere 
proftter af ipwnn)^ other things may only be uwd. 
Thw HoumU NecHl'iutooic, but it is pefiolved in a 
Christian senao intn the thought : ftde, ^pe et cartM^ 
v-tftenitum tleuuL OotI is Pprson^ whom one can trust 
above all olhor thin^ am! whom one fthonld love- 
Tho Jides quae per dilectionom optrattir hccomw 
tlicr sovci-oign oxproAsion of religiou. Tbo iBbtheticaUy 
grouiid(Hl optjmhim, the subtile doctrine of enmua- 
tion, tbo idea of tho eole ugency of fhnl (ibdrine of 
predetftination), the representatiou of evil as the 
"non-exiHtont" which limits the (^x>d»da not indeed 
entirely dinapponr^ but they nre joined in a pocuHar 
manner with tbo roprotwntation of Ood as the Crea- 
tor of niaiikiiid wbiili bjm tljrough il& own fault 
Ijecome a muftsu perditioui^f and of f Jod as Iho lie- 
deemer and ordinaior jtctcitinrum. The BtriviuF; 
also after abwlute knowled^^ ajid th? conception of 
thft Christian religior in ncoowlame with the sohomci 
*\5!iSV''' "^ ^^ apologiftta (rarionnlistio) never failed in Au- 
ApvTnKwu. guHtipe, niid the \pvc of 0<k1 which he felt was secure 
to him only umier Uieautbority of outwunl revelation, 
towhicli he o)}eclii'intly mihmitted; but in bifi relj|;- 


i0D8 thinking, in which the appreciation of the itn> 
portaDco of history' waa indeed xioi eo wtM deYelo]>ett 
as tho capacity for |)«3'cbolo^cal olMurvatioii, the 
Chrivtinn i^pirit, nt]ivorth(«l(iM nilod- 

From hii* youth up Chri»i wiw tho Bilent ^i'Uiif^ "olViiS? 
priuciplo of ]il» w>ul, And Ihu iij^tHirutitly piia^ly phiwI|>j». 
philosophical dcdnclions wcm in muny wiiya influ- 
oikxmI by tho tlioi^ht uf him. All of Augii»tiue'8 
attomptA to break through tlio iron pluu cf tho im- 
mutability of Qod, and to discriminate between God, 
the world and the ^>, are to be erplained by the 
tmproesion of history upon bim, '.«?. of ClLriflt, Thua 
Cbrifit appeared to hitn, the religiotu^ phllo«upbert 
iDore and more pJainJy as th& wag^ the power aud 
the Guihorily, llow often <iid he speok of revela* 
lioQ in getend and mc^in only him! How often did 
he fipeak of Christ wh«7ro his precleceABTjrB ftpoke of 
reveUtion in genoral! The speculative repreAonta- 
tion of tile idea of tlio good oimI of its agency na love 
bGCaJOe a certainty to hiin ouly through the vihIoq of 
Cbri«t and tliruiigb tbu authoritative proclamation 
of the Church nMpoctuig him. The vmon of Christ 
waa a new element, which ho first (after Pad and hiSTSlSi 
Tgnatinii) again intrcxbir^V JuKt as ht8 dofrtrine off 
tho trinity received n new form through the convic-^ 
tiou, e,x|>enoj]crd through fuiih, of tht* unity of God, 
altboagfa be adopted the old formulaa, so also did hia 
Christobgr, in apito of all rullier^ice to tradition 
(n^id comUiting of ApoUinuris), rereivtH a nt^w ron* 
tent Lbreugh the pieaolung of Ambrone and hia own 

Vlniaa of 




experi^nr^. (I) In th« first plare as reganlii Christ 
tho ropi'Geoutation of iiis dublimit^ in his botnilily 
waH of Joclmve importance to him, tbe actual vert- 
fying of tho 3eiit*^ii<n^ otitne bonnm in humititatc 
perjicitur (tlm incaniiitioii uli4o lio repre»out4sl from 
tbi8 point ofviow); intliis he b^<aQ to striko tbo 
m^tfi^vat koy-Dot«Bof Ohnstologj. (2) He Uiil the 
wholo strofid upon tlieposf^ibititynow won, tbnt man, 
lying in the dust, ciui npprohcnd God sinco be ht^ 
oomo n4?ar u^ in our IowHiid^h (tUe Oruok wait« for 
an eialtation to be able to grasp God in Cbrii^t), (3) 
He conetrueJ not infroquently the personality of 
Chritit aiKo from Uio bun^an soul of tbe Redeemer 
and he saw in the BndowmentB of tbe aame the great 
example of tho gratia ptacveniens, which in«dc tho 
man Jesus what be becamei (4) He i^onceivvd tho man 
^^Moiy Jomjfiutt Mt^diator, as SacrifJL'v and Prlcv»t> through 
tttd pfi«L whom we have Ixjen reconciled to thtj Dei^' and re- 
deemed, wboee death, ad the Church proclaims it, is 
tbe aiireat foundation of our faith in redemption. In 
all theed reapocta Auguatuie iatroduced new ide&B 
into the old dogma, joining them thereto indeed only 
insecurely and artificially, A new Chriatological 
formula he did not on^te; to bim Cbmt became tbe 
rork of faith, ainco he knew that the influence of 
thiH Person had hmlcini hi:rt pride and K^ven him 
*(tn>n^h to bt^Hiii."n in Ihft lovn of God and t-ft btl him* 
B<f1f be round by it. Tho living Clinnt ia tho U'uth, 
juid hi^ vrhu U iJixKTbiiaiH by Lhe Church, h the way 
and the authority. 


The soul ift giii(io<J by the quae per dilectionem 
operatur unto the vita beaia. This is tbo Meescd 
|>dA09 in ihtf ri^ion of Ood. Tbereforo knoirledge 
fltill romiiinK tlio aim of man. It ie ni>t the will that 
IioUa tliv |irijiutcy, but ilw iuteUtjcL, Fiunlly Augu&- 
liiie rtiUiiiioil the vuJ^r Catholic form of thought 
ivbicb oonfiiim; injui in tlio horcafter to an adoring 
knowledge; in IliisUfc lu^cuticisui aud conkiuplation 
UQSweni to it (boiioo Au^uAtino's dofoiico of tnocA£- 
ticism AA agnini^ Jovinian)* The kingdom of God, 
Aofnrnsit is earthly, 15 also jwrinliaMc. The «oul 
niut>t bo frviMl fn>ni ttiu xrurld of uppi^nmnovrs, of »tm- 
iHtudcc4 and compul^^ory ooDditct. Ncvcrtbelee?^ Au- 
l^fitine exert<?d indirectly a powerful influence upon 
the carrent eK^batoIo^cal ideas: (I) Virtue is not 
the InghpHt gcxxl, but dependeiK'e upon Ood (in the 
ropro^o&tation of the dDcbivo Bigniilcanoo of tht> 
m^riia tbis point of Wew was indf^cd £ibaudoo«d), 
{«) The priwUy ascetic life »bould bu 11 sinritrtai 
one; tho niagico-pby»i<?al elements; of Greek mys- 
ticism recede entirely (no cuUus myHticiam), (.1) In 
tbe tbougfat, **7nihi tidhaervr^ tleo bt/num e:iV\ in- 
tollectualism was broken down ; the will received its 
dtic poeition, (I) Lovo rGnminsevcn the snmo in eter^ 
nity iLf that which we puttetus^ in this life; therefore 
thij< world and the other are stiU closely united, (A) 
If love remains also in the other world, then inU^llec- 
tualii^m reAppear» in a modifirvl f^rm, (ti) Not tlio 
earthly Hfe, but tb<* oaHhIy Clmn^h ha*« a high^vr 
meaning; the latter ia, so to dpook, the holy Jibove 




«J k*iii I'M- 


turd [«cim- 


364 OUtLmSS 0¥ TBK RiftTORY OT DOOllA, 

itll that in moAt holy, nnd it is n iluty to buiUl H up; 
not a r^H^oa of a »oeon<l onlor «iiporscJc9 tho rcilig- 
toDi but (xrc]n«iai4dc]!un, tho TWi'vicu of tbu Churtli aK 
a moral a^^ency for reforming society, aa an organism 
ot the sacramental powers of love, of the gmxl and of 
Ttdn. the right in which CbriHt works, (7) Hitrher than 
UiL a\[ moiiaivtioisra RfAiKl Jities, speA nn<) cariins; honoo 
tlio acbcmo of a dreary and c^tiatical cout4>mplatioa 
is brukoDH To be stire^ Auguiatiue aucc-v^ed in unit- 
ing in a1) directionB, although indeed u-iib cootradic- 
tjons, the new linos of Uiought witli Uie old. 

%. The Donntisi Coniesi. Th^ Work, " De Civi- 
tatc Oci. " The Doctrine of tfte Church and <*} 
fhft jtfeonji of Grace. 

TteaUfT. A. ft. 0. Reinkins. 0««ch. vl^TI. <I. h, Auic., 1800^ 
Oirwel, L. Aug. v. d Klrche in d. Tfll), Theol. (Juaitabdw. , 
1849, EfiAlIin, D. Katliol, AuffaM v i\. K. In 4. deuttchen 
Znchr. r. chH^l wiH^onw^lv, lewi. >'i-, n. ^-hmlilt. Aug, 'a 
Kfhnv. d. K. in J. YuhrUb. f. acwtooI»<i Thnol., lyOI, 8t^-U»r^, 
BirgTilT <i chrSHtl. K. I, Tli, iJ-m. KiM^wk. TtoDatuM il 

Aug.. issa 

^iSmtt* ^^ ^'^ cont^'Ht With MftnichneiHin and DonatifBi 
^SnJJof Aug«8liDP, following OpUiinii, formutalcii bU doc- 
cQunb. tnn« of tho CJhurch upon (ho bttsis of Cyprian '8 con- 
oqition, excluding* bowovor, tlio Donatiatic dements 
of Cyprian mid inodorating tbo hicmrc'hica]. In 
describing tho Chiirrh lu; uuthoritt/^HKnn indo**ruc- 
tiblo inMfint*i>n of mtlvnlion^ ho bcliovod that ho 
~wna uiorclydoT^criblnga 4livini.>ly produoi'd verity; in 
repret^cnting it a« coTnmuniosanctorHm, he followed' 


trOVB rtiligiouft I'xperioncN^, In tlie former h« op- 
posed tile critical " fiuLjectivtfiin " of the Manichfeans 
and xha puritnnism of the Don&tists who i.!c«ir^ lo 
mak^ Xho truth of the Churcli dupeaideut upon tb« 
puri^ of the prieste; in tho latter be used bis 
doctrinfi of falvatioD iu de&iing bid coDoeption of 
the Church. Complicated views were the canso- 
(fueiice. Not only does the Church appear, now as 
thi^ gold nf religion, now aa the \vay to tlie goal, but 
tho conoeption ite«lf be<Tomee a eomplestty of divera 
cooceptioDd, FiQ&ll/ the doctrine of predestmatiou 
presentad itself to him fm out-iitid-out itu^Htionable. 


I. The most iniportunt churacteristic of the ^ij^*' 

Church ia its unity (in fuith, bop^ and love, on the 
one »ide, in Catholicity on the other), whiclt the 8amo 
Spirit pn:Mlnn«?i tJu\t lioMa the trinity toj:^th»^r; thiif in~ 
the midst uf thcdiaruptiooof humiuiit^' i&a proof of 
the diviuent!Mi uf the Cburcb. Since uuity flows 
only from iore^ tlie Chiirch t&Ob upon Ihe goveniing 
p(>weroftbi>divin<> spirit of /^oiv/commiuijtyuf faith 
nlone ifl not ttiitirely snHicieut From this view thoro 
follows: Carifas chrhtiana tthi in unitaffecrtes- 
iae nort potest ciistediri^ ei»i baptistnunt et Jidem 
fcri€a/t>, i.e. tiniltf oniy exists where lore is and 
tove mdy tvhenn tinityi^. The application of tills 
phmso vrilli itfl conaequcncx?^ declares: Heretics not 
only do not belong to the Church (for tliey deny the 
unity of tho faith), but ftchisniatied b1i<o stand oub- 
aifle of it; for tlieir very ««>parfiti<in from the unity 
|m>vee tlmt tli^ aro wonting in tgve, i.0. in the 

||(>llii'va Ltf 



opcraiioRft of ih& Holy 8pirit. Therefore only tho 
ou^ ^iTi^i Cburch in (he Church, and outeiide of it 
tbom cnii indoetl ^xxsX faith, hitniic (U^]»»» ovon 
m€<uja of ftolvntion, hut no milvation. 

%, Tlir kl-<:(.>ik] cliariiclvrtHtic of tlio Churdj is ita 
hoHnm$. Tlio Chtirdi \% holy as Uio pUtce of tho 
activity of Christ an<] of \\w Holy Si>int. iind R8 tho 
poKSeesur of those mcuni^ uliicli aanctify the indi- 
vidual. That »lio doea not »uccoi>J with all, catmol 
rob h«r of hor holineee; ov^n & tiumoHcHl Biip^nori^ 
of tho fttali e( hi/pocritar docs not cnda&g<*r thi9; 
Otherwiiio onv imhol}' mctnhcr would alrmdy ron* 
der hi?r right que»tiouiibIo. TL^ Church L'xci^rcittee 
diHcipliue and ojtcomrounic&tion nc»t m much tu pre- 
servo her holiuefiH as to oducatf*. She lienelf is al- 
ready BfHnire iigfiiiiKt contain i mi ti on with thi%t whicli 
ia uuhoty, in viow of Uic fact tJmt s3ic novor SAtic- 
tioas iU and nho dcmonettratcw h«r liolinv^Sf siuco ia 
her miiUt, and only wlUiCn lior, rcaJ i^itiU mre be- 
gotten^ uiid rsiiicv ^h(^ cverj'whoro tflexatc^B rnid ftanc* 
UfieH tlio inorult^ of men. In the strict Hi^n^i» only 
the boni ef ^rpiritualm belong to hc.>r, hut in a widor 
sensL* the unholy aW, in so fiu* na th^y nro still able 
to be spiritiudizod and remain nnder ttio influence of 
the »acfann?ntj* (**('*«(* tn conhimi'liam in domo 
ttef "* ; they iire not the heuso of God, but " in domo " ; 
Ujey are not "m commnnione sanctorum'^ but 
"HQcramvntorum'^. Tlius th<* CbuTch i» a ^^cfyr* 
pu^pernirxtnin **, nnd ar^ni hr<roti<w and firhismatii^ft 
ultimately boloug to Iwr, in ik> f ar as thoy havo ap- 



pnifHjiUid the m^aiiH ut ^mt^ ami n)tmuti uiwUt Uio 
<li^|jliiHf M tho CLurt4i. But tUo hi>1iiiM0; of Uio 
Cliun^h iiiclmlt^tt Bi^ iUi aim lliv \>mv fxtinvitinut jf<fitr- 
ff>i'tim {comutuuio fideltum)^ auil all religious £>ri:-il1* 
cutva of Uio LTburcli iiro valiil tvr tlm coinmunicm. 

3. Tlw lliird characWtulic of the CLurch i» it« 
Catholiciiit (uuivt-i^ity atf iv(;unli» »pace), TLis 
famiahotf the stroiig«<j^t outward proof cf tite truth o{ 
tho Church; for it i>? u fact perceptible to the schh^s 
UD<1 ut Uk Hunifi tiai« a tniruclo wiUi which Uie 
Douutifits Lu\i> ngthiiig compiLrable. Tha ^^rmt 
church at Curlli^E^ evtdencei^ it^t-tf uk tlic true 
Church by ib* uiiiou M-ith Rome, with Ihoold Urien- 
tal chiu'cheti, and with the churct^M of the whole 
v^orid (ia o[^K»ition tho DonnHste rightly 8md; 
**Quantum ad iotitia niundl perttnti pnrtt^t tnodi** 
ra pars est in compvnstttionit tottHv tunmii, in qua 
Jidea Christiana nominatHr "}. 

4. The fourth chimictcriutic jk it» aposiolUiiy, ''^^S^* 
whidi nmjiifetittt il*M."R (I) in tho ixwfteesioii of the ^^"^ 
apoNtolii'jd vritiit^niid doctriiie«4, {"i) ni tlieuhilityof 
thoChureh to truoo Uick iti; oxif^tiuico as far rs the 
upofltoticat chiuchea by tho Muc of epi«co|mJ succe^ 
8ioD (this point Cj'priau L^inphasizLHl inuro strongly). 
Among th€6c churches tlie Roiuim i» the moe^ im- 
portant on account of it6 first bishop, Peter, He ia 
the repreeaitative of the apostJea, of the Church, of 
woolc Chriftttniii& and of the ecdeeiastica] Eunotioi) of 
tlw hinliuptt. Tiw lAd tlieory Ibat it is ntceaiiarA- to 
btf ill uniuti with the i^tdes apo^Mica and catitcdra 



GhiLTvh It 

/V/rft AugunltiiiT rotaiucd; but aa r«g;ir(3tt thif iuTfU- 
libility of the Roman »ee^ he expressed himself ju^t 
aA uncleculedly and contrail ictorily a^ in rogattl to 
thcconncilft and Ihe epiaa'pate (natumlly to him a 
council tiUKul tjit:hor lluui the lloman biE^hoti). 

5. Th<T infd! tihih't If lyf Old Chim*h Ati^njidiiitt fxui- 
tiidorml tm tirmly OHtriUii^heil; but be woa able to re< 
proilucti the arguun^ntfl for It otd> aa relativcrly sound 
and snfficieiit. In like maimor ho was c*nivin«?<i of 
th<> indi^penxaMriit'.-is of the Chnrch; bnt he pro- 
pounde*! ideAH (re^ardin^ tlae doctrine of predestin- 
ation ami Xh^ immutability or the eternal working 
of Qod)« which aiiuulle<1 tho same. 

€, The ChurcJi is tlio hiugdom of Qod upon eartlL 
Abb rule Auguajtints indix^l, in mukiug use cif this 
conception bad no refercnre to tho Churtrli, but to the 
entire result of the work of God in tbt- world, in con- 
trast with the work of tho devil But whenever be 
ideutiiioH Obnrch and kinf^doui of God, bo mpana 
by tho former the communio JideHum (cf*rpw* 
verum). But aince there is only one Churcbt lie 
oould not but ccnsider, in a givun cu^i>, tho corpia 
permixtum also us the kingdom of God ; and since 
with theabolitioo of all agxicalyptic reprosentatioDB 
be saw the millennium now alreadi" r<?aliziMl in the 
Church, in contrast with the penHhing evil stat« or 
the world, be ivaa driven almost Lnvoluntai-ily to the 
coiiM^lueuce that tbo visible Church with its ruling 
priesta and its r^grilationfl ia the kingdom of Qod 
{fie cwitatfi </«, XX. &-13). Thus Uwj idea of the 


kiogdon] of (lod parses with Iiirn tJirougb all Htagcs, ^ySSSf 
from a bifltorico-theologii*al conception, which is 
Deutial ad re^itU the idea of iho Church (th€ king- 
dom of OoA lA in hnavfvi aikdhaa lia<»n organiiring it- 
edf fiiuoo Abol upoti tho cmrtb for h^iavou), to the 
Churdi i>f tlie |Ji-]t*HUs but it buA ttn cf>i)trtf In tbtf ec- 
ctesia as a b<«Y<?iily " comjutinio sanctfjmm in ter- 
rw peregrinans". Parallel vith this conception 
goa» tJiat other of the socif^ta^ of the godlctfs and re- 
prabatoa (incliulingtlieilcnkOQ^), which 6nal]y passes 
over into tho uI4>h of t3it< iiirthly kirigdcimi {ilw nUiUi) 
00 the t/tagttttin latrocinimn. In op£>oi»itic>Ji t^i tbia 
cxjmmuniou originating in sin mid t.^iukTFnntxl to i>ter- 
nal strife, stands in general tiio t^tato of Qod nsi tlic 
only rightful union of men. Bnt the latter [x/iuts of 
tbi» form of fitatonient wlii»'h i>n(I« in a n*d tlw?ocmcy 
of UiiK'htirch mid inacondrnimttiipiuif tliostuU*, Au- 
gufttino noithur i>)aboTutiKl nor uKpi>ciid1y oJiipbiiKisriML 
He bad in mind almoat thniugb^^ut ttpintuiil jM>w<?n4 
and spiritual Htrlfe; Uie popeit of iJie Mfildle Agt*^ 
finit drew the theocratic coDH4«[U<fnce8. He iHM* gave '^ y,,* ^' 
to his view respecting the stale ll)*? turn, that, »in<*o ^ **^*«n- 
the pa2' terrena is a ffood (uvvn if a particular one), 
A community (thn Htatti) which protorlM it in ul^^ 
good. But Hiuce the poj- terrtmi cun W brought 
abuut ouly by juKticv, and injuiuiuch ivf, tlw hittor ia 
undoubtedly in possivsion of lliu Cburcb alono (be- 
ise aa roasting upon tlieajriVa^ it originateti with 
]), thu KtRtocun obtain a relative ri^ht only by 
fiubmiB»ion to the stato uf God. It in clear tbat tbia 

Wiirnl Am) 



view also, l*y wliich tljt? Wirthly stalft rocfiivea a ocff- 
tait) iiidofKtndoiico (bocauH<; it hnn itit ciM]>ocia] mitt- 
Biou), tjAii hv iMLhily intr(Hhic^*<1 into tlie tlieocratie 
ticheme. Au^c^tlne him^olf *lrew only a few con- 
Beqiiencffl, yet ho drew Uieso: That tlio M;ito must 
serve tho Oluircli by nioau» of compdleory mi^L$uK>8 
a^iiiii»t idolatry', L<Htitic») »Jid nohii^mnttcH, and tlint 
tho (^un^h inuMt m ^>Tn>nil iixrroiw iiii inlluonco 
upt^ii the »t»t(''^ right cif punifiLm^rtit. 

II. I, TJie Dountiat ctJuUwt ulw} uuocsaitfitod u 
closer consideration of tlio g^Lcritmentd (vf d. Optatu^) . 
In tho Hr^t pluco, it vritg llio gronti^st advimco tJint 
Augii^inc rvcoguizod tho k^o/yJ uh fi mmn^ of |^4uxr. 
The furmuk, ** irf>i"f/ uiid Mtcrament",oT'nsuuktiii\ 
vnth him, yc«, b<> ^atoemed tho **w<>rcl*' go highly 
that he oven ciillcd tho sacmmcnt "vrrbun^ t^m^ 
fctV^", and with tho tionlonco; "crffde tt fmnuln* 
casii" he oppoeed all working Ihroi^jb inystmi-'tfaDd 
gava to the conception " eacraroetit " so wide a range 
that every sensible Bign with which a redemptive 
word if* joined maybe so name<l {**accfdit rerhnfu 
ad ehitieninm ct fii sacramGntum "), An eapocial 
duuLHite of iht^ sacrameutA i& nut U> be drawn tbertr 
Eroni; Augustine indeed not seldom goes ho far in 
spiritualization, that the senHible t^ign and theaud- 
iblo \vunl need only to be considered as ni^nn and 
inmao of the invisible act aocompauying them {for- 
givencftu; of wn, spirit of love). 

"i- But, on tho otlior hnnJ, tlic ^iicnuxionta — Au- 
gUHtiue buH rcferauce ima u riilo iu tlji« cuiiuection only 


tobaptigjnaiul tltr-LnnlV Supper — are After all Bnme- 
tiling liiglior. Thvy dny Higrid, instituted by Ou<i» 
of n hix1u*r obj^-ct, with whi^Tli, by virtm* of tlu> am- 
KtiiuUfil ijnlor of tixiatioaf tlioy fltjutd iu a <.vHuin rv- 
latiounJii]!, and ibmu)^'b ilium (^rnoeitt rvnlly iiniwu'tod 
to bliii who uiake^ use of tlieju (ant^uranco of the 
mi^mrnrdfa Chri»ti m U>e sacrament, liutoiitlio 
other barn], aetu**^ tuedicumlis). Tbii* ooimnunicH- 
tion is di^poiititMit upou ihv tixliniDi!«tnitif>u (objectiv- 
ity of tin?" ww-nirnpTitK), but it i« r«U»tnptivo only 
wheru thv spirit L>f 1o\i> [U)Ci tnio Cburcb) oxii^n. 
Tht^nrbjr nnitw iUv (lcjiil>Ii; cotitxjuHctiu:i, tltJit tliu mic- 
TamentA are iTffoctlvo evi-r^where and yet only in the 
CliurcJi, are intlt^piMidt^iU of uica and yet Umrid up 
with tlieChurch in their retlemptivuiuirt^ Au^^i^ine 
rvsolvLtd thbioontradiotiim by Lli?M;niiiiriatintf lietwotw 
Uie tftornH4rr vfhicU tht> AU)<*nLiiiimtMiri]|uir1 (xtiunp- 
ing it, as it wore) aud tkc real coramunioatioi) of 
(^luui!. The ttaerauieutft ** JiQitcta per ttv t jmu " dui 
he purloined from tJie ChurcJi and yet retain Iheir 
efficacy, but only within Uie Church do tb«y tond 
offoctin'ly t4> salvation (" nou amsiderandunu gui» 
d^t :^{fd quid dd**' but oa tho Otk^r bond, " habere " 
10 not y«t ^ uiilitttr habt^rt '*). 

3. Onlv with 1jjipti.-<.m (cb.irflctor ; InA]if^n&bKo re* xtoctfUm^t 
latioLi to Christ utul Ijis Church) and ordination TuSi^ 
(character: iualionable pr^iration to affer Bac 
rifice and to admini&t4jr the sacraments), however, 
could thifi view be harmonized, not indeed vritlt the 
LiOixl*^ t^upper; for in this the yvs sacrameuii ia the 


iuviHiblo in<«irpifni1uiii into tho IhhI^ of Chrict (cx>a- 
CLTuitig tlit^ vlifiutTiiUt Au^UHiiiii* Utt;>;ht aymbolicuDy), 
ami tlii^ Lord '8 Supper is the adcnyiriMwi caritatin; 
thortfow tlio Cfttholic Church was ever Jilltec] 
with tiiL^ Lonra Supper (sacramenlum nnitatis) 
anJ there tsjuld exiftt no ''chftracler", which was in- 
dependent uf thi^ ChurcJi. ATagimtin4> glutocl ov^r 
this difficuhy, llia gvncrnl doctrine of th« eacra- 
uicuU was ubtuimHt from hriptij^m, tind be di^-rim- 
iiuhhK) th«roin tbui« nrtLliciull^-, in unlor tbat he 
might, (!) platM* the Douatii^t^ ui the wrong, C'i) 
miuntaiii th« characteristic of tho santrtity of the 
Church, (3) give to faith a firm support, upon wliich 
it oouhl roly — indopcndont of men- AfterwanJ the 
diifcrimiajition wii» made the most of, ctipodnlly in 
ihvt hR-nircJjti'»l Hm»f>. But Auguj<Ain(7'»; cmplui^i^ 
n|>on tho ''word** and his spiritualism havo givf^ 
BiuiultaneouiJy offence in another direction {to Lu- 
I her and to the Piu-Iii^/orniers). 

LlJUiVli a 

^kwt of contradictions. 

Au};^ii[itiQ4»'^ iduan in rogard to the Church Are full 
The true Church should aUo be 
|?isible» and yet to the visible Church belongs also 
jevil men and hypocrites, nay even heretics, The er- 
Uerfia socielas mvs'omentormfi. which iw t^mrmimo 
\ fid^iitim et ttanfforutft uiid filially alfw tlie 7iume' 
\ rua praciie^tiualorum tare one and the Baino Church ! 
The " tiE eccl^tt tiuw " ha^ lo trntli a triple Bense. 
^ "/ii etxte;ria" ai^eonly tha pTfifdestinati, including 


tiiaso eiill unconverted; "m t^rrtesia** are the be* 
lieven^iiicludjiig iliose who will r^lftpae; "iiiecWe*- 
ffta" arc all tlaofic vrho have part id tbe fiacrnmeLtfl! 
The Church is pro[)erly iu beavpo nntl yet visible as 
dvitas upon cfirth! It ia from the be^nnjiitig and 
jBt first instituted by Cbmt! It is founded upon 
predestination, no upon fiiilli, !ovc, hope, no upon 
thd f<a<?rnni4^ntA I But wliiU^ tnk ing; recount of tlioRO 
diver** important p{>irilM wliitJi arc oonlm(ii<;tory if 
there it* U> 1w only otiu Cluircb, oiitf muet ii»t for^^t 
that Au^iMino lived a? nn humble Chmtlan with 
tbe thought tliat the Chiinli U tlie vomvxunio fide- 
Hum et saiwtormn^ that faitti, hope and lo^t^ aro it8 
I foundation, and ttuit it " in terris stat per trmisno- 
f nem peccatontm in caritate.^ The piviU^tiiifknan 
' ideia of the Clmrnh (in r<ia)it^- the diifs^oluticn of the 
Clmreb) Ijelongs to tJiv llKH>l(>gi;ui iuitl tlw theoHo- 
pbist, tbecnipirica] idi^a 10 the Catliolic poLeniic. It 
is Dot to he overlooked also, tliat AuguHtiu<^ first 
roscued the ^cranientA from the magiad aspect 
under whit^h they wrtret<> rounterbahiDre n moralistie 
modouf Ihiukmg, aud eoordinnted luid xabordtnated 
them Uy fnith. He first rendered the doctrine of tbe 
e^acTameutd reformahle. 

S. Thi^ /V/fltj/irtw Content. Doctrine of Grace and 

Dtt- F 

Btat«r> a. a. O, Jiuxibi, L«Jir? d- P^lAgliM, 16i3. 'WOrter. 
Dtt- P^iiLuiMniUk i^W, IvInM'ij. DU IliDere Burn-, d. 
F^I^Ualnnttf, 3893. Wl£|gvra, AjffUAllnLsmiu .iDd P«*la- 


Utuuk* {Mi.-ck), Tlieol. 
WilJt-u. 1^63- 

1H3I f. Di«*kh<ifr 
ZiKhi.. I. imJ). 

Luthardt, U v. fr^ 


IJin U Ka- 



Au^^stine had not farmulfttcd hu doctrino regard* 
ing grace and sin wjion !ic permitted bimseU to b*' 
baptised into the Catholic Church (sea his anti- 
Mflnicfa^^an writings), however he hnd done ao b^ 
fare he entered inti:^ tbe IVlo^nn contosti PehtgiuE 
also did Dot formuUt^? his doctrine (Irat during the 
contest, but lie iield it when he took offence at 
tlie AugUHtiniau expressioiit *'da quod jubes et 
jube quod ms"^ The two great modes of tliouKht 
— whether gracew to be reduced to natureorwhethor 
it flotB uature froo — roae in arms against each other, 
Tlio OccidoQtf prepared tlirough Ambrose, accepted 
Angu^ftinianism with incredible alacrity. Augus* 
tine, the reli^oim man and the virtuoso, entountei'ed 
in PelagiuB an earnest a^ncetic monk, in CieleKtius a 
oanuch, in JnLian a gay inAn of tJie world wbo was 
nlfli> a ivftohit^, deU^nnimnl rationalist and an ineior* 
able (iirdoctieian. 

Pekglanihin in Chrlstiaui mtlomdimn, coiisuiteiitlj 
developed under the inttneuce of tiellenic moaas- 
ticisni; it is stoic and Aristotelian popularized C>cci- 
dvuta\ philosophy, which made the attempt to suboi 
rHiinl^f tnitxelf tlie trmlitionaldoctrinnof redt*mptiunr 
Tlui inflncEicu o( ihv Antiochiaii thectlo^y ouii be 
ohown. Thi? [«ouro.'«t iirc the writings nnd h-tteni of 
Ca*lo6tiues Pdagitm and Julian (mo?ft1y in Augustine 
and JeremiOt the workft of Augustine, Jerome, Oro- 


tkcrv«A- PelaBiu** liimwlf waa more cautious, lens 
ftggn^Aive and Ioaa tnithftil Uuui CnOrMthm nnil 
JuluiD. The luttor first cvrnipWU'd thir dc>clriii4^ 
(wiUtiiitt bitti, Aii}^u9tinu mj>'», ** Ffhnjiuni ih^ffittw 
its vtachina sine architecto vecessario remajisis- 
sfi "], Foniiiilly AitgiJi^tmiAuism nud Pelugiunism 
ore herein dialed aiKl opposed to the previons mode of 
tlioii^t, (!) EhcI) ifl founded upon the desire to imifj' 
tho re]igii)iis, oUiical knowkxlgo, (^) Each «xpeU«tl 
from tradition the dramfiti<:o-c9chntologicnl olcmcntr 
(3) Eiich wa^ nut culto-myBticfill}' intvnftUHl, but kept 
tlic prubliiii within Uic sphcro of t}ic spirit, »di1 (4) 
N^jithfsr puts the highest empha^iii upon traditioEul 
proof (Augustine often confesses that the proof ia 
di/Hcnlt to dcdiico frnm the extAiit writiugH of thd 
fnthen), Polagius wob anxious to show that in the 
whotc controversy it waa uot a question of dogmas 
but a practical question; Augufitine i:an-ied on the 
contMt with the couWctioo tlial the eiwence and 
power of ilie Christian rtlieion must stand or fall 
with hb doctrine of grace; Ctele^tiufi was especially 
inteTvet^ in overthrowing tJie doctrine of her^itary 
sin; JtiHan n-as conecioUBly defending tlio cause of 
reaifcMi and fi^e^om against a "stupid anil impious 
dogtna" thn>u^)i which the ChuR-h was being 
plunged into barbarism and the educated minority 
l^en over to th« ma8#e*« who do not tm<brstAnd 

L Polagiuv appeared in Rome and proclAimod to 

■■nmin it»d 




tlio Gommou Cliri^tiiuiA inoDaBticiBm and tbo ability 
of ov«ry lumi to riM in bla <ivm atren^^h uuto virtue, 
avoided theological pulemlcB but coulended against 
tbo quiotirfin of tbe Aii^iuHtioiaii confessionn. His 
Roinan friend Ca>kstiiiH seconded lam. Both wc&t 
Uf Nortb Africa, from whicb Pclagiiii^ bowcvor soon 
ditfvirtifil- CfvWtititt Ap]>1ip{l fit Cnrihug<> for ft pros- 
hytcr'»offioe. Biitlicwaft coirplniiiod of (4I^or411) 
hy ilic Milaiie»o duHcoit, Pauliiuiv, ni u K/uod hI 
Carthage, bocatise ho considony) morUtlity as Home-, 
thing natural (to Adniu and io all rn«ii), denied tl 
univurtuil oonfie:iuonoGtt of Adam'tf Bin, tjtugbt tl 
perfect innoc^^nc^* of Uio now-born babe, esteemed tbe 
bonctRt of tbo ro0um>ction of Christ fts not Q«cogi«j4ri)3 
attributiblo to all, misunderstood tiio dilforcmco 1 
twcn biw anil f^oaiiiol, k^poku of Hinkwf iiion befiH^ 
tlio a]>p«^4iratK^ af Christ find thought in gi>nom) 
superftriall}' uf 8iuk-«u«nc8s iuul the fulSlntenl of the 
commandnLcntH of Ohritit, if only one haB good in- 
toDtiiinM, In Kpito of hiH a«%>r1ioT] ttuit ho nrknowl 
edg<Kl tho baptium of oliildron (but not tinto tho fo 
giviTiittWfif nlu) mid wti!* thLnvfi>rc orthodox, bo was 
itioi.tmmuiiicated. Ko went t^:* Ephci«uis i\ud Cont^tan- 
Peliigiiii* wm hi Palt^tin? and sought to 
niuintaiii pc^aoo with Aii^^tiTie and Jerome. His 
ktwn friwidwith hi» polemic against the iraftuxpec- 
ra^r and th« baptimn nf infanta tn remtssfoneni pec*^ 
ctfMrifmweuinncongoniFLl tohiiu; morevaUiable wer 
hbi moro recvtit fneDds in the Orient, especially Jolin 
of JoTUaalem. Uo and otherb pronounced him in- 

DEVELOPMa>"r OF DocniiyK OP sw, etc. 3«7 


Qooont (at the synods at Jcru3ttk»m An*l Diuapolis Ji^ISi," 
415), while the Augumiuiati dieciplw, Oroftiu» and M^llii'in.i 
JaroTno, at^UBed liiui of misimd^rstHiidiiig tho Divine *^^- 
^mcx*, Butonly witU n mental rcsorratioc did Pela- 
giu9 give up the incriminatijig teuete of C^lesdUB, 
wiiich accordingly remained condemned in tlie Omnt 
also. Id bis literary labors ho bocajnt' dimply mor^ 
cautious, but did not givo in. Tho Xortli African 
cbnrclMW (KyntulM o? CArtJmgi^ rind Milex'^, 4ir>) ji« 
irolloB Augustino applied to Innocent 1. in Romo for Iddoowi l 

coflidfimiuiLliun of the two bervtics. Tbc pope* 
^glftd to bavo b(y*n approachnl by North Africo, com- 
plied (417), yet ki.*pt a pathway of retroat open for 
bimj^lf. Although Zo««imiiik bU suoceiwor, induood 
through a cunning confession of faith by PelagiuH 
Aiid won ov«r by CrTf[<fi&1iu« wlio now aliu> grow moro 
cauttotut, reJnAtntod them and at first rcmiiinod dcui 
t<j tbu rt'pruHOiit^iUoiis uf Uie tCorth Africiuia; y^t a 
genernl ^ytiod at Cartluigo (M8) and an imperial 
«dictt u*hich expcllod both hen-tics with their fol- 
lowers from Rome, motile nn improfidien fll»D upon tho 
p^lx*. who ir ii» fpi.^fuUi frnrtnria ii««iK?ntoi1 to the 
condonmatioii and rociuirod tbn Oocidmitid bifilicpfl 
toiitign the Maine (418). Still thi^i imputation otrongth* 
<iiod Uie of^tosillon [Kirty. Eightoou bishop? de- 
cdlne<). Their lovder was Julian of Eklaiuun, ThiD 
juveni^ confitlejttissimu^ now took up his sharp 
pen. Ho wrot*» during letteis to Zceimtis and Rufus 
of ThesAalontcft, which Attgiistine answered (4^), 
Thetovritli began a teo yearo' literary feud bc^eoii 



368 ouTUN£» or tuk uitfTuuv ur ihjuha. 

tbc two (fragmente of th^^ Joliaii writing:a in Aug. 
de nuptiis et coricapisc.^ iibri mx c, Jul. ami opus 
imperf. c. Jul.). During the same Augnfttiue wu 
often drivfti into a clos^ comer by Julian; buttJio 
feuiJ look place po^f jGntum: Au^.'^tiue was already 
victor; Julian wrote likeono wlio lias notlimK more 
to loM. Uo i>Tolvi.y1 tJierefoto hiA ufttuRiliMii luul 
moralihui out ot liis myal ruawjii wUh gnvit liocouCi 
casting aaide all tnonkerj'i >"*^^ wiUioiU any compny 
heosion of tbo ncocls ami n)^lit of n-li^ion. Ho woi 
flually forcotl to floo witb bib compttniotts into tbe 
Orient fliid bo tbcirc fouiKl protoction with Tbeodore 
of MnpKiipKttfL Tb« Rfibminn miinciK i.e. Cyril, 

i^'^nrii % dill the Roman bisliop thofnrorof condemning ttwj 
Vii. IVlagians (431). Tn tJio Om-nt mtrn luid noccmpr 
hcnsion of i\i<3 c?oiito«t ; iudocil nt tbo bottom tboy wore 
iuclintxl toward pL-liLgianiion fts rogardi; tbo fr 
of the will ; but in tlie Occident iilao men were ap 
only on tbi? pointti, that overy buptism \a in remia 
aionem peeccttorffni, tbat there exists sinc^ tho fa 
of Adam a fradvxpcccaia which doHvera the chil'^ 
drcn of Adam ovi>r to doatJi mid condemnation, 
that the gnioo of God as a power for good i** nece 
Kirj' nnUi the salvation of everj' inaji, 

11. Pelatnus caretl nothing for q€w doj^as and 
eyntem : Julian 'a stoiral system with it^ AriHtot^li 
dialeoticH, (*hnBtiaii ctiquetto and tend(?Qcy tovra 
nattiralifiiii IwlDngs to the bisUiry of lht*ology. Y« 
it IB tra[)ortant to note the principlee of tlic Pelagian 
doctrine; for it haa made ita appearance in a subtle 




form again and again. Tbo monastic tendt^cy was 
not an eseential thin^ with PelagiuM, but miborclinatd 
to the aim of the s|xjntaneotui dovclopmeai of good 
cliaracter, ami to tbe ancient idea of moOemtion. 
Jast oQ that aocouut one may claas Tela^us and 
Julian together. Courageous faith in man's abili^ 
to do tliat which 19 good, and the want of clearness 
of thought on rpligio-othipal qii4>RtionH iinit*^ thorn. 

BiX^aiuie Iboi-o in nfihli^ousnose, tboro is a Ood, 
CKxl irt tli« khid Creator and the juwt Loader, Every- 
thing that he has created is good, therefore also the 
cii>atupe, the law and free-wiil. If nature is good, it 
itf then not convertible; acconlingly there can exi^t 
no })eccata natnraliat only peccota per ncaiflens. ^J^^^SS 
Hmiian nature can 1>e modificat^yl only inridont^dly. 
Thci muett important and beat cndo\%-mcDt of tliin 
mature ie fi*ee-will (" motus anivii cof/ente ttuth ") ; 
reason is compriftecl within the lalU?r. Both bring 
it to pa88 that man doe« not live under the condi" 
tio necessitatis tm^Aocs not noe<) help. It is the 
glorioiui gratia prima at Oofl. thi> Creator, tliat wo 
may do both iind can do oithor. Tho possibHHas 
boift nmieii from (3od, the vohtniaJt imd acHi* l» 'voiunua^ 
our concern- Evil It* a momontaiy, falae seU-dc- 
termination without consequence I0 the nature, 
originating in Ihe »on?uouft fartdties. According to 
Pcli^igiutt tlicso are bad in thonisel^^. but can be 
Rubdued; Acrording to Julian Ihrty am not bad in 
thcmoolvotfi, only 60 "in erc€*«u". W«ro it other- 
w]0O, then must bdptiTtni aboliob or^ncupisKX'nce ; and 




Affair of 
tbo Will 

if cuncupiBccnce is bud, Ih^n tim Cr«>ator Qod \H not 
good. Man ih able to resist every kid, Uicreforo bo 
must do ho: tbero have indoL-Kl bL<ca Biulosa mcn- 
Acoording to PclngiiiB everj'lxKly goc* lo holl who 
flcte ojntrary to his boticr ability. Tho atlcinpt to 
udjusl thuew teachings to tlio Scnptiu'co ami iH:olc»i- 
astical tradition wan fraught with dilticulti4.>«. It wa» 
admitted that Addtn, endowed with freedom of 
choice, fell; ynt imtural dmtli, Hince it is natural, 
was not th« oouwquenco uf his sin, hut Bpiritual 
death. Inasmuch as deiith hns not d«i8C^n<le<l from 
bitn, much leas hna ttot 010; for the nccoptancc of b 
iradux peccult (original mn) KwdH to thu uh^urd ua< 
sumptionof fiotil-^>noiutiL.mand to Miutich£Di»ui (evil 
imture), akoli»b€» tho Divino jufrtio^t can^^s matri- 
mony to appear unholy, thercft>re unlawful* and do- 
Btroys all pofiaibility of ft redemption (for how can a 
rodomptivemtti&ageora lawiniluonceiiattire?). Sin 
always romainfl an nffnir of the will and otich ie 
punisheit only for bi» own »iii. AH ukii utaml in 
the condition of Adimi before his fidi ('^Uterum 
arbitrium et post pecctifa t(tm plenrtm est quam 
fnil ante pactata ") ; only b ainful habit keepa them 
dowu» the power of which ia c^H^iinly to bo flcltnowl- 
edged. On that account graco abo must bo ooknowl- 
odgod 110 arf/tif orium. Aocording to tbv dc|^n» of 
convcnkMicc, tho Pulagiana dttclurod graou lu »iimplj 
nec€fi«arj', i\& fdlevinling, u» »ui)orfluoas. Tiiey oon- 
Btdercd it in truth only a conilortiible crutch for 
Christians; for the scnloncc, "homo tibero arbttrio 



cmoitcf'pftins esi a Deo^^ cxdudee graeo In pHiici- 
pte. There oxiaU oho in triitli ouly otte graco* tbo 
enligbtemng, cloterring, rowanl-oflfcringlftw; butotie 
may »*lao distin^ish, (I) ci\'atioiial gruco (ondow- 
iTwnt), (9) ih© liiw {iiinmittah'o ft fittrtrina), (3) 
graiiaper OirUtum: (n) Ijis oxiunpLc^ (b) ihe fruit 
of bis work applied by bs^ptiam to our benefit iu* for* 
giTeoeeB of sin. On tlim ]>oint tbe PeU^n^uii^ were 
not permitted to waver; but they disclaimed the 
gratia praevf.niens, did n[>t see in Ibe luiptisni of 
infants a haptiran in remisjtwnem peccctorum and 
did not aobiiotrletlge Uie abeoltite neciMaity of for- 
gjve>D«aa. Children dying utibaptizcd nronlao saved, 
but are not admitted into tlie rt'tpmm au'ioruin. 
The tbe^tfl of the I'olHgian?^, that Cbrmtian giuce is ^JJ!^*JJ' 
conferred only ^cuntltu}! menla, alolifibea grace "53^*^ 
just as much as tbo other tbeaia, that it works cti- 
flf»mially in tbe »ame manner a*i the law. While 
jud^iig AugtLstmianifiin, now as an iDnovatioa, now 
aa Manicbf^iaju, now us iovrard contradiction, tliey 
tbeonsdvee brought forth tbe greats^ contradictiona 
(dialertically concealed), and were innoTatora in so 
far 3S they really hold fast to the old ecclfsiastical 
doctrine of freodom but not to the opposite ixJe, the 
myRtical doctrine of redemption, and they accord- 
ingly sokl religion to an irrational mtionalily and to 
a pnjfoundl/ immoral theory of monditj", 

III. Ani^iHtine did not »tart fn^m the iiberum 
arbilrium, btit fw«ii Gix] am! Ilie woul wbich fiela ^^''"'' 
ita gailt ID hiti presence and yet hiw cxiieriomyd bits 


^race. lu ^ec'kiiii; tu expUu'rt tli«refroni iintiirv, ihB^ 
liiBtory of the world and tlie hiHtory of tli« individual, 
ho Ml into many coritrdulkticnisiind intoiuo^uiuptioDS 
too easily f^ain^iid. Bui thi're arft iJieHea which are, 
oijlwiinlly wmBifJerod, entiroly untnie, but. inwardly 
considorod, true. Thus is Au^stino's doctrini> of] 
f^riiiv and lun to bu judged. As an expre(«ion of] 
psychobpricaj religious experience it is true; but 
pK>jectod into lii*itor>' it iri false. Be«idefl it is \n 
iUcIf also not conidfitenl ; for it i** dominaled by the i 
Oiou^ht that "God in Christ cieatee faith '\ an well 
tu by tbo otlier thought that " Qod is th^ oidy CauBal- 
ity ", and thoeo aro brought only seemingly into con- 
scmuice by the dc?finitiou of gnice a& ^itUix data. 
KSm^S?* Boaidea Manicha«iD elemeiiU aroviHihle; the letter 
of Scriptiiro (^nerally misimderHtocd) had also ao 
obsourinK ^^*^U i^nd the reliidous view i» ncconi- 
prtniM by a moraliHtic (nu^rita) which Anally 
mnkoK Uic docidiou- 

Hutiiauit>' is, according to cxporience, a massa 
peccati, i^e. roid of Ghxl; but iho God-imm, ChriBt, 
— bo alone— by bis dtvitb bnuight tbo jKiwpr to ro- 
pk^nUh empty humanity with Divine love; that 
IB tho gnilia grattit ihiin^iXvi beginning, middlo , 
and f^nd of our Ovation. It^ aim is that out of tfao 
fHfi9^<i pcvditi<niis tboie »hjdt bo savod a c^rfvts nu- 
mt^rrtseltxtorum. Such vrill bo aaved because God 
haK prode«itined (Augustine is an infm-lapfarian), 
eloctod, t'nlh'd, juslitioil, ftaiiotilUHl and prwerved 
tht>m by virtue of hU *;tornal d^jcrce. This tokos 



placeiti tlioCUuixrh UiroLigh p'n<N\ n-luch^ (1) '^'iprae- 
tteniefiSt i.e. witlulraw^ iman from hiH(<<im]iti<in of Hn 
and CTL'atett die (^mkI will ( •^ vocatiOy but tbin iind 
all further adtiot ^^ce biko jilaoe in thorn; ilIoo vrhij 
fiiuilly aro not wived, becAUhe Ibey are oot oWtcd), 
(2) cdopemns — this is dereloped in a series of gra- 
dutiotL8iui tixr JUS UioiMitiroanductual ragoneraliou of 
man, vrhich makea« it ptHHibk for him. when fiU«d 
wJtJi lovo, t4>^tnm mfriiu. Out nf tli« i\xvj/t» fcil- 
lovraftbo^E^feA/ tlm i» grmlunlly nugmcnkJ, oinoo It 
i;s (lovt^lupetl upoD Uio otuf^m of Uj1it.-f, i^bctlieDdj, 
fiducia and lovii. Pamlld with it ^000 the ncttuil 
(visible) \TOrkiiig t>f ^raco m the Cbuixii, whicli bih 
giDd witit the renns^io pcccutofMm^ ue, wjU) bath 
tjfini, Vi'liicb remaveti the reaUiSot heroditat? sid and 
btob^ ni]t |tni4t siTiu, It ti^rminatcw m lUiy JuMli/ictitfO, 
which i« not it judgment upon the ttiuncr, but tho 
ciimplcliit^ uf iJu? |JPHXW« by virtuw of wbidi be luw 
actually' pa»^«tl from an impious to a juat stnto. 
This ioici^ pince through tho infusion of the spirit of 
lovo into the lioart tjf the bolie\'er (and through tho 
Lord*H Snpper), wheroby, ndmitt^ into tbci unity of 
tbo communioD with Christ (Church), he recoivee 
aa »tinciwt anU spiritati:i a norar dinpoattion and 
dCBire (■* mhi a<lhaerere deo bonitm e^t ") and now 
has thi' capacity for good works {''JiiUs impefrat, 
quod kx iiuperaf*). Justification d^ndd upon 
ihe fides and is ^itb specie oetfrnitatti a concluded 
act; empirically considered, it is a proccfis never 
completed in this world. The being filled with faith, 


ilon DA' 



hope, And tov^ in oTiilfi»<H?cl hy tbc <li>mrnistration of 
lovo ami by tvhhdniwjil fnim Utu wiit-M (luocHciiun). 
Tliifl in ID turn vvmUtuoi^I in giRnl wi»rkn, whicti n«w 
havft in^irit Ijofoit* Oixl (PHf^ri/rj), HlUiougli they aro 
liis giftA »<iiictiUmy arobe^irttciiof lit^gi'iicc. Not to 
«vory ono nro perfect works graiitc-il {c^nsilia evan^ 
gelica) ; Wtovory juutifii-tl porBon has worVsof faith, 
hopi^ jintl lov(>, (:J) Ou.^ hig)ii?<i;t nntl Iwnl gift of tho 
ffraiiah* the pfrsf-Vtr<ini in which lis trrt'9i^tibiiifi in 
the ulwt. Till? rH>c:u/» («i «onctt/Iaf^t r) wlw do not 
have tbis wlU be lost- Why some only rccoivo it, 
8mr^ it is not lx*lowt»d ft^cumhnn merita^ is Qoirs 
my8t4)ry. Butcertiiiii its it— iu ^pitv of i>TV(l4>etifia* 
tion mid eovorci(^ ^ut^e — thjit at Uil^ thm] jtid^cDeut 
not tho ** adhaertrre D^i '* but tho moi-iit habitm will 
bo decisive. He; only who cnn show tuvriia (but 
sucrh arc Otfi viunem) will Ijo Hitvt*<J. Tho si^UI- 
cance of Uwj forgiveriesus of sin and of faith i» hovr- 
cvor misconf^ivod. Augiistino's thesis is: "\STioro 
lovo is, there also is blt^ oorresponding to tho moa- 
euro of lo^'4*". 

