τές, i ᾿ aed ui ULE Ἡ i ΝΗ tt 539 PEE ΠΗ ΗΠ ΙΒ ΠΜΉΠΗΙ τ ν τανε: Stee Stee τῇ ~~ = το 3 tar _~ one — + ae a --- 2..- ' t 4 Ἵ ἘΠῚ 33 Shits meat ἘΠ ΤΈΣΣΕΡΕΣ Tate pitgeetgiitess ΉΠΗΗ pase =19, eyes os Tipe PR tekergyalieare TTR hierdie adres eres nineties asians νηητίν σινοσαπεννς-. a i M J “i ἢ ν : ‘ A v μὲς | | ὰ ? ae y i4 i \ “ ow a ox ξ΄ ὦ » Avr Dnt haa Τὰν ἐμέ} ‘* Mabey RIS Cy" κέδν, Ge Shee i =~ ἵ Ἂν ΚΟ Ὰ » ‘ \ 4 ὅς Lalotecs ἘΠ ΘΗΝ ΡΟ SUITORS τς τα Nao Ate ἐπὶ nfo Y, « 2 y 5 : oy Υ̓ ¢ ΤΑ Ὶ his , ‘ oi Stes TE BG 19 ES Ta) rae ne ἴῃ ἘΠῚ ΕΟ ἐν ΚΘ. «Φὐ δείδν. iat ποτ τ Ἢ ΓΕ oi NE, j ὃ δε i 5 ἢ " ἐπ @ - _ 6 Ay 4 ὴ ὧνν “" ᾧ 3 a 4 Pt > \ a “ ‘ - χὴ ἊΝ ν > κι ἐν 4 “ γί * € 9 - cf Σ ΚΣ Ἷ ¥ SENS EE! EER apa ee. woke a ; ‘3 ¢ ) > > Je ar ἢ βὰ ὦ ἡ ἐν δεν ide ἐς Ἰ - Ἀν ἊΨ Ree ὧν 7) ᾿ Ὁ ἍΝ if ἘΝ . 1 δι ψ( δέ Υν ᾽ sitet ), ood ety, ΡΞ Ὁ ay ΄ ἠ ὑ ᾿ + © Ἢ 2 . hae ν᾿ Ἐς ὦ ¢ Wate! ΡΣ hs hl ion © . ry a Δ ἀλλ οι PS WREST ch ene ees >) - : ‘ hg ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. VOLUME I. The Editor of this edition of the translation of Hacensacn’s History or Docrrines, believes that it may be well to inform the readers of this work in what respects this edition differs from the former which appeared in 1846. The especial difference consists in its having been compared by the Translator, Mr. Bucn, with the se- cond and greatly improved edition of the German ori- ginal; this has afforded the opportunity for introduc- ing many of those improvements which Dr. Hagenbach considers to be of especial importance,—so much so, that the author laments, in the preface to his second edition, that Mr. Buch was unable to use that edition as the basis of his translation : he says of Mr. Buch’s ver- sion: “ An English translation of the first edition (pub- lished as the third volume of Clark’s Foreign Theo- logical Library, Edinburgh, 1846,) executed by C. ΝΥ. Bucu, has reached me as a friendly present, for which I return my public thanks to the Translator, and only lament that it was out of his power to use this second edition as the text of his version.” Χ ADVERTISEMENT TO SECOND EDITION. The principal additions made by Dr. Hagenbach in his second edition are derived, he says, from works on the history of doctrines which had been published since the appearance of his first edition. We have not thought it needful to specify these, as the works cited are constantly mentioned throughout this vo- lume. Mr. Buch left England after he had prepared this volume for the press, and, in consequence, it has thus been placed in the hands of the present Editor, whose responsibility has not been great. In carrying the work through the press, the ori- ginal has been used continually for reference; and it has appeared to the Editor that the Translator has manifested considerable judgment in the selection which he has made from amongst the Author’s addi- tions. Although the Editor has not professedly re- vised the translation, yet the continual comparison with the original has often suggested slight correc- tions ; these have mostly been found in cases in which some technical expression, or theological term, was so translated as to give a rendering of the German rather than the exact phrase to which we are ac- customed in English in order to express the idea: there have been other minor corrections of the Editor’s which he does not consider necessary to particularize ; for these alterations neither are nor pretend to be a revision of Mr. Buch’s satisfactory translation. The use of such a work does not depend on the sentiments of the author, so long as he faithfully de- livers the opinions of the writers who have lived from age to age: there is, however, but little m Dr. Hagen- ADVERTISEMENT TO SECOND EDITION. ΧΙ bach’s expression of his own sentiments on which the Editor would be even inclined to remark. Per- haps, however, it sometimes seems as though a doc- trine were brought forward as something new, when the only novelty consists in the fact, that definite statements are found on subjects never before denied ; and these statements are only the very words or the very ideas of scripture. No developement of érue doctrine can ever add to what God has previously given in Holy Scripture; but when fundamental truths of the Christian religion (e. g. the Trinity in whose name we are baptised,—the Godhead and man- hood of the Lord Jesus Christ) are denied, then ac- curate definitions become needful, which previously had not been required. It may also be remarked, that it is easy to suppose that’. writers express inconsistent or contradictory views, when, in fact, they only state the different as- pects in which the Scripture presents the subject ; as an instance, we may refer to the sentiments of Irenzeus relative to the Holy Ghost: there is no contradiction in his speaking of the Holy Ghost, as properly God, and his also mentioning him asa gift bestowed by God. The Editor perfectly agrees with Mr. Buch, that the History of Doctrines, as such, has not engaged the attention of writers in this country. We have commonly had the subject treated as a part of church history, or else in systematic statements of doctrine (such as the admirable and orthodox work of Bishop Pearson on the Creed), the controversies on each point are treated of separately —both modes of study- Xl ADVERTISEMENT TO SECOND EDITION. ing the subject have their advantages; the historic mode has this to recommend it, that it takes the mind away from mere crudities of statement, and leads it into an apprehension how opinions were formed, and in what connections they were held. The importance of this subject to theological students is most obvious; how often do we find some repulsive theory brought forward which strikes many as novel? the historical theologian, however, can im- mediately detect its fallacy, and can show how such sentiments were advanced in former ages, how true Evangelic doctrine meets them, and how Holy Scripture (“the testimony of the Holy Ghost’’) re- futes them. Thus will the History of Doctrines be found an important handmaid to every really conside- rate Biblical student. SUR aT: March 12, 1850. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Definition 2. The Relation of the Hane of ρον to ὌΝ History and Dogmatic Theology : 4 3. Relation to Biblical Theology . : ; 4 4. Relation to Symbolism : ὄ 5. Relation to Patristics Ἶ 6. Relation to the History of frees and the ΗΝ σὸν of Univer. sal Religion ; 8 7. Relation to the History of Philosophy the Fister? of ΘΗ: tian Ethics, and the History of Dogmatic rea : 10 8. Auxiliary Sciences. : 11 9. Importance of the History of Doctrines 3 : 12 10. Scientific Treatment of the History of Doctrines : 13 11. Arrangement : : : : 14 12. Division into Periods 5 : : . 14 13. Sources of the History of Doctrines: a Public sources . 19 14. b Private sources ΄". 21 15. ὁ Indirect sources . 25 16. Compendiums : : : : 25 FIRST PERIOD. FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DEATH OF ORIGEN, OR FROM THE YEAR 80—254. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIRST PERIOD. § 17. Christ and Christianity : ; : 92 18. The Apostles : ; : 35 19. Civilization of the Age, and ρος ; : 38 20. Rule of Faith. The Apostles’ Creed : : 40 XIV CONTENTS. Page ὃ 21. Heresies . : : ‘ 41 22. Judaism and Ethniciam : : . 44 23. Ebionites and Cerinthus. Doceta and Gnosties 3 44 94, Montanism and Earliest Monarchianism ; : 49 25. The Catholic Doctrine : ; ἔα 52 26. The Theology of the Fathers. ὁ δά 27. The general Dogmatic Character of this Berio : : 61 Β. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA : EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. REVELATION AND SOURCES OF REVELATION, SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, § 28. Truth and Divinity of the Christian Religion in general 65 29. Mode of Argument : : : : 68 30. Sources of Knowledge : : ; 74 31. Canon of the Sacred Scriptures . : : 75 32. Inspiration of the Scriptures. - : 79 33. Biblical Interpretation : : : 85 34. Tradition : : : : 89 SECOND SECTION. THEOLOGY: THE DOCTRINE OF GOD (INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE RE- SPECTING THE CREATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD, THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS AND OF DEMONS.) § 35. The Existence of God : ; : 94 36. The Unity of God : ; 98 37. God as a Being that may be Comprehended Known and Named : : 100 98, Idealism and ΔῊΝ Corpor oe of God . 193 39. The Attributes of God ; 107 40. The Doctrine of the Logos. a Traces of it in the Period Before the Christian Era, and in Jewish and Gentile Systems of Religion and Philosophy. 111 41. b The Christian Deering of the Lo- gos, as represented in the Writ- ings of John ; 115 42. ce The Theologumenon of the Cheah concerning the Logos to the times of Origen : 116 43. d \dentification of the Terms Means and the Son of God by Origen 122 44. The Holy Ghost : ; i ΝΜ ΔΑ § 45. 46. 47. 48. 49, 50. δ]. 32. 8. 53. 54. 55, 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 01. 62. 63. § 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. CONTENTS. Doctrine of the Trinity . Monarchianism and Subordination Doctrine of the Creation of the World Providence and Government of the World Angelology and Demonology The Angels Satan and Demons The same subject continued THIRD SECTION, ANTHROPOLOGY. Introduction Division of Man and Practical Psychology Origin of the Soul The Image of God : : Liberty and Immortality. a. Liberty b. Immortality : On Sin, the Fall of the First Man and its consequences On the Doctrine of Sin in general Interpretation of the Narrative of the Fall State of Innocence and Fall The Effects of the Fall FOURTH SECTION. = CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY,. On Christology in general The Godman Further Developement of this Weenie The Sinlessness of Christ On Redemption and Atonement Descensus ad Inferos The Economy of Redemption FIFTH SECTION. THE CHURCH AND HER MEANS OF GRACE, . The Church 7: Baptism : . XV Page 128 129 133 136 139 140 144 147 151 152 154 156 159 162 164 166 168 169 171 176 177— 181 186 188 195 196 202 207 ΧΥΪ CONTENTS. - Page § 73. The Lord’s Supper : . 214 74. Definition of the Term ϑεδράζηδῆι : : 223 SIXTH SECTION. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS.—(ESCHATOLOGY.) § 75. The Second Advent of Christ.—Millennarianism (Chiliasm) 225 76. The Resurrection ; ' ; 229 77. General Judgment.—Hades.—Purgatory.—Conflagration of the World : 234 78. State of the Blessed and the Danner Men er taton of all Things ὶ ’ : : 257 SECOND PERIOD. FROM THE DEATH OF ORIGEN TO JOHN DAMASCENUS, FROM THE YEAR 254-780. THE AGE OF POLEMICS. A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE SECOND PERIOD. § 79. Introduction 5 : : 248 80. Doctrinal Definitions and Centrrersies ‘ 244 81. The Dogmatic Character of this Period.—The Fate of Oren ism : as 245 82. Theologians of this Period 245 83. The Eastern Church from the Fourth to the Sixth ὌΠ ΝΣ —(The Schools of Alexandria and Antioch) s 254 84. The Western Church.—Augustinism ᾿ ‘ O55 85. The Heresies 256 86. Division of the Material 958 B, SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE SECOND PERIOD. FIRST CLASS. THE CONTEST BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HERESY (POLEMICAL PART.) FIRST DIVISION. DOCTRINES RESPECTING THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY. a THEOLOGY PROPER. § 87. The relation of the Father to the Son.—Lactantius, Dionysius of Alexandria, and the followers of Origen. : 259 8 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 108. 104. 108. § 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. x & CONTENTS. Xvi . The same subject continued.—The Theories of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata . The same subject continued. ἘΠΕ ΠΝ . The same subject continued.—The Doctrine of the Gorell of Nice . The some subject Paar μῶν urther Anerakuans tintil the Synod of Constantinople . An Inquiry into the Nature of the Caries ited gave rise to the aforesaid fluctuations. — Marcellus and Photinus . The Divinity of the Holy Spirit . Procession of the Holy Spirit . The Doctrine of the Trinity concluded . Tritheism, Tetratheism - Symbolum Quicumque ὃ CHRISTOLOGY. The True Humanity of Christ.— Traces of Docetism.— Arianism The Doctrine of Apollinaris The Doctrine of Nestorius Eutychian- Monophysite Controversy Progress of the Controversy.—. Theopaschitism Various Features of the Monophysite Doctrine. So ΠΝ Εἴο. cetw, Phthartolatri, Agneetz : : The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ. ἈΠ ΠΕΡ Page ho 267 269 272 276 281 284 287 288 291 293 295 298 301 303 904 Practico-religious importance of Christology during this Period 307 jac SECOND DIVISION. DOCTRINES RESPECTING ANTHROPOLOGY. On Man in general On the Doctrine of Sin in general : Consequences of the first Sin, and freedom of the Will (ac- cording to the Theologians Ἢ the Greek Church) The Opinions of the Western Theologians previous to the time of Augustine, and of Augustine himself previous to the Pelagian Controversy The Pelagian Controversy : First Point of Controversy; Sin, el Sin, ara its con- sequences Second Point of peearcieys Liberty and ΠΕ Third Point of Controversy: Predestination Semipelagianism and the later Fathers of the ΤΙ b 307 312 XVI CONTENTS. SECOND CLASS. ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINES WHICH HAVE EITHER NO CONNECTION, OR BUT A REMOTE ONE, WITH THE HERESIES OF THE AGE, Page § 115. (Introduction) : : : 334 116. The idea of Religion Sl ἘΠ ; : 335 1. Prolegomena. § 117. Apologetical Writings in defence of Christianity d 337 118. Miracles and Prophecy : : : : 998 119. Sources of Religious Knowledge. Bible and Tradition 340 120. The Canon. ἃ : : : 341 121. Inspiration and ΠΕ ΝΣ : : 343 122. Tradition and the Continuance of ἘΞ ΗΕ : 348 2. The Doctrine concerning God. § 123. The Existence of God : ὲ : : 949 124, The Nature of God : ; : : 353 125. ‘The Unity of God : : : Ξ : 356 126. The Attributes of God : ? ὃ : 307 127. Creation : 509 128. The relation of the Domaine of renin to the Docteiie of the Trinity : 361 129. Design of the Universe—Pr pudonest Preserretign atl Go- vernment of the World : : : 5 901 130. Theodicy 5 : : : : 364 131. Angelology and ἈΔΆΜ ΘΕ; 5 : 366 132. The same subject continued : : : 370 133. Devil and Demons : ς : : 37 1 3. Soteriology. 8 134. Redemption through Christ 375 4, The Church and Her Means of Grace. § 135. The Doctrineof the Church . ; : : 382 136. The Sacraments 3 j : : : 385 137. Baptism . : : : : ὶ 386 138. The Lord’s Supper . : : “ 393 5. The Doctrine of the Last Things. § 139. Millennarianism.—The Kingdom of Christ . 5 398 140. The Resurrection of the Body : 400 141. General Judgment.—Conflagration of the World. tiie a tory i : 405 142. The State of the Bie and ie Dacited : 408 CONTENTS. XIX THIRD PERIOD. FROM JOHN DAMASCENUS TO THE AGE OF THE REFORMATION, FROM THE YEAR 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. 144, 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 1561. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156, Page Character of this Period : " ; 415 The relation of the Systematical tendency to the Apologetical 416 The Polemics of this Period.—Controversies with Heretics 418 The Greek Church : : : : 419 The Western Church : : : : 421 The Age of the Carlovingians : : - 422 Scholasticism in general : : 424 The Principal Scholastic Systems.—a. Ἵ. Period of Scholas- ticism to the Time of Peter Lombard : : 427 ὃ. II. Period to the end of the Thirteenth Century . 431 ὁ. 111. Period.—The Decline of Scholasticism in the Four- teenth and Fifteenth Centuries : : : 435 Mysticism. : : : , : 457 Scientific Opposition made to Sememncn ὃ 448 Practical Opposition.— The Forerunners of the Reformation 445 The Connection between the History of Doctrines and the History both of the-Church and the World during the pre- sent Period . ς : ; : 7 447 B, SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE THIRD PERIOD. FIRST SECTION. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.—RELATION BETWEEN REASON AND REVELA= TION.—SOURCES OF REVELATION.—SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION, § 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162, Truth and Divine Origin of Christianity ° : 450 Reason and Revelation, Faith and Knowledge, ; 452 Sources of Knowledge.—Bible and Tradition : 458 The Canon of the Bible and Biblical Criticism - 401 Inspiration 462 Interpretation of Sep tre see τ πὶ of ine pera of the Bible 466 ΧΧ (INCLUSIVE OF COSMOLOGY, ANGELOLOGY, DEMONOLOGY, ETC.) ς 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. : ΐ . The Doctrine of the Trinity : - . The Doctrine of Creation, Providence, and the Government CONTENTS. SECOND SECTION. THEOLOGY. The Existence of God : God as a Being which may be Docrentnied: The Nature of God in general. (Pantheism and Theism.) The Attributes of God.—a. The Relation of God to Time, Space, and Number. (The Omnipresence, Eternity, and Unity of God) b. The Relation of God to Existence. ἘΠ ene τ Onm- niscience : : 3 : ὁ c. Moral Attributes. : : . : Procession of the Holy Spirit of the World—Theodicy . The Angels and the Devil Page 471 478. 483 487 491 497 498 502 518 524 INTRODUCTION. Comp. Hugenbach, Encyclopadie, 240, ss. [Pelt, Theologische Encyclop. p- 313, ss.] Kliefoth, Th. Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim 1839.] cen DEFINITION. Tue History of Doctrines (history of opinions, Dog- mengeschichte)‘') is that branch of theological science which exhibits the gradual developement of the doctrines (dogmas) (2) of the Christian church, the various aspects they have assumed in the course of time, and the changes they have undergone through the influence of civilization in different ages of the world. “) ὦ) [| Kitto (Cyclopedia of Bibl. Literat. vol. i. pref. p. xiii.) pro- poses the term Doctrine History, “ since we have no correspond- ing term im the English language.” Dr. Credner gives the fol- lowing definition of the history of doctrines (Avtto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Lit. pref. p. xii.) : Doctrine History in a less limited sense than that in which the term is usually taken, points out the pe- culiar doctrines which have, from time to time, been received as articles of Christian belief. But as a variety of opinions with regard to the essentials of the Christian religion has arisen, not only among the various and different sects as separate bodies ; but likewise at sundry times among the members of even one and the same sect or party, Doctrine History must necessarily include all the peculiar features of schismatic views, their origin and history, the causes of their rise and gradual developement, as well as their connection with the Scriptures, from which they all claim to be derived, and by which they must be tried. Comp, B 2 INTRODUCTION. also Tholuck, Theolog. Eneyclop. and Methodol. transl. by Prof. Park, in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. i. 1844, p. 556: It (the history of doctrines) exhibits to us the processes of thought, in which the scientific men of different ages have endeavoured to appre- hend and to vindicate the doctrines of Christianity. | ' On the meaning of the word δόγμα (statutum, decretum, preeceptum, placitum) v. Suicer, Thesaurus sub voce. Miinscher, Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, edit. by von Célln, p. 1. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrbuch der cbristiichen Dogmen- gesch. p.1. Augusti, Dogmengeschichte, § 1. lee, Dogmen- geschichte, Prolegomena. Mitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, 5th edit. p. 50-52. Hagenbach, Kneycl. p. 241. [Knapp, Lectures on Christian Theology, transl. PY L. Woods, Lond. 1843, p. 24. Credner in Kitto, 1. 6. p. xii. : A dogma is under- stood to be the doctrine of a particular ets or sect, ete. | The word δύγμα signifies in the first place: decree, edict, statute. Comp. (Sept. vers.) Dan. 11. 13; vi. 8. Esth. 11.9. 2 Mace. x. 2; and inthe New Testament Luke 11. 1, (where it has a politi- cal sense only), Acts xvi. 4, (used in a theological sense, denot- ing the apostolical decrees to the gentile Christians), Eph. ἢ. 15 ; Col. ii. 14, (wm the latter passage it is also used in a theological sense, but has no reference to Christian belief and Christian doctrine, as some think; it rather relates to Jewish ordinances; comp. Winer, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 5th ed. 1836, p. 250.) Its use in the sense of .doctrine, or gos- pel cannot be established from any passage in the N. T.; the words employed to express this idea, are: εὐαγγέλιον, κήρυγμα, λόγος τοῦ Jeod, etc. In the writings of the Stoics δόγμα, (decretum, pla- citum,) signifies: theoretical principle. Marcus Aurelius εἰς ἑαυτ. 2,3: Ταῦτά σοὶ ἀρκέτω; ἀεὶ δόγματα ἔστω. Cic. Acad. quaest. tv. 9: Sapientia neque de se ipsa dubitare debet, neque de suis decre- tis que philosophi vocant δόγματα. The Fathers adopted simi- lar language, and taking the word δόγμα (to which the predicate τὸ “εἴν Was sometimes applied) in a more comprehensive sense, understood it to imply all that is contained in the doctrines. The passages from Ignatius, Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 1. Strom. viil. p. 924, edit. of Potter), Origen, Chrysostom, Theo- doret, οὔθ, are given by Suicer, Thes. sub voce. They also used it in reference to the opinions of heretics, with the epithet μυσαρά, or Others of similar import, but not so frequently as the terms δόξαι, νοήματα, comp. Klee, 1. ὁ. Cyrill of Jerusalem, (Cat. INTRODUCTION. o 4, 2.) makes a distinction between doctrines and ethics, and un. derstands by δόγμα that which relates to faith, by πρᾶξις that which refers to moral actions: ‘O τῆς ϑεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηχε, δογμάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαϑῶν. The former are the source of the latter. We meet with similar expressions in the writings of Seneca; he describes the dogmas as the elements of which the body of wisdom is composed, as the seat of life, Ep. 94, 95. were a species more nearly approaching the orthodox faith, and with whom other judaizing sects of amore indefinite character were connected.) Cerinthus) also adopted this tendency, and formed the transition to that form of Judaism blend- ed with heathen Gnosis, which we find represented in the Clementine Homilies.) Α strict contrast with the Jew- ish-Ebionitic tendency manifested itself first in the Docete,©) and, secondly, the various sects of the Gnos- tics’) ~ Of the latter some were more strongly opposed to Judaism than others,“8) some even returned to Eb- ionitic errors,“) while Marcion, who occupied a peculiar position, endeavoured to go beyond the contrast between Judaism and Ethnicism, but, despising all historical foun- dation, established a purely imaginary system of Christ- ianity.(19) ἃ) On the derivation of Ebionites from }}!2&, and their his- tory, comp. Orig. contra Celsum II. towards the commencement ; Treneus adv. Her. I. 26. Tert. prescr. Her. 33. de carne Christi, c. 14. Huseb. iv. 27. Epiph. Heer. 29. 30. Hieron. in Matth vii. 9; xix. 20. in Tesai. xiii. Cat. script. eccles. c. 3. and the works on ecclesiast. history. [Neander, transl. 11. 9, ss. Burton, 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 183, ss.| Different opinions are en- tertained as to the origin of the Ebionites ; Schliemann, p. 459, ss. (according to Hegesippus in Euseb. ILI. 32. and IV. 22.) dates 46 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. it back as far as the death of Simeon of Jerusalem. According to the theologians of the school of Tubingen, [the founder of which is &. Ch. Baur, among whose disciples we may mention Zeller, Schwegler, Ritschel, etc. |, Ebionitism is as old as Christ- ianity, Christ himself was an Ebionite, and Pavl first went be- yond Ebionitism. The judaizing tendency which was firmly es- tablished in Ebionitism, may indeed be traced to primitive Chris- tianity ; not all Christians were, like Paul, able to comprehend the universal design of their religion. But this judaizing ten- dency for some time existed along with the Pauline as a more imperfect form of Christianity, without being regarded as heresy. But, having once been surpassed by the more liberal tendency of the Pauline doctrine, it must either gradually disappear (its ad- herents forming a Jewish sect), or be blended with other Gnostic elements, (this was the case with the Ebionitism of the Clementine Homilies, comp. note 5.) The former kind of Ebionitism has been called “ vulgar (common) Ebionitism.” ts adherents were characterized by their narrow attachment to Jewish tradi- tion, which sought to impose the yoke of the law upon Chris- tians, and prevented them from forming a higher idea of Christ than that involved in the Jewish conception of the Messiah. Accordingly, when they regarded Jesus as 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 concerning the law and the Messiah would accord the sensual, millennial expectations of which Jerome (1. c. but no other writer) accuses them. ὦ, Origen (contra Cels. v. Opp. 1. p. 625.) mentions two differ- ent kinds of Ebionites, of whom the one class approached the or- thodox doctrine of the church more nearly than the other. These more moderate Ebionites are perhaps the same, to whom Jerome and Epiph. give the name Nazarenes, which was formerly applied to all Christians. They taught that the law (circumci- sion in particular) was obligatory on Jewish Christians only, and believed Jesus to be the son of the Virgin Mary, but a mere man; of course they rejected his pre-existence. Comp. the treatise of Gieseler, 1. c. | Burton, 1. c. p. 184,1 The most recent researches (of Schliemann.) however, shew that the Nazarenes were never brought together into the same class with the Eb- ionites, but that Origen made a distinction between the common EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS.—DOCETAZ AND GNOSTICS. 47 and the Gnostic Ebionites (comp. note 5.) Different are the opinions of Schwegler, nachapostolische Zeitalter, p. 179, ss. and Dorner, \. c. 301, ss. 8) Elkesaites, Sampsei, etc. Epiph. Her. 19. 1—80. 3. 17. Euseb. iv.) “1 seems impossible, accurately to distinguish these different Jewish sects, which perhaps were only different grades of the order of the Essenes, assisted as we are, merely by the confused reminiscences of the fourth century.” (Hase, |. 6. p. 7. 90.) () Tren. 1. 26. Euseb. ἢ, 6. iii. 28. (according to Caius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria) Epiph. Her. 28. comp. Olshausen, hist. eccles. veteris monumenta przecipua, vol. 1. p. 223-25. [ Burton, 1. ὁ. Lect. vi. p. 174, ss.] It appears from Irenzus, that the sentiments of Cerinthus are allied to Gnosticism, as he maintains that the world was not created by the supreme God, and that the AZon Christ had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism. He denies, however, in common with the Ebion- ites that Christ was born of the virgin, but on different, viz. ra- tionalistic grounds (¢mpossible enim hoe ei visum est.) Accord- ing to the accounts given by Eusebius his principal error con- sisted in gross millennarianism. Comp. the treatises of Puulus and Schmid, and on the remarkable, but not inexplicable mix- ture of Judaism and Gnosticism : Baur, Gnosis, p.404. 405. Dor- ner, 1. c. p. 910, mentions a peculiar class of Cerinthian Ebionites, who, in his opinion, form thetransition tothe Clementine Homilies, (©) As Cerinthus is said to have blended Gnostic elements with Jewish notions, so did one section of the Ebionites, who are related to have had their foundation in the Clementine Homilies (ἡ. e. homilies of the Apostle Peter, which are said to have been written down by Clement of Rome.) Comp.Neander’s Appendix to his work on the Gnostic systems, and Kirchengesch. 1. 2, p.619, 20. [transl]. 1. p.14, 15. Lardner, N., Works, ii. 876, 377. Norton l. ς. 11. note B. p. xxili.—xxxvii.] Baur, Gnosis, p. 403. and app. p. 760, and his aforesaid programme. Schenkel, however, has broached a different opinion in his Dissert. (mentioned § 21. note 2.), according to which the Clementine tendency would belong, not to the judaizing, but to the rationalizing, monarchian ten- dency which was spread in Rome (comp. Liicke’s review in the Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeiger 1839, parts 50 and 51.) Dorner, I. ὁ. p. 324, ss. gives a very accurate description of this tendency, which passes over from Judaism into Paganism. 48 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. & The Docetw whom Ignatius ad Eph. 7. 18. ad Smyrn. e. 1—8, already opposed, and probably even the Apostie John (1 John 1. 1—38; iv. 2, ss. 2 John vii.) (on the question whether he also alludes to them in the prologue to his gospel, comp. Liicke 1. c.) may be considered as the forerunners of the Gnos- tics. [Burton 1. c. Lect. vi. p. 158, ss.] They form the most decided contrast with the Ebionites, inasmuch as they not only maintain (in opposition to them) the divinity of Christ. but also merge his human nature, to which the Ebionites exclusively con- fined themselves, in a mere phantom (by denying that he pos- sessed 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 from the one to the other. Comp. Dorner, Geschichte der Christologie, p. 349, ss. Like Docetism in the doctrine concerning Christ alone, so the mere completely developed system of Gnosticism proceeds in its entire tendency to that other extreme which is opposed to Judaizing Ebionitism. It not only contains some of the ele- ments of Docetism (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 is ad- verse to millennarianism. It opposes the spirit to the letter, the ideal to the real. To change history into myths, to dissipate positive doctrines in speculation, and therefore to distinguish between those who only believe, and those who know. to over- rate knowledge (γνῶσις) in religion,—these are the principal fea- tures of Gnosticism. On the different usages of γνῶσις in a good, and a bad sense (γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος), γνωστής, γνωστικός, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus. Sources: Ireneus adv. Her. (i. 29. ii.) Tertul- han adv. Marcion. lib. v. adv. Valentinianos. Scorpiaca contra Gnosticos. Clem. Al. Strom. in different places, especially hb. li, 111, vi. [useb. iv. The different classifications of the Gnostics according to the degree of their opposition to Judaism (Veander), according to countries, and the preponderance of dualism, or emanation, Syrian and Egyptian Gnostics (Gveseler), Gnostics of Asia Minor, Syrian, Roman and Egyptian Gnostics (Matter), or lastly, Hellenistic, Syrian and Christian (?) Gnostics (Hase), present, all of them, greater or less difficulties, and require additional EBIONITES AND CERINTHUS.—DOCETZ AND GNOSTICS. 49 classes (thus the Eclectic sect of Neander, and the Marcionites of Gieseler.) But Baur justly remarks that the mere classification according to countries is too external (Gnosis p. 106), and di- rects attention to the position on which Neander’s classification is based, as the only correct one, “ because it has regard not only to one subordinate principle, but to a fundamental relation which pervades the whole.” The particular objections to the divisions of Neander see ibidem. The three essential forms into which Gnosticism may be divided, according to Baur, are: 1. The Valentinian, which admits the claims of Paganism, together with Judaism and Christianity. 2. The Mareionite, which. re- fers especially to Christianity; and, 3. the Pseudo- 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. The essential fea- ture of Gnosticism is its leaning towards Paganism, though it . may return to Judaism in the same manner in which Judaizers may fall into the opposite error. “‘ Common to all Gnostic sects is their opposition against a mere empirical faith with which they charge the church, as being founded on authority alone.” Dorner, p- 353. Concerning the history of doctrines, it is sufficient to glance at their principal tenets, and the relation in which they stand to the Catholic church; further particulars will be found in the special history of heresies (comp. § 6), and in the history of the particular systems of Basilides, (A. 1). 125—140), Va- lentinus (140—160), the Ophites, Carpocrates, and Epiphanes, Saturninus, Cerdo, Marcion (150), Bardesanes (170), ete. Comp. Dorner, I. 1. p. 391, ss. (10) Tbid. p. 881, ss. 8 24. MONTANISM AND EARLIEST MONARCHIANISM. Wernsdorf, de Montanistis, Gedani, 1751, 4. Kirchner, de Montanistis, Jen. 1832. *Heinichen, de Alogis, Theodotianis, Artemonitis, Lips. 1829. Schwegler, 17, C. A., der montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Tiib. 1841-8. [Neander, Hist. of the Church, transl. by Rose, 11. 172-194. ] The relation in which Christianity stood to the world, gave rise to another contrast besides the one which ex- E δυ THE AGH OF APOLOGETICS. isted between the judaizing and ethnizing tendencies. In the establishment of the peculiar doctrines and rites of the religion of Christ, different questions necessarily arose concerning the relation of Christianity both to former historical forms of religion, and to the nature of man and his capacities in general. Thus it might easily happen that speculative minds would fall into two op- posite errors. On the one hand, an eccentric supranatura- lism would manifest itself, which, passing the boundaries of revealed religion, conceived the true nature of in- spiration to consist in still continued, extraordinary emo- tions, and endeavoured to keep up a permanent dis- agreement 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 would be made to fill the gulf between the natural and the supernatural, which, by explaining the wonders and mysteries of faith, and adapting them to the understand- ing, might lead to critico-sceptical rationalism. This is apparent in the case of the first Monarchians ( Alogi ?)@ whose representatives in the first pertod are Theodotus and Artemon.@) The Monarchians, Praxeas, Noétus, and Beryllus,“) commonly styled Patripassians, differ from the preceding in more profound views on religion, and form the transition to Sabellianism, which will come be- fore us in the following period. © Montanus of Phrygia (in which country the enthusiastic worship of Cybele had been prevalent from a very early pe- riod) made his first appearance as prophet (Paraclete) about the year 170 in Ardaban, on the frontiers of Phrygia and Mysia, and afterwards in Pepuza. He distinguished himself more by an enthusiastic and eccentric character, than by any particular dogmatic heresy, so that he became the forerunner of all the extravagances which pervade the history of the church.— If any doctrine was dangerous to Christianity, it was that of Mon- tinus. Lhouyh only distinguished for external morality, and agreeing with the Catholic church in all her doctrines, he never- δι a MONTANISM AND EARLIEST MONARCHIANISM. dbl theless attacked the fundamental principle of orthodoxy. For he regarded Christianity, not as complete, but as affording room for Jurther revelations which, in his view, were even demanded and announced in the promised Paraclete.” Marheinecke (in Daub and Creuzer’s Studien,) p. 150. There he also points out the contradiction in which the positive Tertullian involved himself by joining this sect. Millennarianism, which the Montanists pro- fessed, was in accordance with their carnally spiritual tendency. In this respect they were allied to the Ebionites, (Schwegler). But notwithstanding their anti-gnostic tendencies, they agreed with the Gnostics in going beyond the simple faith of the church; there was, however, this difference, that the eccentric views of the Motanists had reference not so much to speculation as to practical Christianity. This sect (called also Cataphrygians, Pepuzians) existed down to the sixth century, though repeatedly condemned by ecclesiastical synods. Sources: Euseb. (follow- ing Apollonius), v. 18. Epiph. Her. 48. and Meander, Kirchen- gesch. 11. 3. p. 871, ss. ® This term occurs in Epiph. Her. 51. as a somewhat ambi- guous paranomasia on the word Logos, (men void of understand- ing notwithstanding their understanding), because they rejected the doctrine concerning the Logos, and the Gospel of John in which it is principally set forth, as well as the book of Hevela- tion, and the millennarian notions chiefly founded on it. It may be generalized in the 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, to identify it with that of the Father. It is difficult to decide to which of these two classes the Alogi mentioned by Epiphanius belong, comp. Heinichen, 1. c.; on the other hand, Dorner, p. 500, defends them against the charge of having denied Christ’s divinity. At all events, we must not lose sight of these two classes of Monarchians, (comp. Neander, Kirchengesch. I. 3. p. 990, ss. Antignosticus, p.474. Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 268), though it is difficult to make a precise distinction between the one and the other. 8) Theodotus, a worker in leather (ὁ σκυτεὺς) from Byzantium, who resided at Rome about the year 200, maintained the mere humanity of Christ, and was accordingly excommunicated by the Roman bishop Victor, Euseb. v. 28. Theodoret, Fab. Her, ii, 5. Epiph. Heret. 54. (ἀπόσπασμα τῆς ᾿Αλόγου αἱρέσεως). He 52 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 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, 55, Artemon, (Artemas) charged the successor of Victor, the Roman bishep Zephyrinus, with having corrupted the doctrine of the church, and secretly brought in the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Comp. Neander, 1. ὁ. p. 998. [transl. ii. p. 262, 263.] Heimchen, l. 6. 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 pre- vailing rationalistic tendency of this sect (Pseudo-rationalism) may be seen from Euseb. 1. ὁ. (Hetnichen, p. 139.) Οὐ si ai Sela λέγουσι γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες, ἀλλ᾽ ὁποῆὸν σχῆμα συλλογισμοῦ εἰς τὴν τῆς ἀδεύτητος sice ly σύστασιν, φιλοπόνως ἀσκοῦντες. . . . καταλιπόντες δὲ τὰς ἁγίας τοῦ Δεοῦ γραφὰς, γεωμετρίαν ἐπιτηδεύουσιν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὄντες καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἄνωλεν ἐρχόμενον ayvoouvres, The homage they rendered to Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Galen, ὅς ἴσως ὑπό τινων καὶ προςκυνεῖται. © Praxeas, from Asia Minor, had gained under Marcus Aurelius the reputation of a professing Christian, but being charged by Tertullian with Patripassianism, was combated by him. ‘Tertull. advers, Praxeam, lib. I1.—oétus, at Smyrna, about the year 230, was opposed by Hippolytus on account of similar errors. Hippol. contra Heeresin Noéti. Theodoret, Fab. Heer. 11, 3. Epiph. Her. 57.—As to Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, whom Origen compelled to recant, Euseb. vi. 33. comp. Ullmann, de Beryllo Bostreno, Hamb. 1835. 4. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, part 4, p. 1073. (comp. § 42, and 40.) [Praxeas in Jveander, 1. ὁ. transl. 11. 260, ss.— Burton, 1. ὁ. p. 221, ss. 234, ss. Noétus in Neander, 1. ὁ. p. 262. Burton, 1. ὁ. p. 812, 364.— Beryllus in Neander, 1. ο. p. 273, ss. Burton, 1. c. p. 312, 313.] 8 25. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. The Catholic doctrine developed itself in opposition to the aforesaid heresies. But though the orthodox theo- logians endeavoured to avoid heretical errors, and to pre- serve the foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles by THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. | 53 firmly adhering to the pure faith which had been deliver- ed to them by the Fathers, yet they could not make them- selves wholly free from the influence which the eiviliza- tion of the age, the intellectual faculties of individuals, and the preponderating disposition of the public mind, have ever exerted upon the formation of religious ideas and notions. On this account we find in the Catholic church the same contrasts, or at least the same diversi- ties and modifications as among the heretics, though they manifest themselves in a milder and less offensive form. Thus we perceive on the one hand a firm, sometimes narrow-minded adherence to external rites and histori- cal tradition, which was akin to legal judaism, (positive tendency ), combined in some cases, as in that of Ter- tullian, with the Montanist tendency. On the other, we see some theologians exhibiting a more free and compre- hensive disposition of mind, who sometimes in a more idealistico-speculative manner followed the Gnostic doc- trine, (true gnosis contrasted with false gnosis), some- times adopted critico-rationalistic elements which were allied to the Monarchian principles, though not identical with them. (2) @ On the term catholic in opposition to heretic, see Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce χαθολικός, comp. ὀρθόδοξος, ὀρθοδοξία, Bingham, Origg. eccles. i. 1. sect. 7. Vales. ad Euseb. vii. 10. Tom. ii. p. 8383: Ut vera et genuina Christi ecclesia ab adulterinis Hereticorum cetibus distingueretur, catholice cognomen soli Orthodoxorum ecclesiz attributum est.—Concerning the nega- tive and practical, rather than theoretical character of earlier orthodoxy, see Marheinecke (in Daub und Creuzer) 1. c. p. 140, ss. @) This was the case, 6. g. with Origen, who now and then shows sober reasoning along with Gnostic speculation.—On the manner in which the philosophizing Fathers knew how to recon- cile gnosis with paradosis (disciplina arcani), comp. Marheiuecke, ]. 6. p. 170. 54 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 8. 26. THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. Steiger, de la foi de l’église primitive d’aprés les écrits des premiers péres, in les Melanges de ‘Théologie reformée, edited by himself and Havernick, Paris 1833. 167 cahier. [Bennet, J., the Theology of the Early Christ- ian Church, exhibited in quotations from the writers of the first three centuries. Lond. 1842.] Dorner, 1. c., Schwegler, nachapostolisches Zeitalter. While the so-called Apostolical Fathers Gwith few exceptions) were distinguished by a direct practico-asce- tical rather than a definite dogmatic activity,“ the philosophizing tendency allied to Hellenism was in some measure represented by the apologists Justin Martyr, Tatian, 3) Athenagoras,“) Theophilus of Antioch, © and Minucius Feliz) in the West. On the contrary Treneus,7) as well as Tertullian,(®) and his disciple Cyprian, (3) firmly adhered to the positive dogmatic theo- logy and realistic notions of the church, the former in a milder and more considerate, the latter in a strict, some- times gloomy manner. Clement) and Origen®) both belonging to the Alexandrian school, chiefly developed the speculative aspect of theology. But these contrasts are only relative; for we find, e.g. that Justin Martyr manifests both a leaning towards Hellenism, and a strong Judaizing tendency ; that the idealism and criticism of Origen are now and then accompanied with a surprizing adherence to the letter, and that Tertullian, notwithstand- ing his antignostic tendency, evidently strives after phi- losophical 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. [On their writings in general, we subjoin the following remarks of Neander: ““ The remarkable THE THEOIOGY OF THE FATHERS. δῦ digerence between the writings of the Apostles and those of tie Apostolical Fathers, who are yet so close upon the jormer in point of time, is a remarkable phenomenon of its kind. While in other cases such a transition is usually quite gradual, in this case we find a@ sudden ene. Here there is no gradual transition but a sudden spring; a remark which is calculated to lead us to a recognition of the peculiar aciivity of the Divine Spirit in the souls of the Apostles. The time of the first extracrdinary ope- rations of the Holy Spirit was followed by the time of the free developement of human nature in Christianity ; and here, as else- where, the operations of Christianity must necessarily be confined, before it could penetrate further, and appropriate to itself the hayher wutellectual powers of man.’—Hist. of the Ch. transl. 1]. 329.| ‘The following are called Apostolical Fathers : 1. Barnabas, known as the fellow-labourer of the Apostle Paul from Acts iv. 36, (Joses) ; 1x. 27, etc. On the epistle ascribed to him, in which a strong tendency manifests it- self 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 Bar- nabe tribuitur authentia, Jene, 1827. Rdrdam, de authent. epist. Barnab. Hafn. 1828, (in favour of its ge- nuineness.) Ullmann, Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 2. flug, Zeitschrift fiir das Hrzbisth. Freiburg, part 2, p. 152, ss. part 3, p. 208, ss. Twesten, Dogmatik, i. p. 101. Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 3. p. 1100, [trans]. i. p. 330. ] against it: “avery different spirit breathes throughout it Jrom that of an apostolical writer.’ Bleck. Kinleitung in den Brief an die Hebraer, p. 416, note (undecided.) Schen- kel, in the Studien ἃ. Kritiken, x. p. 652, (adopting a mid- dle course, and considering one part as genuine and another as interpolated), and on the other side | Hefele, C. Z', Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs Neue untersucht, ubersetzt und erklart. Tub. 1840.—Lardner, N., Works, II. p. 17—20; iv. 105—108; v. 269—275, (for its authen- ticity.) 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. E.,in Kitto, Cyclop, of Bibl. Liter. art. Barnabas (against it.) ] δὺ 2. THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Hermas, (Rom. xvi. 14,) whose ποιμήν (shepherd) in the form of visions enjoyed a high reputation in the second half of the second century, and was even quoted as a part of Scripture. Some critics ascribe the work in question to a later Hermas, (Hermes), brother of the Roman bishop, Pius I., who lived about the year 150. Comp. Gratz, Disqu. in Past. Herm. Part I. Bonn 1820. 4. Jachmann, der Hirte des Hermas. Konigsb. 1835. [Neander,1. 6. p. 333. Lard- ner, iv. 97, 98, etc. Ryland, J. H.,in Kitto, 1. 6. Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, I. p. 113—121, where an out- line of the whole work is given. | Clement of Rome (according to some the fellow-labourer of Paul, mentioned Phil. iv. 3,) one of the earliest bishops of Rome, (Iren. ili, 8. 3. Euseb. iii, 2. 13. a. 15.) His first epistle to the Corinthians is of dogmatic importance in re- lation to the doctrine of the resurrection. The so-called second epistle is a fragment which owes its origin probably to some unknown author, [ Lardner, 1. ο. ii. 833-35.| Comp. also Schneckenburger, Evangel. der Aegypter, p. 3. 13, ss. 28, ss. Schwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, p. 449; on the other side, Dorner, p. 143. In the dogmatic point of view, those writings would be of greatest importance, which are now generally considered as supposititious, viz. the Clementine Homilies (ὁμιλίω, Κλήμεντος), the Recogni- tiones Clementis (ἀναγνωρισμοῖ), the Constitutiones apostolice, and the Canones apostolici; on the latter comp. Krabbe, tiber den Ursprung und Inhalt der apostol. Constit. des Clem. Rom. Hamb. 1829; and + Drey, neue Untersuch- ungen tiber die Constitutiones und Canones der Apostel, Tub. 1832. [Neander, 1. ὁ. p. 331-333. Lardner, ii. p. 29-35 ; 364-378. Burton, |. ¢. 342-844. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, 1. ὁ. art. Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers. | . Ignatius (θεοφόρος), bishop of Antioch, concerning whose life comp. Euseb. i. 36. On his journey to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom under Trajan (116), he is said to have written seven epistles to different churches and to Polycarp, which are extant in two recensions, the one long- er, the other shorter. On their genuineness, and the re- lation in which they stand to each other, comp. J. Pearson, Vindicie epp. S. Ign. Cant. 1672. J. EH. Ch. Schmidt, die doppelte Recension der Briefe des Ign. (Henke’s Magazin. THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. δ᾽ iii. p. 91, ss.) AK. Meter, die doppelte Recension der Brief des Ignat. (Stud. und Kritiken, 1836, part 2.) On the other side: Rothe, die Anfange der christlichen Kirche, Witt. 1857. Arndt, in Studien und Kritiken, 1839, p. 136. Baur, Tibinger Zeitschrift, 1838, part 3, p. 148. Huther, Betrachtung der wichtigsten Bedenken gegen die Aechtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe, in Jllgen’s Zeitschrift fur his- torische Theolog. 1841-4. [| Lardner, 1. 73-76. Ryland, J. &., in Kitto, 1. ὁ. art. Epistles of the Apost. Fathers, where the literature is given. On the whole subject, see es- pecially Mr. Cureton’s Corpus Ignationum.| Comp. § 29. 5. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, according to tradition a dis- ciple of the Apostle John, suffered martyrdom under Mar- cus 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. JWocher, die Briefe der apost. Vater Clemens und Polycarp, init Hinleitung und Commentarien, Tiibingen, 1830. [ Lardner, ii. p. 94-109. Ryland, J. E., in Kitto, 1. ¢.] 6. Papias (σφόδρα σμικρὸς ὧν τὸν νοῦν, Kuseb. 111. 39), bishop of Hierapolis in the first half of the second century, of whose treatise λογίων χυριακῶν ἐξήγησις we have only fragments in Euseb. 1. 6. and Ireneeus (v. 53.) As a millennarian he ig of some importance for eschatology. Complete editions of the writings of the Apostolical Fathers: * Patrum, qui tem- poribus Apostolorum floruerunt, Opp. ed. Cotelerius, Par. 1672. rep. Clericus, Amst. 1698. 1724. 2. T. f. Patrum app. opp. genuina, ed. B. Russel, Lond. 1746.11. 8. 5. Clementis Romani, 8. Ignatii, ὃ. Polycarpi, patrum apostolicorum que supersunt, accedunt 8. Ignatii et S. Polycarpi martyria, ed. Guil. Jacobson, Oxon. 1838. J. L. Frey, pistol sanctorum Patrum apostolicorum Clementis, Ignatii et Polycarpi atque duorum posteriorum martyria, Bas. 1742. 8, Patrum Apos- tolorum Opera, textum ex editt. praestantt. repetitum re- cognovit, brevi annotat. instrusit et in usum preelect aca- demicar. edid {*C. J. Hefele, Tub. 1859. Comp. Jttig, Bibl. - Patr. apost. Lips. 1690. 8. [ Wake, Archbishop, the genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, transl. Lond. 1737. | As to the extent to which we can speak of a theology of the Apostolical Fathers s. Bauwmgarten-Crusius, i. p. 81, note. It is certain that some of them, e. g. Hermas, entertained notions which were afterwards rejected as heterodox. The δ THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. earlier divines, and those of the Roman-Catholic church in particular, endeavoured 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 become a Christian, retained the τρήβων, made several missionary journeys, 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. He is the first eccle- siastical writer whose writings manifest an acquaintance with the Grecian philosophy (in which he had formerly sought in vain for the full developement of truth, and for peace of mind.)® Though he is anxious to prove the excellencies of the religion of Christ, and even of the Old Testament dispensation in preference to the systems of philosophers, (by shewing that the latter derive their origin from the Mosaic system,) he also perceives something of a Divine nature in the better portion of the Gentile world. It must, however, be admitted that the tone prevailing in the apo- logies is much more liberal, than that which is found in the Cohor- tatio ad Greecos {(παραινετικὸς πρὸς “EAAnvas.) Meander (Kircheng. 1. 3. p. 1120) is therefore inclined to consider the latter as spurious on account of the strong terms in which paganism is spoken of, and Mohler (Patrologie, p. 225) agrees with him. Yet there are various circumstances which may account for such a difference in style: the disposition of mind in which the author wrote his apologies would naturally be very different from that in which he composed a controversial treatise, especially if Neander’s opinion be correct, that the latter was written at a later period of his life. These writings, as well as the doubtful λόγος πρὸς "EAAnvas (oratio ad Greecos) and the’ Επιστολὴ πρὸς Διόγνητον falsely ascribed to Justin M., and also the treatise σερὶ μοναρχίας, consisting in great part of Grecian excerpts, set the relative po- sition of Christianity and Paganism in a clear light. The 4 It is certain that Pseudo-Dionysius, whom some writers number among the Apostolical Fathers, belongs to a later period. On the other side, Mohler and Hefele reckon the author of the epistle to Diognetus among the Aposto- lical Fathers, which was formerly ascribed to Justin. Hefele, PP. App. p. 125. Mdéhler, Patrologie, p. 164; Kleine Schriften, i. p. 19. On the other side: Semisch, Justin M. p. 186. > Onhis philosophical tendency, see Schleiermacher, |. c. p. 155. THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 59 Dialogus cum Tryphone Judo has reference to Judaism, which it opposes on its own grounds; its genuineness was doubted by Wetstein and Semler, but without sufficient reason, comp. Neander, Kircheng. i. 3. p. 1125, ss. The principal edi- tion is that published by the Benedictines under the care of *Prud. Maran. Paris, 1742, which includes also the writings of the following three authors, along with the (insignificant) satire of Hermias. [Comp. Justin Martyr, his life, writings, and doc- trines, by Carl Semiseh. Transl. by J. &. Ryland. Edin. 1844. Neander, hist. of the ch. transl. ii. p. 336—349. Lardner, i. p. 126—128, 140, 141.] Otto, de Justini Martyris scriptio et doctrina commentatio, Jen. 1841. Schwegler, nachapostolisches Zeitalter, p. 216, ss. ©) Tatian, the Syrian, a disciple of Justin M., became after- wards the leader of those Gnostics who are called the Encratites. In his work entitled : λόγος πρὸς Ελληνας (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. 8. | Neander, 1. c. 11. p. 349, 350. Lardner, ii. p. 147—150.] (4) Little is known of the personal history of Athenagoras ; comp. however Clarisse, de Athenagore vita, scriptis, doctrina, Lugd. 1819, 4, and Mohler, 1. ὁ. p. 267. His works are: Legatio pro Christianis (πρεσβεία περὶ Χριστιανῶν) and the treatise de resur- rectione mortuorum. [| Lardner, ii. p-193—200. Neander, 1. ο. Ρ. 850—851. | © Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, (170 —180.) The work which he wrote against Autolycus : περὶ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως, manifests a less liberal spirit, but also displays both genius and power as a controversialist. éssler, Bibliothek der Kirchen- vater, 1. p. 218, numbers it among the most worthless works of antiquity, and Fase calls it a narrow-minded controversial writ- ing, while Mohler praises its excellencies. There is a German translation of it with notes by Thienemann. Leipz. 183, (6) Keclesiastical writers vary in their opinions concerning the period in which Minucius Felix lived. Van Hoven, Réssler, Russwurm, and Heinrich Meier, (Commentatio de Minucio Felice, Tur. 1824,) suppose him to have been contemporary with the Antonines. Teschirner, (Geschichte der Apologetik, i. Ὁ. 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 compa- 00 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. rison of the treatise of Minucius entitled Octavius with the apo- logy of Tertullian, and with the work of Cyprian de idolorum vanitate, favours the view that he wrote after the former, but before the latter. The work of Cyprian appears in some parts as a copy of the writing of Minucius; that of Tertullian bears the marks of an original. The dialogue between Cecilius and Octavius is of importance in the history of Apologetics, as it touches upon all the objections which we find separately treated of by the other apologists, and adds some new ones. With regard to the doctrinal opinions of Minucius, and the spirit which per- vades his book, we may remark that he is distinguished by a more liberal, hellenistic manner of thinking; but it is to be re- gretted that his views are less positive, less decidedly Christian than is desirable. We seek almost in vain in his book for more direct references to the Messiah. Editions: Edit. princeps by Balduin, 1560. Since that time: editions by LHlmenhorst (1612.) Cellarius (1699.) Davisius 1707.) Ernesti (1773.) Russwurm (with introduct. and notes, 1824.) Liibkert (with translation and commentary, Leipz. 1836.) [ Lardner, 11. p. 386- 089. Bennett, 1. ὁ. p. 89-42. ] Treneus, a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Lyons, about the year 177, died in the year 202, “ a clear-headed, con- siderate, philosophical theologian.” (Hase, Guerike.) Hxcept a few letters and fragments, his principal work alone is extant, viz five books against the Gnostics: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευ- δωνύμου γνώσεως ; the first book only has come down in the origi- nal language, the greatest 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. Comp. Euseb. v. 4. 20-26. Mohler, Patrolo- gie, p. 330. [Neander, |. c. p. 356—359. Davidson, |. 6. p. 89, ss. Lardner, ii. p. 165—193. Burton, v. p. 185, and passim. Bennett, 1. c. 283—33.] Duncker, des heil. Irenzeus Christologie, im Zusammenhange mit dessen theologischen und anthropolo- gischen Grundlehren, Gott. 1843. Comp. also what Dorner says concerning him, ii. 1. p. 465. ® Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens) was born in Car- thage about the year 160, and died 220; in his earlier life he was a lawyer and rhetorician, and became afterwards the most conspicuous representative of the antispeculative, positive ten- dency. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, Geist des Tertullian und Einleitung in dessen Schriften, Berlin, 1825, especially the THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 61 striking characteristic which he there gives of Tert. Miinter, Primordia ecclesize Africane, Havn. 1829, 4. ‘* A gloomy, ar- dent character, by whose exertions Christianity obtained from Punic Latin a literature in which ingenious rhetoric, a wild amagination, a gross, sensuous perception of the ideal, profound sentiments, and a lawyer’s reasoning struggle with each other.” (Hase.) Gfrorer calls him the ‘Tacitus of early Christianity. * Notwithstanding his hatred against philosophy, Tertullian is cer- tainly not the least of Christian thinkers.” Schwegler, Montanismus, p- 218. That sentence of his: “ratio autem divina in medulla est, non in superficie” (de resurrect. c. 3.), may guide usin our endea- vours to ascertain the right meaning of many strange assertions, and to account for his remarkably concise style (quot pane verba, tot sententie, 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)—*ad- vers. Marcionem—*advers. Hermogenem—*advers. Praxeam— *advers. Valentinianos—*Scorpiace advers. Gnosticos—(de pree- scriptionibus advers. Hzereticos)—de testimonio animee—*de ani- ma—*de carne Christi—*de resurrectione carnis—(de pceniten- tia)—(de baptismo)—de oratione, etc.; his moral writings also contain many references to doctrinal points, e.g. the treatises de corona militis—de virginibus velandis—de cultu feminarum, etc. Editions of his complete works were published by * Regal- tius, Paris, 1635, fol.; by Semler and Schiitz, Hall. 1770. 6 vols. (with a useful index latinitatis;) and lastly, by Leopold, Lips. 1841. | Neander, 1. ὁ. 11, p. 362-366; p. 2938-296. Burton, 1. c. v. p. 233, a. passim. Lardner, 11. p. 267-272, a. passim. Da- vidson, 1. 6. p. 90, ss.] Later theologians did not venture to number Tert. among the orthodox writers, on account of his Montanistic views. In the opinion of Jerome, (adv. Helvid. 17,) he is not a homo ecclesie ; comp. also Apol. contra Ruffin. ii. 27. Cyprian (Thascius Ceecilius) was for a time public teacher of rhetoric in Carthage; his conversion to Christianity took place in the year 245; he became bishop of Carthage in the year 248, and suffered martyrdom 258. He possessed more of a practical than doctrinal tendency, and is therefore of greater importance in the history of ecclesiastical polity than of doc- * The works marked with * were written after his conversion to Montanism, those included in () show that Montanism had exerted some influence upon him ; comp. Nésselt, de vera etate Tertulliani scriptorum (opusc. Fase. iil. 1-198.) 02 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. trines, to which he has contributed but little. The great task of his life seems to have been not so much theoretically to develope the doctrine of the church and the sacraments. as prac- tically to demonstrate it by his life, and to uphold it in the tempests of the times. In his doctrinal opinions he rested on the basis laid by Tertullian, but adhered also to Minucius Felix, as in his work de idolorum vanitate. From the foregoing con- siderations it will appear, that along with his numerous letters the work entitled: de unitate ecclesiz is deserving of special attention, In addition to these we may mention: libri 11]. testimoniorum—de bono patientize—de oratione dominica, etc. Comp. Rettberg, Cyprian nach seinem Leben und Wirken, Got- tingen 1834. Huther (Ed.), Cyprians Lehre von der Kirche, Hamburg, 1839. Editions: Rigaltius, Paris, 1648, fol. *Fed/, Oxon. 1682, and the Benedictine edition by Steph. Baluz and γιά. Maran, Paris, 1729.