Skip to main content

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

See other formats 




ua 





A ' ὯΝ 5 Ἢ ji 
a 
Rh 

ΠΥ NY j 

cate ae 





N i esl ill 


Ir un hn i 
Ml i 
εν Pil 2 


7 ive 


N > 


j ee... 
I : 
. Fax a 


wile 


᾿ 








N N an | ᾿ ' 
ἊΝ ᾿ MM 7 “i ' 
a δ 
ye i 


u # DE, 


ὃ = 
SR er a I + 





ὶ u 
ἡ Oak i 


TEXT-BOOK 


OF THE 


HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 


BY 


DR. K. Ro ΠΑ ΟΝ BAHT 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BASLE. 


THE EDINBURGH TRANSLATION OF C. W. BUCH, REVISED WITH LARGE ADDITIONS 
FROM THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, AND OTHER SOURCES. 


By HENRWEB SMILE, DD. 


PBOFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE CITY OF NEW YOBK. 


VOLUME 1. 


| NEW YORK: 
SHELDON & CO. 115 NASSAU STREET. 
BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN. 


1801, 


“Nec pigebit autem me sicubi hzsito, querere, nec pudebit sicubi erro, discere.” 


— AUGUSTINUS. 
“Tdeoque utile est, plures (libros) a pluribus fieri diverso stilo, non diversa fide, etiam 


de quzestionibus eisdem, ut ad plurimos res ipsa perveniat, ad alios sic, ad alios autem 


sic.”—IDEM. 





THE NEw YORK : 

PUBLIC LIBRAR: 
Ἢ 7 Fre 
190572 
ASTOR, LENOX *"'- 

TILDEN FoOusp.;, 


1855 








un 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861, by 
SHELDON & COMPANY, 
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 


STEREOTYPED BY PRINTED BY 
Swmiıtu & MoDoveat, JosEPH RUSSELL, 
79 John-street. 


82 & 84 Beekman-st. 


PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. 


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

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

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


iv PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. 


Lutheran type of theology He enjoys the highest respect and 
consideration for his learning and candor. And among the works 
published upon the History of Doctrines, this is still perhaps the 
one best adapted to general consultation and profitable use. Mün- 
scher’s Lehrbuch, as edited by Von Cölln, Hupfeld and Neudecker (in 
the successive parts, 1832-38) is valuable chiefly as a collection of 
materials ; Ruperti (1831), Augusti (4th edit., 1835), and Lentz 
(1834), have been superseded. Baumgarten-Crusius’ Compondium, 
1840-46 (the second volume edited by Hase), and Engelhardt (1839), 
show an abundance of’ learning, but are deficient in the method 
essential to a text-book. Meier’s Lehrbuch (2d edit. 1854), and 
Beck’s (1848), simply present the results in a concise form. Giese- 
ler’s Dogmengeschichte, edited by Redepenning, 1855, extends only 
to the Reformation, and is rather intended as a supplement to his 
Church History. Baur’s work is pervaded throughout by the theory, 
that dogmas are destined to be resolved into philosophical ideas. 
Noack’s Dogmengeschichte (2d ed., 1856) has the same tendency, 
with less learning and method. Neander’s History of Dogmas, ad- 
mirable in many respects, has the disadvantages of a posthumous 
publication ; it devotes less than a hundred pages to the history 
since the Reformation. 

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

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


H. B. 8. 
Union THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
New YorRK, Jan. 21, 1861. 


Sal 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Definition...... ΡΝ ΠΉΡΑΣ ΕΣ ΕΣ ΙΕ στ ΠΕ ahalstchelstofsrahereiekskursiefele 13 


2. The Relation of the Ener of Doctrines to Church History and Dogmatic 
MEO OL ΠΣ sie ciel ποθ στόν HOON ἐπ ἐδ ρόδο ες Soc ἡ Τὰ 
3. Relation to Biblical Theology προ δον .CLO CH 00000 Miclebelohelsinlsl ere σ ον τὸ δά ες 16 
A-PRelations TOsSV MO OLMSM siete erevclslolois τ τοι elofeieteleielerseretefater Πρ π| τ Ὁ 06.06.00 17 
5. Relation to Patristics............ Boa era mann Sl 
6. Relation to the History of Heresies and the General History of Religion..... 19 

7. Relation to the History of Philosophy, the History of Christian Ethies, and 
the History of Dogmatic Theology...... A nébooddodecicbiacne sfajstehselavers 2 
9: ΠΑΊΣ ΒΥ SCIENCES pic. «cle ae ern ee πλοῦν ὁ οἷο ς ΣΕ susveereistehacverelcepbencicte 22 
9. Importance of the History of Doc RL Sesonddosud ESEL era our 23 
10. Mode of Handling the History of Doctrines....... oubkbiGaaudaccconousGonds 23 
Div Arrangement of the Materials... ka sen er 25 
12:2 Division NULOPEOKIOGSs\elajatete τς τ Ne lciel τ πὴ Ὸ- OB 26 
13. Sources of the History of Doctrines: a. Public Sources..............+0+- .. 30 
14. δ. Private Sources... <0... δὶς οἱ αἰ oc 080000 Tara Sales SuoBannoD0L. 8a 
logerIndireetSOurces2 = ae else mes elsteneitere οἰ σθθούος ἀδοθοεοδ σοθοδοδοθς δο 36 
16. Works upon the History of Doctrines.............. 9060090.0.00000000.00 36 


FIRST PERIOD. 


FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DEATH OF ORIGEN, OR FROM THE 


A. 


8 11. 


18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 


YEAR 80 TO THE YEAR 254. 


THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIRST PERIOD.’ 

Christrands CHrashiamiby:creterorsrerslcrsvelcie\ oles slelcleveleterele|etalateltaretere OLE οὐ 44 
The Apostles...... HOO PU OE OO RORDALITOTEDONIN NEO Och TR πε 45 
Culture of the Age, and Philosophy..........csceccscvce ator svelitheteyancrsrciehefae 49 
RuleyofWaith—TheyApostles! Creed... 1... <sleysieisweietsictels!s\cielelel els dlerdle here 51 
VOTERS er 000000808 000 BOT L INIOMODTRIHON HOHER IODEN EA HD 52 
Judaism’and@Hthniciemeeeteneree sen cle τς e orelaieisieielelareieisiatentetsta eo orange ΟΝ 


vi CONTENTS. 
PAGE 
§ 23. Ebionites and Cerinthus—Docet® and Gnostics....... ἘΡ τ ἢ: 580000900 50 Ὁ 
24. Montanism and Monarchianism. ...........e.rs.0n00. ἘΠ ΠΠΠΠΠ- 60 
29.4-1he;@atholiekDociurnerr-rereerete σα τσ δ ΞΟ συ συ σοι Ὁ δοιδό “5.9 62 
26. The Theology, of thepbathersiyerserejteclereletero) ol ieteleie ὁ Ὁ Ὁ οσσσο αν σου σοῦ ῦο 63 
27. The general Doctrinal Character of this Period................seeee. a {{ 


B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIRST PERIOD. 


EIRST DIVISION: 


APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA, 


TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. REVELATION AND SOURCES OF REVELATION. SCRIPTURE 


§ 28. 
29. 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33. 
34. 


AND TRADITION. 


Truth and Divinity of the Christian Religion in General..............0.... 75 
Mode of Argument....... σέ sion iepelone οι τοι tere er ρόδο oUt 
Nourcesiof ΠΟ ΘΟ ΣΟ tere crsisrcicrsios esse Sbiooldpion SududacgdaoouT 82 
Ganonzor the Sacred: Sermpbures\ys 2123... ee ee 83 
Inspiration ‘and Efficacy ‘of the Seriptures: .. 22520 .tis.seccs er eec cece sos 86 
Biblical Interpretation. .............. 00008 Slfeneleleuetefateretafelete/ste RR 92 
Era tION ee ee AdiauDapoadooo1 SonoDUoOggoondO0DD Woon 


SECOND DIVISION. 


THEOLOGY. 


THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING GOD (INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION AND 


GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD; THE DOCTRINE ABOUT ANGELS AND DEMONS). 


§ 35. The Being of God..... 06.80.9000, Ὁ συ σσσοσοδσοοσούσος 96600060 900004 99 
90: “Le Winitiyg Ol Gods erferete Metorerereteteretelete:otnto)steiekeloier elelersgeretentehere Volelarete dogodae 102 
31. Wihether. GodlicanibeuKanowineyerers/elecckerele/s!cleletelclete ὁ ὁ σας οσσύσαοσσασο σσ δῦ 104 
38. Idealism and Anthropomorphism—Corporeity of God. .-«- «ον νεν εν εκ κεν κεν 106 
39: ΠῚ ΚΑΘ ΘΑ (πΟτειο  τπρ ρον siegt eferefekeketeteheleiskeger ET ro Re 109 
40. The Doctrine of the Logos: a. Before the Christian Era, and in other Systems. 113 
41. b. The Christian Doctrine of the Logos, in the Writings of John. ........... 116 
42. c. The Theologumenon of the Church concerning the Logos to the Times of 

OVI POM Werte ajenaneraneretelekeiesTetatekeleuetoien stein ers tererete tel ans olekaer erstere stets orale 117 
43. d. Origen’s Doctrine of the Logos. ....... 1 600030000 Re 123 
AA DR CVELO) YG HOST nr Sees ee πο lore exstopelevererotolenelereiceelcintsteteterers 125 
ADNETnoRlriadleyetelereteferers νου τς shel ok atel ΤΡ πο τορι το πὴ 128 
46. Monarchianism and Subordination. ..........e..eeceeees Scadeoacusoodan. 130 
Lie Doctrine ot ther Creation ey Karren ste seele ARE 57..." 133 
48. Providence and Government of the World...........-.eeeee- Br ΠΣ 136 
AyEAnSelolosy,and2Demonolosy Sr efoke ir texet-ieieiatels level arts aicleleelsinrsneiostetev el 138 
DOU OmAM POSS ὁ τς προ, δῆς κοῖς, τι ετεῖς τὶς Sais, Se ρα κα τοὶ το οἴει a δ τον ele peneiavenevolerere et ο᾽ς τ τὰν τν 139 
bt) Lhey Deval! ‘and Demons.r... ς τ δ εἰς zensiert τες τ τ doacupepgdocccsdoDods 142 
527. Thelsameisubjeeticontinued eyo rer lade a RONELRON 145 


CONTENTS. vü 


THRO DIV TS TON: 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 
PAGE 

§ 53. Introduction... ..c.ccesccscessessescess Adosbose 0 €  ainle'e ese/a denen 148 
54. Division of Human Nature and practical Psychology..... τ ππσς-- addccare 149 
55. Origin of the Soul........ ΠΥ d dob Ob ah oe oe DETDHORHOOHOHL 151 
80. Lhelmarerofa Gods teteclelellerslcletelelcteradsisierele BC UEC ULODE Προ 153 
57. Liberty and Immortality: a. Liberty........00.ecs0000.. τυ ΄-- 155 
58: Ὁ: Immortality...ooooo-..0... le etalderakehatetete 55.50000000 50dB0t0 50000000 158 
59. Sin, the Fall, and its Consequences......... 100000 HOHER oddooocoooove Le) 
60. The Doctrine of Sin in General..... SCosnoene SOoops050a5000 ΔῈ ΞΕ σοι 160 
61. Interpretation of the Narrative of the Fall. ..........2.22220.. ogaconanonuc 162 
62. State of Innocence and Fall........ 002040400 00000. 5a DON OE πο ας τς τς 163 
63. The Effects of the Fall...... SogdoGuencson0c Ἐπ τὴν: ἢ" Se lefetatetejet. DA: 

PO-UR.ILHIDTVTSIONE 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 

§ 64. Christology in General. ........ πο ΤΙΝ οὐσσοθοας Seesen seele 169 
65. The God-Man..... FE SOCIO OC EUROS oO ΕΡΥ δ ole Toreteyste ret a eve EEE 170 
66. Further Development of this Doctrine. ....... ccc cece cccccccccecccence 173 
Gieethersinlessnessy of Christa apeyserretleteloteller aloistaleleforaresieeretelptelele eyer~ An Wie 
68. Redemption and Atonement (The Death of Christ).... ...... SODnUOOODOOC 179 
ΘΙ ΙΘΘΗΟΘΗΒΙΙΒ. Δ Π. ΤΠ ΟΤΟΒ τος - ες. το τς τος ς τ τον τος Bla RT ο πα ΤΑ Ὁ σα δ Ὁ 187 
70. The Economy of Redemption.......... 560086080080. 000000 δοδοσοσοσὸ Soc 98 

a 
Ri eH Drv is LON: 
. THE CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE, 

8 71. The Church. ......sesccccccssccveccscccssreccsesereersions ρον 105 
72. Baptism..... DDR ΝΣ 26086 EDEN DODHT elojoietel&tegeiejetelatekeezetete sooo Uy 
73. The Lord’s Supper...... ΘΠ oie) ΘΕ ἐσεῖς οἶδ. τς ρει τ Εν περ τ το 0 
(Ap ldes Of thesSacrament@ersrerefelelefelereielsierele elle <1elaletelefelelsetal-telatefelelohctelare (clatter 211 

SIRSEH. "DIVISION. 
THE DOCTRINE ABOUT THE LAST THINGS.—(ESCHATOLOGY.) 

§ 75. The Second Advent of Christ—Millennarianism (Chiliasm).............. al 
Gs IUhEVRESULTECHOn. ae ee dlaronine =) e100 Roos Seid Nele fatale are yeror 217 
77. General Judgment.—Hades.—Purgatory.—Conflagration of the World...... 221 
78. State of the Blessed and the Condemned.—Restitution of all Things, ........ 224 


ÜONTENTS. 


SECOND PERIOD. 


FROM THE DEATH OF ORIGEN TO JOHN DAMASCENUS, FROM THE 


YEAR 254 TO THE YEAR 730. 


THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN THE SECOND PERIOD. 


gm. 
80. 
81. 
82. 
83. 


84. 
85. 
86. 


PAGE 
Introduction &ceeeneerslerstarerereialstense nielelene ele, olevelere terete oie orelskeleteleketeralereleiefetete 228 
Doctrinal Definitions and ‘Controversies. « «ja ccc \o cise. oo essen een me cle ele 229 
The Dogmatie Character of this Period.—The Fate of Origenism........... 229 
Teachers of the! @hureh in’ this Period sarc sic cis lereleteiche ποτε sole oie elelellelete 230 
The Eastern Church from the Fourth to the Sixth Century.—The Schools of 
Mlexandriavand ΚΑ ΠΟΘ Is) τις 9 Ἐν <catele sic) ocatetoleteletevorsrsieve share lalevekelaistehalstensitele 239 
The Western Church.—Augustinianism..........csccescsescsecsscercere 239 
IPH OMETOLESIOS "erste arena evove alsiis τοχτροχο δον οὶ st svexesc¥elaleleicrovereteloteuc avelelalexcterevenoteterstetetetene 240 
Division sof the Material’... arere leere ls ejsolereeietelevetavotelectelotolerereveleteloleltielererersione 242 


SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE SECOND PERIOD, 


FIRST CLASS. 


DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS OF THE CHURCH IN THE CONTEST WITH 


8 81. 
88. 


89. 
90. 


91. 
92. 


93, 


HERESIES. 


(POLEMICAL PART.) 


FIRST Div LS LON: 


DOCTRINES RESPECTING THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY. 


a. THEOLOGY PROPER. 


The Hypostasis and Subordination of the Son......... ee area realer 243 
The Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Sabellius and Paul of 
AM OSA GA chs: 1.5.0 τος τὰς euere ee oietohelareas cic leleyaveretorerevelaveinieter cere lol nicierelere 246 
Subordination of the Son to the Father, and the Distinction of Persons, in 
"ATIADISIN ς τ δ ο τ severe. siel ole, e) eheletavers eicloisiehelcietets eicroiote ENTE 249 
The Hypostasis and Homousia of the Son.—The Doctrine of the Council of 
INGO πο ΡΠ οὐ eiehetelers (avelorstedevakaretetectievetevelereiseterneieiete 250 
Further Fluctuations until the Synod of Constantinople..............e200. 252 
The Causes of these Fluctuations.—Arianism and Semi-Arianism on the one 
Hand, and Return to Sabellianism on the other.—Marcellus and Photinus.. 254 
Divinity of the Holy Spirit......... σα ΟΠ ἢ δ ον oe mobos een 100208 


ContTENTS. ix 


PAGE 

§ 94. Procession of the Holy Spirit......... nenn ass BE RO 262 

95. Final Statement of the Doctrine of the Trinity.............0.seeeesevenee 264 

96%. Tritheism.Tetratheisme crere/cieleiclejelerelels!alelejelajelietete ereteletere την ἘΠ το Στ tetereieieen 207 

Sires νην πρίονα, @micumiguetrssielsctaiele siolelerete θα σὐο σου σποροοοσασοοοσθοσος 200 

ὃ. CHRISTOLOGY. 

§ 98. The True Humanity of Christ.—Traces of Docetism.—Arianism........ soo) za 

99. The Doctrine of Apollinaris...... HONDA όσα οσρ τς ποθ ο  κνα Ὁ ice 212 

I00F-NEStoLLanIsm ΕΑ τοῖν το 010) sr oferane sielevereleh sles olclelsvaisi eisjeielerusiajeie lela δα οὐ τυ το τ 275 

101. Bi ai Monopbiite Controversy servers coi siete sleräiettert elseteleiehetefeiare aie 277 

102. Progress of the Controversy.—Theopaschites. .....-....---oooosssenone.. 279 
103. Various Modifications of the Monophysite Doctrine—Aphthartodocetz, 

Phthartolaten eA oun OCLs ee relates cteletererctoveretsietstel st 7 ΠῚ ateiaveletefelsfaletets .. 281 

104. The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ.—Monothelites. ....... 22222202000. 282 


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


SECOND DIV IUSLON. 


DOCTRINES RESPECTING ANTHROPOLOGY, 


100 ΟΠ MEAT inrpomerals ne lal elas e/ele alelaralsiwiatatele(eleie/stalel arocieisrels ὑπο ἀσποσθος Male 
107. On the Doctrine of Sin in general................. 00 Sbodoccustoc 290 
108. Consequences of the First Sin, and Freedom of the Will (according to the 

Theolopianstot they Greeks Church) ete το τ τῆ τ τὸ πΠΠρπτ a een ale τι 293 
109. The Opinions of the Latin Theologians before Augustine, and of Augustine 

before the Pelagian Controversy...... Sdouot sides πο τρόπο eier τς ΡΞ ΤΗΣ 295 
MUON Phe Pelapian’ Controversy; gas «τς τος τς το τ σὴν τ οὐ ον τειν eroketerereterer RESTE .. 296 
111. First Point of Controversy: Sin.—Original Sin and its Consequences....... 298 
112. Second Point of Controversy: Liberty and Grace........ σϑοοθθι Acoonooe 301 
113. Third Point of Controversy: Predestination.............sse.0. ὙΠ 908 


114. Semipelagianism and the later Teachers of the Church...........02.002+24 305 


SECOND CLASS. ‘ 


CHURCH DOCTRINES WHICH WERE EITHER NOT CONNECTED, OR BUT RE- 
MOTELY, WITH THE HERESIES OF THE AGE, 


(DIDACTIC PART.) 


SEU EG Introduction swiss teren menu tee τς ae ee ρον. πὸ aoe LL 


x CONTENTS. 
1. Apologetic and Normal Doctrines—Prolegomena. 
PAGE 

§ 116. The Idea of Religion and Revelation........-.eeceeesececers Seele τι ode ΕΠ 
11%. Writings in Defence of Christianity. .2...-..ccccorc000.. BR 313 
115. Miraelessandz Prophecyretersieclecivine clea slows sljale essfelsteselsleiste ΠΕΣ δα: 5 314 
119. Sources of Religious Knowledge. —Bible and Tradition... ..... ἀσο σσσθοςο 315 
1ZON ΘΙ ΠΟ et ee en e le Selle 3 
121. Inspiration and Interpretation... „22. ee siereieiaseroleleieieloieieiee/olnlee o το nenn 319 
122. Tradition and the Continuance of Inspiration.......... 0.0. eeeeees 20021928 

2. The Doctrine concerning God. 

§ 123: The Being of God.......... SuopdoGue dqdudcoDboodoasede sdoSodsoddeds 325 
124, The Nature of God..... πόδον δου σι σοό rer πῶσ ΘΟ ΡῈ . 32 
125 EUT hea Wnitys Of sG.odies ee serccioetes ne cvs als era INS sierelelee's sieleis eVoierere's 330 
126! The sAtiributestoMGod > ap. ces cle sss ee ee 331 
TO MCTSaLIOn dere seele Nele DEC συ σον σου σσοσοοσδαδσθσιθοῦ δ 332 
128. The Relation of the Doctrine of Creation to the Doctrine of the Trinity. . 334 
129. Design of the Universe-—Providence.—Preservation and Government of is 

UOT Clty ehever-taycbreisicie clefote/oeleicheveic sisters ο οὐ οό δου δ οθστθιοθο οι 8 334 

130 Ehe0dICyraaeetestereiserete SE δ Tele δα οι Re Ὁ 6. δοιούοδ αὐοϑοώ 8 δοοῦ σοίδόδο ὁ 337 
131. Angelology and ΠΕ “αοσδοσόσδὸ ἀοκοσοσϑθο σα σδοσοα ΘΟ ΠΟΤ Οὐ σ 5 998 
132. Chejsameisubjechacontinuedsve crc. <i <telela τον τ τ eesieore este clale/erere Sars) OL 
1332 DeyillandxDemonsar. seeclersieveisioie sicjesiole (ess cities clerelele FOS δ σι dos 56 ONE 342 

3. Soteriology. 
§ 134. Redemption through Christ (The Death of Jesus).....ceeceseceeeeceees . 345 
4. The Church and its Means of Grace. 

§ 135. The Doctrine about the Church. ......... a ren: οουσαροσρῶσος 352 
136. The Sacraments...... Sdobb SboradadcocouodeoguoTOGosHoudonanN 36 Gano ous 
3 (ope UDLISTI, Veretersleiesteteteletete efefelefefeletere OO BONDOTOO Ὁ σσὸ ὁ ὁο σο σοῦ αὐ Ὁ Οθς 356 
138.2. Phorbord;s!SUpPpeokzreretsere/ete.stelote'stefokefatstereie nleleleleierojnte/s.ere πέρ -- 361 

5. The Doctrine of the Last Things. 

§ 139. Millennarianism.—The Kingdom of Christ...........s+ee+e: s000000b00 9085 
140: «fhe Resurrection of the Body. ..... τ το ence e sr Ὁ 5πτς 5060000 13:00 
141. General Judgment.—Conflagration of the World.—Purgatory............. 373 
142. The State of the Blessed and the Damned..............eseeeesenes ea Sl 


ÜONTENTS. xi 


THIRD PERIOD. 


FROM JOHN DAMASCENUS TO THE AGE OF THE REFORMATION, FROM 


= 


THE YEAR 730 TO THE YEAR 1517. 


THE AGE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 


(SCHOLASTICISM IN THE WIDEST SENSE OF THE WORD). 


A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE THIRD PERIOD. 


8 148. 


144. 


145. 


146. 
147. 
148, 
149. 
150. 


151. 
152. 


153. 
154. 
155. 
156. 


B. 


PAGE 
Character of this Period....... Re Lee etefe Etat oje ge tete τὸ οὐ ἀξ υ Tele ΣΤῈΣ 381 
The Relation of the Systematic Tendency to the iNpolgeette Switisdoblooassaoc 382 
The Polemics of this Peritd.—Controversies with Heretics................ 383 
RieiGreeka@hurchis Sr deters ΚΣ ἐν τ το ΩΣ 384 
‘BhesWiesterns Church: vr: Ve Τ Ε ler ee ΠπΠΠν 386 
Ihe Age of the; Carlovinsiansttanjercterersiereeiie eoieciereteersie erde 386 
Scholasticismiin: general... ers za oie eal Sere ain are ee 389 
The Principal Scholastic Systems.—a. First Period of Scholasticism to the 
Timejof Peter the Tombardır. erraten RR E 891 
b. Second Period to the End of the Thirteenth Conbar ER OR 395 
c. Third Period. —The Decline of Scholasticism in the Fourteenth and Fif- 
tesnthAtenturiose. er ef clas el ee er 399 
MYSbICISm το ae ee ee letter ee HORDE σας ρος 401 
Philosophical Opposition to Scholastieism. ...........J.ooscosoesnencane 406 
Practical Opposition.—The Forerunners of the Reformation............... 408 
The Connection of the History of Doctrines with the History of the Church 
and the World in the present Period...... eYaliokatosiovel or derer etckepeketele eis yore . 411 


SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE THIRD PERIOD. 


ETRS-TSDIVTSTONM? 


APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.—RELATION BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION.—SOURCES OF 


§ 157. 


158. 
159. 
160. 
161. 
162. 


REVELATION.—SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


TruthvandsDivinelOripini ot; Christianity ee ee 414 
Reason and Revelation, Faith and Knowledge........... ED ODE 416 
Sources of Knowledge. —Bible and Tradition. „20... ce. cc een 421 
The Canon of the Bible and Biblical Critieism......... SE SabC UE OS OC 424 
Inspiration......... Slalalu/s1nre,0tefulain etetare elekstefelarafern.nno siriciela ro nie clareevs niet Berets 425 


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


§ 163. 
164. 
165. 
166. 


167. 
168. 
169. 
170. 
1}: 


112. 


ContTENTS. 


SECOND DITVISEON. 


TEBLOLOGY. 


(INCLUDING COSMOLOGY, ANGELOLOGY, DEMONOLOGY, ETO.) 


PAGE 
The Existence of God............... seuetetereroveleretersicisvelaisierelerersielsietelevorevele 432 
TheiComprehensibility vol GOW 202 2 steseisiersiotsla! fe sjoicsslclelsleie\oielsieleiolelcisierarsielele 438 
The Nature of God in General.—(Pantheism and Theism)......... ee 
The Attributes of God.—a. The Relation of God to Time, Space and Num- 

ber. (The Omnipresence, Eternity, and Unity of God)................. 445 
ὃ. The Relation of God to Existencee.—Omnipotence and Omniscience...... 448 
Cm MOraleAt trib Mbes srrarcie arerctsve solr cietele rere  oroceress\stcle tore Netelelclovelcieieteatetetotareteievs 452 
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Procession of the Holy Spirit............... 453 
The Doctrineiofsthe “Lrinity, in! Generall-7... cies sole Nortel sklefe er leteieie 457 
The Doctrine of Creation, Providence, and the Government of the World.— 

ΠΉΘΟΌΙΟΥ - τ τ sieieste G00 agounG steteleValeleievsis(sjeloyele ovevehelotetictetey σοπβούσοοσθο 469 


The Angels and the Devil....... RoOOONOOCadVOonacconhodsoord Soeunen, CHie 


ΠΥ ΡΟ ΟΝ: 


Comp. Hagenbach, Encyclopzedie, 4te Aufl. 5, 239 ff. Kliefoth, Th. Einleitung in die Dog- 
mengeschichte, Parchim, 1839. δὶ Dörtenbach, Die Methode der Dogmengesch. in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1842. Kling, in Herzog’s Encyclopeedie, under Dogmengeschichte, 
[Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, reviewed in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vi., 1849.] 


Sal 


DEFINITION. 


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


' On the meaning of the word δόγμα (statutum, decretum, preceptum, 
placitum), see Swicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. Münscher, Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte, edit. by von Colin, p. 1. Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengesch. p. 1. Augusti, Dogmengeschichte, 
§ 1. lee, Dogmengeschichte, Prolegomena, Witzsch, System der chris- 
lichen Lehre, 6th edit. p. 52. Hagenbach, Encycl., 4th edit. p. 240 sq. J.P. 
Lange, Dogmatik, p. 2. Gieseler and Neander, Dogmengesch. p. 1. The word 
δόγμα signifies in the first place: decree, edict, statute. Comp. (Sept. vers.) 
Dan. ii. 13; vi. 8; Esth. iii. 9; 2 Macc. x. 2; and in the New Testament, 
Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7 (where it has a political sense only), Acts xvi. 4 
(used in a theological sense, denoting the apostolical rule for the gentile 
Christians) ; Eph. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14 (in these passages it has a theological 
sense, not referring to Christian belief and Christian doctrine, but to the 
Old Testament Jewish ordinances; comp. Winer, Grammatik des Neutesta- 
mentlichen Sprachidioms, 5th ed. p. 250, 6th ed. p. 196). Its use in the 
sense of substance of the Christian faith, can not be established from any pas- 
sage in the N.T.; the words employed to express this idea, are : εὐαγγέλιον, 
κήρυγμα, λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, etc. In the writings of the Stoies, δόγμα (decre- 
tum, placitum) signifies: theoretical principle. Marcus Aurelius εἰς &avr. 2,8: 


14 INTRODUCTION. 


Ταῦτά σοι ἀρκέτω ἀεὶ δόγματα ἔστω. Cic. Quaest. Acad. iv. 9: Sapientia 
neque de se ipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decretis qua philosophi vocant 
δόγματα. With this signification is connected the usage of the teachers of 
the Church, who first in the sphere of Christianity employed the word δόγμα 
(also with the predicate τὸ θεῖον) to designate the whole substance of doctrine. 
Compare the passages from Ignatius, Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 1, Strom. 
viii. p. 924, edit. of Potter), Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, ete., in Suicer, 
Thesaurus, sub voce. They also sometimes called the opinions of heretics 
δόγματα, with the epithet μυσαρά, or others of similar import, but more fre- 
quently δόξαι, νοήματα ; comp. Klee, 1.c. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 4, 2) 
already makes a distinction between the dogmatic and the moral, and under- 
stands by δόγμα that which relates to faith, by πρᾶξις that which refers to 
moral action : Ὃ τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος Ex δύο τούτων συνέστηκε" δογμάτων 
εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. The former are the source of the latter. In 
a similar way Seneca describes the dogmas as the elements of which the body 
of wisdom is composed, as the heart of life, Ep. 94, 95. Thus Socrates (Hist. 
Eccl. 11, 44) says of Bishop Meletius of Antioch : IIept δόγματος διαλέγεσθαι 
ὑπερετίθετο, μόνην δὲ τὴν ἠθικὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς προσήκειν. 
(Scribendum videtur προσεῖχεν vel προσῆγεν ; Vales.) So, too, Gregory of 
Nyssa says of Christ and his mode of teaching, Ep. 6: Διαιρῶν γὰρ εἰς δύο 
τὴν τῶν χρίστιανῶν πολιτείαν, εἰς τε τὸ ἠθικόν μέρος καὶ εἰς τὴν δογμάτων 
ἀκρίβειαν. A peculiar definition of δόγμα is given by Basil, De Spiritu S. 
6. 27: "Ἄλλο γὰρ δόγμα καὶ ἄλλο Kijcvyua' τὸ μὲν γὰρ σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ 
κηρύγματα δημοσιεύεται (esoteric and exoterie doctrine). According to Eu- 
sebius (Adv. Mare. 1. 4), Marcellus had already used the word δόγμα in the 
sense of a human, subjective opinion: Τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα ἀνθρωπίνης 
ἔχει τι βουλῆς TE καὶ γνώμης. Only in modern times (Nitzsch says, since Dö- 
derlein) did the usage become general, in accordance with which δόγμα does 
not designate ipsa doctrina, so much as sententia alicujus doctoris, that is, doc- 
trinal opinion rather than a definite doctrinal position. With this explanation 
of the word, is intimately connected the definition of the idea of the science 
of the History of Doctrines, as well as its worth and mode of treatment. 
(Comp. § 10, and Gieseler’s Dogmengeschichte, p. 2.) [Gieseler here says, 
that dogma designates a doctrine, which, as essential to Christianity, claims 
acceptance among all Christians. The dogmas of any Church express its 
views of what is essential in the Christian system, in distinction from subjec- 
tive opinions. | 

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


§ 1. DEFINITION. 15 


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

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


§ 2. 


THE RELATION OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES TO CHURCH HISTORY 
AND DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. 


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


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


16 INTRODUCTION. 


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

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


Sai 


RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 


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


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


§ 4. RELATION TO SYMBOLISM. 17 


§ 4. 


RELATION TO SYMBOLISM. 


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


! On the ecclesiastical usage of the terms σύμβολον, συμβάλλειν, συμβάλ- 
λεσθαι, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, p. 1084. Creuzer, Symbolik, 8 16. Marhei- 
neke, christliche Symbolik, vol. i. toward the beginning. Meander [Church 
History, Torrey’s transl. i. 306.] | ?elt, Theol. Encyclop. p. 456. Maximus 
Taurinensis (about the year 460), says in Hom. in Symb. p. 239 : Symbolum 
tessera est et signaculum, quo inter fideles perfidosque secernitur.] By sym- 
bols (in the doctrinal sense of the word, but not its liturgical or artistic sense) 
are meant the public confessions of faiti by which those belonging to the 
same branch of the church recognize each other, as soldiers by the watch- 
word (tessera mitilaris). 

ἢ The earlier symbols of the church (e. g., the so-called Apostles’ Creed, 
the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds), were the shibboleth (Judg. xii. 6) 
of the Catholic church, in contrast with heretics. It is evident that these 
symbois are deserving of special consideration in the history of doctrines. 
They are in relation to the private opinions of individual ecclesiastical wri- 
ters, what systems of mountains are in relation to the hills and valleys of a 
country. They are, as it were, the watch-towers from which the entire field 
may be surveyed, the principal stations in the study of the history of doc- 
trines, and can not therefore be arbitrarily separated from it, and consigned 
to an isolated department. Just as little should the study of the history of 
doctrines be restricted to symbolism. See, Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte 
der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. 1. 5, 108 sq. J. P. Lange, Dogmatik, 
1, s. 32 sq.: “The ecclesiastical dogma lies between the doctrine of the 
church and the church symbols; it is their living centre, mediating between 
them: and hence it can be considered as the church doctrine in a narrower, 
or as the church symbol in a wider, sense.” 

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


18 INTRODUCTION. 


church itself (Lutherans and Calvinists), and to other opinions at variance 
with those held by the orthodox party (Anabaptists, Unitarians, and others). 
And so, too, the Catholics exhibited the doctrines of their church in a special 
confession of faith, All this led to the formation of a separate branch of 
theological science, which was first known under the name of Theologia 
Elenctica or Polemics, and in later times has taken the more peaceful appel- 
lation of Symbolism, which last name has not so much reference to the strug- 
gle itself as to the historical knowledge of the points at issue, and the nature 
of that struggle.* When the history of doctrines comes to the time of the 
Reformation, it becomes of itself what has been meant by the word symbol- 
ism ; 2. 6.. the stream of history spreads of itself into the sea, the quiet con- 
templation of the developing process passes over into a complicated series of 
events, until these are seen to lead into a new course of development; and 
thus the ancient history of doctrines is adjusted in relation to the modern, 
Baumgarten-Crusius has also indicated the necessity of uniting symbolism 
and the history of doctrines, Dogmengesch. i. s. 14 sq. Comp. Neander, 
Dogmengesch. 1, p. 7: [Symbolism sprung from a dogmatic, and the History 
of Doctrines from a historical, interest: the latter has to do with the his- 
torical process leading to the results, which Symbolism compares, etc. ] 


ξ 5. 


RELATION TO PATRISTICS. 


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


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


» Sack, however, has recently published a work on Polemies (Christliche Polemik, Hame 
burgh, 1838) as a distinct science, falling within the historical sphere of Symbolism. 
Comp. Hagenbach, Encycl. p. 281 sq. 

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


§ 6. History or HEresıes. 19 


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


§ 6. 


RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF HERESIES AND THE GENERAL 
HISTORY OF RELIGION. 


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


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


20 INTRODUCTION. 


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

? The phrase History of Heresies, has been banished by a more fines 
usage; but not the thing itself, any more than Polemics. The very able 
publications of recent writers on the Gnostic systems, Ebionitism, Mani- 
cheism, Montanism, Unitarianism, etc., and the lives of some of the Fathers, 
are of great use to the historian of Christian doctrine; but he can not be 
expected to incorporate all the materials thus furnished into the History of 
Doctrines. Thus the first period of the History of Doctrines must constantly 
recur to the phenomena of Ebionitism and Gnosticism, since the problem of 
the church doctrine then was to work itself out between these two perilous 
rocks. But the wide-spread branches of the Gnostic systems, so far as they 
differ from one another (e. g., as to the number of the ons and the succes- 
sion of the syzygies), can not here be traced in detail, unless, indeed, we are 
to seek in the slime of heresy, as it is collected 6. g. in the Clementina, for 
the living germ of Christianity! Holding fast, on the other hand, to the 
Biblical type of truth, so far as heresy is concerned it will be sufficient to 
exhibit those forms in which it deviates from this type, and to delineate its 
physiognomy in general outlines, as they are’ given in church history. In 
the same manner Nestorianism and Monophysitism are of importance in the 
christological controversies of the second period. But after they have been 
overcome by the Catholic Church, and fixed in sects, which, in consequence 
of further conflicts, were themselves divided into various parties, it can be no 
longer the office of the History of Doctrines to follow them in this process. 
This must be left to monographs on the heresies. For as soon as a sect has 
lost its doctrine-shaping power, it falls simply into the department of sta- 
tistics. 

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


§ 7. History ΟΕ PHıLosoPHY. 21 


1857. €. ©. J. Bunsen, Gott in d. Geschichte, 3. 8vo. 1857-8. Schelling, 
Phil. der Mythologie, 2. 1857. C. O. Müller, Mythology, transl. by Leitch. 
Lond. 1844. Chs. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, four parts, Cam- 
bridge, 1855-9.] 


Sve 


RELATION TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, THE HISTORY OF CHRIS- 
TIAN ETHICS, AND THE HISTORY OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. 


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


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

? “ By the obliteration of the distinction between the History of Philosophy 
and the History of Doctrines, the essential nature of Christianity is funda- 


22, INTRODUCTION. 


mentally obscured.” Dorner, Person Christi, i. s. 108; comp. Neander, Dog- 
mengesch.,, 5. 9 :—|‘ Philosophy develops conscious reason of and by itself; 
theology is employed upon data historically given—the truths that repose in 
the divine word, and have passed over into Christian consciousness.” | 

® Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 9. 

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


§ 8, 


AUXILIARY SCIENCES. 


Although the branches of theological science above enumerated 
are strictly distinct from the History of Doctrines, they are, never- 
theless, connected with it as auxiliary sciences." Archeology,’ and, 
in the second line, the sciences auxiliary to church history,* may be 
added to their number. 


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

* From the connection between the doctrines and the liturgy of the 
church, it is obvious that Archeology must be considered as an auxiliary 
science, if we understand by it the history of Christian worship. This may 
easily be seen from the use of certain doctrinal phrases (e. g. θεοτόκος etc.) 
in the liturgies of the church, the appointment of certain festivals (the feast 
of Corpus Christi, that of the conception of the Virgin Mary), the reflex in- 
fluence of the existence or absence of certain liturgical usages upon the doc- 
trinal definitions of the church (e. g., the influence of the withholding of the 
sacramental cup from the laity upon the doctrine of concomitance, comp. $ 
195), etc. Works of Reference: Bingham, J., Origg. s. Antiqu. Ecclesias- 
tice. Hale, 1751-61. [Bingham, J., Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
and other works. Lond. 1834, ss. 8 vols.; a new edition by Richard Bing- 
ham. Augusti, J. Ch. W., Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der christlichen Archzo- 
logie. Leipz. 1817-31, 12 vols. [Christian Antiquities, translated and 
compiled from the works of Augusti by the Rev. Lyman Coleman, Andover, 
1844.] Rheinwald, F. H., kirchliche Archeologie. Berl. 1830. Schöne, 
K., Geschichtforschungen über die kirchlichen Gebräuche und Einrichtun- 
gen der Kirche. Berl. 1819-22, 3 vols.] Böhmer, W., christlich-kirch- 
liche Alterthumswissenschaft, Bresl. 1836-39, 2 vols. [ Siegel, Handbuch d. 
christl. kirchl. Alterthümer. 4 Bde. Leipz. 1835-8. Guericke, Archäologie, 
Leipz. 1847. J. E. Riddle, Manual, Lond. 1839. William Bates, Lect. on 
Christ. Antiquities, 1854-7.] 

3 These are, besides those already mentioned, Universal History, Ecclesi- 
astical Philology, Ecclesiastical Chronology, Diplomatics, ete. [Comp. the 
introductions to works on ecclesiastical history. Géeseler, Text-Book of 


Church Hist., edited by H. B. Smith, New York, vol. I. pp. 19-20, 560-2.] 


§ 9. ImporTANCE OF THE History OF DOCTRINES. 23 


§ 9. 


IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 


Ernesti, Prolusiones de Theologiz Historicze et Dogmatic® conjungende Necessitate, Lips. 
1759, in his Opuse. Theol. Lips. 1773-92. Illgen, Ch. T., über den Werth der christli- 
chen Dogmengeschichte, Leipz. 1817. Augusti, Werth der Dogmengeschichte, in his 
Theologische Blätter II. 2, p. 11, ss. Hagenbach, Encyclop. § 69. Niedner, Das 
Recht der Dogmen, in his Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1851. [Comp. Kling, in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1840. Niedner, Zur neuesten Dogmengesch. in the Allg. Mo- 
natsschrift, 1851. Engelhardt, in the Zeitschrift f. d. historische Theologie, 1853. J. 
Murdock, in the Christ. Monthly Spectator, vol. ix. pp. 27 sq., 249 sq.] 


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


εἶ Comp. ὃ 2. 

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


§ 10. 
MODE OF HANDLING THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 


Daub, die Form der christlichen Dogmen- und Kirchenhistorie in Betracht gezogen, in 
Baur’s Zeitschrift fur speculative Theologie. Berlin, 1836. Parts 1 and 2. Kliefoth, 
Th., Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim und Ludwigslust, 1839. 


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


24 INTRODUCTION. 


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


The following are the different methods in which the History of Doctrines 
may be handled: 

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

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

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

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

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


$ 11. ARRANGEMENT OF THE MATERIALS. 25 


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


§ 11. 
ARRANGEMENT OF THE MATERIALS. 


The object of the History of Doctrines is to exhibit, not only the 
history of the Christian system as a whole, ἡ. e., the whole substance 
of Christian truth, and the doctrinal tendencies expressed in its definite 
statements, but also the history of dogmas, 7. e., the development of 
these particular doctrinal statements, opinions, and representations 
of the faith, to which the church theology of each period has given 
expression.’ Both these points of view ought, then, to be so com- 
bined, that the general shall be made more clear by the special, and 
the special also by the general. This is the import of the division 
of the materials into the General and the Special History of Doc- 
trines. This division can not be vindicated, if the two are put in a 
merely external relation with each other; but they must be so pre- 
sented, that the General History shall be seen to be the root of the 
Special ; in the relative proportion, too, in which it is treated, it 
should sustain merely the relation of an introduction.’ 


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

? The division into the General and Special History of Doctrines has been 
assailed in recent times (Baur, in his review of Münscher’s Lehrbuch, von 
Cölln’s edition, in the Berlin wiss. Jahrbücher, Febr. 1836; s. 230, and by 


* Compare the striking remark of Hamaan, cited in Neander, u. 5. p. 3: [‘‘The pearl 
of Christianity is a life hid in God, consisting neither in dogmas, nor in notions, nor in 
rites and usages.”] 


26 INTRODUCTION. 


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


§ 12. 
DIVISION INTO PERIODS. 


Comp. Hagenbach’s Essay in the Theologischen Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 4, and 
his Encyclop., p. [Comp. Kling in the Studien und Kritiken, 1841.] 


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


I. Period. From the close of the Apostolic Age to the death 
of Origen (A. Ὁ. 80-254): the Age of Apologetics.’ 


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


§ 12. Division into PERIODSs. 27 


II. Period. From the death of Origen to John Damascenus 
(254-730): the Age of Polemics.* 


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


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


V. Period. From the year 1720 to the present day: the Age 
of Criticism, of Speculation, and of the Antagonism between 
Faith and Knowledge, Philosophy and Christianity, Reason 
and Revelation, including the attempts to reconcile them.’ 


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

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


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

+ [Neander’s division is: 1. To Gregory the Great, subdivided by the times of Constan- 
tine, and forming respectively the Apologetic period and the Polemic and Systematic 
periods. 2. To the Reformation, subdivided by Gregory VII., comprising a transition 
period and the scholastic era. 3.‘From the Reformation to the present time. Gieseler 
separates the ancient from the medieval periods by the Image Controversy, taking A. D. 
726 as the epoch. Baumgarten-Crusius, in his Compendium, makes six periods, skillfully 
characterized: 1. Formation of the System of Doctrines by reflection and opinion (to the 
Council of Nice). 2. Formation by the Church (to Chalcedon). 3. Confirmation of the 
System by the Hierarchy (to Gregory VII.). 4. Confirmation by the Philosophy of the 
Church (to the end of the fifteenth century). 5. Purification by Parties (to beginning of 
the eigthteenth century). 6. Purification by Science (to the present time).] 


98 INTRODUCTION. 


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


1. The Age of Formation of Doctrines....|Greek........ [oe ...|Theology. 

2 se Symbolical Unity.........|Rom. Catholic. Synthetic... ..| Anthropology. ἡ 
3: δι Completion’. „ern elnesene Protestant... .|Systematic . .../Soteriology. 

4 ff Diss0lution. „22. ςς cree ele nie ? ? Church. 


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

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

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


§ 12. Diviston into PERIOoDS. 29 


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

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

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

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


30 INTRODUCTION. 


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


§ 13: 
SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 


a. Public Sources. 


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


‘Comp. ὃ 4. The ancient creeds may be found in the Acts of Councils 
mentioned Note 2; the three creeds commonly called ecumenical (the Apos- 
tles’ Creed, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) are also reprinted in the collec- 
tions of Protestant symbols; comp. Ch. W. F. Walch, Bibliotheca Symbolica 
Vetus. Lemgovie, 1770, 8. Semler, J. S., Apparatus ad Libros Symbolicos 
Ecelesiee Lutheranz, Hal. 1755, 8. CoLtections or SymBoLIcAL Booxs (they 
become important only since the fourth period) : α) Of the Lutheran Church: 
Libri Symbolici Ecclesize Evangelicee ad fidem opt. exempl. recens. J. A. H. 
Tittmann, Misn. 1817, ’27. Libri Symbolici Ecclesize Evangelic, s. Concor- 
dia, rec. C. A. Hase, Lips. 1827,’37,’46. Die Symbolischen Bücher der Evang 
Luther. Kirche, von J. J. Müller, Stvttg. 1846. Libri Symbol. Eccl. Luth. ed. 


$ 13. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 31 


F. Francke, Ed. stereotyp. Lips. 1847. Libri Symbol. Luth. ad edit. princ. 
ele. ed. 4. A. @. Meyer, Gott. 1850. δ) Of the Reformed : Corpus Libror. 
Symbolicor. qui in Ecclesia Reformatorum Auctoritatem publicam obtinuerunt, 
ed. J. Ch. W. Augusti, Elberf. 1828. Sammlung Symb. Bücher der ref. Kiche, 
von J, J. Mess. Neuwied, 1828, 30, 2 vols. 8. 4. A. Niemeyer, Collectico Con- 
fessionum in Eeclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum, Lips. 1840, 8. Die Bekeunt- 
nisschriften der Evangel. ref. Kirche, mit Einleitung. und Anmk. von Z. @. A. 
Böckel, Leips. 1847. |[Harmonia Confessionum Fidei Orthodoxarum et Re- 
form. Ecclesiarum, ete. 4to. Geney. 1581 : an English translation, Cambr. 1586, 
Lond. 1643. Corpus et Syntagma Confess. Fidei, ete. 4to. 1612, and Geneva 
1654. Sylloge Confess. sub Tempus. Reform. Eccl. Oxon. 1801, 1827. The 
Harmony of Prot. Confess. of Faith, edited Rev. Peter Hall, 8vo. Lond. 1842. 
Butler's Historical and Literary Account of the Formularies, ete. 8vo. Lond. 
1816.] c) Of the Roman Catholic : Danz, Libri Symbolici Ecclesize Romano- 
Catholic, Vimar. 1835.— Streitwolf and Klener, Libri Symb. Eccl. Cathol. 
Gott. 1835. [Sacrosancti et (Ecumeniei. Cone Trid. Canones et Decreta, ed. 
W. Smets, Bielefeld, ed. 4, 1854. Canones et Decreta Conc. Trid. acced. 
declarationes . . . Ex Bullario Romano, edd. A. Z. Richter et Fr., Schulze, 
Lips. 1853.] (Comp. the works mentioned $ 16, Note 9.) d) Of the Greek : 
E. Τ΄ Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesiz Orientalis. Jen. 1843, 8. Append. 
adj. H. T. ©. Weissenborn, 1849. (Comp. Pitzipios, l’Eglise Orientale de 
Rome.) 

* Acts or Councıus : J. Merlin (Par. 1523, fol. Cöln. 1530, ii. Par. 1535). 
Grabbe (Cöln. 1508, f.). Z. Surius, Col. 1577, fol. iv. The edition of Sixtus 
V. Venice, 1585, that of Binius (Severinus) Col. 1606, iv.f. Collectio Regia, 
Paris, 1644 (by Cardinal Richelieu) xxxvii. f. Phil. Labbeus and @abr. Cos- 
sart, Par. 1671, ’72, xvii. f. Balluzii (Stephan.) Nova Collectio Conciliorum, 
Par. 1683, f. (Suppl. Conc. Labbei) incomplete. Harduin, (Joh.), Concili- 
orum Collectio Regia Maxima, seu Acta Conciliorum et Epistolee Decretales 
ac Constitutiones summorum Pontificum, greece et latine, ad Phil. Labbei et 
Gabr. Cossartii labores haud modica accessione facta et emendationibus pluri- 
bus additis Par. 1715, xi, (xii.) fol— Vie. Coleti, S. S. Concilia ad regiam 
edit. exacta, etc. Venet. xxiii. with additions by Mansi vi. f—*Mansi (J. 
Dom.), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Flor et Venet. 
1759, sqq. xxxi. f. Comp. Ch. W. F. Walch, Entwurf einer vollständigen 
Geschichte der Kirchenversammlungen, Lpz. 1759. Fuchs, Bibliothek der 
Kirchenversammlungen des 4 und 5. Jahrhunderts, Lpz. 1788, 4 vols. 
Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica quam moderante 1), Augusto Neander adornavit 
Herm, Theod. Bruns, I. (Canones Apostolorum et Coneil. Szcul. iv. v. vi. 
vil.) Pars. I. Berol. 1839. [D. Wilkins, Conc. Mag. Brit. et Hibern. Lond. 
1727, 4 fol. Hefele, C. J., Conciliengeschichte, 3 8vo. 1855-9. E&. H. 
Landon, Manual of Councils, 1846. W. A. Hammond, Definitions of Faith 
and Canons of Six (Eeumenical Councils, New York ed. 1844. JZ. Howell, 
Synopsis Conciliorum, fol. 1708.] The so-called Apostolical Constitutions 
belong here for the ancient times: Constitutiones Apostol. Text. Grac. 
rerognovit Gulielm. Ueltzen. Suerini. 1853. [Cf Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. 
3. The Didascalia or Apost. Const. of Abyssinian Church, by Thos. P. 
Platt, published by the Orient. Transl. Society, vol. xxxix. Beveridge. 


32 INTRODUCTION. 
Pandecte Canonum ss. et Conciliorum ab Eccles, Gree. recept. etc. 2 fol. 
Oxon. 1672.] 

® Partly contained in the Acts of Councils. 

a) DECREES or Crvit GOVERNMENTS EXERCISING AUTHORITY IN ECCLEsI- 
SITICAL Arrarrs (viz. emperors, kings, magistrates): Codex Theodosianus, c. 
perpetuis commentariis Iac. Gothofredi, ete. Edit. Nova in vi Tom. digesta, 
cura Ritteri, Lips. 1736.— Codex Justinianeus, edid. Spangenberg, 1797. 
Balluzii (Steph.) Collectio Capitularium Regum Francorum, ete. Par. 1780, 
ii. f. Corpus Juris Canonici (editions of J. H. Böhmer, 1747, and A. L. 
Richter, 1833). Codicis Gregoriani et Codicis Hermogeniani Fragmenta, ed 
@. Häinel, Bonn. 1837, 4to, Under this head come also the regulations 
concerning the Reformation, the agendas and the religious edicts of Protest- 
ant governments, which, at least formerly, were in a great measure based 
upon doctrinal principles, i'm, Ludw. Richter, Die Evangelischen Kirchen- 
ordnungen des 16 Jahrh. Weimar, 1846, 4to. 

δὴ) Papa Decrerats: Pontificum Romanorum a Clemente usque ad 
Leonem M. Epistole Genuine, cur. C. F. @. Schönemann, T. i. Gott. 1796, 
8.—Bullarium Romanum a Leone M. usque ad Benedictum XIII. opus. ab- 
solutiss. Laért. Cherubini, a D. Angelo Maria Cherubini al. illustratum et 
auctum et ad Ben. XIV. perductum, Luxemb. 1727, ss. xix. fol—Bullarum, 
Privilegiorum et Diplomatum Roman. Pontif. amplissima Collect. opera et 
stud. Car. Cocquelines, Rom. 1739-44, xxviii. fol. [The Bullarium is con- 
tinued by A. Spetia, 1835, sq. 9 tom. folio.] Zisenschmid. römisches Bul- 
larium, oder Auszüge der merkwürdigsten päbstlichen Bullen, übersetzt und 
mit fortlaufenden Anmerkungen. Neustadt. 1831, 2 vols. 

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

5 J. S. Assemani, Codex Liturgieus Ecclesie Universee, Rom. 1749-66, 
ΧΙ, 4. Renaudot (Eus.) Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, Paris, 1716, ii. 
f. L. A. Muratori, Liturgia Romana Vetus, Venet. 1748, 1. £ ILS. @. 
Volbeding, Thesaurus Commentationum select. et antiq. et recent. etc. Tom 
ii. Lips. 1848. 7. S. Mone, Lateinische u. griechische Messen, 2 bis 6 
Jahr. Frankf. 1849. Compare the missals, breviaries, liturgies, ete. Augusti’s 
Denkwiirdigkeiten der christlichen Archäologie, vol. v. @erbert, Vetus Lit- 
urgia Allemanica, Ulm, 1776, ἢ. 4. [#. A. Daniel, Codex Lit. Eccl. Univ. 
in Epitome redact. 4 vols. Lips. 1847--51. J. Pinius, Liturg. Ant. Hisp. 
Goth. etc. 2 fol. Rom. 1749. W. Palmer, Origines Liturg. or Antiq. of the 
Church of England, 2 8vo. 1845. J. M. Neale, Tetralogia Liturg. Lond. 
1848. Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies ; Historical Sketches. New 
York, 1855. Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena. 3, 8vo. 1854.] 

° Rambach, Anthologie christlicher Gesänge aus allen Jahrhunderten der 
Kirche, Altona, 1816-22, iv, 8, and the numerous psalm and hymn-books. 
How much sacred songs have contributed to the spread of doctrinal opin- 

_ions, may be seen from the example of Bardesanes [Gieseler, i. § 46, n. 2, p. 
138], of the Arians, and in later times, of the Flagellants, the Hussites, etc. ; 


§ 4. Private Sovrozs, 33 


from the history of the sacred hymns of the Lutheran, and the sacred 
psalms of the Reformed church, the spiritual songs of Angelus Silesius, of 
the Pietists and Moravian brethren, and (in a negative point of view) from 
the dilutions found in many modern hymn-books. Comp. Augusti, De an- 
tiquissimis Hymnis et Carminibus Christianorum sacris in historia dogmatum 
utiliter adhibendis, Jen. 1810, and De audiendis in Theologia poötis, Vratisl. 
1812-15. Hahn, A., Bardesanes Gnosticus, primus Syrorum Hymnologus, 
1820-8. +Buchegger, De Origine sacree Christianorum Poéseos, Frib. 1827, 
4. Hoffman, Dr. H., Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes bis auf Lu- 
thers Zeit, Breslau, 1832. [J. M. Neale, Hymni Ecclesize e Brevariis, etc., 
Lond. 1851. Mohnike, hymnologische Forschungen, 4 Bde. 1855 sq. 7. 
J. Mone, Lateinische Hymnen, 3 Bde. 1853 sq. Daniel, Thesaurus Hymno- 
logicus, 4 Tom. 1856. Koch, Gesch. des Kirchenlieds. 4 Bde. zd. ed. 1853.] 


§ 14. 
b. Private Sources. 


Next in order after these public sources come private sources of 
the History of Doctrines. These are: 1. The works of the fathers, 
theologians, and ecclesiastical writers of all the Christian centuries ;' 
but in these we are to distinguish between scientific and strictly 
doctrinal works on the one hand, and practical (sermons) and occa- 
sional writings (letters, etc.) on the other.” 2. The works of secu- 
lar writers, 6. g., the Christian philosophers and poets of any period.* 
3. Lastly, the indefinite form of popular belief, which manifests 
itself in legends, proverbial sayings, and songs, and representations 
of Christian art, viewed as memorials of certain religious views, may 
also be numbered among these secondary sources.* 


* Comp. § 5. Concerning the distinction (which is very relative) made 
between fathers, teachers, and ecclesiastical writers, see the introductions to 
the works on Patristics, e. g., Mohler, p. 17-19. The fathers of the first 
centuries are followed by the compilers, the scholastic and mystic divines of 
the middle ages, and these again by the Reformers and their opponents, the 
polemical writers of various sections of the church, and the later theologians 
in general. Their particular works will be referred to in their proper place. 
Works of a more general character are: Fabrieü, J. G., Bibliotheca Eccle- 
siastica, Hamb. 1718, f. Cave, W., Scriptorum Ecelesiasticorum Historia 
litteraria, Lond. 1688, 91. Oxon. 1740, 43, Bas. 1749. (. Oudin, Com- 
ment. de Scriptoribus Eeelesie Antiquis, Lips. 1722, ii. Z. Hl. Dupin, 
Nouvelle Bibliothéque des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, Par. 1686-1714, xlvii. 8, 
[transl. by Wotton and Cotes, 3 fol. Dublin, 1733]. Bibliotheque des Auteurs 
séparés de la communion de léglise Romaine du 16 et 17 siécle, Par. 1718, 
19, iii. Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastique du 18 siecle par Claude 
Pierre Goujet, Par. 1736, ’37, iii. 8, comp. Richard Simon, Critique de la 
Bibliotheque, etc. Paris, 1730, iv. 8. Cellier, Remy, Histoire Générale des 

3 


34 INTRODUCTION. 


Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclésiastiques, Paris, 1729-63, xxiii. 4. J. G. Walch, 
Bibliotheca Patristica, Jen. 1770, 8. Edit. Nova Auctior et Emendatior 
adornata a J. 7. L, Danzio, Jen. 1834. _Assemani, I. S., Bibliotheca Orien- 
talis, Rom. 1719-28, iii. in 4 vols. f. Oelrichs, J. G. A., Commentarii de 
Scriptoribus Ecclesiz Latin, Lips. 1791, 8. Schönemann, ©. F. @., Biblio- 
theca Historico-litteraria a Tertulliano Principe usque ad Gregorium M. et 
Isidorum Hispal. Lips. 1792, ’94, ii. 8. Réssler, Ch. F., Bibliothek der 
Kirchenvater, Leips. 1776-86, x. 8, Augusti, J. Ch. W., Chrestomathia 
Patristica ad usum eorum, qui Historiam Christianam accuratius Discere 
Cupiunt, Lips. 1812, ii. 8. Royaards, 1). H. I.., Chrestomathia Patristica, 
Pars. I. Traj. ad Rhen. 1831. Engelhardt, Litterarischer Leitfaden zu Vor- 
lesungen über die Patristik. } Winter, Patrologie, München, 1814. +@old- 
witzer, Μ΄, W., Bibliographie der Kirchenväter und Kirchenlehrer, vom 1, 
bis zum 13 Jahrhundert, Landsh. 1828. + Möhler, Dr. J. A., Patrologie oder 
Christliche Litterargeschichte, aus dessen Nachlasse heraugegeben von Reith- 
mayr, 150 vol. Regensb. 1839, 8. Danz, J. T. L., Initia Doctrine Patristice 
Introductionis instar in Patrum ecelesise studium, Jen. 1839. Böhringer. die 
Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, 
Zur. 1842-58. 2 Bde. 8 Theile. [Patrologiz Cursus Compl. accur. J. B. 
Migne, Paris; in the course of publication, 140 vols. issued.] 

A. Best CoLLECTIONS OF THE Works OF THE FatuErs: Magna Bibliotheca 
Veterum, primo quidem a Margarito de la Bigne composita, postea studio 
Coloniens. Theolog. aucta, etc. (with Auctuarium by F. Duczus and Fr. Com- 
befisius) 1664-72, v. fol— Maxima Bibliotheca Vett, Patr. et. Lugd. 1677, 
xxvii. fol— And. Gallandii, Bibliotheca Greeco-latina Vett. Patrum, etc. Venet. 
1765-81, xiv. f. Corpus Apologetarum Sec. 1164. J. C. Th. Otto, ed. 2, Jen. 
1848-50, ii. .*Biblioth. Patrum Greecor, Dogmatica, cura J. C. Thilo, 2 
Tom. Lips. 1853, sq. [Bibliotheca Patrum Eccles. Latin. ed. Gersdorf, xiii. 
Tom. 12mo. Corpus Hereseologicum, ed. F\ Oehler, Tom. ii. Berol. 1856-8. 
Angelo Mai, Patrum Spicilegum Rom. 10 8vo. Rom. 1839-44, and Patrum 
Nova Bibl. 6 Tom. 1852, sq. Martene et Durand, Vet. Script. Coll. Paris, 
1724-33, 9 fol. J. E. Grabe, Spicilesium ss. Patrum, 2 fol. Oxon. 1698. 
D’Achery, Spieilegium, 13, 4to. Paris, 1655. Spicilegium Solesmense, ed. 
J. Pitra, 4 Tom. 4to. Paris, 1853, sq. Comp. J. @. Dowling, Notitia 
Script. ss. Patrum, ete. 1839.] Philological Aids. : J. C. Suiceri, Thesaurus 
Ecclesiasticus, Amst. 1682 (1728, Traj. 1746), 11, fol—Du Fresne (du 
Cange) Car. Glossarium ad Seriptores Mediz et Infime Latinitatis, Paris, 
1733-36, vi. ἡ [New edition, ed. @. A. Z. Henschel, Paris, F. Didot, 
1840—50, 7 vol. 4to.] 

B. Coitections OF THE Works OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS DURING THE 
MipprE Aczs (more important for ecclesiastical history in general than for 
the history of doctrines in particular): Meibomius, Basnage, Muratori, Ma- 
billon, *Martene et Durand (Thesaurus Anecd. v. f.), * Pertz (Monumenta, 
1826-35), ete. Comp. the Literature as to Church History in Hase’s His- 
tory of the Church, p. 181 of the New York edition, For the Hast: 
Scriptores Byzantini (Par. 1645, ss.) and latest edition by *Miebuhr, Bonn. 


1829, ss. 
©, CoLLECTIONS OF THE Works OF THE REFORMERS: Bretschneider, Corpus 


$ 14. PRIVATE Sources. 35 


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

D. On Mopern Docmanıc LiterATure: Walch, J. @. Bibliotheca Theo- 
logica, T. I. Jen. 1757. Winer, @. B., Handbuch der theologischen Litteratur, 
S. 290, ss. Bretschneider, Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dogmatik 
vorkommenden Begriffe, us. s. w. Lpz. 1841-8. 

* Since the earlier theologians, 6. 9. Origen drew a distinction between what 
they taught the people κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, and what they propounded in a sci- 
entific manner ; and since popular language in general does not make any pre- 
tension to dogmatic precision, practical works are not of so much importance 
for the history of doctrines as strictly dogmatic works. But, like all litur- 
gical and ascetic writings, they may be regarded as concrete and living wit- 
nesses to the dogmatic spirit of a period.—Homiliarium Patristicum, edid. 
Ludov. Pelt et A. Rheinwald, Berol. 1829, deinde H. Rheinwald et ©. Vogt, 
Ber. 1831.—Zentz, E. @. H., Geschichte der Christlichen Homiletik, ii. 
Braunschw. 1839, 8. Paniel, Pragmatische Geschichte der Christl. Bered- 
samkeit und der Homiletik, i. 1, 2, Lpz. 1839, 8. During the middle ages, the 
sermons of Berthold, Tauler, ete., in the time of the Reformation, those of the 
Reformers, ete., come into consideration. W, Beste, Die Kanzelredner d.ältest. 
Luth. Kirche. Leips. 1836. Modern homiletical literature also gives a more 
or less faithful representation of doctrinal tendencies. 

* Comp. $ 13, note 6. As sacred hymns were numbered among the public 
sources, so poetical works in general may be considered as private source, 6. 9., 
the works of some of the earlier poets, of the so-called Minnesingers, Dante’s 
Divina Commedia, and many others, In like manner a comparison of the 
poetical views of Milton, Shakespeare, Göthe, Byron, or the romantic school, 
with the doctrinal opinions of the church, might lead to interesting results. 
A history of Christian poetry in its whole extent, and with constant refer- 
ence to the theological spirit of each period, does not as yet exist. 

* The influence which popular belief (with its remnants of heathen super- 
stitions) may have exerted upon certain dogmatic notions, e. g., concerning 
the devil and hell, is deserving particular attention (comp. @rimm’s deutsche 
Mythologie). The spirit of a theology also manifests itself in the silent 
monuments of art: ecclesiastical buildings, tombs, vasa sacra, paintings, e. g., 
representing the general judgment, or the Deity itself (comp. Griineisen, C. 
über bildliche Darstellung der Gottheit, Stuttg. 1828), in coins, gems, ete. 
(Münter, Sinnbilder und Kuntsvorstellungen der alten Christen. Altona, 1825, 
4. Bellermann, die Gemmen der Alten mit dem. Abraxasbilde, Berlin, 1817. 
Piper, Mythologie der Christl. Kunst. Weimar, 1847. [Didron’s Christ. 
Iconography, transl. in Bohn’s Lib, 1852. Z. Twining, Symbols of Early 
and Medieval Art. 1852. Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art. 3 vols.] 


36 INTRODUCTION. 


| § 15. 
9 c. Indirect Sources. 


We can not always have access to direct sources, but must fre- 
quently have recourse to such as are indirect, 7. 6., accounts or re- 
ports which have been transmitted to us by other writers, as is the 
case, for the most part, with the opinions of heretics,’ whose writings 
were destroyed at an early period. In like manner, the works of 
some of the Fathers are either entirely lost, or have come down to 
us only in a corrupt form.’ In the use of both the direct and indirect 
sources, much critical skill is needful. 


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

3 Thus, in the case of Origen, of whose writings we frequently have 
nothing but the translations of Rufinus, or the relations of Jerome and 
Eusebius, 

° Not only the criticism of the text and words, in respect to the genuine- 
ness and integrity of the writings (ef. Danz, Initia Doctrine Patrist. § 7-20), 
but also the criticism of the contents, in relation to the greater or less credi- 
bility of the authors. Comp. Hagenbach, Encyclop. § 49. 


§ 16. 
WORKS UPON THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. 


[Cf C. F. Baur, Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung. 1852.] 


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


§ 16. Works upon THE History or Docrrines, 37 


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


1 The History of Doctrines was formerly treated in connection with eccle- 
siastical history, or dogmatic theology (comp. $2); Semler and Ernesti first 
showed the necessity of separating the one from the other. The former at- 
tempted this in his historical introduction to Siegm. Baumgarten’s Glaubens- 
lehre, Halle, 1759, iii. 4. His design was (according to i. p. 101): “to expand 
the views of divines or studiosi theologie in general, and to show the origin, 
nature, and true object of dogmatic theology.” Inthe same year J. A. Ernesti 
published his programm, De Theologie Historice et Dogmatice conjungende 
Necessitate et Modo universo, Lips. 1759 (Opusc. Theol. Lips. 1773, ed. 2, 
1792, p. 567); he does not indeed speak of the History of Doctrines as a 
separate science, but it is not difficult to perceive that he felt the necessity 
of its being so. Comp. also C. W. F. Walch, Gedanken von der Geschichte 
der Glaubenslehre, 2 edit. Gött. 1764, 8. 

τς 5 Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, etc. (Editions of Valesius, Par. 
1659, iii. Reading, Cant. 1720, iii. f—Manual edition of Eusebius by Hezni- 
chen, Lips. 1827-28, iii.) [English translations of Euseb., Socrat., Sozom., 
Theod., and Evagrius, published by Bagster, Lond. 6 vols.] Rufinus, Sulpi- 
cius, Severus, Cassiodorus, Epiphanius Scholasticus. Writers during the Middle 
Ages : Gregor. Turonensis, Beda Venerabilis, Adamus Bremensis, Nicephorus 
Callisti, ete. (comp. the literature in works on ecclesiastical history). Since 
the Reformation : the Magdeburg Centuriators under the title: Ecclesiastica 
Historia per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdeburgica, Bas. 
1559-74, xiii. ἢ, +Ces. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, Rom. 1588-1607, 
xii. ἃ = + Odoricus Raynaldus, Annales Eccles. Rom. 1646-1674, x. f. (both 
edited by Mansi, along with the Critica Historico-Theologica of Pagi, Lucce, 
1738, ’39, xxxiii. £—J. @. Arnold, Unparteiische Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie, 
Fkft. 1699, iv. f. +Nat. Alexander, Historia Ecclesiastica, Par. 1676-86, 
xxiv. 8, Venet. 1759, 1778, ix. f. tFleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, Paris, 
1691-1720, xx. 4 (continued by Jean Claude Fabre, Paris, 1726-1740, xvi. 
4, and Al. de la Croix, Par. 1776-78, vi.) Par. xxxvi. 12, 1740,’41. + Tille- 
mont, Mémoires pour servir ἃ l’Histoire Ecclésiastique des 6 premiers siécles, 
justifies par les Citations des Auteurs Originaux, Paris, 1693, ss. xvi. 4. Z. 
Moshemii, Institutionum Historie Eccles. Antiquioris et Recentioris libri 
IV. Helmst. 1755, 1764, 4 [transl. by J. Murdock, 3 8vo. 2d ed. New 
York, 1849]. Walch, Ch. W. F., Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und 
Religionsstreitigkeiten, Leipz. 1762-85, xi. Baumgarten, J. S., Untersuchung 
theologischer Streitigkeiten mit einigen Anmerkungen, Vorrede und fortge- 
setzten Geschichte der Christlichen Glaubenslehre, herausgegeben von Dr. 
J.S. Semler, Halle, 1762-64, iii.4. By the same: Geschichte der Religions- 
parteien, herausgegeben von J. S. Semler, ibid. 1766, 4. 

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


38 5 INTRODUCTION. 


landi Bibl. Patrum, Tom. XI., p. 665, sq.), in that of the monophysite, 
Stephen Gobarus (in Photii Bibl. Cod. 232), as well as in the treatise of 
Abelard, Sic et Non (edited by G. L. Henke and ἃ. S. Lindenkohl, Marb., 
1851). More definite preparation for the History of Doctrines is found in 
works published after the Reformation: { Petawius (Dion.), Opus de Theo- 
logieis Dogmatibus, Par. 1644-50, iv. Antw. 1700, vi. “This work is no 
less ingenious than profound, and deserves to be more carefully and frequently 
studied than is generally done.” Dorner. [The first volume of a new edition 
of Petau, expolitum et auctum, collatis studiis C. Passaglia et C. Schrader 
was published at Rome, in 4to., 1857.] + Thomassin, L., Dogmata Theo- 
logica, Par. 1684-89. + Dumesnil, Lud., Doctrina et Disciplina Ecclesiz, 
ex ipsis Verbis ss. codd. concc. PP. et vett. genuinorum Monumentorum 
sec. seriem temporis digesta, iv. Col. 1730, f. Jo. Forbesius a Corse, In- 
structiones Historico-theologic de Doctrina Christiana et vario Rerum Statu 
Ortisque Erroribus et Controversiis, etc., Amst. 1745, f. Gen. 1699, and in 
his Opera, Amst. 1703, ii. f. (vol. 2). The design of this work is to prove 
the agreement between the doctrines of the Reformers and the opinions of 
the earlier Fathers (especially in opposition to Bellarmin). The various Loci 
of Chemnitz, Hutter, Quenstädt, Baier, and of Joh. Gerhard in particular, 
contain much historical matter: J. @erhard, Loci Theol. (Edit. of Cotta) 
Tüb. 1762-89, xxii. 4. Works which form the transition to the treatment 
of the History of Doctrines as a separate science: Lor, Reinhard, Introductio 
in Historiam Pr&cipuorum Dogmatum, Jen. 1795, 4, and J. S. Baumgarten, 
Evangelische Glaubenslehre, Halle, 1759, ’60 4 (the above mentioned preface 
to this work by Semler). 

* ComPENDIUMS AND MANUALS OF THE History OF Doctrines: Lange, S. 
G., ausführliche Geschichte der Dogmen, Lpz. 1796, (incomplete). Wun- 
demann, J. Ch., Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des 
Athanasius bis Gregor den Gr., Ist and 2d vol. Leipz. 1798-99. * Münscher 
W., Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Marb. vol. i. and ii. 1797, 
3d edit. without any alteration, 1817,’18; vol. iii. 1802, 1804; vol. iv. 1809 
(only to the year 604) ; the first treatment of the History of Doctrine in the 
pragmatic method. By the same: Lehrbuch der christichen Dogmenges- 
chichte, Marb. 1812, 1819, 3d edit., mit Belegen aus den Quellenschriften, 
Ergänzungen der Literatur, historischen Notizen und Fortsetzungen versehen 
von * Dan. von Célin 1st part, Cassel, 1832, 2d part, ibid. 1834 (edited by 
Hupfeld) ; 24 part, 2d section (also under the title: Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte von der Reformationszeit bis auf unsere Tage), by 
Ch. Gotth. Neudecker, Cassel, 1838, 8 (Münscher’s Manual, translated by T. 
Murdock, New Haven, 12mo., 1830.) Münter, Friedr, Handbuch der 
ältesten christlichen Dogmengeschichte, from the Danish, by Zvers, 1st vol. 
Gött. 1802, 8 (incomplete). * Augusti, J. Ch. W., Lehrbuch der christ- 
lichen Dogmengeschichte, Leipz. 1805, 4th edit. 1835. Bertholdt, Z., Hand- 
buch der Dogmengeschichte, herausg. von Veit Engelhardt, ἘΔ]. 1822, ’23, 
ii. 8. Auperti, F. A., Geschichte der Dogmen, oder Darstellung der Glau- 
benslehre des Christenthums von seiner Stiftung bis auf die neueren Zeiten, 
insbesondere für Studierende der Theologie und zu ihrer Vorbereitung auf 
ihre Prüfung, Berlin, 1831. * Baumgarten-Crusius L. F. O., Lehrbuch 


$ 16. Works ΡΟΝ THE Hıstory or Docrrings. 39 


der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Jena, 1832, ii. 8. Lentz, ©. @. H., 
Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwicklung, Helmst. 
1834, Ist vol. Atlee, H., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1st vol. Mainz, 
1837, 24 vol. 1838. Zngelhardt, J. G. V., Dogmengeschichte, ii. Neust. 
1839. * Meier, Karl, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte für akademische 
Vorlesungen, Giessen, 1840. (ἢ Daumgarten-Crusius, Compendium der 
christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Lpz. i. 1840, ii. 1846 (edited by Hase). 5B, 
Ch. Baur, Lehrb. d. christl. Dogmengesch., Stuttg. 1849 [second edition, 
1858]. Karl Beck, Lehrb. d. christl. Dogmengesch. Weimar, 1848. ἢ. 
Noack, Die christl. Dogmengesch. nach ihrem organischen Entwicklungs- 
gange, Erlang. 1852, second ed. 1856. *D. J. 0. L. @ieseler, Dogmenges- 
chichte (posthumous, edited by Redepenning) Bonn, 1855. * Dr. A. Neander, 
christl. Dogmengesch., edited by Dr. J. L. Jacobi, 2 Thle. Berlin, 1857-8 
(translated by J. E. Ryland in Bohn’s library). [17. Schmid, Lehrbuch ἃ. 
. Dogmengesch. Nördlingen. 1860.| 


Tables: Hagenbach, K. R. tabellarische Uebersicht der D. G. bis auf die Reformation, 
Basel, 1828, 4. Vorlünder, Karl, tabell. übersichtl. Darstellung der Dogmengesch. nach 
Neanders dogmengeschichtl. Vorlesungen. Per. i. Hamb. 1835, Per. ii. 1837. 


5 Works oF Moprern AUTHORS on CHurcH History, WHICH INCLUDE 
ıHE History or Doctrises: Schröckh, J. M., christliche Kirchenges- 
chichte, Lpz. 1768-1803, xxxv. 8, since the Reformation (continued 
by Tzschirner), 1804-1810, x. 8. Henke, allegemeine Geschichte der 
Christlichen Kirche nach der Zeitfolge, Branschw. 1788, ss. continued by 
Vater, ix. (in several editions). Schmidt, J, Μ΄, Ch., Handbuch. der Christ- 
lichen Kirchengeschichte, Giessen und Darmstadt, 1801, ss. vi. (2d edit. 
1825-27) vii. vol. by Rettberg, 1834. * Neander Aug., Allgemeine Geschichte 
der Christlichen Religion und Kirche, Hamb. 1825-52, i.-vi. in 14 parts. 
[The sixth vol. edited by K. F. H. Schneider, from MSS. 1852. A new 
edition (the third of the earlier volumes), 2, 8vo. with preface by Ullmann, 
Gotha, 1856; translation by Joseph Torrey, 5, 8vo. Boston. 1849-54, re- 
printed in Bohn’s Library, London.] *@ieseler, Z., Lehrbuch der Kirchen- 
geschichte, Bonn, 1824-57, 3 vols. in several parts (i. 4th edit. in 2 parts, 
1844; ii. in 4 parts; ui. 1, 1840). [Of Gieseler’s work, vols. iv.-vi., are 
edited from his MSS. by E. R. Redepenning; the 5th vol. to 1848; the 
6th vol. is the History of Doctrines, to 1517. A translation of this His- 
tory, to the Reformation, by Franeis Cunningham, was published in Phil. 
1836. Davidson and Hull’s translation, in Clark’s Library, Edinburgh, 
5 vols. 8vo. 1846-59. A new edition, revised and ed. by Henry B. Smith, 
New York, 4, 8vo. 1855-60, to 1648 ; the fifth and last volume is in prepa- 
ration]. A. Hase, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengesch. Lpz. 1833; 8th ed. 1857 
[translated from 7th ed. by ©. #. Blumenthal and C. P. Wing, New York, 
1855]. A. Δ΄. F. Guericke, Handbuch d. Allg. Kirchengesch. Halle, 1833 ; 
8th ed. 1855, 3. 8vo. [vol. 1, comprising six centuries, translated by W. @. 7. 
Shedd, Andover, 1857]. ‚Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Christl, Kirche [post- 
humous, ed. by Bonnel], Berlin, 1840. A. F. Gfrörer, Allg. Kirchengesch, 
Stuttg. 1841-46, iv. Ch. W. Niedner, Gesch. ἃ, Christl. Kirche, Lpz. 1846, 


40 INTRODUCTION, 


J. H. Kurtz, Lehrb. d. Kirchengesch. Mietau, 1840; several editions [trans- 
lated by Schaffer, Ibid. Handbuch d. Kirchengesch. i. in three parts, 2d. 
ed. 1858]. Ph. G. A. Fricke, Lehrb. ἃ, Kircheng. 1. Lpz. 1850. [W. B. 
Lindner, Lehrb: ἃ. Kircheng. 3. 8vo. Leips. 1854. J. @. V. Engelhardt, 
Handbuch, 4, 1834. J. Z. Jacobi, Lehrb. 1. 1850. M. Τ΄. Matter, Histoire 
universelle de l’Eglise, 4, 8vo. 2d ed. Paris, 1838. AMilner’s Church History, 
4, 8vo.; several editions. ἢ. H, Milman, Hist. of Latin Christ. 6. 8vo, 
Lond. 1854-7, New York ed. in 8 vols. 1860. H. Stebbing’s Hist. of 
Church, to 18th cent. 6, 8vo. 1842. Philip Schaf, Hist. of Christ. 
Church, vol. i. New York, 1859. Foulke’s Manual, 1851. Chs. Hardwick, 
Middle Ages and Reform, 2. 1853-6. J. C. Robertson, Ancient and Medi- 
zeval, 2 vols. 1854-6. 7addington, through Ref. 6 vols. 1835, sq. New 
York ed. of first 3 vols. in one. ] 

[Roman Catutic Works: F. L. von Stolberg, Gesch. d. Rel. Jesu, 15 
Bde. 1806-19; continued by Aerz and Brischar, 52 vols. in all, the last in 
1860. Casp. Sacharelli, Hist. Eccl. Rom. 1772-95, 25 vols. 4to. Th. 
Katerkamp, Münster, 5 Bde. 1819-34. J. J. Ritter, Handb. 2 Bde. 5th ed. 
1854. J. Alzog, 5th ed. 1850. J. A. Aunegarn, 3 Bde. 1842, ’3. Döllinger, 
Church Hist. to Ref., transl. by Hd. Cox, 4. 8vo. Lond. 1848. Rohrbacher, 
Hist. Universelle de l’Eglise, Paris, 1842, sq. 29 vols.; Henrion, in 25 vols, 
Palma, Preélict. Hist—Eccl. Rom., 3 vols. 1838-42. ] 

[Tables of Church History: J. S. Vater, 1803; 6th ed. Thilo, 1833. 
J. T. L. Danz, 1838. Lob. Lange, 1841. C.D. A, Donai, 2d. ed. 1850. 
Henry B. Smith, Hist. of the Church in Synchronistic Tables, fol. New 
York, new ed. 1860.] 

Works on the Church History of Particular Periods: a, Ancient Times. 
Moshemii Commentarius de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Μ, 
Helmstad. 1753, 74; [vol. i. transl. by R. S. Vidal ; vol. ii. by Jas. Murdoch, 
2. 8vo. New York, 1852. Philip Schaff, Hist. of Apostolic Church, ete. 
8vo. New York, 1853. H. H. Milman, Hist. of Christ. to Abolition of 
Paganism in the Rom. Emp., New York ed. 1842. Rothe, Anfänge ἃ, 
Christl. Kirche. 1837. 4. Ritschl. ἃ. Altkathol. Kirche. 1850. W. Burton, 
Lect. on Eccl. Hist. of First Three Cent. in his Works, vols. iv. and v., Oxf. 
1837. K. R. Hagenbach, die Christl. Kirche d. drei ersten Jahr. 1853. 2), 
C. Baur, Das Christenthum . . . ind. drei ersten Jahrb. 1853. H.W. 
J. Thiersch, Gesch. d. Christl. Kirche; trans. by Carlyle, Lond. 1852. Com- 
pare also the works of M. Baumgarten, Lechler, Schwegler, Dietlein, Volkmar, 
Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, L. Noach, ete. b. Middle Ages (especially in relation to 
Scholastieism). J.B. Bossuet, Einleitung, in die Allg. Gesch.; German, transl. 
by J. A. Cramer, Lpz. 1757-86 [in French, and English, numerous editions. 
J. T. Damberger, Synchron. Gesch. d. Kirche u. Welt im Mittelalter, Regensb. 
6 Bde. 1850-4 ; also a French edition. M. B. Hauréau, De la Philos. Scho- 
lastique (crowned), 2 8vo. Paris, 1859. EZ. Chastel, Le Christianisme et 
PEglise au Moyen Age. Paris, 1857.] c. The Time of the Reformation (in 
addition to works on the History of the Reformation): Planck, J. C., Ges- 
chichte der Enstehung, der Veränderungen und Bildung unseres Protestant- 
ischen Lehrbegrifis, von Anfang der Reformation bis zur Einführung der 
Concordienformel, vi. 2d edit. Lpz. 1791-1800. d. Modern Times: By the 


§ 13. Works UPON THE History OF DOocTkInEs. 41 


same, Geschichte der Prot. Theol. von der Concordienformel an bis in die 
Mitte des 18. Jahrh. Gött. 1831, 8. Comp. Walch, J. @., Histor. u. Theolog. 
Einleitung in die Religionsstr en in und ufetelb der τ 
Kirche, Jena, 1733, x. 8. 

° Works which treat on particular subjects (monographs) will be mentioned 
in their proper place. Essays in which the systems of individual Fathers are 
more fully discussed, will be found in the works of Réssler, Augusti, Mohler, 
etc., mentioned § 14, Note 1. 

7 Works on Dogmatic THEOLOGY WHICH ALSO CONSIDER THE History OF 
Doctrines, or include it: Seiler, G. I., Theologia Dogmatico-Polemica, cum 
Compendio Historie Dogmatum, Ed. 3, Erl. 1789, 8, Gruner, J. F., Insti- 
tutionum Theologie Dogmatic lib. iii. Hal. 1777, 8. Döderlein, J. Ch., 
Institutio Theologi Christiani in Capitibus Religionis theoreticis, Ed. 6, Alt. 
1/97, 1.8. Stäudlin, ©. Fr., Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte 

- (Gött. 1801, 1809), 1822, 8. * Wegscheider, J. A. L., Institutiones Theol. 
Christ. Dogmatiex, addita Singulorum Dogmatum Historia et Censura, Hal. 
1815, ed. 8, 1344. *Bretschneider, C. @., Handbuch der Dogmatik der 
Evangelischen Kirche, ii. 8, Lpz. 1828. Dy the same: Versuch einer sys- 
tematischen Entwicklung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, 
nach den Symb. Büchern der Luth. Kirche, Lpz. 1841. *Hase, Karl, Lehr: 
buch der Evangelischen Dogmatik, Stuttg. 1826, 8 (4th edit. Lpz. 1842). 
*By the same: Gnosis oder Evang. Glaubenslehre für die Gebildeten in der 
Gemeinde, wissenschaftlich dargestellt, 3 vols. Lpz. 1827-29. [Knapp, @. 
Ch., Vorlesungen über die Christliche Glaubenslehre, herausgeg. von Thilo. 
2 edit. 1837; translated into English by Zeon. Woods, And. 1831, and often 
republished.]| D. #. Strauss, Die Christl. Glaubensl. in ihrer gesch. Ent- 
wicklung, 1. Tub. 1840. Ch. E. Weisse, Philos. Dogmatik, oder Phil. ds. 
Christenth., i. Leipz, 1855, § 180-247. [ Dan. Schenkel, Die Christl. Dogmatik, 
vom Standpunkte des Gewissens, ii. (in 3 parts), Wiesbaden, 1858-9. @. 
Thomasius, Christi Persen u. Werk, 3 Thle. Erlangen, 1853, sq. J.P. Lange, 
Christl. Dogmatik, iii. Heidelb. 1849-52. A. D. C. Twesten, Dogmatik ἃ. 
Evang.-Luth. Kirche, 2d ed. ii, 1834-7.] J. H. A. Ebrard, Christl. Dogmatik, 
11.1852. F. A. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubensl. iii, 1856, sq. Aug. Hahn. Lehrb. 
d. Christl. Glaubens. 4te. Auft. ii. 1858.] On the History of the Protestant 
Doctrine: *De Wette, W. L. M., Dogmatik der Evangelisch-lutherischen 
Kirche nach den Symbolischen Büchern und den ältern dogmatikern (the 
2d part of his Lehrb. der Christ. Dogmatik) 2d edit, Berlin, 1821, 3d edit. 
1840. Klein, F. A., Darstellung des dogmatischen Systems der Evangel, 
Prot. Kirche, Jena, 1822, 3d edit. revised by Dr. Lobegott Lange, ibid. 1840. 
* Hase, Hutterus redivivus, oder Dogmatik der Evangelisch-lutherischen 
Kirche, Lpz. 1829-58, 9th edit. Al. "Sch weizer, Die εὐ d. Evang. 
Ref. Kirche, aus den Quellen, ii. Zürich, 1844 [Die Protestantischen Central- 
dogmen. ii. 1856. .D. Schenkel, Das Wesen ds. Protest. aus d. Quellen. iii, 
Schaffh. 1546-51]. Works on tHe History or Docmarıce ΤΉΒΟΠΟΟΥ : 
Heinrich, Ch. @., Versuch einer Geschichte der verschiedenen Lehrarten der 
Christl. Glaubenswahrheiten und der merkwürdigsten Systeme und Compen- 
dien derselben, von Christo bis auf unsere Zeiten, Lpz. 1790. Schickedanz, 
J. H., Versuch einer Geschichte der Christ. Glaubenslehre und der merk- 


42 INTRODUCTION. 


würdigsten Systeme, Compendien, Normalschriften und Katechismen der 
Christ. Hauptparteien, Braunschw.‘1827. Flügge und Stäudlin, Geschichte 
der theol. Wissenschaften. Herrmann, Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, von Me- 
lane. bis Schleiermacher. Lpz. 1842. Gass, Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, 1]. 
Berl. 1854-7. 

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

° Comp. § 13, note 1, and $ 4 (on the importance of Symbolism), 
* Marheineke, Dr. Phil., christ]. Symbolik, oder historisch-kritische und dog- » 
matisch comparative Darstellung des katholischen, lutherischen, reformirten 
und socinianischen Lehrbegriffs, Heidelb. vol. i. part i. ii. 1810, part iii. 1812, 
(also under the title: das System des Katholieismus) ; also his Lectures; 
edited by Matthies, and Vatke, 1848. By the same: Institutiones symbolic®» 
doctrinam Catholicorum, Protestantium, Socinianorum, ecclesize Graecee, minor- 
umque societatt. christ. summam et discrimina exhibentes, Berol. 1812, ed. 3, 
1830. Marsh. Herb., the Churches of Rome and England compared: trans- 
lated into German by J. C. Schreiter, Sulzb. 1821, 8. * Winer, @. B., com- 
parative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchen- 
partheien, nebst vollständigen Belegen aus den symbolischen Schriften der- 
selben in der Ursprache (mit angehängten Tabellen) Lpz. 1824, 4to., new 
edit. 1837. + Möhler, J, A., Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatischen 
Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten, nach ihren öffentlichen Be- 
kenntnissschriften, Mainz. 1832, edit. 6th, 1843, 8. On the otherside: Baur, 
Ferd. Chr., Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus nach den 
Principien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe, Tab. 1834, 8. Nitzsch» 
K. Im., Prot. Beantwort. der Symbolik Möhlers; in reply: Möhler, neue 
Untersuchung der Lehrgegensätze zwischen den Katholiken und Protestanten, 
Mainz. 1834, 35, 8; and also: Baur, Erwiderung auf Möhlers neueste Pole. 
mik u. s. w. Tüb. 1834, 8.—Äöllner, Ed., Symbolik aller christlichen Con- 
fessionen, vol. 1. Symbolik der luth Kirche, Hamb. 1837. vol. ii. Symbolik 
der römischen Kirche, 1844. Guericke, H. E. F., allgem. christl. Symbolik 
vom luth. kirchl. Standpuncte, Lpz. 1839 : 2ded. 1846. 4. W. J. Thiersch, 
Vorlesungen üpor Kath. u. Protest. 2d ed. 1848. 4A. H. Baier, Symbolik 
d. Römisch-Kath. Kirche. i. Greifsw. 1854. Matthes, Comp. Symbolik, 
Lpz. 1854. N. Hoffmann, Symbolik, oder system. Darstellung d. Symb. 
Lehrbegriffe, Lpz. 1854. + Hilgers, Symbolische Theologie. Bonn. 1841. 
[M. Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen u, re- 
formirten Lehrbegriffs : herausg. von Ed. Güder, Zwei Theile. Stuttg. 1855.] 
For the editions of the symbolical books, see $ 13, 1. 


FIRST PERIOD. 


FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DEATH OF ORIGEN, OR 
FROM THE YEAR 70 TO THE YEAR 254. 


THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE 
FIRST PERIOD. 


§ 17 
CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 


On the Life of Christ in general see the earlier Harmonies of the Gospels; [William New- 
come, Eng. Harmony, repr. Phil. 1809; E. Robinson, in Greek, 1831, in English, 1846 ; 
L. Carpenter, Lond. 1835; J. G. Palfrey, Bost. 1831; Stroud’s New Greek Harmony, 
1853. Comp. Davidson, S. in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce,] and the modern works of Hess, Hase, 
Paulus, Strauss, and (in reference to the latter) Weisse, Neander, Wilke, Kuhn, Theile, 
Lange, Ebrard, ete. [Voices of the Church, in reply to Dr. Strauss, by the Rev. J. R. 
Beard, Lond. 1845.] Concerning the internal or apologetico-dogmatic aspect of his life, 
which forms the basis of the History of Doctrines, comp. (Reinhard) Versuch über den 
Plan, den der Stifter der christlichen Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, Wit- 
tenberg, 1781, new edit., with additions by Heubner, Wittenb. 1830 (primarily a reply to 
the Wolfenbüttel Fragments). [Plan of the Founder of Christ. from the German, by O. 
W. Taylor, 12mo., Andover, 1831.] Herder, J. G., Vom Erlöser der Menschen, nach den 
drei ersten Evangelien, Riga, 1796. By the same: vom Sohne Gottes, der Welt Heiland, 
nach Johannes, Riga, 1797. (Comp. Werke zur Religion und Theologie, vol. xi., or 
Christliche Schriften, part 1). Böhme, Ch. F,, die Religion Jesu Christi, aus ihren 
Urkunden dargestellt, Halle, 1825-27. * Ullmann, über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 1, reprinted, Hamb., 1833, 5th edit., 1845. [Dr. Ullmann 
on the Sinless Character of Jesus, in Clark’s Students’ Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts, 
taken from Selections from German Lit. by Edwards and Park, Andover, 1839; ibid. 
Essence of Christianity, translated by Rev. J. Bleasdell, London, 1860.] By the same: 
Was setzt die Stiftung der christlichen Kirche durch einen Gekreuzigten voraus? in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 579-596, and reprinted in his treatise: Historisch oder 
mythisch? Beiträge zur Beantwortung der gegenwärtigen Lebensfrage der Theologie, 
Hamb. 1838). Fritzsche, Ch. F., de ἀναμαρτησίᾳ Jesu Christi, Commentationes 4, (repr, 
in Fritzschiorum Opuscula Academica, Lips. 1838, p. 48, seq.) * Schweizer, Alex., über 
die Dignität des Religionsstifters, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1834. Lücke, F. two pro- 
gramms (against Hase): Examinatur, que speciosius nuper commendata est sententia de 


44 First Periop. THe AGE or APOLOGETICS. 


mutato per eventa adeoque sensim emendato Christi consilio, Gött., 1831, 4. On the other 
side: Hase, Streitschriften, Leipz. 1834.— Strauss and his opponents. (The Literature in 
Theile and elsewhere.) [Neander’s Life of Christ, transl. from 4th ed. by J. McClintock 
and C. E. Blumenthal, New York, 1848. Hase’s Life of Jesus, transl. by J. F. Clarke, 
Boston, 1860. Strauss’s Life, transl. 2, 8vo., Lond. 1854. W. H. Furness, History of 
Jesus, Boston, 1850; ibid., Jesus and his Biographers, 1838.—Sepp (Rom. Cath.) Das 
Leben Jesu, iv. Regensb. 1843 sq: in French, 1854. J. P. Lange, Das Leben Jesu, 
Heidelb. 1847. A. Ebrard, Kritik ἃ. evang. Gesch. 2d ed. Erlangan, 1850. C. F. Von 
Ammon, iii. 1844. B. Bauer, Evang. Gesch. iii. 2d ed. 1855. J. Bucher (Rom. Cath.) 
Leben Jesu, i. 1859. Paulus, 2 Bde. 1828. Krabbe, 1838. Weisse, Evang. Gesch. ii. 
1828 ’29. Ewald, Gesch. Jesu u. seiner Zeit, 1855. A. Tholuck, Glanbwürdigkeit, 1837. 
T. Young. The Christ of History, repr. New York, 1855. Alexander, Christ and Christi- 
anity, repr. New York, 1854. [Isaac Taylor] Restoration of Belief, 1855. W. H. 
Mill, Christian Advocate Sermons, Camb. 1844 ’49. G. Volkmar, Die ReligionJesu 
und ihre erste Entwicklung. Leipz. 1857. Gess Lehre von der Person Christi. 1856.] 


Wirt the incarnation of the Redeemer, and the introduction of 
Christianity into the world, the materials of the History of Doc- 
trines are already fully given in germ. The object of all further 
doctrinal statements and definitions is, in the positive point of view, 
to unfold this germ ; in the negative, to guard it against all foreign 
additions and influences. We here assume, on the basis of the 
evidences, that what Jesus Christ brought to light, in relation to 
the past,’ was new and original, 7. e., a revelation, and, in relation 
to the future, is theoretically perfect, not standing in need of cor- 
rection or improvement.’ This is the principle which stands at the 
very head of the History of Doctrines, and by which we are to judge 
all its phenomena. We can not, therefore, separate Christ’s doc- 
trine from his person. For the peculiar and untroubled relation in 
which Christ, as the Son of God, stands to the Deity, as well as the 
spiritual and moral renovation which were to flow from himself, as 
the Saviour, unto mankind, form the kernel and central point of 
his doctrine. It has not the character of a system made up of cer- 
tain definitive notions, but it is a fact in the religious and moral 
sphere, the joyful news (εὐαγγέλιον kıjpvyua) of which was to be pro- 
claimed to all men for their salvation, on condition of faith, and a 
willingness to repent and obey in newness of life. Jesus is not the 
author of a dogmatic theology, but the author and finisher of faith 
(Heb. xii. 2); not the founder of a school, but in the most exalted 
sense the founder of a religion and of the church. Hence he did 
not propound dogmas dressed in a scientific garb, but he taught the 
word of God in a simply human and popular manner, for the most 
part in parables and proverbs. We find these laid down in the 
canonical gospels, though in a somewhat different form in the gospel 
of John from that in the synoptical gospels.* One of the objects 
shared by evangelical interpretation, by the histories of the life of 
Jesus, by apologetics and biblical theology, is to ascertain the pecu- 


§ 17. Curist AND CHRISTIANITY. 45 


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


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

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

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


§ 18. 
THE APOSTLES. 


* Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apos- 
tel, vol. ii. sect. 6. [History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by 
the Apostles, translat. by J. E. Ryland, Edinb. 1842 (reprinted in Phila.), vol. ii. book 
vi.: The Apostolic Doctrine.] Matthaei, G. Ch. R., der Religionsglaube der Apostel 


46 


First Periop. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


Jesu, nach seinem Ursprunge und Werthe, vol. i. Gott. 1826, 8. Böhme, Ch. F., die 
Religion der Apostel Jesu Christi, aus ihren Urkunden dargestellt, Halle, 1829. 
Kleuker, Johannes, Petrus und Paulus, Riga, 1785. Schmid, T. Ch. E., Disserta- 
tiones II. de theologia Joannis Apostoli, Jen. 1801. * Usteri, L., Entwickelung des 
Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs in,seinem Verhältniss zur biblischen Dogmatik des N. Test. 
Zurich, 1824, 29, 31, 32. Ddhne, A. Εἰ, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegrifis, 
Halle, 1835. Baur, F. Ch., der Apostel Paulus, ΤΡ. 1845. Fromman, Der johan- 
neische Lehrbegriff, 1839. Köstlin, der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe 
Johannis und die verwandten neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe. Berl. 1843. ‚Steiger, 
W., der erste Brief Petri, mit Berüksichtigung des ganzen biblischen Lehrbegriffs, 
Berlin, 1832. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrb. 1856. Ulrich, M., Versuch einer Eintheilung 
der biblischen Dogmatik des Neuen Testaments, in Röhrs Krit. Predigerbibliothek, 
xix. 1. [Tholuck, Remarks on the Life, Character, and Style of the Apostle Paul, in 
Clark’s Students’ Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] In general: Zeller, Aphorismen über 
Christenthum, Urchristenthum und Unchristenthum, in Schwegler’s Jahrbücher der 
Gegenwart, 1844 (June). Schwegler, A., des nachapostolishe Zeitalter, Tub. 1846. 
Dietlein, W. O., das Urchristenthum, eine Beleuchtung der von der Schule des Dr. 
Baur in Tübingen über das apostolische Zeitalter aufgestellten Vermuthungen, Halle, 
1845. Dorner, 1. c. Schwegler, Apologetisches und Polemisches (against Dorner) in 
Zeller’s Jahrbücher, 1846. Planck, Judenthum und Urchristenthum, ibid. 1847. H. 
W. T. Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, Frankf. 1852. Baumgarten, Die 
Apostelgesch. Halle, 1852 [in Clark’s Library, 1856.] E. Reuss, Historie de la 
Theologie chretienne au siécle apostolique, Paris, 1852 [2d ed., 1858.] 41: Ch. 
Baur, Das Christenthum und die christl. kirche d. 3 ersten Jahrb. ΤῸ. 1853. Lech- 
ler, Das apostol. und nachapostol. Zeitalter (a prize essay), Haarlem, 1854 [2d. ed., 
1857.] Herm. Messner, Lehre d. Apostel. Lpz. 1856. 


[K. Schrader, Der apostel Paulus, Lpz. 1830-33, 3 Bde. Pearson, Annales Paulimi, 1688. 


W. T. Conybeare and J. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Lond. 1852, 2 
4to. New York, 1856. Paret, Paulus und Jesus, Jahrb. f deutsche Theologie, 
1858. On Paul and Seneca; Chs. Aubertin, Etude critique, Paris, 1858: Baur in 
Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. ZH. H. Milman, Character and Conduct of the Apos- 
tles, as an Evidence of Christianity, 8vo. Lond. / Trench, Life and Character of St. 
John, Lond. 1850. Luthardt, Das Evangelium Johannes, 1853. X. F. T. Schneider, 
Aechtheit ἃ. Evang. Johan. 1854; G. Καὶ Mayer, Aechtheit d. Ev. Joh. 1854; comp. 
Lechler in Stud. u. Krit. 1856; κα C. Bawr in Theol. Jahrb. 1854, 1857, Hilgenfeld 
in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858 and 1859, and in Theol. Jahrb. 1855; Weizsücher 
in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1859. Düsterdieck, Die 3 Joh. Briefe, 2 Bde. 1852-4. 
A. Hilgenfeid, Paulus und die Urapostel, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1860. Comp., 
also, the controversy between Baur and Hase and Hilgenfeld, on the principles of the 
Tübingen School, various pamphlets, 1855-7. J. P. Lange, Das apostol. Zeitalter, 
1853. 1. Noack, Der Ursprung ds. Christenthums, 2 Bde. Lpz. 1857. R. C. Lutter- 
beck (Rom. Cath.), Die Neu Testament]. Lehrbegrife, 2 Bde. Mairz. 1852. Schaff’s 
Apostolic Church, u. s. p. 614 sq. Köstlin, Einheit u. Mannigfaltigkeit der neutest. 
Lehre, in Jahrb. f deutsche Theol. 1857-8. | 


As little as their Master, did the first disciples of the Lord pro- 
pound a dogmatic system. But as they made the doctrine primarily 
taught by Christ himself the subject of theoretical contemplation, 
and as their hearts and lives were practically penetrated by it, 
and as Christ’s spiritual personality had been, as it were, formed 


in 


them anew, we find, in the writings of those endowed with 


higher gifts,’ the beginnings of a systematic view of Christian doc- 
trines. And this in such a way, that while Peter and James (in 
this respect to be compared with the synoptical writers) simply 


$ 18. Tue APOSsTLEs. 47 


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


* When we speak of the apostolic doctrine in general, we must not forget 
that we do not refer to the twelve Apostles, of whose doctrinal views we possess 
but very imperfect knowledge. For it is yet contested whether the James and 
Jude, whose Epistles are in the canon, belonged to the twelve apostles, and 
whether they are the brothers of our Lord. On the doctrinal system of James, 

see Dorner, u. s. p. 91 sq. (Comp. Herder, Briefe zweier Brüder Jesu in un- 
serm Kanon; Wieseler, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1842, 1. p. 71, ss.; * Schaf, 
das Verhältniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Hernn, zu Jacobus Alphei, Berl. 1842; 
and the commentaries.) [Zardner, vi. 162-202; Wright, W., in Kitto, Cy- 
clop. of Bibl. Literat.] On his relation to Paul, see Neander, Gelegenheit- 
schriften, 3d ed., p. 1sq. Accordingly, Peter and John alone remain ; but 
the second epistle of the one, and the second and third epistles of the other, 
were very early reckoned amongst the Antilegomena | Wright, W., in Kitto, 
l. ec. sub voce]; the genuineness of the second epistle of Peter in particular 
has again been impugned in modern times; and even his first epistle, though 
without sufficient basis, has been the subject of doubts. Comp. De Wette’s 
Einleitung ins N. Test. ὃ 172, 173.] Meander, Hist. of the Plant. and 
Train. of the Ch. ii. p. 33, 34. Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. ec. sub voce.] 

* If the first epistle of Peter is genuine, it is undoubtedly of greater im- 
portance in a dogmatic point of view, than that of James, who gives a 
greater prominence to practical Christianity, and seems to ignore its christo- 
logical aspects, though he occasionally evinces a profound acquaintance with 
the nature of faith and the Divine economy (ch. i. 13, ss. 25; ii. 10, etc). 
[ Dorner, 1. c. contests this position; but Hagenbach says that he attri- 
butes views to James which are not distinctly his.] But dogmatic ideas 
appear even in the writings of Peter more as a vast mass of materials as 
yet in their rough state. “Jn vain do we look in his writings for those 
definite peculiarities, so manifestly impressed upon the works of John and 
Paul.” De Wette, 1. c. Comp. however, Rauch, Rettung der Originalität 
des ersten Briefes Petri, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s Kritische Journal, 
vill. p. 396. Steiger, 1. c. and Dorner, p. 97, ss, and especially Weiss, 
Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie, Berlin, 1855. 
“It bears upon it the impress of the apostolic spirit,” Neander, |. c. ii. p. 33.] 

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


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


48 First Preriop. Tue AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


The manifestation of God in the flesh—union with God through Christ— 
life from and in God—and victory over the world and sin by means of this life, 
which is a life of love—these are the fundamental doctrines propounded by 
John. (Comp. Zücke’s Commentaries on John’s writings; Rickli’s Predigten 
über den ersten Brief; Zholuck’s and De Wette’s Commentaries on his 
gospel ; Paulus, über die 3 Lehrbriefe.) [Neander, 1. c. p. 240. ss. * Hence 
every thing in his view turned on one simple contrast :—Divine life in com- 
munion with the Redeemer—death in estrangement from him.”| Paul differs 
from John materially and formally. a. Materially: John rather presents the 
outlines of theology and christology, Paul those of anthropology and the doc- 
trine of redemption ; nevertheless, the writings of John are also of the high- 
est importance for anthropology, and those of Paul for theology and chris- 
tology. But the central point of John’s theology is the incarnation of the 
Logos in Christ; the working element of the Pauline doctrine is justification 
by faith. ὁ. Formally: Paul lets his thoughts rise up before the soul of the 
reader, reproduces them in him in a genetic order, and unfolds all the re- 
sources of dialectic art, not obliterating the traces of his former rabbinical 
education. John proceeds thetically and demonstratively, drawing the reader 
into the depths of mystic vision, and announces Divine things in the tone of 
a seer, and addresses himself more to the believing mind than to the under- 
standing. John styles his readers children, Pauls calls them his brethren. 
(Comp. on the difference between Paul and John, Staudenmaier on Joh. 
Scot. Erigena, p. 220, ss.) A peculiar theological tendency is represented, in 
fine, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, It is related to the Pauline doctrine with 
a prevailing leaning toward the typical; as to its form, it holds the medium 
between the modes of Paul and John, [eander, Hist. of Plant. and Train. 
ii. p. 212-229.] (On the conjectures respecting its author, comp. the Com- 
mentaries of Bleek, | Stuart], Tholuck [translat. into English by J. Hamilton 
and J. E. Ryland, Edinb, 1842, 2 vols.; and Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. c. 
sub voce]. On the three primary biblical forms (the Jacobo-Petrine, the 
Johannine, and the Pauline), see Dorner, 1. e. p. 77. 

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


lypse (Lücke), the latest negative criticism has reversed the relation (Schwegler); and in 
opposition to this, the genuineness of both works, including the Epistles of John, has been 
recently defended by Zbrard. Comp., however, Bleek, Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, Berl. 
1846, i. 5. 182, sq.; and Lücke, in the second edition of his work on John. We can not 
regard the acts upon this matter as by any means closed, for, from a wholly impartial 
stand-point, much may be said in favor of the identity ‘of the evangelist and the author of 
the Apocalypse. [Comp. J. 1: Zobler, Ursprung des vierten Evang. in Zeitschrift £. wiss 
Theol. 1860.] 


§ 19. CULTURE OF THE AGE AND PHILOSOPHY. 49 


for its chief object to defend from the beginning its character, as a specific 
divine revelation, against any possible corruptions and perversions; but it, 
first of all, would have had to unwind the swaddling bands of a prosaic 
Ebionitism before it became etherialized, passing through the Pauline ten- 
dency into the spiritual gnosis of John; a process, for which, according to 
that theory, a full century was needed. We should not then find at first any 
common organism, spreading itself out on various sides in the fullness of a 
rich life, but only a small series of differing phenomena, mutually dissolving 
each other. But, now, history shows that great epochs (6. g., the Reforma- 
tion) wake up the mind in all directions, and call out different tendencies at 
one stroke; though they may occur in a relative succession, yet they follow 
one another so rapidly that we can comprise them in a synchronistie picture. 
Thus, De Wette says [Wesen des Christl. Glaubens. Basil, 1846, p. 256]: “A 
more exact acquaintance with the New Testament documents shows us that 
the primitive Christianity here deseribed had already run through three stadia 
of its development; that at first (according to the representation of the first 
three Gospels, partieularly that of Matthew) it is a Jewish Christianity; then, 
with the Apostle Paul, it comes into conflict with the Jewish particularism ; 
until at last, in John, it wholly overcomes its antagonism with the law.” It 
must also be conceded, that in the course of this historical process, now one, 
and now another, of the tendencies preformed in primitive Christianity, ob- 
tains the leading influence; and that a series of centuries not yet closed is 
necessary, in order that what has actually been revealed in principle may be 
worked over in all its relations to the individual and to society at large. Thus 
the Pauline type of Christianity remained for a long time a hidden treasure 
in the vineyard of the Lord, until in the period of the Reformation it was 
seen in its full significaney. So, too, the more recent philosophy of religion 
has recurred to the profound spiritual vision of John. Lastly, in respect to 
the striking contrast between the apostolic times and the post-apostolic—so 
much less productive in the sphere of doctrines, it is not unnatural that a 
period of stagnation should succeed one in which men’s souls were thoroughly 
aroused in all directions; and to this there are also analogies in history, 6. 9., 
that of the Reformation. Besides this, it has been remarked that the office 
of the post-apostolic times was not so much to form doctrines as to build up 
the church; next, with the period of apologetics, commences the real work 
in the elaboration of the doctrinal system. Comp. Dorner, ubi supra, p. 130 sq. 


§ 19. 
CULTURE OF THE AGE AND PHILOSOPHY. 


Souverain, Le Platonisnee déovilé, Amst. 1700; in German, über den Platonismus der 
Kirchenvater, mit Anmerkungen von Löffler, 2 edit. 1792. In reply: Keil, De Doctoribus 
veteris Ecclesize, Culpa corrupt per Platonicos Sententias Theologis liberandis, Com- 
ment. xii. (in his Opuse. Acad. Pars. II). Fichte, Im., De Philosophie Nov Platonicee 
Origine, Berol. 1818, 8. Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato und in der Platonischen 
Philosophie, Hamb. 1835. Dähne, A. Εἰ, Geschichtliche Darstellung der Judisch-Alex- 
andrinischen Religionsphilosophie, in 2 parts, Halle, 1834. F! Οἱ Baur, Das Christliche 
des Platonismus, oder Socrates und Christus, Tübingen, 1837. Gfrörer, Kritische 

4 


50 \ First Periop. THE AGE oF APOLOGETICS. 


Geschichte des Urchristenthums, vol. i; also under the title: Philo und die Alexandrin- 
ische Theosophie, 2 parts. Stuttgart, 1831. By the same: Das Jahrhundert des Heils, 
2 parts. Stuttg. 1836 (zur Geschichte der Urchristenthums). Georgii, über die neuesten 
Gegensätze in Auffassung der Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie, insbesonders des 
Jüdischen Alexandrinismus, in Ji/gens Zeitschrift für Historische Theologie, 1839, part 
3, p. 1, ss. part 4, p. 1, ss. Zennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. vii. Hitter, 
vol. iv. p. 418. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 154, ss. [Ritter, Die 
Christliche Philos. (1858), i. Kapitel 2 and 3. Susemihi, Genetische Entwicklung ἃ, 
Platon. Phil. 1855. Plato contra Athcos; x. Book on Laws, by Tayler Lewis, New 
York, 1845; cf. President Woolsey, in Bib. Sacra, 1845. Cesar Morgan, The Trinity 
of Plato and Philo. F Robiou, de la Philos. chez les Romains, 6 articles in the An- 
nales de la Philos. Chrét. Paris, 1857, ’8. R. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas quam Philoso- 
phia Antiqua imprimis Platonica et Stoica in Doctrina Apologetarum Seculi II. habuerit. 
Göttin. 1859.] 


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


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

® Comp. Grossmann, Quxstiones Philonez, Lips. 1829. Theile, Christus 
und Philo, in Winer’s und Engelhardt’s kritisches Journal, vol. ix. part 4, p. 
385. Scheffer, Quest. Philon, Sect. 2, p. 41, ss. Zücke, Commentar zum 
Joh. i. p. 249. (Comp. § 41 on the Logos.) ditions of Philo: Turnebus 
(1552), Höschel (1613), the Parisian (1640), * Mangey (1742), Pfeiffer (5 
vol. Erl. 1820), Richter, 1828-30; Tauchnitz’s edition, 1851, sq. Compare 
the Commentary to Philo’s book, De Opificio Mundi, by J. G. Müller, Berlin, 
1841. [Philo Judeus, transl. in Bohn’s Ecclest. Library, by Yonge, 4 vols.] 
Edw. von Muralt, Untersuchungen über Philo in Beziehung auf die der 


/ 


§ 20. Rune or ΕἌΙΤΗ. Tue Aposries’ Creep. 51 


(Petersburger) Akademie gehörigen Handschriften, 1840. [Creuzer in the 
Studien n. Kritiken, 1831. M. Wolff, Die Philon ’sche Philos, Lpz. 1849; 24 
ed. 1858. Philonis Judei Paralipomena Armena, Venet. 1826 ; ibid. Ser- 
mones Tres, ed. Venet. 1832. Articles on Philo, in Christ. Rev. 1853 ; North 
British, 1855; Eclectic (Lond.) Nov. 1855 ; Journal of Class. and Sacred 
Philol. 1854. Comp. also Michel Nicholas, Des Doctrines Religieuses des 
Juifs pendant les deux Siécles antérieurs ἃ l’&r& chretienne, Paris, 1860. S, 
Klein, Le Judaisme, ou la Verité sur le Talmud, Paris 1859. Lutterbeck, 
Neutestamentliche Lehrbegriffe, i., p. 393-437.] 

* That which was a mere abstract and ideal notion in the system of Philo 
became a concrete fact in Christianity—a spiritual and historical fact in the 
sphere of the religious life; on this account “ it is alike contrary to historical 
truth, to deny the influence of the age upon the external phenomena and the 
didactic development of the gospel, and to derive its internal origin and true 
nature from the age.” —Liicke, |. c. Comp. Dorner, 1, c. Introd. p. 21, ss. 

* Much of that which was formerly (from the time of Sowverain) called 
“the Platonism of the Fathers,” is by modern research reduced to this, “that 
the general influence exerted by Platonism was the stronger and more definite 
influence of the general heathen culture.” Baumgarten-Crusius, Compen- 
dium, i. p. 67. Comp. @üeseler, Dogmengesch. p. 44. Thus the charge of 
Platonism often brought forward against Justin M. is found on closer exami- 
nation to be untenable; comp. Semisch, Justin der M. ii. p. 227, 58. It ap- 
pears more just in the case of the Alexandrian theologians, especially Origen. 
But here, too, as well as in reference to the partial influence exerted by Aris- 
totelianism and Stoicism upon certain tendencies of the age, it ought not to be 
overlooked, that during this period “philosophy appears only in a fragmen- 
tary way, and in connection with theology.” Schleiermacher, 1. c. p. 154; 
comp. also Redepenning, Origenes (Bonn, 1841), vol. i. p. 91, ss. [Comp. 
Fr. Michelis, Die Philos. Platons in ihrer inneren Beziehung zur geoffen- 
barten Wahrheit. 1 Abth. Münster, 1859.] . 


§ 20. 
RULE OF FAITH. THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 


* Marheineke, Ursprung und Entwicklung der Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie in den ersten 
3 Jahrhunderten (in Daub und Creuzer’s Studien, Heidelb. 1807, vol. iii. p. 96, ss.) 
+ Mohler, Einheit der Kirche oder Princip des Katholicismus im Geiste der Kirchen- 
väter der ersten 3 Jahrhundorte, Tüb. 1825. Vossius, J. G., De Tribus Symbolis Dis- 
sertt. Amstel. 1701, fol. Küng, Lord, History of the Apostles’ Creed, with critical ob- 
servations, 5 edit. Lond. 1738. (Latin translation by Olearius, Lips. 1706, Bas. 1768.) 
Rudelbach, die Bedeutung des Apostol. Symbolums, Lpz. 1844. ‚Stockmeier, J., über 
Entstehung des Apostolischen Symbolums, Zür. 1846. [Bishop Pearson on the 
Apostles’ Creed. Wütsius, H., Dissertation on what is commonly called the Apostles’ 
Creed. Transl. from the Latin by D. Fraser, Edinb. 1823, Dissert. i—Heylyn, P., The 
Summe of Christian Theology, contained in the Apostles’ Creed, London, 1673, fol.— 
Barrow, J., Exposition of the Creed, (Theolog. works, vol. v.) Oxf. 1838, Sect. 1. 

Meyers, De Symbol. Apostol. Treviris, 1849. Hahn, Bibliothek. d. Symbole. 1842. 
W. W. Harvey, History and Theology of the Three Creeds, 2 vols., 1855. Articles on 
the Apostles’ Creed, in Mercersburg Review, 1849, and Princeton Review, 1852.] 


52 +-First Period. THE AGE oF APOLOGETICS. 


Before scientific theology, under the form of γνῶσις, developed it- 
self with the aid of philosophical speculation, the faith of the Apostles 
was firmly and historically established as πίστις, by bringing together 
those elements (στοιχεῖα) of Christian doctrme which were accounted 
essential. The κήρυγμα ἀποστολικόν, the παράδοσις ἀποστολική, was 
first transmitted by oral tradition, and afterward appeared in a 
written form." What is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed (apos- 
tolic symbol), is most probably composed of various confessions of 
faith, used by the primitive church in the baptismal service. Though 
it did not proceed from the Apostles themselves, yet it preserved the 
principles of apostolic tradition in broad general outlines.’ 


1 Comp. the rules of faith of Ireneeus, Adv. Heer. i. c. 10, (Grabe, c. 2.) 
Tertull. De Virgin. vel. c. 1; De Preescript. Heer. c. 13; Advers. Prax. c. 2. 
Orig. De Princip, proem. § 4. Münscher edit. by von Cölln, i. 16-19. On 
the importance of tradition and its relation to Holy Scripture, comp. below 
§ 33 and 37. “The rule of faith was not gained by the interpretation of 
the Scriptures, but taken from the apostolic tradition handed down in the 
churches,” Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 50. 

® The fable about its apostolic origin, mentioned by Rufinus Exposit. 
Symb. Apost. (in Baron. Annal. anno 44. No. 14 [ Witsius, 1. c. p. 3], was 
doubted by Laur. Valla, and afterward by Erasmus; some of the earlier 
Protestants, however, 6. g., the Magdeb. Centur. (Cent. I. 1. 2, p. 66), still 
attached credit to it. Comp. Basnage, Exercitationes Histor. crit. ad annum 
44, Νο. 17. Buddei, Isagoge, p. 441, where the literature is given. Nean- 
der (Torrey’s) 1. p. 306. Marheineke, 1. 6. p. 160 [Heylyn, 1. c. p. 8, ss. 
Barrow, l. ce. 218, 219, Gieseler's Text-Book, i. 80, 152.] 


§ 21. 
HERESIES. 


Ittig, Th. de Heeresiarchis Evi Apostolici, Lips. 1690, 1703, 4. [Burton, Edw., Theolog. 
Works, vol. ii.: The Bampton Lecture on the Heresies of the Apostolic age. Oxf. 
1837. Comp. the introduction where the literature is given. [Lardner’s Hist. of 
Heretics. Sartori, Die... Secten. 1855. J B. Marsden, Christ. Churches and 
Sects, 2 vols. 1854, 1859. G. Volkmar, Die Quellen der Ketzergesch. 1855.] 


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


§ 21. HERESIES. 53 


* Αἵρεσις (from αἰρεῖσθαι), and σχίσμα, were at first synonymous (1 Cor. 
xi. 18, 19), but in later times the one was used to denote a departure from 
the faith, the other to designate a disruption in consequence of differences 
of opinion concerning liturgy, discipline, or ecclesiastical polity. The word 
αἵρεσις did not originally imply blame ; it is used in the New Test. as a vor 
media ; comp. Acts v.17: xv. 5; xxv. 5. [Burton, |. ὁ. p. 8.] Ecclesiasti- 
cal writers themselves call Christianity a secta (Tertull. Apol. i. 1, and in 
many other places); and even Constantine gives the Catholic church the 
name αἵρεσις (Euseb. x. c. 5). On the contrary, in Gal. v. 20, the same 
term is used in connection with ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, etc. comp. 2 Pet. 
li, 1 (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι). Synonymous terms are: ἑτεροδιδασκαλία, 1 
Tim. 1. 3; vi. 3; ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις, ch. vi. 20; wataodoyia, ch. i. 6; the 
adject. αἰρετικός, Tit. ii, 10. Comp. Wetstein, N. T. ii. 147. Suicer The- 
saurus, sub voce, On the various etymologies of the German word Ketzer 
(Ital. Gazzari, whether from καθαρός, or from the Chazares—like bougre 
from the Bulgares? or even from Katze?) comp. Mosheim, Unparteiische 
und ofiindliche Ketzergeschichte, Helmst. 1746, p. 357, ss. and Wacker- 
nagel, Altdeutsches Lesebuch, p. 1675 ; Jac. Grimm’s review of Kling’s 
edition of Berthold’s sermons, in the Wiener Jahrb. Bd. xxxviii. On the 
use which heresies may be to science, Orig. Hom. 9 in Num. Opp. T. ii. p. 
296, says: Nam si doctrina ecclesiastica simplex esset et nullis intrinsecus 
heereticorum dogmatum assertionibus cingeretur, non poterat tam clara et 
tam examinata videri fides nostra. Sed ideirco doctrinam catholicam con- 
tradicentium obsidet oppugnatio ; ut fides nostra non otio torpescat, sed exer- 
citiis elimetur. Comp. August. De Civit. Dei xviii. ec. 51. 

* On the different parties in the church of Corinth (which, however, 
caused only schisms 2», but not separations from the church), comp. Schen- 
kel, Dan., de Ecclesia Corinthia primeeva factionibus turbata, Bas. 1838. F. 
Ch. Baur, die Christuspartei. [Meander, History of the Plant. and Train. 
i. p. 268-282. Billroth, Comment. on the Corinth. transl. by Alexander, i. 
Ῥ. 11. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, Cyelop. of Bibl. Lit. sub voce.] With 
respect to the heretics mentioned in the N. T., the attention of critics has | 
chiefly been directed to those alluded to in the Epistle to the Colossians, 
and in the Pastoral Epistles. Concerning the former (were they theosophie 
Jewish Essenes, or Jewish Christians?) comp. Schneckenburger in the appen- 
dix to his treatise on the Proselytentaufe, p. 213. Béhmer, Isagoge in 
Epist. a Paulo ad Coloss. datam, 1829, p. 131. Meander, Apostolische 
Gesch. vol. ii. [History of the Plant. and Train. i, p. 374-381. Alexander, 
W. L., in Kitto, 1. ce. sub voce.] Among the latter, Hymeneus and Philetus 
only are mentioned by name, as denying the doctrine of resurrection, 2 Tim. 
ii. 17,18. [ Burton, 1. c. p. 135, ss. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, |. c. sub 
voce.| But the inquiry relative to the character of these heretics is inti- 
mately connected with the critical examination of the epistles themselves. 
Comp. Baur, F. Ch., die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus, 
aufs neue kritisch untersucht, Stuttg. 1835. On the other side: Baumgar- 
ten, Mich., die Aechtheit der Pastoralbriefe, Berlin, 1837 ; comp. also the 
reply of Baur in his treatise: Ueber den Ursprung des Episcopats, Tüb. 
1838, p. 14, ss. Comp. also Schwegler, 1. ο, and Dietlein, Urchristenthum, 


54 First Perıon. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


[ Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. 6. art. Timothy, Titus. C. Α΄. Scharling, die 
neuesten Untersuchungen über die sogenanten Pastoralbriefe. Aus dem 
Dänischen ubersetzt, Jena, 1845.] Concerning the NMicolaitans, Rev. i. 6, 
15, and those that held the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. ii. 14 (comp. Iren. i. 
26, and the erroneous derivation from Nicholas, Acts vi. 5), see the com- 
mentaries on the Book of Revelation [comp. Davidson, S., in Kitto, 1. ¢.] 
(Ewald, p. 110). Zorrey’s Meander, i. p. 452, ss. History of the Plant. 
and Train. ii. 50. Gieseler, i. 88. Burton, 1. c. Lect. v. p. 145, ss. Zee, 
R., in Kitto, 1. 6. Schaft, p. 671. Stuart, Comm. on the Apoe. il. p. 
62, ss.] 

3 The heresiarch Simon Magus, who is described in the New Testament 
(Acts viii.) as a man of an immoral character, but not as a heretic, is never- 
theless represented by Clem. Al. (Strom. ji. 11, vii. 17), and Orig. (Contra 
Cels. i. p. 57), as the founder of a sect; by Ireneus (Adv. Her. 1. 23, 24), 
and Epiphanius (Her. 21), even as the author of all heresies. Concerning 
his adventures and disputation with Peter, many fictitious stories were current 
among the earlier writers (see the Clementine Homilies, and Justin M#Apol. 
l. c. 56.)—On Simon Magus and the two Samaritans Dositheus and Menander 
(Euseb. iii. 26), comp. Meander, i. 395, 454. [History of the Plant. and 
Train. i. 67-74.— Burton, |. e. Lect. iv. p. 87--118, and note 40; by the same: 
Lectures on the Ecclesiast. Hist. of the First Cent. p. 77, ss. Schaf, 215, 
376, 655. Gieseler, i. 56, § 18, note 8, where the literature is given. Alex- 
ander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. e.]| (Marheineke in Daub’s Studien, |. c. p. 116). 
Dorner says, |, c. p. 144: “ The accounts given of Simon Magus, Menander, 
and Dositheus, who have become almost mythical, at least prove that in Syria 
Gnostic tendencies made their appearance at an early period.” | Volckmar, 
Simon Magus, in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, 2d Heft.] The assertion of 
Hegesippus (Euseb. iii. 32, iv. 22), that the church had not been stained with 
any heresy previous to the time of Trajan (παρθένος καθαρὰ καὶ ἀδιάφθορος 
ἔμεινεν ἡ ἐκκλησία), is not to be understood, as if no heresies at all existed, 
but that, till the death of Simon (a. p. 108), the poison of heresies had not 
penetrated into the church, The judgment of Hegesippus, too, refers to the 
locality of Palestine. Comp. Vatke in Jahrb. f. wiss. Kritik, 1839, s. 9 sq. 
Dorner, u. s. 223. Mangold, Die Irrlehrer d. Pastoralbriefe, 1856, s. 108, ff. 


3 
§ 22. 
JUDAISM AND ETHNICISM. 


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


§ 23. EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS. DocrTa AND Gwostics. 55 


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


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


§ 23, 
EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS. DOCETA AND GNOSTICS. 


Gicseler, von den Nazaräern und Ebioniten, in Stäudlins und Tzschirners Archiv. vol. iv. 
st. 2. Credner, über Essäer und Ebioniten und einen theilweisen Zusammenhang 
derselben (in Winers Zeitschrift für wissenschaft]. Theol. 1827, parts 2 and 3). 
Lange, Lobeg., Beiträge zur altern Kirchengeschichte, Leipzig, 1826, 1st vol. Bawr, De 
Ebionitarum Origine et Doctrina ab Essenis repetenda, Tüb. 1831. Schneckenburger, 
Beiträge zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament, Stuttg. 1832. A. Schiiemann, Die 
Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften und der Ebionitismus, ein Beitrag zur 
Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte der ersten Jahrhunderte, Hamb. 1844. Schwegler, 
ubi supra. A. Hilgenfeld, die Clement. Resognitionen und Homitien. Jena, 1848. 
[Bunsen’s Hippdytus, vol. 3. A. Ritschl, in Allg. Monatsschrift, Jen. 1852. Hilgenfeld, 
in the (Tübingen) Theol. Jahrb. 1854. Clementinorum Epilomze Duce, ex Tischendorf. 
(ed. A. R. H. Dresscl. Lips. 1859. éssel’s Theologische Schriften Bd. i. Clement. 
Homilie, ed. Dressel, 1853.] Schmidt, Cerinth, ein Judaisirender Christ, in his Bib- 
liothek für Kritik und Exegetik, vol. i. p. 181, 55. Paulus, Historia Cerinthi, in In- 
troductio in N. Test. Capit. selectiora, Jen. 1799. Niemeyer, A. H., De Docetis, Hal. 
1823. 4to. Lewald, De Doctrina Gnostica, Heidelberg, 1819. Litcke, F., in the Theo- 
logische Zeitschrift, Berlin, 1820, part 2, p. 132. *Neander, Genet. Entwicklung der 
Vornehmsten Gnostischen Systeme, Berlin, 1818. Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnos- 
ticisme, Paris, 1828, ii. [2d ed. 1840. Güeseler, review of Neander, in the Hall. Lit. 
Zeitung, 1823, and of Matter, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1330. Méhler, Ursprung ἃ. Gnos- 
ticismus, Tüb. 1831. Zutterbeck, Neutest. Lehrbegriffe, B. ii. pp. 3-79.] *Baur, 
Chrisliche Gnosis, oder die Christliche Religionsphilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen 
Entwicklung, Tüb. 1835. [Comp. Gieseler, i. § 43, ss. Neander, i. 344-50, 396-99, 
630. Hase, ἃ 35, 75. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 160-65. Schaf. 
653. Burton, Bampton Lecture, Lect. ii. to be comp. with Potter, J., in Kitto, Cyclop. 
on Gnosticism. Norton, A., on the Genuineness of the Gospels, vols. ii. and iii. 1844. 
The articles in Herzog’s Encyclopedia. Especially Niedner, Kirchengesch. s. 215-257. 
Ritter, Gesch. d. Christ. Phil. i. 109 sq., and Christl. Phil. i. s. 263 sq.] 


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


a 


56 First Periop. THe AGE oF APOLOGETICS. 


fications of the Gnostics.’ Of the latter, some were more sharply op- 
posed to Judaism’, others even returned to Ebionitish errors,” while 
Marcion, who occupied a peculiar position, endeavored to go beyond 
the antagonism between Judaism and heathenism, but, despising all 
historical mediation, he built up a purely imaginary system of Chris- 
tianity.”° 


* On the derivation of Ebionites from 3‘»5x, and their history, comp. Orig. 
Contra Celsum II. toward the commencement; Jrenwus, Adv. Her. I. 26. 
Tert. Pr&scr. Heer. 33, De Carne Christi, c. 14. Zuseb. iv. 27. Epiph. Her. 
29, 30. Hieron, in Matth. viii, 9; xix. 20; (c. 66) xviii. in Jesai.; Cat. Script. 
Eccles. ὁ. 8; and the works on ecclesiast. history. [ Zorrey’s Meander, i. 344. 
Niedner. s 215. Burton, |. e. Lect. vi. p. 183, ss.] Different opinions as to 
the origin of the Ebionites; Schliemann, p. 459, ss. (according to Hegesippus 
in Euseb. III. 32, and IV. 22) dates it after the death of Simeon of Jerusalem, 
According to the school of Tübingen (Schwegler), Ebionitism is as old as 
Christianity. Christ himself was an Ebionite, and Paul took the first step 
beyond Ebionitism. The Judaizing tendency, which was firmly rooted 
in Ebionitism, may indeed be traced back to primitive Christianity: not all 
Christians were, like Paul, able to comprehend the universal character of their 
religion. But this Jewish-Christian tendency existed for some time, along with 
the ‘Pauline, as amore imperfect form of Christianity, without being mil 
as heresy. But having once been out-flanked by the freer spirit of m Pauline 
doctrine,* it had either gradually to wear out (its adherents withering into a 
Jewish sect), or to grow rank, blended with other (Gnostic) elements (as was 
the case with the Ebionitism of the Clementine Homilies, comp. note 5). 
The former kind of Ebionitism has been called “vulgar Ebionitism.” Its ad- 
herents were characterized by their narrow attachment to Jewish tradition, 
seeking to impose the yoke of the law upon Christians, and this prevented 
them from forming a higher idea of Christ than that involved in the Jewish 
conception of the Messiah. Accordingly, when they declared Jesus to be the 
son of Joseph and Mary, this opinion did not proceed (as in the case of the 
Artemonites, § 24), from a rationalistic source, but had its root in their 
spiritual poverty and narrow-mindedness. With their Jewish notions con- 
cerning the law and the Messiah would accord the sensual, millennial expecta- 
tions of which Jerome (I. ὁ. but no other writer) accuses them, 

> Origen (Contra Cels. v. Opp. 1. p. 625) mentions two different kinds of 
Ebionites, of whom the one class approached the orthodox doctrine of the 
church more nearly than the other. These more moderate Ebionites were 
for a long time held to be the same, to whom Jerome and Epiphanius give 
the name Nazarenes, which was earlier applied to all Christians. They 
taught that the law (circumcision in particular) was obligatory on Jewish 
Christians only, and believed Jesus to be the son of the Virgin, though a 
mere man; of course they rejected his pre-existence. Comp. the treatise of 


* “Orthodoxy, when surpassed by the culture of the age, and deserted by public opinion, 
becomes heresy.”—Hase. And since there is no standing still, it is natural to infer that 
Ebionitism became retrograde, in the direction of Judaism. Dorner, ubi supra, p. 304, sq. 


§ 23. EBIONITES AND CeRINTHUS. DoceTa AND GNostics. 57 


Gieseler, |, c. | Burton, |. c. p. 184]. According to the most recent researches 
(of Schliemann), however, the Nazarenes were never brought into the same 
class with the Ebionites, and Origen’s distinction refers only to the difference 
between the common and the Gnostic Ebionites (comp. note 5). Different 
are the opinions of Schwegler, Nachapostolische Zeitalter, p. 179, ss., and 
Dorner, 1. ec. 301, ss. According to Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 
179 sq.), the position of the Nazarenes was only “the earliest primitive stage 
of development of Ebionitism.” He, as well as Hilgenfeld (1. 0.) rejects the 
distinction made by Schliemann. It is simplest, with Dorner (ubi supra, ἡ 
p. 301 sq.), to assume that the Ebionites degenerated into Judaism, and thus 
became heretical Nazarenes (Jewish Christians), 

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

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

° As Cerinthus blended Gnostic elements with Jewish notions, so did that 
section of the Ebionites represented in the Clementine Homilies (7. e., homi- 
lies of the Apostle Peter, which are said to have been written by Clement 
of Rome). Comp. Neander’s Appendix to his work on the Gnostic systems, 
and Church History (Torrey), i. 353, 395. [Zardner, N., Works, ii. 376, 
377. Norton, |. c. ii. note B. p. xxiii.-xxxvii.] Baur, Gnosis, p. 403, and 
App. p. 760, and his programme referred to above. ‚Schenkel, however, has 
broached a different opinion in his Dissert. (cited $ 21, note 2), according to 
which the Clementine tendency would belong, not to the Judaizing, but to 
a rationalizing Monarchian tendency (comp. $ 24) in Rome (comp. Liicke’s 
review in the Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 1838, parts 50 and 51, and 
Schliemann, u. s. p. 357 sq.) Dorner, |. 6. p. 324, ss. gives a striking 
description of this tendency, which passes over from Judaism into Paganism. 
The investigations upon the Clementina are by no means concluded: comp. 
Hilgenfeld, ubi supra, where, too, in the Introduction, is a review of what 
has thus far been done. 

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


58 First Periop. Tur AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


opposed, and probably even the Apostle John (1 John i. 1-3; ii. 22; iv. 2, 
ss., 2 John 7; on the question whether he also alludes to them in the pro- 
logue to his gospel, comp. Zücke, ]. e.) may be considered as the rude fore- 
runners of the Gnostics ; for, although they have the general Gnostic character, 
yet the Docetze are sometimes spoken of as a special Gnostic sect; Baur, in 
his Christ. ἃ. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 207. [Burton, 1. e. Lect. vi. p. 158, ss.] 
The Docetz form the most decided contrast with the Ebionites, so far as 
this, that they not only maintain (in opposition to them) the divinity of 
Christ, but also volatilize his human nature, to which the Ebionites were 
exclusively attached, into a mere phantasm (denying that he possessed 
a real body). Ebionitism (Nazareism) and Docetism form, according to 
Schleiermacher (Glaubenslehre, vol. i. p. 124), natural heresies, and complete 
each other, as far as this can be the case with one-sided opinions; but they 
quite as easily pass over the one to the other. Comp. Dorner, Geschichte 
der Christologie, p. 349, ss. 

τ What Docetism did in the doctrine concerning Christ alone, the more 
completely developed system of Gnosticism carried out, in its whole spiritualiz- 
ing tendency, into the extreme most opposed to Judaizing Ebionitism. It not 
only contains docetic elements (comp. the Christology in the special History 
of Doctrines), but in its relation to the Old Test. it possesses a character 
more or less antinomian, and in its eschatology it is adverse to millennarian- 
ism. It opposes the spiritualistic to the literal, the idealistic to the realistic. 
To resolve history into myths, to dissipate positive doctrines by speculation, 
and thus to make an aristocratic distinction between those who only believe, 
and those who know, to overrate knowledge, especially that which is ideal 
and speculative (γνῶσις) in religion—these are the principal features of 
Gnosticism. On the different usages of γνῶσις in a good and a bad sense 
(γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος), γνωστής, γνωστικός.) comp. Suicer, Thesaurus. 
Sources: Treneus Adv. Her. (i. 29, ii.) Tertullian Adv. Marcion. lib. v; 
Adv. Valentinianos ; Scorpiace contra Gnosticos. Clem. Al. Strom. in differ- 

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


§ 23. EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS. DocET& and GNostıcs. 59 


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

[Hilgenfeld on Basilides, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1856, and Baur, ibid. 1856. 
J. L. Jacobi, Basilidis. . . . Sententie ex Hippolyti libro, Berol. 1852. 
Pistis Sophia, Opus Gnosticum Valentino adjudicatum 6, codice MS. Coptico 

. ed. J. H. Petermann, Berol. 1852; comp. Köstlin in Theol. Jahrb, 
1854. Colorbasus-Gnosis (the Valentinian Kol-arbas), Volkmar in Zeit- 
schrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855. On Bardesanes, in Cureton’s Spicilegium 
Syriac. see Journal of Sacred Lit. 1856. Die Philosophumena und die Pe- 
raten, (Ophites), R. Baxmann in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1860. On the 
general subject comp. Bunsen’s Hippolytus, and especially Miedner, in his 
Gesch. d. Kirche, 5. 217-253. Niedner’s division is the best: 1. Most nu- 
merous (in Valentinus and others) ; Christianity has the primacy, but other 
religions, Jewish and heathen, are different degrees of the development of the 
true religion. 2. (Marcion) Christianity sundered from its historical con- 
nections; the only revelation. 3. A syncretism, identifying heathenism and 
Christianity (Carpocrates), or Judaism and heathenism (the Clementina). 
Gnosticism is an attempt at a philosophy of religion, identifying the history 
of the world and the history of religion. Comp. Neander’s Dogmengesch, 
i, 43-59. | 

® Comp. Dorner, I. i. p. 391, ss. 

10 Ibid. p. 381, ss. [Ritschl, ἃ. Evang. Marcions, 1847: Volckmar, cf. 
Gersdorf Rep. 1852. Franck, ἃ. Evang. M. in Stud. n. Kritiken, 1855. 
Hilgenfeld, Das Apostolikon Marcions, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1855.] 


60 First Period. THe AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


§ 24. ; 
MONTANISM AND MONARCHIANISM. 


Wernsdorf, de Montanistis, Gedani, 1751, 4. Kirchner, de Montanistis, Jen, 1852. 
* Heinichen. de Alogis, Theodotianis, Artemonitis, Lips. 1829. A. Ritschl, Entstehung 
der altkath, Kirche. Bonn. 1850, 5. 176 sq. F. C. Baur, Das Wesen des Mont. in 
Zeller’s Jahrb. 1851. Gieseler, Hyppolytus, die Monarchianer, und d. romische 
Kirche, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853. Schwegler, F. C., der Montanismus und die christ- 
liche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Tüb. 1841-8. [Neander, Hist. of the Church, 
i, 509 sq,575sqg. Hase, $67. Niedner, 253 sq.] 


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


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


§ 24. Monranism AND MONARCHIANISM. 61 


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

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

3 Theodotus, a worker in leather (ὁ σκυτεὺς) from Byzantium, who resided 
at Rome about the year 200, maintained that Christ (though born of a Virgin) 
was merely a man; and was excommunicated by the Roman bishop, Victor, 
Euseb. v.28. Theodoret, Fab. Hier. 11. 5. Epiph. Heeret. 54 (ἀπόσπασμα τῆς 
ἀλόγου αἱρέσεως). He must not be confounded with another Theodotus 
(τραπεζίτης), who was connected with a party of the Gnostics, the Melchise- 
dekites. Theodor. Fab. Heer. II. 6. Dorner, p. 505, ss. Artemon (Artemas) 


62 First Period. THe AGE or APOLOGETICS. 


charged the successor of Victor, the Roman bishop Zephyrinus, with having 
corrupted the doctrine of the church, and smuggled in the doctrine of the 
divinity of Christ. Comp. Meander, i. 580. See § 45, below. Heinichen, 
l. c. p. 26, 27. | Burton, Lectures on the Ecclesiast. Hist. of the Second and 
Third Cent. (Works, vol. v.) p. 211, ss. 236, ss. 265, ss. 387, and Bampton 
Lect. Notes 100 and 101.] The prevailing rationalistic tendency of this sect 
(Pseudo-Rationalism) may be seen from Euseb. 1. c. (Heinichen, ii. p. 139). 
Οὐ τί αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες ἀλλ᾽ ὁποῖον σχῆμα συλλογισμοῦ 
εἴς τὴν τῆς ἀθεότητος εὑρεθῇ σύστασιν, φιλοπόνως ἀσκοῦντες. . . 
καταλιπόντες δὲ τὰς ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ γραφὰς, γεωμετρίαν ἐπιτηδεύουσιν, ὡς 
ἂν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὄντες καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενον 
ἀγνοοῦντες. The homage they rendered to Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, 
and Galen, ὅς towe ὑπό τινων Kal προςκυνεῖται. 

* Praxeas, from Asia Minor, had gained under Marcus Aurelius the repu- 
tation of a confessor of Christianity, but was charged by Tertullian with 
Patripassianism, and combated by him. Tertull. Advers. Praxeam. lib. IL 
[translated in the Christ. Examiner, Boston, 1843, No. 119]. Noetus, at 
Smyrna, about the year 230, was opposed by Hippolytus on account of similar 
opinions. Hippol. contra Heresin Noöti. Theodoret. Fab. Her. iii. 3. Epiph. 
Her. 57.—As to Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, whom Origen com- 
pelled to recant, Euseb. vi. 33; comp. Ullmann, de Beryllo Bostreno, Hamb. 


1835, 4. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, part 4, p. 1073 (comp. $ 42 and 46).. 


[Praxeas in Neander, i. 513, 525. Burton, |. ὁ. p. 221, ss. 234, ss. Noétus 
in Meander, i. 584. Burton, |. e. p. 312, 364.—Beryllus in Meander, i. 593. 
Burton, 1. ec. p. 312, 313. Schleiermacher on the above in his Essay on 
Sabellianism, transl. in Am. Bibl. Repos. i. 322-339; cf. his Kirchengesch. 
131 sq. 154. Baur, Dreieinigkeit, 1. 132-341, and in the Jahrb. f. Theologie, 
1845. Bunsen’s Hippolytus. | 


a 


§ 25. 
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 


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


» 


- . 


§ 26. Tue THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 63 


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


* On the term catholic in opposition to heretic, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub 
voce καθολικός. comp. ὀρθόδοξος, ὀρθοδοξία. Bingham, Origg. Eccles, i. 1, 
sect. 7. Vales, ad Euseb. vii. 10. Tom. ii. p. 333: Ut vera et genuina 
Christi ecclesia ad adulterinis Hereticorum ceetibus distingueretur, catholice 
cognomen soli Orthodoxorum ecclesiz attributum est.—Concerning the nega- 
tive and practical, rather than theoretical, character of earlier orthodoxy, see 
Marheineke (in Daub und Creuzer) 1. ὁ. p. 140, ss. 

* This was the case, 6. g., with Origen, who now and then shows sobriety 
of understanding along with Gnostic speculation. On the manner in which 
the philosophizing Fathers were able to reconcile gnosis with paradosis (dis- 
ciplina arcani), comp. Marheineke, |, c. p. 170. 


§ 26. 
THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 


Steiger, De la Foi de l’Eglise Primitive d’aprés les Ecrits des premiers Péres, in the 
Mélanges de Theologie Réformée, edited by himself and Hävernick, Paris, 1833, 1er 
cahier. [Bennet, J., The Theology of the Early Christian Church, exhibited in Quota- 
tions from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, Lond. 1842.] Dorner, 1. c., 
Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Apostolischen Väter; 
Untersuchung über Inhalt und Ursprung der unter ihrem Namen erhaltenen Schriften, 
Halle, 1853. [Patrum Apostol. Opera, ed. Dressel, Leipz. 1856. J. Chevallier, Epist. 
of Clem. Rom., Ign. ete. 2d ed. Lond. 1851. Norton’s Genuineness Gospels, vol. i. 
Note F. pp. cexxxix.-celxxi. J. H. B. Lübkert, Theol. d. Apost. Vater, in Zeitschrift 
Ε d. Hist. Theol. 1854. Hilgenfeld, Das Urchristenthum, in Zeitschrift Ἢ wiss. Theol. 
1858. E. de Pressensé, Hist. des trois premiers Siécles de l’Eglise Chrétienne, 2. Paris, 
1858. J. J. Blunt, Lectures on Study of Early Fathers, 2d ed. 1856; διά. Right Use 
of Fathers, 1858. Ginoulhiac, Hist. du Dogme Cathol. dans les trois prem. Siécles, 
2. Paris, 1850. R. Reuss, Hist. de la Théol. Chrét. 2. 1853, 2d ed. 1860. itschl, Die 
Altkath. Kirche, 2d ed. 1857. Joh. Huber, Phil. ἃ. Kirchen Vater, 1859. Abbe Frepel, 
Les Péres Apostoliques et leur Epoque, Paris, 1859.] 


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


64 First Periop. THe AGE oF APOLOGETICS. 


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


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

1. Barnabas, known as the fellow-laborer of the Apostle Paul from Acts 
iv. 36 (Joses); ix. 27, etc. On the epistle ascribed to him, in which is 
shown a strong tendency to typical and allegorical interpretations— 
though in a very different spirit from, e. g., the canonical Epistle-to the 
Hebrews—comp. Henke, Ern., De Epistole que Barnabe tribuitur Au- 
thentia, Jen, 1827. Rérdam, De Authent. Epist. Barnab, Hafn. 1828 
(in favor of its genuineness). Ullmann, Studien and Kritiken, 1828, 
part 2. Hug, Zeitschrift für das Erzbisth. Freiburg, part 2, p. 132, ss., 
part 3, p. 208, ss. Zwesten, Dogmatik, i. p. 101. Meander, i. p, 657, 
against it: “a very different spirit breathes throughout it from that of an 
apostolical writer.” Bleek, Einleitung in den Brief an die Hebräer, p. 
416, note (undecided). Schenkel, in the Studien u. Kritiken, x. p. 652 
(adopting a middle course, and considering one part as genuine and an- 
other as interpolated); and on the other side [ Hefele, €. T., Das Sends- 
chreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs Neue untersucht, übersetzt und 
erklärt. Tüb. 1840.—Zardner, N., Works, II. p. 17-20; iv. 105-108; 
v. 269-275 (for its authenticity). Cave, W., Lives of the most eminent 
Fathers of the Church, Oxf. 1840, 1. p. 90-105. Burton, Lect. on the 
Ecclesiast. History of the First Cent. (Works, iv. p. 164, 343 (against it). 
Davidson, S., Sacred Hermeneutics, Edinb, 1843, p. 71 (for it). Ryland, 
J. £., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter. art. Barnabas (against it). [Wil- 
liam Lee, Discourses on the Inspiration of Holy Scrip. repr. New York, 
1857, Appendix E.] 

2. Hermas (Rom. xvi. 14), whose ποιμήν (Shepherd) in the form of visions 
enjoyed a hish reputation in the second half of the second century, and 
was even quoted as Scripture (γραφή). Some critics ascribe the work 
in question to a later Hermas (Hermes), brother of the Roman bishop, 
Pius I., who lived about the year 150. Comp. Gratz, Disqu. in Past. 
Herm. Part I. Bonn, 1820, 4. Jachmann, Der Hirte des Hermas. 
Königsb. 1835. “ The immense difference between the apostolical writ- 
ings and the immediate post-apostolic literature is more apparent in the 
work of Hermas than in any other ;” Schliemann, Clement. s. 421. 
Schwegler, in his Nachapost. Zeitalter, s. 328, sq., judges differently. 
Comp. Dorner, s. 185, sq. There is a variety of opinion about the re- 
lation of this work to Montanism, Ebionitism, and the Elcesaites; cf. 

Uhlhorn, in Herzog’s Realwörterb. On the manuscript discovered by 
Simonides, and published by Anger and Dindorf, 1856, see Uhlhorn, 


§ 26. Tue THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 65 


u. 5. Comp. below, Note 6. [Dressel’s edition, after Tischendorf, 1856. 
On these editions, compare Gersdorf’s, Leipz. Repert. Jan. and Aug. 
1856. Dindorf, in Gersdorf, 1856, and Jan. 1857. Hegemann, Der 
Hirt des Hermas, in the Theol. Quartalshrift, 1860. Anger, on the 
Zöthiopean version of Hermas, in Gersdorf’s Rep. Oct. 1858. Comp. 
Neander, p. 660. Lardner, iv. 97, 98, etc. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, |. c. 
Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, I. p. 113-121, where an outline 
of the whole work is given.] 

Clement of Rome (according to some the fellow-laborer of Paul, men- 
tioned Phil. iv. 3), one of the earliest bishops of Rome (Iren. iii. 3, Eu- 
seb. iii. 2, 13, 15). The first epistle to the Corinthians, ascribed to him, 
is of dogmatic importance in relation to the doctrine of the resurrection. 
Editions: Clementis Romani que feruntur Homil, xx. nune primum in- 
tegre, ed. Alb. R. M. Dressel, Gott. 1853. Comp. R. A. Lipsius, De 
Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. priore, Lips. 1855. [E. Ecker, Disquisitio—de 
Cl. Rom. prior. ad Rom. Epist. Traj. ad Rhenum. 1853.] The so-called 
second epistle is a fragment, probably by another (Ebionite?) author. 
[Zardner, 1. e. ii. 33-35.] Comp. also Schneckenburger, Evangel. der 
ZEgypter, p. 3, 13, ss. 28, ss. Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, p. 
449; on the other side, Dorner, Ὁ. 143. In the dogmatic point of view, 
those writings would be of greatest importance, which are now univer- 
sally considered as supposititious, viz., the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
(ὁμιλίαι Kinuevroc, cf. § 23), the Recognitiones Clementis (avayvopıo- 
μοὶ), the Constitutiones Apostolic, and the Canones Apostolici; on the 
latter, comp. Arabbe, über den Ursprung und Inhalt der Apostol. Con- 
stit. des Clemen. Rom, Hamb, 1829; and ¢Drey, neue Untersuchungen 
über die Constitutiones und Canones der Apostol. ΤῸ. 1832. Uhlhorn, 
Die Homilien u. Recognitionen des Clem. Rom. Götting. 1854. [Hilgen- 
‚Feld, Kritische Untersuchungen, 1850. Z. Gundert, in Zeitschrift f. d. 
Luth, Theol. 1853, 4. W. Cureton, Syriac version of Clem. Recogni- 
tions, Lond. 1849. G, Volekmar, Clem. von Rom. und d. nächste Folge- 
zeit, in Theol. Jahrb. 1856. Clem, Rom. Epistolee Bine de Virginitate, 
ed. J. T. Beele, Lovan. 1856, comp. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1856. Nean- 
der, i. 658. Lardner, ii. p. 29-35; 364-378. Burton, |. c. p. 342-344. 
Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, 1. e. art. Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers. ] 


. Ignatius (0eoböpoc), bishop of Antioch, concerning whose life comp. 


Euseb, iii. 36. On his journey to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom 
under Trajan (116), he is said to have written seven epistles to different 
churches (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna), and 
to Polycarp, which are extant in two recensions, the one longer, the 
other shorter. On their genuineness, and the relation of the longer to 
the shorter, comp. J. Pearson, Vindicie epp. 8. Ign. Cant. 1672 [new 
edition by Archdeacon Churton, in Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol. 2 vols. 
8vo. 1852, with preface and notes adapted to the present state of the 
controversy]. J. Δ΄. Ch. Schmidt, Die doppelte Recension der Briefe 
des Ign. (Henke’s Magazin. iii. p. 91, ss). A. Meier, Die doppelte Re- 
cension der Briefe des Ignat. (Stud. und Kritiken, 1836, part 2). Rothe. 
Die Anfänge der Christlichen Kirche, Witt. 1837. Arndt, in Studien 
, 5 


66 


First Period. ΤῊΝ AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


und Kritiken, 1839, p. 136. Baur, Tübinger Zeitschrift, 1838, part 3, 
p- 148. Huther, Betrachtung der wichtigsten Bedenken gegen die 
Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe, in Zllgen’s Zeitschrift für historische 
Theolog. 1841-4. Comp. $ 23. Ch. Düsterdieck, Que de Ignatianarum 
Epp. Authentia, duorumque Textuum Ratione hucusque prolate sunt 
enarruntur, Götting. 1843, 4to.—The whole investigation has entered 
into a new stadium in consequence of the discovery of a Syriac version, 
by W. Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Ep. of S. Ignatius, 
etc., Lond. 1845. Comp. C. C. J. Bunsen, Die Drei ächten und die 
vier unächten Briefe des Ign. 4to. Hamb, 1847; ibid. Ignat. von Antioch, 
u. seine Zeit. Sieben Sendschreiben an Neander, 4to. Hamb. 1847, 
Against Bunsen, F. C. Baur, Die Ignat. Briefe, Tab, 1848. On the 
Catholic side, G. Denzinger, Die Echtheit des Textus der Ign. Briefe, 
Wiirzb. 1849. Against the genuineness, Vancher, Recherches Critiques, 
Gott. 1856. Latest Editions: J. H. Petermann, Lps. 1849; Corpus 
Ignatianum, by William Cureton, 4to. Berl. 1849. Most important for 
the History of Doctrines is the polemic against the Docete (ef. § 23, 
and Dorner, p.’145). [W. Cureton, Vindicie Ignatiane, the genuine 
Writings of Ign. vindicated against the charge of Heresy, Lond. 1846. 
Comp. the discussion in Hilgenfeld’s Apostol. Vater., and Uhlhorn on 
the Relation of the Greek to the Syriac Recension in Zeitschrift f. d. 
Hist. Theol. 1851, epitomised in the Theol. Critic, 1852. Weiss, in 
Reuter’s Repertorium, Sept. 1852, and in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1859 
(Nov.). R. A. Lipsius, in the Zeitschrift f. ἃ, Hist. Theologie, 1856, 
condensed in the Journal for Sacred Lit. (Lond.), 1857; Die Zeitschrift 
f. Luth. Theologie, 1848 and 1852. See also articles in the Quarterly 
(Lond.), 1851; the Church Review (New Haven), 1849 ; the Edinburg 
Review, 1849; the British Quarterly, 1856; the Christian Remem- 
brancer, 1857. On the Epistles of Ignatius among the Armenians, see 
Neumann, Gesch. d. Arm. Lit. s. 73 sq.] 


. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, according to tradition a disciple of the 


Apostle John, suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius (169). Comp. 
Euseb. iv. 15. One of his epistles to the Philippians is yet extant, but 
only a part of it in the original Greek. Comp. Wocher die Briefe der 
apost. Väter Clemens und Polycarp, mit Einleitung und Commentarien, 
Tübingen, 1830. [Zardner, ii. p. 94-109. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, |. ¢.] 


. Papies (σφόδρα σμικρὸς Gv τὸν νοῦν, Euseb, iii, 39), bishop of Hiera- 


polis in the first half of the second century, of whose treatise λογίων 
κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις we have only fragments in Euseb, 1. c. and Irenzeus 
(v. 53). As a millennarian he is of some importance for eschatology, 
[Fragments of Papias in Lardner’s Credibility, vol. ii. ; supposed frag- 
ments in Spicileg. Solesmense, i. ] 


Complete editions of the writings of the Apostolical Fathers: * Patrum, . 


qui temporibus Apostolorum floruerunt, Opp. ed. Cotelerius, Par. 1672, 
rep. Clericus, Amst. 1698,,1724, 2, T. f. Patrum App. Opp. genuina, 
ed. B. Russel, Lond. 1746, ii. 8. Clementis Romani, S. Ignatii, S. 
Polycarpi, patrum apostolicorum que supersunt, accedunt S. Ignatii et 
S. Polycarpi martyria, ed. @uil. Jacobson, Oxon, 1838 [3d ed. 1847.] 


§ 26. Tue THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 67 


J. L. Frey, Epistole Sanctorum Patrum Apostolicorum Clementis, 
Ignatii et Polycarpi, atque duorum posteriorum Martyria, Bas. 1742, 8. 
Patrum Apostolorum Opera, textum ex editt. preestantt. repetitum 
recognovit, brevi annotat. instruxit et in usum prelect academicar edid. 
+70. J. Hefele, Tüb. 1839, 4th ed. 1856. Comp. Codex N. T. deuter- 
onomius s. Patres Apostolici, rec. ed. De Muralto, vol. i. (Barnabee et 
Clementis Epistole) Tur. 1847. Patrum apostol. Opera ed. A. R. M. 
Dressel, accedit Herm& Pastor, ex. frag. greecis, auctore C. Tischendorf, 
Lips. 1857. J/ttig, Bibl. Patr. apost. Lips. 1690, 8. [ Wake, Arch- 
bishop, the genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, transl. Lond. 
1737, 7th ed. 1840, New York, 1810. W. Chevallier, Epist. of Apost. 
Fathers, and Apolog. of Just. Mart. and Tertull., translated 1822; 2d 
ed. 1851.] 

As to the extent to which we can speak of a theology of the Apostolical 
Fathers, 5, Bawmgarten-Crusius, 1, Ὁ. 81, note. It is certain that some 
of them e. g., Hermas, entertained notions which were afterward re- 
jected as heterodox, The older divines, and those of the Roman 
Catholic church in particular, endeavored to evade this difficulty by 
calling those doctrines archdisms, in distinction from heresies.* 

* Justin Martyr (born about the year 89, died 176), of Sychem (Flavia 
Neapolis) in Samaria, a philosopher by vocation, who even after he had 
had become a Christian, retained the τρίβων, made several missionary jour- 
neys, and suffered martyrdom, probably at the instigation of the philosopher 
Crescens. His two Apologies are of special importance; the first designed 
for Antoninus Pius, the second probably for Marcus Aurelius (yet the num- 
bering varies, see Meander, i. 665, and Semisch, ubi supra, p. 911). He is 
the first ecclesiastical writer whose works manifest an acquaintance with 
the Grecian philosophy (in which he had formerly sought in vain for the 
full truth and peace of mind.) Though he is anxious to prove the superi- 
ority of the religion of Christ, and even of the Old Testament dispensation, 
to the systems of philosophers (by showing that the latter derive their views 
from Moses), he also perceives something divine in the better portion of the 
Gentile world. It must, however, be admitted that the tone prevailing in 
the apologies is much more liberal than that which is found in the Cohorta- 
tio and Graecos (παραινετικὸς πρὸς "EAAnvac). Meander, i. 666, is there- 
fore inclined to consider the latter as spurious, on account of the hard terms 
in which paganism is spoken of, and Mohler (Patrologie, p. 225) agrees with 
him. Yet the state of mind in which the author wrote his apologies would natu- 
rally be very different from that in which he composed a controversial treatise, 
especially if, as Neander suggests, the latter was written at a later period of 


* Tt is certain that Pseudo-Dionysius, whom some writers number among the Apostol- 
ical Fathers, belongs to a later period. On the other side, Mohler and Hefele reckon the 
author of the Epistle to Diognetus among the Apostolical Fathers, which was formerly 
ascribed to Justin. Hefele, PP. App. p. 125. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 164; Kleine Schriften, 
i. p. 19, On the other side: Semisch, Justin M. p. 186. [Comp. Just. M. Ep. ad Diogn. 
ed. Hoffmann, 1851, and Otto’s review in Gersdorf’s Rep. 1852. ‘Translation of this 
Epistle in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1852, and in the Princeton Rep. 1853.] 

+ On his philosophical tendency, see Schleiermacher, 1. c. p. 155. 


68 First Periop. THe AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


his life. These writings, as well as the doubtful λόγος πρὸς *EAAnvac 
(Oratio ad Grzecos) and the ’EmioroAn πρὸς Διόγνητον falsely ascribed to 
Justin M. (see note p. 67), and also the treatise περὶ μοναρχίας consisting 
in great part of Greek excerpts, set the relative position of Christianity and 
Paganism in a clear light. The Dialogus cum Tryphone Judzeo has refer- 
ence to Judaism, which it opposes on its own grounds; its genuineness was 
doubted by Wetstein and Semler, but without sufficient reason, comp. Nean- 
der, 1. 668, ss. The principal edition is that published by the Benedictines 
under the care of *Prud. Maran, Paris, 1742, which also includes the writ- 
ings of the following three authors, along with the (insignificant) satire of 
Hermias. Otto’s edition, 1846, iii. see $ 14, note 1 A. Comp. Justin Martyr, 
his Life, Writings, and Doctrines, by Carl Semisch. Transl. by J. £. Ryland, 
Edin, 1844. [ZLardner, ii. p. 126-128, 140, 141.] Otto, de Justini Martyris 
scriptis et doctrina commentatio, Jen. 1841. Schwegler, nachapostolisches 
Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. [John Kaye, bp. of Lincoln, Some Account of the 
Opinions and Writings of Just. M., 2d ed. A. Kayser, De Doctrina Just. M. 
1850. Volckmar, Ueber Just. M. 1853, and Die Zeit Just. M. in Theol. 
Jahrb. 1855. Hilgenfeld, ibid. 1852. The Oratio and Gr&cos, not by Just. 
Nolte in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1860. Prof. Stowe, Sketch of Just. M. in 
Bib, Sacra, 1852. W. Reeves, Transl. of the Apologies, with those of Ter- 
tullian and Minucius Felix, ete., 2 vols. Lond. 1716; H. Browne’s of the 
Dial. cum Tryphone, Lond, 1755. Just. M.’s Opinions in A. Lamson’s 
Church of first Three Cent. pp. 1-68, Boston, 1860. | 

® Tatian (Dorner, i., 437, calls him “the Assyrian Tertullian”), a disciple 
of Justin M., became afterward the leader of those Gnostics who are called 
the Encratites. In his work entitled: λόγος πρὸς “EAAnvac (Ed. Worth, 
Oxon. 1700), he defends the “philosophy of the barbarians” against the 
Greeks. Comp. Daniel, H. A., Tatianus der Apologet, ein Beitrag zur 
Dogmengeschichte. Halle, 1837, 8vo. [NVeander, i., 672. Lardner, ii. p. 
147-150. Otto’s Corpus Apologet. 1851. Transl. by Dr. Giles, Lond. 1837.] 

* Little is known of the personal history of Athenagoras, who was born at 
Athens in the last half of the second century. Comp. however, Clarisse, De 
Athenagor& Vita, Scriptis, Doctrina, Lugd. 1819, 4, and Mohler, 1. c. p. 267. 
His works are: Legatio pro Christianis (πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν) and the 
treatise: De Resurrectione Mortuorum. [| Zardner, ii. p. 193-200. Torrey’s 
Neander, 1., 78 and 673. J. C. Otto in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1856; 
his Supplicatio, ed. by L. Paul, Hal. 1856; works in Otto Corpus Apolog. 
vol. vil.; translated in full in Giles’ Writings of Christ. of Second Century, 
Lond. 1837.) 

5 Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (170-180). The work which he wrote 
against Autolycus : περὶ τῆς τῶν Χρίστιανῶν πίστεως, manifests a less 
liberal spirit, but also displays both genius and power as a controversialist. 
Réssler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, i. p. 218, numbers it among the most 
worthless works of antiquity, and Hase calls it a narrow-minded controversial 
writing, while Möhler praises its excellencies. There is a German translation 
of it with notes by 7’hienemann. Leipz. 1834. [Edition by J. J. Humphrey, 
Lond. 1852. On his use of the N. Test. see Otto in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. 
Theol. 1859. ] 


$ 26. ΤῊΝ THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 69 


® Ecclesiastical writers vary in their opinions concerning the period in which 
Minucius Felix lived. Van Hoven, Rössler, Russwurm, and Heinrich Meier, 
(Commentatio de Minucio Felice, Tur. 1824), suppose him to have been con- 
temporary with the Antonines. Tzschirner (Geschichte de Apologetik, i. p. 
257-282), thinks that he lived at a later time (about 224-230) ; this seems 
to be the more correct opinion. Comp. Hieron, Cat. Script. c. 53, 58. 
Lactant. Inst. v.1. A comparison of the treatise of Minucius, entitled Octavius, 
with the Apology of Tertuilian, and with the work of Cyprian, De Idolorum 
Vanitate, favors the view that he wrote after the former, but before the latter. 
This work of Cyprian appears in some parts to be a copy of the writing of 
Minucius ; that of Tertullian bears the marks of an original. The dialogue 
between Ceecilius and Octavius is of importance in the history of apologetics, 
as it touches upon all the objections which we find separately treated by 
the other apologists, and adds some new ones. In his doctrinal opinions, 
Minucius is distinguished by a liberal, Hellenistic manner of thinking; but 
his views are less decidedly Christian than might well be wished. We seek 
almost in vain in his book for direct christological ideas. ditions : Edit. 
princeps by Balduin, 1560 ; before this, considered as the 8th book of 
Arnobius. Since that time, editions by Hlmenhorst (1612), Cellarius (1699), 
Davisius (1707), Ernesti (1773), Russwurm (with Introduct. and Notes, 
1824), Zübkert (with Translation and Commentary, Leipz. 1836.) [The 
Octavius of Minucius Felix, ed. by Rev. H. A. Holden, Oxf. 1853. Earlier 
English versions, James, Oxf. 1636; Combe, 1703 ; Reeves, 1719 (in “Apol- 
ogies of Fathers”) ; Dalrymple, Edinb. 1781. Edition in Gersdorf’s Biblio- 
theca, vol. xii., xiii.] . 

7 Irenceus, a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Lyons, about the year 177, 
died in the year 202, “a clear-headed, considerate, philosophical theologian” 
(Hase, Guericke). Except a few letters and fragments, his principal work 
alone is extant, viz., five books against the Gnostics: "EAeyxoc καὶ ἀνατροπὴ 
τῆς ψευδωνύμου γυώσεως ; the first book only has come down in the original 
language, the greater part of the remaining four books is now known only 
in an old Latin translation. The best editions are those of Grabe, Oxon. 1702, 
and * Massuet, Paris, 1710; Venet. 1734, *47. A. Stieren, Lips. 1848. 
Comp. Euseb. v. 4, 20-26. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 330. [Meander, i., 671. 
Davidson, 1. c. p. 83, ss. Lardner, i. p. 165-193. Burton, v. p. 185, and 
passim. Bennett, 1. c. 28-33.] Duncker, des heil. Irenzeus Christologie, im 
Zusammenhange mit dessen theologischen und anthropologischen Grundleh- 
ren, Gött. 1843. Comp. also what Dorner says concerning him, ii. 1, p. 
465. [The best edition of Irenzeus, by W. W. Harvey, 2 vols. Cambr. 1857. 
Schaff’s Kirchenfreund, 1852, on Iren®us;- Béhringer’s Kirchengesch. in 
Biographieen, i. Supposed fragments in Spieileg. Solesm. 1. 1852. Life and 
Writings of I., Eclectic (Lond.) Sept. 1854. J. Beaven, Account of Life and 
Writings of St. Iren. Lond. 1841. Hüber’s Phil. der. Kirchenväter, 1859, 
pp. 73-100.] 

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


70 First Periop. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


und Einleitung in dessen Schriften, Berlin, 1825, 2d ed. 1849, especially the 
striking characteristic which he there gives of Tertullian, p. 28 of first edition, 
cf. p. 9 and following of the new ed., and Neander’s Hist. i., 683, Torrey’s 
translation). Münter, Primordia Ecclesize Africane, Havn. 1829,4. Hessel- 
berg, Tertullian’s Lehre, aus seinen Schriften, Gotha. 1851.) * A gloomy, 
fiery character, who conquered for Christianity out of the Punie Latin a 
literature, in which ingenious rhetoric, a wild imagination, a gross, sensuous 
perception of the ideal, profound feeling, and a juridical understanding, 
struggle with each other.” (Hase). Gfrörer calls him the Tacitus of early 
Christianity. “ Notwithstanding his hatred against philosophy, Tertullian is 
certainly not the worst of Christian thinkers.” Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 
218 ; compare his further characteristics, ibid. His declaration: “ ratio 
autem divina in medulla est, non in superficie” (De Ressurrec. c. 3), may 
give us the key to many of his strange assertions, and to his remarkably 
concise style (quot paene verba, tot sententia, Vine. Lir, in comm, 1). Of 
his numerous writings the following are the most important for the History 
of Doctrines: Apologeticus—Ad nationes— (Advers. Judzeos)—* Advers. 
Marcionem—* Advers. Hermogenem—* Advers. Praxeam—* Advers. Va- 
lentinianos—* Scorpiace advers. Gnosticos—De Prescriptionibus advers. 
Hereticos)—De Testimonio Anime—*De Anima—*De Carne Christi— 
*De Resurrectione Carnis—(De Penitentia)—(De Baptismo)—De Oratione 
ete. ; his moral writings also contain much that is doctrinal, e. g., the treatises ; 
De Corona Militis—De Virginibus velandis—De Cultu Feminarum, ete. 
Editions of his complete works were published by * Rigaltcws, Paris, 1635, 
fol.; by Semler and Schätz, Hall. 1770, 6 vols. (with a useful Index Latini- 
tatis) ; by Leopold, Lips. 1841; by Oehler, Lips. 1853, ii. [Veander, 1. c. 
ii. p. 362-366 ; p. 293-296. Burton, 1. ὁ. v. p. 223. a. passim. Lardner, 
ii, p. 267-272, a. passim.] The later church did not venture to number Tert., 
zealous as he was for orthodoxy, among the orthodox writers, on account of 
his Montanistie views. In the opinion of Jerome (adv. Helvid. 17), he is not 
a homo ecclesie (comp. also Apol. contra Ruffin. iii. 27), and though he 
praises his ingenium, he still condems his heresy (Apol. contra Rufinum, ii. 
27.) [A portion of Neander’s Antignostikon is published in Bohn’s edition 
of Neander’s Planting and Training. Tertullian in Böhringer’s Kirchengesch. 
in Biographieen, Bd. i. Various treatises translated in the (Oxford) Lib. of 
Fathers, vol. x. (2d ed.) Bishop Aaye, Eccl. Hist. of Second and Third 
Centuries, illustrated in the Life of Tertullian, 3d ed. 1848. Hngelhardt, 
Tertullian als Schriftsteller in Zeitschrift f. ἃ, hist. Theol. 1852. Ts De 
Corona Militis, ed. @, Curry, Cambr. 1853. Apology, transl. by H. B. 
Brown, Lond. 1655; W. Reeves, 1716; edited with English notes by 7. A. 
Woodham, 2d ed. Cambr., and Chevallier. Prescriptions, transl. by 7. Betty. 
Oxf. 1772. Address to Scap. Tert. transl. by Dalrymple, Edinb. 1790, 
Oeuvres de Tert. en Frangais, par M. de Genoude, 2d ed. iii, 1852. On 
Oehler’s edition see Alussmann in Zeitschrift für wiss, Theol. 1860; and 


* The works marked with * were written after his conversion to Montanism, those in- 
cluded in () at least tinged with Montanism; comp. Nösselt, de Vera »tate Tertulliani 
Scriptorum (Opusc. Fasc. iii. 1-198). 


$ 26. Tur ΤΉΒΟΙΟΟΥ or THE FATHERS. 71 


Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1856. Leopold, Doctrina Tertull. de Baptismo, in 
Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1854. A. Crés, Les Idees de Tertull. sur la Tra- 
dition. Strasb, 1855. Tertullian and his Writings, Christ. Review, July, 
1856. Huber, Phil. d. Kirchenväter, pp. 100-129. ] 

° Cyprian (Thascius Cecilius) was first a teacher of rhetoric in Carthage ; 
was converted to Christianity in 245; became bishop of Carthage 248, and 
suffered martyrdom 258. He possessed more of a practical than doctrinal 
tendency, and is, therefore, of greater importance in the history of polity 
than of doctrines, to which he contributed but little. He did not so much 
theoretically develop the doctrines respecting the church and the sacraments, 
as practically carry them out in his life, upholding them in the midst of 
storms. In his doctrinal opinions he rested on the basis laid by Tertullian, 
but also sympathized with Minucius Felix, as in his work, De Idolorum 
Vanitate. Accordingly, along with his numerous letters, his work entitled 
De Unitate Ecclesiz, is of the first importance. Besides these there are: 
Libri III. Testimoniorum, De Bono Patientiz, De Oratione Dominica, ete. 
Comp. Rettberg, Cyprian nach seinem Leben und Wirken, Göttingen, 1834. 
Huther (Ed.), Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche, Hamburg, 1839. ditions : 
Rigaltius, Paris, 1648, fol. *Fell, Oxon, 1682, and the Benedictine edition 
by Steph. Baluze and Prud. Maran, Paris, 1726, fol. Goldhorn, Lips. 
1838, 9, 2 vols, in Gersdorf Bibliotheca. [Arabinger’s edition of Cyprian, 
De Unitate, ete., 1853, and of his Libri ad Donatum, De Domin. Orat., ete. 
1859. Life and Times of C., by Geo. Ayliffe Poole, Oxf. 1840. Shepherd, 
Hist. of Church of Rome, Lond. 1852, contests the authenticity of all 
Cyprian’s Epistles; ibid. Five Letters to Dr. Maitland, 1853-4; cf. Christ. 
Remembrancer, 1853 and 1857; Dublin Review, 1852; Quarterly Review 
(Lond.), 1853; and Journal of Sacred Lit. 1856. Mevin on Cyprian and 
his Times, Mercersb. Review, 1852-3. Cyprian’s Treatises and Epistles, in 
Oxford Lib. of Fathers, vols. 3 and 17. Articles on Cyprian in Rudelbach, 
christl. Biog., and in Böhringer, Kirchengesch. in Biograph. Dodwell, 
Dissertationes Cyprianice, 1704. Bp. Sage, Principles of Cyprianie Age, 2, 
8vo., Edinb. 1846. C.’s Unity of the Church, by J. Fell, Oxf. 1681; Disc. to 
Donatus, by J. Tunstall, 1716; whole Works, by N. Marshall, 1717. An- 
nales Cyprianici a J. Pearsono, rep. in Fell’s edition of Cyprian, fol. 1700. ] 

Novatian, the contemporary and opponent of Cyprian (6 τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς 
ἐπιστήμης ὑπερασπιστής, Euseb. vi. 43), must also be considered as belong- 
ing to the extreme limit of this period, if the treatise, De Trinitate, De Reg- 
ula Veritatis 5, Fidei, which goes under his name, proceeded from him. It 
is by no means correct, as Jerome would have it, that this treatise contains 
nothing but extracts from Tertullian. “ This author was at all events more 
than a mere imitator of the peculiar tendency of another ; on the contrary, 
he shows originality ; he does not possess the power and depth of Tertullian, 
but more spirituality.” Neander,i. 560. Editions: Whiston, in his Ser- 
mons and Essays upon Several Subjects, Lond. 1709, p. 327. Welchman, 
Oxon, 1724, 8. Jackson, Lond. 1728. [Zardner, iii. p. 3-20. Bennett, 1, 
c. p. 47-49. ] 

® Clement (Tit. Flav.), surnamed Alexandrinus, in distinction from 
Clement of Rome (note 3), a disciple of Panteenus at Alexandria, and his 


72 First Periop. Tue AGE oF APOLOGETICS. 


successor in his office, died between 212 and 220, (Comp. Euseb. v. 11, vi. 
6, 13, 14. Hieron. De Vir. Ill. ec. 38.) Of his works the following three 
form a whole: 1. Aöyoc προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς "EAAnvac. 2. Παιδαγωγὺὸς in 
three books; and 3. Stromata (τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν 
ὑπομνημάτων στρωματεῖς)--80. called from the variety of its contents, like a 
piece of tapestry—in 8 books: the eighth of which forms a special homily, 
under the title: τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος, Quis dives salvetur. The 
ὑποτυπώσεις in 8 books, an exegetical work, is lost. Concerning his life 
and writings, comp. Hofstede de Groot, de Clemente Alex. Gröning. 1826. 
Von Cölln, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopedia, xviii. p. 4, ss. Daehne, de 
γνώσει Clem. et de Vestigiis Neoplatonicee Philos. in ea obviis. Leipz. 1831. 
Eylert, Clemens als Philosoph und Dichter, Leipz, 1832. Baur, Gnosis, p. 
502. Möhler, Patrologie, p. 430.) [Zardner, Works, ii. 220-24. Meander, 
i. 691. Bennett, |. c. p. 33-36.] Editions by Sylburg, Heidelberg, 1592. 
* Potter, Oxon. 1715, fol. Ven. 1757. “ὦ. Klotz, Lips. 1831, 3 vols. 8. 
[Bishop Haye, Account of Writings and Opinions of Clem. of Alex., Lond. 
1839. Christ. Rev., July, 1852. Journal of Sacred Lit. 1852. Zeutzen, 
Erkennen und Glauben. Cl. v. Alex. und Anselm y. Cant. Bonn, 1848. 
Reinkens, De Clem. Alex. Vratislav. 1851. Reuter, Clem. Alex. Theol. 
Moralis. Berol. 1853. H. Laemmer, Clem. Alex. de Logo doctrina, Leips. 
1855. Clement and the Alexandrian School, in North British Review, Aug. 
1855. Abbé Herbert-Duperron, Essai sur la Polemique et la Philos. de 
Clém. d’Alex. Paris, 1855. Alleged fragments of Clem., Nolte in Theol. 
Quartalschrift, 1859, 5. 597 sq. Opinions of Cl. Alex. in Huber’s Phil. ἃ. 
Kirchenväter, 1859, pp. 130-184. Lamson’s Church of First Three Cent., 
Boston, 1860. Abbé J. Cognat, Clément d’Alexandrie, sa doctrine et sa 
polemique. 8vo. Paris, 1859. ] 

" Origen, surnamed ἀδαμάντινος, xaAk&vrepoc, was born at Alexandria, 
about the year 185, a disciple of Clement, and died at Tyre in the year 254. 
He is undoubtedly the most eminent writer of the whole period, and the best 
representative of the spiritualizing tendency, though not wholly free from 
great faults into which he was led by his genius. “According to all appear- 
ance he would have avoided most of the weaknesses which disfigure his writings, 
if understanding, wit, and imagination had been equally strong in him. His 
reason frequently overcomes his imagination, but his imagination obtains more 
victories over his reason.” Mosheim (Translat. of the treatise against Celsus, 
p. 60). Accounts of his life are given in Euseb, vi. 1-6, 8, 14-21, 23-28, 
30-33, 36-39, vii. 1. Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 54. Gregory Thaumaturg. 
in Panegyrico. Huetius in the Origeniana. Tillemont, Mémoires, art. 
Origene, p. 356-76. Schröckh, iv. p. 29. |Neander, 1.593. Lardner, ii. p. 
469-486 and passim.] On his doctrines and writings, comp. Schnitzer, 
Origenes, über die Grundlehren der Glaubenswissenschaft, Stuttg. 1835. 
* Thomasius ((ottf.), Origenes, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des 3 
Jahrhunderts, Nürnberg, 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, eine Darstellung 
seines Lebens und seiner Lehre, 2 Bde. Bonn, 1841-76. The labors of Origen 
embraced a wide sphere. We can only refer to what he did for biblical 
criticism (Hexapla), and exegesis (σημειώσεις, τόμοι, ὁμιλίαι, cf, Philocalia), 
as well as for homileties (which appears in his writings in the simplest forms), 


§ 26. Tue THroLocy or THE FATHERS, 73 


His two principal works of doctrinal importance, περὶ ἀρχῶν (De Principiis, 
libri iv.) edit. by Redepenning, Lips. 1836, and Schnitzer’s translation before 
mentioned; and κατὰ KéAoov (contra Celsum) lib. viii. (translated, with 
notes by Mosheim, Hamb. 1745). Minor treatises : De Oratione, De Exhor- 
tatione Martyrii, ete. Complete editions of his works were published by 
* Car. de la Rue, Paris, 1733, ss. 4 vols. fol. and by Lommatzsch, Berl. 1831, ss. 

| Fischer, Commentatio de Origenis Theologia et Cosmologia. 1846, 
Greg. Nyss. Doctrina de hominis Natura cum Origen. comparata, Μ΄, G@, 
Moeller, Halle, 1854. Origen and the Alex. School, North British, 1855. 
Mosheim’s Comment. in Murdock’s edition, ii. pp. 143-209. Articles on 
Origen, by R. Emerson, in Bib, Repos. iv.; B. Sears, in Bib. Sacra, iii. ; 
British Quarterly, by R. A. Vaughan, 1845; A. Lamson, in Christ. Examiner, 
x. and xi., rep. in his Church of first Three Centuries, Bost. 1860. Abbé Z. 
Joly, Etudes sur Origene, 1860. Huber’s Phil. ἃ, Kirchenväter, 1859. pp. 
150-184.] The doctrinal systems of Clement and Origen unite under a more 
general aspect, and form what is called the theology of the Alexandrian 
school. The distinguishing characteristics of this theology, in a formal point 
of view, are a leaning to speculation and allegorical interpretation of the 
Scriptures; as to their matter, they consist of an attempt to spiritualize the 
ideas, and idealize particular doctrines, and they thus form a striking contrast 
with the peculiarities of Tertullian in particular, Comp. @uericke, De Schola 
que Alexandriz floruit Catechetica. Hale, 1824, 2 vols. [Neander, 1. c. ii. 
p- 195-234. Baur, Gnosis, p. 488-543.] 