On thin Uttin Augiintin« formiMl UiA doetrino cson- 
cvrnin^ sin, tho full uud th« orij^iu^ Htate. Sin Is 
privaiio boni (lack of Ixsing and of true l)eing), 
turning of man unto himself (pride) and concu* 
pisccrico (doiisuality) ; " m isera tifcesst'tas uon posse 
non peccandi", although foroial f rcodom exista— 
dominirm of tlio dM-il (tiutrefnm redomption from 
without itt nocoftsory). Augutitino dc^ircvi U> rotnin 
the *^autor ^ui" an the principal conception of iiiiit 


but in reality he mnks concupiBceaici* above it. Thu 
latter matiifestH itaelf above lUl in sexual last. Since 
tii\^ acts AporttaneotiHlf (independent of the will), it 
proves*, that the natuie is vitialecl {nalura intiata). 
For that nta^ton it i»r(^|tagateA Hin: Tlii* art of gwiera- 
fcion, i^>u0uminatc<l \vith lui^t, U a teetimouy that 
humanity Ujui Imhxiiiiv a ma^t^a pei:ca(i, Since Au- 
g^istino h^^tated to teacli traducianism a^ rogardii 
Iho origin of tlie eotil, tlie body— contrary to the orig- 
IDA] deposition — becomes the bearer of Bin which 
infects tho soul. Hie frttdta' peccali nme iis viliam 
originxx through bnmanity. ThiK h^irrHlitjuy mn is 
sin, imnitdimcnt for sin andgitilt; it dc:itrQy!« tho truo 
life luid Hum^ndcrs lann ItJ the non jsoititf^. ntm mvri 
(unbfiptized c-hildren also — however *' mittissima 
poena "), after it ImsdeRled all his actd {*'spleudida 
vitia ")• Thus te**lify Scripture, the practice of tlio 
Cliurch (infant baptii^ni) and Uie CDnsciimce of tho 
Minner. Siiico Adiun thia horcditnr}* xin gjci^tit as 
ttatura vitiuia. Win (nil vraia terrible, (i ccmplexitj 
of alt heinouft eina (pride and concupiM'utice) ; St was 
the more terrible, ainoe Adam had not ooily been 
c^reat^d good, but also posoee^ed a» Qdjiitoriitm the 
Divine grace (for without this there exists no epon- 
tanikoua goodness). This grace he forfeitrvl, and f*e 
groAt was its loea, that " in him " the whole iLunian 
rucv was corrupted (not oidy becauae all wet'e that 
Adam, but also hecaiiae from him the evil contagion 
i^pR-a^l), and even baptiRm is not aWe to eradicate he- 
reditary ain (hunitaa luat), but can only remove it» 







reatns. Au^'ii£tiiio*»f idfffi'>ftli«<.>ri^Dal stale (pOAA« 
Htmpe<x^^r^andadJHtorinm)%iMrH\» in flngmnt con- 
trecliction Willi Ills Joctriiw of griwc; (urf/rvi/f«jwa<'7- 
jutorinm in ihit ori^uiil »UU7 bllit^j^mci'of rixlvoip- 
tion> in m fur n^, totally unlike, itletivefi tJic wiU fn<o 
anil roally luu no effect, but is merely u oocdition of 
the free tlecitiit>n for good, tliorcforv not irrvsislibitia. 
This atijuforiutn is in truth cx>D«eiv^1 in h Peliigian 
way (hi8(l<HTtriuoof tlioon^mL)»tnt(>un<1of UioitUud- 
ard vi tho iinni jud^mcat ':» m4 cmmiNUiblc until lii« 
tloctriiii? uf gruLV) mid the nafvra vitiata{xvh^'n XttkQU 
as bumau lu»t) ^ivoH no loiigvr a ploco (or lioly mat- 
rimony, and 18 tb^refore Manicbfeon. But all tbetse 
grave offenceB caunot dim tbe ^roatneas of the truth 
that Qod worIcA the " willing nnd doing", that wo 
poaac«a nothing which wc linvo tiot rccoivoil, and tliat 
to adbvro to Gtjd is ^uud and our good. 

4t. Augustin9*a Exposition of the Symbol. The 
New Doctrine oj Ueligion. 

AiL^ InordortoumlorAtund howAugiietinetmrntformed 

uiiirtcJkn. tij^j triiditioniil doctrino of rdigion (thu Jogmo). »knd 
to know which of bU thoiigbte« ha^t? [mi^cmxI into ec- 
ctoiodtical po»8es9ion, it la necessary to study bis ex- 
planatious of the symbol, L^spociolly his Enchiridion. 
In tile first plact) the common Cuthobc truud of his 
teaching ia here revealed. Confornutbly with theold 
eymbol, the doctrine of the trinity and of the douhlij- 
uature la (explained; the imporUxncc of the Catholic 


Ohuri'b m strictly muiDUiined. Baptism b& placed in 
Uiu foreground ai4 tli€ mijst im]H>rt,uit invHton-, jlu<] 
id referred lja«k to tbe death of Cbrist, by wbit-li the 
ilomiDJoD of the deril, after be hiifi received bis dues, 
is broken. Faith often Appoare as BotnethiDg prelim- 
inary; eternal life is griLntcd only io tbo«e uiiTiting 
it; the«e oontium* in works tjf love, lastly bowex'er 
in asceticism. But ail are not obliged to Uve thus; 
one must dislinguisb between mandata and i^tmlia. 
His' treatment of alms m broad; it conBtitnttt 
|>pnance. Within tbo Chnrch there ia forgivenejta 
of all t*m&, under tbe oeaumption of the safis/acito 
congruit. There are degrees in »iD, ranging from 
crimes to iasignificuut evory-day sins; in the imine 
manner Ibere are also degroee of good and of had men ; 
even (be best {suucH^perfectf) are not free from li^bt 
Mn». There is a g^radation of bli^s (acconling to tbe 
m^iia). The departini, but nat perfected good uuula 
ore benefited by tlie sacrifice of Uie mass, alms and 
prayers; they are in a purifying Are of punlt^lun^t. 
Hiecommonf superstitious vien^ were in many ivay» 
forther intensified by Augustine; thus in rc^j^rd to 
pulsatory, to tbo teniporarj- amelioration of the pun- 
ishment of the condemned, to th^ nngniK wha nid the 
Church of thia world, U> the o<impl4,*ting by tlio ro- 
detriut^ of the heavenly Church which was dcci' 
nia^ed throu^ the fall of llio angeK to the virginity 
of Mary in partu and to her singular puril}- and 
conception, to the mild beginnings toward the calcu- 
lation of tbn value of the sAcriticial death of Chrtsti 






fiiittlly — to tlie cx>ncoptiun of siUvatioa an visio et 
fraitio Dei^ wliich i^^in ami af^iii cumcs to the 
Kurfiico, antl to tbo joining of tlw t;pirituAl pnvrers to 
m^-tftoriouj^ly operating BAcramcnto. 

But, un Hie olliL^r 0idv> tlio iloctrinv of ruligiuu in 
llio EnchiridioD in now. To th<* old symbol matorial 
Wfu added which could l>o uuitc^l xvjtli ilotil.v vory 
I0OH0I7 and which at the Humo iifii« modified the orif^- 
iiiol elomenta. In ull throe artictuH the treatmoDt of 
flin, (oTgivenc^H of itin and porfoction in 1ov« i« tlio 
mriin thing (E&ch. 10 8oq. 25 i«o<|. 4L »i>|. Ct-C8). 
SvoriF'tliiug ]» n.^pri:u«c'nU-d lU) mi imvjinl prucc«»t to 
which thti vory brii'tly tnuitod old d^ikgniatic mat<;hal 
appi^uni m subordiDiLto. There/ore the 3d article 
is treuied the Hwst expHcUlif. Already in tho hriof 
skotcli tlio now jipiteara: Rvorytliirig di*|H>nd» upon 
faith, bopoi tovo^ t^ truly tnwiuxl m rvligion (3-8). 
In tho lat articlo no oxunology \is given; indeed 
physics as tho content of dogmatica is exprwaly put 
agido (f>» 16 ^0- Honcoiha varioun Logo^-doctriacfl 
aroalso all wanting, Tho trinity, haiidc«l down as 
dogma, is c\>inpn%»«.'<d into a unity : It is tho Creator. 
In roality it ia on.e- p^ruon (tlir |h»rK4inA nv\s miiin<fnt« 
in Qod and havo no longer uny ootiiuolojpcal moon- 
ing). Evorythit^g in rrligtun isroltited U>Qod>H«tJie 
9iHe Bourt^ of ul] good, und to sin ; tho latter ia dis* 
tingu]»ht?d from error. Thus wan a bnsalc made with 
tho old iDtelloctmUi^m. Wliecever there is a refer- 
itnoi* to mti, thf'TY' itf aho an^ to tha gratia groU^ 
daiOj thi> pn>dtwtinnig gruoo, which aloue freee the 



akmrkkd will. With n ni(vnrui-v U> ihi^ mistrricrdia 
pracv^nintstmdiiuhsvquensXhc exposition vi thv Jet 
article closw*. How differetilly wouW it8 words havo 
iKiuiidcd, IkuI Augii^tino bocni ablo to troat it unro- 
8tnuncdl>' !— In the Vd article i» touched tiuitcr briefly 
tlint wliLcli tho AyniWl ronlly cviiitjimic (Uio ri>tiini of 
Chmt, witliout rb)li{i?m)> But the following como 
U* tho front: Th« unity of Christ's |jersoiiallty tt» kS^S-V 
ttio homo with whoso aotil tho Word united itself, 
tlio pnxlc^ tilling graeo which brought this homo into 
.unity of iK^r^ii \viil\ the Divinity, althc>ngh ho pos" 
Pm«w^ no dt^Trt^, Dio dom C(>iino(r1ion heiwriou tho 
dvnib of Christ iind tho rodouiiftian from'tho dovil, 
tho atonement oud hfi|it!am, on the ono side, Ihd 
thought of the appearance and history of Chnet ba 
exaltation in humility and b£ the [prototype of the 
vita Christiana, on tho other. The redemptive im- 
port«noe of Clirist was to AuRUHtin^ as 8troiigt)' ex- 
pre(«ed in tin's hnmihty in exaltation and in the 
ppololip'po {vid. Bor«ard and Fraucis) aa in Chrifit'a 
death. The iucaniation aa such reoedee, i.e. id placed 
in a light which was entirely foreign to tiie Qreeka. 
Accordingly tie 'id article was qnite changed; the 
old dogmatic material is only the building mate* 
rial.— In the 3d article the unre6traiin?dm*ss imd f\»- 
HurUDO» with whi^h an ever-andurtng fargii*fttM>«#of 
Bms within tho Church ii* tftnght itt tlio princi[<al 
end the new |>uitit. Aiiion^^ Ihi:? tiuiN<4'e^ lliu growing 
Iaxit>' bad ciilled forth thL> iiicxhiui^tihlc sucramout 
of atonement^ but with Augui^tiue the new knowl- 




e<lgn liail T>oeti ^v&n thnnigh An liiU'iirtir^'ing uF the 
coQBciouauca^ of eiu and a buri-owfiig into Ibo ^raco 
Auitu-iutif*, o( Qods aa Paul liaa taught It, Tme, the t|u«^tioa of 
tlie pernonal afi&urauoe of salvation had ah yet not 
touched his f*ou1 — lie stands het^vecn Uie aneiciit 
Church and Lather — ; tlie i|iie8tioii, How con I be rid 
of my *ni\» and U> Rlli^l wiUi thi> |x>vrctr of OoH? wah 
h)H fuiitluDH-ntfd <]u<«lioii. In following the vulgmr 
C&ibolic t^trhinghc h^jkriahcut fur^^ooil worknj but 
he conceived thein a.s tljo product of grac<* [iiid of tiku 
will which is dependent u\Km graa^; bo accordingly 
warned inon against replying up«>n outwanl adi). C\i\- 
tu)t aud even alnijf ho put luiLdc; he 1aiow« thnt it m 
n r|ncu4tion of inwtLrd truiiKfunnjititiii, of a [iiini h^firt 
4ind a now »(pint. At tlio unnic timo he i» »nro tliat 
ufU;r bjipti^m tlio wny iihso to for^ixxuiv^n of sins 
UTcr Btanils 0[>en to tlic i>ciiitent, and thnt he who 
dooB not boliovo in this ocmmits the sin against the 
Holy Spirit Tbifl is an entirely new iuterpntetion 
of the Gospel puj«sug«. Very explicitly waa th<» con- 
diirtion of th^ nymljol {rtfSurr*'ctto cami^) pxplHined, 
Bnt tho main point hoTc« after a short expUniitii:rn 
of th» rout theaie, i»: TIht uuwdoctrinr of prL-tlo»fti- 
nation m the atiwu^h of Uii» theology; fuiihenuore 
the idea, csaeutially new as a doctrine (it stands in 
place of Origen's doctrine regarding the ajfokntas- 
(aara), of a purification of pouk in the bereafier, to- 
ward which tho prayers and sacrifice of aurvivora 
oie iib]« to oontribntci 
Wtf^. Pit'ty: FaUh and hvt m place of fear and hope; 


religion: SomctliiDg higher Uijui 8ll that ia called 
iloctriuo, a new life in tlie Mrcnglhof Ioto; \he dcc- 
Iriue of Scriptun> ; Tin? ihiugs (Uic Uodpcl* faith* loves 
ln>p^— -Ofni) : tho trinity: Tlwonfi living Gftfl; Cliri*- 
tology : Tlio oue Mcdiiitor, the man Jctmt^ with whouo 
iKiUl tlie Di^'initrV Ihib Iwcu iiiatvit, without thr foniwr 
having cletiervXHl it; rodunipfio]]: Death for ttwlKHi- 
eRt of enemies and humilitg in cxfiltation; gntco: 
The new creative, chanf^tefis power of lotT; the «ac- 
runi?nlA ; The H'ord along with the sign ; bliss : The 
b^<ita ne^:e9^utas of the good; the goo<l r D^ptnd^ncf 
upon (iod; history; Otydiorstf^rt^thing aceordtng 
to /m pieas^tre. Cempure witli thl>t tho Grcok dog- 
maticsl True, tJ>L^ old dogina grt^w the nion) rigid, 
the farther thfiy were pushed into the btickgroimd 
(not abolished); they became eccliwia«tic«] law and 
order. The new doctrines renuLinod Htill fluid- they 
had not as yet received the form and value of dog- 
maa, Through Aiigu&tino Ohxirch doctiine become 
more indoliutto w^ r^nrtU t^xlrni and importanoD. 
On tlieono hand it wiiM tniced 1>JLCk to ttio Go»pel, on 
the other it dt^fined iUi limits Ic^ shfirply in roLitioQ 
to theototO'< Binc€ n definite formulatioo waa ladc- 
tng. Around iht* old rlngmji, whirb mnint^ined 
thcnwctvce in rigid vnlidity, a huge indciinifo drclo 
of doctrinoH wim form<nl, in whidi tlio trioet iinpor- 
tanl thoughto roDCL-niing faith lived, and which not- 
withfitandin^ oould heBurve>"iNl ami firmly fixed 1^ 
no one. That wafl the crondition of the dogma dur- 
ing the Middle Agra. By the side of the rigidity 




tiirn^ hail olrcodj' begun Uxo proooflO of inwiuxl dis- 







Hdller. Rrmkt>pliu;]Emi:iniufl B- K,* Wiggfirv. i. Z. f. h, 71].. 
1954 r.. And rWnlK-riv Uu, tiivgor d, Or.. 1(M5. 

The Weetoni Roman cmpjr© co!liii)»o<l. The 
Catbaltc Cburdi «t^|>]>o<l in r\s tlio heir of ibif ompiret 
the Roiuiui bisliop IL8 Uio livJr of tho cmpcmr (Loo I. 
«n<l bin miwo^^ors in ilie 5t!i ceotiiiy). Biil ilia 
piipacy, Bcan^ely jnit nt tho liooilt dXf^onencod id Uio 
timo of JuAiinion fi acvoro n^vcntc, from which Ore- 
gory alone r^uc'corwl it. During tho dth and UUi cen- 
tuno«« the Konmii c^hnrcli wtvi not a^yutablc to cUsci- 
pliim thi} bfLrbarifui iifitious; for tlicy vrore Arian 
ojkI Romo woH uot fix^o but chained tu tho Oricoit 
from th^ Pttli o«ntiirj' on. Tlio FrHnkn aJdho bocome 
Catholic, yot they nt fin;l rein»iiii<?<l irulopcndoDt of 
RtiJJiL-. XcvcrtlidcN^ jti^l at i\n^ tiinu tlio claim uf 
tho Komau bishop, Umt everything valid of Peter 
(ctiporintly Mt. 10:17 i«Cf).) was al^o vulitl of hinif ob- 
tfiiuLHl roc'o^iiitioii. Do^iiatic ofTorto were limited 
to tho rco^ption and tomn^ down of Au^ittiniaBiam 
in tho aonsd of ghiiti^ it on fo i\v> common Catho- 
lic t€(ichmg. Ah regnrdo tlio old Romau 4i>'>^*i 
bol, it obtiiiutid in Giinl at tluit lime it4 prGA'^ 
ent form, in which especiuUy tbo navf oxpreesion 

dbvkjOpmest of doctrine or siw. etc. J8S 


"communio sanctorum'^ (FaustuB of Reji) i8 of 

L Cmtte^t betioeen Semi-Pektifinnism and 

Gntefal c^toom for Au^^izttino, Tx^jectfon of Po* 
Iag!(Ui!t<tn, ivcDgrntion uf tlio univ^nml h^n.H]Ltitry 
pcct'Ability and of iho iK?ct'ssily of (p'aco (tts adiuio- 
riurn) did not oa yet moan the recofi:nitioii of predea* 

itinfttion nnd of tho ffratia irrffstxtibilis, Justifi- 
ciition \>y worlw, for which Au^istino himself left a 
*.vue<«iKsl plmro, and u w»nt?ct in^tiiii't of Lvclceiwati- 
cal seIf-pn?«ervalion rmclt'd iif^inift 11ti"**o dot'trinee. 
During Angi]gtnio*s Uf<^timD tboy hnd nln^idy culk^ 
forth iini'^asino^ and doubt among the moulcB of 
HiMlnimpt (A ntj. tie ffrftiin et libera arbitn'o and de 
corruptions et gratia), A yonror twohtcr (428-42D) 
hi» diM^ototl fricnclit reported to him that in the south 
ct Oaul (monks at Matt^llia aod other ptuoos) thortr ^j^,^ 
was an opposition to iho doctrJno of pnxl^tination 
and of tho inability of i\w will, bocnusc it |uiridyzod 

^ the Chrititiau prL^U'hiii^. Augu&tine by bis writingH 
dti'.pra4vifisi, Mtnrt. and dfi donn perjwtiertintiae oon- 
iirnicd hiA frmidft, but rather (^dcd hift opponcnta. 
Aflm- hio dtuith tin* **Aervi det" iii ^otithiTii Ouul 
advauGe<t more daringly, yet not quite oiK-nly 
for AuguRtiue po8^»so<1 gn-aX authority. Tlio 
Commonittyrium of ViuLViit, wliicli fr>rmuUti« tlio 
Hlnt'tly ix*ck^i»istic tniditional point of vi<*w (see 
altore, p. 22!), ia aimotl, nt loiutt iuditvotly, against 

384 0UTLmR» OF Tim nuvroRv or do«ma. 

i££!Li. *^ n«wuo*« of Augu»ti»i>'H (ioctrino; John Catitfi- 
rui, L]i« frUhor oi tlio KoutL Gallic mouk>i, giivo in 
Ijitt ''cwWa^iV/nCrf" cx|>rumioii U> Hemi'PcluipaHi&m^ 
altbough ho had Icaiiitsl much from Augustine. The j 

rninu nf (locmivo points of eomi-PotajariaiiisDi nro Ihoflcfeioil 

«[ftatun, utiivorvality of graoo^ the acc^imbibility (leeponsL- 
fcility) of man—berein Is it evangelical— ami the 
]:n|x>rtiinco of gooil workn. At'cantlitigly tlie tp'ah'a 
prae^feniemg \9 in gcncnil fidmittet] only txe outward 
griicv. Qod crcaUnl th^> (*ui]<1itio»iso|>|KnluJUty and 
pofleibility of our Mulvation ; but inwnnl (i^ainctifyiTig) 
grace conour» with tho froo will, which is accord- 
ingly a co-onlinatu factor. Therefore the one aa well 
aa ttw other niay lead the way, and a gratia irre- 
mstibili^ ifl asmach excltidetl &% a precl«mtiiiatioD in- 
depea<loDt of tho Dirino prescience {of free actions). 
The latter inrolvoB an in^enit siwrihgxMm ( i.e. fatal-^ 
ism), even if tho nntervatioa muet ^taiid that Ood*« 

BOMriiM wajB are incompreheDsible (1^1^^ tlitariusof ArieB^^ 
■^Pn«iW and mf>re decidedly, but at the same time given to 
lyiii^f, Uift unknown authi^r of tho " f^raeth'^ttHfitna ", 
llie ont*iu of which 10 still n riddlo— Uio ropirceeata- 1 
tiun ib fairly in keeping with that of Jei^omo, as 
fff Herat doctrine it in more hi«itating than that of 
Augtiatine, a» an expression of Christian self-judg- 
ment it is a deacrtion of tfio tnith). Tho doft^dera 
of Aagu»tiae, Prosper and the unknown author of 
the tibj-i 11. d^ vocations g^nifttm (milder tbanf 
AugUHliQiaiiiaD)), did imi pi'odiny* a docinvv olTod, 
altliough po]ie OolehtiuB roprimaudod their oppoueuta 


Oft ovor-ouriou8 people. Uuri&g the last clocnde« of 
ih« 5tJt century s^^mi-PolAgianitun <ibt^ine<l tin ^^x<\'i' 
lent ropreeentative in the runownctl tpcitchcr of south- 
OTn Gaul, F^ustti>i of Ifcji, rai ann»ibl<^ nnd m]t} 
nbbot and biflhop^ who tnmcd cm well ngomot Po- 
iHgius "peitti/cr '\ an* oguinst Uio gmvu urrur of pro- 
dmtination (in his writing, de gmtio dei H hximanae 
mentis libera arbitrio)^ and wUo induced th<j strictly 
Augustiiiian presbyter Lncidua to recant, after tbat 
the doctrine of preileAtination had been condemned 
at the s^mcxl of ArW (175). Fanstus id bi^dcx^trine 
ifl still nioremo7£/:t>A tbanUiaBianand IcAsintlucnccd 
by Augustine, He already brought forward implie* 
itJy the doctrine of inerithtn de congruo et cvndiffntK 
In the fdes aa kncwladge and in the endeavors of 
the Trill lo reform itwlf th^^ro lies n meritnm, bom 
ofihefffraiia prJm^, wbiob partioipatoa in the rcv 
flootning groee that now worka iu unioa with the 
vrill, m tlml gH<rf«<:t vtet'ita are pruduced. 

Liko as Fcla^r^anism and N'e^rtorianisni, whidi are 
inwftHly united, w-t^ro once drawn into a common 
fate> no ul£o was »cini*Pelugijuiinn imtiuigbxl iu th« 
Chritttolofiriad controversy and found tlwruin its poxy 
visional end. Tbe fAi^ojia^cAif^ScytliiiminoDkain 
OoDst*ntmoplo (isoo above, p. ^07), who in their 
Chrietology especially emphanized the Divine factor, 
denounced the Occidental theologians (Faustiw) aa 
enemies <rf the correct Christology and as opponenta 
of STACO, taking; ttieir stand with Aiijn^iitiiic. The 
pope gftvo an «vAt»iro deciaion. but tlw nionka found 



ftftft nrTI*lKE8 Off THK HIBTOBY Off DOGMA. 


of Arl^ 



aUio« funong the bishops who had been bantafaed 
fiYim North Africa into Sardinia, Ftilg^ntiuB of 
Ktmpif wrote about 590 several important letttira 
q^ilhI tlic' authority of Pauetua, in which comploto 
Au^ititintAiibini lb oet forth (piu-ticularity of grace, 
prafde&tin<itio adpoenam). Tbeea and the reeding 
of AiiK^iflttne'H nennons had ju effect also in soutb- 
om Uaul< The Age* ^nw btit the ono dik^nma, eitht:?r 
AiigUHtiiio iK a hfTPrttio, nr a lioly l^iu^hrtr. Tin* grivit 
Qidlie proachor, who had ohtiiinod hih education en- 
tirely from Au^uf^inc, Cit!i»fU'iu6 of Arlus (1 51^), 
avcrtol tho South-GalUc opiwsHlon, wbich bad be- 
come boiHlorous at llio synod of Valence; supported 
by tbo pope bo gained tlio victory at tUo stiiidl synod 
of Orange (A^ft) with tLo 25 ''ChaptQnt''t which tJie 
popo hiLcl ^xtrtu'te^l from ttit* vi-ntingi^ of Augnstind 
and Prosper und sont to tlic i^outhcm GaulAoathe 
doctrine of the oarly r*illivn«. A (vvr only in HoutJi- 
em Oatt) supported Caisnriut< (Avitus of Vieune, f 
6^) ; hut mmt of tho biidiops were perhaps no longer 
citable of follow'iDg tlie point under controversy, 
Thd approval of pope Boniface II. Rtrengtliened tlio 
authority of the decrees of Orange, which wore later 
tolomntly coosidercd by the Tridcntinc t nunciK Tho 
''Chapkn*" are Aufjiusiinian^ bjt pn>diMination is 
wanting; and the inward process of grace upon 
which for Augustine tlie principal emphasis lay i» 
ootdeserviiiglyopppeciated. Th&grrtiiapraevHiiens 
ifl taught uDoqui vocally, heeauAe th« strict ooncoplicm 
of hoi-edilary bIu and with it the doctrine uf grace 


were eu^pbaaized by the monkish viewa regarding 
Uio impurity of matrimony. But othcr^^-it^ tbe doo- 
Lrinn i» ID rea1it>' an AugHstiuiAniAm without Augiui- 
tiu4>, OT could oakiily Lo understood a«iiucb; i.e. th« 
vulgar Catholic viun-^ ooucernin^; outward grace imd 
works could and would maintain tbemaelves along- 
side of it. 

2. Qregitrtj !h€ Great {6W-<}<H) . 

Homo finnUy jiclvuinx'fl tho formtdii« of Angitstin- AvsovyL 
lumHra to victory, ullhougb ittt bi]diO|m in tho Gtb 
century with4ln;w fur from thu twuKT. Qn*tjory I., a 
pope higbly intlu^utiiU lUrough h\» peTsonatity (a 
monk). Ilia lottcr», writings Irfgula postomitt, dia* 
iogu expm. in Job seu moratia^ honuL in Kzeck,) 
aud litui^cal P3fonii», under ibe cover of Augua- 
tinbui hinguBgo strengtiiotux) tlio vulgar Catholic 
ti/t^t by means cf auportftitioua clemonln, tlkon gave 
ojc|;re»»ion to it aguiii, uud brougbl r<;rwiLrd into 
promineiio« tho old Occidental couocptfon of ivligion 
80 legfllwtic organization » Tho miraculoufc became ' linjjjf*"' 
cbamctemtic of religion. The liLtter lived am<Hig '**' 
angeb, deviU» Hacrament^, samfioe^ penitentijkl I 
ritea, punishment of side, fonr aud hope, but not in \ 
&ur« confidence in God ihruugb Christ and in lovu. ' 
Even if Gregory personally indulge^l in AugustinlaQ 
tlioughtd and manifested in hia own way juatioo, 
gontleue^ and freedom, yvt Uie variogated form 
of hid theology te^'ficoi that gvcu the ht^ men at 
tb«t tune were not able to withdniw from the relig- 

Id Dvcuu 



TnUMl In 


loii^ barbiirjum into which antiquity had fHMir>lvod* 
Qrcf^ory wii9 in after timo inoro read and lauded 
i\inn Aii^^imtlno. Pc?r nearly half a mit1«nniurn hi^ 
dominat^id wjUiout a rival the history of dogtuii in 
this Oc^idoQtt and ho roally dominates C»tt)o1ic'iHm 
Qvm now. Ho md^^ crefited nothing now^ but by 
tho mannor in which he nccentnatefl i\u» varioua 
doctrin^Ht luid Churvh oiiKtoniK iin<I ii^troiliicod a boo 
ood-mto n^ligioii iiit*J thwflui;^, hu credited tho vti^or 
typo of Roman Cattiollcitun. K«pc4Tlally wuriliy of 
mc'Dtiou are tlio following: (1) He ivproduced the V 
moHt valuable eerice of Aijgii>«tiiio'B Lhc^ut^hu oon* 
ceming the inner effect Biid appropriation of grace, 
in part *»v(»n iftilp|^ncleiit of thd latter, attnl>nlLng 
also to tbo Worti Iv^rburn fifhf) groiit impoitimco; 
but ho gave to III! phiLwa of tlio AugiufLininu ordo 
HGhifis a Komi-Pelagjiin owst, Bitico he <x^»n<7oivoil tho 
tiherum arbitrinm mm factor coonlinat* with grace 
{"nosmet ijtsos liberare dkimur^ quia tibernnti , 
noH domino eotixenfifnfiH*')\ (?) He felt theimpor-V 
tanoo of the death of Christ, perhaps more intotiBely 
Lhau Augo^tiiio. hot among tlie difFcront poiotA of 
viftw under wbitli he placed it Uie flpocryphal jiri*- 
doniinataA: Through CbriBt'a daath the dovil wna 
ov^rc^me, after ho had been dientod; in the Lord's 
Supi^T the 6AcriHco of Chri^ is actually repeJiUnl 
(hf^ro GrogtiryV dfx^tHrinn htun. l)((romf> t'Mpix-ially Ui<i 
standard), and t}iii« an [magiruuy AacrifiM> tokos the 
ptucu of Ujo hiHlorioal; hut othtrwi^o iili«u Ili« bis* 
torical Cbn»t appvant aiipplant^^l, viz. by hli own 


meritum^ which ai« the result of a Hinlws life and 
Itoly d<iHth iM »eo|^ira1iuI from him. an Actual (^twhI 
nocmaniy to every *ino in order to nppccijF^ the angry 
Qud, but ill ittt vi^ue to tli«9 iuOiviiJuiJ (|uiUf oii uu- 
certain trofu^uiv; ^(3) WUh Uils conception of the in- 
tarceesion of Iho rneritnm Christi, Gregory nnitcti 
the hitherto unc^rbiiD thoiigbte n^f^ardio^ the inter- 
cession of the saints and the Rervieeof thi> an^lo, 
And exalted them to tho loft}* jrUmd of ** theology**, 
lie Ic^timizcd tho pcigan eupcrstition vrhich hnd 
need of demi-guds und graded deities, had rt^ 
courRe to the holy bodjcv; uf in^u-tym and joined the 
fterrice of Chmt closely with that of the Baints, 
cla^ittifyine: and commending the archangelH and 
guflnhan-ang^^ and fortifying the evil practice by 
hia dcctriue; (4) Hiotarch more in practice tJian in 
doctrine, he brouwlit out strongly the aimtlarity of 
the Church an4 the civitas Deij for he lived at a 
time when nothing of value existed save the Church. 
He extolled the latter a^ the congregatio xanctorum, 
l^ut in n>altty it vra^ tj) liini an edticntional ibstitu* 
tion, rop<iUiTtg thoovil unddiHpoiuring grunt; ahigher 
idea the men of that day duro not tsd Wfore them- 
BBlvea. To hfm Uie Roman hldiop vraa the master 
only of the sinning bifihopa (tlie lait}' no longer play 
any part at all), Inil sinners were they all (" si" qua 
culpa in ejnneopis mveniivr^ nescio qttis Petri 
sueeeaaori tubiectus non sit: cum vero culpa non 
exigii^ omnei secundum raiioncm humititaiis ae- 
qttates 8unV')\ (5) (Gregory atill kiiowa what Imter 

■InD Df 


Old Rornwi 
ltlt<?« Ap- 


gin» of (fT'W"*' '«^<' virtii*^ ftft:?, lull the oxu^irminnted 
RomAn pngnnmrn hru\ nottvithtrt^uding lrnn*imittod 
to him «Is*i itj» trtttmlortf niid itn rvligiou:* mo^Ie of 
thought ill »vioh a ])errcct way that lie o&cascd all 
roligioufi iltiticA un<l virtues in istatutoiy, finnljr oul^ 
lined ceremonies, which were in part aiJopt^jd old 
Soman customs; here nlao be rreated in reoli^ lit- 
tle that was now, but h& ol^vat^l to Gcc1e«;iAstic»1 
onlinanoeB of salvation of tlie 0r&t rack tbo Komou 
" redgio" together with the i^nuiautaof the m^'steritia 
which long fdnce ha^l obtained civic rights in the 
Church; (i3) Gregory Juul a feoHng for true humil- 
ity, hut lie $itroin0heiicil tho trend which Uii^ virUic 
haci taki^ii tiw:irr1 nuiiinstic'' AuiiifVf'M^', W/-d#*ami 
and ttpiritufj »rOf deception: With tho »iin]>]o Hcnso 
of truth thefteom^of tnithfultiitk'* died out — it became 
night; mid tho world of llie fnner lifo nlf«i'>, which 
AugUAtine had onliglitem^, g^rew ilark again; (7) 
Orq(or>''s deilucti(Mi8 concerning penitence Ix-camo 
tho moHt coii»i}(]uontia] ; in thofic hif« thoology lired 
and fr^im ilitun ono iv^uld \v1u41y <vinutni« it. 1716 
in^CTutoblo Od iw Iho R**ciwiU*r and louvo« no rin 
uupunitfhed; in iKtpti^iti ho has ovorloukud inhmted 
sin, but it is our concern to gain bit;8»edn(«a through 
penance and good works by the aid of the hand of 
l^ce. Of the tliree parts of penilenoe (conrer^io 
mfinti^y ron/pfisioovis. tr^imiieta jtet^calr) the p^malty 
to bo paid ft>r ain beoomc« in roality th<f moHt impor- 
taul. By Qregury ihi- fatal traunpuoiltun wits ilrbt 
carried out that tho ^ sat in/act tones'*^ which origin* 


ally wcn> ooiigiilcrod a aurc olli^stat ion of rt>[tf>ntaiic©, SS^u^ 
are the Miti»fying p(<iitaltio4 for «iu, to which one ^!^S 
9(tibmit>i in oHer to avoid eternal punishment. The' 
morit of Christ and tho pow^r of tho Church socm to 
cuustKt ia the very fat-i that ^tmiuU punifihraenl i* 
<:hangctl into tempoml; iheea teroporal penaltiee, 
bovover, aro again dimmishod^ uhbreviated, or pre- 
vented by ibiQ intercossion cf Chriat and the saints, 
by maasee for the srml, relira, amiilet«i, etc, Th*» 
fact which has always boeu observable in the history 
of religion, that wlmrover rt^ligiou tak«e ite aim from 
morals ii ljc<:omea inimoral, ia exemplified hero also. 
In the main principle the sovere idea of retribution 
dominates, in the Fni1»onlinate all jx)a$)ihlo means of 
salvation c?omo into play, in part not ovi>n with Chris- 
tian etique1t<^. and in tho finnl inKtjmrc* caAtiEwtry iind 
fear rul<>. L<>ug bofon* thiA viovr Ktifficcd no longer 
for tliiti life ikiid for tiiiic', juid yv\ men had not diirvO 
to n>ac!i orcr into eternity — for who could then bo 
considered »avod?— but Gregory was tiio Grst to 8&> 
curoly introduco purgatoi^- mto theology, thereby 
conquering an immense province for the Churchy to 
remoTo bdl farther away, and thus to procure fi 
uncortaint^' a new comfort, but no rc«t. 







Bftcb. 1X1, dM UA. S Ddd.. 19T)f. R<>utor Gcadt. d. 
|j£. Aufhl^'ung im >1A.. 'i E^dd.. ivnr, U Hauck, KOeach. 
DoutfclilHutU, 9 BiU. IbUT f. ISrhtfvnv. LKI> li. miUli-jtHi 
Zt.. 1ISHI2 H|>i^M, UM^h. il. 1'nt4>rHrhtiiirwm 1. IVntechr bia 
I. Mitl«(l. 13. JoUrU,, IdttG. Uatdi, Hie Urovtii of Churvh 
ItuUtuLiou. 10^7. 

Ci^\is" eonvereion to Christianity and Orogory'a 
mi««ionary offorte Among tbo Auglo-Sajtoos laid the 
foundation for tho history of ih^ Gomaii Cathollo 
Church among th© Qermans. In the 7th nojitury 
Ariani Bin died out- in the Sth Rome was forced to 
transfer tbe cent^ of gravity of ita politico to tho 
Romauo-QentLBmc empiru. Newly converted Eng- 
land and Germany became ut once Koroan. I'opin 
and Charles the Qreat made advances to tJie pope. 
At linft the now kingdom of the Frankn gaimi] morv 
thiui ihft iioi>6; but it soon boc-ADie apparont thut the 
1ntt4>r obtained tho highest bonotit from tho confodcr- 
atioJit nothuoAuae the idea lu it^lf uf tbt» CliriAiiiin 
conqueror signiiled less than that of the succe^Hor of 
Peter, hut bocau80 it demanded the fotindation <jf an 
actual world-^mpiro, which, howoriu-, coultl be only 
tamporarUy cr^fttod. 

Spiritual life and thi>ology hnd, prior to the timo 
of Charles tho Qront* no pn^rca»ivo history; tho 


liPulovingioji (?p<M!h wah » gro^it andi iti many rcf^[Bi.<fTt8, 
aboTtiveatt«nipt»t areviruJafunticiuityuDcllikovrifW 
alsi^ of the theology of tJio fntiit.'ir^. W}iiil«»\*or of 
ihoolc^' was at haTKl prior t4> nbout the ycnr 800 is 
compemliuED and *UEtvtpt fitudor^ of Seville, Bwle, 
later Kabonus), ia in a certain measure "in^^rfu- 
(ioa", Ubetbe wboleof r^ig^on. Through 6e<Ieand 
Alcuin, Atit^Rtine was revived. It waa a on^ai arl- 
vancti whi^n mf-n began Ia roally nndri^rstmif) bim 
again — in eoroe rospecta hotter tJian did Grc(;or)' (Al- 
cuitif Agobard and other») — ; still as an ludeiM-iiil^nt 
thinker Scotus EriRena alone cnn Ix* !i»mo(l» irljoso 
myKiical panth(ii.'«ni, derived from tbo Aroopfigit9 
and Au^istiDO ['*de diviaione nn/wnie"), rcmuiaod 
however wliolly without eflfoct. The effort at col- 
t«ro ill iho JKh oonliiry wa« a vory n^|>ocUiblo ond 
(see the naonudcripta proeor\'<Ml to ua). Stiirting in 
Bngland (Theodore of T:mus, Bi^le, Alcuin) it tswupt 
over the coatlnent and wn» Htrengtheiiod by the cut* 
ture 'of Italy, which had never been cotiroly extin- 
fished* But durtnjz: the KToat convulsions aftertbe 
tJiinl quarter of tho ^*th omtury ovorj-thing soemed 
again Ui bi» ongulfcd. Tho dogmatic oontrorerdes 
of the age originated, in part> in tho hitherto hidden 
hui nowstricliy drawn conacqueoeesof Augui^tinian^ 
ism, and, in pavU in (ho rolatioDship then -sustained 
ton-ard the Orieatv The farther development of lb© 
man and of peoonce. in practice and in theory, do- 
sOTves especial attention. 




uiry at BU) 




1 A. The Adcpfion Controvf^TMjf, 

Hauck, A. a. 0. n. : Gnms, Kin^hco^eschtrhte SpMbku 11, 

In the Occident after severe conteets the Christol- 
Qgy of ths Sth cc^uncil gained tlie victory^ and id 
fljjite ef the lUh cminril Uiifl myetjml view, under 
i\i*y sc^i»c of nioiiopLy!?(itiMm, 8iippliuiU^] tli<t strict 
Chfdf'itdttn, fiiiKV) \hti Hn]WTHi\iiou% irlomt »l)ntif t1ic» 
Ll0^d^| Supper favored it. 8pniQ vroA low Influmcod 
l^ this doTtlojjtneiit. In iho Aluz^raliic liturgy nlood 
the Augastlnifui formula of tho passioJUii odop* 
tivi. Elipoudtis, tho tyrftunical bi>^p of Toledo^ 
fiUl of uatioflial prido, brought into notice about the 
year 780 thi>old doctrine thJit Christ afi re^rds hiB 
huniJU) nnturo \nftivv flei odopHvus, the rc^deemed 
therefore in the fuller^t iktuso brothren of the man 
Ju»U[«, Vury iiki«ly bo d<virud a formula different 
from tliat of Rome as an expression of the orthodoxy 
which wafi to be found only in Spain. From inward 
conviction and with biph regard for the human per- 
son JeauB, r«lix, hieliop of Kaples, who occupied 
a chair in tbo empire of Charles, championed the 
same (reding of Antiochinn scriptures is probable). 
Aft4^ that BfMtufi and EtLTius had defended the op- . 
poBition doctrine in Spain, the Krjuioonian theolo- 
gians, especially Alcuin, interfered. Konophytnt«4 
auid Neetorians faced each other under now lielmet^; 
but to Charlea the opportunity of proving liimaftif I 
the guardian of orthodoicy und the master of tiMi 


Cliiirch was welcome, Adoptioniam wa** condenmed {JjlJ^JI*^ 
At Uin ftyiKxlfl of Rc^eaflWrg put). FVanWiirt (:&4), ^'™"'* 
ATnl Aarhon (7t»0), Felix was repenteclly forced to 
n^riuit, nnU Fmiikieh Bpain irae n^^Ut^ through 
tlicology and gentle pressure (whaal ot torture) to 
the unity of tli© myBtical faith. The doctrine oC 
Johu of Dutnft^ciift, which conoei%'»I tho humnn na- 
ture in Christ aa impersoiuil and pUced it us the t^- 
fciimod iuLtiin> of tho Ijcygcm in complf^e nnily with 
him, gained tho victory tn tho Occid<Tnt rdfio. Yot 
iu vpitc ()f therv«Ji«ticdoctriiteoono?niiagtLi> Lont*^ 
8upp«r which crowdod out thi« historica] Christ and 
demandfd a fine moDophy»itiam, Augufltiniau-Bdop- . 
tion ideaH were preserved through the later theoIi> 
giaru of th^ MiddJe Agee. 

1 B. The Pttdfstinati<m Cofttroiersy, 

Wlggen, i. d- Z. r. h, Hi., 1850, Weimficher, £. d. Jfa. f. 
d. Hi.. 1999- .MoDoffmphfl on Htafcmv. by tod Ilooidei] 
a. Scht^n. 

The dominAtinj): oocleslastioa] sjfttom waa semi- ^^S!£^ 
Pela^pan; but in the fttli century Augufdim^ wibt ""*"■'■ 
a^-aln diligontly studied. That duHng tlw crii^in 
which aroee Aui^MiiiianiMU wai^ after all not rviu- 
fitated, notwilhslanding all the good Augustinian 
phraneB, is a pr<^of of the power of coclteiasticiun. 
The monk Gott*4clialk of Orhnin maintained the doc- 2**o^ 
trine of pnYU'^li nation with tlie power of Angufitine, 
likewiMi M« ti» cliiitt and original doctrine, finding 
in it tho key to the riddle of hi» own life. He pro- 

orTLiNRfl OF ruR msTonr or no<i«A, 


clHimed the prafvlefitinatio {fern ina {tid rttam etad 
moriem) , yoi was of the cpiniou that God prcctcdtincd 
only Uie go«>d aud dial ti4> merely luid a fore-kiiorrl- 
edge of Uie evil Not iiftat be Baid (FulgentiuH and 
Isidore had taught nothing different) htit (he man- 
ner in which he proecntCKl it to tLo Chtircli aroused 
otemiofl apiin^t him. Ko wiim eomU^mtieil at May- 
«nco(KlS)by Rnlumusi, nt Chi<Trw>y (S^IP) hy HiDcmar 
and Udccn intocustotiy tvAn" m invrahitiH monachus'^y 
from wliich ho novvr i^»<:apO(lt einco ho ponttitcQUy ro* 
fusml to n?>catit. But ih^ most 4.-[Qiiieiit tb«olc^an» 
woutovcr to hill sido» not «o much bucauso tbey were 
in «anic«t about Augu^tinianiKm, nn to make difficul- 
tien for Hincmar und to preservo ad tradiHonalistB 
the Augustinian *' biogua^". From tbo kmgdom of 
Lotbar especi^ly chdio iiic oppofdtion to tbe Raban- 
}I)ttcmai tbesis, that prt-di'titinatiun idiould be deduced 
fromthopreHcieDceandbelimitedtotbesaintA. Hino-j 
tnar tried to defend biniBelf at the sjmod of OhieT 
(ft53) Againtittbe herd of Alcuin diacipleafPrudentiuft 
of Troyea, Hatramnus, Lupus of Perridres, S^vatus 
Ltipwf, llemi^us of Lyon, the proviaciaJ bieboptt) 
by makiug in the '' Chapters" large concefislons to. 
Augufltinianisni^ yet retaining in his doctrine ol 
one predestination, God'e purpom of univer^l »alva- 
tion. <!tc. In tb«fte objective and siibjective uutrue 
^^Chapt^^m'* tli» pt^intnrdtir mnKidorHlion was no 
loti(;;er c]<»fcrly <»xprit4ftod. Tliowct who by word of 
mouth acknowledgi^ tbo wholv of Augugtmiuttism 
meant at that time only the half, and tho«o who, likej 


Utncmar, rejocteil a port did in truth not want 
anr at all- In the iinhbi^hopric of Scn» tixni ih 
tljc south of Franco ibo rcfiolutiouB of Chiereoy did 
not ipvi* tviiimtHciUm, At Valency SM, the gemina 
praefUaiinaiio t\-iuf prodaimcd und AugufitinianiMii 
in guavnd unjiounct.n]. At the grrat synods of the 
three empires at SuvonierxTK {S5b) and Tcucy (i^i>[)) a 
unificaiion was not bo much aecured as a paraljza- 
tion of the controTerBy through afcre>PineQt. Hinc- 
inar*a oonr^ption ct th<i doctrino, i.e. Orpgorj' th« 
Fiist'fl, was in reality victorioua. Tbodocrtnno of 
Qod'a purpose of mtii'er^^l MalvaiioD, of tlto quick 
and aure c>fficacy of the ^ao-amenta and of the con- 
currenoeof fi-ee-wiU continue<l in foi^w; tJie doctrine 
ot pred<*Atiiiatioii reappeared aa a de<rorativo olciuont 
in theolofO'. ^Hily in this form waa it t?ompatibl« 
with empirioal fH^leaiiiatiirbtm. 

1. 7%e Controi'f-rsjj alMmi the Filioquc otid about 

aefde, ConcU, Gc«ck. Bd, lU, FichJer, Cn^h. d kirchl. 
T^enntuig Evriovlit-D dum OHoit uad Ocoldcmt. 2 [kitf. . 18U f, 

Th« Augnstinian-Spanish formula *'fiXto^e^* (naj 
I. p. 271) had boeii accepted in France (wo thi; 
synod of QenliUy, 7C7) and was defend^ by tlielln'O- 
logiana of Charlemagne [tibri Carolim; Alcuin, de 
process, s. «.)- At Aachwi, ^0% the Frauldsh church 
roeolvod that Xhc Jih'fKjtte hclcmged to the synibo]. 
ThiA rcMohition vrnjt provoker) by a grave injuatioo 



398 ouTLiirBs or thb hi&tort of dooua. 

which the Wo»torD pilgrimr; n-ero called upon to en* 
dure ID JeruMilvm. Although th« popeapprored the 
Spunish^FranldBh doctrine, be nevertlieleflB refoAed 
iErt"AS)[K adniittmioe to the watch-word in tho gjinbo]. Not 
'^Ceoiur^^ until the lOth century doee Rome appear to have ac- 
cepted It If Charlemagne widened the opening 
breacli Init^veon the Orient and Occident by the"yi7t- 
oqw^' and had tiion^fur only a half-ally in the pope, ho 
alionatedhiinBeUiFtiUmoro from tlio orthodoxy of tho 
OHwit by hi« r^jeciion of imrtgivworship. which 
tho popo iil*> i>till iipprove<l, Tho iKirlxtrlo traiiition 
uf tho FnuiVinb churcli luid mi Augu»i4uian eleiiiutii 
(with Cliiirlemagnu perLa^kr^ also ao enlightening 
one) determined tho attitude of tliu Oocidcntal8, At 
Frankfurt, 704. tbo docrocfiof the 7th council word laid 
aside, yet the resolution* uf ihi} s^niod of 754 were 
also reject^. Tho n^elf-oonfidonco of the Fraalrish 
church acceptc<l tho Sjst six ooimcilfi as un oxprofi- 
sion of ec<;IeBia&tica1 auiiiiuity, i^uHed^ bowewr, to 
be dictated to by Hyzantiuni at tbo modem oouncils* 
The "lihri Camlini*' rotain Uiu old occleeiaetical 
8taudiK>iDt: We will neither worship imagee, nor 
Attrir?k ihtnn, hut treat tliem piously. This attitude 
wiirt otai taken by Louis the Piows (synod of Paria,,^ 
835) and Hinumar. The ]*opo prowr\'i>d a dhwreot] 
ftilonc^i and the 7th council, which was favorable ' 
to imagi-0, gradrially obtained through Homo's inSn- 
ence recognilion in the Occident also. 