—Novatian, the contemporary and opponent of Cyprian, (ὁ τῆς ἐκκλεσιαστικῆς ἐπιστήμης ὑπερασπιστής,) Euseb. vi. 43,) must also be considered as belonging to this period, if the treatise: de trinitate (de regula veritatis 5. fide1) which goes under his name, proceeded from him. It is by no means correct, as Jerome would make us believe, that this treatise contains nothing but extracts from Tertullian. “ This author was at ali events more than a mere imitator of the pe- cular tendency of another ; on the contrary, he shows originality ; he does not possess the power and depth of Tertullian, but more spirituality.” Neander, 1. 3, p. 1165. Editions: Whiston, in his sermons and essays upon several subjects, Lond. 1709, p. 927. Welchman, Oxon. 1724, 8. Jackson, Lond. 1728. | Ne- ander, 1. ὁ. 11. p. 867, 3868. Lardner, il. p. 3-20. Bennett, 1. c. 47-49. | 2° Clement (Tit. Flav.), surnamed Alexandrinus in distine- tion fiom Clement of Rome, a disciple of Pantznus at Alex- andria, and his successor in his office died between 212 and 220. (Comp. Euseb. v. 11. vi. 6. 13. 14. Hieron. de vir. ill. c. 38.) Of his works the following three form a whole : 1. Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς “Ελληνας. 2, Παιδαγωγὸς in three books, and 3. Stromata (τῶν κατὰ τὴν GAVIA φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων στρωματεῖς)---Βὸ called from the variety of its contents—in 8 books, the eighth of which forms a special homily, under the title : τίς 6 σωζόμενος πλούσιος, quis dives salvetur. The ὑποτυπώσεις in 8 books, an exegetical work, are lost. Concerning his life and writings, comp. Hofstede de Groot, de Clemente Alex. THE THEOLOGY OF THE FATHERS. 63 Groning. 1826. Von Célin, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopex- dia, xviii. p. 4, ss. Daehne, de γνώσει Clem. et de vestigiis neo- platonicz plilos. in ea obviis. Leipz. 1831. Eylert, Clemens als Philosoph und Dichter, Leipz. 1832. Baur, Gnosis, p. 502. Mohler, Patrologie, p. 430. [Lardner, Works, 1, 220-224. Neander, 1. ¢. ii. p. 873-876. Bennett, 1. ὁ. p. 33-36.] Edt- tions by Sylburg, Heidelberg, 1592. *Potter, Oxon. 1715, fol. Ven. 1757. &. Klotz, Lipz. 1831, 3 vols. 8. ay Origen, surnamed ἀδαμάντινος, χαλκέντερος, 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 emi- nent writer of the whole period, and the best representative of the spiritualizing tendency. He is, however, not wholly free from great faults into which he was led by his talents. “ 46- cording to all appearance he would have avoided most of the faults which disfigure his writings, if his reason, humour and imagination had been equally strong. 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. vil. 1. Hieron. de viris illustr. c. 54. Gregory Thaumaturg.in Panegyrico. Huetius in the Origeniana. Ttllemont, Memoires, art. Origéne, p. 356- 10. Schréckh, iv. p. 29. (Neander, 1. c. i. p. 376-91. Lard- ner, 11. p. 469-486 and passim. Vaughan, R. A., Origen, his life, writings, and opinions. In the Britt. Quarterly Review, No. iv. 1845, p.491-527.] On his doctrines and writings, comp. Schnitzer, Origenes, tiber die Grundlehren der Glaubenswissen- schaft, Stuttg. 1835. *Thomasius (Gottf.), Origenes, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts, Niirnberg, 1837. Hedepenning, Origenes, eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre, I. Bonn, 1841, II. 1846. The labours of Origen embraced a wide sphere. We merely notice his exer- tions for biblical criticism (Hexapla), and exegesis (σημειώσεις, Toul, ὁμιλίαι), aS Well as for homiletics which appear in his writings in their simplest forms, and name only that which is of dogmatic importance, viz. his two principal works: περὶ ἀρχῶν (de principus libri iv.) edit. by Redepenning, Lips. 1836, and Schnitzer’s translation before mentioned ; and κατὰ Κέλσου (contra Celsum) lib. vii. (translated, with notes by Mosheim, Hamb. 1745), and the minor treatises: de oratione, de exhortatione Martyru, etc. Complete editions of his works were published by θ4 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. *Car. de la Rue, Paris, 1733, ss. 4 vols. fol.. and by Lommatzsch, Ber]. 1831, ss.—The doctrinal systems of Clement and Origen together form what is called the theology of the dlexandrian school. The distinguishing characteristics of this theology, in a formal point of view, are a leaning to speculation and allego- rical interpretation of the Scriptures ; in a material aspect they consist of an attempt to spiritualize the ideas, and idealize the doctrines, and they thus form a striking contrast with the pecu- liarities of Tertullian in particular. Comp. Guerike, de schola que Alexandriz floruit Catechetica. Hale, 1824, 2 vols. [Ne- ander, 1. ὁ. i. p. 195-234. Baur, Gnosis, p. 488-543. Comp. also Davidson, 1. ὁ. p. 96, ss. 106, ss. | 8 27. THE GENERAL DOGMATIC CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD. It was the characteristic feature of the apologetical pe- riod, that the whole system of Christianity as a religious- moral fact was considered, and defended, rather than particular doctrines. Still certain doctrines become more prominent, while others receive léss attention. Investigations of a theological and christological nature are certainly more numerous than those of an anthropo- logical character, and the Pauline doctrine is supplanted in some degree by that of John.~) On this account the doctrine of human liberty is made more conspicuous in this period than later writers approved.@) Next to the- ology and christology, eschatology engaged most the at- tention of Christians at that time, and was more fully developed in the struggle with millennarianism on the one side, and the scepticism of Grecian philosophers on the other. @) Comp. § 18, note 4. ® Origen expressly mentions, that the doctrine concerning the freedom of the will forms a part of the preedicatio ecclesias- tica, de prine. procem. § 4, ss. B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIRST PERIOD. FIRST SECTION. APOLOGETICO-DOGMATIC PROLEGOMENA. EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.—-REVELATION AND SOURCES OF REVELATION.—SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. § 28. TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IN GENERAL. *Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, vol. i. Leipz. 1808. By the same: der Fall des Heidenthums, vol. i. Leipz. 1829. Clausen, H. N., Apologete ecclesia Christiane ante-Theodosiani, Havn. 1817. 8. G. H. van Senden, Geschichte der Apologetik von den friihesten Zeiten [4 bis δα unsere Tage. Stuttg. II. 8. The principal task of this period was to prove the Divine origin of Christianity as the true religion made known by revelation,(') and to set forth the internal, as well as external relation which it bore both to Gentiles and to Jews. This was accomplished in different ways, according to the different ideas which obtained regard- ing the nature of the new religion. The Ebionites con- sidered the principal object of Christianity to be the realization of the Jewish notions concerning the Mes- siah, (2) the Gmostics regarded it as consisting in the separation of Christianity from its former connection F 66 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. with the Old Test.) Between these two extremes the Catholic church endeavoured, on the one hand, to pre- serve this connection with the old dispensation; on the other, to point men to the new dispensation, and to show the superiority of the latter to the former. () Here we must guard against seeking for a distinction be- tween natural and revealed religion, or even for a precise de- finition of the term “religion.” Such definitions of the school- men did not make their appearance until later, when theory and practice, science and life being separated, learned men commenced to speculate on the objects of science, and to re- duce experimental truths to general ideas. With the first Christians, Christianity and religion were identical; and thus again in modern times, the principal object of apologetics has become to prove that Christianity is the religion, ὁ. 6. the only one which can satisfy man, (comp. Lechler, tiber den Begriff der Apologetik, in the Studien und Kritiken 1839, part 3.) This view corresponds to the saying of Minucius Feliz, Oct. c. 38, towards the end: Gloriamur non consequutos, quod illi (Philo- sophi) summa intentione quesiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Justin M. also shows that revealed truth, as such, does not stand in need of any proof, dial. c. Tryph. c. 7. p. 109: Οὐ γὰρ mere ἀποδείξεως πεποίηνταί ποτε (of προφῆται) τοὺς λόγους, ἅτε ἀνωτέρω πάσης 2 ἀποδείξεως ὄντες ἀξιόπιστοι μάρτυρες τῆς ἀληϑείας. Fragm. de Resurr. ab init.: “O μὲν τὴς ἀληϑείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ μηδεμίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου ϑέλων πίπτειν, μηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι OF ἀποδείξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑπομένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιδὺς αὐτῷ τῷ πέμψαντι σιστεύεσσαι ϑέλει., πᾶσα γὰρ ἀπόδειξις ἰσχυροτέρα καὶ πιστοτέρα τοῦ οἰποδρεικ- γυμένου τυγχάνει" εἶ γε τὸ πρότερον ἀπιστούμενον πρινὴ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἐλθεῖν, ταύτης κομισδείσης ἔτυχε πίστεως, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἐφάνη, ὁποῖον ἐλέγετο, Τῆς δὲ ἀληδείας ἰσχυρότερον οὐδὲν, οὐδὲ πιστότερον' ὥστε ὁ περὶ ταύτης ἀπόδειξιν αἰτῶν ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ τὰ φαινόμενα αἰσ)ήσεσι λόγοις ϑέλοντι ἀποδείκνυσϑαι, διότι φαΐνετωι. Τῶν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ λόγου λαμβανομένων κριτήριόν ἐστιν ἡ αἴσϑητσις" αὐτῆς δὲ κριτήριον οὖκ ἔστι πλὴν αὐτῆς. Nor do we find any definitions of the nature and idea of revelation (contrasted with the truths which come to us by nature and reason), of the abstract possi- bility and necessity of revelation, etc., 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 like the TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 67 twilight which precedes the brightness of the rising sun. Comp. Justin M Dial. c. Tr. ab initio.— Tert. apolog. c. 18, (de testim. anime, 6. 2,) speaks very decidedly in favour of the positive character of the Christian religion (jiwnt, non nascuntur Chris- tiani), though he also calls the human soul naturaliter christiana (Apol. c. 17), and aseribes to it the innate power of appropriat- ing toitself, without any supernatural aid, allthat may be known of the Divine Being by the works of nature, de testim. an. 5. Clement of Alexandria also compares the attempt of philoso- phers to comprehend the Divine without a higher revelation, to the attempt of a man to run without feet (Cohort. p. 64); and further remarks, that without the light of revelation we should resemble hens which are fattened in a dark cage in order to die (ibid. p. 87.) We become the children of God only by the reli- gion of Christ (p. 88, 89,) comp. Ρωά. 1. 2, p. 100, 1. 12, p. 156, and in numerous other places. Clement indeed admits that wise men before Christ had approached the truth to a certain ex- tent, but while they sought God by their own wisdom, others (the Christians) find him (better) through the medium of the Logos, comp. Peed. i. 8, Ὁ: 279. Strom. i. 1, p. 319, ibid. 1. 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 revelation, the external as a manifestation of the Divine ὀργή. Comp. Baum- garten-Crusius, 11. p. 783; on the other side, Schliemann, Ὁ. 183, ss. 353, ss. | ὦ) According to the Clementine Homilies there is no essen- tial difference between the doctrine of Jesus and the doctrine of Moses. Comp. Credner, 1. ὁ. part 2, p. 254. Schliemann, p. 215, ss. 3) As most of the Gnosties looked upon the demiurgus either as a being that stood in a hostile relation to God, or as a being of inferior rank, and limited powers; as they, moreover, consi- dered the entire economy of the Old Test. as a defective, and even perverse institution, we can easily conceive that in their view the blessings which have come to us as the effects of the religion of Christ, consist only in our deliverance from the bonds of the demiurgus. (Comp. the §§ on God, the fall, and redemp- tion.) δᾶ THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. § 29, MODE OF ARGUMENT. From what has been said before, it appears that the Christian apologists did not confine themselves to the New Test., but that they also (in opposition to the Gen- tiles) defended the history, laws, doctrines, and prophecies of the Old Test. against the attacks of all who were not Jews.) After having thus laid a foundation, they proceeded to prove the superiority of Christianity to both the Jewish and Pagan systems, by showing how all the prophecies and types of the O. Test. had been ful- filled in Christ.2) It must, however, be admitted, that they not unfrequently indulged in arbitrary and un- natural interpretations, and that some of their exposi- tions of the types and figures of the law are in a high degree fanciful.) But as the apologists found in the O. Test. a point of connection with Judaism, so they found in the Grecian philosophy a point of connection with Paganism; with this difference only, that whatever is Divine in the latter, is for the greatest part derived from the O. Test.“ corrupted by the artifices of de- mons,) and appears, at all events, very imperfect in comparison with Christianity, however great the ana- logy may be.®) Even those writers who, like Tertullian, discarded the philosophical developement of the under- standing, because they perceived in it nothing but an ungodly perversity,’ were compelled to admit a profound psychological connection between human nature and thie Christian religion (the testimony of the soul,)®) and to derive with others a principal argument for the Divine origin of Christianity from its moral effects.) Thus the external argument which is founded upon the miracles of the N. Test.,0° was adduced only as a kind of auxi- MODE OF ARGUMENT. 69 liary proof, and its complete validity was no longer ac- knowledged.(!) As auxiliary proofs we may further consider the argument derived from the Sibylline or- acles,’*) the miraculous spread of Christianity in the midst of persecutions,() and the accomplishment of the prophecy relative to the destruction of Jerusalem.(@ The last two were, like the moral argument, taken from what happened at that time. (Ὁ This argument was founded especially upon the high an- tiquity of the sacred books, and the miraculous care of God for their preservation; Josephus argued in a similar manner against Apion, 1. 8. 2) Comp. Justin M. Apol. i. c. 32—85. dial. cum Tryphone, § 7.8. 11. Athenag, leg. c.9. Orig. contra Cels. 1.2. Com- ment. in Joh. T. ii. 28. Opp. iv. p. 87. (8) Ep. Barn. ὁ. 9. The circumcision of the 318 persons by Abraham (Gen. xvii.) is represented as a mystery which was made known to him. The number three hundred and eighteen is composed of three hundred, and eight, and ten. The numeral letters of ten and eight are land 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, wasa type of the blood of Christ, 9.12. Likewise Justin M. dialog. cum Tryph. ὃ 111, Accord- ing to him the two wives of Jacob, Lea 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 apos- tles, ete. Justin carries this mode of interpretation to an ex- treme length, especially with regard to the cross, which he sees everywhere, 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 pos- ture of a man engaged in prayer, 1n the vessel with its sails, in the plough, in the hammer. Comp. Apol.i. ο. ὅδ, dial. cum Tryph. ὃ 97. and elsewhere. Comp. Minuc Felir, c. 29; but he does not deduce any further conclusions from such figurative τ0 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. language. Jrencus sees in the three spies of Jericho the three persons in the Godhead, advers. Heret. iv. 20. It would be easy to multiply these examples ad infinitum, (comp. § 33, note 3.) ® Justin M. Apol.i.c. 59. Cohort. ad Gree. 6. 14. Theo- phil. ad Autol. πὶ. 16, 17, 20, 23. Tatian contra Gree. ab init. and ο. 25. Tertullian, Apol. ὁ. 19: Omnes itaque substantias, omnesque materias, origines, ordines, venas veterani cujusque stili vestri, gentes etiam plerasque et urbes insignes, canas me- moriarum, ipsas denique effigies litterarum indices custodesque rerum, et puto adhuc minus dicimus, ipsos inquam deos vestros, ipsa templa et oracula et sacra, unius interim prophet scrinium vincit, in quo videtur thesaurus collocatus totius Judaici sacra- menti, et inde etiam nostri. Clem. Alewand. Peed. ii. ὁ. 1, p. 176, c. 10, p. 224, iii. c. 11, p. 286. Stromata, i. p. 355, vi. p. 752, and many other passages. He therefore calls Plato 6 ἐξ ᾿Εβραίων φιλόσοφος, Strom. i. 1. Comp. Baur, Gnosis p. 256. Orig. contra Cels.iv. ab init. Zzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, p 101, 102. () Justin M. Apol. i. c. 54. Thus the demons are said to have been present when Jacob blessed his sons. But as the heathen philosophers could not interpret the passage 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 changed the foal into 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. vil. 14,) gave rise to the fable of Perseus, ete., (comp. § 49.) © Justin M. calls in a certain sense Christians all those who live according to the laws of the Logos (reason,) Apology, i. 6. 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 seeds (λόγος σπερματικχός) of what was manifested afterwards in Christ as absolute truth, comps Apol. il. ¢. 13s Clem, Alee. otrom, 1. CacU, ete L0e Χωρίζεται δὲ ἡ ἑλληνικὴ ἀλήϑεια τῆς nay ἡμᾶς, εἰ χαὶ τοῦ αὑτοῦ μετείληφεν ὀνόματος, καὶ μεγέϑει γνώσεως καὶ ἀποδείξει κυριωτέρο, καὶ Scie δυνάμει καὶ τοὶς ὁμοίοις. (He speaks, however, of philosophy as such, and not of the Stoic, Platonic, Epicurean, Aristotelian, or any other phi- losophy, Strom. i. 7, p. 338,) comp. Baur, p. 520, ss. Clement MODE OF ARGUMENT. pat involves himself in contradictions in judging of paganism more favourably at one time and less so at another; comp. Baur, p. 932. Minucius Feliz, c. 16, in opposition to the scholastic wis- dom 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 despises mere reliance on authorities ; nevertheless he himself appeals to the doctrines of philosophers, and their partial agreement with Christianity, c. 19, ὁ. 21, ὁ. 84. Such language forms a remarkable contrast with the attack he makes upon Socrates (scurra Atticus) ὁ. 38, to whom others would assign the highest rank among the ancient philosophers. ® Tert. de prescr. 7, 8: He sunt doctrine hominum et demo- niorum, prurientibus auribus natze de ingenio sapientiz secularis, quam Dominus stultitiam vocans, stulta mundi in confusionem etiam philosophorum ipsius elegit. Ea est enim materia sapientic secularis, temeraria interpres divine nature et dispositionis. Ipsze denique heereses a philosophia subornantur ... . Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosoloymis! quid Academiz et Kcclesiz ? quid heereticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio de porticu Salo- monis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cor- dis esse querendum. Viderint, qui Stoicum et Platonicum et dialectum christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Tertullian calls the philosophers patriarche hereticorum (de anima 383 adv. Hermog. 8,) and Plato omnium hereticorum condimentarius (de anima, 23.) (8 Tert. de test. anim. 1: Novum testimonium advoco, immo omni litteratura notius, omni doctrina agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto homine majus, 7. 6., totum quod est hominis. Consiste in medio, anima , .. Sed non eam te advoco, que scholis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, academicis et porticibus Atticis parta, saplentiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et im- politam 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 aliquantulee peritia nemo credit. Ha expostulo, que tecum hominis infers, que aut ex temet ipsa, aut ex quocunque auctore tuo sentire didicisti ; Ibid: Non es, quod sciam Christiana: fieri enim, non nasci soles Christiana. Tamen nunc a te testimonium flagitant Christian 12 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ab extranea adversus tuos, ut vel tibi erubescant, quod vos ob ea oderint et irrideant, que te nunc consciam detineant. Non placemus Deum preedicantes hoc nomine unico unicum, a quo omnia et sub quo universa. Dic testimonium, si ita scis. Nam te quoque palam et tota hibertate, quia non licet nobis, domi ac foris audimus ita pronuntiare: Quod Deus dederit, et si Deus voluerit, etc. Comp. Apol. c. 17; de virgin. veland. c. 9. (tacita conscientia nature). Neander, Antignosticus, p. 86—89. Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 28, ss. Ὁ) Justin, M. Apology,i.c. 14: Οἱ πάλαι μὲν πορνείαις χαίροντες, νῦν δὲ σωφροσύνην μόνην ἀσπαζόμενοι" οἱ δὲ καὶ μαγικαῖς τέχναις χρώμενοι, ἀγαϑῷ καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ Jew ἑαυτοὺς ἀνατελεικότες' χοημάτων Of καὶ κτημάτων οἱ πόρους παντὸς μᾶλλον στέργοντες, νῦν καὶ ἂ ἔχομεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες, καὶ παντὶ δεο- μένῳ κοινωνοῦντες" οἱ μισάλληλοι δὲ καὶ ὠλληλοφόνοι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὖχ, ὁμοφύ- λοὺς διὰ τὼ EIN ἑστίας κοινὰς μὴ ποιούμενοι, νῦν μετοὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Xol- στοῦ ὁμοδίαιτοι γινόμενοι, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν EY JOO εὐχόμενοι καὶ τοὺς ἀδίκως μισοῦν- τας πείϑειν πειρώμενοι, ὕπως οἱ κατὰ Tag τοῦ Χριστοῦ καλὰς ὑποδημοσύνας βιώσαντες εὐέλπιδες ᾧσι, σὺν ἡμῖν τῶν αὐτῶν TULL τοῦ πάντων δεσπόζοντος Θεοῦ τυχεῖν. Dial. cum Tryph. § 8. 80. Orat. ad Greecos, 5. Epist. ad Diognetum, 5. Athenag. leg. ὁ. 11. Tert. Apol. ab init. Minucius felix, ὁ. 31, 37, 88. Orig. contra Cels. 1. ὁ. 26. Opp. 1. p. 345. They were in practice compelled to have recourse to this argu- ment through the charges brought forward by the Gentiles, which they endeavoured to refute. (10) Not only were those miracles adduced which are mention- ed in Scripture, but also those which still took place. (Just. M. Dialog. c. Tryph. c. 39, 82, 88. fren. 11.31, 82. 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. and Minucius Fel. Oct. c. 26) ; the Gentiles, on the other hand, at- tributed the Christian miracles to magic. Comp. Tatian contra Gracos, c.18. Orig. contra Cels. i. 38, 67, 68. ili. 24-33. We find, however, that Minucius Felix denies the reality of miracles and myths in the pagan world, on the ground of the physical impossibility of such supernatural events; but it may be observed, that that ground might, with equal propriety, have been taken by the opponents of Christianity. Octav. c. 20: Que si essent facta, fierent ; quia fieri non possunt, ideo nec facta sunt; and c. 23: Cur enim si nati sunt, non hodieque nascuntur ? 4) Though Origen, in speaking of the evidence derived from MODE OF ARGUMENT. Vo miracles, as compared with the evidence derived from prophecy, calls the former the evidence of power, and the latter the evi- dence of the spirit (contra Cels. i. 2), yet he gives the prefe- rence to the evidence of the spirit. He was well aware that a miracle produces a strong impression upon the person we wish to convince, only when it is performed in his presence, but that it loses all its force as evidence with those whose mind is pre- judiced against the veracity of the narrative, and who reject miracles as myths, comp. Comment. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 87. Nor do the Clementine Homilies admit miracles as evidences, while they lay greater stress upon prophecies. (Credner, 1. c. part 3. Ρ. 278, comp. with p. 245.) Origen spoke also of spiritual and moral miracles, of which the visible miracles were the symbols (he admitted, however, their importance, inasmuch as they are real facts) ; contra Cels. 11. p. 423: “41 shall say that accord- ing to the promise of Jesus his disciples have performed greater miracles than himself; for to the present moment they who were blind in spirit, have their eyes opened, and they who were deaf to the voice of virtue, listen eagerly to the doctrine concerning God, and eternal life; many who were lame in the inner man, skip like the hart,” etc. Comp. contra Cels. 11. 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. () Theophilus ad Autolycum, 11. 31, 36, 38. Clem. Cohort. p- 86. Stromata, vi. 5. 762. Celsus charged the Christians with having corrupted the Sibylline books. (Orat. contra Cels. vii. 32, 34.) Editions of the Sibyll. oracles were published by Servatius Galleus, Amstel. 1689, 4. and by Angelo Mai, Me- diolani, 1817, 8. On their origin and tendency, comp. Thorla- cius, Libri Sibyllistarum veteris ecclesiz, etc. Haynie, 1815, 8, and Bleek in the Berliner theolog. Zeitschrift, i. 120, ss. 172, ss. | Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse, L. p. 87-107.| The case of the Ὕσταάσπης, to whom Justin M. Apol. i. 20, and Clem. ]. ὁ. appeal, is similar to that of the Sibylline books. Comp. Walch, Ch. F. W., de Hystaspide in vol. 1. of the Commentat. Societ. Reg. Gotting. But the oracles of the heathen (though a partial use was mace of them), as well as their miracles, were attributed to demonaical agency; Minuc. Fel. c. 26, 27, Cle- ment. Homil. ui. 9-13. 13) Origen contra Cels. i. p. 821. 11. 861. de princip. iv. Justin 74 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. M. himself (and many others) had been converted by wit- nessing 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 αἀπολανεῖ, dit δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἀνδρώπων καὶ ὑπο- μείνωντας καὶ ὑπομένοντας πάντω πάσχειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ὠρνήσασϑαι αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν ἔστι χ. τ. A “4 Origen contra Celsum, ii. 13. Opp. i. p. 400, § 30. SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. Orelli, J. C. Selecta patrum ecclesize capita ad εἰσηγητικήν sacram pertinen- tia, Turici 1820. Comp. his essay: Tradition und Scription, in Schulthess iiber Rationalism und Supranaturalism Christmann, W. L., iiber Tradition und Schrift, Logos und Kabbala, Tiibingen, 1825. Schenkel, D., tiber das urspriingliche Verhaltniss der Kirche zum Kanon, Basel, 1838. The original living source from whence the knowledge of all truth was derived, was the spirit of Christ him- self who, according to his promise, guided the Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, into all truth. The Catholic church therefore considered herself from the first as the bearer of this spirit, and consequently main- tained that the charge of the true tradition, and the de- velopement of the doctrines which it teaches, were com- mitted to her.) The task of the first church was to preserve oral traditions, to collect the written apostolical documents, and to determine the Canon. It was not until this Canon was nearly completed, and about to as- sume its present form, that the tradition of the church, as it existed both in its oral and its written forms, was distinctly separated from, and held along with the sacred Canon, like a distinct branch of the same original source. () 1) The doctrine concerning the Scriptures and tradition can be fully understood only, when taken in connection with the dogma concerning the church (§ 71.) SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. T5 ® On this account it is not quite correct to represent Scrip- ture and tradition as two sources which rise near each other. On the contrary, both flow from one common source, and run in different directions only after some time.—The same term κανών (regula 561]. fidei) was first applied to either of them. —For its usage comp. Suicer (Thesaurus Ecclesiast. sub voce) and Planck, H., nonnulla de significatu canonis in ecclesia an- tiqua ejusque serie recte constituenda, Gott. 1820. Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, § 40, 41. [Zardner, Works, v. Ρ. 257.] According to the Montanists there are various histo- rical degrees 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 cor- dis. 2. The period of the Christian revelation, represented by Christ and the Apostles, and corresponding to the infirmitas carnis. 3. The period of the revelation of the paraclete, ex- tending to the end of time, and corresponding to the sanctitas spiritualis, Comp. Tertull. de monogam. 14. Schwegler, Mon- tanismus, p. 37. § 31. 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 Antiq. et Vin- dicatio Canonis V. et N. T. 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. Lond. 1828. *Zardner, N., Credibility of the Gospel History. (Works, i. to iv. and ν. 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. 11, Before the formation of the Canon of the N. Test. that of the O. Test.) which had been previously esta- blished, was held in high esteem in the Catholic church. The Gnostics, however, and the Marcionites in particular, rejected the O. Test.@) A desire gradually arose in the Christian Church to possess the writings of the Apostles 76 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. and evangelists in a collective form. These writings owed their origin to different causes. The apostolical epistles had been written as circumstances required, and 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 some regard to posterity. These testimonies of primitive Christianity would serve as an authoritative standard of religion and morals, and form an effective barrier against the introduction of all that was either of a heterogeneous nature, or more recent date Capocryphal.) The Canon of the New Testament, however, was only gradually formed, and some time elapsed before it was completed. In the course of the second century the four gospels were received by the church in the form in which we now have them.@) On the contrary, the gospels of the heretics,) as they were called,. were rejected. At the close of the present pe- riod the Acts of the Apostles, the 13 Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, which however only one part of the church considered as a work of Paul,() and, lastly, the first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter, had been admitted into the Canon. With regard to the canonical authority of the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistles of James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and, lastly, of the Book of Revelation, the opinions 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 (espe- cially Clement and Origen) in equal esteem with the Scriptures, and quoted as such. ® A difference of opinion obtained only in reference to the use of certain Greek writings of later origin (libri ecclesiastici, Apocrypha.) The Jews themselves had already made a dis- tinction between the Canon of the Egyptian Jews, and the CANON OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. ei: Canon of the Jews of Palestine, comp. Miinscher, Handbuch. vol. i. p. 240, ss., and the introductions to the O. Test. Melito of Sardis (in Euseb. iv. 26.) and Origen (ibid. vi. 25.) give enu- merations of the books of the O. Test. which nearly coin- cide. [Zardner, ii. p. 158, 159; 493—513. Stuart, critical hist. and defence of the O. Test. Canon, p. 431, ss.]| | The dif- ference between what was original, and what had been added in later times, was less striking to those who, being unacquainted with the Hebrew, used only the Greek version. Justin M. does not quote the apocrypha of the O. Test. though he follows the Septuagint version; comp. Semsch, II. p. 3, ss. ὦ) Comp. Neander’s Gnostische 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 11. 10. 642, and other passages. Comp. Credner, 1]. c. and Baur, p. 317, ss. pp. 366, 367. [Lardner, vii. 485—489. Ne- ander, 1. ¢.ii. p. 122, 123. Norton, 1. 6. iii. p. 238.] (3) [Ὁ 15. weil known that the words εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγελιστής, had a very different meaning in primitive Christianity; comp. the lexicons to the N. Test. and Suicer, Thes. pp. 1220 a. 1234.— Justin M., however, remarks, (Apol. 1. 6. 66.) that the writings which he called the ἀπομνημονεύματα of the Apostles, were also called εὐαγγέμα, But it has been questioned whether we have to understand by εὐαγγέλια the four canonical gospels; see Schwegler, nachapostol. zeitalter, p. 216, ss. Concerning these ἀπομνηω., and the earliest collections of the Gospel-narratives, the Diatesseron of Tatian, etc. comp. the introductions to the N. Test. [Gieseler, Ueber die Entstehung und _ frithesten Schicksale der Evangel. 1818. Lardner, N. On the Credibility of the Gospel history. (Works, 1. iv. v. top. 251.) Norton, A., On the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. 1. Zholuck, A., in Kitto, 1. ἃ. art. Gospel. ] () Jrenceus, ady. Heer. 11. 11. 7. attempts to explain the number four from cosmico-metaphysical reasons: ᾿Βπειδὴ τέσσαρο κλίματα TOU κοσμοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, εἰσὶ, καὶ τέσσαρα χα γολικὼ πνεύματα, κατέσ- παρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς. Στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς κιτιλ. ‘Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2. ὅ. Clement of Alex. in Euseb. vi. 19. Origen in tom i. in Johan- nem, Opp. iv. p. 5. For further testimonies of antiquity comp. 78 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. the introductions (de Wette, p. 103.) [and the works of Lardner in particular. | 6) Orig. Hom. i. in Luc. Opp. T. iii. p. 933. multi conati sunt scribere evangelia, sed non omnes recepti, etc. [The principal spurious gospels are the following: The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus; the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite; the Prot-evan- gelion 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. ] Comp. the introductions to the N. Test., and the treatises of Schneckenburger, Hahn, etc. Fabricius, Codex apocryph. N. Test. 11. Hamb. 1719, and Thilo, D. 1. C., Cod. apocr. N. Test. Lipsiz, 1832. Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch. [Lard- ner, Works, 11. 91—98, 236, 250, 251; iv. 97, 106, 131, 463; vill. 524—535. Norton, 1. ὁ. 11. p. 214—286. Wright, W., in Katto, 1. 6. art. Gospels, spurious, where the literature is given. ] © Comp. Bleek, Einleitung in den Briefe an die Hebraer. Berlin, 1828. De Wette, Kinleitung ins N. Test. ii. p. 247. [Stuart's Comment. on the Epistle to the Heb. 2 vols. Lond. 1828. Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, 1. 6. sub voce, where the literature is given, ] @ The Canon of Origen in Euseb. vi. 25. [Lardner, ti. 498 —513.] The controversy on the Book of Revelation was con- nected with the controversy on millennarianism. Comp. Liicke, Versuch einer volistandigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Jo- hannis, und die gesammte apokryphische Litteratur. Bonn. 1832, p. 261, ss. [ἢ Davidson, S., in Kitto, 1. ὁ. sub voce Reve- lation. Stuart, Comment. on the Apocalypse, I. p. 290, ss.] 8). Clem. Strom. i. 7, p. 339. 11.6, p. 445. ii. 7, p. 447. (ii. Lh iiiy 18?) viv. 47 p.n000 aval 2, ape OOo mv eOmppan toner iat Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. Opp. iv. p. 683. (Comment. in Matth. Opp. 11. p. 644.) Hom. 88. in Num. T. 11. p. 249.— Contra Celsum i. 1. ὃ 63. Opp. 1. 378. (Comment. in Joh. iy. p. 153.) de prince. 1. 3. Τὶ 1. p. 82. Euseb. 11. 16. Miinscher, Handbuch, i. p. 289. Mohler, Patrologie, 1. p. 87. [Lardner, i. 18. 247. 528; 11. p. 186, 187; 249. 3803. 304. 530—532.] INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. (9 8 32. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Sonntag, G. F. N., doctrina inspirationis ejusque ratio, historica et usus popularis, Heidelberg, 1810. 8.—Rudelbach, A. G., die Lehre von der Inspiration der heiligen Schrift, mit Beriicksichtigung der neuesten Un- tersuchungen dariiber von Schletermacher, Twesten und Steudel. (Zeit- schrift fiir die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, edited by Rudelbach and Guerike, 1840, 1. 1.) Credner, de librorum Ν, T. inspi- ratione quid statuerint Christiani ante seculum tertium medium, Jen. 1828. W. Grimm, Inspiration, in Gruber and Ersch, Encyclop. sect. 11, vol. xix. That the prophets and Apostles taught under the in- fluence of the Holy Spirit, was the general belief of the ancient church, and had its foundation in the testimony of Scripture itself.7) But according to this view inspi- ration was by no means confined to the dead letter. We find that the Jews generally believed in the verbal inspi- ration of their sacred writings, before the Canon of the N. Test. was completed, at a time when the living source of prophecy had ceased to operate. It is very probable that the theory of verbal inspiration was in some degree mixed up with the heathen notions con- cerning the #774 Cart of soothsaying ),?) but it did not spring from them. It developed itself in a singular form in the story of the origin of the Septuagint version, which was current even among many Christian wri- ters.(3) The Fathers, however, differed in their opinions respecting inspiration; some took it m a more restrict- ed, others in a more comprchensive sense.) But they were generally more inclined to admit verbal mspiration in the case of the Old, than of the New Test. We find, however, some whose views on the inspiration of the N. Test. writings were very positive, (5) and who in their support frequently appealed to the connection existing between the Old and the New Testaments,“ and con- sequently between the writings of which they are respect- SO THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ively composed. Origen goes to the opposite extreme, and maintains that there had been no sure criterion of the inspiration of the O. Test. before the manifestation of Christ, but that the inspiration in question only fol- lows from the Christian mode of perception.7) But all parties insisted more particularly on the practical im- portance of the Scriptures, the richness of Divine wis- dom clothed in unadorned, beautiful simplicity, as tending to promote the edification of believers.©) ΤῊ 1 ΠΟ eur O22 1 (ὦ) Philo was the first writer who transferred the ideas of the ancients concerning the μαντική to the prophets of the O. Test., de spec. lege. iii. ed. Mangey, 11. 343, quis div. rerum heer. Mangey, i. 510, 511, de prem. et pen. 11. 417, comp. Gfrérer, l.c. p. 54, ss. Dahne, 1. ὁ. p. 58. Josephus, on the other hand, adopts the more limited view, or verbal inspiration, contra Apion, 1. 7, 8.—The idea of the μαντική was carried out in all its conse- quences by one section of the Christian church, viz. the Montanists, who attached principal 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 of Athenayoras, Leg. ὁ. 9: Kar’ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς λογισμῶν κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ θείου πνεύματος.---ΟΟἸΏΡ. Tert. advers. Mare. iv. ce. 22.—Origen speaks very decidedly against it; contra Cels. vi. 4. Opp. 1. p. 596. ©) The account given by Aristeas was repeated with more or less numerous additions and embellishments by other writers, comp. Josephus, Antiq. xu. c. 2. Philo de vita Mos. 660. Stahl, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium ftir biblische und morgenlandische Litteratur, 1. p. 260, ss. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Test. δ 159-338. Rosenmiiller, Handbuch fir Litteratur der biblis- chen Kritik und Exegese, ii. p. 334, ss. Jahn, Einletung ins Alte Test. ὃ 33-67. Berthold, ὃ 154-190. De Wette,i. p. 58. Miinscher, Handbuch, i. p. 307, ss. Gfrdrer, p. 49. Dédhne, i. 57, 11. 1, ss. [| Davidson, S., Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Edinb. 1839, p. 35-44. The same in Attto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literat. art. Septuagint.| According to Philo even the gram- matical faults of the LX.X. are inspired, and offer a wide field of speculation to the allegorical interpreter, Ddhne, i. p. 58. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. Sl Comp. Justin M. Coh. ad Gree. ¢. 18, Irenzeus, in. 21. Clem. of Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 410. Clement perceives in the Greek version of the original the hand of providence, because it pre- vented the Gentiles from pleading ignorance in excuse of their sins, Strom. i. 7, p. 338. (ἢ The apostolical Fathers speak of inspiration in very gene- ral 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 man- ner of this inspiration. Comp. Clement of R. in several places ; Ignat. ad Magn. ¢. 8, ad Philadelph. ec. 5, ete. Sonntag, doctrina inspirationis, § 16. Justin M. is the first author in whose writ- ings we meet with a more definite, doctrinal explanation of the process which is thought to take place, Cohort.ad Gree. § 8: Οὔτε γὰρ φύσει οὔτε ἀνλοωπίνῃ ἐννοίῳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ Sete γινώσχειν ἀνδρώ- Tog δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωδεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηλικαῦτα κατελϑούσῃ δωρεᾷ, οἷς οὗ λόγων ἐδέησε τέχνης, οὐδε τοῦ ἐριστικῶς Th καὶ φιλονείκως εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καπαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ “λείου πνεύματος παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, ἵν᾽ αὑτὸ > \ σὸ “λεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, ὥστπερ ὀργάνῳ κιϑάρας τινὸς ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν σιτίων ἡμῖν καὶ οὐρανίων οἰποκαλύψῃ γνῶσιν" διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν ὥσπερ ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος καὶ μιᾶς γλώττης καὶ περὶ Jeov, καὶ περὶ κόσμου κτίσεως, καὶ περὶ πλάσεως ἀνηρώπου, καὶ περὶ ἀνλρωπίνης ψυχῆς αἰ )ανασίας καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον μελλούσης ἔσεσ)γαι κρίσεως, καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἀναγκαῖόν ἡμῖν ἐστιν εἰδέναι, ἀκολούϑως καὶ συμφώνως ἀλλήλοις ἐδὶ- δαξαν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ταῦτα διαφόροις τόποις τε καὶ χρόνοις THY ϑείαν ἡωῖν διδασκαλίαν παρεσχηκότες. Does Justin maintain in this passage that the writers were altogether passive when under the influence of the Holy Spirit ? We presuppose that a lyre is constructed according to the principles of acoustics, and properly tuned: for it is not likely that the plectron should produce sounds out of a mere piece of wood! On the other hand, see Semisch, p. 18, who identifies the view of Justin with that of the Montanists, and Schwegler, Montan. p. 101. From the conclusion at which he ar- rives, it is also apparent that he limits inspiration to what is religious, to what is necessary to be known in order to be saved.— The theory proposed in the third book of Theophilus ad Autoly- cum, c. 23, has more regard to external things: he ascribes the correctness of the Mosaic chronology, and subjects of a similar nature, to Divine inspiration.—Comp. also Athenag. leg. c. 7, and c. 9, (where the same figure occurs: ὡσεὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν ἐμανεύσαι.)---- The views of Jrenceus on inspiration were equally strict and positive, advers. Heeret. 11. 28: Scripture quidem perfect sunt G 82 THE AGE OF ‘APOLOGETICS. quippe a verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dicta, and other passages contained in the third book. Tert. de prescript. heret. 8, 9. advers, Mare. ili. 6. Apol. c. 18, (comp. however, ὃ 34.) Cle- ment of Alexandr. calls the sacred Scriptures in different places γραφὰς bcomvevoras, Or quotes TO yar στόμα κυρίου, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐλάλησέ ταῦτα, etc. Coh. ad Gr. p. 66. 86; ibidem p. 67 he quotes Je- remiah, and then corrects himself in these words: μᾶλλον δὲ ἐν ἹἹερεμιᾷ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ete. and likewise Peed. i. 7. p.134: ὁ νόμος διὰ Μώσεως ἐδόθη, οὐχὶ ὑπὸ Μώσεως, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ λόγου, διά Μό- σεως δὲ τοῦ θεράποντος αὐτοῦ, On the infallibility of the inspired writings, see Strom. li. p. 432. vii. 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. © The doctrine of the inspiration, as set forth in the N. Test. writings, stood in close connection with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and his work. But the Fathers did not think so much of the exertions of the Apostles as writers, as of the power which was communicated to them, to teach, and to perform miracles, and looked upon the latter as peculiarly the work of the Spirit. It was not till the writings of the N. Test. had been collected into one Codex, that they adopted concerning the N. Test. those views which had long been entertained concerning the verbal inspiration of the O. Test. Tertullian first makes mention of this Codex as Novum Instrumentum, or (quod magis usui est dicere) Novum Testamentum, adv. Mare. iv. 1., and he lays so much stress upon the reception of the entire Codex as a crite- sion of orthodoxy, that he denies the Holy Spirit to all who do not receive the Acts of the Apostles as canonical (de preescr. Heer. 22.) Justin M. speaks in more general terms of the Di- vine inspiration, and mitaculous power of the Apostles, Apol. i. c. 39, and the spiritual gifts of Christians, dialog. cum Tryph. ὃ 88. Tertullian, however, draws a distinction between these two kinds of inspiration, viz. the apostolical, and that which is com- mon 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 Treneus we find a more definite allusion to the extraordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit which was granted to the Sacred penmen, with a special reference to the N. Test. writers, adv. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 83 Her. 11. 16. ὃ 2: Potuerat dicere Mattheus: Jesu vero gene- ratio sic erat; sed previdens spiritus sanctus depravatores et premuniens contra fradulentiam eorum, per Mattheum ait: Christi autem generatio sic erat. (ὁ) Tren. adv. Her. iv. 9. p. 237: Non alterum quidem ve- tera, alterum vero proferentem nova docuit, sed unum et eun- dem. Pater familias enim Dominus est, qui universe domui paterne dominatur, et servis quidem et adhuc indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem; liberis autem et fide justificatis congruentia dans precepta, et filiis adaperiens suam_ heeredita- tem......Ha autem, que de thesauro proferuntur nova et vete- ra, sine contradictione duo Testamenta dicit: vetus quidem, quod ante fuerat, legislatio; novum autem, que secundum Evangelium est conversatio, ostendit, de qua David ait: Can- tate Domino canticum novum, etc. Comp. ii. 11. In his frag- ments he compares the two pillars of the house under the ruins of which Samson killed himself and the Philistines, to the two Testaments which overthrew paganism. Clem. Al. Peed. p. 307; “AmOw δὲ τὼ νόμον διηκόνουν TW λόγῳ εἰς παιδωγωγίαν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ὁ μὲν διὰ Μώσεως, ὁ δὲ Of’ Δποστόλων. Comp. Strom. i. 5. p. 331. iii, 10. p- 043. Orig. de princip. iv. 6. 6. Opp. i. p. 161: Λεκτέον δὲ, ὅτι τὸ σῶν προφητικῶν λόγων ἔνθεον Hal τὸ πνευματικὸν τοῦ Μώσεως νόμου ἔλαμψεν ἐπιδημήσαντος Ἰησοῦ. ᾿Βνωργῆ γὰρ παραδείγματα περί τοῦ θεοπνεύστους εἶναι TUS παλαιὰς γραφὸς πρὸ τῆς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Χρίστοῦ παραστῆσαι οὐ σάνυ δυνατὸν ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ Ἰησοῦ ἐπιδημία δυναμένους ὑποπτεύεσθαι τὸν νόμον καί τοὺς προφήτας ὡς ov θεῖα, εἰς τοὐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν, ὡς οὐρανίῳ γχιάριτι ἀνωγε- γραμμένα. Hrom this point of view Origen acknowledges the inspiration of both the Old and the New Testaments, de prine. procm. ὁ. 8. Ορρ. 1. p.18. lib. iv. ab init. contra Cels. v.60. Opp. i. p.623. Hom. in Jerem. Opp.T. 11. p. 282: Sacra volumina spi- ritus plenitudinem spirant, nihilque est sive in lege, sive in evan- gelio, sive in apostolo, quod non a plenitudine divine majestatis descendat. Comp. Comm. in Matth. T. m1. p. 732, where, in re- ference to the different relations of the miraculous cure of the blind men, (Matth. xx. 30-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xvii. 35-43.) he assumes that the evangelists had been preserved from any fault of memory; but in order to account for the apparent dis- crepancies, he is obliged to have recourse to allegorical interpre- tation. In the 27th Hom. in Num. Opp. T.i1. p. 365, he further maintains that (because of this inspiration) nothing superfluous 84 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. could have found its way into the sacred Scriptures, and that we must seek for Divine illumination and direction, when we meet with difficulties. Comp. Hom. in Exod. i. 4. Opp. T. i. Ρ. 181: Ego credens 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.—Philocalia (Cantabrig. 1658,) p. 19: Πρέπει δὲ τὰ ἅγια γεάμ- ματὰ πιστεύειν μηδεμίαν χεραῖαν ἔχειν χενὴν σοφίας Θεοῦ" ὁ γὰρ ἐντειλάμενος ἐμοὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ λέγων, οὖκ ὀφθήσὴ ἐνώπιόν μου κενός (Exod. XXXIV. 20.) πολλῷ πλέον αὐτὸς οὐδὲν κενὸν ἐρεῖ, Comp. Schnitzer, p. 286. But Origen softened the harshness of his theory partly, as has already been indicated, by allegorical interpretation, (comp. the subse- quent §), partly by assuming (as was frequently done even in later times) that God, like a teacher, accommodates himself to the degree of civilization in different ages, contra Cels. iv. 71, T.i. p. 556. (δ) Trenceus compares the sacred Scriptures to the treasure which was hid in a field, adv. Heer. iv. 25, 26, and recom- mends 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: Γραφαὶ δὲ αἱ θεῖκι καὶ πολιτεῖωι σώφρονες, σύντομοι σωτηρίας ὅδοι, γυμναὶ κομμωτικῆς καὶ τῆς ἐχτὸς καλλιφωνίας καὶ στωμυλίας καὶ χολακείας ὑπάρχουσαι ἀνιστῶσιν ἀγχόμενον ὑπὸ κακίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὑπεριδοῦσαι τὸν ὄλισθον τὸν βιωτιχὸν, MiG καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ φωνῇ πολλὰ θεραπεύουσαι, ἀποτρέπουσωι μὲν ἡωᾶς τῆς ἐπιφημίου ἀπάτης, προτρέπουσαι δὲ ἐμφανῶς εἰς προῦπτον σωτηρίαν. Comp. ibid. p. 7] : Ἱερὰ γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῷς τὰ ἱεραποιοῦντα καὶ θεοποιοῦντο, γράμματα x vA. Clement did not con- fine this sanctifying power to the mere letter of Scripture, but thought that the λογικοὶ νόμοι had been written, not only ἐν TAME) λιθίναις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν καρδίαις ἀνθρώπων, Peed. 11. p. 307, 50 that at least the effects produced by the Bible depend on the sus- ceptibility of the mind. The language of Origen is similar, contra Cels. vi. 2, p. 630: Φησὶ δ᾽ ὁ detos λόγος, οὐκ αὔταρκες εἶναι τὸ λεγόμενον (κἂν nal” αὐτὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ πιστικώτατον ἢ) πρὸς τὸ καθικέσθαι ἀνθρω.- πίνης ψυχῆς, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ δύναμίς τις θεόθεν δοθῇ τῷ λέγοντι, καὶ χάρις ἐπανθήσῃ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ αὕτη οὐκ ἀθεεὶ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀνυσίψνως λέγουσι. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 85 9 88. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Olshausen, iiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Kénigsberg, 1824. Rosenmiiller, his- toria interpretat. N. Test. T. iii. Evnesti, J. A., de Origine interpre- tationis grammatice# auctore, opuse. crit. Lugd. 1764. Hagenbach, Observat. circa Origenis methodum interpretande S. 5, Bas. 1823. Thomusius, Origenes, Appendix I.—[Davidson, S., Sacred Hermen- eutics developed and applied; including a Hist. of Biblical Interpreta- tion 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. ] The tendency to allegorical interpretation‘) was con- nected in a twofold manner with the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Some writers endeavoured to bring as much as possible ἐμέο the letter of the sacred writings, either on mystico-speculative, or on practico-religious grounds ; others from a rationalistico-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, especially of Clement,) adopted three modes of interpretation, the grammatical, anagogical, and allegorical“) The simple and modest mode of interpretation, adopted by Jreneus, who defers to God all that is above human understand- ing,?)forms a striking contrast with the allegorizing tendency, which can find everything in the Scriptures. ) « Considering the high opinion regarding the inspiration of the sacred writings, and the dignity of what ἐδ revealed in them, we should expect as a matter of course, to meet with care- Sul interpreters who would diligently investigate the exact mean- ing of every part of Holy Writ. But the very opposite has taken place. Inspiration 18. done away with by that most arbitrary of all modes of interpretation, the allegorical, of which we may consider Philo the best representative.” (Gfrorer, Geschichte 86 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 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 the theory of inspiration, and the mode of interpretation which accompanies it, is by no means unnatural ; 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. Diihne, uber Philo, p. 60. In this period we observe something similar relative to the Word to what took place afterwards with regard to the Sacraments. As baptismal water was thought to possess more excellent qualities than common water, and the bread used in the Lord’s supper to be different from common bread, so the letter of the Bible, once encircled by the magic ring of inspiration, became itself a magic hieroglyphic, to de- cipher which a magic key was needed. 2) Comp Gfrérer, Dahne, |. ce. [and Conybeare, J. J. The Bampton Lecture 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. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 63, 64. | (3) Examples of allegorical and typical interpretation abound in the writings of the apostolical and earlier J’athers, see § 29. note 8, [Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermen. p. 71, ss. Barnabas, 1.7: Thetwo 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, symbolised the death and sufferings of Jesus. The wash- ing 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 si- tuated 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 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 87 light both to those above and under him bya 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 cir- cumstance of giving ight in many ways and parts to such as be- lieve and hope in him, by the instrumentality of the things at first created.” Comp. also pp. 74. 75. 79. 80.] In order to form a correct estimate of this mode of interpretation comp. Mohler, Patrologie, i. p. 64: “ It may be, that the system of interpreta tion adopted by the earlier Fathers in many respects ts not agree- able to our notions of interpretation; 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 everywhere, even without seeking him? In the present high state of civiliza- tion we are scarcely able to form a correct 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 satisfactory manner, and in the most vivid colours.” The earlier Fathers indulged almost unconsciously in this mode of interpreting ; but Clement of Alex. attempts to establish a theory asserting that the Mosaic laws have a threefold, or even a fourfold sense, τετραχῶς Of ἡμῖν ἐκληπτέον τοῦ νόμου τὴν βούλησιν. Strom. i, 28. (some read τριχῶς instead of τετραχῶς.) [Comp. Davidson, 1. c. p. 79.] ® Origen supposes that Scripture has a threefold sense cor- responding to the trichotomous division of man into body, soul, and spirit (comp. § 54); in confirmation of this view he appeals to Prov. xxi. 20, 21; [1 Cor. 11. 6, 7 and other passages, | and the Shepherd of Hermas which he values equally with Scripture. This threefold sense may be divided into 1. the grammatical, [σωματικός] = body; 2. the moral, [ψυχικός] = soul; and 3. the mystical, [πνευματικός] — spirit. The literal sense, however, he asserts, cannot always be taken, but in certain cases it must be spiritualized by allegorical interpretation, especially in those places which contain either something indifferent in a religious aspect (genealogies, etc.), or immoral things (6. g. the account of Lot’s incest, of Abraham’s two wives, etc.), or what is un- worthy of the dignity of God (the anthropomorphitic narratives in the book of Genesis, etc.) ; [comp. the mode in which Philo proceeded, Davidson, 1. c. p. 63, 64.] But Origen found offen- sive things not only in the Old, but also in the New Testament. 88 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Thus he declared the narrative of the temptation of our Saviour to be a mere allegory, 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 honour as kings are looked upon? Davidson, 1. ὁ. p. 99.] He also thought that some precepts, as Luke x. 4. Matth. v. 39. 1 Cor. vi. 18. could be taken in their literal sense only by fool- ish men (ax29a/o1c).—-He does not indeed deny the reality of most of the miracles, but he prizes much more highly the alle- gory which they include (comp. § 29, note 10); de princ. lb. iv. § 8—27, he gives the most complete exhibition of his theory ; comp. also his exegetical works, and the above men- tioned treatises.—[ Davidson, 1. ¢. p. 97 —105 ].—Both tendencies above spoken of, that of bringing in, and that of explaining away, are obviously exhibited in the writings of Origen. There- fore, the remark of Liicke (Hermeneutik. p. 39.) “ that a ration- alistic tendency, of which Origen himself was not conscious, may account in part for his addiction to allegorical interpreta- tion,” can be easily reconciled with the apparently contrary supposition, that mysticism was the cause of it. ‘ 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 ietter, and take its place?” Edgar Quinet on Strauss (Revue des deux mondes 1838.) ) Ireneus also proceeded on the assumption that the Scriptures throughout were full of profound meanings, adv. Her. iv. 18: Nihil enim otiosum, nec sine signo, neque sine argumento apud eum, and made use of typical interpretation. Nevertheless he saw the errors to which allegorizing leads, and condemned it in the Gnostics, adv. Her. i. 3, 6. We are as little able to understand the abundance of nature, as the super- abundance of Scripture, ibid. 11. 28: Nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus, secun- dum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. Et non est mirum, si in spiritalibus et ceelestibus et in his que habent re- velari, hoc patimur nos: quandoquidem etiam eorum que ante pedes sunt (dico autem quz sunt in hac creatura, que et con- TRADITION. 80 trectantur a nobis et videntur et sunt nobiscum) multa fugerunt nostram scientiam, et Deo hc ipsa committimus. Oportet enim eum pre omnibus precellere......E/ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς κτίσεως ene μὲν ἀνάκειται τῷ ϑεῷ, ἔνια δὲ καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν ἐλήλυϑε THY ἡμετέραν, τί χαλεπὸν, εἰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ζητουμένων, ὅλων τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν οὐσῶν, ἔνιω μὲν ἐπιλύομεν κατὰ χάριν Yeod, ἕνιω δὲ ἀνακείσεται τῷ JEG, καὶ οὐ μόνον αἰῶνι ἐν τῷ νυνὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι ; ἵνα ἀεὶ μὲν ὁ Sede διδάσκῃ, ἄνϑρω- πος δὲ διὰ παντὸς μανλάνῃ παρὰ Θεοῦ. § 34. TRADITION. Pelt, ἅδον Tradition in den theologischen Mitarbeiten, Kiel 1813, comp. also § 30, (Bennett, 1. c. p. 95—106.] Notwithstanding the high esteem in which Scripture was held, the authority of tradition was not altogether disregarded. On the contrary, in the controversies with heretics, Scripture was thought to be insufficient to com- bat them, because it maintains its true position, and can be correctly interpreted (i. 6. according to the spirit of the church) only in close connection with the tradition of the church.“) Different opinions obtained concern- ing the nature of tradition. ‘The view taken by Lreneus and Tertullian was of a positive, realistic kind; according to them the truth could not be obtained without some ex- ternal historico-geographical connection with the mother churches.@) The writers of the Alexandrian school en- tertained more idealistic opinions ; they saw in the unhin- dered and more spiritual exchange of ideas the fresh and ever living source from which we must draw the whole- some water of sound doctrine.@) [0 must, however, be acknowledged, that the idea of a secret doctrine(@) which prevailed in the Alexandrian school, and was said to have been transmitted along with the publicly received truth from the times of Christ and his Apostles, betrayed a Gnostic tendency which might easily hinder the adapta- 90 ‘HE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. tion of Christianity to all classes of society. On the other hand, the new revelations of the Montanists set aside all historical tradition.