History of Dogma

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

Author: Adolf von Harnack

140 downloads 1559 Views 10MB Size Report

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

DOWNLOAD PDF

History of Dogma by

Adolf Harnack

History of Dogma - Volume I

Adolf Harnack

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

iii


Adolf Harnack

iv


Adolf Harnack

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY

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

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION

BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME I

iv


v

Adolf Harnack

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

vi

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

vii

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

2


viii

Adolf Harnack

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

xix

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

x

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

3


Adolf Harnack

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

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

xii

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

4


xiii

xiv

Adolf Harnack

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

xv

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

xvi

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


Adolf Harnack

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

CONTENTS.

xvii

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

1–40

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

1–23

Definition

1

Limits and Divisions

3

Dogma and Theology

9

Factors in the formation of Dogma

12

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

23–40

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

27

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

41–136

41–57

§©1. Introductory

The Gosppel and the Old Testament

41

The Detachment of the Christians from 43 the Jewish Church

6


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

Fundamental Features

58

Details

61

Supplements

70

Literature

75

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

General Outline

76

The faith of the first Disciples

78

The beginnings of Christology

80

Conceptions of the Work of Jesus

83

Belief in the Resurrection

84

Righteousness and the Law

86

Paul

86

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

89

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

7


Adolf Harnack

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

The Rabbinical Methods

and

Exegetical 99

The Jewish Apocalyptic literature

100

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

105

Literature

107

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

Spiritualising and Moralising of the 107 Jewish Religion Philo

109

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

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

122

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

128

SUPPLEMENTARY.

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


Adolf Harnack

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

141–144

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

(1) The Communities and the Church

150

xx

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

183

Jesus the Lord

183

Jesus the Christ

184

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

199

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

The Worship and Sacrifice

204

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

207

The organization

214

SUPPLEMENTARY. 9


Adolf Harnack

The premises of Catholicism

Doctrinal diversities of the Apostolic 218 Fathers

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

218

223–266

(1) The conditions for the rise of Gnosticism

223

(2) The nature of Gnosticism

227

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

Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt

253 267–286

267

xxi

(1)

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

(2)

The God of the Gospel

(3)

The relation of the two Gods according 274 to Marcion

The Gnostic woof in Marcion’s 275 Christianity

(4)

The Christology

275

(5)

Eschatology and Ethics

277

(6)

Criticism of the Christian tradition, the 278 Marcionite Church

Remarks

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

Characterisation of Marcion’s attempt

272

282 287–317

267

(1)

General conditions for the development 287 of Jewish Christianity

(2)

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


Adolf Harnack

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

296

The witness of Justin

296

The witness of Celsus

298

The witness of Irenæus and Origen

299

The witness of Eusebius and Jerome

300

The Gnostic Jewish Christianity

302

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

On the different notions of Pre-existence

318

II.

On Liturgies and the genesis of Dogma

332

III.

On Neoplatonism

335

Literature

361

xxii

xxiii

I PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.

11


Adolf Harnack

II THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

1

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

2

12


3

Adolf Harnack

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

1

2 3

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

13


4

Adolf Harnack

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

5

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


6

Adolf Harnack

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

4

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

15


7

8

9

Adolf Harnack

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

5

6

7

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

16


Adolf Harnack

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

10

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

9

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

17


11

12

Adolf Harnack

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


13

Adolf Harnack

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

14

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


Adolf Harnack

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

15

16

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


Adolf Harnack

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

17

18

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


Adolf Harnack

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

19

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

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

22


20

21

Adolf Harnack

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

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

23


22

Adolf Harnack

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

23

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

24


24

Adolf Harnack

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

25

12

13

14

15

16

17

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

25


26

Adolf Harnack

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

27

18

19

20

21

22

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

26


28

Adolf Harnack

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

23

24

25

26

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

27


29

30

Adolf Harnack

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


31

32

Adolf Harnack

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

28

29 30

31

32

33 34

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

29


Adolf Harnack

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

33

34

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

35

36

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

30


35

Adolf Harnack

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

37

38

39

40

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

31


36

37

Adolf Harnack

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

41

42 43

44

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

32


38

39

Adolf Harnack

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

46

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

33


40

Adolf Harnack

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

41

II

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

34


Adolf Harnack

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

42

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


43

44

Adolf Harnack

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

47

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

36


45

46

Adolf Harnack

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

48

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

37


47

Adolf Harnack

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

48

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


49

Adolf Harnack

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

49

50

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

39


50

51

Adolf Harnack

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

51

52

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

40


Adolf Harnack

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

52

53

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

53

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

41


54

55

Adolf Harnack

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

54

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

42


Adolf Harnack

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

57

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

56

57

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

43


Adolf Harnack

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

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

58

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

44


Adolf Harnack

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

59

60

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


Adolf Harnack

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

61

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

62

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


Adolf Harnack

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

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

59

60

61

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

47


64

65

Adolf Harnack

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

62

63

64

65

66

67

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

48


66

67

Adolf Harnack

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

68

69

70

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

49


Adolf Harnack

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

68

69

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

72

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

50


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

51


71

Adolf Harnack

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

72

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


Adolf Harnack

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

73

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

74

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

53


75

Adolf Harnack

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

76

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


Adolf Harnack

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

77

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

55


78

Adolf Harnack

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

79

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

74

75

76

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

56


80

81

Adolf Harnack

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

77

78

79

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

57


Adolf Harnack

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

82

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

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

58


83

84

Adolf Harnack

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

81

82

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

59


85

Adolf Harnack

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

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

84

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

60


86

87

88

Adolf Harnack

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

85

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

61


Adolf Harnack

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

89

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

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

62


90

91

Adolf Harnack

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

87

88

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

63


92

93

Adolf Harnack

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

89

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

64


Adolf Harnack

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

95

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

91

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

65


Adolf Harnack

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

96

97

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

92

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

66


98

Adolf Harnack

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

93

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

67


Adolf Harnack

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

99

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

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

94 95

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

68


101

102

Adolf Harnack

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

96

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

69


103

104

Adolf Harnack

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

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

70


105

Adolf Harnack

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

104

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

71


106

107

Adolf Harnack

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

108

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

72


108

Adolf Harnack

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

109

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

109

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

73


Adolf Harnack

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

110

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

112 113

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

74


111

112

Adolf Harnack

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

114

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

75


Adolf Harnack

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

113

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

114

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

115

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

76


115

116

Adolf Harnack

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

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

77


Adolf Harnack

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

117

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

124

Proofs in Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.

78


118

119

Adolf Harnack

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

125

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

79


Adolf Harnack

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

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

80


120

121

122

Adolf Harnack

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

81


123

124

Adolf Harnack

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

129

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

82


125

126

Adolf Harnack

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

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

83


Adolf Harnack

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

127

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

128

136

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

84


Adolf Harnack

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

129

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

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


130

131

Adolf Harnack

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

86


132

133

Adolf Harnack

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

87


Adolf Harnack

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

134

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

138

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

88


135

136

Adolf Harnack

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

DIVISION I.

137

139

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

89


Adolf Harnack

THE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA,

OR

THE GENESIS OF THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY,

AND

THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.

BOOK I. THE PREPARATION.

139 138

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

141 140

BOOK I THE PREPARATION

CHAPTER I HISTORICAL SURVEY

90


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

91


Adolf Harnack

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

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

144

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

92


145

Adolf Harnack

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

146

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

93


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

94


148

Adolf Harnack

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

150 149

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

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

95


Adolf Harnack

§©1. The Communities and the Church.

151

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

96


152

153

Adolf Harnack

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

166

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

97


Adolf Harnack

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

154

155

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

174

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

98


156

Adolf Harnack

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

176

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

99


157

Adolf Harnack

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

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

100


158

159

160

Adolf Harnack

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

101


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

102


162

Adolf Harnack

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

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

103


Adolf Harnack

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

104


Adolf Harnack

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

164

165

166

167

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

105


Adolf Harnack

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

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

106


169

170

Adolf Harnack

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

107


171

172

Adolf Harnack

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

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

108


Adolf Harnack

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

173

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

209

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

109


174

175

Adolf Harnack

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

214

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

110


176

177

Adolf Harnack

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

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

111


Adolf Harnack

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

178

179

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

218

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

112


Adolf Harnack

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

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

225

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

113


181

Adolf Harnack

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

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

114


182

183

Adolf Harnack

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

184

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

115


Adolf Harnack

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

185

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

236

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

116


186

187

Adolf Harnack

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

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

117


Adolf Harnack

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

118


188

189

190

Adolf Harnack

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

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

119


191

Adolf Harnack

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

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

120


192 193

Adolf Harnack

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

194

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

121


195

Adolf Harnack

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

196

257

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

122


197

Adolf Harnack

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

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

123


198

199

Adolf Harnack

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

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

124


Adolf Harnack

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

200

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

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

125


Adolf Harnack

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

126


201

202

203

204

Adolf Harnack

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

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

127


Adolf Harnack

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

205

206

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

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

128


207

208

Adolf Harnack

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

278

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

129


209

Adolf Harnack

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

210

285

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

130


211

Adolf Harnack

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

131


212

Adolf Harnack

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

213

292

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

132


Adolf Harnack

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

215

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

293

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

133


216

217

Adolf Harnack

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

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

134


Adolf Harnack

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

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

298

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

135


Adolf Harnack

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

220

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

136


Adolf Harnack

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

221

222

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

223

137


Adolf Harnack

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

224

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

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

138


225

226

Adolf Harnack

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

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

139


227

Adolf Harnack

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

228

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

303

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

140


Adolf Harnack

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

229

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

305

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

141


230

231

Adolf Harnack

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

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

142


232

233

Adolf Harnack

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

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

143


234

235

Adolf Harnack

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

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

144


236

237

Adolf Harnack

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

145


238

Adolf Harnack

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

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

146


239

240

Adolf Harnack

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

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

147


241

242

Adolf Harnack

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

324

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

148


243

Adolf Harnack

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

327

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

149


244

245

Adolf Harnack

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

329

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

150


246

247

Adolf Harnack

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

335

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

151


248

Adolf Harnack

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

338

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

152


249

250

Adolf Harnack

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

340

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

153


251

252

Adolf Harnack

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

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

154


253

Adolf Harnack

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

254

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

155


Adolf Harnack

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

255

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

156


256 257

Adolf Harnack

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

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

157


Adolf Harnack

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

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

259

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

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

158


Adolf Harnack

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

260

261

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

159


262

Adolf Harnack

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

160


263

264

Adolf Harnack

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

161


265

Adolf Harnack

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

266

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

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

162


Adolf Harnack

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

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

163


268

Adolf Harnack

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

366

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

164


269

270

Adolf Harnack

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

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

165


Adolf Harnack

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

272

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

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

166


273

274

Adolf Harnack

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

382

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

167


275

Adolf Harnack

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

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

168


276

277

Adolf Harnack

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

389

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

169


Adolf Harnack

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

278

279

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

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

170


280

Adolf Harnack

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

281

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

171


282

Adolf Harnack

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

400

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

172


283

284

Adolf Harnack

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


285

286

Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

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

403

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

175


288

289

Adolf Harnack

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

404 405

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

176


Adolf Harnack

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

290

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

291

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

406

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

177


292

Adolf Harnack

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

408

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

178


293

294

Adolf Harnack

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

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

179


295

Adolf Harnack

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

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

180


296

297

298

Adolf Harnack

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

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

181


299

Adolf Harnack

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

419

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

182


300

301

Adolf Harnack

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

423

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

183


302

303

Adolf Harnack

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

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

184


304

Adolf Harnack

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

432

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

185


305

306

Adolf Harnack

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

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

186


307

308

Adolf Harnack

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

440

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

187


309

310

Adolf Harnack

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

441

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

188


311

Adolf Harnack

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

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

189


312

Adolf Harnack

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

313

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

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

190


Adolf Harnack

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

314

315

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

451

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

191


Adolf Harnack

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

316

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

192


317

Adolf Harnack

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

318

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

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

193


Adolf Harnack

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

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


321

Adolf Harnack

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

322

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

195


Adolf Harnack

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

324

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


325

Adolf Harnack

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

197


326

Adolf Harnack

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

327

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


Adolf Harnack

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

328

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

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

199


329

330

Adolf Harnack

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

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

200


331

Adolf Harnack

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

332

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


333

Adolf Harnack

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

334

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


Adolf Harnack

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

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

336

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

203


337

338

Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

339

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

205


340

341

Adolf Harnack

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

206


342

343

Adolf Harnack

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

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

207


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

208


345

346

Adolf Harnack

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

209


347

Adolf Harnack

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

348

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

210


349

Adolf Harnack

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

457

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

211


350

Adolf Harnack

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

351

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


Adolf Harnack

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

352

353

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


354

Adolf Harnack

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

355

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


Adolf Harnack

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

356

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

215


357

Adolf Harnack

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

358

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


359

360

Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

362

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


Adolf Harnack

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

219


Adolf Harnack

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

220


Adolf Harnack

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

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

221


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

226


Adolf Harnack

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

227


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

234


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

236


Adolf Harnack

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

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

237


Adolf Harnack

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

238


Adolf Harnack

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

239


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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


Adolf Harnack

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

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

243

History of Dogma by

Adolf Harnack

History of Dogma - Volume II

Adolf Harnack

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

iii


Adolf Harnack

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

iv


iii

Adolf Harnack

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY



BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME II


Adolf Harnack

CONTENTS.

vii

Page CHAPTER 1. — Historical Survey

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

11

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

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

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

A.

The transformation of 20-38 the Baptismal

2


Adolf Harnack

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

viii

this 27

Irenæus

27

Tertullian

29

Results of transformation

t h e 31

Slower development in 32 Alexandria: Clement and Origen B.

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


Adolf Harnack

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

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


Adolf Harnack

By the “Elders”

68

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

the 70 the

The Bishops successors of Apostles

as 70 the

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

ix

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

5


Adolf Harnack

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

Introduction

94

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

6


Adolf Harnack

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

128

” II. Sacrifice

131

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

CHAPTER IV. — Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy.

The Apologists

169-230

1.

Introduction

169

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

Christianity Philosophy and Revelation

as 177 as

Aristides

179

Justin

179

Athenagoras

188

Miltiades, Melito

190

Tatian

190

7


Adolf Harnack

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

194

Justin,

de 195

Tertullian and Minucius 196 Pseudo-Justin, Monarch

de 199

Results 3.

199

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

202

The Monotheistic 204 Cosmology Theology

205

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

the 217

Christology of Justin

220

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

8


Adolf Harnack

1. xi

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

2.

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

to 247

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

9


Adolf Harnack

The Doctrine of God

253

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

277

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

of 286

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


Adolf Harnack

Reconciliation

292

Categories for the fruit 292 of Christ’s work xii

Things peculiar Tertullian Satisfacere Deo

to 293 294

The Soul as the Bride of 294 Christ The Eschatology

294

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

Results to Ecclesiastical 312 Christianity, chiefly in

11


Adolf Harnack

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

(1)

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

(2)

Clement and Origen

331

The system of Origen

332

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


Adolf Harnack

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

Theology as Philosophy Revelation, and cosmologic speculation

a 340 of a al

Porphyry on Origen

341

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

The Doctrine of God 349 and its unfolding Doctrine of God

349

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

Doctrine of the Fall and 361 its consequences Doctrine of Man

III.

359

363

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

369

The Appropriation of 375 Salvation The Eschatology

13

377


Adolf Harnack

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

DIVISION I.

xv

BOOK II. THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER I.

xvi 1

HISTORICAL SURVEY.

2

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

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

14


Adolf Harnack

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

3

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

2

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

15


4

5

Adolf Harnack

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

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

16


Adolf Harnack

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

6

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

7

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

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

17


Adolf Harnack

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

8

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

5

6

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

18


9

10

Adolf Harnack

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

8

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

19


11

12

Adolf Harnack

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

9

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

20


Adolf Harnack

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

13

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

10

11

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

21


14

Adolf Harnack

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

15

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

12

13 14

15

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

22


Adolf Harnack

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

16

17

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

17

18

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

23


Adolf Harnack

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

18

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

19

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

19

20

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

24


20

Adolf Harnack

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

21

22

23

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

25


Adolf Harnack

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

22

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

25

26 27

28

29

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

26


23

24

Adolf Harnack

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

31

32

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

27


25

26

Adolf Harnack

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

33

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

28


27

Adolf Harnack

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

28

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

35

36

37

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

29


Adolf Harnack

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

29

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

38

39

40 41 42

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

30


30

31

Adolf Harnack

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

43 44 45

46

47 48 49 50

51 52

53

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

31


Adolf Harnack

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

32

33

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

55

56

57

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

32


34

Adolf Harnack

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

58

59 60

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

33


Adolf Harnack

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

61

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

34


Adolf Harnack

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

37

38

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

62

63

64 65

66

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

35


Adolf Harnack

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

39

40

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

67

68 69

70

71

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

36


41

Adolf Harnack

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

73

74

75 76

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

37


42

Adolf Harnack

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

43

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

77

78

79 80 81

82 83

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

38


44

45

Adolf Harnack

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

85

86

87

88

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

39


46

47

Adolf Harnack

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

90

91

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

40


48

Adolf Harnack

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

92

93

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

41


49

Adolf Harnack

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

50

94

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

42


51

52

Adolf Harnack

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

96

97 98

99

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

43


53

Adolf Harnack

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

54

100

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

44


Adolf Harnack

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

55

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

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

45


Adolf Harnack

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

57

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

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

46


58

59

Adolf Harnack

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

112

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

47


60

Adolf Harnack

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

116

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

48


61

62

Adolf Harnack

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

119

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

49


63

64

Adolf Harnack

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

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

50


65

Adolf Harnack

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

66

124

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

51


Adolf Harnack

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

67

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

52


68

69

Adolf Harnack

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

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

53


70

Adolf Harnack

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

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

54


Adolf Harnack

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

72

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

55


73

74

Adolf Harnack

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

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

56


Adolf Harnack

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

75

76

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

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

57


77

Adolf Harnack

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

147

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

58


78

79

Adolf Harnack

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

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

59


80

81

Adolf Harnack

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

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

60


82

83

Adolf Harnack

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

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

61


84

Adolf Harnack

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

166

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

62


85

86

Adolf Harnack

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

170

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

63


87

88

Adolf Harnack

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

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

64


89

90

Adolf Harnack

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

179

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

65


Adolf Harnack

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

91

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

181

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

66


Adolf Harnack

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

93

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

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

67


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

68


95

Adolf Harnack

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

96

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

193

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

69


97

Adolf Harnack

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

98

195

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

70


99

Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

71


100

101

Adolf Harnack

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

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

72


102

103

Adolf Harnack

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

73


104

105

Adolf Harnack

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

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

74


Adolf Harnack

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

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

215

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

75


107

108

Adolf Harnack

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

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

76


Adolf Harnack

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

109

110

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

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

77


111

112

Adolf Harnack

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

78


Adolf Harnack

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

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

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

79


114

115

Adolf Harnack

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

237

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

80


116

Adolf Harnack

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

117

239

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

81


118

119

Adolf Harnack

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

82


120

Adolf Harnack

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

83


121

122

Adolf Harnack

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

248

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

84


123

124

Adolf Harnack

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

251

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

85


125

Adolf Harnack

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

126

255

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

86


127

Adolf Harnack

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

258

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

87


Adolf Harnack

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

ADDENDA.

129

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

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

88


130

131

Adolf Harnack

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

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

89


Adolf Harnack

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

132

133

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

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

90


134

Adolf Harnack

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

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

91


135

136

137

Adolf Harnack

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

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

92


138

Adolf Harnack

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

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

93


Adolf Harnack

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

139

140

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

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

94


Adolf Harnack

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

141

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

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

95


142

143

Adolf Harnack

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

96


144

145

Adolf Harnack

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

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

97


146

Adolf Harnack

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

294

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

98


147

148

Adolf Harnack

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

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III.

149

CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.299

298

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

99


150

151

Adolf Harnack

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

300

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

100


152

Adolf Harnack

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

153

303

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

101


154

Adolf Harnack

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

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

102


Adolf Harnack

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

156

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

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

103


157

158

Adolf Harnack

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

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

104


159

Adolf Harnack

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

105


160

161

Adolf Harnack

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

106


Adolf Harnack

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

163

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

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

107


164

165

Adolf Harnack

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

108


166

167

Adolf Harnack

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

109


168

Adolf Harnack

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

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

110


Adolf Harnack

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

169

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

170

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

339

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

111


Adolf Harnack

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

171

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

112


172

173

Adolf Harnack

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

342

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

113


174

175

Adolf Harnack

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

344

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

114


Adolf Harnack

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

176

177

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

346

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

115


Adolf Harnack

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

2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation.

178

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

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

116


Adolf Harnack

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

180

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

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

117


Adolf Harnack

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

181

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

182

356

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

118


Adolf Harnack

But there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is nevertheless sure. The same ancient documents, which contain the Socratic and super-Socratic wisdom of the Christians, bear witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, admit of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even in the minutest details. Moreover, in so far as these writings are in the lawful possession of the Christians, and announced at the very beginning of things that this community would appear on the earth, they testify that the Christians may in a certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this thought is still wanting in Aristides). The new Socrates who appeared among the barbarians is therefore quite different from the Socrates of the Greeks, and for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with the disciples of the philosophers.361 From the very beginning of things a world-historical dispensation of God announced this reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible appearance of reason itself. The same reason which created and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the whole of humanity to itself. Every precaution has been taken to make it easy for any one, be he Greek or barbarian, educated or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, to verify their truth, and test their power in life. What further importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how can one think of calling this a philosophy?

183

And yet the doctrine of the Christians can only be compared with philosophy. For, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also guided by the Logos; and, conversely, what the Christians teach concerning the Father of the world, the destiny of man, the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the Greeks. They indeed only stammered, whereas the Christians speak. These, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, but speak with the words and through the power of reason. The wonderful arrangement, carried out by the Logos himself, through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin? How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable has revealed itself, it has always been through the operation of the divine reason. For man’s lofty endowment consists in his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and through him. As man’s possession conferred on him at the creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power which dominates and determines his nature.362 361

See Apol. II. 10 fin.: Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγματος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ καὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ μέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι μόνον ἐπείσθησαν. 362 The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου as a natural possession, or whether this σπέρμα has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between ὁ λόγος and τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to τὸ ἔμϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου (Apol. II. 8), the μέρος σπερματικοῦ

119


184

185

Adolf Harnack

All that is reasonable is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his true destiny man requires from the beginning the inward working of that divine reason which has created the world for the sake of man, and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God.363 Apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. But this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits it. Revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. For no one who merely possessed the “seed of the Logos” (σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου), though it may have been his exclusive guide to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever the whole Logos has not been acting; for man’s natural endowment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness, and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the Logos-Christ, all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos. The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a special revelation. It is true that this revelation is nothing new, and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense nothing extraordinary. It is the divine help granted to man, who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. By the appearance of Christ this help became accessible to all men. The dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated ideas. If the former did not exist, the latter would not be necessary. According as we form a lower or higher estimate of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more than impart the

λόγου (ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they “in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason”; and Socrates is merely viewed as the πάντων εὐτονώτερος (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος (II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ἀπὸ μέρους; for “Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man”. Further, according to the Apologist, the μέρος τοῦ σπερματικοῦ θείου λόγου bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos (τό συγγενές II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡμῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί (ibid.), but, on the strength of the “participation” in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who have lived with the Logos (μετὰ λόγου) — an expression which must have been ambiguous — were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates and Heraclitus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέγχθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος did not act in Socrates, for this only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15: alongside of Christianity there is only human philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the σπορά and μίμημα of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one’s receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.” 363 “For the sake of man” (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260A, Apol I. 8: “Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of God, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable.” It is frequently asserted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.

120


Adolf Harnack

power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion of the demons.

186

Accordingly the teaching of the prophets and Christ is related even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to the part,364 or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also as the permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has now arrived and Christianity is destined to put an end to natural human philosophy. When the perfect work is there; the fragmentary must cease. Justin gave the clearest expression to this conviction. Christianity, i.e., the prophetic teaching attested by Christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to it may be called Christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable certainty.365 The practical conclusion drawn in Justin’s treatise from this exposition is that the Christians are at least entitled to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I. 7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.366 364

Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (I. 44. 59) by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further use then is the σπέρμα λόγου ἔμϕυτον? Did Justin not really take it seriously? Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in Justin’s estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the σπέρμα λόγου ἔμϕυτον when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the Apology. That assumption of Justin’s is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more “liberal”. 365 Compare with this the following passages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then follow the words: “If we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc.” In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). “Our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason” (τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον, II. 10). “The principles of Plato are not foreign (ἀλλότρια) to the teaching of Christ , but they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics” (II. 13). “We must go forth from the school of Plato” (II. 12). “Socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ” (II. 10). These are the very people — and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and Logos in Justin — among whom it is universally said of Christianity: δύναμις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.) 366 In Justin’s estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt referred to in I. 4, 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion of II. 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according to II. 3 fin. (ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεμένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. This is composed principally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together with Heraclitus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described the Deity and the world more correctly. It is, however, worthy of note — and this is the second point — that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included under the collective idea “human philosophy”, philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed great skill in selecting from the Gospels the passages (I. 15-17), that prove the “philosophical”

121


187

188

Adolf Harnack

In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, Justin ceased to employ the idea of the existence of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρμα λόγου ἔμφυτον) in every man. From this fact we recognise that he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. He indeed calls the Christian religion a philosophy;367 but, in so far as this is the case, it is “the only sure and saving philosophy”. No doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but they are incapable of giving correct answers. For the Deity, who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he reveals himself. True wisdom is therefore exclusively based on revelation. Hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.368 The Christian is the philosopher,369 because the followers of Plato and the Stoics are virtually no philosophers. In applying the title “philosophy” to Christianity he therefore does not mean to bring Christians and philosophers more closely together. No doubt, however, he asserts that the Christian doctrine, which is founded on the knowledge of Christ and leads to blessedness,370 is in accordance with reason. Athenagoras. The petition on behalf of Christians, which Athenagoras, “the Christian philosopher of Athens”, presented to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, nowhere expressly designates Christianity as a philosophy, and still less does it style the Christians philosophers.371 But, at the very beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic tenets.372 In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes nothing but practical atheism,373 and that the “atheism” of the Christians is a doctrine about God such as had been propounded by the most distinguished philosophers — Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics — who, moreover, were permitted to write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the “Deity”.374 The Apologist concedes even more: “If philosophers did not also acknowledge the existence of one God, if they did not also conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly expelled as aliens.”375 He therefore takes up the standpoint that the state is justified in refusing to tolerate life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14. Here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: ἅ ἔχομεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεομένῳ κοινωνοῦντες). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the “ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά”. Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin’s reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark. 367 Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the Apology, both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the Dialogue expressly refers to the Apology). From Justin’s time onward the apologetic polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the Jews. 368 Dial. 2. sq. That Justin’s Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue. 369 Dial. 8: οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. 370 Dial., l. c.: παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γενομένῳ εὐδαιμονεῖν. 371 See particularly the closing chapter. 372 Suppl. 2. 373 Suppl. 4. 374 Suppl. 5-7. 375 Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).

122


189

190

Adolf Harnack

people with completely new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test and approve376 the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely represents this faith itself as the reasonable doctrine,377 and that, with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of account,378 there is ground for thinking that this Apologist differs essentially from Justin in his conception of the relation of Christianity to secular philosophy. Moreover, it is not to be denied that Athenagoras views the revelation in the prophets and in Christ as completely identical. But in one very essential point he agrees with Justin; and he has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρμα λόγου ἔμφυτον). The philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, since it was not from God, but rather from themselves, that they wished to learn about God. True wisdom, however, can only be learned from God, that is, from his prophets; it depends solely on revelation.379 Here also then we have a repetition of the thought that the truly reasonable is of supernatural origin. Such is the importance attached by Athenagoras to this proposition, that he declares any demonstration of the “reasonable” to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even that which is most evidently true — e.g., monotheism — is not raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation,380 This can be done by Christians alone. Hence they are very different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished from these by their manner of life.381 All the praises which Athenagoras from time to time bestows on philosophers, particularly Plato.382 are consequently to be understood in a merely relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers, in so far as the “philosophers” are not such in any true sense. It is only the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals itself in polytheism,383 can only be overthrown by revelation; he rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.384 376

Suppl. 7 fin. and many other places. E.g., Suppl. 8. 35 fin. 378 The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing at all is said about Christ. 379 Suppl. 7. 380 Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init. 381 Suppl. 11. 382 Suppl. 23. 383 Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in detail. 384 The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellow-emperor perhaps bore the title: ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία (1. c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression “philosophy”. What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, that, as foster-sister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state. When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls 377

123


191

Adolf Harnack

Tatian’s385 chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment of the Christians.386 He wished to represent their cause as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, and pretentious emptiness. His “Address to the Greeks” begins with a violent polemic against all Greek philosophers. Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and philosophy which in Justin’s case is still concealed.387 Hence it was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies between Christians and philosophers. He also no doubt views Christianity as “reasonable”; he who lives virtuously and follows wisdom receives it;388 but yet it is too sublime to be grasped by earthly perception.389 It is a heavenly thing which depends on the communication of the “Spirit”, and hence can only be known by revelation.390 But yet it is a “philosophy” with definite doctrines (δόγματα);391 it brings nothing new, but only

192

Christianity “philosophy”, we must note that this expression alternates with the other “ὁ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς λόγος”, and that he uses the formula: “Thy forefathers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults” (πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις). This excludes the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called “τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος”). He also wrote a treatise περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he called Christ Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων. 385 See my treatise “Tatian’s Rede an die Griechen übers.”, 1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottesund Logoslehre des Tatian, 1893. 386 But see Orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init. 387 He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. Nevertheless Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip. 388 Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29). 389 Orat. 12: τὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσμικῆς καταλήψεως. Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist made such bold assertions. 390 See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff.); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments; but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. But, in Tatian’s opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man’s task to unite the Spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related to the “Gnostic” theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω μὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. But with Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) So it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the “Spirit” is a donum superadditum et supernaturale. For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man’s destination depend on human freedom. That is, however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian himself in his latter days seems to have observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of Christians the following holds good (c. 32): λόγου τοῦ δημοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισμένοι καὶ παραγγέλμασι καὶ νόμῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόμενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείμενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούμεθα. 391 C. 31. init.: ἡ ἡμετέρα φιλοσοφία. 32 (p. 128): οἱ βουλόμενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄνθρωποι. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated αἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. C. 35: ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. 40 (p. 152): οἱ κατὰ Μωυσέα καὶ ὁμοίως

124


193

Adolf Harnack

such blessings as we have already received, but could not retain392 owing to the power of error, i.e., the dominion of the demons.393 Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of the Logos revelation through the prophets,394 the rational knowledge that leads to life395 is restored. This knowledge was no less obscured among the Greek philosophers than among the Greeks generally. In so far as revelation took place among the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, Christianity may also be called the barbarian philosophy.396 Its truth is proved by its ancient date397 as well as by its intelligible form, which enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in it398 to understand it perfectly.399 Finally, Tatian also states (c. 40) that the Greek sophists have read the writings of Moses and the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. He therefore maintains the very opposite of what Celsus took upon him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings and doctrines of Christ and the Christians from the philosophers. Both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding. Justin judged more charitably. To Tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the Greeks did not appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.400

αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. 42: ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. The δόγματα of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p. 108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity “ἡ ἡμετέρα παιδεία”, once also “νομοθεσία” (12; cf. 40: οἱ ἡμέτεροι νόμοι), and often πολιτεία. 392 See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us οὐχ ὅπερ μὴ ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθημεν. 393 Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere. 394 Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin., 12 (p. 54) etc. 395 Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13 mit.: “In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of God.” 396 Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγματα (c. 1): ῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία (c. 35); ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νομοθεσία (c. 12); γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί (c. 29); καινοτομεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγματα (c. 35); ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός (c. 42); Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatian’s view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history. 397 See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff. 398 C. 30 (p. 114): τούτων οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν μεμυημένος. 399 Tatian’s own confession is very important here (c. 26): “Whilst I was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by God and I recognised that those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error.” Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained in nuce; see Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc. 400 The unknown author of the Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας also formed the same judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It was published by Cureton, Spic. Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos himself. “It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-Olympian regions.” Through Christian knowledge the soul returns to its Creator: δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη.

125


194

195

Adolf Harnack

Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets (historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere). However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict each other (II. 5); but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8: III. 7), nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;401 they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worthless fame was their aim (III. 3). But God knew beforehand the “drivellings of these hollow philosophers” and made his preparations (II. 15). He of old proclaimed the truth by the mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. This truth refers to the knowledge of God, the origin and history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. The prophetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.402 Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were inspired by devils.403 Thus the most extreme contrasts appear to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks do not apply, for she is (II. 36): ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενομένη προφῆτις, but that poets and philosophers, “though against their will”, also gave clear utterances regarding the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of God, as well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points (II. 37, 38, 8 fin.). Theophilus gives a double explanation of this fact. On the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of holy writings (II. 12, 37: I. 14), and on the other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned them (τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν), of themselves displayed a knowledge of the divine sovereignty, the judgment etc., which agrees with the teachings of the prophets (II. 8). This admission need not cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own destiny with which man is endowed (II. 27) must infallibly lead him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus did not apply the title of philosophy to Christian truth, this title being in his view discredited; but Christianity is to him the “wisdom of God”, which by luminous proofs convinces the men who reflect on their own nature.404 401

Nor is Plato “ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεμνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέναι” any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others (ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16). Although he knew that the full truth can only be learned, from God himself through the law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: εἰ δἰκασμῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένα). 402 Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅμα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύματος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινομένων καὶ προαναπεφωνημένων οὐκ απιστῶ; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32). 403 See II. 8: ὑπὸ δαιμόνων δὲ ἐμπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον. 404 The unknown author of the work de resurrectione, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. (Ὁ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ μηδεμίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν μηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑπομένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέμψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since

126


196

197

Adolf Harnack

Tertullian and Minucius Felix.405 Whilst, in the case of the Greek Apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the Latin Apologists, but the Christian truth is even placed in direct opposition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical dogmatism, i.e., Stoicism.406 Nevertheless the observations of Tertullian and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christianity, viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom completely identical with the conception of the Greek Apologists, although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed character of Christianity is placed in the background.407 The recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and guarantee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of the “examination of the universe” (“inquisitio universitatis”), conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational order of the world. Accordingly, Minucius is also able to demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is a philosophy, i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have discovered the truth.408 Moreover, as he

God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. But it is far from probable that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries “armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered” (c. 1., p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about God and matter, held by the “so-called sages”, Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, “for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?” (c. 10, p. 246) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin himself the the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias’ “Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum”, as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito “Oratio ad Antoninum Cæsarem” (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved (written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus (preserved in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology. 405 Massebieau (Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) has convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use of his works. 406 Cf. the plan of the “Octavius”. The champion of heathenism here opposed to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Acad. emy. This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the Stoical position. See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the Apology of Tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: “de testimonio animæ naturaliter Christianæ”. We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Cicero’s book, “de natura deorum.” In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian. 407 In R. Kühn’s investigation (“Der Octavius des Min. Felix”, Leipzig, 1882) — the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point of view of the history of dogma — based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius and the Greek Apologists. The author’s exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6). 408 C. 20: Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos.”

127


198

199

Adolf Harnack

represented Christian ethics to be the expression of the Stoic, and depicted the Christian bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, who have become conscious of their natural similarity,409 the revealed character of Christianity appears to be entirely given up. This religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the one God from the open book of creation. The difference between him and an Apologist like Tatian seems here to be a radical one. But, if we look more closely, we find that Minucius — and not less Tertullian — has abandoned Stoic rationalism in vital points. We may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather have already become an essential component of his philosophical theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, 27). This was a confession that human nature was not what it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4: 16. 5) the natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked (32. 9) that our thoughts are darkness when measured by the clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point, after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the prophets, and that philosophers “have formed this shadowy picture of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the prophets” (34). Here we have now a union of all the elements already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all philosophers and indeed on philosophy generally410 (34. 5: 38. 5). This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian’s case, by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural perception to all philosophical theory — for this, at most, cannot have been more than a secondary contributing cause,411 but by the fact that he is conscious of following revealed wisdom.412 Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from without, i.e., by God. In this idea man’s need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine truth than man’s natural endowment and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were not able to find.413 409

See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, who in his Apologeticum has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the Christian societies. 410 Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.) 411 Tertull., de testim. I.: “Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit.” 412 Tertull., Apol.46: “Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli?” de præscr. 7: “Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ?” Minuc. 38.5: “Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit?” 413 Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary

128


200

Adolf Harnack

We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows: (1) Christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised in the fulfilment of their predictions. As divine wisdom Christianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.414 It embraces all the elements of truth in philosophy, whence it is the philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with which he is naturally endowed. (3) Revelation of the rational was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway of the demons. (4) The efforts of philosophers to ascertain the right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought about a really moral life. Moreover, so far as they discovered the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts.415 But it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. This is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some extent an imitation of Christian institutions. (5) The confession of Christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive a new content through Christ; he only made it accessible to the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special features acknowledged by Justin and Tertullian). (6) The practical test of Christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. In the Apologists, therefore, Christianity served itself heir to antiquity, i.e., to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the Greeks: Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί” (Justin, Apol. II. 13). It traced its origin back to the beginning of the world. Everything true and good which elevates mankind springs from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him and of his destination (Justin, Apol. I. 46: οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰμ κ.τ.λ., “those that have lived with reason are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus and those similar to them among the Greeks, and Abraham etc. among the barbarians”). But everything true and good is Christian, for Christianity is nothing else than the teaching of revelation. No second formula can be imagined in which the claim of Christianity to be the religion of the world is so

to give a detailed account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the Apology in its relation to chaps. 17-20). 414 Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work “de Monarchial”, which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated as the καθρολικὴ δόξα which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. According to this, then, only an awakening is required. 415 But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of the work “de Monarchia” expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among Christian people.

129


201

202

Adolf Harnack

powerfully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand, can we conceive of one where the specific content of traditional Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with religion. The “dogmas” are the expression of this. Finally, these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. The essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication through a miraculous inward working. All the media of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag. Supplic. 7; Pseudo-Justin, Cohort. 8; Justin, Dialogue 115. 7; Apol. I. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also Hippolytus, de Christo et Antichr. 2). These were not necessarily at all times in a state of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. The Apologists had no other idea of revelation. What they therefore viewed as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess this power. It was only in connection with this proof that the Apologists considered it important to show what Moses, David, Isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the Old Testament, that is, these names have only a chronological significance. This also explains their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin,416 first detailed argument in Tatian).417 If, however, strictly speaking, it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of reason, it is evident that the Apologists simply took the content of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. So, whether they expressed themselves in strictly Stoic fashion or not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian forms no exception, though he himself protests against the idea.

3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. The Apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or “dogmas” of Christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy is included in these dogmas.418 According to what we have 416

See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc. See Tatian, c. 31 ff. 418 In the New Testament the content of the Christian faith is nowhere designated as dogma. In Clement (I. II.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature τά δεδογματισμένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγματα here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in Διδαχή XI. 3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several passages (I. 6: IX. 7: X. 1, 9 f.) of “dogmas of the Lord”; but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply the word. to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. They are also the first who employed the ideas θεολογεῖν and θελογία. The latter word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of “aliquem nominare deum”. In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of “to make religio-scientific investigations”. Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author “πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναμένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate “Deity” 417

130


203

204

Adolf Harnack

already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of Christian dogmas. They are the rational truths, revealed by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ (Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόμος), which in their unity represent the divine wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal life. The Apologists considered it their chief task to set forth these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all desirable clearness. The dogmatic scheme of the Apologists may therefore be divided into three component parts. These are: (A) Christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (God as the Father of the world); (B) Christianity as the highest morality and righteousness (God as the judge who rewards goodness and punishes wickedness); (C) Christianity regarded as redemption (God as the Good One who assists man and rescues him from the power of the demons).419 Whilst the first two ideas are expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. This, as will afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the Apologists’ doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability to discover a specific significance for the person of Christ within the sphere of revelation. Both facts again are ultimately to be explained from their moralism. The essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines.420 First, there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted God, who is Lord and Father of the world. Secondly, he requires a holy life. Thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. The teaching concerning God, virtue, and eternal reward is traced to the prophets and Christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men themselves; for God has created man free, and virtue can only be acquired by man’s own efforts. The prophets and Christ are therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a virtuous walk in the longing after eternal and perfect life with God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss.

belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 the expression “theologia physica, mythica” refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E. V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word “theology” are found in Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische Monatshefte, 1887, Parts 1 and 2, pp. 55-64). The title “theology”, as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously called “theologians”, and the “theological” stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the “childhood” of “physicists” (so Aristotle speaks throughout). To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. But side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose the “impossible idea of a ‘theology’ which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty.” The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a κοσμικὴ and θεολογικὴ σοφία. 419 Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as λόγος: (2) as νόμος, νομοθέτης and κριτής; (3) as διδάσκαλος and σωτήρ. 420 In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked the fact that Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agrees with New Testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of dogma.

131


Adolf Harnack

This knowledge, which has the character of divine instruction,421 rests on faith in the divine revelation. This revelation has the nature and power of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the Spirit of God to put them to flight. Accordingly, the dogmas of Christian philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation of the world and as a new order of society.422 The goal is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology and ethics.

205

I. The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the world are dominated by the fundamental idea that the world as the created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause of the world. This self-existing Being has none of the attributes which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name and has in himself no distinctions. This implies, first, the unity and uniqueness of this eternal Being; secondly, his spiritual nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. Since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself (Tatian 5: καθὸ πᾶσα δύναμις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα). As the living and spiritual Being he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom, i.e., his operative reason. These creations are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the Deity, for they can be no result of necessities, in so far as God is in himself perfect. Just because he is perfect, the Eternal Essence is also the Father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture of what is defective. These virtues include both the goodness which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance with the position he has received. On the basis of this train of thought the Apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy of God (τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν); his supramundaneness (τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυμβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity (εἷς Θεός); his having no beginning (ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος); his eternity and unchangeableness (ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος); his perfection (τέλειος); his need of nothing (ἀπροσδεής); his spiritual nature (πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός); his absolute causality (αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, the motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity (κτίστης τῶν πάντων); his sovereignty (δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων); his fatherhood (πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων) his reason-power (God as λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦμα, σοφία); his omnipotence (παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐμπεριέχει); his righteousness and goodness (πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης). These dogmas are set 421

Cicero’s proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): “nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit,” which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a theory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth. 422 Justin, Apol. I. 3: Ἡμέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ μαθημάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν.

132


206

207

Adolf Harnack

forth by one Apologist in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that, as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.423 These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apologists from the standpoint of the Christian Church which is awaiting an introduction into the Kingdom of God; but were deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand (see particularly Tatian, 4; Theophilus, I. 5, 6), and of the moral nature of man on the other. But, in so far as the latter itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the starting-point of their speculations. This is everywhere dominated by reason and order;424 it bears the impress of the divine Logos, and that in a double sense. On the one hand it appears as the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by God,425 though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world is in every respect a structure worthy of God.426 Nevertheless, according to the Apologists, the direct author of the world was not God, but the personified power of reason which they perceived in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apologists purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. This idea of Philo’s cannot at least have been adopted by them as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea of God and their belief in Providence, which is everywhere firmly maintained. Still less indeed can it be shown that they were all impelled to this dogma from their view of Jesus Christ, since in this connection, with the exception of Justin and Tertullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the Logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) The idea of God, derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the transcendence inseparable from the notion of God, this idea was neverthless meant to explain the world.427 Accordingly, they required a formula capable of expressing the transcendent and unchangeable nature of God on the one hand, and his fulness

423

See the exposition of the doctrine of God in Aristides with the conclusion found in all the Apologists, that God requires no offerings and presents. 424 Even Tatian says in c. 19: Κόσμου μὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευμα φαῦλον. 425 Tatian 5: Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναμος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· μόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δημιουργοῦ προβεβλημένη. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: II. 6. Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ μέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον. 426 Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27: ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. 427 The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian’s Oration is specially instructive here.

133


208

209

Adolf Harnack

of creative and spiritual powers on the other. But the latter attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and indeed the latter was necessarily distinguished from God as a separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers residing in God was represented as beginning. The Logos is the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once preserves the unity and unchangeableness of God in spite of the exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very exercise possible. (2) Though the Apologists believed in the divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor. For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the Apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty of the Apologists’ manner of statement is peculiar here; the train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea, though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Christian faith is completely exhausted in this proposition. They required no particular Christology, for in every revelation of God by his Word they already recognised a proof of his existence not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as Christianity in nuce.428 But the fact that the Apologists made a distinction in thesi between the prophetic Spirit of God and the Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of the Church’s faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually compelled them to identify the Logos and the Spirit, just as they not unfrequently define Christianity as the belief in the true God and in his Son, without mentioning the Spirit.429 Further their dependence on 428

According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rather is that the Logos doctrine was already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical Christ, and vice versâ Christ’s right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine. 429 We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit is represented as ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation τρίας is first found in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: αἰ τρεῖς ἡμέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the reproach of ἀθεότης, (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the

134


Adolf Harnack

the Christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos as the Son of God.430

210

211

The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, ἄλογος, but as the fulness of all reason,431 he has always Logos in himself. This Logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which the world is due; he is not separate from God, but is contained in his essence.432 For the sake of the creation God produced (sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he engendered433 him from his essence by a free and simple act of will (Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Dial. 61). Then for the first time the Logos became a hypostasis separate from God, or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:434 (1) The inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God, willed and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not cut off and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in him. He is rather the Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem. ad Corinth. LVI. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason. On the significance of the Holy Spirit in the theology of Justin, see Zahn Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: “If there be any one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy Spirit of all scientific raison d’être at least on the ground of having no distinctive(?) activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin.” We cannot at bottom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity. 430 To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of God by Philo, and Celsus expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); “If according to your doctrine the Word is really the Son of God then we agree with you;” but the Apologists are the first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, the Logos is intrinsically the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God, not because he is the begotten of God in the flesh (early Christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane reproduction of God (see Justin, Apol. II. 6: ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυριώς ὑιός) — a momentous expression. 431 Athenag., l0; Tatian, Orat. 5. 432 The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be compared with the following: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ μὲν τὴν μηδέπω γεγενημένην ποίησιν μόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναμις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήματι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ μερισμόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτμηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν οἰκονομίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ μιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται μὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. In the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to which the world is clue the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129. 433 The word “beget” (γεννᾶν) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name “Son” was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the words ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, γεννᾶν appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the Logos to the essence of God is most clearly shown by the name “Son”. 434 None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, 1.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: “Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of God, yet he is also to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to God to become an active force. Then again this Word is not to be the thought that God thinks, but the thought that thinks in God. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in God’s thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in God; occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational.” Considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, that Tatian

135


212

Adolf Harnack

independent product of the self-unfolding of God (οἰκονομία), which product, though it is the epitome of divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the Father of this attribute. The Logos is the revelation of God, and the visible God. Consequently the Logos is really God and Lord, i.e., he possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. The Apologists, however, only know of one kind of divine nature and this is that which belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the Father; he is ἀριθμῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος (“something different in number, another God, a second God.”) But his personality only dates from that moment. “Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit,” (“there was a time when the Father had no Son”, so Tertullian, adv. Hermog. 3).The λόγος προφορικός is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is not.435 (3) The Logos has an origin, the Father has not; hence it follows that in relation to God the Logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created God, the God who has a beginning. Wherefore in rank he is below God (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός, “in the second place, and a second God”), the messenger and servant of God. The subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures, however, the Logos is the ἀρχή, i.e., not only the beginning but the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to receive being. As an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished from all creatures, for he alone is the Son;436 but, as having a beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the paradoxical expression, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός (“first begotten work of the Father”), is here the most appropriate designation. (4) In virtue of his finite origin, it is possible and proper for the Logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak. and to appear. As he arose for the sake of the creation of the world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation which does not belong to the infinite God; nay, his whole essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and deed. Behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the Father stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable God.437 With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the realisation of the idea of the world. The world as κόσμος νοητός is contained in the Logos. But the world is material and manifold, the (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232, f. Hardly any real difference can have. existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenæus took up here. 435 This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting. 436 Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction. 437 All the Apologists tacitly assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): “Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro.” But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, as it were, between God and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of God; and again seems to be merged in God, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of God. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the Greek Apologists are silent about it.

136


213

214

Adolf Harnack

Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the expression “beget” (γεννᾶν) for the creation of the world, but in connections which do not admit of any importance being attached to this use. The world was created out of nothing after a host of spirits, as is assumed by most Apologists, had been created along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The purpose of the creation of the world was and is the production of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God; beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of God. Everything is created for man’s sake, and his own creation is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable either of death or immortality.438 The condition on which men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines, that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have the less occasion to give the details here, because they are known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially Philo’s, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, however, are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of God and the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most essential part of Christianity itself.439 This conception is really not peculiar to the Apologists: in the second century the great majority of Christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part of the Christian religion. The theoretical view of the world as a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beauty; the certainty that all this had been called into existence by an Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and theogonies of antiquity. 2. Their clear system of morality is in keeping with their relatively simple cosmology. In giving man reason and freedom as an inalienable possession God destined him for incorruptibility (ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία), by the attainment of which he was to become a being similar to God.440 To the gift of imperishability God, however, attached the condition of man’s preserving τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας (“the things of immortality”), i.e., preserving the knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just; moreover, nobody can fulfil it in man’s stead, for an essential feature of virtue is its being free, independent

438

The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial.5; Theoph. II. 27. 439 The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to the Hexaëmeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his 2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. I.-III.; see, e.g., Marcus in Iren. I. 18. 440 See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε μὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀμφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μισθὸν κομίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγματα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου.

137


215

216

Adolf Harnack

action. Man must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge that he is only in this way obedient to the Father of the world and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. The conception of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the sensuous, but in living solely, after the Spirit, and imitating the perfection and purity of God. Moral badness is giving way to any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. The Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in man’s renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder way. Tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the same in all. The moral law of nature of which the Apologists speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most beautiful way in the sayings of Jesus,441 calls upon man to raise himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural connections. It is not so much the law of love that is to rule everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it is the law governing the perfect and sublime Spirit, who, as being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for the world. Raised already in this knowledge beyond time and space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of God, even while upon the earth, is to hasten to the Father of Light. By equanimity, absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has already risen above the transient through gazing on the imperishable and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though the latter still be. If thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,442 he may be sure that in the life to come God will bestow on him the gift of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of God together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.443 Conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and in this punishment the righteousness of God is quite as plainly manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life. 3. While it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will of God, i.e., knows and judges of God and all things as they must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments of God. This presupposes a revelation of God through the Logos. A revelation of God, complete in itself and mediated by the Logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution of man, he being created in his Maker’s image.444 But experience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction of evil demons, who, by God’s sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed themselves of man’s sensuous side to draw him away from the contemplation of the divine and

441

See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists. See Tatian, Orat.11. and many other passages. 443 Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of Christian anticipation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of God and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. Nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin. 444 No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With Tatian and Theophilus it is different. 442

138


217

218

Adolf Harnack

lead him to the earthly.445 The results of this temptation appeared in the facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of God.446 Hence it required fresh efforts of the Logos to free men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. For very few are now able to recognise the one true God from the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues of God. Therefore the Almighty in his goodness employed new means through the Logos to call men back from the error of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before the end has yet come. From the earliest times the Logos (the Spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of the truth (with reference to God, freedom, virtue, the demons, the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them to others. These are his “prophets”. Such men are rare among the Greeks (and according to some not found at all), but numerous among the barbarians, i.e., among the Jewish people. Taught by God, they announced the truth about him, and under the promptings of the Logos they also committed the revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are an authentic record of the whole truth.447 To some of the most virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form and gave directions. He then is a Christian, who receives and follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present time, and are summed up in the Old Testament, Such a one is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality. With the majority of the Apologists “Christianity” seems to be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider it necessary to mention ex professo the appearance of the Logos in Christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). But, while it is certain that they all recognised that the teachings of 445

The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l. c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt’s “Das Christenthum Justin’s des Märtyrers” pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler” 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The desires of the flesh resulting from the constitution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal liberum arbitrium explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of God, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the Apologists were obliged in practice to be dualists. 446 Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II. 26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies. 447 The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpassed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is completely identical. The prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to attest the one truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to Christianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin’s and Tatian’s confessions. Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus.

139


219

Adolf Harnack

the prophets contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be quite wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history of Christ as of no significance. In their presentations some of them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos in Christ as of special moment.448 For the prophetic utterances, as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for error. The strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment of prophecy. Since no man is able to foretell what is to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine proves its divine origin. God, in his extraordinary goodness, not only inspired the prophets, through the Logos, with the doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous predictions in their mouth. These predictions were detailed and manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the predictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ, however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass (judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the truth of the prophetic teachings about God, freedom, virtue, immortality, etc. In the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occurrences which always take place, Accordingly, a part of what was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled.” Because the prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ’s destiny attests the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however, depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a reality and not a fancy.449 But prophecy testifies that Christ is the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular, and the book at the same time declares that this predicted One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked by Christ in the history of God’s revelation, the content of which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, because in it the “truth along with the proof” has appeared. This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive and

448

The Oratio of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he has nowhere spoken ex professo of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit “the servant of God who has suffered”, and in c. 21 init. he says: “we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that God has appeared in human form.” Similar expressions are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides’ Apology is there any mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks of the revelation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. 449 We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied. According to the ideas of the Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance. The fact that Jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. 1. 32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.

140


Adolf Harnack

convinces more men than formerly, especially since Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous life, the principles of which have now become known in the whole world through the spread of his precepts. 220

221

These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apologies; and they accordingly seem neither to have contemplated a redemption by Christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the Logos in Jesus. Christ accomplished salvation as a divine teacher, that is to say, his teaching brings about the ἀλλαγή and ἐπαναγωγή of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. This also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. Logically considered, the individual portions of the history of Jesus (of the baptismal Confession) have no direct significance in respect to salvation. Hence the teachings of the Christians seem to fall into two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the propositions treating of the rational knowledge of God, and the predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines and the believing hopes they include. But Justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine the historical statements regarding Christ with the philosophical and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive Jesus as the Redeemer.450 Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the “scientific theology of facts”, Justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer of Church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. (1) He tried to distinguish between the appearance of the Logos in pre-Christian times and in Christ; he emphasised the fact that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) Justin showed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon of the Logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity of Christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression made by his personality.451 (3) In addition to the story of the exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and tried to give them a positive significance.452 He adopted the common Christian saying that the blood of Christ cleanses believers and men are healed through his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the cross. (4) He accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins through Christ and confessed that men are changed, through the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of sins.453 Von Engelhardt has, however, quite rightly 450

In Justin’s polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise πρὸς Μαρκίωνα, quoted by Irenæus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence “unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans.” So the theologoumenon of the recapitulatio per Christum already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we compare Tertullian’s Apologeticum with his Antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin’s apologetic writings. 451 Christians do not place a man alongside of God, for Christ is God, though indeed a second God. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised — or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second Godhead — but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 39 ff. 452 We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind’s sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenæus and Melito. 453 Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45). For that reason the judgment is put off by God (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of Jesus; his

141


222

223

Adolf Harnack

noticed that these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding to them in the general system of thought, because Justin remains convinced that the knowledge of the true God, of his will, and of his promises, or the certainty that God will always grant forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. Owing to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, “perfect philosophy”, “divine teacher”, “new law”, “freedom”, “repentance”, “sinless life”, “sure hope”, “reward”, “immortality”, the ideas, “forgiveness of sins”, “redemption”, “reconciliation”, “new birth”, “faith” (in the Pauline sense) must remain words,454 or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.455 Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of Christ, and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but also as the “Lord and Redeemer”. In two points he actually succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give what he has promised — a life after death free from sufferings and sins, that is the first point. The other thing, however, which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ.456 So the redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through Christ and in his strength. Jesus Christ, the teacher of the whole truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and the divine, the only being who has understood how to call men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth, Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, however, Justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, i.e.,

conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned. 454 “To Justin faith is only an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. Faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free. decision to serve God has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, ‘Abraham was justified by faith.’ In reality, however, this took place through μετάνοια.” The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς μετάνοιαν, that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: “God is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind.” Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance. 455 This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics. 456 If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. 11, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 if. (ed. Otto) does not contradict this.

142


224

Adolf Harnack

immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the Logos, in so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of the whole mortal nature of man. With Justin, indeed, as with the other Apologists, the “salvation” (σωτηρία) consists essentially in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to the natural destiny of “death”; and Christ is regarded as the bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its goal; but as a rule Justin does not go beyond this thought. Yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the incarnation. See particularly the fragment in Irenæus (already quoted on page 220), which may be thus interpreted, and Apol. I. 66. This conception, in its most complete shape, would have to be attributed to Justin if the fragment V. (Otto, Corp. Apol. III. p. 256) were genuine.457 But the precise form of the presentation makes this very improbable. The question as to how, i.e., in what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apologists: it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. Their great object was to assure the belief in immortality. “Religion and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection from the dead. The fact that the Christian religion, as faith in the incarnate Son of God the creator, leads to the assurance that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential advantage possessed by the Christian religion over all others. The righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will consign the unjust to eternal torment.”! — placement of this note is uncertain — !458 The philosophical doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality became through the Apologists the certain content of a world-wide religion, which is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made Christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without abandoning in word at least the old “teachings and knowledge” (διδάγματα καὶ μαθήματα καὶ μαθήματα) of the Christians. They thus marked out the task of “dogmatic” and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena for every future theological system in the Church (see Von Engelhardt’s concluding observations in his “Christenthum Justin’s” pp. 447-490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 499-505.) At the same time, however, they adhered to the early-Christian eschatology (see Justin,

457

Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragments is worded as follows: Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώμης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ μιᾷ ποιησάμενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα μὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενομένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόμενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ μήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν φθορὰν δεξαμένῳ ἀφανιζουσα μὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάμενον διατηροῦσα. Διὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώματι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡμᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύματι μόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡμῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει μὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦμεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. 458 Schultz (Gottheit Christi, p. 41) very rightly points out that all the systems of the post-Socratic schools, so far as they practically spread among the people, invariably assume that knowledge, as such, leads to salvation, so that the bestowal of the ἀφθαρσία need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process as we are apt to imagine.

143


Adolf Harnack

Melito, and, with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early Christianity.459 225

226

Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s Doctrines. 1. The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that there can only be one and the same relation on earth between God and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the creation. This thought, which presupposes the idea of God’s unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical and mythological consideration. According to it grace can be nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin, which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as man only possessed the “germs of the Logos” (σπέρματα τοῦ λόγου), and on the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul and mighty demons have possession of the world. The mythological idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. So far as Christianity is something different from morality, it is the antithesis of the service and sovereignty of the demons. Hence the idea that the course of the world and mankind require in some measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought of revelation or redemption. The necessity of revelation and redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. Accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which would give a fresh attestation to old truth, but they yearned for a force, a real redemption, a præsens numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter’s idea of revelation with that of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger expression among them also, had not the task of proof, which could be best discharged by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the highest good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immortality is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge — which is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind, — that necessarily leads to immortality. We can only find traces of the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal condition is the prius and the knowledge the posterius. But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism is broken through, and we can now point to a specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation and redemption. Corresponding to the general development of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism (transition from the second to the third century), a displacement in this direction can also be noticed in the history of Greek apologetics (in the West it was different); but this displacemcnt was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly traced. Even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), a circumstance which is evident, for example,

459

Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer, 188, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt’s book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.

144


Adolf Harnack

from the almost complete disregard of the New Testament canon of Scripture and from other considerations besides.

227

228

2. In so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness has been implanted by God in men, and in so far as — apart from trifling exceptions — they can actually succeed in doing what is good only through prophetic, i.e., divine, revelations and exhortations, some Apologists, following the early Christian tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the sinner into a righteous man as a work of God, and speak of renewal and regeneration. The latter, however, as a real fact, is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin and turning to God, is a matter of free will. As in Justin, so also in Tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the divine call to repentance. The conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this. Only those sins can be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none, i.e., which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. The blotting out of these sins is effected in baptism, “which is the bath of regeneration in so far as it is the voluntary consecration of one’s own person. The cleansing which takes place is God’s work in so far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of God is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge to which the baptised person has attained.” If, as all this seems to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus (Justin and Tatian) and Justin’s conception of the Lord’s Supper show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augustine’s assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed in the opuscula as in the prayers, shows correct insight. 3. All the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title of the new law. In virtue of its eternally valid content this new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because Christ and the prophets were preceded by Moses, who inculcated on the Jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. It is also new because, being proclaimed by the Logos that appeared in Christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof — the proof from prophecy. The old law is consequently a new one because it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, and final. The commandment of love to one’s neighbour also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, and imitation). The content of all moral demands is comprehended in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, even of life itself. Tatian preached this renunciation in a specially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains of Judæo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas about the new law. It is not Judæo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the Apologists, but Greek philosophy (Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics), the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, the maxims of Jesus, and the religious speech of the Christian Churches. Justin is distinguished from Philo by the sure conviction of the living power of God, the Creator and Lord of the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the ideals which is derived from the person of Christ. We ought not, 145


Adolf Harnack

however, to blame the Apologists because to them nearly everything historical was at bottom only a guarantee of thoughts and hopes. As a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important than the content. By dint of thinking one can conceive the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out the certainty of its reality. No positive religion can do more for its followers than faith in the revelation through Christ and the prophets did for the Apologists. Although it chiefly proved to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the Church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of Plato and Zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more lively and worthy one than in the case of the Greek philosophers.

229

4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs: “they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into a revealed doctrine.”460 If about the middle of the second century the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum), and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived as “doctrine” in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived Christianity as the “divine doctrine”, and by whom all its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or neutralised. As the philosophic schools are held together by their “laws “ (νόμοι) as the “dogmas “ form the real bond between the “friends”, and as, in addition to this, they are united by veneration for the founder, so also the Christian Church appeared to the Apologists as a universal league established by a divine founder and resting on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth, a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common veneration for the Divine Master. In the “dogmas” of the Apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main both exist separately side by side. It was not till long after this that intellectualism gained the victory in a Christianity represented by the clergy. What we here chiefly understand by “intellectualism” is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind the commandments of Christian morality and behind the hopes and faith of the Christian religion, and the connecting of the two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the foundation of these commandments and hopes. Thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the world long ago overthrown by science. The attempt made at the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success.

230

460

Loofs continues: “The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept ‘Son’ to the preëxistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preëxistence and depreciated the importance of Jesus’ life as compared with the incarnation They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not God who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated God, who as God is subordinate to the supreme Deity.”

146


Adolf Harnack

CHAPTER V. THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICO-THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS: MELITO, IRENÆUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.461 1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers.

231

GNOSTICISM and the Marcionite Church had compelled orthodox Christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this binding on Christians as an apostolical law. Everything that laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the faith, i.e., the baptismal confession and the New Testament canon of Scripture (see above, chap. 2, under A and B). However, mere “prescriptions” could no longer suffice here. But the baptismal confession was no “doctrine”; if it was to be transformed into such it required an interpretation. We have shown above that the interpreted baptismal confession was instituted as the guide for the faith. This interpretation took its matter from the sacred books of both Testaments. It owed its guiding lines, however, on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain interests, which had found expression in the speculations of the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence the ecclesiastical teachers.462 The theological labours, thus initiated, accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito,463 Rhodon,464 Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian were in every case convinced that all their expositions contained the universal Church faith itself and nothing else. Though the faith is identical with the baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from the New Testament is no less

461

Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren’s and Harvey’s editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler’s and Reifferscheid’s editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius’, Lagarde’s, Duncker’s and Schneidewin’s editions), Cyprian (Hartel’s edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen, Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, “Hippolytus und Kallistus,” 1853. Many monographs on Irenæus and Tertullian. 462 The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and the later old Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view — if the comparison be here allowed — without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus without taking into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion. 463 That Melito is to be named here follows both from Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 240 ff.). The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that “ancient” quoted by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature. We have no material for judging of them with certainty. The New Testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and Irenæus. 464 See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.

147


232

233

Adolf Harnack

certain than the shortest formula.465 The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared as “doctrines” and offered themselves for incorporation with the “faith”.466 The limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the shortest formula. The oscillation between this brief formula, the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of the old Catholic Fathers we have mentioned. In the second place, these Fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof in their arguments with their Christian opponents, as they did while contending with the heathen;467 and, being themselves children of their time, they required this proof for their own assurance and that of their fellow-believers. The epoch in which men appealed to charisms, and “knowledge” counted as much as prophecy and vision, because it was still of the same nature, was in the main a thing of the past.468 Tradition and reason had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. But this change had neither come to be clearly recognised,469 nor was the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition felt to be a problem. We can indeed trace the consciousness of the danger in attempting to introduce new termini and regulations not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.470 The bishops themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to warn people against the Gnostics,471 and after the deluge of heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust on every philosophic-theological formula.472 Such propositions of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by Irenæus and Tertullian on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something of a different nature. Irenæus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;473 but yet, 465

Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari”; but the preceding exposition of the regula shows that scarcely any scope remained for the “curiositas”, and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did not mean that freedom seriously. 466 The most important point was that the Pauline theology, towards which Gnostics, Marcionites) and Encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. See Overbeck Basler Univ. — Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly. 467 See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. 468 On the old “prophets and teachers” see my remarks on the Διδαχη, c. 11 ff., and the sections pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions. 469 In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in H. E. V. 7. In support of his own writings, however, Irenæus appealed to no charisms. 470 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1. 471 Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way. 472 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: “Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονομίᾳ esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν.” Similar remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Nöet. 11. 473 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject speculations like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25.3: “Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1: “ Ἄμείνον καὶ συμφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγομαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυμαθεῖς καὶ ἐμπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήμους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην, and in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning

148


234

235

Adolf Harnack

in the naïvest way, associated with the faithfully preserved traditional doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did not differ from those of the Apologists or Gnostics.474 The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were the basis on which Irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. Some of these he stated as they had been conceived by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted to the new necessities. The qualitative distinction between the fides credenda and theology was noticed neither by Irenæus nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenæus I. 10. 3 this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theological knowledge are still completely intermixed. Whilst stating and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the New Testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent deduction, the Fathers think they are setting forth the faith itself and nothing else. Anything more than this is only curiosity not unattended with danger to Christians. Theology is interpreted faith.475 Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious aim. In this form we find them with special plainness in Tertullian.476 This writer was still completely incapable of inwardly connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines of the regula fidei, which, after the example of Irenæus, he constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposition to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove the intrinsic necessity of these dogmas, he seldom gets beyond rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we understand his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no comparison with the older theology of Valentinus or the later

the sphere within which we are to search (the Holy Scriptures and “quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt”, much remains dark to us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in God the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7: specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the Son to the Father, that is, the manner in which the Son was begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by Bible passages. But the ground of these limits, “ex parte accepimus gratiam”, is not an early-Christian one, and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth. 474 The same observation applies to Tertullian. Cf. his point blank repudiation of philosophy in de præsc. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it everywhere. 475 In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot agree with Zahn’s judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): “Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the paths of this science.” 476 Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenæus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.

149


236

Adolf Harnack

system of Origen.477 To Tertullian everything lies side by side; problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes seems to be in Justin’s case, a great apparatus of proof for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.478 In spite of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of dogma; for he developed and created, in a disconnected form and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the most important dogmatic formulæ, which Cyprian, Novatian, Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambrosius and Leo I., introduced into the general dogmatic system of the Catholic Church. He founded the terminology both of the trinitarian and of the Christological dogma; and in addition to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts (satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc.). Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the direction of auctoritas et ratio, and its corresponding tendency to assume a legal character (lex, formal and material), peculiarities which were to become more and more clearly marked as time went on.479 But, great as is his importance in this respect, it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of Christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this was already out of date at the time when he lived. What influenced the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his masterly power of framing formulæ. It is different with Irenæus. The Christianity of this man proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of its content. If Tertullian supplied the future Catholic dogmatic with the most important part of its formulæ, Irenæus clearly sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.480 Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the great work of Irenæus is far superior to the theological writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenæus, of giving a relatively complete exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity on the basis of the New Testament, in opposition to heresy. Tertullian nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, in the case of the Gallic bishop too, only made its appearance as the result of polemical motives. But Irenæus to a certain degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. This result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he was directed

477

The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Tertullian’s dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity. 478 With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted from Irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the limits of his interests and of his understanding. 479 Further references to Tertullian in a future volume. Tertullian is at the same time the first Christian individual after Paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said of Irenæus. 480 Consequently the spirit of Irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not to be traced there.

150


237

238

Adolf Harnack

by a confident view of Christianity as a religion, that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea, in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenæus by his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator of the world and the supreme God are one and the same.481 The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is shared by Irenæus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The working out of these two ideas is the most important feature in Irenæus’ book. As yet, indeed, he by no means really succeeded in completely adapting to these two fundamental thoughts all the materials to be taken from Holy Scripture and found in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness within the scheme of the Apologists. His archaic eschatological disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulæ and thoughts, he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute causality of God the Creator; but the repetition of the same main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the success of his work.482 God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ are really the middle points of his theological system, and in this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an identical nature with the Gnostic.483 But, while he conceives Christianity as an explanation of the world and as redemption, his Christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the Gnostics. Since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination

481

The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation. 482 What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justified in saying that the five books “adv. hæreses” of Irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: “The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus”, in the “Studies of Church History” dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian’s Christology was subjected by Arethas in the l0th century (Oratio 5 see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of Irenæus. 483 People are fond of speaking of the “Asia Minor” theology of Irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John — Irenæus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an “apostolic” circle, and Gnosticism and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposition that Irenæus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irena us cannot be separated from the received canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenæus (and Melito?).

151


239

240

Adolf Harnack

of opposing elements,484 and therefore recognised in the redemption by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenæus, on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated — the “recapitulatio” (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις).485 This speculative thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenæus into touch with certain Pauline trains of thought,486 and enabled him to adhere to the theology of the Apologists. At the same time it opened up a view of the person of Christ, which supplemented the great defect of that theology,487 surpassed the Christology of the Gnostics,488 and made it possible to utilise the Christological statements contained in certain books of the New Testament.489 So far as we know at least, Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.490 That was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. Here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of Gnosticism, because, as a disciple of the “elders”, he adhered to the early-Christian eschatology, and because, as a follower of the Apologists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God, and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. Nevertheless to Irenæus the pith of the matter is already found in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of God (visio dei). This conception suggested to him the question as to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the same. The question “cur deus — homo”, which was by no means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far as in these “homo” only meant appearance among men, and the “why” was answered by referring to prophecy and the necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenæus made the central point. The reasons why the answer he gave was so highly satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) It proved that the Christian

484

Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace. 485 See Molwitz, De Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως in Irenæi theologic potestate, Dresden, 1874. 486 See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. 487 But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin’s chief Antignostic work. 488 According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante, according to that of Irenæus he first and alone realises the. hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity. 489 According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of Sophia, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenæus’ idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus himself did so in II. 20. 3. 490 After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenæus continues § 7: “Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat?” It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is new in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?” See also lib. III. præf.: “veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina”, III. 10. 3: “Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.” III. I1. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.

152


241

242

Adolf Harnack

blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) It was similar in point of form to the so-called Gnostic conception of Christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) It harmonised with the eschatological tendency of Christendom, and at the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological expectations that were fading away. (4) It was in keeping with the mystic and Neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) For the vanishing trust in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid of reason it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation of human nature which would even enable it to appropriate that which is above reason. (6) Lastly, it provided the traditional historical utterances respecting Christ, as well as the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history of salvation unfolding itself by degrees (ὀικονομία Θεοῦ). According to this conception the central point of history was no longer the Logos as such, but Christ as the incarnate God, while at the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some extent only in appearance. A more exact representation of salvation through Christ has, however, been given by Irenæus as follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our present one and indeed of man’s natural condition. For immortality is at once God’s manner of existence and his attribute; as a created being man is only “capable of incorruption and immortality” (“capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis”);491 thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the same, and yet is empirically “subjected to the power of death” (“sub condicione mortis”). Now the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself realiter with human nature, in order to deify it “by adoption” (“per adoptionem”), such is the technical term of Irenæus. The deity must become what we are in order that we may become what he is. Accordingly, if Christ is to be the Redeemer, he must himself be God, and all the stress must fall upon his birth as man. “By his birth as man the eternal Word of God guarantees the inheritance of life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death.”492 But this work of Christ can be conceived as recapitulatio because God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator; and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in God’s plan, but 491

See II. 24. 3, 4: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur.” Cf. what follows. Irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is capax incorruptibilitatis, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man’s destiny. 492 Book V. pref.: “Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”: III. 6. 1: “Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei,” etc.; see also what follows, III. 16. 3: “Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei.” III. 16. 6: “Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.” III. 18. 1: “Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus.” Cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: “Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς

153


243

Adolf Harnack

could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It is perhaps Irenæus’ highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant fashion and with the simplest means, i.e., without the apparatus of the Gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and essentially Biblical ideas. Moreover, a few decades later, he and Melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were already credited with this merit. For the author of the so-called “Little Labyrinth” (Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 5) can indeed boast with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues: Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν (“Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ to be God and man”). The progress in theological views is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. The Apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of God upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which necessarily leads to immortality;493 but Irenæus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the centre of history

ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem.” The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenæus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, “perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς τοὺς μὴ δεξαμένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιμάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?” III. 21. 10: Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰμ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρματος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν δεύτερον Ἀδὰμ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασμένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁμοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα μὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται μηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόμενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουμένης τῆς ὁμοιότητος; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatian’s views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ (See II. 20. 3: “dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit”; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having performed a work. Secondly, alongside of the deification of Adam’s children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with God) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso”, and many other passages. We find a combined formula in III. 5.3: “Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem.” 493 Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.

154


244

245

Adolf Harnack

and faith.494 Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the οἰκονομία Θεοῦ culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the Biblical. The various acting æons of the Gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intelligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. Revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking at history, the knowledge of God’s ways of salvation that lead historically to an appointed goal.495 But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was by no means completely worked out by Irenæus himself, since the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical development, and since the New Testament also pointed in other directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any one teacher. The two conceptions opposed to it, that of the early Christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still in vogue. The two latter were closely connected in the third century, especially in the West, whilst the mystic and realistic view was almost completely lacking there. In this respect Tertullian adopted but little from Irenæus. Hippolytus also lagged behind him. Teachers like Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no Gnostic movement at all, and as if no Antignostic Church theology existed. The immediate result of the work carried on by Irenus and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual doctrines, which gradually became established. The most important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital point, the introduction of the philosophical Christology into the Church’s rule of faith, see Chapter 7. The manner in which Irenæus undertook his great task of expounding and defending orthodox Christianity in opposition to the Gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. The oldest Christian motives and hopes; the letter of both Testaments, including even Pauline thoughts; moralistic and philosophical elements, the result of the Apologists’ labours; and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his treatment. He glides over from the one to the other; limits the one by the other; plays off Scripture against reason, tradition against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fantastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and dominating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. It was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between the

494

Melito’s teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression “αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ. 495 The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of God and the corresponding idea of “several covenants” (I. 10. 3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.

155


246

247

Adolf Harnack

Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenæus with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very process established, as far as “stands in the Holy Scripture”, and — let us add — as far as reason requires. But Irenæus was already obliged to decline answering the question as to how far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most Christians, though nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, “why more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the character of each covenant, why God shut up every man unto unbelief, why the Word became flesh and suffered, why the advent of the Son of God only took place in the last times etc.” (I. 10. 3). The relation of faith and theological Gnosis was fixed by Irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation of the former.496 At the same time, however, he did not clearly show how the collection of historical statements found in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable knowledge of Christianity. Here the speculative theories are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions of tradition. Will these obscurities remain when once the Church is forced to compete in its theological system with the whole philosophical science of the Greeks, or may it be expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative sense the whole complex of tradition? Irenæus’ process has at least this one advantage over the other method: according to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to alter its nature. It is incorporated in the theology of facts which the faith here appears to be.497 The latter, however, imperceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; and though Irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the “simple faith” (ψιλὴ πίστις), and to believing simplicity, that is, to the belief in the Creator and the Son of God who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of a theological system. The pronounced hellenising of the Gospel, brought about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenæus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. But the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of “Gnostic” formulæ. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversary’s way of looking at things, and necessarily did so, because as they became ever further and further removed from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising of Christianity. 496

It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to Irenæus simply related as the “is” and the “why”. As a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of God’s ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a monistic speculation. 497 See I. 10, 2: Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάμενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε.

156


Adolf Harnack

2. The Doctrines of the Church. In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times.

248

Against the Gnostic theses498 Irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, ,omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.499 (2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,500 finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.501 (3) The attempt to make out conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.502 (4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the Godhead.503 With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.504 Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme

249

498

See Böhringer’s careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739). 499 To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus’ criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff. 500 See Irenæus II. I. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15. 501 See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as “personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” 502 See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. “Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes”? See also II. 17. 4: “Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit.” Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine. 503 See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18. 504 See Iren. II. 4. 2.

157


250

Adolf Harnack

Being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a God.505 The Fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; for it proves that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) supreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational kind.506 As a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of Tertullian; and the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and tradition. Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here understand “evangelical” in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as “Catholic”. But if “evangelical” signifies “early-Christian”, then it must be said that Scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as inspired documents and 505

Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion’s rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog. 506 But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII, p. 113 ff. 507 See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.

158


251

252

Adolf Harnack

were to be interpreted according to the regula, their content was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer into any others one might choose;508 but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,509 and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the Gnostics.510 The Scripture theology of the old Catholic Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a whole-some reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the “spirit” arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this “spirit” completely. Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves;511 he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;512 he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;513 he lays down the maxim that the obscure passages are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versâ;514 but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith515 and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.516 Not only did Irenæus explain the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;517 but according to the principle: “with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification” (“nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”) (IV. 2I. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic

508

See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim. See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. I.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655; Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817. 510 For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: “Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa.” 511 See Iren., III. 5. I: III. 12. 6. 512 See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: “Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.” 513 See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles. 514 See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2. 515 See Iren. II. 25. 1. 516 Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere.” 517 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit. 509

159


253

Adolf Harnack

writings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the fact of Jesus handing round food to those lying at table as signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;518 and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and Son.519 To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. “Gnosticism” is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this “Gnosicism” is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Church-men were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the same questions as the “Gnostics”, they were obliged to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam down to the present time — not merely down to Christ — against the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the rest, the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.520 The doctrine of God was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge — for God is not abyss and silence — and the attempt to fathom the depths of the Godhead.521 Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly

518

See Iren. IV. 22. 1. See Iren. III. 17. 3. 520 Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration. 521 See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c. 519

160


254

255

Adolf Harnack

acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.522 God can be known from revelation,523 because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.524 In this case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that is a phantom;525 and every sublime religious state of mind which does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the blasphemia creatoris.526 Like the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of the main articles of Christian faith;527 the belief in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.528 God is all light, all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;529 everything anthropopathic and

522

See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: “Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem.” Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e., absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, IV. 20. I: “Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc.”; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God “secundum dilectionem” is more closely defined by the words “per verbum eius Iesum Christum.” The statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see God. God’s omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαμπρότητος αὐτοῦ μετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, μετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς λαμπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώμενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως. See also what follows down to the words: μετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain. 523 See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, μὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέλημα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. 524 Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: “Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum.” Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17. 525 See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II. 526 See Iren., V. 26. 2. 527 See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9. 528 See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus’ utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: “Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita” . . . “substantia omnium voluntas dei;” see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds good: “ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum.” 529 See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2.

161


Adolf Harnack

anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.530 The early-Catholic doctrine of God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so far as God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.531 256

257

In the case of the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, whilst Irenaus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologeticum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.532 He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the Monarchian Praxeas.533 Here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas “substance” and “person” and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions of the relations

530

Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion “deum corpus esse” (adv. Prax. 7: “Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie”) must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: “omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est.” Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man’s likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title “ὁ περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ λόγος”, and Origen reckoned him among the ichers who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius (Instit. div. VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.). 531 See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertulla adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the Apologists’ idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment of Irenæus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: “Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit”; de pænit. 2: “Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum”; adv. Marc. II. 27: “Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis.” They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord’s Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen’s work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord’s Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the Gospel. 532 Apol. 21: “Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον, id est sermonem et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.” (An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). “Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.” Tertullian adds: “Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.” As a matter of fact the heathen most have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to ascertain that in Hippolytus’ book against Noëtus “the setting forth of the truth” (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσμον κτίσαι. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention. 533 See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.

162


258

Adolf Harnack

between the persons which could be fully adopted in the Nicene creed.534 Here also the philosophical and cosmological interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity of the Godhead is shown in the una substantia and the una dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. According to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated persons cannot endanger the unity; the “arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself” (“dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat”) does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, so that God will be all in all.535 Here then the Gnostic doctrine of moons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the Valentinians “acknowledge that the one is the originator of all” (“τὸν ἕνα ὁμολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων”), because with them also, “the whole goes back to one” (“τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει”).536 The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the “economy of God” (οἰκονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number.537 According to Tertullian “a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy” (“trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit”) is already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of God’s economy, and distinguishing between dispositio, distinctio, numerus on the one hand and divisio on the other. At the beginning God was alone, but

534

See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity (“orthodox” in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian’s juristic bias. The formulæ, “una substantia, tres personæ”, never alternates in his case with the others, “una natura, tres personæ”; and so it remained for a long time in the West; they did not speak of “natures” but of “substances” (“nature” in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses “substance” in the concrete sense “individual substance” and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: “aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantia.” We see that Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance expressed their unity as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the Father, who is the tota substantia, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept “person” aided in the matter here. 535 See adv. Prax. 3: “Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?” (! !) c. 4: “Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.” L.c.: Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit.” 536 See Hippol., c. Noëtum 11. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, i.e., if everything proceeds from him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed. 537 Adv. Prax. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret”; cf. also what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already: “The economy is founded on as many names as God willed” (c. 4).

163


259

260

Adolf Harnack

ratio and sermo existed within him. In a certain sense then, he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with God.538 But as yet he was the only person.539 The moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. For “that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance.” He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from God “secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma”; but as unity of substance is to be preserved (“alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud” — “ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est” — “tres unum sunt, non unus” — “the Father is one person and the Son is another, different persons not different things”, “I and the Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number” — “the three are one thing not one person”), the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum 10).540 For that very reason “Son” is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way (κατὰ μερισμόν). Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (“unius substantiæ” = ὁμοούσιος) he has also the same power541 as regards the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it ab initio, from the very beginning of time.542 On the other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son is subordinate to the Father.543 “Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio”.544 This paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the Father, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which has an origin.545 We would assert too much, were we to say that Tertullian

538

See adv. Prax. 5. Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: “fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.” 540 Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between “factum esse” and “procedere”. 541 Adv. Prax. 2: “Custodiatur οἰκονομίας sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis.” 542 See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff. 543 Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: “filius portio plenitudinis.” In another passage Textullian has ironically remarked in opposition to Marcion (IV. 39): “Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert.” 544 Adv. Prax. 9. 545 See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: “Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.” One cannot look at the sun itself, but, “toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur.” The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv. Marc. II. 27: Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.” In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father is by nature impassible, but the Son is capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise ἀπαθής (see c. Noëtum 15). 539

164


261

Adolf Harnack

meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the “unius substantiæ” disproves this. But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from God’s standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;546 and secondly by the fact that the Son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.547 These words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of God; for so long as history lasts “the Son continues in his form.” In its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole exposition is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,548 but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with the utterances of early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,549 With peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings. 546

According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Son’s nature to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises. 547 See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV. 548 Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.–V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion μερισμός in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullian’s proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: “Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur.” Plotinus’ idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination. 549 Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own “numerus” — “tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis”, — and he is a person in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: “tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονομίας statum protegit”; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called “vicaria vis”. The element of personality in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noët. 14): Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονομίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· πατὴρ μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.” In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth “ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισμός”; he is produced ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, i.e., from the Father who then alone existed; his essence is “that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him” or “that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father.” Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: “Christus deus et homo”, and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his

165


262

263

264

Adolf Harnack

It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus.550 Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, whom he views as God and man, the starting-point of his speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.551 That he nevertheless makes Logos (μονογενής, πρωτότοκος, “only begotten”, “first born”) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was already recognised as authoritative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus’ system (in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as recapitulatio of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old and New. Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the Godhead of the Father. He confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation “Logos” to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.552 Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father and Son. What makes the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.553 In Irenæus’ sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation hypostasis of the Father, “the self-revelation of the self-conscious God”,

Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the Holy Ghost not as a person but as “sanctificatio” proceeding from the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced Tertullian’s views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ dei spiritus; see de orat. I: “Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus.”Apol. 21; adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21. 550 See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenäus Christologie, 1843. 551 Zahn, l.c., p. 238. 552 See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin. 553 A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6.

166


265

Adolf Harnack

and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For according to him the Son always existed with God, always revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific nature, truly God, and there is no distinction of essence between him and God.554 Now we might conclude from the strong emphasis laid on “always” that Irenæus conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of God himself and existing independently of revelation. But the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because he gives a revelation. Little interested as Irenæus is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as “the hand of God”, the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who dominates all, the head of Christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and his Logos.555 Irenæus had no opportunity of 554

The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: “agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata”); IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: “semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: “non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem”; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: “non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.” The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: “fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam,” or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: “et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo” (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: “filius est in patre et habet in se patrem,” III. 6. 1.: utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem.” He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son (“pater generis humani verbum dei”, IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient “immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum.” This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system. 555 Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. IQ: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6: “Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius.” Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: “verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile”). But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son receives from the Father the sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself; V. 18. 21, 3 (“pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans” — “verbum portatum a patre” — “et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi” — “verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre”). “This is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically,” says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a

167


266

Adolf Harnack

writing against the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. It cannot therefore be determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early. Christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according to Irenæus, “God placed himself in the relationship of Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his Son;”556 but we ought not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists regarding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.557 theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son. 556 Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγματείαν καὶ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενομένην, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones.” God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: “Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei,” or III. 20. 2: “Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.” V. 29. 1: “Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.” 557 Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V. 1. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But not only does the function of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary — where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in III. 18. 3: “unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus” (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula τριάς, to say nothing of the abstract formulæ of Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the Spirit: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν μὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐμαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦμα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑμῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Here one of Origen’s thoughts appears.

168


267

268

269

Adolf Harnack

Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus’ views with regard to the destination of man, the original state, the fall, and sin; because the heterogeneous elements of his “theology”, the apologetic and moralistic, the realistic, and the Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. But these very contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.558 The apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the destination of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable of it.559 That destination is realised through the guidance of God and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man’s possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God’s Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man’s likeness consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient immediately after the creation, this

558

The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. Nöldechen (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): “Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts.” 559 Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ μὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ μετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννημένα. Καθὸ δὲ μή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀσυνήθη καί αγύμναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν, see also § 2-4: “Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali.” Ibid.: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραμονὴ ἀφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιάζειν. His conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the destination of man — which was finally to be reached through divine guidance — but not as his nature, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” or between “substantia” and “fides et iustitia”. In other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: “Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. II. 34. 3: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur,” II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: “Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione.” In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear.

169


270

271

Adolf Harnack

likeness to God did not become perfect.560 Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. This death was transmitted to Adam’s whole posterity.561 Here Irenæus followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man’s fall562 and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul’s case, the consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man’s development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to God.563 Here life and death are always the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is 560

On the psychology of Irenæus see Böhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνεῦμα in man as the latter’s inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εἰκών is realised in the body, the ὁμοίωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The ὁμοίωσις is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatian’s opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the πνοή, not the πνεῦμα, that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man’s inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God’s goodness has scope for displaying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man’s knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: “veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis.” An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: “omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt,” as referring to man’s inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): “liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.” § 5: “Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.” § 4: “deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia.” § 3: “τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ βιαζομένου. IV. 4. 3: “homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” 561 As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: “Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum.” V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: “Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate.” 562 Man’s sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was infans, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics in IV. 38. 4: “supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis.” The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; “quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?” i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: “The fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent” . . . “eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est.” The “pondus peccati” in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul’s view. 563 See IV. 37. 7: “Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.” The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that

170


272

Adolf Harnack

only when he quotes sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. “The original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined.”564 Moreover, the goodness of God immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.565 What significance belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them too direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.566 One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine;567 only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man’s will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of God’s ways.568 But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: “it is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God” (“impossibile est sine deo discere deum”) was a conviction which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a Christological sense,569 and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience

he was “naturaliter similis deo”. Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7. 564 See Wendt, l.c., p. 24. 565 See III. 23. 6. 566 See V. 1. 1: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes,” etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: “libertatem restauravit”; IV. 24. 1: “reformavit humanum genus”; III. 17. 1: “spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano.” III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt’s summary, l.c., p. 24: “By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance,” formulates Irenæus’ meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a homo inspiratus is required. 567 See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δημιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34). 568 See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary to Wendt opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian is speciosior quam verior. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to see the first traces of the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view. 569 See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4.

171


273

274

Adolf Harnack

IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with God and dependence on him.570 No doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordance with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, the “longa hominum expositio”, was recapitulated by Christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it originally was and again included under one head what was divided.571 If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: “What we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of God, we recover in Christ.572 Adam, however, is humanity; in other words, as all humanity is united and renewed through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. Accordingly “the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belonging to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as Christ’s obedience and possession of salvation are the property of all mankind united under him as their head.”573 In the first Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.574 Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity575 as in the case of Christ, viewed 570

See IV. 14. 1: “In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute.” This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus’ great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. 571 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f. 572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenæus even says: “Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus.” Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: “oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere” etc. (see above, p. 268), where natura hominis is conceived as the opposite of the divine nature. 573 See Wendt, i.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man’s original state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments. 574 See V. 16. 3: ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰμ προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν. IV. 34. 2: “homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;” III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq. 575 Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Böhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: “We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam’s conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this.” It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g., de anima 40: “ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur,” and other passages; but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler’s edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint

172


275

276

Adolf Harnack

as the second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576 show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenæus’ mind. This is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been overcome by the devil.577 It was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of all individual men. This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to Irenæus’ doctrine of the God-man. The historical importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. At the present day, ecclesiastical Christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe to him the idea of the “two natures”, which remain in their integrity — that formula which owes its adoption to the influence of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus’ thought “the Son of God became the Son of man”, (“filius dei factus filius hominis”). Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epoch-making fact. “Filius dei filius hominis factus”, “it is one and the same Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary union of an on and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended” — this along with the dogma of God the Creator is the cardinal doctrine of Irenæus:578 “Jesus Christ truly man and truly God” (“Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus”).579 It is only the Church that adheres to this doctrine, for “none of the heretics hold the

of sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: “per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit.” Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated “ex originis vitio” and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: “Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum?” For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through “philosophy” and of emasculating the understanding through “revelation.” In regard to the conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus (“dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera”); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: “Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit” is quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: “infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata.” Tertullian’s proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3). 576 III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound . . . “eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.” Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκομεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί . But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought. 577 See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement. 578 See, e.g., III. g. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: “verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus.” 579 See IV. 6. 7.

173


277

Adolf Harnack

opinion that the Word of God became flesh” (“secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est”).580 What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really the Word of God, i.e., is God, (2) that this Word really became man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the “Ebionites” as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ’s advent was the descent of one of the many moons. In opposition to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in favour of the divinity of Christ,581 and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus Christ had only been a man.582 In this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.583 He not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between Adam and Eve on the one hand and Christ and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.584 He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with God and always present to the human race, that descended.585 He who became man was not a being foreign to the world — this is said in opposition to Marcion — but the Lord of the world and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality of the body of Christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.586 In the latter he also includes the 580

See III. 11. 3. See III. 6. 582 See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3 see also Tertullian against “Ebion” de carne 14, 18, 24; de præscr. 10. 33. 583 Editor: This note is missing in the footnotes. 584 See the arguments, l c., V. 19. 1: “Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,” and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g., Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: “uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum.” Iren. III. 21. 7: “Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);” III. 22. 4 “Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis” . . . “quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem”). These, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about Mary in de carne 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the virginitas Mariæ in partu can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular conception as to the reason of Christ’s birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18: “Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen.” The other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcely hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ’s birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ’s kinship to God the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regula fidei received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin’s name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220. 585 See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276. 586 So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work de carne Christi. Tertullian exclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: “Parce unicæ spei totius orbis.” Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ’s assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh. This is particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naïve Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: “spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio.” Yet Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ’s human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1) as also did Melito (τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως Otto, l.c., IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of 581

174


278

279

Adolf Harnack

fact that Jesus must have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.587 Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is permanently united with humanity.588 Irenæus called this union “union of the Word of God with the creature” (“adunitio verbi dei ad plasma”)589 and “blending and communion of God and man” (“commixtio et communio dei et hominis”)590 without thereby describing it any more clearly.591 He views it as perfect, for, as a rule, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.592 The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is not

Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the Saviour’s flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to teach the annihilation of Christ’s flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): “Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless.” It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of God came to die. 587 This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ. 588 See Iren. V. 31. 2: “Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem.” Tertullian, de carne 24: “Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci;” see also what follows. 589 See Iren. IV. 33. 11. 590 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1. 591 He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. “Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo.” V. 18.1: “Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.” 592 Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula “God has suffered” and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος (p. 422): “Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert.” But let us note that these are not “doctrines”, but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against the “Gnostic” separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: “Iesu generatio sic erat” but “Christi generatio sic erat”), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour’s person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple “filius dei filius hominis factus” and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): “Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,” but also by the “propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?” (l.c.).

175


280

281

Adolf Harnack

found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief.593 In his utterances about the God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenæus. Like the latter he uses the expression “man united with God” (“homo deo mixtus”)594 and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the Son of God.595 But he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, “the Son of God made Son of man” (“filius dei filius hominis factus”). He speaks of a “corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substance of the Lord”, (“corporalis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini”)596 of “either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ” (“utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi”), of the “creation of two substances which Christ himself also possesses”, (“conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat”)597 and of the “twofold condition not blended but united in one person-God and man” (“duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in una persona — deus et homo”.598 Here we already have in a complete form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.599 At the same time, however, we can clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.600 He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic 593

The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: ἵνα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures. 594 See Apol. 21: “verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus; adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;” de carne 15: “homo deo mixtus;” 18: “sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei.” On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff. 595 De carne 5: “Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est;” but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: “deus crucifixus” “nasci se voluit deus”. De pat. 3: “nasci se deus in utero patitur.” The formula: “ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁμεγας Θεός is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24. 596 De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: “ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ.” 597 De carne 18 fin. 598 Adv. Prax. 27: “Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum . . . Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ.” In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: “ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt.” See also c. 29: “Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam” etc. 599 Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves). I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: “Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.” 600 In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula “deus et homo”, or, after Tertullian’s time “duæ substantiæ”, was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest

176


282

283

Adolf Harnack

principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition “the Word became flesh” (“verbum caro factum”) denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos’ assumption of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages.601 Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents who understood John’s statement in the sense of the Word’s transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued against the “assumption of flesh from the Virgin” (“assumptio carnis ex virgine”);602 and, in the second place, he had to do with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.603 In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid great weight on formulæ like “the crucified God”, “God consented to be born” (“deus crucifixus”, “nasci se voluit deus”) and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses — which was already a further step, — sharply emphasised the “distinct function” (“distincte agere”) of the two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The “deus factus homo” (“verbum caro factus”) presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as “theology” can no longer be banished. Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, for all his elucidations of “substance” and “person” are of this nature. A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos doctrine in the struggle against the “Patripassians” was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of Christ’s body, it was Tertullian who distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect unity of Christ’s person. The first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second

on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian’s opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian’s view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating. 601 “Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?” 602 See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: “Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum . . . Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum” etc. 603 Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.

177


284

285

Adolf Harnack

was found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition connected with these.604 With regard to the first we may point out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is the realisation of our possession of God’s image;605 but this thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with God,606 till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That Irenæus, in explaining the life of Jesus as that of Adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes: “ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι” (“For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven”). From these words it is plain that Irenæus preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. The “discrete agere” of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the “deus crucifixus” and to lay the foundation for Tertullian’s formulæ. With regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the greatest difficulties

604

So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus’ Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Böhringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him). 605 See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: “Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo.” Adv. Marc. V. 8: “Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram”; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation. 606 Iren. IV. 14. 2 for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus’ views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, i.e., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.

178


286

Adolf Harnack

in the way of the Logos Christology. Of what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? Irenæus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the man Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.607 This separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the “deus homo factus” without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only “Gnostic” testimony in its favour. Before Irenæus’ day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that Jesus Christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus patibilis (“capable of suffering”) and the Christ ἀπαθής (“impassible”) is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: “filius dei filius hominis factus”. No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian’s Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: “deus passus, deus crucifixus est” (“God suffered, God was crucified”).608 607

“Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat.” All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus’ incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulæ about Christ: ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός — “Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur.” But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παῖς Θεοῦ. 608 On Hippolytus’ views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. — an account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel’s untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus’ treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς (Iren.), δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυμοῦμεν (see Iren.) Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύμφιος ἱμάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object

179


287

288

Adolf Harnack

But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in Irenæus is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that “Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”609 (“Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is”). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the “factus est quod sumus nos” in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as “salvation and saviour and saving” (“salus et salvator et salutare”),610 but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of “Gnosis”, nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.611 But he is distinguished of the assumption of the flesh), ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν σῶμα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει καὶ μίξας (Iren., Tertull.) τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύμενον ἄνθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάμ, l.c., c. 26, with the ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus’ Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noët. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεμψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνομα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαμβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν μονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the “divine mysteries” of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter’s confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): οὐ παύσεται ἡ ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσμω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόμενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόμενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. If we consider how Irenæus’ pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse “doctrines”, we see how the “Scripture” theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here — “doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.” From this standpoint Origen’s undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance. 609 See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: “filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit.” 610 See III. 10. 3. 611 See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus’ raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): “Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus.” The new thing is then defined thus: “Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius

180


289

290

Adolf Harnack

from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ’s work not to the “pneumatic” ipso facto, but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour’s words and adorn themselves with works of righteousness.612 Irenæus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as the realisation of man’s original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the person of Christ. Here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the articles that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question “cur deus Homo” in the highest sense.613 Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ’s real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, “filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos” (“the Son of God became Son of man for us”) and “filius dei passus est propter nos” (“the Son of God suffered for us”) as the most vital ones. He did not, however, clearly show which of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ’s work in succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating counterpart of Adam’s birth from the

et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.” 612 See IV. 36. 6: “Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., μετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei” — we must provide ourselves with the wedding garment. 613 The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God’s appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: “Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc.” That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.

181


Adolf Harnack

virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve’s disobedience, so the story of Jesus’ temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam’s temptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation.614 As yet Irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the death of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the “apostasy” for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, however, develop this thought any further.615 291

His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the righteous flesh” as such, at other times in the “wood.” Here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.616 But teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in

614

Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei. 615 See particularly V. I. 1: “Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret.” We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus’ translation in Caspari’s Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τὸν πριωμενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς μῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νομὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάμενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· μᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡμαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυτρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνομίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν μητέρα ὑμῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· Δωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ μετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ μετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷμα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷμα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ μὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιμῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήμιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, ἀνέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious. 616 See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo.” It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy (“this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled”). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof.

182


292

293

Adolf Harnack

Irenæus, and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to God.617 According to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in Christ’s restoring man to communion and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam’s sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the consequences of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.618 Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ’s work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenæus employed the following categories: restoring of the likeness of God in humanity; abolition of death; connection and union of man with God; adoption of men as sons of God and as gods; imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men;619 imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him; bestowal of everlasting life. All these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his acts are thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they “according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his voice.”620 Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself is.621 This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled. In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis, we again find the same

617

See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθύμως Ἀβραὰμ τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν. 618 There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam’s disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul’s thoughts. 619 Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic. 620 See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them. 621 See III. 16. 6: “In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.”

183


Adolf Harnack

aspects of Christ’s work as in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.622 622

There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ’s mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: “Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat”; de bapt. 11: “Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius”; adv. Marc. III. 8: “Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of Christ is the redemption — though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset.” Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called “fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet.” Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: “Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅμα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁμιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόμος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυμίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούμενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέμεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συμβέβηκε τῷ καλουμένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, μηδὲ τὸ παλινδρομεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύμενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγμασιν ὑπακούσας σεμνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος μιμητής, ἔσῃ ὅμοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιμηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, Christ’s death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression “satisfacere deo” about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequerit in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find “meritum” (eg. , Scorp. 6) and “promereri deum”. With them and with Novatian the idea of “culpa” is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: “quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est.” Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: “Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna.” On the other hand he speaks of fasting as “officia humiliationis”, through which we can “inlicere” God. Among these Western writers the thought that God’s anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter’s speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen’s day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de anima 41 fin.: “Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium”; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Hom. III. 27: νύμφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόμενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. 11, and my notes on Διδαχή XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: “Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine

184


294

295

296

297

Adolf Harnack

Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the material hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the Gnostics and guaranteed by the regula and the New Testament.623 The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.624 But this is the clearest proof that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow the Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and

sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est”; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul. 623 By the regula inasmuch as the words “from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead” had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, “das Muratorische Fragment”, p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish. 624 Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I., p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου.” Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work “de Christo et Antichristo” and Overbeck careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter’s chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus’ book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., 1. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory — a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology — is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 (“modicum delictum illuc luendum”). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).

185


Adolf Harnack

Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers possible and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed — the church system itself.

298

299

As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.625 There is no need to show in detail that chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics.

625

Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3).Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world’s history have elapsed; for “in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended” (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued against such as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility” (V. 31). By this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour’s Kingdom (V. 31. 2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; “for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation”; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1), sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid. and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end.

186


300

Adolf Harnack

But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus626 expressly argued against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi.627 But in the second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.628 Cultured theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the “simplices et idiotæ” could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under. stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved a portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of Augustine.

626

Hippolytus in the lost book ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm. 627 See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus. 628 In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoë the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an “apostasy” from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled “Refutation of the allegorists” attained the highest repute. “They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of God.” So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages.

187


301

302

Adolf Harnack

Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the Old Testament which the creation of the New produced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the Old Testament — the Decalogue — and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the new law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism. Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a New Testament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the proposition that the “Father of Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the Old Testament” required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out by the Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with God. With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two Testaments, Irenæus and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629 and primarily 629

See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.

188


303

304

Adolf Harnack

indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced both Old and New Testaments.630 Moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early-Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword is: “Seek the type” (“Typum quæras”).631 But they went a step further still. In opposition to Marcion’s antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the “Jewish” conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the Old Testament God from the Christian Deity.632 In connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;633 but in the course of the third century these needs grew mightily634 and were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back

630

It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren. IV. 9. 1: “Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est.” Both Testaments are “unius et eiusdem substantiæ.” IV. 2. 3: “Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi.” 631 See Iren. IV. 31. 1. 632 Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.): Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo”; see Overbeck “Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus. 633 Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: “Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.” Here also Tertullian’s Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation. 634 Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen’s works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI.

189


305

Adolf Harnack

by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development in the Church ends with the complexus oppositorum, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and God’s covenant with the Jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine accommodation and pedagogy, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;635 and thus appears as something intermediate between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullian generally, as a Gnosis “toned down” and reconciled with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this “history of salvation” as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.636 Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history. The fundamental features of Irenæus’ conception are as follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same God, and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times.637 The two are in part different; but the difference must be conceived as due to causes638 that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.639 We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God; God is always the giver,

635

Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day. 636 With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common. 637 Iren. III. 12. 11. 638 See III. 12. 12. 639 No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is “principium evangelii.” (III. 11. 7).

190


306

307

Adolf Harnack

man always the receiver;640 God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.641 The fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart642 by the creator. He who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenæus leaves Adam’s sin entirely out of sight). But it was God’s will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.643 But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.644 When righteousness and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.645 But when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate 640

See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4. Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. 11. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned. 642 This is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: “Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc.” IV. 15. 1. 643 Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8: “Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur”, and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son’s having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2). 644 On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the agnitio filii. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7 IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the agnitio filii seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, veritas, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator. 645 Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: “Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem”. 641

191


308

309

Adolf Harnack

with God, i.e., with Christ; for “how is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?” (“quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset”) IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a covenant with God and in which they also possessed the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; “lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum”). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.646 Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the “testamentum libertatis” and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of God with the flesh the agnitio filii first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the “traditio seniorum”. First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the particularia legis, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of the law, but only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself. The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress

646

As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: “his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens”. IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the “people” and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied “the middle times”, and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.

192


310

311

Adolf Harnack

on the inclinations of the heart.647 But in these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the Old Testament.648 He therefore views the two Testaments as of the same nature, but “greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage” (“maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem”). Through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened “for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few; (“una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum”). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ’s earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.649 This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul’s conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified

647

The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 1. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2 Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: “Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem”. IV. 13. 1. f.: “Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis”. That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: “Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos”. IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, “propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur”. IV. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant God punished “typice et temporaliter et mediocrius”, under the new, on the contrary, “vere et semper et austerius” . . . as under the new covenant “fides aucta est”, so also it is true that “diligentia conversationis adaucta est”. The imperfections of the law, the “particularia legis”, the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.). 648 See III. 11. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle. 649 From Irenæus’ statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance.

193


Adolf Harnack

it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio — Moses-Christ — Paraclete). But this addition was not accepted by the Church.650

3. Results to ecclesiastical Christianity. 312

As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because their opponents were theologians. Hence the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the Western Church of the third century, does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted in an antignostic sense.651 As yet the rule of faith and 650

No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenæus’ view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. 1: Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis.” (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the regula fidei (de præscr. 13): “Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum”; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: “amplianda adimplendaque lex.” Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: “Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata.” That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: “Quod permittitur, bonum non est,” and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Nöldechen’s article in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum”, Sibyll. I. 386: καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται μετέπειτα προφητῶν, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Barth “Tertullian’s Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhältnisses zu den Uraposteln” (Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem. 651 In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the idea that there is a “Christian” view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. This is also Gnosticism. Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work “de anima” with the words: “Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere”. Alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the “doctrine” we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the Church “disciplina”) with its media of almsgiving,

194


313

314

Adolf Harnack

theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. If we wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let us compare Cyprian’s work “Testimonia”, written for a layman, with Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. In the “Testimonia” the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. The doctrine of God, which should have been placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed required no instruction on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two Testaments and thereby proved.652 The theological counterpart to this is Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. This first great Latin work that appeared in Rome is highly important. In regard to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be compared with Origen’s work περὶ ἀρχῶν. Otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology of the West, devoid of philosophy and speculation, differs in general from that of the East. But it sums up in classic fashion the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of which were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis of the work. In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of his doctrine of God in the first eight chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish the correct Christology in opposition to the heretics who look on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself; the Holy Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29 treats of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic and polished. No trace of Platonism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian’s type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, however, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted Tertullian’s formulæ “one substance, three persons” (“una substantia, tres personæ”), “from the substance of God” (“ex substantia dei”), “always with the Father” (“semper apud patrem”), “God and man” (“deus et fasting, and prayer; see Cypr, de op. et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel (Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. 1886, p. 242): οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόμενοι. 652 In the case of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from Scripture. 653 It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian’s adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nieman type. This furnishes material for reflection.

195


315

Adolf Harnack

homo”), “two substances” (“dux substantiæ”), “one person” (“una persona”), as well as his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.654 Taking his book in all we may see that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic vademecum, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scripture, must have been of extraordinary service. 654

Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work “de trinitate”. The archaic attitude of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) Like Tertullian, Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are ὁμοόυσιοι, the homoousia of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). (3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of Sardika). Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus’ dogmatic. The sharp distinction between “deus” and “homo” and the use that is nevertheless made of “permixtio” and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. Cap. 9: “Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius”; c. 11: “non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus”; c. 11 Christ has auctoritas divina, “tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum.” In c. 12 the term “Immanuel” is used to designate Christ as God in a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: “præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam”; c. 14: “Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus”; c. 16: “. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione”; c. 17: “. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit”; c. 18: “. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit”; c. 19: “hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian’s teaching is therefore like that of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius “filius dei” in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hic filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. ‘Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei’. Ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent . . . Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fœneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem fœderis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant”. c. 21: “hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;” c. 22: “Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, ‘Ego et pater’, proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositæ potestatis . . . unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personæ sonat . . . unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione . . . denique novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione.” (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! “Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt”); c.

196


316

317

Adolf Harnack

The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the West, were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God’s book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning manifestation of God’s grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation of these propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the Logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of God and of the two Testaments could not have prevailed without this theory. How this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of Christ was still the more widely diffused among the Churches of the third century;655 but that the other hope, viz., that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. The latter result was due to men’s increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. The hope of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised, because it is only in it that he can come to himself. The fact that Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate

23: “constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit”. In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely “predestinatione”, for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. “Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem”; c. 31: “Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur.” 655 If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).

197


318

Adolf Harnack

Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity. But, when the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.656

CHAPTER VI.

319

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH. Clement and Origen. THE Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture. These Alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the Christian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was first completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John Damascenus. 1. The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria.657

656

I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of God, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted. 657 Guericke, De schola, quæ Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de l’école d’Alex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Læmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d’Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879). Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, Cl. Alex. in seiner Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise “Ueber. die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur,” Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII., pp. 455-472 Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. Kremmer, De catal. heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Quæst. Musonianæ, Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen (Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff.). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880, p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864, and Hort’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hær. 51, Euseb., H. E. V. 28 and my article “Monarchianismus” in the R.-Encykl. f. protest. Theol. 2nd. ed., Vol. X., pp 183 ff., 188 ff. On the tendencies even of orthodox Christians to scientific theology see Tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: “Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis” etc.).

198


320

321

Adolf Harnack

“The work of Irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world’s literature, as found in the Christian Church, is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory.” With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandria’s great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian (and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely no clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and ‘Gnostics’, proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that is of Christian tradition.658 There is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism — though indeed in accordance with its methods — and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.659 Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the Church.660 In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixed by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi). From the history of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, after-wards bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Cæsarea), we learn that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pursuits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third century and

322

658

This manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it suggests the idea that something new was taking place. As a matter of fact the scientific labours in the Church were merely a continuation of the Gnostic schools under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a noli me tangere. 659 This was begun in the Church by Irenæus and Tertullian and continued by the Alexandrians. They, however, not only adopted theologoumena from Paulinism, but also acquired from Paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality. 660 We are not able to form a clear idea of the school of Justin. In the year 180 the schools of the Valentinians, Carpocratians, Tatian etc. were all outside the Church.

199


Adolf Harnack

attained great importance.661 In Palestine, during the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africanus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed that the Church’s attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his Κεστοί, dedicated to Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander of Ælia and Theoktistus of Cæsarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius (H. E. V. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period.

323

Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,662 but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West. We know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there.663 Finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.664 In the Alexandrian school

661

On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient., T. III., P. II., p. 924; Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 54. About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. 662 Overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: “The origin of the Alexandrian school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the Church as well as those of the Alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was the first attempt to formulate the relationship of Christianity to secular science.” We are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and teaching of Pantænus (with regard to him see Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III., pp. 64 ff. 77 ff.). We can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and from the works of Clement and Origen. 663 On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. 31, As to his relations with Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had, moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantænus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen were disciples of Pantænus. 664 See my article “Heraklas” in the Real-Encyklopädie.

200


324

325

Adolf Harnack

of catechists the whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is Clement of Alexandria.665 His main work is epoch-making. “Clement’s intention is nothing less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half.” To Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.666 His great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church,667 is consequently the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church tradition together with the assumption that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God.668 Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to God which he regards as moral perfection. He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far as this is only the deciphering of the secrets revealed in the Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with God, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole

665

We have the most complete materials in Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III. pp. 17-176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pædagogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clement’s remaining works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive his scientific labours were. 666 This applies quite as much to the old principles of Christian morality as to the traditional faith. With respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: “Quis dives salvetur”, and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pædagogus. 667 Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck, l.c., p. 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here both Pantænus and Clement are called “Father “, but whilst the former receives the title, ὁ μακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος, the latter is called: ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήμης, κύριός μου γενόμενος καὶ ὠφελήσας με. 668 Strom. VI. 14, 109 πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. Pistis is γνῶσις σύντομος τῶν κατεπειγόντων (VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειλημμένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδομουμένη (l.c.), τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου (l.c.), πίστις ἐπιστημονική (II. 11.48).

201


Adolf Harnack

scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, and associated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.669

326

327

In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter exercised great influence over him.670 Moreover, Clement stands on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin’s time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the exposition of Christianity, Clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and redemption of mankind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the Old Testament law;671 and the facts contained in the Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which alone contain the possibility of man’s raising himself to the divine life.672 While this is already clear evidence of Clement’s affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p.

669

We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. See Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72: Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξομοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισμάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, μακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυμοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113: οὗτως δύναμιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν μὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νομίζουσα. The whole 7th Book should be read. 670 Philo is quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use of without acknowledgment. See the copious citations in Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, pp. 343-351. In addition to this Clement made use of many Greek philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, e.g., Musonius. 671 Like Philo and Justin, Clement also no doubt at times asserts that the Greek philosophers pilfered from the Old Testament; but see Strom. I. 5. 28 sq.: πάντων μὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν κατὰ προηγούμενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθημα ὡς τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουμένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόμος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. 672 See Bratke’s instructive treatise cited above.

202


328

Adolf Harnack

35 f.),673 and in the solution of the problems. But Clement’s great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development. The Logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.674 What Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. His speculation did not drive him out of the Church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory

673

The fact that Clement appeals in support of the Gnosis to an esoteric tradition (Strom. VI. 7. 61: VI. 8. 68: VII. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in determining the ultimate truth of things. The existence of sacred writings containing all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to be guaranteed by divine communication. But no doubt the ultimate cause of this, as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can produce nothing of religious value. As, however, in consequence of philosophical tradition, neither Philo, nor the Gnostics, nor Clement, nor the Neoplatonists were able to shake themselves free from the intellectual scheme, those things which-as they instinctively felt, but did not recognise — could really not be ascertained by knowledge at all received from them the name of suprarational and were traced to divine revelation. We may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies to which Greek philosophy was subjected in Neoplatonism, and the absurdities into which the Christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empiricism, scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become mythology, have their origin here. Knowledge still continues to be viewed as the highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge. 674 Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with which he describes Quietism shows that he himself was no Quietist. See on this point Bigg’s third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. “. . . The silent prayer of the Quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in Clement. For Clement shrank from his own conclusions. Though the father of all the Mystics he is no Mystic himself. He did not enter the “enchanted garden”, which he opened for others. If he talks of “flaying the sacrifice”, of leaving sense behind, of Epopteia, this is but the parlance of his school. The instrument to which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis, when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plotinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance with Porphyry, which in the experience of Theresa never lasted more than half an hour. The Gnostic is no Visionary, no Theurgist, no Antinomian.”

203


329

330

Adolf Harnack

to his mind.675 If we compare this theory with the rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenæus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end. Irenæus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the novum testamentum libertatis, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. Clement was the first to grasp the task of future theology. According to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity. But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the self-sufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of God. But the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of Irenæus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. If the Gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in God, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly say to his opponents: “If the things we say appear to some people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter” (κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς ἀσορμὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν μόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται).676 No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in God and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of Clement and the Alexandrians; they also occupy the foremost place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy. But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian character of Clement’s “dogmas” in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. What

675

What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost audacious remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισμένα παντὸς μᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 676 Strom. VII. 1. 1. In several passages of his main work Clement refers to those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of Church tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. See Strom. VI. 10. 80: πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ μορμολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούμενοι μὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. VI. 11. 93.

204


Adolf Harnack

would be left of Christianity, if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical regula literally interpreted; and the attempts of Irenæus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition and of New Testament passages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenæus and his theological confrères did not themselves find in Christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition, as prized by Irenæus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers.

331

332

The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in the history of dogma is not associated with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.677 This was not because Clement was more heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the Stromateis is concerned at least;678 but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. Another reason is that Clement did not possess the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.679 Now a sharp eye indeed perceives that Origen personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. It is

677

Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement. Clement’s authority in the Church continued much longer than that of Origen See Zahn, “Forschungen” III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated form from the report of Photius. 679 In ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologoumenon to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified from Holy Scriptures. Thus the fact that the Holy Scriptures were regarded as a series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great part of his task. Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the, history of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and necessarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no use of that theory. In Origen’s dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers — so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case — the unity lies partly in the canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned, Overbeck (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how would it have been conceivable that the riches of Holy Scripture, as presented to the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems and all, at the first attempt. 678

205


Adolf Harnack

therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of Clement.

2. The system of Origen.680

333

Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in Christianity; the antignostic Fathers had confused the Church’s faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. Like all epoch-making personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family which was faithfully attached to the Church, he lived at a time when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.681 He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred documents of Christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind

680

See the treatises of Huëtius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie d’Origène, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV Möller in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed., Vol. XI., pp. 92-109. The special literature is to be found there as well as in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 151, and Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5th ed., p. 62 f. 681 See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff.

206


334

335

Adolf Harnack

remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.682 To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-minded or the immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged over. The Christian system of Origen683 is worked out in opposition to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.684 But the science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up with the appliances of Philo’s science, bears unmistakable marks of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. Finally, however, since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure Church) is the sole possessor of God’s holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as 682

In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the feeling for truth had forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen’s idea the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been advanced of Origen’s having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, however, did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. Basilius (Ep. 210 ad prim. Neocaes) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of Gregory Thaumaturgus, that sounded suspiciously like Sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not speaking δογματικῶς, but ἀγωνιστικῶς. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing γυμναστικῶς, expressly said that all Greek philosophers “have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one place, and deal the blow in another.” In the same way, according to him, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris had acted in the dispute with Celsus and Porphyry. “Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they them selves think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the struggle with the heathen.” 683 See, above all, the systematic main work “περὶ ἀρχῶν”. 684 Many writings of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion and patience, against the Christians who contest the right of science in the Church. In the work against Celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged to abandon the simple Christians. C. Celsus III. 78: V. 14-24 are particularly instructive.

207


336

Adolf Harnack

the absolutely reliable divine revelation.685 But, in addition to these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.686 By acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great mass of simple Christians as the Valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the first place his Gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιμᾶν, “Gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of God Almighty”); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure.687 As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised by the Church in her rule of faith,688 and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates. These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying “know thyself” into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self.689 These rules

685

In this point Origen is already narrower than Clement. Free judgments, such as were passed by Clement on Greek philosophy, were not, so far as I know, repeated by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, e.g., c. Cels. VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy (see the remains of Origen’s lost Stromateis and Hom. XIV. in Genes. § 3; Other passages in Redepenning II., p, 324 ff.). 686 We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accordingly Origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific theology, in addition to the task of remodelling Christianity, thus began at its very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of Christianity from the Scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history of dogma. 687 The theory that justified a twofold morality in the Church is now completely legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as Encratite and eschatological, but as Encratite and philosophical. See, for example, Clement, Strom. III. 12. 82: VI. 13. 106 etc. Gnosis is the principle of perfection. See Strom. IV. 7. 54: πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεμέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς. 688 See the preface to the work. 689 From the conclusion of Hippolytus’ Philosophoumena it is also evident how the Socratic Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pædag. III. 11. 1.

208


337

338

Adolf Harnack

made the true “sage” abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and “from burdensome appearance in public”. They asserted that the mind “can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself. This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.”690 Here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous691 and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of God involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness.692 Nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity. This was the case with Clement and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace — but peace in God. Reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine Logos,693 rich in disinterested love to God and the brethen, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,694 the created spirit attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine — “Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity” — by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: “The soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification.”695 Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.696 With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. To Origen’s mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) The philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of God, tolerated the existence of polytheism; and this was really the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not

690

See Gregory Thaumaturgus’ panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18. Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθείας σχῆμα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναμένων. Similar remarks are found in Origen. 692 In many passages of Clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still more pronounced form than in Origen. The boldest expression of it is Strom. IV. 22. 136. This passage is quoted above on p. 328.) 693 See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148. 694 See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen’s commentaries are continually interrupted by similar outbursts of feeling. 695 On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149-155: VII. 10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόμενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός. But note what a distinction Clement makes between ὁ Θεός and the perfect man in VII. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen does this also. 696 Gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were read in Origen’s school, and that every part of these works that would stand the test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded, “because these overpass the limits of human thought.” However, Origen did not judge philosophers in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly, he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, l.c., p. 133, Denis l.c. Introd. 691

209


339

Adolf Harnack

become universally accessible through them.697 (3) As the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.698 In contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through Moses — “Would to God the Jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which Plato has sought to describe”699 — and the Logos shows his universal power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.700 697

See, for example, c. Cels. V. 43: VII. 47, 59 sq. He compared Plato and other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients. 698 See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2. 699 C. Cels. V. 43. 700 One of Origen’s main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind, and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naive and inappropriate even for that time. But he could already estimate the relative progress made by mankind within the Church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to Christ. He expressly declared, c. Cels. III. 78, that the Christianity which is fitted for the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but only in a relative, sense; that the “common man”, as he expresses himself, must be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can only he communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. The very fact, however, that the Logos in Jesus Christ has condescended so to act is to Origen a proof of the universality of Christianity. Moreover, many of the wonderful phenomena reported in the Holy Scriptures belong in his opinion to the veiled forms and images. He is very far from doing violence to his reason here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, visionary states etc. His standpoint in this case is wholly that of Celsus (see particularly the instructive disquisition in I. 48), in so far as he is convinced that many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. Cels. V. 45). The views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or sacramentum are those of the philosophers of the age. He thinks, however, that each individual case requires to be examined, that there can be no miracles not in accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher order. As the letter of the precepts in both Testaments frequently contains things contrary to reason (see περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. § 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: “Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen.”) In all such cases Origen makes uniform use of the two points of view, that God wished to present something even to the simple and to incite the more advanced to spiritual investigations. In some passages, however, the former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. Origen therefore was very far from finding the literal content of Scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, the critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with the Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of Scripture and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve both the unity of God and the harmony of revelation. Herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum I. 9-12. After appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, and Indians — the mythical religion of the multitude and the mystery-religion of the initiated — he lays down exactly the same distinction within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus that the Christians were obliged to accept everything without examination. With regard to the mythical form of Christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. Since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor talent for philosophy, ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων μέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης (l.c., 9). This thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind

210


340

341

342

Adolf Harnack

Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. The Gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a Scripture theology,701 and materially a cosmological speculation. On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen’s Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age. However, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment passed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,702 but the culminating point is the judgment contained in § 7: κατὰ μὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόμως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόμενος μύθοις. (“His outward life was that of a Christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.”) We can everywhere verify this observation from Origen’s works and particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is continually obliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the Christians.703 The Gnosis is in fact the Hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality immovable, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.704 The Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen raised the the religions. But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. In this claim Origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same direction and rejected polytheism. 701 Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: “Origen in point of method differs most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise Scriptural basis of his ideas.” 702 Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On Origen’s hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried, l.c., pp. 351-62. Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book of περὶ ἀρχῶν . 703 See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535. 704 A full presentation of Origen’s theology would require many hundreds of pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, and associated with the Holy Scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by Origen allowed the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. The case was similar with Clement before him, and also with

211


343

Adolf Harnack

thought of the unchangeability of God to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate Logos any significance for “Gnostics”. To these Christ merely appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.705 The Gospel too only teaches the “shadow of the secrets of Christ;” but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, “clearly places before men’s minds all things concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles” (σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάμενα μυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγματα, ὦν αἰνίγματα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ)706 No doubt the true theology based on revelation makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen’s system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one. This necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the mass of Christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the regula fidei, he displayed the most masterly skill. He succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the regula fidei, already developed by Irenæus into the history of salvation.707 The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by God out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element

Tertullian. This is a necessary result of “Scripture theology” when one takes it up in earnest. Tertullian assumes, for example, that there must be a Christian doctrine of dreams. Why? Because we read of dreams in the Holy Scriptures. 705 In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): ἐπέμσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ μὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων μυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνουσιν. See also what follows. In Comment. in John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22 (Lomm. I. p. 43): καὶ μακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόμενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς μηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, μηδὲ ποιμένος, μηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναμένοις. Read also c. Cels. II. 66, 69: IV. 15, 18: VI. 68. These passages show that the crucified Christ is no longer of any account to the Gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the incidents described in the Gospels. Clement, too, really regards Christ as of no importance to Gnostics except as a teacher. 706 Comment. in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p. 20. The “mysteries” of Christ is the technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. For, in respect of the form given to it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has to solve. What is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority (by the believer) or as a soluble problem. One thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, something in itself evident and intelligible. 707 See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136.

212


344

345

346

Adolf Harnack

of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.708 The prevailing contrast is that between the one transcendent essence and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to God as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with God. This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is one of its main presuppositions709 and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of God. But, as from the empirical point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of God and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.710 Like Denis, however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen’s fundamental idea is “the original indestructible 708

To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. of περὶ ἀρχῶν and c. Cels. VI. 53-59. He is convinced (1) that the world is not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only evil will (see c. Cels. IV. 66: VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided distinction between that which is bad and evils. As for the latter he admits that they partly originate from God, in which case they are designed as means of training and punishment. But he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in view of individual passages of Holy Scripture and of natural experience. There are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as means of training. Here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even with respect to the power of God. There are evils which are a necessary consequence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούμενα): “Evils, in the strict sense, are not created by God; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings; (l.c., c. 55). Celsus also might have written in this strain. The religious, absolute view is here replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the best possible. See the Theodicy in περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 17-22. (Here, and also in other parts, Origen’s Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, l.c., p. 626 sq. The two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational interpretation to tradition.) But “for the great mass it is sufficient when they are told that evil has not its origin in God” (IV. 66). The case is similar with that which is really bad. It is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (IV. 66, see also III. 42: τὸ κυρίως μιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώματος οὐ μιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώματός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς μιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν); but a closer examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 61) because error is inseparable from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes evil unavoidable (VII. 50). Sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary prius. This thought, which is also not foreign to Irenæus, is developed by Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify God’s ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time began (see below). 709 See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.) 710 The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former makes an aeon or, in other words, a part of the divine pleroma, itself fall, and that he does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen’s system cannot be made out with complete clearness from the work περὶ ἀρχῶν, because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole.

213


Adolf Harnack

unity of God and all spiritual essence.” From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in God. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of Origen.

347

The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations of Greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.711 On the other hand Origen assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;712 but, as a correct Church theologian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.713 But it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to Origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. other passages), as well as to fellowship with God, since it rests on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as “uninformed and irrational faith” (πίστις ἰδιωτική and ἄλογος) it only leads to a “somatic Christianity” χριστιανισμός σωματικός). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher “spiritual Christianity” (χριστιανισμός πνευματικός) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith Origen’s four principles are God, the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no “principle”; but the incarnation is treated of in II. 6. The teachers of Valentinus’ school accordingly appear more Christian when contrasted with Origen. If we read the great work περὶ ἀρχῶν, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted in details all possible views down to the most naïve myths, and how he on the one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of his abstract creations. But the problem that confronts us in Origen is that presented by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis l.c., p. 613: “Toutes les théories d’Origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l’état intellectuel et moral du siècle où il a paru”). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who, like Augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the course of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by its greatest men, sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. People were anxious to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about giving up any article of tradition. The boldness of Origen, judged as a Greek philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. This made him all the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. This conservatism welded together ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek culture into a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox. 711 The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex. c. Cels. II. 37); but, like the Apologists, he found it of great value. As far as the philosophers are concerned, Origen always bore in mind the principle expressed in c. Cels. VII. 46: πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡμεῖς φήσομεν οἱ μελετήσαντες μηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγομένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen’s attitude to the Greek philosophers is much more reserved than that of Clement. 712 See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq. 713 Περὶ ἀρχῶν preface.

214


348

Adolf Harnack

to knowledge and clear vision. This is effected by the method of Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of God.714 The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be assumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of God, morality, the law of nature, or reason.715 Here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an assertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.716 When the Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.717 He is then inwardly united with God’s Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles did not possess the same inspiration as he,718 and among the Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be assumed. Here Origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an assumption through which the later Church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.719

714

On Origen’s exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff., Bigg, l.c. p. 131 ff. On the distinction between his application of the allegorical method and that of Clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work. 715 Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of Genesis Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f. 716 Bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named Origen’s allegorism “Biblical alchemy”. 717 To ascertain the pneumatic sense, Origen frequently drew analogies between the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. He is thus a forerunner of modern idealistic philosophers, for example, Drummond: “To Origen allegorism is only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature (Bigg, p. 134). 718 See Hom. in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq. 719 Since Origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the Scriptures, he has also a much more favourable opinion of the Jewish people and of the observance of the law than the earlier Christian authors (but see Iren. and Tertull.). At bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the faith of the simple Christians. The Apostles also kept the law for a time, and it was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. They were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the Jews. On the other hand, he considers the New Testament a higher stage than the Old both in its literal and its spiritual sense. See c. Cels. II. 1-4, 7, 75: IV. 31 sq.: V. 10, 30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26.

215


349

350

Adolf Harnack

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.720 The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness. so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of God. As the One, God is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, God is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: “We have not made ourselves.” As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, God is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin. The One is something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is created point back to the One, who can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the absolute causality of God, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).721 The created is one thing and the Self-existent is another, but both are connected together; as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. The Self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of God without revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially every. where; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompasses nor is encompassed.

720

In opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of God, recommended by Alcinous (c. 12), Maximus Tyr. (XVII. 8), and Celsus (by analysis [apophat.], synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), Origen, c. Cels. VII. 42, 44, appeals to the fact that the Christian knows God better, namely, in his incarnate Son. But he himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method. 721 In defining the superessential nature of the One, Origen did not go so far as the Basilidians (Philosoph. VII. 20, 21) or as Plotinus. No doubt he also regards the Deity as ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1; Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inasmuch as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V. 12, 13), but he is not βύθος and σιγή, being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the νοῦς) before he can come to himself. Accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to God as the later Neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neoplatonists and Philo before them. Origen is no mystic. In accordance with this conception Origen and Clement say that the perfect knowledge of God can indeed be derived from the Logos alone (c. Cels. VII. 48, 49: VI. 65-73; Strom. V. 12. 85: VI. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation (c. Cels. VII. 46). Hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of God (Protrept. VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of God furnished by Philo (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1. 6; c. Cels. I. 23). The relatively correct predicates of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels. I. 23), his absolute spirituality (πνεῦμα ἀσώματος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχημάτιστος) — this is maintained both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1, Origen’s polemic against Melito’s conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11. 68: V. 12. 82, — his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; the eternity of God itself, however, is to be conceived, according to Clement, as that which is above time; see Strom. II. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.

216


351

352

Adolf Harnack

Nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also he is removed from space itself.722 But the omniscience and omnipotence of God have a limit, which indeed, according to Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;723 secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: God can do nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense724 — thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited725 — fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.726 Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by God himself. God has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.727 That the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of God. Like Irenæus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to the Marcionites.728 But his exposition is different. In his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. God rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when God punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Passions, anger, and the like do not exist in God, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition to the Marcionites, who declared Christ and the Father of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, God (the foundation of the world) is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.729 From the perfect goodness of God Origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he always reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept “God”. But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, Origen assumed that the One, in becoming the Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ — the Logos. The content of Origen’s teaching about this Logos was not essentially different from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the 722

Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1. 3. C. Cels. V. 23. 724 L.c. 725 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 1: “Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit.” In Matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq. 726 See above, p. 343, note 2. 727 See c. Cels. II. 20. 728 Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 5, especially § 3 sq. 729 See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that this view is a rapprochement to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch’s opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account. 723

217


353

354

Adolf Harnack

Monarchians) more clearly and precisely stated.730 Nevertheless the personal independence of the Logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God. The following are the most important propositions.731 The Logos who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image732 of God. He is the Wisdom of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him733 and he is therefore really God, not αὐτόθεος, nor ὁ Θεὸς, nor ἄναρχος αρχή (“beginningless beginning”), but the second God.734 But, as such, immutability is 730

Clement’s doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λέγεται μέν — these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes — κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁμωνύμως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόμενος, οὐδὲ μὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναμίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόμενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προσορικός (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, l.c., p. 145 against Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that of the Son. “The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper.” If the Adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression ὁμοούσιος for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not μέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ Θοῷ ὁμοούσιοι, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁμοούσιος λεχθείη. One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς). In Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅμα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: ἓν μὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, and Adumbrat. in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: “principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis.” See besides the remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης μυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς μόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡμῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡμῖν συμπαθὲς γέγονε μήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας ὁ πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου μέγα σημεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son κτίσμα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called “primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam”. That is exactly Origen’s doctrine, and Zahn (i.e., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. 14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20 The Son stands at the head of the series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence like Strom. IV. 25. 156 (ὁ μὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτημονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήμη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff. 731 See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff. 732 It is very remarkable that Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 1 in his presentation of the Logos doctrine, started with the person of Christ, though he immediately abandoned this starting-point “Primo illud nos oportere scire”, so this chapter begins, “Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei.” 733 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2, 6. 734 The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c. Cels. V. 39: Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωμεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγομεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουμένως γεγενημένων,

218


355

Adolf Harnack

one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the Father’s perfection).735 Accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather constitutes his essence: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ μετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστί Θεός736 (“the Saviour is not God by communication, but in his essence”). From this it follows that he shares in the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί (“the same in substance with the Father”) or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, is engendered from the essence of the Father.737 But having proceeded, like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with God; there was not a time when he was not,738 nay, even this expression is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think of God without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the Son is always being begotten of the Father.739 It is the theology of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up:740εἷς κύριος, μόνος ἐκ μόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναμις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. (“One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress and image of Godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal”). The begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no

735

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have been to the effect that the Son is indeed αγαθός, but not, like the Father, ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. 736 Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq. 737 L.c.: “Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhœa vel vapor.” In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ἐπιστήσωμεν δέ, εἰ μὴ σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁμοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παμμακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύματι τῶ Θεῶ. On the meaning of ὁμοουσίος, see Zahn, Marcell., pp. 11-32. The conception decidedly excludes the possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they possess it. On the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitarian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen’s teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. in Jerem. no. 2: Τὸ μὲν ὑποκείμενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόματα ἐπὶ διαφόρων. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when Origen (for ex. in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of Father and Son to unity in feeling and in will. The charge of Ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p. 367). 738 Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5. 739 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: “Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat.” See the comprehensive disquisition in περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28, where we find the sentence: “hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est” etc. See further in Jerem. IX. 4, Lomm. XV., p. 212: τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός; see also other passages. 740 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.

219


356

357

Adolf Harnack

emanation — the expression προβολή is not found, so far as I know741 — but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the Father, though this still appears to be the case in some passages of Clement, but he is the “sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens742 (“the wisdom of God substantially existing”) “figura expressa substantia: patris” (express image of the Father’s substance”), “virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens” (a second force existing in its own characteristic fashion “). He is, and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an “animal vivens” with an independent existence.743 He is another person,744 namely, the second person in number.745 But here already begins Origen’s second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its “first cause” (πρῶτον αἴτιον) in God, the Son is “that which is caused” (αἱτιατόν), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the Son is no longer an absolute simplex like the Father.746 He is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.747 As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied — which moreover dominates the system — and the particular contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son is not only called κτίσμα and δημιούργημα, but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a different kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from God’s standpoint, the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and subordinated to him.748 The Son stands between the uncreated One and the created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.749 It is evident why Origen was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could 741

In περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as the “conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium” and the “procreatio ex nullis substantibus.” 742 L.c. I. 2. 2. 743 L.c. I. 2. 3. 744 De orat. 15: Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. This, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the personal distinction. 745 C. Cels. VIII. 12.: δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα. This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origen’s commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν. Not that Origen has not yet the later terminology οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείμενον, πρόσωπον. We find three hypostases in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels. 746 In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: ὁ Θεὸς μέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά. The Son is ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστημα θεωρημάτων ἐν αὐτῶ (Lomm. I., p. 127). 747 See the remarks on the saying: “The Father is greater than I,” in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son. 748 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum. 749 See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).

220


Adolf Harnack

unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.750

358

359

In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of God or not.751 As the third hypostasis, Origen reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter’s the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through the Son.752 Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered quantitively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most important consideration, the Spirit’s sphere of action is the smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect Father, Son, and Spirit form a τρίας (“triad”)753 to which nothing may be compared; they are equal indignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not one of Rufinus’ corrections, Origen said754: Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa”755 (“nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason”). But, as in Origen’s sense the union of these only exists because the Father alone is the “source of deity” (πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος) and principle of the other two hypostases, the Trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a “subtle emanation idea”, has degrees within it. This Trinity, which in the strict sense remains a Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception. The idea of createdness was already more closely associated with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still clearer fashion than the Son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage after the Holy Spirit. In assuming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the Church.756 With Clement even the association of the Son and Holy Ghost with 750

Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the Logos from the redeeming work of Christ. See περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. and in addition to this Hermas’ view of the Spirit. 752 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. See also in Joh. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου (logically) παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine. 753 See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the heathen had known the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de princip. I. 3: II. 7). 754 L.c. § 7. 755 See Hom. in Num. XII. 1, Lomm. X, p. 127: “Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.” 756 Περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. 751

221


360

361

Adolf Harnack

the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions.757 Origen was more cautious in this respect.758 The world of spirits appears to him as a series of well-arranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress (προκοπή).759 Growth is conditioned by freedom: “omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet”760 (“every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame — praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course”). As unchangeableness and permanence are characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.761 In this thesis Origen goes beyond the assumption of the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable762 ); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny for a time. In the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. Sub specie æternitatis, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit763 is not a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit’s developing itself merely appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of naturæ rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the naturæ rationabiles, which have different species and ordines, human souls also belong. The whole of them were created from all eternity; for God would not be almighty unless he had always produced everything764; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with the Logos permits of no diversity765; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are

757

From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. To Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides God. But, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from God to men living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel that spoke, or the Son through the angel. See the full discussion in Zahn, Forschungen, III., p. 98 f. 758 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 759 So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c. 760 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 2. 761 It was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the world. See Comm. in Matth. XV, 27, Lomm. III., p. 384 sq. 762 See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45: we must not look on the human spirit as ὁμοούσιος with the divine one. The same had already been expressly taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does not exclude God and souls having quodammodo one substance. 763 Such is the teaching of Clement and Origen. They repudiated the possession of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. If such lay in their essence, these spirits would be unchangeable. 764 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 10: “Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est.” (So the Hermogenes against whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). “Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est.” God would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a προκοπή, and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3. 765 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 8.

222


Adolf Harnack

burdened with a kind of bodily nature,766 for it is only the Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.767 Now Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the naturæ rationabiles, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2).

362

THEDOCTRINEOFTHEFALLANDITSCONSEQUENCES. All created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.768 In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.769 The disciplining and purifying of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by God.770 It is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by God’s wisdom.771 Each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, guide the world, are servants of God (ἄγγελοι), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies. Those that have altogether turned against God have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. Men therefore

766

Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development, that is of growth. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7. Created spirits are also of themselves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of God who can never attach anything material to himself. 767 Angels, ideas (see Phot. Biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely connected together, both according to the theory of Clement and Origen and also to that of Pantænus before them (see Clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught that men become angels (Clem. Strom. VI. 13. 107). But the stars also, which are treated in great detail in περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7, belong to the number of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls was probably set forth by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the transmigration of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. 1. sq. 768 Phot. Biblioth. 109: Κλήμης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ κόσμους τερατεύεται. This cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 3. 769 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that happened before time began. 770 The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει); this cannot be noticed in the Strom.; in fact in VI. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness of the world. He emphasised the agreement between Plato and Moses in the doctrine of creation (Strom. II. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). According to Origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities (see, e.g., c. Cels. III. 41). 771 This conception has given occasion to compare Origen’s system with Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: “Creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in Origen’s views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human history. Æons rolled away before this world was made; æons upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons will run their course, before the end is attained. The one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed,” “God shall be all in all.” Bigg also rightly points out that Rom. VIII. and 1 Cor. XV. were for Origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.

223


363

364

Adolf Harnack

are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by the demons, but lightened by the angels,772 for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.773 Evil, however, and it is in this idea that Origen’s great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is “nonexistent” (οὐκ ὄν) and “unreal” (ἀνυπόστατον).774 For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his being is concerned, resulted from God’s will, cannot always remain a devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.775 According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in Origen’s view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other Fathers,776 assumes the following form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above. This is united with the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to God, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact.777 Man’s struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming 772

The popular idea of demons and angels was employed by Origen in the most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of the world. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2 and numerous passages in the Commentaries and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of Hermas and Barnabas. The spirits ascend and descend; each man has his guardian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced (θεραπεύεσθαι); yet such reverence as belongs to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. VIII. 13). 773 Clement wrote a special work περὶ προνοίας (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of προνοία in the Strom.; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 1; de orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 8187: IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Hom. in Num. XIV., Lomm. X., p. 163: “Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria.” Here and there, however, Origen has qualified the belief in Providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. Cels. IV. 74). 774 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2: “Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret.” In the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as ἀνυπόστατον and an argument to the effect that τὰ πονηρά are — μὴ ὄντα. 775 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 3: III. 6. The devil is the chief of the apostate angels (c. Cels. IV. 65). As a reasonable being he is a creature of God l.c., and in Joh. II. 7, Lomm., l.c.). 776 Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus’ attacks on it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus’ view. If we consider the plan of the work περὶ ἀρχῶν we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos. 777 The doctrine of man’s threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pædag. III. 1. 1; Strom V. 14. 94: VI. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of Plato). Origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the rational part spirit, sometimes ψυχὴ λογική, and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his

224


365

Adolf Harnack

his constitution to gain control of his sphere of action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains likeness to God; the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.778 Victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and passions.779 No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without God,780 but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.781 Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.782 The idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance783 it does not avail against the constitution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.784 All must be sinners at first,785 for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man’s material nature.786

The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration.

psychology from the Holy Scriptures. The chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen one, became as it were a soul, and can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the flesh (see περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the preëxistence of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin of the soul. 778 Clement (see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some Christian teachers: τὸ μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν μέλλειν ἀπολαμβάνειν, Orig. c. Cels. IV. 30: ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἤδη. 779 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. One must attain the σωφορσύνη. 780 This is emphasised throughout. The goodness of God is shown first in his having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, which, however, do not endanger freedom. Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 96: ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 781 See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c. Cels. III. 61-66 VII. 50; Clem., Pæd. III. 12. 93: τὸ ἐξαμαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔμφυτον. 782 See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: μυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄμφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, τῶν μήτε ἐθελόντων μανθάνειν μήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κρατεῖν. Two remedies correspond to this (102): ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν μαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις and ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουμένη, or otherwise expressed: ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστημονική and ἡ πρᾶξις, which lead to perfect love. 783 Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom. VI. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of God, the true Gnostic, that God has destined (προώρισεν) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107. 784 C. Cels. III. 69. 785 It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. See c. Cels. IV. 40; περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Cæsarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin orginating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting Fall. Like Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in sexual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII. 4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 (Bigg, p. 202 f.). 786 Nevertheless Origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. See in Job. XIII, 43 ad fin II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.

225


366

367

368

Adolf Harnack

In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: “God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves” (ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι) is quite as rue as the other statement that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.787 They moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the “spiritual Church”, there is an eternal Gospel which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God’s highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These elements compose Origen’s doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.789 They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen’s teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings did not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the “Godman,” to make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil’s sovereignty over men’s souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.790 To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven 787

Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace. See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists. 789 See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62. 790 With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul’s time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him 788

226


369

Adolf Harnack

with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact — namely, the redeeming death of Christ, — so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.791 What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or less valuable appearance — namely, the historical work of Christ — was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view it as the truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as a truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the Gnostics and those of orthodox Christians. The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to God and participation in the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the

who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort. ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VIII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI.; pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen’s time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ’s soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ’s soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort. ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ’s work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, “it is written”, as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσμεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλματα σέβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship) 791 See above, p. 342, note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is μάθησις and μυσταγωγία, and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναμιν, καὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ ἀνθρῶπινον, μα ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι μετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συμβαλλομένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαμβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα.

227


Adolf Harnack

death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.792

370

On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the Redeemer, this Christ, the God-man, could not but be as many-sided as redemption is. Only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being the highest one. The whole “humanity” of the Redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect one, and this remark also applies to Clement’s perfect Gnostic, thus knows no “Christology”, but only an indwelling of the Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, and the “Ebionite” view on the other.793 His doctrine was accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos could not unite with matter, because this as μὴ ὄν would have depotentiated him. A medium was required. The Logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from God, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never renounced fellowship with him. It was selected by the Logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because

792

From this also we can very clearly understand Origen’s aversion to the early Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a important influence on his frame of mind and on politics. 793 Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. 109) reproached him with these (μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι), and they may be proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): “fertur in traditionibus — namely, in the Acta of Lucius — quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli,” and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement’s repudiation’ of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ’s body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Strom. VI. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen’s case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.

228


371

Adolf Harnack

of its moral dignity. The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the Logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. But with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely united together in Christ. This union (κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις) was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created man, Jesus, the Son of God; and on the other hand has called the Son of God the Son of Man. After the resurrection and ascension the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the Godhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.794 In this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible “heresies”: — the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man — but all men are heavenly; — the Adoptianist (“Ebionite”)

372

794

See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. 9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a human soul was founded on a μυστικὴ παράδοσις of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real θεάνθρωπος in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on many occasions. See περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ and yet, as before, the Logos operate! wherever he wished (l. c., 30): “non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio.” On the perfect ethical union of Jesus’ soul with the Logos see περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 3: “anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;” II. 6. 5: “anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam.” The sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal capax est frigoris et caloris so the soul is capable of deification. “Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est,” “nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest” (l.c.). “Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur.” (II. 6. 4). Τίς μᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον (c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 2: “Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum.” Even during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore wonderful powers, and appeared

229


373

374

Adolf Harnack

Christology — but the Logos as a person stands behind it; — the conception of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair’s-breadth broader or narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by Origen, that is, the modalistic view. Origen is the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression “two natures” is not quite foreign to Origen.795 The Logos retains his human nature eternally,796 but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection. The significance which this Christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ’s humanity, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen’s Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenæus set forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origen’s speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the Godman from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity

differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod.7); cf. c. Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in III. 41: “Ον μὲν νομίζομαν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ μόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ μέγιστά φαμεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν μεταβεβηκέναι Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυμαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώματος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ βουληθέντος μεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαμῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος. 795 In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, where any ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ μεταπλάττεσθαι of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen’s case we may speak of a communicatio ideomatum (see p. 190 f.). 796 In opposition to Redepenning.

230


Adolf Harnack

applied to the historical Christ.797 But Origen’s conception of Christ’s person as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in Christ’s case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his work, but the person of Christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the highest value of Christ’s person lies in the fact that the Deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely God’s. At bottom there is nothing obscure and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.798 375

This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace follows. As in Christ’s case his human soul gradually united itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own work.799 Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the substantiæ rationabiles, the Logos, the knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity.800 She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly passed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires

797

This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III., c. 22-43, where Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init. 798 A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήματα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ μὴ ἐξαμαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος.. 799 “Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum” is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); “voluntas humana præcedit”. In Ezech. hom. I. c. 11: “In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum”. But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: “Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet”; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in Rom. IX. 3, Lomm. VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 800 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.