3. TAe Dtiieiopment, in Practice and m Theorf/t 
oj the iiewtf (ZJoj^jo y/ Me Kucharist) and of 

Biob, a &.O. K BQok«n, i Ultg^nfeldd Zichr.. l^tiS. 
It«nt«r, a. •- 0. I- C3wl«y, Fajteham^y 18W. affwrSkhii- d. 
Ab«Bd»ahlikbr6 t. Dj«c4hofl, Ebnnl, KnhiiU. bUiu> D. 

nVDl PTV' 

The thought of inmge-rcpn?»ontation wag koptoloof 
m an incroa^iri^ mt^asuro from tho Lar(l*» Supper; 
meu lived in n world of ttiiraclo und of mcrameiitB^ 

' so much ili<l thu fc^ndcncy o^iwwsarily incroueo to por- 
tray- ihts cotiWui of Uiv higlnvt Nhcnuuvut in un ex* 
tmvngaiit nuumcrt in order to giv« it prominence 
amcug tliu inultitudo of holy things; the Christology 
^'hich allowed the historical Christ to dit^appear bo- 
hind the unity of the two " nature^ tended tiiward 
an erer-prefient Chri^ologieal mt/sf^riftm^ which 

[ooutd be felt aad oojojed; tho maee was conaidored ^^ 
tlu.1 <:hiL*f c]niraclcri>;tic aiul compendium of n?1i^Ga ; 
tlio id«i of tlio attriljuteB of God was more and more 
concentrated in the one^ that be ia the ahui^hty, 
woDder-workinK Will— all th«ie forces worked to- 

L gather to bring about the following r««dt: Tlifi his- 
torical body of Jeeus Christ is present in tho cucha- 
riHt, sjac« the elemeota are truieformed into it. Tbo dm^i^I 
identification of tho sacnunental mid the real (hiator* 
leal) body of Christ oould tho more easily bo carried 
out, »ince men coneidewd it from the mcmient of in- 
carnation a pnuumatic (m>*&ttiriouH) body assiuned 


by tbo Divinity, aztd held docetJc views In regard 
it» as irt proven, i?-g., by tbo contrOTowy in regard U 
the birth of Jenu» oui of Maria claiuso utero. The 
i^riii.TQf now doctrinoof tito oucbnriat would liavebo.m foi 
mtibitiHl withonr, diflicnUy diirinf^ ibn Oirlovingian 
a^, bomiitko it nJrcidy uctiJJ^IIy oxiKtod, bml not tbo 
then ' revived stilly of tbo Augii»tia]»n conception 
of Baommeoit and bii* ftpirttuAlUtio doctrico of the 
dtf eudbarij4t had a reBtraining inRuenoo* Paaobaidus 
Rndbortus, abbot of Carliie, who wrote th© firHt mon- 
ograpli on the Liird 't* Supper (tte rarp^re H sanguit^ 
diymini, 831), wa^, on the one side, an Auguetinian. 
and reproduced without iuvrard aympathy or real 
comprebenHiun tlie Aij|;iu4tiniaB doctrine, tbiit tha 
act belongs to faith and represents a spiritual eat- 
ing; hut> on tbe other side, ho carried it on to tha 
reali»tic, popular doctrine, that in every mass by a 
miraf?1«of tbe Almighty theeleinentA are transform fid 
inwardltf but actually into tbo body whi«h was bora 
of Mary, and mtw now broiigbl to God as aaaeriilce. 
Ontwardlj' as a rule no cJiange taken place, in order 
that tbe body of Christ may not be bitten by tbd 
tf£*Tm. to'^h. God porfunn8tliii« minicfc, which Pai^haidus 
toriDtaoa ^j(jncoivo* a.'* a miracle of cro-alion ; tJie priest simply 
dirootft kiit tfupjJi cations to God. But even if tbo 
holy foo<l in in rcidity now tbo rc«d body of Cbribt 
bimrtulf [tlii> obvious appcanuico of the elenwnlA la 
tlio symbol), tbe fact still remains that only be-" 
lievers pirtake of theBptntual food iiut^ iinmortul 
ity— noti however* unbelievers. Paachaeiua drevi 


nctttbor nil ih<* liiprarchical, nor "objective' come* 
Qiioiiocft of t!it> (lootriooof traQMulMtiuitiatioD, but nt* 
t^mptod ki Acljiii^t tho mimclo to /mth. Ho was not 
a tlaoologliui pHmnritj of tho mnw*, but wiiUwd to 
bo A tlwologian in tlio wmiso of Aiigusttno and \ho 
Groek mystics. r^erertboloAfl ho enootmt^rod nn tm- 
oxp«<ct4Kl contradifiioTi. Rabaciufi«xpre«9^ hiimM?lf, 
in a l«tt«r to Eigel, in oppcwition to this doctrine, 
aad Ratrajnaus. a monk of Corbie, found in his writ- VMnm- 
mge to CbsrloB the Bald {de coi-pore et sanguine 
domini) that Paschaaiiifl had not dono justioo to tho 
"ffprViYaa/^" of Augustine. But his own explana- 
''tiona suffer from old ecclesiastical cloudiness^ Ap- 
parently he desires, as in the controversy about the 
uterus clau9U9f like a ^ood Augustini&n to »et aaide 
the unwieldy mirade of nlmightinfnR coniranalu- 
ram and to place^ in the mtor^fBt of faith, the whole 
atresa upon th& '^apiritaaliter g^ri"i hutflince ho 
likewiao does not doubt the presence of the corpus 
tiomrni after the consecration, he is compelled to dis- 
tinguish between tlic^ ntd body and the body, llie 
bom, crucified body is not in the sacrament— tliat 
waa thn old churcJdy idf>A — ^tittt in tho anrrnnu^nt 
tboro ts the power of the body of CbriRt a^ an invis- iDritibiiiA 
ihil\& suMatttiu and) iu so £ai, the pueuutatic Uidy, 
receivable only by the mind of the faithful. More- 
over Ratnunnus in a few deductions made RtiU far- 
ther advancos toward Pa8(-^taj«iu9; nevertheleea the 
phiiiio^t ooDceptiou is that of tho "potetitialiier 
creori in m^xterio"*, bill even Lhift conception waa 





DO longer oloar u> thar HU|ienLtitious contemporaries; 
men wanted more tliaii faitli reality and wjul nour- 
i^hmont. PascliasiuH bad apokoti the deciding word. 
The awe inspirod by t^vcry insita* M)em6d to confirm it 
and the samo wan ovon Iwightonod Ly iha power of 
the definito formiilaiion of tho cloctrui«. TiicumaiioQ 
and crucilixiOEULl »iicri!ic<c wcri> mpotttcd at every 
man. What then could wen approximate thih? It 
waa not neoetsaary to change Uie old wording of the 
prayers of the mass, which, if they treated of sacri- 
fice, emphasized (he sacrifice of pmise; for who 
gsvo hoed to the vrorde? TJio mnois, liowovor, oa a 
tsa^ridcUd act, iu n-hidi ihty CkKl-tnan wiui qS^t^ up 
to God, had ita culmination Long since no more in 
real enjoyment, but in the consiummntion of the tdot- 
Mug out of sin aud removal of evil. It had been 
odoptod uito the ^reat infttitntiou of /itoneinent, and 
masfiCB without communiun (rtHiuieuift) were molti* 
plied to |iacify Qod. The primitive txniim«iiiorattvo 
element of the celebration had beconw indi^[)oiident, 
especially eitice the day.-* of Gregory L, and the 
communion wha ehange<l, aa it were, into a sooond 
eelebratiou. The fimt ctxIobnUion, the inAse, bclon^ced 
to the laity only in m far uh it rof»rvMenU-d tm i>Apo- 
oifdly t.<frieacioua form of the Churoh*H iiitorccdHioa 
tor the li^hteitiu^ of the puniohuieul of etitin. Thin 
was the only apparent effect of the act— an inai^ifi- 
cont one» important only through ite Bumm&riziDg 
of an immeoBe mystery! 
The mass wae &uhordinat^ to tixe institution of 




penance; in the latter was reflected the religioua life, 
runisbment ruled the world and the conscience. 
The a)DceptiGn of God aa almighty Wiil^ aa Retri- 
bution and Induigenee (a ChriAtian tnodifiration of 
tlio old Roman idea) va£ the ruling one. The €oq- 
m»(|u<}iice Itiereof waa the idea Uiat meiila and nhiiiA- 
factions were nodded to compensate for tbe breaches 
of contmct occasioned by aiu andoft repeated. Thus 
had Gregory I, taught ; moreovor thui \-iow blondod 
in the German natioru^ with th^r nations] ideafi o£ 
law and with their \&gst\ restrictions. Bince, how- 
ever, the Occidental Church did nat', like the Oriental, 
relinqni^ the administration of law and quc«tiomt of 
moralitj' entirely to the atat^^i but rathor inKrrpoeed 
to discipline and punish, there wan developed, parallel 
to the etata iodtitution of law, the Church iitHtitu- 
iionof penanct. The detailed development of this 
institution waa a coiwequence of tbe transfer and 
ap^>licatiou of the diBciplino oi penauce within the 
cloisten* to the tiecular clergy and to the lait}', ani 
it originated ^ith the Irish-Scottish, i.e. niththe 
Anglo-Saxon church.* But through the fear of the 
puiii&hment of Rin, of boll and purgatory^ thd laity 
favored the practice and etttabli&hed tbo influence cf 
th« Church in ite entire raoge, even over private life 
itself. A (.^itain deejienfug of the ^vnceptlOL of sin 
wan the coDBC^iuoDce : The people had recourse to the 
Cliurc:b, not only in the ca^ of grave sine, but alao 

JUM a«^ ' 


Fair of 



on ftccount of the ^roota of sin** and the hiddou 
faulte (i^luttoay, ^]ciia1 hmt, avarice, aDger, humor, 
onxioty, lL4':iirtfMt itvcrAion, arrognnoo, priilcf)^ which 
tboy now cone*iJorv<! uldo dciully sins; liovrcvcTj this 
doopuuitjg vrtus countorbftlimcixt by Lho ntupcfyittg 
reedin^a with which men neknowlodgt^id thems^lvQB 
ever as sinnera, and by the thought that interoeeaion 
and satisfaction possess the power to cancel the mer- 
ited punishment. Tn truth mon bratow^ xactre 
thought upou punishment and the remiseion of the 
same than upon etu. During the Carlovin^au age 
the hierarchical Bido of the inatitution of penanoo 
was as yet littie developed, and the dogmatic theory 
still Uggod behind; butU)o«'^/t>/<ic^ion«exporicDCQd 
A new devolopmont in cormection with tho ttxeroi^ 
of pmrnnco >n thn form of volunl-iiry confoesion: (t) 
To the old, moro or U>?w, ftrbitriir^" nilcjt in rcgnrd to 
the choice and ilnrHtlon vt the coni|M.^ri,siLting jninlah* 
mout (prayon*, aim**, tamojiUttouas, tcjnponirj' czoln* 
Biou) were added, in incrorming mi'iiAuro, ml€» from 
tlio Old Tofttiinient and from thv Ounaaji code, Tlie 
consotjnonco was that the m< jiKwrt^ of tho compensa- 
tory punishment itBC>1f appeiircKl in tho light of a 
ffjSStpf Divine ordinance, (2) The comixawator}' m«iOA wor© 
looked npon as things plea'^ing lo God, which thcro* 
forOi if nothing had bt^.ti omitl^^d, in themselves ee- 
iMi»\i 7neritsj the i;jicr]|]ciid dcjith of Christ must 
be considered as th<) most L-fliaiHouj^ ; thi?refore the 
rehearsal of this do4ith (itrelH copw^iUut mt^sterti 
pa^tonie) was tho efficacious and convenient meana 




(maMM^ for IIh^ (Imfl) ; lio^iiUtf^n, ono hIiouM gain tho 
gcHxl will of tlio MiinUi for tJwir intorcoseionfi otigbt 
to Iw ^^crLcious, isiiico OtNl diti tlvmoDd nothi&g from 
them, while they are able to bring him valuable gifts, 
(3) Since the 4>xerciaef» of penAii<?e have a material 
value before Goil, the)' caji beoxcbangod, i.e. lessened 
by a repentant iliiipotfition ; hero »«|>ocinUy the Church 
atopB in, atnco it tnfttituU'vc viich exchanges; thtia 
OTiginAt«<l ti wliole n^'otctn of Indulg^siicitMi, excliangea, 
afid remlwloiUh to tbo o»tAbIi»hing of which the 
Oermautc law contributed (origin ef indulgences; 
romi88iutt8 nro of primitive antiquity), (4) In addi- 
tion tu exohongEMt. huwcvor, substitution is aL«o poe* 
KiKle; hpTt*! tho Gormunic ^av^ hhd h »;t.il1 Mtrongv^r in- 
fluonco; ^'ot the idea has ohw «m ocdcMiuHcal root 
in tho cunocption of Cbrint mid the zuiiutv tui »ulmti- 
tutee, (5) Tlie conj^viuona- of tho vt]\o\o conoeptfon 
was that ill tho doing of pt'oance men sought not so 
much to rocoucilo God» the Futbor, om much more to 
tacape from Qod, tlie Ju<^ ! This soul-killuig prao< 
tice entirely inverted Aufjpistjnianism; it had influ* 
enced Christotogy in the timo of Gregory I.» and H 
opurEted dtx-^uively during the claiisic titucti uf tbo 
MidiUe Agee upon all dognuw of ancient gtanding 
and oratted now onee, 

c«i« His 








Rmter n, n, O. v. Eiclum. Gc«uh, u. ftyntccnfl- MAHchon* 
WeltniuduLuuiig. IBST. 

TuBOUtiu tl»* imstitutiuu of putiuticv the Church 
became the ilecitfire power in nKin'a Uvee in Occi- 
dental Christendom. An advance movement of the 
Charch, therefore, mtist of necoHsity benefit the wbolo 
of Onc^uliiital C!inRt<*tidom. Tliis advanoo Wink plnno 
Rt the «u<l of the lOlh oontury and coniiuuod tmtil 
iho 13th cvriLury, during which time the gupremiicj' 
of the Church and the modffflval ecclesiastical con* 
opptioii of III© world attftineil their perfection. If 
ont* rogarilJ4 Chriatiauity aa docfrifie, the Middle 
Agm appoar almost like a eupplcniont to the history 
of th^ ftnci^nit Chiiroh ; if oho regnrdu it na li/e, th^n 
ancient Chrifttinnity only attjunt^d its full dcvelop- 
mi^nt in tlio nitiliAjv^ OccideaUtl Church. In the 
ancient ago tho motivoe, stanjards liiid ideas of 
ancient Hfo confronted the Church m barricis. It 
waa nerver able to overcome these barriera, aa iB 
shown l>y the Greek Church : MonaKticism standi by 
ibio aid« of tha Chxirch ; the earthly Church is tho old 
vorld ffapplementod by Christian etiquette. But the 
Occidental Church of the Middle Agee was able to 
carry out much more securely its peculiar standards 

nRA'KLOPusrcr or doctrijcr of sts, ktc- 407 

of mcmki^ aBodticism EUid of the domination of ihin 
lif« by the oue beyond, becauae it did not bare iin 
old cultus alongside of it. Qradually it gathered 
straugtb »o as to bo ablo finally to enlist into it« »er- 
vtce even tbo old «Di*tnj-, Aridtotolian science, and to 
tromform tlio same into an iustriuneTit of power. It 
mndo ftll tli<i elem^ntJi of life tuxtX 1niawli?<lgo subject 
to itoolf. Tbc inner E«tren^tli of itn activity vriw tho 
Au^sliuinii-MtRrutic pk^ty, wbiclj bruku forth iu uvur 
DOW crcatioiiB of moDasticism ; the ottter power wag 
the Roman pope, who, aa th« suocoeeor of Pot«r> 
secured for bimscif both Christ's rij(ht and that of 
the Roman Ciottani. 

1, The Revival of Piett/. 

^^^^ HftTTiAck, Dnrt MtVncli Ilium. 8. Aufi,, 1886, Noandrr. d> h* 
m Drmim) <li»g. V. l>euttfGh. te8»^ OQi!«'. d. Il Denmrd 1., 
F 18^0. IlitB«bl. i. d. 8tud. u. Krit I^il S. ftt?! 

I From Qu^linbiu^ (Matilda) and Olitgny the re- ouodtin. 

viral of pie^ had its ri«o. Tbo Oregorian popce. <^'>ukv- 
the "now oongr«gatjoii»" and Bi^tmard onfoircod it^ 
the laity ree^ivod it more rvodily than the Trotldly 
clorgy, upon whom it made greater damands. It is 
most plainly represented by tho cruHiide ontfauBiasm 
and by the founding of innumerable convents. 
Strict discipline in the 4:«»ivdnt8> monkish regula- 
tion of the secular clergy, the domination of the 
monldBh-r^ulat«d Church over tJie laity, princes 
and nations— these were it8 aims. Upon this found- 


ftticD alone it appi^anHl pudsiMo to orentQ a truly 
Cbmtton, i.t\ an iiuworldly )if<]. The wlioK* t4>m- 
b^'^r poral life shonld Ber\*e the Ufo bereoitor: SuprciBO 
dTort of the world dominion of the Church to gnio 
tlio most pcrfoct victory over tho world, i.e. odcnpc 
from the world. Freedom frum the world A[^iear«d 
poBsihIo only under tbe condition of mtiTArsol do- 
minion. Many monks aliio permitted tbemselveji to 
be blinded by this fUalectics, who felt the contradic* 
tion between the aim and the means, and preferred 
tor tbamselveti the direct way of popularizing digtit 
from the world by fleeing from tho world. But the 
Cborch waft indeed also Qod'n Htato and net simply 
the Ixtitower of individual blissl Therefore did it 
incite the ooura^^eouB to battle a^inst Simonistio 
princes and worldly clericals. To perfectly exemplify 
the difHcult trait of a renunciation of the world, 
the Qennaa and tho Komanee peoples were stUl too 
youthful. The violent disposition toward the ood- 
quest of the world united with this and produced 
that atrange frame of mind, in which the conscious- 
nee^ of strength altem&tod like a fla^hwith humility, 
longing aftor onjojm&nt with resijfuation, cruelty 
with Honti mentality. Men desired nothing Ciom 
thin world, thej dosirf^l only heaven, and yet 
wished to own Um Ix^uttful eartli. 

At first religious iDdividuaUsm was not as 
kindled (>'et tjikc note of the h^^csios which found 
access in the lUh a^ntury, partly importinl Trom tl 
Orient — Bogomils— piu*tly Hpriuging up upontano-j 



ou3«l>-), gtUl visions werobrougbt back Crom th^^ Holy 
Land crudfidu Cor wliicli indu]g6tic€« Imd been 
grnnted, Th& pictnre of Cht^^it wafl r«x>vi>rwl ttntl 
pioty vrnB o&tivonod by tho most vivid rcprciKiintn- 
ItGtw ot th() sulTttriDg and dying licdceiiKT; Wo 
should (c^ow bim in every step of bis paseioD jour* 
oey, Aoconlingly in place ot tlie defunct " adoption- 
ism", tbe man Jesus came again to tbe front and 
n^ativd asceticism rw4?ived a jxjsitive form and a 
new, fiaced aim. Th« cards of Chriatic-mysticieiDp 
which Auguetine had struck oid^- >vith uncert^nty 
grew into a rapturotiB melody. By ibo Bid© of tbe 
sacramental Christ stepped — penance formed tbe 
medium — tbe image of tbe historical Christ sublime 
in bis humility, innocent. Buffering punishment, life 
in deadi. It is imposisiblo to estimate tbo effecta 
which this piety, newly induced through tbe " EUxe 
boDio", had, and in bow many forma ii baa developed. 
St. Bernard first gave it a strong and effective 
form; be was the reiigious genius of tbe 12tb oen* 
tury, and tliorefore alw the leader ot tb« epoch — 
AuQuMinn^ redivtiyn»^nt tho some time howaver 
tbo mostt powerful oocli^taastic. In so fur as Bemaid 
ofTcm A ftyvtcm of thought and poTtrays the graduAl 
progreBB of love {caritas and hHimlitas) oven to ex* 
cess, ho revived Augmttino. Hi» Language is deter- 
mined by ibBi of the " Oonfeesions". But in passion- 
ate tore for Christ lie went beyond Augustine, " Ven- 
^*ation for that wfaiob u beQeetfa os^, for suffering 
and humility (devotion), dawned upon bim as oovor 




before upon any Chrifitian, He venerated Ute croBSi 
fibame and death as tbe form of the Divine appeariog: 
upou onrth. Tho study of the Song of Songa And 
thfj crufiftde euthuidaBm conducted him boforo the 
image of the cnicitie<1 R^eemer, the Bridegroom of 
tliesonl. into hh intfige he mnk himself; fiom it 
tiiere boam<d for liini true lov4^ and »hone tlte living 
truth. To him tho son&uous3ics9 of the contemplation 
of CbrtHtV w<Himl»i m<Ot«c) into spiritual f^xnltation, 
vhich, bowover, ulvrayo tested upon the foundation 
of tho eccl^iantidil Kyatem of [>ewuice. Bernard 
tmited tho Xeo- Platonic exercinefl of a»^-i:t onto Qod 
until the conti^pUktiori of the crucified Redeemer 
and unfettered tliosubjocliveness of theChrietic-myB- 
ticism and Christie-lyricism. This contemplation 
lad him in hiA Acrrm^mft on thit Soug of Songs to a 
evif jtidgrneut, which not iiifr<M|UonUy gains the 
biji^ht of Paulina? aiid Luthenui faith uuto Kdvation 
("noil modi Jtistus sed etbettta^^cui non imptitabit 
deu9 pe<-catupi^). But, on tho other side, h& also 
haA to |jay the tribute of ail inyHici^m, not only id 
K> far a8 Ui«t feeling of oHtpecial exaltJition altematod 
witli tKut of abandonment^ but ulico in hift not being 
abtotovriLrdoltaj)^iiitboit9ticteitdt7ncy. LikeOrigtn| 
Barnard also taught that it wa« necc«4«axy to rise" 
bom Uie Christ in the floftb to tho Christ 'ord, 
rytufMA, that tho higtorioal ig a st^. Thia trait 
'^b«t. clung to uU m^'SticiKm Mince hift time; mysticism hae 
learned from Remnrd, whom nwn r©Ter«ic«d as a 
propfaot and apo«tlc, tho Chrittt-contemplation j 





at tbo tutme Hnw it bug Adopted hi^ pdnthmBtdo 
trend. Tbo " excedi^rt! vt <jum Christo csm*" mmnft, 
Ihui in the amw vf tbu BriiU-^TXH>tii tlii' soul ^Mkem 
to boan individual self. But where the sout ii« murgcd 
in the Divnmt}', the Oivinitj m diiwolved into the 

Immeasurable for Christologj has the si^ificance 
of thd ti9w vmion of Christ b«eD. The scihem? of the 
two naturce woa indcod retfiinijd, yet tbcro vraa m 
truth by tbo sido of the sacromcnUil Christ a second 
Christ, the man Jesus^ whose sentimcnU sufferings^ 
itnd devd^i portrayed and propagated Divine life. 
He is protot)i>6 and power; his death sacrifice, also, 
is the sacri6ce of the man, in whom God was, Thua 
the Ati^ustiniaD conception, aU^^ady inaugurated by 
Ambrose, attained here its perfection. In the e^econd 
half of the I'ith century this new piety (love, Buffer- 
ing, humility) was a mighty pow^^r in the Church. 
But aa Bernard represented in himself tlie contrast 
between the world of pious Christian ^ctiinent 
and tho hiiTrarchical policy of Uig world -dontinat 
ing Cburtrh, so also must believQrs> nfiivcly attached 
to tho Cliurcli, (x>nhidvrtHl the ideala of worldly 
power and of humiliQr reconcihtble* As yet the 
groat beggar of Assisi bad not steppod forth, whose 
appearance was doTttined to create a crisis in the tur- 
bulence of Sif^bt from tbo world and dominion over 
th« world ; still at tho ond of the 12th century there 
ainvtdy hovered id>out the Church angry conses of 
''hen-tics** who recognised in its secular ndi^aiid in 


t(*rlai;, Ru- 


tile fial^ of l\s ilispensatioUH of grace the traitA of the 
old babel, and Ueniard himself warned the popc«* 


% (M tfw History of Eccte^iastical Jjtw, 

All that bad ever been claimod by popos appoarod 
f^atliered together in tbe^creat fitli^illcatiouof P^ieudo- 
lNidoivn.m] waH representot) ti^ nticient jmpnl Innv The 
iad(>peudi^ua> uf tbo Church and iUorg^inKUHrogarda 
tlie laity, and the jiapeil »upi«niacy uvcr tbv bi&hops 
and th9 national chnrchea. Upon the fouQdatJ<m of 
Fseudo- Isidore the popes of Later UmL^ built* To 
them ft was not a question of thoolugy, hut, as Ro- 
mans, of tho porfection of tUo la\t\ which tbey had 
ohbLinofl for ttiomM'Jvea an a Divine law. In the 
oontoeU botwecQ emperor and pope tho question waa 
ait to which nhi>uU Ije Lht; ii^ rtn^tor of thu state of 
Qod, Olid a8 to whom the bishops should be subject. 
Tho reformed papacy was developt?d under the im- 
puleu of Clu^y and Qrogory VII. into an autocratic 
power in th(? Church and formulated ite legislation 
accorilingly through numberleea doeretala, afler hav- 
ing freed itftoU ID Pome firomthe last renniautaof 
older coa:9titutioiuU conditiona. Allied with the 
best men of tlie times the poped of the 12lh ccntuiy, 
having ot>taint?d the investiture, began lo df^^ign a 
new eccleeiastical law. The decretals took their , 



ploco l>j Uiti aide of the old ciuiout^ oven by Uio side 
of Iho doiToet* of the old councUs, StiU, strictly 
taken, thi^r authority as jBt ranained uncertain. 

The papHcy vrliiio developing into a juri8dictioiial KPfiJtS 
miprem<» rourt vroald never hive boon ikbto to gain 
tbo monarohial l^odon^iip am ro^rds fnith and mor- 
ale in the Charch^ which is indood commimion of 
faith and cult, bad not in thi^ period the amalgHma'- 
tion of dogfria and law become perfect; In Home it- 
self the form of the dogmatit' retreated completely 
liohind tJiatof the law (lexdei)^ and the Qermajio- 
Rr^manoe nations at first were defeno<?1<«a; for tho 
Ohurcli had once come to thorn oa Koman law and 
Older* The great popes were moDka and jurinln. 
Tlw jaristic-Bcientific treatmoni of all functions of 
the Church l)ecain© the highest aim. The study of 
law ozeroined an immense infliienoe upon the 
thougbtlui contemplation of the Church in all its 
longth and brorvdth. That which formorly liiid 
been evolved under contitrainiu|f inBuen<r«t«, vix., the 
Clturch as a U'gid lnaitut«, novr becamo htntngth- 
cned or developed by thought TJie spirit of juri^ 
prudeniTS wbif b spread over tbo faith uf the Church, 
began also to subordinate to it^U the traditional 
dogmfifl. Her» anheliwtictKm hiu) a»itrong root; but Jff'^jJ* 
onomoBt not forgot that mnce TortuUtan the Occi- 
dental dc9^rv4WvrupropVLrvtl for a juristic troatmeut, 
out of which tliey partly originat^Hl. Upon ttuvtor^ 
itos and ratio the dialdcticB of tlto jiiriHtf;i»4 founded. 
It also belouga to the great cuutrasttf of the Middle 


AgWf-^Bonuutlino pi<)tyAnd RoEimn juristic think- 
ing. In Uiii4 wiiy tbo Cburcb was to bccomo a 
court of luw, u niurcluuit Iiuuho and ii nibbon* den. 
But in tliift o|)och it still ^tood ut thiv tM^iomiig of 
tbo devclupmout. 

3. The Revivat of SoimOB. 

RIitoH«iof Phikwophy by Cbrrwojc, EniliiiaDD. St^kdcL 
QwK dvr Lq;ik V. Pmntl, Bd. 11-IV. Rmter 4. a, 0. 
NibcAoh. r d, RE", XIU, S.> e,^0 fT. DciUflrr a, a, Q. Kauf^ 
nuuui, a. n. O. LAwv. Kampf ZuFviw.l]<Tn d- NgminaL u. 
Rcoluin. 1S7C. I>^t«ch, P. AtwUtil. 1683. 

Scbolasticism was tbe whence of the Middle Agoe, 
In it th«re were atrildugly displajred the power of tho 
thiukini; faculties and an enoi^ ca|Miblo of reduc- 
ing everything real and valuable to thought, such 
as porhape no other ago ofltors. But scliolA^tkistn i& 
in ttiiUi Unnkiug "from tlm vciy oi^tre outward **« 
for while thi} »choIfifitic<»4 fdwiLvs w<^Lt back to first 
principles, thtmo were not g.iinotl from orperienco 
and roal,histor7, though in tho counoof tho dovolop- 
ment of modi^vul Kcif^ui'u incnMiHing regard waa paid 
DtftiM- tooxpericnce. AucloHtas and rafi>>(dJaleotical-de- 
^urtj« ductive method) dominate ficliolaflticism, which dif* 
ered from the oid theology, in that the authority of 
thft dogma and the practice of tlio Ohnmh warn mom 
firmly adjusted, and in that Tn<tn no longer lived in 
the philoetophy (th^r auttf|Ut;) which wmt with il, hnt 
added the iiame from without. Ita principal presup- 
position was drawn— at least until the time oC its 


diivtnlation — fmm tlKt thtwift, tliftt nil thingH mimfc be 
unddTBtood from theology aii<1 tbai thorcforc u])k> all 
thingA must bo tr»cvd back to tht^olo^r/. Thin tlicsb 
presupjioReB that tho thinker hiinsolf is senaiblo of 
his full dopoDdcEHCo upoii Qod. Pii^ty therefore 
is tlio profuppouitioD of mcxliarval sciencd. But in 
the nutuie ot tlie mcdicBral piety itself Ug^ the 
foundRtion for thnt contempbttion which leads to 
tb]« itcicDcc^ for pioty is tho adviuicing kDovr ledge 
obUiintxl by cuimtaiit njflecti<m upon the rektion of 
tLo aoiil to God. Thvitsfore sfhula^ticiHm^ ^ince it 
deduces oil things from Ood and again comprises 
them in ftim, ij pieiff bevotne cotiscitnts and mani- 
/est. Ou that account it doaa uot diiTer in ita root 
f n>m tii}-»ticij^m ; tlio differenoc consists only herein, 
thnt in ocholiuticism the knovb'IcOgo of the world in 
ite naliitiou to God giiiim u more ludopeDdent^ obJ€C- 
tivo intttrwt and tii© theological doctrines are, if pes* 
tible, to be pruvtni; while in mysticriHrn the rf^fi<jctiTO 
tfend of the procftw of knowledge (for tho idctciaso 
of one'ft own pi^ty) oonKa out more strotigly. 
In tho formor, sb a nde> moro U6o 10 mado of dia- 
kcUcs, in tbi» latter of iiiluitioa and inward t^peri- 
6Dce. But tho thcolugy of Thomas, for example, can 
fiteo according to itaend and aim unbeeitatin^ly be 
designated as mysticiaui and, vice Teraa^ tbore OTd 

k theologians, who from caMom are cfdlod mycttcSt 
but who in tbe strength *.*( tlwir dndro to know 
the world and to undcmtnnd correctly tlio doctrino 
of the Church do nut big bc^hind tho Ho-collod edio- 



■lUoa ot ' 


of TbOCDU 



\h6 Mtiltllu 

John ft 




lastio«. Th« aim not only is the ttamo (mj^tioiion is 
tho practice of M^hoLnstici&m), but the moftna at« 
alsotlioHHuie {thfjauihoritativedoguia of the Church, 
Bpiritual exporienoe, tho traditionaJ philosophy). 
The dtfficultie«i which at first niai]o their ajipf^iarancc 
in medin^val science wore thoroforo rfniovt.J, after 
men had l^wrnml Ui<f art of Miibcnlinaitng tho din* 
Iodic motliod to Uio trodltiviial dogmu imd to thu 
thirst ft>r piety. 

The Middle A^s^ received fiYrni tlie old Church 
tho Holy Scriptures, the ef*tentia]lycotn|]lotDd dogma, 
tho thooKi^ which led to this dognui, mid a Irw^siire 
of diiftatoLl litoraturc looboly oounect^il with this 
thivit^jfiry Hjttl tJio [>hil<>tO|JiirfvmHhodicAl d<w*trinc8. 
With ilivMi udJitionri lo the do^mu rlcni^^ntB were 
tnutniuittvd, which vvvnt liustilv to the dogiua, or at 
least throatcnod ti> become no (Noo-Platoui^m and 
Aristotf^Hiinijun). In tho thodo(^y of John of Duman- 
cu» tho attempt was mudo to n_*concile MieQtiGcally 
overytliiu^ that was coittrudictory, hut the Oroid«mt 
oouhl not thciroliy l»*t a|>nr4>d Uict wcirk of »dju«tment. 
Ihiringtho Cnr!oriDgma «go tlio Mrcngth of the Oc- 
cident wa» wtill tou wwilc to work iiide]vnd(?ntly upon 
the capital it hwl inhontod- A few thec^ogians 
made tbcmsoIvLv at home with Augustine, sttU this 
undertaking; wa^ already followed, a» we have seen, 
by A partial crtHia,^"Othoni clothad tlKTmAetvca iti thn 
foreign ^irmont of the oladBical aiitboni; in the 
jwbouldihey kviiEi^ fiom Ihu writing uf BoethiuH:ttiil 
Isidore tlie nidimentb of the litalecticul method and u 




mild uw? of th« ratio. No theologian except Scotus 
Uri^nii wafi independent. Afi soon as they became 
more solf-conBciouH, they rejeicte<i the knowledge of 
nature, the devjPs mistrc^R, and antiquity. Indeed 
as a fonnal moana of ciiltur*> thoy could not do with* 
out tJiOBe, uud diak'ciicLBut, that la, tluit method 
which Unit expuHeii<x>utradictionfi in order to recon- 
die thenij made an increa^in^ impre»iion. From 
the Carlflvinginn age there rxin» ihr^mgh tlie l6ame>d 
Bchoc^ a chain of smentifio tnulition as far down sm 
into tho nth century. But (lorbertnf Rhi'imn did 
notiLH yL-t brini^ it to au cpoohal cUmnx; tlifT thL>o- 
logical diutticticbuifi did 00 &x%i after the middle of 
that cenOiry. Already at that time the principal 
philotfophico-thoologicsl question of the future wa» 
con»idur^» vis. whether Uic conceptions of species 
exist leBpectiiif^ thiugK w within things, or whether 
the AAmo are morely alifttnurtif^ns (Boothiim in Por- 
phyry, raUivm imd nomiiuiliivn). Tbo ocoWiitsticfd 
iu»tiucl of m^f-prts^-rvatiou tunieil towan! realinui, 
which mystieiHin demiuided. When Roeoellin in 
eoQsequoDoe of hia nominalism arrived at the con- 
Mqueut trithobm, both bo and bis way of thinking 
were reject^ aahGretical (1092). In tho 11th cen- 
tury the dialectic an & were viowed with gront dis- 
trust. Indeed they frequently not only att4Kked the 
coarse supeTHtitioa in religion and tho barbarian way 
of tlniilcing, hut Il»ey al»o jeopardized orthodoigr, or 
i^itlier wliiit w^vs thought to )x^ orthodoxy. But "en- 

lightvnL-rs" thoy were net. Looking at them mora 








doeely, even tho boldoBt of thometood upon the basis 
of the Cburch« or, »t Any mtc^ were boiuiil to the 
same by n handnxl ti<w, Tnic, <*vtirj" sciirico, «von 
the moet tmmtnollwl, will o]wfiyii Bud within it«(^lf 
an element offcnaTo to tbnt faith which longB for 
peace; H will display a frMlmees and Jovfiilne^^, 
which todovotiou will uppMtr lik<> bolilnc^s; it will 
never be able^ even when it ugrccs with the Cbarch 
in end aod aim. to diBcloim a nogatiMy tcndeD^, bo- 
canse it will always rightly Bnd, tliRt th^ princi[)!?e 
of tho Church in the conciotc oxprossion of lifo bavo 
detoriurated fmd havo bueo marred by eupunstttion 
and inclinatioti. Thus •wnti it idso at that tim^; but 
as the revival of scienoe waa a conHequenoe of the 
revival oS the Chnrcb, so the Church also finally 
TVtcognixod in theo!og>* ita awn life. 

By the olevation of acience three rosults were ob- 
tained: (l) A deeper iusig^ht into the Neo-Platonk- 
Augugtlnian principlee of theology aa a whole, (7) 
A higiier virtuosity in the art of dialecticftl analysis 
and rational deraonatration, (3) Au incren^in^ occu- 
pation with the Churcb fatliers luid the ancient 
philosopTierA. The danger of tlnn cWper insight 
was a uon-oosmioomyntical paiTthciam, and the moro 
uSIvtsty umii dovuUnl tbeiijselvt!» lo rualiMU, the 
greater was Uie diuiger. The duugor of dialeeticism 
ooiLaisted in the dissolution of the dogma instead of 
the proof of them ; the danpter of the intercourfte with 
tbo ancient pliitofiopht^TH lay in the reduction of hia* 
torical Chridtiioiity to <^(j»mu)Ajl]tunitftn, to a more 


general philoeophy of religion upon the aoil of the 
ntiutrAlizfid higtory. Till the end of the l^h cientury 
Uiero was as yBt do reial philoaopfa y oloDgBido of theo- 
logy; iu so far aa auytliiu^ of tJie kind t-jcbted, it 
was foarod, and thus it happened that the danger al* 
luded to under " {2)'^ (Berengar and his friendn) was 
Htst foU, The danger alluded to under "(I)" was 
Uio lofijftt notices], nincG Anaeim, Uio groAt4^t theo- 
logian bofom Tfacniius wLomo orLhixl^xy VfUi ohovo 
qu^eitios), mov^ about mgat uncsoucenioUly nmong 
the Nfio*PlAl4jQio-Aug£stiufaa prindplttf* Perlutfig 
ho would lia^e eoon brought the dialectical ^iencet 
which ho kncvr bow to use with iiuthorityf to full 
bomjrft, am) haw mado credible the reconciliiblQQew 
of my«tici*rn {mttditatio) with ron^m, of authorita- 
tivo faith with ratio {crcdtT, ^t inMtujom, on tho 
oLo eido, raiiwmbiU neccsTfihUe mMUgrrc «u»o 
oport^re omnia tV/a, quae nobi^ fides cathoiica de 
Chfisto credere pmedpit, on tho other aide), had 
not some of bin pupib, like Wilb. von Cbampeaux, 
drawn 8<siie of the liangemus conso^iuences of Pla- 
touic realifim (the one passive aubataace, the natural 
phenomena aa mere seniblanco), and bad not in 
Abehinl a bold ectentaflc talent appeared, which could 
not but terrify thecburchmon. In Abelard tlio tnut 
of the "onligbtoner** is not entirely wrtiiting; biit ho 
was more bold than coDrMxjUL*utial, mid bid ''nitiou" 
aliAm" had itA limit^dionH in th^ >ir'kn<>wl4«clgni«>nt of 
rovolation. N'ovortbolcM bo opposed fatth iu moro 
uutliorily, yet by uo tnauia at all potuto; hv wanted 


A Man 

4V> ouTLrrBS or thk histokt op doq3Ca. 

to know what he beliered, and he wanted to show 
bow unwfe and oontiwlictory was the uDOODtn>n<Hl 
orthodoxy and tbo tniUiiioa which preieDded to 
Sldita. 1^ infiilliblo {"Sic et AoO- Thua he Icx-kinl 
upon tho foundations of faith juet ub bo looked upon 

oppoQCDtm fibovo all Botuanl, con^idorod hi» doctrino 
of iiiG (ritiit>- und tbo whole method of his scionoe 
(which indeed with him and hi^ pupils oftm dogen- 
erated into a formalistic art of ditiputatiou aiid waa 
coupled with onbearablo arrogiiuco) forviKii and 
beretical^ they therefore condomnod him. TImj did 
not at all otoerve that tho qiu^stioiutblo Mintciiccts of 
tho b:ild fimovator origtiiatod tji part from the Church 
fathers and in puK wore thecotis«tiQenc4?«) of tliAt my^ 
tical doctrine of Qod, wUich Ihoy tli^mMlrea flhared 
(thuB hij^ conception of hit;tor>', wldob wenift to nou- 
irallzo historical Christiaaity in favor of Qrcck phil- 
OBophy;ooaip&ro JutAin). ItUi^llmoroiiumdoiiail 
that Abelard, even while on tbo one 8ido drawing 
these oonsequencets ou tliu otlior introduced a kind of 
"^ conceptual isni'* in the place of realism, (granted to 
aobor Uiought a material influence upon the oauicfn- 
plution of futulam&ulal priucipl^^ rejected tho pan- 
thoiaticdoductiutiAof tin.- rurrvnt vrlliodi>jcy and thtut 
laid the foundatton for the classical e^zpre^sion of 

KaMift. me<licBVal consei-vative theology. Tho ooclwiastioal 
^"21^5^ dogma demanded realiHm, hut was not aUe to be ra- 

*^'"'' tained in thought uixler the* oontplete dominion of 
tho mydticol, Ndi>-Phitouio theologj*. A lowetit^ of 



iluT Plalonio cukvtiul flf^ht wtm iicciUhI, tlwrcforo of 
" Ariau^teLlMn", ua Uio liitUsr waa utiUer»UKHl aiul 
used at ttiatUmc, namdy, tliot viovr of things ac- 
cording to which wh»itev<!r appoora and is crL*iiti]r^ 
\iV<t \M not the transitory form of the Divine, but tlie 
)«iipemHtursil God ns crefttor hafi, in the r^al ^ha^ of 
iho vronl, cnllod forth the creature and endowed tlio 
muim; with indi-pi'iidenco. With (hie viuw Abilard 
bi^fui tmo^, and much of %]inx which ut ht^ time pro* 
ruked oppoijition aft«?rward bot^tune orthodox. Yet it 
was bis o\^'n fault, th« fault of his character, the want 
of cleara^es in the positiona which he aflmimed, an<l 
tlio fnidt of hismanv hetercxlorieB, that he did not 
break through. With Bernard and the myatlca he 
tntHight Hci^Dce into tiucb diacredit that the next gen- 
eration of theologianH bad a di^cult footing. The 
" sentences'* of Peter Lombard, which with a certain 
sci^itifir free^Iom gather tof^her the patrLHti«^ tradi* 
Hon, opinion ami oonlmr^ ojiiiiiofi, aiid wliidi f^vo 
a judiciouft ruviow of doctrmo in the spirit of tlio 
Church, came near being condeuuied (11i!-l, 1179). 
WalUier of St. Victor zealou&ly oppoeed him aitd 
Abelard a^i weU. But the taak of theology, to fur- 
nish a review of the whole lerritory of dogmatics and 
to think everything out, once undertaken, could no 
longer be >ut asido, and in the carrying out of this 
taak the followere of AbehirtI and of Bernard drew 
nearer Co e^ch ocher. Moreover, the intercourse 
witli Jews and Mobnnuoedaaa demanded an intel- 
ligent Hpologelic». Hugo St. Victor, however, 



Iffe* Pf«jr „{^tga 


trbo hail alnvuly tnfliiftni^ th<^ fryllowi^n of Ijom* 
baiHi, oontributed inuet toward uniling tho Uiiulon' 
The uow piiHyi uvrni vrilb Ur^ IjUovt require* 
menus, dxercit^os aiul tnoans of ^lovotion, diud out 
grnduiJIy, tbougli aot ontiTclj, during tho second 
half of the 1 2th c«ntuiy> together with tho dialectical 
Bcience. Yonder impticit fuith, here boldness irere 
rdjeot^, with which, however, mnny a tt^eh truth 
wflflloet. This occurred under thcovorvrheLtniug im* 
pre«tsi<jns made by tho Church, rudiaut iu it*5 victor- 
iee. Her taw in life and doclrino became the most 
worthy object of investigatioa and exposition. With 
this aim was blended «notlier— that-of referring all 
thingH limbic to n<xf» unci (^ ronatniittg knowWigt^ of 
tho world ail ttiool^g^', Howevor, it was oooly in tlie 
^■Bu ^iQ^I^^J ^yf Hj^ isjjj ctaitiiry Uuit |i0itri»tid:9Ui, ecvhwi- 
ndticSdm, mystic Uicology mul Aristotolianit^m tx^- 
caone con»olidat4^d into powerful syetoms. Tho dog* 
matical works of the lyth century — except^ perhapst 
tho worka of Hugi3 — still bear the stamp of a^r^a- 
tion. Thought^ if it wistie<l to Ijo more tlian repro- 
duction and meditataoD, was still looked upon witb 


4. Work upon the DogmQ. 

Among the number of theclogioal disputee and 
separate oondeni nations, the oontrorersy with Ber* 
engar ooacoming the <>ucharist and Aueolm'e Dew 
conception of the doctrine of atou&ment acquired] 
prominence. These atone mark a progresa in tho 

■ history of doi{ina» which cIuriDg Uiitf {K^rtod was 
othorwifto not onrichod. 


A. Thi^ Bert'ugar Cos/rorvrsy. 
fiich, ft. a O. L Reuter a. s. O. Sudtudiirf, lk-r«ogariiu^ 
leei. ScliuiUler. a V. Tfutv. IS»7. 

The second controven^f regarding the euchorist 
had, Aside from Die theologicflli a1m<> h philo^ophicAl 
and cocHeaiflsticO'poHtictd inUrost. Tbo latter may 
rest here, Bervn^r, a pupil of FulUirt of Chartms 
was tlie Ortit dialcotician, who, full of conlitlence in 
the art which bethought to be identical with reason, 
turned fiRainfit &d eodefiiastical nuper^tition which 
had very nearly beoom^ a <Iogma. A criUoiKm of 
the dogma of the oueharitit, bowovor, wju, lu oomtid- 
emtion of thv pnnniiivnt ataodiug of this doctrine, a 
criticism of ttio ruling oeckefasticul doctrine in gen- 
t>ral. Not as a nogatiTe "enlightODer", but to op- 
pose a bad custom by true tmditionf and at the eamo 
time aIdo to lot liitf light shine, Bereogur w^roto (mim- 
ming up in the work, fie sacra coena adv, iMufran- 
cum^ 1073) and founded n school- Heeavr in the 
ruling doctriuo of tnuiHiibstuiitiixtjon a wuiit of rcu^ 
aon, and he revived the Augniitinian doctrine of the 
eucbarifit (lite Ratmmnn?, whots© book, however, waa 
considered aA belonging to Hcotiid^rigenHi audasHUcb 
wan condonin^d at Vercolli, 1050), in order to T^atore 
the ^i»% Aot/hU and to cxMnbnt the btLrlwroou paa&iou 
for mysterictf, Bcfvngar o|nrrn^l thoc^>utr<>vorsy vrith 

434 oiTTLixEtfl OP rnc msTonir of t>oauA 


of a iHHliiy tritiuiulnsUuiliatiuti vriw ubtturd uDd tltat 
Uici-cftire tbo wt^nb* «f Chiinl iuuE»t bo uudvrHtood 
ngunilivelj- A purctj' »\-nj1)o1ic cotio&pUoti he did 
not tmcb, mthur likothe f^itberfi, tnynum et sacra- 
mentum^ in the sacred act; Some holy but inrisibl© 
etemeat isudded by the '^conversh'^^ which mcana 
however tile whole Christ; br«icl and wme are only 
rclalit^iy changed, lie taught that the opposite 
doctriue slrivcr^ tigJunBt n^tu^D, wherejo the Divine 
imago lies enckiaed; he who favors "inepiia^ casts 
aaide the DixHiiepart, Berengar's doctrine was <xm- 
demned at Rome iind VorciJIi (1050) during bia ab- 
n(*br4>; ho hiniM'tf wuk fon^Hl (41 n^CAtit At Rome 
(105D) taid hc> condot^ooDdcKl to aign » coofowkm, 
oonipoeed by Cttrdintd HuinWrL, which tdiuwt.'d tbut 
Bemngarhod not exaggerated tborulfngductriiLo; for 
ia the coufo^ou it was »tat«d, that tho ulomcntfl 
after the amaecration are uot onlj sucramcnt, but 
the ver>- body of Chriat (scnstiatiter^ non solum 
»ticra7rt^iito)t which ihmx i« niiio mast3cat«<I b^ 
the tooth of th^T bclicvera. Borongnr, protoctod in 
ihts fjUowing yirare by iiifluL-nthil Roman frieudd 
(UiMebrand), re^trainLHl himself for Bozne tiroej but 
afterward began anew the literary controreisy- 
Nowthe principal writines weie first lE^ned (I^n* 
franc, de c^rp. et santj. tlornrni adv. B.C. I0£9}, 
Gregory VII. was in no hast4> to make heretics; yet 
in order not to prejudice bis uwd authorily, he On* 
ally forced Berengar for tbe second time to submit 


The k<ftrni4i ^^'iKilar wsui broken down And his cause 
p^orighod. PaMi'btiAiii!^* doctrmo ot trausubfitanliaticai 
wii» furtlwr ilt^velope^l by tbe op poueDta of U^rengar 
{mand ticatw infdeitum; coaree reaUem) ; sUU 
vvGXx in tUeso rirclGHone oommeiiced to apply "'aoi- 
«Q00*' to Uie dogma in the interest of the Church. 
Ttio <!oar0o rtprcitontationd were diarcKAnU^, tho ^- 
#i>*»ChHi*t (m>t»<im[>ly bkxidy piiyM*«of bis* l«>dy) wiw 
ncknowU^dgcil iu tb<f m?t ^in w^^ry ptirticubLr) , thcdif- 
fwvm-olMrtwoeuff/j/numjuKl Murramt^Htum wjcs takuu 
into nocoLuit in order to dlitthigui^li between man- 
dofio iitfidt*liiitn ivnAJidcitmn (ospc«i«lly important 
ift Guitmund o( Averea, de coi'p^ et sang, Christi 
veritaie in eucharistia), Tho "scientific" concep- 
tions also concoming H»b«tauco und itttribut^e wem 
aboody set fortli, wberoby tho eomvo '* ^enauaiiter'* 
correctwl ittf«lf, wiiilc ii fuw, it i>» true, bcHovwl in 
an incomiptibihty of the nttnbut<»8 of th4> conwrted 
mbstuioes. Furtbermorc tlierc ^vt-re idroudy be^- 
iiingft of the tipocnilatiou about tho ubiqutt)" of tho 
siibstiuif^ of llio b<xiy of Cliri«l, TIig ^xpremion 
** irans^ulMiiantiai lo" cnn bo trnood first to niidcbort 
of Tours (beginDiDg of iho ISth coultiry) ; as Ujw 
Einal argument tbt-^ro remainod always the almighty 
sovereign will of Ood. Aa adognm the doctrine of 
tranflubstantiation wa& expreedod in the new confes- 
sion of faith at t^o Ijateran council (r^I5), whicl) 
prior to iht> projessio fid^' Trident, wa*, next to the 
Nioone^ the most iitHueutial a^Tubol, The doctrine of 
the tiucbaririt was h^^te joined dirurtly to ttie ti-inity 

9t AT«n^ 

of Toim; 

Jnint^A Co 



in the symbol ihaf the s<Witf is one with ihrstt doc- 
trines^ and indeed in the form of tbe doctrine of tran- 
eubfltantiatiott [^ trwnisut)si<\niiaiiJi pane eivino^) 
and wiUi fltrirt liiemt^bieal trend. Joined tliereto 
troA flt Btateoient rt^gording t^iptism and penance 
{"per veram poenifeniiam bkmpkk protest reptM* 
rari**)^ Tlierewith indeed thin development ended, 
liTid with it tlio allknl one, that evt/rff Vfirietion must 
co7tf€s» his sins be/ore the parochns (c- ill)- The 
innovatjou in tlio symbol (a>mbinntion of the doo^j 
trine of th^ otKOiari^t with tlio trinity iind Clirifftol- 
ogy) is tlio moet peculiar iind the boldest aci of 
Middlu Ages, having innch grviiter wuight tluui tlio 
^'fitioque". On th« othi-r side, however, the now 
flymho] shoivB etill very plainly that only tho old 
dotnna were truly do^^i^a, and not the Augusttnian 
RAuti^nrofl conceming ftin, hereditary ftin, (n^aoe^ etc 
CatlioIif> Christianity is couBtiluted, a^ido from the 
old Church dg|,(riui^ tjy tliv dj.K:trIu«0 of (he tJiree 
sacrament^^ (baptism, penanca and the eudiarist). 
Tbo rest are dogma of the fl«coiid order, that meanB, j 
no dogma at iilh This oondUioii wa8 for the fut 
(till th^^ Bcformatiou) cf the great<»t importance. 

nicvrijftPMKN-T np DorrRiKT op aik, rtt, 41ST 

B. Anselm'if Dociriuf^ of StAtiMftution and th& 
Doctrines of Atonemetit o/ Ow Theoloffian^ of 
ihclHth C^iury. 

ADWlm. 3 Bde-. 1639 r. Crcmcr, i. d Stud. u. Krit. lljBI) & 
7 a. 


nil Rtt- 

Anselm in hia work " C«r itewa /w>mo " attempted 
to provo tho t^ot nM*«i4sity (reAfionablen^Afl) of the 
dontli of n Ood-mmi for tbc n>dcmptioQ of sinful 
humanity (cvoii iD Augustinu am found doubto uf 
Uiifl neccti^it}')* luid tber&bT rni^^ t^o fundanioutiil 
prindplo of tho practie© of peaiiinoe {sQtis/av(it> 
congrua) to the stuadanl of reli^on in general* 
Herein consists liis epocbat importanc©. His pr©- 
BQppoBition 13 tliBt sin id ffuittj imd indeed guilt 
agaiust God, that the Uotting out of this guiH is 
the nmin point in ihe trorfc vf C'AWa/. thiit Iht* cro«4 
of Christ is tlie redemption, Mid that thL>refope tho 
grace of God is nothing else than tbo work of Christ 
(Augiifttino here Btill manifestal uncertainty). In 
ihviiii nioni&ntotia thoughts lies th© evangelical truth 
of AnAolm'a doduotlooA. Yot they soBFer from gravo qr^^ m^ 
iiii|>urfectioiui ; for i^iiice ibey inlce into constderatEoQ iinuir 
only the ** objectiTO", they do not contain the proof of 
the reality of n>deniption. but primahl^* ocly tho 
proof of its conditions (thoy contain no doctnne of 
at^netnent). Furthermorv they are banod upon a 
contradictory vi<»w of tho honor of Qod, tbcy pLao9 
the Divine nttribulct^ »t nn intolomblo vnriiince, tbey 


Wliat nkLth 

ni»k(^ God apponr not n^ tJio 3iaE?fter riml a» almighty 
Lovo,but (i» II ]iovrorfu] privak* citiniin ^vlio i^ niairs 
partner, tlioy mii*a>nroiv(^ tho invioliiWcru** of the 
eacred tnoml ]n\r find tlit^rtufoiv Uk* ttuifciriiig of puu- 
ishmrnt, »n<] Rnally thoy nllow mdnkiiul to bo >^^| 
doem«d by liutnou sacrifice (!) witJiout nuUcIng it 
plBii) how in mnn bJTDKclf a chiingo of Itmrt h to txv 
brought about. Tfao gnnt Auguf^tinifin and dfoli'ctj' 
^^£1^^"^ cian Aiist'lm really did not know wbat/ciiVA is, and 

be th^refor«^ fancifvl himf^lf able to formiibit^ a do<^H 
tria« of rotloniptiun in strictly noooflHuy catsgorios 
(fcr ItiQ cgii%vrsiuii ^f Jcwh uiul htMilhcn), without 
tTOUbting liimsdf About tho ostabllsbfng of roUgloa 
io the hoiirt, that ift, about tho Awakiruing of faith* 
That, howoviir, niemis a piirpusuigto trent rvligion 
without religion: for the croatingof faith i» religion. 
The old splitting of tho problem into * obj<^vo" r»* 
dompliou and "subjcctivo" odoptjon bod its cffoct 
b<m3 alfiO| «Tvn muro than funni'rly; fur A»Mjlm 
grappled vrith tho piincijjfd probk'in i-noi^^ically- 
So much tho worse were the oooj^wiucncus* which pre* 
vail to th]» day ; for if the problem muBt be divided 
into the "objective" (dramatic nianagemetit of Ood) 
and tho"eubjootiv«**, th^u hoa God even in ChriB- 
tinitity proved by the dtiitli of Chmt only a general 
possibility of the true religion; tlio religion itself, 
however, every indi^-idual znu»t procnre for hims^, 
bo it aloQo or by moan^ of numerous Utile aeaistaats 
And expediont«; (tho Oiuroh). He who aharoA this 
viuw Uiinks Cntliolicly, even if be caIU 1i{mg<*tf 

Into -OU- 



Uuttionm Clirifitiau. Amfflm in the mo»l impor- 
tant problem^ uhich it xcuh his merit to ptoce at 
tlie ht^udy first brought fofuH vietv the Jahe Catlh 
otic idea of Gotl and the fahc old Catliolic coh' 
caption of relif^on wthicK htul lonff xince found 
expr4J3sion in the practice of pmonct*. In ihia 
BeiittQ bo i» a co-fouu<]er of the Cutbt>lic Churcli, 
although his theoiy ia detail has in many raftpects 
been fthaniloned— in favor of a atill more coDvenient 
practiceof the Church. An»elm in differont writings 
(*■ MouoUtginm" , "Prolotfium"— concemine tlie con- 
cc|)ticD of Q<rd; ontologicol proof) gave ^rpreasion 
to the oonTidioii, that cue ahould believe first upon 
authority, and then ooe would ba able to prove faith 
to be a tiec4WHity of tliought. However, only in the 
dialogically compoecd writing " Cttr dens homo'^ 
hns be comprised the wholo of the Chrititiaii rt^iigion 
umh^r OTu^ hrtad and trmt4Ml !t tiniformly and logi- 
cally. After a v*:ry nrtnarkiible iiitroduotion, in 
which eflpocially the oM ut^xt atbout rcdeuiptiou b^ a 
Aatiafaction of the lawful claims of ttio devil is re- 
flected, lie lay^ down tho principle that the ciM^ature. 
eiKlovrod vritb reiwoQ, has tlirough 8in robbod Qod 
of the honor duo to him in no lon^riT rendering to 
hfm that which thiM honor domundi;, luunoly, ob«di* 
cut mibjection. Since Qod cannot loso bin honor, and 
t»ince freedom fTx>m piinishmettt would bcuidetf bring 
about ft geneonl diBorcter in the kingdom of God, 
either reetitution {sdti^tfaftio)^ or puniAhm^nt is the 
only thing jioaaible. The latter iiidoed in itself 




(Ml vxil of 

SLii RoIjM 
Qotl of 111! 









would tfo Aiiitable* but eJnce it could reciult only in 
d<»tniction nnd tiiiis Id the niin of one of the nujet 
prBcioiut worfcft ofOo<J (iiw rafionabili^ 4^rentura)f 
th& bonor of Qol doM not |kenuit U. Therofore tbo 
satiaf actio u\oiic rBni^iuif, whlchmuhtbeareetitiition 
aa well as Uie price of punishment. Han, however, 
cannot render it; for everything that he could ^tb 
to Qod, he would be compelled from iluty to give to 
htm; moreover tho guilt of sin ih infinitely great, 
Biuoe ulnf«4dy tho tfli|;htcftt di)iohoclicu<»> results in 
omilesw eiiti {**nondum con^iderastiquanti ponderis 
ait pt^tcatufti "). How then shall man resiore 
*^totu7nquod(ieoat)stnfiV\ ""utsicutde^ts per ilium 
perdidit^ ila per ilium reaiper^t"? This th© Ood' 
mar* alone is able to do, for only God can offer " dc 
sno,quod m(\fiis est tptam omtie quott jtratterdtiuni 
esi"y and tho tuan mu£t bring it. Tboroforo n por- 
nuoality xb n^quired who hn» two natureH and who of 
his otcn fr^e will can and does offer to God his 
Divine-hnman life(HinleH8iiesH). It must bo hi» lift^ 
for that alono he is not in duty bound to fiacriSce to 
Ood ; eveiTthiaer ^3 ^^ ^Jbo, tlie Hinte&s one, is hound 
to giv^ up. But in this &acrific9 full 6ati>if»cti<)D is 
roider&d i^ nullaUnns eeipsum potest homo magis 
dare deo^ zpiam cum m morti tradit adhimuretn 
f/fiiw"), indeed ite value 19 inlinite. While tho Iwuil 
injury of thia life bag an infinite negative value, \h^ 
frco sutTender of it has an infinite positive value. 
Tho acctptiti n»orii» of hiu^Ii a G<kd-m;in ih ftn infinite 
good to Qotl ( !}, which for cxecctW bit^ lond throu^ 


nn. Christ bas tiond a11 this; his voluntary death 
can have resulted only " m honorem der, for 
another purposo ctumot bo discovered. For ug ilia 
death Iia» & thre^-fold roftolt: (1) Tbohithortocrugh* 
iug guilt of sin has bo«n jvmovod, (3) Wo aui tako 
to oureelres heartily tbo t^x.implc of this roluDtary 
doath, aitd, (3) Qod^ lu uckiiowIu<lgtng thv rciidtTing 
of the satisfactio as a rf«^ri/iini also of tlio Qod- 
oian, givefi ti« the benefit of (hiii inmtum, since he 
can indeed give nothing to Cbmt. Only by reaflon 
of thifl benefit &T& we able to become imitators of 
Christ'. This last turn i» u gonial nttcmpt of 
Autiehi^^ to traa»tnii into th« hearti» of men the 
power of the dmmatic ik!ht>iuo of rtMl<miption ; but ho 
Buffers from a vrant of clcnmc^ wluch then prevailed 
in the practice of penance. In themselves satis- 
factio and meritutn are irreconcUaMe, for one and 
the fHm& action can be only Uie one or the otber (the 
latter, if there was no occasion for on action greater 
tbun Wild obligator)'). But from the practice of pen* 
anoe one was accustomod to Bee " mcrittf'* in acliosiB 
in excess of du^, ereo if they eerred as cumpen- 
aatloD. Thus did Andebn ah&o placed ttie jKi/tJt- 
foeffo Chriati under the point of view of merit, 
which continuca, evcu after theccaidluBion of the foal 
CranBactioa^ to jtftcify aiid appeaae Qod. Anadm 
could do this K) much the Ctfu<ier, ftinoe he consld^ed 
the serrice of Christ far greater than the wvigbt of 
mu. But hi> joJDfxl to tho thoi^i^ht of m^riYum, 
though rathtT by Lutituatit^n, tiie aubjoctive effijct of 

IhitUi ttit* 





Danlftl Iho 

OlAlQM Af 

43$ OU1XI10B0 OF Till: insTOET OV IKKIMA. 