©) The view which Cyprian takes of tradition is peculiar to himself; he submits it to the test of Scripture, and distinguishes human tradition (usage) from divine instruction. © On the necessity of tradition see Jrencus, i. 10. (p. 49, M.) li, 35. p. 171. ii. Pref. c. 1-6. c. 21. iy. 20, 26, 382. (Orelh, 1. Programme, p. 20.) The remark is worthy of observation, ii. 4. that the nations had been converted to Christianity, not in the first instance by the Scripture (sine charta et atramento), but by means of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and the faithfully preserved tradition. See Tert. adv. Marc. 111. 6, v. 5, and particularly de prescriptione Heereticorum, where he de- nies to heretics the right of using Scripture in argument with the orthodox. Comp. ὁ. 13, seq. c. 19. Ergo non ad scrip- turas provocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut par (var. parum) incertee. Nam esti non ita evaderet conlatio scripturarum, ut utramque partem parem sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat, illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est: quibus com- petat fides ipsa: cujus sint scripture; a quo et per quos et quando et quibus sit tradita disciplina, qua flunt Christiani. Ubt enim apparuerit esse veritatem et discipline et fidei christiane, illic erit, veritas scripturarum et expositionuin et omnium tradi- tionum Christianarum. Comp. ὁ. 37: Qui estis, quando et unde venistis, quid in meo agitis, non mei? The renouncing of tradi- tion is, according to Tertullian, the source of the mutilation, and corruption of Scripture, comp. c. 22 and 38. But even ina state of integrity Scripture is not able, on its own account, to overthrow heresies: on the contrary, aecording to God’s provi- dential arrangement, it becomes to heretics the source of new errors, comp. c. 40, 42.— Clement of Alex. expresses himself thus (Stromata, vi. 15, p. 887): It should be no more impossible for an honest man to lie, than for a believer to depart from the rule of faith which is laid down by the church; it is necessary to follow those who alre ady possess the truth. As the companions of Ulysses, having been bewitched by Circe, behaved like beasts, so he who renounces tradition ceases to be a man of TRADITION, 01 God, Strom. 16, p. 890.—Origen de prine. prowm. i. p. 47: Servetur vero ecclesiastica predicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita usque ad preesens in ecclesiis permanens, illa sola credenda est veritas, que in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat tramite. 6) Tren. 111. 4. (2. p. 178. M.): Quid enim? Et si de aliqua modica queestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in anti- quissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt et ab iis de preesenti questione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est. Quid autem, si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? etc. Tertul. prescr. ὁ. 20: Dehine (Apostoli) in orbem profecti eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt, et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, a quibus traducem fidei et semina doctring ceterz exinde ecclesiz mutuatz sunt et quotidie mutuantur, ut ecclesie fiant, et per hoc et ipse apostolice deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantee Hcclesiz una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes, etc. Comp. 6. 21. (5) Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 1. p. 8238: Ta φρέατα eSavdrovpevce διειδέστερον ὕδωρ ἀναδίδωσι" τρέπεται δὲ εἰς φορὰν, ὧν μεταλαμβάνει οὐδεὶς" καὶ τὸν σίδηρον ἡ χρῆσις καφαρώτερον φυλάσσει, ἡ 02 ἀχρηστία ἰοῦ τούτῳ γεννητιχή. Συνελόντι yao φάναι, ἢ συγγυμνασία ἕξιν euro ὑγιεινὴν καὶ πνεύμασι καὶ σώμασιν, (4) Ibid: Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν (ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς) ἃ μὴ πολλῶν ἦν, ὀλίγοις δὲ οἷς προσήκειν ἠπίστατο, τοῖς οἵοις τε EXOEE KOSH καὶ τυπωϑῆναι πρὸς αὐτὰ" τὰ δὲ ἀπόῤῥητα, κα άπερ ὃ Deb, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμματι... ... ἀλλὰ γὰρ TH μυστήρια μυστικῶς παραδίδοται, ἵνα 7 ἐν στόματι λαλοῦντος καὶ ὃ λαλέται μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐν φωνῇ GAN ἐν τῷ vodoJal HT. A Comp. Euseb. h. 6. ii. 1. Origen contra Cels. vi. ὃ 6. Opp. T. i. p. 633. Comp. Frommann, G. C. L. Th., de disciplina areani, que in vetere ecclesia christiana obtinuisse fertur, Jen. 1833. 8. ©) Comp. § 24. (®) 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 he- retics. Cyprian, on the contrary, justly returned 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 con- 92 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. nection he says: Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Comp. Ep. 71, p. 194: Non est de consuetudine prescri- bendum, sed ratione vincendum. We must, however, remember that this controversy was carried on not so much about a dogma, as about a rite, and that as yet no definite meaning was attached to the term tradition. [ Bennett,l.c. Ὁ. 105.) It is interesting to observe that, 6. g. lreneus does not as yet know any traditio humana within the church which cou!d contradict in any way the traditio apostolica ; [ Bennett, 1. ὁ. p. 99.] In later times Tertullian combated the authority of custom with al- most the same weapons as Cyprian; comp. de virgin. veland. 1: Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem cognominavit. Quod- cunque adversus veritatem sapit, hoc erit heresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. Huther, Cyprian, p. 139, ss. Rettberg, p. 310. Pelt, 1. c. Gess, die Einheit der Kirche im Sinne Cyprians, in den Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit Wiirtembergs, 1838, i. 1, p. 149, ss. It was the general opinion that faith (πίστις, fides) is the me- dium by which we apprehend the revelations made known to us either by Scripture or by tradition. The question, however, arose (especially in the Alexandrian school) in what reiation the πίστις stands to the more developed γνῶσις ἡ While Lrenwus does not go beyond faith, but without excluding its svientific treatment (comp. Duncker, p, 16), the theologians of the Alex- drian school, e. g. Clement, endeavoured to assign a higher posi- tion to the γνῶσις. But we should mistake him, if we were to conclude, from some of his expressions, that he attached but an inferior value to the πήστις. Ina certain sense he looked upon it rather as the perfection of knowledge (τελειότης wadjoews.) Peed. 1. 6, p. 115. Faith does not want any thing, it does not limp _(as arguments do.) It has the promise, etc. Also accord- ing to Strom. 1. 1, p. 920, faith is essentially necessary to a right apprehension of knowledge. It anticipates knowledge, un. 1, p. 432. Comp. u. 4, p. 486: Κυριώτερον οὖν τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἡ πίστις καὶ ἐστὶν αὐτῆς κριτήριον, In the same place he distinguishes faith from mere conjecture, εἰκασία, which is related to faith, as a flatterer to a true friend, and a wolf to a dog.—Revelation (διδασκαλία) and faith depend on each other, as the throwing and catching of a ball ina game, Strom. i. 6, p. 442.—On the other hand, Clement maintained the necessity of a well instructed faith (πίστις περὶ τὴν wodnow), Strom. i. 6, p. 336, and insisted in general TRADITION. 93 on an intimate connection between πίστις and γνῶσις, 11. 4, p. 486: Πιστὴ τοίνυν ἡ γνῶσις" γνωστὴ δὲ ἡ πίστις" “λείῳ τινὶ ἀκολου ἰὼ τε καὶ ἀντακο- λου ἡ γένεται. Faith is described as an imperfect knowledge of the truth, γνῶσις is characterised as a “‘ firm and stable demon- stration of the things already apprehended by faith,” Strom. vii. 10, p. 865, 6€. From this point of view he valued knowledge more highly than faith, Strom. vi. 14, p. 794 : Πλέον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πισ- τεῦσα! τὸ γνῶναι. Nevertheless he knew how to discern this true gnosis from the false gnosis of the Gnostics, Strom. v. 6, p. 689, 12, p. 695, vi. 7, 771. Strom. vii. 10, p. 864, (here again faith appears as the basis of true knowledge.) . On the different kinds of faith, see Strom. vi. 17, p. 820. Comp. Meander, de fidei gnoseosque idea secundum Clementem Alex. Heidelberg, 1811, 8. Baur, Gnosis, p. 502, ss. [Davidson, 1. c. p. 76, 77; p.106- 111. |— Origen, de prince. in prowm. 3. Opp. 1.47: [llud autem scire oportet, quoniam Sancti Apostoli fidem Christi preedican- tes de quibusdam quidem, queecunque necessaria crediderunt, omnibus manifestissime tradiderunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ab his inquirendam, qui Spiritus dona ex- cellentia mererentur: de aliis vero dixerunt quidem, quia sint ; quomodo autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt, profecto ut studiosi- ores quique ex posteris suis, qui amatores essent sapientia, ex- ercitium habere possent, in quo ingenil sui fructum ostenderent, hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendam sapientiam prepararent. SECOND SECTION. THEOLOGY. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD (INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE RESPECT- ING THE CREATION, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD, THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS AND OF DEMONS.) § 35. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Ir can never be the object of any revealed religion to prove the existence of God, iasmuch as it always pre- supposes the conviction that there isa God. The idea of a personal God, who, as the.creator of heaven and earth, rules over the human race, who has given the law, sent the prophets,and manifested himself in these last days by his son Jesus Christ, existed already in the O. Test. but was now purified, perfected, and extended beyond the narrow limits of national interests in the Christian religion. In consequence, the believing Christian needed as little, as his Jewish contemporary, a proof of the exis- tence of God. But in proportion as the truth and ex- cellency of Christianity were more fully perceived, it be- came necessary, on the one hand, that the Christians should defend themselves, (apologetically) against the charge of Atheism which was frequently brought for- ward.2) On the other, they had to demonstrate to the heathen (polemically,) that their pagan worship was false, and consequently in its very foundation amount- ~~ ἢ THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. O5 ed to a virtual denial of the living God (Atheism.) @) When, therefore, the writings of the Fathers contain any- thing like a proof of the existence of God, we must take it as the sudden utterance of an overflowing heart, which gives vent to its feelings in a rhetorico-poetical form.) Sometimes we find that such statements are intimately connected with other definitions of the nature of God, with the doctrine of his unity, or with the doctrine con- cerning the creation and government of the world.©) But the Fathers of this period generally returned to the in- nate consciousness of God’s existence (testimonium ANIM, λόγος σπερματικός } which may be traced even in the heathen,©) and on the purity of which the knowledge of God depends. With this they connected, but more in a popular than strictly scientific form, what is commonly called the physico-theological, or teleological proof, 7. 6. they inferred the existence of a creator from the works of creation.(8) More artificial proofs, such as the cosmologi- cal and the ontological were unknown in this period. Even the more profound thinkers. of the Alexandrian school frankly acknowledged the impossibility of a proper proot of the existence of God, and the necessity of a Divine revelation.) © The distinction, therefore, between Theology and Christo- legy 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. We find, however, in the writings of some of the earliest Fathers (especially of Minucius Felix) a kind of theology which bears much resemblance to what was subsequently called natural theology, inasmuch as Τὸ is more reflecting than intuitive. Others (e. g. Clement) looked at every thing through the medium of the Logos; Strom. v. 12, p. 696, comp. also note 9. (ὦ) Comp. 6. g. Minue. Fel. Oct. ὁ. 8, and with it ec. 17, 18, also the Edict. Antonini in Euseb. iv. 13; the phrase ὡς a3» κατηγοροῦντες, however, may be differently interpreted. Comp. Heinichen, i. p. 328. 96 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 7 ( This was done by all the apologists, each in his turn; comp. instead of all: Minuc. Fel. c. 20, ss. Tertullian, Apol. c. 8, de idolotatria. Cyprian, de idolorum vanitate ete. ( See the passage in Clem. of Alex. Cohort. 54: Θεὸς δὲ πῶς ἂν εἴποιμι ὅσα ποιέϊ ; ὅλον ἰδὲ τὸν κόσμον" ἐκείνου ἔργον ἐστὶν καὶ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἥλιος καὶ ἄγγελοις καὶ ἄνδρωποι, eoya τῶν δακτύλων αὐτοῦ. “Oon γε ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Jot 3 μόνον αὐτοῦ τὸ βούλημα κοσμοποιΐα" μόνος γὰρ ὁ debs ἐποίησεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὕντως ἐστὶ Θεός. Ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον ἐδελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσλωι x. τ. A. comp. Tert. Apol. c. 17, 18. ©) Comp. the following §§. (6) Tertullian advers. Judzos c. 2.: Cur etenim Deus univer- sitatis conditor, mundi totius gubernator, hominis plasmator, universarum gentium sator, legem per Moysen uni populo de- disse credatur, et non omnibus gentibus attribuisse dicatur ? et sqq. Comp. Apol. c. 17.: Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus oblectamur, etiam quibus exterremur ? vultis ex anime ipsius testimonio compro- bemus ? que licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta licet libidinibus ac concupiscentiis evigo- rata, licet falsis deis exancillata, cum tamen resipiscit ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et sanitatem suam potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine, quia proprio Dei veri. Deus magnus, Deus bonus, et : quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est ; judicem quoque contestatur illum.: Deus videt, et: Deo com- mendo, et: Deus mihireddet. O testimonium anime naturaliter christian ; denique pronuntians heec, non ad capitolium, sed ad ceelum respicit, novit enim sedem Dei vivi.—De testim. anime c. 2: Si enim anima ejus divina aut a Deo data est, sine dubio da- torem suum novit. Et si novit utique et timet, et tantum pos- tremo adauctorem. Annon timet, quem magis propitium velit quam iratum ? Unde igitur naturalis timor anime in Deum, si Deus non vult irasci? Quomodo timetur qui nescit offendi ? Quid timetur nisi ira? Unde ira nisi ex animadversione ? Unde animadversio nisi de judicic ? Unde judicium nisi de potestate ? Cujus potestas summa nisi Deus solus ? Hine ergo tibi anima de conscientia suppetit domi ac foris, nullo irridente vel prohibente, preedicare : Deus videt omnia, et : Deo commendo, et: Deus red- det, et: Deus inter nos judicabit et sqq. comp. Neander, Antig- nosticus, p. 88, 89. Justin, M. also speaks of the innate idea of God, Apol. II. 6: Τὸ Θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ dvome ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγμα- τος δυσεξηγήτου ἔωφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀν)ρώπων δόξα. Comp. Did. ο. Tr. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 97 c. 93.—Clem. of Alex. Coh. vi. 59: Πᾶσιν γὰρ ἁταξαπτλῶς ἀνδοώποις, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς περὶ λόγους ἐνδιατρίβουσιν (qui in studiis literarum ver- ͵ Sati sunt) ἐνέσταχταί τὶς ἀπόῤῥοια ϑεΐκή. Οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ ἄκοντες μὲν ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕνα τε εἶναι Θεὸν, ἀνώλεγρον καὶ ἀγέννητον" τοῦτον ἄνω ποῦ περὶ τὰ νῶτα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐν τῇ ἰδίῳ καὶ οἰκείῳ περιωτῇ ὄντως ὄντα ἀεί, Comp. Strom. v. 12, p. 698: Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἔμφασις ἑνὸς ἦν τοῦ παντο- κράτυρος παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς εὐφρονοῦσι πάντοτε φυσική" καὶ τῆς ἀϊδίου κατὰ τὴν Delay πρόνοιαν εὐεργεσίας ἀντελαμβάνοντο οἱ πλεῖστοι, οἱ καὶ μὴ τέλεον ἀπηρυλ)ριακότες πρὸς τὴν ἀλήϑειαν. ™ This is beautifully expressed by Theophilus ad Autolycum from the commencement: “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 darkness, white and black, beauty and de- formity, etc., so the ears of the heart, and the eyes of the soul can perceive divine things. 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 cannot 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 cannot see. This is thy case,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 mirror, man cannot see the reflection of his countenance in it: likewise if there be sin in man, he cannot see God. There- fore 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. Peed. ii. 1, p. 250; ἱἙαυτὸν γάρ τις ἐὰν γνῴη, Θεὸν εἴσεται. Minuc. Fel. ο. 32. Ubique non tantum nobis proximus, sed infusus est (Deus.) Non tantum sub illo agimus; sed et cum illo prope dixerim vivimus. ®) Theophil. ad Autol. 5.: ““ When we see a vessel spreading her canvas, and majestically riding on the billows of the stormy sea, we conclude that she has a pilot on board; thus from the regular course of the planets, the rich variety of creatures, we infer the existence of the Creator.” Clem. of Alex. (comp. note 4.) Minue. Fel. c. 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 praesentem adspicimus, quum tonat, fulgurat, fulminat, quum serenat, ete, Η 98 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Comp. c. 18: Quod si ingressus aliquam domum omnia exculta, disposita, ornata vidisses, utique preesse ei crederes dominum, et illis bonis rebus multo esse meliorem : ita in hac mundi domo, quum coelum terramque perspicias, providentiam, ordinem, le- gem, crede esse universitatis dominum parentemque, ipsis side- ribus et totius mundi partibus pulchriorem. Novat. ab init. Ὁ) Clem of Alex. Strom. v. 12, p. 695: Nai μὴν ὁ δυσμεταχειρι- στότωτος περὶ Θεοῦ λόγος οὗτός ἐστιν ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἀρχὴ παντὸς πράγματος δυσεύτε- βος, πάντως που ἡ πρώτη καὶ πρεσβυτάτη ἀρχὴ δύσδειχτος, ἥτις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν αἰτία τοῦ γενέσθαι κ. τ. A. 10. in calce et 696: ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐπιστήμῃ λαμβάνεται τῇ ἀποδεικτικῇ" αὕτη γὰρ ἐκ προτέρων καὶ γνωριμωτέρων συνίστα- Tos τοῦ δὲ ἀγεννήτου οὐδὲν προὐπάρχει" λείπεται δὴ ϑείᾳ χάριτι καὶ μόνῳ τῷ Tae αὐτοῦ λόγῳ τὸ ἄγνωστον νοεῖ. Strom. iv. 25, p. 635: Ὃ μὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὧν, οὔκ ἐστιν ἐπιστημονικὸς" ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφίω τε ἐστὶ καὶ ἐπι- στήμη %. 7.0, 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 : ‘Huds δὲ οἰποφαινόμενα, ὅτι οὐκ αὐτάρκης ἡ ἀν- ρωπίνη φύσις ὁπωσποτανοῦν ζητῆσαι τὸν Sebv, καὶ εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν καϑαρῶς, μὴ βοηϑδηϑέϊσοα, ὑπὸ τοῦ ζητουμένου" εὑρισκομένου τοῖς ὁμολογοῦσι μετὰ τὸ παρ᾿ αὖ- σοὺς ποιεῖν, ὅτι δέονται αὐτοῦ, ἐωφανίζοντος ἑαυτὸν οἷς ἂν κρὶνῃ εὔλογον εἶναι ODS var, ὡς πέφυκε ϑεὸς μὲν ὠν)ρώπῳ γινώσκεσγωι, ἀν)οώπου ὃὲ ψυχὴ ἔτι οὖσα ἐν σώματι γιγνώσκειν τὸν Θεόν. ᾿ 8 36. THE UNITY OF GOD. . Since Christianity adopted the doctrine of One God as taught in the Old Testament, it became necessary that it should defend it not only against the polytheism of heathen nations, but also against the Gnostic doctrine of two supreme beings (dualism, ) and the theory of emana- tion.) Regarding the dualistic notions of the Gnostics, we may remark that they were evidently borrowed from paganism. Some proved the necessity of the unity of God,@) though not in the ablest manner, from the relations of space,) or even from analogies in the rational and irrational creations.“ The more profound thinkers, however, were well aware, that it is not sufficient to de- monstrate the mere numerical unity of the Divine Being, THE UNITY OF GOD. 99 and accordingly placed the transcendental unity far above the mathematical monas.©) (ὦ) Both the hypothesis of the existence of a δημιουργός, ἄρχων Jaldabaoth, etc. who is subordinate to the Supreme God (3:45 ἀκατονόμαστος, βυϑός), and the dividing of the One God into nu- merous ons, are contrary to monotheism. On the more fully developed systems of Basilides and Valentinus, comp. [renzeus, Clem of Alexandria, and the works quoted § 23. ® Justin, M. simply acknowledges this necessity, by consider- ing the unity of God an innate idea, which was not lost till afterwards. In his opinion monotheism is the first true criterion of religious principles, Coh. ad Gree. ὁ. 36: Δυνατὸν μανϑάνειν ὑμᾶς ἕνα καὶ μόνον εἶναι Szdv, ὃ πρῶτόν ἐστι τῆς HAIG ϑεοσεβείας γνώρισινα. ® To this class belongs the proof adduced by Athenagoras legat. pro Christianis, c. 8: ‘ If there had been two or three gods from the commencement, they would either be at one and the same place, or each would occupy a separate space. They cannot exist at one and the same place, for if they be gods, they cannot be equal (accordingly they must exclude each other.) Only the created is equal to its pattern, but not.the uncreated, for it does not proceed from anything, neither is it formed after any model. But as the hand, the eye, and the foot are different members of one body, as they conjointly compose that body, so God is but one God. Socrates is a compound being, as he is made, 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 abovethe world, andround about all things ? For as the world is round, and God surrounds all beings, where would yet be room for any of the other gods? For such a god cannot be in the world, because it belongs to another; no more can he surround the world, for the Creator of the world, even God, surrounds it. But if he can be neither én the world, nor around it (for the true God occupies the whole space around it) where can he be? Perhaps above the world, and above God ? ἐπ another world ? or around another world ? But if he exists 7m 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 with- 100 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. in certain boundaries. But as he exists neither 7m another world (for God himself fills the whole universe); nor around another world (for God surrounds the universe), it follows that he does not exist at all, since there is nothing in which he could exist.” Minue. Fel. c. 18: Quando unquam regni societas aut cum fide ceepit, aut sine cruore desiit? Omitto Persas de equorum hinnitu augurantes principatum, et Thebanorum pre- mortuam fabulam transeo; ob pastorum et case regnum de geminis memoria notissima est ; generi et soceri bella toto orbe diffusa sunt, et tam magni imperi 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 potestatem ? quum palam sit, pa- rentem omnium Deum nec principium habere nec terminum, etc. Comp. Cyprian de idolorum vanitate, p. 14. © Clem. Peed. i. 8. p. 140 : “Ev δὲ ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ‘tds καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτὴν μονάδα. Along with the idea of the unity of God, Ori- gen speaks of the more metaphysical idea of his semplicity, de prince. i. 1. 6. Opp. T.i. p. 51: Non ergo aut corpus aliquid, aut, wm corpore esse putandus est Deus, sed intellectualis natura sim- plex, nihil omnino adjunctionis admittens, uti ne majus aliquid et inferius in se habere credatur, sed ut sit, et omni parte μονάς et ut ita dicam ἑνάς, et mens et fons, ex quo initium totius intel- lectualis nature vel meniis est. [Comp. also Bennett, 1. ὁ. p. 111-116. ] & 37. GOD AS A BEING WHICH MAY BE COMPREHENDED, KNOWN, AND NAMED. The idea of a revealed religion implied that so much of the nature of God should be made manifest to man, as would be necessary to the knowledge of salvation; the church, therefore, has always cultivated the λόγος περὶ Θεοῦ (theology.) On the other hand, the insufficiency of human ideas was acknowledged Cin opposition to the pride of speculation), and the character of the Di- vine Being admitted to be past finding out; some even entertained doubts about the propriety of giving THE UNITY OF GOD. 101 God any name. Much of what the church designated by the term mystery (sacrament), 1s founded partly on a sense of the insufficiency of our ideas, and the inapti- tude of our language, and partly on the necessity of em- ploying certain ideas and expressions, to communicate our religious thoughts and opinions. When the martyr Attalus, in the persecution of the Gallican Christians under Marcus Aurelius, was asked by his judges, what the name of God was, he replied : ὁ θεὸς ὄνομα οὖκ ἔχει ὡς ἄνθρωπος, Euseb. ν. 1, (edit. Heinichen, t. ii. p. 29, comp. the note.) Such was also the opinion of Justin M., Apology, 11. 6 ; whatever name may be given to God, he who has given a name toa thing, must always be anterior to it. He therefore draws a distinction be- tween appellatives (προσρήσεις) and names (ὁνόματα.) The predicates πατήρ, θεὸς, κύριος, δισπύτης, are only appellatives. Therefore he also calls God ἄῤῥητος πατήρ ; other passages are given by Semisch, li. p. 252, ss. God is not only above all names, but also above all existence, (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας), comp. dial. cum Tryph. ¢. 3, in reference to Plato. But elsewhere he speaks of the οὐσία οἵ God, e.g. dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, and even ascribes to him (in a cer- tain sense) a kind of μορφή. Apol. i. 9; comp. Semisch, ii. p. 252, Lheoph ad Autol.i. 3: "Axoue, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, τὸ μὲν εἶδος τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄῤῥητον καὶ ἀνέκφραστον, καὶ μὴ δυνάμενον ὑφϑαλμοῖς σαρκίνοις dzadnvas δόξῃ γάρ ἐστιν ἀχώρητος, μέγέϑει ἀκατάληπτος, ὕψει ἀπερινόητος, ἰσχύϊ ἀσύγκριτος, σοφίῳ ἀσυμβίβαστος, ἀγαδοσύνῃ ἀμίμητος, κωλοποιΐῳ ἀνεκδιήγητος" εἰ γὰρ φῶς αὐτὸν εἴπω, 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 λεγω" σοφίαν ἐὰν εἴπω, γέννημα αὐτοῦ λέγω" ἰσχὺν ἐὰν εἴπω, κράτος αὐτοῦ λέγω" πρόνοιαν ἐὰν εἴπω, ἀὡγαδοσύνην αὐτοῦ λέγω" βασιλείαν ἐὰν εἴπω, δοξαν αὐτοῦ λέγω! κύριον ἐὰν εἴπω, κριτὴν αὐτὸν λέγω" χριτὴν ἐὰν εἴπω, δίκαιον αὐτὸν γέλω" πατέρω ἐὰν εἴπω, τὰ πάντω αὐτὸν λέγω" Tug ἐὰν εἴπω, τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ λέγω x τ. A. Comp. i. 5: Εἰ γὰρ τῳ ἡλίῳ ἐλαχίστῳ ὄντι στοιχείῳ οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἀτενίσαι διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν ϑέρμην καὶ δύναμιν, πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον τῇ τοῦ )εοῦ δόξῃ ἀνεκφράστῳ οὔσῃ ἄνλεωπος νητὸς οὗ δύναται ἀντωπῆσαι, According to Jren. ii. 25. 4. God is indeterminabilis, nor can any one fully comprehend his nature by thinking. Minuc. Fel. c. 18: Hic (Deus) nee videri potest, visu clarior est, nec comprehendi, tactu purior est, nec sestimari, sensibus major est, infinitus, immensus et soli sibi tantus quan- tus est notus; nobis vero ad intellectum pectus angustum est, 109 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. et ideo siceum digne estimamus, dum inestimabilem dicimus. Eloquar, quemadmodum sentio: magnitudinem Dei, que se putat nosse, minuit, qui non vult minuere, non novit. Nec no- men Deo queras: DEUS nomen est! Illic vocabulis opus est, quum per singulos propris 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 ad- ditamenta nominum, et perspicies ejus claritatem. Clement of Alexandria shows very distinctly, Strom. vii. p. 689, that we can attain to a clear perception of God only by laying aside 6 ἀναλύσεως all finite ideas of the Divine nature, till at last nothing but the abstract idea of unity remains. But lest we should con- tent ourselves with the mere negation, we must throw ourselves (ἀποῤῥίψψωμεν ἑαυτοὺς) into the greatness of Christ, inwhom the glory of God was manifest, in order to obtain thus in some way or other (ἀμηγέπη) the knowledge of God, (é.e. in a practico-reli- gious manner, not by speculation); for even then we learn only what God is not, not what he is, (that is to say, if we speak of absolute, perfect knowledge.) Comp. also the 12th and 13th chapters of the 5th book from p. 692; in particular p. 695, and c. 1, p. 647: Δῆλον yee μηδένα δύνασθαι παρὼ τὺν τῆς ζωῆς χρόνον τὸν θεὸν ἐνωργῶς καταλαβέσθαι, he therefore gives the advice, ibid. p. 651: Τὸ δὲ doa Cnretv περὶ θεοῦ ἂν μὴ εἰς cow, ἀλλὰ εἰς εὕρεσιν τείνῃ, σωτήριόν ἐστί, Origen contra Celsum, vi. 65. Opp. T. i. p. 681, and de prine. 1. 1. 5. p. 50. Dicimus secundum veritatem, Déum incomprehensi- bilem esse atque inestimabilem. Si quid enim illud est, quod sentire vel intclliigere de Deo potuerimus, multis longe modis eum meliorem esse ab eo quod sensimus necesse est credere. “As much as the brightness of the sun exceeds the dim lght 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 quee sunt ipsius, et in eo sunt, nec mens hominis que sint, quanta sint et qualia sint, digne concipere potest, nec eloquentia ser- monis humani equabilem majestati ejus virtutem sermonis ex- promit. Ad cogitandam enim et ad eloquendam illius majesta- tem 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 edict, humana sermone minor sit, quo quum edicitur, GOD AS A BEING. 108 et circumiri et colligi possit. Quidquid enim de illo cogitatum fuerit, minus ipso erit, et quidquid enunciatum fuerit, minus 1110 comparatum circum ipsum erit. Sentire enim illum taciti aliquatenus possumus, ut autem ipse est, sermone explicare non possumus. Sive enim illum dixeris lucem, creaturam ipsius ma- gis quam ipsum dixeris, etc....Quidquid omnino de illo retu- leris, rem aliquam ipsius magis et virtutem quam ipsum expli- caveris. Quid enim de eo condigne aut dicas aut sentias, qui omnibus et sermonibus major est? etc. This Christian scho- lasticism which pervades the first period, forms a striking con- trast with the modern confidence of old and new scholastic mode and style! Nevertheless the Fathers (and Origen in particular) also admit a spiritual perception of God, which is now brought about by the medium of Christ, but will at length be immediate. 8 38. IDEALISM AND ANTHROPOMORPHISAI.—CORPOREITY OF GOD. The educated mind, desirous of removing from the na- ture of God as much as possible every thing that could remind man of the finite or compound, sometimes takes offence even at the idea of the substantiality of God, from fear of reducing him to the level of created beings. At the same time, it is possible so to refine our concep- tions of the Deity, as to resolve it into a mere abstract negation. In opposition to this idealizing tendency, pious souls at an early period manifested the desire of possess- ing a real God for the world, for man, and jor the human heart; and the bold and figurative language which they employed, as well as the symbolical and anthropomor- phitic expressions which they applied to the Divine Being, amply compensated for what the idea of God had lost in the way of negation. Both these tendencies, which claim alike the consideration of thinking men, and have engaged the attention of philosophers in all ages, “) have their respective representatives in the first period of the history of doctrines. On the one hand, the Alex- andrian school, and Origen in particular, endeavoured to 104 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. remove from God every thing that could give rise to carnal ideas concerning his nature.@) On the other hand, Tertullian insisted so much on the idea of the substan- tiality of God, that he confounded it with his corporeity, though it must be admitted that he did not ascribe to him a gross, material body like that of man.@) On this subject even the ancient philosophers entertained different opinions. The popular, polytheistic form of religion was founded on anthropomorphism. Xenophanes of Colophon, the founder of the Eleatic school, endeavoured to combat poly- theism as well as anthropomorphism. Comp. Clem, Alex. Strom. v. 14, p. 714: Εἷς ϑεὸς ἔν τε ϑειοῦσι καὶ avowroror μέγιστος, OU τι δέμας ϑνητοῖσιν ὁμοίΐος οὐδὲ νόημα, x. τ. A, and Strom. vii. 4, p. 841, and the other passages in Preller, hist. phil. greco-rom. Hamb. 1888. Jitter, 1. p. 450. [English translat. by Morrison, i. p. 480.] Schleiermacher, p. 60. The Epicureans (though it is doubtful whether Epicurus himself seriously meant to teach this doctrine) imagined that the gods possessed a quasi human form, but without the wants of men, and were unconcerned about their sufferings and pleasures. Thus they retained only what 1s vain in anthropomorphism, and lost sight of its more profound signification (the human relation of God to man.) Comp. Cic. de Natura Deorum, i. $—21. Reinhold, i. p. 267, note. itter, ni. 490. [ΠΡ]. transl. ui. 442,.|—Different views were adopted by the Stoics, who repre- sented God as the vital force and reason which govern the uni- verse; but though they avoided anthropomorphitic notions, they regarded him as clothed in an etherial 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 own self.” Strom. vy. 11, p. 687, comp. vil. 5, p. 845, c. 7, p. 852, 53 : Ὅλος ἀκοὴ καὶ ὅλος ὀφθαλμὸς, ive τις τούτοις χρήσηται τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὁ Θεός. Kad’ ὅλου τοίνυν οὐδεμίαν σώζει “εοσέβειαν, οὔτε ἐν ὕμνοις οὔτε ἐν λόγοις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐν γρα- φαῖς ἢ δόγμασιν ἡ μὴ πρέπουσα περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπόληψις, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ταπεινὰς καὶ ἀσχήμονας ἐκτρεπομένη ἐννοίας τε καὶ ὑπονοίας" ODE ἡ τῶν πολλῶν εὐφημία IDEALISM AND ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 106 δυσφημίας οὐδὲν διαφέρει διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀληδϑείας ἄγνοιων κ. τ. A, (on prayer.) Origen begins his work στρὶ ἀρχῶν immediately after the Procem. with objections to anthropomorphitic or material ideas of God: “1 know that many appeal even to Scripture in proof of their assertion that God is a corporeal being; because they find in the writings of Moses that he is called a consuming fire, and read in the gospel of John that he is a Spirit (πνεῦμα.) They cannot think of fire and spirit but as something corporeal. I should ae to ask these persons what they say of the passage in 1 Johni.5: “ Godishght?” Heisa light to enlighten ie who seek ἐξ truth. (Ps. xxxvi. 9); for “ the light of God” i nothing more than his Divine power, by means of which he ib is enlightened perceives truth in all things, and apprehends God hinself‘as the truth. In this sense we m ust un aderst a the phrase; in thy light we shall see light, ὁ. 6. in the Logos, in the wisdom which is Gin Son, we see thee, the athe Is it then necessary to suppose that God resembles the sun-light, because he is called liyght? Can any sensible meaning be attached to the idea, that knowledge and wisdom have their source in “ cor- poreal light?” But the spiritualizing tendency οἵ Origen led him frequently so to explain even tlie more prefound sayings of Scripture, as to leave nothing but a mere abstract idea. Vo- vatian also expresses himself in very strong and decided terms against anthropomorphism ; de trin. c. 6: Non intra hee nostri corporis lineamenta modum aut figuram divine majestatis in- cludimus....Ipse totus oculus, quia totus videt, totus auris, quia totus audit. Even the definition, that God is a spirit, has, according to him, only a relative validity: illud quod dicit Do- minus (John iv.) spiritum Deum, puto ego sic locutum Christum de patre, ut adhuc aliquid plus intelligi velit quam spiritum Deum. He thinks that this is only figurative language, as it is said elsewhere, God is light, etc. omnis enim spiritus creatura est. (3 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.u. p. 25. Euseb. iv. 26, and Heinichen on that passage. Gennad. de dogm. eccles. c. 4. and Piper, uber Melito, in the theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1838, 1. p. 71, where a similar view is cited from the Clementine Homilies. [ Burton, E., Tes- timonies of the Anti-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, 106 ; THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. etc. (Works, 11.) p. 64.] It is more certain that Tertullian ascribed to God (and so 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 Philoso- phie, p. 165), de Carne Christi, c. 11: Ne esse quidem potest; nisi habens per quod sit. Cum autem (anima) sit, habeat ne- cesse est aliquid per quod sit. Si habet aliquid, per quod est, hoc erit corpus ejus. Omne quod est, corpus est sul gene- ris. 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 in- visibilia illa queecunque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum cor- pus et suam formam, per que soli Deo visibilia sunt; quanto magis quod ex ipsius substantia missum est, sine substantia non erit. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 451. But Tertullian himself draws a definite distinction, which excludes all grosser forms of anthropomorphism, between the Divine and the human corpus, advers. Marc. 11. 16: Discerne substantias et suos eis dis- tribue sensus, tam diversos, quam substantiz exigunt, licet vocabulis communicare videantur. Nam et dexteram et oculos et pedes Dei legimus, nec ideo tamen humanis comparabuntur, 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 voca- bulis sensuum, quos tam corruptorios efficit in homine corrupti- bilitas substantiz humane, quam incorruptorios in Deo efficit incorruptibilitas substantia divine.* On the anthropomorphism ® Miinscher, ed. by Colln, i. p. 134, adduces this passage to show that Ter- tullian 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 terms. It is possible to re- present God by way of anthropomorphism as a Spirit of very limited expanse, and bearing resemblance to the spirit of man, without ascribing to him a body. On the other hand, the substantiality of God may be taken in so ab- stract a manner, as not to confound it with humanity and personality, (so the Stoics.) Tertullian combines both these modes of representation, but after all that has been said, it is the awkwardness of his style rather than his man- ner of thinking, that has brought him into disrepute. [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 de- THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 107 of Cyprian, see Rettberg, p. 300. Jreneus rejects both authro- pomorphism properly so called, and false anthropopathism. In no respect God is to be compared to human frailty; though his love justifies us in using human phraseology when speaking of him, neverthless we feel that, as to his greatness, and his true nature, he is elevated above all thatis human; comp adv. her. 11, 13, 4., and iv. 20. iv. 5. Duneker,l.c. p. 27. Baur, Christ. Gnosis, p. 466. § 39. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. Neither the existence of God, as we have already seen, nor his attributes, were from the 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 as in course of time metaphysical ideas were borrowed from the schools of philosophers, and transferred to the God of the Christians, it is not difficult to perceive how the views entertained on this subject by different writers would be more or less influenced by the different tendencies of these schools. Some connected their no- tions of the omnipresence of God with their conceptions of his corporeity, which fills the universe and displaces all other bodies ; (2) others maintained that he was exalt- ed above space, or that, having destroyed space, he put himself initsroom.@) ‘The doctrine of omniscience was to some extent mixed up with anthropomorphitic ideas, and notes the will; nostrils, the perception of prayer ; hands, creation ; arms, power ; feet, immensity ; for he has no members, and performs no office for which they are required, but executes all things by the sole act of his will. How can he require eyes, who is light itself? or feet, who is omnipresent ? How can he require hands, who is the silent creator of all things? or a tongue, to whom to think is to command? Those members are necessary to men, but not to God, inasmuch as the counsels of men weuld be inefficacious unless his thoughts put his members in motion ; but not to God, whose ope. rations follow his will without effort.” Comp. Wright, W., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literat. art. Anthropomorphism. ] 108 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Origen himself limited this attribute of God,@ as well as that of his omnipotence.©) According to the spirit of Christianity, particular mention was made of the dove and mercy of God, along with his justice.) But it was to be expected that at times difficulties would arise respect- ing apparent contradictions which could be removed only by the taking of more comprehensive and elevated views. Thus it became possible to reconcile, on the one side, the omniscience (especially the foreknowledge) of God with his omnipotence and goodness,() and, on the other side, his justice with his love and mercy.\®) ® The Catholic church preserved a right medium between the antijudaizing tendency of the Gnostics, who spoke of the demiurgus as a being that was either subordinate to the Supreme God, or stood in a hostile relation to him; and the judaizing tendency of the Ebionites, who, retaining the rigid system of Judaism, mistook the universal design of the Christian doctrine of God. But here, as elsewhere, we observe a wide difference between the theological opinions of the North-African and those of the Alexandrian school. Comp. (§ 36. note 2.) the passage cited from Athenagoras on the unity of God. 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 dif- fusus est. This expression would lead us to suppose that in his view the Deity was a kind of substance which fills space. ὦ Philo had previously identified God with absolute space, and taught that he alone can set bounds to his own existence; comp. the passages bearing on this subject in the work of Déhne, p. 281—284, and p. 193, 207, ss.; Dheophilus ad Autol. 11. 3, also calls God his own space (αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ τόπος ἐστίν.) He justly confines the omnipresence of God not to his mere existence at every place at one and the same time, but considers it as his un- interrupted activity which is known from his works, comp. i. 5. Clem. of Alex. denies that the relations of space can be applied to God, Strom. 11. 2, p. 491 : Οὐ γὰρ ἐν γνόφῳ ἢ τόπῳ ὁ Θεὸς, GAN ὑπεράνω καὶ τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ τῆς τῶν γεγονότων ἰδιότητος" 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 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 109 (which he thought to be an animate being) with his power, but he neither fills the universe with his presence, nor does he even move in it, comp. de prine. ii. 1. Opp.i. p. 77. For an explana- tion of popular and figurative expressions which represent the Deity as occupying space, and convey the idea of a change of place, vide contra Cels. iv. 5. Opp. i. p. 505, and comp. also p- 686. Concerning the expression that God may be all in all, See de prince. ili. 6. Opp. i. p. 152, 153. ® De prine. iii. 2. Opp. i. p. 49. Origen 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 comprehend. Comp. with this the much simpler view of Clement Strom. vi. 17, Pp: 821: Ο γάρ ror Θεὸς πάντα οἶδεν, οὐ μόνον τὰ ᾽ τ > \ aes ε oT e ΄ 3 ΄ OVTh, ἀλλὰ χαὶ τὼ ἐσόμενα καὶ ὡς ἔσται ἑχαστον τάς τε ἐπὶ μέρους χινήσεις Ξ φρουρῶν πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούει, γυμνὴν ἔσωϑεν τὴν ψυχὴν βλέπων, καὶ σὴν ἐπίνοιαν τὴν ἑκάστου τῆς κατὰ ἕξρος ἔχει δ αἰῶνος" καὶ ὕπερ ἐπὶ τῶν Ὁεάτρων γίνεται, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑκάστου μερῶν, nara τὴν ἐνόρασίν τε καὶ περιύρασιν καὶ συνόρασιν, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ γίνεται. ᾿Αθρύως τε γὰρ πάντα καὶ ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει μιᾷ προσβολῇ προσβλέπει. Just. M. dial. c. Try ph. ce. 127: 3 « } woe \ \ Ub ~ , ” ~ ” ~ O γὰρ ἀῤρῆτος πατὴρ καὶ κύριος τῶν πώντων OUTE TOLADATAI, OUTE περιπατεῖς οὔτε καϑεύδει, οὔτε ἀνίσταται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ χώρῳ ὅπου ποτὲ μένει. ὀξῦ ὁρῶν καὶ OED ἀκούων, οὐκ ὀφθαλμοῖς οὐδὲ ὠσὶν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει ἀλέκτῳ" καὶ πάντα ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντα γίνωσκει, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν λέληϑεν αὐτόν. ©) Origen de ρυίπο. ii. 6. 9. p. 97 : ᾿Εν τῇ ἐπινοουμένῃ ἄρχῇ τοσοῦτον ἀριϑμὸν τῷ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ ὑποστῆσαι τὸν Deby νοερῶν, οὐσιῶν, ὅσον ἠδύνατο διαρκέσαι" πεπεροισμένην yao εἶναι καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ϑεοῦ λεκτέον x% τι A, But in other places Origen expresses himself in a very appro- priate and dignified manner concerning the Divine omnipotence ; contra Cels. v. Opp. i. p. 595, he shows that God can do all things, but does nothing which is contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν,) οὔτε TA ἀπὸ κακίας, οὔτε TA ἀλόγως γενόμενα. (6) The idea of Clement of Alexandria is worthy of notice, which was evidently borrowed from the Gnostic doctrine of an ὠῤῥενό- ϑηλὺυς ; he thinks that the compassion of God presents the female aspect of his character, quis div. salv. p. 956, and finds some- thing analogous 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 onaccount of the relations in which they stand to their creator, Coh. p. 89: Πρόκειται δὲ ἀεὶ τῷ Θεῷ τῆν ἀν)υώπων ἀγέλην σώζειν. Comp. Strom. vii. p. 882. Coh. 74. Pad. I. p. 102. 110 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Origenes contra Cels. ii. Opp. i. p. 405. Comment. in Gen. Opp. u. p. 10, 11. For more particulars comp. the doctrine of human liberty, § 57. ® Another point of distinction between the Gnostics and or- thodox Christians was, that the former did not know how to re- concile the equity of God which inflicts punishment, with that other attribute which passes by transgressions, and redeems from sin; on this account they thought themselves compelled to se- parate the just God of the Old Test. from the loving Father of the Christians (so Marcion.) In opposition to this ill-founded dis- tinction, Irenzeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, etc. insist parti- cularly on the penal justice of God, and show that it can very well be reconciled with his love. According to frenwus, adv. heer. v. 27. penalty does not consist in anything positive which comes from God, but in the separation of the sinner from God. God does not punish προηγητικῶς, but erancroudovons of ἐκείνης (τῆς ἁμαρτίας) τῆς κολάσεως, Tertullian, on the contrary, considers the penal justice of God to be based on the legal principle of the inviolableness of the law, and distinguishes between true love and bevevolent weakness, comp. contra Marc. 1. 25, 26. u. 13. 14.16. (negabimus Deum, in quo non omnia, que Deo digna sint, constent) ; in his opinion the anger of God depends on love itself. Accordingly, he draws a distinction between malis sup- plicii 5. poenze and malis culpz 5. 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 preejudicant, ut quoni- am in homine corruptoriz conditionis habentur hujusmodi passiones, idcirco et in Deo ejusdem status existimentur, etc. Clement of Alexandria adopts partly the same 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. The principal design of the divine punishments seems to him, to make men better, and to warn and restrain others from the commission of sin. Comp. Ped.1. ὃ, p. 40. This is dis- tinctly set forth, Strom. vii. p. 895: ’AAW’ ὡς πρὸς τοῦ διδασκάλου ἢ σοῦ πατρὸς of παῖδες, οὕτως ἡμεῖς πρὸς τῆς προνοίας κολωαζόμεϑδα. Θεὸς δὲ od σιμωρεῖται" ἔστι YUL ἡ τιμωρία κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις" κολάζει μέν TOL πρὸς τὸ χοήῆσι- μον καὶ κοινῇ καὶ ἰδίῳ τοῖς κολαζομένοις. Origen refutes at great length the objections of the Gnostics, de prince. 11. 5. Opp. t. 1. p. 102, by proving that their distinction between “ benevolent,” and THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 111 “just,” is altogether untenable, and showing that the Divine penalties are inflicted by a kind father, and wise physician; at the same time he applies the allegorical interpretation to those passages of the Old Test. which speak by way of anthropomor- phism of the wrath and vengeance of God; comp. also contra Cels. iv. 71, 72. p. 556. (comp. however § 48.) § 40. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. a. Traces of it in the Period before the Christian Hira, and in Jewish and Gentile Systems of Religion and Philo- sophy. *Liicke, geschichtliche Erérterung der Logosidee in his Commentar iiber das Evangelium, Joh. i. vol. p. 205, ss. [Tholuck, Commentar zum Evang. Joh, ch. 1. Die Logoslebre. 6 ed. p. 52, ss.] *Durner, Ent- wickelungsgeschichte der Christologie. Stuttg. 1839. p. 4-34. Von Bohlen, das alte Indien mit besonderer Riicksicht auf Aegypten. 1. Konigsb. 1830. i. p. 201, ss. Stuhr, die Religionssyteme der heidnischen Volker des Orients, 8. 99,ss. Klewker, Zendavesta im Kleinen. vol. ii. p. 1, ss. *Biéumlein, Versuch die Bedeuteung des johann. Logos aus den Reli- gionssystemen des Orients zu entwickeln. [Kdstlin, der Lehrbegriff des Evang. und der Briefe Joh. und die verwandten neutestamentlichen Lehr- begriffe. Berlin, 1813. Burton, #., the Bampton Lecture on the Here- sies of the Apostolic Age, Lect. vii. Comp. also Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 34 edit. i. 522-529. ii. 415. 432, et passim. | FE’. Ch. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Mensch- werdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung ΤΡ. 1841-43, 3 vols. vol. I. p. 1-128. *G. A. Meier, die Lehre von der Trinitat. Hamb. 1844. I. p. 1, ss. The difficulty which men experienced in thinking of God as a being purely spiritual and exalted above every finite object, was considerably increased when they view- ed him at the same time in the relation which he sustains to the finite creation. It became necessary, with the in- creasing culture of the human mind, to form the idea of a medium (organ) by which God creates and governs the world, and manifests himself in it. ‘his medium was supposed, on the one side, to have its existence in the Di- 112 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. vine nature itself, and to stand ina most intimate connec- tion 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 oriental sources, the wis- dom of India and the religion of Zend, (') or to the occi- dental systems of philosophy, and that of Plato in parti- cular.?) We may trace it in the more definite and con- crete form which at the time when the apocryphal writ- ings were composed, was given to the personifications of the Divine word, and the Divine wisdom found in the Old Test.@) It may be further traced in the doctrine of Philo concerning the Logos,“ and in some other notions which were then current.©) But all these were only so many scattered seeds which Christianity was designed to quicken and make fruitful. ( « Tt is easy to see that the Christian idea cannot be ex- plained by an appeal to the Indian religion.” Dorner, p. 7. The Trimurti of the Indian religion may be represented in the following manner : Brahma Vishnoo Seeva (Kala) Sun (Light) Water (Air ?) Fire Creator Preserver (progressive developement) Destroyer Power Wisdom Justice Past Present Future Matter Space Time Comp. Von Bohlen and Stuhr,1.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. Inthe system of Zoroaster the word Honover is represented as that by which the world was created, and as the most immediate revelation of the god Or- muzd, see Kleuker,1.c. and Stuhr, i. p. 870, 871. [ Burton, 1. c. Lect. ii. p. 44-48.] ‘ Since, in the pagan systems of religion, the THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 113 natural is most intimately blended with the Divine, the idea of a trias established in them is altogether different from the Christian doctrine of the Trinity ; in the former the trias only denotes the various modes of exisience, and is therefore most fully d-veloped in those religions which occupy a very low position, but disappears when the said unity of the Divine with the natural is lost sight of.” Meier, 1. ὁ. p. 4. 2 The relation in which Plato (especially in Timzeus) ima- gined God to stand to the creating νοῦς, presents only a remote analogy; likewise the passage bearing on the λόγος from Epi- nomis, p. 986, which Huseb. Prep. evang. x1. 16. professes to quote from Hpimenides, given by De Wette, biblische Dogmatik $157. Comp. Tennemann, das platonische Philosophem vom gottlichen-Verstande, in Paulus’ Memorabilien, Stiick i.an d his System der platonischen Philosophie, vol. 11. p. 149, ss. 174, ss. bLockh, iber die Bildung der Weltseele im ‘Timzeus des Plato (in Daub und Creuzer’s Studien, vol. 111. p. 1, ss. Aitter, Geschicite der Philosophie, 11. p. 291, ss. 318, ss. [| Burton, 1. c. Lect. vii. and note 90 in particular. | ® 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, sometimes by ae (especially the ries ayn (2), 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, Aj “Δ. which descends upon them. This λόγος (ῥῆμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου) is poetically personified in several places; Ps. exlvii. 15; Is. lv. 11; in an inferior degree, Ps. xxxili, 4; cxix. 89, 104, 105; Is. xl. 8; Jer. xxi. 29; comp. Liicke, |. c. p. 215, 216. Like the word, so the wisdom of God (MSM, σοφία) is personified: Job TIT xxvill. 12-28, and in very significant terms, Prov. ch. viii. and ix. On 933) (Prov. viii. 22,) and the signification of ΤῚΝ (vii. 30.) comp. Umbreit's Comment. p. 102, 106; on the personification of wisdom in the apocryphal writings (Sir. i. 4, 24; Baruch i. 15, ss. iv. 1; Wisdom, vi. 22, to ch. ix.) see Liicke, 1. ὁ. p. 221, ss., and Bretschneider, systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik der Apokryphen. Leipsig, 1805, p.191, ss. The strongest ex- ample of personification 15 in the Book of Wisdom, so that it is 1 114 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. dificult to define exactly the distinction between personification and the hypostasis, properly so called, especially ch. vu. 22, ss. On the relation of this hypostasis to that of Philo, see ‘Liicke, 1. 6, On the question whether Philo ascribed personality to the Logos, see Dorner, 1. 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 δυνώμεις, λόγοι, and ἄγγελοι. This Logos he also calls δεύτερος θεός, or Sede, as such, with- out the article ; υἱὸς πρεσβύτερος, υἱὸς μονογενὴς, πρωτόγονος, εἰκών, σκιά, παράδειγμα, δόξα, σοφία, ἐπιστήμη τοῦ Δεοῦ According to Philo the Logos is the essence and seat of the ideal world (ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν 6 Jeov λόγος) Asan artist first makes a model of that which he purposes to make, so God first created the world ideally, see de mundi opif. § 5, and the notes by J. G. Miller (Philos Buch von der Weltschopfung, Berl. 1841), p. 149, ss. In the same manner the Logos is the mediator by whom the revelations of God were brought about; the appearances of God were made possible through his instrumentality; he is called the παράκλητος, ἀρχιερεύς, ἱκέτης, πρεσβεύτης ὀπαδὸς τοῦ Jeod, He takes care of all that is good as ἀρχὴ καὶ πηγὴ καλῶν πράξεων. Philowas acquainted with the distinction between λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος and λόγος προφορικός, though he employed these terms only in reference to the manifestations of the Logos in a human form, de vita Moys. lib. iil. p. 672, ο.: Ἔν ἀνδρώπῳ δ᾽ ὁ μὲν (λόγος) ἐστὶν ἐνδιάϑετος, ὁ δὲ προφορικὸς, καὶ ὁ μὲν οἷά τις πηγὴ, ὁ δὲ γεγωνὸς ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ῥέων, But he represents the Divine Logos analogous to the human. In as much as the Logos is the Divine idea, all spiritual and sensuous existence derives its origin from him; as natural power he pervades the world, and fills it with his essence. That Philo frequently personifies the Logos, does not necessarily imply that he ascribes to him real personality. But the most recent researches (since Dorner). have shown that Philo, in some places indeed, advances the idea of a real hypostasis (Alleg. 111. 93; de somna, 1. 584, 585; -quis rer. div. her. 509, and elsewhere, comp. &. Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von der gottlichen Mittelwesen, Lipz. 1846 ; also Semisch, Justin der M., p. 274. Baur, Dreieinigkeits Lehre, i. p. 59, ss. Meier, Trinitatsiehre, 1. p. 20, ss. ©) Traces of the doctrine of the Logos are also found in the Samaritan theology, and in the writings of Onkelos and Jona- THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. 115 than, comp. Liicke,1. 6. p. 244. Concerning the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists vide Bretschneider, 1. c. p. 233, 236. Baur, Guosis, p. 332. De Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 157. [ Burton, l. ὁ. Lect 1. p. 51-55. | § 41. b. The Christian Doctrine of the Logos, as represented in the Writings of John. , Christianity gave a new aspect to the doctrine of the Logos; formerly it had been a purely speculative ques- tion, now it gained a practico-religious significance. (!) The Evangelist John, in accordance with the spirit of the doctrine of Paul,‘ though differing from him in the use of certain expressions, applied the term Logos to the in- carnation of the Deity in Christ. This Logos was no longer a mere abstract idea, but the realization of a great religious truth, being founded on a historical fact ; in this manner it became the proper spring of all Christian theology. @ [tis true that Philo himself made use of the idea of the Logos for practico-religious purposes, inasmuch as he accommo- dated it to the Jewish religion by connecting it with the pre- viously existing notions concerning the Messiah. But this con- nection was nevertheless very loose, and the idea of the Messiah itself was altogether abstract, and not historically realized by the Jews. On the contrary, both the Christian idea of the Lo- gos, and the notion of the Messiah, find their realization in the person of Jesus of Nazareth ; the speculative character of the former is realized in his Divine nature, the rational aspect of the latter in his humanity, (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.) @ 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 the Divine pre-existence of Christ is clearly expressed by him, especially Col. i. 15-17; u. 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- 116 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. trine of the Trinity, as propounded in the N. Test, see Mezer, l. 6. p. 24, ss. 8. 42. 6. The Theologumenon of the Church coneerning the Logos to the Times of Origen. [ Burton, E., Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, etc. (Works, 11.) ] But this practical aspect of the doctrine of the Logos was not long preserved in its original form and purity. Even amony the earlier Christians speculative notions were mixed up with it, which owed their existence to the peculiar circumstances of the age, and were strength- ened by the infusion of foreign elements. ‘Those heretics who adhered more closely to Judaism (the Ebionites), no less than the Alogi, T’eodotus and Artemon, abstain- ed most from speculations of this nature, since they re- jected the substance of the Christian gnosis, the doctrine of the Logos, by denying the divinity of Christ. The theory of the Logos was hkewise abandoned by the other section of the Monarchians, Prazeas, Noetus, and Beryllus, who did away with the distinction between God the Fa- ther and the Logos, without however denying that God is in Christ.) ‘The Gnostics, on the contrary, connected the idea of the Logos with their fanciful doctrine of emanation and of sons, and leaving the only safe founda- tion of historical truth, lost themselves in mythological speculations.