231


376

377

Adolf Harnack

at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.801 Thus a union of grace and freedom takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the “contemplative life” is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the Deity.802 In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;803 still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. Moreover, in connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (God as love, God as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we find in both Clement and Origen passages which, free from the trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching of the Gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way.804 It is evident that in Origen’s view there can be no visible means of grace; but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the common man they are indispensable.805 In the same way he brought into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors with God, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great reserve. Origen’s eschatology occupies a middle position between that of Irenæus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenæus, Christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; and, according to Valentinus, Christ separates what is illegitimately united and saves the spirits alone, Origen believes that all spirits will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when sensuous matter disappears of itself. Here he rejects all sensuous eschatological expectations.806 He accepted the formula, “resurrection of the flesh”, only because it was contained in the doctrine of the Church; but, on the strength of 1. Cor. XV. 44, he interpreted it as the rising of a “corpus spiritale”, which will lack all material attributes and even all the members that have sensuous functions, and which

801

See Clem., Strom. V. 1. 7: χάριτι σωζόμεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ μέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόμενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειμένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. III. 2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν μικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συμπνεούσης θείας δυνάμεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελομένῳ. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enliglitenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account see Landerer in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wörter, Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin, 1860. 802 This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): “Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the “De imitatione”, of Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon.” 803 See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467. 804 See e.g., Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq. — the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. This exegesis begins with the words: “It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking . . . Constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant.” 805 See above, p. 339 f. 806 See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 11.

232


378

Adolf Harnack

will beam with radiant light like the angels and stars.807 Rejecting the doctrine that souls sleep,808 Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately enter Paradise,809 and that souls not yet purified pass into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, is to be conceived as a place of purification.810 In this way also Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.811 In the end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay, even the demons, are purified and brought back to God by the Logos-Christ,812 after they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.813 Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: “for the common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished.”814 This system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical Christianity. If one undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from the standpoint given in the “contemplative life”, little else would be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.815 The method according to which Origen preserved whatever appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient civilisation, what would have been left to us? The fact of a strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was the condition — to use Origen’s own language — that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its course.

379

During the following century Origen’s theology at first acted in its entirety. But it likewise attained this position of influence, because some important propositions could be detached from their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed in utramque partem. The several propositions could be made to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but also by being grouped. With this the relative unity that distinguishes the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the world? Above all, however, there was something else that necessarily vanished, as soon as

807

See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. We see from c. Cels. V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. 808 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37. 809 Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq. 810 C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: φαμὲν δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁμαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παμφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιμον λέγοντες (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), τὸ διικνούμενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχομένης τὸ πῦρ. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and regnum dei. 811 See περὶ ἀρχ. II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c. 812 See περὶ ἀρχ. I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c . Cels. VI. 26. 813 On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. 11. 77 and other passages. Origen does not mention them, so far as I know. 814 c. Cels. l.c. 815 We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.

233


Adolf Harnack

people meddled with the individual propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. We mean the frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the highest good attainable by the free spirit that is certain of its God. But a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense of proportion and relation was no longer to be found.

380

In the East the history of dogma and of the Church during the succeeding centuries is the history of Origen’s philosophy. Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge816 could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. But, in the main problem that Origen set for the Church in this religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded by the so-called Gnosticism two generations earlier. He solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith of the Church with Greek philosophy; and he dealt Gnosticism its death-blow. This solution, however, was by no means intended as the doctrine of the Church, since indeed it was rather based on the distinction between Church belief and theology, and consequently on the distinction between the common man and the theologian. But such a distinction was not permanently tenable in a Church that had to preserve its strength by the unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. Hence a further compromise was necessary. The Greek philosophy, or speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted both Pistis and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the endeavours of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no longer heathen or Gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring. But, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border of the third century. At its beginning there were but few theologians in Christendom who were acquainted with speculation, even in its fragmentary form. In the course of the century it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as the Logos doctrine triumphed in the Church. This development is the most important that took place in the third century; for it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into the compendium of a Greek philosophical system, and it is the parallel of a contemporaneous transformation of the Church into a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).

816

See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.

234


Adolf Harnack

Indexes Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:2 Exodus 3 Leviticus 5 5 Deuteronomy 17:12 Judges 5 1 Samuel 8:7 Psalms 4 87:5 Proverbs 3:19 8:22 Isaiah 53:5 61:1 Matthew 4:1-25 10:23 10:34 10:35 11:19 12:30 13:29 16:1-27 16:1-28 16:1-28 16:18 16:18-19 17 19:14 23:34 23:37 Luke 1:4 1:35 10:16 10:16 John 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:14 10:1-42 10:30 14:16-21 14:16-21 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 15:20-26 16:7-15 17:1-26 18:22 Acts 2:1-47 4:27 10:38 23:4-5 Romans 1:8 3:23 5:9 7:4 8:1-39 8:3 14:4 16:14 1 Corinthians 3:2 7:1-40 12:3 12:28 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:3 15:4 15:23-28 15:44 15:45 15:50 15:50 Galatians 4:26 Ephesians 2:15 3 5:14 41 43 74 210

235


Adolf Harnack

Philippians 4:3 Colossians 2:8 2:14 535 1 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 1:1 2 Peter 3:16 1 John 1:1 2 John 1:7-11 Jude 1:3 Revelation 1:3

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

236


Adolf Harnack

• • • • μ • , • • • • μ • μ • μ μ , μ μ μ • • μ • μμ μ μ • • • . • μ • μ μ • μ μ , μ μ μ • • μ μ μ = • μ μ μ • μ μ • • • μ , , • • • • • • • • • • , • μ . • • μ μ • • .

237


Adolf Harnack

• μ , μ , μ μ μ , μ , μ õ μ , . • • , μ . • μ • μ • • μ μ • • μ • μ μ μ • • μ μ • μ μ • μ μ • μ • — • μμ 9; μ μ μ μ • μ μ , μ • μ • μ μ • • . . . . μ , μ μ . • , , , • • μ μ μ , μ μ μ • μ μ μ , μ μ μ . • • μ , μ μ μμ μ . • , μ . • μ • μ , • • . . • • μ ; V. 10. 66: . • , μ . μ μ , μ . . . et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, . • μ , , μ , , μ μ , . 238


Adolf Harnack

• μ ; μ , μ , , . μ , ; , , ; μ μ ; μ ! ! ! , ; ; , ! • . • . . • μ μ , • μ , , , . μ • μ , μ , μ . . . μ μ . • μ μ μ μ μ , , μμ , . • μ , , , . , μ , , • • K μ μ . • μ • μ , μ , , μ • , , μ μ μ , , , μ . • μ • , • • , μ , • • μ • • μ • μ . • μ • . • μ • μ • μ μ • μ • , . • • • , μ , μ . • , • • μ . 239


Adolf Harnack

• μ • μ • • • μ • μ . • μ • μ • • • μ μ • μ • • μ μ • μ • μ μ . . . , μ , . • — — • • μ μ μ . • . μ , . , μ , μ . μ μ . μ μ μ μ . • , μ μ • μ • μ • μ • μ • μ • μ , μ μ . • μ . • — . • . • • , μ μ • μ μ • μ μ . • μ μ • μ μ . • • • , . . ., , • , μ 240


Adolf Harnack

• , . . . • . • μ , μ • • μ • • , , • μ , μ μ μ • μ • • • • ( ) • • • . • • μ μ , μ • μ • μ • μ • μ , • • μ • μ • μ • μ • μ • μ • • • μ μ , . . . • , , • μ μ μ μ • μ , • μ , μ μ μ μ . μ • . • , μ • μ • μ , μ . • • • μ μ . 241


Adolf Harnack

• . . . (I. 5). Nevertheless • . • , μ . . . . • • μ μ μ , μ , • , . μ , μ μ μ • μ μ , , μ μ . μ . . . , . • μ μ μ . . . μ μ μ • μ μ , • μ μ • μ • μ • μ •“ μ μ , μ , μ μ , μ • μ , μ μ , μ . μ , μ ; μ , , , μ μ μ . μ ; , , , μ . μ μ , μ μ , μ μ — — , , , μ , μ . • μ , . • • • • • • . • , . μ , μ ; , , μ μ , μ , . • , μ • ; , μ , , , , μ , μ . μ , . , , μ . 242


Adolf Harnack

• μ μ , μ . , , μ μ μ . , ; μ μ μ , μ μ • . • , μ μ . , , μ μ μ μ μ , , μ , , . μ , , . μ μ . μ μ , μ , μ μ . μ μ , , μ . • • μ . • μ , , μ μ μ μ , μ μ μ , μ μ , • μ • • μ μ , , μ . • , μ . • μ μ , μ . • μ , μ , μ μ , • μ , μ , , μ μ , μ μ μ . • (scil. than the regula fidei) . μ , . • μ . μ μ , . μ μ . • μ , μ μ , , , μ μ , μ μ . μ , , , , , , . , . μ μ . , , μ μ . , μ , , , μ , μ μ , μ μ μ , μ μ . . • • • •

243


Adolf Harnack

• μ μ , μ . . . μ μ μ , μ μ . , . • μ μ μ • μ • • , μ μ , μ μ μ μ , μ , μ μ μ μ μ μ μ μ , • • μ , μ , μ , , , μ μ . • , μ μ • • , μ μ μ μ . • μ μ μ μ , μ μ , , μ μ μ • • • μ μ μ . μ , . . μ μ . , μ μ μ , μ . μ , ( ) μ . , , μ μ μ , μ , μ , . • μ μ . . . μ . • , • , μ , μ μ μ μ μ μ , μ , . . . • μ ; • μ μ , μ • μ , ; ; μ ; , , , μ . μ . μ μ μ . μ μ μ μ μ . , μ . , μ , μ . • μ μ . 244


Adolf Harnack

• μ • • μ , • ”. • μ • • μ . • • • μ • • • , μ • • • • μ μ • • μ • • • • . • • • μ • μ μ μ μ μ μ μ , μ , μ μ . . . . . . , • μ • μ μ μ , μ • μ • . • μ , μ • • μ μ • • μ μ μ μ • • μ • μ μ μ μ μ • • • 245


Adolf Harnack

• • μ ˙ μ ˙ μ μ μ μ . • μ • . • μ • μ • , , μ μ • , μ , μ μ • , μ μ , . • μ , μ • , μ . • • , μ μ • • • μ μ μ . • μ μ μμ , μ • • • . . • , μ μ , , , , μ , , . • μ μ • • • • and . • . • • μ , μ μ , μ , , μ • , . • μ μ , μ μ , , • μ μ , μ , μ , μ . μ . • μ • μ • μ • • , , μ , μ , μ . μ μ 246


Adolf Harnack

• μ μ , μ , μ μ , μ , , μ • , μ , , μ μ • μ μ , μ , μ . . . • μ • μ , • μ μ . . . • • . • • μ μ • μ μ μ , μ μ . . . μ μ μ • μ μ μ • • • , • • • , • • • μ μ , μ μ μ . • μ μ • • = . • • • μ μ • • , , • μ • μ • • . • • μ . . . • • • μ • , , μ , • μ μ μ μ μ , μ μ . • 247


Adolf Harnack

• • • • μ μ •μ •μ and μ •μ μ •μ •μ •μ , , , μ μ . . ., •μ μ , μ μ μ μ •μ •μ , , , μ •μ , , , •μ μ •μ •μ μ •μ μ •μ μ •μ •μ •μ •μ μ . . . μ μõ μõ •μ •μ μ μ •μ •μ μ and μ . •μ , •μ μ μ , , μ μ , μ μ μ μ . •μ μ , μ . •μ •μ •μ •μ • μ • μ , μ • μ , μ and • • μ • μ • μ • μ • μ . 248


Adolf Harnack

• μ • μ • μ • μ μ • μ μ . • μ μ • μ . • μ μ , , μ μ μ μ • μ , μ , μ μ , μ . . . • . • μ μ μ μ . • , μ • μ μ • μ , μ . • μ μ • μ , , μ μ , . • μ μ . “ ”, , “ , μ μ ”, , , μ . • μ . • • , , μ , • μ μ , μ . • μ • μ • . • μ μ , μ μ . • , μ μ μ , μ μ . • . • μ , μ μ , μ . μ . μ . • . • • μ • • μ • μ • , , μ , • μ μ μ . . . , μ • • 249


Adolf Harnack

• μ • • μ μ . • • • μ • • • • • • . • μ , , μ • . • • • • . • μ • μ μ , , μ • μ • μ • • μ , • μ ; μ . μ μ ( μ ). . . • • . • μ • μ μ , , μ μ . • • μ μ μ μ μ ; . • μ , , • • • μ ” and not “ ”. • • • • μ μ μ , μ μ μ . • μ • [to be understood in a local sense] μ — μ 250


Adolf Harnack

• • • • μ • μ μ • , μ μ , μ , μ • • μ μ • μ • μ μ • μ μ • μ μ ? • μ • μ • • μ , but μ • μ μ • • . • • • , • μ • • μ μ . • • μ , μ • μ , . , . • , , , , , , μ , • μ , • μ • μ μ • μ μ . • • μ μ μ • μ μ . • • μ • • μ . Ö μ μ μ , μ • μ , μ μ μ , • • μ 251


Adolf Harnack

• • μ μ μ μ . • μ ” • • . • μ • • . • μ • , , μ . • μ • • μ • μ μ . • • μ μ • μ . • • μ • • μ μμ μ • . . ., , μ . • • . • μ μ μ . • • • • . . . • μ • • μ μ , , μ , μ , μ • μ μ , , . . . μ , μ . • • μ , μ . • μ μ • μ μ • • • • •. . . μ μ •See 252


Adolf Harnack

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit •. . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur •. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit •. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione •Absolutio mortes •Acta omnium apostolorum •Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e. •Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. •Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum. •Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem •Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci •Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum •Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur •Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est •Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. •Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit. •Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari •Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes. •Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc. 253


Adolf Harnack

•Christi generatio sic erat •Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione. •Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius •Christus deus et homo •Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit. •Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus •Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem. •Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis •Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo. •Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum •Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit. •Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem. •Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram •Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est •Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30 •Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur. •Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc. •Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona. •Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem. •Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum? •Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc. •Custodiatur μ •De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant. 254


Adolf Harnack

•De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere. •De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem? •Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem •Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur. •Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus. •Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. •Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei •Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat? •Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur. •Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. •Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam •Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ. •Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa. •Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante •Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis 255


Adolf Harnack

originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur. •Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis. •Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi. •Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est. •Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. •Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus •Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur. •Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata. •Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate. •Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta. •Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. 256


Adolf Harnack

•Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna. •Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. •Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet •Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum •Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis •Filius dei filius hominis factus •Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei. •Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit •Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei •Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. •Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos •Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est. •Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones. •Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent. •Hoc si qui putaverit, me •Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate. •Iesu generatio sic erat •Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse •Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro. •Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc. •Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? 257


Adolf Harnack

•In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. •In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. •In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. •In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum •Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius. •Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum. •Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio •Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est. •Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis. •Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse •Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus •Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. •Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini. •Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem •Lex evangelii •Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti •Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli •Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum •Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes •Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei) •Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis •Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit. •Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius •Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi. •Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens

258


Adolf Harnack

iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus. •Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros •Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est. •Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes •Negat scriptura quod non notat •Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt. •Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa •Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria. •Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis. •Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum •Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert. •Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt. •Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali. •Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen. •Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso •Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes, •Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur 259


Adolf Harnack

•Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur. •Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus? •Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem. •Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur. •Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico •Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen. •Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum •Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. •Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est •Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. •Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus •Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum •Parce unicæ spei totius orbis. •Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio •Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit. •Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. •Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. •Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit? •Primo illud nos oportere scire •Principalitas

260


Adolf Harnack

•Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita •Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit •Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret •Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum. •Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit. •Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes •Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem. •Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam •Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus. •Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. •Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum? •Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine? •Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura. •Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,

261


Adolf Harnack

•Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est. •Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent. •Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. •Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum. •Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ? •Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? •Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert. •Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis. •Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie •Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei. •Quod permittitur, bonum non est •Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est. •Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse. •Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc. •Quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum. •Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus. •Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt

262


Adolf Harnack

•Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret. •Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit •Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris. •Sacrificare •Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus. •Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat. •Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc. •Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur •Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas. •Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5 •Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores •Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit. •Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam. •Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio. •Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium •Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc. •Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est. •Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori 263


Adolf Harnack

•Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus. •Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit. •Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? •Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. •Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum •Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. •Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo •Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem. •Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim μ •Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum •Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua μ •Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus •Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri. 264


Adolf Harnack

•Sub specie æternitatis •Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem •Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum. •Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit •Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem. •Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat •Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ. •Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere •Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus. •Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc. •Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. •Typum quæras •Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio. •Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam μ •Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus. •Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est. •Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit •Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis •Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc. •Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur •Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones. •Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed

265


Adolf Harnack

secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret. •Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo. •Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit. •Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit. •Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio. •Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc. •Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit •Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur •Vox ista (Joh. I. 14 •a limine •a priori •ab ecclesia authenticæ •ab initio •actus utriusque substantiæ •ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem •adoptio •adulterium •adunitio •adunitio verbi dei ad plasma •agnitio filii •agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata •alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud •aliquem nominare deum •aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur.

266


Adolf Harnack

•ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. •amplianda adimplendaque lex •amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit •anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam. •anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus •animal vivens •ante et extra usum •antiquissima •antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum •antistes Christi •antistes dei •apostolice •apostolicus •articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ •articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ •assumptio carnis ex virgine •auctoritas divina •auctoritas et ratio •auctoritates praecessorum eius •audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium •baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est •baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus •benedictus papa •blasphemia •blasphemia creatoris •calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre •capax est frigoris et caloris •capax incorruptibilitatis •capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis •captatio benevolentiæ •caro •catalogus testimoniorum •cathedra •cathedra Petri •cathedra sacerdotalis •catholica fides et religio •catholica traditio 267


Adolf Harnack

•catholicam •charisma veritatis •clerici maiores •columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata •commixtio et communio dei et hominis •communicatio ideomatum •communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas •commutatio agnitionis •completus numerus prophetarum •complexus oppositorum •concordia episcoporum •conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat •conscientia religionis •consecutio æternitatis •consecutio spiritus sancti •constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit •constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus •consuetudo sine veritate •contesserare •convenire •convenire necesse est •conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium •corporalis et spiritalis [i.e. •corpus permixtum •corpus spiritale •credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam •culpa •cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma •cunctatio baptismi •cur deus — homo •curiositas •de facto •de ira dei •de opere et eleemosynis •de pudicitia •de trinitate seu de regula fidei •de unitate ecclesiæ •de virginitate •dei •dei spiritus •deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare •deum corpus esse •deus 268


Adolf Harnack

•deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia. •deus crucifixus •deus et homo •deus factus homo •deus homo factus •deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit. •deus passus, deus crucifixus est •deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata •deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei •differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici •diligentia conversationis adaucta est •disciplina •disciplina sacerd. •disciplina vitæ •dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat •dispositio, distinctio, numerus •distincte agere •divisio •doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. •doctrina •doctrina apostolorum •doctrina regulæ •dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare •dominica hostia •dominus apostolos, i. e. •dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit •dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera •donum superadditum et supernaturale •duæ substantiæ •duplex adventus Christi •duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus •dux substantiæ •e sæculo excedere •eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos. •ecclesiæ •ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ •ecclesia 269


Adolf Harnack

•ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum •ecclesia catholica •ecclesia credentium plebs •ecclesia est numerus episcoporum •ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita •ecclesia principalis •ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum •ecclesia super episcopos constituta •ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt •ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est •eiusdem sacramenti •episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus •episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur •episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. •episcopus episcoporum •et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo •et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. •et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum •et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus. •et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi •etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere •eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est. •evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ •ex originis vitio •ex parte accepimus gratiam •ex professo •ex substantia dei •ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum. •expositio legitima •extra ecclesiam •extra ecclesiam nulla salus •fœdus spei •fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam •factum esse •factus est quod sumus nos •falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando •falsum testimonium •fertur in traditionibus 270


Adolf Harnack

•fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet •fides apostolica •fides aucta est •fides catholica •fides credenda •fides et iustitia •fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis •figura expressa substantia: patris •filius dei •filius dei et filius hominis •filius dei factus filius hominis •filius dei filius hominis factus •filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos •filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum •filius dei passus est propter nos •filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit. •filius est in patre et habet in se patrem •filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset. •filius portio plenitudinis •forum publicum •fraus •fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit. •gratia •hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant •hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem •habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem •habitus •hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35 •hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur. •his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens •hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est •homicidium •homo •homo deo mixtus •homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus •homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est •homo inspiratus •homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat. 271


Adolf Harnack

•id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum •idololatria •immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum. •impossibile est sine deo discere deum •in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse. •in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia •in foro publico •in nuce •in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant •in qua •in thesi •in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus •incarnatus •infans •infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata. •inlicere •inquisitio universitatis •institutio •instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ •instrumentum ecclesiæ •inter domesticos •ipso facto •ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri. •ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur •item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit •iudices vice Christi •iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem. •lamentationes •lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ •lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis •legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet. •lex •lex et doctrina •lex evangelica •lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum •libellatici •liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. •libertatem restauravit 272


Adolf Harnack

•liberum arbitrium •literæ pacis •locum magisterii apostolorum •longa hominum expositio •magisterium •magna mater •maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem •matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ •maxima •merces •merita •meritum •minores •modicum delictum illuc luendum •mutatis mutandis •nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum •nasci se deus in utero patitur. •nasci se voluit deus •naturæ rationabiles •natura •natura hominis •naturalia legis •naturaliter similis deo •navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. •ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi •ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur. •ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur •nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest •nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur. •nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit •neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur •neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento 273


Adolf Harnack

•nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum •noli me tangere •non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum. •non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem •non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur •non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. •non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus •non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem •nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. •nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati •nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus; •nova lex •nova promissio regni cœlorum •novissima lex •novum testamentum •novum testamentum libertatis •numerus •numerus episcoparum •o felix culpa •oblatio •officia humiliationis •omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. •omnem ecclesiam •omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem •omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum. •omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt •omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet •opera et eleemosynæ •oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote •oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere •opuscula •ordines •ordines minores 274


Adolf Harnack

•ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens •origo authentici •par excellence •particularia legis •passio dominis •pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans •pater generis humani verbum dei •patibilis •peccando promeremur •peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum. •peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire •per adoptionem •per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit. •per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti •per verbum eius Iesum Christum. •perficere, solvere, demutare •permixtio •perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: •personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. •plasma dei •plebs credentium •pondus baptismi •pondus peccati •pontifex maximus •possibilitas utriusque •posterius •potentior principalitas •potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam •potestas apostolorum •potestas reconciliandi iratum deum. •præcepta dominica •præcessorum auctoritates •præfectus urbis •præsens numen •præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam •preces •predestinatione •primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam 275


Adolf Harnack

•princeps æmulus •principalitas •principium evangelii •principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis. •prius •pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere •procedere •promereri deum •promereri deum (iudicem) •promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis •prophetæ proprii •proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ •propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur •propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est? •quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent •quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt •qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus. •quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo? •qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ. •qui nimis probat nihil probat. •qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat. •qui sunt extra veritatem •quia eucharistia habet μ •quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem •quodammodo •quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset •quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli •quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa •quoniam pro magnitudine sua •radix et mater •ratio •realiter •recapitulatio •recapitulatio per Christum •recapitulatur generis humani •receptior •reformavit humanum genus •regeneratio hominis •regnum dei 276


Adolf Harnack

•regulæ •regula •regula disciplinæ •regula doctrinæ •regula fidei •regula sacramenti •regula veritatis •remissio delictorum •renati ex aqua et pudicitia •restitutio •restitutio ad similitudinem dei •sacerdos •sacerdos dei •sacerdotalïs dignitas •sacerdotale officium •sacerdotalia munera •sacerdotalis ordo •sacerdotium •sacramentum •sacramentum absolutionis •sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ •sacramentum ordinis •sacramentum sacrificii dominici •sacramentum unitatis •sacrificati •sacrificium •sacrificium celebrare •salus et salvator et salutare •sancti et docti homines •sanctificatio •sanctus minister •sanguinem Christi offerre •sanguis Christi •sanguis quod est cognitio •sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens •satisfacere •satisfacere deo •satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc. •scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse •secundum dilectionem •secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est •secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma •semen Abrahæ ecclesia 277


Adolf Harnack

•semper apud patrem •semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus •septem maculas capitalium delictorum •sermo •servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione •si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse •si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas •sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei. •sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur. •signum et vinculum •sine quâ non •species •speciosior quam verior •spes fidei •spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio. •spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano. •status quo ante •stuprum •sub condicione mortis •substantiæ rationabiles •substantia •substantia omnium voluntas dei •successio Petri •successio apostolica •summus sacerdos •sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus. •super Petrum fundata •supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis. 278


Adolf Harnack

•superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit •tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum. •tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris •termini •tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis •tertium quid •tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et μ •tessera hospitalitas •testamentum libertatis •theologia physica, mythica •toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur. •tota substantia •traditio dominica •traditio seniorum •traditio unius sacramenti •tres unum sunt, non unus •trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit •typice et temporaliter et mediocrius •tyrannico terrore •ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est •ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum •una columba •una dominatio •una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata •una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum •una natura •una persona •una substantia •una substantia, tres personæ •unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici. •ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e. •unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus •unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans. •unitas disciplinæ •unitas ecclesiæ •unitas sacerdotalis •unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam 279


Adolf Harnack

•unius et eiusdem substantiæ. •unius substantiæ •unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis •urbs æterna urbs sacra •ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum. •ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ. •uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum. •utramque partem •utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi •utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem. •vademecum •verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est” •verbum caro factum •verbum caro factus •verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus •verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus. •verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile •verbum portatum a patre •verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre •vere et semper et austerius •veritas •veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina •veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis •viaticum mortis •vice versâ •virginis senectæ •virginitas Mariæ in partu •virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens •visio dei •vivi et defuncti •voluntas humana præcedit

Index of Pages of the Print Edition iii vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

280


Adolf Harnack

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380

281

iii

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY



BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME II

CONTENTS. Page

CHAPTER 1. — Historical Survey The Old and New Elements in the formation of the Catholic Church The fixing of that which is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, Collection of Writings, Organization, Cultus) The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, the Apologists 564 Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus Clement and Origen Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most important Institutions Difficulties in determining the importance of individual Personalities Differences of development in the Churches of different countries 56e FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH I.

1-18 2 5 7 9 11 15 16 17 18168

CHAPTER II. — The setting up of the Apostolic Standards for Ecclesiastical 18-93 Christianity. The Catholic Church A. The transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith Necessities for setting up the Apostolic Rule of Faith The Rule of Faith is the Baptismal Confession definitely interpreted Estimate of this transformation Irenæus Tertullian viiiResults

of the transformation Slower development in Alexandria: Clement and Origen B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Muratorian Fragment, in (Melito) Irenæus and Tertullian. Conditions under which the New Testament originated. aef Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings that were read in the Churches Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon, manner of using

20-38 21 24 27 27 29 53c 31 32 38-67 38 43 45 47 51

and results of the New Testament The Apostolic collection of writings can be proved at first only in those Churches in which we find the Apostolic Rule of Faith; probably there was no New Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in Alexandria (Clement) Probable history of the genesis of the New Testament in Alexandria up to the time of Origen ADDENDUM. The results which the creation of the New Testament produced in the following period C. The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodelling of the conception of the Church The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities which were founded by the Apostles By the “Elders” By the Bishops of Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles) By the Bishops as such, who have received the Apostolic Charisma veritatis Excursus on the conceptions of the Alexandrians The Bishops as successors of the Apostles Original idea of the Church as the Holy Community that comes from Heaven and is destined for it The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting on the Law of Faith

56

60 62 67-94 67 68 69 70 70 70 73565 74

ixObscurities

in the idea of the Church as held by Irenmus and Tertullian By Clement and Origen Transition to the Hierarchical Idea of the Church

77 80 83

The Hierarchical idea of the Church: Calixtus and Cyprian

84

Appendix I. Cyprian’s idea of the Church and the actual circumst 558 ances 90 Appendix II. Church and Heresy 90 Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of 93 the Church CHAPTER III. — Continuation. — The Old Christianity and the New Church

94169

Introduction 94 The Original Montanism 95 The later Montanism as the dregs of the movement and as the product of a 100 compromise The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by the Catholic Bishops:

104

importance of the victory for the Church 570 History of penance: the old practice The laxer practice in the days of Tertullian and Hippolytus The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea of the Church; the Church no longer a Communion of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salvation and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus permixtum After effect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian

115

Origen’s idea of the Church

116

109 110 111 113

Novatian’s idea of the Church and of penance, the Church of the Catharists 118 Conclusion: the Catholic Church as capable of being a support to society and the state 122 564 Addenda I. The Priesthood 128 ”

II. Sacrifice

131

”

III. Means of Grace. baptism and the Eucharist

138 149169

Excursus to Chapters II. and III. — Catholic and Roman x

II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. CHAPTER IV. — Ecclesiastical Christia 55b nity and Philosophy. The Apologists 1. Introduction The historical position of the Apologists Apologists and Gnostics Nature and importance of the Apologists’ theology 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation Aristides Justin Athenagoras Miltiades, Melito Tatian55b Pseudo Justin, Orat. ad Gr. Theophilus

169230 169 169 170 172 177 179 179 188 190 190 193 194

Pseudo Justin, de Resurr. Tertullian and Minucius Pseudo-Justin, de Monarch Results 3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion Arrangement The Monotheistic Cosmology Theology Doctrine of the Logos Doctrine of the World and of Man541 Doctrine of Freedom and Morality Doctrine of Revelation (Proofs from Prophecy) Significance of the History of Jesus Christology of Justin Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s doctrines

195 196 199 199 202 202 204 205 206 212 214 215 217 220 225

CHAPTER V. — The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-theological interpretation and revision of the Rule of Faith in opposition to Gnosticism, on 231the basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of 319 the Apologists; Melito, Irenæus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian afd 1.

2.

xiThe

theological position of Irenæus and of the later contemporary Church teachers Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition Loose structure of their Dogmas Irenæus’ attempt to construct a systematic theology and his fundamental theological convictions Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ (recapitulatio) His conception of a history of salvation His historical significance: conserving of tradition and gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the Church The Antithesis to Gnosticism The “Scripture theology” as a sign of the dependence on “Gnosticism” and as a means of conserving tradition The Doctrine of God The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus (Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit)

231 231 234 236 237 239 244 244 247 247 250 253 256 261

3.

Irenæus’ doctrine of the Logos (Conceptions regard ac8 ing the Holy Spirit) The views of Irenæus regarding the destination of man, the original state, the fall and the doom of death (the disparate series of ideas in Irenæus; rudiments of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian) The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the divine and human elements Significance of Mary Tertullian’s doctrine of the two natures and its origin Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenæus The Gnostic character of this doctrine Christology of Hippolytus Views as to Christ’s work Redemption, Perfection Reconciliation Categories for the fruit of Christ’s work xii Things peculiar to Tertullian Satisfacere Deo The Soul as the Bride of Christ The Eschatology Its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation and the advantage of connection with that Conflict with Chiliasm in the East The doctrine ac8 of the two Testaments The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two Testaments, the complexus oppositorum; the Old Testament a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New Testament and a compound Book The stages in the history of salvation The law of freedom the climax of the revelation in Christ Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, (Cyprian, Novatian)

262 266 267 275 275 277 279 283 286 286 288 289 292 292 293 294 294 294 297 299 300 301 304 305 309 312

CHAPTER VI. — The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology 319 and Dogmatic of the Church: Clement and Origen (1)

The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria 319

Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus, Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage) The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement The temper of Clement and his importance in the History of Dogma; his relation to Irenus, to the Gnostics and to primitive Christianity; his philosophyof Religion Clement and Origen (2)556 The system of Origen Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen The Elements of Origen’s theology; its Gnostic features The relative view of Origen

I.

II. III.

xiv xv

His temper and final aim: relation to Greek Philosophy xiiiTheology as a Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmological speculation Porphyry on Origen The neutralising of History, esoteric and exoteric Christianity Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system Sources of truth, doctrine of Scripture The Doctrine of God and its unfolding Doctrine of God Doctrine of the Logos Clement’s doctrine of the Logos Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Doctrine of Spirits Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences Doctrine of Man Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration The notions necessary to the Psychical The Christ 564 ology The Appropriation of Salvation The Eschatology Concluding Remarks: The importance of this system to the following period

320

323 324 331 332 332 334 334, 336 335 340 341 342 343 346572 349 349 352 352 357 359 361 363 365 367 369 375 377 378

DIVISION I. BOOK II. THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS xvi

1

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SURVEY. THE second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and the same time a p 564 olitical commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an “apostolic” law of faith, a collection of “apostolic” writings, and finally, an “apostolic” organisation. This institution was the Catholic Church.1 In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. Hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion. 2How great the innovations actually were, however, may be measured by

1

Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l’Eglise, Vol. II. 1878, pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not se 564 ldom exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the appearance of Ritschl’s monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with the French. Cf. Sohm’s Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.

the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed that there were still a considerable n 564 umber of Christians who valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion “eiusdem sacramenti”, that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine institution.2

2

Sohm (p. 160) declares: “The foundation of Catholicism is the divine Church law to which it lays claim.” In many other passages he even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See, e.g., p. 2: “The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the Church.” Page 700: “The essence of Church law is incompatible ac8 with the essence of the Church.” This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: The assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or, in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this very attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the mark of a pseudo-Catholicism.” But the thesis contains too narrow a view of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element, which Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly “Catholic” feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is selfevident that such portions become legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general conviction that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must certainly be a

The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory 3over Gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition. If Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag Ch 564 ristianity down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, preserved the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early Christian writings, thereby saving — as far as documents, at least, were concerned — and proclaiming the authority of an important part of primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a conservative force born from the vigour of Christianity. 4 If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the Synagogue and observance of

strong detestation of “the divine Church law.” Indeed, the inclination to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a legal code. Sohm’s distinction, that in the oldest period there was no “law”, but only a “regulation”, is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enth 547 usiasts, and a different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so? And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the διατά of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm’s proposition: “The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church,” does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.

the Jewish law, there could at least be no impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church. Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism never clearly put the question, “What is Christian?” Instead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the r 564 ecognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other things.3 In ever increasing measure it invested all the form 564 s which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But, in Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. Catholic Christianity 5discovered the formula which reconciled faith and knowledge. This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even after it had itself already become a fetter. Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of developments. In the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is Christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. The baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. A collection of apostolic writings was formed from those read in the Churches, and this compilation was placed on an equal footing with the Old Testament. The episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the attribute of

ac4 3In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the attempt to create a rigid œcumenical community, held together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.

successor of the Apostles was conferred on the bishop. Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the A 564 postles. The result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive Church in the form of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, and law, a confederation which more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation was primarily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only conceived as “law,” but was also very soon supplemented by new standards. One of the most important problems to be investigated in the history of dogma, and one which unfortunately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circumstances required the appearance of living authorities in the communities, and what relation was established between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the apostolic office. The development ended with the formation of a clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. He disposed of the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage. But even apart from the content which Christianity here received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the Church 564 . This would be self-evident enough, even if it 6were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called Gnosticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de præscr. 35). But the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to Christianity. The depotentiation to which Christianity was here subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits. But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our attention to the second series of developments that make up the history of this period. The Church did not merely set up dykes and walls against Gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief and hope; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific theology. T 55f hat was a necessity

which did not first spring from Christianity’s own internal struggles. It was already involved in the fact that the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the pressing questions which then occupied men’s minds. The beginning of a development which a century later reached its provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in the transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as we already find it before the middle of the second century. As regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimising of Greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. The theology of Origen bears the same relation to the New Testament as that of Philo does to the Old. What is here presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophy of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from any 7connection with Greek mythology and gross polytheism. 569 1 A motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both Testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. But the majority of these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place.4 This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do not mean the Gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had accepted. The Christianity of men like Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than that of Origen. But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is twofold. In the first place, those

4

The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Græco-Roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of Catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. Philosophy also aimed at that, but it was not able to establish a community of men on these foundations. 5 Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the Fathers, who followed the theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke, Vol. LXII. p. 49, quoting Proles: “When the word of God comes to the Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled.”

Apologists did not yet find themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title to be ac8 reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old Testament and the “Teachings of Christ” (διδάγµατα Χριστοῦ). In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation of Christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself demands. As they really never enquired what was meant by “Christian,” or at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their scientific presentation of Christianity was the first proper expression of it that had been given. Justin and his contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which existed 8between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the Church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to most. Christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz., the assurance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the Apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking it. The latter were not disowned, but rather laid the foundation of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the future.6 But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the task of showing that Christianity was the perfect and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest scientific knowledge of God and the world, was to be rendered more difficult. To these difficulties all that primitive Christianity has up to the present transmitt ac8 ed to the Church of succeeding times contributes its share. The conflict with 6

They were not the first to determine this circle of interests. So far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the Apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and divested of Old Testament language.

Gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of solution to the question, “What is Christian?” and to fix this answer. But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on Christians. Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the 9Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it.7 The work first began with the scientific treatment of individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying the Church’s own needs. The framework in which these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world, which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the Gnostic dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal confession interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas as propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown to exist in the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just mentioned

585 7It was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of Christianity that reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church began in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive Christianity, it preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of Catholicism. On the supposition — which is indeed an academic consideration — that this fixing had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the Gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original Christianity to-day. How much we would have known may be seen from the Sheph aa9 erd of Hermas.

were the first to set up dogmas8 — dogmas but no 10system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as they had a aaf theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical with the Christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. That this was an illusion is proved by many considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that Tertullian and Hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ. The effects of this undertaking can never be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philosophy in nuce, though primitive Christian views may have been subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed of Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up of the first dogma in the Church, meant the future conversion of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. But in yet another respect Irenæus and Hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the Apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of Christian Hellenism and from a deeper study of the Pauline theology, that is, emanates from the controversy with Gnosticism. In them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians), and brought into the closest 11connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son of man (filius dei et filius hominis). What the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. What a message! This conception was to become the central

8

So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved, originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to amalgamate historical material and natural theology.

Christian idea of the future. A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic system of the Church.9 But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both Testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as a problem. If the Church tradition contained the assurance, not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense number of problems were at the same time raised, especially when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of the Church. The task, which had been begun by Philo and carried on by Valentinus and his school, was now undertaken in the Church. Clement led the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much for him. Origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He, the rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wro 564 te the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures of both Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus, 12while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christianity finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, and that every form of Christianity that lacks theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that the untheological Christianity of the age with which he compared his own was already permeated

9

It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned Christian, to whom the Gospel was conscientia religionis, disciplina vitæ and spes fidei, and who found no sort of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas “command”, “performance”, “error”, “forgiveness”. In Irenæus also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.

by Hellenic elements and in a very great measure secularised.10 But Origen, as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the conviction that the true essence of 551 Christianity, or, in other words, the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church which identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and Origen found freedom and independence in what they recognized to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. But was not that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given to the ideal by representing it as assured beyond all doubt, already realised in the person of Christ and incompatible with polytheism. If, as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe connected with it, if they prepared themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be perfect only through dependence on God, then, in spite of their Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel than Irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority. 577 The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which 13was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved.11 The circumstances of the several provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still very diverse. Many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the clergy — not to speak of the laity — was not high enough to enable them to appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in which Origen taught

10

On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur” in d. Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII. p. 417 ff. 11 Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen (see especially his work against Celsus), but also and above all from his history. The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.

carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a number of the bishops and presbyters of the East in the last half of the third century. They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the age, an 548 d this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. Wherever the Logos Christology had been adopted the future of Christian Hellenism was certain. At the beginning of the fourth century there was no community in Christendom which, apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of Origen’s theology with the inflexible Antignostic regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of Irenæus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic mysticism. The developments of the following period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect. As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of 14the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity, 580 1 so the Catholic dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity conceived and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philosophy of religion.12 This Christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be lamented in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was thereby retarded (?). But lamentations become here illfounded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have acquired, is

12

The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the development of church doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic philosophy, and complete syncretism. 13 “Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur (Tertull., de bapt. 2.)

based up to the pr 564 esent moment on the discords resulting from that union. These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify14 the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma.15 A few more remarks are, however, necessary. 15

1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and mutual intercourse, had no real forum publicum, though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was in foro publico. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without being able to s 564 tate precisely the ways and means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a special share in the development, although we know that the Roman Church played a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the East, but later also in the West,

14 acd

The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me to be very great. We must then of course understand the two developments as proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the former passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the Church, than what was reached in the latter. Decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the Church, as is shown by the long continued conflict against Monarchianism. 15 The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within the framework of the history of dogma, for the political situation of the Christian communities in the Roman Empire had quite as important an influence on the development of the Catholic Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development within definite limits.

Synods in which an understanding was arrived at on all questions of importance to Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon.16 2. The degree of influence exercised by particular e aba cclesiastics 16on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what they received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenæus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ which are not found in Irenæus and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus. The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of development. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenæus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the question as to the position of Irenæus in the history of the Church. To what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed in the Churches, and in which of them? We cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of Christian writings in the Church after

16

See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: “Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;” de ieiun. 13: “Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur.” We must also take into account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may specially remind the reader of the correspondence between Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., H.E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. Cf. gen 564 erally Zahn, Weltverkehr und Kirche während der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877.

the last quarter of the second century.17 Every important work speedily found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diffusion was not merely from East to West, though this was the general rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in Cæsarea a Greek translation of Tertullian’s Apology and a collection 17of Cyprian’s epistles.18 The influence of the Roman Church extended over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the Churches in East and West had still in some degree a common history. 3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our authorities are almost completely derived from those leading Churches that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved.19 4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men. Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another new fetter. I. Fixing and Gradual Secularising of Christianity as a Church. 18

17

See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek Apologists of the second century in the early Church in the Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der alt christl. Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2. 18 See Euseb., H.E. II. 2; VI. 43. 19 See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally The Acta Archelai and the ac8 Homilies of Aphraates should also be specially examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and finally the remains of the Latin-Christian literature of the third century — apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian — as found partly under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the Church.

I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH. Chapter II. The Setting Up of the Apostolic Standards for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church.

CHAPTER II. THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.20 We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from Tertullian’s “de præscriptione hæreticorum.” In chap. 21 we find: “It is plain that all teaching that agrees with t ac8 hose apostolic Churches which are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that such doctrine contains that which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.” In chap. 36 we read: “Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the 19Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives

20

In itself the predicate “Catholic” contains no element that signifies a secularising of the Church. “Catholic” originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations. Hence the concepts “all communities” and the “universal Church” are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found everywhere in Christendom. Consequently, “entire or universal Christendom,” “the Church spread over the whole earth,” and “the true Church” were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept “Catholic” became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.

no one who rejects this institution.” In chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed to the heretics: “Let them unfold a series of their bishops proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with the Apostles.”21 From the consideration of these three passages it directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It will be seen that the Church always adopted these three standards together, that is simultaneously.22 As a matter of fact they originated in Rome and gradually made their way in the other Churches. That Asia Minor had a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in obscurity. The three Catholic 20 standards had their preparatory stages, (1) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, or the “elders” and leaders of the individual c ac8 ommunities. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith. A. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith.

21

Translator’s note. The following is Tertullian’s Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: “Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit.” Cap. 36: “Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet 560 ; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit.” Chap. 32: “Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem.” 22 None of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the God of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.

It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the complete identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve Apostles can already be shown in the earliest Gentile-Christian literature. In the widest sense the expression, κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως (canon of tradition), originally included all that was traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles and was of value for the faith and life of the Church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith they were the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far as this faith was to determine the essence of everything Christian, it might be termed κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (canon of the faith, canon of the truth).23 But the very fact that the extent of what was regarded as tradition of the Apostles was quite undetermined ensured the possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to 21Christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition. We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.24 It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 150. In the solemn

23 acc

See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις and in v. 20 of “building yourselves up in your most holy faith.” See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, or the like, might stand for πίστις, for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας cum synonymis. (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205). 24 In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula πιστέυω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντακράτορα, which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.

transactions of the Church, therefore es 564 pecially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord’s Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,25 fixed formulæ were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus.26 We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;27 and something similar must also have existed 22in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year 150, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that formulæ of similar plan and extent wer ac8 e also found in other provincial Churches about this time.28 Still it is neither probable that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid way as the Roman Church had done. The proclamation of the history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the κήρυγµα τῆς ἀληθέιας, also accompanied the short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms.29

25

See on this point Justin, index to Otto’s edition. It is not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin’s time demons were exorcised with the words: “In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,” it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross 564 was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession. 26 These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4. 27 The most important result of Caspari’s extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; se aab e also my article “Apostol. Symbol” in Herzog’s R.E., 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. § 2. 28 This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42. 29 The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.

Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. In the recently discovered “Teaching of the Apostles” (∆ιδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of Christian life as traced back to Jesus through the medium of the Apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation of Christian Churches; but this undertaking, which could not but have led the development of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed. That the formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct, but the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoidable necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was practically assured.30 Objection was not taken to the principles 23of morality — at least this was not a primary consideration — for there were many Greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition and to the Church’s worship of a God, who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the Greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to be interwoven with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the Jews also, seemed clearly distinct 546 from the Supreme Being. This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion. With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. “It was admitted on all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities. The problem arose and pressed for an answer: What

30

This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the ∆ιδαχή, received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these cases.

should be the basis of Christian union? But the problem was for a time insoluble. For there was no standard and no court of appeal.” From the very beginning, when the differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity, appeal was probably made to the Apostles’ doctrine, the words of the Lord, tradition, “sound doctrine”, definite facts, such as the reality of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality of his death and resurrection. 582 1 In instruction, in exhortations, and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, 24 this precept was inculcated from the beginning: ἀπολίπωµεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ µαταίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωµεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐυκλεῆ καὶ σεµνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡµῶν κανόνα (“Let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition”). But the very question was: What is sound doctrine? What is the content of tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a reality? etc. There is no doubt that Justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians, insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. To all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his σύνταγµα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενηµένων ἁιρέσεων); but, judging from those w ac8 ritings of his that have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox Christianity.31

31

See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II. 1, VI. 3, Justin. 32 In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything ac8 similar to Theophilus’ remarks in “ad Autol.,” II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression ὀρθογνώµονες in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years’ kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the ὀρθεγνώµονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἐυσεβοῦς γνώµης, though they are not fully

The permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of such a standard. They were no longer held together by the conscientia religionis, the unitas disciplinæ, and the fœdus spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that. 25They rather show us merely the excess of a continuous transformation which no community could escape. The gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority of Christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had the “Spirit” and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their Christian position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of Jesus (εντολαὶ Ἰησοῦ). But when these guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the Church were preached in the name of Christianity, the fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new formations. But the example set by the Gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem difficult. Where was a beginning to be made? “There is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form.”33 There could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was “apostolic”, for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based on a divine revelation which had been transmitted through 564 the medium of the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms employed by the Churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. It must have come about by a natural process. But the confession of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the kerygma of Jesus Christ had the most prominent place among these forms. The special emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the “common sense” of all those who clung to the belief that the Father of Jesus Christ was the creator of the world, and 26that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the period

orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all. 33 Hatch, “Organisation of the Church”, p. 96.

between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense — and this cannot be proved, — the most dangerous of all Gnostic schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed, since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic creed definitely interpreted; for it was only by the aid of a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the Gno ab6 stic speculations and the Marcionite conception of Christianity. In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through Irenæus and Tertullian, took, with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpretation required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed as its selfevident content; the confession, thus explained, was designated as the “Catholic faith” (“fides catholica”), that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the general confederation of Christendom. Irenæus was not the author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the cooperation or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a matter that is still obscure,34 and will probably never be determined with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished practically was theoretically established by Irenæus35 and Tertullian. The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, definitely interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried 27to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by the Apostles, and that these communities had always preserved the apostolic teaching unchanged (see under C). Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions and on a confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from the Apostles, nor that the Churches they founded always preserved their teaching in its original form; the creed

34

We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp’s exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned. 35 Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, λόγος εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµ 564 ”, probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)

itself, moreover, is confused with its interpretation. Finally, the existence of a fides catholica, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities. ada 36 But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenæus was the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A fides apostolica had to be set up and declared identical with the already existing fides catholica. It had to be made the standard for judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined whether they were admissible or not. The persuasive power with which Irenæus set up the principle of the apostolic “rule of truth,” or of “tradition” or simply of “faith,” was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation.37 The rule 28of truth (also ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσοµένη ἀλήθεια “the truth proclaimed by the Church;” and τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωµάτιον, “the body of the truth”) is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4; οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσµατος εἴληφε, “in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism”); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable.38

36

Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all Churches — those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq. — possess the same apostolic kerygma; but “qui nimis probat nihil probat.” The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date. 37 We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat ac8 at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the “elders” in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the “elders” in his great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.) 38 Caspari’s investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the

By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenæus (I. l0. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most importan 54c t Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. In his apostolic rule of truth Irenæus himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines:39 29the unity of God; the identity of the supreme God with the Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the God who created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; the incarnation of the Son of God; the prediction of the entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception (ἔνσαρκος ἀνάληψις) of Christ into heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (ἀνάστασις πάσης σαρκὸς, πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος), the universal judgment. These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regulæ, aca 1 were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all discussion.

baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus’ time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be the rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma — we ab1 do not know how it was viewed by opponents — proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated. 39 Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1: II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4: III. I-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1: IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.: V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1. 40 See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Præf. 19. 8.

Tertullian followed Irenæus in every particular. He also interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the regula fidei,41 and transferred to the latter the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from Christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness.42 Like Irenæus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is, from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demonstration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the faith of those Churches founded by the Apostles, that in these communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them, as could be proved, the Apostles had always had successors, and that the other Churches were in communion with them (see under C). In a more definite way than Irenæus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,43 as the law given 30to faith,44 also as a “regula doctrinæ” or “doctrina regulæ” (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply as “doctrina” or “institutio”.

41

This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very common in Tertullian. See de præscr. 13: “Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones.” 43 See l. c. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes.” See de virg. vol. 1. 57b 44See 1. c. 14: “Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis,” and de vir. vol. 1. 45 See de præscr. 21: “Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa.” De præscr. 32: “Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ.” That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the regula fidei, just as Irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in abe de spectac. 4 (“Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.”) the baptismal confession is the lex. He also calls it “sacramentum” (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: “regula sacramenti”; likewise V. 20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: “amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit”; de bapt. 2: “homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus”; de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of 42

54b 1 As to the content of the regula, it was set forth by Tertullian in three passages.46 It is essentially the same as in Irenæus. But Tertullian already gives prominence within the regula to the creation of the universe out of nothing,47 the creative instrumentality of the 31Logos,48 his origin before all creatures, 591 49 a definite theory of the Incarnation,50 the preaching by Christ of a nova lex and a nova promissio regni cœlorum,51 and finally also the Trinitarian economy of God.52 Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenæus is already very significant. Tertullian’s regula is in point of fact a 566 doctrina. In attempting to bind the communities to this he represents them as schools.53 The apostolic “lex et doctrina” is to be regarded as inviolable by every Christian. Assent to it decides the Christian character of the individual. Thus the Christian disposition and life come to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. In this way the essence of religion was split up — the most fatal turning-point in the history of Christianity.

Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things “inter domesticos”, but declares that they could not be communications “quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent.” 46 De præscr. 13; de virg. vol.1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in cœlo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse.” 47 De præscr. 13. 48 L. c. 49 L. c. 50 L. c.: “id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum,” etc. ada 51L. c. 52 Adv. Prax. 2: “Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius,” etc. 53 But Tertullian also knows of a “regula disciplinæ” (according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.

But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third century the actual bond of union between all the Churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted. This much was gained, as is clear from the treatise de præscriptione and from other evidence, that in the communities with which Tertullian was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with the Roman 564 baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as a Christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality.54 32In so far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal formula which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. The scattered communities now possessed a “lex” to bind them together, quite as certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real and practical character55 in the shape of certain briefly formulated doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic lex of Christians the Catholic Church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But more than this was gained, 54c in so far as the Antignostic interpretation of the formula, and consequently a “doctrine”, was indeed in some measure involved in the lex. The extent to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded by the wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a critical canon. What we observe in Irenæus and Tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree; that is to say, the authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to statements not found in the formula itself.

54

Note here the use of “contesserare” in Tertullian. See de prascr.2o: “Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio.” De præscr. 36: “Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit.” 55 We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised ac8 a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.

We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexandria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,56 ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the 57b 1 33same time. From this it is clearly manifest that at this period the Alexandrian Church neither possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of Rome, nor understood by “regula fidei” and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles.57 Clement of Alexandria in

56

Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical. 57 Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H. E. IV. 8. 2 (ἐν πέντε συγγράµµασιν τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τ9;ῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος ὑποµνηµατισάµενος) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος and § 5 ἐµέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριµαίοις λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστις were those belonging to the Church. The regula fidei is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνηµα or ὁ κανὼν ύ aaf ῆς ἀρχαίας πίστεως the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. V. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσµῳ κυµαινοµένῳ καὶ χειµαζοµένῳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγοµένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς καθάπερ λιµέσιν εὐόρµοις ἐν νήσοις ἁι διδασκαλίαι τῆς αληθείας ἐισίν . . . Καὶ ὥσπερ αὖ νῆσοι εἰσιν ἕτεραι πετρώδεις καὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ἔκαρποι καὶ θηριώδεις καὶ ἀοίκητοι ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πλεόντων . . . οὕτως εἰσὶν αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης, λέγω δὲ τῶν αἱρέσεων αἳ ἐξαπολλύουσιν τοὺς προσίοντας αὐταῖς. 58 This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: “Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement’s time possess a baptismal confession or not”?); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression “ecclesiastical canon” denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression ἡ περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογία, Strom. VII. 15. 90

his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) 34Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord,59 and to the standard tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole of Christianity in its present condition as needing to be reconstructed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of tradition. 565 1 In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenæus and Tertullian, he to some extent represents an earlier stand-point; he stands midway between them and Justin. From this author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes the true Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that naïve view of tradition, that is, the complete content of Christianity, which Irenæus and Tertullian still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles; but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as Irenæus and Tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the importance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenæus and Tertullian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them 564 by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which must not oppose the κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, that is, the Christian common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. But this attitude of Clement would be simply inconceivable if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employed the fixed standard applied in

(see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l. c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free kerygma of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig., Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.). 59 Ἡ κυριακὴ διδασκαλία, e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc. 60 We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ or εἷς Θ. π. as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the “παραδόσεις τῶν ἀρχάιων πρεσβυτέρων” which had been transmitted to him.

those of Rome, Carthage

acb 61

35and

Lyons.61 Such a standard did not

Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: “whatever you do, do it to the glory of God,” Clement remarks ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord’s Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρίου); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1.3; VI. 15. 124; VI. 15. 131; VII. 16. 94; we find the expression ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας. In the first passage it is said: ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, µᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσµογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδοµένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα, or τ. ἐκκλησ. καν.; and continues (125): κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συµφωνία νόµου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδοµένῃ διαθήκῃ. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of 564 Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian’s testimony about the Roman Church: “legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.” But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term “ecclesiastical canon.” The following expressions are also found in Clement: ἡ ἀληθὴς τῆς µακαρίας διδασκαλίασ παράδοσις (I. 1. 11), ἁι ἅγιαι παραδόσεις (VII. 18. 110), ἡ εὐκλεὴς καὶ σεµνὸς τῆς παραδόσεως κανών (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also ἡ κατὰ τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν φιλοσοφία, I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression ἡ θεία παράδοσις (VII. 16. 103), ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις (VII. 16. 95), ἁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδνσεις (VII. 16. 99), ἡ τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσις (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), ἡ θεοσεβὴς παράδοσις (VI. 15. 124). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεύ ac8 (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the κατὰ ἀληθείαν εὐαγγελικὸς κανών, and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου = κατὰ τ. εὐαγγ.). In none of these formulæ is any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a

exist; but Clement made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipline, because as a theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single

matter of course and manifest from I. 1. 11, where he gives an account of his early teachers (οἱ µὲν τὴν ἀληθῆ τῆς µακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόµενος ἧκον δὴ σὺν θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθησόµενοι σπέρµατα). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the ἀποστολικὴ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὀρθοτοµία τῶν δογµάτων (VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: µία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: αὐτίκα διδάξαντος τοῦ σωτῆρος τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς διαδίδοται παράδοσις. VI. 7. 61: ἡ γνωσις δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς (this is the only place where I find this expression) εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν, ibid ἡ γνωστικὴ παράδοσις; VII. 10. 55: ἡ γνῶσις ἐκ παραδόσεως διαδιδοµένη τοῖς ἀξίους σφᾶς ἀυτοὺς τῆς διδασκαλίας παρεχοµένοις οἷο 564 ν παρακαταθήκη ἐγχειρίζεται. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the “Old Church”, for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the “human congregation” of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: Μή τι οὖν, εἰ καὶ παραβαίη τις συνθήκας καὶ τὴν ὁµολογίαν παρέλθοι τὴν πρὸς ἡµᾶς, διὰ τὸν ψευσάµενον τὴν ὁµολογίαν ἀφεξόµεθα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀψευδεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ µηδὲν ὧν ὑπέσχηται ἀκυροῦν κἂν ἄλλοι τινὲς παραβαίνωσι συνθήκας, οὕτως καὶ ἡµᾶς κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παραβα ac8 ίνειν προσήκει κανόνα καὶ µάλιστα τὴν περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογίαν ἡµεῖς µὲν φυλάττοµεν, οἱ δὲ παραβαίνουσι. But in the other passages in Clement where ὀµολογίαν appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: ἐγκράτεια σώµατος ὐπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁµολογίαν. In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.

article of it without 36hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine. Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits 37an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenæus and T 564 ertullian than to that of Clement. In the preface to his great work, “De principiis,” he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching.62 It may be assumed that in the time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian Christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome and other communities.63 The Syrian Churches, or at least a part of them, followed still later.64 There can be no doubt that, from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevai 557 led in the great confederation of Churches extending from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond the Alps.65 It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of 62

De princip. 1. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here? 63 That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, “because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans.” We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger, “H 564 ippolytus und Calixtus” p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: “The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer.” That there was a formulated πίστις καὶ ὁµολογία in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian, ἀνατρέπει τὴν πρὸ λούτρου πίστιν καὶ ὁµολογίαν. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar πίστις. 64 The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense. 65 The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.

recognition, etc., for the orthodox Christians. 38The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. By the end of the third century there can no longer have been any considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this pre-existent One with the divine Logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief.66 They may have first become an apostolic confession of faith “ through the Nicene Creed. But even this creed was not adopted all at once. ad5 The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of Apostolic Writings. B. The designation of selected writings read in the churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic writings.67 Every word and every writing which testified of the κύριος (Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: Ὅθεν ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. (v. 66

Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one symbol with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian’s time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, “de trinitate seu de regula fidei,” as well as the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 . . . ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν, and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin). 67 See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Köpp 564 el, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff.; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.

(Didache IV. I; 39 see also 1 Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy.68 In this sense the New Testament is a “residuary product,” just as the idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. But on the other hand, the New Testament is a new creation of the Church,69 inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of the Old — which through it has become a complicated book for Christendom, — as a Catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures containing and attesting the truth. Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new canon of Scripture,70 which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Testament in orthodox Christendom. In the Gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the Old Testament altogether or in part, Evangelic and Pauline writings were, by the m ac8 iddle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm

68

“Holy” is not always equivalent to “possessing absolute authority.” There are also various stages and degrees of “holy.” 69 I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the wo aba rk when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur’s ‘tendency-criticism’ has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated. 70 The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.

their theological 40speculations.71 On the other hand, about the year 150 the main body of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possessing equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apocalypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative.72 Here we leave 41out of consideration that their

71

It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichæans in the Byzantine age. 72 572 Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. I; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: ‘verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est”’), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage (µήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶµεν), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as γραφή, and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Ol ac8 d Testament (see the Pauline Epistles), This may perhaps explain how the author — like 2 Clem. II. 4: ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει· ὅτι οὖκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς — has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: λέγει ὁ θέος· οὑ χάρις ὑµῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κ.τ.λ. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual “λέγει”. We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει. These examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation “γραφὴ γέγραπται,” etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following: — The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt Christian writings

content is a testimony of the Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets.73 The memoirs of the Apostles (ἀποµνηµονέυµατα τῶν ἀποστόλων = τὰ εύαγγέλια) owed their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and history of the Lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. There is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of standard authority.74 But we learn further from Justin that the Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public worship (Apol. I. 67) and that our first three Gospels were already in use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other Christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in Christian meetings.75 Such writings naturally possessed a high deg ac8 ree of authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates with the Holy Spirit,76 which in this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here, however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting and certifying the Christian 42Kerygma (ἡ ἀσφάλεια τῶν λόγων). The ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities had already made a far larger

were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.) 73 See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. — Citate Justins. Gött., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. V 558 ery instructive is the formula: “Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti” (αἱ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αἱ προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: “Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli” or “Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura.” 74 It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora. ad4 75Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11. 76 Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) “Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari.”

compilation,77 but, in the first instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition. We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century, for the fact — easily demonstrable — that the texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this.78 Our first three Gospels contain passages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before about the year 150. Moreover, Tatian’s attempt to create a new Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet fixed.79 We may remark that he was the first in whom we find the Gospel of John80 alongside of the Synoptists, and these four the only ones recognised. From the assault of the “A ac5 logi” on the Johannine Gospel we learn that about 160 the whole of our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyptians, 43 the use of which was not confined to circles outside the Church.81 From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood midway between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church as well as the Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using the Gospels as canonical writings side by side with the Old

77

The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with “εἰδότες” (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured. 78 It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of Peter among the ἀποµνηµονεύµατα; see Tex 564 te u. Unters. IX. 2. 79 See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view. 80 Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels. 81 The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian a ab4 ntiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)

Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles.82 But Tatian, the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still supplies us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament canon in orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called “Montanism” and its extreme antithesis, the “Alogi”, in Asia Minor soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was still no New Testament canon there; for, if such an authoritative compilation had existed, these movements could not have arisen. If we gather together all the indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel canon comprising the four Gospels;83 but we are prepared neither for this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testament, nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet are only found in Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges quite suddenly in an allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius,84 567 the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; in the works of Irenæus and Tertullian; and in the so-called Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin 44and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete.85 Moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first able to show the existence of the apostolic regula fidei. We hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because we learn nothing at all of such persons.86 And yet the collection is regarded by Irenæus

82

Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5. In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4). 84 Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the ἀκρίβεια τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων, and of τὰ βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, we may assume that he knows τὰ βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. 85 We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιµόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century. 56c 86Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the “receptior”, de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian 83

and Tertullian as completed. A refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe reproach against them. Their Bibles are tested by the Church compilation as the older one, an ac8 d the latter itself is already used exactly like the Old Testament. The assumption of the inspiration of the books; the harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages; the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.87 45

The probable conditions which brought about the formation of the New Testament canon in the Church, for in this case we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly indicated here.88

Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: “Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.” The hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of “sancti et docti homines” who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent. ad4 87Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenæus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian “de idololatria” to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions. 88 I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article “Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; Schmiedel, Art. “Kanon” in Ersch. u. Gruber’s Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.

The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writings by a process of selection89 was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary undertaking of the Church in her conflict with Marcion and the Gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the 46warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about the Holy Scriptures,90 although the New Testament was already in existence. That conflict necessitated the formation of a new Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old Testament, could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such. She was compelled to claim exclusive possession of everything that had a right to the name “apostolic,” t ac8 o deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the highest honour. Hitherto she had “contented” herself with proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and, passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the

89

The use of the word “canon” as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word “canon” was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name “New Testament” (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Rönsch, Das N. T. Tertullian’s ac4 p. 47 f. The most common name is “Holy Scriptures”. In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: “tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris.” The name “writings of the Lord” is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of God’s revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as “Apostolic memoirs” already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called “the writings of the Church” as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings. 90 Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenæus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenæus’ efforts as successful.

beginning of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who energetically pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and that all Christianity was really to be tested by the apostolic preaching, that the assumed identity of Christian common sense with apostolic Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) that the Apostles contradicted themselves. This opposition made it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. But, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and subject to question on every particular point. The “unconscious logic,” that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition 47from the very first, But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing.91 Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained any-thing contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the rule of faith — hence admission was refused to all books in which the God of the Old Testament, his creation, etc., ap aba peared to be depreciated, — and to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only those writings which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,92

91

The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12). acc 92That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canonical text

and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox 48creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could immediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical Kerygma. This perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the Apostles93 and in some cases also the Epistles of Peter and John, though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As a collection this group is the most interesting in the new compilation. It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the Gospels with the Apostle (Paul),

with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity; but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the “Teaching of the Apostles” p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp. IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle “de virginitate” into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christia ac8 n literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma “genuine or spurious”, and can prove neither. 93 As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.

and, by subordinating his Epistles to the “Acta omnium apostolorum”, makes them witnesses to the particular tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious and insufficient.94 The Church, however, found 49the selection

94

People were compelled by internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But, from the Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, would have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty was the bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (1) writings of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as ἀποµνηµονεύµατα of definite Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explanation of “difficult” passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which “in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant.” The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In this book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found its place in the canon faute de mieux is clear from the extravagant terms, no 564 t at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and in Irenæus and Tertullian. There it is called “acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc.” Irenæus says (III. 14. 1): “Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum, maxime autem Pauli”, and makes use of the book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, de præscr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the Antimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a book which contained that authority was required ac8 in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke. “Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent.” But the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of

facilitated by the fact that the content of the early Christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to the Christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane lucidity. Thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for 50more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite reading in the communities. ad6 1 The new collection was already exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for purposes of general edification

the Ebionites and even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the κήρυγµα Πέτρου, but Clement has no New Testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, Irenæus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the group there associated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by Irenæus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way are also “Catholic.” That is the character of the “Catholic” New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenæus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the A ac8 postles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable. 95 There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church formed the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.

or for theological ends.96 But the causes and motives which led to 51its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a footing of complete equality with the Old Testament, may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of using the new Bible and partly from the results attending its compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utterances, including the written records of these, had always possessed standard authority in the Church; there were therefore parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was undoubted from the first.97 Secondly, what was called “Preaching of the Apostles,” “Teaching of the Apostles,” etc., was likewise regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious as well as authoritative. There had, however, been absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians supposed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to have recourse to writings, whether she would or not. The attributes formerly applied to the testimony of the Apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the lead in forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the apostolic writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with the Old Testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to the Acts of the Apostles. Considered by themselves these writings, especially the Pauline Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We can see even yet from Irenæus and Tertullian that the duty of accommodating herself to these Epistles was forced upon ac8 the Church by Marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.98 52This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the Church’s

96

At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet found in Irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch. Bd. VI. 2. 97 See above, p. 40, note 2. 98 We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenæus as to the difficulties he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians of the school of Valentinus. The diffic ac8 ulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which followed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.)

effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a sacred collection. For now the principle: “as the teaching of the Apostles was one, so also is the tradition” (µια ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις)” was to be applied to all contradictory and objectionable details.99 It was now imperative to explain one writing by another; the Pauline Epistles, for example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.100 Now was required what Tertullian calls the “mixture” of the Old and New Testaments,101 in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge got from the old Bible was regarded as the first law for the interpretation of the new. The formation of the new collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, the early Christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century; not only did Apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but t ac8 he religious mood of the majority of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit.102 Such a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised by the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its 53legitimacy in an indirect and “objective” way. The breach with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold

99

Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.) 100 See Overbeck, “Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1897, p. 8. 101 See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The expression is also frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. præf. 4. 102 The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own words as the words of God (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and therefore requires obedience “τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν γεγραµµένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος” (LXIII. 2).

fast their religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. Not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justification in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the Apostles, that is, in the records left by them. We cannot prove with certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The influence which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and important. That which Tertullian, as a Montanist, asserts of one of his opponents: “Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit” (“he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Paraclete”), can be far more truly said of the New Testament which the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to a situation where it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It likewise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions to r 564 ead the future. As the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of Christian prophecy to public credence. Through the canon it came to be acknowledged that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard. 54The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completely and without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revelation, and by their word alone, which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian must be tested.103

103

Tertull., de exhort. 4: “Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri.” Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: “Ἕκαστος Ἅ ac7 διον ἔχει χάρισµα ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ µὲν οὑτως, ὁ δὲ οὑτως, ὁι ἀπόστολοι δὲ ἐν πᾶσι πεπληρωµένοι; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: ἡµεῖς καὶ τὸν Πάτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόµεθα ὡς Χριστόν. The success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in

The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative conceptions (Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scriptures; and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the Apostles? Accordingly, as authors of these writings, they and the Holy Spirit became correlative conceptions. This led to ac8 the assumption that the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.104 By this assumption the Apostles, viewed as prophets, received a significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.105 But, though Irenæus and Tertullian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the New Testament on its apostolic origin, the concept “apostolic” being much more comprehensive than that 55of “prophet.” These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writings are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Christians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.106 This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot be inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the character of inspiration; and this was evidently done because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.107 The new canon

legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assumption that they were inspired and by the requirement of an “expositio legitima.” 104 See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. 15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency is above all included in the concept “inspiration” (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: “Negat scriptura quod non notat”), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”). 105 The direct designation “prophets” was, however, as a rule, avoided. The conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain from this name; but see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: “Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ.” 106 Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage about the Shepherd of Hermas. 565 107This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone.

of Scripture set up by Irenæus and Tertullian primarily professes to be nothing else than a collection of apostolic writings, which, as such, claim absolute authority.108 It takes its place beside the apostolic rule of faith; and by this faithfully preserved 56possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the Apostles. But we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the Church about the year 200. It is indeed continually asserted that the Antiochian and Alexandrian Churches had at that date a New Testament which, in extent and authority, essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but this opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch is immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius (VI. 12), clearly shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself as yet possessed no such thing as a completed New Testament. It is evident that Serapion already holds the Catholic principle that all words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church as words of the Lord; but a completed collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal.109 Hence it is very improbable that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as early as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise “ad Autolycum” point to a completed

108

The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to Irenæus and Tertullian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written by the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, Kerygma, an ac8 d Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App. Constit. VI. 16) that the apostolic regula fidei is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic regula (de præscr. 37 ff.). The regula of course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word. 109 The fragment of Serapion’s letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.

New Testament.110 Theophilus makes diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist John (C. I. 1.) as one of the bearers of the Spirit. But with him the one canonical court of appeal is the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, the writings of the Prophets (bearers of the Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets, however, are continued in a further group of “bearers of the Spirit”, which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. Though he perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as “bearers of the Spirit”, yet we have no indication that he looked on their Epistles as canonical. The different way he uses the Old 564 57Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theophilus was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we have no reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he does not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as 1st Peter and the Revelation of John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles.111 It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found in Theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a New Testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and therefore did not everywhere take a similar course. It might seem hazardous to assume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by creating a fixed canon of apostolic writings, which was thus necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied or did not deny the ac8 notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable and

110

See my essay “Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T.” in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p 1 ff. 111 The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡµᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευµατοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἰωάννης λέγει κ.τ.λ. (follows John I. 1) III. I2: καὶ περὶ 564 αιοσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόµος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τούς πάντας πνευµατοφόρους ἑνὶ πνέυµατι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι; III. 13: ὁ ἅγιος λόγος — ἡ ἑυαγγέλιος φωνή.; III. 14.: Ἠσαΐας — τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον — ὁ θεῖος λόγος. The latter formula is not a quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to the Old Testament it has no authority but the “Gospel.”

ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. But the latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in Justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of Clement of Alexandria.112 In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i. e., inspired 58writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his view inspired.113 This opinion, however, does not exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) The Old Testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by Clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book par excellence. (3) As Clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula “Gospel” (τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον) and “Apostles” (ὁι ἀπόστολοι) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that he considered and treated as completely on a level with the Old Testament. The formula: ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον (“the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel”) is frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this group.114 He does not consid 52f er even the Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with the Gospels, though he occasionally describes

112

There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of Clement. The information given b aa4 y Volkmar in Credner’s Gesch. d. N.Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at least refer to some important passages which I have collected. Strom. I. §§ 28, 100; II. §§ 22, 28, 29; III. §§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. §§ 42, 44, 54, 59, 61, 66-68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 133, 161, 164; VII. §§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg. to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost. 113 According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words ἐνθέως; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See Pæd. I. 6. 36, also § 51. 114 In the Pæd. the Gospels are regularly called ἡ γραφή, but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word “Apostle” is used in quoting these.

them as γραφάι.115 59A further class of writings stands a stage lower than the Pauline Epistles, viz., the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to say that Clement views this group as an appendix to the New Testament, or as in any sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved.116 (6) As to certain books, such as the “Teaching of the Apostles,” the “Kerygma of Peter,” etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority Clement attributed to them. afd 117 He quotes the ∆ιδαχή as γραφή. (7) In determining and estimating the sacred books of the New Testament Clement is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four Gospels and no more because that was the exact number handed down. This tradition had already applied the name “apostolic” to most Christian writings which were to be considered as γραφαί, but it had given the concept “apostolic” a far wider content than Irenæus and Tertullian,118 although it had not been able to include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea. (Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the Alexandrian Church can neither have held the principle that all writings of the Apostles must be read in the Church and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old Testament, nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic — using this word also in its wider sense — has any claim to authority among Christians. We willingly admit the great

115

It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in Pæd. I. 6. 49: τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τῇ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποχρώµενον φωνῇ λέγει. We can hardly conclude from Pæd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a “prophet.” 116 It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pæd. II. 10. 3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle. 117 In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is perhaps used like the κήρυγµα. It is quoted in Pæd. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97; V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165. 118 acb The “seventy disciples” were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept “apostolic” is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache, pp. 111-118.

degree of freedom 60and peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknowledge the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the Church. Nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the content of the New Testament canon, or, to speak more correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had not yet been finally settled in Alexandria. The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may perhaps be described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority to a great number of early Christian writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the Old Testament. Whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in proportion as Christians became more incapable of producing the lik 564 e themselves. Not long before Clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria also. But, while in the regions represented by Irenæus and Tertullian the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. Here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at Rome. A conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as inspired. In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them. This explains their judgment as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and how Barnabas and Clement were described by them as Apostles.119 Had this undertaking succeeded in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted 61 ac8 than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it was really the intention of those first

119

The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement’s “canon of the New Testament” was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.

Alexandrian collectors to place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testament, side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In view of the difference of Clement’s attitude to the various groups within this collection of γραφαί, we may assert that in the Alexandrian Church of that time Gospels and Apostles were indeed ranked with the Law and the Prophets, but that this position of equality with the Old Testament was not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was that the great collection of early Christian literature that was inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public worship as the Old Testament and the Gospels. Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the extent of “Holy Scripture” was already limited in the days of Origen. Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars 62designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as “Antilegomena.” The historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance to Church history, because they show u 564 s the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by their learned men. Addendum. — The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and

meritorious act of the Church,120 notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses. (1) The New Testament, or group of “apostolic” writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.121 (2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put a ac8 n end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on Christendom’ (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same 63 time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.122 (3) The New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. Although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional

120

No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament. 121 The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical. Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the 564 writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to them. 122 See on this point Overbeck “Abhandlung über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur, l.c., p. 469.” Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούµενος, µή πη δόξω πρὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἤ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ, We find similar remarks in other old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).

system. As the standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic regula fidei, always more and more precisely explained, and as that regula, in its Antignostic and philosophicotheological interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New Testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of “facts.” But at the same time its claim to be a collection of inspired writings123 naturally resulted i 564 n principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily 64followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation. The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but a ac8 lso a theory which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and subordinated the Old to the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.124 It gave

123

ac4 But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and Tertullian, Scorp. II. 124 On the extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following passage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: “Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis

some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception 125 65of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions. (7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church. (8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive possession of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament; but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself.126 The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretica 564 lly acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a religion “of the book”, because every inconvenient text

inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus.” 125 That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly perhaps in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous interpolations — tendencies in this direction were not wanting; see vol. I. p. 114 f. — and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity. 126 The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de præscr. passim, and de resurr. 63.

could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.127 66In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.128 On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian life,129 ab7 and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture passages, was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to; and the rule πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (“live according to the Gospel”) held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., κατὰ τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην (“according to the New Testament”), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of life and conduct.

568 127To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bible. 128 We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenæus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different r 54a ules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term “divine writings” continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New. 129 Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: “Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta.”

The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the remodeling of the conception of the Church. 67

C. The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an apostolic office. The history of the remodeling of the conception of the Church.130 I. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostolic origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their regulæ, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting the Apostles’ doctrine in all its purity.131 575 An historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by apostolic Christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.132 But Irenæus as well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or “that one event among many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition” (“Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum ac8 68invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum”) and similar ones which Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception

130

Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892. 131 Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer of Marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles. 132 ad3 See Tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32.

that the ecclesiæ (or ecclesia) are the abode of the Holy Spirit,133 was incapable of making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory was the very point in question. To make their proof more precise Tertullian and Irenæus therefore asserted that the Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of “elders,” or, in other words, an “ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens,” which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it.134 This thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the “Elders,” e.g., disciples of the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly 69preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, no appeal to the “Elders” was capable of

133

This theory is maintained by Irenæus and Tertullian, and is as old as the association of the ἁγία ἐκκλησία and the πνεῦµα ἅγιον. Just for that reason the distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its “authority” from that of Rome (de præscr. 36). 134 Tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: “Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc.” III. 3. 1: “Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos.” III. 3. 4, 4. 1: “Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?” IV. 33. 8: “Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc.” V. 20. 1: “Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias.” IV. 26. 2: “Quapropter eis, q 564 ui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt.” IV. 26. 5: “Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio.” The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenæus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.

affording the assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenæus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered constitution of the Church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e., the bishops, had received “cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma,” that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity as a charism. This notion of the transmissibility of the charism of truth became associa 548 ted with the episcopal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in all its relations;135 and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of 136 70heresy. In Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we only find the

135

For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As the regula fidei has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions of these persons devolved by historical developmen aba t upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the charisma veritatis from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church’s faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit on the Church, which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared. 136 This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time when IrenHus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Irenæus and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographic in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff.). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done,

first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the Churches as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither Irenæus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings, ae4 1 asserted that the transmission of the charisma veritatis to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenæus, received the “locum magisterii apostolorum” (“place of government of the Apostles”), but nothing more. It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even Tertullian did not question this last menticned attribute of the bishops.137 Cyprian found the theory already in

whereas the Roman community, as early as Soter’s time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles. 137 We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian’s treatise “de præscr.” 138 Special importance attaches to Tertullian’s treatise “de pudicitia,” which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the “doctrina apostolorum” was inherent in his office, but merely questioned the “potestas apostolorum.” It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as “apostolice” and reminded him that “ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum.” What rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: Τὰς αἱρέσεις ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι µετέδοσαν τοῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν ὧν ἡµεῖς δίαδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ φρουροὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κελογισµένοι ὀυκ ὀφθαλµῷ νυστάζοµεν, ὀυδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν σιωπῶµεν, κ.τ.λ. In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception of Irenæus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maximinus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see

also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. to [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): “Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separat ac8 os tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros” that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in the Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are classed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the English orders (cf. Pæd. III, 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. I3. 106, presbyters, deacons; VI. 13. 107, bishops, presbyters, deacons; Quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107: ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ νῦν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἐνασκήσαντας ἐντολαῖς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τελείως βιώσαντας καὶ γνωστικῶς εἰς τῆν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγραφῆναι. οὗτος πρεσβύτερός ἐστι τῷ ὄντι τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ δίακονος ἀληθὴς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσεως. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy). Strom. VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is the mediator with God. In Strom. VI. 14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: ὁ γνωστικὸς οὗτος συνελόντι ἐιπεῖν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ανταναπληροῖ, κ.τ.λ. Clement could not have expressed him-self in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in other Churches of the West ac8 (see Bigg l.c. l01). According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West; and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. praef. 2: “servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione” — so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: τοῦ κανόνος τῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τ. ἀποστόλων ὀυρανίου ἐκκλησίας). The state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic regula fidei and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen’s time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural

existence, but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every 71remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation. (2) The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking 139 72place from the last half of the second century. In order to understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day. The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance 73towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, 564 the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope.140 The assembly of all Christians is realised in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly Christ.

result. This idea led to the assumption — which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases — that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: “Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459). 139 See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837. Kestlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche,” 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenäus Lehre von der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschi 70c chte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprian’s conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c. 140 See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.

Christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.141 Every individual congregation is to be an image of the ac8 heavenly Church.142 Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of God, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an outward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal Christianity of the individual Christian.143 All the lofty 74designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.144 But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain

141

See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the ∆ιδαχή. 142 This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate communiti 564 es as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope. Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea as is expressed in the associating of πνεῦµα and ἐκκλησία. But every individual community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be. 143 The expression “Catholic Church” appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥστερ ὅπου ἄν ῇ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. But in this passage these words do not yet express a new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e., the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet ⍊564 καθολικός” does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church. 144 The expression “invisible Church” is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest period.

respects as the main one. Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To Irenæus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.145 But this faith itself appeared as a law and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish (“fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis”). The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in 564 it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century, Christians in 75all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and “heresy”, and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an œcumenical and international alliance. The designation “Catholic Church” gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true Church.146 This expression corresponds to the powerful

145

It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression “ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ἐκκλησίας” is first found. In his view the ἐκκλησία is founded on the ὁρθὸς ζόγος transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, bu 564 t in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: οἶκος θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωµα τῆς αληθείας. 146 The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and which was always associated with it, was that of holiness. See the New Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trall. inscr.; Theophil., ad Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, “holy churches”); Apollon. In Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc. inscr.; Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius in Euseb., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already referred by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: ἐκάλουν τὴ ac8 ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον· οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς µαταίαις. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see also Hermas; Justin; Irenæus; Tertullian, de præscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenæus and Tertullian the universality of the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In

position which the “great Church” (Celsus), or the 76“old” Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the school sects, the Christian associations of all kinds, and the independent Chris ac8 tians. This Church, however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form by Christ through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already proclaimed the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how Christ and his Apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical conception of the Church was created in which the idea of a holy life in the Spirit could no longer be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ received from God a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to the Apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which they were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church (Iren. III. 4. I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the assurance of possessing the Spirit; whereas all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are therefore separated from Christ

so far as universality is a proof of truth, “universal” is equivalent to “orthodox.” This signification is specially clear in expressions like: ἡ ἐν Σµύρνῃ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenæus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents “Catholics.” The word itself is not yet found in Irenæus, but the idea is there (sec I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19: πᾶσα ἡ ἐν κόςµῳ ἀδελφότης). Καθολικός is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: αἱ κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαι; 19. 2;16. 2 (in all these passages, however, it is probably an interpolation, as I have shown in the “Expositor” for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f.); in the Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. in Tertull. frequently, e.g., de præscr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart. Pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian. The expression “catholica traditio” occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2, “fides catholica” in Cyprian ep. 25, “κανὼν καθολικός;” in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, “catholica fides et religio” in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the word καθολικός occurs in various connections in the following passages: in fragments of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon, e.g., in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. 71; in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag., 27; Theophil., I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, ( . δόξα); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18. 5, Tertull., de fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom., IV. 15. 97; VI. 6.47; 7. 57; 8. 67. The addition “catholicam” found its way into the symbols of the West only at a comparatively late period. πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐκκλησίαι κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐκκλησίαι αἱ ἐν κόσµῳ, αἱ ὑφ᾽ οὐράνου, etc.

and salvation.147 Hence one must be a member of this Church in order to be a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.148 Consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the Catholic Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; 77but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there must be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and that the Ark of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.149 The departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed in this statement. But the following facts must not be overlooked: — First, the new conception of the Church was not yet a hierar 564 chical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. Thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid Church also represents the creative power of the Christian spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a Church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the Old Testament, could no longer be lost to believers. Sixthly, the independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at the end of the second but also in the third century.150 Consequently, though

147

Very significant is Tertullian’s expression in adv. Val. 4: “Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit,” (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman Church). 148 Tertullian called the Church mother (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is called “mother”); see de orat. 2: “ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur”, de monog. 7; adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, I. 45, had already done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon after Tertullian’s time: “credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam” (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) On the other hand Clement of Alexandria abd (Strom. VI. 16. 146) rejected the designation of the Church, as “mother”: µήτηρ δέ οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θεία γνώσις καὶ ἡ σοφία (there is a different idea in Pæd. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42: µήτηρ παρθένος· ἐκκλησίαν ἐµοὶ φίλον ἀυτὴν καλεῖν). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named “mother.” 149 Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460. 150 The phraseology of Irenæus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks of Churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical Church. It is already otherwise with Tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.

the revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though it was a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic Churches, this change did not t ac8 ake place without an exalting of the Christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness. But there was never a time in history when the conception of the Church, as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. In Irenæus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the 78Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance. As to the first point, Irenæus frequently asserts that the Spirit and the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; that the Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy Church there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching. But, since she was also regarded as the visible institution for objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea of the Church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far as Irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify the earthly Catholic Church.151 The proposition that truth is only to be found in the Church and that she and the Holy Spirit are inseparable must be understood in Irenæus as already referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every other calling itself Christian.152 As to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though Irenæus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of the Church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal succession and the transmission to the bishops of the 151

The most important passages bearing on this are II. 31. 3: III. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: “in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia”); III. 11.8: στύ καὶ στή ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς: IV. 8.1: “semen Abrahæ ecclesia”., IV. 8.3: “omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem”; IV. 36.2: “ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum”; IV. 33.7: ἐκκλησία µέγα καὶ ἔνδοξον σῶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34.3., “Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini.” 55c 152Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7).

magisterium of the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the Church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of the Church also. To Irenæus 564 , however, that theory was still 79nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.153 Tertullian’s conception of the Church was essentially the same as that of Irenæus; but with the former the idea that she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period of his life Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the Antignostic idea of the Church being based on the “traditio unius sacramenti” fell into the background. Consequently we find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of the Church in Tertullian. But towards the end of his life he found himself face to face with a fully developed theory of this kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved hi ac8 m in a contradiction of the other theory — which he also never gave up — viz., that the bishops, as the class which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic institution and therefore necessary to the Church.154

153

On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage, but has weakened its force. The fact that Irenaeus was here able to cite the “antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum”, etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical institution was already revealing itself in his writings. abc 154 The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: “ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est”; 8: “columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata”; 15: “unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis”; de pænit. 10: “in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus”; de orat. 28: “nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;” Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: “differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici” (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: “nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati”: 12; de pudic. 21: “nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est

80

From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of the Church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we have already said as to Clement’s views about the rule of faith, the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenæus.155 Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in the Pædagogus, Clement simply speaks of the Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Shepherd of Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on earth as her image. Instead of distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of God’s will aiming at the salvation of man — a Church which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the visible “Church” in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made 81as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, because he was still able to attribute independent value to Gnosis 560 , that is, to independent piety as he understood it.156 Consequently, as regards

trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum”; de anima 11, 21. Contradictions in detail need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and as a Montanist is contradictory. 155 The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same position as the Apostles also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the Church into the background. 156 Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which is the object of faith. See Pæd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: ὡς γὰρ τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσµος ὀνοµάζεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ βούληµα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ

the conception of the Church, the mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so much.157 The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement’s idea of the Church is concerned.158 At first Origen entirely agrees with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with the theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him. acc 1 When

τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται — here an idea which Hermas had in his mind (see Vol. I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. II. 12. 55; IV. 8. 66: εἰκὼν τῆς οὐρανίου ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος, διόπερ εὐχόµεθα καὶ ἐπί γῆς γενέσθαι τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; IV. 26. 172: ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ λόγου ἀπολιόρκητος ἀτυράννητος πόλις ἐπὶ γῆς, θέληµα θεῖον ἐπὶ γῆς, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ; VI. 13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: ἡ ἀνωτάτω ἐκκλησία, καθ᾽ ἥν ὁι φιλόσοφοι συνάγονται τοῦ Θεοῦ; VII. 5. 29: πῶς οὐ κυρίως τὴν ἐις τιµὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν ἁγίαν γενοµένην ἐκκλησία 564 ιἑρὸν ἂν ἔιποιµεν Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοῦ ἄξιον . . . ὀυ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισµα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καλῶ; VII. 6. 32; VII. I. 68: ἡ πνευµαρικὴ ἐκκλησία. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: φανερὸν οἶµαι γεγενῆσθαι µίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχάιαν, εἰς ἥν ὁι κατὰ πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται, ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ κυρίου . . . τῇ γοῦν τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσει συγκληροῦται ἐκκλησία ἡ µία, ἣν εἰς πολλὰς κατατέµνειν βιάζονται αἱρέσεις. 157 It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim 564 has fallen into the background in Clement’s conception of the Church. 158 A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the earthly Church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the East, was turned to no further account by Clement. In his view the “Gnostics” are the highest stage in the Church. See Bigg, l.c., p. l00. 159 De princip. IV. 2. 2: ἡ οὐράνιος ἐκκλησία; Hom. IX. in Exod. c. 3: “ecclesia credentium plebs”; Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5; Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: “omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.”: T.XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. VI. 48: VI. 79; Hom. 52b VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished (ὥστε εἶναι ἐπι τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζοµένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν µὲν ἀνθρώπων, τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων). Nevertheless Origen does not assume two Churches, but, like Clement, holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. But it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2 Clem. XIV.). Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve with the Church, and remarks that Pamphilus’ apology for Origen stated that this allegory was not new: ὀυ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγµατείαν ἐλθεῖν φασίν,

opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church, because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise 82refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.160 But Origen is influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by the actual course of events and signified a further development in the idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the outward appearance of the Church, and, in this process, reached results which again called in question the identification of the Holy Church with the empiric Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter). Secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,161 arrived at the idea that she was the earthly Kingdom of God, destined to enter the world, to absorb the Roman Empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the various secular states.162 This magnificent idea, which regards the Church as κόσµος τοῦ κόσµου,163 denoted indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject, determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget 83th 562 at Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new polity. Hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the Church,164 we already find in his theory a combination of all the features that became essential parts of the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.165

ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας µυστικὴν ἑρµηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. A great many more of these speculations are to be found in the 3rd century. See, e.g., the Acts of Peter and Paul 29. 59d 160De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: “nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur.” The reference is to the Catholic Church which Origen also calls τὸ ὅλον σῶµα τῶν συναγωγῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 161 Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the “city of God” (see also pseudo-Cyprian’s tractate “de pascha computus”); but for him it lies in Heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. The idea of Plato here referred to is to be found in his Republic. 162 564 See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75. 163 Comment. in Joh. VI. 38. 164 Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the ὄχλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας (the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere). 165 Origen, who is Augustine’s equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many 564 of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Father’s view of the City of God — of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f.). The Church is also viewed

3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear to us, in Iremeus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and Origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these Fathers made the Church the subject of a theological theory.166 aca Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old article: I believe in a holy Church.” But, at the same time, actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in altering the Church’s belief, forced her to realise her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an association which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this association with the ideal Church was a matter of course,167 but it was quite as natural to take no immediate theoretical notice of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. In the latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition in heart and life. From the principle that had been set 84up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until living authorities could be pointed to in this court, and until every possible cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. An empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law will always separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own ambition. We have seen how Irenæus and Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the fides catholica and ecclesia catholica as inseparably connected,168 were already compelled to have

as τὸ κατὰ Θεον πολίτευµα in Euseb., H. E. V. Præf. § 4, and at an earlier period in Clement. 166 This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work “de principiis” we find no section devoted to the Church. 167 It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its secularisation. No one thought of the de 55f sperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church. 168 Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist writings). It is all the

recourse to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called Montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the Church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, made the question of or 564 ganisation the vital one for her. Tertullian and Origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman bishop169 who first converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the Apostles and have the same “locus magisterii” (“place of government”) into a theory which declares that all apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their office.170 Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church. 85In one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising process which had been completed by the Roman bishop, in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Church’s existence (see the followin ac8 g chapter). In the second half of the third century there were no longer any Churches, except remote communities, where the only requirement was to preserve the Catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. The idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. The Church based on the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation. This idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East, though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand, circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a finished theory.171 According to Cyprian, the Catholic

more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the Church and treated non-conformists as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H. E. V. 24). On the other hand Irenæus says: ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστέιας τὴν ὁµόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. aa7 169 On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. 12, and Tertull., de pudic. 170 See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also Hippol., l.c. 171 Cyprian’s idea of the Church, an imitation of the conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the

Church, to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible apply (see Hartel’s index under “ecclesia”), is the one institution of salvation outside of which there is no redemption 86(ep. 73. 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.172 This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,173 because it is the continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.174 Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a conne 564 ction alone makes one a

conflicts through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a complete form in the treatise “de unitate ecclesiæ” and, above all, in his later epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines Church as “constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus” date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. Moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. The limitation of the Church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the Novatian crisis. The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox Christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the Church, which therefore resulted from stress of circumstances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenæus. Cyprian’s notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the connection between the individual community and the bishop. This already contained an œcumenical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a copy of the one Church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of God (Christ). 172 We need only quote one passage here — but see also epp. 69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8– ep. 55. 24: “Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est.” In the famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): “habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem,” we must understand the Church held together by the sacramentum unitatis, i.e., by her constitution. Cyprian is fond of referring to Korah’s faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses. 173 Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: “ecclesia super episcopos constituta”; 43. 5: 45. 3: “unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam”; 46. 1: 66. 8: “scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse”; de unit. 4. 174 According to Cyprian the bishops are the sacerdotes κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν and the iudices vice Christi. See epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: “Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit.” Ep. 3. 3: “dominus apostolos, i. e., episcopos elegit”; ep. 75. 16.

member of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an attribute of equal importance with her truth, because this union is only brought about by love,175 primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate. For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be 87so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and guided by God, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole significance of the episcopate.176 Hence the individual bishops are no longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circumstances of his ow 564 n diocese.177 But it also follows that 88the bishops of those

That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise ⍊564 de unitate”. The heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the Church is the product of love, this being the main Christian virtue. That is the ideal thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early Christian notion that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. But this love ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to Christians of the sterner sort. The appeal which Catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian’s stamp. 176 Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: “episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus”; de unit. 5: “episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in soli ac8 dum pars tenetur.” Strictly speaking Cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the Holy Spirit, but in identifying Apostles and bishops and asserting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in discharging his official duties. 177 Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice as a matter of moment — or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. In so far as the concordia episcoporum was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the regula fidei was adhered to. Every bishop who adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. 14: “Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus”; 55. 21: “Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur.” According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the 175

communities founded by the Apostles themselves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.178 However, a special importance attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat of the Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in order to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these powers and the corresponding unity of the Church that rests on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the Church of this see had become the mother and root of the Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a severe crisis which Cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he appealed to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which made it appear as if co 564 mmunion with that Church was in itself the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically denied the latter’s pretensions to exercise special rights over the Church in

strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the Church, are left to the judgment of God. It is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, for Marcion had formally joined Novatian. Even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 3. 26; Sententiæ episc., præfat.): “qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus.” It is therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church actually consists; we may say that it is found in the regula, in the fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulatin 564 g all the affairs of the Church “ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem” (ep. 74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically insisted on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the guide, “si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas”; by it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. In the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of Church practice in Carthage and Africa, which was the point in question — for whilst in Asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years — was justified by Cyprian through an appeal to veritas in contrast to consuetudo sine veritate. See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The veritas, however, is to be learned from the Gospel and words of the Apostles: “Lex evangelii”, “præcepta dominica”, and synonymous expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference to the regula or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church dogmatic, ac8 there being only principles of Christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from the Holy Scriptures and the regula. 178 Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).

consequence of the Petrine succession.179 Finally,

179

89although

The statement that the Church is “super Petrum fundata” is very frequently made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73. 7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. he went still farther; see ep. 43. 5: “deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata”; ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): “communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas”; de unit. 4: “superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit”; ep. 70. 3: “una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata” (“with regard to the origin and constitution of the unity” is the translation of this last passage in the “Stimmen aus Maria Laach,” 1877, part 8, p. 355; but “ratio” cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7: “Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit.” The most emphatic passages are ep. 48. 3, where the Roman Church is called “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” (the expression “radix et mater” in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her), and ep. 59. 14: “navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum.” We can see most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of f 564 act exercised by the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naïvely, even at the time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), “quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma præcedere.” In the controversy about heretical baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. I) designated himself, on the ground of the successio Petri and by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that one might suppose he wished to be regarded as “episcopus episcoporum” (Sentent. epist. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience from the “ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ” (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice “tyrannico terrore” and insisted that the unitas ecclesiæ required the observance of this Church’s practice in all communities. But Cyprian opposed him in the most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the regula and the Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to God alone. This he did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the Roman see alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by Stephen from eb0 the admittedly historical position of the Roman see (ep. 71.3): “Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere.” Firmilian, ep. 75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the successio Petri claimed by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the Roman Church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, 1.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he

Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved the Christian element so far as to assume in all his statements that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have ipso facto forfeited it.180 Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office does not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other. bishops of Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For more details on this point, as well as with regard to t 560 he contradictions 90that remain unreconciled in Cyprian’s conception of the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of the Church). Appendix I. Cyprian’s idea of the Church and the actual circumstances. ADDENDUM I. The great confederation of Churches which Cyprian presupposes and which he terms the Church was in truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the confines of the Roman Empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised communities within those bounds.181 But, further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the full sense in the days of Constantine, were never definitely formulated — before the fourth century at least.182 Accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all Christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted by actual circumstances.183

had expressed at a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop Cornelius. 180 See specially epp. 65, 67, 68. 181 Hatch l.c., p. 189 f. 182 The gradual union of the provincial communities into one Church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical Fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De Rossi , Roma Sotter, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi in Italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887 (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol. Hieron. Rome 1885, bat above all the latter’s study: Mémoire sur l’origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l’ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also be studied. 183 There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with it in point of

Appendix II. Church and Heresy. II. The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the Church. The designation ἅιρεσις an adherence to something 91selfchosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the particular thing in which the apostasy consists. Hence all those who call themselves Christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right to their opinions,184 and such an explanation is not quite foreign to Origen in one of his lines of argument.185 Hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to any sacrament186 or acts esteemed in their belief (see the interesting case in Euseb., H.E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, there were Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond with the Catholic regula as already expounded. But the fact that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and principles of the Church, as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the Christian kerygma can only separate. Here, however, all differences of c44 faith had of course to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: µὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκα, διαµένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον ἡλπικότας κ.τ.λ., was naturally regarded as inadmissible. 184 Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose in the Church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be surpassed in succeeding times. The best definition is in Tertull., de præscr. 6: “Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt.” 185 See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1. 186 We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: “Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent.” Cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the Novatians, and like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. This question agitated the Church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote against it in Greek.

own communion, when these were performed by heretics; 580 1 and this was a practical application of the saying that the devil could transform himself into an angel of light.187 92

But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church with a harmoniously organised institution. For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christianity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. Though we are by no means entitled to say that they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to reckon them simply as heretics.188 If it was desired to get rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule of faith; and und ac8 er this pretext the Church freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians.189 Cyprian was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics, by making a man’s Christianity depend on his belonging to the great episcopal Church confederation.190 But, both in East 93and West, this theory of his

187

As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as hypocrisy and 564 love of ostentation (see e.g., Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and others in the second century). If this view was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. See the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 16. 21, 22; Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. ad Rom. I. X., c. 5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; ep. 73. 21 etc. 188 Tertull., de præscr. 3-6. 189 Irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. 11. 9: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, “qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ.” Note a8e the parallel with Cyprian. Yet he does not class them with those “qui sunt extra veritatem,” i.e., “extra ecclesiam,” although he declares the severest penalties await them. Tertullian was completely preserved by his Montanism from identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the Christianity of the Catholics (?). 190 Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv. Prax.; Hippol., c. Noët; Novatian, de trinitate. Even in the case of the Novatians heresies were sought and found (see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb., H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even Cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). The Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolytus in the catalogue of heretics (see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in Tit. Opp. IV., p. 696). 191 Cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): “hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant” (as to the early

became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to prove heresy against the schismatics.192 Appendix III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of the new idea of the Church. III. As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops was proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, we have the fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively adopted by the Church, all her functions, institutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. But the courage to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the New Testament canon of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences from the idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. The idea of the παράδοσισ ἄγραφος (un-written tradition); i.e., that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, disc 564 ipline, etc., is as holy and apostolic as the Bible and the “faith”, never succeeded in gaining

history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.; Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., adv. Valent. 4; de bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. Epiphan. H. 42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: “neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur”; epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: “item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit”; 52. 1:73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and heresy are always identical. 59e 192Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian’s theory as the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled by his special circumstances to identify them, but he united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did not make a single new article an “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ”. In fact he ultimately declared — and this may have cost him struggle enough — that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.

complete acceptance. In this case, complicated, uncertain, and indistinct assumptions were the result. 94

Chapter III. Continuation. The Old Christianity and the New Church.

CHAPTER III. CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH. 1. THE legal and political forms by which the Church secured herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing Christendom from being secularised. This crisis (the so-called Montanist struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following results: The Church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community basing the truth of its title on its historic and objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation aba to the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised two distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced her character as the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and substituted the claim to be an educational institution and a necessary condition of redemption. After a keen struggle, in which the New Testament did excellent service to the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused the secession of all those Christians who made the truth of the Church depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. Hence, apart from the heretic and Montanist sects, there existed in the Empire, after the middle of the second 95century, two great but numerically unequal Church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the title “ecclesia catholica”, viz., the confederation which Constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back to the time of

Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the schism of Novatian must not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of Hippolytus. 2. The so-called Montanist reaction193 was itself subjected to a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical development of Christendom. It was originally the violent undertaking of a Christian prophet, Montanus, who, supported by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held forth in the Fourth Gospel. He explained these by the Apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom Christ had promised — that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ himself, nay, even God the Father Almighty, comes to his own to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them into one flock. His main effort therefore was to make Christians give up the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above. 572 1

193

See Ritschl, 1. c.; Schwegler, Der Montanismus, 1841; Gottwald, De Montanismo Tertulliani, 1862; Réville, Tertull. et le Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehl ac8 in, Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church, 1878; Cunningham, The Churches of Asia, 1880; Renan, Les Crises du Catholicisme Naissant in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th Febr. 1881; Renan, Marc Aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1881; Harnack, Das Mönchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte, 3rd. ed., 1886; Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes, 1891. Further the articles on Montanism by Möller (Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsäcker in the Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben, 1884, Parts 8, 9; M. von Engelhardt, Die ersten Versuche zur Aufrichtung des wahren Christenthums in einer Gemeinde von Heiligen, Riga, 1881. 194 In certain vital points the conception of the original nature and history of Montanism, as sketched in the following account, does not correspond with that traditionally current. To establish it in detail would lead us too far. It may be noted that the mistakes in estimating the original character of this movement arise from a superficial examination of the oracles preserved to us and from the unjustifiable practice of interpreting them in accordance with their later application in the circles of Western Montanists. A completely new organisation of Christendom, beginning with the Church in Asia, to be brought about by its being detached from the bonds of the communities and collected into one region, was the main effort of Montanus. In this way he expected to restore to the Church a spiritual character and fulfil the promises contained in John. That is clear from Euseb., V. 16 ff. as well as from the later history of Montanism in its native land (see Jerome, ep. 41; Epiphan., H. 49. 2 etc.). In itself, however, apart from its

96

The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message — especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions to which the Church was soon after subjected under Marcus Aurelius, led to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the New Jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, had been chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.195 Whatever amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an assembly of all Christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance aa9 to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to assume a secular and political character. Many entire communities 97in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in Asia. The bishop of Rome was on the verge of acknowledging the Montanists to be in full communion with the Church. But among themselves there was no longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian society.196 Whenever Montanism

particular explanation in the case of Montanus, the endeavour to detach Christians from the local Church unions has so little that is striking about it, that one rather wonders at being unable to point to any parallel in the earliest history of the Church. Wherever religious enthusiasm has been strong, it has at all times felt that nothing hinders its aba effect more than family ties and home connections. But it is just from the absence of similar undertakings in the earliest Christianity that we are justified in concluding that the strength of enthusiastic exaltation is no standard for the strength of Christian faith. (Since these words were written, we have read in Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel [see Georgiades in the journal Ἐκκλ. ἀληθεία, 1885, p. 52 sq.] very interesting accounts of such undertakings in the time of Septimius Severus. A Syrian bishop persuaded many brethren with wives and children to go to meet Christ in the wilderness; and another in Pontus induced his people to sell all their possessions, to cease tilling their lands, to conclude no more marriages etc., because the coming of the Lord was nigh at hand). 195 Oracle of Prisca in Epiph. H. 49. 1. 196 Even in its original home Montanism must have accommodated itself to circumstances at a comparatively early date — which is not in the least extraordinary. No

comes before us in the clear light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened, though still very powerful. Montanus and his prophetesses had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained them.197 The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had appeared in them and spoke through them.198 Imagination pictured 98Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.199 The most extravagant promises were

doubt the Montanist Churches in Asia and Phrygia, to which the bishop of Rome had already issued literæ pacis, were now very different from the original followers of the prophets (Tertull., adv. Prax. 1). When Tertullian further reports that Praxeas at the last moment prevented them from being recognised by the bishop of Rome, “falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando”, the “falsehood about the Churches” may simply have consisted in an account of the original tendencies of the Montanist sect. The whole unique history which, in spite of this, Montanism undoubtedly passed through in its original home is, however, explained by the circumstance that there were districts there, where all Christians belonged to that sect (Epiph., H. 51. 33; cf. also the later history of Novatianism). In their peculiar Church organisation (patriarchs, stewards, bishops), these sects preserved a record of their origin. ad6 197Special weight must be laid on this. The fact that whole communities became followers of the new prophets, who nevertheless adhered to no old regulation, must above all be taken into account. 198 See Oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 197 f. It can hardly have been customary for Christian prophets to speak like Montanus (Nos. 3-5): ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ταντοκράτωρ καταγινόµενος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, or ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦλθον or ἐγὼ εἰµί ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ παράκλητος, though Old Testament prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11); ἀπέστειλέ µε κύριος τούτου τοῦ πόνου καὶ τῆς συνθήκης καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αἱρετιστήν; and a second time (No. 12): διώκοµαι ὡς λύκος ἐκ προβάτων˙ οὐκ εἰµὶ λύκς˙ ῥῆµά εἰµί καὶ πνεῦµα καὶ δύναµις. The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one another (cf. also No. 10: ἐµοῦ µὴ ἀκούσητε ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούσατε). From James IV. V. and Hermas, and from the Didache, on the other hand, we can see how the prophets of Christian communities may have usually spoken. 199 L.c., no. 9: Χριστὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ γυναικὸς ἐσχηµατισµένος. How variable must the misbirths of the Christian imagination have been in this respect also! Unfortunately almost everything of that kind has been lost to us because it has been suppressed. The fragments of the once highly esteemed Apocalypse of Peter are instructive, for they still attest that the existing remains of early Christian ac8 literature are not able to give a correct picture of the strength of religious imagination in the first and second centuries. The passages where Christophanies are spoken of in the earliest literature would require to be collected. It would be shown what naive enthusiasm existed. Jesus appears to believers as a child, as a boy, as a youth, as Paul etc. Conversely, glorified men appear in visions with the features of Christ.

given.200 These prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations. 583 201 They set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of any tradition,202 and they inveighed against the main body of 99Christendom.203 They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.204 These Christians as yet knew nothing

200

See Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. In Oracle No. 2 an evangelical promise is repeated in a heightened form; but see Papias in Iren., V. 33. 3 f. 201 We may unhesitatingly act on the principle that the Montanist elements, as they appear in Tertullian, are, in all cases, found not in a strengthened, but a weakened, form. So, when even Tertullian still asserts that the Paraclete in the new prophets could overturn or change, and actually did change, regulations of the Apostles, there is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere to apostolic dicta and had no hesitation in deviating from them. Cf., moreover, the direct declarations on this point in Hippolytus (Syntagma and Philos. VIII. 19) and in Didymus (de trin. III. 41. 2). 202 The precepts for a Christian life, if we may so speak, given by the new prophets, cannot be determined from the compromises on which the discipline of the later Montanist societies of the Empire were based. Here they sought for a narrow line between the Marcionite and Encratite mode of life and the common church practice, and had no longer the courage and the candour to proclaim the “e sæculo excedere”. Sexual purity and the renunciation of the enjoyments of life were the demands of the new prophets. But it is hardly likely that they prescribed precise “laws”, for t 527 he primary matter was not asceticism, but the realising of a promise. In later days it was therefore possible to conceive the most extreme demands as regulations referring to none but the prophets themselves, and to tone down the oracles in their application to believers. It is said of Montanus himself (Euseb., H. E. V. 18. 2): ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάµων, ὁ νηστείας νοµοθετήσας; Prisca was a παρθένος (l.c. § 3); Proculus, the chief of the Roman Montanists, “virginis senectæ” (Tert., adv. Val. 5). The oracle of Prisca (No. 8) declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions of God; it is presupposed in the case of every “sanctus minister”. Finally, Origen tells us (in Titum, Opp. IV. 696) that the (older) Cataphrygians said: “ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi”. But an express legal direction to abolish marriage cannot have existed in the collection of oracles possessed by Tertullian. But who can guarantee that they were not already corrected? Such an assumption, however, is not necessary. b05 203Euseb., V. 16. 9: V. 18. 5. 204 It will not do simply to place Montanus and his two female associates in the same category as the prophets of primitive Christian Churches. The claim that the Spirit had descended upon them in unique fashion must have been put forth by themselves with unmistakable clearness. If we apply the principle laid down on p. 98, note 3, we will find that — apart from the prophets’ own utterances — this is still clearly manifest from the

works of Tertullian. A consideration of the following facts will remove all doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the possession of an unique mission. (1) From the beginning both opponents and followers constantly applied the title “New Prophecy” to the phenomenon in question (Euseb., V. 16. 4: V. 19. 2; Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93; Tertull., monog. 14, ieiun. 1, resurr. 63, Marc. III. 24: IV. 22, Prax. 30; Firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) Similarly, the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the “Paraclete” (Orac. no. 5; Tertull. passim; Hippol. passim; Didymus etc.). (3) Even in the third century the Montanist congregations of the Empire must still have doubted whether the Apostles had possessed this Paraclete or not, or at least whether this had been the case in the full sense. Tertullian identifies the Spirit and the Paraclete and declares that the Apostles possessed the latter in full measure — in fact as a Catholic he could not do otherwise. Nevertheless he calls Montanus etc. “prophetæ proprii” of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos. VIII. 19: ὑπὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισµα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολµᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. Pseudo-Tertullian says: “in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Ch 547 ristum in evangelio protulisse.” In Didymus, 1.c., we read: τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος κ.τ.λ., ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τὸν Μοντανὸν ἐληλυθέναι καὶ ἐσχηκέναι τὸ τέλειον τὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου, τοῦτ᾽ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. (4) Lastly, the Montanists asserted that the prediction contained in John XIV. ff. had been fulfilled in the new prophecy, and that from the beginning, as is denoted by the very expression “Paraclete.” What sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted passage, for the promises contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic carrying out of Montanus’ programme. If we read attentively John XIV. 16-21, 23, 26: ae5 XV. 20-26: XVI. 7-15, 25 as well as XVII. and X.; if we compare the oracles of the prophets still preserved to us; if we consider the attempt of Montanus to gather the scattered Christians and really form them into a flock, and also his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all truth; and, finally, if we call to mind that in those Johannine discourses Christ designated the coming of the Paraclete as his own coming in the Paraclete and spoke of an immanence and unity of Father, Son, and Paraclete, which one finds re-echoed in Montanus’ Oracle No. V., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter’s undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets by the promises contained in the Gospel of John, understood in an apocalyptic and realistic sense, and also by Matt. XXIII. 34 (see Euseb., V. 16. 12 sq.). The correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents of the Montanists in Asia — the so-called “Alogi” (Epiph., H. 51) — rejected both the Gospel and Revelation of John, that is, regarded them as written by some one else. Montanism therefore shows us the first and — up till about 180 — really the only impression made by the Gospel of John on non-Gnostic Gentile Christians; and what a remarkable one it was! It has a parallel in Marcion’s conception of Paulinism. Here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. To the view advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the Church, or on a prophetic succession (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 4; Proculus in the same author, II. 25. 7: III.

of the “absoluteness of 100 ac7 a historically complete revelation of Christ as the fundamental condition of Christian consciousness;” they only felt a Spirit to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. But, after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. The Montanist congregations that sought for recognition in Rome, whose part was taken by the Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves, as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive Anabaptists and their empire in Münster. The “Montanists” outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the legal position of the great Church. They declared their adherence 101to the apostolic “regula” and the New Testament canon.205 The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its final form, in written

31. 4), nor that Tertullian, when it suits him, simply regards the new prophecy as a restitutio (e.g., in Monog. 4); for these assumptions merely represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this phenomenon within the Catholic Church. In proof of the fact that Montanus appealed to the Gospel of John 564 see Jerome, Ep. 41 (Migne, I. p. 474), which begins with the words: “Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc.” In opposition to this Jerome argues that the promises about the Paraclete are fulfilled in Acts II., as Peter said in his speech, and then continues as follows: “Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc.” 205 We are assured of this not only by Tertullian, but also by the Roman Montanist Pro ac8 culus, who, like the former, argued against heretics, and by the testimony of the Church Fathers (see, e.g., Philos. VIII. 19). It was chiefly on the ground of their orthodoxy that Tertullian urged the claim of the new prophets to a hearing; and it was, above all, as a Montanist that he felt himself capable of combating the Gnostics, since the Paraclete not only confirmed the regula, but also by unequivocal utterances cleared up ambiguous and obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, and (as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the Monarchian (see fuga 1, 14; corona 4; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, 11). Besides, we see from Tertullian’s writings that the secession of the Montanist conventicles from the Church was forced upon them.

records and in this shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of an exploded bomb.206 In this new prophecy they recognised a subsequent revelation of God, which for that very reason assumed the existence of a previous one. This after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all Christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance of the new prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason they believed in it.207 53c The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete, 102who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on

206

The question as to whether the new prophecy had or had not to be recognised as such became the decisive one (fuga 1, 14; coron. 1; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 1; pudic. 11; monog. 1). This prophecy was recorded in writing (Euseb., V. 18. 1; Epiph., H. 48. 10; Euseb., VI. 20). The putting of this question, however, denoted a fundamental weakening of conviction, which was accompanied by a corresponding falling off in the application of the prophetic utterances. 207 The situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion of Christendom may be studied in Tertullian’s writings “de idolol.” and “de spectac.” Christianity had already been conceived as a nova lex throughout the whole Church, and this lex had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on the faith. But, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite lex, and arguments in favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the Holy Scriptures. No divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the progressive secularising of Christianity; but there was need of statutory commandments ac8 by which all the limits were clearly defined. In this state of perplexity the oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. More than that — as may be inferred from Tertullian’s unwilling confession — could not be attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. Thus the Phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real connection with it. But this was the form in which Montanism first became a factor in the history of the Church. To what extent it had been so before, particularly as regards the creation of a New Testament canon (in Asia Minor and Rome), cannot be made out with certainty.

the full resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for Christ’s name’s sake, but to bear them willingly and joyfully,208 yet, under the given circumstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything “Encratite,” ae0 209 implied a demand that directly endangered the conquests already made by the Church and impeded the progress of the new propaganda.210 The people who put forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the Paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands 103on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the Paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;211 that they showed all

208

See Bonwetsch, l.c., p. 82-108. This is the point about which Tertullian’s difficulties are greatest. Tatian is expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15. 210 Tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: “qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat.” 211 It is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace Tertullian’s endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the New Testament and yet supersedes it. He is forced to maintain the theory that the Paraclete stands in the same relation to the Apostles as ac8 Christ does to Moses, and that he abrogates the concessions made by the Apostles and even by Christ himself; whilst he is at the same time obliged to reassert the sufficiency of both Testaments. In connection with this he hit upon the peculiar theory of stages in revelation — a theory which, were it not a mere expedient in his case, one might regard as the first faint trace of a historical view of the question. Still, this is another case of a dilemma, furnishing theology with a conception that she has cautiously employed in succeeding times, when brought face to face with certain difficulties; see virg. vel. 1; exhort. 6; monog. 2, 3, 14; resurr. 63. For the rest, Tertullian is at bottom a Christian of the old stamp; the theory of any sort of finality in revelation is of no use to him except in its bearing on heresy; for the Spirit continually guides to all truth and works wherever he will. Similarly, his only reason for not being an Encratite is that this mode of life had already been adopted by heretics, and become associated with dualism. But the conviction that all religion must have the character of a fixed law and presupposes definite regulations — a belief not emanating from primitive Christianity, but from Rome — bound him to the Catholic Church. Besides, the contradictions with which he struggled were by no means peculiar to him; in so far as the Montanist societies accepted the Catholic regulations, they weighed on them all, and in all probability crushed them out of existence. In Asia Minor, where the breach took place 209

honour to the New Testament; and that they did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted in it.212 As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate 104but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax Christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfort-ably by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient monitors;213 575 and they could only do so by reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian assumptions. Moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the Churches of the “Psychical,”214 which rejected the “Spirit” and extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers and adulterers within their pale. In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the Montanists and the Church had in all probability broken out before the question of Church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly raised. In Rome and Carthage this question

earlier, the sect held its ground longer. In North Africa the residuum was a remarkable propensity to visions, holy dreams, and the like. The feature which forms the peculiar characteristic of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas is still found in a similar shape in Cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine African Acts of the Martyrs, dating from Valerian’s time, which are unfortunately little studied. See, above all, the Acta Jacobi, Mariani etc., and the Acta Montani, Lucii etc. (Ruinart, Acta Mart. edit Ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.) 212 Nothing is known of attempts at a formal incorporation of the Oracles with the New Testament. Besides, the Montanists could dispense with this because they distinguished the commandments of the Paraclete as “novissima lex” from the “novum aa7 testamentum.” The preface to the Montanist Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (was Tertullian the author?) showed indeed the high value attached to the visions of martyrs. In so far as these were to be read in the Churches they were meant to be reckoned as an “instrumentum ecclesiæ?” in the wider sense. 213 Here the bishops themselves occupy the foreground (there are complaints about their cowardice and serving of two masters in the treatise de fuga). But it would be very unjust simply to find fault with them as Tertullian does. Two interests combined to influence their conduct; for if they drew the reins tight they gave over their flock to heresy or heathenism. This situation is already evident in Hermas and dominates the resolutions of the Church leaders in succeeding generations (see below). 214 The distinction of “Spiritales” and “Psychici” on the part of the Montanists is not confined to the West (see Clem., Strom. IV. 13. 93); we find it very frequently in Tertullian. In itself it did not yet lead to the formal breach with the Catholic Church.

completed the rupture that had already taken place between the conventicles and the Church (de pudic. 1. 21). Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed the right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was 105violently contested both ac8 in an abstract sense and in this application of it. The Spirit the Apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the Spirit is given to the Church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; “potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam”). Thus agreement was no longer possible. The bishops were determined to assert the existing claims of the Church, even at the cost of her Christian character, or to represent the constitution of the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that character. At the risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no importance.215 But the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the Christian life and to preserve the virginity of the Church as a holy community.216 In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously

215

A contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in primitive Montanism. This was transmitted in a weakened form to the later adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the Gallic confessors’ strange letter of recommendation on behalf of Irenæus in Euseb., H. E. V. 4), and finally broke forth with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. 21; de exhort. 7; Hippolytus against Calixtus). The ecclesia, represented as numerus episcoparum, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian. 216 See here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where Tertullian sees the virginity of the Church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. As will have been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether Montanism was an innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. In its original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had yet been set to subjective religiosity. Montanus decidedly went further than any Christian prophets known to us; Hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a prophet, which gave rise to innovations in Christendom; but these fell short of Montanus’ proceedings. In its later shape, however, Montanism was to all intents and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of things. So far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a

106defended

a position already lost, and carried with him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the Church.

Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,217 the Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. The great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically disputed. The problem was how to carry on with caution the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at the sam 564 e time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops therefore assailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;218 they sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even Chiliasm, as represented by the Montanists, was declared to have a Jewish and fleshly character.219 They tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the worship of Apis, Isis, and the mother of the Gods.220 To the 107claim ac8 of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God, set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christians was contained in the utterances of the Old

novissima lex, we have an evident innovation analogous to the Catholic development. Whe ab1 reas in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode of life. Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception of a subsequent revelation through the Paraclete was a highly questionable and strange innovation. But for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this was ultimately nothing but a means. Its practical tendency, based as it was on the conviction that the Church abandons her character if she does not resist gross secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary requirements of primitive Christianity in opposition to a Church that was always more and more becoming a new thing. 217 There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all those who had strict views as to the principles of Christian polity; see the letters of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. Melito, the prophet, eunuch, and bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a Montanist. We must judge similarly of Irenæus. 218 Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subsequently subjected to sharp criticism. 219 This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated. 220 De ieiun. 12, 16.

Testament prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to distinguish between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and a different one applying to the laity,221 as, for instance, in the question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on the glory of the heroic Christians, belonging to the great Church, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to martyrdom. By these methods they brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the whole Church, but was now of no further service. In repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called Chiliasm,222 congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to limitations223) in the West and certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.224 108However, the most

221

Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner. It is well known that in the 3rd century the Revelation of John itself was viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the East. 223 In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist struggle. C ac8 hiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. In the East, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened by the Montanist crisis. But it was philosophical theology that first proved their mortal enemy. In the rural Churches of Egypt Chiliasm was still widely prevalent after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book VII. “Some of their teachers,” says Dionysius, “look on the Law and the Prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the Gospel, esteem the Epistles of the Apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine contained in the Revelation of John to be a great and a hidden mystery.” There were even temporary disruptions in the Egyptian Church on account of Chiliasm (see Chap. 24. 6). 224 “Lex et prophetæ usque ad Johannem” now became the motto. Churchmen spoke of a “completus numerus prophetarum” (Muratorian Fragment), and formulated the proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-Christian stage of revelation, but the Apostles to the Christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the Spirit. “Prophets and Apostles” now replaced “Apostles, prophets, and teachers,” as the court of appeal. Under such circumstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the Apostles in point of importance. Hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at most served only to support the measures of the bishops. In order to estimate the great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of Irenæus and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenaeus still expressed himself exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4: V. 6. 1): καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούοµεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ 222

effective means of legitimising the present state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely connected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings, viz., the distinction of an epoch of revelation, along with a corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable by later generations. This period was connected with the present by means of the New Testament and the apostolic office 55c of the bishops. This later time was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium of the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church. The place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst was taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the “instrument of divine literature” (“instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ”) and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of the Christian philosophers, which attained importance in the Church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession. 3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of the Church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining 109salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his guilt225 ad0 by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the Church was still the penalty of

χαρίσµατα ἐχόντων κ.τ.λ. Origen on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirit’s gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, the disappearance of charisms, and the strug 564 gle against Gnosticism, a strictly ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is especially instructive on this point. Here it is revealed to the confessor Attalus that the confessor Alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which God had created and thus become a “τύπος σκανδάλου” to others. Alcibiades changed his mode of life. In Africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still retained their authority in the Church as important means of solving perplexities. 225 Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates “septem maculas capitalium delictorum,” namely, “idololatria”, “blasphemia”, “homicidium”, “adulterium” “stuprum”, “falsum testimonium”, “fraus”. The stricter treatment probably applied to all these seven offences. So far as I know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same category in the first centuries; see Iren. III. 4. 2 ac8 ; Tertull., de præser. 30 and, above all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 12, from which passages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted.

relapse into idolatry, adultery, whoredom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of God in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained penitent to the end. In theory indeed this rule was not very old. For the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days Christians frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by appealing to the Spirit, who, by special announcements — particularly by the mouth of martyrs and prophets — commanded or sanctioned the readmission of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).226 Still, the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony invariably capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that God alone can forgive sins. The practice must on the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition of public confession.227

226

Hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross sinners into the Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in my article “Lapsi”, in Herzog Real-Encyklopädie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullian’s Schriften de pænit. et de pudic. mit Rücksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893. 227 In the work de pænit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K. Müller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892 p. 114, rightly remarks: “He who desired this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her “antechamber” indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of those possessing full Christian privileges, — after the performance of penance or exhomologesis. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. Meanwhile this exhomologesis itself underwent a transformation which in Tertullian includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. It is no longer a mere expression of inward feeling, confession to God and the brethren, but is essentially performance. It is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy God by works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily endured punishment and therefore as a substitute for the penalty that naturally awaits the sinner. It is thus the means of pacifying God, appeasing his anger, and gaining his favour again — with the consequent possibility of readmission into the Church. I say the possibility, for readmission does not always follow. Participation in the future kingdom may be hope 564 d for even by him who in this world is shut out from full citizenship and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. In all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death in a state of penance or exhomologesis. For readmission continued to involve the assumption that the Church had in some way or other become certain that God had forgiven the sinner, or in other words

For this, appeal was probably made 110to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here unwittingly rendered. We say “unwittingly,” for he could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his attitude. In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed (de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of two planks of salvation.228 Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently atten 53c ded with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to abandon the old idea that Christendom was a community of 111saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church, in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the world. This state of matters continued till about 220.229 In reality the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop Calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the keys. af0 1 At Rome that she had power to grant this forgiveness in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore involved no violation of her holiness.” In such instances it is first prophets and then martyrs that appear as organs of the Spirit, till at last it is no longer the inspired Christian, but the professional medium of the Spirit, viz., the priest, who decides everything. 228 In the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repetition of baptism were not wholly lacking. In Marcionite congregations repetition of baptism is said to have taken place (on the Elkesaites see Vol. I. p. 308). One can only wonder that 564 there is not more frequent mention of such attempts. The assertion of Hippolytus (Philos. IX. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: Ἐπὶ Kαλλίστου πρώτω τετόλµηται δεύτερον ἀυτοῖς βάπ . 229 See Tertull., de pudic. 12: “hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur.” Orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50. 230 It is only of whoremongers and idolaters that Tertullian expressly speaks in de pudic. c. I. We must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by Hippolytus in Philos. IX. 12: Κάλλιστος πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐ 526 πενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁµαρτίας. The aim of this measure is still clear from the account of it given by Hippolytus, though this indeed is written in a hostile spirit. Roman Christians were then split into at least five different sects, and Calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties and enlarge his own. In all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a certain measure of success.

this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippolytus. But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.231 These were first occasioned by the Decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured Christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.232 The majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.233 112To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made between sacrificati and libellatici, the latter being more mildly treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was adopted in regard to the laity, and strict measures — though this was not the universal rule — were only adopted towards the clergy. In consequence of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism — an assumption that was untenable in principle — Novatian’s schism took place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to the fifth century.234 What made it difficult to introduce this change by regular l 564 egislation was the authority to forgive sins in God’s stead, ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de pudic. 22). The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of “spiritual” persons other than the bishops. These confessors had frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation found among the great mass of Christians, the penitential discipline

From Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 6, one might be inclined to conclude that, even in Marcus Aurelius’ time, Dionysius of Corinth had issued lax injunctions similar to those of Calixtus. But it must not he forgotten that we have nothing but Eusebius’ report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his accounts are not reliable. 231 No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 and 260. b06 232See Cypr., de lapsis. 233 What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters in Cyprian’s collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts. 234 Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, II. E. V. 22, is our chief source of information on this point. See also Conc. Illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, 70-73, 75.

insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity. The complete adoption of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.235 113

4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. According to the older notion the Church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints, which rested ac8 on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. It is not the Church, but God alone, that forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross sinners, it would anticipate the judgment of God, as it would thereby assure them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.236 But in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God’s grace became weaker trust in the Church stronger. He whom the Church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. This state of things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, “no salvation outside the Church” (“extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), viz., the Church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain. In this conception the nature

235

See my article “Novatian” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. One might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness of sins was an “evangelical reaction” against the merciless legalism which, in the case of the Gentile Church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. As a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the New Testament in justification of their practice. This had already been done by the followers of Calixtus and by himself. See Philos. IX. 12: φάσκοντες Χριστὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertuilian’s opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to numerous Bible texts, e.g., Matt. X. 23: XI. 19 etc., see de monog., de pudic., de ieiun. Cyprian is also able to quote many passages from the Gospels. However, as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for the future, the “evangelical reaction” must not be estimated very highly; (see below, p. 117, and my essay in th ac8 e Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I., “Die Lehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche.” 236 The distinction of sins committed against God himself, as we find it in Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot clear up.

of the Church is depotentiated, but her powers are extended. If she is the institution which, according to Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she becomes an institution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. Thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable 114medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual the possibility of redemption. From this, however, it immediately follows that the Church would anticipate the judgment of God if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.237 But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With this she 559 acts in God’s name and stead, but — and herein lies the inconsistency — she cannot by this means establish any final condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. In accordance with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely consist in her possession of the means of salvation: the Church is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is endowed. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ’s room. Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by the saying, “ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.”) This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11). The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by Roman bishops, ac2 1 was the first thing that gave a fundamental

237

Cyprian never expelled any one from the Church, unless he had attacked the authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this Father placed himself outside her pale by his own act. 238 Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: Καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη ὁ Κάλλιστος λέγεσθαι· Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σιτῷ τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁµοίωµα ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες κὰι πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα. ὁύτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁµοίως· καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν

115religious

significance to the separation of clergy and laity. The powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form. The bishop became the practical vicegerent of Christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. But the recollection of the older form of Christianity continued to exert an influence on the Catholic Church of the third century. It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus’ account, Calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch as he not only defined the Church as essentially a mixed body (corpus permixtum), but also asserted the unlawfulness of deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.239 But we do not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still required a definite degree of active Christianity as a sine quâ non in the case of bishops; and assumed it as a self-evident necessity. He who does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office ipso facto.240 Now if we consider 116that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (plebs credentium), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church in a certain

συνάγειν ὁύτως ἡρµήνευσεν. From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. (“Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit”). But we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of th aac e multitudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. Orig. (Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained — at any rate he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus’ conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5). 239 Philos., 1.c,: Κάλλιστος ἐδογµάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁµάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, µὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that Stephen also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings. 240 See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.

fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are invalid; 575 1 and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases. Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God’s installing the bishops and always appointing the right ones241 is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian’s idea of the Church — and this is no dishonour to him — still involved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.242 The view, however — which Cyprian never openly expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his theory — that the Catholic Church, though the “one dove” (“una columba”), is in truth n abe ot coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the Church; and spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not Christians. As these are finally overpowered by the gates of hell, Origen does not hesitate to class them as merely seeming members of the Church. Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in 117the eyes of God.243 Nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness

241

This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him. ae4 242On this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in Cyprian. Sometimes he says that God himself instals the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against God to criticise them (e.g., in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears to acknowledge the community’s right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in Reuter “Augustinische Studien” (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.). 243 The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of his two aspects. 244 Origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the Church as judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (Comm. in Matt. Tom. XI. at Chap. XV. 29; Hom. II. in Genes. Chap. 3; Hom. in Cantic. Tom. I. at Chap. I. 4: “ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt”; Hom. III. in Levit. Chap. iii.), but also between spiritual and carnal members (Hom. XXVI. in Num. Chap. vii.) i.e., between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith — who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does Clement of Alexandria (see Strom. VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem; they have no part in the

on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so; nor did he give an impulse to further reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations were of no 118use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.245

promises of Christ, but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church’s task to remove such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus’ view of the Church as a corpus permixtum; but to carry out this process so perfectly that only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond ac0 the powers of human sagacity. One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see Hom. XXI. in Jos., c. i.: “sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus.” In this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the Church (Comm. in Matt. T. X. at c. xiii. 47 f.: µὴ ξενιζῶµεθα, ἐάν ὁρῶµεν ἡµῶν τὰ ἀθροίσµατα πεπληρωµένα καὶ πονηρῶν); but in his work against Celsus Origen already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the Christian Churches which views them as simply “better” than the societies and civic communities existing alongside of them. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus, in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth, and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly asserts that a person unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in God’s eyes; see Hom. XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: “ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri.” Döllinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page 254 ff.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hippolytus and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen’s trenchant remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth. XI. 9. 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, Hom. VI. in Isai. c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to glorify God, assume a mere distinction of names between Father and Son, are also correctly regarded by Langen as specially referring to the Roman ecclesiastics (Geschichte der römischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three greatest theologians of the age — Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. 56c 245If, in assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, the Roman bishops went beyond Cyprian, Cyprian drew from his conception of the Church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism administered by nonCatholics. Here, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops were only determined by their

But a minority struggled against this Church, not with speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed members. Under the leadership of the Roman presbyter, Novatian, this section formed a coalition in the Empire that opposed the Catholic confederation.246 Their adherence to the old system of Church discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. Novatian’s conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear from, a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) assigned to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all; ad2 1 he denied her the authority to absolve 119idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of God who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; and he asserted: “non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,” — “the absolution of the bishop is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e., martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the Lord” (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: “peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,” — “the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor passes over to him who does not transgress.” His proposition that none but God can forgive sins does not

interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission to the Church in the case of nonCatholics. In this instance they were again induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of the Church. It redounds to Cyprian’s credit that he drew and firmly maintained the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. The matter never led to a great dogmatic controversy. 246 As to the events during the vacancy in the R ac8 oman see immediately before Novatian’s schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the Church, see my essay: “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892). 247 So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case of the lapsed. It is, however, very probable that in the later Novatian Churches no mortal sinner was absolved (see, e.g., Socrates, H. E. I. 10). The statement of Ambrosius (de pænit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as “a Stoic” made no distinction between sins. Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian’s followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the Church.

depotentiate the idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers and extent in favour of her content. Refusal of her forgiveness under certain circumstances — though this does not exclude the confident hope of God’s mercy — can only mean that in Novatian’s view this forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the sine quâ non of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not anticipate the judgment of God. Now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that she does so. As the assembly of the baptised, who have received God’s forgiveness, the Church must be a real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy in question. But, from this point of view, the constitution of the Church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to those principles, the primary question as regards Church membership 120is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather connection with the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may in abb deed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear to the latter himself. This was because, in regard to the idea of the Church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated them. An attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: “We and the schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when they say: ‘you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy Church’, they speak falsely” (“non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur”). Nor did Dionysius of Alexandria, who endeavoured to accumulate reproaches against Novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian had just as little success (ad Novatianum). It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic Church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. The

historical estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive Christianity or the requirements of the time. The Novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints, (Καθαροί) corresponds to the ideas of the earliest period. The followers of Novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the Church; they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower 121the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim that they were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of Christ248 was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, considering the actual circumstances immediately following a great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. These Catharists did indeed go the length of expelling all so-called mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat libellatici more severely than unabashed

248

The title of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of Christ) in contrast to that of ordinary Catholic Christians, a designation which we first find among the Encratites (see Vol. I. p. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 14: “Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc.”), and then in Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de pænit., de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, I I; see Aubé, Les Chrétiens dans l’empire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: “Chrétiens intransigeants et Chrétiens opportunistes”) was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: “Si Novatiani se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur”; 46. 2: “nec putetis, sic vos evangelium Christi adserere”). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. 11 calls Novatian: ὁ ἐκ 564 δικητὴς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. This is exceedingly instructive, and all the more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it was not the “evangelical”, but the lax, who declared the claims of the Gospel to be satisfied if they kept God in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de pænit. 5: “Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc.”; de ieiun. 2: “Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate.” The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262.

transgressors;249 but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves the “pure ones”, since the Novatian Churches speedily ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their renunciation of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in 122the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, judging from the sources that have come down to ac8 us, we may confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.250 As Novatian’s adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. For an entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards the latter. 5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness251 with which the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the Church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes upon them.252

249

Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice. From Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History we can form a good idea of the state of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later history of the Catharist Church see my article “Novatian”, l.c., 667 ff. The most remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian’s adherents in Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians were nevertheless very bitterly attacked. 251 This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen. 252 This last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the East — as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. For a time the majority of the Oriental bishops adopted an attitude favourable to Novatian and unfavourable to Cornelius and Cyprian. Then they espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in all cases (see the canons of Ancyra and Neocæsarea IV. sæc. init.). Throughout the East the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided in accordance with clear principles. In giving up the last 250

In learning to look upon the Church as a training 123school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the third century,253 submitted to an arrangement that was really best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church every distinction between her political a 55d nd religious conditions necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger 124incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. A casuistic

remnant of her exclusiveness (the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Arles are lax), the Church became “Catholic” in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church’s pre-eminent importance for society and the state assured. It was no longer variance, and no longer the sword (Matt. X. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now capable of becoming an educative or, since there w abd as little more to educate in the older society, a conservative power. At an earlier date the Apologists (Justin, Melito, Tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till now that she really possessed this capacity. Among Christians, first the Encratites and Marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the Novatians had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the transformation of the Church into a political commonwealth. Their demands had progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown ever weaker. But, in view of the continuous secularising of Christendom, the Montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less than those of the Encratites about the middle of the second, and no more than those of the Novatians about the middle of the third. The Church resolutely declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible law for all, and overthrew her opponents. She pressed on in her world-wide mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her bounds. Thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without threatening her existence. “What is monasticism but an ecclesiastical institution that makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the Church, to separate oneself from the outward Church without renouncing her, to set oneself apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the Church?” In succeeding times great Church movements, such as the Montanist and Novatian, only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. See the movement at Rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so little (Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, pp. 250-255); the Donatist Revolution, and the Audiani in the East. 253 It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullian’s de ieiun. does not assume that the great mass of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible.

proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the Church. Not the least important result of the crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in West and East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the same time acquired full jurisdiction (“per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti”). If we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,254 we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions. acf 1 No doubt the old Christianity had found its place in the new Church, but it was covered over and concealed. In spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a development in the history of the Church. Catholicism was now complete; the Church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on 125Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. In order to be a Christian a man no longer required in any sense to be a saint. “What made the Christian a Christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to ecclesiastical authority,” share in the gifts of the Church, and the performance of penance and good

56f 254The condition of the constitution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd century (in accordance with Cyprian’s epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, l. c., pp. 142-237. Parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular society are to be found throughout. 255 To how great an extent the Church in Decius’ time was already a state within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian’s 55th epistle (c. 9.): “Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem.” On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mélanges Renier: Le Concile d’Elvir ac8 e et les flamines chrétiens, 1886) has demonstrated, most probably dates from before the Diocletian persecution of 300, shows how closely the discipline of the Church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the Κεστοί of Julius Africanus, and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen’s works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. We may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid in the 3rd century, though the “religion of the second order” did not become a recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.

works. The Church by her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the authority of the Church. (“La médiocrité fonda l’autorité”). The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lord’s Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: “Jesus receives sinners”, were subjected to an interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to morality.256 And with all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded — quite the contrary. Alongside of a code of morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, and recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.257 A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those of ecclesi 564 astical society at the end of the third century — a comparison of the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly possible — will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already 126indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels. 111. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third century and the nonChristian, between the Church and the Empire, the clergy and the magistrates.258 Amidst the general disorganisation of all 256

See Tertullian’s frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against the “Psychici”, i.e., the Catholic Christians. He says that with them the saying had really come to signify “peccando promeremur”, by which, however, he does not mean the Augustinian: “o felix culpa”. 257 The relation of this Church to theology, what theology she required and what she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. We may here also direct attention to the peculiar position of Origen in the Church as well as to that of Lucian the Martyr, concerning whom Alexander of Alexandria (Theoderet, H.E. 1. 3) remarks that he was a ἀποσυνάγωγος in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops. 258 We have already referred to the passage above. On account of its i 564 mportance we may quote it here: “According to Celsus Apollo required the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as a god; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one . . . They would therefore not obey Apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed in the divinity of Aristeas. But with regard to Jesus we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the Son of God, as God who appeared on earth united with body and soul.” Origen then says that the demons counterworked this belief, and continues: “But God who had sent Jesus on earth brought to nought all the snares and

relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one God, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. It gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy 127barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness than ac3 they did upon the earth generally; but within it burned two mighty flames — the assurance of eternal life, guaranteed by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows history is aware that the influence of epochmaking personages is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought strength from the Holy One to another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on the Gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within which the

plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the Gospel of Jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of Churches which are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the Churches of the superstitious, the dissolute and the unbelieving. For of such people the civil population (πολιτευόµενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πολέων πλήθη) of the towns almost everywhere consists.” Αἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεο ac8 ῦ Χριστῷ µαθητευθεῦσαι ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόµεναι ταῖς ὧν παροικοῦσι δήµων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρας εἰσιν ἐν κόσµῳ. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ὁµολογήσαι, καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἐλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους τυγχάνειν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήµοις ἐκκλησιῶν; ἐκκλησία µὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ἡ Ἀθήνῃσι πραεῖά τις καὶ εὐσταθής, ἅτε Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βουλοµένη· ἡ δ᾽Αθηναίων ἐκκλησία στασιώδης καὶ οὐδαµῶς παραβαλλοµένη τῇ ἐκεῖ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὸ δ᾽αὐτὸ ἐρεῖς. Περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ δήµου Κορινθίων·; καὶ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέων δήµου. Καὶ ἐὰν εὐγνώµων ᾖ ὁ τούτου ἀκούων καὶ φιλαλήθως ἐξετάθῃ τὰ πράγµατα, θαυµάσεται τὸν καὶ βουλευσάµενον καὶ ἀνύσαι δυνηθέντα πανταχοῦ συστήσασθαι ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, παροικούσασ ἒκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν δήµων οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ βουλῇ τῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων εὕροις ἄν ὅτι τινὲς µὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοὶ εἰσι — εἵ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ — ἐν εκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι ὁι δὲ πανταχοῦ βουλευταὶ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς, ἢν ὑπερέχειν δοκοῦσι τῶν πολιτῶν, φέρουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἤθεσιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας ἑκάςτης πόλεως ἄρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει συγκριτέν· ἵνα κατανοήσῃς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανοµένων βουλεύ ac8 τῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυµοτέρων παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχήν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῇ παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.

pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification. With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid. We may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. But to the layman who seeks from the Church nothing more than aid in raising himself to God, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. During the Greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system were still too closely connected with their own interests. It was in the Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy Mother and her house a house of prayer — for the Germanic peoples; for these races were really the children of — the Church, and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which they worshipped. 128

ADDENDA. I. THE PRIESTHOOD. The completion of the old Catholic conception of the Church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the greatest importance.259 The development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof that the Church had assumed a heathen complexion, cannot be more particularly treated of here. 569 260 What meaning it has 129is

259

Rïtschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, 560, 576. Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231. Hatch “Organisation of the early Christian Church”, Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. “Ordination”, “Priest”, in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. “Priester” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. Voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff. Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892. 260 Clement of Rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship in Christian Churches with the priests and Levites, and the author of the ∆ιδαχή was the first to liken the Christian prophets to the high priests. It cannot, however, be shown that there were any Christian circles where the leaders were directly styled “priests” before the last quarter of the 2nd century. We can by no means fall back on Ignatius, Philad. 9, nor on Iren., IV. 8. 3, which passage is rather to be compared with . 13. 3. It is again different

shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six

in Gnostic circles, which in this case, too, anticipated the secularising process; read for example the description of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, mutatis mutandis, we have the later Catholic bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person powers of grace are attached — the formula of bestowal was: µεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐµῆς χάριτος . . . λάµβανε ἀπ᾽ εµõυ καὶ δι᾽ εµõυ χάριν, and through whose instrumentality union with Go 564 d can alone be attained: the ἀπολύτρωσις (I. 21.) is only conferred through the mystagogue. Much of a similar nature is to be found, and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen was of fundamental importance in many Gnostic societies (see also the writings of the Coptic Gnostics); it was different in the Marcionite Church. Tertullian (de bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop “summus sacerdos”, and the older opinion that he merely “played” with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian, de aleat. 2 (“sacerdotalïs dignitas”). In his Antimontanist writings the former has repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly class among Christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order (de exhort. 7: “nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici.”; de monog. 7). We may perhaps infer from his works that before about the year 200, the name “priest” was not yet universally applied to bishop and presbyters in Carthage (but see after this de præscr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: sacerdotalis ordo; ibid. 11: “et offer 564 es pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum; de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium; Scorp. 7: sacerdos). The latest writings of Tertullian show us indeed that the name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. Hippolytus (Philos. præf.: ὧν ἡµεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας καὶ διδασκαλίας, see also the Arabian canons) expressly claimed high priesthood for the bishops, and Origen thought he was justified in giving the name of “Priests and Levites” to those who conducted public worship among Christians. This he indeed did with reserve (see many passages, e.g., Hom. II. in Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Hom. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment. in Joh., Vol. I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). In Cyprian and the literature of the Greek Church in the immediately following period we find the designation “priest” as the regular and most customary name for the bishop and presbyters. Novatian (Jerome. de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise de sacerdote and another de ordinatione. The notable and momentous change of conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages almost as little a 564 s the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. Irenæus (IV. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and Tertullian, when compared with Cyprian, appear here as representatives of primitive Christianity. They firmly assert the priesthood of the whole congregation. That the laity had as great a share as the leaders of the Churches in the transformation of the latter into Priests is moreover shown by the bitter saying of Tertullian (de monog. 12): “Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas.”

books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before God261 and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of God in relation to the congregation. In this sense they are also judges in God’s stead.262 The position here conceded to the 130higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen religi aa8 ons, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.263 Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual personages chosen by God. This fact is no way affected by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to the Old Testament priests as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical regulations.264 It is true that there is no other respect in which Old

261

See Sohm, I. p. 207. The “deservire altari et 564 sacrificia divina celebrare” (Cypr., ep. 67. 1) is the distinctive function of the sacerdos dei. It may further be said, however, that all ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and Cyprian has moreover contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the Church follows from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is antistes Christi (dei); see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to preserve the lex evangelica and the traditio dominica in every respect. As antistes dei, however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers the right to judge in Christ’s stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In Cyprian’s conception of the episcopal office the successio apostolica and the position of vicegerent of Christ (of God) counterbalance each other; he also tried to amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: “cathedra sacerdotalis). It is evident that as far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily pr 55b oved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apostolical succession of the bishops never received such pronounced expression as in Rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from the end of the 3rd century. Ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in his position towards the individual community, with God and Christ. He, however, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities based on a mysterious transference. 263 Soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a class of inferior clergy. This was first the case in Rome. This development was not uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in Texte und Untersuchungen II. 5). Yet Sohm, 1. c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the ordines minores. 554 264 Along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which Cyprian already understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to Deut. XVII. 12; I Sam. VIII. 7; Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.; Acts XXIII. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, 59. 66), other Old 262

Testament commandments were incorporated with Christianity to such an extent as they were in this.265 But it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere 131took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically no influence on the development itself, which was not legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that the development which made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the Church in a more radical fashion than any other. “Gnosticism”, which the Church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own system in the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on in-alienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. In regard to every sphere of Church life, and hence also in respect to the development of dogma266 and the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first. 584 267

Testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. Thus the commandment of tithes, which Irenæus had still asserted to be abolished, was now for the first time established (see Orion; Constit. Apost. and my remarks on . c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted (see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.). Constantine was the first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath. Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In Cyprian’s time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still continued to be made here and there. ae1 265Tertullian (de pud. I.) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome “pontifex maximus”, thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the episcopal office. With the picture of the bishop drawn by the Apostolic constitutions may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of Paul of Samosata in Euseb., VII. 30. 266 Yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively late period. But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the priests alone are possessed of knowledge. As µάθησις and µυσταγωγία are inseparably connected in the mysteries and Gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was at once knowing one and priest, so also in the Catholic Church the priest is accounted the knowing one. Doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent. 267 Examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. But see Iren., IV. 26. 2, who is little behind Cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders with the fate of Dathan and Abiram. One of the immediate results of the formation of a priestly and spiritual class was that the independent “teachers” now shared the fate of the old “prophets” and became extinct (see my edition of the ∆ιδαχή, prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is

II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have already shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The latter was regarded 132as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart), bloodless thankoffering of which Malachi had prophesied in I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned. The alteration of the concept “priest” necessarily led to a simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.268 In Irenæus and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even 560 as it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to God, remains essentially unchanged. In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord’s Supper.269 But nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts of a Christian life, and extol their religious value — as had already been done before; but he also attributes a God-propitiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates them as “merita” (“promereri deum”). To the best of my belief Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings and

an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Cæsarea and Alexander of Jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to Demetrius that independent teachers were still tolerated, i.e., allowed to speak in public meetings of the Church, could only appeal to the practice of Phrygia and Lycaonia, that is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, Montanism had its original seat. Euelpis in Laranda, Paulinus in Iconium, and Theodorus in Synnada, who flourished about 216, are in addition to Origen the last independent teachers (i.e., outside the ranks of the clergy) kno ac8 wn to us in Christendom (Euseb., H. E. VI. 19 fin.). 268 See Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1826. Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art. “Messe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie, 2nd ed. It is idle to enquire whether the conception of the “sacerdotium” or that of the “sacrificium” was first altered, because they are correlative ideas. 269 See the proof passages in Höfling, 1. c., who has also treated in detail Clement and Origen’s idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenæus IV. 18. 3: “Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico” (on the offering in the Lord’s Supper see Iren. IV. 17. 5, 18. 1); Tertull., Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22; IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; de virg. vel. 13.

ascribed to them the “potestas reconciliandi iratum deum.”270 568 But he himself was far from using 133this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax Church practice that made Christianity consist in out ward forms. This result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed between the persecutions of Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again Cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.271 In the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholicity of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned, Cyprian’s injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op. et eleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. Hence he concludes that we must appease God, whose wrath has been 270

Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise de ieiunio is the most important among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. On the use of the word “satisfacere” and the new ideas on the point which arose in the West (cf. also the word “meritum”) see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th Vol. Note that the 2nd Ep. of Clement already contains the sayings: καλὸν ἐλεηµοσύνη ὡς µετάνοια ἁµαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεηµοσύνη δὲ ἀµφοτέρων . . . ἐλεηµοσύνη γὰρ κούϕισµα ἁµαρτίας γίνεται (16. 4; similar ac8 expressions occur in the “Shepherd”). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful God. Martyrdom seems to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian’s time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: δύο συνέστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτηµάτα παρεχόµενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστὸν καὶ βάπτισµα), had long been universally diffused and was also exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long before Tertullian’s day, but was opposed by him (de pudic. 22), when martyrs abused the powers universally conceded to them. Origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad mart. 50: ὥσπερ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠγοράσθηµεν . . . οὕτως τῷ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τῶν µαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί ; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: “ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur.” The origin of this thought is, on the one hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that Christ himself suffered in the martyrs (see, e.g., ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1. 23, 41). 271 In the East it was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. See Bigg’s beautiful account in “The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,” Lect. IV.-VI.

aroused by ac8 sin, through performances of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of “satisfactions”. In other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment. These deeds 134Cyprian terms “merita”, which either possess the character of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle the Christian to a special reward (merces).272 But, along with lamentationes and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In Cyprian’s eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded as “bare and unfruitful”. In the work “de opere et eleemosynis” which, after a fashion highly characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may call alms-giving as a means of grace in its relation to baptism and salvation.273 However, this practice can only be viewed as a means of grace in Cyprian’s sense in so far as God has accepted it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human act. After the Decian persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynæ) made their way into the absolution system of the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in it.