The Philosophumena, ascribed to Origen, and published by Edm. Miiller, 
Oxf. 1851, under his name (’Qpvyévove φιλοσοφούμενα ἤ κατὰ πασῶν alp- 
ἔσεων ἔλεγχος, e codice Paris. nunc primum ed.), is with greater probability 
assigned to Hippolytus, who had been held to be a bishop of Arabia, (misled 
by Eusebius, vi., 20) but who died, as bishop of Portus Romanus, a martyr’s 
death, it is said, under Maximin (236-238). This work would then be the 
same with the ἔλεγχος κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων, ascribed to Hippolytus (edited 
by Duncker and Schneidewin, Gott. 1856-9), which is by others attributed 
to the Roman presbyter, Caius (Baur, in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1853), which is 
also found under the name λαβύρινθος (Photius, c. 48). Comp. Opp. et 
Fragmenta, ed. J. A. Fabricius, Hamb. 171618, 2 vols. Haenal, De Hip- 
polyt. Gött. 1839. * Jos, Bunsen, Hippolytus u. seine Zeit. Leipz. 1852—’3. 
[English edition, 7 vols. 8vo.] Güeseler, ubi supra. Jacobi in Neander’s 
Dogmengesch, p. 54, and in Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, 1831. * Dol- 
linger, Hippol. und Callistus. Regensb. 1853. Zitschl, in Theol. Jahrb, 1854. 
Volckmar, Hippolytus, 1855. [Comp. articles in Theo. Critic, 1852; Edin- 
burgh Rev. 1852-53; Christ. Rembr. 1853; Dublin Review, 1853, 1854; 
North British, 1853; Christ. Review, 1853 ; North American, 1854 ; Journal 
of Class. and Sacred Philol. 1854 ; New Brunswick Review, 1854; British 
Qu. 1853; Westminster Review, 1853. Comp. also, Ch. Wordsworth, 
Church of Rome in Third Cent. 2d ed. 1855. Lenormant, Controverse sur 
les Philos. Paris, 1853. Cruzce, Etudes sur les Philos, 1852. ] 


74 First Period. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 


§ 27. 
THE GENERAL DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD. 


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


1 Comp. ἃ 18, note 4. 

? Origen expressly mentions the doctrine concerning the freedom of the 
will as a part of the predicatio ecclesiastica; De Princ., proem. § 4, ss. ; 
comp. the Special History of Doctrines, below. 

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


B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES 
DURING THE FIRST PERIOD. 


EIRST DIVISION. 


APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.—REVELATION AND SOURCES OF 
REVELATION.—SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


§ 28 
TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IN GENERAL. 


*Teschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, vol. i. Leipz. 1808. By the same: der Fall des 
Heidenthums, vol. i. Leipz. 1829. Clausen, H. N., Apologete ecclesi@ Christianze 
ante-Theodosiani, Hayn. 1817, 8. @. H. van Senden, Geschichte der Apologetik von 
den frühesten Zeiten bis auf unsere Tage. Stuttg. II. 8. [ Bolton, Apologists of 
Second and Third Centuries, repr. Boston, 1853. Giles, Heathen Records and the 
Script. History, 1857. Ehrenfenchter, Apologetik, in Jahrb. ἢ deutsche Theologie 
1857.] 


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


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


76 First Periop. APOLOGETICO-DoGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


speculated on the objects of science, and reduced experimental truths to gen- 
eral ideas. With the first Christians. Christianity and religion were iden- 
tical (Augusti, p. 197); as, again, in modern times, the principal object of 
apologetics must be the proof that Christianity is the religion, 2. e., the only 
one which can satisfy man (comp. Lechler, über den Begriff der Apologetik, 
in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 3). This view corresponds with the 
saying of Minucius Felix, Oct. c. 38, toward the end: Gloriamur non con- 
sequutos, quod illi (Philosophi) summa intentione quesiverunt nec invenire 
potuerunt. Ignatius ad Rom. 11.: Od πεισμονῆς ἔργον ἀλλὰ μεγέθους 
ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμὺς, ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου (cf. Hefele on the passage). 
Justin M. also shows that revealed truth, as such, does not stand in need of 
any proof, Dial. c. Tryph. e. 7, p. 109: Οὐ γὰρ μετὰ ἀποδείξεως πεποίηνταί 
more (ol προφῆται) τοὺς Aöyovc, ἅτε ἀνωτέρω πάσης ἀποδείξεως ὄντες ἀξιό- 
πιστοι μάρτυρες τῆς ἀληθείας. Fragm. de Resurr. ab init.: “Ὁ μὲν τὴς 
ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτεξζούσιος, ὑπὸ μηδεμίαν βάσανον 
ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν, μηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δι’ ἀποδείξεως 
ἐξέτασιν ὑπομένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέμψαντι 
πιστεύεσθαι θέλει. ἸΙᾶσα γὰρ ἀπόδειξις ἰσχυροτέρα καὶ πιστοτέρα τοῦ 
ἀποδεικνυμένου τυγχάνει" εἴ γε τὸ πρότερον ἀπιστούμενον πρὶν ἢ τὴν 
ἀπόδεϊξιν ἐλθεῖν, ταύτης κομισθείσης ἔτυχε πίστεως, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἐφάνη, 
ὁποῖον ἐλέγετο. Τῆς δὲ ἀληθείας ἰσχυρότερον οὐδὲν, οὐδὲ πιστότερον" 
ὦστε ὁ περὶ ταύτης ἀπόδειξιν αἰτῶν ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ τὰ φαινόμενα αἰσθήσεσι, 
λόγοις θέλοντι ἀποδείκνυσθαι, διότι φαίνεται. “Τῶν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ λόγου 
λαμβανομένων κριτήριόν ἐστιν ἡ αἴσθησις" αὐτῆς δὲ κριτήριον οὐκ ἔστι 
πλὴν αὐτῆς. Nor do we find any definitions about the nature and idea of 
revelation (contrasted with the truths which come to us by nature and 
reason), nor the abstract possibility and necessity of revelation, ete., because 
such contrasts did not then exist. Christianity (in connection with the Old 
Test.) was considered as the true revelation; even the best ideas of earlier 
philosophers, compared with it, were only the glimmer of anticipation. 
Comp. Justin, M., Dial ce. Tr. ab initio. Tert. Apolog. ce. 18 (De Testim. 
Anime, c. 2), speaks very decidedly in favor of the positive character of the 
Christian religion (fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani), though he also calls 
the human soul, naturaliter christiana (Apol.c. 17), and ascribes to it instinct 
preceding all teaching, by which it can, as a pupil of nature, attain to a 
knowledge of the Divine in nature; De Testim. An. 5. Clement of Alexan- 
dria also compares the attempt to comprehend the Divine without a higher 
revelation, to the attempt to run without feet (Cohort. p. 64); and further 
remarks, that without the light of revelation we should resemble hens that 
are fattened in a dark cage in order to die (ibid. p. 87). We become a 
divine race only by the religion of Christ (p. 88, 89), comp. Peed. i. 2, p. 
100, i. 12, p. 156, and in numerous other places. Clement indeed admits 
that wise men before Christ had approached the truth to a certain extent 
(compare the next section); but while they sought God by their own wis- 
dom, others (the Christians) find him (better) through the Logos; comp. 
Peed. iii. 8, p. 279. Strom, i. 1, p. 319, ibid. i. 6, p. 336. The Clementine 
Homilies, however, depart from this idea of a positive revelation (17, 8, and 
18, 6), and represent the internal revelation of the heart as the true revela- 


$ 29. MoDE OF ARGUMENT. 7a 


tion, the external as a manifestation of the divine ὀργή. Com. Baumgarten- 
Crusius, ii, p. 783; on the other side. Schliemann, p. 183, ss. 353, ss. 

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

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


§ 29. 


MODE OF ARGUMENT. 


[Comp. Baur, Dogmengesch. s. 76-9; and his Christenthum in d. drei ersten Jahrhund. 
5. 357-451.] 


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


7S First Periop. APoOLOGETICO-DoGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


1 This argument was founded especially upon the high antiquity of the 
sacred books, and the wonderful care of God in their preservation ; Josephus 
had argued in a similar manner against Apion, i. 8. Comp. the section on 
the Geri iptures. 

? Comp. Justin, M., Apol. i. ec. 32-35, Dial. cum Tryphone, § 7, 8, τὰ 
Athenag. Leg. e. 9. Orig. Contra, Cels. 1, 2; Comment. in Joh. T. 

Opp. iv. p. 87. 

3 Ep. Barn. c. 9: The circumcision of the 318 persons by Abraham (Gen. 
xvii.) is represented as a prophesy about Christ. The number three hundred 
and eighteen is composed of three hundred, and eight, and ten, The numeral 
letters of ten and eight are I and H. (7) which are the initials of the name 
Ἰησοῦς. The numeral letter of three hundred is T, which is the symbol of 
the cross. And Clement of Rome, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
which is generally sober enough, says that the scarlet line which Rahab was 
admonished by the spies to hang out of her house, was a type of the blood 
of Christ, c. 12. So, too, Justin M., Dialog. cum. Tryph.§ 111. According 
to the latter the two wives of Jacob, Leah and Rachel, are types of the Jewish 
and Christian dispensations, the two goats on the day of atonement types of 
the two advents of Christ, the twelve bells upon the robe of the high priest 
types of the twelve apostles, ete.. Justin carries to an extreme length the 
symbolism about the cross, which he sees, not only in the O. T. (in the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil, the rod of Aaron, ete.), but also in nature, 
in the horn of the unicorn, in the human countenance, in the posture of a 
man engaged in prayer, in the vessel with its sails, in the plow, in the 
hammer. Comp. Apol. i. ce. 55, Dial. cum. Tryph. § 97, and elsewhere. 
Comp. Minuc. Felix, c. 29, who, however does not make it the basis of any 
further argument. Ireneus sees in the three spies of Jericho the three persons 
of the Trinity, Advers. Heret. iv. 20. It would be easy to multiply these 
examples ad infinitum (comp. § 33, note 3). As to the way in which the 
Septuagint translation was used by Christians in the interpretation of Mes- 
sianic passages, see Gieseler Dogmengesch. p. 61, sq. [Thus Clement of Rome, 
Epist. § 42, cites the passage Isaiah, Ix., 17, as referring to bishops and deacons ; 
while it reads, ἄρχοντάς and &miorörovc— which may be only because cited 
incorrectly from memory. The Christians, too, often accused the Jews of 
falsifying the Hebrew; for example, the noted passages in Justin, Dial. cum 
Tryphone, where he says that they left out in Psalm 95 (Hebr. 96, 10)— 
ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, after 6 κύριος BaotAevoev ; and Tertullian and Irenzus both 
cite the passage after Justin; and so in similar passages, alleged to be in 
Ezra and Jeremiah. | 

4 Justin, M., Apol. i. ce. 59. Cohort. ad Grae. c. 14. Theophil. Ad Autol. 
iii. 16, 17, 20, 23. Tatian Contra Gree. ab init. and ο. 25. Tertullian, 
Apol. c. 19: Omnes itaque substantias, omnesque materias, origines, ordines, 
venas veterani cujusque stili vestri, gentes etiam plerasque et urbes insignes, 
canas memoriarum, ipsas denique effigies litterarum indices custodesque rerum, 
et puto adhuc minus dicimus, ipsos inquam deos vestros, ipsa templa et oracula 
et sacra, unius interim prophetze scrinium vincit, in quo videtur thesaurus 
collocatus totius Judaici sacramenti, et inde etiam nostri. Clem. Alexand. 
Ped. ii. ο. 1, p. 176; c. 10, p. 224; iii c. 11, p. 286. Stromata, i. p. 355; 


§ 29. MopE or ARGUMENT. 79 


vi, p. 752, and many other passages, He therefore calls Plato outright, ὁ ἐξ 
“Ἑβραίων φιλόσοφος, Strom.i.1. Comp. Baur, Gnosis, p. 256. Orig. Con- 
tra Cels. iv. ab mit. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 101, 102. 

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

* Justin M. calls in a certain sense Christians all those who live according 
to the laws of the Logos (reason ?) Apology, i.c.46. The Platonic philosophy 
is in his opinion not absolutely different (ἀλλοτρία) from Christianity. But 
before the coming of Christ there existed in the world only the scattered 
seeds (λόγος omepuarıröc) of what was afterward manifested in Christ as 
absolute truth, comp. Apol. ii. ὁ, 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. ec. 20, p. 876: 
Xwpigerau δὲ ἡ ἑλληνικὴ ἀλήθεια τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, εἰ καὶ TOD αὐτοῦ μετείληφεν 
ὀνόματος, καὶ μεγέθει γνώσεως καὶ ἀποδείξει κυριωτέρᾳ, καὶ θεία δυνάμει 
καὶ τοὶς ὁμοίοις. (He speaks, however, of philosophy as such, and not of the 
Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, Aristotelian, or any other particular system, Strom, 
i. 7, p. 338); comp. Baur, p. 520, ss. On the other contradictions found in 
Clement of Alexandria, in judging of paganism more favorably at one time 
and less so at another, comp. Baur, p. 532. Minueius Felix, c. 16, in oppo- 
sition to the scholastic wisdom of the ancient philosophers, recommends the 
philosophy of good sense which is accessible to all (ingenium, quod non studio 
paratur, sed cum ipsa mentis formatione generatur), and speaks with disdain 
of mere reliance on authorities ; nevertheless, he himself appeals to the doc 
trines of philosophers, and their partial agreement with Christianity, c. 19, c. 
21, ο. 34. Such language forms a remarkable contrast with the attack he 
makes upon Socrates (scurra Atticus) ὁ. 38, to whom others assigned the 
highest rank among the ancient philosophers. 

" Tert. De Preser. 7,8: He sunt doctrine hominum et daemoniorum, 
prurientibus auribus nate de ingenio sapientie secularis, quam Dominus 
stultitiam vocans, stulta mundi in confusionem etiam philosophorum ipsius 
elegit. Ea est enim materia sapientie secularis, temeraria interpres divine 
nature et dispositionis. Ipse denique hereses a philosophia subornantur 
a: Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosoloymis? quid Academiz et Eccle- 
sie? quid heereticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonis 
est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse queerendum. 
Viderint, qui Stoicum et Platonicum et dialectum christianismum protulerunt. 
Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post 
Evangelinum. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Tertullian 
calls the philosophers—patriarche hereticorum (De Anima 3; Adv. Hermog. 
8), and Plato, omnium hereticorum condimentarius (De Anima, 23). 

® Tert. De Test. Anim. 1: Novum testimonium advoco, immo omni litteratura 
notius, omni doctrina agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto homine majus, 
ὦ, 6.) totum quod est hominis, Consiste in medio, anima . . . . Sed 


SO First Periop. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


non eam te advoco, que scholis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, academicis 
et porticibus Atticis pasta, sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et 
impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent, 
illam ipsam de compito, de trivio, de textrino totam, Imperitia tua mihi 
opus est, quoniam aliquantule peritie nemo credit. Ea expostulo, que 
tecum hominis infers, que aut ex temet ipsa, aut ex quocunque auctore tuo 
sentire didicisti. Ibid: Non es, quod sciam, Christiani: fieri enim, non nasci 
soles Christiana. Tamen nunc a te testimonium flagitant Christiani, ab 
extranea adversus tuos, ut vel tibi erubescant, quod vos ob ea oderint et 
irrideant, quee te nunc consciam detineant. Non placemus Deum preedican- 
tes hoc nomine unico unicum, a quo omnia et sub quo universa. Dice testi- 
monium, si ita scis. Nam te quoque palam et toto hbertate, quia non licet 
nobis, domi ac foris audimus ita pronuntiare: Quod Deus dederit, et si 
Deus voluerit, ete. Comp. Apol. c. 17; De Virgin. veland. ce. 5 (tacita con- 
scientia nature). Meander, Antignosticus, p. 86-89. Schwegler, Montanis- 
mus, p. 28, ss. 

° Justin M. Apology, i. ec. 14: Oi πάλαι μὲν πορνείαις χαίροντες, viv 
δὲ σωφροσύνην μόνην ἀσπαζόμενοι" οἱ δὲ καὶ μαγικαῖς τέχναις χρώμενοι, 
ἀγαθῷ καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ ἑαυτοὺς ἀνατεθεικότες" χρημάτων δὲ καὶ κτημά- 
των οἱ πόρους παντὸς μᾶλλον στέργοντες, νῦν καὶ a ἔχομεν εἰς κοινὸν 
φέροντες, καὶ παντὶ δεομένῳ κοινωνοῦντες" οἱ μισάλληλοι δὲ καὶ ἀλληλο- 
φόνοι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὐχ ὀμοφύλους διὰ τὰ ἔθη ἑστίας κοινὰς μὴ ποιούμενοι, 
νῦν μετὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμοδίαιτοι γινόμενοι, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν 
ἐχθρῶν εὐχόμενοι καὶ τοὺς ἀδίκως μισοῦντας πείθειν πειρώμενοι, ὅπως οἱ 
κατὰ τὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ καλὰς ὑποθημοσύνας βιώσαντες εὐέλπιδες ᾧσι, σὺν 
ἡμῖν τῶν αὐτῶν παρὰ τοῦ πάντων δεσπόζοντος Θεοῦ τυχεῖν. Dial. cum 
Tryph. § 8, 80. Orat. δὰ Graecos, 5. Epist. ad Diognetum, 5. Athenag. 
Leg. ὁ. 11. ZTert. Apol., ab init. Minueius Felix, ἃ. 31, 37, 38. Orig. 
contra Cels. i. c. 26. Opp. i. p. 345. They were in practice compelled to 
have recourse to this argument by the accusations of the heathen, which 
they endeavored to refute. [Comp. Tholuck, Wunder in ἃ. Kirche, in his 
Vermischte Schriften, 1. 28 sq.; the works of Middleton and Warburton ; 
Newman’s Essay, prefixed to his translation of Fleury i, in opposition to 
Isaac Taylor's Ancient Christianity. Bp. Kaye on the Cessation of Mira- 
cles, in the preface to his Life of Justin Martyr. Blunt on the Early Fathers. 
Comp. Christ. Rembr. 1858. Christian Review (New York) on Ecclesl. 
Miracles, April, 1860. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 3, preserves the argument 
of Quadratus: “The deeds of our Saviour were always at hand, for they 
were true; those who were healed, those who were raised from the dead, 
were not merely seen cured and raised, but they were always at hand; and 
that, not merely while our Saviour was on earth, but after he had gone away 
they continued a considerable time, so that some of them reached even to 
our times.” See Bolton’s Apologists, u. s.] 

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


§ 29. MopE or ARGUMENT. 81 


and Minucius Fel. Oct. c. 26); the heathen, on the other hand, attributed 
the Christian miracles to magic. Comp. Tatian Contra Grecos, ce. 18. 
Orig. Contra Cels. 1. 38, 67, 68, iil. 24-33. We find, however, that Minu- 
cius Felix denies the reality of miracles and myths in the pagan world, on 
the ground of the physical impossibility of such supernatural events, a ground 
which might, with equal propriety, have been taken by the opponents of 
Christianity. Octay. c. 20: Que si essent facta, fierent ; quia fieri non pos- 
sunt, ideo nec facta sunt; and ec. 23; Cur enim si nati sunt, non hodieque 
nascuntur ? 

* Though Origen, in speaking of the evidence derived from miracles, as 
compared with that from prophecy, calls the former the evidence of power, 
and the latter the evidence of the spirit (Contra Cels. i. 2), yet he subordin- 
ates the former to the latter. He was well aware that a miracle has its 
emphatic effect only upon the person we wish to convince, only when it is 
performed in his presence, but that it loses its direct force as evidence with 
those whose minds are prejudiced against the veracity of the narrative, and 
who reject miracles as myths; comp. Comment. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 87. So, 
too, the Clementine Homilies do not admit miracles as evidences, while they 
lay greater stress upon prophecies. (Credner, 1, Ὁ. part 3, p. 278, comp. 
with p. 245). Origen spoke also of spiritual and moral miracles, of which 
the visible miracles (admitting their importance as facts) may be considered 
as symbols; Contra Cels. 11. p. 423: “I may say that, according to the 
promise of Jesus, his disciples have performed greater miracles than himself ; 
for still the blind in spirit have their eyes opened, and those deaf to the 
voice of virtue, listen eagerly to the doctrine concerning God and eternal 
life; many who were lame in the inner man, skip like the hart,” ete. Comp. 
Contra Cels. iii, 24; where he speaks of the healing of the sick and of 
prophesying as an indifferent thing (μέσον), which considered in itself does 
not possess any moral value. 

2 Theophilus Ad Autolycum, ii. 32, 36, 38. Clem. Cohort. p. 86; Stro- 
mata, vi. 5, 762. Celsus charged the Christians with having corrupted the 
Sibylline books (Origen Contra Cels. vii. 32, 34). ditions of the Sibyll. 
oracles were published by Servatius Galleus, Amstel. 1699, 4, and by Angelo 
Mai, Mediolani, 1817, 8. On their origin and tendency, comp. Thorlacius, 
Libri Sibyllistarum veteris ecclesi®, etc. Havniz, 1815, 8, and leek, in the 
Berliner theolog. Zeitschrift, i. 120, ss. 172, ss. [Mai published Books, ix.- 
xiv. in his Script. Veterum nova Collectio, vol. iii. Zücke Einleitung in die 
Offenbarung Johan. 24 ed. M. Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol.i. Blondel 
on Sibyl. Oracles, transl. by Davies, Lond 1661. Oracula Sibyllina, ed. P. Z. 
Courier, Paris, 1854; ed. with a German version by Friedlob, Lpz. 1852; ed. 
by Alexander, 2 Tom. Paris, 184153. Volckmann, De Orac, Sibyl. 1853.] 
The case of the Ὕστάσπης, to which Justin M. Apol. 1. 20, and Clem. 1. ce. 
appeal, is similar to that of the Sibylline books. Comp. Walch, Ch. F. W., 
de Hystaspide in vol. i. of the Comment. Societ. Reg. Götting. But the 
oracles of the heathen (though a partial use was made of them), as well as of 
their miracles, were attributed to demoniacal agency; Minuc. Fel. ο, 26, 27, 
Clement. Homil. iii. 9-13. 

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

6 


82 First PERIOD. APoOLOGETICO-DoGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


(and many others) had been converted by witnessing the firmness which 
many of the martyrs exhibited. Comp. his Apology, ii. p. 96, and Dialog. 
cum Tryph. $ 121: Καὶ οὐδένα οὐδέποτε ἰδεῖν ἔστιν ὑπομείναντα διὰ τὴν 
πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον πίστιν ἀποθανεῖν, διὰ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐκ παντὸς 
γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ ὑπομείναντας καὶ ὑπομένοντας πάντα πάσχειν ὑπὲρ 
τοῦ μὴ ἀρυήσασθαι αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν ἔστι kK. τ. A. 

* Origen contra Celsum, ii. 13, Opp. i. p. 400, 


a 


§ 80. 
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 


Orelli, J. C., Selecta patrum ecclesize capita ad εἰσηγητικήν sacram pertimentia, Turici, 
1820. Comp. his essay: Tradition und Scription, in Schulthess tiber Rationalism. und 
Supranaturalism. Christmann, W. L., über Tradition und Schrift, Logos und Kabbala, 
Tübingen, 1825. Schenkel, D., über das ursprüngliche Verhältniss der Kirche zum 
Kanon, Basel, 1838. Sack, Nitzsch und Lücke, Ueber d. Ansehen d. heiligen Schrift 
und ihr Verhältniss zur Glaubensregel . . . drei Sendschreiben an Prof. Delbrück. 
Bonn. 1827. J. L. Jacobi, Die Kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition, ete. 1 Abth. Berlin, 
1847. [5 H. Friedlieb, Schrift, Tradition und kirchliche Auslegung (for the first five 
centuries), Bresl. 1854. Kuhn, Die Tradition (early testimonies) in Theol. Quartal- 
schrift, 1848, Daniel, Theolog. Controversen. William Goode, Divine Rule, repr. 
Phil. 2 vols. 1843. Palmer on the Church, vol. 2, pp. 11-93. E. B. Pusey, Rule of 
Faith. Perrone, Protest. and Rule of Faith, 3 vols. Rome, 1853; in French, 1854. 
Wiseman (Cardinal), in his Essays, ii, p. 108, sq. J. Holtzman, Canon und Tra- 


dition, 1859.] 


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


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

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


§ 31. Canon OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 83 


1820. Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, ὃ 40, 41. [Zardner, Works, 
v. p. 257.] 

According to the Montanists, there are various historical stages or periods 
of revelation, viz., 1. The law and the prophets ; the period of primitive 
revelation, which extends to the manifestation of Christ, and corresponds to 
the duritia cordis, 2. The period of the Christian revelation, ending with 
the person of Christ, and in the circle of the Apostles, and corresponding to 
the infirmitas carnis. 8. The period of the revelation of the Paraclete, 
extending to the end of time, and corresponding to the sanctitas spiritualis. 
Comp. Tertull. De Monogam. 14; Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 37. (This, 
however, refers primarily to the moral, and not to the doctrinal.) 


3 
CANON OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 


[Cosin, Scholastic History of the Canon, 4to, Lond. 1657, 1672. Du Pin, History of the 
Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old and New Test., 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1699- 
1700. Schmid, Historia Antig. et Vindicatio Canonis V. et N. Τὶ Lips. 1775. Jones, 
New and Full Method of settling the Canonic. Authority of the N. Test. 3 vols. 
Alexander, Canon of the O. and N. Test. ascertained. Philad. 1828. *Lardner, N., 
Credibility of the Gospel History (Works, i. to iv. and v. to p. 251). Alexander, W. 
L., on the Canon, in Kitto, Cycl. of Bibl. Liter. where the literature is given.] J. 
Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons bis auf 
Hieronymus, Zur. 1844, IT. 

[F. C. Baur, on the primitive sense of Canon (not, having the force of law, but, writings 
definitely set apart) in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. W. J. Thiersch, Die Kirche im 
apost. Zeitalter, und die Entstehung der N. Test. Schriften, 1852. Oehler, art. Kanon 
in Herzog’s Realencycl. B. F. Westcott, Hist. of Canon of N. T. Lond. 1845. Testi- 
monia Ante-Niczna pro Auctoritate S. Script, in Routh’s Reliquise Sacre, Tom. v. 
1848, pp. 336-354. Most Ancient Canon of New Test. R. Creswell, in Theol. Critic, 
Sept. 1852. Credner, Die ältesten Verzeichnisse der heil, Schriften, in Theol. Jahrb. 
1857. Jan. Van @ilse, Disp. de antiquis. Lib. Sacr. Noy. Test. Catalog. Amstelod. 
1852. P. Bötticher, Versuch einer Herstellung des Canon Muratorianus, in Zeitschrift 
f. ἃ. luth. Theol. 1854. CO. Credner, Gesch. ἃ. N. Test. Canon, ed. Volckmar, Berlin, 
1860.] 


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


84 First Periop. APOLOGETICO-DoOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


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


1 A difference of opinion obtained only in reference to the use of Greek 
writings of later origin (Libri Ecclesiastici, Apocrypha).. The Jews them- » 
selves had already made a distinction between the Canon [?] of the Egyptian 
Jews and the Canon of the Jews of Palestine, comp. Münscher, Handbuch, 
vol. i. p. 240, ss., @üeseler, Dogmengesch. p. 86 sq., and the introductions to 
the O. Test. Melito of Sardis (in Euseb. iv. 26), and Origen (ibid. vi. 25), 
give enumerations of the books of the ©. Test., which nearly coincide. 
[Zardner, ii. p. 158, 159; 493-513. Stuart, Critical Hist. and Defense of 
the ©. Test. Canon, p. 431, ss.] The difference between what was original, 
and what had been added in later times, was less striking to those Christians 
who, being unacquainted with the Hebrew, used only the Greek version. 
Yet Justin M. does not quote the apocrypha of the O. Test., though he fol- 
lows the Septuagint version; comp. Semisch, II. p. 3, ss. On the other 
hand, other church writers cite even the fourth Book of Ezra, and Origen 
defends the tale about Susanna, as well as the books of Tobias and Judith 
(Ep. ad Julium Africanum); although he also expressly distinguishes the 
Book of Wisdom from the canon, and assigns to it a lower authority (Pro- 
log. in Cant.). [Comp. Fritzsche, Kurzgef. Comm. zu den Apocryph. des 
alt. Test. 1853-6. J. H. Thornwell, Arguments of Rome in behalf of the 
Apocrypha, 1845. Stowe, on Apoc. in Bib. Sacra, 1854. Book of Judith, 
in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1856. Volekmar, Composition des Buchs Judith, 
Theol. Jahrb. 1857 ; and on Book of Ezra, Zurich, 1858, comp. Hilgenfeld, in 
Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1858. R. A. Zipsius, Das Buch Judith, Zeitschrift 


$ 31. CANON OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 85 


f. wiss. Theol. 1859. 4A. von Gutschmidt, Apokalypse des Ezra, ibid. 1860. 
Bleek, Die Stellung d. Apocryphen, in Stud. u. Krit. 1853.] 

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

® It is well known that the words εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελιστής, had a very 
different meaning in primitive Christianity; comp. the lexicons to the N. 
Test. and Swicer, Thes. pp. 1220 and 1234.—Justin, M., however, remarks 
(Apol. 1. c. 66), that the writings which he called ὠπομνημονεύματα of the 
Apostles, were also called εὐαγγέλια. But it has been questioned whether 
we are to understand by εὐαγγέλια the four canonical gospels; see Schweg- 
ler, Nachapostol. Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. (Against him, Semisch, Denkw. des 
Justin, Hamb. 1848.) Concerning these ὠπομνήμ., and the earliest collections 
of the Gospel-narratives (ὁ κύριος), the Diatessaron of Tatian, etc. comp. the 
Introductions to the N. Test. [ Gieseler, Ueber die Entstehung und frühesten 
Schicksale der Evangel. 1818. Lardner, V., On the Credibility of the Gospel 
history. (Works, i. iv. v. to p. 251.) Morton, A., On the Genuineness of 
the Gospels, vol. i. Zholuck, A., in Kitto, 1. c. art. Gospel.] 

4 Treneus, adv. Haer. iii. 11, 7, attempts to explain the number four on 
cosmico-metaphysical grounds : ’Ereudn) τέσσαρα κλίματα τοῦ κοσμοῦ, ἐν ᾧ 
ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα, κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία 
ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς. Στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ 
πνεῦμα ζωῆς κ.- τ. Δ. Tertull. adv. Mare. iv. 2,5. Clement of Alex. in Euseb. 
vi. 13. Origen in tom 1. in Johan, Opp. iv. p. 5. For further testimonies of 
antiquity comp. the Introductions (de Wette, p. 103) [and the works of 
Lardner in particular]. 

® Orig. Hom. i. in Luc. Opp. T. iii. p. 933, multi conati sunt scribere evan- 
gelia, sed non omnes recepti, etc. [The prineipal spurious gospels are the 
following : The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus; the Gospel of Thomas the 
Israelite ; the Prot-evangelion of James ; the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary ; 
the Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate; the Gospel of Marcion; the 
Gospel of the Hebrews (most probably the same with that of the Nazarenes), 
and the Gospel of the Egyptians.] On these uncanonical Gospels, and on the 
Apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy and Passion of Christ, compare the intro- 
ductions to the N. Test. and the treatises of Schneckenburger, Hahn, οἷο. 
Fabricius, Codex. Apocryph. N. Test. iii, Hamb. 1719, and Thilo, 7). 1. C,, 
Cod. Apocr. N. Test. Lipsie, 1832. Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch. 
[ Lardner, Works, ii. 91-93, 236, 250, 251; iv. 97,106, 131, 463 ; viii. 624-- 
535. Norton,l. c. 111. p. 214-286, Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. e. art. Gospels, 
spurious, where the literature is given.] The Acts of the Apostles became 
generally known at a later period, Justin Martyr does not refer to it, nor 
does he cite any Pauline epistle, though Pauline reminiscences are found 
in his works; see Semisch, p. 7, sq. and also his Apostolische Denkwiir- 
digkeiten. On the Gospels of Marcion see the treatises of Franck (Studien 
und Kritiken, 1855), and Volekmar, Das Evang. Marcion’s, Leipz. 1852. 


85 First Period. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


[D. Harting, Quest. de Marcione, Trajecti ad Rhenun, 1849. Hilgenfeld, 
Untersuchungen, Halle, 1850, and in Niedner’s Zeitschrift, 1855. Zitschl, 
Das Evang. Marcion und die’ Kanon. Evang. Tübing. 1817. Marcion and 
his Relation to St. Luke, in Church Review, Oct. 1856. Rud. Hofmann, 
Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen, Leipz. 1851; comp. ©. B. Frothing- 
ham in Christ. Exam. 1852. Evangelia Apocrypha, ed C. T%schendorf, Lipz. 
1853 ; comp. Ellicott in Cambridge Essays, 1856. Gcles, The Uncanonical 
Gospels, ete., collected, 2, 8vo. Lond. 1853. C. Tischendorf, Acta Apost. 
Apoc. 1851; comp. Kitto’s Journal of Sac, Lit. 1852.] 

ὁ Comp. Bleek’s Einleitung zum Briefe an die Hebräer. Berlin, 1828. 
De Wette, Einleitung ins N. Test. ii. p. 247. [Stwart’s Comment. on the 
Epistle to the Heb. 2 vols. Lond. 1828. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, ]. c. 
sub voce, where the literature is given.] 

™ The Canon of Origen in Euseb. vi. 25. [Zardner, ii. 493-513.] The 
controversy on the Book of Revelation was connected with the controversy 
on millennarianism. Comp. Licke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung 
in die Offenbarung Johannis, und die gesammte apokryphische Litteratur. 
Bonn, 1832, p. 261, ss. and 2d ed. [* Davidson, S., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce 
Revelation. Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, 1. p. 290, ss. A, Hil- 
genfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer gesch. Entwicklung. Jena. 1857.] 

® Clem, Strom. i. 7, p. 339, ii, 6, p. 445, ii. 7, p. 447 (ii. 15, ii. 18), iv. 17, 
p- 609, v. 12, p. 693, vi. 8, pp. 772, 773. Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. 
Opp. iv. p. 683. (Comment. in Matth. Opp. iii. p. 644.) Hom. 88, in Num, 
T. ii, p. 249. Contra Celsum 1. 1, 868, Opp. i. 378. (Comment. in Joh. T. 
iv. p. 153), De Prine. ii. 3, T. 1, 82. Euseb. iii. 16. Münscher, Handbuch, 
i. p. 289. Möhler, Patrologie, i. p. 87. [Lardner, ji. 18, 247, 528; ii. p. 
186, 187: 249, 303, 304, 530-532.] The Apocryphal book of Enoch was 
put by Tertullian on a line with Scripture ; De Cultu. Fem. i.,3. [On Enoch, 
comp. the treatises of Dillman and Ewald, 1854; Köstlin in Theo. Jahrb., 
1856. 

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


§ 32. 
INSPIRATION AND EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 


Sonntag, G. F. N., Doctrina Inspirationis ejusque Ratio, Historia et usus popularis, Heid- 
elberg, 1810, 8, Rudelbach, A. G., die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, 
mit Berücksichtigung der neuesten Untersuchungen darüber von Schleiermacher, 
Twesten, und Steudel. (Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, 
edited by Rudelbach and Guerike, 1840, i. 1.) Credner, De Librorum N. T. Inspiratione 
quid statuerint Christiani ante seculum tertium medium, Jen. 1828, and his Beiträge 
zur Einleitung in die Bibl. Schriften, Halle, 1832. W. Grimm, Inspiration, in Gruber 
and Ersch, Encyclop. sect. ii. vol. xix. [B. 11 Westcott, Catena on Inspiration, 
in his Elements of Gospel Harmony, 1851, and Introd. to Gospels, 1860.] Οἱ 
Wordsworth, Insp. of Holy Script., 2d ed. 1851 (also on the Canon). William Lee, 
The Insp. of Holy Scripture, Lond. 1854; New York, 1857. Patristic Test. to In- 
spiration, in Princeton Review, 1851. A. Tholuck, Die Inspirationslehre, in Zeitschrift 
f. wiss. Theol. (transl. in Journal of Sac. Lit. 1854), and in Herzog’s Realeneyclopädie. 
KR. Rothe, Offenbarung, and Inspiration, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1859, 1860.] 


§ 32. INSPIRATION AND Hrricacy OF THE SCRIPTURES. 87 


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


7 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 19-21. 

? Philo was the first writer who transferred the ideas of the ancients con- 
cerning the μαντικῆ (comp. Phocylides, v. 121, Plutarch, De Pythis Oracu- 
lis, and De Placitis Philosophorum, v. 1), to the prophets of the O. Test. (De 
Spec. Lege. iii. ed. Mangey, 11. 343, Quis div. rerum Her; Mangey, i. 510, 
511; De Preem. et Pen. ii. 417, comp. @frérer, |. ὁ. p. 54, ss. Dähne, 1. c. 
p. 58). Josephus, on the other hand, adopts the more limited view of 
verbal inspiration, Contra Apion, i, 7, 8. [For a full view of the opinions 
of Philo and Josephus, see Lee, u. s. Append. F.] The influence of heathen- 
ism is wholly denied by Schwegler (Montan. p. 101 sq.); against this, Semisch, 
Justin Mart. ii. p. 19; Baumgarten-Crusius, Comp. 11. p. 52 and 53, with the 
remarks of Hase. At any rate, “the Jewish and heathen notions of proph- 
ecy only gave the forms, into which flowed the church idea of the Holy 
Spirit in the Scriptures.” The idea of the uavrırn) was carried out in all its 
consequences by one section of the Christian church, viz., the Montanists, 
who attached chief‘ importance to the unconscious state of the person filled 
with the Spirit, comp. Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 99. Allusions to it are 
also found in the writings of some fathers, especially Athenagoras, Leg. c. 9. 


88 First Preriop. APpoLoGETIco-DoGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


Kar’ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου 
πνεύματος. Comp. Tert. Advers. Marc. iv. ὁ. 22. Origen speaks very 
decidedly against it; Contra Cels. vil. 4. Opp. i. p. 596. 

° The fable given by Aristeas was repeated with more or less numerous 
additions and embellishments by other writers, comp. Josephus, Antiq. xii. c. 
2. Philo, De Vita Mos. 660, Stahl, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium für biblische 
und morgenländische Litteratur, 1. p. 260, ss. Hichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte 
Test. $ 159-338. Rosenmitller, Handbuch fiir Litteratur der biblischen 
Kritik und Exegese, ii. p. 334, ss. Jahn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. § 33-67. 
Berthold, ὃ 154-190. De Wette, i. p. 58. Münscher, Handbuch, i. p. 307, 
ss. Gfrérer, p. 49. Dähne, 1. 57, ii. 1, ss. [Davidson, S., Lectures on 
Biblical Criticism, Edinb. 1839, p. 35-44. The same in Aitto, Cyclop. of 
Bibl. Literat. art. Septuagint.] According to Philo, even the grammatical 
errors of the LXX. are inspired, and offer welcome material to the allegor- 
ical interpreter, Dähne, 1. p. 58. Comp. Justin M, Coh. ad Gree. ce. 13. 
Irenzus, iii. 21. Clem. of Alex. Strom. 1. 21, p. 410. Clement perceives in 
the Greek version of the original the hand of Providence, because it pre- 
vented the Gentiles from pleading ignorance in excuse of their sins, Strom, 
1. 145) Ῥ. 338. 

4 Philo had already taught degrees in inspiration, comp, De Vita, Mos. iii. 
(Tom. ii., p. 161, ed. Mangey). The apostolical Fathers speak of inspiration 
in very general terms ; in quoting passages from the O. Test., they use indeed 
the phrase: λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, or similar expressions, but they do 
not give any more definite explanation regarding the manner of this inspira- 
tion. Comp. Clement of R. in several places; /gnat. ad Magn, c. 8, ad Phil- 
adelph. ce. 5, ete. Sonntag, Doctrina Inspirationis, § 16. Justin M. is the 
first author in whose writings we meet with a more definite, doctrinal expla- 
nation of the process, in the locus classicus, Cohort. ad Grace. ὃ 8: Οὔτε yap 
φύσει οὔτε ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώσκειν ἀνθρῶποις 
δυνωτὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα κατελθούσῃ 
duped, οἷς οὐ λόγων ἐδέησε τέχνης, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἑριστικῶς τι καὶ φιλονείκως 
εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, 
iv’ αὐτὺ τὸ θεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, ὥστπερ ὀργάνῳ κιθάρας τινὸς 
ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν θείων ἡμῖν καὶ οὐρανίων 
ἀποκαλύψῃ γνῶσιν" διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ὥσπέρ ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος καὶ μιᾶς γλωτ- 
της καὶ περὶ θεοῦ, καὶ περὶ κόσμου κτίσεως, καὶ περὶ πλάσεως ἀνθρώπου, 
καὶ περὶ ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς ἀθανασίας καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον μελ- 
λούσης ἔσεσθαι κρίσεως, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστιν εἰδέναι, 
ἀκολούθως καὶ συμφώνως ἀλλήλοις ἐδίδαξαν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ταῦτα διαφόροις τόποις 
τε καὶ χρόνοις τὴν θείαν ἡμῖν διδασκαλίαν παρεοχηκότες. Whether Justin 
here maintains a pure passivity on the part of the writer, or whether the pecu- 
liar structure of the instrument, determining the tone, is to be taken into con- 
sideration, see Semisch, p.18, who identifies the view of Justin and the Mon- 
tanistic; Schwegler ; Montanism, p. 101; and Meander, Dogmengesch. p. 
99. [“ Justin transfers the Platonic relation of the Νοῦς to the νοερόν in 
man, to the relation of the λόγος to the σπέρμα λογικόν, the human reason 
allied to the divine.”| From the conclusion at which Justin arrives, it is also 
apparent that he limits inspiration to what is religious, to what is necessary 


§ 32. INSPIRATION AND Erricacy OF THE Scriptures. 89 


to be known in order to be saved. — The theory proposed in the third book 
of Theophilus ad Autolycum, c. 23, has a more external character ; he as- 
cribes the correctness of the Mosaic Chronology, and subjects of a similar 
nature, to Divine inspiration ; [lib. iii. c. 23 : ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τοῦ κόσμου 
κτίσεως, ἥν ἀνέγραψε Μωσῆς ὁ θεράπων τοὺ θεοῦ διὰ πνεύματος ’Aytov.] 
Comp. also Athenag. Leg. c. 7, and c. 9 (where the same figure occurs ; 
ὡσεὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν Eumveboar) —The views of Iren@us on inspiration were 
equally strict and positive, Advers. Heeret. ii. 28: Seripturse quidem perfeet 
sunt quippe a verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dicta, and other passages contained 
in the third book. Tertullian De preescript. Heeret. 8, 9, Advers. Mare. ii. 
6. Apol.c.18 (comp. however, $ 34).—Clement of Alexandr, calls the 
sacred Scriptures in different places γραφὰς θεοπνεύστας, or quotes τὸ yap 
στόμα κυρίου, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐλάλησε ταῦτα, ete. Coh. ad Gr. p. 66, 86; 
ibidem, p. 67, he quotes Jeremiah, and then corrects himself in these words: 
μᾶλλον δὲ ἐν “Ἱερεμιᾷ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, etc., and likewise Peed. i. 7, p. 134: 
“Ὃ νόμος διὰ Μωσέως ἐδόθη, οὐχὶ ὑπὸ Μωσέως, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ λόγου, 
διὰ Μωσέως δὲ τοῦ θεράποντος αὐτοῦ. [Clement, Peed. lib. 1.8 6: Διὰ 
τοῦτο ἄρα μυστικῶς τὸ ἐν τῷ ᾿Αποστόλω "Ayıov πνεῦμα, τῆ τοῦ Κυρίου 
ατοχρώμενον φωνῇ, Tara ὑμας ἐπότισα (1 Cor. iii, 2), λέγει.] On the 
infallibility of the inspired writings, see Strom. ii. p. 432, vil. 16, p. 897. 
Cyprian calls all the books of the Bible divine: plenitudinis fontes, Advers, 
Jud. pref. p. 18, and uses in his quotations the same phraseology which 
Clement employs, De Unit. Eccles. p. 111, De Opere et Eleem. p. 201. [De 
Op. et Eleem.; “ Loquitur in Script. Divinis Spiritus Sanctus;” “Item beatus 
Apostolus Paulus dominic» inspirationis gratia plenus.’ De Unit. Eccl. : 
“ Per Apostolum premonet Spiritus Sanctus et dicit: (1 Cor. xi., 19), Oportet 
et haereses esse.” | 

δ Thus, Justin Mart. speaks only of the inspiration of the Old Test. with 
emphatic interest, although he undoubtedly carried over the idea of inspira- 
tion to the New Test., see Semisch, ii, p. 12. That he held the evangelists 
to be inspired, see ibid. p. 22 (against Credner). Comp. Jacobi, ubi supra. 
p. 57, sq. 

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


90 First PERIOD. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


tag, u. s. 6 and 9) belong to this subject only in a wide sense. Tertullian, 
however (from his Montanistie stand point ?) draws a distinction between the 
two kinds of inspiration, viz., the apostolical, and that which is common to 
all believers (De Exhort. Castit. c. 4), and represents the latter as only partial ; 
but he does not refer the former kind of inspiration to the mere act of writing. 
But in the writings of /ren@us we find a more definite allusion to the extra- 
ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit in writing the books, with a special 
reference to the New Testament writers; Adv. Heer. iii. 16, § 2: Potuerat 
dicere Matthzeus : Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed previdens spiritus sanctus 
depravatores, et premuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum per Matthzeum ait : 
Christi autem generatio sic erat. [Comp. Westcott on Gospels, 1860, p. 383 sq. | 

7 Iren. adv. Her, iv. 9, p. 237: Non alterum quidem vetera, alterum vero 
preferentem nova docuit, sed unum et eundem. Paterfamilias enim Domi- 
nus est, qui universe domni patern® dominatur, et servis quidem et adhuc 
indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem ; liberis autem et fide justificatis con- 
gruentia dans preecepta, et filiis adaperiens suam heereditatem...... Ea 
autem, que de thesauro proferuntur nova et vetera, sine contradictione duo 
Testamenta dicit : vetus quidem, quod ante fuerat, legislatio; novum autem, 
quze secundum Evangelium est conversatio, ostendit, de qua David ait: Can- 
tate Domino canticum novum, ete. Comp. iii. 11, and other passages, In 
his fragments (p. 346, Massuet), he compares the two pillars of the house 
under the ruins of which Sampson buried himself and the Philistines, to the 
two Testaments which overthrew Paganism. Yet still Irenzeus had an open 
eye for the human side of the Bible. He wrote an essay upon the peculiari- 
ties of the style of Paul, in which, among other things, he explains the syn- 
tactic defects in the sentences of the Apostle by the velocitas sermonum 
suorum, which again he connects with the “impetus” of his soul. Comp. 
Neander, Church Hist. 3d ed. p. 171. Clem. Al. Peed. p. 307; "Αμῴφω δὲ 
TO νόμω διηκόνουν TO λόγῳ εἰς παιδαγωγίαν πῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ὁ μὲν 
διὰ Μωσέως, ὁ δὲ δὶ ᾿Αποστόλων. Comp. Strom. i. 5, p. 331, ii. 10, p. 543. 

® Orig. De Princip. iv. c. 6, Opp. i. p. 161: Λεκτέον δὲ, ὅτι τὸ τῶν 
προφητικῶν λόγων ἔνθεον καὶ τὸ πνευματικὸν τοῦ Μωσέως νόμον ἔλαμψεν 
ἐπιδημήσαντος Ἰησοῦ. ᾿Βναργῆ γὰρ παραδείγματα περί τοῦ θεοπνεύστους 
εἷναι τὰς παλαιὰς γραφὰς πρὸ πῆς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Χρίστοῦ παραστῆσαι οὐ 
πάνυ δυνατὸν ἣν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπιδημία δυναμένους ὑποπτεύεσθαι τὸν 
νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας ὡς οὐ θεῖα, εἰς τοὐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν, ὡς οὐρανίῳ 
χάριτι ἀναγεγραμμένα. From this point of view Origen acknowledges the 
inspiration of both the Old and the New Testaments, De Princ. procem. c. 8, 
Opp. i. p. 18, lib. iv. ab. init. ; Contra Cels. v. 60. Opp. i. p. 623; Hom. in 
Jerem. Opp. T. iii. p. 282: Sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant, 
nihilque est sive in lege, sive in evangelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a pleni- 
tudine divinze majestatis descendat. In the 27th Hom. in Num. Opp. T. ii. 
p. 365, he further maintains that (because of this inspiration) nothing super- 
fluous could have found its way into the sacred Scriptures, and that we must 
seek for divine illumination when we meet with difficulties. Comp. Hom. in 
Exod. i. 4, Opp. T. ii. p. 131: Ego eredens verbis Domini mei Jesu Christi, 
in lege et Prophetis iota quidem unum aut apicem non puto esse mysteriis 
vacuum, nec puto aliquid horum transire posse, donec omnia fiant. Philoca- 


§ 32. INSPIRATION AND EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 91 


lia (Cantabrig. 1658), p. 19: Πρέπει δὲ τὰ ἅγια γράμματα πιστεύειν unde- 
μίαν κεραίαν ἔχειν κενὴν σοφίας Θεοῦ" ὁ γὰρ ἐντειλάμενος ἐμοὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
καὶ λέγων: Οὐκ ὀφθήσῃ ἐνώπιόν μου κενός (Exod. xxxiv. 20), πολλῷ πλέον 
αὐτὸς οὐδὲν κενὸν ἐρεῖ. Comp. Schnitzer, p. 286. But yet the historical 
and chronological difficulties attending the attempt to harmonize the gospels 
did not escape the critical sagacity of Origen. He acknowledges that, taken 
verbally, there are insoluble contradictions in the narration of the Evangelists 
(comp. Hom. X. in Joh. Opp. Tom. iv. p. 162, ss.), but comforts himself with 
the idea that truth does not consist in the σωματικοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν. Thus, for 
example, he notices the difference in the accounts of the healing of the blind 
men (Matth. xx. 30 sq. Mark x. 46 sq. Luke, xviii. 35 sq.). But in 
order not to concede inexactitude, he takes refuge in strange allegories (com- 
pare Comm. in Matth. Opp. Tom. iii. p. 372). Another way of escape in 
respect to doctrinal difficulties was open to him, in the assumption of a con- 
descension of God, training his people, as a teacher, in conformity with their 
state of culture at each period (Cont. Celsum, iv. 71; Tom. i. p. 556). Like 
Irenzus, Origen also grants that there are inaccuracies and solecisms in the 
style of the Biblical writers (Opp. iv. p. 93), and so, too, different styles of 
writing in Paul (Ep. ad-Rom. x. Opp. iv. p. 678, 6). “In general,” says Giese- 
ler (Dogmengesch. p. 98), “ Origen appears to understand by inspiration, not 
the pouring in of foreign thoughts, but an exaltation of the powers of the 
soul, whereby prophets [and apostles] were elevated to the knowledge of the 
truth ; and this view was held fast in the school of Origen.” Comp. also the 
passages there cited, from which it appears that Origen, with all his exag- 
gerated views of inspiration, also admitted that there were uninspired pas- 
sages in the Scripture, and thus distinguished between its divine and human 
elements. [The passages are such as 1 Cor. vii. 6, 10, ete. And Gieseler 
adds, that Origen “did not follow out such hints any farther, but in other 
passages declared all the Holy Scriptures, including the writings of the 
Apostles, to be unconditionally inspired.” | 

* Jreneus compares the sacred Scriptures to the treasure which was hid 
in a field, Adv. Her. iv. 25, 26, and recommends their perusal also to the 
laity, but under the direction of the presbyters, iv. 32. Clement of Alexandr. 
describes their simplicity, and the beneficial effects which they are calculated 
to produce, Coh. p. 66: Τραφαὶ δὲ ai θεῖαι καὶ πολιτεῖαι σώφρονες, σύντο- 
μοι σωτηρίας ὅδοὶ, γυμναὶ κομμωτικῆς καὶ τῆς ἐκτὸς καλλιφωνίας καὶ 
στωμυλίας καὶ κολακείας ὑπάρχουσαι ἀνιστῶσιν ἀγχόμενον ὑπὸ κακίας τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον, ὑπεριδοῦσαι τὸν ὄλισθον τὸν βιωτικὸν, μιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ φωνῇ 
πολλὰ θεραπεύουσαι, ἀποτρέπουσαι μὲν ἡμᾶς τῆς ἐπιζημίου ἀπάτης, προτρέ- 
πουσαι. δὲ ἐμφανῶς εἰς προὗπτον σωτηρίαν. Comp. ibid. p. 71: “Ἱερὰ yap 
ὡς ἀληθῷς τὰ ἱεραποιοῦντα καὶ θεοποιοῦντα γράμματα κ. τ. Δ. Clement 
did not confine this sanctifying power to the mere letter of Scripture, but 
thought that the λογικοὶ νόμοι had been written, not only ἐν πλαξὶ λιθίναις, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν καρδίαις ἀνθρώπων, Peed. iii. p. 307; so that at least the effects 
produced by the Bible depend upon the susceptibility of the mind. The 
language of Origen is similar, contra Cels, vi. 2, p. 630: Φησὶ δ᾽ ὁ θεῖος 
Aöyoc, οὐκ αὔταρκες εἷναι τὸ λεγόμενον (Kav καθ᾽ αὐτὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ πιστι- 
κώτατον ἡ) πρὺς τὸ καθικέσθαι ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ δύναμίς τις 


92 First PERIOD. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


θεόθεν δοθῇ τῷ λέγοντι, καὶ χάρις ἐπανθήσῃ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ αὕτη οὐκ 
ἀθεεὶ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀνυσίμως λέγουσι. Accordingly, the use of the 
Scripture was universally recommended by the old Christian teachers, and 
the apologists call upon the heathen to convince themselves out of the Scrip- 
tures of the truth of what was told to them. [Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 
§ 23, on the General Use of the Bible: Justin, in his Coh. ad Grecer, calls 
upon the heathen to read the prophetic Scriptures. Athenagoras, in his 
Apology, presupposes that the emperors Marcüs Aurelius and his son have 
the Old Testament. All the Scriptures were read in the public services of 
Christians : Tertull. Apol. c. 39. Origen against Celsus (vii.) defends the 
Bible from the charge that it was written in a common style, by the state- 
ment that it was written for the common man. Comp. C. W. F. Walch, 
Kritische Untersuchung vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den Chris- 
ten in den vier ersten Jahrh. Leipz. 1779. W. Goode’s Divine Rule, etc., ubi 


supra. | 
§ 33. 


BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 


᾿ Olshausen, über tiefern Schriftsinn, Königsberg, 1824. Rosenmiiller, Historia Interpretat. 
N. Test. T. iii. Zrnesti, J. A., De Origene Interpretationis grammatice Auctore, 
Opuse. Crit. Lugd. 1764. Hagenbach, Observat. circa Origenis methodum interpre- 
tande S. 8. Bas. 1823, cf. the review by Hirzel, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 1825, Bd. 
ii. Thomasius, Origenes, Appendix I. [Davidson, S., Sacred Hermeneutics, devel- 
oped and applied; including a Hist. of Biblical Interpretation from the earliest of the 
Fathers to the Reform. Edinb. 1843. Comp. also Credner, K. A., in Kitto’s Cyclop. 
of Biblical Literature, sub voce. Fairbairn’s Hermeneutics, 1858. Frankel, Einfluss 
der palestin. Exegese auf d. Alexandr. Hermeneutik, Leipz. 1851.] 


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


* # With their high opinion about the inspiration of the sacred writings, 
and the dignity of a revelation, we should expect, as a matter of course, to 


§ 33. BipLicAL INTERPRETATION. 93 


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

* Comp. Gfrérer, Dähne, ]. c. [and Conybeare, J. J. The Bampton Lec- 
ture for the year 1824, being an attempt to trace the history and to ascertain 
the limits of the secondary and spiritual interpret. of Script., Oxf. 1824]. 

* Examples of allegorical and typical interpretation abound in the writings 
of the apostolical and earlier Fathers, see $ 29, note 3. [Comp. Davidson, 
Sacred Hermen. p. 71, ss. Barnabas, 1. 7: The two goats (Levit. xvi.) were 
to be fair and perfectly alike; both, therefore, typified the one Jesus, who 
was to suffer for us. The circumstance of one being driven forth into the 
wilderness, the congregation spitting upon it and pricking it, whilst the 
other, instead of being accursed, was offered upon the altar to God, symbol- 
ized the death and sufferings of Jesus. The washing of the entrails with 
vinegar, denoted the vinegar mixed with gall which was given to Jesus on 
the cross. The scarlet wool, put about the head of one of the goats, signified 
the scarlet robe put upon Christ before his crucifixion. The taking off the 
scarlet wool, and placing it on a thorn-bush, refers to the fate of Christ’s 
church. Clement of Alex. lib v. p. 557: “The candlestick situated south 
of the altar of incense signified the movements of the seven stars making 
circuits southward. From each side of the candlestick projected three 
branches with lights in them, because the sun placed in the midst of the 
other planets gives light both to those above and under it by a kind of 
divine music. The golden candlestick has also another enigma, not only in 
being a figure of the sign of Christ, but also in the circumstance of giving 
light in many ways and parts to such as believe and hope in him, by the 
instrumentality of the things at first created.” Comp. also pp. 74, 75, 79, 
80.] For a correct estimate of this mode of interpretation, comp. Möhler, 
Patrologie, i. p. 64: “ The system of interpretation adopted by the earlier 
fathers may not in many respects agree with our views ; but we should 
remember that our mode of looking at things differs from theirs in more than 
one point. They knew nothing, thought of nothing, felt nothing, but Christ 
—is it, then, surprising that they met him every where, even without seeking 
him? In our present state of culture we are scarcely able to form a correct 


04 First PERIOD. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


idea of the mind of those times, in which the great object of commentators was 
to show the connection between the Old and the New Covenant in the most 
vivid manner.” The earlier fathers indulged unconsciously in this mode of 
interpretation ; but Clement of Alex. attempts to establish a theory, asserting 
that the Mosaic laws have a threefold, or even a fourfold sense, τετραχῶς 
δὲ ἡμῖν ἐκληπτέον Tod νόμου τὴν βούλησιν. Strom. i, 28 (some read 
τριχῶς instead of τετραχῶς). [Comp. Davidson, 1. ce. p. 79.] 

* Origen supposes that Scripture has a threefold sense corresponding to 
the trichotomistic division of man into body, soul, and spirit (comp. § 54); 
and this he finds, too (by a petitio principii), in the Scripture itself, in Prov. 
xxii. 20, 21; and in the Shepherd of Hermes, which he values equally with 
Scripture. This threefold sense may be divided into: 1. The grammatical 
[owpatixdc|=body. 2. The moral [ıvxirös]—=soul; and 3. The mystical 
|nvevuarıröc]—=spirit. The literal sense, however, he asserts can not always 
be taken, but in certain cases it must be spiritualized by allegorical interpre- 
tation, especially in those places which contain either something indifferent 
in a religious aspect (genealogies, etc.); or what is repulsive to morality (¢. 9., 
in the history of the patriarchs); or what is unworthy of the dignity of God 
(the anthropomorphitic narratives in the book of Genesis, and several of the 
legal injunctions of the Old Testament). Comp. Philo’s method, Gfrörer, u. 
s. Davidson, p. 63. But Origen found stumbling-blocks not only in the Old, 
but also in the New Testament. Thus he declared that the narrative of the 
temptation of our Saviour was not simple history, because he could not solve 
the difficulties which it presents to the historical interpreter. [The gospels 
also abound in expressions of this kind; as when the devil is said to have 
taken Jesus to a high mountain. For who could believe, if he read such 
things with the least degree of attention, that the kingdoms of the Persians, 
Scythians, Indians, and Parthians, were seen with the bodily eye, and with 
as great honor as kings are looked upon? Davidson, |. ὁ. p. 99.] He also 
thought that some precepts, as Luke x. 4, Matth. v. 39, 1 Cor. vil. 18, could 
be taken in their literal sense only by the simple (ἀκεραίοις). He does not 
indeed deny the reality of most of the miracles, but he prizes much more 
highly the allegory which they include (comp. § 29, note 10); see besides 
the De Prine. lib. iv. § 8-27, where he gives the most complete exhibition 
of his theory, his exegetical works, and the above-mentioned treatises, with 
the passages there cited. Both tendencies above spoken of, that of interpret- 
ing into, and that of explaining away, are obviously exhibited in the writ- 
ings of Origen. Therefore the remark of Zücke (Hermeneutik, p. 39), “ that 
a rationalistic tendency, of which Origen himself was not conscious” may 
account in part for his addiction to allegorical interpretation, can be easily 
reconciled with the apparently contrary supposition, that the cause of it was 
mysticism, based on the pregnant sense of Scripture. “ The letter kills, but 
the spirit quickens ; this is the principle of Origen. But who does not see 
that the spirit can become too powerful, kill the letter, and take its place?” 
Edgar Quinet on Strauss (Revue des deux Mondes, 1838). 

° Trenceus also proceeded on the assumption that the Scriptures through- 
out were pregnant with meaning, Adv. Her. iv. 18: Nihil enim otiosum, 
nec sine signo, neque sine argumento apud eum, and made use of typical 


§ 34. ΤΈΑΛΡΙΤΙΟΝ. 95 


interpretation. Nevertheless, he saw the dangers of allegorizing, and con- 
demned it in the Gnosties, Adv. Her. i. 3, 6. We are as little able to 
understand the abundance of nature as the superabundance of Scripture, ibid. 
ii. 28: Nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo Dei 
et Spiritu ejus, secundum hoe et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. Et 
non est mirum, si in spiritualibus et ccelestibus et in his que habent revelari, 
hoc patimur nos: quandoquidem etiam eorum qu ante pedes sunt (dico 
autem qua sunt in hac creatura, qus et contrectantur a nobis et videntur et 
sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hee ipsa commit- 
timus. Oportet enim eum pre omnibus precellere......Ei δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς 
κτίσεως Evia μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ θεῷ, Evia δὲ καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλήλυθε τὴν 
ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν 
γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνια μὲν ἐπιλύομεν κατὰ χάριν θεοῦ, ἕνια δὲ 
ἀνακείσεται τῷ θεῷ, καὶ οὐ μόνον αἰῶνι ἐν τῷ νυνὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλ- 
λοντι; ἵνα ἀεὶ μὲν ὁ θεὸς διδάσκῃ, ἅνθρωπος δὲ διὰ παντὸς μανθάνῃ παρὰ 
Θεοῦ. 


§ 34. 


TRADITION. 


Pelt, über Tradition, in the Theologische Mitarbeiten, Kiel, 1813; K.R. Köstlin, Zur Gesch, 
des Urchristenthums, in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1850. Jacobi, ubi supra. Comp. § 30. 


Notwithstanding the high esteem in which Scripture was held, the 
authority of tradition was not put in the background. On the con- 
trary, in the controversies with heretics, Scripture was thought to 
be insufficient to combat them, because it maintains its true position, 
and can be correctly interpreted (7. e., according to the spirit of the 
church) only in close connection with the tradition of the church.’ 
Different opinions obtained concerning the nature of tradition. The 
view taken by Ireneus and Tertullian was of a positive, realistic 
kind ; according to them, the truth was dependent upon an external, 
historical, and geographical connection with the mother churches.’ 
The Alexandrian school entertained a more ideal view ; they saw in 
the more free and spiritual exchange of ideas the fresh and ever- 
living source from which we must draw the wholesome water of 
sound doctrine.’ It must, however, be acknowledged, that the idea 
of a secret doctrine,* favored by the Alexandrian school, which was 
said to have been transmitted along with the publicly received truth 
from the times of Christ and his Apostles, betrayed a Gnostic ten- 
dency, which might easily endanger the adaptation of Christianity to 
all classes of society. On the other hand, the new revelations of the 
Montanists in like manner broke loose from the basis of the historical 
(traditional) development.° In contrast with these tendencies it was 
insisted, that tradition is to be measured by Scripture, as well in re- 
spect to doctrine as to the usage of the church ; this particularly 
appears in Cyprian. 


96 First Periop. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


! On the necessity of tradition see /reneus, i. 10 (p. 49, M.), ii. 35, p. 171, 
ili. Pref. c. 1-6, ὁ. 21, iv. 20, 26, 32. (Orelli, i. Program. p. 20.) Espeei- 
ally remarkable is the declaration, iii. 4, that the nations had been converted 
to Christianity, not in the first instance by the Scriptures (sine charta et 
atramento), but by means of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and the faithfully 
preserved tradition. See Tert. Adv. Mare. 6, v. 5, and particularly De Pr«- 
scriptione Hereticorum, where he denies to heretics the right of using Scrip- 
ture in argument of the orthodox.* Comp. c. 13, seq. ; and c. 19, he says: 
Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nec in his constitutendum certamen, 
in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut par (var. parum) incerte. 
Nam esti non ita evaderet conlatio scripturarum, ut utramque partem parem 
sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat, illud prius proponi, quod nune solum dispu- 
tandum est: quibus competat fides ipsa: cujus sint scripture; a quo et per 
quos et quando et quibus sit tradita disciplina, qua fiunt Christiani. Ubi enim 
apparuerit esse veritatem et discipline et fidei christiane, illic erit veritas 
scripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum Christianarum. Comp. 
c. 37 : Qui estis? quando et unde venistis? quid in meo agitis, non mei? The 
renouncing of tradition is, according to Tertullian, the source of the mutila- 
tion and corruption of Scripture ; comp. ec. 22 and 38. But even in its in- 
tegrity Scripture alone is not able to ward off heresies; on the contrary, ac- 
cording to God’s providential arrangement, it becomes to heretics a source of 
new errors; comp. ὁ. 40, 42.—Clement of Alex. expresses himself thus 
(Stromata, vii. 15, p. 887): As an honest man must not lie, so must we not 
depart from the rule of faith which is handed down by the church; it is 
necessary to follow those who already have the truth. As the companions of 
Ulysses, bewitched by Circe, behaved like beasts, so he who renounces tra- 
dition ceases to be a man of God; Strom. 16, p. 890, comp. p. 896.— Origen, 
De Prine. proem. i. p. 47: Servetur vero ecclesiastica praedicatio per succes- 
sionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita et usque ad prasens in ecclesiis perma- 
nens; illa sola credenda est veritas, que in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica 
discordat traditione. 

* Iren. iii, 4 (2, p. 178, M.): Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica ques- 
tione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in 
quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab iis de preesenti queestione sumere quod 
certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas 
reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradi- 
derunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias ? ete. Tertul. Pzrscr. ec. 20: De- 
hine (Apostoli) in orbem profecti eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus 
promulgaverunt, et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condi- 
derunt, a quibus, traducem fidei et semina doctrine ceter® exinde ecclesiz 
mutuate sunt et quotidie mutuantur, ut ecclesiz fiant, et per hoc et ips 
apostolicee deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad 
originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot ac tant® ecclesize: una est 
illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes, etc. Comp. c. 21. 


* On the expression Prescriptio, Semler, in the Index Latin. p. 482: Ex usu forensi 
significant refutationem, qua, qui postulatur, adversarii accusationem disjicit aut in eum 
retorquet; and Tertull. himself, Preescr. c. 35. 


§ 34. TRADITION. 97 


> Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 1, p. 323: Ta φρέατα ἐξαντλούμενα διειδέστερον 
ὕδωρ ἀναδίδωσι: τρέπεται δὲ εἰς φθορὰν, Ov μεταλαμβάνει οὐδεὶς" Kal τὸν 
σίδηρον ἡ χρῆσις καθαρώτερον φυλάσσει, ἡ δὲ ἀχρηστία ἰοῦ τούτῳ γεννητική. 
Συνελόντι γὰρ φάναι" ἡ συγγυμνασία ἕξιν ἕμποιεῖ ὑγιεινὴν καὶ πνεύμασι 
καὶ σώμασιν. 

* Ibid : Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν (ὃ ᾿Ἰησοῦς) ἃ μὴ πολλῶν ἦν, 
ὀλίγοις δὲ οἷς προσήκειν ἠπίστατο, τοῖς οἵοις τε ἐκδέξασθαι καὶ τυπωθῆναι 
πρὸς αὐτὰ τὰ δὲ ἀπόῤῥητα, καθάπερ ὁ θεὸς, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμ- 
fate . . . . ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὰ μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται, ἵνα ἡ ἐν 
στόματι λαλοῦντος καὶ ὃ λαλεῖται: μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐν φωνῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ 
νοεῖσθαι κ. τ. A, Comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 1 (from the 7th book of the 
Hypotyposes), and the notes of Valesius and Heinichen. Origen, Contra 
Cels. vi.$ 6. Opp. T. i. p. 633. The so-called Disciplina Arcani stands in 
a somewhat wider connection with this; comp. #rommann, @. C. L. Th., 
De Disciplina Arcani, que in Vetere Ecclesia Christiana obtinuisse fertur, 
Jen. 1833, 8; and Rothe in Herzog’s Realencykl. [also, Heidelb. 1841, and 
Gieseler, Text-Book, i. 232, note.] 

° Comp. § 24, ὃ 30, note 2. Jacobi, u. 5. p. 125, sq. On the Gnostic tradi- 
tion, see Kostlin, ubi supra, p. 6, sq. 

° Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p. 786; vii. p. 891. Origen, Hom. in 
Jerem. i. (Opp. iii. p. 129): Mdprvpac dei λαβεῖν τὰς γραφάς: ἀμάρτυροι 
γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡμῶν καὶ al ἐξεγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν (this in relation to the 
doctrine of the divinity of Christ). Hippolytus, Contra Noctum, ce. 9 (in 
relation to the doctrine respecting God). 

The opinion of Cyprian was developed in the controversy with the Romish 
bishop Stephen, who appealed to the Romish tradition in support of his views 
concerning the baptism of heretics. Cyprian, on the contrary, justly went 
back from the dried up canal to the source, to the oldest tradition, viz., the 
Sacred Scriptures (divine traditionis caput et origo), Ep. 74, p. 215. In the 
same place, and in the same connection, he says: Consuetudo sine veritate 
vetustas erroris est. Comp. Ep. 71, p. 194: Non est de consuetudine pre- 
scribendum, sed ratione vincendum. It is interesting to observe that, e. g., 
Irenzeus does not as yet know any traditio humana within the church which 
could in any way contradict the traditio apostolica; such a tradition is known 
by Irenzeus only among the heretics; and Tertullian (as Montanist) had al- 
ready combated the authority of custom with almost the same weapons as 
Cyprian; comp. De Virgin. Veland. 1: Christus veritatem se, non consue- 
tudinem cognominavit. Quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit haeresis, 
etiam vetus consuetudo. Huther, Cyprian, p. 139, ss. Rettberg, p. 310. Pelt, 
l.c. Gess, Die Einheit der Kirche im Sinne Cyprians, in the Studien der 
Evangelischen Geistlichkeit Würtembergs, 1838, 11. 1, p. 149, ss. On the 
ambiguity of the word Tradition (a doctrinal, Gnostic, and ritual tradition 
may be distinguished), see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p.103. [The Alexandrians 
claimed to have the Gnostic tradition, which was not the common property 
of all Christians: this was opposed by Irenzeus and Tertullian. Tertullian 
advocated the authority of tradition in respect to rites, but demanded (De 
Jejunio, c. 10.), Tanto magis dignam rationem affere debemus, quanto carent 
Scripture auctoritate. Cyprian, Ep. is ad Pompejum, against the Roman 


98 First PERIOD. APOLOGETICO-DoOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


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

It was held that faith (πίστις, fides) is the medium by which we apprehend 
the revelations made known to us, either by Scripture or by tradition. The 
question, however, arose in what relation the πίστις stands to the more de- 
veloped γνῶσις; While Zreneus does not go beyond faith, but without 
excluding its scientific exposition (comp. Duncker, p. 16), the theologians of 
the Alexandrian school, e. g., Clement, endeavored to assign a higher position 
to the γνῶσις. But we should mistake him, if we were to conclude, from 
some of his expressions, that he attached an inferior value to the πίστις. Ina 
certain sense he looked upon it rather as the perfection of knowledge (τελειότης 
μαθήσεως), Ped. 1. 6, ». 116. Faith does not want anything, it does not limp 
(as arguments do); it has the promise, ete. Also, according to Strom. i. 1, 
p- 320, faith is necessary to attain unto knowledge. It anticipates knowledge, 
ii. 1, p. 432 ; comp. ii. 4, p. 486: Κυριώτερον οὖν τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἡ πίστις 
καὶ ἐστὶν αὐτῆς κριτήριον. Im the same place he distinguishes faith from 
mere opinion, eikaota, which is related to faith, as a flatterer to a true friend, 
or a wolf to a dog.—Revelation (διδασκαλία) and faith depend on each other, 
as the throwing and catching of a ball in a game; Strom. ii. 6, p. 442.—On 
the other hand, Clement maintained the necessity of a well instructed faith 
(πίστις περὶ τὴν μάθησιν), Strom. i. 6, p. 336; and insisted, in general, on an 
intimate connection between πίστις and γνῶσις, ii. 4, p. 436: Πιστὴ τοίνυν 
ἡ γνῶσις" γνωστὴ δὲ ἡ πὶστις" θείᾳ τινὶ ἀκολουθίᾳ Te καὶ ἀντακολουθίᾳ 
γίνεται. Faith is described as an abridged knowledge of necessary truth ; 
γνῶσις is characterized as a firm and stable demonstration of the things al- 
ready apprehended by faith; Strom. vii. 10, p. 865, sq. From this point of 
view he valued knowledge more highly than faith, Strom. vi. 14, p. 794. 
Πλέον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. Nevertheless, he could distinguish 
this true gnosis from the false gnosis of the Gnosties; Strom. v. 6. p. 689, 
12, p. 695, vi. 7, p. 771, vii. 10, p. 864 (here again faith appears as the basis 
of true knowledge). On the different names and kinds of knowledge, see 
Strom. vi. 17, p. 820. Comp. Neander, De Fidei Gnoseosque Idea secundum 
Clementem Alex. Heidelberg, 1811, 8. Baur, Gnosis, p. 502, ss. Origen, 
De Princ. in Procem. 3 ; Opp. 1. 47, concedes that the Apostles, who preached 
to the unlettered, left the investigation of the grounds and reasons of their 
positions to those who should be endowed by the Holy Spirit with special 
gifts, particularly with eloquence, wisdom, and science: Ilud autem seire 
oportet, quoniam Sancti Apostoli fidem Christi predicantes de quibusdam 
quidem, queecunque necessaria crediderunt, omnibus manifestissime tradi- 
derunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ab his inquirendam, 
qui Spiritus dona excellentia mererentur: de aliis vero dixerunt quidem, quia 
sint ; quomodo autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt, profecto ut studiosiores quique 
ex posteris suis, qui amatores essent sapientie, exercitium habere possent, in 
quo ingenii sui fructum ostenderent, hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad 
recipiendam sapientiam prepararent. Comp. the conclusion, p. 49. 


SECOND DIVISION. 


THEOLOGY. 


THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING GOD (INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE OF 
THE CREATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD; THE 
DOCTRINE ABOUT ANGELS AND DEMONS). 


§ 35. 


THE BEING OF GOD. 


Tr can never be the object of a positive religion to prove the ex- 
istence of God, inasmuch as it always presupposes the knowledge 
that there is a God. Christianity stood on the basis of the Old Tes- 
tament idea of a God,—now purified and carried beyond the limits 
of national interests,—as a personal God, who, as the creator of 
heaven and earth, rules over the human race; who had given the law, 
sent the prophets, and manifested himself most perfectly, and in the 
fullness of his personal presence, in his Son, Jesus Christ.‘ Conse- 
quently the believing Christian needed as little, as his Jewish con- 
temporary, a proof of the being of God. But in the further develop- 
ment of the Christian system, it became necessary, on the one hand, 
that Christians should defend themselves (apologetically) against the 
charge of atheism which was frequently brought against them ;’ on 
the other, they had to demonstrate to the heathen (polemically), 
that their pagan worship was false, and consequently in its very 
foundation was a denial of the living God (atheism).* When, 
therefore, the writings of the fathers contain any thing like a proof 
of the existence of God, it is either the spontaneous expres- 
sion of religious feeling in a rhetorical and hymnological form,* 
or it is intimately connected with other definitions about the 
nature of God, with the doctrine of his unity, or with the doctrine 
concerning the creation and government of the world5 But the 
fathers of this period generally recurred to the innate knowledge of 
God (testimonium anime, λόγος omepuarırög), which may be traced. 
even in the heathen,’ and on the purity of which the knowledge of 
God depends.” With this they connected, but in a popular rather 
than a strictly scientific form, what is commonly called the phys- 
ico-theological, or teleological proof, inferring the existence of a 


—~— sw Ss SU eo se 


100 First PERIOD. DOCTRINE RESPECTING Gop. 


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


1 The distinction, therefore, between Theology and Christology is only 
relative, and made for scientific purposes. The Christian idea of God always 
depends on faith in the Son, in whom the Father manifests himself. “ The 
doctrine of the Logos was the stock out of which Christian theology grew : the 
divine nature in itself was treated only incidentally and in fragments ;” 
Semisch, Just. Mart. ii., p. 247. We find, however, in the writings of some of 
the earliest fathers (especially Minucius Felix) a kind of theology which bears 
much resemblance to what was subsequently called natural theology, being 
more reflective than intuitive. Others (6. g. Clement) looked at every thing 
as mediated by the Logos; Strom. v. 12, p. 696, comp. also note 9. 

® Comp. 6. g. Minuc. Fel. Oct. c. 8, and with it ce. 17, 18, also the Edict. 
Antonini, in Euseb. iv. 13; the phrase ὡς ἀθέων κατηγοροῦντες, however, 
may be differently interpreted. Comp. Heinichen, 1. p. 328. 

3 This was done by all the apologists, each in his turn; comp. as examples 
of all, Minue. Fel. c. 20, ss.; Tertullian, Apol. c. 8, De Idolotatria. Cyprian, 
De Idolorum Vanitate, ete. 

* Thus the passage in Clem. of Alex. Cohort. 54: Θεὸς δὲ πῶς av εἴποιμι 
ὅσα ποιεῖ ; GAov ἰδὲ τὸν κόσμον. "Erelvov ἔργον ἐστὶν καὶ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἥλιος 
καὶ ἄγγελοι καὶ ἄνθρωποι, ἔργα τῶν δακτύλων αὐτοῦ. "Oon γε ἡ δύναμις 
τοῦ θεοῦ ; Μόνον αὐτοῦ τὸ βούλημα κοσμοποιΐα' μόνος γὰρ 6 θεὸς ἐποίησεν, 
ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὄντως ἐστὶ Θεός. Ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον 
ἐθελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσθαι κ. τ. Δ. Comp. Tertull. Apol. ο. 17, 18. 

° Comp. the following SS. 

° Tertullian, Advers. Judzeos c. 2: Cur etenim Deus universitatis conditor, 
mundi totius gubernator, hominis plasmator, universarum gentium sator, 
legem per Moysen uni populo dedisse eredatur, et non omnibus gentibus at- 
tribuisse dicatur ? et seq. Comp. Apol. ec. 17: Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ac 
talibus quibus continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus oblectamur, etiam qui- 
bus exterremur? vultis ex anime ipsius testimonio comprobemus? Que licet 
earcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidini- 
bus ac concupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis deis exancillata, cum tamen re- 
sipiscit ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et sanitatem suam 
potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine, quia proprio Dei veri: Deus mag- 
nus, Deus honus, et: quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem quoque 
contestatur illum: Deus videt, et: Deo commendo, et; Deus mihi reddet. 
O testimonium anime naturaliter christian ! Denique pronuntians hec, non 
ad capitolium, sed ad ccelum respicit, novit enim sedem Dei vivi.— De Testim, 
Anime, ὁ. 2: Si enim anima aut divina aut a Deo data est, sine dubio dato- 
rem suum novit. Et si novit, utique et timet, et tantum postremo adauctorem. 
An non timet, quem magis propitium velit quam iratum? Unde igitur na- 
turalis timor anime in Deum, si Deus non vult irasci? Quomodo timetur 


$ 35. Tue Brine or Gop. 101 


qui nescit offendi? Quid timetur msi ira? Unde ira nisi ex animadversione? 
Unde animadversio nisi de judicio? Unde judicium nisi de potestate? Cujus 
potestas summa nisi Dei solius? Hine ergo tibi, anima, de conscientia suppetit 
domi ae foris, nullo irridente vel prohibente, preedicare: Deus videt omnia, 
et: Deo commendo, et: Deus reddet, et: Deus inter nos judicabit, et seq. 
Comp. Meander, Antignosticus, p. 88, 89. Justin M. also speaks of an 
innate idea of God, Apol. II. 6: Td Θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ Övoud ἐστιν; 
ἀλλὰ πράγμαπος δυσεξηγήτουν ἔμφυτος τῆ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. Comp. 
Did. c. Tr. ce. 93.— (lem of Alex. Coh. vi. 59: Πᾶσιν γὰρ ἁπαξαπλῶς 
ἀνθρώποις, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς περὶ λόγους ἐνδιατρίβουσιν (qui in studiis liter- 
arum versati sunt) ἐνέστακταί τις ἀπόῤῥοια θεϊκή. Οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ ἄκοντες 
μὲν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἕνα τε εἶναι Θεὸν, ἀνώλεθρον καὶ ἀγέννητον" τοῦτον ἄνω 
που περὶ τὰ νῶτα τοῦ οὐμανοῦ εν τῆ ἰδίᾳ καὶ οἰκείᾳ περιωπῆ ὄντως ὄντα ἀεί. 
Comp. Strom, v. 12, p. 698: Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἔμφασις ἑνὸς ἦν τοῦ παντοιπρά- 
τορος παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς εὐφρονοῦσι πάντοτε φυσική; καὶ τῆς ἀϊδίου κατὰ τὴν 
θείαν πρόνοιαν εὐεργεσίας ἀντελαμβάνοντο οἱ πλεῖστοι, οἱ καὶ μὴ τέλεον 
ἀπηρυθριακότες πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 

τ Theophilus ad Autolycum, at the beginning: “If thou sayest, Show me 
thy God; I answer, Show me first thy man, and I will show thee my God. 
Show me first, whether the eyes of thy soul see, and the ears of thy heart 
hear. For as the eyes of the body perceive earthly things, light and dark- 
ness, white and black, beauty and deformity, etc., so the ears of the heart 
and the eyes of the soul can see God. God is seen by those who can see 
him, when they open the eyes of their soul. All men have eyes, but the 
eyes of some are blinded, that they can not see the light of the sun. But 
the sun does not cease to shine, because they are blind, they must ascribe it 
to their blindness that they can not see. Thus is it with thee,O man! The 
eyes of thy soul are darkened by sin, even by thy sinful actions. Like a 
bright mirror, man must have a pure soul. If there be any rust on the mir- 
ror, man can not see the reflection of his countenance in it : likewise, if there 
be sin in man, he can not see God. Therefore, first examine thyself, whether 
thou be not an adulterer, fornicator, thief, robber, ete., for thy crimes prevent 
thee from perceiving God.” Comp. Clem. of Alex, Pad. iii. 1, p. 250: 
‘Eavrov γάρ τις ἐὰν γνῴη, Θεὸν εἴσεται. Minuc. Fel. c. 32: Ubique non 
tantum nobis proximus, sed infusus est (Deus). Non tantum sub illo agimus, 
sed et cum ilio, prope dixerim vivimus. 

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


102 First PERIOD. DOCTRINE RESPECTING GoD. 


® Clem, of Alex. Strom. v. 12, p. 695: Nai μὴν ὃ δυσμεταχειριστότατος 
περὶ Θεοῦ λόγος οὗτός EoTLY" ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἀρχὴ παντὸς πράγματος δυσεύρετος, 
πάντως που ἡ πρώτη καὶ πρεσβυτάτη ἀρχὴ δύσδεικτος, ἥτις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις 
ἅπασιν αἰτία τοῦ γενέσθαι κ. τ. A. Ib. in calce et 696: ’AAA’ οὐδὲ 
ἐπιστήμῃ λαμβάνεται τῇ ἀποδεικτικῇ: αὕτη γὰρ ἐκ προτέρων καὶ γνωρι- 
μωτέρων συνίσταται: τοῦ δὲ ἀγεννήτου οὐδὲν προὐπάρχει" λείπεται δὴ θείᾳ 
χάριτι καὶ μόνῳ τῷ Tap’ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ τὸ ἄγνωστον νοεῖν. Strom. iv. 25, p. 
635: Ὃ μὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος OY, οὔκ ἐστιν ἐπιστημονικός" ὃ δὲ υἱὸς 
σοφία τε ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπιστήμη κ. τ. A. Likewise Origen, Contra Cels. vii. 42 
(Opp. T. 1, p. 725), maintains in reference to the saying of Plato, that it is 
difficult to find God : Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀποφαινόμεθα, ὅτι οὐκς αὐτάρκης ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη 
φύσις ὁπωσποτανοῦν ζητῆσαι τὸν θεὺν, καὶ εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν καθαρῶς, μὴ 
βοηθηθεῖσα ὑπὸ τοῦ ζητουμένου" εὑρισκομένου τοῖς ὁμολογοῦσι μετὰ τὸ παρ᾽ 
αὑτοὺς ποιεῖν, ὅτι δέονται αὑτοῦ, ἐμφανίζοντος ἑαυτὸν οἷς ἂν Kpivy εὔλογον 
εἶναι ὀφθῆναι, ὡς πέφυκε θεὸς μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ γινώσκεσθαι, ἀνθρώπου δὲ 
ψυχὴ ἔτι οὗσα ἐν σώματι γιγνώσκειν τὸν θεόν. 


§ 86. 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 


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


* Both the hypothesis of a δημιουργός, ἄρχων, Jaldabaoth, etc., who is 
subordinate to the Supreme God (θεὸς ἀκατονόμαστος, βυθός), and that of 
the unfolding of the one God into manifold simple ons, or pairs of eons, is 
contrary to monotheism. On the more fully developed systems of Basilides 
and Valentinus, comp. Irensus, Clem. of Alexandria, and the works quoted ὃ 
23 on the Gnostic systems. Against the Gnostic dualism especially, Irenzeus 
(ii. 1); Origenes De Prine. ii, i.; Tert. Adv. Marcion. i, (As to the mode 
in which the orthodox church tried to unite the belief in the Trinity with 
monotheism, see below.) 

* Justin M. simply acknowledges this necessity, by considering the unity 
of God as an innate idea, which was afterward lost. In his opinion mono- 
theism is the first true criterion of religious principles, Coh. ad Greece. c. 36: 
Δυνατὸν μανθάνειν ὑμᾶς Eva καὶ μόνον εἷναι θεὸν, ὃ πρῶτόν ἐστι τῆς 
ἀληθοῦς θεοσεβείας γνώρισμα. 


$ 36. Toe Uniry or Gop. 103 


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

* Minuc, Fel, ce. 18: Quando unquam regni societas aut cum fide ccepit, 
aut sine cruore desiit? Omitto Persas de equorum hinnitu augurantes prin- 
cipatum, et Thebanorum premortuam fabulam transeo; ob pgstorum et 
cas® regnum de geminis memoria notissima est; generi et soceri bella toto 
orbe diffusa sunt, et tam magni imperii duos fortuna non cepit. Vide cetera: 
rex unus apibus, dux unus in gregibus, in armentis rector unus. Tu in celo 
summam potestatem dividi credas, et scindi veri illius ac divini imperii po- 
testatem ? quum palam sit, parentem omnium Deum nec principium habere 
nec terminum, etc. Comp. Cyprian, De Idolorum Vanitate, p. 14. 

* Clem. Ped. i. 8, p. 140: Ev dé 6 Θεὸς, καὶ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ὑπὲρ 
αὑτὴν μονάδα. Along with the idea of the unity of God, Origen speaks of 
the more metaphysical idea of his simplicity, De Princ. i. 1, 6 (Opp. T. i. p. 
51, Redepenning, p. 100): Non ergo aut corpus aliquid, aut @n corpore esse 
putandus est Deus (against this, compare Athenagoras), sed intellectualis 
natura simplex, nihil omnino adjunctionis admittens: uti ne majus aliquid et 
inferius in se habere credatur, sed ut sit ex omni parte μονάς et ut ita dicam 
évdc, et mens et fons, ex quo initium totius intellectualis nature vel mentis 
est. Strauss, in his Glaubenslehre (i. 404 sq.), gives a compressed sketch 
of the attempts of the fathers to prove the unity of God. [Origen, Contra 
Cels. 1. 23, in the a posteriori method ; from the analogy of armies and states. 
Lactantius, Div. Inst. 1. 3: Quod si in uno exercitu tot fuerint imperatores, 


104 First PERIOD. DOCTRINE RESPECTING Gop. 


quot legiones, quot cohortes, quot cunei, quot ale, ete. Cyprian, De Idol. 
Van. 5: Nec hoc tantum de homine mireris, quum in hoc omnis natura con- 
sentiat. Rex unus est apibus, et dux unus in gregibus, et in armentis rector 
unus: multo magis mundi unus est rector, etc. They also derived an a 
priort argument from the infinitude and absolute perfection of the divine 
essence. | 


5°37. 


WHETHER GOD CAN BE NAMED AND KNOWN. 


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


When the martyr Attalus, in the persecution of the Gallican Christians 
under Marcus Aurelius, was asked by his judges what was the name of God, 
he replied: Ὃ θεὸς ὄνομα οὐκ ἔχει ὡς ἄνθρωπος, Euseb. v. 1 (edit. Heinichen, 
t. li. p. 29, comp. the note). Such was also the opinion of Justin M., 
Apology, ii. 6; whatever name may be given to God, he who has given a 
name to a thing must always be anterior to it. He, therefore, draws a dis- 
tinction (with Philo, De Confus. Ling. p. 357) between appellatives (mpoo- 
ρήσεις) and names (övöuara). The predicates πατήρ, θεός, κύριος, δεσπότης, 
are only appelatives. Therefore, he also calls God ἄῤῥητος πατήρ; other 
passages are given by Semisch, ii. p. 252, ss. When Justin further says 
(Dial. c. Tryph. c. 3) that God is not only above all names, but above all essence 
(ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας), it is to be remembered that he is there speaking as a 
heathen from the Platonic standpoint. But elsewhere he speaks of an οὐσία 
of God, e. g., Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, and even ascribes to him (in a certain 
sense) a μορφή. Apol. 1. 9; comp. Semisch, 11. p. 252. Theoph. ad Autol. 
1.3: Ἄκουε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, τὸ μὲν εἶδος τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄῤῥητον καὶ ἀνέκφραστον, 
καὶ μὴ δυνάμενον ὀφθαλμοῖς σαρκίνοις ὁραθῆναι: δόξῃ γάρ ἐστιν ἀχώρητος, 
μεγέθει ἀκατάληπτος, ὕψει ἀπερινόητος, ἰσχύϊ ἀσύγκριτος, σοφίᾳ ἀσυμβί- 
βαστος, ἀγαθοσύνῃ ἀμίμητος, καλοποιίᾳ ἀνεκδιήγητος" εἰ γὰρ φῶς αὐτὸν 
εἴπώ, ποίημα αὐτοῦ λέγω: εἰ λόγον εἴπω, ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ λέγω (comp. the note 
to this passage by Maran): νοῦν ἐὰν εἴπω, φρόνησιν αὐτοῦ λέγω" πνεῦμα ἐὰν 
εἴπω, ἀναπνοὴν αὐτοῦ λέγω: σοφίαν ἐὰν εἴπω, γέννημα αὐτοῦ λέγω" ἰσχὺν 
ἐὰν εἴπω, κράτος αὐτοῦ λέγω" πρόνοιαν ἐὰν εἴπω, ἀγαθοσύνην αὐτοῦ λέγω" 


§ 37. WHETHER GoD CAN BE NAMED AND KNOWN. 105 


βασιλείαν ἐὰν εἴπω, δόξαν αὐτοῦ λέγω: κύριον ἐὰν εἴπω, κριτὴν αὐτὸν λέγω" 
κριτήν ἐὰν εἴπω, δίκαιον αὐτὸν λέγω: πατέρα ἐὰν εἴπω, τὰ πάντα αὐτὸν 
λέγω: πῦρ ἐὰν εἴπω, τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ λέγω κ. τ. Δ. Comp.i.5: Ei γὰρ 
τῷ ἡλίῳ ἐλαχίστῳ ὄντι στοιχείῳ οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἀτενίσαι διὰ τὴν 
ὑπερβάλλουσαν θέρμην καὶ δύναμιν, πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ 
ἀνεκφράστῳ οὔσῃ ἅνθρωπος θνητὸς οὐ δύναται ἀντωπῆσαι [comp. Scherer, 
Le Ditheisme de Just. Rev. de Theol. 1856]. According to Jren. ii. 25, 4, 
God is indeterminabilis, nor can any one fully comprehend his nature by 
thinking; comp. Duncker, p. 11. Minuc. Fel. ec. 18: Hic (Deus) nec videri 
potest, visu clarior est, nec comprehendi, tactu purior est, nec eestimari, sensi- 
bus, major est, infinitus, immensus et soli sibi tantus quantus est notus; nobis 
vero ad intellectum pectus angustum est, et ideo sic eum digne estimamus, 
dum inestimabilem dicimus. Eloquar, quemadmodum sentio: magnitudinem 
Dei, que se putat nosse, minuit; qui non vult minuere, non novit. Nec nomen 
Deo queras: DEUS nomen est! Illie vocabulis opus est, quum per singulos 
propriis appellationum insignibus multitudo dirimenda est. Deo, qui solus 
est, Dei vocabulum totum est. Quem si patrem dixero, terrenum opineris ; 
si regem, carnalem suspiceris ; si dominum, intelliges utique mortalem. 
Aufer additamenta nominum, et perspicies ejus claritatem. Clement of Alex- 
andria shows very distinctly, Strom. vil, p. 689, that we can attain to a clear 
perception of God only by laying aside, δι᾽ ἀναλύσεως, all finite ideas of the 
divine nature, till at last nothing but the abstract idea of unity remains. 
But lest we should content ourselves with the mere negation, we must throw 
ourselves (ἀποῤῥίψωμεν ἑαυτούς) into the greatness of Christ, in whom the 
glory of God was manifested, in order to obtain to some extent (ἀμηγέπη) the 
knowledge of God (7. e., in a practical and religious manner, not by specula- 
tion); for even then we learn only what God is not, not what he is (that is 
to say, if we speak of absolute knowledge). Comp. also the 12th and 13th 
chapters of the 5th book, from p. 692 ; in particular, p. 695, and ce. i. p. 647: 
Δῆλον yap μηδένα δύνασθαι παρὰ τὸν τῆς ζωῆς χρύνον τὸν θεὸν ἐναργῶς 
καταλαβέσθαι ; he, therefore, gives the advice, ibid. p. 651: Τὸ δὲ ἄρα ζητεῖν 
περὶ θεοῦ ἂν μὴ εἰς ἔριν, ἀλλὰ εἰς εὕρεσιν τείνῃ, σωτήριόν ἐστι. Compare 
on this, Baur, Trinitätslehre, p. 191, sq., who remarks, that what is ab- 
stract in the idea of God is not declared by any of the older teachers of the 
church, Origen himself not excepted, more strongly and definitely than by 
Clement. ‘But he by no means confined himself to the abstract. Origen, 
Contra Cels. vi. 65, Opp. i. p. 681, sq. shows that what is individual can not 
be described ; for who in words could tell the difference between the sweet- 
ness of figs and the sweetness of dates? And De Prine. i. 1, 5, p. 50; 
Redepenning, p. 89, he says: Dicimus secundum veritatem, Deum incompre- 
hensibilem esse atque insstimabilem. Si quid enim illud est, quod sentire 
vel intelligere de Deo potuerimus, multis longe modis eum meliorem esse ab 
eo quod sensimus necesse est credere. “As much as the brightness of the 


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


106 First PerIoD. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


sun exceeds the dim light of a lantern, so much the glory of God surpasses 
our idea of it.” Likewise Novatian says, De Trinit. c. 2: De hoc ergo ac 
de eis, quae sunt ipsius et in eo sunt, nec mens hominis que sint, quanta sint 
et qualia sint, digne concipere potest, nec eloquentia sermonis humani »qua- 
bilem majestati ejus virtutem sermonis expromit. Ad cogitandam enim et 
ad eloquendam illius majestatem et eloquentia omnis merito muta est et mens 
omnis exigua est: major est enim mente ipsa, nec cogitari possit quantus sit : 
ne si potuerit cogitari, mente humana minor sit, qua concipi possit. Major 
est quoque omni sermone, nec edici possit : ne si potuerit edici, humana ser- 
mone minor sit, quo quum edicitur, et circumiri et colligi possit. Quidquid 
enim de illo cogitatum fuerit, minus ipso erit, et quidquid enuntiatum fuerit, 
minus illo comparatum circum ipsum erit. “Sentire enim illum taciti aliqua- 
tenus possumus; ut autem ipse est, sermone explicare non possumus. Sive 
enim illum dixeris lucem, creaturam ipsius magis quam ipsum dixeris, etc. .... 
Quidquid omnino de illo retuleris, rem aliquam ipsius magis et virtutem quam 
ipsum explicaveris. Quid enim de eo condigne aut dicas aut sentias, qui om- 
nibus et sermonibus major est? etc. This Christian scholasticism which per- 
vades the first period, forms a striking contrast with the modern assurance of 
the old and new scholastic mode and style! Nevertheless, the fathers (and 
Origen in particular) also admit a spiritual vision of God, which is now medi- 
ated by Christ, but will at last be direct. Comp. infra, on Eschatology. 


$ 38. 
IDEALISM AND ANTHROPOMORPHISM. CORPOREITY OF GOD. 


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


§ 38. IDEALISM AND ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 107 


"On this subject even the ancient philosophers entertained differing 
opinions. The popular, polytheistic form of religion was founded (as is every 
religion) on anthropomorphism. Xenophanes of Colophon, the founder of 
the Eleatie school, endeavored to combat anthropomorphism as well as poly- 
theism. Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14, p. 714 (Sylb. 601, e.): 


Eic θεὸς Ev τε θειοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρωποῖσι μέγιστος, 
Οὔ τι δέμας θνητοῖσιν ὁμοίϊος οὐδὲ νόημα, κ. τ. A. 


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

* Clement opposes anthropomorphism in different places: “ Most men talk 
and judge of God from their own limited point of view, as if cockles and oysters 
were to reason out of their narrow shells, and the hedgehog out of his rolled 
up self.” Strom. v. 11, p. 687; comp. vii. 5, p. 845; c. 7, p. 852, 753: Ὅλος 
ἀκοὴ καὶ ὅλος ὀφθαλμὸς, ἵνα τις τούτοις χρήσηται τυῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὁ Θεός, 
Καθ’ ὅλου τοίνυν οὐδεμίαν σώζει θεοσέβεϊῖαν, οὔτε ἐν ὕμνοις οὔτε ἐν λόγοις, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐν γραφαῖς ἢ δόγμασιν ἡ μὴ πρέπουσα περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπόληψις, 
ἀλλ᾽ εἷς ταπεινὰς καὶ ἀσχήμονας ἐκτρεπομένη ἐννοίας TE καὶ Ὁὕπονοίας" 
ὅθεν ἡ τῶν πολλῶν εὐφημία δυσφημίας οὐδὲν διαφέρει διὰ τῆν τῆς ἀληθείας 
ἄγνοιαν κ. τ. λ. (on prayer). Origen begins his work, περὶ ἀρχῶν, immedi- 
ately after the Procm. with objections to anthropomorphitic or material 
ideas of God: “I know that many appeal even to Scripture to prove that 
God is a corporeal being; because they read in Moses that he is a consuming 
fire, and in John, that he is a Spirit (πνεῦμα τα"). They can not think of 
fire and spirit but as something corporeal. I should like to ask them what 
they say of the passage in 1 John i. 5: “God is light?’ He is a light to 
enlighten those who seek the truth (Ps. xxxvi. 9); for “the light of God” is 
nothing other than divine power, by means of which he who is enlightened 
perceives truth in all things, and apprehends God himself as the truth. In 
this sense it is also said, in thy light we shall see light, ©. 6. in the Logos, in 
the Wisdom, which is thy Son, we see thee, the Father. Is it necessary to 
suppose that God resembles the sunlight, because he is called light? Can 
any sensible meaning be attached to the idea, that knowledge and wisdom 
have their source in “ the corporeal light ?” (Schnitzer’s translation, p. 13, sq.) 
But the spiritualizing tendency of Origen led him frequently so to explain 


108 First PERIOD. Doctrine REsPECTING Gop. 


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

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


§ 39. THE ATTRIBUTES OF Gop. 109 


Deo efficit incorruptibilitas substantie divine.* On the anthropomorphism 
of Cyprian, see Kettberg, p. 300. Lreneus, with great sobriety, rejects both 
anthropomorphism properly so called, and false anthropopathism. In no 
respect is God to be compared to human frailty ; though his love justifies us 
in using human phraseology when speaking of him, nevertheless we feel that, 
as to his greatness and his true nature, he is elevated above all that is human. 
God is simple, and in all things like himself (simplex, et non compositus et 
simili membrius, et totus ipse sibimet ipsi simites et aqualis.) Comp. Adv. 
Her. ii. 13, 4, and iv. 5, 20. Duncker, 1. c. p. 25. Baur, Christ. Gnosis, p. 
466; Trin. Lehre, p. 190. 


§ 39. 
2 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 


[Comp. Dorner, Die Unveränderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theologie, i. 2, 
ii. 3. ii. 3.] 


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


* Münscher, ed. by Cölln, i. p. 134, adduces this passage to show that Tertullian is 
justly chargeable with real anthropomorphism. It rather proves the contrary. It must 
also be borne in mind that the corporeity of God and anthropomorphism are by no 
means synonymous. It is possible to conceive of God as incorporeal, and yet in a very 
anthropomorphic way as a very limited spirit, like the spirit of man. On the other 
hand, the substantiality of God may be taken in so abstract a manner as to exclude all 
that is human and personal (so the Stoics). Tertullian combines both these modes of 
representation; but after all that has been said, it is the awkwardness of his style and 
mode of thinking, rather than any defective religious views, that has brought him into the 
repute of being a crude anthropomorphist. [This may be clearly seen from the following 
passage: ‘ Divine affections are ascribed to the Deity by means of figures borrowed from 
the human form, not as if he were indued with corporeal qualities : when eyes are ascribed 
to him, it denotes that he sees all things; when ears, that he hears all things; the speech 
denotes the will; nostrils, the perception of prayer; hands, creation; arms, power; feet, 
immensity ; for he has no members, and performs no office for hat they are required, 
but executes all things by the sole act of his will. How can he require eyes, who is light 
itself? or feet, who is omnipresent ? How can he require hands, who is the silent creator 
of all things? or a tongue, to whom to think is to command? Those members are neces- 
sary to men, but not to God, inasmuch as the counsels of man would be inefficacious 
unless his thoughts put his members in motion; but not to God, whose operations follow 
his will without effort.” Comp. Wright, W., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literat. art. An- 
thropomorphism.] Tertullian undoubtedly was struggling after more profound views 
than are even suspected by many who speak of his theology in depreciating terms. For 
the same reason too much is conceded to Cyprian, by Rettberg, u. 5, Comp. Baur’s Trinitäts- 
lehre, p. 188 note. On the distinction between SuiiraponrespHiant and anthropopathism, 
see Neander, Dogmengesch. [p. 106 of Ryland]. 


110 First Periop. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


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


> Thus “Justin Martyr generally makes only a passing reference to the 
divine attributes, and in contrast with the common humanizing of deity found 
in the poetic and plastic mythology.” Semisch, li. p. 258. Justin, too, 
emphasizes the immutability of God, as one of his fundamental attributes, 
calling him (Apol. i. 13) τὸν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα θεόν. 

5 The Catholic church preserved a right medium between the anti-judaizing 
Gnostics, who spoke of the demiurge as a being either subordinate to the 
Supreme God, or standing in a hostile relation to him; and the judaizing 
Ebionites, who, retaining the rigid physiognomy of J udaran, misapprehended 
the universality of the Chricgian doctrine of God. But here, as elsewhere, 
there is a wide difference between the North African and the Alexandrian 
schools. 

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

* Philo had previously identified God with absolute space,* and called 
him his own limit (comp. the passages bearing on this subject in the work 
of Dähne, p. 281-284, and p. 193, 267, ss); Theophilus, too, Ad Autol. ii. 3, 
calls God his own space (αὑτὸς ἑαυτοῦ τόπος ἐστίν). He does not confine 
the omnipresence of God to his local presence in one or another spot, but con- 
siders it as his uninterrupted activity known only from his works; comp. i. 5. 
Clem. of Alex., too, opposes the localizing of God, Strom. ii. 2, p. 431: Ov 
yap ἐν γνόφῳ (a needless conjecture of Réssler’s here is, ἐν χρόνῳ) ἢ τόπῳ 


* Comp. the opinions of the Peripatetics (Sextus Empiricus adv. Physicos, x. p. 639, 
ed. Fabricius). 


$ 39. ΤῊΝ ATTRIBUTES OF Gop. 1| 


ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπεράνω καὶ τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ τῆς τῶν γεγονότων ἱδιό- 
τητος" διὸ οὐδὲ ἐν μέρει καταγίνεταί ποτε, οὔτε περίεχων οὔτε περιεχόμενος» 
ἢ κατὰ ὁρισμόν τινα ἢ κατὰ ἀποτομήν. According to Origen, God sustains 
and fills the world (which Origen, like Plato, conceives to be an animate 
being) with his power, but he neither occupies space, nor does he even move 
in space, comp. De Prine. ii. 1, Opp. i. p. 77. For an explanation of popular 
and figurative expressions, which suggest the occupying of space and change 
of place, vide Contra Cels. iv. 5, Opp. 1. p. 505. and comp. also p. 686. Con- 
cerning the expression that God is all in all, see De Prine. i. 6 (Opp. 1. p. 
152, 153). Schnitzer, p. 239 sq. 

° Just M. Dial. c. Tryph. ce. 127: Ὃ yap ἄῤῥητος πατὴρ καὶ κύριος τῶν 
πάντων οὔτε ποι ἀφῖκται, οὔτε περιπατεῖ, οὔτε καθεύδει, OVTE ἀνίσταται, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ χώρᾳ ὅπου ποτὲ μένει, ὀξῦ ὁρῶν καὶ ὀξῦ ἀκούων, οὐκ ὀφ- 
θαλμοῖς σὐδὲ ὠσὶν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει ἀλέκτῳ: καὶ πάντα ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντα 
γίνωσκει, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν λέληθεν αὐτόν. Clement, Strom. vi. 17, p. 821: 
ὋὉ γάρ τοι Θεὸς πάντα οἷδεν, οὐ μόνον τὰ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα καὶ 
ὡς ἔσται ἕκαστον; τάς TE ἐπὶ μέρους κινήσεις προορῶν πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷ καὶ 
πάντ᾽ ἐπακούει, γυμνὴν ἔσωθεν τὴν ψυχὴν βλέπων, καὶ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τὴν 
ἐκάστου τῆς κατὰ μέρος ἔχει δὶ αἰῶνος" καὶ ὃπερ ἐπὶ τῶν θεάτρων γίνεται, 
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑκάστου μερῶν, κατὰ τὴν ἐνόρασίν τε καὶ περιόρασιν καὶ συνό- 
paoıv, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ γίνεται. ᾿Αθρόως τε γὰρ πάντα καὶ ἕκαστον 
ἐν μέρει μιᾷ προσβολῇ προσβλέπει. Origen De Prine. iii. 2, Opp. i. Ῥ. 49, 
proves that the world is finite, because God could not comprehend it, if it 
were infinite; for that only may be understood which has a beginning. But 
it were impious to say, that there is any thing which God does not compre- 
hend. 

° Origen De Prine. ii. c. 9, p. 97 (Redep. p.10.): "Ev τῇ ἐπινοουμένῃ ἄρχῇ 
τοσοῦτον ἀριθμὸν τῷ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ ὑποστῆσαι τὸν θεὸν νοερῶν οὐσιῶν, 
ὅσον ἠδύνατο διαρκέσαι" πεπερασμένην γὰρ εἷναι καὶ τὴν δύναμίν τοῦ 
θεοῦ λεκτέον κ. r.A. But in other places Origen expresses himself in a very 
appropriate way concerning the Divine omnipotence; Contra Cels. v. (Opp. 
i. p. 595), he shows that God can do all things, but wills nothing which is 
contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν), οὔτε τὰ ἀπὸ κακίας, οὔτε τὰ ἀλόγως γε- 
νόμενα. : 

” The holiness of the divine will is the highest law in Tertullian’s view. 
His highest moral law is, not to do the good for the sake of the good, but 
because it is commanded by God. (Comp. De Peenit. c. 4). 

* The notion of Clement of Alexandria is remarkable, evidently bor- 
rowed from the Gnostic doctrine of an ἀῤῥενόθηλυς, viz., that the compassion 
of God presents the female aspect of his character, Quis Div. Salv. p. 956 ; 
to which there is an analogy in the Old Test., Is. xlix. 15; comp. Neander’s 
Gnostische Systeme, p. 209. The works of Clement, in particular, abound 
with passages referring to the love and mercy of God. He loves men be- 
cause they are kindred with God, Coh. p. 89: Πρόκειται δὲ ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ 
τῆν ἀνθρώπων ἀγέλην σώζειν. Comp. Strom. vii. p. 832. God’s love fol- 
lows men, seeks them out, as the bird the young that has fallen from its nest, 
Coh. 74, Peed. i. p. 102. 

° Origenes contra Cels. II., Opp. i. p. 405, Comment in Gen. Opp. ii. p. 


112 First PERIOD. DOoCcTRINE RESPECTING Gop. 


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

© Here, too, was another point of distinction between Gnosticism and the 
orthodox Christian’s view of God; the former did not know how to recon- 
cile the agency of God in inflicting punishment, with his character as loving 
and redeeming; on this account they felt compelled to separate objectively 
the just God of the Old Test. from the loving Father of Christians (so Mar- 
cion). In opposition to this unwarrantable separation, Irenzeus, Tertul- 
lian, Clement, Origen, etc., insist particularly on the penal justice of God, 
and show that it can very well be reconciled with his love. According 
to /reneus, Adv. Her. v. 27, penalty does not consist in anything positive 
which comes from God, but in the separation of the sinner from God (ywpto- 
μὸς δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ θάνατος). God does not punish προηγητικῶς, but Erako- 
λουθούσης δι’ ἐκείνης (τῇς ἁμαρτίας) τῆς κολάσεως. Tertullian considers 
the penal justice of God first from the judicial standpoint of the inviolabil- 
ity of law; distinguishing between true love and benevolent weakness, he 
shows that the goodness and justice of God are inseparable ; Contra Mare. 
i. 25, 26; ii. 12: Nihil bonum, quod injustum, bonum autem omne quod 
justum est. Ita si societas et conspiratio bonitatis atque justitize separatio- 
nem earum non potest capere, quo ore constitues diversitatem duorum 
deorum in separatione? seorsum deputans deum bonum et seorsum deum 
justum ? Illie consistit bonum, ubi et justum. A primordio denique crea- 
tor tam bonus quam justus....Bonitas ejus operata est mundum, justitia 
modulatum est, etc. Comp. ce. 13-16 (negabimus Deum, in quo non omnia, 
que Deo digna sint, constent). Then he draws a distinction between, malis 
supplicii 5. poenee, and malis culp® s. peccati. God is the author only of the 
former ; the devil is the author of the latter.—To defend himself against the 
charge of anthropomorphism he says: Stultissimi, qui de humanis divina 
prejudicant, ut quoniam in homine corruptorise conditionis habentur hujus- 
modi passiones, idcirco et in Deo ejusdem status existimentur, ete.— Clement 
of Alexandria adopts partly the same juridical view, Strom. iv. 24, p. 634; 
but, in enumerating the causes which induce God to inflict penalties, he 
speaks of the legal principle as being the last. He puts first the educational 
design, to make men better, and to warn and restrain others; comp. Peed. 
i. 8, p. 40. This is distinctly set forth, Strom. vii. p. 895: ᾿Αλλ’ ὡς πρὸς 
τοῦ διδασκάλου ἢ τοῦ πατρὺς ol παῖδες, οὕτως ἡμεῖς πρὸς τῆς προνοίας 
κολαζόμεθα. Θεὺς δὲ οὐ τιμωρεῖται: ἔστι γὰρ ἡ τιμωρία κακοῦ ἀντα- 
πόδοσις" κολάζει μέντοι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίᾳ Toic κολαζο- 
μένοις. Origen, moreover, says, that God is more ready to do good than to 
punish ; Hom. I. in Jerem. (Opp. iii. p. 125): Ὃ θεὸς εἰς ayadororiav πρό- 
χειρός ἑστιν, εἰς δὲ τὸ κολάσαι τοὺς ἀξίους κολάσεως μελλητής. He gives 
the sinner always space for repentance; eodem loco. Origen refutes at great 
length the objections of the Gnostics, De Princ. ii, 5 (Opp. t. 1. p. 102, 
Schnitzer, p. 109), by proving (in agreement with Tertullian) that their dis- 
tinction between “ benevolent” and “just” is altogether untenable, and 
showing that the Divine penalties are inflicted for paternal objects by a wise 
physician ; at the same time, he applies the allegorical interpretation to those 


$ 40. Tue Doctrine oF THE Locos. 113 


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


§ 40. 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 


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


*Lücke, Historical Examination of the Idea of the Logos in his Commentar. über das 
Evangelium Joh. vol. i. 3d ed. p. 249, ss. [Zholuck, Commentar zum Evang. Joh. 
ch. i. Die Logoslehre. 7th ed. p. 52, ss. trans. by C. P. Krauth, Phil. 1859.] *Dorner, 
Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie. Stuttg. 1845, pp. 1-65; comp. Bibliotheca, 
Sacra, vi. 156, sq.; vii. 696-732, by Prof. Stuart.] Von Bohlen, Das alte Indien mit 
besonderer Rücksicht auf ARgypten (ii. Königsb. 1830), i. p. 201, ss. Stuhr, Die Re- 
ligionssysteme der heidnischen Völker des Orients, p. 99, ss. Kleuker, Zendavesta im 
Kleinen. Th. ii. p. 1, 55. *Bäumlein, Versuch die Bedeutung des Johann. Logos aus 
den Religionssystemen des Orients zu entwickeln. Tüb. 1828. [ Colebrooke’s Essays. 
J. R. Ballantyne, Christ. contrasted with Hindu Philos. 1859. J. Mullens, Relig. 
Aspects of Hindu Phil. (prize essay), 1860. Οἱ F. Kappen, Die Religion Buddhas. 
ii, 1858, 9. Barthélemy St. Hilaire, Bonddha, 1860.] J. Bucher, Des Apostels Johannes 
Lehre von Logos, Schaffh. 1856. [Burton, E., the Bampton Lecture on the Heresies 
of the Apostolic Age, Lect. vi. Comp. also Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the 
Messiah, 3d edit. i. 522-529, ii. 415, 432, et passim. ] 

F. Ch. Baur, Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes 
in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Tüb. 1841-43, 3 vols. vol. i. p. 1-128. *G. 
A. Meier, Die Lehre von der Trinitat. Hamb. 1844, i. p. 1, ss. Hellway, Die Vorstel- 
lung ven der Prexistenz Christi in der ältesten Kirche, in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1848. 
* Duncker, Zur Gesch. der Logoslehre Justin des Märt. (reprint from the Göttinger 
Studien, 1847), Gött. 1848. Lemmer, Clement. Alexandr. de λόγω doctrina, Lips. 
1855. [König, Die Menschwerdung, 1846. R. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of the Incar- 
nation in Relation to Mankind and the Church, 1851. Maurice, Religions of the 
World. Trench, Unconscious Prophecies of Heathenism. Robert Gordon, Christ as 
made known to the Ancients, 2, 8vo. Edinb. 1854. Cesar Morgan, Trinity of Plato 
and Philo Judzeus, new ed. by Holden, 1853. John Oxlee, Trinity and Incarnation 
on the Principles of Judaism, 3 vols. Lond. 1815-1850. Comp., also, Liebner’s Chris- 
tologie, i. 1849; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1853, sq.; Nägelsbach. der 
Gottmensch, i. 1854; Kuhn, Kath. Dogmatik, ii. s. 9-41.] 


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

8 


114 First PErIoD. Doctrine Respecting Gop. 


lar.2 We may find traces of it in the more definite and concrete form 
which, at the time when the apocryphal writings were composed, 
was given to the personifications of the divine Word and the divine 
Wisdom found in the Old Test,’ especially, however, in the doc- 
trine of Philo concerning the Logos,’ and in some other ideas then 
current’ Here is prefigured the form into which Christianity was 
destined to bring the living and fructifying spirit, in giving ex- 
pression to the profoundest truths of the Christian faith. 


1 “ Tt is easy to see that the Christian idea can not be explained by an ap- 
peal to the Indian religion.” Dorner, p. 7. The Trimurti of the Indian 
Brahmanism : 


Brahma Vishnoo Seeva (Kala) 
Sun (Light) Water (Air?) Fire 

Creator Preserver (progressive development) Destroyer 
Power Wisdom Justice 

Past Present Future 
Matter Space Time. 


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


Brahma = Phtha 
Vishnoo = Kneph 
Seeva = Neith. 

The word by which Brahma created the world is Om (Oum), see Von 
Bohlen, i. p. 159, ss. 212. In the system of Zoroaster, Honover is represented 
as the Word by which the world was created (Duncker, Logosl. Just. Mart. 
Gott. 1847), the most immediate revelation of the god Ormuzd ; see Aleuker, 
l.c. and Stuhr, i. p. 370, 371. [ Burton, 1. ὁ. Lect. ii. p. 14-48.] “ Since, 
in the pagan systems of religion, the natural is most intimately blended with 
the divine, their triads are altogether different from the Christian doctrine of 
the Trinity ; in the former the triads only denote the elements (moments) of a 
developing process, and are therefore most fully found in those religions which 
occupy a very low position, but disappear when the identification of the divine 
with the natural is got rid of in the further development of the religious sys- 
tem.” Meier, 1. ὁ. p. 4. Comp. Dorner, |. c. 

* The relation in which Plato (especially in Timeus) imagined God to 
stand to the creating νοῦς, presents only a remote analogy; likewise the 
passage bearing on the Aöyoc from the Epinomis, p. 986, which Euseb. 
Prep, Evang. xi. 16, professes to quote from Epimenides (given by De Wette, 
biblische Dogmatik, § 157). Comp. Tennemann, das platonische Philoso- 
phem vom göttlichen Verstande, in Paalus’ Memorabilien, Stück 1. and his 
System der platonischen Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 149, ss. 174, ss. Béckh, 
uber die Bildung der Weltseele im Timzus des Plato (in Daub und Creu- 
zer’s Studien, vol. iii. p. 1, ss. Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, ti. p. 291, 


§ 40. Tue Docrrine or THE Locos. 115 


ss. 318, ss. [ Burton, 1. e. Lect. vii. and note 90 in particular.] Neander, 
Hist. Doctrines (Ryland), i, 132. On the doctrine of the Logos among the 
Stoics (σπερματικὸς λόγος), see Duncker, Logoslehre, p. 28 sq. 

® The oldest form of revelation which we find in the Old Test. is the 
direct Theophany, which, however, was adapted only to the age of childhood. 
In later times God speaks to his people in general, or to individuals, some- 
times by angels (especially the nn" 5x2), sometimes by human mediators 
(Moses and the prophets). But the intercourse of God with the prophets is 
carried on by the medium of the Word of the Lord, nim» 427 which descends 
upon them. This λόγος (ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου) i is poetically personified 
in several places; Ps. exlvii. 15; Is. lv. 11; in an inferior degree, Ps. xxxül. 
4; cxix. 89, 104, 105; Is. xl. 8; Jer. xxiii. 29; comp. Lücke, l..ep 4257 
258. Like the Weta, so the Wisdom of God (msn σοφία) is personified : 
Job xxviii. 12-28, and in very significant terms (in contrast with folly), Prov. 
ch. viii. and ix. On »s:p (Prov. viii. 22) and the signification of yar (vill. 
30), comp. Umbreit’s Comment. p. 102, 106; on ἢ personification of Wis- 
dom in the apocryphal writings (Sir. i. 4, 24; Baruch iii, 15, ss. iv. 1; 
Wisdom, vi. 22, to ch. ix.) see Zücke, 1. c. p. 221, ss. and Bretschneider, 
Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik der Apokryphen.* Leipzig, 1805, 
p- 191, ss. The strongest example of personification is in the Book of Wis- 
dom, so that it is difficult to define exactly the distinction between this per- 
sonification and the hypostasis, properly so called, especially ch. vii. 22, ss. 
On the relation of this hypostasis to that of Philo, see Lücke, 1. c. Dorner, 
p. 15 sq. Grimm, Comm. über d. Buch ἃ. Weisheit, Leipz. 1837. { @frörer’s 
Urchristenthum, Bd. i. See the discussion between Zücke and Nitzsch, in 
the Theol. Stud. und Kritiken, 1840, 1.. On the Angel of Jehovah, Christ. 
Rev. New York, 1859, and Bib. Sacra, 1859. On Wisdom as a Person, 
Prof. E. P. Barrows, in Bib. Sacra, 1858. On the Zogos, Daub in Stud. u. 
Krit. Bd. vi.; Journal of Sac. Lit. iii.; Journal of Class. and Sacred Philol. 
Lond. vol. i.; Zeitschrift £. hist. Theol. 1849.] 

4 « Philo’s doctrine of the Logos is the immediate prelude to the Christian 
idea of the Logos”; Semisch, Just. Mart. ii. p. 267. [Comp. Jordan Bucher, 
Philonische Studien, Tubing. 1848, who discusses in particular the question 
of the personality of the Logos in Philo.] On the question whether Philo 
ascribed personality to the Logos, see Dorner, i, p. 21, ss.; while most writers 
reply in the affirmative, Dorner entertains the opposite opinion. Thus much 
is certain, that Philo makes a distinction between the ὃν as such, and the 
λόγος τοῦ ὄντος, who is superior to the δυνάμεις, λόγοι, and ἄγγελοι. This 
Logos he also calls δεύτερος θεός, even θεός, directly but without the article,— 
υἱὸς πρεσβύτερος, υἱὸς μονογενής, πρωτύόγονος,--εἰκών, σκιά, παράδειγμα, 
δόξα, σοφία, ἐπιστήμη τοῦ θεοῦ. According to Philo, the Logos is the 
essence and seat of the ideal world (ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν ὁ θεοῦ λόγος). As an 
artist first makes a model of that which he purposes to make, so God first 
shaped the world ideally; see his De Mundi Opif. $ 5, and the explanations 
of J. @. Müller (Philo’s Buch von der Weltschöpfung, Berl. 1841), p. 149, 
ss. In the same manner the Logos is the mediator of the revelations of God; 
the theophanies were possible through him; he is called the παράκλητος, 
ἀρχιερεύς, ἱκέτης, πρεσβευτὴς ὀπαδὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. He takes care of all that 


116 First Periop. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


is good, as ἀρχὴ καὶ πηγὴ καλῶν πράξεων. Philo was acquainted with the 
distinction between the λόγος Evdıaderoc and the λόγος προφορικός, though 
he employs these terms only in anthropological relations, De Vita Moys. lib. 
iii. (Paris, p. 672, c.): "Ev ἀνθρώπῳ δ᾽ ὃ μὲν (λόγος) ἐστὶν ἐνδιάθετος, 6 δὲ 
προφορικὸς, καὶ ὃ μὲν οἷά τις πηγὴ, 6 δὲ γεγωνὸς am’ ἐκείνου ῥέων. But 
he represents the Divine Logos as analogous to the human. Inasmuch as 
the Logos is the Divine idea, all spiritual and sensuous existence derives its 
origin from him; as a power of nature he pervades the world, is immanent 
in it as the world-spirit. That Philo frequently personifies the Logos, does 
not necessarily imply that he ascribes to him a real hypostatis, and hence 
there should be great caution in the interpretation of single passages. But 
the most recent researches (since Dorner) have shown that Philo, in some 
places certainly, comes up to the idea of a real hypostasis (Alleg. iii. 93; De 
Somn. i. 584, 585; Quis Rer. Div. Her. 509, and elsewhere); comp. /. 
Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von den göttlichen Mittelwesen, Leipz. 1846 ; also 
Semisch, Justin der M., p. 274. Baur, Dreieinigkeits-Lehre, i. p. 59, ss. 
Meier, Trinitätslehre, i. p. 20, ss.; and the works of Grossmann, Scheffer, 
Gfrörer, Dähne, and Ritter, referred to in $ 19. (Michel Nicholas, Les 
Doctrines religieuses des Juifs, Paris, 1860, Part 2d, Chap. 2, pp. 178-216, 
contends that the doctrine respecting the Word (Logos) could not have been 
derived from either Babylonian or Platonic sources; that it had its origin in 
Palestine, and passed thence to Alexandria. It is a result of the Jewish 
views respecting God. “The doctrine of an intermediate being between God 
and the world is a part of the theology of the Talmud; but this intermediate 
being is there designated, not by the name of the Word, but by that of the 
Shekinah,”—p. 215.] 

* Traces of the doctrine of the Logos are also found in the Samaritan 
theology, and in the writings of Onkelos and Jonathan, comp. Zücke, |. c. p. 
244, Concerning the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists, and the Memra and 
Shekinah, vide Bretschneider, 1. e. p. 233, 236. Baur, Gnosis, p. 332. De 
Wette, biblische Dogmatik, ὃ 157. [Burton, 1. ο. Lect. ii. p. 51-55.] Dor- 
ner, u. 8. @frörer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Stuttg. 1838, p. 272 sq. 


§ 41. 
b. The Christian Doctrine of the Logos in the Writings of John. 
Bucher, des Apostel Johannes Lehre vom Logos (§ 40). 


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

“was at the same time a great religious truth and historical fact ; and 


$ 42. Tue THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. 117 


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


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

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


§ 42. 


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


[ Burton, E., Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, ete. 
(Works, ii.)] 


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


118 First Periop. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


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


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

? Even if we look at it numerically alone, there is a great difference between 
the catholic doctrine of the Logos, and the views of the Gnostic sects. Be- 
fore the doctrine of the Trinity was further developed (see below) the Logos 
was considered by the orthodox church to be the only hypostasis; while the 
Gnostics imagined heaven to be inhabited by a multitude of zeons.—Accord- 
ing to Basilides there are 365 heavens (οὐρανοί, the lowest of which is under 
the ἄρχων) ; and he assigned an intermediate position between the supreme 
God and the Logos to the νοῦς, and taught that the Logos emanated from 
the latter. Further emanations of the νοῦς, were the φρόνησις, σοφία, δύνα- 
μις, δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη, and these five eons, together with the other two, 
νοῦς and λόγος, in all seven, formed, along with the θεὸς ἄῤῥητος (ἀνωνό- 
μαστος) the first dydodé¢.—Still more ingenious is the system of Valentinus. 
[He asserted that from the great first eause (primitive existence, βυθὸς, 


§ 42. Tue THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. 119 


προπάτωρ, προαρχῆ) successively emanated male and female cons (νοῦς or 
μονογενής and ἀλήθεια, λόγος and ζωή, ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία, etc.), so 
that 30 ons (divided into the ὀγδοάς, δεκάς, and δωδεκάς) form the πλήρ- 
oua. The vehement desire of the last of the eons, the σοφία, to unite itself 
with the βυθός, gave existence to an immature being (7 κάτω σοφία, εὐθυ- 
μησις, ἀχαμώθ) which, wandering outside the pleroma, imparted life to matter, 
and formed the δημιουργός, who afterward created the world. In order to 
restore the harmony of the pleroma, the two new sons, Χριστός and τὸ 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον were made; and last of all “Ijoot¢ (σωτήρ) emanated from all’ 
the ons, and as the future οὐζυγος of the achamoth was appointed to lead 
back into the pleroma alike the »ons, and all spiritual natures.] (Comp. 
Neander, Matter, and Baur, in the works mentioned, § 23.) [ Gieseler, Text- 
Book, 1: ὃ 45. Niedner, i, p. 201 sq. Burton, 1. c. Lect. ii. p. 36-41. 
Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vols. iii, note B: On Basilides and the 
Basilideans, p. xxxviii—xlix. Basilides’ System, @. Uhlhorn, 1855, cf. Hil- 
genfeld, Judische Apokalyptik, 1857, 5. 289, sq. Baur, in Theol. Jahrb. 
1856. On Valentinus, see Volekmar in Zeitschrift f. ἃ. hist. Theol. 1855— 
the relation to it of the Colorbasus-Gnosis, mentioned by Epiphanius. Peter- 
mann’s edition of the Pistis Sophia, Berlin, 1852. Bishop Hooper on Valen- 
tinus, Works pp. 307-345. ] 

ὁ The apostolical fathers hold fast to this practical religious interest ; though 
they do not make any use of the peculiar doctrine of the Logos (Semisch, ii, 
p. 275 sq.), yet there are single, scattered declarations, which offer the out- 
lines of an immanent doctrine of the Trinity (Meier, Gesch. ἃ. Trinit. i, p. 
47,sq.) Thus particularly, Zgnatius ad Polyc.i: Τοὺς καιροὺς καταμάνθανε, 
τὸν ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα τὸν ἄχρονον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ὁρατὸν, 
τὸν αψηλάφητον͵ τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον 
πάντα δι’ ἡμᾶς ὑπομείναντα. 

* Justin® follows Philo to a great extent, yet more as to form than sub- 
stance, with this difference only, that he identifies the Logos, by whom God 
has created the world, and manifested himself in the theophanies, with his 
incarnate Son, even Christ Jesus. Comp. Apol. ii. 6: 'O δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου 
(Θεοῦ), ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱὸς, 6 λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων, καὶ συνὼν 
καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν Ov αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε: Χρισ- 
τὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρίσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν 
λέγεται: ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν" ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ 
Θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου ἔμφυτος 
τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. ᾿Τῃσοῦς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπον καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα 
καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει. He then proceeds to the incarnation itself. Justin rep- 
resents the generation of the Logos as προέρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, as yev- 
ἄσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 61), and adduces several illustrations 
in support of his views. Thus man utters words without any loss of his 
nature; fire kindles fire without undergoing any diminution, etc. (The 


* “ The apostolical fathers make no use of the doctrine of the Logos, but adhere to simple 
aphoristic, and undeveloped declarations about the divine dignity of Christ :” Semisch, ü., p, 
275 sq.; compare, however, Meier, Gesch. ἃ. Trinit. i, p. 47, sq., who sees (p. 51) in these 
most ancient representations an advance from the general ideas of revelation, reconciliation, 
ete., to the beginnings of the immanent Trinity. 


120 First PERIOD. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


addition, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοιοῦτον, is not genuine, see the note in the edit. of Maran: 
Si quis tamen retineat hee verba, scribenda sunt cum interrogationis nota, ut 
in edit. Lond.) On the other hand, he rejects (Dial. c. Tryph. 128) the 
illustration taken from the sun and its beams; we can neither speak of an 
ἀποτέμνεσθαι, nor of an ἐκτείνεσθαι; see Dorner, ii. 1, p. 428. On the 
different understanding of the word Zogos, now as the creative Word, and 
now as reason, and on the relation of Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, on the 
one hand to the Old Test. conceptions, and on the other to the Platonic and 
Stoic philosophy, see Duncker, Logoslehre Just. p. 14, sq. [Comp. Bull, 
Judicium Eccles. Cath., App. ad. e. vii, § 6. Faber’s Apostolicity of Trini- 
tarianism, 1832, i., 48, sq., 89 sq.; 143, 11.) 144, et passim. ] 

5. Tatian Contra. Greec. c. 5, uses illustrations similar to those of Justin. 
The Logos was immenent (ὑπέστησε) in the Father (God), but derived his 
existence (mporrnda) from his will, and thus was the ἔργον πρωτότοκον of 
the Father, ἀρχὴ τοῦ κόσμου. He is begotten κατὰ μερισμόν, not κατ᾽ 
ἀποκοπήν. 

6 Athen. Leg. c. 10. calls the Son of God (in contrast with the sons of the 
heathen gods) λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς Ev ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ" πρὸς αὐτοῦ yap καὶ 
δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὺς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. The distinc- 
tion between ἐν ἰδέᾳ and ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ corresponds to that between λόγος 
Evdıdderoc and λόγος προφορικός. Comp. Baur, p. 170, sq. Dorner, p. 
440, sq. 

™ Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 10, treats most fully of the going forth of the 
Logos from God, and he is the first writer who uses the distinction between 
the A. ἐνδιάθετος and A. προφορικός in this definite form (Baur, p. 167) : 
Ἔχων οὗν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον Ev τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις, 
ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐξερευξάμενος" πρὸ τῶν ὅλων. 
Likewise c. 22: Οὐχ ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ μυθογράφοι λέγουσιν υἱοὺς θεῦν ἐκ 
συνουσίας γεννωμένους, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀλήθεια διηγεῖται τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα 
διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρδίᾳ θεοῦ. Πρὸ γὰρ τι γίνεσθαι, τοῦτον εἶχε 
σύμβουλον, ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν ὄντα: ὁπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεὸς ποιῆσαι 
ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πά- 
σης κτίσεως" οὐ κενωθεὶς αὐτὸς τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλὰ λόγον γεννήσας, καὶ τῷ 
λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διαπαντὸς ὁμιλῶν. 

8. In the writings of Clement the doctrine of the Logos forms the central 
point of his whole system of theology, and the mainspring of his religious 
feelings and sentiments. Without the Logos there is neither light nor life 
(Coh. p. 87). He is the divine instructor of man (παιδαγωγός). Peed. iti. 
12, p. 310: Πάντα ὁ λόγος καὶ ποιεῖ καὶ διδάσκει. καὶ παιδαγωγεῖ" ἵππος 
ἄγεται χαλινῷ καὶ ταῦρος ἄγεται ζυγῷ θηρία βροχῳ ἁλίσκεται: ὃ δὲ 
ἄνθρωπος μεταπλάσσεται λόγῷ': ᾧ θηρία τιθασσεύεται καὶ νηκτὰ δελεάζεται 
καὶ πτηνὰ κατασύρεται kK. τ. Δ. Comp. the beautiful hymn εἰς τὸν παιδα- 
γωγόν at the end of his work. [Bennett, 1. c. app. K. p. 268, where both the 
original and an English translation are given.] God has ereated the world 
by the Logos; yea, the Logos is the creator himself (ὁ τοῦ κόσμον καὶ 
ἀνθρώπου δημιουργὸς) ; he gave the law, inspired the prophets; from him 
proceeded the theophanies; Pad. i, 7, p. 132-134; ii. 8, p. 215; ii. 10, p. 


* With reference to Psalm xly. (xliv.) 1; ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον dyadov. 


§ 42. THE THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. 121 


224, 229; ii. 3, p. 264; ili. 4, p. 269; comp. 273, 280, 293, 297, 307. 
Strom. i. 23, p. 421, 422; vii. i. p. 833. In his view (as in that of Philo), 
the Logos is the ἀρχιερεύς, even apart from the incarnation, Strom, ii. 9, p. 
433, 500. He is the face (πρόσωπον), of God, by which God is seen, Peed. 
1. 7, p. 132. The Logos is superior to men and angels, but subordinate to 
the Father; principal passage, Strom. vii. 2, p. 831: On earth the righteous 
man is the most excellent being; in heaven, the angels, because they are yet 
purer and more perfect. Τελειωτάτη δὴ καὶ ἁγιωτάτη καὶ κυριωτάτη Kar 
ἡγεμονικωτάτη καὶ βασιλικωτάτη καὶ εὐεργετικωτάτη ἡ υἱοῦ φύσις, ἡ τῷ 
μόνῳ παντοκράτορι προσεχεστάτη. Αὕτη ἡ μεγίστη ὑπεροχὴ, ἣ τὰ πάντα 
διατάσσεται κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄριστα οἰακίζει, ἀκαμάτῳ 
καὶ ἀτρύτῳ δυνάμει πάντα ἐργαζομένη, Ou’ ὧν ἐνεργεῖ τὰς ἀποκρύφους ἐννοίας 
ἐπιβλέπουσα. Οὐ γὰρ ἐξίσταταί ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" 
οὐ μεριζόμενος, οὐκ ἀποτεμνόμενος, οὐ μεταβαίνων ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον, πάντη 
δὲ ὧν πάντοτε, καὶ μηδαμῆ περιεχόμενος, ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον, ὅλος 
ὀφθαλμὸς, πάντα ὁρῶν, πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς πάντα, δυνάμει τὰς δυνάμεις 
ἐρευνῶν. Tott@ πᾶσα ὑποτέτακται στρατιὰ ἀγγέλων τε καὶ θεῶν, τῷ λόγῳ 
τῷ πατρικῷ τὴν ἁγίαν οἰκονομίαν ἀναδεδειγμένῳ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα, δι᾽ 
ὧν καὶ πάντες αὐτοῦ οἱ ἄνθρωποι: ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, οἱ δὲ οὐδέπω" 
καὶ οἱ μὲν ὡς φίλοι, οἱ δὲ ὡς οἰκέται πιστοὶ, οἱ δὲ ὡς ἁπλῶς οἰκέται. (The 
true knowledge of the Logos is the privilege of the true Gnostics.) Divine 
worship is due to the Loges, vii. 7, p. 851, Quis Div. Salv. p. 956. [Comp. 
Bennett, |. c. p. 123-126. Burton, E., Testimony of the Antenicene Fathers 
to the Divinity of Christ (Works, ii. p. 171, ss.)] On the mode of genera- 
tion Clement speaks less explicitly than the before-mentioned writers. (On 
his relation to them, see Münscher, Handbuch, i. 422.) He attaches more 
importance to the immanence of the Logos. In his opinion, the Logos is not 
only the word of God spoken at the creation, but the speaking and creative 
Word; see Dorner, p. 446. He also holds along with the concrete idea of 
the individuality of the Logos, another notion of a more general import, ac- 
cording to which the Loges is identical with the higher spiritual and rational 
life, the life of ideas in general; by this idea of the Logos the ante-Christian 
world was moved, comp. Strom. v. p. 654; hence the charge of Photius 
(Bibl. Cod. 109), that Clement taught the existence of a twofold Logos of 
the Father, only the inferior of whom appeared on earth; see Baur, Trinit. 
Lehre, p. 195. . Accordingly he who studies the writings of Clement merely 
for the purpose of deducing a strictly doctrinal system, will not be satisfied, 
and like Münscher (Handbuch, i. p. 418), he will see in him “ mere declama- 
tion, from which no definite idea can be derived.” On the contrary, he who 
takes in his total religious system would feel more inclined to adopt the lan- 
guage of Möhler, that Clement has “has treated and sung about the dogma 
concerning the Logos with greater clearness than all the other fathers of this 
period, but especially with unusual depth of feeling, and the most ardent en- 
thusiasm.” (Patrologie, p. 460, 61.) Comp., also, Zemmer, 1. c. 

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


122 First PERIOD. Doctrine REsPECTING Gop. 


et mundus et locus et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrinsecus 
preter illum. Ceterum ne tune quidem solus: habebat enim secum, quam 
habebat in semetipso, rationem suam scilicet, ete. C. 8: Protulit enim 
Deum sermonem, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium; nam 
et iste species probole sunt earum substantiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. In 
c. 9, the Son is even called a portio of the Father. Comp. Neander’s Anti- 
gnosticus, p. 476, ss. “ We find in Tertullian, on the one hand the effort to 
hold fast the entire equality of the Father and the Son—on the other hand, 
the inequality is so manifestly conceded or presupposed, it is every where 
expressed in so marked, and, as it were, involuntary a way, and it strikes its 
roots so deeply into his whole system, and modes of expression, that it must 
doubtless be considered as the real and inmost conception of Tertullian’s 
system ;” Schwegler, in his Montanismus, p. 41 [but comp. Meier, Gesch. d. 
Trin. i. 80, sq.; Dorner, i. 477, 564-601.] According to Dorner, p. 588, 
Tert. uses the word ‚iliatio in a threefold sense; that which is new in the 
system of Tertullian, and of importance in reference to later times, is this, 
that he employs the term “Son” (instead of “ Word”) in order to denote 
the personal existence of the Logos; see p. 600. At the same time there 
is in Tertullian this peculiarity, that he distinguishes the three factors (mo- 
menta) of the Trinity as so many periods of time; Ady. Praxeas c. 12, 13; 
Baur, p. 176; Meier, p. 80, sq. 

° Iren. Advers. Heer, ii. 28, p. 158 : Si quis itaque nobis dixerit : Quomodo 
ergo filius prolatus a patre est? dicimus ei: Quia prolationem istam sive ge- 
nerationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine 
vocaverit generationem ejus inenarrabilem existentem, nemo novit, non Va- 
lentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Basilides, neque Angeli, ne- 
que Archangeli, neque Principes, neque Potestates, nisi solus qui generavit, 
Pater, et qui natus est, Filius. Inenarrabilis itaque generatio ejus quum sit, 
quicunque nituntur generationes et prolationes enarrare, non sunt compotes 
sui, ea, que inenarrabilia sunt, enarrare promittentes. Quoniam enim ex 
cogitatione et sensu verbum emittitur, hoc utique omnes sciunt homines. 
Non ergo magnum quid invenerunt, qui emissiones excogitaverunt, neque 
absconditum mysterium, si id quod ab omnibus intelligitur, transtulerunt in 
unigenitum Dei verbum, et quem inenarrabilem et innominabilem vocant, 
hune, quasö ipsi obstetricaverint, prime generatianis ejus prolationem et 
generationem enuntiant, assimilantes eum hominum verbo emissionis (scili- 
cet λόγῳ προφορικῷ). In the opinion of Irenzus, faith in the Son rests 
simply on the παράδοσις. The Logos is both reason (wisdom), and the 
Word (adv. Heer. iv, 20, 1): Adest enim ei (Deo) semper Verbum et Sa- 
pientia (Fil. et Spirit.), per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad 
quos et loquitur dicens: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem 
nostram, The Son is in every respect equal to the Father; Adv. Her. ii. 
13: Necesse est itaque, et eum, qui ex eo est Logos, imo magis autem ipsum 
Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et inpassibilem esse. —In accordance with his 
practical tendency, Irenzeus has less to say of the Logos prior to his incar- 
nation, than of Christ the God-man (of which, infra). In his opinion, the 
Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the visible of the Father 
(iv. 6, 6); or (after an unnamed author) the Son is the measure of the 


§ 43. ORIGEN’S Docrrine OF THE Logos. 123 


Father (mensura Patris filius, quoniam et capit eum), iv. 2, 2; he even 
calls the Son and the Spirit the hands of God. Comp. Möhler, Patrologie, 
. 857, ss. Münscher, Handbuch, i. p. 411, ss. Dorner, p. 467, ss. Baur, 
p. 172, ss. [ Burton, 1. c. pp. 75, 77, 102, ete.; Bull’s Judicium ; Faber’s 
Apostolicity of Trin.] 


§ 43. 
d. Origen’s Doctrine of the Logos. 


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


* Comp. § 42, note 9 

* Tom, i. in Joh. App. iv. p. 22, ss. He finds fault with those who, in a 
onesided manner, merely adopt the term Logos (ἐπὶ δὲ μόνης τῆς λόγος προσ- 
nyopiac ἱστάμενοι), and are not able to infer the identity of the terms Lo- 
gos and Son from the other predicates applied to Christ; who also restrict 
the term Logos to the Word, imagining that the προσφορὰ πατρική consists 
οἱονεὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς. In his opinion the Logos is not merely the Word, but 
a transcendent, living hypostasis, the sum of all ideas, the independent per- 
sonal Wisdom of God; comp. in Joh, 1, 39, 1. c. p. 39: Οὐ γὰρ ἐν ψιλαῖς 
φαντασίαις τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει ἡ σοφία αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὰ ἀνά- 
hoya τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἐννοήμασι φαντάσματα. ἘΠ δέ τις οἷός τέ ἐστιν 
ἀσώματον ὑπόστασιν ποικίλων θεωρημάτον, περιεχόντων τοὺς τῶν ὅλων 
λόγους, ζῶσαν καὶ οἱονεὶ ἔμψυχον ἐπενοεῖν" εἴσεται τὴν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν 
κτίσιν σοφίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καλῶς περὶ αὐτῆς λέγουσαν: Ὃ θεὸς ἔκτισέ με, 
κ. τ. Δ. Comp. De Prine. 1. 2, 2: Nemo putet, nos insubstantivum dicere, 
cum filiam Dei sapientiam nominamus, ete.; and thus he calls (Contra Cels, 
vi. 64) the Logos, οὐσίαν οὐσιῶν, ἰδέων ἰδεῶν ; comp. Thomasias, p. 113. 
What is true of the Zogos in relation to creation holds good also of the ‚Son. 
He is the organ for the creation of the world. As the architect builds a 
house, or a vessel, according to his ideas, so God created the world accord- 
ing to the ideas which are contained in Wisdom; comp. Hom. xxxii. in Joh. 
(Opp. ix. p. 449), and De Prine. i, 2 (Opp. 1. p. 53). God never existed 
without the Wisdom (the Son) ; for, to maintain the contrary, would virtually 
amount to the assertion, that God either could not beget, or would not be- 
get, either of which is absurd and impious. With all his love for abstrac- 
tions, Origen here calls images to his aid. Besides the already used-up 


124 First PERIOD. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


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

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

* De Princ. i. 4 (Opp. i. p. 55): Infandum autem est et illicitum, Deum 
patrem in generatione unigeniti Filii sui atque in substantia ejus ex®quare 
alicui vel hominum vel aliorum animantium generanti, etc.; and again (Rede- 
penning, p. 112): Observandum namque est, ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas 
fabulas eorum, qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinum natu- 
ram in partes vocent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est dividant, cum hoe 
de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari non solum extreme impietatis sit, 
verum etiam ultime insipientiz, nec omnino ad intelligentiam consequens, ut 
incorporez nature substantialis divisio possit intelligi. “ As the will of man 
proceeds from his reason, and the one is not to be separated from the other, 
so the Son proceeds from the Father. Origen did not make use of the com- 
parison with the human word (speech), which was previously employed. He 
also considers the generation of the Son as eternal, because God did not at 
any time begin to be a Father, like fathers among men. Comp. Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. p. 143 [the passage is in a fragment in Eusebius, contra Mar- 
cellum, 1. c. 4. In another passage (in Athanasius De Decretis Conc. Nic. 
§ 27) he says: “As light can not be without its brightness, so God can 
never have been without the Son, the brightness of his majesty.” | 

° See below, ὃ 46. 

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


* “ The more I endeavor to realize the manner of thinking and speaking ingthe New Testa- 
ment, the more decided is my opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, can not be 
directly and absolutely called God in the New Test., without completely destroying the mono- 
theistic system of the Apostles.” Lücke, Studien und Kritiken, 1840, i. p. 91. [But see, in 
reply, Nitzsch in the same journal, 1841. Comp. also, @. L. Hahn, Die Theologie des N. 
Test., 1854, § 87.] 


$ 44. Tue Hoty Geosr. 125 


§ 44. 
THE HOLY GHOST. 


Keil, ob die ältesten Lehrer eınen Unterschied zwischen Sohn und Vater gekannt? in 
Flatts Magazin für christliche Dogmatik und Moral, vol. iv. p. 34, ss. [.Burton, E., 
Testimonies of the Antenicene Fathers to the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost 
(Works, ii.), comp. the Introduct. where the literature is given.] Georgii, dogmen- 
geschichtliche Untersuchungen über die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M. in the 
Studien der Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs, x. 2, p. 69, ss. Hasselbach, in the theolo- 
gische Studien und Kritiken, 1839, p. 376, ss. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom heiligen 
Geiste. i. Halle, 1847. [Hare’s Mission of the Comforter, new ed. 2 vols. 1851.] 


The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost, like that of the Son, 
was considered important from the practical point of view,’ in refer- 
ence to his prophetic agency (in the more comprehensive sense of 
the word), to the witness which he bears in the hearts of believers, 
and, in fine, to his living power in the church.” As soon, however, 
as the attempt was made to go beyond the Trinity of revelation (7. 
e. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), and 
to comprehend and define the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the 
relation in which he stands to the Father and the Logos, difficulties 
sprung up, the solution of which became problems of speculative 
theology. By some, the Wisdom of the Old Testament, from 
which the doctrine of Logos was developed, was called πνεῦμα ἅγιον, 
and made coördinate with the Word.’ Others either identified the 
Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague manner 
as to the distinction between them,* and the Holy Ghost (imperson- 
ally viewed) appears as a mere divine attribute, gift or agency. But 
the pressure of logical consistency led gradually to the view of the 
personality of the Holy Ghost, and his definite distinction from the 
Logos.° 


*In the Old Test. the opts em (Gen, i. 3) appear at first as the crea- 
tive power of life, comp. Psalm οἷν. 30, and other passages; as the Spirit 
of heroism, Judges, vi. 34, xi. 29, xili. 25, ete.; as the Spirit of insight and 
wisdom, Exod, xxxi. 8, xxxv. 31, Job xxxii. 8, Isaiah xi. 2; especially as the 
Spirit of prophecy, Numb. xxiv, 2, 1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xix. 20, 23, etc.; also as 
the good, hely Spirit, Psalm li. 13, exliii. 10. In the New Test., too, the 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον is made equivalent to the δύναμις ὑψίστου, Luke i. 35, and to 
the σοφία, Acts vi. 3, 10. Specifically Christian is the making the Holy Spirit 
equivalent to the Spirit of Christ, as when it is said that the Spirit descends 
upon Christ (Matt. iii. 10, and the parallel places), and is given to him without 
measure (John iv. 34), or that he proceeds from Christ and is given to the dis- 
ciples (John xx. 22), or is promised to them as the Paraclete, John xv. 26, etc. 
It has been held essential to the Christian faith (from the time of the pen- 


126 First Preriop. Doctrine ReEsPpEcTING Gop. 


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

2 It is not to be forgotten that the trias of revelation was held in a com- 
plete form long before the church came to clear statements about the essential 
trias. (Comp. Note 1 of the next section.) In the former the Holy Ghost 
has his definite position along (coördinate) with the Father and the Son, 2 
Cor. xiii. 13, Matt. xviii. 19. In the apostolic fathers, we find only isolated 
declarations as to the Holy Ghost. Justin M. makes particular mention of 
the πνεῦμα προφητικὸν (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in 
his Apology, nine times in Trypho, see Semisch, ii. p. 335, Note), while he 
does not speak of the influence which he continues to exert upon believers 
(ibid. p. 329). On the other hand, in Justin the Logos, as the λόγος σπερματι- 
κός, takes the place of the Holy Spirit, since to him are ascribed good im- 
pulses in the minds of believers. (Comp. Duncker, Christl. Logoslehre, p. 37.) 
Lreneus, iii. 24, 1, calls the Holy Ghost the “ communitas Christi, confirmatio 
fidei nostra, scala ascensionis ad Deum ;”* comp. 11]. 17, y. 6, v. 10, and ὃ 71. 
At the same time, he considers him as the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distine- 
tion between him as the principle which animates and inspires, and that ani- 
mation and inspiration itself, Adv. Her. v. 12, 2: "Erepöv ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς, 
ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, 
τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν. . . . ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιηθὲν 
τοῦ ποιήσαντος: ἡ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον. Comp, 
Duncker, p. 60, sq. ; Kahnis, p. 255, sq. 

3 Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7: Ὃ de θεὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας 
ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα; here σοφία is either synonymous with λόγος, or forms 
the second member; in the former case, there would be no mention of the 
Spirit; in the latter, he would be identified with the σοφία ; and this agrees 
with ii. 15, where θεός, λόγος and σοφία are said to compose the Trinity ; 
comp. § 45. Iren. iv. 20, p. 253: Adest enim ei (Deo) semper verbum et 
sapientia, Filius et Spiritus . . . . ad quos et loquitur, dicens: Faciamus 
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; and again: Deus omnia 
verbo fecit et sapientia adornavit. [Burton, 1. c. p. 49-51.] Comp. iv. 7, p. 
236: Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, ὁ. e., Filius 
et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt 
omnes angeli. Zert, Adv. Prax. c. 6: Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea, que 
cum Sophie ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species 
suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, 
Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata 
atque disposita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis 
deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et 
tenerentur. Comp. cap. 7, and the formula De Orat. i. ab initio: Dei Spiritus 

* A similar image is made use of by Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. 9, when he says: 
᾿Αναφερύμενοι εἰς ra ὕψη διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅσ ἐστιν σταυρὸς, σχοινίῳ χρώμενοι 
τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ. 


§ 44. Tue Hoty Guost. 127 


et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utrum- 
que Jesus Christus, domius noster. 

* From the time of Sowverain (Platonismus der Eee Ῥ. 329, ss.), 
most historians of doctrines have supposed that the fathers in general, and 
Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the 
Spirit. Several of the more recent investigators have also come to the same 
conclusion. Thus Georgi (in the work referred to above), p. 120: “This 
much is evident, that in Justin the relation between the Logos and the 
Pneuma is indefinite, in flowing lines; as in him the Spirit has little, if any, 
different functions from those of the Logos, so a distinction between them 
could not, in his view, be demanded by any dogmatic necessity, but could 
only be occasioned by the conflict, in which the doctrine of the Spirit, as 
handed down by the Fathers, stood in relation to that of the Logos.” Comp. 
Hasselbach, ubi supra. On the other hand, Semisch and X‘ ΠΝ, (p. 238, sq.) 
have tried to defend the Martyr against this objection. One of the principal 
passages is, Apol. I. 33 : Τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ 
οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις, ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὅς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, comp. 
c.36. He indeed there speaks of the πνεῦμα in Luc. i. 35 ; and it can not be 
inferred that he always identifies the Logos with the Spirit. But still there 
is here this confounding of the two; and it can not be explained by saying 
that the Spirit means spiritual nature in general, nor by assuming that the 
Logos forms the body for himself in the womb of Mary. And when Tertul- 
lian, Adv. Prax. c. 26, uses similar expressions, this goes to prove that other 
fathers besides Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinctness. The 
same is true as regards the manner in which Justin ascribes the inspiration 
of the prophets, sometimes to the Logos, sometimes to the Pneuma, Apol. I. 
36, and elsewhere. (Only it should not be forgotten that, even in the biblical 
usage, the distinction is not held with sharp doctrinal consistency.) The 
confusion of agencies leads to a (relative) confounding of the Persons. That 
Justin (in opposition to the baptismal formula and the common confession 
of the church) formally put a dyas (two persons) in place of the triad, can 
not be justly alleged; for he himself in other passages names the Father, 
Son, and Spirit (Apol. I. 6, 20, 66), and assigns the third place to the Spirit 
(comp. 646) : “but still it is none the less true, that his philosophical prinei- 
ples, logically carried out, lead only to a dyas, and that he could not doc- 
trinally establish the difference between the Son and the Spirit,” Duncker, 
u. 5. 38. There is unquestionably a real confusion in Theophilus, ad Aut. ii. 
6.10 : Οὗτος (ὃ λόγος) ὧν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις 
ὑψίστου κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ Ou’ αὐτῶν ἐλάλει τὰ περὶ τῆς 
ποιήσεως τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων" οὐ γὰρ ἧσαν οἱ προφῆται, 
ὅτε ὃ κόσμος ἐγίνετο' ἀλλὰ ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ οὖσα ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ὃ 
λόγος ὃ ἅγιος αὐτοῦ, ὃ ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ. Comp. the passage in Note 
3, above. 

° Justin M. incidentally calls the Holy Ghost simply δωρεά, Coh. ad 
Greec. c. 32, though he assigns to him (Apol. i. 6), the third place in the 
Trinity. On the question: what relation was the Holy Spirit thought to 
sustain to the angels? comp. Neander, Church History, and History of Doc- 
trines, p. 172 (Ryland’s translation); Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 773, 


128 First Periop. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


ss.; the latter essay was written in opposition to Mohler, Theolog. Quartal- 
schrift, 1833, part 1. p. 49, ss. (comp. § 50, below). Athenagoras calls the 
Holy Spirit aröppora, Leg. ὁ. 10 and 24, comp. Kahnis, p. 245. In general, 
there are many passages in the fathers, “which bring the Holy Spirit very 
near to the creature ;” Aahnis, p. 249. 

* Tert. Adv. Prax. 8: Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a 
radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a 
sole apex ex radio. Ibid. 30: Spiritus S. tertium nomen divinitatis et ter- 
tius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is assigned to the Spirit, 
when he is considered as—Dei villicus, Christi vicarius, Pr&ser. 28: comp. 
Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 14. Origen, Comm. in Joh. T. ii. 6, Opp. T. iv. 
p. 60, 61, acknowledges the personality of the Holy Spirit, but subordinates 
him to both the Father and the Son, by the latter of whom he is created, 
like all other things, though distinguished from all other creatures by divine 
dignity: Ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν 
πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ 
πατρὸς εἷναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα, τὸ πάν- 
των διὰ τοῦ λόγον γενομένων, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πάντων εἴναι τιμιώτερον, 
καὶ τάξει πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Χριστοῦ γεγενημένων. | Burton, 
l. c. p. 99, ss.] Comp. T. xiii. 25, p. 234; and 34, p. 244: Οὐκ ἄτοπον δὲ 
καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τρέφεσθαι λέγειν. Nevertheless, there is an infinite 
chasm between the Spirit of God, and other spirits created by God; comp. 
Comm. in Ep. ad. Rom. vii. (Opp. iv. p. 593). But in another passage, 
(which is extant only in the translation of Rufinus, De Prine. i. 3, 3, Opp. 
i. 1, p. 61, Redep. p. 123), Origen says, that he had not as yet met with any 
passage in the Sacred Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit was called a 
created being; though afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc., blamed him 
for maintaining this opinion ; comp. Epiphan, 64, 5, Hieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94, 
quoted by Münscher, ed by Cölln, p. 194. Schnitzer, p. 43. Meander, 
History of Church (by Torrey), i. p. 593. Thomasius, p. 144, ss. (Redepen- 
ning, Origenes, ii. p. 309, sq., and the other passages there adduced. [ Burton, 
l. 6. Ὁ. 89.] 


§ 45. 


THE TRIAD. 


[The works of Dorner, Baur, Meier, and Burton, previously referred to. D. Waterland’s , 
Works, new ed. Oxford, 1842, vols. ii. and iii, G. S. Faber, Apostolicity of Trinita- 
rianism, 2 vols. Lond. 1832. William Jones (of Nayland) Works, new ed. 1826, 
vol. 1, The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. W. Berrimann, Historical Account. 
1725. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicene, and his Judicium Eccl. Cath.; Works by 
Burton, 8 vols. 1846.] 


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


§ 45. Tue Triap. ~ 129 
stood but in intimate connection with the history of Jesus, and 
the work which he accomplished.* Accordingly, the belief in the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost belonged to the Regula fidei, even 
apart from any speculative development of the doctrine of the Lo- 
gos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles’ creed, 
in this historico-epie form, without being summed up in a unity. 
The Greek word τριάς was first used by Theophilus ;* the Latin 
term trinitas, of a more comprehensive doctrinal import, is found 
in Tertullian. * 


* Matth. xxviii. 19 (if the baptismal formula be genuine) ; 1 Cor. vii, 4-6; 
2 Cor. xiii. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, 
de Wette’s biblische Dogmatik, § 238, 267, and especially Zücke in the Stu- 
dien und Kritiken, 1840, 1 part. [Pye Smith, the Script. Testim. to the 
Messiah, iii. p. 13, ss.; ill. p. 258, ss.; Knapp, |. Ὁ. p. 119, ss., 132, ss.] 
Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 118, and Meander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 130, also 
distinguish correctly the practical element of the doctrine and its relation 
to the economy of the divine dispensations, from its speculative construction. 
[Veander : “This doctrine of God, the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of 
humanity in Christ was essential to the Christian consciousness, and there- 
fore has existed from the beginning in the Christian church.”] 

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

* Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 15: Αἱ τρεῖς ἡμέραι [πρὸ] τῶν φωστήρων yey- 
ονυῖαι τύποι εἰσὶν τῆς τριάδος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς 
σοφίας αὐτοῦ. Τετάρτῳ δὲ tind [τόπῳ] ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ὁ προσδεὴς 
τοῦ φωτὸς. Ἵνα ἡ θεὸς, λόγος, σοφία, ἄνθρωπος. Here we have indeed 
the word τριὰς, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity ; for 
as ἄνθρωπος is mentioned as the fourth term, it is evident that the τριὰς 
can not be taken here as a perfect whole, consisting of three joined in one; 
besides, the term σοφία is used instead of τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Comp. Suicer, 
Thesaurus 5. v. τριάς, where the passage from the (spurious) treatise of Jus- 
tin, De Expositione Fidei, p. 379, is cited (Movac yap ἐν τριάδι νοεῖται καὶ 
τριὰς ἐν μονάδι. γνωρίζεται κ. τ. A.); this passage, however, proves as little 
cencerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise φιλόπα- 
τρίς erroneously ascribed to Lucian, from which passages are cited. Clem. 
Strom. iv. 7, p. 588, knows a ayia τριάς, but in an anthropological sense 
(faith, love, hope). On the terminology of Origen, comp. Thomasius, p. 
285. [Comp. Burton, 1. ὁ. p. 34-36, where the subject is treated at great 
length. | 

* Tertullian De Pudie. ec. 21: Nam et ecclesia proprie et prineipaliter ipse 
est spiritus, in quo est Z’rinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus 
S.; accordingly, the Holy Spirit is the principle which constitutes the unity 

9 


130 First PERIOD. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


of the persons; or (according to Schwegler, Montanism, p. 171), the spiritual 
substance common to the persons ; comp. Adv. Praxeam, 2 and 3. [ Burton, 
l. c. p. 68, ss.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this usage. 
Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism). Novat. de Trinitate. 
[ Burton, 1. c. p. 107-109; p. 116-123.] 


§ 46. 
MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION. 


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


Justin Ms Apol. 1- ὦ 13 taker. νίὸν αὑτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ μαθόντες 
(scil. τὸν Τησοῦν Χριστὸν) καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ yOpa ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά TE προ- 
φητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, comp. 1. 6, and 1. 60. There are also passages in 
the writings of /reneus which appear favorable to the idea of subordination, 
e. g.. Adv. Heer. ii. 28, 6, 8; v.18, 2: Super omnia quidem pater. et ipse 
est caput Christi; but elsewhere he represents the Logos as wholly God, and 
no subordinate being (comp. ὃ 42, note 9). “Jt can not be denied that 
Trenceus here contradicts himself, and it would be a useless labor to remove 
this contradiction by artificial interpretation.” Duncker, p. 56; comp. p. 70, 
ss. Dorner, p. 409, ss. Tert. Advers. Prax. c. 2: Tres autem non statu, sed 
gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nee potestate, sed specie : unius autem sub- 
stantie et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus 
isti et forme et species in nomine Patris et F a et Spiritus Sancti deputan 
tur. Comp. ce. 4, ss. 

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


$ 46. MoNARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION. 131 


et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua 
a@conomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad cconomiam. Numerum et dis- 
positionem trinitatis, divisionem presumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex seme- 
tipsa derivans trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque 
duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis pradicari, se vero unius Dei cultores presu- 
munt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta heresin faciat, et trinitas 
rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Comp. c. 13 and 22, where he 
expressly appeals to the point, that Christ did not say that he and the Father 
were one (wnus, masculine), but one (unum, neuter), and he refers this unity 
to a moral relation—the dilectio patris and the obsequium fili. In the 
same way Novat. De Trin, 22: Unum enim, non unus esse dicitur, quoniam 
nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societatem alterius expromitur...... Unum 
autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis 
societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per 
amorem, et per dilectionem. [ Burton, 1. c. p. 120, 121.] He also appeals to 
Apollos and Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 8: qui autem plantat et qui rigat, unum sunt. 

* Concerning the different classes of Unitarians, comp. § 24, and § 42,* 
It is self-evident, that all who held Christ to be a mere man could know 
nothing of any Trinity. These may be called deistico-rationalistic Antitrint- 
tarians ; God in his abstract unity was, in their view, so remote from the 
world, and confined to his heaven, that there was no abode for him even in 
Christ. Widely different were those who, apprehensive of lessening the dig- 
nity of Christ, taught that God himself had assumed humanity in him, but 
did not think it necessary to suppose the existence of a particular hypostasis. 
The name modalistic Antitrinitarians would be more appropriate in their 
case (thus Heinichen, de Alogis, p. 34); or, if the relation of God to Christ 
be compared to that in which he stands to the world, they might be called 
pantheistie Antitrinitarians, for they imagined God, as it were, expanded or 
extended into the person of Christ. Among their number are Prazxeas and 
Beryllus, the forerunners of “Sabellius, the former of whom was combated 
by Tertullian, the latter by Origen. The opinion of Praxeas, that the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same (ipsum eundemque esse), 
which virtually amounted to the latter ὁμοούσιος, was interpreted by Tertul- 
lian as implying, ipsum patrum passum esse, Ady. Prax. c. 20, 29, whence 
the heretical appellation Patripassiani. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 
103, p. 588, and Testim. of the Antenic. Fathers to the Trinity, ete., p. 68-83. 
Neander, |, ὁ. ii. p. 260-262.] Philastr. Her. 65. The views of Noetus 
were similar: Theod. Fab. Heer. iii, 3: "Eva φασὶν εἷναι θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, 
TOV ὅλων δημιουργόν, ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ἡνίκα dv βού- 
Anta καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἷναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννη- 
Tov ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν δὲ ὅτε ἐκ παρθένου γεννηθῆναι 
ἠθέλησε" ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀθάνατον, Kai πάλιν αὖ παθητὸν καὶ θνητόν. ᾿Απαθὴς 


* Origen already distinguishes two classes of Monarchians; the one spoke of Jesus 
merely as a pracognitum et preedestinatum hominem, while the other class taught the 
divinity of Christ, but identified the divinity of the Son with that of the Father. See 
Origen Epist. ad Tit. fragm. ii. ed. Lommatzsch, Tom y., in Neander’s Hist. of Dogmas 
(Ryland’s transl.), p. 149, note. 


132 First PERIOD. Doctrine KrsPECTING Gop. 


yap ὦν, φησί, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέμεινε" τοῦτον Kal υἱὸν 
ὀνομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. Comp. 
Epiph. Her. vii. 1. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 103, p. 589, 590.] 
Dorner, p. 532: “It is worthy of recognition, that Noétus already completes 
patripassianism, and takes away from it the pagan illusion, whereby the 
divine nature is made directly finite, which we find in thesystem of Praxeas.” 
Beryllus endeavored to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from 
Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difference after the as- 
sumption of humanity, Euseb. vi. 33: Βήρυλλος ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν δεδηλω- 
μένος Βοστρῶν τῆς ᾿Αραβίας ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παρεκτρέπων 
κανόνα, ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέρειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον 
ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προὐφεστάναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας 
περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας μηδὲ μὴν 
θεότητα ἰὸίαν ἔχειν, GAA’ ἐμποιλιτενομένην αὐτῷ 
μόνην τὴν πατρικήν. Comp. Ullmann, in the Dissert. quoted § 24, 
note 4, and Fork, Diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur (Dreieinig- 
keitslehre, p. 289), Beryllus ought to be classed with Artemon and Theodotus ; 
Meier (p. 114), however, supposes a certain distinction between them. Comp. 
Dorner, p. 545, and Neander, Hist. Dogm.: “ The most natural conclusion is, 
that Beryl. did not wholly belong to either ofthe two classes (of Monarchians), 
but held an intermediate view, which agrees with his historical position.” To 
those who adopted the tendency of Noetus belong Beron and his followers, 
who were combated by Hippolytus; comp. Dorner, p. 536, ss. 

* On the one hand, Origen asserts that the Son is equal to the Father, 
Hom, VIII. in Jerem. ii., Opp. iii. p. 171: Πάντα γὰρ ὅσα τοῦ θεοῦ, τοιαῦτα 
ἐν αὐτῷ (vio) ἐστίν. He also speaks of the three persons in the Trinity as 
the three sources of salvation, so that he who does not thirst after all three 
can not find God, ibid. Hom. XVIII. 9, Opp. iii. p. 251, 252. Nevertheless 
the subordination of the Son is prominently brought forward, and forms, 
together with the strict hypostatic distinction, the characteristic feature of 
Origen’s doctrine. The Son is called δεύτερος θεός, Contra Cels. v. 608; 
comp. vil. 735: "Agog τῆς devrepevovong μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τιμῆς. 
De Orat. i. p. 222: Ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενός ἐστι ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ 
πατρός. The kingdom of the Father extends to the whole universe, that of 
the Son to rational creatures, that of the Holy Spirit to the holy (Christians), 
De Prine. 1., 3, 5: Ὅτι ὃ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει 
εἰσ ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων, μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοὺ ἰδίου τὸ εἷναι" 
ὦν γὰρ ἔστιν. “EAGTTwWYV δὲ πρὸς τὸν πατὲρα ὃ υἱὸς φθάνων ἐπὶ μόνα 
TG Aoyırd“ devtTEpog ydp Eortı τοῦ πῶπρός. "Ere dé 
HTTOV TO TYETpPAa THO ον ἐπὶ, pbvove TOG dyiovc 
diikvovuevoc. “ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ πατρὸς Tapa TOV 
υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, 
καὶ πάλιν διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἡ δύναμις παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα 
ἅγια. Comp. also, In Joh. Tom. ii. 2, Opp. T. iv. p. 50, where stress is laid 
upon the distinction made by Philo between θεός and ὁ θεός. How far this 
system of subordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from Origen de 
Orat. c. 15, Opp. T. 1. 222, where he entirely rejects the practice of address- 
ing prayer to Christ (the Son) ; for, he argues, since the Son is a particular 


§ 47. DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION. 133 


hypostasis, we must pray either to the Son only, or to the Father only, or to 
both. To pray to the Son, and not to the Father, would be most improper 
(ἀτοπώτατον) ; to pray to both is impossible, because we should have to use 
the plural number: παρασχέσθε, εὐεργετήσατε, ἐπιχορηγήσατε, σώσατε, 
which is contrary to Scripture, and the doctrine of One God; thus nothing 
remains but to pray to the Father alone. To pray to the Father through the 
Son, a prayer in an improper sense (invocatio ?) is quite a different thing; 
Contra Cels. v. 4, Opp. 1. p. 579: Πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν καὶ προσευχὴν καὶ 
ἔντευξιν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἀναπεμπτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων 
ἀγγέλων ἀρχιερέως, ἐμψύχου λόγου καὶ θοοῦ. Δεησόμεθα δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
λόγου, καὶ ἐντευξόμεθα ἀὐτῷ, καὶ εὐχαριστήσομεν καὶ προσευξόμεθα δὲ, ἑὰν 
δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως (si 
modo propriam precationis possimus ab impropria secernere notionem). 
Comp. however, § 43. Redepenning Origenes, ii., p., 303. Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. 149. On the subordination doctrine of the Trinity in Hippolytus, 
see ibid., p. 157, JacobFs Note [and Bunsen’s Hippolytus. | 


§ 47. 
DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION. 


C. F. Rössler, Philosophia veteris ecclesie de mundo, Tubings, 1783, 4. [ Weisse, Phi- 
losophische Dogmatik, 1855, pp. 670-712. H. Ritter, Die christliche Philosophie, 
i. p. 266 sq. ] 


Concerning the doctrine of creation, as well as the doctrine of God 
in general, the early Christians adopted the monotheistic views of 
the Jews, and, in simple faith, unhesitatingly received the Mosaic 
account of the creation (Gen. 1.) as a revelation... Even the de- 
finition ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, which was introduced late into the Jewish 
theology (2 Mace. vii. 28), found sympathy in the primitive Chris- 
tianity.” The orthodox firmly adhered to the doctrine that God, 
the almighty Father, who is also the Father of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, is at the same time the creator of heaven and of earth,’ 
and rejected the notion of the eternity of matter,‘ in opposition 
to the Gnostics, according to whom the creator of the world is dis- 
tinct from the Supreme God, as well as to the opinion of some 
Christian teachers, and of Hermogenes,’ that matter is eternal. 
But the speculative tendency of the Alexandrian school could not 
be satisfied with the empirical notion of a creation in time. Ac- 
cordingly Origen resorted to an allegorical interpretation of the 
work of the six days (Hexaémeron),° and, after the example of Ole- 
ment’ (who, however, is doubtful, at least, hesitating), he pro- 
pounded more definitely the doctrine of an eternal creation, yet 
not maintaining the eternity of matter as an independent power.‘ 
On the contrary, /reneus, from his practical position, reckoned all 


134 First Perrop. DocTRinE REsPECTING GoD. 


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


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

? Comp. Hebr. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that passage. Accord- 
ingly the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, lib. ii. mand. 1: Πρῶτον πάντων 
πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, 6 τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ 
ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἷναι τὰ πάντα. Conf. Euseb. v. 8. But 
the idea of creation does not come out as distinctly in all the fathers. 
Thus “in Justin the Christian belief in the creation from nothing is never 
definitely brought forward against the opposing views of emanation and of 
dualism ;” Duncker, Zur christl. Logoslehre, p. 19. He uses the expression, 
δημιουργῆσαι ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, Apol. i. 10. Yet God produced the ma- 
terial itself, and from this shaped the world; Coh. ad Gree. ὁ. 22. 

*'The popular view was always, that the Father is the creator, though 
the creation through the Son also formed a part of the orthodox faith. 
Accordingly, we find that sometimes the Father, sometimes the Logos, is 
called the creator of the world (δημιουργός, ποιητής.) Thus Justin M. 
says, Dial. c. Tryph. e. 16 : 'O ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων θεός, comp. Apol. i, 61: 
Tod πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ. On the other hand, Coh. ad 
Gree. c. 15: Τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, δι’ οὗ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ Kal πᾶσα ἐγένετο 
κτίσις, comp. Apol. i. 64. Likewise Theophilus ad Autol. 11.10: Ὅτε ἐν 
τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ 6 θεὸς πεποίηκε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, 
ἔφη: ’Ev ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν. The phrase ἐν ἀρχῆ was understood in the same 
sense as διὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, and ἀρχή explained to denote the Logos, see Se- 
misch, p. 335. Thus Jreneus also taught, ii. 11: Et hc quidem sunt 
principia Evangelii, unum Deum fabricatorem hujus universitatis, eum qui 
et per prophetas sit annunciatus et qui per Moysem legis dispositionem 
fecerit, Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantis et preter hune al- 
terum Deum nescientia, neque alterum patrem. On the other hand, he says, 
v. 18, 3: Mundi enim factor vere verbum Dei est; hic autem est Dominus 
noster, qui in novissimus temporibus homo factus est, in hoc mundo existens 
et secundum invisibilitatem continet que facta sunt omnia, et in universa 
conditione infixus, quoniam verbum Dei gubernans et disponens omnia et 
propter hoe in sua venit. Irenzeus often speaks of the Son and Spirit as the 
hands of God, by which he created all things; on this, see Duncker, p. 68 
against Baur. That Clement of Alexandria called the Logos, as such, the 
creator of the world (with Philo), has already been remarked, § 42, note 8. 
For the various appellations ποιητής, κτιστής, δημιουργός, see Suicer under 
the latter word. [ Burton, Bampton Lect., note 21, p. 320; note 50, p. 410.] 

* Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato: Ei δὲ θεὸς 
ἀγέννήτος καὶ ὕλη ἀγέννητος, οὐκ ἔτι ὃ θεὸς ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἐστί. 
Comp. iii. 19, sq. and Jren. fragm. sermonis ad Demetr. p. 848 (p. 467 in 
Grabe). [Comp. Burton, 1. ce. note 18.] Tert. adv: Hermogenem, see the 
following note. 


§ 47. DocTRINE OF THE CREATION. 135 


° Hermogenes, a painter, lived toward the end of the second century, 
probably at Carthage. According to Tertullian (Adv. Hermog.), he main- 
tained that God must have created the world either out of himself, or out 
of nothing, or out of something. But he could not create the world out 
of himself, for he is indivisible; nor out of nothing, for as he himself is the 
supreme good, he would have created a perfectly good world; nothing, 
therefore, remains but that he created the world out of matter already in 
existence. This matter (ὕλη) is consequently eternal like God himself; both 
principles stood over against each other from the beginning, God as the 
creating and working, matter as the receptive principle. Whatever in the 
matter resists the creating principle, constitutes the evil in the world. In 
proof of the eternity of matter, Hermogenes alleges that God was Zord from 
eternity, and must, therefore, from eternity have an object for the exercise of 
his lordship. To this Tertullian replies (Adv. Hermog. c. 3), God is cer- 
tainly God from eternity, but not Lord; the one is the name of his essence, 
the other of power (a relation), Only the essence is to be viewed as eternal, 
But it was only on this pomt of the eternity of matter that Hermogenes 
agreed with the Gnostics ; in other respects, and especially in reference to 
_ the doctrine of emanation, he joined the orthodox in opposing them. Comp. 
Böhmer (Guil.) de Hermogene Africano, Sundiz, 1832, and Meander (Tor- 
rey’s), 1. 565-8. Antignosticus, p. 350-355; 424-442. Leopold, Hermo- 
genis de origine mundi sententia, Budisse, 1844. 

° De Principiis iv. 16, Opp. i. p. 174, 175: Τίς γὰρ νοῦν ἔχων οἰήσεται 
πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν TE καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς 
ἡλίου γεγονέναι καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων, κ. τ. A. Comp. ὃ 33, note 4. 

τ According to Photius Bibl. Cod. c. 9, p. 89, Clement of Alex. is said to 
have taught that matter had no beginning (ὕλην ἄχρονον) ; with this state- 
ment comp. Strom. vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Οὐ τοίνυν, ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβά- 
νουσι τὴν ἀνάπαυσιυ τοῦ θεοῦ, πέπαυται ποιῶν ὁ θεός: ἀγαθὸς γὰρ ὦν, εἰ 
παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοεργῶν, καὶ τοῦ θεὸς εἷναι παύσεται. But in other 
passages Clement most distinctly acknowledges that the world is a work of 
God; e. g., Coh. p. 54, 55: Μόνος γὰρ 6 θεὸς ἐποίησεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος 
ὄντως ἐστὶ θεός" ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον ἐθελῆσαι 
αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσθαι. 

° Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the heathen and 
heretical sense), De Prine. ii. 4 (Redepenning, 164), and in other places, e. 
g., Comment. in Joh. xxxii. 9, Opp. T. iv. p. 429; but, though from his 
idealistic position he denied eternity to matter, which he held to be the root 
of evil, he nevertheless assumed the eternal creation of innumerable ideal 
worlds, solely because he, as little as Clement, could not conceive of God as 
unoccupied (otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium enim 
simul et absurdum), De Prine. iii. 5, Opp. T. i. p. 149 (Redep. 309): Nos 
vero consequentur respondebimus, observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes: 
Quoniam non tune primum, cum visibilem istum mundum feeit Deus, ccepit 
operari, sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit alius mundus, ita et antequam 
his esset, fuisse alios credimus. It might be questioned whether Origen, in 
the use of the pronoun “ 208” in the subsequent part of the passage, intended 
to enforce his own belief as that of the church, or whether he employed the 


136 First PERIOD. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


plural number merely in his character as author; comp. Réssler, Bibliothek 
der Kirchenväter, i. p. 177, and Schnitzer, 1. c. Comp. also Thomasius, p. 
153, ss., 169, ss., Redepenning, 11. 292 sq. 

° Iren. ii. 28, p. 157 (11. 47, p. 175, Grabe): Ut puta si quis interroget: 
Antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat? dicimus: Quoniam ista 
responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus hic factus est apotelestos a 
Deo, temporale initium accipiens, Scripture nos docent ; quid autem ante hoc 
Deus sit operatus, nulla scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hac responsio 
Deo. Respecting the important position which the doctrine of Irenzeus con- 
cerning the creation of the world occupies in his theological system (in 
opposition to the Gnostics), see Duncker, p. 8. 