~) Thus it became incumbent upon the Fathers to defend the speculative element in opposi- tion to the former class of heretics, the historical in op- position to the latter, and to bring both these elements to bear upon the practico-religious interests of the church. Justin?) Tatian,) Athenagoras,?) Theophilus, Cle- ment of Alexandria,” endeavoured to explain the exis- teuce of the Logos, and his relation to the Father, by THE THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. ΤΠ the aid of figures and analogies, which they borrowed from the visible world and the nature of man. Tertud- fan,®) found himself compelled to adopt similar modes of expression, but Jreneus, who was unfavourable to all gnosis, decidedly opposed them, and firmly adhered to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, as the direct expression of Christian belief.) ) Compare ὃ 23. note 1. ὃ 25. notes 2. and 3. The orthodox church did not separate the idea of the Logos from that of the Messiah, but the doctrinal tendency of the Ebionites, as well as of the Gnostics, took a partial direction. The former, by adopt- ing 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, Schle¢ermacher (in his essay : iiber die sabellianische und athanasische Vorstellung) observes, that he appears to him to have retained the doctrine of the unity of God with more seriousness, and greater desire to pro- mote the interests of religion, than the more frivolous Theo- dotus; vide Zeitschrift von Schleiermacher, de Wette and Liicke, ui. p. 303, 304. He there shows also the difference be- tween this tendency, and that of Praxeas and Noétus, already alluded to, § 25, note 4. Comp. also § 46, note 3. [ Burton, ]. c. Lect. vii. p. 247-249, and notes 100, 101.] @) Even if we look merely at numbers, we perceive a con- siderable difference between the catholic doctrine of the Logos, and the views entertained by the Gnostic sects. Before the doctrine of the Trinity was farther developed, the Logos was considered by the orthodox church to be the only hypostasis; the Gnostics imagined heaven to be inhabited by a multitude of zons. According to Basilides there were 365 heavens (οὐρανοῦ the lowest of which is under the immediate superintendence of the ἄρχων, the God of the Jews, and the creator of the world. He assigned an intermediate position between the Supreme God and the Logos to the νοῦς, and taught that the Logos emanated frem the latter. Further emanations of the νοῦς were the φρόνησις, σοφία, δύναμις, δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη, and these five «ons, together with the other two, νοῦς and λόγος, in all seven, formed along 118 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. with the Ye¢ ἄῤῥητος (ἀνωνόμαστος) the first 6yd0é¢.—Still more ingenious is the system of Valentinus. [He asserted that from the great first cause (primitive existence, βυθός, προπάτωρ, προαρχῆ) successively emanated male and female seons (νοῦς or μονογενής and ἀλήθεια, λόγος and ζωή, ἄνθρωπος and ἐκκλησία, etc.) so that 30 zeons (divided into the ὀγδοάς, δεκάς and δωδεκάς) form the πλήρωμα. The vehement desire of the last of the zons, the σοφία, to unite herself with the βυθός, gave existence to an immature being ( κάτω copia, εὐϑυμησις, ἀχαμώδ) which, wandering outside the pleroma, imparted life to matter, and formed the δημιουργός who afterwards created the world. In order to restore the harmony of the pleroma, the two new ons, Χριστός and τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον were made; and last of all Ἰησοῦς (owr42) emanated from all the eeons, and as the future σύφυγος of the achamoth was appointed to lead back into the pleroma alike the eons, and all spiritual natures.| (Comp. Meander, Matter, and Baur, in the works mentioned ὃ 23.) [Géeseler, Lehrbuch der Kircheng. § i. 45. Burton, |. ὁ. Lect. ii. p. 8386—41. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. 111. note B. On Basilides and the Basilideans, p. XXXVIlI—xlix. ] ( Justin follows Philo to a great extent, with this difference only, that he identifies the Logos by whom God has created the world, and manifested himself, with his incarnate Son, even Christ Jesus. Comp. Apol. ii. 6; © O δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου (Θεοῦ), ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱὸς, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων, καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν Of αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε" Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῆσηαι χαὶ χοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δ αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν, λέγεται: ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν' ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ Θεὸς προσαγό- ρευμα οὖκ OVO ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγωατος δυσεξηγήτου ἔωφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀν)ρώπων δόξα. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὃς καὶ ἀν) οώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει, he then proceeds to the incarnation itself. Justin represents the generation of the Logos as προέρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, as γεν- veordas, προβάλλεσθαι, ἃ adduces several illustrations in support of his views. Thus man utters words without sustaining any loss; fire kindles fire without undergoing any diminution, etc. (The addition ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοιοῦτον is not genuine, see the note in the edit. of Maran: Si quis tamen retineat hxc verba, scribenda sunt cum interrogationis nota, ut in edit. Lond.) On the other hand, he rejects (dial. ὁ. Tryph. 128.) the illustration taken from the sun and its beams; we can neither speak of an ἀποτέμνεσι)αι, nor of an ἐκτείνεσθαι, see Dorner, 11. 1. p. 428. THE THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. 119 4) Tatian contra Gree. ο. 5, uses illustrations similar to those of Justin. The Logos was imminent (ὑπέστησε) in the Father, but derived his existence (προπηδᾷ) from his will, and became thus ἔργον πρωτότοκον of the Father, ἀρχὴ τοῦ κόσμου. He is begotten AUTH μερισμόν, NOt κατ᾽ ἀποκοπήν. ὦ) Athen. Leg. 6. 10. calls the Son of God (in opposition to the sons of the heathen gods) λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέῳ καὶ evecyele’ Teng αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. The distinction between ἐν ἠδέῳ and ἐν ἐνεργείῳ corresponds to that between λόγος ἐνδιάετος and λόγος προφυρικός in the following note. © Theoph. ad Autol. ii, 10, treats most fully on the proces- sion of the Logos from God, and is the first writer who refers the distinction between the A, ἐνδιάϑετος and A. προφοριχός to that doctrine ; “Eyay οὖν ὁ ϑεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάνγετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγοε χνοις, ἔγέννησεν αὐτὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐξερευξάμενος πρὸ τῶν ὅλων. Likewise c. 22; Οὐχ, ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ μυϑόγραφοι λέγουσιν υἱοὺς Δεῶν ἐκ συνουσίας γεννωμένους, ἀλλ᾽’ ὡς ἀλήθεια διηγεῖται τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα δια- παντὸς ἐνδιάϑετον ἐν καρδίᾳ “εοῦ. led γὰρ τι yiveosas, τοῦτον εἶχε σύμ- βϑοουλον, ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν ὄντα" ὁπότε δὲ ἠϑέλησεν ὁ “εὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσω ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως" οὗ χκενω)εὶς αὐτὸς τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλὰ λόγον γεννήσας, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διωπαντὸς ὁμιλῶν. “ Tn 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 (παιδαγωγός.) Peed. 1. 12. p. 310: Πάντα ὁ λόγος καὶ ποιεῖ καὶ διδάσχε, καὶ παιδαγωγεῖ: ἵππος ἄγεται χαλινῷ καὶ σαῦρος ἄγεται ζυγῷ: ϑηρίον βούχῳ ὡλίσχεται" 6 δὲ ἄνδοωπος μεταπλάσσεται λόγῳ" ᾧ ϑηρία τ ασσεύεται καὶ νηκτὰ δελεάζεται καὶ πτηνὰ κατασύρεται χιτιλ, Comp. the beautiful hymn εἰς τὸν παιδωγωγόν 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 created the world by the Logos; yea the Logos is the creator himself (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργὺς), he has given the law, inspired the prophets, through him God has manifested himself, Pad. i. 7. p. 132—134. i. 8.-p. 215. un. 10. p. 224. 229. i. 3. p. 264, i. 4. p.. 269. comp. p. 273. 280. 293. 297. 307. Strom. i. 23. p. 421, 422. vi. i. p. 833. In his view (and the same opinion was held by Philo) the Logos is the ἀρχιερεύς Strom. 11. 9. p. 433. 500. He is the image (πρόσωπον) of God, by means of which God is perceived. Pad. 1.7. p. 190 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 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 ἀγιωτάτη καὶ κυριωτάτη καὶ ἡγεμονικωτάτη καὶ βασιλικω- τάτη καὶ εὐεργετικικωτάτη ἡ υἱοῦ φύσις, ἡ τῷ μόνῳ παντοχράτορι προσεχεστάτη. Αὕτη ἡ μεγίστη ὑπεροχὴ, ἢ τὰ πάντα διωατάσσεται κατὰ τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄριστα οἰωκίξει, ἀκαμάτῳ καὶ ἀτρύτῳ δυνάμει πάντα ἐργαζομένη, Ss δι᾽ ὧν ἐνεργεῖ τὰς ἀποκεύφους ἐννοίας ἐπιβλέπουσα. Οὐ γὰρ ἐξίσταταί ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" οὐ μεριζόμενος, οὐκ ἀποτεωνόμενος, οὐ μετα- βαίνων ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον πάντη δὲ ὧν πάντοτε, καὶ μηδαμῇ περιεχόμενος, ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον, ὅλος ὀφϑαλωὺς, πάντα ὁρῶν, πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς πάντα, δυνάμει τὰς δυνάμεις ἐρευνῶν. Τούτῳ πᾶσα ὑποτέτακται στρατιὰ ἀγγέλων τε καὶ ϑεῶν, τῷ λόγῳ τῷ πατρικῷ τὴν ἁγίαν οἰκονομίαν ἀναδεδειγμένῳ διὰ σὸν ὑποτάξαντα, δ ὧν καὶ πάντες αὐτοῦ οἱ ἄνϑοωποι: ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, ὁ δὲ οὐδίπω" 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 Logos, vii. 7. p. 851. quis div. salv. p. 956. (Comp. Bennett,). ¢. p. 128—126. Bur- ton, H., Testimony of the Antenicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, (Works i. p. 171, ss.)] On the mode of generation Clement speaks less explicitly than the before mentioned writ- ers. He attaches more importance to the immanent existence of the Logos. In his opinion, the Logos is not the word of God which was spoken at the creation of the world, but that which spoke itself; 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, according to which the Logos is identical with the higher spiritual life, the life of ideas in gen- eral, by which the world was moved even previous to the coming of Christ, 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, 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 Miinsche (ITandbuch, 1. p. 418.), he will see in the passages bearing upon this subject “ nothing but declamatory expressions from which no definite idea can be derived.” On the contrary, he who takes a general view of his religious opinions, might feel more inclined to adopt the language of Méhler, that Clement “ has treated the dojma concerniny the Logos with greater clearness than all the THE THEOLOGUMENON OF THE CHURCH. 121 other Fathers of this period, but especially with unusual depth of feeling, and the most ardent enthusiasm.” (Patrologie, p. 460. 61. 8) Tert. adv. Prax. c. 2: Nos unicum quidem Deum credi- mus, sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam ceconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex 1pso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil. C. 5: Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrinsecus preter illuin. Ceterum ne tune quidem solus: habebat enim secum quam ha- bebat in semetipso, rationem suam scilicet, etc. C. 8: Protulit enim Deum sermonem sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium; nam et iste species probole sunt earum substan- tiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. Ine. 9. the Son is called portio of the Father. Comp. Neander’s Antignosticus, p. 476, ss. [ Bur- ton, l. 6. p. 235, ss.] According to Dorner, p. 588. Tert. uses the word filiatio 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 ἢ Word,’ ἢ in order to denote the personal existence of the Logos. (9) fren. advers. her. 11. 28. p. 198: Si quis itaque nobis dixerit : Quomodo ergo filius prolatus a patre est? dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam sive generationem sive nuncupationem ive adapertionem aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit genera- tionem ejus inenarrabilem existentem, nemo novit, non Valenti- nus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Basilides, neque Angeli, neque Archangeli, neque Principes, neque Pvotestates, nisi solus qui generavit Pater et qui natus est Filius. Inenarra- bilis itaque generatio ejus quum sit, quicunque nituntur gene- rationes et prolationes enarrare, non sunt compotes sui, ea, quae inenarrabilia sunt, enarrare promiitentes. Quoniam enim ex cogitatione et sensu verbum emittitur, hoc utiyue omnes sciunt homines. Non ergo magnum quid invenerunt, qui emissioncs excogitaverunt, neque absconditum mysterium, si id quod ab omnibus intelligitur, transtulerunt in unigenitum Dei verbum, et quem inenarrabilem et innominabilem vocant, hune, Guist ἐρϑὶ obstetricaverint, prime generationis ejus prolationem et gene- rationem enuntiant, adsimilantes eum hominum verbo emissionis (scilicet λόγῳ προφορικῷ.) In the opinion of Ireeneus, faith in the Son simply rests on the παράδοσις, The Logos is both reason 122 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. (wisdom), and the Word (adv. Her. iv. 20, 1). Adest enim οἱ (Deo) semper Verbum et Sapientia (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. u. 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, Irenzus knows less of the Logos prior to his incarnation, than of Christ the God- man. In his opinion, the Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son the invisible of the Father (iv. 6, 6); or the Son is the measure of the Father (iv. 2, 2); he even calls the Son and the Spirit the hands of God. Comp. Méhler, Patrologie, p. 307 ss. Miinscher, Handbuch, 1. p. 411, ss. Dorner, Ὁ. 467, s Baur, p. 172, 88. [ Burton, 1. c. pp. 75, 77, 102, ete. ] ἢ SS, § 43. d. Identification of the Terms Logos and the Son of God by Origen. [ Burton, E., Testimonies of the Anten. Fath. ete. p. 281-348.] After Tertullian had employed the term Son in re- ference to the personality of the Logos more distinctly than was formerly done,“ Origen, adopting this termi- nology,(?) was led to the idea of an eternal generation. () Though he endeavoured to avoid all physical emana- tion,“) his doctrine gave rise to new misunderstandings, and thus to new controversies.) @) Comp. § 42, note 8. (ὦ) 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 λύγος προσηγορίας ἱστάμενοι), and are not able to infer the identity of the terms Logos 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 trans- cendent, living hypostasis, the essence of all ideas, the indepen- IDENTIFICATION OF THE TERMS LOGOS, ὅζο. 123 dent personal wisdom of God; comp. in Joh. i. 39, 1. 6. p. 39: Od γὰρ ἐν Ψιλαῖς φαντασίαις τοῦ ϑέοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει ἡ σοφία αὐτοῦ, κατὰ ey Th ἀνάλογον τοῖς avowrivols ἐννοήμασι φαντάσματα" z1 Os TIS οἷός τέ ἐστιν ἀσώματον ὑπόστασιν ποικίλων θεωρημάτων, περιεχόντων τοὺς τῶν ὅλων λόγους, ζῶσαν καὶ οἱονεὶ eurbuyov ἐσένοενν" εἴσεται τὴν ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν κτίσιν' σοφίαν τοῦ Jeo καλῶς περὶ αὐτῆς λέγουσαν, ὁ Δεὸς ἔκτισε μὲ, κ. 7. AX Comp. de prince. 1. 2, 2: Nemo putet, nos insubstantivum dicere, cum filiam Dei sapientiam nominamus, etc. ; and thus he calls contra Cels. vi. 64, the Logos οὐσίαν ὀὐσιῶν, ἰδέαν ἰδεῶν ; comp. Thomasias, p- 113. Concerning the Son, Origen makes the same asser- tions which former writers made with regard to the Logos. In his opinion the Son is the medium by which the world was created, Tom. i. in Joh. Opp. Tom. iv. p. 21. As the architect builds a house, ora vessel, according to his ideas, so God created the world according to the ideas which are contained in wisdom. Comp. in Joh. Tom. xxxii. ὁ. 18, ib. p. 449, and de prine. i. 2, (Opp. i. p. 53.) God never existed without the Wisdom (the Son); for to maintain the contrary, would virtually amount to the assertion, that God either could not beget, or would not beget, either of which is absurd and impious. But the Son is not only the Wisdom, he is also the word, the image, the mirror, the brightness of God (ἐνέργεια.) Origen too resorts to ulustra- tions. Thus he compares God and his Son with the sun and its beams, and again with a statue and a copy of it on a reduced scale; he refers, however, this latter comparison to Ged’s incar- nate Son (the man Jesus), rather than to his eternal Son (the Logos.) ® Jt 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 Prine. i. 4, (Opp. i. p. 55): Infandum autem est et illi- citum, Deum patrem in generatione unigeniti Filii sui atque in substantia ejus exzquare alicui vel hominum vel aliorum ani- mantium generanti, etc., and again: Observandum namque est, ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas fabulas eorum, qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut divinam naturam in partes vo- cent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est dividant, cum hoc de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari, non solum extreme im- pietatis sit, verum etiam ultimee insipientia, nec omuino ad in- telligentiam consequens, ut incorporee nature substantialis 124 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. divisio possit intelligi. ‘ The will of man proceeds from his reason, but the one cannot be separated from the other: in a similar manner we may imagine that the Son proceeds from the Father, but both are inseparable.” (This illustration, though more abstract, is less vivid than that taken from the human word, § 42, note 3.) ©) On the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Fa- ther was the necessary consequence of a rigid adherence to the idea of a hypostasis, (comp. ὃ 46.) On the other, the scriptural expression, υἱὸς rod JeoU which is applied to Christ in his human nature, z.e. as the Messiah,” was so confounded with the same term as used by the schoolmen, that the human and the Divine natures of the Son of God were not always distinctly separated. This gave rise tu new controversies ; comp. however, Dorner, Christologie, p. 42. He thinks that the doctrine of subordina- tion was merely resorted to, “for the purpose of substituting several Divine hypostases for the very vague and indefinite opi- nions which were entertained respecting the distinctive charac- teristics of the different persons in the Godhead.” 8 44, THE HOLY GHOST. Keil, ob die iltesten Lehrer einen Unterschied zwischen Sohn und Vater gekannt? in Flatts Magazin fiir 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 In- troduct. where the literature is given.] Georgii, dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen iiber die Lehre vom h. Geist bei Justin M. in the Studien der Geistlichkeit Wirtembergs, x. 2, p. 09,55... Hasselbach, in the theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1839, 2. p. 376, ss. The doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost was consi- dered important from the practical point of view, both in reference to the inspiration of the prophets, (in the more comprehensive sense of the word), and to the witness a‘ The more I endeavour to realize the manner of thinking and speaking current in the New Testament, the more I feel myself called upon to give it as my decided opinion, that the historical Son of God, as such, cannot be called God, without completely destroying the monotheistical system of the Apostles.” Liicke, Studien und Kritiken, 1840, i. p. 91. THE HOLY GHOST. 12% which he bears in the hearts of men.) Those theolo- gians, however, who, going beyond the Trinity of revela- tion, (7. 6. the Trinity as it manifests itself in the work of redemption), endeavoured to comprehend and define the nature of the Holy Spirit, and the relation in which he stands to the Father and the Logos, involved them- selves in great difficulties. Some applyimg the term πνεῦμα ἅγιον to what is called wisdom by the Old Testament writers, on the foundation of which, the doctrine of the Logos had been developed, made a distinction between the Wisdom and the Logos ;@) others identified the Logos with the Spirit, or expressed themselves in a vague and indefinite manner respecting their distinguishing charac- teristics ;‘9) in the writings of others, again, the idea of personality is more or less lost sight of, and the Holy Ghost appears as a mere quality, or a Divine gift and effect.) But the desire of bringing the doctrine of the Trinity to a conclusion led gradually to more definite views on the personality of the Holy Ghost (in distinction from the Logos.)'*) (Ὁ The writings of the Apostolical Fathers contain nothing definite and connected relative to the nature of the Spirit. Justin M. makes, in particular, mentionof the πνεῦμα προφητικὸν, (the term in question occurs twenty-two times in his Apology, nine timesin Trypho. See Semish, IL. p. 332, note), while he does not speak of the influence which he continues to exert upon believers, (ibid. p. 329.) On the contrary, Jrenceus, ii. 24.1, calls the Holy Ghost the communitas Christi, confirmatio fide nostre, scala ascensionis ad Deum, comp. 11. 17; v.6; v.10. and§71. At the same time, he considers him the prophetic Spirit, and makes a distinction between the principle which animates and inspires, and that animation and inspiration itself, adv. Heer. v. 12, 2: “Ετερόν ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν ἀπεργαζομένη τὸν ἄνϑρωπον, καὶ ἕτερον πνεῦμα Φωυποιοῦν τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν.....«ἕτερον δέ ἐστι σὸ ποιηλὴν τοῦ ποιήσαντος. ἢ οὖν πνοὴ πρύσκαιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον (2) Theoph. ad Autol. 1. 7: Ὃ ὃς Θεὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγόυ αὑτοῦ καὶ τῆς σο- φίαΞ ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα ; here oop/a is either synonymous with λόγος, or forms the second member; in the former case, there would 126 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. be no mention of the Spirit whatever ; in the latter he would be identical with σοφία ; and this agrees better with i. 15., where Jes, λόγος and σοφίω are said to compose the Trinity, comp. § 45. Tren, iv. 20. p. 253: Adest enim e1 (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, l. ὁ. p. 49—51.] comp. iv. 7. p. 236: Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, ὁ. 6. Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt omnes an- geli. Tert. adv. Prax. ὁ. 6: Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea 4185 cum Sophie ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermon- em, habentem in se individuas suas, Rationem et Sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque dis- posita, immo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cog- noscerentur et tenerentur. Comp. cap. 7. and de orat, 1. ab in- itio: Dei Spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utrumque Jesus Christus, dominus noster. ® From the time of Souverain(Platonismus der Kirchenvater, p. 329, ss.), most ‘theologians have supposed that the Fathers in general, and Justin M. in particular, made no real distinction between the Logos and the Spirit. Modern researches have, in the opinion of some, led to the same result. Semisch, how- ever, has endeavoured to clear Justin from the charge in ques- tion. The principal passage bearing upon this question is, Apol. I. 88 : Τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Jeov οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι ϑέμις, ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὅς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, comp. c. 36. He in- deed speaks there of the πνεῦμα Luc. 1.35. from which it cannot be inferred that he always identifies the Logos with the Spirit ; nevertheless it cannot be denied that in this place at least he confounds the two. Tertullian, adv. Prax. c. 26. uses similar expressions, which go to prove that other Fathers beside Justin are chargeable with the same want of distinction. The same is true as regards the manner in which Justin ascribes the inspira- tion of the prophets, sometimes to the Logos, sometimes to the Pneuma, Apol. [. 36, and elsewhere. On the other hand, there are places in which the Son and Spirit are more distinctly sepa- rated, Apol. 1.6; [.13; I. 60. Comp. Theophilus, ad Aut. II. THE HOLY GHOST. 17 α. 10: Οὗτος (ὁ λόγος) ὧν πνεῦμα ϑεοῦ nal ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν ἐλάλει τὰ περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως σοῦ χόσμου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων" οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ προφῆται, ὅτε ὁ κόσμος ἐγίνετο" ἀλλὰ ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ οὖσα ἡ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἅγιος αὐτοῦ, ὁ ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν αὐτῷ. ‘ Justin M. calls the Holy Ghost simply δωρεά, Coh. ad graec. 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. Meander, Kirch- engeschichte, i. p. 1010. Stadien und Kritken, 1833, p. 773, ss. the latter essay was written in opposition to Méhler, Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1833, part 1. p. 49, ss. °) Tert. adv. Prax. 8: Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filho, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio, [bid. 50: Spir.S. tertium nomen divinitatis et tertius gradus majestatis. But a subordinate position is officially assigned to the Spirit, Prascr. 28. Origen, Comm. in Joh. T. 11. 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 creatures, though sufficiently distinguished from them by his Divine nature : Ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑπιστάσεις πειλόμενοι συγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρω καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ὠγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πατοὺς εἰναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀλησὲς προσιέμεδα τὸ πάντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου γενομένων, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πάντων Eyal τιμιώτερον, καὶ τάξει πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὺς διὰ Χριστοῦ γεγενημένων. [ Burton, |. c. Ρ. 99, ss.] Comp. T. xiii. 25. p. 234; and 84. p. 244: Οὐκ ἄτοπον ὃὲ καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα reEpeordas λέγειν, Nevertheless, there is a great difference 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, (whichis extant only in the translation of Ru- finus, de prince. 1. 3.3. Ορρ. 1. 1. p. 61.) 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. It is re- markable, that afterwards Epiphanius, Justinian, etc. blamed him on account of this same assertion, comp. Epiphan. 64. 5. Mieron. ad Avit. Ep. 94. quoted by AMtinscher ed. by Colla, p. 194. Schnitzer, p. 43. Neander, 1. ὃ. p. 1040. Thomasius, p. 144, ss. (where other passages are adduced.) [ Burton, 1. ο. p- 89.] 128 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ἢ 45, e DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. | Burton, E., Testimonies of the Anten. Fath. to the Trinity, and the Divi- nity of the Holy Ghost, (Works, ii.) Berrimann, W., An Historical Account of the Controversies that have been in the Church concerning the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity, in eight Sermons. Lond. 1725.] The doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is the doctrine of primitive Chris- tianity,() but has in the New Test. a bearing only upon the Christian economy, without any pretension to specu- lative significance, and therefore cannot be rightly under- 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, was considered as an essential part of the Megula fider, even apart from every speculative developement of the doctrine of the Logos, and appears in what is commonly called the Apostles’ creed, in this historico-epic form, without any further allusion to the unity of the Deity. . The Greek word τριάς was first used by Theophilus;‘*) the Latin term trinitas, which has a more comprehensive doctrinal import, was introduced by Tertullian. (5) Q) Matth. xxviii. 19, (if the baptismal formula be genuine); 1 Cor, xu. 4-6; 2 Cor. xin, 14, and elsewhere. Comp. the commentaries on these passages, de Wette’s biblische Dog- matik, § 238, 267, Liicke in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, 1. part. [Pye Smith, the Script. Testim. to the Messiah, ii. p. 13, Ss. 3 ili. Ὁ. 258, ss.; Anapp. 1. 6. p. 119, 58.» 132, ss. ] ® Theoph. ad Autol, ii.-15: Αἱ τρέϊς ἡμέραι [πρὸ] τῶν φωστήρων γέγονυζαι, τύποι εἰσὶν τῆς τριάδος τοῦ Δεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ. Τετάρτῳ δὲ τὐπῶ [τόπῳ] ἐστὶν ἄνϑρωπος ὁ προσδεὴς τοῦ φωτὸς, ἵνα ἢ Θεὸς, λόγος, σοφία, ἄνλρωπος. Here we have indeed the word τριάς, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the term Trinity; for as ἄνθρωπος 15 mentioned in the fourth place, it is evident that the τριὰς can not be taken here as a perfect whole consisting of three persons MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION. 129 joined into ove; besides the term oop/« is used instead of τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Comp. Suicer, thesaurus s, y. τριάς, where the pas- sage from the (spurious) treatise of Justin de expositione fidei, p. 379, 1s cited (Movs γὰρ ἐν τριάδι νοῦται καὶ τριὰς ἐν μονάδι γνωρίξεται a. το λ.); this passage, however, proves as little concerning the use of language during that period, as the treatise φιλόπαϊρις erroneously ascribed to Lucian. Clem. Strom. iv. 7. p. 588, knows a ἁγία τριάς, but in a different 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 pudic. c. 21: Nam et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est Zyduétas unius divinita- tis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus S.) accordingly the Holy Spirit is the principle which constitutes the unity of the persons. Comp. adv. Prax. 2. and 3, | Burton, |. ὁ. p. 68, ss.] Cyprian and Novatian immediately adopted this term. Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 200 (with reference to baptism.) Novat. de Trinitate. [ Burton, 1 ὁ. p. 107—109; p. 116—123. | § 46. MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION, The strict distinction which was drawn between the persons in the Trinity, led, in the first instance, to the system of Subordination, according to which the Son was thought inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit in- ferior to both the Father and the Son.“) Such a clas- sification gave some ground to the charge of Tritheism which was frequently made against the orthodox.@) Ac- cordingly, they were compelled to clear themselves from all appearance of Tritheism in opposition to the Monar- chians, who, abandoning the said distinction, in order to hold fast the unity of the Godhead, exposed themselves to the charge of confounding the persons ( Patripassian- ism), or the imputation of that heretical tendency which denies the Divinity of Christ.(@) Origen, endeavouring to define the nature of the persons, and to determine the K 130 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. exact relation which they maintain to each other, went to the other extreme ;“ orthodoxy was so much ex- tended that it became heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian controversy in the following period. @ Justin, M. Apol. 1. ὁ. 13: ......vidv αὑτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ μαϑόντες (5011. τὸν Τησοῦν Χριστὸν) καὶ ἐν δευτέρῳ χώρῳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμα τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ raE21.— There are also passages in the writings of Zrencus which appear favourable to the idea of subordination, e. g. adv. Heer. 11. 28. 6. 8; v. 18.2: Super omnia quidem pater, et ipse est caput Christi; but elsewhere he represents the Logos as in every respect equal to God, and not as a subordinate being, (comp. ὃ 42, note 9.) Lt cannot be denied that Irenceus here con- tradicts himself, and it would be a useless labour to remove tiis contradiction by artificial interpretation.” Duncker, p. 50; comp. p. 70, ss. Dorner, p. 409, ss. Tert. advers. Prax. c. 2: Tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie: unius autem substantiz et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et forme et specics in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputan- tur. Comp. 6. 4, ss. @ Thus Justin 77. says, dial. cum Tryph. ce. 56: The Father and the Son are distinct, not γνώμῃ, but cee; and from the pro- position that, if I have a wife, it does not necessarily follow that I am the wife herself, Tertullian (adv. Prax. ὁ. 10,) draws the conclusion, that, if God has a Son, it does not’ necessarily follow that he is the Son himself. He defends himself against the charge of Tritheism, adv. Prax. 3: Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim impudentes et idiote, que major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus Diis seculi ad unicum et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes wnicum qui- dem, sed cum sua wconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad ceconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis divisionem presumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trini- tatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis predicari, se vero unius Dei cul- tores presumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta, heeresin faciat, et trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem consti- tuat. Comp. also Movat. de trin. 22: Unum enim, non unus esse dicitur, quoniam nec ad numerum refertur, sed ad societa- tem alterius expromitur......Unum autem quod ait, ad concor- MONARCHIANISM AND SUBORDINATION. 131 diam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam caritatis societatem per- tinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. [ Burton, 1. ὁ. p. 120, 121.] He also appeals to Apollos and Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 8; qui autem plan- tat et qui rigat, unum sunt. ® Concerning the different classes of Unitarians, comp. ὃ 24, notes 4 and 5,and § 42. It is self-evident, that all who held Christ to be a mere man, also rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. They may be called deistico-rationalistic Antitrinitartans ; God in his abstract unity was in their view so remote from the world, and confined to his heaven, that he had no abode in Christ him- self. ‘Whey widely differ from those who, apprehensive of les- sening the dignity of Christ, taught that God himself had as- sumed humanity im him, and did not think it necessary to sup- pose the existence of a particular hypostasis. The name mo- dalistic Antitrinitarians would be more appropriate in their case (thus Heinichen, de Alogis, p. 54) ; or if the relation of God to Christ be compared to that in which he stands to the world, they might be called pantheistic Antitrinitarians, for they ima- gined God, as it were, expanded or extended in the person -of Christ. Among their number are Praxeas 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 later ὁμοούσιος, was 50 interpreted by Tertullian, ipsum patrum passum esse, adv. Prax. c. 20, 29, whence the heretical appellation Patripassiani. [| Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 103, p. 588, and Testim. of the Antenic. Fath. to the Trinity, etc. p. 68-83. Neander, |. c. ii. p. 260-262.) Philastr. Her. 65. The views of Noétus were similar, Theod. Fab. Hier. iii. 8: "Eva φασὶν ναι Θεὸν χαὶ πατέρα, τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν" ἀφανῆ μὲν ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, φαινόμενον δὲ ξ ἡνίκα ἂν βούληται: καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀόρατον εἶναι καὶ ὁρώμενον, καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον" ἀγέννητον μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, γεννητὸν ὃε ὅτε ἐκ παρϑένου γεννηϑῆναι ἠδϑέλησε" Arad καὶ ἀϑάνατον, καὶ πάλιν αὖ πολητὸν καὶ ϑνητόν. "Atos γὰρ ὦν, φησί, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ Tados ἐϑελήσας ὑπέμεινε" τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀμομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον, Compare Epiph. Heer. vii. 1. [Burton, Bampton Lecture, note 103, p. 589, 590.] Beryllus endeavoured to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difference after the assumption of humanity, 1382 THE AGE-OF APOLOGETICS. Euseb. vi. 33: Βήρυλλος ὁ μιχρῷ πρόσϑεν δεδηλωμένος Βοστρῶν τῆς ᾿Αραβίας ἐπίσκοπος τὸν ἐκκλησιαστιχὸν παρεκτρέπων κανόνα, ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέρειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶκ ριον ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προῦφεστά- ναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀν)ρώπους ἐπιδημίας μηδὲ μὴν ϑεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽’ ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ μόνην τὴν πατοικήν. Comp. Ullmann in the dissert. quoted § 24, note 5, and Fork, diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur, (Dreieinigkeitslehre, p. 289,) Beryllus ought to be classed to- gether with Artemon and Theodotus; Meter, however, sup- poses a certain distinction between them. To those who adopted the tendency of Noctus 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. 2. Opp. i. p. 171: Πάντα γὰρ ὅσα τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τοιαῦτα ἐν αὐτῷ (υἱῷ) 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 of them cannot find God, ibid. Hom. xviii. 9. Opp. 11. p. 251, 252. Nevertheless the subor- dination 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 Gon- tra Cels. v. 608; comp. vil. 735: “A&i0g τῆς Osurepevovsys μετὰ τὸν Jeby τῶν ὅλων τιωῆς. De οΥαῦ. 1. p. 222: “Ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑπο- κειμενός ἐστι ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρός, Comp. also in Joh. Tom. 11. 2. Opp. T. iv. p. 50, where great stress is laid upon the distinction made by Philo between 3:6: and ὁ ϑεός, How far this system of sub- ordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from Origen de Orat. c. 15. Opp. T. 1. 222, where he entirely rejects the prac- tice of addressing prayer to Christ (the Son;) for, he argues, since the Son is a particular 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 (ὁτοπώτατον :) to pray to both, is impossible, because we should have to use the plural number: tagacyéods, εὐεργετήσωτε, ἐπιχορη- ynoure, σώσατε, that which is contrary to Scripture, and the doc- trine 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 guite a different thing ; contra Cels. v. 4. Opp.i. p. 579: Πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν καὶ προσ- BUY NY καὶ ἐντευξιν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἀναπεμπτξον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Jem διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀγγέλων ἀρχιερέως, ἐμψύχου λόγου καὶ ϑεοῦ. Δεησόμενα dz καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόχου, καὶ ἐντευξόμεγα αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐχαριστήσομεν καὶ προσευξόμεγα DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 135 δὲ, ἐὰν δυιώμεδα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως (si modo propriam preeationis possimus ab impropria secernere notionem.) Comp. however, § 43. 8 47. DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. C. Γ΄. Réssler, Philosophia veteris ecclesia de mundo, Tubinge, 1783. 4. [ Knapp, Lectures on Christ. Theology, trans]. by L. Woods, p. 144-146. ] Concerning this doctrine,.as well as the doctrine of God in general, the early Christians adopted the Monotheistic views of the Jews, and, in the simple exer- cise of faith, received the Mosaic account of the crea- tion (Gen. 1.) as Divine revelation. Even the defini- tion ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων which was not introduced into the Jewish theology until afterwards (2 Macc. vi. 28,) found its way into primitive Christianity.©) 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 eternal matter.6) They did this in opposition to the Gnostics, according to whom the creator of the world was distinct from the Supreme God, as well as to the assertion made by some of them, and also by Hermogenes, that matter has existed from everlasting.) But the speculative tendency of the Alexandrian school could not be satisfied with the notion of the creation having taken place in time. According- ly Origen resorted to an allegorical interpretation of the work of the six days (Hexaémeron, )©) and following the example of Clement (which, however, is doubtful, and to say the least, betrays indecision, ) he propounded the doctrine of an eternal creation in still more definite terms than Clement. But he did not maintain the eternity of matter as an independent power.) On the contrary, Treneus, from his practical position, reckoned all questions 134 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. about what God had done before the creation among the improper questions of human inquisitiveness.(®) ® Comp. Hebr. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that pas- sage. Accordingly the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, Lib. 1]. > ε Mand. 1: Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Jebg, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. Conf. Euseb. ν. 8. ὦ) The popular view was always, that the Father is the creator, though the creation through the Son 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. ὁ. Tryph. c. 16: Ὃ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων Jeoc, comp. Apol. i. 61 : Τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου “εοῦ. On the other hand, Coh. ad Gree. ὁ. 15: Τὸν τοῦ Jeod λόγον, OF οὗ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῇ καὶ πᾶσα ἐγένετο κτίσις, comp. Apol. 1. 64. Likewise Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 10; “Ore ἐν τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ὁ J30¢ πεποίηχε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὑτοῖς, ἔφη" ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν. The phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ was understood in the same sense as διὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, and ἀρχή, explained to denote the Logos, see Semisch, p. 335. Thus Jrencus also taught, iii. 11: Et hee quidem sunt principia Evangelii, unum Deum fabricatorem hujus universitatis, eum qui et per prophetas sit annunciatus et qui per Moysem legis disquisitionem fecerit, Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantia et preter hunc alterum Deum nescientia, neque alterum patrem. On the contrary, 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 hoe mundo ex- istens et secundum invisibilitatem continet que facta sunt om- nia, et in universa conditione infixus, quoniam verbum Dei gubernans et disponens omnia et propter hoc in sua venit. That Clement of Alexandria called the Logos, as such, the creator of the world, has already been remarked, ὃ 42, note 7. For the various appellations ποιητής, κτιστής, δημιουργός, see Suicer under the last mentioned word. [ Burton, Bampton Lect. note 21, p. 320; n. 50, p. 410. | © Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato: Εἰ 0 Seog ἀγέννητος καὶ ὕλη ἀγέννητος, οὐκ ἔτι ὁ ϑεὸς ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἐστί, Comp. /ren. fragm. sermonis ad Demetr. p. 348. [Comp. Bur- ton, 1. ὁ. note 18.] Tert. adv. Hermogenem, espec. c. i. and Neander, Antignosticus, l.c. In reference to the objections of DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 135 Hermogenes, he admits that the different names of God: Sovereign, Judge, Father, etc. are not eternal, but coeval with the subjects of dominion, etc. Yet God himself is not the less eternal. ® Hermogenes, a painter, lived towards the conclusion of the second century, probably at Carthage. According to Tertullian (adv. Hermog.) he maintained that God has created the world either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of something al- ready in existence. But he could not create the world out of himself, for he is indivisible ; nor out of nothing, for as he him- self is the supreme good, he would have created a perfectly good world; nothing therefore remains but that he has created the world out of matter already in existence. This matter (ὕλη) is consequently eternal like God himself; both principles were distinctly separate from each other from the beginning, God as the creating and imparting, matter as the receiving principle. Whatever part of this matter resists the creating principle, con- stitutes the evil in the world. But it was only in this point that Hermogenes agreed with the Gnostics; in other respects, and especially in reference to the doctrine of emanation, he joined the orthodox in opposing them. Comp. Bohmer (Guil.) de Hermogene Africano, Sundiw 1832, and Neander, Kirchenge- schichte, 1. 8, p. 974, ss [transl. ii, p. 249-251] Antignosti- cus, p. 350-355; 424-442. Leopold, Hermogenis de origine mundi sententia, Budisse, 1844, © De principiis iv. 16. Opp.i. p. 174,175: Tis γὰρ νοῦν ἔχων οἰήσεται πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν τε καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς ἡλίου γεγονέναι καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων, x τι A, Comp. § 33, note 4. ® 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 statement comp. Strom. vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Od τοίνυν ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν τοῦ Jeol πέπαυται ποιῶν ὁ Debs" dyadic γὰρ ὦν, εἰ παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαϑοεργῶν, καὶ TOU Sede εἶναι παύσεται. But in other passages Clement most distinctly acknowledges that the world is a work of God; 6. g. Coh. p. 54, 55: Μόνος γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὄντως ἐστὶ ϑεός" ψιλῷ τῷ Povasodas δημιουργεῖς nal τῷ μόνον ἐϑελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσϑαι. ® Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the hea- then and heretical sense), de prine. il. 4, and in other places, 6. g. Comment. in Joh. xxxii. 9. Opp. T. iv. p. 429; but though from his idealistic position he denied eternity to matter, which 130 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 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 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: Nos vero consequenter respondebimus, observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes, quoniam non tune primum, cum visibilem istam mundum fecit Deus, coepit operari, sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit aliens mundus, ita et antequam his esset, fuisse alios credimus. It might be questioned whether Origen, in the use of the pronoun “ nos” in the subsequent part of the passage, intended to enforce his own belief upon the church, or whether he employed the plural number merely in his character as au- thor; comp. Réssler, Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, 1, p. 177, and Schnitzer, 1. 6. Comp. also Thomasius, p. 153, ss., 169, ss. ® Tren. ii. 28, p. 157, (ii. 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 doceat; quid autem ante hoc Deus sit operatus, nulla scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hec res- ponsio Deo. Respecting the important position which the doc- trine of Irenzus concerning the creation of the world occupies in his theological system, see Duncker, p. 8. 8. 48, | PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD. Though the doctrine of the existence of the world for the sake of the human race only, may be so corrupted as to give rise to selfish principles, it is nevertheless found- ed upon the consciousness of a specific distinction be- tween man and all other creatures, at least of this earth, and supported by allusions in the Sacred Scriptures.() Accordingly, the primitive Christians considered the creation to be a voluntary act of Divine love, inasmuch as God does not stand in need of his creatures for the promotion of his own glory.@) But man, being the end of creation, is also pre-eminently the subject of Divine: PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD. 137 providence, and the whole vast economy of creation, with its laws and its miracles, is made subservient to the higher designs of the education of mankind. The Christian doc- trine of providence, which was received by the Fathers in opposition to the objections of ancient philosophy,“ is re- mote, on the one hand, from Stoicism and the rigid dogma of ἃ εἱμαρμένη held by the Gnostics,©@) and on the other, from the system of Epicurus, according to which it is unworthy of the Deity to concern himself about the affairs of man. Here again the teachers ‘of the Alexandrian school en- deavoured to avoid as much as possible the use of an- thropomorphitic language” in connection with the idea that God takes care even of individuals, and attempted to reconcile the liberty of man ®) with the love and jus- tice of God.) @) Matth. vi. 26; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10. ® Eg. Clement of Alex. Peed. ili. 1. 250: ᾿Ανενδεὸὲς δὲ μόνος ὁ Θεὸς καὶ χαίρει μάλιστα μὲν καϑαρεύοντας ἡμᾶς ὁρῶν τῷ τῆς διανοίας κοσμῷ. (3). Justin M. Apol. 1.10: Καὶ σάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαϑὸν ὄντα δημιου.-: γῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ὠμόρφου ὕλης δι’ ἀνθρώπους δεδιδάγωεϑα. Comp. Athen. demmesurr.cal2.) γον ον πον. 5) ΠΣ ΙΝ ‘Lert iad vers: Mare. i. 13; Ergo nec mundus Deo indignus, nihil etenim Deus indignum se fecit, etsi mundum homini, non sibi fecit. Orig. contra Cels. iv. 74. p. 558, 559, and ibid, 99, p. 576: Κέλσος μὲν οὖκ λεγέτω, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνλρώπῳ, ὡς οὐδὲ λέοντι Od οἷς ὀνομάζει. “Husig & ἐροῦμεν, οὐ λέοντι ὁ δημιουργὸς, οὐδὲ ἀετῷ οὐδὲ δελφῦι ταῦτα πεποίηκεν, AAG πάντα διὰ τὸ λογικὸν ζῶον. (4) See the objections of Cecilius ap. Minucius Felix, c. 5, ss., and, on the other hand, the oration of Octavius, c. 17. and 18, c. 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 hic totus. Reges tantum regni sui per officia ministrorum universa novere: Deo indiciis non opus est; non solum in oculis ejus, sed et in sinu vivimus. Comp. Athen. leg. ὁ. 22, in calce. © On the opinion of the Gnostic Bardesanes respecting the εἱμαρμένη (fate,) and the influence of stars, comp. Photius Bibl. 138 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Cod. 223. Euseb. Prep. vi. 10. Neander’s gnostiche Systeme, Ρ. 198. [Neander, history of the Christ. Relig. and Church during the first three centuries, transl. by “7. J. Rose, 1. p. 97: * He (Bardesanes) therefore, although like many of those who inclined to Gnosticism, he busied himself with astrology, con- tended 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 przeparatio 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. Kiihner, astronomie et astrologiw in doctrina Gnostic. vestigia, P. 1. Bardesanis Gnostici numina astralia. Hildburgh. 1833. [Comp. also Gieseler, 1. c.i. § 46. n. 2, and Burton, Lect. on Ecclesiast. 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 [ Hist. of the Ch. transl. 1. 166]), yet these expres- sions savour very much of Epicureanism. [Comp. Lardner, Works, vii. 211—212.] ) According to Clement there is no contrast between the whole and its parts in the sight of God, (comp. also Minue. Fel. note 4.) : ᾿Αϑρύως τε γὰρ πάντα LOS ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει μιᾷ προσβολῇ προσβλέπει Strom. vi. p. 821, comp. the work of Origen contra Cels. (8) The doctrine of the concursus, as it was afterwards termed, is found in Clem. Strom. vi. 17. p. 821, ss. Many things owe their existence to human calculation, though they are, as it were, kindled by God, as combustibles are kindled by the light- ning, (τὴν evavow εἰληφότα.) Thus health is preserved by medical skill, the carriage by fencing, riches by industrious art (xenwari- στικὴ τέχνη) ; but the Divine πρόνοια and human συνέργεια always work together. Comp. ὃ 99, note 8. In opposition to the Gnostics, who de- rived evil not from the Supreme God, but from the demiurgus, Jrencus observes adv. Her. iv. 39, p. 285. (iv. 76, p. 380. Gr.), that through the contrast of good and evil in the world, the ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. 139 former shines the more brightly. Spirits, he further remarks, may exercise themselves in distinguishing between good and evil; how could they know the former, without having some idea of the latter? 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 tul expecta, oppor- tune omnia facientem: opportune autem, quantum ad te attinet, qui efficeris. Praesta 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 tradideris 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 Theodicé! To a speculative mind like that of Origen, the existence of evil would present a strong inducement to explain its origin, though he could not but be aware of the difficulties with which this sub- ject is beset. Comp. espec. de prine. 11. 9. Opp. i. p. 97; contra Celsum iv. 62, p. 551. (an extract of which is given by féssler, vol. i. p. 232, ss.) Different reasons are adduced in vindica- tion of the existence of evil in the word ; thus it serves to ex- ercise the ingenuity of man (power of invention, etc.); but he draws special attention to the connection between physical and moral imperfections, evil and sin. Comp. the opinion of Tho- masius concerning the Theodice of Origen, p. 57, 58. 8. 49. ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. Suicer, thesaurus s. ν. ἄγγελος. Cotta, Disputationes 2, succinctam doc- trine de angelis historiam exhibentes, Τρ. 1765. 4. Schmid, Hist. dogm. de angelis tutelaribus, in Illgens histor. theol, Abhandlungen, i. p. 24-27. Keil, de angelorum malorum et dzemoniorum cultu apud gentiles, Opuse. acad. p. 584-60]. (Gaab), Abhandlungen zur Dog- mengeschichte der altesten griechischen Kirche, Jena, 1790, p. 97-136. Usteri, paulin. Lehrbegriff, 4th edit. Appendix, 3. p. 421, ss.—[Dr. L. Mayer, Scriptural Idea of Angels, in Amer. Biblic. Reposit. xii. 356— 388. Moses Stuart, Sketches of Angelology in Bibliotheca Sacra, No. I. Knapp, |. 6. p. 180, ss. Walter Scott, The existence of evil spi- rits proved, London, 2d edit. 1845. Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter. arts. Angels, Demons, Satan. ] 140 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. The doctrine of Good and Evil Spirits forms an im- portant appendix to the chapters on creation, providence, and the government of the world. Concerning angels, the general opinion was, that they constitute a part of the whole creation; some, however, thought that they took an active part in the work of creation, or considered them as the agents of special providence. The doctrine of Sa- tan and demons stands in close connection with the doc- trine of the existence 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 several declarations respecting the nature of angels. Thus many of the earlier Fathers rejected the notion, that they had taken part in the work of creation,) and maintained, on the contrary, that they are created beings and ministering spirits.°) In oppo- sition to the doctrine of emanation and of eons,'4) they even ascribed bodies to them, which were however admit- ted to be composed of much finer substance than that be- longing to human bodies.) The idea of guardian angels was connected in part with the mythical notion of ge- niuses.(6) But no traces are to be found during this period of a true worship of angels within the pale of the Catholic church. @ De princ. prowm. 10. Opp. 1. p. 49: Est etiam ilud in ec- clesiastica preedicatione, esse angelos Dei quosdam et virtutes bonas, qui ΟἹ ministrant ad salutem hominum consummandam ; sed quando isti creati sint, vel quales aut quomodo sint, non satis in manifesto designatur. @) Tren. 1. 22. and 24, (against the opinions of Saturninus and Carpocrates) comp. 11. 2, p. 117: Si enim (Deus) mundi fabri- THE ANGELS. 141 cator est, angelos ipse fecit, aut etiam causa creationis eorum ipse fuit. III. 8.3: Quoniam enim sive angel, sive archangeli, sive throni, sive dominationes ab eo, qui super omnes est Deus, et constituta sunt et facta sunt per verbum ejus. Comp. also iy. 6. 7: Ministrat ei (patri) ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, ὁ. 6. Filius et Spir. S., verbum et sapientia, guibus serviunt et sub- jectt sunt omnes angel. Comp. Duncker, p.108, ss., and Laur, Dreieinigk. lehre, p. 175. The latter thinks, that from the manner in which the earliest Fathers frequently bring the angels into close connection with the persons of the Trinity, it follows that their views respecting this great mystery itself were yet very indefinite. (5) « Justin M. regards the angels as personal beings who possess a permanent existence,” Semisch, ii. p. 841. Dial. c. Tryph.c. 128: "Ors μὲν οὖν εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι, καὶ ἀεὶ μένοντες, καὶ μὴ ἀναλυόμενοι εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗπερ γεγόνασιν, ἀποδέδεικται... Athen. leg. ὁ. 10: Πλῆϑός ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτουγῶν φῶμεν, οὃς ὁ ποιητὴς καὶ δήμιουογὸς κόσμου Seog διὰ τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγου διένειμε wal διέταξε πεοί τε τοὺ στοιχεῖω εἶναι καὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν τούτων εὐταξίαν. Comp. ὁ. 24, and Clem. Strom. vi. 17, p. 822, 824; according to him the angels have received charge over provinces, towns, etc. Clement, however, distinguishes the ἄγγελος, FN ND from the other angels, and connects him in some degree with the Logos, though he assigns to him an inferior rank. Comp. Strom. vil. 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 angeli forma apparente) Opp. Lond. 1703, fol. p.9. [Pye Smith, Script. Test. to the Mess. 1. p. 445-464.} On the em- ployments of angels comp, Orig. contra Cels. vy. 29, Opp. 1. p. 598, and Hom. xii. in Luc. Opp. ii. p. 945. [Anapp, 1. ο. p. 187. () Philo had already converted those angels who are indivi- dually mentioned, (6. g. the Cherubim) into Divine powers, see Dahne, p. 227, ss. Justin, M. also informs us that in his time some had compared the relation in which the angels stand to God, to that which exists between the sun and its beams: but he decidedly rejects this opinion, Dial. c. Tryph. ¢. 128. Comp. Tert. adv. Prax. ο. 3. (in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity): Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exer- citus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est, millies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant e1: nec ideo 142 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta mil- ha v rtut πὰ p ocuratur, ete. Justin M. attaches great importance to the body of angels whichisanalogous tothatof man. Theirfood ismanna, Psal. lxxviii. 25; the two angels who appeared to Abraham, (Gen. xviii. 1, ss.) differed from the Logos who accompanied them, in partaking of the meat set before them, in reality and after the manner of men, comp. dial. ὁ. 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. 344.45. Tertullian points out the difference between the body of Christ and that of the angels, de carne Christi, c. 6: Nullus unquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte suscitaretur, Si nunquam ejusmodi fuit causa angelorum corpo- randorum, habes causam, cur non nascendi acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci......[gitur probent angelos illos, carnem de sideribus concepisse. Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommo- dant exemplum. Constat, angelos carnem non propriam gestasse, utpote naturas substantie spiritalis, et si corpuris alicujus, sui tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus posse. Igitur, cum relatum non sit, unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro, non dubitare, hoc esse proprium angelice potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. Tatian, Or. ὁ. 15: Δαήμονες δὲ πώντες σαρκίον μὲν OU κέκτηνται, πνευματίκὴ OF ἔστιν αὐτοῖς ἡ σύωπηξις, ὡς πυρὸς ὡς ἀέρος, But these ethereal bodies of the angels can be perceived by those only in whom the Spirit of God dwells, not by the natural man. In comparison with other creatures they might be designated incorporeal beings, and Jg- nat. 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. prince. in prowm. § 9. On the question, whether the Fa- thers taught the spiritual nature of the angels at all, see Semisch, I], p. 342. (6) This idea had already occurred in the Shepherd of Hermas, lib. 11. mand. vi. 2: Ado εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι μετὰ τοῦ οἰνηρώπου, εἷς τῆς δικαιο- σύνης καὶ εἷς τῆς πονηρίας" καὶ ὁ μὲν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὄγγελος τρυφερός ἐστι καὶ αἰσχυντηρὺς καὶ πρᾶος καί ἡσύχιος. “Ὅταν οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν καρδιαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, εὐϑέως λαλεῖ μετὼ σοῦ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, περὶ ἁγνείας, περί σεμνότητος καὶ περὶ αὐταρκείας, καὶ περί παντὸς ἔργου δικαίου, καὶ περὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς ἐνδόξου, Ταῦτα THE ANGELS. 143 πάντα ὅταν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀναβῇ, γίνωσχε ὅτι ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης μετὰ σοῦ ἐστιν' τούτῳ οὖν πίστευε καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ EY HOUT NS αὐτοῦ γενοῦ. Oza οὖν καὶ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας τὰ ἔργα. ἹΠρῶτὸν πάντων ὀξύχολός ἐστι καὶ πίκρὸς καὶ ἄφρων, καὶ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ καταστρέφοντα τοὺς δού- λοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ" ὅταν αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν σοῦ ἀνα βῆ, yvads αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. (Fragm. ex doctr. ad Antioch.) We have already seen, (note 3,) that Clement—and also Origen—assigned to the angels the office of watching over provinces and towns, in accordance with the notion of individual guardian-angels; comp. Clem. Strom. v. p. 700, and vii. p. 833, and the passage quoted above from Origen. 