272

Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: “Quomodo multæ mansiones apud pa ac5 trem, si non pro varietate meritorum.” 273 See c. 1: Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.” c. 2: sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur.” 5, 6, 9. In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for God and Christ. In Cyprian’s epistles “satisfacere deo” is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important to note the frequent use of the expression “promereri deum (iudicem)” in Cyprian. See de unitate 15: “iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem.” 18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. Here it is everywhere assumed that Christians acquire God’s favour by their works.

Even 135the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the Church. The dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed by Cyprian side by side. These are: — (1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of Christ, and (2) that transgressio 564 ns committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother Church.274 A Church capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. What was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by God through Christ, to which the opera et eleemosynæ are merely to bear the relation of accompanying acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got beyond his “propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism” (“promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis”), and merely hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of God to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution. His whole theory as to the legal nature of man’s ( 564 the Christian’s) relationship to God, and the practice, inaugurated by Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augustine’s time.275 But, during this whole interval, no book was written by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the sinful Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, 136with so little regard to Christ’s grace and the divine factor in the case, as Cyprian’s work de opere et eleemosynis. No less significant is Cyprian’s advance as regards the idea of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. To begin with, Cyprian was the first to associate the specific offering, i.e.,

274

Baptism with blood is not referred to here. With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine’s time down to the Catholicism of the present day. Cyprian is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not yet familiar with the theory according to which man must acquire merita. In his mind “merits” and “blessedness” are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3 ). 275

the Lord’s Supper276 with the specific priest ac8 hood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the passio dominis, nay, the sanguis Christi and the dominica hostia as the object of the eucharistic offering.277 Thirdly, he expressly represented the 137celebration of

276

“Sacrificare”, “sacrificium celebrare”, in all passages where they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Cyprian has never called prayer a “sacrifice” without qualifying terms; on the contrary he collocates “preces” and “sacrificium”, and sometimes also “oblatio” and “sacrificium”. The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests. 277 Cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: “Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus”; c. 9.: “unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici.” 13; de unit. 17: “dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare”; ep. 63. 4: “sacramentum sacrificii dominici”. The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, which, in all probability, Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the Christian offering assume, though not visibly, the form of a bloody sacrifice, such as secularised Christianity desired. This transference, however, was the result of two causes. The first has been already rightly stated by Ernesti (Antimur. p. 94) in the words: “quia eucharistia habet ἀνάµνησιν 566 Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim cœpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici.” In Cyprian’s 63rd. epistle it is still observable how the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” passes over into the “sanguinem Christi offerre”, see also Euseb. demonstr. I. 13: µνήµην τῆς θυσίας Χριστοῦ προσφέρειν and τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν καὶ τὸ καταρτισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶµα προσφέρειν. The other cause has been specially pointed out by Theodore Harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other passages Cyprian expresses the thought “that in the Lord’s Supper nothing else is done by us but what the Lord has first done for us.” But he says that at the institution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to God the Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ’s stead only presents a true and perfect offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: “si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et p ac8 lenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse”). This brings us to the conception of the repetition of Christ’s sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian’s case it was still, so to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the “calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre” as identical with it. As far as the East is concerned we find in Origen no trace of the assumption of a repeated sacrifice of Christ. But in the original of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Constitutions this conception is also wanting, although the Supper ceremonial has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25: αἱ

the Lord’s Supper as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators (“vivi et defuncti”), though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong intercession.278 But this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it. Cyprian’s statement that every celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a repetition or imitation of Christ’s sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a mere assertion, though the Romish Church still continues to 138repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that partaking of the Lord’s Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the Church principles of penance and by the doctrine of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt, as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably important significance. It is not possible, within the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development of religious

τότε (in the old covenant) θυσίαι, νῦν εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ ἐυχαριστίαι. II. 53). The passage VI. 23: ἀνρὶ θυσίας τῆς δἰ αἱµάτων τήν λογικὴν καὶ τὴν µυστικήν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου συµβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος, does not belong to the original document, but to the interpolator. With the exception therefore of one passage in the Apostolic Church order (printed in my edition of the Didache prolegg. p. 236) viz.: ἡ προσϕορὰ τοῦ σώµατος καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος, we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius’ time of a sacrifice of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. From this, however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there. 278 In ep. 63. 13 Cyprian has illustrated the incorporation of the community with Christ by the mixture of wine and water in the Supper, because the special aim of the epistle required this: “Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc.” The special mention of the offerers (see already Tertullian’s work 564 s: de corona 3, de exhort. cast. 11, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On the Praxis see Cyprian ep. 1. 2 “. . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur”; 62. 5: “ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.”

ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took place in men’s conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in ac8 dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by Protestant scholars of all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely different conditions. III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which the Western Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the Church of the third century in the form of baptism.279 In strict theory she still held that the grace once 139bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his disposal, but has his law to fulfil 279

Much as the use of the word “sacramentum” in the Western Church from Tertullian to Augustine (Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) differs from that in the classic Romish use it is of small interest in the history of dogma to trace its various details. In the old Latin Bible µυστήροιν was translated “sacramentum” and thus the new signification “mysterious, holy ordinance or thing” was added to the meaning “oath”, “ sacred obligation”. Accordingly Tertullian already used the word to denote sacred facts, myste 564 rious and salutary signs and vehicles, and also holy acts. Everything in any way connected with the Deity and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, is designated “sacrament”; and the word is also applied to the symbolical which is always something mysterious and holy. Alongside of this the old meaning “sacred obligation” still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use, further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a “mystery” is nevertheless of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more than this was now intended; “sacramentum” (µυτή ) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. This conception, however, is opposed to the Judæo-Christian idea of revelation, and is thus to be regarded as an introduction of the Greek notion. Probst (Sacramente und Sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. That which is mysterious and dark appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of the New Testam 564 ent Scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded as altogether “spiritual”. See Iren. II. 28. 1-3. Tert. de bapt. 2: “deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit.”

(see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2). But, as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its application.280 The notions as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of God’s absolving the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next in importance lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ). In the third century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. From Cyprian’s e aad pistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving 140sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ’s declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a sacramentum absolutionis. In this respect, as well as in regard to the sacramentum ordinis, first instituted by Augustine, theory remained far behind practice. This was by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. The consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with God through Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to a dangerous extent. Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism281 in the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. p. 206 ff.). The result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.282 We

280

We have explained above that the Church already possessed this means of grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary directions of the Spirit. 281 Höfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. “Taufe” in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie. Walch, Hist. pædobaptismi ac8 quattuor priorum sæculorum, 1739. 282 In de bono pudic. 2: “renati ex aqua et pudicitia,” Pseudo-Cyprian expresses idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.

frequently find “deliverance from death”, “regeneration of man”, “restoration to the image of God”, and “obtaining of the Holy Spirit”. (“Absolutio mortes”, “regeneratio hominis”, “restitutio ad similitudinem dei” and “consecutio spiritus sancti”) named along with the “remission of sins” and “obtaining of eternal life” (“remissio delictorum” and “consecutio æternitatis”). Examples are to be found in Tertullian 57f 283 adv. Marc. I. 28 and elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the “bath of regeneration and sanctification” (“lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis”). Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, on the strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings are associated with baptism.284 The constant additions to the 141baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,285 and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide

283

But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): “Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur.” 284 The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pædag. I. 6 (baptism and sonship) are very important, but he did not follow them up. It is deserving of note that the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the East than in the West. But, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former region. 285 See Tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; Cypr., ep. 70. 2 (“ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e., unctione esse unctus dei et habere in se gratiam Christi possit”), 74. 5 etc. “Chrism” is already found in Tertullian as well as the laying on of hands. The Roman Catholic bishop Cornelius in the notorious epistle to Fabius (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from Hippolytus’ collection; see can. arab. 19). After relating that Novatian in his illness had only received clinical baptism he writes: οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔτυχε, διαφυγὼν τὴν νόσον, ὧν χρὴ µεταλαµβάνει 559 ν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανόνα, τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. It is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism (Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. p. 439) calls the laying on of hands a sacrament like baptism: “neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica.” Among other particulars found in Tertullian’s work on baptism (cc. 1. 12 seq.) it may moreover be seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est). The assumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen), is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the “sacrament” were still uncertain As to the objection that Jesus himself had not baptised and that the Apostles had not received Christian baptism see Tert., de bapt. 11, 12.

the great mystery with fit 564 accompaniments.286 As yet the separate acts can hardly be proved to have an independent signification.287 The water was 142regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are associated with each other, especially in Cyprian’s epistles on baptism). He who asserted the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV. p. 133).288 Complete obscurity prevails 564 as to the Church’s adoption of the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.289 In the time of Irenæus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) child baptism had already become very general and was founded on Matt. XIX. 14. We have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; Clement of Alexandria does not yet assume it. Tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) on

a91 286In itself the performance of this rite seemed too simple to those who sought eagerly for mysteries. See Tertull., de bapt. 2: “Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt.” 287 But see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15, who says that only the laying on of hands on the part of the bishop communicates the Holy Spirit, and this ceremony must therefore follow baptism. It is probable that confirmation as a specific act did not become detached from baptism in the West till shortly before the middle of the third century. Perhaps we may assume that the Mithras cult. had an influence here. 288 See Tertullian’s superstitious remarks in de bap. 3-9 to the effect that water is the element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes a similar statement in the fragment of his treatise on baptism in Pitra, Anal, Sacra II., p. 3 sq. Cyprian, ep. 70. 1, uses the remarkable words: “oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote (Tertull. still knows nothing of this: c. 17: etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere.” Ep. 74. 5: “peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum.” Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10. 99: λάβετε ὕδωρ λογικόν. b0a 289It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognised something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine.

account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). He says: “It is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for the sponsors (this is the first mention of “god 559 parents “) also to be thrust into danger? . . . let the little ones therefore come when they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught where they are coming to; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one 143who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. Whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more than its delay.”290 To all appearance the practice of immediately baptising the children of Christian families was universally adopted in the Church in the course of the third century. (Origen, Comment. in ep. ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.291 56f The Lord’s Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a divine gift.292 The effects of this gift were not 290

Translator’s note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack: “Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem.” 291 Under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see Hermas: “the Church rests like the world upon water”; Irenæus III. 17. 2: “Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum”). The unbaptised (catechumens) also belong to the Church, when they commit themselves to her guidance and prayers. Accordingly baptism ceased more and more to be regarded as an act of initiation, and only recovered this character in the course of the succeeding centuries. In this connection the 7th (spurious) canon of Constantinople (381) is instructive: ac8 καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡµέραν ποιοῦµεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουµένους, εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζοµεν αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ. 292 Döllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistic in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Rückert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856.

theoretically fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme293 144of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice Christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which we have access do not allow us ac8 to classify these elements here; for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a spiritualist. But even a writer of this kind had quite as superstitious an idea of the holy elements as the rest. Thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the Holy Spirit; and again as food of the soul, as the bearer of the Spirit of Christ (the Logos), as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge, as a sanctifying of the whole personality. The thought of the forgiveness of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing conception, as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the Lord’s Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the relation between the visible elements and the body of Christ. So far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a problem here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies; but, on the other hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly element lay either in or behind the visible form without being 145identical with it. Accordingly the

Leimbach, Beiträge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian’s, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1864-1868; cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united in Alexandria in Clement’s time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103. 293 The collocation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which, as the early Christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert., adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ; Hippol., can. arab. 38: “baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus”), was, so far as I know, justified by no Church Father on internal grounds. Considering their conception of the holy ordinances this is not surprising. They were classed together because they were instituted by the Lord, and because the elements (water, wine, bread) afforded much common ground for allegorical interpretation.

distinction of a symbolic and realistic conception of the Supper is altogether to be rejected; we could more rightly distinguish between materialistic, dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are not to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. In the popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments of magical virtue (see Cypr., de laps. 25; Euseb., H. E. VI. 44). With these the rank and file of third-century Christians already connected many superstitious notions which the priests tolerated or shared.294 The antignostic Fathers acknowledged that the consecrated food consisted of two things, an earthly (the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of Christ). They thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between spirit and flesh, which the Gnostics denied; and a pledge of the resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the Lord (Justin; Iren. IV. 18. 4, 5; V. 2. 2, 3; li 564 kewise Tertullian who is erroneously credited with a “symbolical” doctrine295). Clement and Origen “spiritualise”, because, like Ignatius, they assign a spiritual significance to the flesh and blood of Christ himself (summary of wisdom). To judge from the exceedingly confused passage in Pæd. II. 2, Clement distinguishes a spiritual and a material blood of Christ. Finally, however, he sees in the Eucharist the union of the divine Logos with the human spirit, recognises, like Cyprian at a later period, that the mixture of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food a relationship to the body.296 It is true that Origen,

294

The story related by Dionysius (in Euseb., l.c.) is especially characteristic, as the narrator was an extreme spiritualist. How did it stand therefore with the dry tree? Besides, Tertull. (de corona 3) says: “Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur”. Supe ac8 rstitious reverence for the sacrament ante et extra usum is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church. 295 Leimbach’s investigations of Tertullian’s use of words have placed this beyond doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resurr. 8. 296 The chief passages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120; Pæd. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq.: I. 5. 15: I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10. 66: I. 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V. 11. 70. Clement thinks as little of forgiveness of sins in connection with the Supper as does the author of the Didache or the other Fathers; this feast is rather meant to bestow an initiation into knowledge and immortality. Ignatius had already said, “the body is faith, the blood is hope”. This is also Clement’s opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiation, not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching was therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. § 82, already given on Vol. i. p. 263) Strom. V. 11. 70: λογικὸν ἡµῖν βρῶµα ἡ γνῶσις; I. 20. 46: ἕνα δὴ φάγωµεν λογικῶς; V. 10. 66: βρῶσις γὰρ καὶ πόσις τοῦ θείου λόγου ἡ γνῶσις ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας. Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: “sanguis quod est cognitio”; see Bigg, i.e., p. 106 ff.

the great 146mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in plainly “ spiritualistic” fashion; but in his eyes religious myste ac8 ries and the whole person of Christ lay in the province of the spirit, and therefore his theory of the Supper is not “symbolical”, but conformable to his doctrine of Christ. Besides, Origen was only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect and the disposition, and in the assistance given to these by man’s own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are from Origen’s standpoint completely indifferent matters. The intelligent Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, that is, on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending Supper (c. Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind to the fact that his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was just as far removed from the faith of the simple Christian as his doctrinal system generally. Here also, therefore, he accommodated himself to that faith in points where it seemed necessary. This, however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him everything is at bottom “spiritual”, he was unwilling to dispense with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must be initiated into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one learns the lower sciences.297 But, whether we consider simple believers, the antignostic Fathers or Origen, and, moreover, whether we view the Supper as offering or sacrament, we everywhere observe that the holy ordinance had been entirely 147diverted from its original purpose and pressed into the service of the spirit of antiquity. In no other point perhaps is the hellenisation of the Gospel so evident as in this. To mention only one other example, this is also shown in the practice of child communion, which, though we first hear of it in Cyprian (Testim. III. 25; de laps. 25), can hardly be of later origin than child baptism. Partaking of the Supper seemed quite as indispensable as baptism, and the child had no less claim than the adult to a magical food from heaven.298

297

Orig. in Matth. Comment. ser. 85: “Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat pa 564 nis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus”; see in Matt. XI. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 33. Hom. XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff. 298 The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of Nicæa: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόµος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου µὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι, a conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by

In the course of the third century a crass superstition became developed in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the mysteries connected with her. According to this notion we must subjec 564 t ourselves to the Church and must have ourselves filled with holy consecrations as we are filled with food. But the following chapters will show that this superstition and mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively conception of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. Fettered by the bonds of authority and superstition in the sphere of religion, free and selfdependent in the province of morality, this Christianity is characterised by passive submission in the first respect and by complete activity in the second. It may be that exegetical theology can never advance beyond an alternation between these two aspects of the case, and a recognition of their equal claim to consideration; for the religious phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation. But religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency of the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith, 148viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the character of Catholicism since the third century, and even after Augustine’s time it has still remained the same in its prac ac8 tice. 149

EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III. CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.299

the idea that the Supper was φάρµακον ἀθανασίας), the practice of benediction, and much else in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of antiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary ac8 of Christian Antiquities. 299 The fullest account of the “history of the Romish Church down to the pontificate of Leo I.” has been given by Langen, 1881; but I can in no respect agree (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, No. 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him in his treatise on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The collection of passages given by Caspari, “Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols,” Vol. III., deserves special recognition. See also the sections bearing on this subject in Renan “Origines du Christianisme”, Vols. V.-VII., especially VII., chaps. 5, 12, 23. Sohm in his “Kirchenrecht” I. (see especially pp. 164 ff., 350 ff., 377 ff.) has adopted my conception of “Catholic “ and “Roman”, and made it the basis of further investigations. He estimates

IN investigating the development of Christianity up till about the year 270 the following facts must be specially kept in mind: In the regions subject to Rome, apart from the Judæo-Christian districts and passing disturbances, Christianity had yet an undivided history in vital questions;300 the independence of individual congregations and of the provincial groups of Churches was very great; and every advance in the development of the 150communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further apart the different Churches lay, the more various were the conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser the relations between the towns in which they had their home the looser also was the connection between them. Still, it is evident that towards the end of the third century the development in the Church had well-nigh attained the same point everywhere — except in outlying communities. Catholicism, essentially as we conceive it now, was what most of the Churches had arrived at. Now it is an a priori probability that this transformation of Christianity, which was simply the adaptation of the Gospel to the then existing Empire, came about under the guidance of the metropolitan Church,301 the

the importance of the Roman Church still more highly, in so far as, according to him, she was the exclusive originator of Church law as well as of the Catholic form of Church constitution; and on page 381 he flatly says: “The whole Church constitution with its claim to be founded on divine arrangement was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other communities.” I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XII. p. 215 ff.) has discussed the origin of the Roman Church in the 2nd century. Much that was the common property of Christendom, or is found in every religion as it becomes older, is regarded by this author as specifically Roman. 300 No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom. The firs the ecclesiastical West, includes the west coast of Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome together with their daughter Churches, that is, above all, Gaul and North Africa. The second or eastern portion embraces Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and the east part of Asia Minor. A displacement gradually arose in the course of the 3rd century. In the West the most important centres are Ephesus, Smyrna, Corinth, and Rome, cities with a Greek and Oriental population. Even in Carthage the origin 53b al speech of the Christian community was probably Greek. 301 Rome was the first city in the Empire, Alexandria the second. They were the metropolitan cities of the world (see the inscription in Kaibel, No. 1561, p. 407: θρέψε µ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρεια, µέτοικον ἔθαψε δὲ Ῥώµη, αἱ κόσµου καὶ γῆς, ὦ ξένε, µητροπόλεις). This is reflected in the history of the Church; first Rome appears, then Alexandria. The significance of the great towns for the history of dogma and of the Church will be treated of in a future volume. Abercius of Hieropolis, according to the common interpretation

Church of Rome; and that “Roman” and “Catholic” had therefore a special relation from the beginning. It might a limine be objected to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also improbable, in so far as, in vi 553 ew of the then existing condition of society, Catholicism appears as the natural and only possible form in which Christianity could be adapted to the world. But this is not the case; for in the first place very strong proofs can be adduced, and besides, as is shown by the development in the second century, very different kinds of secularisation were possible. In fact, if all appearances are not deceptive, the Alexandrian Church, for example, was up to the time of Septimius Severus pursuing a path of development which, left to itself, would not have led to Catholicism, but, in the most favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.302 151

It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church, which up to about the year 190 was closely connected with that of Asia Minor, that all the elements on which Catholicism is based first assumed a definite form.303 (1) We know that the Roman Church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession, and that as early as the year 180 she declared this to be the apostolic rule by which everything is to be measured. It is, only in her case that we are really certain of this, for we can merely guess at it as regards the Church of Smyrna, that is, of Asia Minor. It was accordingly admitted that the Roman Church was able to distinguish true from false with special exactness;304 and Irenæus

(inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as “queen”. This was a customary appellation; see Eunap., vita Prohær. p. 90: ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥώµη. af1 302 In this connection we need only keep in mind the following summary of facts. Up to the end of the second century the Alexandrian Church had none of the Catholic and apostolic standards, and none of the corresponding institutions as found in the Roman Church; but her writer, Clement, was also “as little acquainted with the West as Homer”. In the course of the first half of the 3rd century she received those standards and institutions; but her writer, Origen, also travelled to Rome himself in order to see “the very old” church and formed a connection with Hippolytus; and her bishop Dionysius carried on a correspondence with his Roman colleague, who also made common cause with him. Similar particulars may also be ascertained with regard to the Syrian Church. 303 See the proofs in the two preceding chapters. Note also that these elements have an inward connection. So long as one was lacking, all were, and whenever one was present, all the others immediately made their appearance. 304 Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are ἀποδιυλισµένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίον χρώµατος (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar remarks are not quite rare at a later period; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that no heresy

and Tertullian appealed to her to decide the practice in Gaul and Africa. This practice, in its precisely developed form, cannot be shown to have existed in Alexandria till a later period; but Origen, who testifies to it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and connection with the Roman Church. (2) The New Testament canon, with its claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess 152exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities it can only be proved to exist at a later period. In the great Antiochian diocese there was, for instance, a Church some of whose members wished the Gospel of Peter read; in the Pentapolis group of congregations the Gospel of the Egyptians was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian Churches of the same epoch used Tatian’s Diatessaron; and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alexandria no doubt testifies that, in consequence of the common history of Christianity, the group of Scriptures read in the Roman congregations was also the same as that employed in public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no New Testament canon before him in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. It was not till Origen’s time that Alexandria reached the stage already attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must, however, be pointed out that a series of New Testament books, in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised, show marks of revision that can be traced back to the Roman Church.305 Finally, the later investigations,

ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the beginning of the 3rd century, we bear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who was at any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which he presided were attended by a µυρίον πλῆθος οὐ µόνον αἱρετικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡµετέρων. That is a very valuable piece of information which shows us a state ac0 of things in Alexandria that would have been impossible in Rome at the same period. See, besides, Dionys. Alex. in Euseb., H. E. VII. 7. 305 I must here refrain from proving the last assertion. The possibility of Asia Minor having had a considerable share, or having led the way, in the formation of the canon must be left an open question (cf. what Melito says, and the use made of New Testament writings in the Epistle of Polycarp). We will, however, be constrained to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that Irenæus had the closest connection with the Church of that city, as is proved by his great work, and that he lived there before he came to Gaul. Moreover, it is a fact deserving of the greatest attention that the Montanists and their decided opponents in Asia, the so-called Alogi, had no ecclesiastical canon before them, though they may all have possessed the universally acknowledged books of the Romish canon, and none other, in the shape of books read in the churches.

which show that after the third century the Western readings, th 564 at is, the Roman text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS. of the Bible,306 are of the utmost value here; for the most natural 153explanation of these facts is that the Eastern Churches then received their New Testament from Rome and used it to correct their copies of books read in public worship.307 (3) Rome is the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list of bishops reaching back to the Apostles (see Irenæus).308 We know that in the time of Heliogabalus such lists also existed in other communities; but it cannot be proved that these had already been drawn up by the time of ac8 Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, as was certainly the case at Rome. (4) The notion of the apostolic succession of the episcopate309 was first turned to account by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who definitely formulated the political idea of the Church in connection with this. The utterances and corresponding practical measures of Victor,310 Calixtus (Hippolytus), and Stephen are the earliest of their kind; whilst the precision and assurance with which they substituted the

306

See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judgment), and cf. Harris, Codex Bezæ. A study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament, 1891. An exhaustive study of the oldest martyrologies has already led to important cases of agreement between Rome and the East, and promises still further revelations. See Duchesne, “Les Sources du Martyrologe Hieron.” 1885. Egli, “Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen ältester Zeit.” 1887; the same writer in the “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie”. 1891, p. 273 ff. 307 On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus. ad0 308See my treatise “Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöflichen Chronographie in Rom.” in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, pp. 617-658. I think I have there proved that, in the time of Soter, Rome already possessed a figured list of bishops, in which important events were also entered. 309 That the idea of the apostolic succession of the bishops was first turned to account or appeared in Rome is all the more remarkable, because it was not in that city, but rather in the East, that the monarchical episcopate was first consolidated. (Cf. the Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius’ Epistles to the Romans with his other Epistles). There must therefore have been a very rapid development of the constitution in the time between Hyginus and Victor. Sohm, l.c., tries to show that the monarchical episcopate arose in Rome immediately after the composition of the First Epistle of Clement, and as a result of it; and that this city was the centre from which it spread throughout Christendom. 310 See Pseudo-Cyprian’s work “de aleat” which, in spite of remarks to the contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor; cf. Texte und Untersuchungen “ V. 1; see c. 1 of this writing: “et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus.”

political and clerical for the ideal conception of the Church, or amalgamated the two notions, as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the sovereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century by Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and 154that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to her bishops; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not according to their own, but according to the Roman episcopate.311 (6) The Oriental Churches say that two bishops of Rome compiled the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the Church; and this is only partially wrong.312 (7) The three great theologians of the age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, opposed the pretensions of the Roman bishop Calixtus; and this very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the political organisation of the Church, denoted by the measures of Calixtus, was still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately exercised a very important influence on the attitude of other Churches. We know that the other communities imitated this advance in the succeeding decades. (8) The institution of lower orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction of clerici maior ac8 es and minores first took place in Rome; but we know that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that city to the rest of Christendom.313 (9) The different Churches communicated with one another through the medium of Rome.314

311

See repo 556 rt of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 622 ff. To the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given by Nestle (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates are reckoned after Sixtus I. 312 Cf. the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions with the articles referring to the regulation of the Church, which in Greek MSS. bear the name of Hippolytus. Compare also the Arabian Canones Hippolyti, edited by Haneberg (1870) and commented on by Achelis (Texte und Untersuchungen VI. 4). Apart from the additions and alterations, which are no doubt very extensive, it is hardly likely that the name of the Roman bishop is wrongly assigned to them. We must further remember the importance assigned by the tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches to one of the earliest Roman “bishops”, Clement, as the confidant and secretary of the Apostles and as the composer and arranger of their laws. ad6 313 See my proofs in “Texte und Untersuchungen”, Vol. II., Part 5. The canons of the Council of Nicæa presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for the whole Church. 314 We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere, e.g., in the collection of Cyprian’s epistles. The Roman bishop Cornelius informs Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other Churches (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 3: ἦλθον εἰς ἡµᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλὶου Ῥωµαίων ἐπισκόπου πρὸς . . .

155

From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institutions and laws of Catholicism were framed in the same city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth; and that it was the centre from which they spread, because the world had become accustomed to receive law and justice from Rome.315 But it may be objected that the parallel development in other provinces and towns was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at a somewhat later date. Nor do we intend to contest the assumption in this general sense; but, as I think, it can be proved that the Roman community had a direct and important share in the process and that, even in the second century, she was reckoned the first and most influential Church.316 We shall give a bird’s-eye view of the most important facts bearing on the question, in order to prove this. No other community made a more brilliant entrance into Church history than did that of Rome by the so-called First Epistle of Clement — Paul having already testified (Rom. i. 8) that the faith of this Church was spoken of throughout the whole world. That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up fixed 564 rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly 156care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to use language

φάβιον, δηλοῦσαι τὰ περὶ τῆς Ῥωµαίων συνόδου, καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ Ἀφρικὴν καὶ τὰς αὐτόθι χώρας. We must not forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called œcumenical correspondence and enjoyed great influence, as, e.g., Dionysius of Corinth and Dionysius of Alexandria. In matters relating to penance the latter wrote to a great many Churches, even as far as Armenia, and sent many letters to Rome (Euseb., H. E. VI. 46). The Catholic theologian, Dittrich — before the Vatican Decree, no doubt — has spoken of him in the following terms (Dionysius von Alexandrien , 1867, p. 26): “As Dionysius participated in the power, so also he shared in the task of the primateship.” “Along with the Roman bishop he was, above all, called upon to guard the interests of the whole Church.” 315 This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln 3rd. ed., 1888 pp. 12, 21): “The Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The Alexandrian Church an 559 d theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the 3rd century. The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great Church” . . . “The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to her of Rome’s central position in the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: urbs æterna urbs sacra.” 316 This is also admitted by Langen (l.c., 184 f.), who even declares that this precedence existed from the beginning.

that was at once an expression of duty, love, and authority.317 As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, but she knows the “commandments and ordinances” (προστάγµατα and δοκαιώµατα) of God, whereas the conduct of the sister Church evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly condition, whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; she adheres to the κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως, whilst the other body stands in need of exhortation;318 and in these facts her claim to a 564 uthority consists. The Shepherd of Hermas also proves that even in the circles of the laity the Roman Church is impressed with the consciousness that she must care for the whole of Christendom. The first testimony of an outsider as to this community is afforded us by Ignatius. Soften as we may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the Romans, it is at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence in the circle of sister Churches; and that he was well acquainted with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing other communities.319 Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to bishop Soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested by the Christian Church of the world’s metropolis on behalf of all Christendom and of all brethren far and near; and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration 157with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as in Antioch. This author has specially emphasised the fact that the Roman Christians are Romans, that is, are conscious of the particular duties incumbent on them as members 560 of the metropolitan Church.320 After this evidence we cannot wonder that

317

Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63. 56f 318At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent ambassadors to Corinth, οἵτινες µάρτυρες ἔσονται µεταξὺ ὑµῶν καὶ ἡµῶν. Note carefully also the position of the Corinthian community with which the Roman one interfered (see on this point Wrede, Untersuchungen zum I Clemensbrief, 1891.) 319 In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb προκάθηµαι is twice used about the Roman Church (προκάθηται ἐν [to be understood in a local sense] τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥρωµαίων — προκαθηµένη τῆς ἀγάπης = presiding in, or having the guardianship of, love). Ignatius (Magn. 6), uses the same verb to denote the dignity of the bishop or presbyters in relation to the community. See, besides, the important testimony in Rom. II.: ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατ 54f . Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius presupposes an extensive influence on the part of individual members of the Church in the higher spheres of government. Fifty years later we have a memorable proof of this in the Marcia-Victor episode. Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the Church will interfere quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on behalf of one of her own number. In the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 2, the Roman bishop is called ὁ ἀληθείας προκαθεζόµενος. 320 Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf, above all, the words: Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑµῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας µὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ

Irenæus expressly assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank among those founded by the Apostles.321 His famous testimony has been quite as often underas over-estimated. Doubtless his reference to the Roman Church is introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example, just as he also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus; but there is quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary selection. The truth rather is that the Roman community must have been named, because its decision was already the most authoritative and impressive in Christendom.322 Whilst giving a 158formal scheme of proof that

πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέµπειν . . . πετροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥωµαίων Ῥωµαῖοι διαφυλάττοντες. Note here the emphasis laid on Ῥωµαῖοι. 321 According to Irenæus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5: αὗται φωνὰι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴς ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς µητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν). For obvious reasons Irenæus did not speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that passage cannot be utilised. 322 Iren. III. 3. 1: “Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Pet 558 ro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio.” On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which Irenæus claims for the Roman Church — for he is only referring to her — is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes “maxima”, “antiquissima” etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this assumption (Euseb., II 25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards capability of proving the truth of the Church’s faith, all the communities founded by the Apostles possess principalitas in relation to the others; but the Roman Church has the potentior principalitas, in so far as she excels all the rest in her qualities of 567 ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita etc. Principalitas = “sovereign authority,” αυθεντία, for this was probably the word in the original text (see proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In common with most scholars I used to think that the “in qua” refers to “Roman Church”; but I have now convinced myself (see the treatise just cited) that it relates to “omnem ecclesiam”, and that the clause introduced by “in qua” merely asserts that every church, in so far as she is faithful to tradition, i.e., orthodox, must as a matter of course agree with that of Rome. (2) Irenæus asserts that every Church, i.e., believers in all parts of the world, must agree with this Church (“convenire” is to be understood in a figurative sense; the literal acceptation “every Church must come to that of Rome” is not admissible). However, this “must” is not

assigned the same theoretical value to each Church founded by the Apostles, Irenaeus added a reference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many communities turned to Rome in order to testify their orthodoxy.323 As soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories and keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for astonishment. Considering the active intercourse between the various Churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance to all, especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connection with that of Rome, to receive support from her, to know she would entertain travelling brethren, and to have the power of recommending prisoners and those pining in the mines to her influential intervention. The evidence of Ignatius and Dionysius as well as the Marcia-Victor episode place this beyond doubt (see above). The efforts of Marcion and Valentinus in Rome have also a bearing on this question, and the venerable bishop, Polycarp, did not shrink from the toil 564 of a long journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the Roman Church;324 it was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp, 159but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the time when the controversy with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church showed all the rest an example of resolution; it was naturally to be expected that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require other communities to recognise the law by which she had regulated her own circumstances. No community in the Empire could regard with indifference its relationship to the great Roman Church; almost everyone had connections with her; she contained believers from all the rest. As early as 180 this Church could point to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious apostles Paul and Peter325 down to the present time; and she alone

meant as an imperative, but = ἀνάγκη = “it cannot be otherwise.” In reference to principalitas = ἀυθεντία (see I. 31. 1: I. 26. 1) it must be remembered that Victor of Rome (l.c.) speaks of the “origo authentici apostolatus”, and Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, “ab ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit” (adv. Valent. 4). 323 Beyond doubt his “convenire necesse est” is founded on actual circumstances. 324 On other important journeys of Christian men and bishops to Rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries see Caspari, l.c. Above all we may call attention to the journey of Abercius of Hierapolis (not Hierapolis on the Meander) about 200 or even earlier. Its historical reality is not to be questioned. See his words in the epitaph composed by himself (V. 7 f.): εἰς Ῥώµην ὅς ἔπεµψεν ἐµὲν βασίληαν ἀθρῆσαι καὶ βασίλισσαν ιδεῖν χρυσόστολον χρυσοπέδιλον. However, Ficker raises very serious objections to the Christian origin of the inscription. 325 We cannot here discuss how this tradition arose; in all likelihood it already expresses the position which the Roman Church very speedily attained in Christendom.

maintained a brief but defi 564 nitely formulated lex, which she entitled the summary of apostolic tradition, and by reference to which she decided all questions of faith with admirable certainty. Theories were incapable of overcoming the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon as Christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and towns of the Empire. Nor was it theories that created the empiric unity of the Churches, but the unity which the Empire possessed in Rome; the extent and composition of the Græco-Latin community there; the security — and this was not the least powerful element — that accompanied the development of this great society, well provided as it was with wealth and possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from the first century;326 as well as the care which it displayed on behalf of all Christendom. All these causes combined to convert 160the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church (and subsequently under the leadership of her bishops 564 .). This primacy cannot of course be further defined, for it was merely a de facto one. But, from the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken, when it was claimed as a legal right associated with the person of the Roman bishop. That this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by several facts which prove the unique authority as well as the interference of the Roman Church (that is, of her bishop). First, in the Montanist controversy — and that too at the stage when it was still almost exclusively confined to Asia Minor — the already sobered adherents of the new prophecy petitioned Rome (bishop Eleutherus) to recognise their Church, and it was at Rome that the Gallic confessors cautiously interfered in their behalf; after which a native of Asia Minor induced the Roman bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already issued.327 In view of the facts that it was not Roman Montanists who were concerned, that Rome was

See Renan, Orig., Vol. VII., p. 70: “Pierre et Paul (réconciliés), voilà le chef-d’œuvre qui fondait la suprématie ecclésiastique de Rome clans l’avenir. Une nouvelle qualité mythique remplaçait celle de Romulus et Remus.” But it is highly probable that Peter was really in Rome like Paul (see 1 Clem. V., Ignatius ad Rom. IV.); both really performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs in that city. 326 The wealth of the Roman Church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000 sesterces brought her by Marcion (Tertull., de præsc abc . 30). The “Shepherd” also contains instructive particulars with regard to this. As far as her influence is concerned, we possess various testimonies from Philipp. IV. 22 down to the famous account by Hippolytus of the relations of Victor to Marcia. We may call special attention to Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans. 327 See Tertullian, adv. Prax.1; Euseb., H. E. V. 3, 4. Dictionary of Christian Biography III., p. 937.

the place where the Asiatic members of this sect sought for recognition, and 564 that it was in Rome that the Gauls interfered in their behalf, the significance of this proceeding cannot be readily minimised. We cannot of course dogmatise on the matter; but the fact can be proved that the decision of the Roman Church must have settled the position of that sect of enthusiasts in Christendom. Secondly, what is reported to us of Victor, the successor of Eleutherus, is still plainer testimony. He ventured to issue an edict, which we may already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the Roman practice with regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal rule in the Church, and declaring that every congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman arrangement,328 161was excluded from the union of the one Church on the ground of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on such an edict — though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case — unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the “common unity” (κοινὴ ἕνωσις) in the vital ques 564 tions of the faith had been an acknowledged and wellestablished fact? How could Victor have addressed such a demand to the independent Churches, if he had not been recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the κοινὴ ἕνωσις?329 Thirdly, it was Victor who formally excluded Theodotus from Church fellowship. This is the first really wellattested case of a Christian taking his stand on the rule of faith being excommunicated because a definite interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance the expression ὑιὸς µονογενής (only begotten Son) was required to be understood in the sense of φύσει Θεός (God by nature). It was in Rome that this first took

328

Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 9: Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ µὲν τῆς Ῥωµαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης ἅµα ταῖς ὁµόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτόέµνειν ὡσὰν ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτέυει γε διὰ γραµµάτων, ακοινωνέτους πάντας ἄρδην τούς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Stress should be laid on two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia Minor were to be excluded from the κοινὴ ἕνωσις, and not merely from the fellowship of the Roman Church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those Churches. See Heinichen, Melet. VIII., on Euseb., l.c. Victor’s action is parallelled by that of Stephen. Firmilian says to the latter: “Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.” It is a very instructive fact that in the 4th century Rome also made the attempt to have Sabbath fasting established as an apostolic custom. See the interesting work confuted by Augustine (ep. 36), a writing which emanates from a Roman author who is unfortunately unknown to us. Cf. also Augustine’s 54th and 55th epistles. 329 Irenæus also (l.c. § 11) does not appear to have questioned Victor’s proceeding as such, but as applied to this particular case.

place. Fourthly, under Zephyrinus, Victor’s successor, the Roman ecclesiastics interfered in the Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause with the local clergy against Tertullian; and both app ac8 ealed to the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the Roman bishops.330 Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian were 162obliged to resist the pretensions of these ecclesiastics to authority outside their own Church, the first having to contend with Calixtus, and the three others with Stephen.331 It was the Roman Church that first displayed this activity and care; the Roman bishop sprang from the community in exactly the same way as the corresponding official did in other places.332 In 330

See Tertull., de orat. 22: “Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam.” De virg. vel. I: “Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum”; 2: “Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam”; 3: “Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores”. This is also the question referred to in the important remark in Jerome, de vir. inl. 53: “Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus.” ae6 331 Stephen acted like Victor and excluded almost all the East from the fellowship of the Church; see in addition to Cyprian’s epistles that of Dionysius of Alexandria in Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. In reference to Hippolytus, see Philosoph. I. IX. In regard to Origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in Matth. XI. 9, 15: XII. 9-14: XVI. 8, 22: XVII. 14; in Joh. X. 16; Rom. VI in Isai. c. I. With regard to Philosoph. IX. 12, Sohm rightly remarks (p. 389): “It is clear that the responsibility was laid on the Roman bishop not merely in several cases where married men were made presbyters and deacons, but also when they were appointed bishops; and it is also evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not deposed in consequence of their marrying. One cannot help concluding that the Roman bishop has the power of appointing and deposing not merely presbyters and deacons, but also bishops. Moreover, the impression is conveyed that this appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in Rome, for the passage contains a description of existent conditions in the Roman Church. Other communities may be deprived of their bishops by an order from Rome, and a bishop (chosen in Rome) may be sent them. The words of the passage are: ἐπὶ Καλλίστου ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαµοι καὶ τρίγαµοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους· εἰ δὲ καὶ τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὤν γαµοίη, µένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς µὴ ἡµαρτηκότα. 332 In the treatise “Die Briefe des römischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250” (Abhandlungen für Weizsäcker, 1892), I have shown how the Roman clergy kept the revenue of the Church and of the Churches in their hands, though they had no bishop. What language the Romans used in epistles 8, 30, 36 of the Cyprian collection, and how they interfered in the affairs of the Carthaginian Church! Beyond doubt the Roman Church possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year 250; it was the primacy of active participation and fulfilled duty. As yet there was no recognised dogmatic or historic foundation assigned for it; in fact it is h 564 ighly probable that this theory was still shaky and uncertain in Rome herself. The college of presbyters and deacons feels

Irenæus’ proof from prescription, however, it is already the Roman bishops that are specially mentioned.333 163Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the authority of his predecessors (“auctoritates praecessorum eius”) and it was in the character of bishop that Victor acted. The assumption that Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church of that city (Dionysius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius), must have conferred a high degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as the latter officials were elevated to the position of more or less sovereign lords of the communities and were regarded as successors of the Apostles. The first who acted up to this idea was Calixtus. The sarcastic titles of “pontifex maximus”, “episcopus episcoporum”, “benedictus papa” and “apostolicus”, applied to him by Tertullian in “de pudicitia” I. 13, are so many references to the fact that Calixtus already claimed ac8 for himself a position of primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own personal position as bishop the primacy

and speaks as if it were the bishop. For it was not on the bishop that the incomparable prestige of Rome was based — at least this claim was not yet made with any confidence, — but on the city itself, on the origin and history, the faith and love, the earnestness and zeal of the whole Roman Church and her clergy. 333 In Tertullian, de præsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like Irenæus, cites the Roman Church as one amongst others. We have already remarked that in the scheme of proof from prescription no higher rank could be assigned to the Roman Church than to any other of the group founded by the Apostles. Tertullian continues to maintain this position, but expressly remarks that the Roman Church has special authority for the Carthaginian, because Carthage had received its Christianity from Rome. He expresses the special relationship between Rome and Carthage in the following terms: ac8 Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est.” With Tertullian, then, the de facto position of the Roman Church in Christendom did not lead to the same conclusion in the scheme of proof from prescription as we found in Irenæus. But in his case also that position is indicated by the rhetorical ardour with which he speaks of the Roman Church, whereas he does nothing more than mention Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. Even at that time, moreover, he had ground enough for a more reserved attitude towards Rome, though in the antignostic struggle he could not dispense with the tradition of the Roman community. In the veil dispute (de virg. vel. 2) he opposed the authority of the Greek apostolic Churches to that of Rome. Polycarp had done the same against Anicetus, Polycrates against Victor, Proculus against his Roman opponents. Conversely, Praxeas in his appeal to Eleutherus (c. I.: “præcessorum auctoritates”), Caius when contending with Proculus, the Carthaginian clergy when opposing Tertullian (in the veil dispute), and Victor when contending with Polycrates set the authority of Rome against that of the Greek apostolic Churches. These struggles at the transition from the 2nd to the 3rd century are of the utmost importance. Rome was here seeking to overthrow the authority of the only group of Churches able to enter into rivalry with her those of Asia Minor, and succeeded in the attempt.

possessed by the Roman Church, which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually vanishing in proportion to the progress of the Catholic form of organisation among the other communities. Moreover, that is evident from the form of the edict he issued (Tert. 1. c., I: “I hear that an edict has been issued and that a decisive one”, 164“audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium”), from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to it on the part of Tertullian. From the form, in so far as Calixtus acted here quite independently and, without previous consultation, issued a peremptory edict, that is, one settling the matter and immediately taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, in so far as he appealed in justification of his action to Matt. XVI. 18 ff.334 — the first instance of the kind recorded in history; from Tertullian’s opposition to it, because the latter treats it not as local, Roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all Christendom. But, as soon as the question took the form of enquiring whether the Roman bishop was elevated above the rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century, as already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops, still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a political constitution to the Church. It can also be proved that even far distant congregations were still being bound to the Roman Church through financial support,335 and that she was appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of the city of Rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.336 It 165is

334

De pudic. 21: “De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem?” Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With this should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his epistles to James of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following words are put in Peter’s mouth: Κλήµεντα τοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον ὑµῖν χειροτονῶ, ᾧ τὴν ἐµὴν τῶν λόγων πιστεύω καθέδραν . . . διὸ αὐτῷ µεταδίδωµι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δεσµεύειν καὶ λύειν, ἵνα περὶ πανύ 564 ὸς οὗ ἄν χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ γῆς ἔσται δεδογµατισµένον ἐν οὐρανοῖς. δήσει γὰρ ὅ δεῖ δεθῆναι καὶ λύσει ὅ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. 335 See Dionysius of Alexandria’s letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. 2): Αἱ µέντοι Συρίαι ὅλαι καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία, οἷς ἐπαρκεῖτε ἑκάστοτε καὶ οἷς νῦν ἐπεστείλατε. 336 In the case of Origen’s condemnation the decision of Rome seems to have been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a ac8 letter written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36; Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian had previously condemned him after summoning a “senate”; see Jerome, ep. 33 (Döllinger, Hippolytus and Calixtus, p. 259 f.). Further, it is an important fact that a deputation of Alexandrian Christians, who did not agree with the Christology

further manifest from Cyprian’s epistles that the Roman Ch ac8 urch was regarded as the ecclesia principalis, as the guardian par excellence of the unity of the Church. We may explain from Cyprian’s own particular situation all else that he said in praise of the Roman Church (see above p. 88, note 2) and specially of the cathedra Petri; but the general view that she is the “matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ” is not peculiar to him, and the statement that the “unitas sacerdotalis” originated in Rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by the altered circumstances of the Church, for the acknowledged fact that the Roman community was the most distinguished among the sister groups, and as such had had and still possessed the right and duty of watching over the unity of the whole. Cyprian himself no doubt took a further step at the time of his correspondence with Cornelius, and proclaimed the special reference of Matt. XVI. to the cathedra Petri; but he confined his theory to the abstractions “ecclesia”, “cathedra”. In him the importance of this cathedra oscillates between the significance of a once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and that of a real and permanent court of appeal. Moreover, he did not go the length of declaring that any special authority within the collective Church attached to the temporary occupant of the cathedra Petri. If we remove from Cyprian’s abstractions everything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete corresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerogative of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which indeed is represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite 166frankly: “owing to her magnitude Rome ought to have precedence over Carthage” (“pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere”) and his theory: “the episcopate is one, and a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole” (“episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur”), virtually excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particula 564 r bishop (see also “de

of their bishop Dionysius, repaired to Rome to the Roman bishop Dionysius and formally accused the first named prelate. It is also significant that Dionysius received this complaint and brought the matter up at a Roman synod. No objection was taken to this proceeding (Athanas., de synod.). This information is very instructive, for it proves that the Roman Church was ever regarded as specially charged with watching over the observance of the conditions of the general ecclesiastical federation, the κοινὴ ἕνωσις. As to the fact that in circular letters, not excepting Eastern ones, the Roman Church was put at the head of the address, see Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. How frequently foreign bishops came to Rome is shown by the 19th canon of Arles (A.D. 314): “De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant.” The first canon is also important in deciding the special position of Rome.

unit.” 4). Here we have reached the point that has already been briefly referred to above, viz., that the consolidation of the Churches in the Empire after the Roman pattern could not but endanger the prestige and peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do so. If we consider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his own diocese — now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were recognised to be successors of the Apostles, that, moreover, the attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the conception of the episcopal office, and that the metropolitan unions with their presidents and synods had become completely naturalised — in short, that the rigid episcopal and provincial constitution of the Church had become an accomplished fact, so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities, but merely bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see that a new situation was thereby created for Rome, that is, for her bishop. In the West it was perhaps chiefly through the cooperation of Cyprian that Rome found herself face to face with a completely organised Church system. His behaviour in the controversy about heretical baptism proves that in cases of dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of the sovereign authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary connection wi 564 th the cathedra Petri. But, when that levelling of the episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired rights that could no longer be cancelled.337 Besides, there was 167one thing that could not be taken from the Roman Church, nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome. The site of the world’s metropolis might be shifted, but

337

Peculiar circumstances, which unfortunately we cannot quite explain, are connected with the cases discussed by Cyprian in epp. 67 and 68. The Roman bishop must have had the acknowledged power of dealing with the bishop of Arles, whereas the Gallic prelates had not this right. Sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the Roman bishop alone — not Cyprian or the bishops of Gaul — had authority to exclude the bishop of Arles from the general fellowship of the Church, but that, as far as the Gallic Churches were concerned, such an excommunication possessed no legal effect, but only a moral one, because in their case the bishop of Rome had only a spiritual authority and no legal power. Further, two Spanish bishops publicly appealed to the Roman see against their deposition, and Cyprian regarded this appeal as in itself correct. Finally, Cornelius says of himself in a letter (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10): τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων διαδόχους εἰς τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν, χειροτονήσαντες ἀπεστάλκαµ 564 . This quotation refers to Italy, and the passage, which must be read connectedly, makes it plain (see, besides, the quotation in reference to Calixtus given above on p. 162), that, before the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Church already possessed a legal right of excommunication and the recognised power of making ecclesiastical appointments as far as the communities and bishops in Italy were concerned (see Sohm, p. 389 ff.).

Rome could not be removed. In the long run, however, the shifting of the capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical Rome. At the beginning of the great epoch when the alienation of East from West became pronounced and permanent, an emperor, from political grounds, decided in favour of that party in Antioch “with whom the bishops in Italy and the city of the Romans held intercourse” (οἷς ἄν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τ 564 ν Ῥωµαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγµατος επιστέλλοιεν338). In this instance the 168interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the emperor coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue their

338

Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 19. The Church of Antioch sought to enter upon an independent line of development under Paul of Samosata. Paul’s fall was the victory of Rome. We may suppose it to be highly probable, though to the best of my belief there is for the present no sure proof, that it was not till then that the Roman standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures (see, on the contrary, the use of Scripture in the Didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic episcopacy attained supremacy in Antioch; but that they began to be introduced into that city ab ac8 out the time of Serapion’s bishopric (that is, during the Easter controversy). The old records of the Church of Edessa have an important bearing on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to assume a Catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result of connection with Rome. See the Doctrine of Addai by Phillips, p. 50: “Palut himself went to Antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from Serapion, bishop of Antioch. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from our Lord, who was there bishop of Rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the Cæsar, who reigned there 13 years.” (See also Tixeront, Édesse, pp. 149, 152.) Cf. with this the prominence given in the Acts of Scharbil and Barsamya to the fact that they were contemporaries of Fabian, bishop of Rome. We read there (see Rubens Duval, Les Actes de Scharbil et les Actes de Barsamya, Paris, 1889, and Histoire d’Édesse, p. 130): “Barsamya (he was bishop of Edessa at the time of Decius) lived at the time of Fabian, bishop of Rome. He had received the laying on of hands from Abschelama, who had received it from Palut. Palut had been consecrated by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, and the latter had been consecrated by Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome.” As regards the relation of the State of Rome to the Roman Church, that is, to the Roman bishop, who by the year 250 had already become a sort of præfectus urbis, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of princeps æmulus, cf. (1) the recorded comments of Alexander Severus on the Christians, and especially those on their organisation; (2) the edict of Maximinus Thrax and the banishment of the bishops Pontian and Hippolytus; (3) the attitude of Philip the Arabian; (4) the remarks of Decius in Cyp. ep. 55 (see above p. 124) and his proceedings against the Roman bishops, and (5) the attitude of Aurelian in Antioch. On the extent and organisation of the Roman Church about 250 see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43.

own interest. So the bishop of Rome had step by step to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a purely dogmatic theory and being forced to repudiate any empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the Church system that the Roman community more than any other had helped to build up. The proposition “the Roman Church always had the primacy” (“ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum”) and the statement that “Catholic” virtually means “Roman Catholic” are gross fictions, when devised in honour of the temporary occupant of the Roman see and detached from the significance of the Eternal City in profane history; but, applied 564 to the Church of the imperial capital, they contain a truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt to explain the process by which the Church was unified and catholicised.339 II. Fixing and Gradual Hellenising of Christianity as a System of Doctrine. 169

II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. Chapter IV. Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy. The Apologists.

CHAPTER IV. ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY. THE APOLOGISTS. 1. Introduction.

339

The memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by Eusebius of Dorylaeum to Leo I. (Neues Archiv., Vol. XI., part 2, p. 364 f.) are no m 550 ere flattery, and the fifth century is not the first to which they are applicable: “Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc.” See also Theodoret’s letters addressed to Rome.

1. Introduction.340 THE object of the Christian Apologists, some o ac8 f whom filled ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual progress,341 was, as they themselves explained, to uphold the Christianity professed by the Christian Churches and publicly preached. They were convinced that the Christian faith was founded on revelation and that only a mind enlightened by God could grasp and maintain the faith. They acknowledged the Old Testament to be the authoritative source of God’s revelation, maintained that the whole human race was meant to be 170reached by Christianity, and adhered to the early Christian eschatology. These views as well as the strong emphasis they laid upon human freedom and responsibility, enabled them to attain a firm standpoint in opposition to “Gnosticism”, and to preserve their position within the Christian communities, whose moral purity and strength they regarded as a strong proof of the truth of this faith. In the endeavours of the Apologists to explain Christianity to the cultured world, we have before us the attempts of Greek churchmen to represent the Christian religion as a philosophy, and to convince outsiders that it was the highest wisdom and the absolute truth. These efforts were not rejected by the Churches like those of the so-called Gnostics, but rather became in subsequent times the foundation of the ecclesiastical dogmatic. The Gnostic speculations were repudiated, whereas those of the Apologists were accepted. The manner in which the latter set forth Christianity as a philosophy met with approval. What were the conditions under which ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek philosophy concluded the alliance which has found a place in the history of the world? How did this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst “Gnosticism” was at first rejected? These are the two great questions the correct answers to which are of

340

Edition by Otto, 9 Vols., 1876 f. New edition of the Apologists (unfinished; only Tatian and Athenagoras by Schwarz have yet appeared) in the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. IV. Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, 1st part, 1805; id., Der Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas, quam philosophia antiqua, imprimis Platonica et Stoica in doctrina apologetarum habuerit, 1859. 341 It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian Church gave a more full exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apologies. This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin’s, Tatian’s and Melito’s esoteric writings. But, whilst recognising this fact, we must not make the erroneous assumption that the fundamental conceptions and interests of Justin and the rest were in reality other than may be inferred from their Apologies.

fundamental importance for the understanding of the history of Christian dogma. The answers to these questions appear paradoxical. The theses of the Apologists finally overcame all scruples in ecclesiastical circles and were accepted by the Græco-Roman world, because they made Christianity rational without taking from, or adding to, its traditional historic material. The secret of the epoch-making success of the apologetic theology is thus explained: These Christian philosophers formulated the content of the Gospel in a manner which appealed to the common sens ac8 e of all the serious thinkers and intelligent men of the age. Moreover, they contrived to use the positive material of tradition, including the life and worship of Christ, in such a way as to furnish this reasonable religion with a confirmation and proof that had hitherto been eagerly sought, but sought in vain. In the theology of the Apologists, Christianity, as the religious enlightenment directly emanating from God himself, is most 171sharply contrasted with all polytheism, natural religion, and ceremonial. They proclaimed it in the most emphatic manner as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute morality. Almost the whole positive material of Christianity is embodied in the story which relates its entrance into the world, its spread, and the proof of its truth. The religion itself, on the other hand, appears as the truth that is surely attested and accords with reason — a truth the content of which is not primarily dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all polytheism. Now this was the very thing required. In the second century of our era a great many needs and aspirations were undoubtedly making themselves felt in the sphere of religion and morals. “Gnosticism” and Marcionite Christianity prove the variety and depth of the needs then asserting themselves within the space that the ecclesiastical historian is able to survey. Mightier than all others, however, was the longing men felt to free themselves from the burden of the past, to cast away the rubbish of cults and of unmeaning religious ceremonies, and to be assured that the results of religious philosophy, those great and simple doctrines of virtue and immortality and of the God who is a Spirit, were certain truths. He who brought the message that these ideas were realities, and who, on the strength of these realities, declared polytheism and the worship of idols to be obsolete, had the mightiest forces on his side; for the times were now ripe for this preaching. What formed the strength of the apologetic philosophy was the proclamation that Christianity both contained the highest truth, as men already supposed it to be and as they had discovered it in their own minds, and the absolutely reliable guarantee that was desired for this truth. To the quality which makes it appear meagre to us it owed its

impressiveness. The fact of its falling in with the general spiritual current of the time and making no attempt to satisfy special and deeper needs enabled it to plead the cause of spiritual monotheism and to oppose the worship of idols in the manner most easily understood. As it did not require historic and positive material to 549 describe the nature of religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the Apologists 172to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and worship of the different nations.342 The same cause, however, made them take up the conservative position with regard to the historical traditions of Christianity. These were not ultimately tested as to their content, for this was taken for granted, no matter how they might be worded; but they were used to give an assurance of the truth, and to prove that the religion of the spirit was not founded on human opinion, but on divine revelation. The only really important consideration in Christianity is that it is revelation, real revelation. The Apologists had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investigation was unnecessary. The result of Greek philosophy, the philosophy of Plato and Zeno, as it had further developed in the empires of Alexander the Great and the Romans, was to attain victory and permanence by the aid of Christianity. Thus we view the progress of this development to-day, ae3 343 and Christianity really proved to be the force from which that religious philosophy, viewed as a theory of the world and system of morality, first received the courage to free itself from the polytheistic past and descend from the circles of the learned to the common people. This constitutes the deepest distinction between Christian philosophers like Justin and those of the type of Valentinus. The latter sought for a religion; the former, though indeed they were not very clear about their own purpose, sought assurance as to a theistic and moral conception of the world which they already possessed. At first the complexus of Christian tradition, which must have possessed many features of attraction for them, was something foreign to both. The latter, however, sought to make this tradition intelligible,. For the former it was enough that they had here a revelation before them; that this revelation 173also bore unmistakable testimony to the one God, who was a Spirit, to virtue, and to immortality; and that it was capable of convincing men and

342

That is, so far as these were clearly connected with polytheism. Where this was not the case or seemed not to be so, national traditions, both the true and the spurious, were readily and joyfully admitted into the catalogus testimoniorum of revealed truth. 343 Though these words were already found in the first edition, Clemen (Justin 1890, p. 56) has misunderstood me so far as to think that I spoke here of conscious intention on the part of the Apologists. Such nonsense of course never occurred to me.

of leading them to a virtuous life. Viewed superficially, the Apologists were no doubt the conservatives; but they were so, because they scarcely in any respect meddled with the contents of tradition. The “Gnostics”, on the contrary, sought to understand what they read and to investigate the truth of the message of which they heard. The most characteristic feature is the attitude of each to the Old Testament. The Apologists were content to have found in it an ancient source of revelation, and viewed the book as a testimony to the truth, i.e., to philosophy and virtue; the Gnostics investigated this document and examined to what extent it agreed with the new impressions they had received from the Gospel. We may sum up as follows: The Gnostics sought to determine what Christianity is as a religion, and, as they were convinced of the absoluteness of Christianity, this process led them to incorporate with it all that they looked on as sublime and holy and to remove everything they recognised to be inferior. The Apologists, again, strove to discover an authority for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirmation of a theory of the universe, which, if true, contained for them the certainty of eternal life; and this they found in the Christian tradition. At bottom this contrast is a picture of t ac8 he great discord existing in the religious philosophy of the age itself (see p. 129, vol. I.). No one denied the fact that all truth was divine, that is, was founded on revelation. The great question, however, was whether every man possessed this truth as a slumbering capacity that only required to be awakened; whether it was rational, i.e., merely moral truth, or must be above that which is moral, that is, of a religious nature; whether it must carry man beyond himself; and whether a real redemption was necessary. It is ultimately the dispute between morality and religion, which appears as an unsettled problem in the theses of the idealistic philosophers and in the whole spiritual conceptions then current among the educated, and which recurs in the contrast between the Apologetic and the Gnostic theology. And, 174as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter;344 for no Apologist quite left out of sight the idea of redemption (deliverance from the dominion of demons can only be effected by the Logos, i.e., God). Wherever the idea of freedom is strongly emphasised, the religious element, in the strict sense of the word, appears in jeopardy. This is the case with the Apologists

344

Note here particularly the attitude of Tatian, who has already introduced a certain amount of the “Gnostic” element into his; “Oratio ad Græcos”, although, he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.

throughout. Conversely, wherever redemption forms the central thought, need is felt of a suprarational truth, which no longer views morality as the only aim, and which, again, requires particular media, a sacred history and sacred symbols. Stoic rationalism, in its logical development, is menaced wherever we meet the perception that the course of the world must in some way be helped, and wherever the contrast between reason and sensuousness, that the old Stoa had confused, is clearly felt to be an unendurable state of antagonism that man cannot remove by his own unaided efforts. The need of a revelation had its starting-point in philosophy here. The judgment of oneself and of the world to which Platonism led, the selfconsciousness which it awakened by the detachment of man from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necessity to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving for a revelation. The Apologists felt this. But their rationalism gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. It was not their Christian ideas which first involved them in contradictions. At t aad he time when Christianity appeared on the scene, the Platonic and Stoic systems themselves were already so complicated that philosophers did not find their difficulties seriously increased by a consideration of the Christian doctrines. As Apologists, however, they decidedly took the part of Christianity because, according to them, it was the doctrine of reason and freedom. The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the Gnostics in various ways transformed it into a Hellenic 175religion for the educated. The Apologists used it — we may almost say inadvertently — to overthrow polytheism by maintaining that Christianity was the realisation of an absolutely moral theism. The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on Græco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the Jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the Gnostics and the theories of the Apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish Alexandrians, and particularly in that of Philo. Here also the Gospel merely entered upon the heritage of Judaism.345 Three centuries before the appearance of Christian Apologists, Jews, who had received a Hellenic training, had already set forth the religion of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualised form which represents it as the absolute and highest philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of 57d 345Since the time of Josephus Greek philosophers had ever more and more acknowledged the “philosophical” character of Judaism; see Porphyr., de abstin. anim. II. 26, about the Jews: ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες.

recompense in the next world. Here these Jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew.346 We see from the Jewish Sibylline oracles how wide-spread it was. Philo, however, was not only a Stoic rationalist, but a hyper-Platonic religious philosopher. In like manner, the Christian Apologists did not altogether lack this element, though in some isolated cases among them there are hardly any traces of it. This feature is most fully represented among the Gnostics. ae3 This transformation of religion into a philosophic system would not have been possible had not Greek philosophy itself happened to be in process of development into a religion. Such a transformation was certainly very foreign to the really classical time of Greece and Rome. The pious belief in the efficacy and power of the gods and in their appearances and manifestations, as well as the traditional worship, could have no bond of union 176with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of things. The idea of a religious dogma which was at once to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. But philosophy, particularly in the Stoa, set out in search of this idea, and, after further developments, sought for one special religion with which it could agree or through which it could at least attain certainty. The meagre cults of the Greeks and Romans were unsuited for this. So men turned their eyes towards the barbarians. Nothing more clearly characterises the position of things in the second century than the agreement between two men so radically different as Tatian and Celsus. Tatian emphatically declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to Celsus it is also a “truism” that the barbarians have more capacity than the Greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.347 Everything was in fact prepared, and nothing was wanting.

346

On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, cf. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f. 347 It is very instructive to find Celsus (Origen, c. Cels. I. 2) proceeding to say that the Greeks understood better how to judge, to investigate, and to perfect the doctrines devised by the barbarian ac3 s, and to apply them to the practice of virtue. This is quite in accordance with the idea of Origen, who makes the following remarks on this point: “When a man trained in the schools and sciences of the Greeks becomes acquainted with our faith, he will not only recognise and declare it to be true, but also by means of his scientific training and skill reduce it to a system and supplement what seems to him

About the middle of the second century, however, the moral and rationalistic element in the philosophy and spiritual culture of the time was still more powerful than the religious and mystic; for Neoplatonism, which under its outward coverings concealed the aspiration after religion and the living God, was only in its first beginnings. It was not otherwise in Christian circles. The “Gnostics” were in the minority. What the great majority of the Church felt to be intelligible and edifying above everything else was an earnest moralism.348 New and strange as the 177undertaking to represent Christianity as a philosophy might seem at first, the Apologists, so far as they were understood, appeared to advanc 564 e nothing inconsistent with Christian common sense. Besides, they did not question authorities, but rather supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials. For all these reasons, and also because their writings were not at first addressed to the communities, but only to outsiders, the marvellous attempt to present Christianity to the world as the religion which is the true philosophy, and as the philosophy which is the true religion, remained unopposed in the Church. But in what sense was the Christian religion set forth as a philosophy? An exact answer to this question is of the highest interest as regards the history of Christian dogma. 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation. 2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation. It was a new undertaking and one of permanent importance to a tradition hitherto so little concerned for its own vindication, when Quadratus and the Athenian philosopher, Aristides, presented treatises in defence of Christianity to the emperor.349 About a ac1

defective in it, when tested by the Greek method of exposition and proof, thus at the same time demonstrating the truth of Christianity. 348 See the section “Justin und die apostolischen Väter” in Engelhardt’s “Christenthum Justin’s des Martyrers”, p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte I. p. 329 ff.). Engelhardt, who on the whole emphasises the correspondences, has rather under- than over-estimated them. If the reader compares the exposition given in Book I., chap. 3, with the theology of the Apologists (see sub. 3), he will find proof of the intimate relationship that may be traced here. 349 See Euseb., H. E. IV. 3. Only one sentence of Quadratus’ Apology is preserved; we have now that of Aristides in the Syriac language; moreover, it is proved to have existed in the original language in the Historia Barlaam et Joasaph; finally, a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1891. German translation and commentary by Raabe in the Texte

century had elapsed since the Gospel of Christ had begun to be preached. It may be said that the Apology of Aristides was a most significant opening to the second century, whilst we find Origen at its close. Marcianus Aristides expressly designates himself in his pamphlet as a philosopher of the Athenians. Since the days when the words were written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. II. 8), it had constantly been repeated (see, as evidence, Celsus, passim) that Christian preaching and philosophy were things entirely different, that God had chosen the fools, and that man’s duty was not to investigate and seek, but to 178believe and hope. Now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause of Christianity. In the summary he gave of the content of Christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. By expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in his argument, Aristides gave supreme prominence to the very doctrine which simple Christians also prized as the most important.350 Moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural character of the Christian doctrine revealed by the Son of the Most High God, but also the continuous inspiration of believers — the new race (not a new school) — he confessed in the most express way the peculiar nature of this philosophy as a divine truth. According to him Christianity is philosophy because its content is in accordance with reason, and because it gives a satisfactory and universally intelligible answer to the questions with which all real philosophers have concerned themselves. But it is no philosophy, in fact it is really the complete opposite of this, in so far as it proceeds from revelation and is propagated by the agency of God, i.e., has a supernatural and divine origin, on which alone the truth and certainty of its doctrines finally depend. This contrast to philosophy is chiefly shown in the unphilosophical form in which Christianity was first preached to the world. That is the thesis maintained by all the Apologists from Justin to Tertullian,351 and which Jewish philosophers before them propounded and defended. This proposition may certainly be expressed in a great variety of ways. In the first place, it is important whether the first or second half is emphasised, and secondly, whether that which is

und Untersuchungen IX. 1892. Eusebius says that the Apology was handed in to the emperor Hadrian; but the superscription in Syriac is addressed to the emperor Titus Hadrianus Antoninus. 350 See Hermas, Mand I. 569 351 With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.

“universally intelligible” is to be reckoned as philosophy at all, or is to be separated from it as that which comes by “nature”. Finally, the attitude to be taken up towards the Greek philosophers is left an open question, so that the thesis, taking up this attitude as a starting-point, may again assume various forms. But was the contradiction which it contains not felt? The content of revelation is to be 179rational; but does that which is rational require a revelation? How the proposition was understood by the different Apologists requires examination. Aristides. He first gives an exposition of monotheism and the monotheistic cosmology (God as creator and mover of the universe, as the spiritual, perfect, almighty Being, whom all things need, and who requires nothing). In the second chapter he distinguishes, according to the Greek text, three, and, according to the Syriac, four classes of men (in the Greek text polytheists, Jews, Christians, the polytheists being divided into Chaldeans, Greeks, and Egyptians; in the Syriac barbarians, Greeks, Jews, Christians), and gives their origin. He derives the Christians from Jesus Christ and reproduces the Christian kerygma (Son of the Most High God, birth from the Virgin, 12 disciples, death on the cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, missionary labours of the 12 disciples). After this, beginning with the third chapter, follows a criticism of polytheism, that is, the false theology of the barbarians, Greeks, and Egyptians (down to chapter 12). In the 13th chapter the Greek authors and philosophers are criticised, and the Greek myths, as such, are shown to be false. In the 14th chapter the Jews are introduced (they are monotheists and their ethical system is praised; but they are then reproached with worshipping of angels and a false ceremonial). In the 15th chapter follows a description of the Christians, i.e., above all, of their pure, holy life. It is they who have found the truth, because they know the creator of heaven and earth. This description is continued in chapters 16 and 17: “This people is new and there is a divine admixture in it.” The Christian writings are recommended to the emperor. Justin. 564 1 In his treatise addressed to the emperor Justin did not call himself a philosopher as Aristides had done. In espousing

352

Semisch, Justin der Märtyrer, 2 vols., 1840 f. Aubé, S. Justin, philosophe et martyr, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsäcker, Die Theologie des Märtyrers Justin’s in the Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, 1878; id., “Justin”, in Herzog Real Encyklopädie. Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer , 1880. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudämonismus in Justin’s Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justin’s des Martyrers,

180the

cause of the hated and despised Christians he represented himself as a simple member of that sect. But in the very first sentence of his Apology he takes up the ground of piety and philosophy, the very ground taken up by the pious and philosophical emperors themselves, according to the judgment of the time and their own intention. In addressing them he appeals to the λόγος σώϕρων in a purely Stoic fashion. He opposes the truth — also in the Stoic manner — to the δόξαις παλαιῶν.353 It was not to be a mere captatio benevolentiæ. In that case Justin would not have added: “That ye are pious 564 and wise and guardians of righteousness and friends of culture, ye hear everywhere. Whether ye are so, however, will be shown.”354 His whole exordium is calculated to prove to the emperors that they are in danger of repeating a hundredfold the crime which the judges of Socrates had committed.355 Like a second Socrates Justin speaks to the emperors in the name of all Christians. They are to hear the convictions of the wisest of the Greeks from the mouth of the Christians. Justin wishes to enlighten the emperor with regard to the life and doctrines (βίος καὶ µαθήµατα) of the latter. Nothing is to be concealed, for there is nothing to conceal.

Justin kept this promise better than any of his successors. For that very reason also he did not depict the Chri ab8 stian Churches as schools of philosophers (cc. 61-67). Moreover, in the first passage where he speaks of Greek philosophers,356 he is merely drawing a parallel. According to him there are bad Christians and seeming Christians, just as there are philosophers who are only so ‘in name and outward show. Such men, too, were in early times called “philosophers” even when they preached atheism. To all appearance, therefore, Justin does not desire Christians to be reckoned as philosophers. But it is nevertheless significant that, in the case of the Christians, a 181phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed in the case of philosophers; and how were those whom he was addressing to understand him? In the same passage he speaks for the first time of Christ. He introduces him with the plain and intelligible formula: ὁ

1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justin’s, 1848. Bosse, Der präexistente Christus d ac8 es Justinus, 1891. 353 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto. 354 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq. 355 See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin Apology pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato Apology of Socrates. 356 Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq: 1. 26.

διδάσκαλος Χριστός (“the teacher Christ”).357 Immediately thereafter he praises Socrates because he had exposed the worthlessness and deceit of the evil demons, and traces his death to the same causes which are now he says bringing about the condemnation of the Christians. Now he can make his final assertion. In virtue of “reason” Socrates exposed superstition; in virtue of the same reason, this was done by the teacher whom the Christians follow. But this teacher was reason itself; it was visible in him, and indeed it appeared bodily in him.358 Is this philosophy or is it myth? The greatest paradox the Apologist has to assert is connected by him with the most impressive remembrance possessed by his readers as philosophers. In the same sentence where he represents Christ as the Socrates of the barbarians,359 and consequently makes Christianity out to be a Socratic doctrine, he propounds the unheard of theory that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason of God. Justin nowhere tried to soften the effect of this conviction or explain it in a way adapted to his readers. Nor did he conceal from them that his assertion admits of no speculative demonstration. That philosophy can only deal with things which ever are, because they ever were, since this world began, is a fact about which he himself is perfectly clear. No Stoic could have felt more strongly than Justin how paradoxical is the assertion that a thing is of value which has happened only once. Certain as he is that the “reasonable” emperors will regard it as a rational assumption that “Reason” is the 182Son of God,360 he knows equally well that no philosophy will bear him out in that other assertion, and that such a statement is seemingly akin to the contemptible myths of the evil demons. But there is certainly a proof which, if not speculative, is nevertheless sure. The same ancient documents, which contain the Socratic and super-Socratic wisdom of the Christians, bear witness through prophecies, which, just because they are predictions, admit

357

Apol. I. 4, p. 14. Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: οὐ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ἀλλὰ δύναµις Θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. 359 564 L. c.: οὐ γὰρ µόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἡλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου µορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. 360 Celsus also admits this, or rather makes his Jew acknowledge it (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31). In Book VI. 47 he adopts the proposition of the “ancients” that the world is the Son of God. 358

of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the incarnate reason; for history confirms the word of prophecy even in the minutest details. Moreover, in so far as these writings are in the lawful possession of the Christians, and announced at the very beginning of things that this community would appear on the earth, they testify that the Christians may in a certain fashion date themselves back to the beginning of the world, because their doctrine is as old as the earth itself (this thought is still wanting in Aristides). The new Socrates who appeared among the barbarians is therefore quite different from the Socrates of the Greeks, and for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with the disciples of the philosophers.361 From the very beginning of things a world-historical dispensation of Go ac8 d announced this reasonable doctrine through prophets, and prepared the visible appearance of reason itself. The same reason which created and arranged the world took human form in order to draw the whole of humanity to itself. Every precaution has been taken to make it easy for any one, be he Greek or barbarian, educated or uneducated, to grasp all the doctrines of this reason, to verify their truth, and test their power in life. What further importance can philosophy have side by side with this, how can one think of calling this a philosophy? And yet the doctrine of the Christians can only be compared with philosophy. For, so far as the latter is genuine, it is also 183guided by the Logos; and, conversely, what the Christians teach concerning the Father of the world, the destiny of man, the nobility of his nature, freedom and virtue, justice and recompense, has also been attested by the wisest of the Greeks. They indeed only stammered, whereas the Christians speak. These, however, use no unintelligible and unheard-of language, but speak with the words and through the power of reason. The wonderful arrangement, carried out by the Logos himself, through which he ennobled the human race by restoring its consciousness of its own nobility, compels no one henceforth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin? How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable has revealed itself, it has always been through the

361

See Apol. II. 10 fin.: Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγµατος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ κ ac8 αὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ µέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι µόνον ἐπείσθησαν.

operation of the divine reason. For man’s lofty endowment consists in his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to himself, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and through him. As man’s possession conferred on him at the creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power which dominates and determines his nature.362 All that is reasonable 184is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his tru 560 e destiny man requires from the beginning the inward working of that divine

362

The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου as a natural possession, or whether this σπέ has in some cases been enhanced by the inward workings of the whole Logos (inspiration). This ambiguity, however, arises from the fact that he did not further discuss the relation between ὁ λόγος and τὸ σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to τὸ ἔµϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου (Apol. II. 8), the µέρος σπερµατικοῦ λόγου (ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία depend (II. 10). In this sense it may be said of them all that they “in human fashion attempted to understand and prove things by means of reason”; and Socrates is merely viewed as the πάντων εὐτονώτερος (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος (II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ἀπὸ µέρους; for “Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man”. Further, according to the Apologist, the µέρος τοῦ σπερµατικοῦ θείου λόγου bestows the power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos (τό συγγενέ II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡµῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί (ibid.), but, on the strength of the “participation” in reason conferred on all, it may be asserted that all who have lived with the Logos (µετὰ λό ) — an expression which must have been ambiguous — were Christians. Among the Greeks this specially applies to Socrates and Heraclitus (I. 46). Moreover, the Logos implanted in man does not belong to his nature in such a sense as to prevent us saying ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέ 564 χθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος did not act in Socrates, for this only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin was that to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15: alongside of Christianity there is only human philosophy), and which, not without regard for the opposite view, he thus formulated in II. 13 fin.: All non-Christian authors were able to attain a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the σπορά and µί of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one’s receptivity, are quite different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession and imitation.”

reason which has created the world for the sake of man, and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God.363 Apparently no one could speak in a more stoical fashion. But this train of thought is supplemented by something which limits it. Revelation does retain its peculiar and unique significance. For no one who merely possessed the “seed of the Logos” (σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου), though it may have been his exclusive guide to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever the whole Logos has not been acting; for man’s natural endowment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must ab0 185therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness, and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the LogosChrist, all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos. The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and kept in bondage by the demons require to be aided by a special revelation. It is true that this revelation is nothing new, and in so far as it has always existed, and never varied in character, from the beginning of the world, it is in this sense nothing extraordinary. It is the divine help granted to man, who has fallen under the power of the demons, and enabling him to follow his reason and freedom to do what is good. By the appearance of Christ this help became accessible to all men. The dominion of demons and revelation are the two correlated ideas. If the former did not exist, the latter would not be necessary. According as we form a lower or higher estimate of the pernicious results of that sovereignty, the value of revelation rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give the necessary assurance of the truth, and it cannot do more than impart the power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from the dominion of the demons. 363

“For the sake of man” (Stoic) Apol. I. 10: II. 4, 5; Dial. 41, p. 260A, Apol I. 8: “Longing for the eternal and pure life, we strive to abide in the fellowship of God, the Father and Creator of all things, and we hasten to make confession, ac8 because we are convinced and firmly believe that that happiness is really attainable.” It is frequently asserted that it is the Logos which produces such conviction and awakens courage and strength.

Accordingly the teaching of the prophets and Christ is related even to the very highest human philosophy as the whole is to the part,364 or as the certain is to the uncertain; and hence also 186as the permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has now arrived and Christianity is destined to put an end to natural human philosophy. When the perfect work is there; the fragmentary must cease. Justin gave the clearest expression to this conviction. Christianity, i.e., the prophetic teaching attested by Christ and accessible to all, puts an end to the human systems of philosophy that from their close affinity to it may be called Christian, inasmuch as it effects all and more than all that these systems have done, and inasmuch as the speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable certainty. ae4 365 The practical conclusion drawn in Justin’s treatise from this exposition is that the Christians 364

Justin has destroyed the force of this argument in two passages (I. 44. 59) by tracing (like the Alexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philosophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further use then is the σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον? Did Justin not really take it seriously? Did he merely wish to suit himself to those whom he was addressing? We are not justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were in Justin’s estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον when left to its own resources; and therefore regarded truth and prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the Apology. That assumption of Justin’s is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst his real opinion was more “liberal”. 365 Compare with this the following passages: In Apol. I. 20 are enumerated a series of the most important doctrines common to philosophers and Christians. Then follow the words: “If we then in particular respects even teach something similar to the doctrines of the philosophers honoured among you, though in many cases in a divine and more sublime way; and we indeed alone do so in such a way that the matter is proved etc.” In Apol. I. 44: II. 10. 13 uncertainty, error, and contradictions are shown to exist in the case of the greatest philosophers. The Christian doctrines are more sublime than all human philosophy (II. 15). “Our doctrines are evidently more sublime than any human teaching, because the Christ who appeared for our sakes was the whole fulness of reason” (τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον, II. 10). “The principles of Plato are not foreign (ἀλλότ 564 ) to the teaching of Christ , but they do not agree in every respect. The same holds good of the Stoics” (II. 13). “We must go forth from the school of Plato” (II. 12). “Socrates convinced no one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine proclaimed by him; whereas not only philosophers and philologers, but also artisans and quite common uneducated people have believed in Christ” (II. 10). These are the very people — and that is perhaps the strongest contrast found between Logos and Logos in Justin — among whom it is universally said of Christianity: δύναµις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)

are at least entitled to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I. 7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.366 187

In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, Justin ceased to employ the idea of the existence of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον) in every man. From this fact we recognise that he did not consider the notion of fundamental importance. He indeed calls the Christian religion a philosophy;367 but, in so far as this is

366

In Justin’s estimate of the Greek philosophers two other points deserve notice. In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal philosophers. By the latter he specially means the Epicureans. They are no doubt referred to in I. 4 ac8 , 7, 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed together in II. 7; Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12; and in the conclusion of II. 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according to II. 3 fin. (ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεµένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας) the Cynics also seem to be outside the circle of real philosophers. This is composed principally of Socrates, Plato, the Platonists and Stoics, together with Heraclitus and others. Some of these understood one set of doctrines more correctly, others another series. The Stoics excelled in ethics (II. 7); Plato described the Deity and the world more correctly. It is, however, worthy of note — and this is the second point — that Justin in principle conceived the Greek philosophers as a unity, and that he therefore saw in their very deviations from one another a proof of the imperfection of their teaching. In so far as they are all included under the collective idea “human philosophy”, philosophy is characterised by the conflicting opinions found within it. This view was suggested to Justin by the fact that the highest truth, which is at once allied and opposed to human philosophy, was found by him among an exclusive circle of fellow-believers. Justin showed great skill in selecting from the Gospels the passages (I. 15-17), that prove the “philosophical” life of the Christians as described by him in c. 14. Here he cannot be acquitted of colouring the facts (cf. Aristides) nor of exaggeration (see, for instance, the unqualified statement: ἅ ἔχοµεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεοµένῳ κοινωνοῦντες). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the “ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά”. Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin’s reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark. 367 Dialogue 8. The dialogue takes up a more positive attitude than the Apology, both as a whole and in detail. If we consider that both works are also meant for Christians, and that, on the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the Apology appeals to the cultur 564 ed heathen public, we may perhaps assume that the two writings were meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the Dialogue expressly refers

the case, it is “the only sure and saving philosophy”. No doubt the so-called philosophies put the right questions, but they are incapable of giving correct answers. For the Deity, who embraces all true being, and a knowledge of whom alone makes salvation possible, is only known in proportion as he reveals himself. True wisdom is therefore exclusively based on revelation. Hence it is opposed to every human philosophy, 188because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.368 The Christian is the philosopher,369 because the followers of Plato 53f and the Stoics are virtually no philosophers. In applying the title “philosophy” to Christianity he therefore does not mean to bring Christians and philosophers more closely together. No doubt, however, he asserts that the Christian doctrine, which is founded on the knowledge of Christ and leads to blessedness,370 is in accordance with reason. Athenagoras. The petition on behalf of Christians, which Athenagoras, “the Christian philosopher of Athens”, presented to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, nowhere expressly designates Christianity as a philosophy, and still less does it style the Christians philosophers.371 But, at the very beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic tenets. ae0 372 In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes nothing but practical atheism,373 and that the “atheism” of the Christians is a doctrine about God such as had been propounded by the most distinguished philosophers — Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics — who, moreover, were permitted to write whatsoever they pleased on the subject of the “Deity”.374 The Apologist concedes even more: “If philosophers did not also acknowledge the existence of one God, if they did not also

to the Apology). From Justin’s time onward the apologetic polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method. This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction still further in those directed against the Jews. 368 Dial. 2. sq. That Justin’s Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue. 369 Dial. 8: οὕτως δὴ καὶ δια̍ ab3 ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. 370 Dial., l. c.: παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γενοµένῳ εὐδαιµονεῖν. 371 See particularly the closing chapter. 372 Suppl. 2. 373 Suppl. 4. 374 Suppl. 5-7.

conceive the gods in question to be partly demons, partly matter, partly of human birth, then certainly we would be justly expelled as aliens.”375 He therefore takes up the standpoint that the state is justified in refusing to tolerate people with completely new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test 189and approve376 the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely represents this faith itself as the reasonable doctrine,377 and that, with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of account, 571 1 there is ground for thinking that this Apologist differs essentially from Justin in his conception of the relation of Christianity to secular philosophy. Moreover, it is not to be denied that Athenagoras views the revelation in the prophets and in Christ as completely identical. But in one very essential point he agrees with Justin; and he has even expressed himself still more plainly than the latter, inasmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a “seed of the Logos implanted by nature” (σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον). The philosophers, he says, were incapable of knowing the full truth, since it was not from God, but rather from themselves, that they wished to learn about God. True wisdom, however, can only be learned from God, that is, from his prophets; it depends solely on revelation.378 Here also then we have a repetition of the thought that the truly rea ac5 sonable is of supernatural origin. Such is the importance attached by Athenagoras to this proposition, that he declares any demonstration of the “reasonable” to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even that which is most evidently true — e.g., monotheism — is not raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation,379 This can be done by Christians alone. Hence they are very different from the philosophers, just as they are also distinguished from these by their manner of life.380 All the praises which Athenagoras from time to time bestows on

375 376

574

377

Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13). Suppl. 7 fin. and many other places.

E.g., Suppl. 8. 35 fin. The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing at all is said about Christ. 379 Suppl. 7. 380 acd Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init. 381 Suppl. 11. 378

philosophers, particularly Plato.382 are consequently to be understood in a merely 190relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers, in so far as the “philosophers” are not such in any true sense. It is only the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals itself in polytheism,383 can only be overthrown by revelation; he rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.384 567 Tatian’s385 chief aim was not to bring about a juster treatment of the Christians.386 He wished to represent their cause as the good contrasted with the bad, wisdom as opposed to error, truth in contradistinction to outward seeming, hypocrisy, and pretentious emptiness. His “Address to the Greeks” begins 191with a violent

382 383

Suppl. 23. Suppl. 18, 23-27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon theory in

detail.

384

The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellowemperor perhaps bore the title: ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς φιλοσοφία (1. c., IV. 26. 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted, to a hitherto unexampled extent, to represent Christianity as adapted to the Empire, we must nevertheless beware of laying undue weight on the expression “philosophy”. What Melito means chiefly to emphasise is the fact that Christianity, which in former times had developed into strength among the barbarians, began to flourish in the provinces of the Empire simultaneously with the rise of the monarchy under Augustus, that, as fostersister of the monarchy, it increased in strength with the latter, and that this mutual relation of the two institutions had given prosperity and splendour to the state. When in the fragments preserved to us he twice, in this connection, calls Christianity “philosophy”, we must note that this expression alternates with the other “ὁ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς λόγος”, and that he uses the formula: “Thy forefat 564 hers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults” (πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις). This excludes the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called “τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος”). He also wrote a treatise περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he called Christ Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων. 385 See my treatise “Tatian’s Rede an die Griechen übers.”, 1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre des Tatian, 1893. 386 But see Orat. 4 i ac8 nit., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 init.

polemic against all Greek philosophers. Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and philosophy which in Justin’s case is still concealed.387 Hence it was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies 547 between Christians and philosophers. He also no doubt views Christianity as “reasonable”; he who lives virtuously and follows wisdom receives it;388 but yet it is too sublime to be grasped by earthly perception.389 It is a heavenly thing which depends on the communication of the “Spirit”, and hence can only be known by revelation.390 But yet it is a

387

He not only accentuated the disagreement of philosophers more strongly than Justin, but insisted more energetically than that Apologist on the necessity of viewing the practical fruits of philosophy in life as a criterion; see Orat. 2, 3, 19, 25. Nevertheless Socrates still found grace in his eyes (c. 3). With regard to other philosophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip. 388 Orat. 13, 15 fin., 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because it imparts such an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29). 389 Orat. 12: τὰ τῆς ἡµετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσµικῆς καταλήψεως. Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist made such bold assertions. 390 See Orat. 12 (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62), 15 (p. 70), 36 (p. 142), 40 (p. 152 sq.). The section cc. 12-15 of the Oratio is very important (see also c. 7 ff.); for it shows that Tatian denied the natural immortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent in all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments; but in the union of the h 55f uman soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed he was planned. But, in Tatian’s opinion, man lost this union by falling under the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man’s task to unite the Spirit again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related to the “Gnostic” theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω µὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. But with Tatian this conception is burdened with radical inconsistency; for he assumes that the Spirit reunites itself with every man who rightly uses his freedom, and he thinks it still possible for every person to use his freedom aright (11 fin., 13 fin., 15 fin.) So it is after all a mere assertion that the natural man is only distinguished from the beast by speech. He is also distinguished from it by freedom. And further it is only in appearance that the blessing bestowed in the “Spirit” is a donum superadditum et supernaturale 569 . For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infallibly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and consequently the realisation of man’s destination depend on human freedom. That is, however, the proposition which all the Apologists maintained. But indeed Tatian himself in his latter days seems to have

“philosophy” with definite 192doctrines (δόγµατα); 562 1 it brings nothing new, but only such blessings as we have already received, but could not retain391 owing to the power of error, i.e., the dominion of the demons.392 Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of the Logos revelation through the prophets,393 the rational knowledge that leads to life394 is restored. This knowledge was no less obscured among the Greek philosophers than among the Greeks generally. In so far as revelation took place among the barbarians from the remotest antiquity, Christianity may also be called the barbarian philosophy.395 Its truth is proved 193by

observed the inconsistency in which he had become involved and to have solved the problem in the Gnostic, that is, the religious sense. In his eyes, of course, the ordinary philosophy is a useless and pernicious art; philosophers make their own opinions laws (c. 27); whereas of Christians the following holds good (c. 32): λόγου τοῦ δηµοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισµένοι καὶ παραγγέλµασι καὶ νόµῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόµενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείµενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούµεθα. 391 C. 31. init.: ἡ ἡµετέρα φιλοσοφία. 32 (p. 128): οἱ βου 540 λόµενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄνθρωποι. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated αἱ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. C. 35: ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. 40 (p. 152): οἱ κατὰ Μωυσέα καὶ ὁµοίως αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. 42: ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. The δόγµατα of the Christians: c. 1 (p. 2), 12 (p. 58), 19 (p. 86), 24 (p. 102), 27 (p. 108), 35 (p. 138), 40, 42. But Tatian pretty frequently calls Christianity “ἡ ἡµετέρα παιδεία”, once also “νοµοθεσί ” (12; cf. 40: οἱ ἡµέτεροι νόµοι), and often πολιτεί . 392 See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us οὐχ ὅπερ µὴ ἐλάβοµεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθηµεν. 393 Tatian gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the demons who have misled men and rule the world, and that revelation through the prophets is opposed to this demon rule; see c. 7 ff. The demons have fixed the laws of death; see c. 15 fin. and elsewhere. 394 Tatian also cannot at bottom distinguish between revelation through the prophets and through Christ. See the description of his conversion in c. 29. where only the Old Testament writings are named, and c. 13 fin., 20 fin., 12 (p. 54) etc. 395 569 Knowledge and life appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13 mit.: “In itself the soul is not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however, that it may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and is dissolved with the body; but later, at the end of the world, it will rise again with the body in order to receive death in endless duration as a punishment. On the contrary it does not die, though it is dissolved for a time, if it is equipped with the knowledge of God.” 396 Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγµατα (c. 1): ῇ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία (c. 35); ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νοµοθεσία (c. 12); γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί (c. 29); καινοτοµεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγµατα (c. 35); ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός (c. 42); 564 Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatian’s view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.

its ancient date397 as well as by its intelligible form, which enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in it398 to understand it perfectly.399 Finally, Tatian also states (c. 40) that the Greek sophists have read the writings of Moses and the prophets, and reproduced them in a distorted form. He therefore maintains the very opposite of what Celsus took upon him to demonstrate when venturing to derive certain sayings and doctrines of Christ and the Christians from the philosophers. Both credit the plagiarists with intentional misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding. Justin judged more charitably. To Tatian, on the contrary, the mythology of the Greeks did not appear worse than their philosophy; in both cases he saw imitations and intentional corruption of the truth.400 194

Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets (historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere). However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict eac ac8 h other (II. 5); 397

See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff. C. 30 (p. 114): τού οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν µεµυηµένος. 399 Tatian’s own confession is very important here (c. 26): 533 “Whilst I was reflecting on what was good it happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of the barbarians, too old to be compared with the doctrines of the Greeks, too divine to be compared with their errors. And it chanced that they convinced me through the plainness of their expressions, through the unartificial nature of their language, through the intelligible representation of the creation of the world, through the prediction of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the summing up of all kinds under one head. My soul was instructed by God and I recognised that those Greek doctrines lead to perdition, whereas the others abolish the slavery to which we are subjected in the world, and rescue us from our many lords and tyrants, though they do not give us blessings we had not already received, but rather such as we had indeed obtained, but were not able to retain in consequence of error.” Here the whole theology of the Apologists is contained in nuce; see Justin, Dial. 7-8. In Chaps. 32, 33 Tatian strongly emphasises the fact that the Christian philosophy is accessible even to the most uneducated; see Justin, Apol. II. 10; Athenag. 11 etc. 595 400The unknown author of the Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας also formed the same judgment as Tatian (Corp. Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian translation, greatly amplified, is found in the Cod. Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658. It was published by Cureton, Spic. Syr., p. 38 sq. with an English translation). Christianity is an incomparable heavenly wisdom, the teacher of which is the Logos himself. “It produces neither poets, nor philosophers, nor rhetoricians; but it makes mortals immortal and men gods, and leads them away upwards from the earth into super-Olympian regions.” Through Christian knowledge the soul returns to its Creator: δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη. 398

but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8: III. 7), nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of the so-called philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously;401 they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worthless fame was their aim (III. 3). But God knew beforehand the “drivellings of these hollow philosophers” and made his preparations (II. 15). He of old proclaimed the truth by the mouth of prophets, and these deposited it in holy writings. This truth refers to the knowledge of God, the origin and history of the world, as well as to a virtuous life. The prophetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.402 Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were inspired by devils.403 Thus the most extreme contrasts appear to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that 195truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks do not apply, for she is (II. 36): ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενοµένη προφῆτις, but that poets and philosophers, “though against their will”, also gave clear utterances regarding the justice, the judgment, and the punishments of God, as well as regarding his providence in respect to the living and the dead, or, in other words, about the most important points (II. 37, 38, 8 fin.). Theophilus gives a double explanation of this fact. On the one hand he ascribes it to the imitation of holy writings (II. 12, 37: I. 14), and on the 401

Nor is Plato “ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεµνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέ a92 ” any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others (ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι), did not prevent him from giving way to the stupidest babbling (III. 16). Although he knew that the full truth can only be learned, from God himself through the law (III. 17), he indulged in the most foolish guesses concerning the beginning of history. But where guesses find a place, truth is not to be found (III. 16: εἰ δἰκασµῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρηµένα). 402 Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅµα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύµατος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόµενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινοµένων καὶ προαναπεφωνηµένων οὐκ απιστῶ; see also II. 8-10, 22, 30, 33-35: III. 10, 11, 17. Theophilus merely looks on the Gospel as a continuation of the prophetic revelations and injunctions. Of Christ, however, he did not speak at all, but only of the Logos (Pneuma), which has operated from the beginning. To Theophilus the first chapters of Genesis already contain the sum of all Christian knowledge (II. 10-32). 403 See II. 8: ὑπὸ δαιµόνων δὲ ἐµπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον.

other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned them (τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν), of themselves displayed a knowledge of the divine sovereignty, ac8 the judgment etc., which agrees with the teachings of the prophets (II. 8). This admission need not cause astonishment; for the freedom and control of his own destiny with which man is endowed (II. 27) must infallibly lead him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus did not apply the title of philosophy to Christian truth, this title being in his view discredited; but Christianity is to him the “wisdom of God”, which by luminous proofs convinces the men who reflect on their own nature.404

59a 404The unknown author of the work de resurrectione, which goes under the name of Justin (Corp. Apol., Vol. III.) has given a surprising expression to the thought that it is simply impossible to give a demonstration of truth. (Ὁ µὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ µηδεµίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν µηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑποµένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέµψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει). He inveighs in the beginning of his treatise against all rationalism, and on the one hand professes a sort of materialistic theory of knowledge, whilst on the other, for that very reason, he believes in inspiration and the authority of revelation; for all truth originates with revelation, since God himself and God alone is the truth. Christ revealed this truth and is for us τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. But it is far from probable aac that the author would really have carried this proposition to its logical conclusion (Justin, Dial. 3 ff. made a similar start). He wishes to meet his adversaries “armed with the arguments of faith which are unconquered” (c. 1., p. 214), but the arguments of faith are still the arguments of reason. Among these he regarded it as most important that even according to the theories about the world, that is, about God and matter, held by the “so-called sages”, Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoics, the assumption of a resurrection of the flesh is not irrational (c. 6, p. 228 f.). Some of these, viz., Pythagoras and Plato, also acknowledged the immortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, “for if the Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul what new thing would he have proclaimed in addition to what had been made known by Pythagoras, Plato, and the band of their adherents?” (c. 10, p. 246) This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists to adhere to the belief in the resurrection of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f., 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin himself the the fragment de resurr. His argument, though displaying great plausibility, has nevertheless not fully convinced me. The question is of great importance for fixing the relation of Justin to Paul. I shall not discuss Hermias’ “Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum”, as the period when this Christian disputant flourished is quite uncertain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito “Oratio ad Antoninum Cæsarem” (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX., p. 423 sq.). This book is preserved (written?) in the Syrian language and was addressed to Caracalla or Heliogabalus (preserved in the Cod.

196

Tertullian and Minucius Felix.405 Whilst, in the case of the Greek Apologists, the acknowledgment of revelation appears conditioned by philosophical scepticism on the one hand, and by the strong impression of the dominion of the demons on the other, the sceptical element is not only wanting in the Latin Apologists, but the Christian truth is even placed in direct opposition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical dogmatism, i.e., Stoicism.406 Nevertheless the observations of Tertullian and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christianity, viewed as philosophy and as revelation, are at bottom completely identical with the conception of the Greek Apologists, although it is undeniable that in the former case the revealed character of Christianity is placed in the background.407 The recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves 197that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and guara ac8 ntee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of the “examination of the universe” (“inquisitio universitatis”), conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational order of the world. Accordingly,

Nitr. Mus. Britt. Add. 14658). It is probably dependent on Justin, but it is less polished and more violent than his Apology. 405 Massebieau (Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) has convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use of his works. 406 Cf. the plan of the “Octavius”. The champion of heathenism here opposed to the Christian is a philosopher representing the standpoint of the middle Acad. emy. This presupposes, as a matter of course, that the latter undertakes the defence of the Stoical position. See, besides, the corresponding arguments in the Apology of Tertullian, e.g., c. 17, as well as his tractate: “de testimonio animæ naturaliter Christianæ”. We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Cicero’s book, “de natura deorum.” In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian. 407 In R. Kühn’s investigation (“Der Octavius des Min. Felix”, Leipzig, 1882) — the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point of view of the history of dogma — based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius, more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius and the Greek Apolog ac8 ists. The author’s exposition requires to be supplemented in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6).

Minucius is also able to demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is a philosophy, i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have discovered the truth.408 Moreover, as he represented Christian ethics to be the expression of the Stoic, and depicted the Christian bond of brotherhood as a cosmopolitan union of philosophers, who have become conscious of their natural similarity,409 the revealed character of Christianity appears to be entirely given up. This religion is natural enlightenment, the revelation of a truth contained in the world and in man, the discovery of the one God from the open book of creation. The difference between him and an Apologist like Tatian seems here to be a radical one. But, if we look more closely, we find that Minucius — and not less Tertullian — has abandoned Stoic rationalism in vital points. We may regard his apologetic aim as his excuse for clearly drawing the logical conclusions from these inconsistencies 198himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather have already become an essential component of his philosophical theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26, 27). This was a confession that human nature was not what it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4: 16. 5) the natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked (32. 9) that our tho 557 ughts are darkness when measured by the clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point, after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the prophets, and that philosophers “have formed this shadowy picture of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the prophets” (34). Here we have now a union of all the elements already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all philosophers and indeed on philosophy

408

C. 20: Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos.” 409 See Minucius, 31 ff. A quite similar proceeding is already found in Tertullian, who in his Apologeticum has everywhere given a Stoic colouring to Christian ethics and rules of life, and in c. 39 has drawn a complete veil over the peculiarity of the Christian societies.

generally410 (34. 5: 38. 5). This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian’s case, by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural perception to all philosophical theory — for this, at most, cannot have been more than a secondary contributing cause, ad2 1 but by the fact that he is conscious of following revealed wisdom.411 199Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from without, i.e., by God. In this idea man’s need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine truth than man’s natural endowment and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness. Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were not able to find.412 We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows: (1) Christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, proclaimed of old by the prophets and, by reason of its origin, possessing an absolute certainty which can also be recognised in the fulfilment of their predictions. As divine wisdom Christianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.413 It embraces all the elements of 410

Tertullian has done exactly the same thing; see Apolog. 46 (and de præscr. 7.) Tertull., de testim. I.: “Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit.” 412 Tertull., Apol.46: “Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? 541 de præscr. 7: “Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ?” Minuc. 38.5: “Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit?” 413 Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus; he merely touched upon it (9. 4: 29. 2). He also viewed Christianity as the teaching of the Prophets; whoever acknowledges the latter must of necessity adore the crucified Christ. Tertullian was accordingly the first Apologist after Justin who again considered it necessary to give a detailed account of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos (see the 21st chapter of the Apology in its relation to chaps. 1720). 414 Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work “de Monarchial”, which bears the name of Justin, has given clearest expression to this conception. He is therefore most akin to Minucius (see chap. I.). Here monotheism is designated as the καθρολικὴ δόξα which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης 411

truth in philosophy, whence it is the philosophy; and helps man to realise the knowledge with which he is naturally endowed. (3) Revelation of the rational was and is necessary, because man has fallen under the sway of the demons. (4) The efforts of philosophers to ascertain the right knowledge were in vain; and this is, above all, shown by the fact that they neither overthrew polytheism nor brought about a really moral life. Moreover, so far as they discovered the truth, they owed it to the prophets from whom they borrowed 200it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a knowledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts. acb 415 But it is certain that many seeming truths in the writings of the philosophers were imitations of the truth by evil demons. This is the origin of all polytheism, which is, moreover, to some extent an imitation of Christian institutions. (5) The confession of Christ is simply included in the acknowledgment of the wisdom of the prophets; the doctrine of the truth did not receive a new content through Christ; he only made it accessible to the world and strengthened it (victory over the demons; special features acknowledged by Justin and Tertullian). (6) The practical test of Christianity is first contained in the fact that all persons are able to grasp it, for women and uneducated men here become veritable sages; secondly in the fact that it has the power of producing a holy life, and of overthrowing the tyranny of the demons. In the Apologists, therefore, Christianity served itself heir to antiquity, i.e., to the result of the monotheistic knowledge and ethics of the Greeks: Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡµῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί” (Justin, Apol. II. 13). It traced its origin back to the beginning of the world. Everything true and good which elevates mankind springs from divine revelation, and is at the same time genuinely human, because it is a clear expression of what man finds within him and of his destination (Justin, Apol. I. 46: οἱ µετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνοµίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι µὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅµοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰµ κ.τ.λ., “those that have lived with reason are Christians, even though they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and

φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. According to this, then, only an awakening is required. 415 But almost all the Apologists acknowledged that heathendom possessed prophets. They recognise these in the Sibyls and the old poets. The author of the work “de Monarchia” expressed the most pronounced views in regard to this. Hermas (Vis. II. 4), however, shows that the Apologists owed this notion also to an idea that was widespread among Christian people.

Heraclitus and those similar to them among the Greeks, and Abraham etc. among the barbarians”). But everything true and good is Christian, for Christianity is nothing else than the teaching of revelation. No second formula can be imagined in which the claim of Christianity to be the religion of the world is so powerfully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to 201reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand, can we conceive of one where the specific ac8 content of traditional Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with religion. The “dogmas” are the expression of this. Finally, these fundamental presuppositions also result in a quite definite idea of the essence of revelation and of the content of reason. The essence of revelation consists in its form: it is divine communication through a miraculous inward working. All the media of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag. Supplic. 7; PseudoJustin, Cohort. 8; Justin, Dialogue 115. 7; Apol. I. 31, 33, 36; etc.; see also Hippolytus, de Christo et Antichr. 2). These were not necessarily at all times in a state of ecstasy, when they received the revelations; but they were no doubt in a condition of absolute receptivity. The Apologists had no other idea of revelation. What they therefore viewed as the really decisive proof of the reality of revelation is the prediction of the future, for the human mind does not possess this power. It was only in connection with this proof that the Apologists considered it important to show what Moses, David, Isaiah, etc., had proclaimed in the Old Testament, that is, these names have only a chronological significance. This also explains their interest in a history of the world, in so far as this interest originated in the effort to trace the chain of prophets up to the beginning of history, and to prove the higher antiquity of revealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors, particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin,416 first detailed argument in Tatian).417 If, however, strictly speaking, it is only the form and not the content of revelation that is supernatural in so far as this content coincides with that of reason, it is evident that the Apologists simply took the content of the latter for granted and stated it dogmatically. So, whether they expressed themselves in strictly Stoic fashion or not, they all essentially agree in the assumption that true religion 202and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian forms no exception, thoug 564 h he himself protests against the idea.

416 417

See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc. See Tatian, c. 31 ff.

3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. 3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion. The Apologists frequently spoke of the doctrines or “dogmas” of Christianity; and the whole content of this religion as philosophy is included in these dogmas.418 According to what we have already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of 203Christian dogmas. They are the rational truths, revealed by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ 418

In the New 564 Testament the content of the Christian faith is nowhere designated as dogma. In Clement (I. II.), Hermas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all; yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature τά δεδογµατισµένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγµασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγµατα here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in ∆ιδαχή XI. 3. In the Epistle of Barnabas we read in several passages (I. 6: IX. 7: X. 1, 9 f.) of “dogmas of the Lord”; but by these he means partly particular mysteries, partly divine dispensations. Hence the Apologists are the first to apply the word. to the Christian faith, in accordance with the language of philosophy. They are also the first who employed the ideas θεολογεῖν and θελογί . The latter word is twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of “aliquem nominare deum”. In Dial. 113, however, it has the more comprehensive sense of “to make religio-scientific investigations”. Tatian (10) also used the word in the first sense; on the contrary he entitled a book of which he was the author “πρὸ τοὺ ac8 ς ἀποφηναµένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate “Deity” belongs (see also 20, 22). That is the old usage of the word. It was thus employed by Tertullian in ad nat. II. 1 (the threefold division of theology; in II. 2, 3 the expression “theologia physica, mythica” refers to this); Cohort, ad Gr. 3, 22. The anonymous writer in Eusebius (H. E. V. 28. 4, 5) is instructive on the point. Brilliant demonstrations of the ancient use of the word “theology” are found in Natorp, Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik (Philosophische Monatshefte, 1887, Parts 1 and 2, pp. 55-64). The title “theology”, as applied to a philosophic discipline, was first used by the Stoics; the old poets were previously called “theologians”, and the “theological” stage was the prescientific one which is even earlier than the “childhood” of “physicists” (so Aristotle speaks throughout). To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. But side by side with this we have an adoption of the Stoic view that there is also a philosophical theology, because the teaching of the old poets concerning the gods conceals under the veil of myth a treasure of philosophical truth. In the Stoa arose the “impossible idea of a ‘theology’ which is to be philosophy, that is, knowledge based on reason, and yet to have positive religion as the foundation of its certainty.” The Apologists accepted this, but added to it the distinction of a κοσµικὴ and θεολογικὴ σοφί .

(Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος), which in their unity represent the divine wisdom, and the recognition of which leads to virtue and eternal life. The Apologists considered it their chief task to set forth these doctrines, and hence they can be reproduced with all desirable clearness. The dogmatic scheme of the Apologists may t ab9 herefore be divided into three component parts. These are: (A) Christianity viewed as monotheistic cosmology (God as the Father of the world); (B) Christianity as the highest morality and righteousness (God as the judge who rewards goodness and punishes wickedness); (C) Christianity regarded as redemption (God as the Good One who assists man and rescues him from the power of the demons).419 Whilst the first two ideas are expressed in a clear and precise manner, it is equally true that the third is not worked out in a lucid fashion. This, as will afterwards be seen, is, on the one hand, the result of the Apologists’ doctrine of freedom, and, on the other, of their inability to discover a specific significance for the person of Christ within the sphere of revelation. Both facts again are ultimately to be explained from their moralism. The essential content of revealed philosophy is viewed by the Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines.420 First, there is one spiritual and inexpressibly exalted God, who is Lord and Father of the world. Secondly, he requires a holy life. Thirdly, he will at last sit in judgment, and will reward the good with immortality and punish the wicked with death. The teaching concerning God, virtue, and eternal reward is traced to the prophets and Christ; but the bringing about of a virtuous 204life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men themselves; for God has created man free, and virtue can only be acquired by man’s own efforts. The prophets and Christ are therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers. But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a virtuous walk in the

419

Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as λό : (2) as νό , νοµοθέ and κριτή ; (3) as διδά and σωτή . 420 In the reproduction of the apologetical theology historians of dogma have preferred to follow Justin; but here they have constantly overlooked th 564 e fact that Justin was the most Christian among the Apologists, and that the features of his teaching to which particular value is rightly attached, are either not found in the others at all (with the exception of Tertullian), or else in quite rudimentary form. It is therefore proper to put the doctrines common to all the Apologists in the foreground, and to describe what is peculiar to Justin as such, so far as it agrees with New Testament teachings or contains an anticipation of the future tenor of dogma.

longing after eternal and perfect life with God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward. By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss. This knowledge, which has the character of divine instruction, 573 1 rests on faith in the divine revelation. This revelation has the nature and power of redemption in so far as the fact is undoubted that without it men cannot free themselves from the tyranny of the demons, whilst believers in revelation are enabled by the Spirit of God to put them to flight. Accordingly, the dogmas of Christian philosophy theoretically contain the monotheistic cosmology, and practically the rules for a holy life, which appears as a renunciation of the world and as a new order of society.421 The goal is immortal life, which consists in the full knowledge and contemplation of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the cosmology and ethics; they are indefinitely expressed so far as they contain the idea of salvation; but they are very precisely worded in so far as they guarantee the truth of the cosmology and ethics. I. The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the world are domi ac8 nated by the fundamental idea that the world as the created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something 205self-existing, unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause of the world. This self-existing Being has none of the attributes which belong to the world; hence he is exalted above every name and has in himself no distinctions. This implies, first, the unity and uniqueness of this eternal Being; secondly, his spiritual nature, for everything bodily is subject to change; and, finally, his perfection, for the self-existent and eternal requires nothing. Since, however, he is the cause of all being, himself being unconditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself (Tatian 5: καθὸ πᾶσα δύναµις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα). As the living and spiritual Being he reveals himself in free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom,

421

Cicero’s proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): “nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit,” which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a t aa8 heory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth. 422 Justin, Apol. I. 3: Ἡµέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ µαθηµάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν.

i.e., his operative reason. These creations are, moreover, a proof of the goodness of the Deity, for they can be no result of necessities, in so far as God is in himself perfect. Just because he is perfect, the Eternal Essence is also the Father of all virtues, in so far as he contains no admixture of what is defective. These virtues include both the goodness which manifests itself in his creations, and the righteousness which gives to the creature what belongs to him, in accordance with the position he has received. On the basis of this train of thought the Apologists lay down the dogmas of the monarchy of God (τῶν ὅλων τὸ µοναρχικόν); his supramundaneness (τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυµβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity (εἷς Θεός); his having no beginning (ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος); his eternity and unchangeableness (ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος); his perfection (τέλειος); his need of nothing (ἀπροσδεήύ a94 ); his spiritual nature (πνεῦµα ὁ Θεός); his absolute causality (αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, the motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity (κτίστης τῶν πάντων); his sovereignty (δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων); his fatherhood (πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων) his reason-power (God as λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦµα, σοφία); his omnipotence (παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐµπεριέχει); his righteousness and goodness (πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης). These dogmas are set forth by one Apologist in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form, 206but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient. In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that, as uncreated and eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it.423 These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apologists from the standpoint of the Christian Church which is awaiting an introduction into the Kingdom of God; but were deduced from a contemplation of the world on the one hand (see particularly Tatian, 4; Theophilus, I. 5, 6), and of the moral nature of man on the other. But, in so far as the latter itself belongs to the sphere of created things, the cosmos is the starting-point of their

423

See the exposition of the doctrine of God in Aristides with the conclusion found in all the Apologists, that God requires no offerings and presents.

speculations. This is everywhere dominated by reason and order; afc 424 it bears the impress of the divine Logos, and that in a double sense. On the one hand it appears as the copy of a higher, eternal world, for if we imagine transient and changeable matter removed, it is a wonderful complex of spiritual forces; on the other it presents itself as the finite product of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by God,425 though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world is in every respect a structure worthy of God.426 Nevertheless, according to the Apologists, the direct author of the world was not God, but the personified power of reason which they perceived 207 in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest in it would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apologists purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God from matter, because they regarded this as something bad. This idea of Philo’s cannot at least have been adopted by them as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with their conception of matter; nor is it compatible with their idea of God and their belief in Providence, which is everywhere firmly maintained. Still less indeed can it be shown that they were all impelled to this dogma from their view of Jesus Christ, since in this connection, with the exception of Justin and Tertullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the Logos is rather to be explained thus: (1) The idea of God, derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirituality, which implied a sort of personality; but the fulness of all spiritual forces, the essence of everything imperishable were quite as essential features of the conception; for in spite of the transcendence inseparable from the notion of God, this idea was neverthless meant to explain the ac8 world.427 Accordingly, they required a formula capable of

424

Even Tatian says in c. 19: Κόσµου µὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευµα φαῦλον. 425 Tatian 5: Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναµος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· µόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δηµιουργοῦ προβεβληµένη. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: II. 6. Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ µέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειµένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσµον. 584 426Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27: ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. 427 The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian’s Oration is specially instructive here.

expressing the transcendent and unchangeable nature of God on the one hand, and his fulness of creative and spiritual powers on the other. But the latter attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity, because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a harmonious one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and indeed the latter was necessarily distinguished from God as a separate existence, as soon as the realisation of the powers residing in God was represented as beginning. The Logos is the hypostasis of the operative power of reason, which at once preserves the unity and unchangeableness of God in spite of the exercise of the powers residing in him, and renders this very exercise possible. (2) Though the Apologists believed in the divine origin of the revelation given to the prophets, on which 208all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor. For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word; but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the Apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty of the Apologists’ manner of statement is peculiar here; the train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea, though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Christian faith i 564 s completely exhausted in this proposition. They required no particular Christology, for in every revelation of God by his Word they already recognised a proof of his existence not to be surpassed, and consequently regarded it as Christianity in nuce.428

428

According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to assert that the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rat ac8 her is that the Logos doctrine was

But the fact that the Apologists made a distinction in thesi between the prophetic Spirit of God and the Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction, 209is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulæ of the Church’s faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually compelled them to identify the Logos and the Spirit, just as they not unfrequently define Christianity as the belief in the true God and in his Son, without mentioning the Spirit.429 Further ac8 their dependence on the Christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos as the Son of God.430

already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical Christ, and vice versâ Christ’s right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine. 429 We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulæ (if we are not to assume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit is represented as ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation τρί is first found in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: αἰ τρεῖς ἡµέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the reproach of ἀθεότης, (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem. ad Corinth. LVI. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason. On the significance of the Holy Spirit in the theology of Justin, see Zahn Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: “If there be any one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy Spirit of all scientific raison d’être at least on the ground of having no distinctive(?) activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin.” We cannot at bo 556 ttom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity. 430 To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of God by Philo, and Celsus expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); “If according to your doctrine the Word is really the Son of God then we agree with you;” but the Apologists are the first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, the Logos is intrinsically the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God, not because he is the begotten of God in the flesh (early Christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane

The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous 210one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, ἄλογος, but as the fulness of all reason,431 he has always Logos in himself. This Logos is on the one hand the divine consciousness itself, and on the other the power (idea and energy) to which the world is due; he is not separate from God, but is contained in his essence.432 For the sake of the creation God produced (sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he engendered433 him from his essence by a free and simple act of will (Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Dial. 61). Then for the first time the Logos became a hypostasis separate from God, or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features:434 211(1) The

reproduction of God (see Justin, Apol. II. 6: ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ µόνος λεγόµενος κυριώς ὑιός) — a momentous expression. aa9 431Athenag., l0; Tatian, Orat. 5. 432 The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be compared with the following: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ µὲν τὴν µηδέπω γεγενηµένην ποίησιν µόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναµις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάµεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήµατι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσµεν τοῦ κόσµου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ µερισµόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτµηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ µερισθὲν οἰκονοµίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ µιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται µὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάµεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. In the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to which the world is clue the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129. 591 433The word “beget” (γεννᾶν) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name “Son” was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the words ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, γεννᾶν appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the Logos to the essence of God is most clearly shown by the name “Son”. 434 None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, 1.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: “Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of God, yet he is al a90 so to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to God to become an active force. Then again this Word is not to be the

inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God, willed and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not cut off and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in him. He is rather the independent product of the self- 528 unfolding of God (οἰκονοµία), which product, though it is the epitome of divine reason, has nevertheless not stripped the Father of this attribute. The Logos is the revelation of God, and the visible God. Consequently the Logos is really God and Lord, i.e., he possesses the divine nature in virtue of his essence. The Apologists, however, only know of one kind of divine nature and this is that which belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the Father; he is ἀριθµῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος (“something different in number, another God, a second God.”) But his personality only dates from that moment. “Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit,” (“there was a time when the Father had no Son”, so Tertullian, adv. Hermog. 3).The λόγος προφορικός is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος is not. b04 435 (3) The Logos has an origin, the Father has not; hence it follows that in relation to God the Logos is a creature; he is the begotten, that is, the created God, the God who has a beginning. Wherefore in rank he is below God (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός, “in the second place, 212and a second God”), the messenger and servant of God. The subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures, however, the

thought that God thinks, but the thought that thinks in God. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in God’s thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in God; occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational.” Considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, that Tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232, f. Hardly any real difference can have. existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenæus took up here. 435 This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting.

Logos is the ἀρχή, i.e., not only the beginning but the principle of the vitality and form of everything that is to receive being. As an emanation (the begotten) he is distinguished from all creatures, for he alone is the Son;436 but, as having a beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the paradoxical expression, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός (“first begotten work of the Father”), is here the most appropriate designation. (4) In virtue of his finite origin, it is possible and proper for the Logos to enter into the finite, to act, to speak. and to appear. As he arose for the sake of the creation of the world, he has the capacity of personal and direct revelation which does not belong to the infinite God; nay, his whole essence consists in the very fact that he is thought, word, and deed. Behind this active substitute and vicegerent, the Father stands in the darkness of the incomprehensible, and in the incomprehensible light of perfection as the hidden, unchangeable God.437 With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the realisation of the idea of the world. The world as κόσµος νοητός is contained in the Logos. But the world is material and man ac8 ifold, the Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the 213Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the expression “beget” (γεννᾶν) for the creation of the world, but in connections which do not admit of any importance being attached to this use. The world was created out of nothing after a host of spirits, as is assumed by most Apologists, had been created along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The purpose of the creation of the world was and is

436

Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction. 591 437All the Apologists tacitly assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): “Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro.” But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, as it were, between God and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of God; and again seems to be merged in God, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of God. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the Greek Apologists are silent about it.

the production of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God; beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of God. Everything is created for man’s sake, and his own creation is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but capable either of death or immortality.438 The condition on which men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines, that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the free decision of the spirits or angels; and finally that the world will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have the less occasion to give the details here, because they are known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially Philo’s, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, however, are imbued with the idea that this knowledge of God and the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most essential part of Christianity itself.439 This conception is really not peculiar to the Apologists: in the second century the great majority of Christians, in so far as they reflected at all, regarded 214 the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part of the Christian religion. The theoretical view of the world as a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beau 564 ty; the certainty that all this had been called into existence by an Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure, were always present, and put an end to the bright and gorgeously coloured, but phantastic and vague, cosmogonies and theogonies of antiquity. 2. Their clear system of morality is in keeping with their relatively simple cosmology. In giving man reason and freedom as an inalienable possession God destined him for incorruptibility (ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία), by the attainment of which he was to

54e 438The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial.5; Theoph. II. 27. 439 The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to the Hexaëmeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his 2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. I.-III.; see, e.g., Marcus in Iren. I. 18.

become a being similar to God.440 To the gift of imperishability God, however, attached the condition of man’s preserving τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας (“the things of immortality”), i.e., preserving the knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just; moreover, ac8 nobody can fulfil it in man’s stead, for an essential feature of virtue is its being free, independent action. Man must therefore determine himself to virtue by the knowledge that he is only in this way obedient to the Father of the world and able to reckon on the gift of immortality. The conception of the content of virtue, however, contains an element which cannot be clearly apprehended from the cosmology; moral goodness consists in letting oneself be influenced in no way by the sensuous, but in living solely, after the Spirit, and imitating the perfection and purity of God. Moral badness is giving way to any affection resulting from the natural basis of man. The Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in man’s renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought 215in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder way. Tatian, for instance, says that we must divest ourselves of the human nature within us; but in truth the idea is the same in all. The moral law of nature of which the Apologists speak, and which they find reproduced in the clearest and most beautiful way in the sayings of Jesus,441 calls upon man to raise himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union with his fellow-man which is something higher than natural connections. It is not so much the law of love that is to rule everything, for love itself is only a phase of a higher law; it is the law governing the perfect and sublime Spirit, who, as being the most exalted existence on this earth, is too noble for the world. Raised already in this knowledge beyond time and space, beyond the partial and the finite, the man of God, even while upon the earth, is to hasten to the Father of Light. By equanimity, absence of desires, purity, and goodness, which are the necessary results of clear knowledge, he is to show that he has already risen above the transient through gazing on the

581 440

See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε µὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀµφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µισθὸν κοµίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγµατα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου. 441 See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists.

imperishable and through the enjoyment of knowledge, imperfect though the latter still be. If thus, a suffering hero, he has stood the test on earth, if he has become dead to the world,442 he may be sure that in the life to com 560 e God will bestow on him the gift of immortality, which includes the direct contemplation of God together with the perfect knowledge that flows from it.443 Conversely, the vicious man is given over to eternal death, and in this punishment the righteousness of God is quite as plainly manifested, as in the reward of everlasting life. 3. While it is certain that virtue is a matter of freedom, it 216is just as sure that no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will of God, i.e., knows and judges of God and all things as they must be known and judged of; and fulfils the commandments of God. This presupposes a revelation of God through the Logos. A revelation of God, complete in itself and mediated by the Logos, is found in the cosmos and in the constitution of man, he being created in his Maker’s image.444 eb4 But experience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction of evil demons, who, by God’s sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed themselves of man’s sensuous side to draw him away from the contemplation of the divine and lead him to the earthly.445 The results of this temptation

442

See Tatian, Orat.11. and many other passages. Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of Christian anticipation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of God and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. Nevertheless this conception assumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin. 444 No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With Tatian and Theophilus it is different. 445 The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l. c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt’s “Das Christenthum Justin’s des Märtyrers” pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stählin, “Justin der Märtyrer und 564 sein neuester Beurtheiler” 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The desires of the flesh resulting from 443

appeared in the facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was subjected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punishment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of 217God.446 Hence it required fresh efforts of the Logos to free men from a state which is indeed in no instance an unavoidable necessity, though a sad fact in the case of almost all. For very few are now able to recognise the one true God from the order of the universe and from the moral law implanted in themselves; nor can they withstand the power of the demons ruling in the world and use their freedom to imitate the virtues of God. Therefore the Almighty in his goodness employed new means through the Logos to call men back from the error of their ways, to overthrow the sovereignty of the demons upon earth, and to correct the disturbed course of the world before the end has yet come. From the earliest times the Logos (the Spirit) has descended on such men as preserved their souls pure, and bestowed on them, through inspiration, knowledge of the truth (with reference to God, freedom, virtue, the demons, the origin of polytheism, the judgment) to be imparted by them to others. These are his “prophets”. Such men are rare among the Greeks (and according to some not found at all), but numerous among the barbarians, i.e., among the Jewish people. Taught by God, they announced the truth about him, and under the promptings of the Logos they also committed the revelations to writings, which therefore, as being inspired, are an authentic record of the whole truth.447 To some of

the constitution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal liberum arbitrium explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of God, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the Apologists abf were obliged in practice to be dualists. 446 Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II. 26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the gods; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies. 447 The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpassed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is completely identical. The

the most virtuous among them he himself even appeared in human form and gave directions. He then is a Christian, who receives and follows these prophetic teachings, that have ever been proclaimed afresh from the beginning of the world down to the present time, and are summed up in the Old Testament, Such a one 218is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality. With the majority of the Apologists “Christianity” seems to be exhausted in these doctrines; in fact, they do not even consider it necessary to mention ex professo the appearance of the Logos in Christ (see above, p. 189 ff.). But, while it is certain that they all recognised that the teachings of the prophets contained the full revelation of the truth, we would be qu 17c ite wrong in assuming that they view the appearance and history of Christ as of no significance. In their presentations some of them no doubt contented themselves with setting forth the most rational and simple elements, and therefore took almost no notice of the historical; but even in their case certain indications show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos i ac8 n Christ as of special moment.448 For the prophetic utterances, as found from the beginning, require an attestation, the prophetic teaching requires a guarantee, so that misguided humanity may accept them and no longer take error for truth and truth for error. The strongest guarantee imaginable is found in the fulfilment of prophecy. Since no man is able to foretell what is to come, the prediction of the future accompanying a doctrine proves its divine origin. God, in his extraordinary goodness, not only inspired the prophets, through the Logos, with the doctrines of truth, but has from the beginning put numerous predictions in their mouth. These predictions were detailed and manifold; the great majority of them referred to a more prolonged appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the predictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the prophets

prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to attest the one truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to Christianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin’s and Tatian’s confessions. Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus. 448 The Oratio of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he has nowhere spoken ex professo of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit “the servant of God who has suffered”, and in c. 21 init. he says: “we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that God has appeared in human form.” Similar expressions are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides’ Apology is there any mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks of the revelation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ.

were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ, 219however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfilment of the relatively small remainder not yet come to pass (judgment, resurrection), but also settles beyond all doubt the truth of the prophetic teachings about God, freedom, virtue, immortality, etc. In the scheme of fulfilment and prophecy even the irrational becomes rational; for the fulfilment of a prediction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occurrences which always take place, Accordingly, a part of what was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled.” Because the prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ’s destiny attests the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however, depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a reality and not a fancy.449 But prophecy test 564 ifies that Christ is the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular, and the book at the same time declares that this predicted One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked by Christ in the history of God’s revelation, the content of which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last, because in it the “truth along with the proof” has appeared. This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more impressive and convinces more men than formerly, especially since Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the 220truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous life, the principles of which have now become known in the whole world through the spread of his precepts. These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apologies; and they accordingly seem neither to have

56d 449

We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied. According to the ideas of the Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance. The fact that Jesus finds the she-ass bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. 1. 32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.

contemplated a redemption by Christ in the stricter sense of the word, nor to have assumed the unique nature of the appearance of the Logos in Jesus. Christ accomplished salvation as a divi ab7 ne teacher, that is to say, his teaching brings about the ἀλλαγή and ἐπαναγωγή of the human race, its restoration to its original destination. This also seems to suffice as regards demon rule. Logically considered, the individual portions of the history of Jesus (of the baptismal Confession) have no direct significance in respect to salvation. Hence the teachings of the Christians seem to fall into two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the propositions treating of the rational knowledge of God, and the predicted and fulfilled historical facts which prove those doctrines and the believing hopes they include. But Justin at least gave token of a manifest effort to combine the historical statements regarding Christ with the philosophical and moral doctrines of salvation and to conceive Jesus as the Redeemer.450 Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of succeeding times is found in the connection of philosophical theology with the baptismal confession, that is, in the “scientific theology of facts”, Justin is, in a certain fashion, the first framer of Church dogma, though no doubt in a very tentative way. (1) He tried to distinguish between the appearance of the Logos in pre-Christian times and in Christ; he emphasised the fact that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2) 221Justin showed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theologoumenon of the Logos, he was firmly convinced of the divinity of Christ on the ground of predictions and of the impression made by his personality.451 (3) In addition to the story of the exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and tried to give them a

450

In Justin’s polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise πρὸ Μαρκί , quoted by Irenæus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence “unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans.” So the theologoumenon of the recapitulatio per Ch ac8 ristum already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we compare Tertullian’s Apologeticum with his Antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin’s apologetic writings. 451 Christians do not place a man alongside of God, for Christ is God, though indeed a second God. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised — or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second Godhead — but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 39 ff.

positive significance.452 He adopted the common Christian saying that the blood of Christ cleanses believers and men are healed through his wounds; and he tried to give a mystic significance to the cross. (4) He accordingly spoke of the forgiveness of sins through Christ and confessed that men are changed, through the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of sins.453 Von Engelhardt has, however, quite rightly noticed that these are mere words which have nothing at all corresponding to them in the general system of thought, because Justin remains convinced that the knowledge of the true God, of his will, and of his promises, or the certainty that God will always grant forgiveness to the repentant and eternal life to the righteous, is sufficient to convert the man who is master of himself. Owing to the fundamental conviction which is expressed in the formulæ, “perfect philosophy”, “divine teacher”, “new law”, “freedom”, “repentance”, “sinless life”, “sure hope”, “ 564 reward”, “immortality”, the ideas, “forgiveness of sins”, “redemption”, “reconciliation”, “new birth”, “faith” (in the Pauline sense) must remain 222words,454 or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.455 Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention. Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of

452

We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind’s sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenæus and Melito. 453 Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45). For that reason the judgment is put off by God (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of Jesus; his conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned. 454 “To Justin faith is o ac8 nly an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching. Faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free. decision to serve God has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, ‘Abraham was justified by faith.’ In reality, however, this took place through µετά .” The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς µετάνοιαν, that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: “God is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind.” Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance. 455 This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics.

Christ, and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but also as the “Lord and Redeemer”. In two points he actually succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give what he has promised — a life after death free from sufferings and sins, that is the first point. The other ac8 thing, however, which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ.456 So the redemption is no mere future one; it is even now taking place, and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely intended to prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but denotes a real redemption, that is, a new beginning, in so far as the power of the demons on earth is overthrown through Christ and in his strength. Jesus Christ, the teacher of the whole 223truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and the divine, the only being who has understood how to call men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth, Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, however, Justin in all probability did not formulate with precision, viz., the proposition that the special result of salvation, i.e., immortality, was involved in the incarnation of the Logos, in so far as that act brought about a real secret transformation of the whole mortal nature of man. With Justin, indeed, as with the other Apologists, the “salvation” (σωτηρία) consists essentially in the apportioning of eternal life to the world, which has been created mortal and in consequence of sin has fallen a prey to the natural destiny of “death”; and Christ is regarded as the bestower of incorruptibility who thus brings the creation to its goal; but as a rule Justin does not go beyond this

456

If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. 11, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 if. (ed. Otto) does not contradict this.

thought. Yet we certainly find hints pointing to the notion of a physical and magical redemption accomplished at the moment of the incarnation. See particularly the fragment in Irenæus (already quoted on page 220), whic ac3 h may be thus interpreted, and Apol. I. 66. This conception, in its most complete shape, would have to be attributed to Justin if the fragment V. (Otto, Corp. Apol. III. p. 256) were genuine.457 But the precise form of the presentation 224makes this very improbable. The question as to how, i.e., in what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apologists: it is the necessary result of knowledge and virtue. Their great object was to assure the belief in immortality. “Religion and morality depend on the belief in immortality or the resurrection from the dead. The fact that the Christian religion, as faith in the incarnate Son of God the creator, leads to the assurance that the maker of all things will reward piety and righteousness with the bestowal of eternal and immortal life, is the essential advantage possessed by the Christian religion over all others. The righteousness of the heathen was imperfect in spite of all their knowledge of good and evil, because they lacked the certain knowledge that the creator makes the just immortal and will consign the unjust to eternal torment.”! — placement of this note is uncertain — !458 The philosophical doctrines of God, virtue, and immortality became through the Apologists the certain content of a 457

Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin’s, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragments is w ac0 orded as follows: Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώµης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ µιᾷ ποιησάµενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα µὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενοµένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόµενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ µήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν φθορὰν δεξαµένῳ ἀφανιζουσα µὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάµενον διατηροῦσα. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώµατι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡµᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύµατι µόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡµῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει µὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦµεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. 458 Schultz (Gottheit Christi, p. 41) very rightly points out that all the systems of the post-Socratic schools, so far as they practically spread among the people, invariably assume that knowledge, as such, leads to salvation, so that the bestowal of the ἀφθαρσία need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process as we are apt to imagine.

world-wide religion, which is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made Christianity a deistical religion for the whole world without abandoning in word at least the old “teachings and knowledge” (διδάγµατα καὶ µαθήµατα καὶ µαθήµατα) of the Christians. They thus marked out the task of “dogmatic” and, so to speak, wrote the prolegomena for every future theological system in the Church (see Von Engelhardt’s concluding observations in his “Christenthum Justin’s” pp. 447490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift, 1880, pp. 499505.) At the same time, however, they adhered to the earlyChristian eschatology (see Justin, Melito, and, with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists 225 569 generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early Christianity.459 Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin’s Doctrines. 1. The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that there can only be one and the same relation on earth between God and free man, and that it has been conditioned by the creation. This thought, which presupposes the idea of God’s unchangeableness, at bottom neutralises every quasi-historical and mythological consideration. According to it grace can be nothing else than the stimulation of the powers of reason existent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem ourselves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin, which arose through temptation, appears on the one hand as error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as man only possessed the “germs of the Logos” (σπέρµατα τοῦ λόγου), and o ac8 n the other as the dominion of sensuousness, which was nearly unavoidable since earthly material clothes the soul and mighty demons have possession of the world. The mythological idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the only interruption of the rationalistic scheme. So far as Christianity is something different from morality, it is the antithesis of the service and sovereignty of the demons. Hence the idea that the course of the world and mankind require in some measure to be helped is the narrow foundation of the thought of revelation or redemption. The necessity of revelation and redemption was expressed in a much stronger and more decisive way by many heathen philosophers of the same period. Accordingly, not only did these long for a revelation which would give a fresh attestation to

459

Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stählin, Justin der Märtyrer, 188, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt’s book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.

old truth, but they yearned for a force, a real redemption, a præsens numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the 226Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter’s idea of revelation with that of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger expression among them also, had not the task of proof, which could be best discharged by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the highest good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immortality is the highest good, in so far as it is perfect knowledge — which is, moreover, conceived as being of a rational kind, — that necessarily leads to immortality. We can only find traces of the converse idea, according to which the change into the immortal condition is the prius and the knowledge the posterius. But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic intellectualism is broken through, and we can now point to a specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revelation and redemption. Corresponding to the general development of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism (transition from the second to the third century), a displacement in this direction can also be noticed in the history of Greek apologetics (in the West it was different); but this displacemcnt was never considerable and therefore cannot be clearly traced. Even later on under altered circumstances, apologetic science adhered in every respect to its old method, as being the most suitable (monotheism, morality, proof from prophecy), a circumstance which is evident, for example, from the almost complete disr 564 egard of the New Testament canon of Scripture and from other considerations besides. 2. In so far as the possibility of virtue and righteousness has been implanted by God in men, and in so far as — apart from trifling exceptions — they can actually succeed in doing what is good only through prophetic, i.e., divine, revelations and exhortations, some Apologists, following the early Christian tradition, here and there designate the transformation of the sinner into a righteous man as a work of God, and speak of renewal and regeneration. The latter, however, as a real fact, is identical with the repentance which, as a turning from sin and turning to God, is a matter of free will. As in Justin, so also in Tatian, the idea of regeneration is exhausted in the 227divine call to repentance. The conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this. Only those sins can be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none, i.e., which were committed in a state of error and bondage to the demons, and were well-nigh unavoidable. The blotting out of these sins is effected in baptism, “which is the bath of regeneration in so far as it is the voluntary

consecration of one’s own person. The cleansing which takes place is God’s work i ac8 n so far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man who in his change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of God is pronounced above him who repents of his transgressions, that he may receive freedom, knowledge, and forgiveness of his previous sins, but this effects a change only denoting the new knowledge to which the baptised person has attained.” If, as all this seems to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus (Justin and Tatian) and Justin’s conception of the Lord’s Supper show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augustine’s assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much expressed in the opuscula as in the prayers, shows correct insight. 3. All the demands, the fulfilment of which constitutes the virtue and righteousness of men, are summed up under the title of the new law. In virtue of its eternally valid content this new law is in reality the oldest; but it is new because Christ and the prophets were preceded by Moses, who inculcated on the Jews in a transient form that which was eternally valid. It is also new because, being proclaimed by the Logos that appeared in Christ, it announced its presence with the utmost impressiveness and undoubted authority, and contains the promise of reward in terms guaranteed by the strongest proof — the proof from prophecy. The old law is consequently a new one because it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, perfect, and final. The commandment of love to one’s neighbour also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience, and imitation). The content of all moral demands is comprehended 228 in the commandment of perfect, active holiness, which is fulfilled by the complete renunciation of all earthly blessings, even of life itself. Tatian preached this renunciation in a specially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains of Judæo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas about the new law. It is not Judæo-Christianity that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the Apologists, but Greek philosophy (Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic ethics), the Alexandrine-Jewish apologetics, the maxims of Jesus, and the religious speech of the Christian Churches. Justin is distinguished from Philo by ac8 the sure conviction of the living power of God, the Creator and Lord of the world, and the steadfast confidence in the reality of all the ideals which is derived from the person of Christ. We ought not, however, to blame the Apologists because to them nearly everything historical was at bottom only a

guarantee of thoughts and hopes. As a matter of fact, the assurance is not less important than the content. By dint of thinking one can conceive the highest truth, but one cannot in this way make out the certainty of its reality. No positive religion can do more for its followers than faith in the revelation through Christ and the prophets did for the Apologists. Although it chiefly proved to them the truth of that which we call natural theology and which was the idealistic philosophy of the age, so that the Church appears as the great insurance society for the ideas of Plato and Zeno, we ought not at the same time to forget that their idea of a divine spirit working upon earth was a far more lively and worthy one than in the case of the Greek philosophers. 4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs: “they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into a revealed doctrine.”460 If about the middle of the second century 229the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum), and if even in lay and uneducated circles it was conceived as “doctrine” in contradistinction to heresy, this transformation must have been accelerated through men, who essentially conceived Christianity as the “divine doctrine”, and by whom all its distinctive features were subordinated to this conception or neutralised. As the philosophic schools are held together by their “laws “ (νόµοι) as the “dogmas “ form the real bond between the “friends”, and as, in addition to this, they are united by veneration for the founder, so also the Christian Church appeared to the Apologists as a universal league established by a divine founder and resting on the dogmas of the perfectly known truth, a league the members of which possess definite laws, viz., the 564 eternal laws of nature for everything moral, and unite in common veneration for the Divine Master. In the “dogmas” of the Apologists, however, we find nothing more than traces of the fusion of the philosophical and historical elements; in the main 460

Loofs continues: “The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept ‘Son’ to the preëxistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preëxistence and depreciated the importance of Jesus’ life as compared with the incarnation They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a ‘higher’ Christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not God who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated God, who as God is subordinate to the supreme Deity.”

both exist separately side by side. It was not till long after this that intellectualism gained the victory in a Christianity represented by the clergy. What we here chiefly understand by “intellectualism” is the placing of the scientific conception of the world behind the commandments of Christian morality and behind the hopes and faith of the Christian religion, and the connecting of the two things in such a way that this conception appeared as the foundation of these commandments and hopes. Thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the world long ago overthrown by science. The attempt made at the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success. 230

Chapter V. The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-Theological Interpretation and Revision of the Rule of Faith in Oppoisition to Gnosticism on the the Basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the Apologists: Melito, Iren 564 æus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian.

CHAPTER V. THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICOTHEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS: MELITO, IRENÆUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.461

461

Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren’s and Harvey’s editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler’s and Reifferscheid’s editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius’, Lagarde’s, Duncker’s and Schneidewin’s editions), Cyprian (Hartel’s edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Böhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen, Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, “Hippolytus und Kallistus,” 1853. Many monographs on Irenæus and Tertullian.

1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers. 1. The theological position of Irenæus and the later contemporary Church teachers. GNOSTICISM and the Marcionite Church had compelled orthodox Christianity to make a selection from tradition and to make this binding on Christians as an apostolical law. Everything that laid claim to validity had henceforth to be legitimised by the faith, i.e., the baptismal confession and the New Testament canon of Scripture (see above, chap. 2, under A and B). However, mere “prescriptions” could no longer suffice here aaf . But the baptismal confession was no “doctrine”; if it was to be transformed into such it required an interpretation. We have shown above that the interpreted baptismal confession was instituted as the guide for the faith. This interpretation took its matter from the sacred books of both Testaments. It owed its guiding lines, however, 231on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain interests, which had found expression in the speculations of the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence the ecclesiastical teachers.462 The theological labours, thus initiated, accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity. In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito,463 Rhodon,464 Irenæus,

462

The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and the later old Catholic te 564 achers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand modern orthodox theology from a historical point of view — if the comparison be here allowed — without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus without taking into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion. 463 That Melito is to be named here follows both from Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of the writings of this bishop; see Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 240 ff.). The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that “ancient” quoted by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature. We have no material a8f for judging of them with certainty. The New Testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently there is a gap between them and Irenæus.