§ 48. 
PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD. 


Though the doctrine that the world exists for the sake of the 
human race, may degenerate into a selfish happiness scheme, yet it has 
a deeper ground in the consciousness of a specific distinction between 
man and all other creatures, at least on this earth, and is justified 
by hints in the Sacred Scriptures.’ Accordingly, the primitive 
Christians considered creation as a voluntary act of divine love, in- 
asmuch as God does not stand in need of his creatures for his own 
glory.” But man, as the end of creation,’ is also preéminently the 
subject of divine providence, and the whole vast economy of crea- 
tion, with its laws and also its miracles, is made subservient to the 
higher purpose of the education of mankind. The Christian doc- 
trine of providence, as held by the fathers of the church in opposi- 
tion to the objections of ancient philosophy,* is remote, on the one 
hand, from Stoicism and the rigid dogma of a εἱμαρμένη held by the 
Gnostics,5 and on the other from the system of Epicurus, according 
to which it is unworthy of the Deity to concern himself about the 
affairs of man.‘ Yet here, again, the teachers of the Alexandrian 
school in particular endeavored to avoid as ‚much as possible the use 
of anthropomorphism,’ in connection with the idea that God takes 
care even of individuals, and to uphold in their theodicy the liberty 
of man,‘ as well as the love and justice of God.’ 


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

* E. g. Clement of Alex. Peed. iii. 1, 250: ’Avevdenc δὲ μόνος 6 Θεὸς καὶ 
χαίρει μάλιστα μὲν καθαρεύοντας ἡμᾶς ὁρῶν τῷ τῆς διανοίας κοσμῷ. 

° Justin M. Apol. 1.10 ; Καὶ πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα δημιουργῆσαι 
αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης δι’ ἀνθρώπους δεδιδάγμεθα. Comp. Athen. De 
Resurr. c. 12. Iren. v. 29,1; iv. 5,1; iv. 7,4 (Comp. Duncker, p. 78, 79). 
Tert. Advers. Mare. i, 13: Ergo nec mundus Deo indignus, nihil etenim Deus 


$ 48. PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE ΟΕ. 137 


indignum se fecit, etsi mundum homini, non sibi fecit. Orig. Contra Cels. iv. 
74, p. 558, 559, and ibid. 99, p. 576: Κέλσος μὲν οὖν λεγέτω, ὅτι οὖν 
ἀνθρώπῳ, ὡς οὐδὲ λέοντι, οὐδ᾽ οἷς ὀνομάζει. “Ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐροῦμεν: Οὐ λέοντι ὁ 
δημιουργὸς, οὐδὲ ἀετῷ, οὐδὲ δελφῖνι ταῦτα πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα διὰ τὸ 
λογικὸν ζῶον. 

* See the objections of Caecilius, in Minucius Felix, c. 5, ss., and, on the 
other hand, the oration of Octavius, c. 17, 18, 20, 32, and especially the 
beautiful passage, c. 33: Nec nobis de nostra frequentia blandiamur; multi 
nobis videmur, sed Deo admodum pauci sumus. Nos gentes nationesque 
distinguimus : Deo una domus est mundus hie totus. Reges tantum regni 
sui per oflicia ministrorum universa novere : Deo indiciis non opus est; non 
solum in occulis ejus, sed et in sinu vivimus. Comp. Athen. Leg. c. 22, in 
calce. 

° On the opinion of the Gnostie Bardesanes respecting the εἱμαρμένη 
(fate), and the influence of stars, comp. Photius Bibl. Cod. 223. Euseb. 
Prep. vi. 10. Meander, Gnostiche Systeme, p. 198. [Neander, History of 
the Christ. Relig. and Church during the first three centuries, trans. by 4. J. 
Rose, ii. p. 97: “He (Bardesanes), therefore, although, like many of those 
who inclined to Gnosticism, he busied himself with astrology, contended 
against the doctrine of such an influence of the stars (εἱμαρμένη) as should 
be supposed to settle the life and affairs of man by necessity. Eusebius, in 
his great literary treasure house, the Praparatio Evangelica, has preserved a 
large fragment of this remarkable work; he here introduces, among other 
things, the Christians dispersed over so many countries, as an example of the 
absurdity of supposing that the stars irresistibly influenced the character of a 
people.”| Baur, Gnosis, p. 234. C. Kühner, Astronomiz et Astrologie in 
doctrina Gnostic. Vestigia, P. I. Bardesanis Gnostici numina astralia. Hild- 
burgh, 1833. [Comp. also Gieseler, ]. c. i. $ 46, n. 2, and Burton, Lect. on 
Eeclesiast. hist. Lect. xx. p. 182, 183.] . 

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

” According to Clement, there is no antagonism of the whole and its 
parts in the sight of God (comp. also Minue. Fel. note 4): ᾿Αθρόως te yap 
πάντα καὶ ἕκαστον Ev μέρει μιᾷ προσβολῇ προσβλέπει, Strom. vi. p. 821. 
Comp. the work of Origen contra Cels. 

® The doctrine of the concursus, as it was afterward termed, is found in 
Clem. Strom, vi. 17, p. 821, ss. Many things owe their existence to human 
calculation, though they are kindled by God, as if by lightning (τὴν ἔναυσιν 
»eiindöra). Thus health is preserved by medical skill, the carriage of the 
body by fencing, riches by the industrial art (χρηματιστικὴ τέχνη), but the 
divine πρόνοια and human ovvépyeva always work together. 

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


138 First PERIOD. DocTRiNnE REsPECTING Gop. 


and evil in the world, the former shines the more brightly. Spirits, he fur- 
ther remarks, may exereise themselves in distinguishing between good and 
evil; how could they know the former, without having some idea of its 
opposite? But, in a categorical manner, he precludes all further questions: 
Non enim*tu Deum facis, sed Deus te facit. Si ergo opera Dei es, manum 
artificis tui expecta, opportune omnia facientem : opportune autem, quantum 
ad te attinet, qui efficeris. Prasta autem ei cor tuum molle et tractabile, et 
custodi figuram, qua te figuravit artifex, habens in temetipso humorem, ne 
induratus amittas vestigia digitorum ejus....And further on ; Si igitur tradi- 
deris ei, quod est tuum, ὁ. 6., fidem in eum et subjectionem, recipies ejus 
artem et eris perfectum opus Dei. Si autem non credideris ei et fugeris 
manus ejus, erit causa imperfectionis in te qui non obedisti, sed non in illo, 
qui vocavit, etc. At all events, the best and soundest theodiey ἢ Athenogo- 
ras (Leg. c. 24) derives the disorders in the world from the devil and demons 
(comp. § 51); and Cyprian (Ad Demetrianum) from the very constitu- 
tion of the world, which begins to change, and is approaching its dissolution. 
To a speculative mind like that of Origen, the existence of evil would present 
a strong stimulus to attempt to explain its origin, though he could not but 
be aware of the difficulties with which this subject is beset. Comp. especi- 
ally De Prine. ii. 9 (Opp. i. p. 97, Redep. 214, Schnitzer, p. 140); Contra 
Celsum iv. 62, p. 551 (an extract of which is given by Aössler, vol. 1, p. 232, 
ss.). Different reasons are adduced in vindication of the existence of evil in 
the world; thus it serves to exercise the ingenuity of man (power of inven- 
tion, etc.) ; but he draws special attention to the connection between moral 
and physical imperfections, evil and sin. Comp. the opinion of T’homasius 
on the theodicy of Origen, p. 57, 58. 


- § 49, 


ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. 


Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. ἄγγελος. Cotta, Disputationes 2, succinctam Doctrine de Angelis His- 
toriam exhibentes. Tüb. 1765, 4. Schmid, Hist. dogm. de Angelis tutelaribus, in Illgens 
histor. theol. Abhandlungen, i. p. 24-27. Keil, De Angelorum malorum et Deemoniorum 
Cultu apud Gentiles, Opusc. Acad. p. 584-601. (Gaab), Abhandlungen zur Dogmen- 
geschichte der ältesten griechischen Kirche, Jena, 1790, p. 97-136. Usteri, Paulin. 
Lehrbegriff. 4th edit. Appendix 3, p. 421, s.—| Dr. L. Mayer, Scriptural Idea of An- 
gels, in Amer. Biblic. Reposit. xii. 356-388. Moses Stuart, Sketches of Angelology 
in Robinson’s Bibliotheca Sacra, No. I. 1843. Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter. arts. An- 
gels, Demons, Satan. L. F. Voss, Zeitschrift f. Luther. Theologie, 1855. Lücke, in 
the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851, review of Martensen. Twesten, transl. in Bibliotheca 
Sacra, by H. B. Smith, vols. i. and ii. 1844, 1845.] 


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


$ 50. THE ANGELS. 139 


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


§ 50. 


THE ANGELS. 


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


* De Princ. proem. 10, Opp. i. p. 49: Est etiam illud in ecclesiastica 
predicatione, esse angelos Dei quosdam et virtutes bonas, qui ei ministrant 
ad salutem hominum consummandam ; sed quando isti creati sint, vel quales 
aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto designatur, 

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

° Iren. 1. 22 and 24 (against the opinions of Saturninus and Carpocrates), 
comp. ii. 2, p. 117: Si enim (Deus) mundi fabricator est, angelos ipse fecit, 
aut etiam causa creationis eorum ipse fuit. III. 8, 3: Quoniam enim sive an- 
geli, sive archangeli, sive throni, sive dominationes ab eo, qui super omnes est 
Deus, et constituta sunt et facta sunt per verbum ejus. Comp. also iv. 6, 7: 
Ministrat ei (patri) ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua ὁ, e., Filius et Spir. 
S., verbum et sapientia, guibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes angeli. Comp. 
Duncker, p. 108, ss. and Baur, Dreieinigkeit p. 175. The latter, from the 
manner in which the earliest fathers frequently bring the angels into close 
connection with the persons of the Trinity, sees evidence that their views 
respecting this great mystery itself were yet very indefinite. 

* “Justin M. regards the angels as personal beings who possess a permanent 
existence,” Semisch, 11. p. 341. Dial. e. Tryph. ο. 128: Ὅτε μὲν οὖν εἰσὶν 
ἄγγελοι, καὶ ἀεὶ μένοντες, Kal μὴ ἀναλνυόμενοι εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗπερ γεγόνασιν, 
ἀποδέδεικται. . . . . Athenagoras, Leg, ὁ. 10: Πλῆθος ἀγγέλων καὶ 
λειτουργῶν φαμεν, οὺς 6 ποιητὴς καὶ δήμιουργὺς κόσμου θεὸς διὰ τοῦ Tap’ 
αὐτοῦ Adyov διένειμε Tal διέταξε περί τε τὰ στοιχεῖα εἷναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοῦς 
καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν τούτων εὐταξίαν. Comp. c, 24, and 


140 First Periop. Doctrine REsPECTING Gop. 


Clem. Strom. vi. 17, p. 822, 824 ; according to him the angels have received 
charge over provinces, towns, etc. Clement, however, distinguishes the ἄγ- 
yeAoc (singular), mm) zR&%, from the other angels, and connects him in some 
degree with the Logos, though assigning to him an inferior rank. Comp. 
Strom. vii. 2, p. 831-833. He also speaks of a mythical Angelus Jesus, Peed. 
i. 7, p. 133, comp. G. Bulli Def. Fidei Nic. sect. 1, cap. 1 (de Christo sub an- 
geli forma apparente). Opp. Lond. 1703, fol. p. 9. [Pye Smith, Script. Test. 
to the Mess. i. p. 445-464]. —On the employments of angels comp. Orig. Contra 
Cels. v.29. (Opp. i. p. 598), and Hom. xii. in Luc. Opp. iii. p. 945. 

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

§ Justin M. attaches most importance to the body of angels as analogous 
to that of man. Their food is manna, Psal. Ixxviii. 25 ; the two angels who 
appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 1. ss.) differed from the Logos who accom- 
panied them, in partaking of the meat set before them, in reality and after 
the manner of men, comp. Dial. ec. Tryph. c. 57, and Semisch, ii. p. 343. As 
regards their intellectual powers and moral condition, Justin assigns an inferior 
position to the angels, Semisch, p. 344, 345. Tertullian points out the differ- 
ence between the body of Christ and that of the angels, De Carne Christi, ο. 6 : 
Nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, 
ut a morte suscitaretur. Si nunquam ejusmodi fuit causa angelorum corpo- 
randorum, habes causam, cur non nascendi acceperint carnem. Non venerant 
mori, ideo nec nascl..... Igitur probent angelos illos, carnem de sideribus 
concepisse. Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, 
cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat, angelos carnem non pro- 
priam gestasse, utpote naturas substantie spiritalis, et si corporis alicujus, sui 
tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri 
et congredi cum hominibus posse. Igitur, cum relatum non sit, unde sump- 
serint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro, non dubitare, hoc esse proprium 
angelic potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. . . . . Sed et, 
si de materia necesse fuit, angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de 
terrena materia, quam de ullo genere ceelestium substantiarum, cum adeo 
terrene qualitatis extiterit, ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. Tatian, Or. ec. 15: 
Aaiuovec δὲ πάντες σαρκίον μὲν od κέκτηνται, πνευματικὴ δέ ἐστιν αὐτοῖς 
ἡ σύμπηξις, ὡς πυρὸς, ὡς ἀέρος. But these ethereal bodies of the angels can 
be perceived only by those in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not by the 
natural man (the psychical). In comparison with other creatures they might 
be called incorporeal beings, and /gnat. ad Trall. calls them ἀσωμάτους 
φύσεις. Clement also says, Strom. vi. 7, p. 769, that they have neither ears, 
nor tongues, nor lips, nor entrails, nor organs of respiration, etc. Comp. Orig. 


§ 50. THE ANGELS. 141 


Prine., in proem. § 9. On the question, whether the fathers taught the spir- 
itual nature of the angels at all, see Semisch, ii. p. 342. 

‘ This idea is already found in the Shepherd of Hermas, lib. ii. mand. vi. 2: 
Δύο εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι μετὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἷς τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ εἷς τῆς 
πονηρίᾳς" καὶ ὃ μὲν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄγγελος τρυφερός ἐστι καὶ αἰσχυντηρὸς 
καὶ πρᾷος καὶ ἡσύχιος. Ὅταν οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, εὐθέως 
λαλεῖ μετὰ σοῦ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, περὶ ἁγνείας, περὶ σεμνότητος καὶ περὶ 
αὐταρκείας, καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἔργον δικαίου, καὶ περὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἐνδόξου. 
Ταῦτα πάντα ὅταν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, γίνωσκε, ὅτι ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς 
δικαιοσύνης μετὰ σοῦ ἐστιν. 'Ῥούτῳ οὖν πίστευε καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
ἐγκρατὴς αὐτοῦ γενοῦ. Ὅρα οὖν καὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας τὰ ἔργα. 
Πρῶτον πάντων ὀξύχολός ἐστι καὶ πικρὸς καὶ ἄφρων, καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ 
πονηρὰ κωταστρέφοντω τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ" ὅταν αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν kapdiav 
σοῦ ἀναβῆ, γνῶθι αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. (Fragm. ex doctr.ad Antioch.) 
Comp. the Latin text. Justin Mart. Apol. II. 5: Ὃ θεὸς τὸν πάντα κόσμον 
ποιῆσας καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια ἀνθρώποις ὑποτάξας... . τὴν μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρόνοιαν ἀγγέλοις, οὕς Ext τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέ- 
δωκεν, We have already seen (note 4), that Clement and Origen assign to 
angels the oflice of watching over provinces and towns; this is connected 
with the notion of individual guardian angels; comp. Clem. Strom. v. p. 700, 
and vii. p. 833, and the passages quoted above from Origen. Schmid, u. 8. 

* Col. ii. 18, mention is made of a θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων which the 
apostle disapproves; comp. Rev. xix. 10. xxii. 9. The answer to the ques- 
tion, whether Justin M. numbered the angels among the objects of Christian 
worship, depends upon the interpretation of the passage, Apol. 1.6: "Adeor 
κεκλήμεθα Kal ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων θεῶν ἄθεοι εἷναι, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληθεστάτουν καὶ πατρὺς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύης καὶ 
τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνεπιμίκτον τε κακίας θεοῦ: GAR ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ 
TOV Tap’ avTov viov ἐλθόντῳ Kal dıdafavra UGS 
τοῦτα καὶ TOV τῶν ἀλλων ἐπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων 
ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν 
σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες. The 
principal point in question is, whether the accusative τὸν τῶν dAAwv.... 
στρατὸν is governed by σεβόμεθα καὶ rpockvvoduev, or by διδάξαντα, and, 
consequently where the punetuation is to fall. Most modern writers adopt the 
former interpretation, which is probably the more correct one. Thus Se- 
misch, Ὁ. 350, ss. Mohler (Patrologie, p. 240) finds in this passage as well 
as in Athen. Leg. 10, a proof of the Romish Catholic adoration of angels 
and saints. - But Athenagoras (c. 16) rejects this doctrine very decidedly in 
the following words: Ov τὰς δυνάμεις τοῦ θεοῦ προσίοντες θεραπεύομεν, 
ἀλλὰ τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτῶν καὶ δεσπότην. Comp, Clem, Strom. vi. 5, p. 760. 
Orig. Contra Cels. v. 4, 5 (Opp. i. p. 580), and viii, 13 (ib. p. 751), quoted 
by Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, i. p. 84, 85. | Geseler, i. § 99, and note 33. 
* Burton, Testimonies of the Antenic. Fath. to the Trinity, ete., p. 15-23. 
On the Gnostic worship of angels, comp. Burton, Bampton Lect., note 52.] 


* In an earlier essay in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1833, p. 53 sq., Mohler rejected 
the interpretation, that the worship of angels is here spoken of. 


142 First Pertop. Doctrine RESPECTING Gop. 


According to Origen, the angels rather pray with us and for us, comp. Contra 
Cels. viii. 64, p. 789; Hom. in Num. xxiv. (Opp. iii. p. 362). On the order 
and rank of the angels in Origen, see Redepenning, ii. p. 348, sq. 


§ 51. 
THE DEVIL AND DEMONS. 


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


Concerning the appellatives ws, σατᾶν, σατανᾶς, διάβολος, 6 ἄρχων τοῦ 
κόσμου τούτου, δαίμονες, δαιμόνια, βεελζεβούλ, etc., the origin of the doc- 
trine and its development in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dog- 
matik, § 142-150; 212-214; 236-238; Bawmgarten-Crusius, biblische 
Theologie, p. 295; Von Célln, biblische Theologie, p. 420; Hirzel, Com- 
mentar zum Hiob, p. 16. The fathers generally adopted the notions already 
existing. Justin M., Apol. min. c. 5. Athenag. Leg. 24: Ὡς yap θεόν φα- 
μεν καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ Kal πνεῦμα ἅγιον... . οὕτως καὶ ἑτέρας εἷναι 
δυνάμεις κατειλήμμεθα περὶ τὴν ὕλην Exoboac καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς, μίαν μὲν τὴν 
ἀντίθεον, οὐχ ὅτι ἀντιδοξοῦν τι ἐστὶ τῷ θεῷ, ὡς τῇ φιλίᾳ τὸ νεῖκος κατὰ 
τὸν ᾿Εμπεδοκλὲα, καὶ τῇ ἡμὲρᾳ νὺξ κατὰ τὰ φαινόμενα (ἐπεὶ κἂν εἰ ἀν- 
θειστήκει τι τῷ θεῷ, ἐπαύσατο τοῦ εἴναι, λυθείσης αὐτοῦ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δυνά- 
ust καὶ ἰσχύϊ τῆς συστάσεως) ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθῷ, ὃ κατὰ συμ- 
βεβηκός ἐστιν αὐτῷ, καὶ συνυπάρχον, ὡς χρύα σώματι, οὗ ἄνευ οὐκ ἔστιν 
(οὔχ ὡς μέρους ὄντος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Kar’ ἀνάγκην συνόντος παρακολουθήματος 
ἡνωμένου καὶ συγκεχρωσμένου: ὡς τῷ πυρὶ, ξανθῷ εἷναι, καὶ τῷ αἰθέρι, 
κυανῷ) ἐναντίον ἐστὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἔχον πνεῦμα, γενόμενον μὲν 
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, καθὸ οἱ λοιποὶ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγόνασιν ἄγγελοι, καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ 
τῇ ὕλῃ καὶ τοῖς τῆς ὕλης εἴδεσι πιστευσάμενον διοίκησιν. Iren. iv. 41, p. 
288: Quum igitur a Deo omnia facta sunt, et diabolus sibimet ipsi et reliquis 
factus est abscessionis causa, juste scriptura eos, qui in abscessione perseve- 
rant, semper filios diaboli et angelos dixit maligni. Tert. Apol. c. 22: 


§ 51. Tue Devin anp Demons. 143 


Atque adeo dieimus, esse substantias quasdam spiritales, nec nomen novum 
est. Sciunt demonas philosophi, Socrate ipso ad demonii arbitrium ex- 
spectante, quidni? cum et ipso dzmonium adhaesisse a pueritia dicatur, de- 
hortatorium plane a bono. Deemonas sciunt poéte, et jam vulgus indoctum 
in usum maledicti frequentat ; nam et Satanam, principem hujus mali gene- 
ris, proinde de propria conscientia animze eadem execramenti voce pronun- 
tiat. Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit. Utriusque nominis testes esse 
vel magi adsunt. Sed quomodo de angelis quibusdam sua sponte corruptis 
corruptior gens demonum evaserit damnata a Deo cum generis auctoribus et 
cum eo quem diximus principe, apud litteras sanctas ordine cognoseitur. 
Comp. Orig. De Princ. proem. 6 (Opp. T. i. p. 48), who, however, leaves 
all other points problematical, as he does in the doctrine gespecting angels ; 
it is sufficient to believe that Satan and the demons really eaist—quie autem 
sint aut quo modo sint, (ecclesia) non clare exposuit. It was not until the 
following period that the Manichees developed the dualistic view, that the 
devil is a distinct and essential evil principle, in the form of a regular system, 
although traces of it may be found in some earlier Gnostic notions, e. g. the 
Jaldabaoth of the Ophites, comp. Neander’s Gnostische Systeme, p. 233, ss. 
Baur, Gnosis, p. 173, ss. [Neander, Hist. of the Ch. (Torrey) i. 345, comp. 
Norton, 1. ce. ii. p. 57-62.] In opposition to this dualistic view, Origen 
maintains that the devil and the demons are creatures of God,.though not 
created as devils, but as spiritual beings ; Contra Cels. iv. 65 (Opp. i. p. 553). 
—As to the extent in which Platonism and Ebionitism participated in the 
Christian demonology, see Semisch, Just. Mart. p. 387 sq. 

2 Tertullian and Origen agree in ascribing failures of crops, drought, 
famine, pestilence, and murrain, to the influence of demons. Tert. Apol. ce. 
22 (operatio eorum est hominis eversio). Orig. Contra Cels, viii. 31, 32 (Opp. 
i. p. 764, 65). He calls the evil spirits the executioners of God (δήμιοι). 
Demoniacal possessions were still considered as phenomena of special impor- 
tance (as in the times of the New Test). Minuc. Fel. ce. 27: Irrepentes 
etiam corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mentes, 
membra distorquent. Concerning these δαιμονεόληπτοι, μαινόμενοι, Evepyov- 
μενοι, comp. in particular Const. Apost. lib. vill. c, 7. A rationalistie 
explanation is already given in the Clementine Hom. ix. $ 12: Ὅθεν πολλοὶ 
οὐκ εἰδότες, πόθεν ἐνεργοῦνται, ταῖς τῶν δαιμόνων κακαῖς ὑποβαλλομέναις 
ἐπινοίαις, ὠς τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτῶν λογισμῷ συντίθενται. Comp. moreover, 
Orig. ad Matth. xvii. 5 (Opp. T. iii. p. 574, ss.), De Prine, iii. 2 (Opp. T. i. 
p- 138, ss. de contrariis potestatibus). Schnitzer, p. 198, ss.; Thomasius, 
Ῥ. 184, ss., and the passages cited there. 

* Justin M. Apol. c. 5, 12, 14 (quoted by Usteri, 1. ec. p. 421). Minue., 
Fel. |. e.: Ideo inserti mentibus imperitorum odium nostri serunt occulte per 
timorem. Naturale est enim et odisse quem timeas, et quem metueris, infes- 
tare, si possis. Justin M. Apol. ii. toward the commencement, and ce. 6. 
Comp. Orig. Exhort. ad Martyr. § 18, 32, 42 (Opp. T. i. p. 286, 294, 302). 
But Justin M. Apol. i. c. 5, also ascribes the process against Socrates to the 
hatred of the demons. The observation of Justin, quoted by Irenzeus (Advers. 
Heer. v. c. 26, p. 324, and Euseb. iv. 18), is very remarkable: Ὅτε πρὸ μὲν 
τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὃ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαί τὸν 


144 First Preriop. Doctrine REsSPECTING Gop. 


Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν (comp. Epiph. in Heer. Seth- 
ianor. p. 289); thus the efforts of the powers of darkness against the vic- 
torious progress of the Christian religion could be more satisfactorily 
explained. 

4 Ep. Barn. c. 16, 18; Justin M. Apol. i. 12, and elsewhere; Tatian, c. 
12, 20, and elsewhere (comp. Daniel, p. 162, ss.); Athen. Leg. c. 26; Tert. 
Apol. ὁ. 22, De Preser, c. 40; Minuc. Fel. Octav. ὁ. 27, 1; Clem. Al. 
Cohort. p. 7; Origen Contra Cels. 111. 28, 37, 69, iv. 36, 92; v. 5; vil, 64; 
viii. 80. The demons are present in particular at the offering of sacrifices, 
and sip in the smoke of the burnt-offering; they speak out of the oracles, 
and rejoice in the licentiousness and excess which accompany these festivals. 
(Comp. Keil, De Angelorum malorum s. Deemoniorum Cultu apud Gentiles ; 
Opuse. Academ. p. 584-601. Münscher edit. by Von Cölln, i. p. 92, ss.) 

° According to Minuc. Fel., c. 26, the demon of Soerates was one of those 
evil demons. Clement also says of a sect of Christians, Strom. i. 1. p. 326: 
Οἱ δὲ καὶ πρὸς κακοῦ ἂν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἰσδεδυκέναι τὸν βίον νομίζουσιν, 
ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πρός τινος εὑρετοῦ πονηροῦ, which is manifestly 
nothing but an euphemism for διαβόλου ; comp. Strom. vi. 822: Πῶς οὖν 
οὐκ ἄτοπον τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν προσνέμοντας τῷ διαβόλῳ, εναρέ- 
του πράγματος, τοῦτον τῆς φιλοσοφίας, δωτῆρα ποιεῖν ; comp. also Strom. 
1. 17, p. 366, and the note in the edit. of Potter. Astrology, ete., was also 
ascribed to demoniacal influence; comp. the same note. 

° Comp. Justin M. Apol. i. 56, 58. Cyprian, De Unitatate Ecelesix, p. 
105: Heereses invenit (diabolus) et schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, 
veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem, etc. 

” Hermas, ii. 6, 2, comp. the preceding $. Justin M. Apol. ii. ὁ. 5 (Usteri, 
p- 423)...kal εἰς ἀνθρώπους φόνους, πολέμους, μοιχείας, ἀκολασίας καὶ 
πᾶσαν κακίαν ἔσπειραν. Clem. of Alex. designates as the most malicious 
and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon (korALodatuova 
λιχνότατον), who is related to the one that works in ventriloquists (τῷ éy- 
γαστριμύθῳ), Ped. ii.1, p. 174. Origen follows Hermas in classifying the 
demons according to the vices which they represent, and thus unconsciously 
prepares the way for more intelligible views, gradually resolving these con- 
crete representations of devils into abstract notions. Comp. Hom. 15, in 
Jesum Nave (Opp. T. ii. p. 434): Unde mihi videtur esse infinitus quidem 
numerus contrariarum virtutum, pro eo quod per singulos pene homines sunt 
spiritus aliqui, diversa in iis peccatorum genera molientes. Verbi causa, est 
aliquis fornicationis spiritus, est iree spiritus alius, est avaritis spiritus, alius 
vere superbiz. Et si eveniat esse aliquem hominem, qui his omnibus malis 
aut etiam pluribus agitetur, omnes hos vel etiam plures in se habere inimicos 
putandus est spiritus. Comp. also the subsequent part, where it is said, not 
only that every vice has its chief demon, but also that every vicious person 
is possessed with a demon who is in the service of the chief demon. Others 
refer not only crimes, but also natural desires, as the sexual impulse, to the 
devil; Origen, however, objects to this, De Prine, iii. 2, 2 (Opp. T. i. p. 139; 
Redepenning, p. 278 sq.) 


§ 52. Saran anp Demons. 145 


§ 52. 


THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


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


* The fathers do not agree about the time at which this took place. On 
the supposition that the devil seduced our first parents, it is necessary to 
assign an earlier date to his apostasy than to the fall of man, But, accord- 
ing to Tatian, Orat. c. 11, the fall of Satan was the punishment which was 
inflicted upon him in consequence of the part he had taken in the first sin 
of man (comp. Daniel, p. 187 and 196). From the language of Jreneus 
(comp. note 2), one might suspect that he entertained similar views ; but it 
is more probable that he fixed upon the period which elapsed between the 
creation of man and his temptation, as the time when the devil apostatized. 
Thus Cyprian says, De Dono Patient. p. 218: Diabolus hominem ad imagi- 
nem Dei factum impatienter tulit; inde et periit primus et perdidit. 

* Iren. Adv. Heer. iv. 40, 3, p. 287: ᾿Εζήλωσε τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ θεοῦ, and 
Cyprian, I. c. Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 9, 2 (Opp. T. iii. p. 389) : Inflatio, su- 
perbia, arrogantia peccatum diaboli est et ob hee delicta ad terras migravit 
de c@lo. Comp. Phot. Bibl. cod. 324, p. 293 (ed Bekker.): Οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ 
(ἄγγελοι) ἐφ’ ὧν αὐτούς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὃ θεός ἔμειναν: αὐτὸς δέ 
(se. ὁ διάβολος) ἐνύβρισ ε. 

* The passage in Gen. vi. 2 (according to the reading οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ 
instead of οἱ viot τοῦ θεοῦ) had already been applied to the demons, and 
their intercourse with the daughters of men. (Comp. Wernsdorf, Exercitatio 
de Commercio Angelorum cum Filiabus Hominum ab Judeeis et Patribus Pla- 
tonizantibus eredito. Viteb. 1742, 4. Keil, Opusc. p. 566, ss. Münscher 
edit. by Von Cölln, p. 89, 90. Swicer s. v. ἄγγελος i. p. 36, and ἐγρήγορος 
p- 1003). Thus Philo wrote a special treatise De Gigantibus; and all the 
fathers of the first period (with the exception of Julius Africanus, see Rowth, 
Reliquize Sacre ii. p. 127, ss.) referred the passages in question to the sexual 
intercourse of the angels with the daughters of men, This, however, holds 
only of the later demons, who became subject to the devil, and not of the 
apostasy of Satan himself, which falls in an earlier period (note 1). Con- 
cerning the apparent parachronism, comp. Münscher, Handb. ii. p. 30, 31. 
In accordance with this notion, Clement, Strom. iii. 7, p. 538, designates 
ἀκρασία and ἐπιθυμία as the causes of the fall—The above mentioned 


146 First Periop. Doctrine Respectine Gop. 


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

4 Hermas, lib. ii. mand 7: Diabolum autem ne timeas, timens enim Domi- 
num dominaberis illius, quia virtus in illo nulla est. In quo autem virtus non 
est, is ne timendus quidem est; in quo vero virtus gloriosa est, is etiam timen- 
dus est. Omnis enim virtutem habens timendus est; nam qui virtutem non 
habet, ab omnibus contemnitur. Time plane facta Diaboli, quoniam maligna 
.sunt: metuens enim Dominum, timebis, et opera Diaboli non facies, sed ab- 
stinebis te ab eis. Comp. 12. 5: Potest autem Diabolus luctari, sed vincere 
non potest. Si enim resistitur, fugiet a vobis confusus.—|For as a man, when 
he fills up vessels with good wine, and among them puts a few vessels half 
full, and comes to try and taste of the vessels, does not try those that are full, 
because he knows that they are good ; but tastes those that are half full, lest 
they should grow sour: so the devil comes to the servants of God to try them. 
They that are full of faith resist him stoutly, and he departs from them be- 
cause he finds no place where to enter into them: then he goes to those that 
are not full of faith, and because he has a place of entrance, he goes into 
them, and does what he will with them, and they become his servants. 
Hermas, 12. 5, Archbp. Wake’s transl.] Comp. Tatian, c. 16: Δαΐμοψες de 
οἱ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτάττοντες, οὔκ εἰσιν ai τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχαΐ κ. τ. A. 
Iren. ii. c. 32, 4, p. 166. Tert. Apol. c. 23: [Omnis heec nostra in illos do- 
minatio et potestas de nominatione Christi valet, et de commemoratione eorum 
que sibi a Deo per arbitrum Christum imminentia exspectant. Christum 
timentes in Deo, et Deum in Christo, subjiciuntur servis Dei et Christi.] 
Orig. De Prine. iii. 2, 4; Contra Cels. i. 6, and viii, 36 (Opp. i. p. 769): 
᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐ χριστιανὸς, ὁ ἀληθῶς χριστιανὸς καὶ ὑποτάξας ἑαυτὸν μόνῳ τῶ 
θεῷ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ πάθοι τι ἄν ὑπὸ των δαιμονίων, ἅτε κρείττων 
δαιμόνων τυγχάνων, and in lib, Jesu Nave, xv. 6. In the former passage, 
De Prine., Origen calls those the simple (simpliciores) who believe that sin 
would not exist if there was no devil. Along with the moral power of faith, 
and the efficacy of prayer, the magic effects of the sign of the cross, ete, 
were relied on. But what was at first nothing more than a symbol of the 
power of faith itself, became afterward a mechanical opus operatum. 

° Even Clement, Strom. i. 17, p. 867, says: Ὃ δὲ διάβολος αὐτεξούσιος 
ὧν καὶ μετανοῆσαι οἷός τε ἣν καὶ κλέψαι, καὶ 6 αἴτιος αὐτὸς τῆς κλοπῆς, 
οὐχ ὁ μὴ κωλύσας κύριος, but from these words it is not quite evident 
whether he means to say that the devil is yet capable of being converted. 
The general opinion as earlier held, is expressed by Tatian, Orat. ce. 15: 


§ 52. Saran AND Demons. 147 


Ἢ τῶν δαιμόνων ὑπόστασις οὐκ ἔχει μετανοίας τύπον. Comp. also Justin 
M. Dialog. c. Tryph. ce. 141.— Origen himself did not very clearly propound 
his views; De Prine. iii. c. 6, 5 (Opp.i. p. 154): Propterea etiam novissimus 
inimicus, qui mors appellatur, destrui dicitur (1 Cor. xv. 26), ut neque ultra 
triste sit aliquid ubi mors non est, neque adversum sit ubi non est inimicus. 
Destrui sane novissimus inimicus ita intelligendus est, non ut substantia ejus, 
que a Deo facta est, pereat, sed ut propositum et voluntas inimica, que non a 
Deo sed ab ipso processit, intereat. Destructur ergo non ut non sit, sed ut 
inimicus non sit et mors. Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nee in- 
sanabile est aliquid factori suo, ὃ 6. Omnia restituentur ut unum sint, et 
Deus fuerit omnia in omnibus (1 Cor, xv. 28). Quod tamen non ad subitum 
fieri, sed paulatim et per partes intelligendum est, infinitis et immensis laben- 
tibus seeculis, cum sensim et per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prose- 
cuta, preecurrentibus aliis et velociori cursu ad summa tendentibus, als vero 
proximo quoque spatio insequentibus, tum deinde aliis longe posterius: et sic 
per multos et innumeros ordines proficientium ac Deo se ex inimicis recon- 
ciliantium pervenitur usque ad novissimum inimicum qui dicitur mors, et 
etiam ipse destratur ne ultra sit inimicus.] He here speaks of the last enemy, 
death, but it is evident, from the context, that he identifies death with the 
devil (this is signified, as cited, e. g., Münscher Handbuch. ii. p. 39, by the 
use of the parenthesis); he speaks of a substance which the Creator would 
not destroy, but heal. Comp. ὃ 3, and Schnitzer in the passage; Thomasius, 
Ρ. 187. On the possibility of the conversion of the other demons, comp. i. 6, 
3 (Opp. i. p. 70): Jam vero si aliqui ex his ordinibus, qui sub principatu 
diaboli agunt, malitize ejus,obtemperant, poterunt aliquando in futuris seculis 
converti ad bonitatem, pro eo quod est in ipsis liberi facultas arbitrii (?). .. 


THIRDIDIVISIUN. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


§ 53. 
INTRODUCTION. 


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


* Comp. Clem. Peed. iii. i. p. 250: Ἢν dpa, ὡς ἔοικε, πάντων μεγίστων 
μαθημάτων τὸ γνῶναι αὑτόν" ἑαυτὸν γάρ τις Eav yvon, θεὸν εἴσεται. 

* At first sight it might appear indifferent, so far as theology is concerned, 
whether man consists of two or three parts; and yet these distinctions are 
intimately connected with the theological definitions of liberty, immortality, 
etc. This is the case also with the doctrine of preéxistence, in opposition to 
traducianism and creatianism, in relation to original sin, etc. Thus it can 
be explained why. Tatian, on religious grounds, opposes the common defini- 
tion, according to which man is a ζῶον λογικόν, Contra Greecos, c. 15: 
Ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος, οὐχ ὥσπερ κορακόφωνοι δογματίζουσιν, ζῶον λογικὸν, 
νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν" δειχθήσεται γὰρ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἄλογα νοῦ 
καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικά. Μόνος δὲ ἄνθρωπος εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις τοῦ θεοῦ, 
λέγω δὲ ἀνθρώπον οὐχὶ τὸν ὅμοια τοῖς ζώοις πράττοντα, ἀλλὰ τὸν πόῤῥω 
μὲν ἀνθρωπότητος, πρὸς αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. 


§ 54. Division or Human NATURE AnD PsycHoLogy. 149 


§ δά. 
DIVISION OF HUMAN NATURE AND PRACTICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 


Keil, Opusc. Academ. p. 618-647. Duncker, Apologetarum secundi Szculi de Essentiali- 
bus Nature humanz Partibus Placita. P. I. 11, Gott. 1844-50, 4to. [Franz De- 
litzsch, System der biblischen Psychologie, Leipz. 1855. J. 7. Beck, Umriss ἃ. bibli- 
schen Seelenlehre, Stuttg. 1843.] 


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


* awa, 85, mn; σάρξ, ψυχή, πνεῦμα. Comp. the works on Bibl. Theol., and 
the commentaries on 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12, etc., also Ackermann, 
Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 4. [Beck and Delitzsch, u. s.] 

* Justin M. fragm. de Resurr. $ 10: Oikoc τὸ σῶμα ψυχῆς, πνεύματος de 
ψυχὴ οἷκος. Ta τρία ταῦτα τοῖς ἐλπίδα εἰλικρινῆ καὶ πίστιν ἀδιάκριτον 
ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἔχουσι σωθήσεται. Comp. Dial. cum Tryph. § 4. Tatian, con- 
tra Greece. Or. c. 7, 12, 15, /reneus, v. 9, 1: Tria sunt, ex quibus perfectus 
homo constat, carne, anima et spiritu, et altero quidem salvante et figurante, 
qui est spiritus, altero, quod unitur et formatur, quod est caro; id vero quod 
inter haee est duo, quod est anima, que aliquando quidem subsequens spiritum 
elevatur ab eo, aliquando autem consentiens carni decidit in terrenas concu- 
piscentias. Comp. v. 6, 1, 299: Anima autem et spiritus pars hominum esse 
possunt, homo autem nequaquam: perfectus autem homo commixtio et 
adunitio est anime assumentis spiritum Patris et admixta ei carni, que est 
plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. Accordingly, not every man is by nature 
made up of three parts, but he only who has received the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, as the third. Concerning the distinction between Pnoé and Pnuema, 
comp. § 44, and Duncker, p. 97, 98. 


150 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


ὁ Clement (Strom. vii. 12, p. 880) makes a distinction between the ψυχὴ 
λογικὴ and the ψυχὴ σωματική ; he also mentions a tenfold division of man 
(analogous to the decalogue), ibid. vi. 16, p. 808: Ἔστι δὲ καὶ δεκάς τις 
περὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον abröv τά TE αἰσθητήρια πέντε καὶ TO φωνητικὸν Kal 
τὸ σπερματικόν, καὶ τοῦτο δὴ ὄγδοον τὸ κατὰ τὴν πλάσιν πνευματικόν, 
ἔννατον δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ δέκατον τὸ διὰ τῆς πίστεως 
προσγινόμενον ἁγίου πνεύματος χαρακτηριστικὸν ἰδίωμα Kk. τ. λ. ; the more 
general division into body, soul, and spirit, forms, however, the basis of this. 
Clement, after the example of Plato (comp. Justin M. Coh. ad Gr. 6), divides 
the soul itself into these three faculties: τὸ λογιστικόν (νοερόν), τὸ θυμικόν, 
τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, Peed. iii. 1, ab init. p. 250. The knowing faculty he sub- 
divides into four functions: αἴσθησις, νοῦς, ἐπιστήμη, ὑπόληψις, Strom. ii. 
4, p. 435. Clement regards body and soul as διάφορα, but not as ἐναντία, 
so that neither is the soul as such good, nor is the body as such evil. 
Comp. Strom. iv. 26, p. 639. For the psychology of Origen, see De Princ. 
ii. 3 (Opp. i. 145; Redepenn. p. 296-306). On the question whether 
Origen believed in the existence of two souls in man, see Schnitzer, p. 219, 
ss.; Thomasius, p. 190, 193-195; Redepenning, ii. p. 369, note 3. In the 
view of Origen the ψυχῆ as such, which he derives from ψύχεσθαι, is inter- 
mediate between body and spirit; “a defective, not fully developed power” 
(Redepen. ii. 368). He affirms that he has found no passage in the Sacred 
Scriptures in which the soul, as such, is spoken of with honor; while, on the 
contrary, it is frequently blamed, De Prine. ii. 8, 3-5 (Opp. 1. p. 95, ss. 
Redep. p. 211, ss.). But this does not prevent him from comparing the soul 
to the Son, when he draws a comparison between the human and the divine 
triad, ibid. § 5. For the trichotomistic division, comp. also Comment. in 
Matth. T. xiii. 2 (Opp. iii. p. 570), and other passages in Münscher ed. by 
Von Cölln, i. p. 319, 320. Origen sometimes employs the simple term 
“man” to designate man’s higher spiritual nature, so that man appears not 
so much to consist of body and soul, as to be the soul itself, which governs 
the body as a mere instrument ; Contra Cels. vil. 38: "Ἄνθρωπος, τουτέστι 
ψυχὴ χρωμένη σώματι (comp. Photius Cod. 234, Epiph. Her. 64, 17). Con- 
sequently he calls the soul homo, homo = homo interior, in Num. xxiv.; 
comp. Thomasius and Redepenning. 

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

5 Iren. i. 5, 5 (Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, i. p. 316, 317); comp. also 
Neander’s Gnostiche Systeme, p. 127, ss. Baur, Gnosis, 158, ss., 168, ss., 
489, ss., 679, ss. 


§ 55. ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. 151 


§ 55. 
ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. 


[Julius Müller, Lehre von der Sünde, 3te Ausg. ii. 495, sq. J. Frohschammer, Ueber den 
Ursprung d. menschlichen Seelen, München, 1854. Joh. Marcus, Lehrmeinungen 
über d. Ursprung d. menschl. Seelen in d. ersten Jahrh. d. Kirche. 1854. J. F. Bruch, 
Lehre der Preéistenz, Strasb. 1859. Edward Beecher, Conflict of Ages, Bost. 1853. 
Preéxistence of the Soul, from Keil’s Opuscula Acad. in Biblioth. Sacra, xii. 1855.] 


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


* Thus, Origen says, De Princ. proem. 5, Opp. i. p. 48: De anima vero 
utrum ex seminis traduce ducatur, ita ut ratio ipsius vel substantia inserta 
ipsis seminibus corporalibus habeatur, an vero aliud habeat initium, et hoc 
ipsum initium si genitum est aut non genitum, vel certe si extrinsecus corpori 
inditur, necne: non satis manifesta praedicatione distinguitur. 

? Traces of the theory of emanation are found in the writings of some of 
the earlier Fathers. Justin M., fragm. de Resurr. 11: Ἢ μὲν ψυχή ἐστιν 
ἄφθαρτος, μέρος ovoa τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐμφύσημα. (Whether this is Justin’s 
own opinion, or a thesis of the Gnostics, which he combats —See Semisch, 
Just. Mart. p. 364.) Comp. the Clementine Homilies, Hom. xvi. 12. On 
the other hand, Clement of Alex. adheres to the idea of creation, in Coh. p. 
78: Μόνος 6 τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς ὁ ἀριστοτέχνας πατὴρ τοιοῦτον ἄγαλμα 
ἔμψυχον ἡμᾶς, τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἕπλασεν ; and Strom. ii. 16, p. 467, 468, where 
he rejects the phrase μέρος Θεοῦ, which some employed, in accordance with 
the principle: Θεὸς οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς φυσικὴν σχέσιν. Comp. Orig. 
in Joh. T. xiii. 25 (Opp. T. iv. p. 235): Σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁμοούσιον τῇ 
ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παμμακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύ- 
ματι τῷ Θεῷ. Comp. De Prince. 1. 7,1. 

ὃ Clement, Coh. p. 6: Πρὸ δὲ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου καταβολῆς ἡμεῖς οἱ τῷ δεῖν 
ἔσεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ πρότερον γεγεννημένοι TW Θεῷ' τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου τὰ λογικὰ 
πλάσματα ἡμεῖς" δι’ ὃν ἀρχαΐζομεν, OTL ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος Av; this perhaps 
should rather be understood in an ideal sense. [Clement rejects the view that 
the soul is generated, in Strom. lib. vi.,c.16:....00 κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σπέρματος 
καταβολὴν γενώμενον, ὡς συνάγεσθαι καὶ ἄνευ τούτου τὸν δεκατὸν ἀριθμὸν, 


152 First Periop. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


δι’ ὧν ἡ πᾶσα ἐνέργεια Tod ἀνθρώπου ἐπιτελεῖται. So, too, Athenagoras, 
De mort. Resur. c. 17. Comp. Marcus 1. ¢.] But Origen, following the 
Pythagorean and Platonic schools, as well as the later Jewish theology, first 
spoke of the preéxistence of the soul as something real: (Comp. Epiph Her. 
64,4: Τὴν ψυχὴν yap τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν λέγει προὐπάρχειν) He brought 
his doctrine into connection with that of human liberty and of divine justice, 
by maintaining that the soul comes into the body as a punishment for former 
sins: comp. De Prine. i. 7, 4 (Opp. i. p. 72, Redep. p. 151, Schnitzer, p. 72). 
—“ If the soul of man is formed only with the body, how could Jacob sup- 
plant his brother in the womb, and John leap in the womb at the salutation 
of Mary?” Comp. also T. xv. on Matth. c. 34, 35, in Matth. xx. 6, 7 (Opp. 
T. iii. p. 703), and Comment. in Joh. T. ii, 25 (Opp. iv. p. 85. Redep. ii, 
20 sq. [Origen says his view is not directly contained in Scripture: De 
Prine, i. ὁ. 7: Nam per conjecturam facilis assertio esse videbitur; scrip- 
turarum autem testimoniis utique difficilius affirmatur. Nam per conjecturas 
ita possibile est ostendi. He also speaks in some passages as if his opinion was 
undecided: lib. 11. in Cant. Conticor : Et si ita sit, utrum nuper creata veniat, 
et tune primum facta, cum corpus videtur esse formatum, sed causa facturee 
ejus animandi corporis necessitas extitisse credatur; an prius et olim facta, 
ob aliquam causam ad corpus sumendum venire existimetur: et si ex causa 
aliqua in hoc deduci creditur, qua illa sit causa ut agnosci possit, scientize 
opus est. | ‘ 


* De Anima, c. 19: Et si ad arbores provocamur, amplectemur exemplum. 
Si quidem et illis, necdum arbusculis, sed stipitibus adhuc et surculis etiam 
nunc, simul de scrobibus oriuntur, inest propria vis animee .. . quo magis 
hominis? cujus anima, velut surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propagi- 
nem deducta et genitalibus femine foveis commendata cum omni sua para- 
tura, pullulabit tam intellectu quam sensu? Mantior, si non statim infans ut 
vitam vagitu salutavit, hoc ipsum se testatur sensisse atque intellexisse, quod 
natus est, omnes simul ibidem dedicans sensus, et luce vieum et sono auditum 
et humore gustum et aére odoratum et terra tactum. Ita prima illa vox de 
primis sensuum et de primis intellectuum pulsibus cogitur. ... Et hie 
itaque concludimus, omnia naturalia animee, ut substantiva ejus, ipsi inesse et 
cum ipsa procedere atque proficere, ex quo ipsa censetur, sicut et Seneca 
sepe noster (De Benef. iv. 6): Insita sunt nobis omnium artium et »tatum 
semina, etc. Comp. c. 27. Meander, Antignost. p. 455, and the whole sec- 
tion. [Tertullian, De Anima, c. 36: Anima in utero seminata pariter cum 
carne, pariter cum ipsa sortitur et sexum, ita pariter ut in causa sexus neutra 
substantia tenetur. Si enim in seminibus utriusque substantie, aliquam in- 
tercapedinem corum conceptus admitteret, ut aut caro, aut anima prior semi- 
naretur, esset etiam sexus proprietatum alteri substantie adscribere per 
temporalem intercapedinem seminum ; ut aut caro anime, aut anima carni 
insculperet sexum.] 


§ 56. Tur Imace or Gop. 153 


§ 56. 


THE IMAGE OF GOD. 


[Thomasius, Christi Person und Work, i, 185sq. Bp. Bull., Treatise on the State of Man 
before the Fall.] 


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


* Iren. iv. 29, p. 285: Ἔδει dé τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρῶτον γενέσθαι, καὶ ye- 
νόμενον αὐξῆσαι, καὶ αὐξήσαντα ἀνδρωθῆναι, Kai ἀνδρωθέντα πληθυνθῆναι, 
καὶ πληθυνθέντα ἐνισχῦσαι, καὶ ἐνισχύσαντα δοξασθῆναι, καὶ δοξασθέντα 
ἰδεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόπην. Yet in other places Irenzus distinguishes less 
exactly; see Duncker, u. s. 99, sq. Min. Hel. 17 and 18, ab mit. Tatian, 
Or. contra Gr. c. 12 and 19. Clem. Coh. p. 78. According to the latter, man 
is the most beautiful hymn to the praise of the Deity, p. 78 ; a heavenly plant 
(φυτὸν οὐράνιον) p. 80, and, generally speaking, the principal object of the 
love of God, Peed, i. 3, p. 102, comp. p. 158. Ped. iii. 7, p. 276 : Φύσει yap 
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὑψηλόν ἐστι ζῶον καὶ γαῦρον καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ζητητικόν ; ib. ii. 
8, p. 292. But all the good he possesses is not innate in such a way, but 
that it must be developed by instruction (μάθησις). Comp. Strom. i. 6, p. 
336 ; iv. 23, p. 632; vi.11,p. 788; vii. 4, p. 839, and the passages on human 
liberty, which will be found below. 

* Some of the Alexandrian theologians, however, speaking more definitely, 
taught that man had been created, not so much after the image of God him- 
self, as after the image of the Zogos, an image after an image! Coh.p. 78: 


154 Fırst PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


Ἢ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰκὼν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ νοῦ γνησιος ὃ θεῖος 
λόγος, Bo ἀρχέτυπον φῶς" εἰκὼν δὲ τοῦ λόγου ὁ ἄνθρωπος" ἀληθινὸς 
ὃ νοῦς ὃ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν διὰ 
τοῦτο γεγενῆσθαι λεγόμενος, τῇ κατὰ καρδίαν φρονῆσει τῷ θείῳ παρει- 
καζόμενος λόγω, καὶ ταύτῃ λογικός (remark the play on the word Aoyırög). 
Comp. Strom. v. 14, p. 703, and Orig. Comment. in Joh. p. 941 (Opp. T. iv. 
p. 19, 51); in Luc. Hom. viii. (Opp. T. iü.). 

3. This notion was either connected with the fancy that God himself has a 
body (see above), or with the idea that the body of Christ was the image 
after which the body of man had been created. (The author of the Clemen- 
tine Homilies also thought that the body in particular bore the image of God, 
comp. Piper on Melito, 1]. ὁ. p. 74, 75). Tert. De Carne Christi, c. 6; Adv. 
Mare. v. 8; Adv. Prax. 12. Meander, Antign. p. 407, ss. [Just. Mart. makes 
the image to consist in the whole man, including the body. Tertullian, Adv. 
Marcion, lib. ii.: Homo est a Deo conditus, non imperiali verbo, ut ccetera 
animalia, sed familiari manu, etiam praemisso blandiente illo verbo: Faciamus 
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.] The more spiritual view 
was, that the life of the soul, partaking of the divine nature, shines through 
the physical organism, and is reflected especially in the countenance of man, 
in his looks, etc. Tatian, Or. c. 15 (Worth, e. 24): ψυχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων πολυμερής ἐστι Kat οὐ μονομερῆς. Συνθετὴ (al. συνετὴ accord- 
ing to Fronto Ducwus, comp. Daniel, p. 202) γάρ ἐστιν ὥς εἷναι φανερὰν 
αὐτὴν διὰ σώματος, οὔτε γὰρ dv αὐτὴ φανείη ποτὲ χωρὶς σώματος οὔτε 
ἀνίσταται ἡ σὰρξ χωρὶς ψυχῆς. Clem. Coh. p. 52, Strom. v. 14, p. 108: ψυχὴν 
δὲ τὴν λογικὴν ἄνωθεν ἐμπνευσθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς πρόσωπον. On this 
account the fathers of the Alexandrian school very decidedly oppose the more 
material conception of a bodily copy of the divine image. Clem. Strom. 
ii. 19, p. 483: Τὸ yap κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὀμοίωσιν, ὡς καὶ πρόσθεν εἰρήκαμεν, 
οὐ τὸ κατὰ σῶμα μηνύεται" οὐ γὰρ θέμις θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ ἐξομοιοῦσθαι" 
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ κατὰ νοῦν καὶ λογισμόν. On the other hand, it is surprising that 
the same Clement, Peed. ii. 10, p. 220, should recognize the image of God in 
the procreative power of man, which others connected with demoniacal agency 
($ 51): Εἰκὼν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ γίνεται, καθὸ εἷς γένεσιν ἀνθρώπου 
ἄνθρωπος συνεργεῖ. Origen refers the divine image exclusively to the spirit 
of man ; Con. Cels. vi. (Opp. i. p. 680), and Hom, i. in Genes. (Opp. T. ii. p. 57). 

4 The tautological phrase, Gen. 1. 26: sanva7= "»esx2, induced the fathers 
in their acumen to make an arbitrary distinction between bbs (εἰκών) and 
non (ὁμοίωσις ; comp. Schott, Opuseul. T. ii. p. 66, ss. Ne eander sees in this 
(Hist. Dog. p. 190) : “ the first germ of the distinction, a, so important, 
between the dona naturalia and supernaturalia.” Jreneus, Adv. Her. v. 6, 
p. 299, v. 16, p. 313: ’Ev τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλέγετο μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα 
Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δέ: ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἣν ὁ λόγος, 
οὗ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. Διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ την ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδίως 
ἀπέβαλεν. Ὁπότε δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο 6 λόγος, τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἀμφότερα ἐπεκύ- 
pwoe' καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὴν εἱκόνα ἔδειξεν ἀγηθῶς, αὐτὸς τοῦτο γενόμενος, ὅπερ 
ἣν ἡ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ" καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν βεβαίως κατέστησε ουνεξομοιώσας τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἀοράτῳ πατρί. According to some, the language of Clem, 
Strom. ii. p. 499 (418, Sylb.) implies that the image of God is communicated 


§ 57. FREEDOM AND IMMORTALITY. 155 


to man εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν, and that he obtains the likeness ὕστερον 
κατὰ τὴν τελείωσιν. According to Tert. De Bapt. c. 5, man attains unto 
likeness to God by baptism. According to Origen, who everywhere insists 
upon the self-determination of man, the likeness to God which is to be ob- 
tained, consists in this, ut (homo) ipse sibi eam sibi eam proprize industria 
studiis ex Dei imitatione conscisceret, cum possibilitate sibi perfectionis in 
initiis data per imaginis dignitatem in fine demum per operum expletionem 
perfectam 5101 ipse similitudinem consummaret ; De Prine. iii. 6 1 (Opp. T. 1, 
p. 152; Red. p. 317; Schnitzer, p. 236). Comp. Contra Cels. iv. 20, p. 522, 
23. But Origen again uses both terms indifferently, Hom. ii. in Jer. (Opp. T. 
iil, p. 137). 


§ 57. 


FREEDOM AND IMMORTALITY. 
a. Liberty 


Wörter, die christ]. Lehre über d. Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit von den apostoli- 
schen Zeiten bis auf Augustinus. 1. Hälfte, Freiburg im Breisg. 1856. [Landerer, 
Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit (dogmatico-historical), in the Jahrbücher f 
deutsche Theologie, 1857, p. 500-603. Kuhn, Der vorgebliche Pelagianismus der 
voraugustinischen Kirchenväter, in the (Tübingen) Theol. Quartalschrift, 1853. J. B. 
Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, Lond. 1855, pp. 398 sq. Neander, 
Hist. Dog. (Ryland) p. 182 sq.] 


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

" Justin M., Apol. i. ο. 43: Ἑϊμαρμένην φαμὲν ἀπαράβατον ταύτην 
εἷναι, τοῖς τὰ καλὰ ἐκλεγομένοις τὰ ἄξια ἐπιτίμια, καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίως τὰ 


156 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


ἐναντία, ra ἄξια ἐπίχειρα. Οὐ yap ὥσπερ Ta ἄλλα, οἷον δένδρα καὶ Te- 
τράποδα, μηδὲν δυνάμενα προαιρέσει πράττειν, ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἀν- 
Opwrov οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ἄξιος ἀμοιβῆς ἢ ἐπαίνου, οὔκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἑλόμενος 
τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο γενόμενος, οὐδ᾽ εἰ κακὸς ὑπῆρχε, δικαίως κολάσεως 
ἐτύγχανεν, οὔκ ad’ ἑαυτοῦ τοιοῦτος ὦν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν δυνάμενος εἷναι ἕτερον 
rap’ ὃ ἐγεγόνει. This is most decided against all necessarianism. 

? Tatian, Or. c. 7: Τὸ δὲ ἑκάτερον τῆς ποιήσεως εἶδος αὐτεξούσιον 
γέγονε, τἀγαθοῦ φύσιν μὴ ἔχον, ὃ πλὴν [πάλιν] μόνον παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, τῇ 
δὲ ἔλευθερίᾳ τῆς προαιρέσεως ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκτελειούμενον: ὄπως 
ὁ μὲν φαῦλος δικαίως κολάζηται, δι’ αὑτὸν γεγονῶς μοχθηρός: ὁ δὲ δί- 
καιος χάριν τῶν ἀνδραγαθημάτων ἀξίως ἐπαινῆται κατὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον 
τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ παραβὰς τὸ βούλημα. Concerning the critical and exegetical 
difficulties connected with this passage, see Daniel, Tatian der Apologet. 
p- 207. 

* Athen. Leg. 31; comp. De Resurr. 12, 13, 15, 18, ss. 

* Ad Autol. ii. 27: ᾿Ελεύθερον γὰρ καὶ αὐτεξούσιον ἐποίησεν 6 θεὸς 
ἄνθρωπον, in connection with the doctrine of immortality, of which in the 
next ὃ. 

® Octav. c. 36, 37. Nec de fato quisquam aut solatium captet aut excuset 
eventum. Sit sortis fortuna, mens tamen libera est, et ideo actus hominis, 
non dignitas judicatur.....Ita in nobis non genitura plectitur, sed ingenii 
natura punitur. The liberty of man gets the victory in the contest with all 
the adversities of destiny: Vires denique et mentis et corporis sine laboris 
exercitatione torpescunt; omnes adeo vestri viri fortes, quos in exemplum 
preedicatis, erumnis suis inclyti floruerunt. Itaque et nobis Deus nec non 
potest subvenire, nec despicit, quum sit et omnium rector et amator suorum ; 
sed in adversis unumquemque explorat et examinat; ingenium singulorum 
periculis pensitat, usque ad extremam mortem voluntatem hominis sciscita- 
tur, nihil sibi posse perire securus. Itaque ut aurum ignibus, sic nos dis- 
criminibus arguimur. Quam pulerum spectaculum Deo, quum Christianus 
cum dolore congreditur, quum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta com- 
ponitur! quum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis irridens insultat! 
quum libertatem suam adversus reges et principes erigit, soli Deo, cujus est, 
cedit, ete.! Moreover,-in Minucius xi. 6, it is intimated (though the opinion 
is put in the mouth of his opponent), that the Christians believed, that God 
judges man not so much according to his conduct, as according to predesti- 
nation; but he refutes this, as a false accusation. 

° Clem. Coh. p. 79: Ὑμῶν ἐστιν (ἡ Bac. τῶν οὐρανῶν) ἐὰν θελήσητε, 
τῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τὴν προαίρεσιν ἐσχηκότων. He then shows (p. 80) 
how man himself, in accordance with his own nature, ought to cultivate the 
talents which God has given him. As the horse is not for the plow (after 
the custom of the ancients), nor the ox for riding, as none is required to do 
more than his nature will allow, so man alone can be expected to strive after 
the divine, because he has received the power of doing it. According to 
Clement, too, man is accountable for that sin alone, which proceeds from free 
choice, Strom. ii. p. 461; it is also frequently in our power to acquire both 
discernment and strength, ibid. 462, Clement knows nothing of a gratia 
irresistibilis, Strom. vill, p. 855: Οὔτε μὴν ἄκων σωθήσεται ὁ σωζόμενος, 


§ 57. FREEDOM AND IMMORTALITY. 157 


οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄψυχος: ἀλλὰ παντὸς μᾶλλον ἑκουσίως καὶ προαιρετικῶς 
σπεύσει πρὸς σωτηρίαν" διὸ καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς ἔλαβεν 6 ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ἄν ἐξ 
αὑτοῦ ὁρμητικὸς πρὸς ὁπότερον ἂν καὶ βούλοιτο τῶν τε αἱρετῶν καὶ τῶν 
φευκτῶν K. T A. 

τ Comp. the whole of the third book of the work De Princip. According 
to Origen, there is no accountability without liberty, De Princ. ii. 5, Red. p. 
188: “If men were corrupt by nature, and could not possibly do good, God 
would appear as the judge not of actions, but of natural capacities” (comp. 
what Minucius says on this point). Comp. De Prine. i. 5, 3, and Contra 
Cels. iv. 3 (Opp. i. p. 504): ᾿Αρετῆς μὲν ἐὰν ἀνέλῃς TO ἑκούσιον, ἀνεῖλες 
αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν. Nevertheless, this liberty is only relative; every 
moral action is a mixture of free choice and divine aid. Comp. $ 70, and 
the passages quoted by Redepenning, Orig. ii. p. 318. 

® Iren. iv. 4, p. 231, 232 (Gr. 281): Sed frumentum quidem et palez, 
inanimalia et irrationabilia existentia, naturaliter talia facta sunt: homo vero, 
rationabilis et secundum hoc similis Deo, liber in arbitrio factus et suz potes- 
tatis ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum, aliquando autem 
palea fiat; Irenzeus then founds the accountability of man upon this argu- 
ment. Comp. iv. 15, p. 245 (Gr. 318); iv. 37, p. 281, ’82 (Gr. 374, 75): Ei 
φύσει ol μὲν φαῦλοι, ol δὲ ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασιν, οὔθ᾽ οὗτοι ἐπαινετοὶ, ὄντες 
ἀγαθοὶ, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ κατεσκευάσθησαν" οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μεμπτοὶ, οὕτως γεγονό- 
τες. ᾿Αλλ’ ἐπειδὴ οἱ πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσι φύσεως, δυνάμενοί τε κατασχεῖν 
καὶ πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ δυνάμενοι πάλιν ἀποβάλεῖν αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ ποιῆσαι" 
δικαίως καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς εὐνομουμένοις, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον παρὰ 
Θεῷ οἱ μὲν ἐπαινοῦνται, καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι μαρτυρίας τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ 
καθόλου ἐκλογῆς καὶ ἐπιμονῆς" οἱ δὲ καταιτιῶνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι 
ζημίας τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀποβολῆς. Comp. also iv. 39, p. 285 
(Gr. 380); v. 27, p. 325 (Gr. 442). But, according to Irenzus, the freedom 
of man is not only seen in his works, but also in his faith, iv. 37, p. 282 (Gr. 
376) ; comp. also the fragment of the sermon De Fide, p. 342 (Gr. 467). On 
Hippolytus and his view of freedom, see Neander, Hist. Dog. p. 183. 

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

'© ὡς According to the Gnostics, there is a fate which stands in intimate con- 
nection with the stars, and is brought about by their instrumentality,” ete. 
Baur, Gnosis, p. 232. But the doctrine of human freedom is of importance 
in the opinion of the author of the Clementine Homilies, e. g., Hom. xv. 7: 
"Exaotov δὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐλεύθερον ἐποίησεν ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἑαυτὸν 
ἀπονέμειν ᾧ βούλεται, ἢ τῷ παρόντι κακῷ, ἢ τῷ μέλλοντι ἀγαθῷ, comp. 
also c. 8. Hom. ii. 15; iii. 69; viii. 16; xi. 8. Credner, ]. c. iii. p. 283, 290, 
294, Schliemann, p. 182, ss., 235, ss., 241. 


* Even the opponents of the doctrine of human liberty, as Calvin, are compelled to 
acknowledge this remarkable consensus Patrum of the first period, and in order to account 
for it, they are obliged to suppose a general illusion about this doctrine! “It is at any 
rate aremarkable phenomenon, that the very doctrines which afterward caused disruptions in the 
Christian church, are scarcely ever mentioned in the primitive church.” Daniel, Tatian, p. 200. 


158 Fırst PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


§ 58. 


b. IMMORTALITY. 


* Olshausen, antiquissimorum ecclesie graec® patrum de immortalitate sententize recensen- 
tur, Osterprogramm, 1827, reviewed by Ullmann in Studien und Kritiken, i. 2, p. 425. 


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


* On the question whether the view advocated by the aged man in Justin, 

Dial. c. Tryph. § 4, is the opinion of the author himself or not ?—as well as 
. At) \ x 7 ON 9 εν x ΄ 

on the meaning of the passage: ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀποθνήσκειν φημὶ πάσας 
τὰς ψυχὰς ἐγώ, comp. his commentators, Olshausen, |. c. Rössler, Bibl. i. p. 
141; Mohler, Patrologie, i. p. 242: Daniel, Tatian, p. 224 ; Semisch, ii. 368. 
Tatian speaks more distinctly, Contra Grac. e. 13: Οὔκ ἐστιν ἀθάνατος ἡ 
ψυχὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν Ἑ, θνητὴ de. ᾿Αλλὰ δύναται ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ μὴ ἀποθ- 
νήσκειν. Θνήσκει μὲν γὰρ καὶ λύεται μετὰ τοῦ σώματος μὴ γινώσκουσα 

x ’ ,’ i > , x 9 id Pye ΄ ~ , x‘ 
τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ᾿Ανίσταται δὲ εἰς ὕστερον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ κόσμου σὺν 
τῷ σώματι, θάνατον διὰ τιμωρίας ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ λαμβάνουσα. ἸΙάλιν δὲ οὐ 
θνήσκει, κἂν πρὸς καιρὸν λυθῇ, τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ πεποιημένη. Kal’ 
ἑαυτὴν γὰρ σκότος ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτῇ φωτεινόν... .. (01... 1.) . ... 
Ψυχὴ γὰρ οὐκ αὐτὴ τὸ πνεῦμα ἔσωσεν, ἐσώθη δὲ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, κ. τ. λ.. ... 
Συζυγίων δὲ κεκτημένη τὴν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, οὔκ ἐστιν ἀβοήθητος, 
’ [4 x Ν ius 9 x e ~ + x m . 
ἀνέρχεται δὲ πρὸς ἅπερ αὐτὴν ὁδηγεῖ χωρία τὸ πνεῦμα. Theophilus (ad. 
Aut. ii. 27) starts the question: was Adam created with a mortal or immor- 





* Καθ’ ἑαυτὴν is wanting in the most recent manuscripts, vide Daniel, p. 228, on this 
passage. 


§ 59. ΟΝ Sn, THE FALL, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 159 


tal nature? and replies: neither the one nor the other, but he was fitted for 
both (δεκτικὸν ἀμφοτέρων), in order that he might receive immortality as a 
reward, and become God (γένηται θεός), if he aspired after it by obeying the 
divine commandments; but that he might become the author of his own 
ruin, if he did the works of the devil, and disobeyed God.* Jreneus also 
speaks only of an immortality which is given to man, see Adv. Her. ii. 64 : 
Sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem et eodem modo se habens solus 
est Deus. . . .. Et de animalibus, de animabus et de spiritibus et omnino de 
omnibus his, qua facta sunt, cogitans quis minime peccabit, quando omnia, 
quee facta sunt, initium quidem facture sus habeant, perseverant autem, 
quoadusque ea Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit. Non enim ex nobis, neque 
ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundem gratiam Dei datur. Sicut autem corpus 
animale ipsum quidem non est anima, participatur autem animam, quoadus- 
que Deus vult, sic et anima ipsa quidem non est vita, participatur autem a 
Deo sibi preestitam vitam. 

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


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


§ 59. 
SIN, THE FALL, AND ITS CONSEQUENCKS. 


Walch, J. G. (Th. Ch. Lilienthal), De Pelagianismo ante Pelagium, Jen.1738, 4. Zjusdem, 
Historia Doctrine de Peccato Originis; both in his Miscellanea Sacra, Amstel. 1744, 
4. Horn, J., Commentatio de sententiis eorum patrum, quorum auctoritas ante Augus- 
tinum plurimum valuit, de peccato originali, Gött. 1801, 4 + Wörter [Landerer and 
Huber], u. 5. § 57. 


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


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


160 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


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


Thus Justin M. complained of the universality of sin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 95. 
The whole human race is under the curse; for cursed is every one who does 
not keep the law. The author of the Clementine Homilies also supposes that 
the propensity to sin is made stronger by its preponderance in human his- 
tory, and calls men the slaves of sin (δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίᾳ); Hom. iv. 23, 
x. 4, Schliemann, p. 183.—Clement of Alexander directs our attention, in 
particular, to the internal conflict which sin has introduced into the nature 
of man ; it does not form a part of our nature, nevertheless it is spread through 
the whole human race. We come to sin without ourselves knowing how; 
comp. Strom. ii.p. 487. Origen also conceives of sin asa universal corruption, 
since the world is apostate, Contra Cels. iii. 66, p. 491: Σαφῶς yap φαίνεται, 
ὅτι πάντες μὲν ἄνθρῳποι πρὸς TO ἁμαρτάνειν πεφύκαμεν, ἔνιοι δὲ οὐ μόνον 
πεφύκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰθισμένοι εἰσὶν ἁμαρτάνειν. Comp. iii. 62, p. 488: 
᾿Αδύνατον γάρ φαμεν eival ἄνθρωπον μετ’ ἀρετῆς am’ ἀρχῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν 
ἄνω βλέπειν" κακίαν γὰρ ὑφίστασθαι ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον ἐν ἀνθρώποις. 
Nevertheless the writers of the present period do not express as strong a sense 
of sin as those of the following. On the contrary, jubilant feelings prepon- 
derated in view of the finished work of the Saviour; counterbalanced by 
external contests and persecutions, rather than by internal penitential strug- 
gles. It is as one-sided to expect in the first centuries the experience of later 
times, as it is to misconceive the necessity of the later developments. 


§ 60. 
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN IN GENERAL. 


Suicer, Thesaurus, sub ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμάρτημα, ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτωλός. Krabbe die Lehre von 
der Sünde und dem Tode, Hamburg, 1836 (dogmatico-exegetical). * Müller, Julius, die 
Christliche Lehre von der Sünde, Breslau, 1844, 2 vols. [8d ed. 1849: transl. in 
Clark’s Foreign Theol. Library. ] 


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


$ 60. THe Doctrine OF Sin IN GENERAL. 161 


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


* A definition, allied to that of the Stoies, is given e. 9. by Clement of 
Alexandria, Ped. i. 13, p. 158, 159: Πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν ὀρθὸν, 
τοῦτο ἁμώρτημά ἐστι. Virtue (ἀρετή), on the contrary, is διάθεσις ψυχῆς 
σύμφωνος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου περὶ ὅλον τὸν βίον. Hence sin is also disobedience 
to God, Αὐτίκα γοῦν ὅτε ἥμαρτεν ὃ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ παρήκουσε τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. He further considers sin, urging its etymology, as error....@¢ ἐξ 
ἀνάγκης εἷναι τὸ πλημμελούμενον πᾶν διὰ THY τοῦ λόγου διαμαρτίαν γινό- 
μενον καὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθαι ἁμάρτημα. Comp. Strom. ii. p. 462: Τὸ δὲ 
ἁμαρτάνειν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγνοεῖν κρίνειν ὅ τι χρὴ ποιεῖν συνίσταται ἢ τοῦ ἀδυνατεῖν 
ποιεῖν. The different kinds of sin are, ἐπειθυμία, φόβος, and ἡδονή. One 
consequence of sin is the λήθη τῆς ἀληθείας, Coh. p. 88, and, lastly, eternal 
death, ib. p. 89. Tertullian puts sin in the impatience (inconstancy) of 
man, De Pat. 5 (p. 143): Nam ut compendio dictum sit, omne peccatum 
impatientie adscribendum. Comp. Cypr. De Bono Pat. p. 218. Orig. De 
Prine, ii. 9, 2 (Opp. T. 1. p. 97; Redep. p. 216) also believes that laziness 
and aversion to efforts for preserving the good, as well as turning from 
the path of virtue (privative), are causes of sin; for going astray is nothing 
but becoming bad; to be bad only means not to be good, ete.; comp. 
Schnitzer, p. 140. 

* Now and then even orthodox theologians ascribe the origin of evil to 
the sensuous nature: thus Justin M. Apol. i. 10 (?); De Resurr. c. 3, see 
Semisch, p. 400, 401. On the other hand, comp. Clem. Strom. iv. 36, p. 
638, 39: Οὔκουν εὐλόγως οἱ κατατρέχοντες τῆς πλάσεως καὶ κακίζοντες TO 
σῶμα; οὐ συνορῶντες τὴν κατασκευὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὀρθήν πρὸς τὴν οὐρα- 
νοῦ θέαν γενομένην, καὶ τὴν τῶν αἰσθησέων ὀργανοποιίων πρὸς γνῶσιν 
συντείνουσαν, τά τε μέλη καὶ μέρη πρὸς τὸ καλὸν, οὐ πρὸς ἡδονὴν εὔθετα. 
Ὅθεν ἐπιδεκτικὸν γίνεται τῆς τιμιωτάτης τῷ Θεῷ ψυχῆς τὸ οἰκητήριον 
τοῦτο κ. τ. A.... AAN’ οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἡ ψυχὴ φύσει, οὔδε αὖ κακὸν φύσει τὸ 
σῶμα, οὐδὲ μὴν, ὃ μή ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν, τοῦτο εὐθέως κακόν. Eiol γὰρ οὖν 
καὶ μεσότητές τινες κ. τ. A. Comp. Origen, Contr. Celsum, iv. 66: Téde, 
τὴν ὕλην... τοῖς θνητοῖς ἐμπολιτευομένην αἰτίαν εἶναι τῶν κακῶν, καθ᾽ 
ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀληθές: τὸ γὰρ ἑκάστου ἡγεμονικὸν αἴτιον τῆς ὑποστάσης ἐν αὐτῷ 
κακίας ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν. 

° Clem. Strom. vii. 2, p. 835: Κακίας δ᾽ av πάντη πάντως ἀναίτιος (6 
Θεός). Orig. Contra Cels. vi. 55, p. 675: Ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν, ὅτι κακὰ μὲν ἢ 
τὴν κακίαν καὶ τὰς ἀπ’ αὐτῆῇς πράξεις ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἐποίησε, Comp. iii. 69, p. 
492. Nevertheless, he holds that evil is under God’s providence; comp. De 
Prine. iii. 2, 7, Opp. i. p. 142. 

* Orig. De Prine. ii. 9, 2 (Opp. i. p. 97), and in Joh. T. ii. οἱ 7 (Opp. iv. 
p. 65, 66): Πᾶσα ἡ κακία οὐδέν ἐστιν (with reference to the word οὐδέν in 
John 1. 3), ἐπεὶ καὶ οὐκ ὃν τυγχάνει. He terms evil ἀνυπόστατον, and the 
fall μείωσις (diminutio). J. Müller, i. 132 (first ed.); comp. Redepenning, 
ii. 828. 


11 


162 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


§ 61. 


INTERPRETATION OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL. 


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


* Philo sees in the narrative τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς, vide Dähne, p. 341, and 
his essay in the Theologische Studien und Krit. 1833, 4th part. 

* Clement considers the narrative of the fall partly as fact, and partly as 
allegory, Strom. v. 11, p. 689, 90. (Serpent = image of voluptuousness).* 
On the other hand, Origen regards it as purely allegorical, De Prine. iv. 16 
(Opp. T. i. p. 174); Contra Cels. iv. 40, p. 534. ‘Adam is called man, be- 
cause: Ἔν τοῖς δοκοῦσι περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ εἷναι φυσιολογεῖ Mwüonc τὰ περὶ 
τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως. .οὐχ οὔτως περὶ ἐνός τινος, ὡς περὶ ὅλου τοῦ 
γένους ταῦτα φάσκοντος τοῦ θείου λόγου. Concerning the further applica- 
tion of allegorical interpretation to the particulars of the narrative (the 
clothing our first parents in skins as a symbol of the clothing of the soul ?), 
comp. Meth. in Phot. Bibl. cod. 234, and 293. On the other side, see Orig. 
Fragm. in Gen. T. ii. p. 29, where both the literal interpretation is excluded, 
and this allegorical exposition is called in question. 

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


* That the serpent was tke devil, or the devil was in the serpent (which is not expressly 
declared in Genesis), was generally assumed, in accordance with Wisdom, ii, 24, and 
Rev. xii. 9 (ὁ ὅφὲὶς ὁ ἀρχαῖος); probably also with reference to John, viii. 44, 


$ 62. STATE OF InNocENcE AND FALL. 163 


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

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

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


§ 62. 


STATE OF INNOCENCE AND FALL. 


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


* These were especially exaggerated by the author of the Clementine 
Homilies (see the preceding §). Adam possessed prophetic gifts, Hom. iii. 
21, viii, 10 (Credner, ii. p. 248, Baur, p. 363, Schliemann, p. 175, Hilgenfeld, 
p. 294), which, however, Tertullian, De Resurr. Carn. c. 61, also ascribed to 
tim, The Ophites taught that Adam and Eve had light and luminous bodies, 
see Baur, p. 187. The theologians, previous to the time of Augustine, at- 
tached less weight to what was afterward called justitia originalis, According 


164 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


to Theophilus of Antioch (ad Aut. ii, 24, 27), Adam was νήπιος, and had to 
be treated as a child; he was neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of 
either mortality or immortality. Clement of Alexandria maintains the same, 
Strom. vi. 12, p. 788: “They may learn from us (he says in opposition to 
the Gnostics), that Adam was created perfect, not in relation to his moral 
excellencies, but in respect to his capactty of receiving virtue; for there is 
certainly a difference between a capacity for virtue and the real possession 
of it. God will have us attain to bliss by our own exertions, hence it belongs 
to the nature of the soul to determine itself,” etc. (in Baur’s Gnosis, p. 493). 
He accordingly restricts the original endowments (Strom. iv. p. 632) to what 
is purely human, a basis for action; Οὐδὲν yap τῶν χαρακτηριζόντων τὴν 
ἀνθρώπου ἰδέαν TE καὶ μορφὴν Evedenoev αὐτῷ. 

* Justin M. attributes the fall mainly to the cunning malignity of Satan ; 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. 119, p. 205. A beast (θηρίον) seduced man. On his 
own part he added disobedience and credulity ; comp. Semisch, p. 393-94. 
Clement of Alexandria conceives that it was sensuality which caused the 
fall of the first man; Coh. p. 86: Ὄφις ἀλληγορεῖται ἡδονὴ ἐπὶ γαστέρα 
Eprrovoa, κακία γηΐνη εἰς ὕλας τρεφομένη. (Thiersch conjectures the 
reading, rperou£vn, in Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift f. d. lJuth. Theol. 1841, p. 184.) 
Comp. Strom. iii, 17, p. 559 (470, Sylb.). Clement does not (like the En- 
cratites whom he combats) blame the cohabitation of our first parents as in 
itself sinful, but he objects that it took place too soon ; this is also implied 
in the passage Strom. ii. 19, p. 481: Ta μὲν αἰσχρὰ οὗτος προθύμως εἵλετο, 
ἑπόμενος τῇ γυναικί. Comp. ὃ 61, 2. 

* The notion that the tree itself was the cause of death (its fruit being 
venomous), is rejected. by Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 25: Οὐ yap, ὡς οἴονταί 
τίνες, θάνατον εἶχε τὸ ξύλον ἀλλ᾽ ἡ παρακοή. 

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

° The Ophites are in confusion about their own doctrines ; for now they 
render divine homage to the serpent, and again say that Eve was seduced 
by it. Epiph. Her. 37, 6. Baur, p. 178,5. 


§ 68. 


THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 


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


§ 63. THe Errects or THE FALL. 165 


as the effects of Adam’s sin ; thus, 6. g. by Ireneus and others.’ 
But opinions were not as yet fully developed concerning the moral 
depravity of each individual, and the sin of the race in general, 
considered as the effect of the first sin. They were so much disposed 
to look upon sin as the free act of man’s will, that they could 
hardly conceive of it as simply a hereditary tendency, transmitted 
from one to another. The sin of every individual, as found in ex- 
perience, had its type in the sin of Adam, and consequently ap- 
peared to be a repetition of the first sin rather than its necessary 
consequence.” In order to explain the mysterious power which 
drives man to evil, they had recourse to the influence of the demons, 
strong, but not absolutely compulsory, rather than to a total bond- 
age of the will (as the result of original sin).° Nevertheless we 
meet in the writings of Zrenceus with intimations of more profound 
views about the effects of the fall.* Tertullian and Origen aided 
more definitely the theory of original sin, though on different 
grounds. Origen thought that souls were stained with sin in a 
former state, and thus enter into the world in a sinful condition. 
To this idea he added another, allied to the notions of Gnostics and 
Manichees, viz., that there is a stain in physical generation itself. 
According to Tertullian, the soul itself is propagated with all its 
defects, as matter is propagated. The phrase “vitium originis,” 
first used by him, is in perfect accordance with this view.* But 
both were far from considering inherent depravity as constituting 
accountability, and still farther from believing in the entire ab- 
sence of human liberty.’ 


* Tren. III. 23 (35 Gr.), p. 221 (263 Gr.) : Condemnationem autem trans- 
gressionis accepit homo tedia et terrenum laborem et manducare panem in 
sudore vultus sui et converti in terram, ex qua assumtus est; similiter autem 
mulier teedia et labores et gemitus et tristitias partus et servitium, ὃ, e. ut ser- 
viret viro suo: ut neque maledicti a Deo in totum perirent, neque sine incre- 
patione perseverantes Deum contemnerent (comp. c. 37, p. 264, Grabe). 
Ibid. v. 15, p. 311 (423, Grabe-)....propter inobedienti@ peccatum sub- 
secuti sunt languores hominibus. V.17,p. 313 (p. 426). V.23, p. 320 
(p. 435): Sed quoniam Deus verax est, mendax autem serpens, de effectu 
ostensum est morte subsecuta eos, qui manducaverunt. Simul enim cum 
esca et mortem adsciverunt, quoniam inobedientes manducabant: inobedien- 
tia autem Dei mortem infert, et sqq. (Hence the devil is called a murderer 
from the beginning.) But Irenzeus also sees a blessing in the penalty inflicted 
by God, iii. 20, 1: Magnanimus (7. 6. μακρόθυμος) fuit Deus deficiente ho- 
mine, eam que per verbum esset victoriam reddendam ei providens, He 
compares the fall of man to the fate of the prophet Jonas, who was swallowed 
by the whale in order to be saved. Thus man is swallowed by the great 
whale (the devil), that Christ may deliver him out of his jaws; comp, 
Duncker, p. 151. According to Cyprian, De Bono Patientiz, p. 212, even 


166 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


the higher physical strength of man (along with immortality) was lost by 
the fall ; Origen also connected the existence of evil in the world with sin. 
Comp. above, § 48. By death, however, the Alexandrians do not mean 
physical death, which, on their postulates, they must regard as a blessing ; 
but moral and spiritual death. Clement, Strom. iii. p. 540, and the passages 
from Origen in Gieseler’s Dogmengesch., p. 182. [Comm. in Matth. P. xiii. 
§ 7: in Joan xvii. § 37. On the Ep. to the Romans, lib. vi. $ 6, Origen de- 
clares the death, effected by sin, to be the separation of the soul from God : 
Separatio anime a Deo mors appellatur, que per peccatum venit. | 

* Though Justin M. uses strong expressions in lamenting the univer- 
sal corruption of mankind (Dial. ὁ. Tryph. c. 95), yet original sin, and the 
imputation of Adam’s guilt are conceptions foreign to him. At least man 
has still such right moral feelings, that he judges and blames the sin of 
others as his—Dial. c. Tryph. c. 93: Ta yap det καὶ δι’ ὅλου δίκαια καὶ 
πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην παρέχει ἐν πάντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων: Kal ἔστι πᾶν γένος 
γνωρίζον ὅτι μοιχεία κακόν, καὶ πορνεία, καὶ ἀνδροφονίο, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα 
τοιαῦτα. Compare what follows, according to which only those filled with 
the evil spirit, or wholly corrupted by bad education (and hence not the 
posterity of Adam as such) have lost this feeling. Accordingly every man 
deserves death, because in his disobedience he ἐδ like the first man. Dial. ce. 
Tr. c. 88: Ὅ (scil. γένος ἀνθρώπων) ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ὑπὸ θάνατον καὶ 
πλάνην τῆν τοῦ ὄφεως ἑπεπτώκει, παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν αἰτίαν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν 
πονηρευσαμένου. C.124: Οὗτοι (scil. ἄνθρωποι) ὁμοίως τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ καὶ τῇ 
Eta ἐξομοιούμενοι θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἐργάζονται, κ. τ. A. Compare 
Semisch, |, c. p. 397-399, who goes into the interpretation of these passages. 
See ibid. p. 401, in reference to the difficult passage, Dial. c. Tr. ec. 100, in 
which many have found an argument for original sin: Παρθένος οὐσα Eva 
καὶ ἄφθορος τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν 
καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε; is τέκτειν here metaphorical? [On the difficult 
passage, Apol. i. cap. 61, see Rudelbach Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1841, s. 
171: especially Zanderer, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1857, s. 518 sq.; Just. 
M. on Erbsünde, Theol. Quartalschrift. 1859. The passage in the First 
Apology, chap. 61, reads: ἐπειδὴ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἡμῶν ἀγνοοῦντες 
κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γεγεννήμεθα ἐξ ὑγρὰς σπορᾶς κατὰ μίξιν τὴν τῶν γονέων 
πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονεραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν, 
ὅπως μὴ ἀνάγκης τέκνα μηδὲ ἀγνοίας μένωμεν ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως καὶ 
ἐπιστήμης ἀφέσεώς τε ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὧν προημάρτομεν τύχωμεν ἐν τῷ 
ὕδατι ἐπονομάζεται τῷ ἑλομένῳ ἀναγεννηθῆναι......τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς......θεοῦ 
ὅνομα. That Justin taught the necessity of internal grace, see Landerer, in 
the same essay, s. 522.] According to Clement of Alexandria, man now 
stands in the same relation to the tempter, in which Adam stood prior to 
the fall, Coh. p. 7: Εἰς yap 6 andrewv, ἄνωθεν μὲν τὴν Evav, viv δὲ ἤδη 
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους εἰς θάνατον ὑποφέρων ; comp. Peed, i. 13, 158, 
159. Clement indeed admits the universality of sin among men, Peed, iii. 
12, p. 307: Τὸ μὲν yap ἐξαμαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔμφυτον καὶ κοινόν; but the 
very circumstance that some appear to him by nature better than others 
(Strom. i. 6, p. 336), shows that he did not consider man as absolutely de- 
praved, nor throw all into one mass of corruption. No one commits iniquity 


§ 63. Tue Errects or THE FALL. 167 


for its own sake, Strom. i, 17, p. 368. But he rejects the idea of original 
sin, as already imputed to children, most strongly, in Strom. iii, 16, p. 356, 
"57: Λεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν" Ποῦ ἐπόρνευσεν τὸ γεννηθὲν παιδίον, ἢ πῶς ὑπὸ THY 
τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ὑποπέπτωκεν ἀρὰν τὸ μηδὲν ἐνεργῆσαν. He does not regard 
the passage, Ps. li. 5, as proof. (Comp. the above passages on liberty and 
sin in general). 

° Athen. Leg. 6. 25. Tatian, Contra Gree, ce. 7, and the passages quoted, 
§ 58. Besides the influence of Satan, Justin M. also mentions bad edu- 
cation and evil examples, Apol. i, 61: Ἔν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς 
ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν. 

* Ireneus Adv. Heer. iv. 41,’2, and other passages quoted by Duncker, 
p- 132, ss. According to Duncker, the doctrine of original sin and hered- 
itary evil is so fully developed in the writings of Irenzus, “that the 
characteristic features of the western type of doctrine may be distinctly re- 
cognized.” Irenzus indeed asserts that man, freely yielding to the voice 
of the tempter, has become a child, disciple, and servant of the devil, etc. 
He also thinks that, in consequence of the sin of Adam, men are already 
in a state of guilt. On the question whether Irenzeus understands by that 
death which we have inherited, merely physical death (V. 1, 3 and other 
passages), see Duncker, 1. c. [The doctrine of Irenzus, in its approxima 
tion to Augustinianism is given in the following passages (Landerer in 
Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1857, s. 528): Adv. Her. V. 16, ἐν τῷ 
πρώτῳ "Ada προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολὴν, ἐν δὲ τῷ 
δευτέρῳ ᾿Αδὰμ ἀποκατηλλάγημεν ὑπήκοοι μέχρι θανάτου γενόμενοι. Οὗδε 
γὰρ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἦμεν ὀφειλέται ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐκείνῳ, οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐντολὴν παρέ- 
βημεν : so in ill, 18: Perdideramus in Adam—secundum imaginem et simi- 
litudinem Dei esse; and in III. 22: Quemadmodum illa (Eva) inobediens 
facta et sibi et universo generi humano causa est facta mortis: V. 19: 
et quemadmodum adstrietum est morti genus humanum per virginem, 
salvatur per virginem]. 

° On the one hand, Origen, by insisting upon the freedom of the human 
will, forms a strong contrast with Angustine; as he also maintains that 
concupiscence is not reckoned as sin, so long as it has not ripened into 
a purpose; guilt arises only when we yield to it, De Prine. iii. 2, 2 (Opp. 
T. i. p. 139, Red. p. 179), and iii. 4 (de Humanis Tentationibus). But, on 
the other, he formally adopts the idea of original sin, by asserting that the 
human soul does not come into the world in a state of innocence, because it 
has already sinned in a former state; De Prine. ii. 5 (Opp. T. i. p. 149, 
’50, Red. p. 309, ss.); comp. also Redep. ii. 322; concerning the genera- 
tion of man see Hom. xv. in Matth. $ 23 (Opp. iii. p. 685) ; Hom. viii. in 
Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 229, and xii. p. 251): Omnis qui ingreditur hune mundum 
in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur (Job xiv. 4, 5)..... Omnis ergo 
homo in patre ei in matre pollutus est, solus Jesus Dominus meus in hance 
generationem mundus ingressus est, et in matre non est pollutus. Ingres- 
sus est enim corpus incontaminatum. And yet subsequent times, especially 
after Jerome, have seen in Origen the precursor of Pelagius. Jerome (Ep. 
ad Ctesiphont.) calls the opinion, that man can be without sin—Origenis ra- 
musculus, Comp. in reply, Wörter, u. s. p. 201, [and Zanderer, u. s.] 


168 First PERIOD. ANTHROPOLOGY. 


° Tert. De Anima, c. 40: Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, 
donec in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Pec- 
catrix autem, quia immunda, recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate. 
Cap. 41, he makes use of the phrase vitium originis, and maintains that evil 
has become man’s second nature, while his true nature (according to Tertul- 
lian) is the good. He, therefore, distinguishes naturale quodammodo from 
proprie naturale. Quod enim a Deo est, non tam extinguitur, quam obum- 
bratur. Potest enim obumbrari, quia non est Deus, extingut non potest, quia 
a Deo est. 

1 That, 6. g., Tertullian was far from imputing original sin to children as 
real sin, may be seen from his remarkable expression concerning the baptism 
of infants; De Bapt. 18, comp. § 72, and Meander, Antignosticus, p. 209, 
ss., 455, ss. — His disciple Cyprian also acknowledges inherent depravity, and 
defends infant baptism on this ground ; but yet only to purify infants from 
a foreign guilt which is imputed to them, but not from any guilt which is 
properly their own. Ep. 64. Comp. Rettberg, p. 317, ss. Cyprian calls 
original sin, contagio mortis antique, in Ep. 59; but says that it does not 
annul freedom; De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum, c. 2, 


FOURTH DIVISION. 


CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


§ 64. 


CHRISTOLOGY IN GENERAL. 


Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, 
Rostock, 1800, 8vo. *Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, Stuttgardt, 
1839; 2d edit. 2 Bde. 1845-53. [Bawr, Dreieinigkeitslehre, 3 Bde. Tübing. 1841-43. 
G. A, Meier, Trinitat. 2 Bde. 1844. L. Lange, Antitrinitar. 1851. 


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


Irenzus decidedly keeps in view the twofold aspect under which Christ 
may be considered, as both completing and restoring human nature. Both 
are expressed by the terms ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις (i. e., the repeti- 
tion of that which formerly existed, renovation, restoration, the re-union of 
that which was separated, comp. Swicer, Thesaurus, sub voce). Christ is the 
sum of all that is human in its highest significance, both the sum total and 
the renovation of mankind, the new Adam; comp. v. 29, 2; vil. 18, 7, and 
other passages quoted by Duncker, p. 157, ss. He frequently repeats the 
proposition, that Christ became what we are, that we might be what he is, 
6. 9., 111. 10, 20, and in the Preefatio : Jesus Christus, Dominus noster, propter 
immensam suam dilectionem factum est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret 
esse, quod est ipse. [Irenzus, iii. 18 : Filius Dei, existens semper apud pa- 
trem, incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in se 
ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem preestans, et quod perdideramus 
in Adam, :. 6., secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse, hoc in Christo Jesu 
reciperemus, Comp. v. 16.] Irenzus also says that Christ represents the 


170 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


perfect man in all the stages of human life. Similar views were entertained 
by the theologians of the Alexandrian school; see the passages quoted about 
the Logos.—On the other hand, Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 6, thinks that 
the incarnation of Christ had reference to the sufferings he was to endure, 
(At vero Christus mori missus nasci quoque necessario habuit, ut mori posset.) 
According to Cyprian, the incarnation was necessary, not so much on account 
of the sin of Adam, as because of the disobedience of the later generations, 
on whom the former revelations did not produce their effect (Heb. i. 1), De 
Idol. Van. p. 15: Quod vero Christus sit, et quomodo per ipsum nobis salus 
venerit, sic est ordo, sic ratio. Judzis primum erat apud Deum gratia. Sic 
olim justi erant, sic majores eorum religionibus obediebant. Inde illis et 
regni sublimitas floruit et generis magnitudo provenit. Sed illi negligentes, 
indisciplinati et superbi postmodum facti, et fiducia patrum inflati, dum divina 
precepta contemnunt, datam 5101 gratiam perdiderunt. . . . . Nec non 
Deus ante preedixerat, fore ut vergente s®culo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex 
omni gente et populo et loco cultores sibi allegeret Deus multo fideliores et 
melioris obsequii ; qui indulgentiam de divinis muneribus haurirent, quam ac- 
ceptam Judiei contemtis religionibus perdidissent. Hujus igitur indulgentie, 
gratiz disciplinaeque arbiter et magister, sermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per 
prophetas omnes retro illuminator et doctor humani generis pradicabatur. 
Hic est virtus Dei, hic ratio, hie sapientia ejus et gloria. Hic in virginem 
illabitur, carnem, Spiritu Sancto coöperante, induitur. Deus cum homine 
miscetur. Hic Deus noster, hie Christus est, qui, mediator duorum, hominem 
induit, quem perducat ad patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit, ut et 
homo possit esse quod Christus est. Comp. Rettberg, p. 305. In this last posi- 
tion he coincides with Irenzus. 


§ 65. 
THE GOD-MAN. ‘ 


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


§ 65. Tue Gop-May. 171 


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


* Thus in the letter of Pliny to Trajan (Ep. x. 97) : Carmen Christo quasi 
Deo dicere.—The usual doxologies, the baptismal formulas, the services of 
the Christian festivals and of divine worship, bear witness to the divine hom- 
age paid to Christ by the primitive church ; comp. Dorner, ]. c. p. 273, ss. 
Even art and Christian customs testify the same; ibid. p. 290 sq. [Comp. 
Münter, Schöne, Bingham, Piper, Didron, Jameson, in their works referred 
to § 8; also, especially, Louis Perret, Catacombes de Rome, 5 fol. Paris, 
1851 (by the Institute).] The calumnies which the Jew of Celsus brings 
against the person of Christ, that he was born from the adulterous intercourse 
of Mary with a Roman soldier, Pantheras, are refuted by Origen, and the 
miraculous birth of the Saviour vindicated in view of his high destination (in 
connection with the doctrine of the preéxistence of the soul); Contra Celsum, 
1, 32 (p. 345-51). 

* According to Justin the Martyr, the excellency of his doctrine elevates 
Christ over the rest of mankind (Apol. 1. 14): Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι rap’ 
αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν" ob yap σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις Θεοῦ ὁ 
λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν, and this human wisdom would be sufficient by itself (ac- 
cording to ὁ. 22) to secure to Jesus the predicate of. the Son of God, even 
though he were amere man. But he is more than this : ibidem. Origen also 
appeals to the extraordinary personal character of Jesus (apart from his divine 
dignity), which he considers as the bloom and crown of humanity ; Contra 
Cels. i. 29 (Opp. T. i. p. 347, in reference to Plato De Rep. i. p. 329, and 
Plutarch, in Vita Themistoclis) ;—‘ Jesus, the least and humblest of all Seri- 
phii, yet caused a greater commotion in the world than either Themistocles, 
or Pythagoras, or Plato, yea more than any wise man, prince or general.” 
He unites in himself all human excellencies, while others have distinguished 
themselves by particular virtues, or particular actions; he is the miracle of 
the world! c. 30 (altogether in the sense of the modern apologists). Minu- 
cius Felix does not go beyond the negative statement, that Jesus was more 
than a mere man ; generally speaking, we find in his writings little or noth- 
ing positively christological ; Octav. 29, § 2, 3 (comp. with 9,5): Nam quod 
religioni nostree hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia 
veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terre- 
num. Ne ille miserabilis, cujus in homine mortali spes omnis innititur; totum 
enim ejus auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. Comp. Novatian De Trin, 
14: Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in 
homine maledicta referatur? Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i., 53: Deus ille sub- 
limis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium 
principe Deus suspitator est missus, quem neque sol ipse, neque ulla, si sentiunt, 


172 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


sidera, non rectores, non principes mundi, non denique dii magni, aut qui 
fingentes se deos genus omne mortalium territant, unde aut qui fuerit, potue- 
runt noscere vel suspicuri. On the Christology of the apostolical Fathers, 
see Dorner, 1. c. p. 144, ss. 

° Justin M. Apol. i. 5, 30, ss.; Dial. c. Tr. in its whole bearing, Noyatian, 
De Trin. ec. 9. Orig. Contra Cels. in various places. 

4 Thus Justin M. defended on the one hand the birth of Christ from the 
virgin in opposition to the Ebionites, and on the other, his true humanity in 
opposition to the Gnostics; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 54: Οὔκ ἔστιν 6 Xp. ἄνθρωπος 
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γεννηθείς. ΑΡΟΙ. 1. 46: Ara 
δυνάμεως τοῦ λόγου κατὰ τῆν τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ 
βουλὴν διὰ παρθένου ἄνθρωπος ἄπεκυήθη. Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 403, ss. 
Iren. iii. 16 (18 Gr.), 18 (20 Gr.), p. 211 (248 Gr.): Ἥνωσεν οὖν καθὼς 
προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ θεῷ........ Ei μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ 
Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην 
Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος εἴς φιλίαν 
καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρωποις δὲ γνωρίσαι Θεόν, c. 19 (21), p. 212, 13 (250): 
“Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἣν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος, ἵνα δοξασθῇ" 
ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι..........ἐννο καὶ σταυροῦσθαι 
καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν: συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾶν καὶ ὑπομένειν 
καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι. Irenwus also advo- 
cates the true humanity of the Saviour, in opposition to the Docetz, and his 
true divinity in opposition to the Ebionites. As Adam had no human 
father, so Christ is begotten without the act of a man; as the former was 
formed from the virgin soil, so the latter is born of an undeflowered virgin. 
Contrasted with the sinful flesh of Adam is this sinless nature; a spiritual 
(πνευματικός) man is set over against the carnal (psychical, ψυχεκός); iii. 21, 
10. Duncker, p. 218, ss. Comp. Novatian, De Trin. ec. 18: Quoniam si ad 
hominem veniebat, ut mediator Dei et hominum esse deberet, oportuit illum 
cum eo esse et verbum carnem fieri, ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet 
terrenorum pariter atque celestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens 
pignora, et Deum homini et hominem Deo copularet, ut merito filius Dei 
per assumtionem carnis fiilius hominis, et filius hominis per receptionem Dei 
verbi filius Dei effici possit. Hoc altissimum atque reconditum sacramentum 
ad salutem generis humani ante secula destinatum, in Domino Jesu Christo 
Deo et homine invenitur impleri, quo conditio generis humani ad fructum 
eterne salutis posset adduci. 

° Comp. § 23, 24, and § 42, note 1. On the mild manner in which Jus- 
tin M. (Dial. c. Tryph. § 48) and Origen (in Matth. T. xvi. c. 12, Opp. iii. p. 
732, comparison with the blind man, Mark x. 46), judged of the view of the 
Ebionites, see Meander’s Church History (Torrey), i. p. 344. But Origen 
expresses himself in stronger terms against them in Hom. xv. in Jerem. ib. 
p. 226: ᾿Ετόλμησαν yap μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων κακῶν καὶ 
τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὅτι οὔκ ἐστι θεὸς ὃ μονογενὴς ὃ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" 
ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ, ὃς τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχει ἐπ’ ἄνθρωπον. But even common 
Ebionites supposed that a higher power had united itself with the man Jesus 


§ 66. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT oF THIS Doctkine 173 


at his baptism, though it was indeed only an (abstract) power. The Ebion- 
ites, whose views are represented by the Clementine Homilies, differed from 
the former by asserting that Jesus had from the beginning been penetrated 
with this higher power; hence he is in one rank with Adam, Enoch, and 
Moses, who all had the same prophetic character; comp. Schliemann, p. 
200, ss., 483, ss. Concerning the birth from the virgin, it is remarkable 
how little the primitive church hesitated about adducing analogies from 
pagan myths as a kind of evidence, though the reality of the fact was held 
fast. Thus Orig. Contra Cels. i. 37 (Opp. T. i. p. 355—Plato, a son of 
Apollo and of Amphictyone) ; in the same connection an analogy is drawn 
from nature (in the case of the hawk) in opposition to the blasphemy of 
Celsus, c. 32, p. 350, mentioned above; comp., however, c. 67, p. 381.* 

° Against the Docete comp. the Epistles of Zgnatius, especially ad Smyrn, 
2 and 3; ad Ephes. 7, 18; ad Trall. 9, also the before cited passage of 
Irenzeus, as well as Tert. Adv. Marc. and De Carne Christi; Movatian, De 
Trin. e. 10: Neque igitur eum hereticorum agnoscimus Christum, qui in 
imagine (ut dicitur) fuit, et non in veritate ; nihil verum, eorum que gessit, 
fecerit, si ipse phantasma et non veritas fuit. Some have thought that there 
is a leaning toward Docetism in the epistle of Barnabas, c. 5. But it is 
only the same idea of the κρύψις which occurs in later times, 6. g., in the 
(apocryphal) oration of Thaddeus to Abgarus, apud Euseb. 1, 13: ’Eopé- 
kpvvev αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα, and elsewhere. 

” Tertull. De Carne Christi, e. 2: Odit moras Marcion, qui subito Christum 
de ceelis deferebat. Adv. Mare. ii, 2: Subito filius, et subito missus, et 
subito Christus. iv. 11 : Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia 
apud Marcionem, que suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. 
[On Basilides and Marcion, see Ryland’s Neander’s Hist. Dog. p. 193-5.] 

® Καθάπερ ὕδωρ διὰ σωλὴνος ὁδεύει, comp. Meander, gnost. Systeme, p. 
136, ss. On the Docetism of the Gnostics in general, see Baur, p. 258, ss. : 
“ Basilides is nearest to the orthodox view ; Marcion departs farthest from 
it; and Valentinus, with his psychical Christ, occupies an intermediate posi- 
tion.” 


§ 66. 
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 


* Gieseler, J. C. L., Commentatio, qua Clementis Alexandrini et Origenis doctrin® de cor- 
pore Christi exponuntur, Götting. 1837, 4. [Lämmer, Clem, Alex. Doctrina de Aoyo, 
1855.] 


Though the Christian and Catholic doctrine, in opposition to all 
these heretical theories, rested upon the simple declaration of John : 
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and thus preserved the idea which is peculiar to 


* On the different recensions of what is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, comp. 
King, p. 145. The phrase: conceptus de Spiritu Sancto, is wanting in the earlier recen- 
sions, and one reads: qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virg. Comp. King, p. 145. 


174 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


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


* Novat. De Trin. ο. 10 : Non est ergo in unam partem inclinandum et ab 
alia parte fugiendum, quoniam nec tenebit perfectam veritatem, quisquis 
aliquam veritatis excluserit portionem. Tam enim scriptura etiam Deum 
adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat Deum, etc. 

> According to Justin M., Christ had a soul, but not a νοῦς. Its place 
was supplied by the λόγος. In his view, Christ is composed of λόγος, ψυχή, 
and σῶμα, Apol. min. 6. 10, comp. Semisch, p. 410. 

° Duncker (p. 207, sq.) endeavors to make it probable, from passages 
quoted by him (especially iii. 22, 1; v. 6, 1), that Zreneus taught the perfect 
humanity of Christ as regards body, soul, and spirit; he also adduces the 
passage v. 1, 3, to which others have attached the opposite sense, comp. 
Gieseler on the passage, Dogmengesch. Ὁ. 187. [Gieseler here states, that 
the fathers of the church soon came to feel the necessity, in a doctrinal point 
of view, of maintaining that Christ had a proper human soul, as otherwise he 
could not be a real man, nor our example, and his sufferings must be wholly 
denied, or else ascribed to the Logos. JZreneus first refers to it distinctly, v. 
c. 1; he gave his soul for our souls, his flesh for our flesh; and ψυχή here 
can not mean merely the sensuous soul, for Irenzeus does not distinguish 
between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. Tertullian expressly says, that Christ assumed a 
human soul as well as a human body; De Carne Christi, c. 11, 13; Adv. 
Prax. ec. 16. Origen, De Princip, ii. c. 6, first goes into full investigations 
on this point, making the rational human soul the necessary medium of the 
incarnation, since God could not be immediately united with a body, ete. 
Comp. also Neander’s Hist. Dog. (Ryland’s) p. 197-8. ] 

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


$ 66. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS Doctrine. 175 


cf. De Carne Christi, c. 11-13: Non poterat Christus inter homines nisi 
homo videri. Redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut, qui homo voluerit ince- 
dere, animam quoque humane conditionis ostenderit, non faciens eam car- 
neam, sed induens eam carne. Comp. De Resurr. Carn. c. 34, and other 
less definite passages (only in relation to the assuming of the flesh) which 
are given by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 261-63. 

° He indulges in harsh contrasts, 6. g. in Coh. p. 6, and p. 84: Πίστευσον, 
ἄοθρωπε, ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ Θεῷ" πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, TO παθόντι καὶ προσκυνου- 
μένῳ Θεῷ ζῶντι: πιστεύσατε, οἱ δοῦλοι, τῷ νεκρῷ" πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πιστεύ- 
σατε μόνῳ τῷ πάντων ἀνθρώπων Θεῷ’ πίστεύσατε, καὶ μισθὸν λάβετε 
σωτηρίαν: ἐκζητήσατε τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ζήσεται ἡ ψυχή ὑμῶν. He does not 
make the distinction drawn by others, according to which the name ᾿Ιησοῦς 
is used only of the man: on the contrary, Ped. i. 7, p. 131, he says: Ὁ δέ 
ἡμέτερος παιδαγωγὸς ἄγιος θεὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς, 6 πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καθη- 
γεμὼν λόγος. He also applies the subject, ὁ λόγος, to his humanity, Peed. 
i, 6, p. 124: Ὃ λόγος TO αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐξέχεεν αἷμα ; comp. iii. 1, p. 
251, and Gieseler, |. c. On the question, whether Clement of Alex. believed 
that Christ had a human soul, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 187. [ Clement, 
Strom. vi. p. 775, says that the God-man had no πάθη; in Peedag. iii. 250, 
he distinguishes in the human soul, the rational (λογιστικόν), the principle 
of resentment (θυμεκόν), and the principle of desire (ἐπιθυμητικόν); and says 
that the two last were not in Jesus.] 

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

* This is also alleged by Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 9: Adeo nec humanz hones- 


tatis corpus fuit, nedum ccelestis claritatis. For had it been otherwise, how could the 
soldiers have dared to pierce this fair body ? 


176 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


tion of the perpetual virginity of Mary (Strom. vii. 16, p. 889-890, and 
the (apocryphal) passage there cited: T&rorev καὶ οὐ τέτοκεν, may be traced 
to the same docetic tendency. Different views are entertained by Tertull. 
De Carne Christi, sub finem (in Potter’s edition, on the passage from the 
Clementina), who nevertheless quotes the same dictum, A real Docetism 
has been inferred from the Coh. ad Grecos, p. 86, where the assumption of 
humanity on the part of the Logos is compared with the putting on of a 
mask, and the taking a part in a drama: at any rate, this is no real be- 
coming man. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 191. 

7 @ennadius, De Dogm. Eccles. c. 2, incorrectly numbers Origen among 
those, qui Christum carnem de c@lo secum affere contenderint (cf. Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. p. 191); but his doctrine too is not quite free from Docetism. 
It is most fully given in the Comment. in Ep. ad Gal., preserved by Pamphi- 
lus; comp. Gieseler, 1. 6. p. 16, 17, and Contra Cels. i. 69, 70. (Opp. i. p. 
383, ’84) ; ibid. iii. 42 (p. 474); De Prine. ii. 6, § 6. Hom. in Gen. i. (Opp. 
ii, p. 55): Non eequaliter omnes, qui vident, illuminantur a Christo, sed sin- 
guli secundum eam mensuram illuminantur, qua vim luminis recipere valent. 
Et sicut non zqualiter oculi corporis nostri illuminantur a sole, sed quanto 
quis in loca altiora conscenderit, et ortum ejus editioris specule intuitione 
fuerit contemplatus, tanto amplius et splendoris ejus vim percipiet et caloris : 
ita etiam mens nostra quanto altius et excelsius appropinquaverit Christo, ac 
se viciniorem splendori lucis ejus objecerit, tanto magnificentius et clarius 
ejus lumine radiabitur. With this view he connects the transfiguration on 
the mount, Contra Cels. ii. 64 (Opp. i. p. 435), and Comment. in Matth. 
(Opp. ili. p. 906); Gieseler, p. 19, ss. Comp. contra Cels. iv. 16, p. 511: 
Εἰσὶ γὰρ διάφοροι οἱονεὶ τοῦ λόγου μορφαὶ, καθὼς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰς ἐπιστή- 
μην ἀγομένων φαίνεται ὁ λόγος, ἀνάλογον τῇ ἕξει τοῦ εἰσαγομένου, ἢ Em’ 
ὁλίγον προκόπτοντος, ἢ ἐπὶ πλεῖον, ἢ καὶ ἐγγὺς Non γινομένου τῆς ἀρετῆς, 
ἢ καὶ ἐν ἀρετῇ γεγενημένου. 

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

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


§ 66. FuRrrHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS Doctrine. 177 


ing the Logos wholly in the man, as if he did not exist apart from him; De 
Prine, iv. c.30:.... Non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis ejus 
majestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum 
Dei et sapientia ejus ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit, vel 
intra corporis ejus coércita et conscripta brevitatem, nec usquam preeterea 
putetur operata: sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis esse debet confessio, ut 
neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur, et nulla penitus a 
paterna substantia, que ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio ... . Cap. 31: 
Ne quis tamen nos existimet per hee illud affirmare, quod pars alibi vel 
ubique: quod illi sentire possunt, qui naturam substantiz incorporee atque 
invisibilis ignorant. Comp. also Contra Cels. iv. 5: Κἂν ὁ θεὸς τῶν ὅλων TH 
ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει ovykaraßalvn τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἰσ τὸν τῶν ἀνθρῶπων βίον, Kav 
ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸσ τὸν θεὸν λόγος, θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ὦν, ἔρχηται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ 
ἔξεδρος γίνεται, οὐδὲ καταλείπει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Edpav Wo τινα μὲν τόπον 
κενὸν αὐτοῦ εἷναι, ἕτερον δὲ πλήρη, οὐ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἔχοντα. The Logos 
in his incarnate state is like the sun, whose beams remain pure wherever they 
may shine (Contra Cels, vi. 73). Nevertheless, Origen asserts that he laid aside 
his glory ;.in Jerem. Hom. x. 7 (Opp. ili. p. 186). The Father is the light as 
such, the Son is the light which shines in darkness; comp. Comm. in Joh. ii. 
18 (Opp. iv. p. 76), and De Princ. i. 28. The humanity of Christ ceased to 
exist after his exaltation; comp. Hom. in Jerem. xv. (Opp. iii. p. 226) : Ei καὶ 
ἦν ἄνθρωπος (6 σωτὴρ), ἀλλὰ viv οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος. Comp. Hom. 
in Luc. xxix. (Opp. iii. p. 967): Tunc homo fuit, nune autem homo esse ces- 
savit. See Dorner, }. c. p. 671,ss. T’homasius, p.202,ss. Redepenning, 11. 818, 

10. See Dorner, 1. c. p. 679, note 40. The phrase in question occurs (so far 
as we know) only in the Latin translation of the Homil. in Ezech. iii. 3 (Deus 
homo); but it is implied in other passages, 6. g., Contra Cels. iii. 29; vi. 17. 
Comp. Thomasius, p. 203, note c. The Greek term was first explained by 
Chrysostom, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce. 


A special question arose concerning the risen body of Christ, in its relation to the body 
which he possessed prior to the resurrection. According to Ignatius, Justin, Ireneus, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian, Jesus had the same body after the resurrection 
which he had before it. Comp. the passages in the work of Οἱ L. Müller, De Resur- 
rectione Jesu Christi, vitam st. excipiente et ascensu in coelum, Sententie, que in 
ecclesia Christiana ad finem usque szculi sexti viguerunt. Havynize, 1836, 8, p. 77; 
some merely modifying statements of Irenzeus and Tertullian, p. 78. But Origen 
taught, on the other hand, in more definite terms, c. Cels. ii. c. 62 (Opp. i. p. 434), 
that the body of Jesus had undergone a change, and, in support of his opinion, ap- 
pealed to his miraculous appearance, when the doors were shut: Kal ἦν ye μετὰ τὴν 
ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος 
καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτου σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχῆν. Comp. ο. 64, 65, p. 436: Τὸν μηκέτι 
ἔχοντά τι χωρητὸν ὁραθῆναι τοῖς πολλοῖς, οὐχ οἷοι τε ἦσαν αὐτὸν βλέπειν οἱ πρότερον 
αὐτὸν ἰδόντες πάντες . . . . Λαμπροτέρα γὰρ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος ἡ θειότης 
mv αὐτοῦ. Müller, p. 83. Origen does not seem to have believed that the ascension 
of Christ effected a further change; for he probably means by the ethereal body, 
which he ascribes to him in his state of exaltation (c. Cels. iii. 41, 42, Opp. i. p. 474), 
the same which he had when he rose from the grave. Comp. Müller, p. 82, and p. 131. 

12 


178 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY, 


§ 67. 


THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 


Ullmann, über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, 5th edit. Hamb. 1846. [Ullmann, on the Sinless 
Character of Jesus, in Clark’s Student’s Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] Fritsche, 
de dvauaprnoia Jesu Christi, Comment. IV. comp. § 17. 


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


1 Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 11, 17, 110, et al., Zren. in the next§. Tert. De 
Anima, cap. 41: Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato 
Christus, quia et Deus Christus. Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, 1. 53: Nihil, ut 
remini, magicum, nihil humanum, prestigiosum, aut subdolum, nihil fraudis 
delituit in Christo. Clem. Al. derives (Pied. i. 2, p. 99) the prerogative 
of Christ as the judge of all men, from his sinlessness. In Ped. iii. 12, 
p. 307, he speaks indeed of the Logos as alone ἀναμάρτητος, but as he 
makes no distinction between the Logos and the human nature of Christ 
(comp. the preceding $), it would follow that he regarded Jesus as sinless, 
which is confirmed by what he says, Strom. vii. 12, p. 875. (Sylb. 742): 
Εἰς μὲν οὖν μόνος ὁ ἀνεπιθύμητος (which implies still more than ἀναμάρτη- 
τος) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὃ κύριος, 6 φιλάνθρωπος, ὁ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος. Concern- 
ing Origen, comp. § 63, note 5; Hom. xii. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 251) . . Solus 
Jesus dominus meus in hane generationem mundus ingressus est, etc. In De 
Prine. ii. c. 6, § 5, 6 (Opp. i. p. 91), he endeavors to remove the difficulty 
which arises when we assume the absolute sinlessness of our Lord, in contrast 
with the other assumption of his free spiritual development: Verum quoniam 
boni malique eligendi facultas omnibus preesto est, hec anima, que Christi 
est, ita elegit diligere justitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter 
ei atque inseparabiliter inhereret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immen- 
sitas et dilectionis inextinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque im- 
mutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu jam, 
versum sit in naturam : ita et fuisse quidem in Christo humana et rationabilis 


§ 68. REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 179 


anima credenda est, et nullum sensum vel possibilitatem eam putandum est 
habuisse peccati (comparison with iron always in the fire). Christ possesses 
sinlessness as something peculiar to himself: Sicut vas ipsum, quod substan- 
tiam continet unguenti, nullo genere potest aliquid recipere foetoris, hi vero 
qui ex odore ejus participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, 
possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant foetorem: ita Christus velut vas,ipsum, in 
quo erat unguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut contrarium reciperet odorem. 
Participes vero ejus quam proximi fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes 
et capaces, Comp. Contra Cels. i. 69, Opp. 1. p. 383: Διὸ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις 
καὶ μέγαν ἀγωνιστὴν αὐτόν φαμεν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, 
πεπειρασμένον μὲν ὀμοίως πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις κατὰ τάντα, οὐκέτι δὲ ὡς ἄνθρω- 
ποι μετὰ ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ πάντη χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. (Hebr. iv. 15, where 1 
Pet. ii. 22, and 2 Cor. v. 21, are also quoted). The term ὠναμάρτητος first 
occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (@allandii Bibl. ii. p. 466). 

> Comp. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 600 (Sylb. 506) ; and the comment of Jacobi 
in Neander’s Hist. Dog. (Ryland), p. 207, in connection with the statement 
of Hippolytus. Comp. also Neander, Gnost. Syst. p. 49, ss. Baur, Versöh- 
nungslehre, p. 24. 


§ 68. 


REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 


(The Death of Christ.) 


Dissertatio Historiam Doctrine de Redemtione EKcclesiz, Sanguine Jesu Christi facta, ex- 
hibens, in Cotta’s edition of Gerhards Loci Theologici, T. iv. p.105-132. Τῇ Οἱ L. 
Ziegler, Historia Dogmatis de Redemptione, etc., inde ab ecclesiz primordiis usque ad 
Lutheri tempora, Gött. 1791 (in Comment. Theol. ed. A. Velthusen, T. v. p. 227, seq.) 
* Bühr, K. die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, Sulzb. 
1832, reviewed in the Neue Kirchenzeitung, 1833, No. 36. Baur, F. Ch. die christ- 
liche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von der 
ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste. Tübingen, 1838 (p. 1-67). [Thomasius, Christi 
Person und Work, iii. p. 158.sq. 1859. William Thomson (Fellow of Queen’s Col- 
lege), The Atoning Work of Christ; Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1853, Lect. VI, 
Theories in the Early Church. ] 


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


180 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


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


1“ Christianity is not only the religion of redemption, inasmuch as it real- 
izes the idea of the union of the divine and the human in the person of 
the God-Man, but also the religion of complete and absolute reconciliation.” 
Baur, 1. c. p. 5. Concerning the relation in which redemption stands to 
reconciliation, ibid. [Baur here says: The two ideas of redemption and 
atonement (reconciliation) are usually distinguished, by referring the former 
to the idea of sin, and the latter to the idea of guilt.... Even if one should 
be transferred from a state of sin to one of sinlessness, it would not follow 
that the guilt of his sin had been removed....The removal of this guilt 
can be conceived only as a divine act, and the ground of its possibility can 
be found only in the idea of God.] On negative and positive redemption, 
see Neander (Church History, Torrey’s transl. i. p. 640). According to Jus- 
tin M., the renovation and restoration of mankind is brought about by the 
doctrine of Christ, Apol. i. 23: Tevönevoc ἄνθρωπος ταῦτα ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν 
ἐπ’ ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ dvOpwretov γένους. Comp. Apol. i. 6 


$ 68. REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 181 


(see note 4, below); Coh. ad Gree. 38, Dial. ὁ. Tryph. ὃ 121; ὃ 83: 
Ἰσχυρὸς ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ πέπειθε πολλοὺς καταλιπείν δαιμόνια, οἷς ἐδούλε- 
νον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν παντοκράτορα Θεὸν δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν. Also ὃ 30: 
Απὸ γὰρ τῶν δαιμονίων, ἅ ἐστιν ἀλλότρια «ῆς θεοσεβείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἷς 
πάλαι προσεκυνοῦμεν, τὸν Θεὸν ἀεὶ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ συντηρηθῆναι πα- 
ρακαλοῦμεν, ἵνα μετὰ τὸ ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς Θεὸν di’ αὐτοῦ ἅμωμοι ὦμεν. 
Βοηθὺὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖνον καὶ λυτρωτὴν καλοῦμέν: ob καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος 
ἰσχὺν καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια τρέμει κ. τ. A. Τῇ Justin emphasizes the negative, 
Treneus speaks rather of the positive aspect, ili, 18 (20) [quando filius Dei 
incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in semet ipso 
recapitulavit]; 20 (22), p. 214.....Filius hominis factus est, ut assuesceret 
hominem percipere Deum et assuesceret Deum habitare in homine, sec. pla- 
citum Patris. The work of redemption was carried on through all the ages 
and stages of life, which Christ represented in himself, so that death appears 
as the crown of the entire redemptive work, ii. 22, 4, p. 147: Omnes enim 
venit per semetipsum salvare : omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in 
Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et seniores. Ideo per om- 
nem venit ztatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in parvu- 
lis parvulus, sanctificans hance ipsam habentes »tatem, simul et exemplum 
illis pietatis effectus et justitie et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exem- 
plum juvenibus fiens, eosque sanctificans Domino ; sic et senior in senioribus, ut 
sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veri- 
tatis, sed et secundum etatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis 
quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex 
mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, princeps vite, prior omnium et 
precedens omnes [v. 23, 2: Recapitulans autem universum hominem in 
se ab initio usque ad finem, recapitulavit et mortem ejus]. Comp. v. 16. 
[Comp. also Irenzeus Contra Heres. v. 16: Ἔν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλέγετο 
μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο de. ἔτι γὰρ 
ἀόρατος ἣν ὁ λόγος, οὐ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ 
τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥαδίως ἀπέβαλεν, ὁπότε δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
τὰ ἀμφότερα ἐπεκύρωσε" καὶ γὰρ τὴν εἰκόνα ἔδειξεν ἀληθῶς, αὐτὸς τοῦτο 
γενόμενος, ὅπερ ἢν ἡ εἰκών αὐτοῦ. καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν βεβαίως κατέστησε, 
συνεξομοιώσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἀοράτῳ Ilarpt.—Comp. Tert. Adv. Mare. 
12.—Clem. Coh. p. 6, p. 23: Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκς ὀργῆς θρέμματα ἔτι, οἱ τῆς 
πλάνῃς ἀπεσπασμένοι, ἀΐσσοντες δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 'Ῥαύτη τοι ἡμεῖς, οἱ 
τῆς ἀνομίας υἱοί ποτε, διὰ τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν τοῦ λόγου νῦν υἱοὶ γεγόνα-- 
μεν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Pied.i. 2, p. 100: "Eorıv οὖν ὁ παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν λόγος 
διὰ παραινέσεων θεραπευτικὸς τῶν παρὰ φύσιν τῆς ψυχὴς παθῶν... Δόγος 
δὲ ὁ πατρικὸς μόνος ἐστὶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἰατρὸς ἀῤῥωστημάτων παιώνιος καὶ 
ἐπῳδὸς ἅγιος νοσούσης ψυχῆς. Comp. 1. 9, p. 147; i, 12. p. 158; Quis 
Div. salv. p. 951, 52. (Comparison with the merciful Samaritan). Origen 
also (Contra Cels. iii. 28, Opp. i. p. 465), sees in the union of the divine and 
the human in Christ the beginning of an. intimate connection between the 
one and the other, which is to be progressively developed in mankind: “Ore 
ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις" iv’ ἡ ἀνθρω- 
πίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ 


182 First Perrop. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἀναλαμ- 
βάνουσι βίον, ὃν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξεν «ἢ 

2. Barnabas, c.5: Propter hoc Dominus sustinuit tradere corpus suum 
in exterminium, ut remissione„peccatorum sanctificemur, quod est sparsione 
sanguinis illius, etc. comp. c. 7, 11, and 12. Clemens Rom. ad Cor. i. ¢. 7: 
’Areviowuev εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἴδωμεν, ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ θεῷ 
(αἷμα) αὐτοῦ, ὅτι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκχυθὲν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ 
μετάνοίας χάριν ὑπήνεγκεν, comp. i. c. 2, where the παθήματα αὑτοῦ gram- 
mically refer to Θεὸς. (Möhler, Patrologie, i. p. 61.) [Comp. also Clem, 
Rom. ¢. 49: Διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, ἥν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ὁ χριστὸς ὃ κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν θελήματι θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ 
τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν.] Dorner, in his 
Christology, i. 138, says: “ Hvery interpretation of these passages is forced, 
which does not find in them the idea of substitution ; and this, not only sub- 
jectively, the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, but also, objectively, that his 
substituted experience and acts also had their corresponding objective conse- 
quences.” Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6: Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω. Kai ta ἐπουράνια 
καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε Kal aöparoı, ἐὰν μὴ 
πιστεύσῳσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κάκείνοις κρίσις ἐστιν. (He also de- 
fends the reality of his bodily sufferings in opposition to the Docet&, c. 2.) 
Comp. Höfling, die Lehre der Apostolischen Vater vom Opfer im Christlichen 
Cultus, 1841. The following passage, from the Epistle to Diognetus, is pecu- 
liar, from its pure apprehension of the redemption that is in Christ, as an act 
of love proceeding from the divine compassion, not as reconciling his wrath ; 
(Hefele, Patres Apost. p. 316) : ᾿Επεὶ δὲ πεπλήρωτο μὲν ἡ ἡμετέρα ἀδικιά Kat 
τελείως πεφανέρωτο, ἦλθε δὲ 6 καιρὸς, ὅν Θεὸς προέθετο λοιπὸν φανερῶσαι 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χρηστότητα καὶ δύναμιν, ὡς [τῆς] ὑπερβαλλούσης φιλανθρωπίας 
μία ἀγάπη [τοῦ Θεοῦ], οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἀπώσατο, οὐδὲ ἐμνησικάκησεν, 
ἀλλὰ ἐμακροθύμησεν, ἠνέσχετο, αὐτὸς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρτίας ἀπεδέξατο" 
αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπεδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τὸν ἅγιον ὑπὲρ ἀνόμων, 
τὸν ἄκακον ὑπὲρ τῶν κακῶν, τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ των ἀδίκων, τὸν ἄφθαρτον 
ὑπὲρ τῶν φθαρτῶν, τὸν ἀθάνατον ὑπὲρ τῶν θνητῶν. Ti γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς 
ἁμαρτίας ἡμων ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι ἢ ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη ; ἐν τίνι δικαιωθῆναι 
δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς, ἢ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ ; comp- 
also c.Tand8:.... ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν, OO πείθων, οὐ βιαζόμενος. 
βία γὰρ οὐ πρόσεστι τῷ Θεῷ. , . . God is rather called by him, ἀόργητος. 
[Comp. Neander, Hist. of Church, i, 642.] According to Justin M., the 
object of Christ’s incarnation was to suffer for mankind, Apol. ii. 13: Av’ 
ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν, ὅπως Kal τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων συμμέτοχος 
γενόμενος καὶ ἴασιν ποιήσηται. Comp. Apol. 1. 32: Av’ αἴματος καθαίρων 
τοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ. i. 63: Dial. c. Tryph. § 40-43, and § 95. Justin 
also calls the death of Jesus a sacrifice (mpoodopa) ; comp. the passages quoted 
by Bahr, p. 42, and Semisch, ii. p. 418, ss. On the question whether Justin 


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


§ 68. REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 183 


referred the power of the death of Christ in canceling sin to the whole life 
of the believer, or restricted it to the epoch preceding his deliberate entrance 
into the church, see Semisch, p. 422, sq.; comp. Ep. ad Diognetum, ὁ. 9. The 
writings of Clement of Alexandria also abound in passages upon the efficacy 
of the death of Jesus; Coh. p. 86; comp. Bahr, 1. ο. p. 76; ibid. 88; Peed, 
1. 9, p. 148; ii. 2. p. 177 (διττὸν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου), and other passages. 
A mystical interpretation of the crown of thorns, Peed. ii. 8, p. 214, 715 (with 
reference to Hebr. ix. 22), a passage which Bahr has overlooked. In the 
treatise, Quis Dives Salvus, 34, p. 954, the phrase occurs: αἷμα Θεοῦ παιδὸς 
(not παιδὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ) ; hence the assertion of Bahr (p. 116), that the Luth- 
eran phrase, “the blood of God,’ would have met with opposition on the part 
of all the fathers of this period, must be restricted. On the efficacy of his 
death, see Strom. iv. 7, 583, and other passages. On the other hand, it is 
worthy of notice that Clement, as Philo had done before him, and Origen did 
after him, applies the idea of the high priesthood of Christ in an ideal sense 
to the Logos, without reference to the death which he suffered in his human 
nature; comp. Bahr, p. 81. 

* The fact that the heathen charged the Christians with rendering homage 
to all that were crucified (Orig. ce. Cels. ii. 47, Opp. i. p. 422), shows, to say 
the least, that the latter held the cross in high esteem, On the symbolical 
signification of the cross, and the earlier fanciful interpretations of the alle- 
gorists concerning the blood of Christ, comp. § 29, note 33; and Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. p. 196, sq. On the effects of the cross upon the demons, see 
§ 52, note 4. 

* “The notion that the death of Christ represented the victory over the 
devil was so congruous with the entire circle of ideas in which these times 
moved, that they could not abandon it.” Baur, 1. c. p. 28. Baur also main- 
tains that this mode of considering the death of Christ was transplanted from 
the Gnostics to the church, by simply converting the person of the demiurge 
into that of the devil (7). This view is represented in this period by Zreneus, 
His train of thought is the following: Man came under the dominion of the 
devil by violating the divine commandment. This state of bondage lasted 
from Adam to Christ. The latter delivered men by rendering perfect obedi- 
ence on the cross, and paying a ransom with his blood. God did not rescue 
their souls from the power of the devil by force, as the devil himself had 
done, but secundum suadelam (i. e., according to Baur, ]. c., the devil was 
himself convinced of the justice of the manner in which he was treated). 
But Duncker, p. 237, and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 201, refer the suadela 
more correctly to man, who was delivered from the power of the devil by the 
better conviction he had gained through the teaching of Christ. Comp. the 
passage, on the previous page, from the Ep. ad Diagnetum, ὡς πείθων, οὐ 
βιαζ. [Comp. Dorner, 1. 479 (also against Baur). Dorner makes use of 
the passage from the Ep. ad Diog. to refute Baur’s interpretation of Irenzeus. } 
And as man now voluntarily abandoned the service of the devil, under whose 
sway he had voluntarily placed himself, the jural relation in which God stands 
to man was restored; comp. Iren. Adv. Heer. v. 1, 1: [Et quoniam injuste 
dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit 
nos contra naturam, suos proprios nos faciens discipulos, potens in omnibus Dei 


184 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsum conversus 
est apostasiam, ea que sunt sua redimens ab eo non cum vi, quemadmodum 
ille initio dominabatur nostri, ea que non erant sua insatiabilitur rapiens ; sed 
secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, et non vim 
inferentem, accipere que vellet, ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque 
antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.] From this Irenzeus infers the necessity of 
the Saviour’s twofold nature (here the views of Irenzeus appproach most 
nearly those of Anselm in a later period), ii. 18, 7: "Hvwoev τὸν ἄνθρωπον 
τῷ θεῷ. EI yap μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησε τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ 
ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὃ ἐχθρός ; comp. v. 21, 33 iii. 193: “Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν 
ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῆ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ, etc. (comp. § 65, note 
3). Both elements are here, viz., the perfect obedience of Christ, and the 
shedding of his blood as a ransom (v. 1, 1,: To ἐδίῳ οὖν αἵματι λυτρωσαμένου 
ἡμᾶς τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ τὴν 
σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν, ete.): and thus Irenzeus has 
in his system the negative aspect of the doctrine of redemption; and to this 
is added the positive one, the communication of a new principle of life, iii. 
23,7. Comp. Baur, 1. c. p. 30-42. Bahr, p. 55-72. On the other hand, 
the idea of a sacrifice is in his writings kept in the background, see Duncker, 
p. 252: “The idea of the vicarious sufferings of the Lord, in the sense that 
thereby satisfaction is rendered to the divine justice, injured by our sins, and 
that thus the punishment, which ought in justice to have been inflicted upon 
all men, is canceled—this idea is not found in Irenzus, any more than the 
corresponding notion of an exchange or compact with the devil, by which he 
receives, as it were, a legal compensation for the men he gives up.” [Nean- 
der, i. 642, qualifies this statement about the views of Irenzeus, by adding, 
* but doubtless there is lying at the bottom the idea of a perfect fulfillment 
of the law by Christ; of his perfect obedience to the holiness of God in its 
claims to satisfaction due to it from mankind.” And Thomasius, 11, 176, 
cites from Irenzeus, iii. 18: “ We were God’s enemies and debtors, and Christ 
in his priestly work fulfilled the law”—propitians pro nobis Deum ; and, also, 
xvii. 1: Et propter hoc in novissimis temperibus in amicitiam nos restituit 
Dominus per suam incarnationem, mediator Dei et hominum factus; pro- 
pitians quidem pro nobis Patrem, in quem peccaveramus, et nostram inobedi- 
entiam consolatus, ete. | 

5 On the peculiar usage of the term satisfactio, comp. Münscher, Hanb. i. 
p. 223. Bahr, p. 90, ss. On the question whether Justin M. propounded 
the doctrine of satisfaction, see Semisch, p. 423, 424. The answer to it 
must mainly depend on the interpretation of ὑπέρ, which frequently occurs 
in his writings; Apol. i. 63; Dial. c. Tryph. § 88, and other passages quoted 
by Semisch. He distinctly says that the curse under which Christ was laid, 
was only apparent, Dial. c. Tryph. §. 90; comp. § 94: "Ovrrep οὖν τρόπον 
τὸ σημεῖον διὰ τοῦ χαλκοῦ ὄφεως γενέσθαι ὁ Θεὸς ἐκέλευσε, καὶ ἀναίτιός 
ἐστιν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κατάρα κεῖται κατὰ τῶν σταυρουμένων 
ἀνθρώπων: οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Θεοῦ κατάρα 
κεῖται, OU οὗ σώζει πάντας τοὺς κατάρας ἄξια πράξαντας. ὃ 96: Καὶ 
γὰρ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ 


§ 68. ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 185 


ξύλου οὐχ ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ KaTapwpévov τούτου τοῦ ἐσταυρωμέ- 
νου, ἡμῶν τονοῖ τὴν ἐλπίδα ἐκκρεμαμένην ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυρωθέντος Χριστοῦ, 
ἀλλ᾽ Go προειπόντος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν πάντων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ὑμῖν 
.. μέλλοντο γίνεσθαι. ὃ. 111: ‘O παθητὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σταυρωθεὶς Χριστὸς 
οὐ κατηράθη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλὰ μόνος σώσειν τοὺς μὴ αφισταιιέ- 
γους τῆς πίστεως αὑτοῦ ἐδήλου. The agony of soul in Gethsemane, too, 
according to Justin, only made indubitable the fact of Christ’s human nature, 
and set aside the subterfuge that, because he was the Son of God, he could 
not feel pain as well as other men; cf. Dial. c. Tryph. $ 103. [Comp. 
Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey’s trans.) i. 642: “In Justin Martyr may be 
recognized the idea of a satisfaction rendered by Christ through suffering— 
at least lying at the bottom, if it is not clearly unfolded and held fast in the 
form of conscious thought.” So, too, Thomasius, Christologie, iii. 169.] 
From Tert. De Pon. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, De Pat. 13, De Pud. 9, it is evident 
“that he applies the term satisfaction to such as make amends for their own 
sins by confession and repentance, which shows itself in works ;” but he never 
understands by it satisfactio vicaria in the sense afterward attached to it. 
That Tertullian was far from entertaining this view may be proved from De 
Cultu Fem. i. 1, and the interpretation which he gives to Gal. i, 13, Contra 
Judxos 10; he there represents the crime that had been committed as a 
curse, but not the hanging on the tree (for Christ was not accursed by God, 
but by the Jews); thus also Contra Mare. v. 5, and other passages which are 
quoted by Bahr, p. 89, ss. In other points his views resemble those of 
Irenzus, ibid. p. 100-104. 

° On the relation of these two representations of the matter, viz., that of 
Irenzus, that it was a victory over the devil (which assumes in Origen the 
still more mythical character of an intentional deception on the part of God), 
and that it was a voluntary sacrifice, not having respect, like the former, to 
the idea of justice, but resting rather on the love of God; compare Bawr, p. 
43-67; Bahr, p. 111, sq.; Thomasius, p. 214; Redepenning, 11. 405 ; Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. 203. On the question whether Origen taught an intentional 
deception on the part of God, see (against Baur) Redepenning, p. 406, note 
5. The idea is original that it was a torment to the devil to be obliged to 
keep near him so pure a soul as that of Jesus; he could not keep it, because 
it did not belong to him. Comp. Origen’s Comm, in Matth. T. xvi. 8 (Opp. 
i, 726), and the other passages, Comment. series, $ 75 (on Matth. xxvi. 1, 
Opp: i. 819), and on Matth. Tom. xiii. 8 and 9, in which the giving up of 
the Son by the Father appears as an act of love, in distinction from the 
treachery practiced on him by Satan through his agents (different interpreta- 
tions of the expression παραδίδοσθαι used in both places). Origen’s inter- 
pretation of Is. liii. 3, comes nearest to the view entertained in later times by 
Anselm, Comment. in Joh. Tom. 28, 14. Opp. iv. p. 392. Bähr, p. 151.* 
But still Origen differs from the church doctrine of satisfaction in the man- 
ner in which he explains, e. g., the sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, 


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


186 Fırst PERIOD. ÜHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


and the exclamation of Christ on the cross: My God, my God, ete. Bähr, 
p. 147-149, and Redepenning, p. 408, sq. [On Origen’s views, comp. Thom- 
son’s Bampton Lectures, ubi supra; and Origen, in Joan. Tom. ii. 21; in 
Matth. xvi. 8; and in Rom. ii. 13 (p. 493): Si ergo pretio emti sumus, ut 
etiam Paulus adstipulatur, nec ab aliquo sine dubio emti sumus eujus eramus 
servi, qui et pretium poposcit quod voluit, ut de potestate dimitterat quos 
tenebat. Tenebat autem nos Diabolus, cui distrati fueramus peccatis nostris. 
Poposcit ergo pretium nostrum sanguinem Christi. That Origen also 
brought the death of Christ into relation to God, see his comment on Rom. 
1. 24 (Thomasius, iii. 180): Nunc addit [Paulus] aliquid sublimius et dicit : 
proposuit eum Deus propitiationem, quo scilicet per hostiam sui corporis 
propitium hominibus faceret Deum ; and his Hom. in Lev. ix. 10: Tu, qui 
ad Christum venisti, qui sanguine suo Deum tibi propitium fecit, et recon- 
ciliavit te patri, ete.] 

7 Comp. T. xix. in Joh. (Opp. iv. p. 286), and the passage before quoted 
from T. xxviii. p. 393; Contra Cels. 1. 1, p. 349: Ὅτε ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ἑκὼν 
τοῦτον τὸν θάνατον ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους ἀνεδέξατο, ἀνάλογον 
τοῖς ἀποθανοῦσι ὑπὲρ πατρίδων ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ κρατήσαντα κατα- 
στήματα ἢ ἀφορίας ἢ δυσπλοίας. These human sacrifices were thought to 
be connected with the influence exerted by the demons, which was to be 
removed by them; see Baur, p. 45, and Mosheim, in a note to the transla- 
tion of that passage, p. 70. The death of Christ also gave an additional 
weight to his doctrine, and was the cause of its propagation ; Hom. in Jerem. 
10, 2, comp. Bahr, p. 142, who observes that no ecclesiastical writer of this 
period beside Origen distinctly mentions this point. This idea bears, indeed, 
the greatest resemblance to the modern rationalistico-moral notions concern- 
ing the death of Christ. He also compares the death of Jesus with that of 
Socrates, Contra Cels. ii. 17, Opp. 1. p. 403, ’4, and represents it as a moral 
lever to elevate the courage of his followers, ibid. 40-42, p. 418, 719. 

* Clement, too, saw in the death of the martyrs a reconciling power, 
Strom. iv. 9, p. 596, comp. p. 602, ’3; likewise Orig. Comm, in Joh. (Opp. 
iv. p. 153, 754), Exhort. ad Martyr. 50, Opp. i. p. 309: Τάχα δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ 
τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἠγοράσθημέν... «οὕτως τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τῶν 
μαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί τινες. 

° On the basis of Col. i. 20 (Comment. in Joh. i. 40, Opp. iv. p. 41, 42): 
Οὐ μόνον ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν λοιπῶν λογικῶν. 
De Prine. iv. 25 (Opp. i. p. 188; Red. p. 79 and 364). There are two 
altars on which sacrifice is made, an earthly and a heavenly; Hom. in Lev. 
i, 3 (Opp. ii. p. 186); ii. 3 (ibid. p. 190); comp. Bahr, p. 119, ss. Baur, p. 
64. Thomasius, p. 214-217. Redepenning, Orig. ii. p. 463. 


From all that has been said in reference to the subject in question, it would follow that 
the primitive church held the doctrine of vicarious sufferings, but not that of vicarious 
satisfaction. But we should not lay too much stress upon the negative aspect of this 
inference, so as to justify, or to identify it with, that later interpretation of the death 
of Jesus, which excludes every thing that is mysterious. Comp. Bahr, p. 5-8, and , 
176-180. 


§ 69. Descensus AD INFEROS. 187 


§ 69. 
DESCENSUS AD INFEROS. 


Dietelmaier, J. A., Historia Dogmatis de Descensu Christi ad Inferos, Altorf. 1762, 8. 
Semler, J. A., Observatio historico-dogmatica de vario et impari veterum Studio in 
recolenda Historia Descensus Christi ad Inferos, Hal. 1775. J. Clausen, Dogmatis de 
Descensu Jesu Christi ad Inferos historiam biblicam atque ecclesiasticam composuit, 
Hafn. 1801. Comp. Pott, Epp. cath. Exe. iii. [Comp. also Pearson, On the Creed, 
V. art. and Heylyn, on the Creed, VI. art.] J. L. König, die Lehre von Christi Höllen- 
fahrt, nach der h. Schritt, der ältesten Kirche, den christlichen Symbolen und nach 
ihrer viel umfassenden Bedeutung. Frankf. 1842. E. Giider, Die Lehre von ἃ. Er- 
scheinung Christi unter den Todten, Berl. 1853. F: Huidekoper, The Belief of the 
first Three Centuries concerning Christ’s Mission to the Underworld. Boston. 1854. 
[Archd. Blackburn, Hist. Account of Views about the Intermed. State. 1770. The 
Revealed Economy of Heaven and Earth, Lond. 1853. V. U. Maywahlen, Tod, 
Todtenreich, etc. Berl. 1854; transl. by J. F. Schön, The Intermed. State, Lond. 
1856. The Intermed. State, by the late Duke of Manchester, Lond. 1856. 7. Kör- 
ber, Die kath. Lehre d. Höllenfahrt Jes. Christi. Landshut, 1860.] 


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


1 Acts ii. 27, 31 (Rom. x. 6, 7, 8), Eph. iv. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20 (in con- 
nection with Psalm xvi. 10).—On the clause descendit ad inferos in the 
Apostles’ creed, which is of later origin, see Rufin. Expos. p. 22 (ed. Fell), 
King, p. 169, ss. Pott, 1. ec. p. 300. @. H. Waage, De Atate Articuli, quo 
in Symb. Apost. traditur Jesu Christi ad Inferos Descensus, Her, 1836. This 
clause is first found in the creed of the church of Aquileia, and was brought 
into wider use through Rufinus. [Comp. Harvey on the Three Creeds; 
Pearson, |. c. p. 237: Church Review, 1852; Christ. Rev. 1855; Southern 
Presb. Rev. 1854: Bibl. Sacra, 1855, 1856, 1859.] 

* Apocryphal narrative, in the Ev. Nic. c. 17-27. (Thilo, Cod. Ap. i. p. 
667, ss.) Ullmann, Historisch oder mythisch? p. 228. An allusion is found 
in the Testament of the XII Patriarchs, @rabe, Spice. PP. See. i. p. 250. 
On the passage in the oration of Thaddeus quoted by Eus. i. 13: Kareßn 
εἰς τὸν ἄδην Kal διέσχισε φραγμὸν τὸν ἐξ αἰῶνος μὴ σχισθέντα, καὶ ἀνέστη 
καὶ συνήγειρε νεκροὺς τοὺς an’ αἰώνων κεκοιμημένους, καὶ πῶς κατέβη 
μόνος, ἀνέβη δὲ μετὰ πολλοῦ ὄχλου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, comp. Vales. 
- The passage from the fuller recension of /gn. Ep. ad Trall. ο. 9, ii. p. 64, 
is doubtful; and that from the Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. ix. c. 16, refers 


188 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


properly to the apostles. Justin M. also supposes that Christ preached in 
the nether world, Dial. c. Tryph. ὃ. 72; though he was not compelled to 
this, on account of his views about the λόγος orepuarıröc, in relation to 
the heathen; Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 414. More definite language is first 
used by /ren. iv. 27 (45), p. 264 (347), v. 31, p. 331 (451). Tert. De An. 
7 and 55. Clem. Strom. vi. 6, p. 762-67, and ii, 9, p. 452 (where he quotes 
the passage from Hermas) ; the latter is inclined to extend the preaching of 
the Gospel to the Gentiles in Hades. Orig. Contra Cels. ii. 43 (Opp. i. p. 
419), in libr. Reg. Hom. ii. (Opp. ii. p. 49298), especially towards the 
close. Comp. König, p. 97. Among the heretics we may mention the 
opinion of Marcion, that Christ did not deliver the patriarchs, but Cain, the 
people of Sodom, and all those who had been condemned by the demiurge. 
Iren. i. 27 (29), p. 106 (Gr. 104) (Neander, Hist. Dog. 250). [On the 
opinions of the Fathers, comp. also Pearson, |. c. p. 238, 245, ss., and Hey- 
lyn, 1. c. p. 264, ss.] Other Gnostics wholly rejected the doctrine of the 
Descensus, and explained the passage in Peter of Christ’s appearance on 
the earth. 


§ 70. 
THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. 


Heubner, H. L., Historia antiquior Dogmatis de modo salutis tenend& et justificationis, ete. 
Wittenb. 1805, 4. Wörter, Die christl. Lehre über das Verhältniss von Gnade u. 
Freiheit, etc. Freib. 1856. [Zanderer, as cited before, in the Jahrb. f deutsche 
Theologie, etc.] 


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


§ 70. THe Economy or REDEMPTION. 189 


1 This follows from the passages above cited on human liberty. Justin M., 
Dial. c. Tryph. ὃ 95: Ei μετανοοῦντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις καὶ ἐπιγνόντες 
τοῦτον εἵναι τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐντολὰς ταῦτα φήσετε, 
ἄφεσις ὑμῖν τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν ὅτι ἔσται, προεῖπον. Comp. Orig. Contra Cels. 
iii, 29. Opp. 1. p. 465 (in connection with what is cited $ 68, Note 1), ac- 
cording to whom, every one who lives in compliance with the precepts of 
Christ obtains through him friendship with God, and is vitally united to him. 

* The very circumstance that, in the opinion of the primitive church, sins 
committed after baptism are less easily pardoned (Clem. Strom. iv. 24, p. 
634, Sylb. 536, C.), and the entire ecclesiastical discipline of the first ages 
prove this—As regards μετάνοια, Clement knows the distinction after- 
ward made between contritio and attritio, Strom. iv. 6, p. 580: Tov uera- 
voovvrog δὲ τρόποι δύο' ὁ μὲν κοινότερος, φόβος ἐπὶ τοῖς πραχθεῖσιν, ὁ δὲ 
ἱδιαίτερος, ἡ δυσωπία ἡ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν τὴς ψυχῆς ἐκ συνειδήσεως.---Ου μετά- 
γοία comp. also Pred. 1. 9, 146, and quis Div. Salv. 40, p. 957. 

° Hermas, Pastor. iii. 7: Oportet eum, qui agit peenitentiam, aflligere ani- 
man suam, et humilem animo se prestare in omni negotio, et vexationes mul- 
tas variasque perferre. Justin M. also lays great stress upon the external 
manifestation of repentance by tears, ete. Dial. c. Tryph. $ 141. Cypr. De 
Opere et Eleem. p. 167. (237 Bal.) ; Loquitur in scripturis divinis Spir. S. et 
dicit (Prov. xv. 29) : Eleemosynis et fide delicta purgantur ; non utique illa 
delicta, qua fuerunt ante contracta, nam illa Christi sanguine et sanctificatione 
purgantur. Item denuo dieit (Eceles. iii. 33): Sicut aqua extinguit ignem, 
sic eleemosyna extinguit peccatum. Hic quoque ostenditur et probatur, quia 
sicut lavacro aque salutaris gehenne ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis atque 
operationibus justis delictorum flamma sopitur. Et quia semel in baptismo 
remissa peccatorum datur, assidua et jugis operatio baptismi instar imitata 
Dei rursus indulgentiam largitur (with a further appeal to Luke xi. 41). 
Tears are of much avail, Ep. 31, p. 64, Rettb. p. 323, 389. Origen, Hom. in 
Lev. ii. 4, Opp. 11. p. 190, ’91, enumerates 7 remissiones peccatorum : 1, that 
which is granted in baptism ; 2, that which is obtained by martyrdom; 3, by 
alms (Luke xi. 41) ; 4, by the forgiveness which we grant to those who have 
trespassed against us (Matth. vi. 14); 5, by the conversion of others (James 
v. 20); 6, by exceeding great love (Luke vii. 47; 1 Pet. iv. 8); 7, by pen- 
ance and repentance: Est adhuc et septima, licet dura et laboriosa, per peni- 
tentiam remissio peccatorum, cum lavat peccator in lacrymis stratum suum, 
et fiunt ei lacrymee suze panes die ac nocte, et cum non erubescit sacerdoti 
Domini indicare peccatum suum et queerere medieinam. On the merit of 
the martyrs, comp. § 68. The intercession of confessors yet living is opposed 
by Tert. De Pud. 22. Cyprian also limits their influence to the day of 
judgment, De Lapsis, p. 129 (187).— Concerming a first and second penance, 
see Herme Pastor, Mand. iv. 3, Clem. Strom. ii. 18, p. 459: Καί οὐκ oid’ 
ὁπότέρον αὐτοῖν χεῖρον ἢ TO εἰδότα ἁμαρτάνειν ἢ ueravonoavra ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥμαρ- 
rev πλημμελεῖν αὖθις. The different views of Tertullian before and after his 
his conversion to Montanism may be seen by comparing De Poenit. 7 with 
De Pud. 18. On the controversy between Cyprian and the Novatians see 
the works on ecclesiastical history. 

* Even in the Epistle of Polycarp, the giving of alms is praised as a work 


190 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


that saves from death (appealing to Tob. xii. 9); and hints about the doc- 
trine of works of supererogation (opera supererogatoria) are found in the 
Shepherd of Hermas, Simil. Lib. iii. 5. 3: Si preter ea que non mandavit 
Dominus aliquod boni adjeceris, majorem dignitatem tibi conquires et hono- 
ratior apud Dominum eris, quam eras futurus. Origen speaks in a similar 
manner, Ep. ad Rom. Lib. iii. Opp. T. iv. p. 507 (he makes a subtle distine- 
tion between the unprofitable servant, Luke xvii. 10, and the good and faithful 
servant, Matth. xxv. 21, and appeals to 1 Cor. vii. 25, concerning the com- 
mand to the virgins). 

® During this period, in which theoretical knowledge was made prominent, 
faith was for the most part considered as historico-dogmatic faith in its rela- 
tion to γνῶσις (comp. ὃ 34). Hence the opinion that knowledge in Divine 
things may contribute to justification, while ignorance condemns. Minucius 
Fel. 35: Imperitia Dei sufficit ad peenam, notitia prodest ad veniam. T’heo- 
philus of Antioch also distinctly recognizes only a fides historica, upon 
which he makes salvation to depend, i. 14: ᾿Απόδειξιν οὖν λαβὼν τῶν 
γινομένων καὶ προαναπεφωνημένων, OVK ἀπιστῶ, ἀλλὰ πιστεύω πειθαρχῶν 
θεῷ, ᾧ εἰ βούλεὶ, καὶ σὺ ὑποτάγηθι, πιστεύων αὕτῷ, μὴ νῦν ἀπισθήσας, 
πεισθῆς ἀνιώμενος τότε ἐν αἰωνίοις τιμωρίαις. But though it was reserved 
for later times to investigate more profoundly the idea of justifying faith in 
the Pauline sense, yet correct views on this subject were not entirely wanting 
during this period, comp. Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Cor. 32 and 33: Ἡμεῖς οὖν 
διὰ θελήματος αὑτοῦ [sc. Θεοῦ] ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ κληθέντες οὐ δι’ ἑαυτῶν 
δικαιούμεθα, οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σορίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ ἔργων, 
ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας: ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, δι’ ἧς 
πάντας τοῦ am’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ Θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν. Comp. 37-39. 
Ireneus, too (iv. 18, 2, sq.), distinguishes clearly between the righteousness 
of the law, and the new obedience which comes from faith ; Meander, Hist. 
Dogm. p. 216. Tertull. Adv. Marc. v. 3: Ex fidei libertate justificatur 
homo, non ex legis servitute, quia justus ex fide vivit.* According to Clement 
of Alexandria, faith is not only the key to the knowledge of God (Coh. p. 9), 
but by it we are also made the children of God, ib. p. 23 (comp. § 68, note 
1), and p. 69. Clement accurately distinguishes between theoretical and 
practical unbelief, and understands by the latter the want of susceptibility to 
Divine impressions, a carnal mind which would have every thing in a tangi- 
ble shape, Strom. ii. 4, p. 436. Origen in Num. Hom. xxvi. (Opp. iii. p. 
369): Impossibile est salvari sine fide, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. Opp. iv. p. 
517: Etiamsi opera quis habeat ex lege, tamen, quia non sunt aedificata 
supra fundamentum fidei, quamvis videantur esse bona, tamen operatorem 
suum justificare non possunt, quod eis deest fides, qua est signaculum eorum, 
qui justificantur a Deo. Ξ 

° Clement, Coh. p. 90: Ὦ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μακαρίας ταύτης δυνάμεως, δι᾽ 
ἧς ἀνθρώποις συμπολιτεύεται Θεός Kk. τ. A. Quis. Div. salv. p. 951: Ὅσον 
γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ τις τὸν Θεὸν, τοσούτῳ καὶ πλέον ἐνδοτέρῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ παραδύεται. 
Ideal quietism, Peed. i. 13, p. 160: Τέλος δέ ἐστι θεοσεβείας ἡ ἀΐδιος ἀνά- 


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


§ 70. Tue Economy or REDEMPTION. 19T 


παῦσις ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. Comp. iii. 7, p. 277, 18 (in reference to riches in God), 
Strom. ii. 16, p. 467, 68, iv. 22, p. 627, 630. 

1 Tert. Ad Uxor. 1. 8: Quadam sunt divinee liberalitatis, quedam nostr& 
operationis. Qu a Domino indulgentur, sua gratia gubernantur; que ab 
homine captantur, studio perpetrantur. Cf. De Virg. Vel. 10; De Patient. 1, 
Adv. Hermog. 5. Justin M. and Clement of Alexandria are favorable to 
synergism. Comp. Just. Apol. 1. 10, Dial. c. Tr. $ 32. Clem. of Alex. Coh. 
i. 99. Strom. V. 13, p. 696, vii. 7, p. 860: Ὡς δὲ 6 ἰατρὸς ὑγείαν παρέ- 
xerar τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς ὑγείαν, οὕτως καὶ 6 Θεὸς τὴν ἀΐδιον 
σωτηρίαν τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς γνῶσίν τε καὶ εὐπραγίαν. Quis. 
Div. salv. p. 947: Βουλομέναις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ψυχαῖς συνεπιπνεῖ. 
So, too, Orig. Hom. in Ps. (Opp. T. ii. p. 571): Τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθὸν 
μικτόν ἐστιν ἔκ TE τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συμπνεούσης θείας 
δυνάμεως τῷ τὰ κάλλιστα προελομένῳ ; comp. De Prine. iii. 1, 18 (Opp. i. 
p- 129), and 22, p. 137 (on Rom. ix. 16, and the apparent contradiction 
between 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21, and Rom. ix. 21). Cyprian, De Gratia Dei ad 
Donat. p. 3, 4: Ceterum si tu innocenti&, si justitize viam teneas, si illapsa 
firmitate vestigii tui incedas, si in Deum viribus totis ac toto corde suspensus, 
hoe sis tantum quod esse ccepisti, tantum tibi ad licentiam datur, quantum 
gratis spiritalis augetur. Non enim, qui beneficiorum terrestrium mos est, 
in capessendo munere coelesti mensura ulla vel modus est: profluens largiter 
spiritus nullis finibus premitur, nec ccercentibus claustris intra certa metarum 
spatia freenatur, manat jugiter, exuberat affluentur. Nostrum tantum sitiat 
pectus et pateat; quantum illuc fidei capacis afferimus, tantum gratie inun- 
dantis haurimus. De Orat. dom. p. 144 (208); Adv. Jud. 11. 25, ss. p. 72, 
42, 88., p. 77, ss. 

* Hermas represented the predestination of God as dependent on his fore- 
knowledge, Lib. iii, Simil. 8, 6, likewise Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. § 141. 
Iren. iv. 29, 2, p. 267. Minuc, Fel. ὁ. 36. Tert. adv. Marc. ii. 23. Clem. 
Al. Peed. i. 6, p. 114: Oidev οὖν (ὁ Θεὸς) οὺς κέκληκεν, οὺς σέσωκεν. 
According to Strom. vi. p. 763, it is men’s own fault if they are not elected. 
They resemble those who voluntarily jump out of the vessel into the sea. 
“ Thus the practical sense of Cyprian rebelled against the doctrine of rigid 
predestination, of irresistible grace; he could not with so bold a front admit 
all the consequences which are found in the stupendous fabric of Augustine's 
system.” —“ That the bishop of Hippo still thought that he discovered his own 
orthodoxy in the writings of Cyprian, may perhaps be ascribed to his joy at 
Jinding in him the premises, from which he drew the conclusions. Rettberg, 
Ῥ- 321.” 

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


192 First PERIOD. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 


intention. Origen (as Schleiermacher in later times) sees in what is called 
reprobatio, only a longer delay of the grace of God. As a physician often 
employs those remedies which at first apparently produce bad effects, but 
heal the disease (homeopathically ?) radically, instead of using such as effect 
a speedy cure, so God acts in his long suffering for men; he prepares their 
souls not only for the span of this short life, but for eternity, ibid. p. 121. 
(Redep. p. 26.) He adduces a similar illustration from the husband- 
man (after Matth. xiii, 8), and then goes on, p. 123: "Ἄπειροι yap ἡμῖν, 
ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, αἱ ψυχαὶ, καὶ ἄπειρα τὰ τούτων ἤθη καὶ πλεῖστα boa τὰ 
κινήματα καὶ αἱ προθέσεις καὶ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ, ὧν εἷς μόνος οἰκονόμος 
ἄριστος, καὶ τοὺς καιροὺς ἐπιστάμενος, καὶ τὰ ἀρμόζοντα βοηθήματα καὶ 
τὰς ἀγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς, 6 τῶν ὅλων θεὸς καὶ πατήρ. See ibid. the inter- 
pretation of Ezek, xi. 19, and other passages. On the connection between 
Origen’s doctrine of predestination and his doctrine of the preéxistence of 
the soul, comp. De Princ. ii. 9, 7 (Opp. i. p. 99); Red. p. 220), in reference 
to Jacob and Esau. Origen also held, like the other fathers prior to the 
time of Augustine, that predestination was dependent on foreknowledge, 
Philoe. e. 25, on Rom. viii, 28, 29 (quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, 
i. p. 369). “ All the fathers of this period agree that God so far predestines 
men to blessedness or condemnation, as he foresees their free acts, by which 
they are made worthy of reward or punishment; but the foreseeing these 
acts is not the cause of them, but the acts are the cause [ground] of the fore- 
knowledge.” Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 212. 


FIETH DIVISION. 


THE CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


Sat 


THE CHURCH. 

Henke, H. Th. C., Historia antiquior Dogmatis de Unitate Ecelesie. Helmst. 1781. 
+.Möhler, die Einheit der Kirche. Tüb. 1825. *Rothe, Rich., die Entwicklung des 
Begriffs der Kirche in ihrem ersten Stadium. (The third book of his work: die 
Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung. Wittenb. 1837, i. vol.) (688, 
die Einheit der Kirche im Sinne Cyprians (in Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit 
Wiirtembergs. Stuttgart, 1838, ii. 1, p. 147). Huther, Cyprian, comp. § 26, note 9. 
‚Schenkel, see § 30. In reference to Rothe’s work: Petersen, A., die Idee der christ- 
lichen Kirche. Lpzg. 1839-44, 3 vols. 8. Jul. Müller, Die unsichtbare Kirche (in 
the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. chr. Wiss. 1850, No. 2). J. Köstlin, Die katholische Auf- 
fassung von d. Kirche (ibid. 1855, Nos. 33, 46, 1856, No. 12). Münchmeier, von der | 
sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, Götting. 1854. [Arthur Litton, The Church in 
its Idea, etc. Lond. 1851. Scherer, Esquisse d’une Theorie de l’Eglise chretienne, 
1844. W. Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Am. ed. 2, 1841. On Cyprian’s view, 
Nevin in Mercersb. Rey. 1852, three articles. 7%. Kliefoih, Acht Bücher von d. 
Kirche, 1854, sq. Hauber in Herzog’s Realencyclop. Bd. vii. Ritschl, Die Begriffe 
sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirche, in Stud. und Krit. 1859, reviewing Münchmeier, 
J. H. Friedlieb, Schrift, Tradition, etc., Breslau, 1854. Thos. Greenwood, Cathedra 
Petri, 4 vols. Lond. 1856-60. Bishop Kaye, Government and Discipline of the 
Church in the First Three Centuries, Lond. 1855. F. C. Baur, Das Christenthum ἃ, 
drei ersten Jahrh. 1853, p. 239, sq.] 


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


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


194 First PERIOD. CHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


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


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

® On the term ἐκκλησία in general (corresponding to the Hebrew τῆ 
bmp, nı2, Nips) Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17; 1 Cor. x. 32; Eph. 1. 22; Col.i. 18, 
24: comp. Suicer, Thes. sub voce; Rothe, p. 74, ss.; and the anonymous 
work, Zukunft d. evang. Kirche, Leipz. 1849, p. 42: “The solemn and em- 
phatic meaning of the words, called, calling (καλεῖν, κλῆσις, kAnrot), which 
sound out to us from all parts of the writings of the New Testament, may 
have essentially contributed in lending to the word ecclesia, formed from the 
same root, its significance, as designating the whole company of the elect, the 
called.” The phrase ἐκκλησία καθολική first occurs in the inscription of the 
Ep. Smyrn. de mart. Polycarpi about the year 169 (Eus. iv. 15). Comp. Zgn. 
ad Smyrn. 8: Ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ἡ Χριστὸς ᾿Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. 
How great an importance the fathers were accustomed to attribute to the 
church, may be seen from Jreneus, Adv. Heer. iii. 4, 1, and iii. 24, (40). The 
church alone contains all the riches of truth: out of her there are nothing 
but thieves and robbers, pools with foul water: Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et 
spiritus Dei, ubi spiritus Dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia (comp. Huther, 1. c. 
p. 4, 5); iv. 31, 3, where the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot was 
transformed, represents the imperishability of the church; and other pas- 
sages (comp. $ 34, notes 1 and 2). Clement of Alexandria derives the term 
and the idea of ἐκκλησία from the elect forming a society, Coh. p. 69, and 
Peed. i. 6, p. 114: ‘Qe yap τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ἔργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο Κόσμος 
ὀνομάζεται: οὕτως καὶ τὸ βούλημα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ τοῦτο 
Ἐκκλησία κέκληται" οἷδεν οὖν ovd¢ κέκληκεν, οὺς σέσωκεν. Comp, Strom. 
vii. 5, p. 846: Οὐ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισμα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν 
"ErkAnolav καλῶ x, τ. A, Clement describes the church as a mother, Peed. 


4 


$ 71. Tue Cuurcn. 195 


i. 5, p. 110; and as both a mother and a virgin, c. 6, p. 123; in speaking of 
this subject in other places he indulges in allegories, p. 111, ss. The church 
is the body of the Lord, Strom. vii. 14, p. 885; comp. p. 899, 900 (765 
Sylb.). Though Clement asserts that only the true Gnosties (οἱ ἐν τῇ 
ἐπιστήμῃ) form the church, yet he does not so much contrast with them 
those who have only faith, as the heretics who have only opinions (οἴησις), 
and the heathen who live in total ignorance (ἄγνοια), Strom. vii. 16, p. 894, 
(760 Sylb.). Origen also, though, generally speaking, he judges mildly of 
heretical or sectarian opinions (Contra Cels. iii. § 10-13), knows of no salva- 
tion out of the church, Hom. iii. in Josuam (Opp. ii. p. 404): Nemo semet- 
ipsum decipiat, extra hanc domum, i. e. extra ecclesiam nemo salvetur, and 
Selecta in Iob. ibid. iii, p. 501, 502. Yet with him every thing turns upon 
a living union with Christ: Christus est lux vera . . . . ex cujus lumine 
illuminata ecclesia etiam ipsa lux mundi efficitur, illuminans eos qui in tenebris 
sunt: sicut et ipse Christus contestatur discipulis suis, dicens: Vos estis lux 
mundi; ex quo ostenditur, quia Christus quidem lux est Apostolorum, Apostoli 
vero lux mundi. Z/psi enim sunt non habentes maculam vel rugam aut aliquid 
hujuscemodi vera ecclesia (Hom.i in Gen. Opp. i.p. 54). Consequently, a dis- 
tinction between the true and the false church! As to the views of Tertul- 
lian, we must make a distinction between those which he held prior, and those 
which he entertained subsequent to his conversion to Montanism. Comp. Nean- 
der, Antign. p. 264, ss. The principal passages relative to his early opinions 
are: De Prescript. c. 21, ss. 32, 35; De Bapt. c. 8; De Orat. c. 2, where 
the above figures about the ark of Noah, and the mother, are carried out at 
length (see Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 70). So, too, Cyprian, Ep. 4, 
p. 9: Neque enim vivere foris possunt, cum domus Dei una sit, et nemini 
salus esse, nisi in ecclesia possit. He, too, adduces a profusion of similar im- 
ages. Comp. note 3. 


“ The common opinion, that the proposition : quod extra ecclesia nulla salus, or : de ecclesia, 
extra quam nemo potest esse salvus, was for the first time laid down by Augustine, in 
the fourth century, in the Donatist controversy, is incorrect. It was only the necessary 
consequence and application of earlier principles, and was distinctly implied in the form 
which the doctrine of the church had assumed since the time of Ireneus. Hence we find 
in the writings of the latter many allusions to it, though he does not make use of this formula 
of terror.” Marheineke (in Daub und Creuzers Studien, iii. p. 187). 


* On the unity of the church, see Clem. Al. Peed. i. 4, p. 103; c. 6, p. 
123: Ὦ θαύματος μυστικοῦ" εἷς μὲν ὃ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ' εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ τῶν 
ὅλων λόγος" καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πανταχοῦ" μία δὲ μόνη 
γίνεται μήτηρ παρθένος κ. τ. A. Strom. i. 18, p. 375, vil. 6, p. 848, and 
other passsages. Concerning the opinion of Tertull. comp. the passages 
before cited. Cyprian wrote a separate work on the doctrine of the unity 
of the church about the year 251: De Unitate Ecclesiz, with which, how- 
ever, several of his extant letters (see note 4) should be compared. He adds 
some new images to those used by Tertullian, as illustrative of this unity: 
the sun which breaks into many rays; the tree with its many branches, and 
the one power in the tough root; the one source which gives rise to many 
brooks: Avelle radium solis a corpore, divisionem lucis unitas non capit: ab 


196 First PERIOD. ÜHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE, 


arbore frange ramum, fractus germinare non poterit; a fonte precide rivum, 
precisus arescet. Sic ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios 
suos porrigit, etc. He also carries out at great length the image of the one 
mother: Illius fetu nascimur, illius lacte nutrimur, spiritu ejus animamur. 
He who has not the church for his mother, has no longer God for his father 
(De Unit. Eccles. 5, 6). After the analogy of the Old Test. faithlessness 
toward the church is compared to adultery. The Trinity itself is an image 
of the unity of the church (comp. Clement, 1. c.); also the coat of Christ 
which could not be rent, the passover which must be eaten in one house; the 
one dove in Solomon’s Song; the house of Rahab which was alone preserved, 
etc. Quite in consistence with such notions, but harshly, he maintains, that 
martyrdom out of the church, so far from being meritorious, is rather an 
aggravation of sin: Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est.... 
Occidi talis potest, coronari non potest, ete. Comp. Rettb. 241, ss., p. 355, 
ss. p. 867, ss. Huther, p. 52-59. (Comp. the passages quoted by Mün- 
scher, 1. c. p. 70, ss.) 

* If the genuineness of the epistles of Ignatius (even of the shorter recen- 
sion) were fully established, they would prove beyond all dispute that submis- 
sion to the bishops was considered as a doctrine of the church at a very 
early period. Comp. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. 8: Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε. 
ὡς ’Inooüc Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, etc., ad Polye. ο. 6: TH ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε, 
ἵνα καὶ 6 Θεὸς ὑμῖν ; ad Eph.c. 4: [Πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν τῆ τοῦ ἐπισκό- 
που γνώμῃ, ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε. Τὸ γὰρ ἀξιονόμαστον ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἄξιον, οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ.] ad 
Magn. ο. 6; ad Philad. c. 7; ad Trall. c. 2: [’Avaykaiov οὖν ἔστιν... ἄνευ 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσσειν ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσασθε καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτε- 
ρίῳ.] Comp. Rothe, p. 445, ss., and Bunsen, p. 93. Jren. iii. 14, iv. 26, 
(43), v. 20. On the succession of the bishops: ili. 3 (primacy of the Romish 
church) ; comp. with it Meander, Church Hist. (Torrey), i. 204. [ @ieseler, 
i. 150, note 10; Kuhn (R. C.) in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, p. 205.] 
Though Tertullian at first appeared willing, De Prescr. c. 32, to concede to 
the church of Rome the precedence over other churches, yet, after his con- 
version to Montanism, he combatted the pretensions of the Romish bishops, 
De Pud. 21; he there alludes particularly to the words of Christ addressed 
to Peter: dabo tibi claves ecclesize—and maintains that the word bi refers 
to Peter alone, and not to the bishops. He supposed that the spiritually- 
minded (πνευματικοί) were the successors of Peter, and distinguished be- 
tween the ecclesia spiritus per spiritales homines (in which the Trinity 
dwells), and taat ecclesia, which is composed of the sum total of the bishops 
(numerus episcoporum). On this ground (but not in the purely apostolic 
sense) he defended the idea of a spiritual priesthood. Meander, Antignosti- 
cus, p. 258-59, and p. 272. On the contrary, Cyprian conceives that the 
true priestly dignity is expressed in the episcopal power itself (not indeed in 
that of the Romish bishops exclusively, but in that of all the bishops collect- 
ively, which he views in its solidarity, as if it were one man), and thinks 
that the unity of the church is represented by the successors of the apostles ; 
so that he who is not with the bishops, is not with the church. Cbmp. 
especially the following epistles: 45, 52, 55, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 76 (c. 2), 


§ 72. Baptism. 197 


see Huther, p. 59, ss. Rettberg, p. 367, ss. Gress, p. 150, ss. Meander, 
Church Hist., i. 214 (Torrey’s transl.). Here, however, the Alexandrian 
school takes a different and contrasted view. According to Origen (Com- 
ment. in Matth. xii. 10), all true believers are also πέτροι, of whom holds 
good the word spoken to Peter. Comp. De Orat. c. 28, and Neander, Hist. 
Dog. (Ryland), p. 224. 

° Wherever the term ἐκκλησία occurs in the Clementine Homilies (Hom. 
iil, 60, 65, 67, p. 653, ss.; vil. 8, p. 680; Credner, iii. p. 308; Baur, p. 373), 
it is to be understood in a limited sense, They do not rise to the idea of a 
catholic church, although they indicate the tendency to a strict, hierarchical 
church constitution; comp. Schliemann, u. s. page 4, 247, sq. Concerning 
the Ebionites, Epiphanius observes, Heer. 30, 18, p. 142: Συναγωγὴν dé 
οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. Comp. Credner, 
ii. p. 236. The Ebionitic tendency converted the idea of a church into that 
of a Jewish synagogue sect, the Gnostics refined it into an idealistic world 
of ons (Baur, p. 172); there a body without life, here a phantom without 
body. For the views of the Montanists concerning the church (vera, pudica, 
sancta, virgo: Tertull. de pudic. 1), which, as a spiritual church, is com- 
posed of homines pneumatici, see Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 47, ss. 229, ss. 
The Montanists made no more distinction between the visible and invisible 
church than did the catholic church; but they prepared the way for it. 
See Schwegler, p. 232. 


§ 72. 


BAPTISM. 


Voss, G. J., De Baptismo, disputt. xx. Opp. Amstel. 1701, fol. T. vi Matthies, C. St, 
Baptismatis Expositio biblica, historica, dogmatica. Berol. 1831. Walch, J. @., His- 
toria Peedo-baptismi 4 priorum secul. Jen. 1739, 4. (Misc. Sacr. Amstel. 1744, 4.) 
[ Robinson, the History of Baptism, Lond. 1790. Halley, R., The Sacraments. P. I. 
Baptism. Lond. 1844.] J. W. F. Hojling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, nebst anderen 
damit zusammenhangenden Acten der Initiation, 2 Bde. Erl. 1846. [Edward Beecher, 
Baptism with reference to its Import and Modes, New York, 1849. Bunsen’s Hippo- 
lytus, vol. ii. Wall, W., Hist. of Infant Baptism, 2 vols. 1705, 4 vols. 1845. Leopold 
on Tertullian’s views on Infant Baptism in the Zeitschrift f d. Hist. Theol. 1854, p. 
172. On Origen on Infant Baptism, see Journal of Sacr. Lit. 1853; Christian Review 
(Chase), 1854. EZ. B. Pusey, in Tracts for the Times, No. 67, 3d ed. 1840. Chrono- 
logical Catena on Baptism, Lond. 1852. W. Goode, Effects of Infant Baptism, 1851. 
R. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Holy Baptism, 1851. J. B. Mozley, Primitive Doctrine 
of Baptismal Regeneration, Lond.1856. J. Gibson, Testimony of Script. and Fathers 
of first five centuries to Nature and Effects of Baptism, Lond, 1854.] 


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


198 First PERIOD. CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


and absurd allegories, and symbolisms,? while Origen draws a more 
distinct line between the external sign and the thing signified.?” In- 
fant baptism had not come into general use before the time of Ter- 
tullian ; and this father, though a strenuous advocate of the doctrine 
of original sin, nevertheless opposed peedo-baptism, on the ground 
that an innocent age needs no cleansing from sins. Origen, on the 
contrary, is in favor of infant baptism.’ In the time of Cyprian it 
became more general in the African church, so that the African bishop 
Fidus, appealed to the analogy of circumcision under the Old Test. 
dispensation, and proposed to delay the performance of the ceremony 
of baptism to the eighth day, which, however, Cyprian did not allow.° 
The baptism of newly converted persons was still frequently deferred 
till the approach of death (Baptismus Clinicorum).’—During this 
period a question arose, intimately connected with the doctrine of 
the nature of the church, viz., whether the baptism of heretics was 
to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the 
Catholic church was fo be rebaptized ? In opposition to the usage 
of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, 
the principle was established in the Romish church under Stephen, 
that the rite of baptism, if duly performed, was always valid, and 
its repetition contrary to the tradition of the church (7. e., the 
Romish church).’ Baptism was entirely rejected by some Gnostic 
sects, while it was held in high esteem by the Marcionites and 
Valentinus. But the mode of baptism which they adopted was 
altogether different from that of the Catholic church, and founded 
upon quite another principle” The idea of a baptism of blood 
originated with martyrdom, and found response in the sympathies 
of the age.” 