Uin luHion; in the* frwning of th** onno^ivtiaii of sat- J 
iH/Qi:iio ha did o^ji find u point wlii^t^ bo ooold paaa 
over to ttio *' subjective". Nurt^ttbvloM, be ended 
wftli thv strong constfiouaiioAB of bavJng rwcsoDably 
proved *'p€r unius guaestionis soMionem quicquid 
in novo veleriquv fvAtaineniv coNdueiur^, 

Armelm^H eatisfaction theory in mibeeqnent titne8 
WAS aoc^pt^ only with modlBcutJoas. Abolord made 
no ane of it, bnt went bnck, whcnerer bo braated of 
redentptJon through Christ (Comui. vn Romans), lo 
the Now Tet^tanu-^nt and putrir^tio tradition, bringing 
into protninoaco tho important thought that we mu«t 
bo led back to Qod (no change in Qod's attttndti is 
neoeanary). Primarily h« ri^fora n^demption to the 
elect and thon^fore teaohea thai tho doath of the Ood- 
man must beooooeiv^ only a» an ocfo/Zot'e, wUidi 
inJlames our cold hearts; however bo abo givee tho 
matt<fr the turn, tliut tlie merii of Chvisi tis head 
of the fommunity benefits its mombere; this merit 
huwover i^ no a4i:ifn^ation of certain good doedB, but 
thxi FcdmiK^^ of tho lore of Ood dwelling m Cbrist. 
ChrifftV merit i» tlio moHt of hifl lovo which con- 
tiiiuoH in LMit^Uint iut(M'ci?t«.'iioii ; tlio atononu^nt is tJie 
peraoiuiJ oomiDuniou with C'hri^ Of the claims of 
the devil on us, Abelard would oleo recog&ize none, 
and, togethor with the idea of the noceseiity of a 
bloody fucrifice to appeane Oocl, ho repudiated tho idea 
of thd logical noooseiiy of the death on tho crr^sB. 
TherightouuMiofMof th^idun of iht? ^ufforiug of pim- 
iahment remmn^l hitKlmi to him ua well as to AnticUu. 

dcvkijopuickt ur iwctwkk op «w, rrc. 433 

■ Bonianrs Uioiigbte oonceming tho atoDconeot lag 
I bvhinil thoNe for Abelard; ni\\\ he know bow to ox* 
H preee bia lovo for Clirist more odlfjLaglj tltau tlio 
latter. Tbe conception of (be men^ o/ Cfift^t (ac- 
oordJng to AnAelni) Itecame in after-timeci Uie de* 
ciaive one. Wticnever men moditAtod about the 
saiiifactio^ the strict catc^ries of An&ebn wuro 
looftfOKHl at many points. In(ii>©d ovon in tJie 4li»ci- 
pline of pODOnco itll nedoeaity an<l '^ quantity" w«s 
uncertain! Horem-ertlio l^imbftrd cotitcntod bini^olf 
witli reootuiting all the po^sJtik y\<3yr» in wbicb* ac* 
looidiag to tra^litioD, ooc can look At th« deatb of 
Obrist^ oven thai of tho jmrchaKii^ uf the devil, 
toKdber with the decoptioD, an<l of tiio value of pon- 
iHhment, hut n<*t of Iho doctrino of satiiffactioi], be- 
cauBo it ba« no tradition in it^ favor. At the bottonii 
however, lio wa» a follower of AbeUud (luerit, awak- 
ening of reciprocal love). After him Uie baggUng 
and burgaining began about the value of sin and the 
byAlua of the merit of Christ. 






Ths conditions under which doffuia vras placed 
during thiM [writM] made it sw a ss/ntfim of law mov^ 
and tit^>rc nmblo — for vrbidj ivfwon idt*o tb<j Rofornia* 
liuii halted befoi'u the old dogma — but cuuwxl iiicro 



ACkLl to 


and more an tnrt^r dtsfiolntiovi, ainoo it no longor 
eatisflixl tbo iadividual pie^, or b€ld its ground ia 
tbe preseace of the new kuowledge. 

1- On the Hinf^ry of Pieiy. 

Ilns«, Pninci«kuA. 1$56, HAIlor, Ai3fAitg« 4«e HiDoHtra^ 
onUnn. IR85. Tli'^<», FYtmriilciiH, JWtS. MQIW, die Wol- 
d«&ier, 1080. In u^lditirm iJii< i^-orka on th« Jnftoliiiuiu^ 
0plrltu&lbt8. Qeruiaii MyaticB i lYe)j;^r). Vvitta Yn^tnsi. Uus- 
iillM oad hc-rtrtioi of Ibo Middle Aism. DdtliD^r, B^itr, x. 
fivoMngescb. d. 3IA.. iii$0. AicbLv. r Liu, u. K.-Oc»di. 
dott H, A. 1 ff (int"^i*lly tJMf vrtfrin of DcdlAo). 

Tbo Bcniarrliuc piety of inuiK*r«tng onosselF en- 
liruly in tiw »uffciriiigk of Cliriift was dov-i<lo]K<l by 
St. Francis into » piotr nf th« imitation of Christ in 
" hamilitah^j CKiritotCy obcdit'Kiiu*\ //tfmiVt/aa id 
complvtu ptwerly^ niiil in thu form in wbicb he 
mprcsanled H by his life and joined it with an ex- 
oooding lovo for CLrist. Francis bolt) before n>en an 
inexhnufitibly rich and bi^b ideal of Chrislianily, ca- 
pable of the most vsndoly dilTprBnt indi^itlual plmsos, 
and breaking ita wny througbf b^cattse fir^i in 
it did Catftolic piety rec^tiys iis ciassicat e^xpres* 
ffion. Fnincis waB i\t thu »Eimo time animated by a 
truly apoHtoUc miasionary spirit and a most fen*cut 
zeal to enkindle men'B hoarta and to serve Cliriatiau- 
ity in love. Hia preaching was aintoc] at the tndi- 
t^idnal soul and at the restopatiou of apaiMic life. 
In wider di*clc« it wojj to work an a Dirilling pent* 
fential st^nnoitf itnti with lliis in view Franch re- 
ferred believers to the Church, whose most faithful 





0OU h« waa^ although bar b]sho|iB and priests <IiiI not 
serve, but ruled. ThU ooutradidicMi he overlook^ 
but others who had preceded him did not (Waldea* 
sianft, htmiiliat«e)» and in their oiidoaror to rustore 
apotftolic llfo thoy suspected tho ridttiK Church and 
withdraw fnim it. Tho mi^ndic^iuit onh'rrs (uivo the Mc>niti<ut 
morit of luivizig kopt a gn}(ii Mtroum d awukmxoA and 
ttciiro Chrixtiwi lifo within tbo boaadftricai of tho 
Church ; not a littlo of itd wators alrc-ady flowed out- 
side, took a hotitilc dirLXrtiou, ntirrod up anew ih^ old 
apoctdvptical thoughto and saw in the Church the 
great babel, reserving tho approaching judgment at 
cmo time for Qod, at unotber for tho emperor. A 
Bmall part of tlio Fmnni»aujis mndo common cause 
with thuDi. Tliey »iin?jwl uvor If-aly, Prance, and 
Gcnnany u# far as BulKMiiia aiid Braudt^nhurgt 
fostering hcHj and Uicro confuted hectical ideaa, 
6liaq)ciitng howovor as a rulo onlr tho conKoiences, 
awalbOning rtOigiuus uuro»t or iiLdepoudence in the 
form of individual, u»ootic rvligiouimosti, and relax- 
ing or combating tlio aiitlioritr o( tho Churcb- A 
tag Christianity developed rt«e// tdihin and by wchri*.J 
the side of the Churchy in wtiich tho (road toward ^*^'*'*^ 
religious independence becamy strong; but sbce aa- 
ceticiiun in at la^ alwavin aimlens and can creato do 
blfis«odneRa, it »UuidA in need of the Church, of it« 
authority and of ita aaoraniouta. By a Myrut bat 
vt^ry firoi lie all ^heretun*^, who wHta tli« lUKvtio* 
evangelical ide«t] of life upon their fltandardn, remaio 
bound to the Church fruni vrl»obo o[^n<e6Sio[i, rulu 


^'^jfloi and workUinefiB ihfjy wish towwrapc 

From thosecta 
of liibUcifit«, Apocalypttcd, Wtddon^atm aiul^ Uus- 
Bitee no lasting result wa^ gained. They were traly 
°*heretical", for Utiey still belonged to the Chnrch 
from Tvbidi th^y wiabed to 4^«tcQpe. The numerous 
pioua broUit'i-hoovIs, irbicli grow up and romaiQed 
(alUiough wiili uiauy eiglis) withio tho paJo of ih& 
Churcli, had atUI elasticity enough to make roc»n for 
•■poTerty" and evangelical Iife» and to receive tho 
mendicant ordf^ra into membcrtthip. &ho »oon en- 
©rvnt«d tiiom and Ihoy became her best Aupjxirta. 
To tho individual jnoty of the laity, finnly «hained to 
tho <»nft»^ioQat, eooranufflts, prieet and popo, a buV 
onlinate ejcialenco was accorded En the Church of the 
prieeta. Thtifl tho mediaeval Church wearily foaght 
lis vray through tlic Utli ami 15th coutunus. For 
wbatOTor sacrifif^^ ttw niinoritcft wore forced to 
ma]»> to tho ttionirdiy, thny in a nmnnor {ndfinnifled 
thompttlvort hy ilw> onhoard'of energy with whicli 
they served llio purpow^ of the imiv<-n!ittl Chtircb 
uoK^^n- through the hiUy. The universal, historical inii>or- 
b^w!li4?Q- tanci* of the nioveincnls caused by tho ^Viddi^isiana 
^tiu and niLnidicant orders cannot be reckoned in new 
doctrinofi and inHtitutioim, aUbouf;:b Ua^f^^ wE^r^ not en- 
tirely wanting, !>iit c*onsi«t« \t\ tho roligifiiiH rtH.vifcffn- 
ing and in an imrcet leading to a roligious indi- 
vidiiulium, which tboy caused. In so f^r hh the 
mendicant onlcrs and the " ante-Koforinalion" 
movementfl indiir^ the indiriduftl to nie*litafe upon 
the trutht^ of salvation, they were the Brat advanoo 






towarxl the Heromiatiuti* Bui the more relif^toD was 
carrieid into the clrcLeH of the tliird rank and of the 
lai^ in geneml, the greater was the Tvatchfulness 
toudiin^ tl>e invic^bility of the old doormat and the 
fut^tki mnjorily of ihi> Inity tmTiv>Hl floftinxl to iYi9i|uvrt 
in iho dogma their firm «tiLii(l point funttlxt th<; nn- 
cu-tainty c<j[t<x;nLin^ the stHndanl of the practical 
pr'>blenin and concernlna: tJio oorruct state of Uio cm* 
piriofti Churchp 

Toenttir luto particulars, eiipecial attention must 
be paid, for the purpose of tlie Mstor>' of dogma, to 
the union of th9 niendicant orders vritlj faysticism 
during this inner rctigious nwukcning* MTstidsm 
is n couascioKXSy w^vcim^t Catholic piet>% which de- 
8irce to grow hy thi» v<>r>- reHoction aud contempla- 
tion : Catbolicrifim knew only thi*i or the fides impii- 
crfa. The model orip^inated from a combination of 
Angiki^tine and the Areopagite, enlivened by the 
Bemardine dovotion to Christ. Mysticism has many 
forma; but national, or confeefiioaal the difference 
among them is slight, Aa its starting-point bia- 
torically is pantheistic, &d ia its aim pantheistic (non- 
oosmioal). In the degree in which it holds more or 
lea Btrongly to the hititarical Christ and the rules of 
the Ch«reh. this aim comes more or lees elearly to 
light; but oven in the mo»i cliurohly stamp of mya- 
ticism the domiiialiiig Uuntght in itevcr wholly waut- 
- ing, which points boyoud the historical Chriat: (3od 
I and the aoul, the soul u&d it4 God; Clirif^t the 
I brother; the birth of Christ iu e^'cry Leliover (tlie 


lut^olabla 1 





8oul Mum 


Uov. Illu- 
■nil CbIm. 

■uouii It 
s^^co and 
Piolav uf 


latter conceived now fantesticallyi now fipiritoaUy), 
MyAticiiim taugbt tliat roli^ioQ is iife and toiJC^ aod 
from this lofty tilea it undertook to throw light upon 
all dotrma to Ihe very depths of tho trinity, and even 
to remodel tJio A3Hii>; it r-rceit^d imlividuftl rolifpous 
Uff>, and them^mtica of tlu^ mciidicADt ordem woro 
its greatest ii'irtuoKie. But liocaiise ft did not rocog- 
nito the rock of faitli, it wnd nbkonly to give direc- 
tions for a proffressus xtifinitus (to God), but did 
not allow tho steadfast f«&Un^ of a ^e posseeBiOD to 

Tho udmonititjiiK of myitticii^in idovo ^vithin the 
circle, that tho soul, alienated from Qod, oiuvt return 
to God hy pttnficattont itlutmnation and siibstan- 
tiat union; it iniii*t bo " dovi.4op(?d", "cultivated" 
and "highly-refined". With the rich and certain 
intuition of past experience, the mystics talked of a 
turning in upon thd Boul, of the oontemplatton of tho 
out«r world oa the work of God, of porerty and 
humility, with which the soul must accord. In all 
stages many mystics understood how to draw upon 
the whole ecclesiafltica] apparatus of tho means of 
salvation (^acr^meatH, sacramental innuoncea); for, 
as witli the Nuo-Ptut^mi^^tu, hoaIao ivith thomystios* 
the moat timer spirittial piety did not etsnd <^poeod 
to the wonfhip of idots: Tlio wjosuous. upon wbidi 
re^ts tho she^n of a holy tradition, i» tho sign and 
plwigo of tho titonial The penance sacrament ee- 
pocially ployed, hb a rule, a great role in the " puri- 
fication^. In the " ilium iriatioti" the Bernardino 


III tiw* ''aubstan- p»mi»uiic 


cif»b-in|>Uttioti# 4iTO v^ry promiueiit. By LLi« 8ide o( 
highly doubtAil dir^tions regaiding the imitation ol 
^hriat^ Uioro are also foiEnd CTaogelicnl tbongbtd— 
faithful confldoDCO in Chmt. Bosides, there \s em- 
pha»izod hero tho «ntiro immcreiug in tore, from 
whicJi virnst dovv1r>|)iut n gront incr<m>u« nf iniior lifOr 
in vrhioh latt«r thv HcnjiiErtiuhnoc aiid Rvformiktion 
ioom to Imve hcun pntpurod Tor. 
tial unioiT thoro tinally apjwirod tl:e mctaph>'8ical 
tloughU (God as lh« all, tho individual as noUiiug; 
God the '^ aby«ma) Bubstauoo^, tlie " peaooful pas* 
aivi^', eicj. Ev&n tlio normal dogmatidt Thomas 
bore countenanced pontli^istio ideas, which gavo the 
unpuloo to 'Vxtraviigojii** pioty. In recent HmoA it 
bos boon shown by D»tiin« tJu^t Ma8U-r EcJchart^ the 
great myatic who was oensurod b>- tho Church, was 
entirely dependent upon Thomas. But howevordan- 
gerous these specuUtions have been— -their intention 
was oev^rtheieHe the higlie^ tipinUmI fr^dom (see 
for example the " Gl^rman thoology^)> which, l^ en- 
tire withdravral from tho world, should be uttained 
Ithroogh the feeling oC the 8u|iomaturul. In this 
aenao i^pocially the Cerrnan mynUcs since Eckhart 
have wrouKlit. While the Komanoe peoples abore all 
tried to Qvo^ne violent emotions by penitential Ber- 
Qovu, they undertook the positive task of bringing 
tho Iiigl>ce«t ideaft of the piety of the times into the 
popular LaDgU8go and wiihin the ranks of the lal^ 
(Tauler, Seniw, etc.), and to render, through self- 
di^iplme, tlw mind at home in the world of love. 




ViMtEtn of 



TLoy taught (foUowiug I'houuui) tbnt tb4> soul can 
even hvrv upun c^rth wj receiro Ood wicbiu itoeJf 
A« to enjoy in the falkot sense the vision of bis 
Being nnd ilwell in heaven itecif. Indeed the idea 
of full tfurrcndcr to the Divin<> vergod toward the 
other thought, that the soul beani the Divine within 
limXf und IS uhle Uy develop it as epiritiial freedom 
lUJfl superiority boyoiid everything existing and cod- 
oeivjtbL4.\ The dirvctiouH (or it uns Hom^times more 
intelloctually proci^, at oUiere mom quietiiitic. The 
Ttiomistic my»ti[ri»ni pOKseBfl^ the Augu^tiniHn as- 
suranoeof gaining freedom ttirough knowledge and 
of rising ia Ood; the Sootifitic no longer poaaeoBed 
this ewsurance, and it sought the highest mooda 
through diaciplining the vrill: Union of toitl tviih 
Qodt resigntiiion^ Iranquttlitsf- ileratn indeed lay 
a progreBe in the recognition of evangelical pie^, 
which waa f uU of import for tlie ReformaticMi ; but 
even the nominalists (Scotiata) had loat a clear and 
definife apprehenavon of the Divine will Thewajr 
secmfid open here for the queetion eonoeming the 
certiiuua sahitie, but this remained unanawer**d **o 
long as the conception of (3od was not poshed beyond 
the line of the arbitrary Will, 

Theimpertanceof myHidam, especially of Qermnn 
myRticiflm» is not to he underrated ev<in in the direc* 
tlou of the po^fitireoquiptnent of aftoetieifim «« activt^ 
brotherly love. Therfd nionki»h infftxiictiom woio 
enlivened by the energetic admonition to the service 
of one*s neighbor. Th<> simple rdation of man to 


mat], mnd« nacrp<] by Ui«^ ChrtArtian cvktnniu»dnit-itt 
of lovo and by Uio poaoo of C3ih), is noHcooldc in all 
the persUteut organiKationa aiiU castas of thi!^ KfidiUa 
Ages, and was preparing to tHirtd tbem. Here also 
tbe beginning of a new era can bo percoivMl: Tlte 
monks becaitio more active, niOKj woridly— fnxitwntly 
in tfutli nniwiUl therein— and tho 1aitjberani<^niore 
alivo and activo. In tlio froo unions, hnlf iwculor^ 
ludf «ocJ(M)Jkatic<tl, tbci>alM?of q life of pietr throbbed. 
Tbeo3d rvligfotis orden vrere in port kept aliv« sim* 
ply artificiaJty and lost tboir authority. Among tbe 
Anglo-Saxonii and Csecbft, bith^rto opprei»ed and 
kept in po^'erty by foreign nations, the new pioty 
allied itsolf mtb a. politico-national program ( Wiclif Wiglf ana 
and Uusa movomonta). Tbts bad a meet energising 
e^ect upon Qermany, but tt never brought about 
in i^tient and dirided Gennany a national reform 
movejnent. Everything aocially revolntionary or 
anti-biemrchical remained isolated, and oven yvhtm 
ike world •tiom mating Church had prortituted iteelf 
in Arignouand vrbeD at the reform council tli<» cry of ?J{^ ^ J 
th« ahameleK ftoanoial dominance of Uk> curia hud 
becomi) loud, tbe Oertnan peq)le«> with few exG«p- 
tidos, still kept tbeir patience* An immense revolu- 
tion, again and again retarded, waa prepared during 
tba 15th century, but it appeared to threaten merely 
the political and ecclesiastical institutions. Piety 
Beldom attacked tlio old dogma, which through 
nominaliem bad become wholly a sacred relic. It 

tioii <a 



turned, it is tru<\ uguiufii ihvt now doctnoc>8 dotluoed 
Trom vtcioos Cbui^:h pmctiecs; but as for ite«lf il 
d&aired U> bo DOtbingelse than the old ecclesiastical 
piety, lUkd indeed It whb nothing else. lu the l&th 
oetttury naydticiAtn clnrifitH] it»«]f in Q«rmany. The 
•' ImitatioQ of Christ" by Thomas & K^mpis If Ito 
puro6t expr««»ian; Init miytlnng Uko r(*fonn in Uie 
strietaet son8i> in not pr3cIiutii4.Hl la iho 1ittlobook< 
The roformation part L'Oiuufetft only in it« indiridoal* 
iftm And in fho pi->wor with whi<^h it rifldrofwofr itself 
to «iv«rv Koul- 




2. On /ftr Historp of Ecclesiastical Law- 
Doctrine of Ihe Vhun:h. 


la the time Erom Oration to Innooont HI. the papal 
syetem ^ccurod tho mipr<*nuu^. Tbo wbolo d4kcr0tal 
IcgLsUtioD from 1100 to 13^0 tveit^ upon tho g<k1o of 
Grihtiao, and Hclioljuttic theology bocciiuo Ktibjoct to 
it. Citatioruf from tho Church fatb^r^ in great port^ 
wore traoBtnittiKl by Hxa law-bookup The Church, 
whicli in doKmatiot tdtould ever he the conununiOQ 
(^ hi>ti447er» (of the predestined), yras in truth a 
hicmrehy, tho popo wofi the egyiscopus vniversati^. 
Within iKxIeciiuitiiul UmiUi the German klnf^ per- 
mitted this development, and are responBible for it. 

Tho leading tboughtg in n^rd to the Church, 
wbfcli were only lat«r finally eetablUhod. wero tlio 
following: (1) The hierarchical orpmizatian is e«- 
fletitial to the Church, and the CbriHtinnity of tho 


Iftity IH in Qvary roapoct bound t4i the intermediation 
of tlio prioflta {rite ordinaiiit \rbo ak«iG con porform 
t^e Churcb f unctionH ; (2)TLeBacrajiieiitHlaiid juris- 
fUctional powers of the prieelfl are iiidapendent uf 
their pdrsonal worthiness; (S) The Church ib a visible 
communion ondowod with a cooBtitution origiDatin^^ 
with ChrUi (and rw sucl) t^rpua Ckristi); it lina a 
IwofolJ poifista^ mtmiiiy 9^}iriluQU^9 ei tempor' 
<iii^. Tlkn>ugli botti it, which shiill endure; Ui Iho 
cftd of the world, is suporior to and plfurisl above the 
porbihabld elates. Therefore all states and all indi* 
vidualu mu£t be obedient to it {<le necessitate satU' 
tis); even over heretics and hoathonft the power of 
thAChurcbert^ndB (finaldecisionby BonifiiwVIlIO; 
{4) In tho popQ, the repreaentatave of Cfari«t imd 
ifucceaHorof Peter, a stricUy xaouarchiccd cunntitution 
in given U> the Churcti. Whatever is valid of the 
hierarchy ia above all valid of him; the reruatniDg 
tnembers of the hierari-hy are appointed only *'in 
part^tm aoUicttndini^". He i» the epuicopua uni- 
versaJisj to him therefore belong tho two swords; 
end eiiioe the Chrietifij) can attain unto saoctifica- 
tion oidy within the Church, since however the 
Church ia the hierarchy and the hierarchy the pope, 
all the world muHt d<7 nece-ftsitate aaluUs be subject 
to the pope (bull " unam sanctam**). By & chain of 
faUificationft, which arobe €«p«cially witliiii ihts nv 
awakocied po1ciui<« ngainet the Oreoke {UMli oontxxry) , 
tlieee loaxiiDa were ihtiv^l back into ccclcbiafjtical 
antiquity, yet were strictly fonnulated (Thomas 

of PrtovM 



fun Id. 


Aquiiuii?) only uftor tho^* luul long been adinjtt«d in 
pnu-'tiee. Tbe new law followod th« now cit^bci, 
which was 8lrengtlieiie<t by tbe mendicant ordeis; 
for Ui« Utter, Uioroughly unatittled by the sperial 
[>riviIeg;eB wbich they rocoived, and the aristo- 
cratic, provincial and lucul powers oomtdeted the 
viclory of tbo papal autocracy. ITie doctrino of 
papal infallibiiity wa9 the necectsary result of this 
develoiiment. Thia a]»o was formulated by Thomas, 
btit not fLH y^t carried through; for i^n thw la^t point 
boifi tho hiittoricud and tbe proviuoiai eodeaiiuttioa] 
Gouttciuuco nKtct^ (tb^ university of Pariti; the rt^ 
boke of John XXII. a^aa lieretic). About i;fO0 the 
e^ctravagnnt exnitati^Hi of Uio papacy in Ittcrattiro 
n>achcd itd bciglitfAugustinusTriumphos, AJvarud 
PoIagitLB), butaftornboutH30itgrcw weak, iogrow 
strong Hgfun only after 120 yeaw (TorqaomAda). 
la tho intorvol the latosi development of the pa|3n<7 
^ms CLUtibutvd vjoleuUyt but nut Hucueasfullj', iin»t iu 
the gbibelliue literature, to which for a time (be 
minorite (Oomu]) was nlliod, laler from tbe stand- 
point of tbe supremacy of tbo council*. Ouly tem- 
porarily WAA Mtmiclt tbe seat of tbe opposition and 
diJ Oerman authors take part in it The roal land 
of uppObitiuQ was France, ita king and bishope, yes 
tlio French nation. The latter alone preserved the 
Prjumxftnc freedom obtamed at the councils (pragmatio sane* 
tion at Bourgw, U30); 1»titin the conconlal of 1517 
tbe king also HfLcrificed it to sluuro with the pope, 
after Uie example of otlwr pHnocA, the eatabliidied 

DUVSiA)FUI0IT or POCTRllfE VP 9IK, 8TC\ 445 






Church of tho country. By about IfiOO tlio old 
iymmiy hnd brou ro-rateblii^ljoii nlmmL e^resywhom. 
Tbo LatAran council^ At tbo boginDlng of 1ht> 16Ui 
cc&tur}',ili'Ri*d tho wishes of tlic nAtiwiA us though 
there never had bwm 9L>ssioni» at Con^taDce and Bale. 
The new developni4?nt of Uil*> idea of the Church. 
up to the middle of tho I3th century, waa brought s»w^n? 
nb^ut Dot by thooto^ but by jtiri»prudonco. Tbia 
is oxjihuni'd, (J) By tbo hick of inU-n»t iu thoolugy 
at Home, {i) By the fact that the theotogians, when- 
ever they tnedituted about the Church, idways re- 
peated the diiBertatioiiB of Augustine oonceming the 
Church AS socf'etas fideUum (nntuenis elfictorvm)^ 
for which roaaon aleo tho hiter "horotical" opiniona 
couoeiitiug ihuChmtdi an; found lu the great achohka- 
tic9. Only after the mid<Ue of the UfCh o&ntary did 
theology tahe an interest irt the hierarchial, papal 
Church idea of tlie jurista (foremniier: Hugo of St. 
Victor), The controversy Avith the Qreeka, eqic 
cially after tbo council t>( LyoDfl, 1*^74, furuijahed 
tho opportunity* Th^ itnportanKse of Thomoa foit* 
sisia in iJie /ad that he first developtsd nirMt}/ 
the pftpat coiiiTption of tte Church within rfoff- 
matics^ but at the game tu>i€ united it artfulljf 
with the AugujUinian idea frotn which he siartud^ 
llioniaa ailhero^ to it tliat tho Church i* the nnnibw nS?!^,! 
of the eloot; hut ho tihoirif that tho Church ii author- avShttt, 
ity in dcxrtriiud tnw, and ao m prieady Mtcrmn<?utal 
Jn^tituiion ia the esdusive otfiaax through which tbo 
bead of the Church procuixM nioiubers. Thuaho waa 




Mts tn jciu\ Uu> n^w tn fho olil. Novf^rtliAU^tx till Uia 
Refonuatiou and bo.viTDil Et tho Vp-holo htonirohical 
niid iJHjial thtorjr obtaiuwl no autv |)O0it]i>D in (log* 
matics; it remained Rom;m decrotal rights whs ttUl* 
jy^d in pr^cliee and rttlod over tlio beorte of mea 
Lbrotigh tliu doctrine of the snonuneotB. ^Ul that 
could bo ©tpcctwl in tbo iotwwt of the hierarchy 
From a form iitii lion of Uw Church id^tt bnd indeed 
nlriMtdj born acquired a^ a vccnro pOMoeeiooi. 

Bui'ftiMu it u-119 uu upptmiliuD from t3iv ceutiv every 
opposition against the Roman idea of tlio Cburcb 
n-bieb became claraoruufi in the lat4«r half of tha 
Middle Af^eH remainod ineffectual. The Bignifl- 
cancQ of faith to tbe Church id^a no one clearly 
reoognisod, niul the final trvnd of the whole religioua 
syntoTD toward the rmo ct/ruilfo dei no ooe oor- 
rootod. The commcHi ground of the defeudeiB of the 
bitTurchical Cbiircb idt-uaud tbeirt)ppon«atB waa the 
following: (1) The Cbarcb is the ci:numiinioD of 
those who bIulII attain unto the vision of God, of 
the pred^tinod ; (2) Since no one knowa whether bo 
bolongB to this oommunion, be must make diiigt?nt 
u»e of the unjaiia of aalvatiou of tbo Church; (3) 
Tbeae means of salvation, tie gacmmenta, aro be- 
fltoweil upon the empirical Church and atlacbej to 
the priesta; (4) They have a donUo pur(>o8e, first, to 
lireimw for t!io lif^ boyend by incorporation in tba 
body of (l^hriHt, and thon. Kince they are powers of 
faitli and lovo, to produce here ou ohj-Ui the "btfttf. 
m-ere", t,«. to cau^c the futSlmeut of tbc ktw of 



Christ: (5] Since even upou the earth tho fulJUment 
of tho law of Christ (in povorty^ hiunitity uud obedi- 
ence) is the highL-et duty, tiicr«fory the temporaJ life, 
also the state, ia eubonliaate to this aim and thus 
also to the sarraroente and in every nenso to tho 
Church. Upon tbift conviion ground moved all tho 
coi:tt^verAiM« rt^garding tlie CUurt^h and h<^r wform, 
Tho papiatb drew tJw further cotidcqu(;QO«s that the !JJ™^ 
hierarchical onler, Invcjoted with tho admhil^lmtioit ^Sm^ 
of the sacramenta and with the autliorlty of tbi> 
Church to subordiuato to it^U th(» teuLiK^mil life, wa^ 
de nectssitate 9otuti9; gtiU they pcrmitt«d themorBl 
duty of ittfilly fulfilling tho law of Chriat ontirely to 
recede h(^hind tho mochiinitridly aimI hinrRrchicfdly 
ciuTic^l uut adftiiiiifttnttiou of the >«Jkcntmrnt9, where- 
by they degradeil the Cliurch IdeA^aii the iiunibor of the 
predestined (religiouB) and an tiiecommuuiou of thoaa 
liviugttccoidJDg to tliolaw of Christ (morB]),toaniCTe 
phiBfTO, litid i^Ht^ht tho (^iiiraiiteo for the lefjritiniaoy 
of tho Chiirrb in tlm striiTt/^t rHinrf»|»tioti of tho o6* 
jcctivv B^af^tn culminating in the pope^ endan- 
g<)riii^ however th<?itt^v<4f Uiu fiuisheil huildiug 
in <me point— tbo ro-ortlfnatioDTt. The opponents, 
however, hit upon '*horvlical'' ideas, eithei, (1) By 
contending agnimit the hierarchical onler, since he- 
yond the biabop*a office the f^ame is neither aupportrd 
by the Scriptures, nor by tmditioo, or^ (2) By allow- 
iug the relipioua and moral idua contained in the 
th<3U^ht of prvdeelinaiion and In the nzinceptlon of 
the CJuirohas the communion of imitators of Christ, 




448 aCTLUrBB or the filSTOBT OF 1>OOUA. 




to supersede the idea of the empirical] Church as an 
in^tilulion of sacrameiite anU of Lan-, aud (3) By 
measuring, therefore, xb^ prie^U and witli them the 
Church autlioritica by the Uw of God (in a Donatio* 
Uc wfty>, before thoy couceded to thf^Di th« right to 
adminmt<!r Xhi^ kcys^ **to lx«e and to biud". The 
(^poaltlon of all so-callecl " pr^-reformatory" eeciA 
and mv.i\ Imd it^ root in these tbeae& From th^n 
one could develop ttie mtemiogly most radicadanti- 
tiueca to the ruling CUurcli* and has developed them 
(dMvHVs Ohiirrh, halv^U iintiOiriirt, oto.); yt*i thia 
munt »<it Hind UA to iho fact that the opponenta stood 
upon ciJinniuu ground. Men phttx'd iha moral chmr* 
aeteriAtin* of the Cliiuvh above Uio Juristic and ''ob- 
jective" — cwrtainiy Uii* wiw a blc^i^Hl pr<»grv*w— but 
the fundamental id^tt^ (Church as MWniniental insti- 
tution, newaaity of prievithood, fruUio det ws aim, 
lack of efttocm for cixnl life) rcnuiined the same, and 
under the titlo of tlio xroci^uit jidtJium in tnith 
oiUy a tegalUtic niomt Church ultMi w^tfeetaUiahed. 
The Church m the »mu tol*il of tho«o who carry out 
ttie apoetolic life acconlinff to the law of Christ, 
Fftitli was cont^idercd only na on^ characlcristic 
under the conception of tho law, and in th** place of 
the oumiuandmentfi of the privets stepped the Fnui- 
oiicaii rule, or a BiblicLHm, agaiual whoee aiwcalyp- 
t\G or wild exor&Hcences one liad to take refuge to 
tho old dofj^a and in eccl^iusticid tradition. Neither 
a oonimunioij of iH^lievei'^, uur an invisible Church, 
aa ia fahwly believed, did the Rvformera have in 



view, but tlioir object wa^ to improvo ih^.^ old Church 
oS pri«fite and aocramonto by dtsacJvuig her hierarchio 
moaarchicid oonAtitution, hy ubolinhing bor afiaumed 
political powers and hy cmx^fuUy mCtiiig bor priests 
according to tbo i^tuKlard of ttio luw of Chriat, or oC 
the Bible. On ihom GouAHionA she was also es* 
teemed by the Reformers as the visible, holy Church, 
through which God realiiteB hi» predestinations 
They did not recognizo that the oarryitig out of tbia 
Doaatidtic thceia waa an impoesibility and that this 
refuruied Church must again beeume hiurarc'hlcal, 

The WaldenHians neither contested the CatboJic 
won4hi|>, nor the sacraments and tuerarchial consti- 
tution in themselves, but coOHidered it a dea^lly sia 
that tiiti Cj%tbo!ii> occliwiaAlirs itbouM cxfrfv^iAa thi) 
rights of iiacccasoni of tho apoailo*, without taking 
upon tbum»vlvc«( Iho apucitolic Hfi-i nnd they prot«»tvd 
agfiin^t th« extensive govembig pow«^r of the pope 
and the biahops. The Joachimitcr^ and a pert of the 
miiioritevf united the apomlyptie with the legal ele- 
ment. Hero al»o it wa?4 uot th^f r|Ui.«tion of a 8acra- 
inentAl in^tittitiun imd priivtthood, but only of the 
right of bionuchicnl divisionti of rank, of tbv Divine 
in%-imtiluru of the pojw aiid uf tbt^ udcltnuLslical guv 
emiug puwor, which wba denied lo the ChiircJi under 
the authority of the Franciscan theor}'. The hand- 
ing over of the whole Iej<a] sphere to tlie etute was 
with many in^T^ly an ««xpra*wion of their mntempt 
for thid Hpberu. The professors of Paris &ud their 
itatiotial -liberal coterie attackod the |iaeudo-Iaidorian 


■I l^rtt 




150 otrruHn or thb uisroor or dogma. 

Wkllt ABll 

aod Gregorian development of tbe ptipacy anil of Uie 
oovBtitution ai the rooif and yet they oaly intended 
primarily to paralyze the papal finance system and 
to bcftl Ujo injufy to the Church tbrough an epiaco- 
]^lInniKm, whirh, in vii^w of what the Chun^ 
iilmiijy vt-ftB OA a Roman power, must bo decig^ 
it»tvd uU^Laii. Wklif and Uasa — tha latter a 
p.>weiful agitator Ui the ^irit ol Wiclif but with- 
out tlieological iadepdndenoe— represeDt the ripest 
phase of tho mform iDOTemwte of the Middlo Agot : 
(I) They showiHl that tho cultusand eacTamontal 
prActicc« o%xirywh«re wore hmn]>onHi and vitiatoil 
by human tonote (indulgoncots c'mifcwioQA, nboolatc 
parduuiug poworuf thu pricUiii 7nun<hiCHtw irt/UIet- 
iuifiy saints, iim^^i^p roliiMronUiip, upo^hiU m^uisfv, 
they demanded pluinnevsy intolU^bSenees (languafce 
of thecoiintr>*)»^*l spiritiialit>' of won^ip; (2) They 
demauded a reform of the hierarchy and of the boou^ 
larized oioiidicaut onlomj tbe«o all, tbe pupe ut tho 
bend, must return toan apostolic ministry; the pope 
is only tbe finat Bervaot of Christy not bis reprwen- 
tative; all governing must eenso; (5) They, like 
Thomas, brought to tbe front the AugUAtiniau pre- 
doatination Church idea, yet vhilo Thomas in join- 
ing to it the empirical idi:^ diffponco of ovcTything 
moral uiily through the medium uf the Karmments, 
ibey, without robbing the ducminenta of their im* 
portanr^e, rai^nl to tbi> <<ontral placo thti idea that 
tbe empirical Chuixb mu»t bo ibe kingdom in which 


I ttu» law of Chi-iai governs. Th&y taught that tli& 
I law of Christ is th<» true nota et^tf^siae; thoroforo m 
accordance with Ibis (uiidameatal principle the right 
alfloof the pri€6tlioo<l and the manner of adminUtering 
the B&cramont« must l>edetdnnined. Wiclif tJiereby 
coiitostoil tho independent right of the clorgy to be 
n^pnwnttttivff?. of tin? Church and admiiiistr»t4)r8 of 
th^ fm>mi«^ of grac^' nml made it depoodcmt u{)on tho 
olwcrvirg of tho U'j: Chrtaii- '* Faith" -vnuM al»o 
[Hu^divlm'orln- Wiclifaml Huss. In tunttng with all 
Uioir might agaituAt tho hiorareby and uguinst tho 
objc^ctiv^i legid idea ot tho Chuivh bystom, they 
placed tho legal Church idea ia opposition to tha 
jufiicud. TJw '^JidfM i-arifniv /iirnnita*\ that ib, 
th<i ot>«crrtincc; of tho Invr, tdone givc« Ugitimncy to 
thv Church. Thus much tli«y did for tho in* 
wardiK*:^^ of the contomplatlou of tho Clmroh-'the 
hierarchical confopticn of tlio Church hud hUU in c^ 
position to their own an elenient of truth, though a 
perverted one: That God buildfi his Church upon 
earth by his grace in the mid^t of &in, and that boli- 
ne«w in a religious sense is no mark that can bo 
recognized by a legal standard (on the Church idea of 
Thomas and the Frre-Hefonnem, see (iottscluck i. 
d. Zt6chr. t KOeech, Bd, VIII), 

Uw of 


Tnio N0C11 




3> On the Uistortj of Eccl^^iasticai Scienee^ 

HIMoricB of phElaoDphy by Erdnunii. Obcrvrtg-Ilwuie, 
WimltlboEkd, fHOckl. Daot. Vm\f* Qb. DO. 3, M. We 
Sch^oiillk d. opdtAroa MJl. 3 Bdc^ 18HI ff. filCscUl, Pid«« 
itDp)icit4i. 1800, 

The great roviva! of science after the he^inniug of 
the Uth century was oocftsioned, (1) By the mi||rhty 
trimnph of the Church nml tba pajmry unrlor Inno* 
ooni HI., (2) By tho saltation of ]:>i4jty 8]n<x> St* 
Fraiici&,(3)By Uti*tiiilar^uii>iaaudeJuic1tuu'iiloftbv 
general cultare and by the ^ieicorety of the gcmuJtie 
Ari«totli> (contact with the Orient; tratmmJssioD of 
Greek philosophy through AratM and Jews; die 
supematuralistic Aviconna. ( 1037. the pantheistic 
Averrhoea, f 1108; M&imonides' influence upon 
Thonaaa ottd otbors). The tvo nevr great powers, 
the monJicant ordoraimd Arifttotlo, were obliged to 
secure their place in science by ligbting for ii; the 
latter corKgueretl, since it waa plain that ho bad ran* 
derod the beat service in opposition to an eccentric 
roaliani, which leadft to pAntheifun. A modertitAd 
realism now developed, which rc^cognixed the uni* 
verHsds **tn it", but kuevf how lo add them accunl* 
ing to need, either "aii/e", or "jytst rem*\ 

The new science like the older aought to ex* 
plain all thingn through reference to Qod; but this 
reference mcnnt tho wime as tlic 8iibmif8ion of fill 
knowloilgo to thw rtiithnrity of the Church, In a 
OOTiain aense mcu wvro in(>re fettered in the 13th 

nsvRr^piiRirp op doctbinr Or sin, etc. 4S3 

f century than formerly; for not only the old ilogma 
(aHiatiiJldei)* but tiie wliolo territory of ccclesias- 
ticitl iLctivity wa« C(»n>Qik'nHl abt^liUo antbority, luid 
the ptx^'SllI>positioD thiit ovcry authority in ttingle 
i|U«Mticni8 i» of i^iti&l weight witli thu rufio wtu» 
now 1ir«t fully i>xpro«^d. The tb<H)lo£]im8 of the 
meDdiofmt unlors jiifitifi(?<I " Boiootifionlly*' tlio wholo 
conatitutdon of the Church, with ite latest irj*titii- 
tions and doctrinee, upon tlie same plan© with \he 
"credo^* anil the'* intetligo^^ AnaolniluK) etrivtmto 
erect a rational Btructuro upon the foUDdntic>n of 
autbontattVQ revelation; with tbu later thtrologiuiis 
thejumljlinK of authorities in a moet unconcerned 
manner was a principle. Although they adhered to 
the theory that theology is a npecuiative science 
whidi enlminnteft in the vfgio f/ei, yet bo grent wiu; 
their confidonoo in the Church tiiat they contioually 
addt^ tu the sj>ei;ulative structure the tceetfi of her 
authority. Henoe ariginatatl the theory that there 
exist a natural and a revealed tbeolcgy; t^till they 
conceived these as being in olosost Iiarmony^ the one ^SaS. 
as tho ftiippleniont and rompteniAnt of tlie oth^^r; and 
llioy woro confident that the vrbolo wae tenable oven 
before die bar of raaHon. The abundance of the 
material to be mafitcred was unbounded, as well in 
regard to revelation (the whole Bible, the doctrine 
and practice of tlie Church), as in regard to reason 
(Aristotle). NevertbdcflB they adranned from the 
"S^Tjliinof** io n KyirtMTi ("ftiimmn^: That which 
tho Church n>t«inj» in life, the dominioa over the 


h»n(t« All 




of Qod, 

BvmDi4 of 

world, is abo U) be reflected in its tiieolo^'. The 
new dogmatism waa the dJal€Ctic-BysCertiatlGal treat- 
ment of e<x:Ic»iasticai dogma and of the acts of the 
Oburcli, for the purpose of d<^volf>piug tli^ $Ama into 
a ftiugle eystom comprebending ov«r>'tbin(r in the 
higb&tinoBm wortby of knowlrNJgo, mid of proving it, 
awl th«oof reodcringtwr^'iciviHo I" the C^uivh all the 
forcaH o( tho miad and ih^t wlioli^ knowlidge of the 
world- To IbU purpoeo, however, was tlicotber sub- 
jective ono unit^ of rising to Qod and rejoicing in bis 
prc«OELCo. But both purpu^cft novr coiticidtxl : K&owl* 
ddgio of tb9 Clitiro^ doc:trinm i» knowWge of Qod, 
for the Church ie tbo fn'OBont Christ* Thorem 
wore theno scbolavtic^ not scrvilo worker* for tbo 
Church— ^0 Iho rontrftry; CoDSCiou»ly tbey flougbt 
knowledge only for tho beneGt of their soul&t yet 
tbey breathed only within the Church* The strae- 
ture wliich they raised oollapaed, but their work in- 
deed was a pi<ogre6s in the history of ffCieiic^. 