Hippolytus, and Tertullian were in every case convinced that all their expositions contained the universal Church faith itself and nothing else. Though the faith is identical with the baptismal confession, yet every interpretation of it derived from the New Testament is no less certain than the shortest formula.465 The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite 232unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared as “doctrines” and offered themselves for incorporation with the “faith”. 572 1 The limits of the latter therefore seem to be indefinitely extended, whilst on the other hand tradition, and polemics too in many cases, demanded an adherence to the shortest formula. The oscillation between this brief formula, the contents of which, as a rule, did not suffice, and that fulness, which admitted of no bounds at all, is characteristic of the old Catholic Fathers we have mentioned. In the second place, these Fathers felt quite as much need of a rational proof in their arguments with their Christian opponents, as they did while contending with the heathen;466 and, being themselves children of their time, they required this proof for their own assurance and that of their fellowbelievers. The epoch in which men appealed to charisms, and “knowledge” counted as much as prophecy and vision, because it was still of the same nature, was in the main a thing of the past. abf 1 Tradition and reason had taken the place of charisms as courts of appeal. But this change had neither come to be clearly

464

See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13. Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: “Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari”; but the preceding exposition of the regula shows that scarcely any scope remained for the “curiositas”, and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did not mean that freedom seriously. 466 The most important point was that the Pauline theology, towards which Gnostics, Marcionites) and Encratites had already taken up a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. See Overbeck Basler Univ. — Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly. 467 See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόµενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. 594 468On the old “prophets and teachers” see my remarks on the , c. 11 ff., and the sections pp. 93-137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) became layteachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions. 465

recognised,469 nor was the right and scope of rational theology alongside of tradition felt to be a problem. We can indeed trace the consciousness of the danger in attempting to introduce new termini and regulations not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.470 The bishops themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to 233warn people against the Gnostics,471 and after the deluge of heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust on every philosophic-theological formula.472 Such propositions of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by Irenæus and Tertullian on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something of a different nature. Irenæus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;473 but yet, in the naïvest way, associated with

469

In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in H. E. V. 7. In support of his own writings, however, Irenæus appealed to no charisms. 470 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1. 471 Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way. 472 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: “Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµίᾳ esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονοµίαν.” Similar remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Nöet. 11. 473 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject speculations like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25.3: “Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1: “ Ἄµείνον καὶ συµφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγοµαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυµαθεῖς καὶ ἐµπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήµους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην, and in ad 548 dition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning the sphere within which we are to search (the Holy Scriptures and “quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt”, much remains dark to us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the canon which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident faith in God the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7: specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz., the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the Son to the Father, that is, the manner in which the Son was begotten, the way in which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by Bible passages. But the ground of these limits, “ex parte accepimus gratiam”, is not an early-Christian one,

the faithfully preserved traditional doctrines and fancies of the faith theories which he likewise regarded as tradition and which, in point of form, did not differ from those of the Apologists or Gnostics. 573 1 The 234Holy Scriptures of the New Testament were the basis on which Irenæus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. Some of these he stated as they had been conceived by the oldest tradition (see the eschatology), others he adapted to the new necessities. The qualitative distinction between the fides credenda and theology was noticed neither by Irenæus nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenæus I. 10. 3 this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theological knowledge are still completely intermixed. Whilst stating and establishing the doctrines of tradition with the help of the New Testament, and revising and fixing them by means of intelligent deduction, the Fathers think they are setting forth the faith itself and nothing else. Anything more than this is only curiosity not unattended with danger to Christians. Theology is interpreted faith.474 acd Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily devoid of strict style, definite principle, or fixed and harmonious aim. In this form we find them with special plainness in Tertullian.475 This writer was still completely incapable of inwardly connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines of the regula fidei, which, after the example of Irenæus, he constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposition to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove 235the intrinsic necessity of these

and it shows at the same time that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he thought it could not be attained on earth. ac1 474 The same observation applies to Tertullian. Cf. his point blank repudiation of philosophy in de præsc. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it everywhere. 475 In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot agree with Zahn’s judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): “Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent science of Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was also the first to mark out the paths of this science.” 476 Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenæus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.

dogmas, he seldom gets beyond rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict precepts and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we understand his collective theological disquisitions, is completely devoid of unity, and can only be termed a mixture of dissimilar and, not unfrequently, contradictory propositions, which admit of no comparison with the older theology of Valentinus or the later system of Origen.477 To Tertullian everything lies side by side; problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved. The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it sometimes seems to be in Justin’s case, a great apparatus of proof for the doctrines of the only true philosophy; it rather stands, in its own independent value, side by side with these, partly in a crude, partly in a developed form; but inner principles and aims are nearly everywhere sought for in vain.478 In spite of this he possesses inestimable importance in the history of dogma; for he developed an ac8 d created, in a disconnected form and partly in the shape of legal propositions, a series of the most important dogmatic formulæ, which Cyprian, Novatian, Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambrosius and Leo I., introduced into the general dogmatic system of the Catholic Church. He founded the terminology both of the trinitarian and of the Christological dogma; and in addition to this was the first to give currency to a series of dogmatic concepts (satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc.). 236Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the direction of auctoritas et ratio, and its corresponding tendency to assume a legal character (lex, formal and material), peculiarities which were

477

The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment both of dogmatic and moral questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Tertullian’s dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity. 57e 478With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted from Irenæus some guiding principles and some points of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he was capable of writing a treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the limits of his interests and of his understanding.

to become more and more clearly marked as time went on.479 But, great as is his importance in this respect, it has no connection at all with the fundamental conception of Christianity peculiar to himself, for, as a matter of fact, this was already out of date at the time when he lived. What influenced the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his masterly power of framing formulæ. It is different with Irenæus. The Christianity of this man proved a decisive factor in the history of dogma in respect of its content. If Tertullian supplied the future Catholic dogmatic with the most important part of its formulæ, Irenæus clearly sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.480 Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, the great work of Irenæus is far superior to the theological writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenæus, of giving a relatively complete exposition of the doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity on the basis of the New Testament, in opposition to heresy. Tertullian nowhere betrayed a similar systematic necessity, which indeed, in 564 the case of the Gallic bishop too, only made its appearance as the result of polemical motives. But Irenæus to a certain degree succeeded in amalgamating philosophic theology and the statements of ecclesiastical tradition viewed as doctrines. This result followed (1) because he never lost sight of a fundamental idea to which he tried to refer everything, and (2) because he was directed by a confident view of Christianity as a religion, 237that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea, in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenæus by his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator of the world and the supreme God are one and the same.481 The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is shared by Irenæus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The working out of these two ideas is the most important feature in Irenæus’ book. As yet,

479

Further references to Tertullian in a future volume. Tertullian is at the same time the first Christian individual after Paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said of Irenæus. 56d 480Consequently the spirit of Irenæus, though indeed strongly modified by that of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not to be traced there. 481 The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation.

indeed, he by no means really succeeded in completely adaptin ab6 g to these two fundamental thoughts all the materials to be taken from Holy Scripture and found in the rule of faith; he only thought with systematic clearness within the scheme of the Apologists. His archaic eschatological disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulæ and thoughts, he completely emptied of its content, inasmuch as he merely contrived to turn it into a testimony of the oneness and absolute causality of God the Creator; but the repetition of the same main thoughts to an extent that is wearisome to us, and the attempt to refer everything to these, unmistakably constitute the success of his work.482 God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ 238are really the middle points of his theological system, and in this way he tried to assign an intrinsic significance to the several historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an identical nature with the Gnostic.483 But, while he conceives Christianity as

482

What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justi ac8 fied in saying that the five books “adv. hæreses” of Irenæus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: “The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus”, in the “Studies of Church History” dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian’s Christology was subjected by Arethas in the l0th century (Oratio 5 see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of Irenæus. 483 People are fond of speaking of the “Asia Minor” theology of Irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John — Irenæus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an “apostolic” circle, and Gnosticism and

an explanation of the world and as redemption, his Christocentric teaching was opposed to that of the Gnostics. Since the latter started with the conception of an original dualism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination of opposing elements,484 and therefore recognised in the redemption by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenæus, on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute causality of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the redemption by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separated — the “recapitulatio” (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις).485 This speculative 239thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenæus into touch with certain Pauline trains of thought,486 and enabled him to adhere to the theology of the Apologists. At the same time it opened up a view of the person of Christ, which supplemented the great defect of that theology,487 surpassed the Christology of the Gnostics,488 and made it possible to utilise the Christological statements contained in certain books of the New Testament. af1 489

So far as we know at least, Irenæus is the first ecclesiastical theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before

Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposi ac1 tion that Irenæus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irena us cannot be separated from the received canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenæus (and Melito?). 484 Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace. 485 See Molwitz, De Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως in Irenæi theologic potestate, Dresden, 1874. 486 See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. 487 But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin’s chief Antignostic work. 488 According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante, according to that of Irenæus he first and alone realises the. hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity. 489 According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of Sophia, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenæus’ idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus himself did so in II. 20. 3.

that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor.490 That was possible for him because of his realistic view of redemption. Here, however, he did not fall into the abyss of Gnosticism, because, as a disciple of the “elders”, he adhered to the early-Christian eschatology, and because, as a follower of the Apologists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation, the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts 240to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God, and thus by their own act to attain communion with him. Nevertheless to Irenæus the pith of the matter is already found in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is the deification of human nature through the gift of immortality, and that this deification includes the full knowledge and enjoying of God (visio dei). This conception suggested to him the question as to the cause of the incarnation as well as the answer to the same. The question “cur deus — homo”, which was by no means clearly formulated in the apologetic writings, in so far as in these “homo” only meant appearance among men, and the “why” was answered by referring to prophecy and the necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenæus made the central point. The reasons why the answer he gave was so highly satisfactory may be stated as follows: (1) It proved that the Christian blessing of salvation was of a specific kind. (2) It was similar in point of form to the so-called Gnostic conception of Christianity, and even surpassed it as regards the promised extent of the sphere included in the deification. (3) It harmonised with the eschatological tendency of Christendom, and at the same time was fitted to replace the material eschatological expecta 564 tions that were fading away. (4) It was in keeping with the mystic and Neoplatonic current of the time, and afforded it the highest imaginable satisfaction. (5) For the vanishing trust in the possibility of attaining the highest knowledge by the aid of reason

490

After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenæus con ac8 tinues § 7: “Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat?” It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is new in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?” See also lib. III. præf.: “veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina”, III. 10. 3: “Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.” III. I1. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.

it substituted the sure hope of a supernatural transformation of human nature which would even enable it to appropriate that which is above reason. (6) Lastly, it provided the traditional historical utterances respecting Christ, as well as the whole preceding course of history, with a firm foundation and a definite aim, and made it possible to conceive a history of salvation unfolding itself by degrees (ὀικονοµία Θεοῦ). According to this conception the central point of history was no longer the Logos as such, but Christ as the incarnate God, while at the same time the moralistic interest was balanced by a really religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline 241theology, though indeed in a very peculiar way and to some extent only in appearance. A more exact representation of salvation through Christ has, however, been given by Irenæus as follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our present one and abf indeed of man’s natural condition. For immortality is at once God’s manner of existence and his attribute; as a created being man is only “capable of incorruption and immortality” (“capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis”);491 thanks to the divine goodness, however, he is intended for the same, and yet is empirically “subjected to the power of death” (“sub condicione mortis”). Now the sole way in which immortality as a physical condition can be obtained is by its possessor uniting himself realiter with human nature, in order to deify it “by adoption” (“per adoptionem”), such is the technical term of Irenæus. The deity must become what we are in order that we may become what he is. Accordingly, if Christ is to be the Redeemer, he must himself be God, and all the stress must fall upon his birth as man. “By his birth as man the eternal Word of God guarantees the inheritance of life to those who in their natural birth have inherited death.”492 242But this work of Christ can be conceived as

491

See II. 24. 3, 4: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur.” Cf. what follows. Irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is capax incorruptibilitatis, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man’s destiny. 492 Book V. pref.: “Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”: III. 6. 1: “Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei,” etc.; see also what follows, III. 16. 3: “Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei.” III. 16. 6: “Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus,

et ac8 incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.” III. 18. 1: “Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus.” Cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: “Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ µὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ µὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχοµεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ µὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη µετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν µεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁµόνοιαν τοὺς ἀµφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ µὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem.” The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenæus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, “perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑµεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς ύ ac8 οὺς µὴ δεξαµένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιµάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?” III. 21. 10: Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰµ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρµατος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν δεύτερον Ἀδὰµ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασµένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁµοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα µὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται µηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόµενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουµένης τῆς ὁµοιότητος; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to

recapitulatio because God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator; and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in God’s plan, but could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It 243is perhaps Irenæus’ highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in pregnant fashion and with the simplest means, i.e., without the apparatus of the Gnostics, but rather by the aid of simple and essentially Biblical ideas. Moreover, a few decades later, he and Melito, an author unfortunately so little known to us, were already credited with this merit. For the author of the so-called “Little Labyrinth” (Euseb., H. E. V. 28. 5) can indeed boast with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues: 56d Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν (“Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ to be God and man”). The progress in theological views is very precisely and appropriately expressed in these words. The Apologists also professed their belief in the full revelation of God upon earth, that is, in revelation as the teaching which necessarily leads to immortality;493 but Irenæus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the

Tatian’s views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ (See II. 20. 3: “dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit”; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having ac8 performed a work. Secondly, alongside of the deification of Adam’s children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellowship with God) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso”, and many other passages. We find a combined formula in III. 5.3: “Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem.” 493 Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.

centre of history and faith.494 244Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the ac8 οἰκονοµία Θεοῦ culminating in the deification of believing humanity, but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the Biblical. The various acting æons of the Gnostics became to him different stages in the saving work of the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intelligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology. Revelation had become history, the history of salvation; and dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking at history, the knowledge of God’s ways of salvation that lead historically to an appointed goal.495 But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was by no means completely worked out by Irenæus himself, since the theory of human freedom did not admit of its logical development, and since the New Testament also pointed in other directions, it did not yet become the predominating one even in the third century, nor was it consistently carried out by any one teacher. The two conceptions opposed to it, that of the early Christian eschatology and the rationalistic one, were still in vogue. The two latter were closely connected in the third century, especially in the West, whilst the mystic and realistic view was almost completely lacking there. In this respect Tertullian adopted but little from Irenæus. Hippolytus also lagged behind him. Teachers like Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, however, wrote as if there had been no Gnostic movement at all, and as if no Antignostic Church theology existed. The immediate result of the work carried on by Irenus and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of individual doctrines, which gradually became established. The most 245important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital point, the introduction 494

Melito’s teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression “αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ. 495 The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of God and the co 564 rresponding idea of “several covenants” (I. 10. 3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.

of the philosophical Christology into the Church’s rule of faith, see Chapter 7. The manner in which Irenæus undertook his great task of expounding and defending orthodox Christianity in opposition to the Gnostic form was already a prediction of the future. The oldest Christian motives and hopes; the letter of both Testaments, incl 564 uding even Pauline thoughts; moralistic and philosophical elements, the result of the Apologists’ labours; and realistic and mystical features balance each other in his treatment. He glides over from the one to the other; limits the one by the other; plays off Scripture against reason, tradition against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fantastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and dominating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of divine incorruptibility on believers through the work of the God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd calculation. It was equally the result of a rare capacity for appropriating the feelings and ideas of others, combined with the conservative instincts that guided the great teacher, and the consequence of a happy blindness to the gulf which lay between the Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenæus with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic process is to be nothing else than the simple faith itself, this being merely illustrated and explained, developed and by that very process established, as far as “stands in the Holy Scripture”, and — let us ac8 add — as far as reason requires. But Irenæus was already obliged to decline answering the question as to how far unexplained faith can be sufficient for most Christians, though nothing but this explanation can solve the great problems, “why more covenants than one were given to mankind, what was the character of each covenant, why God shut up every man unto unbelief, why the Word became flesh and suffered, why the advent of the Son of God only took place in the last times etc.” (I. 10. 3). The relation of faith and theological Gnosis was 246fixed by Irenæus to the effect that the latter is simply a continuation of the former.496 At the same time, however, he did not clearly show how

496

It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to Irenæus simply related as the “is” and the “why”. As a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of God’s ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was

the collection of historical statements found in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and tenable knowledge of Christianity. Here the speculative theories are as a matter of fact quite imbedded in the historical propositions of tradition. Will these obscurities remain when once the Church is forced to compete in its theological system with the whole philosophical science of the Greeks, or may it be expected that, instead of this system of eclecticism and compromise, a method will find acceptance which, distinguishing between faith and theology, will interpret in a new and speculative sense the whole complex of tradition? Irenæus’ process has at least this one advantage over the other method: according to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, providing it bears the stamp of truth, without the faith seeming to alter its nature. It is incorporated in the theology of facts which the faith here appears to be.497 The latter, however, imperceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history; and though Irenæus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the “simple faith” (ψιλὴ πίστις), and to believing simplicity, that is, to the belief in the Creator and the Son of God who became man, yet it was not in his power to stop the development destined to transform the faith into knowledge of a theological system. The pronounced hellenising of the Gospel, 247brough ac8 t about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenæus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly as regards its spirit, and thus rescuing it for the future. But the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of “Gnostic” formulæ. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversary’s way of looking at things, and necessarily did so, because as they became ever further and further removed from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellenising of Christianity.

impossible for him to find it in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformat ac8 ion of that faith into a monistic speculation. 497 See I. 10, 2: Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάµενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε.

2. The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the Church. 2. The Doctrines of the Church. In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times. Against the Gnostic theses498 Irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, ,omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.499 (2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated 248divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,500 finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of wh ac8 ich is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.501 (3) The attempt to make out conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.502

498

See Böhringer’s careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739). 499 To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus’ criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff. 500 See Irenæus II. I. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, n 564 or two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15. 501 See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as “personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” 502 See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference ac8 to the Son and Spirit. “Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut

(4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the Godhead.503 With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.504 Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, 249and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme Being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a God.505 The Fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; for it proves

secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes”? See also II. 17. 4: “Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit.” Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine. 503 See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18. 504 See Iren. II. 4. 2. 505 Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion’s rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to 55c the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog.

that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) s 564 upreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-rational 250kind.506 As a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of Tertullian; and 564 the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and tradition. Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here understand “evangelical” in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as “Catholic”. But if “evangelical” signifies “early-Christian”, then it must be said th 551 at Scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as inspired documents and were to be interpreted according to the regula, their content

506

But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII, p. 113 ff. ad0 507 See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.

was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture 251of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer into any others one might choose;508 but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,509 and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the Gnostics.510 The Scripture theology of the old Catholic Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a whole-some reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the “spirit” arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this “spirit” completely. Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves; afe 511 he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;512 he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;513 he lays down the

508

See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim. See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. I.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655; Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817. 510 For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: “Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa.” 511 See Iren., III. 5. I: III. 12. 6. 512 See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: “Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo de 563 i et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.” 513 See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of 509

maxim that the obscure passages 252are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versâ;514 but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith515 and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.516 Not only did Irenæus explain the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;517 but according to the principle: “with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification” (“nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”) (IV. 2I. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic w 564 ritings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the fact of Jesus handing round food to those lying at table as signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;518 and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and Son.519 To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. “Gnosticism” is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this “Gnosicism” is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Church-men were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the aac same questions as the “Gnostics”, they were obliged to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in 253order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam down to the present time — not merely down to Christ — against the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the rest,

the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles. 514 See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2. ac3 515 See Iren. II. 25. 1. 516 Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere.” 517 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit. 518 See Iren. IV. 22. 1. 519 See Iren. III. 17. 3.

the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.520 The doctrine of God was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge — for God is not abyss and silence — and the attempt to fathom the depths of the Godhead.521 Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.522 God can be known from revelation, 56b 523 520

Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration. 56a 521See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c. 522 See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: “Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem.” Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e., absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, IV. 20. I: “Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc.”; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God “secundum dilectionem” is more closely defined by the words “per verbum eius Iesum Christum.” The ac8 statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see God. God’s omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαµπρότητος αὐτοῦ µετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, µετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς

254because

he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.524 In this case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that is a phantom; 579 1 and every sublime religious state of mind which 255does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the blasphemia creatoris.525 Like the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of the main articles of Christian faith;526 the belief

λαµπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώµενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως. See also what follows down to the words: µετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain. 523 See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, µὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ µὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέληµα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. 524 Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: “Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est i 53f gitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum.” Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17. 525 See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II. 526 See Iren., V. 26. 2. aed 527See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9.

in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.528 564 God is all light, all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;529 everything anthropopathic and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.530 The early-Catholic doctrine of God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so far as God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that 256they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.531

528

See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus’ utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: “Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita” . . . “substantia omnium voluntas dei;” see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds good: “ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum.” 529 See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2. 530 Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion “deum corpus esse” (adv. Prax. 7: “Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie”) must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: “omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est.” Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man’s likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bisho 564 p under the title “ὁ περὶ ἐνσωµάτου Θεοῦ λόγος”, and Origen reckoned him among the ichers who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius (Instit. div. VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.). 531 See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertulla adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the Apologists’ idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Gree 564 k fragment of Irenæus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: “Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit”; de pænit. 2: “Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum”; adv. Marc. II. 27: “Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis.” They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord’s Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never

In the case o 55c f the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, whilst Irenaus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologeticum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.532 257He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the Monarchian Praxeas.533 Here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas “substance” and “person” and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions of the relations between the persons which could be fully adopted in the Nicene creed. 564 534 Here also the philosophical and cosmological

possible for him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen’s work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord’s Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the Gospel. 532 Apol. 21: “Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον, id est sermonem 564 et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.” (An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). “Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.” Tertullian adds: “Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.” As a matter of fact the heathen ac8 most have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to ascertain that in Hippolytus’ book against Noëtus “the setting forth of the truth” (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσµον κτίσαι. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention. 533 See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff. 534 See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity (“orthodox” in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian’s juristic bias. The formulæ, “una substantia, tres

interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity of the Godhead is shown in the una substantia and the una dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. According to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated persons cannot endanger the 258unity; the “arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself” (“dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat”) does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, so that God will be all in all. 564 535 Here then the Gnostic doctrine of moons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the Valentinians “acknowledge that the one is the originator of all” (“τὸν ἕνα ὁµολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων”), because with them also, “the

personæ”, never alternates in his case with the others, “una natura, tres personæ”; and so it remained for a long time in the West; they did not speak of “natures” but of “substances” (“nature” in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses “substance” in the concrete sense “individual substance” and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: “aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantia.” We see that Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance expressed their unity as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the F ac8 ather, who is the tota substantia, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept “person” aided in the matter here. 535 See adv. Prax. 3: “Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?” (! !) c. 4: “Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.” L.c.: Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit.”

whole goes back to one” (“τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει”).536 The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the “economy of God” (οἰκονοµία τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number. ad0 1 According to Tertullian “a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy” (“trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit”) is already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of God’s economy, and distinguishing between dispositio, distinctio, numerus on the one hand and divisio on the other. At the beginning God was alone, but ratio and sermo existed within him. In a certain sense then, 259he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with God.537 But as yet he was the only person.538 The moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. For “that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance.” He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from God “secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma”; but as unity of substance is to be preserved (“alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud” — “ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est” — “tres unum sunt, non unus” — “the Father is one person and the Son is another, different persons ac8 not different things”, “I and the Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number” — “the three are one thing not one person”), the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum

536

See Hippol., c. Noëtum 11. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, i.e., if everything proceeds from him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed. 537 Adv. Prax. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret”; cf. also what follows. Thus far then th ac8 eologians had got already: “The economy is founded on as many names as God willed” (c. 4). 538 See adv. Prax. 5. 539 Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: “fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.”

10).540 For that very reason “Son” is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way (κατὰ µερισµόν). Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (“unius substantiæ” = ὁµοούσιος) he has also the same power541 as regards the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it ab initio, from the very beginning of time.542 On the other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son 543 260is subordinate to the Father. “Pater tota substantia est, filius 544 vero derivatio totius et portio”. This paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the Fath ac8 er, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which has an origin.545 We

540

Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between “factum esse” and “procedere”. 541 Adv. Prax. 2: “Custodiatur οἰκονοµίας sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis.” 542 See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff. 543 Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: “filius portio plenitudinis.” In another passage Textullian has ironically remarked in oppos 564 ition to Marcion (IV. 39): “Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert.” 544 Adv. Prax. 9. 545 See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: “Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.” One cannot look at the sun itself, but, “toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur.” The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv. Marc. aba II. 27: Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.” In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father is by nature impassible, but the Son is

would assert too much, were we to say that Tertullian meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the “unius substantiæ” disproves this. But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from God’s standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity 261as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;546 and secondly by the fact that the Son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.547 These words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of God; for so long as history lasts “the Son continues in his form.” In its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole expositio 55e n is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,548 but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with

capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise ἀπαθής (see c. Noëtum 15). 546 According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Son’s nature to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises. 547 See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV. 548 Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.–V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion µερισµό in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullian’s proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: “Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur.” Plotinus’ idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination.

the utterances of early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,549 With peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings. 262

It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus. Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing 56a 1

ad6 549 Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own “numerus” — “tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis”, — and he is a person in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: “tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονοµίας statum protegit”; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called “vicaria vis”. The element of personality in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noët. 14): Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονοµίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος· πατὴρ µὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα.” In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth “ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισµός”; he is produced ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, i.e., from the Father who then alone existed; his essence is “that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him” or “that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father.” Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: “Christus deus et homo”, and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and aad preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the Holy Ghost not as a person but as “sanctificatio” proceeding from the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced Tertullian’s views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ dei spiritus; see de orat. I: “Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus.”Apol. 21; adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21. 550 See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenäus Christologie, 1843.

theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, whom he views as God and man, the startingpoint of his speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.551 That 263he nevertheless makes Logos (µονογενής, πρωτότοκος, “only begotten”, “first born”) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was 564 already recognised as authoritative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus’ system (in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as recapitulatio of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old and New. Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the Godhead of the F ac8 ather. He confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation “Logos” to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.552 Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father 551

Zahn, l.c., p. 238. See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin. 552

and Son. What makes 264the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.553 In Irenæus’ sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation hypostasis of the Father, “the self-revelation of the self-conscious God”, and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For according to him the Son always existed with God, always revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific nature, truly God, and there is no distinction of essence between him and God.554 Now we might conclude from the strong 265emphasis laid on “always” that Irenæus conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of

553

A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6. 554 The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: “agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata”); IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: “semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: “non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem”; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: “non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.” The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: “fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam,” or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: “et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo” (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: “filius est in patre et habet in se patrem,” III. 6. 1.: utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem.” He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son (“pater generis humani verbum dei”, IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient “immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum.” This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system.

God himself and existing independently of revelation. But the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because he gives a revelation. Little interested as IrenÍ ac8 us is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as “the hand of God”, the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who dominates all, the head of Christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and his Logos.555 Irenæus had no opportunity of writing against 266the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. It

570

555

Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. IQ: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6: “Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius.” Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: “verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile”). But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son receives from the Father the sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself; V. 18. 21, 3 (“pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans” — “verbum portatum ac8 a patre” — “et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi” — “verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre”). “This is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically,” says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son.

cannot therefore be determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early. Christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according to Irenæus, “God placed himself in the relationship of Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his Son;”556 but we ought not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists ac8 regarding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.557

556

Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγµατείαν καὶ οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενοµένην, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones.” God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: “Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei,” or III. 20. 2: “Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.” V. 29. 1: “Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.” 557 Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was 564 any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V. 1. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But not only does the function

267

Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus’ views with regard to the destination of man, the original state, the fall, and sin; because the heterogeneous elements of his “theology”, the apologetic and moralistic, the realistic, and the 268Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. But these very contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.558 The apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the

of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary — where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in III. 18. 3: “ung ac8 uentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus” (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula τριά , to say nothing of the abstract formulæ of Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the Spirit: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑµᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶµα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν µὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐµαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦµα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑµῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Here one of Origen’s thoughts appears. 558 The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. Nöldechen (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): “Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts.”

beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the destination of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable of it.559 That destination is realised through the guidance of God 269and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man’s 559

Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ µὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ µετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννηµένα. Καθὸ δὲ µή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ac8 συνήθη καί αγύµναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν, see also § 24: “Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali.” Ibid.: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραµονὴ ἀφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιά . His conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the destination of man — which was finally to be reached through divine guidance — but not as his nature, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” or between “substantia” and “fides et iustitia”. In other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: “Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. II. 34. 3: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur,” II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: “Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione.” In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear 564 .

possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God’s Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man’s likeness consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient imme 564 diately after the creation, this likeness to God did not become perfect.560 Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to 270which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. This death was transmitted to Adam’s whole posterity.561

560

On the psychology of Irenæus see Böhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνεῦµα in man as the latter’s inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εἰκών is realised in the body, the ὁµοίωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The ὁµοίωσις is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatian’s opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the πνοή, not the πνεῦµα, that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man’s inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God’s goodness has scope for displ ac8 aying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man’s knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: “veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis.” An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: “omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt,” as referring to man’s inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): “liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.” § 5: “Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.” § 4: “deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia.” § 3: “τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συµβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ µὴ βιαζοµένου. IV. 4. 3: “homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” 561 As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: “Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt

Here Irenæus followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man’s fall562 and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul’s case, the 271c a98 onsequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man’s development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to God.563 Here life and death are always the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is only when he quotes sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical

apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum.” V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very 564 clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: “Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate.” 562 Man’s sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was infans, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics in IV. 38. 4: “supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis.” The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; “quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?” i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: “The ac8 fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent” . . . “eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est.” The “pondus peccati” in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul’s view. 563 See IV. 37. 7: “Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.” The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that he was “naturaliter similis deo”. Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7.

consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. “The original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined.”564 Moreover, the goodness of God immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.565 What significance belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them too direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.566 One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian 272and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine; af8 567 only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man’s will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of God’s ways.568

564

See Wendt, l.c., p. 24. See III. 23. 6. 566 See V. 1. 1: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rur 564 sus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes,” etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: “libertatem restauravit”; IV. 24. 1: “reformavit humanum genus”; III. 17. 1: “spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano.” III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt’s summary, l.c., p. 24: “By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance,” formulates Irenæus’ meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a homo inspiratus is required. 567 See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δηµιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρύ ac1 πον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34). 568 See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary to Wendt opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian is speciosior quam verior. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to see the first traces of 565

But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: “it is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God” (“impossibile est sine deo discere deum”) was a conviction which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a Christological sense,569 and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which 273has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with God and dependence on him.570 No doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordanc 564 e with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, the “longa hominum expositio”, was recapitulated by Christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it originally was and again included under one head what was divided.571 If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: “What we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of God, we recover in Christ.572 Adam, however, is humanity; in other

the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view. 569 See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4. 570 See IV. 14. 1: “In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute.” This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus’ great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. 56b 571 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f. 572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ

words, as all humanity is united and renewed through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. Accordingly “the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belongi ac8 ng to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as Christ’s obedience and possession of salvation are the property 274of all mankind united under him as their head.”573 In the first Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.574 Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity575 as in the case of Christ, viewed as the 275second

λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁµοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenæus even says: “Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus.” Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: “oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere” etc. (see above, p. 268), where natura hominis is conceived as the oppos ac8 ite of the divine nature. 573 See Wendt, i.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man’s original state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments. 574 See V. 16. 3: ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰµ προσεκόψαµεν, µὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν. IV. 34. 2: “homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;” III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq. 575 Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Böhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: “We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam’s conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this.” It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g., de anima 40: “ita omnis anima eo us 564 que in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur,” and other passages; but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler’s edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a

Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576 show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenæus’ mind. This is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been overcome by the devil.577 It was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of all individual men. This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to Irenæus’ doctrine of the God-man. The historical importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. At the present day, ecclesias 564 tical Christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in

physical taint of sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: “per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit.” Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated “ex originis vitio” and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: “Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum?” For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through “philosophy” and of emasculating the understanding through “revelation.” In regard to t ac4 he conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus (“dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera”); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: “Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit” is quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: “infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata.” Tertullian’s proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3). 576 III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound . . . “eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.” Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πάντες ἀποθνήσκοµεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί . But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought. 577 See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement.

Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe to him the idea of the “two natures”, which remain in their integrity — that formula which owes its adoption to the influence 276of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus’ thought “the Son of God became the Son of man”, (“filius dei factus filius hominis”). Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epochmaking fact. “Filius dei filius hominis factus”, “it is one and the same Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary union of an on and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended” — this along with the dogma of God the Creator is the c ac8 ardinal doctrine of Irenæus:578 “Jesus Christ truly man and truly God” (“Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus”).579 It is only the Church that adheres to this doctrine, for “none of the heretics hold the opinion that the Word of God became flesh” (“secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est”).580 What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really the Word of God, i.e., is God, (2) that this Word really became man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the “Ebionites” as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ’s advent was the descent of one of the many moons. In opposition to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in favour of the divinity of Christ,581 and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus Christ had only been a man.582 In this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.583 He not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between Ad 561 am and Eve on the one

578

See, e.g., III. g. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: “verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus.” 545 579See IV. 6. 7. 580 See III. 11. 3. 581 See III. 6. 582 See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3 see also Tertullian against “Ebion” de carne 14, 18, 24; de præscr. 10. 33. 583 Editor: This note is missing in the footnotes.

hand and Christ 277and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.584 He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with God and always present to the human race, that descended.585 He who became man was not a being foreign to the world — this is said in opposition to Marcion — but the Lord of the world and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality of the body of Christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.586 In the

584

See the arguments, l c., V. 19. 1: “Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,” and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g., Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: “uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum.” Iren. III. 21. 7: “Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);” III. 22. 4 “Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis” . . . “quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem”). These, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about Mary in de carne 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the virginitas Mariæ in partu can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular conception as to the reason of Christ’s birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18: “Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen.” The other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcel 564 y hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ’s birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ’s kinship to God the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regula fidei received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin’s name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220. 585 See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276. 586 So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work de carne Christi. Tertullian e 564 xclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: “Parce unicæ spei totius orbis.” Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ’s assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh. This is

latter he also includes the fact that Jesus must 278have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.587 Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is permanently united with humanity.588 Irenæus called this union “union of the Word of God with the creature” (“adunitio verbi dei ad plasma”)589 and “blending and communion of God and man” (“commixtio et communio dei et hominis”)590 279without thereby describing it any more clearly.591 He views it as perfect, for, as a

particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naïve Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: “spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio.” Yet Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ’s human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1) as also did Melito (τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώµατος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως Otto, l.c., IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the Saviour’s flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to ac7 teach the annihilation of Christ’s flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): “Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless.” It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of God came to die. 587 This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ. 588 See Iren. V. 31. 2: “Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem.” Tertullian, de carne 24: “Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci;” see also what follows. 589 See Iren. IV. 33. 11. 590 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1. 591 He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. “Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit

rule, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.592 The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is not found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never 280occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief. 58c 593 In his utterances about the God-man Tertullian

propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo.” V. 18.1: “Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.” 566 592Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula “God has suffered” and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος (p. 422): “Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert.” But let us note that these are not “doctrines”, but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against 564 the “Gnostic” separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: “Iesu generatio sic erat” but “Christi generatio sic erat”), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour’s person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple “filius dei filius hominis factus” and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): “Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,” but also by the “propter hominem i 564 udicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?” (l.c.). 593 The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case

closely imitates Irenæus. Like the latter he uses the expression “man united with God” (“homo deo mixtus”)594 and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the Son of God.595 But he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, “the Son of God made Son of man” (“filius dei filius hominis factus”). He speaks of a “corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substanc ab3 e of the Lord”, (“corporalis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini”)596 of “either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ” (“utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi”), of the “creation of two substances which Christ himself also possesses”, (“conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat”)597 and of 281the “twofold condition not blended but united in one personGod and man” (“duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in una persona — deus et homo”.598 Here we already have in a complete

was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: ἵνα ἐξ ἀµφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. Tha a9b t Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures. 594 See Apol. 21: “verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus; adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;” de carne 15: “homo deo mixtus;” 18: “sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei.” On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff. 595 De carne 5: “Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est;” but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: “deus crucifixus” “nasci se voluit deus”. De pat. 3: “nasci se deus in utero patitur.” The formula: “ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁµεγας Θεός is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24. 596 De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: “ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ.” 597 De carne 18 fin. 591 598Adv. Prax. 27: “Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum . . . Videmus duplicem statum,

form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.599 At the same time, however, we can clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.600 He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition “the Word became flesh” (“verbum caro 282factum”) denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos’ assumption of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages. 554 1 Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents who understood John’s statement in the sense of the Word’s transforming himself

non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ.” In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: “ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt.” See also c. 29: “Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Chri 564 sto Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam” etc. 599 Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves). I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: “Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.” 600 In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula “de 52c us et homo”, or, after Tertullian’s time “duæ substantiæ”, was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian’s opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian’s view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating. ad6 601“Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?”

into flesh, and therefore argued against the “assumption of flesh from the Virgin” (“assumptio carnis ex virgine”);602 and, in the second place, he had to do with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.603 In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid great weight on formulæ like “the crucified God”, “God consented to be born” (“ aed deus crucifixus”, “nasci se voluit deus”) and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses — which was already a further step, — sharply emphasised the “distinct function” (“distincte agere”) of the two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The “deus factus homo” (“verbum caro factus”) presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as “theology” can no longer be banished. Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, 283for all his elucidations of “substance” and “person” are of this nature. A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos doctrine in the struggle against the “Patripassians” was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of Christ’s body, it was Tertullian who distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the

602

See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: “Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum . . . Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum” etc. 603 Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.

conception of the perfect unity of Christ’s person. The first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second was found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition connected with these.604 With regard to the first we may point out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only beca 564 use man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is the realisation of our possession of God’s image;605 but this 284thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with God,606 till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That Irenæus, in explaining 564 the life of Jesus as that of Adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes: “ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα

604

So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus’ Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Böhringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him). af2 605See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: “Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo.” Adv. Marc. V. 8: “Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram”; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation. 606 Iren. IV. 14. 2 for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus’ views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, i.e., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.

δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος µὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινοµένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑποµένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαµβάνεσθαι” (“For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven”). From these words it is plain that Irenæu 564 s preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. The “discrete agere” of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man 285in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the “deus crucifixus” and to lay the foundation for Tertullian’s formulæ. With regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the greatest difficulties in the way of the Logos Christology. Of what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? Iren 564 æus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the man Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.607 This separation indeed rescued to future ages the

607

“Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat.” All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus’ incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 564 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the

minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the “deus homo factus” without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive 286to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only “Gnostic” testimony in its favour. Before Irenæus’ day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that Je 55f sus Christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus patibilis (“capable of suffering”) and the Christ ἀπαθής (“impassible”) is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: “filius dei filius hominis factus”. No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian’s Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: “deus passus, deus crucifixus est” (“God suffered, God was crucified”).608

following other formulæ about Christ: ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός — “Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur.” But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παῖς Θεοῦ. 608 On Hippolytus’ views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. — an account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learne ac8 d teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel’s untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus’ treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de

Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς (Iren.), δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡµεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυµοῦµεν (see Iren.) Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύµφιος ἱµάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh), ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡµῶν σῶµα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµει καὶ µίξας (Iren., Tertull.) τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύµενον ἄνθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάµ, l.c., c. 26, with the ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus’ Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noët. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a co 564 ncession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεµψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ µέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνοµα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαµβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν µονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the “divine mysteries” of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter’s confident ton ac8 e. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): οὐ παύσεται ἡ ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσµω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόµενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς µέλλει ποιµαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόµενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. If we consider how Irenæus’ pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse “doctrines”, we see how the “Scripture” theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here — “doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.” From this standpoint Origen’s undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.

acd But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that “Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”609 288(“Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is”). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the “factus est quod sumus nos” in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as “salvation and saviour and saving” (“salus et salvator et salutare”),610 but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of “Gnosis”, nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.611 But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ’s work not to the “pneumatic” ipso facto, 564 but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour’s words and adorn themselves with works of 287Irenæus

609

See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: “filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit.” 610 See III. 10. 3. 611 564 See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus’ raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): “Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus.” The new thing is then defined thus: “Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.”

righteousness.612 Irenæus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as 289the realisation of man’s original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the person of Christ. Here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the artic 564 les that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question “cur deus Homo” in the highest sense.613 Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ’s real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, “filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos” (“the Son of God became Son of man for us”) and “filius dei passus est propter nos” (“the Son of God suffered for us”) as the most vital ones. He did not 564 , however, clearly show which 290of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is already involved in

612

See IV. 36. 6: “Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., µετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei” — we must pro ac8 vide ourselves with the wedding garment. 613 The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God’s appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: “Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc.” That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.

the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ’s work in succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating counterpart of Adam’s birth from the virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve’s disobedience, so the story of Jesus’ temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam’s te 54c mptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation.614 As yet Irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the death of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the “apostasy” for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, however, develop this thought any further. adf 1

614

Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei. 615 See particularly V. I. 1: “Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret.” We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this fo 564 rm it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-

291

His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the righteous flesh” as such, at other times in the “wood.” Here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.616 But teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in Irenæus, 292and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to God.617 According to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in Christ’s restoring man to communion and friendship

Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus’ translation in Caspari’s Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τὸν πριωµενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς µῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νοµὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάµενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· µᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡµαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυ ab9 τρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ὑµῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνοµίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν µητέρα ὑµῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· ∆ωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ µετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ µετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷµα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιµὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷµα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ µὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιµῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήµιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, ἀνέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious. 616 See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo.” It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy (“this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled”). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof. 55d 617See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθύµως Ἀβραὰµ τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρµατος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡµετέραν.

with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam’s sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the consequences of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.618 Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ’s work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenæus employed the following categories: restoring of the likeness of God in humanity; abolition of death; connection and union of man with God; adoption of men as sons of God and as gods; imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men;619 imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him; bestowal of everlasting life. All these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his acts are 293thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they “according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his voice.”620 Those redeemed by

618

There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam’s disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul’s thoughts. ade 619 Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic. 620 See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal

Jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself is.621 This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled. In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis, we again find the same aspects of Christ’s work as in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.622

to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them. 621 See III. 16. 6: “In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum ap 564 to in tempore.” 622 There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ’s mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: “Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat”; de bapt. 11: “Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius”; adv. Marc. III. 8: “Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of Christ is the redemption — though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius miscens in semetipso hominem ac8 et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset.” Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called “fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet.” Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: “Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶµα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅµα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁµιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόµος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυµίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούµενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέµεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς

τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συµβέβηκε τῷ καλουµένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, µηδὲ τὸ παλινδροµεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύµενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγµασιν ὑπακούσας σεµνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόµενος µιµητής, ἔσῃ ὅµοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιµηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd centur ac8 y, Christ’s death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression “satisfacere deo” about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequerit in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find “meritum” (eg. , Scorp. 6) and “promereri deum”. With them and with Novatian the idea of “culpa” is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: “quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est.” Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: “Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna.” On the other hand he speaks of fasting as “officia humiliationis”, through which we can “inlicere” God. Among these Western writers the thought that God’s anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter’s speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen’s day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de ani aa7 ma 41 fin.: “Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium”; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Hom. III. 27: νύµφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόµενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter

294

Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the 295speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the mater 564 ial hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the Gnostics and guaranteed by the regula and the New Testament.623 296The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.624 But this is the clearest proof theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. 11, and my notes on ∆ιδαχή XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: “Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est”; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul. 623 By the regula inasmuch as the words “from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead” had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, “das Muratorische Fragment”, p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish. adb 624 Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I., p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου.” Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work “de Christo et Antichristo” and Overbeck careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter’s chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus’ book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to

that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow th 564 e Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate 297God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics l ab2 ies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers

Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., 1. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory — a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology — is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 (“modicum delictum illuc luendum”). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).

possible and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed — the church system itself. As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.625 There is

572

625

Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3).Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is ac8 described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world’s history have elapsed; for “in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended” (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued against such as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility” (V. 31). By this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour’s Kingdom (V. 31. 2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; “for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation”; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and

no need to show in detail that 298chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, 299and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics. But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus626 expressly argued against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi. ade 1 But in the second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology

drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1), sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid. and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end. 626 H 564 ippolytus in the lost book ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm. 627 See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus.

had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.628 Cultured 300theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the “simplices et idiotæ” could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under. stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved ac8 a portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of Augustine. Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the Old Testament which the creation of the New

628

In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoë the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an “apostasy” from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled “Refutation of the allegorists” attained the highest repute. “They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary d ac8 eclare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of God.” So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages.

produced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian 301book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the Old Testament — the Decalogue — and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the new law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism. Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a New Te 564 stament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the proposition that the “Father of 302Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the Old Testament” required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out

by the Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with God. With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two Testaments, IrenÍ ac7 us and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629 and primarily indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced both Old and New Testaments.630 Moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early-Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword is: “Seek the type” (“Typum quæras”).631 But they went 303a step further still. In opposition to Marcion’s antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the “Jewish” conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the Old

629

See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III. It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren. IV. 9. 1: “Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est.” Both Testaments are “unius et eiusdem substantiæ.” IV. 2. 3: “Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi.” 631 See Iren. IV. 31. 1. 630

Testament God from the Christian Deity.632 556 In connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;633 but in 304the course of the third century these needs grew mightily634 and were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development in the Church ends with the complexus oppositorum, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the

632

Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. I 55b I. 11 f.): Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo”; see Overbeck “Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus. 633 Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: “Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.” Here also Tertullian’s Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation. 634 Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen’s works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI.

oldest theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and God’s covenant with the Jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine accommodation and pedagogy, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;635 and thus appears as something intermediate 305between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullia 54b n generally, as a Gnosis “toned down” and reconciled with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this “history of salvation” as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.636 Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history. The fundamental features of Irenæus’ conception are as follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same God, and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times. ae1 1 The two are in part different; but the difference must be

635

Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day. 636 With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common. 637 Iren. III. 12. 11.

conceived as due to causes638 that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.639 We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God; God is always the giver, man always the receiver;640 306God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.641 The fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart642 by the creator. He who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Iren 561 æus leaves Adam’s sin entirely out of sight). But it was God’s will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.643 But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from

638

See III. 12. 12. No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is “principium evangelii.” (III. 11. 7). 640 See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4. 641 Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. 11. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned. 642 This is very frequen e3e4 tly mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: “Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc.” IV. 15. 1. 643 Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8: “Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur”, and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son’s having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2). 639

God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These 307are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.644 ac3 When righteousness and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.645 But when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate with God, i.e., with Christ; for “how is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?” (“quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset”) IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a covenant with God and in which they also possessed 308the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; “lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum”). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and

644

On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the agnitio filii. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7 IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the agnitio filii seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, veritas, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator. 645 Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: “Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem”.

prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.646 Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the “testamentum libertatis” and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of God with the flesh the agnitio filii first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the “traditio seniorum”. First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the particularia legis, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter 309connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of the law, bu ac8 t only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself. The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following

646

As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: “his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens”. IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the “people” and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied “the middle times”, and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.

manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the heart.647 But in 310these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the Old Testament.648 He therefore views the two Testaments as of the same nature, but “greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage” (“maior est

647

The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 1. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2 Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: “Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem”. IV. 13. 1. f.: “Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis”. That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: “Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos”. IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, “propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur”. IV. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant God punished “typice et temporaliter et mediocrius”, under the new, on the contrary, “vere et semper et austerius” . . . as under the new covenant “fides aucta est”, so also it is true that “diligentia conversationis adaucta est”. The imperfections of the law, the “particularia legis”, the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.). 648 See III. 11. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle.

legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem”). Through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened “for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few; (“una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum”). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear 544 any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ’s earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.649 This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination 311with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul’s conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio — Moses-Christ — Paraclete). But this addition was not accepted by the Church. ae8 1

649

From Irenæus’ statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance. 650 No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenæus’ view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. 1: Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis.” (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the regula fidei

3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West, (Cyprian, Novatian). 312

3. Results to ecclesiastical Christianity.

(de præscr. 13): “Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum”; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: “amplianda adimplendaque lex.” Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: “Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata.” That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: “Quod permittitur, bonum non est,” and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Nöldechen’s article in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum”, Sibyll. I. 386: καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται µετέπειτα προφητῶν, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Barth “Tertullian’s Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhältnisses zu den Uraposteln” (Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem.

As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had no strictly systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because their opponents were theologians. Hence the result of their labours, so far as this was accepted by the Western Church of the third century, does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic, but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted in an antignostic sense.651 As yet the rule of faith and theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble their heads about inconsistencies. If we 313wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let us compare Cyprian’s work “Testimonia”, written for a layman, with Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. In the “Testimonia” the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. The doctrine of God, which should have been placed at the beginning, has been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed required no instruction on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two Testaments and thereby proved.652 The theological counterpart to this is Novatian’s work “De Trinitate”. This first great Latin work that ap 564 peared in Rome is highly important. In regard to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be compared with Origen’s work περὶ ἀρχῶν. Otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the sober, meagre theology of the West, devoid of philosophy and 651

In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the idea that there is a “Christian” view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. This is also Gnosticism. Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work “de anima” with the words: “Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere”. Alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the “doctrine” we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the Church “disciplina”) with its media of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer; see Cypr, de op. et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel (Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. 1886, p. 242): οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόµενοι. 652 In the case of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from Scripture.

speculation, differs in general from that of the East. But it sums up in classic fashion the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of which were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis of the work. In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of his doctrine of God in the first eight chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the main portion; they establish the correct Christology in opposition to the heretics who look on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself; the Holy Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29 treats of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic 314and polished. No trace of Plat ac8 onism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian’s type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, however, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted Tertullian’s formulæ “one substance, three persons” (“una substantia, tres personæ”), “from the substance of God” (“ex substantia dei”), “always with the Father” (“semper apud patrem”), “God and man” (“deus et homo”), “two substances” (“dux substantiæ”), “one person” (“una persona”), as well as his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.654 Taking

653

It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian’s adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nieman type. This furnishes material for reflection. 654 Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work “de trinitate”. The archaic attitude of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) Like Tertullian, Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are ὁµοόυσιοι, the homoousia of itself never decides as to equality in dignity);

but that the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). (3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of Sardika). Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulæ, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus’ dogmatic. The sharp distinction between “deus” and “homo” and the use that is nevertheless made of “permixtio” and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. Cap. 9: “Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius”; c. 11: “non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus”; c. 11 Christ has auctoritas divina, “tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum.” In c. 12 the term “Immanuel” is used to designate Christ as God in a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: “præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam”; c. 14: “Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus”; c. 16: “. . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione”; c. 17: “. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit”; c. 18: “. . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit”; c. 19: “hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata præstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian’s teaching is therefore like that of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius “filius dei” in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hic filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. ‘Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei’. Ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem hæreticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent . . . Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei

fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhæret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fœneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hæretici, inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verbum deum accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiæ concordia mutui ad invicem fœderis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturæ hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant”. c. 21: “hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;” c. 22: “Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, ‘Ego et pater’, proprietatem personæ suæ id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositæ potestatis . . . unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personæ sonat . . . unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione . . . denique novit hanc concordiæ unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione.” (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! “Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt”); c. 23: “constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit”. In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely “predestinatione”, for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. “Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem”; c. 31: “Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et

his book in all we may see 315that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic vademecum, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scripture, must have been of extraordinary service. The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred 316 to the general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the West, were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption, (3) 317the identity of the supreme God with the God of th 54d e Old Testament, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God’s book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption and conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning manifestation of God’s grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation of these propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses were overthrown, necessarily involved the transmission of the Logos doctrine; for the doctrine of the revelation of God and of the two Testaments could not have prevailed without this theory. How this hypothesis gained acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of Christ was still the more widely diffused among the Churches of the third century; adf 1 but that the other hope, viz., that of being deified, was gaining adherents more and more. The latter result was due to men’s increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. The hope of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised, because it is only in it that

æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur.” 655 If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).

he can come to himself. The fact that Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment 318through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity. But, when the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.656

Chapter VI. The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tradition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church. 319

CHAPTER VI. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH. Clement and Origen. THE Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture. These Alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the C 564 hristian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was

656

I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of God, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted.

first completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John Damascenus. (1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria. 1. The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria.657 “The work of Irenæus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world’s literature, as found in the Christian Church, 320is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory.” With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandria’s great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian (and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all ac8 the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely no

657

Guericke, De schola, quæ Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de l’école d’Alex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Læmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem. theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d’Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879). Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, Cl. Alex. in seiner Abhängigkeit von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise “Ueber. die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur,” Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII., pp. 455-472 Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, 1886. Kremmer, De catal. heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Quæst. Musonianæ, Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen (Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff.). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr. T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880, p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864, and Hort’s article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hær. 51, Euseb., H. E. V. 28 and my article “Monarchianismus” in the R.-Encykl. f. protest. Theol. 2nd. ed., Vol. X., pp 183 ff., 188 ff. On the tendencies even of orthodox Christians to scientific theology see Tertull., de præscr. hær. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: “Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis” etc.).

clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and ‘Gnostics’, proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the 321growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that is of Christian tradition.658 There is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism — though indeed in accordance with its methods — and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.659 Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the Church.660 In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixe ac8 d by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi). From the history of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, after-wards bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Cæsarea), we learn that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied

658

This manner of expression is indeed liable to be misunderstood, because it suggests the idea that something new was taking place. As a matter of fact the scientific labours in the Church were merely a continuation of the Gnostic schools under altered circumstances, that is, under the sway of a tradition which was now more clearly defined and more firmly fenced round as a noli me tangere. 659 This was begun in the Church by Irenæus and Tertullian and continued by the Alexandrians. They, however, not only adopted theologoumena from Paulinism, but also acquired from Paul a more ardent feeling of religious freedom as well as a deeper reverence for love and knowledge as contrasted with lower morality. 660 We are not able to form a clear idea of the school of Justin. In the year 180 the schools of the Valentinians, Carpocratians, Tatian etc. were all outside the Church.

themselves to scientific pursuits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third 322century and attained great importance.661 In Palestine, during the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africanus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed that the Church’s attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his Κεστοί, dedicated to Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander of Ælia and Theoktistus of Cæsarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius (H. E. 53b V. 27) has transmitted to us the titles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period. Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show 323that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in 661

On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient., T. III., P. II., p. 924; Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi arte hermen., p. 86 sq.; Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 54. About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures.

Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,662 but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West. We know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there. adc 1 Finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.663 In the Alexandrian school of catechists the whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is Clement of Alexandria.664 His main work is epoch-making. “Clement’s intention is nothing 324less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to

662

Overbeck, l.c., p. 455, has very rightly remarked: “The origin of the Alexandrian school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd century, that has somehow been left in the dark by a mere accident; but a part of the well-defined dark region on the map of the ecclesiastical historian of this period, which contains the beginnings of all the fundamental institutions of the Church as well as those of the Alexandrian school of catechists, a school which was the first attempt to formulate the relationship of Christianity to secular science.” We are, moreover, still in a state of complete uncertainty as to the personality and teaching of Pantænus (with regard to him see Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III., pp. 64 ff. 77 ff.). We can form an idea of the school of catechists from the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and from the works of Clement and Origen. 663 On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. 31, As to his relations with Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had, moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantænus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen were disciples of Pantænus. 664 See my article “Heraklas” in the Real-Encyklopädie. 665 We have the most complete materials in Zahn, “Forschungen” Vol. III. pp. 17-176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pædagogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clement’s remaining works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how comprehensive his scientific labours were.

something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half.” To Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.666 His great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, 579 667 is consequently the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church tradition together with the assumption that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does 325not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God.668 Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, ac8 as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to God which he regards as moral perfection. He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far as this is only the

666

This applies quite as much to the old principles of Christian morality as to the traditional faith. With respect to the first we may refer to the treatise: “Quis dives salvetur”, and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pædagogus. 667 Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck, l.c., p. 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here both Pantænus and Clement are called “Father “, but whilst the former receives the title, ὁ µακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος, the latter is called: ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήµης, κύριός µου γενόµενος καὶ ὠφελήσας µε. 668 Strom. VI. 14, 109 πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. Pistis is γνῶσις σύντοµος τῶν κατεπειγόντων (VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειληµµένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδοµουµένη (l.c.), τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου (l.c.), πίστις ἐπιστηµονική (II. 11.48).

deciphering of the secrets revealed in the Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with God, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, and associated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.669 In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter 670 326exercised great influence over him. Moreover, Clement stands on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin’s time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the

669

We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stromateis where Clement describes the perfect Gnostic: the latter elevates himself by dispassionate love to God, is raised above everything earthly, has rid himself of ignorance, the root of all evil, and already lives a life like that of the angels. See Strom. VI. 9. 71, 72: Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξοµοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισµάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυµίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, µακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυµοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113: οὗτως δύναµιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ µελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν µὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νοµίζουσα. The whole 7th Book should be read. 670 Philo is quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use of without acknowledgment. See the copious citations in Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, pp. 343-351. In addition to this Clement made use of many Greek philosophers or quoted them without acknowledgment, e.g., Musonius.

exposition of Christianity, Clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and re 564 demption of mankind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the Old Testament law;671 and the facts contained in the Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which 327alone contain the possibility of man’s raising himself to the divine life.672 While this is already clear evidence of Clement’s affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p. 35 f.),673 and in the solution of the problems. But Clement’s

671

Like Philo and Justin, Clement also no doubt at times asserts that the Greek philosophers pilfered from the Old Testament; but see Strom. I. 5. 28 sq.: πάντων µὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν µὲν κατὰ προηγούµενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθηµα ὡς τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουµένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόµος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. 672 See Bratke’s instructive treatise cited above. 673 The fact that Clement appeals in support of the Gnosis to an esoteric tradition (Strom. VI. 7. 61: VI. 8. 68: VII. 10. 55) proves how much this writer, belonging as he did to a sceptical age, underestimated the efficacy of all human thought in determining the ultimate truth of things. The existence of sacred writings containing all truth was not even enough for him; the content of these writings had also to be guaranteed by divine communication. But no doubt the ultimate cause of this, as of all similar cases of scepticism, was the dim perception that ethics and religion do not at all come within the sphere of the intellectual, and that the intellect can produce nothing of religious value. As, however, in consequence of philosophical tradition, neither Philo, nor the Gnostics, nor Clement, nor the Neoplatonists were able to shake themselves free from the intellectual scheme, those things which-as they instinctively felt, but did not recognise — could really not be ascertained by knowledge at all received from them the name of suprarational and were traced to divine revelation. We may say that the extinction or pernicious extravagancies to which Greek philosophy was subjected in Neoplatonism,

great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic 564 that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through 328Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development. The Logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the passions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.674 What

and the absurdities into which the Christian dogmatic was led, arose from the fact that the tradition of placing the ethical and religious feelings and the development of character within the sphere of knowledge, as had been the case for nearly a thousand years, could not be got rid of, though the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empiricism, scepticism, the extravagancies of religious metaphysics which finally become mythology, have their origin here. Knowledge still continues to be viewed as the highest possession; it is, however, no longer knowledge, but character and feeling; and it must be nourished by the fancy in order to be able to assert itself as knowledge. 674 Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with which he describes Quietism shows that he himself was no Quietist. See on this point Bigg’s third lecture, l.c., particularly p. 98 f. “. . . The silent prayer of the Quietist is in fact ecstasy, of which there is not a trace in Clement. For Clement shrank from his own conclusions. Though the father of all the Mystics he is no Mystic himself. He did not enter the “enchanted garden”, which he opened for others. If he talks of “flaying the sacrifice”, of leaving sense behind, of Epopteia, this is but the parlance of his school. The instrument to which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance, but disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis, when once obtained, is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plotinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance with Porphyry, which in the experience of Theresa never lasted more than half an hour. The Gnostic is no Visionary, no Theurgist, no Antinomian.”

Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. His speculation 564 did not drive him out of the Church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory to his mind.675 If we compare this theory with the 329rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenæus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end. Irenæus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the novum testamentum libertatis, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom. Clement was the first to grasp the tas ac8 k of future theology. According to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity. But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the selfsufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of God. But the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of Irenæus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. If 675

What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost audacious remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισµένα παντὸς µᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

the Gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in God, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly say to his opponents: “If the things we say appear to some people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter” (κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν λεγόµενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς 330ἀσορµὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν µόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται).676 No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in God and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of Clement and the Alexand ac8 rians; they also occupy the foremost place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy. But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian character of Clement’s “dogmas” in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. What would be left of Christianity, if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical regula literally interpreted; and the attempts of Irenæus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition and of New Testament passages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenæus and his theological confrères did not themselves find in Christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition,

676

Strom. VII. 1. 1. In several passages of his main work Clement refers to those churchmen who viewed the practical and speculative concentration of Church tradition as dangerous and questioned the use of philosophy at all. See Strom. VI. 10. 80: πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ µορµολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούµενοι µὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. VI. 11. 93.

as prized by Irenæus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers. The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in history of dogma is not associated with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.677 This was not because Clement was more heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the Stromateis is concerned at least;678 but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. An ac8 other reason is that Clement did not possess the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.679 Now a sharp eye 331the

677

Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement. Clement’s authority in the Church continued much longer than that of Origen See Zahn, “Forschungen” III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an exaggerated form from the report of Photius. 679 In ecclesiastical antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited, because the complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologoumenon to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and incongruous doctrines were felt as a unity in so far as they could all be verified from Holy Scriptures. Thus the fact that the Holy Scriptures were regarded as a series of divine oracles guaranteed, as it were, a transcendental unity of the doctrines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great part of his task. Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the, history of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble problems. We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and necessarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no use of that theory. In Origen’s dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers — so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case — the unity lies partly in the canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned, Overbeck (l.c.) has furnished the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how would it have been conceivable that the 678

indeed perceives that Origen 332personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenæus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. It is therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of Clement. (2) The system of Origen. 2. The system of Origen.680 Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in Christianity; the ant ac8 ignostic Fathers had confused the Church’s faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become 333what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. Like all epochmaking personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family which was faithfully attached to the Church, he

riches of Holy Scripture, as presented to the philosophers who allegorised the books, could have been mastered, problems and all, at the first attempt. 680 See the treatises of Huëtius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie d’Origène, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV Möller in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, 2nd ed., Vol. XI., pp. 92-109. The special literature is to be found there as well as in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 151, and Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5th ed., p. 62 f.

lived at a time when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.681 He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred documents of Christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.682 334To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himse ac8 lf felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-minded or the

681

See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff. In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the feeling for truth had forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen’s idea the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been advanced of Origen’s having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, however, did not include the commandment to use in disputation only such arguments as could be employed in a positive doctrinal presentation. Basilius (Ep. 210 ad prim. Neocaes) was quite ready to excuse an utterance of Gregory Thaumaturgus, that sounded suspiciously like Sabellianism, by saying that the latter was not speaking δογµατικῶς, but ἀγωνιστικῶς. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing γυµναστικῶς, expressly said that all Greek philosophers “have used many words to conceal their thoughts, threaten in one place, and deal the blow in another.” In the same way, according to him, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris had acted in the dispute with Celsus and Porphyry. “Because they are sometimes compelled to say, not what they them selves think, but what is necessary for their purpose; they do this only in the struggle with the heathen.” 682

immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language. Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged over. The Christian system of Origen683 is worked out in opposition to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.684 But the 335science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up with the appliances of Philo’s science, bears unmistakable marks of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. F 564 inally, however, since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure Church) is the sole possessor of God’s holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as the absolutely reliable

683

See, above all, the systematic main work “περὶ ἀρχῶν”. Many writings of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discretion and patience, against the Christians who contest the right of science in the Church. In the work against Celsus, however, he was not unfrequently obliged to abandon the simple Christians. C. Celsus III. 78: V. 14-24 are particularly instructive. 684

divine revelation.685 But, in addition to these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.686 By acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great mass of simple Christians as the Valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the fir 54d st place his Gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in 336the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιµᾶν, “Gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of God Almighty”); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure. 561 1 As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of

685

In this point Origen is already narrower than Clement. Free judgments, such as were passed by Clement on Greek philosophy, were not, so far as I know, repeated by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5. 28-32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, e.g., c. Cels. VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy (see the remains of Origen’s lost Stromateis and Hom. XIV. in Genes. § 3; Other passages in Redepenning II., p, 324 ff.). 686 We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accordingly Origen and his disciples were also critics of the tradition, and that scientific theology, in addition to the task of remodelling Christianity, thus began at its very origin the solution of another problem, namely, the critical restoration of Christianity from the Scriptures and tradition and the removal of its excrescences: for these efforts, strictly speaking, do not come up for consideration in the history of dogma. 687 The theory that justified a twofold morality in the Church is now completely legitimised, but the higher form no longer appears as Encratite and eschatological, but as Encratite and philosophical. See, for example, Clement, Strom. III. 12. 82: VI. 13. 106 etc. Gnosis is the principle of perfection. See Strom. IV. 7. 54: πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς

all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised by the Church in her rule of faith,688 and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates. These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying “know thyself” into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and associated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self. 558 689 These rules made the true “sage” 337abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and “from burdensome appearance in public”. They asserted that the mind “can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself. This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.”690 Here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous aee 1 and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of God involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that

τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεµέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς. 688 See the preface to the work. 689 From the conclusion of Hippolytus’ Philosophoumena it is also evident how the Socratic Γνῶθι σεαυτόν was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pædag. III. 11. 1. 690 See Gregory Thaumaturgus’ panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11-18. 691 Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθεὍ e92 ας σχῆµα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναµένων. Similar remarks are found in Origen.

hungers after righteousness.692 Nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity. This was the case with Clement and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace — but peace in God. Reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine Logos,693 rich in disinterested love to God and the brethen, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,694 the created spirit 338attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine — “Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity” — by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: “The soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellowship; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification.”695 Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic ac8 systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.696 With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. To Origen’s mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) The philosophers, in spite of their noble thoughts of God, tolerated the existence of polytheism;

692

In many passages of Clement the satisfaction in knowledge appears in a still more pronounced form than in Origen. The boldest expression of it is Strom. IV. 22. 136. This passage is quoted above on p. 328.) 693 See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148. 694 See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen’s commentaries are continually interrupted by similar outbursts of feeling. 695 On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149-155: VII. 10. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95: οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόµενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός. But note what a distinction Clement makes between ὁ Θεός and the perfect man in VII. 15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen does this also. 696 Gregory (l.c., c. 13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were read in Origen’s school, and that every part of these works that would stand the test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded, “because these overpass the limits of human thought.” However, Origen did not judge philosophers in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly, he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, l.c., p. 133, Denis l.c. Introd.

and this was really the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not become universally accessible through them.697 (3) As the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.698 In contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through Moses — “Would to God the Jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which Plato has sought to describe”699 — and the Logos shows his universal 339power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.700

697

See, for example, c. Cels. V. 43: VII. 47, 59 sq. He compared Plato and other wise men to those doctors who give their attention only to cultured patients. 698 See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2. 699 C. Cels. V. 43. 700 One of Origen’s main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian ideal and perhaps really does so; but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind, and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naive and inappropriate even for that time. But he could already estimate the relative progress made by mankind within the Church as compared with those outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to Christ. He expressly declared, c. Cels. III. 78, that the Christianity which is fitted for the comprehension of the multitude is not the best doctrine in an absolute, but only in a relative, sense; that the “common man”, as he expresses himself, must be reformed by the prospect of rewards and punishments; and that the truth can only he communicated to him in veiled forms and images, as to a child. The very fact, however, that the Logos in Jesus Christ has condescended so to act is to Origen a proof of the universality of Christianity. Moreover, many of the wonderful phenomena reported in the Holy Scriptures belong in his opinion to the veiled forms and images. He is very far from doing violence to his reason here; he rather appeals to mysterious powers of the soul, to powers of divination, visionary states etc. His standpoint in this case is wholly that of Celsus (see particularly the instructive disquisition in I. 48), in so far as he is convinced that many unusual things take place between heaven and earth, and that individual names, symbols etc. possess a mysterious power (see, for example, c. Cels. V. 45). The views as to the relationship between knowledge and holy initiation or sacramentum are those of the philosophers of the age. He thinks, however, that each individual case requires to be

340

Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed

examined, that there can be no miracles not in accordance with nature, but that on the contrary everything must fit into a higher order. As the letter of the precepts in both Testaments frequently contains things contrary to reason (see περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 2. 8-27) in order to lead men to the spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (l.c. § 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (l.c. § 16 sq.: “Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . . eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen.”) In all such cases Origen makes uniform use of the two points of view, that God wished to present something even to the simple and to incite the more advanced to spiritual investigations. In some passages, however, the former point of view fails, because the content of the text is offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. Origen therefore was very far from finding the literal content of Scripture edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, the critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with the Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different senses of Scripture and between the various legitimate human needs enabled him to preserve both the unity of God and the harmony of revelation. Herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum I. 9-12. After appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, Persians, Syrians, and Indians — the mythical religion of the multitude and the mystery-religion of the initiated — he lays down exactly the same distinction within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus that the Christians were obliged to accept everything without examination. With regard to the mythical form of Christianity he merely claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. Since, as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor talent for philosophy, ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων µέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης (l.c., 9). This thought is quite in the spirit of antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could have any fault to find with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind the religions. But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form, is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this mythical religion and no other. In this claim Origen rejected the ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same direction and rejected polytheism.

the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. The Gnosis is f ac8 ormally a philosophy of revelation, that is a Scripture theology,701 and materially a cosmological speculation. On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, 341 in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emancipating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen’s Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age. However, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a document ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment passed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,702 but the culminating point is the judgment contained in § 7: κατὰ µὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόµως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγµάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόµενος µύθοις. (“His outward life was that of a Christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.”) We can everywhere verify this observation from Origen’s works and particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is continually o aaf bliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the Christians.703 The Gnosis is in fact the Hellenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality

701

Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: “Origen in point of method differs most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise Scriptural basis of his ideas.” 702 Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On Origen’s hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried, l.c., pp. 351-62. Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book of περὶ ἀρχῶν . 703 See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535.

immovable, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.704 The 342Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen raised the thought of the unchangeability of God to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate Logos any significance for “Gnostics”. To these Christ merely appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.705 The Gospel too only teaches the “shadow of the secrets of Christ;” but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, “clearly places before men’s minds all things concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles” (σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάµενα µυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγµατα, ὦν αἰνίγµατα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ)706 No doubt the true theology based on revelation 343makes 704

A full presentation of Origen’s theology would require many hundreds of pages, because he introduced everything worth knowing into the sphere of theology, and associated with the Holy Scriptures, verse by verse, philosophical maxims, ethical reflexions, and results of physical science, which would require to be drawn on the widest canvas, because the standpoint selected by Origen allowed the most extensive view and the most varied judgments. The case was similar with Clement before him, and also with Tertullian. This is a necessary result of “Scripture theology” when one takes it up in earnest. Tertullian assumes, for example, that there must be a Christian doctrine of dreams. Why? Because we read of dreams in the Holy Scriptures. 705 In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): ἐπέµσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ µὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁµαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων µυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ µηκέτι ἁµαρτάνουσιν. See also what follows. In Comment. in John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22 (Lomm. I. p. 43): καὶ µακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόµενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς µηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, µηδὲ ποιµένος, µηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναµένοις. Read also c. Cels. II. 66, 69: IV. 15, 18: VI. 68. These passages show that the crucified Christ is no longer of any account to the Gnostic, and that he therefore allegorises all the incidents described in the Gospels. Clement, too, really regards Christ as of no importance to Gnostics except as a teacher. 706 Comment. in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p. 20. The “mysteries” of Christ is the technical term for this theology and, at bottom, for all theology. For, in respect of the form given to

pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen’s system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one. This necessarily gave rise to the assumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this assumption, which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the mass of Christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the regula fidei, he displayed the most masterly skill. He succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the regula fidei, already developed by Irenæus into the history of salvation.707 The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by God out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.708 The prevailing 344contrast is that between the one

it, revelation always appears as a problem that theology has to solve. What is revealed is therefore either to be taken as immediate authority (by the believer) or as a soluble problem. One thing, accordingly, it is not, namely, something in itself evident and intelligible. 707 See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136. 708 To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. of περὶ ἀρχῶν and c. Cels. VI. 53-59. He is convinced (1) that the world is not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from them are alone good in the proper sense of the word, and that nothing but the opposite of these is bad; (3) that evil in the proper sense of the word is only evil will (see c. Cels. IV. 66: VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided distinction between that which is bad and evils. As for the latter he admits that they partly originate from God, in which case they are designed as means of training and punishment. But he saw that this conception is insufficient, both in view of individual passages of Holy Scripture and of natural

transcendent esse ac8 nce and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to God as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with God. This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism 345and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this assumption is one of its main presuppositions709 and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of God. But, as from the empirical

experience. There are evils in the world that can be understood neither as the result of sin nor as means of training. Here then his relative, rational view of things comes in, even with respect to the power of God. There are evils which are a necessary consequence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούµενα): “Evils, in the strict sense, are not created by God; yet some, though but few in comparison with the great, well-ordered whole of the world, have of necessity adhered to the objects realised; as the carpenter who executes the plan of a building does not manage without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of buildings; (l.c., c. 55). Celsus also might have written in this strain. The religious, absolute view is here replaced by a rational, and the world is therefore not the best absolutely, but the best possible. See the Theodicy in περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 17-22. (Here, and also in other parts, Origen’s Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, l.c., p. 626 sq. The two great thinkers have a very great deal in common, because their philosophy was not of a radical kind, but an attempt to give a rational interpretation to tradition.) But “for the great mass it is sufficient when they are told that evil has not its origin in God” (IV. 66). The case is similar with that which is really bad. It is sufficient for the multitude to know that that which is bad springs from the freedom of the creature, and that matter which is inseparable from things mortal is not the source and cause of sin (IV. 66, see also III. 42: τὸ κυρίως µιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώµατος οὐ µιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώµατός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς µιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν); but a closer examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 61) because error is inseparable from growth and because the constitution of man in the flesh makes evil unavoidable (VII. 50). Sinfulness is therefore natural and it is the necessary prius. This thought, which is also not foreign to Irenæus, is developed by Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify God’s ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time began (see below). 709 See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.)

point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of God and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.710 Like Denis, 346however, we may also, in accordance

710

The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former makes an aeon or, in other words, a part of the divine pleroma, itself fall, and that he does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen’s system cannot be made out with complete clearness from the work περὶ ἀρχῶν, because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole. Origen’s four principles are God, the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection, punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no “principle”; but the incarnation is treated of in II. 6. The teachers of Valentinus’ school accordingly appear more Christian when contrasted with Origen. If we read the great work περὶ ἀρχῶν, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries connectedly, we never cease to wonder how a mind so clear, so sure of the ultimate aim of all knowledge, and occupying such a high standpoint, has admitted in details all possible views down to the most naïve myths, and how he on the one hand believes in holy magic, sacramental vehicles and the like, and on the other, in spite of all his rational and even empirical views, betrays no doubt of his abstract creations. But the problem that confronts us in Origen is that presented by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis l.c., p. 613: “Toutes les théories d’Origène, même les plus imaginaires, représent l’état intellectuel et moral du siècle où il a paru”). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who, like Augustine, was in advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the course of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by its greatest men, sought to gain a substructure for something new, not by a critical examination of the old ideas, but by incorporating them all into one whole. People were anxious to have assurance, and, in the endeavour to find this, they were nervous about giving up any article of tradition. The boldness of Origen, judged as a Greek philosopher, lies in his rejection of all polytheistic religions. This made him all the more conservative in his endeavours to protect and incorporate everything else. This conservatism welded together ecclesiastical Christianity and Greek culture into a system of theology which was indeed completely heterodox.

with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen’s fundamental idea is “the original indestructible unity of God and all spiritual essence.” From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in God. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of Origen. The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations of Greek philosophers also contain truth aa8 s, but these have only a propædeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.711 On the other hand Origen assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;712 but, as a correct Church theologian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first 347methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.713 But it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to Origen to assume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. other passages), as well as to fellowship with God, since it rests on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as “uninformed and irrational faith” (πίστις ἰδιωτική and ἄλογος) it only leads to a “somatic Christianity” χριστιανισµός σωµατικός). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher “spiritual Christianity” (χριστιανισµός πνευµατικός) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to knowledge and clear vision. This

711

The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex. c. Cels. II. 37); but, like the Apologists, he found it of great value. As far as the philosophers are concerned, Origen always bore in mind the principle expressed in c. Cels. VII. 46: πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡµεῖς φήσοµεν οἱ µελετήσαντες µηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγοµένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires. But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen’s attitude to the Greek philosophers is much more reserved than that of Clement. 712 See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq. 713 Περὶ ἀρχῶν preface.

is effected by the method of Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of God. ae8 1 The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter. But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be assumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of God, morality, the law of nature, or reason.714 Here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable passages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain 348passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many passages, an assertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pass completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.715 When the Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.716 He is then inwardly united with God’s Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity ac8 and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles did not possess the same inspiration as

714

On Origen’s exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff., Bigg, l.c. p. 131 ff. On the distinction between his application of the allegorical method and that of Clement see specially p. 134 f. of the latter work. 715 Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of Genesis Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f. 716 Bigg, l.c., has very appropriately named Origen’s allegorism “Biblical alchemy”. 717 To ascertain the pneumatic sense, Origen frequently drew analogies between the domain of the cosmic and that of the spiritual. He is thus a forerunner of modern idealistic philosophers, for example, Drummond: “To Origen allegorism is only one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature (Bigg, p. 134).

he,718 and among the Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be assumed. Here Origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an assumption through which the later Church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.719 I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding. 349

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.720 The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness. so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of God. As the One, God is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, God is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: “We have not made ourselves.” As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, God is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin. The One is something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is cre 564 ated point back to the One, who

718

See Hom. in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq. Since Origen does not, as a rule, dispute the literal meaning of the Scriptures, he has also a much more favourable opinion of the Jewish people and of the observance of the law than the earlier Christian authors (but see Iren. and Tertull.). At bottom he places the observance of the law quite on the same level as the faith of the simple Christians. The Apostles also kept the law for a time, and it was only by degrees that they came to understand its spiritual meaning. They were also right to continue its observance during their mission among the Jews. On the other hand, he considers the New Testament a higher stage than the Old both in its literal and its spiritual sense. See c. Cels. II. 1-4, 7, 75: IV. 31 sq.: V. 10, 30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26. 720 In opposition to the method for obtaining a knowledge of God, recommended by Alcinous (c. 12), Maximus Tyr. (XVII. 8), and Celsus (by analysis [apophat.], synthesis [kataphat.], and analogy), Origen, c. Cels. VII. 42, 44, appeals to the fact that the Christian knows God better, namely, in his incarnate Son. But he himself, nevertheless, also follows the synthetic method. 719

can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the absolute causality of God, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).721 The created is one thing and the Selfexistent is another, but both are connected together; 350as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created. The Selfexistent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of God without abf revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially every. where; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompasses nor is

721

In defining the superessential nature of the One, Origen did not go so far as the Basilidians (Philosoph. VII. 20, 21) or as Plotinus. No doubt he also regards the Deity as ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1; Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inasmuch as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V. 12, 13), but he is not βύθος and σιγή, being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the νοῦς) before he can come to himself. Accordingly the human intellect is not incapable of soaring up to God as the later Neoplatonists assert; at least vision is by no means so decidedly opposed to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neoplatonists and Philo before them. Origen is no mystic. In accordance with this conception Origen and Clement say that the perfect knowledge of God can indeed be derived from the Logos alone (c. Cels. VII. 48, 49: VI. 65-73; Strom. V. 12. 85: VI. 15. 122), but that a relative knowledge may be deduced from creation (c. Cels. VII. 46). Hence they also spoke of an innate knowledge of God (Protrept. VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the teleological proof of God furnished by Philo (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1. 6; c. Cels. I. 23). The relatively correct predicates of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels. I. 23), his absolute spirituality (πνεῦµα ἀσώµατος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχηµάτιστος) — this is maintained both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 1, Origen’s polemic against Melito’s conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11. 68: V. 12. 82, — his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as enjoyment; the eternity of God itself, however, is to be conceived, according to Clement, as that which is above time; see Strom. II. 2. 6), and his absolute causality. All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.

encompassed. Nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of space, so also he is removed from space itself.722 But the omniscience and omnipotence of God have a limit, which indeed, according to Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;723 secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: God can do 351nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense724 — thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited725 — fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.726 Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by God himself. God has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.727 ad1 That the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of God. Like Irenæus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to the Marcionites.728 But his exposition is different. In his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in God side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. God rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when God punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Passions, anger, and the like do not exist in God, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition to the Marcionites, who declared Christ

722

Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1. 3. C. Cels. V. 23. 724 L.c. 725 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 1: “Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit.” In Matth., t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq. 726 See above, p. 343, note 2. 727 See c. Cels. II. 20. 728 Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 5, especially § 3 sq. 723

and the Father of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, God (the foundation of the world) 352is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.729 From the perfect goodness of God Origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he always reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept “God”. But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, Origen assumed that the One, in becoming the Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more assuming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ — the Logos. The content of Origen’s teaching about this Logos was not essentially different from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the Monarchi ac8 ans) more clearly and precisely stated.730 Nevertheless the personal independence 353of the Logos

729

See Comment. in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that this view is a rapprochement to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch’s opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account. 730 Clement’s doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pamphili Apol., Routh, Reliq. S., IV., p. 367), and did not even allow the second and weaker one to make a real appearance on earth; but this is a misunderstanding (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 144). Λέγεται µέν — these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes — κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁµωνύµως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόµενος, οὐδὲ µὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναµίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόµενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. The distinction between an impersonal Logos-God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was definitely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophistical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προσορικός (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, l.c., p. 145 against Nitzsch), and in many passages expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction between the Logos of the Father and that of the Son. “The Son-Logos is an emanation of the Reason of God, which unalterably remains in God and is the Logos proper.” If the Adumbrationes are to be regarded as parts of the Hypotyposes, Clement used the expression ὁµοούσιος for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87-138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly remarked that men are not µέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ

is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God. The following are the most important propositions.731 The Logos who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image732 of God.

Θοῷ ὁµοούσιοι, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91: εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ µὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁµοούσιος λεχθείη. One must assume from this that the word was really familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and with men. See Protrept. 10. 110: ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς). In Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅµα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: ἓν µὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, and Adumbrat. in Zahn, l.c., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: “principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis.” See besides the remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης µυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς µόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡµῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡµῖν συµπαθὲς γέγονε µήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας ὁ πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου µέγα σηµεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son κτίσµα (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called “primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam”. That is exactly Origen’s doctrine, and Zahn (i.e., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V. 14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20 The Son stands at the head of the series of created beings (Strom. VII. 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless specifically different from them by reason of his origin. It may be said in general that the fine distinctions of the Logos doctrine in Clement and Origen are to be traced to the still more abstract conception of God found in the former. A sentence like Strom. IV. 25. 156 (ὁ µὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτηµονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήµη) will hardly be found in Origen I think. Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff. 731 See Schultz, l.c., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff. 732 It is very remarkable that Origen περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 1 in his presentation of the Logos doctrine, started with the person of Christ, though he immediately abandoned this starting-point “Primo illud nos oportere scire”, so this chapter begins, “Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei.”

He is the Wisdom 354of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him733 and he is therefore really God, not αὐτόθεος, nor ὁ Θεὸς, nor ἄναρχος αρχή (“beginningless beginning”), but the second God.734 But, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, howev 564 er, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the Father’s perfection).735 Accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather constitutes his essence: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστί Θεός736 (“the Saviour is not God by communication, but in his essence”). From this it follows that he shares in the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly ὁµοούσιος τῷ πατρί (“the same in substance with the Father”) or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, is engendered from the essence of the Fat 548 her.737 But having

733

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2, 6. The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c. Cels. V. 39: Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωµεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγοµεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουµένως γεγενηµένων, 735 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have been to the effect that the Son is indeed αγαθός, but not, like the Father, ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. 736 Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq. 737 L.c.: “Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporrhœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁµοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substantiæ cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhœa vel vapor.” In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ἐπιστήσωµεν δέ, εἰ µὴ σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁµοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παµµακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύµατι τῶ Θεῶ. On the meaning of ὁµοουσίος, see Zahn, Marcell., pp. 11-32. The conception decidedly excludes the possibility of the two subjects connected by it having a different essence; but it says nothing about how they came to have one essence and in what measure they possess it. On the other hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitarian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen’s teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. 734

355proceeded,

like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with God; there was not a time when he was not,738 nay, even this expression is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think of God without his wisdom or to assume a beginning of his begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the Son is always being begotten of the Father.739 It is the theology of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up: 56c 1εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. (“One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress and image of Godhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal”). The begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no emanation — the expression προβολή is not found, so far as I 356know 578 740 — but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the Father, though this still appears to be the in Jerem. no. 2: Τὸ µὲν ὑποκείµενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόµατα ἐπὶ διαφόρων. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance when Origen (for ex. in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of Father and Son to unity in feeling and in will. The charge of Ebionitism made against him is quite unfounded (see Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p. 367). 738 Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5. 739 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: “Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat.” See the comprehensive disquisition in περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28, where we find the sentence: “hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est” etc. See further in Jerem. IX. 4, Lomm. XV., p. 212: τὸ ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός; see also other passages. 740 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10. 741 In περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as the “conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium” and the “procreatio ex nullis substantibus.”

case in some passages of Clement, but he is the “sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens742 (“the wisdom of God substantially existing”) “figura expressa substantia: patris” (express image of the Father’s substance”), “virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens” (a second force existing in its own characteristic fashion “). He is, and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an “ 564 animal vivens” with an independent existence.743 He is another person,744 namely, the second person in number.745 But here already begins Origen’s second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its “first cause” (πρῶτον αἴτιον) in God, the Son is “that which is caused” (αἱτιατόν), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the Son is 564 no longer an absolute simplex like the Father.746 He is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.747 357As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied — which moreover dominates the system — and the particular contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son is not only called κτίσµα and δηµιούργηµα, but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a differ ac8 ent kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances lose their force when it is asserted that complete similarity between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in

742

L.c. I. 2. 2. L.c. I. 2. 3. 744 De orat. 15: Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείµενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. This, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the personal distinction. 745 C. Cels. VIII. 12.: δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγµατα. This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origen’s commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν. Not that Origen has not yet the later terminology οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείµενον, πρόσωπον. We find three hypostases in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels. 746 In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: ὁ Θεὸς µέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡµῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά. The Son is ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστηµα θεωρηµάτων ἐν αὐτῶ (Lomm. I., p. 127). 747 See the remarks on the saying: “The Father is greater than I,” in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homoousia of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son. 743

Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from God’s standpoint, the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and subordinated to him.748 The Son stands between the uncreated One and the created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.749 It is evident why Origen was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.750 In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided 358whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of God or not.751 As the third hypostasis, Origen reckoned him p ac8 art of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter’s the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through the Son.752 Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered quantitively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most important consideration, the Spirit’s sphere of action is the smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect Father, Son, and Spirit form a τρίας

748

Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3). 750 Athanasius supplemented this by determining the essence of the Logos from the redeeming work of Christ. 751 See περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. and in addition to this Hermas’ view of the Spirit. 752 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, is ever being breathed out, but is to be termed a creature. See also in Joh. II. 6, Lomm. I., p. 109 sq.: τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου (logically) παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine. 749

(“triad”)753 to which nothing may be compared; they are equal indignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not one of Rufinus’ corrections, Origen said754: Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa”755 (“nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason”). But, as in Origen’s sense the union of these only exists because the Father alone is the “source of deity” (πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος) and principle of the other two hypostases, the Trinity is in truth no homogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a “subtle emanation idea”, has degrees within it. This Trinity, 554 which in the strict sense remains a 359Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception. The idea of createdness was already more closely associated with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still clearer fashion than the Son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage after the Holy Spirit. In assuming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the Church.756 With Clement even the association of the Son and Holy Ghost with the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions. ad8 1 Origen was more cautious in this

753

See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 3, 5-8. Hence Origen says the heathen had known the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit (de princip. I. 3: II. 7). 754 L.c. § 7. 755 See Hom. in Num. XII. 1, Lomm. X, p. 127: “Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.” 756 Περὶ ἀρχῶν præf. 757 From Hermas, Justin, and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century, both in the belief of uneducated lay-Christians and of the Apologists, Son, Spirit, Logos, and angels under certain circumstances shaded off into one another. To Clement, no doubt, Logos and Spirit are the only unchangeable beings besides God. But, inasmuch as there is a series which descends from God to men living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity between Logos and Spirit on the one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and predicates in common, and it frequently remains uncertain, especially as regards the theophanies in the Old Testament, whether it was a high angel

respect.758 The world of spirits appears to him as a series of wellarranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress (προκοπή).759 Growth is conditioned by freedom: “omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet”760 (“every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame — praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course”). As unchangeableness and permanence are 360characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.761 In this thesis Origen goes beyond the assumption of the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable762 ); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny for a time. In the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. ab5 Sub specie æternitatis, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit763 is not a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit’s developing itself merely appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of naturæ rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the naturæ rationabiles, which have different species and ordines, human souls also belong. The whole of them were created from all eternity; for God would not be almighty unless he

that spoke, or the Son through the angel. See the full discussion in Zahn, Forschungen, III., p. 98 f. 582 758Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 759 So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c. 760 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 2. 761 It was of course created before the world, as it determines the course of the world. See Comm. in Matth. XV, 27, Lomm. III., p. 384 sq. 568 762 See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45: we must not look on the human spirit as ὁµοούσιος with the divine one. The same had already been expressly taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεµίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡµᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does not exclude God and souls having quodammodo one substance. 763 Such is the teaching of Clement and Origen. They repudiated the possession of any natural, essential goodness in the case of created spirits. If such lay in their essence, these spirits would be unch ac8 angeable.

had always produced everything764; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with 361the Logos permits of no diversity765; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are burdened with a kind of bodily nature,766 for it is only the Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.767 adb Now Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fashion, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility. The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the naturæ rationabiles, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in the given circumstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2). II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences.

764

Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 2. 10: “Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est.” (So the Hermogenes against whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). “Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est.” God would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a προκοπή, and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3. 765 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 8. 766 Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development, that is of growth. See περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7. Created spirits are also of themselves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of God who can never attach anything material to himself. 767 Angels, ideas (see Phot. Biblioth. 109), and human souls are most closely connected together, both according to the theory of Clement and Origen and also to that of Pantænus before them (see Clem. eclog. 56, 57); and so it was taught that men become angels (Clem. Strom. VI. 13. 107). But the sta ac8 rs also, which are treated in great detail in περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 7, belong to the number of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the preëxistence of human souls was probably set forth by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the transmigration of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, contested and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. 1. sq.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. All created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.768 In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.769 The disciplining and purifying 362of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by God.770 It is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by God’s wisdom.771 Each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of restitution, guide the wor ac8 ld, are servants of God (ἄγγελοι), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies. Those that have altogether turned against God have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. Men therefore are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by

768

Phot. Biblioth. 109: Κλήµης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰµ κόσµους τερατεύεται. This cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 3. 769 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that happened before time began. 770 The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει); this cannot be noticed in the Strom.; in fact in VI. 16. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreatedness of the world. He emphasised the agreement between Plato and Moses in the doctrine of creation (Strom. II. 16. 74 has nothing to do with this). According to Origen, matter has no qualities and may assume the most diverse peculiarities (see, e.g., c. Cels. III. 41). 771 This conception has g 564 iven occasion to compare Origen’s system with Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: “Creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in Origen’s views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human history. Æons rolled away before this world was made; æons upon æons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of æons will run their course, before the end is attained. The one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end, for this alone has been clearly revealed,” “God shall be all in all.” Bigg also rightly points out that Rom. VIII. and 1 Cor. XV. were for Origen the key to the solution of the problems presented by creation.

the demons, but lightened by the angels,772 for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon 363the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.773 Evil, however, and it is in this idea that Origen’s great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is “nonexistent” (οὐκ ὄν) and “unreal” (ἀνυπόστατον).774 For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his being is concerned, resulted from God’s will, cannot always remain a devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.775 According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in Origen’s view is no 530 longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other Fathers,776 assumes the following

772

The popular idea of demons and angels was employed by Origen in the most comprehensive way, and dominates his whole view of the present course of the world. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2 and numerous passages in the Commentaries and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of Hermas and Barnabas. The spirits ac3 ascend and descend; each man has his guardian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced (θεραπεύεσθαι); yet such reverence as belongs to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. VIII. 13). 773 Clement wrote a special work περὶ προνοίας (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of προνοία in the Strom.; see Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 1; de orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 8187: IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Hom. in Num. XIV., Lomm. X., p. 163: “Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria.” Here and there, however, Origen has qualified the belief in Providence, after the genuine fashion of antiquity (see c. Cels. IV. 74). 774 Περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 9. 2: “Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret.” In the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as ἀνυπόστατον and an argument to the effect that τὰ πονηρά are — µὴ ὄντα. 775 Περὶ ἀρχῶν I. 5. 3: III. 6. The devil is the chief of the apostate angels (c. Cels. IV. 65). As a reasonable being he is a creature of God l.c., and in Joh. II. 7, Lomm., l.c.). 569 776 Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus’ attacks on it; but his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus’ view. If we consider the plan of the work περὶ ἀρχῶν we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos.

form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above. This is united with the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, 364because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to God, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact. 596 777 Man’s struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming his constitution to gain control of his sphere of action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains likeness to God; the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.778 Victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and passions.779 No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without God,780 but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a

777

The doctrine of man’s threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pædag. III. 1. 1; Strom V. 14. 94: VI. 16. 134. (quite in the manner of Plato). Origen, who has given evidence of it in all his main writings, sometimes calls the rational part spirit, sometimes ψυχὴ λογική, and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his psychology from the Holy Scriptures. The chief peculiarity of his speculation consists in his assumption that the human spirit, as a fallen ac8 one, became as it were a soul, and can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the flesh (see περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the preëxistence of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin of the soul. 778 Clement (see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of some Christian teachers: τὸ µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν µέλλειν ἀπολαµβάνειν, Orig. c. Cels. IV. 30: ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν ἤδη. 779 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. One must attain the σωφορσύνη. 780 This is emphasised throughout. The goodness of God is shown first in his having given the creature reason and freedom, and secondly in acts of assistance, which, however, do not endanger freedom. Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 96: ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι.

365matter

of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.781 Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.782 The idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance783 it does not avail against the constitution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.784 All must be sinners at first,785 for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man’s material nature.786 III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration. The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration. In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: “God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves” (ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ

781

See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c. Cels. 553 III. 61-66 VII. 50; Clem., Pæd. III. 12. 93: τὸ ἐξαµαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔµφυτον. 782 See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: µυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθµὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄµφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡµῖν, τῶν µήτε ἐθελόντων µανθάνειν µήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυµίας κρατεῖν. Two remedies correspond to this (102): ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις and ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουµένη, or otherwise expressed: ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστηµονική and ἡ πρᾶξις, which lead to perfect love. ad4 783Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom. VI. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of God, the true Gnostic, that God has destined (προώρισεν) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107. 784 C. Cels. III. 69. 785 It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. See c. Cels. IV. 40; περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Cæsarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin orginating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preëxisting Fall. Like Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in sexual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII. 4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 (Bigg, p. 202 f.). 786 Nevertheless Origen assumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others. See in Job. XIII, 43 ad fin II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.

ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι) is quite as ac8 rue as the other statement 366that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.787 They moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the “spiritual Church”, there is an eternal Gospel which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God’s highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These elements compose Origen’s doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.789 They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen’s teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings di 564 d not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and 367lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the “Godman,” to

787 569

Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace. See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists. 789 See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62. 788

make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil’s sovereignty over men’s souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.790 To the rest, however, as divine teacher and

790

With regard to ac8 this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul’s time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort. ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VIII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI.; pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen’s time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ’s soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ’s soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort. ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservativ ac8 e method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ’s work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as

hierophant 368he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected th ac8 rough faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact — namely, the redeeming death of Christ, — so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.791 What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or 369less valuable appearance — namely, the historical work of Christ — was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view it as the truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as a truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the Gnostics and those of

strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, “it is written”, as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσµεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλµατα σέβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship) 791 See above, p. 342, note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is µάθησις and µυσταγωγία, and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναµιν, ac8 αὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ µα ἀνθρῶπινον, ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι µετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συµβαλλοµένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν µόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαµβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα.

orthodox Christians. The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to God and participation in the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.792 On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the Redeemer, this Christ, the God-man, could not but be as manysided as redemption is. Only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a homogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being 549 the highest one. The whole “humanity” of the Redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect one, and this remark also applies to Clement’s perfect Gnostic, thus knows no “Christology”, but only an indwelling of the 370Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, and the “Ebionite” view on the other. 792

From this also we can very clearly understand Origen’s aversion to the early Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a important influence on his frame of mind and on politics. 793 Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. 109) reproached him with these (µὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι), and they may be

ae3 1 His doctrine was accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos could not unite with matter, because this as µὴ ὄν would have depotentiated him. A medium was required. The Logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from God, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never renounced fellowship with him. It was selected by the Logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because of its moral dignity. The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this 371connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos preserves his impassibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of assuming all possible qualities the Logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. But with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a

proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): “fertur in traditionibus — namely, in the Acta of Lucius — quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli,” and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement’s repudiation’ of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ’s body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Strom. V ac8 I. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen’s case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.

series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely united together in Christ. This union (κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις) was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created m 564 an, Jesus, the Son of God; and on the other hand has called the Son of God the Son of Man. After the resurrection and ascension the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the Godhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.794 372In this conception one may be tempted to point out

794

See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. 9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a human soul was founded on a µυστικὴ παράδοσις of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real θεάνθρωπος in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on many occasions. See περὶ ἀρχῶν IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ and yet, as before, the Logos operate! wherever he wished (l. c., 30): “non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio.” On the perfect ethical union of Jesus’ soul with the Logos see περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 3: “anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;” II. 6. 5: “anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam.” The sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal capax est frigoris et caloris so the soul is cap ac8 able of deification. “Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est,” “nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest” (l.c.). “Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur.” (II. 6. 4). Τίς µᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον (c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 6. 2: “Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum.” Even during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore

all possible “heresies”: — the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man — but all men are heavenly; — the Adoptianist (“Ebionite”) Christology — but the Logos as a person stands behind it; — the conception 373of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair’s-breadth broader or narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by Origen, that is, the mo ac8 dalistic view. Origen is the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression “two natures” is not quite foreign to Origen.795 The Logos retains his human nature eternally,796 but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection.

wonderful powers, and appeared differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod.7); cf. c. Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in III. 41: “Ον µὲν νοµίζοµαν καὶ πεπείσµεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶµα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ µόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ µέγιστά φαµεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν µεταβεβηκέναι Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυµαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώµατος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ βουληθέντος µεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαµῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθ ac0 π . 795 In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, where any ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ µεταπλάττεσθαι of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen’s case we may speak of a communicatio ideomatum (see p. 190 f.). 796 In opposition to Redepenning.

The significance which this Christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ’s humanity, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen’s Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something 374indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenæus set forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origen’s speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the Godman from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, 564 and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity applied to the historical Christ.797 But Origen’s conception of Christ’s person as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in Christ’s case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his work, but the person of Christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the ac4 strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the highest

797

This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III., c. 22-43, where Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init.

value of Christ’s person lies in the fact that the Deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely God’s. At bottom there is nothing obscure 375and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.798 This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace follows. As in Christ’s case his human soul gradually united itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own work.799 Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the substantiæ rationabiles, the Logos, the knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity.800 She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly passed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.801 Thus a 52c 376union of grace and freedom

798

A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος.. 799 554 “Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum” is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); “voluntas humana præcedit”. In Ezech. hom. I. c. 11: “In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum”. But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: “Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet”; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in Rom. IX. 3, Lomm. VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. 800 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46. ac2 801 See Clem., Strom. V. 1. 7: χάριτι σωζόµεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ µέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόµενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαµµένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς

takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the “contemplative life” is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, associate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the Deity.802 In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;803 still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration. Moreover, in connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (God as love, God as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we find in both Clement and Origen passages which, free from the trammels of the system, reproduce and set forth the preaching of the Gospel in a surprisingly appropriate way. b04 804 It is evident that in Origen’s view there can be no visible means of grace; but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the common man they are indispensable.805 In the same way he brought 377into play the system of numerous mediators and intercessors with God, viz., angels and dead and living saints, and counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a

ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειµένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. περὶ ἀρχῶν III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. III. 2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν µικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συµπνεούσης θείας δυνάµεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελοµένῳ. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enliglitenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account see Landerer in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wörter, Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin, 1860. 802 This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): “Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the “De imitatione”, of Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon.” 57f 803 See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467. 804 See e.g., Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq. — the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. This exegesis begins with the words: “It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking . . . Constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant.” 805 See above, p. 339 f.

heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great reserve. Origen’s eschatology occupies a middle position between that of Irenæus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenæus, Christ reunites and glorifies all that had been severed, though in such a way that there is still a remnant eternally damned; and, according to Valentinus, Christ separates what is illegitimately united and saves the spirits alone, Origen believes that all spirits will be finally rescued and glorified, each in the form of its individual life, in order to serve a new epoch of the world when sensuous matter disappears of itself. Here he rejects all sensuous eschatological expectations.806 He accepted the formula, “resurrection of the flesh”, only because it was contained in the doctrine of the Church; but, on the strength of 1. Cor. XV. 44, he interpreted it as the rising of a “corpus spiritale”, which will lack all material attributes and even all the members that have sensuous functions, and which will beam with radiant light like the angels and stars. aad 1 Rejecting the doctrine that souls sleep,808 Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately enter Paradise,809 and that souls not yet purified pass into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world, is to be conceived as a place of purification.810 In this way also 378Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell; but, like Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience.811 In the end all the spirits in heaven and earth, nay,

aca

806

See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 11. See περὶ ἀρχῶν II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. We see from c. Cels. V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. 808 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37. 809 Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq. 810 C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: φαµὲν δ᾽ ἡµεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁµαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παµφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιµον λέγοντες (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), τὸ διικνούµενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχοµένης τὸ πῦρ. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and regnum dei. 811 See περὶ ἀρχ. II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c. 807

even the demons, are purified and brought back to God by the Logos-Christ,812 after they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.813 Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: “for the common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished.”814 This system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek philosophers, and justified ecclesiastical Christianity. If one undertook to subject it to a new process of sublimation from the standpoint given in the “contemplative life”, little else would be left than the unchangeable spirit, the created spirit, and the ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.815 The method according to which Origen preserved whatever appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient civilisation, what would have been left to us? The fact of a strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was the condition — to use Origen’s own language — that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its course. During the following century Origen’s theology at first acted in its entirety. But it likewise attained this position of influence, because some important propositions could be detached from 379their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion that the most of its formulæ could be interpreted and employed in utramque partem. The several propositions could be made to serve very different purposes not only by being halved, but also by being grouped. With this the relative unity that distinguishes the system no doubt vanished; but how many are there who strive after unity and completeness in their theory of the world? Above all, however, there was something else that necessarily vanished, as soon as people meddled with the individual propositions, and enlarged or abridged them. We mean the frame of mind which produced them, that wonderful unity between the relative view of things and the absolute estimate of the highest good attainable by the free spirit

812

See περὶ ἀρχ. I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c . Cels. VI. 26. On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. 11. 77 and other passages. Origen does not mention them, so far as I know. 2f0 814c. Cels. l.c. 815 We would be more justified in trying this with Clement. 813

that is certain of its God. But a time came, nay, had already come, when a sense of proportion and relation was no longer to be found. In the East the his 564 tory of dogma and of the Church during the succeeding centuries is the history of Origen’s philosophy. Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for knowledge816 could appeal to this system and did not fail to do so. But, in the main problem that Origen set for the Church in this religious philosophy of his, we find a recurrence of that propounded by the so-called Gnosticism two generations earlier. He solved it by producing a system which reconciled the faith of the Church with Greek philosophy; and he dealt Gnosticism its death-blow. This solution, however, was by no means intended as the doctrine of the Church, since indeed it was rather based on the distinction between Church belief and theology, and consequently on the distinction between the common man and the theologian. But such a distinction was not permanently tenable in a Church that had to preserve its strength by the unity and finality of a revealed faith, and no longer tolerated fresh changes in the interpretation of its possession. Hence a further compromise was necessar abc y. The Greek philosophy, or speculation, did not attain real and permanent recognition within 380the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted both Pistis and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the endeavours of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naïve, attempts at such an accommodation; but ecclesiastical traditionalism was unable to attain complete clearness as to its own position till it was confronted with a philosophy of religion that was no longer heathen or Gnostic, but had an ecclesiastical colouring. But, with this prospect, we have already crossed the border of the third century. At its beginning there were but few theologians in Christendom who were acquainted with speculation, even in its fragmentary form. In the course of the century it became a recognised part of the orthodox faith, in so far as the Logos doctrine triumphed in the Church. This development is the most important that took place in the third century; for it denoted the definite transformation of the rule of faith into the compendium of a Greek philosophical system, and it is the parallel of a

816See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.

contemporaneous transformation of the Church into a holy commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).

Indexes

Indexes Index of Scripture References

Index of Scripture References Genesis 1:2 Exodus 3 Leviticus 5 5 Deuteronomy 17:12 Judges 5 1 Samuel 8:7 Psalms 4 87:5 Proverbs 3:19 8:22 Isaiah 53:5 ad4 61:1 Matthew 4:1-25 10:23 10:34 10:35 11:19 12:30 13:29 16:1-27 16:1-28 16:1-28 16:18 16:18-19 17 19:14 23:34 23:37 Luke 1:4 1:35 10:16 10:16 John 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:14 10:1-42 10:30 14:16-21 14:16-21 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 15:20-26 16:7-15 17:1-26 18:22 Acts 2:1-47 4:27 10:38 23:4-5 Romans 1:8 3:23 5:9 7:4 8:1-39 ab6 8:3 14:4 16:14 1 Corinthians 3:2 7:1-40 12:3 12:28 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:1-58 15:3 15:4 15:23-28 15:44 15:45 15:50 15:50

Galatians 4:26 Ephesians 2:15 3 5:14 41 43 74 210 Philippians 4:3 Colossians 2:8 2:14 535 1 Timothy 3:15 2 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 1:1 2 Peter 3:16 1 John 1:1 2 John 1:7-11 Jude 1:3 Revelation 1:3 Greek Words and Phrases ac4

Index of Greek Words and Phrases • • • • • • • • • • • •

ἀποµνηµονεύµατα ἁι τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραδνσεις ἡ τοῦ κυρίου παράδοσις ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. ὀρθογνώµονες ὁ Θεὸς ὅσα ὑπὸ τὸν κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ποιεῖν ἐπιτέτραπται Περὶ ἀρχῶν Περὶ ἀρχῶν κήρυγµα Πέτρου κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα τὰ βιβλία τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

ἀγωνιστικῶς ἀδύνατον Κυνικῷ, αδιάφορον τὸ τέλος προθεµένῳ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι πλὴν αδιαφορίας ἀθανασία, ἀφθαρσία ἀθεότης ἀκρίβεια τῶν παλαιῶν βιβλίων, ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ µεταπλάττεσθαι ἀλλαγή ἀλλότρια ἀνάγκη ἀνάµνησιν ad1 ἀνάστασις πάσης σαρκὸς, πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος ἀνακεφαλαίωσις ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν ἀναλλοίωτος καθότι ἀθάνατος ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάµ ἀνατρέπει τὴν πρὸ λούτρου πίστιν καὶ ὁµολογίαν ἀνρὶ θυσίας τῆς δἰ αἱµάτων τήν λογικὴν καὶ τὴν µυστικήν, ἥτις εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου συµβόλων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖται τοῦ σώµατος αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος ἀνυπόστατον ἀπέστειλέ µε κύριος τούτου τοῦ πόνου καὶ τῆς συνθήκης καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αἱρετιστήν ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειληµµένων τῇ πίστει ἐποικοδοµουµένη ἀπαθής ἀπαθής ἀπαραλλάκτως ἀγαθός. ἀπὸ µέρους ἀποδιυλισµένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίον χρώµατος ἀπολίπωµεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ µαταίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωµεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐυκλεῆ καὶ σεµνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡµῶν κανόνα ἀπολύτρωσις ἀποµνηµονέυµατα τῶν ἀποστόλων = τὰ εύαγγέλια 551 ἀποµνηµονεύµατα ἀποστολικὴ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὀρθοτοµία τῶν δογµάτων ἀποσυνάγωγος ἀπροσδεής ἀριθµῷ ἐτερόν τι, Θεὸς ἕτερος, Θεὸς δεύτερος ἀρχή

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • •

ἀυθεντία ἀφθαρσία ἁγία ἐκκλησία ἁι ἅγιαι παραδόσεις ἄγγελοι ἄλλους ἐδιδάξατε ἄλογος ae8 ἄναρχος αρχή ἄναρχος, ὅτι ἀγένητος ἄνθρωπον λέγω τὸν πόρρω µὲν ἀνθρωπότητος πρὸς ἀυτὸν δὲ τὸν Θεὸν κεχωρηκότα. ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν ἅ ἔχοµεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες καὶ παντὶ δεοµένῳ κοινωνοῦντες ἅιρεσις ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες. Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναµιν, καὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ µα ἀνθρῶπινον, ἑώρων ἐκ τοῦ πιστεόεσθαι µετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συµβαλλοµένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν· ὁρῶσιν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἤρξατο θεία καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη συνυφαίνεσθαι φύσις· ἴν᾽ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη τῇ πρὸς τὸ θειότερον κοινωνίᾳ γένηται θεία οὐκ ἐν µόνῳ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς µετὰ τοõ πιστεύειν ἀναλαµβάνουσι βίον, ὅν Ἰησοῦς ἐδίδαξενα. Ἀνακεφαλαιώσεως ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων ὀυκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόµενον ὕπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ κρατύνειν. ἐγὼ εἰµί ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ὁ παράκλητος ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ταντοκράτωρ καταγινόµενος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ἦλθο 54c ἐγκράτεια σώµατος ὐπεροψία κατὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ὁµολογίαν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων ἐκάλουν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν παρθένον· οὔπω γὰρ ἔφθαρτο ἀκοαῖς µαταίαις ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγµατείαν καὶ οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενοµένην ἐκκλησία ἐκκλησία µέγα καὶ ἔνδοξον σῶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ

• • • • • • • •

• • • • •

•

• •

• • • • •

ἐµέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριµαίοις λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐµοῦ µὴ ἀκούσητε ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἀκούσατε ae0 ἐν ῞Ελλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενοµένη προφῆτις ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ — δεύτερος Θεός ἐν πέντε συγγράµµασιν τὴν ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τ9;ῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος ὑποµνηµατισάµενος ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰµ προσεκόψαµεν, µὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισµός ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύµφιος ἱµάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει ἐνθέως ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν . . . . τί δὲ µέγα, εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειµένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσµον. ἐξερέυγεσθαι, προβάλλεσθαι, προέρχεσθαι, προπηδᾶν ἐπέκεινα τῆς ὀυσίας ἐπέµσθη οὗν Θεὸς λόγος καθὸ µὲν ἰατρὸς τοῖς ἁµαρτωλοῖς, καθὸ δὲ διδάσκαλος θείων µυστηρίων τοῖς ἤδη καθαροῖς καὶ µηκέτι ἁµαρτάνουσιν ἐπὶ Καλλίστου ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαµοι καὶ τρίγαµοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους· εἰ δὲ καὶ τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὤν γαµοίη, µένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς µὴ ἡµαρτηκότα. ἐπαναγωγή ἐπιστήσωµεν δέ, εἰ µὴ 564 σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσεβὲς ὁµοουσίους τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παµµακαρίᾳ εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύµατι τῶ Θεῶ. ἐποίησε δ᾽ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν ἤδη. ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει· ὅτι οὖκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς ἓν µὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ προγεννηθὲν δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο ἔνσαρκος ἀνάληψις ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ νῦν ταῖς κυριακαῖς ἐνασκήσαντας ἐντολαῖς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τελείως βιώσαντας καὶ γνωστικῶς εἰς τῆν ἐκλογὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγγρ ac8 φῆναι. οὗτος πρεσβύτερός ἐστι τῷ ὄντι

• •

•

•

•

• • • •

•

τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ δίακονος ἀληθὴς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσεως. ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός ἕνα δὴ φάγωµεν λογικῶς; V. 10. 66: βρῶσις γὰρ καὶ πόσις τοῦ θείου λόγου ἡ γνῶσις ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας. Ἐγὼ εἶπα, υἱοὶ ὑψίστου ἐστὲ πάντες καὶ θεοί· ὑµεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε. Ταῦτα λέγει πρὸς τοὺς µὴ δεξαµένους τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς υἱοθεσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιµάζοντας τὴν σάρκωσιν τῆς καθαρᾶς γεννήσεως τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν λόγον χωρήσας καὶ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν υἱὸς γένηται Θεοῦ. Ἐδίδαξεν ἡµᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, µὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ µὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέληµα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷµα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιµὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷµα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ µὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιµῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήµιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, 564 νέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! Ἐκκλ. ἀληθεία Ἐκκλ. Ἀληθ. Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πάντες ἀποθνήσκοµεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁµοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν Ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑµῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας µὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκληύ ac8 ίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέµπειν . . .

•

•

• • • •

•

• • • •

• • • • • • • •

πετροπαράδοτον ἔθος Ῥωµαίων Ῥωµαῖοι διαφυλάττοντες. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ µὲν τῆς Ῥωµαίων προεστὼς Βίκτωρ ἀθρόως τῆς Ἀσίας πάσης ἅµα ταῖς ὁµόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας ἀποτόέµνειν ὡσὰν ἑτεροδοξούσας, τῆς κοινῆς ἑνώσεως πειρᾶται, καὶ στηλιτέυει γε διὰ γραµµάτων, ακοινωνέτους πάντας ἄρδην τούς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δηµιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν Ἐπὶ Kαλλίστου πρώτω τετόλµηται δεύτερον ἀυτοῖς βάπτισµα. Ἔτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείµενον ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός Ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισµα ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ µὲν οὑτως, ὁ δὲ οὑτως, ὁι ἀπόστολοι δὲ ἐν πᾶσι πεπληρωµένοι Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονοµίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος· πατὴρ µὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα. ἡ ἀλ 564 ηθὴς τῆς µακαρίας διδασκαλίασ παράδοσις ἡ ἀνωτάτω ἐκκλησία, καθ᾽ ἥν ὁι φιλόσοφοι συνάγονται τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἀσφάλεια τῶν λόγων ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπὸ λόγου ἀπολιόρκητος ἀτυράννητος πόλις ἐπὶ γῆς, θέληµα θεῖον ἐπὶ γῆς, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις ἡ ἐν Σµύρνῃ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ἕνωσις τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἡµετέρα παιδεία ἡ ἡµετέρα φιλοσοφία. ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρυσσοµένη ἀλή ac7 θεια ἡ Θεοῦ κατάληψις ἥν ἔχω περὶ τῶν ὅλων. ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥώµη

•

•

• • • • •

• • • • • • •

ἡ γνῶσις ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντας διδάσκει τε καὶ παιδεύει τὴν πᾶσαν κτίσιν τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ τιµᾶν ἡ γνῶσις ἐκ παραδόσεως διαδιδοµένη τοῖς ἀξίους σφᾶς ἀυτοὺς τῆς διδασκαλίας παρεχοµένοις οἷον παρακαταθήκη ἐγχειρίζεται ἡ γνῶσις τε καὶ ἡ τῆς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐναργὴς ἀπόδειξις ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. ἡ γνωσις δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ κατὰ διαδοχὰς ἡ γνωστικὴ παράδοσις ἡ γοῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα γνωστικῆς παραδόσεως φυσιολογία, µᾶλλον δὲ ἐποπτεία, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσµογονίας ἤρτηται λόγου. ἐνθένδε ἀναβαίνουσα ἐπὶ τὸ θεολογικὸν εἶδος ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει ἡ γραφή ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστέιας τὴν ὁµόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. ἡ εὐκλεὴς καὶ σεµνὸς τῆς παραδόσεως κανών ἡ εαρβαρικὴ νοµοθεσία ἡ θεία παράδοσις ἡ θεοσεβὴς παράδοσις 565

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

ἡ θεωρία ἡ ἐπιστηµονική ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσσοφία. ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς φιλοσοφία ἡ κατὰ λὸγον ἄσκησις ἐκ πίστεώς τε καὶ φόβου παιδαγωγουµένη ἡ κατὰ τὴν θείαν παράδοσιν φιλοσοφία ἡ οὐράνιος ἐκκλησία ἡ περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογία ἡ πνευµαρικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ πρᾶξις ἡ προσϕορὰ τοῦ σώµατος καὶ τοῦ αἵµατος ἡµεῖς καὶ τὸν abb Πάτρον καὶ το ἦλθον εἰς ἡµᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλὶου Ῥωµαίων ἐπισκόπου πρὸς . . . φάβιον, δηλοῦσαι τὰ περὶ τῆς Ῥωµαίων συνόδου, καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ Ἀφρικὴν καὶ τὰς αὐτόθι χώρας. Ἠσαΐας — τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον — ὁ θεῖος λόγος Ἡ κυριακὴ διδασκαλία

• •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ἡµέτερον οὖν ἔργον καὶ βίου καὶ µαθηµάτων τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν πᾶσι παρέχειν. Ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ µὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὴν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός. Πάλιν τε, εἰ µὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὑκ ἄν βεβαίως ἔσχοµεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ µὴ συνηνώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἂν ἡδυνήθη µετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν µεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειὸτητος εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁµόνοιαν τοὺς ἀµφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν· καὶ Θεῷ µὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν Θεόν. ἰδέα ἰδεῶν, σύστηµα θεωρηµάτων ἐν αὐτῶ ἵνα ἐξ ἀµφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ ὀικονοµία Θεοῦ ὀικονοµίαν ὀµολογίαν ὀρθεγνώµονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί ad5 ὀυ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγµατείαν ἐλθεῖν φασίν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας µυστικὴν ἑρµηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. ὁ ἀληθείας προκαθεζόµενος. ὁ ἅγιος λόγος — ἡ ἑυαγγέλιος φωνή. ὁ ἐκδικητὴς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Θεοῦ, ὁ µόνος λεγόµενος κυριώς ὑιός ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι ὁ Θεὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξ ἡµῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι. ὁ Θεὸς µέν οὖν πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἡµῶν διὰ τὰ πολλά ὁ Θεὸς οὐδεµίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡµᾶς συσικὴν σχέσιν ὡς οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων κτίσται θέλουσιν. ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος ὁ Θεός ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁµεγας Θεός ὁ γνωστικὸς οὗτος συνελόντι ἐιπεῖν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἀπουσίαν ανταναπληροῖ, κ.τ.λ. ὁ διάκονος τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάµων, ὁ νηύ ac8 τείας νοµοθετήσας ὁ διδάσκαλος Χριστός ὁ δοκῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς σεµνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέναι ὁ δοκῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφώτερος γεγενῆσθαι ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεός, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς ὁ ιἑρὸς Κλήµης, κύριός µου γενόµενος καὶ ὠφελήσας µε ὁ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς λόγος ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθέιας ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀρχαίας πίστεως ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας (ἐκκλησιαστικός) ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν Τατιανός. ὁ λόγος ὁ µὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὣν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιςτηµονικός, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς σοφία τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιστήµη ὁ µακάριος ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ κύριος ὁ νόµος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον ὁ περὶ ἐνσωµάτου Θεοῦ λόγος ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατὰ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν aa2 στί Θεός ὁι ἀπόστολοι ὁµοόυσιοι ὁµοίωσις ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιος ὁµοούσιος τῷ πατρί ὁµοουσίος ὁρθὸς ζόγος ὄχλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν ἡµᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευµατοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἰωάννης λέγει κ.τ.λ. ὅπου ἄν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥστερ ὅπου ἄν ῇ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡµῶν σῶµα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµει καὶ µίξας ὅσα παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς είρηται ἡµῶν, τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί

•

• • • •

• • • • • •

• •

•

•

Ὁ µὲν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος ἐστὶν ἐλεύθερός τε καὶ αὐτεξούσιος, ὑπὸ µηδεµίαν βάσανον ἐλέγχου θέλων πίπτειν µηδὲ τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκούουσι δἰ ἀποδειξεως ἐξέτασιν ὑποµένειν. Τὸ γὰρ εὐγενὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ πεποιθὸς αὐτῷ τῷ πέµψαντι πιστεύεσθαι θέλει Ὅθεν ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται ἐκεῖ Κύριός ἐστιν. Ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσικαλῶς εἴρηται, ἡµῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν εστί 58a ὑιὸς µονογενής ὑπὲρ δὲ ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισµα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολµᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. ὑπὲρ τῆς κατά Χριστιανοὺς φιλοσοφίας ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως ὑπὸ δαιµόνων δὲ ἐµπνευσθέντες καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν φυσιωθέντες ἅ εἶπον δι᾽ αὐτῶν εἶπον. ὑπὸ λόγου διὰ Σωκράτους ἡλέγχθη κ.τ.λ. (I. 5). Nevertheless αὐτὸς ὁ λόγος ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραµονὴ ἀφθα abc ρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. ὕλην ἄχρονον δοξάζει ὡς γὰρ τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργον ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κόσµος ὀνοµάζεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ βούληµα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶ σωτηρία, καὶ τοῦτο ἐκκλησία κέκληται ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος µὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινοµένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑποµένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαµβάνεσθαι ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαµπρότητος αὐτοῦ µετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, µετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς λαµπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώµενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως.

•

• •

ὥσπερ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἠγοράσθηµεν . . . οὕτως τῷ τιµίῳ αἵµατι τῶν µαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί τινες ὥστε εἶναι ἐπι τῶν ἁγίων συναθροιζοµένων διπλῆν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν µὲν ἀνθρώπων, τὴν δὲ ἀγγέλων ὧν ἡµεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας καὶ διδασκαλίας 570

• • • •

•

ὺς ἄλλους ἀποστόλους ἀποδεχόµεθα ὡς Χριστόν ῇ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βάρβαρος φιλοσοφία Ῥωµαῖοι “ Ἄµείνον καὶ συµφορώτερον, ἰδιώτας καὶ ὀλιγοµαθεῖς ὑπάρχειν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης πλησίον γενέσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἤ πολυµαθεῖς καὶ ἐµπείρους δοκοῦντας εἶναι, βλασφήµους εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν εὑρίσκεσθαι δεσπότην Αἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστῷ µαθητευθεῦσαι ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόµεναι ταῖς ὧν παροικοῦσι δήµων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρας εἰσιν ἐν κόσµῳ. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ὁµολογήσαι, καὶ τοὺς χείρους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ συγκρίσει βελτιόνων ἐλάττους πολλῷ κρείττους ύ ab7 υγχάνειν τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήµοις ἐκκλησιῶν; ἐκκλησία µὲν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ἡ Ἀθήνῃσι πραεῖά τις καὶ εὐσταθής, ἅτε Θεῷ ἀρέσκειν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι βουλοµένη· ἡ δ᾽Αθηναίων ἐκκλησία στασιώδης καὶ οὐδαµῶς παραβαλλοµένη τῇ ἐκεῖ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ· τὸ δ᾽αὐτὸ ἐρεῖς. Περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ δήµου Κορινθίων·; καὶ, φέρ᾽ εἰπεῖν, περὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, καὶ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέων δήµου. Καὶ ἐὰν εὐγνώµων ᾖ ὁ τούτου ἀκούων καὶ φιλαλήθως ἐξετάθῃ τὰ πράγµατα, θαυµάσεται τὸν καὶ βουλευσάµενον καὶ ἀνύσαι δυνηθέντα πανταχοῦ συστήσασθαι ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, παροικούσασ ἒκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν δήµων οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλὴν ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ βουλῇ τῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πόλιν συνεξετάζων εὕροις ἄν ὅτι τινὲς µὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοὶ εἰσι — εἵ τίς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παντὶ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ — ἐν εκείνῃ πολιτεύεσθαι ὁι δὲ πανταχοῦ βουλευταὶ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς, ἢν ὑπερέχειν δοκοῦσι τῶν

• • • • • • • •

• •

•

πολιτῶν, φέρουσιν ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἤθεσιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἄρχοντα ἐκκλησίας ἑκάςτης πόλεως ἄρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει συγκριτέν· ἵνα κατανοήσῃς, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανοµένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυµοτέρων παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας οὐδὲν ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχήν τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς προκοπῇ παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων. ad9 Αἱ µέντοι Συρίαι ὅλαι καὶ ἡ Ἀραβία, οἷς ἐπαρκεῖτε ἑκάστοτε καὶ οἷς νῦν ἐπεστείλατε. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ∆ιδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων ∆ιδαχή ∆ιδαχη ∆ιδαχή ∆ιδ. Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἀθάνατον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς πεποιήκει, Θεὸν αὐτὸν πεποιήκει· πάλιν εἰ θνητὸν ἀυτὸν πεποιήκει ἐδόκει ἄν ὁ Θεὸς αἴτιος εἶναι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. Οὔτε οὖν ἀθάνατον ἀυτὸν ἐποίησεν οὔτε µὴν θνητόν, ἀλλὰ δεκτικὸν ἀµφοτέρων; ἵνα, εἰ ῥέψῃ ἐπὶ τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τηρήσας τὴν ἑντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µισθὸν κοµίσηται παῤ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ γένηται Θεός, εἰ δ᾽ αὖ τραπῇ ἐπὶ τὰ τοῦ θανάτου πράγµατα παρακούσας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ αἴτιος ᾖ τοῦ θανάτου. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγµα Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ µὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ µετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννηµένα. Καθὸ δὲ µή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, καύ ac8 ὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀσυνήθη καί αγύµναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. Εἰ τοίνυν ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδὰµ ἔσχε πατέρα ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἐκ ππέρµατος ἐγεννήθη, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ τὸν

• •

• • •

• •

δεύτερον Ἀδὰµ λέγειν ἐξ Ἰωσὴφ γεγεννῆσθαι. Εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλάστης δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεός, ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἀνακεφαλαιούµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πεπλασµένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁµοιότητα. Εἰς τὶ οὖν πάλιν οὐκ ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέσθαι; Ἵνα µὴ ἀλλη πλάσις γένηται µηδὲ ἀλλὸ τὸ σωζόµενον ἦ, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ τηπουµένης τῆς ὁµοιότητος Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς εξ ἑαυτοῦ. Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν. Ὁ γὰρ δεσπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ µὲν τὴν µηδέπω γεγενηµένην ποίησιν µόνος ἦν· καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δύναµις, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἀοράτων ἀυτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα· σὺν αὐτῷ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάµεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὅς ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. Θελήµατι δέ τῆς ἁπλότητος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος· ὁ δὲ λόγος, ὀυ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. Τοῦτον ἴσµεν τοῦ κόσµου τὴν ἀρχήν. Γέγονε δὲ κατὰ µερισµόν, ο̦ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτµηθὲν τοῦ πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ µερισθὲν οἰκον 564 οµίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεπόιηκεν. Ὥστερ γὰρ ἀπὸ µιᾶς δᾳδὸς ἀνάπτεται µὲν πυρὰ πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δᾳδὸς διὰ τὴν ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δᾳδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λόγος προελθὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάµεως οὐκ ἄλογον πεποίηκε τὸν γεγεννηκότα. Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσµον κτίσαι. Θεῷ τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης µυστήρια, καὶ τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς µόνος ἐξηγήσατο· ἔστι δὲ κὰι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη καὶ δι᾽ ἀγάπην ἡµῖν ἀνεκράθη· καὶ τὸ µὲν ἄρρητον ἀυτοῦ πατήρ, τὸ δὲ ἡµῖν συµπαθὲς γέγονε µήτηρ· ἀγαπήσας Ὅ 564 πατὴρ ἐθηλύνθη, καὶ τούτου µέγα σηµεῖον, ὃν ἀυτὸς ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ ὁ τεχθείς ἑξ ἀγάπης καρπὸς ἀγάπη Θεὸς καλεῖ εἰς µετάνοιαν Θεοῦ λόγος πρὸ αἰώνων

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Κάλλιστος ἐδογµάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁµάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, µὴ δεῖν κατατίθεσθαι. Κάλλιστος πρῶτος τὰ πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν ἐπενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁµαρτίας. Κόσµου µὲν γὰρ ἡ κατασκευὴ καλή, τὸ δὲ ἐν ἀυτῷ πολίτευµα φαῦλον. Καὶ δεύτερον οὖν λέγωµεν Θεόν· ἴστωσαν, ὅτι τὸν δεύτε ac8 ρον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγοµεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὸν περιεκτικὸν παντὸς οὑτινοσοῦν λόγου τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ προηγουµένως γεγενηµένων, Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑµᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶµα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν µὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐµαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦµα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑµῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Καὶ οὔτε ὁ πάνυ δυνατὸς ἐν λόγῳ τῶν ἐν ταῖ ἐκκλησίαις προεστώτων ἕτερα τούτων (scil. than the regula fidei) ἐρεῖ· οὐδείς γὰρ ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον· οὔτε ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ἐλαττώσει τὴν παράδοσιν. Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς πίστεως οὔσης οὔτε ὁ πολὺ περὶ αὐτῆς δυνάµενος εἰπεῖν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὔτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἡλαττόνησε. Καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη ὁ Κάλλιστος λέγεσθαι· Ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σιτῷ τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁµοίωµα ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες κὰι πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα. ὁύτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁµοίως· καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν συνάγειν ὁύτως ἡρµήνευσεν. Καὶ ταῦτα µὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶµα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅµα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιο abb βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁµιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόµος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυµίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούµενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέµεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται

• • • • •

Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συµβέβηκε τῷ καλουµένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, µηδὲ τὸ παλινδροµεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύµενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγµασιν ὑπακούσας σεµνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόµενος µιµητής, ἔσῃ ὅµοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιµηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Καθαροί Καθολικός Κεστοί Κεστοί Κλήµεντα τοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον ὑµῖν χειροτονῶ, ᾧ τὴν ἐµὴν τῶν λόγων πιστεύω καθέδραν . . . διὸ αὐτῷ µεταδίδωµι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ δεσµεύειν καὶ λύειν, ἵνα περὶ παντὸς οὗ ἄν χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ γῆς ἔσται δεδογµατισµένον ἐν οὐρανοῖς. δήσει γὰρ ὅ δεῖ δεθῆναι καὶ λύσει ὅ δεῖ λυθῆναι, ὡς τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰδὼς κανόνα. ad3

• • • •

•

Κλήµης πολλοὺς πρὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰµ κόσµους τερατεύεται Λέγεται µέν Λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας Μή τι οὖν, εἰ καὶ παραβαίη τις συνθήκας καὶ τὴν ὁµολογίαν παρέλθοι τὴν πρὸς ἡµᾶς, διὰ τὸν ψευσάµενον τὴν ὁµολογίαν ἀφεξόµεθα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀψευδεῖν χρὴ τὸν ἐπιεικῆ καὶ µηδὲν ὧν ὑπέσχηται ἀκυροῦν κἂν ἄλλοι τινὲς παραβαίνωσι συνθήκας, οὕτως καὶ ἡµᾶς κατὰ µηδένα τρόπον τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παραβαίνειν προσήκει κανόνα καὶ µάλιστα τὴν περὶ τῶν µεγίστων ὁµολογίαν ἡµεῖς µὲν φυλάττοµεν, οἱ δὲ παραβαίνουσι Μωυσῆς πάσης βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγός

•

• •

Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεῖ τι ἀυτῷ πρὸς ἐξοµοίωσιν τῷ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι· οὐδὲ ἄρα σιλεῖ τινὰ τὴν κοινὴν ταύτην σιλίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κτίστην διὰ τῶν κτισµάτων, Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐπιθυµίᾳ καὶ ὁρέξει τινὶ περιπίπτει οὔτε ἐνδεής ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄλλων τινός συνὼν ἤδη δι᾽ ἀγάπης τῷ ἐραστῷ, ᾧ δὴ ᾠκείωται κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἀσκήσεως ἕξει, τούτῳ προσεχέστερον συνεγγίζων, µακάριος ὢστε ἕνεκά γε τούτων ἐξυµοιοῦσθαι βιάζεται τῷ διδασκάλῳ εἰς ἀπαθείαν. Οὐκ ἐγκρατὴς οὗτος ἔτι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἕξει γέγονεν ἀπαθείας σχῆµα θεῖον ἐπενδύσασθαι αναµένων Οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν 556

•

•

• •

Οὔτε ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη καθάπερ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὐτὴ ἰσοδύναµος τῷ Θεῷ· γεννητὴ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὑπό τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα· µόνον δε ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δηµιουργοῦ προβεβληµένη. Ον µὲν νοµίζοµαν καὶ πεπείσµεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεοῦ καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια· τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶµα καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐῷ ψυχὴν τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ µόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ µέγιστά φαµεν προσειληφέναι καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος κακοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν µεταβεβηκέναι Περὶ ἀρχῶν Περὶ ἀρχῶν 574

•

Πλάσας ὁ Θεὸς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώµης αὐτοῦ τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀπῃώρησεν ἐντολῇ µιᾷ ποιησάµενος τὴν διάπειραν. Φυλάξαντα µὲν γὰρ ταύτην τῆς ἀθανάτου λήξεως πεποίηκεν ἔσεσθαι, παραβάντα δὲ τῆς ἐναντίας. Οὕτω γεγονὼς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς τὴν παράβασιν εὐθὺς ἐλθὼν τὴν φθορὰν φυσικῶς εἰσεδέξατο. Φύσει δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς προσγενοµένης ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόµενος ἦν τὴν φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἦν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ µήπερ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν

•

•

•

•

• •

φθορὰν δεξαµένῳ ἀφανιζουσα µὲν τὴν φθοράν, ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάµενον διατηροῦσα. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο τὸν λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώµατι γενέσθαι, ἵνα (τοῦ θανάτου) τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡµᾶς φθορᾶς ἐλ 564 ευθερώσῃ. Εἰ γὰρ, ὥς φατε, νεύµατι µόνον τὸν θάνατον ἡµῶν ἀπεκώλυσεν, οὐ προσῄει µὲν διὰ τὴν βούλησιν ὁ θάνατος, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον φθαρτοὶ πάλιν ἦµεν, φυσικὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν φθορὰν περιφέροντες. Σωκράτει οὐδεὶς ἐπείσθη ὑπὲρ τούτου τοῦ δόγµατος ἀποθνήσκειν· Χριστῷ δὲ τῷ καὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ µέρους γνωσθέντι . . . οὐ φιλόσοφοι οὐδὲ φιλόλογοι µόνον ἐπείσθησαν. Τὰ Εἰρηνάιου τε κὰι Μελίτωνος κὰι τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν Τὰς αἱρέσεις ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει, ἢ τὸ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦµα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι µετέδοσαν το ab2 ῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν ὧν ἡµεῖς δίαδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς τε ἀυτῆς χάριτος µετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ φρουροὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κελογισµένοι ὀυκ ὀφθαλµῷ νυστάζοµεν, ὀυδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν σιωπῶµεν, κ.τ.λ. Τίς µᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κακόλληται τῷ κυρίῳ; ὕπερ εἰ οὕτως ἔχει οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον Τὸ µὲν ὑποκείµενον ἕν ἐστι, ταῖς δὲ ἐπινοίαις τὰ πολλὰ ὀνόµατα ἐπὶ διαφόρων Τὸν πριωµενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς µῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νοµὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάµενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· µᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡµαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυτρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ὑµῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνοµίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • •

µητέρα ὑµῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· ∆ωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ µετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ µετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης ada Χριστὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ γυναικὸς ἐσχηµατισµένος. Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις αἰ τρεῖς ἡµέραι τύποι ἑισὶν τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου ἀυτοῦ καὶ τῆς σοφίας ἀυτοῦ αἱ δύο οὐσίαι Χριστοῦ”. αἱ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βίβλοι καὶ αἱ προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου τοῦ ὁσίου ἀνδρός αἱ κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαι αἱ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν φιλοσοφοῦσαι. αἱ τότε αἱτιατόν αὐτίκα διδάξαντος τοῦ σωτῆρος τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἡ τῆς ἐγγράφου ἄγραφος ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς διαδίδοται παράδοσις αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις αὐτόθεος αὗται φωνὰι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐξ ἧς πᾶσα ἔσχηκεν ἐκκλησία τὴς ἀρχήν· αὗται φωναὶ τῆς µητροπόλεως τῶν τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης πολιτῶν αγαθός αυθεντία βύθος βίος καὶ µαθήµατα γεννᾶν acc

• • • • • • • • •

γνῶσις σύντοµος τῶν κατεπειγόντων γραφάι γραφὴ γέγραπται γραφή γραφή. γραφαὶ βαρβαρικαί γραφαί γυµναστικῶς δέδωκεν ὁ Θεὸς τῷ κόσµῳ κυµαινοµένῳ καὶ χειµαζοµένῳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτηµάτων τὰς συναγωγάς, λεγοµένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας, ἐν αἷς

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

καθάπερ λιµέσιν εὐόρµοις ἐν νήσοις ἁι διδασκαλίαι τῆς αληθείας ἐισίν . . . Καὶ ὥσπερ αὖ νῆσοι εἰσιν ἕτεραι πετρώδεις καὶ ἄνυδροι καὶ ἔκαρποι καὶ θηριώδεις καὶ ἀοίκητοι ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πλεόντων . . . οὕτως εἰσὶν αἱ διδασκαλίαι τῆς πλάνης, λέγω δὲ τῶν αἱρέσεων αἳ ἐξαπολλύουσιν τοὺς προσίοντας αὐταῖς δύναµις ἐστὶ τοῦ ἀρρήτου πατρὸς καὶ οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου κόγου κατασκευή δύο συνέστη τὰ ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτηµάτα παρεχόµενα, πάθος διὰ Χριστὸν καὶ βάπτισµα δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγµατα δεῖ γὰρ ἀποκατασταθῆαι ὅθεν ἀπέστη. δεδιὼς καὶ ἐξευλαβούµενος, µή πη δόξω πρὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἤ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ δεσπότης τ 564 ῶν ὅλων δηµιούργηµα διὸ λέγει· ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡµεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυµοῦµεν διατάξεις διδάγµατα Χριστοῦ διδάγµατα καὶ µαθήµατα καὶ µαθήµατα διδάσκαλοι ἀποστολικοὶ καὶ προϕητικοί διδάσκαλος διδασκαλία τοῦ κυρί ac4 υ διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων διώκοµαι ὡς λύκος ἐκ προβάτων˙ οὐκ εἰµὶ λύκς˙ ῥῆµά εἰµί καὶ πνεῦµα καὶ δύναµις. δόγµατα δόξαις παλαιῶν. δογµατικῶς δοκαιώµατα εἰ ἐπὶ τὸ καταλῦσαι θάνατον ἀφικνεῖται τὸ διαφέρον γένος, οὐχ ὁ Χριστὸς τὸν θάνατον κατήργησεν, εἰ µὴ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς ὁµοούσιος λεχθείη εἰ ὑγιῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα, τί θαυµαστόν, τὴν ποίοτητα τοῦ θνητοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σώµατος προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ

•

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • •

βουληθέντος µεταβαλεῖν εἰς αιθέριον καὶ θείαν ποιότητα εἰ γοῦν τις καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰωνίαν, εἴη δὲ ταῦτα κεχωρισµένα παντὸς µᾶλλον ἐν ταυτότητε ὅντα, οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν διστάσας ἕλοιτ᾽ ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. εἰ δἰκασµῷ, οὐκ ἄρα ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ εἰρηµένα εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐ δαµῶς ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος. εἰδότες εἰκὼν τῆς οὐρανίου ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος, διόπερ εὐχόµεθα καὶ ἐπί γῆς γενέσθαι τὸ θέληµα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ acc εἰκών εἰς ὀλίγους ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀγράφως παραδοθεῖσα κατελήλυθεν εἰς Ῥώµην ὅς ἔπεµψεν ἐµὲν βασίληαν ἀθρῆσαι καὶ βασίλισσαν ιδεῖν χρυσόστολον χρυσοπέδιλον. εἴτε τὸ ἐν ἡµῖν αὐτεξούσιον εἰς γνῶσιν ἀφικόµενον τἀγαθοῦ σκιρτᾷ τε καὶ πηδᾷ ἁπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαµµένα, πλὴν οὐ χάριτος ἄνευ τῆς ἐξαιρέτου πτεροῦταί τε καὶ ἀνίσταται καὶ ἄνω τῶν ὑπερκειµένων αἴρεται ἡ ψυχή εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς εἷς Θεός εἷς Θ. π. εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἔνεργος, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιντική, ὑιὸς ἀληθινὸς πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀἴδιος ἀϊδίου. εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσµεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλµατα σέβοντες εὕρεσις καὶ θεωρία εντολαὶ Ἰησοῦ θεάνθρωπος θεολογεῖν and θελογία. θεολογικὴ σοφία. θεραπεύεσθαι

• • •

•

• • • • •

•

•

•

• • • •

θρέψε µ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρ ac8 ια, µέτοικον ἔθαψε δὲ Ῥώµη, αἱ κόσµου καὶ γῆς, ὦ ξένε, µητροπόλεις θυσίαι, νῦν εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ ἐυχαριστίαι. κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισι τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν λεγόµενα τῶν κυριακῶν γραφῶν, ἰστέον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ ζῇ καὶ τὰς ἀσορµὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα τὸν νοῦν µόνον, οὐ τὴν λέξιν, παριστᾶν ἐπαγγελλέται κὰι ὁ ὑιὸς λόγος ὁµωνύµως τῷ τατρικῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σὰρξ γενόµενος, οὐδὲ µὴν ὁ πατρῷος λόγος, ἀλλὰ δύναµίς τις τοῦ Θεοῦ. οἷον ἀπόρροια τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ νοῦς γενόµενος τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων καρδίας διαπεσοίτηκε. κήρυγµα κήρυγµα τῆς ἀληθέιας κόσµος νοητός κύριος καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἡπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι, ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅµα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἳ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ τνεύµατος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονεν καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῷτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόµενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. Ἀπόδειξιν οὐν λαβὼν τῶν γινοµένων καὶ προαναπεφωνηµένων οὐκ απιστῶ καὶ µακάριοι γε ὅσοι δεόµενοι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιοῦτοι γεγόνασιν, ὡς µηκέτι αὐτοῦ χρῄζειν ἰατροῦ τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας θεραπεύοντος, µηδ ab2 ποιµένος, µηδὲ ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἀλλὰ σοσίας καὶ λόγου καὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἢ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοῖς διὰ τελειότητα χωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὰ κάλλιστα δυναµένοις καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἧς ὁ νόµος εἴρηκεν, ἀκόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τούς πάντας πνευµατοφόρους ἑνὶ πνέυµατι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡµέραν ποιοῦµεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς, τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουµένους, εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζοµεν αὐτοὺς κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται µετέπειτα προφητῶν καθὸ πᾶσα δύναµις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ αὀράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῲ τὰ πάντα καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούοµεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικὰ χαρίσµατα ἐχόντων κ.τ.λ. καθολικός

• • • •

•

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

καθολ. δόξα καθρολικὴ δόξα καινοτοµεῖν τὰ βαρβάρων δόγµατα καλὸν ἐλεηµοσύνη ὡς µετάνοια ἁµαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεηµοσύνη δὲ ἀµφοτέρων . . . ἐλεηµοσύνη γὰρ κούϕισµα ἁµαρτίας γίνεται κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συµφωνία νόµου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδοµένῃ διαθήκῃ 57a κανὼν καθολικός κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως κανὼν τῆς παραδόσεως κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πίστις κατὰ ἀληθείαν εὐαγγελικὸς κανών κατὰ µὲν τὸν βίον Χριστιανῶς ζῶν καὶ παρανόµως, κατὰ δὲ τὰς περὶ τῶν πραγµάτων καὶ τοῦ θείου δόξας Ἑλληνίζων καὶ τὰ Ἑλλήνων τοῖς ὀθνείοις ὑποβαλλόµενος µύθοις. ab9 ατὰ µερισµόν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου = κατὰ τ. εὐαγγ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν κατ᾽ ἰδίαν τῆς οὐσίας περιγραφήν κόσµος τοῦ κόσµου κοινὴ ἕνωσις κοινωνία, ἕνωσις, ἀνακράσις κοσµικὴ κτίσµα κτίστης τῶν πάντων λάβετε ὕδωρ λογικόν. λέγει λέγει ὁ θέος· οὑ χάρις ὑµῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε κ.τ.λ. λόγον λόγος ἐνδιάθετος λόγος εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγµατος λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦµα, σοφία λόγου τοῦ δηµοσίου καὶ ἐπιγείου κεχωρισµένοι καὶ παραγγέλµασι καὶ νόµῳ πατρὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἑπόµενοι, πᾶν τὸ ἐν δόξῃ κείµενον ἀνθρωπίνῃ παραιτούµεθα.