* Concerning the baptism of Christ and of the Apostles, comp. the works 
on Biblical Theology, and in reference to the mode of baptism (immersion, 
formula, etc.), see the works on Archeology. Augusti, vol. vii. As to the 
words used at baptism, baptism in the name of Christ alone seems to be more 
ancient than in the name of the three persons of the Trinity ; comp. Höfling, 
p. 35,sq. On the terms: βάπτισμα, βαπτισμός, λοῦτρον, φωτισμός, σφραγίς. 
and others, comp. the Lexicons. Respecting baptism as it was practiced pre- 
vious to the appearance of Christ, see Schneckenburger, tiber das Alter der 
jüdischen Proselytentaufe und deren Zusammenhang mit dem johanneischen 
und christlichen Ritus, Berlin, 1828, where the literature is given, [and Ha/- 
ley, R., Lect. on the Sacraments, P. i. Baptism, p. 111-161]. Like the Apos- 
tles, the first teachers of the church regarded baptism, not as a mere ritual 
act, but as having its objective results. “ Baptism was to them not m£rely a 
significant symbol, representing to the senses the internal consecration and 
renewal of the soul, but an efficacious medium for really conveying to be- 
lievers the blessings of the gospel, and especially the benefits of the sacrificial 
death of Christ.” Semisch, Justin ἃ. Mart. ii. 426, 


$ 72. Baprism. 199 


® On the magical influence which the Clementine Homilies ascribe to 
water, in connection with the notions widely spread in the East, comp. e. g., 
Hom. ix. and x.; see Baur, Gnos. p. 372.  Oredner, ]. e. ii. p- 236, and iii. 
p- 303. Concerning the Ebionites, it is said by Epiph., Indicul. ii. p. 53: Τὸ 
ὕδωρ ἀντὶ θεοῦ ἔχουσι, comp. Her. 30. Together with the symbolism of the 
cross, we find in the writings of the apostolical fathers a symbolical interpre- 
tation of water: Barn. 11. Hermas, Pastor, Vis. iii. 3; Mand. iv. 3; Simil. 
ix. 6. Justin M, (Apol. i. 61) contrasts regeneration by the baptismal water 
with natural birth ἐξ ὑγρᾶς σπορᾶς. By the latter we are τέκνα ἀνάγκης, 
ayvoiac; by the former τέκνα προαιρέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης, ἀφέσεώς TE 
ἁμαρτιῶν ; hence the Aovrpov is also called φωτισμός. Comp. Dial. c. Tr. 
c. 13 and 14, where the contrast between baptism and Jewish lustrations is 
urged. Theoph. Ad. Aut. ii. 16, applies the blessing God pronounced on the 
fifth day of the work of creation upon the creatures which the waters brought 
forth, to the water used in baptism. Clement of Alexandria, Ped. i. 6, p. 113, 
connects the baptism of Christians with the baptism of Jesus. He became 
τέλειος only by it. And so it is with us: Βαπτιζόμενοι φυτιζόμεθα, φωτιζό- 
μενοι. υἱοποιούμεθα, υἱοποιούμενοι τελειούμεθα, τελειούμενοι ἀπαθανατιζό- 
μεθα. Baptism is ἃ χάρισμα. Comp. also p. 116, 117, where the baptized, 
in allusion to the cleansing power of water, are called διυλιζόμενοι (filtered). 
On account of the union between the element and the Logos, or his power 
and spirit, he also calls baptism ὕδωρ λογικόν ; Coh. p. 79. ΑἹ] former lus- 
trations are abolished by baptism, being all included in it, Strom. iii. 12, p. 
548,749. Iren. ii. 17 (19), p. 208 (224). As dough can not be made of 
dry flour without the addition of some fluid, so we, the many, can not be 
united in one body in Christ without the cement of water which comes down 
from heayen; and as the earth is quickened and rendered fruitful by dew and 
rain, so Christianity by the heavenly water, ete. Tertullian wrote a separate 
treatise on this subject, entitled De Baptismo. Though he rejects the notion 
of a merely magical and mechanical blotting out of sins by baptism, and 
makes the efficacy of baptism dependent on repentance (De Peenitentia, c. 6), 
yet he takes occasion, from the cosmical and physical importance of water, 
to adduce numerous analogies. Water (felix sacramentum aque nostre, qua 
abluti delictis pristine caecitatis in vitam seternam liberamur!) is in his view 
the element in which Christians alone feel at home, as the small fishes which 
follow the great fish (IXOYZ). Heretics, on the contrary, are the amphibious 
generation of vipers and snakes that can not live in wholesome water. Water 
is of great importance for the whole universe, The Spirit of God moved 
upon the face of the waters—so upon the waters of baptism. As the church 
is compared with the ark (see the previous §), so the water of baptism is con- 
trasted with the deluge, and the dove of Noah is a type of the dove—the Spirit.* 


* Concerning these manifold allegorical interpretations of fish, dove, etc., comp. Münter, 
Sinnbilder der Christen, and Augusti in his essay: Die Kirchenthiere, in vol. xii. of his 
work on the Antiquities of the Christian Church, But Tertullian rightly says in reference 
to himself: Vereor, ne laudes aquee potius quam baptismi rationes videar congregasse ! 
[See also the works of Didron, Piper, Twining, etc., as referred to in § 8, supra. On the 
representation of baptism in the Catacombs, see Perret’s work, ubi supra, and Dublin 
Review, Dec. 1858.] 


200 First Periop. CHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


As power is inherent in all water, it is indifferent what kind of water is 
used. The water of the Tiber possesses the same power as the water of 
Jordan ; still water produces the same effects as running water, De Bapt. 4: 
Omnes aque de pristina originis prerogativa sacramentum sanctificationis 
consequuntur, invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de calis et 
aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificate vim sanctifi- 
candi combibunt. He also compares (c. 5) the baptismal water with the 
pool of Bethesda; as the latter was troubled by an angel, so there is a spe- 
cial angel of baptism (angelus baptismi), who prepares the way for the Holy 
Spirit. (Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua 
emundati sub angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur.)—[On Tertullian, comp. 
Leopold, in Zeitschrift f. Hist. Theol. 854; and Bibl. Sacra (Andover), 1846, 
p- 680-91, 1848, p. 308, sq.] Cyprian spoke of the high importance of 
baptismal water from his own experience, de Grat. ad Donat. p. 3. He does 
not indeed maintain that water purifies as such (peccata enim purgare et 
hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et Spiritum S. Ep. 74, 
p- 213), but his comparisons make the impression of a magical efficacy of 
water. The devil was cast out of Pharaoh, when he and all his host were 
drowned in the Red Sea (the sea is a symbol of baptism, according to 1 Cor. 
x.) ; for the power of the devil only reaches to the margin of the water. As 
scorpions and snakes are strong on dry land, but lose their strength, and must 
vomit their poison, when thrown into water, so the unclean spirits. In short, 
whenever water is mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, the Punie symbolism 
is at once applied to it—“ it is, therefore, not at all surprising, that the rock 
in the wilderness, as well as the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, and many 
others, are regarded as types of baptism.” Rettberg, p. 332. 

° The term σύμβολον itself, which Origen uses Adv. Cels. iii. (Opp. i. p. 
481), and Comment. in Joh. (Opp. iv. p. 132), indicates a more or less dis- 
tinct idea of the difference between the image and the thing which it rep- 
resents. Nevertheless (οὐδὲν ἧττον), from the last-mentioned passage it is 
evident that he also considers baptism as something κατ᾽ αὐτό, viz., ἀρχὴ καὶ 
πηγὴ χαρισμάτων θείων, because it is administered in the name of the divine 
Trias. Comp. Hom. in Lue. xxi. (Opp. i. p. 957). 

* The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage 
of the primitive church are doubtful, and prove nothing: viz. Mark x. 14; 
Matt. xvi. 4,6; Acts ii. 38, 39,41; Acts x. 48; 1 Cor.i.16; Col. ii. 11, 
12. [Comp. #. Beecher, Baptism, its Imports and Modes, 1. 1849. Leonard 
Woods, Works, Andover, 1850, vol. ii. N. Z. Rice, Baptism, its Mode, 
Subjects, ete., New York, 1856. AR. Wardlaw, Scriptural Authority of Inf. 
Baptism. Ripley, in Christ. Rev. Oct. 1841. R. Halley, on the Sacraments. 
I. Baptism, (Cong. Lect. England.) Waterland’s Works, ii. 171, sq.) Justin 
Mart. Apol. 1. 15, speaks of μαθητεύεσθαι ἐκ παίδων, but this does not 
necessarily involve baptism; comp. Semésch, ii, 431, sq. Nor does the 
earliest definite passage in the writings of the fathers, Zren. Adv. Heer. ii. 22, 
4, p. 147 (see § 68, note 1), afford any absolute proof. It only expresses the 
beautiful idea that Jesus was Redeemer in every stage of life, and for every 
stage of life; but it does not say that he redeemed children by the water of 
baptism, unless baptism is interpreted into the term renascé (comp., however, 


$ 72. Barrısm. * 201 


Thiersch, in the Zeitschrift f. d. Luth. Theol. 1841, p. 177, and Höfling, Die 
Taufe, p. 112). Just as little can this passage prove any thing against the 
usage. That, on the other hand, infant baptism was customary in Tertul- 
lian’s times, is proved by his opposition to it. De Bapt. 18. He alleges the 
following reasons against it: 1. The importance of baptism—not even earthly 
goods are intrusted to those under age; 2. The consequent responsibility of 
the sponsors; 3. The innocence of children (quid festinat innocens ztas ad 
remissionem peccatorum ?) ; 4. The necessity of being previously instructed 
in religion (Ait quidem Dominus: nolite eos prohibere ad me venire. Veniant 
ergo dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant 
Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint) ; 5. The great responsibility which 
the subject of baptism takes upon him (Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, 
magis timebunt consecutionem, quam dilationem). From the last-mentioned 
reason he recommends even to grown-up persons (single persons, widows, etc.) 
to delay baptism till they are either married, or have formed the firm resolution 
to live a single life. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 209, 210. [Robinson, 
l. ec. ch. xxi. p. 164, ss.] 

° The views of Origen, Comm, in Ep. ad Rom. v. (Opp. iv. p. 565), in 
Lev. Hom. viii. (Opp. i. p. 230), in Lucam (Opp. iii. p. 948), were connected 
with his notions concerning the stain in natural generation (comp. § 63, note 
4). But it is worthy of notice, that in the first of the above passages he 
calls infant baptism a@ rite derived from the Apostles: [Ecclesia ab apostolis 
traditionem accepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi 
quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quod essent in omni- 
bus genuine sordes peccati, que per aquam et spiritum ablui deberent.] And 
so it was held to be, in the third century, in the North African, Alexandrian, 
and Syrian-Persian church; Mani among the Persians appealed to infant 
baptism as customary (August. ὁ. Julian, ii, 187); comp. Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), p. 234. [On Origen’s views compare Journal of Sacred 
Lit. 1853, and Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. iii. ] 

° See Cypr. Ep. 59 (written in the name of 66 occidental bishops; Ep. 64, 
edit. Fell, Oxon). Cyprian maintains that infants should be baptized as soon 
as is possible: it is, however, remarkable that his argument in favor of 
infant baptism is not founded upon the guilt of original sin, but upon the 
innocence of infants. Tertullian, on the other hand, urges this very reason 
in opposition to infant baptism. But Cyprian looks more at the beneficial 
effects it is designed to produce, than at the responsibility which is attached 
to it. As we do not hesitate to salute the new-born, yet innocent babe, with 
the holy kiss of peace, “ since we still see in him the fresh handiwork of God,” 
so we should not raise any objection to his being baptized. Comp. Rettb. p. 
331. Meander (Torrey’s transl.), i. 314. 

7 On this custom, comp. the works on ecclesiastical history and antiqui- 
ties; Cyprian, Ep. 76 (69, Edit. Ox. p. 185), where some very thorny ques- 
tions are raised respecting sprinkling. [Münscher, 1. e. i. p. 464.] Against 
the delay : Const. Apost. vi. 15, so far as it proceeds from depreciation or levity. 


* Gieseler, in his Dogmengesch, maintains that renasci can here be understood only of 
baptisnt; Neander, Hist. Dog. (Ryland), p. 230, is more reserved. 


202 First Preriop. CHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


Tertullian allows even laymen, but not women, to administer the rite of bap- 
tism in cases of emergency; de Bapt. c. 17. Comp. Const. Apost. ii. c. 9-11. 

® Clement of Alexandria recognizes only that baptism as valid which is 
administered in the catholic church: Τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ αἱρετικὸν οὐκ οἰκεῖον 
καὶ γνήσιον ὕδωρ, Strom. i. 19, p. 875: so, too, Tert. De Bapt. c. 15: Unus 
omnino baptismus est nobis tam ex Domini evangelio, quam ex Apostoli lit- 
teris, quoniam unus Deus et unum baptisma et una ecclesia in ceelis.... 
Heretici autem nullum habent consortium nostre diseiplin®, quos extraneos 
utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognos- 
cere, quod mihi est praeceptum, quia non idem Deus est nobis et illis, nec 
unus Christus, i. e. idem: ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem. 
Quem quum rite non habeant, sine dubion on habent. Comp. De Pud. 19; De 
Prescr, 12.—The Phrygian synods of Iconium and Synnada (about the year 
235) pronounced the baptism of heretics invalid, see the letter of Firmilian, 
bishop of Czesarea, to Cyprian (Ep. 75), Eus. vii. 7. [Münscher ed. by von 
Cölln, i. p. 473.] A synod held at Carthage (about the year 200), under 
Agrippinus, had used similar language; see Cypr. Ep. 73 (ad Jubianum, p. 
129, 130, Bal.). Cyprian adopted the custom of the Asiatic and African 
churches, and insisted that heretics should be re-baptized ; though according 
to him this was not a repetition of the act of baptism, but the true baptism ; 
comp. Ep. 71, where he uses baptizari, but not re-baptizari, in reference to 
heretics. Concerning the subsequent controversy with Stephen, comp. 
Neander, Church Hist., i. 319, sq. Kettberg, p. 156, ss. The epistles 69-75 
of Cyprian refer to this subject. Stephen recognized baptism administered 
by heretics as valid, and merely demanded the laying on of hands as signifi- 
cant of panitentia (with oblique reference to Acts vii. 17). The African 
bishops, on the other hand, restricted this latter rite to those who had once 
been baptized in the catholic church, but afterwards fallen away and returned 
back again; and they appealed to the custom observed by the heretics 
themselves in confirmation of their view. Such lapse could, of course, not 
be re-baptized. The African usage was confirmed by the synods of Carthage 
(held in the years 255 and 256). Comp. Sententis Episcoporum Ixxxii. de 
baptizandis hereticis, in Cypr. Opp. p. 229 (Fell). [On the whole contro- 
versy comp. Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 472-75. Lawrence, Lay 
Baptism invalid, 1712, sq. Anonymi Scriptoris de Rebaptismate liber, in 
Routh’s Reliquie Sacre, v. 283-328. Waterland’s Letters on Lay Baptism, 
Works, vi. 73-235. Shepherd’s Hist. of Church of Rome, 1852.] 

° Theod. Fab. Her. i. c. 10. On the question whether the sect of the 
Cainians (vipera venenatissima, 7ert.), to which Quintilla of Carthage, an 
opponent of baptism, belonged; was identical with the Gnostic Cainites ; see 
Neander, Antignosticus, p. 193; Church Hist. ii. 476; Hist. Dogm. 229-31. 
Some of the objections to baptism were the following: it is below the dig- 
nity of the Divine to be represented by any thing earthly: Abraham was 
justified by faith alone; the apostles themselves were not baptized,* and 
Paul attaches little importance to the rite (1 Cor. 1. 17).—That the majority 
of the Gnostics held baptism in high esteem, is evident from the circumstance 


* To the remark of some: Tune apostolos baptismi vicem implesse, quum in favicula 


§ 73. THE Lorp’s SuPPER. 203 


that they laid great stress on the baptism of Jesus, see Bawr, Gnosis, p. 224 ; 
but they advocated it on very different grounds from those of the orthodox 
church. On the threefold baptism of the Marcionites, and further particu- 
lars, comp. the works treating on this subject: respecting the Clementine 
Homilies, see Credner, iii. p. 308. 

Ὁ Orig. Exh, ad Mart. i. p. 292, with reference to Mark x. 38: Luke xii. 
50. Tert. De Bapt. 16: Est quidem nobis etiam secundum lavacrum, unum 
et ipsum, sanguinis scilicet......Hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi 
lateris emisit : quatenus qui in sanguinem ejus crederent, aqua lavarentur ; 
qui aqua lavissent, etiam sanguinem potarent. Hic est baptismus, qui lava- 
crum et non acceptum representat, et perditum reddit. Comp. Scorp. c. 6. 
Cyprian Ep. 73, and especially De Exh. Martyr. p. 168, 69. According to 
him the baptism of blood is in comparison with the baptism of water, in 
gratia majus, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius; it is, baptisma, in 
quo angeli baptizant, b. in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, b. post quod 
nemo jam peccat, b. quod fidei nostre incrementa consummat, b. quod nos 
de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aque baptismo accipitur pec- 
catorum remissa, in sanguinis corona virtutum, Heretics are profited neither 
by the baptism of blood, nor by that of water, but the former is of some 
service to the catechumens who are not yet baptized. Rettberg, p. 382. 
Comp. also Acta Martyr. Perpet. et Fel. ed Oxon. p. 29, 30, and Dodwell, 
De secundo Martyrii Baptismo, in his Diss. Cypr. XIII.* 


Ε 7: 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Schulz, D., die christ]. Lehre vom Abendmahl, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Test. Lpz. 
1824, 31 (exegetical and dogmatic). Works on the History of this Doctrine: *Mar- 
heineke, Phil., Ss. Patrum de Preesentia Christi in Coena Domini sententia triplex, s. 
sacr& Eucharistie Historia tripartita. Heidelb. 1811, 4. Meyer, Karl, Versuch einer 
Geschichte der Transsubstantiationslehre, mit Vorrede von Dr. Paulus. Heidelb. 
1832. +Döllinger, J. J. J., die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den 3 ersten Jahrhun- 
derten. Mainz, 1826. *A. Ebrard, des Dogma vom ἢ. Abendmahl und seine 
Geschichte. Frankf. 1845. Engelhardt, J. G. W., Bemerkungen über die Gesch. ἃ, 
Lehre vom Abendmahl in den drei ersten Jahrh. in Illgen’s Zeitschrift f. d. hist. 


fluctibus adspersi operti sunt, ipsum quoque Petrum per mare ingredientem satis mersum. 
Tertullian replies (De Bapt. 12): aliud est adspergi vel intereipi violentia maris, aliud 
tingui disciplina religionis. 

* Though the parallel drawn between the baptism of blood and that of water has a 
basisin the whole symbolical tendency of the age, yet in its connection with the doctrine of 
the fathers it appears to be more than a mere rhetorical figure. Like the comparison 
instituted between the death of the martyrs and that of Jesus, as well as the notions con- 
cerning penance, it rests upon the equilibrium which the writers of that period were 
desirous to maintain between the free will of man, and the influence of Divine grace. 
In the baptism of water man appears as a passive recipient, in the baptism of blood he 
acts with spontaneity. 


204 First Pertop, CHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


Theol. 1842. *Höfling, J. W. F., Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben 
und Cultus der Christen. Erlang. 1851. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl. Leipz. 
1851. Riickert, L. J, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Gesch. in der alten 
Kirche, Leipz. 1856. 

[Rinck, W. F., Lehrbegriff vom heilig. Abendmahl in den ersten Jahrh., in Zeitschrift £ 
ἃ. hist. Theol. 1853, p. 331-334. Julius Müller, article Abendmahl in Herzog’s 
Realencyclop., ef. Ströbel on the Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1854. Jeremy Taylor, on 
the Real Presence. Waterland, on the Eucharist, works, iv. 476-798, v. 125-292. 
Hampden’s Bampton Lects. (34 ed. 1848), Lect. viii, Robert Halley, The Sacraments, 
Part II. (Cong. Lect. 1851). Robt. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Eucharist, 1853 (cf. 
Christ. Rembr. 1853. Church Review, New Haven, 1854). W. Goode, Nature of 
Christ’s Presence in Euch. 2, 1856. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence, 1853-7. Philip 
Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Lond. 1855-7 (cf. Christ. Rembr. Jan. 1858). 
Turton (Bp.) on the Eucharist, and Wiseman’s reply (rep. in his Essays), 1854. 


The Christian church attached, from the beginning, a high and 
mysterious import’ to the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper, 
as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ (Eucharist),? 
to be received by the church with thanksgiving. It was not 
the tendency of the age to analyze the symbolical in a critical 
and philosophical manner, and to draw metaphysical distinctions 
between its constituent parts—viz., the outward sign on the one 
hand, and the thing represented by it on the other. On the con- 
trary, the real and the symbolical were so blended, that the symbol 
did not supplant the fact, nor did the fact dislodge the symbol.’ 
Thus it happens that in the writings of the fathers of this period we 
meet with passages which speak distinctly of signs, and at the same 
time with others which speak openly of a real participation in the 
body and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some lead- 
ing tendencies. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Ireneus,‘ laid great 
stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos 
and the elements; though this union was sometimes misunderstood, 
in a superstitious sense, or perverted, in the hope of producing 
magical effects.’ Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favor- 
able to the supernatural, are, nevertheless, representatives of the 
symbolical interpretation.’ The Alexandrian school, too, espoused 
the latter view, though the language of Clement on this subject 
(intermingling an ideal mysticism) is less definite than that of 
Origen.’ In the apostolical fathers, and, with more definite refer- 
ence to the Lord’s Supper, in the writings of Justin and Ireneus, 
the idea of a sacrifice already occurs ; by which, however, they did 
not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice of Christ (in 
the sense of the Romish church), but a thank-offering to be pre- 
sented by Christians themselves.‘ This idea, which may have had 
its origin in the custom of offering oblations, was brought into con- 
nection with the service for the commemmoration of the dead, and 
thus imperceptibly prepared the way for the later doctrine of 
masses for the deceased.’ It further led to the notion of a sacrifice 


$ 73. Tue Lorp’s Supper. 205 


which is repeated by the priest (but only symbolically), an idea 
first found in Cyprian.’ It is not quite certain, but probable, that 
the Ebionites celebrated the Lord’s Supper as a commemorative 
feast ; the mystical meals of some Gnostics, on the contrary, bear 
but little resemblance to the Lord’s Supper." 


*“ That the body and blood of Christ were given and received in the Lord’s 
Supper, was from the beginning the general faith, and this, too, at a time when 
written documents were not yet extant or not widely diffused, And this faith 
remained in subsequent times; the Christian church has never had any other ; 
no one opposed this in the ancient church, not even the arch-heretics.” Rickert, 
Abendmahl, p. 297. 

* Respecting the terms εὐχαριστία, σύναξις, εὐλογία, see Suicer, and the 
lexicons, With the exception of the Hydroparastates (Aquarii, Epiph. Her. 
46, 2), all Christians, in accordance with the original institution, used wine 
and bread ; the wine was mixed with water (κρᾶμα), and dogmatical signifi- 
cancy was attributed to the mingling of these two elements (Justin M., Apol. 
1.65; Iren.v. 2,33; Cypr. Epist. 63). The Artotyrites are said to have used 
cheese along with bread (Epiph, Heer. 49, 2). Comp. the Acts of Perpetua 
and Felicitas, in Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 122. Olshausen, Monumenta, p. 
101: Et clamavit me (Christus) et de caseo, quod mulgebat, dedit mihi quasi 
buccellam, et ego accepi junctis manibus et manducavi, et universi circum- 
stantes dixerunt Amen, Et ad sonum vocis experrecta sum, commanducans 
adhue dulcis nescio quid. Concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper 
in the age of the Antonines, and the custom of administering it to the sick, 
etc., see Justin M. Apol. 1. 65: [ΠΠροσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν 
ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος" Kal οὗτος λαβὼν, alvov Kat δόξαν 
τῶ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεῦματος τοῦ 
᾿Αγίου ἀναπέμπει, καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι» τούτων Trap’ 
αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται... . εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ 
ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν διάκονοι 
διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς 
οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι. 66. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται «παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
Beiyapı orlaiıa: « Neander, Hist. of the Ch. transl. i. 332.] On the 
liturgical part of this ordinance in general, see Augusti, vol. viii. On the 
communion of children, Neander, Hist. Dogm. 242. 

ἢ “ Tt is only in consequence of the more abstract tendency of the West and 
of modern times that so many different significations are assigned to what 
the early eastern church understood by the phrase τοῦτο ἐστί. If we would 
fully enter into its original meaning, we ought not to separate these pos- 
sible significations. To say that the words in question denote transubstantia- 
tion, ἐδ too definite and too much said ; to interpret them by the phrase, cum 
et sub specie, is too artificial, it says too little ; the rendering: this signi- 
7168, says too little, and is too jejune. Im the view of the writers of the 
gospels (and after them of the earliest fathers), THE BREAD IN THE LoRD’s 
SUPPER was tHE Bopy or Curist. But if they had been asked whether the 
bread was changed? they would have replied in the negative; if they had 


206 First Period. CHUuRcH, AND irs MEANS or Grace. 


been told that the communicants partook of the body with and under the 
form of the bread, they would not have understood it ; if it had been as- 
serted that then the bread only signifies the body, they would not have been 
satisfied.” Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1st edit. vol. ii. p. 437. Comp. Baumgarten- 
Crusius, ji. p. 1211, ss. and 1185, ss. It is also noteworthy, that in this 
period there is not as yet any proper dogma about the Lord’s Supper- 
“There had not been any controversy; no council had spoken ;” Rückert, 
s.8. Yet the germs of later opinions were certainly there. 

* Ignat, ad Rom. 7: "Aprov Θεοῦ θέλω, κ. τ. A.; this is incorrectly re- 
ferred to the Lord’s Supper; it can only be understood of that internal and 
vital union with Christ, after which the Martyr longed; comp. Rückert, p. 
302. But here is pertinent, ad Smyrn. 7, where Ignatius objects to the Do- 
cete: Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν 
εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ 
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὃ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν (comp. ad. 
Trall. 8.ad Philad. 5.ad Rom. 5). Some understand the word εἶναι itself as 
symbolical. Comp. Münscher ed. by Cölln., i. p. 495, and, on the other side, 
Ebrard, |, c. 254: and Zingelhardt, in Illgen’s Hist. Theol. Zeitschrift. * /g- 
natius teaches that flesh and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper; but he 
does not teach how they came to be there, nor in what relation they stand to 
the bread and the wine ;” Rickert, p. 303. Justin, Apol. i. 66, first makes a 
strict distinction between the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper and 
common bread and wine: Οὐ yap ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα 
λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς ᾿Τησοῦς Χριστὸς 
ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ 
τὴν δι᾽ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ 
σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν. τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος 
Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἷναι. He does not speak of a change 
of the bread atid wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, see Zbrard, p. 257 
(against Engelhardt). In Ebrard’s view, the phrase κατὰ μεταβολήν is the 
opposite of κατὰ κτίσιν, and denotes that natural food is accompanied by that 
provided by our Saviour for our new life, comp., also, Semisch, ii. p. 439, ss., 
and Rickert, p. 401. The passage is obscure, and it is remarkable that all 
the three (later) confessions, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Re- 
formed, find their doctrine expressed in Justin, while his doctrine is fully ex- 
pressed by none of them. “ That he teaches a change is not to be denied, but 
yet only a change into flesh that belongs to Christ, not into the flesh born of 
Mary ; there is not to be found in him a word about what the church after- 
ward added to the doctrine ;” Rickert, p. 401. Ireneus, iv. 18 (33), p. 250 
(324, Grabe) also thinks that the change consists in this, that common bread 
becomes bread of a higher order, the earthly heavenly; but it dogs not, 
therefore, cease to be bread. He draws a parallel between this change and 
the transformation of the mortal body into the immortal, p. 251: “Ὡς yap 
ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος THY ἔκκλησιν [ἐπίκλησιν] τοῦ Θεοῦ 
οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, 
ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου, οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς 
εὐχαριστίας μηκέτι εἷναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως 
ἔχοντα. Comp. ν. 2, p. 293, ’4 (396, ’97), and Massueti Diss. iii, art. 7, p. 


§ 73. Tue Lorp’s SuPPpEr. 207 


114. Irenzus also defends the real presence of the body of Christ in the 
Lord’s Supper in opposition to the Docetz and Gnostics, iv. 18, § 4: Quomodo 
‘constabit eis, cum panem, in quo gratize actz sint, corpus esse Domini sui et 
calicem [esse calicem] sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi filium 
dicunt ? Comp. the Greek passage from Joh. Dam. Parall.: Πῶς τὴν σάρκα 
λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος 
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, 
ἢ τὸ προσφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν" ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη 
τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην. Comp. 88, $ 2 
(Münscher, von Cölln, 1. p. 496). But the reason which he urges in favor of 
his views, viz., that the Gnostics can not partake of the bread and wine with 
thanksgiving because they despise matter, shows that he regarded the ele- 
ments as more than merely accidental things, though they are not merely 
Ἢ bread and wine. Comp. Thiersch, die Lehre des Irenzeus von der Eucharistie, 
in Rudelbach and Guerickes Zeitschrift, 1841, p. 40, ss.; in reply, Hbrard, 
p. 261. 

° The fear of spilling any part of the wine (Tert. De Corona Mil. 3 : Calicis 
aut pahis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur, and Orig. in Exod. 
Hom. xiii. 3), may have originated in a profound feeling of propriety, but it 
degenerated into superstitious dread. Thus, too, the fair faith in an inher- 
ent vital power in the elements (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, avridorov τοῦ μὴ 
ἀποθανεῖν) was gradually converted into the belief of miraculous cures being 
effected by them, which easily made the transition to gross superstition. The 
practice of administering the Lord’s Supper to children may also be ascribed 
to the expectation of magical effects. Comp. the anecdotes of Cyprian, De 
Lapsis, p. 132. Zettberg, p. 337.—The separation of the Lord’s Supper from 
the agape, which had become necessary, the custom of preserving the bread, 
the communion of the sick, etc., furthered such views. 

° It is remarkable that Tertullian, whose views, generally "speaking, are 
so realistic, shows in this instance a leaning toward the sober symbolical in- 
terpretation according to which the Lord’s Supper is figura corporis Christi, 
Adv. Mare. i. 14; iv. 40. In the latter place (see the connection), he urges 
the symbolical sense to refute Marcion: if Christ had not possessed a real 
body, it could not have been represented (vacua res, quod est phantasma, 
figuram capere non potest :—how near to saying, it is impossible to partake 
of a phantom as such) !* This sentiment accords with what is said as to its 
significancy as a memorial in De Anima, c. 17: vinum in sanguinis sui me- 
moriam consecravit. Nevertheless, Tertullian speaks in other places (De 
Resurr. c. 8, De Pud. c. 9) of the participation of the Lord’s Supper as an 
opimitate dominici corporis vesci, as a-de Deo saginari; with these expres- 
sione, comp. De Orat. 6 : Christus enim panis noster est [spoken in reference 
to the daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer], quia vita Christus et vita panis. 


* Respecting the manner in which Tertullian viewed the relation between the sign and 
the thing signified, comp. as a parallel passage, De Resurr. Carnis, p. 30. Rückert, (p. 307) 
correctly remards that Tertullian here follows the usus loquendi of the New Test., and that 
any one might just as well in all simplicity speak of the body of the Lord, as of the Good 
Shepherd, and the true vine, without being obliged always to say, in the way of caution, 
that it is meant figuratively. 


208 First PERIOD. ÜHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


Ego sum, inquit, panis vite. Et paulo supra: Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui 
descendit de coelis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur (not est) :* 
Hoc est corpus meum. Itaque petendo panem quotidianum perpetuitatem 
postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore ejus. He also is not wanting 
in mystical allusions (6. g., Gen. xlix. 11: Lavabit in vino stolam suam, is in his 
opinion a type, etc.), and adopts the notions of his age concerning the magical 
effects of the Lord’s Supper. But these do not prove that the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, or any of similar import, was known at that time, since the same 
expressions occur about the baptismal water. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, 
p- 517, and Baur, F., Tertullian’s Lehre vom Abendmahl (Tübing. Zeitschr. 
1839, part 2, p. 36, ss.) in opposition to Rudelbach, who finds (as Luther had 
done before him) in Tertullian the Lutheran view of the point in question. 
On the other hand, (Ecolampadius and Zuingle appealed to the same father 
in support of their opinions; comp. also Zbrard, p. 289, eds and Rickert, p. 
305, sq., against Rudelbach, Scheibel, and Kahnis. Cyprian’s doctrine of the 
Teen's Supper is set forth in the sixty-third of his epistles, where he combats 
the irrégularity of those who used water instead of wine (see note 1), and 
proves the necessity of employing the latter. The phrase ostenditur, used in 
reference to the wine as the blood of Christ, is somewhat doubtful. But the 
comparison which Cyprian makes of the water with the people is rather for 
than against the symbolical interpretation, though in other places (like Ter- 
tullian) he calls the Lord’s Supper outright the body and blood of Christ, Ep, 
57, p.117. The rhetoric, bordering on the dithyrambic, with which he speaks 
of the’ effects of the Lord’s Supper (the blessed drunkenness of the communi- 
cants compared with the drunkenness of Noah), and the miraculous stories 
he relates, should protect him from the charge of an excessively prosaic view. 
But in connection with the doctrine of the unity of the church, he attaches 
great practical importance to the idea of a communio, which was afterward 
abandoned by the Romish church, but on which much stress was again laid 
by the Reformed church; Ep. 63, p. 154: Quo et ipso sacramento populus 
noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta et 
commolita et commixta panem unum faciunt, sie in Christo, qui est panis 
celestis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus et 
adunatus. Comp. Rettberg, p. 332, ss. 

7 In Clement the mystical view of the Lord’s Supper preponderates, 
according to which it is heavenly meat and heavenly drink; but he looks 
for the mystical not so much in the elements (bread and wine), as in the 
spiritual union of the soul with the Logos; and thinks that effects are pro- 
duced only upon the mind, not upon the body. Clement also considers the 
Lord’s Supper as a σύμβολον, but a σύμβολον μυστικόν, Peed. ji. 2, p. 184 
(156, Sylb.); comp. Ped. 1, 6, p. 123: Ταύτας ἡμῖν οἰκείας τροφὰς ὁ 
Κύριος χορηγεῖ καὶ σάρκα ὀρέγει καὶ αἷμα ἐκχεῖ, καὶ οὐδὲν εἰς αὔξησιν τοῖς 
παιδίοις ἐνδει: ὦ τοῦ παραδόξου μυστηρίου κ. τ. A. The use of the terms 
ἀλληγορεῖν, δημιουργεῖν, αἱνίττεσθαι, clearly shows that he sought the mys- 
tery, not in the material elements, but in the spiritual and sy Deich inter- 


* Comp., however, De Anima, 40 (above § 63, Note 6), and Zückert, p. 210-712 (with 
reference to Döllinger, p. 52). 


§ 73. The Lorp’s SupPpEr. 209 


pretation of the idea hidden in the elements. His interpretation of the sym- 
bols is peculiar: the Holy Spirit is represented by the σάρξ, the Logos by 
the αἷμα, and the Lord, who unites in himself the Logos and the Spirit, by 
the mixture of the wine and the water. A distinction between the blood 
once shed on the cross, and that represented in the Lord’s Supper, is found 
in Peed. ii. 2, p. 177 (151, Sylb.) : Διττὸν τε τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίον" τὸ μὲν 
γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα: τὸ δὲ πνευματικὸν, 
τουτέστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα. Καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆς 
κυριακῆς μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας" ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ λόγον τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα 
σαρκός. Comp. Bakr, vom Tode Jesu, p. 80. |[Bähr says: “The mean- 
ing of Clement is, that what the blood is for the flesh and the body, its life 
and power, that is the πνεῦμα for the Logos. It is, as it were, the blood of 
the Logos. By the blood of Christ poured out upon the cross we are ran- 
somed ; by the blood of the Logos, through the πνεῦμα, we are anointed and 
sanctified”]. In what follows, the mixture of the wine and water is again 
said to be a symbol of the union of the πνεῦμα with the spirit of man. 
Lastly, Clement also finds in the Old Test. types of the Lord’s Supper, e. 9.» 
in Melchisedec, Strom. iv. 25, p. 637 (539, B. Sylb.)\—Among the Anteni- 
cene fathers Origen is the only one who decidedly opposes, as ἀκεραιοτέρος, 
those who take the external sign for the thing itself; in the xi. Tom. 
on Matth. Opp. ii. p. 498-500. “As common meat does not defile, but 
rather unbelief and the impurity of the heart, so the meat which is con- 
secrated by the word of God and by prayer, does not by itself (τῷ ἐδίῳ λόγῳ) 
sanctify those who partake of it. The bread of the Lord profits only those 
who receive it with an undefiled heart and a pure conscience.” In connec- 
tion with such views Origen (as afterward Zuingle, and still more decidedly 
the Socinians) did not attach so much importance to the actual participation 
of the Lord’s Supper as the other fathers: Οὕτω δὲ οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν 
rap’ αὐτὸ TO μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγιασθέντος λόγῳ θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξει 
ἄρτου ὑστερούμεθα ἀγαθοῦ τινος, οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ φαγεῖν περισσεύομεν ἀγαθῷ 
τινι τὸ γὰρ αἴτιον τῆς ὑστερήσεως ἡ κακία ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ 
τὸ αἴτιον τῆς περισσεύσεως ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶ καὶ Ta καθορθώματα, ib. p. 
898: Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus 
suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum, in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille 
fragendus, ete. Comp. Hom. vii. 5, in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 225): Agnoscite, 
quia figurae sunt, quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tamquam 
spiritales et non tamquam carnales examinate et intelligite, que dicuntur. 
Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, laedunt vos et non alunt. Est enim et 
in evangeliis littera....quee occidit eum, qui non spiritaliter, quee dicuntur, 
adverterit. Si euim secundum litteram sequaris hoe ipsum, quod dictum est: 
Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hee 
littera. Comp. Redepenning’s Origenes, ii. p. 438, sq. On other passages, 
in which Origen seems to incline to the conception of a real body (espe- 
cially Cont. Celsum, viii. 33), see Riickert, p. 343, 

* Concerning the oblations, see the works on ecclesiastical history, and on 
antiquities.— The apostolical fathers speak of sacrifices, by which, however, 
we are to understand either the sacrifices of the heart and life (Barn. c. 2), 
or the sacrifices of prayer and ulms (Clem. of Rome, c. 40-44), which may 

14 


210 First PERIOD. CHuRcH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


also include the gifts (δῶρα) offered at the Lord’s Supper; comp. also Zynat. 
ad Ephes. 5; ad Trall. 7; ad Magn. 7. Only in the passage ad Philad. 4, 
the εὐχαριστία is mentioned in connection with the θυσιαστήριον, but in 
such a manner that no argument for the later theory of sacrifice can be 
inferred from it; see Héfling, die Lehre der apostolischen Väter vom Opfer 
im Christlichen cultus, 1841. More definite is the language of Justin M. 
Dial. c. Tryph. ce. 117, who calls the Lord’s Supper θυσία and προσφορά 
and compares it with the sacrifices under the Old Test. dispensation.* He 
connects with this the offering of prayers (εὐχαριστία), which are also 
sacrifices, But the Christians themselves make the sacrifice; there is not 
the slightest allusion to a repeated sacrifice on the part of Christ! Comp. 
Ebrard, 1. c. p. 236, ss. Ireneus, Adv. Heer. iv. 17, 5, p. 249 (324 Gr.), 
teaches, with equal clearness, that Christ had commanded, not for the sake 
of God, but of the disciples, to offer the first fruits; and thus, breaking the 
bread and blessing the cup with thanksgiving, he instituted—oblationem, 
quam ecclesia Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei, qui 
alimenta nobis prestat, primitias suorum munerum, etc. The principal 
thing, too, is the disposition of the person who makes the offering. On the 
difficult passage, iv. 18, p. 251 (326 Gr.): Judeei autem jam non offerunt, 
manus enim eorum sanguine plenz sunt: non enim receperent verbum, quod 
[per quod ?) offertur Deo.t Comp. Massuet, Diss. iii. in Iren. Deylingii 
Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92, ss. and Meander, Torrey’s transl., i. 330,f Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), p. 238. Origen knows only the one sacrifice offered by 
Christ. It is fitting, however, for Christians to offer spiritual sacrifices 
(sacrificia spiritualia). Hom, xxiv. in Num et Hom. v. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 
200): Notandum est quod qu offeruntur in holocaustum, interiora sunt; 
quod vero exterius est, Domino non offertur. Ibid. p. 210: Ille obtulit 
sacrificium landis, pro cujus actibus, pro cujus doctrina, preceptis, verbo et 
moribus, et disciplina laudatur et benedieitur Deus (as in Matth. 5, 16). 
Comp. Héfling. Origenis Doctrina de Sacrificiis Christianorum in examen 
vocatur, Part 1 and 2 (Erl. 1840-41), especially Part 2, p. 24, ss. Redepen- 
ning, Origen. 11, 437, and Rickert, p. 383. 

° Tert. De Cor. Mil. 3: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die 
facimus. De Exh. Cast¢11: Pro uxore defuncta oblationis annuas reddis, 
etc., where he also uses the term sacrificium. De Monog. 10, he even 
speaks of a refrigerium, which hence accrues to the dead, comp. de Orat. 14 
(19). Here also we might be reminded that Tertullian, as the Christians in 
general, called prayers “sacrifices” (even the whole Christian worship is 
called by Tertullian sacrificium, see Ebrard, p. 224); on the other hand, it 
should not be overlooked that in the above passage, De Monogamia, prayers 


* Namely, “as a thank-offering for the gifts of nature, to which was then added thanks- 
gwing for all other divine blessings. ...The primitive church had a distinct conception of this 
connection between the Lord’s Supper and what might be called the natural aspect of the pass- 
over.” —Baur, 1. c. p. 137. 

+ Just before, it is said: Offertur Deo ex creatura ejus; and, § 6: per Christum offert 
ecelesia. 

+ Neander considers the reading per quod offertur as unquestionably correct, 


§ 74. IDEA OF THE SACRAMENT. 211 


and sacrifices are distinctly separated. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 155. 
Höfling, p. 207-15. Rickert, 376. 

° Cyprian, in accordance with his hierarchical tendency, first of all the 
fathers, gave to the idea of sacrifice such a turn, that it is no longer the con- 
gregation that brings the thank-offering, but the priest, taking the place 
of Christ, who offered himself a sacrifice: vice Christi fungitur, id quod 
Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium verum et plenum tune offert in ec- 
clesia Deo Patri. But even Cyprian does not go beyond the idea of the 
sacrifice being imitated, which is very different from that of its actual 
repetition, Comp. Rettberg, Ὁ. 334, and Meander, |. ce. 1. p. 331. Zbrard, 
p- 249, directs attention to the obliquities in Cyprian’s modes of statement. 
[Comp. Marheineke, Symbolik, iii. 420.] 

τ Concerning the Ebionites, see Credner, 1. ce. iii. p. 308 ; on the Ophites, 
Epiph. Her. 37, 5. Baur, Gnosis, p. 196. 


If we compare the preceding statements with the doctrines afterward set forth in the 
confessions of faith, we arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The Roman Catholic 
notion of transubstantiation is as yet altogether unknown; yet there are hints point- 
ing that way, as well as the beginnings of the theory of sacrifice. 2. The views of 
Ignatius, Justin, and Irenzeus (which Rückert calls metabolism) can be compared with 
the Lutheran, only so far as they stand in the middle between strict transubstantia- 
tion and the merely symbolical view, and hold fast to an objective union of the sen- 
sible with the supersensible. 3. The theologians of North Africa and Alexandria 
represent the type of doctrine in the Reformed church, in such a way that the posi- 
tive side of the Calvinistic doctrine may be best seen in Clement, the negative view 
of Zuingle in Origen; and both the positive and the negative aspects of the Reformed 
doctrine are united in Tertullian and Cyprian. The Ebionites might then be con- 
sidered as the forerunners of the Socinians, the Gnosties of the Quakers. Yet 
caution is needed in instituting such comparisons, for no phase of history is entirely 
identical with any other, and partisan prejudices have always disturbed the historical 
point of view. 


§ 74, 
IDEA OF THE SACRAMENT. 


The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper existed 
before a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been 
formed, so as to include both." The terms μυστήριον and sacramen-* 
tum are indeed already used to designate both ;* but they are quite 
as frequently applied to other religious symbols and usages, which 
implied a high religious idea, and also to the more profound doc- 
trines of the church.’ 


* The New Testament does not contain the idea of sacrament, as such. 
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not instituted by Christ as two con- 
nected rites; but each in its own place and time, without a hint of a rela- 
tion of the one to the other. In the apostolical epistles, it has been thought 
that a connection of the two is indicated in 1 John, v. 6: that it does not 


x 


212 First PERIOD. ÜHURCH, AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 


refer to the two sacraments, see Liicke’s commentary on the passage. More 
pertinent is 1 Cor. x. 4 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13). Yet still both these rites, 
being instituted by Christ, assumed special prominence, as did also their 
relation to each other. 

* As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic 
terminology (comp. the phrases: novum’ Testamentum, trinitas, peccatum 
originale, satisfactio) so he is the first writer who uses the phrase sacramen- 
tum baptismatis et eucharistie, Adv. Mare. iv. 30. Comp. Baumgarten- 
Crusius, ii. p. 1188, and the works quoted by him. The corresponding 
Greek term μυστήριον occurs in Justin, Apol. i, 66, and Clem. Peed. i. p. 
123 (comp. Suicer, sub voce). 

° Tertullian also uses the word sacramentum in a more general sense, 
adv. Marc. v. 18, and adv. Prax. 30, where he calls the Christian religion a 
sacrament. Comp. the Indices Latinitatis Tertullianes, by Semler, p. 500, 
and by Oehler. [Halley, 1. c. p. 9, 10.] Equally varied is the use of the 
term μυστήριον. Cyprian does not recognize au exclusive terminology on 
this point. He speaks indeed, Ep. 63, of a sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
but also of a sacrament of the Trinity (De Orat. Dom. where the Lord’s 
prayer itself is called a sacrament). On the twofold sense of thé Latin 
word, sometimes denoting oath, sometimes used as the translation of the 
Greek term μυστήριον, see Kettberg, p. 324, 25, and compare Rickert, 
p. 315. 


SIEH ~ DIVIShON: 


THE DOCTRINE ABOUT THE LAST THINGS. 
(ESCHATOLOGY.) 


§ 75. 
THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST—MILLENNARIANISM. (CHILIASM.) 


᾿ (Corrodi) kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus Zür. 1781-83, iii. 1794. Münscher, W., 
Entwicklung der Lehre vom tausendjährigen Reiche in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten, 
in Henkes Magazin. vol. vi. p. 233, ss. [Comp. the article on Millennium, in Kitto’s 
Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter., where the literature will be found. W. Floerke, Die Lehre 
vom tausendjahrigen Reiche. Marb. 1859.] 


THE disciples of Christ having received from their master the 
promise of his second coming (παρουσία), the first Christians looked 
upon this event as near at hand, in connection with the general 
resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.’ The book of 
Revelation (which many ascribed to the apostle John, while others 
denied this, and even contested its canonicity), in its 20th chapter, 
gave currency to the idea of a millennial kingdom, together with 
that of a second resurrection, also found in the same book ;° and the 
imagination of those who dwelt fondly upon sensuous impressions, 
delineated these millennial hopes in the most glowing terms. This 
was the case not only with the Judaizing Ebionites* and Cerinthus* 
(according to the testimony of some writers), but also with several 
orthodox Fathers, such as Papias of Hierapolis, Justin, Ireneus, 
and Tertullian. The millennial notions of the latter were supported 
by his Montanistic views.” In Cyprian we find only an echo in a 
lower tone of the ideas of Tertullian.” The Gnostics were from 
the first unfavorable to millennarian tendencies,’ which were also — 
opposed by some orthodox writers, 6. g., the Presbyter Caius in 
Rome, and by the theologians of the Alexandrian school, especially 
Origen.” 


* Comp. the works on Biblical Theology. On the importance of escha- 
tology in the first period, and its necessary connection with christology, see 
Dorner’s Person Christi, i, 232, sq. | “The Christian hope in the Christi 
that was to come grew out of faith in the Christ who had already come.” 


214 First Preriop. EscHATOLoGY. 


“ The Christian principle celebrated its apotheosis in the eschatology. For 
the whole universe is ordered in reference to Christ. What is not a part of 
the eternal kingdom, must at the end of all things be entirely rejected, 
become powerless and worthless.”] The distinction between the second 
coming of Christ and the first, was founded on the New Test. Justin M. 
Apol. 1.52: Δύο yap αὐτοῦ παρουσίας προεκήρυξαν οἱ προφῆται: μίαν μὲν 
τὴν ἤδη γενομένην, ὡς ἀτίμου καὶ παθητοῦ ἀνθρώπουι, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν, 
ὅταν μετὰ δόξης ἐξ οὐρανῶν μετὰ THC ἀγγελικῆς αὐτοῦ στρατιᾶς παρα- 
γενήσεσθαι κεκήρυκται, ὅτε καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀνεγερεῖ πάντων τῶν γενο- 
μένων ἀνθρώπων κ. 7.2. Cf. Dial. ο. Tr. 45. Iren. i. 10 (he makes ἃ dis- 
tinetion between ἔλευσις and παρουσία), iv. 22, 2. 

? See above $ 31, note 7, esp. Euseb. vii. 25, and the introductions to the 
commentaries on the book of Revelation; Zücke [ Stuart, i. p. 283, ss.] 
According to the latest criticism, the author of the Apocalypse was indeed 
the real John; but, because entangled in the Ebionitish and Jewish modes 
of thought, he cannot be the same with John the Evangelist; compare Baur 
(in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1844), and Schwegler’s Nachapost. Zeitalter, p. 66, . 
sq. In opposition to them, Ebrard endeavors to harmonize the standpoint 
of the Apocalypse with that of the Gospel; see his Evangel. Johannes und 
die neueste Hypothese über seine Entstehung (Zürich, 1845), p. 137, sq.— 
We can not regard the acts in this controversy as definitely closed. 

° Comp. the commentaries on this chapter [Stuwart, ii. p. 459, ss., 474]. 
From Justin’s larger Apology, c. 52, it has been inferred that, though a mil- 
lennarian, he held to only one resurrection (τὰ σώματα avepyei πάντων τῶν 
γενομένων ἀνθρώπων) ; so Münter (älteste Dogmengesch. ii. 2, p. 269), and 
also Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 241 and 247. But in the Dial. c. Tryph. e. 
81, Justin teaches a double resurrection; comp. Semisch, ii. p. 471, sq. He 
calls the first resurrection holy (Dial. ec. Tryph. e. 113), but the second, the 
general. Ireneus, too (v. ὁ: 32), and Tertullian (De Resur. Carn. c. 42, and 
De Anima, ὁ. 58) teach a double resurrection; or (in the case of Tertull.) a 
progressive resurrection (?); comp. @üeseler, u. s. page 241. [“ The wholly 
pure will rise at once; those, however, who have contracted great guilt, 
must make amends by staying a longer time in the under-world, and rising 
later ;” and thus he interprets Matth. v. 26.] 

* Jerome, in his Comment. on Is. Ixvi. 20, observes that the Ebionites 
understand the passage, “And they shall bring all your brethren for an 
offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in 
litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts,” in its literal sense, and apply 
it to chariots drawn by four horses and conveyances of every description. 
They believe that at the last day, when Christ shall reign at Jerusalem, and 
the temple be rebuilt, the Israelites will be gathered together from all the 
ends of the earth. They will have no wings to fly, but they will come in 
wagons of Gaul; in covered chariots of war, and on horses of Spain and Cap- 
padocia; their wives will be carried in litters, and ride upon mules of Numi- 
dia instead of horses. Those who hold offices, dignitaries, and princes, will 
come in coaches from Britain, Spain, Gaul, and the regions where the river 
Rhine is divided into two arms; the subdued nations will hasten to meet 
them. But the Clementine Homilies and-the Gnostic Ebionites, far from 


§ 75. THe Seconp ADVENT OF ÜHRIST. 215 


adopting such gross notions (Credner, 1. 6. iii. p. 289,90), even oppose them ; 
see Schliemann, p. 251 and 519. 

° Euseb. iii. 28 (from the accounts given by Caius of Rome and Dionysius 
of Alexandria). According to Caius, Cerinthus taught : Meta τὴν avaora- 
σιν ἐπίγειον εἷναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστοῦ Kal πάλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ 
ἡδοναῖς ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευνομένην δουλεύειν, this state 
would last a thousand years : according to Dionysius, ἐπίγειον ἔσεσθαι τὴν 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείαν: Kal ὧν αὐτὸς ὠρέγετο φιλοσώματος ὧν καὶ πάνυ 
σαρκικὸς, ἐν τούτοις ὀνειροπολεῖν ἔσεσθαι, γαστρὸς καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γαστέρα 
πλησμονῶν, τουτέστι σιτίοις καὶ πότοις καὶ γάμοις καὶ δι᾽ ὧν εὐφημότερον 
ταῦτα ᾧήθη ποριεῖσθαι, ἑορταῖς καὶ θυσίαις καὶ ἱερείων σφαγαῖς. Comp. 
vii. 25, and Theodoret Fab. Heer. ii. 3, and the works referred to in § 23. 
[ Burton, Bampton Lecture, vi. lect. p. 177-179, and note 76.] But that 
chiliasm did not come into the orthodox church through Cerinthus, is shown 
by @üeseler, Dogmengesch. p. 234. [This is declared by Husebius, Hist. 
Ecel. ii. c. 28; and Theodoretus and others. But Eusebius (iii. 39) accuses 
Papias of having spread millennarianism, from a misunderstanding of the 
apostles, and calls him on this very account σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. But 
Justin (Dial. p. 306), writing at the time of Papias, says that it was the 
general faith of all orthodox Christians ; and that only the Gnostics did not 
share in it. Comp. Ireneus, v. 25, 26. Tertull. c. Mare. iii. 24; and the 
apocryphal books of the period. | 

* “In all the works of this period (the first two centuries) millennarianism 
is so prominent, that we can nat hesitate to consider it as universal in an age, 
when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to 
suffer for Christianity :” Gieseler, Text-Book of Church Hist., New York 
ed., 1. 156 ; Dogmengesch. p. 231, sq. Comp., however, the writings of 
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophi- 
lus of Antioch, in none of which millennarian notions are propounded. On 
the millennial views of Papias, see Euseb, 111. 39 : Χιλεάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν 
ἔσεσθαι μετὰ τὴν EK νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασι- 
λείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης. Comp. Barn. c. 15 (Ps. xe. 4), 
Hermas, lib. 1. Vis. 1. 3, and the observations of Jachmann, p. 86.—Justin, 
Dial. c. Tr. 80, 81, asserts, that according to his own opinion and that of the 
other orthodox theologians (εἴ τενές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα χριστι- 
avot), the elect will rise from the dead, and spend a thousand years in the 
eity of Jerusalem, which will be restored, changed, and beautified (in support 
of his views he appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel); at the same time he 
admits that even orthodox Christians (τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς γνώμης) 
entertain different views, comp. Apol. i. 11; he there opposes the hope of a 
human political kingdom, but not that of a millennial reign of Christ. Justin 
holds an intermediate position between a gross, sensuous view (συμπιεῖν 


* Various writers have endeavored to remove the contradiction between these two 
views. Rössler, i. p. 104, interpolates thus: many otherwise orthodox Christians, Dalleus, 
Münscher (Handbuch, ii. p. 420), Münter, Schwegler (Montan. p. 137), interpolate the 
word μή [eomp. Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 52, note 19.] Semisch, in opposition to this, ii. p. 469, 
note: “Justin does not assert that all, but that only the ali-sided, the complete believers, 
are chiliasts.” 


216 Fırst Period. EscHATOoLoGY. 


πάλιν καὶ συμφαγεῖν, Dial. c. Tr. § 51) on the one hand, and a spiritual- 
izing idealism on the other. [Comp, Semisch, C., Justin Martyr, his Life, 
Writings, and Opinions, transl. by J. E. Ryland, ii. 370-376.] JZreneus, 
Ady. Her. v. 33, p. 332 (453, Gr.), defends chiliasm, especially in opposition 
to the Gnostics. He appeals, 6. g., to Matth. xxvi. 29, and Is. xi. 6.—On the 
highly sensuous and fantastical description (carried out with genuine Rabbinic 
taste) of the fertility of the vine and of corn, which is said to have originated 
with Papias and the disciples of John, see Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 
44. Grabe, Spic. Sec. 2, p. 31, and 230. Corrodi, ii. p. 406. [Iren, Adv. 
Her. v. 33: “ The days will come in which vines will grow, each having ten 
thousand branches; and on each branch there will be ten thousand twigs, 
and on each twig ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in each cluster ten 
thousand grapes; and each grape, when expressed, will yield twenty-five 
μετρῆται of wine. And when any one of the saints shall take hold of a 
cluster of grapes, another (cluster) will cry out: I am a better cluster, take 
me, and on my account give thanks to the Lord. In like manner, a grain 
of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and each head will have ten 
thousand grains; and each grain will yield ten pounds of clear fine flour; 
and other fruits will yield seeds and herbage in the same proportion.” 
Respecting the millennarian notions propounded in the Sibylline oracles, the 
book of Enoch, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, etc., see Stuart, 
Comment. on the Apocalypse, i. p. 50, ss., 87, ss., 107, ss. Comp. also ii. p. 
488, ss.] See also Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 235. Dorner tries to give a 
more spiritual turn to this chiliasm ; he does not view it as necessarily con- 
nected with Judaizing tendencies; see his Lehre von d. Person Christi, 1. 
240, sq. note. [He views it as the counterpoise to the Gnostic abstractions, 
and as containing a genuine historical element; and particularly opposes the 
views of Corrodi, which have been too implicitly followed by many German 
church historians.] On the Sibylline Oracles, the Book of Enoch (probably 
a purely Jewish product), the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, and the 
New Testament Apocrypha, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch, p. 243 [also Stuart’s 
Apocalypse; Hilgenfeld, Die Judische Apocalypse, 1859.] 

τ Tertullian’s views are intimately connected with his Montanistie notions. 
His treatise, De Spe Fidelium (Hieron. de Vir. illuss. e. 18; and in Ezech. c. 
36), is indeed lost; but comp. Adv. Mare. ii. 24, Tertullian, however, 
speaks not so much of sensual enjoyments as of a copia omnium bonorum 
spiritualium, and even opposes the too sensuous interpretations of Messianic 
passages, De Resurr. Carn. c. 26, though many sensuous images pervade his 
own expositions, comp. Meander, Antignosticus, p. 499; Church Hist. in 
Torrey’s transl. i. 651. On the question, how far we may implicitly rely on 
the assertion of Euseb. v. 16, that Montanus had fixed upon the city Pepuza, 
in Phrygia, as the seat of the millennial reign, and on the millennarian 
notions of the Montanists in general, see Gieseler, Church History, § 48. 

® Respecting his doctrine of Antichrist, and his belief that the end of the 
world would soon come, comp. Ep. 58 (p. 120, 124), Ep. 61 (p. 144); Exh. 
Mart. ab init. p. 167. Tert. adv. Jud. iii, $ 118 (p. 91), see Rettberg, 
p. 340, ss. 

9. This is evident both from the nature of Gnosticism itself, and the oppo- 


$ 76. Tue RESURRECTION. 217 


sition which /reneus made to it. Some have even ascribed the origin of 
Marcion’s system to his opposition to millennarianism ; comp. however, Baur, 
Gnosis, p. 295. 

"5 Concerning Caius and his controversy with the Montanist Proclus, see 
Neander, Church Hist. i. p. 399.—Origen speaks in very strong terms 
against the millennarians, whose opinions he designates as inepte fabule, 
figmenta inania, δόγματα ἀτοπώτατα, μοχθηρά, ete., De Prine. ii. ec. 11, § 2. 
(Opp. i. p. 104); contra Cels. iv. 22 (Opp. i. p. 517); Select. in Ps. (Opp. 
Tom. ii. p. 570) ; in Cant. Cant. (Opp. T. iii. p. 28). Münscher ed. by von 
Cölln, i. p. 44-46. Respecting Hippolytus, who wrote a treatise on Anti- 
christ without being a real Millennarian, comp. Photius, Cod. 202. Henell, 
de Hippolyto (Gott. 838, 4), p. 37, 60. Corrodi, ii. p. 401, 406, 413, 416. 


§ 76. 
THE RESURRECTION. 


Teller, G. A., Fides Dogmatis de Resurrectione Carnis per 4 priora secula. Hal. et 
Helmst. 1766, 8. Flügge, Ch. W, Geschichte der Lehre vom Zustande des Men- 
schen nach dem Tode. Lpzg. 1739, 1800, 8. +Hubert Beckers, Mittheilungen aus 
den merkwürdigsten Schriften der verflossenen Jahrhunderte über den Zustand der 
Seele nach dem Tode. Augsb. 1835, ’36. +C. Ramers, des Origenes Lehre von der 
Auferstehung des Fleisches. Trier. 1851. [Bush, Anastasis, New York, 3d ed. 
1845; comp. Bibl. Repos. 1845. Robt. Landis, Doctrine of the Resurr., Phila. 1848.] 


Though traces of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, 
which is set forth by the apostle Paul in such a majestic manner, 
may be found in some conceptions of greater antiquity,’ yet it 
received a personal centre, and was made popular even among the 
uneducated, only after the resurrection of Christ” During the 
period of Apologetics this doctrine of the resurrection (of the flesh) 
was further developed on the basis of the Pauline teaching. The 
objections of its opponents, proceeding from a tendency limited to 
sense and the understanding, were more or less fully answered in the 
Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, as well as in the 
writings of Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Ireneus, Tertullian, 
Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and others.‘ Most of the fathers believed 
in the resuscitation of the body, and of the very same body which 
man possessed while on earth.’ The theologians of the Alexandrian 
school, however, formed an exception ; Origen, in particular,° en- 
deavored to clear the doctrine in question from its false additions, 
by reducing it to the genuine idea of Paul ; but, at the same time, 
he sought to refine and to spiritualize it after the manner of the 
Alexandrian school. The Gnostics, on the other hand, rejected the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the body entirely ;7 while the false 
teachers of Arabia, whom Origen combatted, asserted that both soul 
and body fall into a sleep of death, from which they will not awake 
till the last day." 


218 First Periop. EscHAToLoGY. 


* Comp. Herder, Von der Auferstehung (Werke Zur Religion und Theol- 
ogie, vol. xi.)„— Müller, @., über die Auferstehungslehre der Parsen, in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1835, 2d part, p. 477, ss. Corrodi, |. ec. p. 345. Cn 
the doctrine of Christ and of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv.; 2 Cor. v.), aad 
on the opponents of the doctrine in the apostolic age (Hymeneus and Phile- 
tus), see the works on Biblical Theology. [ Fries, Ueber Auferstehung in 
the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 1855, p. 400, 
sq. Tracy, in Bibl. Sacra, 1845. Yeomans, in Princeton Repert. 1845. 
D. R. Goodwin, in Bib. Sacra, 1852. John Brown, Resurr. to Life, Edinb. 
1852.] 

* It naturally excites surprise that, while Paul represents the resurreetion 
of Christ as the central point of the whole doctrine, the fathers of the 
present period keep this fact so much in the background; at least it is not, 
with all of them, the foundation of their opinions concerning the resurrection 
of the body. Some, 6. g., Aihenagoras, who yet devoted a whole book to 
the subject, and Minueius Felix, are entirely silent on the resurrection of 
Christ (see below) ; the others also rest their arguments chiefly upon reason 
and analogies from nature (the change of day and night, seed and fruit, the 
phoenix, etc., Clement of Rome, c. 24, and Ep. 11, 9). 

° It belongs to exegetical theology to inquire how far the New Testament 
teaches an ἀνάστασις τῆς σαρκός, and what is the relation of the σάρξ to the 
σῶμα and to the dvdotacig τῶν νεκρῶν. Comp. Zyro, Ob Fleisch oder 
Leib das Auferstehende, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift, 1849, p. 639, sq. At any 
rate, the expression resurrectio carnis soon became current, and thus it passed 
over into the so-called Apostles’ Creed. 

* Clement, Ep. i. ad Cor. c. 24-26 (comp. note 2). Justin M. adopts the 
literal interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and, in 
the form, that it will rise again with all its members, Fragm. de Resurr. ce. 3 
(edited as a separate programme by Teller, 1766; extracts in Rössler, Bibl. 
1. 174). Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 146, ss. Even cripples will rise as such, but 
at the moment of the resurrection, be restored by Christ, and put into a more 
perfect condition; De Resurr. ὁ. 4, and Dial. 6. Tryph. ce. 69. Justin founds 
his belief in the resurrection of the body chiefly upon the omnipotence, jus- 
tice, and benevolence of God, upon the miracles of Jesus in raising the dead 
while he was upon the earth, and also, in fine, upon the resurrection of 
Christ himself ;* and shows, in connection with it, that the body must neces- 
sarily participate in future rewards or punishments, for body and soul neces- 
sarily constitute one whole; like two bullocks, they make one span. Alone, 
they can accomplish as little as one ox in plowing. According to Justin, 
Christianity differs from the systems of either Pythagoras or Plato, in that it 
teaches not only the immortality of the soul, but also the resurrection of the 
body. But as Justin investigated this subject more thoroughly, he was 
necessarily led to the discussion of certain questions which have generally 
been reserved for scholastic acumen, 6. g., relating to the sexual relations of 
the resurrection-bodies, which he compares to mules (?) [Quest. et Resp. p. 


* On the other hand, he fails to take notice of the analogies from nature, which others 
adduce; as Semisch, p. 148, has remarked. 


$ 76. Tue REsURRECTION. 219 


423: Tametsi membra genitalia post resurrectionem, ad prolificationem utilia 
non erunt: ad reminiscentiam tamen ejus facient, quod per ea membra mor- 
tales acceperint generationem, auctum, et diurnitatem. Inducimur namque 
per ea ad cogitationem tam prolixe sapientie Christ, quee illa (hominibus 
per mortem intercedentibus attribuit, ad eorum per generationem) augendo- 
rum conservationem, ut sobolis create successione, genus nostrum in immor- 
talitate (perducaret)].—The arguments which Athenagoras adduces in his 
treatise De Resurr. (especially ὁ. 11) are partly the same which were in 
after ages urged by natural theology in support of the doctrine of immor- 
tality ; the moral nature of man, his liberty, and the retributive justice of 
God. Concerning the resurrection of the body, he has regard to the objec- 
tions which have been made to it at all times, on the ground of the natural 
course of things (the fact that the elements of one organism may enter into 
the composition of another, etc.). He is, however, comforted by the idea 
that at the resurrection all things will be restored, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
σώματος ἁρμονίαν καὶ oboracıv.—Theophilus, ad Aut. i. 8, uses similar lan- 
guage.—/reneus, Adv. Her. v. 12 and 13, also asserts the identity of the 
future with the present body, and appeals to the analogous revivification 
(not new creation) of separate organs of the body in some of the miraculous 
cures performed by Christ (e. g., of the blind man, the man with the withered 
hand). He alludes particularly to those whom Christ raised from the dead, 
the, son of the widow at Nain, and Lazarus (but makes no mention of the 
body of Christ himself!).* That Tertullian, who wrote a separate work on 
this subject (De Resurrectione Carnis), believed in the resurrection of the 
body, is what we might expect, especially as he made no strict distinction 
between the body and the soul. In illustration, he acutely points out the 
intimate connection existing between the one and the other during the 
present life: Nemo tam proximus tibi (anime), quem post Dominum diligas, 
nemo magis frater tuus, quae (sc. caro) tecum etiam in Deo nascitur (c. 63). 
In his opinion the flesh participates in spiritual blessings, in the means of 
grace presented to us in unction, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper; it even 
participates in martyrdom (the baptism of blood)! The body, too, is created 
after the image of God (comp. above, § 56, note 3)! He uses the same 
illustrations of day and night, the phenix, ete., which we find in the writings 
of others, and maintains the identity of the future with the present body, 6. 
52: Certe non aliud resurgit quam quod seminatur, nec aliud seminatur 
quam quod dissolvitur humi, nee aliud dissolvitur humi quam caro, cf. 6, 63. 
He endeavors to meet the objection, that certain members will be of no use 
in the future life, by saying that the members of the human body*are not 
only designed for the mean service of the visible world, but also for some- 
thing higher. Even on earth the mouth serves, not only for the purpose of 
eating, but also to speak and to praise God, etc., c. 60 and 61. Minucius 
Felix makes Cecilius bring forward the objections of the heathen to the pos- 
sibility, both of an incorporeal immortality, and of a resurrection of the body, 
c.11: Vellem tamen sciscitari, utrumne sine corpore, an cum corporibus, 


* Trenzeus takes the word “flesh” in 1 Cor. xv. 50, which was often quoted against the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, to mean fleshly sense. 


220 First PerıoDd. ESCHATOLoGY. 


et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an innovatis, resurgatur? Sine corpore? hoe, 
quod sciam, neque mens, neque anima, nec vita est. Ipso corpore ? sed jam 
ante dilapsum est. Alio corpore? ergo homo novus nascitur, non prior ille 
reparatur. Et tamen tanta etas abiit, secula innumera fluxerunt ; quis unus 
ab inferis vel Protesilai sorte remeavit, horarum saltem permisso commeatu, 
vel ut exemplo crederemus ?—Every one expects that Octavius will say that 
Christ is this Protesilaus; but in vain! The arguments which he adduces, 
c. 34, in reply to these objections, are restricted to the omnipotence of God, 
which created man out of nothing, and this is certainly more difficult than 
the mere restoration of his body ; to the above analogies from nature (expec- 
tandum nobis etiam corporis ver est); and to the necessity of retribution, 
which the deniers of the resurrection are anxious to escape.—The notions of 
Cyprian on this subject are formed after those of Tertullian, comp. De 
Habitu Virg. p. 100, and Rettberg, p. 345. 

° See the passages quoted in the preceding note. 

° Clement of Alexandria had intended to write a separate work περὶ 
ἀναστάσεως, comp. Pied. i. 6, p. 125 (104 Sylb.): according to Euseb. vi. 
24, and Hieron. apud Rufinum, Origen composed not only two books, but 
also (according to the latter) two dialogues (?) on this subject, comp. contra 
Cels. v. 20 (Opp. i. p. 592), De Prine. ii. 10, i. p. 100, and the fragments, Opp. 
T. 1. p. 33-37. Clement of Alexandria, in such of his writings as are yet 
extant, only touches upon the doctrine of the resurrection without discussing 
it. The passage, Strom. iv. 5, p. 569 (479 Sylb.), where he represents the 
future deliverance of the soul from the fetters of the body as the object of 
the most ardent desire of the wise man, does not give a very favorable idea 
of his orthodoxy on this point. But his disciple Origen maintains, Comm, 
in Matt. (Opp. iii. p. 811, 712), that we may put our trust in Christ without 
believing the resurrection of the body, provided we hold fast the immortality 
of the soul. Nevertheless he defended the doctrine of the church against 
Celsus, but endeavored to divest it of every thing which might give a handle 
to scoffers : on this account he rejected the doctrine of the identity of the bodies 
(which is not that of Paul). Contra Cels. iv. 57 (Opp. i. p. 548); v. 18 
(ibid. p. 590): Οὔτε μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς, οὔτε τὰ θεῖα γράματα αὐταῖς φησι σαρξὶ 
μηδεμίαν μεταβολὴν ἀνειληφυίαις τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον, ζήσεσθαι τοὺς πάλαι 
ἀποθανόντας, ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀναδύντας. Ὃ δὲ Κέλσος συκοφαντεῖ ἡμᾶς 
ταῦτα λέγων. Cap. 28, p. 594: Ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν οὔ φαμεν τὸ διαφθαρὲν 
σῶμα ἐπανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φύσιν, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν διαφθαρέντα 
κόκκον τοῦ σίτου ἐπανέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόκκον τοῦ σίτου. Λέγομεν γὰρ 
ὦσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ κόκκον τοῦ σίτου ἐγείρεται στάχυς, οὕτω λόγος τις ἔγκειται 
τῷ σώματι, db’ οὗ μὴ φθειρομένον ἐγείρεται τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ. The 
appeal to the omnipotence of God appeared to him an ἀτοπωτάτη ἀναχώ- 
ρῆσις, p. 595, according to the principle εἰ γὰρ αἰσχρόν τι dpa ὁ Θεὸς, οὔκ 
ἐστι θεὸς ; but the biblical doctrine of the resurrection, if rightly interpreted, 
includes nothing that is unworthy of God, comp. vii. 49, 50 (Opp. 1. p. 777, 
54.) ; Selecta in Psalm (Opp. ii. p. 53236), where he designates the literal 
interpretation as φλυαρία πτωχῶν νοημάτων, and proves that every body 
must be adapted to the surrounding world. ‚If we would live in water, we 
ought to be made like fish, ete. The heavenly state also demands glorified 


$ 77. GENERAL JUDGMENT. 221 


bodies, like those of Moses and Elias. In the same place Origen gives a 
more correct mterpretation of Ezech. xxxvii; Matt. vill, 12; Ps. in. 7, and 
other passages, which were commonly applied to the resurrection of the 
body. Comp. De Prine. ii. 10 (Opp. i. p. 100, Red. p. 223); Schnitzer, p. 
147, ss. On the other side: Hieron. ad Pammach. ep. 38 (61); Photius 
(according to Method.), Cod. 234. The opinion held by Origen’s later fol- 
lowers, and of which he himself was accused, that the resurrection bodies 
have the shape of a sphere, is supported, as far as he is concerned, by only a 
single passage (De Oratione, Opp. i. 268), in which, moreover, he refers to 
other (Platonic?) authorities; comp. Redep. ii. 463 ; Ramers, ubi supra, 69. 

* Thus the Gnostic Apelles maintained that the work of Christ had refer- 
ence only to the soul, and rejected the resurrection of the body. Baur, 
Gnosis, p. 410. [That the Gnostics believed in the immortality of the soul, 
appears certain; but their notions concerning matter made them shrink from 
the idea of a reunion of the body with the soul, and led them to reject the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the former. But they have unjustly been 
charged by the fathers with a denial of the resurrection in general. Comp. 
Burton, Bampton Lecture, notes 58 and 59, and Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, 
i, p. 51, 52.] 

® Respecting the error of the 7’hnetopsychites (as John Damascenus first 
calls them) about the year 248, comp. Euseb. vi. 37 : δὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ψυχὴν 
τέως μὲν κατὰ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα καιρὸν ἅμα τῇ τελευτῇ συναποθνήσκειν τοῖς 
σώμασι καὶ συνδιαφθείρεσθαι, αὖθις δέ ποτε κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀναστάσεως 
καιρὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀναβιώσεσθαι. 


ἐ 7. 


GENERAL JUDGMENT.—HADES.—PURGATORY.—CONFLAGRATION OF THE 
WORLD. 


Baumgarten, J. S., Historia Doctrine de Statu Animarum separatarum, Hal. 1754. 4. 
Ernesti, J. A., de veterum Patr. Opinione de Statu Medio Animarum a corpore 
sejunct. Excurs. in lectt. academ. in Ep. ad Hebr. Lips. 1795. [Jae. Windet, 
Στρωματεὺς ἐπιστολικύός de Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebr&orum et Gr&corum 
comparatis Sententiis concinnatus, Lond. 1663, '64. Thom. Burnet, De Statu 
Mortuorum et Resurgentium, Lond. 1757. Comp. Knapp, 1. c. p. 463, 464, and 
p. 478, and the references § 69.] 


The transactions of the general judgment, which was thought to 
be connected with the general resurrection, were depicted in various 
ways. Some ascribe the office of Judge to the Son, others to the 
Father, both in opposition to the Hellenistic myth of the judges in 
the under-world." The idea of a Hades (sx), known to both the 
Hebrews and the Greeks, was transferred to Christianity, and the 
assumption, that the real happiness, or the final misery, of the de- 
parted did not commence till after the general judgment and the 
resurrection of the body, appeared to necessitate the belief in an 
intermediate state, in which the soul was supposed to remain from 
the moment of its separation from the body to this last catastrophe.’ 


222 First Perıop. EscHAToLoGY. 


Tertullian, however, held that the martyrs went at once to paradise, 
the abode of the blessed, and thought that in this they enjoyed an 
advantage over other Christians ;* while Cyprian does not seem to 
know about any intermediate state whatever.‘ The Gnostics rejected 
the belief in Hades, together with that of the resurrection of the body, 
and imagined that the spiritually minded (the pneumatic) would, 
immediately after death, be delivered from the kingdom of the 
demiurge, and elevated to the πλήρωμα. The ancient oriental and 
Parsic idea of a purifying fire already occurs during this period in 
the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This purifying 
fire, however, is not yet transferred to this intermediate state, but 18 
either taken in a very general sense, or supposed to be connected 
with the general conflagration of the world.’ 


1 Justin M. Apol.i. 8: Πλάτων δὲ ὁμοίως ἔφη "Padauavdov καὶ Μίνω 
κολάσειν τοὺς ἀδίκους Tap’ αὐτοὺς ἐλθόντας, ἡμεῖς δὲ TO αὐτὸ πρᾶγμά 
φαμεν γενήσεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. For the further views of Justin 
about the general judgment, see Apol. ii. 9; Semisch, ii. p. 414,16. Tatian 
contra Gr. 6: Δικάξουσι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐ Μίνως, οὐδὲ Ῥαδάμανθυς. . . 
δοκμιμαστὴς δὲ αὐτὸς 6 ποιητὴς Θεὸς γίνεται. Comp. c. 25. 

2 Justin M. Dial. e. Tr. § 5, makes the souls of the pious take up a tem- 
porary abode in a better, those of the wicked in a worse place. He even 
stigmatizes as heretical ($ 80), the doctrine that souls are received into 
heaven immediately after death; but he admits that they possess a pre- 
sentiment of their future destiny, Coh. ad Gree. c. 35; comp. Semisch, p. 
464, note 3. The good, even before the final divison, dwell in a happier, the 
evil in a more wretched abode; Dial. cum Tryph.$ 5. On his opinion, that, 
at the departure of the soul from the body, the former fall into the hands of 
evil angels (Dial. c. Tryph. $ 105), see Semisch, ii. 465. Tren. v. 31, p. 331, 
(451, Gr.): Al ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὡρισμένον αὑταὶς ἀπὸ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, κάκεῖ μέχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν" 
ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα καὶ δλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι σωμα- 
τικῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, οὕτως ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
(in connection with this, the decensus Christi ad inferos, and Luke xvi. 22, 
ete.). Tertullian mentions (De Anima, 55) a treatise in which he says he 
has proved, omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari in diem Domini. The 
treatise itself is no longer extant; but comp. De Anima, ¢. 7 (aliquid tormenti 
sive solatii anima precerpit in carcere seu diversorio inferum, in igni, vel in 
sinu Abrahee); and c. 58. Tertullian rejects the notion of the sleep of the 
soul, which is not to be confounded with the error of the Arabian false teach- 
ers; he also opposes the opinion, founded upon 1 Sam. xxviii, that spirits 
might be conjured up from the abode of the dead, by appealing to Luke xvi. 
26 (comp. Orig. Hom. ii. in 1 Reg. Opp. ii. p. 490-98). 

3 Tert. De Anim. 55, De Resurr. 43: Nemo peregrinatus a corpore statim 
immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii prerogativa, paradiso scilicet, 
non inferis deversurus.—On the meaning of the different terms: inferi, sinus 
Abrahz, Paradisus, see Adv. Mare. iv. 34; Apol. c. 47; Orig. Hom, ii. in 


$ 77. GENERAL JUDGMENT. 223 


Reg. 1. c. and Hom. in Num, 26, 4; Münscher, von Cölln, i. p. 57, 58, 
Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 225. [Tertullian gives the most information about 
the underworld. He describes it (De Anim. 55) as an immense space in the 
depths of the earth, divided by an impassable gulf into two parts. The part 
assigned to the righteous he calls sinus Abrahe, that of the wicked ignis, 
and sometimes inferi. So, too, Hippolytus, in a fragment, Opp. ed. Fabri- 
clus, 1. 220. Paradise was a different place from this underworld; it is far 
above this earth, separated from it by a glowing girdle: thither Christ went: 
and there, too, martyrs go at once; Enoch and Elijah were also transported 
thither. Origen held that, before Christ, no souls, not even those of the 
prophets and patriarchs, went to Paradise; but when Jesus descended to 
Hades he transferred them into the lower Paradise (in contrast with the 
upper), or the third heaven. The souls of pious Christians also go to this 
Paradise—which Origen identifies with the bosom of Abraham. ] 

* Cypr. adv. Demetr. p. 196, and Tract. de Mortalitate, in various places; 
he expresses, e. g., his hope that those who die of pestilence, will come at 
once to Christ, p. 158, 164 (where he appeals to the example of Enoch), 166. 
Rettberg, p. 345. 

° Neander, Gnost. Systeme, p. 141, ss. [“ The Gnostics taught that the 
soul of the perfect Gnostic, having risen again at baptism, and being enabled 
by perfection of knowledge to conquer the Demiurge, or principle of evil, 
would ascend, as soon as it was freed from the body, to the heavenly Pleroma, 
and dwell there for ever in the presence of the Father: while the soul of him 
who had not been allowed while on earth to arrive at such a plenitude of 
knowledge, would pass through several transmigrations, till it was sufficiently 
purified ta wing its flight to the Pleroma.” Burton, Bampton Lecture, v. 
Lect. p. 131.] 

° The views of Clement on this subject are expressed in still more general 
terms, Peed. 111. 9, toward the end, p. 282 (Sylb. p. 241), and Strom. vii. 6, 
p. 851 (709 Sylb.): Φαμὲν δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς 
ἁμαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς: πῦρ οὐ τὸ πάμφαγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιμον 
λέγοντες, τὸ διϊκνούμενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχομένης τὸ πῦρ. From the 
whole context it appears that he speaks of the purifying efficacy of a mysti- 
cal fire, even during the present life, perhaps in allusion to Matth. iii. 11. 
Luke iii. 16.— Origen, on the other hand, referring to 1 Cor. iii. 12, considers 
the fire which will consume the world at the last day, as at the same time a 
πῦρ καθάρσιον, Contra Cels. v.15. No one (not even Paul or Peter himself) 
can escape this fire, but it does not cause any pain to the pure (according to 
Is. xliii. 2). It is a second sacramentum regenerationis : and as the baptism 
of blood was compared with the baptism of water (see above, § 72, note 10), 
so Origen thought that this baptism of fire at the end of the world would be 
necessary in the case of those who have forfeited the baptism of the Spirit; 
in the case of all others it will be a fire of test. Comp. in Exod. Hom. vi. 
4; in Psalm Hom. iii. 1; in Luc. Hom. xiv. (Opp. iii. p. 948); xxiv. p. 961; 
in Jerem. Hom. ii. 3; in Ezech. Hom. i, 13; comp. Redepenning on p. 235. 
Guerike, De Schola Alexand. ii, p. 294. Thomasius, p. 250. 


224 First PERIOD. ESCHATOLOGY, 


In respect to the end of the world, opinions wavered between annihilation and re-forma- 
tion. Most of the fathers seem to have held to the latter view, but Justin (in oppo- 
sition to the Stoic tenet) believed in a real annihilation; Apol. i. 20 and ii. 7. Comp. 
Semisch, ii. 475. 


§ 78. 


STATE OF THE BLESSED AND THE CONDEMNED.—RESTITUTION OF _ 
ALL THINGS. x 


Cotta, J. F., Historia succincta Dogmatis de Poenarum Infernalium Duratione, Tüb. 1744. 
Dietelmaier, J. A., Commenti fanatici ὠποκαταστάσεως πάντων Historia antiquior. 
Altorf. 1769, 8. 


Various modes of statement were used to denote the state of the 
blessed. The idea that different degrees of blessedness are propor- 
tionate to the different degrees of virtue exhibited in this life, was 
in harmony with the views of most of the fathers of this period con- 
cerning the doctrine of moral freedom ;* and was also congruous 
with the idea of further progress after the present life. Origen in 
particular developed this latter notion,” and also endeavored to avoid 
as much as possible all sensuous representations of the pleasures of 
the future world, and to place them in purely spiritual enjoyments.* 
Notions more or less gross prevailed concerning the punishment of 
the wicked, which most of the fathers regarded as eternal.* From 
the very nature of the case it is evident, that purely spiritual views 
on this subject could not reasonably be expected. Even Origen 
imagined the bodies of the damned to be black.” But as he looked 
upon evil rather as the negation of good than as something positive, 
he was induced, by his idealistic tendency, to set limits even to hell, 
and to hope for a final remission of the punishment of the wicked 
at the restitution of all things, although in popular discourse he 
retained the common idea of eternal punishment.’ 


* According to Justin M., the blessedness of heaven consists mainly in the 
continuation of the blessedness of the millennial reign, the only difference 
being the enjoyment of immediate intercourse with God, Apol. 1. 8. Semisch, 
ii, p. 477. Different names were given even to the intermediate states 
before the resurrection (comp. the preceding §, note 6). This was also the 
case with the abode of the blessed. Thus /renwus, v. 36, p. 337 (460, Gr.), 
makes a distinction between οὐρανός, παράδεισος and πόλις, and endeavors 
to prove the existence of different habitations from Matth. xii. 8, and John 
xiv. 2. Clement of Alexandria also adopted the idea of different degrees of 
blessedness. Strom. iv. 6, p. 579, ’80 (488, ’89, Sylb.); vi. 14, p. 793 (668, 
Sylb.); and Orig. De Princip. ii. 11 (Opp. i. p. 104). 

* According to Origen, 1. c. the blessed dwell in the aérial regions (1 
Thess. iv. 17), and take notice of what happens in the air. Immediately 
after their departure from this earth, they go first to paradise (eruditionis 
locus, auditorium vel schola animarum), which (like Plato) he imagined to 


$ 78. STATE OF THE BLESSED AND THE CONDEMNED. 225 


be a happy island; as they grow in knowledge and piety, they proceed on 
their journey from paradise to higher regions, and having passed through 
various mansions which the Scriptures call heavens, they arrive at last at the 
kingdom of heaven, properly so called. He too appeals to John xiv. 2, and 
maintains that progress is possible even in the kingdom of heaven (striving 
and perfection). The perfection of blessedness ensues only after the gen- 
eral judgment. Even the glory of Christ will be completed only when he 
celebrates his victory, as the head of the church, dwelling entirely in those 
who are his. Comp. in Ley. Hom. vii. (Opp. ii. 222), Comp. Redepenning. 
Origenes, ii. p. 340, 55. Güeseler, Dogmengesch. 230. 

° In the same place, De Prine, ii, 11, *Origen describes in strong terms the 
sensuous expectations of those, qui magis delectationi suee quodammodo ac 
libidini indulgentes, solius, litterse discipuli arbitrantur repromissiones futuras 
in voluptate et luxuria corporis expectandas. He himself, attaching too 
much importance to the intellectual, supposes the principal enjoyment of the 
future life to consist in the gratification of the desire after knowledge, which 
God would not have given us if he had not designed to satisfy it. While on 
earth we trace the outlines of the picture which will be finished in heaven. 
The objects of future knowledge are, as we might naturally expect, for the 
most part of a theological character; as an allegorical interpreter, he would 
think it of great importance that we should then fully understand all the 
types of the Old Test. p. 105: Tune intelligit etiam de sacerdotibus et Levitis 
et de diversis sacerdotalibus ordinibus rationem, et cujus forma erat in Moyse, 
et nihilominus que sit veritas apud Deum jubileorum, et septimanas anno- 
rum; sed et festorum dierum et feriarum rationes videbit et omnium sacrifi- 
ciorum et purificationum intuebitur causas ; que sit quoque ratio leprae pur 
gationis et qua lepre diverse, et que purgatio sit eorom qui, seminis proflu- 
vium patiuntur, advertet; et agnoscet quoque, que et quanta qualesque 
virtutes sint bonee, queeque nihilominus contrariz, et qui vel illis affectus sit 
hominibus, vel istis contentiosa emulatio. The knowledge, howevgr, of meta- 
physics, and even of natural philosophy, is not excluded: Intuebitur quoque, 
que sit ratio animarum, quaeve diversitas animalium vel eorum, que in aquis 
vivunt, vel avium, vel ferarum, quidve sit, quod in tam multas species singula 
genera deducuntur, qui creatoris prospectus, vel quis per hee singula sapien- 
tie ejus tegitur sensus. Sed et agnoscet, qua ratione radicibus quibusdam 
vel herbis associantur queedam virtutes, et aliis e contrario herbis vel radici- 
bus depelluntur. We shall also have a clear insight into the destinies of 
man, and the dealings of Providence. Among the teachings of God in that 
higher state will also be instruction about the stars, “why a star is in such 
and such a position, why it stands at such and such a distance from another,” 
etc. But the highest and last degree is the intuitive vision of God himself, 
the complete elevation of the spirit above the region of sense. The blessed 
need no other food. Comp. De Princip, iii. 318-321, and Tom. xx. in Joh. 
(Opp. iv. p. 315) : Ὅτε μὲν ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν υἱὸν, ἑώρακε τόν πατέρα: ὅτε δὲ 
ὡς ὃ υἱὸς ὁρᾷ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὄψεταί τις, οἱονεὶ ὁμοίως 
τῷ υἱῷ αὐτόπτης ἔσται τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν τοῦ πατρὸς, οὐκέτι ἀπὸ τῆς 
εἰκόνος ἐννοῶν τὰ περὶ τούτου, οὗ ἡ εἰκών ἐστι. Kat νομίζω γε τοῦτο 
εἷναι τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδίδωσι τὴν βασίλειαν ὁ υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, 

15 


226 First Periop. EsScHATOLoGY. 


καὶ ὅτε γίνεται ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν (1 Cor. xv, 28). Redepen. Orig. 
ii. 283, sq. The views of Origen form a remarkable contrast with the sen- 
suous and rhetorical description of Cyprian, which are indeed connected 
with his hierarchial and ascetic tendency, but also have a more churchly 
character, and enjoy greater popularity, because they are adapted to the 
wants of the heart (the meeting again of individuals, ete.); De Mortalitate, 
p- 166: Quis non ad suos navigare festinans ventum prosperum cupidius 
optaret, ut velociter caros liceret amplecti? Patriam nostram. Paradisum 
computamus; parentes Patriarchas habere jam c@pimus : quid non propera- 
mus et currimus, ut patriam nostram videre, ut parontes salutare possimus ? 
Magnus illic nos carorum numerus expectat, parentum, fratrum, filiorum fre- 
quens nos et copiosa turba desiderat, jam de sua immortalitate secura, et 
adhue de nostra salute solicita., Ad horum conspectum et complexum venire 
quanta et illis et nobis in commune letitia est! Qualis illic ccelestium reg- 
norum voluptas sine timore moriendi et cum eternitate vivendi! quam 
summa et perpetua felicitas! Illie apostolorum gloriosus chorus, illic proph- 
etarum exultantium numerus, illic martyrum innumerabilis populus ob cer- 
taminis et passionis victoriam coronatus; triumphantes illic virgines, qua 
concupiscentiam carnis et corporis continentie robore subegerunt; remune- 
rati misericordes, qui alimentis et largitionibus pauperum justitize opera fece- 
runt, qui dominica praecepte servantes ad coelestes thesauros terrena patrimo- 
nia transtulerunt. Ad hos, fratres dilectissimi, avida cupiditate properemus, 
ut cum his cito esse, ut cito ad Christum venire contingat, optemus. 

* Clement of Rome, Ep. 2, c. 8 (comp. ce. 9): Meta yap τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἡμᾶς 
ἐκ Tov κόσμου οὐκ ἔτι δυνάμεθα ἐκεῖ ἐξομολογήσασθαι ἢ μετανοεῖν ἔτι. 
Justin M. also asserts the eternity of future punishments in opposition to 
Plato’s doctrine, that they would last a thousand years, Apol. i. 8, Coh. ad 
Gr. c. 35. Thus Minue. Fel. c. 35: Nec tormentis aut modus ullus aut ter- 
minus. Also Cyprian, ad Demetr. p. 195: Cremabit addictos ardems sem- 
per gehenha, et vivacibus flammis vorax peena, nec erit, unde habere tor- 
menta vel requiem possint aliquando vel finem, Servabuntur cum corporibus 
suis animee infinitis cruciatibus ad dolorem. P. 196: Quando istine excessum 
fuerit, nullus jam pcenitentiz locus est, nullus, satisfactionis effectus: hie 
vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur, hic saluti sterne cultu Dei et fructu fidei 
providetur—The idea of eternal punishments is different from that of a total 
annihilation, which was propounded by Arnobius at the commencement of 
the following period. Some are disposed to find the first traces of this doc- 
trine in Justin M., Dial. cum Tryph. e. 5, where it is said that the souls of 
the wicked should be punished as long as ἔστ᾽ ἂν αὐτὰς καὶ εἷναι καὶ κολά- 
ζεσθαι. ὃ Θεὸς θέλῃ. (Comp. on this passage Semisch, ii. p. 480, 481.) Comp. 
also Zren. ii. 34: Quoadusque ea Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit; and 
Clement Hom. ii. 3. 

° In accordance with the analogy of Scripture, fire was commonly repre- 
sented as*the instrument by which God executes his punishments. Justin M. 
speaks in various places of a πῦρ αἰώνιον, ἄσβεστον (Apol. ii. 1, 2, 7, Dial. 
c. Tr. § 130). Clement of Alexandria, Coh. 47 (35), calls it πῦρ σωφρονοῦν, 
Tert. Scorp. 4, and Minuc. Fel. 35 (afterward aiso Jerome and others), call 
it ignis sapiens. It will be sufficient here to quote the passage of Minucius: 


§ 78. STATE OF THE BLESSED AND THE CONDEMNED. 227 


Illie sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes fulminum 
corpora tangunt, nec absumunt. Sicut ignes Aitne et Vesuvii montis et 
ardentium ubique terrarum flagrant nec erogantur, ita pcenale illud incen- 
dium non damnis ardentium pascitur, sed inexesa corporum laceratione nutri- 
tur. Comp. also Tert. Apol. c. 48, and Cypr. ad. Demetr. ]. ¢., who thinks 
that the sight of these punishments is a kind of satisfaction to the blessed for 
the persecution which they had to suffer while on earth. [ Cyprian, Ep. 55 
(Baluz. 52, c. 17).—Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, 
alind missum in carcerem non exire inde, donee solvat novissimam quadran- 
tem, aliud statim fidei et virtutis accipere mercedem, aliud pro peccatis longo 
dolore cruciatum emundari et purgari diu igne (another reading is, purgari 
diutine), aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse, aliud denique pendere in 
diem judicii ad sententiam Domini, aliud statim a Domino coronari. Comp. 
Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), p. 253.]—Hell was represented as a place; 
thus by Justin M., Apol. 1.19: Ἢ δὲ γεέννά ἐστι τόπος, ἔνθα κολάζεσθαι 
μέλλουσι οἱ ἀδίκως βιώσαντες καὶ μὴ πιστεύοντες ταῦτα γενήσεσθαι, ὅσα ὁ 
θεὸς διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξε.---ΑΒβ Origen imagined that spiritual enjoy- 
ments constitute the future blessedness, so he believed the condemnation of 
the wicked to consist in separation from God, remorse of conscience, etc., De 
Prine. ii. 10 (Opp. i. p. 102). The eternal fire is not a material substance, 
kindled by another, but the combustible materials are our sins themselves, 
coming up before the conscience: the fire of hell resembles the fire of pas- 
sion in this world. The separation of the soul from God may be compared 
with the pain which we suffer, when all the members of the body are torn 
out of their joints (an undying dissolution of our very essence !). By “outer 
darkness” Origen does not so much understand a place devoid of light, as a 
state of ignorance; so that this notion about black bodies seems to be an 
accommodation to popular ideas. It should also be borne in mind, that 
Origen supposed that the design of all these punishments was medicinal or 
educational, in expectation of future reformation. δ 

° De Prine. i, 6 (Opp. 1. p. 70, 71, quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 
64, 65). The ideas here expressed are connected with Origen’s general 
views about the character of God, the design of the divine punishments, 
liberty and the nature of evil, as well as with his demonology, and especially 
with his triumphant faith in the power of redemption to overcome all things 
(according to Ps. ex. 1, and 1 Cor. xv. 25). At the same time, he frankly 
confessed that his doctrine might easily become dangerous to the uncon- 
verted; contra Celsum, vi. 26 (Opp. i. p. 650). He therefore speaks at the 
very commencement of the xix. Hom. in Jerem. (Opp. T. iii. p. 241), of an 
eternal condemnation, and even of the impossibility of being converted in the 
world to come. Nevertheless, in the same Hom. (p. 267), he calls the fear 
of eternal punishment (according to Jerem. xx. 7) ἀπάτη, beneficial indeed 
in its effects, and appointed by God himself (a pedagogical artifice as it were). 
For, he says, many wise men, or such as thought themselves wise, after 
having apprehended the (theoretical) truth respecting the divine punish- 
ments, and rejected the delusion (beneficial in a practical point of view), 
have given themselves up to a vicious life; so that it would have been much 
better for them to believe in the eternity of the punishments of hell. Comp. 
Redepen. ii. 447. 


SECOND PERIOD. 


FROM THE DEATH OF ORIGEN TO JOHN OF DAMASCUS, 
FROM THE YEAR 254-730. 


THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


4 


A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES IN THE 
SECOND PERIOD. 


§ 79. 


INTRODUCTION. 


De Wette, Christliche Sittenlehre, vol. ii. p. 294, ss. Münscher, Handbuch, vol. iii. Section 
1. [Baur, F. C., Die Christliche Kirche vom Aufang des vierten bis zum Ende des 
sechsten Jahrh. Tübingen, 1859. E. von Lasaulx, Der Untergang des Hellenismus. 
München, 1854. Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed, 2 vols. 1844.] 


Durine the considerable space of time embraced in this period, 
the Polemics of the church were developed much more prominently 
than either the apologetical tendency as in the preceding, or the 
systematic tendency as in the next period. In the time which 
elapsed between the Sabellian and the Monothelite controversies, 
which nearly coincides with the limits here assigned, an unbroken 
series of contests is carried on within the church, about the most 
important doctrinal points. While in the preceding period heretical 
tendencies separated from the church as a matter of course, here, 
on the contrary, victory for a long time wavers, now to the one side, 
and again to the other. Orthodoxy, however, prevailed at last, 
partly from an internal necessity, yet not without the aid of the 
secular power and of external circumstances, 


It is just as one-sided to ascribe the victory of orthodoxy to the combination 
of political power and monkish intrigues, as it is to deny these factors alto- 
gether. Much as there was of human passion and dogmatism intermingled 
with this strife, yet it is not to be wholly derived from such impure sources ; 
but there must also be recognized a law of internal progress, determining the 
gradual and systematic unfolding of the dogmas. 


§ 81. Tue Dogmatic CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD. 229 


§ 80. 
DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES. 


The three main pillars of the Christian system, Theology, Chris- 
tology, and Anthropology, were the principal points debated in the 
councils, and defined in the symbols. The controversies here to 
be considered are the following: a. In reference to the Doctrine of 
the Trinity (Theology) : the Sabellian and the Arian controversies, 
with their branches, the Semi-Arian and the Macedonian. ὁ. Rela- 
tive to the two Natures of Christ (Christology) : the Apollinarian, 
Nestorian, Eutychian-Monophysite, and Monothelite controversies. 
c. Concerning Anthropology and the Economy of Redemption : the 
Pelagian, Semipelagian, and (in reference to the Church) the Dona- 
tist controversies. The first eight took their rise in the East; the 
last three originated in the West, but both east and west recipro- 
cally felt their effects ; so that there were frequent divisions between 
the oriental and occidental church, till at last the controversy 
respecting the procession of oly Ghost brought about a lasting 
schism. 


The controversy about the Worship of Images, carried on in the East, 
and partly, too, in the West (only the beginning of which falls into this 
period), belongs, in the first instance, to the history of worship; but it also 
had an influence, especially in the West, upon the doctrinal definitions of the 
nature of God, the person of Christ, and the significance of the sacraments. 
But the further development of the doctrine of the sacraments, and of escha- 
tology, was reserved for the next period. Concerning the external history 
of those controversies, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 


§ 81. 


THE DOGMATIC CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD—THE FATE OF 
ORIGENISM. 


In proportion to the development of ecclesiastical orthodoxy into 
fixed and systematic shape, was the loss of individual freedom in 
respect to the formation of doctrines and the increased peril of 
becoming heretical. The more liberal tendency of former theolo- 
gians, such as Origen, could no longer be tolerated, and was at 
length condemned. But, notwithstanding this external condemna- 
tion, the spirit of Origen continued to animate the chief theologians 
of the East, though it was kept within narrower limits. The works 
of this great teacher were also made known in the West by Jerome 
and Rufinus, and exerted an influence even upon his opponents, 


230 SeconD Periop. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


The principal followers of Origen were Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 
Pamphilus of Cxsarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocesarea, and 
others. Among his opponents Methodius (bishop of Lycia, and afterward 
of Tyrus, died in the Diocletian persecution, a. ἡ. 311) occupied the most 
conspicuous position, although he too adopted many of Origen’s views, 6, g., 
in his Symposion ; see Neander’s Church Hist., i. 721 (Torrey). On the 
further controversies relative to the doctrinal tenets of Origen under the 
Emperor Justinian I., and their condemnation brought about (A. p. 544) by 
Mennas, bishop of Constantinople, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 
Ramers, u. s. ($76), in his first part, or historical introduction. 


§ 82, 
TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS PERIOD. 


Among the theologians of the Hast who either exerted the great- 
est influence upon the development of the system of doctrines, or 
composed works on the subject, are the following: Eusebius of 
Cesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, but principally Athanasius,’ 
Basil the Great,‘ Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Naziamzum’ 
(the last three of Cappadocia); next to them, Chrysostom,’ Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ephräm the Syrian,' Nemesius,” Cyril 
of Alexandria,” Theodore of Mopsuestia,* Theodoret, bishop of 
Cyrus;* in the West: Arnobius,” Lactantius,* Hilary of Por- 
tiers,’ Jerome," Ambrose,” and above all, Augustine.” ‘These were 
followed by others of greater or less importance : John Cassian,” 
Vincens of Lerins,” Salvian,” Leo I. surnamed the Great, Prosper — 
of Aquitanie,* Gennadius,” Fulgentius of Ruspe,” Boethius,” 
Gregory the Great,” and Isidore of Seville.” The last is of im- 
‘portance, as he brought together the dogmatic material already in 
existence, and was thus the forerunner of John of Damascus (in the 


East). 


* Eusebius (Pamphili), bishop of Cesarea (author of the ecclesiastical his- 
tory), was born about the year 261, and died 340. Of his dogmatical works 
the following may be mentioned (in addition to the prologue to his ecclesi- 
astical history): Εὐαγγελικῆς ἀποδείξεως παρασκευή (Praeparatio Evangelica), 
Ed. 1. of Steph. 1544, ss. Cum not #. Vigeri, 1628. Col. 1688, fol—Hvayye- 
λικὴ ἀπόδειξις (Demonstratio Evangelica), Ed. of Steph. 1545. Cum not. 
Rich. Montacutii, 1628. Lips. 1688, fol.—Kara Μαρκέλλου, ii—Ilepi τῆς 
ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας, τῶν πρὸς MdpreAAov.—Epistola de Fide Niczena 
ad Cesareenses. Some exegetical treatises also belong here. [Ececles. Hist. 
edited by #. Burton, 4 vols. with notes, Oxford, 1841 and 1845; Anncta- 
tiones ad Eus. Hist. ed. Burton, 2, Oxon. 1841. Prep. Evang. ed. #. Bur- 
ton, 4 Oxon. 1841; this and the Demonstr. Evangelica, and Contra Hiero- 
clem et Marcellum, ed. 7. Gaisford, Oxon.; on the Theophania, Syriac ver- 





§ 82. TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS Period. 231 


sion, by 5. Zee, Lond. 1842, and translation, by the same, Cambr. 1843. 
Treatises by Eusebius in Mors Patrum Nov. Bibliotheca, Tom. 3, 1853.— 
The first fasciculus of a new, critical edition of the Eccles. Hist. of Eusebius, 
by Hugo Leemmer, Berl. 1859.] 

* Eusebius of Nicomedia, at first bishop of Berytus, and afterwards of Con- 
stantinople, died a. p. 340. He was the leader of the Eusebian party in 
the Arian controversy. His opinions are given in the works of Athanasius, 
Sozomen, Theodoret (comp. especially his Epistola ad Paulianum Tyri Epis- 
copum, in Theod. i. 6), and Philostorgius. Comp. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. 
p- 109, ss.* [Comp. Semisch, in Herzog’s Realeneyclop.] 

* Athanasius, called the father of orthodoxy, was born at Alexandria about 
the year 296, was bishop of that city from the year 326, and died a. p, 373; 
he exerted an important influence in the formation of the Nicene Creed, and 
took a prominent part in the Arian controversy. Of his numerous dogmati- 
cal works the most important are: Λόγος κατὰ "EAAnvwov (an apologetical 
treatise); Λόγος περὶ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως Tod Θεοῦ λόγου Kal τῆς διὰ 
σώματος πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐπιφανείας aurod.—"Erdeorg πίστεως (Expositio Fidei 
Nicen®).—IIpöc τοὺς ἐπισκόπους Αἰγύπτου καὶ Λιβύης, ἐπιστολὴ ἐγκυκλι- 
köc κατὰ ’Aptav@v.—Oratt. V. contra Arianos—Homilies, Letters, ete. 
The principal Evırions are: that of the Benedictine monks (of Montfaucon), 
1689-98, ii. ἡ ed. N. A. Giustiniani, Patav. et Lips. 1777, iv. f. Festal 
Letters, by Cureton, from the Syriac; in German, by Larsow, Götting. 1852. 
Comp. Tillemont, T. viii. Réssler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, vol. v. 
Monoarapus: tMöhler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit, 
Mainz. 827, ii. 8. Böhringer, die Kirche Christi, i. 2, p. 1, ss. [On Atha- 
nasius, Comp. Bp. Aaye in his Council of Nice, 1853. His treatises against 
the Arians, translated by John Henry Newman, with notes, in the Oxford 
Library of the Fathers, vols. 8 and 19, and his Historical Tracts in the same 
Library, vol. 13. His Four Orations against the Arians, previously translated 
by S. Parker, 2 vols, Oxford, 1713. His Opera Dogmatica Selecta, ed. by 
Thilo, in his “Bibl. Patr. Gree, Dogmatica, vol. i, Leipz. 1853.] R 

* Basil of Neocwsarea, surnamed the Great, was born A. Ὁ. 316, and died 
A. D. 379; he is of importance in the Arian and Macedonian controversies, 
His principal writings are: ᾿Ανατρεπτικὸς TOD ἀπολογητικοῦ τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς 
Evvoutov (libri. v. contra Eunomium), Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πιεύματος, numerous 
eee and Homilies (in Hexaémeron 11: in Ps. xvii: Diversi Argumenti 

; Sermones 25). Eprrirons of his works were published by Fronto Du- 
ceus and Morellius, Par. 1618, 38, ii. (iii.) f.; by the Ba RN monks in 
the year 1688, iii. fol. and by *Garnier, ἘΠ 1721-30, iii. f.; by De Sin- 
ner, Paris, 1839, iii. MonogrAPHs: Reon De Vita Bee Gron. 1828, 
* Klose, C. R. W., Basilius der Gr. nach seinem Leben und seiner Lehre, 
Stralsund, 1835, 8: ibid. Animadvers. in S. Bos. Opera. 1843, A. Jahn, 
Basilius M. platonizans, Bern. 1838, 4. Bohringer, i. 2, p. 152,ss. [Basil, 
Opera Dogmat. ed. Thilo in Bibl. Patr. Grace. Dogm. vol. 2, 1854. Select 


* The homilies of Husebius of Emisa (who died A. D. 360), are only of secondary impor- 
tance relative to the doctrine of the descensus ad inferos. Opusc. ed. Augusti, Elberf. 
1829. Thilo, über die Schriften des Euseb. von Alex, und des Euseb. von Emisa, 
Halle, 1832. 


232 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Passages from Basil, Lond. 1810. Complete works, ed. Gaume, Paris. On 
Basil, comp. Christian Review, New York, 1853; and on his Life and Let- 
ters, the North American Review, 1860, by Dr. Proudfit.] 

5 Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil, a native of Cappadocia, died about - 
the year 394. His principal work is: Λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὃ wéyac.—He 
also composed dogmatical and exegetical treatises on the creation of the 
world and of man, wrote against Enno and Apollinaris, and was the au- 
thor of several homilies, ἀπὸ tracts, οἷο, Though he strictly adhered to 
the Nicene Creed, yet he was distinguished for the mildness of his disposi- 
tion; “the profoundness of his scientific knowledge, as well as his peculiar 
ties, assign to him the first place among the followers of Origen.” (Hase.) 
His works were edited by Morellius, Par. 1615, ii. ἡ Append. by @retser, 
Par. 1618. Of the Benedictine edition (Paris, 1780) only the first volume 
appeared. Some newly discovered treatises against the Arians and Macedo- 
nians were published in A. Mai Seriptt. Vet. Coll. Rom. 834, T. viii. 
Monocrarus: Rupp, Jul., Gregors, des Bischofs von Nyssa, Leben und 
Meinungen, Leipz. 1834. Bokringeni 1.2,p.275 ss. Heyns, De Greg. Nyss. 
Lugd. Bat. 1835. [Z. @. Moller, Greg. Nyss. Doctrina de hominis natura, 
cum Origen. comparat. Halle, 1854. J. N. Stigler, Die Psychol. des Greg. 
v. N. Regensb. 1857. Gregory on Celibacy and eight discourses, Greek and 
German, in Oehler’s Bibl. d Kirchenväter, 1859.] 

° Gregory of Nazianzum, surnamed the theologian, was born about the 
year 300 at Arianzus, near Nazianzum, was afterw a bishop of Constantino- 
ple, and died a.v. 390. His prineipal works are: In Julianum Apostatam 
Invectiva duo (published separately by Montague, 1610, 4). —Aöyoı 0eoAo- 
ytxoi.—He also composed numerous orations, letters, poems, and shorter 
treatises. His works were published by Morellius, Paris, 1630, ii. f. (Lips. 
1690). Of the Benedictine edition only the first volume appeared, [vol. ii. 
1840.] Monograrns: * Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz, der Theologe, 
Darmst. 1825. Böringer, i. 2, p. 857, ss. [Ullmann’s Life of Greg. Naz. 
transl*in part by G. V. Cox, Lond. 1851. His dogmatic works in Thilo’s 
Bibl. (u.s.). Hergenröther, Greg. Lehre von d. Dreieinigkeit, Regensb. 1850. 
Comp. Journal of Sacred Lit. 1852; West. Review, vol. 56.] 

τ Chrysostom was born at Antioch in Syria about the year 344, occupied 
the episcopal see of Constantinople, and died A. D. 407. His practico-exeget- 
ical and homiletical writings are more valuable than his strictly dogmatical 
works; at the same time, he is of importance in the history of doctrines on 
account of this very practical tendency ; 6. g., his views on the freedom of 
the will are in strong contrast with those of Augustine. In addition to his 
numerous homilies and sermons, he wrote: Περὶ ἱεροσύνης, lib. vi. (edited by 
Bengel, Stuttg. 1825, by Leo, Lips. 1834), De Providentia, lib. in. — Zditions 
of his complete works were published by Savile, Eton. 1612. Fronto Du- 
caus, Par. 1609—36. *Bern. de Montfaucon, Paris, 1718—31, xiii. fol. 
Venet. 1755, xiii. f. ib. 1780, xiv. f—Monocrapus: * Neander, der heil. 
Chrysostomus und die Kirche des Orients in dessen Zeitalter. Berlin, 1821, 
22, ii, 8vo,, 2d ed. 1833. Böhringer, i. 4, p. 1, ss. [Paris edition of Chry- 
sostom ed. Gaume, xiii. Tom. Neander’s monograph, vol. i. transl. by J. C, 
Stapleton, Lond, 1845. Life of C., by Neander, Bohringer, ete., Bost. 1854. 


§ 82. TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS PERIOD. 233 


Perthes, Leben. Chrysost. 1854. Homilie in St. Matth., Gr. cum varüs 
Lection., ed. F. Field, 4 Cantab. 1829 sq.; Homilies Ep. ad Corinth. cura 
F. Field, Oxon. 1845-9, 4 vols.; in Ep. ad Gal., ad Ephes, Phil. Col. ete., 
-ed. F. Field, 1850-5. His Homilies, transl. in Oxford Libr. of Fathers, vols. 
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, 28, 33, 34. Abbé J. B. Bergier, Histoire 
de St. Jean Chrys., sa vie, ses @uvres, son siecle, Paris, 1856. Life of C. by 
J. D. Butler, Bibl. Sacra. vol. 1. Comp. Zadie in Kitto’s Journal, vol. i.; 
S. Osgood in North American, vol. Ixii; C. P. Krauth in Evang. Rev. vol. 1. ; 
Sermons of C. in Christ. Rev. vol. xii; Life and Writings, Eclectic Rev. (Lond.) 
1850.—Select Passages from C. by H. S. Boyd, Lond. 1810. His work on 
the Priesthood, transl. by H. Hollier, Lond. 1728; by J. Bunce, Lond. 1759; 
by H. M. Mason, Philad. 1826.] | 

° Cyril of Jerusalem, at first a Eusebian, went over to the Nicene party; 
he had already combated the strict Arian Acacius; he died a. p. 386. He 
was distinguished for his Catechetics (347), in which he propounded the 
doctrines of the church in a popular style. His five Mystagogical Discourses 
are of most importance in the dogmatic point of view. His works were 
edited by Mills, Oxon. 1703, ἢ and by * Ant. Aug Touttée, (after his death 
by Prud Maran), Par. 1720, f. Ven, 1763, f. Comp. von Cölln, in Ersch u. 
Grubers Encyklopädie, vol. xxii, p. 148, ss. [Opera i, ed. Reischl, 1848, 4, 
ii ed. Jos. Rupp, Monachii, 1860. Van Vellenhoven, Specim. theol. de Cyril, 
Hieros. Catechesibus, Amst. 1837. The Lectures of Cyril, transl. in Oxford 
Lib. of Fathers, 1838, vol. 3. Extracts from thirteen works in Mais Nova 
Bibliotheca, vol. 2, 1853. De Cyril. Hierosol. Orationibus, J. 7. Plitt, 
Heidels. 1855. Comm. in Evang. Lucae e mss. apud Mus. Britann. ed. Rob. 
Payne Smith, 1858, transl. 2 8vo. 1859.] 

° Epiphanius of Besanduc, near Eleutheropolis in Palestine, bishop of 
Constantia in the isle of Cyprus, died at the age of nearly one hundred 
years, A.D. 404. His work against heretics: Αἱρεσέων LXXX, ἐπικληθὲν 
πανάριος εἴτ᾽ οὖν κιβώτιος (Adv. Heer.) is among the secondary sources of the 
history of doctrines. The theology of Epiphanius consisted in rigid adhe- 
rence to the orthodox system rather than in the development of original 
thought. It is represented in the treatise: Περιοχὴ λόγου tov "Ent. τοῦ 
ἀγκυρωτοῦ καλουμένου, with which may be compared his Λόγος εἰς τὴν 
Κυρίου ἀνάστασιν, εἰς τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Κυρίου λόγος, etc. There is an 
EDITION of his works by * Petavius, Par. 1622, fol. ib. 1680, f. Edit. auct. 
Colon. (Lips.) 1682, ii. fol. [Two new editions of Epiphanius are in progress, 
by Oehler and Dindorf. Epiphanii librorum adversus Hiereses prooem. 
Cum preef. G. Dindorfii ; Epiphanii Opera, ed. @. Dindorf, vol. i and v, 1855 ; 
the 5th volume contains Petavii Animadversiones. Zberhard, Betheiligung 
Epiph. am Streit über Origenes. Trier. 1859.] 

Ὁ Ephräm, Propheta Syrorum, of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, abbot and dea- 
con in a monastery at Edessa, died about the year 378. He gained a high 
reputation by his exegetical works, and rendered signal service to Syria by 
the introduction of Grecian science and dogmatic terminology. Opp. ed. 
*J. S. Assemani, Rom. 1732, 46, vi. fol. Comp. C. A. Lengerke, de Ephremo 
Sc. S. interprete, Hal. 1828, 4. [H. Burgess, Transl. of Ephräm’s Hymns 
and Homilies, 2 vols, Lond, 1853, and of his Repentance of Nineveh, 1854. 





234 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


J. Alsleben, Das Leben des Eph. Syr. Berl. 1853. Comp. Kitto’s Journal, 
1853 and 1854; Cardinal Wiseman, Essays, vol. in (from Dublin Review) ; 
Church Review, 1852; Aédiger in Herzog’s Realencyclop., and in the Hall. 
Encyclop.; Aschbach’s Allg. Kirchen-Lexicon ; Zeitschrift d. deutscher mor- 
genländ. Gesellschaft, Bd. ix. Alsleben has in preparation a new edition of 
Ephräm’s works. ] 

1 Nemesius, bishop of Emisa in Pheenicia (?) lived about the year 
400. His treatise: Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου was formerly attributed to 
Gregory of Nyssa. Oxon. 1671, 8. Comp. Schröckh Kirchengeschichte, 
vol. vii. p. 157. 

2 Cyril of Alexandria, (died Α. Ὁ. 444), is well known by his violent pro- 
ceedings against Nestorius, and by his Monophysite tendency. Besides 
homilies and exegetical works, he wrote Anathematismata against Nestorius, 
treatises on the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ, Περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι 
καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως καὶ λατρείας, xvil. books— Kara ἀνθρωπομορφιτῶν 
—and a work in defence of Christianity against the Emperor Julian in 10 
books.—Extracts of it are given by Rössler, vol. viii. p. 43-152. Eprrions 
of his works were published by *J. Aubertus, Lut. 1638, vii. fol. and A. Maii, 
Collectio T. vi. 

*° Theodore of Mopsuestia was born about the year 350, and died A.». 
429. Of his writings we have scarcely more than fragments. Theodori que 
supersunt omnia, ed. A. F. Wegnern, Berol. 1834, ss. Comp. Assemani Bibl, 
Orient. T. iii. pars. i. p. 30. Theod. Ep. in Nov. Test. Comment. ed. O. F. 
Fritzsche, Turin, 1847 ; De Incarn. lib. xv. frag., δά. Comp. R.E. Klener, 
Symbole, liter. ad Theod. etc., Gött. 1836, and Fritzsche, O. F., de Theodori 
Mopsvhesteni Vita et Scriptis. Comment. Hist. Hal. 1836, 8. A sketch of 
his (liberal) theology is given by Meander, Church History (Torrey), ii. 
Ρ. 352, 422, 653. [In the Spicileg. Solesmense of P2tra, 1, 1853, fragments 
of a commentary on Paul are ascribed to Hilary (cf. Christ. Rembrancer), 
which Jacobi vindicates for Theod. Mops. in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1854. 
Theod. Mops. Doctrina de Imagine Dei, by Dorner, 1844.—Comp. Dorner’s 
Person Christi. ] 

“ Theodoret was born at Antioch, and died about the year 457. His 
dogmatico-polemical writings are of importance in the Nestorian and Mono- 
physite controversies. Theodoret and Theodore are the representatives of 
the liberal tendency of the Antiochian school of Antioch. ‚The following 
work is among the sources of the history of doctrines: Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας 
ἐπιτομή, Lib. v. (Fabule Heretice). He also composed several exegetical 
writings. There are Epittons of his works by J. Sirmond, Lutet. 1642, 
iv. fol. Auctuarium cura J. Garnerii, ib. 1684. f.-—and J. LZ. Schulze and 
Nösselt, Hal. 1769-74, v. vols.8vo. [Theod. Comm. in omnes beati Pauli 
Epistolas, in Bibl. Patrum. Oxf. 1852. Theod. Grecarum Affectionum 
Curatio, ed. J. Gaisford, Oxf. 1839. Theod. Eccl. Hist. libri v. ed. J. @ais- 
ford, Oxf. 1854.; translated in the edition of Eusebius, etc. 6 vols, Lond. 
1847.] 

*° Arnobius (in part considered in the previous period), born at Sicca Ve- 
neria in Numidia, the teacher of Lactantius, lived towards the close of the 
third, and at the commencement of the fourth century. He wrote a work 


$ 82. ‘TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS Period. 235 


under the title: Adv. Gentes libr. vii. which was edited by J. C. Orelli, Lips. 
1816, Add. 1817.—His writings contain many heterodox assertions, like those 
of his disciples; Hildebrand, Hal. 1844; Oehler, Lips. 1846. 

*© Lucius Celius Firmianus Lactantius (Cicero Christianus), was born in 
Italy, became a rhetorician in Nicomedia, was tutor of Crispus (the eldest 
son of the Emperor Constantine) and died about the year 330. He wrote: 
Divinarum Institutt. libri. vii.; De Ira Dei; De Opificio Dei vel de forma- 
tione hominis.—Ebitions of his works were published by Zünemann, Lips. 
1739, by Le Brun and Dufresnoi, Par. 1748, 11. 4, and O. F, Fritzsche, Lips. 
1842-44. Comp. Ammon δ᾽, @. Ph. Lactantii Opiniones de Religione in 
Systema redact#, Diss. ii. Erl. 1820. Spyker, de pretio institutionibus Lac- 
tantii tribuendo, Lugd. 1826. On the position of Arnobius and Lactantius in 
the church development, see Meier, Trinitätslehre, i. 91, Note: “Coming out 
of time, blossoms appearing in the autumn, disfigured imitations of a period 
long since past.” 

τ Hilary, (Hilarius), bishop of Pictavium (Poitiers) in Gaul, died a. p. 368. 
Besides commentaries on the Psalms and on Matthew, and several minor 
treatises, he wrote: De Trinitate libr. xii, Eprrrons of his works were pub- 
lished by the Benedictine monks, Par. 1693, ἢ, by Maffei, Ver. 1730, ii. f., 
and by Oberthir, Würzb, 1785-88, iv. 8. A. Mazi, Scriptt. Vet. Coll. T. vi. 
[Hilar. Pictav. Opera, 2 imp. 8vo. Paris, 1844. Fragments ascribed to him 
in Spicileg. Solesm. i. 1853 ; see above, Note 13; and comp. Zeitschrift f. d. 
luth. Theol. 1855, s. 551, sq.] 

* Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome) was born about the year 331 
at Stridon in Dalmatia, and died as a monk in a monastery at Bethlehem 
A.D. 420. In his earlier years he was a disciple of Origen, but became his 
opponent, with a blind zeal for orthodoxy; he possessed great talents, and 
was a man of profound learning. (“He made the West acquainted with 
Greek ecclesiastical erudition, and with the Hebrew.” Hase.) He rendered 
greater service to biblical criticism and exegesis (by the Vulgate version), as 
well as to literary history (by his work De Viris Illustribus), than to dog- 
matic theology. As to the latter, he rather preserved it like an antiquarian 
relic, rescued from the Origenistic deluge, than exerted any living and origi- 
nal influence upon the healthy development of doctrines. His controversial 
writings are partly directed against those who opposed monachism, the wor- 
ship of relics, celibacy, Mariolatry (of which he was a great friend), ete., and 
in part have respect to the Pelagian and Origenist controversies. The fol- 
lowing are the principal eprrrons of his works: Opp. cura Zrasmi, Bas. 1516, 
ix. f.; that of the Benedictine monks (by Martianay and Pouget), Par. 1693- 
1706, v. ἢ: and that of Vallarsius, Veron. 1734-42, xi. f. Ed. 2. Venet. 
1766-72, iv. (Luther judged unfavorably of him.) Comp. Fricke, Kirchen- 
gesch, 104. [ Collembet, Gesch. des Hieron. nach ἃ, Franz. 1847. Osgood in 
Bib. Sacra. v.] 

* Ambrose was born A. Ὁ. 340, was archbishop of Milan from the year 374, 
and died A.D. 398. He was the chief pillar of the Nicene orthodoxy in the 
West, and exerted considerable practical influence upon Augustine. His 
doctrinal writings are: Hexaémeron, lib. vi.; De Officiis, iii.; De Incarna- 
tionis dominic Sacramento; De Fide, libri v.; de Spiritu, lib. iii.; and 


236 SpconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


several others. He also‘ composed some exegetical works, though some, 
under his name, are spurious (Ambrosiaster). The principal ἘΡΙΤΙΟΝΒ of his 
works are that of Amerbach, Bas. 1492; and the Benedictine edition, cura 
N. Nuriti et Jac. Frischii, Par. 686-90, ii. f. Comp. Bohringer, i. 3, Ὁ. 1, ss. 
[Herzog’s Realencycl. by Bohringer. Ambrosian MSS. in Quarterly Review, 
vol. 16. North Amer. Rev. 1855. His De Officiis Ministr. ed. by Ärabin- 
ger, from new MSS. Tiib. 1857.] 

20 Aurelius Augustine was born at Tagaste in Numidia, a. Ὁ. 354, died as 
bishop of Hippo Regius, a. Ὁ. 430; on his eventful and deeply interesting life 
compare his autobiography, entitled Confessiones, libri, xiii, (a manual edition 
of which was published at Berlin 1823, with a preface by Meander), and 
Possidius (Possidonius) ; on his writings compare his own Retractationes. A 
great part of his works consists of polemical writings against the Manichees, 
Pelagians, and Donatists. All his works, and their different editions, are 
enumerated in the work of Schönemann, T. ii. p. 8, ss. A. PHıLosoPHIcAL 
works : Contra Academicos—De Vita Beata—De Ordine 1i,—Soliloquia 11.— 
De Immortalitate Anime, etc. B. PoLEMIcAL writines: a) against the 
Manichees : De Moribus Ecclesie Cathol. et Manich&orum, ii—De Libero 
Arbitrio, iii.-—De Genesi contra Manich.—De Genesi ad Litteram, xi.— 
De Vera Religione—De Utilitate credendi—De Fide et Symbolo, et al. 
b) against the Pelagians and Semipelagians: (they are contained for the 
most part in vol. x. of the Benedictine edition), De Gestis Pelagii—De Pec- 
catorum Meritis et Remissione—De Natura et Gratia—De Perfectione Justi- 
tie Hominis—De Gratia Christi et de Peccato Originali—Contra duas Epis- 
tolas Pelagianorum—Contra Julian. lib. vi.—De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio— 
De Correptione et Gratia—De Preedestinatione Sanctoruam—De Dono Per- 
severantie— Contra secundam Juliani Responsionem, opus imperfectum. 
ce) against the Donatists: (in vol. ix.) contra Parmenianum iii.—De Baptis- 
mo vil.— Contra Litteras Petiliani iii Ep. ad Catholicos (de unitate ecclesiz), 
et al. C. DocmarıcaL works: De Civitate Dei ad Marcellin. libr. xxii. 
(*A manual edition was published by Tauchnitz. Lips. 1825, ii. 8)—De 
Doctrina Christiana lib. iv.—Enchiridion ad Laurentium, s. de fide, spe et 
caritate—De Fide—De Trin. xv.» D. Practica works (De Catechizandis 
rudibus), E. ExEGETICAL writines, Letters, Sermons, etc. Epırıons of his 
works were published by Hrasmus, Bas. 1529. x. 1543, 56, 69 in xi.; by 
the *Benedictine monks, Paris, 1679-1701, xi. (in 8 vol.) Antwerp 1700- 
1703, xi. f. Append. ; by Clericus, ib. 1703 f—J. B. Albrizzi, Ven. 1729-35. 
xii, f. 1756-69. xviii. 4. Opp. Omnia, supplem. ed. Hier Vignier. Par. 1654, 
55, 11. f —* Wiggers, pragmatische Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pela- 
gianismus, Berl. 1821. Hamb. 1833, ii. 8. *Bindemann der h. Augustin, 
2 Bde. Berl. 1844-54. Poujoulat, Hist. in German by Hurter, 1847. Béh- 
ringer, 1. 3, p. 99, ss. 

[In the Oxford Library of Fathers, vol. i, Augustine’s Conf. edited by 
T. B. Pusey, who also edited the original, 1842; his Sermons, vols. 16 and 
20; his Treatises, 22; Psalms, in 4 vols.; and John, 3 vols. A‘loth, der 
Kirchenlehrer, Augustinus, Aachen, 1854. Life and Times of A. by Philip 

Schaf, 1854. Life, ete., London, 1853 (Bagster). Wiggers, August. and 
Pelag. transl. (vol. i.) by &. Hmerson, Andover. Trench, Essay on August. 


$ 82. TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS PERIOD, 237 


as Interpreter, etc. Articles on Augustine, Princeton Rep. 1854; Am. Bibl. 
Repos. vols. 3 and 5, and 7 of 2d series; Christ. Rev. 5 and 15; Brit. Quart. 
6; North British, 1855 (by Fraser, repr. in his Phil. Essays) ; Journal of 
Sacr. Lit. 1858; Zeller in Theol. Jahrb. 1854.—J. B. Mozley, The August. 
Doctrine of Predestination, Lond. 1855; Comp. Christ. Remembr. 1856. 
Th. Gangauf, Die metaph. Theol. des heil. August. 1851-3. J. Nirschl, 
Wesen des Bösens nach Aug. Regensb. 1854. Roulet, De VIdée du Péché 
dans St. August. Montauban, 1856. John Baillie, St. Aug. a Biog. Memoir, 
Lond. 1859. Aug. Confessions, with Introd. by Prof. Shedd, Andover, 1860. 
A new ed. of Aug. published in Paris, 1836-40, 11 vols.; 1849 in 16 vols., 
and at Venice, vol. viii. 1854. Two hundred new sermons, in Mai, Patrum 
Nov. Biblioth. vol. i, Aug. De Civit. Dei, ed. Strange, Col. 1850, 1; transl. 
by E. H. Lond. 1620; by Mannell, Lond. 1577; a new French version, by 
Saisset, 4, 12mo. Paris, 1855.— Kling, in Herzog’s Realencyc. | 

—** John Cassian, a pupil of Chrysostom, was probably a native of the 
West, founded Semipelagianism, and died about the year 440. De Institut. 
Ceenob. lib. xii—Collationes Patrum xxiv.—De Incarnatione Christi, adv. 
Nestorium, libr.'vii. The principal editions of his works are: Ed. princ. Bas. 
1485. Lugd. 1516. 8. Lips. 1733. Comp. Wiggers, vol. ii. and his Diss. de 
Joanne Cassiano, Rost. 1824, 5. ἢ. F. Meier, Jean Cassian, Strasb. 1840. 

* Vincens of Lerins (Lirin.), a monk and presbyter in the monastery in 
the isle of Lerina, near the coast of Gallia Narbonica, died about the year 
450. Commonitoria duo pro Catholic Fidei Antiquitate et Universitate 
adv. profanas omnium Heereticorum Novitates. There is an Epirion of this — 
work by Jo. Costerius, et Edm. Campianus, Col. 1600. 12. denuo edid. 
Herzog, Vratislav. 1839. Commonitor. adv. Heres. juxta editt. optim. recog- 
nitum, Notisque brev. illustr. a clerico diocesis Augustane, Aug. Vind. 1844 ; 
comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 208 sq. and Gengler, Ueber die Regel des Vincenz, in 
the Tab. Quartalschrift, 1853. Der Katholik, 1837. [Hefele in Theol. 
Quartalschrift, 1854. His Commonitory, transl. by Reeves, 1716, and at 
Oxford, 1841.] 

8 Salvian, a native of Gaul, wrote: Ady. Avaritiam lib. iv.; and a work 
on the doctrine of providence which is of importance in dogmatic theology : 
De Gubernatione Dei (de providentia), Editions; Bas. 1530. *Venet. 
(Baluz.) 1728. 8 (together with Vince. Lerin. Par. 1684, 8.) [Oxford ed. 
12mo. 1633.] 

** Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, died a. p. 461. He is of importance in 
the Monophysite controversy, by the influence which he exerted upon the 
decisions of the council of Chalcedon. He wrote Sermons and Letters, Ed. 
1. Rom. 1479; Rom. 1753-55, cura P. Th. Cacciari. Comp. Griesbach, 
J. J., Loci Theologici collecti ex Leone Magno. (Opuse. T.i. ab init.) 
* Perthel, Pabst Leo’s I. Leben und Lehren. i. Jena, 1843, 8. Böhringer, i. 
4, p. 170, ss. Arendt, Leo d. Grosse, Mainz, 1835. [Migne’s edition, 3 vols. 
1845. St. Cheron, Vie de Leo. Comp. Greenwood’s Cathedra Petri, i. 1856.] 

*° Prosper of Aquitaine opposed the Pelagians in several writings ; Car- 
men de ingratis, and others. Opp. by Jean Le Brun de Maret and Mangeant, 
Par. 1711, fol. Wiggers, ii. p. 136, ss. 

** Gennadius, a presbyter at Massilia, died about the year 493 : De eccle- 


238 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


siasticis Dogmatibus, edited by Hlmenhorst, Hamb. 1714, 4; it is also found 
among the works of Augustine (T. viii). 

”” Fulgentius was born a. Ὁ. 468, at Telepte, in Africa, and died A. Ὁ. 533, 
as bishop of Ruspe. Contra Objectiones Arianorum—De Remissione Pecca- 
torum—Ad Donatum, de Fide orthod. et de diversis Erroribus Hereticorum. 
There is an edition of his works by *J. Sirmond, Par. 1623, fol. (Bibl. Max. 
Patr. Lugd. T. ix. p. 1.) Ven. 1742, fol. 

** Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severianus Boéthius was born at Rome 
A.D. 470, and beheaded a. p. 524, in the reign of King Theodoric. He wrote: 
De Trin. ete.; De Persona et Natura (contra Eutychem et Nestorium) :— 
Fidei Confessio, s. brevis Fidei Christiane Complexio. He also composed 
several philosophical writings, among which that entitled De Consolatione 
Philosophica, lib. v., is remarkable, inasmuch as it shows how the ancient 
philosophy of the Stoics was associated with the speculative dogmatic theol- 
ogy of the Church without being much influenced by the spirit of true Chris- 
tianity. Schleiermacher even questions: “whether Boéthius ever was in 
earnest about Christianity ;” Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 175. [De Con- 
sol. an English version, by Chaucer ; by lord Preston, 1695, 2d ed. 1712 ; 
by Ridpath, Lond. 1735. F. Nitzsch, Das System des Boethius. 1860. ] 

*® Gregory the Great (bishop of Rome, 4.p. 590) died a. p. 604. Protest- 
ants commonly, but arbitrarily, regard him as closing the papistic period. 
Opp. Par. 1675. Venet. 1758-76.— Wiggers, de Gregorio Magno ejusque 
placitis anthropologicis; Comment. 1, 1838, 4. @. J. Th. Lau, Gregor I. 
der Grosse, nach seinem Leben und seiner Lehre. Leipz.1845. Bohringer, 
i. 4, p. 310, ss. [G@. Pfahler, Gregor ἃ. grosse und seine Zeit. Bd. 1. Frankf. 
1852. Meander, in his History, and in his Memorials of Christ. Life (Bohn), 
p- 386, sq. Markgraf, De Greg. Mag. Vita. Berol. 1845. Gregory’s Au- 
gustinianism, Wiggers, in Zeitschrift, f. d. hist. Theol. 1854. V. Zuzarche, 
Vie de Greg. le Grand, Paris, 1857. G’s Morals on Job, in Oxf. Libr. of 
Father’s, 18, 21, 23, 31; his Dialogues transl. in the Metropolitan (Balt.) 
1854. King Alfred transl. Gregory’s Pastoral (in Alf. Regis Res Gestz), 
Lond. 1574.—Opera Omnia, ed. Migne. 5 imp. 8vo. Paris, 1849.] 

°° Isidore Hispalensis died A.D. 663; he attempted previous to the time 
of John of Damascus to arrange the doctrines of the church in the form of a 
system, but his work is only a compilation: Sententiarum sive de Summo 
Bono, libri. iii. Opp. ed. Faust. Arevalo, Rom. 1797, vii. 4. He wrote, more- 
over, some independent works on doctrinal subjects: Liber Questionum sive 
Expositionis Sacramentorum—De Natura Rerum--Exhort. ad Peenitentiam— 
and also several historical, canonical, and practical treatises, particularly Origi- 
num sive Etymologiarum, libri. xx (ed. Otto, Lips. 1833). Oudin, Comment. 
vol. i. p. 1582-96. [Isid. Hisp. De Natura Rerum, recens, @. Becker, Berol. 
1857, comp. Gersdorf’s Rep. Oct. 1857. | 


$ 84. Tur WESTERN CHURCH. AUGUSTINIANISM. 299 


§ 83. 
THE EASTERN CHURCH FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SIXTH CENTURY. 
The Schools of Alexandria and Antioch. 


Minter, Dr. ΕἸ, über die antiochenische Schule, in Staüdlins and Tzschirners Archiv. i. 1, 
p. 1, ss. [Niedner, Kirchengeschichte, p. 317 sq, Meander, Hist. Dog. 265 sq.] 


During this period an important change took place in the theo- 
logical position of the school of Alexandria. Formerly it had been 
the representative of a spiritual and living Christianity, and of that 
idealistic theology, which did not rest satisfied with the popular and 
sensuous apprehension of truth ; during the present period the dog- 
matic tendency of the school of Egypt reacted into a compact realism. 
As it had once been the task of the Alexandrian school, so it became 
now the office of the School of Antioch, to defend a more liberal 
theology against rude and narrow polemics. The consequence was, 
that the teachers of that school shared the same fate with Origen— 
they were treated as heretics. The school of Antioch, however, so 
far from resembling the earlier Alexandrian school, in giving counte- 
nance to the arbitrary system of allegorical interpretation, adopted 
the grammatical interpretation, to which [as well as to biblical criti- 
cism in general] they thus rendered signal service. But on this 
account they have also sometimes been charged with a want of 
spirituality. 


The change of opinions respecting classical literature, which many thought 
irreconcilable with the spirit of the gospel (the dream of Jerome in his Epist. 
ad. Eustachium, comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianzum, p. 543), could not 
but exert a prejudicial influence upon the critical judgment of commentators. 
But where this last was wanting, only a limited gain could accrue to 
Christian theology from speculation, even when strengthened by Christian 
principles. 


§ 84. 
THE WESTERN CHURCH.—AUGUSTINIANISM. 


About the same time a new epoch in the history of doctrines begins 
with the appearance of Augustine. From the dogmatic point of 
view the West now assumes a higher degree of importance than the 
East, which exhausted itself in the controversies respecting the na- 
ture of Christ and the worship of images, The Carthaginian and 


240 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Roman realistic tendency (a tendency earlier represented in the wes- 
tern churches,) gradually gained the ascendancy over the Hellenistic 
idealism of past ages ; the philosophy of Aristotle supplanted that 
of Plato. Augustine embraced in his theology the seeds of two sys- 
tems, which more than a thousand years afterwards were to wage 
open war against each other. The Roman-Catholic system was 
based on his doctrine of the church (in opposition to the Donatists) ; 
the system of evangelical Protestantism rests upon his views on sin, 
grace, and predestination (in opposition to the Pelagians). But 
both these systems appear organically conjoined in his own person, 
and have a basis, not only in his personal career and experience, but 
also in the position which he occupied relative to the church, and to 
his opponents. [Comp. Neander, Church History, and Hist. Dog- 
mas (Ryland), p. 267 sq. | 


§ 85. 
THE HERESIES. 


[ Baur, Epochen ἃ. kirchlichen Geschichtsehreibung, 1852; Die Christl. Kirche, 
vom 4n. bis 6n. Jahrh. 1859.] 


Among the natural heresies which prevailed during the first pe- 
riod, the Ebionitic (judaizing) may be considered as entirely sup- 
pressed.’ The Gnostic (anti-judaizing) tendency, on the contrary, 
was more firmly established in the system of Manes (Manicheism), 
which, as a complete dualism, planted itself by the side of Chris- 
tianity, from its very nature belonging to that form of oriental and 
pagan philosophy which had not yet disappeared.” The system 
of the followers of Priscillian must be regarded as a continuation of 
Gnosticism, though modified by Manicheism ; it spread in the West 
in the course of the fourth century, but was suppressed by violent 
persecutions. The Paulicians, too, manifested a leaning towards 
Gnostic and Manichean notions, though they at first appear to have 
been impelled by a practical necessity, to attempt a return to the 
simplicity of apostolical Christianity.‘ These heresies, that are, as 
it were, the younger branches, which the old stock of Gnosticism 
continued to shoot forth, and which attained a higher importance in 
the next period, are to be carefully distinguished from the heresies 
which arose in consequence of dogmatic controversies ; the latter, by 
the antagonisms which were called forth, had an essential influence 
upon the doctrinal definitions of the church, and in fact evoked these 
definitions to mediate between the extremes. Here belong the here- 
sies which arose in the struggle about a dialectic treatment of the 
separate doctrines, and which essentially contributed to the doctrinal 


§ 85. ΤῊΝ Heresies. 241 


statements made in this period, viz.: 1. The heresies of Sabellius 
and Paul of Samosata, with their opposites, the Arian, Semiarian, 
and Zusebian heresies (which continued to prevail among the Goths, 
Burgundians, and Vandals, long after they had been condemned). 
2. The heresy of the Pelagians, who never were able to form a dis- 
tinct sect, but by means of a modified system (Semipelagianism) 
kept a back door open to creep now and then into the church, from 
which they had been excluded by the more strict doctrinal decisions. 
3. The Nestorian heresy, with its opposites, the Monophysite and 
Monothelite heresies. The Nestorians, after having been defeated 
in Europe, succeeded in winning over to their party the Chaldees, 
and the Thomas-Christians in Asia. Monophysites prevailed among 
the Jacobites and Copts, and the Monothelites have dragged out a 
wretched existence even to the present day among the Maronites 
in Syria’ 


"ΠΑ Judaizing view lies at the basis of Sabellianism, as a heathen tendency 
is also manifested in Arianism; yet the Jewish element is no longer bound 
to what is national, as it was in Ebionitism. Yet the whole conflict strikes 
rather into the sphere of dialectic thought, than into that of primitive religious 
opinions. The notions of the Pelagians concerning the meritoriousness of 
works bore some resemblance to Judaism, but they did not in the popular 
mind originate with it. 

* Manicheism is distinguished from Gnosticism by a more complete de- 
velopment of the dualistic principle; this also accounts for its rigid and uni- 
form appearance, while Gnosticism is divided into many branches, and admits 
of more variety. There is far less of historical Christianity in Manicheism 
than in Gnosticism: it rests on its own historical foindation, which is here 
and there an imitation of Christianity, and hence it forms (like Mohamme- 
danism at a later period) a separate system of religion rather than a sect. 
Comp. Beausobre, Histoire de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1734, 2 
vols. 4to. *Bawr, das manichäische Religionssystem, Tüb. 1831. Trechsel, 
F., über den Kanon, die Kritik und Exegese der Manichäer, Bern. 1832. 
Colditz, F. E., die Enstehung des manichäischen Religionssystems, Lpz, 
1837 (where Manicheism is compared with the Indian, Zoroastrian, and other 
systems of religion). [Comp. Mosheim’s Commentaries (Murdock’s version), 
vol. 2, 251-412. History of Manes in Mais Patr. Nov. Bibl. 1853, vol. iv. 
On the Manichees, Note F to Pusey’s edition of Augustine’s Confessions. | 

* On the history of the followers of Priscillian, which is of more impor- 
tance in the history of the church than in the History of Doctrines, because 
they were the first heretics persecuted with the sword, comp. Sulp. Sever. 
Hist. Sacr. ii. 46-51. Meander, Church Hist. (Torrey) ii. 710-718. Baum- 
garten-Crusius, 1. Ὁ. 292, ss. J. H. B. Lübkert, De Heresi Priscillianista- 
rum, Havn. 1840. [Manderuach, J. M., Geschichte des Priscillianismus, 
Trier. 1851.] 

* Further particulars may be found in Schmid, Fr., Historia Pauliciano- 
rom Orientalium, Hafn, 1826; in an essay in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s Jour 


242 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEmMICcS. 


nal, 1827, vol. vii. parts 1 and 2; @eseler, in the Studien and Kritiken, 
1829, ii. 1, and Neander, Church History (Torrey), iii. 246-267. Sources: 
Petri Siculi (who lived about the year 876) Historia Manicheorum, Gr. et 
Lat. ed. M. Raderus, Ingolst. 1604, 4, newly edited, with a Latin translation, 
by J. CO, L. @ieseler, Gott. 1846, 4. Photius adv. Paulianistas, 8. rec. Mani- 
cheorum libr, iv. in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. xiii. p. 603, ss. 

° On all these heresies, which have a peculiar bearing upon the develop- 
ment of doctrines during this period, comp. the special History of Doctrines. 
Concerning the external history of the controversies themselves, see the works 
on ecclesiastical history. 


§ 86. 
DIVISION OF THE MATERIAL. 


Respecting the dogmatic material of this period, we have to dis- 
tinguish between :—1l. Those doctrines, which were shaped by the 
controversy with the last-named heresies ; and, 2. T’hose which were 
developed in a more quiet and gradual manner. 


To the former class belong Theology proper (the doctrine of the Trinity), 
Christology, and Anthropology ; to the latter, those parts of theology which 
treat of the nature of God, creation, providence, etc., as well as the doctrine 
of the sacraments, and eschatology; though it must be admitted that they 
exerted an influence upon each other. We think it best to begin with the 
history of the first class of doctrines, as there was here a strictly polemic 
movement, and then to treat of the more esoteric (acroämatic) doctrines. 
The first class may bé subdivided into two divisions, viz.: the Theologico- 
Christological on the one hand, and the Anthropological on the other, The 
controversies respecting the doctrines belonging to the former of these two 
divisions were carried on principally in the East, those concerning the latter, 
in the West. 


B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES 
DURING THE SECOND PERIOD. 


POURS T SUTASS. 


DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS OF THE CHURCH IN 
THE CONTEST WITH HERESIES. 
(POLEMICAL PART.) 


ETRST..DIVMISTON. 


DOCTRINES RESPECTING THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY. 


a. THEOLOGY PROPER. 


§ 87. 
THE HYPOSTASIS AND SUBORDINATION OF THE SON. 


Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Origenists. 


Tuer term Logos, respecting which the earlier Fathers so little 
agreed, that some understood by it the Word, others the Wisdom 
(reason, spirit), was so indefinite that even Lactantius, who lived 
towards the commencement of the present period, made no dis- 
tinction between the λόγος and the πνεῦμα. From the time of 
Origen it fell increasingly into disuse, and in its place the other 
term, Son, which is used in the New Testament in direct reference 
to the human personality of Christ, was transferred to the second 
person of the Godhead (previous to his incarnation). The disciples 
of Origen,’ in accordance with the opinions of their master, under- 
stood by this second person a distinct hypostasis subordinate to the 
Father. Such is the view of Dionysius of Alexandria, though he 
endeavored to clear himself from the charges brought against him 
by Dionysius of Rome, by putting forth the doctrine in a less offen- 
sive form.* The doctrine of Origen now met with a peculiar fate. 
It consisted, as we have seen, of two elements, viz., the hypostasis 


244 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


of the Son, and his subordination to the Father. The former was 
maintained in opposition to Sabellianism, and received as orthodox ; 
the latter, on the contrary, was condemned in the Arian controversy. 
Thus Origenism gained the victory on the one hand, but was defeat- 
ed on the other ; but it was thus proved to be a necessary link in 
the chain, and became an element by which the transition was made. 


* The theology of Zactantius was an isolated phenomenon in the present 
period, and has always been regarded as heterodox. (Concerning his pre- 
vailing moral tendency, see Dorner, p. 777.) Lactantius, after having 
opposed the gross and sensuous interpretation of the birth of Christ: ex 
connubio ac permistione feminz alicujus, Instit. Div. iv. c. 8, returns to the 
meaning which the term Word (sermo) has in common life: Sermo est 
spiritus cum voce aliquid significante prolatus. The Son is distinguished 
from the angels, in that he is not only spiritus (breath, wind), but also the 
(spiritual) Word. The angels proceed from God only as taciti spiritus, as 
the breath comes out of the nose of man, while the Son is the breath which 
comes out of God’s mouth, and forms articulate sounds; hence he identifies 
Sermo with the Verbum Dei, quia Deus procedentem de ore suo vocalem 
spiritum, quem non utero, sed mente conceperat, inexcogitabili quadam 
majestatis sus virtute ac potentia in efligiem, que proprio sensu ac sapien- 
tia vigeat, comprehendit. There is, however, a distinction between the word 
(Son) of God and our words. Our words being mingled with the air, soon 
perish; yet even we may perpetuate them by committing them to writing— 
quanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in »ternum et sensu ac 
virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxerit. 
Lactantius is so far from the doctrine of the Trinity, that he finds it neces- 
sary to defend himself against the charge of believing not so much in three 
as in two Gods. To justify this dual unity (or belief in two divine persons), 
he makes use of the same expressions which orthodox writers employed in 
earlier and later times for the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity: Cum 
dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque 
secernimus : quod nec Pater a Filio potest, nec Filius a Patre secerni, siqui- 
dem nec Pater sine Filio potest nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre gene- 
rari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, 
unus spiritus, una substantia est. He then comes back to the illustrations 
previously used, e. g., those drawn from the river and its source, the sun and 
its beams; and more boldly (wholly in the Arian sense) he compares the Son 
of God with an earthly son, who, dwelling in the house of his father, has all 
things in common with him, so that the house is named after the son, as 
well as after the father. 

? Thus Pierius, the master of Pamphilus of Czsarea, was charged by 
Photius (Cod. 119) with having maintained that the Father and the Son are 
two οὐσίαι καὶ φύσεις. Nevertheless, he is said to have taught εὐσεβῶς, by 
employing those terms in the sense of ὑποστάσεις ; but, dvooeßöc, he made 
the πνεῦμα inferior to both the Father and the Son. In like manner Theo- 
gnostus (about 280) was accused of making the Son a κτίσμα ; but this is not 
in accordance with the other (more orthodox) teachings of that theologian 


§ 87. THe Hypostasıs AND SUBORDINATION OF THE Son. 245 


(Phot. Cod. 106); comp. Dorner, p. 733, ss. Some disciples of Origen, 6, 9., 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, even manifested a leaning towards Sabellianism ; 
according to Basil, Ep. 210, 5, Gregory taught πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἐπινοίᾳ, 
μὲν εἶναι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ Ev; comp., however, Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 
147. Methodius of Patara avoided the use of the term ὁμοούσιος in refer- 
ence to the preöxistence of the Son, yet he seems to have admitted his eter- 
nal preéxistence, though not in the sense of Origen; comp. Opp. edit. 
Combefis, Par. 1644, p. 283-474, and Dorner, |. c. 

* This is obvious, especially in the opposition of Dionysius to Sabellian- 
ism (see the next section), Of his work addressed to the bishop of Rome, 
and entitled: "EAeyxoc καὶ ᾿Απολογία, Lib. iv., fragments are preserved in 
the writings of Athanasius (περὶ Διονυσίου τοῦ ἐπ. ’AA. liber.: Opp. i. p. 
243), and Basil; they were collected by Constant in his Epistt. Rom. Pontt. 
in Gallandi T. iv. p. 495. See Gieseler, i. § 64; Meander, i. p. 599; Mün- 
scher (von Cölln), p. 197-200. Schleiermacher (see the next $) p. 402, ss. 
According to Athanasius, p. 246, Dionysius was charged with having com- 
pared (in a letter to Euphranor and Ammonius) the relation between the 
Father and Son to that in which the husbandman stands to the vine, the 
shipbuilder to the ship, etc. The Arians even asserted (see Athanasius, p, 
253) that he taught like themselves: Οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν 
ὁ υἱός" ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου" αὐτὸς δὲ ὃ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν 
γεννηθῇ: ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ Av, οὐ γὰρ ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον 
ἐπιγέγονεν. He also called the Son ξένος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός. Comp. 
however, the expressions quoted by Athanasius, p. 254, which go to prove 
the contrary. But the bishop of Rome (not without a Sabellian leaning, 
see Dorner, 754) insisted that Dionysius should adopt the phrase ὁμοουσία 
(Homousia), to which the latter at last consented, though he did not think 
that it was founded either upon the language of Scripture, or upon the ter- 
minology till then current in the church.* Orthodox theologians of later 
times (e. g., Athanasius), endeavoring to do more justice to Dionysius of 
Alexandria, maintained that he had used the aforesaid offensive illustrations 
only κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν, and that they might be easily explained from the 
stand he took against Sabellianism; Athanasius, p. 246, ss.: see on the other 
side, Zöfler, Kleine Schriften, vol. i, p. 114, ss. (quoted by Heinichen on 
Euseb. vol. i. p. 306). It can also be justly alleged that Dionysius had a 
practical rather than a speculative mind, and that his main bias and inten- 
tion was different from that of Arius. The thesis of subordination, which 
was the centre of the Arian system, was to him only a “suspicious and hasty 
inference from the distinction between the Father and the Son ;” see Dorner, 


p- 743, sq. 


* An intermediate position was taken by Zeno of Verona (a contemporary of Origen and 
Cyprian), who, in Hom. i. ad Genes. in Bibl. Max. PP. iii. p. 356, ss, compared the 
Father and the Son to two seas which are joined by straits; comp. Dorner, p. 754, ss. 


246 Seconp PERIOD. THE Acs or PoLEMIcH. 


§ 88. 


THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER, WITH THE 
DENIAL OF THE HYPOSTATIC DISTINCTIONS. 


Sabellianism, and Paul of Samosata. 


Ch. Wormius, Historia Sabelliana. Francof. et Lips. 1696, 8. ‚Schleiermacher, über den 
Gegensatz zwischen der sabellianischen und athanasianischen Vorstellung von der 
Trinität (Berlin. Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, Part 3). Lange, der Sabellianismus in seiner 
ursprünglichen Bedeutung (Illgens Zeitschr. für historische Theol. iii. 2. 3).—Feuerlin, 
J. G., de Heeresi Pauli Samos. 1741, 4. Ehrlich, J. G., de Erroribus Pauli Samos. 
Lips. 1745, 4. Schwab, de Pauli Sam. vita atque doctrina. Diss. inaug. 1839. 
[Schleiermacher's Essay on the Discrepancy between the Sabellian and Athanasian 
Representation of the Trinity, trans, with notes, by Moses Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 
first series, vol. v. Comp. Dorner, i. 127, sq., on Sabellius; and on Paul of Samo- 
sata, i. 510, sq. Neander, Hist. Dog. (Ryland), i. 164. L. Lange, Antitrin. vor d. 
Nic. Syn. 1851. Waterland’s Works, i. 517, sq., ii. 703, sq.] 


Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle 
of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, 
such as Praxeas, Noötus, and Beryllus ; and maintained, in opposi- 
tion to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that 
the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were only so many 
different manifestations and names of one and the same divine being. 
He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a 
Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (the 
Trinity of manifestation). In illustration of his views, he made’use 
not only of various images which his opponents sometimes misinter- 
preted, but also of such expressions as were afterwards transferred 
to the terminology of the orthodox church." Thus while he avoided, 
on the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and 
recognized the divinity manifested in Christ as the absolute deity; 
yet, on the other hand, by annulling the personality of the Son, he 
gave the appearance of pantheism to this immediate revelation of 
God in Christ ; since with the cessation cf the manifestation of 
Christ in time, the Son also ceased to be Son. The doctrine of 
Paul of Samosata is not, as was formerly the case, to be confounded 
with the notions of Sabellius; it rather approached the earlier 
(Alogistic) opinions of Artemon and Theodotus, which, as regards 
the nature of Christ, were not so much pantheistic as deistic.’ 


* Eus. vii. 6. Epiph. Her. 62. Athan Contra Arian. iv. 2. and other pas- 
sages. Basil, Ep. 210, 214, 235. Theodoret Fab. Her. ii. 9. According to 
Epiphanius, Sabellius taught that there were: ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς 
ἐνέργειαι (ὀνομασίαι, ὀνόματα), and illustrated his views by adducing the 
human trias of body, soul, and spirit, and the three properties of the sun, viz., 


§ 88. CoNSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER. 247 


the enlightening (φωτεστικόν), the warming (τὸ θαλπόν), and the periphery 
(τὸ περιφερείας σχῆμα). But it is difficult to determine how far he applied 
the one or the other of these characteristics to the persons of the Trinity, 
and carried out the analogy in all its particulars. According to Athanasius, 
iv. 25, he also referred to the manifold gifts coming from the one Spirit, as 
illustrative of the Trinity. What is objective in the matter consisted, in his 
view, in the divine economy, in the modes in which God is revealed to the 
human race. God is called Father in relation to the giving of the law; he 
is called Son in relation to the work of redemption; and Holy Spirit in 
relation to the inspiration of the apostles, and the quickening of believers ;- 
hence the charge of the orthodox (Athan. iv. 25. Basil. Ep. 210, 214, 235. 
Aug. Tract. in Joh. $ 3), that Sabellius had limited the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity merely to the wants of the present world (πρὸς τὰς ἑκάστοτε χρείας). 
These three different modes of the Divine manifestation (according to 
Athanasius, iv. 13) he regarded as a πλατύνεσθαι, or ἐκτείνεσθαι. (the figure 
of an arm stretched out and brought back). But it is difficult to ascertain 
the precise distinction which he made between these different modes of man- 
ifestation and the “monas” (unity), the αὐτόθεος, whom he called viordtwp 
(Athan. De Syn. 16); and the relation in which this monas stands to these 
modes of manifestation, and to the Father in particular. To judge from some 
passages, quoted by Athan. iv. 25, he seems to have considered the terms 
πατήρ and μόνας identical; while elsewhere (iv. 13) the Father, who is 
designated as the μόνας, forms a part of the Trinity, comp. Dorner, p. 706, 
ss. The Logos also occupies a peculiar position in the system of Sabellius. 
While, in his opinion, the Trinity only exists in relation to the world, the 
creation of the world is brought about by the Logos, to whom Sabellius, like 
the earlier writers, applies the predicates Evdıdderog and προφορικός, see 
Dorner, p. 711, ss. Thus, according to Sabellius, God is inactive as silent, 
and active as speaking (Athanas. iv. 11). On the entire system of Sabellius, 
as well as on the sense in which he used the terms πρόσωπον (whether bor- 
rowed from the theatre?) and ὁμοούσιος, see Schleiermacher, 1. c. Baum- 
garten-Crusius, i. 1. 200, ss. Meander, translat. ii. p. 276, ss., and Hist. of 
Dog. p. 180. Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse, vol. i. p. 184, ss. As regards 
the historical manifestation of Christ, it must be admitted that its theo- 
logical significance is not impugned by Sabellius, inasmuch as he regards 
the Saviour as the immediate manifestation of God. But Christ possesses 
personality only during this historical appearance in the flesh. That per- 
sonality neither existed previous to his incarnation, nor does it continue to 
exist in heaven, since that divine ray which beamed forth in Christ returns 
again to God. Nevertheless, Sabellius seems to have expected the second 
coming of Christ (Schlecermacher, p. 174). It is even doubtful whether he 
makes the return of the Logos to God to occur at the ascension of Christ, or 
only when the kingdom of God is completed. On the connection between 
Sabellianism and Ebionitism, see Dorner, p. 726. [This is seen in that 
Sabellius makes the revelation of Christ a mere means, and not an end; in 
his calling the Son a ray (ἀκτῖνα) of the monas, on account of which he 
was accused of dividing the divine essence ; and then the difficult question 
(since he allow««' no distinctions in God), whether the whole God was in the 


248 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF PoLEnIics. 


person (Prosopon) of the Son in such a way that he was not elsewhere active 
during the incarnation—a question which led him to speak of the Son in 
terms approximating to Ebionitism.] According to Epiphanius, the opin- 
ions of Sabellius were principally spread in Mesopotamia, and in the vicinity 
of Rome. A sect of Sabellians, properly so called, did not exist. ; 

> Paul, a native of Syria, bishop of Antioch from the year 260, was, after 
264, charged with heresy at several synods,* and at last removed from his 
office (269-72). Of his dispute with the presbyter Malchion, a fragment is 
preserved in Mansi, vol. i. p. 1001, ss. Comp. the different accounts given 
by Epiph. 65, 1, and Euseb. vii. 27. The writers on the History of Doctrines 
vary in their opinions respecting the relation in which he stands whether td 
Sabellianism, or to the Unitarianism of the Artemonites (see Euseb. v. 28, ab 
init.) ; comp. Schleiermacher, p. 389, sq. Baumgarten-Crusius, 1. Ὁ. 204. 
Augusti, p. 59. Meier, Dogmengesch. p. 74, 75. Dorner, p. 510. The 
difference between Sabellius and Paul of Samosata may be said to have con- 
sisted in this, that the former thought that the whole substance of the Divine 
being, the latter that only one single Divine power, had manifested itself in 
Christ. Trechsel (Geschichte des Antitrinitarismus, vol. i. p. 81) agrees with 
this, calling Samosatianism “the correlate of Sabellianism, according to the 
measures of the mere understanding.” The divine here comes only into an 
external contact with man, touches human nature only on the surface; 
while, on the other hand, the human element comes to its rights more than 
in the system of Sabellius. At all events, we can hardly expect any serious 
and persevering attempts at a doctrinal system from a man whose vanity is 
so prominent. Though the charge that he countenanced Jewish errors to 
obtain favor with the queen Zenobia, is unfounded (Neander, ii. p. 270), yet 
it is quite probable that the vain show he made of free-thinking principles, 
and his idle pretension of taking a stand above the parties, were in as full 
accordance with his ostentatious nature, as in other times and under other 
circumstances this has been found to be connected with an arrogant and 
pretentious orthodoxy. Even to make a heresy, a definite theological char- 
acter is needed; frivolity is but an external appendage of any party. At 
any rate, it is false to use the terms Sabellianism and Samosatianism promis- 
cuously. Generally, those who denied the distinctions of persons in the 
Trinity, were called Harpıraooıavoi in the West, and Σαβελλιανοί in the 
East. Comp. Athanasius de Synod. 25, 7. 


* On the two Antioch Synods, 265 and 270, see Dorner, p. 769. [Their decrees, 
though not in a strict dogmatic form, were received as orthodox—though containing 
expressions which were avoided after the Council of Nice. The Son is confessed to be 
God in essence and hypostasis (οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει); his preéxistence is definitely stated 
—he was always with the Father; through him, not as instrument merely, nor as an im- 
personal Wisdom, the Father created all things, etc. Sabellianism and Samosatianism 
are excluded by these and like positions.] 


$ 89. SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER. 249 


§ 89, 


THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER, AND THE DIS- 
TINCTION OF PERSONS IN ARIANISM. 


[ Whitaker's Origin of Arianism. Lond. 1791. Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century: 
Maimbourg, Hist. of Arianism, by W. Webster, 2, 1768. J. A. Stark, Versuch einer 
Gesch. des Arian. T. G. Hassencamp, Historia Ariane Controversie, 1845. Bp. 
Kaye, in his Council of Nice, 1853. Albert de Broglie, L’Eglise et Empire Romain 
au iv. siecle, Paris, 1856, i. 329-397. W. Klose, in Herzog’s Realencycl.] 


The system of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, forms the most 
striking contrast with that of Sabellius. Arius, in endeavoring to 
define objectively the distinction between the persons of the Trinity, 
carried the idea of a subordination of the one to the other, and, in 
the first place, of the Son to the Father, so far as to represent the 
former as a creation of the latter." This opinion, which he promul- 
gated at Alexandria, met with the most decided opposition on the 
part of Alexander, bishop of that city.‘ This contest, which was at 
first merely a private dispute, gave rise to a controversy, which 
exerted greater influence upon the History of Doctrines than all 
former controversies, and was the signal for an almost endless suc- 
cession of subsequent conflicts. 


* Sources:' Ari Epist. ad Euseb, Nicomed. in Epiph. Her. 69, ὃ 6. 
Theodoret Hist. Eccles. 1. 4. Epist. ad Alex. in Athan. De Synodis Arim. et 
Seleuc. c. 16, and Ep. Her. 69, § 7. Of the work of Arius entitled Θαλεία, 
only some fragments are preserved by Athanasius.—According to the Epist. 
ad Euseb., his opinion was: Ὅτε ὁ υἱὸς οὔκ ἐστιν ἀγέννητος, οὐδὲ μέρος 
ἀγεννήτου κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι 
θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη πρὸ χρόνων καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων, πλήρης θεὺς, 
μονογενής" ἀναλλοίωτος, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῇ ἤτοι κτισθῇ ἤτοι ὁρισθῇ ἢ 
θεμελιωθῇ, οὐκ MV" ἀγεννητὸς γὰρ οὐκ ἦν. His views are fully settled on 
the last (negative) point; though he is laboring in what precedes to get at 
a satisfactory mode of statement. “We are persecuted,” he continues, 
“because we say that the Son hath a beginning, while we teach that God is 
avapyoc. We say ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν, because he is no part of God, 
nor is he created of any thing already in existence” (he rejects accordingly 
the theory of emanation, or the notion that Christ is created from matter), 
Comp. the letter to Alexander, 1. c., where he defends his own doctrine 
against the notion of Valentinus concerning a 7po3A07; against that of the 
Manichees about a pépoc; and lastly, against the opinions of Sabellius; he 
there uses almost the same phraseology which occurs in the letter to Euse- 
bius. The same views are expressed in still stronger language in the frag- 
ments of the aforesaid work Thalia (in Athan. Contra Arian. Orat. 1, ὃ 9): 
Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον γέγονεν" οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς, ob yap 


250 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE ΟΕ POLEMICS. 


ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ" οὔκ ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη Kal 
αὐτός: οὔκ ἐστιν ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. Κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ 
ποίημα, καὶ οὔκ ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς 
ἐθεοποιήθη. Οὐκ οἷδε τὸν πατέρα ἀκριβῶς ὃ υἱὸς, οὔτε ὁρᾷ 6 λόγος τὸν 
πατέρα τελείως: καὶ οὔτε συνιεῖ, οὕτε γινώσκει ἀκριβῶς ὁ λόγος τὸν πατέρα" 
οὔκ ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος αὐτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ὀνόματι 
μόνον λέγεται λόγος καὶ σοφία, καὶ χάριτι λέγετα: υἱὸς καὶ δύναμις" οὔκ 
ἐστιν ἄτρεπτος ὡς 6 πατὴρ, ἀλλὰ τρεπτός ἐστι φύσει, ὡς τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ 
λείπει αὐτῷ εἰς κατάληψιν τοῦ γνῶναι τελείως τὸν πατέρα. Contra 
Arian. i. ὃ 5: Eira θελήσας ἡμᾶς (6 θεὸς) δημιουργῆσαι, τότε δὲ πεποίηκεν 
ἕνα τινὰ καὶ ὡνόμασεν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ σοφίαν καὶ υἱὸν, ἵνα ἡμᾶς Ov’ αὐτοῦ 
Önutovpynon.—He proves this from the figurative expression, Joel ii. 25 (the 
Septuagint reads, “the great power of God,” instead of “locusts”). Comp. 
Neander, Church History, ii. p. 767, ss. Dorner, p. 849, ss. Baur, Trin- 
itätl. p. 319, ss. 342, ss. Meander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), p. 301. Meier, 
Trinität. p. 134; the latter says, p. 137,* that Arius represents the reaction 
of common sense against the tendeney to recur to the forms of Platonie 
speculation.” But compare Baur, ubi supra, who finds also a speculative 
element in Arius. [The previous statements had resulted only in bringing 
out the extreme positions, without reconciling them. Arius laid hold of one 
of these, that the Father alone is unbegotten, and the Son begotten, and 
carried it to its logical results. If begotten, then not eternal; if not eternal, 
then original in time, etc. Arianism is an “abstract separation between the 
infinite and the finite. Comp. Baur’s Dogmengesch. 2d ed. 1858, p. 164.] 

® Concerning the opinion of Alexander, see his letter to Alexander, bishop 
of Constantinople, in Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. i. 4, and the circular letter Ad 
Catholicos, in Socrat. 1. 6. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 203-206. He 
founds his arguments chiefly on the prologue to the Gospel of John, and 
shows, μεταξὺ πατρὸς παὶ υἱοῦ οὐδὲν εἷναι διάστημα. All time and all 
spaces of time are rather created by the Father through the Son. If the 
Son had had a beginning, the Father would have been ἄλογος. The genera- 
tion of the Son had nothing in common with the sonship of believers. Christ 
is the Son of God κατὰ φύσιν. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch, p. 212. 


§ 90. 


THE HYPOSTASIS AND HOMOUSIA OF THE SON. 


The Doctrine of the Council of Nice. 


Münscher, Untersuchung, über den Sinn der nieäischen Glaubensformel, in Henkes Neues, 
Magazin, vi. p. 334, ss. Walch, Bibl. Symb. Vet. Lemg. 1770, 8, p. 75, ss. [Fuchs 
Bibliothek ἃ. Kirchenversammlungen der 4n. und 5n. Jahr..i. 350. Athanasii Epis- 


* Thus Arius, on the doctrine of Origen, contended against its speculative side, in the 
eternal generation, while he adopted his view of the subordination of the Son to the Father. 
Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 308; and Neander, Hist. Dogm. p. 303: “The profound 
idea, espoused by Origen, of the eternal generation of the Son, without any beginning, 
could not be comprehended by the commonplace understanding of Arius.” 


§ 90. Tue Hyposrasis AND HomousIA OF THE Son. 251 


tole de Decret. Synod. Nic. in Oxford Lib. of Fathers, vols. 8, 19. Kaye's, Some 
Account of the Council of Nice, 1853, comp. Christ. Remembrancer, 1854. Petavius, 
Theol. Dogm. Tom. ii. Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nic. De Broglie, L’Eglise et Em- 
pire Romain, ii. 1-71. Mohler, Athanasius, 2 Thle. Mainz, 2d ed. 1844. K. W. T. 
Hessler, Athanasius, der Vertheidiger d. Homousia, in Zeitschrift, f. d. hist. Theol. 
1856, transl. in Presb. Qu. Review, 1857. W. W. Harvey, Hist. and Theol. of the 
Three Creeds, 2. Lond. 1854. Voigt, Die Immanente Trinität, und Athanasius; in 
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. Analecta Niczena, fragments on the council, from 
the Syriac, by B. H. Cowper, Lond. 1857; cf. Journal of Sacr. Lit. Lond. Jan. 1860, 
p- 380.] 


The Emperor Constantine the Great, and the two bishops of the 
name Eusebius (viz. : of Caesarea and of Nicomedia), having in vain 
endeavored to bring about a reconciliation between the contending 
parties,’ the First General (Kcumenical) Council was held at Nice 
(A. D. 325), principally through the intervention of the bishop Ho- 
sius of Corduba. After several other formulas, apparently favorable 
to Arianism,” had been rejected, a confession of faith was adopted, 
in which it was established as the inviolable doctrine of the catholic 
church, that the Son is of the same essence (ὁμοούσιος) with the Fa- 
ther, but sustaining to him the relation of that which is begotten to 
that which begets.’ | 


* Comp. Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Arium, in Eus. Vita Const, 
ii. 64-72; and on the attempts of the two bishops to bring about a recon- 
ciliation, see Neander, |. c. p. 783, ss. 

* One of these is the confession of faith which Eusebius of Ceesarea pro- 
posed, Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 11, comp. Neander, |. c. p. 797, ss. It con- 
tained the expression: Ὃ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, θεὸς Ex θεοῦ, φῶς Ek φωτὸς, ζωὴ 
ἐκ ζωῆς, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, EK τοῦ 
πατρὸς γεγεννημένος. According to Athan. De Decret. Syn. Nic. 20, they 
at first only wished to decide, that the Son of God is εἰκὼν τοῦ TaTpbc, ὅμοιός 
τε Kal ἀπαράλλακτος κατὰ πάντα TH πατρὶ καὶ ἄτρεπτος Kal del, καὶ Ev 
αὐτῷ εἷναι ἀδιαιρέτως. 

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ 
ἀοράτων ποιητήν" καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν Tov Θεοῦ, 
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, 
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα 
οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, di’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν 
τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν 
ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, 
παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ: ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ 
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Kal εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. Tod δὲ 
λέγοντας, ὅτι ἣν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἣν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἣν, καὶ ὅτι 
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἷναι, 
ἢ κτιστὸν ἤ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία 
καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Athan. Epist. De Decret. Syn. Nie.— 
Eus. Cas. Ep. ad Czsariens—Socrat. i. 8. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 11. 
Münscher von Cölln, p. 207-9. Baur, Trinitätl. p. 334, ss. Meier, p. 146, 


252 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


ss. Dorner, p. 849. [The Nicene creed, says Dorner, showed to Christian 
theology the end at which it was to aim, even if it did not perfectly realize 
that end. Arianism had pressed back towards Ebionitism ; it had lost the 
idea of the incarnation, putting between God and the creature a fantastic, 
subordinate God, which separated rather than united the infinite and finite. 
It made a perfect revelation or manifestation of God impossible. The Nicene 
fathers met this, by proclaiming the real and proper divinity of the Son, ete.] 

Respecting the definitions of the phrases ἐξ οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος, comp. 
Athanasius, |. c. We find that even at that time a distinction was made be- 
tween sameness and similarity. The Son is like the Father in a different 
sense from that in which we become like God by rendering obedience to his 
laws. This resemblance, moreover, is not external, accidental, like that be- 
tween metal and gold, tin and silver, etc. 

[ Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te Aufl. 1858, p. 164, gives the following as the 
substance of the Nicene and Athanasian belief. To the Arian hypothesis it 
opposes the eternal generation and consubstantiality (Homousia) of the Son, 
on the basis of the following arguments; 1. The Father would not be abso- 
lute God if he were not in his essence begetting and so the Father of a Son 
of the same essence. 2. The idea of the divinity of the Son is abolished, if he 
is not Son by nature, but only through God’s grace. If created, he were 
neither Son nor God; to be both creature and creator is a complete contra- 
diction. 3. The unity of the finite with the infinite, of man with God, falls 
to the ground, if the mediator of this unity is only a creature, and not the 
absolute God. | 


SEI 
Further Fluctuations until the Synod of Constantinople. 


But the phrase ὁμοούσιος did not meet with universal approval.’ 
In this unsettled state of affairs the party of the Eusebians,* who 
had for some time previous enjoyed the favor of the court, succeeded 
in gaining its assent to a doctrine in which the use of the term 
ὁμοούσιος was studiously avoided, though it did not strictly inculcate 
the principles of Arianism. Thus Athanasius, who firmly adhered 
to this watchword of the Nicene party, found himself compelled to 
seek refuge in the West. Several synods were summoned for the 
purpose of settling this long protracted question, a number of for- 
mul were drawn up and rejected,® till at last the Nicene and Atha- 
nasian doctrine was more firmly established by the decisions of the 
second cecumenical synod of Constantinople (A. p. 381).' 


* Several Asiatic bishops took offense at the term in question; Socrat. i. 
8, 6. Münscher von Cölln, p. 210. They considered it unscriptural (λέξις 
dypadoc), and were afraid that it might give rise to a revival of the theory 
of emanation. But the expression ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας was more favorable to that 


$ 91. FLUCTUATIONS UNTIL THE SYNOD OF CoNSTANTINOPLE. 253 


theory than the term ὁμοούσιος, comp. Meier, |. e. p. 147.—Respecting the 
further course of the external events, see the works on ecclesiastical history. 
Leavine Hıstorscar Facts: I. The banishment of Arius and of the bishops 
Theonas and Secundus. The fate of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis 
of Nice. II. Anus is recalled a. p. 330, after having signed the following 
confession of faith: εἰς Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων γεγεννημένον, θεὸν λόγον, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα 
ἐγένετο κ. τ. A, (Socr. 1. 26.) Synods of Tyre and Jerusalem (A. p. 335). 
Ill. Banishment of Athanasius to Gaul. The sudden death of Arius at Con- 
stantinople (a. p. 336), prior to his solemn readmission into the Church. 
Different opinions concerning this event. IV. Death of the Emperor Con- 
stantine the Great at Nicomedia (a. p. 337). (Soer. i. 27-40.) A remark- 
able change had taken place in the views of Constantine towards the close 
of his life. The Arians were firmly supported by his son Constantius, who 
ruled in the East from A. p. 337. 

* Concerning this name, see @üeseler, i. $ 82. Athanasius himself fre- 
quently calls them οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ; by other writers they are classed with 
the Arians, whom they joined in their opposition to Athanasius. 

° I. The four confessions of faith drawn up by the Eusebians, and 
presented at councils in Antioch from the year 341 (in Athan. De Syn. 
c. 22-25. Walch, p. 109. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 211, ss. 
Gieseler, 1. ὃ 82, note 4); in all of these the word ὁμοούσιος is wanting, but 
in other points they were not favorable to Arianism. II. The formula 
μακρόστιχος, by the council of Antioch, A. p. 343, in which Arianism was 
condemned, Tritheism rejected, the doctrine of Athanasius found fault with, 
and, in opposition to it, the subordination of the Son to the Father was main- 
tained. III. The synod of Sardica, (A. p. 347, or, according to others, A. Ὁ. 
344)” Socrat. ii. 20; but the western bishops alone remained at Sardica, the 
eastern held their assemblies in the neighboring town of Philippopolis. The 
Formula Philippopolitana, preserved by Hilary (de Synodis contra Arianos, 
$ 34), is partly a repetition of the formula uarpöorıxoc. IV. The confession 
of faith adopted at the first council of Sirmium (A. p. 351, in Athanas. § 27, in 
Hilary, ὃ 37, and in Socrat. ii. 29, 30) was directed against Photinus; see be- 
low, § 92. V. The formula of the second council of Sirmium (a. p. 357, in 
Hilary, § 11, Athanas. $ 28, Socrat. ii. 30) was directed both against the use 
of the term ὁμοούσιος, and against speculative tendencies in general: Scire 
autem manifestum est solum Patrem quomodo genuerit filium suum, et fil- 
ium quomodo genitus sit a patre, (comp. above, Irenzus, § 42, note 9); but 
it also asserts the subordination of the Son to the Father in the strict Arian 
manner: Nulla ambiguitas est, majorem esse Patrem. Nulli potest dubium 
esse, Patrem honore, dignitate, claritate, majestate et ipso nomine Patris ma- 
jorem esse filio, ipso testante: qui me misit major me est (John xiy. 28). 
Et hoc catholicum esse, nemo ignorat, duas Personas esse Patris et Filii, ma- 
jorem Patrem, Filium subjectum cum omnibus his, quae ipsi Pater subjecit. 
VI. These strict Arian views were rejected by the Semiarians at the synod 


* Respecting the chronelogy, see Wetzer, H. J., Restitutio verze Chronologie Rerum ex. 
Controversiis Arianis inde ab anno 325 usque ad annum 350 exortarum contra chronolo- 
giam hodie receptam exhibita. Francof. 1827. 


254 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE ΟΕ POLEMICS. 


of Ancyra in Galatia (4. Ὁ. 358), under Basil, bishop of Ancyra; the decrees 
of this synod are given in Epiph. Her. 73, § 2-11. (Münscher von Cölln 
and Gieseler, i. § 83.) VII. The confession of faith adopted at the third 
synod of Sirmium (A. Ὁ. 358), in which that agreed upon at the second synod 
(the Arian) is condemned, and the Semiarian confession of the synod of An- 
cyra is confirmed. Comp. Athan. § 8. Socrat. ii. 37. VII. Council of the 
western church at Ariminum (Rimini), and of the eastern at Seleucia 
(A. D. 359). 

* SymBoLum NICENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM : Πιστεύομεν εἰς Eva θεὸν, 
πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν TE πάντων 
καὶ ἀοράτων. Kai εἰς ἕνα κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν 
μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, 
φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, 
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, di’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο" τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ 
σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος aylov καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ 
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα' σταυρωθέντα δὲ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλά- 
του, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ 
τὰς γραφάς" καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ 
δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δὸξης κρῖναι ζῶντας 
καὶ νεκρούς: οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον 
πνεῦμα, etc. (Concerning the further statements as to the nature of the 
Holy Spirit, see below, $ 93, note 7.) 

Münscher edit by von Cölln, compares this symbol with the Nicene Creed, 
p. 240. Comp. J. Οἱ Suicer, Symbolum Niceeno-Constantinopolitan, exposi- 
tum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica illustratum, Traj. ad Rhen. 1718, 4. 
[Comp. Cardinal Wiseman, Account of Council of Constantinople in the 
Arian Controv. in his Essays, vol. 3.] 


§ 92. 
THE CAUSES OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS. 


Arianism and Semiarianism on the one hand, and return to Sabel- 
lianism on the other (Marcellus and Photinus). 


Klose, C. R. W., Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius, Kiel, 1833. By the same: Gesch- 
ichte und Lehre des Marcellus und Photinus, Hamburg, 1837. 


From the very nature of the controversy in question, it followed 
that the difficult task of steering clear both of Sabellianism and 
Arianism devolved on those who were anxious to preserve orthodoxy 
in its purity. In maintaining the sameness of essence, they had to 
hold fast to the distinction of persons ; in asserting the latter, they 
had to avoid the doctrine of subordination.’ The Semiarians,’ and 
with them Cyril of Jerusalem,* and Eusebius of Cesarea,* endeav- 


$ 92. Tue Causes OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS. 255 


ored to avoid the use of the term ὁμοούσιος, lest they should fall into 
the Sabellian error ; though the former asserted, in opposition to 
the strict Arians (the followers of Aétius, and the Eunomians),* 
that the Son was of similar essence with the Father (ὁμοιούσιος) . 
But Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and his disciple, Photinus, bishop 
of Sirmium, carried their opposition to Arianism so far as to adopt 
in substance the principles of Sabellianism. They modified it, 
however, to some extent, by drawing a distinction between the 
terms Logos and the Son of God, and thus guarded it against all 
semblance of patripassianism.’ 


* Chrysostom shows clearly the necessity, as well as the difficulty, of 
avoiding both these dangers, De Sacerdotio, iv. 4, sub finem: ’Av τε γὰρ 
μίαν τις ἕιπῃ θεότητα, πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Tapdvorav εὐθέως εἵλκυσε τὴν 
φωνὴν 6 Σαβέλλιος" ἄν T3 διέλῃ πάλιν ἕτερον μὲν τὸν Πατέρα, ἕτερον δὲ 
τὸν Ὑἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα δὲ τὸ ἅγιον ἕτερον εἷναι λέγων, ἐφέστηκευ "Apeıoc, 
εἰς παραλλαγὴν οὐσίας ἕλκων τὴν ἐν τοῖς προσώποις διαφοράν. Δεῖ δὲ 
καὶ τὴν ἀσεβῆ σύγχυσιν ἐκείνου, καὶ τὴν μανιώδη τούτον διαίρεσιν ἀπο- 
στρέφεσθαι καὶ φεύγειν, τὴν μὲν θεότητα Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου 
Πνεύματος μίαν ὁμολογοῦντας, προστιθέντας δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις. 
Οὕτω γὰρ ἀποτειχίσαι δυνησόμεθα τὰς ἀμφότέρων ἐφόδους. 

* The leaders of the Semiarians (ὁμοιουσιασταί, ἡμιάρειοι) were Basil, 
bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea. Comp. the confession 
of faith adopted by the synod of Ancyra (a. D. 358), in Athanas. de Syn. 
§ 41. Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 222. 