7 ) Col. ii. 18. mention is made of a ϑρησχεία τῶν ἀγγέλων which the apostle disapproves. The answer to the question, whether Justin Δ. numbered the angels among the objects of Christian worship, depends upon the interpretation of the passage, Apol. 1.6: “Adeor χκεχλήμεϑθα καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομιζομένων “εῶν ἄϑεοι εἶναι, AAA’ οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀληϑλεστάτου καὶ πατεὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, ἀνεπιμίκτον τε κοκίας δεοῦ: AN ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλϑόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαϑῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμα τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεδα καὶ προςκυνοῦ- μεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληδείῳ τιμῶντες. The principal point in question is, whether the accusative τὸν τῶν ἄλλων... στρατὸν Is governed by σεβόμεδα καὶ προςχυνοῦμεν, or by διδάξαντα. Most modern writers adopt the former interpretation, which is probably the more correct one. Thus Semisch, p. 350, ss. Mohler, (Patrologie, p. 240.) finds in this passage as well as in Athen. Leg. 10, a proof of the Romish adoration of angels and saints. But Athenagoras (c. 16.) rejects this doctrine very de- cidedly in the following words: Οὐ rag δυνάμεις τοῦ Jeod πρασίοντες Jegumebousy, ἀλλο τὸν ποιητὴν αὐτῶν καὶ δεσπότην. Comp. Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760. Orig. contra Cels. v. 4, 5. Opp. 1. p. 580, and viii. 13, ib. p. 751, quoted by Miinscher, ed. by von Colln, 1. p. 84, 85. (Comp. Knapp, 1. c. p. 190. Gieseler, i. ὃ 99, and note 33. *Burton, Testimonies of the Anten. Fath. to the Trinity, etc. p. 15-23. On the Gnostic worship of angels, comp. Bur- ton, Bampton Lect. note 52.] In the opinion of Origen, the angels rather pray with us and for us, comp. contra Cels. viii. 64, p. 789. Hom. in Num. xxiv. (Opp. 111. p. 362.) 144 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. g 51. SATAN 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; 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 purity and innocence, but voluntarily rebelled against his maker. ‘his was also the view taken by the orthodox Fathers.() Every thing which was opposed to the ight of the gospel, and its developement, physical evils, @) as well as the nume- rous persecutions of the Christians, was thought to be a work of Satan and his agents, the demons. ‘The entire system of paganism, of πος y, and worship,“4) and, according to some, even philosophy,©) were supposed to be subject to the influence of demons. Heresies) were also ascribed to the same agency. Moreover, some par- ticular vices were considered to be the specific effects of individual evil spirits.) ( Concerning the appellatives Ἰ 3) cart», σατανᾶς, διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κύσμου τούτου, δαίμονες, hie ᾿βεελφεβοῦλ, etc., the origin of the doctrine and its developement in the Scriptures, comp. de Wette, biblische Dogmatik, § 145-150; 212-214 ; 236-238; Baumgarten-Crusius, bibliische Theologie, p. 295; Von Célln, biblische Theologie, p. 10: Hirzel, Commentar. σὰ Hiob, p. 16; [Anapp, 1. 6. p. 190-203. Storrand Flatt, biblic. Theol. transl. by Schmucker, sect. 50, Ol; Lawrence, Εἰ. A., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Lit. sub voce.]_ The Fathers generally adopted the notions already existing. Justin M., Apol. min. c.5. Athenag. leg. 24: Ὡς γὰρ Seov φαμεν καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον... οὕτως καὶ ἑτέρας εἶναι δυνάμεις, κατειλήμμεδω περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐχούσας καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς, μίων μὲν τήν ἀντίδεον, x% τ. Δ. Tren. iv. 41, p. 288 : Quum igitur a Deo omnia facta sunt et diabolus sibimet ipsi et reli- SATAN AND DEMONS, 145 quis factus est abscessionis causa, juste scriptura eos, qui in abscessione perseverant, semper filios diaboli et angelos dixit maligni. TZert. Apol. ὁ. 22: Atque adeo dicimus, esse sub- stantias quasdam spiritales, nec nomen novum est. Sciunt de- monas philosophi, Socrate ipso ad dw#monii arbitrium exspec- tante, guidni? cum et ipso demonium adhesisse a: pueritia dicatur, dehortatorium plane a bono. Dremonas sciunt poete, et jam vulgus indoctum in usum maledicti frequentat; nam et Satanam, principem hujus mali generis, proinde de propria con- scientia anime eadem execramenti voce pronunciat; angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit, utriusque nominis testes esse vel magi adsunt. Sed quomodo de angelis quibusdam sua sponte corruptis corruptior gens damonum evaserit damnata a Deo cum generis auctoribus et cum eo quem diximus principe, apud litteras sanctas ordine cognoscitur, Comp. Orig. de prine. procem. 6. Opp. T.i. p.48; according to him it is sufficient to believe that Satan and the demons really caist—que autem sint aut quo modo sint, (ecclesia) non clare exposuit. [Ὁ was not until the following period that the Manicheans developed the dualistic doctrine of an evil principle in the form of a regular system, although traces of it may be found in some earlier Gnostic no- tions, e.g. the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites, comp. Meander’s gnostische Systeme, p. 233, ss. Baur, Gnosis, p. 173, ss. | Neander, hist. of the Ch. transl. ii. p. 98, ss., comp. Norton, 1. 6. ui. p. 57-62.] In opposition to this dualistic view, Origen maintains that the devil and his angels are creatures of God, though not created as devils, but as spiritual beings. Contra Cels.iv. 65. Opp.1. p. 553. ® Tertullian and Origen agree in ascribing failures of crops, drought, famine, pestilence, and murrain to the influence of de- mons. Tert. Apol. ὁ. 22, (operatio eorum est hominis eversio,) Orig. contra Cels. viii, 381, 82, Opp. i. p. 764,65. He calls the evil spirits the executioners of God (64:0) Demoniacal pos- sessions were still considered as a phenomenon of special im- portance (as in the times of the New Test.) Adinuc Fel. c. 27: Irrepentes etiam corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mentes, membra distorquent. Concerning these δοωιμονιόληστοι, μαιμόνενοι, ἐνεργούμενοι. comp. in particular Const. apost. lib. vin. 6. 7. A rationalisticex planation is given in the Cle- mentine Hom. ix. ὃ 12: “Οϑεν πολλοὶ οὐκ εἰδότες πόδεν ἐνεργοῦνται, ταῖς τῶν δαιμόνων κωκαῖς ὑποβαλλομέναις ἐπινοίαις, ὡς τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν λογισμῷ L 140 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. συντίενται Comp., moreover, Orig. ad Matth. xvii. 5. Opp. iy lii. p. 574, ss., de prine. iii. 2. Opp. T. i. p. 188. ss. (de contrariis potestatibus.) Schnitzer, p. 198, ss.; Thomasius, p. 184, ss., and the passages cited there; [Knapp, p. 201; Denham in Kitto, 1. ὁ. sub. Demonaics. | ®) Justin, M. Apol. ὁ. 5, 12, 14, (quoted by Usteri, 1. ¢. p. 421.) Minuc. Fel. lw c.: Ideo inserti mentibus imperitorum odium nostri serunt occulte per timorem. Naturale est enim et odisse quem timeas et quem metueris infestare si possis. Jus- tin M. Apol. 11. towards the commencement, and c. 6. Comp. Orig. exhort. ad Martyr. ὃ 18, 32,42. Opp. T. i. p. 286, 294, 302. But Justin M. Apol. i. 6. 5, ascribes the procedures against Socrates also to the hatred of the demons. ‘The obser- vation of Justin quoted by Ireneeus (advers. her. v. ὁ. 26, p. 324, and Euseb. iv. 18,) is very remarkable : "Ors πρὸ μὲν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίας οὐδέποτε ἐτόλμησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς βλασφημῆσαί roy Θεὸν, ἅτε μηδέπω εἰδὼς αὑτοῦ τὴν κατάκρισιν 3 (comp. Epiph. in her. Sethianor. Ῥ. 289), thus the efforts of the powers of darkness against the rapidly spreading Christian religion could be explained the more satisfactorily. (ὦ 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. 6.26. Tert. Apol. 6. 22. Minuc. Fel. Octav. c. 27. 1. Clem. Al. Cohort. p. 7. Origen contra Cels. i. 28, 37, 69. iv. 36, 92; v. 5; vil. 64; viii. 380. 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 5. demoniorum cultu apud gentiles. Opusc. academ. p. 584-601. Muiinscher edit. by von Colln i. p. 92, ss. © According to Minuc. Fel. 6. 26, the demon of Socrates was one of those evil demons. Clement also says of a sect of Christ- ians, Strom. i. 1, p. 326 ; Οἱ δὲ nai πρὸς κακοῦ ἂν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἰσδεδυ- χέναι! τὸν βίον νομίφουσιν, ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῶν ἀν)ρώπων, πρὸς τινὸς εὑρετοῦ πονηροῦ, which is manifestly nothing but an euphemism for διαβόλου, comp. Strom. vi, 822 ; Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἄτοπον τὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν προσνέμον- τὰς τῷ διαβόλῳ, ἐναρέτου πράγματος, τοῦτον τῆς φιλοσοφίας, δωτῆρα ποιεῖν, comp. also Strom. 1. 17, p. 366, and the note in the edit. of Potter. Astrology, etc. was also ascribed to demoniacal influence. ) Comp. Justin M. Apol. 1. 56, 58. Cyprian de unitatate SATAN AND DEMONS. 147 ecclesiz, p. 105: Hereses invenit (diabolus) et schismata, qui- bus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unita- tem, etc. ὦ) Hermas, ii 6, 2, comp. the preceding §. Justin M. Apol. il. c. 5, (Usteri, p. 423.) ... καὶ εἰς avowmrous φόνους, πολέμους, μοιχείας, ακολασίας καὶ πᾶσοων κακίαν ἔσπειραν. Clem. of Alex. designates as the most malicious and most pernicious of all demons the greedy belly-demon (κοιλιοδαίμονα λιχνότατον), who is related to the one who is effective in ventriloquists (τῷ ἐγγαστριμύθῳ.) Pead. ii. 1, p. 174. Origen follows Hermas in classifying the demons according to the vices which they represent, and thus prepares the way for more moderate views, gradually to convert these concrete repre- sentations of devils into abstract notions. Comp. Hom. 15. in Jesum Nave Opp. T. 11. p. 434: Unde mihi videtur esse infinitus quidem numerus contrariarum virtutum, pro eo quod per singulos pene homines sunt spiritus aliqui, diversa in ls peccatorum ge- nera molientes. Verbi causa, est aliquis fornicationis spiritus, est ire spiritus alius, est avaritiz spiritus, alius vere superbie. 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 respective chief demon, but also that every vicious person is possessed with a demon who is in the service of the chief demon. Others refer both moral defects, and physical impulses, as the sexual impulse, to the devil; Origen, however, objects to this notion, de prine. ili. 2,2. Opp. T.1. p. 189. 8 52. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. The Fathers differed in their opinions respecting the particular sin which caused the apostacy of the demons. Some thought that it was envy and pride, (2) others sup- posed lasciviousness and intemperance.@) 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 general opinion, he did not even take from Satan all hope of future pardon. (5) 148 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ® The Fathers did not agree with regard to the time at which this event took place. On the supposition that the devil seduced our first parents, it is necessary to assign an earlier date to his apostacy than to the fall of man. But, according 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 Treneus (comp. note 2.) one might almost suspect that he entertained similar views; but it is more probable that he fixed upon the period which elapsed between the creation of manand his temptation as the time when the devil apostatized. Thus Cyprian says, de dono patient. p. 218: Diabolus hominem ad imaginem Dei factum impatienter tulit ; inde et pert primus et perdidit. @) Tren. adv. heer. iv. 40, 3, p. 287 : ᾿Εδήλωσς τὸ πλάσωα τοῦ Did, and Cyprian, l.c. Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 9, 2. Opp. T. iu. p. 889: Inflatio, superbia, arrogantia peccatum diaboh est et ob heec delicta ad terras migravit de celo. Comp. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 324, p. 293, (ed. Bekker) : Οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ (ἄγγελοι) ἐφ᾽ ὧν αὐτούς ἐποίησε καὶ διετάξατο ὁ ϑξος ἔμειναν" αὐτὸς δὲ (SC. ὁ διάβολος) ἐνύ Bores. © The passage in Gen. vi. 2, (according to the reading οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ S200 ipstead of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ) had already been ap- plied to the demons, and their intercourse with the daughters of men, [thus by Philo, de gigant. p. 286, C. Josephus, Antiq. i. 3. 1.:...for many angels of God..., and the (apocryphal book of Enoch.] (Comp. Wernsdorf, Exercitatio de commercio An- gelorum cum filiabus hominum ab Judeis et Patribus platont- zantibus credito, Viteb. 1742. 4. Keil, opuse. p. 566, ss Miin- scher edit by von. Colln, p. 89, 90. Suicer 5. v. ἄγγελος 1. p. 36. and ἐγρήγορος p. 1003.) All the Fathers of the first period (with the exception of Julius Africanus, see Routh, reliquie sacre 1]. p. 127, ss.) referred the passages in question to the sexual in- tercourse of the angels with the daughters of men. This, how- ever, can refer only to the later demons who became subject to the devil, and not to the apostacy of Satan himself, which falls in av earlier period (note 1.) Concerning the apparent para- chronism, comp. Miinscher, Handb. u. p. 30, 31. In accordance with this notion, Clement, Strom. i. 7, p. 538, designates the ἀκρασία and ἐπιϑυμία as the causes of the fall—The before stated views on pagan worship and the temptation to sensuality (§ 51, and ibid, uote 7,) were connected with the notions respecting SATAN AND DEMONS. 149 the intercourse of the demons with the daughters of men. The fallen angels betrayed the mysteries 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. (“4 Hermas, lib. ii. mand. 7.; Diabolum autem ne timeas, timens enim Dominum, 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 timendus est. Omnis enim virtutem habens timendus est: nam qui virtutem non habet, ab omnibus contemnitur. Time plane facta Diabolli, quoniam maligna sunt: metuens enim Dominum, timebis, et opera Diaboli non facies, sed abstinebis 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 de- parts from them, because he finds no place where to enter into them: then he goes to those that are not full of faith, and be- cause 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, ο. 16: Aaiwoves δὲ οἱ τοῖς ἀνλρώποις ἐπιτάττοντες, οὔκ εἰσιν αἱ τῶν οὐν)οώπων ψυχαί κ. τ. A. Iren. 11. c. 92, 4, p. 100, Tert. Apol. ec. 23: [Omnis hee nostra in illos dominatio 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 prince. 11]. 2, 4, contra Cels. i. 6. and viii. 86. Opp. i. p. 7609 : AAR οὐ χριστι- ανὸς, ὃ AANIBS χριστιανὸς καὶ ὑποτάξας ἑαυτὸν mow τῶ JED καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ mado: τι ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων, ἅτε κρείττων δαιμόνων τυγχάνων, and in libr. Jesu Nave xv. 6. In the former passage de prince. Origen calls those weak (simpliciores) who believe that sin would not exist, if no devil existed.—Along with the moral power of faith, and the efficacy of prayer, the magic effects of the sign of the cross, etc. were relied on. But what was at first nothing 150 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. more than a symbol of the power of faith itself, became after-. wards a mechanical opus operatum. *! Even Clement, Strom. i. 17. p. 367, says: ‘O δὲ διάβολος αὐτεξούσιος ὧν καὶ μετανοῆσαι οἷός τε ἦν καὶ κλέψαι καὶ ὁ αἴτιος αὐτὸς τῆς κλοπῆς, οὐχ ὁ μὴ κωλύσας κύριος, but from these words it 1s not quite evident, whether he means to say that the devil is yet capable of being converted. The general opinion on this point is expressed in the following passage, Tatian, Orat. c. 15. : Ἢ τῶν δαιμόνων ὑπόστασις οὐκ ἔχει μετανοίας τόπον, Comp. also Justin, M. dialog. c. Tryph. ¢. 141.— Origen himself did not very clearly propound his views. De prince. i. c. 6. 5. Opp. 1. p. 154: [Propterea etiam novissimus inimicus, qui mors appellatur, de- strui 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. Destrue- tur ergo non ut non sit, sed ut inimicus non sit et mors. Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile est aliquid fac- torisuo. § 6. Omnia restituentur ut unum sint, et Deus fuerit om- nia in omnibus, (1 Cor. xv. 28.) Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes intelligendum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus szeculis, cum sensim et per singulos emen- datio fuerit et correctio prosecuta, preecurrentibus aliis et velo- ciori cursu ad summa tendentibus, aliis verg proximo quoque spatio insequentibus, tum deinde aliis longe posterius: et sic per multos et innumeros ordines proficientium ac Deo se ex inimicis reconciliantium pervenitur usque ad novissimum inimicum qui dicitur mors, et etiam ipse destruatur ne ultra sitinimicus.]| He there speaks of the last enemy, death, but it is evident from the context, that he identifies death with the devil; he speaks of a substance which the Creator would not destroy, but heal. Thomasius, p. 187. On the possibility of the conversion of the other demons, comp.i. 6.3. Opp.1i. p. 70: Jam vero si aliqui ex his ordinibus, qui sub principatu diaboli agunt, ac malitize ejus obtemperant, poterunt aliquando in futuris szeculis converti ad bonitatem, pro eo quod est in ipsis liberi facultas arbitrii ?... THIRD SECTION. ANTHROPOLOGY. 8 53. INTRODUCTION. The material design of Christianity, and the essential condition of all further developement, is to turn the at- tention of man to himself, and to bring him to the know- ledge of his own nature.) On this account the first object of Christian anthropology should be to determine, not what man is in respect to his natural life, and his re- lation to the surrounding visible creation, but rather, what he is in respect to his spiritual and moral condition, and his relation to God and Divine things. But since the higher and spiritual nature of man is intimately con- nected with the organism of body and soul, it was necessary that asystem of theological anthropology should be constructed on the basis of physical and psychical an- thropology, which forms a part of natural philosophy, and philosophy, properly speaking, rather than of theo- logy. ‘The history of doctrines, therefore, must also con- sider the opinions relative to the natural relations of man. (?) (1) Comp. Clem, Peed. 11. i. p. 250: “Hy ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικε, πάντων μεγί- στων μωαγημάτων τὸ γνῶναι αὑτόν' ἑαυτὸν γάρ τις Fay γνῴη, Iedv εἴσεται. ὦ) At first sight it might appear indifferent in regard to theo- logy, whether man consists of two or three parts, yet this dis- tinction was intimately connected with the theological defini- 152 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. tions of liberty, immortality, etc. This is the case also with the doctrine of pre-existence, in opposition to Traducianism and Creationism relative to original sin, etc. Thus it can be ex- plained why Tatzan, on religious grounds, opposes the common definition, according to which man is a ζῶον λυγικόν, contra Greecos, 6. 15: "Eorw ἄνθρωπος, οὖκ ὥσπερ χοραχόφωνοι δογματίξουσιν, ζῶον λογικὸν, νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν' δεικϑήσεται yao κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἄλογα νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεχτιχα, Μόνος δὲ ἄνλρωπος εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις τοῦ Deov, λέγω δὲ ἀἄν)ρώπον οὐχὶ τὸν ὅμοια τοῖς ϑώοις πράττοντα, ἀλλὼ τὸν πόῤῥω μὲν ἀνδρωπό- τητος, πρὸς αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Jed κεχωρηκίτα. 8. 54, DIVISION OF MAN AND PRACTICAL PSYCHOLOGY. Keil, Opuse. Academ. p. 618—647. That man is composed of body and soul, is a fact of which we are conscious by experience previous to all speculation, and before we endeavour to express it by a precise, scientific term. But it is more difficult to define the relation between body and soul, and to assign to either its particular sphere. Some regarded the ψυχή as the medium by which the purely spiritual in man, the higher and ideal principle of reason, is connected with the purely animal, the grosser and sensual principle of his carnal nature. ‘They also imagined that this notion of a human trias was supported by the language of Scripture“) Some of the earlier Fathers, and those of the Alexandrian school in particular,®) adopted this trichotomistic division, while Tertullian adhered to the old opinion, according to which man consists of body and soul only.4) Some of the Gnostic sects, e. g. the Valen- tinians, so perverted the trichotomistic division, as to di- vide men themselves into three classes, the χοϊκοί, ψυχικοί, and πνευματικοί, according as one or the other of the three constituents preponderated, or prevailed to the apparent exclusion of the others. ‘Thus they destroyed the bond of union with which Christ had encirled men as breth- ren.) DIVISION OF MAN AND PRACTICAL PSYCHOLOGY. 1953 () yy 2922) MIM, σάρξ, ψυχή, πνεῦμα. Comp. the works on bibl. theol., and the commentaries on 1 Thess. vy. 23; Heb. iv. 12, etc. also Ackermann, Studien und Kritiken, 1839. part 4. ® Justin ΔΗ͂. fragm. de resurr. ὃ 10: Οἦκος τὸ σῶμα ψυχῆς, πνεύ- μᾶτος ὃὲ ψυχὴ οἶκος. Τὼ τρία ταῦτα τοῖς ἐλπίδα εἰλικρινῆ καὶ πίστιν ἀδιάκριτον ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ξχουσι σωϑήδεται. Comp. Dial. cum Tryph. § 4, Tatian contra Gree. or. c. 7.12.15. Ireneus, 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 hec est duo. quod est anima, que aliquando quidem subsequens spiritum elevatur ab eo, aliquando autem consentiens carni de- cidit in terrenas concupiscentias. Comp. v. 6.1, p. 299: Anima autem et spiritus pars hominum esse possunt, homo autem nequaquam: perfectus autem homo commixtio et adunitio est animee assumentis spiritum Patris et admixta ei carni, que est plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. Accordingly, it is not every man who is composed of three parts, but he only who has re- ceived the gift of the Holy Spin, as the third part. Concerning the distinction between Pnoe and Pneuma, comp. § 44, and Dunker, p. 97, 98. , ® Clement (Strom. vi. 12, p. 880), makes a distinction be- tween the ψυχὴ λογική and the Ψυχὴ σωματική; he also mentions a tenfold division of man (analogous to the decalogue,) ibid. vi. 16. p. 808: "Bors δὲ καὶ δεκάς τις πεοὶ τὸν ἄν)ρωπον αὐτὸν, τά τε Kio NTH INC | Sed \ ‘ , ‘ ~ + \ 4 πέντε καὶ τὸ φωνητικὺν καὶ TO σπερματικόν' καὶ τοῦτο δὴ ὄγδοον τὸ κατὰ τὴν «- ,, , + =] ~ 4 ~ va \ ~ TAC OW πνευματικόν" EWATOV δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς" καὶ δέκατον τὸ διὼ τῆς πίστεως προσγινόμενον ἁγίου πνεύματος χαρακχτηριστικὸν ἰδίωμα κ. τ. λ, u The more general division into body, soul, and spirit, forms how- ever the basis of this one. 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 υμικόν, τὸ exuunrinoy, Peed. iii. 1, ab init. p. 250. The faculty of perception is sub- divided into four different functions: αὔσϑησις, νοῦς, ἐπιστήμη, ὑπό- λήψις, Strom. ii. 4. p. 485. Clement regards body and soul as διάφορα, but not as ἐναντία, so that neither the soul is good as such, nor the body is evil as such. Comp. Strom. iv. 26, p. 639. For the psychology of Origen, comp. de princ. 11. 3. Opp. i. p. 145. (Redepenn. p. 296—806.) On the question, whether Origen did indeed believe in the existence of two souls in man? see Schnitzer, p. 219, ss. Thomasius, p. 190, 193-195. 154 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. In the view of Origen the ψυχή as such, which he derives from ψύχεσγαι, holds the medium between body and spirit. He af- firms to have met with no passage in the Sacred Scriptures, in which the soul, as such, is favourably spoken of, while, on the contrary, itis frequently condemned, de prince. 11. 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 com- parison between the human and the Divine trias, ibid. § 5.— For the trichotomistic division, comp. also Comment. in Matth. LT’. xii. 2. Opp. iii. p. 570, and other passages in Miinscher ed. by von Colln, i. p. 319, 320. Origen sometimes employs the simple term “ man” to designate his higher spiritual nature, so that man appears not so much to consist of body and soul, as to be the soulitself which governs the body as a mere instrument, contra Cels. vii. 38 : “Avjowmos, τουτέστι “ἁψυχὴ χρωμένη σώματι (comp. Photius Cod. 234. Epiph. her. 64. 17.) Consequently he calls the soul homo homo = homo interior, in Num. xxiv. comp. Thom- asius, 1. ¢. ® De anima c. 10, 11, 20, 21, 22: Anima dei flatu nata, im- mortalis, corporalis, effigiata, substantia simplex, de suo patiens varie procedens, libera arbitrii, accidentiis obnoxia, per ingenia mutabilis, rationalis, dominatrix, divinatrix, ea una redundans. adv. Hermog. c. 1]. and Neander, Antignosticus, p. 457. Con- cerning the importance which, from his practical position, he attached to the senses (the key to his theological opinions) comp. ibid. p. 452, ss. ©) Iren. 1. 5. 5. comp. also Neander’s gnostische Systeme, p. 127, ss. Baur, Gnosis, 158, ss., 168, ss., 489, ss., 679, ss. ALun- scher, edit. by von Colla, p. 316. 17. 8 δ. ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. The inguiry into the origin of the human soul, and the mode of its union to the body, seems to belong solely to metaphysics, and to have no bearing whatever upon reli- gion.) But, in a religious point of view, it is always of importance, that the soul should be considered as a being which has derived its existence from God. ‘This doctrine ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. 155 was maintained by the catholic church in opposition to the Gnostic theory of emanations,@) to which the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-ewxistence of the soul is closely allied.) On the contrary, Tertullian asserted the propagation of the soul per traducem in accordance with his realistico-material conceptions of its corporeity, ( Traducianism. )“ ® Accordingly 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 predicatione distinguitur. % Traces of the theory of emanation are found in the writ- ings of some of the earlier Fathers. Justin 1, fragm. de resurr. 11: Ἡ μὲν ψυχή ἐστιν ἄφγαρτος, μέρος οὖσα τοῦ ϑεοῦ καὶ ἐμφύσημα. Comp. the Clementine Homilies, Hom. xvi. 12. On the other hand, Clement of Alex. adheres to the idea of a created being, Coh. p: 78: Μόνος ὁ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς ὁ ἀριστοτέχνας πατὴρ τοιοῦτον ἄγαλμα ἔμψυχον ἡμᾶς, τὸν ἄνδρωπον ἔπλασεν, and Strom. ii. 16, p. 467, 468, where he rejects the phrase μέρος Θεοῦ, which some have employ- ed, in accordance with the principle: Θεὸς οὐδεμίαν ἔχοι πρὸς ἡμᾶς φυσικὴν σχέσιν. Comp. Orig. in Joh. T. xii. 25. Opp. T. iv. p. 35 3 Σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁμοούσιον τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παωμακαρία εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύματι τῷ Θεῷ. Comp. de prince. i. 7. 1. (3) Clemens, Coh. p. 6: Πρὸ δὲ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου καταβολῆς ἡμεῖς οἱ τῷ δεῖν ἐσεσλαι ἐν αὐτῷ πφότερον γεγεννημένοι τῷ Θεῷ" τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου τὰ λογικὰ πλάσωμωτα ἡμεῖς" OF ὃν ἀρχαΐζξζομεν, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ).όγος nv; this perhaps should rather be understood in an ideal sense. But Origen, fol- lowing the example of the Pythagorean and Platonic schools as well as of the later Jewish theology, speaks of the pre-existence of the soulas something real. (Comp. Epiph. her. 64, 4: Τὴν ψυχὴν γὰρ τὴν dewey λέγει προῦύπάργειν) He reconciles his doctrine with human liberty and Divine justice by maintaining that the soul entering into the bodies of men suffers punishment for for- mer sins. Comp. de prince. i. 7,4. Opp.1. p. 72. (Redep. p. 151. Schnitzer, Ὁ. 72.)—*“ Hf the origin of the human soul were coeval with that of the body, how could it happen that Jacob supplanted his brother in the womb, and John leaped in the 156 | THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. womb at the salutation of Mary?” ete. Comp. also T. xv. in Matth. c. 34, 85, in Matth. xx. 6, 7. Opp. T. iii. p. 703, and Comment. in Joh. T. ii. 25. Opp. iv. p. 85. (@) De anima, ¢. 19: Et si ad arbores provocamur, am plecte- murexemplum. Si quidem et illis, necdum arbusculis, sed sti- pitibus adhuc et surculis etiam nunc, simul de scrobibus oriun- tur, inest propria vis anime ...... . quo magis hominis ? cujus anima, velut surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propa- ginem deducta et genitalibus femine foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura, pullulabit tam intellectu quam sensu? Men- tior, 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 visum et sono auditum et hu- more gustum et aére odoratum et terra tactum. Ita prima illa vox de primis sensuum et de primis intellectuum pulsibus cogi- LUT ee. BE. Kt hic itaque concludimus, omnia naturalia anime, ut substantiva ejus, ipsi inesse et cum ipsa procedere atque pro- ficere, ex quo ipsa censetur, sicut et Seneca sepe noster (de benef. iv. 6): Insita sunt nobis omnium artium et etatum semi- na, etc. Comp.c. 27. Neander, Antignost. p. 405. 9 56. THE IMAGE OF GOD. Both the excellencies of the body, and the higher moral and religious nature of man, which were frequently pointed out by the Fathers,”) are beautifully and ap- propriately described in the simple words of Scripture (Gen. 1. 27.) “ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” This expression continued to be employed by the church.~) But it was a point of no little difficulty precisely to determine in what the image of God consists. As body and soul could not absolutely be separated, the notion arose that even the body of man is created after the image of God,“ and this was held by some in amore literal, by others in a more figurative sense, while some again rejected it altogether. All parties, however, admitted as a matter of course, that THE IMAGE OF GOD. 147 the image of God has a special reference to the spiritual faculties of man. But, inasmuch as they is a great dif- ference between the mere natural dispositions, and their developement by the free use of the powers which have been granted to men, several writers, among whom Treneus, and especially Clement and Origen, distinguished between the image of God, and resemblance to God. The latter can only be obtained by a mental conflict Cin an ethical point of view,) or is bestowed upon man as a gift of sovereign mercy by union with Christ Cin a reli- gious aspect. )() ® fren. iv. 29, p. 285 : “Ede ὃξ τὸν ἄνϑτωπον πρῶτον yeviodar, καὶ γε- νόμενον αὐξῆσαι, καὶ αὐξήσαντα ἀνδοωδῆναι, καὶ ἀνδρωλέντω πληϑυν)ῆναι, καὶ πληϑυνλέντα ἐνισχῦσαι, καὶ ἐνισχχύσαντα δοξασλῆν, καὶ δοξασλέντα ἰδειν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόπην. Min. Fel. 17 and 18 ab init. Tatian, Or. Contra Gr. 6. 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 (φύτον οὐράνιον) p. 80, and, generally speak- ing, the principal object of the love of God, Peed. i. 3, p. 102. Comp. p. 158. Peed. ii. 7, p. 276 ; Φύσει γὰρ ὁ ἄνδρωπος ὑψηλό, ἐστι ζῶον καὶ γαῦρον καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ϑητητικόν, ib. ill. 8, p. 292. But all the good he possesses is not innate in such a manner asthat it ought not to be developed by instruction (μάϑησις.) Comp. Strom. 1. 6, p. 336; ἵν. 23, p. 632; vi. 11, p. 788; vii. 4, p. 839, and the passages on human liberty, which will be found below. (Ὁ) Some of the Alexandrian theologians, however, wishing to speak more accurately, taught that man had been created not so much after the image of God himself, as after the image of the Loyos, an image after animage! Coh. p. 78: Ἢ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ a χετυ- κατ᾽ ϑεοῦ εἰκὼν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ νοῦ γνήσιος ὁ ϑεῖὸς λόγος, φωτὸς ἀρ mov φῶς" εἰκὼν δὲ τοῦ λόγου ὁ ἄνϑοωπος" GANAS ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἐν ἀνλοώπῳ, ὁ εἰκόνω τοῦ Yeod καὶ nay ὁμοίωσιν διὰ τοῦτο γεγενῆσθαι λεγόμενος, τῇ κατὰ καρδίαν φρονήσει τῷ Siw παρεικαζόμενος λόγω, καὶ ταύτῃ λογικός. Comp. Strom. v. 14, p. 703, and Orig. Comment. in Joh. p. 941. Opp. Dive p. Lo ΠΕ ΠΙΟΣ bom. vil. Opp. L. 1. ®) This idea was connected with another, according to which God was supposed to possess a body (see above) or with the no- tion that the body of Christ had been the image after which the body of man had been created. (The author of the Clementine 158 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Homilies also thought that the body in particular bore the image of God, comp. Piper on Melito, 1. c. p. 74, 75.) Tert. de carne Christi, c. 6, adv. Mare. v. 8, adv. Prax. 12. Meander, Antign. p. 407, ss. The more spiritual view was, that the life of the soul, partaking of the Divine nature, shines through the physical or- ganism, and is reflected especially on the countenance of man, in his looks, ete. Tatian, Or.c. 15, ( Worth, c. 24): ψυχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ἀνδρώπων πολυμερής ἐστι καὶ οὐ μονομερής. Συνδετὴ (al. συνετὴ ace cording to Fronto Ducweus, comp. Daniel, p. 202) γάρ ἐστιν ὡς εἶναι φανερὰν αὐτὴν διὰ σώματος, οὔτε γὰρ ἂν αὐτὴ φανείη ποτὲ χωρὶς σώματος οὔτε ἀνίσταται ἡ σὰρξ χωρὶς ψυχῆς. Clem. Coh. p. 52. Strom, ν.14,Ρ. 703 : Ψυχὴν ὃς τὴν λογικὴν ἄνωϑεν ἐμπνευσϑῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς πρόσωπον. On this account the Fathers of the Alexandrian school very decid- edly oppose the material conception of a bodily copy of the Di- vine image. Clem. Strom. 11. 19, p. 483; Τὸ γὰρ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὀμοίωσιν, ws καὶ πρόσϑεν εἰρήκαμεν, οὐ τὸ κατὰ σώμα μηνύεται" οὐ γὰρ Δέμις ἡνητὸν ἀγανάτῳ ἐξομοιοῦσλαι" ἀλλ᾽ ἢ κατὰ νοῦν καὶ λογισμόν, On the other hand, it is indeed remarkable that the same Clement, Peed. ii. 10, Ῥ. 220, should recognize the image of God in the procreative power of man, which others connect with the existence of evil Spirits (§ 51): Εἰκὼν 6 ἄνϑρωπος τοῦ ϑεοῦ γίνεται, καθὸ εἰς γένεσιν ἀν)ρώπου ἄνδρωπος συνεργεῖ. Origen refers the Divine image exclusively to the spirit of man, c. Cels. vi. Opp. 1. p. 680, and Hom. i. in Genes. ΟΡ le Ti Dae be ® The tautological phrase, Gen. i. 26: ἈΠ 3. Wosea induced the Fathers to make an arbitrary distinction between DPX (εἰκών) and ΓΔ Ἵ (Guoiwors.) comp. Schott, Opuscul. T. ii. p. 66, ss. Jreneus adv. Her. v. 6, p. 299. v. 16, p. 313: Ἔν τοῖς , , Sa 2 | > 3: , »“, ͵ “ + . > , mobodev “χρόνοις ἐλέγετο μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνδρωπον, οὐκ ἐδεί- AVUTO O ETI γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὗ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, ὁ ἄνϑοωπος ἐγεγόνει. Διὰ x V5 $ Ξ Y >? oS wa 5 7:7 3 , > ΄ ΝΥ ¢ , \ > ΄" e Ὁ wow ῥῳδίως ἀπέβαλεν, ᾿Οπότε δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος, τοῦ \ e ΄ TOUTO δὴ καὶ τὴν δωοί Θεοῦ τὰ ἀμφότερα ἐπεκύρωσε" καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ἔδειξεν ἀληϑῶς, αὐτὸς φοῦτο γενόμενος ὅπερ ἦν ἡ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ" καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν βεβαίως; κατέστησε συνεξα ομοιώσας τὸν ἄνδρωπον τῷ ἀοράτῳ πατρί. According to some the lan- guage of Clem. Strom. 11. p. 499, (418, Sylb.) implies that the image of God is communicated to man εὐθέως κατὰ τήν γένεσιν, and that he obtains the resemblance ὕστερον κατὼ τὴν τελείωσιν, Accord- ing to Jert. de bapt. c. 5, man attains unto resemblance to God by baptism. According to Origen, who everywhere insists upon the spontaneity of man, the resemblance of God which is to be LIBERTY AND IMMORTALITY. 159 obtained, consists in thi-, ut (homo) ipse sibi eam propriz indus- tri studiis ex Dei imitatione conscisceret, cum possibilitate sibi perfectionis in initiis data per imaginis dignitatem in fine demum per operum expletionem perfectam sibi ipse similitudinem con- summaret, de prine. iii. 6,1. Opp. T. 1, p. 152. (fed. p.3i7. Schnitzer, p. 236.) Comp. contra Cels. iv. 20, p. 522, 23. But Origen also uses both terms without making any perceptible dis- tinction, Hom. ii. in Jer. Opp. T. i. p. 137. 8 δῇ. LIBERTY AND IMMORTALITY, a. Liberty. Liberty and immortality are those qualities of the hu- man mind in which the image of God manifests itself. This was the doctrine of the primitive church, which is confirmed by the consciousness of every Christian. All the Greek Fathers, the apologists Justin, (1) Tatian, (5) Athenagoras,@) Theophilus,*) and the Latin Father Minucius Fehz,(°) as well as the theologians of the Alex- andrian school, Clement) and Origen,“) represent the αὐτεξούσιον of the human soul with all the early warmth and freshness of hellenistic idealism, and know nothing of im- putation of sin apart from voluntary self-determination. Even Jreneus(®) and Tertullian) although the former was opposed to speculation, and the latter possessed an austere disposition, strongly assert this liberty from a practico-moral point of view. None but heretics ven- tured to maintain that man is subject to the influence of a foreign power (the stars, or the εἱμαρμένη. 2% But it was on this: very account that they met with decided opposi- tion on the part of the whole church. Q) Justin M. Apol. 1. 0. 48 : Εἱμαρμένην φαμὲν οἀπαράβατον ταύτην εἶναι, σοῖς τὰ καλὰ ἐχλεγομένοις τὰ ἄξιω ἐσιτίμια, καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίως τὰ ἐναντία, τὰ ἄξια ἐπίχειρα, Οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα, οἷον δένδρα καὶ τετράποδα μηδὲν δυ- νάμενα προωιρέσειπράττειν, ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄν)ρωπον" οὐδὲ γὼρ ἦν ἄξιος ὦμοι .- 100 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. βῆς ἢ ἐπαίνου, οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἑλόμενος τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο γενόμενος, οὐδ᾽ εἰ κακὸς νπῆρχε, δικαίως κολάσεως ἐτύγχανεν, οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τοιοῦτος wy, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν δυνάμενος εἶναι ἕπερον παρ᾽ ὃ ἐγεγόνει. 2 Tatian, ΟΥ. ο. 7 : Τὸ δὲ ἑκάτερον τῆς ποιήσεως εἶδος αὐτεξούσιον γέγονε, τἀγαθοῦ φύσιν μὴ ἔχον, ὃ σλὴν [πάλιν] μόνον παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, τ δὲ ἐλευϑερίᾳ τῆς προαιξέσεως ὑπὸ τῶν ἀν)εώπων ἐκτελειούμενον" ὅπω: ὁ μὲν φαῦλος δικαίως κολάζηται, OF αὐτὸν γεγονὼς μοχηρός" ὁ δὲ δίκαιος χάριν τῶν ἀνδραγαϑημά- σων ἀξίως ἐπαινῆται κατὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ παραβάς τὸ βούλημα. Concerning the critical and exegetical difficulties connected with this passage, see Daniel, Tatian der Apologet. p. 207. (Ὁ) Athen. leg. 31. comp. de resurr. 12, 19, 15, 18, ss. 4 Ad Autol. 11. 27: ᾿Ελεύϑερον γὰρ καὶ αὐτεξούσιον ἐποίησεν ὁ Jebs ἄν- J2w7ov, in connection with the doctrine of immortality, of which in the next §. : ) Octayv. c. 36, 37.: Nec de fato quisquam aut solatium cap- tet aut excusct eventum. Sit sortis fortuna, mens tamen libera est, et ideo actus hominis, non dignitas judicatur......[ta 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 exerci- tatione torpescunt ; omnes adeo vestri viri fortes, quos in exem- plum preedicatis, zrumnis suis inclyti floruerunt. Itaque et nobis Deus nec non potest subvenire, nec despicit, quum sit et omnium rector et amator suorum; sed in adversis unumquem- que explorat et examinat; ingenium singulorum periculis pensi- tat, usque ad extremam mortem voluntatem hominis sciscitatur, nihil sibi posse perire securus. Itaque ut aurum ignibus, sic nos discriminibus arguimur. Quam pulecrum spectaculum Deo, quum Christianus cum dolore congreditur, quum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta componitur! quum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis irridens insultat! quum libertatem suam ad- versus reges et principes erigit, soli Deo, cuius est, cedit, etc! Nevertheless Minucius ΧΙ, 6, intimates (but as an opinion coming from his opponent,) that the Christians believed, that God judges man not so much according to his conduct, as according to his own eternal decrees. But he refutes this view as erroneous. (6) Clem. Coh. p. 79 : Ὑμῶν ἐστιν (ἡ Bao. τῶν οὐρανῶν) ἐὰν ϑελήσητε, σῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὺν τὴν προαίρεσιν ἐσχηκότων. He then shows (p. 80), ς how man himself, and in accordance with his own nature, ought to cultivate the talents which God has given him. As the horse is not expected to plough (after the custom of the ancients), LIBERTY AND IMMORTALITY. 101 nor the ox to serve for the purpose of riding, but as none is re- quired to do more than his nature will allow him to do, so man ean only be expected to strive after holiness, because he re- ceived the power of doing it. According to Clement 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. p. 462, Clement knows nothing of a gratia irresistibilis, Strom. vill. p, 855: Οὔτε μὴν ἄκων σωλήσεται ὁ σωζόμενος" οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄψυχος" ἀλλὰ παντὸς μᾶλλον ἑκουσίως καὶ προαιρετικῶς σπεύσει πρὸς σωτηρίαν" διὸ καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς ἔλαβεν ὁ ἄνδοωπος, ὡς ἂν ἐξ αὑτοῦ ὁρμητικὸς πρὸς ὁπότερον ἂν καὶ βούλοιτο τῶν τε αἱρετῶν καὶ τῶν φευκτῶν κχ. τ. A, (7 Comp. the whole of the third book of the work de prin- cip. According to Origen there is no accountability without liberty, de prine. 1. 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 faculties ;’ (comp. what Minucius says on this point.) Comp. de prince. i. 5. 3. and con- tra Cels. iv. 3. Opp. 1. p. 504: ’Ageriic μὲν ἐὰν ἀνέλῃς τὸ ἑκούσιον, ἀνεῖλες αὑτῆς καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν. Nevertheless, this liberty is only rela- tive ; every moral action has its origin not only in the free choice of man, but also in Divine assistance. Comp. § 70 and the pas- sages quoted by Redepenning, Orig. 11. p. 318. ® Tren. iv. 4, p. 231, 32, (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 suze potestatis ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum, aliquando autem palea fiat; Ire- nus founds also the accountability of man upon this argument. Comp. iv. 15, p. 245. (Gr. 318.) iv. 37, p. 281, 82, (Gr. 374, 75) : Ei φύσει of μὲν φαῦλοι, of δὲ ἀγαϑοὶ γεγόνασιν, oY οὗτοι ἐπαινετοὶ, ὄντες ἀγα- Soi, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ κατεσκευάσδησαν" οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι μεμπτοὶ, οὕτως γεγονότες. "AAN ἐπειδὴ οἱ πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἶσι φύσεως, δυνάμενοί τε κατασχεῖν καὶ πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαϑὺν, καὶ δυνάμενοι πάλιν ἀποβαλεῖν αὐτὸ καὶ μὴ ποιῆσαι" δικαίως καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνδοώποις τοῖς εὐνομουμένοις, καὶ πολὺ πρότερον παρὰ Θεῷ οἱ μὲν ἐπαινοῦνται, nal ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι μαρτυρίας τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καϑόλου ἐκλογῆς καὶ ἐπιμονῆς" οἱ δὲ καταιτιῶνται καὶ ἀξίας τυγχάνουσι ζημίας τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαϑυῦ ἀπο- βολῆς. 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 below), comp. also the fragment of the sermon de fide, p. 342. (Gr. 467.) M 102 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 9) Tertullian defended the idea of liberty especially in oppo- sition to Marcion: “ How could man, who was destined to rule over the whole creation, be a slave in respect to himself, not having obtained the faculty of reigning over himself?” Advers. Marcion, ii. 8, 6, 9. comp. Meander, Antignost. p. 372-373. 0) ἐς According to the Gnostics there is a fate which stands in intimate connection with the stars, and is brought about by their instrumentality,” ete. Baur, Gnosis, p. 232. But the doc- trine of human freedom is of importance in the opinion of the author of the Clementine Homilies, 6. g. Hom. xv. 7 : “Exaorov δὲ σῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐλεύϑερον ἐποίησεν ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἑαυτὸν ἀπομέμειν ᾧ βούλεται, ἢ τῷ παρόντι κακῷ, ἢ τῷ μέλλοντι ἀγαϑῷ, comp. also c. 8, Hom. i. 15; ili. 69; vili. 16; xi. 8. Credner, 1. ὁ. iii. p. 283, 290, 294. Schliemann, p. 182, ss., 235, ss. § 58. 6b IMMORTALITY. * Olshausen, antiquissimorum ecclesie grace patrum de immortalitate sen- tentia recensentur, Osterprogramm. 1827, reviewed by Ullmann in Stu- dien und Kritiken, i. 2. p. 425. [Comp. Knapp, 1. c. p. 460.] The theologians of the primitive age did not so com- pletely agree concerning the immortality of the soul. They were far from denying the doctrine itself, or en- tertaining any doubts respecting the possibility of the thing. But some of them, e. g. Justin, Tatian, and Theo- philus () from various reasons, supposed the existence of a soul which, though mortal in itself, or at least idiffe- rent in relation 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 together with the body. They laid great ® Even the opponents of the doctrine of human liberty are compelled to acknowledge this remarkable consensus Patrum of the first period, such as Calvin, but in order to account for it, they are obliged to suppose a gene- ral misapprehension of this doctrine! ‘ On this account we must always consider tta remarkable phenomenon that the very doctrines which afterwards caused disruptions in the Christian church, are scarcely ever mentioned in the primitive church.” Damiel, Tatian, p, 200. IMMORTALITY. 163 stress upon the liberty of man, by means of which re- semblance to God was alone to be obtained. They far- ther imagined (in accordance with the threefold divi- sion) that the soul receives the seeds of immortal life only by becoming connected with the spirit, as the higher and less trammelled life of reason. And, lastly, they may have been induced by other philosophical hypotheses concerning the nature of the soul, to adopt the aforesaid notion. 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 con- cerning the nature of the soul, looked upon its immorta- lity as essential to it.@) On the question whether the view advocated by the aged man in Justin, dial. ὁ. Tryph. ὃ 4, is the opinion of the author himself, or not ?—as well as on the meaning of the passage: ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀπολνήσχειν φηωὶ πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς ἐγώ, comp. the commen- taries, Olshausen, 1. c., Réssler, Bibl. i. p. 141. Mohler, Patrologie, 1. Ὁ. 242, and Daniels, Tatian, p. 224. Tatian speaks more dis- tinctly contra Gree. 6. 19 : Οὔκ ἐστιν ἀγάνατος ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ᾿ ἑαυτήν ἃ, ονητὴ δέ. ᾿Αλλὰ δύναται ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ μὴ ἀπολνήσκειν. Θνήσχει μὲν γὰρ καὶ λύεται μετὰ τοῦ σώματος μὴ γινώσκουσα τὴν ἁλήϑειαν. ᾿Ανίσταται δὲ εἰς ὕστερον ἐπὶ συντελείῳ τοῦ κόσμου σὺν τῷ σώματι, άνατον διὰ τιμωρίας ἐν aavacig λαμβάνουσα. Πάλιν δὲ οὐ ϑνήσκει, κἂν πρὸς καιρὸν AVIA, τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ “εοῦ πεποιημένη. Kad ἑαυτὴν γὰρ σκότος ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτῇ φωτεινόν... (98. i.) Puy γὰρ οὐκ αὐτὴ τὸ πνεῦμα ἔσωσεν, gowdn δὲ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. x. τ. δ... ΟΣυδυ- γίαν δὲ κεκτημένη τὴν τοῦ “γείου πνεύματος, οὔκ ἐστιν ἀβοήϑητος, ἀνέσχεται δὲ πρὸς ἅπερ αὐτὴν ὁδηγεῖ χωρία τὸ πνεῦμα. Theophilus (ad Aut. i. 27.) starts the question: was Adam created with a mortal, or immor- tal nature ? and replies; neither the one, nor the other, but he was fitted for both (δεκτικὸν ἀμφοτέρων), in order that he might re- ceive immortality as a reward, and become God (γένηται 3ε6ς), if he aspired after it by rendering obedience to the Divine com- mandments; but that he might become the author of his own ruin, if he did the works of the devil, and disobeyed God.» Jre- 8 καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν is wanting in the most recent manuscripts, vide Daniel, p. 228, on this passage. b About the view of the Thnetopsychites (Arabici), compare below the chapter on Eschatology, ὃ 76, note 8.) . 164 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. neeus also speaks only of an immortality which is given to man, see adv. Heer. ii. 64: Sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem et eodem modo se habens solus est Deus...Et de animalibus, de omnibus et de spiritibus et omnino de omnibus his, que facta sunt, cogitans quis minime peccabit, quando omnia, qui facta sunt, initium quidem facture suze habeant, perseverant autem, quoadusque ex Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit. Non enim ex nobis, neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam Dei datur. Sicut autem corpus animale ipsum quidem non est anima, participatur autem animam, quoadusque Deus vult, sic et anima ipsa quidem non est vita, participatur autem a Deo sibi prestitam vitam. The opposition which Zertullian raised to the doctrine of Theophilus, ete., was connected with his notions concerning the twofold division of the soul, that of Origen with his views on pre-existence. (For the latter could easily dispose of the ob- jection that the soul must have an end, because it has had a be- ginning.) Comp. however Tert. de anima. xi. xiv. xv. Accord- ing to Orig. Exhort. ad Mart. 47. Opp. i. p. 307, de prince. 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 secure its immortality ; comp. Thomasius, p. 159. 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 Jays hold of eternal life in Christ as something really existing. ‘The Christian doctrine of immortality can- not therefore be considered apart from the person, work, and kingdom of Christ, and must rest upon Christian perceptions and promises. 8. 59. ON SIN, THE FALL OF THE FIRST MAN, AND ITS CONSE- QUENCES. Walch, J. G., (Th. Ch. Lilienthul) de Pelagianismo ante Pelagium, Jen. 1738. 4. Hjusdem historia doctrine de peccato originis ; both in Mis- cellaneis sacris, Amstel. 1744. 4. Horn, J.. Commentatio de sententiis eorum patrum, quorum auctoritas ante Augustinum plurimum valuit, de peccato originali, Gott. 1801. 4. However much the primitive church was inclined, as we have already seen, to look with a favourable eye at the bright side of man (his ideal nature), yet she did not endeavour to conceal his dark side, by means of false ON SIN, THE FALL OF THE FIRST MAN, &c. 165 idealism. Though it cannot be said, that the doctrine of human depravity was the only principle upon which the entire theology of that time was founded, yet every Christian was convinced by his consciousness of the ex- istence of such a universal corruption, and felt the con- trast between the ideal and the real, and the effects of sin in destroying the harmony of life. Such feelings were proportionate to the notions which were entertained con- cerning the liberty of man. Thus Justin M., complained of the universality of sin, dial. 6. Tryph. ὁ. 956. 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 now stronger, In consequence of its increase in man, and calls men the servants of sin, (δουλεύοντες ἐπιϑυμίῳ). hom. iv. 23. x. 4, Schliemann, p. 183. Clement of Alexandria directs our atten- tion, in particular, to the internal conflict which sin has intro- duced into the nature of man; it does not form a part of our nature, nevertheless it is spread through the whole human race. We commit sin without knowing ourselves how it happens; comp. Strom. 11. p. 487. Origen also thinks the nature of man is universally corrupted, while the world is in a state of rebellion against its maker, contra Cels. 11. 66, p. 491: Σαφῶς yar φαΐνεται, ὅτι πάντες μὲν Cvdowrol πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν πεφύκαμεν, EVIOL OF OV μόνον πεφύκασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰδισμένοι εἰσὶν ὡμναρτάνειν. Comp. ili. 62, p. 488: ᾿Αδύνατον γάρ φαμεν εἶναι ἄνδρωπον μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἀπ᾽ ἀξχῆς πρὸς τὸν ϑεὸν ἄνω βλέπειν" κακίαν yao ὑφίστασλαι ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον ἐν ἀνϑρώποις. Nevertheless the writers of the present period did not attach so much import- ance to the conviction of sin, as those of the following. On the contrary, feelings of gratitude and joy on account of the finished work of the Saviour, were more universally enter- tained, and counterbalanced by external contests and persecu- tions, rather than by internal struggles. The martyrdom of so many of the early Christians may be considered as a continua- tion of the celebration of the passion of Christ in the church; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, celebrated Christmas and Easter. But in later times, when persecutions ceased, men had recourse to monkish ascetism and a system of self-torture, as ar- tificial substitutes. It then became a duty imperative upon the 100 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. church to cultivate the internal martyrdom in opposition to those false external triumphs. The former consisted in the sub- jection of the heart to the power of the free grace of God in the sense of Augustine, which prepared the way for the regenera- tion of the church in after ages. Here we should be on our guard against a twofolderror. The one is, to look for the same disposition during the first centuries which prevailed in later times, and, consequently, either to assert its existence, or to speak disparagingly of primitive Christianity because of its ab- sence. The other is, to overlook the necessity for further developements, and to maintain that everthing ought to have remained in its state of comparative childhood or youth. § 60. ON THE DOCTRINE OF SIN IN GENERAL. Suicer, Thesaurus sul; ἁμαρτάνω, ὡμοέρτηρμω, ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτωλός. Krabbe, die Lehre von der Siinde und dem ‘Lode, Hamburg,. 1836. (dogmatico-exe- getical.) *Miiller, Julius, die Christliche Lehre von der Siinde, Breslau, 1844, 2 vols. The definitions of the nature of sin were to a great ex- tent indefinite and unsettled during this period.) The heretical sects of the Gnostics in general (and in this particular they were the forerunners of Manichzism), starting with their dualistic notions, either ascribed the origin of evil to the demiurgus, or maintained that it was inherent in matter.2) On the other hand, the orthodox theologians, generally speaking, agreed in tracing the source of evil to human volition, and clearing God from all imputation.) Such a view would easily lead to the opinion of Origen, that moral evil is something nega- tive.) © A proper definition (which is allied to that of the Stoics) is given 6. g. by Clement of Alexandria, Peed. 1. 13, p. 158, 159 ; Πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν dodiv, τοῦτο ἁμάρτημά ἐστι, Virtue (ἀρετή) on the contrary, Is διάϑεσις ψυχῆς σύμφωνος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου περὶ ὅλον τὸν βίο. Hence sin is also disobedience to God: Αὐτίκα γοῦν ὅτε ΟΝ THE DOCTINE OF SIN IN GENERAL. 167 ἥμαςτεν ὁ πρῶτος ἄνϑρωπος, καὶ παρήκουσε τοῦ Θεοῦ. He further considers sin on etymological grounds as error:......0¢ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ναι τὸ σλημμελούμενον πᾶν διὰ THY TOU λόγου διαμαρτίαν γινόμενον καὶ εἰκότως καλεῖς σαι ἁμάρτημα. Comp. Strom. ii. Ρ. 462: Τὸ δὲ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγνοεῖν κρίνειν ὅ τι χρὴ ποιεῖν συνίσταται ἢ τοῦ ἀδυνατεῖν ποιεῖ. The different kinds of sin are, ἐπειϑυμία, φόβος and ἡδονή. The consequence of sin is the λήθη τῆς dAndeias, Coh. p. 88, and, lastly, eternal death, ib. p. 89. Tertullian, from a more practical point of view, as- cribed the origin of sin to the impatience (inconsistency) of man, de pat. 5. (p. 143.) : Nam ut compendio dictum sit, omne pecca- tum impatientiz adscribendum. Comp. Cypr. de bono pat. p. ἜΤ aces pune educe Opp ll. p.0/ 4. hed..p..216,) also believes that laziness and aversion to exertions for the pur- pose of persevering in good, as well as turning from the path of virtue, are the cause of sin; for going astray is nothing but becoming bad ; to be bad only means not to be good, etc. comp. Schnitzer, p. 140. ὦ, Now and then even orthodox theologians ascribe the origin of evil to sensuality: thus Justin M., Apol. i. 10 (Ὁ) de resurr. c. 3, see Semisch, p. 400,401. On the other hand, comp. Clem. Strom. iv. 36, Ρ. 638, 39 : Οὔκουν εὐλόγως οἱ κατατρέχοντες τῆς πλάσεως καὶ κακίζοντες τὸ σώμα" οὐ συνορῶντες τὴν κατασχευὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὀργήν πρὺς σὴν οὐρανοῦ “έαν γενομένην, καὶ τὴν τῶν αἰσ)λησέων ὀργανοποιΐαν πρὸς γνῶσιν συν- σείνουσαν, τώ τε μέλη καὶ μέρη πρὸς τὸ καλὸν, οὐ πρὸς ἡδονὴν εὔδετα. “Οϑεν ἐπιδεκτικὸν γίνεται τῆς τιμιωτάτης τῷ Θεῷ ψυχῆς τὸ οἰκητήριον τοῦτο A. τ. δ, we AAN οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἡ ψυχὴ φύσει, οὔδε αὖ κακὸν φύσει τὸ σῶμα, οὐδὲ μὴν, ὃ μή ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν, τοῦτο εὐϑδέως κακόν. Eloi γὰρ οὖν καὶ μεσότητες τινες ἌΣ ΤῊ ἂς ©) Clem. Strom. vii. 2, p. 835: Kaxiag δ᾽ αὖ πάντη πάντως ἀναίτιος (ὁ Θεός.) Orig. contra Cels. vi. 55, p. 675 : Ἥμεϊ 02 φαμεν, ὅτι κακὰ μὲν ἢ τὴν κακίαν καὶ τὰς am αὐτῆς πράξεις ὁ Seog οὐκ ἐποίησε. Comp. 11]. 69, p. 492. Nevertheless, he is of opinion that evil is also an object of Divine providence ; comp. de prince. ili. 2, 7. Opp. 1. p. 142. “ Orig. de prine. 1. ὁ. and in Joh. T. ii. c. 7. Opp. iv. p. 65, 66 : Πᾶσα ἡ κακία οὐδὲν ἐστιν (with reference to the word οὐδέν in John i. 3), ἐπεὶ καὶ οὐκ ὃν τυγχάνει. He terms evil ἀνυπόστατον, and the fall μείωσις diminutio), J. Miller, 1. c. p.i. 134, ss. 108 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 8 61. INTERPRETATION OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL. The documents which have been preserved in the five books of Moses form the historical foundation not only ot the doctrine of the creation of the world in general, and of man in particular, but also of the doctrine of the origin of sin, which appears realized in the history of Adam. Some writers, however, rejected the literal inter- pretation of this narrative. Thus Origen (after the exam- ple of Philo)@) regarded it as a type, historically clothed, of that which takes place in moral agents everywhere, and at all tines.) It is difficult to ascertain how far Jre- neus adhered to the letter of the narrative.®) Tertullian unhesitatingly pronounced in favour of its historical in- terpretation.“) Both the Gnostics and the author of the Clementine Homilies rejected this view on dogmatic grounds,() “) Philo perceives in that narrative τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς vide D.hne, p 341, and his essay in the theologische Studien und Krit. 1853, 4th. part. ὦ 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 prince. iv. 16. Opp. 1. 1. p. 174, contra Cels. iv. 40, p. 534. Adam is called man, therefore: "Ey τοῖς δοκοῦσι περὶ τοῦ Adam εἶναι φυσιολογεῖ Μωῦσῆς τὰ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως. .«οὐχ, οὕτως περὶ ἑνός τινος ὡς περὶ ὅλου τοῦ γένους ταῦτα φάσκοντος τοῦ Jeiov λόγου, Concerning the further application of allegorical interpretation to the particulars of the narrative (the act of clothing our first parents in skins as a symbol of spiritual in- vestiture) comp. Meth. in Phot. Bibl. c. 234, and 293. On the other side see Orig. Fragm. in Gen. T. 11. p. 29, where both the literal interpretation is excluded, and the allegorical exposition is called in question. (Comp. Miinscher, ed. by von Colln, i. p. 342.) 8) According to the fragment of Anastasius Sinaita in Mas- INTERPRETATION OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL. 169 suet, p. 844, Zrencus must be understood as having explained the temptation by the serpent (in opposition to the Ophites), πνευματικῶς, not ἱστορικῶς, but it is not evident to what extent he did so. But Irenzeus speaks elsewhere plainly enough of the fall of Adam as an historical fact, ili. 18. (Gr. 20.) p. 211. (Gr. 248.) ili. 21. (Gr. 31.) p. 218. (Gr. 259,) ss. Thus he labours 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” in the sense of ‘ period,” for ‘one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Adam and Eve died during that period on the same day on which they were created, and disobeyed the command of God, viz. on a Friday, adv. heer. v. 23. 2. ® Tert. adv. Judeos, ii. p. 184, de virg. vel. 11, adv. Mare. 11, 2, ss., and other passages. He insists upon the literal inter- pretation of the particulars of the narrative, as they succeeded each other in order of time: 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. 11. 20, p. 488. Gieseler, Studien und Kritiken, 1880, p. 396. Baur, p.211. The author of the Cle- mentine Homilies goes so far in idealizing 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 trespass, but sin makes its first appearance in Cain ; vide Credner, 11. 258, 111. 284. Baur, Gnosis, p. 839. Schliemann, p.177. On the other hand, the Gnostic Cainites rendered homage to Cain as the representative of freedom from the thraldom of the demiurgus; the Sethites considered Cain as the representative of the hylic, Abel as that of the psychical, and Seth as that of the pneumatic principle, as the ideal of humanity. Meander, Kirchengeschichte, 1. 2, p. 758, 759, [translat. i. p. 105, 106. ] 8. 62. STATE OF INNOCENCE AND FALL. The Fathers of the primitive church differed in their opinions concerning the original excellencies of the first 170 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. man,“!) and the nature of his sin.