What baa been aaid above, haa reference to the 
prffi-Scotiatic ticholaatioiaDi, abuve all lo Thocnaa. 
Hia'^aumma" ischar&cterized, (1) By the convictioii 
that religion and theology are essentially of a speeu* 
tatim (not practicJil) natare, that therefore thoy 
must Im aiY^iiirt>d by thinking, and that finally no 
Gontradictioii can orijte botw<ion roaBon and rovola- 
Uon; (2) By a firm adherence to the Auguatinian 
doctrine of God, of predestination, sin and grace 
(only upon the coucoptjon of God did the AruriotoHan 
philo^phy have on influLince ; Uie etrtct devatiou of 


tlie Holy Scriptures as tbe cmEy Bade revelation 
Tiwmajs niso acoept«i fr<im Auf^piAtiue); (3) By n 
ilooj>Iy p< iietratitt^ lotowledgo of Aiit^totJo and by on 
oxton^iva tuio ot lufl philobbopliy, qm for a^ Auguttiiu- 
ianidoi irould permit^ (4) By a bold judtiGcatioa of 
the higliest claims of the Church upon a ^oial 
thoory of tlie titato and a wonderfully carefU obser- 
TatioQ of ihio empirical toodoncm of tho papd sys* 
torn of Chuioh nod stjito. Tbo ^vo^ld-hi«torical 
importnnoa of Thomna oonMiftta in hiM uniting of 
AugfUjRtiiio and AriKU>th\ Am n |>u|>i] of Augw^tiiie 
be ti4 H »iwcu!ntivij Uiiukur, fuU vt rtiifwloncw nud yet 
in bim ore already found tliegvfmisof thodedtniction 
of the abaoluto tboology. For tbeology as a whole 
be Htill dou{(ht tomaintum tbeimiH«B8ionof abHolut^ 
Tolidity; ill detail arbitrary- and rdatiTe id^ofi al- 
ready took tb^ pinco of th^ nec«6eary, while be no 
longer deduced purely ratiooally tlto ariiculijid^i^ 
like Ansetni.* 

But tho Htrictly n^ceenry mtt abo not in evny 
leBpect serviceoblo to the Ohureh* Sbe demanded 

■YlwdtilliHflUiifiot lit* «iiTiiiu ftdvca aSltk lbs fundMBMU] Um of 
0>yl:l^rourTiGoO lo OoiL Tlia flzxt part 0>V iiuHM ) tiv«Uof 0<k1mk1 
Ibit Xtmm vl m\\ Uikiv* fruAi OiO, ilic anvfUd \tuJl, tvc. lat UH iiltmiit.) 
of CHMnJ iiwmllty: th» aiicraid put, tec U CI8lquiu«L) of vfi*cls] 

Q*?di tho tbifil yMV flikU mHMn<* waanotrtlt Wifaliti, <rf ttrtit^ thu^ae 
nmau^ABilMiAatotoicr. Tlnpr«eccdlBfflB««fr«vmtequMtioa Iftbr 
Uiif meLbod of nMUndiettom. JiUrM«iMwMchapMkapdlM tb»oomM 

fnn^nl iIh* jfovrrnlaK prlndpl^ lnthAl thr irlii>lr«>JMwi mutt b* lioml 
tipm Uw auUwrilf orvvvvbllon; 'uUtttr Miun frum elvfMHi fU^m ro- 

KVUrrtt n£ia>. ted ad M4»4/tolamliitii oJ^^iaa oFdi^ g«a« tr — h i n lri' '« Aw 
dMMihv Cum mm gniita ii«n loBot %atMm, «ij jMvjIehiC, ojMiff«l 






here Also tbat the iloal should be A deux mains^ 
Slie w*mkM! a lIiiHjlo(fy wlik'h |i*x>ro() tin* siH.vruIi*tiv« 
necessity of her Bj^t^'in ildJ uuo whieli taiijd^t 
blind suhmiffitoD, Thomfl*' lliflologv mIiwii* onulrl ruil 
Botisfy. With a11 it» occlcAicwticRl bcrtt it could tuA 
<]Lmy tht* fun dull LVtiUil Uiouglitf tliat Ouil mid lliv 
Soul, the Koul and Ood Mro exM^r^'Uiiug, From tbi# 
Aiigii>ftimnn'AnM>pagitu nttttude that "^socondary* 
mysticiBm" will alwa^m be dovcbped in which ibo 
individual endetiTOrs to go his own war. Wh^ro 
there i^ inwanl <xknviotion, thero ii» nlxo iDdgfraa-i 
den^. It vvas of bcnoJit to the Church th/it theology^ 
80OD took lUtotJiv-r turn, It givw t^kvplioid hi irgord 
^Sr*^ ^ *^ "general", tho^'iden", which fthoald bo the 
"sulMtanco". Under tbo continuous sUidy of Aris* 
totle cansalitf/ buc^ame ibe principal idea in place of 
immanence. The srti^nlific TW^nse grow irtmnger; 
details in thoir ooncr(>t« oxprewion g&ined in int«>reet ; 
Will ruled tho world, the will of Ood and tlie will 
of the individual, not an unintelligible substance, or 
BConstruct^Hl univorKai inUrllecl. Reaaon recogniz4M] 
the %ries of causalities and ended in the di*9C«roment 
of arbitrariness and more oontin^nci««. Duna 
Scotus, the mout jienotrating thinker of the Middle 
AgC0, markrt tliiK immense change; but it was firvt 
GonsuninmUxI sinw Occam- 

The consequence of thiA change was not however the 
pretest agatnat the Church dix^trine witli its absolate 
tenets, nor the attempt to try the^ by the principle 
upon which tbi«y were Ijased, but th/f mcTMurtn^^ 




Otwmx JLd- 

authoriti/ o/ thf* Church. At ber door was laul 
what ratio and ancloriUis once liatt unitedly 
bom©, not in an act of (t^^ipjur but m n Helf*e\iiient 
act of obedioncLv Soeiuiaaimn fir^t protostod, Pro- 
tebtantiam uxainiBed into Unj fouudultoiw uf tl»> 
doctrine— poBt-Trideiitine CaiJiolicism pursued tbe 
direction indicator] further: lathis way, whih 7iom' 
iualism began to rule, the gnmnd tias soon uroa 
for the later trinitariQn devdopnient of doc- 

Nomiualistn hmt ^roat ndvnnbi^^: It began to ?°*™*JJ^ 
hee de^u-lv Huii reUj^ion \h m*mfth\ng vl>f« than 
knowledge and philosophy, while Thomas wuts want- 
ing in clmrne««; it know tho impurtiLnce of the 
coacret4» in opposition to the hdlowiiefls of the ab- 
Ktnwt (laying the fotindiition for a now jwychology) ; 
it rocognizod thir vn\], Inid stroes npon this property 
ako in Ood, strongly ompha&iz<^ the per&onali^ of 
God and thereby 6r«t put an end to the Neo- Platonic 
thcosopby which mixed up God and the world; it 
grasped the positiTenefl8 of historical religion more 
firmly, — bat it forfeited, t^^ether with confidence 
in an abftoluto knowledge, abo eonfidence in the 
majea^ of the moral law and thereby emptied tba 
coneeption of God and exposed him to arbitrarineflSf 
including in the "positive", to which it submitted, 
the Church witb ib« whole apparatus;— the eommands 

■ of the reli^oua and mord law are arhitntry, but 

■ the conimanda of the Cbnrch are absolute. It twtab- 
I liidied in dt^matic9 the sovereign right cf camiitt- 




III lei 14 


th« eunp 



try, olre^uty anticipated by the discipline of pea- 
anco not only* but idm by the dial^tioa of the 
Tliomist«: Ever>ibing in revelation tlependa upon 
tile Divine will which in arhitmry; therefom intel- 
lect is flblo to prove at most only tbe ** conveniens" 
of tluDgA ordainod. In bo fat bowovor as it has ita 
own knowloil^ tboro oxi^^lii n doitblc truths the r&- 
ligioim and tbe natural; to tbe former c«ie submita 
and in thJa very submisaion consists the tnerii i4 
tb« faitli. In greater me&Hure (not recoilintj: eveu 
at tbfi frivaloufl) nominaltftm acbnonOM^od tho fluffi* 
cicaicy of the ^Jidfa impJicita"; true* it hen> found 
an ejcampte ia tbe pupal decretala. Had not Inno- 
cent IV. erpre^&ly taught that tt was sufficient for 
the laity to believe in a re(]uiting God, as for the 
teat to submit to the Church doctrine? Absurdity 
and authority now became the stamp of religious 
tmtli. While freeing; tbemselvi^ from tbe load of 
speculative monstrosities and the deceptivo ''neoee- 
fiity of tliinldng", men took upon theini^lveB the 
dreadful load of a faith tlio content of which they 
themHolvcii <lec]ared to be arbitrary and opaque, and 
whidi they tJioreforc were able to wear only as a 

Oloauly allied with this development was another, 
th« f;^aduul c&HliufC oH oi Atigu»tmianiftui and tbo 
reinstatement of Boman moraiism, now confirmed 
by Aristotle. The weight of guilt and the power of 
graoo became relative ma^titudu!^. From Ari»totIe 
tb^ learned iluit man by hi« tretxioin lUiuidfl imle- 








pendent before OoJ, and sino^ they bad cast off 
Au^stine'ft doctrine concerning the *' firet and last 
thinga", they ftlso. under oorer of his words, 
etrippcd off hiri doctrini> of gra«o. ETerything in 
ivligi<ui and «tliica becaaie only probable, redemp- 
tion itaelf through Christ was placed among the rootft 
UDoertain cate^orio^. The funclamf^tal prittciplesof 
anftivenal n:4igiout« and moral diplomacy were ap- 
plied to objectivorolisrionaiid tosubjoctive reli^ous- 
neuL The holtneaa of Qod vrtu extttiguisLhed : Ue is ^|Jf*°R{^ 
sot entirety ttcrven^ not entirely holy. Fidth need 
not be a full flurretider, [lenance not i)erfe<rt tvi>eut- 
ance, love not perfect love. Everywhere a "certain 
standard" (Aristotle) is stdSdeiit and whatever U 
wanting is supplied by thesacrameDt^and by adher- 
ence (o the Church; for the rvligicm of n^velation 
\rtiA given to inaVe thu way to h^savvn ojwy, luid tho 
Church ^ilono i» aMc t<t announce what "standard*' 
and what accidental merits will satisfy Qod. This 
19 the " Aristoteiionism" or the *' reasoning'* of the 
nominalistic »c)iola8tics which Luther hated and 
which the Josuits iu tlie po«t-TnJentine timed fully 
introduced into tlie Chnn^h, 

At the end of thcr Uiddlo Agee, and ov&a in the 
14th n-uttir^', Ui'm tiomimdisoi, vrbi^-h r4Jitder>» ruljg- 
ion void, called forth groAt rcfMrtiourk yet notwlLh- 
standing it remained in rcgne at the unirersities. 
Not only the tbeologiana of the Dominican <H<deT 
1 contradict^ it again and again, but ontnide of the 
I ord^ also an Augustinian reaction broko foirtb in 



4Si> dutltnf:^ of me iu^torv or dogma. 

BranlwanJina, Widiff, Huk*, Wesel, Weflsel wid 
others. Thoy ittood up against Polaiiriiuiisiu, al- 
though thdv Allowed vido pUy U> the socranwiits, 

IJjU^^JJ^ tlio^^^'r'jriffip/tVi/aimd CliUTchautiiority. A ptmer 
fill filly ngninvt aominaliran, Trbicb by it« hollow 
fonnalEstic AtuI dia]4>etic principles In U)o 19th cen- 
tury tnndo it^ir ontright (Ec«pjcablc, wi^b gniuod by 
fin AugiLstiniiui rt-atclion in fu^^cr of Plato wbo at 
that tim^ yxBs being brought to li^ht again. A new 
spirit «nianAto(I inwn liini and frrjin thf» tvuli^ocvvered 
antiquity: It wjugbt knawlcnlgo from tlio tiving^ 
o,m\ n-ncb^-<l i>ut tuwnnl tUoeto KUwtLt which i^et the 
fDclix-iduiil frco and elevate bJin abovo the commoD 
Vforld- Through violwit iliftlurbanow the new spirit 
aiincmno(?d itiKilf and in tho beginning it seemed to 
thraaten Christianity with pagammu; yet tbose who 

rJicthniMor n^pre«4i>nt(xl tho rgnnitwuioo moet briniantly (Nkb- 
EpumaK oiofl of Eu8, KmemuH and othcm) only wiabod to 
do away with tnupirittiul i^clwiiuiticiiftn ami its 
empty gcicucOr but uot roifitly to joopardizo the Church 
and the do|^a. The ro^turdd ccmfiJeiico in the reo 
ognizable unity o( all things^ tho bold soaring of the 
fantasy inspired by antiquity aiid the dificoveiy of 
new worlds, ihese founded the new science. Nomin- 
aliatic licieuce did not become by purification au 
exact ecienee, bat a new spirit moved among tbo 
withered foliage of Bicholasticinm, and gained coQfi-^ 
itence anil strength b.) extract tlie aecreta from nat- 
ure ftIso» as well as from the vivid speculations cl 
Pbito which in«pir« tho whole nian, and from iot^r* 


courso with the tiring. But Uteoiogrj did not at Orst 
profit by it It was simply piwhtnl oMidc. Tho ifJI^lSStt 
Christian humani^tfi alao were uo thcologianis but AwMUa.' 
only learned patriotic adiolara with Platonic-Fran- 
ciscan tdoola, — at boBt only AuguBtiniiuu. No ooe 
really liad auy lou^- atiy cuuOdt^uce iu eccleuasll' 
cal doctrine, but through » nense for tb^ original 
toacbiBg, which tho renai^i^uce had awakened, a 
now theology was prcixucd. 

4, The Reminting of DogmaticJi into Scholastics^ 

In Uio scMaiaticUm of Uw nth century the Ooci- ^^^^ 
dontal Cfaurch obtained a bomogomoua^ sj'gtematic ^'SS^ 
rcprofientation of Oh faith. Tho pre-sappositiona 
wenf« (I) Tho Holy Scnpturoa and tho ioffxxBiB of tho 
coiincik, (2) August! niainum, {3) Tho dm'elopnwnt 
of eodosiattticism hidco tho 9tb century. (4) The 
ArifitotoliAu philosophy. Individual \AioB in the 
hurcafior i?4 tftill XhijftniH theot<i{;iae^ bat iu iu> far as 
tliu t^tcranKjuta, which ecrvo ihi^ purpuso, rosture tho 
kingdom of Chriist upon earth ubo as a power of love 
(already dinco Aagutttine), a second aim was intro- 
duced into theology : It ia not only food for the soiil 
but al&o eccicfiia-ftticiem. But tho differcnco bo- 
twe<*n tlicflo tWQ idoos has oerer been adjusted iu 
Catholicism. In them grace and inerii are the two 
oentree of the parabola of the niedj;sval conoeptJOD 
of Christianity. 

Only thi^ old artiruli Jidei were dogmas in a iftrid 

493 ovTUXKs OP rne msTORT or dooica* 

P^y^',^ ficnfie; but sine© %be tranBubtitantiutton waft coosid- 
erad as ooELf>erro«l togotber with tho incnniMtion, tbe 



vrholo siicramc4tt4i) syfltcm vtoa id rctditjr raiftcd to 
the height of on ubBoluto doarine erf &utb. Tbe 
boumliu'y bottrora dogma and theological prdcq>t 
wus eotircly uncertain in tletails. No one ooQld any 
longer state what the Church really did teach, and 
the lAttPr itaelf alwaya took care to map oot the 
province of the necoaBary faith. 

The task of Bcholaoticisni was a triple oiho: (t) 
To treat the old artindi Jidei Bcientifiodly and to 
place them within the line drawn about the sacra- 
ments and tbe merits; (2) To give a form to the doo- 
triiw of Iho »acramcnt«, (3) To adjust the differeoco 
between principlopt of occlesiastioal aotioo and Aa- 
gustiuianittm. ThcAe taaks it carried out in a mag- 
nificent nmtmer, yot in doing so ll soon found Itself 
at variance witli pioty, ^vhich could no longer find 
its true expression (Augustinian reactfoca) in tho 
olBclal tbeolo^* (the nominaltstic) and therefore 
piiKhfid it futide. 

A. The Working Ovee op the Traditional 




1. In tho beginning tho AugiBtinian-Aroopagito 
conception of God governed the theology of tho Mid- 
dle Agee (conception of tbe necessary going forth of 
tbe one Beings the Substance det^nnining every- 
thing; the virtual exietonoe of God in the world; 






Laji aid 
lU) Oaa- 

outolo^oal proof of Ans^^); Init later Iho dnnger 
Ercim pfLiitUoij^n wiLt felt (AtnnJriHi of Bmui, 0«vicl 
of Dmuut^i), Ttiomaj^ oudonvort^ to uuito tho 
Augustirniui anJ tlws Arirttotcrlinn concOfrtioii of Qod : ^"^^555 
Qoil js aljsoltito Bubfltaacc, Hdr-coti8cioii3 tlunkhig:, 
actMpttrusj h» is differont from the world (oosmo' 
logical proof). Yet Tbomoa oIbo fttill liad tbo most 
lirelj interest in emphasizing the ab«o1u1o 8uf- 
fi<Honryjui<l n<yv*utity of Gv^l (in GtwlV «^v^l iv^rwotuil 
end tbc ^vorld ia included) \ for only tbo Dci'ot?uuy 
cun bo n:coguixL^1 ^itb ccrUimtjr « bliN3 huwuvor 
doponds xii>cii\ certain kno^-liHlgo. Yet Dudh con- 
tested tho ooiicoptiou of a nec^e^ur^' outgoing Being, 
OTortbrow all proofa uf Goil, cicm(Hl abo that tbo 
divine Will could he mvtufsnnxl ba' our ethical ^ modea 
of thoaght^j ontl <s>iiorivr*l of God m*>i^ly su; n Fre»- 
Will with tmfatboTiKibW motives, t.c- without th«ao 
(arbitmrLnu<a)> Occimi t|mi!ftioiJi*d«WthotK>ucept]an 
of the primum jnovena immobile luid pronouni^d 
monotheifim only probabilior than pclyth^sm. Tho 
contradiction Iwtwc^m Thomi«t» and ScotUta is 
found in their differmt conceptions of the relation 
of ntaxL to Ood. The former looked upon tbie 
as dependence and roco^ised in tho good tbo 
essence of God (God wills a thing becainw it is 
good); tbfl ktt^r soporat^ God and the civature, 
conceived tho latter m independent but in duty 
bound to tho Divine commonrfA which originate in 
tlio pl^isun* *yf God (a thing i« gfxxl bocauKO God 
wiLU it)< Yonder prcdcvttinntioDr \i*>w arbitrariDCW. 




of HuHUA 

Tboology inclwHl uttered the sentence "pater in jHio 
revekttus" with tlie lip^, but heeded it not, 

2, Tlio construction of the doctrine of the trinity 
belonged entirely t^^ ^ientiGc labor, after tritbeiAtio 
(BoMoeUin) and modaliatic (AbeUrd) aitempu had 
boon ropnldcd. Thowism naci^saarity retaiood £Ui 
inuliDiUiun to moilulilim (eveii tbe Lcmburd wus ac- 
cused of miU^tantiaUzing tbe divtna essentia and 
hence oi "quatemity^), while the Scotistic sduxJ 
kept the Peisonfi sliarply separated. In tlie subtile 
raeeariTfaea the trinity booanie a 8ch<x>l problaui. 
The treatment of it proved that the laith of tho 
Occident did not live in thie trauamitted doctrine. 

3. With Tbomas are still found remnante of tlie 
pantheistic way nf thiDking (creation aa actualiTa* 
tion of the Divine ideaK^- everything ivhich ia exists 
oiily participaiioHe dei; diviua bonHas est fini^ 
rerujn omtttum, fchorofore not an imh^tJi^ndejit aim 
in tiie werld); yet he by introducing iho Arieto- 
leUiui iilt?a had oti^vtidy eeeentiaily t-omplotetl the tte|^ 
arati^n of Qi:»d fn^in the craaturc, and he ondeATored 
to restore the pare iden of creation. TheoODtmsts 
were rctlocted in Uie contest about the bcfcii^ning of 
the world. In tlw Scotifttic «cbool Ood'x own pur- 
pose and that of the crcntiiK*^ were sharply iiepanitod. 
The innumomblo host of questions ooncemiDg the 
government of the world, the theodicy, elc., which 
BcholR^ticinm again propounded, beloDg» to the his- 
tory of theology. Thomad aeaumed tluit God dinx^ 
all things " imni^iat^' and also effects the cor- 


■ Tuptione^ rerum "qnasi per accidens" (Origen, 

■ AugUfitine) ; the Scotista would ackcowledgie onlj an 
indirect direction and contested the Neo-Platoaic 
doctrine oC a mahwi in the intereet of Qoi and of 
the independence of man. 

■4. Together with a "nota" a^inst the "nihil- 
ism" of th€ Lomliard who denied that God through 
the incarnation has beoomo aomethlng, the doctrine 
of t)ie two natures was transmitted to the ^reat 
sidiolastiai. The conception of John Danuu^enuB 
wiut tlio predcribed one; but tho hypofltatiral union 
wjut treatedas a ficfaool problom. The ThontifttA oon- 
ci^ivfd the human as paasive and accidental and 
really continued in the monophyriitic ooaceptlOD. 
Dun8 endeavored to save the hunumitf of Christ, 
to place certain limits to the human knowledge of 
Chri&tnttd to attribute exielencealsoto thv huniuu in- 
dividual natnreof Chnnt. Rtill within thi»t U^Tvif^cay 
Thomituu remained victorious. Practicnlly indood 
irR^ii iiuidc UH<T of llie CliriHtoIo|$ical 0<>^iia uid^ lu 
the dogma of tlieeucbaH^ and the latent echoliiaii- 
cism explained the same as neocesaiy and rc«iMntLlil6 
(Occam.) (God might ahu> have uBsumed the mttura 
asinina and etill havo boon able to save ua). The 
doctrine of the work of Christ did not have its root 
in the doctrine of the two naturcW', biit in the thought 
of the merit of the siolfMs uulii Jc»4iu, whe^e life had 
a divine value. {Vhrislnspa^mi^eMAecundevicar- 
nent). The idea of the satiti/aclio (Halesius, AI- 

bertus) wa£ ahso brought up again. Thomas treated 

lion of 


duin Atv 



it, but ojcplained the roclemptioQ through tbo death of 
Chriflt itt U-'iii^ ftiinplj- th^ uioflt /itfingway. Bu- 
cause in it is repreoonted the sum of all imaginary 
Buffering, thi8 death, which brings befaro our mind 
the love of God, beomes an oxnmple for ua, recalls us 
from Minntid awalci?ti8nfta motivoour lovoio return. 
Alongititlo ttto »HbJ4Jcihe Tboouu oImo 6inpha«u«d 
tho objective: If Qml hail nsdoemcd tia 9oJa voiun- 
htte, £mj woulfl not have be«i able to gain ho mu<^ 
for us; CliriBl'H death hnn obtained for us not only 
froodom from guilty but also tlte gratia justijic<tna 
and the gloria beatitndinis^ Moroovdr all poeaiUft 
points of view wore qtioh^l, froin which the death of 
Christ mwylx) rognrdcMl. An ^atis/actioii iBmtpcr- 
abuttdun^t i^inco an regards lUl :^ati»fttctiott the rule 
holds good, that the offended one lovcd tho gift 
tendorod bj' himself uioro than tie liatt^ tho ofFcncc 
[sacrijktum accepiissimum). Th\» aj^reatly cor- 
rect and worthy idm becomo falal; it i^ pbtin that 
Thomas alao misjudges tho .'iufffriyig o/puntMhtnent 
and vrith it tho full gravity of ain. In tho doctrine 
regarding merit the r^Ity (not the pu»»ibiiity only) 
of our reconciiiation through tho death of Christ 
waa to be expressed. Setting asido the dodrinc of 
the two uatureB the idea of Anselm was further car- 
ried «ut, that tlie merit gained through the voluntary 
Buffering deeeende from the head to the memb«rH: 
"capttt H membt'tt aunt quasi una persona mfjsUca^ 
ei idno sati^fmtio Vhriati ad ommrs FlDELEiS 
pertinet, sicut ad sua jfie^i^ra". But the Idoa o( 



^i||^ 1h Instantly replaced by that r>f lore: "Jidf9y 
jhpr qtiam a peccato tHundarnurj non est Jid&t in* 
fomnSy quae protest esseetiam cumpeccato^ sed 
est fides formala per cariMem"^ Thomas wavorvd 
iMtween Om hypnt1i€^tioiU and tho n^K^^f^Hniy. Iietwo^n 
tboobjoctivo (pc«5fliljlc) And mibjoctivc (ro-al), bctwc*:in 
the rational aoi irmtioiiHl rodcmptiua. I>ims drew 
theconaoquenceK ol thofiatififactign theorj'in tracing 
eTer}-thiiig back to tho arbitrary *' acc^piatio** of God. 
The arbitmiy estimation of tlie Receiver gives the 
value to the aatisfactiotir an it also done determines 
the extent of tho offence. The death of Cbnet was 
of aa mach value a« Ood allowed It to be; at any 
rut« tho idea gf "inihiite" ia to be repudiated; for 
neither the sin nor the death of a finite man can have 
infinite weight; besides an infinite merit iii wholly 
unnecesHary, since the sovfu^ign will of God decreet 
what i» good ajKt tnoritonoua in hie Right. Thoro* 
fore a j>»nf5 /fomo would also have been able to ro- 
dc«m us; for there waa needed only a first impuhtef 
tho rest in any event the self-sufficient man must 
accomplish. DunH indeed endeavored to ahow also 
that the death of Christ was "appropriate'*; but 
this point was no longer of real importance: OiHst 
died, because God so willed it. Everjihing "n©««* 
Bary'* and "infinite", which if* hvm only an exprra- 
aion for the DMno, wum cleared away. The prt»dt^- 
tinating arbitrarfneftft of Qod and justitioation by 
works ruhnl dogmatics. Duns in tmtli had already 
destroyed the doctrine of redemption and annulled 


llfjn Arfil. 

tnry KtJL 

Of Ood. 

Uob bj 


tbe Divinity of Chri^ Only Uie autkority of Uio 
Church kept up iiA raivdiiyi 8liouI(l Ujo former fail, 
Sociniani^rn vcouM W cKtablUliod- Ackinjwl<'<ljfiiig 
thisnuthcrity nomiiiuliatio thoologuuui fi4lvitiiix<d in 
tboir dialuctios to tbo frivolous aod btu^plic-itiuuK, 
Bovreror, in tfae 15th century thcro nAppeored In 
GonDection wit]i AugufitiniuniKQi u tnorc serious ooa- 
ceptioQ in fJer»on, Wos^kJ, even in Biel and otlieiB, 
and the Bomflrdine tipw of the suffering ClinHt wae 
Dev^ Io0t during the Middlo Ages. 

B. Thk Scholastic Doctrin~b op thb Sacra* 

IlAhit. L, V, iL Sftcviimiuitea, IflCU- 

The acbolafitio uncertainties cud liberties tnurhing 
tUo doctrine of the work of Christ nro cxplninud k^' 
the ot^rUiinty with wbich BchoUi»tic:iem r^gardod tlio 
bort«titof ftalvatioiilntJieBacranieutBiuia prwentone^ 
Faith find theology lived in (he sacraments. The 
Augufitiniaji doctrino was hero developed materially 
and formally ; thi^ " verhum" Imwever was evumore 
disregurdod in favor of tho ** sacmm&nlum^* *y for 
since hy the Bide of the uwakening of faith and love 
as meauR of grace the old deflniiion still rotained 
it» vaIn<M " ^mtia nihil e^'if aliud quam participata 
simililndo divitme NATtJRAF/, no other form 
of gnuTo could really ho thought of than the niagic- 
eacramental form. 

Tho doctrino of tho sacramonts wnd for a lon^ timo 


developed under the <^-mbarnk*dmonU tliftt Ihotc was i^u^raWo/ 
noUiing Hettl«<il rognnljti^ Uia immticr of tbo wacrti- '^fSSlS,"' 
m^nta. Bc^ido^ Impli^ai mid thi^ouclwriMi th<Mx.> \TOra 
uu mdefiiiiUf uuuiWr ot huly act« (coui|>»ru i^v^u Ber- 
nard). Abelard and Hugo St> VicUff laid 8lPeit* upoa 
confiTmAtion, extreme unctiou and marriage (fivo m 
numlicr], Robert PuIIuk upon coafirmutioti, con- 
feffiiou And nrdinalitPTi. Out of h comhinntion par* 
ImpA in iho conU'v^ vitli tlio CAiliMrigtH oHginntod 
tho nniabcr seven (Roland's book oft«nct«), which 
the Lombard brought forward us tin "opinion". 
Evon at ilio cotmo^ile of 117t) and 1215 Uio number 
was not fiottlod. Till? groat tdchola^ticfl first brought 
the same to honorable rcco^ition and at Florence. ^SJS^l***' 
1439, thpr^ tor>V place A dorid^ eccle«ia«HoAl decia- J^ jjj^ 
ration (Eugene IV., Uiil ^rw//o/<t d«o). However, 
1% full equalizing of tlio ncvun luicraiuonts was not 
intended (baptism and e»pocially the ouchaiist re- 
mained promiuent). The **cvnmni^ns" ofthennm- 
btT ftevon and tho organism of the Bacramente, en- 
riching th& whole life of the individual and of the 
Cburoh, wdre explained in detail. Indeec! tbe veiy 
cr<otion of theae fievon sacramontd was a master- 
pkco of a perhaps unconfidous potiiicx. 

Hugo began the technical treatment of the doc- 
trine, retaining the Augustinian distinction between 
sacramt^nfum and res sacrnmrnti and the strong 
omphasin upon Ui^ phyitioo-spiritual gift, which reatl^ 
is inciudM. Following him, the Lombard (IV, 1. 
B.) defined: *^ Sacram^rUum pro2»^ie dicitur, guod 




ita siifHHm est ynUiue ihri et invinibiti^ [^roftoa 
fonruij ut imagitietfx ipsiut gerat H can:ta exiaiat, 
Hon ergo significtxtidi tant^tn gf^atia sacramenfa 
insfHuta ^mnt, sed etiam sanctificandi^ {ix^Siffnifi- 
candi gratia thd Old TtMtamout ordiiiaaocs w«re hit 
u[>)n). Stitl bo did not fiay that th» eacTAnwntA con-> 
taiu tbc ^ace (Ilugo), but that tbeymakc it cilicient; 
be also demanded only a nignnm asa fouudution, not 

itcai» like Hugo a r^rpora/fl etementum, Thomas also 
moderatod the "coutinf^nt " of Hugo, be even went 
further : God indeed does not work " adhibiUs sac- 
ramenUa" (Bernard), tl»ey confer gnioe only *'per 
aiiquem modutti", God hiintielf conft^rs it; the 
»acnuui)til0 ftro <xi«OTie iH^lrafiwnUiie^t they traua- 
mit the effect a prima movente. They are also 
causa 0t aigna; thus the phraso " effciunt quod figu" 
rant " mufit bo understood. Still there id contained 
in th*> »;n4Tramenta a f^irhv* nri indtirendum sacrU' 
menialern effedum. Later on the rolation l>etwxj«n 
tho sacram^ntd and grace was entirely relaxed* 
Thti latter only ftccoinpfluios the fanner, for the mere 
arbitrarincflB of Qod combined them (Duns) by rir- 
tuc of a ''*pactuvi cum tcclesia mitnm". Thus the 

NomituitH- nominaIij4tic L'onception appears tesB maj^cal and it 
prflpnrt»d the w^y by its protest agaJn^ the *'conti' 
itcnl^' for the anorameatal doctrine of tbo foronoiDOTe 
of the Befonnatiauaud of ^Mingli. Buttbiachange 
did not originate in the interest of the "word" and 
faith, but, as remarked, in the peculiar conception of 
God. The official doctrine remained aa in Thomas, 


Ww f or 




I.e. rotunicil to tlw ^jif/urani^ coniincnt el confer- 
unV (Fl^rtntiiio council). It tbc^mby hol(b« ^ixxl tlint 
thti Bocrfimi^ilfl, differiDg from tboso of the Old Teeta- 
meat in which foiitfa {opus operandi) was neoeaeaiy, 
wortc *'ex opere opevato" (thus already the Lom- 
bard) ; that is, thd effect tlowA from the adminiAtra- 
tion Ba such. Tho attempt of tho Scotiste to place 
the Bflcnuueutfl of tho Old Tebtaoieat lju an equality 
with these of the New waa repudiated. 

In detail, the following points of the Tlwmifttic S^^St 
doctrine are ntill especially important: (I) in gei^ere 
tlie fvicmmftni< am alt<)^«tlier noowsary to HJilvation, 
in specie this in id the tctriuto^t 6eniM> valitl <m\y of 
baptiem (otherwiuo the nila hold^i good; **ncH de- 
feriue Red contemptiLt tlanmat"), (2) In genere tht 
sacraments mu^t have a three-fold elfoct, a signiti- 
cant {9acra7nentttm)y a preparative {^aeramenium 
et res), and a redempiivo [res sacram^ntti ; in specie, 
howAver, tlu^pntpArAtivenffM^t, thf* rhararier^ cAn be 
proirod only {□ kaptiKm, cHinfimiation and tliooriio. 
Through Ihtwu the "* ciiaractcr of Ohritft*', luicapcu'ily 
for tlie rec*piio et iraditio cuUa^ rfci, ie implanted 
in the potency of tho soul indetebiliter^ and is there- 
fore not capable of ropotition (etampiDg it, as it 
n-ere); (^) In tho definite dJBCasdon of the qoestjon, rorviCiMi 
'^quid sit merarnentnm", it waa detennined that 
the eamo i^ not only a holy but alao a sanctifying 
sign; morwver tliat the cause of sanctitlcation is 
tbe suffering of Christ, the form consiitting in the 
communicated grace and virtues, and ihe aim being 



i72 ouTLirccs or tur iiistort op i>ooitA. 


Mon of 

otemal Ufo. The BacmftMHit nitiet alwA^rs be a t*«a 
settsibitisa deo deienHinata (materia] of the aacra- 
inent)» and it is * very becoming", that " worda'' also 
go with it, ""quibus r-erfta incarnaio qitodammodo 
con/ormantur'\ Tb&ie ves'bu a den df^lerminata 
(form of sacrament) muiit be Eitrictly obflervetl, ac 
nnintAntional tajisus linguae ev«n doee iHkt allow tho 
Baoramefit to becomo porfoct ; of course it is roDdorod 
void aa aoou as one does not Inteud to do what the 
Cburch doeei; (4) Tho necessity of tbe sacnuncmta 
is proved by "quodammodo applicaiit pwisii^tiem 
Christi homtnibuif"^ in bo far as they *'Oimgma 
gratia^. prafi-wntialiUr d^mmvttraiidae imnt"; (5) 
By tbueffoct (cluiractvr oud gratia) it Ik i&rguod that 
in tlie sacrament to tbe g^Demt gratia virtufem et 
ad con^equetfduvi xacrameiiti fin€m"\ tliat as well 
in verbis as in rebiis Ltiore is contained on instrU' 
^entalu*i rtrfiw ad ijtduccmdam grattam. By de- 
termining th(t retlntionnbiplM'tWii^TiKRrniTnentAl grace 
anil iLopassio Christi it la plainly ditfccrmblc that 
theChtholio doctrine of tln> EijbcraniontGft i» notliitig 
else than a doubling of Uio salvAtJon tJirough Christ. 
Since they concoivcd grace physimlly^ yet vore un- 
able to join ibid physical grace directly to the death 
of Christ, i.e. deduc4f it from the latter, another in- 
struin^ntuni separatum (thosacrAments), io^uldition 
to ibo instrunicnium conjunct rim (Jeeua), bad still 
to bo ascribed to God the Redeemer. But if om- can 
obtain uuch an underHtanding of the life and death 




of ChriAt, timt it of itself appears us grueii aiul «&c- 
rUDcitt, tJioii the doubling ih uselcnu uuil harmful ; (C) 
By detennming the cau^a Micramentorum it follows 
that Oocl is tii*> Author, but the prieet, as minister, 
the "cauitti in^tramcnfaUa^' . EvcTything which is 
(/e necessitate 8fu:ramenti (therefore not the pr^Lyern 
of the pripstfl, etc) must have bwm inatituled by 
Chrieit himself (appeal to tradition, while Hugo and 
the Lonilxiril Mill deduced some BacrameDt«( from tho 
apostles ; with flonie this latter continued until tlje I fith 
LiMntury; the apostW cannot have been institutore9 
^acfamenti in the strict aei;floof the wonlj even to 
ChrJat aa man wbh due only itif& poicsta.s ministerii 
princtpattJt ifeit exc^ientiae; he v^orks meritorie et 
efficienter and could have transferred this extraordi*- 
nary poteMas ministfrii, which however he did 
not do) ; bad priesla alfto mui validly mlminiAt<*r tho 
eacnunenta; they need to havo tho inleiUio only. Dot 
iheJi<Us; but they uiciirauiurtaleiu. EveuhervUc» 
can transmit the sacramentum, but not the rea SQO 

Theae doctrines of ThomaB are lackiuf? in duo t^ ona 
gord for faith and |ias» lightly over the qiieetiou ro- i**^»^ 
parding tho ootiditionB of tho saMarff reeopticvi. 
With the nomiitalUt« this queetion, together with thftt 
of the relatioik of graeea]idaacrament(8et^alKjvo) imd 
that of tho miaie443r, became most important in the 
I of each separate sacranai^t* and they came to the 
deot^ion to allow the factor of merit to encroach tip- 
OH thai of the sacratnentji and of grace^ at the flame 

474 0CTUXB8 or TllE iriATOBY OK DOOUA. 

time, however, tb«y conceived of the conditiooa of tbo 
morit in a ]ooe«r way and emphasised more strongly 
the opu^ op<^ratnm. On the whole they dissolved 
the whole of Thomism. Tbey deeired here abo to 
apprehend the dortriDe more spiritually anil ethically ; 
in truth tbey foil into a disgraceful casuistry and 
faVfinvl jn^titioAtioj) by worfes snd likewiiielheinB^c 
of tho sacmmeata. That eome disposilion was noo- 
oa«4iry to a natfitary rece|>tion all ai«umed, but the 
quoetion wai« wherein it consisted and what value 
it bLouM have. Some saw in it no positive oondi- 
tioninK of gacr&mcntal grace, but merely a conditio 
sinequn non; Uioydid not think of it an worthinr^^ 
and, tlK>r^fori:>, doclurod roundlj' that th<f !AacnktiiL*ntM 
wore cffectiTe only «x opere operato (tho dinjxi&ittoti 
la Dcceftsary, but haa no causal importance). Others 
— Uioy wore not numerous— declarexl that tho aacra- 
men(fi can procure grace only when inward repent- 
ance and fftith cxiftt; these, however, aro caused 
by God ii» intfiriores fnofuA^ ao that no jiistificatJaD 
ex opere operante can be asaumed; the Bacramonta 
only aciiouuce the inward ^vork of Ood (preparing 
the way for the Rc^formation point of view). OtheiB 
etill, who gained tho upper hand, taught that r&> 
dconptivo groco is a product of the sacraments and of 
penitent faith, 90 that the aaorament it«oU onlyolo- 
vatos abov© the dtiath-point, in order to oo^operato at 
once with tho inner disposition. Hero tho qucotiou 
first became important, what then the ditfpoefition 
should be (repentance and faith), in order to allow 


iho sacromont to liavo ite full f^oct> First of all 
thffy ftiidw^r^d with Augm^tine, tlmt tlie r«coiTf>r 
must not " obiccm contrarictc cotjUftiiouifi "ppo- 
nere^. TlwnjfnMn tbu ^Athsi tLoulogiuns hiul infiTn^il 
that a bonus motm interior mmXvx\iA\ indeed tho/ 
also conceived this already ae a merit; for a mini- 
mum of merit (against Au^stine) certainly alwaya 
mtist exist, if grace la to be traparleJ. Diuik and 
biB pupila hon'over taught — a vicious corruption of a 
correct i<1«A — that the gloiy cf the Ne^v Teetamciit 
$ttcnnui^t» cxjD>;]sti^ in not nxiuiring, like the earlier, 
a bonus Vioius fu a pre-fciipposition, but ruther only 
the absence of a motun contmrius mal^i^ (contempt 
of the 8acrament6, poBitive unbelief). Without the 
■ sacnunents grace can be effective only ^here tlier» 
exists 9ome wortbineed ; aacramontfi] grace, hovrevert 
is also effective where there ia (abuta ratta (as if 
such a thiBg exi»^tfil); yonder is a fn^ritum de con- 
gnio requisite, hero *'Mfufn Tequirifur opUA ext&- 
rita cura uviotione itUeriorin impedimenli'\ But 
where this appears mere obedient eubmisHion to the 
consummation of the sacrament becomes for the re- 
ceiver a nwritum de congruo^ and theremlh the 
process of salvation begins, which, while the sacra- 
mental collations incroasCf can finally be linished 
without tlie gtibjodd ever overat^ping the limits of 
the meritmn de congruo, ibM ii«, of a oortain merit 
whioh may Aii*it without rntl iTiner faith and love. 
Sacramcoital grace tnLosformA ex vpcrc optrrato iha 
atiritio into contritto and tbervbj fumiflbett a 



476 orpLCiEa ov thb niflToRr of dooiia. 

niipplocnent to Uie incc^mi^ete merits* rendering thom 
complete* Upao the steps of inner emr>taons^ wliicli 
are conslauitlv snpplemcmt^d by tlie sacrameiitfi imfl 
are wholly vaiOf even trrcligioua (fear <rf puDJali- 
nuiut, ilnvul of hvll, puwerltisd ilbisatdafactit^ii wHb 
one'B self), the soul rincfi to Ood: '*aitriiio super- 
venimle sacratfteiiio inrtuteclavium e^citttr ttuf- 
ficiens". Here the doctrine of the sacrameDts is 
subordinated to the vrorat form of a Pdaipao doc* 
trine of jufllificali<Hi (see below). 

The Separate Saci^aincnta. 1. Baptism (male- 
rial: Water; form: Institutiomil wonis)* This has 
reference to h^Teditary Hin, IJuptism blots oiil such 
guilt aud that of all hitherto coromilt^ sin^, romits 
the punishment (not however oartlily pitnishmentfi] 
and regulatua the ooncupiaceDt'C ; that ia, the idea 
of an iimooent concupi&oeDCft ia allowed (not a ro- 
li^ioua view) and it Ib declared that baptism rea* 
der3 a man able to keep his conoupiaceooe within 
houndn. The p<mitive effect of baptism wad placed 
iiniler the head of "regeneration* wiUioui ritlding 
thiM oona^^ption of the ohBciirity and laek of meaning 
which it has in the Church fatbont. In theory it 
wiviaBHerted that the poeiilive grace of bA|vtittin was 
pcrfecti^^tirna^ and children also peceivcnl Et (sacra- 
tnrnt of juatifiration in the full aenso); but in fact 
it \ra9 only conceived »» n sacrament of inittati<m, 
AU'I only in this ^'nm cotild tlio pdrfcctnees of iofftnt 
hfijitUm [Ixfliof of the (Tliureh, or of fpood p«roiltBJ 
Bubotitutoe) bo eustained: Baptism oatabliifthot 





yroectts of joHtification only tn Aofrfhi, not in aciu> 
In crtHe of u<>ceahily a doncou alno, yce ii layman, 
may baptise. Detailed explanatioQft ooDOcming eac* 
TAmonUU obson'ance^ vrero mado hiwcA upon a com* 
puri^ii M'ith briptism. 

2. Confintialion (material: The chriama conae- 
orat4xlbythdU«hop; formt Cttnsigno fc-, etc.). Tb© 
effect of thid ^ooTument, wliich like baptisni cannot 
btf n^oatod, vra8 to givtj jKjwer for growth, xtirnglb 
to tight, tho f/ra/m graUmi faciens in the proceed of 
justification. Only the bifUiop could adminieter it; 
it gained itB significance aa a Bacrament of the epis- 
copal hierarchy aXon^ide of the ordoj Btill on the 
v^bole its eignificfiiice resided only in Iho " ehameter". 
Doubts regarding the sacranieut never difd out in ihe 
Mitldlo Agv«4 (WicUf). B<?ginning with Tliomafl it 
VpTu* brought very cloee to the power of the pope, mnce 
it bad apecial reference to tbe myntical body of Christ 
(the Church; not to tbe Bacramental body) and nc- 
cordiugly tbe power of jurisdiction came into ooaiald- 

S. Eu^iiart^t {mhU^TrnX: Tbeelemente; fonn: Tlie Kucbanst 
instittitionaT word^'i. The Thomist doctrine here 
gain4><d a complete victory as again^ the attempt of 
the nomioalint to shake the doctrine of tmnsulMtan* 
Nation; but the "faoreticnr opposition to this doc- 
trino did not coam) in the Middle Agc« after tbe 
Latcriin council (vtd< p. 4SC). Realism \a tbe prcnup- 
poaitiou of the onhotlox thoorr; without this itcol- 
lapeee. Evur>'thiDg that iisttublimv was said about 



iho ew*liarUt; but faiths which eoeikft surety, W6Dt 
euipty-boaded, and yet tbe ^acranieiit of |>euauoe as^ 
saorEunent and ob sacrifice was finally far Eiuperior 
to the cticbariBt : MasBee are trifling means, and tho 
npiritn^l food liIot» out no mortal ^ns. The great 
theological problem w&s transubdlaotivitioQ itself, . 
hy nwMm of iU groAhi«it:« U)«y r>vifrlookod tbd iningf-^ 
niBainooof itee£Fi>ct. TbomiiHgAi-oformtothedoo 
trluif tx^ganling tl]<? niode of thi3 presence of Uw body 
of ChriRt io the sacrament (no now creation, no o^ 
sumptio ehmentorurn so th^t they booome body, no^ 
coneubatantiality) ; Uia 8iibatanc« of the dwient 
disA|>pim» ontirdyt but not per (mnihilationetn^ 
y^ipor convfimionefnj tho cxi#Ufiico of tho remain- 
ing uni<ubntantiiiJ luridcnt^f of the olomcnt0 its mado 
pcwgiblu by tho direct working of Qod; tho body of 
Christ i'nt^rs totns fi£ toto; in each of tbo demeatB 
ia the whole Cbrivt, to wit: per coMomitantiam aa 
regard his body and »oul as well ns r6g:ardA his Di-.. 
vhiity from the moment of pmrtouneiag th^ insti-- 
tutionul words (thcreforo ahfo ^xtra usum) ; tho pnn- 
ence of Cbri0t in tho iJouK^tits h2u« no dimvnsioiait 
but how this was to bo conceived bocamoa primary j 
problem for which Thomas and the nominaliatic 
writers summoned absurd and ing^iious thcKirieB 
of space. Thfty thereby approaf*hed very cloeely 
^thor to th^ idoa of tbo annihilation of tho priEnaiy 
BubatflJico (Duns), or to <xniMubstautialUy and " inx- 
panatiou '' (Occam) ; Ihey hit upon the latter be- 
cause thoir metapbysica in general only admitt^ 


tlM Of 




the idea tbat tiw Divine aD<l tho created oranupany 
each other bj' virt^io of Divine adjiiAtinent (simitarly 
W««<d, and witli other motivee Lutlior), Tbo con- 
0i?(gueiKt?» ijt thv formutatioii of the diM^triue of ivitvt- 
subBtanliatloQ were, (1) Cessation of Infant ootncmii- 
ioa (this had also other causeB), (2) tficrooso of tbo 
autborityof tboprioBts, (3) Witbdiuwidof tb^cbalice 
{determined upon at ConstAQcc), (4) AdorutioD of the 
eUratfid host (fwrt of CorpuM Chrisii^ 13fi4, 1311)- 
Against tho loi^t tAvo reeult«^ thi'rc fucKM io ^o 1 4 th and 
l<fcth cvuturicvft conftideniblu o|iixji«itiou. — In n^urd to ^ySS? 
the repr^fientation of Iho «ucbart8t as a gacrifice, the 
Lombard was »tiU tnflii«Qavl by the old ocicl«iafitical 
motive of the recordath; however, the idea of tlio 
repetition of the sacnGcitU death of Christ, cxiofirmed 
by Gregory I., cropt in moro and moro (Hngo, AE- 
bertusi Thoma» really jiiMtiii<w the theory only by 
the practice of tbo Cliun:h)iiiid modified aiBo tiio 
canon of the maaa (Latoran council, 1215). The 
prieet waa confiidered the saa^rdos corporis Cbristi, 
The attacks of Wiclif and others upon this entirely 
unbihiical cnnception died away; during the 14th 
and l^tfa centurioe one nxilly fou^t only agaioat the 

4. I'encni^e (grtiat controvert over the material, 
since no res corporalts exiatii) la on the whole the 
chief Aacrament, because it alone reatores the tost 
baptismal grac«. The theory remained yet for a long 
timo vihy of tho hiorarehicad practioe, which had bo«o 
ox|irQ0eed in the paeudo^Auf^uatiniaa writing, "de 






twra €i /aha paeniienito'^. Tbc Lombard utill oon- 
siftered Ubo tnio peottenco of a Cbrtetiau in iteeUj 
sacmmenUil, iind iho pri«sUy absolutic^n mereJy dc 
dBj^ti^ceiecciesioatictU act); forOod alone pardoas 
sin. Hugo and the Lateran cooncil. 1^15, 
the way for Thomas. Tho latl^r recognized the i 
t^rial of tho earnuuotit in tho vifiibl© act of tho pen^ 
itoat, the rorm in tJie prUs^'n words of abtiotuticu, 
declared that tho prto^b^ as authorized miniaters 
dinp^iBers in the fullest }wnHe, and pave ae a 
for the necessity of uicrame-Dtal peDance (before^ 
tho prirflt) lhf» perverse wntoiw^e: " Ex quo nliquis 
p€€cainm (mortal sin) ineurrit, cariiaa^ Jid^s et 
tniscricordui non //befan/ hoinirtent a peccoto siiut 
paeniiffntia!", Howerer, he added tJjat the »Lcm- 
mental abevolutiou did not at onre take away tho 
reaiuji Mius poenac together with tbc guilt of tJie 
mortal **ni» but Uiatit oiily dJfiiapiHHknxl **romj}tetis 
omnibus paenifi^Htiofi aetilmx^. Tlus lhnw/JaWft» 
pa4^iiie'Uma—ain^dy formulatod by the Looiban] 
lui cuTttritio cQrdhj ctnt/fAsio on's^ sntisfactio 
Operi^ — were origiiiaily not conaid^rei) of e^iual valuo, 
Tho inner perfect i>onitence was considered res and 
sacrajuenttwi^ and still domioated wttli tb« Lombard 
audThomji^ tbo whole ropreeentation. YotalfMdy 
Aloxandijr HiiIoaium and Booikvontura wora of tho 
opinion Ihat Ood prcciMly by tho oacraoMnt bad 
fjicilitattHl thu way to sulvaticn^ arul thoy diw-Tim' 
inabxl bolwi-on contritio and aitritio [timor ser- 
viliji)^ declaring tbo latter eufficieat (or adiniceioo to 




tlio Hacrament. In ttpitc of itis Kitunt rejecti^i by 
Tb<HnaH thw view gained more and more ground: 
The sacrament itaelf will perfect the half-penit^vm) 
by tbo irtfusio ffratiae. The attrition goUovA- 
repeutancei became tho bfuieof tho Church doctriuu 
in the 14th and Idth centurion (Johann von Palltz, 
Petrua de Palude and othera ; Ditvkhoff^ Der AblaRB- 
fitreit, \S^G); the Tridentine council sanctioned it 
onlj conditionally. It won well known that the at' 
iriiio often spring from immortil motiTeA aud yot 
thoy biiiU out of it and tho aacraniQnta stepb up to 
heaven. — Tbomas \h Uie tbeotogiau of the con/eH»io 
ori^; he placed the obligation thereto under thajus 
divinnm, Btat^ for tho first time exactly the i>xttint 
of the now ordinance and deduced the nolo rj^bt ot tho 
ecclesiastic to hear confeASionfi from iho rninist&r- 
fttnt super corpt*s Chrtsii rerum (in cq&uo( novdcno 
fthould coatees to a layman, &u<^ confeAalon, however, 
is, acco4i]ing tu ThomoSr no longer sacramental). 
The Seotists eeeentially accepts! all this, — The sole 
right of the prie«t to f/rant ab&oluiion was also firet 
strictly brought to an is^tie by Thoma^^. I^owovor, 
upon this sacrament the power of jurisdictirm njorlod 
an influence {reeerv^nce of caaoe for the popo). Ae- 
cor^Hug U> the Scoti^ta tjje pri&st by aUtulutioii xini* 
ply induces Qod to fulfil his contract; according to 
Tlianae he nets independently through tht.^ traiiA- 
initt4*<] polestas mint^terii. — By impo^itig a satis- 
factio the prii*t acts* a« medictis pen'his et judex 
aequuM. Tho pnurtiotj id an old one, tlie " m«>cli4uuz- 







49% otrTLimw op thr hirtort of dthima. 

in^" and the Ihaorett'cat rating (alotijfside Uic con^ 
triiio BB a part of iho ponHru?o) ii^ comjiojaUvely 
now, Tbo tdoA is that Uio itfith/nctio, a» a ouit»tit< 
Dcut part of Ui<} aucromtTiil, ia tb^ ite<x;aaarf macifi 
talionof rup*mtaitco in suchv^orks as are fitted to^vi 
a certain satisfaction to an offondoti Ood, and which 
become the motive for the Bhoriening of tem]K>tiil 
pimiAbment. In haptiMm God peirdous without iiny 
fiatififactioOf but of those baptised ho dficnaniU n cer^ 
tain satiBfactioDf which thc4i ao merit rcvortd to him 
who niudeiv it. Monrovvr the* baptiietl in reuUy 
ablo to render it; it abo contributes to hitf reforma- 
tion and proteciA him ngainRt ftin. Meritorious are 
oidy Auc-li act8 as aro dono in a state of Rrace (in 
caritate^ hence aft^r aliaohition), hut tha nvofkfl 
(pr&y^T, fasting, ahud) of thooc ivho aro not in cari- 
iaic also have a certain merits Thua finally aftrttio 
and imperfect meritcriousworkii dominate the wholo 
territory" of penance, that ia of eeclemaAtical life. 