" Cyril, Cat. xvi. 24. He rejects, generally speaking, the too fine-spun 
speculations, and thinks it sufficient to believe: Eic θεὸς 6 Ilarip: εἷς 
κύριος, ὁ μονογενὴς αὐτοῦ υἱός" Ev TO πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον, ὃ παράκλητος. 
Christ says, he that believeth on him hath eternal life—not he who knows how 
he was generated. We ought not to go beyond Seripture, nor turn either to 
the right or to the left, but keep in the via regia, μήτε διὰ τὸ νομίζειν τιμᾶν 
τὸν viöv, πατέρα αὐτὸν ἀναγορεύσωμεν, μήτε διὰ τὸ τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα 
νομίζειν, ἕν τι δημιουργημάτων τὸν υἱὸν ὑποπτεύσωμεν, xi. 17. Instead 
of ὁμοούσιος, he would prefer ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, iv. 7, but comp. the 
various readings in the work of Toutee, p. 53, and Münscher ed. by von 
Cölln, p. 224-226. Socrat. iv. 25. He also maintains that it is necessary 
to hold the medium between Sabellianism and Arianism, iv. 8: Kai μήτε 
ἀπαλλοτριώσῃς τοῦ πατρὸς TOV υἱὸν, μήτε συναλοιφὴν ἐργασάμενος viorra- 
τορίαν πιστεύσῃς κ. τ. A. Comp. xvi. 4, and Meier, die Lehre von der Trin- 
ität. i. p. 170. [Cyril’s chief aim is to hold fast the individual existence of 
the Son and the Father, without so annulling all internal relations, that the 
Trias is destroyed, and the Son degraded to the level of creatures by the ἦν 
ποτε οὐκ ἦν.] 

* Eus. Hist. Eccl. 1, 2, calls the Son τὸν τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελον, 
τὸν τῆς ἀῤῥήτου γνώμης τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπουργὸν, τὸν δεύτερον peta τὸν 
πατέρα αἵτιον, etc. In Panegyricus, x. i, he also calls him τῶν ἀγαθῶν 


256 Seconn PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


δεύτερον αἴτιον, an expression which greatly offended the orthodox writers ;* 
but at another place he gives him the name αὐτόθεος, x. 4. On the forma- 
tion of compound words by means of the pronoun αὐτό, of which Eusebius 
makes frequent use, comp. the Demonstr. Evang. iv. 2, 13, and Heinichen, 1. 
c. p. 223. In the same work, v. 1, p. 215, the subordination of the Son to 
the Father is stated; he calls him, iv. 3, p. 149, viov γεννητὸν, but ye ἽΝ 
that he is πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ὄντα καὶ προόντα καὶ τῷ πατρὶ ὡς υἱὸν 
διαπαντὸς συνόντα; yet again he speaks of him as ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἀνεκφράστου καὶ ἀπερινοήτου βουλῆς TE καὶ δυνάμεως οὐσιούμενον. For 
further particulars see Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 227-29, and Hand- 
buch, iii. p. 427, ss. Martini, Eus. Ces. de Divinitate Christi Sententia, 
Rost. 1795, 4. + Ritter, Eus. Cees. de Divinitate Christi placita, Bonn. 1823, 
4. Henell, de Eusebio Ces, relig. Christ. defensore. Meier, 1. ὁ. i. p. 167. 
Baur, Trinit. 472. Dorner, 792: “ His system is a play of colors, a reflex 
of the unsolved problems of the church at that time.” 

° Concerning the strict Arians: Aötius of Antioch, Hunomius, bishop of 
Cycicum, and Acacius, bishop of Czesarea, in Palestine, comp. Philostorg. 
iii, iv. Epiph. Hier. 76, 10. Respecting the life, writings, and opinions of 
Eunomius, see Klose, 1. c. Meander, Church History (Torrey’s transl.), 1]. 
399-409. Comp. Dorner, i. 3, p. 853, ss. Meier, i. p. 176, ss. Baur, 
Trin, 1. 360, sq. 

° Athanasius showed how little the idea of similarity of essence (homoi- 
ousianism) was adapted to satisfy the mind, when, among other things, he 
calls to mind that many things may be of similar nature without having 
sprung from each other (as silver and tin, a wolf and a dog); De Synod. § 
41. The Semiarians, with the Arians, maintained that the Son was created 
of the will of the Father; the opposite of this appeared to them to be mere 
compulsion or force. In reply, Athanasius held up the idea of an internal 
necessity, founded in the very nature of God, to which the category of force 
does not apply. He compared the relation to that of the shining of the 
light. Orat. contr. Arios, 11, 2. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 311. 
Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), 322. [Voigt on Athanasius and the Im- 
manent Trinity, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. Hessler on Athana- 
sius, transl. in Presb. Qu. Rev. 1857. Baur, Dogmengesch. 2d ed. p. 165, 
says of the Semiarians, that they had a half-way position, reducing the abso- 
lute ideas of the two parties to indeterminate terms, and running back into 
the old subordination and emanation views. | 

τ The opinions of Marcellus (who died about the year 374), are derived 
partly from the fragments of his treatise against Asterius (de Subjectione 
Domini, edited by Zettberg, under the file Marcelliana, Gott. 1794, 8), 
partly from the writings of his opponents, Eusebius (κατὰ Μαρκέλλον Lib, 11. 
and περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv. 
27, 33), and partly from his own letter to Julius, bishop of Rome (Epiph. 


* Comp. the note of the scholiast in the Cod. Med. (in the editions of Valesius and 
‚Heinichen, iii. p. 219): Κακῶς κἀνταῦθα BeoAoyeis, Εὐσέβιε, περὶ τοῦ συνανάρχου καὶ ovval- 
diov καὶ συμποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, δεύτερον αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶν αἴτιον τῶν ἀγαθῶν, 
συναίτιον ὄντα καὶ συνδημιουργὸν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων, καὶ ὁμοούσιον, and the more recent 
note in the Cod. Mazarin., ibidem. 


§ 92. THe Causes OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS. 257 


Her. 72, 2). The earlier writers are divided in their opinions concerning 
the orthodoxy of Marcellus: the language of Athanasius is very mild and 
cautious (διὰ τοῦ προσώπον μειδιάσας Epiph. Her. 72, 4); though he does 
not directly approve of his sentiments. Basil the Great, on the other hand, 
(according to Epiphanius, 69, 2, and 263, 5), and most of the other eastern 
bishops, insisted upon his condemnation; most of the latter writers consid- 
ered him a heretic, comp. Montfaucon, Diatribe de Causa Marcelli Ancyrani 
(in Collect. Nova Patr. Par. 1707, T. ii. pag. li); lose, p. 21-25, Gueseler, 
i. § 82, note 10. Marcellus had formerly defended the term ὁμοούσιος at 
the council of Nice. When, in the course of the controversy, and of his 
opposition to the Arian sophist Asterius, he seemed to lean more towards 
Sabellianism, this may have occurred without his being directly conscious of 
it; comp. Bawmgarten- Crusius, 1. p. 277, 278. [Ueber die Orthodoxie des 
Mare., von F. A. Willenberg, Munster, 1859.] Concerning the doctrine 
itself, Marcellus returned to the old distinction made between λόγος Evdıdde- 
τος and προφορικός ; he imagined, on the one hand, that the λόγος was 
ἡσυχάζων in God, and, on the other, that it was an ἐνέργεια δραστική pro- 
ceeding from him. Inasmuch as he maintains the reality of the Logos 
(whom he does not consider to be a mere name), in opposition to the Sabel- 
lian view of a τριὰς ἐκτεινομένη καὶ συστελλομένη, and rejects the idea of 
generation adopted by the council of Nice (because it seemed to him to 
infringe upon the divinity of the Logos), he occupies an intermediate posi- 
tion between the one and the other. He also endeavored to re-introduce the 
older historical signification of the phrase υἱὸς θεοῦ, as applying to the per- 
sonal manifestation of the historical Christ, and not to the preéxistence of 
the Logos; for the idea of generation can not be applied to the latter. He 
consequently interpreted the Biblical phrases, Col. i. 15, and the like, in 
which Christ is spoken of as the image of God, to the incarnate Logos; so, 
too, the πρωτύτοκος πάσης κτίσεως ; comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 317. His 
disciple Photinus, bishop of Sirmium (to whom his opponents, with poor wit, 
gave the nickname Zkorervöc), adopted similar views, but carried them to a 
much greater extent; he died about the year 376. His doctrine was con- 
demned in the aforesaid formula uarpöorıyoc, and again at the council of 
Milan (a. D. 346). He himself was dismissed from his office by the council 
of Sirmium (A. p. 351). The sect of the Photinians, however, continued to 
exist till the reign of Theodosius the Great. From what has been said con- 
cerning him by Athan. de Syn. § 26, Socrat. ii. 19, Epiph. Her. 70, Hilary 
(Fragm., and De Synodis), Marius Mercator (Nestorii Sermo IV.), and Vigil. 
Tapsens. Dialogus), it can not be fully ascertained how far Photinus either 
adhered to the principles of his master, or deviated from them. Comp. on 
this point Münscher, Handbuch, iii. p. 447. Meander, Church Hist. ii. 395, 
425. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 279.  Gieseler, i. ὃ 82. Hase, Church Hist. 
in Wing’s version, 114. A’lose, p. 66, ss. He too asserted the co-eternity 
of the Logos (but not of the Son) with the Father, and employed the term 
λογοπάτωρ to denote their unity, as Sabellius had used the word υἱοπάτωρ. 
He applied the name “Son of God” only to,the incarnate Christ. The only 
difference between Marcellus and Photinus probably was, that the latter 
developed the negative aspect of Christology more than his master, and con- 
17 


258 SEconD PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICcSs. 


sequently considered the connection of the Logos with the historical Christ 
to be less intimate. Hence his followers were called Homuncionite (accord- 
ing to Mar. Mercator, quoted by Klose, p. 76). Thus Photinus corresponds 
more with Paul of Samosata, and Marcellus with Sabellius. So, too, Photi- 
nus viewed the preéxistence of Christ in a merely ideal way, referring it (as 
the Socinians afterwards did) to predestination. In these controversies it is 
very striking, as Münscher has said, “ that theologians then but little under- 
stood the distinction made by Marcellus aad Photinus between the terms 
Locos and Son or Gov. Im refuting their opponents, they invariably con- 
founded these expressions, and thus might easily draw dangerous and absurd 
inferences from their propositions. But, at the same time, it is evident that 
their own arguments would take a wrong direction, and thus lose the greatest 
part of their force.” Münscher, Handbuch, 1. c.. Comp., however, Dorner, 
i. 3, p. 864, ss. Baur, Trinit. 1. p. 525, ss. Meier, i. p. 160, ss., especially 
on the transverse relations in which Photinus stood to his teacher in respect 
to christology. [Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te aufl. 1858, p. 168; Marcellus 
distinguishes the Son from the Logos, and makes the Logos itself to be both 
quiescent and active; the Sonship of the Logos has both a beginning and an 
end; with Arianism, he sundered God and the world as far as possible. The 
doctrine of Paulinus is the same, excepting that, like Paul of Samosata and 
Arius, he adopted the view that the human Christ was deified by means of 
his moral excellencies. | 


§ 93. 
DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


[Kahnis, Gesch. d. Lehre vom Heiligen Geiste. Ed. Burton, Test. of Ante-Nicene Fathers 
to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 1831 (Works, vol. 2). Hare's (Archd.) Mission of 
the Comforter, 2d ed. 1851. Owen’s Works, vols. iii and iv. The Personality of the 
Holy Spirit, against Sabellianism, W. C. Child, in Christian Review (N. Y.) 1852, 
pp. 515-537.] 


The Nicene Creed decided nothing concerning the Holy Spirit.’ 
While Lactantius still identified the Word with the Spirit,’ other 
theologians regarded the Spirit as a mere divine power or gift, or at 
least did not venture to determine his nature in any more definite 
way, though accustomed to teach the divinity of the Son in un- 
equivocal terms.’ But Athanasius correctly inferred from his prem- 
ises the divinity of the Holy Spirit,‘ and was followed by Basi, 
surnamed the Great, as well as by Gregory of Nazianzum, and 
Gregory of Nyssa. At last the General Council of Constantinople 
(A. ν. 381), influenced by Gregory of Nazianzum, adopted more pre- 
cise doctrinal definitions concerning the Holy Spirit, especially in 
opposition to the Macedonians (πνενματομάχους)." Though the term 
ὁμοούσιος itself was not applied to the Spirit in the canons of this 
council, yet, by determining that he proceeds from the Father, they 


§ 93. Divirrry or THE HoLy SPirır. 259 


prepared the way for further definitions, in which honor and power 
equal in every respect to those of the Father and the Son were as- 
cribed to him.” 


' The opposition to Arius would necessarily lead to more precise defini- 
tions; for Arius (according to Athan. Orat. 1, ὃ 6) maintained that the 
Spirit stood as far below the Son as the Son was below the Father, and that 
he was the first of the creatures made by the Son. But it did not appear 
wise to complicate the matter in question still more by contending about the 
divinity of the Spirit, since many of the Nicene Fathers, who consented that 
the term ὁμοούσιος should be applied to the Son, would not have so easily 
admitted it in reference to the Spirit. See Meander, Church History (Tor- 
rey), li. p. 419 sq. : 

* See above, ὃ 87, note 1. 

ἡ There were here again two ways—the one falling back into Sabellian- 
ism, the other a continuation of Arianism. Zactantius, on the one hand, 
separated the Son from the Father (after the manner of the Arians), and, on 
the other, confounded the Spirit with the Son (as the Sabellians did). Some 
writers followed the same course, while others ascribed a distinct personality 
to the Spirit, but asserted that he was subordinate to both the Father and 
the Son (the Arian view). Gregory of Nazianzum gives a summary of the 
different views entertained in his time in the fifth of his theological orations, 
which was composed about the year 380 (De Spir. S. Orat. xxxi. p. 559): 
“Some of the wise men amongst us regard the Holy Spirit as an energy 
(ἐνέργεια), others think that he is a creature, some again that he is God 
himself, and, lastly, there are some who do not know what opinion to adopt, 
from reverence, as they say, for the Sacred Scriptures, because they do not 
teach anything definite on this point.” Hustathius of Sebaste belonged to 
this latter class; he said in reference to the Macedonian controversy (Soer. 
ii. 45): ᾿Εγὼ οὔτε θεὸν ὀνομάζειν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αἱροῦμαι, οὔτε 
κτίσμα καλεῖν τολμήσαιμι. Comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz. p. 380. 
Neander, Church Hist. ii. 342. Husebius of Cwsarea was the more willing 
to subordinate the Spirit to both the Father and the Son, as he was disposed 
to admit the subordination of the Son to the Father. He thinks that the 
Spirit is the first of all rational beings, but belongs nevertheless to the Trini- 
ty; De Theol. eccles. iii, 3, 5, 6. Hilary was satisfied that that which 
searcheth the deep things of God, must be itself divine, though he could not 
find any passage in Scripture in which the name “God” was given to the 
Holy Spirit; De Trin. lib. xii, ce. 55; Tuum est, quicquid te init; neque 
alienum a te est, quicquid virtute scrutantis inest. Comp. de Trin. ii. 29: 
De spiritu autem sancto nec tacere oportet, nec loqui necesse est, sed sileri a 
nobis eorum causa, qui nesciunt, non potest. Loqui autem de eo non necesse 
est, quia de patre et filio auctoribus confitendum est, et quidem puto an sit, 
non esse tractandum. Est enim, quandoguidem donatur, accipitur, obtinetur, 
et qui confessioni patris et filii connexus est, non potest a confessione patris et 
filii separari. Imperfectum enim est nobis totum, si aliquid desit a toto. De 
quo si quis intelligentiz nostra sensum requirit, in Apostolo legimus ambo : 
Quoniam estis, inquit, filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra 


260 Seconnp Prrıovd. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


clamantem: Abba pater. Et rursum : Nolite contristare Spir. S. Dei, in quo 
signati estis... Unde quia est et donatur et habetur et Dei est, cesset hine 
sermo calumniantium, cum dicunt, per quem sit et ob quid sit, vel qualis sit. 
Si responsio nostra displicebit, dicentium : Per quem omnia et in quo omnia 
sunt, et quia spiritus est Dei, donum fidelium; displiceant et apostoli et 
evaangeliste et prophet, hoc tantum de eo quod esset loquentes, et post 
hzc pater et filius displicebit—He also advises us not to be perplexed by the 
language of Scripture, in which both the Father and the Son are sometimes 
called Spirit. “ He grossly confounds the terms: Deus Spiritus, Dei Spir- 
itus, and Spiritus S., and, though he believes in the separate subsistence of the 
Spirit, he does not go beyond the idea that he is a donum, a munus.”—Merer, 
Trinitätsl. i. p. 192. Cyril of Jerusalem, too, endeavors to avoid all serip- 
tural definitions as to the nature of the Holy Spirit not contained in the 
Scriptures, though he distinctly separates him from all created beings, and 
regards him as an essential part of the Trinity; but he urges especially the 
practical aspect of this doctrine in opposition to the false enthusiasm of 
heretical fanatics, Cat. 16 and 17.* 

* Athanasius (Ep. 4, ad Serap.) endeavored to refute those who declared 
the Holy Ghost to be a κτίσμα, or the first of the πνευμάτων λειτουργικῶν, 
and who were called τροπικοί͵, mvevuarouayodvres. He shows that we com- 
pletely renounce Arianism only when we perceive in the Trinity nothing that 
is foreign to the nature of God (ἀλλότριον ἢ ἐξώθεν ἐπιμιγνύμενον), but one 
and the same being, which is in perfect accordance, identical, with itself. 
Τριὰς δέ ἐστιν οὐχ ἕως ὀνόματος μόνον καὶ φαντασίας λέξεως, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ 
καὶ ὑπάρξει τριάς (Ep. i. 28, p. 677). He appealed both to the declarations 
of Holy Writ, and to the testimony of our own Christian consciousness. How 
can that which is not sanctified by anything else, which is itself the source 
of sanctification to all creatures, possess the same nature as those who 
are sanctified by it? We have fellowship with God, and participate in the 
divine life, by means of the Holy Spirit; but this could not be if the Spirit 
were created by God. As certain as it is, that we through him become par- 
takers of the divine nature, so certain is it that he must himself be one with the 
divine being (εἰ δὲ θεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀμφίβολον, ὃτι ἡ τούτου φύσις θεοῦ ἐστί). 
Ep. i. ad Serap. § 24, p. 672, 73. Meander, |. c. p. 420. Meier, i. p. 187, ss. 
[ Voigt on Athanasius in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1858.] 

5 Basil the Great, on a particular occasion, composed his treatise, De 
Spiritu Sancto, addressed to the bishop Amphilochius of Iconium (comp. 
with it Ep. 189; Homilia de Fide, T. ii. p. 132; Hom, contra Sab. T. ii. p. 
195). He too maintained that the name God should be given to the Spirit, 
and appealed both to Scripture in general, and to the baptismal formula in 
particular, in which the Spirit is mentioned together with the Father and 
the Son. He did not, however, lay much stress upon the name itself, but 
simply demanded that the Spirit should not be regarded as a creature, but 
be considered as inseparable from both the Father and the Son. He spoke 


* As one shower waters flowers of the most different species (roses and lilies), so one 
Spirit is the author of many different graces, etc. Cat. xvi. 12. He is τίμιον, τὸ ἀγαθόν, 
μέγας παρὰ Θεοῦ σύμμαχος καὶ προστάτης, μέγας διδάσκαλος ἐκκλησίας, μέγας ὑπερασπιστὴς 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, etc., ibid. c. 19. Hence, his glory far surpasses that οἵ all angels, c. 23. 


$ 93. Divisıry or THE’ Hory ΚΡΙΕΙΤ. 261° 


in eloquent language of the practical importance of the doctrine of the Holy 
Spirit (as the sanctifier of the human heart), De Spir. S. c. 16: Τὸ δὲ μέγισ- 
τον τεκμήριον τῆς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ πνεύματος συναφείας, ὅτι 
οὕτως ἔχειν λέγεται πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς πρὸς ἕκαστον ἔχει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ 
ἐν ἡμῖν (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11). In answer to the objection, that the Spirit is 
called a gift, he remarks that the Son is likewise a gift of God, ibid. c. 24; 
comp. Alose, Basilius der Grosse, p. 34, ss. His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, 
in the second chapter of his larger Catechism, starts from ideas similar to 
those of Lactantius, that the Spirit (breath) must be connected with the 
Word, since it is so even in the case of man. He does not, however, like 
Lactantius, identify the Spirit with the Word, but keeps them separate. 
The Spirit is not to be considered as any thing foreign which enters from 
without into the Deity (comp. Athanasius) ; to think of the Spirit of God as 
similar to ours, would be detracting from the glory of the divine omnipo- 
tence. “On the contrary, we conceive that this essential power, which 
manifests itself as a separate hypostasis, can neither be separated from the 
Godhead in which it rests, nor from the divine word which it follows. Nor 
does it cease to exist, but being self-existing (αὐτοκίνητον) like the Deity, it 
is ever capable of choosing the good, and of carrying out all its purposes.” 
Comp. Rupp, Gregor. von Nyssa, p. 169, 70.—The views of Gregory of 
Nazianzum agreed with those of these two writers, though he clearly per- 
ceived the difficulties with which the doctrine in question was beset in his 
time. He anticipated the objection, that it would introduce a θεὸν ξένον 
kat ἄγραφον (Orat. xxx. 1, p. 566. Ullmann, p. 381); he also acknowl- 
edged that the doctrine in this particular form was not expressly contained 
in Scripture, and therefore thought that we must go beyond the letter itself.* 
He, therefore, had recourse to the idea of a gradual revelation, which, as he 
conceived, stood in connection with a natural development of the Trinity. 
“The Old Test. sets forth the Father in a clear, but the Son in a somewhat 
dimmer, light: the New Test. reveals the Son, but only intimates the divin- 
ity of the Spirit; but now the Spirit dwells in the midst of us, and manifests 
himself more distinctly. It was not desirable that the divinity of the Son 
should be proclaimed, as long as that of the Father was not fully recognized; 
nor to add that of the Spirit, as long as that of the Son was not believed.” 
Gregory numbered the doctrine of the Holy Spirit among those things of 
which Christ speaks, John xvi. 12, and recommended, therefore, prudence in 
discourses on this dogma. He himself developed it principally in his con- 
troversy with Macedonius, and showed, in opposition to him, that the Holy 
Spirit is neither a mere power, nor a creature, and, accordingly, that there is 
no other alternative except that he is God himself. For further particulars 
see Ullman, p. 378, ss. 

° The word IIvevuaroudyoı has a general meaning, in which it compre- 





* Comp. Meier, Trinit—Lehre, i. 190: “ The want of a sufficiently definite interpretation 
of Scripture was one of the chief hinderances to the recognition of the consubstantiality (Hom- 
ousia) of the Son. To conduct the proof from depths of the Christian consciousness, appeared 
to many too adventurous, especially in view of the tendencies uf the Orient at that epoch; they 
had doubts about ascribing to the Holy Spirit identity of essence, and paying worship to him 
without express declaration of Christ and the apostles.” 


. 262 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICs. 


hends, of course, the striet Arians. But the divinity of the Spirit was equally 
denied by the Semiarians, while their views concerning the nature of the 
Son approximated to those of the orthodox party; the most prominent theolo- 
gian among them was Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (A. D. 341-360). 
Soz. iv. 27, says of him: Kionyeito de τὸν υἱὸν θεὸν εἷναι, κατὰ πάντα TE 
καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὅμοιον τῷ πατρί: τό TE ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἅμοιρον τῶν αὐτῶν 
πρεσβείων ἀπεφαίνετο, διάκονον καὶ ὑπηρέτην καλῶν. Theodoret, ii. 6, 
adds that he did not hesitate to call the Spirit a creature. His opinion was 
afterwards called the Marathonian, from Marathonius, bishop of Nieomedia. 
His followers appear to have been very numerous, especially in the vieinity 
of Lampsacus, see Meier, i. p. 192. The Macedonians, though condemned at 
the second (Eeumenical Council, continued to exist as a separate sect in 
Phrygia down to the fifth century, when they were combatted by Nestorius. 
The objections which the Macedonians either themselves made to the divin- 
ity of the Spirit, or with which they were charged by their opponents, are 
the following: “The Holy Spirit is either begotten or not begotten; if the 
latter, we have two unoriginated beings (δύο ta ἄναρχα), viz., the Father 
and the Spirit; if begotten, he must be begotten either of the Father or of 
the Son: if of the Father, it follows that there are two Sons in the Trinity, 
and hence brothers (the question then arises, who is the elder of the two, or 
are they twins ?) ; but if of the Son, we have a grandson of God (θεὸς υἱωνός᾽, 
etc. Greg. Orat. xxxi. 7, p. 560, comp. Athanas. Ep. i. ad Serapion, c. 15. 
In opposition to this, Gregory simply remarks, that not the idea of genera- 
tion, but that of ἐκπόρευσις is to be applied to the Spirit, according to John 
xv. 26; and that the procession of the Spirit is quite as incomprehensible as 
the generation of the Son. To these objections was allied another, viz., that 
the Spirit is wanting in something, if he is not Son. But the Macedonians 
chiefly appealed to the absence of decisive Scriptures. Comp. Ullmann, p. 
390, ’91. 

" Τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ 
καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαξόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προ- 
φῆτων. Comp. § 91, note 4. 


§ 94. 
PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


Walch, J. G., Historia Controversie Gra®corum Latinorumque de Processione Spir. 8. 
Jen, 1751, 8. Pfaff, Chr. Matth., Historia succincta Controversiz de Processione 
Spir. S. Tüb. 1749, 4. [Twesten, transl. in Bibliotheca Sacra, iii. 513, iv. 33, sq.] 


The formula of the council of Constantinople, however, did not 
fully settle the point in question. For though the relation of the 
Spirit to the Trinity in general was determined, yet the particular 
relation in which he stands to the Son and the Father respectively, 
still remained to be decided. Inasmuch as the formula declared 
that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not indeed ex- 


§ 94. Procession OF THE HoLy SPIRIT. 263 


pressly deny the procession from the Son ; but yet it could be taken 
in a negative (exclusive) sense. On the one hand, the assertion that 
the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, 
seemed to favor the notion that the Son is subordinate to the 
Father ; on the other, to maintain that he proceeds from both the 
Father and the Son, appeared to place the Spirit in a still greater 
dependence (viz., on two instead of one). Thus the attempt to 
establish the full divinity of the Son would easily detract from the 
divinity of the Spirit; the effort, on the contrary, to give greater 
independence to the Spirit, would tend to throw the importance of 
the Son into the shade. The Greek fathers, Athanasius, Basil the 
Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, asserted the procession of the 
Spirit from the Father, without distinctly denying that he also pro- 
ceeds from the Son." Epiphanius, on the other hand, derived the 
Spirit from both the Father and the Son, with whom Marcellus of 
Ancyra agreed.’ But Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret would 
not in any way admit that the Spirit owes his being in any sense to 
the Son,’ and defended their opinion in opposition to Cyril of Alex- 
andria“ The Latin fathers, on the contrary, and Augustine in 
particular,* taught the procession of the Spirit from both the Father 
and the Son. This doctrine became so firmly established in the 
West, that at the third synod of Toledo (A. D. 589) the clause 
jilioque was added to the confession of faith of the council of Con- 
stantinople, and so the dogmatic basis was laid for a schism between 
the eastern and western churches.* 


* In accordance with the prevailing notions of the age, the Father was 
considered as the only efficient principle (wéia ἀρχή) to whom all other things 
owe their existence, of whom the Son is begotten, and from whom the Holy 
Spirit proceeds, who works all things through the Son, and im the Holy 
Spirit. The phrase: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, was 
maintained especially against the Pneumatomachi. It was asserted, in oppo- 
sition to them, “ that the Holy Spirit does not derive his essence from the 
Son in a dependent manner, but that he stands in an equally direct relation 
to the Father, as the common first cause; that, as the Son is begotten of the 
Father, so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.’ Neander, Church 
Hist. ii. p. 420, sq. 

* Epiphan, Ancor, $ 9, after having proved the divinity of the Spirit, e. g., 
from Acts v. 3, says: dpa θεὸς Ex πατρὺς" καὶ υἱοῦ TO πνεῦμα, without ex- 
pressly stating that he ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοὺ υἱοῦ. Comp. Ancor. 8: Πνεῦμα 
γὰρ Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ πνεῦμα υἱοῦ, οὐ κατά τινα σύνθεσιν, 
καθάπερ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ 
πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τρίτον τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ. Marcellus inferred from the 
position, that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the 
sameness of the last two in the Sabellian sense. Eusebius, De Eccles. Theol. 
ili. 4, p. 168 (quoted by Alose, über Marcell. p. 47). Concerning the views 
of Photinus, see Klose, 1. c. p. 83. 


264  Seconn PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICcs. 


9. Theodore of Mopsuestia in his confession of faith (quoted by Walch, Bibl. 
Symb. p. 204), combatted the opinion which represents the Spirit as διὰ τοῦ 
υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν elAnböc. On the opinion of Theodoret comp. the IX. 
Anathematisma of Cyril, Opp. v. p. 47. 

* Cyril condemned all who denied that the Holy Spirit was the proprium 
of Christ. Theodoret in reply, observed, that this expression was not objec- 
tionable, if nothing more were understood by it than that the Holy Spirit is 
of the same essence (ὁμοούσιος) with the Son, and proceeds from the Father; 
but that it ought to be rejected if it were meant to imply that he derives his 
existence from the Son, or through the Son, either of which would be con- 
trary to what is said, John xv. 26; 1 Cor, 11,12. Comp. Meander, 11. 422. 

5 Augustine, Tract. 99, in Evang. Joh.: A quo autem habet filius, ut sit 
Deus (est enim de Deo Deus), ab illo habet utique, ut etiam de illo procedat 
Spir. $. Et per hoc Spir. S. ut etiam de filio procedat, sieut procedit de 
patre, ab ipso habet patre. Ibid: Spir. S.non de patre procedit in filium, et 
de filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque procedit, 
quamvis hoc filio Pater dederit, ut quemadmodum de se, ita de illo quoque 
procedat. De Trin. 4. 20: Nec possumus dicere, quod Spir. S. et a filio non 
procedat, neque frustra idem Spir. et Patris et Filii Spir. dicitur. 5, 14: 
...Sieunt Pater et Filius unus Deus et ad creaturam relative unus creator et 
unus Deus, sic relative ad Spiritum S. unum principium. (Comp. the whole 
section, c. 11 and 15.) 

° This additional clause made its appearance at the time when Recared, 
king of the Visigoths, passed over from the Arian to the catholic doctrine. 
The above synod pronounced an anathema against all who did not believe 
that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, Comp. Mansi, 
ix. p. 981. 


§ 95. 
FINAL STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 


The more accurately the divinity both of the Holy Spirit and of 
the Son was defined, the more important it became to determine ex- 
actly the relation in which the different persons stood to each other, 
and to the divine essence itself, and then to settle the ecclesiastical 
terminology. Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, 
and Gregory of Nyssa in the Greek, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, 
and Leo the Great in the Latin church, exerted the greatest influence 
upon the formation of the said terminology. According to this 
usage the word οὐσία (essentia, substantia) denotes what is common 
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; the word ὑπόστασις 
(persona) what is individual, distinguishing the one from the other.’ 
Each person possesses some peculiarity (ἰδιότης), by which it is dis- 
tinguished from the other persons, notwithstanding the sameness of 
essence. Thus, underived existence (ἀγεννησία) belongs to the Father, 


$ 95. ΕἾΝΑΙ, STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE Trinity. 265 


generation (γέννησις) to the Son, and procession (ἐκπόρευσις, ἔκπεμψις) 
to the Holy Spirit.” When Augustine rejected all the distinctions 
which had been formerly made between the different persons, and re- 
ferred to the triune Go». !ıead what had been before predicated of the 
separate persons (par.icularly creation), he completely purified the 
dogma from the older vestiges of subordinationism ;* but, as he re- 
duced the persons to the general idea of divine relations, he could 
not entirely avoid the appearance of,Sabellianism.* Boéthius and 
others adopted his views on this point.’ 


* The writers of this period avoided the use of the term πρόσωπον, which 
would have corresponded more exactly with the Latin word persona, while 
ὑπόστασις means literally substantia, lest it might lead to Sabellian inferences ; 
but they sometimes confounded ὑπόστασις with οὐσία, and occasionally used 
φύσις instead of the latter. This was done 6. g. by Gregory of Nazianzum, 
Orat. xxii. 11, p. 431, xxxiil, 16, p. 614, xi. 11, p. 431; Ep. 1, ad Cledo- 
nium, p. 739, ed. Lips. quoted by Ullmann, p. 355, note 1, and p. 356, note 1. 
Gregory also sometimes attaches the same meaning to ὑπόστασις and to 
πρόσωπον, though he prefers the use of the latter; Orat. xx. 6, p. 379. Ul- 
mann, p. 356, note 8, This distinction is more accurately defined by Bast, 
Ep. 236, 6, (quoted by Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 242, 243): Οὐσία dé 
καὶ ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν, ἣν ἔχει TO κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθ᾽ 
ἕκαστον" οἷον ὡς ἔχει τὸ ζῶον πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα ἄνθρωπον. Διὰ τοῦτο οὐσίαν 
μὲν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογοῦμεν, ὥστε τὸν τοῦ εἷναι λόγον μὴ δια- 
φόρως ἀποδιδόναι" ὑπόστασιν δὲ ἰδιάζουσαν, iv’ ἀσύγχυτος ἡμῖν καὶ τετρα- 
νωμένη ἡ περὶ ἸΤατρὸς mai Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἔννοια ἐνυπάρχῃ 
k. τ. Δ. Comp. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix. 11, p. 530, in Ullmann, p. 355, note 3; 
and Orat. xlii. 16, p. 759, quoted by Ullmann, p. 356, note 3, where the dis- 
tinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις is prominently brought forward. Je- 
rome, moreover, had objections to the statement that there were three 
hypostases, because it seemed to lead to Arianism; but he submitted on this 
point to the judgment of the Roman See; comp. Ep. xv. and xvi. ad 
Damasum. 

? Greg. Naz. Orat. xli. 9: Πάντα ὅσα 6 πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ, πλὴν τῆς 
ἀγεννησίας" πάντα ὅσα ὃ υἱὸς, τοῦ πνεύματος, πλὴν τῆς γεννήσεως kK. τ. A. 
Orat. xxv. 16: Ἴδιον δὲ πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, 
πνεύματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις ; but the terms idıörng and ὑπόστασις were some- 
times used synonymously, 6. g., Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxiii. 16, p. 614. Ul- 
mann, p. 357. 

* Such vestiges are unquestionably to be found even in the most orthodox 
fathers, not only in the East, but also in the West. Thus, for instance, in 
Hilary, De Trin, iii, 12, and iv. 16. He designates the Father as the juben- 
tem Deum, the Son as facientem. And when even Athanasius says, that the 
Son is at once greater than the Holy Spirit and equal to him (μείζων καὶ 
ἴσος), and that the Holy Spirit, too, is related to the Son as is the Son to the 
Father (Cont. Arian Orat. ii.), “the idea of a subordination lies at the basis 
of such declarations ;” Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 315. 

* Augustinus Contra serm. Arian, c. 2, no. 4, (Opp. T. viii.) : Unus quippe 


266 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE or PoLEmuics. 


Deus et ipsa trinitas, et sic unus Deus, quomodo unus creator.—He also re- 
ferred the theophanies, which were formerly ascribed to the Logos alone, to 
the whole Trinity. Iu support of this view, he appeals to the three men 
who appeared to Abraham; De. Trin. ii. 18. He also thinks that the send- 
ing of the Son is not only a work of the Father, but of the whole Trinity. 
The Father alone is not sent, because he is unbegotten (comp. the passages 
quoted by Meier, i. p. 206, ss.) [Nec pater sine filio, nec filius sine patre 
misit Spirit. S., sed eum pariter ambo miserunt. Inseparabilis quippe sunt 
opera trinitatis. Solus pater non legitur missus, quia solus non habet aucto- 
rem, a quo genitus sit, vel a quo procedat. Contra serm. Arian. ec. 2, ἢ. 4. Opp. 
ed. Ant. 1700. Tom. vili.] The distinctions between the persons are, in his 
opinion, not distinctions of nature, but of relation. But he is aware that we 
have no appropriate language to denote those distinctions, De Trinit. v. 10: 
Quum queritur, quid tres, magna prorsus inopia humanum laborat eloquium. 
Dictum est tamen: tres person, non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur. 
The persons are not to be regarded as species, for we do not say, tres equi are 
unum animal, but tria animalia. Better would be the comparison with three 
statues from one mass of gold, but this too limps, since we do not necessarily 
connect the conception of gold with that of statues, and the converse ; ibid. 
vi. 11. He brings his views concerning the Trinity into connection with 
anthropology, but by comparing the three persons with the memoria, intel- 
lectus, and voluntas of man (I. ὁ. ix. 11; x. 10,18; xv. 7), he evidently 
borders upon Sabellianism ; it has the appearance of mere relations, without 
personal shape. [Conf, 13, cap. 11.—Vellem ut hee tria cogitarent homines 
in seipsis. , Longe alia sunt ista tria quam illa Trinitas: sed dico ubi se ex- 
erceant et ibi probent, et sentiunt quam longe sunt. Dico autem hxc tria; 
esse, nosse, veile. Sum enim, et novi, et volo; sum sciens et volens; et scio 
esse me, et velle; et volo esse, et scire. In his igitur tribus quam sit 
inseparabilis vita, et una vita, et una mens, et una essentia, quam denique in- 
separabilis distinctio, et tamen distinctio, videat qui potest.] On the other 
hand, the practical and religious importance of the doctrine of the Trinity ap- 
pears most worthily, where he reminds us that it is of the very nature of dis- 
interested (unenvious) love to impart itself, De Trin. ix. 2: Cum aliquid amo, 
tria sunt; ego, et quod amo, et ipse amor. Non enim amo amorem, nisi 
amantem amem: nam non est amor, ubi nihil amatur. Tria ergo sunt: 
amans, et quod amatur, et (mutuus) amor. Quid si non amem nisi meipsum, 
nonne duo erunt, quod amo et amor? Amans enim et quod amatur, hoe 
idem est, quando se ipse amat. Sicut amare et amari eodem modo id ipsum 
est, cum se quisque amat. Eadem quippe res bis dicitur, cum dicitur: amat 
se et amatur a se, Tunc enim non est aliud atque aliud amare et amari, 
sicut non est alius atque alius amans et amatus. At vero amor et quod 
amatur etiam sic duo sunt. Non enim cum quisque se amat, amor est, nisi 
cum amatur ipse amor. Aliud est autem amare se, aliud est amare amorem 
suum. Non enim amatur amor, nisi jam aliquid amans, quia ubi nihil ama- 
tur, nullus est amor. Duo ergo sunt, cum se quisque amat, amor et quod 
amatur. Tune enim amans et quod amatur unum est... Amans quippe ad 
amorem refertur et amor ad amantem. Amans enim aliquo amore amat, ct 
amor alicujus amantis est... Retracto amante nullus est amor, et retracto 


$ 96. Trırmeism, TETRATHEISM. 267 


amore nullus est amans. Ideoque quantam ad invicem referuntur, duo sunt. 
Quod autem ad se ipsa dicuntur, et singula spiritus, et simul utrumque unus 
spiritus, et singula mens et simul utrumque una mens.’ Cf, lib. xv.* 

° Boéthius, De Trin. (ad Symmach.)t e.2: Nulla igitur in eo (Deo) diver- 
sitas, nulla ex diversitate pluralitas, nulla ex accidentibus multitudo, atque 
ideireo nee numerus. Cap. 3: Deus vero a Deo nullo differt, nec vel acciden- 
tibus vel substantialibus differentiis in subjecto positis distat; ubi vero nulla 
“ est differentia, nulla est omnino pluralitas, quare nec numerus; igitur unitas 
tantum. Nam quod tertio repetitur, Deus; quum Pater et Filius et Spir. S. 
nuncupatur, tres unitates non faciunt pluralitatem numeri in eo quod ipse 
sunt... Non igitur si de Patre et Filio et Spir. S. tertio predicatur Deus, 
ideirco trina preedicatio numerum facit... Cap. 6: Facta quidem est trinitatis 
numerositas in eo quod est predicatio relationis ; servata vero unitas in eo 
quod est indifferentia vel substantiz vel operationis vel omnino ejus, que 
secumlum se dicitur, praedicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet unitatem, 
relatio multiplicat trinitatem, atque ideo sola sigillatim proferuntur atque 
separatim que relationis sunt; nam idem Pater qui Filius non est, nec idem 
uterque qui Spir. S. Idem tamen Deus est, Pater et Filius et Spir. S., idem 
justus, idem bonus, idem magnus, idem omnia, que secundum se poterunt 
preedicari— Boéthius falls into the most trivial Sabellianism, by drawing an 
illustration of the Trinity from the cases in which we have three names for 
the same thing, e. g., gladius, mucro, ensis; see Baur, Dreienigkeitsl. ii, 
p. 34.The orthodox doctrine of the western church is already expressed 
in striking formulas by Leo the Great, e.g. Sermo LXXV.3: Non alia sunt 
Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed omnia queecunque habet Pater, habet 
et Filius, habet et Spiritus S.; nec unquam in illa trinitate non fuit ista com- 
munio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere. LXXY. 1, 2: 
Sempiternum est Patri, cozterni sibi Filii sui esse genitorem. Sempiternum 
est Filio, intemporaliter a Patre esse progenitum. Sempiternum quoque est 
Spiritui Sancto Spiritum esse Patris et Filii. Ut nunquam Pater sine Filio, 
nunguam Filius sine Patre, nunquam Pater et Filius fuerint sine Spiritu 
Sancto, et, omnibus existentize gradibus exclusis, nulla ibi persona sit anterior, 
nulla posterior. Hujus enim beats trinitatis incommutabilis deitas una est 
in substantia, indivisa in opere, concors in voluntate, par in potentia, eequalis 
in gloria. Other passages are quoted by Perthel, Leo der Grosse, p. 138, ss. 


§ 96. 
TRITHEISM, TETRATHEISM. 


In keeping the three persons of the Godhead distinct from each 
other, much care was needed, lest the idea of οὐσία (essence), by which 
the unity was expressed, should be understood as the mere concept 


* As to the mode in which Augustine made his doctrine of the Trinity intelligible to the 
congregation, in his sermons, see Bindemann, ii. 205 sq. 

+ It is doubtful whether the work De Trin, was really by Boéthius; we cite it under 
the customary name. 


268 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


of a genus, and the ὑπόστασις viewed as an individual (a species) fall- 
ing under this generic conception ; for this would necessarily call up 
the representation of three gods. Another misunderstanding was 
also to be obviated ; for, in assigning to God himself (the aörößeoe) — 
a logical superiority above Father, Son, and Spirit, it might appear 
as though there were four persons, or even four gods. Both of these 
opinions were held. John Ascusnages of Constantinople,’ and John 
Philoponus’ of Alexandria, were the leaders of the Tritheites ; while 
the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Damianus,* was accused 
of being the head of the Tetratheites (Tetradites), but probably by 
unjust inference. 


1 Ascusnages of Constantinople, when examined by the Emperor Justinian 
concerning his faith, is said to have acknowledged one nature of the incarnate 
Christ, but asserted three natures, essences, and deities in the Trinity. The 
tritheites, Conon and Hugenius, are said to have made the same statements to 
the Emperor. 

* The opinion of Philoponus can be seen from a fragment (Διαιτητής) 
preserved by John Damascenus (De Heeresib. c. 83, p. 101, ss. Phot. Bibl. 
cod. 75. Niceph. xviii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Münscher, 
ed. by von Cölln, i. 251). In his view the φύσις is the genus which com- 
prehends individuals of the same'nature. The terms essence and nature are 
identical; the term ὑπόστασις, or person, denotes the separate real existence 
of the nature, that which philosophers of the peripatetic school call ἄτομον, be- 
cause there the separation of genus and species ceases. Comp. Scharfenberg, 
J. G., de Jo. Philopono, Tritheismi defensore, Lips. 1768 (Comm. Th. ed. 
Velthusen, etc. T. i.), and T'rechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken 1835, part 1, 
p- 95,ss. Meier, 1. c. i. p. 195, ss. [Philoponus applied the ideas of Aris- 
totle to the Trinity; he connected the two notions φύσις and eidoc—con- 
founding the common divine essence with the notion of species. See 
Neander, Dog. Hist. p. 310. Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 170: Philoponus 
maintained that nature, in the church usage, signified the special as well as 
the general, and that we might as well speak of three natures as of three 
hypostases; but yet he did not say there were three gods. | 

3 In his controversy with Peter of Callinico, patriarch of Antioch, Dami- 
anus maintained that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost 
another, but that no one of them is God as such ; they only possess the sub- 
sisting divine nature in common, and each is God in so far as he inseparably 
participates in it. The Damianites were also called Angelites (from the city 
of Angelium). Comp. Niceph. xiii. 49. Schröckh, xviii, p 624. Münscher 
von. Cölln. p. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, i. p. 364. Meier, Trin. Lehre, 
p. 198: “Such systems of dissolution are the signs of the life of these times ; 
they exercised themselves upon dead forms, seeking help in them, instead of 
first trying to fill out the stiff definitions of the dogma with the living con- 
tents of the Christian ideas, which sustain the dogma.’—Tritheism may be 
viewed as the extreme of Arianism, and Tetratheism as the extreme of 
Sabellianism ; comp. Hasse, Anselm, 2 ΤῊ], p. 289. 


§ 97. QUICUMQUE SYMBOLUM. 269 


§ 97. 
SYMBOLUM QUICUMQUE. 


J. G. Vossius, De tribus Symbolis, Amstel. 1642. Diss. ii. Waterland, Dan. Critical His- 
tory of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge, 1724. 28. 8. [Works, 1843, vol. iii. 
pp. 97-273.] Dennis, John, the Athanasian Creed, 1815. Comp. Münscher, ed. by 
von Cölln, i. p. 249, 50. Bawmgarten-Crusius, i. 124, 231, ii. 124. [ Wm. Whiston, 
Three Essays, 1118. J. Redcliff, The Creed of Athanasius illustrated, ete., Lond, 
1844, The Athanasian Creed, Mercersb. Review, April, 1859. W. W. Harvey, 
Hist. and Theol. of the Three Creeds, 2 vols.] 


The doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity appears most 
fully developed, and defined in a perfect symbolical form, in what is 
called the Symbolum quicumque (commonly but erroneously called 
the Creed of St. Athanasius). It originated in the School of Augus- 
tine, and is ascribed by some to Vigilius Tapsensis, by others to 
Vincentius Lerinensis, and by some again to others.‘ By its repeti- 
tion of positive and negative propositions, its perpetual assertion, 
and then again, denial of its positions, the mystery of the doctrine 
is presented, as it were, in hieroglyphs, as if to confound the un- 
derstanding. The consequence was, that all further endeavors 
of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions in a dia- 
lectic way, must break against this bulwark of faith, on which 
salvation was made to depend, as the waves break upon an inflexible 
rock.’ 


* According to the old story, Athanasius drew up the creed in question 
at the synod held in Rome in the year 341, This, however, can not be, 
first, because it exists only in the Latin language; secondly, from the ab- 
sence of the term consubstantialis (ὁμοούσιος) ; and, thirdly, from the more 
fully developed doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit (the procession from the 
Son). It was generally adopted in the seventh century, under the name of 
Athanasius, when it was classed, as an Gfcwmenical symbol, with the Apos- 
tles’ and the Nicene Creed. Paschasius Quesnel (Dissert. xiv. in Leonis M. 
Opp. p. 386, ss.) first pronounced it as his opinion that it was composed by 
Vigilius, bishop of Tapsus in Africa, who lived towards the close of the fifth 
century. Others attribute it to Vincens of Lerius, in the middle of the fifth 
century. Muratori (Anecd. Lat. T. ii. p. 212-217), conjectured that its 
author was Venantius Fortunatus (a Gallican bishop of the sixth century); 
and Waterland ascribes it to Hilary of Arles (who lived about the middle of 
the fifth century). [Comp. Gieseler, Church Hist. ii. p. 75 (§ 12), note 7, in 
the New York edition; he supposes that it originated in Spain in the sev- 
enth century. | 


270 SeconD PERIOD. THe AGE ΟΕ POLEMICcs. 


2 SYMBOLUM ATHANASIANUM: 

1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut teneat catholicam 
fidem. 2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque 
dubio in sternum peribit. 3. Fides autem catholica hee est, ut unum 
Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. 4. Neque confun- 
dentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. 5. Alia enim est persona 
Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. 6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 
una est divinitas, aaqualis gloria, equalis majestas. 7. Qualis. Pater, talis Filius, 
talis et Spir. 8. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spir. S. 9. Im- 
mensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus S. 10. Aiternus Pater, 
zeternus Filius, eternus et Spir. S. 11. Et tamen non tres eterni, sed unus 
xternus. 12. Sicut non tres increati, nee tres immensi, sed unus increatus 
et unus immensus. 13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omni- 
potens et Spiritus S. 14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omni- 
potens. 15. Ita deus Pater, deus Filius, deus et Spir. S. 16. Et tamen non 
tres dii sunt, sed unus est Deus. 17. Ita dominus Pater, dominus Filius, 
dominus et Spir. S. 18. Et tamen non tres domini, sed unus dominus. 19. 
Quia sicut sigillatim unamquamque personam et Deum et dominum confiteri 
christiana veritate compellimur, ita tres Deos aut dominos dicere catholica 
religione prohibemur. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus. 
21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, non creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spir. 5. 
a Patre et Filio non creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. 23. Unus ergo 
Pater, nec tres patres; unus Filius, non tres filii; unus Spiritus S., non tres 
spiritus sancti. 24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil 
majus aut minus, sed tote tres persone covterne sibi sunt et cosequales. 
25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate et 
Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. 26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trin- 
itate sentiat. (Opp. Athanasii, T. iii. p. 719.— Walch, Bibl. Symb. Vet. p. 
136, ss.; it is also contained in the collections of the symbolical books pub- 
lished by Tittman, Hase, and others.*) 

* While salvation, at this extreme point in the development of the doctrine, appears to 
be made dependent on the most refined points of dialectics, it is pleasing to hear other 
men, such as Gregory of Nazianzwm (see Ullmann, p. 159, 170, Neander, Chrysost. ii. 19), 
raising their voices during this period, who did not attach such unqualified value to the 
mere orthodoxy of the understanding, and who were fully convinced of the limits of 
human knowledge and the insufficiency of such dogmatic definitions, Greg. Orat. 31, 33, p 
577. Ullmann, p. 336, comp., however, p. 334, 35. u/*vus also says, Expos. p. 18 (in 
the sense of Irenzeus): Quomodo autem Deus pater genuerit filium, nole discutias, nee te 
curiosius ingeras in profundi hujus arcanum (al. profundo hujus arcani), ne forte, dum inac- 
cess lucis fulgorem pertinacius perserutaris, exiguum ipsum, qui mortalibus divino 
munere concessus est, perdas aspectum. Aut si putas in hoc omni indagationis genere 
nitendum, prius tibi propone qu nostra sunt: que si consequenter valueris expedire, 
tune a terrestribus ad ccelestia et a visibilibus ad invisibilia properato.—Moreover, in the 
midst of this dialectic elaboration of the materials of the faith, we can not mistake the 
presence of a yet higher aim—that, viz., of bringing to distinct consciousness, not only the 
unity of the divine nature, but also the living longing of divine love to impart itself; in 
other words, the effort to maintain both the transcendent nature of God and his immanence 
in his works—the former in opposition to polytheism and pantheism, and the latter to an 
abstract deism. So far such formulas have also their edifying side, as giving witness to 
the struggle of the Christian mind after a satisfactory expression of what has its full 
reality only in the depths of the Christian heart. 


$ 98. Tue True Humanity or OHRrısr. 271 


b. CHRISTOLOGY. 


§ 98. ι 
THE TRUE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 
Traces of Docetism.—Arianism. 


It was no less difficult to determine the relation of the divine to 
the human nature of Christ, than to define the relation between the 
three persons and the one nature of God. For the more decidedly 
the church asserted the divinity of the Son of God, the more the 
the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son had to be guarded, so 
as not to abridge either the true divinity or the true humanity of 
Christ. In opposition to Docetism, the doctrine of the human 
nature of Christ had indeed been so firmly established, that no one 
was likely to deny that he possessed a human body ; and when Hilary, 
orthodox on all other points, seems to border upon Docetism, by 
maintaining that the body of Jesus could not undergo any real 
sufferings,’ he only means that the sufferings of Christ are to be 
understood as a free act of his love. But two other questions arose, 
which were beset with still greater difficulties. In the first place it 
was asked, whether a human soul formed a necessary part of the 
humanity of Christ; and if so (as the orthodox maintained in 
opposition to the Arians),’ it was still asked whether this soul meant 
only the animal soul, or also included the rational human spirit (in 
distinction from the divine). 


* Hilary wishes to preserve the most intimate union between the divine 
and human natures of Christ, so that it may be said: totus hominis Filius est 
Dei Filius, and vice versa; for the same reason he says concerning the God- 
Man, De Trin. x. 23: Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed 
non habuit naturam ad dolendum. (He compares it to an arrow which 
passes through the water without wounding it.)—Comment. in Ps. exxxviii, 
3: Suscepit ergo infirmitates, quia homo nascitur; et putatur dolere, quia 
patitur: caret vero doloribus ipse, quia Deus est (the usage of the Latin 
word pati allowed such a distinction to be made).—De Trin, xi. 48: In forma 
Dei manens servi formam assumsit, non demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens 
et intra se latens et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem; dum se usque 
ad formam temperat habitus humani, ne potentem immensamque naturam 
assumptee humanitatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtus incircum- 
scripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret eam usque ad patientiam connexi 
sibi corporis obedire. He opposes the purely docetie interpretation of the 
Impassibilitas, De Synodis 49 (Dorner, ii. 2, 1055): Pati potuit, et passibile 
esse non potuit, quia passibilitas nature infirmis significatio est, passio autem 


272 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


est eorum, que sunt illata perpessio. He makes a distinction between pas- 
sionis materia et passibilitatis infirmitas. Hilary, moreover, ascribes a human 
soul to Christ, but says that he received neither that soul nor his body from 
Mary ; on the contrary, the God-Man has his origin in himself: comp. Dor- 
ner, p. 1040, ss., and the whole section. 

_? Athan. Contra Apollin. ii. 3: Ἄρειος δὲ σάρκα μόνην πρὸς ἀποκρυφὴν 
τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ" ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου, τουτέστι τῆς 
ψυχῆς, τὸν Λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει γεγονέναι, τὴν τοῦ πάθους νόησιν καὶ 
τὴν ἐξ ἅδου ἀνάστασιν τῇ θεότητι προσάγειν τολμῶν. Comp. Epiph. Her. 
69, 19, and other passages quoted by Münscher von Cölln, p. 268. This 
notion was very prominently brought forward by the Arians, Zudoxius and 
Eunomius ; respecting the former see Cave, Historia Script. Eccles. i. p. 219; 
concerning the latter, comp. Mansi, Cone. T. iii. p. 648, and Meander, Hist. 
Dogm. 300. [The doctrines of Arius were expressed still more definitely by 
Eunomius. The Son can not even be said to be like God ; since likeness and 
unlikeness can only be predicated of created things. Generation from the 
divine essence is inconceivable ; an eternal generation is unimaginable. The 
will is the mediating principle between the divine essence and agency. The 
Son of God was created according to God’s will; he was eternally with God 
only as predestinated. Lbid. p. 316. In the Confession of Faith of Hunomius, 
it is stated that the Logos assumed man, both body and soul; but, doubtless, 
an οὐκ has dropped out—“not a man consisting of body and soul ;” this 
appears from a citation of Gregory of Nyssa from Eunomius, and also from a 
fragment lately published by Mansi.— Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 161, says that 
Eunomius widely diverged from the original stand-point of Arius, in main- 
taining that essence of God could be completely conceived—particularly in 
reference to the point, that God must be unbegotten. Thus Arianism logic- 
ally leads to putting the infinite and the finite into an abstract opposition to 
each other. It presents the contrast of the Aristotelian with the Platonic 
mode of thought.] Another party of the Arians, however, rejected the 
notion that the Logos had been changed into the soul of Christ, and supposed 
a human soul along with the Logos. Comp. Dorner, ii. 2, p. 1038. But 
even some orthodox theologians of this period used indefinite language on 
this point previous to the rise of the Apollinarian controversy. Comp. Mün- 
scher von Cölln, p. 269. Dorner, 1. ὁ. p. 1071, ss. 


§ 99. 


THE DOCTRINE OF APOLLINARIS. 


Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who, in other respects, had a 
high reputation among orthodox theologians, conceived that that 
higher life of reason which elevates man above the rest of creation, 
was not needed by him, in whom there is a personal indwelling of 
deity ; or rather, that the place of this human reason was supplied 
in an absolute way, the Logos, or νοῦς deroc, being substituted." His 


$ 99. Tue DoctTRinEe or APOLLINARIS. 273 
intention seems to have been to honor Christ, not to detract from 
his dignity. He was opposed by Athanasius, and still more by 
Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, whose efforts led to 
the adoption of the doctrine that Christ had a perfect human nature, 
consisting of a body and a rational soul, together with the divine 
nature.” The council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) condemned 
Apollinarianism as heretical. 


* Apollinaris was led by his dialectic culture* to suppose that he might 
establish his argument with mathematical precision (γεωμετρικαῖς ἀποδείξεσι 
καὶ ἀνάγκαις). Of the writings in which he explained his views, only frag- 
ments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius 
Byzantinus (who lived about the year 590); they were the following: περὶ 
σαρκώσεως Aoyidıov (ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς θείας ἐνσαρκώσεως)---τὸ κατὰ 
κεφάλαιον βιβλίον----περὶ ἀναστάσεως---περὶ πίστεως Aoyidtov—and some 
letters (in @allandii Bibl. PP. T. xii. p. 706, ss. Angelo Mai Class. Auct. 
T. ix. p. 495, ss.). Comp. Dorner, ii. 976, and Neander, Hist. Dogm. 320. 
Apollinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational human soul, 
that the human being thus united to the Logos must either preserve his own 
will, in which case there would be no true interpenetration of the divine and 
the human, or that the human soul must lose its liberty by becoming united 
to the Logos, either of which would be absurd. “ He chiefly opposed the 
τρεπτόν, or the liberty of choice in christology.”— Dorner, |. c. p. 987. In 
his opinion Christ is not merely ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος ; but God become man. 
According to the threefold division of man (the trichotomistie anthropology), 
Apollinaris was willing to ascribe a soul to the Redeemer, since he thought 
that was only something intermediate between body and spirit, and the 
ἡγεμονικόν of the body. But that which itself determines the soul (τὸ 
αὐτοκίνητον), and constitutes the higher dignity of man, the νοῦς (the ψυχὴ 
λογικὴ) of Christ, could not be of human origin, but must be purely divine; 
for his incarnation did not consist in the Logos becoming νοῦς, but in be- 
coming σάρξ. (Whether and how far Christ brought the odpé itself from 
heaven, or received it from Mary, see Baur, 595, note, and Dorner, 1007 sq. 
| Dorner says that Apollinaris held that the Logos was always potentially, or 
had the destination to be, man, since he was the type of humanity; but yet, 
that the assumption of the form (flesh) of man occurred only at his birth.]), 
But as the divine reason supplies the place of the human, there exists a 
specific difference between Christ and other men. In their case every thing 
has to undergo a process of gradual development, which can not be without, 
conflicts and sin (ὅπου yap τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖ Kal ἁμαρτία, apud. Athan. 
i, 2, p. 923. Comp. ce. 21, p. 939: ἁμαρτία ἐνυπόστατος). But this could 
not take place in the case of Christ: οὐδεμία ἄσκησις ἐν Χριστῷ: οὐκ ἄρα 
νοῦς ἐστιν ἀνθρώπινος. Comp. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhet. adv. Apollin. 
iv. c. 221. At the same time Apollinaris supposed the body and soul of 


* Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. 160, sees here a twofold Platonism; not only the distinction 
between νοῦς and ψυχή, but also that in place of the νοῦς comes a higher potence, but of 
the same nature. 


18 


274 SeconD Periop. THe AGE oF POLEMICS. 


Christ to be so completely filled and animated with the higher life of God, 
that he took no offense at such expressions as “God died, God is born,” ete. 
He in fact believed that we do not adequately express the unity unless we 
say “Our God is crucified,” and “the man is raised up to the right hand of 
God.” He even maintained that, on account of this intimate union, divine 
homage is also due to the human nature of Christ, |. c. p. 241, 264. His 
opponents, therefore, charged him with Patripassianism. But it certainly is 
a mere inference made by Gregory of Nazianzum, when he attributes to 
Apollinaris the assertion that Christ must have possessed an irrational, 
animal soul, 6. g., that of a horse, or an ox, because he had not a rational 
human soul. On the other hand, Apollinaris, on his side, was not wanting 
in deducing similar consequences from his opponents’ positions, accusing 
them of believing in two Christs, two Sons of God, ete. Comp. Dorner, p. 
985, ss. Ullmann, Greg. v. Naz. p. 401, ss. Baur, Gesch. der Trinitätl. 1. 
p- 585, ss. 

* Athanasius maintained, in opposition to Apollinaris, Contra Apollinar. 
libri ii. (but without mentioning by name his opponent, with whom he had 
personal intercourse),* that it behoved Christ to be our example in every 
respect, and that his nature, therefore, must resemble ours. Sinfulness, which 
is empirically connected with the development of man, is not a necessary 
attribute of human nature; this would lead to Manicheism. Man, on the 
contrary, was originally free from sin, and Christ appeared on that very 
account, viz., in order to show that God is not the author of sin, and to 
prove that it is possible to live a sinless life (the controversy thus touched 
upon questions of an anthropological nature then debated)—Athanasius dis- 
tinctly separated the divine from the human (comp. especially lib. 11.), but 
he did not admit that he taught the existence of two Christs. Comp. 
Neander, ji. 433. Mohler, Athanasius, ii. p. 262, ss.t Gregory of Nazian- 
zum (Ep. ad Cledon. et Orat. 51) equally asserted the necessity of a true and 
perfect human nature, It was not only necessary, as the medium by which 
God might manifest himself, but Jesus could redeem and sanctify man only 
by assuming his whole nature, consisting of body and soul. (Similar views 
had been formerly held by Irenzus, and were afterwards more fully devel- 
oped by Anselm.) Gregory thus strongly maintained the doctrine of the 
two natures of the Saviour. We must distinguish in Christ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, 
but not ἄλλος Kat ἄλλος. Compare the Epist. ad Nectar. sive Orat. 46, with 
his 10 Anathematismata against Apollinaris, and Ullmann, p. 396-413. The 
work of Gregory of Nyssa, entitled λόγος ἀντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς Ta ᾿Απολλινα- 
ρίου (which was ‘probably composed between the years 374 and 380), may 


* On the character of this book, see Dorner, i. 984, note. [It was written after the 
death of Apollinaris, and very much in it has reference rather to what the tendency 
became, than to views actually avowed by Apollinaris himself] 

+ Mohler compares the doctrine of Apollinaris with that of Luther. This is so far cor- 
rect, as that in Luther we certainly find similar declarations; see Schenkel, Das Wesen des 
Protest. i. 313. Yet such parallels can seldom be fully carried out. Others have tried to 
find other correspondences with Apollinaris in later times; Dorner has compared his 
views with those of Osiander (p. 1028), and Baur with those of Servetus (Gesch. d. 
Trin. iii, 104), 


$ 100. NESTORIANISM. 275 


be found in Zaccagni Collect. Monum. Vett. and Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. vi. p. 
517. Comp. Gieseler, i. ὃ 83, note 30. Rupp, p. 139.—He opposed the 
followers of Apollinaris (£vvovoraorat, Διμοιριταί) in his Ep. Her. 77.— 
The doctrine of Apollinaris was also condemned in the West by Damasus, 
bishop of Rome (comp. Münscher von Cölln, p. 277), and once more by the 
second (Ecumenical synod of Constantinople (A. p. 381, Can 1. vii.). The 
later disciples of Apollinaris appear to have developed the doctrine of their 
master in a completely Docetic manner. Comp. Mohler, ubi supra, p. 264, sq. 


§ 100. 


NESTORIANISM. 


Jablonski, P. E., Fxereitatio historico-theologica de Nestorianismo. Berol. 1724.—Tübin- 
ger Quartalschrift, 1835, ii. part 1. [Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theologie, 1854. N. and 
the Council of Ephesus, by H. A. Miles, in the Christ. Examiner, Bost. 1853.] 


The attempt to maintain the integrity of the human nature of Christ 
together with the divine, necessarily led from time to time to the 
inquiry, whether that which the Scriptures relate respecting the life 
and actions of the Redeemer, his birth, sufferings, and death, refers 
only to his humanity, or to both his divine and human nature ; and, 
if the latter, in what way it may be said to refer to both ? While 
the teachers of the Alexandrian school asserted in strong terms the 
unity of the divine and the human in Christ, the theologians of An- 
tioch, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, made a 
strict distinction between the one and the other. At last the 
phrase, mother of God (Beoröros),” which the increasing homage 
paid to Mary had brought into use, gave rise to the controversy 
respecting the relation of the two natures in Christ. Nestorius, 
patriarch of Constantinople, disapproved of this phrase, maintaining 
that Mary had given birth to Christ, but not to God. Cyril, 
patriarch of Alexandria, opposed him, and both pronounced ana- 
themas against each other.‘ Nestorius supposed, in accordance 
with the Antiochian mode of thought, that the divine and the 
human natures of Christ ought to be distinctly separated, and 
admitted only a συνάφεια (junction) of the one and the other, an 
ἐνοίκησις (indwelling) of the Deity. Cyril, on the contrary, was led 
by the tendencies of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) school,* to main- 
tain the perfect union of the two natures (φυσικὴ ἕνωσις.) Nestorius 
was condemned by the synod of Ephesus (A. Ὁ. 431),° but the con- 
troversy was not brought to a close. 


* Diodorus died A. ν. 394. Some fragments of his treatise: πρὸς τοὺς 
Συνονσιαστάς, are preserved in a Latin translation by Mar. Mercator, edit. 
Baluze, p. 349, ss. (Garner, p. 317), and Leontius Byzantinus. Comp. Mün- 


276 Seconnp PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


scher, edit. by von Célln, p. 280: Adoramus purpuram propter indutum et 
templum propter inhabitatorem, etec.—The opinions of T’heodore are express- 
ed in his confession of faith, which may be found in Acta Cone. Ephes. 
Actio vi. quoted by Mansi, T. iv. p. 1347; in Marius Mercator (Garner, 1. 
p- 95); Münscher von Cölln, p. 280. On his controversy with Apollinaris, 
see Fritzsche, p. 92, 101. Comp. Meander, Church Hist. ii. p. 446-95 (Tor- 
rey). Fragmentum ed. Fritzsche, p, 8: ’AAA’ οὐχ ἡ θεία φύσις ἐκ παρθένου 
γεγέννηται, γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ὁ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς παρθένου 
συστάς" οὐχ ὁ θεὸς λόγος ἐκ τῆς Μαρίας “γεγέννηται, γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ 
Μαρίας 6 ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ" οὐχ ὁ θεὸς λόγος ἐκ γυναικὸς γεγέννηται, 
γεγέννηται δὲ ἐκ γυναικὸς 6 τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει διαπλασθεὶς 
ἐν αὐτῇ; οὐκ ἐκ μητρὸς τέτεκται ὃ ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ, ἀμήτωρ γὰρ οὗτος 
κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μακαρίου IlavAov φωνὴν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, ἐν τῇ 
μητρῴᾳ γαστρὶ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δυνάμει διαπλασθεὶς, ἅτε καὶ 
ἀπάτωρ διὰ τοῦτο λεγόμενος. 

® Concerning the ecclesiastical meaning of this term, which came gradually 
into use, see Socrat. vii. 32. Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, 1. 286. The 
absurd discussions on the partus virgineus (comp. 6. g., Rufinus Expos. 20), 
where Mary, with allusion to what Ezechiel says, is called the porta Domini, 
per quam introivit in mundum, etc., belong to the same class. Neander 
(Hist. Dogm. Ryland, p. 331) says that the controversy took an untortunate 
turn from the beginning, because it started from a word, and not from a doc- 
trinal idea: “thus the fanaticism of the multitude was inflamed, and political 
passions had the greater play.” 

° Anastasius, a presbyter of Alexandria (A. p. 428), preached against the 
use of the term in question, and thus called forth the controversy. He was 
followed by Nestorius (a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; Socrat. vii. 32. 
Leporius, a presbyter and monk at Massilia, and follower of Pelagius, had 
previously propounded a similar doctrine in the West, see Münscher, edit. by 
von Cölln, p. 282. The views of Nestorius himself are contained in iii. (ii.) 
Sermones Nestorii, quoted by Mar. Mercator, p. 53-74. Mansi, iv. p. 1197. 
Garner, ii. p. 3, ss. He rejected the appellation “mother of God” as hea- 
thenish and contrary to Heb. vii. 3. Resting, as he did, on the orthodox 
doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, he could say: Non peperit 
creatura eum, qui est increabilis; non recentem de virgine Deum Verbum 
genuit Pater. In principio erat enim verbum, sicut Joh. (i. 1), ait. Non 
peperit creatura creatorem [increabilem], sed peperit hominem, Deitatis in- 
strumentum. Non creavit Deum Verbum Spir. S.....sed Deo Verbo tem- 
plum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine, etc. But Nestorius by no 
means refused to worship the human nature of Christ in its connection with 
the divine, and strongly protested against the charge of separating the two 
natures: Propter utentem illud indumentum, quo utitur, colo, propter ab- 
sconditum adoro, quod foris videtur. Inseparabilis ab eo, qui oculis paret, 
est Deus. Quomodo igitur ejus, qui non dividitur, honorem [ego] et digni- 
tatem audeam separare? Divido naturas, sed conjungo reverentiam (quoted 
by Garner, p. 3). And in the fragment given by Mansi, p. 1201: Ava τὸν 
φοροῦντα τὸν φορούμενον σέβω, διὰ τὸν κεκρυμένον προσκυνῶ τὸν φαινό- 
μενον" ἀχώριστος τοῦ φαινομένου θεός" διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ μὴ χωριζομένου τὴν 


§ 101. EurycHIAn-MoNoPHYSITE CoNnTROVERSY. 277 


τιμὴν οὐ χωρίζω: χωρίζω τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑνῶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. He pre- 
ferred calling Mary Θεοδόχος or Χριστοτύκος, instead of Θεοτόκος. Comp. 
the other passages in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 284-286. Baur, Gesch. 
der Trinität. i. p. 727, ss. 

* On the external history of this controversy, see the works on ecclesias- 
tical history.—It commenced with a correspondence between Nestorius and 
Cyril, in which they charged each other with respectively separating and 
confounding the two natures of Christ. Cyril was supported by Celestine, 
bishop of Rome, Nestorius by the eastern bishops in general, and John, 
bishop of Antioch, in particular—tIn the progress of the controversy Nes- 
torius declared himself willing even to adopt the term θεοτόκος, if properly 
explained. Comp. the Acta, and especially the Anathematismata themselves 
in Mansi, v. p. 1, ss, and iv. p. 1099; in Mar. Mercator, p. 142 (Garner, ii. 
77, ss.), reprinted in Daumgarten’s Theologische Streitigkeiten, vol. ii. p. 
770, ss. Geseler, Lehrb. der Kirchengesch. i. $ 88, note 20. Münscher 
von Cölln, p. 290-295. 

° “ As the Alexandrians exalted the ὑπὲρ λόγον, so did the Antiochians 
the κατὰ Adyov ;” Neander, Hist. Dog. 334. On their differences, and the 
inferences which each party drew from the views of the other to its disad- 
vantage, see ibid. The ὠντιμετάστάσις τῶν ὀνομάτων was carried to an 
extreme by the Alexandrians, while the Antiochians distinguished between 
what is said δογματικῶς, and what is spoken πανηγυρικῶς. 

* The acts of the Synod are given in Mansi, iv. p. 1123; Fuchs, iv. p. 1, 
ss. The synod was organized in a partisan way by Cyril—A counter-synod 
was held under John, bishop of Antioch, in opposition to Cyril and Memnon; 
these in their turn excommunicated John and his party. The Emperor 
Theodosius at first confirmed the sentence of deposition which the two con- 
tending parties had pronounced upon each other, but afterwards Nestorius 
was abandoned by all; for John of Antioch himself was prevailed upon to 
give his consent to the condemnation of his friend, after Cyril had proposed a 
formula, the contradictions, of which, with his former Anathematismata, were 
but poorly slurred over (comp. Münscher ed. by von, Cölln, p. 297). The 
consequence was the separation of the Nestorian party (Chaldee Christians, 
Thomas-Christians) from the catholic church. On the further history of the 
Nestorians, see J. S. Assemanni, de Syris Nestorianis, in Bibl. Orient. Rom, 
1728, T. iii. P.2. “ We may call the view of Cyril (according to which the 
human is changed into the divine), the mAGICAL aspect of the union, and that 
of Nestorius (according to which the two natures are only joined together) the 
MECHANICAL.” Dorner, 1st ed. p. 90. 


§ 101. 
EUTYCHIAN-MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY. 


The doctrine which separated the two natures of Christ, had been 
rejected by the condemnation of Nestorius. But with the growing 
influence and power of the party of Cyril, led by Dioscurus, Cyril’s 


278 Seconp Preriop. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


successor,’ the still greater danger arose of confounding, instead of 
separating the said natures. The party zeal of Hutyches, an archi- 
mandrite [abbot] at Constantinople, who maintained the doctrine 
of only one nature in Christ,’ caused new disturbances. After 
Dioscurus had in vain endeavored to force the Monophysite doctrine 
by violent means upon the eastern church,’ both he and his senti- 
ments were at last condemned at the council of Chalcedon (a. D. 451). 
In the course of the controversy, Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, 
addressed a letter to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople." On the 
basis of this Epistola Flaviana, the synod pronounced in favor of 
the doctrine of two natures, neither to be separated nor confounded, 
and, in order to prevent further errors, drew up a formula of faith, 
which should be binding upon all parties.s 


1 Respecting his character and violent conduct, especially towards Theo- 
doret, see Neander, Church History, ii. 500-522. The acts of this contro- 
versy are given in Mansi, T. vi. vii. (Ang. Mai. Script. Vett. Coll. T. vii. and 
ix. Coll. Class. Auct. T. x. p. 408, ss.) [Ziberatus Breviarium Cause Nestor. 
et Eutychian. in Mansi, ix. 659. Walch’s Ketzerhist. vi. Baur, Dreiel- 
nigkeit, i. 800. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 99 sq.] 

* Eutyches was charged by Eusebius of Doryleeum with the revival of Va- 
lentinian and Apollinarian errors, and deposed by a synod held at Constanti- 
nople in the year 449. See Mansi, vi. p. 694-754. According to the acts 
of this synod he taught: Μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου, τουτέστι 
μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν “Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μίαν φύσιν προσκυνεῖν 
καὶ ταύτην θεοῦ σαρκωθέντος Kai ἐνανθρωπήσαντος: He denied that the 
flesh of Christ was of the same essence (ὁμοούσιος) with ours, though he 
would not be understood to teach that Christ brought his body with him from 
heaven. But when his opponents brought him at last into a corner, he went 
so far as to admit the sameness of essence in respect to the body. But he 
could not be induced to confess his belief in the existence of two natures, ἃ 
divine and a human. He maintained that there had been two natures only 
πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως ; but after that he would acknowledge only one. Concern- 
ing the agreement between his doctrine and that of Cyril, see Münscher edit. 
by von Oölln, p. 301. 

° These violent proceedings were carried to an extreme length at the 
Synod of Robbers, a. Ὁ. 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum, ovvodo¢g λῃστρική), 
the acts of which may be found in Mansi, vi. p. 593, ss. Fuchs, iv. p. 340, ss. 

* The epistle in question is given in Mansi, v. p. 1359 (separately published 
by K. Phil. Henke, Helmst. 1780, 4, comp. Griesbach, Opusc. Acad. T. i. 
p. 52, ss. Münscher von Cölln, p. 302): Salva proprietate utriusque nature 
et substantiz et in unam coéunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humili- 
tas, a virtute infirmitas, ab eternitate mortalitas; et ad resolvendum con- 
ditionis nostra debitum natura inviolabilis nature est unita passibili, ut quod 
nostris remediis congruebat, unus atque idem mediator dei et hominum, 
homo Jesus Christus, et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. 
In integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus 


§ 102. PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 279 


in suis, totus in nostris, ete... Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo, 
et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas 
hominis et altitudo deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita 
homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius 
communione, quod proprium est: Verbo scilicet operante, quod verbi est, et 
carni exscquente, quod carnis est, etc. He then ascribes birth, hunger, naked- 
ness, sufferings, death, burial, ete., to the human, miracles to the divine na- 
ture; the passage in John xiy. 28, refers to the former, that in John x. 30, 
to the latter. Comp. on Leo’s Christology, Perthel, u.s. 146; Baur, 807 sq. 

° Mansi, vii. 108, ss.: ... "Eröuevor τοίνυν τοῖς ἀγίοις πατράσιν, Eva καὶ 
τὸν αὐτὸν ὀμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως 
ἄπαντες Erdiddokouev, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν 
ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἀνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὑτὸν ἐκ φυχῦς 
λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ ἸΤατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον 
τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ THY ἁνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς 
ἁμαρτίας" πρὸ al@vov μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, 
Em’ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δὶ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν 
σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, 
ἕνα καὶ TOV αὐτὸν Χριστὸν Yiov, Κύριον, μονογενῆ ἐκ δύο φύσεων (ἐν δύο 
φύσεσιν)" ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωρι- 
ζόμενον" αὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, 
σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἕν πρόσωπον 
καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης" οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον, ἣ 
διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Ὑἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, 
κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν" καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτος 
ἡμᾶς ᾿Τησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε' καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε 
σύμβολον. 

We can not fail to see a dogmatic parallel between these Christolovical de- 
cisions and the theological determinations of the council of Nice, with this 
difference only (demanded by the difference of the objects in view), that the 
latter understood by φύσις that which belongs to each nature separately, but 
by ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, that which both have in common; the reverse is 
the case in the decisions of the synod of Chalcedon. 


§ 102. 
PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.—THEOPASCHITES. 


But the authority of the decision of the council of Chalcedon was 
not at once generally acknowledged. Many conflicts ensued’ before 
the doctrine of “two natures in one person” was received as the or- 
thodox doctrine of the church, and finally inserted into what is com- 
monly called the Athanasian Creed.* The exact medium, however, 
between the two extreme views was not strictly preserved. For by 


* Concerning this different reading, comp. Mansi, p. 106, 775, 840. Walch, Bibl. Symb. 
p. 106. 


280 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE OF PoLEmics. 


the admission of a new clause, viz., that one of the divine persons 
had been crucified ἌΝ into the creed of the fifth (Ecu- 
menical Synod (A. D. 553), the Monophysite notion gained the as- 
cendency within the pale of orthodoxy. 


1 The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, A. p. 482, in Evagr. iii. c. 14 (sep- 
arately published by Berger, Wittemb. 1723, 4), was intended to bring about 
a reconciliation between the contending parties, but was not followed by any 
permanent success. Comp. Jablonsky, Diss. de Henotico Zenonis. Francof. 
ad Viadr. 1737, 4. Münscher v. Cölln, p. 306, 7. It was taught that Christ 
was ὁμοούσιος TH πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν 
ἀνθρωπότητα. The predicate θεοτόκος was vindicated for Mary; and the 
Anathematismata of Cyril were justified. 

? Symb. Athan. pars. i.—(Comp. § 97). 

27. Sed necessarium est ad xternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter eredat. 28. Est ergo fides recta, ut cre- 
damus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius, Deus 
pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante seecula genitus: 
homo ex substantia matris in seeculo natus. 30. Perfectus deus, perfectus 
homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. 31. /Equalis Patri 
secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. 32. Qui, licet 
deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. 33. Unus autem 
non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumtione humanitatis in Deum. 
34, Unus omnino non confusione substantiarum, sed unitate persone. 
35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita et Deus et homo 
unus est Christus, 36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos, 
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 37. ascendit in ccelos, sedet ad dexteram Pa- 
tris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. 38. Ad cujus adventum omnes 
homines resurgere debent cum corporibus suis et reddituri sunt de factis pro- 
priis rationem. 39. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam «ternam: qui vero 
mala, in ignem eternum. 40. Heec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisquam 
fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. 

° Peter Fullo (ὁ γναφεὺς) was the first who introduced the clause θεὸς 
ἐσταυρώθη into the Trishagion, at Antioch, 463-471. [On the τρισάγιον 
see Gieseler, |. c. i. § 110, note 12.]—In the year 533 Justinian pronounced 
the phrase, unum crucificum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate, to be 
orthodox (Cod. ı. 1. Tit. 1. 6): he did so in agreement with John II., bishop 
of Rome, but in opposition to his predecessor Hormisdas.—The decree of the 
council is given in Mansi, ix. p. 304: Ei τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον 
σαρκὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν εἶναι θεὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ κύριον τῆς 
δόξης, καὶ ἕνα της ἁγίας τρίαδος" 6 τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα Eorw.—This victory 
of the advocates of Theopaschitism was only the counterpart of the one which 
the friends of the phrase θεοτόκος had gained in former years. Thus such 
expressions as “God is born, God died,” came gradually into use in dogmatie 
theology. It was in this sense that, 6. g., the author of the Soliloquia Ani- 
mez (which may be found in the works of Augustine) c. 1, offered the follow- 
ing prayer: Manus tus, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me, manus 
inquam 1118, que affixe clavis sunt pro me. 


§ 103. Mopirications OF THE MONOPHYSITE Doctrine. 281 


§ 103. 


VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS OF THE MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE. 
APHTHARTODOCETA, PHTHARTOLATRI, AGNOETA. 


Gieseler, J. C. L., Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum veterum Vari de Christi Persona 
Opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis ilustrantur. Parts I. II. Gött. 
1838, IV. 


The Monophysites themselves were not agreed on the question 
whether Christ possessed a corruptible or an incorruptible body ? 
The Phthartolatri (Severians) maintained the former ; the Aphthar- 
todocetee (Julianists) asserted the latter, in accordance with their 
monophysite premises respecting the nature of Christ. Different 
views obtained among the Aphthartodocete themselves on the ques- 
tion, whether Christ’s body was created or not, and led to the for- 
mation of two distinct parties, the Ktistolatri and the Aktistete.’ 
The omniscience of Christ necessarily followed from the Monophy- 
site doctrine. The assertion, therefore, of Themistius, deacon of 
. Alexandria, that the man Jesus was ignorant of many things 
 (Agnoetism, Mark xiii. 32 ; Luke ii. 25), was rejected by the strict 
Monophysites.? 


1 Sources: Leont. Byzant. (in Gallandii Bibl. Patr. xii.) Niceph. Callisti, 
lib. xvii. Grieseler (in the 2d Part of the dissertation cited before) endeavors 
to prove that the view of the Julianists was by no means purely Docetic, but 
allied to that taken by Clement of Alexandria, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, 
etc., and that it also bore resemblance to the opinions entertained by Apollina- 
ris. Xenaias (Philoxenus), bishop of Hierapolis, and the contemporary of 
Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, appears as the representative of this view, 
comp. p. 7.—Difterent meanings were attached to the word @@opd, which 
was made at one time to denote the frailty of the living body, and its sus- 
ceptibility to suffering, at another to signify the dissolubility of the corpse ; 
ibidem, p. 4. 

* On the orthodox side, Gregory the Great (Epist. x. 35, 39) declared 
against Agnoétism. On the controversy in the West, with Zeporius, a monk 
of Gaul (about 426), who also taught Agnoétism in connection with the doc- 
trines of Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), 339. 
[He contended for the unconditional transference of the predicates of the 
human nature to the divine, and consequently for such expressions as “God 
was born,” “God died ;” he also taught a progressive revelation of the divine 
Logos in the human nature to which he was united, and Agnoötism.] 


Though the orthodox church was far from giving the least countenance to Docetism, 
yet the ideas entertained by Origen in the preceding period (see § 66, note 6), viz., 
that Christ rose from the tomb with a glorified body, found many more friends in the 


282 SreconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


present period. Not only Hilary, whose views, generally speaking, come nearest to 
those of the Docete, but also Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the eastern theolo- 
gians, with the exception of Ephräm the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, adopted more or less the notion of Origen. Thus Chrysostom says in reference 
to John xxi. 10: ἐφαίνετο γὰρ ἄλλῃ μορφῇ, ἄλλῃ φωνῇ, ἄλλῳ σχήματὶ ; in support of 
his opinion he appealed especially to the appearance of Christ when the doors were 
shut, ete. On the other hand, the last named fathers of the eastern church, as well 
as the western theologians, Jerome in particular, asserted that Christ possessed the 
very same body both prior and anterior to his resurrection. Cyril firmly maintains that 
Christ was ἐν σώματι παχεῖ. Augustine and Leo the Great, on the contrary, endeay- 
ored to reconcile the notion of the identity of Christ’s body with the idea of its 
glorification. Thus Leo says in Sermo 69, de Resurrect. Dom. cap. 4 (T. i. p. 73): 
resurrectio Domini non finis carnis, sed commutatio fuit, nec virtutis augmento con- 
sumta substantia est. Qualitas transiit, non natura deficit: et factum est corpus 
impassibile, immortale, incorruptibile. ..nihil remansit in carne Christi infirmum, ut et 
ipsa sit per essentiam et non sit ipsa per gloriam. Gregory the Great and others used 
similar language.—Most of the theologians of this period also adhered to the opinion, 
that Christ had quickened himself by his own power, in opposition to the notion, enter- 
tained by the Arians, viz., that the Father had raised him from the dead. For the 
doctrine of the two natures in Christ led them to imagine, that the union subsisting 
between the divine and the human was so intimate and permanent, that both his 
body and soul, after their natural separation by death, continued to be connected 
with his Divine nature, the body in the grave, the soul in Hades. Nor did Christ 
stand in need of the angel to roll away the stone; this took place only in consequence 
of his resurrection.—His ascension was likewise brought about by an independent 
act of his divine nature, not by a miracle wrought by the Father upon him (generally 
speaking, theologians were accustomed at this time to consider the miracles of Christ 
as works achieved by his Divine nature). The cloud which formerly enveloped all 
the events of Christ’s life, was now changed into a triumphal car (ὄχημα), which 
angels accompanied. Comp. Athan. De Assumt. Dom., and for further particulars 
see Müller, 1. c. p. 40, ss., p. 83, ss. 


§ 104. 


THE DOCTRINE OF TWO WILLS IN CHRIST.—MONOTHELITES. 


Combefisti, T., Historia Monothelitarum, in the second volume of his Nov. Auctuarium 
Bibl, PP. Greeco-Latin. Par. 1648, fol. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, vol. ix. 
p. 1-606. 


The attempt made by the Emperor Heraclius, in the seventh cen- 
tury, to re-unite the Monophysites with the Catholic church, led to 
the controversy respecting the two wills in Christ, kindred to that 
concerning his natures." In agreement with Cyrus, patriarch of 
Alexandria, the emperor, hoping to reconcile the two parties, 
adopted the doctrine of only one Divine-human energy (évepyéa), 
and of one will in Christ.2 But Sophronius, an acute monk of 
Palestine, afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem (A. D. 635), endeavored 
to show that this doctrine was inadmissible, since the doctrine of 
two natures, set forth by the synod of Chalcedon, necessarily implied 
that of two wills.” After several fruitless attempts had been made 


§ 104. Tue Doctkine or Two Wiis In Curist. 283 


to establish the Monothelite doctrine,’ the sixth (Ecumenical Council 
of Constantinople (A. D. 680), with the codperation of the bishop 
of Rome,’ adopted the doctrine of two wills, and two energies, as the 
orthodox doctrine, but decided that the human will must always be 
conceived as subordinate to the divine.” 


* In this way the controversy was removed from the province of pure 
metaphysics into the moral and practical sphere, and thus brought into con- 
nection with the anthropological disputes; as there had also been occasion 
for this in the Apollinarist strife (see above). But this did not help the 
matter itself. 

? When the Emperor Heraclius, in the course of his campaign against 
Persia, passed through Armenia and Syria, he came to an understanding 
with the Monophysite leaders of the Severians and Jacobites, and induced 
Sergius, the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, to give his assent to the 
doctrine of ἕν θέλημα καὶ pia ἐνέργεια, or of an ἐνέργεια θεανδριιςῆ. Cyrus 
(a Monophysite), whom the Emperor had appointed patriarch of Alexandria, 
effected, at a synod held in that place (A. p. 633), a union between the dif 
ferent parties. The acts of this synod are given by Mansi, Cone. xi. p. 564, 
ss., as well as the letters of Cyrus, ibid. p. 561. 

° See Sophronii Epist. Synodica, which is given in Mansi, xi. 461. Those 
Monophysites who maintained the doctrine of two natures, and of only one 
will, were quite as inconsistent as most of the orthodox theologians in the 
Arian controversy, who held that the Son was of the same essence with the 
Father, but asserted the subordination of the Spirit. 

* The Greek Emperor at first endeavored to settle the matter amicably, by 
the *Ex@eore [i. e., an edict issued by the Emperor Heraclius, a. p. 638, in 
which he confirmed the agreement made by the patriarchs for the preserva- 
tion of ecclesiastical union], and the Töroc [i. e., an edict issued by the Em- 
peror Constans IL, a. Ὁ. 648, in which the contending parties were prohibited 
from resuming their discussions on the doctrine in question]. See Mansi, x. 
p- 992, p. 1029, ss. Afterwards Martin I. and Maximus were treated with 
the most shameful cruelty ; for further particulars see Neander, Church. Hist. 
(Torrey), ii. 186-192. 

° Pope Honorius was in favor of the union, but his successors, Severinus 
and John IV., opposed it. The latter condemned the doctrine of the Mono- 
thelites, and Theodore excommunicated Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, 
till the doctrine of two wills and two energies was at last adopted at the 
first synod of the Lateran, held under Martin J., bishop of Rome, in the year 
649, see Mansi, x. p. 863, ss.: Si quis secundum scelerosos hereticos cum 
una voluntate et una operatione, quae ab haeretieis impie confitetur, et duas 
voluntates, pariterque et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanam, que in 
ipso Christo Deo in unitate salvantur, et a sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipso 
predicantur, denegat et respuit, condemnatus sit. (Comp. Gieseder, 1. c. § 128, 
note 11. Münscher v. Colln, ii. 78, 79.) 

* This council (also called the First Trullan) was summoned by Constan- 
tinus Pogonatus. The decision of the synod was based upon the epistle of 
Agatho, the Roman bishop, which was itself founded upon the canons of the 


284 Seconn PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


above Lateran synod (Agathonis Ep. ad Imperatores in Mansi, xi. 233-286), 
confessing belief in due naturales voluntates et dus naturales operationes, 
non contrarie, nec adverse, nec separate, etc. This was®followed by the 
decision of the council itself (see Mansi, xi. 631, ss. Münscher, von Cölln, 
ii. p. 80. Güeseler, 1. c. ὃ 128, notes 14-17). Δύο φυσικὰς θελήσεις ἤτοι 
θελήματα ἐν Χριστῷ καὶ δύο φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, 
ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων διδασκαλίαν 
κηρύττομεν' και δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα οὐχ ὑπεναντία, μὴ γένοιτο, καθὼς 
οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἔφησαν αἱρετικοί: ἀλλ᾽ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ θέλημα, 
καὶ μὴ ἀντιπίπτον, ἢ ἀντιπαλαῖον, μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ 
θείῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πανσθενεῖ HeAnuarı.—Respecting the insufficiency of these, 
and the indefiniteness of the other canons of the council, see Dorner, 1st ed. 
p- 90, ss —The Reformers did not accept the decisions of this council The 
Monothelites (Pope Honorius included) were condemned. They continued 
to exist as a distinct sect in the mountains of Lebanon and Antilebanon 
under the name of Maronites (which was derived from their leader, the 
Syrian abbot Marun, who lived about the year 701). Comp. Weander, ]. c. 
p. 197. [ Baur, Dogmengesch. 2te Aufl. p. 211, says of this controversy : 
Its elements on the side of the Monothelites were, the unity of the person or 
subject, from whose one will (the divine will of the incarnate Logos) all 
must proceed, since two wills also presuppose two personal subjects (the 
chief argument of bishop Theodore of Pharan, in Mansi, Tom. xi. p. 567); 
on the side of the Duothelites, the point was the fact of two natures, since 
two natures can not be conceived without two natural wills, and two natural 
modes of operation. How far now two wills can be without two persons 
willing, was the point from which they slipped away by mere suppositions.] 


§ 105. 


PRACTICAL AND RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTOLOGY 
DURING THIS PERIOD. 


Unedifying as is the spectacle of these manifold controversies, in 
which the person of the Redeemer is dragged down into the sphere 
of passionate conflicts, yet it is still cheering to see how the faith 
of Christians in those times was supported by that idea of the God- 
Man, which was above all such strife, and how it attributed to the 
doctrine of the one and undivided person of Christ its due import in 
the history of the world. 


“ All the Fathers agreed, as it were with one mind, that to Christ belongs 
not merely the limited importance attached to every historical personage, but 
that his Person stands in an essential relation to the WHOLE HUMAN RACE; 
on this account alone could they make a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL the object of an 
article of faith, and ascribe to him a lasting and eternal significancy in rela- 
tion to our race.” Lorner, Ist ed. |, c. p. 78; compare the passages from 


§ 105. IMPORTANCE OF CHRISTOLOGY DURING THiS PERIOD, 285 


the fathers there cited. [They say, e. g., that Christ is the primitive type 
after which Adam and the whole of humanity were created; the principle, 
the ἀρχή, of the whole new creation, in which the old is first completed ; 
the ἀπαρχή of the whole φυρᾶμα of humanity, penetrating all; the eternal 
head of the race—a member of it indeed, but yet its plastic and organizing 
principle, in virtue of the union between divinity and humanity in him per- 
fectly realized, etc.] 


SECOND DIVISION. 


DOCTRINES RESPECTING ANTHROPOLOGY. 


§ 106. 
ON MAN IN GENERAL. 


The Platonie doctrine of the preöxistence of the human soul, 
which none but Nemesius and Prudentius favored,' was almost 
unanimously rejected as Origenistic.* Along with physical Tradu- 
cianism (favorable as was this doctrine in certain aspects to the 
idea of original sin, see § 55), Creatianism was also able to obtain 
more authority. According to this view, every human soul was 
created as such, and at a certain moment of time united with the 
body, developing itself in the womb. Yet the most influential 
teachers of the church, as Augustine and Gregory the Great, 
expressed themselves with reserve on this point.* In the West the 
threefold division of man (§ 54) gave way to the simpler division 
into body and soul, on the mutual relation of which different views 
obtained among the fathers of the present period.‘ Nor did they 
agree in their opinions respecting the image of God, though most of 
them admitted that it consisted in reason imparted to man, in his 
capacity of knowing God, and in his dominion over the irrational 
creation.” There were still some who imagined that the image of 
God was also reflected in the body of man ; but, while the Audiani 
perverted this notion in support of gross anthropomorphism,’ others 
gave to it a more spiritual interpretation. The immortality of the 
soul was universally believed ;7 Lactantius, however, did not regard 
it as the natural property of the soul, but as the reward of virtue.* 


1 The former did so as a philosopher (De Humana Natura 2, p. 76, ss. of 
the Oxford edit.), the latter as a poet (Cathemerin. Hymn. x, v. 161-168). 
[Cf. Aur. Prudent, Carmina, ed. Alb. Dressel, Lips. 1860.] 

2 Conc. Const. A. ἢ. 540, see Mansi, ix. p. 396, ss.: Ἢ ἐκκλησία τοῖς 
θείοις ἑπομένη λόγοις φάσκει THY ψυχὴν συνδημιουργηθῆναι τῷ σώματι" 
καὶ οὐ τὸ μὲν πρότερον, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον, κατὰ τὴν ᾿ωριγένους φρενοβλάβειαν. 

° Lactantius maintains, Inst. iii. 18, that the soul is born with the body, 
and distinctly opposes Traducianism De Opif. Dei ad Demetr. c. 19: Illud 


§ 106. ON Man In GENERAL. 287 


quoque venire in questionem potest, utrum anima ex patre, an potius ex 
matre, an vero ex utroque generetur. Nihil enim ex his tribus verum est, 
quia neque ex utroque, neque ex alterutro seruntur anime. Corpus enim ex 
corporibus nasci potest, quoniam confertur aliquid ex utroque; de animis 
anima non potest, quia ex re tenui et incomprehensibili nihil potest decedere. 
Itaque serendarum animarum ratio uni ac soli Deo subjacet : 
“ Denique ccelesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, 
Omnibus ille idem pater est,” 

ut ait Lucretius; nam de mortalibus non potest quidquam nisi mortale gene- 
rari. Nec putari pater debet, qui transfudisse aut inspirasse animam de suo 
nullo modo sentit; nec, si sentiat, quando tamen et quomodo id fiat, habet 
animo comprehensum. Ex quo apparet, non a parentibus dari animas, sed 
ab uno eodemque omnium Deo patre, qui legem rationemque nascendi tenet 
solus, siquidem solus efficit ; nam terreni parentis nihil est, nisi ut humorem 
corporis, in quo est materia nascendi, cum sensu voluptatis emittat vel reci- 
piat, et citra hoc opus homo resistit, nec quidquam amplius potest; ideo nasci 
sibi filios optant, quia non ipsi faciunt. Cetera jam Dei sunt omnia: scilicet 
conceptus ipse et corporis informatio et inspiratio anime et partus incolumis 
et queecunque deinceps ad hominem conservandum valent; zllius munus est, 
quod spiramus, quod vivimus, quod vigemus.—In opposition to Traducianism, 
he appeals to the fact, that intelligent parents have sometimes stupid chil- 
dren, and vice versa, which could not well be ascribed to the influence of the 
stars !—In accordance with this opinion Hilary asserts Tract. in Ps. xci. ὃ 3: 
Quotidie animarum origenes [et corporum figulationes] occulta et incognita 
nobis divine virtutis molitione procedunt. [See, also, Tract. in Psalm. exvii. 
cap. 1. : Igitur vel quia in terre hujus solo commoramur, vel quia ex terra 
instituti conformatique sumus, anima que alterius originis est, terre corporis 
adheesisse creditur.] Pelagius, and the Semipelagians, Cassian and Genna- 
dius, adopted substantially the same view, see Wiggers, Augustin und Pela- 
gius, 1. p. 149, ji. p. 354. Pelagius taught (in Symb. quoted by Mansi, iv. 
p- 355): Animas a Deo dari credimus, quas ab ipso factas dicimus, anathe- 
matizantes eos, qui animas quasi partem divinee dieunt esse substantie; Au- 
gustine agreed with him as far as the negative aspect of this proposition was 
concerned, Retract. i. 1: (Deus) animum non de se ipso genuit, sed de re 
nulla alia condidit, sieut condidit corpus e terra; he here refers, however, 
directly to the creation of our first parents. But Augustine does not 
expressly state, whether he thinks that the soul is newly created in every 
case; on the contrary, he declined to investigate this point: Nam quod 
attinet ad ejus (animi) originem, qua fit ut sit in corpore, utrum de illo uno 
sit, qui primum creatus est, quando factus est homo in animam vivam, an 
semper ita fiant singulis singuli, nee tune sciebam (in his treatise Contra 
Academicos) nec adhuc scio. Comp. Ep. 140 (al. 120), ad Honorat. (T. ii. 
p- 320). When Jerome (Contra Error. Joann. Hierosolym. § 22) derives 
Creatianism from the words of Christ in John y., “My Father worketh 
hitherto,” Augustine will not allow thxs argument to be valid, since the 
working of God is not excluded even upon the Traducian hypothesis; comp. 
Neander, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), 365. [The opinion of Augustine upon this 
point has been much debated: Bellarmine and Staudenmaier contend that 


288 SEconD PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICcs. 


he was for creation; Melancthon, Klee, and others reckon him among the 
Traducianists; Gangauf (u. s.), Wiggers, and Ritter say that he was unde- 
cided. Bellarmine cites for Creatianism, Epist. 190, ad Optat. cap. 14: Ill, 
qui animas ex una propagari asserunt, quam Deus primo homini dedit, atque 
ita eas ex parentibus trahi dicunt, si Tertulliani opinionem sequuntur, profecto 
eas, non spiritus, sed corpora esse contendunt, et corpulentis seminibus exoriri, 
quo perversius quod dici potest? But this applies strictly only to Tertul- 
lian’s corpulenta semina. He recognizes the connection between Traducian- 
ism and original sin, De Lib, Arb. lib. iii. ep. 56: Deinde si una anima facta 
est, ex qua omnium hominum anime trahuntur nascentium, quis potest dicere, 
non se pecasse, cum primus ille peccaoit. In his De Anima et ejus Orig. lib. 
1. cp. 19, Num. 34, he says that he could accept Creatianism if four difficul- 
ties were removed; and in De Orig. Anim. ep. 28, he designates the chief 
of these difficulties, in connection with the doctrine of the salvation of chil- 
dren not baptized : Sed antequam sciam, queenam earum potius eligenda sit, 
hoc me non temere sentire profiteor, eam, que vera est, non adversari robus- 
tissimee ac fundatissimee fidei, qua Christi ecclesia nec parvulos homines re- 
centissime natos a damnatione credit, nisi per groetiam nominis Christi, quam 
in suis sacramentis commendavit, posse liberari; comp. De Genesi ad Lit. 
Lib. x. cp. 23 Num. 39, and Epist. 169 ad Evodium, cp. 13. In Epist. 190 
ad Optat. cp. 17, he says: Aliquid ergo certum de anime origine nondum in 
scripturis canonicis comperi. And in Genes. ad Lit. x. 21, he says: Jam de 
ceterarum animarum adventu, utrum ex parentibus an desuper sit, vincant, 
qui poterunt; ego adhue inter utrosque ambigo, et moveor aliquando sie, 
aliquando autem sic.|—The phrase mentioned before (note 2): τὴν ψυχὴν 
συνδημιουργηθῆναι τῷ σώματι, which was used by the Greek church, and is 
also found in the works of Theodoret (Fab. Her. v. 9, p. 414), implies the 
doctrine commonly called Creatianism. Yet Traducianism continued to be 
professed not only by heterodox writers, ὁ. g., Hunomius and Apollinaris, but 
also by some orthodox theologians, such as Gregory of Nyssa (De Hom. 
Opif. c. 29). The last directs our attention to the fact, that body and soul 
belong essentially together, and can not be possibly be imagined to be sepa- 
rated from each other: AAA’ évde ὄντος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, Tod διὰ ψυχῆς τε 
καὶ σώματος συνεστηκότος, μίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κοινὴν τὴς συστάσεως τὴν 
ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεσθαι, ὡς ἂν μὴ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ προγενέστερός τε καὶ νεώτερος 
γένοιτο, τοῦ μὲν σωματικοῦ προτερεύοντος ἐν αὐτῷ, τοῦ δὲ ἑτέρου ἐφυστε- 
ρίζοντος, ete., which he proves by analogies drawn from nature. The views 
of Anastasius Sinaita on this point are very materializing (Hom. in Ban- 
dini Monum. Eecles. Gr. T. ii. p. 54, in Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 332): Τὸ 
μὲν σῶνα ἐκ τῆς γυναικείας γῆς (Thiersch conjectures γονῆς, see the review 
in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1841, p. 184) καὶ αἵματος συνίσταται: ἡ δὲ 
ψυχὴ διὰ τῆς σπορᾶς, ὥσπερ διά τινος ἐμφυσήματος ἐκ Tod ἀνθρώπου 
ἀῤῥήτως μεταδίδοται.. According to Jerome, Ep. 78, ad Marcellin. (Opp. T. 
iv. p. 642, ap. Erasm. ii. p. 318), even, maxima pars occidentalium (probably 
of earlier times ?) held the opinion, ut quomodo corpus ex corpore, sic anima 
nascatur ex anima et simili cum brutis animantibus conditione subsistat. But 
Jerome himself rejects all other systems, and designates Creatianism as the 


§ 106. ON Man IN GENERAL. 289 


orthodox doctrine;* Epist. ad Pammach. (Opp. T. iv. p. 318, ap. Erasm. ii. 
p- 170): Quotidie Deus fabricatur animas, cujus velle fecisse est et conditor 
esse non cessat......Noli despicere bonitatem figuli tui, qui te plasmavit et 
fecit ut voluit. Ipse est Dei virtus et Dei sapientia, qui in utero virginis 
cedificavit 5101 domum. The advocates of Creatianism saw in the birth of 
every human being something analogous to the miracle of Christ’s incarna- 
tion on its physical side, without putting the one on a level with the other 
(which Jerome would have been the last to do); those who adopted Tradu- 
cianism were compelled to consider Christ’s birth as an exception to the rule; 
and even this exception seemed to require some limitation of the position, 
that Christ’s human nature is consubstantial with ours. Many theologians, 
therefore, preferred obviating these difficulties, following Augustine’s ex- 
ample, by directing attention to the impossibility of comprehending the 
origin and processes of existence. Thus Gregory the Great, Epp. vii. 59, ad 
Secundinum (Opp. ii. p. 970), says : Sed de hac re dulcissima mihi tua car- 
itas sciat, quia de origine anime inter sanctos Patres requisitio non parva 
versata est; sed utrum ipsa ab Adam descenderit, an certe singulis detur, 
incertum remansit, eamque in hac vita insolubilem fassi sunt esse queestionem. 
Gravis enim est quzstio, nec valet ab homine comprehendi, quia si de Adam 
substantia cum carne nascitur, cur non etiam cum carne moritu? Si vero 
cum carne non nascitur, cur in ea carne, que de Adam prolata est, obligata 
peccatis tenetur? (he thus deduces Traducianism from the doctrine of orig- 
inal sin, the correctness of which he assumes, while the latter, on the con- 
trary, was generally inferred from the former.) 

* Hilary of Poitiers asserts (in Matth. Can. v. $ 8), that the soul, whether 
in the body or out of the body, must always preserve its corporeal substance, 
because every thing that is created must exist in some form or other (in 
aliquo sit necesse est); reminding us of the views of Tertullian. Yet else- 
where he views the soul as a spiritual, incorporeal being; comp. in Ps. lii. 
§ 7, in Ps. exxix. § 6 (nihil in se habens corporale, nihil terrenum, nihil 
grave, nihil caducum) — Augustine frankly acknowledges the difficulty of 
defining the relation in which the soul stands to the body, De Morib. Eccles. 
Cath. c. 4: Difficile est istam controversiam dijudicare, aut si ratione facile, 
oratione longum est. Quem laborem ac moram suscipere ac subire non 
opus est. Sive enim utrumque sive anima sola nomen hominis teneat, 
est hominis optimum quod optimum est corporis, sed quod aut corpori 
simul et anime aut soli anime optimum est, id est optimum hominis.—On 
the psychological views of Augustine, comp. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der 
Philosophie, p. 169, ss. [also Gangauf, Metaphysische Psychologie des heili- 
gen Augustinus, Augsburg, 1852]; on those of Claudius Mamertus and Boé- 
thius, ibid, p. 174.—According to Gregory the Great, man is composed of 
body and soul (Mor. xiv. c. 15). The principal properties of the soul are, 
mens, anima et virtus; comp. Lau, p. 370. 


* Leo the Great likewise declares it to be the doctrine of the church (Ep. 15, ad Turrib. 
Opp. Quesnel, p. 229, quoted in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 331, note 11: Catholica 
fides...omnem hominem in corporis et anime: substantiam formari intra materna viscera 
confitetur. 


19 


290 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICcs. 


5 Greg. Nyss. in verba: Faciamus hominem, Orat. 1, Opp. 1. p. 143: 
Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν" τουτέστι, δώσομεν αὐτῷ λόγου 
περιουσίαν... .Οὐ γὰρ τὰ πάθη εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνα παρελήφθη, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ 
λογισμὸς τῶν παθῶν δεσπότης. Athanasius speaks in the same manner, 
Orat. contra Gent. § 2. Cyrill. Hier. Cat. xiv. 10. The dominion over the 
animals was included. Gregory, |. e. says: ὅπον ἡ τοῦ ἄρχειν δύναμις, ἐκεῖ ἡ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκών. Comp. Theodoret, in Genes. Quest. 20. Chrys. Hom. viii. 
in Genes. (Opp. ii. p. 65, ss.). Aug. De Catechizandis Rudib. xvii. 20; De 
Genesi contra Manich. c. 17; de Trin. xii. 2; Sermo xlviii. (De Cura Anime); 
Que est imago Dei in nobis, nisi id quod melius reperitur nobis, nisi ratio, 
intellectus, memoria, voluntas.—The Semipelagians, Gennadius and Faustus, 
made a distinction between imago and similitudo, see Wiggers, il. p. 356.— 
Gregory the Great regards the image of God, in which man was created, as 
soliditas ingenita (Mor. ix. c. 33), which was lost by the fall (Mor. xxix. c. 
10), see Lau, p. 371. On the other traits of the first man as to body and 
soul, ibid. p. 372. Whether there is here a hint of the doctrine of donum 
superadditum, afterwards fully developed ? ibid. p. 376. 

° Audeus (Udo), who lived at the commencement of the fourth century 
in Mesopotamia, a rigid and zealous ascetic, seems to have fallen into these 
notions through his essentially practical tendency; comp. Epiph. Her. 70, 
who speaks very mildly of Audzeus and his followers: οὔ τὶ ἔχων παρηλλαγ- 
μένον τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὀρθότατα μὲν πιστεύων αὐτός TE καὶ ol ἅμα 
αὐτῷ. Theodoret takes the opposite view, Hist. Eccles. iv. 10 (καινῶν 
εὑρετὴς δογμάτων), comp. Fab. Her. iv. 10. ‚Schröder, Diss, de Heeresi 
Audianor. Marb. 1716, 4. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. p. 705. 

7 Augustine, Sermo xlviii.: Anima etiam non moritur, nec succumbit per 
mortem, cum omnino sit immortalis, nec corporis materia, cum sit una numero, 

® Lact. Instit. Div. vii. 5 (in Münscher von Cölln, p. 336, comp. p. 338). 
Nemesius likewise (cap. i. p. 15), accedes in this point to the opinion of the 
earlier Greek theologians: ‘EGpaior δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὔτε θνητὸν 
ὁμολογουμένως, οὔτε ἀθάνατον γεγενῆσθαί φασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μεθορίοις ἑκατέ- 
ρας φύσεως, ἵνα ἂν μὲν τοὶς σωματικοῖς ἀκολουθήσῃ πάθεσιν, περιπέσῃ καὶ 
ταῖς σωματικαῖς μεταβολαῖς: ἐὰν δὲ τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς προτιμήσῃ καλὰ, τῆς 
ἀθανασίας ἀξιωθῇ, k. τ. Δ. On the other hand, Gregory the Great teaches, 
that even if the soul lose blessedness, it cannot lose the essentialiter vivere 
(Dial. iv. c. 45). The body of man, too, was originally immortal, and became 
mortal through sin; comp. Moral. iv. ὁ. 28, sq. Law, ubi supra, p. 371, sq. 
[Comp. Wiggers, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1854.] 


§ 107. 
ON THE DOCTRINE OF SIN IN GENERAL. 
Concerning the nature of sin, the generally received opinion was, 


that it has its seat in the will of man, and stands in the most 
intimate connection with his moral freedom. Augustine himself 


$ 107. ON THE ΠΟΟΤΕΙΧῈ OF Sin IN GENERAL. 291 


defended this doctrine (at least in his earlier writings),' which was 
opposed to the Manichean notion, that evil is inherent in matter. 
Lactantius, on the contrary, manifested a strong leaning towards 
Manicheism by designating the body as the seat and organ of sin. 
The ascetic practices then so common, sufficiently indicate that the 
church tacitly approved of this view. Athanasius regarded sin as 
something negative, and believed it to consist in the blindness and 
indolence of man, which prevent him from elevating himself to God. 
Similar (negative) definitions were given by Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nyssa.’ But sin was most frequently looked upon as 
opposition to the law of God, and rebellion against his holy will,‘ 
analogous to the sin of Adam, which was now generally viewed as 
an historical fact (contrary to the allegorical interpretation of 
Origen).° 


* Aug. de Duab. Animab. contra Manich. § 12: Colligo nusquam nisi in 
voluntate esse peccatum; De Lib. Arb. iii. 49: Ipsa voluntas est prima causa 
peccandi.—In many other passages he regards sin from the negative point 
of view as a conversio a majori bono ad minus bonum, defectio ab eo, quod 
summa est, ad id, quod minus est, perversitas voluntatis a summa substantia 
detorte in infimum. See the passages in Julius Müller, die Lehre von der 
Sünde, i. p. 340, ss. 

* Lact. Inst. Div. ii. 12, vi. 13; De Ira Dei 15: Nemo esse sine delicto 
potest, quamdiu indumento carnis oneratus est. Cujus infirmitas tripliei 
modo subjacet dominio peccati, factis, dietis, cogitationibus. 

* Athan. contra gent. 4 (Opp. i. p. 4): "Ovra δέ ἐστι τὰ καλὰ, οὐκ ὄντα 
δὲ τὰ φαῦλα: ὄντα δέ φημι Ta καλὰ, καθότι Ex Tod ὄντος θεοῦ Ta Tapa- 
δείγματα ἔχει" οὐκ ὄντα δὲ τὰ κακὰ λέγω, καθότι ἐπινοίαις ἀνθρώπον οὐκ 
ὄντα ἀναπέπλασται. Ibid. c. 7, p. 7: Ὅτε τὸ κακὸν οὐ παρὰ θεοῦ οὐδὲ ἐν 
θεῷ, οὔτε ἐξ ἀρχῆς γέγονεν, οὔτε οὐσία τίς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ: ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωποι 
κατὰ στέρησιν τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ φαντασίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπινοεῖν ἤρξαντο καὶ ἀνα- 
πλάττειν τὰ οὐκ Övra καὶ ἅπερ βούλονται. Comp. that which follows. 
Athanasius traces the sinful propensity of man to indolence, e. 3, p. 3: Οἱ δὲ 
ἄνθρωποι κατολιγωρήσαντες τῶν κρειϊτόνων, καὶ ὀκνήσαντες περὶ τὴν 
τούτων κατάληψιν, τὰ ἐγγυτέρω μᾶλλον ἑαυτῶν ἐζήτησαν. Indolence is 
allied with sensuality, because it clings to what is nearest, viz., the bodily 
and the visible. Comp. the subsequent part of the chapter. In the same 
manner Basil M. Hexaémeron Hom. ii. p. 19 (Paris edit. 1638), says: Οὐ 
μὴν οὐδὲ παρὰ Θεοῦ τὸ κακὸν τὴν γένεσιν ἔχειν εὐσεβές ἐστι λέγειν, διὰ 
τὸ μηδὲν τῶν ἐναντίων παρὰ τοῦ ἐναντίον γίνεσθαι, οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ζωὴ θάνα- 
TOV yevva, οὔτε ὃ σκότος φωτός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ, οὔτε ἡ νόσος ὑγείας δημι- 
ουργός..... Τί οὖν φαμεν; Ὅτι κακόν ἐστιν οὐχὶ οὐσία ζῶσα καὶ ἔμψυχος, 
ἀλλὰ διάθεσις ἐν ψυχῇ ἐναντίως ἔχουσα πρὸς ἀρετὴν διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
καλοῦ ἀπόπτωσιν τοῖς ῥᾳθύμοις ἐγγινομένη.----(αγοσογη of Nyssa, Orat. Cate- 
chet. ο. 5 (Opp. iii. p. 53): Καθάπερ γὰρ ἡ ὅρασις φύσεών ἐστιν ἐνέργεια, 
ἡ δὲ πήρωσις στέρησίς ἐστι τῆς φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ πρὸς 
τὴν κακίαν ἀνθέστηκεν" οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἄλλην κακίας γένεσιν ἐννοῆσαι, ἢ 


292 SECOND PERIOD. THE AcE or PoLEnIics. 


ἀρετῆς ἀπουσίαν. Comp. c. 6, c. 22, c. 28, and the Dial. de Anima et 
Resurrectione. 

* That sin was i contradiction with God’s purposes, was the practically 
weighty position held fast by the church in all its different definitions of sin. 
“Augustine, too, every where remains true to this denial of the divine origina- 
tion of sin. Though the opposite opinion has been often imposed upon him 
in past and present times, on account of his doctrines of the moral incapacity 
of human nature and of the divine predestination, yet this belongs to these 
groundless inferences which have been so freely drawn, especially from this 
great teacher of the church ;” Julius Müller, i. 308. A more precise defini- 
tion is given by the theologians after the time of Augustine. Thus Gregory J. 
makes a distinction between peccatum and delictum: Peccatum est mala 
facere, delictum vero est bona relinquere, qua summopere sunt tenenda. 
Vel certe peccatum in opere est, delictum in cogitatione ; Ezech. lib. ii, Hom. 
9, Ρ. 1404. He also distinguishes between peccatum et crimen ;* every 
crimen is a peccatum, but not vice versa. No one is sine peccato, but many 
are sine crimine (Tit. 1. 6, 1 Joh. 1. 8). The peccata only stain the soul, the 
crimina kill it; Moral. xvi. c. 12. The iniquitas, impietas, ete., are also re- 
presented as modifications of sin; Mor. xi, 42, xxii. 10. The deepest root 
of all sin is pride; pride produces envy, wrath, etc. The seat of sin is both 
in the soul and in the body; the devil is one of the chief agents in inducing 
man to commit sin; comp. Lau, p. 379, ss. 

° Augustine still endeavors to reconcile the mystic interpretation of para- 
dise with the historical; De Civit. Dei, xiii. 21. Moreover, he sees all indivi- 
dual sins comprised in the primitive sin; comp. Enchiridion ad Laurentium, 
c. 45: In illo peccato uno... possunt intelligi plura peccata, si unum ipsum 
in sua quasi membra singula dividatur. Nam et superbia est illic, quia homo 
in sua potius esse quam in Dei potestate dilexit; et sacrilegium, quia Deo 
non credidit; et homicidium, quia se preecipitavit in mortem; et fornicatio 
spiritalis, quia integritas mentis humane serpentina suasione corrupta est; et 
furtum quia cibus prohibitus usurpatus est; et avaritia, quia plus quam illi 
sufficere debuit, adpetivit ; et si quid aliud in hoc uno admisso diligenti con- 
sideratione inveniri potest. Gregory the Great adopts the literal interpreta- 
tion; Mor. xxxi. comp. Lau, p. 377, ss. The devil tempted our first parents 
in a threefold manner, gula, vana gloria, and avaritia. The attack itself was 
fourfold, by suggestio, delectatio, consensus, and defensionis audacia; Mor. 
iv. c. 27. 


* This distinction, however, had been already made by Augustine; see below, § 111, 2. 


§ 108. ConsEQUENCES OF THE First Sin. 293 


§ 108. 


CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST SIN, AND FREEDOM OF THE WILL 
(ACCORDING TO THE THEOLOGIANS OF THE GREEK CHURCH). 


A. Hahn, Ephriim der Syrer tiber die Willensfreiheit des Menschen, nebst den Theorien 
derjenigen Kirchenlehrer bis zu seiner Zeit, welche hier besondere Berücksichtigung 
verdienen. (in Illgens Denkschrift der hist. theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Part 2, 
Leipz. 1819, p. 30, ss.). [Comp. Landerer, Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit, in 
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1857, s. 556, 572. on Chrysostom, 5, 549-61. Kuhn, ἃ. 
angebliche Pelagianismus der voraugustinischen Kirchenväter, in Theol. Quartal- 
schrift, 1853. Wörter, Christl. Lehre über d. Verhältniss von Gnade u. Freiheit. 


Band i. 1856. Band ii. 1, 1860.] 
‘ 


Even those theologians who kept themselves free from the in- 
fluence of the Augustinian system, held that the sin of Adam was 
followed by disastrous effects upon the human race, but restricted 
these evils (as the fathers of the preceding period had done) to the 
mortality of the body, the hardships and miseries of life, also admitting 
that the moral powers of man had been enfeebled by the fall. Thus 
Gregory of Nazianzum in particular (to whom Augustine appealed 
in preference to all others) maintained, that both the voöc and the 
ψυχή have been considerably impaired by sin, and regarded the per- 
version of the religious consciousness seen in idolatry, which previous 
teachers had ascribed to the influence of demons, as an inevitable 
effect of the first sm. But he was far from asserting the total 
depravity of mankind, and the entire loss of free will." On the 
contrary, the doctrine of the freedom of the will continued to be 
distinctly maintained by the Greek church.* Athanasius himself, 
the father of orthodoxy, maintained in the strongest terms that man 
has the ability of choosing good as well as evil, and even allowed 
exceptions from original sin, alleging that several individuals, who 
lived prior to the appearance of Christ, were free from it.” Cyril of 
Jerusalem also assumed that the life of man begins in a state of 
innocence, and that sin enters only with the use of free will. Simi- 
lar views were entertained by Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Basil the Great, and others.“ Chrysostom, whose whole tendency 
was of a practical and moral kind, insisted most of all upon the 
liberty of man and his moral self-determination, and passed a severe 
censure upon those who endeavored to excuse their own defects by 
ascribing the origin of sin to the fall of Adam.° 


* Orat. xxxvili. 12, p. 670, xliv. 4, p. 837, xiv. 25, p. 275, xix. 13, p. 372, 
Carmen iv. v. 98, and other passages quoted by Ullmann, p. 421, ss. Comp. 
especially the interesting parallel which is there drawn between Gregory and 
Augustine, as well as between the expressions of the former in the original, 
and the (corrupt) translation of the latter, “Gregory by no means taught the 


294 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


doctrines afterwards propounded by Pelagius and his followers ; but if all 
his sentiments be duly considered, it will be found that he is far more of a 
Pelagian than of an Augustinian ;” Ullmann, 1. ce. p. 446. 

5 According to Methodius (in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 234, p. 295), man does not 
possess the power either of having desires, or of not having them (ἐνθυμεῖσθαι 
ἢ μὴ ἐνθυμεῖσθαι), but he is at liberty either to gratify (χρῆσθαι) them or 
not. Comp. Nemes. De Nat. Hom. c. 41: Πᾶσα τοίνυν ἀνάγκη τὸν ἔχοντα 
τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ κύριον εἷναι πράξεων. Ei γὰρ μὴ κύριος εἴη πράξεων, 
περιττῶς ἔχει τὸ βουλεύεσθαι. 

° Athan, Contra Gent. ο. 2, p. 2: Ἔξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐκ ἣν κακία, οὐδὲ yap 
οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐστὶν, οὐδ᾽ ὅλως Kat’ αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχει αὐτή. cf. 
Contra Arian. Or. 3 (4). Opp. T. i. p. 582, 83: Πολλοὶ γὰρ οὖν ἅγιοι 
γεγόνασι καθαροὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. (He alludes to Jeremiah and John the 
Baptist: but they can not pwoperly be called πολλοὶ.) Nevertheless, death 
has reigned even over them, who have not sinned after the similitude of 
Adam’s transgression (Rom. iv. 14). 

* Cyr. Cat. iv. 19: ᾿Ελθόντες εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ἀναμάρτητοι, νῦν ἐκ 
προαιρέσεως ἁμαρτάνομεν. 21: Αὐτεξούσιός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ, καὶ ὃ διάβολος 
τὸ μὲν ὑποβάλλειν δύναται" τὸ δὲ καὶ ἀναγκάσαι παρὰ παροαίρεσιν οὗκ 
ἔχει τὴν ἐξουσίαν. Cat. xvi. 23: Ei γάρ τις ἀβλεπτῶν μὴ καταξιοῦται 
τῆς χάριτος, μὴ μεμφέσθω τῷ πνεύματι ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπιστίᾳ. (Oudin, 
Comm. p. 461-464, attempted in vain to contest the genuineness of the cate- 
cheses favorable to Semipelagianism.)—Concerning Ephräm, see the above 
dissertation Basil the Great delivered a discourse περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίον, 
the authenticity of which was denied by Garnier (T. ii. p. xxvi.), but in 
modern times again defended by Pelt and Rheinwald (Homiliarium Patrist. 
i. 2, p. 192). In this, though he admitted the depravity of mankind, he 
asserted that human liberty and divine grace must coöperate. Comp. also 
the Hom. de Spir. S. and Klose, 1. c. p. 59, ss. [ef. Zanderer, ubi supra, p. 
556|.— Gregory of Nyssa also takes for granted a universal bias to sin (De 
Orat. Dom. Or. v. Opp. i. p. 751, ss.), but finds no sin in infants; Orat. de 
infantibus qui premature abripiuntur (Opp. 11. p. 317, ss.). 

° See Hom. in Ep. ad Rom. xvi. p. 241; in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. xii. p. 
805. D; in Evang. Joh. Hom. xvii. p. 115 C; in 1 Epist. ad Cor. Hom. ii. p. 
514, D; in Ps. 1. Hom. ii. (Opp. T. iii. p. 869, D); all of which are quoted 
by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 363, ss.; see also ep. ad Phil. Hom. i.; especi- 
ally on Phil. 1. 6. “Chrysostom was so zealous for morality, that he must 
have considered it a point of special importance to deprive men of every 
ground of excuse for the neglect of moral efforts. His practical sphere of 
labor in the cities of Antioch and Constantinople gave a still greater impulse 
to this tendency. For in these large capitals he met with many who sought 
to attribute their want of Christian activity to the defects of human nature, 
and the power of Satan or of fate.” Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), ii. 658. 
Comp. his Chrysostomus, i. p. 51, p. 283, ss. But Chrysostom urged quite 
as strongly the existence of depravity in opposition to a false moral pride. 
Hom. vi. Montf. T. 12 (in Meander, Chrysostomus, ii. p. 36, 37), comp. Wig- 
gers, 1. p. 442. 


§ 109. THz Opinions oF THE LATIN THEOLOGIANS. 299 


§ 109. 


THE OPINIONS OF THE LATIN THEOLOGIANS BEFORE AUGUSTINE, AND 
OF AUGUSTINE BEFORE THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 


During this period, as well as the preceding, the theologians of 
the Western church were more favorable than those of the Eastern, 
to the Augustinian doctrine. Even Arnobius speaks of a connatu- 
ral infirmity, making man prone to sin.’ Hilary, and Ambrose of 
Milan, taught the defilement of sin by birth ; Ambrose appealed 
especially to Ps. li. 5, in support of original sin, but without deter- 
mining to what extent every individual shares in the common guilt.’ 
Nevertheless, neither of them excluded the liberty of man from the 
work of moral reformation.” Even Augustine himself, at an earlier 
period of his life, defended human freedom in opposition to the 
Manicheans.* 


* Arnobius, Ady. Gentes, i. 27: Proni ad culpas et ad libidinis varios 
appetitus, vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitee. 

* Hilar. Tract. in Ps. lviii. p. 129; in Ps. exviii. litt. 22, p. 366. 6, and 
some other passages (in Münscher von Cölln, p. 354). [Hilary im Psalm. i. 
8 4: Ad hee nos vitia nature nostree propellit instinctus. In Matth. xviii. 
13: Ovis una homo intelligendus est, et sub homine uno universitas sentienda 
est; sed in unius Adz errore omne hominum genus aberravit.] Ambrose, 
Apol. David. c. 11. Opp. i. p. 846: Antequam nascamur, maculamur conta- 
gio, et ante usuram lucis, originis ipsius excipimus injuriam; in iniquitate 
concipimur : non expressit, utrum parentum, an nostra. Et in delictis gene- 
rat unumquemque mater sua; nec hic declaravit, utrum in delictis suis mater 
pariat, an jam sint et aliqua delicta nascentis. Sed vide, ne utrumque intel- 
ligendum sit. Nee conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non 
carent lapsu. Et si nec unius diei infans sine peccato est, multo magis nec 
illi materni conceptus dies sine peccato sunt. Coneipimur ergo in peccato 
parentum et in delictis eorum nascimur. Sed et ipse partus habet contagia 
sua, nec unum tantummodo habet ipsa natura contagium. |[Ambrose, Apol. 
David. § 71: Omnes in primo homine peccavimus et per nature successionem 
culpze quoque ab uno in omnes transfusa est successio.] Comp. De Penit. 
i. 3. Opp. 3, p. 498: Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse 
ortus in vitio est, sicut habes lectum, dicente David: Hece enim in iniquita- 
tibus conceptus sum et in delictis peperit me mater mea—TIn Ev. Luke i. 17 
(Opp. 1. p. 737); Epp. Class. ii. (Opp. iii. p. 1190), and some other passages 
(in Münscher von Cölln, p. 855; after another edition) ? 

* Hilar. Tract. in Psalm exviii. lit. 15, p. 329: Est quidem in fide ma- 
nendi a Deo munus, sed incipiendi a nobis origo est. Et voluntas nostra hoc 
proprium ex se habere debet, ut velit. Deus incipienti incrementum dabit, 
quia consummationem per se infirmitas nostra non obtinet; meritum tamen 
adipiscend® consummationis est ex initio voluntatis. Comp. also Arnobius, 


296 Seconn PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Adv. Gentes, ii. 64: Nulli Deus infert necessitatem, imperiosa formidine nul- 
lum tenet...65. Quid est enim tam injustum, quam repugnantibus, quam 
invitis extorquere in contrarium yoluntates, inculcare quod nolint et quod 
refugiant animis. 

* De Gen. contra Manich. ii. 43 (c. 29): Nos dieimus nulli natur nocere 
peccata nisi sua; nos dicimus, nullum malum esse naturali, sed omnes natu- 
ras bonas esse.—De lib. Arb. iii, 50 (c. 17): Aut enim et ipsa voluntas est 
et a radice ista voluntatis non receditur, aut non est voluntas, et peccatum 
nullum habet. Aut igitur ipsa voluntas est prima causa peccandi, aut nullum 
peccatum est prima causa peccandi. Non est, cui recte imputetur pec- 
catum, nisi peccanti. Non est ergo, cui recte imputetur, nisi volenti. 
Quecunque ista causa est voluntatis: si non ei potest resisti, sine peccato 
ei ceditur; si autem potest, non ei cedatur, et non peccabitur. An forte 
fallit incautum? Ergo caveat, ne fallatur. An tanta fallacia est, ut caveri 
omnino non possit? Si ita est, nulla peccata sunt: quis enim peccat in 
eo, quod nullo modo caveri potest? Peccatur autem; caveri igitur potest. 
Comp. de Duab. Animab. contra Manich. 12, and with it the retractationes 
of the different passages; also de nat. et grat. 80 (c. 67). 


§ 110. 
THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 


* Wiggers, G. F., Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pela- 
gianismus, Berlin, 1821. Hamburgh, 1833, ii. 8. [Vol. i. transl: by Prof. Emerson, 
Andover.] +Lentzen, J. A., de Pelagianorum doctrine principiis, Colon. ad Rhen. 
1833, 8. J. L. Jacobi, die Lehre des Pelagius, Lpz. 1842. [Theod. Gangauf, Metaph. 
Psychologie des heil. Augustinus. Augsb. 1852. Meander, in his Church Hist. and 
Hist. Dogm. 345-75. Jul. Müller, Der Pelagianismus, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855. 
Bindemann’s Augustinus. Zeller, in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1854. P. Schaf, The Pela- 
gian Controversy, Bibl. Sacra, 1848. Hampden’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. iv.] 


Towards the commencement of the fifth century, Celestius and 
Pelagius (Briton, Morgan ?) made their appearance in the West.’ 
The views which they held were partly in accordance with the 
opinions hitherto entertained by the theologians of the Greek 
church, but in part carried to a much greater length in the denial 
of natural depravity. Some of the propositions, on the ground of 
which the presbyter Paulinus accused Celestius at the synod of 
Carthage (A. p. 412), had been previously defended by orthodox 
theologians ; others were directly opposed both to the doctrine of 
Scripture (and especially that of Paul) and the general belief of the 
church, and thus threatened the fundamental doctrines of the Gos- 
pel.’ It is, however, difficult to decide how far Pelagius accorded 
with all these assertions, since he expressed himself very cautiously.’ 
But it is certain that =. is commonly called Pelagianism does 
not so much represent the single notions of a single individual, as a 


$ 110. Tue PELAGIAN CoNTROVERSY. 297 


complete moral and religious system, which formed a decided con- 
trast to Augustinianism. In this conflict the former system was van- 
quished so far as this, that, in consequence of the turn which the 
controversy took, and of the great authority of Augustine in the West, 
his doctrine gained the victory over that of Pelagius.* The followers 
of Pelagius formed not a sect properly so called. But Pelagianism, 
though condemned, retained its advocates, especially as but few could 
fully enter into all the consequences of the Augustinian system, and 
find in them real inward satisfaction. It will be necessary, in order 
to examine more fully the antagonistic elements, to divide the sub- 
ject matter of controversy into three leading sections, viz.: 1. Sin ; 
2. Grace and Liberty ; and 3. Predestination. 


* On the personal character and history of Celestius and Pelagius, see 
Wiggers, p. 33, ss. 

* The 6 or 7 Capitula (the numbers vary according as several propositions 
are separated or joined together) are preserved in Augustine De Gestis 
Pelagii, cap. 11 (comp. de Peccato Originali, 2, 3, 4, 11, c. 2-10), as well as 
in the two commonitoria of Marius Mercator [comp. Gieseler, $ 87, note 4]. 
They are the following (comp. Wiggers, i. p. 60): 

1. Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died whether he had 

sinned or not; 

2. Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race ; 

3. New-born infants are in the same condition in which Adam was pre- 
vious to the fall (ante preevaricationem) ; 

4, Neither does the whole human race die in consequence of Adam’s 
death or transgression; nor does it rise from the dead in conse- 
quence of Christ’s resurrection ; 

5. Infants obtain eternal life, though they be not baptized ; 

6. The law is as good a means of salvation (lex sic mittit ad regnum 
ca@lorum) as the gospel ; 

7. There were some men, even before the appearance of Christ, who did 
not commit sin. 

If we compare these propositions with the doctrines of the earlier theolo- 
gians, we find that the third was held by some of the Greek Fathers (e. g., 
Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, see above, $ 62, note 1); 
that the fifth, in a modified form, was substantially defended by Gregory of 
Nazianzum and others, viz., that unbaptized children are at least not con- 
demned on that account (comp. § 72); and even as to the seventh, bold as it 
may appear, something like it, though in a different connection, was maintained 
by the father of orthodoxy himself (§ 108, note 3). On the other hand, the 
isolated way in which the sin of Adam is viewed in the first two and the 
fourth propositions, all connection between this sin and that of his posterity, 
even in relation to the mortality of the body, being denied, would have been 
condemned as heresy before the tribunal of the earlier theologians, But 
none appears so heretical, so much opposed to the doctrine of Paul and the 
Gospel, as the sixth. And, lastly, the denial of the connection subsisting 


298 SECOND PERIOD. Tue AGE OF POLEMICS. 


between the resurrection of Christ and ours (in the fourth proposition) must 
have offended the common feelings and consciousness of Christians. Yet it 
may still be a question, how much here is to be ascribed to inferences, made 
for them by their opponents. See Meander, Church Hist. ii. 579, sq.; Hist. 
Dogm. 352, sq. 

* Augustine perceives no other difference between Pelagius and Ce!estius 
(De Pece, Orig. c. 12) than that the latter was more open, the former more 
guarded, the latter more obstinate, the former more deceitful, or, to say the 
least, that the latter was more straightforward (liberior), the former more 
cunning (astutior). Prosper of Aquitaine calls him, therefore, coluber Bri- 
tannus (in his poem De Ingratis, append. 67.—comp. Wiggers, p. 40).— 
Neander (Chrysostomus, vol. ii. p. 134) judges more mildly of him: “ Pela- 
gius is deserving of all esteem on account of his honest zeal; his object was to 
combat the same perverse antichristian tendency which Augustine opposed. 
But he was wrong in the manner in which he sought to attain his object,” ete. 
Comp. Church History, ii. 573. “As he appears in his writings, he was a 
clear-headed, intelligent man, who possessed rather a serious and moral turn 
of mind, than that disposition which feels itself compelled to dive into the depths 
of the soul and of the spirit, and to bring to light hidden things,” p. 579. 

* Tue Principat Ports ΙΝ THE EXTERNAL History OF THE ContrRo- 
VERSY ARE: The condemnation of the doctrine of Pelagius at Carthage, A. Ὁ. 
412. He repairs to Palestine, where Jerome becomes one of his most zealous 
opponents, and, conjointly with Paulus Orosius, a disciple of Augustine, 
accuses him at a synod held at Jerusalem (A. p. 415), under John, bishop of 
Jerusalem. John, however, did not pronounce his condemnation, but re- 
ported the whole matter to Innocent, bishop of Rome. —Synod at Diospolis 
(Lydda), under Hulogius of Cxsarea. The plaintiffs were Zeros of Arles, 
and Lazarus of Aix. Acquittal of Pelagius. Dissatisfaction of Jerome 
with the decisions of this synod (Synodus miserabilis! Ep. 81).—Under 
Zosimus, the successor of Innocent, Pelagius and Celestius entertain new 
hopes.—Synod of the North-African bishops at Carthage, A. p. 418, and con- 
demnation of Pelagius —The Emperor Honorius decides the controversy.— 
Zosimus is induced to change his views, and publishes his Epistola Tractoria, 
in which the Pelagian doctrine is condemned. Julian, bishop of Eclanum 
in Apulia, undertakes to defend Pelagianism (respecting him see Wiggers, i. 
p. 43, ss.)—He was anathematized at the synod of Ephesus (A. p. 431), in 
(accidental?) connection with Nestorius. Still the opposite system of Augus- 
tine was not accepted in the East. 


§ 111. 
FIRST POINT OF CONTROVERSY. 


Sin.—Original Sin and its Consequences. 


[J. Nirschl, Ursprung und Wesen der Sünde nach d. Lehre des heiligen Augustinus, 
Regensb. 1854. Neander, Church History, ii. 564-625; Hist. Dogm. 362 sq. Julius 
Müller, Lehre von d. Sünde, ii, 417-494. Niedner, Gesch. d. Kirche, 336-346. 
Voigt, De Theoria Aug. Pelag. Götting. 1829. Lentzen, De Pelag. Doctr. Principiis. 
Colon. 1833. ] 


$ 111. First Point OF CoONTROVERSY. 299 


Pelagius, starting from the standpoint of mere reflection, or of 
the understanding in distinction from the reason, with a tendency 
preponderating to the ethical view of man’s nature, looked upon 
every human individual as a moral person, complete in and bounded 
by himself, and sharply separated from all others. Hence sin would 
necessarily appear to him as the free act of the individual, so that 
in his view there could be no other connection between the sin of 
the one (Adam) and the sin of the many (his posterity), than that 
which exists between an example, on the one hand, and a voluntary 
imitation of it on the other. Every man at his birth is accordingly 
in the same condition in which Adam was. Neither sin or virtue is 
inherent, but the one, as well as the other, develops itself in the use 
of freedom, and is to be put to the account only of him who exer- 
cises this freedom." Augustine, on the contrary, with more profound 
conceptions, which, however, might easily prevent a clear insight 
into the personal and moral relations of man, considered the human 
race as a compact mass, a collective body, responsible in its’ unity 
and solidarity. With a predominant bias towards religion, he 
directed his attention more to the inner and permanent state of the 
soul, and its absolute relation to God, than to the passing and 
external actions of the individual. This tendency, proceeding from 
the experience of his own heart and life, led him to conjecture a 
mysterious connection subsisting between the transgression of Adam 
and the sin of all men—a connection which loses itself in the dim 
beginnings of nature no less than of history. Mere suppositions, 
however, did not satisfy his mind ; but,/carrying out his system in) 
all its logical consequences, and applying a false exegesis to certain 
passages, he laid down the following rigid proposition as his doc- 
trine : “As all men have sinned in Adam, they are justly subject to | 
the condemnation of God on account of this hereditary sin and the | 
guilt thereof.”* 


* Pelag. lib. 1. De Lib. Arb., in Aug. De Pece. Orig. ec. 13: Omne bonum 
ac malum, quo vel laudabiles, vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, 
sed agitur a nobis : capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine 
virtute ita et sine vitio procreamur, atque ante actionem proprie voluntatis 
id solum in homine est, quod Deus condidit ; he even admits the preponder- 
ance of good in man, when he (according to August. De Nat. et Grat. c. 21) 
speaks of a naturalis quedam sanctitas, which dwells in man, and keeps 
watch in the castle of the soul over good and evil, and by which he means 
conscience, Comp. Julian (quoted by August. in Op. Imp. i. 105): Ilud quod 
esse peccatum ratio demonstrat, inveniri nequit in seminibus. (122): Nemo 
naturaliter malus est : sed quicunque reus est, moribus, non exordiis accusa- 
tur. Other passages may be found in Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 377, 
ss. [L. 1. 66: Zn omnes autem homines mors pertransiit, quia una forma 
judicii prevaricatores quosque etiam relique comprehendit etatis; que tamen 


300 SeconD PERIOD. THe AGE oF POLEMICS. 


mors nec in sanctos, nec in innocentes ullos seevire permittitur, sed in eos 
pervadit quos prevaricationem viderit aamulatos.] Comp. Wiggers, p. 91, ss. 
Augustine himself protested against the expression peccatum nature, or pec- 
catum naturale, which the Pelagians imputed to him, and always substituted 
his phrase—peccatum originale. The Pelagians considered bodily death not 
as a punishment of the first sin, but as a physical necessity, though Pelagius 
himself conceded at the synod of Diospolis, that the death of Adam was a 
punishment inflicted upon Adam, but only upon him. Aug. de Nat. et Gr. 
21 (c. 19), Op. imp. i. 67; vi. 27, 30. Yet Pelagius did not deny the power 
of sin; he even asserted an increasing degradation of the human race; but 
he explained this from the long habit of sinning and bad example. Epist. ad 
Demetriadem, c. 8: Longa consuetudo vitiorum, que nos infecit a parvo paula- 
timque per multos corrupit annos, et ita postea obligatos sibi et addictos 
tenet, ut vim quodammodo videatur habere nature. 

® A list of the works in which Augustine combatted the Pelagians, will be 
found in Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 373. The passages bearing on this 
question, which can be understood, however, only in their own connection, 
are also given there, p. 377, ss. (Comp. De Pecc. Mer. 1. 2, 4, 21; Opus 
Imp. vi. 30; De Pecc. Mer. i. 10; De Nupt. et Concup. i. 27, ii, 57-59 ; Op. 
Imp. i. 47; de Nupt. et Concup. i. 26; de Pece. Orig. 36; de Con. et Grat. 
28. In support of his views he appealed to infant baptism: De Pecc. Mer. 
i. 39, iii. 7; contra Jul. vi. 6; de Pecc. Mer. i. 21; Enchirid. 93; to the 
formulas of exorcism: de Pece. Orig. 45; and principally to Rom. v. 12.) 
Wiggers, p. 99, ss. [De Civit. Dei, 14, 1: A primis hominibus admissum 
est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam 
in posteros obligatione peccati et mortis necessitate transmissa.—De Corrept. 
et Grat. x. (28): Adam, quia per liberum arbitrium Deum deseruit, justum 
judicium Dei expertus est; ut cum tota sua stirpe, que in illo adhuc posita 
tota cum illo peccaverat, damnaretur—De Pece. Orig. ὁ. 38: Deus nihil 
fecit nisi quod hominem voluntate peccantem justo judicio cum stirpe dam- 
navit, et ideo 101 quidquid etiam nondum erat natum, merito est in prevari- 
catrice radice damnatum ; in qua stirpe damnata, tenet hominem generatio 
carnalis. De Nupt. et Concup. 11, c. 5: Per unius illius voluntatem malam 
omnes in eo peccaverunt, quando omnes ille unus fuerunt, de quo propterea 
singuli peccatum originale traxerunt. De Civit. Dei, viii. 14: Deus enim 
creavit hominem rectum, naturarum auctor non utique vitiorum; sed sponte 
depravatus justeque damnatus, depravatos damnatosque generabit.. Omnes 
enim fuimus in illo, quando fuimus ille unus.—Nondum erat nobis singilatim 
creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus; sed jam natura erat 
seminalis, ex qua propagaremur; qua scilicet propter peccata vitiata, et vin- 
culo mortis obstricta, justeque damnata, non alterius conditionis homo ex 
homine nascetur. Ibid. xiv. 15: Adam faciendo voluntatem suam non ejus, 
a quo factus est, universum genus humanum, propagine vitiata, culpe et pene 
fecit obnoxium. Ibid. xxii. 24: In originali malo duo sunt, peccatum atque 
supplicium.|—On Augustine's interpretation of Rom. v. 12 (i quo omnes 
peccaverunt, Vulg.) see Op. Imp. ii. 47, ss., 66, contra duas Epp. Pel. iv. 7 
(c. 4); Julian, on the other hand, gives the following explanation : in quo 
omnes peccaverunt nihil aliud indicat, quam: quia omnes peccaverunt, Au- 


$ 112. Seconp Pornt OF ÜONTROVERSY. 901 


gustine’s exposition was confirmed by the synod of Carthage (a. p. 418). 
Comp. Münscher von Colln, p. 381, 382. But it would be a great mistake, 
an atomistic procedure, to ascribe the whole theory of Augustine to this 
exegetical error. Deeper causes gave rise to that theory, viz,: 1. His own 
experience, moulded by the remarkable events in the history of his external 
and internal life; 2. Perhaps some vestiges of his former Manichean notions, 
of which he might himself be unconscious, e. g., that of defilement in the act 
of generation (comp. De Nupt. et Concup. i. 27: Concupiscence, he says, is 
not attributed to the regenerate as sin, but as far as nature is concerned, it is 
not without sin, hence every one conceived and born in the way of nature, is 
under sin until he is born again through kim—quem sine ista concupiscentia 
virgo concepit) ; 3. His realistic mode of thinking, which led him to con- 
found the abstract with the concrete, and to consider the individual as a 
transient and vanishing part of the whole (massa perditionis). In connection 
with this mode of thinking, other causes might be, 4. His notions of the 
church as a living organism, and of the effects of infant baptism; 5. The 
opposition which he was compelled to make to Pelagianism and its possible 
consequences, threatening to destroy all deeper views of the Christian system. 
—Thus, according to Augustine, not only was physical death a punishment 
inflicted upon Adam and all his posterity, but he looked upon original sin 
itself as being in some sense a punishment of the first transgression, though it 
was also a real sin (God punishes sin by sin), and can, therefore, be imputed 
to every individual. But it is on this very point, first strongly emphasized 
by him, viz., the imputation of original sin, that his views differed from all 
former opinions, however strict they were—He endeavored to clear himself 
from the charge of Manicheism (in opposition to Julian), by designating sin 
not as a substance, but as a vitium, a languor; he even charged his opponents 
with Manicheism. So, too, Augustine could very well distinguish between 
the sin, which is common to all men, and proper crime, from which the 
pious are preserved; Enchir. 64: Neque enim quia peccatum est omne 
crimen, ideo crimen est etiam omne peccatum. Itaque sanctorum hominum 
vitam, quam diu in hac mortali (a/. morte) vivitur, inveniri posse dicimus sine 
erimine; “peccatum autem, si dixerimus quia non habemus, nosmet ipsos 
seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est” (1 John, i. 8). —Respecting his views 
of the insignificant remnant (lineamenta extrema) of the divine image left in 
man, and of the virtues of pagans, see Wiggers, p. 119, note. 


§ 119. 
SECOND POINT OF CONTROVERSY. 


Liberty and Grace. 


Pelagius admitted that man, in his moral activity, stands in need 
of divine aid, and could, therefore, speak of the grace of God as 
assisting the imperfections of man by a variety of provisions.’ He 
supposed, however, this grace of God to be something external, and 


302 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


added to the efforts put forth by the free will of man; it can even 
be merited by good will? Augustine, on the other hand, looked 
upon grace as the creative principle of life, which generates as an 
abiding good that freedom of the will which is entirely lost in the 
natural man. In the power of the natural man to choose between 
good and evil, to which great importance was attached by Pelagius, 
as well as by the earlier church, he saw only a liberty to do evil, 
since the regenerate man alone can actually will the good.* 


* Concerning this point Pelagius expresses himself as follows (in August. 
De Grat. ὁ. 5): Primo loco posse statuimus, secundo velle, tertio esse. 
Posse in natura, velle in arbitrio, esse in effectu locamus. Primum illud, 2. e., 
posse ad Deum proprie pertinet, qui illud creature su contulit; duo vero 
reliqua, h. e. velle et esse, ad hominem referenda sunt, quia de arbitrii fonte 
descendunt. Ergo in voluntate et opere laus hominis est, immo et hominis et 
Dei, qui ipsius voluntatis et operis possibilitatem dedit, quique ipsam possibi- 
litatem gratie sus adjuvat semper auxilio. Quod vero potest homo velle 
bonum atque perficere, solius Dei est. Hence man also owes to God, that he 
can will, as is said in what follows: quod possumus omne bonum facere, 
dicere, cogitare, illius est, gut hoc posse donavit, qui hoc posse adjuvat. Comp. 
ο. 18: Habemus autem possibilitatem a Deo insitam, velut quandam, ut ita 
dicam, radicem fructiferam atque fecundam, etc. The freedom of the will is 
common to Jews, Gentiles, and Christians; grace, according to Pelagius him- 
self, belongs exclusively to Christianity. Pelagius also rejected the proposi- 
tion of Celestius, “ gratiam Dei non ad singulos actus dari.” [Münscher von 
Cölln, 1. p. 386.] 

> Pelagius considered as means of grace especially doctrine (as the man- 
ifestation of the divine will), promises, and trials (to which belong the 
wiles of Satan); but Julian strongly denied that the will of man is first 
created by grace (fabricetur, condatur); he sees in them nothing but an 
adjutorium of the undisturbed free will. Comp. Aug. de Grat. Chr. c. 8. Op. 
Imp. i. 94, 95. [Münscher, 1. c. p. 887, 388.] Julius Müller justly remarks 
(in his work on Sin, 1st ed. p. 475) that Pelagius has not the idea of develop- 
ment; “ he has not the conception of a life unfolding itself ; he only recognizes 
the mechanical concatenation of single acts.” Distinction of formal and real 
freedom, Comp., too, Neander, Hist. Dogm. 369, on the ‘different stages of 
the divine revelation of grace [corresponding, in the view of Pelagius, to its 
progressive deterioration]. 

° Augustine, on the contrary, maintains: Non lege atque doctrina inso- 
nante forinsecus, sed interna et occulta, mirabili ac ineffabili potestate operari 
Deum in cordibus hominum non solum veras revelationes, sed bonas etiam 
voluntates (De Grat. Chr. 24). He recognizes in the grace of God an inspi- 
ratio dilectionis, and considers this as the source of every thing. Nolentem 
prevenit, ut velit; volentem subsequitur, ne frustra velit (Enchir. c. 32).— 
He understands by freedom, the being free from sin, that state of mind in 
which it is no longer necessary to choose between good and evil. The same 
view is expressed in his treatise De Civit. Dei xiv. 11, which was not written 


$ 113. Tuırp Point or CONTROVERSY. 303 


against the Pelagians: Arbitrium igitur voluntatis tune est vere liberum, 
cum vitiis peccatisque non servit. Tale datum est a Deo: quod amissum 
proprio vitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest. Unde Veritas dicit : 
Si vos Filius liberavit, tunc vere liberi eritis. Idque ipsum est autem, ac si 
diceret : si vos Filius salvos fecerit, tune vere salvi eritis. Inde quippe liber- 
ator, unde salvator. Comp. contra duas Epp. Pel. i.2. The freedom of the 
will is greater in proportion as the will itself is in a state of health; its state 
of health depends on its subjection to the divine mercy and grace——Contra 
Jul. c. 8, he calls the human will servum propriz voluntatis arbitrium.—Such 
expressions were so much misused by the monks of Adrumetum (about the 
year 426), that Augustine himself was compelled to oppose them (especially 
in his treatise De Correptione et Gratia); in general, he himself frequently 
appealed, from a practical point of view, to the will of man (see the next §). 
[For a more detailed statement of Augustine’s views respecting grace and 
the freedom of the will, see Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. ὃ 93, and p. 388- 
398, where further passages are quoted.] At any rate, it was not the view 
of Augustine that man is like a stone or stick, upon whom grace works 
externally ; he could conceive of grace as working only in the sphere of 
freedom. Comp. Contra Julianum, iv. 15: Neque enim gratia Dei lapidibus 
aut lignis pecoribusve prestatur, sed quia imago Dei est (homo), meretur 
hane gratiam. De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. ii. § 6: Non sicut in lapidibus 
insensatis aut sicut in iis, in quorum natura rationem voluntatemque non 
condidit salutem nostram Deus operatur in nobis, [Julius Müller, in his 
work on Sin, 1, 458 sq., shows that Augustine spoke of freedom under three 
aspects: 1. As spontaneity, in contrast with external force. This always 
exists in all men. 2. Power of choice, liberum arbitrium—as in Adam 
before the fall—an equal power of deciding between the alternatives of good 
and evil. But this is a low, weak state of the will. 3. The freedom with 
which the Son makes us free—the determination of the soul to what is good 
and holy—the non posse peccare—the felix necessitas boni—the union of 
freedom and necessity. | 

[ Baur, Dogmengesch. 2d ed. p. 179 sq.: In the system of Pelagius every 
thing depends upon the principle of the freedom of the will; this is the © 
determining and fundamental conception in his doctrine of sin and of grace. 
Freedom, as the absolute capacity of choice (liberum arbitrium), to determine 
equally for good or evil, appeared to him in such a degree to be the 'sub- 
stantial good of human nature, that he even reckoned the capacity for evil as 
a bonum nature, since we can not choose good without in like manner being 
able to choose evil (Epist. ad Demetr. c. 2, 3).] 


Sede 
THIRD POINT OF CONTROVERSY. 
Predestination. 
[J. B. Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination. Lond. 1855.] 


Augustine held the doctrine of hereditary depravity, the guilt of 
which man has himself incurred, and from which no human power 


304 SEconD PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICS. 


or human determination can deliver ; from which only the grace of 
God can save those to whom it is imparted. From these premises 
it would necessarily follow that God, in consequence of an eternal 
decree, and without any reference to the future conduct of man, has 
elected’ some out of the corrupt mass to become vessels of his mercy 
(vasa misericordiz), and left the rest as vessels of his wrath (vasa 
ire) to a just condemnation. Augustine called the former predesti- 
natio, the latter reprobatio, and thus evaded the necessity of directly 
asserting the doctrine of a predestination to evil (predestinatio 
duplex). On the whole, he endeavored to soften the harshness of 
his theory by practical cautions.* But the doctrine in question 
became to many a stone of stumbling, which orthodox theologians 
themselves (especially those of the Greek church) endeavored by 
every possible means to remove.* This prepared the way for those 
practically well meant, but theoretically vague and unfounded 
schemes, which Semipelagianism (see the following section) brought 
to light. 


* De Praed. Sanctorum 37 (c.18): Elegit nos Deus in Christo ante mundi 
constitutionem, praedestinans nos in adoptionem filiorum : non quia per nos 
sancti et immaculati futuri eramus, sed elegit preedestinavitque, ut essemus. 
Fecit autem hoc secundum placitum voluntatis sus, ut nemo de sua, sed de 
illius erga se voluntate glorietur, etc. In support of his views he appealed to 
Eph. i. 4, 11, and Rom. ix.: he spoke, too, of a certus numerus electorum, 
neque augendus, neque minuendus, De Corrept. et Gr. 39 (c. 13). [De Dono 
Perseverantie, c. 14: Hee est praedestinatio sanctorum, nihil aliud; pre- 
scentia scilicet et praparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur, 
quicunque liberantur. Ceteri autem ubi nisi in massa perditionis justo divino 
judicio relinguuntur? De Corrept. et Gratia, c. 13: Hi ergo, qui non per- 
tinent ad istum certissimum et felicissimum numerum (pradestinatorum) pro 
meritis justissime judicantur. De Prad. Sanc. c. 19: Dicet (apostolus) ideo 
nos electos in Christo et preedestinatos ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus 
sancti et immaculati....non quia futuros tales nos esse prescivit, sed ut 
essemus tales per electionem gratie suze...c. 10: Si queratur, unde quisque 
sit dignus, non desunt, qui dicunt, voluntate humana; nos autem dicimus, 
gratia vel praedestinatione divina. Schmid, Dogmengesch. p. 59. Baur, in 
his Dogmengesch. p. 184, cites the following passage from De Correps. et 
Gratia, c. 9, as bringing together the series of divine acts in respect to the 
elect : Quicunque in Dei providentissima dispositione presciti, praedestinali, 
vocati, justificati, glorificati sunt, non dico etiam nondum renati, sed etiam 
nondum nati, jam filii Dei sunt et omnino perire non possunt. This, says 
Baur, exhibits what is hardest and most incomprehensible in the doctrine of 
Augustine.|—He refutes the objections of the understanding by quoting 
Rom. ix. 20, and adducing examples from sacred history. Even in this life 
worldly goods, health, beauty, physical and intellectual powers, are distrib- 
uted unequally, and not always in accordance with human views of merit, 
ibid. 19, c. 8. Christ himself was predestinated to be the Son of God; De 


ξ 114. SEMIPELAGIANISM. 305 


Pred. 31 (ec. 15). He even calls Christ the praclarissimum lumen predesti- 
nationis et gratiee; Neander, Hist. Dogm. 374. 

* Augustine teaches a predestination to punishment and condemnation, 
but not a direct predestination to sin; comp. Enchiridion, c. 100. The pas- 
sage, 1 Tim. ii. 4, brought to prove the universality of grace, he explains as 
meaning that no age, condition, sex, etc., is excluded from grace, and adduces 
in illustration, Luke xi. 42, where “omne olus” means every kind of herbs; 
comp. Enchiridion, c. 103, and Epist. 107 (Ad Vitalem): comp. A. Schweizer, 
Centraldogmen, i. 45. [De Dono Perseverantiz, ὁ. 8: Cur gratia non secun- 
dum merita hominum datur? Respondeo, quoniam Deus misericors est. 
Cur ergo, inquit, non omnibus? Et hic respondeo, quoniam Deus judex 
est. | 

* De Dono Persev. 57 (c. 22): Preedestinatio non ita populis preedicanda 
est, ut apud imperitam vel tardioris intelligentie multitudinem redargui 
quodammodo ipsa sua pradicatione videatur; sicut redargui videtur et prees- 
cientia Dei (quam certe negare non possunt) si dieatur hominibus: “ Sive 
curratis, sive dormiatis, quod vos preescivit qui falli-non potest, hoc eritis.” 
Dolosi autem vel imperiti medici est, etiam utile medicamentum sic alligare, 
ut aut non prosit, aut obsit. Sed dicendum est: “Sic currite, ut comprehen- 
datis, atque ut ipso cursu vestro ita vos esse preecognitos noveritis, ut legitime 
curreretis,” et si quo alio modo Dei preescientia preedicari potest, ut hominis 
segnitia repellatur, 59...de ipso autem cursu vestro bono rectoque condiscite 
vos ad predestinationem divine gratie pertinere, 

* Notwithstanding the condemnation of Pelagius at the synod of Ephesus, 
the system of Augustine did not exert any influence upon the theology of the 
Eastern church. Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote (against the advocates of 
Augustinianism): πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας φύσει καὶ ov γνώμῃ πταίειν τοὺς 
ἀνθρώπους, 5 books (Photii Bibl. Cod. 177, some Latin fragments of which 
are preserved by Mar. Mercator ed. Baluz. Fritzsche, p. 107, ss. On the 
question whether it was directed against Jerome, or against Augustine ? see 
Fritzsche, 1. ὁ. p. 109, and Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), ii. 651, and Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), 387). Theodoret, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, and 
others, continued to follow the earlier line of the dogmatic development. 
See the passages in Münscher von Colln, i. p. 408-410, and comp. § 108, 


§ 114. 


SEMIPELAGIANISM AND THE LATER TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH. 


Geffcken, J., Historia Semipelagianismi Antiquissima, Gott. 1826, 4. Wiggers, de Joh. 
Cassiano Massiliensi, qui Semipelagianismi auctor vulgo perhibetur. Commentt. ii. 
Rost. 1824, 25, 4; by the same: Versuch einer pragmat. Darstellung des Augustinis- 
mus und Pelagianismus. Vol. ii. Neander, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. iii. p. 92, ss. 


In opposition both to the extreme Augustinians (Predestinarians)* 
and to Augustinianism itself, a new system was formed, upon which 
Monachism undoubtedly exerted a considerable influence (as its 

20 


306 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE or PoLEmics. 


deepest roots are essentially Pelagian), but which also proceeded in 
part from a more healthy, practical, and moral tone. Its advocates 
endeavored to pursue a middle course between the two extremes, 
viz., Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and to satisfy the moral as 
well as the religious wants of the age, by the partial adoption of the 
premises of both systems, without carrying them out in all their 
logical consequences.” The leader of the Gallican theologians (Mas- 
silienses) who propounded this new system, afterwards called Semi- 
pelagianism, was John Cassian, a disciple of Ohrysostom,’ whom 
Prosper of Aquitania and others combated.‘ He was followed by 
Faustus, bishop of Rhegium,' who gained the victory over Lucidus, 
a hyper-Augustinian presbyter, at the Synod of Arles (A. D. 472). 
For several decennia Semipelagianism continued to be the prevailing 
form of doctrine in Gaul,° till it met with new opposition on the 
part of Avitus of Vienne,’ Cesar of Arles,’ Fulgentius of Ruspe,’ and 
others. After a variety of fortunes, Augustinianism obtained the 
preponderance even in Gaul, by means of the Synods of Arausio 
(Orange) and Valence (A. D. 529), but with the important restric- 
tion, that the doctrine of predestination to evil was not adopted.” 
Boniface II., bishop ef Rome, in accordance with the measures 
adopted by his predecessors, confirmed these decisions (A. D. 530).” 
“Gregory the Great transmitted to subsequent ages the milder aspect 
of the Augustinian doctrine, in its relations to practical Christianity 
rather than to speculation.” 


1 Under (doctrinal) Predestinarians, are usually included the monks of 
Adrumetum, in the province of Byzacene, in North Africa, and Lucidus, 
mentioned below, who taught the doctrine of a predestinatio duplex ; still it 
is satisfactorily proved, that (historically) “a sect, or even a separate party 
of Predestinarians who dissented From Augustine never existed” (as was for- 
merly erroneously supposed). Comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 329, ss. 347. This 
error was spread by J. Sirmond, Historia Preedestinatiana (Opp. T. iv. p. 
267, ss.), and the work edited by him under the title Praedestinatus, 1643, in 
which the Praedest. Heeresis is mentioned as the ninetieth in the order of 
heresies (reprinted in Gallandi Bibl. x.). Comp. also Walch, Historie der 
Ketzereien v. p. 218, ss. Meander, Church History, ii. 641-3.  G@reseler, 1. 
$ 113, notes 4, 9-11). [On this work, Preedestinatus, see Meander, Hist. 
Dogm. 381; the Jesuits were charged with having forged it. Baur, Dog- 
mengesch, 155, note, says that Neander maintains, without sufficient reason, 
that the second part of the book (it is in three parts) was not by the author 
himself, but was a current Augustinian treatise. Baur says that the whole 
work was really by a Semipelagian, and intended to make Predestinarian- 
ism odious by carrying it out to the most revolting consequences: 6. 9,,~ 
“the predestined may sin ever so much and resist, without his own will he 
will attain salvation; and on the other hand, he who is destined to death 
strives in vain;” illustrated in the instances of Judas and Paul.] 


+ 
§ 114. SEMIPELAGIANISM. 307 


* According to the reports made by Prosper and Hilary, 5011. Prosperi 
(428, 29), to Augustine (in Wiggers, p. 153, Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. 
p- 411), the treatise of Augustine, entitled De Correptione et Gratia, had 
excited some commotion among the Gallican theologians and monks, in con- 
sequence of which he wrote the further treatises De Praed. Sanctorum, and 
De Dono Perseverantie. Though these Gallican theologians differed in 
some particulars from Cassian (see Wiggers, p. 181), yet there was a con- 
siderable agreement between their doctrine and his. Comp. also Neander, 
11, 633. 

* Comp. above § 82, note 21. Of his Collationes, the thirteenth is the 
most important. Prosper complains of his syncretism, Contra Collatorem, 
ce. 5: Illi (Pelagiani) in omnibus justis hominum operibus libere voluntatis 
tuentur exordia, nos bonarum cogitationum ex Deo semper credimus prodire 
prineipia, tu informe nescio quid tertium reperistii—This tertium consisted 
in the following particulars: a. Cassian, who detested the profana opinio and 
impietas Pelagii (see Wiggers, ii. p. 19, 20), regarded the natural man 
neither as morally healthy (as Pelagius did), nor as morally dead (like 
Augustine), but as diseased and morally weakened (dubitari non potest, 
inesse quidem omnia anime naturaliter virtutum semina beneficio creatoris 
inserta, sed nisi hee opitulatione Dei fuerint excitata, ad incrementum per- 
fectionis non poterunt pervenire, Coll. xiii. 12). ὦ. He insisted so much 
more than Pelagius on the necessity and spiritual nature of divine grace 
(Coll. xiii. 3), that he even ventured to assert that men are sometimes drawn 
to salvation against their will (nonnunquam etiam inviti trahimur ad salutem, 
comp. Inst. Coen. xii. 13. Wiggers, p. 85).. But in opposition to Augus- 
tine, he restricted only to a few (e. g., Matthew and Paul) what the latter 
would extend to all, and appealed to the example of Zaccheus, Cornelius the 
centurion, the thief on the cross, and others, in proof of his opinion, In 
general, he ascribed the ascensus to God, as well as the descensus to earthly 
things, to the free will of man, and looked upon grace as rather co-operans, 
though he does not express himself very distinctly. Only we must take care 
not to refer all the merits of the saints to God, so as to leave to human 
nature nothing but what is bad. c. He understood the redemption through 
Christ in a more general sense, and thus rejected the doctrine of predestina- 
tion (in the sense of Augustine and the hyper-Augustinians). The assertion 
that God would save only a few appeared to him an ingens sacrilegium (Coll. 
xiii. 7). An outline of his complete system is given by Wiggers, p. 47-136. 
[1. Man is not dead in sin, but diseased; freedom is not lost but lamed. 2. 
Freedom and grace concur, sometimes the one leading, and again the other ; 
the initiation is usually in the will, but God draws some against their will; 
grace is internal. 3. Predestination on the basis of prescience. Comp. 
Baur, Dogmengesch. 187, who says that the result was merely that the two 
antagonistic positions of predestination and free will stood over against each 
other, unreconciled. But still the result was to show, that as the divine 
always stands above the human, so it is essential to the church system that 
the absolute importance of grace should not be yielded, at least in the formal 
statements of doctrine. | 

* Augustine himself combated Semipelagianism in the above works, 


308 Secoxp PrrIıoD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Wiggers gives a sketch of the controversy between Prosper on the one hand, 
and Cassian and the Semipelagians on the other, p. 136, ss. 

> Faustus first presided over the monastery of Lerina, which was for some 
time the chief seat of Semipelagianism. On Vincentius Lerinensis comp. Wig- 
gers, p. 208, ss.; on Faustus and his doctrine, ibid. p. 224, ss., 235, ss. Re- 
specting the doctrine of original sin, the views of Faustus come nearer to 
Augustine’s opinions than do those of Cassian ; on the other hand, his ideas 
of the nature of grace are more external (Pelagian) than those of the latter; 
comp. Wiggers, p. 287.—But he bestows more attention upon the third 
point of controversy—doctrine of predestination. He decidedly rejects the 
doctrine of unconditional election by making a distinction between predeter- 
mination and foreknowledge, the former of which is independent of the 
latter; De Grat. et lib. Arbitrio i. Wäggers, p. 279, ss. Faustus uses 6. 9. 
the following arguments, which savor strongly of anthropomorphism : When 
I accidentally cast my eyes upon a vicious action, it does not follow that I 
am guilty of it, because I have seen it. Thus God foresees adultery, without 
exciting man to impurity; he foresees murder, without exciting in man the 
desire for its commission, etc. Wiggers, p. 282,283. In speaking of the doc- 
trine of unconditional predestination, as propounded by his opponent Lucidus, 
he used the strongest terms: lex fatalis, decretum fatale, fatalis constitutio, 
originalis definitio vel fatalis, and looked upon it as something heathenish ; 
Wiggers, p. 315. He believed in universal atonement. [Among the modi- 
fying Augustinians, says Baur, Dogmengesch. 187, was the author of the 
work De Vocatione omnium Gentium, who, in a peculiar manner, while 
holding Augustine’s view of grace, conceived of original sin in a merely 
negative way, as the want of good, or as the mere following of natural 
instinct. The will remains the same, its object is different; to the good it 
can be directed only by God; but every one can obtain this direction, since 
there is a universal as well as special efficacy of grace. | 

° Comp. Gennadius Massiliensis and Ennodius Ticinensis, in Wiggers, p. 
350, ss. A summary view of the Semipelagian doctrine in general, and its 
relation to both Augustinianism and Pelagianism, is given in the form of a 
table by Wiggers, p. 359-64. 

" Wiggers, p. 368. 

® Wiggers, p. 369, concerning his book De Gratia et Lib. Arbitrio. 

° Wiggers, p. 369, ss. Fulgentius, carrying the doctrine of imputation 
still farther than Augustine, consigned to everlasting fire not only those 
infants that died without being baptized, but also the immature fetus; De 
Fide ad Petrum, e. 30, quoted by Wiggers, p. 376. But in reference to pre- 
destination, he endeavored carefully to avoid all exaggerations which might 
give offense to Christian feelings (Neander, Church Hist. ii. 650). After the 

_ interference of the Scythian monks, he expressly blamed those who asserted 
the doctrine of predestination to evil, though he maintained himself a pree- 
dest. duplex (but in a different sense); Meander, 1, c. p. 652. Grace is 
in his opinion prieveniens, as well as comitans and subsequens. (Ep. ad 
Theodorum de Conversione a Seculo, quoted by Wiggers, p. 386.) 

10 Mansi, T. viii. p. 711, ss. Aug. Opp. T. x. part ii. Append. p. 157, 
ss. Wiggers, p. 430. Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p, 417. The conclusion 


$ 114. SEMIPELAGIANISM. 309 


is the most important part: [Hoc etiam secundum catholicam fidem, eredi- 
mus, quod accepta per baptismum gratia omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante 
et coöperante, que ad salutem pertinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter 
laborare valuerint, adimplere.] Aliquos vero ad malum divina potestate 
preedestinatos esse non solum non credimus, sed etiamsi sunt, qui tantum 
malum credere velint, cum omni detestatione illis anathema dicimus. On 
the synod of Valence, see Mansi, viii. 723, ss. App. p. 162. 

“ Among the earlier popes Celestine and Gelasius I, had condemned 
Semipelagianism: Hormisdas, on the contrary, pronounced a very mild 
judgment in opposition to the Scythian monks, without, however, denying 
the doctrine of Augustine. See Bonifacii II. Epist. ad Czesarium, given by 
Mansi, T. viii. p. 735, and App. 161, ss. 

” Comp. Meander, Church Hist. ii. p. 144. Wiggers, de Gregario M. 
ejusque Placitis Anthropologicis, Rost. 1838. Zau, p. 379, ss. The views 
of Gregory are most fully developed in Moralia. iv. c. 24; comp. xv. c. 15,51; 
ix. c. 21, 34, and many other passages. Along with strict Augustinianism, 
we find in his writings Semipelagian modifications, For his views respecting 
the doctrine of grace, see Mor. xx. 4; Hom. in Ezech. i. 5. Zau, p. 403, ss. 
He also distinguishes between gratia praeveniens and subsequens. The former 
is operans, but at the same time coöperans. The gratia subsequens is a help: 
ne inaniter velimus, sed possimus implere. See Mor. xxii. c. 9: Sancti viri 
sciunt, post primi parentis lapsum de corruptibili stirpe se editos, et non vir- 
tute propria, sed preeveniente gratia superna ad meliore se vota et opera 
commutatos: et quidquid sibi mali inesse conspiciunt, de mortali propagine 
sentiunt meritum ; quidquid vero in se boni inspiciunt, immortalis gratiz 
cognoscunt donum, eique de accepto numere debitores fiunt, qui et prave- 
niendo dedit lis bonum velle quod noluerunt, et subsequendo concessit bonum 
esse, quod volunt.—Gregory further maintains, that grace can be lost, Mor. 
xxv. 8 (we know what we are, but we do not know what we shall be); while, 
on the other hand, he appears to assert the irresistibility of grace (Mor, ix. 
9: sicut nemo obstitit largitati vocantis, ita nullus obviat justitie relinquen- 
tis); again, he says that the humble will accept, the proud reject the gift 
of God (Mor. xxx. 1; Evang. lib. ii. Hom. 22); comp. Law, p. 410, 411. 
[On Gregory, compare Wiggers, in the Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie, 1854, on 
the History of Augustinian Anthropology after the Condemnation of Semi- 
pelagianism, p. 7-43. Gregory agrees with Augustine on the primitive 
state. As to the fall, he asserts a primitive weakness in Adam; he calls 
original sin a disease, and admits a certain necessity of sinning; free will is 
not annulled, but weakened; man can withstand grace; predestination is 
only of the elect—yet he denies the absolute decree. “ Bonum quod agimus, 
et Dei est, et nostrum; Dei, per prevenientem gratiam; nostrum, per obse- 
quentem liberam voluntatem.” “Suprema pietas prius agit in nobis aliquid 
sine nobis, ut subsequente quoque nostro libero arbitrio bonum, quod jam 
appetimus, agat nobiscum: quod tamen per impensam gratiam in extremo 
judicio ita remunerat in nobis, ac si solis praecessisset ex nobis.” ] 


It is worthy of notice, that in this protracted controversy the objective aspect of anthro- 
pology was far more developed than the subjective. The doctrine of the economy of 


310 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


redemption still remains in an imperfect state, as may be seen, e. g., from the inde- 
finite manner in which the terms justificare and justificatio (= justum facere, see 
Wiggers, p. 380) were used, and from the want of proper definitions of the nature of 
faith. Wiggers, therefore, justly closes his account of this controversy by saying: "A 
more profound examination of the nature of faith would even then have given a very dif- 
ferent appearance to Christian anthropology.” It should further be observed, that the 
Augustinian doctrine of predestination rested on the premises contained in his views 
of original sin. Adam was free before the fall, and consequently stood out of the 
sphere of predestination, though God foreknew his transgression (Aug. de Civ. Dei 
xii. 21). Later theologians first extended predestination (the supra-lapsarians) even 
to Adam, and thus completed the doctrine of predestination in a speculative way. 
Thus it was reserved for the Reformation to finish the work which Augustine left 
incomplete; the Lutherans, by developing the doctrine of faith and justification, the 
Calvinists, by developing that of absolute predestination. On the other hand, the 
Roman Catholic church either placed itself in opposition to its own father (in the Coun- 
cil of Trent and among the Jesuits), or simply adhered to the doctrine propounded by him 
(the Jansenists). Meander, Dogmengesch. 369, has drawn attention to the fact, that 
with Augustine justification and sanctification run into each other, while Pelagius 
views justification in a more external manner. 


SECOND CLASS. 


CHURCH DOCTRINES EITHER NOT CONNECTED, 
OR BUT REMOTELY, WITH THE HERESIES 
OF THE AGE. 


(DIT DA CTC TPA hele) 


§ 115. 
INTRODUCTION. 


THE doctrinal views on fundamental points, which had been 
matured by controversy, exerted more or less influence upon the 
development of other dogmas. Thus, the further theological defini- 
tions respecting the nature and attributes of God, creation, etc., 
were moulded by the views on the Trinity; those which relate to 
the atonement of Christ, and the significance of the Lord’s Supper, 
were closely connected with the opinions held concerning the person 
of Christ ; those respecting baptism and the sacraments as means of 
grace, were determined by anthropological definitions ; and, lastly, 
eschatology was influenced by all the other doctrines together. 
Even the more general definitions concerning the nature of Chris- 
tianity, the canon and its relation to tradition, etc., are in some 
way or other connected with one or another of the fundamental 
dogmas. 


Nevertheless, we are justified in treating of these doctrines separately, 
inasmuch as in some respects, at least, they were not affected by the con- 
tests, and present themselves rather in continuity with former views. 

1. APOLOGETIC AND NORMAL DOCTRINES (PROLEGEMENA). 

§ 116. 
THE IDEA OF RELIGION AND REVELATION. 
Though the theologians of the present period had not the concep- 


tion of a merely abstract religion, without a positive historical basis 
and shape, yet we meet in the writings of Lactantius with a more 


3123 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF PoLEmMmIıcs. 


precise definition of the word religion, which was borrowed from the 
Latin. He applies the term in question not only to the external 
forms of worship (as Tertullian had done before him), but—though 
with an incorrect etymology—to the union and fellowship of men 
with God, which he also regards as something purely human.’ 
Faith in revelation was required as a necessary condition.’ 


" Lact. Inst. iv. 28: Hac enim conditione gignimur, ut generanti nos Deo 
Justa et debita obsequia preebeamus, hune solum noverimus, hune sequamur. 
Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo et religati sumus, unde ipsa religio nomen 
accepit, non, ut Cicero interpretatus est, a relegendo. Comp. iii. 10: Sum- 
mum igitur bonum hominis in sola religione est; nam cetera, etiam que 
putantur esse homini propria, in ceteris quoque animalibus reperiuntur. 11: 
Constat igitur totius humani generis consensu, religionem suscipi oportere. 
He compared it with sapientia (iv. 4), from which it is not to be separated. 
By sapientia he understands the knowledge, by religio, the worship, of God. 
God is the source of both. The one without the other leads to such errors, 
as paganism represents on the one hand in the unbelieving philosophers (the 
apostate and disinherited sons), and, on the other, in the superstitious mul- 
titudes (the runaway slaves) — Augustine follows the terminology of Tertul- 
lian; he contrasts religio with fides or pietas; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii. 2, 
see Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. p. 751, and comp. Nitzsch, über den Religions- 
begriff der Alten, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, i. 3, 4. [Redslob, 
Sprachliche Abhandlungen, 1840. J. @. Müller, Bildung und Gebranch d. 
Wortes Religio, in Stud. u. Krit. 1835, Heft, i. Zechler, Idea of Religion, 
transl. from Stud. u. Krit. 1851, in Bibl. Sacra, Andover, 1852, by W. 
Stearns.|—Concerning the nature of religion, and the question whether it 
principally consists in knowledge, or in the form of worship, or whether it 
consists in spiritual fellowship with God, see the controversy between Euno- 
mius and his opponents in § 125, and Meander, Church History, ii. p. 401. 

7 On the necessity of faith in revelation in general, see Rufini Expos. 
Fidei (in Fell’s edition of Cypr.), p. 18: Ut ergo intelligentie tibi aditus 
patescat, recte primo omnium te credere profiteris; quia nec navem quis 
ingreditur et liquido ac profundo vitam committit elemento, nisi se prius 
credat posse salvari, nec agricola semina sulcis obruit et fruges spargit in 
terram, nisi credideret venturos imbres, affuturum quoque solis teporem, 
quibus terra confota segetem multiplicata fruge producat ac ventis spirantibus 
nutriat. Nihil denique est, quod in vita geri possit, si non credulitas ante 
preecesserit. Quid ergo mirum si accedentes ad Deum credere nos primo 
omnium profitemur, cum sine hoc nec ipsa exigi possit vita communis? Hoe 
autem idcirco in principiis premisimus, quia pagani nobis objicere solent, 
quod religio nostra, quia quasi rationibus deficit, in sola credendi persuasione 
consistat. Comp. Augustine, de Utilitate Credendi, c. 13: Recte igitur 
catholic® discipline majestate institutum est, ut accedentibus ad religionem 
fides persuadeatur ante omnia. He too shows, that without faith there can 
be no friendship even among men (c. 10), no filial love and piety (c. 12). 
Augustine knows of no other religion than positive Christianity, and insists 
that reason should submit to it; for fuith precedes the knowledge of reason, 


$ 117. Writines In DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY. 313 


l. c. 6. 14; Deinde fateor, me jam Christo credidisse et in animum induxisse, 
id esse verum, quod ille dixerit, etiamsi nulla ratione fuleiatur. Reason would 
never have saved man from darkness and misery, nisi summus Deus populari 
quadam clementia divini intellectus auctoritatem usque ad ipsum corpus 
humanum declinaret atque submitteret, cujus non solum preceptis, sed etiam 
factis excitate anime redire in semetipsas et respicere patriam etiam sine 
disputationum concertatione potuissant.....‘Mihi autem certum est, nus- 
quam prorsus a Christi auctoritate discedere, non enim reperio valentiorem 
(contra Academ. ]. iii, c. 19, 20). Comp. de Vera Rel. e. 5; de Moribus 
Eccles. Cath. ec. 7: Quare deinceps nemo ex me querat sententiam meam, 
sed potius audiamus oracula, nostrasque ratiunculas divinis submittamus 


affatibus. Comp. Bindemann’s Augustine, ii. p. 113 sq. 


§ 117. 


WRITINGS IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY. 


In proportion as the polemical tendency of the present period pre- 
vailed over the apologetic, the proofs of the truth and divinity of 
Christ’s religion lost originality, and most writers were satisfied with 
the mere repetition of former statements.’ The attacks of Porphyry, 
Julian the Apostate, and others, however, called forth new efforts 
in defense of Christianity ;* the accusations of the heathen, when 
Christianity was established as the religion of the world upon the 
ruins of the Western empire, induced Augustine to compose his 
apologetical treatise De Civitate Dei. 