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

λόγος λόγος ἐνδιάθετος λόγος προφορικός λόγος σώϕρων abf λογικὸν ἡµῖν βρῶµα ἡ γνῶσις µάθησις µάθησις and µυσταγωγία µέρος θεοῦ καὶ τῷ Θοῷ ὁµοούσιοι µὴ ὄν µὴ ὄντα µὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκα, διαµένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον ἡλπικότας κ.τ.λ., µὴ ξενιζῶµεθα, ἐάν ὁρῶµεν ἡµῶν τὰ ἀθροίσµατα πεπληρωµένα καὶ πονηρῶν µὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι µήποτε, ὡς γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶµεν µήτηρ δέ οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θεία γνώσις καὶ ἡ σοφία µήτηρ παρθένος· ἐκκλησίαν ἐµοὶ φίλον ἀυτὴν καλεῖν µία ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις µέρος σπερµατικοῦ λόγου µέρος τοῦ σπερµατικοῦ θείου λόγου µερισµός µετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν µετὰ λόγου µετάνοια ae0 µεταδοῦναί σοι θέλω τῆς ἐµῆς χάριτος . . . λάµβανε ἀπ᾽ εµõυ καὶ δι᾽ εµõυ χάριν µετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ µίµηµα µια ἡ πάντων γέγονε τῶν ἀποστόλων ὥσπερ διδασκαλία οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἡ παράδοσις µνήµην τῆς θυσίας Χριστοῦ προσφέρειν and τὴν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν καὶ τὸ καταρτισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶµα προσφέρειν. µονογενής, πρωτότοκος µυρίων γοῦν ὄντων κατ᾽ ἀριθµὸν ἅ πράσσουσιν ἄνθρωποι σχεδὸν δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ πάσης ἁµαρτίας, ἄγνοια καὶ ἀσθένεια, ἄµφω δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡµῖν, τῶν µήτε

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

ἐθελόντων µανθάνειν µήτε αὖ τῆς ἐπιθυµίας κρατεῖν. µυρίον πλῆθος οὐ µόνον αἱρετικῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡµετέρων. µυστήροιν µυσταγωγία µυστικὴ παράδοσις µυτήριον νόµοι νύµφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόµενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν νόµος, νοµοθέτης and κριτής νοῦς νοµ 564 οθεσία οἰκονοµίᾳ οἰκονοµία Θεοῦ οἰκονοµία τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονοµίαν. οἰκονοµίας οἰκονοµία οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς Τιµόθεον ἀθετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς οἱ ἡµέτεροι νόµοι οἱ βουλόµενοι φιλοσοφεῖν παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄνθρωποι. οἱ εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύοντες καὶ δι᾽ ἀγαθοεργίας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐξιλασκόµενοι οἱ κατὰ ac8 ωυσέα καὶ ὁµοίως αὐτῷ φιλοσοφοῦντες. οἱ µὲν τὴν ἀληθῆ τῆς µακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόµενος ἧκον δὴ σὺν θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡµᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀποστολικὰ καταθησόµενοι σπέρµατα οἱ µετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἄν ἄθεοι ἐνοµίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι µὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅµοιοι αὐτοῖς, ἐν βαρβάροις δὲ Ἀβραὰµ κ.τ.λ. οἱ παγαιοὶ θεολόγοι. οἵτινες µάρτυρες ἔσονται µεταξὺ ὑµῶν καὶ ἡµῶν. οἶκος θεοῦ ἐκκλησία, στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωµα τῆς αληθείας

• •

• •

•

• • • • •

•

• •

•

• •

οἷς ἄν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν καὶ τὴν Ῥωµαίων πόλιν ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ δόγµατος επιστέλλοιεν οὐ γὰρ µόνον ἐν Ἕλλησι διὰ Σωκράτους ὑπὸ λόγου ἡλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου µορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ἄνευ υἱοῦ· ἅµα γὰρ τῷ πατήρ υἱοῦ πατήρ οὐ µὴν οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔτυχε, διαφυγὼν τὴν νόσον, ὧν χρὴ µεταλαµβάνειν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας κανόνα, τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου. οὐ παύσεται 564 ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσµω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόµενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς µέλλει ποιµαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόµενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. οὐ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ἀλλὰ δύναµις Θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν. οὐκ ὄν οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, ὐποκείµενον, πρόσωπον οὐχ ὅπερ µὴ ἐλάβοµεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ λαβόντες ὑπὸ τῆς πλάνης ἔχειν ἐκωλύθηµεν. οὕτω δέ καὶ ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων Ὅ ac8 ν διὰ τοῦ βαπτρίσµατος εἴληφε οὕτως ὁ τῷ κυρίῳ πειθόµενος καὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ δι᾽ ἀυτοῦ κατακολουθήσας προφητείᾳ τελέως ἐκτελεῖται κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ διδασκάλου ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν Θεός οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ϕιλόσοϕος ἐγώ. οὗτως δύναµιν λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ ψυχὴ µελετᾷ εἶναι Θεός, κακόν µὲν ὀυδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἀγνοίας εἶναι νοµίζουσα. πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς Θεός, τὰ µὲν ἁµαρτήµατα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς, εἰς δί τὸ µὴ ἐξαµαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. πάντων µὲν ἄιτιος τῶν καλῶν ὁ Θεός, ἀλλὰ τῶν µὲν κατὰ προηγούµενον ὡς τῆς τε διαθήκης τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ τῆς νεάς, τῶν δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπακολούθηµα ὡς

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • •

τῆς σιλοσοσίας. τάχα δὲ καὶ προηγουµένως τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐδόθη τότε πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύριον καλέσαι καὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ἐπαιδαγώγει γὰρ καί ἀυτὴ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ὡς ὁ γόµος τοὺς Ἑβραίους εἰς Χριστόν. πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου. πίστις πίστις ἐπιστηµονική πίστις ἰδιωτική πίστις καὶ ὁµολογία πᾶσα ἡ ἐν κόςµῳ 564 ἀδελφότης πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐκκλησίαι κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐκκλησίαι αἱ ἐν κόσµῳ, αἱ ὑφ᾽ οὐράνου πῶς οὐ κυρίως τὴν ἐις τιµὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν ἁγίαν γενοµένην ἐκκλησίαν ιἑρὸν ἂν ἔιποιµεν Θεοῦ τὸ πολλοῦ ἄξιον . . . ὀυ γὰρ νῦν τὸν τόπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄθροισµα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἐκκλησίαν καλῶ πάντων εὐτονώτερος παῖς Θεοῦ παντοκράτωρ ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐµπεριέχει παράδοσισ ἄγραφος παρέστιν σοὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντι καὶ τελείῳ γ eb0 ενοµένῳ εὐδαιµονεῖν. παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος παραδόσεις τῶν ἀρχάιων πρεσβυτέρων παρακαταθήκη ἀποδιδοµένη Θεῷ ἡ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίαν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀυτοῦ τῆς θεοσεβοῦς παραδόσεως σύνεσίς τε καὶ συνάσκησις παρθένος πατὴρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν χρηστότης περὶ ἀρχῶν περὶ ἀρχῶν περὶ ἀρχ. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόµος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου µὴ ἀποστερεῖσθαι περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ. περὶ προνοίας πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος πιστέυω εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντακράτορα

• • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• •

•

• • • • • • •

πλέον ἐστὶν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι. πνεῦµα πνεῦµα ἀσώµατος, ἄϋλος, ἀσχηµάτιστος πνεῦµα ἅγιον πνεῦµα ὁ Θεός πνοή ποία ἂν ἄλλη βελτίων µέθοδος πρὸς τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς βοηθῆσαι εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς ἔθνεσι παραδοθείσης ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεµψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ µέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνοµα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαµβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν µονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑπ 161 οστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον abf πολιτεία. πολιτευόµενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πολέων πλήθη πολλοὶ καθάπερ οἱ παῖδες τὰ µορµολυκεῖα, οὕτως δεδίασι τὴν ἑλληνικὴν σιλοσοσίαν, σοβούµενοι µὴ ἀπαγάγῃ αὐτούς. πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις θρησκείαις πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ἡµεῖς φήσοµεν οἱ µελετήσαντες µηδενὶ ἀπεχθάνεσθαι τῶν καλῶς λεγοµένων; κἂν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσι καλῶς. πρόκειται δὲ τοῖς εἰς τελείωσιν σπεύδουσιν ἡ γνῶσις ἡ λογικὴ ἧς θεµέλιος ἡ ἁγία τριὰς πιστίς, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς πρῶτον αἴτιον πρὸς Μαρκίωνα πρὸς τοὺς ἀποφηναµένους τὰ περὶ Θεοῦ” and not “πρὸς τοὺς θεολογοῦντας”. προώρισεν προβολὴν προβολή προθύµως Ἀβραὰµ τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρµατος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον µονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡµετέραν.

• •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

προκάθηµαι προκάθηται ἐν [to be understood in a local sense] τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥρωµαίων — προκαθηµένη τῆς ἀγάπης ad1 προκοπή προνοία προσορικός προστάγµατα σύνταγµα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενηµένων ἁιρέσεων σασῶς παρίστησι τοῖς νοοῦσι τὰ πάντα ἐνώπιον περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰ παριστάµενα µυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ, τά τε πράγµατα, ὦν αἰνίγµατα ἧσαν αἱ πράξεις αὐτοῦ σιγή σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον σπέρµα σπέρµα λόγου ἔµφυτον σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον σπέρµα λόγου ἔµϕυτον? σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου σπέρµατα τοῦ λόγου σπορά σπουδάζετε οὖν βεβαιωθῆ̃ναι ἐν τοῖς δόγµασιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, but δόγµατα στύλος καὶ στήριγµα ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ πνεῦµα ζωῆς συννηπιάζειν σωτήρ. σωτηρία σωφορσύνη τὰ βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, 578 τὰ κακὰ ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούµενα τὰ πονηρά τὰ τῆς ἡµετέρας παιδείας ἐστὶν ἀνωτέρω τῆς κοσµικῆς καταλήψεως. τέλειος τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώµατος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως τὸ ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης οὑχὶ ἅπαξ γεγέννηται, καὶ οὐχι γὲννᾶται . , . καὶ ἀεὶ γεννᾶται ὁ σωτὴρ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός

•

τὸ ἄρρητον, τὸ ἀνέκφραστον, τὸ ἀχώριτον, τὸ ἀκατάληπτον, τὸ ἀπερινόητον, τὸ ἀσύγκριτον, τὸ ἀσυµβίβαστον, τὸ ἀνεκδιηγητόν acf

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

• • •

• • • • •

τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου τὸ ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνηµα τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ ἅγιον πνεῦµα τῇ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποχρώµενον φωνῇ λέγει τὸ ἐξαµαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔµφυτον. τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συµβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ µὴ βιαζοµένου τὸ διικνούµενον διὰ ψυχῆς τῆς διερχοµένης τὸ πῦρ. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος τὸ κατὰ Θεον πολίτευµα τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πίστεως τὸ κυρίως µιαρὸν ἀπὸ κακίας τοιυυτόν ἐστι. Öύσις δὲ σώµατος οὐ µιαρά· οὐ γὰρ ᾗ σύσις σώµατός ἐστι, τὸ γεννητικὸν τῆς µιαρότητος ἔχει τὴν κακιάν τὸ µὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν εἰληφέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν δὲ ὕστερον κατὰ τὴν πελείωσιν µέλλειν ἀπολαµβάνειν, τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει τὸ τῆς ἀληθέιας σωµάτιον τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος τὸ τοῦ λογικοῦ ἀγαθεν µικτόν ἐστιν ἐκ τε τῆς προαιρέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς συµπνεούσης θείας δυ 564 άµεως τῷ τά άλλιστα προελοµένῳ. τὸν ἕνα ὁµολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων” τύπος σκανδάλου τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὸ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν συζυγίαν συνέσεως καὶ σωτηρίας λαβούσης εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας θρησκείας τε τῆς εἰς τὸν ἕνα καὶ πάντων δεσπότην. τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ ἐυσεβοῦς γνώµης τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκνήψαντες ἐξ ἀυτῶν τῶν ὅλων πίστις καὶ ἀπὸδειξις. τῶν ὅλων τὸ µοναρχικόν τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων διαδόχους εἰς τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἦσαν, ύ ac3 ειροτονήσαντες ἀπεστάλκαµεν.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύµενον ἄνθρωπον τὰ τῆς ἀθανασίας τὰ τῶν βαρβάρων δόγµατα τά δεδογµατισµένα ὑπὸ Θεοῦ. τελείωσις ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἔµϕυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου τὸ ὅλον σῶµα τῶν συναγωγῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. τὸ λογικὸν το ὅλον τὸ σπέρµα τοῦ λόγου τό συγγενές τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν γεγραµµένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος τοῦ ἀποστόλου γράψαντος κ.τ.λ., ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν τὸν Μοντανὸν ἐληλυθέναι καὶ ἐσχηκέναι τὸ τέλειον τὸ τοῦ παρακλήτου, τοῦτ᾽ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί τοῦ κανόνος τῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ διαδοχὴν τ. ἀποστόλων ὀυρανίου ἐκκλησίας τούτων οὖν τὴν κατάληψιν µεµυηµένος. τρίας τρίας τριάς 566

• • • •

•

• • •

τ. ἐκκλησ. καν. φάρµακον ἀθανασίας φάσκοντες Χριστὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι φαµὲν δ᾽ ἡµεῖς ἁγιάζειν τὸ πῦρ, οὐ τὰ κρέα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἁµαρτωλοὺς ψυχάς, πῦρ οὐ τὸ παµφάγον καὶ βάναυσον, ἀλλὰ τὸ φρόνιµον λέγοντες φανερὸν οἶµαι γεγενῆσθαι µίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀληθῆ ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῷ ὄντι ἀρχάιαν, εἰς ἥν ὁι κατὰ πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι ἐγκαταλέγονται, ἑνὸς γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ κυρίου . . . τῇ γοῦν τοῦ ἑνὸς φύσει συγκληροῦται ἐκκλησία ἡ µία, ἣν εἰς πολλὰς κατατέµνειν βιάζονται αἱρέσεις. φύσει Θεός ac5 χάριτι σωζόµεθα, οὐκ ἄνευ µέντοι τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. χριστιανισµός πνευµατικός

• • • • • • •

χριστιανισµός σωµατικός ψιλὴ πίστις ψυχὴ λογική ϕίλοις πάντα κοινά ϕιλοσοϕία ἁνθρώπειος . . . ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν See περὶ ἀρχῶν Latin Words and Phrases

Index of Latin Words and Phrases •

• •

•

• • • •

•

. . . nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit . . . si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur . . . ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque cælestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per assumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit . . . ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . . . utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est . . . pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia . . . qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione Absolutio mortes 56a Acta omnium apostolorum Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e. Aguntur præterea per Græcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis

• •

• • •

•

•

•

• •

• • • •

experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum. Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in te ac8 rram anxie patimur Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. Certum est, quippe quod præfinito aliquo apud se numero creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere creaturas; quia ubi finis non est, nec comprehensio ulla nec circumscriptio esse potest. Quod si fuerit utique nec contineri vel dispensari a deo, quæ facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit. Ceterum manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras at tractes. Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc. Christi generatio sic erat Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione. Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius Christus deus et homo

•

• • •

•

Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit. Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ hæreditatem. Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo. 564

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit. Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romæ in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se æmulum principem quam constitui Romæ dei sacerdotem. Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est Cum Christus ‘Ego’ dicit (John X. 30 Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ab3 ore nostro contestamur. Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc. Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.

•

• •

• • •

•

• • • •

Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri . . . veniant ergo parvuli, dum adolescunt; veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur; fiant Christiani, cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in sæcularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur . . . Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem. Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum? Curavit desuper et ab exordio consuevit thronus apostolicus iniqua perferentes defensare et eos qui in evitabiles factiones inciderunt, adiuvare et humi iacentes erigere, secundum possibilitatem, quam habetis; causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et inconcussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nec non etiam indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis caritatem, etc. Custodiatur οἰκονοµίας De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant. De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere. De tua nunc sententia quæro, unde hoc ius ecclesiæ usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni cælestis, vel, Quæcumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in cœlis, id circo præsumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem? Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem add Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur. Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus. Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster . . . unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est,

•

•

• • • •

•

• •

invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans . . . in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. Deus stetit in synagoga deorum . . . de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. Hæc enim est synagoga dei Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. “ye Gnostics with the philosophers”), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege “ad”) quid enim descendebat? Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur. Dum enim putas, omnes abs te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti. Eas ego acclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ. Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa. Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante Est ergo deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius ac8 natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacræ et divinæ nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit . . . , filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam præcedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor

•

•

•

sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur . . . , substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verbum . . . , deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus . . . Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inæqualitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur . . . Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remittit, unus deus ostenditur verus et æternus pater, a quo solo hæc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiæ communionem ad patrem revolvitur. Est hæc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quæ ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis. Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi. Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et i ac8 ndefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mœchis non putaverunt et in totem pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur. Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata. Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriæ, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis præcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus præceptis tota lex pendet et prophetæ, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate. Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta. Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna. Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos phil ac8 osophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet

• • • •

• • • •

•

• •

• •

• •

•

Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis Filius dei filius hominis factus Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante homine et capiente et complectente filium dei. Fuit tempus, cum patri filius non fuit Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos Hæc est salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est. Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones. Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent. Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obed 564 ierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate. Iesu generatio sic erat Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse Igitur quæcumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcumque autem ut

•

•

•

•

•

• • • •

•

indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro. Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc. Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis l ac8 ocum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque perducitur. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore. In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. In tua potestate positum est, ut sis pales vel frumentum Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius. Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum. Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas

•

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est. Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis. Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. Levitæ et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini. Lex et pro 564 phetæ usque ad Johannem Lex evangelii Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei) Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit. Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi. Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, ac8 quæ Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et præcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitiæ et misericordiæ operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendæ salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• • • •

•

Nam ita inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros Nam si quis est, qui velit vel sæcula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, quæ facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sæculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est. Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον Negat scriptura quod non notat Nihil adeo est quod obduret mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quæ in actu videtur, et magnificentia, quæ in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque, quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa, sine apparatu novo aliquo, denique sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur consecutio æternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt. Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa Nihil otiosum, nihil inane est apud deum, quia sive bono proposito hominis utitur ad bona sive malo ad necessaria. Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis. Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert. Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi 564 quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt. Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem

•

•

•

• • •

• •

•

•

secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali. Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen. Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quÍ ac8 sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes, Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorberetur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus? Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem. Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto præparamur. Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et præstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico Non solum de his, quæ usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hæc Spiritus sanctus procuravit, sed . . .

• •

• • •

• • • •

• •

•

eadem similiter etiam in evangelistis et apostolis fecit. Nam ne illas quidem narrationes, quas per eos inspiravit, absque huiuscemodi, quam supra exposuimus, sapientiæ sua arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligentiæ interioris examen. Nullus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de æterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitæ lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habe 564 ns ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. Panis iste, quem deus verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo procedens et panis de pane cœ’esti . . . Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus; nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus post Christum Parce unicæ spei totius orbis. Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio Petro primum dominus, super quem ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit. Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium de ac8 i testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente præferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quæsiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis

• • •

• •

•

•

•

invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit? Primo illud nos oportere scire Principalitas Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum. Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit. Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter 564 , uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes,

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem. Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus. Quapropter eis, q ac8 ui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum? Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine? Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura. Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam, Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione, sine servo, ita ne omnipotens quidem deus dici potest, si non sint, in quos exerceat potentatum, et deo ut omnipotens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est. Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus Sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent. Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus

•

• • •

•

• •

• •

•

certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum. Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academiæ et ecclesiæ? Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Græciæ discipulus et cœli? Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque er 561 ubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert. Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis. Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie Quod aliud est in Christo deitatis eius natura, quod est unigenitus filius patris, et alia humana natura, quam in novissimis temporibus pro dispensatione suscepit. Propter quod videndum primo est, quid sit unigenitus filius dei. Quod permittitur, bonum non est Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris docent; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est. 564 Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse.

•

• •

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

Quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et prophetam Agabum reperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores et prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos, etc. Quomodo multæ mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum. Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus. Quos personæ ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et cum duo sint, unum sunt Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo. Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit, ut in quanta mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitiæ deveniret. 547 Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris. Sacrificare Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus. Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat. Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare etc. Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur ae8 Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia ‘sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit’. Cum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas. Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

•

Sed nec inter consuetudines dispicere voluerunt illi sanctissimi antecessores Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, quæ scholis format, bibliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello, qualem te habent qui te solam habent . . . Imperitia tua mihi opus est, quoniam aliquantulæ peritiæ tuæ nemo credit. Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam. Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ ecclesiæ, eam quam habet ab apostolis traditionem et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo vel per sibiplacentiam malam vel vanam gloriam vel per cæcitatem et malam sententiam, præterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quæ est ab apostolis traditio. Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc. Si autem Italiæ adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est. Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite ac8 , quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus. Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit. Si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . . . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem. Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhœæ esse dicitur aporr ac8 hœa gloriæ omnipotentis pura quædam et sincera. Quæ utræque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiæ esse filio cum patre. Aporrhœa enim ὁµοούσιος

•

•

•

•

• • •

• • • • • •

•

Sicut de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unis panis, ita nec nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quæ de cœlo est. Et sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos lignum aridum exsistentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam sine superna voluntaria pluvia. Corpora unim nostra per lavacrum illam quæ est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, animæ autem per spiritum Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµίᾳ Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri. Sub specie æternitatis Sublata ergo prædestinatione quæ non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante — non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere — nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique colitra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum. Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem. Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ. Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere Tertullianus ad mediam ætatem presbyter fuit ecclesiæ ac8 Africanæ, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanæ ecclesiæ ad Montani dogma delapsus. Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, quæ tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum pollicetur etc.

•

• •

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. Typum quæras Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio. Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam ὀικονοµίαν Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus. Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est. Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prætendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Quærite et invenietis Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc. Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones. Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, 564 redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim

•

•

• •

•

•

• • • • • • • •

inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret. Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo. Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgi ac8 ne Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit. Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit. Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio. Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc. Viderimus si secundum arcæ typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcæ typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur Vox ista (Joh. I. 14 a limine a priori ab ecclesia authenticæ ab initio actus utriusque substantiæ ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem

• • • • • • • • •

•

• • •

•

• • • • • • • •

adoptio adulterium adunitio adunitio verbi dei ad plasma agnitio filii agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud aliquem nominare deum aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. M 562 ollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. amplianda adimplendaque lex amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam. anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus animal vivens ab8 ante et extra usum antiquissima antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum antistes Christi antistes dei apostolice apostolicus

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ assumptio carnis ex virgine auctoritas divina auctoritas et ratio auctoritates praecessorum eius audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem peremptorium baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est baptizatus et corpore Christi pastus benedictus papa blasphemia blasphemia creatoris calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius offerre capax est frigoris et caloris capax incorruptibilitatis capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis captatio benevolentiæ caro catalogus testimoniorum cathedra cathedra Petri cathedra sacerdotalis catholica fides et religio catholica traditio catholicam charisma veritatis clerici maiores 576 columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de cœlis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata commixtio et communio dei et hominis communicatio ideomatum communicatio tua, id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas commutatio agnitionis completus numerus prophetarum complexus oppositorum concordia episcoporum conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat conscientia religionis consecutio æternitatis consecutio spiritus sancti

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credent ac8 ibus consuetudo sine veritate contesserare convenire convenire necesse est conversio partis alicuius substantiæ dei in filium corporalis et spiritalis [i.e. corpus permixtum corpus spiritale credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam culpa cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma cunctatio baptismi cur deus — homo curiositas de facto de ira dei de opere et eleemosynis de pudicitia de trinitate seu de regula fidei de unitate ecclesiæ de virginitate dei dei spiritus deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare deum corpus esse deus deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia. deus crucifixus deus et homo deus factus homo deus homo factus deus in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis suæ instituit. deus passus, deus crucifixus est deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Pe 558 trum domini voce fundata deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

• •

differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici diligentia conversationis adaucta est disciplina disciplina sacerd. disciplina vitæ dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat dispositio, distinctio, numerus distincte agere divisio doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. doctrina doctrina apostolorum ac3 doctrina regulæ dominicæ hostiæ veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare dominica hostia dominus apostolos, i. e. dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera donum superadditum et supernaturale duæ substantiæ duplex adventus Christi duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus dux substantiæ e sæculo excedere eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos. ecclesiæ ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

•

• •

•

• • • • •

ecclesia ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum ecclesia catholica ecclesia credentium plebs ecclesia est numerus episcoporum ecclesia maxima et omnibus cognita ecclesia principalis ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum ecclesia super episcopos constituta ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multæ vero sunt adolescentulæ, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt 575 ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est eiusdem sacramenti episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. episcopus episcoporum et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cælesti dignatione ordinavit et originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Ch 55e ristus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore nostro portamus. et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi etiam laicis ius est”), ut possit baptismo suo peccata hominis qui baptizatur abluere eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est. evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ ex originis vitio ex parte accepimus gratiam

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • •

ex professo ex substantia dei ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum. expositio legitima extra ecclesiam extra ecclesiam nulla salus fœdus spei 56a fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam factum esse factus est quod sumus nos falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando falsum testimonium fertur in traditionibus fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet fides apostolica fides aucta est fides catholica fides credenda fides et iustitia fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis figura expressa substantia: patris filius dei filius dei et filius homini 540 s filius dei factus filius hominis filius dei filius hominis factus filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum filius dei passus est propter nos filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit. filius est in patre et habet in se patrem filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset. filius portio plenitudinis forum publicum fraus fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit. 588 gratia

•

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

• • • •

•

• •

hæc sunt initia hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo tumore contemnant hæretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem habitus hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35 hinc est quod neque idololatriæ neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur. his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit, quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est homicidium homo homo deo mixtus homo in aqua demiss 564 us et inter pauca verba tinctus homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est homo inspiratus homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat. id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum idololatria immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum. impossibile est sine deo discere deum in apostolis quidem dicunt spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelio protulisse. in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; caius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam . . . ubi enim e 564 cclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia in foro publico in nuce

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant in qua in thesi in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus incarnatus infans infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata. inlicere inquisitio universitatis institutio instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ instrumentum ecclesiæ inter domesticos ipso facto ita fit, ut inter 564 dum ille qui foras mittitur intus sit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri. ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit iudices vice Christi iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: præceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem. lamentationes lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet. lex lex et doctrina lex evangelica lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum libel ac1 latici liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. libertatem restauravit liberum arbitrium literæ pacis locum magisterii apostolorum longa hominum expositio magisterium magna mater maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

•

•

• • • • •

•

matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ maxima merces merita meritum minores modicum delictum illuc luendum mutatis mutandis nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum nasci se deus in utero patitur. nasci se voluit deus naturæ rationabiles natura natura hominis naturalia legis naturaliter similis deo navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. 567 ne accedas ad me, quoniam mundus sum; non enim accepi uxorem, nec est sepulcrum patens guttur meum, sed sum Nazarenus dei non bibens vinum sicut illi ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiæ sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur. ne mater quidem ecclesia præteritur nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest nemo tibi persuadeat; nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur. nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit neque enim aliunde hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per manus impositionem

• • • •

•

•

•

• •

•

• • • • • • • • • • •

spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, cum manifestum sit utroque sacramento nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum aca noli me tangere non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum. non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem non est una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tınguıs et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit . . . vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, . . certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus; nova lex nova promissio regni cœlorum novissima lex novum testamentum novum testamentum libertatis numerus numerus episcoparum o felix culpa oblatio 564 officia humiliationis

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. omnem ecclesiam omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum. omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpæ capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpæ, si rationem recti declinet opera et eleemosynæ oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere opuscula ordines ordines minores ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens ab6 origo authentici par excellence particularia legis passio dominis pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans pater generis humani verbum dei patibilis peccando promeremur peccata purgare et hominem sanctificare aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat et spiritum sanctum. peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire per adoptionem per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit. per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti per verbum eius Iesum Christum. perficere, solvere, demutare permixtio perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere eius, quod est vita æterna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiæ narrans: personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat. plasma dei plebs credentium pondus baptismi pondus peccati pontifex maximus possibilitas utriusque posterius potentior principalitas 578 potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam potestas apostolorum potestas reconciliandi iratum deum. præcepta dominica præcessorum auctoritates præfectus urbis præsens numen præsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam preces predestinatione primitivæ e virtutes ac primo creatæ, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam princeps æmulus principalitas principium evangelii principium generationis separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit “quod erat ab initio” generationem tang 561 it sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis. prius pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere procedere promereri deum promereri deum (iudicem) promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis prophetæ proprii proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur

• • • •

propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est? quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus. 567

• •

• • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo? qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ. qui nimis probat nihil probat. qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat. qui sunt extra veritatem quia eucharistia habet ἀνάµνησιν quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem quodammodo quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non car 561 nis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa quoniam pro magnitudine sua radix et mater ratio realiter recapitulatio recapitulatio per Christum recapitulatur generis humani receptior reformavit humanum genus regeneratio hominis regnum dei regulæ regula

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

regula disciplinæ regula doctrinæ regula fidei regula sacramenti regula veritatis 541 remissio delictorum renati ex aqua et pudicitia restitutio restitutio ad similitudinem dei sacerdos sacerdos dei sacerdotalïs dignitas sacerdotale officium sacerdotalia munera sacerdotalis ordo sacerdotium sacramentum sacramentum absolutionis sacramentum baptismi et eucharistiæ sacramentum ordinis sacramentum sacrificii dominici sacramentum unitatis sacrificati aee sacrificium sacrificium celebrare salus et salvator et salutare sancti et docti homines sanctificatio sanctus minister sanguinem Christi offerre sanguis Christi sanguis quod est cognitio sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens satisfacere satisfacere deo satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, vitium originis etc., etc. scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse secundum dilectionem secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma semen Abrahæ ecclesia semper apud patrem

•

• • •

•

• • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus septem maculas capitalium delictorum sermo servetur ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse si in al ac8 iquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei. sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur. signum et vinculum sine quâ non species speciosior quam verior spes fidei spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio. spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano. status quo ante stuprum sub condicione mortis substantiæ rationabiles substantia substantia omnium voluntas dei successio Petri successio apostolica summus sacerdos

•

• •

•

•

• • • • •

• • • • • • • •

sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super its dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt . . . Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus. super Petrum fundata supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infect 54b i dei et nunc facti hominis. superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum. tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris termini tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis tertium quid tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονοµίας tessera hospitalitas ae1 testamentum libertatis theologia physica, mythica toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur. tota substantia traditio dominica traditio seniorum traditio unius sacramenti

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

tres unum sunt, non unus trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit typice et temporaliter et mediocrius tyrannico terrore ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est ubique præclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum una columba una dominatio una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum una natura una persona una substantia una substantia, tres personæ unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici. ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e. unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans. unitas disciplinæ unitas ecclesiæ unitas sacerdotalis unitatem a d 564 omino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam unius et eiusdem substantiæ. unius substantiæ unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in cœlis urbs æterna urbs sacra ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repræsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum. ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ. uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum. utramque partem utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem. vademecum verba “his scripturis” suspecta sunt, cum inte ac6 rpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit “quod dictum est” verbum caro factum verbum caro factus verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus. verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile verbum portatum a patre verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre vere et semper et austerius veritas veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis viaticum mortis vice versâ virginis senectæ virginitas Mariæ in partu virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens visio dei vivi et defuncti voluntas humana præcedit Index of Pages of the Print Edition

Index of Pages of the Print Edition iii vii viii ix 13 14 15 16 33 34 35 36 54 55 56 57 75 76 77 78 95 96 97 98 111 112 113 127 128 129 143 144 145 159 160 161 174 175 176

x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 547 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ac9 29 30 31 32 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 79 80 81 578 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ac4 109 110 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 54e 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 56d 188

189 205 220 236 252 267 283 299 315 330 345 361 377

190 191 206 207 221 222 237 238 253 254 268 269 284 285 300 301 316 552 331 332 346 347 362 363 378 379

192 208 223 239 255 270 286 302 317 333 348 364 380

193 209 224 240 256 271 287 303 318 334 349 365

194 210 225 241 257 272 288 304 319 335 350 366

195 211 226 242 258 273 289 305 320 336 351 367

196 212 227 243 259 274 290 306 321 337 352 368

197 213 228 244 260 275 291 307 322 338 353 369

198 199 200 201 202 203 204 ae0 214 215 216 217 218 219 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 261 262 263 264 265 acb 266 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 339 340 341 ada 342 343 344 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 370 371 372 373 374 375 376

i

HISTORY OF DOGMA BY



BY

NEIL BUCHANAN VOLUME III ii

iii

EDITOR’S PREFACE. THE first chapter in this volume forms the concluding chapter of the First Volume of the German Work. It answers to the Seventh Chapter of the Second Book of the first great division of the subject, which has for its aim to shew the origin of Ecclesiastical Dogma. The First Book treats of the Preparation for Dogma; the Second of the Laying of the Foundation. This Second Book begins with the second volume of the English Translation, and closes 564 with the first chapter of the third volume now published. Thereafter commences the Second Part of the Work, which deals with the Development of Dogma. The numbering of the chapters here begins anew, running on from I. to VI. The Second Volume of the German Work commences with the Second Part, and tells the story of the Development of Dogma till the time of Augustine. Only a portion of it appears in this volume. The remainder will form the contents of the Fourth Volume. The author has prefixed to the volume two prefaces, one to the first, the other to the third Edition. These are here given. The Appendix on Manichæism is the last of four which appear at the end of the first volume of the German Edition. The first three of these will be found at the end of the first volume of the English Edition. A. B. BRUCE. Glasgow, August, 1897.

iv

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION OF VOLUME II. OF THE GERMAN WORK. THE first half of the second part of the History of Dogma is here given apart and as the second volume, because it is complete in itself, and I shall be prevented from com 564 pleting the work at once by other tasks. The account contained in the following pages would have been shorter, if I could have persuaded myself of the correctness of the opinion, that a single, all-determining thought obtained its true development in the History of Dogma from the fourth to the eighth century. This opinion dominates, apart from a few monographs, all writings on the History of Dogma, and gives a uniform impress to the accounts of Protestants and Catholics. I share it within certain limits; but these very limits, which I have endeavoured to define,1 have not yet received due attention. In the fourth century the formula that was correct, when judged by the conception of redemption of the ancient Church, prevailed; but the Fathers, who finally secured its triumph, did not give it the exposition which it originally demanded. In the fifth century, or the seventh, on the contrary, a formula that, measured by the same standard, was incorrect, prevailed; yet it was associated with an exposition that to some extent compensated for the incorrectness. In both cases, howeve 564 r, the imperfections of the conclusion, which are explained from various circumstances, became of the highest importance. For in them we find the reason why the phantom Christ did not wholly oust the historical; and, in order to overcome them, men turned anew to Philosophy, especially to Aristotle. The orthodox Church owes two things to the incorrect form in which the Trinitarian and Christological Dogma was finally stated: (1) contact with the Gospel, and (2) renewed contact with ancient science, i.e., scholasticism. v

The account of these conditions demanded a more minute discussion of the process of the History of Dogma, than is usual in the ordinary text-books. Dogma developed slowly and amid great obstacles. No single step should be overlooked in the description, and, in particular, the period between the fourth and fifth Councils

1

Vide pp. 167 ff. of this volume.

is not less important than any other. Political relationships, at no point decisive by themselves, yet everywhere required, as well as western influences, careful attention. I should have discussed them still more thoroughly, if I had not been restrained by considerations of the extent of the book. I have included the state of affairs and developments in the West, so far as they were related to, and acted upon, those in the East. In the following 564 Book I shall begin with Augustine. The scientific theological expositions of the Fathers have only been brought under review, where they appeared indispensable for the understanding of Dogma. In any case I was not afraid of doing too much here. I am convinced that a shorter description ought not to be offered to students of Theology, unless it were to be a mere guide. The history of Christian Dogma— perhaps the most complicated history of development which we can completely review—presents the investigator with the greatest difficulties; and yet it is, along with the study of the New Testament, and in the present position of Protestantism, the most important discipline for every one who seeks really to study Theology. The theologian who leaves the University without being thoroughly familiar with it, is, in the most critical questions, helplessly at the mercy of the authorities of the day. But the royal way to the understanding of the History of Dogma, opened up by F. Chr. Baur, and pursued by Thomasius, does not lead to the goal; for by it we become acquainted with the historical matter only in the abbreviated form required for the defence of the completed Dogma. The history of the development of Dogma does not offer the lofty interest, which attaches to that of its genesis. When we return 55f from the most complicated and elaborate doctrinal formulas, from the mysticism of the Cultus and Christian Neoplatonism, from the worship of saints and ceremonial ritual of the seventh and eighth centuries, back to Origen and the third century, we are astonished to find that all we have mentioned was really in existence at the earlier date. Only it existed. then amid a mass of different material, and its footing was insecure In many respects the whole historical development of Dogma from the fourth century to John of Damascus and Theodore of Studion was simply a vast process of reduction, selection, and definition. In the viEast we are no longer called upon to deal in any quarter with new and original matter, but always rather with what is traditional, derivative, and, to an increasing extent, superstitious. Yet that to which centuries devoted earnest reflection, holding it to be sacred, will never lose its importance, as long as there still exists among us a remnant of the same conditions which belonged to those times. But who could deny that those conditions—in the Church and in learning —are still powerful among us? Therefore even the

religious formulas are still in force which were created in the Byzantine age; nay, they are the dogmas κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 569 in all Churches, so that the popular idiom is nowise wrong which with the word "dogma" primarily designates the doctrines of the Trinity and the divine humanity of Christ. The inquirer who follows the development of these dogmas after the fourth century, and who, owing to the want of originality and freshness in his material, loses pleasure in his work, is ever and again reanimated, when he considers that he has to deal with matters which have gained, and still exercise, an immense power over the feelings and minds of men. And how much it is still possible for us to learn, as free Evangelical Christians, especially after generations of scholars have dedicated to this history the most devoted industry, so that no one can enter into their labours without becoming their disciples! I know very well that it would be possible to treat the material reviewed in this book more universally than I have done. My chief purpose was to show how matters arose and were in their concrete manifestation. But the task of making dogma really intelligible in all its aspects within the limits of a History of Dogma, is after all as insoluble as any similar problem which isolates a single object from Universal History, and requires its investigation in and by itself. This limitation I need only recall. But something furthe 564 r has to be said. Dogmas, undoubtedly, admit of a process of refinement, which would bring them closer to our understanding and our feeling. But my powers are not equal to this lofty task, and even if I possessed the uncommon qualities of the psychologist and the religious philosopher, I should have hesitated about employing them in this book; for I did not wish to endanger the reliability of what I had to present by reflections, which must always remain more or less subjective. Thus I have limited myself to a few hints; these will only be found where the nature of the material itself induced me to seek for the far remote thought underlying the expression. I have throughout striven in this volume, to give such an account as vii would demand to be read connectedly; for a work on the history of dogma, which is used only for reference, has missed its highest aim. I have believed that I could not dispense with the addition of numerous notes, but the text of the book is so written that the reader, if he prefers it, may disregard them. Marburg, 14 June, 1887.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. I HAVE subjected this volume to a thorough revision, and have sought to improve and strengthen it in 564 not a few places. May this new edition also promote the study of a historical period whose products are still held by many among us to be incapable of reform. ADOLF HARNACK. Berlin, 28 May, 1894. viii

ix

CONTENTS. FIRST PART: SECOND BOOK CONTINUED.2 CHAPTER I.—The decisive success of theological speculation in the sphere of the Rule of Faith, or, the defining of the norm of 54f the Doctrine of the Church due to the adoption of the Logos Christology 1. Introduction Significance of the Logos Doctrine Consequences

1118 1 2 3

Historical retrospect 5 Opposition to the Logos Doctrine 7 The Monarchians, within Catholicism 8 Precatholic only among the Alogi 12 Division of subject, defective information 13 2.579 Secession of Dynamistic Monarchianism, or Adoptianism 14 14 a. The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor 14 The Roman Monarchians: Theodotus the leatherworker and his 20 b. party; Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides. Theodotus the money-changer, also the Artemonites c. Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after Artemas 32 Ejection of Adoptian Christology in the East.—Beryll of Bostra, Paul d. 34 of Samosata etc. Acta Archelai, Aphraates 50 3. Expulsion of Modalistic M 563 onarchianism 51 Modalistic Monarchians in Asia Minor and in the West: Noetus, 51 a. Epigonus, Cleomenes, Æschines, Praxeas, Victorinus, Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus b. The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the state of Theology 73 x

Commodian, Amobius, Lactantius Theology of the West about A.D. 300 c. Modalistic Monarchians in the East: Sabellianism and the History of Philosophical Christology and Theology after Origen Various forms of Sabellianism Doctrine of Sabellius

ae5 2Vide Editor’s Preface to this volume.

77 78565 81 82 83

The fight of the two Dionysii 88 The Alexandrian training school 95 Pierius 96 Theognostus 96 Hieracas 98 Peter of Alexandria 99 Gregory Thaumaturgus 101 Theology of the f 534 uture: combination of theology of Irenæus with 104 that of Origen: Methodius Union of speculation with Realism and Traditionalism 105 Dogmatic culminating in Monachism 110 Close of the development: Identification of Faith and Theology 113 SECOND PART. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA. FIRST BOOK. The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the God-man on the basis of Natural Theology. 121CHAPTER I.—Historical Situation 162 Internal position of the Church at the beginning of the fourth Century 121 590 123 Relative unity of the Church as World-Church, apostolicity and secularisation Asceticism culminating in monachism as bond of unity 127 State of Theology 131 Theology influenced by Origen departs from strict monotheism 135 xi

Conservative Theology in the East Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epochmaking importance of Athanasius The two lines in which Dogma developed historically after Nicene Council Periods of History of Dogma, chiefly in the East First period up to A.D. 381 Second period up to A.D. 451 Third period up to A.D. 553 Fourth period up to A.D. 680 Last period and close of process of History of Dogma CHAPTER II.—Fundamental Conception of Salvation and General Outline of System of Doctrine § Conception of Redemption as deification of humanity consequent 1.56d upon Incarnation of Deity

137 138556 144 148 150 152 154 156 157 163190 163

Reasons for delay, and for acceptance in imperfect form, of dogmatic formulas corresponding to conception of Redemption § 2. Moral and Rational element in System of Doctrine. Distinction between Dogmas and Dogmatic presuppositions or conceptions Sketch of System of Doctrine and History of Dogma Supplement 1. Criticism of principle of Greek System of doctrine ” 2. Faith in Incarnation of God, and Philosophy ” 3. Greek Piety corresponding to Dogma 56d ” 4. Sources from which Greek Dogma is to be derived; Difficulty of selecting and using them; Untruthfulness and forgeries ” 5. Form to which expression of faith was subject ” 6. Details of Eschatology: agreement of Realism and Spiritualism; Obscuration of idea of Judgment CHAPTER III.—Sources of knowledge: or Scripture, Tradition and the Church Introduction Holy Scripture. Old Testament i 564 n the East 1 Old Testament in the West New Testament in the East; its close; and hesitations New Testament in the West Dogma of Inspiration and pneumatic exegesis Uncertainties of exegesis (Spiritualism and literalism)

167

172 177 178 179 179 181 185 186 191239 191 192 194 195 199 199

xii

Exegesis of Antiochenes Exegesis in the West, Augustine Uncertainties as to attributes and sufficiency of Scripture The two Testaments 2. 2. Tradition. Scripture and Tradition The creed or contents of Symbol is tradition; Development of symbol, Distinction between East and West Cultus, Constitution, and Disciplinary regulations covered by notion of Apostolic Tradition, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος Authority and representation of the Church Councils Common Sense of Church 563 "Antiquity"; Category of the "Fathers"

201 2 564 02 205 206 207 208 211 214 215 219 219

Apostolic Communities, Patriarchate Rome and the Roman Bishop: prestige in East View of innovations in the Church Summing up on general notion of Tradition Vincentius of Lerinum on Tradition 3. The Church. Notion and definition of the Church Unimportance of the Church in Dogmatics proper Reasons for considering the Church: predominance of interest in the Cultus Divisions of the One Church A.—Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redemption or Natural Theology. CHAPTER IV.—Presuppositions and Conceptions of God the Creator as Dispenser of Salvation Proofs of God, method in doctrine of God Doctrine of nature and attributes of God Cosmology The upper world Doctrine of Providence. Theodicies Doctrine of Spirits; Influence of Neoplatonism Significance of doctrine of angels in practice and cultus Criticism CHAPTER V.—Presuppositions and conceptions of man as recipient of Salvation

221 224 228 230 230 233 235 236 237565 241254 241 244 247 248 249 251 251 55c 254 255287

The common element

255

Anthropology Origin of Souls Image of God

256 259 260

xiii

Primitive State 564 Primitive State and Felicity

261 261

Doctrine of Sin, the Fall and Death

263

Influence of Natural Theology on Doctrine of Redemption

265

Blessing of Salvation something natural

266

Felicity as reward Revelation as law; rationalism Influence of rationalism on Dogma

266 267 269

Neutralising of the historical; affinity of rationalism and mysticism 270 More precise account of views of Athanasius 272 Of Gregory of Nyssa 276 Of Theodore 279566 Of John of Damascus 283 Conclusion 287 B.—The doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man, in its historical development. CHAPTER VI.—Doctrine of the necessity and reality of Redemption 288through the Incarnation of the Son of God 304 The decisive importance of the Incarnation of God 288 Theory of Athanasius 290 Doctrines of Gregory of Nyssa 296 Pantheistic perversions of thought of Incarnation 299 Other teachers up to John of Damascus 30155d Was Incarnation necessary apart from sin? 303 Idea of predestination 303 Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the Devil, and atonement 305through the work of the God-man 315 Mortal sufferings of Christ 305 Christ's death and the removal of sin 306 Ransom paid to the Devil 307 Christ's death as sacrifice—vicarious suffering of punishment 308 Western views of Christ's work. Juristic categories, satisfactio 310 Christ as man the atoner 313 Appendix on Manichæism 316 xiv 571

FIRST PART: SECOND BOOK CONTINUED. 1

CHAPTER I. THE DECISIVE SUCCESS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION IN THE SPHERE OF THE RULE OF FAITH, OR, THE DEFINING OF THE NORM OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH DUE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY.3 1. Introduction. FROM the great work of Irenæus and the anti-gnostic writings of Tertullian, it would seem as if the doctrine of the Logos, or, the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as a distinct person, was at the end of the second century an undisputed tenet of Church orthodoxy, and formed a universally recognised portion of the 545 baptismal confession interpreted anti-gnostically, i.e., of the rule of faith.4 But certain as it is that the Logos Christology was in the second century not merely the property of a few Christian philosophers,5 it is, on the other hand, as clear that it did not belong to the solid structure of the Catholic faith. It was not on the same footing as, e.g., the doctrines of God the Creator, the real body of Christ, the resurrection of the body, etc. The great conflicts which, after c. A.D. 170, 2were waged for more than a century within the Catholic Church rather show, that the doctrine only gradually

3

See Dorner, Entw.-Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, 1 Thl. 1845; Lange, Gesch. u. Entw. der Systeme der Unitarier vor der nic. Synode, 1831; Hagemann, Die römische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin und Dogma in den ersten drei Jahrh. 1864, (the most important and most stimulating monograph on the subject); and my art. ‘Moriarchianismus’ in Herzog’s R. E., 2nd ed., vol. X., pp. 178-213, on which the following arguments are based. 4 See Vol. II., pp. 20-38 and Iren. I. 10, 1; Tertull. De præscr. 13; Adv. Prax. 2. In the rule of faith, De virg., vel. I, there is no statement as to the pre-existence of the Son of God. 5 See Vol. I., p. 192, Note (John's Gospel, Revelation, Κή Πέ , Ignatius, and esp. Celsus in Orig. II. 31, etc.).

found its way into the creed of the Church.6 But a higher than merely Christological interest attaches to the gradual incorporation of the Logos doctrine in the rule of faith. The formula of the Logos, as it was almost universally understood, legitimised speculation, i.e., Neo-platonic philosophy, within the creed of the Church.7 When Christ was designated the incarnate Logos of God, and when this was set up as His supreme characterisation, men were directed to think of the divine in Christ as the reason of God realised in the structure of the world and the history of mankind. This implied a definite philosophical view of God, of creation, and of the world, and the baptismal confession became a compendium of scientific dogmatics, i.e., of a system of doctrine entwined with the Metaphysics of Plato and the Stoics. But at the same time an urgent impulse necessarily made itself felt to define the contents and value of the Redeemer's life and work, not, primarily, from the point of view of the proclamation of the Gospel, and the hopes of a future state, but from that of the cosmic significance attachin 564 g to his divine nature concealed in the flesh. Insomuch, however, as such a view could only really reach and be intelligible to those who had been trained in philosophical speculations, the establishing of the Logos Christology within the rule of faith was equivalent for the great mass of Christians to the setting up of a mystery, which in the first place could only make an impression through its highpitched formulas and the glamour of the incomprehensible. But as soon as a religion expresses the 3loftiest contents of its creed in formulas which must remain mysterious and unintelligible to the great mass of its adherents, those adherents come under guardians. In other words, the multitude must believe in the creed; at the same time they no longer derive from it directly the motives of their religious and moral life; and they are dependent on the theologians, who, as professors of the mysterious, alone understand and are capable of interpreting and practically applying the creed. The necessary consequence of this development was that the mysterious creed, being no longer in a position practically to

6

The observation that Irenæus and Tertullian treat it as a fixed portion of the rule of faith is very instructive; for it shows that these theologians were ahead of the Church of their time. Here we have a point given, at which we can estimate the relation of what Irenæus maintained to be the creed of the Church, to the doctrine which was, as a matter of fact, generally held at the time in the Church. We may turn this insight to acco 564 unt for the history of the Canon and the constitution, where, unfortunately, an estimate of the statements of Irenæus is rendered difficult. 7 By Neo-platonic philosophy we, of course, do not here mean Neo-platonism, but the philosophy (in method and also in part, in results), developed before Neoplatonism by Philo, Valentinus, Numenius, and others.

control life, was superseded by the authority of the Church, the cultus, and prescribed duties, in determining the religious life of the laity; while the theologians, or the priests, appeared alone as the possessor 564 s of an independent faith and knowledge. But as soon as the laity were actuated by a desire for religious independence, which produced a reaction, and yet was not powerful enough to correct the conditions out of which this state of matters arose, there made its appearance only an expedient of a conservative sort, viz., the order of the monks. As this order did not tamper with the prevailing system of the Church, the Church could tolerate it, and could even use it as a valve, by which to provide an outlet for all religious subjectivity, and for the energies of a piety that renounced the world. The history of the Church shows us, or, at any rate, lets us divine, this situation at the transition from the 3rd to the 4th century. On the one hand, we see—at least in the East—that the Christian faith had become a theology, which was regarded, to all intents without question, as the revealed faith, and only capable of being represented and expounded by "teachers". On the other hand, we find a lay Christendom tied to the priest, the cultus, the sacraments, and a ceremonial penitence, and revering the creed as a mystery. Between these arose with elemental force the order of the monks, which—apart from a few phenomena—did not attack the ecclesiastical system, and which could not be suppressed by priests and theologians, because it strove to real 564 ise on earth the object to which they themselves had subordinated the whole of theology, because it, as it were, sought to soar on wings to the same height, to 4which the steps of the long ladders constructed by theology were meant to conduct.8 Now the incorporation in the creed of philosophic (Platonic) speculation, i.e., the Hellenising of the traditional doctrines, was not the only condition, but it was certainly one of the most important of the conditions, that led to the rise of this threefold Christendom of clergy, laity, and monks, in the Church. That the Catholic Church was capable of accommodating these three orders in its midst is a proof of its power. That the combination forms up to the present day the signature of Catholic Churches is evidence, moreover, of the practical value attached by the Church to this unified differentiation. It, in fact, could not but best correspond to the different wants of men united to form a universal Church. So far as it was a consequence of the general conditions under which the Church existed in 564 the third century, we must here leave its

8

See my lecture on Monachism, 3rd ed. 1886.

origin untouched,9 but so far as it was due to the reception of philosophical speculation into the Church, its prior history must be presented. Yet it may not be superfluous to begin by noticing expressly, that the confidence with which first the Apologists identified the Logos of the philosophers and the Christ of faith, and the zeal with which the anti-gnostic Fathers then incorporated the Logos-Christ in the creed of believers, are also to be explained from a Christian interest. In their scientific conception of the world the Logos had a fixed place, and was held to be the "alter ego" of God, though at the same time he was also regarded as the representative of the Reason that operated in the Cosmos. Their conception of Christ as the appearance of the Logos in a personal form only proves that they sought to make the highest possible assertion concerning him, to justify worship being rendered him, and to demonstrate the absolute and unique nature of the contents of the Christian religion. The Christian religion was only in a position to gain the cultured, to conquer 564 Gnosticism, and to thrust aside Polytheism in the Roman empire, because it had concluded an alliance with that intellectual potentate which already swayed the minds and hearts of the 5best men, the philosophicreligious ethics of the age. This alliance found expression in the formula: Christ is word and law (Χριστὸς λόγος καὶ νόµος). The philosophic Christology arose, so to speak, at the circumference of the Church, and thence moved gradually to the centre of the Christian faith. The same is true of theology generally; its most concise description is philosophic Christology. A complete fusion of the old faith and theology, one that tranquillised the minds of the devout, was not consummated till the fourth, strictly speaking, indeed, till the fifth century (Cyril of Alexandria). Valentinus, Origen, the Cappadocians mark the stages of the process. Valentinus was very speedily ejected as a heretic. Origen, in spite of the immense influence which he exerted, was in the end unable to retain his footing in the Church. The Cappadocians almost perfected the complete fusion of the traditional faith of the Church conceived as mystery and philosophy, by removing Origen's distinction between those who knew and those who believed (Gnostic 564 s and Pistics); meanwhile they retained much that was comparatively free and looked on with suspicion by the traditionalists. Cyril's theology first marked the complete agreement between faith and philosophy, authority and speculation, an agreement which finally, in the sixth century, suppressed every independent theology. But from the end of the second century up to the closing years of the third, the fundamental

9

Yet see Vol. II., pp 564 . 122-127.

principle of philosophic theology had naturalised itself, in the very faith of the Church. This process in which, on the one hand, certain results of speculative theology became legitimised within the Church as revelations and mysteries, and on the other—as a sort of antidote—the freedom of theology was limited, is to be described in what follows. It has been shown above (Vol. I., p. 190 ff.) that about the middle of the second century there existed side by side in the Churches chiefly two conceptions of the person of Christ. In the Adoptian view Jesus was regarded as the man in whom divinity or the spirit of God dwelt, and who was finally exalted to godlike honour. In the Pneumatic conception, Jesus was looked upon as a heavenly spirit who assumed an earthly body. The latter was adopted in their speculations by the Apologists. 6The fixing of the a 54b postolic tradition, which took place in opposition to the Gnostics, as also to the so-called Montanists, in the course of the second half of the second century, did not yet decide in favour of either view.10 The Holy Scriptures could be appealed to in support of both. But those had decidedly the best of it, in the circumstances of the time, who recognised the incarnation of a special divine nature in Christ; and as certainly were the others in the right, in view of the Synoptic gospels, who saw in Jesus the man chosen to be his Son by God, and possessed of the Spirit. The former conception corresponded to the interpretation of the O. T. theophanies which had been accepted by the Alexandrians, and had proved so convincing in apologetic arguments;11 it could be supported by the testimony of a series of Apostolic writings, whose authority was absolute; 57d 12 it protected the O. T. against Gnostic

10

The points, which, as regards Christ, belonged in the second half of the second century to ecclesiastical orthodoxy, are given in the clauses of the Roman baptismal confession to which ἀληθῶς is added, in the precise elaboration of the idea of creation, in the εἷς placed alongside Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, and in the identification of the Catholic institution of the Church with the Holy Church. 11 The Christian doctrine of the Son of God could be most easily rendered acceptable to cultured heathens by means of the Logos doctrine; see the memorable confession of Celsus placed by him in the lips of his "Jew" (II. 31); ὡς εἴγε ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὑµῖν υἱὸς ύ 564 οῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐπαινοῦµεν; see also the preceeding: σοφίζονται οἱ Χριστιανοὶ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι αὐτολόγον. 12 The conviction of the harmony of the Apostles, or, of all Apostolic writings, could not but result in the Christology of the Synoptics and the Acts being interpreted in the light of John and Paul, or more accurately, in that of the philosophic Christology held to be attested by John and Paul. It has been up to the present day the usual fate of the Synoptics, and with them of the sayings of Jesus, to be understood, on account of their

criticism. It, further, reduced the highest conception of the value of Christianity to a brief and convincing formula: "God became man in order that men might become gods;" and, finally,—which was not least—it could be brought, with little trouble, into line with 7the cosmological and theological tenets which had been borrowed from the religious philosophy of the age to serve as a foundation for a rational Christian theology. The adoption of the belief in the divine Logos to explain the genesis and history of the world at once decided the means by which also the divine dignity and sonship of the Redeemer were alone to be defined.13 In this procedure the theologians themselves had no danger to fear to their monotheism, even if they made the Logos more than a product of the creative will of God. Neither Justin, Tatian, nor a 564 ny of the Apologists or Fathers show the slightest anxiety on this point. For the infinite substance, resting behind the world,—and as such the deity was conceived—could display and unfold itself in different subjects. It could impart its own inexhaustible being to a variety of bearers, without thereby being emptied, or its unity being dissolved (µοναρχία κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν, as the technical expression has it).14

place in the Canon, in accordance with the caprices of the dogmatics prevalent at the time, Pauline and Johannine theology having assigned to it the role of mediator. The "lower" had to be explained by the "higher" (see even Clemens Alex. with his criticism of the "pneumatic", the spiritual, Fourth Gospel, as compared with the first three). In older times men transform 55c ed the sense right off; nowadays they speak of steps which lead to the higher teaching, and the dress the old illusion with a new scientific mantle. 13 But the substitution of the Logos for the, otherwise undefined, spiritual being (πνεῦµα) in Christ presented another very great advantage. It brought to an end, though not at once (see Clemens Alex.), the speculations which reckoned the heavenly personality of Christ in some way or other in the number of the higher angels or conceived it as one Æon among many. Through the definition of this "Spiritual Being" as Logos his transcendent and unique dignity was firmly outlined and assured. For the Logos was universally accepted as the Prius logically and temporally, and the causa not only of the world, but also of all powers, ideas, æons, and angels. He, therefore, did not belong—at least in every respect—to their order. 56c 14 Augustine first wrought to end this questionable monotheism, and endeavoured to treat seriously the monotheism of the living God. But his efforts only produced an impression in the West, and even there the attempt was weakened from the start by a faulty respect for the prevalent Christology, and was forced to entangle itself in absurd formulas. In the East the accommodating Substance-Monotheism of philosophy remained with its permission of a plurality of divine persons; and this doctrine was taught with such naïvety and simplicity, that the Cappadocians, e.g., proclaimed the Christian conception of God to be the just mean between the polytheism of the heathens and the monotheism of the Jews.

But, lastly, the theologians had no reason to fear for the “deity” of the Christ in whom the incarnation of that Logos was to be viewed. For the conception of the Logos was capable of the most manifold contents, and its dexterous treatment could be already supported by the most instructive precedents. This conception could be adapted to every change and accentuation of the religious interest, every deepening of speculation, as 8as to all the needs of the Cultus, nay, even to new results of Biblical exegesis. It revealed itself gradually to be a variable quantity of the most accommodatin 564 g kind, capable of being at once determined by any new factor received into the theological ferment. It even admitted contents which stood in the most abrupt contradiction to the processes of thought out of which the conception itself had sprung, i.e., contents which almost completely concealed the cosmological genesis of the conception. But it was long before this point was reached. And as long as it was not, as long as the Logos was still employed as the formula under which was comprehended either the original idea of the world, or the rational law of the world, many did not entirely cease to mistrust the fitness of the conception to establish the divinity of Christ. For those, finally, could not but seek to perceive the full deity in the Redeemer, who reckoned on a deification of man. Athanasius first made this possible to them by his explanation of the Logos, but he at the same time began to empty the conception of its original cosmological contents. And the history of Christology from Athanasius to Augustine is the history of the displacing of the Logos conception by the other, destitute of all cosmical contents, of the Son,—the history of the substitution of the immanent and absolute trinity for the economic and relative. The complete divinity of the Son was thereby secured, but in the form of a complicated and artificial spec 564 ulation, which neither could be maintained without reservation before the tribunal of the science of the day, nor could claim the support of an ancient tradition. But the first formulated opposition to the Logos Christology did not spring from anxiety for the complete divinity of Christ, or even from solicitude for monotheism; it was rather called forth by interest in the evangelical, the Synoptic, idea of Christ. With this was combined the attack on the use of Platonic philosophy in Christian doctrine. The first public and literary opponents of the Christian Logos-speculations, therefore, did not escape the reproach of depreciating, if not of destroying, the dignity of the Redeemer. It was only in the subsequent period, in a second phase of the controversy, that these opponents of the Logos Christology were able to fling back the reproach at 9its defenders. With the Monarchians the first subject of interest was the man Jesus; then came monotheism and the divine dignity of Christ. From this point,

however, the whole theological interpretation of the two first articles of the rule of faith, was again gradually involved in controversy. In so far as they were understood to refute a crude docetism and the severance of Jesus and Christ they were confirmed. But did not the doctrine 559 of a heavenly æon, rendered incarnate in the Redeemer, contain another remnant of the old Gnostic leaven? Did not the sending forth of the Logos (προβολή τοῦ λόγου) to create the world recall the emanation of the æons? Was not ditheism set up, if two divine beings were to be worshipped? Not only were the uncultured Christian laity driven to such criticisms, — for what did they understand by the "economic mode of the existence of God"? — but also all those theologians who refused to give any place to Platonic philosophy in Christian dogmatics. A conflict began which lasted for more than a century, in certain branches of it for almost two centuries. Who opened it, or first assumed the aggressive, we know not. The contest engages our deepest interest in different respects, and can be described from different points of view. We cannot regard it, indeed, directly as a fight waged by theology against a still enthusiastic conception of religion; for the literary opponents of the Logos Christology were no longer enthusiasts, but, rather, from the very beginning their declared enemies. Nor was it directly a war of the theologians against the laity, for it was not laymen, but only theologians who had adopted the creed of the laity, who opposed their brethren. 56f 15 We must 10describe it as the strenuous effort of Stoic Platonism to obtain supremacy in the theology of the Church; the victory of Plato over Zeno and Aristotle in Christian science; the history of the displacement of the historical by the pre-existent Christ, of the Christ of reality by the Christ of thought, in dogmatics; finally, as the victorious attempt to substitute the mystery of the person of Christ for the person Himself, and, by means of a theological formula unintelligible to them, to put the laity with their Christian faith under guardians — a state desired and indeed required by

15

The Alogi opposed the Montanists and all prophecy; conversely the western repre 564 sentatives of the Logos Christology, Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus were Chiliasts. But this feature makes no change in the fact that the incorporation of the Logos Christology and the fading away of eschatological apocalyptic hopes went hand in hand. Theologians were able to combine inconsistent beliefs for a time; but for the great mass of the laity in the East the mystery of the person of Christ took the place of the Christ who was to have set up his visible Kingdom of glory upon earth. See especially the refutation of the Chiliasts by Origen (περὶ ἀρχ. II. II) and Dionysius Alex. (Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25). The continued embodiment in new visions of those eschatological hopes and apocalyptic fancies by the monks and laymen of later times, proved that the latter could not make the received mystery of dogma fruitful for their practical religion.

them to an increasing extent. When the Logos Christology obtained a complete victory, the traditional view of the Supreme deity as one person, and, along with this, every thought of the real and complete human personality of the Redeemer was in fact condemned as being intolerable in the Church. Its place was taken by “the nature” [of Christ], which without ,the person” is simply a cipher. The defeated party had right on its side, but had not succeeded in making its Christology agree with its conc 564 eption of the object and result of the Christian religion. This was the very reason of its defeat. A religion which promised its adherents that their nature would be rendered divine, could only be satisfied by a redeemer who in his own person had deified human nature. If, after the gradual fading away of eschatological hopes, the above prospect was held valid, then those were right who worked out this view of the Redeemer. In accordance with an expression coined by Tertullian, we understand by Monarchians the representatives of strict, not economic, monotheism in the ancient Church. In other words, they were theologians who held firmly by the dignity of Jesus as Redeemer, but at the same time would not give up the personal, the numerical, unity of God; and who therefore opposed the speculations which had led to the adoption of the duality or trinity of the godhead.16 In order rightly to understand 11their position in

16

This definition is, in truth, too narrow; for at least a section, if not all, of the socalled Dynamistic Monarchians recognised, besides God, the Spirit as eternal So 564 n of God, and accordingly assumed two Hypostases. But they did not see in Jesus an incarnation of this Holy Spirit, and they were therefore monarchian in their doctrine of Christ. Besides, so far as I know, the name of Monarchians was not applied in the ancient Church to these, but only to the theologians who taught that there was in Christ an incarnation of God the Father Himself. It was not extended to the earlier Dynamistic Monarchians, because, so far as we know, the question whether God consisted of one or more persons did not enter into the dispute with them. In a wider sense, the Monarchians could be taken also to include the Arians, and all those theologians, who, while they recognised the personal independence of a divine nature in Christ, yet held this nature to have been one created by God; in any case, the Arians were undoubtedly connected with Paul of Samosata through Lucian. However, it is not advisable to extend the conception so widely; for, firstly, we would thus get too far away from the old classification, and, secondly, it is not to be overlooked that, even in the case of the most thoroughgoing Arians, their Christology reacted on their doctrine of God, and their strict Monotheism was to some extent modified. Hence, both on historical and logical grounds, it is best for our purpose to understand by Monarchians those theol ac8 ogians exclusively who perceived in Jesus either a man filled, in a unique way, with the Spirit, or an incarnation of God the Father; with the reservation, that the former in certain of their groups regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine Hypostasis, and were accordingly no longer really

the history of the genesis of the dogmatics of the Church, it is decisive, as will have been already clear from the above, tha 564 t they only came to the front, after the anti-gnostic understanding of the baptismal confession had been substantially assured in the Church. It results from this that they are, generally speaking, to be criticised as men who appeared on the soil of Catholicism, and that therefore, apart from the points clearly in dispute, we must suppose agreement between them and their opponents. It is not superfluous to recall this expressly. The confusion to which the failure to note this presupposition has led and still continually leads may be seen, e.g., in the relative section in Dorner’s History of the development of the doctrine’ of the Person of Christ, or in 12Krawutzcky’s study on the origin of the Didache.17 The so-called Dynamistic Monarchians have had especially to suffer from this criticism, their teaching being comfortably disposed of as “Ebionitic”. However, imperative as it certainly is, in general, to describe the history of Monarchianism without reference to the ancient pre-Catholic controversies, and only to bring in the history of Montanism with great caution, 564 still many facts observed in reference to the earliest bodies of Monarchians that come clearly before us, seem to prove that they bore features which must be characterised as preCatholic, but not un-Catholic. This is especially true of their attitude to certain books of the New Testament. Undoubtedly we have reason even here to complain of the scantiness and uncertainty of our historical material. The Church historians have attempted to bury or distort the true history of Monarchianism to as great an extent as they passed over and obscured that of the socalled Montanism. At a very early date, if not in the first stages of the controversy, they read Ebionitism and Gnosticism into the

Monarchians in the strict sense of the term. For the rest, the expression “Monarchians” is in so far inappropriate as their opponents would also have certainly maintained the “monarchia” of God. See Tertulli., Adv. Prax. 3 f.; Epiphan. H. 62. 3: οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα, ἀλλὰ µοναρχίαν κηρύττοµεν. They would even have cast back at the Monarchians the reproach that they were destroying the monarchy. “Ἡ µοναρχία τοῦ Θεοῦ” was in the second century a standing title in the polemics of the theologians against polytheists and Gnostics — see the passages collected from Justin, Tatian, Irenæus etc. by Coustant in his Ep. Dionysii adv. Sabell. (Routh, Reliq. Sacræ III., p. 385 f.). Tertullian has therefore by no means used the term “Monarchians” as if he were thus directly branding his opponents as heretical; he rather names them by their favourite catch-word in a spirit of irony (Adv. Prax. 10; “vanissimi Monarchiani”). The name was therefore not really synonymous with a form of heresy in the ancient Church, even if here and there it was applied to the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity. 17 See Theol. Quartalschr. 1884, p. 547 ff. Krawutzcky holds the Didache to be at once Ebionitic and Theodotian.

theses of their opponents; they attempted to discredit their theological works as products of a specific secularisation, or as travesties, of Christianity, and they sought to portray the Monarchians themselves as renegades who had abandoned the rule of faith and the Canon. By this kind of polemics they have made it difficult for after ages to decide, among other things, whether certain peculiarities of Monarchian bodies in dealing with the Canon of the N. T. writings spring from a period when there was as yet no N. T. Canon in the strict Catholic sense, or whether these characteristics are to be regarded as deviations from an already settled authority, and ther 544 efore innovations. Meanwhile, looking to the Catholicity of the whole character of Monarchian movements, and, further, to the fact that no opposition is recorded as having been made by them to the N. T. Canon after its essential contents and authority appear to have been established; considering, finally, that the Montanists, and even the Marcionites and Gnostics, were very early charged with attempts on the Catholic Canon, we need no longer 13doubt that the Monarchian deviations point exclusively to a time when no such Canon existed; and that other “heresies”, to be met with in the older groups, are to be criticised on the understanding that the Church was becoming, but not yet become, Catholic.18 The history of Monarchianism is no clearer than its rise in the form of particular theological tendencies. Here also we have before us, at the present day, only scanty fragments. We cannot always trace completely even the settled distinction between Dynamistic — better, Adoptian — and Modalistic Monarchianism; 584 19 between the theory that made the power or Spirit of God dwell in the man Jesus, and the view that sees in Him the incarnation of the deity Himself.20 Certainly the common element, so far as there was one, of the Monarchian movements, lay in the form of the conception of God, the distinguishing feature, in the idea of revelation. But all the phenomena under this head cannot be classified with certainty, apart from the fact that the most numerous and important “systems” exist in a very shaky tradition. A really reliable division

18

It is very remarkable that Irenæus has given us no hint in his great work of a Monarchian controversy in the Church. 19 It was pointed out above, (Vol. I., p. 193) and ac8 will be argued more fully later on, that the different Christologies could pass into one another. 20 We have already noticed, Vol. I., p. 195, that we can only speak of a naïve Modalism in the earlier periods; Modalism first appeared as an exclusive doctrine at the close of the second century; see under.

of the Monarchianism that in all its forms rejected the idea of a physical fatherhood of God, and only saw the Son of God in the historical Jesus, is impossible on the strength of the authorities up till now known to us. Apart from a fragment or two we only possess accounts by opponents. The chronology, again, causes a special d 55d ifficulty. Much labour has been spent upon it since the discovery of the Philosophumena; but most of the details have remained very uncertain. The dates of the Alogi, Artemas, Praxeas, Sabellius, the Antiochian Synods against Paul of Samosata, etc., have not yet been firmly settled. The concise remarks on the subject in what follows rest on independent labours. Finally, we 14are badly informed even as to the geographical range of the controversies. We may, however, suppose, with great probability, that at one time or other a conflict took place in all centres of Christianity in the Empire. But a connected history cannot be given. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

2. The Secession of Dynamistic Monarchianism or Adoptianism. (a). The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor.21 Epiphanius22 56a and Philastrius (H. 60) know, from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, of a party to which the latter had given the nickname of “Alogi”. Hippolytus had recorded that its members rejected the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John,23 attributing these books to Cerinthus, and had not recognised the Logos of God to whom the Holy Spirit had borne witness in the

21

Merkel, Aufklärung der Streitigkaiten der Aloger, 1782. Heinichen, De Alogis, 1829; Olshausen, Echtheit der vier Kanonischen Evangelien, p. 241 f.; Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 265 ff. etc.; Volkmar, Hippolytus, p. 112 f.; Döllinger, Hippolytus u. Kallistus, p. 229 ff.; Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanius p. 23 f., 233 f.; Harnack in d. Ztschr. L. d. histor. Theol. 1874, p. 166 f.; Lipsius, Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 93 f., 214 f.; Zahn in d. Ztschr. für die histor. Theol., 1875, p. 72 f.; Caspari, Quellen III., p. 377 f., 398 f., Soyres, Montanism, p. 49 f.; Bonwetsch, Montanismus vv. ll.; Iwanzov-Platonov, Häresien und Schismen der drei ersten Jahr. I, p. 233 f.; Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. Kanons I., p. 220 ff.; Harnack, das N. T. um d. J. 200, p. 38 ff.; Jülicher, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1889, No. 7; Salmon i. Hermathena, 1892, p. 161 ff. 22 Hær.51; after him Augustine H.30, Prædest. H.30 etc. The statement of the Prædest. that a Bishop named Philo refuted the Alogi is worthless. Whether the choice of the name was due to the Alexandrian Jew is unknown. 23 Nothing is reported as to the Letters. Epiphanius is 564 perhaps right in representing that they were also rejected (1.c. ch. 34); but perhaps they were not involved in the discussion.

Gospel. Hippolytus, the most prolific of the opponents of the heretics, wrote, besides his Syntagma, a special work against these men in defence of the Johannine writings;24 and he perhaps 15also attacked them in another work aimed at all Monarchians.25 The character of the party can still be defined, in its main features, from the passages taken by Epiphanius from these writings, due regard being given to Irenæus III. 11, 9. The Christological problem seems not to have occupied a foremost place in the discussion, but rather, the elimination of all docetic leaven, and the attitude to prophecy. The non-descript, the Alogi, were a party of the radical, anti-montanist, opposition in Asia Minor, existing within the Church — so radical that they refused to recognise the Montanist communities as Christian. They wished to have all prophecy kept out of the Church; in this sense they were decided contemners of the Spirit (Iren. l.c.; Epiph. 51, ch. 35). This attitude led them to an historical criticism of the two Johannine books, the one of which contained Christ’s announcement of the Paraclete, a passage which Montanus had made the most of for his own ends, while the other

24

See the list of writings on the statue of Hippolytus: π [] π ; and Ebed Jesu, catal. 7 (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. 1, 15): “Apologia pro apocalypsi et evangelio Johannis apostoli et evangelistæ.” Besides this Hippolytus wrote: “Capita adversus Caium,” a Roman sympathiser with the Alogi. Of this writing a few fragments have been preserved (Gwynn, Hermathena VI., p. 397 f.; Harnack, Texte und Unters. VI. 3, p. 121 ff.; Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, II., p. 973 ff. 25 It is certain that Epiphan ac3 ius, besides the relative section of the Syntagma, also copied at least a second writing against the “Alogi”, and it is probable that this likewise came from Hippolytus. The date of its composition can still be pretty accurately determined from Epiphan. H.31, ch. 33. It was written about A.D. 234; for Epiphanius’ authority closes the period of the Apostles 93 years after the Ascension, and remarks that since that date 112 years had elapsed. Lipsius has obtained another result, but only by an emendation of the text which is unnecessary (see Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 109 f.). Hippolytus treats his unnamed opponents as contemporaries; but a closer examination shows that he only knew them from their writings — of which there were several (see ch. 33), and therefore knew nothing by personal observation of the conditions under which they appeared. A certain criterion of the age of these writings, and therefore of the party itself, is given by the fact that, at the time when the latter flourished, the only Church at Thyatira was, from their own testimony, Montanist, while the above-mentioned authority was already able to tell of a rising catholic Church, and of other Christian communities in that place. A Christian of Thyatira, by name Papylus, appears in the Martyrium Carpi et Papyli (see Harnack, Texte u. Unters. III. 3, 4). The date when this movement in Asia Minor flourished can be discovered more definitely, however, by a combination, proved by Zahn to be justified, of the statements of Hippolytus and Irenæus III. 11. 9. According to this, the party existed in Asia Minor, A.D. 170-180.

imparted prophetic revelations. They came to the conclusion, on internal grounds, that these books could not be genuine, that they were composed “in the name of John” (εἰς ὄνόα Ἰωάννου ch. 3, 18), and that by Cerinthus (ch. 3, 4,); the books ought not therefore to be received 564 in the 16Church (ch. 3: οὐκ ἄξια αὐτά φασιν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ). The Gospel was charged with containing what was untrue; it contradicted the other Gospels,26 and gave a quite different and, indeed, a notoriously false order of events; it was devoid of any sort of arrangement; it omitted important facts and inserted new ones which were inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels; and it was docetic.27 Against the Apocalypse it was alleged, above all, that its contents were often unintelligible, nay, absurd and untrue (ch. 32-34). They ridiculed the seven angels and seven trumpets, and the four angels by the Euphrates; and on Rev. II. 18, they s 564 upposed that there was no Christian community in Thyatira at the time, and that accordingly the Epistle was fictitious. Moreover, the objections to the Gospel must also have included the charge (ch. 18) that it favoured Docetism, seeing that it passed at once from the incarnation of the Logos to the work of the ministry of Christ. In this connection they attacked the expression “Logos” for the Son of God;28 indeed, they scented Gnosticism in it, contrasted John I. with the beginning of Mark’s Gospel,29 and arrived at the result, that writings whose contents were partly docetic, partly sensuously Jewish and unworthy of God, must have been composed by Cerinthus, the gnosticising Judaist. In view of this fact it is extremely surprising to notice how mildly the party was criticised and treated by Irenæus as well as by Hippolytus. The former distinguishes them sharply from 561 the declared heretics. He places them on a line with the Schismatics, who gave up communion with the Church on account of the hypocrites 17to be found in it. He approves of their decided opposition to all pseudo-prophetic nonsense, and he only complains that in their zeal against the bad they had also fought

26

Epiph. LI., ch 4: φάσκουσι ὅτι οὐ συµφωνεῖ τὰ βιβλία τοῦ Ἰωάννου τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις, ch. 18: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εἰς ὅνοµα Ἰωάννου ψεύδεται . . . λέγουσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, ἐπειδὴ µὴ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἔφη, ἀδιάθετον εἶναι. 27 569 Epiphanius has preserved for us in part the criticism of the Alogi on John I. II., and on the Johannine chronology (ch. 3, 4, 15, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29). In their conception the Gospel of John precluded the human birth and development of Jesus. 28 Epiph. LI. 3, 28: τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποβάλλονται τὸν διὰ Ἰωάννην κητυχθέντα. 29 Epiph. LI., ch. 6: λέγουσιν· Ἰδοὺ δεύτερον εὐαγγέλιον περὶ Χριστοῦ σηµαῖνον καὶ οὐδαµοῦ ἄνωθεν λέγον τὴν γέννησιν· ἀλλά, φησίν, Ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ κατῇλθε τὸ τνεῦµα ᾽επ᾽ αὐτὸν καὍ ac8 φωνή· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, ᾽ἐφ ὃν ηὐδόκησα.

against the good, and had sought to eject all prophecy. In short, he feels that between them and the Montanists, whom likewise he did not look on as heretics,30 he held the middle position maintained by the Church. And so with Hippolytus. The latter, apart from features which he could not but blame, confirms the conformity to the Church, claimed by the party itself (ch. 3), and conspicuous in their insistence on the harmony of the Scriptures (συµφωνία τῶν βιβλῶν).31 567 He nowhere sets them on a line with Cerinthus, Ebion, etc., and he has undoubtedly treated even their Christological views, on which Irenæus had communicated no information, more mildly, because he found so much in them of an anti-docetic, anti-montanistic nature, with which he could agree. But what was their teaching as to Christ? If Lipsius32 were correct in his opinion that the Alogi only saw in Jesus a man naturally procreated, that they only pretended to hold by the current doctrine, then the attitude to them of Irenæus and Hippolytus would be incomprehensible. But our authority gives no support to such a view. It rather shows plainly that the Alogi recognised the first three Gospels, and consequently the miraculous birth from the Holy Ghost and the virgin. They placed, however, the chief emphasis on the human life of Jesus, on his birth, baptism, and temptation as told by the Synoptics, and for this very reason rejected the formula of the Logos, as well as the “birth from above”, i.e., the eternal generation of Christ. The equipment of Christ at his baptism was to them, in view o 564 f Mark, ch. I., of crucial importance (see p. 16, Note 4) and thus they would assume, without themselves making use of the phrase “a mere man” “(ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), an advancement 18(προκοπή) of the Christ, ordained at his baptism to be Son of God.33 The earliest opponents known to us of the Logos Christology were men whose adherence to the position of the Church in Asia Minor was strongly marked. This attitude of theirs was exhibited in a decided antagonism both to the Gnosticism, say, of Cerinthus,

30

This milder criticism — and neither Montanists nor Alogi stand in Irenæus’ catalogue of heretics — naturally did not prevent the view that those “unhappy people” had got into an extremely bad position by their opposition to the prophetic activity of the Spirit in the Church, and had fallen into the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost. 31 In Epiph. LI., ch. 4: δοκῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰ ἴσα ἡµῖν πιστεύειν. 32 Quellen, p. 102 f., 112. 33 It is not quite certain whether we may appeal to the words in Epiph. LI., ch. 18 (20): νοµίζοντες ἀπὸ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο Χριστὸν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι καί υἱὸν Θεοῦ, καὶ εἷναι µὲν πρότερον ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατὰ προκοπὴν δὲ εἰληφέναι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν.

and to “Kataphrygian” prophecy. In their hostility to the latter they anticipated the development of the Church by about a generation; while rejecting all prophecy and “gifts of the Spirit” (ch.35), they, in doing so, gave the clearest revelation of their Catholic character. Since they did not believe in an age of the Paraclete, nor entertain materialistic hopes about the future state, they cou 564 ld not reconcile themselves to the Johannine writings; and their attachment to the conception of Christ in the Synoptics led them to reject the Gospel of the Logos. An explicitly Church party could not have ventured to promulgate such views, if they had been confronted by a Canon already closed, and giving a fixed place to these Johannine books. The uncompromising criticism, both internal and external — as in the hypothesis of the Cerinthian authorship — to which these were subjected, proves that, when the party arose, no Catholic Canon existed as yet in Asia Minor, and that, accordingly, the movement was almost as ancient that of the Montanists, which it followed very closely.34 On this 19understanding, the party had a legitimate place within the developing Catholic Church, and only so can we explain the criticism which their writings encountered in the period immediately succeeding. Meanwhile, the first express opposition with which we are acquainted to the Logos Christology was raised within the Church, by a party which, yet, must be conceived by us to have been in many respec 564 ts specifically secularised. For the radical opposition to Montanism, and the open, and at the same

34

As regards the problem of the origin and gradual reception of the Johannine writings, and especially of the Go 53a spel, their use by Montanus, and their abrupt rejection by the Alogi, are of the greatest significance, especially when we bear in mind the Churchly character of the latter. The rise of such an opposition in the very region in which the Gospel undoubtedly first came to light; the application to the fourth of a standard derived from the Synoptic Gospels; the denial without scruple, of its apostolic origin; are facts which it seems to me have, at the present day, not been duly appreciated. We must not weaken their force by an appeal to the dogmatic character of the criticism practised by the Alogi; the attestation of the Gospel cannot have been convincing, if such a criticism was ventured on in the Church. But the Alogi distinctly denied to John and ascribed to Cerinthus the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel. Of Cerinthus we know far too little to be justified in sharing in the holy horror of the Church Fathers. But even if the above hypothesis is false, and it is in fact very probable that it is, yet the very fact that it could be set up by Churchmen is instructive enough; for it shows us, what we do not know from any other source, that the Johannine writings met with, and had to overcome, opposition in their birth-place.

time jesting, criticism on the Apocalypse,35 can only be so regarded. Yet the preference of the Logos Christology to others is itself indeed, as Celsus teaches, a symptom of secularisation and innovation in the creed. The Alogi attacked it on this ground when they took it as promoting Gnosticism (Docetism). But they also tried to refute the Logos Doctrine and the Logos Gospel on historical grounds, by a reference to the Synoptic Gospels. The representatives of this movement were, as far as we know, the first to undertake within the Church a historical criticism, worth of the name, of the Christian Scriptures and the Church tradition. They first confronted John’s Gospel with the Synoptics, and found numerous contradictions; Epiphanius, — and probably, before him, Hippolytus, — called them, therefore, word-hunters (λεξιθηροῦντες H. 51, ch. 34). They and their opponents could retort on each other the charge of introducing innova 564 tions; but we cannot mistake the fact that the larger proportion of innovations is to be looked for on the side of the Alogi. How long the latter held their ground; how, when, and by whom they were expelled from the Church in Asia Minor, we do not know. 20

(b). The Roman Adoptians. — Theodotus the leather-worker and his party: Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides, Theodotus the money-changer, and also the Artemonites.36

af2 35The Roman Caius took over this criticism from them, as is shown by Hippolytus’ Cap. adv. Caium. But, like Theodotus, to be mentioned presently, he rejected the view of the Alogi as regards John’s Gospel. 36 See Kapp, Hist. Artemonis, 1737; Hagemann, Die römische Kirche in den drei ersten Jahrh., 1864; Lipsius, Quellenkritik, p. 235 f.; Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 173 f.; Harnack, in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874, p. 200; Caspari, Quellen III., pp. 318-321, 404 f.; Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche I., p. 192 f.; Caspari, Om Melchizedekiternes eller Theodotianernes eller Athinganernes Laerdomme og om hvad de herve at sige, naar de skulle bline optagne i. den kristelige Kirke, in the Tidsskr f. d. evang. luth. Kirke. Ny Raekke, Bd. VIII., part 3, pp. 307-337. Authorities for the older Theodotus are; (1) the Syntagma of Hippolytus according to Epiph. H.54, Philaster H. 50. and Pseudo-Tertull. H. 28; (2) the Philosophumena VII. 35, X. 23, IX. 3, 12, X. 27; (3) the fragment of Hippolytus against Noëtus, ch. 3. 4) the fragments from the so-called Little Labyrinth (in Euseb. H. E. V. 28), which was perhaps by Hippolytus, and was written in the fourth decade of the third century, and after the Philosophumena. This work was directed against Roman Dynamistic Monarchians under the leadership of a certain Artemas, who are to be distinguished from the Theodotians. (For the age and author of the Little Labyrinth, and for its connection with the writings against the Alogi and against Noëtus; also for the appearance of Artemas, which is not to be dated before ± 235: see Caspari, Quellen l.c., and my art. “Monarchianismus”, p. 186). Eusebius has confined his extracts from the Little Labyrinth to such as deal with the Theodotians.

Towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus, or at the beginning of that of Victor (± 190) there came from Byzantium to Rome the leather-worker Theodotus, who afterwards was 21characterised as the “founder, leader, and father of the Goddenying revolt”, i.e., of Adoptianism. Hippolytus calls him a “rag” (ἀπόσπασµα) of the Alogi, and it is in fact not improbable that he came from the circle of those theologians of Asia Minor. Stress is laid on his unusual culture; 564 “he was supreme in Greek culture, very learned in science” (ἐν παιδείᾳ Ἑλληνικῇ ἀκρός, πολυµαθὴς τοῦ λόγου); and he was, therefore, highly respected in his native city. All we know for certain of his history is that he was excommunicated by the Roman Bishop, Victor, on account of the Christology which he taught in Rome (Euseb. V. 28. 6: ἀπεκήρυξε τῆς κοινωνίας); his is, therefore, the first case of which we are certain, where a Christian who took his stand on the rule of faith was yet treated as a heretic.37 As regards his teaching, the Philosophumena expressly testify to the orthodoxy of Theodotus in

These extracts and Philos. Lib. X. are used by Theodoret (H. F. II. 4. 5); it is not probable that the latter had himself examined the Little Labyrinth. A writing of Theodotus seems to have been made use of in the Syntagma of Hippolytus. As regards the younger Theodotus, his name has been handed down by the Little Labyrinth, the Philosoph. (VII. 36) and Pseudo-Tertull. H. 29 (Theodoret H. F. II. 6). The Syntagma te ac8 lls of a party of Melchizedekians, which is traced in the Philosoph. and by the Pseudo-Tertullian to the younger Theodotus, but neither the party nor its founder is named. Very mysterious in contents and origin is the piece, edited for the first time from Parisian MSS. by Caspari (see above): περὶ Μελχισεδεκιανῶν καὶ Θεοδοτιανῶν καὶ Ἀθιγγανῶν. The only controversial writing known to us against Artemas (Artemon) is the Little Labyrinth. Unfortunately Eusebius has not excerpted the passages aimed at him. Artemas is, again, omitted in the Syntagma and in the Philosoph. For this reason Epiphanius, PseudoTertull. and Philaster have no articles expressly dealing with him. He is, however, mentioned prominently in the edict of the last Synod of Antioch held to oppose Paul of Samosata (so also in the Ep. Alexandri in Theodoret H. E. I. 3 and in Pamphilus’ Apology Pro Orig. in Routh, Reliq. S. IV. p. 367); therefore many later writers against the heretics have named him (Epiph. H. 65. 1, esp. Theodoret H. F. II. 6. etc.). Finally, let it be noticed that the statements in the Synodicon Pappi, and in the Prædestinatus are worthless, and that the identification of the younger Theodotus with the Gnostic of the same name, extracts from whose works we possess, is inadmissable, not less so than the identification with Theodotus, the Montanist, of whom we are informed by Eusebius. In this we agree with Zahn (Forschungen III., p. 123) against Neander and Dorner. As an authority for the Roman Monarchians, Novatian, De Trinitate, also falls to be considered. 37 It is significant that this took place in Rome. The Syntagma is further able to tell that Theodotus had denied Christ during the persecution in his native city before he came to Rome. See on this point my article on Monarchianism) p. 187.

his theology and cosmology.38 In reference to the Person of Christ he tau 564 ght: that Jesus was a man, who, by a special decree of God, was born of a virgin through the operation of the Holy Spirit; but that we were not to see in him a heavenly being, who had assumed flesh in the virgin. After the piety of his life had been thoroughly tested, the Holy Ghost descended upon him in baptism; by this means he became Christ and received his equipment (δυνάµεις) for his special vocation; and he demonstrated the righteousness, in virtue of which he excelled all men, and was, of necessity, their authority. Yet the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus was not sufficient to justify the contention that he was now “God”. Some of the followers of Theodotus represented 22Jesus as having become God through the resurrection; others disputed even this.39 This Christology, Theodotus and his party sought to prove from Scripture. Philaster says in general terms: “they use the chapters of Scripture which tell of Christ as man, but they avoid those which speak of him as God, reading and by no means understandin 564 g” (Utuntur capitulis scripturarum quæ de Christo veluti de homine edocent, quæ autem ut deo dicunt ea vero non accipiunt, legentes et nullo modo intellegentes). Epiphanius has, fortunately, preserved for us fragments of the biblical theological investigations of Theodotus, by the help of the Syntagma. These show that there was no longer any dispute as to the extent of the N. T. Canon; the Gospel of John is recognised, and in this respect also Theodotus is Catholic. The investigations are interesting, however, because they are worked out by the same prosaic methods of exegesis, adopted in the above discussed works of the Alogi.40

38

VII. 35: φάσκων τὰ περὶ µὲν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχῆς σύµφωνα ἐκ µέρους τοῖς τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐκκλησίας, ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πάντα 564 ὁµολογῶν γεγονέναι. 39 Philos. VII. 35: Θεὸν δὲ οὐδέποτε τοῦτον γεγονέναι θέλουσιν ἐπὶ τῇ καθόδῳ τοῦ πνεύµατος, ἕτεροι δὲ µετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν. The description in the text is substantially taken from the Philos., with whose account the contents of the Syntagma are not inconsistent. The statement that Theodotus denied the birth by the virgin is simply a calumny, first alleged by Epiphanius. The account of the Philos. seems unreliable, at most, on a single point, viz., where, interpreting Theodotus, it calls the Spirit which descended at the baptism “Christ” But possibly this too is correct, seeing that Hermas, and, later, the author of the Acta Archelai have also identified the Holy Spirit with the Son of God. (Compare also what Origen [περὶ ἀρχ. pref.] has reported as Church tradition on the Holy Spirit.) In that case we would only have to substitute the “Son of God” for 564 Christ”, and to suppose that Hippolytus chose the latter term in order to be able to characterise the teaching of Theodotus as Gnostic (Cerinthian). On the possibility that the Theodotians, however, really named the Holy Spirit “Christ”, see later on. 40 Epiphanius mentions the appeal of the Theodotians to Deut. XVIII. 15; Jer. XVII. 9; Isa. LIII. 2 f.; Mat. XII. 31; Luke I. 35; John VIII. 40; Acts II. 22; 1 Tim. II. 5. They

23

Theodotus’ form of teaching was, even in the life-time of its author, held in Rome to be intolerable, and that by men disposed to Modalism — e.g., the Bishop himself, see under — as well as by the representatives of the Logos Christology. It is certain that he was excommunicated by Victor, accordingly before A.D. 199, on the charge of teaching that Ch 560 rist was “mere man” (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος). We do not know how large his following was in the city. We cannot put it at a high figure, since in that case the Bishop would not have ventured on excommunication. It must, however, have been large enough to allow of the experiment of forming an independent Church. This was attempted in the time of the Roman Bishop Zephyrine (199-218) by the most important of the disciples of Theodotus, viz., Theodotus the money changer, and a certain Asclepiodotus. It is extremely probable that both of these men were also Greeks. A native, Natalius the confessor, was induced, so we are told by the Little Labyrinth, to become Bishop of the party, at a salary of 150 denarii a month. The attempt failed. The oppressed Bishop soon deserted and returned into the bosom of the great Church. It was told that he had been persuaded by visions and finally by blows with which “holy angels” pursued him during the night. The above undertaking is interesting in itself, since it proves how great had already become the gulf between the Church and these Monarchians in Rome, about A.D. 210; but still more

deduced from Mat. XII. 31, that the Holy Spirit held a higher place than the Son of Man. The treatment of the verses in Deut. and Luke is especially instructive. In the former Theodotus emphasised, not only the “προφήτην ὡς ἐµέ”, and the “ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν”, but also the “ἐγερεῖ”, and concluded referring the passage to the Resurrection: ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγειρόµενος Χριστὸς οὗτος οὐκ ἦν Θεὸς ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπειδὴ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἦν, ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἄνθρωπος Ἅ 564 — accordingly the resuscitated Christ was not God. On Luke I. 35 he argued thus: “The Gospel itself says in reference to Mary: ‘the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee’; but it does not say: ‘the Spirit of the Lord will be in thy body’, or, ‘will enter into thee.’” — Further, if we may trust Epiphanius, Theodotus sought to divide the sentence — διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώ ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ — , from the first half of the verse, as if the words “διὸ καὶ” did not exist, so that he obtained the meaning that the Sonship of Christ would only begin later, — subsequent to the test. Perhaps, however, Theodotus entirely deleted “διὸ καὶ”, just as he also read “πνεῦµα κυρίου” for “πνεῦµα ἅγιον” in order to avoid all ambiguity. And since Hippolytus urges against him that John I. 14 did not contain “τὸ πνεῦµα σὰρξ ἐγένετο”, Theodotus must at least have interpreted the word “λόγος” in the sense of “πονῦµα”; and an ancient formula really ran: “Χριστὸς ὢν µὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦµα ἐγένετο σάρξ” (2 Clem. IX. 5), where later “λόγος” was, indeed, inserted in place of “πνεῦµἀ”. See t aa8 he Cod. Constantinop.

instructive is the sketch given of the leaders of the party by the Little Labyrinth, a sketch that agrees excellently with the accounts given of the ‘ 545 λεξιθηροῦντες’ in Asia, and of the exegetic labours of the older Theodotus.41 24The offence charged against the Theodotians was threefold: the grammatical and formal exegesis of Holy Scripture, the trenchant textual criticism, and the thoroughgoing study of Logic, Mathematics, and the empirical sciences. It would seem at a first glance as if these men were no longer as a rule interested in theology. But the opposite was the case. Their opponent had himself to testify that they pursued grammatical exegesis “in order to prove their godless tenets,” textual criticism in order to correct the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and philosophy “in order by the science of unbelievers to support their heretical conception.” He had also to bear witness to the fact that these scholars had not tampered with the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, or the extent of the Canon (V. 28. 18). 587 1 Their whole work, therefore, was in the service of their theology. But the method of this work, — and we can infer it to have been also that

41

Euseb. (H. E. V. 28): “They falsified the Holy Scriptures without scruple, rejected the standards of the ancient faith, and misunderstood Christ. For they did not examine what the Scriptures said, but carefully considered what logical figure they could obtain from it that would prove their godless teaching. And if any one brought before them a passage from Holy Scripture, they asked whether a conjunctive or disjunctive figure could be made of it. They set aside the Holy Scriptures of God, and employ themselves, instead, with geometry, being men who are earthly, and talk of what is earthly, and know not what comes from above. Some of them, therefore, study the geometry of Euclid with the greatest devotion; Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; Galen is even worshipped by some. But what need is there of words to show that men who misuse the sciences of the unbelievers to prove their heretical views, and falsify with their own godless cunning the plain faith of Scripture, do not even stand on the borders of the faith? They have therefore laid their hands so unscrupulously on the Holy Scriptures under the pretext that they had only amended it critically (διωρθωκέναι). He who will can convince himself that this is no calumny. For, if one should collect the manuscripts of any one of them and compare them, he would find them differ in many passages. At least, the manuscripts of Asclepiodotus do not agree with those of Theodotus. But we can have examples of this to excess; for their scholars have noted with ambitious zeal all that any one of them has, as they say, critically amended, i.e., distorted (effaced?). Again, with these the manuscripts of Hermophilus do not agree; and those of Apollonides even differ from each other. For if we compare the manuscripts first restored by them (him?) with the later re-corrected copies, variations are found in many places. But some of them have not even found it worth the trouble to falsify the Holy Scriptures, but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, and have by this lawless and godless doctrine hurled themselves, under the pretext of grace, into the deepest abyss of perdition. acb 42 See under.

of the Alogi and the older Theodotus — conflicted with the dominant theological method. Instead of Plato and 25Zeno, the Adoptians revered the Empiricists; instead of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, the grammatical was alone held to be valid; instead of simply accepting or capriciously trimming the traditional text, an attempt was made to discover the original.43 How unique and valuable is this information! How instructive it is to observe that this method struck the disciple of the Apologists and Irenæus as strange, nay, even as heretical, that while he would have seen nothing to object to in the study of Plato, he was seized with horror at the idea of Aristotle, Euclid, and Galen, being put in the place of Plato! The difference was, indeed, not merely one of method. In the condition of the theology of the Church at that 540 time, it could not be supposed that religious conviction was especially strong or ardent in men who depreciated the religious philosophy of the Greeks. For whence, if not from this source, or from Apocalyptics, did men then derive a distinctively pious enthusiasm?44 It is also little to be wondered at that the attempt made by these scholars to found a Church in Rome, was so quickly wrecked. They were fated to remain officers without an army; for with grammar, textual criticism, and logic one could only throw discredit, in the communities, on the form of Christological doctrine which held the highest place and had been rendered venerable by long tradition. These scholars, therefore, although they regarded themselves as Catholic, stood outside the Church.45 Of the works of these, the earliest exegetical scholars, nothing has come down to us. 588 46 They have gone 26without leaving any appreciable effect on the Church. Contrast the significance gained by the schools of Alexandria and Antioch! The latter, which rose

43

See V. 28. 4, 5. The triumph of Neo-platonic philosophy and of the Logos Christology in Christian theology is, in this sense, to be considered an advance. That philosophy, indeed, in the third century, triumphed throughout the empire over its rivals, and therefore the exclusive alliance concluded with it by Christian tradition was one which, when it took place, could be said to have been inevitable. Suppose, however, that the theology of Sabellius or of Paul had established itself in the Church in the 3rd century, then a gulf would have been created between the Church and Hellenism that would have made it impossible for the religion of the Church to become that of the empire. Neo-platonic tradition was the final product of antiquity; it disposed, but as a living force, of the intellectual and moral capital of the past. 45 As “genuine” scholars — and this is a very characteristic feature — they took very great care that each should have the credit of his own amendments on the text. 46 The Syntagma knows of these; Epiph. H. 55. c. 1: πλάττουσιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ βίβλους ἐπιπλάστους, 44

about 60 years later, took up again the work of this Roman school. It, too, came to stand outside the great Church; but it brought about one of the most important crises in the dogmatics of the Church, because in its philosophico-theological starting-point it was at one with orthodoxy. The methodical and exegetical examination of the Holy Scriptures confirmed the Theodotians in their conception of Christ as the man in whom in an especial manner the Spirit of God had operated, and had made them opponents of the Logos Christology. The author of the Little Labyrinth does not state wherein the doctrine of the younger Theodotus differed from that of the older. When he says that some of the Theodotians rejected the law and the prophets προφάσει χάριτος, we may well suppose that they simply emphasised — in a Pauline sense, or because of 54f considerations drawn from a historical study of religion — the relativity of the authority of the O. T.;47 for there is as little known of any rejection of the Catholic Canon on the part of the Theodotians, as of a departure from the rule of faith. Now Hippolytus has extracted from the exegetical works of the younger Theodotus one passage, the discussion of Hebr. V. 6, 10; VI. 20 f.; VII. 3, 17; and out of this he has made an important heresy. Later historians eagerly seized on this; they ascribed to the younger Theodotus, as distinguished from the older, a cultus of Melchizedek and invented a sect of Melchizedekians (= Theodotians). The moneychanger taught, it was said (Epiph. H. 55), that Melchizedek was a very great power, and more exalted than Christ, the latter being merely related to the former as the copy to the original. Melchizedek was the advocate of the heavenly powers before God, and the High Priest among men,48 while Jesus as 27priest stood a degree lower. The origin of the former was completely concealed, because it was heavenly, but Jesus was born of Mary. To this Epiphanius adds that the party presented its oblations in the name of M. (εἰς ὄνοµα τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ); for he was the guide to God, the prince of righteousness, the true Son of God. It is apparent that the Theodotians cannot have taught this simply as it stands. The explanation is not far to seek. There was a wide-spread opinion in the whole ancient Church, that Melchizedek was a manifestation of the true Son of God; and to this view many speculations attached themselves, here and there in 581 47Even the great anti-gnostic teachers had come to this view (see Vol. II., p. 304) without indeed drawing the consequences which the Theodotians may have deduced more certainly. 48 L.c. ∆εῖ ἡµᾶς τῷ Μελχισεδὲκ προσφέρειν, φασίν, ἵνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ προσενεχθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν, καὶ εὕρωµεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ζωήν.

connection with a subordinationist Christology.49 The Theodotians shared this conception. Immediately after the sentence given above Epiphanius has (55, c. 8): And Christ, they say, was chosen that he might call us from many ways to this one knowledge, having been anointed by God, and chosen, when he turned 561 us from idols and showed us the way. And the Apostle having been sent by him revealed to us that Melchizedek is great and remains a priest for ever, and behold how great he is; and because the less is blessed by the greater, therefore he says that he as being greater blessed Abraham the patriarch; of whom we are initiated that we may obtain from him the blessing.50 Now the Christological conception, formulated in the first half 28of this paragraph, was certainly not reported from an opponent. It is precisely that of the Shepherd,51 and accordingly very ancient in the Roman Church.52 567 From this, and by a reference to the controversial writing of Hippolytus (Epiph. l.c. ch. 9), the “heretical” cultus of Melchizedek is explained. These Theodotians maintained, as is also shown by their exegesis on 1 Cor. VIII. 6,53

49

See Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 25. 161; Hierakas in Epiph. H. 55, c. 5, H. 67, c. 3; Philast. H. 148. Epiph. has himself to confess (H. 55, c. 7), that even in his time the view to 564 be taken of Melchizedek was still a subject of dispute among Catholic Christians: οἱ µὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν νοµίζουσι φύσει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἰδέᾳ ἀνθρώπου τότε τῷ Ἀβραὰµ πεφηνέναι. Jerome Ep. 73 is important. The Egyptian hermit, Marcus, wrote, about A.D. 400, an independent work εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ κατὰ Μελχισεδεκειῶν, i.e., against those who saw in Melchizedek a manifestation of the true Son of God (see Photius, Biblioth. 200; Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 827; Herzog’s R. E., 2 Aufl. IX. p. 290); cf. the above described fragment, edited for the first time by Caspari; further Theodoret H. F. II. 6, Timotheus Presb. in Cotelier, Monum. Eccl. Græcæ III. p. 392 etc. 50 Καὶ Χριστὸς µὲν, φάσίν, ἐξελέγη, ἵνα ἡµᾶς καλέσῃ ἐκ πολλῶν ὁδῶν εἰς µίαν ταύτην τὴν γνῶσιν, ὑπὸ Θεοῦ κεχρισµένος κ aab αὶ ἐκλεκτὸς γένόµενος, ἐπειδὴ ἀπέστρεψεν ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ εἰδώλων καὶ ὑπέδειξεν ἡµῖν τὴν ὁδόν. Ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀποςταλεὶς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡµῖν, ὅτι µέγας ἐστὶν ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, καὶ ἱερεὺς µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ, Θεωρεῖτε πηλίκος οὗτος· καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἔλασσον ἐκ τοῦ µείζονος εὐλογεῖται, διὰ τοῦτο, φησὶ, καὶ τὸν Ἁβαὰµ τὸν πατριάρχην εὐλόγησεν ὡς µείζων ὤν· οὗ ἡµεῖς ἐσµὲν µύσται, ὅπως τύχωµεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς εὐλογίας. 51 Cf. the striking agreement with Sim. V., especially ch. VI. 3: αὐτὸς καθαρίσας τὰς ἁµαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς τρίβους τῆς ζωῆς. 52 The theologico-philosophical impress which, as distinguished from Sim. V., marks the whole passage, is of course unmistakable. Notice what is said as to Paul, and the expression “µύσται”. 53 The Theodotians seem to have taken Christ in this verse to mean not Jesus, but the Holy Spirit, the eternal. Son of God, deleting the name Jesus (Epiph. H. 55, ch. 9). If that is so then the Philosophumena is right when it relates that the Theodotians had also given

three points: First, that besides the Father the only divine being was the Holy Spirit, who was identical with the Son — again simply the position of Hermas; secondly, that this Holy Spirit appeared to Abraham in the form of the King of Righteousness — and this, as has been shown above, was no novel contention; thirdly, that Jesus was a man anointed with the power of the Holy Ghost. But, in that case, it was only logical, and in itself not uncatholic, to teach that offerings and worship were due, as to the true, eternal Son of God, to this King of Righteousness who had appeared to Abraham, and had blessed him and his real descendants, i.e., the Christians. And if, in comparison with this Son of God; the chosen and anointed servant of God, Jes 564 us, appears inferior at first, precisely in so far as he is man, yet their position was no more unfavourable in this respect than that of Hermas. For Hermas also taught that Jesus, being only the adopted Son of God, was really not to be compared to the Holy Spirit, the Eternal Son; or, rather, he is related to the latter, to use a Theodotian expression, as the copy to the original. Yet there is undoubtedly a great distinction between the Theodotians and Hermas. They unmistakably used their speculations as to the eternal 29Son of God in order to rise to that Son from the man Jesus of history, and to transcend the historical in general as something subordinate.54 There is not a word of this to be found in Hermas. Thus, the Theodotians sought, in a similar way to Origen, to rid themselves by speculation of what was merely historical, setting, like him, the eternal Son of God above the Crucified One. We have evidence of the correctness of this opinion in the observation that these speculations on Melchizedek were continued precisely in the school of Origen. We find them, and that with th 564 e same tendency to depreciate the historical Son of God, in Hieracas and the confederacy of Hieracite monks;55 as also in the monks who held the views of Origen in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries.

the name of Christ to the pre-existent Son of God, the Holy Ghost. Yet it is not certain whether we should regard the above quoted chapter of Epiphanius at all as reporting the Theodotian interpretation of 1 Cor. VIII. 6. 54 Epiph. H. 55, ch. 8: εἰς ὄνοµα δὲ τούτου τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἡ προειρηµένη αἵρεσις καὶ τὰς προσφορὰς ἀναφέρει, καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι εἰσαγωγέα πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, δεῖ τῷ Θεῷ προσφέρειν, ὅτι ἄρχων ἐστὶ δικαιοσύνης, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ κατασταθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, πνευµατικός τις ὢν, καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ τεταγµένος . . . . c. 1: Χριστός, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἔτι ὑποδεέστερος τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ. 55 See my art. in Herzog R. E., aa8 2 Aufl. VI. p. 100 (Epiph. LV. 5; LXVII. 3).

We have accordingly found that these theologians retained the ancient Roman Christology represented by Hermas; but that they edited it theologically and consequently changed its intention. If, at that time, the “Pastor” was still read in the Roman Church, while the Theodotian Christology was condemned, then its Christology must have been differently interpreted. In view of the peculiar character of the book, this would not be difficult. We may ask, however, whether the teaching of the Theodotians is really to be characterised as Monarchian, seeing that they assigned a special, and as it seems, an independent role to the Holy Spirit apart from God. Meanwhile, we can no longer determine how these theologians reconciled the separate substance (hypostasis) of the Holy Ghost, with the unity of the Person of God. But so much is certain, that in their Christology the 564 Spirit was considered by them only as a power, and that, on the other hand, their rejection of the Logos Christology was not due to any repugnance to the idea of a second divine being. This is proved by their teaching as to the Holy Spirit and His appearance in the Old Testament. 30But then the difference between them and their opponents does not belong to the sphere of the doctrine of God; they are rather substantially at one on this subject with a theologian like Hippolytus. If that is so, however, their opponents were undoubtedly superior to them, while they themselves fell short of the traditional estimate of Christ. In other words, if there was an eternal Son of God, or any one of that nature, and if He appeared under the old covenant, then the traditional estimate of Jesus could not be maintained, once he was separated from that Son.56 The formula of the man anointed with the Spirit was no longer sufficient to establish the transcendent greatness of the revelation of God in Christ, and it is only a natural consequence that the O. T. theophanies should appear in a brighter ligh 564 t. We see here why the old Christological conceptions passed away so quickly, comparatively speaking, and gave place so soon in the Churches to the complete and essential elevation of Jesus to the rank of deity, whenever theological reflection awoke to life. It was, above all, the distinctive method of viewing the Old Testament and its theophanies that led to this. In certain respects the attempt of the Theodotians presents itself as an innovation. They sought to raise a once accepted, but, so to speak, enthusiastic form of faith to the stage of theology and to defend it as the only right one; they expressly refused, or, at least, declared to be matter of controversy, the use of the title

56

Hermas did not do this, in so far as in the language of religion he speaks only of a Son of God (Simil. IX.).

“God” (Θεός) as applied to Jesus; they advanced beyond Jesus to an eternal, unchangeable Being (beside God). In this sense, in consequence of the new interest which the representatives of the above doctrine took in the old formula, it is to be regarded as novel. For we can hardly attribute to pre-catholic Christians like Hermas, a special interest in the essential humanity of Jesus. They certainly believed that they gave full expression in their formulas to the highest possible estimate of the Redeemer; they had no other idea. These theologians, o 564 n the other hand, defended a lower conception of Christ against a higher. Thus we may judge them on their own ground; for they let the idea of a heavenly Son of God 31stand, and did not carry out the complete revision of the prevailing doctrine that would have justified them in proving their Christological conception to be the one really legitimate and satisfactory. They indeed supported it by Scriptural proof, and in this certainly surpassed their opponents, but the proof did not cover the gaps in their dogmatic procedure. Since they took their stand on the regula fidei, it is unjust and at the same time unhistorical to call their form of doctrine “Ebionitic”, or to dispose of them with the phrase that Christ was to them exclusively a mere man (ψιλὸς ἂνθρωτος). But if we consider the circumstances in which they appeared, and the excessive expectations that were pretty generally attached to the possession of faith — above all, the prospect of the future deification of every believer — we cannot avoid the impression, that a doctrine could not but be held to be destructive, which did not even elevate Christ to divine honours, or, at most, assigned him an apotheosis, like that im 564 agined by the heathens for their emperors or an Antinous. Apocalyptic enthusiasm passed gradually into Neo-platonic mysticism. In this transition these scholars took no share. They rather sought to separate a part of the old conceptions, and to defend that with the scientific means of their opponents. Once more, 20 to 30 years later, the attempt was made in Rome by a certain Artemas to rejuvenate the old Christology. We are extremely ill informed as to this last phase of Roman Adoptianism; for the extracts taken by Eusebius from the Little Labyrinth, the work written against Artemas and his party, apply almost exclusively to the Theodotians. We learn, however, that the party appealed to the historical justification of their teaching in Rome, maintaining that Bishop Zephyrine had first falsified the true doctrine which they defended.57 The relative correctness of this

57

Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3: φασὶ γὰρ τοὺς µὲν προτέρους ἅπαντας καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους, παρειληφέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἅ νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, καὶ

contention is indisputable, especially if we consider that Zephyrine had not disapproved 32of the formula, certainly novel, that “the Father had suffered”. The author of the 564 Little Labyrinth reminds them that Theodotus had been already excommunicated by Victor, and of this fact they themselves cannot have been ignorant. When, moreover, we observe the evident anxiety of the writer to impose Theodotus upon them as their spiritual father, we come to the conclusion that the party did not identify themselves with the Theodotians. What they regarded as the point of difference we do not know. It is alone certain that they also refused to call Christ “God”; for the writer feels it necessary to justify the use of the title from tradition.58 Artemas was still alive in Rome at the close of the 7th decade of the 3rd century, but he was completely severed from the great Church, and without any real influence. No notice is taken of him even in the letters of Cyprian.59 Since Artemas was characterised as the “father” of Paul in the controversy with tha 564 t Bishop (Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 16), he had afterwards attained a certain celebrity in the East, and had supplanted even Theodotus in the recollection of the Church. In the subsequent age, the phrase: “Ebion, Artemas, Paulus (or Photinus)” was stereotyped; this was afterwards supplemented with the name of Nestorius, and in that form the phrase became a constant feature in Byzantine dogmatics and polemics. (c). Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after Artemas. Adoptian Christology — Dynamistic Monarchianism — apparently passed rapidly and almost entirely away in the West. The striking formula, settled by the Symbol, “Christus, homo et deus”, and, above all, the conviction that Christ had appeared in the O. T., brought about the destruction of the party. Yet, 33here and there — in connection, doubtless, with the reading of Hermas60 — the old faith, or the old formula, that the Holy Spirit is the eternal Son of God and at the 564 same time the Christ-Spirit, held

τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ κηρύγµατος µέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Βίκτορος . . . ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 58 Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4, 5. 59 We know that he still lived about 270 from tile document of the Synod of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata. We read there (Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 17): “Paul may write letters to Artemas and the followers of A. are said to hold communion with him.” We have probably to regard as Artemonites those unnamed persons, mentioned in Novatian De Trinitate, who explained Jesus to be a mere man (homo nudus et solitarius). Artemas is also named in Methodius Conviv. VIII. 10, Ed. Jahn, p. 37. 566 60 Even Tertullian used the Christological formula of Hermas when he was not engaged in Apologetics or in polemics against the Gnostics.

its ground, and, with it, conceptions which bordered on Adoptianism. Thus we read in the writing “De montibus Sina et Sion”61 composed in vulgar Latin and attributed wrongly to Cyprian, ch. IV: “The body of the Lord was called Jesus by God the Father; the Holy Spirit that descended from heaven was called Christ by God the Father, i.e., anointed of the living God, the Spirit joined to the body Jesus Christ” (Caro dominica a deo patre Jesu vocita est; spiritus sanctus, qui de cælo descendit, Christus, id est unctus dei vivi, a deo vocitus est, spiritus carni mixtus Jesus Christus). Compare ch. XIII.: the H. S., Son of God, sees Himself double, the Father sees Himself in the Son, the Son in the Father, each in each (Sanctus spiritus, dei filius, geminatum se videt, pater in filio et filius in patre utrosque se in se vident). There were accordingly only two hypostases, and the Redeemer is the flesh (caro), to which the e9b pre-existent Holy Spirit, the eternal Son of God, the Christ, descended. Whether the author understood Christ as “forming a person” or as a power cannot be decided; probably, being no theologian, the question did not occur to him.62 We do not hear that the doctrine of Photinus, who was himself a Greek, gained any considerable approval in the West. But we learn casually that even in the beginning of the 5th century a certain Marcus was expelled from Rome for holding the heresy of Photinus, and that he obtained a following in Dalmatia. Incomparably more instructive, however, is the account given by Augustine (Confess. VII. 19. [25]) of his own and his friend Alypius’ Christological belief, at a time when both stood quite near the Catholic 34Church, and had been preparing to enter it. At that time Augustine’s view of Christ was practically that of Photinus; and Alypius denied that Christ had a human soul; yet both had held their Christology to be Catholic, and only afterwards learned better.63 Now let us remember that Augustine had enjoyed a

61

Hartel, Opp. Cypr. III., p. 104 sq. Hilary’s work “De trinitate” also shows (esp. X. 18 ff., 50 ff.) what different Christologies still existed in the West in the middle of the 4th century. There were some who maintained: “quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax dei sapientia et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate eius divinæ prudentiæ et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientiæ. 63 Augustine, l.c. . . . Quia itaque vera scripta sunt (sc. the Holy Scriptures) totum hominem in Christo agnoscebam; non corpus tantum hominis, aut cum corpore sine mente animam, sed ipsum hominem, non persona veritatis, sed magna quadam natureæ humanæ excellentia et perfectiore participatione sapientiæ præferri cæteris arbitrabar. Alypius autem deum carne indutum ita putabat credi a Catholicis, ut præter deum et carnem non esset in Christo anima, mentemque hominis non existimabat in eo prædicari . . . Sed postea hæreticorum Apollinaristarum hunc errorem esse cognoscens, catholicæ 62

Catholic education, and had been in constant intercourse with Catholics, and we see clearly that among the laity of the West very little was known of the Christological formulas, and very different doctrines of Christ were in fact current even at the close of the 4th century.64 (d). The Ejection of the Adoptian Christology in the East, — Beryll of Bostra, Paul of Samosata, etc. We can see from the writings of Origen that there were also many in the East who rejected the Logos Christology. Those were undoubtedly most numerous who identified the Father and the Son; but there were not wanting such as, while they made a distinction, attributed to the Soh a human nature only,65 and 35accordingly taught like the Theodotians. Origen by no means treated them, as a rule, as declared heretics, but as misled, or “simple”, Christian brethren who required friendly teaching. He himself, besides, had also inserted the Adoptian Christology into his complicated doctrine of Christ; for he had attached the greatest value to the tenet that Jesus should be held a real man who had been chosen by God, who in virtue of his free will, had steadfastly attested his excellence, and who, at last, had become perfectly fused with the Logos in disposition, will, and finally also in nature (see Vol. II., p. 369 f.). Origen laid such decided emphasis on this that his opponents afterwards classed him with Paul of Samosata and

fidei collætatus et contemperatus est. Ego autem aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor, in eo quod “verbum caro factum est” quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. 64 In the Fragment, only preserved in Arabic, of a letter of Pope Innocent I. to Severianus, Bishop of Gabala (Mai, Spicile.g. Rom. III., p. 702) we still read the warning: “Let no one believe that it was only at the time when the divine Word on earth came to receive baptism from John that this divine nature originated, when, i.e., John heard the voice of the Father from heaven. It was certainly not so, etc.” 65 Orig. on John II. 2, Lomm. I., p. 92: Καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς φιλοθέους εἶναι εὐχοµένους ταράσσον, εὐλαβουµένους δύο ἀναγορεῦσαι θεούς, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο περιπίπτοντας ψευδέσι καὶ ἀσεβέσι δόγµασιν, ἤτοι ἀρνουµένους ἰδιότητα υἱοῦ ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρός, ὁµολογοῦντας Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν µέχρι ὀνόµατος παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς υἱὸν προσαγορευόµ abd νον, ἠ ἀρνουµένους τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ, τιθέντας δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν κατὰ περιγραφὴν τυγχάνουσαν ἑτέραν τοῦ πατρός, ἐντεῦθεν λύεσθαι δύναται, see also what follows. Pseudo-Gregor. (Apollinaris) in Mai (Nov. Coll. VII. 1, p. 171) speaks of men who conceived Christ as being ‘filled with divinity’, but made no specific distinction between Him and the prophets, and worshipped a man with divine power after the manner of the heathens.

Artemas, ec5 1 and Pamphilus required to point out “that Origen said that the Son of God was born of the very substance of God, i.e., was ὁµοούσιος, which means, of the same substance with the Father, but that he was not a creature who became a son by adoption, but a true son by nature, generated by the Father Himself” (quod Origines filium dei de ipsa dei substantia natum dixerit, id est, ὁµοούσιον, quod est, eiusdem cum patre substantiæ, et non esse creaturam per adoptionem sed natura filium verum, ex ipso patre generatum).66 >So Origen in fact taught, and he was very far from seeing more in the Adoptian doctrine than a fragment of the complete Christology. He attempted to convince the Adoptians of their error, more correctly, of their questionable onesidedness,67 but he had seldom any other occasion to contend with them. 36

Perhaps we should here include the action against Beryll of Bostra. This Arabian Bishop taught Monarchianism. His doctrine aroused a violent opposition. The Bishops of the province were deeply agitated and instituted many examinations and discussions. But they appear not to have come to any result. Origen was called in, and, as we are informed by Eusebius, who had himself examined the acts of the Synods, he succeeded in a disputation in amicably convincing the Bishop of his error.68 This happened, according to the common view, in A.D. 244. We have to depend, for the teaching of Beryll, on one sentence in Eusebius, which has received very different interpretations.69 Nitzsch says rightly,70 that 66

Pamphili Apolog. in Routh, IV., p. 367; Schultz in the Jahrbb. f. protest. Theol. 1875, p. 193 f. On Origen and the Monarchians, see Hagemann, l.c., p. 300 f. 67 See l.c., p, 368. 68 Orig. in Ep. ad Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287 “Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt dominum Iesum præcognitum et prædestinatum, qui ante adventum carnalem substantialiter et proprie non exstiterit, sed quod homo natus patris solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est ecclesiæ numero sociari.” This passage, undoubtedly, need not necessarily be applied to Dynamistic Monarchians, any more than the description about to be quoted of the doctrine of Beryll. There may have existed a middle type between Dynamistic and Modalistic Monarchianism, according to which the humanity as well as the deitas patris in Jesus Christ was held to be personal. 69 Euseb. H. E. VI. 33. See also Socrates H. E. III. 7. 70 L.c.: τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡµῶν µὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδηµίας, µηδὲ θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ἐµπολιτευοµένην αὐτῷ µόνην τὴν πατρικήν. The word περιγραφή is first found in the Excerpta Theodoti 19, where κατὰ περιγραφήν is contrasted in the sense of personality with the κατ᾽ οὐσίαν (τοῦ Θεοῦ)). The latter was accordingly felt to be Modalistic: καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, οὐ κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν µόνον ἄνθρωπος γενόµενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ

Eusebius missed in Beryll the recognition of the separate divine personality (hypostasis) in Christ and of his pre-existence, but not the recognition of his deity. However, this is not enough to class the Bishop with certainty among the Patripassians, since Eusebius’ own Christological view, by which that of Beryll was here gauged, was very vague. Even the circumstance, that at the Synod of Bostra (according to Socrates) Christ was expressly decreed to have a human soul, is not decisive; for Origen might have carried the recognition of this dogma, which was 3 85c 7of the highest importance to him, whatever the doctrine of Beryll had been. That the Bishop rather taught Dynamistic Monarchianism is supported, first, by the circumstance that this form of doctrine had, as we can prove, long persisted in Arabia and Syria; and, secondly, by the observation that Origen, in the fragment of his commentary on the Ep. of Titus (see above), has contrasted with the Patripassian belief72 a kind of teaching which seems to coincide with that of Beryll. Primitive Dynamistic Monarchian conceptions must, however, be imputed also to those Egyptian Millenarians whom Dionysius of Alexandria opposed, and whom he considered it necessary to instruct “in the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord” (περὶ τῆς ἐνδόξου καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνθέου τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν ἐπιφανείας73 These were all, indeed, isolated and relatively unimportant phenomena; but they prove that even about the middle of the 3rd century the Logos Christology was not universally recognised in

ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ ἐν ταυτότητι λόγος κατὰ περιγραφὴν καὶ οὐ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν γενόµενος, ὁ υἱὸς; cf., ch. 10, where περιγράφεσθαι also expresses the personal existence, i.e., what was afterwards termed ὑπόστασις. This word was not yet so used, so far as I know, in the 3rd century. In Origen περιγραφή is likewise the expression for the strictly self-contained personality; see Comm. on John I. 42, Lomm. I. 88: ὥσπερ οὖν δυνάµεις Θεοῦ πλείονές εἰσιν, ὧν ἑκάστη κατὰ περιγραφήν, ὧν διαφέρει ὁ σωτήρ, οὗτως ὁ λόγος — εἰ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡµῖν οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ περιγραφὴν εκτὸς ἡµῶν — νοηθήσεται ὁ Χριστὸς κ.τ.λ. In our passage and Pseudo-Hippol. c. Beron. 1, 4, it means simply “configuration”. 71 Dogmengesch. I., p. 202. See on Beryll, who has become a favourite of the historians of dogma, apart from the extended historical works, Ullmann, de Beryllo, 1835; Theod. Stud. u. Krit., 1836; Fock Diss. de Chris aaf tologia B. 1843; Rossel in the Berliner Jahrbb., 1844, No. 41 f.; Kober in the Theol. Quartalschr., 1848, I. 72 It is contained in the words of Origen given above, p. 35, note 3. 73 Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 5. By the Epiphany we have to understand the future appearing; but thorough-going Millenarians in the East, in the country districts, hardly recognised the doctrine of the Logos.

the East, and that the Monarchians were still treated indulgently.74 Decisive action was first taken and Adoptianism was ranked in the East with Ebionitism as a heresy, in the case of the incumbent of the most exalted Bishopri 564 c in the East, Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch from 260, but perhaps a little earlier. He opposed the already dominant doctrine of the essential natural deity of Christ, and set up once more the old view of the human Person of the Redeemer.75 That happened 38at a time when, through Alexandrian theology, the use of the categories λόγος (word), οὐσία (being), ὑπόστασις (substance), ἐνυπόστατος (subsisting), πρόσωπον (person), περιγραφὴ οὐσίας (configuration of essence), etc., had almost already become legitimised, and when in the widest circles the idea had taken root that the Person of Jesus Christ must be accorded a background peculiar to itself, and essentiall 564 y divine. We do not know the circumstances in which Paul felt himself impelled to attack the form of doctrine taught by Alexandrian philosophy. Yet it is noticeable that it was not a province of the Roman Empire, but Antioch, then belonging to Palmyra, which was the scene of this movement. When we observe that Paul held a high political office in the kingdom of Zenobia, that close relations are said to have existed between him and the Queen, and that his fall implied the triumph of the Roman party in Antioch, then we may assume that a political conflict lay behind the theological, and that Paul’s opponents belonged to the Roman party in Syria. It was not easy to get at the distinguished Metropolitan and experienced theologian, who was indeed portrayed by his enemies as an unspiritual ecclesiastical prince, vain preacher, ambitious man of the world, and wily Sophist. The provincial Synod, over which he presided, did not serve the purpose. But already, in the affair of Novatian, which had threatened to split up the East, the experiment had been tried A.D. 252 (253) of holding an Oriental generalcouncil, and that with success. It was repeated. A great Synod — 74

The uncertainty which still prevailed in the 3rd century in reference to Christology is seen whenever we take up works not written by learned theologians. Especially the circumstance that, according to the Creed and the Gospel, the Holy Ghost took part in the conception of Jesus, constantly prompted the most curious phrases regarding the personal divinity of Christ, and the assumptio carnis of the Logos, see, e.g., Orac. Sibyll. VI. V. 6, where Christ is called “Sweet God whom the Spirit, in the white plumage of the dove, begot.” 75 Feuerlein, De hæresi Pauli Samosat., 1741; Ehrlich, De erroribus P.S., 1745; Schwab, Diss. de P.S. vita atque doctrina, 1839; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 2 Aufl. I., p. 135; Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 286-367; Frohschammer, Ueber die Verwerfung des ὁµοούσιος, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1850, I.

we do not know who called it — met in Antioch A.D. 264; Bishops from various parts of the East attended it, and, especially, Firmilian of ac8 Caesarea. The aged Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, excused his absence in a letter in which he did not take Paul’s side. The first Synod came to an end without result, because, it is alleged, the accused had cunningly concealed his false doctrines.76 A second was also unsuccessful. Firmilian himself gave up the idea of a condemnation “because Paul promised to change his opinions.” It was only at a third Synod, between 266 and 269, probably 39268, at Antioch, Firmilian having died at Tarsus on his way thither, that excommunication was pronounced on the Bishop, and his successor Domnus was appointed. The number of the members of Synod is stated differently at 70, 80, and 180; and the argument against Paul was led by Malchion, a sophist of Antioch and head of a high school, as also a presbyter of the Church. He alone among them all was in a position to unmask that “wily and deceitful man.” The Acts of the discussion together with a detailed epistle, were sent by the Synod to Rome, Alexandria, and all Catholic Churches. Paul, protected by Zenobia, remained four years longer in his office; the Church in Antioch split up: “there took place schisms among the people, revolts among the priests, confusion among the pastors” (ἐγένοντο σχίσµατα λαῶν, ἀκαταστασίαι ἱερέων, ταραχὴ ποιµένων).77 In the year A.D. 272 Antioch was at last taken by Aurelian, and the Emperor, to whom an appeal was brought, pronounced on the spot the famous judgment, that the Church building was to be handed to him with whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and of Rome corresponded by letter. This decision was of course founded on political grounds.78

ae1 76Eusebius speaks (H. E. VII. 28. 2) of a whole party (οἱ ἀµφὶ τὸν Σαµοσατέα) having been able to conceal their heterodoxy at the time. 77 Basilius Diac., Acta Concilii Ephes., p. 427, Labb. 78 The most important authorities for Paul’s history and doctrine are the Acts of the Synod of Antioch held against him, i.e., the shorthand report of the discussion between Paul and Malchion, and the Synodal epistle. These still existed in the 6th century, but we now possess them only in a fragmentary form: in Euseb. H. E. VII. 27-30 (Jerome de vir. inl. 71); in Justinian’s Tract. c. Monophys.; in the Contestatio ad Clerum C.P.; in the Acts of the Ephesian Council; in the writing against Nestor. and Eutych. by Leontius of Byzant.; and in the book of Petrus Diaconus, “De incarnat. ad Fulgentium”: all in Routh l.c. where the places in which they are found are also stated. Not certainly genuine is the Synodal epistle of six Bishops to Paul, published by Turrianus (Routh, l.c., p. 289 sq.); yet its authenticity is supported by overwhelming reasons. Decidedly inauthentic is a letter of Dionysius of Alex. to Paul (Mansi, I., p. 1039 sq.), also a pretended Nicene Creed against him (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 161 f.), and another found in the libel against

40

The teaching of Paul was characterised by the Fathers as a renewal of that of Artemas, but sometimes also as Neo-Jewish, Ebionitic, afterward 564 s as Nestorian Monothelite, etc. It was follows. God was simply to be regarded as one person. Father, Son, and Spirit were the One God (ἓν πρόσωπον). In God a Logos (Son) or a Sophia (Spirit) can be distinguished — both can again according to Paul become identified — but they are qualities.79 God puts forth of Himself the Logos from Eternity, nay, He begets him, so that he can be called Son and can have being ascribed to him, but he remains an impersonal power.80 Therefore it was absolutely impossible for him to assume a visible form.81 This Logos operated i 564 n the prophets, to a still higher degree in Moses, then in many others, and most of all (µᾶλλον καὶ διαφερόντως) in the Son of David, born of the virgin by the Holy Ghost. The Redeemer was by the constitution of his nature a man, who arose in time by birth; he was accordingly “from beneath”, but Nestorius (Mansi, IV., p. 1010). Mai has published (Vet. Script. Nova Coll. VII., p. 68 sq.) five fragments of Paul’s speeches: οἱ πρός Σαβῖνον λόγοι (not quite correctly printed in Routh, l.c., p. 328 sq.) which are of the highest value, and may be considered genuine, in spite of their standing in the very worst company, and of many doubts being roused by them which do not admit of being completely silenced. Vincentius mentions writings by Paul (Commonit. 35). In the second grade we have the testimony of the great Church Fathers of the 4th century, which rested partly on the Acts, partly on oral tradition: see, Athanas ac8 c. Apoll. II. 3, IX. 3; de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 26, 43-45, 51, 93; Orat. c. Arian. II., No. 43; Hilarius, De synod. §§ 81, 86, pp. 1196, 1200; Ephræm Junior in Photius, Cod. 229; Gregor Nyss, Antirrhet. adv. Apoll., § 9, p. 141; Basilius, ep. 52 (formerly 300); Epiphan. H. 65 and Anaceph.; cf. also the 3 Antiochian formulas and the Form. Macrostich. (Hahn Biblioth. der Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 85, 89), as also the 19 Canon of the Council of Nicæa, according to which Paul’s followers were to be re-baptised before reception into the Catholic Church. One or two notes also in Cramer Catena on S. John. pp. 235, 259 sq. Useful details are given by Innocentius I., ep. 22; by Marius Mercator, in the Suppl. Imp. Theodos. et Valentinian adv. Nestor. of the Deacon Basilius; by Theodorus of Raithu (see Routh, l.c., pp. 327 sq. 357); Fulgentius, etc. In the later opponents of the heretics from Philaster, and in resolutions of Synods from the 5th century, we find nothing new. Sozom. H. E. IV. 15 and Theodoret H. F. II. 8 are still of importance. The Libellus Synodicus we must leave out of account. 79 Μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνυπόστατον, ἀλλὰ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Θεῷ — ἐν Θεῷ ἐπιστήµη ἐνυπόστατος — εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς λόγος ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ. 80 Λόγος προφορικός — ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων υἱὸς — τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν ὁ Θεός ἄνευ παρθένου καὶ ἄνευ τινὸς οὐδενὸς ὄντος πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ οὕτως ὑπέστη ὁ λόγος. 81 Σοφία ac4 οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸς ἐν σχήµατι εὑρίσκεσθαι, οὐδὲ ἐν θέᾳ ἀνδρός· µείζων γὰρ τῶν ὁρωµένων ἐστίν.

the Logos of God inspired him from above.82The union of the Logos 41with the man Jesus is to be represented as an indwelling83 by means of an inspiration acting from without,84 so that the Logos becomes that in Jesus which in the Christ 52b ian is called by the Apostle “the inner man”; but the union which is thus originated is a contact in knowledge and communion (συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν) a coming together (συνέλευσις); there does not arise a being existent in a body (οὐσία οὐσιωµένη ἐν σώµατι), i.e., the Logos dwelt in Jesus not “in substance but in quality” (οὐσιωδῶς, αλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα).85 Therefore the Logos is to be steadily distinguished from Jesus;86 he is greater than the latter. 59c 87 Mary did not bear the Logos, but a man like us in his nature, and in his baptism it was not the Logos, but the man, who was anointed with the Spirit.88 However, Jesus was, on the other hand, vouchsafed the divine grace in a special degree,89 and his position was unique.90 Moreover, the proof he gave of his moral perfection corresponded to his peculiar equipment. 565 1 The only unity between two persons, accordingly between God and Jesus, is that of the disposition and the will.91 42Such unity springs from love

82

‘Λόγος µὲν ἄνωθεν, Ἰησοῦς δὲ Χριστὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐντεῦθεν — Χριστὸς ἀπο Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρό ἐστιν — ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνέπνευσεν ἄνωθεν ὁ λόγος· ὁ πατὴρ γὰρ ἅµα τῷ υἱῷ (scil. τῶ λόγῳ) εἷς Θεός, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος κάτωθεν τὸ ἴδιον πρόσωπον ὑποφαίνει, καὶ οὕτως τὰ δύο πρόσωπα πληροῦνται — Χριστὸς ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκώς — λέγει Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κάτωθεν, 83 Ὡς ἐν ναῷ — ἐλθόντα τὸν λόγον καὶ ἐνοικήσαντα ἐν Ιησοῦ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄντι; in support of this Paul appealed to John XIV. 10: “sapientia habitavit in eo, sicut et habitamus et nos in domibus” — 84 Λόγον ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ — σοφίας ἐµπνεούσης ἔξωθεν. 85 Οὐ δίδως, says Malchion, οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ σωτῆρι τὸν µονογενῆ. 568 86 Ἄλλος γάρ ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ ἄλλος ὁ λόγος. 87 Ὁ λόγος µείζων ἦν τοῦ Χριστοῦ· Χριστὸς γὰρ διὰ σοφίας µέγας ἐγένετο. 88 Μαρία τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔτεκεν οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν πρὸ αἰώνων ἡ Μαρία, ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπον ἡµῖν ἶσον ac8 τεκεν — ἄνθρωπος χρίεται, ὁ λόγος οὐ χρίεται· ὁ Ναζωραῖος χρίεται, ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν, 89 Οὔκ ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς ἀλλότριος τῆς σοφίας. 90 Ἡ σοφία ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐχ οὕτως οἰκεῖ — κρείττων κατὰ πάντα, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τνεύµατος ἁγίου καὶ ἐξ ἐπαγγελιῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν γεγραµµένων ἡ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ χάρις. 91 Paul has even spoken of a διαφορὰ τῆς κατασκευῆς (συστάσεως) τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 92 From this point we refer to the Λόγοι πρὸς Σαβῖνον of Paul. We give them here on account of their unique importance: (1) Τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός, πάσχων κατὰ φύσιν, θαυµατουργῶν κατὰ χάριν· τῷ γὰρ ἀτρέπτῳ τῆς γνώµης ὁµοιωθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ µείνας καθαρὸς ἁµαρτίας ἡνώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐνηργήθη

alone; but love can certainly produce a complete unity, and only that which is due to love — not that attained by “nature” — is of worth. Jesus was like God in the unchangeableness of his love and his will, and became one with God, being not only without sin himself, but vanquishing, in conflict and labour, the sins of our ancestor. As he himself, however, advanced in the manifestation of goodness and continued in it, the Father furnished him with power and miracles, in which he made known his steadfast conformity to the will of God. So he became the Redeemer and Saviour of the human race, and at the same time entered into an eternally indissoluble union with God, because his love can never cease. Now he has obtained from God, as the reward of his love, the name which is above every name; Go 539 d has committed to him the judgment,93 and invested him with divine dignity, so that now we can call him “God [born] of the virgin”.94 So also we are entitled to speak of a pre-existence of Christ in the prior decree95

που ἑλέσθαι τὴν τῶν θαυµάτων δυναστείαν, ἐξ ὧν µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πρὸς τῇ θελήσει ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν δειχθείς, λυτρωτὴς το῍ ac8 γένους καὶ σωτὴρ ἐχρηµάτισεν. — (2) Αἱ διάφοροι φύσεις καὶ τὰ διάφορα πρόσωπα ἕνα καὶ µόνον ἑνώσεως ἔχουσι τρόπον τὴν κατὰ θέλησιν σύµβασιν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν ἐπι τῶν οὕτῶς συµβιβασθέντων ἀλλήλοις ἀναφαίνεται µονάς. — (3) Ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος γεγενηµένος ὁ σωτήρ, ἀγῶνι καὶ πόνῳ τὰς τοῦ προπάτορας ἡµῶν κρατήσας ἁµαρτίας· οἷς κατορθώσας τῇ ἀρετῇ συνήφθη τῷ Θεῷ, µίαν καὶ τήν αὐτὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν βούλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ταῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν προκοπαῖς ἐσχηκώς· ἣν ἀδιαίρετον φυλάξας τὸ ὄνοµα κληροῦται τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνοµα, στοργῆς ἔπαθλον αὐτῷ χαρισθέν. — (4) Τὰ κρτούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον· τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται, µιᾷ καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ γνώµῃ κρατούµενα, δίὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας βεβαιούµενα, καὶ τῆς κατ᾽ ἐπαύξησιν οὐδέποτε παυοµένης κινήσεως· καθ᾽ ἣν τῷ Θεῷ συναφθεὶς ὁ σωτὴρ οὐδέποτε δέχεται µερισµὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας µίαν αὐτὸς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχων θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν, ἀεὶ κινουµένην τῇ φανερώσει τῶν ἀγαθῶν. — (5) Μὴ θαυµάσῃς ὅτι µίαν µετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν εἷχεν ὁ σωτὴρ· ὥστερ γὰρ ἡ φύσις µίαν τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὐπάρχουσαν φανεροῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὕτως ἡ σχέσις τῆς ἀγάπης µίαν· τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐργάζεται θέλησιν διὰ µιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς φανερουµένην εὐαρεστήσεως. Similar details are to be found in Theodorus of Mops.; but the genuineness of what is given here seems to me to be guaranteed by the fact that there is absolutely not a word of an ethical unification of the eternal Son of God (the Logos) with Jesus. It is God Himself Himself who is thus unit aa4 ed with the latter. 93 Χρὴ δὲ γιγνώσκειν, we read in the Catena S. Joh., ὅτι ὁ µὲν Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. οὕτω φησίν· ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶν. 94 Athanas.: Παῦλος ὁ Σαµ. Θεὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ὁµολογεῖ, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα. 95 Athanas.: Ὁµολογεῖ Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ὀφθέντα, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκότα, καὶ ἀρχὴν βασιλείας παρειληφότα, Λόγον δὲ ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ,

and prophecy96 of God, and 43to say that he became God through divine grace and his constant manifestation of goodness. 55e 97 Paul undoubtedly perceived in the imparting of the Spirit at the baptism a special stage of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus; indeed Jesus seems only to have been Christ from his baptism: “having been anointed with the Holy Spirit he was named Christ — the anointed son of David is not different from wisdom” (τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύµατι χρισθεὶς προσηγορεύθη Χριστός — ὁ ἐκ ∆αβὶδ χρισθεὶς οὐκ ἀλλότριός ἐστι τῆς σοφίας) The Bishop supported his doctrine by copious proofs from Scripture,98 and he also attacked the opposite views. He sought to prove that the assumption that Jesus was by nature (φύσει) Son of God, led to having two gods, af5 99 to the destruction of Monotheism;100 he fought openly, with great energy, against the old expositors, i.e., the Alexandrians,101 and he banished from divine service all Church psalms in which the essential divinity of Christ was expressed.102 The teaching of Paul was certainly a development of the old doctrine of Hermas and Theodotus, and the Church Fathers had a right to judge it accordingly; but on the other hand we must not overlook the fact that Paul not only, as regards form, adapted himself more closely to the accepted terminology, but that he also gave to the ancient type of doctrine, already heterodox, a philosophical, an Aristotelian, basis, and treated it ethically and biblically. He undoubtedly learned much from Origen; but he recognised the worthlessness of the double personality construed by Origen, for he has deepened 44the exposition given by the latter

καὶ σοφίαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὁµολογεῖ, τῷ µεν προορισµῷ πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, τῇ δὲ ὑπάρξει ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ἀναδειχθέντα, ἵνα εἷς εἴη, φησίν, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντα Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ. Therefore it is said in the letter of the six Bishops that Christ is God from eternity, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει. 96 Προκαταγγελτικῶς. See p.41, note 8. ae1 97 Κάτωθεν ἀποτεθεῶσθαι τὸν κύριον — ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γεγονέναι τὸν Χριστὸν Θεόν — ὕστερον αὐτὸν ἐκ προκοπῆς τεθεοποιῆσθαι. 98 Vincentius, Commonit. 35 — Athanasius (c. Ariam IV. 30) relates that the disciples of Paul appealed to Acts X. 36 in support of their distinction between the Logos and Jesus: τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόµενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ They said that there was a distinction here like that in the O. T. between the word of the Lord and of the prophets. 99 Epiphan. l.c., c. 3; see also the letter of the six Bishops in Routh, l.c., p. 291. 100 On the supreme interest taken by Paul in the unity of God see p. 42, note 3, Epiph. l.c., ch. I. 101 Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 9. 102 Euseb. l.c.,§ 10.

of the personality of Christ, and seen that “what is attained by nature is void of merit” (τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον). Paul’s expositions of nature and will in the Persons, of the essence and power of love, of the divinity of Christ, only to be perceived in the work of His ministry, because exclusively contained in unity of will with God, are almost unparalleled in the whole dogmatic literature of the Oriental Churches in the first three centuries. For, when such passages do occur in Origen, they at once disappear again in metaphysics, and we do not know the arguments of the Alogi and the Theodotians. 54f 1 It is, above all, the deliberate rejection of metaphysical speculation which distinguishes Paul; he substituted for it the study of history and the determination of worth on moral grounds alone, thus reversing Origen’s maxim: ὁ σωτὴρ οὐ κατ᾽ µετουσίαν, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἐστὶ θεός (the Saviour is God not by communion, but in essence). As he kept his dogmatic theology free from Platonism, his difference with his opponents began in his conception of God. The latter described the controversy very correctly, when they said that Paul “had betrayed the mystery of the Christian faith,”103 i.e., the mystic conception of God and Christ due to natural philosophy; or104 when they complained of Paul’s denial that the difficulty of maintaining the unity of deity, side by side with a plurality of persons, was got 45over simply by making the Father their source. What is that but to admit that Paul started in his idea of God, not

ac9

103

The three fragments of “Ebion” given by Mai, l.c., p. 68, and strangely held by Hilgenfeld to be genuine (Ketzergeschichte, p. 437 f.), seem to me likewise to belong to Paul: at any rate they correspond to his doctrine: Ἐκ τῆς περὶ προφητῶν ἐξηγήσεως (1) Κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελείαν µέγας καὶ ἐκλεκτὸς προφήτης ἐστίν, ἴσως µεσίτης καὶ νοµοθέτης τῆς κρείττονος διαθήκης γενόµενος· ὅστις ἑαυτὸν ἱερουργήσας ὑπὲρ πάντων µίαν ἐφάνη καί θέλησιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἔχων πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, θέλων ὥσπερ Θεὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν τῆς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τῷ κόσµῳ δι᾽ ὧν εἰργάσατο φανερωθείσης. — (2) Σχέσει γὰρ τῇ κατὰ δικαιοσύνην καὶ πόθῳ τῷ κατὰ φιλανθρωπίαν συναφθεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, οὐδὲν ἔσχεν µεµερισµένον πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, διὰ τὸ µίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέσθαι τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν. — (3) Εἰ γὰρ ἐθέλησεν αὐτὸν Θεὸς σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατεδέξατο λέγων. Μὴ τὸ ἐµόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω θέληµα, δῆλον ὅτι µίαν ἔσχεν µετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν θέλησιν καὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἐκεῖνο θελήσας καὶ πράξας, ὅπερ ἔδοξε τῷ Θεῷ. The second and third fragments may be by Theodorus of Mops., but hardly the first. 104 In Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 10. ad2 105Epiph. l. c., ch. III.: Παῦλος οὐ λέγει µόνον Θεὸν διὰ τὸ πηγὴν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα.

from the substance, but from the person? He here represented the interests of theism as against the chaotic naturalism of Platonism And in appreciating the character of Jesus he refused to recognise its uniqueness and divinity in his “nature”; these he found only in his disposition and the direction of his will. Therefore while Christ as a person was never to him “mere man” (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), yet Christ’s natural endowment he would not recognise as exceptional. But as Christ had been predestinated by God in a unique manner, so in conformity to the promises the Spirit and the grace of God rested on him exceptionally; and thus his work in his vocation and his life, with and in God, had been unique. This view left room for a human life, and if Paul has, ultimately, used the formula, that Christ had become God, his appeal to 5b1 Philipp. II. 9 shows in what sense he understood the words. His opponents, indeed, charged him with sophistically and deceitfully concealing his true opinion behind phrases with an orthodox sound. It is possible, in view of the fact, e.g., that he called the impersonal Logos “Son”, that there is some truth in this; but it is not probable. He was not understood, or rather he was misunderstood. Many theologians at the present day regard the theology of Hermas as positively Nicene, although it is hardly a whit more orthodox than that of Paul. If such a misunderstanding is possible to the scholars of to-day — and Hermas was certainly no dissembler, — why can Firmilian not have looked on Paul as orthodox for a time? He taught that there was an eternal Son of God, and that he dwelt in Jesus; he proclaimed the divinity of Christ, held there were two persons (God and Jesus), and with the Alexandrians rejected Sabellianism. On this very point, indeed, a sort of concession seems to have been made to him at the Synod. We know that the Synod expressly censured the term “ὁµοούσιος”, 57a 1 and this 46was done, Athanasius conjectures, to meet an objection of Paul. He is said to have argued as follows: — If Christ is not, as he taught, essentially human, then he is ὁµοούσιος; with the Father. But if that be true then the Father is not the ultimate source of the deity, but Being (the οὐσία), and thus we have three οὐσίαι;106 in other words the divinity of the Father is itself derivative, and the Father is of identical origin with the Son, —

106

This was a well-known matter at the time of the Arian controversy, and the SemiArians, e.g., appealed expressly to the decision at Ancyra. See Sozomen H. E. IV. 15; Athanas., De Synod. 43 sq.; Basilius, Ep. 52; Hilarius de synodis 81, 86; Routh, 1.c., pp. 360-365. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I., 2, p. 140 f.: Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 170 f. 107 Athanas. l.c.; ἀνάγκη τρεῖς οὐσίας εἶναι, µίαν µὲν προηγουµένην, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐξ ἐκαίνης.