But the scholastics ndmitted also in practice the 
idea of tli'^ ]X'n«iiiial exrhan^ of PAtisfocttOQa and ofl 
persona] «ubi4titution. Thi.'t U^ to tho dooMa* od 
tndvtgence^ (Bratke, Luther's 06 TlieeM, 188#.| 
Schneider, Die A1>1ii^e, 7. Aufl.» 1831). The InduN 
g^ice joins on to tho soti^factio^ i.e. ateo to tho 
cUtriiio, Id theory it lias nothing to do with tho 
r^iatus ctdpae et poenae aefernae; stiU in pnictica 
it was not fwldom joined with tho latter (oven tho 
Tridentino council hero comi^hiintKl of ntnuea). Tha 
todidgrncc reetd upon the id(« of conunut^ttion and 






its purpose wm io ameliorate, i.e, to abolish the tern* 
por^ puuisbmetit of tiin, above atl the pimJshmeDt 
of purgalorr. Through ;»beolution hell was c1o6«d; **5wi** 
but the hominen attriti in reality' nfiiiher bvliove In 
hftll nor in th<* |>owrtr of ^aofl, for an\y n t^oniriiuM 
knowd anything uf micU Uiinj^. But thvy ixm rtfniid 
of aevere puubhuiciit, aiji] tbe^' Iji-Uuvu in thv ikjesii* 
bili^ of removing it by various "doings", and are 
even ready for some sacrifioe for Una and. Thus pur- 
gatory wa8 holl to tiwnx aiid tho inilulgonoo b^^ame 
asiuTmmeiit. Tothiss^ fvelintrs Mm Church id rea]- 
ityyioldoil; attHtio, ojv^ra And induigfinfiahoctLxno 
in tnitli pnrtn of tho HU<rmuient of |kcnanoc, Thomoo 
bUU uiidi^invoivd thrcruglioul to bring nbuut u com* 
|]Comi0D bctw<!on tho oaniodt Uioory and tho ovil 
pmotioo, which hv was unablu to uproot {" ab omnibus 
conceditur indulgentia^ aliqaid fatere, quia im- 
pium esset dicerv^ quod evclejtiae aliqnid vmie 
faceret'^. With him the iudulgoncosc had not yet 
L4^ a mockery %A Chri^luuiity aa tho roligion of 
imption^ because h« really ooncoivec^ Uii^in only aa 
sn UDeJc to the ftacram^t. Yet bo abaudoned the 
old idea Umt tho indulgence has reference only to 
tho ecck^iiasticiU punii^hmunt imposttd by the priest; 
and it was ho who hanilw) 4!"wn thir th«x.iTy of in- 
dulgoncoe. Tho latter is oompoeod of two idoa^ : (I) "^^^^i.** 
Fanloued nin nleo uontinuee« to have an effect through ■*''^**' 
its trf^mpoml ooosetguonceti, «tiU it mnnot remain " in- 
ordiftafa''t and therefore the temporal punmhrneot 
mu3t be expiated ; {%) Christ by his passion has ao- 



Boll Vnl- 

compLi&bGd grater tilings thnn tho blotting out oi 
eternal guilt ixnd pxmishmtmi\ tbb alone is effective 
witbin the »iacratneot, t.e, in the abaolution; but 
outside of it titers is a sorplus. This eurptos morii 
(thesaurus op^rum aitperero^atoriorupn) moat of 
Deceanlty benefit Uie body of Clirliit, Itie Cburch, 
Bince it cannot benefit UhriHt and th« saints. 

But it can no longer Hnd mxy oX}u*r occu|Mtion than 
timt of dicrtoniag and bUittiug out the temporal 
pnTiifthiittiut (>f Mn. It mil bn tumivd only to tbe 
boDcBt of tho^t absolved, wbn tniiAl rt'gubirly offer 
m return n rttrntmum (n miihH [i^rfunmuico) ; H ia 
adminislered by tho hoait of tht> Church, tlio pope, 
who Iiowovor can traiiBfor to othoni a pfirtiul udmin- 
iatration. Thiu theory uf surplus merits, which bad 
a long prior history (Pc'roian^ Jew^), became etcp^* 
cially pemidotiB wbon no d^^«?i*iv^ wei^t was placed 
upon tho condition of ropon^mt fnitb, orvrbcD dark- 
jiKm WBJ» intcntioaally )>ornii(t^ to rcfft upon the 
question m; to what it rwilly vcfv^ that was blotted 
out by the iudiilgonco, or w-hcrn tlic (juc«tiou, aa to 
whether tho indulgence would not also be of benefit 
to committf»r» of mortal sin nd reqiiirentiam gra* 
iiam^ was nnevrored in tho affirmative oe was tJke- 
WUG the question ivbether therefore it coidd not be 
granted iu advanoo, in order that one might make 
use of it for an occaiiional diftpo^ition (ScotiBttc prao 
tioe). The tliwrj'of indulgoncos is conipriswl in Ibo 
bull, " Unt'ifenitiU'i", Ch'tm-ut TV., of thoj'oar 134ft; 
here it is also stated that the indulgence ho* rgfer- 

CKvcLOPWHST OP DocTRnns OP snc, ktc. 4W 

ence only to tlic " vcre paenHentes H corijessi", 
Wiolif al>ovo all ^HxptitAl Uia pmrtioA jind tlioory; 
hu calltxi iha iudtilgviicc?) urbilrary auU 1jlud]>homoua, 
[Nintlj&iu^ obeilieucit iv tiw Inwu vt Ouil, h ixtsteir 
rioim iniioTation. But iudulgc&oo was noty&t on* 
IiiDgod, whcD OD^ proved it to W unbiblical, tho 
tuurpution of the hierarcliy and a tnorni comiiH 
tion. On^ must nhow how fi (lortnant eoD^i(mc«f is 
to be awakoDed, a disturbed one to be comforted. 
But neither ^Viclif nor tho other eoorgetic OMitestors 
of indulgence (Huss« Wcsol, etc.) wore able to do 
tills. Weescl hIouo attack«! indulfjenoesat the not, 
for he not only taught that the keys were given alone 
to the piouB (not to the pope and the prieate), and 
oXho pointed out that forgiveness does not depend up- 
on arbitmrincBs, but upon true penitence; moreover, 
that the temporal punibhnieuU for sin serve for 
man's edutralion and therefore cannot be exchanged. 
He also doubted tLe satts/aciio openim: Saiisfac- 
tio baa no place anyhovr where Qod h^iA infused 
hia love; it would detract from the woric of Ohrifit 
(the grada gratis data). And yet indul^fenooa, 
which had alao be«n approved at Consitanoe, prv 
vailed about IIKK) morethan ever; people knew them 
to be "tdtusus qiuse3iorttm*\ and yet made use oi 

5. Extreme unction [materia]: Consecrated oil; 
form: A depnvatAry w^ird of prayer), Thomai* in- 
serted its institution by Clmift, ite proraulgntjon by 
Jame« (Bpbt. 5:14). TliopurjKKtuof tltioMicramoDt, 


or Prlfvu. 




which admits of repotiticot U the remissio pecca* 
torum^ yet i-ixly of tlm vi*iiial. Aa this mu^ruhcoI 
was evoLvoct only because of the Qoed of the d>'ing. 
it yxu» oJao left to practico. Theory bad litUe in- 
tertttt in iL 

C. Ordination of pr teg 1^9 (frum tho ttnpoaBibil- 
ity of proving a percopUblo mutual by the side 
of the form ; **Accipti potestat^'m^ otc^^ — however, 
ono also thought of Teeseb of vrorship or of the laj' 
ing on of hanrls and fljinlxjla, — Thomas knaw how to 
nmko capital: "Hoc quod con/erf nr tn lUiis sacra- 
mentis tlcrivatur ianium a cfco^ non a mintstrOt 
qui aacranientum ilispenJtat, sed iltud qiiod in hoc 
Sacramento traditur^ scit. spirit^taiiH poteattu^ 
derivaiur etiapt ah eo, qui sacramentum dat^ sic^t 
potestas imperfecta a perf^ia; et idea effieacia 
(liiomm itaf-rnmmitorxtm principaiiter consistit 
in maierta, qnae virfuUm divinam et siffnificoi 

ef ctfutrnet sed efflcQcia ht^us sacramenii 

priucipaUter residH j)enea cunt^ qui sacramentttm 
dis}}eusat'), Tho liiithop alone is ibe diqraoMr. 
Coiitrov»r»ioa aro^>, (1 ) Regarding tho eereQ ordinft- 
tionK and thoir roUtion to each othor, (2) Ibigaidilig 
tiie rolaticaship botwoon tho priest '14 And tbo hialu^^fl 
ordi&Atioti, (3) Itognrdiiig tho vidtditj of 
tjon^ conferred by Hohiamatiral or heretical bisli< 
(quoBtion of reordination ; tlie Lombard waa in favor 
of tho stricter prBCtioe» which however jeopardised 
the cntiro oxistcnce of the priesthoodK Cfcaracffr 
wasrofilly tbo ehiof offt^ct of tliin fta<>ramo£it< Tbn 



cpiscapAto conid, on aocoiint of thooM troditloD, do 
]i>i)|^T bo 4-^^uiikxl as n »in^iii] t/rJo; but tbvn) wue 
an c^ndi'avor to vinilicatc iU highijr pcMitioii au boing 
espocially im^titut^d by ChrUt (on lliv ground of 
jurisdictioQa] power) ; Duru*, tiiking into consitlera* 
tion the rwil drcumsbmceti, desired to acknowledgG 
a separate Bacranient iu the ooDdecration of a bishop. 

7. Jtftf/rimany (material and form; Tho coDscnt of 
thoite about to bo married). A» witU Uie former 
fiaeramentT so aUo with this, every provable redemp- 
tiTe eSdct was wanting; but ttwaa here etill more 
difficult to c^rry out at all tlie general docti'ine of 
the aaoFamontA. The treating of ntarriage aa a aac- 
rament waa already ^yitU Thomas a chain of difficult 
titja; in n^ilyeccleeiastical lawwab alone cuuc^rnal 
with it. There were painful docUictions concerning 
the iniportof th« copula cornatia for the sacrameoit; 
the prie^ly benediction was considered only "t/uod 
dnm sacramfttitale". 

In the dootriw) of the aacram^nta Thomas was the 
authoritative doctor; hiftdoctrinca were ooufinued by 
Kugtne IV. ; but In no far as ihey were subordinated 
to the doctrine of men'ts^ a different spirit-, tJio Scotis- 
tic, gradually entered into all do^inatici«. ThooiaA 
himself oven was obliged to ompbiudze the vulgar 
Catliolic elemoTib; of Auguadnianiani, since he fol- 
lowed tho practico of the Church in hta Aunma. 
Later theologians went even much farther. The 
dissolving of Augu&tinianiftm into dogmatics did 
not really take {dace from without ^ it was largely 



tho result of an inward der^lopnient. The throe 
clomcnts, which Augustine ]i4Tinitl4Kl toi^tniid iu find 
by tbv tiidoof bi»ductriiioof grucc, merits tJw gratia 
infufta and tho hitrurchical prieHily f^cmi^t, con- 
tjnuod to ivork until t]>oy Luid cooiplotorty tmns- 
fbmieil the Au^ntiDutn mcclc i>f tkouglii. 





C- TnE RKV191NG OP AcnrsrnaA\nsM in tok 


No McskriasHrfll thonlog^im hiul dlreKly dMiied 
that gTQOO i« tho foundation of the Chrietinn irligiou, 
but Biucv tho idofi, '"grAcu", itf in ilE^^lf Ambiguous — 
God himi^elf in Cbrifit, u myeterioos quality, love ( f ) 
— it could ali=o be made fluhservient to clifFereiit 
viewd. The Lombard, in ref^ard to ({race, predestina* 
tioD and justification, exactly repeated the Aiigru^ 
tiaian eentencee^ but conccmiog frw-will be ex- 
preeaed himself no longer in au AugusliQian, but in 
asemi'Felagian faHhiou, bwause he also hud merit 
in mind. With Anaelm, iiemord and above all 
Abelard a contradiction between the doctrine of 
l^raoe and of freedom can bo verifieiK since all w^<o 
governed by the thought ivhich the Lombard formu- 
lutod tbu«: "ntiilum jtiei*ititm est t'n homin^y qttod 
7t<in fit }>er Hberum arbitrium'\ Therefore tlie 
ratio and the power of th^ vrUl for good must have 
reimaineil uiito miui aft<>r tho fall. Thif religious 
view of Au^UTtttDfs If) FQpWiKl by tho (*mpin(^t, and 
even Bernard failed to mark Augiifitinu*^ dit^crimi- 



nation bet^'eeD formal aiid iniit^ria] freodnm. Nota- 
ble in the attempt of Uio Lombard to idmitlfy eancti*- 
fyiiiK KTico with 11m> Holy Spirit. However, this 
had no coiuequoDc^; they did not want Otid him- 
Bi>lf, but DiriEMuttributeB, wbi<^ eiio bwomi^ human 

From Qod to Qod through i^raco yvtia tho fundu- 
tnental thought of Thotna»;, and }-(rt rmolly it in hab- 
itual virtue at which he aiom* The fundujuijnta] 
fault lay alie&dyin the Au^usttDian diBcrimination 
bt'twW'U ifrtiti{f tqwrfiH^ and cf*<\pf*riiUii. The latter 
lilono prnciin^ blj^^t but it odo|>orat<i« with tb«i will 
and togclbiT th^.'y cuuso mtsi^iL UoritB^ howviur, 
are the e«Hontird point, Hiiioa \h& theologian am hdvo 
no othisr conception than that God value** a rt^forma- 
tion only when indicated by the hahitu/i. But this 
in not the atandpoint of religioa ; faith thuB becomes 
merely an act of initiation^ and God does not appear *^(, 
oa ifao aimt^hijf l^ovif and thoroforo as tho Rock of 
Solvation, but a^ the Tartner and Judge; ho does 
not appear aa th* prrAOual (/ood, which aa Father 
ia alone able to lead the acml to trusty but as the 
Givor of tnat«r]al» perhaps very exaltecl blowings 
(commuaioatioD of bis nature). Tb^> tJieologiana^ 
if thoy thought of God^ did not look upon tlie heart 
of iho almighty Father, but u|m>ii an uufathoinablo 
Being, who, having created Uie world out <rf noth* 
ing, likawiw also oau5«c« superabundant potrrrnof 
knovsMge., refonnation and subettmiial transform 
iffuiMon to go forth. And when tttey thought of tlkom* 

cmiifV I 






selves, ihey AM tutt tJihik uf Uio<%ntnf of thi3 human 
ogo, tlio Kpirtt, whicli ib ^> frm> and exalted tlml it 
gains A hold only upon u divino Poreoji Aiid n 
Upon Uie most glorioiu ^fto; they tau^Eht; God on 
the Qrntia mtii^sA of perMjmtl fommnnion. trit 
Owi, trAo iV ih{f gr<iti<t. In tho boginnitii;; indci'J 
Qoil iu)d tlio grafiit (powx-r of Eovo) liiy vitr^- i.-]<«o 
to^tbor 111 tbcir miaiL*, but in iho c^ryiug oat of' 
tb« thought tbu grtitin was niore and moro witli* 
drawn from God^ until one (iimIs it in maf^c-wuridDg 
idoU. The double thought, "natura dtvina^ and 
**honnm r^vw^", was th« ruling one: Phvaics and 
morality, but not religion. 

rhomas mnde law and grace, aa the oul^r princi 
plee of mora! conduct, hia basii^ Tbo former^ even 
as now law, w;tti not bufficient Tbo neoefiBity of 
grace tBerefore was proved, partly by Aiistotelian , 
nwana. At tb« aame time the int^llectualiam o^^| 
ThomaB com4« out strongly: Qraoe 16 tlie conunuui- 
calioTi of supernatural kuowlodge. The turnfm gra- 
iiae^ however, jh alao the tnnten superaddilumf that 
IB, it id net neceesary for the accompUflbing of the 
aim of man, but for the reaching over and beyond 
thin; therefoi^ it fumisliea llie reason al^o with a 
iiu|>omatiiml wcrtJi, Le. a nurrit. Man fn tbb AUita 
of mtc'bTity posaefeoa accordingly thjs caftabiHty of 
doing by bis own fttrengtli tlie tumum sitae naturae 
pmportionatuvi^ yot tic noods tho Dfvino aid in 
ordtT tc acquire a meritorious bonum supere^ced&ns. 
After tho full, however, graoe wti^ necessary for both ; 




a(x!ording]y A tvro-foUl grace is now ncedecL Thereby 
the diffonMico bivtwoon gratia oper^an^ et coojwrnM 
WQM olrMuljr mtAUUbiM], himI nt tbo unmo iinu> ihi^ns 
was talcQD into view iMtlwondof roiui o rtupcmaiuml 
Htat«, wbicb one may rurtch only by Uiu niil uf the 
8«cond gmoe, vrhich croAtoe inorits. *" Vita aetema 
est finis e:i-c€dffus proportiouefn naturae hu- 
tnanae'^^ but vrilh the help uf grace one can and 
maiit earn etemul life. Yet Thuina«, uh a fitrict 
Augufitinian, did not admit th« idon that a man can 
prepam himsolf for the iu>t i^tqco. He roco£:Dixd 
gmcu aloDo for tlw boginnin^^, nut Uit> mt^rita de 
congrtio. The ot««iico of graoo ho depictiyl in such 
a manoer^ that, ai« » gift, it produnw a peculiar 
qitatitp of the bouI. i.?. besides tiie anjrilium^ by 
which God especially infUtem tlie soul to good uctiona, 
be infuso4 into tho soul n fiupematoral cjnali^. 
Qtoco is to bo distiDgu]«bcd, iirstf as tbc grace of 
salvation (gratum faciem) aud &« tho grace of the 
priertly office, second, as operans ipmeveutens) and 
cooperans (subs^uens) ; in thu fanner the sotd ia 
rnota non movetis; in the Utter mota movfrns, Tba 
source of grac«, which i? fi^iJUrn^ is Ood himself, vrho 
al»o croatoA tho preparation for it in mas^ tn order 
to randur tho matcriit (the suul) "^ di:rfOsiia**, Jfo 
one, however, is able to know whether God is car- 
r3:ing on the tmperrmtural vrork within him. Thig 
sentence {''nulhut potest sdre^ se habere gratiam^ 
cf^rlitudinatiier") and the aupc^iHuowi RpncuUtion 
about the materta dispostta (inspired by Aristotle) 


Lir- to b* 


!* Oc»per< 

493 OITTLniM or Tire nTSTOHV Of DOOHA. 

ratecl of 

Foil] ; JUB- 


beciune fatal Tbe effect of grace is two-fold ; 6rfft> 
juBtiticatioi], Bocom), merits, r>. tlip reiU jiiatificatJao 
does aot yet take place by the remissio peccatantm^ 
but ono nwy aay 8itii|ilyt boraose of tliu eud in riow, 
tliat for^voDQHe of Bin 10 aln^ady justificatiou. Dut 
II10 ifratia in/asa is neceesary for the for^veneHa of 
«in and therefore a motu^ tibtri arbitrii is here 
requirej- Tbua the ffratia praeveniens in truth 
coQuista in aa indefinnble act, etnoe every effect ■!* 
ready preAUpiKwoHrtiopemtiotL Lookingdi»or, Uiftro 1 
prevails with Thomiis .1 gront coufusiuu nff^irditig 
Ujc procoM of justiiicatioii, bccau»o the lociilinff of 
tliL> moment of the for:giv<mcea of sin caascs diAlciil* 
titvi ; it ought to be t& the beginning mid yi>t it must 
be placed later because the infimon of gnuxs tho 
tuminp to Ond in love aJid tbe tuminfr from Bin, 
should prot^wlo it By Iho "opim mfiffnnm ft mim- 
ciiiosum'^ of the jn^lificaiia itnpii the eff<»ct«} aro 
wei^^Led, which through gntce more nud moTs.^ fall ta| 
the lot of tlie ono already jnstified. Tbey aJl come 
under the head of merit. AM progroes iiiuiit be ao 
regarded that, in ao far as it is the work of grace, it 
is gained fia'^ condigno. but, in so far as the freaj 
vrill of th4) justitiod i» eoncemt'd in it> it tnkee plaoo 
ex congr'uo. T!iorefore Uia opinion of Tlioniii* was, 
that ttie ruLtural nidit tif ter tht; fnll can oani no merit, 
but the justified man can do so ea? eongrtto {''con-' 
gritnm rst, ul hominioperanii j^eeuttrlunt ^uum vtr- 
tutem de^s recotnp&nsei ^ecuruimn irxceUentiam 1 
suae virtutfjr'*) \ whereas in regnnl to elemal tudva- ] 


Hon there exisbi for man "propter moaimam inoe- 
^U(jfi7a/pm j}rt>portionis" no m^riVwt Jc condtgno. 
This IB reserved to the efficacy of gmoe. The meri- 
torious principle is always lovo; this deflerve* the 
QitgtJientuTH ffrattue ex coudigno. On the coo* 
trary pereevenince in gmce can in no sense be 
merite<l : * Persefxrantia viae nou codit sub merito^ 
quia depejidet stdmn ex vwlione divina^ quaa est 
prinripium tmtnts werili^ Aedd eus gratis persfi* 
veraufiao bonvm targifMr^ ctiicuuque illud Utrgi- 
fur'^. Herehy pure Au^uatiniatiism vrab restored, 
which Thomas also admitted tmahridf^ into his 
doctrine of predeatination, while not only the indiv 
fntigably repented detinition of 0od &8 primum mo* 
vens, but &]m> the whole Kpecial dodrioo of morals 
shows tlie niHuenee of Arifltotle. In thfi 1n1t4>r ik tur- 
ned out the thought that virtue^ by tho right ordering 
of eflortH and instincts, comes through tlie reason luid 
later is supematmally perfected by tJie gifis of grace. 
Virtue cuhninates in the fuliihnent of the concilia ^'tuoc 
etnrtffehra (poverty, cha'ility, obedience)* Tltwo nSlS?;' 
form tho con<^1n-(i<«\ of the doctrina ot ilio ni>w Invr ; dMMa. 
but, on the othi^ ndt% Iho doetrino of griuH) nUo cul- 
minates ill them, oo thjtt th4>y, properly spoaktng, 
fonii the apex of the whole scheme. " Praecepia 
iM}}ortant nec€s,titatem^ consilium i» opfionepOH' 
itur </«j, cni ikitur'. Thrcugh ^'counsels" man at- 
tajnflbis aim "ri^'iins <•/ expeditiusl"; for the pre- 
oepts still ndmit of a certain inclination to the goods 
of thia world, the ooonsele wholly difioord the same, 


SO that ia foHowin^ thcr iHttor tbe sliortctft way in 
given to ot^mal lifix By tJiig cliiJcriniinAtion be- 
tween jtrt^ifpia m>f\ con^ttia light is onco more 

■JJJ^ ttin>wii upon Uie uri^tial sXnUi. Tlw original en* 
^i^SSSr- dowinfint of man was in itwlf not «iiffici6iit to ultAJn 

ffMunun unto tho vtto aetata; tlio laAter vra8 a bonum 
mperexccilens vafttram; hat in the addiiiontd en^ 
dorunitmt of Hmjtutiitia orii;inalL^ man poHSomoa a 
BUporontum! gift^ wliicli vniibW him to really nttain 
imto otontol lifo. ThuA ono may nay that nftcr tbe 
fippettmnco of eSn (nuxterialiter = concvpiscentta, 
formaliter — fhfeetits onginaltJt jn^titiae) the 
prtcepfa <»rreE«ponil to tlie r€fttoriD<c *>f the natural 
fitate of maD, tbo consiUa to the donum msperaddi* 
turn of the jtt^J^fVm ori(;rnaii3. 

Thomas* doctrino of gTac« has a double aspect ; it 
lookH backward toward Aiij^tutiuo and forward 
toward the diflsolutiou of the doctrine in tbo Hth cen- 
tary. Thomas wanted to be an Augosttnian, and 
his explanations wero already an Auicu&ti&ian re- 
ac^tion HgaioHt the aasertions of Hale^iuR, Bnna- 
veutum and others; but he allowed much widor 
play to the idea of merit thau did Augustine; he 
removed atiU farther than the latter the doctrino of 
graoo from the person of Christ (the hitter is d)^ 
cuBRod before Christolog:^!), and he permitted faith 
and the forvivcno-ss of sin to recede still fartiwr. 
»wg^»> Faith ill wth«r fid&t informts, tlierofopft not y^t 

^*^ *■ ffiitl], or JidcJ» formata^ therefore no longer faith. 
In fact failh uo fiduciu uau ijud no plMx;, il the 


Qffect8 of grace are a new nature and a moral rcfor- 
ffiaiioH, In the ambi^cKia sentence, "ranVfur 
meretur ritam aeiemttnt", tbo miscliiof of tbo timo 
to come lay already concealed. 

The Betting aside of the AugufitJniaD doctrhw of 
grace and sin can be followed u|> in evory point: (I) 
Hal«(^iii8 already tatiglit that Adam iri [Mtnidi#o 
by good works cjc contfnio mcrit^Ml tbo tjratia 
ffratum farifHj*. Thi^ SffitUtu follnwMl i»1iiu Kt^*]w, 
at tbo somo timo dittcriiiiiiuLtin^ bctxnxm iho juati 
Ha ori^naliti niu) nudi ^iicv, aiid rcokooiin^ tbe 
Iatt<?r to tbe perfection of buman nolum iteolf. A]< 
tliougb thiiiwaftaii advantage, j'eiitvra& u^utralized 
bj tlio fact titat th« merit ex congnio bad been 
placed /roin ihe^ beginning alongaEdo of tb« "only 
offionHmiA graoo", (2) T1iomn« im longx-r «qnarely 
admitttxl tbe ecntenco ifi rognnl to hereditary sin; 
" Xaiuraiia boita corrujitu ituui'^ iu vu fur il» he 
defined the concupiHcenco, vbtch in ituolf is not eril, 
airaply as languor et foment «m|))ui^ized Ktrvnger 
tlmn Aupni^line tlio negative side of dn and, Ihm^au^ 
the ra/io romatn^l, amaimM] a ctintinziod I'ucUnaiio 
ad bonum. Duns, ou the whoI<^ Mf|uu-ntod th^ <|u«a- 
t ion of concupiHcenoo f rom tl»U of Itorcditory sinj 
tbe former no bnger apj^ear^I to him Xhc^formale 
of tJio lftlt->r, hut merely Iho mnteriaiv. Thiw as 
rogatds hori;ditary mn XU^tg nMnainoI only the pri- 
vatioot tbeKupomatural good, which indeed lirougbt 
iihcntt n dit;hirhan«e of Hie nature of man, however 
without any of the natural ^i^d really bein^ loet* 






Even the first ain was very loosely eonceired of 
Duna (againtit Augustine] : Aclnm only incli 
tvtt&sgTMsed tbo txunmaDdmoDt to lore Uod 
tiie conunandmeDt to love fata neigbbor, and 
in 80 far [u4 by compliance be overstoppe^l tbe ri 
meanure. Besides it wba not at all a quostioo of 
offence against moral biWft,Initof not obeyi&Ra 
mandnumt imposed for tlie sake of probation. Wl 
t)c<:aiii <*vi'rythinic i» t'wtimly diaaolved. A» in 
caao of rMlfiiiptiuii, Uw nx-koiiini; uf Uw fall 
man appeared to bim as an arbitrary act of Oo 
which bwuimo kiiovm toiui by "revelation". Snu 
sins were cveu poe^iblo iu tbe ori^ual state (thus i 
HHuly Duns). Tli« renouncing uf overytliing idi*fi 
».0.» tlu> Noo-Plntonio Icnnwlodgii of the ViXirld, U 
tbft nominaUnts to de<Njmpot«e tlic ocmocptioa of goi 
and sin; he-re iiIk) they nuUlt* (uimhi rtiHit au<] fl 
back upon the practice of the Church Tiew< 
as a revelation, bconuso thoy wore KtiU blind i 
history and concrete relation*. (3) Duns and h 
iiprvdiury siiccPR6ors i^mftider^l tlie giliU of lunx^Iitfiry sin i 


finite. (4) Dmxs saw tho coni<iffiurn of horeditu 
sin Bimply in the flesh, ucd argued against 
Thomislic as«uniptioii of a v^tlr^ratio naturoej 
religiotis v ievr of sin n^ (fuilt* jcopBrdized i dready 1 
Aii^>^tin<^ and Thomui5, fully disuppeareJ. (i) 
liberium arbtlrium poB^ssed tbe widest scope, ait 
the fundamoutal thesis liad been sacrificed, tbatf 
exists only in de{)eiidoDoe upon Qod. With Ci 
and the leadiu^ theologians after him free-wlU is 1 





second gt^it power bj Uie 8td« of Qod^ futA wbnt- 
«ver t1i<*y <N>m:yTit3- ^wtiiMmbctl in the »Tph4!>ro of em- 
pirical p^iyobologyf tlicjr gnw to it ul«o a tnnt^rial 
aud po»Uiv9 rv1i);iouH liigiiifictuKXf. IL ii« tliu iiibor- 
ited fate of nH^iaxval dogmatics, that in tko iimAl- 
gamation of n kuowtedgw of tho world and religion a 
relatively m<>r© correct tnowle<ige of the world l>o- 
came Bnally more dangeronn tn faith tluui Rn incoT- 
roct kuowlEKlge. Ag&inet PoIa^miiBm, whioli ovot- 
mure uubeeitatingly niadc uae uf AugtiHtiuianism 
simply as an "airt language", Bm^lwardina now 
first took a atrong Btand, aud after that the reActioQ 
did not any more wane, but graduidly increafwd dnr- 
ini; tiie IMh century until Wesel, Weswl, Stmipite, 
Cajetan and Contarini appeared. (6) In tho doctrino 
of jiuftificatioai and of tbo la^^ritorious naming of elor- 
nul Mti^ tbe di99olutU>n manife^tid ibi^^f strongly : (a) 
The gratia pramJcnieu.*t t>e^anie a |rfirai4e, tlio gro* 
tia cooperam ^va» the Aol^jcoinpn^ensiblo gracis (li) 
That which with Thomas wjis weriium dr coufjruo 
tiitaimi^ weritttni dfi rohdigno: tuerita d4' rongmo, 
howvvaTy wore acknowlcnlgiH] jn mich uir«>ctionri m 
Tfaomud hnd not placed nt all under the merit poitit 
of vi«ws (c) TogBtlierwiUi the meritorioosneBft of the 
aftrHio the fide^t i7tformi9^ the raoro obodicnoe of 
faith, wa8 alfK> ^'alttetl more highly. At this \yymX 
ihv porvoniion became gituiteet. M<^n> suhjoctiou to «u**rtioo 
th«t faith of tlia ChiitY^h nnd the nUriiio bflrMn^ In ^'^^ 
a moamre, thu fiiiulumcntnl t>rinci|klw of doffmi^ticA. 
According lo Duiu the aaUiral sinful inuu can still 




uffp In 

? UtuindlL 

prepare himself for gtw:«; he cau begin to lore Gkd. 
Therofom he must do bo. In trulli. therefore, merit 
always procodeB prac^-, first iho m^rttum Hm con* 
gruo^ iht>n affcer acnuiriug the fln*t graco tho 
i/um de f^ndigno. Thereby tbe Qntt and 
grace were reduced to the rank of mere expecU^nta. 
Iridoed tlie Divine faclorappwiraonly in tlio acctpta- 
tio. Tlio \Mi^T, however — *n;re tho cotico|>tjoo Tee» 
«rciiind, — ilotvi nM tti tho xlrifHivct tutn^n iitnll lulmit 
of merit. 77i(* nominati9tic doctrine wo// only in v* 
far t\oi simple moralism as ii \va^ hna, «.r. Itn 
doctrine of Qod does not adiinit in niiy way of a 
strict moralism. Thi» is plainest in Occam, who iu 
KODomi AflTonlstho pAmdozicol f^^ioctacloof u atroogly 
d4a^M>lo]>cd roligiouA aeufte bikini; refttgo solely in the 
arbitriinnOMM of God. Rotinni^o upon tho bittor, as 
thoChurch dcfimtd ils» content, idonc eutvcd him fmai 
uihiliMii. FaiUi, in urdvr to auiinlmn ili^elft found 
DO other safety against ttio inniiul of tlio flood of 
»ci«na> tlian Uio plank of the arbitrarin«8s of tbd 
God xrhom it fioiight. It no longer UDdcreto<>d him, 
but it KLilimitkxl t^j bim. Thua Church dogma and 
CbnrcJi prnctico romAJned Btanding, just beoaoao 
&o pbilCTJophy of reli^oD and abeoLatc morality wctw 
wa»h(d tiwixy. According to Occam the neoeni^ 
of ft ttapcruatnmi hat/ituA (therefor^of gnic« in geo* 
eral) to gain ©temnl life camnot be provi?<l liy argu^ 
menta founded upon roasou, xinoo n h<^t:illMin 
through roaaon can arrive at a lovo of Qod. Hie 
neceesity i^ eelablli4)vd tktldy by the iiutliori^ vt 




tho Cburcti. Occam and hij«frieticLi weroAHyot DO 
moralitiUi or rationaliBtii; they only fippear so to U8< 
The StK'inians were the firstj for tliey first raised tlo 
hypothetical tenets of the tiominaliBts concoming 
natural theology to cotogoricvd nuik» Bitt thorcl^ 
they uguln guined a niii^hly roliauco upou thv clour* 
DGBSand powt^r of momlity, which tho nomiualSets 
had forfeiUnl together with their inward conSdcnco 
inreli^on. If in the 16tb century men bewaikd the 
destruction of theology in religion, they had in mind 
tho tecets which were put into practici^*, viz. , thj«tgocd 
works are tiio cauaac fvr receiving eternal life, that 
even the most trifling works done will erer bo r^ 
garded a^ merits, and becauw they considered sub- 
mission to the ordinancea of the Church a bonus 
mott^t which, »upplfimeDted by the ftaorament^t im- 
perte the worthineas neoMsary for eternal life. 

The lax conception of hereditary bib Bbowed itaelf 
In the development of the do^jma concerning Marj', ^«2? 
/Vn^'hn, Boruard, BtiDaventum and TJiomAi< fttill as- 
cribed hereditary' sin to Mary, ovou if tiioy admitt^^d 
mx oefpecittl re«er>'ation rognrding it; but by the year 
1 140 at Lyons a f«ast of tb« iDunacrilato conceptton 
of MHry was celohratod^ and Dung tunglit that t\io 
immjiculate ooQCcption was probable (n'tro-acting 
power of the death of Christ) . The controvenqr b^- 
twoen the Franciscans and Domintcanfi which then 
arose waa itot adjusted in the Middle A^ee, bat was 


Torbiiideu by StKtus IV. Tlie Domiuioaiui did ixvt 
otberwise take a mibordiDate phce in the extrara- 
gADt gloriScatioi] of the rir^n. ThomAK indtwcl 
taught that to her belongs not only ^duJia"^ as to 
tbe saintly hMi**hyperdutia^, She also wad credited 
with a certain part in tbe work of redemption (qoofn 
of beavetip inventrt^c gratiae, mOf janna, ticnta^ 
domfna^ mediatrix). Tliuaaaumptkm of the Soot- 
istBf that nhe hm] cooperated not only pas^lvoly but 
also actively hi the incfimatioD, was a natural ooa- 
oequeaeo of tlic adoratioD, especially as Bernard 
taught ft. 






TKH elementH cf the AugUBtinian theology h^ 
came more promiaentiluringtho Middle Age8, 
but th<*y wore jcradually more widely nundered from 
onft Htiotiivr. Tni^, TliomaA undertook onro agiiin 
to tiC>lvo tlio vnunnuuft probl(;m uf Matiftfyiu^ witbin 
the Itoundti of one rt^-frt«m nil tho cLuida m'ido by 
ecclesiastical antiquity as expronid in it8 body of 
dogma, by the Holy ScHpturcs^ by tbo idoii of the 
Church aa an ortir-prPBont, living Christ, bj the 
legal organization of the Roman Church* by Angua- 
tino^s doctrine of gmce* by the acrience of Aristotle 
and the Bernard ino-Pranci8Ca» pi^; but thie new 
Augustine wa» not able to creuto a eatisfactoiy unity. 
Hii4 undertaking had in part the opposite co&bo- 
qaence, aa it were. The nominali^t'A cnticism of 
the reason and the mystici^im of Eckhart went to 
Bchool to Thcmias; the cnrialuta leamad from him 
and BO did the ''Reforvncra". lu tha 15tli oontajy 

Uw i^b-' 




of Ijwa- 


tbcolo^cvil (loctrino ^ccnwd to bo voUl^yl But ibert 
i%]fl)Viins.l ni ihni iltius Lvriv jjlaiu teoileucw: Curia/' 
ism Antl Uh) oppmitioH tberata 

Ciuialism Uiugbt Ma< ^Ai* usages of the Romish 
Church are Divine truth. It trvHtod Church afbin 
and rcdi^on atf an outwunl dumimoD and tfou|rht ic 
nuiiiittiin Hifitn by nwAiw of power, twroaucracy and 
nil opprouivo toU-syBtcm. After the unlucky coiua« 
of tlio gr»it councih) ii g(*rii;rul latitude ftucc>e«d«dj 
Tho princes who were hiriving for ubGolulitoa fouu' 
their match when they bar^ittecl with tbe cniia 
share with it in the ithearintf of the sheep. 
gav<\ Inick tu tho f<ur>ft in ocelvAifMtioal TQattem th< 
abftoluto |HJwer, in urdr^r lo nhare in tho divisi 
of the r«Hulluut uiiJiLuru (Um bulla^ ** Execrabitis^ 
of PiuR IL in ttieyear 1459, and "Pastor aet^rnus'^ 
of Loo X. in tlie year 131C, prfxrUim tlie atiprom* 
acy of tho pope over the cwincils). The opini 
tim% |)upRl diK^iBions are as holy ns tho docrceB 
councilj>, and that th« right of oxpoftition la 
ttiingH belongs only to i\^ Church, i.e- Ilomfr, grad< 
xxtiily t-ntabltslied it^eU. The curia, however, wiu 
very careful to compile from these ilecisioas a book 
of Iaw», a cloc^l dogmntic conon^ Its infallibility 
and sovereignty were secure only when it still bad 
n frfte hand and wh^n men were obligei] lo fww^de it^ 
every cntu> to its judicial uttcranec. TIjo old dogma 
watiL'^teem^ hb formerly; but thp iimNttions which 
it treated in actual life lay no more within its own 
province. They were handled by theol^^^. The 



lutter, however, during the 1^0 years sabciequent U> 
Thomas cumo to the cooTiction of the irratioit' 
ality of tlx> n>vfial*d dootrine and th«reforo fpivA out 
tho waU^hword, ttuic ooo muat blindly submit to tho 
iiuUiorily of Uie Cburcli. Tliiti doveli^i^iueut favorvd 
curiaJism; long since in Romomen had laughtlbAt 
submission to tJio aulhoritj of the CImrrh {fide^ m- 
piicita) would ^ociirc blfwsednoes, if oiil^' cue bolii^ved 
bo^idei; in tfao Diviuo rcoompooBe. In tho huniAnifi* 
tic ctrol«« of tho curia uigh did not in trutb wholly 
accept (his; yet on the other hiLnd pious scntimctti 
revered tbo Diviuir in :hf? irrmiunal imd arhitnuy, 
That this entire handling of the matUr wai^ a way 
of burying the old dcigma is clear> The end toward 
which from the begiuning the matter was direcrted 
in tlie Occident no\^ revi!ialed itself with astounding 
cleamoes: Dogma is inetitutioD, is a code of i<tw-^. 
The curia itAcJf respected the aame only formally ; 
practically there lay benaub, as in the cue of all ood«B 
in the bands of an absolute master, the politics of tfae 
CTiria The **tolerari jtoiesf* und tiua '" probabile" 
indiciab> A KlilL Wxortie ftooulariratinn of the doB:nia 
and of tho Church than iiio ^anathema sit*, Yot 
there lay a truth in curialitfiic ccclmadticiam itself 
as contraj*tod vrith tbofto tondoncitM which would 
found tho Church upon the sanctity of ChristiaDA* 
Against the Hu?uiites and tho mytiticA did Rome pro* 
ttorvo the right of tho conviction, that the Churdi of 
Obri«t iH the domination of the Go*<^w1 over xinful 

IahIeuUoq. , 





The opiMtntion to carialism was held togetber by a 
D«(^livo thought, that thtf usages *»f the Rornisb 
Church tvrrt* become tyrannical and that th^y had 
ih0 t^timony of ecclesiastical antiquity against 
them, ir«rtf j>o[iticAl, aocial, religious and ftctentifio 
niotiv«6 mel togetjier. Men reasoned accordingly tlmt 
pApftl <iod«ioi^Fi do not have the aignilicance of artidiev 
oC faith, that Kum<f is not the only c»ie authorized to 
intorprot tho Scriptan» and tho fatb^re, that tbe coun- 
cil »ho«i1d reff^nn the Chnrch in itet hii>nirchy and in 
xbA momboni, iind Uuit tlio Church, over agiLini^t tho 
dof^tttio, [:ulti:«]i mid iHxlL«ttu»lico-k-guU[«tic ituiovu* 
tiond of Rooks mui»t rotum to its original principle 
and to itB original attitude. Men believed them- I 
seh^ea able to net aside tbe evoIutioD of the i^^eoedin^ 
Offnturift^ and planted themaelvee in thr\ti upon tbe 
Holy Soripturee and eocIeeiaatJoftl antiquity; but ta j 
praxi the reformatory aim vraa either vrhotly obacun I 
or contained so many etementt) of tbe poe^AuguHtin- 
ian development that the oppodtion wan crippled from 
tbe Rtart. Men knew not whether they were to re- 
foirn wages or mitusageSt aiid thoy knew not what 
they idiould do widi tlio popt), whom they acknowl- 
edged and rejected, hlotsAed and ctiraod with the sante 
braitb (cf. LtiltwrSowriaitUtudv, mT-J^2C, toward 
tbe pope). But this highly inconsistent oppotaitioa 
was stiU a power, savo within tbe roabn of doctrine; 
for tlie latter was discredited a]«o vrithui the circles 
of the anti-cimaliata Tpaotical pit^ty" waa the 
watchword of humanists like Erwunui; and of Au- 



■ THR 

H guhtinliins Hk«^ Slaupitz. Men were sarfeitt^ with 

V that tlitxilt^ which ronaoned ovor-much within tJie 

I' safe haveti of antlmrity auJ rendered the truly pious 

lite more diflloult. If the Church dot^trinowcre only 

I*'!wi«itK«", ihim WAM it |fiv<>ri for ihti sAlto of t)ii> \hV- 
U:r\ it ought Ui iitc^p aitiih^ luid uutko way for n nuw 
nuxK' of Uiotigtit {i9W Socinuuii.-un). But rfiucr^ tbo 
old doginn was nioro» it renijiined — yet here al»o 
o.» a legal code. With the oxcoptioii of a few bold^ ihti DptKi^ition ijurtii^ rc«poctod the dogma 
with tho iufltinict uf ^If-iiruHonntion. They felt 
it i;ti]1 ov(»r, «v«at if oW*ur(»ly, tm the foimrlation 
of their cxuteoMao; But they %vi«)iod no doctrinal 
oontrovemee : Scholiwlic quibblin}^ wuiu us di&tafite- 
ful to them as monkish quiurah;, atill they wished to 
free thauselve* from &cliolHsticitsai> What u contra- 
diction! The ultimate groujid lay in the enormona 
breacli which existed between the uld dogma and tha 
CbrigtiAU conoeptioas wlio^ oxproawd form was tbo 
life of the day. Dogma was tbo noil oiid the Lit1&- 
df^i for th^T uxiHktii.'^ ot Ihu Church— but which uld 
Church dogma had then 8till for piety, as it th«n 
Qfiflted^ a directly comprebenaibla senae? N'eitbor 
tbo doctrine of the trinity, nor of the two natuns, 
lfi>a thought oo more after the manner of tiiti OrMla- 
Fiety, aa it dcvdopc^l itself in the I6th oontuty, lired 
in Augustine, Bernard and Francla. Under tho 
shell of on old foiUi a new piet>' had boon forming 
during the [m^t thousand years and thcfofori) aL»o a 
new faith. Men huru und there thought to uaaiflt by 


vrttt con- 



actum la , 



a polum lo pure Auffusiinianiam. Yet the criflis 
At tKit timif, tiiA Ijrctfkch liotwoctn Uio <logina1ic lc>gAL 
TOgulationM in tbo Chureli nnil fbo obaeuro mm of 
pioty, Hpmugout of th<3 w»il of Att^^iwtiniAnUai it- 
self. Tho defects lay gennltially otrondy fn t^ir 
prerdfltt. Thi^ it i» truot no forenmner of Um Ref- 
ormation purc^ivod; but Uio fuct of tlto impoHKibility 
oE a refonnation liy tho in^'ftns transmitted by 
Augustine i« tboroiif^lily npjMLrenl. Thtt disinteg- 
rated AuffUJttiniani^m is siill ^uyu^/ futon wn/ 
Aotr Hum jf-fudl one pvritmnenttjf kvlp out the tfantv 
with the genuine? 

Still the criticism which applioil tho revived Au- 
gustinianiflm to the diHiQlegrat^ had in the 15th 
oentnry a hen^iicial influence, without whooe propa- 
ratoiy work tho R«<fonnnHon tuid tb« Trid^itioft 
oouucil were inconocivablo. The immorol, irrelig- 
ious, yea, heutht^ui^ih mi^chanism of the domitmnt 
Church wa^ di^croclitod by this AngustiDianiatn; 
ycB even more, the latter unfettered He sense of 
freedom in religion atut therewith the striving 
after r^al religion. Ilworked in union wi^h all tho 
forcca which in the IClh century recogoinxi th« right 
of tbd iudividual and of iiubjectivity, aud sought to 
iH^eak the spell of the Middle Ages. It create un* 
rejf, an UDre&t \vhic)i wcmt beyond itdcJf^Hcw oan 
ODO bo a Eroo aud at the same time a blo^ecd man? 
But no ono wn« nblo to Formiilnto thi» i|uvt$tion, 
bi^cauHi.1 no ono foU a*; yet it« full force. 

With tJio close of the IStb centuij varioiu iwu- 



i£ig8 of the crisis secmoil poa&iblo: A iTomplcte tri- J^,— 
uinph of cTirmli^in, a triunipb of rorivifiMl Augus- rnHinir. 
tiniojiUm, a wiinclering of tho Chiircji :iito iliverae 
ffroup6 of the miM3t ri^d curialiBm nnd of a ocromon- 
iul rulifpuii vurgiu^f Ujwiinl ii nitiuDuliiftic nnil laniii/' 
iml Biblical Christianity wtiicb lUiouId discmtl the 
old dogma, finally a new retonnEitioD i>f rdigion as a 
whole, i^e. aa e\'aDp©Ucal information, which should 
root up and dit^card the old dogma, liocause the new 
point of Tiow — God ia gTAcioua for tho aake of 
Chriflt, and the right and fr«edom which have dome 
through him — could pennit that only to remain in 
theology which belonged to him. 

In twility, however, the issutngs were differoat, "'^IJSu?* 
They all remained burdened with contradictions: 
Trideniitie Catholicism ^ Socinianfsnt and tho 
Svangelioal Jie/ormafion, In the first curialian 
prerailed, the mooarcbical inatitutional diapeuflerof 
bleBsednees with ita aacfamenta and its *'merite"; 
but it found itadf compelled to make a compact with 
Augii»tiiiianiHin and to reckon with the same on the 
btfwii* of tlio coilillcalion of tlie iiew dr^gmaja which 
had been extorUd fcom it. In SoeinianiAm the 
nominali^ic criticism of the underataudiiig and the 
bumanlstlc spirit of the new era prevailed; hut It 
I itonattied cntaQglod in the old Biblicism, and in 
iBottiug aside tho old dogmas it created for itself new 
fonea in opposition to the old. Finally in tho evan- ^f^^j^ 
gftlical R^Tfortnation tho inffiDililo orgHnizaf ion nf t)ie 
Church, the inCaUihlo doctrino] iriulitioiw of tbo 



of Ood and 
Ih* World 

tatlo Con- 





Church and tlio lufulliblo eanon of Bcrtptuio vent bi 
priuciplo iKTt uHido HDil H ^iio1l>* DOW fitajulpaiui 
Bociired; but Hagacity and courage did not held out 
to apply iQ onch pnrticuliir int^tanco tb&t which hml 
been Bccurod in gcDoml. On Iho neoumptioa that 
the thing itself (the QoMpel)— uot tlio authority-* 
dfrmundod it, mon r4>tained tht> old dogma as the 06* 
soitial CQUtent of tlie Gospel uud under the title 
••word of God" tbey returned U> Biblicism. Over 
against the n^w doctrine of the hierarchical, cultish, 
Pcla^anisticand monki&h Chrifltondom mon aaw in 
tbu old di^na only the exprosHton of fiiith in God 
who iB merciful in Christ, and /aiied to see that 
dogma at the Hame time ia uomething entirely differ* 
eiit> vIk. : PhiU)0op)iioal CH>8mo-thei$tic knowledfco 
And nilo of failli. Hut llmt \v1ue4i mon ajImitL^l 
undiT a new littu viudicatol itMulf, irhon onco it had 
btKMi alltfvred, by it lo^<: of ita own. Mcoi exalted 
tho true llieologyj tiie theologin cruets, and pLiccd 
it upon thjj lamp-stand ; but in doing this under the 
old ix:cloi^iiiMlical forms tliey obtained in tho larguin 
tie uccompimyiug hwwledge and rule of faith: 
and tb^ 4loc^^innl contniverriw of tlw ovaitgiJical 
partjca nppcurod liko a continuation of tho echolastic 
Mcboijl-coiiirovur^i<?», uuly with iufiniloly highorKig*- 
niticanoe; for dow tJiey had to do inth the exi^t' 
ence of the neiv Church. Thus aiv>ee at the veiy 
beginninR — at least with the eucharifltic controverBy 
and the Angnburg Confoaaion, which now began to 
pour tho now vino iuto tho old vrin^ekiua — in tho 


reformod conception of doctrine a highly compli- 
catedj contradictory picture. Only in the pnncipleet 
of Luther, jiqH not in all of them, did the new spirit 
dittplay itaolf; outride of theeo it contained notbing 
QOWi aiid be who to-day, ia the 19th oenlury, dovs 
not take this spirit as hifl monitor, but rmte quietly 
beneath the stiuming bki\^ irbich it gave itwif at 
the end of the 16th centur}', deceives himself in nj- 
gftrd to hitt own position: He i» nut ov&ngeltcnl, hut 
Mongn to u Cjitboli<; i9ub*Hpocw« wherg bp in free, in 
aocordanoo with tliv pnnripW of prc^ftont-tluy Prolwj 
tontfttinp tu liclect Uio BiUkAl, di^fmaUca), myaUcal 
or hierardilcal elemcRts. 

Howe\"ert th« resultants of the history of the 
do^ina an» clcju-ly n^prc^^iti^ in the three following 
creations: Po»t-Trideiitin«i Catholidnn liiudly com^ 
ploted the Doutndizing of tbo old do^nm in wn Arbi- 
trary papal k^ol organization; Bocinianism appre- 
ciably disintegrated mnd camo to an end; the 
Refornuition, in thnt it both ^t the dogma mnAe and 
rrved them outright, lookod away from them, 
tkward to the Qoepet, fonvard to a new formula- 
tion of the Qeapel confeefiion whidi sliall be free 
from dogma and bo roconciled with trnthfiihtcoa and 
truth. In this »cnm; ibo history of dogma should 
set forth the i»nitng» of dogma. In the Kefonna- 
;0D it haa only to dewribe the Chrifitiatiity of Luther, 
in order to make the siibwcjuent <Ievo1o|>m6nt com- 
prohfmsihli^. The latter l«*lonffs either at« a wholn to 
iho hifltoiy el dogma (up to the preoent time), or not 







at all. It lA more oorrect, liowerer, to exclodo it 
entirely, for the old dosma olaimed to be infaUiUe 
Thin daim Uio KofommtiChn, so to Apoolc, iliioL 
for ita o^ru productions— th€n> was «ileaoo m 
Ibo olJ dugiJiJUf. TInMvfurv he viho ntiU tfodoi for 
A middle eouceptlon botweon rofonnable and infal* 
liblo would porpt>tiiuU> forever the <xiafuttiotiB of the 
epigonoi, if ho ebould Tecognlne dogmas in the 
expofiitjoas of ProtestantiAm in tlie 16th century. 



1. The Codification of tiie Mediaeval Doctrines in 
Opposition to ProteatanttJtfH (Canons and 
Dfirrfifs of Trent)^ 

EdlClDQ or Oie decreeB. 1504. KarUer woito Ln KCUner. 
BjioboLik, 1844. Lfttv Sa lUtrto^. RE*, aub verb, Tridhntimun, 

Cj^ii And Is Komo Uioy wished only to condeom str&tig«^ 
doctrinca, not to codify their own; thoy also wanted 
no <!ounciI. But oiio wnn n^qmrr^of the curia by tiie 
prinoQB. Id tho coming toguthor it buctuno dour that 
tbomcdi»val spirit had dcituirtd atreugth froaa tho 
Beformfttion> humanlgm and AugusttDtfittism, but 
that thig spirit itsolf rcmainod tho stronger power. 
The ciiria luxomptmbod tlio masterful work of ap- 
propriating tho n€w» of condcmitiug the Reformation, 
of justifying itself and yot of setting aside thereby 
the most glaiing abu»o«. In opposing tlw Luther 




movement, they wore oMiged to Iransfoim many 
mcduova] doctrines into dogm»s— tlw decrees of '"S^rt*' 
Trt-nt are thii glia(1oi\'8 of tbo Scformation. AVbat %^£^ 
originiLtly to tlw mtiid of the cTiiri^i Dpjxvir^ to bo 
(I mittfortuno — tho nc<>wsi^ of fomiidating and the 
ct^mptjljsary n^uni to Aiiguvtiiiitiubiu, — pruvt*d itifctf 
liil*>r tu bo Ru mIv£U)Ugo: Tbey b«d a ih>w rfile of 
fiiithy which could bi^ applvvcl vrilh vcrbol Htnctuc«s», 
whenevor it Beemed expedient, and wbit^ vaB, on 
the otb^ hand, so ambiguous and tUvttic aa to leaye 
foi3e pl«y for th(i arbitrary deoifiion*^ of tho cuHfi. 
The Utter rceervod the right of interpret At ion and 
the oiuncii oancedc<l thit, andthiw tdnmdy did infal* 
libility accrue in principle to tho popo. The carLi ^h2!j[^ 
iteelf was accordingly imchasged, i.e. it came fortli tiDiin>*«d, 
from the pnrjjatory of the council with all ils ciia- 
tomn, practioeB, a8&iiniptir>iis andsinH; biitthe inner 
oonditiou of tho Church ae a wbol© was ncvortho]ce» 
improved* By reason of it« inner untruthf uhivoB axtd 
becanso the doctriaeB of the Church of to^ay have 
been consl^eutly dev^oped in not a few points (tt- 
coDt rejection of Augnstinianism, decision of the 
que^tou, undecided at Trent, whether tho pope be 
tho uuiveraal bishop and infallible), tho TridentttK> 
decrees are no lunger an unolscurcO *ourco of Crtth- 
olidsm* Even nt Tn^t wen.- ibc dognun transfornwd 
into a dognia*politic«> and the laity debarred from 
faith and dogniii : Everything tlmt has been baixted 
down is most holy as r^&rd its rarbal meaning, but 
in theology it rcMilreg itwlf into an array of more or 

61:8 octLiKES or the distoky or noriMA. 

atfMiU D» 




leas probable meanings^ which, in the case of any 
cotjtXDversy* are decided by Uie pope. 