* Among the apologists previous to the apostasy of Julian, Arnobius (Ad- 
versus Gentes) deserves to be noticed. His argument a tuto, ii. 4, is as fol- 
lows..... nonne purior ratio est, ex duobus incertis et in ambigua exspecta- 
tione pendentibus id potius credere, quod aliquas spes ferat, quam omnino 
quod nullus? In illo enim periculi nihil est, si quod dicitur imminere cassum 
fiat et vacuum: in hoc damnum est maximum, ὃ. e,, salutis amissio, si cum 
tempus advenerit aperiatur non fuisse mendacium...Husebius of Ceesarea 
likewise defended Christianity in his Prapar. and Demonstr. Evang. (§ 82, 
note 1): Athanasius in his λόγος κατὰ Ἕλληνας, ete.; Julius Formicus 
Maternus, De Errore Profanarum Religionum (between 340 and 350). 

* Eusebius, 1. ο., Theodoret, Augustine, and others combated Porphyry : 
Eusebius also opposed Hierocles in a separate treatise. Cyril of Alexandria 
wrote 10 books against the Emperor Julian, who charged Christianity with 
contradictions—The dialogue entitled Philopatris, formerly ascribed to Lu- 
cian, may have been composed under the same emperor, see Neander, Church 
History, ii. p. 89. On the apologetic writings of this period, see Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch. 274 sq. [The Spanish presbyter, Zrosius, Historie adv. Pa- 
ganos. The last important work in the Greek church against the heathen 
was Theodoretus, 'EAAnvır@v θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων, about 440. Against 


314 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


the Jews, Husebius, Demonstr. Evang.; Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. Orat. viii. ; 
Augustine, Tract. adv. Judaeos. | 

[ Baur, Dogmengesch. 156, says that Athanasius, Eusebius of Czsarea, and 
Augustine elevated apologetics, by representing Christianity as the perfect 
religion in comparison with all others—viewing it in the light of the philo- 
sophy of religion and of the general religious history of mankind. Augus- 
tine’s work, De Civitate Dei, is the grandest attempt to consider Christianity 
as realizing the idea of a divine plan and order for the world—as containing 
the immanent idea of the world and its history; even the greatness of the 
Roman empire is fully seen only in its relation to Christianity. ] 


§ 118. 
MIRACLES AND PROPHECY. 


[Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed. 1844, ii. 233-336, The Nicene Miracles.] 


Since the Christians were constantly accustomed to appeal to 
miracles and prophecies in support of the truth of their religion, it 
became important to define more precisely the idea of a miracle. 
Augustine did this by defining miracles as events which deviate not 
so much from the order of nature in general, as from that particular 
order of nature which is known to us." With regard to prophecies, 
many passages of the Old Test. were still applied to the Messiah, 
which had no reference to him, and the truly Messianic passages 
were taken in a narrower sense than historical interpretation re- 
quired? The apologists also appealed to Christ’s prophecy respect- 
ing the destruction of Jerusalem, which had long since received its 
accomplishment, to the fate of the Jewish nation,’ and the similar 
judgment with which God had visited the old Roman world, and 
compared these events with the triumphant spread of the gospel.‘ 
And, lastly, even Augustine takes notice of the Sibylline oracles, 
mentioned by Lactantius. 


* Augustine de Utilitate Cred. e. 16: Miraculum voco, quidquid arduum 
aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet. De Civ. Dei ΠΡ, 
xxi. c. 8: Omnia portenta contra naturam dieimus esse, sed non sunt. Quo- 
modo est enim contra naturam quod Dei fit voluntate, quum voluntas tanti 
utique conditoris condite rei cujusque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non 
contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura...quamvis et ipsa que in 
rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda 
considerantibus cunctis, si solerent homines mirari nisi rara.— The nearer the 
Canon of the Bible was brought to a conclusion, the more necessary it be- 
came to make a distinction between the miracles related in Scripture, as his- 
torically authenticated facts, and those miracles which were generally believed 
still to occur in the church. Respecting faith in miracles in general, Augus- 


119. Sources OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE. 910 


tine employed a free criticism; De Civit. Dei xxi. c. 6, 7 (in reference to 
wonderful natural phenomena, but his language is also applicable to other 
miraculous stories of the age): Nec ergo volo temere credi cuncta, que 
posui, exceptis his, quee ipse sum expertus. Cetera vero sic habeo, ut neque 
affirmanda, neque neganda decreverim. Comp. De Util. Cred. 1. e.; De 
Vera Rel. 25 (Retract. i. c. 13)...Concerning the miracles related in Scrip- 
ture, it was of importance to distinguish the miracles performed by Jesus 
from those wrought by Apollonius of Tyana, to which Hierocles and others 
appealed. Augustine, therefore, directed attention to the benevolent design 
of Christ’s miracles, by which they are distinguished from those which are 
merely performed for the purpose of gaining the applause of men (e. g., the 
attempt to fly in the presence of an assembled multitude), De Util. Cred. 1. ce, 
Comp. Cyril Alex. Contra Jul. 1. 1.: ᾿Εγὼ δὲ, ὅτι μὲν τῶν Ελλήνων ἀπηλ- 
λάγμεθα ἐμβροντησίας καὶ πολὺς ἀποτειχίζει λόγος τῶν ἐκείνων τερθρείας 
τὰ χριστιανῶν, φαίην ἄν" κοινωνία γὰρ οὐδεμία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος, ἀλλ᾽ 
οὐδὲ μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ aniorov.—On the view of Gregory the Great respect- 
ing miracles, see Neander, Kirchengesch. iii. p. 294, 95. 

* Augustine gives a canon on this point, De Civit. Dei xvii. c. 16, ss., 
comp. xviii. 29, ss., and below, $ 122, note 4. 

Aug. De Civ. Dei’iv. 38..... Et nune quod (Judi) per omnes fere 
terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius veri Dei providentia est. Comp. 
xvil. c. 46. 

* Arnob. ji. p. 44, 45: Nonne vel hee saltem fidem vobis faciunt argu- 
menta credendi, quod jam per omnes terras in tam brevi temporis spatio im- 
mensi nominis hujus sacramenta diffusa sunt? quod nulla jam natio est tam 
barbari moris et mansuetudinem nesciens, qua non ejus amore versa mollive- 
rit asperitatem suam et in placidos sensus adsumta tranquillitate migraverit ? 
Aug. De Civ. Dei v. 25, 26, xviii. 50... .inter horrendas persecutiones et 
varios cruciatus ac funera Martyrum predicatum est toto orbe evangelium, 
contestante Deo signis et ostentis et variis virtutibus, et Spiritus Sancti 
muneribus: ut populi gentium credentes in eum, qui pro eorum redemtione 
crucifixus est, Christiano amore venerarentur sanguinem Martyrum, quem 
diabolico furore fuderunt, ipsique reges, quorum legibus vastabatur Ecclesia, 
ei nomini salubriter subderentur, quod de terra crudeliter auferre conati sunt, 
et falsos deos ineiperent persequi, quorum causa cultores Dei veri fuerant 
antea persecuti. 

° Lactantius iv. 15, sq., Augustine De Civ. Dei xviii. 23. Cyril Alex. Con- 
tra Jul. i. 1. But the enemies of Christianity maintained, even in the times 
of Lactantius, non esse illa carmina Sybillina, sed a Christianis conficta atque 
composita. 


§ 119. 
SOURCES OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE—BIBLE AND TRADITION. 


During the present period both the Bible and Tradition were 
regarded as the sources of Christian knowledge." The statement of 


316 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Augustine, that he was induced by the authority of the church 
alone to believe in the Gospel, only proves that he considered the 
believer (subjectively), but not the Bible (objectively), to be de- 
pendent on that authority.” It was rather the case, that in ecclesi- 
astical controversies and elsewhere the Bible was appealed to as the 
highest authority,’ also in practice most urgently recommended to 
the people. It was constantly held in reverence as the purest source 


of truth, the book of books.* 


' Nihil alind precipi volumus, quam quod Evangelistarum et Apostolorum 
fides et traditio incorrupta servat; Gratian in Cod. Theod. 1. xvi. tit. vi. 1, 2. 

® Adv. Man. 5: Evangelio non erederem, nisi me ecclesiz catholic com- 
moveret auctoritas. This passage is to be compared in its whole connection: 
see Lücke, Zeitschrift für evangel. Christen. 1.1, 4. Lücke justly rejects, 
ibid. p. 71, the expedient adopted by older protestant theologians, e. g., 
Bucer and S. Baumgarten (Untersuchung theologischer Streitigkeiten, vol. 
iii. p. 48), viz., to assign to the imperfect tense the signification of the pluper- 
fect “according to the African dialect.” Comp. also Neander, Hist. Dogm. 
(Ryland), p. 276. [Protestant theologians have been disposed to explain it 
as meaning, “I was first led to the Bible by the tradition of the church ;” but 
without doubt it rather means, “The authority of the church is the witness 
for the divinity of the Scriptures; for how could I convince unbelievers if I 
were not permitted to appeal to the authority of the church? I must 
depend upon this to know what the canon of Holy Writ is, and its right in- 
terpretation.” Yet in arguing against the Donatists, he proves the authority 
of the church from the Scriptures, allowing no argument to be valid which 
was not derived from this source.]* On a similar declaration of Gregory the 
Great, that he reverenced the four general councils as much as the four Gos. 
pels (Lib. i. Ep. 25, and lib. iii, Ep. 10), see Zau, ubi supra, p. 330. 

° Athanasius Contra Gent. 1. p. 1, b.: Αὐτάρκεις μὲν γάρ εἰσιν ai ayia 
καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν. Cyrillus 
Hierosol. Cat. 4 et 5. Chrys. Contra Anomeos xi. (Opp. 1. p. 542). Augus- 
tine Doct. Christ. i. 37: Titubabit fides, si scripturarum sacrarum vacillet. 
auctoritas. Ibid. 11. 9; De Baptismo contra Donatistas, ii. 3, and many other 
passages, especially Ep. 19 ad Hieron. (comp. § 122, 2). 

* Aug. Ep. 137 (Opp. ii. p. 310).: [Scriptura Sacra] omnibus [est] acces- 
sibilis, quamvis paucissimis penetrabilis, Ea, que aperte continet, quasi ami- 
cus familiaris sine fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorum atque doctorum.—De 
Doct. Christ. ii. 42 : Quantum autem minor est auri, argenti vestisque copia, 
quam de Agypto secum ille populus abstulit in comparatione divitiarum, 
quze postea Hierosolyme consecutus est, que maxime in Salomone ostendun- 
tur, tanta fit cuncta scientia, que quidem est utilis, collecta de libris gentium, 
si divinarum scripturarum scientiz comparetur. Nam quicquid homo extra 
didicerit, si noxium est, ibi damnatur, si utile est, ibi invenitur. Et cum ibi 
quisque invenerit omnia, que utiliter alibi didieit, multo abundantius ibi 
inveniet ea, quae nusquam omnino alibi, sed in illarum tantummodo Scriptu- 
rarum mirabili altitudine et mirabili humilitate discuntur. Comp. Theodoret. 


$ 120. Tue Canon. 317 


Protheoria in Psalm. (Opp. T. i. p. 602); Basilii M. Hom. in Ps. i. (Opp. i. 
p- 90); Rudelbach, 1. ec. p. 38, and Meander, Gewichtvolle Aussprüche 
alter Kirchenlehrer über den allgemeinen und rechten Gebrauch der heil. 
Schrift, in his Kleine Gelegenheitssehriften, Berlin, 1839, p. 155, ss. Chry- 
sostom, too, is far from making salvation dependent on the letter of Scrip- 
ture. In his opinion it would be much better, if we needed no Scripture at 
all, provided the grace of God were as distinctly written upon our hearts as 
the letters of ink are upon the book. (Introduct. to the Homilies on Matth. 
Opp. T. vii. p. 1). In the same manner Augustine says, De Doctr. Christ. i. 
39: Homo itaque fide, spe et caritate subnixus, eaque inconcusse retinens, 
non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos, Itaque multi per hee tria 
etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt. Unde in illis arbitrare jam imple- 
tum esse quod dictum est (1 Cor. xiii, 8): Sive prophetzs evacuabuntur, sive 
linguze cessabunt, sive scientia evacuabitur, etc. 


§ 120. 
THE CANON. 


Lücke, über den neutestamentlichen Kanon des Eusebius von Cäsarea. Berlin, 1816. 
Spitiler, L. T., Kritische Untersuchung des 60°" Laodicäischen Kanons. Bremen, 
1777.—On the other side: Bickel, in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1830, 
part 3, p. 591, ss. [ Stuart, Critical History and Defense of the Old Test. Canon, p. 
438, ss. 447, ss. Westcott, Hist. Canon N. Test. Lond. 1855. Οἱ Wordsworth, Inspira- 
tion and Canon, Phil. reprint, 1851. Credner, Gesch. d. N. Test. Kanons, ed. Volck- 
mar, Berlin, 1860. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, Bd. vii. 1859. H. J. Holtzmann, 
Kanon und Tradition, Tübing. 1859.] 


The more firmly the doctrine of the church was established, the 
nearer the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, the principal parts of 
which had been determined in the times of Husebius,* was brought 
to its completion. The synods of Laodicea,’ of Hippo, and (the 
third) of Carthage,* contributed to this result. The theologians of 
the Eastern church distinctly separated the later productions of the 
Graeco-Jewish literature (7. e., the apocryphal books, Libri Ecclesias- 
tici) from the Canon of the Old Testament Hebrew national literature. 
But although Rufinus’ and Jerome endeavored to maintain the same 
distinction in the Latin church, it became the general custom to fol- 
low the Africans and Augustine in doing away with the distinction 
between the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Test., and 
in considering both as one.-—The Canon of the Manicheans differed 
considerably from that of the Catholic church.° 


* Eusebius, Hist. Eecl. iii, 25, adopts three classes, viz., ὁμολογούμενα, 
avttAeyoueva, νόθα (whether and in how far the last two classes differed, 
see Zücke, |. c.).—To the first class belong the four Gospels, the Acts of the 


318 Seconp PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Apostles, the Epistles of Paul (including the Epistle to the Hebrews), the 
first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter; to the Antilegomena 
belong the Epistles of James, Jude, the second of Peter, and, lastly, the second 
and third Epistles of John. With regard to the book of Revelation, the 
opinions differ. The following are reckoned among the νόθα; Acta Pauli, 
the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, 
and the Apostolical constitutions, The ἄτοπα καὶ δυσσεβῆ ranked below 
„the νόθα. 

* The Synod of Laodicea was held about the middle of the fourth century 
(between the years 360 and 364). In the 59th canon it was enacted, that 
no uncanonical book should be used in the churches, and in the 60th a list 
was given of the canonical books in Mansi, 11. 574. The doubts of Spittler 
Bickel has endeavored to refute in his dissertation (referred to above) in the 
Theol. Stud. und Kritiken for 1830. In this list all the Hebrew writings of 
the Old Testament are received, and the apocryphal books excluded (with 
the exception of the book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah). The 
canon of the New Test. is the same as ours, except the book of Revelation, 
which, however, was considered genuine in Egypt (by Athanasius and Cyril). 
But mention is made of the seven Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, is ascribed to Paul (especially on the authority of Jerome).—For 
further particulars see the introductions to the New Test., and Gieseler, Dog- 
mengesch. 287. [Comp. Thornwell’s Apocrypha, 1847. ] 

° a. Ὁ. 393, and a. D. 397. These synods number the Apocrypha of the 
Old Test. among the canonical books. Comp. the 36th canon Conc. Hippon. 
in Mansi, iii. 924, and Concil. Carth. 11. c. 47, Mansi, iii. 891. Innocent I. 
(a. p. 405) and Gelasius I. (A. Ὁ. 494?) confirmed their decisions. 

* Rufinus, Expos. Symb. (I. c.) p. 26: Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii 
libri sunt, qui non catholici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, ut est 
Sapientia Salomonis et alia Sapientia, que dicitur filii Syrach, qui ber apud 
Latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur...... Ejusdem 
ordinis est libellus Tobie et Judith et Maccabx»orum libri. He places the 
Shepherd of Hermas on the same footing with the Apocrypha of the Old 
Test., and maintains that they might be read, but not quoted, as authorities, 
“ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.” Comp. Hier. in Prologo 
Galeato, quoted by De Wette, Einleitung, i. p. 45. @üeseler, Dogmengesch. 
284 sq., is very instructive upon the Apocrypha, and the way it was treated 
in this period. [ Origen, in his Hexapla, had carried out the distinction 
between the old Hebrew books and those extant only in Greek; and all the 
Greek fathers of this period followed his example. Athanasius distinguishes 
the κανονιζόμενα, the avayıyworöneva (not canonical, but useful), and the 
ἀπόκρυφα (fictitious works by heretics). In the Old Test. he received only 
22 Hebrew works; what is now called the Apocrypha he reckoned in the 
second class, and in the third class he put the so-called pseudepigrapha. The 
Greek church to the present day follows this order. The fact that they (and 
Origen) put Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, was in consequence of these 
works being appended to the genuine writings of Jeremiah in the MSS. of | 
the Septuagint—In the Latin church, Hilary, Rufinus, and Jerome, also fol- 
lowed Origen, - Jerome enumerates the 22 books of the Old Test., and adds : 


§ 121. INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION. 319 


quidquid extra hos est, est inter apocrypha ponendum. But the Latin 
church generally followed Ambrose, Augustine, and the above named coun- 
eils.—As to the New Test., it was generally received, in the course of the 
fourth and fifth centuries, in the form in which we now have it. As the 
church became more united, those that had doubted about some of the 
books accepted the general tradition. In the fourth century all of the seven 
General Epistles were received as a part of the canon. Jerome, in his Epist. 
ad Dardanum, says the only differences were, that the Latin churches did 
not receive the Epist. to the Hebrews, nor the Greek church the Apocalypse, 
though he himself held both to be genuine. In Africa the Hebrews was in 
the canon of Augustine and of the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Inno- 
cent I., in his Epist. ad Exsuperium, A. p. 405, puts the Hebrews in the 
canon. In the East the Apocalypse was received by Athanasius and Cyril 
of Alex., and also by Ephräm the Syrian and Epiphanius; but Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, Gregory of Nazianzum, Chrysostom, and Theodoretus, did not recog- 
nize it. Since the sixth century, however, it has been in the Greek canon. 
Athanasius applies the same distinctions to the books of the New Test., etc., 
as (above) to the Old; he receives as canonical those we now have; as 
ἀναγινωσκόμενα, the so-called Doctrine of the Apostles and the Shepherd 
of Hermas; as ἀπόκρυφα, the works falsely ascribed to apostles. So Rufinus 
makes three classes, reckoning the Shepherd of Hermas and the Judgment 
of Peter among the Libri Ecclesiastici. ] 

° Aug. De Doct. Chr. ii. 8, and other passages quoted by De Wette, 1. ο. 
Comp. Münscher, Handb. ii. p. 64, ss. Gregory the Great, Mor. lib. xix. c. 
21: Non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad 
eedificationem ecclesiz editis testimoniam proferamus. He makes only a 
relative distinction between the Old and New Test., lib. i. Hom. 6, in Ezech.: 
Divina eloquia, etsi temporibus distincta, sunt tamen sensibus unita. Comp. 
Lau, 331. 

° Münscher, 1. c. p. 91, ss. Trechsel, über den Kanon, die Kritik und 
Exegese der Manichäer. Bern. 1832. 8. The authenticity of the Old Test., 
and the connection between the Old and the New Testaments, were defended 
in opposition to the Manicheans, especially by Augustine, De Mor. Eccles. 
Cath. i. c. 27, De Utilitate Credendi, and elsewhere. 


§ 121. 
INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION. 


[Davidson S., Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 111-162. Lee on Inspiration, Appendix G, pp. 
423-448.] On the literature, comp. § 32. 


The idea of inspiration, in this as in the previous period, was 
understood by some in a dynamic and spiritual sense, by others in a 
mechanical and external sense. Not only were the contents of Holy 
Writ considered as divinely inspired,' but it was also esteemed an 
offense to suppose the possibility of chronological errors and histori- 


320 SeconD PERIOD. THe AGE OF POLEMICS. 


cal contradictions on the part of the sacred penman.* And yet, in 
other instances, their different peculiarities as men were not over- 
looked, but made use of, to explain the diversities of their mode of 
thought and style.’— The Origenistic allegorical system of interpre- 
tation gave way in the East ta the sober grammatical method of the 
Antiochian school.* In the West, on the contrary, some intima- 
tions of Augustine led to the adoption of a fourfold sense of Scrip- 
ture, which was afterwards confirmed by the scholastic divines of 
the next period.’ 


* This may be seen from certain general phrases which, having originated 
in the preceding period, had now come into general use, such as θεία γραφή, 
kuptakal γραφαί, θεόπνευστοι γραφαί, ccelestes litterse (Lact. Inst. iv. ο. 22), 
as well as the simile of the lyre (comp. § 32, note 4), which was applied in a 
somewhat different sense by Chrys. Hom. de Ignat. Opp. ii. p. 594. 

> Eusebius of Cxsarea says that it is θρασὺ καὶ προπετές to assert that the 
sacred writers could have substituted one name for another, e. g., Abimelech 
for Achish (’Ayxoöc) ; Comment. in Ps. xxxili. in Montfaucon, Coll. Nov. T. 
i.p. 129. That Chrysostom designates the words of the apostle, not as his, 
but as words of the Holy Spirit, or of God (in Ev. Joh. Hom. i. Opp. T. viii. 
p. 6, de Lazaro Cone. 4. Opp. i. p. 755, and elsewhere), may partly be ascribed to 
his practical and rhetorical tendency. As he calls the mouth of the prophets 
the mouth of God (in Act. App. Hom. xix. Op. T. ix. p. 159), so Augustine 
(De Consensu Evy. i. 35) compares the apostles with the hands which noted 
down that which Christ, the head, dictated. He also calls (in Conf. vii, 21) 
the Sacred Scriptures venerabilem stilum Spir. S. He communicates to 
Jerome his theory of inspiration in the following manner (Ep. 82. Opp. ii. p. 
143): Ego enim fateor caritati tus, solis eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam 
canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum 
eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid 
in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud, quam 
vel mendosum esse codicem,* vel interpretrem non assecutum esse, quod dic- 
tum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut 
quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque prepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia 
ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vel probabili 
ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. Nevertheless, he 
admits (ibid. p. 150, § 24) that the canonical authority may be restricted, 
inasmuch as in reference to the dispute between Paul and Peter, he concedes 
to the former an undoubted superiority. Comp. De Civ. Dei xviii. 41: De- 
nique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et 


* A challenge to textual criticism! [So, too, De Consensu Evangelistarum, comparing 
the accounts of Mark and Luke of the words from heaven at Christ’s baptism: Illud vero 
quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo 
scriptum est: “ Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te;” quanquam in antiquioribus codicibus 
Grecis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari 
possit, quid aliquid quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de coelo 
sonuisse. Comp. Lee, loc. cit, p. 424.] 


§ 121. InspIRATION AND INTERPRETATION. 321 


terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. Unde non 
immerito, cum illa scriberent, eis Deum vel per eos locutum, non pauci in 
scholis atque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris atque in 
urbibus cum doctis atque indoctis tot tantique populi crediderunt.—His 
opinion concerning the miraculous origin of the Septuagint version accords 
with that of the earlier fathers, ibid. c. 42-44, where he attributes (as many 
ultra-Lutherans afterwards did in reference to the Lutheran translation) the 
defects of that translation to a kind of inspiration which had regard to the 
circumstances of the times. But behind this fantastic notion lies the grand 
idea of a revelation, which continues to manifest itself in a living way—an 
idea which is above the narrow adherence to the letter, and is expressed in 
the belief in tradition.—Similar views probably induced Gregory the Great 
to say in reference to the researches of learned men relative to the author of 
the book of Job, that it was not necessary to know the pen with which the 
King of kings had written his royal letter, but that it sufficed to have a full 
conviction ef its Divine contents. Thus he assigns, on the one hand, the 
authorship of this book to the Holy Spirit, while, on the other, he leaves 
open all discussions concerning the human instruments—discussions which 
were chiefly dreaded in later times. Gregory the Great, Moral. in Job. preef. 
ὁ. 1, § 2; the other views of Gregory, see in Zau, ubi supra. 

* Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia, who in this respect went perhaps farther 
than any other writer, assumed different degrees of inspiration. He ascribed 
to Solomon, not the gift of prophecy, but only that of wisdom, and judged of 
the book of Job and the Song of Solomon only from the human point of 
view. Hence the fifth CEeumenical Council found fault with him on this 
very account; Mansi, ix. 223. [Comp. Lee, ubi supra, p. 443-8.] But 
Chrysostom, and also Jerome, admitted human peculiarities, the one in refer- 
ence to the gospels (Hom, i. in Matth.), the other with respect to the apostle 
Paul (on Gal. v. 12). Chrysostom even finds a proof of their credibility in 
the minor disagreements of the gospels; for, he says, if all agreed in every 
thing, the enemies would suspect collusion (in Matth. Hom. 1, § 2). Jerome 
finds in Paul solecisms, hyperbata (transpositions of words and clauses), and 
abrupt periods (on Ephes. iii. and Gal. v. 12). Basil the Great says respect- 
ing the prophets (in the commentary on Isaiah commonly ascribed to him, 
Opp. T. i. p. 379, ed. Ben.): “As it is not every substance which is fitted to 
reflect images, but only such as possess a certain smoothness and trans- 
pareney, so the effective power of the Spirit is not visible in all souls, but 
only in such as are neither perverse nor distorted” (Fudelbach), p. 28. Au- 
gustine (De Consensu Evang. ii. 12) asserts, that the evangelists had written, 
ut quisque meminerat, ut cuique cordi erat, vel brevius vel prolixius: but he 
is careful not to be misunderstood, lib. 1. c. 2: Quamvis singuli suum quen- 
dam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum 
velut alterius ignarus voluisse scribere reperitur, vel ignorata pratermisisse, 
que scripsisse alius invenitur ; sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non super- 
fluam codperationem sui laboris adjunxit—Arnobius calls the style of the 
biblical writers sermo trivialis et sordidus (Adv. Gent. i. 58), but he also sees 
in this proof of their truthfulness: Nunquam enim veritas sectata est fucum, 


nec quod exploratum et certum est, circumduci se patitur orationis per ambi- 
21 


322 Second PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICs. 


tum longiorem. The barbarisms and soleeisms he compares (c. 59) to thorns 
on fruit. Etenim vero dissoluti est pectoris in rebus seriis queerere volupta- 
tem, et cum tibi sit ratio cum male se habentibus atque egris, sonos auribus 
infundere dulciores, non medicinam vulneribus admovere. Moreover, even 
the language of the schools has its abnormities : Quaenam est enim ratio natu- 
ralis aut in mundi constitutionibus lex scripta, ut hic paries dicatur et hee 
scella? ete.—Concerning Gregory Nazianzen, comp. Orat. ἢ. 105, p. 60. See 
Ullmann, p. 305, note.—Hpiphanius opposed very decidedly the notions 
derived from the old μαντική (comp. $ 32), according to which the inspired 
writers were entirely passive, and supposed that the prophets enjoyed a clear 
perception of the divine, a calm disposition of mind, ete. Comp. Hier. 48, c. 
3, and Jerome Pro@m. in Nahum, in Habacue et in Jesaiam: Neque vero, 
ut Montanus cum insanis feminis somniat, Prophetz in exstasi sunt locuti, ut 
nescirent, quid loquerentur, et quum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent, quod 
dicerent. Though Jerome allows that human (6. g., grammatical) faults 
might have occurred, yet he guards himself against any dangerous inferences 
which might be drawn from his premises (Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. lib. ii. 
ad cap. iii. 1): Nos, quotiescunque solecismos aut tale quid annotamus, non 
Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli criminantur, sed magis Apostoli assertores 
sumus, etc. According to him, the divine power of the word itself destroyed 
these apparent blemishes, or caused believers to overlook them. “ Zhe opin- 
ion of these theologians manifestly was, that the external phenomena do not 
preclude the reality of the highest influences of divine grace.” Rudelbach, 
p. 42.* 

* Theodoret, who may be considered as the representative of this tendency, 
rejects both the false allegorical and the bare historical systems of interpreta- 
tion, Protheoria in Psalmos (ed. Schulze), T. i. p. 603, in Rudelbach, p. 36. 
(He calls the latter a Jewish rather than Christian interpretation.) Comp. 
Münter, über die antiochen. Schule, 1. c. and Meander, Church History, ii, 
p. 353. The hermeneutical principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia are here of 
special weight. See Neander, Dog. Hist. p. 283-5. [Veander, judging from 
Theodore’s general position, conjectured the value of his commentaries in 
this matter, “if more of them had tome down to us.” The conjecture has 
been confirmed by the discovery of the commentaries. See the extracts as 
given by Jacobi, in the notes to Neander’s Hist. of Doctrines, in Ryland’s 
translation, as above. | 

5 It is remarkable that Augustine, on the one hand, understands all bibli- 
cal narratives in their strictly historical, literal sense; and, on the other, 
leaves ample scope for allegorical interpretation. Thus he takes much pains, 
De Civ. Dei xv. 27, to defend the account of the ark of Noah against mathe- 
matical and physical objections (he even supposes a miracle by which carni- 
vorous animals were changed into herbivorous); nevertheless, he thinks that 
all this had happened only ad preefigurandum ecclesiam, and represents the 
clean and unclean animals as types of Judaism and Paganism, ete. [Comp. 


* Thus Jerome and Chrysostom answered those who would put the epistle to Philemon 
out of the Canon, because it contained only human matters, who took umbrage at the 
φαιλόνης which the apostle ordered (2 Tim. iv. 13), that employment in human affairs did 
no damage to divine things. See Neander, Hist. Dogm. p. 284. 


§ 122. TRADITION AND INSPIRATION. 323 


also Davidson, 1. c. p. 138, where another specimen is given.] The passage 
De Genes. ad Litter. ab. init.: In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri opor- 
tet, que ibi eterna intimentur, que facta narrentur, que futura prenuntien- 
tur, que agenda precipiantur, has given rise to the doctrine of a fourfold 
sense of Scripture ; comp. with it De Util. Cred. 3: omnis igitur scriptura, que 
testamentum vetus vocatur, diligenter eam nosse cupientibus quadrifariam 
traditur, secundum historiam, secundum etiologiam, secundum analogiam, 
secundum allegoriam; the further exposition of his views is given ibid. 
[ Davidson, 1. c. p. 137]. According to Augustine, seven things are neces- 
sary to the right interpretation of Scripture, Doctr. Christ. ii. 7: t2mor, 
pietas, scientia, fortitudo, consilium, purgatio cordis, sapientia, But he who 
will perfectly interpret an author, must be animated by love to him, De Util. 
Cred. 6: Agendum enim tecum prius est, ut auctores ipsos non oderis, deinde 
ut ames, et hoc agendum quovis alio modo potius, quam exponendis eorum 
sententiis et literis. Propterea quia, si Virgilium odissemus, imo si non eum, 
priusquam intellectus esset, majorum nostrorum commendatione diligeremus, 
nunquam nobis satisfieret de illis ejus quaestionibus innumerabilibus, quibus 
grammatici agitari et perturbari solent, nec audiremus libenter, qui cum ejus 
laude illas expediret, sed ei faveremus, qui per eas illum erasse ac delirasse 
conaretur ostendere. Nune vero cum eas multi ac varie pro suo quisque 
captu aperire conentur, his potissimum plauditur, per quorum expositionem 
melior invenitur poéta, qui non solum nihil peceasse, sed nihil non laudabili- 
ter cecinisse ab eis etiam, qui illum non intelligunt, ereditur...... Quantum 
erat, ut similem benevolentiam preeberemus eis, per quos locutum esse Spiri- 
tum Sanctum tam diuturna vetustate firmatum est? Even misunderstanding 
of the Scriptures (according to Augustine) is not corrupting, so long as the 
regula caritatis is observed; one may err about a text without becoming a 
liar. He who, with good intent, though with wrong exegesis, is steering 
loosely towards the one end of edification (the love of God), is like him who 
runs to the goal across the fields instead of in the beaten road. Yet we must 
always try to set such an one right, lest he get into the way of wandering 
from the true road, and so in the end run to perdition; De Doct. Christ. 1. 36. 


§ 122. 
TRADITION AND THE CONTINUANCE OF INSPIRATION. 


The belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures neither excluded 
faith in an existing tradition, nor in a continuance of the inspira- 
tions of the Spirit. Not only transient visions, in which pious indi- 
viduals received divine instructions and disclosures,’ were compared 
to the revelations recorded in Scripture, but still more the continued 
illumination which the fathers enjoyed when assembled in council.’ 
But as the Scriptures were formed into a canon, so, too, in course 
of time it became necessary to lay down a canon, to which the eccle- 
siastical tradition, developing itself on its own historical foundation, 


324 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


might be made subject, so that every spirit need not be believed. 
Such an one was more definitely sketched by Vincens of Lerins, 
who laid down the three criteria of antiquitas (vetustas), universi- 
tas, and consensio, as marks of true ecclesiastical tradition ; and 
thus the quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est 
was fixed as the canon of what had authority in the church.* 


* Comp. Münscher, Handbuch, iii. p. 100: “ Such exalted views on inspi- 
ration can not appear strange to us, since they existed in an age when Chris- 
trans believed and recorded numerous divine revelations and inspirations still 
granted to holy men, and especially to monks.”—Such revelations, of course, 
were supposed not to be contradictory either to Scripture, or to the tradition 
of the church. Thus the voice from heaven, which said to Augustine; “Ago 
sum, qui sum, —and “tolle lege,” directed him to the Scriptures. Confes- 
sions, vill. 12. 

ἡ The decisions of the councils were represented as decisions of the Holy 
Spirit (placuit Spiritui Sancto et nobis). Comp. the letter of Constantine to 
the church of Alexandria, Socrat. i. 9: Ὃ yap τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἤρεσεν 
ἐπισκόποις, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἕτερον, ἣ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώμη, μάλιστά ye ὕπου τὸ 
ἅγιον πνεῦμα τοιούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν διανοίαις ἐγκείμενον τὴν 
θείαν βούλησιν ἐξεφώτισεν. The Emperor, indeed, spoke thus as a layman. 
But Pope Leo the Great expressed himself in the same way, and claimed in- 
spiration not only for councils (Ep. 114, 2, 145, 1), but also for emperors and 
imperial decretals (Ep. 162, 3. Ep. 148, 84, 1), even for himself (Ep. 16, and 
Serm. 25). Comp. Griesbach, Opusc. i. p. 21. Gregory the Great, too, 
declares that he ascribes to the first four (Eeumenical Councils equal author- 
ity with the four gospels. Concerning the somewhat inconsistent opinions 
of Gregory of Nazianzum (Ep. ad Procop. 55), on the one hand, and of 
Augustine (De Bapt. contra Don, ii. ὁ. 3), and Facundus of Hermiane 
(Defensio Trium Capitul. ce. 7), on the other, see Meander, Church Hist. ii. 
177, and Hist. Dogm. 278. In accordance with his views on the relation 
of the Septuagint to the original Hebrew (ὃ 121), Augustine supposes that 
the decisions of earlier councils were completed by those of later ones, with- 
out denying the inspiration of the former, since “the decision of councils only 
gives public sanction to that result which the development of the church had 
reached.” Inspiration accommodates itself to the wants of the time. Re- 
specting this “economy,” and its abuses, see Münscher, |. c. p. 156, ss. 

* Commonitorium, or Tractatus pro Catholic» Fidei Antiquitate et Univer- 
sitate (composed in the year 433). Vincentius sets forth a twofold source 
of knowledge: 1. Divine legis auctoritas. 2. Ecclesiz catholic traditio. 
The latter is necessary on account of the different interpretations given to 
Scripture. The sensus ecclesiasticus is the only right one. Vincentius, like 
Augustine, also supposes that tradition may in a certain sense advance, so 
that an opinion, respecting which the church has not as yet pronounced a 
decision, is not to be considered heretical; but it may afterwards be con- 
demned as such, if it be found contrary to the more fully developed faith of 
the church. Thus many of the opinions of the earlier Fathers might be 
vindicated as archaisms. | Baur, Dogmengesch. 159 sq., says that the notion 


$ 123. Tue Berne or Gop. 325 


of tradition was already more methodically and definitely fixed than any 
other doctrine of the church. The canon of Vincens, he states, was brought 
forward in relation to the Augustinian predestination—the latter could not 
stand this test. This canon was mechanical, allowing no room for progress, 
and it also contradicted the principle of the suflicieney of the Scriptures.] 


2. THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING GOD. 
§ 123. 
THE BEING OF GOD. 


The prevailing tendency to dialectic demonstrations led to the 
attempt to prove, in a logical way, the existence of God, which the 
Christian faith had received as an uncontested axiom.’ In the 
writings of some of the fathers, both of the preceding and present 
periods, e. g., Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzum, we meet with 
what may be called the physico-theological argument, if we under- 
stand by it an argument drawn from the beauty and wisdom dis- 
played in nature, which is always calculated to promote practical 
piety. But both these writers mistrusted a merely objective proof, 
and showed that a pure and pious mind would best find and know 
God.” The cosmological proof propounded by Diodorus of Tarsus,* 
and the ontological argument of Augustine and Boéthius,* lay claim 
to a higher degree of logical precision and objective certainty. The 
former argument was based upon the principle that there must be a 
sufficient ground for every thing. Augustine and Boéthius inferred 
the existence of God from the existence of general ideas—a proof 
which was more fully developed in the next period by Anselm. 


1 Even Arnobius considered this belief to be an azxiom, and thought it 
quite as dangerous to attempt to prove the existence of God as to deny it; 
Ady. Gent. 1. ο. 33 > Quisquamne est hominum, qui non cum principis notione 
diem nativitatis intraverit? cui non sit ingenitum, non affixum, imo ipsis 
pene in genitalibus matris non impressum, non insitum, esse regem ac domi- 
num cunctorum queecunque sunt moderatorem ? 

* Athanasius, Adv. Gent. i. p. 3, ss. (like Theophilus of Antioch, comp. 
§ 35, note 1), starts with the idea, that none but a pure and sinless soul can 
see God (Matt. v. 8). He too compares the heart of man to a mirror. But 
as it became sullied by sin, God revealed himself by means of his creation, 
and when this proved no longer sufficient, by the prophets, and, lastly, by 
the Logos—G@regory of Nazianzum argues in a similar way; he infers the 
existence of the Creator from his works, as the sight of a lyre reminds us 
both of him who made it, and of him who plays it; Orat. xxviii. 6, p. 499 ; 
comp. Orat. xxviii. 16, p. 507, 508; Orat. xiv. 33, p. 281. He too appeals 
to Matth, y. 8. “Rise from thy low condition by thy conversation, by purity 


326 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


of heart unite thyself to the pure. Wilt thou become a divine, and worthy 
of the Godhead? Then keep God’s commandments, and walk according to 
his precepts, for the act is the first step to knowledge.” Ullmann, p. 317.— 
Augustine also propounds in an eloquent manner, and in the form of a 
prayer, what is commonly called the physico-theological argument (Conf. x. 
6): Sed et celum et terra et omnia, que in eis sunt, ecce undique mihi 
dicunt, ut te amem, nec cessant dicere omnibus, ut sint inexcusabiles, etc. 
Ambrose, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, and others, express themselves in 
much the same manner. 

° Diodorus κατὰ εἱμαρμένης in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 223, p. 209, b. The 
world is subject to change. But this change presupposes something constant 
at its foundation; the variety of creatures points to a creative unity; for 
change itself is a condition which has had a commencement: Ei dé τις 
ἀγένητον λέγοι αὐτῶν τὴν τροπὴν, τὸ πάντων ἀδυνατώτερον ἐισάγει" 
τροπὴ γὰρ πάθος ἐστὶν ἀρχόμενον, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι τροπὴν ἄναρχον" 
καὶ συντόμως εἰπεῖν, τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτῶν ζώων τε καὶ σωμά- 
των ἡ πάνσοφος τροπὴ, καὶ τῶν σχημάτων καὶ χρωμάτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων 
ποιοτήτων ἡ ποικίλη διαφορὰ μονονοὐχὶ φωνὴν ἀφίησι μήτε ἀγέννητον 
μήτε αὐτόματον νομίζειν τὸν κόσμον, μήτ᾽ av ἀπῤῥονόητον, θεὸν δὲ αὐτοῖς 
καὶ τὸ εὖ εἷναι παρασχόμενον σαφῶς εἰδέναι καὶ ἀδιστάκτως ἐπίστασθαι. 

* August. De Lib. Arbitr. lib. ii. c. 3-15. There are general ideas, which 
have for every one the same objective validity, and are not (like the percep- 
tions of sense) different and conditioned by the subjective apprehension. 
Among these are the mathematical truths, as 3+7=10; here, too, belongs 
the higher metaphysical truth—truth in itself, 7. e., wisdom (veritas, sapien- 
tia). The absolute truth, however, which is necessarily demanded by the 
human mind, is God himself. [He asserts that man is composed of exist- 
ence, life, and thinking, and shows that the last is the most excellent; hence 
he infers that that by which thinking is regulated, and which, therefore, must . 
be superior to thinking itself, is the summum bonum. He finds this summum 
bonum in those general laws which every thinking person must acknowledge, 
and according to which he must form his opinion respecting thinking itself. 
The sum total of these laws or rules is called truth or wisdom (veritas, 
sapientia). The absolute is, therefore, equal to truth itself. God is truth. 
Illa veritatis et sapientis puleritudo, tantum adsit perpetua voluntas fruendi, 
nec multitudine audientium constipate secludit venientes, nec peragitur tem- 
pore, nec migrat locis, nee nocte intercipitur, nec umbra intercluditur, nec 
sensibus corporis subjacet. De toto mundo ad se conversis qui diligunt eam 
omnibus proxima est, omnibus sempiterna; nullo loco est, nusquam deest ; 
foris admonit, inter docet; cernentes se commutat omnes in melius, a nullo 
in deterius commutatur; nullus de illa judicat, nullus sine illa judicat bene. 
Ac per hoc eam manifestum est mentibus nostris, que ab ipsa una fiant sin- 
gule sapientes, et non de ipsa, sed per ipsam de ceteris judices, sine dubita- 
tione esse potiorem. Tu autem concesseras, si quid supra mentes nostras 
esse monstrarem, Deum te esse confessurum, δὲ adhuc nihil esset superius. 
Si enim aliquid est excellentius, ille potius Deus est: δὲ autem non est, jam 
ipsa veritas Deus est. Sive ergo illud sit, sive non sit, Deum tamen esse 
negare non poteris. Comp. Ritter, Christl. Phil. i, 407-411.]—Boéthius 


$ 124. Tue NATURE or Gop. 327 


expresses himself still more definitely, De Consol. Phil. v. Prosa 10; he shows 
that empirical observation and the perception of the imperfect lead neces- 
sarily to the idea of perfection and its reality in God: Omne enim, quod im- 
perfectum esse dicitur, id diminutione perfecti imperfectum esse perhibitur. 
Quo fit, ut si in quolibet genere imperfectum quid esse videatur, in eo per- 
fectum quoque aliquid esse necesse sit. Etenim perfectione sublata, unde 
illud quod imperfectum perhibetur extiterit, ne fingi quidem potest. Neque 
a diminutis inconsummatisque natura rerum cepit exordium, sed ab integris 
absolutisque procedens, in he extrema atque effeeta dilabitur. Quod si.... 
est quaedam boni fragilis imperfecta felicitas, esse aliquam solidam perfectam- 
que non potest dubitari....Deum rerum omnium prineipum bonum esse, 
communis humanorum conceptio probat animorum. Nam cum nihil Deo 
melius excogitari queat, id quo melius nihil est, bonum esse quis dubitet? ita 
vero bonum esse Deum ratio demonstrat, ut perfectum quoque in eo bonum 
esse convincat. Nam ni tale sit, rerum omnium princeps esse non poterit. 
Ren Quare ne in infinitum ratio procedat, confitendum esse summum Deum 
summi perfectique boni esse plenissimum. Compare Schleiermacher Gesch- 
ichte der Philosophie, p. 166: “Augustine is said to have given the first 
proof of the existence of God. But we are not to understand this in an 
objectionable manner, as though he would demonstrate this in an objective 
way ; he only desires to show that the idea of God is at the foundation of all 
human thought.”—Gregory the Great also reasons in a similar way; Moral. 
xv. ὁ. 46; comp. Lau, p. 347. 

[ Baur, Dogmengesch. 162: Augustine went into the most profound spec- 
ulation about the nature of God. On the one hand he viewed God in such 
an abstract and negative way, that he must appear to be wholly indefinable, 
and we could only say what he is not (De Trin. v. 2); on the other hand, he 
held fast to the two most essential ideas about God, viz., that he is the essen 
tia (De Trin. v. 3), the immanent being of all being, and the bonum incom 
municabile. To remove all finite conceptions, he defines the knowledge of 
God as an absolute identity with itself, as the immediate vision of that which 
is eternally present (De Civ. Dei, xi. 10, 21; xii, 17)—The peculiarity of 
the Augustinian proof of the being of God consists in this, that he starts from 
thinking (thought) itself, not from thought with any definite contents, and 
not from the idea of God, but from thought as such. All subjective thought 
presupposes objective truth. Thought itself involves the idea of God. His 
argument is an analysis of thought itself, and not an inference from the im- 
perfect to the perfect. | 


§ 124 
THE NATURE OF GOD. 
The definitions of orthodox theologians respecting the Trinity had 


this peculiarity, that, on the one hand, they were based on the sup- 
position that God may be known by means of his revelation, and, on 


328 SeconD PErRIoDd. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


the other, implied that the contents of that same revelation, as 
unfolded by the church in definite conceptions, are a mystery. These 
theologians, therefore, took no offense at the contradiction involved 
in such definitions, but found it quite natural that the understand- 
ing should here come short. The Arians, on the contrary, in ac- 
cordance with their more rationalistic system, particularly as carried 
out to all its logical consequences by Hunomius, demanded the pos- 
sibility of a complete knowledge of God.’—Though the ideas con- 
cerning the divine Being, and the doctrinal definitions of the church, 
were still mixed up with much that savored of anthropomorphism,” 
yet the speculative tendency of the most eminent theologians of the 
present period kept them on an elevation, where they avoided all 
gross representations of the Godhead. Thus Athanasius taught 
that God is above all essence ; Augustine doubted whether it would 
be proper to call God a substance.” Gregory of Nazianzum, on the 
other hand, showed that it is not sufficient merely to deny the sen- 
suous.‘ The gross and carnal notions of the Audians concerning 
God met with little approval,°® while the Monophysites, by blending 
the divine and the human, promoted anthropomorphism under the 
mask of Christian orthodoxy.° 


* According to Socrat. iv. 7, Hunomius maintained that God knows no ° 
more about his nature than we do. It does not follow (he further main- 
tained) that because the minds of some are impaired by sin, that the same is 
true in reference to all. The natural man indeed does not possess the knowl- 
edge in question; but what is the use of a revelation which reveals nothing ? 
Christ has opened unto us a way to the perfect knowledge of God. He is 
the door, viz., to this knowledge. Eunomius attached the greatest impor- 
tance to the theoretical, didactic part of Christianity, and supposed its very 
essence to consist in the ἀκρίβεια τῶν δογμάτων. Comp. the refutations of 
Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, and of Basil. The latter reminds 
him (Ep. 16) of the impossibility of explaining the nature of God, since he 
can not explain the nature even of an ant! Accused on the orthodox side 
of transforming theology into technology, the Arian Philostorgius, on the 
contrary, thought it praiseworthy that Eunomius had abandoned the doctrine 
of the incomprehensibility of God, which Arius himself defended. Hist. 
Eccles. x. 2, 3. This last statement also favors the conclusion, that the 
accusations of his opponents were something more than their own inferences 
from his doctrines, as Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 303, seems to assert. Comp. 
Neander, Hist. Dogm. 311, and his Chrysostom, 1. 355. A’/ose, Gesch. ἃ. 
Lehre des Eunomius, Kiel, 1833, p. 36 sq., Ullmann’s Greg. p. 318 sq. 

* Examples are given by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, 1. p. 136. [Athanas. 
De Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 11. Cyril, Catech. iv. 5. August. Ep. 178. 14, 18, 
De Divers. Queest. 20.] Comp. also Lact. Inst. vii. 21, where he calls the 
Holy Spirit purus ac liquidus, and in aquee modum fluidus. 

° Athan, Contra Gent. p. 3: ᾿Επέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας, ὑπερούσιος. Aug. 
De Trin, v. 2, vil. 5, prefers the use of the word essentia to substantia, comp. 


$ 124. Tue Nature or Gop. 329 


de Civ. Dei xii. 2, though he himself (Ep. 177, 4), speaks of God as substan- 
tialiter ubique diffusus.* Comp. Boéthius De Trin. ec. 4: Nan quum dieimus: 
Deus, substantiam quidem significare videmur, sed eam, que sit ultra sub- 
stantiam. Augustine’s writings, however, contain many profound thoughts 
relative to the knowledge of God. But every thing he says shows how much 
he felt the insufficiency of language to express the nature of God; De Doctr. 
Christ. i. c. 6: Imo vero me nihil aliud quam dicere voluisse sentio. Si 
autem dixi, non est quod dicere volui. Hoc unde scio, nisi quia Deus inefta- 
bilis est: quod autem a me dictum est, si ineffabile esset, dictum non esset. 
Ac per hoc ne ineffabilis quidem dicendus est Deus, quia et hoc cum dicitur, 
aliquid dieitur. Et fit nescio qua pugna verborum, quoniam si illud est 
ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non est ineffabile quod vel ineffabile dici 
potest. Qua pugna verborum silentio cavenda potius quam voce pacanda 
est. Et tamen Deus, cum de illo nihil digne dici possit, admisit humane 
vocis obsequium et verbis nostris in laude sua gaudere nos voluit. Nam inde 
est quod et dieitur Deus.—On this account he, as well as Tertullian (ὃ 38, 
note 3), assigns to anthropomorphism its proper position, De Vera Rel. 50: 
Habet enim omnis lingua sua queedam propria genera locutionum, que cum 
in aliam linguam transferuntur, videntur absurda; and the subsequent part of 
the passage; De Genesi c. 17: Omnes, qui spiritaliter intelligunt scripturas, 
non membra corporea per ista nomina, sed spiritales potentias accipere didi- 
cerunt, sicut galeas et scutum et gladium et alia multa—But he prefers this 
anthropomorphism, which forms an idea of God from corporeal and spiritual 
analogies, though it may be erroneous, to the purely imaginary speculations 
of a conceited idealism, De Trinit. Lib. i. ab init. It is not we that know 
God, but God who makes himself known to us, De Vera Rel. c. 48: Omnia, 
qux de hac luce mentis a me dicta sunt, nulla quam eadem luce manifesta 
sunt. Per hance enim intelligo vera esse que dicta sunt, et haec me intelligere 
per hane rursus intelligo.— The same spirit is expressed in the beautiful pas- 
sage from the (spurious) Solilog. Anime c. 31: Qualiter cognovi te? Cog- 
novi te in te; cognovi te non sicut tibi es, sed* certe sicut mihi es, et non 
sine te, sed in te, quia tu es lux, que illuminasti me. Sicut enim tibi es, soli 
tibi cognitus es; sicut mihi es, secundum gratiam tuam et mihi cognitus es, 
.*.Cognovi enim te, quoniam Deus meus es tu (comp. Cyril of Jerusalem 
below, $ 127, note 1).—According to Gregory the Great, Mor. xx. c. 32, our 
knowledge of God does not correspond to his nature. But it is not on that 
account false; we now see him in image. Thus none can look steadfastly 
into the sun when it rises; but from the mountains it shies upon we per- 
ceive that it is rising, comp. Lau, p. 348, ss. 

* Orat. xxviii. 7-10, p. 500 sqq. in Ullmann, Ὁ. 530. The negative 
knowledge of God is of no more use than to be told that twice five are 
neither 2, nor 3, nor 4, nor 5, nor 20, nor 40, without being told that it is 
10.—Gregory thinks that the words ὁ ὧν and θεός are, comparatively speak- 
ing, the best expressions to denote the divine being; but gives the prefer- 
ence to the name 6 ὧν, partly because God applied it to himself (Ex. iii. 14), 

* The (Pseudo-) Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divinis Nominibus) goes still further, 


having no hesitation in saying that God, because elevated above all being, is τὸ μὴ ὄν, 
[Comp. Baur, Dogmengesch, 161.] 


330 SzconnD Preriop. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


partly because it is more significant. For the term θεός is a derivative, and 
to be understood relatively (like the name Lord) ; but the appellation 6 ὧν 
is in every respect independent, and belongs to none but God. Orat. xxx. 
17 and 18, p. 552, 553. Ullmann, p. 324, note. 

° Comp. above § 106, note 5. 

° Comp. what is said respecting Theopaschitism, $ 102, note 3. 


§ 125. 
THE UNITY OF GOD. 


Polytheism and Gnosticism having been defeated, it was of less 
importance in the present period, than in the preceding, to defend 
the unity of God. The dualism of the Manicheans alone called for 
a defense of Monotheism against those outside of the church.’ The 
definitions respecting the Trinity, moreover, made it necessary that 
the church should distinctly declare that the doctrine of the Trinity 
does not exclude that of the unity of God.” In treating of this 
subject, theologians used much the same language as those of the 
former period.’ 


1 Athanasius Contra Gent. p. 6, combated the dualism of the Gnosties, 
In opposition to the Manicheans, Titus of Bostra (Contra Manich, lib. 1. in 
Basnagii Mon. t. 1. p. 63, ss.),* Didymus of Alexandria (ibid. p. 204, 205), 
Gregory of Nyssa (contra Manich. Syllogismi x. Opp. iii. p. 180), Cyril of 
Jerusalem (Cat. vi. 20, p. 92 [94]), and Augustine in his polemical writings, 
defended the doctrine of one Divine being. These objections, however, did 
not make the desired impression upon the Manichees, since they really held 
that only the good being, the ground of all, was God; comp. Gieseler, 
Dogmengesch, 302. 

® Comp. 6. 9. the Symbolum Athanasianum, § 97: et tamen non sunt tres 
Dii, ete. On the controversy with the Tritheites and Tetratheites, see $ 96. 

3. E. g. Lact. 1. 3. Arnod, lib. ti. Rufin. Expos. p. 18: Quod autem dici- 
mus, Orientis ecclesias tradere unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem et unum 
Dominum, hoe modo intelligendum est, unum non numero dici, sed universi- 
tate. Verbi gratia: si quis enim dicit unum hominem, aut unum equum, 
hic unum pro numero posuit; potest enim et alius homo esse et tertius, vel 
equus. Ubi autem secundus vel tertius non potest jungi, unus si dieatur, non 
numeri, sed universitatis est nomen. Ut sie. 6. dicamus unum solem, hic 
unus ita dicitur, ut alius vel tertius addi non possit: unus est enim sol. 
Multo magis ergo Deus cum unus dicitur, unus non numeri, sed universitatis 
vocabulo notatur, ὁ. e., quia propterea unus dicatur, quod alius non sit. 


* [Titi Bostr. quee ex Opere contra Manich. edito in codice Hamburgensi servata sunt 
grece ed. P. Ant. de Lagarde, Berol. 1854.—The same work, libri quatuor syriace, also 
edited by Lagarde, Berol. 1859. ] 


§ 126. Toe ATTRIBUTES OF Gop. 991 


§ 126. 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 


Several theologians, 6. g., Gregory of Nazianzum, Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, and others, maintained that what we call the attributes of God, 
are only expressions by which we designate his relation to the world, 
and that these predicates are either negative or figurative.’ But 
Augustine proved, in a very acute manner, that the attributes of 
God can not be separated-from his nature as contingent phenomena.” 
Other theologians of the present period were equally cautious in 
defining particular attributes, e. g., those of omniscience and omni- 
presence.” Some endeavored to refine the idea of the retributive 
justice of God, and to defend it against the charge of arbitrariness ;* 
while others again sought to reconcile the omniscience of God, and 
consequently his foreknowledge, with human liberty. 


* Gregory says, Orat. vi. 12, p. 187: “There can be no antagonism in the 
Godhead, because it» would destroy its very nature; the Godhead, on the 
contrary, is in such perfect harmony not only with itself, but also with other 
beings, that some of the names of God have a particular reference to this 
agreement. Thus he is called ‘peace and love?” Among the attributes of 
of God he assigns (next to his eternity and infinity) the first place to love, 
see Ullmann, p. 333.— Cyril of Jerusalem maintains that our ideas of God, 
and the attributes which we ascribe to him, are not adequate to his nature, 
Cat. vi. 2, p. 87 (Oxon. 78): Λέγομεν yap οὐχ boa δεῖ περὶ θεόν (μόνῳ yap 
αὐτῷ ταῦτα γνώριμα), ἀλλ᾽ boa ἡμετέρα ἀσθένεια βαστάσαι δύναται. Οὐ 
γὰρ τὸ, τί ἐστι Θεὸς, ἐξηγούμεθα: ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τὸ ἀκριβὲς περὶ αὐτοῦ οὐκ olda- 
μεν, HET’ εὐγνωμοσύνης ὁμολογοῦμεν" ἐν τοῖς γὰρ περὶ Θεοῦ μεγὰλη γνωσις, 
τὸ τὴν ἀγνωσίαν ὁμολογεῖν (comp, also the subsequent part of the passage). 
Arnobius Adv. Gentes, iii. 19, protests very strongly against all predicating 
of attributes: Quis enim Deum dixerit fortem, constantem, frugi, sapientem ? 
quis probum ? quis sobrium ? quis immo aliquid nosse ? quis intelligere ? quis 
providere? quis ad fines ofliciorum certus actionum suarum decreta dirigen- 
tem? Humana sunt hee bona, et ex oppositione vitiorum existimationem 
meruerunt habere laudabilem. Quis est autem tam obtusi pectoris, tam 
bruti, qui humanis bonis Deum esse dicat magnum? aut ideo nominis majes- 
tate precellere, quod vitiorum careat foeditate? Quidquid de Deo dixeris, 
quidquid tacitee mentis cogitatione conceperis, in humanum transiit et cor- 
rumpitur sensum; nec habet proprie significationis notam, quod nostris 
dicitur verbis, atque ad negotia humana compositis. Unus est hominis intel- 
lectus de Dei natura certissimus, si scias et sentias, nihil de illo posse mortali 
oratione depromi. 

* De Civ. Dei xi, 10: Propter hoc itaque natura dicitur simplex, cui non 
sit aliquid habere, quod vel possit amittere ; vel aliud sit habens, aliud quod 
habet; sicut vas aliquem liquorem, aut corpus colorem, aut aör lucem sive 


332 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE ΟΕ POLEMICS. 


fervorem, aut anima sapientiam.. Nihil enim horum est id quod habet: nam 
neque vas liquor est, nec corpus color, nec aér lux sive fervor, neque anima 
sapientia est. Hine est, quod etiam privari possunt rebus quas habent, et in 
alios habitus vel qualitates verti atque mutari, ut et vas evacuetur humore 
quo plenum est, et corpus decoloretur, et aér tenebrescat, et anima desipiat, 
etc. (This reasoning is identical with the proposition of Schleiermacher, that 
in that which is absolute the subject and the predicate are one and the same 
thing; see his work, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 166.) Comp. Boéthius 
De Trin. 4: Deus vero hoc ipsum, quod est, Deus est; nihil enim aliud est, 
nisi quod est, ac per hoc ipsum Deus est. Gregory the Great treats of the 
attributes of God in the same manner, comp. Law, p. 350, ss. 

* God does not know things, because they are; but things are, because he 
knows them, Aug. |. c.: Ex quo occurrit animo quiddam mirum, sed tamen 
verum, quod iste mundus nobis notus esse non posset, nisi esset: Deo autem 
nisi notus esset, esse non posset. Arnobius had already taught (i. 31), that 
God is cause, place, and space (prima causa, locus et spatium rerum). So, 
too, Augustine says, loc. cit. qu. 20: Deus non alicubi est; quid enim alicubi 
est, continetur loco, quid loco continetur, corpus est. Non igitur alicubi est, 
et tamen quia est et in loco non est, in illo sunt potius omnia, quam ipse 
alicubi. He also excluded not only the idea of place, but (in reference to the 
eternity of God) that of succession of time, Conf. ix.10.2: Fuisse et futurum 
esse non est in vita divina, sed esse solum, quoniam eterna est. Nam fuisse 
et futurum esse non est eternum. Comp. de Civ. Dei xi. 5.—He also rejected 
the notion of Origen (condemned by Justinian) that God had created only as 
many beings as he could see to; De Civ. Dei xii. 18, 

* Lactantius wrote a separate treatise: De Ira Dei (Inst. lib. v.) on this 
subject. His principal argument is the following: If God could not hate, he 
could not love; since he loves good, he must hate evil, and bestow good 
upon those whom he loves, evil upon those whom he hates. Comp. Augus- 
tine, de Vera Rel. c.15: Justa vindicta peccati plus tamen elementie Domini 
quam severitatis ostendit. Ita enim nobis sic adetur a corporis voluptatibus 
ad sternam essentiam veritatis amorem nostrum oportere converti. Et est 
justitie pulchritudo cum benignitatis gratia concordans, ut, quoniam bono- 
rum inferiorum dulcedine decepti sumus, amaritudine pcenarum erudiamur. 
De Civ. Dei i. 9, and elsewhere. 

° Chrys. in Ep. ad Eph, Hom. i. (on ch. i. 5), distinguishes in this respect 
between an antecedent (θέλημα προηγούμενον), and a subsequent will (θέλημα 
δεύτερον). According to the former (τὸ σφοδρὸν θέλημα, θέλημα εὐδοκίας), 
all are to be saved, according to the latter sinners must be punished. Comp. 
the section on Predestination. [ August. De Civ. Dei v. c. 9, de Lib. Arbitr. 
11. c. 4. Boöthius De Cons. Phil. v.] 


§ 127. 
CREATION. 


After the idea of generation from the essence of the Father was 
applied to the Son of God alone, and employed to denote the differ- 


§ 127. Creation, 333 


ence between him and the other persons of the Trinity on the one 
hand, and between him and all created beings on the other, the idea 
of creation was limited by a more precise definition. The views of 
Origen were combated by Methodius,’ and rejected by the chief sup- 
porters of orthodoxy, viz., Athanasius and Augustine.’ The figura- 
tive interpretation of the narrative of the fall fell into disrepute 
along with the allegorical system of interpretation. It became the 
more necessary to abide by the historical view of the Mosaic account, 
inasmuch as it forms the basis of the history of the fall, and its 
objective historical reality was the foundation of the Augustinian 
theology. But Augustine endeavored, even here, to spiritualize the 
literal as much as possible, and to blend it with the allegorical.’ 
The dualistic theory of emanation held by the Manicheans and 
Priscillianists was still im conflict with the doctrine of a creation 
out of nothing.’ 


* In his work περὶ yevntov' Extracts from it are given by Photius Bibl. 
cod. 235, p. 301. 

? Athan. Contra Arian. Orat. ii. (Opp. T. i. p. 336). Augustine endeav- 
ored to remove the idea of time from the notion of God, and to save the 
doctrine that the creation had a beginning in time, by representing God as the 
author of time. Conf. xi. 10, ss. c. 13 :....Quee tempora fuissent, quae abs 
te condita non essent? Aut quomodo preterirent, si nunquam fuissent ? 
Cum ergo sis operator omnium temporum, si fuit aliquod tempus, antequam 
feceras celum et terram, cur dicitur, quod ab opere cessabas? Id ipsum 
enim tempus tu feceras, nec preeterire potuerunt tempora, antequam faceres 
tempora. Si autem ante coelum et terram nullum erat tempus, cur queeritur, ' 
quid tune faciebas? Non enim erat tunc, ubi non erat tempus. Nec tu tem- 
pore tempora prwcedis; alioquin non omnia tempora preecederes. Sed pre- 
cedis omnia preterita celsitudine semper presentis «ternitatis, et superas 
omnia futura, quia illa futura sunt, et cum venerint, preterita erunt; tu 
autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficiunt.*—Cf, de Civ. Dei vii. 30: xi, 
4-6: xii. 15-17. 

* Thus he said, in reference to the six days: Qui dies cujusmodi sint, aut 
perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile est cogitare, quanto magis dicere; De 
Civ. Dei xi. 6. Concerning the seventh day (ibid. 8), his views are very 
nearly those of Origen: Cum vero in die septimo requievit Deus ab omnibus 
operibus suis et sanctificavit eum, nequaquam est accipiendum puweriliter, 
tamquam Deus laboraverit operando, qui dixit et facta sunt, verbo intelligi- 
bili et sempiterno, non sonabili et temporali. Sed requies Dei requiem signi- 
ficat eorum, qui requiescunt in Deo, sicut letitia domus ltitiam significat 


* “A confounding of the antagonism of the ideal and the real with that of the universal and 
particular, is the reason why in the above we neither have creation in time cleanly enounced, 
nor yet the difference from (contrast with) the emanation theory distinctly brought out... . Τὸ 
make Augustine consistent, we must distinguish the eternal being of ideas in the divine intelli- 
gence, from that act of God by which they become productive. The former is then their ideal, 
the latter their real side,” etc. Schleiermacher, Gesch. der Phil. i. p. 167. 


334 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


eorum, qui letantur in domo, etiamsi non eos domus ipsa, sed alia res aliqua 
leetos facit, etc. On the system of chronology, comp. xii. 10. On the whole, 
see Bindemann’s Augustine, ii. 425 sq. 

* Baur, Manicheisches Religionssystem, p. 42, ss.: “ The Manichean sys- 
tem acknowledges no creation, properly speaking, but only a mixture, by 
means of which the two opposite principles so pervade each other, that their 
product is the existing system of the world, which partakes of the nature of 
both.” Comp. the statements of the Manichean Felix, which are there given. 
On the Priscillianists, see Orosii Commonitor. ad August. Meander, Church 
Hist. ii, 3, p. 710-718. Baumgarten-Crusius, Compend. i. p. 111. [ Gieseler, 
1, § 86. J. M. Mandernach, Gesch. des Priscillianismus, Trier. 1851.] 


§ 128. 


THE RELATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION TO THE DOCTRINE 
OF THE TRINITY. 


After the distinguishing characteristics of each of the persons of 
the Trinity had been more precisely defined (§ 95), the question 
arose among the theologians, to which of the persons the work of 
creation was to be assigned ? While in the so-called Apostles’ 
Creed, God the Father was simply and solely declared to be creator 
of the world, in the Nicene Creed the Son was said to have part in 
the creation, and the council of Constantinople asserted the same 
with regard to the Holy Ghost.’ Gregory of Nazianzum maintain- 
ed, in accordance with other theologians of this period, that the 
work of creation had been brought about by the Son, and com- 
pleted by the Holy Ghost” Following Augustine, the Western 
divines regarded creation as an act of the Triune God.’ 


' Symb. Ap.: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem cali et 
terre. Comp. what Rufinus says on this passage: he shows that all things 
are created through the Son. The Nicene Creed calls the Father παντοκρά- 
Topa πάντων ὁρατῶν TE καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητῆν, but says in reference to the 
Son: δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά TE ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ. The 
symbol of Constantinople calls the Holy Spirit τὸ ζωοποιοῦν. ᾿ 

NOTaL XXXVIll 9, pP: 668. 2.0 καὶ τὸ Evvönua ἔργον ἦν, λόγῳ συμπλη- 
ρούμενον καὶ πνεύματι τελειούμενον. He calls the Son also τεχνίτης λόγος. 
Comp. Ullmann, p. 490. ‘ 

° Thus Fulgentius of Ruspe De Trin. c. 8, and others. 


§ 129. 


DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE.—PROVIDENCE.—PRESERVATION AND’ 
GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD. 


That creation was not for the sake of God,’ but of man, was 
maintained as a doctrine and rhetorically set forth.’ In opposition 


§ 129. Design or THE UNIVERSE. 335 


to a mechanical view of the universe, the profound Augustine 
directed attention to the connection subsisting between creation 
and preservation.” Special care was bestowed during the present 
period upon the doctrine of providence, on which Chrysostom and 
Thheodoret in the East. and Salvian in the West, composed separate 
treatises." They took special pains to show, in accordance with the 
spirit of Christianity, that the providence of God extends to particu- 
lars. Jerome, however, did not agree with them, and, thinking it 
derogatory to the Divine Being to exercise such special care respect- 
ing the lower creation, maintained that God concerns himself only 
about the genus, but not about the species.” He thus prepared the 
way for the distinction made by the African bishop Junilius (who 
lived about the middle of the sixth century), between gubernatio 
generalis and gubernatio specialis,” which, though justifiable from 
the theological standpoint, yet, when mechanically understood, was 
prejudicial to the idea of God as a living God. 


* Thus Augustine maintained, De Vera Rel. 15, that the angels in serving 
God do not profit him, but themselves, Deus enim bono alterius non indiget, 
quoniam a se ipso est. 

* Nemesius de Nat. Hom. i. p. 30, ss. (ed. Oxon, 1671): ᾿Απέδειξεν οὖν 
ὁ Λόγος τὴν τῶν φυτῶν γένεσιν μὴ δι’ ἑαυτὴν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τροφὴν καὶ σύστα- 
σιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων γεγενημένην; and in reference to 
the animals he says, p. 34: κοινῆ δὲ πάντα πρὸς θεραπείαν ἀνθρώπων 
συντελεῖν πέφυκε, καὶ τὰ μὴ ταῖς ἄλλαις χρείαις χρήσιμα. In support of 
his views he adduces the example of useful domestic animals, and observes 
with regard to noxious animals, that they were not so prior to the fall} and 
that man possesses even now means sufficient to subdue them.—Comp. Chrys, 
Hom. πρὸς τοὺς καταλείψαντας τὴν ἔκκλησίαν (Opp. T. vi. p. 272. Ed. 
Bawermeister, p. 8): Ἥλιος ἀνέτειλε διὰ σὲ, καὶ σελήνη τὴν νύκτα ἐφώτισε, 
καὶ ποικίλος ἀστέρων ἀνέλαμψε χορός" ἔπνευσαν ἄνεμοι διὰ σὲ, ἔδραμον 
ποταμοί: σπέρματα ἐβλάστησαν διὰ σὲ, καὶ φῶτα ἀνεδόθη, καὶ τῆς φύσεως 
ὁ δρόμος τὴν οἰκείαν ἐτήρησε τάξιν, καὶ ἡμέρα ἐφάνη καὶ νὺξ παρῆλθε, καὶ 
ταῦτα πάντα γέγονε διὰ σέ. But Chrysostom also teaches that God created 
the world 6’ ἀγαθότητα μόνην, De Prov. i. T. iv. p. 142. Comp. Aug. de 
Div. Quast. 28 (Opp. T. vi.). Gregor. Myss. Or. Catech. ec. 5; de Hominis 
Opificio c. 2, Lact. Inst. vii. 4. 

* His general views on the subject may be seen in De Morib. Eccles. Cath. 
ο. 6: Nullum enim arbitror aliquo religionis nomine teneri, qui non saltem 
animis nostris divina providentia consuli existimet.—He then objects particu- 
larly to the popular notion of a master-builder whose work continues to exist, 
though he himself withdraws. The world would at once cease to exist, if 
God were to deprive it of his presence; De Genesi ad Litt, iv. ο. 12; Enchi- 
rid. ad Laurent. c. 27. He defends himself against the charge of pantheism, 
De Civ. Dei vii. 30: Sie itaque administrat omnia, quae creavit, ut etiam 
ipsa proprios exercere et agere motus sinat. Quamvis enim nihil esse pos- 
sint sine ipso, non sunt quod ipse. “76 world exists not apart from God, 


336 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICS. 


every thing is in God; this, however, is not to be understood as if God were 
space itself, but in a manner purely dynamic;” Schleiermacher, Geschichte 
der Philosophie, p. 168. Gregory of Nazianzum uses similar language, Orat. 

xvi. 5, p. 302, see Ullmann, p. 491. 

* Chrys. 3 books de Fato et Providentia— Theodoret, 10 orations περὶ τῆς 
θείας mpovotac.— Salvianus De Gubernatione Dei sive de Prov. Comp. also 
Nemesius de Natura Hominis (περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου), c. 42, ss. 

° This is indirectly proved by Arnob. Adv. Gent. iv. 10, p. 142 (viz., in 
opposition to polytheism): Cur enim Deus preesit melli uni tantummodo, non 
preesit cucurbitis, rapis, non cunilze, nasturtio, non ficis, betaceis, caulibus? 
Cur sola meruerint ossa tutelam, non meruerint ungues, pili, ceeteraque alia, 
que locis posita in obscuris et verecundioribus partibus, et sunt casibus 
obnoxia plurimis, et curam magis deorum, diligentiamque desiderant. A 
direct proof is given by Nemesius, ]. ὁ. ὁ. 44, p. 333: Πάντα yap ἤρτηται 
τοῦ Θεοῦ θελήματος" καὶ ἐντεῦθεν ἀρύεται τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ σωτηρίαν. 
Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀτόμων καὶ πεπληθυσμένων ὑπόστασις προνοίας ἐστὶ 
δεκτικὴ, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν ζώων τῶν ἀρχαῖς τισι καὶ ἡγεμονίαις διοικουμένων, 
ὧν πολλὰ εἴδη; καὶ γὰρ μέλισσαι καὶ μύρμηκες καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν συναγε- 
λαζομένων ὑπό τισιν ἡγεμόσι τέτακται, οἷς ἀκολουθεῖ πειθόμενα. Neme- 
sius, however, makes a distinction between creation and providence, and gives 
a definition of the latter, c. 42, p. 308: Ob γὰρ ταὐτό ἐστι πρόνοια καὶ 
κτίσις: κτίσεως μὲν yap TO καλῶς ποιῆσαι τὰ γινόμενα" προνοίας δὲ τὸ 
καλῶς ἐπιμεληθῆναι τῶν γενομένων; and c. 43, p. 315: Πρόνοια τοίνυν 
ἐστὶν ἐκ Θεοῦ εἰς τὰ ὄντα γινομένη ἐπιμέλεια: ὁρίζονται δὲ καὶ οὕτως 
αὐτήν" πρόνοιά ἐστι βούλησίς Θεοῦ, δι’ ἣν πάντα τὰ ὄντα τὴν πρόσφορον 
διεξαγωγὴν λαμβάνει κ. τ. Δ. Generally speaking, we find here a complete 
system of teleology. 

° Hier. Comment. in Abacue e. 1 (Opp. T. vi. p. 148): Sicut in hominibus 
etiam per singulos currit Dei providentia, sic in ceteris-animalibus generalem 
quidem dispositionem et ordinem cursumque rerum intelligere possumus ; 
verbi gratia: quomodo nascatur piscium multitudo et vivit in aquis, quomodo 
reptilia et quadrupedia oriantur in terra et quibus alantur cibis. Ceterum 
absurdum est ad hoc Dei deducere majestatem, ut sciat per momenta singula, 
quot nascantur culices, quotve moriantur [comp. on the other hand Matth. x. 
29, 30], que cimicum et pulicum et muscarum sit multitudo in terra, quanti 
pisces in mari natent, et qui de minoribus majorum preede cedere debeant. 
Non simus tam fatui adulatores Dei, ut, dum potentiam ejus etiam ad ima 
detrahimus, in nos ipsi injuriosi simus (!), eandem rationabilium quam irra- 
tionabilium providentiam esse dicentes.—A Similar notion had been already 
advanced by Arnobius, who does not even grant that God created the lower 
animals (Adv. Gent. ii. 47), from which indeed it must follow that there was 
a special providence for them (iv. 10). 

7 Junil. de Partibus Legis Divine, ]. ii. ὁ. 3, ss. (Bibl. Max. PP. T. x. p. 
345). Münscher, by Cölln, i. p. 154. General providence manifests itself in 
the preservation of the genus, and the circumstances in which it is placed ; 
special providence is displayed, 1, in the care of God for angels and men; 2, 
in that of the angels for men; and 3, in that of men for themselves. 


§ 130. ΤΉΞΟΡΙΟΥ. 337 


§ 130. 
THEODICY. 


The controversy with the Manichees, whose notions were to some 
extent adopted by Lactantius,’ required a more precise definition of 
the nature of evil, and such a distinction between physical and 
moral evil, as would represent the latter as the true source of the 
former. Hence the evils existing in the world were regarded either 
(objectively) as the necessary consequence and punishment of sin, or 
(subjectively) as phenomena which, though good in themselves, 
assumed the appearance of evil, only in consequence of our limited 
knowledge, or the corruption of our hearts, or the perverse use of 
our moral freedom. But the wise and pious, looking forward to 
that better time which is to come, use those evils as means of 
advancing in knowledge, and of practicing patience.’ 


1 Inst. Div. ii. c, 8. Here he advances the unsatisfactory notion, which 
even Augustine seems to have entertained (Enchir. ad Laur. e. 27), that evil 
would exist, though it were merely for the sake of contrast; as if good were 
good only by the contrast which it forms with bad, and would cease to be so 
if there were no contrast. 

2 Athan. Contra Gent. c. 7. Basil M. in Hexaém. Hom. ii. 4. Hom. 
quod Deus non est auctor malorum (the passage should be read in its con- 
nection) Opp. T. ii. p. 78 (al. i. p. 361). Klose, p. 54-59. Greg. Nyss. 
Orat. Catech. c. 6. Greg. Naz. Orat. xiv. 30, 31, xvi. 5 (quoted by Ullmann, 
p. 493). Chrys. in 2 Tim. Hom. viii. (Opp. xii. 518, E.). Aug. de Civ. Dei 
xi. 9: Mali enim nulla natura est, sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit. Comp. 
c. 22. Fire, frost, wild beasts, poison, ete., may all be useful in their proper 
place, and in connection with the whole; it is only necessary to make such 
a use of them as accords with their design, Thus poison causes the death 
of some, but heals others; meat and drink injure only the immoderate. . 
Unde nos admonet divina providentia, non res insipienter vituperare, sed 
utilitatem rerum diligenter inquirere, et ubi nostrum ingenium vel firmitas 
deficit, ita credere oceultam, sicut erant queedam, que vix potuimus invenire; 
quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio, aut humilitatis exercitatio est aut elationis 
attritio; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum, nomenque hoc non sit nisi 
privationis boni. Sed a terrenis usque ad celestia et a visibilibus usque ad 
invisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora; ad hoc inzqualia, ut essent omnia, 
ete. Comp. de Vera Rel. c. 12. Evils are beneficial as punishments, ibid. 
ὁ. 15..amaritudine peenarum erudiamur, On the question, why the righteous 
have to suffer as well as the unrighteous, see de Civ. Dei 1. 8-10. Christians 
rise above all trials only by love to God: toto mundo est omnino sublimior 
mens inherens Deo, De Morib. Eccles. Cath. ec. 11. This seems to be the 
turning-point of every theodicy (Rom. viii. 28). 

22 ’ 


338 SECOND PERIOD. THe AGE or POLEMICS. 


§ 131. 
ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY. 


J. P. Carpzovii Varia Historia Angelicorum ex Epiphanio et aliorum veterum Monumen- 
tis eruta. Helmst. 1772, 4. Keil, Opuscula Academica, ii. p. 548, ss. 


When the ideas of generation and procession from the Father came 
to be exclusively applied to the Son and the Holy Ghost, it also began 
to be stated more and more sharply that the angels are creatures, and 
not sons emanating from the essence of God.’ Nevertheless, they 
were still regarded as highly endowed beings far superior to man- 
kind.” Reverence was paid to them; but Ambrose was the only 
father during this period—and he did it merely in a passing remark 
— who recommended the invocation of angels. But both the pro- 
hibition of the worship of angels (angelolatry) by the synod of Lao- 
dicea (about the middle of the fourth century), and the testimony 
of Theodoret prove, that such a worship must have been practised . 
in some parts of the East (perhaps coming from earlier ages). 
Theodoret, as well as Augustine, opposed the adoration, or at least 
the invocation, of angels, which was disapproved of even by Gregory 
]., who would have it that it was confined to the Old Testament 
dispensation.* But the practice of dedicating churches to angels,° 
which was favored by emperors and bishops, would necessarily con- 
firm the people in their belief, that angels heard and answered 
prayer, notwithstanding all dogmatic explanations. As to other 
dogmatic definitions concerning the nature of angels, Gregory of 
Nazianzum asserted that they were created prior to the rest of the 
world ; others, e. g., Augustine, dated their existence from the first 
day of creation.” In the work of Pseudo-Dionysius (De Hierarchia 
Ceelesti), which, though composed during the present period, did 
not come into general use till the next, the angels were systematic- 
ally divided, almost in the style of a natural history, into three 
classes and nine orders.” 


* Lact. Inst. iv. c. 8: Magna inter Dei filium et cwteros [sic] angelos dif- 
ferentia est. Illi enim ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt..... [lle vero cum voce 
ac sono ex Dei ore processit, 

* Basil M. de Spir. S. c. 16, calls the angels ἀέριον πνεῦμα, πῦρ avAov 
according to Ps. οἷν. 4, and hence ascribes to them a certain corporeity. 
Gregory af Nazianzum says, Orat. vi. 12, p. 187:..... φῶς εἰσι καὶ τελείου 
φωτὸς ἀπαυγάσματα. According to Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, ss. the angels 
are servants of the divine will, powerful partly by original and partly 
by derived strength, moving from place to place, every where present, and 


$ 131. ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY. 339 


ready to assist all, not only by reason of their zeal to serve, but also on 
account of the lightness of their bodies; different parts of the world are 
assigned to different angels, or placed under their dominion (Orat. xlii. 9, p. 
755, and 27, p. 768), as he knows who has ordained and arranged all things. 
They have all one object in view (Orat. vi. 12, p. 187), and act all according 
to the one will of the creator of the universe. They praise the divine great- 
ness, and ever behold the eternal glory; not that God may thus be glorified, 
but that unceasing blessings may flow even upon those beings who stand 
nearest to God. Comp. Ullmann, p. 494, 95. Augustine calis the angels 
sancti angeli, De Civ. Dei xi. 9. In another passage, in a more rhetorical 
strain (Sermo 46), they are called domestici Dei, cceli cives, principes Para- 
disi, scientize magistri, doctores sapientize, illuminatores animarum, custodes 
earum corporum, zelatores et depensores bonorum. ulgentius of Ruspe, 
De Trin. ce. 8 (on the authority of great and learned men), asserts that they 
are composed of body and spirit; they know God by the latter, and appear 
to men by means of the former. According to Gregory the Great, the 
angels are limited (circumscripti) spirits, without bodies, while God alone is 
incircumscriptus; Dial. lib. iv. ὁ. 29; Moral. ii. c. 3. He also terms them 
rationalia animalia, see Law, loc. cit. p. 357 sq. 

* Ambrose De Viduis, cap. ix. § 55: Videtis enim quod magno peccato 
obnoxia minus idonea sit que pro a precetur, certe que pro se impetret. 
Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alos precatores. /Egri enim, nisi ad eos aliorum 
precibus medicus fuerit invitatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est 
caro, mens eegra est, et peccatorum vinculis impedita, ad medici illius sedem 
debite non potent explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt angeli, qui nobis ad 
presidium date sunt : martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam 
corporis pignore patrocinium vindicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, 
qui proprio sanguine, etiamsi que habuerunt, peccata luerunt...Non erubes- 
camus eos intercessores nostre infirmitatis adhibere, quia et ipsi infirmitatem 
corporis, etiam cum vincerent, cognoverunt. Though he thus mentions 
angels and martyrs as mediating persons, yet soon after he counsels men to 
the direct invocation of the Divine physician himself. 

* Theodoret ad Col. ii. 18, and iii, 17 (quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. 
86). —Conc. Laod. (A. p. 320-372?) in Can. 35; Mansi ii. p. 570; see 
Fuchs, ii. p. 330, ss.; Bruns, Bibl. Eccles. i. p. 77.  @eseler, Church His- 
tory, i. $ 99, note 32-34, § 121, note 7: Ὅτε οὐ dei χριστιανοὺς ἐγκατα- 
λείπειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀπιέναι καὶ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν καὶ 
συνάξεις ποιεῖν" ἅπερ anmyöpevrat. It is worthy of notice that Dionysius 
translates angulos instead of angelos. 

° Theodoret, 1. c. Husebius (Prep. Evang. vii. 15) already makes a dis- 
tinction between τιμᾶν and σέβειν. Only the first is to be rendered to the 
angels. Aug. De Vera Rel. ce. 55: Neque enim et nos videndo angelos beati 
sumus, sed videndo veritatem, qua etiam ipsos diligimus angelos et his con- 
gratulamur. ...Quare honoramus eos caritate, non servitute. Nec eis templa 
construimus; nolunt enim, se sic honorari a nobis, quia nos ipsos, cum boni 
sumus, templa summi Dei esse noverunt. Recte itaque scribitur (Rev. xxii.) 
hominem ab angelo prohibitum, ne se adoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo ei 
esset et ille conservus. Comp. Contra Faust. xx. 21, Conf. x. 42, and other 


340 SEconD PERIOD. THE AGE er PoLeEmics. 


passages quoted by Keil, |. c. p. 552. Yet, in his Sermons, he insists upon 
the duty of loving the angels and of honoring them. He also believes in 
tutelary angels. Gregory M. in Cant. Cant. ec. 8 (Opp. T. ii. p. 454). 

° Constantine the Great had built a church at Constantinople (Μειχαήλιον) 
to St. Michael,* Sozom. Hist. Eccl. ji. 3; and Theodoret (1. c.) says in refer- 
ence to the Phrygians and Pisidians: Μέχρι de τοῦ viv εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου 
Μιχαὴλ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις Kai τοῖς ὁμόροις ἐκείνων ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, The Emperor 
Justinian, and Avitus, bishop of Vienne (+523) also formally dedicated to 
angels churches built in honor of them. 

" Greg. Naz. xxxvill, 9, p. 668. All the angels together form, in his 
opinion, the κόσμος νοητύς, as distinct from the κόσμος αἰσθητός, ὑλικὸς καὶ 
ὁρώμενος. Comp. Ullmann, p.497. Augustine expresses himself differently, 
De Civ. Dei xi. 9. In his opinion, they are the light which was created in 
the beginning before all other creatures; at the same time, he so explains 
the dies unus (instead of primus, ns br), that this one day of light included 
the other days of creation, and then continues: Cum enim dixit Deus: fiat 
lua, et facta est lux, si recte in hac luce creatio intelligitur angelorum, pro- 
fecto facti sunt participes lucis »terne, quod [que] est ipsa incommutabilis 
sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quem dicimus unigenitum Dei 
filium, ut ea luce illuminati, qua creati, fierent lux, et vocarentur dies partici- 
patione incommutabilis lucis et diei, quod est verbum Dei, per quod et ipsi 
et omnia facta sunt. Lumen quippe verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem 
in hune mundum venientem, hoc’illuminat et omnem angelum mundum, ut 
sit lux non in se ipso, sed in Deo: a quo si avertitur angelus, fit immundus. 

* Some of the earlier theologians, 6. g., Basil the Great, and Gregory of 
Nazianzum, held that there were different orders of angels on the basis of 
different names given to them in Scripture. Basil de Spir. S. c. 16. Gregory 
Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521, mentions ἀγγέλους τινὰς καὶ ἀρχαγγέλους, θρόνους, 
κυριότητας, ἀρχὰς, ἐξουσίας, λαμπρότητας, ἀναβάσεις, νοερὰς δυνάμεις ἢ 
vöag. He does not, however, distinctly state by what these different classes 
are distinguished, since he thinks these internal relations of the world of 
spirits beyond the reach of human apprehension ; Ullmann, p. 494. Comp. 
Augustine Enchirid. ad Laur. 58: Quomodo autem se habeat beatissima illa 
et superna societas, quee ibi sint differentia personarum, ut cum omnes tam- 
quam generali nomine angeli nuncupentur..... ego me ista ignorare con- 
fiteor. Sed nec illud quidem certum habeo, utrum ad eandem societatem 
pertineant sol et luna et cuncta sidera, etc. But Psewdo-Dionysius, hardly 
a century after Augustine, seems to have understood the subject much 
better; in his Hierarchia Ceelestis (Ed. ZLansselii, Par. 1615 fol.) ὁ. 6, he 
divided the whole number of angels into three classes (hierarchies), and sub- 
divided each class into three orders (τάγματα) : 1. 1. Opövor, 2. Χερουβίμ, 
3. Lepadip, ii. 4. κυριότητες, 5. ἐξουσίαι, 6. δυνάμεις, iii. 7. ἀρχαί, 8. apydy- 
γελοι, 9. ἄγγελοι. He nevertheless observed that the last term, as well as 


* It was so called, not because it was consecrated to the archangel Michael, but because 
it was believed that he appeared there (Sozomen, ii. 3); comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 
p. 332. 


§ 132. ANGELOLOGY AND ANGELOLATRY. 341 


δυνάμεις οὐράνιαι, was common to all (ec. 11).* Gregory the Great followed 
him (Hom. in Ezekiel xxxiv. 7, Opp. Tom. i. p. 1603, al. ii. p. 477), and 
knows the following nine classes: Angeli, Archangeli, Virtutes, Potestates, 
Principatus, Dominationes, Throni, Cherubim atque Seraphim, which he 
brought into connection with the nine precious stones spoken of in Ezek. 
xxvill. 13. At the same time he holds that the angels, through love, have 
all in common; see Lau, p. 359. 


§ 132, 
THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 


Metaphysical definitions of the nature of angels were of less inter- 
est in the religious and moral, and consequently in the dogmatic 
point of view, than the question, whether angels, like men, possessed 
a free will, and were capable of sinning ? It was generally admitted 
that this had been the case prior to the fall of the evil angels. But 
theologians did not agree in their opinions respecting another point, 
viz., whether the good angels who at first resisted temptation will 
never yield to it, or whether it is possible that they too may fall 
into sin? Gregory of Nazianzum, and still more decidedly Cyril 
of Jerusalem, pronounced in favor of the latter view,’ Augustine 
and Gregory the Great adopted the former.’ 


* Gregory thought that the angels were not ἀκίνητοι, but δυσκίνητοι to 
evil (Orat. xxviii. 31, p. 521), and supposed that this necessarily follows from 
the fact that Lucifer once fell, Orat. xxxviil. 9, p. 668. Orat. xlv. 5, p. 849. 
Ullmann, p. 496. Comp. also Basil the Great (de Spir. S. ο. 16).—But 
Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. ii. 10) insisted that the predicate “sinless” should 
be applied to none but Christ, and maintained that the angels too stood in 
need of pardon.—Comp. Zaetantius Inst. vii. 20: Angeli Deum metuunt, 
quia castigari ab eo possunt inenarrabili quodam modo. 

* Augustine de Ver. Rel. i. 13: Fatendum est enim, et angelos natura esse 
mutabiles, si solus Deus est incommutabilis; sed ea voluntate, qua magis 
Deum quam se diligunt, firmi et stabiles manent in illo et fruuntur majestate 
ipsius, ei uni libentissime subditi. According to the Enchiridion, c. 28, the 
good angels received, after the fall of the evil ones, what they had not had 
before, viz., certam scientiam, qua essent de sua sempiterna et nunquam 


* Pseudo-Dionysius, however (cap. 1 and 2), endeavored to remove the gross and sen- 
suous ideas about the forms of the angels, and designated the common terminology as 
ἀπότομον τῶν ἀγγελικῶν ὀνομάτων σκευήν (durum angelicoram nominum apparatum); 
comp. his mystical interpretation of the symbols of angels in cap. 15. [Bawr, Dogmen- 
gesch. p. 172, says that in this hierarchy, where all is measured by quantitative distinc- 
tions, the difference between the Platonic and Christian view becomes evident—the Chris- 
tian view being, that there is a direct union of God and man; and that Augustine (De 
Civ. Dei, 9, 16) well expressed this difference, by directly denying the Platonic thesis— 
nulius Deus miscetur homini.] 


342 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICS. 


casura stabilitate securi ; this idea is evidently in accordance with his anthro- 
pological views about the donum perseverantiz, and is distinctly brought 
forward in De Civ. Dei xi. 13: Quis enim catholicus christianus ignorat nul- 
Jum novum diabolum ex bonis angelis ulterius futurum: sicut nec istum in 
societatem bonorum angelorum ulterius rediturum? Veritas quippe in Evan- 
gelio sanctis fidelibusque promittit, quod erunt equales angelis Dei? quibus 
etiam promittitur, quod ibunt in vitam eternam. Porro autem si nos certi 
sumus nunquam nos ex illa immortali felicitate casuros, illi vero certi non 
sunt: jam potiores, non zequales eis erimus, profecto etiam ipsi certi sunt suze 
felicitatis sterne. Comp. Pseudo-Dionys. c. 7. Gregory the Great also 
asserted that the good angels obtained the confirmatio in bono as a gift of 
God; Ezech. lib. i. hom. 7, Mor. v. c. 38, and xxxvi. c. 7, Lau, p. 362. 


§ 133, 
DEVIL AND DEMONS. 


[Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 4th ed. 1844, vol. ii, 137-222, on the Ancient 
Demonolatry. | 


According to the prevailing opinion of the age, pride was the 
immediate and real cause of the fall of the evil spirits... Almost all 
the theologians of this period, with the exception of Lactantius, 
whose notions resembled those of the dualistic Manicheans,* regard- 
ed the devil as a being of limited power,’ whose seductions Christian 
believers were able to resist. Didymus of Alexandria and Gregory 
of Nyssa ventured—though with great caution—to revive the notion 
of Origen, that there was still hope of the final conversion of the 
devil.’ Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Augustine combated this 
opinion, which was condemned in the sixth century by the Emperor 
Justinian, together with the other errors of Origen.’ It was, more- 
over, supposed that demoniacal powers were still in operation,’ and 
were most effectually resisted not only by the moral, but also by 
the physical and magical efficacy of the name of Christ, and the 


sign of the cross.” 


1 Eusebius Demonst. Evang. iv. 9. Augustine De Vera Rel. i. 13: Ile 
autem angelus magis se ipsum, quam Deum diligendo subditus ei esse noluit 
et intumuit per superbiam, et a summa essentia defecit et lapsus est, et ob 
hoc minus est quam fuit, quia eo quod minus erat frui voluit, quum magis 
voluit sua potentia frui, quam Dei. De Catechiz. Rudibus § 30: Superbiendo 
deseruit obedientiam Dei et Diabolus factus est. De Civ. Dei xii. c. 6: Cum 
vero causa miseriz malorum angelorum queritur, ea merito occurrit, quod 
ab illo qui summe est aversi ad se ipsos conversi sunt, qui non summe sunt: 
et hoc vitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupatur? Lnitium quippe omnis 
peccati superbia. Comp. Enchirid. ad Laurent. ὁ. 28. Hnvy was joined 


$ 133. Devin anp Demons. 343 


with pride; comp. Gregory of Nazianz. Orat. xxxvi. 5, p. 637, and vi. 13, 
p- 187. Ullmann, p. 499. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Catech. ec. 6: Ταῦτα 
δὲ [viz., the excellence of the first man] τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ Tod κατὰ τὸν 
φθόνον πάθους ὑπεκκαύματα ἦν. Cassian, Collat. viii. 6, makes mention of 
both superbia and invidia. Gregory the Great also emphasizes pride; by 
this the devil was seduced to strive after a privata celsitudo; Moral. xxi. c. 
2; xxxiv. 6. 21; Law, p. 365.—The idea of lasciviousness was put more and 
more into the background. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, 
Augustine, and Cassian, gave also a more correct interpretation of the pas- 
sage in Gen. vi. 2, which was misunderstood by earlier theologians : although 
Eusebius (Prep. Ev. v. 4), Ambrose de No& et Arca, c. 4, and Sulpieius 
Severus (Hist. Sacra, i. 3), explained it in a sense similar to that which was 
formerly attached to it (§ 52, note 3). Comp. Chrys. Hom. in Gen. xxii. 
(Opp. T. ii. p. 216). [S. R. Maitland, in Brit. Mag. xxi. p. 389 sq., and in 
his Essays (on False Worship, p. 19 sq.), 1856. Οἱ F. Keil, in Zeitschrift f. 
ἃ, luth. Theol. 1855 and 1859; Engelhardt, ibid. 1856. Delitzsch, review 
of Kurtz in Reuter’s Repertorium, 1857. Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 1850. 
Journal of Sacred Lit. Oct. 1858.] Theodoret in Gen. Queest. 47 (Opp. T. i. 
p- 58): "EuBpévrynro ὄντες καὶ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι, ἀγγέλους τούτους ἀπέλαβον: 
and Fab. Her. Ep. v. 7, Opp. iv. p. 402: Παραπληξίας γὰρ ἐσχάτης τὸ τοῖς 
ἀγγέλοις προσάψαι τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀκολασίαν. Cyril Alex. Contra 
Anthropomorphitas, c. 17 (Opp. T. vi. p. 384); Contra Julian, lib. ix. p. 296, 
297. Augustine De Civ. Dei xv. 23; quest. 3 in Gen.; Cassian Coll. viii. 
c. 20, 21. [Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 90-92.] Hilary (in 
Ps. exxxii. p. 403), mentions the earlier interpretation, but without approval. 
Philastrius, on the contrary, numbers it among the heresies, Her. 107 (De 
Gigantibus tempore Noé). 

* Inst. 11. 8. Previous to the creation of the world God created a spirit 
like unto himself (the Logos), who possessed the attributes of the Father; 
but after that he created another spirit, in whom the divine seed did not 
remain (in quo indoles divine stirpis non permansit). Moved by envy he 
apostatized, and changed his name (contrarium sibi nomen ascivit). The 
Greek writers call him διάβολος, the Latin criminator, quod crimina, in qua 
ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat (hence the appellation obtrectator). He envies 
especially his predecessor (the first-born), because he continued to enjoy the 
favor of God.—Lactantius thus agrees with the other theologians in suppos- 
ing that envy was the cause of the fall. But his peculiar manner of repre- 
senting Satan, as it were, as the second Son of God, and of drawing a parallel 
between him and the first-born, reminds us of Gnostic and Manichean notions. 
In another passage (now wanting in many MSS., but probably omitted at an 
early period to save the reputation of Lactantius), he calls the Logos the 
right, and Satan the left hand of God. If the passage in question were 
genuine, it would go to prove very clearly that the views of Lactantius on 
this subject were essentially Manichean, though the unity of the Father 
would be still preserved above the antagonism of Logos and Satan; but this 
notion would justly expose its author to the charge of Arianism. This seems 
to have been felt by those critics who omitted the above passage. Comp. 
the note of Cellarius in the edition of Bünemann, i, p. 218. Comp. cap. ix, 


1 
344 Second Period. Tur AGE oF PoLeEmics. 


where the term Antitheus occurs (Arnob. Contra Gent. iv. 12, and Orelli on 
that passage). Augustine opposed the Manichean notion; contra Faust. 21, 
land ΟΣ 

® Gregory the Great calls him outright a stupid animal, since he entertains 
hopes respecting heaven without being able to obtain it, and is caught in his 
own net; Mor. xxxill.c. 15. Lau, p. 364. 

* Gregory of Nazianz. Orat. xl. 10, p. 697, makes special mention of the 
water of baptism, and the Spirit, as the means, by which to quench the 
arrows of the wicked. Satan had no power over Christ; deceived by his 
human appearance, he took him for a mere man. But the Christian who is 
united to Christ by faith, can likewise resist him, Orat. xxiv. 10, p. 443: 
Παχύτεραι yap ai καθαραὶ ψυχαὶ καὶ θεοειδεῖς πρὸς θήραν τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος, 
κἂν ὃτι μάλιστα σοφιστικὸς 7) καὶ ποικίλος τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν. The assertion 
of Hilary on Ps. exli. p. 541, quidquid inquinatum homines gerunt, a Diabolo 
suggeritur, met with opposition on the part of Gennadius De Eccles. Dogm. 
ὁ. 48: Non omnes male cogitationes nostree semper Diaboli instinctu exci- 
tantur, sed aliquoties ex nostri arbitrii motu emergunt. Comp. also Chrys. 
De Prov. c. 5 (Opp. iv. 150). Augustine De Advers. Leg. ii. 12, and elsewhere. 

° Didym. Enarr. Epp. Cathol. e vers. lat. (Bibl. PP. Max. T. iv. p. 325, C), 
in commenting on 1 Pet. iii. 22, merely says that Christ accomplished the 
work of redemption for all rational beings (cuncta rationalia). Gregory of 
Nyssa expressed himself more explicitly, Orat. Catech. c. 26 (see in Münscher 
von Cölln, i. p. 97), but Germanus contested the genuineness of the passage in 
Photius Cod. 233. Orosius, too, complained, in a letter to Augustine (Opp. Aug. 
T. viii.), that some men revived the erroneous views of Origen on this point. 

° Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. iv. p. 31, ascribed to the devil an obdurate 
heart and incorrigible will; comp. Augustine ad Orosium contra Priscillian. 


re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum Diabolum atque angelos 
ejus post graviora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus 
eruendos atque sociandos sanctis angelis credidit. Sed illium et propter hoc 
et propter alia nonnulla..... non immerito reprobavit ecclesia. He shows, 
too, that the final deliverance of the devil necessarily follows from the idea 
of the remission of the punishments of hell in the case of all condemned 
men; but that this notion, being opposed to the word of God, is only the 
more perverse and dangerous, in proportion as it seems gracious and mild in 
the eyes of men. [Jerome, Ep. 84, and Pammach. et Ocean. p. 528, Ep. 124, 
ad Avitum, p. 920.]|—Concerning the final condemnation of Origen’s opinion, 
see Mansi, T. ix. p. 399, 518.—According to Gregory the Great, the devil 
still enjoys, even in his condemned estate, a potentia sublimitatis, Mor. xxiv. 
20; xxxii.c, 12, 15. He rejoices in scattering evil broadcast, and has great 
power, which, however, has been broken by Christ. Final punishment will 
be inflicted upon him after the general judgment. Before this he will appear 
as Anti-Christ; Zau, p. 365 sq., gives the passages. 

” Eusebius Prep. Ev. 111. c. 14-16. Aug. De Civ. Dei ii. 6. 24; x. 21: 


* The very appropriate passage quoted by Bawmgarten-Crusius, p. 987: Diabolus non 
simpliciter Deus est, sed illis Deus existit, qui illum Christo anteponunt (according to 2 
Cor. iv. 4), is the same in sense, though the identical words are not found here. 


§ 134. REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 345 


Moderatis autem prefinitisque temporibus, etiam potestas permissa deemoni- 
bus, ut hominibus quos possident exeitatis inimieitias adversus Dei civitatem 
tyrannice exerceant.— Posidonius, a physician, combated (according to Phil- 
ostorgius Hist. Eccl. vil. c. 10), the current opinion that madness proceeds 
from demoniacal influences, asserting that, Οὐχὶ δαιμόνων ἐπιθέσει τοὺς 
ἀνθρώπους ἐκβακχεύεσθαι, ὑγρῶν δέ τινων kakoyvulav τὸ πάθος ἐργάζεσθαι, 
μηδὲ γὰρ εἷναι παράπαν ἰσχὺν δαιμόνων, ἀνθρώπων φύσιν ἐπηρεάζουσαν. 
The popular view, nevertheless, continued to be defended in most theological 
systems. 

δ Athanasius De Incarn. Verbi Dei c. 48, Opp. T. i. p. 89. Cyril Hier. 
Cat. xiii. 36: [[Ὁ σταυρὸς] σημεῖον πιστῶν καὶ φόβος damöovov'..... ὄταν 
γὰρ ἴδωσι τὸν σταυρὸν, ὑπομιμνήσκονται τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένον, φοβοῦνται 
τὸν συντρίψοντα τὰς κεφαλὰς τοῦ δράκοντος. Cassian Coll. vii. 19, dis- 
tinguishes the true power of faith which defeats the demons, from the mag- 
ical power, which even the ungodly may exert over evil spirits, when these 
obey them as servants (familiares). The poem of Severus Sanctus Endele- 
chius, De Mortibus Bonum, contains a lively description of the magical 
efficacy of the sign of the cross against demoniacal influences, even in the 
animal kingdom. (Comp. the edition of Piper, Gött. 1835, 8: a number of 
other passages on the point in question are quoted from the works of the 
fathers in the introduction to this edition.) 


V. 105, ss.: Signum, quod perhibent esse crucis Dei, 
Magnis qui colitur solus in urbibus, 
Christus, perpetui gloria numinis, 

Cujus filius unicus : 

Hoe signum mediis frontibus additum 
Cunctarum pecudum certa salus fuit. 
Sic vero Deus hoe nomine preepotens 
Salvator vocitatus est. 

Fugit continuo seeva lues greges, 
Morbis nil licuit. Si tamen hune Deum 
Exorare velis, credere sufticit : 

Votum sola fides juvat. 


v 


3. SOTERIOLOGY. 


§ 134. 
REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 


The Death of Jesus. 


s 
Döderlein, De Redemtione a Potestate Diaboli, insigni Christi Beneficio (Diss. Inaugur. 
1774, 75), in his Opuscula Academica, Jena, 1789. Baur, die christliche Lehre von 
der Versöhnung, pp. 67-118. [Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, iii. 1, p. 157 

sq. 1859, cf. $ 68.] 


The doctrine of the devil occupied during this period a prominent 
place in Soteriology, inasmuch as Gregory of Nyssa and other theo- 


346 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE or POoLEnIcs. 


logians still maintained the notion previously held, that God de- 
frauded the devil by a dishonest exchange." Though the idea in 
this form was opposed by Gregory of Nazianzum,’ yet it prevailed 
for some time under different modifications.” Meanwhile the idea of 
a penalty endured on the part of God gained the preponderance, after 
its advocacy by Athanasius.* To this was soon added the further 
notion, that by the giving up of the infinitely precious life of Jesus, 
more than the debt was paid ; though this is found rather in rhetor- 
ical amplifications of the theme than in strict dogmatic definitions.’ 
Generally speaking, the doctrine was not presented in a final and 
conclusive form, Along, however, with the objective mode of re- 
garding the death of Christ, we also find the subjective ; including 
in the latter not only the ethical (in which the death of Christ is 
viewed as a pattern for our imitation), but also the typical and 
symbolical (mystical), reposing upon the idea of an intimate connec- 
tion of the whole human race with Christ as its head.” It was, 
moreover, generally held that the redemptive principle was found 
not only in the death of the Saviour, but in his whole divine and 
human manifestation and life.“ Free scope was still left to inves- 
tigation respecting the particular mode of redemption.° 


* Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Cat. c. 22-26. The train of his argument is 
as follows: Men have become slaves of the devil by sin. Jesus offered 
himself to the devil as the ransom which should release all others. The 
crafty devil assented, because he cared more for the one Jesus, so much 
superior to them, than for all the rest. But, notwithstanding his craft, he 
was deceived, since he could not retain Jesus in his power. It was, as it 
were, a deception on the part of God* (ἀπάτη τίς ἐστι τρόπον τινά), that 
Jesus veiled his Divine nature, which the devil would have feared, by means 
of his humanity, and thus deceived the devil by the appearance of flesh. 
But Gregory allows such a deception according to the jus talionis ; the devil 
had first deceivéd men, for the purpose of seducing them; but the design of 
God in deceiving the devil was a good one, viz., to’ redeem Se 
(Gregory’s arguments looks very much like the on maxim, “that 
the end sanctifies the means.”— This dramatic representation of the subject 
includes, however, that other more profound idea, carried out with much 
ingenuity in many of the wondrous legends of the middle ages, that the 
devil, notwithstanding his subtility, is at last outwitted by the wisdom of 
God, and appears in the comparison as a stupid devil.) Comp. Ambrose in 
Ev. Luc. Opp. iii. Col. 10. i.: Oportuit hane fraudem Diabolo fieri, ut susci- 
peret corpus Dominus Jesus, et corpus hoc corruptibile, corpus infirmum, ut 
crucifigeretur ex infirmitate. Aufinus, Expos. p. 21: Nam sacramentum illud 
suscepte carnis hanc habet causam, ut divina filii Dei virtus velut, hamus 
quidam habitu humane carnis obtectus...principem mundi invitare possit 
ad agonem: cui ipse carnem suam velut escam tradidit, ut hamo eum divini- 


* The close affinity between this supposition and Docetism, which ever and anon 
endeavored to crop out, is very plain. See Baur, 1. c. p. 82, 83. 


§ 134. REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 347 


tatis intrinsecus teneret insertum et effusione immaculati sanguinis, qui pec- 
cati maculam nescit, omnium peccata deleret, eorum duntaxat, qui cruore 
ejus postes fidei suze significassent. Sicuti ergo hamum esca conseptum si 
piscis rapiat, non solum escam cum hamo non removet, sed ipse de profundo 
esca aliis futurus edueitur : ita et is, qui habebat mortis imperium, rapuit 
quidem in mortem corpus Jesu, non sentiens in eo hamum divinitatis inclu- 
sum; sed ubi devoravit, hesit ipse continuo, et disruptis inferni claustris, 
velut de profundo extractus traditur, ut esca ceteris fiat (in allusion to certain 
passages in Scripture, especially to Job: Adduces draconem in hamo et 
pones capistrum circa nares ejus), Leo M. Sermo xxii. 3, and other passages 
(see Perthel, u. s. p. 171 sq.). Greg. M. in Ev. L.i. Hom. 16, 2, and 25. 
8. quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 431 (comp. Law, |. c. p. 445, ss.); and 
Isidore Hispal. Sent. lib. iii. dist, 19 (illusus est Diabolus morte Domini quasi 
avis), quoted by Baur, p. 79. 

[ Baur, Dogmengesch. 189 sq. The three chief elements of the doc- 
trine were: 1. The idea of justice—the right of the devil, etc., and the 
satisfaction of it. 2. The deception practiced upon the devil, further 
carried out by Gregory of Nyssa, in the idea that the Saviour, in his 
incarnation, deceived the devil by his very flesh. 3. The necessity of this 
mode of redemption is not absolute, but relative; Divine omnipotence 
might have chosen another, but this was the most fitting. Thomasius, 
Christi Person u. Werk. iii., gives the result of the discussion in this period 
thus: The two theories of deliverance from the devil and atonement by 
sacrifice, gradually pass over into each other—and this by means of the 
intermediate idea of death. In proportion, however, as the death is referred 
to the divine causality, and viewed in the light of Genes. ii. 17, and Gal. iti. 
10, Christ’s death, too, is viewed as punishment for human sin, as the bearing 
of the curse, and is consequently referred to the divine justice. A theory of 
satisfaction begins to be developed. The thought of a reconciliation of justice 
with mercy, though frequently adduced to explain the redemption from the 
devil, is only seldom, and, in the way of allusion, applied to the atonement, 
But it is already evident to what the main drift of the doctrine is tending.] 

* Orat. xlv. p. 691, C: “We were under the dominion of the wicked one, 
inasmuch as we were sold unto sin, and exchanged pleasure for vileness. If 
it now be true that a ransom is always paid to him who is in the possession 
of the thing for which it is due, I would ask, to whom was it paid in this 
case? and for what reason? Perhaps to Satan himself? But it would be a 
burning shame to think so (φεῦ τῆς ὕβρεως). For in that case the robber 
had not only received from God, but God himself (in Christ) as a ransom 
and an exceedingly great recompense of his tyranny...... Or is it paid to 
the Father himself? But in the first place it might be asked, how could 
that be, since God did not hold us in bondage? And again, how can we 
satisfactorily explain it, that the Father delighted in the blood of the only 
begotten Son? since he did not even accept the offer of Isaac, but substituted 
the sacrifice of a ram in the place of a rational being? Is it not then evident 
that the Father received the ransom, not because he demanded or needed it, 
but on account of the divine economy (dıa τὴν οἰκονομίαν), and because 
man is to be sanctified by the incarnation of God; that having subdued the 


348 ΟΠ SEeconp Periop. Tue AcE or ῬΟΠΕΜΙΟΒ. 


tyrant, he might deliver and reconcile us to himself by the intercession of 
his Son?” See Ullmann, p. 456, ’57. Gregory was, nevertheless, disposed 
to admit some artifice on the part of Christ m the contest in which he con- 
quered Satan. “It consisted in this, that Christ assumed the form of man, 
in consequence of which the devil thought that he had only to do with a 
being like ourselves, while the power and glory of the Godhead dwelt in 
him.” Orat. xxxix. 13, p. 685. Ullmann, |, Ὁ: 

* The doctrine received an essential modification in the statement of Au- 
gustine (De Trin. xiii.), that the devil, who had overstepped his power, was 
- conquered in the struggle. He had overstepped his power in this, that he 
thought he could treat the sinless Jesus as a slave, like the other sons of 
Adam, which last, in fact, belonged to him as prisoners, according to the 
rights of war. Now, too, he lost the right to the latter, so far as they 
belong to Christ. Comp. Baur, Versöhaungslehre, p. 68 sq. @ieseler, Dog- 
mengesch. 382. [This, too, says Gieseler, was the view of Hilary of Poitiers, 
Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great. Another representation was this—. 
redemption was the result of a conflict in which Jesus conquered the devil. 
He conquered him so far as this, that the devil could not seduce him to com- 
mit the least sin; by this victory he made amends for the defeat suffered in 
Adam, and thus broke the dominion which the devil had on the ground of 
this defeat. This view is found in Hilary, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, 
and, among the Greeks, in Theodoretus. | 

* De Incarnat. c. 7, ss. God had threatened to punish transgressors with 
death, and thus could not but fulfill his threatening: Οὐκ ἀληθὴς yap ἦν ὃ 
θεὸς, ei, εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ ἀποθνήσκειν ἡμᾶς, μὴ ἀπέθνησκεν ὃ ἄνθροπος 
κ. τ. A. But, on the other hand, it was not in accordance with the charac- 
ter of God, that rational beings, to whom he had imparted his own Spirit 
(Logos) should fall from their first state in consequence of an imposition 
practiced upon them by the devil. This was quite as contrary to the good- 
ness of God (οὐκ ἄξιον γὰρ ἣν τῆς ἀγαθότητος τοῦ θεοῦ) as it would have 
been contrary to his justice and veracity not to punish the transgressor. 
(Here the premises of the later theory of Anselm!) When the Logos 
perceived that nothing but death could save man from ruin, he assumed a 
human body, because the Logos himself, ὁ. e., the immortal Son of God, 
could not die. He offered his human nature as a sacrifice for all, and ful- 
filled the law by his death. By it he also destroyed the power of the devil 
(ἡφάνιζε τὸν θάνατον τῇ προσφορᾷ τοῦ καταλλήλου, c. 9. p. 54), etc. 
Comp. Möhlers, Athanasius, i. p. 157. Baur, p. 94, ss. [Baur, Dogmen- 
gesch. 189: To set aside the devil, Athanasius put personified death in his 
place, which was deceived in the same way.] Concerning the similar, 
though more general notions of Basil the Great (Hom. de Gratiar. Actione— 
Hom. in Ps. xlviii. and xxvii.—de Spir. ‚Sancto 15), comp. Älose, p. 65. 
Cyril also says, Cat. xiii, 33: ᾿Εχθροὶ ἦμεν θεοῦ δι’ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ ὥρισεν ὃ 
θεὸς τὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα ἀποθνήσκειν" ἔδει οὖν ἕν ἐκ των δύο γενέσθαι, ἢ 
ἀληθεύοντα θεὸν πάντας ἀνελεῖν ἢ φιλανθρωπευόμενον παραλῦσαι τὴν 
ἀπόφασιν. ᾿Αλλὰ βλέπε θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐτήρησεν καὶ τῇ ἀποφάσει τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν, καὶ τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κ. τ. Δ. Hus. Dem. Ey. x. 1. 


Cyr, Alex. de Recta Fide ad Regin. (Opp. T. v. P. ii. p. 132); in Ev. Joh. 


§ 134. REDEMPTION THROUGH ÜHRIST, 349 


(Opp. T. iv. p. 114). [Comp. Hilary in Ps. liii. 12 : Passio suscepta volun- 
tarie est, officio ipsa’ satisfactura penali: Ambrose de Fuga See. ο. 7: 
(Christus) suscepit mortem ut impleretur sententia, satisfieret indicato per 
maledictum carnis peccatrieis usque ad mortem. éieseler, Dogmengesch. 
383, finds the basis of the later satisfaction theory in Athanasius, Cyril of 
Jerusalem, and, though less fully drawn out, in Eusebius of Cxesarea, Gregory 
Nazianzum, Cyril of Alex., and Chrysostom. The points are: God threat- 
ened death to man as a penalty for disobedience. This threat could not be 
unfulfilled, if God be true. But, on the other hand, God’s love to man for- 
bade the destruction of all men. And so he adopted the expedient of allow- 
ing Jesus to die instead of man, so that both his truth and his love might be 
inviolate. Thomasius, Christi Person, iii. p. 191 sq., gives a full view of the 
theory of Athanasius, as the most important in the patristic literature— 
summed up (De Inc. Verbi, 13): “The Logos assumed a mortal body, in 
‘order thus to fulfill the law for us, to bring the vicarious sacrifice, to destroy 
death, to give immortality, and so to restore the divine image in humanity.” 
His death was “the death of all, “the death of humanity,” ete. ] 

° Cyr. Hier. 1. ο.: Ob τοσοῦτον ἡμάρτομεν, ὅσον ἐδικαιοπράγησεν ὁ τὴν 
ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τεθεικώς. Chrys. in Ep. ad-Rom. Hom. x. 17: “Ὥσπερ εἴ 
τις ὀβολοὺς δέκα ὀφείλόνταά τινα εἰς δεσμωτήριον ἐμβάλοι, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ παιδία, καὶ οἰκέτας δι’ αὐτόν" ἐλθὼν δὲ ἕτερος 
μὴ τοὺς δέκα ὀβολοὺς καταβάλοι μόνον, ἀλλὰ μύρια χρυσοῦ τάλαντα 
χαρίσαιτο, καὶ εἰς βασιλικὰς εἰσαγάγοι τὸν δεσμώτην... . οὕτω καὶ ἐφ᾽ 
ἡμῶν γέγονε: πολλῷ γὰρ πλείονα ὧν ὀφείλομεν κατέβαλεν ὃ Χριστὸς, καὶ 
τοσούτῳ πλείονα, ὅσῳ πρὸς pavida μικρὰν πέλαγος ἄπειρον. On similar 
ideas of Zeo the Great, as well as concerning his entire theory of redemption, 
see Griesbach, Opuscula, p. 98, ss. 

° It is worthy of notice, that especially Augustine, on practical grounds, 
brought this ethical import of the death of Christ very prominently forward 
(to counterbalance, as it were, the theory of redemption so easily misunder- 
stood): Tota itaque vita ejus disciplina morum fuit (de Vera Rel. c. 16). 
Christ died, that no one might be afraid of death, nor even of the most cruel 
manner of putting persons to death; De Fide et Symb. c. 6; De divers. 
Quest. qu. 25 (Opp. T. vi. p- 7). The love of Christ displayed in his death 
should constrain us to love him in return; De Catech. Rud. c. 4: Christus 
pro nobis mortuus est. Hoc autem ideo, quia finis precepti et plenitudo 
legis charitas est, ut et nos invicem diligamus, et quemadmodum ille pro 
nobis animam suam posuit, sic et nos pro fratribus animam ponamus...... 
Nulla est enim major ad amorem invitatio, quam preevenire amando, et nimis 
durus est animus, qui dilectionem si nolebat impendere, nolit rependere. 
See, too, the extracts from his Sermons, in Bindemann, ii. p. 222. [Comp., 
too, Contra Faust. Manich. xiv. 1: Suscepi! autem Christus sine reatu suppli- 
cium nostrum, ut inde solveret reatum nostrum et finiret supplicium nostrum, 
Cf. Comm. in Gal. iii. 13, cited in Thomasius (u. s.), iii. 211.] Comp. Lac- 
tantius Inst. Div. iv. 23, ss. Basil M. de Spir. S. ce. 15. 

7 Thus Gregory of Nazianzum says, Orat. xxiv. 4, p. 439: “He has as- 
eended the cross, and taken me with him, to nail my sin on it, to triumph 
over the serpent, to sanctify the tree, to overcome lust, to lead Adam to sal- 


350 SEeconD PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICS. 


vation, and to restore the fallen image of God.”...... Orat. xlv. 28, p. 867. 
“God became man, and died, that we might live: we have died with him, 
to be purified; we are raised from the dead with him, since we have died 
with him; we are glorified with him, because we have risen with him from 
the grave.” Ullmann, p. 450. Comp. Orat. xxxvi. p. 580, quoted by Mün- 
scher ed. by von Cölln, 1. p. 435, and the passages cited there from Hilary, de 
Trin, 11. 24, and Augustine de Trinitate, iv. 12 [ Athan. de Incarn. c. 44. 
Greg. Nyss. Orat. Cat. c. 16, 32]. 

* Comp. in its connection the passage quoted from Athanasius in note 4. 
Gregory of Nyssa also says (Orat. Catech. e. 27), that not alone the death 
of Christ effected the redemption of man, but also the circumstance that he 
preserved an unspotted character in all the moments of his life:.. .uoAvvdei- 
σης τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς (τὸν Χριστὸν) Ev ἀρχῇ TE Kal 
τελευτῇ καὶ τοῖς διὰ μέσου πᾶσιν ἔδει διὰ πάντων γενέσθαι τὴν ἐκπλύνου- 
σαν δύναμιν, καὶ μὴ τῷ μέν τι θεραπεῦσαι τῷ καθαρσίῳ τὸ δὲ περιϊδεῖν 
ἀθεράπευτον. Augustine, De Vera Rel. c. 26, represents Christ as the second 
Adam, and contrasts him as the homo justitie with the homo peccati; as sin 
and ruin are the effects of our connection with Adam, so redemption is the 
effect of a living union with Christ. Comp. De Libero Arbitrio iii. 10; De 
Consensu Evang. 1. c. 35, where he places the real essence of redemption in 
the manifestation of the God-man. In like manner the redemption work is 
summarily stated by Gregory the Great, Mor. xxi. 6: Ad hoc Dominus appa- 
ruit in carne, ut humanam vitam admonendo excitaret, exemplo praebendo 
accenderet, moriendo redimeret, resurgendo repararet; comp. Lau, p. 435. 
Hence Baur says, |. c. p. 109, 10: “ That the reconciliation of man to God, 
as effected by the incarnation of God in Christ, and the consequent conscious- 
ness of the union of the divine with the human, constitutes the higher general 
principle, including all particulars, which was adopted by the theologians of 
that age....Thus was formed a theory of the atonement, which we may term 
the mystical, inasmuch as it is founded on a general comprehensive view of the 
subject, rather than on dialectic definitions.” | Baur, Dogmengesch. p.190. The 
chief contrast to this mystic view was found in the Arians and Apollinarists ; 
the former putting the reconciliation in the bare proclamation of the forgive- 
ness of sins (no real mediation between God and man), and the latter in like- 
ness to Christ.—Both the mystic and moral views are united in Theodore of 
Mopsuestia; redemption is the completion of human nature—what in Adam 
is found only ideally (in idea), is in Christ perfectiy realized. It consists not 
so much in removing sin and guilt, as in a participation in what Christ, 
through his resurrection, has become for us—immortality and an absolutely 
unchangeable divine life, through union with Christ. Comp, Fritzsche, Theod. 
Ep. Mops, p. 55 sq.] 

° Thus Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. xxxili. p. 536, numbered speculations 
on the death of Christ among those things, on which it is useful to have cor- 
rect ideas, but not dangerous to be mistaken, and placed them on the same 
level with questions concerning the creation of the world, the nature of mat- 
ter and of the soul, the resurrection, general judgment, ete. Comp. Baur, 
p- 109.— Eusebius of Cxsarea (Demonstr. Evang. iv. 12) merely enumerates 
various reasons for the death of Christ, without bringing them into connec- 


$ 134. REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 351 


tion, Christ died, 1. In order to prove that he is the Lord over both the 
quick and the dead; 2. To redeem from sin; 3. To atone for sin; 4. To 
destroy the power of Satan; 5. To give his disciples a visible evidence of 
the reality of the life to come (by his resurrection); and 6. To abrogate the 
sacrifices of the Old Test. dispensation. 


The more anxious theologians were to adduce the reasons which led Christ to suffer, the 
more natural was it to ask, whether God could have accomplished the work of re- 
demption in any other way. Augustine rejects such idle questions in the manner of 
Trenzeus; De Agone Christi, c. 10: Sunt autem stulti, qui dicunt: Non poterat aliter 
sapientia Dei homines liberare, nisi susciperet hominem, et nasceretur ex femina, et a 
peccatoribus omnia illa pateretur. Quibus dieimus: poterat omnino sed si aliter faceret, 
similiter vestree stultitie displiceret. [Aug. de Trin. xiii. 10. Greg. Naz. Orat. ix. p. 
157. Greg. Nyssa, Orat. Cat. c. Basil the Great (Hom. in Ps. xlviii. § 3) maintained 
that the death of the God-man was necessary to accomplish the salvation of mankind. ] 
On the other hand, Gregory the Great concedes that the death of Christ was not abso- 
lutely necessary, since we could have been delivered from suffering in other ways; 
yet God chose this way, in order at the same time to set before our eyes the highest 
example of love and self-sacrifice; Moral. xx. c. 36; Lau, p. 445. [But compare 
Moralia, xxii. 40.] Further particulars may be found in Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 
292, ss.; Baur, p. 85. Aufinus gives a mystical interpretation of the various separate 
elements of the passion of Christ, Expos. Symb. ap. p. 22, ss. 

Concerning the extent of the atonement, it may be observed, that Didymus of Alexandria 
(on 1 Peter, iii. 22, in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. iv. p. 325: Pacificavit enim Jesus per 
sanguinem crucis suze que in coelis et quee in terra sunt, omne bellum destruens et 
tumultum), and Gregory of Nyssa, in some degree (Orat. Catech. c. 25, where he speaks 
of πᾶσα κτίσις), revived the idea of Origen, that the effects of Christ’s death were not 
limited to this world, but extended over the whole universe; Gregory also asserted 
that the work of redemption would not have been necessary, if all men had been as 
holy as Moses, Paul, Ezekiel, Elijah, and Isaiah (Contra Apollin. iii. p. 263). [Cyril 
of Jerusalem, De Recta Fide; the injustice of the sinner was not so great as the 
justice of him who gave his life for us. Chrysost. Ep. ad Rom. Hom. x.; Christ paid 
far more for us than we were indebted, as much more as the sea is more than a drop.] 
The opposite view was taken by Augustine, who, in accordance with his theory, 
thought that all men stood in need of redemption, but limited the extent of the 
atonement; comp. the former sections on the doctrine of original sin, and on predes- 
tination; and Contra Julian vi. c. 24. Leo the Great, on the contrary, enlarged the 
extent of the atonement, Ep. 134, c. 14: Effusio sanguinis Christi pro injustis tam 
fuit dives ad pretium, ut, si universitas captivorum in redemptorem suum crederet, 
nullum diaboli vincula retinerent.— According to Gregory the Great, redemption ex- 
tends even to heavenly beings; Moral. xxxi. c. 49. Lau, p. 431. 

A dramatic representation of the Descensus ad Inferos (first found in the ecclesiastical 
confessions, in the third Sirmian Formula, 359), in imitation of the Evang. Nicodemi, 
is given in the discourse: De Adventu et Annunciatione Joannis (Baptist) apud in- 
feros, commonly ascribed to Eusebius of Emisa; comp. also Epiphanius, in Sepuler. 
Christi. Opp. ii. p. 270; Augusti’s edition of Euseb. of Emisa, p. 1, ss. On the ques- 
tion whether the system of Apollinaris caused the introduction of the said doctrine 
into the Apostles’ Creed, as well as concerning the relation in which they stood to 
each other, see Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), ii. 433, note; and particularly Hist. 
Dogm. (Ryland), p. 323. [This assertion involves an anachronism. “It is certainly 
difficult to perceive how Apollinaris could give his assent to it; yet we are not justi- 
fied in asserting that he did not acknowledge it, although Athanasius does not 
specially refer to it.”] This is a striking remark of Leo the Great (Serm. Ixi. in 
Perthel, p. 153, note), that for the sake of the disciples the duration of this interme- 
diate state was contracted as much as possible, so that his death rather resembled 
sleep (sopor) than death. 


352 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


Lastly, the statements about the subjective appropriation of the merits of Christ on the 
part of the individual Christian were made to conform to the above views, and to 
the anthropological definitions (§ 107-114). Comp. Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 295, 
319. This much is certain, that the benefits of the atonement are chiefly referred to 
the consequences of original sin, and that, consequently, they accrued in the fullest 
measure to the baptized. How far, now, sins committed after baptism are atoned 
for by the death of Jesus, or whether this satisfaction must be found somewhere else 
—on this there is no satisfactory answer. Comp. Lau, Greg. d. Grosse, p. 430, 458. 


4, THE CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE. 
§ 135. 
THE DOCTRINE ABOUT THE CHURCH. 


Two causes contributed to determine the doctrine about the 
Church: 1. The external history of the church itself, its victory 
over paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the 
state. 2. The victory of Augustinianism over the doctrines of the 
Pelagians,’ Manicheans,* and Donatists,* which in different ways 
threatened to destroy ecclesiastical unity. The last mentioned 
puritanic and separatistic system, like that of Novatian in the pre- 
ceding period, maintained that the church was composed only of 
saints. In opposition to them, following Optatus of Mileve,* Au- 
gustine asserted, that the church consists of the sum total of all 
who are baptized, and that the (ideal) sanctity of the church was 
not impaired by the impure elements externally connected with it.’ 
The bishops of Rome then impressed upon this catholicism the 
stamp of the papal hierarchy, by already claiming for themselves 
the primacy of Peter.” But however different the opinions of the 
men of those times were respecting the seat and nature of the true 
church, the proposition laid down by former theologians, that there 
is no salvation out of the church, was firmly adhered to, and carried 
out in all its consequences.’ 


! The Pelagians were in so far unchurchly as, in their abstract mode of 
looking at things, they considered only the individual Christian as such, and 
overlooked the mysterious connection between the individual and the totality. 
Their strict ethical ideas led necessarily to Puritanism; hence the synod of 
Diospolis (A. p. 415) blamed Pelagius for having said: ecclesiam hic esse 
sine macula et ruga; Augustine de Gestis Pelagii, c. 12. Before this time 
some Christians in Sicily, who, generally speaking, agreed with the Pelagians, 
had asserted: Ecclesiam hanc esse, que nunc frequentatur populis et sine 
peccato esse posse; August. Ep. elvi. 

? The Manicheans, by separating the Electi from the rest (Auditores), 
gave countenance to the principle of an ecclesiola in ecclesia; and besides 
the great body of the Manichean church itself formed, as the one elect world 


$ 135. THe Doctrine ABOUT THE CHURCH. 353 


of light, a dualistic contrast with the vast material (hylozoist) mass of dark- 
ness. “ The Manichean church is in relation to the world what the limited 
circle of the Blecti is in relation to the larger assembly of the Auditores; that 
which is yet variously divided and separated in the latter, has its central 
point of union in the former.” Baur, Manich. Religionssystem, p. 282. 

* On the external history of the Donatists, comp. the works on ecclesias- 
tical history [and especially #. Ribbeck, Donatus und Augustinus, oder der 
erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus und d. Kirche. Elberfeld, 
1857. A. Roux, De Augustin Adversario Don. 1838]. Sources: Optatus 
Milevitanus (about the year 368), De Schismate Donatistarum, together 
with the Monumenta Vett. ad Donatist. Hist pertinentia, ed. Z. #. Du Pin, 
Par. 1700, ss. (Opp. Aug. T. ix.) Valesius, De Schism. Donat. in the 
Appendix to Eusebius. Norisius (edited by Ballerini brothers), Ven. 1729, 
iv. fol. Walch, Ketzergeschichte, vol. iv. Concerning the derivation of the 
name (whether from Donatus a casis nigris, or from Donat M.?) see Neander, 
Church History, ii. 187. The question at issue, viz., whether Cxeilian could 
be invested with the episcopal oflice, having been ordained by a Traditor, 
and the election of another bishop in the person of Majorinus, led to further 
dogmatic discussions on the purity of the church. In the opinion of the 
Donatists, the church ought to be pure (sine macula et ruga). It must, 
therefore, exclude, without exception, unworthy members (1 Cor. v. and 
especially passages from the Old Test.). When the opponents of the Dona- 
tists appealed to the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matth. xiii.), the 
latter applied it (according to our Saviour’s own interpretation) to the world, 
and not to the church. Augustine, however, asserted, mundum ipsum appel- 
latum esse pro ecclesiz nomine. 

* Concerning the opinions of Optatus (which are stated in the second book 
of his treatise: De Schismate Donatistarum) see Rothe, Anfänge der christ- 
lichen Kirche, p. 677, ss. He developed the views of Cyprian. There is 
but one church. It has five ornamenta or dotes: 1. Cathedra (the unity of 
episcopacy in the Cathedra Petri); 2. Angelus (the bishop himself); 3. 
Spiritus Sanctus; 4. Fons (baptism); 5. Sigillum, ©. e., Symbolum catholi- 
cum (according to Sol. Song, iv. 12). These dotes are distinguished from 
the sancta membra ac viscera of the church, which appear to him of greater 
importance than the dotes themselves. They consist in the sacramenta et 
nomina Trinitatis, 

° Augustine composed a separate treatise, entitled: De Unitate Ecclesize, 
on this subject—Comp. contra Ep. Parmeniani, and De Baptismo. He pro- 
ceeded, no less than the Donatists, on the principle of the purity of the 
church, and advocated a rigorous exercise of ecclesiastical discipline ; but 
this should not lead to the depopulation of the church. Some elements 
enter into the composition of the house of God which do not form the struc- 
ture of the house itself; some members of the body may be diseased, without 
its being thought necessary to cut them off at once; though the disease itself 
belongs no more to the body than the chaff which is mixed up with wheat 
forms a part of it, Augustine makes a distinction between the corpus Domini 
verum and the corpus Domini permixtum seu simulatum (de Doctr. Christ. 


iii. 32), which stands in connection with his negative view concerning the 
23 


354 Szconnp ΡΕΒΙΟΡ. Tue AGE oF POLEMICS. 


nature of evil. Multi sunt in sacramentorum communione cum ecclesia et 
tamen jam non sunt @n ecclesia (De Unit. Eccles. 74).* 

The grammarian Tichonius adopted an intermediate view, viz., that there is 
a corpus Domini bipartitum, one part of which consists of the real, the other 
of seeming Christians; see Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 210. The necessity 
of being externally connected with the church is set forth by Augustine in 
the same manner as by Tertullian and Cyprian; De Unit. Eccles. ὁ. 49: 
Habere caput Christum nemo poterit, nisi qui in ejus corpore fuerit, quod est 
ecclesia, Ep. xli. § 5: Quisquis ab hac catholica ecclesia fuerit separatus, 
quantumlibet laudabiliter se vivere existimet, hoc solo scelere, quod a Christi 
unitate disjunctus est, non habebit vitam, sed Dei ira manebit super eum. 
So, too, Gregory the Great ; see Lau, p. 470. 

[“Any other than the empirically existing church Augustine could not con- 
ceive, despite the concessions he was obliged to make. Jovinian, on the 
other hand, lived in the abstract idea of the internal supersensible church, to 
which we belong only through the baptism of the Spirit ;” Daur, Dogmen- 
gesch. p. 196. Meander, Hist. Dogm. p. 395-7, says that the distinction 
between the visible and the inwisible church might have led to an agreement 
between Augustine and the Donatists. Augustine endeavored to establish 
the distinction, but he was afraid to follow out the idea to the full extent, 
and his notions became obscure. He spoke of those (De Bapt. iv. 1-4) who 
are in the house of God per communionem sacramentorum, and those who 
are outside of the house—per perversitatem morum, And De Unit. Eccles. 
74: Multi sunt in sacramentorum communione cum ecclesia, et tamen jam 
non sunt in ecclesia. Further, “those who appear to be in the church, and 
contradict Christ, and therefore do not belong to that church which is called 
the body of Christ.”—In Jovinian (Cf. Hieron. contra Jovinian. B. Lindner, 
De Joviniano et Vigilantio, etc.) a Protestant element is discernible, “In 
this spirit he carried on a warfare against hypocrisy, the quantitative scale 
of morals, the censilia evangelica; he laid the utmost stress on the principle 
of a living faith, and the unity of the principle of Christian life.”.....“ The 
church, he says, is founded on Faith, Hope, and Love;”...“in this church 
there is nothing impure; every one is taught of God; no one can break into 
it by violence, or steal into it by artifice.” “As Jovinian taught the Pauline 
doctrine of faith, so he did the Pauline idea of the invisible church, while 
Augustine obstructed the development of his similar fundamental idea by a 
mixture with the catholic idea of the church.” 

° Leo M. Sermo I. in Natale Apostolorum Petri et Pauli: Ut inenarrabilis 
gratise per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus, Romanum regnum divina 
providentia preparavit, ete. Comp. Sermo Π (al. iv. 3): Transivit quidem 
in Apostolos alios vis illius potestatis, sed non frustra uni commendatur, quod 
omnibus intimetur. Petro enim singulariter hoc creditur, quia cunctis eccle- 
siz rectoribus proponitur. Manet ergo Petri privilegium, ubicunque ex ipsius 
fertur eequitate judicium; nec nimia est vel severitas vel remissio, ubi nihil 


* In both the miraculous draught of fishes, the one before, and the other after, the 
resurrection of Christ (Luke v. and John xxi.), Augustine finds types of the church here 
and hereafter; Sermo 248-252 (Opera, Tom. v.). Comp. Bindemann, ii. 187 sq. 


$ 136. Tor SACRAMENTS. 300 


erit legatum, nihil solutum, nisi quod Petrus aut ligaverit, aut solverit. 
Comp. Perthel, |. ec. p. 237, note 4, and the passages quoted by him. 

” Comp. ὃ 71. Lactantius makes the same assertion, though he is not in 
all respects churchly ; Instit. Div. iii. 30.—iv. 14. ab init.: Heee est domus 
fidelis, hoc immortale templum, in quo si quis non sacrificaverit, immortali- 
tatis premium non habebit. Aufinus, however, does not yet demand fides 
in Ecclesiam, and thus most clearly distinguishes faith in the church from 
faith in God and Christ, Expos. Fid. 26, 27. Gregory the Great regards the 
church as the robe of Christ, as individual souls are also the robe of the 
church; Moral. xx. c. 9. It is the civitas Domini, que regnatura in ccelo 
adhuc laborat in terra; Ezech. lib. ii. Hom. 1; comp. Law, p. 468 sq. 
Heretics were said to be beyond the pale of the church, but not beyond that 
of Christianity; they were accused of defective faith (kakopistia), and not 
of all want of faith (apistia). Augustine calls them quoquomodo Christiani ; 
De Civ, Dei 18, c. 51. Comp. Marheineke (in Daub’s Studien, 1. c.) p. 186. 


§ 136. 


THE SACRAMENTS. 


The idea of the Holy Sacraments was more precisely defined and 
limited in this period ; they are the organs by which the church 
works upon the individual Christian, and transmits the fullness of 
divine life, which dwells within it, to the members. Augustine saw 
in them the mysterious union of the (transcendent) Word with the 
external (visible) element,’ but expressed no definite opinion respect- 
ing the number of sacraments.” Psewdo-Dionysius (in the fifth 
century) already spoke of six ecclesiastical mysteries ;’ but even 
during the present period the chief importance was attached to 
baptism and the Lord’s Supper.’ 


* Augustine, Serm. 272 (Opp. T. v. 770): Dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in 
eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem : 
quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritalem ; this gave rise to the definition of 
the Augustinian school (in Ev. Joh. Tract. 31. e. 15, and De Cataclysmo) : 
Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Grace works through the 
sacraments, but is not necessarily confined to them (cf. in Levit. lib. iii. quaes- 
tio, 84). [Quomodo et Moses sanctificat et Dominus? Non enim Moses 
pro Domino, sed Moses visibilibus sacramentis per ministerium suum; Domi- 
nus autem invisibile gratia per spiritum sanctum, ubi est totus fructus etiam 
visibilium sacramentorum.—De Catechiz. Rudibus, 50: Sacramenta signacula 
quidem rerum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisibiles in eis hono- 
rari.—Weander, in his Hist. Dogm. p. 399, says, that according to Augustine, 
“there was only one Justificatio, which was foreshadowed in the Old Testa- 
ment. Sensible signs are necessary in a religious community ; but yet these 
can have no effect on the spirit: they can not impart holiness and justifica- 


356 SECOND PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


tion, but merely serve as the signs and vehicles of divine grace, which is the 
only source of justification.” Baur, Dogmengesch. 193, says of Augustine, 
that he put the essence of the sacrament in the distinction of a twofold 
element, a sensible and a supersensible, related as are the sign and the thing 
signified ; and that which mediates between them is the word. The rational 
tendency of the Arians showed its antagonism to the prevailing views in the 
position of Eunomius, that the real essential mystery of piety is not found in 
mystic symbols, but in precise doctrines; in Greg. Nyss. c. Eunomium xi, ed. 
Paris, 1638, T. ii. p. 704.] _ 

> Augustine reckoned not only matrimony (“sacramentum nuptiarum,” 
De Nupt. et Concupiscentia, i. 11), and holy orders (“sacramentum dandi 
baptismum,” De Baptism. ad Donatist. i. 2, and Contra Parmen. ii. 30), but 
also occasionally other sacred ceremonies among the sacraments (the word 
taken in a more comprehensive sense), so far as he understood by sacramen- 
tum, omne mysticum sacrumque signum. Thus he applies (De Peccat. Orig. 
c. 40) the term sacrament to exorcism, the casting out, and the renunciation, 
of the devil at baptism; and even to the rites of the Old Testament: circum- 
cisio carnis, sabbatum temporale, neomeniz, sacrificia atque omnes hujusmodi 
innumere observationes; Expos. Epist. ad Galat. c. iii. 19. (Opp. in. P. il. p. 
692). Comp. Wiggers, Augustin und Pel. vol. i. p. 9, note. That he so 
constantly adopted the number four may perhaps be explained from the 
general preference which he gave to Aristotelianism (c. Ep. Parm. ii. ο. 13). 
Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 663, 664. Leo the Great also employed the 
term sacramentum in reference to the most heterogeneous things, comp. 
Perthel, p. 219, note; and Gregory the Great used it sometimes in a more 
comprehensive, sometimes in a more limited sense, comp. Law, p. 480. 

5. De Hier. Eesles. e. 2-7. 1. Baptism (n. φωτίσματος); 2. The Lord’s 
Supper (pn. συνάξεως, eit’ οὖν κοινωνίας); 3. Unction (confirmation? u. 
τελετῆς μύρου); 4. Holy Orders (n. τῶν ἱερατικῶν τελειώσεων) ; 5. Mona- 
chism (u. μοναχικῆς τελειώσεως), which afterwards ceased to be reckoned 
among the sacraments; 6. The rites performed on the dead (μ. ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶς 
Kekouunwévwv—they were not the same with the unctio extrema, as the 
unction in question was not applied to dying persons, but to the corpse; 
yet there was some analogy between the one and the other) —Matrimony, 
on the other hand, which Augustine mentioned, was wanting in this list. 

* This was done, 6. g., by Augustine, Sermo 218, 14: Quod latus, lancea 
percussum, in terram sanguinem et aquam manavit, procul dubio sacramenta 
sunt, quibus formatur ecclesia (De Symb. ad Catech. ce. 6); and by Chrysos- 
tom in Joh. Hom. 85. (Opp. T. viii. p. 545), who attributed the same import 
to the same occurrence.—On the relation of the sacraments of the New 
Testament to those of the Old, see Augustine De Vera Rel. c. 17 


§ 137. 
BAPTISM. 


The notions developed in the preceding period concerning the 
high importance and efficacy of baptism were more fully carried out 


§ 137. Baptism. 357 


in the present, in a rhetorical way, by Basil the Great, Gregory of 
Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa," and defined with more dog- 
matic precision by Augustine.” Neither the baptism of blood, nor 
that of tears, lost its significance.’ The theologians of the Greek 
church zealously defended infant baptism,* while Augustine brought 
it into more intimate connection with the doctrine of original sin 
(in opposition to the Pelagians), and adduced it as an additional 
proof of the said doctrine.’ Salvation was denied to unbaptized 
children.* Concerning the baptism of heretics, Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nazianzum followed the views of Cyprian ; though 
Gregory did not make the validity of baptism depend on the worth 
of the person who performs the ceremony.’ But by the influence of 
Augustine, the mode adopted by the Romish church became, with 
certain modifications, the prevalent one.“ The Donatists continued 
to insist upon the necessity of rebaptizing heretics.’ The baptism 
of the Manicheans consisted in a kind of lustration altogether differ- 
ent from the baptism of the Catholic church.” Among the strict 
Arians, the Eunomians were distinguished from the orthodox church 
by baptizing not in the name of the Trinity, but in that of the 
death of Christ.” 


' All three composed separate discourses on baptism. Basil, M., de Bap- 
tismo (Opp. T. ii. p. 117); Greg. Naz. Or. 40; Greg. Nyss. de Bapt. Christi 
(Opp. T. iii. p. 371). Gregory of Nazianzum gave a number of different 
names to Christian baptism, which he carefully distinguished from the bap- 
tisms of Moses and John: τὸ φώτισμα λαμπρότης ἐστὶ ψυχῶν, βίου μετά- 
θεσις, ἐπερώτημα τῆς εἰς θεὸν συνειδήσεως (1 Pet. ii. 21). τὸ φώτισμα 
βοήθεια τῆς ἀσθενείας τῆς ἡμετέρας" τὸ φώτισμα σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις, πνεύμα- 
τος ἀκολούθησις, λόγου κοινωνία, πλάσματος ἐπανόρθωσις, κατακλυσμὸς 
ἁμαρτίας, φωτὸς μετουσία, σκότων κατάλυσις" τὸ φώτισμα ὄχημα πρὸς 
θεὺν, συνεκδημία Χριστοῦ, ἔρεισμα πίστεως, νοῦ τελείωσις, κλεῖς οὐρανῶν 
βασιλείας, ζωῆς ἄμειψις, δουλείας ἀναίρεσις, δεσμῶν ἔκλυσις, συνθέσεως 
μεταποίησις" τὸ φώτισμα, τί δεῖ πλείω καταριθμεῖν ; τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ δώρων 
τὸ κάλλιστον Kal μεγαλοπρεπέστατον, ὥστερ ἅγια ἁγίων καλεῖται τινα... 
οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸ παντὸς ἄλλῶν τῶν Tap’ ἡμῖν φωτισμῶν ὃν ἁγιώτερον" 
καλεῖται δὲ ὥσπερ Χριστὸς, 6 τούτον δοτὴρ, πολλοῖς καὶ διαφόροις ὀνόμα- 
σιν, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ δώρημα, κ. τ. A. He also repeated the appellations for- 
merly used, such as λοῦτρον, σφραγὶς, etc. “ The following is the principal 
thought on which this abundance of names is founded: all the blessings of 
Christianity appear, as it were, concentrated in one point in baptism, and are 
dispensed all together in one moment ; but all these names can only in so far 
be applied to baptism, as the person to be baptized possesses the right disposi- 
tion, without which none can enter into the kingdom of heaven, founded by 
Christ.” Ullman, p. 461, where the other passages bearing on this subject 
are given. In order to prove the necessity of baptism, Gregory further 
speaks of a three-fold birth of man (Or. 40, 2, ab init.), viz. natural birth 
(τὴν ἐκ σωμάτων), that through baptism, and that through the resurrection, 


358 Seconp PERIOD, THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


The first of these is of the night, is slavish and connected with lusts (vvrrepıvn 
τέ ἐστι καὶ δούλη καὶ ἐμπαθής); the second is as clear as daylight and free, 
delivers from lusts, and elevates to a higher spiritual life (ἡ δὲ ἡμερινὴ καὶ 
ἐλευθέρα καὶ λυτικὴ παθῶν, πᾶν TO αὐτὸ γενέσεως κάλυμμα περιτέμνουσα, 
καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄνω ζωὴν Eravdyovoa).—On Basil the Great comp. Klose, p. 
67, ss.; on Gregory of Nyssa see Rupp, p. 232, ss. Comp. also Cyril Hier. 
Cat. xvii. c. 37; he ascribed to baptism not only the virtue of taking away 
sin (from the negative point of view), but also that of a miraculous elevation 
of the powers of life; Cat. iii. 3, xix. xx. Cyril Alex. Comm. in Joh., Opp. T. 
iv. p. 147. [Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, 1. p. 462, 463.] 

? Augustine Ep. 98, 2: Aqua exhibens forinsecus sacramentum grati® et 
spiritus operans intrinsecus benefictum gratie, solvens vinculum culpe, recon- 
cilians bonum nature, regenerans hominem in uno Christo, ex uno Adam 
generatum. Concupiscence remains even in those who are baptized, though 
their guilt is pardoned ; De Nupt. et Concup. 1. 28 (c. 25) [Enchir. ad Laur. 
43 and 64].—He who is not baptized can not obtain salvation. As for the 
thief who was admitted by Christ into paradise without baptism, Augustine 
supposed that he was baptized with blood, instead of water; or he might 
have been baptized with the water which flowed from the side of Jesus (!), 
unless it were assumed that he had received baptism at some former time; 
De Anima et ejus Origine i. 11 (c. 9.), ii. 14(c. 10.), 16, c. 12. According 
to Leo the Great, the baptismal water which is filled with the Holy Ghost, is 
in relation to the regenerate man, what the womb of the Virgin filled with 
the same Spirit was in relation to the sinless Redeemer, to whom sbe gave 
birth ; Sermo 24. 3; 25.5 (in Griesbach, p. 153). Comp. Perthel, p. 213 sq. 

3. Thus Gregory of Nazianzum adds a fourth baptism to the three already 
mentioned (viz., the baptisms of Moses, John, and Christ), that of martyrdom 
and of blood with which Christ himself was baptized; this baptism surpasses 
the others, since it is so much less stained with sin. Yea (he adds) I know 
even a fifth, viz., that of tears (τὸ τῶν δακρύων), but it is still more difficult, 
because it is necessary to wet one’s couch every night with tears; Orat. 
EXKIX 17, p. 088, „But... “how many tears have we to shed, before they 
equal the flood of the baptismal bath?’ Orat. Ix. 9, p. 696. Ullmann, p. 
459, 465, 480. 

* Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. lx.) opposed the delay of baptism, which 
had its ground partly in deference to the sacrament, partly in perverse and 
immoral tendencies, partly in absurd prejudices.* Comp. Ullmann, p. 466, 
ss. Concerning the baptism of infants, he declared (Ud/m. p. 713) “that it 
was better that they should be sanctified without their own consciousness, 
than that they should depart being neither sealed nor consecrated” (ἢ ἀπελ- 
θεῖν ἀσφράγιστα καὶ ἀτέλεστα). In support of his view he appealed to the 
rite of circumcision, which was a type of baptism, and performed on the 
eighth day (comp. the opinion of Fidus, § 72, note 6); also to the striking 

* Comp. 6. g., the Confessions of Augustine, i. c. 11. Gregory of Nyssa also opposed 
the delay in a separate discourse, πρὸς τοὺς Bpadvvovrac εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα (Opp. T. ii. p. 
215); Chrysostom uses similar language. Comp. Neander, Chrysostomus, i. p. 6, and 74- 


77. A. F. Büsching, De Procrastinatione Baptismi apud Veteres ejusque Causis. Hale, 
1747. 4. 


§ 137. Barrısm. 359 


of the blood on the door-posts, ete. Gregory, nevertheless, thought that 
healthy children might wait till the third year, or somewhere thereabout, 
because they would be able then to hear and to utter something of the words 
(μυστικόν τι) used at the performance of the rite, though they might not 
perfectly understand them, but have only a general impression about them 
(τυπούμενα). His judgment, however, was mild concerning those children 
who die before baptism, because he well distinguished between intentional 
and unintentional delay. Yet he did not grant that they would obtain per- 
fect salvation. Comp. Ullmann, 1. c. 

° That Gregory did not, like Augustine, make an intimate connection 
between baptism and original sin, is evident from his assertion (Orat. 40, 
quoted by Ullmann, p. 476), that sins committed by children from ignorance 
could not be imputed to them on account of their tender age. Comp. what 
Chrysostom said on this subject according to the quotation of Juhan given 
by Meander, Church Hist. 11. p. 666: Hac de causa etiam infantes baptiza- 
mus, cum non sint coinquinati peccato, ut eis addatur sanctitas, justitia, 
adoptio, hzereditas, fraternitas Christi, ut ejus membra sint; the opinions of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia are also stated there.* Augustine did not combat 
the Pelagians because they rejected baptism, but because they did not draw 
the same inferences from the rite in question, which he drew from it. The 
Pelagians admitted that the design of baptism was the remissio peceatorum, 
but they understood by it the remission of future sins. Julian went so far 
as to anathematize those who did not acknowledge the necessity of infant- 
baptism; Opus. imp. contra Jul. iii. 149. “ Though the Pelagians might 
have been easily induced by their principles to ascribe a merely symbolical 
significance to baptism, as an external rite, yet in this, as well as in many 
other respects, they could not develop their system entirely independent of the 
ecclesiastical tradition of their age; they endeavored, therefore, to reconcile it 
in the best possible manner with their principles, which owed their origin to 
quite different causes.” Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 668. |“ Baptism re- 
ceived a higher dogmatic importance from the Augustinian doctrine of orig- 
inal sin. The assertion of its necessity is one of the points of difference 
between Augustine and Pelagius.” Baur, u. s. p. 193.] 

° Concerning infants that die without being baptized, Pelagius expressed 
himself in cautious terms (quo non eant, scio, quo eant, nescio). |[Pelagius, 
that he might not be compelled to say that unbaptized children were lost, 
made a distinction between eternal lif@ and the kingdom of heaven, or blessed- 
ness in general and the blessedness of Christians (Aug. de Pece. Orig. e. 21; 
De Pece. Mer. 1,18). The Pelagians could not recognize in the case of 
children a baptism for the forgiveness of sins; they could only refer it to 


* Neander traces the difference of opinion existing between the Eastern and Western 
church with regard to baptism to their different mode of viewing the doctrine of redemp- 
tion; the former regarded rather the positive, the latter the negative aspect. [The posi- 
tive aspect is the ennobling of human nature; the negative the relation to sin. “Ac- 
cordingly, in the East, baptism was regarded chiefly as indicating exaltation to a higher 
stage, for which the original powers of man were not sufficient.” Gregory of Nazianz. 
says, “It is a more divine creation, something higher than the original endowments of 
nature,” etc. ] 


360 '  SeconD Prrıond. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


sanctification in Christ (August. e. duas Ep. Pelagii). Comp. Baur, loc. eit.] 
Ambrose de Abrah. ii. 11, had previously taught: Nemo ascendit in regnum 
celorum, nisi per sacramentum baptismatis. ...Visi enim quis renatus fuerit 
ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum 
excipit, non infantem, non aliqua preeventum necessitate. Habeant tamen 
illam opertam poenarum immunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem. 
Comp. Wiggers, i. p. 422. Augustine’s views on this point were at first 
milder, De libero Arb. iii. ο. 23; but afterwards he was compelled, by the 
logical consequences of his own system, to use harsher expressions. His line 
of argument is as follows: Every man is born in sin, and stands, therefore, in 
need of pardon, He obtains this by baptism; it cleanses children from orig- 
inal sin, and those who are baptized in later years, not only from original 
sin, but also from their actual transgressions before the baptism. (Enchir. ad 
Laurent. 43.) Since baptism is the only and necessary condition of salvation 
(comp. note 2), it follows that unbaptized children are condemned (this fully 
accorded with his views on predestination). He was, nevertheless, disposed 
to look upon this condemnation as mitissima and tolerabilior (Ep. 186. 27. 
[e. 8]; De Pece. Mer. i. 28. [c. 20]), though he opposed the doctrine con- 
demned by the synod of Carthage, in Canon ii. (A. p. 419), of an interme- 
diate state, in which unbaptized infants were said to be; Comp. Sermo 294: 
Hoc novum in ecclesia, prius inauditum est, esse salutem eternam preter 
regnum celorum, esse salutem xternam preter regnum Dei. With regard 
to baptized children, Augustine, as well as the catholic church in general, 
supposed (the former in accordance with his idealistic doctrine of the church) 
that the church represents (by means of the godfathers and godmothers) the 
faith of the children. Ep. 98 ad Bonifacium, c. 10: Parvulum, etsi nondum 
fides illa, que in credentum voluntate consistit, jam tamen ipsius fidei sacra- 
mentum fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam fidelis 
vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacramentum perci- 
piendo.....Parvulus, etiamsi fidem nondum habeat in cogitatione, non ei 
tamen obicem contrariz cogitationis opponit, unde sacramentum ejus salubri- 
ter percipit. Consequently—a passive faith? “is view seems to have been 
somewhat as follows: As the child is nourished by the natural powers of his 

cher after the flesh, before his bodily, independent existence is fully devel- 
oped, so is he nourished by the higher powers of his spiritual mother, the 
church, before he has attained unto independent spiritual development and 
self-consciousness. This idea would be true to a certain extent, if the visible 
church corresponded to its ideal.” Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 670. 

* Basil Ep. Can. 1, declared the baptism at least of heretics void when 
the baptismal formula differed from that of the catholic church, or even 
when a different meaning was attached to it; thus he rejected the baptism 
of the Montanists, because they understood Montanus to be the Paraclete. 
But he was disposed to admit schismatics without baptism, and as a general 
rule (milder than Cyprian) advised compliance with the custom of each 
separate church.— Gregory of Nazianzum rejected the baptism of notorious 
heretics (τῶν προδήλως κατεγνωσμένον). Generally speaking, he did not 
make the efficacy of baptism depend on the external ecclesiastical, nor on 
the inherent moral worth (ἀξιοπιστία) of the person who administered the 


- 


$ 138. Tue Lorp’s SUPPEr. 361 


baptism.—He illustrated this by the case of two rings, the one made of gold, 
the other of brass, bearing the same royal stamp; Orat. 40, in Ullmann, p. 
473-475. 

* De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. vii. (in Opp. Ben. Tom. ix.). It is 
interesting to see how Augustine seeks to justify Cyprian, from whom he 
differs; the passages are given in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 477.—The 
limitation spoken of was, that the rite of baptism, if performed out of the 
eatholic church, might be considered valid, but that so far from proving a 
blessing to the baptized, it would increase their guilt if they did not after- 
wards join the catholic church. Thus “the exclusiveness of the catholic 
church, objected to on the one side, was carried to its extreme length on the 
other ;” Rothe, Anfänge der christlichen Kirche, p. 685.—The ceremony of 
the laying on of hands, as a sign of consecration, was also employed in the 
case of those who came over to the church. Leo the Great insisted upon 
this point, Ep. 159, 7. 166, 2. 167, 18. (Griesbach, p. 155.) 

° Thus the Donatist, Petilianus, maintained that whoever received bap- 
tism from an unbeliever, did not receive faith, but guilt. Augustine argued 
against him (Contra Epistol. Parmeniani; see Meander, Hist. Dogm. 400). 
The Donatist doctrine was condemed by the Conc. Arel. 314, can. 8. Opta- 
tus Mil. De Schism. Donat. v. ὁ. 3... .Quid vobis (Donatistis) visum est, non 
post nos, sed post Trinitatem baptisma geminare? Cujus de sacramento non 
leve certamen innatum est, et dubitatur, an post Trinitatem in eadem Trini- 
vate hoc iterum liceat facere. Vos dicitis: Licet; nos dicimus; Non licet. 
Inter Licet vestrum et Non licet nostrum natant et remigant anime popu- 
lorum. 

*’ Concerning the baptism of the Manicheans, on which we have but 
“scanty information,” comp. Baur, Manich. Religionssystem, p. 273. 

1 Socrat. v. 24, blamed the Eunomians, because ......... τὸ βάπτισμα 
παρεχάραξαν: οὐ γὰρ εἰς τριάδα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτίζουσι 
θάνατον. They probably avoided the use of the common formula, which 
Eunomius elsewhere adduces as a proof that the Spirit is the third, in order 
to avoid a possible misunderstanding, in the orthodox sense, among the 
unlearned. Comp. Alose, Eunomius, p. 32. Rudelbach, über die Sacra- 
mentsworte, p. 25. According to Sozom, vi. 26, the Eunomians are said to 
have rebaptized all who joined their party. Eunomius (on anti-Trinitarian 
grounds) was opposed to the trine immersion in baptism (see Héfling, Die 
Taufe, i. 55). 


ss 
THE LORD’S SUPPER. 


Marheineke (comp. § 73), p. 32-65. K. Meyer, p. 18-38. Ebrard (ἃ 78), p. 278 sq. 
Kahnis, ubi supra. Rückert, 350 sq., 403 sq. [Cardinal Wiseman, attempts (Essays, 
vol. 3) to show that Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, in the fourth century, taught 
a real change (on the basis of new accounts of the Constantinople Council of 1166). 
Syriac Ch. on the Eucharist, by Prof. Lamy, of Louvain; see Journal of Sacred Lit. 


362 SecoxnD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICcs. 


Jan. 1860, p. 374 sq. Philip Freeman, Principles of Divine Service. 2 Parts. Lond. 
1855-7. Christian Remembrancer, Oct. 1853. Engelhardt in Zeitschrift Ε ἃ, luth. 
Theol. 1842. D. Rock, Hierurgia; Transubst. and Mass Expounded from Inscrip- 
tions in the Catacombs, ete., 2d ed. 1855. J. Kreusser, ἃ. heilige Messopfer. Pader- 
born, 1854. Julius Müller, Abendmahl, in Herzog’s Encyclopädie.] 


Corresponding to the mysterious union between the two natures 
of Christ in one and the same person, was the idea of a mystical 
connection subsisting between the body of Christ and the bread in 
the Lord’s Supper, and between his blood and the wine.” This 
idea, which had taken its rise in the preceding period, was now 
farther carried out by means of the more fully developed terminology 
of the church, and by the introduction of liturgical formulas, which 
substituted mystical ceremonies for the simple apostolical rite” The 
mysterious and often bombastic rhetoric of the fathers, especially 
Gregory of Nyssa, the two Cyrils, and Chrysostom, in the Greek 
church, and Hilary and Ambrose in the Latin, makes it uncom- 
monly difficult to decide what dogmatic notions are to be attached 
to their expressions. By their changing imagery we are sometimes 
led to think of an ideal, sometimes of a substantial change ; now of 
a subjective change on the part of the participant, and again of an 
objective change in what is received ; sometimes it is a wonderful 
conjunction of the head and the body of Christ (consubstantiality); 
sometimes a total change of the elements of the Lord’s Supper into 
this body (transubstantiation, real transformation).* Yet still the 
symbolic view appears, alongside of the metabolic, in some teachers 
of the Greek church, as in Lusebius of Cesarea, Athanasius, Greg- 
ory Nazianzen, and Theodoretus.’ But it is most unambiguous in 
the Western theologian, Augustine” Although the latter appears 
to have faith in the wonderful healing virtues of the sacrament,‘ 
yet he decidedly opposed the superstitious reverence of it.’ Gelasius, 
bishop of Rome, still spoke decidedly against a formal transubstan- 
tiation. In respect to the idea of sacrifice as connected with it, 
this was further developed in this period, especially by Gregory the 
Great, in the form that the sacrificial death of Christ was truly 
repeated in the daily sacrifice of the mass.” 


* Compare Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 408. The idea which lies at the basis 
of most of the statements about the Lord’s Supper may be said to be this— 
that as the Logos was once united with the flesh, so in the Supper he is now 
united with the bread and wine; and thus the controversy about the natures 
of Christ is in some degree repeated in the sacramental sphere. | Géeseler, 
Dogmengesch. 408 sq., argues that the fathers, with all their strong expres- 
sions, could not have meant to teach transubstantiation, for the following 
chief reasons: 1. That the change is so often compared with that of water 
in baptism, and of chrism in consecration. 2. That it is hkened to the union 
of the Logos with the flesh—where there was no transformation of the flesh. 


§ 138. Tue Lorv’s Supper. 363 


3. The church fathers (many of them) argue against the Monophysites, on 
the ground that as there was in the Lord’s Supper no change, so none in the 
incarnation. 4. They frequently call the elements τύπος, ἀντίτυπα, figura, 
signum, etc. Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 194, says that the majority of the 
fathers of this period often speak of the bread and wine as the body and 
blood of Christ, in such terms as seem to involve the doctrine of a real 
change; but yet, comparing these with their other statements, and seeing 
how fluctuating is the form of their conceptions, we can really find in them 
only an obscure and exaggerated identification of figure and fact.— Meander, 
Hist. Dogm. p. 406 sq., gives the different modifications of opinions thus: 
1. The sensuous realistic view of Justin and Irenzeus, adopted by Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Hilary, teaching an actual interpenetration of the 
bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. 2. A more spiritual 
view, though with a realistic element at its basis, in Augustine. 3. The 
school of Origen (excepting Gregory of Nyssa) separated more distinctly the 
symbol and the divine reality, e. g., Eusebius of Ceesarea, Greg. Nazianz., etc.] 

? On such names as λατρεία ἀναίμακτος, θυσία τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ ( Cyril 
Myst. V.), iepovpyta, μετάληψις τῶν ἁγιασμάτων, ἁγία (μυστικὴ) τράπεζα, 
μυστικὴ εὐλογία, ἐφόδιον (in reference to the administration of the Lord’s 
Supper to the sick), as well as on the formulas commonly used in connection 
with the rite of consecration, comp. Swicer, Thesaurus sub vocib.; Touttee 
in Diss, ad Cyr. Hier. 8, p. cexxxiii. ss. Marheineke, |. c. p. 33, ss. August, 
Archeologie, vol. viii, p. 32, ss. The sacrament is frequently described as a 
tremendum (as φοβερόν, φρικτόν, φρικωδέστατον). It is also characteristic 
that the fourth petition in the Lord’s Prayer is almost uniformly referred, in 
a mystical way, to the Lord’s Supper. 

® Gregory of Nyssa* draws a parallel, in a most adventurous style, between 
the process of physical nutrition and the subsistence of the spiritual body of 
the believer upon the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. Like the 
earlier fathers, he sees in this holy food a φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, an antidote 
to the mortality wrought by sin; comp. Oratio Catech. 37. As by the 
divine Logos the bread, in the eating thereof, is transformed into the essence 
of the body united with divinity, so, in the Lord’s Supper, the bread and the 
wine are transformed into the body united with the Logos (τὸ δὲ σῶμα τῇ 
ἐνοικήσει τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὺς τὴν θεϊκὴν μετεποιήθη); compare the whole 
passage in Münscher, edited by v. Cölln, 1, 490 sq. Leupp, 238 sq. Rickert 
(ubi supra, 403 sq.) investigates this at length, and comes to the conclusion, 
perhaps too unfavorable: “Gregory shattered the Supper of the Lord; he 
cast away all that is glorious in its nature, and in its place left only a 
magical instrumentality, which, without any influence on the spiritual life, 
is only (?) designed to nourish the body for immortality.” On Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, see ibid. 410; among other things, he infers from John vi., which 


* The difficulty of describing and classifying the different opinions of the fathers of 
this period about the Lord’s Supper, is seen in the contradictory views of the most recent 
writers in this matter—Zbrard, Kalinis, Rückert. The categories, too, proposed by the 
latter, viz., symbolical and metabolical, are not sufficient; for the idea of usraßorn is 
nowhere definitely settled, and, in the same writer, the metabolical and the symbolical 
views cross one another. 


364 Seconp PERIOD. THe AGE or POLEMICS. 


he interprets of the Lord’s Supper, that those who do not receive this Sup- 
per lose salvation (Comm. in Joh. iv. p. 361, A). 

Cyril of Jerusalem so connected (Cat. xxii. § 6) the miracle performed 
at the marriage at Cana with the μεταβολὴ of the elements in the Lord’s 
Supper, that it is difficult not to suppose that he believed in a real and total 
change, the more so as he adds: Ei yap καὶ ἡ αἴσθησίς σοι τοῦτο ὑποβάλ- 
λει, ἀλλὰ ἡ πίστις σε βεβαιούτω" μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς γεύσεως κρίνῃς TO πρᾶγμα, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως πληροφοροῦ ἀνενδοιάστως, σώματος καὶ αἵματος 
Χριστοῦ καταξιωθείς ; and yet he says, $ 3: ἐν τύπῳ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι 
τὸ αἷμα, etc. Does this mean under the image, or under the form, of the 
bread? “which, however, is no longer bread, but something else” (as Rückert 
interprets it). But as he spoke (Cat. xxi. 3) of a similar change effected in 
the oil which was used at the performance of the rite of consecration, with- 
out thinking of a real metaphysical change of the substance of the oil into 
the substance of the Holy Spirit, the interpretation remains a matter of 
doubt; comp. Meander, Hist. Dogm. p. 412. Here then is found “not 
indeed a completely developed, but yet a very decided doctrine of transforma- 
tion, approaching the extreme point ;” Rickert, p. 420. But Cyril undoubt- 
edly supposed a real union, spiritual and corporeal, of the communicant with 
Christ (σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι Χριστοῦ, χριστόφοροι γινόμεθα), and thought 
that we participate in the nature of Christ by the assimilation of his body 
and blood to our members, etc. Cat. xxiii, Comp. Ebrard, 278, Ruckert, 
415, who cite the passages fully.— Chrysostom regards the cation of the 
Lord’s Supper as a proof of the highest love of the Redeemer to mankind, 
inasmuch as he not only gave them an opportunity of seeing him, but also 
enabled them to partake of his body, Hom. 45, in Joh. (Opp. T. viii. p. 292). 
He too teaches a real union with Christ: ᾿Αναφύρει ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν, καὶ οὐ τῇ 
πίστει μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ πράγματι σῶμα ἡμᾶς αὑτοῦ κατασκευάζει, 
Hom. 83, in Matth. (Opp. T. vii. p. 869); comp. Hom, 24, in Ep. ad Cor. 
(Opp. T. ix. p. 257), and other passages quoted by Murheineke, |. c. p. 44. 
Chrysostom probably did not have the notion of a descent of the body of 
Christ from heaven into the bread (Rickert, p. 424). On the other hand, 
he, like other church teachers, (6. g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xxiii, § 15), 
supposed that the substance of the bread was not, like other food, again 
rejected from the body, but consumed, as is the wax in the burning of the 
light—obrwo καὶ ὧδε νόμιζε συναναλίσκεσθαι τὰ μυστήρια τῇ Tod σώματος 
οὐσίᾳ; De Penit. Hom. 9 (Opera, ii. 350). Yet Chrysostom distinguishes 
between the spiritual (νοητόν) and the sensuous (aicOnröv) in the Lord’s 
Supper. “If we were incorporeal, Christ would nourish us with incorporeal 
things (ἀσώματα); but since the soul is tied to the body, God gives us &v 
αἰσθητοῖς τὰ vonta;” comp. the passage on Matth. before cited in Münscher 
ed. by von Cölln, p. 502. Zbrard, p. 284, ss —Hilary, de Trin. viii. 18, 
says, in reference to Christ: Naturam carnis suze ad naturam eternitatis sub 
sacramento nobis communicand& carnis admiscuit, that which Ireneeus calls 
ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν. Ambrose (de Initiandis Mysteriis, ὁ. 8. and 9) re- 


* He speaks very strongly of a manducatio oralis, of a ἐμπῆξαι τοὺς ὀδόντας τῇ σαρκὶ 
καὶ συμπλακῆναι. 


$ 138. ΤῊΝ Lorp’s ΞΡΡΕΕ. 365 


gards the Lord’s Supper as the living bread which came down from heaven 
(John vi. 51), and which is none other but Christ himself. If blessings pro- 
nounced by men (viz, the ‘prophets even of the Old Test.) possessed the 
power of changing the natural elements, how much more must the same be 
true in reference to the sacrament? Quodsi tantum valuit Sermo Elie, ut 
ignem de colo promeret, non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet elemen- 
torum? As the rod of Moses was transformed into a serpent, and the Nile 
into blood, so this change comes about through the power of grace, which is 
mightier than the power of nature. All things are created by the Word 
(Christ): to effect a simple change (mutatio) can not be too difficult for 
him, who is the author of creation. The very body which was in a miracu- 
lous way brought forth by the Virgin, is at the same time the body of the 
sacrament. Nevertheless, he says (in contradiction to the assumption of a 
real change): Ante benedictionem verborum ceelestium species nominatur, 
post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur ; and in reference to the 
wine: ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncu- 
patur. (But it ought not to be forgotten, that critical doubts have been 
raised respecting the genuineness of this book.) Against Hbrard, p. 306 sq., 
see Rickert, u.s. He calls Ambrose “the pillar on which rests the medie- 
val doctrine of the Lord’s Supper ;” p. 464. 

* Eusebius of Cesarea, Demonstr. Evangel. i. 10, and Theol. eccles. iii. 12, 
Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 411, an Ep. iv. ad Serap. (in ee 
p. 409). [Meander,says of ei, that “he was partial to such expres- 
sions as the following: Christians are admonished to celebrate the remem- 
brance of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood” (Demonstr. Evang. 
i. c. 40). In his interpretation of John vi. (Theol. Eccl. iii. c. 12), he says, 
we are not to believe that Christ spoke of his present body, or enjoined the 
drinking of his corporeal and sensuous blood ; but the words which he spake 
are spirit and life, so that his words themselves are his flesh and blood. 
Euscbius also connected a supernatural, sanctifying power with the outward 
Supper. Neander says of Athanasius, that he represents a spiritual view, 
with a realistic element at its basis; in commenting on John vi., he says that 
the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ are not to be under- 
stood literally ; Christ wished to lead his disciples to the conception of a 
spiritual nourishment. See his Ep. iv. ad Serapionem. Jacobi, in the note 
to Neander’s Hist. Dogmas, p. 409, quotes from the Festal Letters of Athan- 
asius, translated by Larsow, Letter vii.: “ Bread and wine, as symbols of the 
nourishing divine power of the Logos. Not only here is this bread food for 
the righteous,...but also in heaven we eat such food, for the Lord is also 
the nourishment of the higher spirits, and of angels, and is the delight of the 
whole heavenly host.” Gregory of Nazianzum called the bread and wine 
symbols and types (avtitu7a)* of the great mysteries, Orat. xvii. 12, p. 325. 
Ullmann, p. 484.—Deserving of special note is a fragment of a letter 
addressed by Chrysostom to Cesarius, a monk, the authenticity of which is 


* Comp. Suicer, Thes. T. i. p. 383, ss., and Ullmann, 1. c., who oppose the interpretation 
of Elias Cretensis and of John of Damascus. According to the one, dvrirvra meant the 
same as ἰσότυπα ; according to the other, Gregory only meant that the bread and wine 
were dvrirvra before the consecration. 


366 SEconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


more than questionable.* It is here said: Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur 
panis, panem nominamus, divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante 
sacerdote, liberatus est quidam ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus 
dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non 
dua corpora, sed unum corpus filii pradicamus. Comp. Neander, Hist. 
Dogm. 408. Chrysostom’s disciple, Milus, made a clear distinction between 
the symbol and the thing represented by it, comparing (Lib. i. ep. 44, see 
Neander, 1. c.) the bread after consecration to a document which having 
been confirmed by the emperor, is called a Sacra, The distinction made by 
Theodoret between the sign aud the thing signified, was intimately connected 
with the similar distinction which he drew between the human and the 
divine natures of Christ; Dial. ii. Opp. iv. p. 126: Οὐδὲ yap μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασ- 
μὸν τά μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. Μένει yap ἐπὶ τῆς 
προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ 
ἁπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν. Νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται 
καὶ προσκυνεῖται, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. ἸΠαράθες τοίνυν τῷ 
ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ ὄψει τὴν ὁμοιότητα. Χρὴ γὰρ ἐοικέναι τῇ 
ἀληθεία τὸν τύπον. He also contrasted the μεταβολὴ τῇ χάριτι with the 
μεταβολὴ τῆς φύσεως, Dial. i. p. 26. (We do not see, then, why Rickert 
puts him among the metabolists instead of the symbolists.) 

° Augustine, in interpreting the words pronounced by our Saviour at the 
institution of this ordinance, reminds us of their figurative import; Contra 
Adamant. c. 12.3. He says, too, that the language of John vi. is highly 
figurative; Contra Advers. Leg. et Prophetar. ii. c. 9. (The controversy in 
which he was engaged with the Manicheans led him to defend the figurative 
style of the Old Test. by addueing similar examples from the New.) He 
even supposed that the characteristic feature of the sacraments consists in 
this, that they contain symbols, Ep. 98, 9: Si sacramenta quandam similitu- 
dinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacra- 
menta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum 
rerum nomina accipiunt. The sacrament in question is the body of Christ— 
secundum quendam modum, but not absolutely; and its participation is a 
communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius (Ep. 54, 1); comp. De Doctr, Chr. 
iii. 10, 16. In the passage last mentioned, he calls the partaking of Christ’s 
body, in the literal (Capernaitic) sense of the word (John vi. 33), facinus vel 
flagitium, and continues as follows: Figura est ergo, preecipiens passioni 
Dominiex communicandum et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memo- 
ria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit; comp. De Civ. Dei 
xxi. c. 25. Respecting the body of Christ he says, Ep. 146: Ego Domini 
corpus ita in c@lo esse credo, ut erat in terra, quando ascendit in celum, 
comp. Marheineke, p. 56, ss.; Meander, Church Hist. ii. 674; Zbrard, 309. 
—On the connection subsisting between the views of Augustine concerning 
the Lord’s Supper and those respecting baptism, comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 146 ; 
on the connection subsisting between these and his views of the sacraments 
in general, comp. above, § 137, note 2. 

® Comp. Opus. Imperf. contra Julian, iii. 162; see Greseler, Dogmengesch. 


* In Chrysostom. Opera, iii. 742. On the history of this fragment, see Rückert, p. 429. 


§ 138. Tue Lorp’s SUPPER. 367 


p. 407. [Augustine here relates, that a mother made a plaster of the sacred 
bread, laid it upon the-eyes of her son, born with sealed eyes, and so healed 
him.] This view of the magical efficacy of the Lord’s Supper he held in 
common with the greatest teachers of the East; thus Gregory of Naz., comp. 
Orat. viii. 17 sq., and Ep. 240, Ullmann’s Gregory, p. 483.—The dread of 
spilling any of the wine was the same as in the previous period. With this 
is allied the warning of Cyril of Jerusalem, that when a drop of the con- 
secrated wine remains hanging on the lips, the eyes and brow must be wet 
with it (Cat. xxiii. c. 22); Géeseler, ubi supra—On the Communion of Chil- 
dren, which was customary particularly in the Latin church, see the works 
on Archeology. [Gelasius, bishop of Rome, writes, about a. p. 495: No 
one should venture to exclude any child from this sacrament, “without which 
no one can attain to eternal life” In this prohibition is seen the value 
attached to infant communion. Comp. Neander, p. 412.] 

" Augustine, De Trinit. iii. 10: Possunt habere honorem tanquam reli- 
giosa, sed non stuporem tanquam mira. De Doctr. Christ. iii. 9, he calls the 
New Testament sacraments, in contrast with the Old Testament ceremonies, 
factu facillima, intellectu augustissima, observatione castissima, which, how- 
ever, are to be honored, not carnali servitute, but spiritali libertate. To take 
the signs for the thing signified, he terms a servilis infirmitas. 

° Gelasius, De duab. Natur. in Christo, in Bibl. Max. PP. T. viii. p. 708, 
quoted by Meyer, p. 34. Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 504: Certe sacra- 
menta, que sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter 
quod et per eadem divine efficimur participes nature et tamen esse non desi- 
nit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis 
et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis 
evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in 
ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus, ut sicut in hane, scilicet in 
divinam transeant, Sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanente tamen 
in sue proprietate nature, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis 
efficientiam virtutemque veracitur reprssentant. 

° After the example of Cyprian, the idea of a sacrifice is distinctly set 
forth by most of the fathers of this period. Thus by Gregory of Nazianzum 
(Orat. 11. 95, p. 56. Ullmann, p. 483), and Basil the Great, Ep. 93, though 
without any more precise definition (A/ose, p. 72); so, too, by Leo the Great 
(Sermo Ixvi. 2; clvi. 5), see Perthel, p. 218, note (against Griesbach, who 
interprets it only tropically); against Perthel, see Rickert, p. 479 sq. On 
Ambrose (who first used the word missa directly of the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper), Chrysostom, and Augustine, see Rickert, and the Histories 
of Doctrines by Neander and @üeseler. But Gregory the Great speaks most 
distinctly (Moral. Lib. xxii. 26) of a quotidianum immolationis sacrifieium, 
and connects it with masses for souls; see Law, p. 484 sq., and the passages 
he cites, 


368 SeconD PERIOD. THe AGE oF POLEmics. 


5. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS. 


§ 139. 
MILLENNARIANISM.—THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 


The contest in which Origen had engaged against the advocates 
-of Millennarianism, was soon after his death adjusted in his favor. 
His disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria, succeeded more by persuasion 
than by force in imposing silence on the followers of Nepos, an 
Egyptian bishop, who adhered to the letter of Scripture, and were 
opposed to all allegorical interpretation, and had the presbyter 
Coracion for their leader after the death of Nepos.' Millennarianism 
was from that time supported by but a few of the eastern theolo- 
gians.” In the West the chiliastic expectations were advocated by 
Lactantius,’ but combated by Augustine, who had himself once 
entertained similar views.‘ Besides, it was very natural that Chris- 
tianity should confidently expect a longer existence on earth, after 
it had become connected with the state, and been permanently 
established. Thus the period of Christ’s second coming, and of the 
destruction of the world, was inevitably deferred from time to time, 
and it was only extraordinary events that caused men for a season 
to look forward to these events as nigh at hand.—The notion of 
Marcellus, that Christ’s heavenly kingdom itself will at some future 
period come to an end (founded on 1 Cor. xv. 25), forms a remark- 
able parallel to Millennarianism. ° 


1 On the treatise of Nepos (A. p. 255), entitled: ἔλεγχος τῶν ἀλληγο- 
ριστῶν, and that of Dionysius, περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν, as well as on the entire 
controversy, comp. Euseb. vii. 24. Gennadius De Dogm. Eccles. c. 55. 
Mosheim Comment. p. 720-28. Meander, Church Hist. 1. 652. Coracion 
retracted his former views in consequence of a disputation brought about by 
Dionysius. 