“they become brothers”. This can have been an objection made by Paul. The Aristotelian conception of the οὐσία would correspond to his turn of thought, and so would the circumstance, that the possibility of a subordinate, natural, divinity 54c on the part of the Son is left out of the question. The Synod again can very well have rejected ὁµοούσιος in the interests of anti-sabellianism.108 Yet it is just as possible that, as Hilarius says, the Synod condemned the term because Paul himself had declared God and the impersonal Logos (the Son) to be ὁµοούσιος, i.e., “of the same substance, of one substance.”109 However that may be, whenever Paul’s view was seen through, it was at once felt by the majority to be in the highest degree heretical. No one was yet quite clear as to what sort of thing this “naturally — divine” element in Christ was. Even Origen had taught that he possessed a divinity to which prayer might not be offered. 57c 110 But to deny the divine nature (physis) to the Redeemer, was universally held to be an attack on the Rule of Faith.111 They correctly perceived the really weak point in Paul’s Christology, his teaching, namely, that there were actually two Sons of God;112 Hermas, however, had already preached 47this, and Paul was not in earnest about the “eternal Son”. Yet this was only a secondary matter. The crucial difference had its root in the question as to the divine nature (physis) of the Redeemer. Now here it is of the highest interest to notice how far, in the minds of many Bishops in Pal 564 estine and Syria, the speculative interpretation of the Rule of Faith had taken the place of that rule itself. If we compare the letter of Hymenæus of Jerusalem and his five colleagues to Paul with the regula fidei — not, say, that of Tertullian and Irenæus — but the Rule of Faith with which Origen has headed his great work: περὶ ἀρχῶν then we are astonished at the advance in the times. The Bishops explain at the opening of

108

This is also the opinion of Basilius (l.c.): ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι (the Bishops assembled against Paul) τὴν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου φωνὴν παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταµερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁµοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διῃρέθη. 109 Dorner’s view (l.c. I. p.513) is impossible because resting on a false interpretation of the word ὁµοούσιος; Paul held the Father and Jesus to be Ὅ ac8 µοούσιοι in so far as they were persons, and therefore the Synod condemned the term. 110 See De orat. 15, 16. 111 Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 6, 16. 112 See Malchion in Leontius (Routh, l.c., p. 312): Παῦλος φησίν, µὴ δύο ἐπίστασθαι υἱούς· εἰ δὲ υἱὸς ὁ Ἰ. Χρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, υἰὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ σοφία, καὶ ἄλλο µὲν ἡ σοφία, ἄλλο δὲ Ἰ. Χρ., δύο ὑφίστανται υἱοί. See also Ephraem in Photius, biblioth. cod. 229. Farther the Ep. II. Felicis II. papæ ad Petrum Fullonem.

their letter,113 that they desired to expound,” in writing, the faith which we received from the beginning, and possess, having been transmitted and kept in the Catholic Church, proclaimed up to our day by the successors of the blessed Apostles, who were both eyewitnesses and assistants of the Logos, from the law and prophets and the New Testament.” (ἔγγραφον τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρελάβοµεν καὶ ἔχοµεν παραδοθεῖσαν καὶ τηρού 54a µένην ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ καὶ ἁγίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, µέχρι τῆς σήµερον ἡµέρας ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀπὸ τῶν µακαρίων ἀποστόλων, οἳ καί αυτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γεγόνασι τοῦ λόγου, καταγγελλοµένην, ἐκ νόµου καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης.) But what they presented as “the faith” and furnished with proofs from Scripture, was the speculative theology,114 In no other writing can 48we see the triumph in the sphere of religion of the theology of philosophy or of Origen, i.e., of Hellenism, so clearly, as in this letter, in which philosophical dogmatics are put forward as the faith itself. But further. At the end of the third century even the baptismal confessions were expanded in the East by the adoption of propositions borrowed from philosophical theology; 57e 1 or, to

113

See Routh, l.c., p. 289 sq. The πίστις ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραληφθεῖσα reads (l.c.): Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, εἷς ἄναρχος, ἀόρατος, ἀναλλοίωτος, ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἢ τὸ µέγεθος νοῆσαι ἢ ἐξηγήσασθαι καθώς ἐστιν ἀξίως τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσε ac8 ἀνέφικτον· ἔννοιαν δὲ καὶ ὁπωσοῦν µετρίαν περὶ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν, ἀγαπητόν, ἀποκαλυπτοντος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ . . . τοῦτον δὲ τὸν υἱὸν γεννητόν, µονογενῆ υἱόν, εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ τυγχάνοντα, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως σοφίαν καὶ λόγον καὶ δύναµιν Θεοῦ, πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει Θεὸν Θεοῦ υἱὸν, ἔν τε παλαιᾷ καὶ νέᾳ διαθήκῃ ἐγνωκότες ὁµολογοῦµεν καὶ κηρύσσοµεν. ὃς δ᾽ ἄν ἀντιµάχηται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸν µὴ εἶναι πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσµου (δεῖν) πιστεύειν καὶ ὁµολογεῖν, φάσκων δύο θεοὺς καταγγέλλεσθαι, ἐὰν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεὸς κηρύσσηται τοῦτον ἀλλότριον τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ κανόνος ἡγούµεθα, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ καθολικαὶ ἐκκλησίαι συµφωνοῦσιν ἡµῖν. The prehistoric history of the Son is now expounded, and then it goes on: τὸν δὲ υἱὸν παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὄντα Θεὸν µὲν καὶ κύριον τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποσταλέντα ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι. διόπερ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου σῶµα χωρῆσαν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωµα τῆς θεότητος σωµατικῶς, τῇ θεότητι ἀτρέπτως ἥνωται καὶ τεθεοποίηται and at the close: εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς Θεοῦ δύναµις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία πρὸ αἰώνων ἐστίν· οὕτω καὶ καθὸ Χριστὸς ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὢν τῇ οὐσίᾳ· εἰ καὶ τὰ µάλιστα πολλαῖς ἐπινοίαις ἐπινοεῖται. See also Hahn, Bibl. d. Symbol. 2 Aufl. § 82. 115 The propositions are undoubtedly as a rule phrased biblically 55a , and they are biblical; but they are propositions preferred and edited by the learned exegesis of the Alexandrian which certainly was extremely closely allied with philosophical speculation. 114

put it in another way, — baptismal confessions apparently now first formulated, were introduced in many Oriental communities, which also now contained the doctrine of the Logos. Since these statements were directed against Sabellianism as well as against “Ebionitism”; they will be discussed later on. With the deposition and removal of Paul the historian’s interest in his case is at an end. It was henceforth no longer possible to gain a hearing, in the great forum of Church life, for a Christology which did not include the personal pre-existence of the Redeemer: no one was permitted henceforth to content himself with the elucidation of the divinely-human life of Jesus in his work. It was necessary to believe in the divine nature (physis) of the Redeemer.116 The smaller and remote communities were compelled to imitate the attitude of the larger. Yet we know from the circular letter of Alexander 564 of Alexandria, A.D. 321,117 that the doctrine of Paul did not by any means pass away without leaving a trace. Lucian and his 49famous academy, the alma mater of Arianism, were inspired by the genius of Paul.118 Lucian — himself perhaps, a native of Samosata — had, during the incumbency of three Bishops of Antioch, remained, like Theodotus and his party in Rome, at the head of a school outside of the great Catholic Church.119 In his teaching, and in that of Arius, the foundation laid by Paul is unmistakable. 564 1 But Lucian has

116

The followers of Paul were no longer looked upon as Christians even at the beginning of the fourth century, and therefore they were re-baptised. See the 19 Canon of Nicæa: Περὶ τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόντων τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησιᾳ, ὅρος ἐκτέθειται ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξάπαντος. 117 Theodoret H. E. I. 4. ab2 118See my article “Lucian” in Herzog’s R.E. 2 Aufl., Bd. VIII., p. 767 ff. 119 See Theodoret 1.c.: αὐτοὶ γὰρ Θεοδίδακτοι ἐστέ, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι ἡ ἔναγχος ἐπαναστᾶσα τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ εὐσεβείᾳ διδασκαλία Ἐβίωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτεµᾶ, καὶ ζῆλος τοῦ κατ᾽ Ἀντιόχειαν Παύλου τοῦ Σαµοσατέως, συνόδῳ καὶ κρίσει τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπισκόπων ἀποκηρυχθέντος τῆς ἐκκλησίας — ὃν διαδεξάµενος Λουκιανὸς ἀποσυνάγωγος έµεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετεῖς χρόνους — ὧν τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν τρύγα ἐρροφηκότες (scil. Arian and his companions) νῦν ἡµῖν τὸ Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐπεφύησαν, τὰ ἐκείνων κεκρυµµένα µοσχεύµατα. 120 See esp. Athanas. c. Arian I. 5. “Arius says that there are two wisdoms, one which is the true one and at the same time exists in God; through this the Son arose and by participation in it he was simply named Word and Wisdom; for wisdom, he says, originated through wisdom according to the will of the wise God. Then he also says that there is another Word apart from the Son in God, and through participation therein the Son himself has been again named graciously Word and Son.” This is the doctrine of Paul of Samos., taken over by Arius from Lucian. On the distinction see above.

falsified the fundamental thought of Paul in yielding to the assumption of a Logos, though a very subordinate and created Logos, and in putting this in the place of the man Jesus, while his disciples, the Arians, have, in the view sketched by them of the person of Christ, been unable to retain the features Paul ascribed to it; though they also have emphasised the importance of the will in Christ. We must conclude, however, that Arianism, as a whole, is nothing but a compromise between the Adoptian and the Logos Christology, which proves that after the close of the 3rd century, no Christology was possible in the Church which failed to recognise the personal pre-existence of Christ. Photinus approximated to Paul of Samosata in the fourth century. Above all, however, the great theologians of Antioch occupied a position by no means remote from him; for the presupposition of the personal Logos Homousios in Christ, which they as Church theologians had to accept simply, could be combined much better with the thought of Paul, than the 50Arian assumption of a subordinate god, with attributes half-human, halfdivine. So also the 564 arguments of Theodore of Mopsuestia as to the relation of the Logos and the man Jesus, as to nature, will, disposition, etc., are here and there verbally identical with those of Paul; and his opponents, especially Leontius,121 were not so far wrong in charging Theodore with teaching like Paul.122 Paul was in fact condemned a second time in the great scholars of Antioch, and — strangely — his name was once more mentioned, and for the third time, in the Monothelite controversy. In this case his statements as to the one will (µία θέλησις sc. of God and Jesus) were shamefully misused, in order to show to the opposition that their doctrine had been already condemned in the person of the arch-heretic. We possess, however, another ancient source of information, 564 of the beginning of the 4th century, the Acta Archelai.123 This shows us that at the extreme eastern boundary of Christendom

ae8 121

See in Routh, l.c., p. 347 sq. See the careful and comprehensive collection of the arguments of Theodore in reference to christology, in Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epp. B. Pauli Commentarii, Vol. II. (1882), pp. 289-339. 123 We have to compare also the treatises of Aphraates, written shortly before the middle of the 4th century. He adheres to the designation of Christ as Logos according to John I. 1; but it is very striking that in our Persian author there is not even the slightest allusion in which one could perceive an echo of the Arian controversies (Bickell, Ausgewählte Schriften der syr. Kirchenväter 1874, p. 15). See tract 1, “On faith”, and 17, “Proof that Christ is the Son of God.” 122

there persisted even among Catholic clerics, if we may use here the word Catholic, Christological conceptions which had remained unaffected by Alexandrian theology, and must be classed with Adoptianism. The author’s exposition of Christ consists, so far as we can judge, in the doctrine of Paul of Samosata.124 Here we are shown clearly that the Logos Christology had, at the beginning of the 4th century, not yet passed beyond the borders of the Christendom comprehended in the Roman Empire.

124

On the origin of the Acta Archelai see my Texte und Unters. I. 3, 137 ff. The principal passages are to be found in ch. 49 and 50. In these the Churchman disputes the view of Mani, that Jesus was a spirit, the eternal Son of God, perfect by nature. “Dic mihi, super quem spiritus sanctus sicut columba descendit? Si perfectus erat, si filius erat, si virtus erat, non poterat spiritus ingredi, sicut nec regnum potest ingredi intra regnum. Cuius autem ei cælitus emissa vox testimonium detulit dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui? Dic age nihil remoreris, quis ille est, qui parat hæc omnia, qui agit universa? Responde itane blasphemiam pro ratione impudenter allegas, et inferre conaris?” The following Christology is put in the lips of Mani: “Mihi pium videtur dicere, quod nihil eguerit filius dei in eo quod adventus eius procuratur ad terras, neque opus habuerit columba, neque ba ac8 ptismate, neque matre, neque fratribus.” On the other hand Mani says in reference to the Church views: “Si enim hominem eum tantummodo ex Maria esse dicis et in baptismate spiritum percepisse, ergo per profectum filius videbitur et non per naturam. Si tamen tibi concedam dicere, secundum profectum esse filium quasi hominem factum, hominem vere esse opinaris, id est, qui caro et sanguis sit?” In what follows Archelaus says: “Quomodo poterit vera columba verum hominem ingredi atque in eo permanere, caro enim carnem ingredi non potest? sed magis si Iesum hominem verum confiteamur, eum vero, qui dicitur, sicut columba, Spiritum Sanctum, salva est nobis ratio in utraque. Spiritus enim secundum rectam rationem habitat in homine, et descendit et permanet et competenter hoc et factum est et fit semper . . . Descendit spiritus super hominem dignum se . . . Poterat dominus in cælo positus facere quæ voluerat, si spiritum eum esse et non hominem dices. Sed non ita est, quoniam exinanivit semetipsum formam servi accipiens. Dico autem de eo, qui ex Maria factus est homo. Quid enim? non poteramus et nos multo facilius et lautius ista narrare? sed absit, ut a veritate declinemus iota unum aut unum apicem. Est enim qui de Maria natus est filius, qui totum hoc quod magnum est, voluit perferre certamen Iesus. Hic est Christus dei, qui descendit super eum, qui de Maria est . . . Statim (post baptismum) in desertum a Spiritu ductus est Iesus, quem cum diabolus ignoraret, dicebat ei: Si filius est dei. Ignorabat autem propter quid genuisset filium dei (scil. Spiritus), qui prædicabat regnum cælorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum, nec ab ullo alio parari potuisset; unde et affixus cruci cum resurrexisset ab inferis, assumptus est illuc, ubi Christus filius dei regnabat . . . Sicut enim Paracleti pondus nullus alius valuit sustinere nisi soli discipuli et Paulus beatus, ita etiam spiritum, qui de cælis descenderat, per quem vox paterna testatur dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, nullus alius portare prævaluit, nisi qui ex Maria natus est super omnes sanctos Iesus.” It is noteworthy that the author (in ch. 37) ranks Sabellius as a heretic with Valentinus, Marcion, and Tatian.

xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 51

3. Expulsion of Modalistic Monarchianism. (a). The Modalistic Monarchians in Asia M 554 inor and in the West: Noëtus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Aeschines, Praxeas, Victorinus (Victor), Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus.125 The really dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between A.D. 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the deity himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father 52become flesh. Against this view the great Doctors of the Church — Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, but above all, Hippolytus — had principally to fight. Its defenders were called by Tertullian

125

Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Volkmar, Hippolyt. und die röm. Zeitgenossen, 1855. Hagemann, Die röm ac8 ische Kirche, 1864. Langen, Gesch. d. römischen Kirche I., p. 192 ff. Numerous monographs on Hippolytus and the origin of the Philosophumena, as also on the authorities for the history of the early heretics, come in here. See also Caspari, Quellen III., vv. ll. The authorites are for Noëtus, the Syntagma of Hippolytus (Epiph., Philaster, Pseudo-Tertull.), and his great work against Monarchianism, of which the so-called Ὁµιλία Ἱππολύτου εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινός (Lagarde, Hippol. quæ feruntur, p. 43 sq.) may with extreme probability be held to be the conclusion. Both these works have been made use of by Epiph. H. 57. [When Epiph. (l.c. ch. 1) remarks that “Noëtus appeared ± 130 years ago”, it is to be inferred that he fixed the date from his authority, the anti-monarchian work of Hippolytus. For the latter he must have had a date, which he believed he could simply transfer to the period of Noëtus, since Noëtus is described in the book as οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου γενόµενος. But in that case his source was written about A.D. 230-240, i.e., almost at the same time as the so-called Little Labyrinth. It is also possible, however, that the above date refers to the excommunication of Noëtus. In that case the work which has recorded this event, can have been written at the earliest in the fourth decade of the fourth century]. Most of the later accounts refer to that of Epiph. An independent one is the section Philos. IX. 7 sq. (X. 27; on this Theodoret is dependent H. F. III. 3). For Epigonus and Cleomenes we have Philos. IX. 7, 10, 11, X. 27; Theodoret H. F. III. 3. For Æschines: Pseudo-Tertull. 26; Philos. VIII. 19, X. 26; for Praxeas: Tertull. adv. Prax., Pseudo-Tertull. 30. The later Latin writers against heretics are at this point all dependent on Tertullian; yet see Optat., de schism. I. 9. Lipsius has tried to prove that Tertullian has used “Hippolytus against Noëtus” in his work adv. Prax. (Quellen-kritik, p. 43; Ketzergeschichte, p. 183 f.; Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 1868, p. 704); but the attempt is not successful (see Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874, p. 200 f.). For Victorinus we have Pseudo-Tertull. 30. For Zephyrinus and Callistus: Philos. IX. 11 sq. Origen has also had Roman Monarchians in view in many of the arguments in his commentaries. On Origen’s residence in Rome and his relations with Hippolytus, see Euseb. H. E. VI. 14; Jerome, De vir. inl. 61; Photius Cod. 121; on his condemnation at Rome, see Jerome Ep. 33, ch. 4.

“Monarchiani”, and, not altogether correctly, “Patripassiani” which afterwards became the usual names in the West (see e.g., Cypr., Ep. 73. 4). In the East they were all designated, after the famous head of the school, “Sabelliani” from the second half of the third century; yet the name of “Patripassiani” was not quite unknown there also. 54b 126 Hippolytus tells us in 53the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the whole Church,127 and Tertullian and Origen testified, that in their day the “economic” trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion.128 Modalism, as we now know from the Philosoph., was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome. That it was not an absolute novelty can be proved; 58d 1 but it is very

ac8 126Orig. in Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287 “. . . sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris deitatem, unam eandemque substantiam patris ac filii asseverant, id est, duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientes, unam tamen ὑπόστασιν subsistere, id est, unam personam duobus nominibus subiacentem, qui latine Patripassiani appellantur.” Athanas., de synod. 7 after the formula Antioch. macrostich. 127 IX. 6: µέγιστον τάραχον κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσµον ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐµβάλλουσιν. 128 Ad. Prax. 3: Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ maior semper pars credentium est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονοµία esse credendum, expavescunt ad οἰκονοµία . . . Itaque duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsumunt, . . . monarchiam inquiunt tenemus.” Orig., in Joh. II 3. Lomm. I. p. 95: Ἕτεροι δὲ οἱ µηδὲν εἰδότες, εἰ µὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωνένον, τὸν γενόµενον σάρκα λόγον τὸ πᾶν νοµίσαντες εἶναι τοῦ λόγου, Χριστὸν κατὰ σάρκα µόνον γιγνώσκουσι τοιοῦτον δέ ἐστι τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πεπιστευκέναι νοµιζὸµένων. Origen has elsewhere distinguished four grades in religion: (1) those who worship idols, (2) those who worship ac8 angelic powers, (3) these to whom Christ is the entire God, (4) those whose thoughts rise to the unchangeable deity. Clement (Strom. VI. 10) had already related that there were Christians who, in their dread of heresy, demanded that everything should be abandoned as superfluous and alien, which did not tend directly to blessedness. 129 See above (Vol. I., p. 195) where reference is made, on the one hand, to the Modalism reflected in Gnostic and Enkratitic circles (Gosp. of the Egypt., and Acta Lenc., Simonians in Iren. I. 231); on the other, to the Church formulas phrased, or capable of being interpreted, modalistically (see II. Ep. of Clement, Ign. ad Ephes., Melito [Syr. Fragments]; and in addition, passages which speak of God having suffered, died, etc.). It is instructive to notice that the development in Marcionite Churches and Montanist communities moved parallel to that in the great Church. Marcion himself, being no dogmatist, did not take any interest in the question of the relation of Christ to the higher God. Therefore it is not right to reckon him among the Modalists, as Neander

probable, on 54the other hand, that a Modalistic doctrine, which sought to exclude every other, only existed from the end of the second century. It was in opposition to Gnosticism that the first effort was made to fix theologically the formulas of a naïve Modalism, and that these were used to confront the Logos Christology in order (1) to avert Ditheism, (2) to maintain the complete divinity of Christ, and (3) to prevent the attacks of Gnosticism. An attempt was also made, however, to prove Modalism by exegesis. That is equivalent to saying that this form of doctrine, which was embraced by the great majority of Christians,130 was supported by scientific authorities, from the end of the second century. But it can be shown without difficulty, how hurtful any contact with theology could not fail to be to the naïve conception of the incarnation of the deity in Christ, and we may

has done (Gnost. Syxteme, p. 294, Kirchengesch. I. 2. p. 796). But it is certain that later Marcionites in the West taught Patripassianism (Ambros. de fide V. 13. 162, T. II., p. 579; Ambrosiaster ad I. Cor. II. 2, T. II., App. p. 117). Marcionites and Sabellians were therefore at a later date not seldom classed together. Among the Montanists at Rome there were, about A.D. 200, a Modalistic party and one that taught like Hippolytus; at the head of the former stood Æschines, at the head of the latter Proculus. Of the followers of Æschines, Hippolytus says (Philos. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Noëtus: αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱὸν καὶ πατέρα, ὁρατὸν καὶ ἀόρατον; γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον, θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον. It is rather an idle question whether Montanus himself and the prophetic women taught Modalism. They certainly used formulas which had a Modalistic sound; but they had also others which could afterwards be interpreted and could not but be interpreted “economically”. In the Test. of the XII. Patriarchs many passages that, in the Jewish original, spoke of Jehovah’s appearance among his people must now have received a Christian impress from their Christian editor. It is remarkabl 564 e that, living in the third century, he did not scruple to do this, see Simeon 6: ὅτι ὁ κύριος ὁ Θεὸς µέγας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, φαινόµενος επὶ γῆς ὡς ἀνθρώπος καὶ σώζων ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν Ἀδάµ . . . ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς σῶµα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπους; Levi 5, Jud. 22, Issachar. 7: ἔχοντες µεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, συµπορευόµενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: Zebul. 9: ὅψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήµατι ἀνθρώπου; Dan. 5; Naphth. 8: ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπι τῆς γῆς: Asher 7: ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψηται τὴν γῆν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος µετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων; Benjamin 10. Very different Christologies, however, can be exemplified from the Testaments. It is not certain what sort of party Philaster (H. 51) meant (Lipsius Ketzergesch., p. 99 f.). In the third century Modalism assumed various forms, among which the conception of a formal transformation of God into man, and a real transition of the one into the other, is no ac8 teworthy. An exclusive Modalistic doctrine first existed in the Church after the fight with Gnosticism. 130 Tertull. l.c. and ch. I.: “simplicitas doctrinæ”, ch. 9, Epiphan. H. 62. 2 ἀφελεστατοι ἢ ἀκέραιοι. Philos. IX. 7, 11: Ζεφυρῖνος ἰδιώτης καί ἀγράµµατος, l.c. ch. 6: ἀµαθεῖς.

say that it was all over with it — though of course the deathstruggle lasted long eb0 — when it found itself compelled to attack others or to defend itself. When it required to clothe itself in a cloak manufactured by a scientific theology, and to reflect on the idea of God, it belied its own nature, and lost its raison d’être. What it still retained was completely distorted by its opponents. Hippolytus has in the Philosophumena represented the doctrine of Noëtus to have been borrowed from Heraclitus. That 55is, of course, an exaggeration. But once we grasp the whole problem “philosophically and scientifically” — and it was so understood even by some scientific defenders of Monarchianism — then it undoubtedly resembles strikingly the controversy regarding the idea of God between the genuine Stoics and the Platonists. As the latter set the transcendent, apathetic God of Plato above the λόγοςθεός of Heraclitus and the Stoics, so Origen, e.g., has charged the Monarchians especially with stopping short at the God manifest, and at work, in the world, instead of advancing to the “ultimate” God, and thus apprehending the deity “economically”. Nor can it surprise us that Modalistic Monarchianism, after some of its representatives had actually summoned science, i.e., the Stoa, to their assistance, moved in the direction of a pantheistic conception of God. But this does not seem to have happened at the outset, or to the extent assumed by the opponents of the school. Not to speak of its uncultured adherents, the earliest literary defenders of Modalism were markedly monotheistic, and had a real interest in Biblical Christianity. It marks the character of the opposition, however, that they at once scented the God of Heraclitus and Zeno — a proof of how deeply they themselves were involved in Neoplatonic theology.131 As it was in Asia 56Minor that Adoptianism

131

That the scientific defenders of Modalism adopted the Stoic method — just as the Theodotians had the Aristotelian (see above) — is evident, and Hippolytus was therefore so far correct in connecting Noëtus with Heraclitas, i.e., with the father of the Stoa. To Hagemann belongs the merit (Röm. Kirche, pp. 354-371) of having demonstrated the traces of Stoic Logic and Metaphysics in the few and imperfectly transmitted tenets of the Modalists. (See here Hatch, The influence etc., p. 19 f. on the σύπάσχειν and the substantial unity of ψυχή and σῶµα). We can still recognise, especially from Novatian’s refutation, the syllogistic method of the Modalists, which rested on nominalist, i.e., Stoic, logic. See, e.g., the proposition: “Si unus deus Christus, Christus autem deus, pater est Christus, quia unus deus; si non pater sit Christus, dum et deus filius Christus, duo dii contra scripturas introducti videantur.” But those utterances in which contradictory attributes, such as visible-invisible etc., are ascribed to God, could be excellently supported by the Stoic system of categories. That system distinguished ἴδια (οὐσία, ὑποκείµενον) from συµβεβηκότα, or more accurately (1) ὑποκείµενα (substrata, subjects of judgment); (2) ποιά (qualitatives); (3) πὼς ἔχοντα (definite modifications)

and (4) πρός τι πὼς ἔχοντα (relative modifications). Nos. 2-4 form the qualities of the idea as a συγκεχυοµένον; but 2 and 3 belong to the conceptual sphere of the subject itself, while 4 embraces the variable relation of the subject to other subjects. The designations Father and Son, visible and 564 invisible etc., must be conceived as such relative, accidental, attributes. The same subject can in one relation be Father, in another Son, or, according to circumstances, be visible or invisible. One sees that this logical method could be utilised excellently to prove the simple unreasoned propositions of the old Modalism. There are many traces to show that the system was applied in the schools of Epigonus and Cleomenes, and it is with schools we have here to deal. Thus, e.g., we have the accusation which, time and again, Origen made against the Monarchians, that they only assume one ὑποκειµένον, and combine Father and Son indiscriminately as modes in which it is manifested. (Hagemann refers to Orig. on Matt. XVI. 14: οἱ συγχέοντες πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν; and on John X. 21: συγχεόµενοι ἐν τῷ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τόπῳ — but συγχέειν is the Stoic term). The proposition is also Stoic that while the one ὑποκειµένον is capable of being divided (διαρεῖν), it is only subjectively, in our conceptions of it (τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ µόνῃ), so that merely ὀνόµατα not differences καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, result. Further, the conception of the Logos as a mere sound is verbally that of the Stoics, who ac8 defined the φωνή (λόγος) as ἀὴρ πεπληγµένος ἢ τὸ ̓ίδιον αἰσθητὸν ἀκοῆς. Tertullian adv. Prax.7; “quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris et sicut grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intelligibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale?” Hippolyt., Philos. X. 33: Θεὸς λόγον ἀπογεννᾷ, οὐ λόγον ὡς φωνήν. Novatian, de trinit. 31: “sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aëris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur.” The application of Nominalist Logic and Stoic Methaphysics to theology was discredited in the controversy with the Modalists under the names of “godless science”, or “the science of the unbelievers”, just as much as Aristotelian philosophy had been in the fight with the Adoptians. Therefore, even as early as about A.D. 250, one of the most rancorous charges levelled at Novatian by his enemies was that he was a follower of another, i.e., of the Stoic, philosophy (Cornelius ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 43. 16; Cypr. Ep. 55. 24, 60. 3). Novatian incurred this reproach because he opposed the Monarchians with their own, i.e., the syllogistic, method, and because he had maintained, as was alleged, imitating the Stoics, “omnia peccata paria esse.” Now if the philosophy of Adoptian scholars was Aristotelian, and that of Modalistic scholars was Stoic, so the philosophy of Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen, in reference to the One and Many, and the real evolutions (µερισµός) of the one to the many is unmistakably Platonic. Hagemann (l.c. pp. 182-206) has shown the extent to which the expositions of Plotinus (or Porphyry) coincide in contents and form, method and expression — see especially the conception of Hypostasis (substance) in Plotinus — with those of the Christian theologians mentioned, among whom we have to include Valentinus. (See also Hipler in the östr. Vierteljahrsschr. f. Kath. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff., quoted after Lösche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, p. 259). When the Logos Christology triumphed completely in the Church at the end of the third century, Neoplatonism also triumphed over Aristotelianism and Stoicism in ecclesiastical science, and it was only in the West that theologians, like Arnobius, were tolerated who in their pursuit of Christian knowledge rejected Platonism.

first entered into conflict with the Logos Christology, so the Church of Asia Minor seems to have been the scene of the first Modalistic controversy, while in both cases natives of that country transferred the dispute to Rome. 57

It is possible that Noëtus was not excommunicated till about A.D. 230, and, even if we cannot now discover his date more accurately, it seems to be certain that he first excited attention as a Monarchian, and probably in the last twenty years of the second century. This was perhaps in Smyrna,132 his native place, perhaps in Ephesus.133 He was excommunicated in Asia Minor, only after the whole controversy had, comparatively speaking, come to a close in Rome.134 This explains why Hippolytus ha eb0 s mentioned him last in his great work against the Monarchians, while in the Philosoph. he describes him as the originator (IX. 6: ἀρχηγόν) of the heresy.135 A disciple of his, Epigonus, came to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, or shortly before (+ 200), and is said to have there diffused the teaching of his master, and to have formed a separate party of Patripassians. At first Cleomenes, the disciple of Epigonus, was regarded as the head of the sect, and then, from c. A.D. 215, Sabellius. Against these there appeared, in the Roman Church, especially the presbyter Hippolytus, who sought to prove that the doctrine promulgated by them was a revolutionary error. But the sympathies of the vast majority of the Roman Christians, so far as they could take any part in the dispute, were on the side of the Monarchians, and even among the clergy only a minority supported Hippolytus. The “uneducated” Bishop Zephyrine, advised by the prudent Callistus, was himself disposed, like Victor, his predecessor (see under), to the Modalistic views; but his main effort seems to have been to calm the contending parties, and at any cost to avoid a new 58schism in the Roman Church, already sadly split up. After his death the same policy was continued by Callistus (217-222), now raised to the Bishopric. But

132 563

Hippol. c. Noët. I., Philos. IX. 7. Epiph. l.c., ch. I. 134 According to Hippol. c. Noët. I., he was not condemned after the first trial, but only at the close of a second, — a proof of the uncertainty that still prevailed. It is impossible now to discover what ground there was for the statement that Noëtus gave himself out to be Moses, and his brother to be Aaron. 135 ac9 The fact that Noëtus was able to live for years in Asia Minor undisturbed, has evidently led Theodoret into the mistake that he was a later Monarchian who only appeared after Epigonus and Cleomenes. For the rest, Hippolytus used the name of Noëtus in his attack on him, simply as a symbol under which to oppose later Monarchians (see Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874, p. 201); this is at once clear from ch. 2. 133

as the schools now attacked each other more violently, and an agreement was past hoping for, the Bishop determined to excommunicate both Sabellius and Hippolytus, the two heads of the contending factions.136 The Christological formula, which Callistus himself composed, was meant to satisfy the less passionate adherents of both parties, and this it did, so far as we may conjecture. The small party of Hippolytus “the true Catholic Church”, held its ground in Rome for only about fifteen years, that of Sabellius probably longer. The formula of Callistus was the bridge, on which the Roman Christians, who were originally favourable to Monarchianism, passed over to the recognition of the Logos Christology, following the trend of the times, and the science of the Church. This doctrine must have already been the dominant theory in Rome when Novatian wrote his work De Trinitate, and from that date it was never ousted thence. It had been established in the Capital by a politician, who, for his own part, and so far 59as he took any interest at all in dogmatics, had been more inclined to the Modalistic theory.137

136

Philos. IX. 12: Οὕτως ὁ Κάλλιστος µετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν νοµίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς µὴ φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς ἐµὲ καὶ νοµίζων οὕτω δύνασθαι ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἐκκλησίας κατηγορίαν, ὡς µὴ ἀλλοτρίως φρονῶν. Hippolytus, whose treatment of Sabellius is respectful, compared with his attitude to Callistus, says nothing of his own excommunication; it is therefore possible that he and his small faction had already separated from Callistus, and for their part had put him under the ban. This cannot have happened under Zephyrine, as is shown directly by Philos. IX. 11, and all we can infer from ch. 7 is that the party of Hippolytus had ceased to recognise even Zephyrine as Bishop; so correctly Döllinger, l.c., p. 101 f., 223 f., a different view in Lipsius, Ketzergeschichte, p. 150. The situation was doubtless this: Epigonus and Cleomenes had founded a real school (διδαςκαλεῖον) in the Roman Church, perhaps in opposition to that of the Theodotians, and this school was protected by the Roman bishops. (s. Philos. IX. 7: Ζεφυρῖνος [τῷ κέρδει προσφεροµένῳ τειθόµενος] συνεχώρει τοῖς προσιοῦσι τῷ Κλεοµένει µαθητεύεσθαι . . . Τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν διέµεινε τὸ διδασκαλεῖον κρατυνόµενον καὶ ἐπαῦξον διὰ τὸ συναίρεσθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Σεφυρῖνον καὶ τὸν Κὰλλιστον). Hippolytus attacked the orthodoxy and Church character of the school, which possessed the sympathy of the Roman community, and he succeeded, after Sabellius had become its head, in getting Callistus to 564 expel the new leader from the Church. But he himself was likewise excommunicated on account of his Christology, his “rigourism” and his passionate agitations. At the moment the community of Callistus was no longer to him a Catholic Church, but a διδασκαλεῖον (see Philos. IX. 12, p 458, 1; p. 462, 42). 137 The attempt has been made in the above to separate the historical kernel from the biassed description of Hippolytus in the Philos. His account is reproduced most correctly by Caspari (Quellen III., p. 325 ff.). Hippolytus has not disguised the fact that the Bishops had the great mass of the Roman community on their side (IX. 11), but he has

The scantiness of our sources for the history of Monarchianism in Rome, — not to speak of other cities — in spite of the discovery of the Philosophumena, is shown most clearly by the circumstance that Tertullian has not mentioned the names of Noëtus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, or Callistus; on the other hand, he has introduced a Roman Monarchian, Praxeas, whose name is not mentioned by Hippolytus in any o eb0 f his numerous controversial writings. This fact has seemed so remarkable that very hazardous hypotheses have been set up to explain it. It has been thought that “Praxeas” is a nickname (= tradesman), and that by it we ought really to understand Noëtus,138 Epigonus,139 or Callistus.140 The correct view is to be found in Döllinger141 and Lipsius.142 Praxeas143 had come to Rome before Epigonus, at a date anterior to the earliest of Hippolytus’ personal recollections, accordingly about contemporaneously with Theodotus, or a little earlier, while Victor was Bishop; according to Lipsius, and this is probable, even during the episcopate of Eleutherus.144 He probably resided only a short time in Rome, 60where he met with no opposition; and he founded no school in the city. When, twenty years afterwards, the controversy was at its height in Rome and Carthage, and Tertullian found himself compelled to enter the lists against Patripassianism, the name of Praxeas was almost forgotten. Tertullian, however, laid hold of him because Praxeas had been the first to raise a discussion in Carthage also, and because he had an antipathy to Praxeas who was a decided anti-montanist. In his attack, Tertullian has, however, reviewed the historical circumstances of about the year A.D. 210, when his work Adv. Prax. was written; nay, he manifestly alludes to the Roman Monarchians, i.e., to Zephyrinus and those protected by him. This observation contains what truth

everywhere scented hypocrisy, intrigues and subserviency, where it is evident to the present day that the Bishops desired to protect the Church from the rabies theologorum. In so doing, they only did what their office demanded, and acted in the spirit of their predecessors, in whose days the acceptance of the brief and broad a9c Church confession was alone decisive, while beyond that freedom ruled. It is also evident that Hippolytus considered Zephyrine and the rest a set of ignorant beings (idiotes), because they would not accede to the new science and the “economic” conception of God. 138 According to Pseudo-Tertull. 30, where in fact the name of Praxeas is substituted for Noëtus. 139 De Rossi, Bullet. 1866, p. 170. 140 So, e.g., Hagemann, l.c., p. 234 f., and similarly at an earlier date, Semler. 141 L.c., p. 198. 142 Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1868, H. 4. 143 The name has undoubtedly not been shown elsewhere up till now. 58f 144Chronol. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 173 f.

there is in the hypothesis that Praxeas is only a name for another well-known Roman Monarchian. Praxeas was a confessor of Asia Minor, and the first to bring the dispute as to the Logos Christology to Rome.145 At the same time he brought from his bi eb0 rth-place a resolute zeal against the new prophecy. We are here, again, reminded of the faction of Alogi of Asia Minor who combined with the rejection of the Logos Christology an aversion from Montanism; cf. also the Roman presbyter Caius. Not only did his efforts meet with no opposition in Rome, but Praxeas induced the Bishop, by giving him information as to the new prophets and their communities in Asia, to recall the litteræ pacis, which he had already sent them, and to aid in expelling the Paraclete.146 If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Euseb. H. E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves in favour of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrine, and Callistus; for we learn from PseudoTertullian that Victor took the part of Praxeas.147 But it is also 61possible that Victor was the Bishop whom Tertullian (Adv. Prax.) was thinking of, and in that case Eleutherus has no place here. It is at all events certain that when Dynamistic Monarchianism was proscribed by Victor, it was expelled not by a defender of the Logos Christology, but in the interests of a Modalistic Christology. The labours of Praxeas did not yet bring about a controversy in Rome with the Logos Doctrine; he was merely the forerunner of Epigonus and Cleomenes there. From Rome he betook himself to Carthage,148

145

Adv. Prax.: Iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romam, homo et alias inquietus, insuper de iactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve carceris tædium. 146 L.c.: Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit, prophetiam expulit et hæresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit. aa6 147Pseudo-Tertull.: Praxeas quidem hæresim introduxit quam Victorinus corroborare curavit. This Victorinus is rightly held by most scholars to be Bishop Victor; (1) there is the name (on Victor = Victorinus, see Langen l c., p. 196; Caspari, Quellen III., p. 323, n. 102); (2) the date; (3) the expression “curavit” which points to a high position, and is exactly paralleled by the συναί used by Hippolytus in referring to Zephyrine and Callistus (see p. 58, note 1); lastly, the fact that Victor’s successors, as we know definitely, held Monarchian views. The excommunication of Theodotus by Victor proves nothing, of course, to the contrary; for the Monarchianism of this man was of quite a different type from that of Praxeas. 148 This is definitely to be inferred from the words of Tertullian (l.c.): “Fructicaverant avenæ Praxeanæ hic quoque superseminatæ dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinæ”; see Caspari, l.c.; Hauck, Tertullian, p. 368; Langen, l.c., p. 199; on the other side Hesselberg, Tertullian Lehre, p. 24, and Hagemann, l.c.

and strove against the assumption of any distinction between God and Christ. But he was resisted by Tertullian, who, at that time, still belonged to the Catholic Church, and he was silenced, and even compelled to make a written recantation. With this ended the first phase of the dispute.149 The name of Praxeas does not again occur. But it was only several years afterwards that the controversy became really acute in Rome and Carthage, and caused Tertullian to write his polemical work.150 Of the final stages of Monarchianism in Carthage and Africa we know nothing certain. Yet see under. It is not possible, from the state of our sources, to give a complete and homogeneous description of the doctrine of the older Modalistic Monarchianism. But the sources are not alone to blame for this. As soon as the thought that God Himself 62was incarnate in Christ had to be construed theologically, very various attempts could not fail to result. These could lead, and so far did lead, on the b38 one hand, to hazardous conceptions involving transformation, and, on the other, almost to the border of Adoptianism; for, as soon as the indwelling of the deity of the Father (deitas patris) in Jesus was not grasped in the strict sense as an incarnation, as soon as the element that in Jesus constituted his personality was not exclusively perceived in the deity of the Father, these Christians were treading the ground of the Artemonite heresy. Hippolytus also charged Callistus with wavering between Sabellius and Theodotus,151 and in his work against Noëtus he alludes (ch. III.) to a certain affinity between the latter and the leather-worker. In the writings of Origen, moreover, several passages occur, regarding which it will always be uncertain whether they refer to Modalists or Adoptians. Nor can this astonish us, for Monarchians of all shades had a common interest in opposition to the Logos Christology: they represented the conception of the Person of Christ founded on the history of salvation, as against one based on the history of his nature. Among the different expositions of the doctrine of the older Modalists that of Hippolytus in his work against Noëtus shows us it in its simplest form. The Monarchians there described are

149

Tertullian, l.c.: Avenæ Praxeanæ traductæ dehinc per quem deus voluit (scil. per me), etiam evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua, et manet chirographum apud psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est; exinde silentium. 150 Tertull., l.c. Avenæ vero illæ ubique tunc semen excusserant. Ita altquamdiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit. Sed et denuo eradicabitur, si voluerit dominus. 151 Philos. IX. 12, X. 27. Epiph. H. 57. 2.

introduced to us as those who taught that Christ is the Father himself, and that the Father was born, suffered and died.152 If Christ is God, then he is certainly the Father, or he would not be God. If Christ, accordingly, truly suffered, then the God, who is God alone, suffered.153 But they were not only influenced by a decided interest in Monotheism,154a cause which they held to have been injured by their opponents, ade 1 whom 63they called ditheists (δίθεοι), but they fought in behalf of the complete deity of Jesus, which, in their opinion, could only be upheld by their doctrine.155 In support of the latter they appealed, like the Theodotians, chiefly to the Holy Scriptures, and, indeed, to the Catholic Canon; thus they quoted Exod. III. 6, XX. 2f.; Isa. XLIV. 6, XLV. 5, 14 f.; Baruch. III. 36; John. X. 30, XIV. 8f.; Rom. IX. 5. Even John’s Gospel is recognised; but this is qualified by the most important piece of information which Hippolytus has given about their exposition of the Scriptures. They did not regard that book as justifying the introduction of a Logos, and the bestowal on him of the title Son of God. The prologue of the Gospel, as well as, in general, so many passages in the book, was to be understood allegorically.156 The use of the category of the Logos was accordingly emphatically rejected in their theology. We do not learn any more about the Noëtians here. But in the Philosoph. Hippolytus has discussed their conception of God, and has presented it as follows: ea0 157 They say that one and the same God 152

C. 1: ἔφη τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα γεγεννῆσθαι καὶ πεπονθέναι καὶ ἀποτεθνηκέναι. 153 C. 2: Εἰ οὖν Χριστὸν ὁµολογῶ Θεόν, αὐτὸς ἄρα ἐστίν ὁ πατὴρ, εἴ γε ἔστιν ὁ Θεός. ἔπαθεν δ ac6 Χριστὸς, αὐτὸς ὢν Θεός, ἄρα οὖν ἔπαθεν πατὴρ, πατὴρ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἦν. 154 Φὰσκουσιν συνιστᾶν ἕνα Θεόν (c. 2). 155 Hippolytus defends himself, c. 11. 14: οὐ δύο θεοὺς λέγω, s. Philos. IX. 11, fin. 12: δηµοσίᾳ ὁ Κάλλιστος ἡµῖν ὀνειδίζει εἰπεῖν· δίθεοί ἐστε. From c. Noët. 11 it appears that the Monarchians opposed the doctrine of the Logos, because it led to the Gnostic doctrine of Æons. Hippolytus had to reply: τὶς ἀποφαίνεται πλήθυν Θεῶν παραβαλλοµένην κατὰ καιρού . He sought to show (ch. 14 sq.) that the µυστή οἰκονοµίας, of the Trinity taught by him was something different from the doctrine of the Æons. 156 Hippol. (c. Noët. I.) makes his opponent say, τὶ οὖν κακὸν ποιῶ δοξά τὸ Χριστό ; see also ch. II. sq.; see again ch. IX. where Hippolytus says to his opponents that the Son must be revered in the way defined by God in Holy Scriptures. 157 S. c. 15: ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ µοι τὶς· Ξένον φέρεις λόγον λέγων υἱόν. Ἰωάννης µὲν γὰρ λέγει λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως ἀλληγορεῖ. 564 158 L. IX. 10. See also Theodoret.

was creator and Father of all things; that he in his goodness appeared to the righteous of olden times, although he is invisible; in other words, when he is not seen, he is invisible, but when he permits himself to be seen, he is visible; he is incomprehensible, when he wills not to be apprehended, comprehensible when he permits himself to be apprehended. So in the same way he is invincible and to be overcome, unbegotten and begotten, immortal and mortal.” Hippolytus continues: 64“Noëtus says, ‘So far, therefore, as the Father was not made, he is appropriately called Father; but in so far as he passively submitted to be born, he is by birth the Son, not of another, but of himself.’” In this way he meant to establish the Monarchia, and to say that he who was called Father and Son, was one and the same, not one proceeding from the other, but he himself from himself; he is distinguished in name as Father and Son, according to the change of dispensations; but it is one and the same who appeared in former times, and submitted to be born of the virgin, and walked as man among men. He confessed himself, on account of his birth, to be the Son to those who saw him, but he did not conceal the truth that he was the Father from those who were able to apprehend it.159 Cleomenes and his party maintain that “he who was nailed to the cross, who committed his spirit to himself, who died and did not die, who raised himself on the third day and rested in the grave, who was pierced with the lance and fastened with nails, was the God and Father of all.” The distinction between Father and Son was accordingly nominal; yet it was to this extent more than nominal, that the one God, in being born man, appeared as Son; it was real, so far, from the point of view of the history of salvation. In support of the identity of the “manifested” and the invisible, these Monarchians referred to the O. T. theophanies, with as good a right as, nay, with a better than, the defenders of the Logos Christology. Now as regards the idea of God, it has been said that “the element of finitude was here potentially placed in God himself,” and that these Monarchians were influenced by Stoicism, etc. While the former statement is probably unwarranted, the Stoic influence, on the contrary, is not to be denied.160 But the foundation to which we

159

We perceive very clearly here that we have before us not an unstudied, but a thought-out, and theological Modalism. As it was evident, in the speculations about Melchisedec of the Theodotians, that they, like Origen, desired to rise from the crucified Jesus to the eternal, godlike Son, so these Modalists held the conception, that the Father himself was to be perceived in Jesus, to be one which was only meant for those who could grasp it. 160 See above (p. 55, note 1). In addition Philos. X. 27: τοῦτον τὸν πατέρα αὐτὸν υἰὸν νοµίζουσι κατὰ καιροὺς καλούµενον πρὸς τὰ συµβαίνοντα.

have to refer them consists of two ancient liturgical 65formulas, used by Ignatius, the author of the II. Ep. of Clement, and Melito,161 whom we include, although he wrote a work “Concerning the creation and genesis of Christ” ( eba περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ). Further, even Ignatius, although he held Christ to have been pre-existent, knew only of one birth of the Son, namely, that of God from the virgin.162 We have here to recognise the conception, according to which, God, in virtue of his own resolve to become finite, capable of suffering etc., can and did decide to be man, without giving up his divinity. It is the old, religious, and artless Modalism, which has here been raised, with means furnished by the Stoa, to a theological doctrine, and has become exclusive. But in the use of the formula “the Father has suffered,” we have undoubtedly an element of novelty; for it cannot be indicated in the post-apostolic age. It is very questionable, however, whether it was ever roundly uttered by the theological defenders of Modalism. They probably merely said that “the Son, who suffered, is the same with the Father.” We do not learn what conception these Monarchians formed of the human σάρξ (flesh) of Jesus, or what significance they attached to it. Even the Monarchian formulas, opposed by Tertullian in “Adv. Prax”, and attributed to Callistus by Hippolytus, are already more complicated. We easily perceive that they were coined in a controversy in which the theological difficulties inherent in the Modalistic doctrine had become notorious. Tertullian’s Monarchians still cling strongly to the perfect identity of the Father and Son;163 they refuse to admit the Logos into their Christology; for the “word” is no substance, but 66merely a “sound”;164 they are

161

See Ignat. ad Ephes. VII. 2: εἷς ιἀτρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευµατικός, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόµενος Θεός, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε ἀπαθής, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός; and see for Clement Vol. I., p. 186 ff. 162 I ac8 t is interesting to notice that in the Abyssinian Church of to-day there is a theological school which teaches a threefold birth of Christ, from the Father in eternity, from the virgin, and from the Holy Ghost at the Baptism; see Herzog, R. E., 2 Aufl., Bd. I., p. 70. 163 C. 1: “Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum ipsum denique esse Iesum Christum.” c. 2: “post tempus pater natus et pater passus, ipse deus, dominus omnipotens, Iesus Christus prædicatur”; see also c. 13. 164 C. 7: “Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vanum nescio quid.”

equally interested with the Noëtians in monotheism,165 though not so evidently in the full divinity of Christ; like them they dread the return of Gnosticism;166 they hold the same view as to the invisibility and visibility of God;167 they appeal to the Holy Scriptures, sometimes to the same passages as the opponents of Hippolytus;168 ebc but they find themselves compelled to adapt their teaching to those proof-texts in which the Son is contrasted, as a distinctive subject, with the Father. This they did, not only by saying that God made himself Son by assuming a body,169or that the Son proceeded from himself170 — for with God nothing is impossible:171 but they distinctly declared that the flesh changed the Father into the Son; or even that in the person of the Redeemer the 67body (the man, Jesus) was the Son, but that the Spirit (God, Christ) was the Father.172For this they appealed to Luke I. 35. They

165

C. 2: “Unicum deum non alias putat credendum, quem si ipsum eundemque et patrem et filium et spiritum s. dicat.” c. 3: “Duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis prædicari, se vero unius dei cultores præsamunt . . . monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus.” c. 13: “inquis, duo dii prædicuntur.” c. 19: “igitur si propterea eundem et patrem et filium credendum putaverunt, ut unum deum vindicent etc.” c. 23: “ut sic duos divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis etc.” 166 C. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit me προβολὴν aliquam introducer,” says Tertullian “quod facit Valentinus, etc.” 552 167See C. 14. 15: “Hic ex diverso volet aliquis etiam filium invisibilem contendere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum . . . Nam et illud adiiciunt ad argumentationem, quod si filius tunc (Exod. 33) ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse faciem suam nemini visibilem pronuntiaret, quia scil. ipse invisibilis pater fuerit in filii nomine. Ac per hoc si eundem volunt accipi et visibilem et invisibilem, quomodo eundem patrem et filium . . . Ergo visibilis et invisibilis idem, et quia utrumque, ideo et ipse pater invisibilis, qua et filius, visibilis . . . Argumentantur, recte utrumque dictum, visibilem quidem in carne, invisibilem vero ante carnem, ut idem sit pater invisibilis ante carnem, qui et filius visibilis in carne.” 168 Thus to Exod. XXXIII. (ch. 14), Rev. I. 18 (ch. 17), Isa XXIV. 24 (ch. 19), esp. John X. 30; XIV. 9, 10 (ch. 20), Isa. XLV. 5 (ch. 20). They admit that in the Scriptures sometimes two, sometimes one, are spoken of; but they argued (ch 18): Ergo quia duos et unum invenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem et filius et pater.” 169 Ch. 10: “Ipse se sibi filium fecit.” 170 Ch. 11: “Porro qui eundem patrem dicis et filium, eundem et protulisse ex semetipso facis.” 171 To this verse the Monarchians, according to ch. 10, appealed, and they quoted as a parallel the birth from the virgin. 172 Ch. 27: “Æque in una persona utrumque distinguunt, patrem et filium, discentes filium carnem esse, id est hominem, id est Iesum, patrem autem spiritum, id est deum, id est Christum.” On this Tertullian remarks: “et qui unum eundemque contendunt patrem et filium, iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam unare; talem monarchiam apud

conceived the Holy Spirit to be identical with the power of the Almighty, i.e., with the Father himself, and they emphasised the fact that that which was born, accordingly the flesh, not the Spirit, was to be called Son of God.173 The Spirit (God) was not capable of suffering, but since he entered into the flesh, he sympathised in the suffering. The Son suffered,174 but the Father “sympathised”175 — this being a Stoic expression. Therefore Tertullian says (ch. 23), “Granting that we would thus say, as you assert, that there were two separate (gods), it was more tolerable to affirm two separate (gods) than one dissembling (turn-coat) god” [Ut sic divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis, tolerabilius erat, duos divisos quam unum deum versipellem prædicare]. It is very evident that whenever the distinction between caro (filius) and spiritus (pater), between the flesh or Son and the Spirit or Father, is taken seriously, the doctrine approximates to the Artemonite idea. It is in fact changing its coat (versipell 14a0 is). But it is obvious that even in this form it could not satisfy the defenders of the Logos Christology, for the personal identity between the Father and the Spirit or Christ is still retained. On the whole, every attempt made by Modalism to meet the demands of the Logos doctrine could not fail logically to lead to Dynamistic Monarchianism. We know definitely that the formulas of Zephyrine and Callistus arose out of attempts 68at a compromise,176 though the charge of having two gods was raised against Hippolytus and his party. Zephyrine’s thesis (IX. 11), “I know one God, Christ Jesus, and besides him no other born and suffering,” which he announced with the limiting clause, “the Father did not die, but the Son,”177 agrees with the doctrines of “Praxeas”, but, as is clear from the Philos., is also to be understood as a formula of compromise. Callistus went still further. He found it advisable after the excommunication of Sabellius and Hippolytus, to receive the category of the Logos into the Christological formula meant to harmonise all parties, an act for

Valentinum fortasse didicerunt, duos facere Iesum et Christum.” Tertullian, accordingly, tries to retort on his opponents the charge of dissolving the Monarchia; see even ch. 4. The attack on the assumption of a transformation of the divine into the human does not, for the rest, affect these Monarchians (ch. 27 ff.). ad0 173See ch. 26, 27: “propterea quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius dei; caro itaque nata est, caro itaque erit filius dei.” 174 Ch. 29: “mortuus est non ex divina, sed ex humana substantia.” 175 L. c.: “Compassus est pater filio.” 176 Philos. IX. 7, p. 440. 35 sq.; 11, p. 450. 72 sq. 177 Ἐγὼ οἶδα ἕνα Θεὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ πλὴν αὐτοῦ ἕτερον οὐδένα γεννητὸν καὶ παθητόν — οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ υἱός.

which he was especially abused by Hippolytus, while Sabellius also accused him of apostasy.178 According to Zephyrine: God is in himself an indivisible Pneuma, which fills all things, or, in other words, the Logos; as Logos he is nominally two, Father and Son. The Pneuma, become flesh in the virgin, is thus in essence not different from, but identical with, the Father (John XIV. 11). He who became manifest, i.e., the man, is the Son, but the Spirit, which entered into the Son, is the Father. “For the Father, who is in the Son, deified the flesh, after he had assumed it, and united it with himself, and established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two; rather the thesis holds true that the Father suffered in sympathy with the Son” — not the Father suffered.179 69

Hippolytus discovered in this formula a mixture of Sabellian and Theodotian ideas, and he was right.180 The approximation to the Christology founded on the doctrine of substances (hypostases), and the departure from the older Monarchianism, are, in fact, only brought about by Callistus having also made use of a Theodotian idea.181 He still kept aloof from the Platonic conception

178

L.c. IX. 12, p. 458, 78: ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σαβελλίου συχνῶς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς παραβάντα τὴν πρώτην πίστιν. It is apparently the very formula “Compassus est pater filio” that appeared unacceptable to the strict Monarchians. 179 Philos. IX. 12, p. 458, 80: Κάλλιστος λέγει τὸν λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα ὀνόµατι µὲν καλούµενον, ἕν δὲ ὃν τὸ πνεῦµα ἀδιαίρετον. οὐκ ἄλλο εἶναι πατέρα, ἄλλο δὲ υἱόν, ἓν δὲ καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τὰ πάντα γέµειν τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος τά τε ἄνω καὶ κάτω· καὶ εἶναι τὸ ὲν τῇ παρθένῳ σαρκωθὲν πνεῦµα οὐχ ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτό. Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰρηµένον. John. 14. 11. Τὸ µὲν γὰρ βλεπόµενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ χωρηθὲν πνεῦµα τοῦτο εἶναι τὸν πατέρα· οὐ γὰρ, Bησίν, ἐρῶ δύοθεοὺς πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα. Ὁ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ γενόµενος πατὴρ προσλαβόµενος τὴν σ8άρκα ἐθεοποίησεν ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἕν, ὡς καλεῖσθαι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἕνα Θεόν. καὶ τοῦτο ἓν ὂν πρόσωπον µὴ δύνασθαι εἶναι δύο, καὶ οὕτως τὸν πατέρα συµπεπονθέναι τῷ υἱῷ· οὐ γὰρ θέλει λέγειν τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι καὶ ἓν εἶναι πρόσωπον . . . Here something is wanting in the text. 180 ac9 Catholic theologians endeavour to give a Nicene interpretation to the theses of Callistus, and to make Hippolytus a ditheist; see Hagemann, l.c.; Kuhn, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1885, II.; Lehir, Études bibliques, II., p. 383; de Rossi and various others. 181 This is also Zahn’s view, Marcell., p. 214. The doctrine of Callistus is for the rest so obscure, — and for this our informant does not seem to be alone to blame — that, when we pass from it to the Logos Christology, we actually breathe freely, and we can

of God; nay, it sounds like a reminiscence of Stoicism, when, in order to obtain a rational basis for the incarnation, he refers to the Pneuma (Spirit) which fills the universe, the upper and under world. But the fact that his formulas, in spite of this, could render valuable service in Rome in harmonising different views, was not only due to their admission of the Logos conception. It was rather a result of the thought expressed in them, that God in becoming incarnate had deified the flesh, and that the Son, in so far as he represented the essentially deified σἀρξ, was to be conceived as a second person, and yet as one really united with God.182 At this point the ultimate Catholic interest in the Christology comes correctly to light, and this is an interest not clearly perceptible elsewhere in Monarchian theories. It was thus that men were gradually tranquillised in 1017 Rome, and only the few extremists of the Left and Right parties offered any resistance. Moreover, the formula was extraordinarily adapted, by its very vagueness, to set up among the believing people the religious Mystery, under whose protection the Logos Christology gradually made good its entrance. The latter was elaborated in opposition to Modalism by Tertullian, 70Hippolytus, and Novatian in the West.183 While Adoptianism apparently played a very small part in the development of the Logos Christology in the Church, the Christological theses of Tertullian and the rest were completely dependent on the opposition to the Modalists.184 This reveals itself especially in the strict subordination of the Son to the Father. It was only by such a subordination that it was possible to repel the charge, made by opponents, of teaching that there were two Gods. The philosophical conception of God implied in the Logos theory was now set up definitely as the doctrine of the Church, and was construed to mean that the unity of God was simply to be understood as a “unicum imperium”, which God could cause to be administered by his chosen officials. Further, the attempt was made to prove that Monotheism was satisfactorily guarded by the Father remaining the sole First Cause.185 But while the reproach was thus repelled of making Father and Son “brothers”, an approach was made to the Gnostic doctrine of Æons, and

understand how the latter simpler and compact doctrine finally triumphed over the laboured and tortuous theses of Callistus. 182 See the Christology of Origen. 183 See Vol. II., p. 256. 184 This can be clearly perceived by comparing the Christology of Tertullian and Hippolytus with that of Irenæus. 185 See Tertullian adv. Prax. 3; Hippol. c. Noët. 11.

Tertullian himself felt, and was unable to avert, the danger of falling into the channel of the Gnostics.186 His arguments in his writing Adv. Praxeas are not free from half concessions and uncertainties, while the whole tenor of the work contrasts strikingly with that of the anti-gnostic tractates. Tertullian finds himself time and again compelled in his work to pass from the offensive to the defensive, and the admissions that he makes show his uncertainty. Thus he concedes that we may not speak of two Lords or two Gods, that in certain circumstances the Son also can be called Almighty, or even Father, that the Son will in the end restore all things to the Father, and, as it would seem, will merge in the Father; finally, and especially, that the Son is not only not aliud a patre (different in substance from the Father), but even in some way 71not alius a patre187 (different in person etc). Yet Tertullian and his comrades were by no means at a disadvantage in comparison with the Monarchians. They could appeal (1) to the Rule of Faith in which the personal distinction between the Father and Son was recognised; ec5 1 (2) to the Holy Scriptures from which it was, in fact, easy to reduce the arguments of the Monarchians ad absurdum;188 (3) to the distinction between Christians and Jews which consisted, of course, in the belief of the former in the Son;189 and lastly, and this was the most important point, they could cite the Johannine writings, especially in support of the doctrine of the Logos. It was of the highest importance in the controversy that Christ could be shown to have been called the Logos in John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse.190 In view of the way in which the Scriptures were then used in the Church, these passages were fatal to Monarchianism. The attempts to interpret

186 564

Adv. Prax. 8, 13. It is the same with Hippolytus; both have in their attacks on the Modalists taken Valentine, comparatively speaking, under their protection. This is once more a sign that the doctrine of the Church was modified Gnosticism. 187 Ch. 18, in other passages otherwise. 188 Tertull. adv. Prax. 2. Hippol. c. Noët. I. 189 The Monarchian dispute was conducted on both sides by the aid of proofs drawn from exegesis. Tertullian, besides, in Adv. Prax., appealed in support of the “economic” trinity to utterances of the Paraclete. 190 See ad. Prax. 21: “Ceterum Iudaicæ fidei ista res, sic unum deum credere, ut filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post filium spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus evangelii, si non exinde pater et filius et spiritus, tres crediti, unum deum sistunt?” 191 Πιστεύσωµεν, says Hippolyt. c. Noët. 17 — κατά τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅτι Θεὸς λόγος ἀπ᾽ οὐρα 564 ῶν κατῆλθεν, — see already Tatian, Orat. 5 following Joh. I. 1: Θεὸς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῆ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναµιν παρειλήφαµεν.

them symbolically192 could not but fail in the end, as completely as those, e.g., of Callistus and Paul of Samasota, to combine the use of the expression “Logos” with a rejection of the apologetic conception of it based on Philo. Meanwhile Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance, yet succeed in getting their form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they taught was viewed as an unknown God, and their Christology did not correspond to the wants of men. The Logos was, indeed, to be held one in essence with God; but yet he was, by his being made the organ of the creation of the world, an inferior 72divine being, or rather at once inferior and not inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with tradition as embodied in worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ, quite as much as the attempt was opposed by doctrinal tradition, to derive the use of the name “Son of God” for Christ, not from His miraculous birth, but from a decree dating before the world.193 For the rest, the older enemies of Monarchianism still maintained common ground with their opponents, in so far as God’s evolving of Himself in several substances (Hypostases) was throughout affected by the history of the world (cosmos), and in this sense by the history of revelation. The difference between them and at least the later Monarchians was here only one of degree. The latter began at the incarnation (or at the theophanies of the O. T.), and from it dated a nominal plurality, the former made the “economic” self-unfolding of God originate im e90 mediately before the creation of the world. Here we have the cosmological interest coming once more to the front in the Church Fathers and displacing the historical, while it ostensibly raised the latter to a higher plane. Wherever the doctrine of the Logos planted itself in the third century the question, whether the divine being who appeared on earth was identical with the Deity, was answered in the negative.194 In opposition to this Gnostic view, which was first to be corrected in the fourth century, the Monarchians maintained a very ancient and valuable position in clinging to the identity of the eternal Deity, with the Deity revealed on earth. But does not the dilemma that arises show that the speculation on both sides was as untenable as unevangelical? Either we preserve the identity, and in that case defend the thesis, at once absurd and inconsistent with the Gospel, that Christ was the Father himself; or with the Gospel we retain the 192

See above, p. 63. In the Symbolum the “γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύµατος ἁγίου” is to be understood as explaining τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 194 See Adv. P ac8 rax. 16. 193

distinction between Father and Son, but then announce a subordinate God after the fashion of a Gnostic polytheism. Certainly, as regards religion, a very great advance was arrived at, when Athanasius, by his exclusive formula of Λόγος ὁµοούσιος 73(consubstantial Logos), negatived both Modalism and subordinationist Gnosticism, but the Hellenic foundation of the whole speculation was preserved, and for the rational observer a second rock of offence was merely piled upon a first. However, under the conditions of scientific speculation at the time, the formula was the saving clause by which men were once for all turned from Adoptianism, whose doctrine of a deification of Jesus could not fail, undoubtedly, to awaken the most questionable recollections. (b) The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the State of Theology. Our information is very defective concerning the destinies of Monarchianism in Rome and the West, after the close of the first thirty years of the third century; nor are we any better off in respect to the gradual acceptance of the Logos Christology. The excommunication of Sabellius by Callistus in Rome resulted at once in the Monarchians ceasing to find any followers in the West, and in the complete withdrawal soon afterwards of strict and aggressive Modalism.195 Callistus himself has, besides, not left to posterity an altogether clean reputation as regards his Christology, although he had covered himself in the main point by his compromise formula.196 Hippolytus’ sect had ceased to exist about A.D. 250; nay, it is not altogether improbable that he himself made his peace with the great Church shortly before his death. ed0 1 We can infer from Novatian’s important work “De trinitate”, that the

195

On these grounds the doctrine of Sabellius will be described under, in the history of Eastern Modalism. 196 In forged Acts of Synod of the 6th century we read (Mansi, Concil. II., p. 621): “qui se Callistus ita docuit Sabellianum, ut arbitrio suo sumat unam personam esse trinitatis.” The words which follow later, “in sua extollentia separabat trinitatem” have without reason seemed particularly difficult to Döllinger (l.c., p. 247) and Langen (l.c., p. 215). Sabellianism was often blamed with dismembering the Monas (see Zahn, Marcell. p. 211.) 197 See Döllinger, l.c., Hippolytus was under Maximinus banished along with the Roman Bishop Pontian to Sardinia. See the Catal. Liber. sub “Pontianus” (Lipsius, Chronologic, pp. 194, 275).

following tenets were recognised 74in Rome about 250:198 (1) Christ did not first become God. (2) The Father did not suffer. (3) Christ pre-existed and is true God and man.199 But it was not only in Rome that these tenets were established, but also in many provinces. If the Roman Bishop Dionysius could write in a work of his own against the Sabellians, that “Sabellius blasphemed, saying that the Son was himself Father”,200 then we must conclude that this doctrine was then held inadmissible in the West. Cyprian again has expressed himself as follows (Ep. 73. 4): “Patripassiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitæ, Marcionitæ et cetere hæreticorum pestes” ( — the other plagues of heretics), and we must decide that the strict Modalistic form of doctrine was then almost universally condemned in the West. Of the difficulties met with in the ejection of the heresy, or the means employed, we have no information. Nothing was changed in the traditional Creed — a noteworthy and momentous difference from the oriental Churches! But we know of one case in which an important alteration was proposed. The Creed of the Church of Aquileia began, in the fourth century, with the words “I believe in God the Father omnipotent, invisible, and impassible” (Credo in deo patre omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili), and Rufinus, who 75has preserved it for us, tells201 that the addition was made, at any rate as early as the third century, in order to exclude the Patripassians.

198

This writing shows, on the one hand, that Adoptians and Modalists still existed and were dangerous in Rome, and on the other, that they were not found within the Roman Church. On the significance of the writing see Vol. II., p. 313 f. 199 The Roman doctrine of Christ was then as follows: He has always been with the Father (sermo dei), but he ac8 first proceeded before the world from the substance of the Father (ex patre) for the purpose of creating the world. He was born into the flesh, and thus as filius dei and deus adopted a homo; thus he is also filius hominis. “Filius dei” and “filius hominis” are thus to be distinguished as two substances (substantia divina — homo), but he is one person; for he has completely combined, united, and fused the two substances in himself. At the end of things, when he shall have subjected all to himself, he will subject himself again to the Father, and will return to and be merged in him. Of the Holy Spirit it is also true, that he is a person (Paraclete), and that he proceeds from the substance of the Father; but he receives from the Son his power and sphere of work, he is therefore less than the Son, as the latter is less than the Father. But all three persons are combined as indwellers in the same substance, and united by love and harmony. Thus there is only one God, from whom the two other persons proceed. 200 Σαβέλλιος βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τὸν πάτερα. See Routh, Reliq. S. III., p. 373 201 Expos. Symboli Apost. ch. 19. The changes which can be shown to have been made on the first article of the Creed elsewhere in the West — see especially the African additions — belong probably at the earliest to the fourth century. Should they be older,

But the exclusion of the strict Modalists involved neither their immediate end, nor the wholesale adoption of the teaching of Tertullian and Hippolytus, of the philosophical doctrine of the Logos. As regards the latter, the recognition of the name of Logos for Christ, side by side with other titles, did not at once involve the reception of the Logos doctrine, and the very fact, that no change was made in the Creed, shows how reluctant men were to give more than a necessary minimum of space to philosophical speculations. They were content with the formula, extracted from the Creed, “Jesus Christus, deus et homo”, and with the combination of the Biblical predicates applied to Christ, predicates which 24cc also governed their conception of the Logos. In this respect the second Book of the Testimonies of Cyprian is of great importance. In the first six chapters the divinity of Christ is discussed, in terms of Holy Scripture, under the following headings. (1) Christum primogenitum esse et ipsum esse sapientiam dei, per quem omnia facta sunt; (2) quod sapientia dei Christus; (3) quod Christus idem sit et sermo dei; (4) quod Christus idem manus et brachium dei; (5) quod idem angelus et deus; (6) quod deus Christus. Then follows, after some sections on the appearing of Christ: (10) quod et homo et deus Christus. The later Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrine was the property of the Western Church from the third century, not in the form of a philosophically technical speculation, but in that of a categorical Creed-like expression of faith — see Novatian’s “De trinitate”, in which the doctrine of the Logos falls into the background. Accordingly the statement of Socrates (H. E. III. 7) 76is not incredible, that the Western Churchman Hosius had already declared the distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις (substantia and persona) before the Council of Nicæa.202 The West welcomed in the fourth century all statements which contained the complete divinity of Christ, without troubling itself much about arguments and proofs, and the controversy between the two Dionysii in the middle of the third century (see under), proves that a declared interest was kept up in the complete divinity of Christ, as an inheritance from the

however, they are all, it would seem, to be understood anti-gnostically; in other words, they contain nothing but explanations and comfirmatory additions. It is in itself incredible and incapable of proof that the Roman and after it the Western Churches should, at the beginning of the third century, have deleted, as Zahn holds, a ἕνα which originally stood in the first article of the Creed, in order to confute the Monarchians. ac8 202 See Vol. IV.

Monarchian period in Rome.203 Nay, a latent Monarchian element really continued to exist in the Western Church; this we can still study in the poems of Commodian.204 Commodian, again, was not yet acquainted with speculations regarding the “complete” humanity of Jesus; he is satisfied with the flesh of Christ being represented as a sheath, (V. 224, “And suffers, as he willed, in our likeness”;205 on the other hand, V. 280, “now the flesh was God, in which the virtue of God acted.”)206 But these are only symptoms 77of a Christian standpoint which was fundamentally different from that of oriental theologians, and which Commodian was by no means the only one to occupy. He, Lactantius, and Arnobius207 are very different from each other. Commodian was a practical Churchman; Arnobius was an empiricist and in some form also a sceptic and decided opponent of Platonism;208 while Lactantius was a disciple of Cicero and well acquainted besides with the speculations of Greek Christian theology. But they are all three closely connected in the contrast they present to the Greek

203

We, unfortunately, do not know on what grounds the Roman Bishop approved of the excommunication of Origen, or whether Origen’s doctrine of subordination was regarded in Rome as heretical. 204 Here follow in the original illustrations which we relegate to this footnote. Compare Instruct. II. 1 (Heading): “De populo absconso sancto omnipotentis Christi dei vivi;” II. 1, p. 28. 22, ed. Ludwig): “omnipotens Christus descendit ad suos electos;” II. 23, p. 43, 11 sq.: “Unde deus clamat: Stulte, hac nocte vocaris.” II. 39. 1, p. 52. Carmen apolog. 91 sq.: “Est deus omnipotens, unus, a semetipso creatus, quem infra reperies magnum et humilem ipsum. Is erat in verbo positus, sibi solo notatus, Qui pater et filius dicitur et spiritus sanctus;” 276: “Hic pater in filio venit, deus unus ubique.” (See also the following verses according to the edition of Dombart): 285: “hic erat Omnipotens;” 334: “(ligno) deus pependit dominus;” 353: “deum talia passum, Ut enuntietur crucifixus conditor orbis;” 359 sq.: “Idcirco nec voluit se manifestare, quid esset, Sed filium dixit se missum fuisse a patre;” 398: “Prædictus est deus carnaliter nasci pro nobis;” 455: “quis deus est ille, quem nos crucifiximus;” 610: “ipsa spes tota, deo credere, qui ligno pependit;” 612: “Quod filius dixit, cum sit deus pristinus ipse;” 625: “hic erat venturus, commixtus sanguine nostro, ut videretur homo, sed deus in carne latebat . . . dominus ipse veniet.” 630, 764: “Unus est in cælo deus dei, terræ marisque, Quem Moyses docuit ligno pependisse pro nobis;” etc. etc. Commodian is usually assigned to the second half of the third century, bu 55e t doubts have recently been expressed as to this date. Jacobi, Commodian u. d. alt Kirchlich. Trinitätslehre, in der deutschen Ztschr. f. Christl. Wissensch., 1853, p, 203 ff. 205 Et patitur, quomodo voluit sub imagine nostra. 206 Iam caro deus erat, in qua dei virtus agebat. 207 See Francke’s fine discussion, Die Psychologie und Erkentnisslehre des Arnobius (Leipzig, 1878). 208 We recall the Theodotians of Rome.

theologians of the school of Origen; there is nothing mystical about them, they are not Neoplatonists. Lactantius has, indeed, expounded the doctrine of Christ, the incarnate Logos, as well as any Greek; as a professional teacher it was all known and familiar to him;209 but as he nowhere encounters any problems in his Christology, as he discusses doctrines with very few theological or philosophical formulas, almost in a light tone, as if they were mere matters of course, we see that he had no interest of his own in them. He was rather interested in exactly the same questions as Arnobius and Commodian, who again showed no anxiety to go beyond the simplest Christological formulas — that Christ was God, that he had, however, also assumed flesh, or united himself with a man, since otherwise we could not have borne the deity: “And God was man, that he might possess us in the future” (Et fuit homo deus, ut nos in futuro haberet).210 211 The Christianity and theology which these 78Latins energetically supported against polytheism, were summed up in Monotheism, a powerfully elaborated morality, the hope of the Resurrection which was secured by the work of the God Christ who had crushed the demons, and in unadulterated Chiliasm.212 Monotheism — in the sense of Cicero “De natura deorum” — Moralism, and Chiliasm: these are the clearly perceived and firmly held points, and not only for Apologetic purposes, but also, as is proved especially by the second book of Commodian’s “Instructiones”, in independent and positive expositions. These Instructions are, along with the Carmen Apolog., of the highest importance for our estimate of Western

209

See Instit. IV. 6-30. The doctrine of the Logos is naturally worked out in a subordinationist sense. Besides this, many other things occur which must have seemed very questionable to the Latin Fathers 60 years afterwards: “Utinam,” says Jerome, “tam nostra confirmare potuisset quam facile aliena destruxit.” 210 Commod., Carmen apolog. 761. 211 See the Christological expositions, in part extremely questionable, of Arnobius I. 39, 42, 53, 60, 62, and elsewhere. A. demands that complete divinity should be predicated of Christ on account of the divine teaching of Christ (II. 60). In his own theology many other antique features crop up; he even defends the view that the supreme God need not be conceived as creator of this world and of men (see the remarkable chap. 46 of the second book, which recalls Marcion and Celsus). Many Church doctrines Arnobius cannot understand, and he admits them to be puzzles whose solution is known to God alone (see e.g., B. II. 74). Even in the doctrine of the soul, which to him is mortal and only has its life prolonged by receiving the doctrine brought by Christ, there is a curious mixture of antique empiricism and Christianity. If we measure him by the theology of the fourth century, Arnobius is heterodox on almost every page. af6 212See the Carmen apolog. with its detailed discussions of the final Drama, Antichrist (Nero) etc.; Lactant IV. 12, VII. 21 sq.; Victorinus, Comm. on Revelation.

Christianity in the period A.D. 250-315. We discover here, 100 years after the Gnostic fight, a Christianity that was affected, neither by the theology of the anti-gnostic Church Fathers, nor specially by that of the Alexandrians, one which the dogmatic contentions and conquests of the years 150-250 have passed over, hardly leaving a trace. Almost all that is required to explain it by the historian who starts with the period of Justin is to be found in the slightly altered conditions of the Roman world of culture, and in the development of the Church system as a practical power, a political and social quantity.213 Even in the use of Scripture this Christianity of the West reveals its conservatism. The Books of the O. T. and the Apocalypse are those still most in vogue.214 Commodian does not stand alone, nor are the features to be observed in his “Instructiones” accidental. And 79we are not limited to the Apologists Arnobius and Lactantius for purposes of comparison. We learn much the same thing as to African Christianity from the works of Cyprian, or, even from the theological attitude of the Bishop himself, as we infer from Commodian’s poems. And, on the other hand, Latin Church Fathers of the fourth century, e.g., Zeno and Hilary, show in their writings that we must not look for the theological interests of the West in the same quarter as 1590 those of the East. In fact the West did not, strictly speaking, possess a specifically Church “theology” at all.215 It was only from the second half of the fourth century that the West was invaded by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough success. Some of its results were accepted, but the theology itself was not. Nor, in some ways, was it later on, when the Western structure of Monotheism, energetic practical morality, and conservative Chiliasm fell a prey to destruction. The mystical tendencies, or the perceptions that led to them, were themselves awanting. Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand, as we are taught by the Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question of time when this

213

We can notice throughout in Commodian the influence of the institution of penance, that measuring-tape of the extent to which Church and World are entwined. 214 The oldest commentary preserved, in part, to us is that of Victorinus of Pettan on the Apocalypse. 215 The work of Arnobius is, in this respect, very instructive. This theologian did not incline as a theologian to Neoplatonism, at a time when, in the East, the use of any other philosophy in Christian dogmatics was ipso facto forbidden as heretical.

departure should take place. The recognition of the Logos could not fail ultimately to produce everywhere a ferment which transformed the Rule of Faith into the compendium of a scientific religion. It is hardly possible to conjecture how long and where Monarchians maintained their ground as independent sects in the West. It is yet most probable that there were Patripassians in Rome in the fourth century. The Western Fathers and opponents of heretics from the middle of the fourth century speak not infrequently of Monarchians — Sabellians; but they, as a rule, have simply copied Greek sources, 80from which they have transferred the confusion that prevailed among the Greek representatives of Sabellianism, and to a still greater extent, we must admit, among the historians who were hostile to it.216

216

Epiphanius (H. 62. 1) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in his time. Since he was acquainted with no other province or community in the West we may perhaps believe him. This information seems to be confirmed by a discovery made in A.D. 1742 by Marangoni. “He found at the Marancia gate on the road leading to S. Paolo a stair closed in his time which, as the discoverer believed, led to a cubiculum of S. Callisto, and in which were pain aab ted Constantine’s monogram in very large letters, and, secondly, Christ sitting on a globe, between Peter and Paul. On the cover, in a mosaic of green stones, stood the inscription “Qui et filius diceris et pater inveniris” (Kraus, Rom. sott. 2 Aufl., p. 550). De Rossi, Kraus, and Schultze (Katakomben, p. 34) suppose that we have here the discovery of a burial place of Modalistic Monarchians, and that, as the monogram proves, of the fourth century. The sepulchre has again disappeared, and we have to depend entirely on Marangoni’s account, which contains no facsimile. It is not probable that a Sabellian burial-place lay in immediate proximity to Domitilla’s catacomb in the fourth century, or that the grave-yard of any sect was preserved. If we can come to any decision at all, in view of the uncertainty of the whole information, it seems more credible that the inscription belongs to the third century, and that the monogram was added to deprive it of its heretical character. Whether Ambrosius and Ambrosiaster refer in the following quotations to Roman or say Western Monarchians living in their time is at least questionable. (Ambrosius, de fide V. 13. 162, Ed. Bened. II. p. 579 “Sabelliani et Marcionitæ dicunt, quod hæc futura sit Christi ad deum patrem subjectio, ut in patrem filius refundatur”; Ambrosiaster in Ep. ad Cor. II. 2, Ed. Bened. App. II., p. 117, “quia ipsum patrem sibi filium appellatum dicebant, ex quibus Marcion traxit errorem”). Optatus (I. 9) relates that in the African provinces not only the errors, but even the names, of Praxeas and Sabellius had passed away; in I. 10, IV. 5, V. 1 he discusses the Patripassians briefly, but without giving anything new. Nor can we infer from Hilary (de trinitate VII. 39; ad Constant. II. 9) that there were still Monarchians in his time in the West. Augustine says (Ep. 118 c. II. [12] ed. Bened. II., p. 498) “dissensiones quæstionesque Sabellianorum silentur.” Secondhand information regarding them is to be found in Augustine, Tract. in Joh. (passim) and Hær. 41. (The remarks here on the relation of Sabellius to Noëtus are interesting. Augustine cannot see why orientals count Sabellianism a separate heresy from Monarchianism). ae5 Again we have similar

81

(c) The Modalistic Monarchians in the East: Sabellianism and the History of Philosophical Christology and Theology after Origen.217 After the close of the third century the name of “Sabellians” became the common title of Modalistic Monarchians in the East. In the West also the term was used here and there, in the same way, in the fourth and fifth centuries. In consequence of this the traditional account of the doctrines taught by Sabellius and his immediate disciples is very confused. Zahn has the credit of having shown that the propositions, especially, which were first published by Marcellus of Ancyra, were characterised by opponents as Sabellian

notices in Aug. Prædest. H. 41 — in H. 70 Priscillians and Sabellians are classed together; as already in Leo I — , in Isidor, H. 43, Gennadius, Eccl. Dogm. I. 4 (“Pentapolitana hæresis”) Pseudo-hieron. H. 26 (“Unionita” etc., etc. In the Consult. Zacch. et Appollon. l. II. 11 sq. (Gallandi -T. IX., p. 231 sq) — a book written about 430 — a distinction is made between the Patripassians and Sabellians. The former are correctly described, the latter confounded with the Macedonians. Vigilius Dial. adv. Arian. (Bibl. Lugd. T. VIII.). 217 S. Schleiermacher in the Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, part 3; Lange in the Zeitschr. f. d. histor. Theol. 1832, II. 2. S. 17-46; Zahn, Marcell. 1867. Quellen: Orig., περὶ ἀρχ. I. 2; in John. I. 23, II. 2. 3, X. 21; in ep. ad Titum fragm. II; in Mt. XVI. 8, XVII. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 12, etc. For Sabellius, Philosoph. IX. is, in spite of its meagreness, of fundamental importance. Hippolytus introduces him in a way that shows plainly he was sufficiently well known at the time in the Roman Church not to need any more precise characterisation (see Caspari, Quellen III., p. 327.). Epiphanius (H. 62) has borrowed from good sources. If we still possessed them, the letters of Dionysius of Alex. would have been our most important original authorities on S. and his Libyan party. But we have only fragments, partly in Athanasius (de sententia Dionysii), partly in later writers — the collection in Routh is not complete, Reliq S. III., pp. 371-403. All that Athanasius imparts, though fragmentary, is indispensable (espec. in the writings De synod.; de decret. synod. Nic. and c. Arian. IV. This discourse has from its careless use led to a misrepresentation of Sabellian teaching; yet see Rettberg, Marcell. Præf.; Kuhn, Kath. Dogmatik II. S. 344; Zahn, Marcell. S. 198 f.). A few important notices in Novatian, de trinit. 12 sq.; Method., Conviv. VIII. 10; Arius in ep. ad. Alex. Alexandriæ (Epiph., H. 69. 7); Alexander of Alex. (in Theodoret , H. E. I.3); Eusebius, c. Marcell. and Præpar. evang.; Basilius, ep. 207, 210, 214, 235; Gregory of Nyssa, λόγος κατά Ἀρείου καὶ Σαελλίου (Mai. V. P. Nova Coll. VIII. 2, p. 1 sq.) — to be used cautiously — ; PseudoGregor (Appollinaris) in Mai, 1.c. VII. 1., p. 170 sq.; Theodoret. H. F. II. ab6 9; Anonymus, πρὸς τοὺς Σαβελλίζοντας (Athanas. Opp. ed. Montfaucon II., p. 37 sq.); Joh. Damascenus; Nicephorus Call., H. E. VI. 25. For Monarchianism we have a few passages in Gregorius Thaumaturg. The theologians after Origen and before Arius will be cited under.

because Monarchian, and in later times they have been imputed to the older theologian. But not only does the work of Marcellus pass under the name of Sabellius up to the present day, Monarchianism undoubtedly assumed very different forms in the East in the period between Hippolytus and Athanasius. It was steeped in philosophical speculation. Doctrines based on kenosis and transformation were developed. 82And the whole was provided by the historians with the same label. At the same time these writers went on drawing inferences, until they have described forms of doctrine which, in this connection, in all probability never existed at all. Accordingly, even after the most careful examination and sifting of the information handed down, it is now unfortunately impossible to write a history of Monarchianism from Sabellius to Marcellus; for the accounts are not only confused, but fragmentary and curt. It is quite as impossible to give a connected history of the Logos Christology from Origen to Arius and Athanasius, although the tradition is in this case somewhat fuller. But the orthodox of the fourth and fifth centuries found little to please them in the Logos doctrine of those earlier disciples of Origen, and consequently they transmitted a very insignificant part of their writings to posterity. This much is certain, however, that in the East the fight against Monarchianism in the second half of the third century was a violent one, and that even the development of the Logos Christology (of Origen) was directly and lastingly influenced by this opposition.218 The circumstance, that

218

Emendations both to support and to refute Sabellianism were proposed in the valued works of the past; the N. T., as well as other writings belonging to primitive Christian literature, being tampered with. Compare Lightfoot’s excursus on I. Clem. II., where Cod. A reads τοῦ Θεοῦ while C and S have τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the latter an emendation opposed to Monarchianism or Monophysitism (St. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 400 sq.). The old formulas τό αἵµα, τά παθήµατα τοῦ Θεοῦ and others came into disrepute after the third century. Athanasius himself disapproved of them (c. Apoll. II. 13. 141, I., p. 758), and in the Monophysite controversy they were thoroughly distrusted. Thus in Ignatius (ad. Eph. I.) ἐν αἵµατι Θεοῦ and (ad. Rom. VI.) τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ µου were corrected. On the other hand (II. Clem. IX.) the title of πνεῦµα for Christ was changed into λόγος. In the N. T. there are not a few passages where the various readings show a Monarchian or anti-Monarchian, a monophysite or dyophysite leaning. The most important have been discussed by Ezra Abbot in several essays in the “Bibliotheca Sacra” and the “Unitarian Review”. But we can trace certain various readings due to a Christological bias as far back as the second century: thus especially the famous ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς for µονογενὴς Θεός John I. 18; on this see Hort., Two Dissertations I., on in Scripture and Tradition, 1878; Abbot in the Unitarian Review, June 1875. Since the majority of the important various readings in the N. T. belong to the second and third century, a connected examination of them would be very important from

“Sabelliansim” 83was almost the only name by which Monarchianism was known in the East, points, for the rest, to schisms having resulted only from, or, at any rate, after 3084 the appearance and labours of Sabellius in the East, therefore at the earliest since about 230-240. So long as Origen lived in Alexandria no schism took place in Egypt over the Christological question.219 Sabellius, perhaps by birth a Lybian from Pentapolis,220 seems after his excommunication to have remained at the head of a small community in Rome. He was still there, to all appearance, when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena. Nor do we know of his ever having left the city, — we are nowhere told that he did. Yet he must have, at least, set an important movement at work abroad from Rome as his centre, and have especially fostered relations with the East. When, in Pentapolis, about A.D. 260, and several years after the death of Origen, the Monarchian doctrine took hold of the Churches there (Dionys., l.c.) — Churches which, it is significant, were to some extent Latin in their culture — Sabellius can hardly have been alive, yet it was under his name that the heresy was promoted.221 But it would seem as if this prominence was given to him for the first time about A.D. 260. Origen at least had not, so far as I know, mentioned the name of Sabellius in his discussions of Monarchianism. These date from as early as A.D. 215. At the time, Origen was in Rome, Zephyrine being still Bishop. From the relations which he then entered into with Hippolytus, it has been rightly concluded that he did not hold aloof from the contentions in Rome, and took the side of Hippolytus. This attitude of Origen’s may not have been without influence on his condemnation afterwards in Rome by Pontian, 231 or 232. Origen’s writings, moreover, contain many sharp censures on Bishops who, in order to glorify God, made the distinction between Father and Son merely 84nominal. And this again seems to have been said not without reference to the state of matters in Rome. The theology of Origen made him an especially energetic opponent of the Modalistic form of doctrine; for although the new principles set up by him — that the Logos, looking to the content of his nature, possessed the complete deity, and that he from eternity was

the standpoint of the history of dogma. For dogmatic changes in the western texts, the remarkable passage in Ambrosiaster on Rom. V. 14 falls especially to be noticed. ada 219See Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. VII. 6. Dionysius speaks as if the appearance of Sabellian doctrine in his time in the Pentapolis were something new and unheard of. 220 This information, however, first appears in Basil, then in Philaster, Theodoret, and Nicephorus; possibly, therefore, it is due to the fact that Sabellius’ teaching met with great success in Libya and Pentapolis. 221 Athanas de sententia Dionysii 5.

created from the being of the Father — approached apparently a Monarchian mode of thought, yet they in fact repelled it more energetically then Tertullian and Hippolytus could possibly have done. He who followed the philosophical theology of Origen was proof against all Monarchianism. But it is important to notice that in all places where Origen comes to speak about Monarchians, he merely seems to know their doctrines in an extremely simple form, and without any speculative embroidery. They are always people who “deny that Father and Son are two Hypostases” (they say: ἓν οὐ µόνον οὐσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑποκειµέῳ), who “fuse together” Father and Son (συγχέειν), who admit distinctions in God only in “conception” and “name”, and not in “number”, etc. Origen considers them therefore to be untheological creatures, mere “believers”. Accordingly, he did not know the doctrine of Sabellius, and living in Syria and Palestine had even had no opportunity of learning it. That doctrine was undoubtedly closely allied, as Epiphanius has rightly seen (H. 62. 1), to the teaching of Noëtus; it was distinguished from the latter, however, both by a more careful theological elaboration, and by the place given to the Holy Ghost.222 The opinion of Nitzsch and others, that we must distinguish between two stages in the theology of Sabellius, is unnecessary, whenever we eliminate the unreliable sources. The central proposition of Sabellius ran that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the same. Three names accordingly were attached to one and the same being. It was his interest in monotheism that influenced Sabellius. “What shall we say,” urge his followers 85in Epiphanius (ch. 2), “have we one God or three Gods?” (τί ἂν εἴπωµεν, ἕνα Θεόν ἔχόεν, ἢ τρεῖς Θεούς); and Epiphanius (ch. 3) replies: “we do not propound polytheism” (οὐ πολυθεΐαν εἰσηγούµεθα). Whether Sabellius himself used the comparison between the threefold nature of man and the sun remains a question (one nature, three energies: τὸ φωτιστικόν light giving, τὸ θάλπον heat giving, τὸ σχῆµα the form).223 The one being was also

222

This appears also from our oldest witness, the letter of Dionysius, Eusebius H. E. VII. 6: περὶ τοῦ νῦν κινηθέντος ἐν τῇ Πτολεµαΐδι τῆς Πενταπόλεως δόγµατος, ὄντος ἀσεβοῦς καὶ βλασφηµίαν πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀπιστίαν τε πολλὴν ἔχοντος περὶ τοῦ µονογενοῦς παιδὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως, τοῦ ἐναθρωπήσαντος λόγου, ἀναισθησίαν δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος. 223 Epiph., l. c.: ∆ογµατίζει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Σ aa4 βελλιανοὶ τὸν αὐτόν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον πνεῦµα· ὡ εἶναι ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς ὀνοµασίας, ἢ ὡς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ σῶµα καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ πνεῦµα. Καὶ εἶναι

called by Sabellius υἱοπάτωρ,224 an expression which was certainly chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to suppose that two beings were in question. This υἱοπάτωρ (sonfather) was in Sabellius the ultimate designation for God Himself, and not, say, merely for certain manifestations of a µονάς (unit) resting in the background. Sabellius, however, taught — according to Epiphanius and Athanasius — that God was not at the same time Father and Son; but that he had, rather, put forth his activity in three successive “energies”; first, in the Prosopon (= form of manifestation, figure; not = Hypostasis) of the Father as Creator and Lawgiver; secondly, in the Prosopon of the Son as Redeemer, beginning with the incarnation and ending at the ascension; finally, and up till the present hour, in the Prosopon of the Spirit as giver and sustainer of life.225 We do not know whether Sabellius was able strictly to carry out the idea of the strict succession of the Prosopa, so that the one should form the boundary of the other. It is 86possible, indeed it is not improbable, that he could not fail to recognise in nature a continuous energy of God as Father.226 It is self-evident that the Sabellians would approve of the Catholic Canon; that they did, is confirmed by Epiphanius. They are said to have appealed especially to passages like Deut. VI. 4, Exod. XX. 3, Isa. XLIV. 6 and John X. 38.227 But Epiphanius remarks besides that the Sabellians derived their whole heresy and its strength from certain Apocrypha, especially the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians.228 This note is instructive; for it not only recalls to our

µὲν τὸ σῶνα ὡς εἰτεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ψυχὴν δὲ ὡς εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱόν, τὸ πνεῦµα δὲ ὡς ἀνθρώπου, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα ἐν τῇ θεότητι. Ἢ ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ ἐν ἡλίῳ ὄντι µὲν ἐν µιᾷ ὑποστάσει, τρεῖς δὲ ἔχοντι τὰς ἐνεργείας κ.τ.λ. Method. Conviv. VIII. 10 (ed. Jahn, p. 37): Σαβέλλιος λέγει τὸν παντοκράτορα πεπονθέναι. 224 Athanas., de synod. 16; Hilar., de trin IV. 12. 225 Epiph. H. 62, c. 1: Πεµφθέντα τὸν υἱὸν καιρῷ ποτέ, ὥσπερ ἀκτῖνα καὶ ἐργασάµενον τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ τὰ τῆς οἰκονµίας τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς καὶ σωτηρίας τῶν ανθρώπων, ἀναληφθέντα δὲ αὖθις εἰς οὐρανόν, ὡς ὑπὸ ἡλίου πεµφθεῖσαν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸν ἥλιον ἀναδραµοῦσαν, Τὸ δὲ ἅγιον πνεῦµα πέµπεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσµον, καὶ καθεξῆς καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν καταξιουµένων κ.τ.λ. C. 3 Epiphanius says: Οὐχ ὁ υἱὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐγέννησεν, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ µεταβέβληται ἀπὸ τοῦ “πατήρ” τοῦ εἶναι “υἱός” κ.τ.λ. . . . πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατήρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ὅτε οὐκ ἦν πατὴρ πατήρ. 226 See Zahn, Marcell., p. 213. 227 Epiph., l. c., c. 2. 228 L. c.: Τὴν δὲ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν πλάνην καὶ τὴν τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν δύναµιν ἔχουσιν ἐξ Ἀποκρύφων τινῶν, µάλιστα ἀπο τοῦ καλουµένου Αἰγυπτίου εὐαγγελίου, ᾧ τινες τὸ ὄνοµα ἐπέθεντο τοῦτο. Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς ἐν παραβύστῳ

recollection a lost literature of the second century, especially the Gospel of the Egyptians,229 but it also shows that the use of an uncanonical Gospel had long continued among Catholics in the Pentapolis, or at any rate in Egypt.230 Finally, it confirms the view that the Christology of Sabellius cannot have been essentially different from the older, the so-called Patripassian doctrine. It is distinguished from the latter neither by the assumption of a transcendental Monas resting behind the Prosopa, nor by the introduction of the category of the Logos — which was made use of by Callistus, but not by Sabellius; nor by a speculative theory, borrowed from the Stoa, of the Deity, self-contained, and again unfolding itself; nor, finally, by a doctrine of the Trinity constructed in any fashion or by the expression υἱοπάτωρ, which, as used by Sabellius, simply affirmed the single personality of God. As to the doctrine of the Trinity, a triad was distinctly out of the question in Sabellius. The only noteworthy and real differences are found in these three points; first, in the attempt to demonstrate the succession of the Prosopa; secondly, as observed above, in the 87reference to the Holy Spirit; thirdly, in formally placing the Father on a parallel line with the two other Prosopa. The attempt mentioned above may be regarded as a return to the strict form of Modalism, which it was possible to hold was impugned by formulas like the compassus est pater filio (the Father suffered in sympathy with the Son). In the reference to the Holy Spirit, Sabellius simply followed the new theology, which was beginning to take the Spirit more thoroughly into account. Most important is the third point mentioned. For in ranging the Prosopon and energy of the Father in a series with the two others, not only was cosmology introduced into the Modalistic doctrine as a par 1590 allel to soteriology, but the preëminence of the Father over the other Prosopa was departed from in principle, and thus, in a curious fashion, the way was prepared for the Athanasian, and still more for the Western and Augustinian Christology. Here, undoubtedly, we have the decisive advance marked by Sabellianism within Monarchianism. It led up to the exclusive ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial); for it is probable that Sabellians employed this expression.231 They could apply it with perfect right.

µυστηριωδῶς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀναφέρεται, ὡς αὐτοῦ δηλοῦντος τοῖς µαθηταῖς τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἅγιον τνεῦµα. 229 In the 2nd Ep. of Clement where it is frequently used, though this is disputed by some, Modalistic formulas occur. 230 Clemens Alex. knew it; see Hilgenfeld, Nov. Testam. extra can. recept., 2 ed., fasc. 4, p. 42 sq. 595 231See above, p. 45.

Further, while up to this time no evident bond had connected cosmology and soteriology within Modalistic theology, Sabellius now made the histories of the world and salvation into a history of the God who revealed himself in them. In other words, this Monarchianism became commensurate in form with that theology which employed the conception of the Logos, and this fact may have constituted by no means the least part of the attractiveness which Sabellianism proved itself to possess in no small degree up to the beginning of the fourth century and even later.232 However, it is not to be concealed that the teaching of Sabellius relative to the Prosopon of the Father is particularly obscure. The sentence attributed to him by Athanasius,233 “as there are diversities of spiritual gifts, but 88the same spirit, so also the Father is the same, but unfolds himself in Son and Spirit” — seems at the first glance to contradict the details given above. Yet the different gifts are certainly the Spirit himself, which so unfolds himself in them that he does not remain an element behind them, but is completely merged in them. In the same way the Father unfolds himself in the Prosopa. The witnesses to the succession of the Prosopa in Sabellius are too strong to allow us to infer from this passage that the Father still remained Father after the unfolding (πλατυσµός) in the Son. But this passage shows that philosophical speculations could readily attach themselves to the simple theory of Sabellius. Marcellus rejected his doctrine which he knew accurately. What he missed in it was the recognition of the Logos; therefore the idea of God had also not been correctly apprehended by him.234 But the form given to Monarchianism by Marcellus235 won few friends for that type of doctrine. Alexandrian theologians, or Western scholars who came to their assistance, had already perfected the combination of Origen’s doctrine of the Logos with the Monarchian Ὁµοούσιος; in other words, they had turned the category used by Origen against the λόγος κτίσµα conception (the Logos-created) of Origen himself. The saving formula, ,the Logos of the same substance, not made” (λόγος ὁµοούσιος οὐ ποιηθείς), was already uttered, and, suspiciously like Monarchianism as it sounded at first, became for that very reason the means of making

232

There were still Sabellians in Neo-Cæsarea in the time of Basilius; Epiphanius knows of them only in Mesopotamia (H. 62 c. 1). The author of the Acta Archelai (c. 37) also became acquainted with them there; he treats them like Valentinians, Marcionites, and followers of Tatian as heretics. 233 Orat. c. Arian IV. 25: ὥσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισµάτων εἰσί, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦµα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτός µέν ἐστι, π ac8 ατύνεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦµα. 234 Euseb. c. Marcell., p. 76 sq. 235 See on this Volume IV.

Monarchianism superfluous in the Church, and of putting an end to it.236 But that only happened after great fights. One of these we know, the controversy of the two Dionysii, a prelude to the Arian conflict.237 In the Pentapolis the Sabellian doctrine had, soon after the death of Origen, won a great following even 89among the Bishops, “so that the Son of God was no longer preached.” Dionysius of Alexandria, therefore, composed various letters in which 2058 he tried to recall those who had been misled, and to refute Sabellianism.238 In one of these, directed to Euphranor and Ammonius, he gave an extreme exposition of Origen’s doctrine of the subordination of the Son. This letter seemed very questionable to some Christians — probably in Alexandria, perhaps in Pentapolis. They lodged a complaint, soon after A.D. 260, against the Alexandrian Bishop with Dionysius in Rome.239 The latter assembled a synod at Rome, which disapproved of the expressions used by the Alexandrian, and himself despatched to Alexandria a didactic letter against the Sabellians and their opponents, who inclined to subordinationism. In this letter the Bishop so far spared his colleague as not to mention his name; but he sent him a letter

236

Sabellius seems to have been held a heretic all over the West about A.D. 300; see the Acta Archelai, Methodius etc. 237 Hagemann, l.c., p. 411 ff.; Dittrich, Dion. d. Gr. 1867; Förster, in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1871) p. 42 ff.; Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 373-403. The main source is Athanasius de sentent, Dionysii, a defence of the Bishop, due to the appeal of the Arians to him; see also Basilius de spiritu, p. 29; Athan. de synod. 43-45. 238 Euseb., H. E. VII. 26. 1: Ἐπὶ ταύταις τοῦ ∆ιονυσίου φέρονται καὶ ἄλλαι πλείους ἐπιστολαί, ὥσπερ αἱ κατὰ Σαβελλίου πρὸς Ἄµµωνα τῆς κατὰ Βερενίκην ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ ἡ πρὸς Τελέσφορον καὶ ἡ πρὸς Εὐφράνορα, καὶ πάλιν Ἄµµωνα καὶ Εὔπορον. Συντάττει δὲ περὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεύ 564 ς καὶ ἄλλα τέσσαρα συγγράµµατα, ἃ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώµην ὁµωνύµῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ προσφωνεῖ. Dionysius had already called the attention of Sixtus II., the predecessor of the Roman Dionysius, to the revolt in the Pentapolis. 239 Hagemann maintains that they first turned to the Alexandrian Bishop himself, and that he wrote an explanatory letter, which, however, did not satisfy them; but this cannot be proved (Athanasius de sentent. Dion. 13 is against it). The standpoint of the accusers appears from their appeal to the Roman Bishop, from the fact that he made their cause his own, and from the testimony of Athanasius. who describes them as orthodox Churchmen (de sentent. Dion. 13) — they were orthodox in the Roman sense. It is entirely wrong, with Dorner (Entwickelungsgesch. I., p. 748 f.) and Baur (Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit I., p. 313), to identify the accusers with those heretics, who, according to Dionysius’ letter, taught there were three Gods; for the heretics ac8 meant were rather the Alexandrian theologians.

privately, calling for explanations. The Alexandrian Bishop sought to justify himself in a long document in four books (ἔλεγ χος καὶ ἀπολογία), maintained that his accusers had wickedly torn sentences from their context, and gave explanations which seem to have satisfied the Roman Bishop, and which Athanasius at any rate admitted to be thoroughly orthodox. But the letter of the Roman Bishop appears to have had no immediate influence on the further development in Alexandria (see under); the universal collapse of the Empire in the following decades permitted the Alexandrian theologians 90to continue their speculations, without needing to fear further immediate reproofs from Roman Bishops. Two facts give a special interest to the controversy of the Dionysii. First, in spite of the acceptance of the sacred Triad, the Romans adhered simply, without any speculative harmonising, to the unity of the Deity, and decided that Origen’s doctrine of subordination was Tritheism. Secondly, no scruple was felt at Alexandria in carrying out the subordination of the Son to the Father until it involved separation, though it was well known that such a view was supported, not by the tradition of the Church, but by philosophy alone. The accusers of the Alexandrian Dionysius charged him with separating Father and Son;240 denying the eternal existence of the Son;241 naming the Father without the Son and vice versâ;242omitting to use the word ὁµοούσιος;243 and finally, with regarding the Son as a creature, related to the Father as the vine to the gardener, or the boat to the shipbuilder.244 In these censures, which were not inaccurate, it is obvious that Dionysius, 240

De sententia 10. 16. De sententia 14: οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ µὲν Θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενηθῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, οὐ γὰρ ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον ἐπιγέγονεν. 242 De sententia 16: πατέρα λέγων ∆ιονύσιος οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν υἱόν, καὶ πάλιν υἱὸν λέγων οὐκ ὀνοµάζει τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ διαιρεῖ καὶ µακρύνει καὶ µέρίζει τὸν υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός. 243 L. c. 18: προσφέρουσιν ἔγκληµα κατ᾽ ἐµοῦ ψεῦδος ὂν ὡς οὐ λέγοντος τὸν Κριστὸν ὁµοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. 244 L. c. 18: πλὴν ἐγὼ γενητά τινα — says Dion. Alex. — καὶ ποιητά τιν 537 α φήσας νοεῖσθαι, τῶν µὲν τοιούτων ὡς ἀχρειοτέρων ἐξ ἐπιδροµῆς εἶπον παραδείγµατα, ἐπεὶ µήτε τὸ φυτὸν ἔφην (τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι) τῷ γεωργῷ, µήτε τῷ ναυπηγῷ τὸ σκάφος· — Ἕνα τῶν γενητῶν εἶναι — say the opponents of Dion. — τὸν υἱὸν καὶ µὴ ὁµοούσιον τῷ πατρί. The passage in the letter to Euphranor ran (c. 4): ποίηµα καὶ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, µήτε δὲ φύσει ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ ξένον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄµπελον καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς τὸ σκάφος. καὶ γὰρ ὡς ποίηµα ὢν οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται. 241

continuing the Neoplatonic speculations of his teacher, conceived the λόγος as portio and derivatio of the µονάς, thus, in order to meet Sabellianism, actually dividing him from the deity. Dionysius sought to excuse himself in his ἔλεγχος (Refutation), and emphasised exclusively the other side of Origen’s doctrine, at the same time 91admitting that in his incriminated writing he had incidentally employed somewhat unsuitable similes. Now he said that the Father had always been Father, and that Christ had always existed as the Logos and wisdom and power of God; that the Son had his being from the Father, and that he was related to the Father as the rays are to the light.245 He explained that while he had not used the word ὁµοούσιος, because it did not occur in Holy Scripture, figures were to be found in his earlier writings which corresponded to it; thus the figure of parents and children, of seed or root and plant, and of source and stream.246 The Father was the source of all good, the Son the outflow; the Father the mind (νοῦς), the Son the word (λόγος) — reminding us very forcibly of Neoplatonism — or the emanating mind (νοῦς προπηδῶν), while the νοῦς itself remains “and is what it was” (καὶ ἔστιν οἷος ἦν). “But being sent he flew forth and is borne everywhere, and thus each is in each, the one being of the other, and they are one, being two’ (Ὁ δὲ ἐξέπτη προπεµφθεὶς καὶ φέρεται πανταχοῦ καὶ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἑκάτερος ἐν ἑκατέρω ἓτερος ὤν θατέρου, καὶ ἓν εἰσιν, ὄντες δύο).247 But he now went further: any separation between Father and Son was to be repudiated. “I say Father, and before I add the Son, I have already included and designated him in the Father.” The same holds true of the Holy Spirit. Their very names always bind all three together inseparably. “How then do I who use these names think that these are divided and entirely separated from each other? (πῶς οὖν ὁ τούτοις χρώµενος τοῖς ὀνόµασι µεµερίσθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἀφωρὍ 564 σθαι παντελῶς ἀλλήλων οἴοµαι;).248 In these words the retreat was sounded; for what the Roman Bishop rejected, but Alexandrian theology never ventured wholly to

245

L. c. 15. L. c. 18. 247 L. C. 23. The expositions of νοῦς and λόγος which were found both in the 2 and 4 books of Dionysius quite remind us of Porphyry: καὶ ἔστιν ὁ µὲν οἷον πατὴρ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ λόγου, ὢν ἐφ᾽ ἐαυτοῦ, ὁ δὲ καθάπερ υἱὸς ὁ λόγος τοῦ νοῦ. πρὸ ἐκείνου µὲν ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔξωθέν ποθεν, σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενόµενος, βλαστήσας δὲ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. οὕτως ὁ πατὴρ ὁ µέγιστος καὶ καθόλου νοῦς πρῶτον τὸν νἱὸν λόγον ἑρµηνέα καί ἄγγελον ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει. 248 L. c. 17. 246

was the “dividing” (µερίζεσθαι).249 The reservation lies in the word “entirely” (παντελῶς). Dionysius added in conclusion: “Thus we unfold the unit into the triad without dividing it, and we sum up the triad again into the unit without diminishing it,” (οὕτω µὲν ἡµεῖς εἴς τε τὴν τριάδα τὴν µονάδα πλατύνοµεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα πάλιν ἀµεὍ 55d ωτον εἰς τὴν µονάδα συγκεφαλαιούµεθα). In this he has accommodated himself to a mode of looking at things which he could only allege to be his own under a mental reservation, as in the case of the qualification “entirely” (παντελῶς). For the terms πλατύνειν and συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι were not those current in the school of Origen, and admit of a different interpretation. Finally, Dionysius denied the charge of the “sycophants” that he made the Father the Creator of Christ.250 92discard,

The letter of Dionysius of Rome falls midway between these two manifestoes, which are so different, of the Alexandrian Bishop. We have to regret very deeply that Athanasius has only preserved one, though a comprehensive, fragment of this document. 56b 1 It is extremely characteristic of the Roman Bishop, to begin with, that it seeks to settle the sound doctrine by representing it as the just mean between the false unitarian or Sabellian, and the false trinitarian or Alexandrian doctrine.251 The second 93characteristic of the letter is that it regards the Alexandrian doctrine as teaching that there are three Gods, and 249

We see from the passages quoted by Basilius that Dionysius adhered to the expression “τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις,” but discarded the “µερισµένας εἶναι.” while his accusers must have attacked the former expression also: Εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ύπαστάσεις µεµερισµένας εἶναι λέγουσι, τρεῖς εἰσί, κᾂν µὴ θέλωσιν ἢ τὴν θείαν τριάδα παντελῶς ἀνελέτωσαν.. This accordingly is to be translated: “if they maintain that a separation is necessarily involved in the expression ‘three Hypostases,’ yet there are three — whether they admit it or no — or they must completely dest 558 roy the divine triad.” 250 L.c. 20, 21. It is very noteworthy, that Dionysius has not even brought himself to use the expression ὁµοούσιος in his ἔλεγχος. If he had Athanasius would have given it in his extracts. For the rest, the attempt of Athanasius to explain away the doubtful utterances of Dionysius, by referring them to the human nature of Christ, is a makeshift born of perplexity. 251 De decret. synod. Nic. 26 (see besides de sentent. Dion. 13). 252 ad4 The attack on the latter has alone been preserved by Athanasius along with the concluding argument; it is thus introduced: Ὅτι δὲ ποίηµα οὐδὲ κτίσµα ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννηµα ἀδιαίρετ όν ἐστιν, ὡς ἔγραψεν ἡ µεγάλη σύνοδος, ἰδοὺ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπος ∆ιονύσιος γράφων κατὰ τῶν τὰ τοῦ Σαβελλίου φρονούντων, σχετλιάζει κατὰ τῶν ταῦτα τολµώντων λέγειν καὶ φήσιν οὕτως.

draws a parallel between it and the Three principles of the Marcionites. This proves that the Roman Bishop did not trouble himself with the speculation of the Alexandrians, and simply confined himself to the result — as he conceived it — of three separate Hypostases.253 Finally — and this is the third ac8 characteristic feature — the letter shows that Dionysius had nothing positive to say, further than that it was necessary to adhere to the ancient Creed, definitely interpreting it to mean that the three, Father, Son, and Spirit, were equally one. Absolutely no attempt is made to explain or to prove this paradox.254 But here

253

Ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἄν εἰκότως λέγοιµι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς διαιροῦντας καὶ κατατέµνοντας καὶ ἀναιροῦντας τὸ σεµνότατον κήρυγµα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν µοναρχίαν — thus begins the fragment communicated by Athanasius, — εἰς τρεῖς δυνάµεις τινας καὶ µεµερισµένας ὑποστάσεις καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς· πέπυσµαι γὰρ εἶναί τινας τῶν παρ᾽ ὑµῖν κατηχούντων καὶ διδασκόντων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ταύτης ὑφηγντὰς τῆς φρονήσεως· οἳ κατὰ διάµετρον, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀντίκεινται τῇ Σαβελλίου γνώµῃ· ὁ µὲν γὰρ βλασφηµεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων τόν πατέρα, καὶ ἔµπαλιν· οἱ δὲ τρεῖς θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν, εἰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων, παντάπασι κεχωρισµένας, διαιροῦντες τὴν ἀγίαν µονάδα. ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον, ἐµφιλοχωρεῖν δὲ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν τριάδα εἰς ἕνα, ὥσπερ εἰς κορυφήν τινα (τὸν Θεὸν ac8 τῶν ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα λέγω) συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε καὶ συνάγεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Μαρκίωνος γὰρ τοῦ µαταιόφρονος δίδαγµα εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς τῆς µοναρχίας τοµὴν καὶ διαίρεσιν (διορίζει), παίδευµα ὂν διαβολικόν, οὐχὶ δὲ τῶν ὄντως µαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . οὗτοι γὰρ τρίάδα µὲν κηρυττοµένην ὑπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς σαφῶς ἐπίςτανται, τρεῖς δε θεοὺς οὔτε παλαιὰν οὔτε καινὴν διαθήκην κηρύττουσαν According to Dionysius, then, some Alexandrian teachers taught “τρόπον τινά” — this is the only limitation — a form of Tritheism. The whole effort of the Bishop was to prevent this. We recognise here the old Roman interest in the unity of God, as represented by Victor, Zephyrine, and Callistus, but Dionysius may also have remembered, that his predecessors, Pontian and Fabian, assented to the condemnation of Origen. Should we not connect the angry reproach, levelled at the Alexandrian teachers, that they were Tritheists, with the charge made by Callistus against Hippolytus, that he was a Ditheist; and may we not perhaps conclude that Origen himself was also accused of Tritheism in Rome? 254 The positive conclusion runs: Οὔτ᾽ οὐν καταµερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς θεότητας τὴν θαυµαστὴν καὶ θείαν µονάδα, οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν τὸ ἀξίωµα καὶ τὸ ὑπέρβαλλον µέγεθος τοῦ κυρίου· ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα, ἡνῶσθαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν λόγον· ἐγὼ γὰρ, φησί. καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσµεν. καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐµοί — these are the old Monarchian proof-texts — οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία τριὰς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγµα τ ac8 ς µοναρχίας διασώζοιτο. We see that Dionysius simply places the “holy preaching of the Monarchy” and the “Divine Triad” side by side:

undoubtedly 94lies the strength of the Roman Bishop’s position. When we compare his letter with that of Leo I. to Flavian and Agatho’s to the Emperor, we are astonished at the close affinity of these Roman manifestoes. In form they are absolutely identical. The three Popes did not trouble themselves about proofs or arguments, but fixed their attention solely on the consequences, or what seemed to them consequences, of disputed doctrines. Starting with these deductions they refuted doctrines of the right and left, and simply fixed a middle theory, which existed merely in words, for it was self-contradictory. This they grounded formally on their ancient Creed without even attempting to argue out the connection: one God — Father, Son and Spirit; one Person — perfect God and perfect man; one Person — two wills. Their contentment with establishing a middle line, which possessed the attribute of that known in mathematics, is, however, a proof that they had not a positive, but merely a negative, religious interest in these speculations. Otherwise they would not have been satisfied with a definition it was impossible to grasp; for no religion lives in conceptions which cannot be represented and realised. Their religious interest centred in the God Jesus, who had assumed the substantia humana. The letter of the Roman Bishop produced only a passing impression in Alexandria. Its adoption would have meant the repudiation of science. A few years afterwards the great Synod of Antioch expressly rejected the term ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial) 255 95as being liable to misconstruction. The followers of Origen in his training school continued their master's work, a 564 nd they were not molested in Alexandria itself, as it seems, up till about the close of the third century. If we review the great literary labours of

“stat pro ratione voluntas.” Between this conclusion and the commencement of the fragment preserved by Athanasius given in the preceding note, we have a detailed attack on those who hold the Son to be a ποίηµα like other creatures, “while the Holy Scriptures witness to his having an appropriate birth, but not to his being formed and created in some way.” The attack on the ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν touches the fundamental position of the Alexandrian scholars as little as the opposition to three Gods; for Dionysius contents himself with arguing that God would have been without understanding, if the Logos had not always been with him; a thing which no Alexandrian doubted. The subtle distinction between Logos and Logos Dionysius leaves wholly out of account, and the explanation of the Roman Bishop on Proverbs VIII. 32 (κύριος ἔκτισέ µε ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ): ἔκτισε ἐνταῦθα ἀκουστέον ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπέστησε τοῖς ὐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονόσιν ἔργοις, γεγονόσι δὲ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ, must merely have caused a compassionate smile among the theologians of Alexandria. 255 See above, page 45.

Dionysius, of which we, unfortunately, only possess fragments, and observe his attitude in the questions debated in the Church in his time, we see how faithfully he followed in the track of Origen. The only difference lay in greater laxity in matters of discipline.256 He proved, in his work “On Promises” (περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν) that he possessed the zeal against all Chiliasm and the dexterity in critical exegesis which characterised the school of Origen;257 and in his work “On Nature” (περὶ φύσεως) he introduced, and endeavoured to carry out, a new task in the science of Chr 564 istian theology, viz., the systematic refutation of Materialism, i.e., of the Atomic theory.258 Of the later heads of the training school we know very little; but that little is enough to let us see that they faithfully preserved the theology of Origen. Pierius, who also led a life of strict asceticism, wrote learned commentaries and treatises. Photius259 testifies that he taught piously concerning the Father and Son, “except that 96he speaks of two “beings” and two natures; using the words being and nature, as is plain from the context, in place of Hypostasis, and not as those who adhere to Arius” (πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει· τῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ὀνόµατι, ὡς δῆλον, ἔκ τ 564 τῶν ἑποµένων καὶ προηγουµένων τοῦ χωρίου ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ Ἀρείῳ προσανακείµενοι χρώµενος). This explanation is hardly trustworthy; Photius himself is compelled to add that Pierius held impious doctrines as to the Holy Ghost, and ranked him far below the Father and Son. Now since he further expressly testifies that

256

See the letter to Fabius of Antioch, and the attitude of Dionysius in the Novatian controversy, in which he sought at first to act as mediator precisely as he did in the dispute over the baptism of heretics (Euseb. H. E. VI. 41, 42, 44-46, VII. 2-9). 257 See the fragments in Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25. The criticism of the Apocalypse is a maste aaa r-piece. 258 See Euseb. H. E. VII. 26, 2; the fragments of the work in Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 393 sq. On this, Roch, die Schrift des Alex. Bischofs, Dionysius d. Gr. über die Natur (Leipzig 1882) and my account of this dissertation in the Th. L. Z. 1883, No. 2. Dionysius' work, apart from a few Biblical quotations which do not affect the arguments, might have been composed by a Neo-platonic philosopher. Very characteristic is the opening of the first fragment preserved by Eusebius. Πότερον ἔν ἐστι συναφὲς τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἡµῖν τε καὶ τοῖς σοφωτάτοις Ἑλλήνων Πλάτωνι καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ φαίνεται; there we have in a line the whole company of the saints with whom Epicurus and the Atomists were confronted. We notice that from and after Justin Epicurus and his followers were extremely abhorred by Christian theologians, and that in this abhorrence they felt themselves at one with Platonists, Pythagoreans, and Stoics. But Dionysius was the first Christian to take over from these philosophers the task of a systematic refutation. 259 Photius Cod. 119.

Pierius, like Origen, held the pre-existence of souls, and explained some passages in the O. T. “economically”, i.e., contested their literal meaning, it becomes obvious that Pierius had not parted company with Origen;260 indeed, he was even called “Origen Junior”.261 He was the teacher of Pamphilus, and the latter inherited from him his unconditional devotion to Origen's theology. Pierius was followed, in Diocletian' 564 s time, by Theognostus at the Alexandrian school. This scholar composed a great dogmatic work in seven books called “Hypotyposes”. It has been described for us by Photius,262 whose account shows that it was planned on a strict system, and was distinguished from Origen's great work, in that the whole was not discussed in each part under reference to one main thought, but the system of doctrine was presented in a continuous and consecutive exposition.263 Thus Theognostus 97invented that form of scientific, Church dogmatic which was to set a standard to posterity — though it was indeed long before the Church took courage to erect a doctrinal structure of its own. Athanasius had nothing but praise for the work of Theognostus, and has quoted a passage from the second book which undoubtedly proves that Theognostus did full justice to the Homoousian 564 side of Origen’s Christology.264 But

260

Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 425-435. Jerome, de vir. 76 ; see also Euseb. H. E. VII. 32. 582 262Cod. 106. 263 The first book dealt with the Father and Creator; the second, with the necessity that God should have a son, and the Son; the third, took up the Holy Ghost; the fourth, angels and demons; the fifth and sixth, the possibility and actuality of the Son's incarnation; the seventh, God's creative work. From the description by Photius it appears that Theognostus laid the chief stress on the refutation of two opinions, namely, that matter was eternal, and that the incarnation of the Logos was an impossibility. These are, however, the two theses with which the Neoplatonic theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries confronted Christian science, and in whose assertion the whole difference between Neo-platonism, and the dogmatic of Alexandrian churchmen at bottom consisted. It is very instructive to notice that even at ac8 the end of the 3rd century the antithesis thus fixed came clearly to the front. If Theognostus, for the rest, rejected the opinion that God created all things from a matter equally eternal with himself, this did not necessarily imply his abandonment of Origen's principle of the eternity of matter; yet it is at any rate possible that in this point he took a more guarded view of the master's doctrine. 264 The fragment given by Athanasius (de decr. Nic. syn. 25) runs as follows: Οὐκ ἔξωθέν τις ἐστὶν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ µὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη· ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασµα, ὡς ὕδατος ἀτµίς· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασµα οὔτε ἡ ἀτµὶς αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἢ αὐτὸς ὁ ἥλιος, οὔτε ἀλλότριον· καὶ οὔτε αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ οὔτε ἀλλότριος ἀλλὰ ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ 261

even the Cappadocians remarked certain affinities between Arius and Theognostus,265 and Photius informs us that he called the Son a “creature” (κτίσµα), and said such mean things about him that one might perhaps suppose that he was simply quoting, in order to refute, the opinions of other men. He also, like Origen, taught heterodox views as to the Holy Spirit, and the grounds on which he based the possibility of the incarnation were empty and worthless. As a matter of fact, Theognostus’ exposition of the sin against the Holy Ghost shows that he attached himself most closely to Origen. For it is based on the well-known idea of the master that the Father embraced the largest, the Son, the medium, and the Holy Spirit the smallest sphere; that the sphere of the 561 Son included all rational beings, inclusive of the imperfect, while that of the Spirit comprehended only the perfect 98(τελειούµενοι), and that therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost, as the sin of the “perfect”, could not be forgiven.266 The only novelty is that Theognostus saw occasion expressly to attack the view “that the teaching of the Spirit was superior to that of the Son” (τὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος διδασκαλίαν ὑπερβάλλειν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ διδαχῆς). Perhaps he did this to oppose another disciple of Origen, Hieracas, who applied himself to speculations concerning Melchizedek, as being the Holy Spirit, and emphasised the worship of the Spirit.267 567 This Copt, who lived at the close of the third and in the first half of the fourth century, cannot be passed over, because, a scholar like Origen,268 he on the one hand modified and refined on certain doctrines of his

πατρὸς οὐσίας, οὐ µερισµὸν ὑποµεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας· ὡς γὰρ µένων ὁ ἥλιος ὁ αὐτὸς οὐ µειοῦται ταῖς ἐκχεοµέναις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ αὐγαῖς, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπέµεινεν, εἰκόνα ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα τὸν υἱόν. Notice that the µερισµός is here negatived; but this negative must have been limited by other definitions. At all events we may perhaps regard Theognostus as midway between Pierius and Alexander of Alexandria. 265 See Gregory of Nyssa, c. Eunom. III. in Routh, l.c., p. 412; he proscribes the proposition of Theognostus: τὸν Θεὸν βουλόµενον τόδε τὸ πᾶν κατασκευάσαι, πρῶτον τὸν υἱὸν οἷόν τινα κανόνα τῆς δηµιουργίας ac8 προϋποστήσασθαι. Stephanus Gobarus has expressly noted it as a scandal that Athanasius should nevertheless have praised Theognostus (in Photius, Cod. 282). Jerome did not admit him into his catalogue of authors, and it is remarkable that Eusebius has passed him over in silence; this may, however, have been accidental. 266 See Athanas. Ep. ad Serap. IV., ch. 11; Routh, l.c., pp. 407-422, where the fragments of Theognostus are collected. 267 See Epiph. H. 67. 3, 55. 5. 268 Epiphanius (H. 67) speaks in the highest terms of the knowledge, learning, and power of memory, possessed by Hieracas.

master,269 and on the other hand, emphasised his practical principles, requiring celibacy as a Christian law.270 Hieracas is for us the connecting link between Origen and the 99Coptic monks; the union of ascetics founded by him may mark the transition from the learned schools of theologians to the society of monks. But in his proposition that, as regards practice, the suppression of the sexual 564 impulse was the decisive, and original, demand of the Logos Christ, Hieracas set up the great theme of the Church of the fourth and following century. In Alexandria the system of faith and the theology of Origen were fused more and more completely together, and it cannot be proved that the immediate disciples of Origen, the heads of the training-school, corrected their master.271 The first to do this in Alexandria was Peter, Bishop and Martyr.272 In his writings “Concerning divinity” (περὶ θεότητος), “Concerning the sojourn of our Saviour” (περὶ τῆς σωτῆρος ἡµῶν ἐπιδηµίας), and especially

269

H. understood the resurrection in a purely spiritual sense, and repudiated the restitutio carnis. He would have nothing to do with a material Paradise; and Epiphanius indicates other heresies, which H. tried to support by a comprehensive scriptural proof. The most important point is that he disputed, on the ground of 2 Tim. II. 5, the salvation of children who died even when baptised; “for without knowledge no conflict, without conflict no reward.” Epiphanius expressly certifies his orthodoxy in the doctrine of the Trinity; in fact. Arius rejected his Christology along with that of Valentinus, Mani, and Sabellius, in his letter to Alexander of Alex. (Epiph. H. 69. 7). From his short description of it (οὐδ ὡς Ἱεράκας λύχνον ἀπὸ λ ab8 ύχνου, ἢ ὡς λαµπάδα εἰς δύο — these are figures already employed by Tatian) we can only, however, conclude that H. declared the οὐσια of the Son to be identical with that of the Father. He may have developed Origen’s Christology in the direction of Athanasius. 270 See my Art. in Herzog’s R. E. 2 Aufl. VI., p. 100 f. Hieracas recognised the essential difference between the O. and N. T. in the commandments as to ἀγνεία, ἐγκράτεια, and especially, celibacy. “What then did the Logos bring that was new?” or what is the novelty proclaimed and instituted by the Only-begotten? The fear of God? The law already contained that. Was it as to marriage? The Scriptures (= the O. T.) had already dealt with it. Or as to envy, greed, and unrighteousness? All that is already contained in the O. T. Ἓν δὲ µόνον τοῦτο κατορθῶσαι ἦλθε, τὸ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν κηρύξαι ἔν τῷ κόσµῳ καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἀναλέξασθαι ἁγνείαν καὶ ἐγκράτειαν. Ἄνευ δὲ τούτου µὴ δύνασθαι ζῆν (Epiph. H. 67, ch. 1). He appealed to 1 Cor. VII., Hebr. XII. 14, Math. XIX. 12, XXV. 21. 271 Procopius undoubtedly maintains (Comm. in Genes., ch. III., p. 76, in Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 50) that Dionysius Alex., in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, contradicted the allegorical explanation of Gen. II., III; but we do not know in what the contradiction consisted. 272 Eusebius, H. E. IX. 6: Peter was made a martyr, probably in A.D. 311.

in his books “Concerning (the fact) that the soul does not pr 547 eexist, nor has entered this body after having sinned” (περὶ τοῦ µηδὲ προϋπάρχειν τὴν ψυχὴν µηδὲ ἀµαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶµα βληθῆναι), he maintains against Origen the complete humanity of the Redeemer, the creation of our souls along with our bodies, and the historical character of the events narrated in Gen. III., and he characterises the doctrine of a pre-mundane fall as a “precept of Greek philosophy which is foreign and alien to those who desire to live piously in Christ” (µάθηµα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας, ξένης καὶ ἀλλοτρίας οὔσης τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ εὐσεβῶς θελόντων ζῇν).273 This utterance proves that Peter had taken up a position definitely opposed to Origen; 581 274 but his own expositions show, on the other hand, that he only deprived Origen’s doctrines of their extreme conclusions, while otherwise he maintained them, in so far as they did not come into direct conflict with the rule of faith. The corrections on Origen’s system were therefore not undertaken silently 100even in Alexandria. A compromise took place between scientific theology, and the ancient antignostically determined Creed of the Church, or the letter of Holy Scripture, to which all the doctrines of Origen were sacrificed that contradicted the tenor of the sacred tradition.275 But above all, the distinction made by him between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith of the simple was to be abolished. The former must be curtailed, the latter added to, and thus a product arrived at in a uniform faith which should be at the same time ecclesiastical and s 55d cientific. After theology had enjoyed a period of liberty, the four last decades of the third century, a reaction seems to have set in at the beginning of the fourth, or even at the end of the third century, in Alexandria. But the man had not yet risen who was to preserve theology from stagnation, or from being resolved into the ideas of the time. All the categories employed by the theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries were already current in theology,276 but ad8 273See the fragments of Peter’s writings in Routh, l.c., pp. 21-82, especially pp. 46-50. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra IV., p. 187 sq., 425 sq. 274 Decidedly spurious is the fragment of an Μυσταγωγία alleged of Peter, in which occur the words: τί δὲ εἴπω Ἡρακλᾶν καὶ ∆ηµήτριον τοὺς µακκαρίους ἐπισκόπους, οἵους πειρασµοὺς ὑπέστησαν ὑπὸ τοῦ µανέντος Ὠριγένους, καὶ αὐτοῦ σχίσµατα βαλλόντος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, τὰ ἕως σήµερον ταραχὰς αὐτῇ ἐγείραντα (Routh, l.c., p. 81). 275 We have unfortunately no more precise information as to Peter’s attitude; we may determine it, however, by that of Methodius (see under). 276 So µονάς — τριάς — οὐσία – φύσις — ὑποκείµενον — ὑπόστασις — πρόσωπον — περιγραφή — µερίζεσθαι — διαιρεῖν — πλατύνειν — συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι — κτίζειν — ποιεῖν — γίγνεσθαι γεννᾶν — ὁµοούσιος — ἐκ τῆς

they had not yet received their definite impress and fixed value.277 Even the Biblical texts which in those centuries were especially exploited pro and contra, 101had already been collected in the third. Dionysius of Alexandria had already given warning that the word 52d ὁµοούσιος did not occur in Holy Scripture, and this point of view seems, as a rule, to have been thoroughly decisive even in the third century.278 We get an insight into the state of religious doctrine about the middle of the third century and afterwards from the works of Gregory,279 the miracle-worker, who was one of the most eminent of Origen’s disciples, and whose influence in the provinces of Asia Minor extended far into the fourth century. This scholar and Bishop who delivered the first Christian panegyric — one on

οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός — διὰ τοῦ θελήµατος — Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ — φῶς ἐκ φωτός — γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — οὐκ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν — ἕτερος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν — ἄτρεπτος — ἀναλλοί 550 ωτος — ἀγέννητος — ἀλλότριος — πηγὴ τῆς θεότητος — δύο οὐσίαι — οὐσία οὐσιωµένη — ἐνανθρώπησις — θεάνθρωπος — ἕνωσις οὐσιώδης — ἕνωσις κατὰ µετουσίαν — συνάφεια κατὰ µάθησιν καὶ µετουσίαν — συγκρᾶσις — ἐνοικεῖν etc. Hipler in the Oesterr. Vierteljahrschrift für kathol. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff. (quoted after Lösche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, S. 259) maintains that expressions occurred in the speculations of Numenius and Porphyry as to the nature of God, which only emerged in the Church in consequence of the Nicene Council. Those technical terms of religio-philosophical speculation, common to the Neoplatonists of the 3rd century, the Gnostics and Catholic theologians, require reexamination. One result of this will be perhaps the conclusion that the philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry was not uninfluenced by the Christian system, Gnostic and Origenistic, which they opposed. We await details under this head from Dr. Carl Schmidt. acb 277 The meaning which was afterwards attached to the received categories was absolutely unthinkable, and corresponded perfectly to none of the definitions previously hit upon by the philosophical schools. But this only convinced men that Christianity was a revealed doctrine, which was distinguished from philosophical systems by mysterious ideas or categories. 278 But we have not yet ascertained the method followed in the earlier period of collecting the verdicts of the older Fathers, and of presenting them as precedents; yet it is noteworthy that Irenæus and Clement already delighted in appealing to the πρεσβύτεροι, which meant for them, however, citing the Apostles’ disciples, and that Paul of Samosata was accused in the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, of despising the ancient interpreters of the Divine Word (Euseb. VII. 30). 279 See Caspari IV., p. 10 ff.; Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 1880. Vide also Overbeck in the Th. L.–Z., 1881, No. 12, and Dräscke in the Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. 1881, H. 2. Edition by Fronto. Ducäus, 1621. Pitra, Analecta Sacra III.; also Loofs, Theol. L. Z., 1884, No. 23.

Origen — and has in it given his autobiography, remained throughout his life an enthusiastic follower of Origen, and adhered, in what was essential, to his doctrine of the Trinity. 5a2 280 But Gregory felt compelled, in opposition to Christians whose conception of the Trinity was absolutely polytheistic, to emphasise the unity of the Godhead. He did this in his “Confession of faith”,281 and in a still greater degree, according to the testimony of Basilius, in his lost work διάλεξις πρὸς Ἀλιανόν (Debate with Ailianus),282 which contained a proposition, afterwards appealed to by Sabellians, and somewhat to the following effect, viz., Father and Son are two in thought, but one in substance (πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπινοίᾳ 561 µέν εἰσι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν). Gregory, on the other hand, described the Logos as creature (κτίσµα) 102and created (ποίηµα) — so Basilius tells us, — and this form of expression can probably be explained by the fact that he thought it necessary, in this way and aggressively (ἀγωνιστικῶς), to emphasise, on the basis of Origen’s idea of the Homoousia of the Son, the substantial unity of the deity, in opposition to a view of the divine Hypostases which approximated to polytheism. On the whole, however, we cannot avoid supposing, that at the time when theology was introduced into the faith — a work in which Gregory especially took part, — and in consequence the worst confusions set in,283 the tendency to heathen Tritheism had grown, and theologians found themselves compelled to maintain the “preaching of the monarchy” ( 567 κήρυγµα τῆς µοναρχίας) to an increasing extent. This is proved by the correspondence of the Dionysii, the theology of Hieracas, and the attitude of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; but we have also the evidence of Gregory. True, the genuineness of the writing ascribed to him, on the “essential identity”284 (of the three Persons), is not yet decided, but it belongs, at all events, to the period before Athanasius. In this treatise the author seeks to 280

See Caspari’s (l.c.) conclusions as to Gregory’s confession of faith, whose genuineness seems to me made out. Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity appears clearly in the Panegyric. The fragment printed by Ryssel, p. 44 f., is not by Gr. Thaumaturgus. 281 572 See Caspari, l.c., p. 10: τριὰς τέλεια, δόξη καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µηδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµένη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὕπαρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπείσελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί, οὔτε τἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἄλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. 282 Basil., ep. 210. 283 acb It remained a matter of doubt in the East up to the beginning of the fourth century, whether one ought to speak of three Hypostases (essences, natures), or one. 284 Ryssel, p. 65 f., 100 f.; see Gregor. Naz., Ep. 243, Opp, p. II., p. 196 sq., ed. Paris, 1840.

establish the indivisibility and uniqueness of God, subject to the hypothesis of a certain hypostatic difference. In this he obviously approaches Monarchian ideas, yet without falling into them. Further, the very remarkable tractate, addressed to Theopompus, on the incapability and capability of suffering,285 treats this very subject, without e 564 ven hinting at a division between Father and Son in this connection; on the other hand, the author certainly does not call it in question. We can study in the works of Gregory, and in the two treatises286 just mentioned, which bear his name, the state of theological stagnation, connected with the indeterminateness of all dogmatic ideas, and the danger, 103then imminent, of passing wholly over to the domain of abstract philosophy, and of relaxing the union of speculation with the exegesis of Holy Scripture. The problems are strictly confined to the sphere of Origen’s theology; but that theology was so elastic that they threatened to run wild and become thoroughly secular.287 If, e.g., we review the Christological tenets of Eusebius of Cæsarea, one of Origen’s most enthusiastic followers, we are struck by their universal hollowness and e 564 mptiness, uncertainty and instability. While Monotheism is maintained with an immense stock of Bible texts and a display of all possible formulas, a created and subordinate God is, in fact, interposed between the deity and mankind. But there was also in the East a theology which, while it sought to make use of philosophy, at the same time tried to preserve in their realistic form the religious truths established in the fight with Gnosticism. There were theologians who, following in the footsteps of Irenæus and Hippolytus, by no means despised science, yet found the highest truth expressed in the tenets handed 285

Ryssel, p. 71 f., 118 f. The genuineness of the tractate is not so certain as its origin in the 3rd century; yet see Loofs, l.c. 286 See also the Sermo de incarnatione attributed to Gregory (Pitra III., p. 144 sq., 395 sq.) 287 Origen himself always possessed in his unconditional adherence to the Bible a kind of corrective against the danger of passing entirely over to philosophy. Though thoroughly versed in philosophical science, he sought never to be more than a scriptural theologian, and urged his disciples — witness his letter to Gregor. Thaum. — to give up their philosophical studies, and devote themselves wholly to the Bible. No professedly philosophical expositions occur in Origen himself, so far as I know, like those transmitted by his disciples. For the latter the comprehensive chapter of Eusebius (H. E. VII. 32) is very instructive. Here we meet with Bishops who seem to have been scholars first and clerics afterwards. This Eusebius (§ 22) has to tell of one: λόγων µὲν φιλοσόφων καὶ τῆς ἂλλης παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι παιδείας παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς θαυµασθείς, οὐχ ὁ 564 οίως γε νὴν περὶ τὴν θείαν πίστιν διατεθειµένος.

down by the Church; and who therefore, refusing the claim of philosophical Gnosis to re-edit the principles of faith, only permitted it to support, connect, and interpret them. These theologians were necessarily hostile to the science of religion cultivated in Alexandria, and enemies of its founder Origen. We do not know whether, during his life-time, Origen came into conflict in the East with opponents who met him in the spirit of an Irenæus.288 From his 564 own statements we must suppose that he only had to deal with untrained disputants. 104But in the second half of the third century, and at the beginning of the fourth, there were on the side of the Church antagonists of Origen’s theology who were well versed in philosophical knowledge, and who not merely trumped his doctrine with their ψιλὴ πίστις (bare faith), but protected the principles transmitted by the Church from spiritualising and artificial interpretations, with all the weapons of science.289 The most important among them, indeed really the only one of whom we have any very precise knowledge, besides Peter

288

It is unknown who was the καλλίων ἡµῶν πρεσβύτης καὶ µακαριστὸς ἀνὴρ quoted by Epiph. (H. 64, ch. 8 and 67) as an opponent of Origen. 289 Besides these we have Eastern theologians, who, while they did not write against Origen, show no signs in their works of having been influenced by Alexandrian theology, but rather resemble in their attitude Irenæus and Hippolytus. Here we have especially to mention the author of five dialogues against the Gnostics, which, under the title “De recta in deum fide,” bear the name of Adamantius; see the editio princeps by Wetstei ab8 n, 1673, and the version of Rufinus discovered by Caspari (Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, 1883; also Th. L.–Z. 1884, No. 8) which shows that the Greek text is interpolated. The author, for whom we have perhaps to look in the circle of Methodius, has at any rate borrowed not a little from him (and also from the work of Theophilus against Marcion?). See Jahn, Methodii, Opp. I., p. 99, II. Nos. 474, 542, 733-749, 771, 777. Möller in Herzog’s R. E., 2 Ed., IX., p. 725. Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch., Vol. IX., p. 193 ff.: “Die Dialoge des Adamantius mit den Gnostikern.” The dialogues were written ± 300, probably somewhere in East Asia Minor, or in West Syria, according to Zahn about 300313 in Hellenic Syria, or Antioch. They are skilfully written and instructive; a very moderate use is made of philosophical theology. Perhaps the Ep. ad Diogn. also came from the circle of Methodius. Again, there is little philosophical theology to be discovered in the original edition of the first six books of the apostolic Constitutions, which belongs to the third century. See Lagarde in Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicæna T. II. The author still occupied the standpoint of Ignatius, or the old anti-gnostic teachers. The dogmatic theology, in the longer recension of the work, preserved in Greek, belongs entirely to the reviser who lived in or after the middle of the 4th century (so App. Const. II. 24, VI. 11, 14, 41 [Hahn, Biblioth. der Symbole, 2 Aufl., §§ 10, 11, 64]; see my edition of the ∆ιδαχὴ, p. 241 ff. That Aphraates and the author of the Acta Archelai were unaffected by Origen’s theology will have been clear from what was said above, p. 50 f.

of Alexandria (see above), is Methodius.290 But of the great number of treatises by this original and prolific author only one has been till now preserved comple 538 te in the original — Conviv. decem virg., while we have the greater part of a second — De resurr.291 The rest 105has been preserved in the Slavic language, and only very lately been rendered accessible. The personality of Methodius himself, with his position in history, is obscure.292 But what we do know is enough to show that he was able to combine the defence of the Rule of Faith as understood by Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian,293 with the most thorough study of Plato’s writings and the reverent appropriation of Plato’s ideas. Indeed he lived in these. af4 294 Accordingly, he defended “the popular conception of the common faith of the Church” in an energetic counterblast to Origen, and rejected all his doctrines which contained an artificial version of traditional principles.295 But on the other hand, he did not repudiate the basis on which Origen’s speculation rested. He rather attempted with its presuppositions and method to arrive at a result in harmony with the common faith. There seems to be no doubt that he took the great work of Irenæus as his model; for the manner in which Methodius has endeavoured to overcome dualism and spiritualism, and to establish a speculative realism, recalls strikingly the undertaking of Irenæus. Like the latter, Methodius sought to demonstrate the eternal importance of the natural constitution in spirit and body of the creatures made by God; and he conceived salvation not as a disembodying, not in any sense as a division and separation, but as a transfiguration of the corporeal, and a union of what had been unnaturally divided. He rejected the pessimism with which Origen had, like the Gnostics, viewed the world as it is, the

290

Jahn, S. Methodii Opp., 1865; Pars II. S. Methodius Platonizans, 1865; Bonwetsch, M. von Olympus I. 1891. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra T. III., IV. (see Loofs, Th. L.– Z., 1884, No. 23, col. 556 ff.). Möhler, Patrologie, pp. 680-700. Möller, l.c., p. 724 ff. Salmon Dict. of Christian Biogr. III. p. 909 sq. 291 Besides smaller fragments are found, increased by Pitra. 292 See Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. Vol. VIII., p. 15 ff. Place: Olympus in Lycia. 293 He was ranked in later times with Irenæus and Hippolytus (see Andreas Cæs. in præf. in Apoc., p. 2.) and that as a witness to the inspiration of John’s Apocalypse. 294 See Jahn, l.c. b05 295See the long fragments of the writing de resurrectione which was directed against Origen, as also the work περὶ τῶν γενητῶν. Methodius called Origen a “Centaur” (Opp. I. 100, 101), i.e., “Sophist,” and compared his doctrine with the Hydra (I. 86). See the violent attack on the new-fashioned exegetes and teachers in De resurr. 8, 9 (Opp I. 67 sq.) and 20, (p. 74), where the ὀστᾶ νοητὰ and σάρκας νοητάς of Origen’s school are ridiculed; ch. 21, p. 75; 39, p. 83.