Tbeyagrwd in the rejwtion of " re-ba|>tuzi]'' and 
Protcfitanta. After reiterating Uie ConAtanthiopoli- 
tan cree<), they deetare<1 in the -Itli efflslon, in onkr 
togTiardtiie"/>t«iirt,t<*tToiijtf/rt'', that tlio npocrj-pki 
are of liko ranlc with tlie Old Tc^tAinent, that the 
vul^ito L» to bo coTisidf>n<l aa authentic, and that 
thtt Chumh akitM i* |H>rniit(«iI to inlfvrprct th^ Son{>- 
turcii. By llwMtidcof Uiolrtttor, hoipvcvcr, Ihojrplnccd 
tb« ' Irodiliones «tri« v^riptu^ qaiie ub ipsiun 
Christi ore ah apostolis arcfptae nut ah ipsr'rtg 
aposloliSf spiritn saudo tUdante, qua^i per 
manu^ troditae ad vos vague pervenertini^ (in an- 
otlier place tba definition e3Cpri»A<» the idea Aomc^ 
what diff&re4]tly)> lo the 5th and fith BodeioDs the 
decrcNM in regard to ori^nol sin and ju&tiflcatfoQ 
were formulated^ Here under the spell of the re* 
awakenod Augustinianism and of the ReformalHm 
they did not c*>mmit thomdolvcct to the nominalistic 
dootnne, biit approached Tory near to Thomas; ln< 
dead their di^ctrine of jnstifkatickn, althmigh it waa 
tx>m of polttica, la a very respoctable prodaot, 
in which au evangelical element Is not wanthi)^. 
But (1) line** were drawn hero and tljore which led 
to ft Scotifttic (aemi-Pelngian) understanding of the 
doctrine, (2) it niado vcrj- litllo differtruco whut was 
said in the ohiefnontenre about «in and graors when 
in the eubordinntif i;ont^nco« tho thwi^ wiw iillowod, 
that the practices of the Uonutn Church are th« chief 



bw. By the first mrt^ it was admitted^ Adam loAt 
holiooea and rightooasnow *" in qua conaiiiutus 
JueraV^^ becumo chauged " i» dt^ierius" io body and 
iwul» aud perpetuated luBsin " propagaiione'*. Yet 
they also taught that free will waH not destroyed, but i^ro> wul 
**viribu^ aUenualu^\aitd tbat baptism really blots 
out the realus originalis peccatu litit the conctipis^ ' 
centia (fom^a)t wliicli ia not to be loobod upoa aa 
8111, remaius (therefore tbe religious view wi\A abnu- 
doned). Aa regaribi jUAlification it- was cJcpUined 
that it i» the ac^ by which man paaaes from an un* 
righteotts to a right4^iu» state (through baptism, i.e. 
the sacrameut of |>enhnce); it ariK^ however, not 
ximply tJiniiigh Uw fcyr^\'nrn'i*n tif Kin, but idwi 
through the winctifying and renewing of the innor 
iiuui hy a fr^o accoptaticv at gniov, although the 
mail in hicnpablo of freeing himself Trotn the domin- 
ion of fiiD per rim rxafuraCt or per litteram tegis 
Moysis, On tbo ono hand, jui«tiiieution appearaas 
the transMio from chio condition to another, viz, 
to that of adoption, and fiLitli wa« looked upon ») the 
determining power alongaido of grace (•'CAris/um 
profK>fiUit detut propiiiaiorrm vuii kidkm in san* 
guine ip^iua pro peccaiis u(^9tris")\ on the other 
hand, it appears as a aanctifying proceffi through 
tho inpouruig of grace (*Christi sancthsi'mae 
pasitionis mfirifo jw*r /tjjiriium sanriuin carHwt 
dei fiijfunditvr in a>rdihu^, no that man in justifi- 
cation recviruK Mt the mune tinu* with the forglveiivoe 
of Bin an inflow of faith, love and hope; wlth- 

5U orrx-tKKs op the hij*tort op nooicji. 

<Mtt tbo last two, man 14 DcitlH*r pcrfoctlj united Ut 
Chnsii nor u h\% toMh n living cim). The latter 
vfow \b tlw dt-tcisivOf un<l uccntnlin^t}^ tlio stadia of 
th<j prooe«s of justiBcatioD {inception et ^eq.) aw 
sot forlb in a general way. The gratia prfurvemrn* 
Bi^usis itself in the voeatio (nultia existentihva 
tnfiriiis) ; but therein in the inceptioa not exIuitM- 
f>d, >nuch moro doee thoro belong to it tbo ^/h- 
tninaiio spirltus sancti, vrhicb enaUea man to luiu 
tovan) ihii Jwititia and givae him tbercwitli a din- 
position and a frco 8urrGnd«r to God. In that now 
justijicatio first enflucv;, the Uiouplitof tho gratia 
gratin data is vitiated- Only m ah?th-<Kto is the 
'^„ for^veneAs of sin inherently peculiar, and tho same 
U true of juetiScatioQ ; in concrctj> it is a gradual pn>- 
cees of eanclificatioQ whldj itt completed En tbo mor- 
fijicatto uifmbrtrntm c^imi^ and mailf> munifcet 
tbmuj^b manifold grace in an obodienco to the rom- 
m&nda of Oo(1 nitdtlio Chnrcfa. Unto an a^urance 
of tbe ftoiuireil grac^ can ono not attain in this life; 
but tbo taok of tliia oau be ropuirod tbrou|fh ponanoo \ 
the proccBfl also does not need to Iw begun anow, in 
00 far as faith haH remained hi apito of the lo«s of 
the justifying grace. The goal of tho proc««s in Ibta 
OMtbA life i** tJi<? bona operti^ which God by virtue of his 
grace nx^oivee a^ plotutin^jt to liimsolf and ea meri- 
iorions, Acconiin^ly nno miml vww tbeee on tb^ 
one liond im gift* of Gkvl and on tbo other nn roa] 
incwn» to Ijlmsodnnw. — Ttie most iinportatit thing 
i^t (bat (in oppoifition to the Thomas-Augii^inion 


fmn Co- 

trAilttiuii) thfs {t^'atia prima doe* not jostify, but 
only ilii^poeas- Therefore ju^dcation ari»66 out of 
a cooperation. No Aiigusiinian phraseology can 
con^^l this. Of tho :w uuathomas, ^Vi are <]irorl«l 
agaiuKt Prot«»t«vi]ti»m. In Iho condcmnaiioti of tbe 
9ent«inco, **Jidrm JHMifit^fvm vihil aUnd iwtte 
quam fiduciam divitiae tni/^ricordiafi pcccata 
remittetUis prn}p(er Christum^ i^el earn Jidudmt 
sofam w«f», qua justificnmnr^y »omcthiiig more 
was impU(.rit)y condomnod, viz, rigid Augtutinian- 
imn, — th<jro]U dove tlio iLrtfuln^MW of tlic decree 

In U)9 7tli nnd follovHtiK iMi;>Jions {h<» doctrine <A Po'vivitnf 
the siicraxnenl^ wai* foniiiilaUHl anil llic Cbutch vf\\a ^"^^ 
declarwl asocram^ntal fufttUutitm {" {/er mn'rummta 
ovmis vera jn^itia vet incipit vel coepta atig^tur 
vet omissa reparutur"); coucoming the vrord and 
faith thorewasflccurdrnglyfiilenfe- Instead of a doc- 
trineof th^ 6iicmnieut» in Qvnerp 13 anAth^mAs were 
formulatod, whiob coofnin tbo reel protest Against 
PmtostantiHm. Tbo inslitution by Cbrifit of aU of 
tho iiov«n sacramontfi was aflinnnl, ua well aa the 
impossibility of being justified per solam fidem, 
without tlie sa<TramenU4. Tbefio " cotftinent graiiQm^ 
and accordingly poaM«« a m>-BteriouA power, whirh 
tbey beetow ex opt^re operato upon thoae ''^t 
obfci^m non ponuni"^ In <*lior r«fipecta aW the 
Thomistic doctrine (character, intention, et<;.) Is 
everywhere preaoired. yet the tbeologicaJ sabtlotioe 
are laid aside, and the tnuisition to Lbe Scotiatic form 





of statement rconmns pomble. At tItoclcKtoof ibo 
aiiatli«9miu« evcrj departure frt^in lliu uiioo o^UibllKhcd 
Diaimor usages of Uie Cliurcb wiitfix>D<l4>mni<cI. Forthotivat* 
, Ooo- tnent of tlw individual sacmmcnte Ibe buU uf Eugene 
IV., Ej-uUale domifio (14311), Mtrved as a ]>rototypG. 
Tfao doolarationtt Id n^^ard to bapliftjn and cotifirma- 
tiou aro instmctivo only in that by Hits former tiioee 
perhotu^ aro couilemued wbo toarU tba( all bubsequent 

can bo fur^^ivcii, luid b>' Uie bicter tliat tl»e bisbo]> 
a1oni> 18 |>roclAimod as miniftler Micram^iUi. Tonob- 
itig tht^ oiinbaritit iho ThontLstir thooU^giuoeiia weiu 
tninf(form<fd intoudof^u. In virtu<>of the tnuutuV 
AibintiHtion tht? eiitinr CUrint lA pn^tu'sit in oidi pnr* 
tide of diicli of tlio df?nu<titi<, ;ind ftucb l» Un* ciwo 
boforo thoir reception; ber\co tbo bo&t i* to be vrot' 
ahipped (**tn euciiarislia ipse ^anHitotis auctor 
ante usum est '). All U8ttjr.v« were horc dtii^iijfniitod 
aJ4 apc*1'>lif*. TIw* offjvt of Ou^ mfvixtmnii rvtmAina 
highly iQsignificmit; tbono wcro c'xproeHly condcmooA 
who b«ld furi^i vtmeesa to bv tbo iiritioi^ Crutt. 
At tbo moEi^t conte^eC point, tbd mafls^ tlio sum 
total of Iratlitiou wa^ sanctioned^ a few supcr^ti* 
tioufi miauB^es only being di^counUtDancod. Low 
and high miuis {^^acrificiufn propitiaioriuui pro 
vivis et d&fiincth noHdum ad plenum purgatis") 
were a« much jiutiEed — notvrith&taDdlDg all eoru- 
p]e» of princws— ag the withholding of tlie cup and 
the Latin language. The canou^ plaoe all refor* 
niatory iiiovomont« under the ban and thereby- 

TEmi>R>FOI.D ]9S1TIt4Q OP RllTTOlir OP DOnUA. Sit 

rigidly excUitle the Cliiircli i>f Iho won! from the 
Oiurcli of tlu> jtagiiii inasft'offorinp:, TIil* doc'trini> of 
l^^rmtKn ia mii<'h mon* lho(v:>uglily i)aiidU*d Umn 
thut of tbo ducbaritit al>out wUioli tho thvcjlugiond 
uloiitj ooiiteiiO^l. l^veti uuUi tlio nm/enVi luifl ijuKini 
materia waa the eutire scholastic Inbor in respect to 
penance reo^ived r8 dogma. Hmicgo inorc«xUfi»led 
esiammAtion (^e& atKive, p. 471^) is unnecessary. Yet 
it in worthy of remark thnt Ujo aUritio i« vor>' cir- 
cumiipu^tjy baudlod, nni) iii cvor^-wlit^ro lookvd npon 
ihA contritio imperfecta. So much th'^ inorv cnto- 
gorindly wau* thi* vonft;s9fo of uv«rj' iiu^rud i*ni be- 
fore the i»ric8t aicoumgwl an<l tho jmrftrinr/ character 
of thu priest i-uiphfisixod. Tlio satisf act tones vrcas 
OS with ThomuK, considered jiist as noetM^uhry for tho 
tempoyrilifi! jioena p^ratt i\it tht* indulgojiOM. Yet 
mon HiK)kc very roMor^'odly AlK>ut tho mnttor. Tbo 
ifcliobiatic thooTy i« not alluded to, tho fthado ih per- 
mitted; yet touching the rtiwff i^rZ/abejohiloly noth- 
\u^ 18 conoeded (vrboever decUres itL4itiIgciioee not to 
beiinluturyiB tol>ocoiide<miiixl)> Inrfrgardtoiholafit 
unointiug, the orders and marriage tliey runbed to 
ihn c^inr'hitfion thnt thn n4^){em ortlinitM wor^ alrf«u3y 
given ab ip^o initio ecchBiite. Tho old oont«0tcd 
<ji]iHt]4jii rvjpinling tliu Rrlrtlioti of thv hmhupH to tho 
pricdU ivjia not <loct(k^), yot the former acquiivd a 
superiority* Regunltng marriAge they discounted 
only homiletically find eccWia«ticAlly, yet they con- 
demned tho^ who denied thut it conferral a gratia. 
On tho quMtioDi« respecting purgatory, gaints, relics 




render its idol^n (See on 
sacnimcnts and indulg 
1887; St^hneider, die a 
rooted the Churcti finr 
Ages and of scholaetici 

2. The Post-Tridentin 
aration for th 

Denzioger, Enchi 

ft^ta The questions not wh 
P*^' alism or episcopacy, A 
Pelagianism, moral law 
to agitate the three foil* 
question became a double 
decision or tradition. T 
in favor of curialism and 

cSir^ . 1- («) ^t Trent ^e opi 



Kotniah Ctiurcb and tho pope into lU credo^ aiid the 
ThomiBtic Cat*chismus Bomauii^ taught |>npiil iiu* 
tocracyafi ttJi article of failh ["^ necesmrium /nit hoc 
vi»0nte caput ad unitQicni ecciesiae coHHlitktehdam 
et cantervandam'*), Y«t tLorc» urcM^> n vigiorowe op- 
po»)LioD, viz., in tho Fnincc of Hcnrj' IV. and Louift 
XIV, Men njv«jTto(l tUur^* (Bu)«;<ULft) Uj QidlicuQii^m 
(in other nwpecU^ al«) tlio Triilenlino decrew wor© Dot 
anconditionaUy accepted), piirtly in tb<f intercut of 
the kiBg, partly ib tliat of tko uution and its btsbops 
'(reeidonre of tlio bwhop*< dimnojur^). As to the 
ineanitig of tho primiiov, which w-iu^ uIIow-chI U> pfiM, 
thoy wvrv nft littlo fthlo U> arrive nb ctoiLriJixiet und 
luiaiiimit/ &8 fa the I5th century; but 1: remained 
ecttlod tluit tiio king atid ilie bi^hop^ should ride tho 
Fn>ncli churchy that the ]>c}]>oIias nothing to My about 
tttmpoml thiu^. and Uiat io spiritual thmga aUo be 
16 iKrttndby thodf^rixiruisd' tht4 0f>undlK (ConHtanr<-)» 
hifl dod«ioni^ <\iD«x|ii4Mi11y being unnltcrnblc only by 
thu ix>ncurnj(i<:e of lh« Cliiin:h tO^dUi'^u^ propo»iUouii 
of l<3tiX). Tlic popes rejected tln?*o propontiou^, but 
did not breuk with Fmneo. At tho end of bis Ufo uubUT, 
the f^reat king hiuiM>lf diacoimlod thoin, without 
formally withdrawing tbiun. Thoy were in the 18th 
CM^ntury Btill over a powor until th^ monarch who 
elevated them to confltjtntional law (1810) banded 
th^n over to the curia— Napoleon L The way in 
which he, mtk the consent of the popeSt shattered 
.^w Churc-h and eodeaiaatical orfcanizatioTi which 
^ were overturaal by the revolution, in order to rc4>uild 


SSA nm.nnw rtr titr iTT5rrfniT of T>naliA, 




tliom in conjunction with the Mier^ was by a 
«uiTPncl«r of th« Prpmrli cliureh to Uu* iMJpea, Tli© 
^mpoiordid not intend tt an khcIi, but ftueh it waa. 
T1m» romaot4Ci»tt« (dt* TkfairitTv, Di>n^(!, Cbateau- 
biijuid ei at.) completed llie \vork Id anion w^lth the 
rostoratioD. dnjlicauiam was exterminated. In so 
fnrri^ Franco is Catholic to*da>', it i^i^apnl; however 
the official politics also wat<'ljeA over tho intereete 
of uUmmontj4ni*im in Ain^i^) tnndA. In Oonrwn^ 
Fobroiiiutt (17G3) auide u vigorous attaok upon 
curlaluun; but sJiice the one ^v?uit<fd an arch-e|iSM-o- 
pal national church (Ems' "programme", 17S6), tlje 
other stale churches (Joseph It etal), nothing actu- 
ally ciunv of it. The old Church organlEaUon nad 
^ne now- plan for rcslorint; it wont down in tho 
whirlpool of the N'npolt*onic o|)och. In tho pontCA of 
VionnA » new Church c-mcrgod, vrhich tho Curin 
dii'ectv^l, and hj which the hitt«r with ttie help of the 
princent, the iiltnunoDtane romanticists, tnistful lib- 
erals liud Mettemich diplomatists crushed out the 
romuaot of episcopacy and of national churcbdom. 

I. (b) Tho prof ^sitioJideiTrrili-ntirmehntinXr^tiAy 
givfm trfldilionnfrtrwidor range than tho Trtdwitino 
ducrovo tbcnuicJvwi (**aj>c*^f*/tccw el cccic»iasticaa 
traditioncs relSqucsque einsdem eccfestae oft.*fl7*- 
rationes et con^itiMwnes Jirmisxinte admitto et 
amplector*') and had ruised it above the Stiipttire*, 
Tho Jetfuits subordinate! the latter more and moro 
to tradition and took particular pains on tliat iknof>tint 
to fonnulate tho {n^piratioD oF tbo Scripturea in nB 

raUS-POLD I88C1K0 OP kllBtOBV OF DOHUA. 5^1t 



loose a way us ]H»^ii>Us sii tliat iriHtNwI tKo Vnticaji 
decroc* B<H»n to ]utv« <!oiii> nwuy witii thi> eunlradio* 
tioo, MtKlvrii CathoHci^n, howuvvr, Joimimln Ixrth, 
— the holding of Scriptural Imdicion tta inviolably 
sacred, and at tho nuunt* timo tlic puttin^of tlio finger 
catitioujjy upon it« iuxuffick-ucy and its defects. 
More IniiM^rtant vima ttu) di^velopm^Jit of tlic idoji of 
tmdition. In tliw>rj" tho tttat<*m<»iit wam fimily Hiiiiii- Tradmc*. 
tained Uiat there arc no nnw rvveljLtioTiti m tho 
Church; in rb&lity Ih^ gu^xttic (m«L?rvt tradition) and 
entliUHiafltic tnidition^princlple, agairutt irhidi bow- 
ever the Catholic Cliiirch t>ti<x* arrayed il**elf, waa 
over most boldly contended for. Bellarmine ^as as 
yet timid; but Conioliufi Musni»,a momUT of tho 
Trid^ntine coimcil, had already put forth tho a«)ier- 
tion that in mattcra of faith ho bolievod one pope 
more than a thousuud Axi^imtiii^^i aiid Jerom«H. Tlw 
quite new article, tliatall practitxs of the Roman 
Church are tradition, the Jesuila enlarged by the 
very newest, tliat ever^' doctriuAl decinion i>t Uie pope 
is tradition, Uewe and th«m id truth thoy spoke 
disparagingly iu regard to oouncila and proof froan 
tmdition, or declared tho b^laUcetoddi-cr^ca as forg- 
eries, in ard^ to vanquish hbtory by the dogma oon- 
ceming the pope. The Church itaelf is the living 
tradition, the Church however h the pope; there' 
fort the pope is the tt'udition (Pius IX-). And he 
^xereiwxt thi^ Attrihiit4> in 1ftA4 by thn pronhimjitinn 
of tho Immacidato con<x?ption of tJio virgin Afjiiy, 
tUud solving au old contested quesition (t«ep. 449). 

cimrdn to 
thn Pupa. 

S:i^ ouTLfNKS OF mn historv or imxima. 



Tluit wbidi coiilil not be acoOTopUsbeil by force at 
Tf^ui,propter antjHstias h^mporum^ nile* today,— 
fui hfwttical |iniicL|i]«^ when tn«ft«nred by Catholic 

(2) III thij CQlwhi^muis li*"n<tnu9 (1560), which 
tlio Jaituits gladly adopt^il, AuguKtini&nism obtained 
ltd U.4t ofticial mouument Tliencefortb they aoti^ht 
to prove that the doctrine of gmco rocdvod its sane* 
tion tliroLigh tlio world-ftliaphig iimctioe of Uie oon* 
f«M4ioiud. Alr^ttdy in tlu» yoiir 1967 it camo to pttWf 
that Piua V. rcjocted tho 70 article of the Lycnu 
professor, Bajus, which in iho main set forth the 
most stringent Auguatiuianisin, olthougb int^min- 
gted n'itli forvi^ uloiuenh^ and othtTwir^ uufavora- 
ble ti> the Reformation. A li>ug and hoHt^d contro- 
versy RTotio l>otw(?<*ii {h<3 rKiminicHnu nnd the J««uit8. 
The form<>r msistcd tho Joeiiit oducationni t^iyst^ni, 
oundemned the moat objvutionablc articles of tho 
Jesoifca (LeBBius and Hamol) and Bought to imiintain 
th« Tbcttnistic tc^Lching in regard to the gmvity of 
the first sin, in regard to concupisconoo and the 
gratia praev^niens. l^he latter laid particular streaa 
upon fr«o-wil1 and the " dUpoaition ". Amc>ng them 
MolinA xaado the greatest wmsation by his work: 
"JjiiKfKar&ifrii c«m graiiae dunt^^ diviiut prae- 
scientio . • • praedestiriatione , - • concordia'* 
(1588). He attempted to read s^ui-Pdagianism 
into Augustiniauism; in roalit>' he (cave the UiiUir 
ftway aUogotJ:or, In ord^r to nUny the atonny con- 
troversy n«^>iirs4i waa liad to HnfU4^. She luid no in- 



UfTwi iu Um tluug \im\U but only in the opportunity; 
tlio conbworvy Luwrn^or wat» nut nboiit Aii^DftlJiio 
and Petagius, but iibout Duminicuiiw mnd Jomiitft. 
Politico rcquireil tluxt nt^ithrr party nliould bo n'holljr 
sacrificod. The "congr^atio de avxtftis", wliEch 
sat from 1598 to 1€07 (tfaopopo duriii^ tlio aami3 tinio 
being iutimidjitcd by ttto Jo»)uit»}» wa£ lumlly <)b> 
solved without iU^Hiriving at a decision (**fore ut 

quae cxApoctabainry opportune pvmiulgarcl") . The 
Ciiilure to d«cide was iu fnot a vi(;tory for the Jesuits. 
The JoDsenist contest wa^ sUU worse. In Catho- 
lic France, which had expelled the BAjfonnation after 
fearful strug^eB, an oamefit piety giadaally worked 
iteelf out alongfiide the frivoloua tourt and ntatd 
Catholicism and the Ui^ Jeffuitifim. Tfa^ poethuuioufl 
work of UL&hop Jftnson of Ypres, " Augustinua** 
(164))), brought the same to an historical and theo- 
logical halt, Thifi piety rocse right up in order to free 
the Church from the Church, the faith from tradi- 
tional Christianity, and morality from the refined 
ftiid lax morali^. The confeasional of the J^tuita 
ftocmod to it to be the rool enemy (Paacol's Letters: ^^^^' 
** Etxe patr€9^ qui toUunt peccaio mundi!'^. Tlio 
order of Jeniut vr^» able to bold cut against this form* 
ielablo attack only by nsauming the oflfensive and 
bybrnndiugthe pure Augudtinifinism of Janeen and 
his friendH as h<}ro«y (^ Jansenism **). Th*) popes 
allowed themB6lvf« to gain the day. Urban ^"711. 
("/n e/rt»nca<f), but above all Ennoccncc X- {" Cum 


VII. ,01001' 



oocajTione") and Aloiainlor VU. 0*Jrf mndi 
Petri i^em^)toflmih»ti.f. oondeinticdJAnsen'cibool 
Innoceait ittdicatod I>o«ido« Gvo ttrticlvs oC Janeon 
OB objectiaumUo. Thcu nro«o n vJtilcDt oppoariclon 
Tho '*Jau0eDSflt8** n>fufte(llottckitow)edgvtti«iucriD] 
inatinf^ articttiti a» JunsenN and to oouclctnn them 
But Alexander VII. required it, and tlte cro\m dop 
ported liim. After a temporary comproiniBe (stten 
itum abse^iuioj^um, 10«S» Clemont 1X0* Clfm«n 
XL renewed (ITOTi) thoshnrpbull of hia prcdoccapoci 
Port Koyal was deetn^yed- Auf^uiftjiiiitaiiunt how 
ever, rec^iviHl n btilL lii^rdor blow by tb« covutitutioi 
" Vnigenitn^'' of Clemtrnt XI. (171:1). In UiiH lO; 
articles from a devotional work on the New TesUi 
mont hy Pa»cbasiu<) Qiiefinel, which tlie .]p«(uiu htu 
oxtrootod, worn ]>roscriUjd, Among them were no 
only tnauy [into AufputiDian, but also Paulino idea 
(** NuUae Jantur gratiae n mpcr/ctera"— "/f/tes ea 
pritna gratiaet /ous onuuum Qliaruni''—''primi 
gratia, quam detw coitr«diJ peccatori^ est pecca 
torutn reini^sio** — ''pecattor non exi liber niH m 
matum sine ifntiiah'btraioris'', fie). Againasloni 
arodein Fr&nce. Thoeoroooivragnnd thotfoop|K>6in, 
the bull were arra^'od ugiiia»t each (Hhcr. But 
ever in Catbolicism— the one fioally ^urrt'nden*d wi 
a Hullied conscience, the other weut under in ecBi 
anil fiinnticisnu Only in the N'eth6rlan<U had thw, thnniich iheJnmtonimi conte^ a achismati< 
old Cftth^dio Church. Tho buU Vnigenihis^ covk 
finned by aev^td pcjice^ ia the victory o( J«amUoa 


dr^^nmticfi over Augustinuiii, and hence ia the final 
word of tho Catbolic hUtorj' of dogma (in tbe senfie 
(rf a doctrine <jf Fxitb). As id Uio 1 9Ui century the 
\B£t rumniint of QiiLUcaniHU) ba& been destroyed, bo 
a]M>ha£thatof JfitUM^i«m, or tho *" aftei^mysticism", 
which was nec««jarily evolved out of Auguatiniftjiism 
and quietism and is assuredly a peril to tho C^tholto 
Cliurch. The proc^lamation of the imciiaculat4> con- 
ception of tbo virgiu Mary by Pius IX, naarku the 
conclusion, Ab in h funrnd way (era sub 1) it tnarlcR 
tbe definite exaltatiou of the papacy, so in a material 
way it marks tho ex]iukion of AugUHtiniajiism. 
Tbo indestnjctibt^ impnW toward inwardn««8, cxm* 
tc^np1ativen4>HA and Christian independent* d<i;^ui1ioid 
Catholicism now employed %itb ^cnsuotis mcnliu of 
every kind, with toys and miracleOf vritL fratornitivtf, 
diadplinary exerdaee and ^heduled prayers, rihI 
tliereby ki^pt it hameaaed to the Church. 

(3) Already in the Middle Ages had tbo juristic- 
caBuistic spirit of the Komish Church pemiciouidy 
InfliieDCod the eonfj^AKlonal, ethics und dogmatice. 
Thd nominalistic thi*olug>' bad one of lis strrmg roots 
In tins jurUticL^aauiBlry (i.e. in pnAKMlilif), The 
Jesuits took it up and iua manner cultirated it,-» 
thi», which several tinoes had jeoimrdised tho pope 
him^df nnd ovon the members of their own order 
(DoUinger and Reujich, G4w<:h. dor MoraLrtreitigk. 
eeitd. 1l>. Jahrh, l&ft9). The Dominican Bartholo- 
mJluK dc Medina was tho first to expound "probnbil* 
ity" " wientificaUy" (J J»77) , The fonnuta runs thus : 

Do«™» of 

lain flmt- 



"8* esi opinio probabiii^^ iiciium fM cam sequij 
licet opposite sit protabiiior^. Seldom haa a word 
BO set things on fire. It n-aa the freeing of morality 
from morality, of religion from religUHQ. Already 

bi^S£iii- •''*^* *^^^ probability was evidonoed m U» domi- 
^■*'*" noting view, bot was eepeelally oiiltivatod by the 
Jcmiite. Within lUo realm of faith it ojchibitod 
Itoelf, (1) As iaxily (in respect of the granting of 
ftbaolution),(2) As aUritionism (fearof piui!<4hiDoitt). 
Agrvatarrayof Hub-apecieB was decluced: Lax, i^urt', 
and riKorons proh^ibility, aoqui-probahili'ty, ij^reatcr 
probAhitlly, lax and stringent pnidence. Tlio diffc^r- 
flDCoe funong thf^ firsi six nro fiindiun cm tally very 
Blight; llio hii^t-^which jilono ip ethical — wii» ox' 
prwwly rejwtccl by Alexander VIIL lu 1600. The 

DortrirK-ii whole &}-»te3]i i£ Tolmudtc; veiy likely from the 
UiJdle Ages on thero has boon an actual ccnnoc 
tion between thotwo, Jan^ui«m, above nil Paacal, 
roiw in ojipoeition to the *lo«tnu*tion of mrtrnHty. It 
brought it to pa£8 that ^'prohabilii^itn" wa« roproflecd 
after th«3 middlo of the Ktli uuutury. Several pupn 
forbiulo the laxi^t nioml-theo1ogicalbouki<; Innocent 
XL (vjndemned. in lC7i^< 05 artit^Iea cf tho^proba- 
hilifits", timong which \vere true knavish tricks (ne 
Denzingor, Enchiridion, pp. 313 mil 217, 218 seq.)- 
The worse seemed to he warded off at the timo 
Qvrm when, in the Jesuit order itfielf. Tbjrffite Oonzaloa 
^ain revived the doctrine (in HKilieberame the gen- 
eral). Still Jmir)jotnt<Tii ami anthprohnbiti^m were 
blonded. As th^ former fell the latter was neces- 


earily weokonod. The popo^ hnA m rogards "ftttri- 
tioDif^Tn'* uIko mluircti it tv a mert^^ DinitnJity. Out of 
tbiA foimtuiii probubili^m >ui«t fortb anow in Lho 
I8II1 century. Tbi> founder of liio ** order of redcjnp- 
tionists", AlphoDS Liguori (beatified ]3IC,caiioDiEed ^|^;^ 
1B39» doctor of tbe Church 1S71), becAme through bis 
books the most influential toaoh«r in tbo Churc?h. 
Uc succeeded in modern Catholi€%8m to fhc place 
once! occupied by Augu^tttue. lie wb^ bowe\i9r, 
an aequi-probabilist, i>. probabUist, and do Faecal 
came forth any nwie. 

3, TTie Vatican Decrees. 


The Church which had deatrojed cpisropacj and 
Augoftinianisin within itmlt built up prohaHliam ^^"^ 
and the Church which, in union witli tbe political re- 
action and romantieiHTu, had exalted the pope to 
loid-ihip over ber^lf and proclaimed him as tlie liv- 
ing tradition wns finally ripe for tlio dogma cf xha 
iufallibtUty of tbo pope. The hiBhops acknowlodg^id 
tlirouKii tbe Valicaa ccunci! (l801^-T0), that Uie 
primacy la real and direct^ that tbe pope poittieswes 
the potestajt ordinaria et immt^diatn fi» plena et m- 
prema over the wbolo Church, and that this power is 
episcopal in tbo fullost Heos^ Of thi*< universal bt»Lbnp 
Uw»y oonf©86od on tlio l»tb of July, IS^TOt ** Docemtat Jntywth, 
ei dirinita^t rcvtlaium dogma rrMe dffinimuit; Ro- 
manum i^jtft)k«fn, qnum ex cathedra tognitur id 
estquum ommnm Chrisiianorttm pa^toris eldoo 

5^8 orxuKHS or thic histobt of dogma. 

toria munere /ugfina pro suprema sna €tpostotica 
auctoritate dociriuam de fid^ vtl morihujtab uni- 
ver^a etdesia tentndam dcjtnitj pcrasaist^nti<irn 
diviiiaiu, ipsi in b- iWru ^romi^cimj eti in/alii' 
Hiiinte pi^ilere^ qua divinus red^tnptor ecc(ejiiatn 
suam in definienda doctrina de^de vtl inoribus 
imtructam ttSMevtAuit^ ideoqut eiu^tnodi Rwnani 
pontificis defnitt€me» ex se^^ non autem ex con- 
senau efclesiaei irf'e/omtabiles ess€^ Si quis aU' 
/em Atftc noeirae d^finiUoni conimdirere^ quod 
deusavertat^praesutnp^terit, anathema yit' {Fried- 
ricb, (Joficb, d, vatic, CVmcils, 3 Bdc 1877 seq.). 
Tbebisliof^^ whoiiipoke in oppoc^itioD sooq submitted. 
Tliu nunilwr or tl>o»o wlii> ivfused to accept the n»w 
dogmji wjiH linil ift «jiia1) [f¥Vf Hchulta, TVr -Ahbii^hn- 
liciionuM, I8H7). TUc now iloctrine id in roolity tho 
cii|i'nt«;>iic uf Ui« buildiug. <>then> m&y fullow, e.g, 
the U^mporal dominion of the poipQ aa on artide of 
^th; but it can haro no effect. The Komi^b Church 
has revealed Lt^*lf txa tho autocratic domiuion of the 
pQtUifex maxiniui — tho old Roman (empire taking 
poeaeesion of the memory of J^suh ClirUt, founded 
upon his vrord and stdftmonts, cxcrci»ins accord* 
ing to iitod UD elaiftic or itoi] dugmattc k-gnl diHcl- 
plino, encompassing purgatovy and hoaten in ad- 
dition to the earth. 




1, Sijitoricol Iniroductiott, 

ETf>kam, Gi«b. J, (>rol*«l. Soctm, 1948, Carnw*. die 

ditfpnoMC. AuUtTiuiUricr, ?B<lo,, 1B89 T 

SozsiNi%fji«fUi4>pigozKfHW Cidvto. Socininnifcm, **^^|J**' 
vicn'od from Uic ^trmLlpoint uf the history of the 
Church unil uf tlu^piia, ha^l for itd prot»uppu»itiuiis thi? 
gTB'U auti -ecclesiastical agitations of thi^ Middle 
AgeB; but tho lU^fonnutton id^ influenced it. It 
was eroived out of tinsso a^tations; it explained 
ih&tti and roduo>d them to a unity. A Scotistic- 
Pela^on oJemtwt ait<] a critico-humanii^tJc aro blend- 
ed in itj bmidca one pvrceivoo nltvo an oiiabaptiB- 
tic element Qvantheidtic, entlmalndtlci tn^-stic, social- 
istic elcmonte aro vrantiDg), la it tie criticid and 
rationaliHlic thought of tlw ixM:Ieain»tical theolof^ans 
of the 14th nnd 15th (.x^ntuncM nl»u havo a freer da- 
relopment; at th& sanio lim^ h(»wever, it ia also th« 
r66uH of tho impulftoe of tho now ago (rauuaeaDoe). 
The charact^rititic tJjing in th^ unti-tiiniturian and 
Socinian agitations of the IGth ceatuiy i^ that they 
iepre8e(nt the very same jGatmction of Catholici&m, 
which it were poBBible to effect upon the ha^ia of the 
leHiilta of ficholafiticism and tlie reaais«atiea, without 
ever deepe&ingand reviving retigioit. la thia »enBQ 




{j30 ocTLisntt or thr iriCTORv op ^ooua. 

is SociniaDiHrn uLio an issue of fbe bifitory of dogma. 
Tlion^in £h^ mi<ldfe ngeanJ the modem strike handa 
ncrotn tfao RcformnitOD. The oppnrc&t)^ uarvcon 
cilablu, the unit«i of BcholaeticiHm and the renaia- 
satice, i» hure actuallir uocompU^ed. On that r&rj 
account there is also iiot wanting therein a prophetic- 
al element. In th^^^e a^ntationfl a in'eat deal was 
antitr^ipated with niArve-lIonfi oortAinty which in tho 
craiigolical ChurohcB^ foUo^riti^ Iraualont articlcBt 
e««aia entirely suppreflsed, sinoe in tbom the iuter«Bi 
in retigion imdcr a roncis© form alworbed everytiiinjf 
for the fipaoe of a hundred and fifty ycara, Auti- 
trinitarianiHinand Socinianitanan* more enligfatened 
and free (aufgoldilrt) than ecde^iiju^tical Protost* 
aotisin* but \es% capable of devekip«nent and pooror. 
Only a haaty reWew will here I>e ^T€U. Common 
t^nipfL to lUI tbo aiiti-trinitarian and auabaptiat graupo of 
ChurcheH is thw violent breiik with history, the re- 
nunciation of the Church as it then exiHted and tho 
oonviction of the right of the indiriduaL From th« 
moflt diverae stjirting-poiutH tliey ncitseldom arrive 
at tbcsAmereetiltfi, rdnce tbe^iVif which animatod 
them kafl boon the eamCi 7Vtc fir^t group allied 
itself with the |*antheistic mypliciBni and the new 
creation of the renaiftsante: Mot uotionB but facts, 
not fonmdnfi but life, not Aristotle but Plato, not the 
letter but the spirit. Tho inner light was* placed 
alongiiido tiio Bibli^, froo or>nTi<*tinn nhovf" the fnrmal 
6lntcm<tnt. Tbo Church dr^^cvnaAvrcreoithcrmodiBcd 
or tillowt^ U> \»x\tt»3. Pre«^l from the biirdeD of the 




poat and ^itdcd by tho Gospel, mjinj* »wungout into *^S!J5I;5l!" 
tbc fnxT kingdom of tbo Spirit, while othvn« wi-re 7%!!^^^ 
caught ill tbo mmbc« of Uimrown fancier, Totl»08O 
belong Schwenkfeld, V, Woigol, Oiorduiio Bruno, 
and above all Sebafitian Franck and Theobald 
Tbamer> A second ffrmtp that cannot b© ovorlookod 3"'^| 
bad its atroDgtb in ite <^poeition to political and ^^^^^ 
Baciameiital CatboliQism and ovcrr against tbc sainv 
il carried on a new gocial-political wctrld and cliuroh 
ayatem {apocal}i)tic and chiliai^tic) . Within this th<s 
enthusiastic minorito^ WaldensiaDf etc., cburrbee 
continued to flouriBb^ Their ba<!ge wsh rebaptiam. 
Carri«l forward in many r««pecf#; by m^ans of Ref- 
ormation principles, tbia baptiamat Christiauity 
played a very important r61e until tbo cutaatropbe at 
Milnster and even aflerwardp i« o third, really a i"*«" hw.- 
Romance (Italian) group, tbe consequent development 
of nnniiDaHfttic achoListiciEm waa cnrried fonvanl 
undfrr th« inriuBDoe of bumaniKm; Hubiiiia'iion to tbn 
Cburch ceased; moraliain, intorpret^d bumain»ti- 
cally and in part evangelically, eurrived^ Tbe old 
dogma and aacramentarianism were cast aftido; but 
an hi^toriral element was adniiUotl: Rcitum to the 
primitive acnirct*8, to tb^ phiWlogical BCUKe, to re- 
Bpect for the classical in evcTTthiug that Ja called 
antiquity. Tho mligicun motive in the doopost ^endo 
wnf< wanting in tbcsoo Itnltano; and thc*y did not 
curry tla^ irLovemrnit forward tu n uutioDul agitatiou- 
Thi« and tbo first group stand in many tMpwt^ in 
strong contnuBt, in 80 far am thi^ fonnor did bomi^ 






to epoculntivo myi^ticMn rui^l tho Uittor to rational 
thought. Still tJi« Uunuiriifltic iutcrosbi not only 
united thi3in by h common bonil, but oat of tho specn* 
lative EnjMiciffm u puro modo of thought was devel- 
oped throuf^hoxporienoc, upon which streeswas laid; 
and* on the other band, tlie tempemte Italian think- 
ora und^rtheinduenceof the nevrcra atrippodoS tho 
cniditiea of that fancifij mythology in which the 
earlier nomituilism had pamded. Thiu oombiDatiou 
i8 moat Bignitiamtty represented by the S|>aniarcl, 
Michael Servetua, In hia theology is united the 
best of all that came to maturity in the Iflth century, 
if one fipfiaka only of that which lay outside of the 
evangelical lieformatio-D. 

With reference to all those group* tho hietory of 
dogma abouM keep two main points in view: Their 
relation, (1) To the formal authoritiw of Catbolictsm, 
(2) To the doctrine of the trinity and Christology. 
Concerning the first point they did away with tho 
authority of the Church, the pren^t and tho future, 
aa a teacher and a judgo. The attitude toward the 
Scriptures ix^maiued obscure. Mou played them off 
against tradition and at^tod with unheard-of flteadfa«t* 
tMBBbythe letter; on the other hand, the anthority of 
the ScriptureA wa» derived from tliat of the inner revo- 
lation, yes, thoj were ftiao wholly wt a*tiile. Still nn 
n ruUf their uniquoviihiit n^mtiinnd unKhAken; Soein- 
ii^i«m ptanUnl itm*ilf Jimily upon tltu Scriptan>A, 
Againj^t these rock» idtM> the lU^forrnorM of tho ICth 
century — cortain rcmarkablo men excoptud who 


r«iUy underMUxMi what the frwdom of h Ohnstian 
man is— dkl not dare to get Beriously jo«itl€<L The 
contradiction in which Protefltantifim had become 
involved i» found, it id tni6, in most of th« Re- 
fnniwiTH: A oftmprfihfiiiftivo floUection of Scri|itiiNW 
not Mp Oft au alfdulutj^ ticirm, but the ri^ht undcrflt^md- 
iag of thtf same left to tLe |iJiLiifui effurtn of uach lu- 
dividual.-' As regards and-trlnitarianiHin Uiederet- Anu-Trtai- 
opment wab oarriecE forward in all four groups, but 
in difTorent ways. In the tirnt group it w08 not 
&e(?ro8flive, but latihidinarian (aA with tbo uarlior 
m>'«tiai who aUo indin^l nvogniw^d only "modi'* in 
the trinic)', oonaidered tlio incarnation aa a special 
inslauoe and saw iti the dugiua £ii any &vvul only 
veikd truth). In the necond, anabapti^ g^^Jup 
anti-trinitarianiHm lh as a rule a relatively »ubonii- 
Dat« element, although it is perhaps uowboniontiroly 
wanting. It is Bcaroely to bo found in the impor- 
tant rcfonner Denck, on the other hand it it cloajwr 
in Kfitxer, plainer etill in Oampiuin^ D. JoHa and 
Melcliior Huffotann, who moreover h\\ coustnicted 
their own doctrine of the trinity. The doctrine of 
the tiinity was in reality grapplex] with at ita rcot^ 
i.e. at the Divinity of Christ, only by the ItalianH 
(Pii^tro MeneJ^), that is Ui sjiy, witliin t1i9 third 
grOGp. The union of htmumiiim aad tho nominal' 
' idtic-Pehtgian tLeological depoait produced in Italy 
A3 a real factor in the liistorlcal movemeat an unti* 
trinitananiun in tbe sense of adoptionmm or Arinn* 
ism. The aottiog aside of tlie doctrine of the Di- 



EHtiiLiirof vitiity nf Ohrint ntiil of the trinitr wu consitlered 
Brjrcu^ here na the rao«t lm|»rUim piirificBtJon and em&uci- 
pation of religion* In ite pluco »ttcppod tiic created 
CEiriift aod tho oft« Ood; in support of tho same, 
Scripturo proofs won* i^ught for and found (cf. the 
Rjimnn Th<)tfiil«itii%nB of (intiqiiity). A whnlpberd of 
karnod ani for tho ino«»t part voiy n30poH4il>Io anti- 
triniUifiiiutf drovu Itol^ in thv middlo of tho l^th 
century boyuiid iu emu bounds: CamiUo BeiiatOt 
Blandnit^u 0«*nti1i», Occbino^ the two SoE^m, etc. 
Id Swii2i^rlaDd tbf^ contest about the rigl^t ot anti- 
trinitariantmn in the evang^ical churches wad 
(Vrta. fought out Calvin d^Jod agHinst it and bamt 
SorvotUB. In Toliuid and TranftylvADta tho doctrine 
found frwdum. Ttii^roiuiti'tniiitarianchurchesarosOv 
indeixl in TrHnsylvHiiia it waa permitted to Blan- 
drata to secure for hi» confession a fonnal reoogni- 
tio-n. Within this anarchy freedom of conacianco 
UWg^- also found a plnre of abod^. Unitarian ism, aA Blan- 
drata taught it, saw in Chriet a man chosen by Qod 
and exalted to Qod. A split eoon mode its appear- 
ance. The left wing rtfjeoted the miraculoua birth 
also and the worship of Jt^tniH (non-adorationism). 
Ita chief champion was Franx Daridis. Fortbeptir* 
poee of oounteracrtinB this tendency. Faualo Soaadni 
(SoGinios) w^nt in 1&T8 to Transylvania and actually 
auppreesed it. There and in Poland ho coufltrucletl" 
out of the anahapti&t, socialistic, cbiliastic, ]il)&r- 
tiniiftic and non-adoration congregations a church 
uponthehaaiaof aoomprebeusive Biblical dogmaUca. 



tUA, fiSJft 

After a histoiy rirli in dramatic epifiodc."^ Poland 
umtarianiHiii in union with Kotherlaud Armenian- 
imi foiiud in EuglanU and Am«rira an abode and 
l^rouglit forth ivmarlaiblo mim. N4»vertb■^le«a it was 
innptred there mora and moid by the evangelical 

Fock. npr NDciiiluiismxw. 1547. 

SocJiiiAn Christiimity i* ftivm hA«it in tlin Ramvinn 
Catoctifim (lOOU). Hidipun in the eompleto jind 
correct knowledge of the tWlrme of ^vatiou, Thl^ 
ia to bo obtained from the Holy gcripttires a^ an 
outer, statutory revelation, more jiarticularly from 
llie New Tostamvnt, The CliriMiaii religion is the 
tkeologif of lltp New Te^fametit, but it is at the 
t4iuntt tiino it rationai tviiffion^ The Hook and the 
reatton arc the stamina of Uie Socinian doctrine, 
Heiict) the proof of the cerfitudo eacrarum W(er* 
arum is a princijial problem of this supernatural 
rationaliHrn. It succeeds to ihi^ plooe formerly occu- 
pied by the proof trxan tradition, The claims of the 
Xow TesUuuent (the Old Testament waa only pAfeed 
along} should be demonstrated to the renson, not to 
piety. The Kew Testament however is sufficient, 
liluce faith which workit throu|^ love is comprised 
'qnantum sati^ within it. This faith however is 
faith in the existence of God and in biii rewards (of. 
uomitialiem) ; love is the moral law. TheScript^ires 
however aro al8o iilain, if one considers tl^ni witli 


If T Un 



UnUy AJI- 

£30 otTTLnms or rae msroitT op dooma. 

tbo understauding (" iUujue cum kckttw litteras 
9uffurre od Miiutmn dicimua, rtvfam ralimtem nan 
tanium noH fixcludimujf^ s^ omnino inrJuf//m»y^} . 
Tbe vray of solTfttion miLo cfuuiot of himself Gnd, 
Binoe lie \& murtul (uhl CatlKilic okxncol). QtMl^s 
imago mtbiti bim con^^tti ixMy in hid dominioii 
over the beastH of the field. Xot Urmpoml, but eter- 
nal death came into the vrorld tbroi^hKici. Finally, 
faowereTt nuui is not able to difioover tlie way of ^- 
vatiOQ, becaude be ** ex 9oto dei arbiirio ac conciKo 
p^pendi^ ; thoroforo most it bo ^von through an 
outer revelation (cf. nominalism)* Wftli fear, love 
and truHt yn^ have nuthing to do, but only with 7iotu 
tin dffi and the law of Che holy life, which must havo 
been revealed. l*he notUia det is the knowledge of 
God aa the supreme Lord over all things, who ''pro 
at^itrio legesponcre ctpraemf'a ac poena^ atatuere 
potest" {ct nominalism)- The most important thing 
la to apprehend Ood'd unitsf; but "»t'Ai7proAttof, 
quominus tile vnus deus imperium potestatemque 
cum aliis cotnmumcare posatt et comrnHnicaverif 
(cf. the old siibordinationists and Ariana). Theat* 
tributes of God are developed, without reference to 
faith in aalvation, out of the concoption of the " ifu- 
prGinvs dominus^ and the " aumtif: ju^tu^ (cf. 
nomiaaliHrn). Very neceesary to salvation. If not 
abAolutoly necessary, is the perception of tbe valae* 
leasnom of the doctrine of the trinity. Antfi hfirm 
et p^r teg^m did men already appreht*nd the cruatioa 
of the world through God, tbe provideaoe of Oi>d de 


singutiff rebus { !), the rcTpvnnI ami the Oiviiw* will (in 

The riotitia ClwisH divades itself into kuowlwlgo 
of bifi pdnon and of im oflSce. In reepoct of the 
first it is c^Doomed with tbo poitvption UiMt GKod 
has r^octned lis through a mnn (cf. tho hypothotioftl 
articles of nominalisiD) . CbriHt vriu« a moiiul inim 
who WHfl sanctified by the Fatb(?r, c^ndowed with 
Divine vnadom and power^ raided from the dead, and 
finally exalted to like i)ower ifvith God* This ie tho 
exeg&tJcal remit of th^ New T^«4tAm«mt. Ood sent 
hitn in order to lift mon up into a new et^te^ t.e, to 
exalt th« mortal unto immortidlty (mrty Church idea; 
cf. especially the Antiochian^) . Thfg waa an arbi- 
trary decree of God, and th*.^ bringing uf the ^ame 
to paw (miracubua births reBurrecticm) yvtw quite aa 
arbitmry. Christ aa a prophet comp!et«i the trana- 
miaeioQ o( the perfect Divine law (explaining and 
deepening of the decalogae], declaring with certainty 
the promiae of eternal life and veri^'ing by his death 
the example of a perfect moral life^ after Ibac be bad 
complied with certain sBcmmeiital ordinancee. By 
hi8 proAcJiinK he Rave a Btroag impulse toward the 
obNftr\'anot> of tlie Diviue will and at the name time 
eatiibliftUed tho goneril pur^ioeo of God to forgive tbe 
ainn of the penitent atul of tboee atrinng to live 
mere uprightly (cf. nominaliiim) , laaHmuch as no 
one cnn perfectly keep tho Uirine law, justiiication 
comi-s, iiol tbrougli works, but tlirough faith, Thir 
faith, bowovon ia trust in tho Law';:i%vr, who li 





V imatitMtL. 

and Xorl^ 


wfA Iwfore ii« n i;lonoii& vu<]y eternal Life, and lias 
uwiikontxl iliruugli thu Holy Spirit tito futun> cer- 
tain^ of thii; Lif(>; furtiiermorBf it is reliaoce oq 
Christ, who, ctutb^fd with Divine power, truly frees 
tliosQ from Bin who put their trust in him. In par- 
ticular 18 Qotdvrorthy: (J) The re&UM3, id many Tiy- 
apoctd^ ezcwUeiit criticism of eoclettiaffticalCbri^tolosy I 
from the ataiitlpaiul of the Scriptures and the reaaoa 
— ih€ Scri|>tiire statements in regard to the pm- 
existence of Chmt nuAed, it h tniet some diflioaltiea 
~, {i) ThoatU^m|>t to S4*t forth tho work of Christ ia 
arroTdanort with Dm wOi^m^ of thc^ ihrufi oJHoak, and 
ibo avlcuowlod^^ initbility to extond it lieyond his 
propheticail <>fiic«. WiUiiti the limiU of the latter 
everything wa** (n reality handled: " Corttja-ehendit 
turn pra&:^pta, turn promi^^a dei perftxto, turn 
dmique modem ac ratiouemt qui no^ etproecepti^ 
et promiationibus dei confirmare debeamp^^ Be- 
yond thift, howf>vor, B<)oiniimii;m ]ai«vf n<ilhiTig, Tbe 
" praeci^ptti^ uro tho iutcrprol4xl d<fCii]oguu, with tfao 
addilttTii of ilm Lurd*» |;rayer, aud ilio !?|>ticial ooiu- 
lUAiidniontR of the sure and sb^dfa^t peace in Qod 
Uirough prayer, praise and rcliauco on Qod'd help. 
abBtiiionco from lox*o of tlio vrcrld a» well as self* 
deni&l and iHitiuiidc. Thereto are to bo added tho 
Kpoeial ceremonial commandii, vit. : Baptism and tha 
Lonl^ei StipiK-r. The former ia coufetMion, duly and 
»p)i1x>l; tlie forg^iveneeu of ttin waai also thirught of 
for tlio 9aiie of the Scriptures in adjsgmceful mail- 
uor, and infant bR{>tidm vrna discardodp yet eiidurod 

TBBBa-Forn is^iuinu ok uistoky or dogha. 539 

(becsuae it bas to do with u cereaiLmy) . Tlw Lonl'B 
Supper, by the laying asitli? of uU other ^-iews, was 
oonceivetl of a» an ordained memorial meal. The 
promissa d^i are the promise of eternal life and of 
the Holy Spirit. In »«tting furUi this laat Socin- 
i did groat eorvicts ountrarj'-wiAe it gavo to the 
1088 of einau ambiguous Dieaniug. In opposi- 
tion to the evangelical view it taught : ** In vita aefer- 
na airnui cQfnprehejisa est peccatorum remwio^. 
This et^rnia] lifo was only very wiperficially deflcribed, 
and Uio fundomontal Catholic thought in S(^>ciDiauiam 
CK>]iA otit in the article that the Holy l^pint ia 
granted only in proportion to moral progrow. To the 
queetiuii ha to bow Clirictt hi& dti^ually guaraut^^ 
the commandfl and the promises, it wan replied : (1) 
Through his ainl«eanee8, (S) Through his miracles, (3) 
Through hia death. The latter was oooflidered aa a 
proof of hia love, and then in on extended manner 
the sattflf action -theory wa« coiite«tt«d. Herein lioa 
the strength of Sociniaui^m. Although om^ cannot 
accept a gr<,-«it m»iiy 4)f iU arguintuitd, Ux:aut«e tljey 
art) founded upon the Scotistic idea of (Jod, yet one 
muat acknowledge Umt the juristic aatisfactioii* 
theory is here reelly answ<*red. The thought of the 
mfiritp of Christ i» rotaiiiu). But how mmgrinn it wlwn 
the catechism, once more rovorting to faith, ekX|dain«: 
" Fulen obcdientiam nosiram dvo commendaiioretn 
graiiortimque Jacit et obedieniiae defectus^ modo 
ea nit rent ttc seria^ supplet^ utqw a deojusfiji' 
cemuy ejfkit"". Thia ia in complete contrast with 



ovAtigx^lii'jil tiliTjuf cimceming faitlL TbuL whirli in 
BitGTWiiVi\ ^M uboiil justification M a WLirtiilo«8 
accommodation of Paulino idcaa. AccotnmodAiioiis 
am, in goiienU, not infreqaetit.— Ib connoction with 

^7^^ tho prieslly offieoo/ Chri»t xhe f>ermQnent pri<!6tliood 
*if Christ itt dtiipliAJ^inxl, whiVthiit which traiMinrGcl 
oncoi^i fundamonUlly dii^cnrdcNL Cbritil's dominion 
ovor lUl IxTtngH jtud thingn m vc;ry brii^y touched 

^^1^ At Uio cloto the oatochism rcrort« to tho Church 
and d<rfiQC8 (t once more as a school: *' Coelus eorum 
bominutnt qni dodrinam satutarem teneni et pro- 
fit^ntur,'* PftAton (itocton) And deaconit ato nooe»- 
sniy to t]]o Church ; but noihin^ ifi Mtid nbout ordina- 
tion, find (hu ^ptJ4copul eucceeei^^ is contested. The 
retlM-tiouA on tbu visible and invisiUe Chorcb are 
imlduiito and undoar. 