? Methodius, who was in part an opponent of Origen, propounded millen- 
narian notions in his treatise, The Feast of the Ten Virgins (a dialogue on 
chastity), which was composed in imitation of Plato’s Symposium ; Orat. ix. 
§ 5 (in Combefisii Auctuar. Noviss. Bibl. PP. Grace. Pars. i. p. 109). Nean- 
der, Church Hist. i. p. 720. According to Epiph. Her. 72, p. 1013 (comp. 
Hier. in Jes. Lib. xviii.), Apollinaris, too, held millennarian notions, and 
wrote a treatise in two books against the work of Dionysius, which met with 
great success at the time: Quem non solum (says Jerome, |, c.) sue secte 
homines, sed nostrorum in hac parte duntaxat plurima sequitur multitudo, 
Concerning the millennarian views of Dar Sudaili, abbot of Edessa, in 
Mesopotamia, towards the close of the fifth century, comp. Neander, |. c. ii, 
p. 555. 


§ 140. THE ResurRECTION OF THE Bopy. 369 


5. Inst. vii. 14-26, c. 14: Sicut Deus sex dies in tantis rebus fabricandis 
laboravit, ita et religio ejus et veritas in his sex millibus annorum laboret 
necesse est, malitia preevalente ac dominante. Et rursus, quoniam perfectis 
operibus requievit die septimo eumque benedixit, necesse est, ut in fine sexti 
millesimi anni malitia omnis aboleatur e terra et regnet per annos mille jus- 
titia, sitque tranquillitas et requies a laboribus, quos mundus jamdiu perfert. 
In the subsequent part of the chapter he gives a full description of the state 
of the political, the physical, and the religious world antecedent to the mil- 
lennial kingdom, and appeals both to the Sibylline oracles and to the Hys- 
taspes. Comp. Corrodi, ii. p. 410, 423, 441, 455. 

* Sermo 159 (Opp. T. v. p. 1060), which may be compared with De Civ. 
Wel xx. Laas ae: Que opinio esset uteunque tolerabilis, si alique delicie 
spiritales in illo sabbato adfuturse sanctis per Domini praesentiam crederentur. 
Nam etiam nos hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. Sed cum eos, qui tune resur- 
rexerint, dicant immoderatissimis carnalibus epulis vacaturos, in quibus cibus 
sit tantus ac potus, ut non solum nullam modestiam teneant, sed modum 
quoque ipsius incredulitatis excedant: nullo modo ista possunt nisi a carna- 
libus eredi. Hi autem, qui spiritales sunt, istos ἰδία credentes χιλιαστὰς 
appellant graeco vocabulo, quos, verbum e verbo exprimentes, nos possumus 
Milliarios nuncupare. The first resurrection (Revel. xx. 5) is explained by 
Augustine as the deliverance of the soul from the dominion of sin in this 
life; as, in general, an orthodoxy which maintains the authority of the 
Apocalypse, and yet will not allow millennarianism, can only escape from its 
difficulties by an arbitrary exegesis, like that of Augustine on this passage. 

5 Comp. the works on Marcellus quoted § 92,6; Klose, p. 42, ss., and the 
passages cited by him. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xv. 27 (14 Milles), combating 
this opinion, appeals to the words of the angel (Luke i. 33), and of the proph- 
ets (Dan. vii. 13, 14, οἷς); in reference to 1 Cor. xv. 25, he asserts that the 
term ἄχρις includes the terminus ad quem.—A’lose, p. 82, questions whether 
Photinus adopted the views of Marcellus. [Comp. Willenborg, Die Orth- 
doxie d. Marcellus von Ancyra. Münster, 1859. ] 


§ 140. 
THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. 


The idea of a two-fold resurrection, taken from the book of Rey- 
elation, still held by Lactantius,’ afterwards shared the fate of 
Millennarianism.? Though Methodius combated Origen’s idealistic 
doctrine of the resurrection,' yet several of the eastern theologians 
adopted it,‘ till the zealous Anti-Origenist party succeeded in the 
ensuing controversies in establishing their doctrine, that the body 
raised from the tomb is in every respect identical with that which 
formed in this life the organ of the soul. Jerome even went so far 
as to make this assertion in reference to the very hairs and teeth.° 
Augustine’s views on this point were, during the earlier part of his 

24 


370 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE ΟΕ PoLEnics, 


life, more in accordance with the Platonic and Alexandrian mode 
of thinking ; but afterwards he gave the preference to more sensuous 
notions, though he was at much pains to clear the doctrine in ques- 
tion as far as possible from all gross and carnal additions.° Later 
definitions have reference rather to unessential points.’ 


° Inst. vii. 20: Nec tamen universi tune (2. e., at the commencement of 
the millennial reign) a Deo judicabuntur, sed ii tantum qui sunt in Dei reli- 
gione versati. Comp. ὁ. 26:....Eodem tempore (ὁ. e., at the end of the 
world after the millennial reign) fiet secunda illa et publica omnium resur- 
rectio, in qua excitabuntur injusti ad cruciatus sempiternos, 

2 Augustine De Civ. Dei xx. 7: De his duabus resurrectionibus Joannes 
....eo modo locutus est, ut earum prima a quibusdam nostris non intellecta, 
insuper etiam in quasdam ridiculas fabulas verteretur. Comp. Epiphan. 
Ancor. ὃ 97, p. 99. Gennad. lib. 1, c. 6, et 25. 

° Περὶ ἀναστάσεως λόγος. Phot. Bibl. cod. 234. ZKössler, i. p. 297. 
Comp. Epiph. Her. 64, 12-62. 

* Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also Basi the 
Great, adopted the views of Origen. Thus Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. ii. 
17, p. 20, and in other places) rested belief in immortality principally on 
this, that man, considered as a spiritual being, is of divine origin, and con- 
sequently has an immortal nature. The body which perishes is transient, but 
the soul is the breath of the Almighty, and the deliverance from the fetters 
of the body is the most essential point of future happiness; see Ullmann, p. 
501, 2. Similar statements are made by Gregory of Nyssa, De Anima et 
Resurrectione (Opp. T. iii. p. 181 [247]), see Rupp, p. 187, ss., and Münscher, 
Handbuch, iv. p. 439. Both Gregory of Nazianzum and Gregory of Nyssa 
compared (in the manner of Origen), e. g., the body of man to the coats of 
skins with which our first parents were clothed after the fall. Concerning 
the more indefinite views of Basil (Hom. viii. in Hexaémeron, p. 78, and In 
Famem, p. 72), see Klose, p. 77. Titus of Bostra (fragm. in Joh. Damas- 
ceni Parallela Sacra Opp. T. ii. p. 763) propounded a more refined doctrine 
of the resurrection. Chrysostom, though asserting the identity of the body, 
Hom. x. in 2 Ep. ad Cor. (Opp. T. ix. p. 603), kept to the Pauline doctrine, 
and maintained in particular the difference between the present and the 
future body : Σὺ δέ μοι σκόπει, πῶς διὰ THY ὀνομάτων δείκνυσι (ὁ ’AT.) 
τὴν ὑπεροχὴν τῶν μελλόντων πρὸς τὰ παρόντα" εἰπὼν γὰρ ἐπίγειον (2 
Cor. ν. 1) ὠντέθηκε τὴν οὐρανίαν κ. τ. A. Synesius, a Christian philosopher 
of Cyrene, frankly acknowledged that he could not adopt the popular notions 
on this point (which some interpreted as a complete denial of the doctrine 
of the resurrection). ‘Comp. Evagrius Hist. Eccl. i. 15, and Ep. 105 ad 
Euoptium fratrem, in the note of Valesiws on that passage. [Comp. Syne- 
.sius, Opera Omnia, ed. Krabinger, Landshut, 1850; and his Homilies tra- 
duites pour la premiere fois, par B. Kolbe, Berlin, 1850.] 

5 Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome may be considered 
as the representatives of this zealous party. The last two had themselves 
formerly entertained more liberal views, nor did Theophilus even afterwards 


§ 140. Tae Resurrt{on or tHe 'Bopr. 371 


hesitate to ordain Synesi i 
ordain Synesius as bishy of Ptolemais; see Mimscher, Hand- 


buch, iv. p. F ft 
seer But = OPRed, with especial vehemence, John of 
Si TOM as by no means satisfied (Apol. contra 


Ruf. lib. 4, Op. T. ii 77 
1 » Up Tail. Ρ. 146) 22 the language of Rufinus, even when he 


ns nn ἊΝ in Ru carni Gn the Expos. Symbol. app.), and still 
point of view) ee John, who distinguished (rightly in the exegetical 
definite assertions, "" flesh and body. He therefore made the following 
118, ss.), which TAI: Errores Joann. Hier. ad Pammach. Opp. T. i 1: 
sanguine, ve“ he founds especially on Job XIX. 26: Caro est proprie, quae 
caro, ubi oS; ossibus nervisque constringitur....... Certe ubi pellis et 
prietas .S°4 et nervi et sanguis et ven, ibi carnis structura, ibi sexus pro- 
pre 5X... Videbo autem in ista carne, que me nunc cruciat, que nunc 
tardolore distillat. Ideirco Deum in carne conspiciam, quia omnes infirmi- 
yées meas sanavit—And so goes on to say in reference to the resurrection- 
Aodies : Habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia et tamen nec cibis nec uxoribus 
y indigent. From the stridor dentium of the condemned, he infers that we 
shall have teeth; the passage: Capilli capitis vestri numerati sunt, proves, 
in his opinion, that not even our hairs will be wanting. But his principal _ 
argument is founded on the identity of the body of believers with that of 
Christ. In reference to 1 Cor. xv. 50, he lays great stress upon the use of 
the term possidere regnum Dei, which he distinguishes from the resurrectio. 


Comp. Prudentius (Apotheos. 1063, ss.): 


Nosco meum in Christo corpus resurgere. Quid me 
Desperare jubes? Veniam, quibus ille revenit 
Calcata de morte viis. Quod eredimus, hoc est: 

Et totus veniam, nec enim minor aut alius quam 
Nune sum restituar. Vultus, vigor et color idem, 
Qui modo vivit, erit. Mec me vel dente vel ungue 
Fraudatum revomet patefacti fossa sepuleri. 


* Augustine propounded the more liberal view, De Fide et Symb. ce. 10: 
Tempore immutationis angelice non jam caro erit et sanguis, sed tantum 
corpus—in ceelestibus nullo caro, sed corpora simplicia et lucida, que appellat 
Ap. spiritalia, nonnulli autem vocant wtheria; the opposite view is set forth 
in his Retractiones, p. 17. The whole doctrine is fully developed in Enchirid. 
ad Laur. 84-92, and De Civ. Dei xxi. c. 11-21; Erit ergo spiritui subdita 
caro spiritalis, sed tamen caro, non spiritus, sicut carni subditus fuit spiritus 
ipse carnalis, sed tamen spiritus, non caro. In reference to the general 
aspect of the doctrine he says, Ad Laur. c. 88, ss.: Non perit Deo terrena 
materies, de qua mortalium creatur caro, sed quemlibet pulverem cineremve 
solyatur, in quoslibet halitus aurasque diffugiat, in quamcunque aliorum cor- 
porum substantiam vel in ipsa elementa vertatur, in quorumcunque animalium, 
etiam hominum cedat carnemque mutetur, illi anime humane puncto tem- 
poris redit, quae illam primitus, ut homo fieret, cresceret, viveret, animavit ; 


* He accepted the bishopric only on the condition, that he might retain his free 
opinions. 


372 Seconn Prriop. THE Acs or POLEMICS, 


but this admits of some limitation :P$% itaque berrens ae ed 
dente anima fit cadaver, non ita resyectione reparabitur, ut ea, 4 
erum species formasque vertuntur 


buntur et in alias atque alias aliarum 
i unt), ad easdem quoque corporis 


(quamvis ad corpus redeant, unde lapsa © impossible especially in the 
partes, ubi fuerunt, redire necesse sit (this wou eee P pr) 
si statua eujuslibet solu- 


case of the hair and nails.)....Sed quemadmodum, 

τς : : . »ulverem, aut confun- 
bilis metalli aut igne liquesceret, aut contereretur in | tstäte/Tennnard 
deretur in massam, et eam vellet artifex ex illius materie ὡς ; Fa 
nihil interesset ad ejus integritatem, que particula materi. κι, estinda 
statue redderetur, dum tamen totum, ex quo constituta fue.” doer 
resumeret. Ita Deus mirabiliter atque ineffabiliter artifex de tote, aliquid 
nostra constiterat, eam mirabili et ineffabili celeritate restituet. Nec πο 
attinebit ad ejus reintegrationem, utrum capilli ad capillos redeant et Using 
ad ungues: an quicquid eorum perierat, mutetur in carnem et in partes al... 
corporis revocetur, curante artificis providentia, ne quid indecens fiat. Noı 
is it necessary to suppose, that the differences of size and stature will con- 
tinue in the life to come, but every thing will be restored in the proportions 
of the divine image. Cap. 90: Resurgent igitur Sanctorum corpora sine 
ullo vitio, sine ulla deformitate, sicut sine ulla corruptione, onere, difficultate, 
etc. All will have the stature of the full-grown man, and, as a general rule, 
that of thirty years old (the age of Christ), De Civ. Dei lib. i. c. 12. He 
gives particular statements respecting children, De Civ. Dei lib. i. c. 14; the 
different sexes, c. 17 ; concerning children born prematurely and lusus nature, 
ib. e. 13, and Ad Laur., 85, 87. Moreover i Si quis in eo corporis modo, in 
quo defunctus est, resurrecturum unumquemque contendit, non est cum illo 
laboriosa contradictione pugnandum ; De Civ. Dei |. 1. c. 16. On the simi- 
lar views of Gregory the Great, see Lau, p. 510, ss. 

7 The opinion of Origen having been condemned by the decisions of 
synods (Mansi ix. p. 399 and 516) on the narrow basis of this orthodoxy 
there could be but sight modifications. To these belong, e. g., the contro- 
versy which arose between Zutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, who 
maintained that the resurrection body was impalpabilis, and Gregory the 
Great, bishop of Rome, who denied it (Greg. M. Moral. in Jobum lib. xiv. c. 
29. Münscher, Handbuch, p. 449); and the controversy which took place 
between the Monophysitic Philoponites and the Cononites respecting the 
question, whether the resurrection was to be considered as a new creation of 
matter, or as a mere transformation of the form? Comp. Timoth. de Recept. 
Heeret. in Cotelerii Monnm. Eccles. Greece, T. iii. p. 413, ss. Walch, Historie 
der Ketzereien, vol. viii. p. 762, ss. Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 450, 451. 
Gieseler, Dogmengesch, 427. [The theory of Philoponus rested on his 
Aristotelian principle, that matter and form are inseparable, and that with 
the death of the body both matter and form are destroyed; consequently, 
there must be a new creation.—One view condemned as Origenistic was, 
that the bodies will be raised in the spherical form, that being the most per- 
fect ; another, that the bodies will at some future time be annihilated. ] 


§ 141. GENERAL JUDGMENT. 373 


§ 141. 


GENERAL JUDGMENT—CONFLAGRATION OF THE WORLD.—PURGATORY. 


Höpfner, De Origine Dogmatis de Purgatorio. Hal. 1792. J. F. Cotta, Historia Succincta 
Dogmatis de Pcenarum Infernalium Duratione. Tübing. 1774. [Passaglia 
De Aternite Poenarum, Ratisb. 1854. ] 


The views concerning the general judgment were still substan- 
tially founded on the representations of Scripture, but more fully 
described and pictorially represented, in the foreground and back- 
ground, by the phantasy of the age.' The fathers of the preceding 
age believed in a general conflagration which was to accompany the 
general judgment, as well as to destroy the world, and ascribed to it 
a purifying power.” The shape given to this by Augustine was, 
that this purifying fire (ignis purgatorius) has its seat in Hades, 7. e., 
the place in which the souls of the departed were supposed to re- 
main until the general resurrection.* This idea, as well as further 
additions on the part of other theologians, especially Cesarius of 
Arles,* and Gregory the Great,‘ prepared the way for the more 
definite doctrine of purgatory. This doctrine being brought after- 
wards into connection with the doctrine of the mass, was made sub- 
servient to the purposes of the hierarchy. and contributed to obscure 
the evangelical doctrine of salvation. 


* The end of the world will be preceded by signs in the sun, the moon, 
and the stars; the sun will be changed into blood, the moon will not give 
her light, etc. Comp. Basil the Grune Hom. 6, in Hexaém. p. 54, (al. 63.) 
ans vii. 19, ss., c. 25, (he has regard to the Sibylline oracles). Short 
descriptions of the general judgment are given by Gregory of Nazianz. 
Orat. xvi. 9, p. 305, ss., and xix. 15, p. 373.—According to Basil, Moral. 
Regula. 68, 2, the coming of our Lord will be sudden, the stars will fall from 
Heaven etc., but we sucht not to think of this manifestation as τοπικὴ ἢ 
σαρκικῆ, but Ev δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς κατὰ πάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀθρόως, see 
Klose, p. 74. Comp. Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. p. 184 (al. 193, 94), Ep. 46.—Ac- 
cording to Cyril of Jerusalem, the second coming of our Lord will be 
announced by the appearance of a cross, Cat. 15. 22; comp. the whole de- 
scription, 19-33. — Augustine endeavored dogmatically to define the facts 
which are represented in figurative language,* instead of giving rhetorical 
descriptions, as the Greek theologians loved to do; he therefore sought to 
bring the doctrine of retribution into agreement with his doctrine of pre- 


* He points out (De Gestis Pel. c. 4, § 11) the variety of figurative expressions used 
in Scripture in reference to this subject, which can hardly be combined in one represen- 
tation. ο 


374 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE or POLEMICS. 


destination; see De Civ. Dei xx. 1: Quod ergo in confessione tenet 
omnis ecclesia Dei veri, Christum de ccelo esse venturum ad vivos ac mor- 
tuos judicandos, hunc divini judicii ultimum diem dieimus, 7. e. novissi- 
mum tempus. Nam per quot dies hoc judicium tendatur, incertum est : sed 
scripturarum more sanctarum diem poni solere pro tempore, nemo qui illas 
litteras quamlibet negligenter legerit, nescit. Ideo autem cum diem judicii 
dicimus, addimus ultimum vel novissimum, quia et nunc judicat et ab hu- 
mani gereris initio judicavit, dimittens de paradiso, et a ligno vite separans 
primos homines peccati magni perpetratores; imo etiam quando angelis 
peccantibus non pepercit, quorum princeps homines a se ipso subversus 
invidendo subvertit, procul dubio judicavit. Nee sine illius alto justoque 
judicio et in hoe aério ceelo et in terris, et demonum et hominum miserrima 
vita est erroribus erumnisque plenissima. Verum etsi nemo peccasset, non 
sine bono rectoque judicio universam rationalem creaturam perseverantissime 
sibi Domino suo herentem in eterna beatitudine retineret. Judicat etiam 
non solum universaliter de genere demonum atque hominum, ut miseri sint 
propter primorum meritum peccatorum ; sed etiam de singulorum operibus 
propriis, qua gerunt arbitrio voluntatis, ete.—As to the transactions of the 
general judgment itself, see ibid. c. 14. 

? Comp. § 77, note 6. This idea of a purifying fire is very distinctly set 
forth by Gregory of Nazianzum, in Orat. xxxix. 19, p. 690. (Ullmann, p. 
504). Less definitely in Orat. xl. 36, p. 730. (Ullmann, p. 505). —Roman 
Catholic commentators have inferred too much in support of their theory 
from the general expression πυρὶ καθαιρομένη, which Gregory of Nyssa 
makes use of—De iis qui premature abripiuntur (Opp. iii, p. 312); see 
Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte xiv. p. 135. Basil the Great supposes (Hom. 
3. in Hexaémeron, p. 27) that the fire- which is to destroy the world has 
existed from the beginning of creation, but that its effects are neutralized 
by a sufficient quantity of water, until the consumption of the latter; see 
Klose, p. 73. 

° Augustine agrees with other theologians in his general views concerning 
the conflagration of the world, De Civ. Dei xx. 18; in the same place he 
endeavors to give a satisfactory reply to the question, where the righteous 
will be during the general conflagration? Possumus respondere, futuros eos 
esse in superioribus partibus, quo ita non adscendet flamma illius incendii, 
quemadmodum nee unda diluvii. Talia quippe illis inerunt corpora, ut illic 
sint, ubi esse voluerint. Sed nec ignem conflagrationis illius pertimescent 
immortales atque incorruptibiles facti: sicut virorum trium corruptibilia 
corpora atque mortalia in camino ardenti vivere illeesa potuerunt. Like the 
earlier theologians Augustine brings the idea of a purification wrought by 
the fire into connection with 1 Cor. iii. 11-15 ; see Enchirid, ad Laur. § 68. 
In the next section he continues as follows (in reference to the disposition to 
cling too much to earthly goods): Tale aliquid etiam post hane vitam fiert 
incredibile non est, et utrum ita sit, quaeri potest. Et aut inveniri aut latere 
nonnullos fideles per ignem purgatorium, quanto magis minusve bona 
pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusve salvari: non tamen tales, de 
quibus dictum est, quod regnum Pei non possidebunt, nisi convenienter 


$ 141. GENERAL JUDGMENT. 375 


peenitentibus eadem crimina remittantur. Comp. De Civ. Dei l. i. c. 24, 26 ; 
Quest. ad Dule.$ 13. At thesynod of Diospolis it was objected to Pelagius, 
that he taught that at the last judgment the godless and sinners would not 
be spared, but burn in everlasting fire—to which he replied, that this was 
according to the gospel, and that whvever taught otherwise was an Origenist. 
But Augustine conjectures, that Pelagius thereby meant to deny the purify- 
ing fire; comp. Wiggers, i. 195: Neander, Church History (Torrey), 11. 584, 
Note 675. [As quoted by Meander, the objection reads: “In die judicii 
iniquis et peccatoribus non esse parcendum, sed aternis eos ignibus esse 
exurendos ;” and Meander adds, that it is probable that Pelagius was com- 
bating those who held out the promise of final salvation to a dead church- 
faith, not connected with a change of heart,” ete.—and that this interpretation 
“is confirmed by Augustine’s remark on this passage in his De Gestis 
Pelagii.”] Whether Prudentius taught it? see Schréckh, Kirchengesch. 
Vil. p. 126. 

* Sermo viii. 4. in August. Opp. T. v. Append.; the passage is quoted by 
Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 62. He makes a distinction between capi- 
talia crimina and minuta peccata. None but the latter can be expiated 
either in this life by painful sufferings, alms, or placability manifested to- 
wards enemies, or in the life to come by the purifying fire (longo tempore 
eruciandi). 

° Gregory the Great may rightly be called with Schröckh, the “ inventor 
of the doctrine of purgatory,” if on such a subject we may speak of invention. 
On the one hand, he lays down (Dial. iv. 39) the doctrine of purgatory, 
which in Augustine still has the character of a private opinion, as an article 
of faith, saying: De quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicium purgato- 
rius ignis credendus est and rests his opinion on Matth. xii, 31. (He thinks 
that some sins are not pardoned till after death, but to that class belong only 
what are called minor sins, such as talkativeness, levity, and dissipated life).* 
On the other hand, he was the first writer who clearly propounded the idea 
. of a deliverance from purgatory by intercessory prayer, by masses for the 
dead (sacra oblatio hostize salutaris) ete., and adduced instances in support 
of his view, to which he himself attached credit. Comp. Dial. iv. 25 and 
B17, Moral. ix. c. 34; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xvii. p. 255, ss.; Meander, 
Church Hist. iii. p. 135, ss.; Lau, p. 485, 508, seq. If we compare Gre- 
gory’s doetrine with the former (more idealistic) notions concerning the 
efficacy of the purifying fire, we may adopt the language of Schmidt (Kir- 
chengesch. iii. p. 280); “ The belief in a lasting desire after a higher de- 
gree of perfection, which death itself can not quench, DEGENERATED INTO A 
BELIEF IN PURGATORY.” 

* Abuses were already found as to prayers for the dead: and Aerius, pres- 
byter at Sebaste (about A. p. 360) wished to have them abolished, but they still 
continued. At first they prayed for martyrs and saints (Epiphanius, 75, § 7). 


* According to Gregory, the passage on which earlier teachers relied, 1 Cor. iii. 13, 
may be referred to tribulations in hac vita, but he himself prefers the usual interpreta- 
tion, and understands by the wood, hay, and stubble, mentioned in iii 12, unimportant 
and slight sins / ® 


376 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE oF POLEMICS. 


Augustine, on the other hand, thought; Injuria est pro martyre orare, cujus 
nos debemus orationibus commendari (Sermo xvii.). It became a more gen- 
eral ecclesiastical observance to introduce into the intercession of the saints 
a petition for the shortening of the pangs of purgatory. 


§ 142, 
THE STATE OF THE BLESSED AND THE DAMNED. 


Gregory of Nazianzum, and some other theologians, supposed 
that the souls of the righteous prior to the resurrection of the body, 
are at once admitted into the presence of God (without respect to 
the doctrine about Hades); while the majority of the ecclesiastical 
writers of this period’ believed that men do not receive their full 
reward till after the resurrection of the body* and the general judg- 
ment. According to Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, 
and other theologians who adopted the views of Origen, the blessed- 
ness of heaven consists in more fully developed knowledge, in 
intercourse with all the saints and righteous, and partly in the 
deliverance from the fetters of the body ; Augustine added that the 
soul then obtained its true liberty. But all writers admitted the 
difficulty of forming just views on this subject.‘ The sufferings of 
the damned were represented as the opposite of the pleasures of the 
blessed, and in the descriptions of the punishments of hell greater 
prominence was given to gross sensuous representations. Many 
were disposed to regard the fire in question as a material fire ; 
though Lactantius depicted it in more refined images, while others 
painted it in terrible descriptions.’ There were still some theolo- 
gians who favored the idea of degrees both of bliss and torture.* 
Concerning the duration of the punishments of hell the opinion was 
more general, that they are eternal,’ but yet Arnobius maintained 
that they would at last cease, though with the annihilation of the: 
individual’; and even the Origenistic humanity, in a few of its 
representatives, still dared to express a glimmer of hope in favor of 
the damned.° Jerome at least admitted, that those among the 
damned who have been orthodox, enjoy a kind of privilege.’ And, 
lastly, it is aremarkable fact, which however admits of a satisfac- 
tory solution, that Augustine entertained milder views on this point 
than Pelagius,” who, as well as the practical Chrysostom,” main- 
tained the eternal duration of the punishments of hell, in accord- 
ance with his strict doctrine of moral retribution. The doctrine 
of the restitution of all things shared the fate of Origenism,” and 
made its appearance in after ages only in connection with other 
heretical notions, and especially with the otherwise anti-Origenistic 
Millennarianism, 


$ 142. STATE OF THE BLESSED AND THE DAMNED. 377 


* Orat. x. p. 178, 174. Comp. Gennad. De Dogm. Eccles. c. 46. Gre- 
gory the Great, Moral. 1. iv. c. 37. Zusebius, too, relates (De Vita Constant. 
iii, 40), that Helena, the mother of the emperor, went immediately to God, 
and was transformed into an angelic substance (@aveororxeiovro.) 

* Thus Ambrose, De Bono Mortis c. 10; de Cain et Abel, 1. ii. c. 2: Sol- 
vitur corpore anima et post finem vitee hujus, adhue tamen futuri judicii 
ambiguo suspenditur. Ita finis nullus, ubi finis putatur. Hilary, Tract. in 
Ps. exx. p. 383. Augustine, Enchirid. ad Laur. § 109: Tempus, quod inter 
hominis mortem et ultimam resurrectionem interpositum est, animas abditis 
receptaculis continet ; sicut unaqueque digna est vel requie vel eerumna, pro 
eo, quod sortita est in carne cum viveret: comp. Sermo 48. Even some of 
the Greek theologians taught, that no man receives his full reward before the 
general judgment. Chrys. in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom, xxviii. (Opp. T. xii. p. 924) 
et in 1 Ep. ad Corinth. Hom. xxxix. (Opp. xi. p. 436). He there defends 
the belief in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection as distinct from a 
mere hope in the continued existence of the soul after death. Cyril of Alez. 
Contra Anthropom. c. 5. 7, ss. 

* According to Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Catech. c. 40, the blessedness of 
heaven cannot be described by words. Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. xvi. 
9, p. 306, supposes it to consist in the perfect knowledge of God, and espe- 
cially of the Trinity (θεωρία tprddo¢)—in full accordance with the intellectual 
and contemplative tendency predominant in the eastern church at that time. 
Gregory, however, does not restrict the enjoyment of eternal happiness to 
the intuitive vision and knowledge of God; but, inasmuch as this knowledge 
itself is brought about by a closer union with God, the blessedness of the 
redeemed in heaven will also consist in this inward union with God, in the 
perfect peace both of the soul and of the heavenly habitations, in the in- 
tercourse with blessed spirits, and in the elevated knowledge of all that is 
good and beautiful; Orat. vill, 23, p. 232. Rhetorical descriptions are 
found in Orat. vii. 17, p. 209, vii. 21, p. 213. Ullmann, p. 502. Basil the 
Great depicts this blessedness for the most part in a negative way: Homil. 
in Ps. exiv. p. 204, quoted by Klose, p. 76. Augustine also begins, De Civ. 
Dei xxii. 29, 30, with the confession: Et illa quidem actio, vel potius quies 
atque otium, quale futurum sit, δὲ verum velim dicere, nescio ; non enim hoc 
unquam per sensus corporis vidi. Si autem mente, ὁ, e., intelligentia vidisse 
me dicam, quantum est aut quid est nostra intelligentia ad illam excellen- 
tiam ?— According to Augustine the happiness of the blessed consists in the 
enjoyment of heavenly peace which passes knowledge, and the vision of 
God, which cannot be compared with bodily vision. But while Gregory of 
Nazianzum assigned the first place to theological knowledge (insight into the 
Trinity), Augustine founded his theory of the blessed life upon anthropology. 
The blessed obtain true liberty, by which he understood that they can no 
longer sin: nam primum liberum arbitrium, quod homini datum est, quando 
primum creatus est rectus, potuit non peccare, sed potuit et peccare; hoc 
autem novissimum eo potentius erit, quo peccare non poterit. Verum hoe 
quoque Dei munere, non sus possibilitate nature. Aliud est enim, esse 
Deum, aliud participem Dei. Deus natura peccare non potest; particeps 


378 Srconp Preriop. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


vero Dei ab illo accipit, ut peccare non possit....And as with freedom, so 
with immortality : Sicut enim prima immortalitas fuit, quam peccando Adam 
perdidit, posse non mori, novissima erit, non possi mori. Augustine, more- 
over, thought, that the blessed retain the full recollection of the past, even 
of the sufferings which befell them while on earth ; but so that they do not 
feel what was painful in these. They also know the torments of the damned 
without being disturbed in their own happiness (similar views were expressed 
by Chrysostom, Hom. x. in 2 Ep. ad. Corinth. Opp. T. xi. p. 605). God 
is the end and object of all desire, and thus the essential substance of the 
blessedness: Ipse erit finis desideriorum nostrorum, qui sine fine videbitur, 
sine fastidio amabitur, sine fatigatione laudabitur.— (assiodorus, De Anima 
ὁ. 12 (Opp. T. ii. p. 604, 605), gives a summary of what earlier theolo- 
gians had taught concerning the eternal happiness of the blessed. 
* Lactantius vil. 21...... Quia peccata in corporibus contraxerunt (dam- 
nati), rursus carne induentur, ut in corporibus piaculum solvant; et tamen 
non erit caro illa, quam Deus homini superjecerit, huic terrenx similis, sed 
-insolubilis ac permanens in »teınum, ut sufficere possit cruciatibus et igni 
sempiterno, cujus natura diversa est ab hoc nostro, quo ad vite necessaria 
utimur, qui, nisi alicujus materi® fomite alatur, extinguitur. At ille divinus 
per se ipsum semper vivit ac viget sine ullis alimentis, nec admixtum habet 
fumum, sed est purus ac liquidus et in aque modum fluidus, Non enim vi 
aliqua sursum versus urgetur, sicut noster, quem labes terreni corporis, quo 
tenetur, et fumus intermixtus exsilire cogit et ad ccelestem naturam cum 
trepidatione mobili subvolare. Idem igitur divinus ignis una eademque vi 
atque potentia et cremabit impios et recreabit, et quantum e corporibus 
absumet, tantum reponet, ac sibi ipse «ternum pabulum subministrabit. 
Quod poéte in vulturem Tityi transtulerunt, ita sine ullo revirescentium 
corporum detrimento aduret tantum ac sensu doloris afficiet—Gregory of 
Nazianzum supposed the punishment of the damned to consist essentially in 
their separation from God, and the consciousness of their own vileness (Orat. 
xvi. 9, p. 306): Τοῖς δὲ μετὰ TOV ἄλλων βάσανος, μᾶλλον δὲ πρὸ THY 
ἄλλων τὸ ἀπεῤῥίφθαι θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ συνειδότι αἰσχύνη πέρας οὐκ 
ἔχουσα. Basil the Great, on the contrary, gives a more vivid description 
of that punishment, Homil. in Ps. xxiii. (Opp. T. i. p. 151), and elsewhere. 
Comp. Klose, p. 75, 76. Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 458. Chrysostom 
exhausts his eloquence in depicting the torments of the damned in repulsive 
pictures; in Theod. Lapsum i. c. 6, (Opp. T. iv. p. 560, 561). Nevertheless 
in other places, 6. 9, in his Ep. ad Rom, Hom. xxxi. (Opp. x. p. 396), he 
justly observes, that it is of more importance to know how to escape hell, 
than to know where it is, and what is its nature. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. 
Catech. 40) endeavours to turn the thoughts away from all that is sensuous 
(the fire of hell is not to be looked upon as a material fire, nor is the worm 
which never dies an ἐπίγειον θηρίον). Augustine too sees, that first of all 
separation from God is to be regarded as the death and punishment of 
the damned (De Morib. Eccles. Cath. c. 11); but he leaves it to his readers 
to choose between the more sensuous, or the more spiritual mode of inter- 


§ 142. State OF THE BLESSED AND THE DAMNED. 379 


pretation; it is at all events better to think of both at once; De Civit. Dei 
xxi. 9, 10; comp. Greg. M. Moral. xv. c. 17. 

5 Gregory of Nazianzum rests his idea of different degrees of blessedness 
on John xiv. 2, comp. Orat. xxvii. 8, p. 493, xiv. 5, p. 260, xix. 7, p. 367, 
xxxii. 33, p. 601. Ullmann, p. 503. Basil the Great sets forth similar 
views in Eunom. lib. 3, p. 273. Klose, p. 77. Augustine too supposed the 
existence of such degrees, De Civ. Dei xxii. 30.2. He admits that it is im- 
possible to say in what they consist, quod tamen futuri sint, non est ambi- 
gendum. But in the absence of any feeling of envy whatever, no one’s 
happiness will be the less because he does not enjoy so high a position as 
others. Sic itaque habebit donum alius alio minus, ut hoc quoque donum 
habeat, ne velit amplius—Jerome even charged Jovinian with heresy, be- 
cause he denied the degrees in question; Adv. Jov. lib. ii. Op. T. ii. p. 58, 
ss—According to Augustine there are also degrees of condemnation, De 
Civ. Dei xxi. 16: Nequaquam tamen negandum est, etiam ipsum sternum 
ignem pro diversitate meritorum quamvis malorum aliis leviorem, aliis futurum 
esse graviorem, sive ipsius vis atque ardor pro pcena digna cujusque varietur 
(he thus admitted a relative cessation of damnation) sive ipse sequaliter ardeat, 
sed non quali molestia sentiatur. Comp. Enchir. ad Laur. § 113. Greg. 
M. Moral. ix. c. 39, lib. xvi. c. 28. The opinions of the fathers were most 
wavering respecting children that die without being baptized. (Comp. 
§ 137. 5). 

° This opinion was principally founded on the use of the word αἰώνιος in 
Matth. xxv. 41, 46: it must have the same meaning in reference to both life 
and punishment. Thus Augustine says, De Civ. Dei xxi. 23: Si utrumque 
zternum, profecto aut utrumque cum fine diuturnum, aut utrumque sine fine 
perpetuum debet intelligi. Paria enim relata sunt, hinc supplicium »eternum, 
inde vita eterna. Dicere autem in hoc uno eodemque sensu, vita eterna 
sine fine erit, supplicium eternum finem habebit, multum absurdum est. 
Unde, quia vita aeterna Sanctorum sine fine erit, supplicium quoque sternum 
quibus erit, finem procul dubio non habebit. Comp. Enchirid. § 112. Τὸ is 
superfluous to quote passages from other fathers, as they almost all agree. 

" Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, ii. 36 and 61: Res vestra in ancipiti sita est, 
salus dico animarum vestrarum, et nisi vos adplicatis dei principis notioni, a 
corporalibus vinculis exsolutos expectat mors saeva, non repentinam adferens 
extinctionem, sed per tractum temporis cruciabilis pcene acerbitate consu- 
mens. 

* Some faint traces of a belief in the final remission of punishments in 
the world to come, are to be found in those writings of Didymus of Alex- 
andria, (one of the representatives of this tendency), which are yet extant, 
especially in his treatise De Trinitate, edited by Mingarelli, a. p. 1769: 
comp. Weander, Church Hist. ii. 1, p. 349, 677. Gregory of Nyssa speaks 
more distinctly on this point, Orat. Cat. c. 8 and 35, in λόγος περὶ ψυχῆς 
καὶ ἀναστάσεως, and in his treatise De Infantibus, qui mature abripiuntur 
(Opp. T. iii. p. 226-29 and 322, ss.), pointing out the corrective design of 
the punishments inflicted upon the wicked : comp. Weander, |. c. Münscher, 
Handbuch, iv. p. 465. (Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth 


380 SeconD PERIOD. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 


century, endeavored to suppress these passages; see Münscher, l.c.) Rupp 
p. 261. Gregory of Nazianzum gives (Orat. xl. p. 665, Ullmann, p. 505) 
but faint hints of a hope of the final remission of the punishments of hell 
(as φιλανθρωπότερον καὶ τοῦ κολάζοντος ἐπαξίως). He makes an occa- 
sional allusion to the notion of Origen concerning an ἀποκατάστασις, 6. 9. 
Orat. xxx. 6. p. 544.—Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia 
belonged to this milder tendency. (The passages may be found in Assemani 
. Bibl. Orient. T. iii. p. 1, p. 223-24. Phot. Bibl. Cod. Ixxxi. p. 200. Mar. 
Mercator Opp. p. 346, ed. Balluzii.) Comp. Meander, 1. c. p. 677, [and 
Hist. Dogm. pp. 414, 415, with Jacobi’s note.] Augustine (Enchirid. § 112) 
and Jerome (ad Avit. Opp. T. ii. p. 103, and ad Pammach. p. 112) refer to 
these milder views which to some extent prevailed in the West. 

° Jerome (Comment. in Jes, c. Ixvi. at the close): et sicut diaboli et omnium 
negatorum et impiorum, qui dixerunt in corde suo: Non est Deus, credimus 
eterna tormenta, sic peccatorum et impiorum et tamen [1] Christianorum, 
quorum opera in igne probanda sunt atque purganda, moderatum arbitramur 
et mixtam clementize sententiam. “ This impious opinion, according to 
which all who were not Christians, were condemned to everlasting torments, 
but slothful and immoral Christians, lulled asleep in carnal security, could 
not fail to gain friends.” Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 473. 

© Augustine indeed maintained with all strictness the eternity of punish- 
ments as seen above; but when Pelagius asserted at the synod of Diospolis: 
in die judicii iniquis et peccatoribus non esse parcendum, sed eternis eos 
ignibus esse exurendos ; et si quis aliter credit, Origenista est (comp. § 141, 
note 3), he urged milder views in opposition to him (De gestis Pelagii, c. 3, 
§ 9-11) in accordance with the highest principle: Judicium sine miseri- 
cordia fiet illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. With his supposition, as already 
intimated, of a gradual diminution of punishment, and of degrees in the 
same, the gradual vanishing of it was put at a minimum, (Comp. also what 
is said note 5.) 

4 Tt might have been expected that the milder disposition of Chrysostom 
would have induced him to adopt opinions more in accordance with those 
of his master Diodorus of Tarsus; in Hom. 39, in Ep. 1 ad Cor. Opp. x. p. 
372, he alludes indeed to the view of those who endeavour to prove that 
1 Cor. xv. 28 implies an ἀναίρεσις τῆς κακίας, without refuting it. But his 
position in the church, and the general corruption of morals, compelled him 
to adopt more rigid views: comp. in Theodor. Lapsum |. ¢., in Epist. 1 ad 
Thessal. Hom. 8: Μὴ τῇ μελλήσει παραμυθώμεθα Eavtovc¢: ὅταν yap πάν- 
τως δέῃ γενέσθαι, οὐδὲν ἡ μέλλησις ὠφελεῖ: πόσος ὃ τρόμος ; πόσος ὁ φόβος 
τότε; Kk. τ. A. in Ep. 2, Hom. 3, and other passages—Comp. the mode of 
Origen’s teaching concerning this point, in § 78, note 6. 

** Comp. the acts of the Synod of Constantinople (a. ν. 544), Can. xii. 
quoted by Mansi, T. ix. p. 399. 


THIRD PERIOD. 


FROM JOHN DAMASCENUS TO THE AGE OF THE REFORMA- 
TION, A. D. 730-1517. 


THE AGE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 


(SCHOLASTICISM IN THE WIDEST SENSE OF THE WORD). 


" 





A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING 
THE THIRD PERIOD. 


§ 143, 


CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD. 


Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, vol. ii. Münscher, Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch. edited by 
von Cölln, vol. ii. Ritter, Gesch. ἃ. Philosophie, Bd. vii. [Christliche. Philos. 2 Bde., 
1859.] Güeseler, Dogmengeschichte. [F. Rehm, Gesch. des Mittelalters, 3 Bde. 
Marburg, 1821. 4. Leo, Gesch. des M. Alt. Halle, 1830. Hallam’s Middle Ages. 
H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, 2d ed., 6 vols., Lond., 1859; 8 vols., 
New York, 1861. Chs. Hardwick, Hist. Christ. Church in Middle Ages, Cambridge, 
1853. Robertson's History, 590-1122, Lond. 1856. EZ. Chastel, Le Christianisme et 
l’Eglise au moyen Age, Paris, 1859. S. R. Maitland, Essays on the Dark Ages, 2d 
ed., 1851. Capefigue, ’Eglise au moyen äge, 2 Tom., Paris, 1852. Damberger, 
Synchronistische Gesch. ἃ. Kirche und ἃ. Welt im Mittelalter, xiv. Tom., 1854. K. 
R. Hagenbach, Vorlesungen über d. Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, 1 Theil. 
Leipz. 1860.] 


A NEW period in the history of doctrines may be said to com- 
mence with the publication of the Exposition of John Damascenus,' 
a Greek monk, inasmuch as from that time there was manifes vd, a 
more definite attempt to arrange systematically, and to prove dialecti- 
cally, what had been obtained by a series of conflicts.? The structure 
of ecclesiastical doctrine was completed with the exception of a few 
parts, e.g. the doctrine of the sacraments. But the main pillars of 
Theology and Christology were firmly established by the decisions 
of councils held during the preceding period ; and Augustinism had 
given (at least in the West) a definite character to Anthropology, 


382 THirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


to the doctrine of salvation connected with it, and, lastly, to the 
doctrine of the church. Consequently, all that still remained to be 
done for the church doctrine, consisted partly in the collection and 
completion of existing materials, partly in the endeavor to sift 
them, and partly in the effort made to prove dialectically particular 
points. Nevertheless the works written in this period are not de- 
void of originality, and a spirit of independent investigation. 


' The title of this work is: "Exdoo.g [ἔκθεσις] ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου 
πίστεως (it forms, properly speaking, the third part of a greater work, en- 
titled: πηγὴ γνώσεως). An edition of it was published by Mich. Le Quien, 
Par. 1712, ii. fol.; see also his Dissertt. vii. Damascenicee. Comp. Schröckh, 
Kirchengeschichte, vol. xx. p. 222, ss. ZAössler, Bibliothek der Kirchen- 
väter, vill. p. 246-532. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 437. 

2 We found traces of a systematic treatment during the former two periods 
in the writings of Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν), and of Augustine (Enchiridion and 
De Doctrina Christiana), but they were only beginnings. “John Damas- 
cenus is undoubtedly the last of the theologians of the Eastern church, and 
remains in later times the highest authority in the theological literature of 
the Greeks, He MAY HIMSELF BE CONSIDERED AS THE STARTING-POINT OF 
THE SCHOLASTIC SYSTEM OF THE GREEK CHURCH, WHICH IS YET TOO LITTLE 
KNown.” Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, der Christologie, p. 113. (Tafel, 
Supplementa Histor. Eccles. Graecor. sec. XI. XII. 1832, p. 3, ss. 9, ss.) On 
the importance of John Damascenus in relation to the West, see Dor- 
ner, 1. Ὁ. 


§ 144. 
THE RELATION OF THE SYSTEMATIC TENDENCY TO THE APOLOGETIC. 


The labors of apologists, which had been of less importance even 
in the preceding period, were naturally limited to a still narrower 
circle during the present, since Christianity had become almost ex- 
clusively the religion of the civilized world. All that remained to 
combat was Mohammedanism and Judaism.* German and Slavonic 
paganism appeared in comparison with Christian civilization as a 
sort of barbarism, which was opposed not so much with the weapons 
of scientific discussion, as by the practical efforts of missionaries, 
and sometimes by physical force.* But when, especially towards 
the close of the present period, doubts, within Christianity itself, 
were raised by philosophy concerning the truth of revelation, in a 
more or less open way, apologists were again compelled to enter the 
lists.’ 


* The Jews were combated in the ninth century among others by Agobard, 
archbishop of Lyons, in his works: De Insolentia Judeorum—De Judaicis 


$ 145. ΤῊΝ PorEemics OF THIS PERIOD. 383 


Superstitionibus. Compare Schröckh, Kirchengesch, xxi. p. 300, ss. ; and by 
Amulo (Amularius), archbishop of Lyons, in his treatise: contra Judzos ; 
Schröchk, |. c. p. 310. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries they were 
opposed by Gislebert of Westminster ; he wrote: Disputatio Judei cum 
Christiano de fide christiana, in Anselmi Cantuar. Opp. p. 512-523. Paris. 
1721, fol. Schréckh, xxv. p- 358; by Abelard in his work: Dialogus inter 
Philos. Judeum et Christianum (2heinwald, Anecdota ad Hist. Eccles. per- 
tinent. Berol. 1835, T. 1); by Rupert, Abbot of Duytz: Annulus seu Dia- 
logus Christiani et Judei de Fidei Sacramentis, Schréckh, |. c. p. 363, ss. ; 
and by Richard of St. Victor, who wrote de Emmanuele libri duo, 
Schrockh, 1. c. p. 366, ss. In the thirteenth century they met with an op- 
ponent in the person of Raimund Martini, who composed the treatises : 
Pugio Fidei, Capistrum Judeorum, Schréckh, 1. c. p. 369, ss. etc. The 
MouaMMEDANS were combated by Huthymius Zigabenus (in the 24th chap- 
ter of his work entitled: πανοπλία, edited by Beuwrer in Frid. Sylburgii 
Saracenicis, Heidelb. 1595. 8): by Raimund Martini in his treatise: Pugio 
fidei, Schröckh, xxv. p. 27, ss.; by Peter the Venerable of Clugny, in’ his 
work: Advers. nefandam Sectam Sarazenorum (Martene, Collect.” Ampl. 
Monum. T. ix. p. 1121), Schröckh, 1. c. p. 34, and xxvii. p. 245: and still 
later by „Zneas Sylvius (Pope Pius II.) who wrote: Ep. 410, ad Mahom. 
II. Schröckh, xxxii. p. 291, ss. All these apologetic works are, however, in 
their form rather polemic ; they are chiefly * declamations, in which untem- 
pered zeal not unfrequently ran out into invectives ; Baur, Lehrbuch, p. 172. 
On the opposition to Islamism in the middle ages, see Gass, ubi supra, 
§ 146. 

* Concerning this point compare the works on ecclesiastical history (the 
chapters on the spread of Christianity). The same method was partly 
adopted with reference to the Jews and Mohammedans. 

* Savonarola, Triumphus Crucis, de Fidei Veritate, 4 books; comp. 
Rudelbach, Hieronym. Savonarola, Hamb. 1835, p. 375, ss. Marsilius 
Ficinus, De Rel. Christ. et Fidei Pietate, Opuscul. See Schröckh, Kirchen- 
gesch, xxxiv. p. 343, ss. 


§ 145. 
THE POLEMICS OF THIS PERIOD.—CONTROVERSIES WITH HERETICS. 
Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, vol. ii. ch. 3. p. 51, ss. 


The heresies which made their appearance during the present 
period differed from former heretical tendencies, in being opposed to 
the whole ecclesiastical system rather than to any particular doc- 
trines. With regard to doctrinal tenets they agreed for the most 
part with the heretical notions of the Gnostics and Manichees, 
but sometimes demanded a return to the simple and unadulterated 
doctrine of the Bible." There were some few heresies of a doctrinal 
character, e. g. the Adoptian heresy, and the views of Gottschalk 


384 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


and Berengar, as well as some bold assertions on the part of scholastic 
theologians (such as Roscelinus and Abelard), which gave rise to 
controversies within the church, and called forth decisions of synods.” 
It was not until the close of the period, that struggles against the 
existing order of things prepared the way for a change in the gen- 
eral religious views of the age, and thus introduced the period of 
the Reformation.’ 


* To the hereretical sects belong in the East the Paulicians (comp. ὃ 85, 
note 4), and the Bogomiles (concerning their doctrinal tenets, compare Mich. 
Psellus, περὶ ἐνεργείας δαιμόνων διάλ, ed. Hasenmüller. Kil. 1688.— 
Euthym. Zigabenas, Panoplia P. 11, tit. 23. Wolf, J. Ch., hist. Bogomilo- 
rum Dss. III. Vit. 1712, 4. * Engelhardt, kirchenh. Abhandlungen, Erl. 1832, 
No. 2); in the West the Cathari (Leoniste), Manicheans (Paterini, Publi- 
cani, Bugri, boni homines), the followers of Peter of Bruis, and Henry of 
Lausanne (Petrobrusiani, Henriciani); and in later times, the Waldenses 
and “Albigenses, the Turlupines, the Beghards, Beguines, Fraticelli, Spirit- 
uales, etc. Compare the works on ecclesiastical history, especially Füsslin, 
Kirchen und Ketzer-historie der mittlern Zeiten, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1770, 
ss. ii. (The history of doctrines can consider these sects only in general.) 
Mosheim, de Beghardis et Beguinabus. Lips. 1790, 8. Ch. Schmidt, His- 
toire et Doctrine de la Secte des Cathares ou Albigeois, Geneve, 1849. [Ibid. 
in Niedner’s Zeitschrift, 1852: Actenstücke zur Gesch. Hahn’s Gesch. 
ἃ, Secten, Bd. ii., 1847. A. W. Dieckhoff, Die Waldenser, Göttingen, 1851. 
Herzog, De Origine...Waldensium, 1848 (comp. Dieckhoff in Reuter’s 
Repertorium, 1850.) Bender, Gesch. d. Waldenser, Ulm, 1850. Maitland’s 
Essays, on Wald. and Albigenses, 1852. Herzog, Die romanischen Walden- 
ser, 1853; Dieckhoff in reply, 1858. Articles in New Englander, 1852 ; 
(London) Quarterly, 1858 ; Theological Critic, 1851. On the Ritual of the 
the Cathari, Hd. Cunitz, in Beiträge zur theol. Wissenschaft, Bd. ii. iv. 
1853-4.] 

* Comp. the sections on Trinity, Christology, Predestination, and the 
Lord’s Supper, in the special history of doctrines. 

° See the works on ecclesiastical history, and Flathe, Geschichte der Vor- 
läufer der Reformation. Leipz, 1835, ii. (comp. § 155). 


§ 146. 
THE GREEK CHURCH. 


* Ullmann, Nicolaus von Methone, Euthymius Zigabenus und Nicetas Choniates, oder 
die dogmatische Entwickelung der griechischen Kirche im 12ten Jahrhundert, (Stu- 
dien und Kritiken 1833, part 3, p. 647, ss.) W. Gass, Gennadius und Pletho, Aris- 
totelismus und Platonismus in der griechischen Kirche, uebst einer Abhandlung über 
die Bestreitung des Islam in Mittelalter, Bresl. 1844. [1 P. Fallmerayer, Gesch. ἃ. 
Morea im Mittelalter, Stuttg. 1830. @. Finlay, Hist. of Byzantine and Greek Em- 
pires; 6 vols., Lond. J. G. Pitzipios, L’Eglise Orientale, etc., Rome, 1854. Acta 
et Diplomata Greeca medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, ed. Miklosch et Jos. Müller, Tom. 
1.1859. Dean Waddingter, Hist of Greek Church, new ed. 1854.] 


§ 146. Ture Greek CHURCH. 385 


After the appearance of Augustine in the preceding period, the 
Greek church ceased to take the lead of the Western in the dog- 
matic point of view ; in the present period it receded from the theatre 
of a living development, after it had erected its monument in John 
of Damascus. The theologians who followed John Damascenus, 
such as Huthymius Zigabenus,' Nicolas, bishop of Methone,” Nicetas 
Choniates,’ and Theophylactus,’ the shadows of former grandeur, 
are parallel with the scholastic divines of the West.—The principal 
doctrinal writers among the Chaldean Christians, separated from 
the orthodox church (the followers of Nestorius), were Zbed Jesu, 
among the Jacobites (Monophysites), Jacob, bishop of Togritum,' 
and Abulfaradsh.’ 


He is also called Zigadenus, and died about the year 1118, a monk at 
Constantinople. At the request of the Emperor Alexis Commenus, he wrote 
his principal work: Πανοπλία δογματικὴ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἤτοι 
ὁπλοθήκη δογμάτων, see Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxix. p. 332, ss. 373, and 
Ullmann, |. c. p. 19, ss. The original work was only once printed, at Ter- 
govisto, in Wallachia, in the year 1711. Comp. Fabric. Bibl. Graca. vol. 
vii. p. 461. There is a Latin translation of it by Pet. Franc. Zino, Venet. 
1555, fol., which was reprinted in Maxima bibl. PP. Lugd. T. xix. p. i. ss. — 
He also composed exegetical treatises, 

* Methone was a town in Messenia. Concerning his life little is known. 
Some maintain that he lived in the eleventh century, others assert with more 
probability that he lived in the twelfth; comp. Ullmann, |. c. p. 57. His 
principal work is the refutation of Proclus, a Platonic philosopher, entitled : 
᾿Ανάπτυξις τῆς θεολογικῆς στοιχειώσεως IlpokAov THAarwvırod ; it was 
edited by Director Vemel, Frankf. on the Maine, 1825, 8. To this is to be 
added: Nicol. Meth. Anecdoti, P. i. et ii. 1825, 26. “The work of Nicolas 
of Methone is undoubtedly one of the best writings of that time.” Ullmann, 
l.c. With regard to the history of doctrines, his discussions on the atone- 
ment are of most importance (§ 179). 

* His family name was Acominatus, He was called Choniates after his 
native town Chone (formerly Colosse), in Phrygia: he died after the year 
1206.—Of his Onoavpöc ὀρθοδοξίας in 27 books, only the first five (and 
probably the most important) are known in the Latin translation of Morelli, 
published Par. 1569, 8, and reprinted in Max. Bibl. PP. T. xxv. p. 54, ss. 
This work was intended to complete the Panoplia of Euthymius. Comp. 
Schröckh, xxix. p. 338, ss. Ullmann, p. 30, ss. 

* Archbishop of the Bulgarians in Acrida; he died in 1107. He is 
chiefly known as an exegetical writer, and by his polemics against the Latin 
church: De iis, in quibus Latini accusantur. 

° He was bishop of Nisibis, and died A. p. 1318. On his treatise : Mar- 
garita sive de vera fide, comp. Assemani, Bibl. Orient. T. iii, P. i, (An ac- 
count of it is given by Pfezfer, vol. ii. p. 407). 

° He died a. ν. 1231. On his work: Liber Thesaurorum see Assemani, 
l. c. T. ii. p. 237. (Pfeifer, vol. i. p. 250). 

25 


386 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


’ He occupied the metropolitan see of Edessa, was also called Barhe- 
breus, and died a. p. 1286. On his work: Candelabrum Sanctorum de 
fundamentis, see Assemani, ]. c. p. 284. 

On the Mystics of the Greek Church, see § 153. 


§ 147. 
THE WESTERN CHURCH. 


Bousset, Kinleitung in die Allgemeine Geschichte der Welt bis auf Kaiser Karl den Gros- 
sen, übersetzt und mit einem Anhange historisch-kritischer Abhandlungen vermehrt 
von J. A. Cramer, 7 vols. Lipz. 1757-1786. 


During the two former periods the Western Church was prinei- 
pally represented by the ecclesiastical writers of Gaul and Italy, as 
well as by the theologians of the African school. When the renown 
of the latter writers, as well as the glory of the Roman and Byzan- 
tine empires, had passed away, a new system of Christian theology 
developed itself among the Germamic nations. We have here to 
distinguish three leading periods: I. The age of the Carlovingians, 
including the periods before and after Charlemagne, until the com- 
mencement of the scholastic period. II. The age of scholasticism 
proper (from the eleventh century to the middle of the fifteenth). 
III. The period of transition to the Reformation (the fifteenth cen- 
tury, and especially the second half of it). 


It is of course impossible to draw distinct lines of separation. Thus 
scholasticism is prefigured in the period mentioned as the first by John 
Scotus Erigena ; the second period merges so gradually into the third, that 
for some time both tendencies (the scholastic, which was fast disappearing, 
and that which manifested itself in the writings of reformers) accompa- 
nied each other. Many writers, e. g. Ritter, make scholasticism begin as 
early as the ninth century ; but the tenth century breaks the thread in such 
a way, that what precedes is rather a prelude, than the first act of a drama: 
“blossoms before the time, which are hence without fruit ; two centuries 
elapsed before the spring time came ;” Hasse (in the work cited in the follow- 
ing section, p. 21, comp. p. 32). 


§ 148. 
THE AGE OF THE CARLOVINGIANS. 


ἘΠ Staudenmaier, Johann Scotus Erigena und die Wissenschaft seiner Zeit. First Part, 
Frankfort on the Main, 1834. Kuntsmann, Hrabanus Magnentius Maurus, Mainz. 
1841. Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. vi. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury, 
Bd. ii. p. 18-21. [Rettberg, Kerchengesch. Deutschlands, Bd. 1, Die Franken, 1848. 
Krafft, Gesch. d. German Völker. A. F. Ozanam, La Civilisation Chrétienne chez 
les Francs, Paris, 1849. F. Monnier, Histoire des Luttes dans les Temps Carlovingiens. 
Paris, 1852. Th. Christlier, Leben und Lehre des Joh. Scotus Erigena: mit Vor- 
wort von Prof. Dr. Landerer, Gotha. 1860.] 


a 


§ 187. THe AGE OF THE CARLOVINGIANS. 387 


The collection of Sentences composed by Isidore of Seville, and 
others of similar import,’ furnished the rough material, while the 
schools and colleges founded by Charlemagne contributed to call 
forth spiritual activity. The venerable Bede,’ and Alcuin* were 
distinguished for the clearness of their views, among the number of 
those who exerted more or less influgnce upon the age of the Carlo- 
vingians, though they did not go so far as to set forth any connected 
system of theology. By the former, the study of dialectics was in- 
troduced into the Anglo-Saxon, and by the latter into the Frank, 
cathedral and cloister schools. Claudius, bishop of Turin,‘ and 
Agobard, archbishop of Lyons,’ also exerted a greater influence by 
arousing the minds of the people, and promoting practical reforms, 
than by investigations of a strictly doctrinal character. It was only 
the ecclesiastical controversies of the age which called forth in a 
few a more distinct display of theoretical ingenuity.’ John Scotus 
Erigena, however, shone as a meteor in the theological firmament. 
Possessed of a high degree of originality, he endeavored, after 
the manner of Origen, to demonstrate theology in a philosophical 
manner, but his speculative tendency led this bold investigator, who 
first again entered upon the path of speculation, at the same time 
into the abyss of dangerous errors.’ 


* Comp. $ 82, note 30, and Ritter, vil. p. 171. In addition to Isidore, the 
compilers of the seventh century are: Tajo of Saragossa, who lived about 
the year 650, and J/defonsius of Toledo, a. Ὁ. 659 and 669. Comp. Mün- 
scher, ed. by von Oölln, ii. p. 5. 

* He was born about the year 672, and died a. p. 735 in England. He 
is celebrated as a historian, and by his efforts for the promotion of education 
among the clergy. His commentaries, sermons, and epistles, contain much _ 
that is of importance in the history of doctrines. Schröckh, Kirchengesch. 
xx. p. 126, ss. Allgemeine Encyclopsdie, vili. p. 308-12. Herzog’s Real- 
encycl. Bd. 1. His works were published Paris 1544, 1554. Bas. 1563. 
Colon. 1612, 1688, viii. fol. [Works, ed. by J. A. Giles, with his Life, 
12 vols., 8vo., Lond., 1843, sq. Historia Ecclesiastica, et Opera Hist. 
Minora, ed. Stevenson: another edition by Hussey ; trans. by Giles, 1845, 
(previous translation by Stapleton 1565, 1723.)—On Bede’s Anthropology, 
see Wiggers in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1857. Bede and his Biogra- 
phers, Dublin Review, July, 1854. On his Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, see 
Christ. Remembrancer, Lond., July, 1859.] 

* He is also known by the names of Flaceus Albinus, and Alschwinus; he 
was born in the county of York, became a tutor to Charlemange, and died 
A. Ὁ. 804. His work: De Fide sancte et individue Trinitatis, in 3 books, 
contains a whole system of theology. Comp. Bosswet, transl. by Cramer, 
vol. v. sect. 2, p. 552-59. Concerning the part which he took in the Adop- 
tian controversy, etc., see the special history of doctrines. Comp Alcuins 
Leben von #, Lorenz. Halle 1829, 8: [also translated, London.] Schröckh, 


388 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Kirchengesch. xix. p. 77, ss. 419, ss. xx. p. 113, ss. 217, ss. 348, 585, ss. 
Neander, Church Hist. iii. p. 76, and elsewhere. His works were published 
by J. Frobenius, Ratisb. 1777, ii. fol. [#. Monier, Alcuin, and his Re- 
ligious and Literary Influence among the Franks, Paris, 1853. Life sketched 
in Christian Review, vol. xi.] 

* He was a native of Spain (perhaps a disciple of Felix of Urgella), 
adopted the doctrinal tenets of Augustine, was a teacher during the reign of 
Louis the Pious, and died a. p. 840. His commentaries contain much dog- 
matical matter. Comp. Schréckh, 1. c. xxiii. p. 281. Meander, 1. α. iii. p. 
429, et passim. Ch. Schmidt, Claudius, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1843. 

5 He was born A. o. 779, and died a. ν. 840. He opposed, like Claudius, 
many of the superstitions of the age. Concerning his polemical writings 
against the Jews, see § 144; on his refutation of Felix of Urgella, comp. 
the special history of doctrines. Comp. also Schröckh, 1. ὁ. xxii. p. 249. 
Neander, 1. e. iii. p. 168. His works were published Par. 1605, 8; more 
fully by Balluze, Paris, 1660, (Max. Bbl. Patrum, T..xiv., and Gallandii 
Bibl. Patr. xiii.). Comp. Hundeshagen Commentatio de Agobardi Vita et 
Scriptis, Pars I., Giessee, 1831, and his article in Herzog’s Realencyclop. 

° This was the case with Rabanus (Hrabanus) Magnentius Maurus, Pas- 
chasius Radbert, Ratramnus, Servatus Lupus, Hincmar of Rheims, Florus 
Magister, Fredegis of Tours, and others in the controversies concerning 
predestination, the Lord’s Supper, ete. On their writings see the works on 
ecclesiastical history, and Münscher edit. by von Cölln, ii. p. 6 and 7. Ritter, 
Gesch. d. Phil. vi. On Fredegis, see Hasse, p. 20. 

” He was also called Scotigena, lived at the court of Charles the Bald, 
and died after the year 877. Comp. Hjort, Scotus Erigena oder von dem 
Ursprung einer christlich. Philosoph. Kopenh. 1823, 8. Schröckh, 1. ce. xxi. 
p- 208, ss. xxl. 481-84. Meander, iv. p. 444, ss. Staudenmaier, |. c. and 
his essay ; Lehre des Joh. Scot. Erig. über das menschl. Erkennen, mit 
Rücksicht auf einschlägige Theorien früherer und späterer Zeit, in the Frei- 
burger Zeitschr. für Theol. iii. 2. *Frommiiller, die Lehre des Joh. Scot. 
Erigena vom Wesen des Bösen. in Tüb. Zeitschr. für Theol. 1830, part 1. p. 
49, ss. part 3, p. 74, ss. De Joanne Sc. Erig. Comment. (anonymous), Bonn, 
1845. His principal writings are: Dialogus de Divisione Nature ΠΡ. v. (ed. 
*Th. Gale. Oxon, 1681)—De Predestinatione Dei.—Of his edition of 
Pseudo-Dionysius: Opera S. Dionysii latine versa, only the Hierarchia 
Ceelestis is extant m the first volume of the works of Hugo of St. Victor. [JZ 
Saint-René Taillandier, Scot. Erigene et la Phil. Scholastique, Paris, 1843. 
F. Monnier, De Gottschalei et J. Scot. Erig. Controversia, Paris, 1853. His 
Life in North British Mag., 1855: his Use of Scripture, in Journal of 
Classical and Sacred Philol., 1854. Articles in Christ. Examiner, (J. Hild), 
vol. 46: in Univ. Quarterly (7. Ballou), vol. vi. A new edition of his 
works, by Floss, Paris, 1858: vol. 122 of Migne’s Patrologia. B. Hauréau, 
Un Ouvrage inconnu de J. S. #. in Revue de P’Instruction publique, 1859: 
comp. Hauréau, in his Hist. of Scholastic Philos. #. A. Staudenmaier, 
J. Scot. Erig. und die Wissenschaft seiner Zeit. ΤῊ], 1. Freib. 1854. F. 
Christlier, Leben und Lehre des Joh, Scot. Erig. Gotha, 1860.] “ In his 
profound views concerning the Divine omnipresence and universal revelation, 


$ 149. SCHOLASTICISM IN GENERAL. 389 


and his view of philosophy and religion, as only different manifestations oy 
the same spirit, he stood alone, and so high above the times in which he lived, 
that he was not condemned by the church until the thirteenth century” (Hase). 
Comp. Ritter, vii, 206-296 [and Christl. Phil. i. 409-467], who says: “ He 
is an enigma among the many riddles which these times present. Among the 
philosophical men of his century he is as preéminent for the clearness of his 
thoughts, as was Charlemagne among the princes.’* Hasse aptly says of 
the system of Erigena, that “if not a revival of Gnosticism, it is at least 
Origenism upon a higher stage” (ubi supra, p. 21). 


§ 149. 


SCHOLASTICISM IN GENERAL. 


* Bulei Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, Par. 1665-73. vi. fol. Semler, Einleitung in 
die dogmatische Gottesgelehrsamskeit (prefixed to Baumgartens evang. Glaubenslehre, 
vol. i. p. 16, ss.) Brucker, Historia Philosophie, Tom. ii. *Zennemann, Geschichte 
der Philosophie, vol. viii. and ix. *Hegel, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iii. part 
2. Cramer, 1. 6. vol. 5. Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, p. 14, ss. Baur, Lehre 
von der Versöhnung, p. 142, ss. [Hampden, R. D., the Scholastic Philosophy con- 
sidered in its relation to Christian Theology, in a course of Lectures delivered at the 
Bampton Lectures. London, 1837. The works of Fitter, cited above, also, a sketch 
by him of the Scholastic Philosophy in Raumer’s Hist. Taschenbuch, 1856. B. 
Hauréau, De la Philos. Scolastique. Memoire couronné, 2 vols. Paris, 1850. 
Patru, De la Philos. au moyen äge, Paris, 1848. Consio, Preface to Abzlardi 
Opera, 4to. Paris, 1836. F. D. Maurice, Hist. of Med. Philos. (from Eneycl. Metropol.) 
Lond., 1856.] 


The exceedingly bold attempt of Scotus Erigena to effect a union 
between philosophy and theology, remained for some time isolated, 
but reappeared, though in a less free spirit, in what is properly 
called Scholasticism.. The scholastic divines had not, like the 
theologians of the earlier Alexandrian school, to trace out the phi- 
losophical ideas that lay at the basis of a new and vigorous form of 
religion (Christianity), for whose systematic development little 
had been done: nor yet like them to accommodate Christianity 
to a culture (the ancient, classical), which was already rooted in 
society. On the contrary, it was their task to lay the foundation 
of a system of modern Christian philosophy on a system of doc- 
trines, which had been handed down from antiquity in a partially 
corrupt form.” But in the absence of an independent philosophical 
system, they again had recourse to ancient philosophy, and formed 


* Between the dawning of Scholasticism in the 9th century, and its proper historical 
growth from the 11th to the 13th, intervenes the 10th century, famed for its barbarism, 
(see Baronius), in which the only man prominent in doctrines is Gerbert (Pope Sylves- 
ter II.). Comp. on him, Hock, Gerbert oder Papst. Sylvester II., und sein Jahrhundert, 
Wien., 1837. Ritter Gesch. d. Phil. vii., 300 sg. [and Christliche Philosophie. Also, 
Büdinger, Gerbert’s Wissenschaft. und Polit. Stellung, Abthlg. I, 1851. A review of 
Hock in the Université Catholique, Aug. 1854.] 


390 THIRD Preriop. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


an alliance with Aristotelianism, quite as unnatural as that which 
former theologians had formed with Platonism. Their philosophical 
inquiries had more regard to the form? than to the matter, and were 
of a dialectic rather than of a speculative kind. Hence they were 
not so much exposed to the danger of letting loose their imagina- 
tion, and entering upon vague and indefinite discussions (like the 
Gnostics),‘ as to the adoption of narrow views, and to the wasting 
their energies upon particulars and minutie. Thus a refined and 
subtile philosophy of the understanding gradually brought about 
the downfall of scholasticism. On the other hand, the endeavor 
of theologians to arrive at precise theological definitions, their 
scientific proof of the doctrines, and the noble confidence which they 
displayed in the reasonableness of Christianity (notwithstanding 
existing prejudices), constituted the favorable aspect and the merit 
of scholasticism.‘ At all events, it is certain, that this grand at- 
tempt led to the very opposite of that which was intended, that the 
freedom of thought was followed by the bondage of the letter, the 
confidence of faith ended in shameful skeptieism.* 


* On the appellations Scholasticism, etc., see du Fresne, p. 739. Güeseler, 
Dogmengesch. 446. The derivation of the term in question, however, is not 
etymological, but historical. Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchengesch. p. 466, 
ss. On the misleading and confusing character of the name, see Kitter, vii. 
111. Yet it would also be impracticable to give it up. 

* During the preceding period Cassiodorus had given a summary of the 
dialectics of Aristotle, and Boéthius had translated a part of his Organon. 
But it was not until the present period that theologians became more gener- 
ally acquainted with Aristotelianism, see $ 151. Platonism, on the other 
hand, forms as it were the morning and the evening of the philosophy of 
the middle-ages; the one is represented by Scotus Erigena, the other by 
Marsilius Ficinus and others; even during the first period of scholasticism 
several of its adherents were under the influence of Platonism; it was not 
till the 13th century that it was supplanted by Aristotelianism, “J¢ is 
only” (says Ritter, vii. 70, comp. pp. 80, 90, sq.), “an old fable of old igno- 
rance, when it is said that the middle ages were exclusively devoted to the Aris- 
totelian philosophy.” 

“ Scholasticism is the progress of the church towards a school, or, as Hegel 
expresses it, doubtless in the same sense, the fathers developed the church, 
because the mind once developed required a developed doctrine ; in after ages 
there were no more patres ecclesie but doctores. The fathers of the primi- 
tive church had to produce the material, or to expound that which was, ex- 
pressed in its simplest and most direct form in the Christian dogma ; they 
had further to analyze this material into distinct doctrines and formulas, to 
present it to the religious world, and procure its general adoption, Scholas- 
ticism, on the contrary, presupposed all this. The material and the contents 
were given ;...it became now the task of theologians to effect a reunion between 
that which had become objective to consciousness (as it were, put outside of 


$ 150. THe PrincipaL ScHOLASTIC SYSTEMS. 391 


itself) and the mind itself, to restore the object to the subject ; to mediate 
between the two in consciousness.” Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 147, 148. 
Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrbuch, i. p. 445. Hegel, Geschichte der 
Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 138. 

* « Those who compare the systems of Christian theologians with those of 
the Gnostics, for the most part forget that the systems of the latter have not 
the logical connection of philosophical reason, but only that of imagination. 
Staudenmaier, Erigena, p. 370. 

° As early as the time of Semler complaints were made of the unjust 
treatment which the scholastic divines had to suffer; Semler himself says: 
“The poor scholastici have been too much despised, and that frequently by 
people who would not have been good enough to be their transcribers.” And 
Luther himself, though he contributed much to the downfall of scholasti- 
cism, wrote to Staupitz: Ego scholasticos cum judicio, non clausis oculis 
legon nn. Non rejicio omnia eorum, sed nec omnia probo, see de Wette, 1. 
p. 102. Comp. also Möhlers Schriften und Aufsätze, vol. i. p. 129, ss. 
Ullmann (Joh. Wessel. p. 12) calls the scholastic theology, “in its com- 
mencement a truly scientific advance upon the past, in its entire course a great 
dialectic preparatory school of Christianity in the West, in its completion, 
like the Gothic cathedrals, a grand, and highly finished production of the 
human mind.” 

° See Baur, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, p. 11, 154, ss. 


$ 150. 
THE PRINCIPAL SCHOLASTIC SYSTEMS. 


a. First Period of Scholasticism, to the time of Peter the 
Lombard. 


The scholastic spirit was first awakened in the monastic schools 
founded by Charlemagne and his successors. It was principally 
cultivated in the monastery of Bec in Normandy, where Lanfranc 
was a teacher.’ His disciple, Anselm of Canterbury, setting out 
from belief in the positive creed of the church, sought to attain the 
elevation of philosophical knowledge, as is manifest no less in his 
theory of satisfaction, than in his proof of the existence of God.’ 
His views on those points, as well as on the reality of general ideas, 
were opposed by Loscelinus,* and Peter Abelard,‘ the former of 
whom rested faith (in opposition to the theory of Anselm) on the 
evidence of knowledge, while the latter defended nominalism in op- 
position to realism. Hildebert a Lavardino (first, bishop of Mans, 
and afterwards archbishop of Tours)’ adhered, like Anselm, with 
whom he was contemporary, to the positive creed of the church. 
Gilbert of Poitiers, on the contrary, was (like Roscelinus and Abe- 
lard) charged with heterodoxy.’—A peculiar tendency which con- 


392 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


nected mysticism with scholasticism, manifested itself in the writings 
of William of Champeaua,’ the tutor of Abelard, as well as in 
those of Hugo of St. Victor,‘ and Richard of St. Victor ’—After 
Robert Pulleyn, and other theologians besides those already named, 
had endeavored to prove the doctrine of the church philosophi- 
cally,* Peter Lombard (who lived in the twelfth century) collected 
the existing materials in his “ Sentences,” and by his peculiar mode 
of treatment gave rise to that stiff and heavy method which after 
him was for a long time predominant.” 


’ He died a. p. 1089. He came into notice principally by his contro- 
versy with Beranger, as will be more fully shown in the special history of 
doctrines. His works were published by d’Achery, Paris, 1648, fol. Comp. 
Mohler, gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze, Regensburg, 1839, i. p. 39.— 
On the foundation of the monastery Bec, comp. Möhler, 1. c. [A. Charma, 
Notice sur Lanfranc, Paris, 1851. Wilks’ Three Archbishops, Lond., 1859. 
Milman’s Latin Christianity, vol. i1.] 

2 He was born at Aosta, in Piedmont, about the year 1034, occupied the 
see of Canterbury from the year 1093 (whence he is called Cantuariensis), 
and died a. p. 1109. “He, and nobody else, is the father of scholasticism ; 
for he gave form and language to the philosophical spirit which had been 
at work in the church since the time of Isidore, and which had almost come 
to an expression in Berengar and Lanfranc ; and put it in the way of be- 
coming an element of historical progress.” Hasse, ubi supra, p. 32. Of 
his philosophical writings the most important is the work entitled: Monolo- 
gium et Proslogium (it contains a proof of the existence of God, and the 
doctrine of the Trinity) : extracts from it are given by Cramer, v. 2. p. 841-- 
372. Among his theological works are: De Casu Diaboli, but especially 
the treatise: Cur Deus Homo? lib. ii. (which contains a theory of the in- 
carnation of Christ, and the redemption of man), In addition to these 
works he wrote: De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato, de Libero 
Arbitrio, de Concordia Preescientize et Praedestinationis nec non Gratis Dei 
cum Libero Arbitrio, ete.—Opp. ed. *Gabr. @erberon. Par. 1675, f. 1721, 1], 
f. (Ven. 1744). A manual edition of the treatise: Cur Deus Homo, was 
published by Heyder, Erl. 1834, 8. Concerning his life and works, comp. 
*+ Mohler, gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze. Regensb. 1839, i. p. 32, ss. ; 
on his doctrines, comp. Mohler, ]. c. p. 129, ss—Billroth, I. G. F. de An- 
selmi Cantuariensis Proslogio et Monologio. Lips. 1832, 8. Franck, Anselm 
von Canterbury, Tüb. 1842, and J. A. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury, Ist 
Part, Lps. 1843: 2d Part (Anselm’s doctrines), 1852. Ritter, Gesch. d. 
Phil. vii. 315-354 [and Christl. Phil. i. 490-7]. Aemusat, Anselm de 
Cant. Paris, 1854. Kling, in Herzog’s Realeneyel. [A translation of the 
Ist Part of Hasse’s Anselm, abridged by Turner, Lond., 1850. M. A. 
Charma, St. Anselm, Paris, 1853. Anselm’s Proslogium, transl. in Bib. 
Sacra, Andover, 1851 (by Maginnis), with Gaunilo’s Reply and Anselm’s 
Apology: his Cur Deus Homo, transl. by J. G. Vose, in the same periodical, 
1854-5. His Meditations and Prayers to the Holy Trinity, [transl. by Dr. 


§ 150 THE ῬΒΙΝΟΙΡΑΙ, SCHOLASTIC SYSTEMS. 393 


Pusey ?] Lond., 1856. Comp. Studien. und Krit., 1853 (Kling) : Revue des 
deux Mondes (Saisset) 1853: Methodist Quarterly, 1853. Wilks’ Three 
Archbishops, Lond. 1859.] 

* He is also called Rucelinus or Ruzelin; he was born in Lower Britanny, 
and was canon at Compiégne in the eleventh century. He is commonly re- 
garded as the founder of the nominalists; see Chladenii Diss. hist. eccles. 
de Vita et Heresi Roscelini. Erl. 1756, 4. On the contrast between nomi- 
nalism and realism, more fully discussed in works on the history of phil- 
losophy, see Baumgarten-Crusius, De vero Scholasticorum Realium et 
Nominalium Discrimine et Sententia theologica. Jen. 1821, 4; Engelhardt 
Dogmengeschichte, p. 16, 17, and the essay, mentioned note 4, p. 73, ss. 
Baur, Lehrbuch, p. 165. This conflict was not without some importance 
for theology, as will be more particularly seen in the doctrine of the Trinity. 
The part which theologians took in the work of reformation (6. g. in the 
times of Huss) depended, generally speaking, more or less on the views 
which they adopted with regard to these systems. [Comp. Landerer in 
Herzog’s Real. Encyclop. A new document, published by Hauréau, in 
L’Atheneum Franc., 1855, p. 308. Roscel. Epist. ad Abel. ed. Schmeller, 
München, 1851.] 

* The original form of his name was Abaielard. He was born a. p. 1079 
at Palais near Nantes, died 1142. Concerning the history of his eventful 
life, see Bayle, Dictionnaire, @ervaise, Berington, Schlosser, and others ; 
Neander, der heilige Bernhard, p. 112, ss. His works were published : Opp. 
Abelardi et Heloise, ed. Andr. Quercetanus (Duchesne) Par. 1616, 4; they 
contain: De Fide S. Trinitatis 5. Introductio ad Theologiam in 3 libros divisa. 
—His Libri V. Theologie Christiane were first edited by Zdm. Martene, 
Thesaur. Anecd. T. v. Concerning his Dialogus, see $ 144, note 1. The un- 
published works of Abelard are edited by Cousin in the Collection de Docu- 
ments médits sur P’Histoire de France, publiés par ordre du Roi et par les 
soins du ministre de linstruction publique. Deuxieme série: Ouvrages 
inedits d’Abelard, pour servir ἃ l’histoire de la philosophie scolastique en 
France. Paris, 1836, 4. [Vol. ii. 1859. Comp. G@oldhorn in Gersdorf’s 
Repert. Jan. 1860. Victor Cousin, über die erste Periode der Scholastik ; 
dem wesentlichen historischen Inhalte nach mitgetheilt von I. G. v. Zingel- 
hardt, Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie. Jahrg. 1846, 1, p. 56-133.] 
Comp. also: Zewald E. A.: Commentatio de Operibus Petri Abzelardi, que 
e codieibus manuscriptis Vietor Cousin edidit. (Heidelb. 1739, 4). The 
judgment of Cousin concerning Abelard is as follows: “ As St. Bernard 
“represents the conservative spirit and Christian orthodoxy in his faults and 
the narrowness of his views, as wellas by his admirable good sense, his depth 
without subtlety, and his pathetic eloquence, so Abelard and his school repre- 
sent in some sense the liberal and innovating spirit of the time, with its fre- 
quently deceitful promises, and the unavoidable mixture of good and evil, of 
reason and extravagance.’—Comp. also Frerichs, Comment. theol. critica de 
Petri Abzl. Doctrina, Jen. 1827, 4to; Franck, ein Beitrag zut Würdigung 
Abälards, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift 1840, 4. p. 4. According to Baur 
(Trinitätslehre, II. p. 457), Abelard is more of a dialectic than of a specula- 
tive thinker. Concerning the relation in which he stands to Rationalism, 


394 THırD ΡΕΒΙΟΡ. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


comp. the same work, p. 500, 501. Ritter (Geschichte der Philosophie, vii. p. 
161), considers him “ less freethinking than imprudent.” Remusat, Abelard, 
Paris, 1845, 2 Tom, Rettberg in Herzog’s Realencycl. Böhringer, Die Kirche 
Christi, und ihre Zeugen, ii. 2. [J. H. Goldhorn, De Summis Princip. Theol. 
Abeelard, Lips. 1836. Lindenkohl, De Pet. Abzel. libro Sie et Non, Marb., 
1851; also his and Henke’s edition of the work, 1851. J. H. Rheinwold, 
Pet. Abzel. Epitome Theol. Christ. Berol., 1835. ΟἹ A. Wilkens, Petr. 
Abelard, 1855# @. Shuster, Abel. et Heloise, Hamb., 1860. ] 

° He was born either a. ἡ. 1055 or 57, and died A. p. 1134. Though a 
disciple of Berengar, he did not adopt all his views. He was bishop of 
Mans from the year 1097, and raised to the archiepiscopal dignity A. p. 1125. 
For some time he was thought to be the author of the Tractatus Theol. 
which modern researches have assigned to Hugo of St. Victor (see note 8). 
Comp. Ziebner, in the Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 1831, part 2, p. 254, 
ss—His opinions on the Lord’s Supper are also of importance, as will be 
seen in the special history of doctrines. 

° He was also called Porretanus or Porseta (de la Porrée) and died A. p. 
1154. Concerning his life and works comp. Otto Fresing, de Gestis Friderici, 
Lib. i. ο. 46, 50-57. Cramer, vi. p. 530-552. His principal opponent was 
St. Bernard, abbot of Clairval (Clairvaux), who had also combated Ros- 
celinus and Abelard. See Neander, der heilige Bernhard, p. 217,ss. etter, 
vil. 437. 

7 Guilelmus de Campellis; he died a. p. 1121. He was the founder of 
the school of St. Vietor, in one of the suburbs of Paris (A. D. 1109), from 
which, generally speaking, the mystice! scholasties came. Respecting him 
and his dialectics see Schlosser, Abhundlung über den Gang der Studien in 
Frankreich, vorzüglich von der Schule zu St. Victor, in his Vincenz von 
Beauvais, Frkf. on Main, 1849, Bd. ii. 35, and Abelard’s works by Cousin ; 
comp. also Hngelhardt in the work mentioned, note 9, p. 308, ss. 

δ According to Pagi he died A. p. 1140, according to others a. Ὁ. 1141. 
He was Count of Blankenburg, canon of St. Victor (alter Augustinus, lingua 
Augustini, Didascalus), and a friend of St. Bernard. Comp. *Liebner, A., 
Hugo von St. Victor und die theologischen Richtungen seiner Zeit. Leipz. 
1832, 8.—Opera ex rec. Canonicorum Regularium 8. Victoris Paris. Roto- 
magi, 1648, iii. f His most important work is: De Sacramentis Christians 
Fidei, libri duo, T. in, p. 487-712. Extracts from it are given by Cramer, vi. 
p. 791-848. Comp. Ritter, vil. 507, sq. 

° Magnus Contemplator! He was a native of Scotland, and died a. Ὁ. 
1173. Comp. * Engelhardt, Richard von S. Victor und Johannes Ruysbroek, 
zur Geschichte der myst. Theol. Erl. 1838. Opp. studio Canonicorum 8. 
Victoris. Rotomagi, 1650, ss. 

Ὁ He was cardinal, and died between the years 1144 and 1150. He 
wrote: Sententiar. libr. viii., published by Mathoud. Par., 1655, fol. Comp. 
Cramer, 1. c. vi. p. 442-529. Ritter, vii. 547, sq. 

᾿ς Magister Sententiarum. He was born at Novara, raised to the episcopal 
see of Paris in the year 1159, and died a. ». 1164. His work: Sententia- 
rum libri iv. edited by J. Aleaume, Venet. 1477, Louvain. 1546. “Jt 
was not so much on account of the ingenuity and depth displayed in the 


§ 151. SEconp PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM. 395 


work, as in consequence of the position which its author occupied in the church, 
of his success in harmonizing antagonisms, and of its general perspicuity, that 
it became the manual of the twelfth century, and the model of the subsequent 
one.” Hase. A specimen of his method is given by Semler in his intro- 
duction to Baumgarten’s Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. p. 81, ss. Comp. Heinrich, 
Geschichte der dogmatischen Lehrarten, p. 145, ss. The first book.treats : 
De mysterio Trinitatis, 5. de Deo uno et trino; the second: De rerum cor- 
poralium et spiritualium creatione et formatione aliisque pluribus eo perti- 
nentibus; the third: De incarnatione verbi aliisque ad hoc spectantibus; 
and the fourth: De sacramentis et signis sacramentalibus. Comp. Zngel- 
hardt, Dogmengeschichte, p. 22.—“ The period of systematizing scholasti- 
cism, and of endless commenting on the sentences of the masters, commences 
with Peter Lombard, This period is, at the same time, the one in which 
there was no end of questioning and answering, of laying down theses and 
antitheses, arguments and counter-arguments, of dividing and splitting up 
the matter of the doctrines ad infinitum.” Baur, 1. ec. p. 214. “It was 
owing to him that the scholastic treatment of the doctrines assumed that 
more steady, well regulated form of development in which it could be carried 
out to its legitimate consequences, without being disturbed by opponents.” 
Baur, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, p. 159. Comp. Ritter, vii. 475- 
501. [Comp. J. Sighart, Albertus Magnus, sein Leben u, seine Wissenschaft. 
Regensb., 1857. Haurcau, ubi supra, ii, 1-104, Baur, Dogmengesch. 
2te Aufl. p. 224, says of this first period of scholasticism, that it began with 
the attempt at a dialectic comprehension of the dogmas; and that this was 
unquestionably first seen in Anselm of Canterbury, by starting the question 
as to the relation of faith and knowledge, which gives the special object 
scholasticism had in view. Comp. Hauréau, ubi supra, i. ch. ii. De la Pro- 
bleme Scolastique. | 


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


The dogmatical works of Robert of Melun* (Folioth) and Alanus 
of Ryssel* (ab Insulis) appeared about the same time, while Peter 
of Poitiers,’ a disciple of Peter Lombard, followed in the steps of 
his master. But this scholasticism, too, met with opposition, espe- 
cially on the part of Walter of St. Victor,’ and John of Salisbury.® 
Nevertheless, scholasticism gained ground, partly in consequence of 
external contingencies. In the first place, the orders of the mendi- 
cant friars acquired a greater influence upon the philosophical and 
theological studies pursued in the universities. And, secondly, by 
means of that more extensive intercourse with the East which fol- 
lowed the crusades, the western theologians, from the thirteenth 
century onwards, became acquainted with a more complete edition 
of the works of Aristotle, which had been translated and commented 


396 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


on by the Arabs, and exerted from that time a still more decided 
influence upon their systems.’ The works called “ Summas,” the 
first of which was composed by Alexander Hales,’ now took the 
place of the “Sentences.” Albertus Magnus wrote the first com- 
plete commentary on the works of Aristotle.° But when scholasti- 
cism had reached its height, towards the close of the thirteenth 
century, a division broke out between the different schools, which 
continued to exist as long as the system itself. The leader of the one 
of these schools was Thomas Aquinas,’ a Dominican monk ; the 
leader of the other was his opponent, John Duns Scotus,” a Fran- 
ciscan monk. The scholastic disputes were connected with the 
jealousies of the religious orders.” But even in the present period 
the mystical tendency was sometimes united with the scholastic, 
as in the case of John of Fidanza* (Bonaventura), a Franciscan 
monk. 


‘ He was bishop of Hereford from the year 1164, and died a. p. 1195. 
He composed a Summa Theologiz (hitherto unpublished) : comp. Buleus, 
l. c. T. ii. 264, 585, ss. 772, 73. Cramer, 1. c. vi. p. 653-586. 

2 He was called Doctor universalis, and died a. Ὁ. 1203 [1202 ?]. He be- 
longed to the speculative school of Anselm, and composed the following 
works: Summa quadripartita de fide catholica (a controversial writing, in 
which he opposed the Albigenses, Waldenses, Jews, and Mohammedans).— 
Libri V. de Arte s. Articulis catholic Fidei, edited by Pez, Thesaur. Anecd. 
Noviss. T. i. p. ii. p. 475-504 (an abridgment of it is given by Cramer, v. 2, 
p. 445-459), and Regule theologice.—Comp. Schleiermacher, Kirchenges- 
chichte, p. 527, ss. [Alain de Lille, Etudes de Philosophie Scolastique, par 
Alb. Dupuis. Lille, 1859. Comp, Gieseler, ii. p. 575, note 27. Cave, His- 
toria Literaria, ii. 229.] 

3. He died a. p. 1205. His Libri V. Sententiarum were edited by Mathoud. 
Paris, 1655, fol. together with the sentences of Pulleyn (see $ 150, note 10), 
Comp. Cramer, vi. p. 754-790. 

* He flourished about the year 1180, and wrote: Libri IV. contra manifestas 
et damnatas etiam in Conciliis hereses, quas Sophistee Abzelardus, Lombardus, 
Petrus Pictavinus et Gilbertus Porretanus, quatuor Labyrinthi Gallic, uno 
" spiritu Aristotelico efflati, libris sententiarum suarum acuunt, limant, robo- 
rant. Extracts from this work (hitherto unpublished) are given by Buleus, 
l. ce. Tit. ii. p. 620-660. 

5 Sarisberiensis ; he was bishop of Chartres from the year 1176, and died 
A. Ὁ. 1182. About the year 1156 he addressed to Thomas Becket: Policra- 
ticus, sive de Nugis curialium et Vestigiis philosophorum, libri vin. This 
work was followed by Metalogici libri iv. published Lugd. Bat. 1639, 8. 
Amst. 1664, 8.—Epistole cccii. (which were written from 1155-1180), ed. 
Papirius Masson, Par. 1611, 4. Comp. Bibl. Patr. Max. Lugd. T. xxii. 
Schleiermacher, 1. c. p. 527. Hermann Reuter, Johan von Salisbury, zur 
Geschichte der christlichen Wissenschaft im 12 Jahrhundert, Berl. 1842. 
Ritter, vii, 605, sq. 


$ 151. Second PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM. 397 


° Among the Arabic commentators on Aristotle, Avicenna, who died 
1036, and Averrhoes, who died 1217, deserve particular notice. [Comp. 
Ritter, Ueber unsere Kentniss der Arabischen Philosophie, 4to. Gotting,, 
1844. Renan, Averroes et l’Averroisme, Paris, 1852. On Avicebron, De 
Materia Universali (probably Jewish, not Arabic), see Theol. Jahrb. (Tübin- 
gen), 1856 and 1857, and Munk, Mélanges de Philos. juive et arabe, Paris, 
1857.] Notwithstanding ecclesiastical prohibitions, the study of Aristotle 
gradually gained ground. On the historical development of these studies 
see Amad. Jourdain, Recherches critiques sur lage et l’origine des traduc- 
tions latines d’Aristotle, et sur les commentaires grecs ou arabes, employés 
par les docteurs scolastiques. Par. 1819, 8, and the works on the History 
of Philosophy. TZennemann, viii. p. 353. [Ritter, ubi supra. Hauréau, 
La Phil. Scol. i. ch. v.] 

7 Alexander Alesius; he was called Doctor irrefragabilis, and died a. Ὁ. 
1245. He was the first theologian who made a thorough use of the Aris- 
totelian philosophy. His work entitled: Summa Universe Theologie 
(divided into Queestiones, Membra, and Articuli), was edited after his death 
by Guilelmus de Melitona about the year 1252, by order of Pope Innocent 
IV. Other editions are those of Venice, 1576, and of Colon. 1622, iv. fol. 
Extracts from it are given by Semler, 1. c. p. 120, ss. Cramer, vii. p. 161, 
ss. Heinrich, p. 208, ss. Comp. Scheiermacher, p. 531-32. [Hauréau, i. 
418, sq.] 

* Called Simia Aristotelis; the most learned of the scholastics, a na- 
tive of Suabia, taught at Paris and Cologne, was bishop of Ratisbon, and 
died at Cologne, 1280, Opp. ed. Petrus Jammy, Ord. Preed. Lugd. 1651, xxi, 
T. Fol. Among his numerous works we mention his -Commentaries on 
Aristotle and Peter Lombard, as well as his Summa Theol. (ex edit. Basil. 
1507, 11.) 

° The Doctor angelicus; he was born a. Ὁ. 1224, in the kingdom of Na- 
ples. He was a disciple of Albert; but the strict theological tendency pre- 
dominated in him more than in his teacher. He taught at Paris, Rome, 
Bologna, and Pisa, and died a. p. 1274, on his journey to the council of 
Lyons. He was canonized by Pope John XII. a. p. 1323. His principal 
works are: Commentarii in libros iv. Sententiar. Petri Lombardi ec. notis J. 
Nicolai, Par. 1659, iv. fol— Summa Totius Theologie in 3 partes distributa. 
Extracts from these works are given by Semler, ]. ὁ. p. 58, ss. Cramer, vii. 
p- 161, ss. Heinrich, p. 219, ss. Schröckh, xxix. p. 71-196. Opp. Omnia, 
Rome, 1572, xvii. fol. Antverp. 1575. Venet. 1745, xx. fol. For further 
particulars see Münscher, edit. by von Cöln, ii. p. 19. Comp. C. F. Kling, 
Descriptio Summ Theologicee Thome Aquinatis succincta, Bonn. 1846-4, 
H. Hortel, Thomas von Aquino und seine Zeit. nach Touron, Delecluze und 
den Quellen, Augsb. 1846. Ritter, viii. 257, 304,  Güeseler, Dogmengesch. 
460: “ Thomas, with the finest and sharpest speculation unites the talent of 
clear exposition to a degree seldom found among the scholastics, and conse- 
quently his Summa attained the highest renown in the catholic church.” 
_ [Hampden, Life of Aquinas, 1846. Aquinas in Kitto’s Journal, vol. i. 
Hauréau in his Phil. Scolast. ii. 104-214. Jourdain, La Phil. de St. Thos. 
d’Aquin, Paris, (a crowned memoir), 1859; comp. Am. Theol. Review, Jan. 


398 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


1861. Abbé Male, La Theol. de St. Thos. 1. Paris, 1856. Cacheux, De la 
Philos. de St. Thomas, Paris, 1858. H. R. Fergueray, La Doctrine Politi- 
que de St. Thos, Paris, 1857. A comparison of Aquinas and Scotus, in 
Secretan’s Phil. de la Liberté, Tome i. J. N. P. Oischinger, Die Spec- 
ulative Theol. des Aquin, 1858. Α΄. Werner, Der heilige St. Thos. von 
Aquin, 3 Bde. Regeusb., 1859. H. E. Plassmann, Die Sehule und Lehre 
des heil. Thos. von Aquim. 5 Bde., 1858-9.—New edition of his works by 
Migne; with a full Index, 1860. Billuart, edited the Summa, 10 vols., 
Paris, 1839: Lavergne and Durand, the De Veritate, Nimes, 1854. A 
French transl. of the Summa, by Abbé Ecalle, Tome, i., 1851. Opuscula, 
transl. by M. Vedrine, 6 vols., 1856, sq. @oudin, Philosophia juxta D. 
Thome dogmata, 4 Tom., Paris, 1850. Aquinas Catena Aurea, in connec- 
tion with the Oxford Library of. the Fathers, translated, 4 vols.] 

»° Duns Scotus, surnamed Doctor subtilis, was born at Dunston in 
Northumberland, lectured on theology at Oxford from the year 1301, at 
Paris from the year 1304, and died at Cologne a. p. 1308. He introduced ἡ 
a number of barbarous technical terms, such as quidditates, heecceitates, 
incircumscriptibilitates, ete.; with these began the degeneracy of scholasti- 
cism into hair-splitting subtilities. His complete works were edited by Lue. 
Wadding, Ludg. 1639, xii. fol. His principal work is: Quodlibeta et Com- 
mentaria in libros iv sententiarum; also Queestiones quodlibeticee. Comp. 
Semler, 1. c. p. 67-73. Cramer, vii. p. 295-308. Heinrich, p. 226, ss. 
Schröchk, xxix. p. 237, ss. Baumgarten Crosius, De Theologia Scoti, Jena, 
1826. Ritter, viii. 354-472 ; he calls him the most acute and penetrating 
mind among the scholastics. [Comp. the works of Hauréau, Werner, and 
Plassmann, as cited above. | 

4 Tn the formal point of view the systems of Thomas and Scotus differ 
in this, that the former has regard rather to the scientific, the latter to 
the practical aspect of religion :* Ritter, viii. p. 365, 66. In the doctrine 
of ideas (universals) the Thomists were more Aristotelian, the Scotists more 
Platonic. The former take more profound views of the relation between 
divine grace and human liberty (Augustinism) ; the latter laying (in the 
manner of Pelagius) greater stress upon the freedom of the will, advanced 
notions which commended themselves to common sense and the inter- 
ests of morality. And, lastly, the same difference respecting the doctrine 
of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, which caused a bitter enmity 
between the two orders, also existed between the two schools. |“ Thomas 
and Duns Scotus,” says Baur, Dogmengesch. 226, sq., “are the founders of 
two schools into which the whole of the scholastic philosophy and theology 
was divided.” Among their differences are these, Thomas makes theology 
to be essentially theoretical, Scotus, practical ; the former makes God to be 
essentially the one, universal, infinite essense ; with the latter the will is the 
starting point, etc. Comp. Ritter, Christl. Phil. 1, 663-697. Meander, 
Hist. Dogm. 544, sq.] 


* The same difference is found in the Dominicans and Franciscans; the former were 
zealous for the dogma, and became inquisitors; the latter were zealous for morals, and, in 
their reformatory zeal even ran into the danger of becoming heretical. 


§ 152. DECLINE or SCHOLASTICISM. 399 


'"* John of Fidanza, surnamed Doctor Seraphieus, and called Eutychius, or 
Eustachius by the Greeks, was Doctor Theol. Parisiensis and Prcepositus 
Generalis of the order of the Franciscans, died a. ». 1274 as cardinal, and 
was canonized A. ἡ. 1482 by Pope Sixtus IV.—Opp. Rome 1588-96, viii. 
F. L. Mogunt. 1609...... His principal works are : Commentarius in libros iv. 
Sententiarum, Breviloquium, Centiloquium. He is also said to be the author 
of the work entitled: Compendium Theologice Veritatis (de natura Dei). 
He wrote several mystical tracts: Speculum Anime, Itinerarium Mentis in 
Deum, de Reductione Artium ad Theologiam. Comp. Semler, 1. c. p. 52- 
58. Heinrich, p, 214, ss. Gass in Herzog’s Realencyclop. 

[On Raimundus Lullus, born at Majorca, 1226, see Meander, Hist. Dogm. 
548. Opera, ed. Mogunt. 1772, in 10 vols. His chief work is his Ars 
Generalis. Comp. Ritter, Christl. Phil. 1. 662. “It was a leading object 
with him,” says Veander, “ to prevent the spread of the principles of Aver- 
rhoes in theology.” He disputed with the Arabian philosophers in North 
Africa, where he suffered martyrdom, at Bogia, a. Ὁ. 1315.] 


§ 152. 


c. Third Period.—The Decline of Scholasticism in the Fourteenth 
and fifteenth Centuries. 


During the last period of scholasticism, now on its decline, we 
meet with but few independent thinkers, among whom the most 
distinguished were Durand of St. Pourgain,' Raimund of Sabunde,’ 
and William Occam,* the nominalistic skeptic. Gabriel Biel,’ a 
disciple of the last mentioned, but less original, was the last of the - 
scholastic divines; though the degenerate tendency still lingered to 
evoke a stronger desire for an entire reformation in theology.° 


* Durandus de Sancto Portiano (a village in the diocese of Clermont), 
surnamed Doctor resolutissimus, was from the year 1312 professor of theol- 
ogy in the university of Paris, and afterwards bishop of Annecy and of 
Meaux: died in 1333. He wrote: Opus super Sententias Lombardi, Par. 
1508, Venet. 1571, fol. (it is now scarce).—Though a Dominican monk, he 
ventured to oppose Thomas, on which account he was looked upon as an 
apostate by the genuine followers of Thomas ; see Cramer, vol. vii. p. 801, 
ss. Baur, Dogmengesch. 230, 240. Ritter, vill. 547-574. Gieseler, Dog- 
mengesch, 462: “ He is distinguished for his apt and clear statements of 
the most difficult positions.” | Engelhardt in Herzog’s Realencyclop. | 

* He was a teacher at Toulouse about the year 1436, and composed a 
work on natural theology under the title: Liber Creaturarum, seu Theol. 
Naturalis. Argent. 1496, fol. Fef. 1635, 8. It was republished in a some- 
what altered form by Amos Comenius under the title: Oculus Fidei. Amst. 
1661, 8. Comp. Montaigne, Essais, L. ii. c. 12. Matzke, die natürliche 
Theologie des Raymundus von Sabunde, Bresl. 1846. Ritter, vill. 658-678. 


\ 


400 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


[Comp. Schaarschmidt in Herzog’s Real. Encyclop. Bd. xii, M. Huttler, Die 
Religionsphil. Raym. v. Sabunde, Augsb., 1851. ΟἹ €. Z. Kleiber, De Raim., 
quem vocant de Sabunde, Vita et Scriptis, Berol. 1856. F. Nitzsch, Queest. 
Raim., in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1859. Zitter, Gesch. d. Phil. Bd. viii. ; 
Christliche Philos. 1859, ii. 747-754.] 

* Occam died a. p. 1347. He was called Venerabilis inceptor, Doctor 
singularis. Though a Franciscan monk, he differed from Duns Scotus, as 
the Dominican Durand did from Thomas: in both these cases, therefore, the 
strict connection between the spirit of the order, and the spirit of the school, 
is destroyed. Occam took an independent position even in opposition to the 
Popes (John XXII.), by defending the doctrine of the poverty of Christ ; 
on this point see the works on ecclesiastical history. As a scholastic divine, 
he brought nominalism again into repute. Of his works the following are 
dogmatical: Compendium Errorum Joh. XXII. (in Goldast. Monarchia. 
Han. 1612, p. 957). Quodlibeta vii. Tract. de Sacramento Altaris.—Centilo- 
quium Theologicum (the last of which, in particular, contains a great many 
subtilities). See Cramer, vii. p. 812, ss. On his ironical skepticism, which 
he knew how to conceal under the mask of the most rigid orthodoxy, see 
Rettberg in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1. His works abound with 
absurd questions (such as those mentioned in note 5). Comp. Rettberg, p. 
80. Kitter, viii, 574-604. Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. 867, sq. But with 
philosophical scepticism, he and the later nominalists show only a still 
more rigid nominalism, in the theological sphere. [Haureau, ii. 418-475. 
Ritter, Christliche Philos. i. 717-732. Meander, Hist. Dogm. 590.] 

* He was born at Spires, was professor of philosophy and theology in the 
University of Tübingen, and died a. Ὁ. 1495.—He wrote: Collectorium s. Epi- 
tome ex Gulielmo Occam in iv. libros Magistri Sententiarum ed. Wend. Stein- 
bach. Tub. 1502, 1. Wernsdorf, Diss. Theol. de Gabr. Biel celeberrimo 
» Papista Antipapista, Wittenb., 1719. [Schrockh,, Kirchengesch., xxx. 425, 
xxxili. 534, and Geseler’s Church History.] Biel was followed by Antoninus 
Florentinus and Paul Cortesius ; see Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p.30. Caje- 
tan, Eck and others, who lived at the time of Luther, were also complete 
scholastics. 

* Thus it was asked: Num possibilis propositio, Pater Deus odit filium ? 
Num Deus potuerit suppositare mulierem, num diabolum, num asinum, num 
cucurbitam, num silicem? Tum quemadmodum cucurbita fuerit concionatura, 
editura miracula, figenda cruci? Et quid consecrasset Petrus, si consecrasset 
eo tempore, quo corpus Christi pendebat in eruce?...... “Sunt innumera- 
biles λεπτολεσχίαι his quoque multo subtiliores, de instantibus, de notionibus, 
de relationibus, de formalitatibus, de quidditatibus, de eccéitatibus, quas nemo 
possit oculis assequi, nisi tam Lynceus, ut ea quoque per altissimas tenebras 
videat, que nusquam sunt.” Zrasmi Stultitise Laus, Bas. 1676, p. 141, ss. 
and in Annotation. in 1 Tim. i. 6, etc. Com, Ad. Müller, Erasmus, p. 155, 
and Gieseler, |. c. ii. § 144, note g. Respecting the decline of scholastieism, 
Luther wrote to John Lange at Erfurt: Aristoteles descendit paulatim, in- 
clinatus ad ruinam propre futuram sempiternam. Mire fastidiuntur lectiones 
sententiari®, nec est ut quis sibi auditores sperare possit, nisi theologiam 
hance, ὃ, e., Bibliam aut S. Augustinum aliumve ecclesiasticze auctoritatis doc- 


§ 153. Mysticism. 401 


torem velit profiteri. The letter in question is reprinted in de Wette’s Col- 
lection, i. No. 34, p. 57. Comp. the sixtieth letter (addressed to Staupitz), 
p- 102. 

[ Baur in his Dogmengesch. p. 229, sq., traces the decline of scholasticism 
back to Duns Scotus: he says, that it had already lost its peculiar character, 
when theology was defined as a practical science: for this made a separation 
between theology and philosophy, and abandoned the position of the unity 
of faith and knowledge, which was essential to scholastieism. The more 
sharply Duns Scotus distinguished between understanding and will, the more 
did he separate the two, and sever the practical from the theoretical. All 
that remained was to separate thought from being, and the dissolution was 
complete. This was achieved by the nominalism of Occam, according to 
which there was no objective reality corresponding to general ideas. Be- 
tween the two stood Durandus, who also viewed theology as a practical 
science, and made its object to be, not God, but the life of faith. Faith was 
at last left to rest merely upon authority—The antagonism of realism and 
nominalism (p. 233) runs through the whole of the scholastic theology : it 
is its moving principle, and the stages of its development are also identical 
with the different periods of scholasticism.—Aristotelianism determined the 
form of scholastieism : but Platonism, through the influence of the writings 
of Dionysius the Areopagite, went along with it, and in the works of the 
great scholastics (e. g., Aquinas) contributed its substantial elements to 
scientific theology. Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm., 596, sq. On the Merits 
and Defects of Scholasticism, see Gieseler, Dogmengeschichte, § 83.] 


§ 153. 
MYSTICISM. 


* Schmid H., der Mysticismus des Mittelalters in seiner Entstehungsperiode, Jena, 1824. 
Schmidt, Charles, Essai sur les mystiques du quatorziéme siécle. Strasburg, 1836, 
4. Helfferich, die Geschichte der christlichen Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung und in 
ihren Denkmalen. 2 vols., Hamb., 1843. Franz Pfeifer, deutsche Mystiker des 14 
Jahrhunderts. Ist vol. Lpz. 1845. Wilh. Wackernagel, Ueber die Gottesfreunde, 5. 
Beiträge zur Vaterländ. Gesch. 2 Bd. Basel, 1843, p. 111 sq. (©. U. Hahn, Gesch. 
ἃ. Ketzer im Mittelalter, in 11, 12, 13, Jahr., Stuttg., 1850. ZL. Noack, Die Christl. 
Mystik, nack ihrem Geschichtlichen Entwicklungsgange; 1 Theil. die christl. Mystik 
des Mittelalt. Ullmann, Reformatoren vor d. Reformation [transl. in Clark’s Foreign 
Library, Edinburgh. Ullmann in Studien u. Kritiken, 1852. AR. A. Vaughan’s Hours 
with the Mystics, 2d ed. 2 vols, Lond., 1860; comp. Brit. Quarterly Review, Oct. 
1860. Mystic Theology of Holland, Christ. Remembrancer, April, 1853. German 
Mysticism in the 13th Century, Westminster Review, Oct. 1853. C. Schmidt, Die 
Gottesfreunde in XIV. Jahr. in Beiträge zur theol. Wiss. Strasb., 1854. Neander, 
Church Hist.; and Hist. Dogmas, 604, 639. J. Görres, die Christl. Mystik, 3, 
1836, sq.] 


The influence of scholasticism was beneficially counter-balanced 
by Mysticism, which, in effusions of the heart, rich indeed, though 
at times indistinct, restored to theology those vital streams of which 
it had been deprived by the excess of dialectics.’ Theologians, whose 

26 


402 Thuırp Preriop. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


tendency was of a positive kind, such as Bernard of Clairval, had 
before this insisted upon the importance of religious feelings clinging 
to the orthodox faith, and of a devout disposition in opposition to a 
speculative tendency.” Some of the scholastic divines themselves 
had endeavored to reconcile the claims of pious emotions with the 
demands made by the scientific development of the age, on which 
account they are commonly called either mystical scholastics, or 
dialectic mystics.” But about the time of the decline of the scho- 
lastic philosophy, mysticism made its appearance in a much more 
vigorous and independent form, though under very different aspects. 
As had been the case with the scholastics, so some of the mystics 
adhered more closely to the doctrine of the church, while others, 
departing from it, adopted heretical opinions.* As to the scientific 
method, one class of mystics manifested a more philosophical cul- 
ture and preparation than was shown by the other. The doc- 
trines of Master Eckart’ had much in common with the fanatical 
pantheistic sects, and were consequently condemned by the see of 
Rome. Among those who followed more closely (though with vari- 
ous modifications) the doctrine of the church, were John Tauler,* 
Henry Suso,' John Ruysbroek,* the (anonymous) author of the 
“ Buchlein von der deutschen Theologie (7. 6. the little book of 
German Theology), Zhomas ἃ Kempis, "and John Charlier Gerson ;” 
the last also endeavored to construct a scientific system of mysti- 
cism, and to give to it a psychological basis. In the Greek church, 
too, mysticism had its representatives (Nicolas Cabasilas).” 


1 ὡς Mysticism forms in itself a contrast to Scholasticism proper, inasmuch 
as the prevailing tendency of th latter is a dialectical process of the under- 
standing...... But Mysticism could enter into a union with Scholasticism 
by creating a desire for preserving the very hearth of religion in the inmost 
depth of the human heart, as its true seat, in order to supply that which 
could not be furnished by purely dialectical thinking.” Baur, Lehrbuch der 
Dogmengeschichte, p. 167. On the undoubtedly well founded difference 
between the psychological (religious) and speculative (theosophic) mysti- 
cism, see ibid. p. 468, and his work on the Trinity, ii. 880. 

2 He was surnamed Doctor mellifluus, and died A. p. 1153. His works 
were edited by Mabillon, Par. (1666—1690.) 1719, ii. fol. Ven. 1726, iii. 
fol. He wrote epistles, sermons, and mystical tracts: De consideratione, ad 
Eugenium III. Papam; Libri v. de Gratia et libero Arbitrio, ete. Comp. 
* Neander, der heilige Bernhard und sein Zeitalter. Berlin, 1813, 1848, 8. 
Ellendorf, der heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux und die Hierarchie seiner 
Zeit. Essen., 1837. , H. Schmid, |. e. p.187,ss. De Wette, Sittenlehre, ii, 2, 
p. 208, ss. —Practical activity was also displayed by Berthold, a Franciscan 
monk, who lived between the years 1247 and 1272; he bordered upon 
mysticism. See his sermons, edited by Aling, Berl. 1824, and the review 
of Jac, Grimm, in the Wiener Jahrbücher, 1825, p. 194, ss. 


§ 153. Mysricısm. 403 


* To these belong essentially William of Champeauz, and the theologians 
of the school of St. Victor, as well as Bonaventura. Comp. §§ 150 and 
151. There is also a mystical background in the writings of Anselm of 
Canterbury, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aguinas. And here, too, it can 
not but be noticed, that the older mysticism shows an internal affinity for 
realism, and the latter made an alliance with nominalism. 

* “ The ideas of the orthodox mystics rest on the positive foundation of 
the creed, and all the spiritual experience described by them is most intimately 
connected with the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the in- 
fluence of the Spirit promised by Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s 
Supper. But the abstract theory of the heretical mystics usually seeks 
to fathom the depth of the soul, which, in their opinion is nothing but 
God himself ; they teach that to become divine is the work of man himself, 
and regard the positive doctrines as at most the symbols of those spiritual 
transactions on which the attainment of the end of our life depends, Ir 1s 
OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE EN AN EXPOSITION OF THE HISTORY OF THIS PERIOD, 
DISTINCTLY TO SEPARATE THESE TWO KINDS OF CHURCHLY AND UNCHURCHLY 
OR ORTHODOX AND HETERODOX Mystics.” Zngelhardt, Richard von S. Vic- 
tor, p. 2. Comp. p. 97, 98. 

° Amalrich of Bena and David of Dinanto had previously developed the 
fanatical side of the mystico-pantheistic system of John Scotus Erigena, and 
given to it that dangerous practical direction which is exhibited by some 
later sects of the middle ages. Comp. Ärönlein, Amalrich von Bena and 
David von Dinanto, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1847.* H. Schmid, ].c. p. 
387, ss. Hngelhardt, kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen. Erlang. 1832, p. 
251. Mosheim, de Beghardis et Beguinabus, p. 211, ss. p. 255.—Among 
the mystics of the fourteenth century, Master Eckart (Aichard) a native of 
Saxony, and provincial of the order of the Dominicans in Cologne, bears 
most resemblance to the aforesaid theologians, though he surpasses them in 
being more systematic. “ His sense of the nearness of God, and his ardent 
love, are overwhelmed by the contemplation of an abyss of lusts and blas- 
phemy.” (Hase.) His doctrines were condemned, a. Ὁ. 1329, in a bull of 
Pope John XXII. Comp. Schmidt, Charles, Essai, p. 51-57, and Studien 
und Kritiken, 1839, 3. Mosheim, |. ὁ. p. 180. Apophthegms of German 
mystics in Wackernagel’s Lesebuch, i. Sp. 889-92. Meister Eckart ; Eine 
theolögische Studie von H. Martensen. Hamb., 1843. Ullmann ubi supra, 
[Hollenberg on Eckhart, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, Sept. 1858. ] 

° He was called Doctor sublimis et illuminatus, lived as a monk of the 
order of the Dominicans at Cologne and Strasburg, and died a. p. 1361. 
He was a spiritual preacher. A Latin edition of his works by Laur. Surius, 
Col. 1548. He wrote among others: Nachfolge des armen Lebens Christi. 
—Medulla Anim® (a collection of divers tracts) is a later compilation ; 
Sermons, iii. Bde. Leipz., 1826, ete. Comp. Wackernagel’s deutsches Lese- 
buch, Sp. 857, ss. [| Schmidt, Carl, Johannes Tauler von Strasburg. Beitrag 


* The doctrine of Amalrich is to be distinguished from that of his disciples: so, too, 
from that of David of Dinanto, whose connection with Scotus Erigena is denied by the 
author of the above essay. 


404 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


zur Geschichte der Mystik und des religiösen Lebens im 14 Jahrhundert, 
Hamb., 1841.] Luther wrote concerning him to Spalatin (14 Dec. 1516): 
Si te delectat puram, solidam, antique similliman theologiam legere, in ger- 
manica lingua effusam, sermones Johannis Tauleri, preedicatorie professionis, 
tibi comparare potes...... Neque enim ego vel in latina vel in nostra lingua 
theologiam vidi salubriorem et cum Evangelio consonantiorem. The letter 
is given by De Wette, vol. i. No. 25, p. 46. De Wette, on the contrary, 
says (christliche Sittenlehre ii. 2, p. 220, ss.) : “ His mysticism is very pro- 
found and fervent, and at the same time very speculative ; but it possesses no 
intrinsic worth, inasmuch as it is almost exclusively of a negative description, 
and consists only of a renunciation of all that is earthly and finite. On the 
contrary, the true, the essential, the divine is, as it were, an empty space, be- 
cause it is not brought into any definite relation to the life and heart of man,” 
etc. Bohringer, Kirche. Christi. ii. 3. [Life and Sermons (25) of John 
Tauler, by S. Winkworth, London, 1857; New York ed. Preface by Prof. 
R. D. Hitchcock, 1858. British Quarterly on Tauler, April, 1857. Rudel- 
bach’s Christl. Biographie, i. on Tauler.] 

7 Henry Suso (Germ. der Seuse, sometimes called Amandus vom Berg) 
was born at Constance, and died a. p. 1365. His works were translated into 
Latin by Laur. Surius, Col. 1532.—Comp. Heinrich Suso’s Leben und 
Schriften, herausgegeben von *} Melch Dienpenbrock mit einer Einleitung von 
Görres. 1829, 37,* 40. Geistliche Blüthen von Suso, 1834. Wackernagel, 
deutsches Lesebuch, Sp. 871, ss. He is more poetical than profound and 
speculative, his writings are full of allegories and imagery, frequently fantastical, 
but full of religious ardor, A romantic, chivalric, child-like soul! He is 
not to be confounded with the author of the work on the Nine Rocks (Rul- 
man Mersurin); comp. Ch. Schmidt, in Illgens Zeitschrift, 1839. 2. An 
important contribution to the history of mystieism is the treatise of W. 
Wackernagel über die Gottesfreunde in Basel, 1843. Ch. Schmidt in Stud. 
u. Kritiken, 1843. F. Bricker, Sur la Vie et les Ecrits de H. Suso, Strasb. 

* He was prior of the regular canons in Grünthal in Brabant, and died 
A. p. 1381. He was surnamed Doctor ecstaticus. His works (originally 
written in the Flemish language) were translated, into Latin by Zaur. Surius, 
Cologne, 1552, 1609, 1692, and into German by @otifr. Arnold, Offenbach, 
1701. 4. New edition by Arnswaldt, with a Preface by Ullmann, Hamb., 
1848. Comp. Engelhardt in the work mentioned § 150, note 9,—Ruys- 
broek stands, as it were, on the boundaries between the orthodox and the 
heterodox mystics; Ch. Gerson, who wrote against him, numbered him 
among the latter; but comp. Hngelhardt, |. c. p. 275 : “ The line of demarca- 
tion between heterodox and orthodox mysticism, which we find distinctly drawn 
in the writings of Ruysbroek, was so fine, and might so easily be passed over, 
that nothing but a firm adherence to that form of belief which was generally 
adopted and sanctioned by the usage of the Fathers, as well as by the author- 
ity of the church, seemed a sufficient guard against such errors.”—Comp. 
„De Wette, christliche Sittenlehre; he says, p. 247: “Jn the writings of 
Ruysbroek |as well as in those of Tauler], the «deu of something absolute 


* We cite the edition of 1837. 


$ 153 Mysticism. 405 


and of renouncing all that is finite, of being absorbed in the one and undi- 
vided, is set forth as that from which all things are derived. Ruysbroek ac- 
knowledged, even to a farther extent than Tauler, the indwelling of the Divine 
in man—an admission of much importance. In a moral aspect, the writings 
of Ruysbroek are of more value than those of Tauler: the former de- 
velopes more distinctly the nature of a virtuous life, and warns against spirit- 
ual sloth, but he has fallen more frequently than Tauler into the error of 
mystical sensuousness and extravagance,” etc. 

° The full title of this work is: Deutsche Theologie, oder ein edles Büch- 
lein vom rechten Verstande, was Adam und Christus sei, und wie Adam in 
uns sterben und Christus in uns leben soll. It was first published a. p. 1516, 
by Luther (with a recommendatory preface), afterwards (also in commenda- 
tion) by Joh. Arnd. 1631, by Grell, 1817, by Detzer, Erl. 1827, by + Trozler, 
St. Gallen, 1837, and by Pfeifer, 1851. Comp. Luther’s opinion of this 
work in De Wette’s collection of Luther’s letters, No. 60, p. 102: “ This 
noble book, though simple and without adornment in words of human wis- 
dom,is much richer and more precious in art, and that wisdom which is divine, 
And, to praise according to my old folly, next to the Bible and St. Augustine, 
I do not know of any book from which I have learnt or would wish to learn 
more of what God, Christ, man, and all things are.” Extract from Luther’s 
Preface. De Wette (christl. Sittenlehre, p. 251), also calls the work, “a sound 
and marrowy treatise, full of spirit and life, written in a pure and solid 
style, and worthy of being so strongly recommended by Luther.” Comp. 
Ullmann, das Reformatorische und Speculative in der Denkweise des Verf. 
der deutschen Theologie, in the Stud. und Kritiken, 1852, p. 859, sq. [On 
Pfeifer’s edition, see also Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855. Die Heilslehre der 
Theologia Deutsch, #. @. Sisso, Stuttg., 1857.—Theologia Germanica, edited 
by Dr. Pffeifer, transl. by Susanna Winkworth, Preface by Rev. C. Kingsley, 
and Introd. by C. E. Stowe, Andover, 1856. Schmitz, Johannes Tauler.] 

*° His true name was Thomas Hamerken of Kempen: he was subprior 
of the Augustinian monks on St. Agnes’ mount near Zwoll, and died a. p. 
1841. “ He was rather a pious, warm-hearted, and edifying preacher, than a 
mystic properly speaking ; at least he possessed scarcely anything of a specu- 
lative tendency.” De Wette, 1. ec. p. 247. He was the author of several 
pious tracts: Soliloquia Anim, Hortulus Rosarum, Vallis Liliorum, De 
tribus Tabernaculis, De Solitudine, De Silentio, etc. His most celebrated 
work (which some, however, have ascribed to other authors, e. g., to Abbot 
Gerson or to John Gerson) is: De Imitatione Christi, libri iv, Opera Norimb., 
1494. Par. 1520. fol. Antw., 1607. Comp. the critical examination of its 
authorship by }J. P. Sedbert (who pronounces in favor of Thomas ἃ Kem- 
pis), Wien. 1828. 8. (eseler, 1. ὁ. ii. 4, ἃ 146, notes 1. and m. Ch. Schmidt, 
Essai sur Jean Gerson, p. 121. Ullmann, Reformatoren, ii. 711, sg. J. 
Mooren, Nachrichten über Thomas a Kempis, Crefeld., 1855. [In favor 
of Gerson, as the author; A. A. Barbier, Dissertation, Paris, 1812, and 
J. Δ. M. Gence, Paris, 1826. In favor of the Abbot Gerson, @. ἢ). 
Gregory, Memoire revu par Lanjuinais, Paris, 1827. Vert, Etudes sur 
l’Imitation, Paris, 1856. Ullmann, in his biography of Wessel (in Ref. 
vor die Ref.) cites a positive testimony for ἃ Kempis from Albert Har- 


406 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


denberg, only 27 years after ἃ Kempis. .D. Bähring, Thos. von Kempen, 
1840.] 

“ John Charlier Gerson, surnamed Doctor christianissimus, was chancel- 
lor of the University of Paris, and died a. p. 1429. In him, “the medieval 
mysticism came to a consciousness of its real character, and summed up its 
really speculative and truly religious principles in a purified form :” Meier 
Dogmengesch. 203. He wrote: Considerationes de Theologia Mystica, 
De Perfectione, De Meditatione Cordis, etc. An edition of his complete 
works was published at Antv. 1706, fol. at Hag®e Comit. 1728. Comp. 
Engelhardt, de gersonio Mystico, 1822. Hundeshagen, K. δ. über die mys- 
tische Theologie des Joh. Charlier Gerson. Leipz., 1734 (reprinted.separately 
from the fourth volume of the Zeitschrift für historische Theologie). * Zezb- 
ner, A., über Gersons mystische Theologie in the Studien und Kritiken, 1835, 
part 2, p. 217, ss. * Schmidt, Ch. Essai sur Jean Gerson, chancelier de 
Puniversité et de l’église de Paris. Strasb. et Paris, 1839.—On the different 
definitions of the nature of mysticism, see Consideratio 28, p. 384 (Hundes- 
hagen, p. 49.). On his opposition to Ruysbroek, see above, note 6.—Gerson 
sees, “in the sensuous imagination a powerful foe to pure and mystical con- 
templation, and takes care repeatedly and very strongly to warn against its 
illusions.” Hundeshagen, p. 81—On his philosophy, see Ritter, viii, 626- 
658. [Bonnechose, Gerson, Huss, etc. Paris, 2. 8vo. J. B. Schwab, 
Johannes Gerson, 1859, 8vo. pp. 800. On Gerson, see Presb. Quarterly, 
Oct. 1858. | 

2 Dr. W. Gass, Die Mystik des Nicolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo, 
Greifswald, 1849. Comp. also Hngelhardt, die Arsenianer und Hesychasten, 
in Illgen’s Zeitschrift für hist. Theol. viii. 48, sq. [F. Pfeifer, Teutsche Mys- 
tiker des xiv. Jahr. 2. 8vo., Leips. 1845 (in vol. 1. on Hermann Fritzler’s 
Lives of the Saints.) B. Bähring, Johannes Tauler und die Gottesfreunde, 
Hamb., 1853.] 


§ 154. 
PHILOSOPHICAL OPPOSITION TO SCHOLASTICISM. 


Meiners, Ch., Lebensbeschreibungen berühmter Manner aus den Zeiten der Wiederher- 
stellung der Wissenschaft. Ziirich, 1795. Heeren, A. H. L., Geschichte der klassis- 
chen Literatur seit dem Wiederaufleben der Wissenschaft. Göttingen, 1797, 1801, 8. 
Erhard, H. A., Geschichte des Wiederaufblühens wissenschaftlicher Bildung. Magde- 
burg, 1827, 30, ii vol. [Hallam’s Middle Ages. G. Voigt, Wiederbelebung d. 
class. Alterthums, Berl., 1859. Ritter, christl. Philos. ii. Kap. i., 1859. Tennemann, 
Gesch. d. Phil. Bd. ix.] 


Even as early as the thirteenth century Roger Bacon had com- 
bated the one-sided speculative tendency of scholasticism, and en- 
deavored to improve the method of studying theology." But the 
second half of the fifteenth century was distinguished for the 
restoration of classical studies, by which the human mind was 
delivered from that one-sided theological speculation, which led 


§ 154. ΟΡΡΟΒΙΤΙΟΝ TO SCHOLASTICISM. 407 


astray both the scholastic and the mystical divines, and excited and 
directed to a more harmonious development of all the powers of the 
soul, to a more simple and natural consideration of subjects, and 
above all, to a more judicious treatment of all spiritual matters.’ 
Laurentius Valla,' John Reuchlin,* and Desiderius Erasmus’ may, 
generally speaking, be considered as the restorers of classical (and 
to some extent of Hebrew) philology. Marsilius Ficinus,’ and 
John Picus of Mirandola,’ were the principal advocates of the 
study of the Platonic philosophy, and thus, on the one hand, limited 
the excessive authority of Aristotle and the dominion of scholasti- 
cism, and, on the other, showed how mysticisin might be more inti- 
mately connected with speculation. 


* Roger Bacon, surnamed Doctor mirabilis, was a monk of the order of 
the Franciscans, and professor of theology in the university of Oxford from 
the year 1240. He wrote (a. p. 1267): Opus Majus de Utilitate Scientiarum 
ad Clementum IV., [ed. Sam. Jebb, Lond., 1733 ; abstract in Brit. Biog. iv. 
627.] Very characteristic extracts from it are given by Gieseler, 11. § 74, 
note 29, p. 471. [His Opera inedita, by J. 5. Brewer, Vol. 1. 1859; comp. 
Notes and Queries, Jan., 1860, p. 39.] 

* “Tf we ask what forms the most obvious contrast with the scholastic 
philosophy and theology, as well as with the tendency of scholasticism itself, 
we may say, that it is good common sense, experience (both outward and in- 
ward), knowledge of nature and humanity.” Hegel, Geschichte der Philoso- 
phie iii. p. 200. 

* He died a.p. 1457. His works were published at Basle 1540-43. 
Elegentiarum Lat. Ling. libri vi.: Dialect. libri iii.: Annot. in New Test. 
(ed. Erasmus, Tur., 1505: ed. Revius, Amst., 1631): De ementita Constan- 
tini Donatione. 

* John Reuchlin, otherwise called Capnio, lived from 1455 to 1522. 
Comp. *Mayerhoff, Reuchlin und seine Zeit. Berl. 1830. Meiners 1. ¢. 1. p. 
44, ss, He especially furthered the study of the Hebrew language as well 
as that of the Cabbala, and gained a glorious victory over the Viri Obscuri 
of his age. [J. A. Erhard, Gesch. des Wiederaufblühens Wies. Bildung, 
Magd., 1827, Bd. 2. Zamey, Johann Reuchlin, 1855. D. F. Strauss, in 
Ulrich von Hutten, 1858, Bd. 1, p. 188-230. Von d. Hardt, Hist. lit. Ref. 
ii. Reuchlin’s philosophical works are: De Verbo Mirifico, 1495: De Arte 
Cabbalist, 1517: Inthe Cologne Humanistic Controversy, from 1510, Reuch- 
lin wrote on the proposal to burn all Jewish books, and the Speculum Ocu- 
tare, The Epistole Obscurorum Virorum, 1515: on the authorship, see Sir 
William Hamilton’s Discussions (from Edinb. Review), p. 202-238. ] 

° Desiderius Erasmus (Gerhard) of Rotterdam, was born a. p. 1486, and 
died 1536. Adolf Miller, Leben des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Hamb., 1828, 
Opp. Bas, 1540. viii., and Ludg. Bat. 1703-6, x. fol. In his Ratio perve- 
niendi ad Veram Theologiam, in the work entitled : Laus Stultitise, and else- 
where, he severely criticised the extravagancies of scholasticism, and pointed 
out a more judicious treatment of theology. His critical edition of the New 


408 THirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Test. (edit. princeps, published by Froben, Basle, 1516)* led to a more cor- 
rect study of the Bible; in his letters and various essays he endeavored to 
spread the light of human knowledge. His relation to the Reformation, and 
to the theology of the reformers, will come before us in the next period. 
[His first work, De Contemptu Mundi, 1487. Burigny, Vie d’Erasme, Paris, 
1757. English lives of Erasmus, by Anight, Cambr., 1726; by Jortin, 2. 
4to., 1758-60; by Charles Butler, Lond., 1825. Articles in Eclectic (Lond.) 
Sept., 1854 ; Retrospective Rev., vol. v.; Southern Rev., vol. ii.; Christ. 
Examiner, vol. xlix.; North British, Feb. 1860. Comp. Zeitschrift f. d. hist. 
Theol., 1843, 1845. Nesard in Etudes sur la Renaissance, 1855. Kerker, 
Erasmus und sein theol. Standpuukt, in the Theol. Quartelschrift, 1859, p. 
531-567.] 

° Respecting the controversy between the Aristotelians and Platonists, see 
Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 27. Marsilius Ficinus translated the 
works of Plato, and wrote: De Relig. christ. et Fidei Pietate ad Laur. Med,, 
and De Immortalitate Anime ; his works were published at Paris, 1641, fol. 
He died a. ν. 1499. Comp. Sieveking, Gesch. d. Platon. Akad. zu Florenz., 
Gött., 1812. Ritter, v. 272-291. 

” He was born a. ἢ. 1463, and died 1494. He endeavored to harmonize 
Plato with Aristotle. His works were published at Basle, 1601, fol.: he 
wrote among others: In Hexaémeron libros viii—Questiones 900—De 
Christi Regno et Vanitate Mundi—In Platonis Convivium libri iii—Epis- 
tole etc.. see Meiners |. ce. ii. from the commencement.t Comp. Sigwart, 
Ulrich Zwingle, der Charakter seiner Theologie, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf 
Picus von Mirandula, Stuttg., 1855, p. 14, sq. |@. Dregdorf, Das System 
des Joh. Picus, Graf von Mirandula, Marb., 1858.] 


§ 155. 
PRACTICAL OPPOSITION.—THE FORERUNNERS OF THE REFORMATION. 


Flathe, Geschichte der Vorläufer der Reformation, Leipz., 1835, 8. Ullmann, C., Reform- 
atoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und den Niederlanden, 
2 vols., Haraburg, 1841, [translated by Menzies in Clark’s Foreign Library, Edinb., 
2 vols. Comp. Bibliotheca Sacra, i. 1844, p. 425, ss.] 


The spirit of the Reformation manifested itself more and more, 
not only in science, but also directly in the sphere of the practical 
Christian life. John de Wycliffe, John Hus,* and Jerome of 

‚Prague, as well as their followers, starting from a purer Biblical 
doctrine, adopted in part the doctrines of the mystics, in part the 
scholastic forms of thought, though their tendency was on the whole 


* The publication of the Polyglott edition of Cardinal Ximenes, about the rise of the 
German Reformation, is no less important. [Comp. Hefele’s Ximenes, 1856.] 

+ Inthe Greek Church, @emistius Pletho, in the 15th century followed Plato, while 
Gennadius appears as a representative of Aristotelianism; comp. Gass, Gennadius und 
Plato, Bresl., 1844. 


$ 155. ΤῊΝ FORERUNNERS OF THE REFORMATION. 409 


more practical. Some of their followers fell into the errors of former 
fanatical sects.° The tendency of Jerome Savonarola* is quite 
peculiar ; his theology has much of the mystical, with an apocalyp- 
tic coloring. John Wessel of Groningen, on the contrary, united 
in himself the nobler spirit of mysticism, and the true spirit of 
scientific inquiry, striving to throw off the fetters of scholasti- 
cism ; he thus became, in a stricter sense, a forerunner of Luther.’ 


* He was professor of theology at the university of Oxford, and combated 
from the year 1360 the order of the mendicant friars. Gregory XI. con- 
demned nineteen of his theses (a. Ὁ. 1377). His controversy respecting the 
doctrine of transubstantiation will come under consideration in the special 
history of doctrines.—His principal doctrinal work is: Dialogorum libri v. 
(Trialogus) Bas., 1525, ed. L. Th. Wirth. Francof. et Lips., 1753, 4. Comp. 
Vaughan, R., Life and Opinions of J. D. Wycliffe. Lond., 1829. ii. 2nd 
edit., 1831. Webb, le Bas, life of Wiclif. Lond., 1832. Oscar Jäger, 
John Wykliffe und seine Bedentung für die Reformation, Halle, 1854. 
Bohringer, Kirchengesch. in Biographieen ii. 4. 1. 

[An enlarged edition of Vaughan’s Life, in one vol., 1853. @. Weber, 
Gesch. d. akatholischen Secten, Bd.i. Flathe’s Vorläufer der Ref. ii. 161, 
1836. Wichf und die Lollarden, by Zechler, in Neidner’s Zeitschrift, f. die 
hist. Theol., 1853. Three Treatises, publ. from MSS. by J. H. Todd, Dubl. 
1851. Tracts and Treatises of W. with transl. from his Latin works by R. 
Vaughan, for the Wycliffe Society, 1848. Δ΄. W. Lewald, Die theol. Doc- 
trin Wyclif’s, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1846-7. Fasciculi Zizaniorum 
Mag. John Wyelif (ascribed to Thos. Nelter), ed. W. W. Shirley, Oxford. 
De Reaven Gronemann, Diatribe in J. W. Vitam, Traj. ad Rhen., 1859. €. 
A. Winkelmann, Wicl., Hus, Gerson, inter se cemparati, Göttg., 1857. 
Herbert Cowell, Character and Plan of W. as a Reformer, Oxford. —W yeliffe’s 
Bible, Oxf. Univ. Press, 4, 4to., 1850.— Articles on Wycliffe, Christ. Exam- 
iner, vol. i.; Ebinb. Rev., lvi.; Christ. Rev., vi.; Meth. Quar., ii.; West. 
Rev., July, 1854; on Wycliffe’s MSS. in (Lond.) Eclectic, 4th series, xv.; 
British Quarterly, Oct., 1858; Quarterly (Lond.), 1858; Presb. Quarterly 
(Phil.), by Prof. R. D, Hitchcock, Dec. 1857, and July 1858.] 

[On the Zollards, see Hist. of England and France under the House of 
Lancaster, Lond., 1852. Erdersheim in his transl. of Kurtz’s Church Hist. i. 
490-494. Lechler, ubi supra. Blunt's Reformation in England. Notes 
and Queries, Mar., 1857, p. 193. Weber, Gesch. d. akatholischen Secten, i., 
1845.] 

* John Hus of Hussineez, was, from the year 1402, pastor at Prague, 
and suffered martyrdom A. p. 1415 at Constance. His opposition to the 
church partook more of a practical than dogmatic nature. The views of 
Hus on the Lord’s Supper differed less from the doctrine of the church, than 
those of his colleagues Jerome of Prague and Jacobellus of Misa, as will 
be shown in the special history of doctrines. Comp. Neander, kleine Gele- 
genheitsschriften. 3d edit. p. 214, 55. {Helfert, Hus und Hieronymus, Studie, 
Prag., 1853. [A. Zitte, Lebensbeschreib. 4, Joh, Hus, Prag., 1799. L. Kohler, 


410 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Hus und seine Zeit. Leips., 1846, 2 vols. Béhringer, Kirche Christi, ii. 4, 2. 
F. Palacky, Gesch. 4. Böhmen, Bd. iti. Z. Heller, Hieron. von Prag. Tüb,, 
1835. A. B. Zürn, Joh. Hus auf d. Concil zu Costnitz, Leipz. 1836. 
Neander’s Church Hist.v. Horst, De Hussi Vita, Amst., 1837. Bonnechose, 
Gerson, Hus, ete., Paris, 1853. Articles in Presb. Quarterly (Phil.), 1856 ; 
North American, Ixv.5 Meth. Qu. Rev., vol. v. Comp. @üeseler’s Church 
Hist., New York ed., iii. 414, sq. 

° Concerning the history of the Husites (also called Taborites and Calix- 
tines) see the works on ecclesiastical history. —Zenfant, Histoire de la Guerre 
des Hussites. Amst. 1731, 1. 4.—John Rokykzana was one of their most 
eminent theologians. — Martin Lokwitz (Loquis), of Moravia, belonged to 
the fanatical party among the Husites; see Schréckh, |, ec. xxxiv. p. 687. 
[ A. Gindely, Böhmen u. Mähren in Ref. Prag., 1858.] 

* He was a monk of the order of the Dominicans, lived from the year 
1489 in Florence, and suffered martyrdom a. Ὁ. 1498.— Picus of Mirandola 
composed a treatise in his defence, which is reprinted in Goldast, Monarchia, 
T. i. p. 1635.—He wrote : Compendio di revelazione, 1495, a Latin transla- 
tion of which was published 1496.—De Simplicitate Vite Christiane. — 
Triumphus Crucis 5. de Veritate Fidei, 1497, and various sermons.—Comp. 
*Rudelbach, Hieronymus Savonarola und seine Zeit. Hamburgh., 1835.— 
* Meier, Karl, Girolamo Savonarola. Berl, 1836. Concerning his theo- 
logical opinions, see: Ammon. F. W. Ph. in Winers und Engelhardts Neues 
kritisches Journal, vol. viii, part 3, p. 257-82. Hase, Neue Propheten, p. 
97,sq. [ Madden, Life of Savonarola, 2d ed. 2 vols., Lond., 1854. #. J. 
Perrens, Vie de S., 2 vols. Paris, 1854. Th. Paul, Jer. Sav. précurseur de 
la Ref. Paris, 1857. W. H. Rule, Studies from Hist., vol. ii. Lond., 1856. 
Archiv. Storico Italiano, Tom. viil., Firenze, 1850. Pasquale Villari, La 
Storia di Savon. (from new documents), 1. Florence, 1860.—Articles on 
Savonarola, Dublin Rev. Oct., 1854; Revue Chrét., Paris, 1855; Eclectic 
(Lond.) 4th series, xvi.; Christ. Remembrancer (Lond.), 1858 ; Quarterly 
(Lond.), 1856 ; Mercersburg Rev. by Dr. Schatf, July, 1858. ] 

° His family name was Gansfort; he was surnamed lux mundi, magister 
contradictionum, lived and taught theology at Cologne, Heidelberg, Louvain, 
and Paris, and died a. ». 1489. “ Though himself a scholastic divine, he 
announced that scholasticism would soon cease to exist, asserted that Scrip- 
ture is the only foundation of faith, faith the sole ground of justifica- 
tion without works, and urged the spiritual nature of a religious life.” 
(Meier, Dogmengeschichte, p. 238). His works were published at Groning., 
1614.—Comp. Muurling, de Wesselii cum Vita tum Meritis in preeparanda 
sacrorum Emendatione in Belgio Septentrionali. Traj. ad Rhen. 1831. -Ull- 
mann, C., Johann Wessel, ein Vorgänger Luthers. Ham., 1834. 

And lastly, John Goch of Mechlin, who died a. p. 1475; John of Wesel, 
professor of theology at Erfurt, and afterwards minister at Worms (he died 
A. Ὁ. 1482) and others, as well as Gerhard Groot, and the order of Regular 
Clerks must be numbered among this class of men. Comp. Scholtz, J. @. 
L., Diss. exhibens Disquisitionem, qua Thom» a Kempis Sententia de Re 
Christiana exponitur et cum Gerardi et Wesselii Gansfortii Sententiis com- 
paratur. Gron., 1840, 8. Ullmann’s Ref. vor d. Ref. Bd. i. 


$ 156. Tue CHURCH AND THE WORLD. " 4} 


$ 156. 


THE CONNECTION OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES WITH THE HISTORY 
᾿ OF THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD IN THE PRESENT PERIOD. 


᾿ 

The present period illustrates as much as any other, the inti- 
mate connection subsisting between the development of the life 
of the church and of mankind in general, and the development 
of doctrine." Thus a parallel may clearly be drawn between the 
history of Scholasticism on the one hand, and that of papacy and 
the hierarchy on the other.* Monasticism and celibacy not only 
tended to foster the spirit of subtile speculation manifested by the 
schoolmen, but also awakened profounder longings on the part of 
the mystics. The splendor and magnificence of the Roman forms 
of worship had a reacting influence upon the doctrines of the church 
(especially upon the doctrines of the sacraments and the saints), in 
proportion as the former itself owed its existence to the latter.“ The 
dogmatic spirit of the present period was also symbolically expressed 
in the art of the middle ages.” The advantages which the West 
derived from the crusades, the origin of which may be partly as- 
cribed to the religious enthusiasm of the times, were manifold and 
of various description.—The great calamities and plagues of the 
fourteenth century, also, so impressed the minds of the people, as 
to be at least a partial cause of the religious and mystical phe- 
nomena of those times (seen, 6. g., in the Flagellants).’—After the 
exclusive use of the Latin language in all ecclesiastical matters had 
led to the neglect of a searching and critical examination of the 
Bible, and the adoption of a barbarous terminology, the spread of 
Greek literature, from the conquest of Constantinople (A. Ὁ. 1453), 
exerted a beneficial influence both upon the study of the original 
languages of the Sacred Scriptures, and the mode of discussing 
theological subjects.* And in the last place, though the terrible in- 
stitution of the Inquisition had for a time succeeded in intimidating 
the minds of the people, and in preventing the free exchange of 
ideas,’ yet the invention of printing (about the year 1440),” the dis- 
covery of America (A. Ὁ. 1492), and the entire revolution which 
took place in the history of nations, prepared the way for a new 
period, which rendered a new development of religious life necessary, 
as a consequence of the manifold changes in the modes of thought 
and life. 


* Compare the general introduction above. 

2 It was not accidental that scholasticism commenced with the age of 
Gregory VII. During the dispute about the episcopal investiture, Anselm 
supported the pretentions of the papal hierarchy, while somewhat later 


412 TuirD Periop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Arnold of Brescia, a disciple of Abelard, practically carried out the more 
liberal doctrinal principles of his master. In a similar manner Bernard of 
Clairval united dogmatic orthodoxy with a rigid adherence to the papal in- 
stitutions of the church.—Scholasticism reached its highest point of devel- 
opment about the same time that the papacy of the middle ages reached its 
summit under Pope Innocent III., and a parallel may be clearly drawn be- 
tween the disruption of the schools (Thomists and Scotists), and the papal 
schism which occurred soon afterwards.—As the see of Rome had formerly 
found a support in the realistic tendency of Anselm, so it now met with open 
opposition on the part of the nominalist Occam.—The history of Mysticism 
may be likewise so traced out, as to show, that in one aspect it favored the 
pretensions of the Roman see, and opposed them in another. Papacy itself 
had its roots (in the real idea of it) in a mystical view of the world, but by 
its opposition to that idea, ὁ, 6., by its externality and worldliness, it called 
forth opposition on the part of the advocates of that mystical (spiritual) 
view of the world and its destiny. Comp. Hagenbach, in the essay cited 
§ 149. [Viedner’s Gesch. ἃ. Kirche, ὃ 136, 140, 157, 167, 182.] 

* Certain errors of the scholastics, as well as the mystics, can scarcely be 
comprehended but from the stand point of a monastic cell. Jn earlier times 
the scholastic divines were monks of the order of the Benedictines, or of 
that of the regular canons; in later times the monks of the order of mendi- 
cant friars occupied the theological chairs (notwithstanding the long opposi- 
tion made by the university of Paris), and conferred degrees and preferments. 
We must also take into consideration the jealousy already alluded to between 
the different orders, which was in intimate connection with the divisions 
among the scholastics. [Comp. Monkish Literature, Lond. Quarterly, 1853. 
S. P. Day, Rise, etc., of Monastic Institutions, 3d ed. Lond., 1855. Brown- 
son’s Quarterly Review, July, 1855. Count de Montalembert, Les Moines 
d’Occident (from Benedict to Bernard), 2. 8vo., Paris, 1860. English ver- 
sion, 1861.] 

* Compare the doctrine about the Saints’and the Lord’s Supper in the 
special history of doctrines. 

° Is it altogether accidental, that the cities of Strasburg and Cologne, dis- 
tinguished for their cathedrals, were the favored seats of the mystical theo- 
logians? see Ch. Schmidt, Essai, p. 45 and 52. There is also an evident 
connection between the mystical tendency and romantic poetry (comp. 
Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor, p. 246), as well as, on the one hand, between 
the old German school of painting and mysticism, and on the other, between 
the more cheerful Italian art and the classical tendency, mentioned § 154. 

° See Heeren, Entwicklung der Folgen der Kreuzzüge für Europa (his- 
torische Schriften, Göttingen, 1808, vol. 2). 

” Comp. Hecker, Der schwartze Tod im 14 Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1832, 8. 
| Hecker, Black Death, etc., new ed., 1859. See American Theol. Review, 
1859.] Förstemann, die christlichen Geisslergesellschaften. Halle, 1828. 

* Compare § 154. 

° See Llorente, Geschichte der Inquisition, Leipzig. 1823. Neudecker, in 
Herzog’s Realencyclopadie, vi. 677, sq. [Hefele, in his Life of Cardinal 


$ 156. THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. 413 


Ximenes, p. 162, 54. : comp. Dublin Review, 1852 (also 1850, 1851.) W. 
H. Rule, The Brand of Dominie, New York ed., 1852.] 

10. “ Religion has undoubtedly gained the powerful, healthy, and clear de- 
velopment of piety, and of Christian piety in particular, by the invention of 
typography. The sources of Christian knowledge and education have been 
multiplied by it ad infinitum, and what was formerly inaccessible has been 
placed within the reach of all classes of society,” etc. Ullmann, Rede am 
vierten Säcularfeste der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. Heidelberg, 
1840, p. 20. 


B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES 
DURING THE THIRD PERIOD. 


ΠΥ ΟΝ: 


APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. 


TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.—RELATION BETWEEN REASON AND 
REVELATION.—SOURCES OF REVELATION.— 
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


§ 157. 
TRUTH AND DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. 


The ground assumed by apologetical writers of the present period, 
in opposition to all who were not Christians, was considerably differ- 
ent from that taken during the first period. On the one hand, the 
Judaism of the middle ages was not the same with that which 
Justin Martyr combated in his Dialogue with Tryphon ;' on 
the other, the views of the apologists of the middle ages on doc- 
trinal subjects differed in many respects from those of the earlier 
fathers. Other weapons were also required in the controversy with 
Mohammedanism than those which had been used against the an- 
cient forms of polytheism.? But the skepticism and freethinking, 
which made their appearance, especially towards the close of the 
present period, within the church itself, both in a more open, and a 
more concealed manner, rendered a philosophical defence of the 
Christian religion still more necessary, than did those historical 
forms of religion which existed alongside of Christianity.’. Gen- 
erally speaking, the apologists adopted former methods of argumen- 
tation. The arguments derived from miracles and prophecies were 
retained, as tradition had sanctioned them,* though some writers 
attained the idea that the religion of Christ would recommend 
itself by its internal excellencies, even without miracles.* 


* Compare, e. g., the manner in which Agobard upbraided the Jews of that 
time in his treatise De Insolentia Judaorum, Opp. T. i. p. 59-66. See 
Schröckh, xxi. p. 302. 


§ 157. TruTH AND Divine ORIGIN OF Curistianity. 415 


5 Compare the writings mentioned $ 144, which were directed against 
Mohammedans, and @üeseler, Dogmengeschichte, 476.—The heathen, ὁ. e., 
the heathen philosophers in particular, were combated by Thomas Aquinas 
in his Summa Catholicz Fidei contra Gentiles, Lugd., 1587, fol. which is not 
to be confounded with his larger Summa, Excerpts from it are given by 
Schröckh, xxix. p. 341, ss. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 100, ss. 

* Anselm himself held the principle: Fides nostra contra impios ratione 
defendenda est, non contra cos, qui se Christiani nominis honore gaudere 
fatentur: Epp. Lib. ii, 41. On the later apologetical writings of Savon- 
arola and Ficinus, see $ 154, 155. 

* Anselm endeavored to define the idea of miracle by the difference of a 
threefold cursus rerum, viz., the miraculous (mirabilis), the natural (natur- 
alis), and that dependent on the will of the creature (voluntarius). The 
miraculous can not be subjected to the conditions and laws of the other two, 
but rules free; yet it does not do violence to the two others (neque illis facit 
injuriam), since it is also dependent on the highest will, the will of God. 
The possibility of miracles, too, is grounded in the fact, that creation itself 
is a miracle, ὁ, e., a product of the divine will: See his De Concept. Virg. 
et Orig. Peccat., c. 11. Hasse, Anselm, 11. 457. 

A definition of miracle is given by Thomas Aquinas, P. I., quest. 110. 
art. 4: Dicendum quod miraculum proprie dieitur, cum aliquid fit preter 
ordinem nature: sed non sufficit ad notionem miraculi, si aliquid fiat preeter 
ordinem nature alicujus particularis, quia sic, cum aliquis projicit lapidem 
sursum, miraculum faceret, cum hoc sit preter ordinem nature lapidis. Ex 
hoc ergo aliquid dicitur esse miraculum, quod fit preter ordinem totius 
nature create ; hoc autem non potest facere nisi Deus, quia quidquid facit 
angelus vel queecunque alia creatura propria virtute, hoc fit secundum ordinem 
nature, et sic non est miraculum, Unde relinquitur, quod solus Deus 
miraculum facere possit. From this objective definition of miracle, he dis- 
tinguishes the subjective one: Sed quia non omnis virtus nature create est 
nota nobis, ideo cum aliquid fit prater ordinem nature creatz nobis note 
per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam, est miraculum quoad nos. From the 
same point of view he draws a distinction between miraculum and mirum. 
Comp. Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 749, 750. | Baur, Dogmengesch, 243, 
says, Aquinas made a step in advance in the doctrinal definition of the 
miraculous, by referring the question to the doctrine of providence, or the 
government of the world.] +Brischar, der Wunderbegriff des heiligen 
Thomas von Aquino, in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1845, part 3.— Ritter, 
Gesch. ἃ. Phil. viii, 266, and the passage there cited from Aquinas, Contra 
Gentes, III. 98. Even as late as this period Ficinus and others appealed to 
the Sibylline oracles in the matter of prophecy. See Schröckh, xxxiv. 
p. 352. 

5 Among their number we may mention, 6. g., Eneas Sylvius, see Platina 
in Vita Pii II. (towards the end). Comp. also Dante, Div. Commed. (Parad. 
24, 106-108.) 


416 THuırp Periop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


§ 168. 
REASON AND REVELATION—FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE. 


Though all Christians were convinced of the truth and divine 
origin of their religion (even where they knew it only through the im- 
pure medium of the doctrine of the church), yet the problem was raised 
by the inquisitive, as to the relation between that which is universal 
and human, and that which refers to Christianity alone, between reve- 
lation and natural reason, between the Christian religion and philoso- 
phy. John Scotus Erigena was the first who manifested a leaning 
towards Christian rationalism, and sought a union between that and 
supranaturalism, by considering the true religion and true philosophy 
as one and the same thing, and by looking for the inmost and deepest 
source of religious knowledge in man himself, 7. e., in his rational 
consciousness. But he did not deny the necessity of a positive reve- 
lation coming from without.’ Abelard also finds a harmony be- 
tween philosophy and Christianity, in the fact, that the universally 
acknowledged truths of reason, and the moral laws with which even 
the heathen were acquainted, are confirmed and enlarged by the 
higher authority of divine revelation.” Though Anselm asserted 
that it is first of all necessary to receive by an act of faith the 
truths of revelation sanctioned by the church, yet he admitted that 
reason might afterwards examine the grounds of what is believed : 
but in this, he proceeded on the supposition that reason and revela- 
tion can not contradict each other.” Thomas Aquinas endeavored 
to prove that the doctrines of Christianity, on the one hand, may 
be apprehended by reason, but, on the other, are above reason ;* and 
Duns Scotus pointed out the distinguishing features of revelation in 
articulate propositions.” The mystics also admitted (though in a 
manner different from that of the scholastics) the existence of an 
immediate certainty as to truth in the mind of man; their theory 
was nearest allied to that of Anselm. There was, however, this 
difference among them, that some (viz., those who adhered to eccle- 
siastical orthodoxy) maintained, that the internal revelations were 
in accordance with the doctrines of the church,’ while others (the 
fanatical mystics) held, that the new revelations of the Spirit were 
sometimes openly opposed to the doctrines historically received, and 
even to Scripture itself.’ 


* De divina Preed. (ap. Mauguin, T.i. c.1.§ 1, quoted by Frommüäller, |. c. 
p- 50); Quid est de philosophia tractare, nisi verze religionis, qua summa et 
principalis omnium rerum causa et humiliter colitur et rationabiliter investi- 
gatur, regulas exponere? Confieitur inde veram esse philosophiam veram 
religionem, conversimque veram religionem esse veram philosophiam (comp 


§ 158. Reason AND REVELATION. 417 


Augustine, De Vera Rel. c. 5.) He held that self-consciousness is the last 
source of religious knowledge, Div. Nat. v. 31, p. 268: Nulla quippe alia via 
est ad principalis exempli purissimam contemplationem preeter proxime 510] 
sux Imaginis certissimam notitiam. But he does not on that account deny 
the necessity of an external (positive) revelation, On the contrary he says: 
ii, 31, p. 85; Nisi ipsa lux initium nobis revelaverit, nostra ratiocinationis 
studium ad eam revelandam nihil proficiet (Comp. § 159, ss). Thus Scotus 
Erigena “ may in a certain sense be called the author of rationalism ; but his 
rationalism is very different from that perverse form of rationalism [ration- 
alismus vulgaris 2] which exists at the present day ; in fact, the rationalism 
of the Christian philosopher [at least in one aspect] 2s the exact contradiction 
of this modern rationalism.” Staudemaier, Frieburger Zeitschrift, 1, c. p. 241. 
[Comp. Baur, Trinitätsl. ii. 274.] 

* De Theol. Christ. ii. p. 1211 (ed. Marténe): Hine quidem facilus evan- 
gelica predicatio a philosophis, quam a Judeeis suscepta est, cum sibi eam 
maxime inyenirent ad finem, nec fortasse in aliquo dissonam, nisi forte in his 
quee ad incarnationis vel sacramentorum vel resurrectionis mysteria perti- 
nent.* $i enim diligenter moralia evangelii praecepta consideremus, nihil ea 
aliud, quam reformationem legis nature inveniemus, quam secutos esse phil- 
osophos constat ; cum lex magis figuralibus quam moralibus nitatur mandatis, 
et exteriori potius justitia quam interiori abundet ; evangelium vero virtutes 
ac vitia diligenter examinat, et secundum animi intentionem omnia, sicut et 
philosophi, pensat. Unde, cum tanta...evangelic® ac philosophice doctrine 
concordia pateat, nonnulli Platonicorum......in tantam proruperunt blas- 
phemiam, ut Dominum Jesum omnes suas sententias a Platone accepisse 
dicerent, quasi philosophus ipsam docuisset Sophiam.—None but he who ob- 
tains a knowledge of the divine by active research, attains unto firm belief.t 
After man has done his part, divine love assists his efforts, and grants to him 
that which he could not acquire by his own researches, etc. “ But Abelard 
was far from imagining that his philosophy could give a full knowledge of 
divine things which should leave no scope for desire after more.” Neander, 
der heilige Bernhard, p. 117, ss. Abelard made a distinction between cre- 
dere, intelligere, and cognoscere ; through doubt we come to inquiry, through 
inquiry to truth (dubitando ad inquisitionem, inquirendo ad veritatem). Abe- 
lard uses still stronger language on this point in his Introductio, than in his 
more modified Theologia Christiana; see Meander, |. c. p. 127, note 4, 
(comp. Béringer ubi supra, 118, sq.)— Alanus ab Imsulis, also considered 
faith as superior to opinio, but inferior to scientia (Art. 17, quoted by Pez, 
i, p. 482). Comp. the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, § 34, note 6.— 
The view of St. Bernard is in sharpest contrast with that of Abelard. The 
rationalism of Abelard seems to him to be in contradiction, not only with 
faith, but also with reason : Quid enim magis contra rationem, quam rationem 
ratione conari transcendere? Et quid magis contra fidem, quam credere 
nolle quicquid non posses ratione attingi ?—On the other hand, Abelard (Ep. 


* From this passage it appears, that as early as the time of Abelard a distinction was 
made between articuli puri et mixti. Comp. also what Thomas Aquinas said, note 4. 
+ Hence his motto: Qui credit cito, levis est corde. (Sir. 19, 4). 


27 


418 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


ad Helois.) : Nolo sic esse philosophus ut recaleitrarem Paulo, non sic esse 
Aristoteles, ut secludar a Christo: non enim aliud nomen est sub c«elo, in 
quo oporteat me salvum fieri: comp. Neander, Bernhard, p. 147, seq. 

° Prosl. c. 1:......Desidero aliquatenus intelligere veritatem tuam, quam 
credit et amat cor meum. Neque enim quero intelligere ut credam, sed 
credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam. 
De Incarn. Verbi, e. 2: Nullus quippe Christianus debet disputare, quod 
catholica Ecclesia corde credit et ore confitetur, quomodo non sit: sed sem- 
per eamdem fidem indubitanter tenendo, amando et secundum illam vivendo 
humiliter, quantum potest quaerere rationem, quomodo sit. Si potest intelli- 
gere, Deo gratias agat: si non potest, non immittat cornua ad ventilandum, 
sed submittat caput ad venerandum. Citius enim in se potest confidens 
humana sapientia impingendo cornua sibi evellere, quam innitendo petram 
hanc evellere......Palam namque est, quia illi non habent fidei firmitatem, 
qui, quoniam quod credunt, intelligere non possunt, disputant contra ejusdem 
fidei a sanctis patribus confirmatam veritatem, velut si vespertiliones et noc- 
tue, non nisi in nocte ccelum videntes, de meridianis solis radiis disceptent 
contra aquilas,-solem ipsum irreverberato visu intuentes. Prius ergo fide 
mundandum est cor......prius ea qua carnis sunt posponentes secundum 
spiritum vivamus, quam profunda fidei dijudicando discutiamus.... ..Quanto 
opulentius nutrimur in Sacra Scriptura, ex his, qua per obedientiam pascunt, 
tanto subtilius provehimur ad ea, que per intellectum satiant...... Nam 
qui non crediderit, non experietur, et qui expertus non fuerit, non intelliget. 
Nam quantum rei auditum superat experientia, tantum vincit audientis cog- 
nitionem experientis scientia.......Nemo ergo se temere mergat in condensa 
difficilimarum quzstionum, nisi prius in soliditate fidei conquisita morum et 
sapienti gravitate, ne per multiplicia sophismatum diverticula in tanta levi- 
tate discurrens, aliqua tenaci illaqueetur falsitate. Comp. De Sacram. Altaris 
ii, 2; Christiane fidei veritas quasi hoc speciali jure praeminet, ut non ipsa 
per intellectum, sed per eam intellectus querendus sit......Qui ergo nihil 
credere vult, nisi ratione vel intellectu praecedente, hic rem confundit, et 
scire omnia volens, nihil credens, fidem, que in ipso est, videter annullare.— 
Epp. Lib. ii. 41: Christianus per fidem debet ad intellectum proficere, non 
per intellectum ad fidem accedere, aut si intelligere non valet, a fide recedere. 
Sed cum ad intellectum valet pertingere, delectatur : cum vero nequit, quod 
capere non potest, veneratur.—Nevertheless he asserts, that the acquisition 
of knowledge is a duty imperative upon him who has the power of know- 
ing. In his treatise entitled, Cur Deus Homo i. c. 2, he represents Boso 
speaking as follows (without contradicting him): Sicut rectus ordo exigit, ut 
profunda christian® fidei credamus, priusquam ea preesumamus ratione dis- 
cutere, cla negligentia mihi videtur, si, postguam confirmati sumus in fide, 
non studemus quod credimus intelligere. Comp. ibid. c. 10, 25. Nor does 
Boso declare himself satisfied (respecting the doctrine of satisfaction), until 
he has seen the reasonableness of the reasons adduced ; ii. 19 and 21. “ The 
scholastic divines did not think it an extravagant notion, that all the truths 
contained in the Old and New Testument might be proved by rational specu- 
lation ; but it was always presupposed, that what is matter of faith rests on 
its own grounds, and needs no proof: thus whatever is added by reason, how- 


$ 158. Reason snp REVELATION. 419 


ever valuable in other respects, is nothing but an opus supererogationis in 
reference to all matters of faith.” Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 185, note. 
Comp. Möhlers Schriften, i. p. 137, 38. D. J. H. Goldhorn, De summis 
Principiis Theol. Abzelardeze, Lips. 1856. Hasse’s Anselm, 34. Anselm is 
followed on this point by Albertus Magnus ; comp. the passages in Ritter, 
viii., 103 [and Christl. Phil. i. 634, sq. ]. 

* “Thom. Aqu. Summ. Cath. Fid. contra Gentiles, 1. i. c. 3, (quoted by 
Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 100): Et in his, que de Deo confitemur, 
duplex veritatis modus. Queedam namque vera sunt de Deo, que omnem 
facultatem humane rationis excedunt, ut: Deum esse trinum et unum. 
Queedam, vero sunt ad que etiam ratio naturalis pertingere potest : sicut est 
Deum esse, Deum esse unum, et alia hujusmodi, que etiam philosophi de- 
monstrative de Deo probaverunt, ducti naturalis lumine rationis —But even 
these points must be confirmed by revelation, otherwise the knowledge of 
God would be the privilege of but a few (viz., of those who think and 
know): others whom levity prevented during the earlier period of their life 
from giving heed to these things, would not acquire a knowledge of them 
until it was too late. But even in the most favorable case there would be 
reason for apprehending, lest error should be mixed up with truth. [Cap. 5, 
he proves that—ea que ratione investigari non possunt, convenienter fide 
tenenda proponuntur.]| The truths of revelation, however, though going 
beyond reason, do not contradict, it, ete. Comp. Schröckh, xxix, p. 342, 
ss. [Comp. on Aquinas, Baur, Dogmengesch. 241-3 ; he first made the 
attempt to give a more precise statement of the relation of reason to revela- 
tion : the latter is necessary, because man could not otherwise attain the end 
of his being. “The chief idea, on which the supernaturalism of Aquinas rests 
is—the finis superexcedens, viz., man (as Aquinas says, Summa Theol. 1, qu. 
l., art. 1) ordinatur ad Deum, sicut ad quendam finem, qui comprehensionem 
rationis excedit. Finem oportet esse precognitum hominibus, qui suas inten- 
tiones et actiones debent ordinare in finem.’ Comp. Summa ὁ. Gentes, 1. 
1-8, and 4, 1.] 

° These elements are: Praenuntiatio prophetica, Seripturarum concordia, 
auctoritas scribentium, diligentia recipientium, rationabilitas contentorum, 
irrationabilitas singulorum errorum, ecclesiz stabilitas and miraculorum 
claritas; according to Baur, Lehrbuch, p. 174. On the relation of philoso- 
phy to theology, see Ritter, vill. 264, sq, 

° The series is opened by Bernard of Clairvauz, De Consideratione, v. 3: 
Deus et qui cum eo sunt beati spiritus, tribus modis veluti viis totidem, 
nostra sunt consideratione vestigandi ; opinione, fide, intellectu. Quorum 
intellectus rationi innititur, fides auctoritati; opinio sola verisimilitudine se 
tuetur. Habent illa duo certam veritatem, sed fides clausam et involutam, 
intelligentia nudam et manifestam ; ceterum opinio, certi nihil habens, verum 
per verisimilia quierit potius, quam apprehendit.... Verus intellectus certam 
habet non modo veritatem, sed notitiam veritatis....Fides est voluntaria 
queedam et certa praelibatio necdum prolate veritatis. Intellectus est rei 
cujuscunque invisibilis certa et manifesta notitia. Opinio est quasi pro vero 
habere aliquid, quod falsum esse nescias. Ergo fides ambiguum non habet, 
aut si habet, fifes non est, sed opinio. Quid igitur distat ab intellectu? 


420 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Nempe quod etsi non habet incertum non magis quam intellectus, habet 
tamen involucrum, quod non intellectus. Denique quod non intellexisti, non 
est de eo, quod ultra quaeras ; aut si est, non intellexisti. Nil autem malu- 
mus scire, quam que fide jam scimus. Nil supererit ad beatitudinem, 
cum, que jam certa sunt nobis fide, erunt aqua et nuda. He speaks in the 
same way of the knowledge of divine things (v.13): Non ea disputatio 
comprehendit, sed sanctitas. 

The same view is also espoused by Hugo of St. Victor, and Richard 
uf St. Victor, Comp. Hugo de Sacramentis Fidei 1. i, p. ii, c. 30 (de 
cognitione divinitatis) quoted by Ziebner, p. 173, ss. 186: Alia enim sunt 
ex ratione, alia secundum rationem, alia supra rationem, et preter hec que 
sunt contra rationem. Ex ratione sunt necessaria, secundum rationem sunt 
probabilia, supra rationem mirabilia, contra rationem incredibilia. Et duo 
quidem extrema omnino fidem non capiunt. Que enim sunt ex ratione, 
omnino nota sunt et credi non possunt, quoniam seiuntur. Que vero contra 
rationem sunt, nulla similiter ratione credi possunt, quoniam non suscipiunt 
ullam rationem, nee acquiescit his ratio aliqua. Ergo que secundum ra- 
tionem sunt et que sunt supra rationem, tantummodo suscipiunt fidem, Et 
in primo quidem genere fides ratione adjuvatur et ratio fide perfiicitur, quo- 
niam secundum rationem sunt, que creduntur. Quorum veritatem si ratio 
non comprehendit, fidei tamen illorum non contradieit. In iis, que supra 
rationem sunt, non adjuvatur fides ratione ulla, quoniam non capit ea ratio, 
que fides credit, et tamen est aliquid, quo ratio admonetur venerari fidem, 
quam non comprehendit. Que dicta sunt ergo secundum rationem, proba- 
bilia fuerunt rationi et sponte acquievit eis. Quze vero supra rationem fue- 
runt, ex divina revelatione prodita sunt, et non operata est in eis ratio, sed 
castigata tamen, ne ad illa contenderet—The theory of Azchard of St. 
Victor is somewhat more complicated. According to him there were six 
kinds of contemplation. We know, 1, by the imagination (the sensible im- 
pressions made by creation) ; 2, by reason (perception of law and order in 
creation); 3, in reason according to imagination (symbolical knowledge of 
nature, as a mirror of the spiritual) ; 4, 7 reason and according to reason 
(the internal referred to the internal, without a sensible image—intellectual 
intuition?) ; 5, above and not against reason (revealed truth within the sphere 
of reason—rational knowledge carried to a higher power by revelation) ; 
6, above and (apparently) against reason (particularly the mystery of the 
Trinity). Comp. Engelhardt, 1. c. p. 60, ss—John of Salisbury, in strict 
contrast taught that the endeavors of man after knowledge must be aided 
by God himself, Polierat. Lib. vii. c. 14 (Bibl. Max. T. xxiii. p. 352): Quis- 
quis ergo viam philosophandi ingreditur, ad ostium gratie ejus humiliter 
pulset, in cujus manu liber omnium sciendorum est, quem solus aperit agnus, 
qui occisus est, ut ad viam sapientie et vere felicitatis servum reduceret 
aberrantem. Frustra quis sibi de capacitate ingenii, de memorize tenacitate, 
de assiduitate studii, de lingue volubilitate blanditur......Est autem humil- 
itati conjuncta simplicitas, qua discentium intelligentia plurimum adjuvatur. 
—The preacher Berthold also warned before the pride of speculation (in 
Kling, Grimm’s Ree. p. 206): Swer faste in die sunnen sihet, in den bre- 
henden glaft, der wird von ougen sö boese, daz er es niemer mer gesiht. 








$ 159. Sources OF KNOWLEDGE. 421 


Zeglicher wise also stöt ez umbe den glonben; wer ze faste in den heiligen 
eristenglouben sihet, alsö daz in vil gwundert und ze tiefe darinne rumpelt 
mit gedenken. — Savonarola appeals to the internal testimony, Triumph. Crucis 
proem. quoted by Rudelbach. p. 376: Licet fides ex causis prineipiisque 
naturalibus demonstrari non possit, ex manifestis tamen effectibus validissi- 
mas rationes adducemus, quas nemo san mentis infieiari poteret.—So, too, 
Picas of Mirandula strikingly says: Philosophia veritatem querit, theologia 
invenit, religio possidet (Ep. ad Manut. Opera ed. Basel, p. 243). 

” Comp. § 161, note 5. 

[On the views of William of Paris, Roger Bacon, and Raymund Lulli, 
as to the relation of reason and faith, see Meander, Hist. Dogmas, pp. 
556-8. | 


§ 159. 


SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE.—SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 


[#. J. Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, Ludwigsburg, 1859.] 


Though the Bible was still theoretically regarded as the highest 
authority in all religious matters,’ yet it was gradually overshadowed 
by tradition, which was deemed of equal importance with Scrip- 
ture.” Its doctrines were more and more corrupted and mixed up 
with the arbitrary traditions of men. Besides the tradition of the 
church, the book of nature was also held in reverence along with the 
written Word of God.” Some of the mystical sects looked upon 
other writings beside the Bible as coming from heaven,‘ and even 
went so far as to put the imaginations of the natural man on an 
equality with the Word of God.” On the other hand, the principle 
of the authority of Scripture, in opposition’ to a corrupt tradition, 
made increased progress in the century immediately preceding the 
Reformation.’ 


* Joh. Dam. de fide Orth. i. 1: Πάντα τοίνυν ra παραδεδομένα ἡμῖν διά 
TE νόμου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων καὶ εὐαγγελιστῶν δεχόμεθα Kal 
γινώσκομεν καὶ σέβομεν, οὐδὲν περαιτέρω τούτων ἐπιζητοῦντες... ..-. 
Ταῦτα ἡμεῖς στέρξωμεν καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς μείνωμεν, μὴ μεταίροντες ὅρια αἰώνια, 
μηδὲ ὑπερβαίνοντες τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν. Comp. iv. 17.—Joh. Scot. Erig. 
De Div. Nat. i. c. 66, p. 37: Βαποίω siquidem Seripturse in omnibus sequenda 
est auctoritas, quum in ea veluti quibusdam suis secretis sedibus veritas ; (he 
makes, however, the following limitation): non tamen ita credendum est, ut 
ipsa semper propriis verborum seu nominum signis fruatur, divinam nobis 
naturam insinuans; sed quibusdam similitudinibus variisque translatorum 
verborum seu nominum modis utitur, infirmitati nostra condescendens nos- 
trosque adhuc rudes infantilesque sensus simpliei doctrina erigens. Nor can 
Scripture contradict reason, c. 68, p. 38: Nulla itaque auctoritas te terreat 


422 Tuirp Periop. THe AGs OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


ab his, que rectz contemplationis rationabilis suasio edocet. Vera enim 
“auctoritas rect rationi non obsistit, neque recta ratio vere auctoritati. 
Ambo siquidem ex uno fonte, divina videlicet sapientia, manere dubium non 
est. Comp. ὁ. 69, p. 39, and Béhringer, ubi supra, p. 134, seg. —John of 
Salisbury, on the contrary, used much more unqualified language, Policrat. 
l. c. ($ 158, note 5): Serviendum est ergo scripturis, non dominandum ; 
nisi forte quis se ipsum dignum credat, ut angelis debeat dominari, 

[| Baur, Dogmengesch. 244, says that Abelard and Aquinas both laid down 
principles, which logically involved the Protestant view of the Bible as the 
rule of faith. Abelard (Sic et Non., p. 14, of Henke’s edition), ascribes un- 
conditional authority ouly to the Scriptures of the Old and New Test. Aqui- 
nas (Summa Theol. P. I. qu. 1. Art. 8) defines theology as a science, in 
which the argument is peculiarly derived from authority; and recognizes 
only the canonical Scriptures as an authority, giving more than probabili- 
ties. | 

* Joh. Damascenas De Fide Orth. [iv. 12: Αὐτὸν (Χριστὸν) οὖν Exde- 
χόμενοι ἐπὶ ἀνατολὰς προσκυνοῦμεν: ἄγραφος de ἐστιν ἡ παράδοσις αὕτη 
τῶν Αποστόλων" πολλὰ γὰρ ἀγράφως ἡνῖν παρέδοσαν] Cap. 16: Ὅτε δὲ 
καὶ πλεῖστα οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀγράφως παραδεδώκασι, γράφει Παῦλος ὃ τῶν 
ἑθνῶν ἀπόστολος (2 Thess. ii. 15, 1 Cor. xi. 2). De Imaginibus Orat. i. 23. 
(Opp. 1. p. 318): Ob μόνον γράμμασι τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν θεσμοθεσίαν 
παρέδωκαν (οἱ πατέρες), ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγράφοις τισὶ παραδόσεσι...... Πόθεν 
τὸ τρὶς βαπτίζειν ; πόθεν τὸ κατ᾽ ἀνατολὰς εὔχεσθαι; πόθεν ἡ τῶν μυσ- 
τηρίων παράδοσις, kK. τ. A. Comp. Orat. ii. 16, p. 338.—John Scotus 
Erigena, by drawing a parallel between Scripture and reason, seems to sub- 
ordinate tradition to both of them (and especially to reason) i. c. 71, p. 39: 
Omnis autem auctoritas, que vera ratione non approbatur, infirma videtur 
esse. Vera autem ratio, quum virtutibus suis rata atque immutabilis muni- 
tur, nullius auctoritatis adstipulatione roborari indiget. Nil enim aliud 
videtur mihi esse vera auctoritas, visi rationis virtute cooperta veritas et a 
sacris patribus ad posteritatis utilitatem litteris commendata......Ideoque 
prius ratione utendum est#........ ac deinde auctoritate........ Ibid. iv. 9: 
Non sanctorum patrum sententiz, presertim si plurimis notz sunt, intro- 
ducende sunt, nisi ubi summa necessitas roborande ratiocinationis exegerit 
propter eos, qui cum sint rationis inscii, plus auctoritati quam rationi suc- 
cumbunt.—Erigena, however, was almost alone in these views. Most writers 
adopted the definitions propounded by Augustine and Vincentius Lerinensis 
during the preceding period (comp. § 122). Thus Alcuin admonished to 
adhere to the doctrine generally received, and to invent no new names, ete. 
(in Ep. ad Felie. Opp. i. p. 783, comp. p. 791,ss.). Porro nos intra terminos 
apostolic doctrine et sancte romance ecclesiz firmiter stamus: illorum 
probatissimam sequentes auctoritatem, et sanctissimis inhzerentes doctrinis, 
nihil novi inferentes, nullaque recipientes, nisi que in illorum catholicis in- 
veniuntur scriptis—Though Abelard, by his work, Sic et Non, had under- 
mined the authority of the earlier fathers, and consequently that of tradition, 
yet the scholastics kept on, not only appealing to the older tradition, but 
also justifying unbiblical doctrines, by saying that the church had the con- 
stant right to make new dogmas, as that of transubstantiation and the im- 


§ 159. Sources OF KNOWLEDGE. 423 


maculate conception of Mary. Even Gerson (in relation to the latter 
dogma) appealed to this progressive formation of doctrines by the church. 
—The authority of Aristotle was added in later times to that of the church 
(though not directly authorized by the church, yet in fact), till the authority 
of Scripture was again prominently brought forward, as the highest, if not 
the only true authority in the age immediately preceding the Reformation 
(thus by Wycliffe, Nicolas de Clemangis, Wessel, etc.). [On Clemangis, see 
Presb. Qu. Rev., Dec., 1856. On Gerson and Nicolaus de Cusa, see Nean- 
der, Hist. Dogmas. 606-7. On Clemangis and Gerson, see Gieseler: Dog- 
mengeschichte, p. 481: see the latter, also, on the papal infallibility, in con- 
nection with the interpretation of Scripture, pp. 483, 484.] 

* John Scotus Erigena maintains that every creature is a theophany of 
God, De Div. Nat. iii. 19.—According to the Theol. Naturalis of Raymund 
of Sabunde, God has granted to men two books, viz., the book of nature, 
and the book of revelation; they neither can, nor must, contradict each 
other; the latter, however, is not accessible to all, but only to the priests. All 
knowledge must commence with the former, which is equally within the reach 
of the laity; every creature is a letter written by God himself. But the 
highest knowledge is the love of God, the only thing of his own which man 
can offer to the Deity. Comp. Hase, Church History, (New York transl.) § 280, 
p- 325. Tennemann, viii. p. 964, ss. Matzke, die Nat. Theol. des Raimund 
de Sabunde, p. 30, sy. —In a similar manner St. Bernard asserted, that what 
he was able to accomplish in the way of interpreting Scripture, and what 
he understood of divine things, he acquired by contemplation and prayer, 
especially in forests and fields, and that he had no other teacher than beeches 
and oaks; see Meander, der heilige Bernhard, p. 6. Comp. Bruder Ber- 
thold’s Predigten, edited by Kling, p. 113, where the same idea of two 
books (heaven and earth) occurs.* 

* Thus the Spirituales in particular attached great importance to the 
Evangelium Aternum (prophecies of Joachim, abbot of Flore in Calabria, 
who died A.». 1202). On the said work comp. Hngelhardt, Kirchenhis- 
torische Abhandlungen, Erl. 1832, No. 1. Extracts from it are given by 
d’Argentre, Coll. Judiciorum de Novis Error. Paris, 1728, T. 1. p. 163, ss. 
[Comp. Gieseler, ii. 233, sq. ] 

° Some went so far as to make the most crazy assertions; thus David 
of Dinanto maintained, that God had made communications by Ovid no 
less than by Augustine [or, by the Bible?] Hngelhardt, |. c. p. 255. The 
Beguines taught, quod homo magis tenetur sequi instinctum interiorem, 
quam veritatem evangelii, quod quotidie praedicatur ; see the epistle of John, 
bishop of Strasburg, in Mosheim, 1. c. p. 258. Comp. § 161. 

° Thus Wycliffe says (Trial. iv., e. 7, p. 199): If there were a hundred 
popes, and all the monks were to be transformed into cardinals, we ought 
not to ascribe to their opinions in matters of faith any other value, than 


* It is worthy of observation, in this dualism of Scripture and tradition, that one ele- 
ment, viz., the Scripture, is much more firmly established, while tradition undergoes more 
or less frequent changes, and sometimes has something else as a substitute, as, in the above 
case, nature; John Scotus Erigena introduced reason in the room of tradition, and the 
mystics did the same with the internal revelation. 