σύστασις τοῦ κόσµου, making it, if a well-ordered and necessary prison, yet a prison after all. This he confronted with the optimistic conviction, that everything which God has created, and as he has created it, is capable of permanence and 106transfiguration.296 Accordingly, he opposed Origen’s doctrines of the pre-existence of souls, the nature and object of the world and of corporeality, the eternal duration of the world, a premundane Fall, the resurrection as a destruction of the body, etc. At the same time he certainly misrepresented them, as, e.g., Origen’s doctrine of sin, p. 68 sq. Like Irenæus, Methodius introduced curious speculations as to Adam for the purpose of establishing realism, i.e., the maintenance of the literal truth of sacred history. Adam was to him the 545 whole of natural humanity, and he assumed, going beyond Irenæus, that the Logos combined the first man created (protoplast) with himself.297 107This union was conceived as a complete

296

See the short argument against Origen, De resurr. 28, p. 78: Εἰ γὰρ κρεῖττον τὸ µὴ εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι τὸν κόσµον, διὰ τί τὸ χεῖρον ἡρεῖτο ποιήσας τὸν κόσµον ὁ Θεός; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ὁ Θεὸς µαταίως ἢ χεῖρον ἐποίει. οὐκοῦν εἰς τὸ εἶναι καὶ µένειν τὴν κτίσιν ὁ Θεὸς διεκοσµήσατο. Wisdom I. 14 and Rom. VIII. 19 follow. The fight waged by Methodius against Origen presents itself as a continuation of that conducted by Irenæus against the Gnostics. It dealt in part with the same problems, and used the same arguments and proofs. The extent to which Origen hellenised the Christian tradition was in the end as little tolerated in the Church as the latitude taken by the Gnostics. But while Gnosticism was completely ejected in two or three generations it took much longer to get rid of Origenism. Therefore, still more of Origen’s theology passed into the “revealed” system of Church doctrine, than of the theology of the Gnostics. 297 See Conviv. III. 6 (p. 18 sq.): ταύτῃ γὰρ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἄνείληφεν ὁ λόγος, ὅπως δὴ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καταλύσῃ τὴν ἐπ᾽ ὀλέθρῳ γεγονυῖαν καταδί ac8 κην, ἡττήσας τὸν ὄφιν. ἥρµοζε γὰρ µὴ δι᾽ ἑτέρου νικηθῆναι τὸν πονηρὸν ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἐκείνου, ὃν δὴ καὶ ἐκόµπαζεν ἀπατήσας αὐτὸν τετυραννηκέναι, ὅτι µὴ ἄλλως τὴν ἁµαρτίαν λυθῆναι καὶ τὴν κατάκρισιν δυνατὸν ἦν, εἰ µὴ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἄνθρωπος, δι᾽ ὃν εἴρητο το “γῆ εἶ καί εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ,” ἀναπλασθεὶς ἀνέλυσε τὴν ἀπόφασιν τὴν δι᾽ αὐτὸν εὶς πάντας ἐξενηνεγµένην. ὅπως, καθὼς ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰµ πρότερον πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν, οὕτω δὴ πάλιν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφότι Χπιστῷ τὸν Ἀδαµ πάντες ζωοποιηθῶσιν. Still clearer is III. 4, where it is expressly denied that Adam is only a type of Christ: φέρε γὰρ ἡµεῖς ἐπισκεψώµεθα πῶς ὀρθοδόξως ἀνήγαγε τὸν Ἀδὰµ εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐ µόνον τύπον αὐτὸν ἡγούµενος εἶναι καὶ εἰκόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο Χριστὸν καὶ αὐτὸν γεγονέναι διὰ τὸ τὸν πρὸ αἰώνων εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαι λόγον. ἥρµοζε γὰρ τὸ πρωτόγονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρῶτον βλάστηµα καὶ µονογενὲς τὴν σοφίαν τῷ πρωτοπλάστῳ καὶ πρώτῳ καὶ πρωτογόνῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνθρώπῳ κερασθεῖσαν ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν, ἄνθρωπον ἐν ἀκράτῳ θεότητι καὶ τελείᾳ πεπληρωµένον καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κεχωρηµένον· ἦν γὰρ πρεπωδέστατον τόν πρεσβύτατον τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀρχαγγέλων, ἀνθρώποις µέλλοντα

incorporation: “God embraced and comprehended in man;” and, starting from this incorporation, the attempt was made to explain redemption in terms of a mystical realism. Salvation was not consummated in knowledge (Gnosis), but it came to light, already achieved for mankind, in the constitution of the God-man.298 But for this very reason Methodius borders, just like Irenæus, on a mode of thought which sees in the incarnation the necessary completion of creation, and conceives the imperfection of the first Adam to have been natural. 583 1 Adam, i.e., mankind, was before Christ still in a plastic condition, capable of receiving any impression and liable to dissolution. Sin, which had exclusively an external source, had therefore an easy task; humanity was first consolidated in Christ. In this way freedom is retained, but we easily see that Origen’s idea of sin was more profound than that of Methodius.299 The fantastic realism of the latter’s view is carried

συνοµιλεῖν, εἰς τὸν πρεσβύτατον καὶ πρῶτον τῶν ἀνθρώπον εἰσοικισθῆναι τὸν Ἀδάµ. See also III. 7 8: προγεγύµνασθαι γὰρ . . . ὡς ἄρα ὁ πρωτόπλαστος οἰκείως εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι δύναται τὸν Χριστόν, οὐκέτι τύπος ὢν καὶ ἀπείκασµα µόνο ac8 ν καὶ εἰκὼν τοῦ µονογενοῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο σοφία γεγονώς καὶ λόγος. δίκην γὰρ ὕδατος συγκερασθεὶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ ζωῇ τοῦτο γέγονεν, ὅπερ ἦν αὐτὸ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαν ἄκρατον φῶς. 298 Yet see, under, the new turn given to the speculation. 299 S. Conviv. III. 5: ἔτι γὰρ πηλουργούµενον τὸν Ἀδάµ, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, καὶ τηκτὸν ὄντα ταὶ ὑδαρῆ, καὶ µηδέπω φθάσαντα δίκην ὀστράκου τῇ ἀφθαρσίᾳ κραταιωθῆναι καὶ παγιωθῆναι, ὕδωρ ὥσπερ καταλειβοµένη καὶ καπαστάζουσα διέλυσεν αὐτὸ ἡ ἁµαρτία. διὸ δὴ πάλιν ἄνωθεν ἀναδεύων καὶ πηλοπλαστῶν τὸν αὐτὸν εἰς τιµὴν ὁ Θεός ἐν τῇ παρθενικῇ κραταιώσας πρῶτον καὶ πήξας µήτρᾳ καὶ συνενώσας καὶ συγκεράσας τῷ λογῳ, ἄτηκτον καὶ ἄθραυστον ἐξήγαγεν εἰς τὸν βίον, ἵνα µὴ πάλιν τοῖς τῆς φθορᾶς ἔξψθεν ἐπικλυσθεὶς ἱεύµασιν, τηκεδόνα γεννήσας διαπέσῃ. Methodius, like Irenæus, gave much study to Paul’s Epistles, because they were especially quoted by Origen and his school (see ch. 51 fin., p. 90); on the difficulties which he felt see De resurr. 26, p. 77; 38, p. 83. 300 The expositions of concupiscen ac8 ce, sin, and death, are distinguished very strongly from those of Origen. (For death as means of salvation see De resurr. 23, 49). They resemble the discussions of Irenæus, only Methodius maintains — a sign of the times — that sinlessness is impossible even to the Christian. See De resurr. 22 (I., p. 75): ζῶντος γὰρ ἔτι τοῦ σώµατος πρὸ τοῦ τεθνήξεσθαι συζῆν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν, ἔνδον τὰς ῥίζας αὐτῆς ἐν ἡµῖν ἀποκρύπτουσαν, εἰ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοµαίς ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν σωφρονισµῶν καὶ τῶν νουθετήσεων ἀνεστέλλετο, ἐπει οὐκ ἂν µετὰ τὸ φωτισθῆναι συνέβαινεν ἀδικεῖν, ἅτε παντάπασιν εἰλικρινῶς ἀφῃρηµένης ἀφ᾽ ἡµῶν τῆς αµαρτίας· νῦν δὲ καὶ µετὰ τὸ πιστεῦσαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐλθεῖν τοῦ ἁγνισµοῦ πολλάκις ἐν ἀµαρτίαις ὄντες εὑρισκόµεθα· οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτως ἁµαρτίας ἐκτὸς εἶναι ἑαυτὸν καυχήσεται, ὡς µηδὲ κἂν ἐνθυµηθῆναι τὸ σύνολον ὅλως τῆν ἀδικὶαν. To this

out in his speculations on the transference of salvation from 108Christ to individuals. The deep sleep of the Protoplast is paralleled in the second Adam by the sleep of death. Now as Eve was formed from, and was part of the being of sleeping Adam, so the Holy Spirit issued from Christ lying in the sleep of death, and was part of his being;301 and from him the Church was fashioned. “The Apostle has excellently applied the history of Adam to Christ. So we will require to say with him that the Church is of the bone and flesh of Christ, since for her sake the Logos left the Heavenly Father, and came down that he might cleave to his spouse; and he fell asleep unconscious of suffering, dying voluntarily for her, that he might present the Church to himself glorious and faultless, after he had purified her by the bath; so that she might receive the spiritual and blessed seed, which he himself, instilling and implanting, scatters into the depths of the Spirit, whom the Church receives and, fashioning, develops like a spouse, that she may bear and rear virtue. For in this way the word is also excellently fulfilled ‘Grow and increase’; since the Church increases daily in greatness, beauty, and extent; because the Logos dwells with her, and holds communion with her, and he even now descends to us, and in remembrance (Anamnesis) of his suffering (continually) dies to himself. For not otherwise could the Church continually conceive believers in her womb, and bear them anew through the bath of regeneration, unless Christ were repeatedly to die, emptying himself for the sake of 564 each individual, in order to find acceptance by means of his sufferings continuing and completing

conception corresponds the view of Methodius that Christianity is a cultus of mysteries, in which consecration is unceasingly bestowed on the τελειούµενοι. Methodius also referred Rom. VII. 18 f. to those born again. 301 The allegory receives another version Opp. I., p. 119: µή πως ἄρα αἱ τρεῖς αὗται τῶν προγόνων κεφαλαὶ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ὁµοούσιοι ὑποστάσεις κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τινά, ὡς καὶ Μεθοδίῳ δοκεῖ — the passage occurs in Anastasius Sin. ap. Mai, Script. Vet. N. Coll. IX. p. 619 — τυπικῶς γεγόνασι τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁµοούσιου τριάδος, τοῦ µὲν ἀναιτίου καὶ ἄγεννήτου Ἀδὰµ τύπον καὶ εἰκόνα ἔχοντος τοῦ ἀναιτίου καὶ πάντων αἱτίου παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, τοῦ δὲ γεννηύ 552 οῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα προδιαγράφοντος τοῦ γεννητοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ. τῆς δὲ ἐκπορευτῆς Εὔας σηµαινούσης τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐκπορευτὴν ὑπόστασιν.

themselves; unless, descending from heaven, and united with his spouse, the Church, he imparted from his own side a certain power, that all who are edified in him should attain growth, those, namely, who, born again through baptism, have received flesh of his flesh, bone of his 109bone, i.e., of his holiness and glory. He, however, who calls bone and flesh wisdom and virtue, speaks truly; but the side is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, from whom the enlightened receiving their portion are born again, in a worthy manner, to immortality. But no one can participate in the Holy Spirit, and be accounted a member of Christ, unless the Logos has first descended upon him, and, falling asleep, has ‘emptied’ himself, that he, rising again and rejuvenated, along with him who fell asleep for his sake, and re-fashioned in his own person, may participate in the Holy Spirit. For the side (πλευρά) of the Logos is really the spirit of truth, the sevenformed of the prophet, from whom God, in accordance with the self-sacrifice of Christ, that is, the incarnation and suffering of Christ, takes away something, and fashions for him his spouse, in other words, s 564 ouls fit for him and prepared like a bride.”302 Methodius accordingly, starts in his speculations from Adam and Eve as the real types of Christ and the Church; but he then varies this, holding that the individual soul rather must become the bride of Christ, and that for each the descent of the Logos from heaven and his death must be repeated — mysteriously and in the heart of the believer. This variation became, and precisely through the instrumentality of Methodius, of eminent importance in the history of dogma.303 We would not have had in the third century all the premises from which Catholic Christianity was developed in the following centuries, unless this speculation had been brought forward, or, been given a central place, by a Christian theologian of the earlier period. 564 It marks nothing less than the tapering of

302

Conviv. III. 8. It was not altogether absent in earlier times, and on this see ch. V. § 2. As we have remarked above, individualism in this extreme form occurs also in Origen; see, e.g., “De orat.” 17.: “He who has perceived the beauty of the bride whom the Son of God loves as bridegroom, namely, the soul.” 303

the realistic doctrinal system of the Church into the subjectivity of monkish mysticism. For to Methodius, the history of the LogosChrist, as maintained by faith, was only the general background of an inner history, which required to repeat itself in each believer: the Logos had to descend from heaven, suffer, die, and 110rise again for him. Nay, Methodius already formulated his view to the effect that every believer must, through participation in Christ, be born as a Christ.304 The background was, however, not a matter of indifference, seeing that what took place in the individual must have first taken place in the Church. The Church, accordingly, was to be revered as mother, by the individual soul which was to become the bride of Christ. In a word: here we have the theological speculation of the future monachism of the Church, and we see why it could not but pair with the loftiest obedience, and greatest devotion to the Church. But the evidence that we have really 564 here the fundamental features of the monkish mysticism of the Church, is contained in the correct perception of the final object of the work from which the above details are taken. The whole writing seeks to represent the state of virginity as the condition of Christlikeness (I. 5, p. 13). Everything is directed to this end; yet marriage is not forbidden, but is admitted to possess a mystery of its own. Unstained virginity is ranked high above the married state; towards it all Christians must strive; it is the perfectly Christian life itself. Yet Methodius succeeds in maintaining, beside it, marriage and sin-stained birth from the flesh (II. 1 sq.). He had already arrived at the position of Catholic monasticism; the body belonging to the soul that would be the bride of Christ must remain virgin. The proper result of the work of Christ is represented in the state of virginity of the

ac6

304

Conviv. VIII. 8: Ἐγὼ γάρ τὸν ἄρσενα (Apoc. XII. 1 f.) ταύτῃ γεννᾶν εἰρῆσθαι νoµίζω τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἐπειδὴ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας καὶ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀρρενωπίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσλαµβάνουσιν οἱ φωτιζόµενοι, τῆς καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν µορφῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκτυπουµένης τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς γεννωµένης κατά τὴν ἀκριβῆ γνῶσιν καὶ πίστιν ὥστε ἐν ἑκάστῳ γεννᾶσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν νοητῶς· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἐκκλησία σπαργᾷ καὶ ὡδίνει, µέχριπερ ἂν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν ἡµῖν µορφωθῇ γεννηθείς, ὅπως ἕκαστος τῶν ἁγίων τῷ µετέχειν Χριστοῦ Χριστος γεννηθῇ, καθ᾽ ὃν λόγον καὶ ἔν τινι γραφῇ φέρεται “µὴ ἅψησθε τῶν Χριστῶν µου” οἱονεὶ Χριστῶν γεγονότων τῶν κατὰ µετουσίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος εἰς Χριστὸν βεβαπτισµένων, συµβαλλούσης ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τράνωσιν αὐτῶν καὶ µεταµόρφωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Even Tertullian teaches (De pud. 22) that the martyr who does what Christ did, and lives in Christ, is Christ.

believers who still walk upon earth, and it is the bloom of imperishableness: “Exceedingly great and wonderful and glorious is virginity, and to speak plainly, following Holy Scripture, this most noble 111and fair practice is alone the ripe result, the flower and first fruits of incorruption, and therefore the Lord promises to admit “those who have preserved th 564 eir virginity into the kingdom of heaven . . . for we must understand that virginity, while walking “upon the earth, reaches the heavens”: µεγάλη τίς ἐστιν ὑπερφυῶς καὶ θαυµαστὴ καὶ ἔνδοξος ἡ παρθενία, καὶ εἰ χρὴ φανερῶς εἰπεῖν ἐποµένην ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς, τὸ οὖθαρ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας καὶ τὸ ἄνθος καὶ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ αὐτῆς τοῦτο τὸ ἄριστον καὶ κάλλιστον ἐπιτήδευµα µόνον τυγχάνει, καὶ δία ταῦτα καὶ ὁ κύριος εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσελάσαι τῶν οὐρανῶν τοὺς ἀποπαρθενεύσαντας σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπαγγελλεται . . . , παρθενίαν γὰρ βαίνειν µέν ἐπὶ γῆς, ἐπιψαύειν δὲ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἡγητέον (Conv. I. 1, p. 11). Methodius started from other premises than the school of Origen, and bitterly opposed the latter, but in the end he came to the same practical result — witness the followers of Hieracas. Their s 564 peculations also led to the depreciation of the objective redemption, and to monachism. But the concrete forms were very different. In Origen himself and his earliest disciples the Church was by no means really the mother, or, if it were, it was in a wholly different sense from that of Methodius. Asceticism and in particular virginity were not in themselves valuable, an end in themselves, but means to the end. Finally, Gnosis (knowledge) was different from Pistis (faith), and the ideal was the perfect Gnostic, who is freed from all that is alien and fleeting, and lives in the eternal and abiding. Methodius’ teaching was different. Pistis and Gnosis were related to each other as theme and exposition: there is only one truth, which is the same for all; but on the soil of the Church there is room for the state of virginity, which is the goal of the incarnation, though all may not yet reach it. The important and momentous achievement of Methodius305 consisted in

305

The theology of Methodius was in the Eastern Church, like Tertullian’s in the West, a prophecy of the future. His method of combining tradition and speculation was not quite attained even by the Cappadocians in the 4th century. Men like Cyril of Alexandria were the first to resemble him. In Methodius we have already the final stage of Greek theology.

subordinating a realistic Church theology, which yet was not destitute of a speculative phase, and even made a moderate use of the allegorical 564 method, 112to the practical object of securing virginity, a life in which God and Christ were imitated, (Conv. I. 5, p. 13: to imitate God is to escape from corruption [ὁµοίωσις Θεῷ φθορᾶς ἀποφυγή]; Christ is not only arch-shepherd and archprophet [ἀρχιποιµήν-ἀρχιποροφήτης], but also archetypal virgin [ἀρχιπαρθνος]). This doctrine, as well as the practical attitude of Hieracas, and many other features, as, e.g., the considerably earlier Pseudo-Clementine epistles “De virginitate,”306 prove that the great aspiration of the time in the East was towards monachism, and Methodius succeeded in uniting this with a Church theology. In spite of his polemic against Origen he did not despise those phases of the latter’s theology, which were at all compatible with the traditional comprehension of religious doctrine. Thus he accepte 564 d the doctrine of the Logos implicitly in the form given to it by Origen’s school, without, of course, entangling himself in the disputed terminology (see, e.g., De creat. 11, p. 102); so far as I know, he made no express defence of Chiliasm, in spite of the high value he put on the Apocalypse. He is even said by Socrates (H. E. VI. 13) to have admired Origen, in one of his latest writings, “a sort of recantation” (ὡς ἐκ παλινῳδίας). However that may be, the future belonged not to Origen, nor to the scientific religion that soared above faith, but to compromises, such as those, stamped with monachism, which Methodius concluded, to the combination of realistic and speculative elements, of the objectivity of the Church and the mysticism of the monks.307 The great fight in the next decades was undoubtedly to be fought out between two forms of the doctrine of the Logos; the one, that of Lucian the martyr and his school, which had adopted elements distinctive of Adoptianism, and the other, professed by Alexander of Alexa 564 ndria and the Western theologians, which with Sabellianism held fast the unity of the divine nature. But, in the case of the majority of Eastern 113Christians in the 4th century, the background or basis of these opposite views was formed, not by a theology purely Origenist, but by one of compromise, which had resulted from a combination of the former with the popular idea of the rules of faith, and which sought its goal, not in an absolute knowledge and

578 306

See Funk, Patr. App. Opp. II. pp. 1-27, and Harnack, Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff. 307 On the authority of Methodius in later times, see the Testimonia Veterum in Jahn, 1. c. I., p. 6 sq. The defence of Origen against Methodius by Pamphilus and Eusebius has unfortunately been preserved only to a very small extent. See Routh, Reliq. S. IV., p. 339 sq.

the calm confidence of the pious sage, but in virginity, ecclesiasticism, and a mystical deification. Men like Methodius became of the highest consequence in the development of this theological genus, which, indeed, could not but gain the upper hand more and more, from the elemental force of factors existent in the Church.308 But while as regards Origen’s theology reservations may have gradually grown stronger and more numerous in the course of the next decades, theological speculation aimed in the East, from about 250-320, at a result than which nothing grander or more assured could be 564 imagined. In the West the old, short, Creed was retained, and, except in one case,309 the Christological conflicts did not induce men to change it. But in the leading Churches of the East, and during the given period, the Creeds were expanded by theological additions,310 and thus exegetical and speculative theology was introduced into the Apostolic faith itself.311 Thus, in

308

It is instructive to notice how Athanasius has silently and calmly shelved those doctrines of Origen which did not harmonise with the wording of the rule of faith, or allegorised facts whose artificial ac8 interpretation had ceased to be tolerated. 309 See above, p. 75. 310 It is possible, and indeed probable, that Creeds were then set up for the first time in many Churches. The history of the rise of Creeds — further than the Baptismal formula — in the East is wholly obscure. Of course there always were detailed Christological formulas, but the question is whether they were inserted into the Baptismal formula. 311 It has been already pointed out on p. 48, note 1, that the Biblical character of some of those additions cannot be used against their being regarded as theological and philosophical formulas. The theology of Origen — witness his letter to Gregory — was throughout exegetical and speculative; therefore the reception of certain Biblical predicates of Christ into the Creeds meant a desire to legitimise the speculation which clung to them as Apostolic. The Churches, however, by setting up theological Creeds only repeated a development in which they had been anticipated about 120 years before by the “Gnostics.” The latter had theologically worked out Creeds as early as in the second century. Tertullian, it is true, says of the Valentinians (adv. Valent. I.) “communem fidem affirmant,” i.e., they adapt themselves to the common faith; but he himself relates (De carne, 20; see Iren. I. 7, 2) that they preferred “διά Μαρίας” to “ἐκ Μαρίας”; in other words, of these two prepositions, which were still used without question even in Justin’s time, they, on theological grounds, admitted only the one. So also they said “Resurrection from the dead” instead of “of the body.” Irenæus as well as Tertullian has spoken of the “blasphemous⍊564 regulæ of the Gnostics and Marcionites which were always being changed (Iren. I. 21 5, III. 11 3, I. 31 3; II præf.; II. 19 8, III. 16, I. 5; Tertull., De præscr. 42; Adv. Valent. 4; Adv. Marc. I. 1, IV. 5, IV. 17). We can still partly reconstruct these “Rules” from the Philosoph. and the Syntagma of Hippolytus (see esp. the regula of Apelles in Epiphan. H. XLIV. 2). They have mutatis mutandis the

the Catholic Churches of the East, this 114theology was for ever fused with the faith itself. A striking example has been already quoted; those six Bishops who wrote against Paul of Samosata in the seventh decade of the third c ab1 entury, submitted a Rule of

most striking similarity to the oriental confessions of faith published since the end of the third century; compare, e.g., the Creed, given under, of Gregorius Thaumaturgus with the Gnostic rules of faith which Hippolytus had before him in the Philosoph. There is, further, a striking affinity between them in the fact that the ancient Gnostics already appealed in support of their regulæ to secret tradition, be it of one of the Apostles or all, yet without renouncing the attestation of these rules by Holy Scripture through the spiritual (pneumatic) method of Exegesis. Precisely the same thing took place in the Eastern Churches of the next age. For the tenor and phrasing of the new Creeds which seemed to be necessary, the appeal to Holy Scripture was ev ac8 en here insufficient, and it was necessary to resort to special revelations, as in the case alluded to, p. 115, note 3, or to a παράδοσις ἄγραφος of the Church. That the new theology and Christology had found their way into the psalms sung in the Church, can be seen from the Synodal document on Paul of Samosata (Euseb. VII. 30, 11), where it is said of the Bishop: ψαλµοὺς τοὺς µὲν εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ. παύσας ὡς δὴ νεωτέρους καὶ νεωτέρων ἀνδρῶν συγγράµµατα; i.e., Paul set aside those Church songs which contained the philosophical or Alexandrian christology. In this respect also the Church followed the Gnostics: compare in the period immediately following, the songs of Arius, on the one hand, and the orthodox hymns on the other; for we know of Marcionite, Valentinian, and Bardesanian psalms and hymns. (See the close of the Muratorian Fragment, further my investigations in the Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol., 1876, p. 109 ff.; Tertull., De Carne Chr. 17; Hippol., Philos. VI. 37; the psalms of Bardesanes in Ephraim; the Gnostic hymns in the Acts of John and Thomas, in the Pistis Sophiæ, etc.). It is self-evident that these psalms contained the characteristic theology of the Gnostics; this also appears from the fragments that have been preserved, and is very clearly confirmed by Tertullian, who says of Alexander the Valentinian (1. c.): “sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis, etiam cum Psalmis Valentini, quos magna impudentia, quasi idonei alicuius auctoris interserit.” The scholastic form of the Church was more and more complete in the East in the second half of the third century Alexandrian Catechists, had finally succeeded in partly insinuating its teaching into the Church. Where Valentine Basilides, etc., had absolutely failed, and Bardesanes partly succeeded, the School of Origen had been almost entirely successful. It is very characteristic that the ecclesiastical parties which opposed each other in the third century applied the term “school” (διδασκαλεῖον) as an opprobrious epithet to their antagonists. This term was meant to signify a communion which rested on a merely human, instead of a revealed doctrine. But the Church nearly approximated, in respect of doctrine, to the form of the philosophic schools, at the moment when her powerful organisation destroyed every analogy with them, and when the possession of the two Testaments marked her off definitely from them. Much might be said on “schola” and “ecclesia”; a good beginning has been made by Lange, Haus und Halle, 1885, p. 28 ac8 8 ff. See also v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “Die rechtliche Stellung der Philosophenschulen,” 1881.

Faith, which had been elaborated philosophically and theologically, as the faith handed down 115in the holy Catholic Church from the Apostles312 But we possess numerous other proofs. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that from the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus till his own, the Creed of the latter formed the foundation of the instruction given to catechumens in NeoCæsarea. But this Creed313 was neither more nor less than a compendium of Origen’s theology,314 which, here, 116was thus introduced into the faith and instruction of the Church. Further, it is clear from the letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople, that the Church of Alexandria possessed at that time a Creed which had been elaborated theologically.315 After the

312

See also the document in Eusebius, H. E. VIII. 30, 6, where it is said of Paul: ἀποστὰς τοῦ κανόνος ἐπὶ κίβδηλα καὶ νόθα διδάγµατα µετελήλυθεν. 313 Caspari, l. c. IV., p. 10. 27. Hahn, § 114. 314 It runs: Εἷς Θέος, πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος, σοφίας ὑφεστώσης καὶ δυνάµεως καὶ χαρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου, τέλειος τελείου γεννήτωρ, πατηρ υἱοῦ µονογενοῦς, Εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εικων τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀκληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου. Καὶ ἓν πνεῦµα ἅγιον, ἐκ Θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον καὶ δι᾽ υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς [δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις], εἰκὼν τοῦ ὑιοῦ, τεκείου τεκεία, ζωὴ ζώντων αἰτία, [πηγὴ ἁγία] ἁγιότης ἁγιασµοῦ χορηγός, ἐν ᾧ φανεροῦται Θεός ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ Θεὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὁ διὰ πάντων-τριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ ac8 καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ βασιλείᾳ µὴ µεριζοµένη µὴδὲ ἀπαλλοτριουµενη. Οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι ἢ δοῦλον ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτον, ὡς πρότερον µὲν οὐχ ὑπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπεισελθόν· οὔτε γὰρ ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς πατρί οὔτε υἱῷ πνεῦµα, ἀλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἡ αὐτὴ τριὰς ἀεί. It ought to be distinctly noticed that the genuineness of this Creed is, in spite of Caspari’s brilliant defence, not raised above all doubt. But the external and internal evidence in support of its authenticity seem to me overwhelming. According to Gregory of Nyssa it was said to have been revealed to Gregory Thaumaturgus immediately before entering on his Bishopric, by the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John. If this legend is old, and there is nothing to show it is not, then we may regard it as proving that this confession of faith could only be introduced into the Church by the use of extraordinary means. The abstract, unbiblical character of the Creed is noteworthy; it is admirably suited to a follower of Origen like Gregory; but it is less suited to a post-Nicene Bishop. Origen himself would hardly have approved of so unbiblical a Creed. It points to a time in which there was imminent danger of theological speculation relaxing its connection with the Books of Revelation. 315 See Theodoret, H. E. I. 4; Hahn, l. c., § 65: Πιστεύοµεν, ὡς τῇ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ δοκεῖ, εἰς µόνον ἀγέννητον πατέρα, οὐδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον ἔχοντα . . . καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν µονογενῇ, γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ µὴ ὄντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πατρός . . . πρὸς δὲ τῇ εὐσεβεῖ

Bishop has quoted extensive portions of it, which he describes as “the whole pious Apostolic doctrine” (πᾶσα ἡ ἀποστολικὴ εὐσεβὴς δόξα), he closes with the words “these things we teach and preach, that is the Apostolic dogmas of the Church” (ταῦτα διδάσκοµεν, ταῦτα κηρύττοµεν, ταῦτα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὰ ἀποστολικὰ δόγµατα) But these dogmas belong to Origen’s theology. Finally, we perceive from the Nicene transactions, that many Churches then possessed Creeds, which contained the Biblical theological formulas of Origen. We may assert this decidedly of the Churches of Cæsarea, Jerusalem, and Antioch. 57b 1 The entire undertaking of the Fathers 117of the Nicene Council to set up a theological Creed to be observed by the whole Church, would have been impossible, had not the Churches, or at least the chief Churches, of the East already been accustomed to such Symbols. These Churches had thus passed, in the generations immediately preceding the Nicene, through a Creed-forming period, to which little attention has hitherto been paid. In its beginning and its course it is wholly obscure, but it laid the

ταύτῃ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δόξῃ, καθὼς ἡµᾶς αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ διδάσκουσιν, ἕν πνεῦµα ἅγιον ὁµολογοῦµεν, τὸ καινίσαν τοῦς τε τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκηύ ac8 ἁγίους ἀνθρώπους καὶ τοὺς τῆς χρηµατιζούσης καινῆς παιδευτὰς θείους. µίαν καὶ µόνην καθολικήν, τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀκαθαίρετον µὴν ἀεί, κἂν πᾶς ὁ κόσµος αὐτῇ πολεµεῖν βουλεύηται . . . Μετὰ τούτων τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν οἴδαµεν, ἧς ἀπαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ κύριος ἡµῶν Ἰ. Χρ., σῶµα φορέσας ἀληθῶς καὶ οὐ δοκήσει ἐκ τῆς θεοτόκου (one of the earliest passages, of which we are certain, for this expression; yet it was probably already used in the middle of the third century; a treatise was also written περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου by Pierius) Μαρίας ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίαςἐ πιδηµήσας τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, σταυρωθεὶς καὶ ἀποθανών, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ ταῦτα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ θεότητος ἥττων γεγενηµένος, ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀναληµφθείς ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καθήµενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης. 316 The Cæsarean Creed in Athanasius, Socrates, Theodoret and Gelasius, see. Hahn, § 116 and Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 138, 139. It runs: Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰ. Χρ., τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν µονογενῆ, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννηµένον, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ανθρώποις πολιτευσάµενον, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρ 561 α, καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς πνεῦµα ἅγιον. This Creed is also remarkable from its markedly theological character. On the Creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem, which are at any rate earlier then A.D. 325. see Hort, (l.c 73) and Hahn, § 63. We cannot appeal, as regards the phrasing, to the so-called Creed of Lucian (Hahn, § 115). Yet it is extremely probable that it is based on a Creed by Lucian.

foundation for the development of theological dogmatics, peculiar to the Church, in the fourth and fifth centuries. It laid the foundation — for the following epoch was distinguished from this one by the fact that the precise definitions demanded by the doctrine of redemption, as contained within the frame-work of Origen’s theology, were fixed and made exclusive. Thus the dangers were guarded against, which rose out of the circumstance, that the philosophical theory of God, and the idea of the Logos which belonged to it, had been received into the system of religion, i.e., the Neo-platonic method and circle of ideas had been legitimised, without the tradit 564 ional tenets of the faith having been sufficiently protected against them. In the new Creeds of the period 260-325 we find the conditions to hand for a system of religion based on the philosophical doctrine of God, a system specifically belonging to the Church, completely expressed in fixed and technical terms, and scientific. We find the conditions ready — but nothing more, or less. But it was also due to the Creeds that in after times every controversy of the schools necessarily became a conflict that moved and shook the Church to its very depths. The men, however, who in the fourth and fifth centuries made orthodox dogma, were undoubtedly influenced, to a greater degree than their predecessors of from A.D. 260-315, by specifically Church ideas; and their work, if we measure it by the mixture of ideas and methods which they received from tradition, was eminently a conservative reduction and securing of tradition, so far as that was still in their possession. It was really a new thing, a first step of immeasurable significance, when Athanasius staked his whole life on the recognition of a single attribute — the consubstantiality — of Christ, and rejected all others as being liable to pagan misinterpretation. 118

At the beginning of the fourth century, Rules of 564 Faith and theology were differently related to each other in the Churches of the East and West. In the latter, the phraseology of the primitive Creed was strictly adhered to, and a simple antignostic interpretation was thought sufficient, by means of formulas like “Father, Son, and Spirit: one God” — “Jesus Christ, God and man” — “Jesus Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of God” In the former, theological formulas were admitted into the Confession of Faith itself, which was thus shaped into a theological compendium ostensibly coming from the Apostles. But in both cases, the personal reality, and, with it, the pre-existence of the divinity

manifested in Christ, were recognised by the vast majority;317 they were included in the instruction given to Catechumens; they furnished the point of view from which men sought to understand the Person of Christ. And, accordingly, the accurate definition of the relation of the Deity to that other divine nature which appeared on earth necessarily became the chief problem of the future. Second Part: The Development of the Dog 564 ma of the Church. 119

DIVISION II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. Book I. The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the God-Man on the Basis of Natural Theology.

BOOK I. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE BASIS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. 120

Τὰ κρατούµενα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχει ἔπαινον, τὰ δὲ σχέσει φιλίας κρατούµενα ὑπεραινεῖται. PAUL OF SAMOSATA. Ohne Autorität kann der Mensch nicht existiren, und doch bringt sie ebensoviel Irrthum als Wahrheit mit sich; sie verewigt im Einzelnen. was einzeln vorübergehen sollte, lehnt ab und lässt vorübergehen, was festgehalten werden sol 564 lte, und ist

317

See the interesting passage in Eusebius’ letter to his Church, in which he (sophistically) so defends the rejection of the οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι, as to fall back upon the universally recognised pre-existence of Christ (Theodoret, H. E. I. 12).

hauptsächlich Ursache dass die Menschheit nicht vom Flecke kommt.

121

BOOK I. THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE BASIS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. Chapter I. Historical Situation.

CHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SITUATION.318 THE first main division of the history of dogma closed with the adoption of the Logos doctrine as the central dogma of the Church, and with the accompanying revision in the East of the old formulas of the faith under the influence of philosophical theology. The testament of primitive Christianity — the Holy Scriptures — and the testament of Antiquity — Neoplatonic speculation — were intimately and, as it seemed, inseparably connected in the great Churches of the East. The system of doctrine established by the Church in the third century corresponded to the Church whose structure appeared co 564 mplete in the same period. As the political powers of the Roman Empire were conserved in the

318

Walch, Entw. einer vollst. Historie der Ketzereien, 1762 ff. Hefele, Konciliengesch., 2 Bd. I.–IV. Histories of the Roman Empire by Tillemont, Gibbon, Richter und Ranke (Weltgesch., Bd. IV. und V.). Réville, Die Religion z. Rom unter den Severern (German translation by Krüger, 1888). V. Schultze, Gesch. des Untergangs des griechisch-römischen Heidenthums, 2 Bde., 1887 f. Boissier, La fin du paganisme, 2 Bde. 1891. Dorner, Entw.-Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi, II., 1853. H. Schultz, Die L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, 1881. Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche, 1872. Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch d. vergleichenden Konfessionskunde. 1 Bd., 1890. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, 2 Bde. 1863 f.

Catholic Church, so also were the spiritual forces of Antiquity in its faith. Both required to be invested with divine lustre in order to live through storms and amid universal ruin.319 But Christianity was by no means completely Hellenised in Catholicism; that is proved, if we needed proof, by the attacks of 122Porphyry and Julian. Undoubtedly all the institutions and ideas felt to be necessary were included in the “Apostolic tradition” to an increasing extent. But since a place had been given in that tradition to the O. T. and the written memorials of primitive Christianity, these really furnished aids to the comprehension of the Gospel, which had certainly been obscured in the “Gnosis” as well as in the “New Law”. The theology of Origen, in spite of some very earnest attacks upon it, was held in the East to be the pattern and the inexhaustible source of the theology of the Church, so far as a scientific system was desired. Even its opponents, like Methodius, cou 564 ld not escape its influence. From its rich store of formulas were more fully elaborated, in opposition to what was called Ebionitism and Sabellianism, those confessions which were employed in the cultus and instruction of the Church, and which, thus enriched, were then invested with some sort of Apostolic authority.320 The West did not go. so far; yet it was perfectly defenceless against the “advances” made by the Church in the Eastern half of the Empire; for certain theological and Christological conceptions to which it also clung, made any counter-movement impossible, though many teachers, preachers, and apologists went ways of their own, and in their doctrines of Christ and salvation mixed up obsolete Christian traditions with the popular philosophy of the West. Looking to theological metaphysics as wrapped up in the official formulas of the Church, the difference was finally only one of degree. It showed itself among those less interested and scholarly, who were therefore conservative in their instincts and looked with distrust on the theology of Origen; they thought with perfect simplicity that the 564 ir own formulas: “Father, Son, and Spirit; one God”, “Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of God”, “duæ substantiæ, una persona”, “Jesus Christ, God and man”, constituted the “faith” which needed no explanation. The element of speculative philosophy was as a rule weak in the system of religion of the West. In place of it, the West of Tertullian possessed a series of juristic “plans” which were destined to have a great future.

319

Tiele, Kompendium der Relig. Gesch. (German transl.), p. 283: “the Catholic Church is the secular Roman rule, modified and consecrated by Christian ideas.” 320 See above, p. 47 ff., 113 ff.

In spite of many far-reaching differences in their practical and 123theoretical interests, in spite of the development in ecclesiastical affairs, Christians in East and West felt that they belonged to one united Church. The Novatian and Samosatian controversies ultimately resulted in strengthening the consciousness of unity,321 even though a not altogether insignificant part of Christendom cast itself adrift. These controversies showed plainly that the Western and Eastern communities held substantially the same position in the world, and that b 54a oth required to use the same means to maintain it. Communities everywhere adopted the character of the Church of the world. Their union preserved all the features of a political society, and, at the same time, of a disciplinary institution, equipped with sacred sanctions and dreadful punishments, in which individual independence was lost.322 Of course, in proportion as this confederacy of Christians adapted itself to civic, national, and political relationships, in order to maintain and strengthen itself, the integrity of the Church was most gravely imperilled, when these very relationships lost their last shreds of unity in the collapse of the Empire. Above all, the great cleavage between the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire could not fail to be prejudicial to the Church. But about the close of the third century the latter, in spite of discontent in its midst, held more firmly together than the Empire, and its unity was still maintained after the fourth century by great Emperors and influential theologians. 57e 1 In addition to the episcopal constitution, uniformly and strictly carried out, the common basis of the Churches was due to the recognition of the same authorities and designs, the uniform appreciation of sacramental rites, and the strong tendency to asceticism for the sake of a future life. It was, at first, too stable for the different forces which threatened to shatter the Empire, and also, in consequence, beat upon the Imperial Church. But this basis was nevertheless insufficient. It can be easily shown that the elements composing it were as incapable of 124guaranteeing the unity, as of protecting the Christianity, of the Church, through a prolonged period. Among the authorities the two Testaments, combined by the evidence of prophecy and allegorical explanation, took the first,

321

See on this the correspondence between the oriental Bishops and Julius of Rome; Socr., H. E., II. 15; Ep. Julii ap Athan., Apolog. c. Arian, ch. 21 sq. 322 See Vol. II., p. 122 f. 323 Reuter, Augustinische Studien, in the Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 349 ff., VI., p. 155 ff., 190.

indeed, strictly speaking, a unique place. But not only was their extent not absolutely decided, but their interpretation was wholly uncertain. In addition to this, the scope to be left to the “Apostolic tradition”, i.e., the illusion of “antiquity”, and to the decision of episcopal synods, was b 564 y no means defined; for the sufficiency of Holy Scripture was placed, theoretically, beyond doubt. But where elementary wants, felt by the great majority, were to be satisfied, where a reassuring sanction was required for the advancing secularisation, men did not rack their brains, if no inconvenient monitors were in the way, to find precedents in Holy Scripture for what was novel. They went right back to the Apostles, and deduced from secret traditions what no tradition ever possessed. Huge spheres of ecclesiastical activity embracing new and extensive institutions — the reception of national customs and of the practices of heathen sects — were in this way placed under “Apostolic” sanction, without any controversy starting worth mention. This is true, e.g., of the ritual of worship and ecclesiastical discipline, “The sacred canons” or “the apostolic canons” constituted from the close of the third century, a court of appeal, which practically held the same rank as the sacred writings, and which, especially in the East, cast its protection to an increasing extent over national customs and traditional morals in the face of attacks of every kind. It is obvious that authorities so obtained were likely, in the end, to divide the Churches of the different nations. The crudest superstiti 564 on was thus consecrated by “apostolic” decrees, or legitimised, after the event, from the O. T.,324 and from the middle of the third century it ascended from the lower strata of Christians to the upper, which had lost all spiritual stability. And now in the fourth century, when Church and State were fused into one, everything was assigned to the former which had ever, or anywhere been regarded as venerable or holy. As it had submitted to the Church, it demanded indulgent 125treatment. The religion of pure reason and of the strictest morality, the Christianity which the ancient apologists had once portrayed, had long changed into a religion of the most powerful rites, of mysterious means, and an external sanctity. The historical tradition of Christ and the founding of Christianity was turned into a romance, and this historical romance, which was interwoven with the religion, constantly received new chapters. The stream of the history of salvation ended in a waste swamp of countless and confused sacred tales, and in its course took in heathen fictions and the stories of gods and he 564 roes. Every traditional holy rite

324

See my Edition of the ∆ιδαχή, Prolegg. pp. 222 ff., 239 ff.

became the centre of new sacred ceremonies, and every falling off in morality was covered by increasing the religious apparatus. The idea of forgiveness of sins was to many a cloak for frivolity and wickedness. Up to the middle of the third century, every Catholic Christian was, in all probability, a genuine monotheist. That can no longer be said of the generations who afterwards pressed into the Church. Polytheism had lost its name, indeed, but not its influence in the Church of the fourth century. Great masses preserved, in spite of their baptism, the piety to which they had been accustomed. Christian priests had to respect and adjust superstition, in order to keep the leadership in their hands, and theologians had no difficulty in finding, in the O. T. and in many views and usages of Christian antiquity, means of justifying what was most novel, alien, and absurd. Miracles were of everyday occurrence, and they were barbarous and detestable miracles, directed to meet the meanest instincts, and offensive to even moderately clear heads.325 The Christian religion threatened 564 to become a new 126paganism;326 while, at the same time, making

325

Compare the criticism by Julian and his friends of the Christian religion and the worship paid to saints and relics, or read the writings in which Sulpicius Severus attempts to recommend Christianity to the refined society of Aquitania. We can study in the works of the historians Socrates and Sozomen the attitude of cultured Catholic Christians, after the complete triumph of the Church over paganism. Even Sozomen cannot be regarded as having reached the stage of the “dry tree,” and yet into what a superstition the Christian faith is transformed in his pages! We see how paganism thrust itself into worship, in — to quote a well-known instance — August. Confess. VI. 2 ff. Let us, above all, remember that from the beginning of the fourth century special chapels and churches were built to the different saints. The saints took the place of the local deities; their festivals of the old provincial services of the gods. We have just begun to investigate the transformation of heathen tales of gods and heroes into legends of the saints, and ancient light literature has contributed its quota in works of travel and adventure by land and sea. These researches promise, if instituted critically and soberly, to give interesting results; yet I doubt if the state of our materials will admit of confident conclusions. Besides the worship of the saints, the cultus of the Emperor threatened in the fourth century to intrude itself into the Church. Philostorgius relates (H. E. II. 17) that Christians presented offerings to the picture of Constantine, and honoured it with lanterns and incense; they also seem to have offered vota to him that they might be protected from calamities. af3 326Besides the worship of saints, martyrs, and relics, we have to notice the new forms of faith in demons. It would be impossible to believe more sincerely in demons than Christians did in the second century. But that age was yet ignorant of the fantastic tricks with them, which almost turned Christendom into a society of deceived deceivers. (The expression was first applied to Christians by Plotinus: see Vita Plot. by Porphyrius 16: ἐξηπάτων καὶ αὐτοὶ ἠπατηµένοι). When we reflect that the Vita Antonii was written by an Athanasius, nothing can again surprise us. Spiritualism with all its absurdity, which

shipwreck of its own unity and common character. For even if priests and theologians were always to be in a position to keep the reins in their hands, dissolution threatened the one undivided Church which girt the Empire, if the local rites, customs, usages of men were consecrated as Christian in every province, and might establish themselves without any decided counterpoise. But where was such a counterpoise to be found? In the constitution? That was indeed a firm structure, binding Christendom strongly together; but even it presented sides on which the centrifugal forces, destructive of unity, found entrance. Love of rule and ambition were encouraged by the episcopal chair. And when the danger of dismemberment into independent bishoprics was met by a rigid metropolitan leadership, the way was opened up to that lofty ambition which desired the first place and the highest influence in the province, and which sought to domineer over the civil powers and to master neighbouring pr 564 ovinces. The Patriarchs and Metropolitans who — to use an expression of 127Socrates — played at being “hereditary lords” (Dynastai) no longer protected, but undermined the unity of the Church. The great Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who sought to rule over the Church in order to preserve its unity and independence, entangled themselves in an ambitious policy, and produced division. The Emperors were really patrons of unity, and the supreme means at their disposal, the Œcumenical Synod, was their contrivance; in all cases it was a political institution, invented by the greatest of politicians, a two-edged sword which protected the endangered unity of the Church at the price of its independence. But was not the bond of unity, the common ground, to be found in the common ideal, in the certain hope of a future life, and in asceticism? This bond was assuredly a strong one. The Church would hardly have succeeded in following out the free path opened up to it by Constantine had it not had in its midst, besides its transcendent promises, a power to which all, Greek and barbarian, polytheist and monotheist, learned and unlearned required ultimately, if reluctantly, to bow. And that power was the

we are once more conversant with in the nineteenth century, had long been familiar in heathen circles, and then, as now, it was connected with religious ideas on the one hand, and physical experiments and speculations on the other. It forced its way into the Church, in spite of all protests, from the third, still more, however, from the fourth century, after it had long been wide-spread in “Gnostic circles.” As a religious phenomenon it signified a renaissance of the lowest forms of religion. But even the most enlightened minds could not keep clear of it. Augustine proves this.

asceticism which culminated in monachism. The ancient world had arrived, by all ac8 the routes of its complicated development, at the bitterest criticism of and disgust at its own existence; but in no other faith was religion itself as effectively combined with asceticism, in none did the latter come so powerfully to the front, yet in none did it submit itself so pliably to Church government, as in Catholicism. A religion comprehended in a mere sacramental communion could not have gained the allegiance of the more clearsighted and earnest. One that imposed on all, as an inalienable duty, the perfect fulfilment of the positive moral law, could not have held its ground. One that commanded all alike to renounce the world would have closed the world against it. But a religion which graded its members as priests, monks, and laity, embraced a threefold piety of initiated, perfect, and novices, and succeeded in the hardest task of all, that of reconciling priest with monk,327 and of admitting the layman to a share in the 128blessings of both, was superior to all others, and possessed in its organisation, generally established, a strong bond of association. Protestants at the present day can hardly form a conception of the hold which asceticism possessed over the mind in the fourth and fifth centuries, or of the manner in which it influenced imagination, thought, and the whole of life. At bottom only a single point was dealt with, abstinence from sexual relationships; everything else was secondary; for he who had renounced these, found nothing hard. Renunciation of the servile yoke of sin (servile peccati iugum discutere) was the watchword of Christians, and an extraordinary unanimity prevailed as to the meaning of this watchword, whether we turn to the Coptic porter or the learned Greek teacher, to the Bishop of Hippo, or Jerome, the Roman presbyter, or the biographer of Saint Martin. Virginity was the specifically Christian virtue, and the essence of all virtues: in this conviction the meaning of the evangelical law was summed up.328

327

The order of the monks had to pass through crises and conflicts before it was able to establish itself side by side with, and to influence a secularised priesthood; we possess the key to this struggle in the East in the writings of the forger who composed the Apostolic constitutions and the longer recension of the Ignatian Epistles; in the West in the works, written from the opposite standpoint, of Sulpicius, as also in those of Jerome, Augustine, and the Gallican authors of the fifth century. Compare Hauck, K.-Gesch. Deutschlands, I., p. 49 ff. The order of the monks was imported into the West. It was not till about the middle of the fifth century that its opponents, inside and outside the ranks of the clergy, were silenced. For a time — at the end of the fourth century — it was in danger of being included in the condemnation of the Ascetics who held dualistic views. 574 328The Fathers of the fourth century could not proceed so consistently as Hieracas (see Vol. III., p. 98, n. 5) since they had to sanction the “lower” morality in the Church.

129But

not only did the evangelical law culminate in virginity, but to it also belonged all promises. Methodius’ teaching that it 564 prepared the soul to be the bride of Christ, was from the fourth century repeated by everyone. Virginity lies at the root of the figure of bridegoom (Christ) and bride (the soul) which is constantly recurring in the greatest teachers of East and West, and it is the key to the corresponding exposition of the Song of Songs, in which often appear a surprising religious individualism and an impassioned love of Christ.329

The Eustathians who condemned marriage — see the decrees of the Synod of Gangra in Hefele, Concil. Gesch., I. 2, p. 777 ff. — were therefore opposed. But the numerous tractates “De virginitate” show how near the great Fathers of the Church came to the Eustathian view. We can hardly point to one who did not write on the subject. And the same thing is, above all, proved by Jerome’s polemic against Jovinian, in spite of its limitation, in the Ep. (48) ad Pammachium. For the rest, Augustine did not differ from Jerome. His Confessions are pervaded by the thought that he alone can enjoy peace with God who renounces all sexual intercourse. Like Hieracas, Ambrose celebrated virginity as the real novelty in Christian morality; see De virginibus, I. 3 sq.: “Since the Lord wrapped himself in a bodily form, and consummated the marriage of deity with humanity, without the shadow of a stain, he has infused poor frail men with heavenly life over t 564 he whole globe. That is the race which the angels symbolised when they came to serve the Lord in the wilderness . . . That is the heavenly host which on that holy Christmas the exulting choirs of angels promised to the earth. We have the testimony of antiquity therefore from the beginning of time, but complete submission only since the word became flesh. This virtue is, in fact, our exclusive possession. The heathens had it not; it is not practised by the still uncivilised barbarians; there are no other living creatures among whom it is to be found. We breathe the same air as they do, we share in all the conditions of an earthly life, we are not distinguished from them in birth, and so we only escape from the miseries of a nature otherwise similar to theirs through the virgin chastity, which, apparently extolled by the heathens, is yet, even if placed under the patronage of religion, outraged by them, which is persecuted by the barbarians, and is known to no other creatures.” Compare with this Chrysostom’s tractate on the state of virginity. Much thought was given after the middle of the fourth century to the relation of priest and monk, especially by those who wished to be monks and had to be priests. The virgin state (of the monks) was held by the earnest to be the easier and safer, the priestly condition the more perilous and responsi ac8 ble; yet in many respects it was regarded as also loftier, because the priest consummated the holy sacrifice and had to wield authority (Chrysostom de sacerdotio, esp. VI. 6-8 and III. 4-6, VI. 4). But the danger to which priests and bishops were subject of becoming worldly, was felt, not only by men like Gregory of Nasianzus and Chrysostom, but by countless earnest-minded Christians. A combination of the priestly (episcopal) office and professional asceticism was therefore early attempted and carried out. 329 See Vols. II., p. 294, III., p. 109. The allegory of the soul of the Gnostic as the bride received its first lofty treatment in the Valentinian school. Thence Origen got it.

The sources drawn upon by later writers were Origen’s homilies and commentary on the Song of Songs (Lommatzsch. XIV., p. 233 sq.): the prologue of the latter in Rufinus begins with the words: “Epithalamium libellus hic, id est, nuptiale carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone conscriptus, quem cecinit instar nubentis sponsæ, et erga sponsum suum, qui est sermo dei, cœlesti amore flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum, sive anima, quæ ad imaginem eius facta est, sive ecclesia.” Jerome, who has translated the book, says that Origen surpassed himself in it. Methodius’ writing “Convivium” in which the same thought often occurs, was also much read. The purest and most attractive form of the conception in the East appears in Gregory of Nyssa; see e.g., his homilies on the Song of Songs, and his description of the life of Macrina (Ed. Oehler, 1858, p. 172 sq.); we read p. 210 sq.: ∆ιὰ τοῦτό µοι δοκεῖ τὸν θεῖον ἐκεῖνον καὶ καθαρὸν ἔρωτα τοῦ ἀοράτου νυµφίου. ὃν ἐγκεκρυµµένον εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπορρήτοις τρεφόµενον, ἔνδηλον ποιεῖν τότε τοῖς παροῦσι καὶ δηµοσιεύειν τὴν ἐν καρδίᾳ διάθεσιν, τὸ ἐπείγεσθαι πρὸς τὸν ποθούµενον, ὡς ἄν διὰ τάχους σὺν αὐτῷ γένοιτο τῶν δεσµῶν ἐκλυθεῖσα τοῦ σῶµατος. Besides Gregory we have to mention Macarius with his “Spiritual Homilies” (Migne T. XXXIV.; see Floss, Macarii Aegypt. epp. etc., 1850, German translation by Jocham, Kempten, ac8 1878); compare especially the 15th homily which contains already the figure, repeated a hundred times afterwards, of the soul as the poor maiden who possesses nothing but her own body and whom the heavenly bridegroom loves. If she worthily cherishes chastity and love for him, then she becomes mistress of all the treasures of her Lord, and her transfigured body itself shares in his divinity. Further, Hom. IV., ch. 6 sq., 14 sq. Compare also Ep. 2. “A soul which has cast aside the ignominy of its outward form, which is no longer ruled by shameful thoughts or violated by evil desires, has manifestly become a partner of the heavenly bridegroom; for henceforth it has only one requirement. Stung by love to him it demands and, to speak boldly, longs for the immediate fulfilment of a spiritual and mysterious union that it may enter the indissoluble embrace of communion in sanctification.” See Cyril Catech. III., ch. 16; καὶ γένοιτο πάντας ὑµᾶς ἀµώµως τῷ νοητῷ νυµφίῳ παραστάντας κ.τ.λ. Before this: ἡ γὰρ πρότερον δούλη ψυχὴ νῦν ἀδελφιδοῦν αὐτὸν τὸν δεσπότην ἐπεγράψατο, ὃς τὴν ἀνυπόκριτον ἀποδεχόµενος προαίρεσιν ἐπιφωνήσει· Ἰδοὺ εἶ καλὴ ἡ πλησίον µου, ἰδοὺ εἶ καλή· ὀδόντες σου ὡς ἀγέλαι τῶν κεκαρµένων (Cantic. 4, 1) διὰ τὴν εὐσυνείδητον ὁµολογίαν. We can point to very few Greek Fathers in whom the figure does not occur. All the greater is the contrast presented by the depreciatory verdict of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Song of Songs (Kihn, Theodor v. M. 1880, p. 69 f.). It may be expressly noticed, besides, that Clement of Alex. as well as Methodius and Macarius had already transferred the figure of the bride to the married woman. Indeed, Macarius was conscious that he was acting boldly in doing so. Western nuns and monks were distinguished by lavishing those sexual feelings which were forbidden them on Christ (and Mary). Ambrose especially taught the West the conception of the soul as the bride of Christ; while Augustine was, apart from a few passages, more reserved, and Jerome wanted strength in sentiment and language. Not only in Ambrose’s tractate “De Isaac et anima”, really a commentary on the Song of Songs, but in innumerable passages in his works — even when it is least expected, as in the consolatory discourse on Valentinian’s death (ch. 59 sq.) — the idea of a special tie between the virgin soul and

130

But the ascetic ideal did not succeed in establishing itself, especially in the West, without severe conflicts, and it concealed within it dangers to the Church. Asceticism threatened to become an end in itself, and to depart from the historical foundation of the Christian religion. When the Church authorised 131the Christianity of ‘the perfect’, it really declared the great mass of its divine and apostolic institutions to be mere apparatus, meaningless to him who had resolved to renounce the world, and to prepare for eternity. Those settlers in Egypt, who sought to obtain redemption by torturing 560 themselves, in the end imperilled religion not less than the great crowds who simply submitted to certain sacramental observances, and with the approval of the priests dragged into Christianity whatever pleased them. It was possible, and in fact the danger was imminent, for the ascetic ideal to lose any assured connection with Jesus Christ. Asceticism had also been proclaimed indeed by Greek science. But in that case the common character of religion disappeared; for a merely negative ideal of life, which at the same time was without a close dependence on history, could not form a lasting bond of connection among men. Our information is exceptionally bad, and not from accident, as to the internal state of the Church, at the time when Constantine chose it to be the support of the Empire. But what we know is enough to establish the fact that the internal solidity by no means corresponded to the external. We may with greater propriety affirm that the Churches of the East were in danger of relapsing into

Christ comes to the front. But Ambrose gave it a colouring of 564 his own due to the deep sentiment of a great man, and his peculiar faculty of giving a warm expression to his personal love of Christ (see also Prudentius); compare passages like De pœnit. II. 8. We cannot appreciate too highly the important influence exerted on after times, and first on Augustine, by Ambrose’s expression of his personal religion. The light that dawned in Augustine’s confessions already shone from the works of Ambrose, and it was the latter, not the former, who conducted western piety to the specific love of Christ. On the mysticism of Macarius, who was in many respects allied to these western Christians, compare also the details in Förster (in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1873, p. 439 f.). Bigg (the Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 188 f.) has very rightly seen that Origen’s homilies on the Song of Songs were at the root of Christian mysticism: “This book gave welcome expression to what after the triumph of Athanasius was the dominant feeling, and redeemed in some degree the name of its author, damaged by his supposed inclination to Arianism. And thus Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the De Imitatione, of Tauler, and Molinos and Mm 564 e. de Guyon.”

worldliness, and that not only in the form of worldly modes of action.330 acc The peril went deeper. Theology, the power which, as matters then were, could alone 132give an energetic protection to the distinctive character of religion, was at the point of dissolving it and abandoning it to the world. We have already described in this volume the state of Eastern theology at the beginning of the fourth century. Conceptions of the faith which began and ended with the historical personality of Jesus Christ were equally condemned with the attempts, whether unstudied or philosophical, to identify the Person of Jesus with the Deity.331 The realistic and eclectic theology of Irenaæus had probably very few defenders in the West. The theology of the Apologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen. But the genius of this great man was too powerful for the Epigoni. The importance of his system lay in a threefold direction: first, in the sharp distinction between Pistis and Gnosis, which he kept apart, and connected only by unity of aim; secondly, in the abundant material in his speculations, the conservatism that he showed in inweaving all that was valuable, and the balance which he knew how to preserve between the different factors of his system, relating them all to one’ uniform aim; thirdly, in the Biblical impress which he gave his theology by strict adherence to the text of Holy Scripture. In all these respects the Epigoni introduced changes. The most important in its consequences was the mingling of Pistis and Gnosis, of faith and theology. Origen had not published his system, in which the faith of the Church was reconciled with science, as Church doctrine. To him the distinction between the faith of the Church and the science of faith remained fixed. But in the next period — following the

330

Church history has at this point in its investigations to collect the numerous data which prove how deeply members of the Church had become involved in heathen polytheistic morals, usages, customs, and conceptions, how strong reliance on sacred witchcraft, amulets, and sacramental vehicles had grown, and how far stability and peace of heart and mind had been lost. For the latter we can especially compare Eusebius (H. E. VIII. 1), (further the epitaph of Damasus on Euseb. the Roman Bishop, in Duchesne, Le liber Pontificalis, Tom. I., 1885, p. 167); of a later date, Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 7. As regards syncretism, see the work on the Egyptian mysteries (ed. Parthey). 331 See the short discla 562 imers in the fourth Catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem, (ch. 7. 8): Οὐχ, ὥς τινες ἐνόµισαν, ὁ υἱὸς µετὰ τὸ πάθος στεφανωθεὶς ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ὑποµονὴν ἔλαβε τὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ θρόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ οὗπέρ ἐστιν ἔχει τὸ βασιλικὸν ἀξίωµα . . . Μήτε ἀπαλλοτριώσης τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, µήτε συναλοιφὴν ἐργασάµενος υἱοπατρίαν πιστεύσῃς.. Further, the 11th Catechism. So also Athanasius steadily disavows the heresy of the Adoptians as well as of the Sabellians.

precedent of Methodius332 and opposing Basil’s principle — it was thought necessary to identify them. Reactionary and progressive tendencies met in these efforts. The Pistis 133(faith) was supplied with the formulas of Origen’s theology, and Gnosis was to stop short at certain tenets of tradition, and to receive them without revision. The point was to find abd a new medium which should be at once tradition and speculation, Pistis and Gnosis. This endeavour was undoubtedly justified by an actual change accomplished before this and promoted by Origen himself, viz., the incorporation of the doctrine of the Logos in the faith of “the simple.” These simple Christians already possessed a dogma which was shaped by exegesis and speculation, and confronted them as an external authority, a law of faith. This creation had forced its way from the circumference of the ecclesiastical system into its centre. Besides, the sharp distinction between a traditional doctrine of the Church and a science of religion contradicted the whole ecclesiastical tradition as established in the fight with Gnosticism. But the intermingling at first produced a kind of stagnation. It threat. ened to make faith lose its certainty, speculation its reasoning power, and the Church the unity of its confession. If we review the new religious formulas, which were brought into circulation about the year 300, and if we compare the theologies of the period — which unfortunately we only know in part — the theologies, namely, of the Alexandrian teachers, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Lucian, Methodius, Hieracas etc., we see a wealth of forms which, if blood-relations, are extremely different. How could the unity of the Church continue under their sway? and if it continued, was it Christianity after all that furnished the common element? And this has brought us to the second point Origen had recognised the full significance of the historical Christ for the stage of Pistis; while he directed the Gnostic to the eternal Logos. Now uncertainties arose here also. The historical Christ threatened to fall entirely into the background. We can observe this in the works of two of the Epigoni, which have no affinity to each other. Gregory Thaumaturgus has in his famous Symbol dealt only with the Logos “apart from the flesh” (λόγος ἄσαρκος),333 and

332

See Vol. III, p. 103. See Vol. III., p. 1157 the words run: εἷς κύριος, µόνος ἐκ µόνου, Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, χαρακτὴρ καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός, σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκτικὴ καὶ δύναµις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποιητική, υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ πατρός, ἀόρατος ἀοράτου καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρτου καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου.. 333

Methodius intended to declare the loftiest 134truth when he demanded that Christ should be born in every man ‘consciously’ (νοητῶς), and that each must become a Christ by participation in Christ. ad3 1 Further, in Origen the cosmological and soteriological interests balanced each other. We recognise this in his formulas which relate to the Logos. But here also a displacement was introduced, one that favoured cosmology. The word Ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial) was, indeed, retained by some, perhaps by many theologians; but as it was in itself ambiguous, so also it was no evidence of an interest in soteriology. The crowd of rhetorical and philosophical predicates heaped upon the Logos, did not serve to illustrate and establish the significance of the Logos as the principal factor in redemption; it was rather a term for the reason and order reigning in the universe, and for the spiritual forces with which humanity had been gifted. Men indeed held firmly, on all hands, to the incarnation; nay, it was regarded, as is proved by the great work of Theognostus, as being, next to the doctrine of the creation of matter, the feature that distinguished the speculation of the Church from that of the Neo-platonists. But the whole stress was laid on the question, what idea was to be formed of the constitution of the subject of which incarnation was predicated. A great school, that of Lucian of Antioch, distinguished, in the manner of Paul of Samosata, between wisdom proper, eternal, existent in God, and a created wisdom or Logos; and identified the latter alone with the incarnate Son — ‘wisdom arose through wisdom according to the will of the wise God’. But in drawing this line, not only was the incarnation of the Deity rendered impossible, but every form of His personal activity on earth. The theological interest in Christ threatened to resolve itself entirely into cosmology and morality, or, as in Methodius, to be deprived of its meaning by a mystical alloy. The liberty which theology enjoyed in the East up to the beginning of the fourth century, and the influence which it exerted on the Church in the same period, could not but produce complete confusion and loss of meaning. All the elements 135united by Origen in his vast system sought to establish them. selves independently. Even tritheistic tendencies were not wanting; but, above all, the idea of a subordinate God and semidivine beings began to be familiar. The idea of the subordinate God is indeed as old as the theology of the Christian Church; even the Apologists shared it, and Origen, with all caution, adopted and justified it in working out his doctrine of the Son. But ac8 in the earlier period the simplices et rudes (the simple and uncultured) were still 334

See Vol. III., p. 110.

startled at the suggestion; theologians provided the idea with strong safe-guards, and Origen himself, who in many points bordered on Polytheism, on the other hand restored the Logos to the being of God, and united Father and Son as closely as possible. But opposition to ‘Sabellianism’ evidently rendered a later age much more careless. And it is indubitable that the idea of the created God, the God who came into being, coalesced with ancient polytheistic inclinations. The claims of Monotheism were considered to be satisfied by the effort to protect the supreme Deity, as against Modalism,. from change and plurality; and the Logos and other beings entitled to worship were suffered calmly to spring up side by side with God; they could not, it was presumed, endanger Monotheism, because they belonged to the domain of the created. Add that theologians dealt in their speculations with a plethora of philosophical categories destitute of a fixed impress, or fixed value;335 further, that this terminology, unsifted and uncontrolled, everywhere forced its way into the faith of the community, and we can form a conception of the danger which hovered over the Church. We find a Monotheism which did not exclude polytheism, a Logos-Christ, who, as a cosmological quantity, was of shifting nature and origin, ideas of the incarnation and redemption as designed to “enlighten” the human race, and to effect an incarnation of God in every individual soul. All this, too, was clothed in a rank growth of artificial philosophical expressions, identical with that used in contemporary science. And we may well ask whether such a theology was in a condition to protect even the scanty remains of the 136evangelic tradition, above all, at the moment when the partition between State and Church was torn down and the Church was brought face to face with its greatest task. A deism — if the term may be allowed — was at hand, surrounded by the shifting forms of a speculation which had neither a settled boundary nor an assured object. It almost seemed as if the special characteristics of the Christian religion were to be reduced to the evidence of antiquity and prophecy, what Porphyry called ‘foreign fables’. Yet even Scriptural proof was no longer everywhere called for and given with the zeal so noticeable in O 547 rigen; although it was just the school of Lucian which neglected it least. But what could Scripture avail against the method? If a Bishop so capable and learned, and so well versed in tradition as Eusebius of Caesarea was satisfied in his Christology with the formulas we read there, if he could praise the religious edicts and manifestoes of his Emperor, though they substantially celebrated “God in nature”, as brilliant specimens of his Christian

335

See Vol. III, p. 102.

conviction, we must conclude that the Logos doctrine settled in the Church was the strongest means of completely effacing the figure of the historical Christ, and of resolving everything into mist.336 Even the rationalist, who in his study of the history of religions always follows with sympathy the progress to ‘natural’ religion, would require to restrain his sympathy here. For the pure religion of humanity could not have resulted from this development, but one that was wholly indefinite, and therefore capable of being influenced from any quarter, one in whose centre was throned that hollow and helpless figment of thought, the 581 ὄν, the πρώτη οὐσία (being-primal being). And men would have gone on proclaiming this 137religion to be Christianity, simply because they possessed in Holy Scripture the means of proving it, and of dating it back to the beginning of the world as the universal religion. And they would have adopted sacred media, charms, and intermediary powers more and more boldly, because they were incapable of understanding and applying either to God or to Jesus Christ the tradition that God redeemed men through Jesus Christ. The Bishops and theologians in the East about A.D. 320, whose views were similar to those of Eusebius, had on their side the strongest power to be found in an ecclesiastical communion — tradition: they were the conservatives. Conservative theology, the theology that took its stand on Origen, limited the idea of Deity to the primal being (πρώτη οὐσία), inoperative and really incapable of being revealed, i.e., to the Father. It accordingly ignored the Logos and Christ in determining the conception of God. Further, it deduced, like the Neoplatonists, a second or third Ousia (being) from 55f the first, and adorned the Logos created by the will of the Father with the loftiest, yet vacillating, predicates. It taught the incarnation of the Logos, and celebrated its result, yet once more in indefinite, in high-sounding and meaningless, Biblical phrases. Finally, it subordinated everything spiritual and moral to the thought of free-will and human independence. Any attempt at precision could not fail, on this domain, to be regarded as an innovation. Anything might establish itself as long as it did not 336

On Eusebius’ Christology see Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I. (1845) p. 792 ff. Lee, on the Theophan. 1843, Preliminary Dissert. The Christology of Euseb. is that of the ancient apologists, approximating in its terms to Neoplatonic speculations and richer in its phases on account of the many antitheses. In spite of his dependence on Origen, Euseb. was chary of receiving all the ideas and predicates which the former applied to the Son and to which orthodoxy afterwards appealed. That is of consequence. Euseb. was more convinced than Origen that the idea of deity was completely exhausted in that of the strictly one and unchangeable ὄν the πρώτη οὐσία; he separated the δεύτερος Θεός much further from God than the Apologists; see Zahn, Marcell., p. 37 f.

claim to be exclusive.337 There never did exist in the Church a general tendency to form new dogmas — the terms ‘new’ and ‘dogma’ are mutually exclusive; least of all did it exist in the East; there was either indifference to philosophical speculation, or a desire that it should have liberty, or it was regarded with suspicion. For the 138rest, men reverenced in the cultus the mystery, i.e., the complex of formulas whose origin had already become obscure. acd 1

337

Gwatkin says very justly in Studies of Arianism (1882), p. 52: “In fact Christendom as a whole was neither Arian nor Nicene. If the East was not Nicene, neither was it Arian, but conservative: and if the West was not Arian, neither was it Nicene, but conservative also. Conservatism, however, had different meanings in East and West.” In the East it was considered conservative to uphold the formulas of Origen strengthened against Sabellianism. On the doctrine of the Logos and Christ in Origen Bigg says very truly (The Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 182): “What struck later ages as the novelty and audacity of Origen’s doctrine was in truth its archaism and conservatism.” 338 When theology is engaged in forming dogmas, it has never, as is really selfevident, enjoyed the sympathy of any large section in the Church. There is nothing to support the contention that the Christian Church passed through a period — from 564 Origen up to the Synod of Chalcedon or A.D. 431 — during which there prevailed universally, or even to a great extent, a supreme interest in the abstract form of the contents of Religion, and an effort, with all the means at hand, to expound it as exactly as possible. The great mass of Bishops, monks, and laity, were then wholly occupied in satisfying themselves with what had been given. This was the highest demand of the Catholic religion itself, which presupposed the “Apostolic” as its foundation, which called everything else “heresy” (νεωτερισµός), and as an institution for worship) did not permit changes. Undoubtedly, the period from Origen, or say, from Athanasius up to the Ephesian Council, appears unique in the history of the Church. But that was an episode enacted in opposition to the great body of Christians, and the theological leaders themselves, in proportion to their piety, conceived their task to be compulsory, dangerous, and ensnaring them in guilt. To prove the former read Socrates’ Church History (see my discussion in Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV. p. 408 ff.). This man was, on the one hand, orthodox at every point, on the other, an enthusiastic partisan of Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία, ac8 full of veneration for the great Origen and his science, which he held was to be fostered continually. But the production of dogma by scientific theology was repugnant to him in every sense, i.e., he accused and execrated dogmatic controversies as much in the interest of a dogma fixed once for all as in that of science. The Nicene Symbol belonged sufficiently to the past to be accepted by him as holy and apostolical; but beyond this every new formula seemed to Socrates, pernicious, the controversies sometimes fights in the dark (nyktomachies), sometimes an outflow of deceptive sophistry and ambitious rivalry: σιωπῇ προσκυνείσθω τὸ ἄρρητον, i.e., the mystery of the trinity. Had Socrates lived 100 years earlier, he would not have been a Nicene, but a Eusebian Christian. He therefore passes very liberal judgments on, and can make excuses for, the latest “heretics”, i.e., theologians who have been recently refuted by the Church.

Nevertheless, there probably never was a time in the East when a reaction did not exist against the development of the 139Logos doctrine towards complete separation of the Son from the Father.339 It sprang not only from Modalists, but also from disciples of Origen, and it celebrated at Nicæa an amazingly rapid triumph. In opposition to a school which had ventured too far forward, and had embroidered the doctrines of Paul of Samosata with questionable tenets of Origen, the term Ὁµοούσιος, once banned at Antioch, was successfully elevated to the dignity of the watchword of faith. The importance of this rapid triumph for the history of dogma cannot be rated too highly. But procured as it was by the Emperor, the victory would have been resultless, had it not been for the man whose biography coincides with the history of dogma of the fourth century — Athanasius. The second division of the history of dogma, the account of its development, opens with Athanasius, but his conception of the faith also dominated following centuries. Augustine alone surpassed him in importance; for Augustine was an Origen and

In this he stood by no means alone. Others, even at a later date, went still further. Compare Evagrius (H. E. I. 11) whose argument recalls Orig. c. Cels. III. 12. Dogma has been created by the small number of theologians who sought for precise notions, in the endeavour to make clear the characteristic meaning of the Christian religion (Athanasius, Apollinaris, Cyril). That these notions, separated from their underlying thought, fell into the hands of ambitious ecclesiastical politicians, that the latter excited the fanaticism of the ignorant in their support, and that the final decision was often due to motives which had nothing to do with the case, is admittedly undeniable. But the theologians are not therefore to blame, who opposed in the Church a lazy contentment with mystery, or an unlimited pursuit of scientific speculation. Their effort to make clear the essence of Christianity, as they understood it, and at the same time to provide a λογικὴ λατρεία, was rather, next to the zealous order of monks with whom they were intimately connected, the sole great feature in the epoch. They set themselves to stem the vis inertiæ of the pious, and with the highest success. When indolence in the end held the field, an important result had at any rate been attained. The period from Athanasius till about the middle of the fifth century was in many respects the brilliant epoch of theology in the Church. Not even the age of Scholasticism can compare with it. That th ac8 e work of the theologians became faith according to the Church — a thing Origen never thought of — involved its strength and weakness alike. The fanaticism of the masses for dogmatic and philosophical catch-words — see the amusing narrative of Gregory of Nyssa, Opp. ed. Paris, 1638, T. III. p. 466 — affords no information as to the measure of their comprehension; for the dogmatic catch-word is merely a fetish in wide circles. 339 Origen’s doctrine of subordination was felt in the West simply to constitute ditheism; see Vol. III., p. 89 ff.

Athanasius in one — and he was still more.340 However, the 140future course of history has yet to decide whether Athanasius’ thought will not in the end live longer than the conceptions of Augustine. At the present day at least Augustine is given up sooner than Athanasius in the Churches. But it is really not permissible to compare these great men. Augustine was a loftier genius, a man of inexhaustible wealth of ideas and sentiment; Athanasius’ greatness consisted in reduction, in the energy with which, from a multitude of divergent speculations claiming to rest on tradition, he gave exclusive validity to those in which the strength of religion then lay. Augustine opened up a ne 546 w view of the highest blessings and of human nature in the Church, he scattered a thousand germs for the future; Athanasius, like every reformer, reduced, he first secured a sphere of its own to the Christian religion on the soil, already won, of Greek speculation, and he referred everything to the thought of redemption. Augustine invented a new speculation, and the fascinating language of the deepest religious feeling, beyond which changed times and manners seem unable to go; Athanasius was unable to put forward either gifts of speculation or of eloquence on behalf of the thought in which he lived. His strength arose out of his conviction and his office. Athanasius was a reformer, though not in the highest sense of the word. Behind and beside him existed a speculation which led on a shoreless sea, and the ship was in danger of losing its helm.341 He grasped the rudder. We may compare the situation with that in

340

See Ranke, Weltgeschichte Vol. IV. 1, p. 307: “Augustine’s system is, if I mistake not, the second that arose in the Church; it set aside the peculiar characteristics of the first, that of Origen, and then made good its position.” We can only admit that it held its ground in a modified sense. In fact we see here a parallel of the highest significance in the history of the world. The Church has produced two fundamental systems, Origen’s and Augustine’s. But the history of theology in the East is the history of the setting aside of Origen’s system, and the same is to be said of the Augustinian in the Catholic West. Only the procedure in the East was more thorough-going and open than in the West. In the former Origen was condemned, in the latter Augustine was constantly celebrated as the greatest Doctor ecclesiæ. In both cases, however, the rejection of the theological system caused the loss of a coherent and uniform Christian conception of the world. 341 It might seem as if we ought to grant the same credit to Arius of having reduced and given fixity to vacillating and divergent speculations. But apart from the ac8 contents and value of his doctrine, Arius was always disposed to make concessions, and as semiopponents defended him, so he unhesitatingly accepted half friends for complete allies. This very fact proves, however, that he would never have succeeded in clearing up the position.

which Luther found himself when confronting the mediæval Church and Scholasticism. It was not for a word, or a formula, ae6 342 that he was concerned, but a crucial 141thought of his faith, the redemption and raising of humanity to divine life through the Godman. It was only from the certainty that the divinity manifest in Jesus Christ possessed the nature of the Deity (unity of being) and was for this reason alone in a position to raise us to divine life, that faith was to receive its strength, life its law, and theology its direction. But Athanasius in thus giving the chief place to faith in the God-man who alone delivers from death and sin, furnished practical piety, then almost exclusively to be found in monkish asceticism, with its loftiest motive. To speak briefly, this combined as closely as possible the Ὁµοούσιος (consubstantial), which guaranteed the deification of human nature, with monkish asceticism, and raised the latter from its still under-ground or, at least, insecure realm to the public life of the Church. While fighting against the phrase the created Logos (λόγος-κτίσµα) as heathen and as a denial of the power of the Christian religion, he at the same time as strenuously opposed worldly pursuits. He subordinated Scripture, tradition, and theology to the thought that the Redeemer was God by nature, but he also strove to work out the Christian life which received its motive from close communion with the God-Christ,343 and the prospect of being invested both the divine nature. If we would do justice to Athanasius, both these facts must be kept in mind. He became the father of Catholic orthodoxy and the patron of ecclesiastical monachism, and that he never would have been, had he not also set the practical ideal of the piety of the time ‘on the candlestick’.344 There is here nothing new in the common sense of the word; Athanasius had really on his side, the best part of the tradition of the Church, to 564 which he also appealed. Irenæus had already given the central place to the object, nature, and accomplishment 342

Athanasius always made a sparing use of the catch-word Ὁµοούσιος in his works. The formula was not sacred to him, but only the cause which he apprehended and established under cover of the formula. His conduct at the Synod of Alexandria shows that he laid no stress on words. For his theology he needed no Creed. The existence of one in the Nicene was valuable to him, but he was far from worshipping Symbols. While many of his friends sought support in the authority of the formula, he sought and found it solely in the cause. 343 Bigg (l. c., p. 188) has very rightly called attention to the high value attached by orthodox Fathers after Athanasius’ triumph to the Song of Songs in Origen’s exposition. 344 See the Vita Anton. of Athanasius and Gregory of Naz., Orat. 21. It is noteworthy that Paul of Samosata and the Eusebians were worldly Christians. On the other hand, the puritanism of Arius is, of course, famous.

142of

redemption in the categories: Logos, incarnation, Godman, deification, and sons of God. Athanasius could refer to a series of ideas in Origen and other Alexandrian catechists in support of his distinctive treatment of the Logos doctrine. New alone was the fact, the energy and exclusiveness of his view and action at a time when everything threatened to undergo dissolution. Athanasius was no scientific theologian in the strict sense of the term; from theology he descended to piety, and found the exact word required. A man of authority, and attached to the tradition of his school, he was not in a position to disentangle the problem from the context in which the Apologists and Origen had set it. He was a disciple of Origen, but his attitude first to Marcellus, and then to the recent defenders of Ὁµοούσιος, the Cappadocians, proves that he was as destitute of scientific interest in a philosophical theory of life, as of the obstinacy of theologians. He had to deal with that which transcended theology. He was the first to raise to honour in the Church in all its force the old maxim that we m 563 ust think of Christ as God (ὡς περὶ θεοῦ), and therefore he paved the way for the new principle, that we must think of God as in Christ (ὡς ἐν Χριστῷ). In this he stood aloof from the rational thought of his time. While admitting its premises, he added an element, which neutral speculation was incapable of assimilating completely. Nothing certainly was more unintelligible to it, than the assumption of an essential unity of the quiescent and the active Deity. Athanasius fixed a gulf between the Logos of the philosophers, and the Logos whose redeeming work he proclaimed. What he said of the latter, declaring the mystery strongly and simply, and by no means committing himself to new distinctions, could not but appear to the Greeks ‘an offence and folly’. But he did not shrink from reproach; with firm hand, though in awkward lines, he marked off a sphere of its own for the Christian faith.345

345

The Cappadocians, theologians who reconciled the faith of Athanasius with the current philosophy, and apprehended it abstractly, did not retain his teaching pure and simple. This is especially shown by their doub ac8 tful contention that the Christian idea of God was the true mean between the Jewish and Greek. They boldly characterised the plurality of Hypostases, e.g., as a phase of truth preserved in Greek polytheism. Athanasius, therefore, did not take unmixed pleasure in their work. Cf. the λόγος κατηχητικός of Gregory of Nyssa (ch. 4, ed. Oehler): “Jewish dogma is refuted by adoption of the Word, and by faith in the Spirit, but the illusion of the Greeks (Ελληνίζοντες) in worshipping a multiplicity of Gods is dispelled by the (doctrine of the) unity of nature which destroys the extravagant opinion of a (divine) plurality. We must, in turn, retain the unity of being from the Jewish type of faith, and only the distinction of

143

565

And this man respected science and its free development. We can observe this in his criticisms of Origen and the Alexandrian catechists. Undoubtedly it must have been important to him to obtain reliable witnesses (testes veritatis) for his doctrine, and the effort to do this explains frequently his practice of making the best of everything. But it does not entirely explain his conduct. Christian faith was in his view exhausted in faith in the God-man, the incarnation, and the redemption which constituted a divine nature; for this reason he permitted liberty in everything else. It would seem that he had no desire to abolish Origen’s distinction between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith of the imperfect. He did not sit as a judge of heretics on Origen’s doubtful tenets and correct them by the regula fidei, nor did he follow the course first taken by Bishop Peter, one of his predecessors, in Alexandria.346 This is all the more remarkable, as for his own part 55d he could hardly find a single point in the Gnostic heterodoxies of Origen with which he could agree. Athanasius did not see beyond the horizon of his own time. He attributed the highest efficacy to the mysteries of the cultus. He regarded them as the personal legacy of Christ, immediate emanations of his life as God-man, and as containing the means of applying salvation. If in succeeding centuries the religious interest attached itself more and more closely to ritual, that did not imply any contradiction of the conception of the great Alexandrian. He also laboured on behalf of the dogma which was to obtain its practical and effective presentation in the 144monks on the one hand, and in ritual on the other, until the transitory was exalted into the permanent. Athanasius’ importance to posterity consisted in this, that he defined Christian faith exclusively as faith in redemption through the God-man who was identical in nature with God, and that thereby he restored to it fixed boundaries and specific contents.347Eastern Christendom has been able to add nothing up

personal (divine) existences. from the Greek; and by this means godless conceptions are met on the left and right in correspondingly salutary ways. For the trinity is a corrective for those who err as to unity, just as the doctrine of the unity (of God) is for those who have made shipwreck by belief in plurality.” 346 See Vol. III., p. 99 ff. 347 In the cleverly written introduction to his description of “Western Church architecture “ (Stuttgart, 1884), Dehio works out the idea that the classical period of ancient Christian architecture, the fourth century, was distinguished not by the

to the present day. Even in theory it has hit on no change, merely overloading the idea of Athanasius; but the Western Church also preserved this faith as fundamental. Following on the theology of the Apologists and Origen, it was the efficient means of preventing the complete Hellenising and secularisation of Christianity. The history of dogma in the East after the Nicene Council reveals two interlacing lines of development. First, the idea of the God-man from the point of view of the redemption and elevation of the human race to divine life, in other words, the faith of Athanasius, was elaborated on all sides. In this the history of dogma, in the strict sense of the term, exhausted itself, for dogma was faith in the God-man. But with this a second development was closely connected, one which dealt 145with the relations of dogma and theology. Here also one man can be named: it was the science that Origen had cultivated which formed the centre of interest. However, since his days the problem had become more complicated, for theological principles that penetrated deeply had been received into faith itself, and the great development up to the Council of Chalcedon, and still later, consisted in the incorporation of theological results and formulas in the general belief of the Church. The question, accordingly, was not merely whether a freer and more independent theology, like Origen’s in spirit and method, could receive an acknowledged position and latitude in the Church; whether, in general, the phases of criticism and idealistic spiritualism, included in Origen’s science, were to be tolerated. It was a much harder problem that arose, though one that from its nature was always half concealed. If the theological dogma, at the moment when it became a creed of the Church, received the value

multiplicity of ideas and forms of construction, but rather by the simplification or reduction of the forms. The Church, confronted by the number of models in ancient architecture, laid hold of one of them, the Basilica, and transmitted it alone to the Middle Ages. That, however, meant not a loss, but an advance. “The genius of Christianity contributed nothing new to the architectural creations of Rome and Alexandria. The great revolution it evoked lay in another direction. It consisted in the reduction of the multiplicity of styles to one dominant and sole form, not so much by a metamorphosis of artistic feeling, as by making religion once more the central motive of life. It thus assigned to the future architect 564 ure of the Middle Ages conditions analogous to those which governed the beginnings of Greek art; and thus the birth of Gothic art was possible at the climax of the Middle Ages — for the second time in history, a true organic style, like that of the Greek temple.” This observation is extremely instructive to the historian of dogma. The thought of Athanasius corresponds in theology to the meaning of the Basilica in the history of architecture in the fourth century. Both were happy simplifications from a wealth of ideas — reductions which concealed full and varied contents.

of an apostolic doctrine which had never been wanting in the Church, how were the theologians to be regarded who had really created it, and how were the most venerated men of the past to be looked upon who had either been wholly ignorant of the dogma, or had incidentally, or avowedly, contradicted it? The conclusion is clear. The former were to receive special honour as witnesses to, but not as creators of, the truth. The latter it was necessary to abandon, however real and constructive their labours may once have been, or their works were to be coloured, corrected, or even amended by the insertion of glosses. But how long will a theology receive room to work on dogma, if the work is again and again to be disguised and how long will theologians be f ac8 ound to continue the dangerous business? “Theology is the most thankless of sciences. It crushes its builders with the very stones which they have helped to erect.” The relation of theology to dogma recalls the myth of Chronos. But here it is not the father who swallows his children, it is the creature that devours its creators up to the third and fourth generations. As, moreover, the age from the fourth to the sixth centuries is the classic period of all dogma, so in no other period does it so clearly exhibit to the historian its characteristic of demanding living sacrifices. 146

Accordingly we observe two phenomena in these centuries. First, we have a continuous fight against the free theology of Origen, against the heterodoxies which it embraced, its critical phase, and its idealistic speculation. At any rate, more than two centuries elapsed before it was finally refused all right of citizenship in the Church, and at the same time Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία Greek culture) was deprived of any greater influence on dogma, than what the latter required for its correct exposition and justification.348 But, in the second place, a traditionalism arose

348

The prestige of Origen in the Church was still in the first half of the fifth century almost absolute and incomparable in wide circles. As we have above remarked, the Church history of Socrates is in this respect particularly instructive. The belittlers and enemies of this man were vain and ambitious obscurantists, hero-levelling fellows; against them — Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus — he appealed to the testimony of Athanas ac8 ius on behalf of Origen’s orthodoxy (VI. 13). Even the view that Origen’s works and utterances required to be sifted, appeared to him folly (VI. 17). He defended everything that the master wrote. It was incomprehensible to him how the Arians could study and value Origen, without becoming orthodox (VII. 6) — to the Arians the opposite was incomprehensible — and he declares with absolute conviction that Porphyry and Julian would not have written what they did if they had read the great teacher (III. 23). Further, Origen was once more quoted in the Monophysite controversies. Apart from special uses of it, his name represented a great cause, namely,

which looked distrustfully on theology taking any share in the work of the Church at the time, which substituted authority for science, while it either exalted ancient teachers to heaven as saints, or hurled them down to hell as heretics. It was due to the secret logic of events that such a tendency gained strength and finally triumphed; for if even the most capable and independent theologians were compelled to live under the delusion that what was new in their teaching could never be true, or that the true could not possibly be new, it necessarily followed that fewer and fewer would be found to undertake their dangerous work.349 Accordingly, after dogma had developed to 147a certain extent, held a certain number of conceptions capable of employing the intelligence, and was adapted to scholastic treatment, it became so sensitive that it ceased to tolerate a theology that would carry it further, even unde ac8 r all possible safe-guards. The theology that did independent work, that at no time professed to produce dogma, and therefore really had not existed, now came actually to an end. The date coincides with that at which Origen was condemned (the sixth century). The history of this process ran its course very gradually. On the other hand, there was no want of important actions in the history of the ejection of Origen’s doctrine. We have here to mention the ‘Origenist controversies’, though we must not limit them, as has been customary, to a few decades. Along with them the opposition to the school of Antioch and its condemnation come before us. But we must not look at the victory of the creed of the Church over theological liberties merely from the point of view of a decline of science in the Church. We have rather to consider what a more liberal speculative and critical science had to offer at the time to the Church. In view of the way in which the pursuit of

no less than the right of science, Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία, in the Church, a right contested by traditionalism in conjunction with the monks. 349 It was pointed out above, p. 138, note I, that even orthodox theological leaders were not comfortable in their (dogmatic work, so that the position from the middle of the sixth century, the sovereign rule of traditionalism, was really the goal desired from the beginning. The works of all prominent theologians testify to this. Some deplored the fact that the mystery could not be worshipped in silence, that they were compelled to speak; and the rest say explicitly, that the truth of their propositions lay in their negations alone. Hilary expresses himself perhaps most strongly (De trinit. II. 2): “Compellimur hæreticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa præsumere. Et cum sola fide explorari, quæ præcepta sunt, oporteret, adorare scilicet patrem et venerari cum eo filium, sancto spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea, quæ inenarrabilia sunt extendere et in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno, ut, quæ contineri religione mentium oportuisset, nunc in periculum humani eloquii proferantur.”

theology and the exposition of the faith were intertwined, there were gifts which the Church had to decline in order to maintain its tradition, i.e., the standard left to it of its Christianity. But the heterodoxies of the theologians presented neither an incentive to nor the means for a revision of the whole doctrine in its possession. Besides, the entire process of expelling the freer theology was carried out without crises worth mentioning, as if spontaneously. That is the strongest evidence of the weakness of the speculations and critical views which sought to hold their ground alongside the doctrine of the Church. The condition of affairs at the close, when we have (1) dogma (2) a theology of scholastic mysticism, and (3) antiquarian and formal science not confused with religion, 148was in many respects an improvement, and the value of the product received its strongest attestation in the duration of the system. Leaving out of account a few oscillations, that had been actually attained, which the ‘conservatives’, i.e., the great majority in all phases of violent dogmatic conflicts, had longed for, and had therefore always contemplated. A mysterious dogma had been arrived at, one elevated above the schools, which gave theologians liberty to be antiquarians, philologists, or philosophers; for what independent work was left in the pursuit of dogma was subject to the jurisdiction of these specialists, so far as it did not come under the review of the experts in mysteries and liturgies. But the great loss consisted in the fact that men no longer possessed a theological system complete in itself. Origen’s was the only one that the Greek Church had produced. After its rejection ac8 there existed, besides dogma, a vast sum of incongruous fragments, bound artificially together by quotations from Scripture and tradition and from Aristotelian scholasticism. The great dogmatic work of John of Damascus only appears to be a logically connected system; it is in reality far from that. As regards the periods, the dividing lines are formed by the Œcumenical Synods, namely, the so-called 2nd, then the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. But we can also use the names of Theodosius I., Pope Leo I., Justinian, and Pope Agatho. The unification of the Churches was rendered possible by the fact that they obtained a forum publicum (a public tribunal) in the universal Synods.350 For the Creeds of the provincial Churches, which agreed only in the

350

But for Constantine the Nicene Council would not have been carried through, and but for the Emperor’s uniform creeds would not been arrived at. They were Athanasius’ best co 564 adjutors. Nay, even the Emperors hostile to him helped him; for they used every effort to unite the Church on the basis of a fixed confession. It is therefore absurd to abuse the State Church, and yet to regard the establishment of the orthodox creed as a gain.

main points, and not even in all these, the Councils substituted a dogmatic confession whose proclamation, enactment, and extension excited the most violent conflicts. At the same time the confederation of the Churches 149became a reality through the imperial policy, which sought to come into touch with the strongest dogmatic currents, though not infrequently it supported trivialities. The last traces of independence possessed by individual communities were destroyed; along with unity, uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and worship was almost re-established, and the constitution of the Church, even in the higher ranks, was gradually so adapted to that of the empire that the hierarchical organisation and administration of the Church corresponded to the order of the State. But this re-arrangement required, in part, to be carried out by force (τυραννίς of the Emperors and a few great Bishops), and speaking strictly, was a reality for only a few decades. It excited counter-movements; in opposition to it nationalistic feeling first really gained strength, especially in the East, and the great schisms of the national Churches there were also a consequence of the absolutist attempts at unification.351 In the West the State collapsed under the storms of the tribal migration at the moment when, in the. 564 East, the dismemberment of the imperial Church into national Churches

351

See Hatch, The Councils and the Unity of the Church, in his Social Constitution of the Christian Churches, p. 172 ff.; he has given an excellent account of the share of the State in this unity and its limitations; compare also my Analekten, p. 253 ff. In the process by which Christendom was united externally and ecclesiastically, we can distinguish in the East three, and in the West four, epochs. The first three were common to the Churches of both East and West. The first was characterised by the recognition of the apostolic rule of faith in opposition to the erroneous creeds of heretical associations, after a common ideal and a common hope had united Christians up to the middle of the second century. The κανὼν τῆς πίστεως became the basis of ἀ ac8 δελφότης. The second epoch, in which organisation became already of supreme importance, was represented in the theory of the episcopal office, and in the creation of the metropolitan constitution. While this was struggling to establish itself amid violent crises, the State of Constantine brought about the third epoch, in which the Church, by becoming completely political, was united, and thus arrived at an external and uniform unity, so that in it the essential nature of the Empire was continued. The Church became the most solid organisation in the Empire, because it rested on the imperial order of the ancient kingdom. It got no further than this organisation in the East; indeed, several great provincial Churches soon separated from it; for the creation of Constantine concealed germs of dissolution; see Zahn, Konstantin d. Gr. 1876, p. 31 f. In the West, on the contrary, the Roman Bishop began to engage in those enterprises which, favoured by circumstances, succeeded in the course of centuries in substituting a new and distinctively ecclesiastical unity for that created by the state.

began. The attempts of the East Roman 150emperors to recover the Western half of the realm, or at least parts of it, more than once thwarted the oriental policy imperatively required of them, and are also, from the complications to which they led, of great importance for the history of dogma. While the Emperors of Byzantium were involved in a double task, which constituted an insoluble dilemma, the Roman Bishops served themselves heirs to the West Roman kingdom. In the revolution in political and social affairs, Christians and Latins were compelled to postpone their separate interests and to attach themselves closely to the most powerful defender of the old institutions. The Germans, who apparently broke up the Empire, brought about the internal unity of all that was Catholic and Latin, and strengthened the position of ecclesiastical Rome. The East, on the contrary, which had been less endangered actually did break up. In the Western Catholic Church the ancient Roman Empire was preserved after a fashion with its order and culture. This Church had no longer beside it a state similar in character and closely related to itself and thus its Bishop could train the new peoples to his service, and soon undertook an independent policy against the Western ac8 schemes of the East Roman Emperors. The internal separation between East and West was complete, when neither understood the language of the other. Yet the West still took an active interest in the controversy of the ‘Three Chapters’, and at the same time obtained, in the translation of the Antiochene and Persian Instituta regularia divinæ legis, and in the great works translated at the instigation of Cassiodorus, valuable gifts from the East which stand comparison with those made by Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus, and Jerome. Even in the seventh century Rome and the East were for a time engaged in a lively correspondence. But the rule of Byzantium over Rome was felt to be that of the foreigner, and conversely the Roman spirit was alien to the Orientals. Their relations were forced. Augustine hardly left a trace in the Eastern Church. That was its greatest calamity. Of course it was less disposed by its past to understand him than the Western Church, and it was at no time really inclined to accept instruction from its rival. The first period of the History of Dogma closes with the of Constantinople (381-383). At them faith in the complete divinity of the Redeemer was finally settled as the creed of the Catholic Church, and his complete humanity was also expressly acknowledged. Next to Athanasius the chief part in the decision was taken by the Cappadocians on the one hand, and by the Roman Bishop and Ambrose on the other. It would not have been arrived at, however, so early, if it had not been carried through in Constantinople by a powerful ruler who came from the West. The theologians, so far as any took part in it, were men who

151Synods

were equipped with the full culture of the period, and were also devoted to the ideals of monastic piety. The Cappadocians were still relatively independent theologians, worthy disciples and admirers of Origen, using new forms to make the faith of Athanasius intelligible to contemporary thought, and thus establishing them, though with modifications, on a secure basis. Beside them stood Apollinaris of Laodicea, a man who anticipated the problems of the future, who was their equal in scholarship, and surpassed them in many respects in theology. But Arianism revealed its weakness by nothing more than its rapid decline after it ceased to possess the imperial favour. The impression made by it on the German nations, and its. prolonged popularity with them, must be described as an ‘accident’ in history. Catholicism was first made a reality by Theodosius I. — ‘the idea of a communion which should unite East and West in the same confession, beyond which no other form o 564 f confession was recognised.’ But Ranke remarks rightly352 that the Christian idea (of Nicene orthodoxy) gained the upper hand over Hellenistic and heretical systems, not from the doctrine alone, but from the course of events. The victory of the Nicene Council was also decided at the Tigris by the defeat of Julian, and at Adrianople by the death of Valens. In this first period the Christian Church was still in constant touch with Hellenism, and adopted from it whatever it could use. But the history of dogma can only give a very meagre view of these relations. Its boundaries gradually become altogether more restricted. In the first three centuries it can hardly be separated 152from the universal history of the Church; in those following the general life of the Church is less and less clearly reflected in it. He who desires to become acquainted with that life, must study the monachism, worship, ethics, and especially the theological science of the age. There is nothing in the history of dogma to require us to portray a figure like that of Synesius, and, if we define our task strict 524 ly, we can make little use of the rich epistolary literature of the time. The second period extends to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Its first and longer half covers the time in which the imperial Church, resting on the Nicene basis and directed by emperor, priest, and monk, established itself. But after a time of comparative peace,353 the question again emerged as to the relation of the divine

352

Weltgeschichte IV. 1, p. 305 f. On these decades, which are to be described as in many respects the most prosperous period of the Byzantine Church, see Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV., p. 403 ff. Heathenism was then first completely overthrown, and the heretics, even finally the Novatians, were hard pressed. The regime of Chrysostom seems to have been especially 353

and human in the person of the Redeemer. The opposition between the school of Antioch and the new Alexandrian theology, which felt itself to be the sole teaching of the Church, culminated in this question, and the Alexandrian Bishop succeeded in making it the centre of ecclesiastical interest. The theologians of the school of Antioch still wrought in freedom; nay, even among their opponents there were to be found men who defined the faith by its aim, and were not overawed by traditionalism. Yet traditionalism grew more and more powerful. Under the leadership of Epiphanius the great reaction against Origen began, 5a4 354 and not only the Alexandrian Bishop, but the greatest scholar of the age took part in 355 153it. To this was added another fact. The constitution of the Patriarchate began to reveal its effect in threatening the unity of the Church. The Cappadocian Churches of Asia Minor receded into the background simply because they possessed no patriarch of their own, dogmatics began to constitute an instrument of provincial ecclesiastical policy, and the dogmatic formula to be a mark of the diocese and nationality. In proportion as this took place, the state was compelled to intervene. Dogmatic questions became vital to it, and the appointment in the capital to the Patriarchate, which it had fostered, was now a political problem of the first rank; for the occupant of the chair stood at the head of the spiritual affairs of the empire. The great controversy was not settled at the two Synods of Ephesus (431, 449), but it 564 was, ostensibly, at the Synod of Chalcedon (451) by means of a long formula. This formula was proposed and dictated by the West in the person of Bishop Leo and was approved by the Emperor; it was regarded in the West as the simple and unchanged creed of the Fathers, in the East as a compromise which was felt by some not to be sufficiently orthodox, and by others to require interpretation. Meanwhile the East hardly possessed as yet the rudiments of a theology capable of interpreting it. Therefore the formula of Chalcedon has not

signalised by the suppression of heretics in the patriarchate of Constantinople; see the account of Socrates. We know of other Bishops who were active in extirpating heresy in the first half of the fifth century, a work in which Theodoret took part. The reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, on the one hand, the indefatigable labours of Epiphanius on the other, laid the foundation. Their programme was carried out from the end of the fourth century. But from about the middle of the fifth century, when the last traces of the ancient Gnostics, Novatians and Manichæans were substantially removed, great schis 564 ms began to take place on the basis of the Chalcedonian decree. 354 See before this Demetrius, Peter, Methodius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and Apollinaris. 355 “Babylon is fallen, fallen,” — with these words of triumph did Jerome accompany the overthrow of Chrysostom in the Origenist controversy (Ep. 88).

unjustifiably been called a ‘national misfortune’ for the Byzantine Empire. But even as regards the Church its advantages no more than balanced its disadvantages. During this period the monks obtained the mastery over the Church. Although their relations with the hierarchy were not infrequently strained, they added very greatly to its strength. The clergy would have been completely eclipsed in the world and the state, if they had not obtained a new support from the ‘religiosi’ and ‘religiosity’. But while monachism became an important element in the Church, the prestige of the state declined in the minds of men; nothing was left to the Emperors but to adopt certain monkish fashions for themselves, and along with the state the life of social morality was deprecia 564 ted in favour of ‘religiosity’ and a magical cultus. For monachism merely promotes 154itself and next to that a religion of idol-worship; it quits the field where a vigorous morality arises. On the other hand, however, the State was delivered at the close of this period from its most powerful opponent, the Bishop of Alexandria, though at much too high a cost. The third period extends up to the fifth Œcumenical Council (Constantinople A.D. 553). The disadvantages of the Chalcedonian formula made themselves felt in the first half of this century. Great ecclesiastical provinces were in revolt, and threatened to secede from the membership of the universal Church. Greek piety everywhere showed itself to have been unsettled by the decree of Chalcedon. Theology could not follow it; nay, it appeared to be stifled by the decision, while in Monophysitism life and movement prevailed. The perplexed Emperors were at their wits’ end, and tried provisionally to recall, or at any rate to tone down, the formula, but in doing so they prejudiced the union with the West. This was changed under Justin I., but above all under Justinian I. As the reign of the latter was signalised politically by the restoration of the Byzantine supremacy, and the codification of its laws, it was ecclesiastica 564 lly distinguished by the restoration and establishment of the constitution and dogmatics of the Church. The creed of Rome was recognised so far as its wording was concerned, but Rome itself was humbled; the Chalcedonian formula remained in force, but it was interpreted in terms of Cyril’s teaching, and its future position was assured by the condemnation of the writings of the Antiochene schools on the one hand, and of Origen on the other. Thus was the theology of the past judged: ‘solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant’. The Justinian Church condemned the glorious Fathers, and the fifth Œcumenical Council blotted out the freer theological science. However, this measure was only possible because an orthodox Church theology

had developed in the first half of the sixth century.356 It presupposed the Chalcedonian formula, which had become more venerable by age, and explained it by means of the philosophy of Aristotle, which had then come once more 155to the front, in order to reconcile it with the spirit of Cyril’s theology, and to mak 564 e it in some measure comprehensible. Here we have the rise of ecclesiastical scholasticism which now took its place beside the mystical Neo-platonic theology that had been most comprehensively stated by the Pseudo-areopagite, and which corrected and defined it, uniting with and balancing it. The effect of this development was extremely significant. Men now began for the first time to feel themselves at home on the ground of the Chalcedonian formula; piety also was reconciled to it. Productive dogmatic work ceased entirely; its place was taken by the mystical theology of scholasticism based on the inheritance from antiquity and the enumeration of authorities. Justinian in reality closed not only the school of Athens, but also that of Origen, the schools, i.e., of productive theological science and criticism.357 Henceforth theology only existed as a servant to the tradition of Justinian and Chalcedon. It was served in turn by the dialectic of Aristotle on the one hand, and the Neo-platonic mysticism of the Areopagite on the other. It did important work in the way of elaboration and adaptation; w 564 e are not warranted in passing a sweeping verdict of stultification and sleep;358 but it made no further change in the creed of the Church and was bound hand and foot.359

356

See Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz in the “Texten und Unters. z. alt-christl. Liter ac8 aturgesch.,” Vol. III., parts 1 and 2, p. 37 ff., 303 ff. 357 The closing of the school of Athens has been disputed. It was certainly not a great, formal action; see Krummacher, Gesch. d. Byzant. Litt., p. 4. 358 See the works of Gass and Gelzer, especially the latter’s interesting lecture: “Die politische und kirchliche Stellung von Byzanz. 359 Noteworthy, but not surprising, is the parallel capable of being drawn between the history of theology and that of (heathen) philosophy during the whole period from Origen to Justinian. The history of Greek philosophy finds its limits in the middle of the fifth century, and again in the age of Justinian; the same is true of the science of the Church. In the general history of science Plato comes to be supplanted by Aristotle from the close of the fifth century; in dogmatics the influence of the Stagirite makes itself felt to an increased extent from the same date. Justinian’s epoch-making measures, the codification of the law, the closing of the school of Athens, and the restoration of the Byzantine Church and Empire, point to an inner connection. This has not escaped Ranke. On account of the importance of the matter I give here his excellent discussion (Vol. IV. 2, p. 20 ff.): “Justinian closed the school of Athens . . . An event of importance for the whole continued development of the human race; any further development in a direct line on the basis laid in classical antiquity was rendered impossible to the Greek spirit, while to

156

As regards the history of dogma the fourth period possesses no real independence. The dogmatic activity which characterised it was exclusively political; but since it created a new formula, we may here assume a special period. It ends with 157the sixth

Roman genius such an advance was left open and was only now rendered truly possible for after ages by means of the law-books. The philosophical spirit perished in the contentions of religious ac8 parties; the legal found a mode of expression which, as it were, concentrated it. The close of Greek philosophy recalls its beginning; nearly a thousand years had elapsed during which the greatest transformations in the history of the world had taken place. May I be permitted to add a general reflection, as to which I merely desire that it may not be rejected by the general feeling of scholars. The Christian religion had risen upon earth in the conflict of religious opinions waged by nations, and had then in opposition to these developed into a Church. Christian theology which set itself to appropriate the mysterious and to come to terms with the intellect had grown up in constant contact, sometimes of a friendly, more often of a hostile kind, with Greek philosophy. That was the business of those centuries. Then appeared the great Christian theologians from Origen onwards; as we said in passing, they passed through, without exception, Greek or closely related Latin schools, and framed their doctrines accordingly. Greek philosophy had produced nothing comparable to them; it had, as regards public life, been thrust into the background and now it had perished. But it is striking that the great Christian theologians also came to an end. Never again do we find in later times men like Athanasius, the Gregories of Cappadocia, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine. I mean that along with Greek philosophy the original development of Christian theology also came to a stand-still. The energy of the Church doctors, or the importance of the Church assemblies in these centuries cannot be parallelled by analogous phenomena belonging to later times. Different as they are in themselves we find a certain resemblance in the state of Roman law and of Christian theology. The old Roman jurisprudence now appeared as universally valid law in a redaction which while historical was yet swayed by the conditions of the day. At the same time, limits were set by the triumph of orthodoxy, especially of the dogmas declared in the Chalcedonian resolutions, to all the internal divisions of theology in which the divergent opinions were also defended with ability and thoroughness . . . Justinian who reinstated orthodoxy, and gave the force of law to juridical conceptions, takes a high place in the rivalry of the centuries. Yet, while he raised his government to such a pinnacle of authority, he felt the ground shake momentarily under his feet.” Greek science and the monkish view of the world, leagued as they were, dominated the spiritual life of the Church before as well as after the Justinian age; they were at bottom indeed far from being oppos ac8 ed, but possessed a common root. But how differently it was possible to combine them, what variations they were capable of! If we compare, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa with John of Damascus it is easy to see that the former still really thinks independently, while the latter confines himself to editing what is given. It is above all clear that the critical elements of theology had been lost. They only held their ground in the vagaries of mystical speculation; in all ages they are most readily tolerated there.

Œcumenical Council (A.D. 680). ‘Justinian’s policy of conquest was in the highest degree unstable, and went far beyond the resources of the Empire’. Whether his dogmatic policy was correct, which maintained union with the West at the cost of losing a large section of the Oriental Churches, is a question which may be debated. But whether an open and consist ac8 ently monophysite policy was then still possible in Constantinople is very doubtful. Egypt, Syria, and Armenia were lost, not only to the state, but also to Greek language and culture. In order to keep them, or win them back from the Persians and Arabians, an energetic Emperor resolved to publish a monophysite rallying cry without prejudicing the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed. Monothelitism on the basis of the doctrine of the two natures is in itself no artificial creation; it is founded on the old consideration rising out of the doctrine of redemption; but at that time it had its origin in policy. Yet this still-born child of politics set the Eastern Church in an uproar for more than two generations. To prevent the loss not only of the East but of Italy also, the Emperor required the help of the Roman Bishop. Justinian’s success in curbing the latter’s authority had only continued for a little under his successors. The pontificate of Gregory I. still exerted an influence, and, at the sixth Council, Agatho, repairing the fault of one of his predecessors, dictated the formula, as Leo had done at Chalcedon. This bore the impress of the West, and did not correspond perfectly to the eastern conception. It further became manifest at the Council that, when it was a question of defining dogma, theology had been completely transformed into a rehearsal of authorities. Next to the older synodal decisions, the decisive precedent was formed by the immense, and frequently forged, collection of the dicta patrum. After the sixth Council, orthodoxy and Monophysitism were definitively separated, though attempts were not wanting to harmonise them in the following centuries, in keeping with the monophysite tendencies, never wholly destroyed, of eastern orthodoxy. The mystery was firmly established, and obtained further definition; for the doctrine taught by John of Damascus of the enhypostasis of the human nature in the Logos) 158had been accepted, even in the age of Justinian, to be the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the two natures. The movement of thought in the Church passed accordingly to a new sphere; or, more correctly, the old absorbing interest of the Church in the mysteries of the cultus360 now came to light undisguised, because 360

It is said of Polycarp in his Vita per Pionium (sæc. IV.): ἑρµηνεῦσαί τε ἱκανὸς µυστήρια, ἃ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἦν ἀπόκρυφα, οὕτω φανερῶς αὐτὰ ἐξετίθετο, ὥστε τοὺς ἀκούοντας µαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι οὐ µόνον ἀκούουσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁρῶσιν αὐτά. That was

the pursuit of theology, converted as it was aa9 into scholasticism, had become the business of scholars and experts in the mysteries, and it was only temporarily that a controversy springing out of it agitated the Church. Dogma, designed by the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds to be looked at and treated formally, henceforth revealed this its character thoroughly. The philosophy appropriate to it was found, or invented — that compound of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism, with which no one could dispense who desired to unfold or comment on dogma orthodoxly.361 He who passed over the philosophy of the Church stood in danger of becoming a heretic.362 159But dogmatics, undoubtedly the foundation, did not dominate the Church as a living power. The conception of the natures of Christ found its continuation in that of the sacraments and sacramental things by which men became participators in Christ. The perceived (αἰσθητόν) thereby obtained side by side with the conceived (νοητόν) an ever loftier, and independent significance. Symbolism was more and more expunged; the mystery became more and more sensuous. But, in proportion as the latter was made operative in the

accordingly the supreme thing; to be able also to see the mystery, the Christian possession of salvation. 361 The fight between Platonism and Aristotelianism was accordingly acute among theologians in the following centuries; they often indeed made heretics of one another. Up till now we only know these disputes in part; they are important for the later conflicts in the West, but they do not belong to the history of dogma. 362 Even to-day simple-minded Catholic historians of dogma exist who frankly admit that he becomes necessarily a heretic who does not, e.g., use the conceptions “nature” and “person” correctly; and they even derive heresy from this starting-point. Thus Bertram (Theodoreti, Ep. Cyrensis, doctrina christologica, 1883) writes of Theodore of Mopsuestia: “Manifesto declarat, simile vel ide ac8 m esse perfectam naturam et perfectam personam . . . Naturæ vox designat, quid sit aliqua res, vel essentiam vel quidditatem; hypostasis vero modum metaphysicum existendi monstrat. Ex quo patet, ad notionem perfectæ naturæ modum illum perfectum existendi non requiri. Hac in re erravit Mopsuestenus, et hæresis perniciosa ex hoc errore nata est. What a quid pro quo! The ignorance of the terminology, which was yet first created ad hoc, in order to escape Scylla and Charybdis, is held to be the real ground of the origin of the heresy. Such a view of things, which is as old as scholasticism, undoubtedly needed mysticism as its counterpoise, in order not to perish wholly from the religious sphere. Atzberger (Die Logoslehre d. h. Athan., 1880) has expressed himself still more unsophisticatedly, and therefore more instructively, on the relation of philosophy and dogma (p. 8, 29). But see also Hagemann (Röm Kirche, p. 361): “The Patripassians arrived at their doctrines of God, his attributes, his creation, and incarnation, because they took their stand on Stoic logic and with it cherished the most extreme nominalism, and because they absolutely rejected the objective existence of ideas.”

cultus, the cultus itself was regarded, in all its setting and performance, in the light of the divino-human.363 All its sensuous side, which was presented for his benefit to the worshipper, was regarded as deified and as promoting deification. Now in so far as the believer derived his life entirely from this cultus, a ritual system, to which the character of the divino-human attached, took the place of the God-man, Christ. Piety threatened to be submerged in a contemplation of wonders, the spiritual in the sensuous, and theology, in so far as not identified with scholasticism and polemics, in a science of mysteries. ae7 1 From this point of view

363

For the history of the development of the Greek liturgy after the fourth century. Swainson’s The Greek Liturgies, chiefly from original authorities (London 1884), is the standard work. For the doctrine of the mysteries cf. Steitz’ Abhandlungen in the Lehrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1864 ff. 364 If we collect the fourth-century evidence of crude sensuous superstition intimately combined with Christian piety, we might believe that it could go no further. And yet it did go further from century to century, as anyone can easily convince himself by reading the tales of saints and relics, among which those of the oriental monophysites are the worst. But apart from this increase, we have to call attention to the fact that this barbarous superstition ascended into higher an ac8 d more influential circles and was systematically cultivated by the monks, while the corrective of a more rational theology grew ever weaker. Theology became more defenceless, because it had to adapt itself to sacred ceremony. The worst gift bequeathed by moribund antiquity to the Church was the ritual of magic and the monstrous number of great and little aids in need and means of atonement. It is not the case that this state of matters was produced by the inrush of barbarian peoples; on the contrary, the decomposition of ancient culture and religion takes the first place in the process, and even the Neo-platonic philosophers are not free from blame. In view of this circumstance it is natural to conclude that the reformation of Athanasius bore little fruit, that it only checked for a time the polytheistic under-current, and, in a word, that the Church could not have got into a worse state than, in spite of Athanasius, it did, as regards the worship of Mary, angels, saints, martyrs, images and relics, and the trickery practised with amulets. But even if we were to go further and suggest that the later development of dogma itself, as e.g., in the worship of Mary and images, directly promoted religious materialism, yet we cannot rate too highly the salutary importance of this dogma. For it kept the worship of saints, images and the rest at the stage of a christianity of the second order, invested with doubtful authority, and it prevented the monks from cutting themselves wholly adrift from the religio publica. Finally, it is to be pointed out that superstition has brought with it at all times ideas and conceptions extremely questionable from the point of view of dogmatics, ideas which seem to be affected by no amount of censure. Overbeck (Gött. Gel.-Auz. 1883, no. 28, p. 870) has rightly described it as a phenomenon requiring explanation that the gnatstraining centuries which followed Nicæa, could have swallowed such camels as, e.g., delighted the readers of the Acts of Thomas (even in the Catholic edition) or of the

we can understand the worship of images and the reaction of iconoclasm 160which opened the fifth period. But this explanation is not complete; another factor coöperated. This was the relation of Church and State which was also involved in the controversy about images. There always were discords between them; but these became more and more acute when the priesthood fell completely under the sway of the monks. Even from the fifth century the practice had begun of transferring monks to episcopal chairs, and it had almost become the rule in the following centuries. But the monks both strove zealously to make the Church independent and claimed sovereignty among the people, and as a rule, though interested on behalf of the nations, they also cherished a strong hostility to the State: in other words they endangered the settlement of Church and State established in the fifth and sixth centuries. Their most powerful instrument was the sensuous cultus which had captivated the people, but which undoubtedly, barbarous and mechanical as it was with all its appliances and amulets, was yet connected with the ideal forces still to be credited to the age, with science, art, and especially piety. Here we have the miserable dilemma of the period, and of the Church; the worship of images was barbarous, but iconoclasm threatened to introduce an increased degree of barbarism. For the ‘enlightened’ (Aufklärung) were at the disposal of an iron military despotism, and despised science, art, and religion. 161

The Church of Byzantium was at that time engaged in a life and death struggle. Its existence was really at stake, and with it the existence of the old form of society and culture, in opposition to forces which as yet had no positive policy, but at first merely ruled by brute force. The priestly caste was arrayed against the military, the hosts of shaven monks against the standing army, which from the fourth century had played a great rôle, but now sought to be master in the state. These fearful fights ended in the restoration of the status quo ante, in so far as dogma and cultus were concerned, and the old order seemed all the more sacred after the attacks that had been made upon it. But on the political side, the state supported by the army carried off the victory — and this was not without consequences for the system and lif 564 e of the Church. The monks were given a free hand in dogma, but their activity as ecclesiastical politicians was checked. The Emperor remained chief priest, in spite of some patriarchs who, until after the eleventh century, attempted to maintain an independent and equal

numerous Apocalypses (see the edition of the Apoc. Apocal. by Tischendorf and James, Apocrypha anecdota, 1893).

position side by side with him. With the support of his army he resisted them. The independence of the Church was gone, in so far as it sought to rise above the level of an institution devoted to ritual and worship. Its activity was completely restricted to the mysteries and the preparation for death. It became an institution of the state, impressing it only by the unchangeableness of its doctrine and ceremonies. To the new peoples to whom this Church came, the Slavs, it was far more than to the Greeks an unchangeable, heavenly creation. A thousand years have passed away since the Slavs were hellenised; and they have not yet ventured, like the Germans, to think and feel freely and at their ease in the Church, although they recognise in it a main defence of their national characteristics against the West. From the West these ‘Greek Slavs’ were spiritually separated, after Augustine’s ideas were admitted there. The external cleavage, though only complete in the eleventh century, began immediately after the image controversy. The states in the territory of the Greek Church 564 still really stand under a military dictatorship: where this has fallen, as in the kingdom of Greece, a final stage has not yet been reached. 162States like the former support an ecclesiastical department, but no Church. The path into which Athanasius led the Church has not been abandoned; but the other forces of life completely restricted it. Orthodox dogma corresponds on the whole to the conception of Athanasius; but the balance which he held between the religious creed and the cultus has been disturbed to the disadvantage of the former. The creed still shows life when it is called in question, or when the nation it serves requires a flag. In other cases it lives in the science of scholastic mysticism, which has already become by degrees stereotyped and sacred, and in its presentation in public worship. Theology also is bound to the latter; it has thus received a standard of which Athanasius knew nothing.365 Our sources are the works of the Church Father 564 s and the Acts of Councils (Mansi). We still want a history of Greek

365

It is very characteristic as regards this, that while Cyril of Jerusalem described the Christian religion as µάθηµα τῶν δογµάτων καὶ πράξεις ἀγαθαί, P 564 hotius defined it as µάθησις καὶ µυσταγωγία. From the fourth century interest was more and more transferred from the regulation of the whole life by religion, to its external consecration through the mysteries. The distinctions are indeed only gradual, but the descent was very significant. The Greek Church ultimately gave up the regulation of moral social life, and therewith renounced the power to determine private morality so far as the latter was not dominated by fear of death. The ultimate reason of this is to be sought in the order of the monks and the constitution of the Græco-Slavic states.

ecclesiastical literature after Eusebius, capable of satisfying the most reasonable demands. Of more recent works on the subject that of Fessler is the best (Instit. Patrologiæ, 1850-52), Alzog’s is the most familiar, and Nirschl’s the newest. Chapter II. The Fundamental Conception of Salvation and General Outline of the Doctrinal System. 163

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTION OF SALVATION AND GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

I. THE dogmatic conflicts in the East from the fourth up to the seventh century have this in common, that they centred almost entirely in Christology in the narrower sense, as well as in the incarnation of the Deity. Since men of all parties were meanwhile conscious that they were contending for the essence of Christianity, it follows that the conception of the salvation offered in the Christian religion is to be deduced from the formulas over which they fought, and which then made good their ground. This conclusion is, however, made further certain from the fact that the oriental Church t 54c ook no interest in dogma, apart from those formulas, at least in the time of these conflicts.366 Anything else, therefore, outside of the formulas, which was either fixed as matter of course, or maintained in ambiguous propositions in opposition to Manichæism, Fatalism, and Epicureanism, did not possess the

366

Very instructive in this respect is the Church History of Socrates. A man’s orthodoxy is completely decided for him by his attitude to the dogma of the Trinity (see H. E. III. 7, VI. 13, VII. 6, 11). The Cappadocians and the theologians after Socrates held similar views; see Gregory of Naz. Orat. XXVII. 10: “Philosophise about the world and worlds, matter, the soul, rational beings, good and bad alike, ac8 about resurrection, judgment, and retribution, and the sufferings of Christ. For if on these points you hit on the truth it is not without service, but if you fail, you can suffer no harm” (cf. Ullmann, Gregory of Naz., 1867, p. 217 f.). We have also to consider here the contents of the oriental symbols, creed-decalogues etc. The interest taken to an increasing extent from the fifth century in the tenets levelled against Origen was biblical and traditional. It only became dogmatic at a time when in theology and Christology the influence of “antiquity” had taken the place of that of dogma. On the place and importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Gregory, see Ullman, p. 232 ff.

value of a dogmatic 164declaration in the strict sense. Remembering this, there can be no doubt that the essence of the Christian religion, and therefore the contents of its creed, are summed up in the following proposition. The salvation presented in Christianity consists in the redemption of the human race from the state of mortality and the sin involved in it, that men might attain divine life, i.e., the everlasting contemplation of God, this redemption having already been consummated in the incarnation of the Son of God, and being conferred on men by their close union with him: Christianity is the religion which delivers from death and leads to the contemplation of God. 57c 1 This proposition can be more precisely defined as follows: the highest blessing bestowed in Christianity is adoption into the divine sonship, which is assured to the believer, and is completed in participation in the divine nature, or more accurately, in the deification of man through the gift of immortality. This gift includes the perfect knowledge and the lasting vision of God, in a blessedness void of suffering, but it does not do away with the interval between Christ and the believer.367 From this 165it follows: (1) that redemption, as seen in

367

I share fully the view of Kattenbusch ( Confessionskunde I., p. 296) that the dogma was not merely supported by one idea, and that in the Greek Church of to-day the idea of redemption held by the ancient Church no longer rules directly; but this view does not contradict the exposition given in the text. 368 The fact that the idea of deification was the ultimate and supreme thought is not a discovery of recent times, but it is only in recent times that it has been appreciated in all its importance. After Theophilus, Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position, We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russian theologians. In proof of it Psalm LXXXII. 6 is very often quoted — “I said ye are gods and all sons of the most High.” Just as often are θεοποίησις and ἀθανασία expressly combined. Some Fathers feel the boldness of the formula; but that is very rare. I select merely a few from my collection of passages: Athanas. de incarn. 54: “Αὐτὸς ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς θεοποιηθῶµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν διὰ σώµατος, ἵνα ἡµεῖς τοῦ ἀοράτου πατύ 564 ὸς ἔννοιαν λάβωµεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέµεινεν τὴν παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπου ὕβριν, ἵνα ἡµεῖς ἀθανασίαν κληρονοµήσωµεν, cf. Ep. ad Serap. I. 24, Orat. c. Arian. I. 38, 39, and often; Vita Antonii, c. 74, Ephraem, Comment. in Diatess., init. (ed. Moesinger, p. 1): “Quare dominus noster carnem induit? Ut ipsa caro victoriæ gaudia gustaret et dona gratiæ explorata et cognita haberet. Si deus sine carne vicisset, quæ ei tribuerentur laudes? Secundo, ut dominus noster manifestum faceret, se initio creationis nequaquam ex invidia prohibuisse, quominus homo fieret deus, quia maius est, quod dominus noster in homine humiliabatur, quam quod in eo, dum magnus et gloriosus erat, habitabat. Hinc illud: ‘Ego dixi, dii estis’.” Gregory of Nyss., Colloq. cum Macrina (ed. Oehler, p. 170): Τῶν οὖν τοιούτων ταῖς διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἰατρείαις ἐκκαθαρθέντων τε καὶ ἀφαγνισθέντων,

its final effect, was conceived to be the abrogation of the natural state by a miraculous transformation of our nature; that accordingly (2) the supreme good was definitely distinguished from the morally good; and that (3) an atonement was not included in it. For atonement can only be thought of where the division between God and man is regarded as an opposition of the will. But it ac8 further follows from this that this theology, in agreement with the apologetic and old Catholic doctrine, admitted no independent object to our present life. The work of the Christian consisted wholly in preparing for death (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Χριστιανοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο 166ἐστὶν ἢ µελετᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν In the present there only existed a preliminary possession of salvation. This was represented (1) in the knowledge of God and of the accomplished

ἕκαστον τῶν πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον νοουµένων ἀντεισελεύσεται, ἡ ἀφθαρσία, ἡ ζωή, ἡ τιµή, ἡ χάρις, ἡ δόξα, ἡ δύναµις, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον αὐτῷ τε τῷ Θεῷ ἐπιθεωρεῖσθαι ε 564 ἰκάζοµεν. Gregory of Naz., Orat. 40, c. 45 (Decalogus fidei, ed Caspari, Alte und Neue Quellen, 1879, p. 21): πίστευε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ . . . τοσοῦτον ἂνθρωπον διά σε, ὅσον σὺ γίνῃ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον Θεός. So also Orat. I. 5: “We become like Christ, since Christ also became like us; we become gods on his account, since he also became man for our sake.” On the other hand, compare Orat. XLII. 17: µεθ᾽ ἡµῶν τὸ κτίσµα, τῶν οὐ Θεῶν· εἰ κτίσµα δέ, οὐ Θεός, and XXXIX. 17: "How should he not be God, to insert in passing a bold deduction, by whom thou also dost become God?" Apollinaris Laod., Κατὰ µέρος πίστις (ed. Lagarde, p. 110): φαµὲν ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, ἵνα τὴν ὁµοίωσιν τοῦ ἐπουρανίου λάβωµεν καὶ θεοποιηθῶµεν. Macar., hom. 39. Pseudo-hippolytus, Theophan. (ed. Lagarde, p. 41, 21): εἰ οὖν ἀθάνατος γέγονεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἔσται καὶ θεός. Dionys. Areopag., sæpissime, e.g., de cælesti hierar. c. 1: ἡ ἡµῶν ἀνάλογος θέωσις. Sophronius, Christmas Sermon (ed. Usener, Rhein. Mus. für Philologie, 188 aad 6, p. 505): θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν. Leo, Patriarch of Russia ( Pawlow, p. 126): ἐθεώθηµεν Θεοῦ τῇ µεταλήψει. Gennadius, Confess. (ed. Kimmel, p. 10): “dixit deus: Induam me carne . . . et erit omnis homo tamquam deus non secundum naturam sed secundum participationem.” We have, however, to notice that this deification, as understood by the Greek Church, did not by any means signify roundly “Becoming like God”. The Greeks in the main did not connect any clear conception with the thought of the possession of salvation (felicity) further than the idea of imperishableness; and this very fact was their characteristic feature. It is the ineffable, the transcendent which may therefore be described as the θεία φύσις, because it is enjoyed for ever. The interval between Christ — who was born, and did not become, Son of God — and the sons by adoption is always very strongly emphasised; compare (the precise expositions in Augustine, De remiss. pace. II. 24) and above all, Athanasius’ third discourse against the Arians; further, Cyril Catech. II., ch. 4-7 and 19. Yet the θέωσις of Mary forms a kind of exception. The idea of deification is also found in Western writers, especially Augustine. But if I am not deceived Augustine himself brought it to an edifying end.

incarnation of the Son of God, and therewith in the certain hope of being deified; (2) in power over demons; (3) in the call to salvation and perfect acquaintance with the conditions of its reception; (4) in certain communications of divine Grace which supported believers in fulfilling those conditions—the forgiveness of sin in baptism, the power of certain holy rites, and holy vehicles, the example of the God-man etc.; and (5) in participation in the mysteries— worship and the Lord’s supper—and in the enjoyment of the consecration they imparted, as also, for ascetics, in a foretaste of the future liberation from the senses and deification.369 The certainty of faith in the future deification, however, because its possibility and reality, rested exclusively on the fact of the incarnation of the Son of God. The divine had already appeared on earth and had united itself inseparably with human nature. This conception formed the universal foundation for the development of dogmas in the fourth to the seventh century, though all might not equally understand it or see its consequences clearly. Only thus can we comprehend how the Church could perceive, define, and establish the nature of salvation in the constitution of the incarnate Son of God. Faith simply embraces the correct perception of the nature of the incarnate Logos, because this perception of faith includes the assured hope of a change of human nature analogous to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and therewith everything worth striving for. ‘We become divine through him, because for our sake he became man’. But the dogmatic formulas corresponding to this conception only established their position after severe fights; they never arrived at a perfectly exact expression; and they never obtained the exclusive supremacy which 564 they demanded. 167

The reasons for this delay, inexactness, and failure to obtain supremacy are numerous and various. The most important deserve to be emphasised. Firstly, every new formula, however necessary it might appear, had the spirit of the Catholic Church against it, simply because it was new; it could only gain acceptance by deceiving as to its character of novelty, and as long as the attempt to do so was

369

Athanasius (Ep. encycl. ad episc. Ægypt. et Lib. ch. I.) mentions as the gifts of grace already possessed by Christians: (1) the type of the heavenly mode of life, (2) power over demons, (3) adoption to be sons, (4) and what is exalted and rises high above every gift—the knowledge of the Father and the Word himself and the grant of the Holy Spirit. This list is not quite complete.

unsuccessful, it was regarded by the pious with suspicion.370 Secondly, the ability of the Catholic Fathers really to explain their faith, and to deduce dogmatic consequences, was extremely slight. Grown up in the schools of philosophy and rhetoric, they never clearly felt it to be their duty to give an abstract account of their faith, however they might understand it. Far from describing the system of doctrine as a statement of the nature and contents of Christian piety, and from evolving the latter from its distinctive conditions, they found it difficult even to make a simple inferenc 564 e from their conception of salvation to the person of Christ and vice versa. Their reasoning was always being disturbed by apologetic or other considerations foreign to it. Energetic men, to whom the matter of religion should be all in all, were accordingly required, if an advance were to take place in the work of formulating it. But such men have been extremely rare. There have been few in all periods of the history of dogma who clearly perceived and duly appreciated the final interests which moved themselves. This is true of the ancient Church, though then matters were a little better than in later centuries. Thirdly, the formulas required conflicted with every kind of philosophy; they amounted to an offence to the thought of the schools. This circumstance undoubtedly might afterwards prove an advantage; it was possible to show the divinity and sacredness of the formulas by referring to their inscrutability and therefore to the mystery that surrounded them. But as long as the formula was still new, this confirmation encountered doubts, and even afterwards, in spite of the ‘mystery’, it was impossible to do without a philosophy which should interpret it, and should restore confidence, 168as to the contradictions, by new combinations of categories. Now, as long as no such philosophy was created, faith was n 564 ot satisfied, and the formula was not guaranteed permanence. Fourthly, it was of the highest importance that by almost all the Fathers their conception of the salvation procured by the God-man (deification) was appended to, or bolstered up by, the system of ‘natural theology’. But under this system knowledge and virtue were the highest blessings, and God was exclusively the judge who rewarded the good and punished the wicked. Now, it was undoubtedly possible so to combine these two lines of thought that neither was prejudiced, and we will see that such a combination alone corresponded to the ideas of those Christians, and was actually brought about. But it was impossible to prevent natural theology from intruding more and more into dogmatics, and from interfering with the success of the mystical doctrine of

370

See above, p. 137, f.

redemption—for so we may well name it. Men were not in a position to strike at the roots of those views of Christian salvation which did not definitely conceive the latter to be distinctive, and which therefore did not sufficiently differentiate it from virtue and the natural knowledge of God. Fifthly, the complete acceptance of the mystical doctrine of redemption was imperilled from another side, and this menace also could never be completely averted. The picture of the life of Jesus cont 564 ained in the Gospels, in spite of all the arts of exegesis, contradicted in a way it was impossible to disregard the Christological formulas called for by the doctrine. The life even influenced the form given to the dogma of the incarnation and its consequences371 to an extent which, from the standpoint of the theory of redemption, was questionable; and it subsequently always accompanied the dogmatic formulas, 169keeping alive in the Church the remnant of a conception of the Redeemer’s personality which did not agree with them. The Church indeed never lost recollection of the human individuality of Jesus in its simple loftiness, its heart-winning love, and its holy earnestness; it never forgot the revelation of God in humanity. Scripture reading and, in part also, preaching preserved the memory, and with and by it thought was ever again led to the simplest and highest of facts, the love of God which is loftier than all reason, the rendering of service to our neighbour, sincere humility, and patience. But as the gospel prevented dogma from obtaining an exclusive supremacy, so also 564 Pauline theology, and kindred views found in Holy Scripture, exerted an important influence, which maintained its ground side by side with the dogma, and often very strongly decided its exposition. That the work of Christ consisted in what he achieved, culminating in his sacrificial death, and signifying the overcoming and removal of guilt; that salvation accordingly consisted in the forgiveness, justification and adoption of men, are ideas absolutely wanting in none of the Church Fathers, and very prominent in a few, while in the majority they find their way into the exposition of the dogma of redemption. They do not agree with 371

In the introductory fourth Catechism in which Cyril summarises the, main points of the faith, he says (ch. IX.): πίστευε δὲ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ µονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν ἐξ οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν ἐπι τῆς γῆς. (ch. X.): οὗτος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν. Nothing is said of the abolition of death. So also in the Homilies of Chrysostom who generally tried to follow Paul, sin comes to the front. The saying “Let us not fear death, but only sin,” is often repeated with variations by Chrysostom. Alexander of Alex. also in his letter to Alexander (Theodoret H. E. I. 4) gives as the only ground of the incarnation of the Son of God, that he came εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁµαρτίας, but he is unable to carry out the thought.

the latter, nay, in this combination can hardly be held to have deepened the conception in any point; for they rather menaced the finality of the fundamental dogmatic thought in which men lived. In fact they wrought mischief, i.e., they led to moral laxity, as in all cases where they are only allowed a secondary authority. But their existence must be expressly stated if our view is to be complete. New Testament reminiscences and thoughts and in general Biblical theological ideas of the most varied kind, always accompanied and impinged on dogma growing or full-grown.372 564 They helped to delay its reduction into formulas, and prevented the mystical doctrine of redemption and its corresponding dogmas obtaining a completely exclusive supremacy in the Eastern Churches. Sixthly and finally, the scheme of Christology, distinctive of the 170West, forced on the Church by the policy of the emperors, brought a disturbing and confusing influence into the Eastern history of dogma. The Eastern Church, left to itself, could only, if it had simply given expression to its own idea of redemption, have raised to a dogma the one nature, made flesh, of God, the Logos (µία φύσις θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωµένη), and must have left the paradox standing that the humanity of Christ was consubstantial (ὁµοούσιος) with ours, and was yet from the beginning not only without sin, but free from any kind of corruption (φθορά). This dogma was condemned as heretical in the process, as we know, of forming an exclusive authoritative doctrine, and another was set u 564 p in its place which it required the most elaborate efforts of theologians to connect closely with the idea of redemption. Conversely, as regards the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century, while the correct formula—correct, i.e., when gauged by the conception of redemption—triumphed, yet the considerations springing from natural theology and science were here so strong that the Eastern Church could only reconcile itself to the doctrine by the aid of a complicated theology, which in this case, however, was really heterodox, because it weakened the meaning of the formula. In the fourth century the correct formula triumphed, but the triumph was procured by a theology really heterodox; in the fifth and up to the seventh an incorrect formula, if gauged by the idea of redemption, became supreme, but theology was able to treat it orthodoxly. In view of these incongruities one is almost tempted to believe in the ‘cunning of the idea’; for this development alone made possible, or demanded, the application of the whole apparatus of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy to 372

The contradictions and inconsistencies were not felt if it was possible to support the separa ab6 te propositions by an appeal to Holy Scripture: see on this Vol. II., p. 331, n. 1.

dogma. Neither the conception of the ὁµοούσιοσ (consubstantial) as given by Athanasius, nor the strictly Monophysite form of the incarnation dogma, would have conjured philosophy anew 564 to its aid, and to a greater extent than was contained in the dogma itself. This happened and could not but happen, because men would not understand οµοούσιος as ταυτούσιος (of the same substance); and because they were forced to fit the two natures into their system. Dogmatics (the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation) became the high school of Philosophy. By them the Middle Ages 171received all that they ever did of philosophical thought. And these facts were due to the circumstance that the idea of redemption was not expressed purely and absolutely in dogma, that rather in the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as in the Christology, the formula overlapped its support, or the support the formula, and therefore necessarily called for endless exertions. Where would Plato and Aristotle have been in the Church or the Middle Ages if the East had honoured Athanasius and Julian of Halicarnassus as the sole authoritative Fathers of the Church, and how nearly was this the case with both! How much the East owes to the interference of the West, and yet, on the other hand, how greatly did the same West disturb it! But it is to be described as a gain from another point of view, tha 564 t the correct formulas— those which corresponded to the Greek idea of redemption—did not establish their position. The evangelical conception of Christ was preserved to a greater degree in the Byzantine and Nestorian Church, based on the doctrine of the two natures, than in the Monophysite Churches. The latter only prove that the consistent development of the materialistic idea of redemption reduces Christianity to barbarism. The Arabians taught Aristotle to the Nestorians and not to the Monophysites. But those Churches also show that the Christ who possessed one incarnate nature—that phantom—reduced the historical Christ almost to the vanishing point. All the features of the man Christ of history, which the Byzantine and Nestorian Church still kept alive in their communities, are so many evidences that the old idea of redemption was forced to submit to limitations. But in spite of this the dogma of the God-man which sprang from the doctrine of redemption assumed a unique and predominant position and alone constituted dogma in the strict sense. Theology = the doctrine of the Trinity, Economy = the idea and realisation of the Incarnation. The course of development also shows by its inner logic, which indeed, as already pointed out, was not so stringent as more recent scholars would have 564 us believe, that it was in this dogma that the strongest interest was taken. After Athanasius had proved the necessity and realisation of redemption through the incarnation of the 172Son of God, the consubstantiality

(Homoousia) of the Son of God with God himself was first established. Then the fact was emphasised that the Incarnate was constituted similarly with man, and finally, the unity of deity and humanity in the incarnate Son of God was settled. The historian of dogma has here simply to follow the course of history. It is in this connection by no means clear how besides this the work of the God-man is to be treated. As regards the work of Christ we can only deal with ‘conceptions’ which are not firmly allied to the dogma. But we have to remark finally, that not only in theory was the dogma planned eschatologically, i.e., with a view to the future life, but that also in practice faith in the imminent approach of the end of the world still influenced the pious. In a few Fathers this faith undoubtedly held a subordinate place; but yet it formed the rule, and the storms caused by the invasion of the tribes as well as the political revolutions constantly gave it strength. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

II. In relation to the blessing of 538 salvation man is receptive and passive. He receives it in this world in the hope of his faith, and enjoys it in the other as a transcendently glorious gift of grace. God alone can grant it, and no human effort can deserve it. As we have already noticed, this religious blessing of salvation is wholly different from moral goodness; for moral goodness cannot be presented, but must be gained by our own actions. On the other hand, Christianity as a religion cannot take up a neutral attitude to moral goodness, but must rather embrace the loftiest morality. That was also the universal conviction of the Greek Church and its theologians. The problem which thus arose was solved without noteworthy vacillations, and in the sense of the theology of the apologists and Origen. It was assumed that freedom in the moral sphere corresponded to receptivity in the domain of religion and the blessings of salvation conferred by it; and that God attached the grant of the religious blessing of salvation to the achievement of a perfectly moral life, whose law, though not new, had first found expression in the Christian religion as something perfect and capable of being easily recognised. The scheme of nature and grace current in the West since Augustine, was not entirely unknown in the East, so far as words were concerned. 590 373

373

It occurs, e.g., in the Homilies of Macarius. If elsewhere he speaks of χάρις, it is as a rule the substantial grace imparted in the sacraments (baptism) that is meant. The beginning of Cyril’s first Catechism is very instructive: Καινῆς διαθήκης µαθηταὶ καὶ Χριστοῦ µυστηρίων κοινωνοί, νῦν µὲν τῇ κλήσει, µετ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῇ χάριτι, καρδίαν

173But

the latter already found “grace” in “nature”, i.e., in the inalienable natural disposition to freedom, and, on the other hand, conceived “grace” to be the communication of a higher nature. Hence the above scheme was not adapted to express Greek thought. Christianity was rather, on the one hand, the perfect law of goodness, and, on the other, a promise and sure pledge of immortality.374 It was therefore holy living and correct faith. The convictions that God himself is the good; that he is the creator of the inalienable reason and freedom of man; that the perfect morality of man represents the only form of his similarity to God attainable in the sphere of the temporal and created; that the supreme law of goodness, hitherto obscured, has been once more revealed to men in the Christian religion, and that in the most impressive way imaginable—by the deity in a hu 564 man form; finally, that the religious blessing of salvation procured by Christ contains the strongest motive to practise morality,375 while it also includes mysterious forces which promote it: these convictions, according to the conception of Greek theologians, bound religion and morality together as closely as possible, and, since only the good man could receive salvation, guaranteed the character of Christianity as the moral religion. The monk Sophronius (seventh century) says in his Christmas Sermon: “Therefore the Son of God assumed human poverty, that he might make us gods by grace; and the divine father David sings in his psalms . . . I said, ye are gods and all sons of the highest. God is in us; let us become gods by divine 174transformations and imitations” (∆ιὰ τοῦτο ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνην πτωχείαν ἐνδύεται ἴνα θεοὺς ἡµᾶς ἀπεργάσηται χάριτι. καὶ ταῦτα µελῳδῶν ὁ θεοπάτωρ ∆αβίδ . . . a93 . Ἐγὼ εἶπα· Θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες. Θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν· θεωθῶµεν θείαις µεταβολαῖς καὶ µιµήσεσιν).376 In the last phrase the Greek

ἑαυτοῖς ποιήσατε καινὴν καὶ πνεῦµα καινόν, ἵνα εὐφροσύνης ὑπόθεσις γένησθε τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 374 See Cyril, Catech. 4, c. 2: Ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας τρόπος ἐκ δύο τούτων συνέστηκε, δογµάτων εὐσεβῶν καὶ πράξεων ἀγαθῶν. Καὶ οὔτε τὰ δόγµατα χωρὶς ἔργων ἀγαθῶν εὐπρόσδεκτα τῷ Θεῷ, οὔτε τὰ µή µετ᾽ εὐσεβῶν δογµάτων ἔργα τελούµενα προσδέχεται ὁ Θεός . . . µέγιστον τοίνυν κτῆµά ἐστι τὸ τῶν δογµάτων µάθηηµα. 375 Cyril begins his 18th Catechism with the words “The root of every good action is the hope of the resurrection. For the expectation of obtaining a corresponding reward is a spur to incite the soul to practise good works.” The way to morality is made easy by removal of the fear of death. ada 376Ed. Usener, l. c. Once more we have to compare Cyril of Jerusalem. After he has limited the “creed” to the ten sections of the Symbol he continues: µετὰ δὲ τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς σεµνῆς καὶ ἐνδόξου ταύτης καὶ παναγίας πίστεως καὶ σεαυτὸν γνῶθι

fundamental thought is put into a classic form. Only we must not take “µεταβολαῖς” and “µιµήσεσιν” to be equivalent. The former signifies the actual process, the latter its condition and form; not the sufficient reason, as is proved by “χάριτι.”377 There is, however, a form of morality which does not appear to be merely subordinate to religious faith and hope, but which anticipates the future blessings, or puts man into the condition of being able to receive them immediately. This is negative morality, or asceticism. It corresponds in a true sense to the characteristic of the religious gift of salvation; it is also therefore no longer a mere adjunct to the latter, but it is the adequate and essential disposition for the reception of salvation. But in so far as ecstasy, intuition, and the power of working miracles can be combined with it, it forms the anticipation of the future state. The ultimate rule of this conception of Christianity may accordingly be compressed, perhaps, into the saying: “Dost thou desire the supreme good, incorruption (ἀφθαρσία), then divest thyself of all that is perishable.” Side by side with this we have the more general rule “Dost thou 175desire the supreme good, then first be good and nourish the new nature implanted in thee in Baptism by the Eucharist and the other mysterious gifts.” The extent to which all this was connected with Christ is shown by the saying of Clemens Alex. (Protrept. I. 7)—a saying which retained its force in after times: “Appearing as a teacher he taught the good life, in order that afterwards as God he might grant everlasting life” ( afd τὸ εὖ ζῆν ἐδίδαξεν ἐπιφανεὶς ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἵνα τὸ ἀεὶ ζῆν ὕστερον ὡς Θεὸς χορηγήσῃ). This whole conception of the importance of morality needed, however, no doctrinal and specific description, any more than the nature of morality and the principles of natural theology in general.

λοιπὸν ὅστις εἶ. Accordingly, faith is that given from without, divine. Moral selfknowledge and self-discipline are independent of it. 377 The Greek Fathers speak not infrequently of the new birth in connection with N. T. passages and it is to be admitted that some succeed in reproducing the thought satisfactorily, but only—so far as I know—when they adhere closely to the sacred texts. At all events we must not let ourselves be misled by the mere title. This is shown most clearly by the closing chapters of Gregory of Nyssa’s Orat. catechet. (ch. 33 sq.). By regeneration Gregory understands the mysterious birth in us of the divine nature, which is implanted by baptism. As the natural man is born of moist seed, so the new undying man is born of water at the invocation of the Holy Trinity. The new immortal nature is thus begun in germ by baptism and is nourished by the Eucharist. That this conception has nothing in common with the new birth of the New Test., since it has a physical process in view, needs no proof. According to Cyril, regeneration only takes place after man has voluntarily left the service of sin (see Catech. I., ch. 2).

All that was already settled in its fundamental lines; man knew it by his own reason; it formed the self-evident presupposition of the doctrine of redemption. The very freedom used by the Church Fathers in dealing with details shows that here they were treating matters generally recognised and only called in question by Manichæans, Fatalists, etc., and that it was therefore unnecessary to have recourse to revelation. In describing the dogma of the Greek Fathers, therefore, we have to consider their views of the nature of salvation,378 of God as 176the Good and the Giver of salvation, of the state and duties of man, etc., on the one hand, as a kind of a priori presuppositions of the doctrine of redemption; but, on the other, as individual conceptions, framed partly from contemporary philosophy, and partly from the Bible. They certainly have a right to a place in a description of the complete view taken by the ancient Church of Christianity; but as certainly they cannot be called dogmas; for dogmas are as essentially different from self-evident presuppositions as from fluctuating conceptions. Our only reason for discussing them in the history of dogma is that we may guard dogma from misunderstanding and correctly mark off the space due to it.379 The Greek conception of

378

The fundamental conception of the nature of the blessing secured by salvation is yet not wholly unknown to rational theology, since the latter supposed, though with some uncertainty, that it could perceive a divine element in the original constitution of men (see, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa). Even for the doctrine of the Trinity recourse was had here and there to reason and the philosophers. But we must go still fart 564 her. If the doctrine of redemption has been characterised above as mystical, this does not exclude the fact that faith confers redemption in so far as it confers a knowledge which in and by itself includes liberation. As long as men dealt independently with dogma, this conception was by no means wanting; indeed it was really the hidden mystery in dogma which was clearly expressed by Clement and Origen, but only dimly shadowed by later teachers. From this point, however, faith and ethics were intimately combined; for ethics was also intellectual. No later writer has stated and known the thought so clearly expressed by Clement of Alex. (Strom. IV. 23, 149): ∆ιόπερ ὁ ∆ηµόκριτο εὖ λέγει “ὡς ἡ φύσις τε καὶ διδαχὴ παραπλήσιον ἐστι” . . . καὶ γὰρ ἡ διδαχὴ µεταρρυθµιζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, µεταρρυθµίζουσα δὲ φυσιοποιεῖ καὶ διήνεγκεν οὐδὲν ἢ φύσει πλασθῆναι τοιόνδε ἢ χρόνῳ καὶ µαθήσει µετατυπωθῆναι· ἄµφω δὲ ὁ κύριος παρέσχηται, τὸ µὲν κατὰ τὴν δηµιουργίαν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ ἐκ τῆς διαθήκης ἀνάκτισιν τε καὶ ἀνανέωσιν. The whole matt ac5 er gradually became really mystical, i.e., indescribable and inconceivable in every sense in the Fathers; the intellectual phase and intention almost disappeared. Conversely, the reality of the blessing in salvation was thought of from the beginning as something supernatural, surprising, and bestowed from without. 379 One might be disposed to assume that the dogmatic of the ancient Church also contained articuli puri et mixti, but this designation would be misleading. In the opinion of the Fathers, the gospel must have made everything, clear; conversely, there is hardly

Christianity has, like an ellipse, two centres: the doctrine of liberty, which embraces the whole of rational theology, Stoic and Platonic, and the doctrine of the actual redemption, which is supranatural. Supranatural as it was it admitted a relationship to natural theology, just as, conversely, freedom was regarded as a gift of divine grace. We find, indeed, that the two centres were first brought into the greatest possible proximity by the negative morality. Therefore from this point also the ach 564 ievements of positive morality necessarily appear as a minimum to which the shadow of essential imperfection always clings. It follows from the above exposition that the doctrines of God, the world, and man—with freedom and sin, are to be prefixed, as presuppositions and conceptions, to dogma, i.e., the doctrines of the godman, while they are only to be discussed in so far as 177such discussion is required for the comprehension of dogma. But this does not complete the list of our tasks; the whole presentment of dogma must be prefaced by a chapter treating of the sources of our knowledge and our authorities, i.e., Scripture, tradition, and the Church. So also we must at the close examine the mysterious application of redemption—the mysteries—and all that is connected with it.The following arrangement of our material, in which a systematic exposition forms the basis of the historical, because the foundations of our view have not changed since the time of Origen, will thus be appropriate. Ch. III. Of the sources of knowledge and the authorities, or of Scripture, tradition, and the Church. A. The Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption, 564 or Natural Theology.

anything in the dogmatics which able philosophers had not foreshadowed. The realisation was the mystery. Socrates says (H. E. III. 16): Πολλοὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφησάντων οὐ µακρὰν τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν Θεὸν ἐγένοντο, καὶ γὰρ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἀπρονοησίαν εἰσάγοντας, οἵτε Ἐπικουρίους, ἢ ἄλλως ἐριστικούς, µετὰ τῆς λογικῆς ἐπιστήµης γενναίως ἀπήντησαν, τὴν ἀµαθίαν αὐτῶν ἀνατρέποντες, καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων χρειώδεις µὲν τοῖς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀγαπῶσι κατέστησαν· οὐ µὴν τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐκράτησαν, τοῦ µὴ γνῶναι τὸ ἀποκρυπτόµενον ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων κατὰ Χριστὸν µυστήριον· Socrates had already in view violent opponents of the intrusion of Ἐλληνικὴ παιδεία into theology; but the dispute so passionately conducted never really weakened the confidence placed in natural theology. The actual position is correctly described in Eusebius’ phrase (H. E. IV. 7, 14): ἡ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς ἐπὶ θείοις τε καὶ φιλοσόφοις δόγµασι διδασκαλία.