@) But they all believ- ed that the temptation of the serpent was a real tempta- tion to sin, and, accordingly, that the transgression of the Divine commandment was to be considered as a fall from a state of imnocence followed by disastrous effects upon man.) On the contrary, the author of the Clementine Homilies denied that Adam could have sinned,“ and the Ophites thought that by this event man was elevated to his proper dignity, Cat least in one respect, ) and prepared for the enjoyment of full liberty, because the prohibition had proceeded from the jealousy of Jaldabaoth, but the act of disobedience had been brought about by the inter- vention 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, vii. 10. Credner, 11. p. 248, and Baur, p. 363,) which, however, Tertullian de resurr. carn c. 61, also ascribed to him. The Ophites taught that Adam and Eve had light and luminous bodies, see Baur, p. 187. The theolo- gians, previous to the time of Augustine, attached less value to what was afterwards called justitia originalis. According 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. Cle- ment of Alexandria maintains the same, Strom. vi. 12, p. 788 : “They may learn from us (says he in opposition to the Gnostics), that Adam was created a perfect being, not in relation to his moral excellencies, but in respect to his capacity of choosing virtue ; for there is certainly a difference between the aptitude to virtue, and the real possession of it. God will have us to be happy by our own exertions, hence it belongs to the nature of the soul to determine itself, etc.” Comp. Baur, Gnosis, p. 493. He thus limits the original excellencies, Strom. iv. p. 632, to what is purely human, viz. talents: Οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν χαρακτηριζόντων τὴν dvSeurou Osa τε καὶ μορφὴν ἐνεδέησεν αὐτῷ. ὦ) Justin M., attributes the fall mainly to the cunning ma- hignity of Satan, dial. c. Tryph. c. 119, p. 205. A beast (ϑηξίον THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 171 seduced man. On his own part, he added disobedience and credulity ; comp. Semisch, p. 393-94. Clement of Alexandria conceives that it was voluptuousness which caused the fall of the first man. Coh. p. 86: "Opis ἀλληγορεῖγαι ἡδονὴ ἐπὶ γαστέρα ἕρπουσα, κακία γηΐνη εἰς ὕλας τρεφομένη. Comp. Strom. 11. 17, p. 589, (470. Sylb.) Clement does not (like the Encratites whom he com- bats) find fault with the cohabitation of our first parents as a sinful act in itself, but he objects that it took place too soon; this is also implied in the passage Strom. 1. 19, p. 481: Τὰ μὲν αἰσχρὰ οὗτος προϑύμως εἵλετο, ἑπόμενος τῇ γυναικί, © The notion that the tree itself had been the cause of death (its fruit being venomous,) was combated by Theophzl. ad Autol. li. 25: Οὐ γάρ, ὡς οἴονταί τινες, Ddvaroy εἶχε τὸ ξύλον GAN ἡ παρακοή. ® Comp. § 61, note 5. Adam could not sin, because the ϑεθν πνεῦμα, Or the σοφία itself having been manifested in him, the latter must have sinned. But such an assertion would be im- pious. ©) The Ophites confound their own doctrines, for at one time they render Divine homage to the serpent, at another they say, that Kve had been seduced by it. Epiph. Her. 37. 6. Baur, p. 178, ss. g 63. THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. Death was the punishment which God had threatened to inflict upon the transgressors of his laws. Neverthe- less the act of transgression was not immediately suc- ceeded by death, but by a train of evils which came both upon man and woman. Accordingly both death and physical evils were considered as the effects of Adam’s sin; thus, e.g. by Jreneus, and others.) But the opinions of the Fathers were not as yet fully developed concerning the moral depravity of every individual, and the existence of sin in mankind generally, as the effect Ὁ of the sin of the first man. Many felt too much dis- posed to look upon sin as the voluntary act of a moral agent, to conceive of a kind of hereditary tendency 172 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. transmitted from one generation to another. The sinful acts of every individual appeared to them less the neces- sary consequence of the first sin, than a voluntary repe- tition of it.@) In order to explain the mysterious power which almost compels men to sin, they had recourse not so much to original sin, as to a supposed influence of the demons, which, however, cannot constrain any man to tres- pass.) Nevertheless we meet in the writings of Lreneus with passages which show that he believed the effects of the fall to be of greater importance. Tertullian and Origen alike favoured the theory of original sin, but on different grounds. Origen thought that the soul of man was stained with sin even in its former state, and thus enters in a sinful condition into the world. To this idea was added another, which was allied to the notions of Gnostics and Manicheeans, viz. that physical generation is in itself a sinful act.©) According to Tertullian, the soul propagates itself with all its defects and faults, as matter 1s propagated. ‘The phrase “ vitium originis,” (original sin, ) which was first used by him, is in perfect accordance with such a view.) But both were far from considering inherent depravity as constituting account- ability, and still farther from believing in the entire ab- sence of human liberty. Tren. ili. 23, (35 Gr.) p. 221, (263 Gr.): Condemnationem autem transgressionis accepit homo tedia et terrenum laborem et manducare panem in sudore vultus sui et converti in terram, ex qua assumtus est; similiter autem mulier tadia et labores et gemitus et tristitias partus et servitium, ὁ, 6. ut serviret viro suo: ut neque maledicti a Deo in totum perirent, neque sine incre- patione perseverantes Deum contemnerent (comp. c. 37, p. 264, Grabe.) ib. V. 15, p. 311, (423, Grabe.) :......propter inobedien- tiz peccatum subsecuti sunt languores hominibus. V. 17, Ρ. 313,, (p. 426.) Υ. .28,.}.-.820; (Ρ...485) ; Sed quoniam Deus verax est, mendax autem Serpens, de effectu ostensum est morte suhsecuta eos, qui manducaverunt. Simul-enim cum esca et mortem adsciverunt, quoniam inobedientes manducabant: ino- THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. vies: bedientia autem Dei mortem infert, et sqq. (Hence the devil is called a murderer from the beginning.) But Irenzus also re- gards the penalty inflicted by God as a blessing, iii. 20. 1 : Mag- nanimus (2. e, μακρόϑυμος) fuit Deus deficicnte homine, eam que per verbum esset victoriam reddendam ei providens. He com- pares 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 de- liver him out of his jaws. According to Cyprian, de bono pa- tientiz, p. 212, even the higher physical strength of man (along with immortality) was lost by the fall; Orzgen also connected the existence of evil in the world with sin. Comp. above, § 48. ὦ, Though Justin WM. uses strong expressions in complaining of the universal corruption of mankind (dial. 6. Tryph. ο. 95), he does not speak of original sin, and the imputation of Adam’s guilt. Every man deserves death, his disobedience being equal to that of our first parents. Dial. c. Tr. c. 88: "O (scil. γένος ἀν- ρώπων) ἀπὸ rou’ Ada ὑπὸ Sdvarov καὶ πλάνην THY τοῦ ὕρεως ἐπεπτώκει, παρῶὼ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀιτίαν ἑκάστον αὐτῶν πονηρευσοιμένου.Γ. (Οὐ, 124: Οὗτοι (scil. ἄνθρω .- ποι) ὁμοίως rH’ Adam καὶ τῇ Eva ἐζομοιούμενοι Javarov ἑαυτοῦς ἐργά- ζονται, κι τ. A Compare Semisch. 1. ὁ. p. 397-399. See ibid. p- 401, in reference to the difficult passage, dial. c. Tr. c. 100, which many have considered an argument for original sin: TlaeSévog οὖσα Kia καὶ ἄφϑορος τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ δάνατον erexs. According to Clement of Alexan- dria, man now stands in the same relation to the tempter, in which Adam stood prior to the fall, Coh. p. 7: Eis γὰρ ὁ ἀπατεὼν, cvadev μὲν τὴν Ἑὔαν, νῦν δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους aidewrous εἰς ϑάνατον ὑπο- φέρων, comp. Peed. i. 13. 158. 59. Clement indeed admits the universality of sin among men, Peed. ili. 12, p. 807: Τὸ μὲν yde 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- prayed, nor pass a general sweeping judgment upon the whole human race, asif all formed but one vast mass of corruption. None commits iniquity for its own sake, Strom. i. 17, p. 368. But he rejects the doctrine of original sin properly called in the strongest terms, Strom. iil. 16, p. 556, 57: Aeyérwouy ἡμῖν ποῦ ἐπόρ- γευσεν τὸ yewvydev παιδίον, ἢ πῶς ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ "Adaw ὑποπέπτωκεν ἀρὰν τὸ μηδὲν ἐνεργῆσαν. He does not regard the passage, Ps. li. 5, as 46- cisive. (Comp. the above passages on liberty and sin in general. 174 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ®) Athen. leg. c. 25. Tatian contra Gree. c. 7, and the pas- sage quoted, § 58. Besides the influence of Satan, Justin M. also mentions bad education and evil examples, Apol. 1. 61: Ἔν sQeor φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς ἀνοατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν. (Ὁ Trenzeus adv. heer. iv. 41, 2, and other passages quoted by Duncker, p. 132, 8s. According to Duncker, the doctrine of original sin, and hereditary depravity, is so much developed in the writings of Irenzus, “ that the characteristic features of the western scheme may be distinctly recognized.” Trenzeus indeed asserts that man, yielding on his own account to the voice of the tempter, had become a child, disciple, and servant of the devil. He also thinks that, in consequence of the sin of Adam, men are guilty in the sight of God. On the question whether Irenzeus understands by that death which we have inherited, merely physical death, see Duncker, 1. ¢. ©) On the one hand, Origen, by insisting upon the freedom of the human will, forms a strong contrast with Augustine, and maintains that concupiscence in itself is not sinful, as long as it does not produce resolutions ; guilt only arises when we yield to it, de prine. ii. 2.2. Opp. T.i. p. 189. (Red. p. 279,) and i. 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 committed sin in its former condition; de prince. 11. ὅ. Opp. T. i. p. 149,50, (Red. p. 309, ss.)} Concerning the generation of man see Tom. xv. in Matth. § 23. Opp. iii. p. 685. Hom. vii. in Ley. Opp. ii. p. 229, and xii. p. 251: Omnis qui ingreditur hunc mundum in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur (Job xiv. 4, 5.)...... Omnis ergo homo in patre et in matre pollutus est, solus vero Jesus Dominus meus in hance generationem mundus ingressus est, et in matre non est pollutus. Ingressus est enim corpus incontaminatum. © Tert. de anima ὁ. 40: Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Peccatrix autem, quia immunda, recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate, c. 41; he makes use of the phrase vitewm originis, and maintains that man in his present corrupt state has got into the habit of sinning, while his true nature tends to virtue. He therefore distinguishes naturale quo- dammodo from proprie naturale. Quod enim a Deo est, non THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 175 tam extinguitur, quam obumbratur. Potest enim obumbrari, quia non est Deus, extingui non potest, quia a Deo est. ™ That e.g. Tertullian was far from imputing original sin to children as actual transgression, may be seen from his remark- able expression concerning the baptism of infants, de bapt. 18. comp. § 72. and Neander, Antignosticus, p. 209, ss. 455, ss.— His disciple Cyprian also acknowledges inherent depravity, and defends infant-baptism on that ground ; but he does not go far- ther than asserting, that it serves to purify infants from the guilt of others which 1s imputed to them, but not from any guilt which is properly their own. Ep. 64. Comp. Rettberg, p. 317, ss. FOURTH SECTION. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. 8 64. ON CHRISTOLOGY IN GENERAL. Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, Rostock 1860, 8. *Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Christologie. Stuttgardt, 1839. 2nd edit. I. 1, 2. ibid. 1845. I. 3. 1846. Tuer incarnation of the Godman is the principal dog- matic idea of this period. The Fathers of the primitive church regarded it as a manifestation of the free grace of God, as the most glorious of all revelations and develope- ments, and as the perfection and crown of creation, rather than as the mere effect of the sm of man. Thus the Christology of this period forms both the continuation of theology, and the supplement of anthropology. According to Lrenewus Christ has both perfected and restored the nature of man. ‘This is expressed by the terms ἀναχεφαλα, οῦν, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, (ἃ. 6. the repetition, renovation, and restoration of that which formerly existed, the reunion of that which was separated, comp. Suicer, thesaurus, sub voc.) Christ is the essence 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 has become what we are, that we might be what he is, 6. g. 11. 10, 20, and in the Preefatio: Jesus Christus, Dominus noster, prop- ter immensam suam dilectionem factum est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse, quod est ipse. Similar views were en- THE GODMAN. WET tertained by the theologians of the Alexandrian school. On the contrary, Tertullian de carne Christi, 6. 6, thinks that the incarnation of Christ had reference to his later sufferings. Ac- cording to Cyprian, it has become necessary, not so much on account of the sin of Adam, as because of the disobedience of his descendants, on whom former revelations did not produce any effect, (in much the same manner as Heb, i. 1), de idol. van. p. 15: Quod vero Christus sit, et quomodo per ipsum nobis salus venerit, sic est ordo, sic ratio. Judsis primum erat apud Deum gratia. Sic olim jjusti 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 in- flati, dum divina precepta contemnunt, datam sibi gratiam per- diderunt......Nec non Deus ante preedixerat fore, ut vergente sxeculo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex omni gente et populo et loco cultores sibi allegeret Deus malto fideliores et meloris ob- sequii ; qui indulgentiam de divinis muneribus haurirent, quam acceptam Judzi contemtis religionibus perdidissent. Hujus igitur indulgentiz, gratis disciplineque arbiter et magister, sermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro illu- minator et doctor humani generis predicabatur. Hic est virtus Dei, hic ratio, hic sapientia ejus et gloria. Hic in virginemilla- bitur, carnem, Spiritu Sancto co-operante induitur. Deus cum homine miscetur. Hic Deus noster, hic Christus est, qui media- tor duorum, hominem induit, quem perducat ad patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit, ut et homo possit esse quod Chris» tus est. Comp. Rettberg, p. 30d. § 65. THE GODM.N. Together with indefinite and more general expressions concerning the higher nature of Jesus“ and his Mes- sianic character,) we find even in the primitive church allusions to the intimate connection subsisting between his Divine and human natures. But the relation in which they stand to each other, is not exactly defined, nor is the part which either takes in the composition of his person, N 178 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. philosophically determined.) The earlier Fathers en- deavoured on the one hand, to avoid the error of the Ebionites and Artemonites, who considered Jesus only as the son of Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in accordance with the Catholic church, ad- mitted the supernatural conception.)@) On the other, they combated still more decidedly the tendency of the Docetz, who rejected the true humanity of Christ. They also opposed the opinion of Cerinthus and Basili- des, who asserted, that the Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism; the still more fanci- ful notions of Marcion, according to which Christ appear- ed as Deus ex machina ;°) and lastly, the view of Val- entinus, who admitted that Christ was born of Mary, but maintained that he made use of her only as of a channel, by which he entered into this finite world. ἃ) Thus in the letter of PHny to Trajan (Ep. x.97.): Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere.—The usual doxologies, the baptismal formula, and the institution of the Christian festivals, bear wit- ness to the Divine homage paid to Christ, by the primitive church; comp. Dorner, 1. ὁ. p. 273,ss. The superior excellency of his doctrine elevates Christ over the rest of mankind (accord- ing to Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 14.): Bearers δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν" οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις Θεοῦ 6 λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν, and this human wisdom would be sufficient by itself (according to c. 22.), to secure to Jesus the predicate of the Son of God, even though he were nothing but a mereman. But he is more than this: ibidem. Origen also points to the extraordi- nary 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. 1. p. 347, (in relation to Plato de rep. 1. p. 329, and Plutarch in vita Themistoclis.)—‘ Jesus, the meanest and humblest of all Seriphii, yet caused a greater commotion in the world, than either Themistocles or Pythagoras, or Plato, yea 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 GODMAN. 17 the world! c. 30. (He reasons altogether like modern apolo- gists.) Minucius Felix does not go beyond the negative defini- tion, that Jesus was more thana mere man; generally speaking, we find in his writings little or nothing of positive Christology ; Octav. 29. § 2. 3. (comp. with 9. 5.): Nam quod religioni nostre hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum. Ne 1116 miserabilis, cujusin homine mortali spes omnis innititur ; totum enim ejus auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. Comp. Novatian de trin. 14: Si homo tantum- modo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledictareferatur ? Concerning the christological views of the apostolical Fathers, see Dorner, |. c. p. 144, ss. ® Justin M. Apol. i. 5. 80, ss. dial. 6. Tr. the whole context. Novatian de trin. 6. 9. Orig. contra Cels. in various places. ©) Thus Justin M. defended on the one hand the birth of Christ from the virgin in opposition to the Ebionites, and on the other, his true humanity in opposition to the Gnosties, dial. ὁ. Tryph. 6. 54: On ἔστιν ὁ Xe, cwSewmos ἐξ avSourwv, κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἀνδοώπων yewnreic. ΑΡο]. 1. 46: Διὰ δυνάμεως τοῦ λόγου κατὰ τῆν τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου “γεοῦ βουλὴν διὰ παρϑένου ἄνδρωπος ἀπεκυήϑη. Comp. Semisch, i. p. 403, ss, ren. 1. 16, (18 Gr.) 18. (20 Gr.) p. 211, (248 Gr.) : Ἥνωσεν οὖν, καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνϑρωπον σῷ Θεῷ ΛΈΤΕ ἘΠ μὴ συνηνώδη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήϑη μετασχ εἶν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. "Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ re καὶ ἀνγοώπων διὰ ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκα- φέρους οἰκειότητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνγρωπον, ἀν) ρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι Θεόν. ς, 19, (21.) p. 212. 18, (250.) : “Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνλρωπος ἵνα πειρασλῇ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος, ἵνω δο- Eaodn ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσδαι.....«νννννς καὶ σταυροῦσϑαι καὶ ἀπολνήσκειν' συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ avSoumw ἐν τῷ νικᾶν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσϑγαι καὶ ἀνίστασγαι καὶ ἀνωολαμβάνεσδαι. ITrenceus also advo- cates the true humanity of the Saviour, in opposition to the Do- cet, and his true divinity in opposition to the Ebionites. Ag Adam had no human father, so Christ is begotten without the instrumentality of a man; as the former was formed of pure (vir- ginal) soil, so the latter is born of a pure virgin. On the one hand, we have the sinful flesh of Adam, on the other a sinless one, on the one hand, the homo Ψυχικὸς, on the other the ἢ. πνευματικός, 11. 21,10. Duneker, p. 218, gs. Comp. Wovatian, de trin. c. 18. Quoniam si ad hominem veniebat, ut mediator 180 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Dei et hominum esse deberet, oportuit illum cum eo esse et ver- bum carnem fier}, ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet. ter- renorum pariter atque colestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora, et Deum homini et hominem Deo copularet, ut merito filius Dei per assumtionem carnis filius hominis, et filius hominis per receptionem Dei verbi filius Dei effici possit. Hoe altissimum atque reconditnm sacramentum ad salutem gen- eris humani ante szecula destinatum, in Domino Jesu Christo Deo et homine invenitur impleri, quo conditio generis humani ad fructum sterne salutis posset adduci. Comp. § 23, 24, and ὃ 42, note 1. On the mild manner in which Justin M. dial. c. Tryph. § 48, and Origen (in Matth T. xvi. ὁ. 12. Opp. iti. p. 732, comparison with the blind man, Mark x. 46,) judged of the view of the Ebionites, see Neander, Kir- chengeschichte, i. p. 616, 17. [transl. ii. p. 12, 13.] But Origen expresses himself in stronger terms in Hom. xv. in Jerem. 1b. p. 226: ᾽᾿Ετόλμησαν γὰρ μετὰ τῶν πολλῶν τῶν aVSeWTiVeN κακῶν καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὅτι οὔκ ἐστι Ibe ὁ μονογενὴς ὁ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ ὃς τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχει ex ἄνδρωπον. The common Ebionites them- selves supposed that a higher power had united itself with the man Jesus at his baptism. The Ebionites, whose views are re- presented by the Clementine Homilies, differed from the for- mer, by asserting that Jesus had from the beginning been per- vaded with the said. power; in their opinion he ranks with Adam, Enoch, and Moses, comp. Schleimann, p. 200, ss., 483, ss. Concerning the birth from the virgin, it is worthy of observa- tion, that the primitive church had no doubts about the pro- priety of adducing analogies with pagan myths as a kind of evi- dence, though the reality of the fact was admitted. Thus Orig. contra Cels. 1. 37. Opp. T. i. p. 855. (Plato a son of Apollo and of Amphictione); at the same place an analogy is drawn from nature in opposition to the blasphemy of Celsus, ο, 82. p. 350, comp. however, ὁ. 67, p. 381. # © Against the Docetz comp. the Epistles of Jgnatius, espe- cially ad Smyrn. 2. and 3. ad Ephes. 7. 18. ad Trall. 9, also the aforecited passage of Irenzeus, and with it Tert. adv. Mare. and a 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 earher recensions, and one reads: qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virg. | FURTHER DEVELOPEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 181 de carne Christi; Novatian de trin. c. 10: Neque igitur eum hereticorum agnoscimus Christum, qui in imagine (ut dicitur) fuit, et non in veritate; nihil verum corum que gessit, fecerit, si ipse phantasma et non veritas fuit. Some have thought that there isa leaning towards Docetism in the epistle of Barnabas, c. 5. But we have there the same idea of the κρύψεις which oc- curs in later times, e.g. in the (apocryphal) oration of Thad- deus to Abgarus apud Huseb. 1. 13: ᾿Εσμίκρυνεν αὐτοῦ τὴν “εότητα, and elsewhere. (δ) Tertull. de carne Christi, c. 2: Odit moras Marcion, qui subito Christum de ceelis deferebat. / Adv. Marc. iii. 2: Subito filius, et subito missus, et subito Christus iv. 11 : Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, que suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. 7 Καθάπερ ὕδωρ διὼ σωλῆνος ὁδεύει, comp. Neander, gnost. Systeme, p. 196, ss. On the Docetism of the Gnostics in general, see Baur, p- 258, ss.: “ Baszlides ts nearest to the orthodox view, Marcion departs farthest from it, and Valentinus, with his psychical Christ, occupies an intermediate position.” 8 66. FURTHER DEVELOPEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE. * Gieseler, J. C. L., Commentatio, qua Clementis Alexandrini et Origenis doctrine de corpore Christi exponuntur, Gotung. 1837. 4. Though the doctrine of the Cathclic church, in oppo- sition to the aforesaid heretical theories, rested upon the sumple declaration of John : ὁ λόγορ σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and thus pre- served the idea of the Godman which is peculiar to Christ- ianity, in the necessary connection between the Divine and the human,\)) yet it was modified by the influence of various dispositions of mind and modes of thinking. Thus it is not quite evident from the phraseology of the earliest Fathers prior to the time of Origen@) (with the exception of Irenaeus) and Tertullian,“ (whether they thought that the soul of Jesus formed a part of his humanity or not. Nor does Clement of Alexandria make a strict distinction 182 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. between the human and Divine natures of Christ. Concerning his body the theologians of the Alexandrian school adopted views, which were closely allied to those of the Docetz, although they opposed the grosser forms of Docetism. Clement maintained that the body of Jesus was not subject to the accidents of the external world with the same physical necessity as other human bodies, (Ὁ) and Origen went so far as to ascribe to it the property of appearing to different persons under differ- ent forms.) On the other hand, he was very clear and decided on the doctrine of the human soul of Christ, (8) and, generally speaking, he speculated more than his pre- decessors on the mystery of Christ’s incarnation.) He also first made use of the expression ϑεάνθρωπος. (10) ) Novat, de trin. c.10: Non est ergo in unam partem in- clinandum et ab alia parte fugiendum, quoniam nec tenebit per- fectam veritatem, quisquis aliquam veritatis excluserit portio- nem. ‘Tam enim scriptura etiam Deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat Deum, ete. (2) According to Justin M., Christ had a soul, but not a νοῦς. Its place was supplied by the λόγος. In his opinion, Christ is composed of λόγος, ψυχή, and σῶμα, Apol. min. c. 10, comp. Se- θα Ρ. 410. ὅ Duncker endeavours to prove from the passages quoted by a especially i. 22.1; v. 6.1, that Zreneus taught the per- fect humanity of Christ as regards body, soul, and spirit; he also adduces the passage v. 1. 3, to which others have eMakes the opposite sense. (Ὁ 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 animes, cf. de carne Christi ὁ. 11-13: Non po- terat Christus inter homines nisi homo videri. Redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut qui homo voluerit incedere animam quo- que humane conditionis ostenderit, non faciens eam carneam, 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 Miinscher von Colln i. Ρ. 261-63. FURTHER DEVELOPEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 183 ©) He indulges in harsh contrasts, such as Coh. p. 6, and p. 84: Πίστευσον, ἄνϑρωπε, dvIewrw καὶ Θεῷ" πίστευσον, dyYoume, TH παϑόντι καὶ προσ- κυνουμένῳ Θεῷ Φῶντι" πιστεύσατε, οἱ δοῦλοι, τῷ νεκρῷ" πάντες ἄνϑρωποι, πιστεύ- TUTE μόνῳ τῷ πάντων ον)ρώπων Θεῷ" πιστεύσατε καὶ μισλὸν 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 should be used only in reference to his human nature ; on the contrary, Peed. i. 7, p. 181, he says: ‘0 δὲ ἡμέτερος παιδαγωγὸς ἅγιος ϑεὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὁ πάσης τῆς cvIewrirnros καϑηγεμὼν λόγος. He also applies the subject, ὁ λόγος to his humanity, Peed. 1.6, p. 124: Ο λόγος τὸ αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐξέχεεν αἷμα, comp. iil. 1. p. 251, and Gieseler, 1. 6. Nova- tian, (c. 18, ss.) who lived towards the close of this period, se- parates the Divine from the human nature in Christ with more distinctness, and strongly opposes every attempt at idolizing his humanity, Patripassianism, ete. Ὁ) Peed. ili. -2, p. 186, (Sylb. 158,) he most decidedly main- tains, in opposition to the Docetz, that Jesus ate and drank like other men, but very moderately ; comp. Strom. vii. 17, p. 900, where he calls the Docete heretics ; hence the charge which Photius (Bibl. Cod. 109.) brought forward against him, viz. that the doctrine of a phantom is propounded in his work entitled the Hypotyposes (μὴ cagnw Sivas τὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ δόξαι,) is justly con- sidered as unfounded. Comp. however Miinscher ed. by von Colln, 1. p. 258.) But, after all, Clement refines the human body of Jesus to little more than a kind of phantom, Strom. vi. 9, p. 775. (Sylb. p. 158, given by Gieseler, 1. ὁ. p. 12,) where he regards the eating and drinking of our Lord only as an accom- modation to human nature, and calls it even ridiculous (γέλως) to think otherwise; for according to him the body of Jesus was sustained by a Divine power, but not by meats and drinks. Cle- ment admits that his body was bruised and died, but he main- tains that his sufferings were only apparent, inasmuch as the Redeemer when on the cross, felt no pains; comp. Ped. i. ὁ. 5, p. 112, and Gieseler on that pass. p. 13. Clement also teaches that his Divine nature was veiled during his manifestation (x20) in the flesh, Strom. vii. 2, p. 833, though he does not use these very words. In accordance with such sentiments, he asserts that Jesus was deformed, Peed. ii. 1. sub finem, p. 252, because he could not otherwise explain Is. 111|., while, on the other hand, he elevates the body of Jesus far above all other organisms. ‘The 184 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Saviour did not manifest himself by that beauty of the flesh which strikes the senses, but by the beauty of the soul, and the true beauty of the body, viz. immortality. The same supposition is made by Tertullian, de carne Christi, c. 9.: Adeo nec huma- nze honestatis corpus fuit, nedum ccelestis claritatis. ‘The as- sumption of the uninterrupted virginity of Mary, Strom. vil. 16, p- 889-890., and the (apocryphal) passage there cited : Teroxev καὶ od τέτοκεν, may be traced to the same docetic tendency. Dif- ferent views are entertained by Tertudl. de carne Christi, sub finem, who nevertheless quotes the same dictum. ™ Gennadius de dogm. eccles. 6. 2, incorrectly numbers Ori- gen among those, qui Christum carnem de ccelo secum afferre contenderint: but his doctrine too is not quite free from Do- cetism. It is most fully givenin the Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. preserved by Pamphilus; comp. Gieseler, 1. c. p. 16, 17, and coutra Cels. 1.69, 70. Opp. i. p. 383, 84, (ibid. 1. 42, p. 474,) de prince. i. 6, § 6. Hom. in Gen. i. Opp. i. p. 55: Non equal- ter omnes, qui vident, illuminantur a Christo, sed singuli secun- dum eam mensuram illuminantur, qua vim luminis recipere va- lent. [Ὁ sicut non eequaliter oculi corporis nostri illuminantur a sole, sed quanto quis in loca altiora conscenderit, et ortum ejus editioris specule intuitione fuerit contemplatus, tanto am- plius 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 assumption he con- nects the transfiguration on the mount, contra Cels. 11. 64. Opp. 1. p. 485, and Comment. in Matth. Opp. in. p. 906. Gieseler, p. 1, ss., comp. contra Cels. iv. 16, p. S511: Evot yag διάφοροι οἱονεὶ τοῦ λόγου μορφαὶ, rads ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰς ἐπιστήμην ἀγομένων φαίνεται ὁ λόγος, ἀνάλογον τῇ ἕξει τοῦ εἰσωγομένον, ἢ ἐπ᾽ ὁλίγον προχόπτοντος, ἢ ἐπὶ πλεῖόν, ἢ καὶ ἐγγὺς ἤδη γινομένου τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἢ καὶ ἐν cavern γεγενημένου. : '8) De prince. iv. 31: Volens Filius Dei pro salute generis hu- mani 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 voluntates et dispensationes verbi ae sapientiz indeclinabiliter possit implere. (Joh. 10. 18; 12. 27. Matth. 26. 28.) Comp. contra Cels, 11. 9, quoted by Munscher, ed. by von Colln, i. p. 263, where he in- FURTHER DEVELOPEMENT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 185 fers the human soul of the Saviour from Matth. 26. 38. Origen’s theory of the pre-existence of the soul would easily induce him to ask, why the Son of God assumed this very soul, and not any other ? comp. contra Cels. 1.32. (Opp. i. p. 350.) de prine. 11. 6. 3. quoted by Miinscher, p. 265, ss. According to Soerat. iii. 7, the Synod of Bostra, (a. vp. 240,) defended the proposition: ἐωψυχον εἶναι τὸν ἐναν) ωὠπήσαντα in opposition to Beryllus. On the christological views of Origen in general, see Dorner, 11. 2, p. 942, ss. © Origen obsérves that a twofold error ought to be guarded against: (1.) that of excluding the, Logos from Christ; as if the eternal Logos and the historical Christ were two distinct, sepa- rate individuals ; (2.) that of confounding the former with the latter, as if he did not exist apart from him, de prince. iv. c. 30: ...Non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis ejus majestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne ver- bum Dei et sapientia ejus ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit, vel intra corporis ejus coércita et conscripta brevitatem, nec usquam preterea putetur operata: sed inter utrumque causa pietatis esse debet confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur, et nulla penitus a pater- na substantia, quae 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. 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 had laid aside his glory, in Jerem. hom. x. 7. (Opp. 1. p. 186.) ‘The Father is the light as such, the Son is the light which shines in dark- ness, comp. Comm. in Joh. 11. 18.( Opp. iv. p. 76.) and de prince. i. 28. The humanity of Christ has ceased to exist after his as- cension, comp. hom, in Jerem. xv. (Opp. ui. p. 226.: Εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνδρωπος (ὁ σωτὴρ), ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος. Comp. hom. in Luc. xxix: (Opp. 11. p. 967): Tunc homo fuit, nune autem homo esse cessavit. See Dorner, 1. ὁ. p. 671, ss. Thomasius, p- 202, ss. (0) See Dorner, 1. 6. p. 679, note 40. The phrase in question occurs (for aught we know) only in the Latin translation of hom. in Eizech. ii, 3. (Deus homo) ; but it is implied in other passages, 180 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. 6. g., contra Cels. i. 29; vil. 17. Comp. Thomasius, p. 203, note c. The Greek term was first Carats by Chrysostom, see Suzcer 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 C. LZ. Miiller, de resurrectione Jesu Christi vitainn eam excipiente et ascensu in ccelum, sententiew, que in ecclesia christiana ad finem usque seculi sexti viguerunt. Havnie, 1836, 8. p. 77. Some expressions of Irenzus and Tertullian are somewhat modified, p. 78. But Origen taught in more definite terms, c. Cels. ii. ο. 62. Opp. i. Ρ. 434, that the body of Jesus had undergone a change, and, in support of his opinion, appealed to his miraculous appearance, when the doors were shut: Kal ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὦ wigst iy μεϑορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτη- Tos τοῦ ie σοῦ πάϑους σώματος καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτου σώματος φαίνεσϑα, Puy ἥν. ΟΣ ue Gas 65, p- 436: Toy μηκέτι ἔχοντά Th χωρητὸν ἜΘΟΣ σοῖς σολλοῖς, οὖ, οἷοί σι: ἦσαν αὐτὸν βλέπειν οἱ σρότερον αὐφὸν ἰδόντες πάντες .. . λωμσροτέρα γὰρ THY οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος ἡ Θειόφης ἦν aveov. Miiller, p. 83. ὌΝ does not seem to have believed that the ascension of Christ had effected a further change ; for probably he understands by the ethereal body, which he as- cribes 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. Miiller, p. 82, and p. 131. § 67. THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. Uimann, iber die Siindlosigkeit Jesu, 5th edit. Hamb. 1846. [Ulmann on the Sinless Character of Jesus, in Clark’s Student’s Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] Fritzsche, de ἀναμαρτησίῳ Jesu Christi, Comment. iv. comp. ὃ 17. The intimate connection subsisting between the Di- vine and human natures of Christ, which was held even by the primitive church, excluded every idea of the ex- istence of sin in him, who was the image of the Deity. Hence Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen assert the sinlessness (anamartesia) of Jesus in the strongest terms,!) and even those of the Fathers who do not ex- THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST. 187 pressly mention it, at least presuppose it. In the scheme of the Ebionites and Artemonites, this sinlessness was not a necessary feature of his character, although we do not meet with any intimations to the contrary. On the other hand Basilides found it difficult to reconcile the sinlessness of Christ with his system, according to which every sufferer bears the punishments of his own sins, though he used every possible means to conceal this de- fect in his scheme.() Justin M. dial. c. Tr. ὃ 11, 17, 110, et al. Zren. in the next δ, Tert. de anima cap.41: Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato Christus, quia et Deus Christus. Clem. Al. in- fers (Pad. i. 2. p. 99,) the prerogative of Christ to be the judge ofall men, from his sinlessness. In Peed. iii. 12, p. 307, he speaks indeed of the Logos being 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 re- garded Jesus as sinless, which is confirmed by what he says, Strom. vil. 12, p. 875. (Sylb. 742): Evs μὲν οὖν μόνος ὁ ἀνεπιλύμητος (which implies still more than ἀναμάρτητος) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κύριος͵ ὁ φιλάν- Sowmos, ὁ καὶ δ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος. Concerning Origen, comp. § 63, note 5. Hom. xii. in Ley. 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 endeavours to remove — the difficulty which arises when we assume the absolute sinless- ness of our Lord, in opposition to the assumption of a free spi- ritual developement. Verum quoniam bonimaliqueeligendi facul- tas omnibus presto est, hec anima, que Christi est, ita elegit dili- gerejustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhereret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inextinguibilis calor omnem sensumcon- versionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu jam, versum sit in naturam: ita et fuisse quidem in Christo humana et rationabilis anima credenda est, et nullum sensum vel possibilitatem eam putandum est ha- buisse peccati (simile of an iron which is always exposed to fire.) Christ possesses sinlessness as something peculiar to himself; Sicut vas ipsum, quod substantiam continet unguenti, nullo ge- nere potest aliquid recipere fcetoris: hi vero qui ea odore ejus 188 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant feetorem, ita Christus velut vas ipsum, in quo eratunguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut con- trariam reciperet odorem. Participes vero ejus quam proximl fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes et capaces. Comp. contra Cels. 1. 69. Opp. 1. p. 883: Διὸ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ μέγαν ἀγωνιστὴν αὐτόν φαμεν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἀν)ρώπινον σῶμα, πεπειρασμένον μεν ὁμοίως πᾶσιν ἀνηρώποις HUTA πάντα, οὐκέτι δὲ ὡς ἄνδρωποι ὠετὰ ἁμαρτίας, arid πάντη χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. (Hebr. iv, 15, where 1 Pet. il. 22, and 2 Cor. v. 21 are also quoted.) The term ἀναμάρτητος first occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (Gallandii, bibl. 11. p. 466.) © Comp. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 600. (Sylb. 506,) and Neander, Gnost. Syst. p. 49, ss. Baur, Versohnungslehre, p. 24. § 68. ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT, (The Death of Christ.) Dissertatio historiam doctrine de redemtione ecclesia, sanguine Jesu Christi facta exhibens, in Cotta’s edition of Gerhard’s loci theologici. T. iv. p. 105-132. W. C. ZL. Ziegler, historia dogmatis de redemtione, etc. inde ab ecclesia primordiis usque ad Lutheri tempora, Gott. 1791. (in comment. theol. ed. A. Velthusen, T. v. p. 227, seq.) *Bahr, K. die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, Sulzb. 1832, reviewed in the neue Kirchenzeitung 1883, No. 36. Baur, fF, Ch, die christliche Lehre von dev Verséhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von der Altesten bis auf die neueste Zeit, Tiibingen 1838, (p. 1-67.) The tendency of Christ’s appearance on earth, as such, was to redeem men from sin, and to reconcile them to God, inasmuch as it destroyed the power of the devil, and restored the harmony of the human nature.) But in accordance with the doctrine preached by the Apostles, the sufferings and death of Christ were from the com- mencement thought to be of principal importance in the work of redemption. The Fathers of the primitive church regarded his death as a sacrifice and ransom (λύτρον), and therefore ascribed to his blood the power of cleansing from sin and guilt,©) and attached a high im- ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 189 portance, sometimes even a supernatural efficacy to the sign of the cross.@) They did not, however, rest satis- fied with vague and indefinite ideas, but, in connection with the prevailing notions of the age, they further de- veloped the above doctrine, and represented the death of Christ as the actual victory over the devil, the restoration of the Divine image, and the source and condition of all happiness. But, however, decidedly and victoriously this enthusiastic faith in the power of the Redeemer’s death manifested itself in the writings and lives of the Fathers, as well as in the persecutions and death of so many Christians, yet that theory of satisfaction had not then been formed, which represents Christ as satisfying the justice of God by suffering in the room of the sinner the punishment due to him. Theterm “satisfactio,” occurs indeed in the writings of Tertullian, but in a sense essen-_— tially different from, and even opposed to the idea of a sacrifice made by a substetute.5) That the design of the death of Christ was to reconcile man to God, was an opi- nion held by more than one of the Fathers in connection with other doctrines. Origen himself not only developed both the notion that the devil had been outwitted, and the idea of a sacrifice founded upon the typical language of the Old Testament, but also decided in favour of the moral interpretation of Christ’s death, which he did not hesitate to compare with the heroic death of other great men of antiquity.” He also ascribed somewhat of the effects of an atonement to the death of the martyrs, as Clement had done before him.) And, lastly, he understood the death of Jesus in an idealistic sense, as an event which is not limited to this world nor to one single moment of time, but which has come to pass in heaven as well as on earth, embraces all ages, and is also of infinite importance to the other world.©) ® « Christianity is not only the religion of redemption, inas- much as it realizes ihe idea of the union of the Divine and ihe 190 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. human in the person of the Godman, but also the religion of com- plete and absolute reconciliation.” Baur, 1. α. p.5. Concerning the relation in which redemption stands to reconciliation, ibid. On negative and positive redemption, see Neander, Kircheng. i. p- 1070, [transl. ii. p. 310.] According to Justin M., the reno- vation and restoration of mankind is brought about by the doc- trine of Christ. Apol. I. 28 : Γενόμενος ἄνθοωπος ταῦτα ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνδρωπείους γένους. Comp. Apol. IL. 6. Coh. ad Gree. 38. dial. c. Tryph. § 12] ; ὃ 83, and § 30: ᾿Απὸ yao τῶν δαιμονίων, ἅ ἐστιν ἀλλότρια τῆς “εοσεβείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἷς πάλαι προσ- εχυνοῦμεν, τὸν Θεὸν ἀεὶ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ συντηρηϑδῆναι παρακαλοῦμεν ἵνα μετὰ rb ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς Θεὸν δ αὐτοῦ ἄμωμοι ὦμεν, Βοηϑὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖνον καὶ λυτοω- THY καλοῦμεν" οὗ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος ἰσχὺν καὶ τὸ δαιμόνια τρέμει, κ. T. δι Trencus speaks rather of the positive aspect, 11. 18. (20.) 20. (22.) p. 214...... Filius hominis factus est, ut assuesceret homi- nem percipere Deum et assuesceret Deum habitare in homine, sec. placitum Patris. The work of redemption was carried on through all the stages of life which Christ represented in him- self, so that death appears as the crown of the entire work, i. 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 omnem venit eta- tem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in par- vulis parvulus, sanctificans hance ipsam habentes etatem, simul, et exemplum illis pictatis effectus et justitiz et subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Do- mino; sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et se- cundum etatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit pri- mogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, prin- ceps vite, prior omnium et preecedens omnes. Comp. v. 16.— Comp. Tert. adv. Marc. 12. Clem. Coh. p. 6, p. 23: Ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ὀργῆς ϑρέμματα ἔτι, οἱ τῆς πλάνης ἀπεσπασμένοι, ἀΐσσοντες Oz ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλή- σαν. Ταύτη ror ἡμεῖς, οἱ τῆς ἀνομίας υἱοί ποτε, διὰ τὴν Φιλανϑρωπίαν τοῦ λόγου νῦν υἱοὶ γεγόναμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Peed. 1, 2, p- 100 : Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ παι- δαγωγὸς ἡμῶν λόγος διὰ παραινέσεων δεραπευτικὸς τῶν παρὸ φύσιν τῆς ψυχῆς παϑῶν... λόγος δὲ ὁ πατρικὸς μόνος ἐστὶν αἀνδροωπίνων ἰατρὸς ἀῤῥωστημάτων παιώνιος καὶ ἐπῳδὸς ἅγιος νοσούσης ψυχῆς. Comp.i. 9, p. 147, 1. 12, p- 158, quis div. salv. p. 951, ὅ2. (Comparison with the merci- ful Samaritan.) Origen also (contra Cels. in. 28. Opp. 1. p. ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 191 δὴ 465,) perceives in the union of the Divine and the human in Christ the commencement of an intimate connection between the one and the other, which is progressively developed in mankind : "Ori ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο Sela καὶ avSowmivy συνυφαίνεσδαι φύσις" ἵν᾿ ἡ ἀν)ρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ “ειότερον χοινωνίᾳ γένηται Sela οὐκ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μετὼ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἀναλαμβάνουσι βίον, ὃν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξεν. © Barn. 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. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. 1. ο. 7: ᾿Ατενίσωμεν εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἴδωμεν, ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ Seq (cla) αὐτοῦ, ὅτι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐχιχυθὲν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ μετανοίας χάριν ὑπήνεγκεν, Comp. 1. 6. 2, where the παϑήματα αὐτοῦ grammatically refer to Θεὸς. (Mohler, Patro- logy, i. p. 61.) Ign. ad Smyrn. 6: Μηδεὶς πλανάσϑδω. Kal τὼ ἐπου- ράνια καὶ ἡ δόξα τῶν ἀγγέλων, καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ὁρατοί τε καὶ ἀόρατοι, ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἵμα Χριστοῦ, κἀκείνοις κρίσις ἐστι. (He also defended the reality of his bodily sufferings in opposition to the Docetz, c. 2.) Comp. Héfling, die Lehre der Apostolischen Vater vom Opfer im christlichen Cultus, 1841. According to Justin M,, the design of Christ’s incarnation is his sufferings for the good of mankind, Apol. 1. 18; A? ἡμᾶς ἄνδρωπος γέγονεν, ὅπως καὶ τῶν ποδῶν σῶν ἡμετέρων συωμέτοχος γενόμενος καὶ ἴασιν ποιήσηται, Comp. Apol. i. 32; Al αἵματος καϑαίρων τοὺς πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ, 1. 633 dial. ὁ. Tryp. § 40-43, and § 95. Justin also calls the death of Jesus a sacri- fice (προσφοράν), comp. the passages quoted by Bahr, p. 42, and Semisch, 11. p. 418, ss. The writings of Clement of Alexandria also abound with passages relative to the efficacy of the death of Jesus, Coh. p. 86, comp. Bahr, 1. c. p. 76, ibid. 88. Ped. i. 9, p. 148, ii. 2, p. 177, (διττὸν τὸ aiwa τοῦ κυρίου), and other passages. A mystical interpretation of the crown of thorns, Peed. 11. 8, p. 214, 15, (with reference to Hebr. 1x. 22), a passage which Bahr has overlooked. In the treatise qu. dives salvus 34, p. 954, the phrase occurs: aid Θεοῦ παιδὸς (not παιδὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ) ; hence the assertion of Bahr (p. 116,) that the Lutheran phrase “ the blood of God,” would have met with opposition on the part of all the a ‘* Inferences may be drawn from these sentiments of Origen, which are not in accordance with the simple truth of Scripture; but they may also be so interpreted as to agree with the example of wholesome doctrine. The lat- ter is undoubtedly better and more charitable than the former.” Mosheim, transl. p. 297. \/ 192 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Fathers of this period, cannot be admitted in its full extent. Concerning 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 priestly office of Christ in an ideal sense to the Logos, without any reference to the death which he suffered in his human nature, comp. Béhr, p. 81. ®) The fact that the heathen charged the Christians with ren- dering homage to all that were crucified, (Orig. c. Cels. ἢ. 47. Opp. 1. 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 allegorists concerning the blood of Christ, comp. § 29, note 8. On the ef- fects of the cross upon the demons, see § 52, note 4. () « The notion that the death of Christ represented the vic- tory over the devil, was so agreeable to the entire circle of ideas in which these times moved, that it was very dificult to abandon tt.” Baur, 1. 6. p. 28. He also maintains that this mode of consider- ing the death of Christ was transferred from the Gnostics to the church by simply converting the person of the demiurgus into that of the devil. (2) Itis represented in this period by Zreneus. His train of reasoning 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 delivers men by rendering perfect obedience 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 (2. 6. according to Baur, |. c., the devil was himself convinced of the justice of the manner in which he was treated.) But Duncker, p. 237, refers 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. The devil had indeed employed suadela (persuasion) in relation to man, but force in relation to God. Since man voluntarily abandoned the service of the devil, as he had vo- luntarily placed himself under his sway, the judicial rela- tion in which God stands to man was restored, comp. Iren. ady. Heer. v. 1. 1. From this he infers the necessity of the Saviour’s twofold nature (the more Irenzous in this particular point de- parts from the prevailing notion of the age, the more his views approach those of Anselm in a later period) il. 18.7: “Ἡνωσεν τὸν ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. 193 dvsewro τῷ de. El γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησε τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀν)ρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήϑη ὁ ἐχϑϑρός, comp. V. 21. 8. iii. 19. 3: Ὥστερ yag ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασϑῆ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασλῇ, etc. (comp. § 65, note 3.) Both the perfect obedience of Christ, and the shed- ding of his blood as a ransom (v. 1. 1.: Τῷ ἰδίῳ οὖν aiwari λυτρω- σαμένου ἡμᾶς τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ σὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὠντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν, etc.) form in the system of Irenzeus the negative aspect of the doctrine of redemption, to which is added the positive one, the communication of a new principle of life, mi. 23. 7. Comp. Baur, 1. c. p. 30-42. Bahr, Ρ. 99-72. On the other hand, the idea of a sacrifice is in his writings kept in the background, see Duncker, p. 252. " On the peculiar usage of the term satisfactio, comp. Miinscher, Handb. i. p. 229, 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 wri- tings, Apol. 1. 63; dial. c. Tryph. ὃ 88, and other passages quoted by Semisch. The curse under which Christ was laid, was only apparent, dial. c. Tryph. § 90, 93, 95, 96. From Tert. de pen. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, de pat. 13, de pud. 9, it is evident “ that he ap- plies the term satisfacere to such as make amends for their own sins by confession and repentance which shows itself by works ;” but he never understands by it satisfactio vicaria in the sense which was afterwards attached to it. That Tertulhan was far from entertaining such notions, may be proved from de cultu fem. 1. 1, and the interpretation which he gives to Gal. ui. 18, contra Judzos 10; he there represents the crime that had been committed, asa 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 [renzus, ibid. p. 100-104. ©) Origen held both these notions, that of Irenzeus concern- ing the victory over the devil, which he however represented ag an act of deception on the part of God, and that of a voluntary sacrifice. But the latter is not made to satisfy the claims of justice, but must be attributed to the love of God. Comp. Baur, p. 43-67. Bdhr, p. 111, ss. Thomasius, p. 214, ss. His in- terpretation of Is. lili. 3, comes nearest to the view entertained in later times by Anselm, Comment. in Joh. Tom. 28, 14. Opp. . ο 194 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. iv. p. 892, Bahr, p. 151. But Origen departs from the eccle- siastical doctrine of satisfaction in the manner in which he ex- plains, e. g., the sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, and the exclamation of Christ on the cross: My God, my God, ete. Bahr, p. 147-149. @ Comp. the 19. Tom. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 286. and the pas- sage before quoted from the 28. Tom. p. 393, contra Cels. 1. 1, p. 349: "Orr ὁ σταυρωδεὶς ἑκὼν τοῦτον τὸν Savaroy ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν ἀν) ρώπων γένους ἀνεδέξατο, ὠνάλογον τοῖς ἀπολανοῦσι ὑπὲρ πατρίδων ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ κρατήσαντα καταστήματα ἢ ἀφυρίας ἢ δυσπλοίας. These human sacri- fices 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 translation 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 concerning the death of Christ. He also compares the death of Jesus with that of So- crates, contra Cels. 11. 17. Opp. 1. p. 403, 4, and regards it as a moral lever to strengthen the courage of his followers, ibid. 40- 42, p. 418, 19. ® Clement already believed that the death of the martyrs in some degree atoned for sin, Strom. iv. 9, p. 596, comp. p. 602. 3, likewise Orig. Comm. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 153, 54, exhort. ad Martyr. 50. Opp. 1. Ῥ. 309: Τάχα o¢ χαὶ ὥσπερ σιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἠγυράσϑημεν....... οὕτως τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγορασϑήσονταί TIVES. 8) This view rests upon Col. 1. 20. Comment. in Joh. 1. 40. Opp. lv. p: 41, 42: Οὐ μόνον ὑπὲρ ἀνδρώπων ἀπέϑανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν λοιπῶν λογικῶν. De prince. iv. 25. Opp. 1. Ρ- 188Θ, (ρα. Daa 9, and 364.) There are two altars on which sacrifice is made, an earthly and a heavenly one, Hom. in Lev.i. 86. Opp. 1. p. 186. 11. 3. ibid. p. 190, comp. Bahr, p. 119, 8s. Bdur, p. 64. Tho- masius, p. 214-217. Redepenning, Orig. u. p. 463. @ But it should not be overlooked that Origen immediately afterwards con- nects this passage with 1 Cor. iv. 18, and applies to Christ in a higher degree what is there said in reference to the Apostles. DESCENSUS AND INFEROS. 195 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 would exclude everything that is inysterious. Comp. Bahr, p. 5—8, and 176—180. 8 69. DESCENSUS AD INFEROS. Dietelmuier, J. A., Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi ad inferos, Altorf. 1762, 8. Semder, J. A., Observatio historico-dogmatica de vario et im- pari veterum studio in recolenda historia | descensus Christi ad inferos, Hal. 1775. J. Clausen, dogmatis de descensu Jesu Christi ad inferos bistoriam biblicam atque ecclesiasticam composuit, Hafn. 1801. Coimp. Pott, Epp. cath. Exe. iii. [Comp. also, Pearson, On the Creed, v. art. and Heylyn, on the Creed, vi. art.] J. LZ. Konig, die Lehre von Christi Héllenfahrt, nach der ἢ. Schrift, der altesten Kirche, den christlichen Symbolen und nach ihrer viel umfassenden Bedeutung. Frankf, 1842. We have seen that the Fathers of this period, with the exception of Origen, limited the 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 allusions in Serip- ture,“ that Christ descended in the abode of the dead ( Hades), to announce to the souls of the patriarchs, ete. which were there kept, the accomplishment of the work of redemption, and to conduct them with him into his glorious kingdom.) (Δ) Acts ii. 27, 31. (Rom. x. 6, 7, 8.) Eph. iv. 9. 1 Pet. 11. 19, 20, (in connection with Psalm xvi. 10.)—On the clause descen- dit ad inferos in the Apostles’ creed, which is of later origin, see Rutin. expos. p. 22, (ed. Fell) King, p. 169, ss. Pott, 1. c. Ρ. 800. [Pearson, 1. ὁ. p. 237. | @i Apocryphal narrative in the Ev. Nic. ο. 17—27. (Thilo, Cod. Ap. 1. p. 667, ss.) Ullmann, historisch oder mythisch ? p. 228. An allusion is found in the Testament of the xii patriarchs, Grabe, Spic. PP. Sec. i. p. 250. On the passage in the oration of Thaddeus quoted by Eus. 1. 13: Κατέβη εἰς τὸν ᾧδην καὶ διξόχισε 196 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. φοωγμὸν τὸν ἐξ αἰῶνος μὴ σχισλέντα, καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ συνήγειρε νεχροὺς τοὺς ἀπ᾽ αἰώνων κεκοιμημένους, καὶ πῶς κατέβη μόνος, ἀνέβη OF μετὰ πολλοῦ ὕχλου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, comp. Vales.—The passage from the longer edition of Jgn. Ep. ad. Trall. ο. 9. 11. p. 64, 15. doubtful; and that from the Shepherd of Hermas, Sim. ix. ὁ. 16, refers more properly to the Apostles. Justin M. also supposes that Christ preached in the nether world, dial. ¢. Tryph. § 72. Comp. Se- misch, ii. p. 414. More definite is the language of Zren. iv. 27, (45.) p. 264, (347.) v. 31, p. 3831, (451.) ert. dean. 7, and 55. Clem. Strom. vi. 6, p. 762—67. and i. 9, p. 452, (where he quotes the passage from Hermas;) the latter is inclined to ex- tend the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Orig. contra Cels. ii. 43. Ορρ. 1. p. 419, in libr. Reg. Hom. 1. Opp. u. p. 492—98, especially towards the close. Comp. Kénig. 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 demi- urgus. I[ren. i. 27, (29.) p. 106, (Gr. 104.) [On the opinions of the Fathers, comp. also Pearson, |. 6. p. 239, 245, ss., and fleylyn, 1. c. p. 264, ss.] § 70. THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. Heubner, H. L., historia antiquior dogmatis de modo salutis tenendz et justificationis, etc. Wittemb. 1805. 4. From what has been said in the preceding section, it is evident that the primitive church generally believed that Jesus Christ was the only way of salvation, and the Me- diator between God and man. But all men were re- quired to appropriate to themselves, by a free and inde- pendent act, the blessings which Christ has obtained for them, and is willing to bestow upon every one.) The forgiveness of sins was made dependent both on true repentance,“) and the performance of good works. Ὁ) It is to be regretted, that the Fathers, in treating of this subject, sometimes used Janguage which might easily be interpreted as favourable to the doctrine of the meri- THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. 197 toriousness of good works.) Nevertheless all agreed in making fazth (in accordance with the apostolic doctrine) the conditio sine qua non of salvation,©) and acknow- ledged that it alone possesses the power of making men happy by bringing about an intimate union (unio mys- tica) between them and God.) Though the will of man was generally admitted to be free, yet it was also felt that it must be assisted by Divine grace,” and thus gradually arose the idea of an eternal decree of God, ( predestination), which however was not yet thought to be unconditional.) Origen, in particular, endeavoured to explain the relation of predestination to the freedom of the human will in such a manner as should not en- danger the latter. ® This follows from the above passages on human liberty, Justin M., dial. ὁ. Tryph. § 95: Εἰ μετανοοῦντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις καὶ ἐπιγνόντες τοῦτον εἴναι τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτοῦ THUS EYTOAGS ταῦτα φήσετε, ἄφεσις ὑμῖν τῶν ἀμαρτιῶν ὅτι ἔσται, προεῖπους Comp. Orig. contra Cels. iii. 28. Opp. 1. p. 465, Gn connection with what was men- tioned § 68), according to which every one who fives in com- pliance with the precepts of Christ, obtains through him friend- ship 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 was aware of the distinction afterwards made between contritio and attritio, Strom. iv. 6, p. 580: Tot μετανοοῦν.