424 TuirpD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


they have as founded on the Scriptures. Comp. Schröchk, xxxiv. 504. On 
the principle of Hus about Scripture, see Meander, Züge aus dem Leben 
des heil. Joh. Hus, in his Kleine Gelegenheitsschriften, 217, seg. Thus he 
demanded that the council should convict him of error from the Scripture.* 
On the whole Biblical tendency of the period preceding the Reformation, 
see Ullmunn's Reformatorem vor d. Reform. ii. 430. On Wessel’s views of 
the authority of Scripture, ibid. 


§ 160. 
THE CANON OF THE BIBLE AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 


The Canon had been compiled in the preceding period ; and so 
that the Latin church generally regarded the books commonly called 
the Apocrypha of the Old Testament as a part of it." The Pauli- 
cians in the East rejected (like the Gnostics) the Old Test. and the 
writings of Peter” But as late as the age of the Carlovingians 
doubts were entertained, even within the pale of the catholic church 
itself, respecting the genuineness of various books of the Old Testa- 
ment." 


* Comp. the Canon of Zsidore of Seville, De Eccles. Off. i. c. 12, quoted 
by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln. ii. p. 106, and the decisions of synods on 
this point. See also John Damase. iv. 17 [he adopts the canon of the coun- 
cil of Laodicea, and mentions some apocryphal books (ἡ ILavdpetoc, τουτέσ- 
τίν ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σαλαμῶντος, kai ἡ σοφία τοῦ ’Inoov), respecting which 
he remarks: ἐνάρετοι μὲν καὶ παλαὶ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται, οὐδὲ ἔκειντο ἐν 
τῇ κιβωτῷ]. Concerning the apocryphal writings some western theologians, 
such as Odo of Clugny, Hugo of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, Hugo of 
St. Caro, and others, appealed to Jerome, but the Canon of Augustine was 
more generally adopted. See Münscher, |. c. p. 107, and Ziebner, Hugo von 
St. Victor, p. 129. The Greek church allowed that the Apocrypha was use- 
ful and edifying, but definitely distinguished these from the canonical books: 
John of Damasc. De Fide Orthod. iv. c. 18. 

* According to Petrus Siculus, quoted by Wettstein, Nov. Test. ii. p. 681, 
de Wette, Einleitung ins Neue Test. p. 281. 

° “ The monks of the monastery of St. Gallen ventured to point out what 
they thought unworthy of God in the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures. 
Concerning the books of Chronicles and Esther, their opinion was: in eis 
littera non pro auctoritate, tantum pro memoria tenetur. T’hey judged in 
like manner of the book of Judith, and of the Maccabees.” Johannes von 
Müller, Geschichte der schweizerischen Eidgenossen. Book i. ch. 12, p. 287: 
after Notker, De Interpretat. S.S. ad Salomonem in Pez, Thes. Anecd. T. i. 
(From the stand. -point of fitness for use, Ulfilas, it is well known, had omitted 
the Book of Kings, as being too warlike for his Goths.) 


cordingly Heefert (from the Roman Catholic point ot view) calls the principle held 
; about Scripture, the Alpha and Omega of his error! 


§ 161 ΤΝΒΡΙΒΑΤΊΟΝ. 425 


$ 161. 
INSPIRATION. 


Generally speaking, the views hitherto entertained respecting in- 
spiration continued to prevail in the church,' so that the assertion 
of Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, that the sacred penmen had not 
always adhered to the rules of grammar, called forth decided oppo- 
sition on the part of Fredegis, abbot of Tours, against which, how- 
ever, Agobard defended himself with sound mother wit.” Huthymius 
Zigabenus met with less opposition on the part of the Greek 
church, though he did not hesitate to speak openly about the dis- 
crepancies between the different evangelists.* The scholastic divines 
endeavored to define more precisely the idea of inspiration,‘ while 
the mystics confounded more or less the idea of the inspiration of 
Holy Writ with that of divine illumination in general.’ On the 
whole, it is undoubtedly true, that the present period with its 
imaginative tendencies continued to believe in the power of Divine 
inspiration (even beyond the Canon of the Bible), and was far from 
restricting for all times the fullness of the manifestations of the 
divine Spirit within the limits of a single book, however strictly its 
divine origin might be maintained.° 


* Johannes Damascenus De Fide Orth. iv. ὁ. 17 (Opp. i. p. 282): Διὰ 
πνεῦματος τοίνυν ἁγίου 6 TE νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται, εὐαγγελίισται Kal 
ἀπόστολοι καὶ ποιμένες ἐλάλησαν καὶ διδάσκαλοι. Πᾶσα τοίνυν γραφὴ 
θεόπνευστος πάντος καὶ ὠφέλιμος κ. τ. A. (2 Tim. iii. 16). 

* Agobard ad Fredegisium Abbatem (Opp. Par. p. 157, ss.) Abbot Fre- 
degis would extend infallibility even to translators and commentators. Con- 
cerning the sacred penmen themselves, Fredegis asserted : Turpe est credere 
Spir. Sanctum, qui omnium gentium linguas mentibus Apostolorum infudit, 
rusticitatem potius per eos, quam nobilitatem uniuscujusque lingue locutum 
esse ; hence he further maintained: Ut non solum sensum preedicationis et 
modos vel argumenta dictionum Spir. S. eis inspiraverit, sed etiam ipsa cor- 
poralia verba extrinsecus in ora illorum ipse formaverit. Agobard replied 
as follows: Quod si ita sentitis, quanta absurditas sequetur, quis dinumerare 
poterit?...... Restat ergo, ut, sieut ministerio angelico vox articulata formata 
est in ore asinz, ita dicatis formari in ore Prophetarum, et tunc talis etiam 
absurditas sequetur, ut, si tali modo verba et voces verborum acceperunt, sen- 
sum ignorarent; sed absit ¢alia deliramenta cogitare. He quotes several 
instances from Scripture relative to differences in style, and of confessions on 
the part of writers themselves, 6. g., Exod. iv. and 1 Cor. ii—Laus divine 
sapienti (he continues) in sacris mysteriis et in doctrina spiritus invenitur, 
non in inventionibus verborum...... Vos sic laudatis, ut laude vestra magis 
minoretur, quam augeatur (divina majestas), quoniam in his, que extrinsecus 
sunt, dieitis nobilitatem linguaruin iministrasse Apostolis Spiritum Sanctum, 


426 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


ut confuse et indifferenter cum Apostolis omnes interpretes et quoscunque 
expositores laudetis et defendatis. ‘“ Wear as Agobard was to drawing a pre- 
cise distinction between the divine and that which is specifically human in 
the idea of inspiration,’ yet he was far from “ fully developing it.” Nean- 
der, Church History, iii. p. 388. (Thus Agobard supposed, p. 168, that the 
sacred penmen could have written better if they would have done so, but 
that they accommodated themselves to human infirmities). On the other 
hand, it can not be inferred from the assertion of Fredegis, that he would 
have reason entirely subject to authority. He thought that reason was 
confirmed and protected by the authority of the Bible. Comp. Ritter, vii. 
p. 189, and the passage there cited, De Nihilo, p. 403. 

° Comment. in Evang. Matth. ce. xii. 8 (T. i. p. 465, ed. Matthie). Comp. 
Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxviii. p. 310. That one evangelist sometimes re- 
lates what is omitted by another, ete., he simply attributes to the circum- 
stance that they did not exactly recollect all the events of the life of Christ, 
because it was not till a considerable space of time had elapsed that they 
composed their narratives. 

* “ However much the scholastic divines have done in the development of 
the other fundamental ideas which determine the sphere of revelation, and 
however much we owe to them, especially as regards precise definition of the 
objective idea of a miracle, yet their definitions concerning this point (the doc- 
trine of inspiration) are very scanty. This point was assumed as an ἀρχὴ 
πρώτη which needed no further proof, inasmuch as the whole Christian church 
moved in this element.” Rudelbach, die Lehre von der Inspiration der heili- 
gen Schrift (comp. $ 32), p. 48, 49. We find, however, more precise defini- 
tions in the writings of the principal scholastic divines, Thomas Aquinas, and 
Duns Scotus.* The former treats of the subject in question in his Summa 
Theolog. Pars. i: qu. 1, art. 9, 10; the latter in his Prol. Sententt. qu. 2, 
quoted by Mimscher, ed. by von Cölln, 1. e. p. 103-5; Gieseler, p. 480. 

° On this point, too, the opinions were different. The more considerate 
mystics, such as the disciples of the school of St. Victor, adhered closely to 
the Sacred Scriptures, and ascribed inspiration to them in a special sense. 
Comp. Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor, p. 128, ss. (where little is said respect- 
ing the idea of inspiration itself, but the inspiration of the Scripture is 
everywhere presupposed). Hugo supposed that in some instances the sacred 
penman had drawn from their own resources, 6. g., the author of Ecclesiastes, 
see Liebner p. 160; but in other places he distinguished between the di- 
vine and that which is peculiarly human. Thus he observed concerning 
Obadiah, that he combined profound ideas with a plain style, and was sparing 
in words, but rich in thoughts, ibid. p. 163.—Savonarola, whose opinions 
were allied to those of the mystics, also believed that the Sacred Scriptures 
are, strictly speaking, inspired by God; but he proceeded on the principle 
(as Clement of Alexandria and Chrysostom had done before him, comp. 


* Similar definitions were set forth concerning the prophets of the Old Test. by tha 
rabbins of the middle ages, Moses Maimonides and others; see Zrudelbach, 1. c. p. 50, ss. 
And how much attention some of the schoolmen must have given to the subject in ques- 
tion, may be seen from the circumstance that Anselm spent whole nights in meditating on 
it; see Mohler, 1. c. p. 52. 


§ 161. Insprration, 427 


§ 32, note 8, $ 119, note 4), that the gospels were originally written not so 
much on tables of stone, or sheets of paper, as upon hearts of flesh by means 
of the finger and power of the Holy Ghost. He admitted at the same time 
the limitation, that God did not use the sacred writers as instruments which 
have no will of their own, but suffered women to talk as women, and shep- 
herds as shepherds, etc.; see Rudelbach, Savonarola, p. 335, 36. Savonarola, 
however, did not limit inspiration to the Sacred Scriptures, inasmuch as it is 
well known that he ascribed prophetic gifts to himself, though without mak- 
ing any boast of them. Concerning this prophetic gift, as well as that 
claimed by Joachim aud Brigitta, see Rudelbach, 1. ce. p. 297, ss.; the views 
of Savonarola himself on this subject are given ibid. p. 303 (they are taken 
from the Compendium Revelationum).—The fanatic mystics, on the contrary, 
maintained, in opposition to Scripture, that those filled with the Holy Spirit 
are above the law (see Mosheim, de Beguinis, p. 216); or openly taught: 
multa in Evangeliis esse poética quae non sunt vera, sicut est illud: Venite, 
benedicti, etc. Item, quod magis homines debent credere humanis concep- 
tibus, qui procedunt ex corde, quam doctrine evangelice. Item, aliquos ex 
eis posse meliores libros reparare omnibus libris catholicee fidei, etc. (quoted 
by Mosheim, |. c. p. 258)—Comp. ὃ 159. 

° Thomas Aquinas says, P. I. Qu. xii. art. 13 (the passage refers, properly 
speaking, to the visions recorded in Scripture, but admits of a more general 
application) : Lumen naturale intellectus confortatur per infusionem luminis 
gratuiti et interdum etiam phantasmata in imaginatione hominis formantur 
divinitus, magis exprimentia res divinas, quam ea, que naturaliter a sensi- 
bilibus accipimus. “ Such an extraordinary and direct inspiration was for- 
merly ascribed to Thomas, Scotus, and other theologians, when the accounts of 
frequent appearances and visits on the part of God, as well as other blessed 
and holy beings, were generally believed ;” Semler, Introduction to Baum- 
garten, i. p. 63.—It was held by the mystics, that higher divine inspiration 
was still vouchsafed to the pious. Gerson, Consid. X. : Intelligentia simplex 
est vis anime cognitiva, suscipiens immediate a Deo naturalem quandam 
lucem, in qua et per quam principia prima cognoscuntur esse vera et certis- 
sima terminis apprehensis (quoted by Ziebner, Hugo von St. Victor, p. 340, 
where further details are given respecting the mystical doctrine of revela- 
tion as held by Hugo and Richard of St. Victor). The reader may compare 
with this opinion the views of Tauler (Predigten, i. p. 124), who made a 
distinction between active and passive reason. The latter must fructify the 
former; but it receives its own revelations from God. In accordance with 
earlier notions, inspiration was extended even to worldly subjects, e. g., to 
poetry. Thus it is said, in the biography of St. Elizabeth, concerning the 
singers on the Wartburg: “they contended against each other with songs, 
and enriched their songs with pretty mysteries which they borrowed from 
Holy Writ, without being very learned: for God had revealed it to them ;” 
see Koberstein, über das Gedicht vom Wartburgkriege. Naumburg, 1823, 4. 
Append. p. 65. Comp. also Konrad von Würzburg’s Trojanerkrieg, in 
Wackernagels Lesebuch, i. col. 706. 


\ 


428 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


§ 162. 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE—THE READING OF THE BIBLE. 


[ Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 163-192.] 


A sound interpretation, resting on a grammatico-historical basis, 
was scarcely known, in consequence of the neglect of philological 
studies, and it was not until the close of this period that light 
began to dawn. Scripture was interpreted, either in close ac- 
cordance with the dicta of ecclesiastical tradition; or in an ar- 
bitrary and allegorical manner, to uphold a subtile scholasticism, 
or a refined mysticism.’ John Scotus Erigena taught an infinite 
sense of Scripture,’ others, with Origen, a threefold, or, with Augus- 
tine, a fourfold sense of Scripture, while some even went so far as 
to speak of a sevenfold or eightfold sense” Practical rules of inter- 
pretation, however, were not altogether overlooked.* The rulers of 
the church endeavored (from fear of heresy) to restrict the perusal 
of the Bible on the part of the people,’ while private individuals 
were anxious to recommend it.‘ Sound scriptural views and bibli- 
cal interpretation are found in the writings of John Wessel, “the 
characteristic feature of whose theology is a biblical tendency.’” 


* See Liebner, Hugo of St. Victor, p. 132,133 : “ They [the commentators 
of the present period] either remained satisfied with collecting the interpre- 
tations of the Fathers according to the popular notion of a threefold sense of 
Scripture ; or they pursued an independent course of exegesis, so as to 
dispense with all investigations of a philosophical and antiquarian character, 
Further developing the said notion of a threefold sense, and indulging freely 
in those speculations to which a right or wrong apprehension of the Latin 
version of the Sacred Scriptures would accidentally give rise. The former 
method was almost exclusively adopted till the eleventh century. But it being 
found to be unsatisfactory, when from the middle of that century a new 
spiritual life began to manifest itself, and both mysticism and scholasticism 
were flourishing, the other method was resorted to. This new kind of mystico- 
dialectic exegesis...... seems to have been principally developed, though not 
Jirst introduced, and brought into general use by Rupert of Duytz (he died 
A. D.1135). A wide and fertile field was thus opened for mystical and sub- 
tile investigations. Both the mystics and scholastics, though each in their 
own way, now brought all their contemplations and speculations into Scrip- 
ture, and carried this often so far as to leave scarcely any traces of the simple 
meaning of holy writ.” 

* De Div. Nat. iii. 24, p. 132, [134]: Infinitus conditor Sacre Scripture 
in mentibus prophetarum, Spiritus Sanctus, infinitos in ea constituit intel- 
lectus, ideoque nullius expositoris sensus sensum alterius aufert, dummodo 
sane fidei catholiceeque professioni conveniat, quod quisque dicat, sive aliunde 


§ 162. Reapine or THE BIBLE. 429 


accipiens, sive a se ipso illuminatus, tamen a Deo inveniens. Comp. iii. 26, 
iv. 5, p. 164. He compares the Sacred Scriptures to a peacock’s feather, 
the smallest particle of which glitters in various colors. Comp. Ritter, 
vii. p. 213. How anxious he was to penetrate the hidden meaning of 
Scripture, may be seen from the following passage, v. 37, p. 307: O Domine 
Jesu, nullum aliud premium, nullam aliam beatitudinem, nullum aliud 
gaudium a te postulo, nisi ut ad purum absque ullo errore fallacis theorize 
verba tua, quee per tuum Sanctum Spiritum inspirata sunt, intelligam. 

* Thus Paschasius Radbert taught a threefold sense of Scripture, viz., 
1. The literal (historical) sense; 2. the spiritual and mystical (that which 
refers to the church) ; and, 3. The moral (relative to the soul of every indi- 
vidual Christian). Rabanus Maurus spoke of a fourfold sense: 1. History ; 
2. Allegory; 3. Tropology; 4. Anagogy. [Davidson, 1. e. p. 165, 66.] 
Hugo of St. Victor (see Liebner, 1. c. p. 133, ss.) and Savonarola (see 
Rudelbach, p. 342), did the same. [Davidson, |. e. p. 173: History relates 
what is done; allegory teaches what is to be understood; anagogy what is 
to be sought; tropology what is to be done.] Angelom, a monk at Luxeuil 
held to a sevenfold sense: 1. The historical; 2. The allegorical; 3. The 
intermediate sense which lies between the two preceding ones (?) ; 
4. The tropical (that referring to the Trinity) ; 5. The parabolical: 6. That 
sense which has regard to the two natures of Christ; and, 7. The moral: 
see Pez, Thesaurus, Tom. i. and Schmid, Mysticismus des Mittelalters, p. 76. 
Concerning the eightfold sense, see Warrier on Odonis Cluniacensis Moralia 
in Iobum (Bibl. Max. Patr. T. xvii. p.315): 1. Sensus literalis vel historicus ; 
2. Allegoricus vel parabolicus ; 3. Tropologicus vel etymologicus; 4. Ana- 
gogicus vel analogicus; 5. Typicus vel exemplaris ; 6. Anaphoricus vel pro- 
portionalis; 7, Mysticus vel apocalypticus; 8, Boarcademicus vel primordialis 
(ὁ. e., quo ipsa principia rerum comparantur cum beatitudine eterna et tota 
dispensatione salutis, veluti loguendo de regno Dei, quod omnia sint ad Deum 
ipsum, unde manarunt, reditura). The threefold sense of Scripture was it- 
self mystically interpreted, ὁ. g., by St. Bernard (Sermo 92, De diversis). 
The bridegroom conducts the bride, 1. Into the garden : the historical sense ; 
2. Into the different cellars for spices, fruit, and wine: the moral sense; 
3. Into the cubiculum: the mystical sense. And Hildebert of Mans com- 
pared the fourfold sense of Scripture to the four legs of the table of the Lord 
(Sermo ii. in Fest. Assumtionis Marie). See Lentz, Geschichte der Hom- 
iletik, i: p. 275. 

* Thus Hugo of St. Victor cautioned against indulging in allegorical in- 
terpretation, and asserted the equally great importance of literal interpreta- 
tion; Preenott. c. 5, quoted by Liebner, p. 142. [Cum igitur mystica intelli- 
gentia nonnisi ex his, que primo loco litera proponit, colligatur: minor qua 
fronte quidam allegoriarum se doctores jactitent, qui ipsam adhue primam 
litere significationem ignorant. Nos, inquiunt, scripturam legimus sed non 
legimus literam. Non curamus de litera, sed allegoriam docemus. Quomodo 
ergo scripturam legitis, et literam non legitis? Si enim litera tollitur, scrip- 
tura quid est ?”—* Noli itaque de intelligentia scripturarum gloriari, quamdiu 
literam ignoras.”—“ Noli igitur in verbo dei despicere humilitatem, quia per 
humilitatem illuminaris ad divinitatem. Quasi lutum tibi videtur totum 


430 Tarrp Preriop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


hoc; et ideo fortasse pedibus conculeas. Sed audi: luto isto ewei oculi ad 
videndum illuminantur.”] But his own expositions are sometimes fanciful 
and trifling, as may be seen from the example given by Ziebner, p. 153. 
[Opp. T. i. fol. 161, col. 4, ad Obadiah, vers. 18: In the house of Jacob the 
fire of human repentance burns, in the house of Joseph the flame of wis- 
dom shines, in the house of Esau all is full of the stubble of malice. But 
conscience (by which he means Jacob) consumes the stubble of vice, destroys 
the hay of crime, burns to ashes the wood of sin, and now the wholesome 
fire of repentance is burning which expels the malice of Esau, and destroys 
the pernicious cares of the world, After this the flame of heavenly love is 
kindled in the soul, the sun of righteousness shines into it, it turns to its 
bridegroom in the uninterrupted desire of love, and fixes the spiritual eyes 
of the purest heart upon his beauty; it (the soul) is animated (Zit. kindled) 
by the increase of virtues, the conflict of heavenly affections, the longing 
after heavenly embraces, the hope pf coming into contact with the divine, 
the sweet smell of kisses, and the thirst caused by transcendent desires, and 
the flame of divine wisdom (Joseph) shines in it. But this state produces 
the fruits of innocence, the jewels of grace, and the flowers of glorious 
works by which the inordinate will, viz., Esau, is consumed, and the tempta- 
tions of vanity are resisted.] Zhomas Aquinas laid down the following princi- 
ple (Summa, P. i. Qu. 102, art. 1): In omnibus, que S. Scriptura tradit, pro 
fundamento tenenda veritas historica et desuper spirituales expositiones 
fabricandee.—According to Savonarola the first condition of a productive 
system of interpretation is to be filled with the same spirit in which the 
sacred books are written, 7. e., the spirit of faith, etc. See Audelbach, p. 
339, ss. 

5 This restriction was first imposed in the Greek church, in the 9th cen- 
tury, in the conflict with the Paulicians: comp. Petri Sieuli (a. Ὁ. 870), 
Historia Manschorum, and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 484. To this came 
afterwards in the West the prohibition of Pope Innocent II. (A. p. 1199), 
of the Concil. Tolosanum (A. p. 1229), Canon the 14th: Prohibemus etiam 
ne libros Veteris Test. aut Novi laici permittantur habere: nisi forte Psal- 
terium, vel Breviarium pro divinis officiis, aut horas B. Marie aliquis ex 
devotione habere velit. Sed ne praemissos libros habeant in vulgari trans- 
latos, auctissime inhibemus. Conc. Tarragonense (A. dD. 1234), Can. 2: 
Item statuimus ne aliquis libros Veteris vel Novi Test. in Romania habeat. 
Et si aliquis habeat, infra octo dies post publicationem hujusmodi constitu- 
tionis a tempore sententiz tradat eos loci Episcopo comburendos : quod nisi 
fecerit, sive clericus fuerit, sive laicus, tanquam suspectus de heresi, quousque 
se pergaverit, habeatur. Then came the prohibitions of the council of 
Béziers, 1223 and 1246 (against the Waldenses), and that of Oxford 
(1408, against Wycliffe’s version of the Bible). Comp. @ottfr. Hegelmaier, 
Geschichte das Bibelverbots, Ulm., 1783. | @üeseler, Church Hist., 11, 578.] 
See also the works of Ussher, Wharton, and Onymus, which are referred to 
by Münscher von Cölln, 11. 109. 

° Thus John Damascenus, iv. 17, recommended the perusal of the Sacred 
Scripture, though in a rather fanciful manner, He called it τὸν κάλ- 
Auorov παράδεισον, τὸν εὐώδη, τὸν γλυκύτατον, TOY ὡραιότατον, τὸν παν- 


§ 162. ReADınG OF THE BIBLE. 431 


τοίοις τῶν νοερῶν θεοφόρων ὀρνέων κελαδήμασι περίηχοῦντα ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα 
κ. τ. A.—Anselm also strongly recommended the perusal of the Bible in his 
Tractacus Asceticus, quoted by Möhler, 1. c. p. 62. Bonaventura (Prin- 
cipium in libros sacros) did the same. Comp. Zentz, Geschichte der Hom- 
iletik, i. p. 290. Concerning the Biblia Pauperum of Bonaventura, see ibid. 
1. ec. Respecting the effects produced by the perusal of the Scriptures upon 
the Waldenses, see the account given by Hainerius in the thirteenth century, 
in the Bibl. Patr. Lugd. T. xxv., quoted by Meander, kleine Gelegenheits- 
schriften, p. 162; concerning the efforts of the Brethren of the Common 
Life for the spread of biblical knowledge among the people, see Neander, 
l. c. p. 182, note.—@erhard Zerbolt, a priest, who was a member of the 
association of pious Christians at Deventer, composed a treatise : De Utili- 
tate Lectionis sacrarum Litterarum in Lingua vulgari: see Jacobi Revit Daven- 
tria Illustrata, p. 41. Extracts from it are given by Meander, ].c. [This 
work contains full citations from the church fathers; it is given in fall in 
Schöpff’s Aurora, Tom. v., 1860. For Hugo St. Victor’s view of the Scrip- 
tures, see ibid, Tom. iv.] 
" Ullmann, Johann Wessel, p. 190, ss. 


SECOND DIVISION. 


THEOLOGY. 
(INCLUDING COSMOLOGY, ANGELOLOGY, DEMONOLOGY ETC.) 
§ 163. 


THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 


Eberstein, Natürliche Theologie der Scholastiker, Leipz.,*1803. - Billroth, De Anselmi 
Cant. Proslogio et Monologio, Lips., 1832. Fricke, Argumenta pro Dei Existentia 
exponuntur et judicantur, Lips., 1846. *F. Fischer, Der ontologische Beweis fur das 
Daseyn Gottes und seine Geschichte, Basel, 1852, 4vo. [Anselm’s Proslogion, by 
Maginnis, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. viii.] 


The proofs of the existence of God have their proper origin in the 
scholastic philosophy. That which was formerly but the semblance 
of an argument, now appeared in the form of a philosophical de- 
monstration. Thus the cosmological proof of Diodorus of Tarsus 
was fully developed by John Damascenus.‘ Anselm’ followed the 
footsteps of Augustine and Boöthius (see $ 123), and endeavored 
from the idea of God, as a datum, to prove his existence. This was 
the so-called ontological proof, which, however, did not at once ob- 
tain the assent of Anselm’s contemporaries. Gaunilo, amonk, from 
the stand-point of an empirical philosophy, raised objections of an 
ingenious nature to the proof of Anselm, which were as ingeniously 
refuted by the latter... The fate which this mode of proof encoun- 
tered was various.‘ While Hugo of St. Victor endeavored to prove 
the existence of God in a different way, viz., from contingency,° the 
theologians of the thirteenth century in general, and Thomas Aquinas 
and Duns Scotus in particular, returned to the argument of Anselm, 
though they modified it in various ways. Raimund of Sabunde 
propounded what is called the moral proof, according to which the 
existence of an eternal author of reward and punishment is inferred 
from the moral’ freedom and accountability of rational creatures." 
The historical proof is found in Savonarola,* and others, who en- 
deavored to demonstrate the existence of God from the consensus 
gentium.—There were, however, those who showed the insufficiency 
of these arguments, or at least abstained from the use of all proofs 
of such a nature, and simply appealed to the direct revelation of God 
in the heart of man. John Duns Scotus’ and William Occam” 


§ 163. Tue ExistENcE oF Gop. 433 


belonged to the former ; John Wessel,” and especially the mystics, 
belonged to the latter class of theologians.” 


* De Fide Orthod. i. 3. John Damascenus proceeds from the principle : 
Ἢ γνῶσις τοῦ εἷναι θεὸν φυσικῶς ἡμῖν Eykar&orapraı—but this conscious- 
ness of God was impaired by sin. God restored it by his revelation which 
was accompanied by miracles. The feeble attempts at proof now take the 
place of miracles. He enumerates the following proofs: 1. The proof ex 
rerum mutabilitate (the cosmological) ; 2. The proof ex earum conversatione 
et gubernatione, and 3. Ex rerum ordinato situ (the last two may be com- 
prehended under the designation, physico-theological proof). As for the 
first, he argues as follows: IIavra ta ὄντα ἢ κτιστά ἐστιν, ἢ dktıora' el 
μὲν οὖν κτιστὰ, πάντως καὶ τρεπτά: ὧν γὰρ τὸ εἷναι ἀπὸ τροπῆς ἤρξωτο, 
ταῦτα τῇ τροπῇ ὑποκείσεται πάντως, ἢ φθειρόμενα, ἢ κατὰ προαίρεσιν 
ἀλλοιούμενα: εἰ δὲ ἄκτιστα, κατὰ τὸν τὴς ἀκολουθίας λόγον, πάντως καὶ 
ἄτρεπτα' ὧν γὰρ τὸ εἷναι ἐναντίον, τούτων καὶ ὁ τοῦ πῶς εἷναι λόγος 
ἐναντίος, ἤγουν αἱ ἰδιότητες. Tic οὖν οὐ συνθήσεται, πάντα τὰ ὄντα, boa 
ὑπὸ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἀγγέλους τρέπεσθαι καὶ ἀλλοι- 
οὔσθαι καὶ πολυτρόπως κινεῖσθαι :.......--Τρεπτὰ τοίνυν ὄντα, πάντως 
καὶ KTLOTd' κτιστὰ δὲ ὄντα, πάντως ὑπό τινος ἐδημιουργήθησαν" δεῖ δὲ τὸν 
δημιουργὸν ἄκτιστον εἷναι. Ei γὰρ κἀκεῖνος ἐκτίσθη, πάντος ὑπό τινος 
ἐκτίσθη, ἕως av ἔλθωμεν εἴς τι ἄκτιστον. "Λλκτιστος οὗν 6 δημιουργὺς, 
πάντως καὶ ἄτρεπτός ἐστι. Tovro δὲ τί ἂν ἄλλο εἴη, ἢ θεός. Comp the 
method adopted by Diodorus of Tarsus, $ 123, note 3. In the physico- 
theological proof (2 and 3) he followed the earlier theologians, especially 
Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzum. 

* The name ontological, was given only in later times (by Kaut?): see 
Fischer, in the work above referred to, p. 12. We can here give only the 
heads of the argument, the thread of reasoning must be seen from the con- 
nection. Monol. i.: Cum tam innumerabilia bona sint, quorum tam multam 
diversitatem et sensibus corporeis experimur et ratione mentis discernimus, 
estne credendum esse unum aliquid, per quod unum sunt bona, queecunque 
bona sunt, aut sunt bona alia peraliud ?......IlI. Denique non solum omnia 
bona per idem aliquid sunt bona et omnia magna per idem aliquid sunt 
magna, sed quiequid est, per wnwm aliquid videtur esse......Quoniam ergo 
cuncta que sunt, sunt per ipsum unum: procul dubio et ipsum unum est per 
se ipsum. Quecunque igitur alia sunt, sunt per aliud, et ipsum solum per se 
ipsum. Ac quicquid est per aliud, minus est quam illud, per quod cuncta 
sunt alia et quod solum est per se: quare illud, quod est per se, maxime om- 
nium est. Est igitur unum aliquid, quod solum maxime et summe omnium 
est; quod autem maxime omnium est et per quod est quiequid est bonum 
vel magnum, et omnino quicquid est aliquid est, id necesse est esse summe 
bonum et summe magnum et summum omnium que sunt. Quare est aliquid, 
quod sive essentia, sive substantia, sive natura dicatur, optimum et maximum 
est et summum omnium que sunt. Comp. Augustine and Boéthius in § 128, 
note 4. The mode of argument which is found, Proslog. e. ii. is more origi- 
inal (he there proceeds from the reality of the idea): The fool may say in 
his heart, there is no God (Ps. xiv. 1), but he thereby shows himself a fool, 

28 


434 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


because he asserts something which is contradictory in itself. He has the 
idea of God in him, but denies its reality. But if God is given in idea, he 
must also exist in reality. Otherwise the real God, whose existence is con- 
ceivable, would be superior to the one who exists only in imagination, and 
consequently would be superior to the highest conceivable object, which is 
absurd; hence it follows, that that beyond which nothing can be conceived 
to exist, really exists (thus idea and reality coincide). _ Convincitur ergo in- 
sipiens, esse vel in intellectu aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari potest; quia 
hoc cum audit, intelligit, et quicquid intelligitur, in intellectu est. Et certe 
id, quo majus cogitari nequit, non potest esse in intellectu solo. Si enim vel 
in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re, quod majus est. Si ergo id, 
qua majus cogitari non potest, est in solo intellectu: id ipsum, quo majus 
cogitari non potest, est quo majus cogitari potest : sed certe hoc esse non potest, 
Existit ergo procul dubio aliquid, quo majus cogitari non valet, et in intel- 
lectu et in re. Tf, therefore, the fool says: There is no God; he says it in- 
deed, and may, perhaps, even think it. But there is a difference between 
thought and thought. To conceive a thing when the word is without mean- 
ing, e. g., that fire is water (a mere sound, an absurdity !) is very different 
from the case in which the thought corresponds with the word. It is only 
according to the former mode of thinking (which destroys the thought it- 
self), that the fool can say: There is no God, but not according to the latter. 
[Baur or Anselm’s argument, Dogmengesch. 245 : The major premise must 
be this—All that—quo majus cogitari non potest, is both an—esse in intel- 
lectu, and an—esse in re. But this is not a universally valid proposition : 
there is only one being to whom it applies. Consequently in the minor 
premise there is no logical subsumption. The syllogism is consequently 
false; we can not draw an inference; and yet, there is that—quo majus 
cogitari non potest: it is therefore in and of itself that (viz. real being), the 
reality of which the syllogism tries to prove it to be.| 

® Gaunilo was a monk in the monastery of Marmoutier. He wrote: Liber 
pro Insipiente adv. Anselmi in Proslogio Ratiocinationem (in Anselmi Opp. 
p- 32, Gerb. p. δὅ8). The idea of a thing does not necessarily imply its 
reality ; there are many false ideas. Yea, it is very questionable whether 
we can have any thought of God at all, since he is above all thought..... : 
If one, in speaking of an island which he asserted to be more perfect and 
lovely than all known islands, should infer its existence from this, that it 
could not be most perfect if it did not exist, we should hardly know which 
was the greater fool, the man who made such an argument, or the one who 
gave his assent to it. The opposite method is to be adopted; we must first 
prove the existence of the island, and may then show that its excellence sur- 
passes that of all others, ete. (comp. Münscher, von Cölln, ii. p. 33, 34. “ Lt 
is easy to see that Gaunilo argues against Anselm from the empirical, and 
consequently an essentially different point of view,” Mohler, ubi supra, p. 152. 
—Anselm defended himself against Guanilo in his treatise: Liber Apolo 





* Anselm was probably unacquainted with the author of the treatise in question. It 
is quoted as the work incerti auctoris in the earlier editions of Anselm’s works. Comp 
Gerberon, T. i. p. ii. 


$ 163. Tue Existence oF Gop. 435 


geticus contra Gaunilonem respondentem pro insipiente (it is also called 
Contra Insipientem, Opp. p. 34, Gerberon, p. 37). He returns to the above 
distinction between thought and thought, and rejects the illustration taken 
from the island as altogether inappropriate. He observes, that if Gaunilo 
could really imagine an island more perfect than could ever be conceived, 
he would make him a present of it. “ With Anselm the idea of the most 
perfect being was a necessary rational idea, between which, and the arbitrary 
and imaginary notion of a most excellent island, no parallel could be drawn.” 
Mohler, p. 153. Comp. Hegel, Encyclopedie der philosophischen Wissen- 
schaften, 2d edit. 1827, p. 61, ss. p. 181: “ Anselm was right in declaring 
that only that can be perfect which exists not merely subjectively, but also ob- 
jectively. In vain we affect to despise this proof, commonly called the on- 
tological, and this idea of the perfect set forth by Anselm ; it is inherent in 
the mind of every unprejudiced man, and re-appears in every system of phil- 
osophy, even against knowledge and will, as well as in the principle of direct 
faith.” On the question whether the proof of Anselm can be properly 
called a proof, see Mohler, |. c. p. 154. Respecting the entire controversy 
comp. Zieyler, W. C. L., Beitrag zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Gott. 
Gött. 1792, 8. Baur, Trinitätsl. ii. 372, seq. Fischer, ubi supra. Hasse’s 
Anselem, 11. 233, seq. 

* The theory of Anselm “has had a great history. It was not only ap- 
plied in different ways, and further developed by eminent writers, but, up to 
the present day, it has been either opposed or defended, according to the re- 
spective character of every philosophical school.” Mohler, p. 150. 

° “ Hugo did not perceive the depth of Anselm’s idea, being deceived by 
the superficial, dialectic reasoning af Gaunilo ;” Liebner, Hugo Von St. 
Victor, p. 369. The argument from contingency which Peter of Poitiers 
afterwards adopted, is given in Hugo’s treatises, De Sacramentis c. 7-9, De 
tribus Dieb. ὁ. 17, quoted by Ziebner, p. 369, 370. It is as follows: Reason 
which, as the creature and image of God, is able to know him, is essen- 
tially distinguished from the body in which it dwells, and from all that 
is sensuous, being that which is invisible and spiritual. But it is aware that 
it has not always been either active or conscious of itself, and that therefore 
there was a time when it did not exist: for it is impossible to conceive of a 
faculty of knowledge without knowledge and consciousness. It must there- 
fore have had a beginning. Possessing a spiritual nature, it cannot possibly 
have derived its origin from the sensuous, but must necessarily have been 
created out of nothing; hence it follows that it owes its existence to an ex- 
ternal author. But this author himself can noc have been created, for all 
that is created can not give existence to another being—otherwise we have 
the infinite series. We must therefore assume the existence of a self- 
existent and eternal being, as the first cause. (This proof occupies, as it 
were, an intermediate position between the cosmological and the ontological, 
The cosmological proof has the world for its foundation, the ontological the 
idea, and the argument of Hugo rests on the basis of the spirit.) Hugo 
also made use of the cosmological and physico-theological proof, which was 
at that time the most popular. Nor did even Peter Lombard make use of 


436 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


the proof of Anselm ; Sententt. 1. dist. 3. comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, 
ii. p. 34. 

* Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. P. I. qu. 2, art. i. urges against the 
absolute stringency of Anselm’s proof: Dato etiam, quod quilibet intelligat 
hoc nomine “Deus” significari hoc quod dicitur, scilicet illud, quo majus 
cogitari non potest: non tamen propter hoc sequitur, quod intelligat id, quod 
significatur per nomen esse, in rerum natura, sed in apprehensione intellectus 
tantum. Nec potest argui, quod sit in re, nisi daretur, quod sit in re aliquid, 
quo majus cogitari non potest: quod non est datum a ponentibus Deum non 
esse. The argument of Thomas himself (Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 35, 
Schröckh, xxix. p. 77), amounts to this, that the proposition : “ God exists,” 
may be regarded as evident, if considered in itself (quantum in se est), since 
the predicate is identical with the subjeet; but it is not so in relation to us. 
Thomas connected the various modes of argumentation with each other on 
the principle previously adopted by Richard of St. Victor, De Trin. i. c. 6, 
ss. (comp. Hngelhardt, Richard von St. Victor, p. 99, ss. | Münscher, 1. c. p. 
35]). He enumerated five different kinds of proof: 1, That derived from 
the first moving principle (primum movens), which is not itself moved by 
any other; 2. That derived from the first great cause (causa efficiens) ; 
3. That derived from what is necessary by itself (per se necessarium, these 
first three form together the cosmological proof in its dialectic form) ; 
4, That derived from the gradation of things (or the argument from the 
imperfect to the absolutely perfect; Augustine and Anselm had propounded 
the same proof) ; 5. That derived from the adaptation of things (the physico- 
theological, or teleological proof). See Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. 581, seq. 
Duns Scotus seeks to give more color (colorari) to the argument of Anselm 
by different modifications and applications’; see his De Primo Rerum Prine. 
cap. 4, and comp. Fischer, ubi supra, p. 7. Besides this he appeals to the 
proofs from experience ; see Münscher, von Cölln’s ed. ii. 56. 

” Abelard had previously directed attention to this proof (Theol. christ. 
Lib. v. Martene, p. 1439), but not so much as a strictly cogent proof (magis 
honestis, quam necessariis rationibus nitimur) ; ratheras the voice of conscience. 
Quam honestum vero sit ac salubre, omnia ad unum optimum tam rectorem 
quam conditorem spectare et cuncta potius ratione quam casu fieri seu regi, 
nullus est, cul propriz ratio non suggerat conscientie. Quz enim solicitudo 
bonorum nobis operum inesset, si, quem nec amore nec timore vereremur, 
Deum penitus ignoraremus? Que spes aut malitiam refreuaret potentum, 
aut ad bona eos alliceret opera, si Omnium justissimus ac potentissimus frustra 
crederetur? Ponamus itaque, ut, dum bonis prodesse ac placere queerimus, 
obstinatos cogere non possimus, cum ora eorum non necessariis obstruamus 
argumentis. Ponamus, inquam, hoc si volunt ; sed opponamus, quod nolunt, 
summam eorum impudentiam arguentes, si hoc calumniantur, quod refellere 
nullo modo possunt, et quod plurima tam honestate quam utilitate commen- 
datur. Inquiramus eos, qua ratione malint eligere, Deum non esse, quam 
esse, et cum ad neutrum cogi necessario possint, et alterum multis commen- 
detur rationibus, alterum nullis, iniquissimam eorum confundamus impuden- 
tiam, qui id, quod optimum esse non dubitent, omnibusque est tam rationibus, 
quam auctoritatibus consentaneum, sequi respuant et contrarium complec- 


§ 163. THe ExistENcE oF Gop. 437 


tantur.—The argument as used by Raimund has more of the logical form 
of proof; see Theolog. Natur. Tit. 83 (quoted by Münscher, ed. by von 
Cölln, p. 38. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philos. viii. p. 964, ss.). Since 
man is an accountable being, but can neither reward nor punish himself, it 
follows that there must be a being superior to him, who bestows rewards 
and inflicts punishments; for if there were no such being, the life of man 
would be fruitless, a game of chance. As, moreover, the irrational creation 
is subject to man, and exists for his sake, it would follow, if there were no 
corresponding higher being above man, that creation itself was without an 
object. But now we perceive [here comes in the physico-theological, as an 
auxiliary proof] order and harmony in the whole external creation which is 
subject to man ;* how can we suppose that the order in the natural world is 
not repeated in the moral world? As the eye corresponds to things visible, 
the ear to things audible, the understanding to things comprehensible, so the 
moral actions of man must have their corresponding judgment and retribu- 
tion, and consequently a judge and retributive governor. But this judge 
must possess a perfect knowledge of human actions, and their moral charac- 
ter—that is to say, he must be omniscient; it is also evident that he must 
be just, in the highest sense of the word ; and, lastly, he must be possessed 
of unlimited power to execute his judgments, or, in other words, he must be 
almighty. But such a being can not but be the most perfect of all beings, 
i.e., God. (The similarity between this proof and that of Kant has often 
been pointed out.) 

* Comp. Triumph. Cruc. Lib, 1. c. 6, p. 38, ss., quoted in Meier’s Savon- 
arola, p. 245. 

° Sententt. 1, Dist. 2, Qu. 2, art. 1 (quoted by Münscher, ed. by von 
Cölln, p. 36. Tiedemann, Geist der speculativen Philosophie, iv. p. 632). 
An objection was especially made to the proof derived from the necessarium 
per se, inasmuch as Scotus made a distinction between the ideas of possi- 
bility and necessity. 

Ὁ Centilog. Theol. Concl. 1 (Tiedemann. |. e. v. p. 206). He opposed the 
principal argument of Aristotle derived from the πρῶτον κινοῦν. 

1) Wessel reasoned as follows: The general and most direct means by 
which man attains God, is the original knowledge of God, inherent in every 
rational spirit. As no place is so dark as not to receive some degree of 
light from a sun-beam, so no rational soul is without some sort of indwelling 
notion (notitia) of God...... (Ps. xix. 6). This knowledge, however, is not 
the same in all men, but develops itself differently im different persons accord- 
ing to their other capacities, and their whole moral and intellectual condition; 


* Raimund directs attention tothe gradation of beings. Some of them only exist (in- 
organic beings); others exist and live (plants); still others exist, live, and are susceptible of 
sensations (animals) ; and, lastly, others exist, live, feel, and think (man). In man all the earlier 
stages are repeated. Comp. Matzke, ubi supra, p. 49 [ Matzke, p. 59, cites from Tit. 63: 
Regula autem que radicatur in homine, est ista, quod Deus est quo nihil magis cogitari 
potest, vel Deus est majus quod cogitari potest. Et ideo sequitur quod Deus est quidquid 
melius cogitari potest, et quidquid melius est esse, quam non esse. Quidquid ergo potest 
honio cogitare perfectissimum, opetimum, dignissimum, nobilissimum et altissimum, hoc est 
Deus....Et in ἰδία regula fundatur tota scientia et cognitio de Deo certissime. ] 


438 THırp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


just as the universal light of the sun is differently received by different ob- 
jects according to their susceptibility, position, and distance. Wessel desig- 
nates this simple and universal knowledge of God as the name of God, which 
dwells, as it were, in every spirit, is expressed in every soul, and may, 
therefore, in every soul be brought to consciousness; De Orat. Lib. v. UU. 
mann, p. 200. 

"5 Tauler, Predigten, vol. i. p. 58: I possess a power in my soul which 
is altogether susceptible of God; I am as sure as I live, that no thing is so 
near to me as God. (od is nearer to me than I am to myself, etc. Comp. the 
following §, note 3. 


§ 164. 
THE COMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD. 


In proportion as men think they can prove the existence of God, 
will they be more or less assured that they can know his nature. 
Hence the scholastic divines made the nature of God the special 
object of their speculations. Nevertheless they expressly asserted, 
that God can not be comprehended, and admitted for the most part 
only a conditional knowledge on the part of man.’ The views of 
Occam on this subject bordered on skepticism.” The mystics, on 
the contrary, endeavored in opposition both to dogmatism as well 
as skepticism, to live a hidden life in God, and thus to obtain 
an immediate vision of God himself in his light, and of all things 
in God.” 


* John Damascenus De Fide Orthod. i. 4, had taught after the example 
of some of the earlier fathers, that God does not come under the category 
of things (οὐδὲν yap τῶν ὄντων ἐστὶν), which is equivalent to the modern 
speculative deity, 7. e, a nonentity. He is ὑπὲρ γνῶσιν πάντως καὶ ὑπὲρ 
οὐσίαν, and it is only by way of negation (δι᾽ ἀφαιρέσεως) that we acquire 
the knowledge of his attributes (comp. what Clement of Alexandria said in 
an earlier period, $ 37. note).—John Scotus Erigena, in bolder style, surpass- 
ing the limits of what is allowable to man, maintained, De Divis. Nat. ii. 
28, p. 78: that God does not know himself. Deus itaque nescit se, quid est, 
quia non est guid ; incomprehensibilis quippe in aliquo et sibi ipsi et omni 
intellectui. The whole of theology, according to him, is divided into affirm- 
ative and negative (the cataphatic and the apophatic). But affirmation and 
negation are abolished in the absolute idea of God, and what to us is con- 
tradictory is not so to kim. Comp. Baur, Trinität. ii. 276. [In Christlier’s, 
John Scotus Erigena (1860) p. 162, the passage is cited from the De Divis. 
Nat. 1.13: Theologia arodarırn divinam essentiam seu substantiam esse 
aliquid eorum, que sunt, 7. e., quee dici aut intelligi possunt, negat; altera 
vero, karadarırn, omnia quie sunt de ea predicat, et ideo affirmativa dici- 
tur, non ut confirmet aliquid esse eorum que sunt, sed omnia, que ab ea 


$ 164. THE CompREHENSIBILITY OF Gop. 439 


sunt, de ea posse preedicari suadeat. Rationabiliter enim per causativa cau- 
sale potest significari. —The more modest Anselm, on the contrary, returned 
to correct views, by confessing in his Monologue, that God alone knows 
his own nature, and that no human wisdom can so much as presume to mea- 
sure, or to comprehend the divine wisdom. For, it is certain, that what we 
ascribe to God only relatively, does not express his nature (si quid de,summa 
natura dicitur relative, non est ejus significativum substantie). Compare the 
Monolog. ce. 15-17; Hasse, ii. 129; Münscher, ed. von Cölln, p. 44, and 
Mohler, |. ec. p. 154, 55. Similar language occurs in Alanus ab Insulis De 
Art. Cathol. Fidei. 16, 17, quoted by Pez, i. p. 482.— Albertus Magnus dis- 
tinguishes between—attingero Deum intellectu, and—comprehendere. Crea- 
tures can only attain to the former. Comp. Summa Theol. i. tr. iv. qu. 18, 
membr. 3, p. 67 (in Ritter, viii. 197). Resting on this basis Thomas Aquinas 
(Summa P. i. Qu. 12, art. 12), proved that man has no coguitio quidditativa 
of God, (1. ¢., no knowledge of God per se), but only knows habitudo ipsius 
ad creaturas ; while Scotus (Sent. i. Dist. 3, Qu. i. art. 1) taught the oppo- 
site doctrine, partly with reference to the opinions of Heinrich von Gent 
(about 1280) a teacher of the Sorbonne.—The final result of the controversy 
carried on between the Thomists and Scotists on the question—de cognitione 
Dei quidditativa, was, that man has a cognitio quidditatis Dei, but not a 
cognitio quidditativa, 2. e., that he may know the nature of God (in contrast 
with a mere accidental and superficial notion), but that he can not know God 
thoroughly, ὁ. 6... in such a manner that no part of his nature is concealed 
from man).* Comp. the passages quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 
63, 64, and Hberhard, natürliche Theologie der Scolastiker, p. 52-66.— 
Darandus of St. Pourgain (in Magistri Sentent. 1, Dist. 3, Qu. i.) speaks of 
a threefold way which leads to the knowledge of God: 1. Via eminentia, 
which ascends from the excellencies of creatures to the highest excellency, 
a. e, to the perfect God. 2. Via causalitatis, which ascends from the phe- 
nomena of creation to the first cause. 3. Via remotionis, which begins with 
changeable and dependent existence, and ends with necessary and absolute 
existence (esse de se)—Alexander Hales used similar and still simpler ex- 
pressions (Summa P, i, Qu. 2, Membr. i. Art. 2): Dicendum, quod est cog- 
nitio de Deo per modum positionis et per modum privationis. Per modum 
privationis cognoscimus de Deo, quid non est, per modum positionis, quid est. 
Divina substantia in sua immensitate non est cognoscibilis ab anima rationali 
cognitione positiva, sed est cognoscibilis cognitione privativa. Comp. Müns- 
cher, ed. by von Cölln, l.c. We must say, apprehendi guidem posse Deum, 
comprehendi, nequaquam, see Schröckh, xxix. 15.—On the endeavors of 
later Greek theologians, 6. g., Nicolas of Methone (especially after the ex- 
ample of Dionysius the Areopagite), to represent the insufficiency of our 
knowledge and terminology respecting divine things, see Ullmann, 1. c. p. 








* Cajetanus Summz P. 1. Qu. 12, De Arte et Essentia c. 6, Qu. 4: Aliud est cognoscere 
quidditatem, s. cognitio quidditatis : aliud est cognitio quidditativa, 5. cognoscere quiddita- 
tive. Cognoscit nempe leonis guidditatem, quicunque novit aliquid ejus pradicatum es- 
sentiale. Cognoscit autum quidditative non nisi ille qui omnia pradicata quidditativa 
usque ad ultimam differentiam novit. The passage is given by Münscher, ed. by von 
Colln, 1. c. 


440 Tuirp Preriop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


72-74: The divine is in no wise to be ordinated and compared with all 
that exists: on the whole, it would be better to express in an exaggerated 
and exceptional manner (ὑπεροχικῶς καὶ κατεξαίρετον) all that is predicated 
of the divine, etc. 

? Occam (as well as Alexander of Hales) starts from the position that 
there is a positive and negative knowledge of God, and in accordance with 
this shapes his definitions, which, however, are different only in form. Quod- 
libet. Theol. I. Qu. 1): 6. g., “ Deus est aliquid nobilius et aliquid melius omni 
alio a se :” and then, “Deus est quo nihil est melius, prius vel perfectius.” 
The former may be used as an argument for the unity, but not for the exist- 
ence of God, inasmuch as the latter idea can not be proved by demonstra- 
tion. The second may be appealed to in support of the doctrine of the 
existence, but not of the unity of God, since it may be supposed that such 
negative perfections belong to several individuals. From this point of view 
he refutes the arguments used by the earlier scholastics, especially Duns 
Scotus. See Münscher, p.51. In the Centilog. concl. 2, he combats the 
arguments derived from this “ first cause ;’ nor does he give his assent to 
the argument derived from “the uniformity of the world.” Thus he arrives 
at the following conclusion : Conclusio, quod non sunt plures Dei, non tan- 
quam demonstrata, sed tanquam probabilior suo opposito tenenda est: eo 
quod omnes apparentie equaliter apparent, et faciliser possunt salvari tenendo 
unitatem prime cause. Comp. Sent. 1, Dist. 3, Qu. 2: Nec divina essentia, 
nec divina quidditas, nec aliquid intrinsecum Deo, nee aliquid, quod est 
realiter Deus, potest hic cognosci a nobis, ita quod nihil aliud a Deo con- 
currat in ratione objecti. Deus non potest cognosci a nobis intuitive et puris 
naturalibus. Baur, Trinitatslehre, 11. 875. 

° Thus Gerson said, (Contra vanam Curiositatem, lectio secunda, T. i. p. 100, 
quoted by Ch. Schmidt, p. 73) : Fides saluberrima et omnis metaphysica tradit 
nobis, quod Deus est simplicissimus in supremo simplicitatis gradu, supra quam 
imaginari suflieimus. Hoc dato, quid opus est ipsam unitissimam essentiam per 
formas metaphysices vel quidditates vel rationes ideales vel alias mille imagi- 
nandi vias secernere, dividere, coustituere, praescindere ex parte rei, ut dicunt, 
et non ex intellectus negotiatione circa eam? Deus sancte, quot tibi prioritates, 
quot instantia, quot signa, quot modeitates, quot rationes aliqui ultra Scotum 
condistinguunt! Jam mille codices talibus impleti sunt, adeo ut longa etas 
hominum eos vix sufliciat legere, ne dicam intelligere—Gerson’s theory of 
the knowledge of God (viz., the knowledge of God through loye) was ap- 
propriately designated, both by himself and by other theologians, as The- 
ologia affectiva (Tract. iii. super Magnificat, T. iv. p. 262)—Suso expressed 
himself as follows in his treatise: Eine Ausrichtung, wo und wie Gott ist 
(see Diepenbrock das Leben und die Schriften von Heinrich von Suso, 1837, 
p. 212, c. lv.): “ Most men assert, that the idea of space can not be applied 
to God, but that he is all in all. But now open the inner ears of your soul, 
and open them wide. The same masters maintain in the science called 
Logica, that we may obtain the knowledge of a thing by means of its name. 
Thus a certain teacher asserts, that the name being is the first name of God. 
Turn now thine eye to being in all its simplicity, excluding all notion of this 
or that particular being. Consider being in itself; look at being only as 


§ 165. Taz Nature or Gop IN GENERAL. 441 


such, and as it is unmixed with nonentity ; for all that has no existence is 
contrary to that which has existence; the case is the same with being as 
such, for it is contrary to all that has no existence. Any thing which either 
has already existed, or has yet to exist, does not now exist in essential pres- 
ence. But now mixed existence or non-existence can not be known but by 
some mark of that being which is in all. For if we wish to comprehend 
any thing, reason meets first with existence, viz., that being which has made 
all things. This is not the divided existence of this or that creature; for all 
divided existence is mixed up with something else, viz., the possibility of re- 
ceiving something. Hence it follows, that the nameless divine being must 
be in itself the being which is all in all, and must preserve all compound 
beings by its omnipresence.” Ibidem, p. 214: “Now open your inner eyes, 
and look, if possible, at the [Divine] being in all its simplicity and purity, 
and you will find that it owes its existence to none, has neither a ‘ before’ 
nor an ‘after,’ and undergoes no change either from within, or from without, 
because it is a simple being. You will then be convinced that this being is 
the most real, omnipresent, and most perfect of all beings, in which there is 
neither defect nor change, because it is a single unity in perfect simplicity. 
And this truth is so manifest to the enlightened reason of man, that it can 
not conceive of any other; for the one proves and causes the other. 
Since this is a simple being, it must necessarily be the first of all beings, 
owing its being to none, and existing from eternity ; since it is the first of all 
beings eternal and simple, it must be omnipresent. It is a necessary quality 
of highest perfection and simplicity, that nothing can either be added to, or 
taken from it. If you understand what I have said of the simple Godhead, 
you will know something of the incomprehensible light of the hidden truth 
of God. This pure, simple being is the first cause of all actual existence ; 
from its peculiar omnipresence it follows that it includes all that has come 
into existence in time, as the beginning and the end of all things. It is in 
all things, and out of all things. Therefore a certain master says: ‘ God is 
a circular ring, the centre of which is everywhere, and the periphery of which 
is nowhere.” Compare with these expressions the language of Tauler 
(δ 163, note 11), of Ruysbroek, quoted by Engelhardt, p. 173 (God per se), 
and of the author of the “deutsche Theologie,” cap. 1, where the practical 
point of view is most prominently brought forward, viz., the necessity of 
leading a godly life, in order to know God. 


§ 165, 
THE NATURE OF GOD IN GENERAL, 
(Pantheism and Theism.) 


The ingenious system of John Scotus Erigena, who, for purely 
scientific purposes, endeavored to make a dialectic mediation be- 
tween the antagonism of God and the world (nature),’ was so mis- 
understood and misused by some of his close imitators, particularly 


442 Turrp Pertop. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


Amalrich of Bena, and David of Dinanto, as to give rise to a gross 
adoration of the flesh.” It was combated by Albertus Magnus, and 
Thomas Aquinas,’ and condemned by the Council of Paris (A. Ὁ. 
1209), and the fourth Lateran Council (A. p. 1215).* The mystics 
also exposed themselves to the charge of pantheism, more or less 
justified, by asserting that nothing except God has a real existence.’ 
But the more considerate among them retained, in accordance with 
orthodox theologians, the theistic principle of a difference between 
God and his creatures, though they could not always scientifically 
prove that to which they practically adhered.° 


* In his Dialogus de Divisione Nature, Zrigena divided all nature (which 
comprehends all being) into four modes of existence: 1. Natura creans, sed 
non creata, 2. e, God; 2. Natura creans et creata, ὁ, e,the Son of God; 
3. Natura creata et non creans, 7. 6., the world; and 4. Natura non creata et 
non creans, ὃ, e,, God as the final object of all things. Inasmuch as Erigena 
regarded God as the principle and cause of all things, he arrived at the con- 
viction that the divine essence, the goodness, the power, and the wisdom, could 
not be created by another being, because there is no higher being from which 
it could derive its existence. But since he regards, on the other hand, the 
divine being as the last object at which all things aim, and which is the end 
of their course, he hence concludes, that this nature is neither created nor 
creating; for as everything which has gone out from it returns to it, and as 
all existence rests in it, we can not say San it creates. What could God be 
supposed to create, since he must be in all things, and can at the same time 
represent himself in no other being, but in hirnseitt Therefore he says, 1. 
74, p. 42: Cum audimus, Deum omnia facere, nihil aliud debemus intelli- 
gere, quam Deum in omnibus esse, hoc est essentiam omnium subsistere. 
Ipse enim solus per se vere est, et omne quod vere in his que sunt dieitur 
esse, ipse solus est.—T'he following statements are very beautiful, but easily 
misunderstood, 1. 76, p. 43: Omne quodcunque in creaturis vere bonum 
vereque pulcrum et amabile intelligitur, ipse est. Sicut enim nullum bonum 
essentiale est, ita nullum pulcrum seu amabile essentiale preeter ipsum solum. 
Comp. Tennemann, vii. 1, p. 80, ss. Schmid, über den Mysticismus des 
Mittelalters, p. 123, ss. Fr ommüller, in the Tübinger Ach 1830, part 
1, p. 58, ss. Staudenmaier, Freiburger Facet 1840, 2, p. 272, ss. 
[| Minscher, von Cölln, ii. p. 40, 41.) That there was ied a eee after 
strict theistic modes of statement, along and in comparison with the pan- 
theistic tendency of Scotus, is shown in Ritter, Gesch. d. Phil. viii. 242, 286 
[Cf Ritter’s christ]. Phil. i. 360-9. Comp. Christlier, ubi supra, who gives 
full illustrations and comparisons with modern views. Erigena denies that 
any of the categories can be properly applied to God, De Div. Nat. 1. 15: 
Si aliqua categoriarum de Deo proprie predicaretur, necessario genus esse 
Deus sequeretur, Deus autem nec genus, nec species, nec accidens est. /bid, 
i. 37: Non proprie, sed modo quodam translationis omnia de Deo predicau- 
tur. Jbid.i. 73: Non aliud Deo esse et velle et facre et amare et diligere 
et videre, caeteraque hujusmodi, que de eo, ut dixmus, possunt preedicari, sed 


$ 165. Tue NATURE OF Gop IN GENERAL. 443 


he omnia in ipso unum idipsumque accipiendum, suamque ineffabilem essen- 
tiam eo modo, quo se significari sinit, insinuant. Jbid. i. 75: Videt se ipsum 
et videtur a se ipso, in se ipso et in nobis; nee tamen videt se ipsum, nec 
videtur a se ipso, in se ipso et in nobis, sed plus quam videt et videtur in se 
ipso, et in nobis. | 

* Comp. § 153, note 4. From the proposition, that, he who is in love is 
also in God, they inferred that, “ that which is done in love is no sin: there- 
fore stealing, robbing, committing lasciviousness, ete., is not sinful, if it be 
done in love.” Comp. Ditmars Chronik, edited by Grautof in Hurter, Inno- 
cenz III., vol. ii. p. 238, ss. Czsarius of Heisterbach (A. p. 1222), De Mirac- 
ulis, lib. v.c. 22: Si aliquis est in Spiritu sancto, ajebant, et faciat fornicationem, 
aut aliquze alia pollutione polluatur: non est ei peccatum, quia ille Spiritus, 
qui est Deus omnino separatus a carne, non potest peccare quamdiu ille 
Spiritus, qui est Deus, est in eo, ille operatur omnia in omnibus. Zngelhardt, 
Kirchenhistorische Abhandlungen, p. 255, ss. Compare also ὃ 184. (@ieseler, 
Church Hist. ii. § 74, note g.) [The doctrine of David Dinanto, says Baur, 
Dogmengesch. 248, note, was undoubtedly the same as that of Avicebron, in 
the newly discovered work, De Materia Universali, or Fons Vite, which 
Seyerlen has made known in the Theol. Jahrbücher (Tübing.), 1856. The 
fundamental idea is that of matter in its unity with form, and the unity of 
both with God.] 

° [Albert M. Summe theol. P. i. Tract. iv. Qu. 20. Thom. Aq. Sentent. 
hb. 1, Dist. 17, Qu. 1, art. 1: Quomodam antiquorum philosophorum error 
fuit, quod Deus esset de essentia omnium rerum. Ponebant enim, omnia 
esse unum simplieiter, et non differre, nisi forte secundum sensum vel eesti- 
mationem, ut Parmenides dicit; et illos etiam antiquos philosophos secuti 
sunt quidam moderni, ut David de Dinando. Divisit enim res in partes tres, 
in corpore, animas, et substantias eeternas separatas. Et primum indivisibile, 
ex quo constituuntur corpora, dixit ὕλη, h. 6. materiam. Primum autem in- 
divisibile, ex quo constituuntur anime, dixit νοῦς h. 6. mentem. Primum 
autem indivisibile in substantiis aeternis dixit Deum: et hee tria esse 
unum et idem, Ex quo iterum consequitur, esse omnia, per essentiam, 
vocem. | 

* (Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 42.] 

° Master Eckart approached gross pantheism nearer than any other 
mystic. He said: “God is nothing, and God is something. That which is 
something is also nothing; what God is, he is altogether.” (Sermon on the 
Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, fol. 243, b. quoted by Schmidt in the 
Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 3, p. 692.)—“ He (God) has the nature of 
all creatures in him; he is an essence, that has all essences in him.” —“ All 
that is in the Godhead is, is one, and we can not speak of it. It is God that 
acts, but not the Godhead ; it has not wherewith to work, in it then there is 
no work. There is the same difference between God and the Godhead, as 
there is between working and not working.” (Sermon on the day of the 
execution of John the Baptist, fol. 302, a. quoted by Schmidt, 1. c. 693.)—In 
Eckart’s opinion, God becomes God only through the work of creation, 
“ Prior to the creation of the world God was not God, he was what he was; 
nor was God in himself God, after creatures had been brought into existence, 


444 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


but he was only God in them.” (Second Sermon on All Saints’ Day, fol. 
307, a. Schmidt, |, c. p. 694.)—* Pantheism is a great and noble phenomenon 
deceiving us by a peculiar charm, in the case of those who burn with love, and 
are, asit were, intoxicated with a sense of God, and the contemplation of 
divine things. But where it is only the result of subtile conclusions and 
philosophical definitions, or the proud but confused dream of an indefinite 
religious feeling, it loses its grand relations, and its mysterious poetry ; and 
those faults which we once felt disposed to overlook, now become manifest, to- 
gether with all the contradictions in which they involve us” Schmidt, 1. ec. 

° Suso showed in a highly characteristic way that a pantheistic disposition 
was nothing but a transitory excitement of feeling, which must first of all 
subside (in a quotation given by Diepenbrock, p. 189).—“TI call that state of 
our mind flourishing, in which the inner man is cleansed from sinful carnality, 
and delivered from remaining imperfections; in which he cheerfully rises 
above time and place, since he was formerly bound, and could not make free 
use of his natural nobility. When he then opefis the eyes of his mind, when 
he tastes other and better pleasures which consist in the perception of the 
truth, in the enjoyment of divine happiness, in insight into the present now 
of eternity, and the like, and when the created mind begins to comprehend 
a part of the eternal, uncreated mind both in itself and in all things, then he 
is wonderfully moved, Examining himselfand reflecting on what he once was, 
and what he now is, he recollects that he was a poor, ungodly, and wretched 
man, that he was blind, and lived far from God; but now it seems to him 
that he is full of God, that there is nothing which is not God ; further, that 
God and all things are one and the same. He then goes so hastily to work, 
that he becomes excited in his mind like wine in a state of fermentation, that 
has not as yet formed a sediment.” etc. “Such men are like bees which 
make honey: when they are full grown, and come for the first time out of 
their hives, they fly about in an irregular manner, not knowing whither to 
go; some take the wrong direction and lose themselves, but others come back 
to the right place. Thus it is with the men before spoken of, when they see 
God as all in all, without their reason being regulated,” etc. Gerson acutely 
defended the distinction between God and the creature (however highly 
favored) in opposition to Ruysbroek and Eckart, though he was not always 
consistent with himself. Comp. Hundeshagen, p. 62, ss. Tauler maintained 
(Predigten, vol. i. p. 61), that “nothing so much prevented the soul from 
knowing God as time and space: time and space are in his opinion parts, 
but God is one; therefore if the soul will know God, it must know him 
beyond time and beyond space; for God is neither this nor that, as those 
manifold things are, but he is one.” The assertion of Wessel that “ God 
alone és, and that all other things are what they are, through him” (De Orat. 
iii. 12, p. 76), and some other of his declarations, might lead to the suppo- 
sition that he too was a pantheist; but compare, on the other hand, the ap- 
propriate observation of Ullmann, p. 230, note. 


$ 166. Tue ATTRIBUTES OF Gop. 445 


§ 166. 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 


a. The Relation of God to Time, Space, and Number. (The 
Omnipresence, Eternity, and Unity of God.) 


The writings of John Damascenus,' and his successors in the 
Greek church,’ contain less ample definitions and classifications of 
the attributes, than the works of the schoolmen, which are very 
copious on just this point. Though Anselm and others insisted upon 
the importance of the proposition laid down by Augustine, that the 
attributes of God not only form one whole, but are also identical 
with the divine essence itself, and can not therefore be regarded as 
something foreign and manifold, which is merely attached to God,’ 
yet the speculative and systematizing tendency of the scholastics 
frequently led them to lose sight of this simple truth. Concerning the 
omnipresence of God, some, e. g., Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, 
defended the substantial omnipresence among the metaphysical attri- 
butes of God; Anselm laid most stress upon the eternity and omni- 
presence ; the former showed that there could not be in God either an 
Aligando or an Alicubi in the proper sense of the terms,* in opposi- 
tion to the merely dynamic view, while others endeavored to unite the 
two.’ A difference was also made between the eternity of God, and a 
mere sempiternitas, the latter of which may be ascribed even to crea- 
tures (6. g., angels and the souls of men).* And lastly, it was asserted 
that the unity of God, which many of the schoolmen numbered 
among his attributes, was not to be regarded as a mere mathematical 
quantity. The theologians of the Greek church signified this by ex- 
tending the idea of a numerical unity to that of a unity which is 
above all other things.’ 


+ John of Damascus De Fide Orth. i. 4: "Arreıpov οὖν τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἀκατά- 
ληπτον" καὶ τοῦτο μόνον αὐτοῦ κατάληπτον, ἣ ἀπειρία Kal ἀκαταληψία" 
ὅσα δὲ λέγομεν ἐπὶ θεοῦ καταφατικῶς, οὐ τὴν φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ περὶ τὴν 
φύσιν δηλοῖ. Kav ἀγαθὸν, κἂν δίκαιον, κἂν σοφὸν, κἂν 6 τι ἂν ἄλλο εἴπῃς, 
οὐ φυσιν λέγεις θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ περὶ τὴν φύσιν. Eiol δὲ καί τινα καταφατι- 
κῶς λεγόμενα ἐπὶ θεοῦ, δύναμιν ὑπεροχικῆς ἀποφάσεως ἔχοντα" οἷον, σκότος 
λέγοντες ἐπὶ θεοῦ, οὐ σκότος νοοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὔις ἐστι φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τὸ 
φῶς" καὶ φῶς, ὅτι οὔκ ἐστι σκότος. Comp. cap 9: Τὸ θεῖον ἁπλοῦν ἐστι 
καὶ ἀσύνθετον" τὸ δὲ ἐκ πολλῶν καὶ διαφόρων συγκείμενον, συνθετόν ἐστιν. 
Ei οὖν τὸ ἄκτιστον καὶ ἄναρχον καὶ ἀσώματον καὶ ἀθάνατον καὶ αἰώνιον 
καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δημιουργικὸν καὶ τὰ τοιωῦτα οὐσιώδεις διαφορὰς εἴπομεν 
ἐπὶ θεοῦ, ἐκ τοσούτων συγκείμενον, οὐχ ἁπλοῦν ἔσται, ἀλλὰ σύνθετον" ὅπερ 
ἐσχάτης ἀσεβείας ἐστίν. Χρὴ τοίνυν ἕκαστον τῶν ἐπὶ θεοῦ λεγομένων, οὐ τί 


446 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστὶ σημαίνειν οἴεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἣ τί οὔκ ἐστι δηλοῦν, ἢ σχέσιν 
τινὰ πρός τι τῶν ἀντιδιαστελλομένων, ἤ τι τῶν παρεπομένων τῇ φύσει ἤ 
ἐνέργειαν. Comp. cap. 19, and what was said $ 164, note 1. 

* Comp. Ullmann, Nicolaus von Methone, etc., p. 69, ss. and § 164, 
note 1. 

° Monol. ec. 14-28. Hasse, ii. 127, sq. God is not only just, but he is 
justice itself, etc., cap. 16: Quid ergo, si illa summa natura tot bona est, 
eritne composita tot pluribus bonis, an potius non sunt plura bona, sed unum 
bonum tam pluribus nominibus significatum ?.... Cum igitur illa natura 
nullo modo composita sit et tamen omni modo tot illa bona sit [sint], ne- 
cesse est, ut illa omnia non plura, sed unum sint. Idem igitur est quodlibet 
unum illorum quod omnia [sunt] sive simul, sive singula, ut cum dicitur vel 
justitia vel essentia, idem significet quod alia, vel omnia simul, vel singula. 
Cap. 18: Vita et sapientia et reliqua non sunt partes tui, sed omnia sunt 
unum, et unumquodque horum est totum quod es, et quod sunt reliqua omnia. 
Hugo of St. Victor adopted similar views, see Liebner, p. 371. Comp. also 
Abelard, Theolog. Christ. iii. p. 1264 : Non itaque sapientia in Deo vel sub- 
stantialis ei forma vel accidentalis, imo sapientia ejus ipse Deus est. Idem 
de potentia ejus sentiendum est et de ceteris que ex nominum affinitate 
forme esse videntur in Deo quoque sicut in creaturis, etc. Alanus also said, 
l. e. art. 20 (quoted by Pez, i. p. 484): Nomina enim ista: potentia potens, 
sapientia sapiens, neque formam, neque proprietatem, neque quicquid talium 
Deo attribuere possunt, cum simplieissimus Deus in sua natura nihil sit taliam 
capax. Cum ergo ratiocinandi de Deo causa nomina nominibus copulamus, 
nihil quod non sit ejus essentia preedicamus, et si transsumtis nominibus de 
Deo quid credimus, improprie balbutimus. [Duns Scotus, Comm. in Sent. 1, 
Dist. 8, Qu. 4, maintains a real difference in the attributes: e. g., in applica- 
tion to the Trinity. Comp. Baur, ubi supra, 249.] 

* See Monolog. c. 18, sg. . Hasse’s Anselm, ii. 134, sg —Of God we can 
say Zst, and not, uit or Erit. Time and space are to him no bounds: 
comp. Proslog. e. 19.. Hasse, ii. 282, sg. So, in respect to omniscience, 
God has not his knowledge from the things, but the things have their being 
from God. 

5 Hugo of St. Victor, De Sacram. Lib. i, P. ii. c. 17: Deus substantialiter 
sive essentialiter et proprie et vere est in omni creatura,sive natura sine sui 
definitione et in omni loco sine circumscriptione et omni tempori sine vicis- 
situdine vel mutatione. Est ergo, ubi est, totum, qui continet totum et 
penetrat totum; see Ziebner, p. 372. From the proposition that God is 
potentialiter in all things, Richard of* St. Victor drew the inference that he 
also exists essentialiter in them; de Trin. ii. 24, see Hngelhardt, p. 174. He 
is above all the heavens, and yet he is at the same time in them; he is in all 
that is corporeal and spiritual, in all that he has created, and governs accord- 
ing to his will.—This notion of an essential presence of God was substan- 
tially the same as that of Peter Lombard, though he acknowledged that it 
was above human comprehension ; Sent. 1, Dist. 27, g. According to Alex- 
ander Hales, God is in all things, but he is not included in the same ; he is 
without all things, but he is not eacluded from them. God exists in things 
in a threefold manner; essentialiter, preesentialiter, potentialiter; these three 


§ 166. Tue ATTRIBUTES OF Gop. 447 


modes, however, do not differ in themselves, but only in our idea of them. 
God does not exist in all things in the same manner, 6. g., in those whose 
sins are pardoned, in the sacraments, ete. The question was also started : 
Can the indwelling grace of God be in the body of a man prior to its union 
with the soul? etc., see Cramer, vil. p. 295, 7. The definitions of Thomas 
Aquinas are based on the system of Alexander; Summa 1, Qu. 8, art. 1, 
(quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 49): Deus est in omnibus rebus, 
non quidem sieut pars essentiz, vel sicut accidens, sed sicut agens adest ei in 
quod agit, Oportet enim omne agens conjungi ei, in quod immediate agit, et 
sua virtute illud contingere........Art 2: Deus omnem locum replet, non 
sicut corpus......immo per hoe replet omnia loca, quod dat esse omnibus 
locatis, que replent omnia loca. Art. 3: Substantia sua adest omnibus ut 
causa essendi, etc. Art. 4: Oportet in omnibus esse Deum, quia nihil potest 
esse nisi per ipsum.—The dynamic (virtual) scheme of the Thomists was 
opposed by the ideal view of the Scotists. See Münscher, ed by von Cölln, 
ii. p. 50.— Bonaventura, Comp. Theol. (Edit. Mogunt. 1609, p. 695,) said: 
Ubique Deus est, tamen nusquam est, quia nec abest ulli loco, nee ullo capitur 
loco (August.). Deus est in mundo non inclusus, extra mundum non ex- 
clusus, supra mundum non elatus, infra mundum non depressus. Ex his 
patet, quod Deus est intra omnia, et hoc quia omnia replet et ubique prasens 
est. Ita extra ommia est, quia omnia continet, nec usquam valet coarctari. 
Sed nota, quod heee propositio, “ extra,” dicit ibi non actualem presentiam ad 
locum, sed potentialem, quee est Dei immensitas, que infinitos mundos potest 
replere, si essent. Idem ipse est supra omnia, quia omnibus preestat nec 
aliquid ei aquatur. Item infra omnia est, quia omnia sustinet et sine ipso 
nihil subsisteret. Dicimus etiam, quod ubique est, non ut indigeat rebus, 
quod ex eis sit, sed potius res sui indigeant, ut per eum subsistant...... 
Sciendum est ergo, ut aliquid est in loco circumseriptive et difinitive, ut 
corpus ; aliquid difinztive, non circumscriptive, ut angelus; aliquid nee sic, 
nec sic, ut Deus, et hoc ideo, quia non individuatur per materiam, ut corpus, 
neque per suppositum, ut Angelus. Aliquid est etiam in loco, partim circum- 
scriptive, partim diffinitive, ut Corpus Christi in sacramento......Corpus 
autem Christi...... in pluribus tamen locis est...... sed non ubique...... 
Nota, quod Deus est multipliciter in rebus, scilicit per naturam : et sic est ubique 
potentialiter, presentialiter, essentialiter. Item per gratiam ; sic est in bonis 
......ltem per gloriam; sic est in rationali virtute anime, ut veritas, in con- 
cupiscibili, ut bonitas, in irascibili, ut potestas. Item per unionem; sic fuit in 
utero virginis unitus human nature, et in sepulero unitus carni, et in inferno 
unitus anime Christi, ete.—They even went so far as to ask, whether and in 
what manner God was intthe devil? and to reply in the afirmative, so far 
as the devil is composed of nature and spirit —St. Bernard said in his 
Meditations (cap. i. quoted by Bonaventura, 1, c.): Deus in creaturis mira- 
bilis, in hominibus amabilis, in angelis desirabilis, in se ipso incomprehensi- 
bilis, in reprobis intolerabilis, item in damnatis ut terror et horror.— Tauler 
also made a distinction between the presence of God in things, and that in 
men : God is no less present in a piece of wood and stone, than in men, but 
the former are not conscious of it. If the piece of wood knew God, and felt 
his nearness, even as the highest angels know him, the one would be quite 


448 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


as happy as the other. Man is happier than a piece of wood, because he 
recognizes God, etc. (Predigten, vol. i. p. 58, 59.) [Comp. also Anselm, 
Monol. c. 22. Albertus Magnus, Summa, P. 1. Qu. 70, Membr. 1.] 

° This was done, e.g., by Alexandar Hales, see Cramer, |. ὁ. p. 209, ss. 
Comp. Bonaventura, Comp. 1.18. He defined zternitas (after the example 
of Boéthius) as interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio (inter- 
minabilitas). 

” John Damascenus, De Fide Orth.i.5. Nicolas of Methone, Refut. p. 
25 (quoted by Ullmann, |. ec. p. 72), said: “ When we call the unity [God] 
beginning, we do not mean to draw a comparison between it and that which 
is posterior to the beginning; for the same reason we do not merely use the 
term ‘beginning, without further qualifying it, but we say over-commencing 
beginning; nor do we restrict ourselves to the term ‘ unity’ as such, but we 
call it the over-all-one ; and instead of the first, and first of all, we say the 
over-first, instead of the great or the greatest, we make use of the term 
over-great.” He called God the ὑπερέν and even used the expression ὑπέρ- 
θεος μονάς καὶ τριάς (Refut. 26). Comp. Hugo of St. Victor, quoted by 
Liebner, p. 371 ; he understood by unity not the numerical unity, but also 
simplicity (vera unitas), and immutability (summa unitas). [Abelard, In- 
trod. in Theol. L. iii. 2: Nulla tanta fieri concordia, vel regi possunt, quanta 
illa que unus tantum vel condit, vel regit. Richard of St. Victor, de Trin.. 


Lib. i. 14.] 


§ 167. 


b. The Relation of God to Existences—Omnipotence and 
Omniscience. 


The application of the divine knowledge and power to things out 
of God easily gave rise to anthropomorphitic notions and absurd 
subtilities,' which were best removed by regarding the attributes of 
omnipotence and omniscience not as separate attributes, but in their 
connection with the divine essence. Anselm’ and Abelard’ agreed 
in asserting that God can do everything which may be done without 
interfering with his infinite perfection ; Peter Lombard, Hugo of 
St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, and others, adopted the same 
view.‘ The knowledge of God was farther looked upon as imme- 
diate and omnipresent, and a distinction was made between that 
aspect of this knowledge which refers to things (as habitus), and 
that which has regard to himself (as actus).° Respecting the divine 
omnipotence some, 6. g., Abelard, maintained that God could make 
nothing else and nothing better, than what he really makes ;° others, 
6. g., Hugo of St. Victor, thought this assertion blasphemous, be- 
cause the infinite power of God is thus restricted within certain 
limits.” 


1 E. g., whether God could make undone that which is done? whether he 


$ 167. Tue ReLATıon oF Gop TO EXIsTENCE. 449 


could change a harlot into a pure virgin? and similar absurd questions; see 
the passages quoted $ 152, note 5, from the work of Erasmus. 

* Thus Anselm asserted, in reply to the question, whether God could lie, 
if he would? (Cur Deus Homo, i. 12): Non sequitur, si Deus vult mentiri, 
justum esse mentiri, sed potius Deum illum non esse. Nam nequaquam 
potest velle mentiri voluntas, nisi in qua corrupta est veritas, immo que 
deserendo veritatem corrupta est. Cum ergo dicitur: Si Deus vuit men- 
tiri, non est aliud, quam: Si Deus talis est nature, qua velit mentiri, etc. 
Comp. ii. 5: Denique Deus nihil facit necessitate, quia nullo modo cogi- 
tur aut prohibetur aliquid facere. Et cum dicimus Deum aliquid facere, 
quasi necessitate vitandi inhonestatem, quam utique non timet, potius in- 
telligendum est, quia hoc facit necessitate servandze honestatis, que scilicet 
necessitas non est aliud, quam immutabilitas honestatis ejus, quam a se ipso 
et non ab alio habet; et ¢dcireo improprie dicitur necessitas. Ibid. 18: Quo- 
ties namque dicitur Deus non posse, nulla negatur in eo potestas, sed insuper- 
abilis significatur potentia et fortitudo. Non enim aliud intelligitur, nisi quia 
nulla res potest eflicere, ut agat ille, quod negatur posse. Nam multum 
usitata est hujusmodi locutio, ut dicatur res aliqua posse, non quia in illa, sed 
quoniam in alia re est potestas ; et non posse, non quoniam in illa, sed quia 
in alia re est impotentia. Dieimus namque: Iste homo potest vinci, pro: 
Aliquis potest eum vincere, et: Ile non potest vinci, pro: Nullus eum vincere 
potest. Non enim potestas est, posse vinci, sed impotentia, nec vinci non 
posse impotentia est, sed potestas. Nec dicimus Deum necessitate facere 
aliquid, eo quod in illo sit ulla necessitas, sed quoniam est in alio sicut dixi 
de impotentia, quando dicitur non posse. Omnis quippe necessitas est aut 
coactio, aut prohibitio, qua dus necessitates convertuntur invicem contrarie, 
sicut necesse et impossibile. Quidquid namque cogitur esse, prohibetur non 
esse, et quod cogitur non esse, prohibetur esse ; quemadmodum quod necesse 
est esse, impossibile est non esse, et quod necesse est non esse, impossibile est 
esse, et conversim. Cum autem dieimus aliquid necesse esse aut non esse in 
Deo, non intelligitur, quod sit in illo necessitas aut cogens, aut prohibens, 
sed significatur, quod in omnibus aliis rebus est necessitas prohibens eas 
facere, et cogens non facere; contra hoc, quod de Deo dicitur. Nam cum 
dicimus, quod necesse est Deum semper verum dicere, et necesse est eum 
nunquam mentiri, non dicitur aliud, nisi quia tanta est in illo constantia sere 
vandi veritatem, ut necesse sit, nullum rem facere posse, ut verum non dicat, 
aut ut mentiatur—Comp. Proslog. 7:...... Inde verius es omnipotens, 
quia potes nihil per impotentiam et nihil potes contra te-—Comp. Hasse, 
ii. 274, sg. De Concord. Preese. et Pried. P. i. c. 2, ss.-(where the question 
is discussed, how far the term necessitas can be applied to God). Respecting 
the knowledge of God, Anselm (after the example of Augustine) endeavored 
to prove that God does not know the things because they are, but that they 
are because he knows them, ibid. e. 7. 

* However different the general theories of Abelard and Anselm, yet in 
this one point they agreed. Abel. Theol. Christ. v. p. 1350 (edit. Marténe) : 
Quzerendum itaque primo videtur, quomodo vere dicatur omnipotens, si non 
possit omnia efficere ; aut quomodo omnia possit, si queedam nos possumus, 
qu ipse non possit. Possumus autem quaedam, ut ambulare, loqui, sentire, 

29 


450 Tuirp PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


que a natura divinitatis penitus aliena sunt, cum necessaria istorum instru- 
menta nullatenus habere incorporea queat substantia. Quibus quidem ob- 
jectis id preedicendum arbitror, quod juxta ipsos quoque philosophos, et com- 
munis sermonis usum, numquam potentia eujusque rei aceipitur, nisi in his, 
que ad commodum vel dignitatem ipsius rei pertinent. Nemo enim hoc 
potentize hominis deputat, quod ille superari facile potest, immo impotentiz 
et debilitati ejus quod minime suo resistere potest incommodo, et quicquid ad 
vitium hominis vergit, magisque personam improbat quam commendat, im- 
potentize potius quam potentiz adscribendum est......Nemo itaque Deum 
impotentem in aliquo dicere presumat, si non possit peccare sicut nos pos- 
sumus, quia nec in nobis ipsis hoc potenti tribuendum est, sed infirimitati. 
pols pls wh 8 Slide tert Sicut etiam quedam, que in aliis rebus potentiz 
deputanda sunt, in aliis vero minime...... Inde potentem hominem compar- 
atione aliorum hominum diceremus, sed non ita leonem vel elephantem. 
Sic in homine, quoad ambulare valet, potentiz est adscribendum, quoniam 
ejus necessitudini congruit, nec in aliquo ejus minuit dignitatem. In Deo 
vero, qui sola voluntate omnia complet, hoc omnino superfluum esset, quod 
in nobis necessarium est, atque ideo non potentie, sed vitio penitus tribuen- 
dum esset in eo, preesertim cum hoc in multis excellentiz ipsius derogaret, 
ut ambulare videlicet posset......Non absurde tamen et de his omnibus, 
que eflicere possumus, Deum potentum predicabimus, et omnia que agimus, 
ejus potentiz tribuemus, in quo vivimus, movemur et sumus. Et qui omnia 
operatur in omnibus (utitur enim nobis ad efficiendum que vult, quasi in- 
strumentis) et id quoque facere dicitur, qua nos facere facit, sicut dives aliquis 
turrem componere-per opifices quos adhibet, et posse omnia eflicere dicitur, 
qui sive per se sive per subjectam creaturam omnia, que vult et quomodo 
vult, operatur, et ut ita fiant, ipse etiam facit. Nam etsi non potest ambu- 
lare, tamen potest facere, ut ambuletur....... Posse itaque Deus omnia di- 
citur, non quod omnes suscipere possit actiones, sed quod in omnibus, que fieri 
velit, nihil ejus voluntati resistere queat.* Comp. Baur, Trinitatsl. ii. 487, 
sg. [Comp. also Meander, Hist. Dogmas, 501-6.] 

* Hugo of St. Victor, De Sacram. Lib. 1. C. 22: Deus omnia potest, et 
tamen se ipsum destruere non potest. Hoc enim posse, posse non esset, sed 
non posse. Itaque omnia potest Deus, que posse potentia est. Et ideo vere 
omnipotens est, quia impotens esse non potest. Comp. Ziebner, p. 367.— 
Peter Lombard, Sentent. 1, Dist. 42, E.: Deus omnino nihil potest pati, et 
omnia facere potest prater ea sola, quibus dignitas ejus laderetur ejusque 
excellentize derogaretur. In quo tamen non est minus omnipotens: hoc enim 
posse non est posse, sed non posse. Comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. 
p- 47, 48, where other passages are quoted from the writings of Richard of 
St. Victor, de Trin. L. I. c. 21; Alexander Hales, Summa, I. qu. 21, Membr. 
1, art. 2; Albertus Magnus, Summa, P. I. qu. 77, Membr. 1; and Thomas 
Aquinas, Summa, P. I. qu. 25, art. 3. 

° Hugo of St. Vteior (cap. 9, 14-18, quoted by Ziebner, p. 363, 364), 
expressed himself as follows: “ All things which were created by God in 
time, existed uncreated in him from eternity, and were known to him for 


* Abelard, speaking of the Trinity, ascribed omnipotence principally to the Father, with- 
out denying it, however, of the Son or the Spirit. Comp. § 170. 


$ 167 ΤῊΝ ΒΕΠΑΤΙΟΝ or Gop To EXISTENCE. 451 


this very reason, because they existed in him, and were known to him in the 
very manner in which they existed in him. God knew nöthing out of him- 
self, because he comprehended all things in himself. They were not in him, 
because they should at some future period come into existence; the fact of 
their being designed to exist in time to come was not the cause of their ex- 
istence in God, nor were they created in time because they existed in God, 
as if the eternal could not have existed without the temporal. On the con- 
trary, the former would have existed without the latter: but it would not 
have stood in any relation to the latter, if this had not existed as something 
which was to be in future. There would always have been the knowledge 
of an existence, viz., of an existence in God, though not of a future exist- 
ence; but the knowledge of the creator would not therefore have been less 
comprehensive, because it could only be said that he had no foreknowledge 
of that which was not future.”—In the opinion of Alezander Hales, God 
knows all things through himself and in himself; for if God knew them by 
means of something else, then the ground of his knowledge would be some 
perfection existing out of him, and he could not be the most perfect being 
if he owed anything to any other being... ....God knows all things at once; 
for he sees all things in himself, and since he knows himself at once and 
completely, it is evident that he knows all things in himself at once and per- 
fectly. The things themselves may be multiplied or lessened, but not the 
knowledge of God: the latter is immutable; see Cramer, vii. p. 240.— 
Bonaventura, Comp. i. 29 : Seit Deus omnia presentialiter et simul, perfecte 
quoque et immutabiliter. Praesentialiter dico, hoc est, ita limpide ac si 
cuncta essent prsentialiter existentia, Simul etiam scit omnia, quia videndo 
se, qui 5101 preesens est, omnia videt. Perfecte quoque, quia cognitio ejus 
nec potest augeri, nec minui. Seit et immutabiliter, quia noscit omnia per 
naturam sui intellectus, qui est immutabilis. Dicendum ergo, quod Deus 
cognoscit temporalia zternaliter, mutabilia immutabiliter, contingentia in- 
fallibiliter, creata increate, alia vero a se, in se et per se. Comp. Brev. i. 8. 
— Thomas Aquinas, Quest. xiv. Art. 4......In Deo intellectus et id, quod 
intelligitur, et species intelligibilis et ipsum intelligere sunt omnino unum et 
idem. Unde patet per hoc, quod Deus dicitur intelligens, nulla multiplicitas 
ponitur in ejus substantia, Comp. art. 13: Deus autem cognoscit omnia 
contingentia, non solum prout sunt in suis cansis, sed etiam prout unum- 
quodque eorum est actu in se ipso. Et licet contingentia fiant in actu suc- 
cessive, non tamen Deus successive cognoscit contingentia, prout sunt in suo 
esse, sicut nos, sed simul: quia sua cognitio mensuratur zeternitate, sicut 
etiam suum esse. Adternitate autem tota simul existens audit totum tempus 
......Unde omnia, que sunt in tempore, sunt Deo ab eterno preesentia, non 
solum ea ratione, qua habet rationes rerum apud se presentes, ut quidam 
dicunt, sed quia ejus intuitus fertur ab eterno super omnia, prout in sua pr&- 
sentialitate. Unde manifestum est, quod contingentia et infallibiliter a Deo 
cognoscuntur, in quantum subduntur divino conspeetui secundum suam pre- 
sentialitatem, et tamen sunt futura contingentia suis causis comparata...... 
Ea, quee temporaliter in actum reducuntur, a nobis successive coguoscuntur 
in tempore, sed a Deo in »ternitate, qua est supra tempus. . .Sicut ille, qui 
vadit per viam, non videt illos, qui post eum veniant, sed ille, qui ab aliqua 


452 THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


altitudine totam vitam intuetur, simul videt omnes transeuntes per viam. On 
the relation between knowledge and foreknowledge, see John of Salisbury, 
Policrat. ii, 21. (Bibl. Max. xxii. p. 268.) An instance of subtile reasoning 
is given by Liebner, |. c. p. 365, note. 

° Abelard, Theol. Christ. v. p. 1354.......Faeit itaque omnia que potest 
Deus, et tantum bene quantum potest...... Necesse est, ut omnia que vult, 
ipse velit; sed nec ineflicax ejus voluntas esse potest: necesse est ergo, ut 
queecunque vult ipse perficiat, cum eam videlicet sumamus voluntatem, que 
ad ipsius pertinet ordinationem. Istis ergo rationibus astruendum videtur, 
quod plura Deus nullatenus facere possit quam faciat, aut melius facere, aut 
ab his cessare, sed omnia ita ut facit necessario facere, Sed rursus singulis 
istis difficillimee occurrunt objectiones, ut utroque cornu graviter fidem nos- 
tram oppugnet complexio. Quis enim negare audeat, quod non possit Deus 
eum qui damnandus est salvare, aut meliorem illum qui salvandus est facere, 
quam ipse futurus sit collatione suorum donorum, aut omnino dismisisse, ne 
eum unquam crearet? Quippe si non potest Deus hune salvare, utique nec 
ipse salvari a Deo potest. Necessaria quippe est hee reciprocationis conse- 
cutio, quod si ipse salvatur a Deo, Deus hune salvat. Unde, si possibile est 
hune salvari a Deo, possibile est Deum hune salvare. Non enim possibile 
est antecedens, nisi possible sit et consequens: alioquin ex possibili impossi- 
bile sequeretur, quod omnino falsum est...... Comp. the subsequent part 
of the chapter. And so he comes to the following conclusion: Quicquid 
itaque facit (Deus), sicut necessario vult, ita et necessario facit. 

7 On the opposition of Hugo of St. Victor to the optimism of Abelard 
(by which he was compelled to suppose a higher extent of the divine power 
than of the divine will), comp. Liebner, p. 367, 368. 


§ 168. 
c. Moral Attributes. 


The so-called moral attributes of God, viz., his holiness, wisdom, 
justice, and benevolence, were treated in connection with other doc- 
trines, and sometimes in such a manner as to give the appearance 
of contradictions,’ As the knowledge of God is one with his being, 
so likewise is his will, whose final object can be only the absolutely 
good, that is God.” The mystics loved to descend into the depth of 
divine /ove, and endeavored to explain this in their own way,’ while 
the scholastics proposed wondrous questions respecting even this 
attribute of God, which least of all admits of being dialectically 
discussed.‘ 


* This was the case with the justice, omnipotence, and love of God in re- 
ference to the theory of satisfaction. Comp. Anselm, Cur Deus homo i. c. 
6-12, and Proslog. c. 8: see the preceding ὃ, note 1. Hasse, ii. 275, sq. 
[Kitschl. in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1860, pp. 584-595. ] 


§ 169. Proczssion oF THE Hoty Spirit. 453 


” Thomas Aquinas, Summa P. I. Qu. 19, art. 13: Voluntas divina neces- 
sariam habitudinem habet ad bonitatem suam, que est proprium ejus objectum, 
The question was raised, whether God has a liberum arbitrium, since in him 
everything is necessary. Thomas decided that God is free respecting that 
which is not an essential determination of his nature, that is, respecting the 
accidental, finite. But respecting himself he is determined by his own ne- 
cessity, comp. art. 10, and Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 641.—Duns Scotus, on 
the contrary, asserted the absolute liberty of God; see Baur. 

* The language of the author of the Deutsche Theologie is worthy of 
notice (c. 50): “God does not love himself as such, but as the most perfect 
being. For if God knew anything better than God, he would love it, and 
not himself. Egoism and self-hood, ©. e., self-love and self-will, are entirely 
foreign to God; only so much belongs to God as is necessary to con- 
stitute his personality, or the distinction between the different persons of the 
Trinity.” 

* Thus Alexander Hales asked (the passage is quoted by Cramer, vii. p. 
261), whether the love wherewith God loves his creatures is the same with 
that which he has towards himself, and which the divine persons have to- 
wards each other. He replies in the affirmative in reference to the principal 
idea (principale signatum), but in the negative respecting the secondary idea 
(connatum), ἡ. e., that love is the same on the part of him who loves, but 
not the same with regard to those who are loved. It is also on that account 
that God does not manifest the same degree of love towards all his creatures, 
but more of it towards the better portion of them, less towards the less good. 
He loves all creatures from eternity (in the idea), but he does not love them 
in reality, until they come into existence——Another question was: Whom 
does God love most, the angels or men? The answer is: The former, inas- 
much as Christ did not belong to the number of the latter; but the love 
wherewith God loves Christ, and consequently the human race in Christ, 
even surpasses the love which he has towards the angels.— We have here a 
profound Christian truth expressed in a scholastic form, 


§ 169. 
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
Procession of the Holy Spirit. 


Walch, J. G., Historia Controversiz, etc., Pfaff, Historia succincta (comp. § 94). Hasse, 
Anselm, ii. 322 [Hahnis, Gesch. ἃ. Lehre vom heil. Geiste.] 


Before the doctrine of the Trinity could be more philosophically de- 
veloped and fully established, it was necessary to settle the contro- 
versy which had arisen between the Eastern and the Western church 
respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father 
and the Son. After the view taken by the Greek church had been 
received in the East as the orthodox doctrine, through the influence 
of John Damascenus,' the Emperor Charlemagne summoned a synod 


454 THırD PERIOD, THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


at Aix-la-Chapelle in the year 809, which, being influenced espe- 
cially by the Frank theologians, Alcuin and Theodulph of Orleans, 
confirmed the doctrine of the Western church, according to which. 
the Holy Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but also from 
the Son.” Pope Leo III. approved of the doctrine itself, but dis- 
approved of the uncritical introduction of the clause “ filioque” into 
the creed adopted by the council of Constantinople. He numbered 
the doctrine in question among mysteries difficult to be investigated, 
and which are of greater importance in a speculative point of view, 
than in the aspect of a living faith. But when in later times the 
controversy between Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, and 
Nicolas I. led to the disruption of the two churches, their difference 
on the said doctrine was again made the subject of discussion. 
Photius defended the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost 
from the Father alone, and rejected the additional clause “‘ filioque,” 
which the theologians of the Western Church, such as ZEneas, 
bishop of Paris, and Ratramn, a monk of Corvey, wished to retain.’ 
Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, likewise defended the doctrine 
of the Latin church at the synod of Bari (in Apulia) in the year 
1098, and discussed it more fully in a separate treatise.2 Anselm, 
bishop of Havelberg, defended it (1135-1145).° The attempt made 
at the synod of Lyons in the year 1274, to reconcile the two parties, 
did not lead to any satisfactory result. The controversy was resumed 
in the year 1277 ; but the formula proposed at the synod of Flor- 
ence (A. D. 1439) did not settle the point in question.’ Hence, from 
that time, the two churches have ever differed in this, that accord- 
ing to the Greek church the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father 
alone, but according to the Latin church, from both the Father and 
the Son. There were, however, some theologians in the latter who 
were satisfied with the view taken by the Greek divines.* 


! De Fide Orth. i. ce. 7. He called the Holy Ghost (in distinction from a 
mere breath, or a mere divine power) δύναμιν οὐσιώδη, αὐτὴν ἑαυτῆς Ev 
ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς προερχομένην; 
but added: καὶ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἀναπανυομένην καὶ αὐτοῦ οὖσαν 
ἐκφαντικὴν, οὔτε χωρισθῆναι τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι, καὶ τοῦ λόγου, ᾧ συμ- 
παρομαρτεῖ, δυναμένην, οὔτε πρὸς τὸ ἀνύπαρκτον ἀναχεομένην, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ 
ὁμοιότητα τοῦ λόγου καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν οὗσαν, ζῶσαν, προαιρετικὴν, αὐτοκίνη.- 
τον, ἐνεργόν, πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν θέλουσαν, καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν πρόθεσιν σύν- 
δρομον ἔχουσαν τῇ βουλήσει τὴν δύναμιν, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχουσαν, μήτε τέλος" 
οὐ γὰρ ἐνέλειψέ ποτε τῷ πατρὶ λόγος, οὔτε τῷ λόγῳ πνεῦμα. Baur, ii. p. 1111. 

? Alcuinus, de Processione Spir. S. libellus. Opp. T. i. ed. Froben, p. 743. 
—In support of his views he appealed to Luke vi. 19 (Omnis turba que- 
rebat eum tangere, quia virtus de illo exibat et sanabat omnes) ; to John 
xx. 21, 22; 1 John iii. 23, 24, and to the authority of the Fathers. Theo- 
dulphi de Spiritu S. liber, in Theodulphi Opp. ed. Sörmond. Par. 1646, 8, 


$ 169. Procession OF THE HoLy Seirıt. 455 


and in Sirmondii Opp. T. ii. p. 1695, ef. Libr. Carolin. Lib. iii. c. 3; Ex 
patre et filio—omnis universaliter confitetur ecclesia eum procedere. Con- 
cerning the historical part, see the works on ecclesiastical history. [@%eseler, 
ii, § 12, § 93, § 156.] 

° On the occasion of a controversy between the Greek and Latin monks 
at Jerusalem prior to the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle, the Pope had given it 
as his opinion : Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et Filio equaliter procedentem.— 
Respecting the relation in which he stood to the Synod itself, see Callatio cum 
Papa Rome a Legatis habita et Epist. Caroli Imperat. ad Leonem P. II. 
utraque a Smaragdo Abb. edita. (in Mansi, T. xiv. p. 17, ss.). 

* See Photii Epist. Encyclica issued A. p. 867 (given by Montacutius, Ep. 
2, p. 47); the following, among other charges, is there brought forward 
against the Roman church: Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ Ex τοῦ πατρὸς μόνον, 
ἀλλά γε ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι kawoAoynjoavres.—The writings of his 
opponents, Ratramn and Eneas are no longer extant in a complete form, 
comp. d’Achery, Spieil. Ed. i. T. i. p. 63, ss. ZAössler, Bibliothek der Kir- 
chenväter, vol. x. p. 663, ss. [They rested their view upon Gal. iv. 6; Phil. 
1.19; Acts ii, 33; xvi. 7; John viii. 42; xx. 22.|—The Greeks considered 
the Father as the πηγὴ θεότητος, and said, that if the Spirit also proceeded 
from the Son, this would involve a πολυαρχία, which the Latins did not 
concede, since Father and Son are one. [On Photius, see Abbé Jager, His- 
toire de Photius (from original documents), 2d ed. Paris, 1853. J. Hergen- 
röther, Photii Constantinopl. Liber de Spiriti Sanct. Mystagogia, Regensb., 
1857: Comp. Hergenröther, Die theol. Polemik des Photius gegen die 
Lateiner, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1858, pp. 559-629. Hase, Glaubenszeu- 
gnisse d. griechischen Kirche, Anhang zur 5. Aufl. der Dogmatik., Leipz. 
1860.] 

° Concerning the synod, see Hadmer, Vita Anselmi, p. 21, quoted by 
Walch, ].c.p. 61.—The work of Anselm is entitled: De Processione Spiritus 
S. contra Grecos, Opp. p. 49 (Edit. Lugd. p. 115). In chapters 1-3 he 
shows in a clear and coneise manner the points of agreement between the 
two churches (in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of the 
Holy Spirit in its general aspects), as well as the points of difference, Re- 
specting the doctrine of the Western church itself, Anselm argued from the 
proposition : Deus est de Deo, as follows (c. 4): Cum est de Patre Spiritus 
S., non potest non esse de filio, si non est filius de Spiritu Sancto; nulla enim 
alia ratione potest negari Spiritus S. esse de filio...... Quod autem filius non 
sit de Spir. S., palam est ex catholica fide; non enim est Deus de Deo, nisi 
aut nascendo ut filius, aut procedendo ut Spir. S. Filius autem non nascitur de 
Spiritu S. Si enim nascitur de illo, est filius Spir. Sancti, et Spiritus S. pater 
ejus, sed alter alterius nec pater nec filius. Non ergo nasciter de Spiritu S. 
filius, nec minus apertum est, quia non procedit de illo. Esset enim Spir. 
ejusdem Spiritus Sancti, quod aperte negatur, cum Spiritus S. dieitur et cre- 
ditur Spiritus Filii. Non enim potest esse Spiritus sui Spiritus. Quare non 
procedit filius de Spir. Sancto. Nullo ergo modo est de Spir. Sancto filius. 
Sequitur itaque inexpugnabili ratione, Spir. Sanctum esse de filio, sicut est de 
patre.—C. 7: Nulla relatio est patris sine relatione filii, sicut nihil est filii 
relatio, sine patris relatione, Si ergo alia nihil est sine altera, non potest 


456 Tuırp PerıoDd. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


aliquid de relatione patris esse sine relatione fili. Quare sequitur, Spiritum 
S. esse de utraque, si est de una. Itaque si est de patre secundum relationem, 
erit simul et de filio secundum eundem sensum...... Non autem magis est 
pater Deus quam filius, sed unus solus verus Deus, Pater et Filius. Qua- 
propter si Spiritus S. est de Patre, quia est de Deo qui pater est, negari 
nequit esse quoque de filio, cum sit de Deo, qui est filius—(C. 8-12, he 
gives the scriptural argument.) In the thirteenth chapter he meets the 
objection, that the doctrine in question would lower the dignity of the 
Spirit... Qui dieimus Spiritum S. de filio esse sive procedere, nec minorem, 
nec posteriorem eum filio fatemur, namque quamvis splendor et calor de sole 
procedant, nec possint esse nisi sit ille, de quo sunt, nihil tamen prius aut 
posterius in tribus, in sole et splendore et calore, intelligimus: multo itaque 
minus, cum hee in rebus temporalibus ita sint, in eternitate, que tempore 
non clauditur, preedictze tres persone in existendo susceptibiles intervalli pos- 
sunt intelligiThe concession made by the Greek theologians, viz., Spiritum 
Sanct. de patre esse per filium, did not appear satisfactory to Anselm. As a 
lake is formed not only by the spring, but also by the river which flows 
from the spring, so the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.* 
(©. 15 and 16.) We must not, however, assume the existence of two prin- 
ciples from which the Spirit proceeds, but only one divine principle, common 
to the Father and the Son (c. 17). In chapters 18-20, he considers those 
scriptures which apparently teach the procession of the Spirit from the 
Father alone; c. 21, he defends the introduction of the clause “ filioque” as 
a necessary means of preventing any misunderstanding. In chapters 22-27, 
he repeats and confirms all he has said before. As Anselm commenced his 
treatise by invoking the aid of the Holy Spirit himself, so he concluded it 
by saying : Si autem aliquid protuli quod aliquatenus corrigendum sit, mehi 
imputetur, non sensui Latinitatis. Comp. Hasse, ubi supra—Concerning the 
progress of the controversy, comp. Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 112, 
113. On the later definitions of the scholastics, see Laur, Trinitätslehre, 1]. 
705, sqg.; especially on Aquinas and Duns Scotus. [Aquinas argues: The 
Son is from the Father, as the word from the mind, the Holy Spirit 
proceeds as love, from the will; but love must also proceed from the word, 
because we can not love what we do not conceive; hence the Spirit pro- 
ceeds from the Son....Comp. also Zwesten on Trinity, transl. in Bibliotheca 
Sacra, iv. p. 25, sq.] 

° He was in 1135 the ambassador of Lothair II., in Constantinople, where 
the controversy was in progress. Pope Eugene III. in 1145 bade him put 
his views in writing. See Spieker, in Illgen’s Zeifschrift f. hist. Theol. 
1840. 

” At the Synod of Lyons the Greeks agreed with the council in adopting 
as Can. I.: Quod Spir. S. seternabiliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex 
duobus prineipiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabas spirationibus, 
sed unica spiritione procedit.—But new differences arose, respecting which 


* A similar illustration is adduced by Abelard, Theol. Chr. iv. p. 1335: Spir. Sanct. ex 
Patre proprie procedere dicitur, quasi a summa origine, que scilicet aliunde non sit, et ab 
ipso in Filium quasi in rivum...... et per-Filium ad nos tandem quasi in stagnum hujus 


seculi, 


§ 170. Tae DocTRinE OF THE TRINITY. 457 


see the works on ecclesiastical history, and compare Münscher, ed. by von 
Cölln, 1. c. p. 114.—In the formula of union framed by the synod of Flor- 
ence, A. Ὁ. 1439, July 6th (given by Mansi, T. xxi. p. 1027, ss. and Gieseler, 
iii, $ 156, Münscher, von Cölln, p. 115) use was made of the expression, 
quod Spirit. S. ex Patre et Filio xternaliter est; the phrase: procedere ex 
Patre per filium, was interpreted in accordance with the views of the Latin 
church, and the clause jiliogue was retained. But the peace thus established 
did not last long, and the patriarchs of Alexandria, Autioch, and Jerusalem 
issued (A. D. 1443) a letter against the union. Comp. Leo Allatius, De Ec- 
clesi occidentalis et orientalis perpetua Consensione, p. 939, ss. For the 
other works see Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, and Gieseler, 1. c. 

* Thus John Wessel, comp. Ullmann, die Reformatoren, οὔο., i. p. 388, 
394. 


§ 170. 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 


C. Schwartz, De Sancta Trinitate quid senserint Doctores ecclesiastici prima Scholastice 
Theologiz Periodo, Hal., 1842. [Comp. the works referred to in § 87. Neander, Hist. 
Dogmas. 497, sq., 562, sq.] 


The doctrine of the Trinity, developed in the preceding period, 
and, to a certain extent, summed up by John Damascenus,' chal- 
lenged the speculative tendencies and ingenuity of the scholastics, as 
well as the imagination of the mystics, to fathom the unsearchable 
depth of that mystery. But all dialectic attempts were accompa- 
nied by the old danger of falling into heretical errors either in the 
one or the other direction, This was especially the case with the 
first bold and youthful attempts of Western speculation. John 
Scotus Erigena declared that the terms Father and Son are mere 
names, to which there is no corresponding objective distinction of 
essence in the Godhead, which strongly savours of pantheism.* The 
nominalism of Zoscelinus exposed him to the charge of tritheism,* 
while that of Abelard exposed him to the accusation of Sabellian- 
ism.* The distinction which Gilbert of Poitiers drew between the 
quo est and the quod est gave to his doctrine the semblance of tetra- 
theism.’ Anselm,’ and Peter Lombard,’ adopted in the main the 
views held by Augustine ; the terminology, however, used by the 
latter gave rise to misunderstandings. The treatment of the sub- 
ject by the scholastics of the second period was more strictly sys- 
tematic and speculative.“ But this very tendency, which more and 
more lost sight of the practical aspect of the doctrine, led to those 
subtile distinctions and absurd questions, which have for a long time 
seriously injured the reputation of scholasticism, but which were, 
in fact, the excesses of an otherwise powerful tendency.’ Among 


458 Tuirp Perıop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 

the Greeks, Nicetas Choniates contented himself with representing 
the mystery in question in figurative language,” while Nicolas of 
Methone manifested a stronger leaning to the dialectic tendency 
of the Western theologians.” The mystics followed for the most 
part Dionysius the Areopagite, and wrestled with language in 
the endeavor either to represent the incomprehensible in itself,” or 
to bring it more within the reach of the understanding (in doing 
which they did not always avoid the appearance of pantheism).'— 
The disciples of the school of St. Victor, held, as it were, the me- 
dium between sterile dialectics and fantastic mysticism.* Savon- 
arola,' "and Wessel,” instead of indulging in philosophical reasonings, 
based upon the nature of God, returned to natural and human 
analogies fitted to men’s religious needs, aud which might serve 
to illustrate the mystery, but were not meant to explain it. 


* John Damascenus brings forward nothing new. He repeats the earlier 
propositions, making use of the traditional terms, νοῦς and λόγος, and the 
comparison with the human word and spirit, in the sense of former theolo- 
gians. God can hot be ἄλογος, but the Logos must have a πνεῦμα. He 
lays great stress upon the unity in the Trinity, so that the Son and the 
Spirit, though persons, have yet their unity in the Father; what they are, 
they are through him. He has therefore been charged with a wavering be- 
tween Unitarianism and Tritheism, and, at any rate, the dialectic contra- 
dictions, from which the logie of the old church could not free itself, is 
strikingly manifest in his statements. Comp. Bawr, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 176, 
ss. Meier, p. 199, ss. 

* De Div. Nat. 1.18: Num quid veris ratiocinationibus obsistit, si dicamus, 
Patrem et Filium ipsius habitudinis, qua dicitur ad aliquid, nomina esse et 
plus quam habitudinis? Non enim credendum est, eandem esse habitudinem 
in excellentissimis divine essentia substantiis, et in his, qua post eam ab ea 
condita sunt. Quemadmodum superat omnem essentiam, sapientiam, virtu- 
tem, ita etiam habitudinem omnino ineffabiliter supergreditur. According 
to 1. 14, Scotus (appealing to earlier theologians and Inquisitores veritatis) 
calls the Father the essentia, the Son the sapientia, and the Spirit the vita 
Dei. On the question respecting the relation between the four categories 
of nature, creans etc. (see § 165), and the three persons of the Trinity, 
comp. Baur, Trinitätlehre, ii. p. 275, ss. Meier, p. 230, ss. Ritter, vii. 
250. [ Christlier in his recent work on John Scotus Erigena, 1860, gives a 
full exposition of his views on the Trinity, pp. 178-187. Thus in De Div. 
Nat. ii. 29, he teaches, that there are three causes in one cause, and one in 
three, as there is one God existing “in tribus substantiis per se subsistenti- 
bus” On the procession of the Holy Spirit, he agreed more nearly with 
the Greek than with the Latin church; for he says, if the Spirit proceeds 
from the Father and the Son, he proceeds from two causes ; and, “ ex duabus 
causis unam causam confluere, rationi non facile occurrit.” But his whole 
doctrine of the Trinity is modified by his fundamental pantheistic view, that 


$ 170. Tue Doctrine or THE TRINITY. 459 


there are no distinctions in God; God is not essentially either a unity or 
trinity, but more than both ; comp. Christlier, p. 184.] 

* In accordance with his nominalistie notions Roscelinus regarded the 
appellation God, which is common to the three persons, as a mere name, 
i. e,, as the abstract idea of a genus, under which the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are comprehended (as three individuals, as it were). This was at 
least the meaning which his opponents attached to his language: see Ep. 
Joannis Monachi ad Anselmum (given by Baluze, Miscell. L. iv. p. 478): 
Hane de tribus Deitatis personis questionem Roscelinus movet: Si tres per- 
son sunt una tantum res, et non sunt tres res per se, sicut tres angeli aut 
tres animze, ita tamen ut voluntate et potentia omnino sint idem: ergo Pater 
et Spir. S. cum filio incarnatus est—This opinion was condemned by the 
synod of Soissons (A. p. 1093), and combated by Anselm in his treatise: De 
Fide Trinitatis et de Incarnatione Verbi contra Blasphemias Rucelini.—But 
Anselm doubted the accuracy of the statements made by his opponents, c. 
3: Sed forsitan ipse non dicit: “sicut sunt tres anime aut tres angeli;” he 
thought it more probable that Roscelinus had expressed himself in general 
terms: Tres personas esse tres, sine additamento alicujus similitudinis, and 
that the above illustration was added by his opponents. Neveriheless he 
was also disposed to attach credit to the statements of his opponents? comp. 
ce. 2* Comp. Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 400, ss. Meier, 243. Hasse, ii. 
287, sq. 

* Concerning the history of Abelard’s condemnation at the synod of Sois- 
sons (Concilium Suessionense, A. Ὁ. 1121), and at Sens, 1140, comp. the 
works on ecclesiastical history, and Neander, der heilige Bernhard, p. 121, ss. 
His views are principally contained in his Introductio ad Theologiam, and in 
his Theologia Christiana. He proceeds from the absolute perfection of God. 
If God is absolutely perfect, he must also be absolutely powerful, wise, and 
good. Power, wisdom, and love, are therefore, in his opinion, the three per- 
sons of the Trinity, and the difference is merely nominal, Theol. Christiana 
I, 1, p. 1156, ss. : Summi boni perfectionem, quod Deus est, ipsa Dei sapientia 
incarnata Christus Dominus describendo tribus nominibus diligenter dis- 
tinxit, cum unicam et singularum individuam penitus ac simplicem substan- 
tiam divinam, Patrem et Filium et Spirit. S. tribus de causis appellavit : 
Patrem quidem secundum illam unicam majestatis suze potentiam, qua 
est omnipotentia, quia scilicet eflicere potest, quidquid vult, cum nihil ei 
resistere queat; Filium autem eandem Divinam substantiam dixit secun- 
dum proprise sapientiz discretionem, qua videlicet cuncta dijudicare ac 
discernere potest, et nihil eam latere possit, quo decipiatur; Spiritum $. 
etiam vocavit ipsam, secundum illam benignitatis sus gratiam, qua omnia, 
qua summa condidit sapientia, summa ordinat bonitate et ad optimum que- 
que finem accommodat, malo quoque bene semper utens et mirabiliter quan- 


* At a later period Jerome of Prague was charged with tetratheism, and even with more 
than that. He is said to have taught: In Deo sive in divina essentia non solum est 
Trinitas personarum, sed etiam quaternitas rerum et quinternitas, etc. Istee res in divinis 
sunt sic distinctee, quod una non est alia, et tamen qualibet earum est Deus. Istarum 
rerum una est aliis perfectior. See Hermann von der Hardt, Acta et Decreta, T. iv. p. viii. 
8S. p. 645. 


460 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


tumlibet perverse facta optime disponens, quasi qui utraque manu pro dextra 
utatur et nesciat nisi dextram...... Tale est ergo tres personas, hoc est Patrem 
et Filium et Spirit. S. in divinitate confiteri, ac si commemoraremus divinam 
potentiam generantem, divinam sapıentiam genitam, divinam benignitatem 
procedentem. Ut his videlicet tribus commemoratis summi boni perfectio 
predicetur, cum videlicet ipse Deus et summe potens, 7. e., omnipotens, et 
summe sapiens et summe benignus ostenditur. Comp. Introd. ad Theol. I. 
10, p. 991, and the other passages quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 
53, 54.—The relation in which the Father stands to the Son and Spirit, 
Abelard compares to that in which matter stands to form (materia et mate- 
riatum). As a wax figure is composed of wax, but, being a distinctly shaped 
figure, differs from the unshapen mass, so the Son, as materia materiata, 
differs from the Father. The latter, however, remains the materia ipsa, nor 
can it be said with the same propriety, that the wax owes its origin to the 
figure, as it can be said that the figure owes its origin to the wax. He also 
compares the Trinity to a brass seal, and draws a distinction between the 
substance of which the seal (ss) is composed, the figure carved in the brass 
(sigillabile), and the seal itself (sigillans), inasmuch as it shows what is in the 
act of sealing.—The comparison which Abelard drew (Introd. ii. 12) between 
the three persons of the Trinity, and the three persons in grammar (prima 
que loquitur, secunda ad quam loquitur, tertia de qua loquuntur) was par- 
ticularly offensive, and might easily be represented as countenancing Trithe- 
ism. See Baur, ii. 503. Meter, 251. 

° The heterodox opinions of Gilbert were also connected with the contro- 
versy between Nominalism and Realism; he started from Realism, but at 
last arrived at the same results to which Roscelinus had been led by Nomi- 
nalism. According to the statements made by him in Paris 1147, and in 
Rheims 1148, in the presence of Eugenius III., he asserted: divinam essentiam 
non esse Deum. The former is the form by which God is God, but it is not 
God himself, as humanity is the form of man, but not man himself. The 
Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one ; but not in reference to the guod 
est, but only in reference to the quo est, i.e. (the substantial form). We can 
therefore say: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one; but not: God is 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Gilbert considered the error of Sabellius to 
have consisted in this, that he confounded the quo est with the quod est. 
He himself was charged with separating the persons in the manner of Arius. 
There was indeed the semblance of tritheism in his proposition: that that 
which makes the three persons to be three, are tria singularia quedam, tres 
res numerabiles. The distinction which he drew between the quod est, the 
divine essence as such, and the three persons, brought upon him the further 
charge of believing in a quaternitas—Gilbert was not formally condemned, 
but Eugenius III. declared, that in theology, God and the Godhead could not 
be separated from one another. Comp. especially Gaufredi, Abbatis Clars- 
vallensis, Epistola ad Albinum Card. et Episc. Albanens. (Mansi, T. xxi. p. 
728, ss.), and his Libellus contra Capitula Gilberti Pietav. Episcop. in 
Mabillon’s edition of Bernhard’s works, T. II. p. 1336, ss. Baur, ii. 509. 
Meier, 264, sq. 

° In Anselm, as in Augustine, the Son is the intelligence of God, and the 


$ 170 Tue Doctrine OF THE TRINITY. 461 


- 


Spirit is the love of God; Monol. c. 27, 5. C. 30, he says of the Son (the 
Word): Si mens humana nullum ejus aut sui habere memoriam aut intelli- 
gentiam posset, nequaquam se ab irrationabilibus creaturis, et illam ab omni 
creatura,'secum sola tacite disputando, sicut nunc mens mea facit, discerneret. 
Ergo summus ille spiritus, sicut est eternus, ita eterne sui memor est, et in- 
telligit se ad similitudinem mentis rationalis: immo non ad ullius similitudi- 
nem, sed ille principaliter, et mens rationalis ad ejus similitudinem. At si 
zterne se intelligit, eterne se dieit.. Si sterne se dicit, sterne est verbum 
ejus apud ipsum. Sive igitur ille cogitetur nulla alia existente essentia, sive 
aliis existentibus, necesse est, verbum illius coxternum illi esse cum ipso 
......C, 36: Sscut igitur ille creator est rerum et principium, sic et ver- 
bum ejus; nec tamen sunt duo, sed unus creator et unum prineipium...... 
C. 37: Quamvis enim necessitas cogat, ut siut duo: nullo tamen modo 
exprimi potest, quid duo sint......C. 38: Etenim proprium unius est, esse 
ex altero; et proprium est alterius, alterum esse ex illo. ©. 39:......Ihus 
est verissimum proprium esse parentem, istius vero veracissimam esse prolem, 
C. 42:.,....Sicut sunt (pater et filius) oppositi relationibus, ut alter numquam 
suscipiat proprium alterius: sicat sunt concordes natura, ut alter emper 
teneat essentiam alterius. C.43:......Est autem perfecte summa essentia 
pater et perfecte summa essentia filius: pariter ergo perfectus pater per se est, 
et pariter perfectus filius per se est, sicut uterque sapit per se. Non enim 
idcirco minus perfecta est essentia vel sapientia filius, quia est essentia nata 
de patris essentia, et sapientia de sapientia: sed tunc minus perfecta essen- 
tia vel sapientia esset, si non esset per se, aut non saperet per se. Nequa- 
quam enim repugnat, ut filius per se subsistat, et de patre habeat esse.— 
Nevertheless he speaks of a priority of the Father, c, 44: Valde tamen 
magis congruit filium dici essentiam patris, quam patrem essentiam filii ; 
quoniam namque pater a nullo habet essentiam nisi a se ipso, non satis apte 
dicitur habere essentiam alicujus nisi suam: quia vero filius essentiam suam 
habet a patre, et eandem habet pater, aptissime dici potest, habere essentiam 
patris.—C. 45: Veritas quoque patris aptissime dici potest filius, non solum 
eo sensu, quia est eadem filii veritas, que est et patris, sicut jam perspectum 
est, sed etiam hoc sensu, ut in eo intelligatur non imperfecta quaedam imitatio, 
sed integra veritas patern® substantia, quia non est aliud, quam quod est 
pater. At si ipsa substantia patris est intelligentia et scientia et sapientia et 
veritas, consequenter colligitur: quia, sicut filius est intelligentia et scientia et 
sapientia et veritas patern® substantia, ita est intelligentia intelligenti, 
scientia scientiz, sapientia sapientiz et veritas veritatis......C. 47: Est 
igitur filius memoria patris et memoria memoriz, ?. e,, memoria memor patris, 
qui est memoria, sicut est sapientia patris et sapientia sapientie, ὁ, e., sa- 
pientia sapiens patrem sapientiam, et filius quidem memoria nata de memoria, 
sicut sapientia nata de sapientia, pater vero de nullo nata memoria vel sa- 
pientia——Concerning the Spirit he expresses himself as follows. C. 48: 
Palam certe est rationem habenti, eum ideirco sui memorem esse aut se 
inielligere, quia se amat, sed ideo se amare, quia sui meminit et se intelligit : 
nec eum se posse amare, si sui non sit memor aut se non intelligit. Nulla 
enim res amatur sine ejus memoria et intelligentia, et multa tenentur memo- 
ria et intelliguntur, que non amantur, Patet igitur amorem summi spiritus 


462 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


ex eo procedere, quia sui memor est et se intelligit. Quodsi in memoria 
sumini spiritus intelligitur pater, in intelligentia filius, manifestum est : quia 
a patre pariter et a filio summi spiritus amor procedit. C. 49: Sed si se 
amat summus spiritus, procul dubio se amat pater, amat se filius, et alter 
alterum : quia singulus pater summus est spiritus, et singulus filius summus 
spiritus, et ambo simul unus spiritus. Et quia uterque pariter sui et alterius 
meminit, et se et alterum intelligit, et quoniam omnino id ipsum est quod 
amat vel amatur in patre et quod in filio, necesse est, ut pari amore uterque 
diligat se et alterum.—C. 55. Respecting the relation in which the three per- 
sons stand to each other, he says: Patrem itaque nullus facit sive creat aut 
gignit, filium vero pater solus gignit, sed non facit; pater autem pariter et 
filius non faciunt neque gignunt, sed quodammodo, si sic dici potest, spirant 
suum amorem: quamvis enim non nostro more spiret summa incommutabilis 
essentia, tamen ipsum amorem a se ineffabiliter procedentem, non discedendo 
ab illa, sed existendo ex illa, forsitan non alio modo videtur posse dici aptius 
ex se emittere quam spirando. C. 57: Jucundum est intueri in patre et 
filio et utriusque spiritu, quomodo sint in se invicem tanta equalitate, ut 
nullus alium excedat......Totam quippe suam memoriam summus intel- 
ligit spiritus* et amat, et totius intelligentize meminit et totam amat, et totius 
amoris meminit et totum intelligit. Intelligitur autem in memoria pater, in 
intelligentia filius, in amore utriusque spiritus. Tanta igitur pater et filius et 
utriusque spiritus equalitate sese complectuntur et sunt im se invicem, ut 
eorum nullus alium excedere, aut sine eo esse probetur...... C. 60:2... Est 
enim unusquisque non minus in aliis quam in se ipso...... (It should be 
observed that Anselm admitted that this relation can neither be compre- 
hended, nor expressed in suitable words, ec. 62.) Comp. Baur, ii. 380, sq. 
Meier, 238, 55. Hasse, ii. 127, 146, 181, 287, 222, sq. 

" Sentent. Lib. i. Dist. 5 (quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. p. 
56, 57), and Dist. 25. K: Alius est in persona vel personaliter pater, ὁ. e., 
proprietate sua pater alius est quam filius, et filius proprietate sua alius quam 
pater. Paternali enim proprietate distinguitur hypostasis patris ab hypostasi 
fili, et hypostasis filii filiali proprietate discernitur a patre, et Spir. S. ab 
utroque processibili proprietate distinguitur. Comp. Baur, Trinitätslehre, 
ii. p. 550. Meier, 268, sg. Joachim, abbot of Flore, opposed Peter Lom- 
bard, and charged him with having taught: Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
Sanct. quandam summam esse rem, que neque sit generans, neque genita, 
neque procedens. But Peter Lombard had only urged the importance of 
the distinction often neglected between God (as such) and God the Father 
(as one of the persons of the Trinity), and had therefore asserted: Non est 
dicendum, quod divina essentia genuit filium, quia cum filius sit divina es- 
sentia, jam esset filius res, a qua generaretur, et ita eadem res se ipsam gen- 
eraret...... quod omnino esse non potest. Sed pater solus genuit filium, et 
a patre et filio procedit Spiritus S. But he thus exposed himself to the 
appearance of holding to a quarternity. (On the doctrine of Joachim him- 
self, see note 13). 


* The word spiritus is also used through the whole treatise in reference to God in 
general. 


§ 170. Tue DocTkine or THE TRINITY. 463 


* Alexander Hailes, Summa, P. i. Q. 42, Membr. 2 (quoted by Münscher, 
ed. by von Cölln, p. 55, Cramer, vol. vii. p. 809, ss.) : Thomas Aquinas, P. i. 
Qu. 27-43. On the latter and Duns Scotus, see Baur, ii. 685, sg. Meier, 
274.—We meet with a purely speculative apprehension of the Trinity in the 
work of Alanus ab Insulis, 1. art. 25 (Pez,i. p. 484); he regarded the Father 
as matter, the Son as form, and the Holy Spirit as the union of both. On 
Alexander Hales see Cramer, 1.c. The generation of the Son is explained 
by Alexander from the diffusive nature of God; at the same time a distine- 
tion is made between material generation (from the substance of the Father), 
original generation (as a human son is begotten by his father), and ordinal 
generation (as the morning gives rise to noon) ; but none of these can be 
applied to the divine being. It is only in so far admissible to speak of the 
Son being begotten from the substance of the Father, as such language is 
not meant to imply anything material, but only intended to teach, that the 
essence of the Son is not distinct from that of the Father. 

° Questions such as the following were started: Was it necessary that God 
should beget? or might he have possessed the power, but not the will to beget ? 
why are there just three persons in the Trinity ? why not more or less? how 
does it happen that the name of the Father is put first, and the names of 
the Son and Spirit follow, though all three are equal? is it allowed to invert 
the order, and why not? ete. Anselm (Monol. c. 40), inquired into the 
reason for calling God Father, in reference to the act of generation, and not 
mother. He also demonstrated very seriously, that the Son was the fittest 
of the three persons of the Trinity to become man (Cur Deus homo ii. 9: 
Si quaelibet alia persona incarnetur, erunt duo filii in Trinitate, filius scilicet 
Dei, qui et ante incarnationem filius est, et ille qui per incarnationem filius 
erit virginis: et erit in personis, que semper aquales esse debent, insequalitas 
secundum dignitatem nativitatum...... Item, si Pater fuerit incarnatus, erunt 
duo nepotes in Trinitate, quia Pater erit nepos parentum virginis per homi- 
nem assumtum, et Verbum, cum nibil habeat de homine, nepos tamen erit 
virginis, quia filii ejus erit filius, quae omnia inconvenientia sunt, nee in incar- 
natione Verbi contingunt. Est et aliud, cur magis conveniat incarnari filio, 
quam aliis personis, quia convenientius sonat filium supplicare Patri, quam 
aliam personam alii.* Item, homo, pro quo erat oraturus, et diabolus, quem 
erat expugnaturus, ambo falsam similitudinem Dei per propriam voluntatem 
presumserant. Unde quasi specialius adversus personam Filii peccaverunt, 
qui vera Patris similitudo creditur, etc. (Comp. below, $ 179.) 

© One of the illustrations of Micetas is, 6. g., taken from a balance (The- 
saur. c. 30). The Son represents the central point of union between the 
Father and the Holy Spirit, and preserves the most perfeet equilibrium be- 
tween the two; but the whole denotes the perfeet equilibrium between 
honor, power, and essence, the internal divine equality and harmony, inas- 
much as no person elevates himself above the other. The double-winged 
Seraphim also are in his view a figure of the Trinity. But while in the 
former case the Son is made the central-point of union, in the latter the body 


* Why convenientius, excepting that in the background the Father always has the 
priority ? 


464 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


of the seraphim represents the Father, and the wings denote the Son and 
the Holy Spirit. Comp. Ullmann, |. c. p. 41, 42. 

τ ὡς Many of the earlier theologians asserted the incomprehensibility of 
God, and at the same time propounded the most profound mysteries of the 
doctrine of the Trinity with a degree of assurance which would allow of no 
doubt ; and Nicolas shows the same inconsistency. In the same sentence 
he represented the nature of God as beyond knowledge and expression, beyond 
the apprehension and investigation even of the highest order of spirits, and 
gave the most precise and apodictical definitions concerning the relation be- 
tween the divine essence and the divine persons” (e. g. Refut. p. 23, 24); 
Ullmann, p. 78. Nicolas removed the apparent contradiction of a Trinity 
in unity by avoiding all analogies with created objects. He would not have 
the terms unity and trinity understood in the sense in which they are used by 
mathematicians, viz., as numeric determinations. But in his opinion the unity 
of God is only a unity of essence, and the trinity a trinity of persons. He 
thought that there was nothing contradictory in the union of such a unity 
with such a trinity; see Ullmann, p. 79, 80. (He also appealed to Gregory 
of Nazianzum, Orat. xxix. 2: Movac ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι 
τριάδος ἔστη.) “We adore,” said Nicolas (Refut. p. 67), “as the creative 
principle of all existence, that God who is one as respects his essential nature, 
but consists of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
With regard to these three, we praise the Father as that which causes (@¢ 
αἴτιον), but as to the Son and the Holy Spirit, we confess that they pro- 
ceeded from the Father as that which is caused (ὡς altıard); not created 
or brought forth in the common sense of the word, but in a supernatural, 
superessential manner. Being of the same essence, they are united with the 
Father (the one by generation,-the other by procession), and with each other, 
without being confounded; they are distinct without separation.” Regard- 
ing the term αἴτεον, he would have it understood that it does not denote a 
creative or formative, but a hypostatic causality, which might be called yev- 
γνητικόν (2. e., generating) in relation to the Son, and προακτικὸν εἴτουν 
προβλητικὸν (i. 6., the source of procession) in reference to the Spirit. 
Thus he also said (p. 45: 6 πατὴρ Ev πνεῦμα προβάλλει ; see Ullmann, 
lc. p. 82). 

% Tauler (Predigten, ii. p. 172) said: “Concerning this most excellent 
and holy triunity, we can not find any suitable words in which we might 
speak of it, and yet we must express this superessential, incomprehensible 
Trinity in words. If we therefore attempt to speak of it, it is as impossible 
to do it properly, as to reach the sky with one’s head. For all that we can 
say or think of it, is a thousand times less proportionate to it, than the point 
of a needle is to heaven and earth, yea a hundred thousand times less, beyond 
all number and proportion. We might talk to a wonderful amount, and yet 
we could neither express nor understand how the superessential unity can be 
with the distinction of the persons. It is better to meditate on these things 
than to speak of them ; for it is not pleasant either to say much about this 
matter, or to hear of it, especially when words must be introduced [taken 
from other matters], and because we are altogether unequal to the task. 
For the whole subject is at an infinite distance from us, and wholly foreign 


$ 170. Tue Doctrine OF THE TRINITY. 465 


to us, nor is it revealed to us, for it even surpasses the apprehension of 
angels. We therefore leave it to great prelates and learned men; they 
must have something to say, in order to defend the catholic faith; but we 
will simply believe.” 

** In opposition to Peter Lombard, Joachim, Abbot of Flore, laid down a 
theory which was condemned by the fourth council of the Lateran (A. Ὁ. 
1215), though he pretended to have received it by inspiration. He regarded 
the psaltery of ten strings as the most significant image of the Trinity. Its 
three corners represent the trinity, the whole the unity. This unity he com- 
pares with the unity of believers in the church. Concerning the further 
development of this notion, running out into a rude substantialism, see Hn- 
gelhardt, kirchenhistorische Abhandlungen, p. 265, ss.—The views of Master 
Eckart on the doctrine of the Trinity are given by Schmidt in the Studien 
und Kritiken, 1. c. p. 694. In his Sermon on the Trinity, fol. 265 A, it is 
said: “ What is the speaking of God? The Father beholding himself with 
a simple knowledge, and looking into the simple purity of his nature, sees’ 
all creatures there pictured, and speaks within himself; that Word is a clear 
knowledge, and that is the Son; therefore the phrase “God speaks,” is 
equivalent to “God begets.” For other passages, comp. Schmidt, 1. c. p. 
696.—H. Suso taught as follows (c. 55, see Diepenbrock, p. 215): “ In pro- 
portion as any being is simple in itself, it is manifold in its powers and 
capacities. That which has nothing, can give nothing; that which has 
much, can give much. God is in himself the fullness of all that is perfect, 
the inflowing and everflowing good, but, because his goodness is unlimited 
and higher than all, he will not keep it to himself, but he delights in shar- 
ing it in himself and out of himself. On this account, the first and highest 
act of the manifestation of the summum bonum must have reference to it- 
self, and that can not be, except in a presence, inward, substantial, personal, 
natural, necessary without being compulsory, infinite, and perfect. ΑἹ] 
other manifestations which are in time or in created objects, are only the 
reflex of the eternal pouring out of the unfathomable divine goodness. 
Therefore the schoolmen say, that in the emanation of the creature from the 
first original there is a circular return of the end into the beginning : for as 
the flowing out of the person from God is a complete image of the origin 
of the creature, so it is also a type of the re-inflowing of the creature into 
God. Now observe the difference of the emanation of God...... A human 
father gives to his son in his birth a part of his own nature, but not at once, 
and not the whole of that which he is; for he himself is a compound being. 
But as it is evident, that the divine emanation is so much more intimate and 
noble according to the greatness of the good which he himself is, and as 
God infinitely surpasses all other goods, it necessarily follows that his ema- 
nation is equal to his nature, and that such a pouring out of himself can not 
take place without imparting his nature in personal property. If you can 
now contemplate with a pure eye, and behold the purest goodness of the 
highest good, which is in its very nature a present and operative beginning, 
and loves itself naturally and willingly, then you will see the exceeding 
supernatural going forth of the Word from the Father, by whose genera- 
tion and speaking all things are In into being and formed, and you will 


466 Tuirp Preriop. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


see in the highest good, and in the highest manifestation of it, the necessary 
origin of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And as this 
highest flowing forth proceeds from the supreme and essential Godhead, 
there must be in the said Trinity the most supreme and most intimate same- 
ness of essence, the highest equality and self-hood of being which the three 
persons possess in triumphant process, in the undivided substance and the 
undivided omnipotence of the three persons in the Deity.” (Suso, however, 
acknowledged that none could explain in words how the Trinity of the 
Divine persons could exist in the unity of being. Ibid. p. 217.) Comp. 
Schmidt in Stud. und Kritik. 1840, p. 43.—Similar but more definite views 
were entertained by Ruysbroek, whose opinions concerning the Trinity are 
given in the work of Engelhardt, p. 174-177. According to Ruysbroek, 
there are four fundamental properties in God. “He manifests himself in 
nature through wisdom and love, he draws to himself by unity and sub- 
stantiality. The eternal truth is begotten from the Father, the eternal love 
proceeds from the Father and the Son. These are the two emanating attri- 
butes of God. The unity of the Divine nature draws the three persons 
within by the bonds of love, and the Divine wisdom comprehends the unity 
in a certain repose with a joyful embrace in essential love. These are the 
centripetal attributes of God.” 

Hugo of St. Victor found in external nature an indication of the Trin- 
ity. He perceived a still purer impression of it in the rational creation, 
viz., the spirit, which is only assisted by the external world, or the world of 
bodies; in the one case we have a true type, in the other only a sign. How 
the Trinity manifests itself in the external creation (power, wisdom, and 
goodness), he showed in his treatise, De tribus Diebus, T. i. fol. 24-33. 
Comp. De Sacram. Lib. i. P. iii. c. 28; Ziebner, p. 375. In his dialectic de- 
velopments, Hugo followed his predecessors, Augustine and Anselm, but 
employed that fuller and more poetical style which is peculiar to the mystics, 
especially in his treatise: De tribus Diebus. On the whole, Hugo differed 
from Anselm “by remaining at a certain distance, and thus keeping to more 
general and indefinite expressions, in the use of which he exposed himself to 
less danger.” Liebner, p. 381. We may notice as very remarkable, foreign 
to the general spirit of mysticism, but truly scholastic, the manner in which 
Hugo answered the question, Why the Sacred Scriptures* have ascribed 
power in particular to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and love to the Holy 
Spirit, since power, wisdom, and love belong equally and essentially to all 
the three, and are eternal. He argued as follows: “When men heard of 
the Father and Son being in God, they might, in accordance with human 
relations, think of the Father as old and aged, and consequently weaker 
than the Son, but of the Son as juvenile and unexperienced, and therefore 
less wise than the Father. To prevent any such mistake, Scripture has 


* It is scarcely necessary to observe that Scripture by no means sanctions such an ar- 
bitrary distribution of the Divine attributes among the three persons. With equal if not 
greater propriety, the Son might have been called love, and the Spirit wisdom or power. 
It was only the tracing of the idea of the Logos to that of the Sophia in the Old Testa- 
ment, and the predominant speculative tendency (according to which intelligence precedes 
all else), which led to this inference from the Scripture usage. 


$ 170. Tue Docrrine OF THE TRINITY. — 467 


wisely and cautiously ascribed power to the Father and wisdom to the Son. 
Likewise men, hearing of God the Holy Spirit (Spiritus) might think of him 
as a snorting (Germ. schnaubend) and restive being, and be terrified at his 
supposed harshness and cruelty. But then Scripture coming in and calling 
the Holy Ghost loving and mild, tranquillized them” (De Sacram. c. 26). 
The passage is cited by Liebner, p. 381 and 382, where further particulars 
may be compared. Hugo, however, rejected, generally speaking, all subtile 
questions, and had a Bite insight into the figurative language of Scrip-. 
ture.—Nor did Richard of St. Victor indulge so much in subtile specula- 
tions in his work, De Trinitate, as many other scholastics. It is true, he 
adopted the same views concerning the trias of power, wisdom, and love, 
but he laid more stress upon the latter, and ascribed to it the generation 
of the Son. In the highest good there is the fullness and the perfection of * 
goodness, and consequently the highest love: for there is nothing more 
perfect than love. But love (amor), in order to be charity (charitas), must 
have for its object, not itself, but something else. Hence where there is no 
plurality of persons, there can be no charity. Love toward creatures is not 
sufficient, for God can only love what is worthy of the highest love. The 
love of God to none but himself would not be the highest love; in order 
to render it such, it is necessary that it should be manifested toward a 
person who is Divine, ete. But even this is not yet the highest love. Love 
is social. Both persons (who love each other) wish a third person to be 
loved as much as they love each other, for it is a proof of weakness not 
to be willing to allow society in love. Therefore the two persons in the 
Trinity agree in loving-a third one. The fullness of love also requires 
highest perfection, hence the three persons are equal..... In the Trinity 
there is neither a greater nor a less; two are not greater than one, three are 
not greater than two. This appears indeed incomprehensible, etc. : Com- 
pare also the passage De Trin. i. 4, quoted by Hase, Dogmatik, p. 637, and 
especially Engelhardt, |. c. p. 108, ss. Baur, Trinit. ii. 536. Meier, 292.— 
The other scholastics who manifested a leaning to mysticism, argued in a 
similar way. Thus Bonaventura, Itiner. Mentis, c. 6. Raimund of Sa- 
bunde, ὁ. 49.* (Compare also Gerson, Sermo I. in Festo S. Trin. quoted by 
Ch. Schmidt, p. 106). 

[On Raymund Lulli’s view of the Trinity, see Wee Hist. Dog. 563, 


= On Raimund’s Doctrine of the Trinity, see Matzke, p. 54 sq. Among other things he 
compares the three persons with the three forms of the verb; the Father is the active. 
the Son the passive, and the Holy Spirit the impersonal verb! Matzke, p. 44. [ Matzke, 
p. 55, Note, quotes from Tit. 51, on the Trinity : Et quia dare non potest esse sine reci- 
pere, neque dans sine recipiente, ideo necessario in esse divino et in natura divina sunt 
duo, scilicet unus dans et alter recipiens, unus producens et alter productus, ete. And 
on the Holy Spirit (p. 56), from Tit. 52: Et cum ex dare et recipere, quando sunt per- 
fecta, oportet quod procedat et sequatur aliud, quod non est dare neque recipere, seilicet 
amor, ideo, cum in divina nature sit dare et recipere, oportet quod procedat amor a dante 
in recipientem et a recipiente in dantem, et sic est ibi processio amoris ab uno in alterum 
et e converso, et sic est ibi tertia res producta scilicet amor, quee quidem res non est pa- 
ter neque filius, sed procedens necessario de ambabus, quia pater non potest non amare 
suum filium ab ipso productum, nec filius non amare patrem qui genuit eum zqualem per 
omnia sibi.] 


468 ThHırD PERIOD. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


sq—In his Liber Preverbiorum, on the Son: Qualibet divinarum rationum 
est principium per patrem in filio et per filium est medium et per Spiritum 
Sanctum est quies et finis. Id propter quod spiritus sanctus non producit 
personam, est, ut appetitus cojuslibet rationis in illo habeat finem et quietem. 
Quia pator et filius per amorem se habent ad unum finem, ille finis est 
Spiritus Sanctus...... Quia Deus est tantum Deus per agere, quam per ex- 
istere, habet in sua essentia distinctas personas. Nulla substantia potest 
esse sine distinctione: sine distinctione non esset quidquam.] 

15. Savonarola showed in a very ingenious manner (Triumphus Crucis, Lib. 
iii. c. 3, p. 192-96, quoted by Rudelbach, p. 366, 67), that a certain procession 
or emanation exists in all creatures. The more excellent and noble these crea- 
tures are, the more perfect the said procssion : the more perfect it is, the more 
internal. If you take fire and bring it into contact with wood, it kindles and 
assimilates it. But this procession is altogether external, for the power of the 
fire works only externally. If you take a plant, you will find that its vital power 
works internally, changing the moisture which it extracts from the ground into 
the substance of the plant, and producing the flower which. was internal. This 
procession is much more internal than that of fire ; but it is not altogether 
internal, for it attracts moisture from without, and produces the flower ex- 
ternally; and though the flower is connected with the tree, yet the fruit is 
an external production, and separates itself from the tree.—The sentient life 
is of a higher order. When I see a picture, a procession and emanation 
comes from the picture which produces an impression upon the eye ; the eye 
presents the object in question to the imagination or to the memory ; never- 
theless the procession remains internal though it comes from without. In- 
telligence is of astill higher order; aman having perceived something, forms 
in his inner mind an image of it, and delights in its contemplation : this 
gives rise to a certain love which remains in the faculty of thinking. It 
may indeed be said that even in this case there is something external (the 
perception). But from this highest and innermost procession we may draw 
further inferences with regard to God, who unites in himself all perfection— 
that the Father, as it were, begets out of himself an idea—which is his eter- 
nal Word (Logos), and that the love, which is the Holy Spirit, proceeds 
from the Father and the Son. This procession is the most perfect, because 
it does not come from Without, and because it remains in God.” Comp. Meier, 
Savonarola, p. 248, ss. 

16 Wessel (de Magnitudine Passionis, c. 74, p. 606, quoted by Ullmann, 
p. 206) expressed himself as follows: “ In our inner man, which is created 
after the image of, and in resemblance to God, there is a certain trinity : un- 
derstanding (mens), reason (intelligentia), and will (voluntas). These three 
are equally sterile, inactive, and unoccupied, when they are alienated from 
their prototype. Our understanding without wisdom, is like the light with- 


* But Savonarola also pointed out in very appropriate language the insufficiency of our 
conceptions: “God treats us as a mother treats her child. She does not say to him: Go, 
and do such and such a thing; but she accommodates herself to the capacity of the 
child, and makes her wishes known by broken words and by gestures. Thus God accom- 
modates himself to our ideas.” See Rudelbach, 1. c. p. 369. 


§ 171. Creation, 469 


out the eye, and what else is this wisdom but God the Father ?* The Word 
(the Logos) is the law and the norm of our judgments, and teaches us to 
think of ourselves with humility according to the true wisdom. And the 
Spirit of both, the divine love, is the food of the will (Spiritus amborum, 
Deus charitas, lac est voluntati).” The practical application follows, of 
course. 

The three persons in the Trinity were referred in a peculiar way to the development of 
the history of the world. According to Hugo of St. Victor, (De tribus Diebus, quoted by 
Liebner, p. 383, note), the day of fear commenced with the promulgation of the law given 
by the Father (power); the day of truth with the manifestation of the Son (wisdom) ; 
and the day of love with the effusion of the Holy Spirit (love). Thus there was a pro- 
gressive development of the times towards greater and greater light !—Amalrich of Bena 
and the mystico-pantheistie sects, on the other hand, interpreted these three periods after 
their own notions, in connection with millennarian hopes. (Comp the Eschatology.) [A 
similar view was advanced by Joachim of Flore, and forms (says Baur, Dogmengesch., 
253), the chief contents of his three works, viz., Concordia Vet. et Nov. Test., Expositio 
in Apocalyps., and Psalterium decem Chordarum. The Father is the principium princi- 
pale, the Son and Spirit are the principia de principio. In the period of the Father (the 
more materialistic), God appears as the mighty—the terrible God of the law. The Son 
assumes human nature, to reveal the merciful love of God; and the Spirit appears in the 
form of the dove, the figure of the holy mother, the church. This revelation is a progres- 
sive one, gradually subduing the fleshly and material, and transforming it into the spirit- 
ual, ete. ] ᾿ 

Although the doctrine of the Trinity was generally reckoned among the mysteries, 
which could be made known to us only by revelation (compare $ 158), yet there was stilla 
controversy on the question, whether God could make himself known to the natural con- 
sciousness as triune, and in what way? Compare on this, Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. 697, 
sq. [This is entirely denied by Aquinas, and admitted in a qualified way by Duns 
Scotus. ] 

[The scholastics, says Baur, Dogmengesch. 252, give to the Trinity a more refined 
character, but in a sense not congruent with the dogma of the church. What they 
called persons, were not persons in the sense of the church, but relations. To construct 
the Trinity, they (with the exception of Anselm and Richard), did not get beyond the 
psychological distinction of intelligence and will, putting these into a merely coordinate 
relation, instead of endeavoring to grasp the different relations, in which God as Spirit, 
stands to himself, from the point of view of a vital spiritual process in its unity and totality. 
The more profound mystics struggle after such a conception, in what they say of a speak- 
ing of God, etc., see above, note 13.] 


8. 171. 


THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION, PROVIDENCE, AND THE GOVERNMENT 
OF THE WORLD.—THEODICY. 


The pantheistic system of John Scotus Erigena,' found no imi- 
tators among the orthodox scholastics ; they adhered rather to the 
idea of a creation out of nothing.” Later writers endeavored to 
define this doctrine more precisely, in order to prevent any misun- 
derstanding, as if nothing could have been the cause of existence.’— 


* Here he calls the Father Wisdom; the scholastics applied this term to the Son. 
Comp. above, note 14. 


470 TuirD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SOHOLASTICISM. 


The Mosaic account of the creation was interpreted literally by 
some, and allegorically by others... The opinion still continued 
generally to prevail, that the world is a work of divine goodness, and 
exists principally for the sake of man.” Though mysticism tended 
to induce its advocates to regard the independence of the finite crea- 
ture as a separation from the Creator, and consequently as a rebel- 
lion, and thus to represent creation as the work of Satan (after the 
manner of the Manicheans),’ yet these pious thinkers were roused 
by the sight of the works of God to the utterance of beautiful and 
elevating thoughts, and lost in wonder and adoration.” On the other 
hand, the schoolmen, fond of vain and subtle investigations, in- 
dulged here also in absurd inquiries.’—ÜConcerning the existence of 
evil in the world, the scholastics adopted for the most part the views 
of Augustine. Thus, some (e. g., Thomas Aquinas) regarded evil 
as the absence of good, and as forming a necessary part of the finite 
world, retaining however, the difference between moral evil and 
physical evil, (the evil of guilt, and the evil of its punishment).’ 
Others adopted, with Chrysostom, the notion of a twofold divine 
will (voluntas antecedens et consequens).”° 


" Comp. above § 165, 1, and De divina Natura, ii. c. 19, quoted by Müns- 
cher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 63. 

* God is not only the former (factor), but the creator and author (creator) 
of matter. This was taught by Hugo of St. Victor (Prolog. c. 1. Liebner, 
p. 355), and the same view was adopted by the other mystics. The advo- 
cates of Platonism alone sympathised with the notions of Origen. 

* Fredegis of Tours defended the reality of nothing, as the infinite (all- 
embracing) genus, from which all other genera and species of things derive 
their form: comp. his work De Nihilo, and Zitter, Gesch. der Christl. Phil. 
vi. 189, sg. Alexander Hales (Summa, P. ii. Queest. 9, Membr. 10), drew a 
distinction between nihilum privativum and negativum; see on this point 
Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 61, 62.—Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 495. [The 
nihil privativum abolishes the object of the act, the negativum, the act it- 
self: the creation from nothing is in the former sense.] Thomas Aquinas 
(Pars. 1. Qu. 46, art. 2), represented the doctrine of a creation out of nothing 
as an article of faith (credibile), but not as an object of knowledge and argu- 
mentation (non demonstrabile vel scibile), and expressed himself as follows, 
Qu. 45, art. 2: Quicunque facit aliquid ex aliquo, illud ex quo facit, prasup- 
ponitur actioni ejus et non producitur per ipsam actionem...... Si ergo 
Deus non ageret, nisi ex aliquo presupposito, sequeretur, quod illud praesup- 
positum non esset causatum ab ipso. Ostensum est autem supra, quod nihil 
potest esse in entibus nisi a Deo, qui est causa universalis totius esse. Unde 
necesse est dicere, quod Deus ex nihilo res in esse producit. Comp. Cramer, 
vii. p. 415, ss. Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 716: “The fact that Thomas con- 
sidered God the first cause and type of all things, plainly shows that in his 
opinion the creation, which is designated as a creation out of nothing, was not 
a sudden transition from non-existence to existence.” Quest. 44, art. 2; 


§ 171. Creation. ᾿ς ἈΠ 


Dicendum, quod Deus est prima causa exemplaris omnium rerum....Ipse 
Deus est primum exemplar omnium.— While Thomas and still more Albertus 
Magnus draw no distinct line of demarcation between the idea of emanation 
and that of creation (Baur, |. e. p. 723, ss.), Scotus adheres to the simple no- 
tion that God is the primum efficiens; nevertheless he distinguishes between 
an esse existentie and an esse essentie; but both can not be separated in 
reality, and the latter presupposes the former ; see lib. ii, Dist. 1, Qu. 2, and 
other passages in Baur, 726, sq. 

* Thus Hugo of St. Victor thought that the creation out of formless mat- 
ter in six days might be literally interpreted. The Almighty might have 
made it differently ; but in this way he would teach rational beings in a 
figure, how they are to be transformed from moral deformity into moral 
beauty...... In creating the light prior to all other works, he signified, that 
the works of darkness displeased him. The good and evil angels were 
separated at the same time, when light and darkness were separated. God 
did not separate light from darkness, till he saw the light, that it was 
good. In like manner, we should first of all see to our light, that it is good, 
and then we may proceed to a separation, etc. Observing that the phrase 
“and God saw that it was good,” is wanting in reference to the work of the 
second day in the Mosaic account of the creation, this mystic scholastic was 
led into further inquiries respecting the reason of this omission. He found it in 
the number two, which is an inauspicious number, because it denotes a fall- 
ing away from unity. Nor is it said, in reference to the waters above the 
firmament, as is done with regard to those under the firmament, that they 
were gathered together unto one place—because the love of God (the hea- 
venly water) is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. This love 
must expand itself and rise higher; but the waters under the firmament (the 
lower passions of the soul) must be kept together. Fishes and birds are 
created out of one and the same matter, yet different places are assigned to 
them, which is a type of the elect and the reprobate, from one and the same 
mass of corrupt nature : Comp. Liebner, p. 256, 57.—Friar Berthold saw in 
the works of the first three days of the creation, faith, hope, and love; see 
Kling, p. 462, 63. 

° Joh. Dam. De Fide Orth. ii. 2, (after Gregory of Nazianzum and Diony- 
sius Areopagita): ᾿Επεὶ οὖν ὁ ayadöc καὶ ὑπεράγαθος Θεὸς οὐκ ἠρκέσθη τῇ 
ἑαυτοῦ θεωρίᾳ, αλλ᾽ ὑπερβολῇ ἀγαθότητος εὐδόκησε γενέσθαι τινὰ τὰ εὐερ- 
γετηθησόμενα, καὶ μεθέξοντα τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀγαθότητος, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ 
εἷναι παράγει καὶ δημιουργεῖ τὰ σύμπαντα, döpard τε καὶ ὁρατὰ, καὶ τὸν 
ἐξ ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου συγκείμενον ἄνθρωπον.---- Π εἰν». Lomb, Sententt. 1], 
Dist. i. C.: Dei tanta est bonitas, ut summe bonus beatitudinis sus, qua 
zternaliter beatus est, alios velit esse participes, quoniam videt et communi- 
cari posse et minui omnino non posse. Illud ergo bonum, quod ipse erat et 
quo beatus erat, sola bonitate, non necessitate aliis communicari voluit..... . 
Lit. D: Et quia non valet ejus beatitudinis particeps existere aliquis, nisi per 
intelligentiam (que quanto magis intelligitur, tanto plenius habetur), fecit 
Deus rationalem creaturam, que summum bonum intelligeret et intelligendo 
amaret et amando possideret ac possidendo frueretur...... Lit. F.: Deus 
perfectus et summa bonitate plenus, nec augeri potest nec minui. Quod 


472 THıRrD Pertiop. THe AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


ergo rationalis creatura facta est a Deo, referendum est ad creatoris bonitatem 
et ad creature utilitatem. Comp. Alan. ab Ins. 11. 4 (quoted by Pez, Thes. 
i, p. 487, 88). — Hugo of St. Victor also said (quoted by Ziebner, p. 357, 
58): “The creation of the world had man, that of man had God for its 
end. The world should serve man, and man should serve God ; but the ser- 
vice of the latter is only man’s own advantage, since in this service he is to 
find his own happiness. For God being all-sufficient to himself, nor standing in 
need of the services of any one, man has received both, ὁ, e., all, viz., the good 
under him, and the good above him, the former to supply his necessities, the 
latter to constitute his happiness, the former for his benefit and use, the latter 
for his enjoyment and possession, Thus man, though created at a later 
period, was nevertheless the cause of all that was under him, and hence the 
high dignity of human nature.” Thomas Aquinas supposed God to have no 
other object than the communication of his own being, Summa, P. i. Qu. 44, 
art. 4: Primo agenti, qui est agens tantum, non convenit agere propter ac- 
quisitionem alicujus finis: sed intendit solum communicare suam perfec- 
tionem, que est ejus bonitas. Et unaqueeque creatura intendit consequi suam 
perfectionem, qu est similitudo perfectionis et bonitatis divine. Sic ergo 
divina bonitatis est finis rerum omnium. Comp. Cramer, vii. p. 414, 15. 
Baur, Trinit. ii. 731, sq. Ritter, viii. 284. [Christl. Phil. 1. 650. Bona- 
ventura, on the end of God in creation, argues, “ that God’s highest end must 
be his own glory, for it is said, God created all things for himself; not as if 
it was necessary for him, or to increase his glory, but in order to reveal and 
communicate it, in which the highest well-being of his creatures consists... 
Should any one say, that such a highest end is egotistic, the answer is, that it 
is one thing in God, and another with the creature; for in God there is no 
distinction between the general and the particular good ; he is the original 
ground of all good, and of the highest good. If He, from whom all other 
goodness is derived, were not to perform all his acts on account of himself, 
the effect that proceeded from him would not be truly good. Since the use 
of the creatures depends altogether on their relation to the supreme good, 
everything proceeds from the love of God, since he makes all things tend 
towards himself... What is the highest end of creation must also be the 
same for human actions.’ See Neander, Hist. of Dogmas. pp. 564-5.] 

° According to the author of the work, German Theology (cap. 1, from 
the commencement) the ideas of being a creature, being created, being an 
ego, and self-hood, are synonymous with love of the world, love of the crea- 
ture, self-love, self-will, natural carnal sense, and carnal pleasure. The crea- 
ture must depart, if God is to enter. He thinks it sinful “ to esteem created 
things, and to look upon them as something, while they are in reality— 
nothing.” Subsequently he admits, however, that those things have their 
being only in God: “ Out of that which is perfect, or without it, there is no 
true existence, but all is mere accident, or mere semblance and glitter, which 
neither is nor has true being, except in the fire from which the shining pro- 
ceeds, like the brightness which proceeds or flows out from fire, or light, or 
the sun.’—Some of the heretical sects of the middle ages entertained views 
on these points which bordered upon Manicheism. Thus Berthold, a Fran- 
ciscan monk, said in a sermon (quoted by Aling, p. 305; Wackernagel, 


§ 171. Creation. 473 


Lesebuch, i. Sp. 678): Some heretics believe and maintain that the devil 
created man, when our Lord created the soul in him. Comp. Hrmengardi, 
Opuse. contra Hereticos, qui dieunt et credunt, mundum istum et omnia 
visibilia non esse a Deo facta, sed a Diabolo, edited by Gretser in Bibl. Max, 
PP. T. xxiv. p. 1602. Gieseler, Church History, ii. ὃ 82, note o. [Comp. 
Vaughan’s Hours with the Mystics, 2d ed., 1859.] 

” Henry Suso (c. 54, quoted by Diepenbrock, p. 208) said : “ Now let us 
remain here for a while and contemplate the high and excellent master in 
his works. Look above you and around you, lock to the four quarters of 
the world, how wide and high the beautiful sky is in its rapid course, and 
how nobly the master has adorned it with the seven planets, each of which, 
with the exception of the moon, is much larger than the earth, and how it 
is beautified with the innumerable multitude of the bright stars. O, how 
clearly and cheerfully the beautiful sun rises in the summer season, and how 
diligently it gives growth and blessings to the soil; how the leaves and the 
grass come forth, how the beautiful flowers smile, how the forest, and the 
heath, and the field resound with the sweet airs of the nightingale and other 
small birds, how all the animals which were shut up during the severe win- 
ter come forth and enjoy themselves, and go in pairs, how young and old 
manifest their joy in merry and gladsome utterances. 0), tender God! if 
thou art so loving in thy creatures, how fair and lovely must thou be in thy- 
self /—Look further, I pray you, and behold the four elements, earth, water, 
air, and fire, and all the wonderful things in them, the variety and diversity 
of men, quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and the wonders of the deep, all of which 
ery aloud and proclaim the praise and honor of the boundless and infinite 
nature of God! O Lord, who preserves all this? who feeds it? Thou takest 
care of all, each in its own way, great and small, rich and poor, thou, O 
God! thou doest it, thou God art indeed God !” 

® John Damascenus, De Fide Orth. ii. 5, ss. treated of the whole range of 
natural science (cosmography, astronomy, physics, geology, etc.), so far as it 
was known to him, in the section on creation. Most of the scholasties fol- : 
lowed his example. Comp. Cramer, vii. p. 388, ss. But in introducing 
natural history into the province of dogmatic theology, they thought that 
they might put limits to physical investigation by the doctrine of the church, 
Thus it happened that e. y., in the time of Boniface [Bishop of Mayence], 
the assertion of Virgilius, a priest, that there are antipodes, was considered 
heretical; see Schröckh, xix. p. 219, 220.* 

° Anselm himself taught that this world is the best (omne quod est, recte 
est, Dial. de Ver. c. 7); and Abelard agreed with what Plato asserted (in 
the Timeeus): Deum nullatenus mundum meliorem potuisse facere, quam 


* An additional point in reference to the work of creation was the question, whether 
it is to be assigned to only one of the persons of the Trinity ? The theologians of the 
present period adopted the opinion of the earlier church, that all the three persons partic- 
ipated in it; Thomas Aquinas, Qu. 45, art. 6, Cramer, vii. p. 416. This was, however, 
scarcely more than a speculative idea. The power of creating was supposed to be more 
particularly possessed by the Father, for the very reason that power was peculiarly as- 
cribed to him; though various expressions were used, in the liturgical services, e. g. in 
the hymn: Veni Creator Spiritus, 


474 THırD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


fecerit (Introd. ad Theol. iii. c. 5, quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, ii. 
p. 70.) This assertion, however, met with opposition on the part of others. 
(Com. $ 167, note 7.) According to Alexander Hales, every individual 
possesses its own perfection, though it may appear imperfect compared with 
the whole, see Cramer, vil. p. 413.—Concerning the nature of evil, Thomas 
Aquinas expressed himself quite in the sense of Augustine (Qu. 48 and 49): 
evil is not a thing which exists by itself, but the absence and want of good. 
Evil is, moreover, necessary to constitute a difference of degrees ; the imper- 
fection of individual things belongs even to the perfection of the world 
(Summa. P. 1. Qu. 48, art. 2, quoted by Münscher, von Cölln, p. 74). But 
Thomas well knew how to make an exception in the case of moral evil: the 
latter is not only a defect, but the wicked are wanting in something in which 
they should not be wanting ; therefore the idea of evil belongs more prop- 
erly to the evil of guilt (malum culpze) than to the evil of punishment (ma- 
lum pene). (Comp. Tertull. advers. Mare. ii. 14). [According to Duns 
Scotus, all depends on the freedom of the finite creature, and accordingly, 
the goodness of God revealed in the perfection of the world, is conditioned 
by that freedom.” Baur, Dogmengesch. 254.] 

10. The scholastics commonly treated of Providence, and of the Theodicy, 
in connection with the divine attributes, with the divine will in particular. 
Hugo of St. Victor even said that the Divine providence itself is an attribute, 
viz. that attribute of God by which he takes care of all the works of his 
hands, abandons nothing that is his, and gives to every one his due and, 
right. Both the actual existence of good, and the mode of its existence, 
depend on the arrangements (dispositio) of God. It is not so with evil. 
Only the mode of its existence depends on God, but not its existence itself: 
for God does not do evil himself; but when evil is done, he overrules it 
(malum ordinabile est). De Sacram. e. 19-21, quoted by Liebner, p. 366. 
Cramer, vii. p. 274, ss. On the θέλημα προηγούμενον, ete., comp. $ 126, 
note 5, and John Damasc. De Fide Orthod. ii. 29. By the scholasties the 
θέλημα προηγούμενον was also called voluntas bene placiti, the dei. ἑπόμε- 
γον (consequens), voluntas signi (expression of one’s will). Comp. Liebner, 
Hugo of St. Victor, p. 386. Peter Lomb. Lib. i. Dist. 45, F. Alex. Hales, 
Summa, P. i. Qu. 36, Membr. 1.—Zhomas Aquinas both denies and admits 
that evil proceeds from God. So far as evil presupposes a defect, it can not 
have its origin in God, for God is the highest perfection. But so far as it 
consists in the corruption of certain things, and this corruption in its turn 
forms a part of the perfect universe, it proceeds indeed from God—ex con- 
sequenti, and—quasi per accidens. The theodicy of Thomas may be com- 
prised in this proposition, Summa theol. P. 1, Qu. 15, art. 3: Malum cogno- 
scitur a Deo non per propriam rationem, sed per rationem boni, Comp. 
Baur, Trinitätslehre, ii. p. 734, ss. Ritter, viii. 285, and the passage there 
cited. Münscher, by von Cölln, 72. Cramer, 264.* 


„ * A peculiar Oriental controversy is that about the created and the uncreated light. The 

Hesychasts (Quietists) of Mt. Athos, with Palamas, afterward archbishop of Thessalonica, 
at their head, held that there is an eternal, uncreated and yet communicable light (the 
light of the transfiguration on Tabor). The monk Barlaam (from Calabria) opposed this 
assertion, maintaining that the light on Tabor was a created light. A Confession adopted 


$ 172. Tur ANGELS AND THE DEVIL. 475 


§ 172. 
THE ANGELS AND THE DEVIL. 


John Damascenus and others’ adhered to the classification of 
the angels given by Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 131, note 8). The coun- 
cil of the Lateran, A. p. 1215, under Pope Innocent III. pronounced 
as the doctrine of the church, that the angels are spiritual beings, 
and that they were created holy” But with regard to particular 
points, such as the nature and the offices of the angels, the relation 
in which they stood to God, the world, man, and the work of re- 
demption, ample scope was left for poetical and imaginary specu- 
lations, sometimes running out into wilful conceits.” The idea of 
the devil penetrated even deeper, than did the belief in angels, 
into the popular creed of the Germanic nations, sometimes con- 
nected in a horrible way with the belief in sorcery and witches, so 
common during the middle ages, sometimes treated with levity and 
humor, interwoven with legends and popular tales.“ In the history 
of doctrines, this living and national belief in the devil is to be 
considered as well as the theorems and systems of the schools, 
founded for the most part upon traditional definitions.” In the 
religious point of view the only point of importance is this, that 
it was held that the devil can not compel any one to commit 
sin, while he himself is delivered up to eternal condemnation.° 
He, as well as his associates, the evil spirits, feel their own pun- 
ishment, but also take pleasure in the torments of the damned ; 
this compensation, worthy of their devilish disposition, is all 
their joy.’ 


1 De Fide Orthod. ii. 3. Most of the scholastics adopted this classification, 
Thus Hugo of St. Victor mentioned and explained the orders and names of 
angels (according to Pseudo-Dionysius) only very briefly (De Sacr. i. 5), 
“a proof of his good sense.” (Liebner, p. 395). Comp. Lomb. Sent. lib. ii. 
Dist. 9, A. Thom. Aquinas, Summ. P. i. @. 108 (quoted by Münscher, ed. 
by von Cölln, p. 65). 

® Cone. Lateran, IV. Can. 1. Mansi, T. xxii. p. 982, quoted by Münscher, 
ed. by von Cölln, p. 65. 


at Constantinople in 1341, was favorable to the Hesychasts. Acindynus, Barlaam’s 
coadjutor, resumed the controversy, but lost his case at a second synod at Constantinople. 
But he almost got the victory at a third synod (after the death of Andronicus, 1341) un- 
der the empress Anna; but a fourth synod, under Cantacuzenus, again declared the doc- 
trine of the Hesychasts to be correct. This dispute was connected with that about the 
οὐσία and ἐνέργεια of the divine nature. Comp. Gass in Herzog’s Realencycl., under 
Hesychasts (after the report of Nicephorus Gregoras), and the essay of Engelhardt, 
referred to § 153, Note 12. 


476 Tuırn PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


° Most of the scholastics adopted the opinion of Augustine, that the 
angels were created with all other creatures, and only in so far prior to them, 
as they surpass them in dignity. Thus Hugo of St. Victor (quoted by 
Liebner, c. 28 and 29, p. 392), Alexander Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Bona- 
ventura, etc. (quoted by Cramer, vil. p. 426). A fact adverted to about the 
angels, not unimportant in a religious point of view, is, that the angels are 
represented only as distinct and isolated creations of God, not forming one 
whole, like the human race; hence, it is said, the fall of individuals did not 
involve the fall of the whole angelic world. Comp. 6. g. Anselm’s Cur 
Deus Homo 1, ii. 20: Non enim sic sunt omnes angeli de uno angelo, quem- 
admodum omnes homines de uno homine. “There is a human race, but not 
an angelic race (keine Engelheit) :” Hasse’s Anselm, ii. 391.—According to 
the statements of the later scholastics, the angels are distinguished from the 
souls of men, 1. Physically (they do not stand in absolute need of a body) ; 
2. Logically (they do not obtain knowledge by inferences); 3. Metaphysi- 
cally (they do not think by means of images, but by intuitive vision) ; 4. 
Theologically (they can not become either better or worse). Alexander 
Hales, however, made this last assertion with reserve. As creatures without 
body, they are not made up of matter and form; yet actus and potentia are 
not identical with them as with God. Also (according to Thomas) there 
are no two angels of the same species; but this is denied by Duns Scotus, 
The question was raised, whether thinking is the essence of an angel? The 
reply was in the negative. Yet Aquinas says, the thinking of an angel is never, 
merely potential, but at the same time, actual. The knowledge of angels is 
purely a priori, and the higher the rank of an angel, so much more univer- 
sal are the conceptions, by which he knows. Scotus says, that the angels 
have a capacity for obtaining knowledge empirically (intellectum agentem 
et possibilem) ; according to others their knowledge is either matutina (cog- 
nitio rerum in verbo), or vespertina (cognitio rerum in se), or, lastly, meri- 
diana (aperta Dei visio). Comp. Bonaventura, Compend. ii. 15. The 
knowledge of some angels, however, is more comprehensive than that of 
others. Some e.g. foreknew the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, which 
was unknown to others. The angels also have a language, not, however, 
born of sense, but intellectual. They have moreover a place, ἢ. e., they are 
not omnipresent like God, but move with immeasurable celerity from one 
place to another, and pervade alls space more easily than man. It was also 
asked, whether they could work miracles? whether one angel could exert 
any influence upon the will of another? etc., see Cramer, 1. c. (These 
quotations are for the most part taken from Alexander Hales and Thomas 
Aquinas). See Baur, Trinit. ii. 731, sq—Peter Lombard and others also 
retained the idea of guardian-angels, see Sent. 11. Dist. ii. A. (in Münscher, 
ed. by von Cölln. p. 66). Some entertained the singular notion of a hatred 
on the part of the angels against sinners of the human race, of which 
Berthold speaks in one of his sermons, quoted by Kling, p. 18, 20: “They 
~ ery daily at the sight of sinners: Lord, let us kill them! But he appeases 
and exhorts them, to let the tares grow among the wheat.”—But the more 
sober scholasties did not enter into any further inquiries of this kind. 
Thus Hugo of St. Victor said: “ We walk among those things timidly, 


$ 172. Toe ANGELS AND THE Devır. 477 


and, as it were, blindfolded, and we grope with the sense of our insignif- 
tcant knowledge after the incomprehensible.” Liebner, p. 393.—Tauler 
expressed himself in similar language, Sermon upon St. Michael’s Day, 
(vol. iii. p. 145) ; “ With what words we may, and ought to speak of these 
pure spirits, I do not know, for they have neither hands, nor feet, neither 
shape, nor form, nor matter ; and what shall we say of a being which has 
none of these things, and which can not be apprehended by our senses? 
What they are is a mystery to us; nor should this surprise us, for we do 
not know ourselves, viz., our spirit by which we are made men, and from 
which we receive all the good we possess. How then could we know this 
exceeding great spirit, whose dignity far surpasses all dignity which the 
world may possess? Therefore we speak of the works which they perform 
toward us, but not of their nature.” Nevertheless Tauler followed the ex- 
ample of his contemporaries in adhering to the hierarchia celestis of 
Dionysius. 

* “Tt is somewhat remarkable, that the devil of the middle ages seems to 
have lost much of his terror and hideousness, and to play rather the part 
of a cunning impostor, and merry fellow...... more like a faun, which 
excites laughter rather than fear.” Augusti, Dogmengesch. p. 320. Comp. 
Grimm, deutsche Mythologie, p. 549, ss. Hase, Gnosis, i. p. 263. Kober- 
stein, Sage vom Wartburgkriege, p. 67, 68. (The trials for witchcraft did 
not become general until the close of the present period, in the fifteenth 
century, from which time faith in the power of the devil became increasingly 
dismal and portentous.) 

° Anselm composed a separate treatise respecting the fall of the devil (De 
Casu Diaboli). His leading idea, cap. 4, is: Peccavit volendo aliquod com- 
modum, quod nec habebat, nec tune velle debuit, quod tamen ad augmentum 
beatudinis esse illi poterat...... Peccavit et volendo quod non debuit, et 
nolendo quod debuit, et palam est, quia non ideo voluit, quod volendo illam 
[ justitiam] deseruit...... At cum hoe voluit, quod Deus illum velle nole- 
bat, voluit inordinate similis esse Deo—quia propria voluntate, que nulli sub- 
dita fuit, voluit aliquid. Solius enim Dei esse debet, sic voluntate propria 
velle aliquid, ut superiorem non sequatur voluntatem. Non solum autem 
voluit esse equalis Deo, quia praesumsit habere propriam voluntatem, sed 
etiam major voluit esse, volendo, quod Deus illum velle nolebat, quoniam 
voluntatem suam supra voluntatem Dei posuit. Comp. Hasse, ii. 393 sq. 
Most theologians still adhered to the opinion that pride was the principal 
cause of the fall of the devil: but Duns Scotus finds the word /uxuria more 
appropriate (Lib. ii. Dist. 3, p. 544; Baur, Trinit. ii. 771 sq.)—In accord- 
ance with Isa. xiv. 2, Satan was identified with Lucifer, and the latter name 
was thenceforward constantly applied to the devil.* According to An- 
selm (substantially as in Augustine, Enchiridion, c. 29) the fall of the 


* Bonavent. Compend. ii. 28 : Dictus est autem Lucifer quia pree ceteris luxit, sueeque , 
pulchritudinis consideratio eum exccecavit. Among the earlier fathers of the church, 
Eusebius was the only one who applied the appellation Lucifer to the devil (Demonst. 
Evang. iv. 9). Neither Jerome nor Augustine ever did so. Comp. Grimm, 1. ὁ. p. 


550, note. 


478 TurrRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM. 


devil was the cause of the creation of man, which was to be a kind of 
compensation, by supplying the deficiency in the number of the elect 
spirits (Cur. Deus Homo, c. 16-18). The same idea was entertained by 
Hugo of St. Victor, and Peter Lombard, though in a somewhat modified 
form; see Liebner, p. 395. According to Alexander Hales, some fell from 
among all the different classes of angels, but the number of fallen angels is 
less than that of those who preserved their innocence. Duns Scotus main- 
tains, that the fallen angels can even raise themselves up so as to will what 
is good; but it remains a mere volition, and never comes to act (Dist. 7, 
p. 577: Baur, Trinit. ii. 786). Neither the evil nor the good angels can 
perform miracles in the proper sense ; the former may, however, exert some 
power over the corporeal world, though they can not go so far (as popular 
superstition would have men believe), as to change men into other beings, 
6. g., wolves or birds; see Cramer, p. 44. The scholastics have also contri- 
buted their part to liberal thinking! 

° Thomas Aquinas, 1. Qu. 64. The power of Satan has been especially 
limited since the appearance of Christ (comp. Cramer, p. 447)—Anselm 
declared it impossible that the evil angels should finally be redeemed (as 
Origen supposed) ; Cur Deus Homo, ii. ὁ. 21: Sicut enim homo non potuit 
reconciliari nisi per hominem Deum (see below, $ 179), qui mori posset.... 
ita angeli damnati non possunt salvari nisi per angelum Deum qui mori pos- 
Bible Et sicut homo per alium hominem, qui non esset ejusdem generis, 
quamvis ejusdem esset naturee, non debuit relevari, ita nullus angelus per 
alium angelum salvari debet, quamvis omnes sint unius nature, quoniam non 
sunt ejusdem generis sicut homines. Non enim sic sunt omnes angeli de uno 
angelo, quemadmodum omnes homines de uno homine. Hoe quoque re- 
movet eorum restaurationem, quia sicut ceciderunt nullo alio suadente ut 
caderent, ita nullo alio adjuvante resurgere debent: quod est illis impossibile, 

τ Cramer, l.c. p. 448: “ They may indeed delight in the evil and mischief 
which they do to man, but this joy is a joy full of bitterness, and prepares 
them for still more painful punishment.” According to John Wessel (De 
Magnit. Pass. c. 38, p. 532, quoted by Ullmann, p. 236), “Satan (or the 
dragon) finds his first and greatest unhappiness in his clear knowledge, that 
God is ever blessed in himself. ...... His second misery is, seeing in his own 
condition, and in the case of all.others, that the Lamb, as the victor, has 
received from God a name which is above every name...... His third 
misery is, that he himself, with all the host of the powers of darkness, has 
prepared this crown of victory for the Lamb.” 


END OF VOLL 


I ἮΝ 


Νὰ N 














i, ik ὶ 
Be Au. ὉΝ 


u Le MM 


De 
Ὁ γι" 
é 





iin 


dat in 


Br a ote! 


PN 


τ vH 
ca = 


sh ἀπ ΠΕ bite ΑΕ 

τ Ἢ £ 4 : ΠΗ ΓΦ Kia 
᾿ - a μ μ ἶ κα vr 
ae a2 ᾿ Rn; a 


ih jai Ee i τ 
Ha τ ὁμοῦ SR I 


Hike aa 


A ane i 


BE 


i γε 
an 1% ἫΝ 


τς f ; ni ν᾿ ἵ Tri 

Hu δῇ bite ᾿ ΡΣ H bie ‘ue Τὴ ὟΝ io [ 
en Nba ἐς ἢ , τῇ τ 2 ΟΝ hr Ay Wan ie i ὙΠ Ait ΚΜ Us Fi . Ἧ : iy 
MER . Mr ; ‘ ade gh od Si EVP Naas Cok: ἀξίνη : a HON 
ie nn ἣν 1 At ni ΗΝ ἀρ deeds te ES ἐγ sabbath ty 


} ah 
BUT NE MR" 
PSI Mel 

here 


i 
IDR 


δ 
“ἃ. 


7 i 
sl 


ἢ AIR Tair oi 

= _ 
4 f ἫΝ ΠΗ ᾿ ἘΠ : ΤῊΝ Has ἢ ἐξ 
᾿ Ban ΠΝ aa : Σ KERN 

HO Hite ΘΎΜΑΤΟΣ Σ Gerste Cae 

= ; rn bat Sheedy at Ἧ if 
AN Haare ae My 
ebbas taal tena 


AS 


ced 
a 


ἮΝ ἢ 


Ra 4 
rat 


ἘΠ ἽΝ s 
ER 


er 
Sa ue 


and 


a 


Hi 
bie it 


ἌΡΗ 
R ERGO 
AA Mr \ 


ay at glean! rh 
sa te