^^lhr^' In Socinianimn tho disvolution of dogom iaucem- 
^{{^^ plificd upon Ontholic Bcil, m* in Roomnuim tlie nou- 
tralization. In tlie pince of tradltiou tho external rov- 
eUtion in th« Bible &tep9 in. Religion, in eo fnr as 
it i& apprehcn>>iblc, is swallovriHl up in morulism- 
Still th^re remiuD foitunutu inconsititcncic^vi and 
Sociniauism pn?<4ents» even Apart from th^«^, a ploo^ 
in^side: (L) It had tbc courogo to simplify th«<inoe- 
tions couctiiuing the rtsUity and oontenl uf rvUgioa 
and to diiK-ard tho btirdcn of th9 ecclwiaKtical past, 
{2) It broke the contractod bond butvrooD rultgion and 


ficience, between Christianity and Flatoniam, {^) it 
helped to append the idea that the religioim atate- 
meot of trutli muAt l>e clear aiid apprehensible, if it 
in to liiiv<> [k)ivi>r, (4) It trunl ta fn^ Uus Ktiiily of the 
Holy Scripturui tr*.nn bondage to tht* old dogmas. 



1, Inh'odjtction, 

PosT-TRiPENTiKB Cntli^Hciifin and SocininniMn are ^wttormw 
in iiuiity ru«*j)wUt luudc-ni pLonutIUMll^ but i\s rx^^ardi! J^u^^ 
tbeir reli^otu ktjriKl tbcy ure Dot modcrUt but rnucb 
ruthcT the coiittoquoncctt of mediaeval Ciirirtttttiijty, 
Th^ Itefonnalion as represented ia the Christianity 
of Liither !» £till in many re^^portA an old Catholic 
phonomenoa, not to aaj aleo a niedij^val j yet judged 
by itA roligiouA kt^mot, it i» Deithor, but much ratbei 
a^«BtcnttiOD of Fauliui? Christianity in the spirit of 
ft now ag0i On tlii)4 uccouDt it hup})eiifl that the 
R«formatioD cannot ho judged fulely by tbe reeulta 
which it K^inod durinjir the first two generatiODM of 
itn i^xtKt^^noe; for it iliil not 1«igin hhm Harmonioiii^ 
and oonAtrttcut miiuifcntation. LuthcrV Christinni^ t^jfiSJI- 
iTUftthe Ucfoniwiliun ; iv'ttlun Uir |>crjphcry of his oX' 
i^tonce, hou^A-er, Lutlier wa8 an old Catbolie-tni^ifev* 
ol [4teiioflii«noD. Tho period from \^19 to 1533| tJie 
moBtheautifulyearsof IhoRufoniifition when it stood 
in living relations with all men and seomedto intro- 



dvce a new order of tilings, was only an episode. 
Lutber soon drv>w bach again within bis limitations. 
Thefte w^re not, however, a mere thin nbeU, so that 
Molanobthon and tho opigonoi cotild havo (or^veti 
the shrinkage; bat Luthor realized that tbe^ were 
bound ap with thereiysuiewaof his power and be 
aaserted them with this undf^t^tandintf. 

Luther's greatudafi oonsi»lfl in the knovledgo of 
God wliich Lo rediscovered in the QoepeL Living 
Uth in Ood who in Chrifft says to th« poor aoul : 
**Saii4^ tua ego aum"^ the ceriaiu aadurance that 
Ood {» the being upon whom moa may absolutely 
rely— that was LutJier's m€86age to Ciirislendoni, 
Be re^torMl tJio n^ligioiui view of the Oc«]m^1, tJio 
sovereiKu rintbt of rolifcion in reliKion, ihe sovereign 
wnrth of thft historir^d Purlin J*mu» HhriKt in 
ChriKtiimity. In doing tbi»i ho went huck Utyond 
the Cliurcb of the; Middle Ag«A anil th«< old Catholic 
timo8 to the I^ew Testament, yes, to the Oospei 
ihelf. ftit the very man who freed the (}oap«l 
of Jcau» Christ from ocvU<i«ia-4ticism and morolism 
atreogthened tlic force of Uio hitl«r ntidor the forms 
^Jgtjj of th© old Cftthcdic^ Uioology, ^.«, A* gave to U«m 
format whi<h for €eftturie3 had tttin dormQni^ 
once tuj^iin a value and a me^iniHg, Hewaa the 
restorer of the old dogmas and }kc gave them bade to 
faith. One muat credit it to him tliat these formulas 
aro even until to-day a living power in the fiiith of 
Prcitesfantism. while in the Oatholio Churohcfl ih&y 
are a dead weight. One will do justice to tba 




tire huiher'" only by allomiig \m twD-Eold relatioo 
to the oM Catholic thiwlogy to stiind and by Xry- 
ing to explain it, Luther turoed bii^ contemporaries 
aside from the pnth of the humaniBtic, Fnmcififaii 
and political Christmnity and compellod them to in- 
tereflt tbeuuwlvi'» Id thiU wliicb vrai^ most fomgn to 
them— /'^e Gmpvl and the old thmtogy. He pro- 
claimed the GtiBpel anew and was able to defend tlie 
^Q^icunqne vult satt^sesse" of the Athaztafiian 
creed with a full voice. 

In order to tin<ler»t»nd his flttitnd&, one may refer S^^"^. 
to Iho following: (I) Tho diffi<niltio» ftbout which »^''"* 
thorn wn8 u <ront4»t llovrod cHpiH:iHl1y from mediaeval 
theol<^y, and Luther'^ bl»tcriml horizon bbut down 
iibciit the time of tbe origin of the papal Church; 
that which lay hack of this wafi blended for him at 
many points with tlie golden horizon of the New 
Tesimnentt ('if Lnthor nov«r contended against <*r- 
roQcoiia thooncs and doctrines an siich^ but oul^- 
against thotu? th^ries and doctrinee which plainly 
\-itiated ihepuntag evanyeUi; in him there did not 
dwell the irraistiUe impulse of the thinker w1h> 
sLrivea after theoretical cleameBs; much rather did 
bo have an instincrtive dielike and an inborn difttruftt 
cf that flpirit which, giiidcd solely by knovrledj^^, 
shrewdly cxirrects errors; btr also bv no mt^int* [xn*- 
sewed ail the ejidowment^ and critical facilities of 
the age — " sitbtimement hitrnf^ f}Hurhefnent navnnt^ 
tcrriblemmit na%/'\ thisht^ro lias Uvxi calKvl by one 
who knows men, (A) Th« old diigtiiu a>rros]x>nded to Jxntnm.'^ 

for FurlUa 



644 0UTLIXB8 or TUB luatoET or doojia. 

the now mnreptioD of tho Go^wl which h^ preoohfid 
h» -wanU^l fho otnrcci faith m>(I tiuthin^ cIgo; tbo 
Ucieot dogmA, faowovvr, in cuntrndiHtinctioa to the 
modfnval, r^pnseotod Chrj£tiaiiity Dot as a ooziflu- 
01109 of faith and works (the latter did not belotig to 
tbo tfo£/7fi4i),of grace and merit, but rather ae the act 
of Ood through Jesu^ Christ unto the forgtveiiejia 
of **« and ettrnai life, L/uther 9nio on/jr this 
ehmcnt f» ihc old flttgrnaj he ovcrltxikcA tdl oIm* 
Huri<M) Lo vouccivid Iiit« mii«iun lui that of u refonoer : 
It is udoeesary only to place upoa the lamp-stand 
that vrbieb tbd CliurcU uhmdy pmmets&^ but hsB lost 
sil^t of ftmoug iln otiiur pottossions; it is oecee- 
sary to r^atore the OoHpel of && tr&e grace of God 
io Cbrist by a rehabiHtAtion of tho ancioat dogma. 

Was ho really rightP Did hid novr ccQcoptJoQ 
o( the OoftpL^I full iu Dauiially with the ancient 
dogma? Men in«Ut upcm ttii» won to-day, — it 
is truo with inoro or lw« imcurtaint}' and with the 
qualification, that Liithvr atl<itn.l an important el&- 
men t, viz., thodrwtrinoof jutttificatioti. Rut did he 
not do owny with tbo infullibb Cbarch troditioD, 
with the infolltblv Church ^khj, with tbo tufBdliblo 
canon of Scripture? And must hiii ooDoeption of 
the Ghjspel bo still clothed with the old dogznaf 
Wherein conBi&ts that conception? How far did his 
nritioiiim of trAdilion fpi? What Hid he retain? 
Was his atiitudo alto^dier consistout, or is tho 
piGaeitt tdnt« *.>( Pivt^^ntoiktiam, which ia ao full of in- 
consistencies and errors, to be traoed bade to him? 


3, Luther^s Christianity, 

iThttoJoglATonKJliditi, Tb, ILuTiack, LcmmAUaclk 

B«ofatf(^rti^ng u, Var95tmimfE, Bd, ]. u III. Kntt^bu&cli, 
Luther'§ Bt^llurg tit den ^kiimenisctien Bynibol^n. 1&88, 
Ootlachick« Luther's AtuohAuimfc ^OQ chrisll. QnU<«<licnst, 

L d. Stud, tt. Krit. t^m u. 1887. 


with Kp 

UjFLnn fif 


In the cloiatar Luther thought he was fighting: 
with huuBelf and hid Bins; but Id reality he waa 
wre^tliug vrith the r«ligion of his Church, In tho 
syi^teni of tiacranieaCf* and obseiranoeH, lo which ho 
subjected himselfi be did not tind the assurance of 
peace which he Bought. Even that which should 
have given biui conaolatton reveal^Ml itc«elf to him 
as axi »hj»x^t of t»rmr. In snrh dicfixiM U r»ni«< 
to him i«lo\vl^ and gradually through the corrodod 
eoclosiaittical coufosaioii {"I believe in the forgivv* 
S09S of sios'') and the H^ly SeripturDs, what the 
truth and power of the Gospel really t&. Augu&tino's 4!^^^ 
forni of belief concerning the fli^t and hut things 
wm4 aliK> a guiding star to him. But how much 
ftrmer did be grasp tliie «iW9nco of the thingi That 
which ho hcrci learned, that which be laid bold of 
with atl tho strength of bis soul iis the s^Av thing 
was the revelation of the gracious God in the Ooepel, 
i,e. in CbriBt^ The same experience which made 
Paul Luther Qndenvent, and while it did not come 
to the latter bo violently and audd<*nly afl to the 
former, yet he alae Uamed through this expetieooo 






thct it is God who bestows fGith: '^ Since it pleased 
Ood to reveal bis Son in me," 

That which h« expericmci^d fi9 aft^rwHrds learned 
to express And tl>rro rv^-^iltod, when meosurod 
by the multi^iuuH tlitngn which tbu Cliujx:li prof- 
fered HA "religion**, primarily a stupendous reduc- 
tion. Out of a multiform H>^t«ii of grace, perform- 
uuceB, penanced and reliances be extracted religion 
Hnd rrator^d it to ite tnnipld gre«tneaa. The Cbno* 
tian religion is living faith in the living God who 
ban rQVoal«d bimtwlf in Jc«ufl Christ and btid bare 
his h(Mrt— -nothing olso. Obiectivoly it i» Jcens 
'^w^^^ Chrisl, fiubjcctivoiy it i« faitii^ iU> content, however, 
I iu^Si.. 19 tbe gracioaa God, aad therefore the forgiveoeas of 
j^^ 3in which includes soQHliip and blc^JdedneAei. With- 
in this circlo the whole of religion was enclosed for 
Luthor. The living Qod— not tho pbiloeophicol or 
mystical abntniclion — tlio revwdcd, tbe aaBured, the 
gracioua God apprebenflible to ever>" Christian. Uu- 
wavering heart trust in him who baa given himaeU 
to US in Christ a>i our Father, penkHial confidence 
in Clirist who standi by his work in our stead- 
that was for him the sum tot&l of religion. Above 
alt anxiety and sorrow, above all the artiticea of as* 
ceticism, abovu uU pres4CTriptioas of tbwlogy he preeeod 
on to Christ that he might lay hold upon God bim- 
aelf, and in this act of faith, which be recognized aa 
the work c{ God, he won an iDde|>ODdcnoo and a 
Rtfiadfa^fikeRs. yea a personal aa'tiimneonnd joy, such 
as no mediieva] man bad over j>oe&ci<aed- From tbe 


porcoptioD ; * By our power notbiog ia done**, bo drevr 
tho liighi.<st mtLGT frcvdutn. F'aith — tluit m^ont for 
hitn now no loDgor an obodSont acceptoQce of ocdo- 
Biatitical teachisgf or historical /ar/a, not supposing 
&jid not doing, not actti^ miiiationh upou which a 
greater thing follows; but the certain^ of the for- 
g^veoefis of fiin and th«r&foi« pereoiud and absolute 
euTTcndertoOodasthe Father of Josua Chiifit, whidi 
transforms and renews the whole man. Faith ifia 
coQBcioufl trosi, which tlen makes man glad and 
joyous toward God and all creatm-ds, which as a 
good tree surely brings forth good fruit, and which 
is ©ver rwidy to sftrvo and to suffer. The lifo of a 
Christian ia in spit^ of all evil, sin and guilt bid in 
God> Because this certainty ammated Luther, hd 
also experienoed die freedom of a CbristJan man. 
Thifi fretxlom waa not a bare emancipation, or A 
oertiBcate of manumission, but to him it was Uie 
triumph 0%'eT the world tlirough the aasuianco that 
when Qod ia for us noonei?an be against ua. H4 
n«xt won for him^lf the right of the individual; bo 
cx[feri^iiced tlie frtMiloin of conscience. But a free 
conscience for him waa bound up with inner alk^- 
ancei and the right of the individual bo tmdcrstood aa 
a holy obligation to oouragoously throw oneself upon 
Ood and to Berve ono*s neighbor in reality and in 
aelf 'forgetful lovo. 

Therewith is already said what the Cbiireh was lo 
blm— ttio fi>llow&liIp of beltevere whom the Holy 
Spirit luu3 culled through the yyord of Qoi, enlight- 





ened fttxl sanctified, who more &ncl more are to bo 
built np through tho Oo^>45l in truo Catth, awaiting 
the (glorious future of (Uo cbitdrcu of God and so 
Bervidg one another in lorej eacb in hl3 own plaoe- 
Thia confewiioii oonoeniiDg the Church effected nn 
enormous reducUctu It roeta wholly upon tbe fob 
lowing ^impUt fnndam«&tii1 tlimiglit^: (l) TTuit the 
Holy Spirit fcundcd tho Church tJ:rr»ugh tho irord 
of Ovdj ("2) Tlmt tiiiii wurd in Uic pr^lniiuitivu yf 
tliorevdatiouof Qod iu Christ in so far a.s it awakonit 
faith; (3) Ttiat tho Church, thoreforo, lias i>o otJier 
proviiioothanthHtof fmth, thatit itf,howovor, within 
the same the mother upon wboee lap man attains 
uuto faith, (-1) Tliat because religion is simply faith 
no particular pcrformanoea and no particular prov- 
Inooi he it now the open cultus, or tbo chorea coonfe 
of Ufe> are tho ephore in which tbe Charch and tho 
individual can verify tlieir faith, but tlie CJhridtiaD 
in the natural orderin^of bin life is to prove hia foith 
through the loving sor vim of his fellftw». 

With theiw four Bentenoes Luttior Btood over 
agaiufit tho old Church. Through the first he re- 
stored the ttxird of God accordiny fo a aoundjudg' 
ment to the fundamental place in the Church. 
Through the fiecond he restored^ in opposition to all 
the tlieolo^ana, ascetics and sectfl of the Middle 
Agee« and of thtt HDcieiit Churob, fhe O^spel ta fhe 
Qonprt ntiA exalted tho ^^ cotutolationf^ in Chrisio 
propositae" to be the wilo norm. Through the Uiinl 
he reduced very greatly tbe idea and scope of tho 


Church, but brought the Church back to its faith. 
Through tho fouHh. finally, ho restored tho natural 
fftiitiifl of marriftgi*, of iho fwmilj^ of •ftctilar cftlHng 
And of tho »tnto; ho omnncipRtod thc^o from th« 
guiuxliiLnship of tho Church, but Hubjuctod tlivm to 
tho spirit of fuith and of lore. Th«^c^b>' bo broke 
dovm tho mi^diafval and ancietit eccleBiafiticHl convep- 
lion of the world and of the ordering of human life, 
and thus tranRfomied tho idfin of religioun perieo- 
tion as no oth<fr ChrUtion since th^) apoetolic age has 
done. In the ijlaoe of tho combination of monaattc '^*™*^f** 
withdraval from tho world and eccleHia^cal domin- **^' 
ion over the world, he set the Christian the great 
taak of verifying bi» faith in the ordering of hia 
natural life; Ho ib to 8orvo his neighbor in self-forget* 
ful tnvA And hallow hia oo(n]pAtion. Tho rlghtecuft' 
ne6d of tho natural ooureo of life vraa in no eenae for 
LuthtiT a rvalizoi idcttl — he liad eocfa&toIogiGal pre- 
oonoeptions and awaited the day when the world 
nhould pass away with its last, its pain» its devilish- 
n«09 and its course of life — but bocnuso ho niade 
faith fto gnuid and ^o fwvereign he eiifforod for and 
in roligion nothing thfit wn^ foreign to it. Accord- 
ingly through his mighty preaching all tho vagarice 
of Uie Uidditi Ages were dis^lvcd. He wLsliod to 
teach the world nothing e\m than what it signifies 
to poaaess Ood; yet in rooognizing this most im- 
portant n^alm in its peculiarity, everything else came 
to tta true relations, viz. : science, the family, the 
state, oharity, oivil oalliug. In that he raised to the 


first rank Itmt which bencaili Uw rubbish of refined 
ud oompliaiteil idcab hnd hitherto boon leodt 
«»bwm^— httmhhT nml gnfo rvlUnce upon God's 
CihthoHy ]iroTii<ion luid lojtOty in ono*0 calling — he 
cn*uted u itvw qiuch lu Uw hidtory o( Uiu wx>rU. 

He who takes h\» posilioQ ht^ro can liardly per* 
0uadehim9olfthat Luther brouglit to ttu>old *'Knmd'* 
dofn^oa oniy a oouplti uf new doctrines: 

lAiher'vtheoIogj'aUuuMtw irtVLted in dote covuwctton with 
the ttboTtt mDotioDod dovflopmont of hu fiufed^DiMitA] rlow*. 
In thivili^iual ti-miinoliiLrjr h^ v/tat mirpirUiii^ljr tm)umr'*r*d 
ah^ U9cd llir dixTtriDol fnrmulitit vuty fruoly. Tbo Ciiulitional 
tb9olafn''nl Kchr-nm hir fui a ntlQ trotted w fre^lfthat in muh 
imtincv, whnfj orjrtrctly untSemtood, be dbcerond ikt a%Hrm 
doctrine. T]ii» ran U- [irovon frouu hU iloctriui of Qod <CNkI 
without an4 vtthin CJIuEMJ, from hiadootrlDoof Prcrtdi»C*l 
(ttua fiiHt artii^l?. rf sfitlj' uitilerUood. Ia tho wtiole Of QiHeben* | 
dom), front hid ClirUtofo^ (^ChrfeA la not c&llnl CStrUt be- 
cause he baa two nnturvs, bat he beara th.\A glorious AbA 
oonifoTting name od &Gcoiuit of thi^ oIllc« and work which be 
took u|>oDhimseiri ChrfatUlbDinLrrcr^Uitf FAtliCff*Bb««ri^, I 
froaihuLdootriiie of sin (ain U "to liar* no Ood^. irdtn his 
doctrine of pndevtlfi&tiOQ and of Uie wUI'a lack of freddcm ' 
(religU>aaexperieD<« does not ftiiae €cnJotai|f oai of hlAtoorical 
ftad ncv&menUU acta, which God parfortna, and ^ubJocUro 
AOts, which are In anj sumae man^a, hue Ood alon^ w^rto tbo 
willing and Uio doing), from lUo law and the Goepel (ditftin' 
^tubing brdwtvn tho pOHaibilily mid iliA itMility of rpdomp^ 
tion) > from bill doctniiL^ uf jHMiJuict* (til tA iH Uic^ humiUty pf fftith, 
banco tliaontiffi UfvlHacontinuouB puuauo<.')H front hiHicx-trino 
C^ jiistifii^ttion. Incaohof Ihon doctrinew Luthrr rxpitundtd 
Uiu K^i^r— thofreegrvwotOodltiChriitt^biithLMuudchliiiMlf 

Qtoatat homQ In tho Paillido jichomo of Jiiiiliflciition "prOptO' 
ChrUtitm per fidf-itT. Tim HuA-polnted formulAA ronty^Tnliiic 
UmJvMtUia imptttatiivt nn-X \h** 8cbolutic amdering of JnsCifl^ 
cation and aiuictiBcntion (faith and loro) did not originate 
witfa hiniorwiththrblclnnobUionof thooarherdAja; yi^tcttch 
of thcvQ mca gave tlio provocalLon Co tbo mauy BvorTvlure 



thcna i» ffirgivf^notti i>f niD. ihfrv In aIjvo lift* imd Itli^MtHlnnn''. 
In tblNCOQvklSuuhHwau bin rvli^iuuii liidvfKTatU'nc'v AtuL frtv- 
dom (u n^iDst cimythiag trhioh b not from Qod . for indc' 

f r>rgi rrniWA of niii in rhrint wiu^t^ him the sunn ol ri'Liicion' 
Thereftimdid ho bring rvliKioii liock tothli. But Uk< i>o«iliT<< 
Hideiif tlirforgivntirsKif sip wh« for faiai ttift sor^hip through 
ubtdi Uic Clirbtlaii <«in)vit to n »eir-«ufltcLcnl |ixl«t<-ur4; on 
cvcTOgmliuit tho world. mvU iMtUtln^ftail Atnudftnoithei UDdor 
th6Alftv«r7 of tho law. nnr in d«p«nideDt upon mfffi — a priprt 
bif<s« Qod and n kini; ovw the world. 

3. Luther's Sfrictnret on the Dominating Ecctesi' 
astical Tradition and on the Do(pna. 

Luther alwayRwent from tJi^iceiitre to the cJrcom- 
fiorenoe m hh criticism, from faith to instJtntiOD, 
And did not attack dootrinftn mi tnicb, hut docrtrine^ 
which obscured or destroyed right living. 

(1) He aet aside the dominating docirine of sal- Sft^ 
vaiwn as destructive (Apol. r\", inlt. : " Adtersarii^ 
quitm neque quid retnissio peccatorum^ neque quid 
fidea^ neque quid gratio, neque quid Jueiiiia at'f, 
inleUioanU tnisere cofitaminant tocftm de jiistifi- 
catione fft ci>»curaKt gloriam et bettt^ficia Christi 
el eripiitni pttv conedeniHa propoaiiua in Ckri^to 
consotationee^f mvi in truth nhuvrvd hia oppuucnta 
thnt their doctrine of Qod (sophistic philoeo[>h,v and 
subtile n?aw>mng), their Christology (they spoculato 
about the two natures and do not know the benejicia 
Christi)^ tbair doctrino concerning the t< 
oouaaeBfi and graoo of Ghx) (the" 
"ooosolAtion" and heoceen 


dcwtrino of sin and freo-vill {ihtiy aro Pelasiakns) 
of justiflcatioii and faith {thoy do not knnvp what i 
tnoBDs to have a graciouB Ood, and thoy rely tipoiJ 
meHte) and of good works wero falao and misleadiui^ 
to th^ aou). With tliis bill of partkulan Lather m 
cotmtered not only the Bchola«tic«> but abo t 
Church fathom, ym AugUtftiDO hfniaolf, thorofi 
the whole a&cncmt CAthc4i« Church t^Mching. 

oia^G»b<v (^) l-uthor attitdcod tho old Calholic (not aiut>ly; 

FDFfoo^oD. medireval) ideal of perfection and of bleas^ne&s. 
In destroylii^ the idea of a dual momUiy to Ita very 
TooU ho put ill the place of moniutio porfedion tbo 
faith which relies upon tbo forgiTcoess of sin, in tba 
placu of the concoptioD of bles^edneea as a n>volliii^ 
in holy uentim^nt nnd in tioly Imowlodgw tK4> comfoH? 
of n froe conscience and ^otu^itp with Qtxi. 

(3) Luther deetn>yml th^ Catht^ic doctrine of fAa 
sacraments^ not simply the seven, Tiirongh the' 
three Bentenoc«: (a) The BacrametkteGoatributo unto 
the foi^ven&sif of sin and notliing else; (b) Sacra- 
menta non implentnr dntnfiunU sfti dnm credun- 
tur; (c) Thoy are a p<»culi»r form of tiio nxtemptiTo! 
word of Qod (of tho promissio dei") and thereforo. 
have their virtue In the hEstoritMU ChrlRt^-Ae traftS' 
formed the sacrwnattat etementn into sfKramental 
ordinances and recognixod in them only 01147 real 
sacrament, viz, : the pardoning word of God, He 
h^re opposed AugustinG nal^ss thnn th(^ ncholAAtlcs, 
and in combining the Cbriatua pracdkatuSt the 
fgi^veue«8 of sin and faith in the clofuaslr unity be 






excluded all ^se: MystioU reveUiiig, TDateria] good, 
thi^ opus (ifteratutny the haggling for Ihe sake of th© 
cHeci and the dispo^itiou.^. Not aa '* instruments" ^^^JJJf*" 
of ^:Taoc^ which secntil^ prepare future lifoin men ^"wSf 
futd by tlio tniiiKfu»(iou of lovo mnlco good i^orks po2- 
eihtet did ho nppndtcnd tht* [^^tcmmfrntei, Init na the 
verbum rinibih% iu wliicli Gwl hiiuwjlf co-o()eral«fl 
with U8 and givce hims^^f to n^ to be one with him 
in Christ. God ttorkn through Iho word in the sao- 
rament faith and conHdeaoe, i.e. he works the for- 
givoncf» of sin, Aa regards the Lord's Supper and 
haptism Luther carried this out, But he struck the 
Catholic Church the Beverest blow by his criticiom ^^^ 
of the sacrament of ))enaoco; for (a) Qe restored the ^ou ^ 
sovereign efficacy of heart-felt penitence, without 
doing away with coft/e««ioand sattg/aclioy it rightly 
iDterprvtcdi (b) He oooceived of this peDit^fnco in 
oppoAition to thn attrifio^ which waa to him ft 
•atoaio work, in the striotooi Bonao aa hatrod of sin 
apriuging out of the pert«iiliou of the gif^A^ness of 
the blessing which has be«n forfeited; ** Against 
P thee, tbeo only, have I dnned" ; (c) He promoted the 
ooaatancy of trustful penitence and thareby «l* 
plained th>> iwnazKO dono bofcro the priest oa a special 
art; (d) Hodidaway withthen4>ec«st^-of thepri«4itly 
ooopcnition; {e) He tAUgbt the nb^olate unioo ol 
■ contritio and absoiniio^ loth of vrhfcb ar« Incloided 
I in tJw fides; If) He did away with all the mia* 
m diiof connected with the fiacramenb?: Computations 
m in regard to temporal and eternal beikefita, pnrga- 


664 oun-nns op tiib hibtorv op dogkla. 

tiif>% vriirMfaip iif fUiintH, meritorious BatjnfactiAu 
and indiUg«Dcea, in that b« r^uoed eroiythiu^f t 
eternal guilt Thus did hedttfengi' the tree of lb 
Catholic Church by creating from ite roate light anc 
iocliiuition and a n^w iinpube. 

(4) LutlK^r <l<?slroyiid U>ft entire A*erarrAi«ii and 
priestly ecclema^ticat gtfdteoh, diMiied to the Church 
tbo right nf junHdtctioQ ovor the kes^ {i.e. OVAI 
t]M> wonl), <lix:Urcd th<^ opidco|jal 8u<x^e6Bion to be a 
Action and proolaiuitxl tht* right of the >ipecial priest^ 
hood aJcntgsido of tlio genend. In that be left but 
one office, the prcAching of the Oot^pel, to standi 
he dissolved the Catbolio Church of the popes nol 
only, Init nlm rf Irenivu^ 
^ui^yT? (5) Luther did Away wHth tho iradiitonal cuiiuA 
^^aor- o^Tflinaruyf^ as rcg»rdEt tJi«ir form, ium» content und 
i!gnii]canc«. Ho would know nothing of a specific 
Divine serv-icK*, witli gpeci&I prieet^ and special offer-* 
ings. He dificarded tiie Mcrificiol idea in general, in 
lieu of the one sufficient sacrifice of Chriftt. Tho 
worship of God is nothing eW ihjin th^ eimplici^ of 
tJwindividuaVs reverence for God in time and space* 
He who Dttributi>i6 to it a special merit, for the aako 
of influencing Uod, committi sin. It has to do only 
with odifieation in faitli through the proclamation of 
tho Divine word and with the general praise-offerinjc 
of prayiTf. Tlw* true Hervioe of Qod is the Okrintifin 
life in reliani^upon Qod, penitence and faith, bomll- 
iiy and itdelity in duty* Unto thia aerrice of God 
the public service should contributa Here also he 



I ffbftttorecl tho OhurcU, Dot only of Uio Middle AgeHf 
but also of the ancients. 

(6) h\xther de^:royed ibe fvnnat external author- 
ities of Catholicism; be did away with the distinc- 
tion between thing and authority. Because to bim 
the proolaimcd Cbrist (Qod in Christ, God'aword) 
wafl the thing and th<* authority, he caat the formal 
auUioritiee overboard. Even before the tetter of 
Scripture he did not heeitate. Daring the rery time 
when he wa^ rontending agaiuBt Ibo abeolute author- 
it}' of tradition, of tho pope and of tlie eouncilg, bo 
»et tliat whicli Chrint did owr AgAin^t tb^f olcftt 
letter of SeHphiro and did uot shrink from spttaking 
of errorv in tho Bil^iCttl writen* m matters of faith. 

(7) Luther ccncoded Co hi8 opponent« their dog- 
7natic temiitwtogy only i»o far oa be did not dis- 
card jtp He hod the liveliest feeding tbAt the whole 
terminology waa at least mlslc«ding, ThJB can be 
proven from hi« erpoAitiona (a) of tlo varioiia ron- 
ooptjonft of jtistificatiOt «anclificatiOt vivificatiCt 
regeneratof et£| (b) oi the coDcoption saiii^fa/^ 
tio, (c) ecclesia^ (d) sacramenta^ (o) homousion^ 
(f) trinitcs and unitas. The tenninelogy of tbe 
flchoUstics he d<K7lared to be fulse, that of the old 
Catholic tbeologianfl to ha unproGtabte Bud cob). 
Btit the QQost important ta that he distinguished in 
the doctrine of God and in Christology between that 
which pertaita to ua and t^t which pertaina to the 
thing itself, thereby clearly indicating what the doo- 
triite of faiih really ia and what is a matter of 

of OiUIbI- 




spoctilativo nvvion, or at bc0t ihiA indcmooetifl 
socrat oi fmtli. 

SmSSo Ltather did away with tbo old dogmatic Chriatia 
jMjn itj and put a new evang^liciU conception in ]t« pla< 

KoUaL The Reformation ]» in reality auoxitof tbo histoid 
dogma :Tlu» tii€ fore^^oingaurvey toacheo dborlyai 
explicitly. Ttiat whjcb Augustine begUi but w\ 
notabtetoreoliid, Lut)H>rcarriodthrongh. H«e«te 
limbed the ovongtolicftl tiuih in thi- plaoo of the dogn 
by doinjc awny wiUi tbc duali>an of dogmatic Chri 
t^^idoni and prAdicnl Christian fidf-judgment ai 
indcpcndotico, imd thus freed Cbristifin faith froi 
tho trnmincta of the ancieDt philosophy, of eeculj 
knowlodget of lt<;ntbvti ooremouiLW and ounningm 
nUi^. TTie doctrine of JaiUi^ the true dottrin 
h^ restored to its sotrereign right in the Chi^rd^ 
to the terror ot the hmnanistfl, eccleBiasHcfi, Fma 
ciacane »nd rationalista (AuflzlareT) . Tho true th 
ology should have tbc deciding power in tho Cb 

'^^j™ But what a taakl It appeared still ulmctit like 
coQtnidictioD ; To restore the sigaificanoe of faith 
the content of revelation to ita centTal poeiticm 
against all subtile re^isooin^ and doin^, and thus 
call out the repn^saed theoretif^al elpm^nt; and sti 
on the other hand^ not simply to take that fai 
which the past haa couetnicted, but rather to im 
cate the form in which it 19 life and creates life, 
foactioe yet the |»-actioe of religion. F^ttmi 


greatiiess of the problem ts explaineil also tho lafiolv- 
€»cy of tha«o elements in LuUier's tLcolog>' which 
porrortod tlioeaiuo and must qualify iho docluratioD, 
that tJio KeformatioQ waa tho oud of Um history of 

4. TA^ Catholic Klemefits Retained unth and 
wiihin Luiher''t< Christ fan iff/. 

Eowcvor much or however littlo Lutfaor hero r^ 
tainf^^— it bebngs indeed to th« "euttro Lullior"^ 
kut nut to the ^^entiroCliriiMiiuiit^''' of Lutbur. llow 
wm Luthor able to rotMin CHtholio 4>l(Tni<>nt:^, fmd 
urh<it olemeute di*l lie conserve? Of tlicc»e two quM* 
tiu»H) v^'hicli should bu luiswvrvd, tho flrst biut ulnMuIy 
been answered in part (deep*54it); only a few thingB 
need to bo added here. 

(1) Luther defeudc^d faith asagaicst the eorro^ 
sponding work», th<> doctrUxa evangetii ob against 
jut;ttf3ring pdni;n«i8 Rod ]>rcxH^4i«iOA. Houco ho stood 
i& danger of lulopting or u£ tuluratinfp erory state- 
nii^nt of fiiith^ if only il Ke«ni«d frcv from law and 
works« He fell into this pitfall. His idm of 
the Church was |>erv<'rt«d thereby. It bocamo as 
smbiKuous as ttic idi^ of the doctrina evangelix 
(folliiwMliip cf faith, follownhip of punulfictrine), — {*2) 
Luthor thought in g^neml only of oontendiug ngnini^i 
tlio doctriunl errom and abuMti i>f tbo modiii'vul 
Cliurcli^ and ^inoo bo tracud oil mUfortiint^ tu tlie 
pope, bo formid too high an estimate of the anto- i0onttt< 
papal aocioni Cliurdi.*-(3) Luther know the old >iar 



CatboUo Church very eligbtlv and aacribod to Its 
decisions Id an obtscurv manner still a curtAin author- 
i^, — (4) Ltithcr Hlwuyn rwkonfitl bitn^f and his 
undortitlnng aa vritliLn tlkc one Catholic Churchy 
diiimvd tlut lbit» Church gnvt- him the titlt^rigbt to 
bis ReformatioDi and honco bv liAd a lively interest 
in proving thr continuity of it^ faith. Thi>« pniof 
sec-med moat iKvcuivly t«uppliixl in the old faith 
formulas. — (5) Luthf>r ivah no nyetemntic tb«>logtaD, 
but rompod in tho Church like n <^ild at home; bo 
bad no lon^ng aft^rr tbo ho1in«« of a Mrctl-ordered 
doctrfnal stnicturo; but hl8 powiT wrtw likewise hia 
wmkuoas.— (0) Luther wae ablu to exprcea his entire 
ChristJAnity vrithtn the sch^ne of the traditiooal 
doctrines, and hence he wa8 at peace with the old 
formidas. — (7) Luther was tn conereto — net intoQ* 
iJui tionally— -a medieval excite; be found therefore 
mauy traditional doctrin^e in the Scriptures, althuu^^b 
they are not contained therein. Ab reganls history 
be bad in truth intuitive perception, but he developed 
DO method.— (S) Hia perception of the ossenoo of the 
word of God did not entir^ destroy hia Bibliriam, 
but rather did this return aftor 1523 more frtrongly. 
That "it etandfl written*', remained tobim a |>owQr. 
itomJii —(^) Alao as regardii the sacntnienla there remained 

^^ .w of 

bnen. for him still therein a superstifio as "^mcatui of 
grace" {insteRd a» tb« one grace), and tins bad the 
we^R:htieeit consequouoos for hia doctrinal work. — 
(10) Hf wm UTmbh> U^ rid himnelf of remnimtii of (bo 
aomiualiBtia echoUhAticimi, and thoeo inilucncod bin 


I iti 

till— liln 


doctrine of God, of prede»dinatioQ and of the sacra- 
ments. --(11) After lliat be bud learned wiedoni in 
bis struggle with fanatics, be waa distrust^ of the 
re«ison, and went far Ueyond dJBtmst to antagonism 
against it as a prop of Bclf-rigbteousneea* He in 
truth hardened himwlf agninst reawn in dever con- 
fidenoe, and retivj^raded at sereml important points 
of questionable Catholic belief which recognized the 
Divine Trifidom in pai-adoxes and absurdities, before 
wbicli man must bow, EflpeciaUj* bis hnuglity ny 
pulsion of tbe "^nthuBiastfl^i who pos&ofim^ true in* 
flight into not n few poiutfl, and bU avemiuii U> ad- 
vancing algag with secular civillzatjon Htruck the 
Kefonnation it^ severest blows. 

The consequence of this conduct was that 90 far 
aa Luther left n s^ybtem of theology to bin atlhurcnts 
it appeflped a« a highly wmfused and uuaaliftffti^t4>rj- 
pictuTo: Not aaanow building, butasa modiSctition 
of the traditiuual btruuttiren Accordiugly H U clour 
(according to Sec. :i) that LuUier introduced no 
Rnality, but only made a partial beffinning of a 
re/ormation even according to his ottm principles. 
The following aro the mc«t important confusions and 
problttma is hia Ivgocy : 

(1) The oon/oundintj of the Oo^pet and the doc- 
trina m^angElii, Lttthor in truth ucrvtr cva»ed to 
consider the ardcuii fideit^funmiitoM testimony 
to that with which tbo Christian faith ia alone 
concerned; yet aloujcwith tins he gave the ftame still 
a value of it«» own. Acconliugly tha intellectnat- 





cn^ in to oounterhi 
(oepeciallj that of j 
ideni of life wiu be 
PJotiiimuB, S Bclo.)< 
A dvar »uid nimplu Ik 
And tlio Churcb, vras 
mnintain tho "t^Mcbi 
and yot to freo it at 
cannot be appropHat 
ftion, luid to stamp t 
faith, vntbout giving 
ical ttchiioL 

(X) The con/oundi 
the old dogma. Sine 
demptivD faith in the 
wan not pownblo to pr 
itfi old claimii find it4 1 
tber dovolopod tho fuun 
Cbruttologj-, vk,^ in 1 
per^ In th»t he how 

rdtatolj maintniDccI a? nota cfcl^iae tho moii €x- 
tnnDu HclioUuvtic toicbitii; wl^icb ntiy Church liiu) 
ever nmixitainwl. Tbia fw% i»( uot btrango; for bow 

t can one without absordity include within the Bcheme 
of thejloctriiie of the two natures tho 6kith-idea that 
the mim Jesuii Chrii^t is the revelation of God hiimwlf, 
in GO far as Gk>d hat* given ii8 in him to know hie o^n 
■ fatherly bcort, laying it bare to uft? Even bocause 
Luther 6rst really made oarneet work with faith in the 
CKKl-rsan (the oneness oi God lutd man in Christ) , 

I must the turd^aatt to the Bpecidalion regarding the 
•"natures" have the most distre6»ing consequencofi, 
Tho RAnu> can be »^hopm as regnrdn the reception of the 
Augu^iitiifui doetrine of the original state and of orig- 
loal aiu. Ilero aUo Luther could only jnorea^e the 
paradoxes and nbe^u^Utte6, in that he sought to expreea 
m ihefe fonnuia» his evangelical oonvicti(»i tjiat all 
sin is godlotHn€6fi and guilt. Everywhere it is plain 
that when the evangelical faitli i** thntiit into the 
d'^mHti<Y»-nitt final scheme which tho Oreeka, Au- 
f gustiuo and Uki> eoholactios croatod, tt leads to bisamo 
formuhus — y^> ^^^ nu^ki^ this scheme wholly irra- 
tioiml. Therefore the Reformation of the future 
ba»the t^ of doing away with this toamo-theistio 
|jhilo6opby and of putting in its place the simple ex- 

IpresaioD of faith, tho true self- judgment in the light 
of the Gospel and tho real import of history. 
(3) The confounding of the trorti of Oo<t and ihe 
Sacrrd Script urtft. Lutlier, as hnshcon remarked, 

never overcame faiii wavering betweoa a quaUtatiTo 



»3 om-ncKs of thu mRTOur or dooha. 

and a literal cetimato of Uio Hcdy Scriptures, and t 
ocinbWOTsy n^arrling the Lord'0 Sapp«r only oa 
fimHxl him in tho latter riow. He hnd not yot brok 
tho butidngu of ihv! li^ttcr. Thuj4 it happooed that t 
church urrived at tho moM str&ngttit doctrino of i 
Hpiration, while it Qever quite foi^ot that the ccmtd 
of th<> Gospel IB not everything that is ocmtaiiwd b 
tween the lids of the Bible, hut that it U the prccl 
mation of the free grace of Qod in Christ H<^re> ah 
reouiina to tho Chnroh of tho Roformation tho tn«k 1 
dmtin|^F^4r7ie'«//|r with thv Chri^tianiiy vf LutJi 
OS against tho ''i>ntin> Luther". 

(4) The ccn/oundiitg of grace and the vieans i 

^oSSIf* (foce {Tittcrammt:/), The firm and excluBtTe ca 
ofrptfon which Luther fonned of Ood» Chriflt, 
Uc^j Spirit, the word of God, faiths tbo forgivGm 
of sin and juAti6cattoa (grace) is bis greatest eervi 
above all tbe recognition of tho inseparablenefis 
the Spirit and the word. But by an appazen 
slight modification hd arrived at very donbtful 
cliutiona, in that he finally tranaferred that wbi< 
portaina ia the word (Christ, the praaching of 
Ooapd) to tbo idoa " tfocale verbumeisacramenia 
Rightly did he oont^md that Christ biiuj^elf woi 
through the word and that one is not to accept an 01 
vrard union of wont and S]>irit, sign and thing sij 
nifiod. But not only by the ^tting Apart of ce: 

^Jjj^^y* ordinarr«« and ** nictfuis of grace" did ho ret*in» to 
narrow circle of the Middle Agoe which ho hftd fa 
eoken^-thc ChrUtian lives> as ho hink»olf bent knd 




not by moarm cf grace, but by petsotial communion 
willi Gtxl, whom he lays hold of in Christ,— bat 
in Ht\\\ greatdT measure by the effort, (A) Tojugtifj 
Infiuit bapttsQi as a means of gruco in tlio strioUit 
s«asc^ (B) To accq)t penauco dtiU also nn the mennft 
of ^race In the initiation^ (C) To maintain the real 
prepuce of the b^idy of Chnnt in the enoharij^t as 
(Ae essential element of tho sacrameot- 

Note on (A). Thi^ forK^vcntws of lun (Knira)aDc] 
fnith being inn^parably unit^vl^ infant bnptiftm la 
then not a eacnunojit in tho strict i«uao {"tibxente 
fiih baptiAmu^ nudum el inejffiauc vigtium Utnium" 
modo ^ermaneV\ sayn Luth«r bimacdf In hts Larger 
Catechism). In onlor to avoid tliis conclusion, 
Lutht.^ ro£ortocl to aubtcrfugetf which mark a ralapse 
into Oatholicitrm (fides implicita, »ubd](u(ion.*l 
fldtli)v ThiA worvt of it wiiif thnt \w ^unt^nl HiO per* 
miaaion — in order to prcaorro luf^tut baptism 00 a 
oomplnto oacntEiiuut — to tfoiJomt*} n^g«;uonition ucd 
justiScation (objective and subjocti^'e). infant bap- 
tiam thus bocomc n BacmmoDt of justification (not 
of rcgonentioii) ; tho worat confuSHm set in and that 
p:lorious jovrcl of ovang^Jiod Chri^tiimify, Justi- 
Jlcaiion^ bocAino oxtomnli^rad anil bastcmed to bo- 
como a do^mntic locti^ along with tbo others and 
loHt ito pmcticid lu^ificancv. 

Note on (B). Pattfa andtm© penitenceare accord- 
ing to Luther <me, yet m that faith is pnW: In so 
far AS Ihe ChriHtian Uvea continually in faith, he 
lirefi oontdnually in iM-nilencti; special peoifentia) 



opooed, and the frivolity now first bowiuio groftti 
Tbo thou^hti liowuver, that jiutification is tiic&phoro 
iimi tJii* ecHtication of tJie CliriHtion was hopel<ja0y 
obtKTurcd; U paeeod now onljr a& the jujittjlcatio 
impii. Th^nsforo niut<t the pioui4 look about for a 
now mouna of edilinitioti, if now bin justification 
is only a (n>pL*titiouri) "objective" iaitiatic^ uci. 
Here lie« to-<ky etill the fluidameDta) curse. 

Note *m (C). Numberlesfi times did Luther recog- "^i?2i'* 
nizo thAt one may i^eeL m the word and in the eac- xwhun^ 
mmcnt only for tlic nafiuranco of tho forgivoncfw of 
idn, ftud with " grim contanpt" did hu rejoct fiveiy- 
thiug wLich inott tbeti made d<*pf.xndejit upon the sac* 
ramont. //« a/-w> never ^lirrenidered fitj conrie- 
tion^ irAfoA c/«c» no( allow the gucjition ctmcerning 
thti body o/ Christ in ihe eucharisi to crop out ajt 
a lhci>hxjii:nl qnvMion at all. But wkoD he saw 
Uuxt Jirst Kavbtadt^ then Zwingli and others per- 'v^f^jS!'* 
mitted tho r»ign and tlii* thing Bignified to he eepa- 
rultfd and thua endangered tho certainty of tJi© for- 
gi\"cnesa*of »in in the sacrament, he sought, influenced 
Ukewise by mediE^val tradition, to securely eBtablifih 
the tatter by lajring hold of tho reel preAence tn the 
eaornmeat, and he defended this with increasing 
temper and complete stubhomnees as though tht 
question ua.t as tu the reality or non^reuUty of 
the forgiveness of sin. Onecan understand Luther'6 
position in the controTer«y only wtwn ono recofcnixes 
thi» quifl pro quo^ and wh<m onct further roaltZTft that 
Luther Inatinctively aouj^t (or a miMuwof ridding 

name of mitno^ 
whioJi (ltd not expn 
bia own faitb, M 
were aixniwd wUt 
oome. Here awakei 
Bohola^tic doctrinar 
soht h^re a porverw 
tioD8> h«re an unbE 
ftloagaidi^ of and » 
toward the opus opt 
lioarUMl and loveli 
ttatoment of tbo 
to bo more paradovi 
•tanttatlon was oot 
dooUiration of Ooca 
ooo and tbo Komo i 
viHiblb eleroenta an 
clocwd. The aiuno 
9c1iolastJC8 now ex[ 
rectJy hero", BuppH 
rhicfa in flcholASt 


of ChrlrtisbineD by tbe teeth") and trumped the Ir- 
rationality of tho doctrine a^s a Htamp of itsf Divine 

Throuf^h tho form which LutJior ^rvt to tho doo- 
trin«iof tho fqinhnriAt hoiK |»artial1ytohhim<) tJmtth^ 
Inter Luthormi rhuri^h iu il^i (*hriatology, in it^ doo- 
trine of Uiu twcnimcnUt, m itn dtjctrinarmiLitiDi nud in 
tbo falsestAndord by which It inoa0ure!»de|>arture6 in 
doctrine and procIaJQia tliom hemtical, thri.<aten8 to 
bocomca ftcra^-ny twiiiof thoCntbolic Cliurch; for 
Catholicism is not th« pope, nor the worship of tliu 
mi^tH, uor the masn — thuwo blto cv»nw^[tj*»nwiR, — but 
tlio falctc doctrino of the sacraments, of penance, of 
fiLith Aiid of authority in uiutterQ uf fuith. 

The form which Ibc churches of the Reformation 
took in the ICth century, was not homogeneous, or 
definite: This the Listory of Protoetantiftm indicntes 
oven to thiu day. Luthor once more hft«d the GoB- 
pel, plttCfod it upon the lAmp-«tand nnd nuhcrdinat^ 
dogma to it. It now rcmain^i to hold faat to and 
carry forward that whSoU ht) hugan. 

Gott 8chenkc una nur oin festee iierz, Muth, 
Domuth und Cteduld I