- σὸς δὲ τρόποι δύο" ὁ μὲν κοινότϑρος, φόβος ἐπὶ τοῖς weary Jeiow, ὁ dz ἰδιαίτερος, ἡ δυσωπίω ἡ πεὺς ἑαυτὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἐκ συνε: δήσεως.----()ὴ μετάνοια comp. also Peed. i. 9. 146. and quis div. salv. 40. p. 957. ®) Hermas, Pastor. i. 7: Oportet eum, quiagit poenitentiam, affligere animam suam et humilem animo se prestare in omni negotio et vexationes multas variasque perferre. Justin M. also lays great stress upon the external manifestation of repentance by tears, etc. dial. c. Tryph. ὃ 141. Cypr. de opere et eleem. p. 167. (237 Bal.): Loquitur in seripturis divinis Spir. 8. ct dicit (Prov. xv. 29.): Eleemosynis et fide delicta purgantar. Non 198 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. utique illa delicta, que fuerunt ante contracta, nam illa Christi sanguine et sanctificatione purgantur. Item denuo dicit (Hccles. 111. 33.) : Sicut aqua extinguit ignem, sic eleemosyna extingult peccatum. Hie quoque ostenditur et probatur, quia sicut lavacro aque salutaris gehennz 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 also of great impor- tance, Ep. 31, p. 64. Rettb. p. 323, 389. Origen, Hom. in Lev. n. 4, Opp. ii. 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 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- nance and repentance: Est adhue et septima, licet dura et la- borios2, per peenitentiam remissio peccatorum, cum lavat pec- cator in lacrymis stratum suum, et fiunt ei lacryme suse panes die ac nocte, et cum non erubescit sacerdoti Domini indieare peceatum suum et querere medicinam. On the merit of the martyrs, comp. ὃ 68. The intercession of confessors yet hving is opposed by Tert. de pud. 22. Cyprian also limits their influ- ence to the day of judgment, de lapsis p. 129, (187.)—Concern- ing a first and second penance, see Herme Pastor. Mand. iv. 3. Clem. Strom. 11. 18, p. 459: Καὶ οὖκ 010° ὁπότεφον αὐτοῖν χεῖρον ἢ τὸ εἰδότα ἁμαρτάνειν ἢ μετανοήσαντα ED οἷς ἥμαρτεν πλημμελεῖν αὖις, The different views of Tertullian before and after his conversion to Montanism may be seen by comparing de peenit. 7. with de pud. 18. On the controversy between Cyprian and the Novatians see the works on ecclesiastical history. (ὦ Traces of the doctrine of supererogatory works (opera su- pererogatoria) are found in the Shepherd of Hermas, Simil. Lib. m. 5. 3: Si preter ea que non mandavit Dominus aliquod boni adjeceris, majorem dignitatem tibi conquires et honoratior 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 subtile distinction between the unprofitable servant, Luke xvi. 10, and the good and faithful servant, Matth, xxv. 21, and appeals to 1 Cor. vii. 25, concerning the virgins.) (5. Durug the present period, in which the attention of men β ) THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. 100 was principally directed to theoretical knowledge, faith was for the most part considered as historico-dogmatic faith in its rela- tion to γνῶσις, (comp. ὃ 34.) This gave rise to the opinion that knowledge in Divine things justifies, while ignorance condemns. Minucius Fel. 35: Imperitia Dei sufficit ad poonam, notitia pro- dest ad veniam. Theophilus of Antioch also knows of a fides historica alone, upon which he makes salvation to depend, 1. 14: ᾿Απόδειξιν οὖν λαβὼν τῶν γινομένων καὶ προανωπεφωνημένων, οὖκ ἀπιστῶ, ἀλλὰ πιστεύω πειδαρχῶν 32, ᾧ εὖ βοὐλεὶ καὶ σὺ ὑποτάγηνι, πιστεύων αὐτῷ, μὴ νῦν ἀπισλήσας, πεισλῆς ἀνιώμενος τότε ἐν αἰωνίοις τιμωοίαις. But though it was reserved for men of later times to investigate more pro- foundly the idea of justifying faith in the Pauline sense, yet cor- rect views on this subject were not entirely wanting during this period, comp. Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Cor. 57-39. Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 3; Ex fidei libertate justificatur homo, non ex legis ser- vitute, quia justus ex fide vivit. According to Clement of Alex- andria 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), p. 69. Clement accurately distinguishes between theoretical and practical unbelief, and understands by the latter the want of susceptibility of Divine impressions, a car- nal mind which would have everything in a tangible shape, Strom. 11. 4, p. 486.—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 cedificata supra fundamentum fidel, quamvis videantur esse bona, tamen operatorem suun) justificare non possunt, quod eis deest fides, que est signaculum eorum, qui justificantur a Deo. (Ὁ Clement, Coh. p. 90 : Ὦ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μακαρίας ταύτης δυνάμεως͵ Or ἧς αἀν)ρώποις συμπολιτεύεται Θεός κι τι A. Quis. div. salv. Ρ. 951: ἽΟσον γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ τις τὸν Θεὸν, τοσούτῳ καὶ πλέον ἐνδοτέρῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ παραδύεται. ideal quietism, Peed. 1. 13, p. 160: Τέλος δέ ἐστι SeooeBeiag ἡ αἴδιος ἀνάπαυσις ev τῷ Θεῷ. Comp. ill. 7, p. 277, 78, (in reference to riches in God), Strom. ii. 16, p. 467, 68. iv. 22, p. 627, 630. 4) Tert. ad uxor. i. 8: Queedam sunt divine liberalitatis, guedam nostre operationis. Que a Domino indulgentur, sua gratia gubernantur; que ab homine captantur, studio perpe- trantur, cf. de virg. vel. 10, de patient. 1. adv. Hermog. 5. Justin M. and Clement of Alexandria look favourably at Syner- gism. Comp. Just. Apol. i. 10. Dial. c. Tr. § 32. Coh. 1. 99. 200 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. Strom. V. 13, p. 696. vii. 7, p. 860: ‘Ms δὲ ὁ ἰατρὸς ὑγείαν παρέχεται τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς ὑγείαν, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τὴν αἴδιον σωτηρίαν τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς γνῶσίν τε καὶ εὐπραγίαν. Quis. div. salv. p. 947: Βουλομέναις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ψυχαῖς συνεπιπνεῖ, and thus Orig. Hom. in Ps. Opps ni Ρ. 571: Τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ayasloy μικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιφέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συμπνεούσης ϑείας δυνάμεως τῷ τὰ κάλλιστα προε- λομένῳ, comp. de prine. 11.1.18. Ορρ.1. 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 innocentie, si justitie viam teneas, si illapsa firmitate vestigii tui incedas, si in Deum viribus totis ac toto corde suspensus, hoc sis tantum quod esse ccepisti, tan- tum tibi ad licentiam datur, quantum graticz spiritalis auge- _tur. Non enim, qui beneficiorum terrestrium mos est, in capes- sendo munere ccelesti mensura ulla vel modus est: profluens largiter spiritus nullis finibus premitur, nec ceercentibus claus- tris intra certa metarum spatia freenatur, manat jugiter, exuberat affluenter. Nostrum tantum sitiat pectus et pateat ; quantum illuc fidei capacis afferimus, tantum gratiz inundantis haurimus. De Orat. dom. p. 144, (208.) adv. Jud. iii. 25, ss., p. 72, 42, ss., p. 77, 8s. ® Hermas represented the predestination of God as depen- dent on his foreknowledge, Lib. ii. Simil. 8. 6, likewise Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. § 141. Jren. iv. 29. 2, p. 267. Minuc. Fel. ce. 86. Tert. adv. Mare. 1. 23. Clem. Al. Ped. i. 6, p. 114.: Οἷδεν οὖν (ὁ Θεὸς) ods κέκληκεν. ods σέσωκεν. According to Strom. vi. p. 763, it is men’s own fault if they are not elected. They re- semble those who voluntarily jump out of the vessel into the sea. ‘* Thus the practical disposition of Cyprian was opposed to the doctrine of rigid predestination, of irresistible grace; he could not so readily and so boldly adnut all the consequences which are found in the stupendous fabric of Augustine's system.” —‘* That the bishop of Hippo nevertheless thought to have dis- covered his own orthodoxy in the writings of Cyprian, may per- haps be ascribed to his eager desire to see the principles which he so zealously defended, confirmed by the opinions of ethers.” Rett- berg, p. 321. ©) Origen is far from believing in the doctrine of reprobation. De prine. 1. 1. Opp. 1. 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 THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. 201 import in opposition to the αὐτεξούσιον 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 common life it sometimes happens that a good master says to his lazy servant whom he has spoiled by indulgence: I have spoiled you. But he does not mean to say, that such was his intention. Origen (as Schleiermacher did in later times) perceives in what is called reprobatio only a longer delay of the grace of God. As a physician often employs those remedies which apparently produce bad effects, but heal the disease radically, instead of using such as would effect a speedy cure, so God acts in his dealings with men; he has prepared their souls not only for this short passing life, but for eternity, ibid. p. 121. (edep. p. 26.) He adduces a similar illustration from the husbandman (according to Matth. xii. 8), and then goes on) Ρ. 123: Απειροι γὰρ nut, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, αἱ ψυχαὶ, καὶ ἄπειρα τὰ τούτων HIN καὶ π).εἴστα ὅσα τὰ κινήματα καὶ αἱ προϑέσεις καὶ ἐπιβολαὶ καὶ αἱ ὁρμαὶ, ὧν εἷς μόνος οἰκονόμος ἄριστος, καὶ τοὺς καιροὺς ἐπιστάμενος, καὶ τὰ ἀομό- Cora βοηϑήματα καὶ τὰς ἀγωγὰς καΐ τὰς ὁδοὺς, ὁ τῶν ὅλων Δεὸς καὶ πατήρ. See ibid. the interpretation of Ezek. xi. 19, and other passages. On the connection subsisting between Origen’s doctrine of pre- destination and his doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, comp. de prince. 11. 9, 7. Opp.i. p. 99. (Red. p. 220,) in refe- rence to Jacob and Esau. Origen also held, like the other Fathers prior to the time of Augustine, that predestination was dependent on foreknowledge, Philoc. ὁ. 25, on Rom. vii. 28, 29, (quoted by Miinscher edit. by von Colln, 1. p. 369.) FIFTH SECTION. THE CHURCH AND HER MEANS OF GRACE. Spe THE CHURCH. Henke, IT. Th. C., historia antiquior dogmatis de unitate ecclesize. Helmst. 1781. +tMéhler, die Einheit der Kirche. Τὰν. 1825. “Rothe, Rich., die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Kirche in ihrem ersten Stadium. (The third book of his work: die Anfange der christlichen Kirche und ihrer ‘Verfassung. Wittenb. 1837. i. vol.) Gess, die Einheit der Kirche im Sinn Cyprians (in den Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit Wirtem- bergs. Stuttgart, 1838, ii. 1. p. 147.) Huther, Cyprian, comp. ὃ 26, note 9. Schenkel, see ὃ 806. In reference to Rothe’s work :.Petersen, A., die Idee der christlichen Kirche. Lpzg. 1839-44. 3 vols. 8. A holy Catholic Christian church which is the commu- nion of saints, was the expression used in the Christian confession of faith to denote the feeling of Christian fel- lowship which prevailed in the primitive church, though no distinct 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 Chris- tians, that there is no salvation out of the church, but that all the fulness of the Divine grace is to be found in it.) Clement of Alexandria in particular, and still more strongly Cyprian, maintain the unity of the church. @) The definitions of the latter, who takes a more practical position, are of great importance in the history of this doctrine. But he did not sufficiently distinguish between the historico-empirical, visible existence of the church THE CHURCH. 203 and the idea of a church which is above the change of mere forms, and gradually developes itself to a state of higher perfection. This is shown by the Novatian con- troversy. Thus it happened, that the apostolico-Chris- tian doctrine of a universal priesthood was more and more superseded by the hierarchy of the bishops and the internal was converted into the external.) The false idealism of the Gnosties, and the heretical and schisma- tical tendencies of separate sects, especially of the Mon- tanists and the followers of Novatian, form a strikiug contrast with this false external unity of the Catholic church.) ἶ « The general character of the earlier period (previous to the time of Cyprian) is that of abstract indefiniteness. What the theolcgians of this period say concerning the nature of the church is so frequently void of clearness and precision, that it is almost impossible fully to ascertain their real sentiments on this point ; it ts nothing uncommon to see the same Fathers evading, or even rejecting consequences which necessarily follow from their general reasonings. They thus evince a fickleness (?) which pre- vents us from forming any decided and certain opinion as to their ideas of the nature of the church.” Rothe,\. ο. p. 575. 6) On the term ἐκκλησία in general (corresponding to the He- brew may OTD τιν; ΝΡ) comp, Sutcer, thes. sub voce. Rothe, p. 74, ss. The phrase ἐκκλησίω xaSormn first occurs in the inscription of the Ep. Smyrn. de mart. Polycarpi about the year 169, Eus. iv. 15. Comp. Jgn. ad Smyrn. 8: Ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν 7 Χριστὸς ᾿Τησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καϑυλικὴ ἐκκλησία, How great an importance the Fathers were accustomed to attribute to the church, may be seen from Jrenceus, adv. her. 11. 4. 1, and i. 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 ec- clesia et omnis gratia, (comp. Huther, 1. ὁ. p. 4, 5,) iv. 31, 3, ac- cording to which the pillar of salt into which the wife of Lot was transformed, represents the durability of the church, and other passages (comp. § 34, notes 1. and 2.) Clement of Alex- andria derives the term and the idea of ἐκκλησία from the elect 204 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. forming a society, Coh. p. 69, and Peed. i. 6, p. 114: ‘Qs γὰρ τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ ἔργον ἕστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσμος ὀνομάζεται" οὕτως καὶ τὸ βούλημα αὐτοῦ ἀν)ρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία" καὶ τοῦτο ᾿Εκχλησία κέκληται" οἶδεν οὖν ods κέχληχεν, OVS σέσωκεν. Comp. Strom. vii. 5, p- 846 : Οὐ γὰρ νῦν σὸν σόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄδροισμωα τῶν ἐκλεχτῶν ᾿Εκκχλησίαν χαλῶ κ. τ. Ae Clement describes the church as ἃ mother, Pad. i. 5, p. 110, even as both a mother and a virgin, c. 6, p. 123; in speaking of this subject 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 Gnostics (οἱ ἐν τῇ ἐπιστήμη) form the church, yet he does not so much contrast with them those who have only faith, as the he- retics who have nothing but an opinion (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. ui. ὃ 10-- 13), asserts that there is no salvation out of the church, Hom. ili. in Josuam, Opp. 1. p. 404: Nemo semetipsum decipiat, extra hanc domum, 2. 6. extra ecclesiam nemo galvetur, and Se- lecta in Hiob. ibid. 11. p. 501, 502. Concerning the views of Tertullian we must make a distinction between those which he held prior, and those which he entertained anterior to his con- version to Montanism. Comp. Weander, Antign. p. 264, ss. The principal passages relative to his earlier opinions are: de prescript. c. 21, ss. 32, 35, de bapt. c. 8, de orat. c. 2, where the above images are carried out at some length, (see Miinscher, ed. by von Colln, i. p. 70.) Thus 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 variety of similar images. 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 Donatist controversy, is incorrect. It wus 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 the somewhat harsh phrase given above. But tt is almost to be regretted that both this idea and phrase have entirely disappeared in the present age, inasmuch as they express a profound truth, and might with equal propriety be used by all parties in the church. For life and happiness are only to be found in religion, and out of it there is nothing but death and misery.” Marhei- neke (in Daub und Creuzers Studien, ili. p. 187.) THE CHURCH. 205 ® On the unity of the church see Clem. Al. Ped. i. 4, p. 103. ο. 0, p. 123: Ὦ ϑαύματος μυστικοῦ: cig μὲν ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ" εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ τῶν ὅλων λόγος" καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἕν καὶ τὸ οὐτὸ πανταχοῦ" μία δὲ μόνη γίνεται μήτηρ παρϑένος κι 7. A. Strom. 1. 18, Pp: 375. vii. 6, Ρ. δ48, and other passages. 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 uni- tate ecclesia, with which several of his extant letters (see note 4) may be compared. He adds some new images to those used by Tertullian, as illustrative of this unity: the sun which casts forth many rays, the tree with its many branches, all of which derive their nourishment and strength from the one root, the one source which gives rise to many brooks: Avelle radium solis a corpore, divisionem lucis unitas non capit; ab arbore frange raiuum, fractus germinare non poterit; a fonte preecide rivum, preecisus arescet. Sic ecclesia Domini luce perfusa per orbem totum radios suos porrigit, ete.—He also treats at great length of the image of the one mother: Illius fcetu 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.) According to the usage of the Old Test. faithless- ness towards the church is compared to adultery. The trinity liself is an image of the unity of the church (comp. Clement, 1. c.) as well as the coat of Christ which was not to be rent, the passover which had to 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, he maintains that martyrdom out of the church, so far from being meritorious, is rather an aggravation of sin: Hsse martyr non potest, qui in ec- clesia non est. . . Occidi talis potest, coronari nun potest, ete. Comp. Retib. 241, ss., p. 355, ss., p. 367, 55. HMuther, p. 52- 59. (Comp. the passages quoted by Miinscher, 1. ὁ. p. 70, ss.) ‘* Tf the genuineness of the epistles of Ignatius (even of the shorter recension) were fully established, they would prove be- yond all dispute, that submission to the bishops was considered as a doctrine of the church at a very early period. Comp. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. ὃ: Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουλεῖτε, ὡς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, etc. ad Polye. 6.6: [Ta ἐπισχύπῳ προσέχετε, ἵνα κικὶ ὁ Δεὸς ὑμῦ,1 δα Eph. c. 4: [Πρέπει ὑμῖν συντρέχειν τῇ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου γνώμῃ, ὅπερ καὶ ποιεῖτε. Τὸ γὰρ ἀξιονόμαστον ὑμῶν πρεσβυτέριον, τοῦ Jeo ἄξιον, οὕτως συνήρ- μοσται τῷ ἐπισχόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κάρᾳ. ad Magn. ο. 6, 7. ad Philad., 208 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. ὁ. 7. ad Trall. 6. 2: [᾿Αναγκαδὸν οὖν ἔστιν... ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσ- σειν ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσασ)ε καὶ τῷ πρεσθυτερίῳ,] Comp. Rothe, Ῥ. 445, ss. ren. ill. 14. iv. 26, (43.) v. 20. On the succession of the bishops: iii. 3. (primacy of the Romish church); comp. with it Neander, 1. ὃ, p. 818, note. Though Tertullian appeared tor- merly willing, de prescr. c. 92, to concede to the church of Rome the precedence over other churches, yet after his conver- sion to Montanism he combated the pretensions of the Romish bishops, de pud. 21; he there alludes particularly to the words of Christ addressed to Peter: dabo tibi claves ecclesiee—and maintains that the word tibi refers to Peter alone, and not to the bishops. He supposed that spiritually minded men were the successors of Peter, and distinguished between the ecclesia Spiritus per spiritales homines (in which the trinity dwells), and that ecclesia which is composed of the sum total of the bishops (numerus episcoporum.) On this ground (but not in the purely apostolic sense) he defended the idea of a spiritual priesthood. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 258-59, and p. 272. On the con- trary, Cyprian conceives the true priestly dignity to consist in the very episcopal power (but not so much in that of the Romish bishops exclusively, as in that of all the bishops collectively,) and thinks that the unity of the church is represented by the successors of the apostles. Hence he who does not take the part of the bishop, no more belongs to the church. Comp. es- pecially the following epistles: 45, 52, 55, 64, 66, 67, 69, 74, 76, (ὁ. 2.) see Huther, p. 59, ss. Rettberg, p. 367, ss. Gess, p. 150, ss. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. 1, p. 404-7. (1) Wherever the term ἐκκλησία occurs in the Clementine Homi- lies (Hom. ii. 60, 65, 67, p. 653, ss., vil. 8, p. 680. Credner, iii. p. 808. Laur, p. 373,) it is to be understood in a limited sense. Concerning the Ebionites piphanius observes, Heer. 30. Were 142: Συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκ- κλησίαν. Comp. Credner, ii. p. 286. The Ebionitic tendency converted the idea of the church into that of a Jewish sect, the Gnostics refined it into an idealistic world of eons (Baur, p. 172); on the one hand, we have a body without life, on the other, a phantom without body. Tor the views of the Mon- tauists concerning the church (vera, pudica, sancta, virgo: Tertull. de pudic. 1), which, as a spiritual church, is composed of homines pneumatici, see Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 47, ss. 229, ss. The Montanists made no distinction between the vis?- BAPTISM. 207 ble and invisible church, but prepared the way for it. See Schweg- ler, p. 232. 8. 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. G., Historia pedobaptismi 4 priorum secul. Jen. 1739. 4. (Mise. sacr. Amstel. 1744. 4.) [Rolbinson, the History of Baptism. Lond. 1790. Halley, R., The Sacraments. P. 1. Baptism. Lond. 1844.] J. W. 15. Héfling, das Sacrament der Taufe, nebst an dem damit zusammenhangenden Acten der Initiation. [01]. 1846. 1. 2. The doctrine of the church stands in intimate connec- tion with the doctrine of baptism. From the earliest times great importance was attached to the latter, be- cause of its supposed relation to the forgiveness of sin and to regeneration.“ Some of the Fathers, especially Treneus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in treating of this sub- ject, as well as of the doctrine of the church, often in- dulge in exaggerated language, in fanciful and absurd allegories, and in symbolical interpretations, (2) while Origen draws a more distinct line between the external sign, and the internal thing which it is meant to teach. (8) —Infant baptism had not come into general use prior to the time of Tertullian. ‘Yhough a strenuous advocate of - the doctrine of original sin, that Father, nevertheless, opposed peedo-baptism, on the ground that those who have not committed any actual transgression, need no cleansing from sin.“ Origen, on the contrary, pro- nounced in favour of infant-baptism.©) In the time of Cyprian it became so general in the African church, that the African bishop /’dus, appealing to the analogous rite of circumcision under the Old Test. dispensation, proposed to delay the performance of the ceremony of baptism to the eighth day. Cyprian, however, did not give his consent to this mnovation.©) The baptism of newly converted persons was yet frequently deferred till 208 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. the approach of death (Baptismus Clinicorum. ) @—Dur- ing this period a question arose, which was intimately connected with the doctrine of the nature of the church, viz. whether the baptism of heretics was to be accounted valid, or whether a heretic who returned to the Catholic church was to be rebaptized? In opposition to the usage of the Eastern and African churches, which was defended by Cyprian, the principle was established in the 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. 6. 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 was in accordance with the mind of the age.(!9) © 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. Augustt, vol. vi. On the terms: βάπτισμα, Barz σμός, λοῦτρον, φωτισμός, σφραγὶς, and others, comp. the Lexicons. Re- specting baptism as 1t was practised previous to the appearance of Christ, see Schneckenburger, tiber das Alter der jiidischen Proselytentaufe und deren Zusammenhang mit dem johannei- schen und christlichen Ritus, Berlin, 1828, where the literature is given, and [ Hadley, R., Lectures on the Sacraments, P. 1. 3aptism, p. 111-161. ] ® On the supernatural influence which the author of the Clementine Homilies ascribes to water, in connection with the notions widely spread in the Hast, comp. 6. g. Hom. ix. and x. see Baur, Gnos. p. 872. Credner, |. c. 11. p. 236, and ii. p. 303. Concerning the Ebionites it is said by Epiph. Indicul. u, p. 53: Τὸ ὕδωρ ἀντὶ Seo ἔχουσι, comp. Heer. 30. Together with the symbolical interpretation of the cross we find in the writings of the Apostolical Fathers a symbolical interpretation of water: BAPTISM. 209 Barn. 11. Hermas, Pastor Vis. iii. 3. Mand. iv. 8, Simil. ix, 6. Justin M. (Apol. i. 61,) contrasts baptismal regeneration with natural birth, ἐξ ὑγρᾶς σπορᾶς. By the latter we become τέκνα ἀνάγκης ἀγνοίας ; by the former τέχνα προαιρέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης, ἀφέσεώς τε ἁμαρτιῶν ; hence the λοῦτρον is also called φωτισμός, Comp. Dial. c. Tr. c. 18 and 14, where mention is made of the antithe- sis between baptism and Jewish lustrations. Theoph. ad Aut. i. 16, interprets the blessing which God pronounced on the fifth day of the work of creation upon the creatures of the water, as referring to the water used in baptism. Clement of Alexan- dria, Peed. 1. 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: Βαπστιδόμενοι puriZoucda, φωτιδφόμενοι υἱοποιούμεϑα, υἱοποιού- (L201 τελειούμεα, τελειούμενοι ἀπαδανατιδόμεσα. Baptism IS ἃ χάρισμα. Comp. also p. 116, 117, where the baptized, in allusion to the cleansing power of water, are called διυλιφόμενοι (filtered.) In- asmuch as a connection is brought about between the element and the Logos, or his power and spirit, he calls baptism also ὕδωρ λογικόν, Coh. p. 79. All former lustrations are abolished by baptism, being all included in it, Strom. iii. 12, p. 548, 49. fren. iii. 17, (19,) p. 208, (224.) As dough cannot be made of dry flour, without the addition of some fluid, so we, the many, cannot be united in one body in Christ without the connecting element of water which comes down from heaven; and as the earth is quickened and rendered fruitful by dew and rain, so Christianity by the heavenly water, ete. Tertullian has written a separate treatise on this subject, entitled: de baptismo. Though he rejects the notion of a purely supernatural and me- chanical forgiveness of sins by baptism, (comp. eander, Antign. p- 215), yet he takes occasion from the cosmical and psychical significance of water to adduce numerous analogies. Water (felix sacramentum aque nostre, qua abluti delictis pristine cecitatis in vitam sternam liberamur!) is in bis view the ele- ment in which Christians alone feel at home, as the small fishes which follow the great fish IXOY3.) Heretics, on the contrary, are the generation of vipers and snakes that cannot live in fresh water. Water is of great importance in the 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, so the water of baptism is contrasted with the deluge, and the i 210 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. dove of Noab is a type of the dove of the Spirit. 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, running produces the same effects as standing water, de bapt. 4: Omnes aque de pristina originis preerogativa sacra- mentum sanctificationis consequuntur, invocato Deo. Superve- nit enim statim Spiritus de ccelis et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso et ita sanctificatee vim sanctificandi combibunt. Cyprian spoke of the great importance of baptismal water from his own experience, de Grat. ad Donat. p. 8. He does not in- deed maintain that water purifies as such, (peccata enim pur- gare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et Spiritum S. Ep. 74, p. 213), but his language leads us to sup- pose that he too believed in the supernatural 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 does not ex- tend itself over water. As scorpions and snakes 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 allegorical interpretation is at once applied to it—tt ts, 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. 11. Opp. i. p. 481, and Comment. in Joh. Opp. iv. p. 1382, indicates that he had a more or less distinct idea of the difference be- tween the image and the thing which it represents. Neverthe- less (οὐδὲν ;rz0v) from the last mentioned passage it is evident, that he also considers baptism as something κατ᾽ αὐτό, viz. ἀρχὴ χαὶ πηγὴ χαρισμάτων Δείων, because it is administered in the name of the divine Trias. Comp. Hom. in Luc. xxi. Opp. i. p. 957. () The passages from Scripture which are thought to inti- mate that infant-baptism had come into use in the primitive @ Concerning these manifold allegorical interpretations of fish, dove, ete. comp. Miinter, Sinnbilder der Christen, and Awgusti 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 aque potius quam baptismirationes videar congregasse ! BAPTISM. Vit church, are doubtful and prove nothing; viz. Mark x. 14. Matth. xvill. 4. 6. Actsil. 38, 39,41. Acts x.48. 1 Cor.i.16. Col. i. 11,12. Nor does the earliest passage occurring in the writings of the Fathers, Zren. adv. heer. 11. 22. 4, p. 147, (see ὃ 68, note 1,) afford any decisive 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 child- ren by the water of baptism, unless the term renasci be inter- preted by the most arbitrary petitio principu to refer to bap- tism. Nor does the passage in question go to prove the con- trary. But from the opposition which Tertullian raised to infant-baptism, de bapt. 18, it may be inferred that it was a customary practice in his times. He alleges the following rea- sons against it :—1. The importance of baptism; not even earth- ly goods are intrusted to those under age; 2. The consequent responsibility of the sponsors; 5. The innocence of children (quid festinat innocens etas 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 per- sons, widows, etc.) to delay baptism till they have either mar- ried, or formed the firm resolution to live a single life. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 209, 210. [Robinson, 1. ὁ. ch. xxi. p. 164, ss. ] ®) The views of Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. v. Opp. iv. p. 565, in Lev. Hom. viii. Opp. 1. p. 230, in Lucam, Opp. 11. p. 948, were connected with his notions concerning the sinful ele- ment 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 ὦ rite derived from the Apostles: [ieclesia ab apostolis traditionem accepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quod essent in omnibus genuinz sordes peccati, quae per aquam et spiritum ablui deberent. ] © See Cypr. Ep. 59, (written in the name of 66 Occidental bishops, Ep. 64, edit. Oxon.) Cyprian maintains that infants ay THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. should be baptized at the earliest convenience; it is, however, worthy of observation, that his argument in favour of infant- baptism is not founded upon the guilt of original sin, but upon the innocent condition 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 he still exhibits the marks of the creative hands of God,’ so we should not raise any ob- jection to his being baptized. Comp. Rettb. p. 331. Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 2, p. 554. [transl. i. p. 3863. Robinson, 1. ὁ. Chaxxin| 4) On this custom, comp. the works on ecclesiastical history and antiquities. [eander. transl. i. p. 358, 359.] Cyprian, Ep. 76, (69. edit. Ox. p. 185,) where some very difficult questions are raised respecting sprinkling. [Miinscher, 1. 6. i. p. 464.] Against the delay : Const. Apost. vi. 15, as it is done from dis- regard or levity. Tertullian allows even laymen, but not women, to administer the rite of baptism in cases of emergency ; de Bapt. c. 17. Comp. Const. Apost. in. ¢. 9-11. ®) Clement of Alexandria recognizes only that baptism as va- lid, which is administered in the catholic church: Τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ αἱρετικὸν οὐκ oineiov καὶ γνήσιον ὕδωρ, Strom. i. 19, p.375: likewise Tert. de bapt. c. 15: Unus omnino baptismus est nobis tam ex Domini evangelio, quam ex Apostoli litteris, quoniam unus Deus et unum baptisma et una ecclesia in ceelis...... Heeretici autem nullum habent consortium nostre discipline, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est praeceptum, quia non idem Deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, 1. e. idem: ideoque nec bap- tismus unus, quia non idem. Quem quum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent. Comp. de pud. 19. de prascr. 12. The synods of Iconium and Synnada (about the year 235) pro- nounced the baptism of heretics invalid, see the letter of Firmi- lian, bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, (Ep. 75.) Eus. vii. 7. [ Miinscher ed. by von Colln, 1. p. 473.] A synod held at Car- thage (about the year 200) under Agrippinus had used similar language; see Cypr. Ep. 73, (ad Jubianum, p. 199, 130, Bal.) Cyprian adopted the custom of the Asiatic and African churches, and insisted that heretics should be re-baptized. But according BAPTISM, 91 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 subse- quent controversy with Stephen, comp. Neander, Kirchenges. i. p. 563, 77. [transl. i. p. 369-377.| Rettberg, p.156,ss. The epistles 69-75 refer to this subject. Stephen recognized as valid baptism administered by heretics, but demanded the lay- ing on of hands as significant of pcenitentia. The African bishops, on the other hand, restricted this latter rite to the case of the lapsi, and appealed to the custom observed by the here- tics themselves in confirmation of their view. That the lapsi could not be re-baptized, needs no proof. The African usage was confirmed by the synods of Carthage, (held in the years 255 and 256.) Comp. Sententiz Episcoporum Ixxxii. de baptiz- andis hereticis in Cypr. Opp. p. 229, (Fell.) [On the whole controversy comp. Atinscher ed. by von Colln, 1. p. 472—75. ] @ Theod. Fab. her. i. 6.10. On the question whether the sect of the Caiani (vipera venenatissima Tert.), to which Quin- tilla of Carthage, an opponent of baptism, belonged, was identi- cal with the Gnostic Cainites; see Meander, Antignosticus, p. 193. Some of the objections to baptism were the following: it is below the dignity of the Divine to be represented by any- thing earthly ; Abraham was justified by faith alone; the apos- tles themselves were not baptized,* and Paul attaches litile im- portance to the rite, (1 Cor. 1. 17.)—That the majority of the Gnostics held baptism in high esteem, is evident from the cir cumstance, that they laid great stress on the baptism of Jesus, see Baur, Gnosis, p. 224. On the threefold baptism of the Mar- cionites, and further particulars, comp. the works treating of this subject: respecting the Clementine Homilies, see Credner, il. p. 308. (10) Orig. exh. ad Mart. i. p. 292, with reference to Mark x. 38; Luke xu. 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 lavis- ἃ To the remark of some: Tunc apostolos baptismi vicem implesse, quum in navicula fluctibus adspersi operti sunt, ipsum quoque Petrum per mare ingredientem satis mersum, Tertullian replies (de bapt. 12): aliud est adsper. gi vel intercipi violentia maris, aliud tingui disciplina religionis. 24a THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. sent, etiam sanguinem potarent. Hie est baptismus, qui lava- crum et non acceptum representat, et perditum reddit. Comp. Scorp. c. 6, Cyprian Ep. 78, and especially de exh. martyr. p. 168, 69. According to him the baptism of blood is in compari- son with the baptism of water in gratia majus, in potestate sub- limius, in honore pretiosius; it is baptisma, In quo angehi baptizant, b. in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, b. post quod nemo jam peccat, Ὁ. quod fidei nostrx incrementa consummat, b. quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aque baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sanguinis corona vir- tutum. 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. Retiberg, p. 982. Comp. also Acta Martyr. Perpet. et Fel. ed. Oxon. p. 29, 30, and Dodwell, de secundo Martyrii baptismo in his Diss. Cypr. xi? S73: TBE LORD’S SUPPER. Schulz, D., die christ]. Lehre vom Abendmabl, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Test. Lpz. 1824, 31, (exegetico-dogmatic.) Works bearing upon the history of this doctrine: *Marheinecke, Phil., Ss. Patrum de presentia Christi in coena Domini sententia triplex s. sacre Eucharistie historia tripartita. Heidelb. 1811, 4. Meyer, Karl, Versuch einer Geschichte der Transsubstantiationslehre mit Vorrede von Dr Paulus. Heidelb. 1832. 4}Déllinger, J. J. J. die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten. Mainz 1826. [Knapp, 1. ¢. § 143-146.] A. Hbrard, des Dogma vom ἢ. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. Frankf. 1845. The Christian church attached from the first great and mysterious importance to the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper, as the symbols of the body and * Though the parallel drawn between the baptism of blood and that of water, is founded upon 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 concerning penance, it rests upon the equilibrium which the writers of that period were desirous to main- tain between the free will of man, and the effects of the Divine grace. Inthe baptism of water man appears more passive, in the baptism of blood he acts as a free agent. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 971 blood of Christ (Eucharist.)@ It was not the tendency of the age to dissect the symbolical in a eritico-philoso- phical manner, and to draw metaphysical distinctions be- tween its constituent parts, viz. the outward sign on the one hand, and the thing represented by it on the other. On the contrary, the real and the symbolical were. so blended, as not to destroy each other.) Thus it hap- pens that in the writings of the Fathers of this period we meet with passages which speak distinctly of symbols, and at the same time with others which indicate belhef in a real participation of the body and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some leading tendencies. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Ireneus,(°? laid great stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos and the elements. Theidea of such a connection, however, was sometimes misunderstood, and gave rise to superstitious views, or it was wilfully perverted, in the hope of producing supernatural effects.() Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favourable to the super- natural, are nevertheless representatives of the symbo- lical aspect.©) The Alexandrian school too espoused the latter, but the language of Clement on this subject is less definite than that of Origen.) Clement’s notions are a mixture of symbolical interpretation and ideal mysticism. In the writings of Justin and Irenus the idea occurs of a sacrifice, by which, however, they did not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice Cin the sense of the Romish church), but a thank-offering pre- sented by the Christians themselves.) ‘This idea, which may have had its origin in the custom of offering obla- tions, was brought into connection with the service for the commemoration of the dead, and thus prepared im- perceptibly the way for the later doctrine of masses for the deceased.@) It led further to the notion of a sacri- fice which is repeated by the priest, (but only symboli- cally); an idea which seems to have been first enter- 210 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. tained by Cyprian.©)—It is not quite certain, but pro- bable, 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.) ™ Respecting the terms εὐχαριστίω, σύναξις, εὐλογία, see Suicer and the lexicons. [Anapp,1.c. p. 4571] With the exception of the Hydroparastates (Aquarii, Epiph. heer. 46. 2), all Christ- jans, in accordance with its original institution, used wine and bread; the wine was generally mixed with water (κρᾶμα), and an allegorical signification was given to the mixture of these two elements, (Justin M. Apol. i. 65. Tren. v. 2, 8. Cypr. Epist. 63) [Knapp, 1. ὁ. p. 4417 The Artotyrites are said to have used cheese along with bread. (Epiph. her. 49, 2.) Comp. the cts 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 mandueavi, et universi circumstantes cixerunt Amen. Et ad sonum vocis experrecta sum, comman- ducans adhue dulcis nescio quid. Concerning the celebration of the Lord’ | upper in the age of the Antonines, and the cus- tom of administering it to the sick, &c. see Justin M. Apol. 1. 65: [Προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κρά- ματος" καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῶ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ΤΙνεύματος τοῦ ᾿Αγίου ἀναπέμπει, καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσλαι τούτων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖσαι...εὐχοαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευρημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ᾿ ἡμωῖ διάκονοι! διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐ- χαριστηϑέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀπο- φέρουσι. 66. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ᾿ ἡωῖ Ἐπ ὐχαριστία.......} [Neander, Hist. of the Ch. transl. 1. 386.] On the hturgical part of this ordinance in general, see Augusti, vol. vu. | ©) << 78 dis only in consequence of the abstract and speculative tendency of the West and of modern times, that so many diffe- rnt srynijications have been assiyned to what the early eastern church understood by the phrase τοῦτο ἐστί, If we would fully enter into its orr,inal meaning, we should not separate these sig- nifications at all. To say that the words in question denote transubstantia:ion, would be to take them in too definite and too conprehe.s.ve a sense; the interpretation according to which THE LORD’S SUPPER. Oley they would teach an existence cum et sub specie, is too artificial ; the rendering : this signifies, says too little, and is without force. In the view of the writers of the gospels, (and after their exam- ple in that of the earliest Fathers) ΗΒ BREAD IN THE LORD’S SUPPER WAS THE ΒΟΡῪ oF Curist. But if they had been asked whether the bread was changed ? they would have replied in the negative ; tf they had 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 asserted that the bread only signified the body, they would not have been satisfied.” Strauss, Leben Jesu, Ist edit. vol. 1. p. 487. Comp. Laumgarten-Cru- sius, 11. Ὁ. 1211, ss., and 1185, ss. (Ὁ Ignat. ad Smyrn. 7, reproaches the Doceta: Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχ ᾿ς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι TOU σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησυῦ Χοιστοῦ" τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρ-ιῶν ἡμῶν παϑοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρη- στότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν, comp. 84. Trall. 8. ad Philad. 5. ad Rom. 5. Some understood the word εἶναι, itself as symbolical. Comp. Miinscher ed. by Coln, i. p. 495, and on the other side, Kbrard, 1, c. 254. Justin, Apol. 1. 66, after having made a strict distinc- tion between the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper, and common bread and wine: Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν dorov. οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου ϑεοῦ σαρκοποιηλεῖς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χοι- στὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκω καὶ alum ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν OF εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηλεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρχες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηϑέντος ᾿Ιησυῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷωα ἐδιδάχιημεν εἶναι, He does not speak οὗ ἃ change of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, see Lbrard, p. 257. Inthe opinion of this writer, the phrase κατὰ μεταβολήν 15 the opposite of κατὰ κτίσιν, and denotes that na- tural food is accompanied by that provided by our Saviour for our new life, comp. also Semisch, 11. p. 439, ss. The passage is by no means clear. Jrencus, iv. 18, (33.) p. 250, (324, Grabe) also thinks that the common bread is changed into bread of a higher order, the earthly into the heavenly; but it does not therefore cease to be bread. He draws a parallel between this change and the transformation of the mortal body into the im- mortal, p. 251: ‘Qs γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν exxAnow [ἐπίκλησιν] τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄοτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγ- μάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου, οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡωῶν μετα- λαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φ)αρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. Comp. v. 2, p. 292, 94, (3965, 97,) and Mas- 218 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. suet? Diss. 111. art. 7, p. 114. Irengeus also defends the real pre- sence of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper in opposition to the Docete and Gnostics, iv. 18, § 4, 33, § 2, (Miinscher, von Colln, i. p. 496.) But the reason which he argues in favour of his views, viz. that the Gnostics cannot partake of the bread and wine with thanksyiving because they despise matter, shows that he regarded the elements as more than merely accidental things, though they are only bread and wine. Comp. Thiersch die Lehre des Irenezus von der Eucharistie, in Rudelbachand Guerikes Zeitschrift, 1841, p 40, ss. (4) The fear of spilling any part. of the wine ( Tert. de corona mil. 3: Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur, and Orig. in Exod. Hom. xii. 3), was perhaps founded ona right feeling of propriety, but it degenerated into super-_ stitious dread. ‘Thus the belief in an inherent vital power in the elements (φάρμακον ἀδανασίας, ἀντίδοτον τοῦ μὴ ἀπολανεν) Was gradually converted into the belief of miraculous cures being effected by them, which would easily form the transition to gross superstition. The practice of administering the Lord’s Supper to children may also be ascribed to the expectation of superna- tural effects. Comp. the anecdotes of Cyprian, de lapsis, p. 132. Rettberg, p. 537.—The separation of the Lord’s Supper from the agapee, which had become necessary, the custom of preserving the bread, the communion of the sick, etc. furthered such views. 6) It is remarkable that Tertullian, whose views, generally speaking, are realistic, shows in this instance a leaning towards the allegorical interpretation, according to which the Lord’s Supper is figura corporis Christi, adv. Marc. 1. 14. iv. 406. In the latter place he makes use of the symbolical to refute the notions of Marcion:; if Christ had not possessed a real body, it could not have been represented: (vacua res, quod est phan- tasma, figuram capere non potest.—He might as well have said : it is impossible to partake of a phantom as such!)* This senti- ment accords with what is said de anima, c. 17: vinum in san- guinis sul memoriam consecravit. Nevertheless, Tertullian speaks in other places, de resurr. c. 8. de pud.c. 9. of the partici- * Respecting the manner in which Tertullian viewed the relation between the sign and the thing signified, comp. as a parallel-passage de resurr. carnis, ο. 90. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 219 pation of the Lord’s Supper as an opimitate dominici corporis ves- ci, asa de Deo saginari ; with these expressions comp. de Orat. 6: Corpus ejus in pane censetur (not est.) He also makes some mys- tical allusions (e. 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 supernatural effects of the Lord’s Supper. > But the existence of such notions is no proof that the doctrine of transubstantiation, oranother of similar import, was known at that time, since the same efficacy was ascribed to baptismal water. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 517, and Baur, &., Tertul- lian’s Lehre vom Abendmahl, (Tibing. Zeitschr. 1839. part 2. p. 36, ss.) in opposition to Rudelbach, who asserts (as Luther had done before him) that Tertullian took the Lutheran view of the point in question. On the other hand, Gicolampadius and Zuinglius appealed to the same Father in support of their opia- ions. Cyprian’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is set forth in the 63d of his epistles, where he combats the error of those who used water instead of wine (see note 1.), and proves the obligation resting upon us of employing the latter. The phrase ostenditur used in refernece to the wine as the blood of Christ, is somewhat doubful. But the comparison which Cyprian draws between water and people, rather intimates that he was in favour of the symbolical interpretation, though he calls in other places (ike Tertullian) the Lord’s Supper simply the body and blood of Christ, Ep. 57, p. 117. What he says con- cerning the effects of the Lord’s Supper, (the blessed drunk- enness of the communicants compared with the drunkenness of Noah), and the miracles related by him, are a sufficient answer to the charge of insipidity. But im connection with the doc- trine of the unity of the church, he attaches great practical imporiance to the idea of a communio, which was afterwards abandoned by the Romish church, but on which again much stress was laid by the reformers, Ep. 63, p. 154: Quo et ipso sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemad- modum grana multa in unum collecta et commolita et commix- ta, panem unum faciunt, sic in Ciristo, qui est panis ceelestis, unum sciamus esse Corpus, Cui conjunctus sit noster numerus et adunatus. Comp. Retiberg, p. 332, ss. ) Clement adopts the mystical view of the Lord’s Supper, according to which it is heavenly meat and heavenly drink ; but he looks for the mystical not so much in the elements 290 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. (bread and wine), as in the spiritual union of the believer with Christ, and thinks that effects are produced only upon the mind, not upon the body. Clement also considers the Lord’s Supper not only as σύμβολον, but as σύμβολον μυστικόν, Peed, ii. 2. p. 184. (156. Sylb.) Comp. Peed. 1. 6, p. 123: Ταύτας nut οἰκείας τροφὰς ὁ Kusing χορηγεῖ καὶ σάρκα ὀρέγει καὶ aie ἐχχεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν εἰς αὔξησιν τοῖς παιδίοις ἐνδει" ὦ τοῦ παραδόξου μυστηρίου x. τς. A. The use of the terms ἀλληγορεῖν, δημιουργεῖν, αἰνίττεσιγαι Clearly intimates that in his view the visible elements themselves are not that mystery, but the idea represented by them. His interpretation of the sym- bol is somewhat peculiar: the Holy Spirit is represented by the σὰρξ, the Logos by the αἷμα, and the Lord himself, who unites in him 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. 11, 2, p. 177. (151. Sylb.) : Διστὸν δὲ τὸ αἷωα τοῦ Κυρίου" τὸ μὲν γώρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φορᾶς λελυτρώμεϑα" τὸ δὲ πνευματικὸν, τουτέστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεγα. Καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ πιεῖν τὸ aiwa τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, σῆς κυριακῆς μεταλαβεῖν ἀφ))αρσίας" ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκός, (Comp. Bahr, vom Tode Jesu, p. 80.) In the part which follows, the mixture of the wine and water is said to be asymbol 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.g.in Melchisedec, Strom, iv. 25, p. 637. (559. B. Sylb.) Among the Antenicene Fathers Origen is the only one who decidedly opposes those as axseasorégous, who take the exter- nal sign for the thing itselfin the xi. Tom. on Matth. Opp. iii. p. 498-500. ‘“ As common meat does not defile, but rather unbe- lief and the impurity of the heart, so the meat which is conse- crated by the Word of God and by prayer, does not by itself (τῷ ἰδίῳ 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 connection with such views Origen (as afterwards Zuinglius, and still less the Socinians) did not attach so much importance to the actual participation of the Lord’s Supper as the other Fathers: Οὕτω δὲ οὔτε ἐχ τοῦ μὴ φαγε:ν παρ᾿ αὐτὸ τὺ UH φαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγιασλέντος λόγῳ “γεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξει ἄρτου, ὑστερούμεγα ayasod τινος" οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ φαγεῖν περισσεύεμεν ἀγαδῷ τινι" τὸ γὰρ αἴτιον τῆς ὑστερήσεως ἡ κακία ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τῆς περισσεύσεως ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ καϑορδώματα, ib. Ῥ: 898: Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus THE LORD’S SUPPER. DO suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum, in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille fragendus, etc. Comp. Hom, vu. 5. in Lev. Opp. 11. p. 225. Agnoscite, quia figuree sunt, que in divinis vo- luminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tamquam spiritales et non tam- quam carnales examinate et intelligite, que dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, ledunt vos et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis littera......... que occidit eum, qui non spirita- liter, que dicuntur, adverterit. Si enim secundum litteram sequaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est: nisi manducaveritis car- nem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hee littera. 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 conduct, (Barn. c. 2.), or the sacri- fices of prayer and alms, (Clem, of Rome, c. 40-44.), which may also include the gifts, (δῶρα) offered at the Lord’s Supper; comp. also Ignat. ad Ephes. 5; ad Trall. 7: ad Magn. 7. Only in the passage ad Philad. 4, the εὐχαριστία 1s 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 Hof- linger, die Lehre der apostolischen Vater vom Opfer im Christ- lichen cultus, 1841. More definite is the language of Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. ὁ. 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 Chris- tians themselves make the sacrifice; there is not the slight- est allusion to a repeated sacrifice on the part of Christ! Comp. Lbrard, 1. 6. p. 236, ss. ILrenceus, adv. heer. iv. 17. 5, p. 249, (324 Gr.), teaches with equal clearness, that Christ had commanded, not on account of God, but because of the disciples, to offer the first fruits, and thus breaking the bread and blessing the cup with thanksgiving he instituted: ob- lationem, quam ecclesia Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis prestat ; primitias suorum mu- nerum, etc. The principal thing is the disposition of the per- a Namely, “ as a thankoffering for the gifts of nature, which was followed by thanksgiving 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 passover.” Baur, 1. c. p- 137. 722 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. sou who offers. On the difficult passage, iv. 18, p. 251, (326. Gr.): Judei autem jam non offerunt, manus enim eorum san- guine plene sunt: non enim receperunt verbum, quod [per quod 2] offertur Deo. Comp. Massuet. diss. in. in Tren. Deylin- git Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92, ss., and Meander, Kirchengesch. 1. 2, p. 588, [transl]. i. p. 385.] For the views of Origen concern- ing the sacrifice, comp. Héfling. Origenis doctrina de sacrificis Christianorum in examen vocatur, Part. 1. and 2. (Hrl. 1840-41). especially Part. 2, p. 24, ss. ® Tert. de cor. mil. 3: Oblationes pro defunctis pro nata- litiis annua die facimus. De exh. cast. 11: Pro uxore defuncta oblationes annuas reddis, etc., where he also uses the term sacri- ficium. De monog. 10, he even speaks of a refrigeritum which hence accrues to the dead, comp. de Orat. 14, (19.) It might here also be mentioned, that Tertullian, as the Christians in general, called prayers sacrifices; on the other hand, it should not be overlooked, that in the above passage de monogamia, prayers and sacrifices are distinctly separated. JVeander, Antig- nosticus, p. 155. ©) Cyprian, in accordance with his whole hierarchical ten- dency, first of all the Fathers, maintained, that the sacrifice does not consist in the thankoffering of the congregation, but in the sacrifice made by the priest, in the stead of Christ: vice Christi fungitur, id quod Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium verum et plenum tune offert in ecclesia Deo Patri. But even Cyprian does not go beyond the idea of the sacrifice being zm- tated, which is very different from that of its actual repetition. Comp. Rettberg, p. 334, and Neander, 1. ὁ. i. 2. p. 588 [ transl. i. p. 385. On the other side, see Marheinecke. Symbolik, 1]. 420. | (0) Concerning the Ebionites see Credner, I. ὁ. 1. p. 308, on the Ophites, Epiph. her. 37, 5. Baur, Gnosis, p. 196. If we compare the preceding observations with the doctrines afterwards set forth in the confessions of faith, we arrive at the following conclu- sions: 1. The Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation isas yet alto- gether unknown; nevertheless, the first traces of it, as well as of the theory of a sacrifice, may be found in the writings of some of the Fathers of this period. 2. The views of (Ignatius), Justin and Irenzus can be compared to those of Luther only in so far as they are alike remote from transubstantiation properly speaking, and from symbolical inter- pretation, and connect the real with the ideal. 3. The theologians of North Africa and Alexandria are the representatives of the reformed rs DEFINITION OF THE TERM SACRAMENT. 223 church. The positive tendency of the Calvinistic doctrine may be best seen in Clement, the negative view of Zuinglius is represented by Origen ; and both the positive and the negative aspects of the reformed doctrine, are united in Tertullian and Cyprian. The Ebionites (if anything more were known respecting their sentiments) might probably be considered as the forerunners of the Socinians, the Gnostics as those of the Quakers. § 74. DEFINITION OF THE TERM SACRAMENT, [ Halley, R., Lectures on the Sacraments, P. I. Lect. i. p. 1—14.] The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper existed before such a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been formed, as to include both.) The phrases μυστήριον and sacramentum are indeed used in refe- rence to either,(?) but they are quite as frequently ap pled to other religious symbols and usages founded upon some higher religious notion, and, lastly, to certain more profound doctrines of the church.) ® The word Sacrament is not used in the New Test. in the sense in which we understand it, inasmuch as baptism and the Lord’s Supper are nowhere described as two associated rites which distinctly differ from other symbolical usages. But shortly afterwards greater importance was attached to the for- mer than to the latter, notwithstanding the prevailing symboliz- ing tendency of the church. It therefore became necessary that the church itself should determine the idea of a sacrament, as nothing could be decided from Scripture. © As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic terminology (comp. the phrases: novum Testamen- tum, trinitas, peccatum originale, satisfactio) so he is the first writer who uses the phrase sacramentum baptismatis et eucha- ristiz, adv. Mare. iv. 80. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, 11. p. 1188, and the works quoted by him. The corresponding Greek term μυστήριον occurs in Justin, Apol. 1. 66, and Clem. Peed. i. p. 125, (comp. Suzcer, sub voce.) @) Tertullian also uses the word sacramentum in a more ge- neral sense, adv. Marc. v. 18, and ady. Prax. 30, where he calls 2.) THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. the Christian religion a sacrament. Comp. the Index latinitatis Tertullianez, by Semler, p. 500. [ Halley, 1. ὁ. p. 9,10.] The same may be said respecting the use of the term μυστήριον. Cy- prian employs the word sacramentum with the same latitude as Tertullian, He speaks indeed, Ep. 63, of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but also of a sacrament of the Trinity (de orat. dom. where the Lord’s prayer itself is called a sacrament.) On the twofold sense of the Latin word, sometimes denoting oath, sometimes used as the translation of the Greek term μυστήριον, see Rettberg, p. 324, 28. SIXTH SECTION. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS. (ESCHATOLOGY.) $75. THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST—MILLENNARIANISM. (CHILIASM.) (Ourrodi) kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus. Ziir. 1781—83. ill. 1794. Miinscher, W., Entwickelung der Lehre vom tausendjabrigen Reiche inden 3 ersten Jahrhunderten,in Henkes Magazin. vol. vi. p. 233, ss. [Comp. the article on Millennium in Aééio’s Cyclop. of Bibl. Liter., where the literature will be found. ] Tur disciples of Christ having received from their master the promise of his second coming (cagous/e), the primitive church looked upon this event as one which would shortly come to pass, and brought it into connec- tion with the general resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.) Of all the parts of the New Test., none gave rise to 850 many conjectures on this subject, as the book of Revelation, which some ascribed to the Apostle John, while others rejected this opinion, or even contested its canonical authority.?) The idea having been introduced in the 20th ch. of that book, of a mil- lennial kingdom, together with the notion of a second resurrection,() the more carnally-minded freely indulged in further developements of their millennial hopes. This was the case not only with the Judaizing Ebionites( and Cerinthus,°) (according to the testimony of some wri- ters), but also with some orthodox Fathers, such as Papias of Hierapolis, Justin, Lreneus,\®) and Tertullian. Q 226 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. The millennial notions of the latter were in full accord- ance with his Montanist views.” Cyprian adopted partly the same ideas, but only in a greatly modified form.’8) The Gnostics were from the first unfavourable to millennarian tendencies,“) which were also opposed by some orthodox writers, e.g. the presbyter Caius in Rome, and the theologians of the Alexandrian school, especially Origen. (1) ἃ) Comp. the works on biblical theology. The notion of the second coming of Christ in distinction from the first was found- ed on the New Test. Justin M. Apol. i. 52: Δύο γον αὐτοῦ παρου- σίας προεκήρυξαι οἱ προφῆται" μίαν μὲν THY ἤδη γενομένην, ὡς ὠτίμου καὶ παϑη- τοῦ ἀν)εώπου' τὴν δὲ δευτέραν, ὅταν μετιὰ δόξης ἐξ οὐρανῶν μετὰ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς αὐτοῦ στρατιᾶς παραγενήσεσλαι κεχήρυχται, ὅτε καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀνεγερεῖ πάντων τῶν γενομένων ἀνθρώπων x, τ. A Cf. dial. c. Tr. 45. Iren.i. 10, (he makes a distinction between ἔλευσις and παρουσία) iv. 22. 2. ) See above § 31, note 7, esp. Euseb. vii. 25, and the intro- ductions to the commentaries on the book of Revelation [| Stuart, i. p. 283, ss. | ὦ Comp. the commentaries on this chapter, [ Stwart, u. p. 459, ss. 474.| Justin M. calls the jirst resurrection the holy one, dial. c. Tryph. ὃ 113. Comp. Semisch, ii. p. 471. 4) Jerome in his comment. on Is. Ixvi. 20, observes that the Ebionites understand the passage, ‘“‘ Aud 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 will reign at Jerusalem, and the temple be rebuilt, the Israelites will be gathered together from all the cnds of the earth. They will have no wings to fiy, but they will come in waggons of Gaul, in covered chariots of war, and on horses of Spain and Cappadocia; their wives will be carried in litters, and ride upon mules of Numidia instead of horses. Those who hold offices, dignitaries, and princes, will come in coaches from Britain, Spain, Gaul, and the regions where the river Khine is divided in two arms; the subdued nations will hasten to meet them. But the author of the Clementine Homilies, far from adopting such gross notions, THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST. aa (Credner, 1. ὁ. iii, p. 289, 90,) even opposes them, Schliemann, p. 251 and 519. Euseb. iii. 28, (from tbe accounts given by Caius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria.) According to Caius Cerinthus taught : Mera τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χοιστοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐπιϑυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν 'Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν, this state would last a thousand years: according to Dionsyius, ἐπήγειον ἐσεσλαι τὴν τοῦ Χοιστοῦ βασιλείαν. Kal ὧν αὐτὲς ὠρέγετο φιλοσώματος ὧν καὶ πάνυ σαρκικὸς, ἐν τούτοις ὀνειροπολεῖν ἐσεσλαι, γαστοὺς καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γαστέρα πλησμονῶν, τουτέστι σιτίοις καὶ πότοις καὶ γάμοις καὶ OF ὧν εὐφημότερον ταῦτα WIN ποριεῖσγαι, ἑορταῖς καὶ ϑυσίαις καὶ ἱερείων σφαγαῖς. Comp. wu. 25, and Theodoret fab. her. 11. 3, and the works referred to in § 29, | Burton, Bampton Lecture, vi. lect. p. 177-179, and note 76. ] © « In all these works the belief in the millennium is so evident, that no one ean hesitate to consider it as universal in an age, when certainly such motives as it offered, were not unnecessary to animate mento sujjer for Christianity.” Gieseler, Lehrb. der Kirchengeschichte,i.§50. [Translation of Cunningham, i. p. 100. Comp. however, the writings of Clement of Rome, Tenatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of An- tioch, in none of which millennarian notions are propounded. On the millennial views of Papzas see Kuseb. iii, 39: Χιλιάδα τινά ῴησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσλαι METH THY ἐκ νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς TOU Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησουμένης. Comp. Barn. c. 15. (Ps. xc. 4.) Hermas, hb. 1. Vis.i. 3, and the observations of Jachmann, p. 86.—Justin, Dial. ὁ. Tr. 80, 81, asserts, that according to his own opinion and that of the other orthodox theologians ( τινές εἶσιν ὀρϑογνώμονες ATA πάντα χριστιανοί), the elect will rise from the dead, and spend a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, which will be restored, changed, and beautified, (in support of his views he appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel); at the same time he admits that even orthodox Christians (τῆς καϑα:ᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς γνώμης) entertain different views, comp. Apol. i. 11; he there opposes the idea of a human political kingdom, but not that of a millennial reign of Christ. Justin holds an interme- diate position between gross sensualism (συωσιεῦ πάλιν καὶ συωφα- γεῖν, dial. ο. Tr. § 51,) on the one hand, and spiritual idealism on * Various writers have endeavoured to remove the contradiction between these two sentiments, Aéssler, i. p. 104, interpolates: many otherwise ortho- dox Christians. Miinscher (Handbuch 11. p. 420,) and otiers, interpolate the word μὴ [coinp. Giescler, |. c. 1. § 52, note 19.] 228 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. the other. [Comp. Semiseh, C., Justin Martyr, his life, writings, and opinions, transl. by J. E. Ryland, ii. 870-376.] Irencus, adv, her. v. 33, p. 332. (453. Gr.) defends Chiliasm, especially in opposition to the Gnostics, He appeals ὁ. g. to Matth. xxvi- 29, and Is. xi. 6.—On the most sensuous and fantastical de- scription of the fertility of the vine and of corn, which is said to have originated with Papias and the disciples of John, see Miin- scher ed. by von Colln i. p. 44. Grabe, Spic. See. 2, p. 91, and 230. Corrodi, ii. p. 496. [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 whenany one of the saints shall take hold of a cluster of grapes, another (cluster) will cry out: | 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 pro- pounded in the Sibylline oracles, the book of Enoch, the Testa- tament 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. | ὦ) Tertullian’s views are intimately connected with his Mon- tanist notions. His treatise: De spe fidelium (Hier. de vir. illuss. c. 18, and in Ezech. c. 36,) is indeed lost ; but comp. adv. Mare. 11. 24. Tertullian, however, speaks not so much of sensual en- joyments, as of a copia omnium bonorum spiritualium, and even opposes the too sensuous interpretations of Messianic passages, de resurr. carn. 6. 26, though his own exposition is not free from similar errors, comp. NVeander, ae! p. 499. Kirchengeschichte, i. 3, p. 1092, [transl. ii. p. 325.] On the question, how far we may implicitly ase on the assertion of Kuseb. v. 16, that Montanus had fixed upon the city Pepuza in Phrygia as the seat of the millennial reign? and on the mil- Jennarian notions of the Montanists in general, see Gieseler, 1. ὁ. 1. ὃ 48. ® Respecting his doctrine of Antichrist, and his belief that the end of the world would soon come, comp. Ep. 58. p. 120, THE RESURRECTION. 229 124, Ep. 61. p. 144, exh. mart. ab init. p. 167. Tert. adv. Jud. iil. § 118, p. 91, see Rettberg, p. 340, ss. ® This is evident both from the real nature of Gnosticism itself, and the opposition which Irencus raised to it. Some have even ascribed the origin of Marcion’s system to a millen- narian controversy ; comp. however Baur, Gnosis, p. 295. (10) Concerning Caius and his controversy with the Montanist Proclus, see Neander, Kirchengesch. i. p. 1093, [transl. 11. p. 325.} Origen speaks in very strong terms against the millen- narians, whose opinions he designates: ineptas fabulas, figmenta inania, δόγματα ἀτοπώτατα, μοχϑηρά, etc. de DrnCa a Cael δ Ὡς: 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. i. p. 28. (Atin- scher ed. by von Colln,i. p. 44-46. Respecting Hippolytus, who wrote a treatise on Antichrist without being a true Millenna- rian, comp. Photius Cod. 202. Henell, de Hippolyto (Gott. 838. 4.) p. 37, 60. Corrodi, ii. p. 401, 406, 413, 416. ST THE RESURRECTION. Teller, G. A., fides dogmatis de resurrectione carnis per 4 priora secula. Hal. et Helinst. 1766, 8. Fliigge, Ch. W., Geschichte der Lehre vom Zustande des Menschen nach dem Tode. Lpzg. 1799, 1800, 8. tHub- ert Beckors, Mittheilungen aus den merkwiirdigsten Schriften der ver- flossenen Jahrhunderte tiber den Zustand der Seele nach dem Tode. Augsb. 1835, 36. Though traces of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which is so ably set forth by the Apostle Paul, may be found in certain notions of earlier antiquity, (}) yet it received its full confirmation, and was brought within the apprehension of even the uneducated only by the resurrection of Christ.@) During the period of Apologetics it was further developed, so as to involve the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh.®&) The ob- jections of the opponents of this doctrine, which may be chiefly traced to that tendency of the human mind which prevents man from looking beyond what is visible and tangible, were more or less fully answered in the epistle 230 THE AGE OF APOLOGETICS. of Clement of Rome, as well as in the writings of Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Ireneus, Tertullian, Minucwus Feliz, Cyprian, and others.) Most of the Fathers be- lieved in the resuscitation of the very same body which man possessed while on earth.) The theologians of the Alexandrian school, however, formed an exception ; Ori gen, in particular, endeavoured to clear the doctrine in question from its false additions, by reducing it to the simple idea of Paul, and sought at the same time to re- fine and to spiritualize it after the manner of the Alex- andrian school. The Gnostics, on the other hand, reject- ed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entire- ly ; the false teachers of Arabia, whom Origen com- bated, asserted that both soul and body fall into a sleep of death, from which they will not awake till the last day.) ὦ Comp. Herder, von der Auferstehung (Werke Zur Religion und Theologie, vol. xi.)— φως παραλλαγὴν οὑσίας ἕλκων τὴν ἐν τοῖς προσώποις διαφορῶν. Δεῖ δὲ χαὶ τὴν ἀσεβῆ σύγχυσιν ἐχείνου, καὶ τὴν μανιώδη τούτου διαίρεσιν ἀποστρέφεσλαι καὶ φεύγειν, τὴν μὲν ἡεότητα Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος μίαν ὁμολογοῦντας, προστιϑέντας δὲ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις" οὕτω γὰρ ἀποτειχίσαι δυνησόμεα τὰς ἀμφότέρων ἐφόδους. ) The leaders of the Semiarians (ὑμοιουσιασταί, ἡμιώφειο!) Were Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea: Comp. the confession of faith adopted by the synod of Ancyra, (a. p. 858), in Athanas. de Syn. ὃ 41. Miinscher ed. by von Colln, p. 222. ® Cyrill, Cat. xvi. 24. Ie rejects, generally speaking, specula- tions that are carried too far, and thinks it sufficient to believe : Eig δεὸς ὁ Tlatjer εἷς κύριος, ὁ μονογενὴς αὐτοῦ υἱός" ἕν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὁ παράκλητος. We ought not to go beyond Scripture, nor turn either to the right or to the left, but keep in the via regia, unre διὰ τὸ νομίξειν τιμᾶν τὸν υἱὸν, πατέρα, αὐτὸν ἀναγορεύσωμεν, μήτε διὸ τὸ τιμᾶν τὸν πατέρα νομίζειν, ἕν τι δημιουργημάτων τὸν υἱὸν ὑποπτεύσωμεν, ΧΙ]. 17. Instead of ὁμοούσιος he would prefer ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, iv. 7, but comp. the various readings in the work of Toutée, p. 53, and Miinscher ed. by von Colln, p. 224-226. Socrat. iv. 25. He also maintains, that it is necessary to hold the right medium be- tween Sabellianism and Arianism, iv. 8: Kai μήτε ἀπαλλοτριώσῃς TOU πατρὸς TOY υἱὸν, μήτε συνωλοιφὴν ἐργασάμενος υἱοπατορίαν πιστεύσῃς κ. τ. A. Comp. xvi. 4, and Meter, die Lehre von der Trinitat. 1. p. 170. Fus. ἢ. 6. 1, 2, callsthe Son τὸν τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελον, σὺν τῆς ἀῤῥήτου γνώμης τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπουογὺν, τὸν δεύτερον μετὰ τὸν πατέρα αἵτιον, Χο. In Panegyricus, Χ. 1. he also calls him τῶν ἀγαϑῶν δευ- τερον αἴτιον, AN expression which greatly offended the orthodox writers ;? and at another place he gives him the name αὐτόϑεος x. 4. On the formation of compound words by means of the pronoun αὐτὸ, 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 mentioned, though he calls him, iv. 3, p. 149, υἱὸν γεν- νητὸν πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ὄντα καὶ προόντα καὶ τῇ πατρὶ ὡς υἱὸν διαπαντὸς συνόντα : on the other hand, he speaks of him as ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς t? ΄ ~ ’ ἀνεχφράστου καὶ ἀπερινοήτου βουλῆς τε καὶ δυνάμεως οὐσιούμενον. ΠΤ fur- a Comp. the note of the scholiast in the Cod. Med. (in the work of Vales. and Heinichen iil. p. 219): Κακῶς κἀνταῦϑα ϑεολογεῖς, Evr tus, περὶ τοῦ συνανάρχιου καὶ cuvai diov καὶ συμαοιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ͵, δεύτερον αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶν αἴτιον T ὦ ἀγαϑῶν, συναίτιον ὄντα καὶ φυνδημιουργὸν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων, καὶ ὁμοούσιον, and the more recent note in the Cod, Mazarin. 116 60), 1, 274 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. ther particulars see Munscher, ed. by von Colln, p. 227-29, and Handbuch, iii. p. 427, ss. Martina, Eus. Ces., de divinitate Christi sententia, Rost. 1795, 4. t Ritter, Eus. Ces. de divinitate Christi placita, Bonn. 1823, 4. Heenell, de Eusebio Cus. relig. Christ. defensore. Meier, 1. ¢. 1. p. 167. (6) Concerning the strict Arians: Aétius of Antioch, Kuno- mius, bishop of Cynicum, and Acacius, bishop of Czesarea in Palestine, comp. Philostorg. iii. iv. Epiph. her. 76, 10, Re- specting the life, writings, and opinions of Eunomius, see Klose, l. c. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 11. 2, p. 852, ss. Comp. Dor- ner, i. 8, p. 853, ss. Meier, i. p. 176, ss. © The opinions of Marcellus (who died about the year 374,) may be known partly from the fragments of his treatise against Asterius (de subjectione Domini, edited by Rettberg, under the title: Marcelliana, Gott. 1794. 8), partly from the writings of his opponents, Eusebius (xara Μαρκέλλου Lib. 11, and περὶ τῆς ἐχκλη- σιαστικῆς ϑεολογίας) and Cyrill of Jerusalem (Cat. xv. 27. 33), and partly from his own letter to Julius, bishop of Rome (Epiph. heer. 72. 2.) The earlier writers are divided in their opinions concerning the orthodoxy of Marcellus: the language of Atha- nasius is very mild and cautious (0a τοῦ προσώπου μειδιάσας Kipiph. her. 72. 4); though he does not directly approve of his senti- ments. Basil the Great, on the other hand, (according to Ep. 69. 2, and 263. 5,) and most of the eastern bishops, insisted upon his condemnation ; most of the later writers considered him a heretic, comp. Montfaucon, Diatribe de causa Marcelli Ancy- rani (in collect. nova Patr. Par. 1707. T. 1. pag. li.) Klose, p. 21-25. Gieseler, i. § 82, note 10. Marcellus had formerly de- fended the term ὁμοούσιος at the council of Nice. When he, in the course of the controversy, and of his opposition to the Arian sophist Asterius, seemed to lean more towards Sabellianism, he might do so without his own knowledge, comp. Baumgarten- Crusius, 1. p. 277-278. Concerning the doctrine itself Marcel- lus returned to the old distinction made between λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος and σροφορικός, he imagined, on the one hand, that the λόγος was ἡσυχάζων in God, and, on the other, that it was an ἐνέργεια δραστικῆ proceeding 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 Sabellians, and rejects the idea of a generation adopted by the council of Nice, because it infringes the Divi- nity of the Logos,) he occupies an intermediate position between CAUSES OF THESE FLUCTUATIONS. 278 the one and the other. He also endeavoured to re-introduce the older, historical signification of the phrase υἱὸς ϑεοῦ, which was to be understood of the personal appearance of the histori- cal Christ, and not of the pre-existence of the Logos; for the idea of generation cannot be applied to the latter. His disciple Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, (to whom his opponents gave the nickname 3zorewés,) adopted similar views, but carried them to a much greater extent; he died about the year 376. His doc- trine was condemned in the aforesaid formula μακρόστιχος, and again afterwards at the council of Milan (4. p. 346.) He him- self was dismissed from his office by the council of Sirmium, (a. D. 351.) The sect of the Photinians however continued to exist till the reign of Theodosius the Great. From what has been said concerning him by Athan. de Syr. ὃ 26. Socrat. 1]. 19. Epiph. her. 70. Hilary (Fragm. and de Synodis,) Marius Mercator (Nestorii sermo iv.), and Vigil. Tapsens. (dialogus), it cannot be fully ascertained, how far Photinus either adhered to the principles of his master, or deviated from them. Comp. on this point Aviinscher, Handbuch i. p. 447. Meander, 11. 2, p. 908. Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 279. Gieseler, 1. § 82. Hase, Kirchengeschichte, p. 130. Klose, p. 66, 8s. He too asserted the co-eternity of the Logos (but not of the Son) with the Fa- ther, and employed the term Asyorarwe to denote their unity, as Sabellius had used the word viorarwe. He applied the name “ Son of God,” only to the incarnate Christ. The only differ- ence between Marcellus and Photinus probably was, that the latter developed more the negative aspect of Christology than his master, and consequently considered the connection of the Logos with the historical Christ to be less intimate. Hence his followers were called Homuncionite, (according to Mar. Merca- tor quoted by Klose, p. 76.) But we should bear in mind: “« that theologians then but hétle understood the distinction made by Marcellus and Photinus between the terms Locos and Son oF Gop. In refuting their opponents they invariably confounded these expressions, and thus might easily draw dangerous and absurd inferences from their propositions. But at the same time at ts evident that their own arguments would take a wrong di- rection, and thus lose the greatest part of their force.” Miin- scher, Handbuch, 1. ec. Comp. however, Dorner, 1. 3, p. 864, ss. Baur, Trinit. i. p. 525, ss. Meter, i. p. 160, ss. 276 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. § 93. DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Nicene Creed had decided nothing concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit.) While Lactantius yet iden- tified the Word with the Spirit,©) other theologians re- garded the Spirit as a mere Divine power and gift, or at least did not venture to determine his nature m any more definite way, though accustomed to teach the Di- vinity of the Son in unequivocal terms.) But Athan- asius inferred from his premises the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and was followed by Basil, surnamed the Great, as well as by Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa.) At last the general council of Constantinople (a. p. 381), influenced by Gregory of Nazianzum, adopted more precise doctrinal definitions concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit, especially in opposition to the Macedonians (σνευματομάχους. γ(Ὁ) 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 prepared the way for further definitions, in which honour and power equal in every respect to those of the Father and the Son were ascribed to him.) @) It would indeed have been necessary to adopt more pre- cise definitions; for Arius (according to Athan. orat. 1. § 6.), maintained that the Spirit stood in the same relation to the Son, as the Son to the Father, and that he was the first of the crea- tures made by the Son. But it did not appear wise to involve the matter in question still more by contending about the Di- vinity of the Spirit; many of the Nicene Fathers who consented that the term ὁμοούσιος should be apphed to the Son, would not have so easily admitted it in reference to the Spirit. See Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 11, 2, p. 892. @ See above, § 87, note 1. ® They had to guard against a twofold error; the one was to fall back into Sabellianism, the other to continue Arianism. DIVINITY 07 THE HOLY SPIRIT. Do Lactantius, on the one hand, separated the Son from the Fa- ther (after the manner of the Arians), and, on the other, con- founded the Spirit with the Son (as the Sabellians did.) Some writers followed his example, while others ascribed a distinct personality to the Spirit, but asserted that he was subordinate to both the Father and the Son. 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. 8. 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 opi- nion to adopt from reverence, as they say, for the Sacred’ Scrip- tures, because they do not teach anything definite on this point.” Eustathius of Sebaste belonged to this latter class; he said in reference to the Macedonian controversy (Socr. 1. 45) : ᾿Εγὼ οὔτε Seby ὀνομάζειν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αἱροῦμαι οὔτε κτίσμω καλεῖν τολμήσαιμι. Comp. Ullmann, Gregor von Nazianz. p. 380. Neander, Kir- chengesch. 11. 2, p. 892. Eusebius of Caesarea was the more willing to subordinate the Spirit to both the Father and the Son, the more 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 Trinity, de theol. eccles. 11. 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. xu. ὁ. 55. (Tuum est, quicquid te init, neque alienum ate est, quicquid virtute scrutantis inest.) Comp. de trin. 11. 29: Despiritu autem sancto nec tacere oportet, nec loqui necesse est, sed sileri a no- bis eorum causa, qui nesciunt, non potest. Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, quia de patre et filio auctoribus confitendum est, et quidem puto an sit, non esse tractandum. Est enim, quandoquidem donatur, accipitur, obtinetur, et qui confessioni patris et fili1 connexus est, non potest a confessione patris et filii separari. Imperfectum enim est nobis totum, si aliquid desit atoto. De quo si quis intelligentiz nostra sensum requirit, in Apostolo legimus ambo: quoniam estis, inquit, ΠΠῚ Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra 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 hinc 278 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 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, do- num fidelium: displiceant et apostoli et evangeliste et pro- phetz, hoc tantum de eo quod esset. loquentes, et post hee pater et filius displicebit.—He also advises us not to be per- plexed by the language of Scripture, in which both the Father and the Son are sometimes called Spirit. ‘“ He evidently con- founds the terms: Deus Spiritus, Det Spiritus, and Spiritus S., and though he believes in the separate existence of the Spirit, he does not go beyond the idea that he is a donum, a munus.”°— Meier, Trinitatsl. i. p. 192. Cyrill of Jerusalem, too, endeavours to confine himself to the use of scriptural definitions on the nature of the Holy Spirit, though he distinctly separates him from all created beings, and regards him as an essential part of the Trinity. He urges especially the practical aspect of this doctrine in opposition to the false enthusiasm of heretical fana- tics, Cat. 16 and 17.* “ Athanasius (Ep. 4, ad Serap.) endeavoured to refute those, who declared the Holy Ghost to be a χτίσμα, or the first of the πνευμάτων λειτουργικῶν, and who were Called τρυπικοί πνευματομαχοῦντες. He shows that we completely 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 with itself. Τριὰς δέ ἐστιν οὐχ ἕως ὀνόματος μόνον καὶ φαντασίας λέξεως, ἀλλὰ ἀληϑείῳ καὶ ὑπάρξει τριάς (Ep. i. 28, p. 677.) He appealed both to the decisions of Holy Writ, and to the testimony of our own Christian consciousness. How could that which is not sanctified by anything else, which is itself the source of sanctification to all creatures, possess the same nature as those beings which 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. It is not more certain that he communi- cates to us the principle of Divine life, than that he himself is 2 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 ἡ μῶν, etc. ibid. c. 19. His glory far surpasses that of all angels, c. 23. DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 279 one with the Divine being (εἰ δὲ ϑεοποιεῖ, οὐκ ἀωφίβολον, ὅτι ἡ τούτου φύσις Scot ἐστί) Ep, i. ad Serap. ὃ 24, p. 672, 73. Meander, 1. c. p- 895. Meter, i. p. 187, ss. © Basil the Great on a particular occasion composed his trea- tise de Spiritu Sancto, addressed to the bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, (comp. with it Ep. 189. Homilia de fide, T. 1]. p. 132. Hom. contra Sab. T. ii. p. 195.) He too maintained that the name God should be given to the Spirit, and ap- pealed both to Scripture in general, and to the baptismal for- mula 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, so far from being regarded as a creature, should be considered as inseparable from both the Father and the Son. He spoke in eloquent language of the practical importance of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (as the sanctifier of the human heart), de Spir. S. 6. 16: Τὸ δὲ μέγιστον rexmqziov 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. 11. 10,11.) In answer to the objection, that the Spirit is called a gift, he remarks that the Son is lhkewise a gift of God, ibid. c. 24, comp. Klose, Basilius der Grosse, p. 34, ss. His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, proceeds in the second chapter of his larger catechism upon 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, lke Lactantius, identify the Spirit with the Word, but draws a distinction between them. The Spirit is not to be considered as anything 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 omnipotence. ‘“ On the contrary, we imagine that this essential power which manifests itself as a separate hypostasis, can neither be separated from the God- head in which it rests, nor from the Divine Word which it fol- lows. Nor does it cease to exist, but being self-existing (αὐτος- κίνητον) like the Deity, it is ever capable of choosing the good, and of carrying out all its resolutions.” Comp. Rupp, Gregor. von Nyssa, p. 169, 70. The views of Gregory of Nazianzum agreed with those of the two writers already named, though he clearly perceived the difficulties with which the doctrine in question was beset in his time. He was prepared to meet the objection, that it would introduce a ely ξένον καὶ ἄγραφον (Orat, 280 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. xxx. 1. p. 556. Ullmann, p. 381); he also acknowledged that it was not expressly taught in Scripture, and therefore thought that it was quite justifiable to go beyond the letter itself. He has recourse to the idea of a gradual revelation, which, as he imagines, stands in connection with a natural developement of the Trinity. “ The Old Test. sets forth the Father in a clear, but the Son in a somewhat dim light: the New Test. reveals the Son, but it only intimates the Divinity of the Spirit; but now the Spirit dwells in our midst, 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 did it appear advisable to add that of the Spit, 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 there- fore some degree of prudence in discourses on this dogma. He himself developed it principally in his controversy with Mace- donius, and refuted him by proving that the Holy Spirit is neither a mere power, nor a creature, and accordingly, that he is God himself. For further particulars see Ullmann, p. 378, ss. () The word Πνευματομάχοι has a general meaning, and com- prehends of course the strict Arians. But the Divinity of the Spirit was equally denied by the Semiarians, whose views con- cerning the nature of the Son resembled those of the orthodox party; the most prominent theologian among them was Mace- donius, bishop of Constantinople (a. p. 341-360.) Soz. iv. 27. says of him: Ἑἠσηγεῖτο δὲ τὸν υἱὸν Jedy εἶναι, κατὰ πάντα τε καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὅμοιον τῷ πατρί" τό τε ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἄμοιρον τῶν αὐτῶν πρεσβείων ἀπεφαίνετο, διάκονον καὶ ὑπηρέτην χαλῶν. ‘heodoret, 11. 6, adds, that he did ποῦ hesitate to call the Spirit a creature. His opinion was after- wards called the Marathonian, from Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia. His followers appear to have been very numerous, especially in the vicinity of Lampsacus, see Meier, i. p. 192. The Macedonians, though condemned at the second CG2icumenical council, continued to exist as a separate sect in Phrygia down to the fifth century, when they were combated by Nestorius. The objections which the Macedonians either made themselves to the Divinity 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 τὰ ἄναρχα), viz, the Father PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 281 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, ὁ. 15. In opposition to this Gregory simply remarks, that not the idea of generation, but that of ἐκπόρευσις 18 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 not a perfect being, if he is not (a) Son. But the Macedonians chief- ly appealed’ to the absence of decisive Scriptures. Comp. U/Ul- mann, p. 390, 91. ( Τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφῆτων. Comp. ὃ 91, note 4. 894. PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Walch, J. G., historia controversize Grecorum Latincrumque de proces- sione Spir. S. Jenw, 1751. 8. Pfuff, Chr. Matth., historia succincta controversie de Processione Spir. S. Tub. 1749. 4. The canons of the council of Constantinople, however, had not fully settled the point in question. The relation of the Spirit to the Trinity in general had been deter- mined, but the particular relation in which he stands to the Son and the Father separately, remained yet to be decided. Inasmuch as the formula declared, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without making any distinct mention of the Son, room was left for doubt, whether it denied the procession of the Spirit from the © latter, or not. On the one hand, the assertion that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, seemed to favour the notion, that the Son is sub- ordinate to the Father; on the other, to maintain that he proceeds from both the Father and the Son, would be 282 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. placing the Spirit in a still greater dependence (viz. on two persons instead of one.) ‘Thus the desire fully to establish the Divinity of the Son, would easily detract from the Divine nature of the Spirit; the wish, on the contrary, to prove the self-existence and independence of 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 proceeds from the Son. \) Epiphanius, on the other hand, ascribed the origin of the Spirit to both the Father and the Son, with whom Mar- cellus of Ancyra agreed.) But Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret would not in any way admit that the Spirit proceeds from the Son,@) and defended their opinion in opposition to Cyril of Alexandria.“4) The Latin Fathers, on the contrary, and Augustine in parti- cular,©) taught the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. ‘This doctrine was so firmly established in the West, that at the third synod of To- ledo (A. p. 589.) the clause filiogue was added to the confession of faith adopted by the council of Constan- tinople, which afterwards led to the disruption between _ the eastern and western churches.) @) In accordance with the prevailing notions of the age, the Father was considered as the only effectual principle (“/« ἀρχή), to whom all other things owe their existence, of whom the Son is begotten, and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, who performs all things through the Son, and tn the Holy Spirit. The phrase: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, was maintained especially against the Pnewmatomachi. It was asserted, in opposition to them, ‘ that the Holy Spirit does not derive his existence from the Son in a dependent manner, but that he stands in a direct relation to the Father, as to the common first cause; that the Holy Spirit proceeds in the same manner from the Father, as the Son is begotten of the Father.” Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 11. p. 897. DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 283 © Epiphan. Ancor. § 9., after having proved the Divinity of. the Spirit, e. g. from Acts v. 3, says: ἄρα Seis ἐκ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα, without expressly stating that he ἐκπορεύεται ἐχ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Comp. Ancor, 8: Πνεῦμα γὰρ Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα τοὺ πατρὸς καὶ πνεῦμα υἱοῦ, οὖ κατά τινα σύνϑεσιν, καϑάπερ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ πατρὸς καί υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ πατοὺς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τρίτον τῇ ὀνομασίῳφ. Marcellus inferred from the supposition, that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the sameness of the last two in the Sabellian sense. us. de eccles. theol. iii. 4, p. 168, (quoted by Klose, iiber Marcell. p. 47.) Concerning the views of Pho- tinus, see Klose, 1. ὁ. p. 83. ‘) Theodore of Mopsuestia in his confession of faith (quoted by Walch, Bibl. Symb. p. 204.) combated that opinion which would represent the Spirit as διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν εἰληφός. On the opinion of Theodoret comp. the ix. anathema of Cyrill, Opp. v. p. 47. ὦ Cyrill condemned all who denied that the Holy Spirit was the proprium of Christ. Theodoret in reply, observed, that this expression was not objectionable, if nothing more were un- derstood by it, than that the Holy Spirit is of the same es- sence (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 contrary to what is said, John xv. 26; 1 Cor. 1.12. Comp. Neander, |. c. p. 900. ° Augustine, tract. 99, in evang. Joh.: A quo autem habet filius, ut sit Deus (est enim de Deo Deus), ab ilo habet utique ut etiam de illo procedat Spir. 5. Ht per hoc Spir. 8. ut etiam de filio procedat, sicut procedit de patre, ab ipso habet patre. Ibid.: Spir. S. non de patre procedit in filium et de filio pro- cedit ad sanctificandam creaturam, sed simul de utroque pro- cedit, quamvis hoc filio Pater dederit, ut quemadmodum de se, ita de illo quoque procedat. De trin. 4. 20: Nec possumus dicere, quod Spir. 8. et a filio non procedat, neque frustra idem Spir. et Patris et Filu Spir. dicitur. () This additional clause made its appearance at the time when Rekkared, king of the Visigoths, passed over from the Arian to the catholic church. The above synod pronounced an anathema against all who did not believe that the Spirit pro- ceeded from both the Father and the Son. Comp. Neander, 1. c. p. 901. 284 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 8. 95. THE DOCTRINESOF THE,TRINITY CONCLUDED. The more accurately {the Divinity both of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son was defined, the more important it became, first, exactly to determine the relation in which the different persons stand to the Godhead in general, and to each other in particular, and, secondly, 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 it the word οὐσία (essentia, substantia) denotes what is com- mon to the Father, the Son, and the Holy. Spirit, the ab- stract; the word ὑπύστασις (persona ) signifies the individual, concrete.) Each person ,possesses some peculiarity (ὐδιότης), by which it is distinguished from the other per- sons, notwithstanding the existing sameness of essence. Thus underived existence (éyensia) belongs to the Father, generation (γέννησις) to the Son, and procession ( ἐκπόρευσις, ἔχπεαψις) to the Holy Spirit.¢) Since Augustine re- jected all the distinctions which had been formerly made between the different persons, and referred to the one God that which had been predicated before his time of the separate persons, he could not entirely avoid the ap- pearance of Sabellianism.@) Boéthius and others adopt- ed his views on this point.) (1) The writers of this period avoided the use of the term πρόσωπον, Which would have corresponded more exactly to the Latin word “ persona,” while ὑπόστασις means literally substan- tia, lest it might lead to Sabellianism ; but they sometimes con- founded ὑπόστασις with οὐσία, and occasionally used φύσις instead of the latter. This was done 6. 9. by Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. xxiii. 11, p. 431. xxxill. 16, p. 614. xiii. 11, p. 431. Ep. 1, » THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY CONCLUDED. 285 ad Cledonium 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. Ullmann, p. 356, note 3. This distinction is most accurately defined by Basil, Ep. 236. 6. (quoted by Miinscher ed. by von Colln, p. 242, 243.) : Οὐσία δὲ καὶ ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν, ἣν ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καὶ ἑκαστον. οἷον ὡς ξἔχϑι τὸ ζῶον πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα ἄνθρωπον, Διὰ τοῦτο οὐσίαν μὲν μίαν ἐπὶ τῆς Θεότητος ὁμολογεῦμεν, ὥστε τὸν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον μὴ διαφόρως ἀποδιδόναι. ὑπόστα.-- σιν δὲ ἰδιάζουσαν, ἵν᾿ ἀσύγχυτος ἡμῖν καὶ τετρωνωμένη ἡ περὶ Πατρὸς wal Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἕννοια ἐνυπάρχῃ κ. «-.λ., Comp. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix. 11, p. 530. Ullmann, p. 355, note 8, and Orat. xlu. 16, p. 759, quoted by Ullmann, p. 356, note 8, where the distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις is prominently brought forward. (2) Greg. Naz. Orat. xli, 9: Πάντα ὅσα ὁ πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ, πλὴν τῆς ἀγεννησίας: πάντα ὅσα ὁ υἱὸς, τοῦ πνεύωατος, πλὴν τῆς γεννήσεως x τ. A. Orat. xxv. 16 : Ἴδιον δὲ πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, υἱοῦ be ἡ γέννησις, πνεύμα- ros δὲ ἡ ἔχπεωψις, but the terms ἠδιότης and ὑπόστασις were sometimes used synonymously, 6. g. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxill. 16, p. 614. Ullmann, p. 357. ® Augustinus contra serm. Arian. ὁ. 2, no. 4, (Opp. T. vii.) : Unus quippe Deus et ipsa trinitas et sic unus Deus, quomodo unus creator. He referred the appearances of the Deity, which were formerly ascribed to the Logos alone, to the whole Trinity. In support of his view, he appeals to the three men who ap- peared to Abraham, de trin. 11. 18. He also thinks that the nussion 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 un- begotten (comp. the passages quoted by Mever, 1. p. 206, ss.) 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 persone, non ut illud diceretur, sed re taceretur. The persons are not to be regarded as species, for we do not say, tres equi are unum animal, but tria animalia. He brings his views concerning the Trinity into connection with anthropology, but by comparing the three persons with the memoria, intellectus, and voluntas of man (]. 6. ix. 11; x. 10. 18; xv. 7,) he evidently borders upon Sabellianism, and would lead us to suppose that he believed in 286 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. mere modes of manifestation, instead of persons. On the other hand, he directs our attention to the practico-religious impor- tance of the doctrine of the Trinity, by reminding us of the true nature of love without envy, de trin. ix. 2: Cum aliquid amo, tria sunt ; ego et quod amo et ipse amor. Non enim amo amo- rem, 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 erant, quod amo et amor ? Amans enim et quod amatur, hoc idem est, quando se ipse amat. Sicut amare et amari, eodem modo id ipsum est, cum se quisque amat. Hadem quippe res bis dicitur, cum dicitur: amat se et amatur ase. Tune enim non est aliud atque aliud amare et amari, sicut non est alius atque alius amans etamatus. At vero amor et quod amatur etiam sic duo sunt. Non enim cum quis- que 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 amatur, nul- lus est amor, Duo ergo sunt, cum se quisque amat, amor et quod amatur. Tunc enim amans et quod amatur unum est... Amans quippe ad amorem refertur et amor ad amantem, Amans enim aliquo amore amat, et amor alicujus amantis est... Retracto amante nullus est amor, et retracto amore nullus est amans. Ideoque quantum 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. (Ὁ Boéthius, de trin. (ad Symmach.) 6. 2: Nulla igitur in eo (Deo) diversitas, nulla ex diversitate pluralitas, nulla ex acci- dentibusmultitudo, atque idcirco nec numerus. Cap.3: Deusvero a Deo nullo differt, ne vel accidentibus, vel substantialibus dif- ferentiis 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 plurali- tatem numeri in eo quod ips sunt...Non igitur si de Patre et Filia et Spir. 8. tertio praedicatur Deus, idcirco trina predicatio numerumfacit...Cap. 6: Factaquidem est trinitatis numerositas in eo quod est preedicatio relationis ; servata vero unitas in eo quod est indifferentia vel substantia vel operationis vel omnino ejus, quee secundum se dicitur, predicationis. Ita igitur substantia continet unitatem, relatio multiplicat trinitatem, atque ideo so- la sigillatim proferuntur atque separatim que relationis sunt ; TRITHEISM, TETRATHEISM. 287 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 pote- runt predicari. Boéthius falls into gross Sabellian errors, by drawing an illustration from the pantheistic use of these terms : gladius, mucro, ensis, to denote one and the same thing, see Baur, Dreieinigkeitsl. ii. p. 84. The orthodox doctrine of the western church is expressed in very concise formulas by Leo the Great, 6. g. sermo LXXV. 8: Non alia sunt Patris, alia Filn, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed omnia quaecunque habet Pater, habet et Filius, habet et Spiritus 8.; nec unquam in illa trinitate non fuit ista communio, quia hoc est ibi omnia habere, quod semper existere, LXXV. 1,2: Sempiternum est Patri, cozterni sibi ΒῚΠῚ 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, nun- quam Filius sine Patre, nunquam Pater οὐ Filius fuerint sine Spiritu Sancto, et omnibus existentize gradibus exclusis, nulla ibi persona sit anterior, nulla posterior. Hujus enim beatae trinitatis incommutabilis deitas una est in substantia, indivisa in opere, concors in voluntate, par in potentia, equalis in gloria. Other passages are quoted by Perthel, Leo der Grosse, p. 138, ss. § 96. TRITHEISM, TETRATHEISM. In keeping the three persons in the Godhead distinctly separate, much caution was needed, lest the idea of οὐσία, which refers to a unity, should be taken as a generic term, and made to embrace the ὑπόστασις as the species. This would necessarily have given rise to the notion of three Gods. But that error had also to be guarded against, by which God as such (αὐτόϑεος) was distinguished from, and represented as superior to, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the latter case there would have been the appearance of four persons, or even four gods. Tri- theites,1) and Tetratheites,?) indeed, are found in the ca- talogue of heretical teachers, though many of the charges 288 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. brought forward against them are founded on false in- ferences. © To the Tritheites belonged John Coscusnages of Constan- tinople, and John Philoponus of Alexandria. The former, when examined by the Emperor Justinian concerning his faith, is said to have acknowledged one nature of the incarnate Christ, but asserted three natures and deities in the Trinity. The Tritheites Conon and Fugenius are said to have made the same assertions. The opinion of Philoponus can be seen from a fragment, (Avair7- ss) preserved by John Damascenus (de heresib. c. 83, p. 101, ss. Phot. bibl. cod. 75. Niceph. xvii. 45-48, extracts from which are quoted by Miinscher, ed. by von Colln, 1. 251.) In his view the φύσις is the genus which comprehends species of the same nature. The term being and nature are identical, the term ὑπόστασις, or person, denotes the separate real existence of nature, that which the philosophers of the peripatetic school call ἄτομον, because there the distinction between genus and species ceases to exist. Comp. Scharfenberg, J. G., de Jo. Philopono, Tritheismi defensore, Lips. 1768, (Comm. th. ed. Velthusen, etc. T.i.) and TVrechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken 1835, part 1, p. 95, ss. Meier, 1. ὁ. 1. p. 195, ss. (2) The leader of the Tetratheites was Damianus, the Mono- physite (Severian) patriarch of Constantinople. In his contro- versy with Peter of Callinico, patriarch of Antioch, he main- tained that the Father is another, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another, but that none of them is God as such; they possess the Divine nature only in common, and each is God in so far as he participates in it. They were also called Damianites or Angelites (from the city of Angelium.) Comp. Niceph. xii. 49. Schrickh, xvii. p. 624. Miinscher von Colln, Ρ. 253. Baumgarten-Crusius, 1. p. 364. Meer, i. p. 198. § 97. SYMBOLUM QUICUNQUE. J. G. Vossius, de tribus Symbolis, Amstel. 1642. Diss. ii. Waterland, Dan. Critical history of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge, 1724. 28. 8. Dennis, John the Athanasian Creed, 1815. Comp. Miinscher, ed. by von Cilln,i. p. 249, 50. Buumgarten-Crusius, i. 12. 4. 23). ii. 124. The doctrine of the church concerning the Trinity ap- SYMBOLUM QUICUNQUE. 289 pears most fully developed, and expressed in its most perfect symbolical form in what is called the Symbolum_ quicunque (commonly, but erroneously called the Creed of St. Athanasius.) It originated in the school of Augustine, and is ascribed by some to Vigilius Tapsen- sis, by others to Vincentius Lerinensis, and by some again to others.) By the repetition of positive and ne- gative propositions, the mysterious doctrine is presented to the understanding in so hieroglyphical a form, as to make man feel his own weakness. ‘The consequence was, that all further endeavours of human ingenuity to solve its apparent contradictions by philosophical arguments, must dash against this bulwark of faith, on which salva- tion was made to depend, as the waves against an 1m- pregnable rock.(?) (Ὁ) According to the old account, Athanasius drew up the creed in question at the Synod of Rome in the year 341. This, however, appears improbable, first, because it exists only in the Latin language; secondly, from the absence of the term consub- stantialis (6nc0ve1c) ; and, thirdly, from the more fully developed doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit (the procession from the Father and the Son.) It was not generally adopted until the seventh century, when it was classed together as an G/cumeni- cal symbol with the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creed. Pascha- sius 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. Muratorz (Anecd. lat. T. il. p. 212-217), ascribed its authorship to Venantius I*ortunatus (a Gallican bishop in the sixth century), and Waterland to Hilary of Arles (who lived about the middle of the fifth century.) (2 SYMBOLUM ATHANASIANUM: 1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus habet, ut te- neat catholicam fidem. 2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviola- tamque servaverit, absque dubio in eternum peribit. 3. Fides autem catholica hee est, αὖ unum Deum in Trinitate et Trini- tatem in unitate veneremur. 4. Neque confundentes personas, | U 200 THE AGE ΟΕ POLEMICS. 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, equalis gloria, equalis majestas. 7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spir. S. 8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spir. 8S. 9. Immensus Pater, 1mmen- sus Filius, immensus Spiritus S. 10. dAsuternus Pater, aternus Filius, eternus et Spir. S. 11. Et tamen non tres eterni, sed unus eternus. 12. Sicut non tresincreati, nec tres immensl, sed unus increatus et unus immensus. 13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens et Spiritus 8. 14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. 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, domi- nus Filius, dominus et Spir. S. 18. Et tamen non tres domini, sed unus dominus. 19. Quia sicut sigillatim unamquamque per- sonam et Deum et dominum confiteri christiana veritate com- pellimur, ita tres Deos aut dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. 20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus. 21. Fililusa Patre solo est, non factus, non creatus, sed genitus. 22. Spir. S. a Patre et Filio non creatus, nec ge- nitus, sed procedens. 23. Unus ergo Pater, nee tres patres ; unus Filius, non tres filii; unus Spiritus 8., non tres spiritus sancti. 24. Et in hae Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed tote tres persone cozternz sibi sunt et cozquales. 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 Trinitate sentiat. . (Opp. Athanasii, T. i. p. 719.— Walch, Bibl. Symb. vet. p. 136, ss., it is also con- tained in the collections of the symbolical books published by Tittman, Hase, and others.*) * While salvation thus appears to be made dependent on the most refined philosophical definitions, it is pleasing to hear other men, such as Gregory of Nazianzum (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 de- finitions, Greg. Orat. xxxi. 33, p. 577. Ullmann, p. 336, comp., however, p. 334, 35. Rufinus also says, expos. p. 18: Quomodo autem Deus pater genuerit filiam, nole discutias, nec te curiosius ingeras in profundi hujus ar- canum (al. profundo hujus arcani,) ne forte dum inaccessz lucis fulgorem pertinacius perscrutaris, exiguum ipsum, qui mortalibus divino munere con- THE TRUE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 291 5. CHRISTOLOGY. § 98. 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 which exists between the three persons of the Trinity and the One God. For the more decidedly the church asserted the Divinity of the Son of God, the more the doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos had to be guarded against erroneous notions either concerning the true Divinity, or respecting the true humanity of Christ. In opposition to Docetism, the doctrine of the human nature of Christ had indeed been so firmly esta- blished, that no one was likely to deny that he possessed a human body, though Hilary, who was orthodox in all other points, bordered upon Docetism, by maintaining that the body of Jesus could not undergo any real suffer- ings.) But two other questions arose, which were be- set 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 ortho- dox maintained in opposition to the Arians),@) it was still doubtful whether this soul was to be understood only as the animal soul, or as both the animal soul and the rational spirit of man (in distinction from the Spirit of God.) () Flilary wishes to preserve the most intimate union between cessus est, perdas aspectum. Aut si putas in hoc omni indagationis genere nitendum, prius tibi propone quz nostra sunt: que si consequenter valueris expedire, tunc a terrestribus ad celestia et a vistbilibus ad invisibilia pro- perato. 292 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. 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 Godman, de trin. x. 23: Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus et passus est, sed non habuit na- turam ad dolendum. (He compares it to an arrow which passes through the water without wounding it.)—Comment. in Ps. exxxvilil. 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 dis- tinction to be made.)—De trin. x1. 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 poten- tem immensamque naturam assumptz humanitatis non ferret in- firmitas, sed in tantum se virtus inconscripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret eam usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corpo- ris obedire. He opposes the purely docetic interpretation of the Impassibilitas, de synodis 49: Pati potuit, et passibile esse non potuit quia passibilitas nature infirmis significatio est, passio autem est eorum, que sunt illata perpessio. He makes a dis- tinction between passionis materia et passibilitatis infirmitas. Hilary, however, ascribes a human soul to Christ, but he re- ceived neither that soul, nor his body from Mary; on the con- trary, he owes his origin to himself: comp. Dorner, p. 1040, ss. ® Athan. contra Apollin. 11. 3; “Azeog δὲ σάρκα μόνην πρὸς ἀποκρυ- φὴν τῆς ϑεότητος ὁμολογεῖ, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν avIowrou, τουτέστι τῆς Ψυχῆς, τὸν Λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει γεγονέναι, τὴν τοῦ, πάϑους νόησιν καὶ τὴν ἐξ δου ἀνάστασιν τῇ ϑεότητι προσάγειν τολμῶν. Comp. Epiph. Heer. 69. 19. and other passages quoted by Miéinscher von Colln, p. 268. This notion was very prominently brought forward by the Ari- ans, Hudoxius and Hunomius ; respecting the former see Cave, Historia Script. eccles. 1. p. 219; concerning the latter, comp. Mansi, Cone. T. iii. p. 648. Another party of the Arians, how- ever, 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, 11. 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. Miinscher von Colln, p. 269. Dorner, 1. ¢. p. 1071, ss. THE DOCTRINR OF APOLLINARIS. 293 8. 99. THE DOCTRINE OF APOLLINARIS. Apollinaris, bishop-of Laodicea, who, generally speak- ing, enjoyed a high reputation among orthodox theolo- gians, imagined that that higher life of reason which ele- vates man above the rest of creation, could be of no use to him, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, or rather, that its place was wholly supplied by the Lo- gos.) His intention seems to have been not so much to detract from the dignity of Christ, as to honour him. He was opposed by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, to whose exertions it must be at- tributed, that the catholic church adopted the doctrine, that Christ possessed a perfect human nature consisting of a body, and of a rational soul, together with his Di- vine nature.?) The council of Constantinople Ca. p. 381.) condemned Apollinarianism as heretical. 1) Anollinaris was led by his philosophical turn of mind to suppose, that he might establish his argument with mathemati- cal precision (γεωμετρικαῖς οἰποδείξεσι καὶ ἀνάγκαις.) Of the writings in which he explained his views, only fragments are extant in the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and Leontius Ly- zantinus (who lived about the year 590); they were the follow- ing: περὶ σαρχώσεως δλογίδιον (ἀπόδειξις περὶ τῆς ϑείας ἐνσανκώσεω:)----τὸ κατὰ κεφάλαιον βιβλίον--- περὶ ἀναστάσεω----περὶ πίστεως λογίδιον----Δ ἃ some letters (in Gallandi Bibl. PP. T. xii. p. 706, ss. Angelo Mat Class. auct. ‘T’.ix. p.495, ss.) Apollinaris objected to the union of the Logos with a rational soul, that the human being thus united to the Logos, must either preserve his own free will, in which case there would be no true union of the Divine and the human, or that the human soul had lost its proper liberty by becoming united to the Logos, either of which would be absurd. ‘¢ He chiefly opposed the τρεπτόν, or the liberty of choice in chris- tology.’ —Dorner, |. c.p.987. In his opinion Christ is not only ἄνδρωπος evdeos, but the incarnate God. According to the three- fold division of man, Apollinaris was willing to ascribe a soul to 20ρ4 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. the Redeemer, in so far as he thought it to be a mean between body and spirit. 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 becoming σάρξ, But the Divine reason supplying the place of the human, there exists a specific difference between Christ and other beings. In their ease everything had to undergo a process of gradual developement, which cannot be brought about without either conflicts or sin, (ὅπου γὰρ τέλειος ἄνϑρωπος, exe? καὶ ἁμαρτία, apud. Athan. 1. 2, p. 923. Comp. 6. 21, p. 939: ἁμαρτία ἐνυπόστατος.) But this could not take place in the case of Christ: οὐδεμία ἄσκησις ev Χριστῷ" οὐκ ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν avdowzwos. Comp. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhet. adv. Apollin. iv. c. 221. At the same time Apollinaris supposed the body and soul of Christ to be so completely filled with the higher and Divine principle of spiritual life, that he did not hesitate to use expressions such as: ‘‘ God died, God is born,” ete. He even maintained that on account of this intimate union Divine homage is also due to the human nature of Christ, |. ὁ. p. 241, 264. His opponents therefore charged him with Patripas- sianism. But we do not think that Apollinaris ever asserted, as Gregory of Nazianzum would have us believe, that Christ must have possessed an irrational, animal soul, e. g. that of a horse, or an ox, because he had not a rational human soul: Gregory himself seems to have drawn such inferences from the premises of Apollinaris. On the other hand, he accused his op- ponents ina similar manner of believing in two Christs, two Sons of God, etc. Comp. Dorner, p. 985, ss. Ullmann, Greg. y. Naz. p. 401, ss. Baur, Gesch. der Trinitatl. i. p. 585, ss. @ Athanasius maintained, in opposition to A pollinaris, contra Apollinar. libri ii. (but without mentioning his opponent by name, as he enjoyed personal intercourse with him), that it be- hoved Christ to be our example in every respect, and that his nature therefore must resemble ours. Sinfulness, which is em- pirically connected with the developement of man, is not a neces- sary attribute of human nature, as the Manichezan notions would lead us to suppose. 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 up- THE DOCTRINE OF NESTOR. 295 on questions of an anthropological nature.)—Athanasius dis- tinctly separated the Divine from the human (comp. especially lib. i1.), but he did not admit that he taught the existence of two Christs. Comp. Meander, Kirchengeschichte, i. 2, p. 923. Mohler, Athanasius, ii. p. 262, ss. (his attacks upon the doctrine of Luther are out of place.)* Gregory of Nazianzum, (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 manifested himself; but Jesus could re- deem and sanctify man only by assuming his whole nature, con- sisting of body and soul. (Similar views had been formerly held by Irenzus, and were afterwards more fully developed 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 καὶ ἄλλος, Compare the Epist. ad Nectar. sive orat. 46, with his 10 anathemas against Apollinaris, and Ullmann, p. 396-413. The work of Gregory of Nyssa en- titled λόγος ἀντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς σοὶ ᾿Απολλιναρίου (which was probably composed between the years 374 and 380), may be found in Zaccagni Collect. monum. vett. and Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. vi. p. 517. Comp. Gieseler, i. § 83, note 30. Rupp, p. 139.—He opposed the followers of A pollinaris (Συνουσιασταί, Διμοιριταί) in his Ep. her. 77.—The doctrine of Apollinaris was also condemned in the West by Damasus, bishop of Rome (comp. Miinscher von Colln, p. 277), and once more by the second C&cumenical synod of Constantinople (a. p. 381. Can. i. vii.}—On the question, whether Apollinaris or his disciples ever adopted the Docetic errors respecting the body of Christ? see Mohler, 1. ὁ. p. 264, SS. 8. 100. THE DOCTRINE OF NESTORIUS. Jablonski, P. E., exercitatio historico-theologica de Nestorianismo. Berol. 1724.—Tiibinger Quartalschrift 1835, ii. part 1. The desire of preserving the perfect human nature of * But he remarks more justly, p. 263: “ It is the more to be regretted that Apollinaris fell into such errors, as he devised his doctrine for the purpose of defending the Divinity of the Redeemer.” 290 THE AGE OF POLEMICS. Christ together with the Divine, 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 his Divine as well as to his human nature; and if the latter, in what respect 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 Antioch, Diodorus of Tar- sus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, made a strict distinction between the one and the other.) At last the phrase: mother of God (S