Ch. IV. The presuppositions and conceptions of God the Creator as bestower of salvation. Ch. V. The presuppositions and conceptions of man as recipient of salvation. B. The Doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man in its Historical Development. Ch. VI. The doctrine of the necessity and realisation of redemption through the incarnation of the Son of God. Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the devil and atonement through the work of the God-man. Ch. VII. The doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son of God with God himself. Appendix. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. Ch. VIII. The doctrine of the perfect similarity of constitution between the incarnate Son of God and humanity. Ch. IX. Continuation. The doctrine of the personal unity of the divine and human nature in the incarnate Son of God. C. The Foretaste of 564 Redemption. Ch. X. The mysteries and the like. Ch. XI. Conclusion. Sketch of the history of the genesis of the orthodox system. 178

Supplement 1.—The Greek conception of Christianity appears undoubtedly to be exceedingly compact and clear, as long as we do not look too deeply into the heart of it. The freeing of dogmatics of all matters which do not fall within the scope of the doctrine of redemption is very remarkable. But these advantages are purchased, first, by abandoning any attempt to establish an inner unity between the supreme notions of “moral good” and “blessedness” (imperishableness); secondly, by the depreciation of positive morality in favour of asceticism; thirdly, by completely caricaturing the historical Christ. But the knowledge of the Christian faith possessed by the Fathers up to the middle of the fifth century was still far from being in the desolate state in which theology makes no resolute attempt to deduce the consequences of a doctrine, while it does not venture to abandon it, but contents itself with perceiving “a profound element of truth” in any or every theologoumenon brought to it by tradition. The idea of the Greek Fathers, to which ev 564 erything was subordinate, that

Christianity is the religion which delivers from perishableness and death, was derived from the ancient Catholic Church. It presents itself as a specific limitation of primitive Christian hopes under the influence of views held by the ancients. It is possible to express it in a grand and awe-inspiring form, and this the Greek Fathers understood. Further, where misery, mortality, and finitude are felt to be the heaviest burdens laid upon men, the supreme good can be nothing but endless, blessed rest. In so far as the Greek Fathers perceived and firmly believed in this gift being conferred by the Christian religion, while they connected its bestowal with Jesus Christ, they assigned to Christianity the highest conceivable significance, and to its founder the highest conceivable dignity, within their range of vision. But the mood which looked on Christianity from this point of view and regarded it as consolatory, was that of the fall and ruin of the ancient world, which no longer possessed the power to turn earnestly to an energetic life. Without premising this the dogmatic developments are not intelligible. But we cannot retain the formulas of the Greek faith without selfdeception, if we change or refuse to admit the validity of its premises. But if we are ready 179honestly to retain the 564 m, then let us clearly understand to what Orthodoxy and Monophysitism came in the East. After they had piled one monstrosity on the top of the other, they were—to use a strong figure of Goethe’s— almost choked in chewing the cud of moral and religious absurdities. Originally their doctrine was good for nothing in the world but for dying; afterwards they became deadly sick on this very doctrine. Supplement 2.—If the conception of the supreme good may be regarded as a revised version, made by Greek philosophy, of the ancient Christian hopes of the future, yet this philosophy always rejected the idea of the incarnation of God, and therefore could not, in its definition of the supreme good, attain the certainty which was given in the Christian conception. In the fourth and fifth centuries, however, there were even Christian theologians—Synesius, for example—who would not admit the incarnation of God without revision, and yet held by the thought of deification; who accordingly approached, not rationalistic, but rather pantheistic views. At any rate, faith in the incarnation of God, along with the idea of creation, formed the dividing line between Greek philosophy and the dogmatics of the Church. “For what,” says Athanasius, de incarn. 41, “is absurd or ridiculous in our teaching, 564 except merely our saying that the Logos was made manifest in a human body?” (τί γὰρ ἄτοπον, ἢ τί χλεύης παρ᾽ ἡµῖν ἄξιον, ἢ

πάντως ὅτι τὸν λόγον ἐν σώµατι πεφανερῶσθαι λέγοµεν;).380 On the other hand, the Christian says (Cyril, Catech. 4, ch. 9): “If the incarnation was a dream, then salvation is also a dream.” (Εἰ φάντασµα ἦν ἡ ἐνανθρώπησις, φάντασµα καὶ ἡ σωτηρία). That is the confession which in the Greek Church was the equivalent of 1 Cor. XV. 17 f. Supplement 3.—In order to learn the classical form of Greek piety, the strongest root of dogma, it is necessary to study the literature of asceticism. For it seldom comes clearly to light in the dogmatic, 564 apologetic, and polemical works, with the exception of the writings of Athanasius, and in the homiletic 180literature, apart from Chrysostom, it is always greatly disguised by rhetoric. But a distinction must be made even in ascetic literature. The descriptions of the piety of monkish heroes lose themselves as a rule in extravagance and eccentricity, and are not typical because the writers set out to prove the already supramundane character of those heroes. We have especially to examine numerous writings on “the resurrection,” “virginity,” “perfection,” and similar subjects, and also the practical homilies. We obtain perhaps the clearest and truest impression of the piety of the Greek Church from reading the biography of sister Macrina, by Gregory of Nyssa (Oehler, Biblioth. d. KVV. I. 1, 1858, p. 172 ff.). The dying prayer put in her lips (p. 213 f.) is given here because it expresses inimitably the hopes and consolation of Greek Christianity, yet without omitting the characteristic warmth of feeling which belonged to its very essence. “Her prayer was such that one could not doubt that she was with God, and heard his voice. She said: Thou, Lord, hast for us destroyed the fear of death. Thou hast made the end of this earthly life the beginning of the true life ac8 . Thou makest our bodies rest for a time in sleep, and dost awaken them again with the last trumpet. Thou givest our clay, which Thou didst fashion with Thy hands, to the earth to keep it, and Thou takest again what Thou didst give, and dost transform into imperishableness and beauty that which was mortal and unseemly. Thou hast snatched us from the curse and sin, having Thyself become both for us. Thou hast crushed the heads of the dragon, which had grasped man with its jaw in the abyss of disobedience. Thou hast paved the way of the resurrection for us, having shattered the gate of Hades, and

380 567

Compare Gregory Nyss., Orat. catech. 5: Τὸ µὲν εἶναι λόγον Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦµα διὰ τε τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν ὁ Ἕλλην καὶ διὰ τῶν γραφικῶν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ἴσως οὐκ ἀντιλέξει, τὴν δὲ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκονοµίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἀποδοκιµάσει ὡς ἀπίθανόν τε καὶ ἀπρεπῆ περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.

destroyed him who had the power of death. Thou has given those who fear Thee the image of Thy holy cross for a sign for the destruction of the adversary and the safety of our life. Eternal God, to Whom I was dedicated from the womb, Whom my soul has loved with all its power, to Whom I have consecrated my flesh and my soul from my youth and till now! Place Thou an angel of light by my side to lead me to the place of quickening where is the source of rest in the bosom of the Holy Fathers. 181Oh Thou who didst break the flaming sword, and didst restore to Paradise the man crucified with Thee who begged Thy mercy. Remember me, too, in Thy kingdom, because I also am crucified with Thee, piercing my flesh with nails from fear of Thee, and fainting in dread of Thy judgments! May the awful abyss not divide me from Thine elect, nor the calumniator block my way; may my sin not be found before Thine eyes, if I, having failed through the weakness of our nature, should have sinned in word, or deed, or thought! Thou who hast power on earth to forgive sins, grant me forgiveness, that I may be quickened, and when I put off my body may I be found by Thee without stain in my soul, so that my soul, spotless and blameless, may be received into Thy hands like a sacrifice before Thy presence.” Supplement 4.—For centuries after the great work of Theognostus, which we only know very imperfectly, no complete system of scientific theology was written in the East. The idea of a system was in itself a philosophical one, and for its execution all that was in existence were examples whose authority was already shaken. Platonism only contributed to form a heterodox system. Aristotelianism with its formal logic, which triumphed over all difficulties, first succeeded in creating an orthodox system. Systematic works, in the period up to Johannes Damascenus, fall into the following lists. (1) On the incarnation of the Logos—or Son of God. In these works the central question of Greek dogma ac8 is discussed. The title varies, or is more precise, according to the standpoint of each: “On the two natures”, “On not confounding the natures”, etc. Under this head come also the polemical, dogmatic tractates— against Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc.— as well as dogmatic monographs—on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity, etc. We have to notice finally the Expositiones veritatis at the close of the writings against the heretics, like those found, after the precedent of Hippolytus, in, e.g., Epiphanius and Theodoret.

(2) Exposition of Christian doctrines in catechetical form. Here Cyril’s catechisms are especially important.381 The catechism 182was always bound by the Symbol, but the Symbol necessitated the treatment of the main points of Jesus’ history as points of doctrine, and the expiscation of their exact value for faith. Thus dogma gained an important supplement from the exposition of the Symbol. The decalogue of the creed by Gregory of Nazianzus also falls to be mentioned here. In the great catechism of Gregory of Nyssa catechetic treatment is combined with apologetic. Instructions how to pursue theological science came from the Antiochene school and thence penetrated into the West— Junilius—where Augustine had already written his work De doctrina Christiana. So far as I know, the older Byzantine Church possessed no such instructions. (3) Apologetic works in reference to heathens and Jews. In these, natural theology—the monotheistic faith and doctrine of freedom—is unfolded, and the Christian view of history, as well as

381

The plan of Cyril’s catechisms is very instructive. First, there is in the preface an inquiry as to the aim and nature of the instruction. It begins with the words Ἤδη µακαριότητος ὀσαὴ πρὸς ὑµᾶς. Compare also ch. VI: Βλέπε µοι πηλίκην σοι ἀξίαν ὁ Ἰησοῠς χαρίζεται . . . µὴ νοµίσῃς ὅτι µικρὸν πρᾶγµα λαµβάνεις· ἄνθρωπος ὢν ac8 οἰκτρός, Θεοῦ λαµβάνεις προσηγορίαν . . . τοῦτο προβλέπων ὁ Ψαλµῳδὸς ἔλεγεν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐπειδὴ µέλλουσιν ἄνθρωποι Θεοῦ προσηγορίαν λαµβάνειν· Ἐγὼ εἶπα, θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες, c. 12: ἐάν σε κατηχούµενος ἐξετάσῃ, τι εἰρήκασιν οἱ διδάσκοντες, µηδὲν λέγε τῷ ἔξω· µυστήριον γάρ σοι παραδίδοµεν καὶ ἐλπίδα µέλλοντος αἰῶνος· τήρησον τὸ µυστήριον τῷ µισθαποδότῃ. Then follow three Catechisms which impart information concerning sin, baptism, and penitence in general, and are meant to awaken the right disposition. In the fourth a sketch is given of the system of faith according to the Symbol. Ten systems are distinguished, whose numbering, however, can no longer be established with certainty. The exposition contained in Catechisms 5-18 do not agree with the sketch, seeing that to the latter is appended a didactic section on the soul, the body, food, and clothing, a section which is wanting in the exposition; the latter rather in the last catechism deals with the Church, which is not mentioned in the sketch. The whole is concluded by five catechisms which explain the secret rites of the mysteries to the baptised. The decalogue of the faith by Gregory contains, in the first commandment, the doctrine of the Trinity; in the second, the creation out of nothing and the providence of God; in the third, the origin of evil from freedom, not from an evil matter or God; in the fourth, the doctrine of the incarnation and constitution of the Redeemer; in the fifth, the crucifixion and burial; in the sixth, the resurrection and ascension; in the seventh, the return of Christ in glory to act as judge; in the eight and ninth, the general resurrection and retributive judgment; the tenth runs: ∆έκατον ἐργάζου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ θεµελίῳ τῶν δογµάτων, ἐπειδὴ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά, ὡς ἔργα δίχα πίστεως.

the proof of its antiquity, presented in opposition to polytheism and ceremonial religions; so in several works by Eusebius, Apollinaris, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. 183

(4) Monographs on the work of the six days, on the human soul, the body, the immortality of the soul, etc. In these, also, natural theology is developed and the scientific cosmology and psychology in the oldest sources of the Bible stated. (5) Monographs on virginity, monachism, perfection, the virtues, the resurrection. Here the ultimate and supreme practical interests of piety and faith find expression 519 . (6) Monographs on the mysteries, cultus and priesthood. These are not numerous in the earlier period—yet instruction in the sacraments and their ritual was regularly attached to the training in the Symbol; see the Catechisms of Cyril which form a guide to the mysteries Their number, however, increased from the sixth century. Copious, often intentionally elaborated, dogmatic material, finally, is also contained in scientific commentaries on the Biblical books and in the Homilies. The right use for the history of dogma of these different kinds of sources is an art of method for which rules can hardly be given. The rhetorical, exegetical, philosophical, and strictly dogmatic expositions must be recognised as such and distinguished. At the same time we have to remember that this was an age of rhetoric which did not shrink from artifices and untruths of every kind. Jerome admits that in the works of the most celebrated Fathers one must always distinguish between what they wrote argumentatively (διαλεκτικῶς), and what they set down as truth. Basilius also ( 5af Ep. 210) was at once prepared to explain a. heterodox passage in Gregory Thaumaturgus, by supposing that he had been speaking not dogmatically (δογµατικῶς), but for the sake of argument (ἀγωνιστικῶς). So also Athanasius excuses Origen on the ground that he wrote much for the sake of practice and investigation (De decretis synod. Nic.27, cf. ad Serap. IV. 9); and while completely defending the Christology of Dionysius Alex., he remarks that the latter in many details spoke from policy (κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν). The same stock excuse was seized upon by the Fathers at Sardica in the case of Marcellus. According to this, how often must the great writers of the fourth and fifth centuries themselves have written for the sake of argument (ἀγωνιστικῶς)! Moreover, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks 184of a necessary and salutary οἰκονοµηθῆναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, i.e., of the politic and prudent disguise and the gradu

564 al communication of the truth; and he appeals in support of this to God himself who only revealed the truth at the fitting time, οἰκονοµικῶς (Orat. 41. 6, Ep. 26). Cyrus declares, in the monothelite controversy, that one must assume κατ᾽ οἰκονοµίαν a not altogether correct dogma, in order to attain something of importance. Some, however, went much farther in this matter. As they did not hold themselves bound to stick to the truth in dealing with an opponent, and thus had forgotten the command of the gospel, so they went on in theology to impute untruthfulness to the Apostles, citing the dispute between Paul and Peter, and to Christ (he concealed his omniscience, etc.). They even charged God with falsehood in dealing with his enemy, the devil, as is proved by the views held by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and most of the later Fathers, of redemption from the power of the devil. But if God himself deceived his enemy by stratagem (pia fraus), then so also might men. Under such circumstances 564 it cannot be wondered at that forgeries were the order of the day. And this was the case. We read even in the second century of numerous falsifications and interpolations made under their very eyes on the works of still living authors. Think of the grievances of the Church Fathers against the Gnostics, and the complaints of Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus. But what did these often naïve and subjectively innocent falsifications signify compared with that spirit of lying which was powerfully at work even in official compositions in the third and fourth centuries? Read Rufinus’ De adulterat. libr. Origenis, and weigh Rufinus’ principles in translating the works of Origen. And the same spirit prevailed in the Church in the fifth and sixth centuries; see a collection of the means employed to deceive in my altchrist. Litt.-Gesch. I., p. xlii ff. In these centuries no one continued to put any trust in a documentary authority, a record of proceedings, or protocol. The letters by Bishops of this period throng with complaints of forgeries; the defeated party at a Synod almost regularly raises the charge that the acts of Synod are falsified; Cyril and the great letter-writers complain that their letters are circulated in a corrupt form; the 185epistles of dead Fathers—e.g., that of Athanasius to Epictetus—were ac8 falsified, and foreign matter was inserted into them; the followers of Apollinaris and Monophysites, e.g., systematically corrupted the tradition. See the investigations of Caspari and Dräseke. Conversely, the simplest method of defending an ancient Church Father who was cited by the opposition, or on whose orthodoxy suspicion was cast, was to say that the hereties had corrected his works to suit themselves and had sown weeds among his wheat. The official literature of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversy is a swamp of mendacity and knavery, above which

only a few spots rise on which it is possible to find a firm footing. Gregory I. (Ep. VI. 14) at once recalls in a given case the forging of the acts of the Ephesian Synod. What was not published as Nicene in later times, and to some extent very soon! Much indeed was even then dismissed as mendacity and deceit, much has been laid bare by the scholars of the seventeenth century. But if one considers the verdicts, anxieties, and assertions of suspicion of contemporaries of those conflicts, he cannot avoid the fear that present-day historians are still much too confiding in dealing with this whole literature. The uncertainties which remain in the study precisely of the most important alterations of the history of dogma, and of the Church of the Byzantine period, necessarily awaken the suspicion that we are almost throughout more or less helpless in face of the systematically corrupted tradition. All the same I would not recommend so bold a handling of the sources as that formerly practised by the Jesuits, and to-day by Vincenzi (Ketzertaufstreit, Acten des 5 Concils, Honoriusfrage). Supplement 5.—The form assumed by the substance of the faith in the Greek Church shows very clearly the characteristic point of view. First, namely, it was conceived—though, so far as I know, seldom—as law; indeed Gregory of Nazianzus sketched a decalogue of faith. This form must not be misunderstood. The faith appears as law only in so far as its contents constitute a revealed ordinance of God to which man has to submit; we must not let it suggest to us a parallel to the moral law. Secondly, however, the creed is regarded in its formulas as a mystery to be kept secret. Men were initiated into the faith 186as they were initiated into the sacred rites.382 Secrecy was, according to ancient ideas, the necessary nimbus of all c 564 onsecration. The conceptions of the creed as law and as mystery have this in common, that in them the content of the faith appears as something strictly objective, something given from without.383 But in so far as the authority of any formula whatever conflicts with original Christianity as much as this secrecy, the dependence of the Greek Church on the practice of the ancient mysteries and schools of philosophy is here manifest.

382

See the investigations into the so-called Arcan-Disciplin, by Rothe, Th. Harnack, Bonw 564 etsch, and Von Zezschwitz. 383 Constantine delighted in applying the name “law” to the whole of the Christian religion. This is western (nostra lex = nostra religio); it is rare in the East. On the other hand, the whole Bible was not infrequently “the law” in the one Church as well as in the other.

Supplement 6.—Ideas of the realisation of the supreme good in the world beyond had to attach themselves to the phrases of the creed known in the Symbols, and were not permitted to disregard the numerous and diversified statements of Holy Scripture. The motley and manifold conceptions which resulted were owing to harmonising with primitive Christian eschatology on the one hand, and Origen’s doctrine of the consummation on the other, subject to due regard for the sacred writings. Origen’s doctrine was more and more regarded as heretical from the end of the fourth century, while previously recognised theologians, like Gregory o eb0 f Nyssa, had reproduced it in all its main points. Its rejection marks the first decisive victory of traditionalism—itself indeed impregnated with speculation—over spiritualising speculation. In the fifth century, there were counted as heretical, (1) the doctrine of apokatastasis (universalism) and the possibility of redemption for the devil;384 (2) the doctrine of the complete annihilation of evil; (3) the conception of the penalties of hell as tortures of conscience; (4) the spiritualising version of the resuscitation of the body; and (5) the idea of 187the continued creation of new worlds. On the other hand, the doctrines of Christ’s reign on earth for a thousand years, and the double resurrection, etc., were in the East in part shelved, in part absolutely characterised as Jewish heresies.385 The return of Christ, which was still described as imminent, though for many theologians it had lost its essential significance, the judgment of the world, the resurrection of the body,386 the eternal misery (θάνατος ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ—undying death)

384

Gregory of Nyssa still defended it, appealing to 1 Cor. XV. 28; see the second half of his writing περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, and Orat. catech. 8, 35. So also—for a time—Jerome and the older Antiochenes; even in the fifth century it had numerous defenders in both East and West. It was definitively condemned with the condemnation of Origen under Justinian. See under, ch. XI. ac8 385 The last important theological representative of Chiliasm in the East was Apollinaris of Laodicea; see Epiph. H. 77, ch. 37, Jerome de vir. inl. 18. Jerome labours to prove (Ep.129) that the terra promissionis was not Palestine, but a heavenly place. The Apocalypse was, as a rule, not included in the Canon in the East (in older times). With this state of matters is contrasted very strongly the fact that in the lower ranks of priests, monks, and laity apocalypses continued to be eagerly read, and new ones were ever being produced on the basis of the old. 386 The doctrine of the resurrection of man in spirit and body still always formed a main point in Apologetic evidences, and was, as formerly, proved from the omnipotence of God, from various analogical inferences, and from the essential importance of the body for human personality. The Cappadocians and some later Greek theologians still held, though in a much weakened form, to the spiritualistic version of the doctrine attempted by Origen. But, following Methodius, Epiphanius (H. 64, ch. 12 ff.) especially

of the wicked, were maintained, and even the conception of a transfiguration of heaven and this earth was not everywhere rejected. Retained accordingly were only those points enumerated in the symbols, and therefore no longer to be passed over. To these were added the expectation of Antichrist, which, however, only emerged, as a rule, during exceptional distress, as in the times of Arian emperors, Julian, barbarous nations, Mohammed, etc., and by no means now belonged to the solid substance of theological eschatology; (yet see Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 11 f., the pseudohippolytan work περὶ συντελείας, and the late apocalypses of from the fourth to the seventh century). Blessedness was regarded as a state of freedom from suffering, of the perfect knowledge, and the intuitive and entrancing enjoyment, of God. Yet the majority recognised different degrees and stages of 188blessedness, a conception in which we perceive the moralist encroach upon the ground of religion,387 since it put a high value on special earthly achievements, such as asceticism and martyrdom. As regards the blessed dead, it was supposed in wide circles that their souls waited in Hades, a subterranean place, for the return of Christ;388 there Christ had also preac 6e0 hed the gospel to the good who had died before him.389 Not a few Fathers of the fourth century

insisted that there was the most perfect identity between the resurrection body and our material body, and this faith, enforced in the West by Jerome, soon established itself as alone orthodox. There now arose many problems concerning the limbs and members of the future body, and even Augustine seriously considered these. He experimented on the flesh of a peacock, and confirmed his faith in the resurrection by the discovery of its preservation from decay. 387 The assumption of various degrees of blessedness (and damnation) must have been almost universal; for the divergent opinion of Jovinian was felt to be heretical; see Jer 564 ome adv. Jovin. I. 3, II. 18-34. Still it excited more real interest in the West than in the East (Augustine, De civitate, XXII., ch. 30). As regards the idea of future existence, some Fathers supposed that men would positively become angels, others that they would be like the angels. 388 The different conceptions as to the relations of Hades, Hell, Paradise, the bosom of Abraham, etc., do not come in here. According to Gregory of Nyssa, Hades is not to be held a place, but an invisible and incorporeal state of the life of the soul. 389 This old theologoumenon (see Vol. I., p. 203) occurs in western and eastern theologians. Those who would have become Christians if they had lived later, i.e., after Christ’s 564 appearance, were redeemed. The phrase descendit ad inferna came into the Symbols from the fourth century. We find it in the West first, in the Symbol of Aquileia, in the East in the formula of the fourth Synod at Sirmium (359 εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα). It is at least questionable whether it was already in the Jerusalemite Symbol at the same date. Compare Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 39-41, 43, 45, 46-60, 93, 94, 96, 108; Caspari, Ueber das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss in

maintained, following Origen, that the souls of the pious at once enter Paradise, or come to Christ,390 and this opinion gained ground more and more. It was universal in regard to saints and martyrs. Besides, the conceptions of the intermediate state, like everything else in this connection, were altogether vague, since Greek theologians were only interested 189ultimately in the hope of deification.391 In the West, on the contrary, the entire primitive Christian eschatology was upheld pretty nearly intact during the fourth century, and even the idea of Nero returning as Antichrist had numerous supporters. The reason of this lies in the fact that Neoplatonic speculation, and speculation generally, obtained at first no footing here, and the specific import of Christianity at the same time was still always expressed in the dramatically conceived eschatology. But the distinction between Wes eb0 t and East goes at this point much deeper. Strongly eschatological as was the aim of the whole dogmatics of the East, it cannot be overlooked that the heart of the matter—the thought of the judgement—had been torn away from the eschatology since Origen. This thought which expresses the fearful responsibility of every soul to the God of holiness, and without which the forgiveness of sins must remain an enigma and an empty word, dominated the gospel, and determined ancient Christianity. But “scientific” theology had shelved it.392 The name is not wanting in Origen’s system, but the thing had disappeared. In spite of all the emphasis laid on freedom, nothing exists but a cosmic process, in which the many issues from the one,

Cyrillus’ Katechesen, with an excursus: Hat das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss den descensus ad inferos enthalten, in the norweg. Theol. Ztschr. Vol. I. 390 With this it could be and, as a rule, was understood that their felicity up to the last judgment was only preliminary. Two interests met here: those of a spiritualising religion and of primitive Christian eschatology; see Vol. I., p. 129 f. The latter required that blessedness should be attached t 54a o the return of Christ and the last judgment; the former demanded that it should be complete as soon as the believing soul had parted from the mortal body. Therefore, in spite of Jerome’s polemic against Vigilantius and Augustine’s against Pelagius, no fixed Church doctrine could be arrived at here, however much piety desired an absolute decision. See for details Petavius and Schwane D. Gesch. d. patrist Zeit, p. 749 ff. 391 Clement and Origen had assumed a purgatory in the shape of a cleansing fire (see Vol. II., p. 377, n. 5); the Greek Fathers, however, have, so far as I know, dropped the idea, with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa (περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, Oehler, Vol. I., p. 98 f.). From Origen and Gregory the conception passed to Ambrose who established it in the West, after the way had been prepared for it by Tertullian. The Scriptural proof was 1 Cor. III. 13 f.; compare Augustine De civitate dei, XXI. 23 sq. Enchir. 68 sq. (ignis purgatorius). 392 It still lived in the popular views of Christianity held by the Orientals.

in order to return into the one. In such a scheme the Judgment has been deprived of its meaning. In subsequent times apokatastasis— universalism—was indeed condemned in the East, and Origen’s system was rejected; but any one who studies closely Greek Byzantine dogmatics will see how profound was the attachment to this most important point in Origenism and Neoplatonism. The problems to which the creed gave birth in the fourth to the seventh century, and which men laboured to solve, discountenance any effective reference to the judgment. Again and again we have deification as a hyperphysical and therefore physical 190process, but dogmatics tell us little of the tenet that it is appointed unto man to die and after that the judgment. For this reason also the strict connection with morality was lost, and therefore in some regions even Islam was a deliverer. It was different in the West. What has been named the “Chiliasm” of the West, possessed its essential significance in the prospect of the judgment. If we compare West and East in the Middle Ages—the theologians, not the laity—no impression is stronger than that the former knew the fear of the judge to which the latter had become indifferent. It was the restless element in the life of faith of the West; it sustained the thought of forgiveness of sins; it accordingly made the reformation of Catholicism possible. And any reformation, if it should ever take place in the Greek Church, will begin by restoring the conviction of the responsibility of every individual soul, emphasising the judgment, and thus gaining the fixed point from which to cast down the walls of dogmatics. Literature.—Hermann, Gregorii Nysseni sententiæ de salute adipiscenda, 1875. H. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881. Kattenbusch, Kritische Studien der Symbolik, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1878, p. 94 ff. Ritschl, Die Christl. Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 2 Ed., Vol. I., pp. 3-21. Kattenbusch, Konfessionskunde I., p. 296 ff. On Monachism, especially in Russia, see Frank, Russ. Kirche, p. 190 ff. Chapter III. Sources of Knowledge and Authorities; or, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. 191

CHAPTER III. SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE AND AUTHORITIES; OR, SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND THE CHURCH. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

THE extent and authority of the Catholic authorities were already substantially fixed at the beginning of the fourth cent 3200 ury, though their mutual relations and the manner of using them in detail were not.393 Among the parties which contended over the correct definition of the dogma of redemption, they had to a certain degree become undoubtedly subjects of controversy. The great opposition between a more liberal theology and pure traditionalism was based upon a difference in the way of looking at the authorities. But this opposition never culminated in a clear contrast of principles. Consequently, theologians had no occasion to frame a special doctrine of the Church and the authorities—Scripture and tradition. The need was not, as in the case of the dogma of redemption, so pressing as to lead men to adopt the perilous and obnoxious course of formulating laws of faith anew. The petty skirmishes, however, with more or less obscure theologians and reformers, who point-blank objected to this or that portion of the traditional basis, did not come before the great tribunal of the Church, and the conflict with Manichæans, Paulicians, Euchites, and Bogomilians, has left no trace in the history of dogma.394 192

393

See the account given in Vol. II., pp. 18-127, and elsewhere. The opposition to the Eustathians and Andians (see the Acts of the Synod of Gangra and Epiph. H.70) does not belong to this section; for it arose from a different conception of the obligatoriness of the monk’s life on Christians. On the contrary, it is noteworthy that Aërius, once a friend of Eustathius (Epiph. H.75) not only maintained the original identity of bishops and presbyters—that had also been done, and supported from the N. T., by Jerome and the theologians of Antioch—but he made the question an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ. We cannot now determine what motive influenced him. The attack of Marcellus of Ancyra on the foundations of the prevalent theology, and his argument that the dogma was essentially ἀνθρωπίνης βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώµης, are of incomparably greater significance in principle. But his arguments were not understood, and produced no effect. Meanwhile, the basis of the whole structure of the Catholic Church in the East was at no time left unassailed. The Church has never embraced everything which was, and might be, named Christian. After the Marcionites and the older sects had retired from the stage, or had fused with the Manichæans, Paulicians, Euchites, and Bogomilians, etc., came upon the scene. These Churches contested the Catholic foundations as the Marcionites and Manichæans had done; they accepted neither the Catholic Canon, nor the hierarchical order and tradition. They succeeded, in part, in creating lasting, comprehensive, and exclusive systems, and afforded work to Byzantine theologians and p 523 oliticians for centuries. But important as it is to assert their existence, they have no place in the history of dogma; for at no time had they any influence whatever on the formation of dogma in the East; they have left no effect on the Church. Therefore general Church history has alone to deal with them. 394

Still, changes took place in the period between Eusebius and Johannes Damascenus. They followed simply the altered requirements of the Church. They gave utterance to the increased traditionalism. Necessity became a virtue, i.e., every new point which was felt to be needed in order to preserve the unity of the Church, or to adapt its institutions to the taste of the time, was inserted in the list of authorities. This method was in vogue even in the third century. It was now only further and further extended. But it is hard to fix its results, since at that time there was no fixity and there could be none, from the nature of the principle that the state of the Church at any time was to be declared as in every respect the traditional one.395 xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

1. Holy Scripture.396 To the two Testaments a unique authority was ascribed. They were the Holy Scriptures κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν; every doctrine had 193to be proved out of them, in other words, opinions that held something necessary to faith which did not occur in Scripture, had no absolute validity. Any one who declared that he took his stand on Scripture alone did not assume an uncatholic attitude. This view of the Holy Scriptures presupposed that their extent was strictly defined, and placed beyond all doubt. But this supposition was for centuries contradicted by the actual facts, which, however, were concealed, partly because men neither would nor dared look at them, partly because they really did not see them. The theologians of Antioch, and especially Theodore, criticised on internal and external grounds the contents of the Canon, as these were gradually being fixed; but in doing so even they were guided by an ecclesiastical tradition. Their criticism still had its supporters in the sixth

395

The view held of the apostolate of the twelve first fully reached its Catholic level in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Apostles were (1) missionaries who had traversed the whole world and performed unheard of miracles, (2) the rulers of the Churches, (3) teachers and law-givers in succession to Christ, having given in speech and writing to the least detail all the regulations necessary to the Church for faith and morals, (4) the authors of the order of worship, the liturgy, (5) heroic ascetics and fathers of monachism, (6) though hesitatingly, the mediators of salvation. b06 396See histories of the Canon by Holtzmann, Schmiedel (in Ersch and Gruber “Kanon”); Weiss, Westcott, and especially Zahn. Overbeck, Z. Gesch. des Kanons, 1880. The controversy with the Jews as to the possession and exposition of the O. T. still continued in the Byzantine period; see on this McGiffert, Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled Ἀντιβολὴ Παπίσκου καὶ Φίλωνος κ.τ.λ. . . . together with a discussion of Christian polemics against the Jews. New York, 1889.

century, and its influence extended not only to Persia, but even, through Junilius, to the West. But neither the spirit of the criticism nor its results ever made any impression whatever on the great Church.397 As regards the O. T., the oldest and most revered of the Greek Fathers followed Melito and Origen, and only recognised the 22-24 books of the Hebrew Canon,398 according to the others in the Alexandrian Canon only a secondary validity, or none at all. While there was some hesitation about the Book of Esther, and that not only in Antioch, this decision obtained 194in the Greek Churches, though divergences were not wanting in provincial communities. But it was always in danger of being disregarded, for the sacred books were continually transcribed from the LXX.; and so, as a rule, those writings, excluded in theory, were copied along with the others. The legend of the genesis of the LXX., again, was always highly valued, and it seemed to imply the sacredness of the whole translation. Yet it was only in consequence of the attempts at union with the Roman Church in the Middle Ages, and still more after the ill-fated enterprise of Cyrillus Lucaris (17th century), that the Greek Church was persuaded to give up the Hebrew and adopt the Alexandrian and Roman Canon. But a binding, official declaration never followed; the passiveness and thoughtlessness with which it changed, or upturned its position in so important a question, is extraordinarily characteristic of the modern Græco-Slavic Church. The question is not even yet decided, and there are distinguished Russian theologians, who regard the books of the Hebrew Canon as being alone strictly canonical. They are, however, growing ever fewer.399 In the Western Church a state of complete uncertainty

397

On the attitude of Theodore and his disciples to the Canon, see the thorough investigations of Kihn (Theodorus von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus, 1880). Theodore rejected from the O. T., Job, the Song of Songs, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther, and the inscriptions of the Psalms; see Leontius Byz. Contra Nestor. et Eutych. L. III., ch. 13-17, Migne T. 86, p. 1365 sq. The fifth Synod expressly condemned Theodore’s criticism and interpretation of Job and the Song of Songs, as well as his idea of inspiration in reference to Solomon’s writings, and his exposition of some of the Psalms. On Theodore’s prestige in Nisibis, see Kihn, p. 333 f.; on Junilius’ dependence on him, l. c., 350-382. For the dependence of the Nestorian Canon on Theodore’s, see Noeldeke in the Gött. Gel. Anz. 1868, St. 46, p. 1826 and Kihn, l. c., 336. 398 Authoritative were especially the views of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerus. and Gregory of Nazianzus, who reckoned only 22 Books; see also the sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363? inauthentic?). 399 567 See Gass, Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 97 ff.; Strack, Kanon des A. T. in Prot. R.-E., Vol. VII. 2, p. 412 ff. The reader is referred to this article and to Introductions to the O. T. for details. Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I., p. 292.

still prevailed in the fourth century as to the extent of the O. T. But the Latin Bible, complete copies of which may not have been very common, was a translation of the LXX. This fact was more potent than the historical views which found their way into the West from the East, in a disjointed form, and for whose triumph Jerome had laboured. Augustine, who was ignorant of Biblical criticism, held to the current Latin collection (see, e.g., his list in De doct. christ. II., 8), and at the Synods of Hippo, A.D. 393 (can. 36), and Carthage, A.D. 397 (can. 47), the Alexandrian Canon was adopted. The decision that the Roman Church was to be asked for a confirmation of this conclusion does not seem to have been carried out. From that date the Hebrew Canon was departed from in the West, though the view of Athanasius, conveyed to it by Rufinus, and the decision of Jerome, exerted a quiet influence, and even apart from this 195some uncertainty—e.g., in the case of 4 Esra, the Pastor of Hermas, etc.,—still remained.400 Cassiodorus seems to have taken a very important part in finally shaping the Latin Bible. But we cannot by any means describe the attitude of the West as uncritical. It only avoided the inconsistency into which scholars had fallen in extolling the LXX. as a divinely composed and authentic work, while they ranked the Hebrew Bible above it. As regards the N. T., the Alexandrian Church accepted the Western collection in the time of Origen, and in the course of the third century most of the others, though not yet all,401 seem to have followed its example. In so far as any reflection was given to their historical characteristics, the Scriptures were regarded as Apostolic-catholic, and were acknowledged to contain the real sources of evidence for Christian doctrine. But the principle of apostolicity could not be strictly carried out. In many national Churches apostolic writings were known and revered which were not found in the Western collection, and conversely, it was not always possible to perceive the Apostolic origin and Catholic

400

Gregory I. (Moral XIX. 13) thought it necessary to excuse himself for arguing from Maccabees. 401 Thus Syrian Churches still used Tatian’s Diatessaron in the fourth century; and in a few circles among them there were retained in the Canon, the apocryphal correspondence of the Corinthians and Paul, the two Epp. of Clement, nay, even the Ep. of Clement de virginitate. On the other hand, some books were wanting. Not a few apocryphal writings held an undefined ran ac8 k in the Syrian Patriarchate. In a word, the old Roman Canon, expanded in the course of the third century in Alexandria, did not get the length of being acknowledged in vast territories of the East proper. In spite of the association of the Apostolic Epistles with the Gospels, the higher rank peculiar to the latter was not done away with as late as the fourth century. Alexander of Alexandria (in Theodoret H. E. I. 4) describes the contents of Holy Scripture briefly as ‘Law, Prophets, and Gospels.’

recognition of a received book. Origen already therefore adopted the idea, consonant to the spirit of antiquity, that the collection embraced those books about whose title a general agreement had prevailed from the earliest times. Canonicity was decided by unanimous testimony. But even this principle did not meet the whole case; Origen himself violated it in forming the group of seven Catholic Epistles. Yet it became the established rule, and put an end to any consideration of the question based on criticism of the facts. 196Eusebius, who was a very important authority, and who—if we are to understand the passage so—had been commissioned by the Emperor to prepare standard Bibles, followed the view of Origen; yet in the case of one book, the Apocalypse, he expressed his dislike in a way that ran counter to the principle of the Canon. The three, or four, categories, in which he required to arrange the books, show that men were struggling with a difficulty not to be solved in this way, which could only be solved by time with its power to hallow all inconsistencies.402 If we collected statistically all the Eastern information we possess concerning the extent of the N. T. from the date of Eusebius up to the destruction of Constantinople—direct and indirect statements by Church Fathers, Synodal decisions, Bible manuscripts and indices from the Churches of various provinces, and especially Syria—we would be forced to the conclusion that complete confusion and uncertainty prevailed.403 But this view would be erroneous. We have to multiply by hundreds the lists which enumerate 26 (27) books, i.e., the Acknowledged and the Disputed melioris notæ of Eusebius.—Athanasius’ Festival Epistle, A.D. 367, was of paramount importance in settling the complete equality of these two classes in the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Constantinople and in the West.—On the other hand, apart from the Syrian Churches,404 the lists which diverge 197from the above

402

On the efforts of Eusebius to fix the extent of the N. T., see Texte und Untersuch. zur altchristl. Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. II. 1, 2, p. 5 ff. 403 Almost everything which was esteemed in quite different circumstances in the earliest period, is to be again found somewhere or other in the Byzantine age. Most instructive is the history of Clement’s Epistles and Hermas. Conversely, the old doubts also remain and even new ones emerge (Philemon, see Jerome in his preface to the Epistle). 404 The N. T. had a peculiar history in the Syrian Churches, which has not yet been written; see Nestle, ‘Syrische Bibelübersetzungen’ in the Prot. R.-E. Vol. XV.; Bäthgen’s work on the Syrus Cureton. 1885, and my ‘das N. T. um das Jahr 200’ ( 1888). It is more than questionable whether Theodore of Mopsuestia did any independent criticism on the extent of the N. T. He, probably, simply adhered to the Canon of his Church, which then of the Catholic Epistles only admitted 1 Peter and 1 John, and rejected the Apocalypse;

owe their existence either to a badly applied scholarship, or to individual reminiscences, in rare cases to a divergent usage on the part of provincial Churches. From the end of the fourth century real unanimity prevailed, in the main, as to the contents of the N. T. and the authorship of the separate books, in Constantinople, Asia Minor, Alexandria, and the West. Apart from doubts of long standing, yet ineffectual and isolated, about the Catholic Epistles (and Philemon?), the ac8 one exception was John’s Revelation, for which Eusebius’ verdict was momentous.405 But even in this case attempts to come to a decision were given up: the book was shelved, and reemerged, from the circles in which it had maintained its ground, without exciting any controversy worth mentioning. The disquieting distinction between Acknowledged and Disputed books, abolished by Athanasius, was but very seldom of any consequence in practice; but scholars still recalled it here and there. When the collection was limited to 26 (27) books, the reading of others in the Church was, from the end of the fourth century, more strictly prohibited. But even at the beginning of the fifth, men in a position to know, like Jerome and Sozomen, can tell us that the prohibition was here and there unknown or disregarded. Some primitive Christian writings were thus in use in the Churches down to the fifth century and later; but the Monophysite Churches preserved, as a monkish protest against the spiritualism of Origen, Jewish Apocalypses revised by Christians and belonging to the earliest period, and the barbarism into which they fell spread a protective covering over these writings.406 The details are obscure of the way in which the Western 198Church obtained the Epistle of James, second Peter, and third John. The Epistle to the Hebrews, not unknown to it from the first, it received in the fourth century as a Pauline composition, from the East, through the famous intermediaries. Those same men did

see Kihn, l. c., 65 ff. and the Canon of Chrysostom. While the whole Church was substantially agreed about the extent of the N. T., from the end of the fourth century, wide districts in the Patriarchate of Antioch retained 564 their separate traditions. Only we must not forget that the vast majority even of these had accepted the Roman Canon of undisputed books in the second half of the third century. But the agreement went no further; for from the fourth century they would take no more instruction from Alexandria. 405 For the rest, Weiss has rightly shown (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 98) that the extent to which the Apocalypse was rejected, has been somewhat exaggerated. Extremely noteworthy is the view of Didymus on 2 Peter (Enarrat. in epp. cathol.): “Non est ignorandum præsentem epistolam esse falsatam, quæ licet publicetur non tamen in canone est.” 406 In the Byzantine Church also Apocalypses continued to be read, and ne aae w ones were constantly being produced.

away with all uncertainty at the close of the fourth century on the ground of the decisions given by Eusebius and Athanasius. The 27 books, i.e., the Canon of Athanasius, were alone recognised at the Synods of Hippo and Carthage (397), and this result was confirmed by Augustine’s authority (see, e.g., De doctr. christ. II. 8) without any general declaration having been made.407 But the sharper the line drawn betwe 54a en the collection and all other writings, the more suspicious must those have appeared whose title could lead, or had once admittedly led, to a claim for recognition as Catholic and Apostolic. The category of “apocryphal” in which they had formerly been placed, solely in order to mark the alleged or real absence of general testimony in their favour, now obtained more and more an additional meaning; they were of unknown origin, or ‘fabricated’, and this was often supplemented by the charge of being ‘heretical’. But however great the gulf between the canonical and uncanonical books, it is impossible to conceal 199the fact that the Church never published a general decision, excluding all doubt, on the extent of the Canon in ancient times. The Canon of Augustine was adopted by Pope Innocent I. (Ep. 6, ch. 7, ad Exsuperium). With the complete elaboration of the conception of canonical books, every other description applied to them gave way to the idea of their divinity.408 What could any predicate signify

407

See also under this head the verdict, freer because dependent on Theodore, which Junilius passed on the Catholic Epistles. Critical investigations have not yet arrived at a final result regarding the Decretum Gelasii. Augustine himself has not failed, besides, to notice the doubts that existed in his time; see Retractat. II. 4, 2. In his De pecc. mer. I. 27, he still leaves the Ep. to the Hebrews unassigned. In De doctr. christ. II. 8, he writes: “In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurimum auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sint, quæ apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.” Accordingly, this principle still holds. “Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt; in iis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiæ tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile inveniri non possit, æqualis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto.” Since the older copies of the Bible continued to be transcribed, uniformity had not been secured. It is true we no longer possess western Bibles whose contents are limited to the earliest Roman Canon—Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline Ep., 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelation—but we have them with an Ep. to the Laodiceans, the Pastor (though in the O. T.), and even with the apocryphal correspondence of the Corinthians and Paul. 408 The conception that the canonical books were solemnly set apart, occurs first in Athanasius; the Alexandrians, however, including Origen, had the idea and even the word

compared with the conviction that they had been composed by the Holy Ghost himself? Therefore the categories of canonical and inspired writings coincided, nay, inspiration in its highest sense was limited to the canonical books. The belief in inspiration was necessarily attended by the duty of pneumatic or allegorical exegesis. This sacred art was then practised by all, who were able thus to disregard the results of any other kind of exposition. The problems which pneumatic exegesis, praised even by cultured Hellenists,409 had to solve, were mainly the following. It had (1) to demonstrate the agreement between the two Testaments, in other words; to christianise the O. T. completely, to discover prophecy everywhere, to get rid of the literal meaning where it was obnoxious, and to repel Jewish claims;410 (2) to harmonise the statements of Holy Scripture with the prevailing dogmatics; (3) to furnish every text with a profound meaning, one valuable for the time. Exegesis became a kind of black art, and Augustine was not the only man who was delivered from Manichæan, by Biblical, Alchemy. But while these tasks were generally fixed, a sure and unvarying method was still wanting.411 Even the principles of before him (Orig. Prolog. in Cantic.). Athanasius writes in his Festival Ep. τὰ κανονιζόµενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία. 57e 409 The Neoplatonic opponents of the Church were not quite honest, they were rather talking διαλεκτικῶς, when they objected to the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture. They treated their own sacred writings in exactly the same way. 410 Sozomen says (H. E. V.22) that the Jews were more readily seduced to heathenism, because they only interpreted Holy Scripture πρὸς ῥητόν, and not πρὸς θεωρίαν. 411 Thus Arians and Orthodox s ac8 ometimes appealed to the same texts. But the impossibility of drawing up a rule deciding how far the letter of Scripture was authoritative, caused more anxiety. Had God a human form, eyes, or voice; was Paradise situated on the earth; did the dead rise with all their bodily members, even with their hair, etc.?—to all these and a hundred similar questions there was no sure answer, and consequently disputes arose between adherents of one and the same confession. All had to allegorise, and, in turn, all had to take certain texts literally. But what a difference existed between an Epiphanius and a Gregory of Nyssa, and how many shades of belief there were between the crude anthropomorphists and the spiritualists! The latter, as a rule, had reason to dread the arguments, and frequently the fists, of the former; they could not but be anxious about their own orthodoxy, for the old regula was on the side of their opponents, and the most absurd opinion had the prejudice that it was the most pious in its favour. Ultimately, in the course of the fifth century, a sort of common sense established itself, which could be taken as forming, with regard to the anthropomorphists, a middle line between the exegetic methods of Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, and which had been anticipated by a few Fathers of the fourth century. Yet not many concessions

were not strictly retained.412 On the other hand, the historical antiquarian interest, which he had awakened, in Holy Scripture, continued to exert its influence. It not only lasted up to the fifth century,413 but it also exerted a critical and restrictive 414 201influence on pneumatic exegesis This was the case among the 200Origen

were made to the anthropomorphists. Even Antiochians like Theodore had become suspected of an anthropomorphism incompatible with the honour of God (see Johannes Philoponus, De creat. mundi, I. 22. in Gallandi XII., p. 496). He who did not rise from the turpitudo litteræ ad decorem intelligentiæ spiritalis (Jerome ad Amos. 2) might come under suspicion of heresy. But, on the other hand, the Cappadocians themselves opposed those who allegorised “too much”, and thus approximated too closely to heathen philosophers; and after a part of Origen’s expositions had passed into the traditional possessions of the Church, the rest was declared heretical. Even before this Epiphanius had written (H. 61, ch. 6): Πάντα τὰ θεῖα ῥήµατα οὐκ ἀλληγορίας δεῖται, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει, θεωρίας δὲ δεῖται καὶ αἰσθήσεως. Origen’s thorough-going principle that “God can say and do nothing, which is not good and just”, by which he criticised and occasionally set aside the letter of Scripture, was too bold for the Epigoni with their faith in authority. God had done what Scripture said of him, and what God did was good. This principle not only ruined all lucid science, but a 564 lso deprived the Church of the intrinsic completeness of her creed. Yet we must not minimise the result of the compromise made in the fourth and fifth centuries, between the literal, allegorical, and typical methods of interpreting Scripture; for it has held its ground up to the present day in a way really identical in all Churches, and it seems to possess no small power to convince. 412 For Origen’s principles see Vol. II., p. 346. 413 Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome are links in a chain of scholarly tradition and work. The succession, however, marked a descent not only in point of time. The attitude of Jerome and the conflicts in which he was involved show at the same time that the age no longer tolerated ind ac3 ependent scholarship in historical criticism. Therefore it ceased after Jerome; such work was confined to registering antiquarian notices, even doubtful ones, which were accepted without reflection, since, having entered into the stock of tradition, they no longer roused criticism. 414 Besides, when driven by necessity, i.e., when brought face to face with inconvenient passages of Scripture, a way was found out of the difficulty in the demand that the historical occasion of the text must be carefully weighed. Thus Athanasius writes (Orat. c. Arian. I. 54), when setting himself to refute the Scriptural proofs of the Arians, and finding that he is in considerable straits: δεῖ δέ, ὡς ἐπὶ πάσης θείας γραφῆς προσήκει ποιεῖν καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα, καθ᾽ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος καιρὸν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ τὸ πρᾶγµα, διόπερ ἔγραψε, πιστῶς ἐκλαµβάνειν, ἵνα µὴ παρὰ ταῦτα ἢ καὶ παρ᾽ ἕτερόν τι τούτων ἀγνοῶν ὃ ἀναγιγνώσκων ἔξω τῆς ἀληθινῆς διανοίας γένηται. The same contention was often upheld in earlier times by Tertullian when driven into a corner by the exegesis of the Marcionites (see De præscr. adv. Marc. II.-V.). The exegetical “principle” of the Fathers gradually became the complexus oppositorum; i.e., when the literal meaning was disturbing, then it was, in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat. XXXI. 3): ἔνδυµα τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν ἡ ϕιλία τοῦ

scholars of Antioch. Diodorus and Theodore tried, following the precedent set by Lucian and Dorotheus, to form an inner connection between the pneumatic and the grammatico-historical exegesis. It cannot be held that this gave rise to a more rational method, or one more tenable from the critical standpoint. Yet in detail they followed sound principles. These again had been already pared down by Chrysostom and Theodoret in favour of the dominant method, but they lasted in the Nestorian Church and its schools as long as science existed there at all, and their influence extended into the West through Junilius.415

γράµµατος: or men spoke of the turpitudo litterræ, the Jewish understanding of Scripture, the necessity of considering historical circumstances or the like. But if “advanced” theologians produced suspected allegorical explanations, then the cry was raised ὡς ἔχει, ἔχει, Holy Scripture is not to be understood according to Plato, etc. 415 569 The distinction between Alexandrian—Origenistic—and Antiochene exegesis does not consist in the representatives of the latter having rejected wholesale the spiritual meaning. They rather recognised it, but they tried to determine it typically from the literal meaning. While the Alexandrians avowedly set aside the literal meaning in many passages, and attached the pneumatic sense to texts by some sort of device, the Antiochenes started from the literal meaning, seeking to discover it by all the means of a sound exegesis, and then showed that the narrative concerned was a σκιὰ τῶν µελλόντων, a type created by God, which had been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. They set up definite rules for the discovery of the literal meaning as well as for that of the typical and allegorical sense (θεωρία, not ἀλληγορία), which lay not in the words, but the realities, persons, and events designated by the words. The rules are strikingly like those of the Federal theologians—Cocceius—an ac8 d the school of Hofmann; the method of the author of the Hebrews furnished their model. This procedure had various results. First, the method of Philo and Origen followed by the Alexandrians was strenuously opposed both in independent treatises, and in connection with exegesis. Secondly, an effort was made to give the literal meaning in all cases its due; thus Diodorus says in the Catena of Nicephorus (Leipz. 1772, I. p. 524): τοῦ ἀλληγορικοῦ τὸ ἱστορικὸν πλεῖστον ὅσον προτιµῶµεν. Thirdly, a real covenant was accordingly recognised between God and the Jewish people, and that nation was accorded its significant place in the history of salvation: the “history of salvation” which thus originated differed essentially from that of Irenæus (see Vol. II., p. 305). Fourthly and finally, the number of directly Messianic passages in the O. T. became extraordinarily limited; while, according to pneumatic exegesis, everything in the O. T. was in a sense directly Messianic, i.e., Christian, the Antiochenes only retained a few such passages. The horizon of O. T. authors was more correctly defined. Theodore decidedly disputed the presence of anything in the O. T. about the Son of God or the Trinity. Further, the Antiochenes distinguished grades of inspiration, namely, the spirit of prophecy, and that of wisdom, and they placed the former far above the latter. Although the advance of this exegesis on the Alexandrian is obvious, yet it is seriously defective in completeness and consistency in method. First, the Antiochenes, in spite of their polemic against the older expositors—Hippolytus, Origen,

202

587

The West received through Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Rufinus, the erudite pneumatic method of the Greeks, as practised especially by the Cappadocians. Before this, and for a few decades afterwards, the exegesis of the West was mainly 203characterised by absence of system; along with reverence for the letter we find all sorts of allegorical explanations, and in turn a predilection for a dramatic close to earthly history. Jerome was far from having fixed exegetic principles, since he allegorised against his better knowledge wherever the orthodox confession required it. In his time Tychonius, a Donatist, drew up for the interpretation of Holy Scripture seven rules which were to remove all difficulties (Augustine, De doctr. christ. III. 30 sq.).416 These were adopted by

Eusebius, Apollinaris, Didymus, and Jerome—could not altogether divest themselves of the old principle of the authoritative interpretation of Scripture; “they regarded the old traditional doctrine, the exposition given by the Fathers, and the definitions of Synods, as the standard and touch-stone of agreement with the creed of the Church, and they made of this rule what use they pleased”; from this source their attitude became somewhat uncertain. Secondly, they only rarely succeeded in criticising the literal meaning historically; where they did, they employed rationalistic interpretations, and accordingly their procedure approximated to Origen’s. speculative exegesis, yet without following any fixed principle. Thirdly, their typological exegesis also often bordered very closely on the allegorical, and since they assumed a double sense in Scripture, they did not remove, but only disguised, the fundamental error of current exegesis. Fourthly, they could not make cle 543 ar the difference between the O. T. and the N. T., because, in spite of their assumption of different degrees of inspiration, they placed the O. T. prophets on a level with the Apostles; see Theodore, Comment. on Neh. I. in Migne, T. LXVI., p. 402: τῆς αὐτῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος χάριτος οἵ τε πάλαι µετεῖχον καὶ οἱ τῷ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ὑπηρετούµενος µυστηρίῳ. Finally, by assuming directly Messianic passages in the O. T. they gave up their own position, and placed themselves at the mercy of their opponents. See later for the history of the school of Antioch, especially its relation to Aristotle. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der christl. Kirche, p. 126 ff. Fritzsche, de Theod. Mops. vita et scriptis, Halae, 1836. Above all, the works of Kihn, Die Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule a. d. exeget. Gebiete (1866), and Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius als Exegeten (1880), where the older literature is given. Swete, Theodori ep. Mops. in epp. Pauli Comment. Cambridge, 1880, 1881. ae9 416These rules are of material importance (for theology). The first treats of the Lord and his body: i.e., we must and may apply the truth concerning the Lord to the Church, and vice versa, since they form one person; only in this way do we frequently get a correct sense. The second deals with the bi-partite body of the Lord: we must carefully consider whether the true or the empirical Church is meant. The third takes up the promises and the law, i.e., the spirit and letter; the fourth treats of genus and species: we must observe the extent to which texts apply; the fifth, of the dates: we must harmonise contradictory dates by a fixed method, and understand certain stereotyped numbers as

Augustine in his work ‘On Christian Science’, which, subject as it is to the errors of the age, is a glorious memorial of the great Bishop’s love of truth, and evangelical feeling. Of evangelical feeling, in so far as Augustine, in opposition to all biblicism, declared the study of Holy Scripture to be mer 564 ely the path towards love; he who possessed love, no longer needed the Scripture, he lived with Christ and God; accordingly he had ceased to require separate ‘saving truths’, for he lived in truth and love.417

symbolical. The sixth discusses repetition: i.e., we have frequently to refrain from assuming a chronological order, where such an order appears to exist, and the seventh deals with the devil and his body, i.e., the devil and the godless, many things referring to the latter which are said of the devil and vice versa—see the first rule. 417 The thought wavers between that of Origen, who also elevates himself above the historical Christ, and the genuinely evangelical idea that the Christian must stop short at “means of salvation”; see De doctr. I. 34: “Nulla res in via (ad deum) tenere nos debet, quando nec ipse dominus, in quantum via nostra esse dignatus est, tenere nos voluerit, sed transire; ne rebus temporalibus, quamvis ab illo pro salute nostra susceptis et gestis, hæreamus infirmiter, sed per eas potius curramus alacriter etc.” In ch. 35 love is held up as the exclusive goal: ch. 36 teaches that no one has understood Scripture who has not been led by it to love God and his neighbour; but if he has been led to this love, then he loses nothing by failing to hit on the correct sense of detached texts: in that case he is deceived, but without guilt: “Quisquis in scripturis (I. 37) aliud sentit quam ille qui scripsit, illis non mentientibus fallitur; sed tamen, ut dicere cœperam, si ea sententia fallitur, qua ædificet caritatem, quæ finis præcepti est, ita fallitur ac si quisquam errore deserens viam, eo tamen per agrum pergat, quo etiam via illa perducit.⍊ac3 Augustine says indeed (l. c.): “titubabit fides, si divinarum scripturarum vacillat auctoritas,” but, on the other hand (I. 39): “Homo, fide, spe et caritate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens, non indiget scipturis nisi ad alios instruendos. Itaque multi per hæc tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt . . . Quibus tamen quasi machinis tanta fidei, spei et caritatis in eis surrexit instructio, ut perfectum aliquid tenentes, ea quæ sunt ex parte non quærant; perfectum sane, quantum in hac vita potest.” This forcible way of assigning a practical purpose to the reading of Scripture and the understanding at the root of it, viz., that it was the whole that was of importance, is the opposite of the conception that Scripture embraces innumerable mysteries; but an affinity exists far down between them, inasmuch as Augustine seems to reserve to the monks the state in which Scripture is not required, and he borders on the belief of Origen (I. 34) that the Christ of history belongs to the past for him who lives in love. The whole conception is first found, besides, in the description by the Valentinian school of the perfect Gnostic; see Excerpta ex Theodoto, ch. 27: ποῦ δὲ ἔτι γραφῆς καὶ µαθήσεως κατόρθωµα τῇ ψυχῇ ἐκείνῃ τῇ καθαρᾷ γενοµένῃ, ὅπου καὶ ἀξιοῦται πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον Θεὸν ὁρᾶν; besides Augustine expressly argued against those who supposed they could dispense with Scripture from the start, and appealed to an inner revelation (see the Præfat. to De doctr. christ.). He puts it beyond doubt that he who uses Scripture must bow to its authority even where he does not understand it.

204

But this thought of the book does not give its prevailing colour; this is furnished, on the contrary, by the other ideas that Scripture is the only way by which to come to God and Christ, that it is to be interpreted by the rule of faith, that obscure passages are to be explained by clear ones, and that the literal meaning, where offensive, must yield to the deeper sense. The numerous hermeneutic rules set up by Augustine,418 which are so many expedients and very like Origen’s methodic principles, determined the nature of exegesis in later periods in the West. In connection with whateve 532 r else was derived from the East, the view that there was a triple and fourfold meaning in Scripture became a fixed doctrine.419 The little book by Junilius which 205contained the Antiochene system of hermeneutics as handed down at Nisibis, although much read, made few changes. But it was exceedingly significant that Augustine, in spite of his view that it was only a means, had placed the Bible on such a pinnacle that all theologians who afterwards took their stand upon it alone as against tradition, were able to appeal to him. As a matter of fact Scripture held quite a different place in the Church life of the West from that in the East: it came more into the foreground. That also is to be explained, above all, by the influence of Augustine,420 and the deficiency of the West in speculative ability. 58e 421

418

See the second and especially the third book of the work quoted. The second contains a short and precise review of all branches of knowledge which are collectively perceived to spring from heathenism, and it states which may and must be used by the Christian, and to what extent. The third book contains the hermeneutics proper. 419 See Eucherius of Lyons, liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiæ ad Veranium filium, in Migne, Ser. lat. T. 50, p. 727. In later times the mnemonic formula was composed: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. 420 The work “On Christian Science” points to Scripture as its sole object, and does not discuss tradition at all. However, the latter receives its due inasmuch as Augustine regards the propositions of the rule of faith—based on the Symbol—as the matters, which constituted the essential contents of Scripture. In this definition we find. the reason why dogmatics never ceased to waver between Scripture and the rule of faith. Yet we know that Augustine was by no means the first to hold this view. Even the writer of the Muratorian fragment and Irenæus knew no better. 421 Origen taught that Christian science was the science of Scripture; Augustine stands upon his shoulders. But afterwards, in the East, the interest in dogmatic formulas became uppermost, while in the West, the Bible remained pre-eminently the direct source of knowledge of the faith.

As the Church had never published a general decree, exclusive of all doubt, on the extent of Scripture, it had also failed to publish one concerning its characteristics. Freedom from error was generally deduced from inspiration, and it was, as a rule, referred to the very words. But on the other hand, an attempt was made here and there to leave room for the individuality and historical limitation of the authors; minor inconsistencies were not wholly denied (see even Aug., De consensu evang.); and exegesis was often practised as if the strict dogma of inspiration did not exist.422 A clear idea of the sufficiency 206of Scripture was certainly not reached; it was maintained in general phrases, and was violated in generalities and in details. 56a 1 Finally, as regards the relation of the two Testaments to each other, three views existed side by side.

422

Even the men of Antioch, by whom, Chrysostom not excepted, human elements were aknowledged to exist in the Bible, maintained the inspiration of other passages quoad litteram, just like Origen and the Cappadocians. August ac8 ine accepted this freedom from error in its strictest sense; see Ep. 82. 3 (ad Hieron.): “Ego fateor caritati tuæ, solis eis scriptuaram libris, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam.” In his work De consensu evang., which is particularly instructive as regards his whole attitude to Holy Writ, he declares that the Apostles’ writings make up sufficiently for the absence of any by our Lord; for the Apostles were the Lord’s hands, and had written what he commanded. It is extremely surprising that this being the view taken of the Bible—and even the translation of the LXX. was held to be inspired—yet no one ever ex professo reflected on how the Canon was formed. No miracle was assumed. Even Augustine quite naively stated, sancti et docti homines had formed the N. T. (c. Faustum XXII. 79). Here the authority of the Church comes in. 423 The early Catholic Fathers had already maintained the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, as well as the necessity of proving everything out of it; see for the latter point Orig. in Jerem., Hom. I. c. 7 (Lomm. XV. p. 115): Μάρτυρας δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφάς. Ἀµάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡµῶν καὶ αἱ ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Cyril of Jerusalem has expressed himself similarly (Cat. 4, 17: ∆εῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ αγίων τῆς πίστεως µυστηρίων µηδὲ τὸ τυχὸν ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν· καὶ µὴ ἁπλῶς πιθανότησι καὶ λόγων κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι. Μηδὲ ἐµοὶ τῷ ταῦτα σοι λέγοντι, ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃς· ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλοµένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων µὴ λάβῃς γραφῶν· Ἡ σωτηρία γὰρ αὕτη τῆς πίστεως ἡµῶν οὐκ ἐξ εὑρ 54e σιλογίας, ἀλλὰ ἐξ ἀποδείξεως τῶν θείων ἐστὶ γραφῶν); cf. Athanasius (Orat. adv. gentes init.: Αὐτάρκεις µέν εἰσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν). So also the Antiochenes, moreover Augustine De doctr. II. 9: “In iis quæ aperte in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quæ continent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem.” Vincent., Commonit. 2.

The Old Testament was a Christian book as well as the New: it was throughout the record of prophecy: it contained the true creed under certain limitations and imperfections, and led and still leads educationally to Christ. These points of view were adopted alternately as the occasion required. It was recognised that the Jewish nation had possessed a covenant with God, yet the consequences of this were far from being admitted. The same method of employing the Bible was still upheld in apologetic arguments as was followed by the Apologists of the second century.424 For the rest, even Cyril of Alexandria still brought “heathen prophecy” to bear in this matter, while in other respects—speaking generally—the assumption of heathen ‘prophets’ and inspired philosophers excited suspicion. xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 207 566

2. Tradition. The authority of Holy Scripture frequently appears in the Fathers as something wholly abstract and despotic. It contained, in fact, a latent tendency to assert its independence of the conditions out of which it had arisen. But the revolution which was characterised by the isolation of the Bible, its deliverance from the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, and the annihilation of the latter, only took place in the sixteenth century, and even then it was, we know, not completely successful. In ecclesiastical antiquity, on the contrary, the bond was by no means severed which connected Scripture with the maternal organism of the Church. The Church, its doctrine, institutions, and constitution, were held, in and by themselves, to constitute the source of knowledge and the authoritative guarantee of truth. As the holy, Apostolic, and Catholic institution, it possessed nothing whatever untrue or capable of amendment either in its foundations or its development. Everything in it, rather, was apostolic, and the guidance of the Church by the Holy Ghost had preserved this apostolic fabric from any change. This thought was necessarily emphasised more and more strongly in consequence of the development undergone by Church affairs in the fo 564 urth and following centuries. Since at the same time, however, the independent authority and the sufficiency of the Bible were also

424

All the more did the use made of the O. T. for the constitution of the Church differ from the apologetic view. Very many of the regulations of the O. T. ceremonial law came once more to be highly valued by the Church, not as spiritually understood, but as directly applied to ecclesiastical institutions of every sort.

emphasised, there arose difficulties, in part even manifest inconsistencies, which were never removed.425 But they were not clearly felt, because men always possessed the power, when confronted by inconvenient monitors, to carry through ultimately, whether in the form of dogma, or in that of order, whatever was required. In face of traditions become obsolete an appeal was made to other traditions, or to the Bible; where written testimony was uncertain or awanting, recourse was had to tradition; i.e., that was declared to be tradition which was 208not to be justified under another title. Hence it is already clear that tradition never was and never could be systematised and catalogued, that an authentic declaration never was and never could be published as to its extent and scope. There was no single deliverance on the application of tradition, which would not, if consistently carried out, have thrown the Church into confusion. If Augustine therefo 545 re (De bapt. c. Donat. II.3, 4) declared—certainly against his better knowledge— that ‘canonical Scripture was contained within fixed limits of its own’ (scriptura canonica certis suis terminis continetur), yet it never occurred to him or any one else to maintain as much about tradition. The latter was in antiquity a wholly elastic category, as we see when we look at its use in individual cases; in summa it was, however, an extremely rigid and clear notion: meaning simply that the Church was determined, in spite of all changes, to regard itself as the unchangeable creation of the Apostles. It derived its claim to this view partly from the divine promises, partly from the organisation instituted for it, yet without alleging confidently any empirical factor within the Church which should be the bearer of its infallibility.426 The most important consequences of this view held by the Church regarding itself have been already stated in the

acd 425The Orientals, especially the Antiochenes, but Cyril of Jerus. also, adhered more exclusively to Scripture; the Alexandrians, and even the Cappadocians relied more strongly on tradition. Yet the differences are only in degree. At any rate, the difference comes out more strongly on a comparison of Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria. 426 Reuter’s excellent explanation of Augustine’s position (Ztschrft. für K.-Gesch. Vol. VIII., pp. 181 f., 186 f.) was then true of very wide circles: “The Episcopate, and the Roman sedes apostolica, the whole relatively coördinated sedes apostolicæ, the relative and the absolute plenary councils were held to be representations of the (infallible) Church; but not one of these factors, not all of them combined, formed the (infallible) representation of the (infallible) Church. The latter possessed no indubitably sure institution or organs, indubitably representative of it.” The decrees of councils were only placed on a complete equality with Scripture in the East, after councils had ceased to be held, and when the latter therefore were seen, like Scripture, in a nimbus of hoary antiquity.

second volume; but others came to be added in the postConstantinian period. ae7 A. The creed of the Church was always held to be the most important part of its tradition. The anti-gnostic formulas which the creed had preserved passed over in the East, along with theorems, half biblical half speculative, and here and there with purely philosophical or polemical discussions, into the Symbols.427 These Symbols, which had been adopted for use 209in the Church, were regarded as apostolic testimonies. Their phrasing was not considered in the East to be due to the Apostles, but the honour paid them was justified from the Apostles’ preaching.428 These Symbols of the provincial Churches were supplanted in the period between the first and third (fourth) Œcumenical Councils by the Nicene, or soon thereafter by the so-called Constantinopolitan Symbol.429 This confession430 had already been held at Chalcedon to be the creed pure and simple, and it never lost this place of honour. If it had already been constantly assumed that the doctrine of the Church was the theme, or the matter, constituting the real contents of Scripture, then this assumption was now definitely transferred to the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan Symbol. All subsequent dogmatic conclusions were accordingly regarded solely as explanations of this Symbol,431 which was not maintained,

427

See Vol. II., p. 20 f. and III., pp. 48 ff., 111 ff. The Symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus was derived from a special revelation; see Vol. III., p. 115. 575 429 There were two symbol-constructing periods in the East before a universal Confession was framed. The former of these embraced A.D. 250-325, the second, A.D. 325 up to the beginning or the middle of the fifth century. In the latter period the attempt was made, either to transform the Nicene Creed into a baptismal Confession, or to displace it by parallel formulas; sometimes the leading words of the Nicene Symbol were inserted in those of the provincial Churches. See on the history of this, the part played by the Bishops of Asia Minor in these developments, and the history of the so-called Constantinop. Symbol, my art. “Konstantinop. Symbol” in Herzog R.-E. 21 Vol. VIII.; Caspari’s works, Hort’s investigations, Two Dissertations, Cambridge, 1876, and Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I., p. 252 ff. 430 It was originally the Baptismal Confession of the Church of Jerusalem, revised soon after the middl ac2 e of the fourth century, and furnished with a regula fidei concerning the Holy Spirit; it came thus to be honoured first through the authority of Epiphanius, and then through the energy of the Bishop of Constantinople, which also led to its supplanting the Nicene Symbol. 431 Monophysites and orthodox believers always professed to be able to read their Christological formulas word for word in the Symbol. The Greek Church maintains to the 428

however, to be of Apostolic origin—in its language. Tradition, in the strictest sense of the term, consisted in the contents of the Symbol for the time being. Cyril says of this (Cat. V. 12): ⍊eb0 In these few paragraphs the whole dogma of the faith (is) comprised’ (ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς στίχοις τὸ πᾶν δόγµα τῆς πίστεως 210περιλαµβανόµενον). As the Church had obtained in the Nicene Creed a complete and uniform Symbol, the view was transferred to it. There were two sides meanwhile to the relations of Scripture and Symbol. You might not believe the contents of the Symbol unless you could convince yourself of their truth from Scripture;432 but on the other hand, your interpretation of Scripture had to be regulated by the creed laid down in the Symbol.433 In the West a unique dignity was retained by the old Roman Symbol (or its parallel forms in the provincial Churches) which was regarded as being composed of twelve articles. From the fourth century at least it was held to be the Apostolic Creed in the strict sense of the term.434 Its brevity and simplicity long preserved the Roman Church from extravagant theological speculations, but they could not barricade it against the theological development of the East. An industrious attempt was made, or at least professed, to derive the decision of dogmatic questions, as they emerged, from this Apostolic Symbol, and to rest upon it the whole of the ever

present day that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol contains everything we require to believe. 432 So, above all, Cyril and the Antiochenes. 433 No hesitation prevailed in the Church on this point; yet Synods simply forbade certain expositions of Scriptural texts as heretical. The Church alone furnished the gubernaculum interpretationis (see Vincent., Commonit. 2, 41) and that in its concise guide to faith, the Symbol. After the Constantinopolitan Symbol had been placed on an inaccessible height, we no longer find the blunt assertion that the creed is compiled from the Holy Scriptures. But this contention was also historically false. (For it see Cyril, Cat. V. 12): οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς Πίστεως· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα µίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς Πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. “Canon” was originally the rule of faith; the Scripture had in truth intervened, yet so that its authority had a support placed still further back, namely, the O. T. and the Lord’s sayings. 55b 434 See my art. “Apostolisches Symbol” in Herzog R.-E. 2 B. I. The opinion that the Apostles had composed the Symbol jointly (Rufinus) cannot be traced earlier than the middle of the fourth century, but it may be much older. Yet we must not date it too soon; for if the Churches of the western provinces had received the Symbol with this legend attached, they would hardly have ventured to propose changes on it. It was certainly not extolled even in Rome in the third century, so exuberantly as it was afterwards by Ambrose.

increasing material of dogmatics.435 It was only after the beginning 211of the fifth century that the Constantinopolitan Symbol supplanted the apostolic in Church use in Rome and the West,436 yet without the latter losing its prestige. This was of course transferred in part to the new Symbol, but the old remained, though latent, in force.437 The twelve articles the Apostolic Symbol, to be explained by the Constantinopolitan, constituted in the West the ecclesiastical tradition κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. Justinian’s legislation confirmed this conception, though, indeed, that was not needed.438 B. At the beginning of the fourth century there already entered into the composition of the Church, not only its creed, but a cultus fixed in its main features; there were further disciplinary and ceremonial provisions—still differing, indeed, in part in the various provincial Churches439—and finally, a settled constitution. It was only in a very late period that the notion of apostolicity was applied, in the strict sense, to the whole of these elements;440 but not only did the foundations of these ordinances come to be characterised as apostolic, but as a rule, and to an increasing extent, everything which there was a desire to assure of permanence. Different methods were adopted, however, of establishing the apostolic character of these institutions. First, it was maintained that regulations observed by the whole Church required no proof that they were Apostolic.441 212Secondly, 435

This point falls to be discussed in the next book. Augustine had to rest his distinctive theology on the Symbol, though the latter was only imperfectly adapted for the purpose. ad7 436 See my art. on the Constantinop. Symbol, 1. c. 437 The history of the Apostolic Symbol between the fifth and sixth centuries urgently requires investigation. 438 Justinian’s law-book is headed by the art. “De summa trinitate et de fide catholica et ut nemo de ea publice contendere audeat”; but see also the famous decree of the Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, A.D. 380, with which the law-book begins. 439 See, e.g., Socrates, H. E. V. 22. 440 When this occurred a very exact distinction had already been made between faith and disciplinary law. Apostolic faith was something different from and higher than apostolic laws {διατάξεις, νόµοι, κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων}. This corrected the equality apparently attributed to the two branches of tradition by the common predicate “apostolic.” 441 See August., De bapt. c. Donat. II. 7, 12: “Multa, quæ non inveniuntur in litteris apostolorum neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduatur.” IV. 24. 31: “Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate

advantage was taken in the East, of the numerous legends of the Apostles current in the Churches; they began to be used in connection with the government and cultus of the Churches in such a way that definite detailed regulations were attributed to the Apostles, individually or collectively, whenever they were required for the discipline or cultus of the time.442 Thirdly, men began in the fourth century—not uninfluenced by Clement and Origen—to introduce the notion of a παράδοσις ἄγαρφος (unwritten tradition), in whose wholly undefined contents were even included dogmatic theories which it was not everyone’s business to understand; yet it dealt extremely seldom with the trinitarian and Christological catchwords. This idea of an ‘unwritten tradition’ crept in in a very real sense; for it conflicted with more than one main point in the fundamental positions of the Church. But it attained high honour, and its existence absolutely became a dogma. But 213because it really made all else unnecessary and was a dangerous dras tic expediet, it was not defined, nor was its extent ever determined. And it did not banish Scriptural proof or the appeal to familiar and demonstrable tradition. The existence was maintained of a

apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.” V. 23. 31: “Multa, quæ universa tenet ecclesia et ob hoc ab apostolis præcepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur.” 442 The Apologists had exhibited Christianity as the worship of God in Spirit and in truth, and as an alliance regulated by equality and fraternity. But there had gradually developed a complicated cultus round the mysteries, and a comprehensive and detailed code of discipline had become necessary. For both of these appeal was made to an increasing extent to apostolic authority. Compare the Apostolic Constitutions, the κανόνες ἐκκλησαστικοί, the Apostolic Canons, in general the mass of material, partly published, partly discussed, by Bickell, Pitra, and Lagarde; further, the designation of the Liturgies of the provincial Churches as by Mark, James, etc. The history, still partly unwritten, of these Eastern forgeries under apostolic names is closely connected with the general history of the legends of the Apostles (see Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgesch.). The O. T. commandments were again introduced into the Church by means of apostolic fictions, until the ancient awe of Moses, the law-giver, was surmounted. After apostolic commandments of this sort had been allowed to spring up luxuriantly for a time, the Church had no little trouble to exorcise the spirits it had conjured. A sifting process began from the sixth century—at least in the Byzantine Church—to which, e.g., the Constitutions fell a victim. In the law books of the Monophysite and Nestorian Churches, much more comprehensive matter had been preserved, under apostolic names, as possessed of the value of law. Yet it did not receive the same honour as the Holy Scriptures. In order to realise the possibility of such an unabashed invention of regulations cloaked with the authority and name of the Apostles, we must remember that, from the second century, writings bearing on discipline were in existence, called διδαχαί o ac8 r διατάξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων, and that these, having no individual impress, were thoroughly adapted for constant remodelling and expansion.

tradition which dispensed with all criteria—and that was what the παράδοσις ἄγραφος was; but a prudent use was made of it. Unwritten tradition was preferentially applied to the development of ritual and the sacramental performance of the mysteries, while the secret truths of the creed were based exclusively on Scripture and the Councils.443 But 214this distinction was not sufficient, nor was it firmly held to be unalterable.

443

The assumption of a secret apostolic tradition—that is, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος— first appeared among the Gnostics, i.e., among the first theologians, who had to legitimise as apostolic a world of notions alien to primitive Christianity. It then was found quite logically among the Alexandrians, and from them passed to Eusebius, who not only accepted it (H. E. II. 1, 4), but also vindicated it against Marcellus (lib. I. c. 1): ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν µαρτυρίας ἐξ ἀγράφου παραδόσεως σφραγιζοµένης. But the Cappadocians first established it in their conflict with the Eunomians and Pneumatomachoi, yet the bold use made of it by them in defence of the dogma of the Trinity, was not afterwards parallelled. Basil (De spiritu sancto, 27) referred the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost to the unwritten tradition, placing the latter on an equality with the public tradition; but he endeavoured at the same time to retain the old Alexandrian distinction between κήρυγµα and δόγµα, δόγµα being meant to embrace the theological formulation of the faith (τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγµένων δογµάτων καὶ κηρυγµάτων τὰ µὲν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας ἔχοµεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡµῖν ἐν µυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάµεθα ἄπερ ἀµφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν . . . ἄλλο γὰρ δόγµα, καὶ ἄλλο κήρυγµα, τὰ µεν γὰρ δόγµατα σιωπᾶται, τὰ δὲ κηρύγµατα δηµοσιεύεται). The latter distinction was opposed to the tendency of the age, and remained without effect. (With that which Basil named dogma, the µυστική παράδοσις was identical, of which Pamphilus and Eusebius speak, and by the aid of which they defended the orthodoxy of Origen; see Socrates III. 7.) But it is important that in order to prove the existence of a παράδοσις ac8 , Basil appeals merely to matters of ritual—signs of the Cross, prayers of consecration, and baptismal rites. To these the unwritten tradition was in later times almost exclusively applied. Gregory of Nazianzus advanced in a different direction from Basil: he admitted to his opponents (Orat. 37) that tradition was defective in reference to the doctrine of the Spirit, but he believed he could assume a progressive development of the truth of revelation. But, as far as I know, he only once expressed himself so imprudently, and he found absolutely no imitators. His attempt only proves the difficulty caused by the defence of the dogma of the Trinity in the fourth century. In Cyril of Jerusalem (see his view so divergent from that of the Cappadocians, Cat. 16, ch. 2) and the older Antiochenes the παράδοσις ἄγραφος does not occur, but it does in Epiphanius (H. 61, ch. 6: δεῖ καὶ παραδόσει κεχρῆσθαι. οὐ γὰρ πάντα ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς δύναται λαµβάνεσθαι· διὸ τὰ µὲν ἐν γραφαῖς, τὰ δὲ ἐν παραδόσεσιν παρέδωκαν οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι). It is also found in Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others down to John of Damascus, who says plainly (De fide orthod. IV. ch. 12): ἄγραφός ἐστιν ἡ παράδοσις αὕτη τῶν ἀποστόλων, πολλὰ γὰρ ἀγράφως ἡµῖν παρέδοσαν (see details in

C. All conceptions of the authority of tradition, of which many Fathers—e.g., Cyprian—described Scripture to be the main element,444 were based ultimately on the conviction that the Church had been invested with authority through its connection with the Holy Spirit himself.445 At this point two problems arose, which, though hardly ever clearly formulated, were yet felt, and which attempts were made to solve. I.—By whom and when did the Church speak? II.—How were novelties to be explained in the Church, especially in the sphere of doctrine, if the authority of the Church had its root exclusively in its apostolic character, that is, its ability to preserve the legacy of the Apostles? As to I. It was a settled doctrine from the third century, that the representation of the Church was vested in the 215Episcopate, though the strict conception of the latter, as first taught by Cyprian, that it was the main support of the Church, was for a long time not universally held.446 We find, meanwhile, even, e.g., from the plan

Langen, Joh. von Damaskus, 1879, p. 271 ff.). So also the Greek Church of to-day teaches: διωρεῖται τὸ θεῖον ῥῆµα εἰς τε τὸ γραπτὸν καὶ ἄγραφον (see Gass, Symbolik der griech. Kirche, p. 107 ff.) Quotations are especially taken from Pauline texts in which παραδόσεις occur, and thus a sort of Scriptural proof is led in support of what does not occur in Scripture. The unwritten tradition is hardly again applied to the creed, since it was thought to be sufficiently supported by Scripture and the Symbol. In the West, Augustine was in the same doubtful position, with regard to certain theses which he defended against Donatists and Pelagians, as the Cappadocians were in reference to the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost. Hence he derived, e.g., the doctrine of original sin, which could not be otherwise proved out of tradition, from the rite of exorcism, declaring this to have been an apostolic tradition; (see c. Julian. VI. 5, 11): “Sed etsi nulla ratione indagetur, nullo sermone explicetur, verum tamen est quod antiquitus veraci fide catholica prædicatur et creditur per ecclesiam totam; quæ filios fideli ac8 um nec exorcizaret, nec exsufflaret, si non eos de potestate tenebrarum et a principe mortis erueret, etc.). So also he appealed against the Donatists in the controversy as to Baptism by Heretics (against Cyprian’s authority) to the unwritten testimony of the whole Church (see note 6, p. 211). 444 Cyprian calls Scripture “divinæ traditionis caput et origo” (Ep.74, ch. 10). This designation is not common. 445 The universal conviction is expressed in the famous sentence of Augustine (C. ep. Manich. 6) which he has given in various forms in the Confessions and elsewhere: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas. Even Cyril of Jerusalem, who has emphasised most strongly the authority of Scripture, could not pass over that of the Church (Cat. IV., ch. 33). 446 In his studies on Augustine, Reuter has shown that Augustine fell short of Cyprian (see his theses in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch., Vol. VIII., p. 184, and the relative discussions in Vol. VII.). In the East the compiler of Apostolic Constitutions took substantially the view of the Episcopate held by Ignatius, but not by Irenæus and Cyprian. Even

of Eusebius’ Church History, that the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, were regarded as guarantors of the legitimacy of the Church. The conception never emerged that the Bishop was infallible as an individual;447 but a certain inspiration was already—though not without differences of opinion—attributed to the provincial Synods.448 Constantine was the first to form the idea of a universal Synod,449 and he 216also supposed such a body to be under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore incapable of error.450 In the course of the fourth century the idea

Chrysostom’s work, περὶ ἱερωσύνης, tends in the same direction as the Constitutions. It is very remarkable that Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII., ch. 27) makes no mention of the hierarchy, but only of the Apostles, prophets, teachers and other office-bearers enumerated in the well-known passage in the Ep. to the Corinthians. That is a memorable archaism; yet see even Vincentius, Commonit. 40. He also says very little about Bishops, and nothing at all about. the apostolic success 564 ion. 447 On the contrary, the fallibility of individual bishops was always admitted from Irenæus down (III. 3, 1): “Valde perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse (apostoli), quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes, quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas.” 448 Cyprian (Ep. LVII., ch. 5) introduces the decree of the provincial Council of Carthage with the words, “Placuit nobis spiritu sancto suggerente.” Acts XV. 28 certainly influenced this phrase. On the other hand, we must not allow it too much weight, for Cyprian often appeals to instructi 55d ons given to him personally by the Holy Ghost. See also the Votum of Bishop Lucius of Ausafa, No. 73 of the sentent. episcoporum LXXXVII. at the Carthaginian Council: “Secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti.” The Synod of Arles, A.D. 314, also used the formula, “Placuit ergo, præsente spiritu sancto et angelis eius” (see Mansi, Collect. Concil. II. p. 469, and Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. 2, p. 204); and Constantine wished to have its decision regarded as “cæleste iudicium”: this judgment by priests was to have the same honour as if it had been pronounced by the Lord himself (Mansi, 1.c. p. 478). For the rest, we may here recall the fact that ἡ ἱερὰ σύνοδος had long been a technical term in common use among the Greeks (see also “holy senate” in Justin). On the origin of the ecclesiastical Synods see Sohm’s excellent discussions in Kirchenrecht. I. p. 247 ff. 449 This is now almost universally admitted; yet the idea was introduced by the great Oriental Synods in the cases of Novatian and Paul of Samosata, as well as by the Synod of Arles already indeed summoned by Constantine. The latter has been looked on in the West as a General Council for more than a century, and can also be regarded as such in many respects. On the Councils see Hatch’s fine lecture in his book “The Social Constitution of Christian Churches,” p. 172 f. 450 See Constantine’s letter to the Bishops after the Council of Nicæa (in Theodoret H. E. I. 9 fin): “Whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the Bishops, may be attributed to the divine will.” Further, Socrates H. E. I. 9, who contrasts the recognition

that the Nicene Synod possessed an infallible authority became slowly established;451 it was transferred in the following centuries to the Œcumenical Synods generally, yet so that one—the second—was only subsequently stamped as Œcumenical.452 From

by the Emperor of the divine character of the Synod, with the aspersions of Sabinus the Macedonian. 451 The orthodox party made use of the advantage presented by the decision of a Synod which none could refuse to recognise as a wholly extraordinary event. On the other hand, nothing but such an event could atone for the unusual forms given to the creed, and thus attest a new theory. For in spite of everything which it had been hitherto possible to relate of Synods being under divine leadership, it was a novelty to raise the decision of a Synod to the level of an authority above discussion. Of such a thing even Bishop Julius of Rome, e.g., knew nothing. And it was all the more startling when the decision was supported neither by the letter of Scripture, nor a clear tradition, nor even an analogy of any sort. But this very fact promoted the assumption of an absolute authority,—though not yet in the case of Athanasius (see Gwatkin, Stud. of Arianism, p. 50); a virtue was made of necessity. With the first victory over Arianism, the view arose that the dogma of the Trinity was a certain truth because it had been affirmed at Nicæa by 318 Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghost—thus the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alex. etc. It is, however, extremely paradoxical, that even up to the middle of the fourth cen 564 tury the Eusebians laid greater stress on the authority of Synodical decisions than the orthodox party. In order to get the West to accept the deposition of Athanasius, they continued to appeal to their Antiochene Synod, and declared its decisions to be irreversible. Although their tactics compelled them also to admit the validity of the Nicene Creed, they did so in the hope that after the removal of Athanasius they would be able to carry an interpretation of it suitable to their own views. 452 The latter fact is admitted also by Hefele (1. c. Vol. I., p. 3). Besides, nothing could be more incorrect than the opinion that the distinction between Œcumenical and other Synods, as regards dogmatics, was established soon after the Nicene Council. The greatest variety of opinion prevailed till past the middle of the fifth century as to what Synods were Œcumenical and might be ranked along with the Nicene. Gregory of Nazianzus we know, e.g., to have spoken very contemptuously of the Constantinopolitan Synod, and, indeed, of Synods ac8 in general. Conversely, a certain authority was still ascribed to Provincial Synods in dogmatic questions. Further, there is a passage in Augustine which infers not only a relatively binding authority on the part of Provincial Councils, but also uncertainty as to the absolute authority of General Councils. The passage is extraordinarily characteristic of the unsteadiness of the whole structure of tradition. Meanwhile Reuter (Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. VIII. p. 167, 173, 176, 186) has rightly decided that we must keep steadily in view the special circumstances under which Augustine has here written; De bap. c. Donat. II. 3, 4: “Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis suis terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus episcoporum litteris ita præponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quæ post confirmatum canonem vel scriptæ sunt

the sixth 217century there gradually ceased to be any doubt that the resolutions of Œcumenical Synods possessed an absolute authority.453 Whoever rebelled against them refused to admit that the Synods in question were regular, but did not dispute the

vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est: et ipsa concilia quæ per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati quæ fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria sæpe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat.” Emendari can only mean here actual emendation—not merely explanation, as Catholic historians of dogma have to assume. It is also worthy of note, that Augustine assigned Œcumenical rank to several Synods—e.g., that of Arles—which afterwards were not held to be Œcumenical. On the other hand, it is instructive that he himself did not, like the Orientals, regard the Nicene decree as the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity; see Reuter’s arguments on the relation of the work “De trinitate” to the Nicene Symbol, (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V. p. 375 ff.). The Council of Chalcedon first put an end to dubiety as to the number, and the authority, of Œcumenical Councils in the East (even at the Robber Synod, A.D. 449, only two had been recognised). Up till then the Nicene stood alone on an inaccessible height; moreover, in after times the uniqueness of this Council was still remembered, though others were added beside it. For the rest, Roman Bishops spoke very depreciatorily of, or even refused to recognise, many canons of later councils; so Leo I. of the third of Constantinople (Ep. 106 [al. 80]) ac8 , to say nothing of the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon. But Leo did not recognise the second Council as legitimate. Even Felix III. and Gelasius knew only of three Œcumenical Councils. General Synods Leo I. declared to be inspired (see Ep. 114, 2, to the Bishops assembled at Chalcedon); but it is more than questionable whether he therefore held all their resolutions to be absolutely irreversible. 453 After the Council of Chalcedon, it was, above all, Justinian’s legislation which confirmed and popularised, even in the West, the view that there had been four Œumenical Councils: see his edict on the Three Chapters, 131: Οἱ ὑπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων συνόδων, τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ Κωνσταντινουπόλει, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τιθέντες ὅροι νόµων τάξιν ἐχέτωσαν καὶ τὰ δόγµατα αὐτῶν ὡς αἱ θεόπνευστοι τιµάσθωσαν γραφαί, Accordingly, this development was inaugurated by Constantine and closed by Justinian. After him Gregory I. (Ep. L. I. 25) wrote: “Sicut sancti evangelii quattuor libros, sic quattuor concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor.” But this very utterance proves that the West only slowly accepted this whole development; for Gregory leaves out of account the fifth Œcumenical Council held meanwhile. Again, the attitude of the North African Church in the sixth century proves that there the dubiety felt by Augustine had not yet been wholly overcome. But the attempts of the papal theologian Vincenzi to dispute the independent authority of the councils generally—even for the above date—are thoroughly biassed, and carried out with the most daring indifference to historical fact. See his “In St. Gregorii Nyss. et Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio”, 5 T., 1865 f. and “De processione spiritus s. ex patre et filio”, 1878.

218authority

of regular Synods in general. After the seventh Synod it was a settled principle in the orthodox Church of the East that Scripture and the decisions of the seven Œcumenical Councils formed the sources of the knowledge of Christian truth.454 They were characterised simply as the tradition, nay, men spoke, and not infrequently speak and act up to the present day, as if the Church possessed and required no other sources of knowledge or authorities. As a rule, the παράδοσις ἄγραφος is not included when Holy Scripture and the seven Councils are spoken of. This apparently simple, consistent development, seemingly corresponding to all requirements, did not, however, solve all difficulties, either after it had come to an end, or still less during its course. But it had further to reckon with authorities, some of which were of long standing, while others emerged in the contemporary organisation of the Church. What position was to be taken up in doctrinal controversies in which an Œcumenical Synod had not pronounced its decision? Must there not 219be forthcoming in the Church at any moment a clear testimony to the truth, solving all doubtful questions, and giving forth no uncertain sound? What importance was due to the occupants of the great episcopal chairs, the Bishops of the apostolic communities, and especially of Rome? Decisions were not reached in all these questions, but a certain common sense arose. First, the Church speaks also by a unanimous testimony, audible from the earliest days, and this testimony never has been and never for a moment is, lacking. What has been always, everywhere, and by all, believed is inerrant tradition, even if it has not been solemnly and formally attested, or laid down in primitive authorities. This leads to a procedure similar to that followed by Eusebius in settling the N. T., viz., that the antiquity, unanimous attestation, and catholicity of a doctrine are to be expiscated in order that it may be certified a doctrine of the

454

This is taught without any variation by the later so-called Symbols of the Greek Church and the most distinguished theologians up to t 54d he present day; see, e.g., Damalas, Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις, Athens, 1877, p. 3 ff.; οὐδεὶς πιστεύει εἰς µίαν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ µὴ ὁµολογῶν ὅτι τὰς ἐκπροσωπούσας ταύτην οἰκουµενικὰς συνόδους τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἄγιον ὁδηγεῖ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ ὅτι ἡ ἐκκλησία αὕτη δὲν δύναται νὰ ἦ ἄλλη παρὰ τὴν ἐπῳκοδοµηµένην ἐπὶ τῆς µόνης ἑνοποιοῦ ἀρχῆς τῶν οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων· διότι ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν µερικῶν ὑποχρεωτικῶν ὁµολογιῶν, ἣν καθιέρωσαν αἱ λοιπαὶ ἐκκλησίαι, ἐστὶν ἡ µήτηρ τῆς διαιρέσεως . . . ἡ προµνηµονευθεῖσα ἀναγνώρισις τῶν ἑπτὰ οἰκουµενικῶν συνόδων ἐστὶ γεγονὸς ἱστορικόν, µηδεµίαν πλέον ἐκκλησιαστικὴν αναψηλάφησιν ἐπιδεχόµενον. According to present Greek ideas, the whole period of the Councils belongs to the classical antiquity of the Church; this period has long run its course.

Church. The notion of ‘antiquity’ had now been extended and shifted with the advance of the Church. In the fourth century all the teachers held orthodox before Origen had been regarded as ancient, or vicini apostolorum (neighbours of the Apostles); the latter predicate especially had gradually been extended to the beginning of the third century: men like Irenæus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Hippolytus even were called γνώριµοι τῶν ἀποστόλων (friends of the Apostles).455 Then the whole period of the martyrs came to be considered sacred as the ancient time. But the Church was compelled to recognise to an increasing extent, that not much was to be gained for its purposes from its theological ‘witnesses’ before Athanasius, from those before as well as after Origen. Their names were still held in sacred memory—with the exception of those who seemed too greatly compromised, or had even fallen into bad odour w 3b4c ith their own contemporaries; but their works disappeared more and more, or gave place to forgeries. Accordingly, from the fifth century, Athanasius and orthodox teachers of similar views of the fourth century, appeared as the “Fathers” proper.456 220When controversies arose, and soon even at Synods, the votes of these men were counted. Doctrines were looked on as armed with the testimony of antiquity, when they could be supported from the Fathers from Athanasius to Cyril. Nor were forgeries wanting here. The disciples of Apollinaris of Laodicea practised these frauds to a vast extent, in order to rediscover their master’s teaching in antiquity; they were afterwards imitated by others. In any case, the tribunal of the ‘Fathers’ remained an uncertain one; great as was the scope assigned to it, its place and value were not dogmatically detailed. It was not even really decided what relation the inspiration of the Councils held to the consensus patrum,457 (see under). Such a

455

See as to this the introduction to my History of Ancient Christian Literature up to Eusebius, Vol. I. 1893. 456 Athanasius was not indeed so frequently quoted as one would believe. His works have been comparatively eclipsed by those of the Cappadocians, and the final statement arrived at in the East, A.D. 381, of the dogma of the Trinity was more favourable to them than to Athanasius. The Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 383, (see in loco) furnishes the first example of the authority of the Fathers being made decisive, and of the Scriptures themselves being ignored. But the attempt miscarried at the time. 457 To the “teachers” the predicate “Θεόπνευστος” was also applied. Thus Athanasius writes (De incarn. verbi 56): Αἱ γραφαὶ µὲν γὰρ διὰ θεολόγων ἀνδρῶν παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐλαλήθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν. ἡµεῖς δὲ παρὰ τῶν αὐταῖς ἐντυγχανόντων θεοπνεύστων διδασκάλων, οἳ καί µάρτυρες τῆς Χριστοῦ θεότητος γεγόνασι, µαθόντες µεταδίδοµεν καὶ τῇ σῇ φιλοµαθίᾳ. Similarly, though very rhetorically, Arius in his Thalia (Athanas. Orat. c. Arian I. 5): κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, συνετῶν Θεοῦ,

consensus had often enough to be first restored; this was done by exegesis, or even by fabrications, because it was necessary to presuppose it. References of an opposite character remained of no effect; but when needs must a want of accuracy (akribeia) and detached errors were admitted in the case of individual Fathers, without the general conception being modified by these concessions. The Fathers were just read backwards—so to speak— i.e., from the standpoint of the dogma of the time being, and their undeveloped or divergent doctrines were interpreted in accordance with the principle of making the best of everything.458

παίδων ἁγίων, ὐρθοτόµων, ἄγιον Θεοῦ πνεῦµα λαβόντων, τάδε ἔµαθον ἔγωγε ὑπὸ τῶν σοφίης µετεχόντων, ἀστείων, θεοδιδάκτων, κατὰ πάντα σοφῶν τε. ad3 458It would take us too far to give detailed instances of the points discussed under this head. We only emphasise the following. (1) The attestation of a doctrine by the Councils was often set side by side with that given by the “Fathers”, the “ancient” or “holy doctors”, in such a way that the former seemed often to be merely a special case of the latter. And this was quite natural. The Church possessed no continuous testimony in the Councils; from its distinctive character, however, it required one. And this could only be furnished by the unbroken chorus of orthodox doctors. Even taken historically this court of appeal was the older. Irenæus and especially Clemens Alex. had already referred to deceased presbyters as authoritative teachers; and Eusebius’ conception of Church History embraced the idea—see preface and outline—that side by side with the successio episcoporum there stood a series of witnesses who, in uninterrupted succession, had declared the true doctrine orally and in writing. (2) No definitions were arrived at of the manner in which the authority of the Bishops was related to that of the doctors. It was possible to shut one’s eyes to this question, because in most cases the teachers were also bishops. As a rule, the Greeks spoke not of bishops, but the ancient doctors, when appealing to the witnesses to the truth. It was otherwise with the majority of the Latins after Cyprian (see p. 214). (3) As the usual procedure at the Councils was to set up no doctrinal tenet unless it was believed to have the support of the doctors, and as the claim was made that this course should always be adopted, the idea that the Councils were inspired was already abolished, and they were subordinated to the continuous testimony of the Church (see under). (4) The practice of consulting authorities began at the Ephesian Council; it played a more prominent part in every succeeding Synod. Athanasius and the Arians had undoubtedly disputed before this over passages in the Fathers, but their disputes were of slight importance compared with those that took place afterwards. (5) The notion of ecclesiastical antiquity gradually became more and more comprehensive; meanwhile the real ancient period of Christianity became more obscure, and bit by bit came to be forgotten. After the seventh the whole period of the Councils was looked on as the classical antiquity of the Church. If even in the fourth, 564 nay, up to the middle of the fifth century, Councils were held to be an innovation, their absence was now considered a characteristic of the age of the Epigoni; indeed they were thought to be unnecessary, because everything was already settled. (6) The opinion held by faith that the “Fathers” had decided every disputed point beforehand, was a strong challenge to

221

Secondly, a peculiar reverence was inherited from the past for Apostolic Churches or their bishops, entwined with the evidence based on history and dogmatics. Although the theory of Cyprian, which allowed no special importance to the Bishops 222of

produce forgeries, and resulted in objective and and subjective falsehood. Caspari (Alte und neue Quellen, etc., 1879) has shown that the followers of Apollinaris were the first to forge on a large scale; but the Acts of Councils, and the examination of writings circulated under the names of celebrated Fathers, show that they had numerous imitators in the ranks of all parties. The practice of compiling collections of extracts, which was so much favoured after the middle of the fifth century, was, besides, especially adapted to conceal forgeries or inaccuracies. (7) But the limits, authority, and character of the Court of Appeal of the “Fathers” were never determined. It was taught that the orthodox Fathers agreed in all matters, nay, this theory was treated as a dogma. Stephen Gobarus’ attempt (Photius, Cod.232) to demonstrate the contradictions of the Fathers was felt to be profane, just as Eusebius had condemned as unchurchmanlike the attitude of Marcellus of Ancyra, who h 564 ad censured the consultation, without independent examination, of the “wisest” Fathers. But even John of Damascus had to admit that Fathers—otherwise orthodox—held divergent opinions on single points (De imag. I. 25), and Photius actually was more than once compelled, in the course of his learned studies, to notice mistakes committed by them (see his Bibliotheca). Therefore the question was never decided who constituted the orthodox Fathers. It became the custom to prefer (Athanasius), Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Cyril, and afterwards also John of Damascus. In the fourth century the orthodox were much troubled by the fact that the Synod of Antioch (A.D. 268) rejected, while that of Nicæa accepted, the term Ὁµοούσιος. The treatment of this difficulty in Athanasius, “De synod.” 43 sq., shows that no one had hit on the idea that the later decision made the earlier obsolete. It was rather held on the contrary: οἱ προλαβόντες ἀφανίζουσιν τοὺς µετά ταῦτα γενόεµνους. Therefore Athanasius sought and found evidences of the word Ὁµοούσιος before the Samosatian controversy. Ultimately, however, he had to adopt a different treatment of the whole question, i.e., to show that Ὁµοούσιος had only been rejected at Antioch as against Paul, in order not ac8 to admit a contradiction in the chorus of the Fathers. The same difficulty was caused about the middle of the fifth century by the term “δύο φύσεις;”, for it was hard to find an instance of that in antiquity. Of Eutyches the following expression is recorded (Mansi VI., p. 700): τὸ ἐκ δύο φύσεων ἑνωθεισῶν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν µήτε µεµαθηκέναι ἐν ταῖς ἐκθέσεσι τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων µήτε καταδέχεσθαι, εἰ τύχοι τι αὐτῷ τοιοῦτο παρά τινος ὑπαναγινώσκεσθαι, διὰ τὸ τὰς θείας γραφὰς ἀµείνονας εἶναι τῆς τῶν πατέρων διδασκαλίας. He afterwards disowned this expression as being distorted, his advocate corrected it in his name thus: “The Fathers have spoken in different ways, and I accept everything they say, but not as a rule of faith” (εἰς κανόνα δὲ πίστεως). That is very instructive. The words excited the greatest consternation in the assembly in which they were uttered, and the speaker felt himself compelled at once to excuse them on the ground of a momentary confusion.

Apostolic communities within the general authority of the Episcopate, had weakened this prestige, it still held its ground. Augustine still recalled it in the question of the extent of the Holy Scriptures.459 But there now grew up, in consequence of 223the Metropolitan and Patriarchate form of government, a new aristocracy among the Bishops, which received its importance from the size and influence of the episcopal cities. Rome, Alexandria—the founding of whose Church by Mark was undisputed about A.D. 300—and Antioch were not affected by the rivalry involved in this new principle; for in these cases the special connection with the Apostles coincided with the greatness of the city. But the political factor prevailed so strongly that the Chairs of Corinth, Thessalonica, etc., and finally, even that of Ephesus,460 lost all peculiar prestige—only that of Jerusalem, in spite of the political insignificance of the city, was ranked with those more distinguished461—but Constantinople was added to the list of the outstanding episcopates. In the East this was frankly justified by the political position of the city;462 but this justification was so far

459

See above, Note 1, p. 198, and compare “De peccator. mer. et remiss.” I., 50. Here the auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium is mentioned (in reference to the Ep. to the Hebrews), and to Augustine this auctoritas was exalted, because Christianity had come from the Apostolic Churches, from the communities to which John and Paul had written, above all, from Jerusalem (unde ipsum evangelium coepit prædicari). The fact that the Donatists had been separated from Apostolic Churches proved to him that they were wrong; see especially the Liber ad Donat. post collat. c. 4, c. 29; also Ep. 52, c. 3 and c. Lib. Petil. l. II., c. 51 (Reuter in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 361 ff.). Optatus had already held the same view as Augustine; see the important details “De schism. Donat.” II., 6, VI., 3. But even after the middle of the sixth century a Roman Pope, Pelagius I., singled out the fact in praise of Augustine, 564 that he, “mindful of the divine teaching which founded the Church on the Apostolic Chairs, taught that those were schismatics who seceded from the doctrine and communion of these Apostolic Chairs” (Mansi, Concil. IX., p. 716). Pelagius even declared that when doubts as to the faith arose it was necessary to conform to the Apostolic Chairs (l. c. p. 732). This form of expression is all the more remarkable since the Roman Bishops of the fifth century spoke, as a rule, as if the designation sedes apostolica belonged peculiarly to their Chair. 460 At the transition from the fourth to the fifth century; see Hefele II., pp. 77 ff., 495 f., 528 ff. 461 See the 7th ac8 Canon of Nicæa, and in addition, Hefele’s details, Vol. I., p. 403 f.; II., p. 213, Jerusalem was first raised to a Patriarchate at Chalcedon, see Hefele II., pp. 477, 502. Jerusalem became once more the ‘holy city’ in the fourth century; see Epiphanius and others. 462 See the 3rd Canon of Constantinople, Hefele, II., p. 17 f. and the 28th of Chalcedon, Hefele, II., p. 527 f.; τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώµης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα, καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ

insufficient as the chair, by its co-ordination with the Apostolic sees, participated in the attributes 224which the latter possessed in virtue of their apostolic character.463 Such attributes continued to be ascribed to those chairs without it being stated, however, in what they really consisted. They were nothing tangible, and yet they were held to exist.464 But even in the view of Orientals they belonged in a preëminent degree to Rome. The works of the only western author before Jerome who was also read in the East—i.e., Cyprian—could not fail to heighten the prestige of Rome.465 But that was already great enough in itself. As the ancient capital of the Empire, as the city of the two chief Apostles, of the Cathedra Petri, as the only apostolic community of the West, that which had done more for the whole Church than any other, Rome even in the East enjoyed a unique prestige.466 But as early as the fourth century, and certainly from the fifth onwards, Rome. meant the Roman Bishop, with whose spiritual dignity were fused the

κινούµενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειµαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώµης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιµηθεῖσαν πόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώµῃ. καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην, µεγαλύνεσθαι πράγµασι, δευτέραν µετ᾽ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν. Constantinople was factitiously promoted to the place of Ephesus by reason of this unexampled act of legitimation. At the Robber Synod, nevertheless, it still held the fifth place. As regards the historical interpretation of the sixth Canon of Nicæa and the third of Constantinople, I agree substantially with the excellent arguments of Kattenbusch (l. c. I., p. 81 ff.); only it must be still more strongly emphasised that the Canons of A.D. 381 bore a clearly marked hostility to Alexandria. Even then it was considered necessary to suppress the authority of the Alexandrian Church, which was on the point of developing into the premier Church of the East. 463 An energetic protest was admittedly raised, especially by Leo I. and his successo 54e rs. Leo at the same time also advocated the rights of the Apostolic Churches in general (Ep. 106). We cannot here follow out the controversy, although it reflects the revivification of the Byzantine Church and State, and the attitude of the Roman Bishops, which was purely ecclesiastical, though it did rest on fictions: see Hefele II., pp. 408, 539 ff., 549 ff., and Sohm l. c. I., pp. 377-440. It was not until the fourth Lateran Synod (Can. 5), when a Latin Patriachate existed at Constantinople (1215), that Rome recognised the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. 464 Although all Bishops were held to be successors of the Apostles, yet Leo I. singles out very distinctly those who had inherited the chairs of the Apostles; see his letter to the Emperor Marcian (Ep. 104). 465 Not only Eusebius, but also Theodore of Mopsuestia had read Cyprian’s Epistles. At the Council of Ephesus evidence taken from him was read; see Vincent, Commonit. 42. Of the Westerns, after Cyprian, Ambrose was especially esteemed in the East. Augustine also possessed a certain authority. 466 See Vol. II., p. 149 f.

memories of the ancient city that had ruled the world. These memories overhung the place, after the Emperor had left, and the most of them clung to the Bishop. In the momentous Arian conflict the great Eastern sees, except Alexandria, became compromised or dishonoured; the orthodox Orientals sought and found their support in Rome.467 The Emperor 225in Constantinople who brought the great controversy to an end was a Western, full of veneration for Rome. The promotion which he afterwards assigned to Constantinople was no equivalent—at first, at least,—for the advance in political power secured to Rome by the Arian controversy.468 The role of 226observer and arbiter, which the

467

On the authority of the Roman Bishop in the fourth century, see Hauck, Der römische Bischop in 4 Jahrh., 1881; Rade, Damasus, 1881; Langen, Gesch. der römischen Kirche, 2 Vol., 1881, 1885; Sohm, l. c. In what follows we only discuss Rome’s prestige in the East. Even Hefele (l. c. I., p. 8) admits that the first eight Synods were not appointed and convoked by the Roman Bishops. His arguments as to the presidency at the Synods are, however, biassed (pp. 29-44). It was at Chalcedon that the legates of the Roman Bishop first occupied a special position. The sixth Canon of Nicæa, when correctly interpreted, gives no preference to Rome, but refers merely to the fact that it was the ecclesiastical metropolis for the Churches of several provinces. It is credible that Julius I. uttered the principle (Socrates H. E. II. 17): µὴ δεῖν παρὰ γνώµην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ῥώµης κανονίζειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας. The peculiar authority of the Roman Chair showed itself in the fourth century in the following facts. First, Constantine transferred to the Roman Bishop the duty of presiding over the commission to examine the case of the Donatists. Secondly, the oppressed adherents of the Nicene Symbol in the East turned to him for protection (see even Langen, l. c. I., p. 425 f.). Thirdly, we have the request of the Eusebians that Julius should decide the dogmatic question; it is true that very soon— when they foresaw their defeat in Rome—they changed their tone. They still conceded a peculiar dignity to Rome; it does not seem to me possible to translate φιλοτιµίαν (Sozom. III. 8) with Langen by “ambition.” Yet they pointed out 564 that Rome had received its Christianity from the East, and that it was as little entitled to review the decision of a dogmatic question given in the East, as the Oriental Bishops would have been to take up the Novatian affair after Rome had spoken. (The letter is to be reconstructed from Sozom. III. 8, and Athanas. apolog. c. Arian. 25-35.) Fourthly, we have evidence of Rome’s position also in Julius’ epistle to the Orientals (Athanas. l. c.); fifthly, in Canons 3 and 5 of the Synod of Sardica; and sixthly, in the request of the Antiochenes, or Jerome, to Damasus, for a decision in the Antiochene schism (Ep. 16). 468 Damasus’ policy did not at once succeed in raising the prestige of the Roman Chair in the East (see Rade, l. c., p, 137 f.), but the manner in which Theodosius I. at first decided the Arian controversy there, did. “Cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nostræ regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum atostolum tradidisse Romanis rel 564 igio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat,” etc. Besides, the new style adopted by Damasus in his letter to the Oriental Bishops (Theodoret H. E. V. 10) was not without effect in the East. He calls them my “sons” instead of my

Roman Bishop was able to play in the Christological controversies, made it possible for him to maintain for a time the lofty position he had won.469 (On the aspirations of the Alexandrian Bishops, Athanasius, Peter, etc., and the successful opposition to them by Leo, see chap. IX.) There can be no doubt that even in the eyes of the Orientals there attached to the Roman Bishop a special something, which was wanting to all the rest, a nimbus which conferred upon him a peculiar authority.470 Yet this nimbus was

“brethren,” and he no longer speaks, like other Bishops, as commissioned by the Synod— though the question at issue was a decision of the Synod—or as representing the Western Church. On the contrary, he addresses them in virtue of the authority of his “Apostolic Chair,” which he connects solely with Peter and without any reference to Paul. “The first rank is due to the Holy Church, in which the Holy Apostle had his seat, and taught how we should fitly guide the helm which we have undertaken to control.” Rade has, besides, here rightly conjectured (p. 136) that Jerome had a share in this letter, which did a great deal to raise the influence of the Roman Chair in the East. 469 From and after Siricius I., the Roman Bishops maintained that it was their province to care for all 564 Churches (Constant., p. 659. Ep. 6, ch. 1). On the relation of Leo I. to the East, and to the fourth Council, see Langen, l. c. II., pp. 10 f., 50 ff. The phrase “our fatherly solicitude” occurs frequently even in the letters of his predecessors to the East. The appeal of Cyril to Coelestine is very important in its bearing on the dignity of the Roman Chair; compare the language of the Roman legate at the Council of Ephesus (Mansi III., p. 1279 sq.). 470 In the work “Der Papst und das Concil von Janus” (1869), p. 93, we find this passage. “In the writings of the doctors of the Greek Church, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, the two Gregorys, and Epiphanius, not a word is to be found of peculiar prerogatives being assigned to a Roman Bishop. Chrysostom, the most prolific of the Greek Fathers, is absolutely silent on the point, and so also are the two Cyrils. Basil (Opp. ed. Bened. III. 301, Ep. 239 and 214) has expressed his contempt for the writings of the Popes in the strongest terms [in the affairs of Marcellu 564 s): ‘these proud and conceited westerns, who would only fortify heresy’; even if their letters descended from heaven, he would not accept them.” It is true that, seeing the now wide-spread view of the apostolic succession of all Bishops, the prestige of the Roman Bishop is hardly perceptible in the East at the beginning of the fourth century, and that he had to fight, i.e., to wrest for himself the position which had formerly belonged to the Roman Church. Therefore the testimonies to a special dignity being possessed by the Roman Bishops in the East in the fourth century are in fact comparatively scanty, But they are not wanting—see, e.g., Greg. Naz., Carmen de vita sua T. II., p. 9, and Chrysostom, Ep. ad Innocent I.—and from A.D. 380 this dignity bulked more largely in the eyes of Orientals, though indeed, without receiving a definite and fixed meaning. Very characteristic in this respect are the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen, who on this point are free from partiality, and reflect the universal opinion. But it does not occur to them to doubt that the Roman Bishop had a special authority and a unique relation to the whole Church (see, e.g., Socrat. II. 8, 15, 17; Soz. III. 8; also Theodoret’s letter to Leo I.). Instructive

not sufficiently 227bright and luminous to bestow upon its possessor an unimpeachable authority; it was rather so nebulous that it was possible to disregard it without running counter to the spirit of the universal Church. And it gradually became fainter. The more completely, after the middle of the fifth century, the internal relations of West and East ceased, and the more strongly the distinctively Byzantine spirit could assert itself in the diminished Church of the East, so the more rapidly declined the prestige of the Roman Bishop. Constantinople put an end to it in its own midst, when the Roman Bishop set up claims which in the fourth and fifth centuries had been palliated by actual circumstances and the necessities of the time, but which 500 years afterwards could not fail to be felt as the intrusion of an alien spirit.471 Yet, in spite of this, the idea of the unity of the Church still held its ground for a long time. After Synods ceased to be held, the influence of the great Patriarchates throughout the whole Church in the East increased472—though, indeed, the orthodox Patriarchs of

here are the collections of Leo Allatius and in the Innsbrucker Theol. Ztschr., 1877, p. 662 f. 564 ; see also three treatises by the Abbé Martin: “Saint Pierre, sa venue et son martyre à Rome,” in the Rev. des quest. historiq., 1873 (principally from oriental sources); “S. Pierre et S. Paul dans l’église Nestorienne,” Paris, 1875; “S. Pierre et le Rationalisme devant les églises orientales,” Amiens, 1876. These discussions, though in part uncritical, are very full of matter. Matt. XVI. 18, John XXI. 18, were undoubtedly never referred in the East to the primacy of Rome (see Janus, p. 97). Still in any case it is saying too little—even for the period about the year A.D. 380—to remark as Rade does (l. c., p. 137). To the Orientals the Bishop of Rome was like the rest, only, thanks to his situation, the natural representative of the Churches of the western half of the Empire, acting, as it were, as correspondent in the name of the Christians of the West. 471 The prestige of the Roman Bishop in the East was accordingly on the increase from the beginning of the fourth till the middle of the fifth century, 564 remained at its height till about the time of Justinian, when, however, it lost its practical importance, and then, apart from the events about A.D. 680 and the next decades, slowly declined, yet without ever being wholly destroyed. The Roman Chair was now held to be schismatic; if not that, it would still have been the first. Undoubtedly there was a strong inclination in later times to oppose it by advancing the see of Jerusalem, the seat of James, but it was not possible to gain any confidence in the claim of the latter to the first place. See on the criticism of the papacy by the Greeks, Pichler, Gesch. der kirchl. Trennung zwischen Or. u. Occ., 1864; Hergenröther, Photius, 3 Vols. 1867 ff.; Gass, Symbolik, p. 216 ff.; Kattenbusch, l. c., pp. 79-124. It was a settled doctrine of the Church in the East, that the Church has no visible head. 472 The terms τυραννίς and δυναστεία are first used, so far as I know, in reference to Antioch, i.e., against Paul of Samos. (Eus. H. E. VII. 30), after Origen had al 564 ready complained of the ambition of the Great Bishops. Socrates has expressed himself very frankly about this matter.

Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, had lost their real importance; and theoretically the dignity of the 228Roman Bishop as primus inter pares, though not unassailed, was embraced in that of the great Eastern sees. But it was never made clear how far the Patriarchs in their collective capacity really constituted an authority in dogma: there is not even an explicit statement that they did form such an authority. There was an uncertainty of opinion as to their position alongside of and in the Œcumenical Synods.473 Here also there was an absence of fixed definitions. The Church as it is, with its graduated orders, crowned by the Patriarchs, constituted the tradition and the authority. But the authority of no factor in this system possessed, when isolated, any significance whatever. It might not assert itself at the expense of the rest. Its dignity was founded on its being a part of antiquity. As to II. This at once involves the answer to the second question (see p. 214). The assumption that the Councils were inspired did not imply any power on their part to deliver new revelations to the Church. On the contrary, they proved their peculiar possession of the Holy Spirit by their unfailing testimony to the ancient doctrinal tradition.474 But in that case the new formulas created by the Councils could not but cause 229offence. How far they did is shown by the history of the dogmatic controversies. Above all, the unbiblical catch-word ‘consubstantial’ (Ὁµοούσιος), for a time directly rejected by the 473

The importance of the four Patriarchs—of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—was celebrated here and there in lofty expressions; it was especially prominent in the later Symbols, so-called, of the Greek Church (see Gass, l. c., p. 222 f.). Their presence or that of their representative was even held to be absolutely necessary at an Œcumenical Synod; but not only was the extent of their authority never defined, but the essential equality of all Bishops was steadily maintained in the East; and the latest development of the Greek Church, i.e., its disruption into perfectly independent National Churches, has thrown overboard the whole ‘Constitution of the Patriarchate’, which in all ages was more a matter of assertion than reality. The Bishop of Alexandria, undoubtedly, nearly succeeded in becoming in the fifth century supreme Bishop of the East, but Leo and Pulcheria overthrew him. Katt ac8 enbusch (l. c. p. 357 ff.) furnishes further details as to the “five Patriarchs as symbolical figures.” Has the Patriarchate of Rome come to an end in the view of the Greek Church? In the abstract, no; in the concrete, yes. 474 See above, p. 215 f. Augustine gives utterance to a very remarkable statement in De bapt. c. Donat. II., 4, 5: “Quomodo potuit ista res (the baptism by heretics), tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii concilii luculentam illustrationem confirmationemque perduci, nisi primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones multis hinc atque hinc disputationibus et collationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret?” Accordingly, only a matter which had already become ripe for decision through frequent deliberations could be submitted to and decided by a Council.

Church, only won acceptance under great difficulties, even among those who had little or no objection to the cause it represented. These formulas had to be proved in some way or other to have been anciently held. For Ὁµοούσιος it was of the highest importance that a Council had made it an accomplished fact. As the word gradually made good its ground, the Council lay far enough in the past to be itself regarded as belonging to antiquity. The evidence was got by reasoning in a circle; the authority of the Council supported the word which was anything but old, but the authority of any Council was dependent on its rejection of all innovations. Numerous passages in the Fathers furnished material in confirmation of the later formulas—which were never, so far as I know, bluntly deduced from unwritten tradition (παράδοσις ἄγραφος); but a strong preference was shown for understanding them as a repetition of the Nicene Symbol, the explication being disregarded, just as Irenæus in his time had passed off the Symbol unfolded in an antignostic sense, the regula fidei, for the Symbol itself, i.e., for the ancient repository of the truth. In spite of all novelties, it was thus contended that novelties were not forthcoming in the Church. Nay, even the power of the Councils to unfold doctrines authoritatively was not plainly asserted in the East; on the other hand, a Western, Vincentius of Lerinum, did maintain it, and essayed to furnish a theory on the subject. After the uncertainties of the Greeks over the conception of tradition, we really breathe freely when we study the attempt of this man to introdu 1579 ce light and certainty into the question. However, even in the East, the younger generation now and then gave the older Fathers the benefit of looking at their words as having been uttered at a time when dogma was not yet explained, or sharply formulated. Strictly speaking, this expedient was not tenable on Greek ground. Only a very sparing use therefore was made of it there,475 while the 230Catholic West employs it to a great extent up to the present day.476

475

The more common way of putting it in the East was that the writer in question had failed in the necessary “Akribeia” (exactness), i.e., he could, and should, have done it better (see, above all, the views of Photius). But it was rarely admitted that the Church at the time referred to did not yet possess complete akribeia in dogma. But we have further to notice here that a distinction was still drawn both in East and West between questions of faith, in the strict sense of the term, and theological doctrines, and that unity in the former was alone demanded. But as this distinction was in itself obscure, since in fact questions of faith had been transformed into theological and scientific ones, so in the East it became more and more restricted, though it was never wholly effaced. Augustine, besides, still laid great stress on this distinction, and accepted a whole group of theological doctrines in which differences did not endanger unity; the passages are given

in Reuter, Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 363 ff. But if “faith” is itself a doctrine, where does it cease and the doctrine begin? Besides the excuse of want of accuracy, which, indeed, involves censure, that ἁπλούστερον γεγραφέναι was asserted. It involved no fault. Thus At 528 hanasius writes (De Synod. 45) of the Fathers who in A.D. 268 rejected the term Ὁµοούσιος at Antioch: περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος ἁπλούστερον γράφοντες οὐ κατεγένοντο περὶ τῆς τοῦ ὁµουσίου ἀκρίβειας. Precisely in the same way the Homoiousians at Nice excused the Nicene Fathers. Unique, so far as I know, is the statement of Gregory of Naz. (Orat. 31. 28), which is only explicable from the still wholly confused state of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in his time. “As the O. T. declared the Father clearly, but the Son more vaguely, so the N. T. has revealed the Son, but only suggested the divinity of the Spirit” [compare the contentions of the Montanists]. “Now, however, the Spirit reigns among us, and makes himself more clearly known to us; for it was not advisable to proclaim the divinity of the Son, so long as that of the Father was not recognised, or to impose upon the former—if we may use such a bold expression—that of the Spirit, while it (viz., the divinity of the Son) was not accepted.” We may in this passage study the distinction between Gregory the theologian and Athanasius. b04 476So, above all, Augustine, who excused Cyprian in this way, and further, set up the general rule that as long as no unequivocal decisions had been given in a question, the bond of unity was to be maintained among the dissentient Bishops (De bapt. c. Donat. II. 4, 5). Augustine thus admitted that ecclesiastical tradition did not at every moment solve all questions pending in the Church. The Donatist and Pelagian controversy roused Western theologians to reflect on tradition. One fruit of this reflection was the Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerinum, unique, because it deals professedly with the question of tradition. The arguments are decisive of Western views, but the book did not extend its influence into the East; there the ideas about tradition remained characteristically indefinite. A short analysis of the Commonitorium is necessary. Let it be noticed that it is ultimately aimed at Augustine’s doctrine of grace and predestination, but that a large part of the rules are taken from that theologian. After a preface, in which Vincentius remarks that he is only sketching out what he had received from the past, he sets side by side the two foundations of the faith, the divine law (Holy Scripture) and the tradition of the Catholic Church (1). The former is sufficient by itself, but it requires the latter for its correct explanation (2). The latter embraces what had been believed everywhere, at all times, and by all—or, at least, by almost all priests and doctors (3). Accordingly, the following criteria were to be applied: (a) When a section of the Church renounced the communion of the Catholic faith, the Christian followed the great communion; (b) when a heresy threatened danger to the whole Church, he held by antiquity, “which, certainly, could not now be seduced”; (c) when he came upon heresy in antiquity itself, in a few men, or in a city or province, he followed the decision of a General Council; (d) if no such Council had spoken, he examined and compared the orthodox doctors and retained what—not two, or three—but all, had alike taught clearly, frequently, and persistently, in one and the same sense (4). These rules are illustrated by reference to the dangers, which had threatened the Church from Donatism, Arianism, and the Anabaptists (5-10). At this point, however, it is conceded that orthodox teachers

might have and had fallen 564 into error on one point; nevertheless they were blessed, but hell received the Epigoni, who, in order to start a heresy, took hold of the writings of one or other of the ancients (as the Donatists did of Cyprian’s) which were composed in obscure language, and which, owing to the obscurity prevailing in them, seemed to coincide with their teaching, so that the views brought forward by these heretics bore not to have been maintained for the first time and exclusively by them. Such people were like Ham in uncovering the shame of their father (11). After this excursus the author adduces proofs from Paul Epistles, that changes in the creed, in short, any kind of innovation, constituted the worst evil (12-14). In order to prove and tempt his own, God had permitted teachers belonging to the Church, and therefore not foisted in from without, to essay the setting up of new tenets in the Church; examples are taken from Nestorius, Photinus, and Apollinaris; their heresy is described, and contrasted with the true faith (15-22). But the greatest temptation of the Church was due to the innovations of Origen, who was so famous (23), and of the no less distinguished Tertullian (24). Here follows a detailed practical application; those who have been seduced by the great heretics should unlearn to their salvation, what they have learned to their destruction 564 ; they must apprehend as much of the doctrine of the Church as can be grasped by the mind, and believe what they cannot understand; all novelty is wickedness and folly; in making innovations ignorance cloaks itself under the ‘scientific spirit’, imbecility under ‘enlightenment’, darkness under ‘light’. The pure science of the worship of God is only given in the Catholic, ancient, and harmonious tradition (25-27). Antiquity is really the thorough-going criterion of the truth. This is followed by the second part, which contains the most original matter. It opens with the question whether there is any progress in the Church of Christ in religion. This is answered in the affirmative; the progress is ‘very great’; but it consists in deepening, not in altering. It is organic growth of knowledge both on the part of individuals and the Church (28). In order to illustrate this, use is made figuratively of the growth of the child and plants; religion is fortified with years, expanded with time, and developed more subtly with age; yet everything remains really what it was, no innovation takes place, for a single novelty would destroy everything (2931). The Church is intent only on clearness, light, a more subtle differentiation and invigoration of doctrine 564 . What then did it ever seek to attain by the decrees of Councils, except that simple belief should become more definite, supine preaching be rendered more urgent, and that a wholly indolent conduct of affairs should give place to a correspondingly anxious performance of duty? “Hoc inquam semper neque quidquam præterea, hæreticorum novitatibus excitata [that then is admitted], conciliorum suorum decretis catholica perfecit ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam per scripturæ chirographum consignaret, magnam rerum summam paucis litteris comprehendendo et plerumque propter intelligentiæ lucem non novum fidei sensum novæ appellationis proprietate signando” (32). As compared with this admission, the author attacks all the more vigorously the ‘wicked verbal innovations’ practised by all heretics (33, 34). But it was still more necessary to be on one’s guard when heretics appealed to Scripture—as e.g., the Arians did to predicates taken from the Bible against the term Ὁµοούσιος—for they were the real wolves in sheeps’ clothing, sons of the devil, for the devil also quoted the Bible (35-37). All that

The conception of tradition is accordingly quite obscure. The hierarchical element does not in theory play the leading 231part in it. The apostolical succession has in theory had no such thoroughgoing importance even in the West for the proof of tradition as one would expect. After the time of the Councils the authority of the Bishops as bearers of tradition was wholly 232spent on that proof. Yet even that is perhaps saying too much. Everything was really obscure. So far, however, as the Greek Church has not changed since John of Damascus, the Greek has at present a perfectly definite sense of the foundation of religion. 233Besides Holy

was necessary to meet their expositi 564 on and obtain the correct sense, was simply to apply the criteria given in ch. 4. (38). The last of these was the search for the concordant views of many and great teachers, when a Council had not yet decided the question concerned. Then follows a particular instruction which betrays very clearly the uncertainty of that citerion. It was to be applied, not to every unimportant question, but only, at least for the most part only, in the case of the rule of faith; it was, further, only to be used when heresies had just arisen, “before they had time to falsify the standards of the ancient creed, before they could by a wider diffusion of the poison adulterate the writings of the forefathers. Heresies already circulated and deeply rooted were not to be attacked in this way, because in the long lapse of time they had had sufficient opportunity to purloin the truth” (!!). Christians must try to refute these ancient heresies by the authority of Scripture alone—accordingly the principle of tradition is declared insolvent; or they must simply be avoided as having been already condemned. But even the principle of the consensus of the teachers is to be used with the greatest caution; it is strictly guarded; it is only of weight when, as it were, a whole Council of doctors can be cited (39). Bu 564 t in that case no one is entitled to disregard it, for the ancient doctors are the ‘prophets and teachers’ ranked by Paul next to the Apostles, and described by him as presented to the Church by God. He who despises them despises God. We must cling to the agreement of the holy Churches, which are holy because they continue in the communion of the faith (40). In the so-called second Commonitorium (ch. 41-43) there is first a recapitulation in which the sufficiency of Scripture as source of truth is once more emphasised. It is then shown that, at the Council of Ephesus held three years before, no novelty was proposed, but decisions were based on the sayings of the Fathers. The Fathers are named singly whose works were publicly read there (42). Vincentius therefore considered that the authority of the Council consisted wholly in its strict adherence to the testimony of tradition. In the last chapter statements follow to the same effect by the two last Roman Bishops. The authority of the Roman Chair is appended ‘that nothing may seem wanting to completeness’. Perhaps the most notable feature in the whole of Vincentius’ exposition is that the Bishops as such—apart from the Council— play absolutely no part, and that, in particular, no reference is made to thei 564 r Apostolic succession as sharing in the proof of doctrine. The ancient “teachers” are the court of appeal. We see that Cyprian’s influence was not so far-reaching, even in the West, as one should have supposed. The proof of tradition was not really based on the hierarchy.

Scripture, tradition is the source of knowledge of, the authority for, the truth; and tradition is the Church itself, not, as in the West, governed by Rome, as a sovereign, living power, but in its immovable, thousand-year-old doctrines and orders. Even Scripture is to be explained by the tradition which transmits it, although Scripture is itself to some extent the caput et origo traditionis. But tradition still really presents itself in two forms as it did among the earliest Alexandrians: there is a perfectly official form—now that of the Councils, and one more profound and indefinite—corresponding to the ‘scientific tradition’ (παράδοσις γνωστική) of the ancient Alexandrians. xsl:value-of select="@title"/>

3. The Church.477 Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms portrays the Church to his disciples as a spiritual communion. But in explaining the predicate ‘catholic’478 he completely identifies this spiritual communion with the empirical Church. It is called Ἐκκλησία, because it summons all men together, and unites them with one another. This it does at God’s command; for after God had rejected the first community as the ‘synagogue of the wicked’, 234because they had crucified the Saviour, he built out of the heathen a second Church, on which his favour rests; that is the Church. of the living God, pillar and foundation of the truth. To it alone belong the predicates one, holy, and catholic; the communities of the Marcionites, Manichæans, and other heretics. are societies of godlessness. The Church, which was formerly barren, is the mother of us all; she is the Bride of Christ. In this second Church God has appointed Apostles, Prophets, and teachers, and miraculous gifts of every kind; he has adorned it with all virtues, proved it to be unconquerable in persecution, and made it an object of veneration even to kings, since its boundaries are wider than those of any secular kingdom. It is called Catholic because it extends over the whole globe, teaches all necessary dogmas to men universally and unceasingly, comprehends and leads to the true worship of God all men without respect of class, is able to cure all sins in soul and body, and

477

Compare the statements of Kattenbusch, l. c., p. 330 ff. The East never arrived at a definite theory of the nature and features of the Church. 478 On this attribute see Vol. II., p, 75. n. 1. From the middle of the fourth century the clause “καὶ [εἰς] µίαν ἀγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν” must have stood in the Symbols of by far the most of the provincial Churches in the East. The 564 εἰς is to be referred also to the Church.

possesses in its midst all virtues and all conceivable gifts of grace.479 These utterances of Cyril concerning the Church contain the quintessence of all that has ever been said of it by the Greeks.480 They have adorned it with all conceivable attributes, applying to it all the O. T. passages descriptive of the people of Israel.481 They glorified it as the communion of faith and virtue, and as a rule clung to this description of it in their catechetical and 482 235homiletical teaching. Indeed, their position was here so far archaic, that they either did not mention the organisation of the Church at all, or—what was even more significant—they named in this connection the Apostles, Prophets, teachers and the rest, in brief, the possessors and gifts of the Spirit (see above in Cyril). We find the same teaching even in John of Damascus, who in his great work on dogma has given no place at all to the Church,483 and in the later so-called Symbols of the Greek Church.484 The difficult question, which Origen first discussed, and which Augustine considered so thoroughly in his fight with Donatism—the question about the Church as corpus verum (the true body) and corpus permixtum (the mixed body)—was hardly touched on in the East.485 When we read Greek statements as to the Church— 479

Cyril, Cat. XVIII., ch. 22-27 For Western doctrines of the Church see the next book. But they are not so different in theory from those of the East as some suppose. 481 The Greeks spoke not infrequently of the “state” or “city” of God; Origen had already used the term, and it is common in Eusebius. On the other hand, the fine combi ac8 nation “Christ and the Church (as bride)” or “the Church as the body of Christ”, which had been at a very early date reduced to the level of a homiletical or rhetorical view, was either thrust into the background, or superseded by the phrase “Christ and the individual soul.” At a later date, the proposition, that Christ is the head of the Church, was often asserted against the Latins; but it was not very effective; for, seeing that the Greeks granted that the Church was a visible body in the common sense of the term, their thesis that this visible Church had none but an invisible head was beset with difficulties. Besides, Origen had been attacked as early as about A.D. 300, because he had explained Adam and Eve as referring to Christ and the Church (Socrates H. E. III. 7), though this allegory was supported by a very ancient tradition. Tychonius repeated it. 482 There are very numerous instances of this, and most of all in the influential Chrysostom. Epiphanius’ contention in the Expos. fid. cathol., ch. 3 is worthy of notice: Ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, ἡµῖν Θεὸς ὑπάρχει τοῖς ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας γεννηθεῖσιν. This Jewish Christian regarded the Church as Israel, and its God as the God of Israel; see what follows. 483 Langen, Joh. Damascenus, p. 299 f. 484 Gass, l. c., p. 205 f. 485 It is treated in the later Symbols; see G a99 ass, p. 206 f. 480

statements, besides, which are altogether few in number—we not infrequently believe that we are living in the second century, nay, before the Gnostic controversy. We must not perceive in this attitude of the Greek Fathers any sign of exception ac8 al maturity. It was prescribed to them, on the one hand, by natural theology, on the other, by the narrowness of their view of the task of the Church. Redemption through Christ applied in intention to the whole human race, which meanwhile was always simply conceived as the sum of all individuals. In its result, it was limited by the liberty of man to resist salvation through sin. The Church was really, therefore, nothing but the sum of all individual believers in heaven and upon earth. The view that the Church was the mother of believers, a divine creation, the body of Christ, was not properly carried out in dogma. Even the thought that Christ had so assumed human nature that all it experienced in him benefited mankind, was only applied—not to the Church—236but to mankind as it existed, and the Eucharist itself did not help the Church to a special place in dogmatics.486 In spite of the belief in one holy Catholic Church’ (πιστεύειν εἰς µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν) the Church was no dogmatic conception in the strict sense of the term. It did not form a link in the chain of the doctrines of redemption. And that is not surprising. Seeing the form given to the blessing of salvation, a religious conception of the Church could not be obtained. All was contained in the factors, God, mankind, Christ, the mysteries, and the individual. But occasion was given to draw up definitions of the Church by (1) the O. T. and the spurious Jewish Church, (2) heresy and the actual organisation of the Church, (3) the administration of the mysteries, (4) and the fight against the Roman claims to the primacy. As regards the first point, all that was necessary had been said in the second and third centuries; there was nothing to add; it was repeated with greater or less animosity to Judaism, whose history appeared sometimes as the mysterious type of the Church, sometimes as its antitype. As to the second and third, there was no doubt that the Church was the true teacher of the truth487 and the legitimate administrator of the ac8 mysteries.488 It transmitted the

486

Cyril of Alexandria frequently connects the Church with the incarnation and the Eucharist; but even he has not gone beyond the homiletic and edifying point of view. 487 Religious truth, however, really embraced all philosophy, see Anastasius Sin., Viæ dux (Migne, Patrol., Vol. 89, p. 76 sq.): Ὁρθοδοξία ἐστὶν ἀψευδὴς περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ κτίσεως ὑπόληψις ἢ ἔννοια περὶ πάντων ἀληθής, ἢ δόξα τῶν ὄντων καθάπερ εἰσίν. 488 Damalas has given a very pregnant summary of the old Patristic conception Ἡ ὀρθόδοξος πίστις (1877) p. 3: ἡ δὲ πίστις αὕτη εἰς τὴν µίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ

µάθησις (learning) and it possessed the mysteries. Therefore—and of this there was no doubt—it was essential to her to have the organisation, which was crowned by Bishops and Councils, and priests who should present the sacrifices and judge in God’s stead. Bishops and Councils we have spoken of above, the priests and their duties will be discussed in Chap. X.489 It is remarkable, however, that the latter 237is brought more to the front than the former. The Pseudo-areopagite was not the first to make his view of the Church depend essentially on the mysteries, and to regard the hierarchy primarily as performers of the sacred rites; he only completed what Ignatius, Clement, the first draft of the Apostolic Constitutions, Chrysostom de sacerdotio,490 and many others had developed before or contemporaneously with him. The Church had been entrusted to the Bishops, because they constituted the living representation of God on earth, the vicars of Christ, participators in the activity of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the source of all sacraments. They were much less thought of as successors of the Apostles; the Church was the legacy not of the Apostles, but of Christ, and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.491 In the polemic against the Roman claims to supremacy, the view was strongly emphasised that Christ is the foundation and sole head of the Church, and this principle was opposed even to an exaggerated estimate of the Apostles in general and Peter in particular.

ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐστὶ πεποίθησις, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ φορεὺς τῆς θείας χάριτος τῆς ἐνδεικνυµένης εἰς δύο τινά, πρῶτον ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ὁ ἀλάθαστος διδάσκαλος τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀληθείας καὶ δεύτερον ὁ γνήσιος τῶν µυστηρίων οἰκονόµος. 489 See Kattenbusch, l. c., pp. 346 ff., 357 ff., 393 ff. af7 490See Vol. III. 4-6, VI. 4; also the Homily on the day of his ordination as priest, Montfaucon I., p. 436 sq. 491 Of course the Church was conscious of being, and called itself “apostolic.” But it is perhaps not a mere accident that this predicate is not so stereotyped in the Symbols and other official manifestoes as the rest—unity, holiness and catholicity. The otherwise substantially identical expositions by the Greek Fathers of the word “catholic” have been collected by Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens (1881), pp. 95 ff., 110 ff., 113 f., 115 f. “Catholic” was equivalent to orthodox even before Eusebius, as is shown by the interpolations of the word into the Martyrium Polycarpi. That this word was interpolated I have tried to prove in “The Expositor,” 1885, Dec., p. 410 sq. It may be in place here to remark generally that the copyists are least to be trusted in the case of such predicates as were current at a later date—e.g., as regards words like “bearer of God” “Homoousios”, “Catholic” etc. The Monophysites especially made great efforts to introduce their catch-words into older writers. Even to-day the Armenians are not to be trusted.

“He who secedes from the Church, withdraws 55e himself at the same time from the influences of the Holy Spirit, and it is not easy to find a wise man among the heretics”;492 but on what 238points the unity of the Church was based has not been made clear. It first appears as if faith and virtue were sufficient, but participation in the mysteries of the Church, and submission to its organisation and tradition were added: indeed these in practice took the first place. Yet the organisation of the Church was not really carried higher than the Bishops, in spite of all the empty words used about the Patriarchs: the Church was orthodox and perfect, because it offered a security in its episcopal and priestly constitution that it was the ancient institution founded by Christ. In this conviction—we can hardly call it a doctrine—the Church became more and more narrow; it made itself a holy piece of antiquity.493 But after the close of the fifth century it ceased to be the one Church. Tradition, which had been created to maintain the unity of the Church, served in the end to split it up, because national and local traditions, views, and customs had been received into it to an increasing extent. The great cleavage into Catholic and Novatian Catholic was not yet determined, or supported by national considerations. The division into Græco-Roman Catholicism and Germanic Arianism did owe its duration to opposite national tendencies. On the other hand, the disruption of the Eastern Church into the Byzantine (Roman) and the Oriental (Nestorian-Syrian, Jacobitish-Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian) rested entirely on national antitheses, and, preserved mainly by the monks who, in spite of all their renunciation of the world, have always adopted a National Church attitude, has continued up to the present day. Now, after the schism had further taken place between the Byzantine (Neo-Roman) and the Roman branches, the Church was

492

Heretics and Schismatics were more and more identified; see the so-called 6th Canon of Constantinople, A.D. 381 (it really dates from A.D. 382): αἱρετικοὺς λέγοµεν τούς τε πάλαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκηρυχθέντας καὶ τοὺς µετὰ ταῦτα ὑφ᾽ ἡµῶν ἀναθεµατισθέντας. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τὴν πίστιν µὲν τὴν ὑγιῆ προσποιουµένους ὁµολογεῖν, ἀποσχίσαντας δὲ καὶ ἀντισυνάγοντας τοῖς κανονικοῖς ἡµῶν ἐπισκόποις. ac8 493 The question whether the holiness of Christians was founded on being members in the Church—initiation into it—or depended on personal virtue was not decided in the East, but it was never even definitely put. The cause of this vagueness existed ultimately in the obscurity which prevailed among the Greeks in reference to the relation of natural theology and dogma in general; see on this the following chapters.

divided into three (four) great territories distinguished by their nationality: the Germano-Roman 239West (Rome), the countries on the Ægean sea (Constantinople), and the East split into Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Each had its own peculiar traditions and authorities. The Orientals, though rent asunder and quarrelling with each other, felt that they formed a unity compared with the two other sections, i.e., the “Romans,” and could, in reply to the “bragging of the Romans,” point to a hundred marks which revealed the superiority of their Churches. They regarded their land as the cradle of the human race, their Church as the primitive home of religion; and if Jerusalem was no longer in their possession, yet they still had the ancient site of Paradise.494 The Neo-Romans boasted of their Patriarchate, their unchanged faith, and their nation, which took no part in the crucifixion of Christ, in which the Romans and Barbarians had made common cause. The Romans, finally, had the chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, and the Pope, Peter’s successor, with the secular power committed to him by Christ and Constantine. The common foundation of these Churches was not solid enough to resist the elements that were dissolving it. Nationality was stronger than religion. Literature.—Jacobi 564 , Die kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition u. heil. Schrift., Part I., 1847. Holtzmann, Kanon u. Tradition, 1859 (does not discuss to any extent the Church in antiquity). Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche, 1881. Seeberg, Studien zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, 1885. Kattenbusch, l. c. There is much material in Schwane, also in the writings which passed between Old Catholics and Roman Catholics after A.D. 1869. xsl:value-of select="@title"/> 240

A.—Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption, or Natural Theology. “Natural Theology” did not pass through any very thoroughgoing development in the Greek Church; but it reveals differences, according as Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism prevailed. By Natural Theology we are to understand the complex of conceptions that, according to the view then held, formed the self-evident and certain contents of the human mind, which was only held to be more or less darkened (see Chap. II.). These conceptions, however, arose in fact historically, and corresponded 494

ff.).

See, e.g., Elias of Nisibis, Proof of the truth of the faith (Ed. by Horst, 1886, p. 112

to the degree of culture at which the ancient world had arrived, especially through the work of the Greek Philosophers. We can divide them appropriately into doctrines concerning God and conce eb0 rning man. But changes also took place in proportion to the growing influence exerted on these conceptions by the words of the Bible literally understood. Nevertheless the fundamental features remained in force; yet they were displaced and confused by foreign material during the period from Origen to John of Damascus. Chapter IV. Presuppositions and Conceptions Regarding God, the Creator, as Dispenser of Salvation. 241

A.—PRESUPPOSITION OF DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION OR NATURAL THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER IV. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS REGARDING GOD, THE CREATOR, AS DISPENSER OF SALVATION. § 1. The Doctrine of God. Its Method. THE main features of the doctrine of God were those familiar from the theology of the Apologists, as they were partly fixed and partly supplemented by the fight with Gnosticism. Speculations on the Deity as a Trinity (τριάς) modified but little the general doctrine of God (yet see attempts in Augustine, De trinitate); for the unity, simplicity, indivisibility, and unchangeableness of God were at the same time maintained most definitely: in other words, the Father alone was almost always. regarded as ‘root of the Deity” (ῥίζα τῆς θεότητος), where the Deity, in its essential being, was described in comparison with the world. The ultimate reason of this was that theology counted on a general intelligence for its general doctrine of God, and therefore had recourse to natural religion and theology, i.e., to the results of Greek philosophy. It was, indeed admitted by many Fathers (see esp. Athanasius, De incarn.) that men could know the Deity from creation only dimly, if at all; and that therefore the manifestation of God in Christ alone made it possible to recognise the nature of God as the undivided, spiritual and good Lord of the World. But, in fact, it was only a question of more or less as regards the natural knowledge of the spiritual and good God, the Creator. Other Fathers, especially those influenced by Aristotle, declared the knowledge of God in its

whole extent to be innate (see Arnobius), or, a knowledge to be constantly tested by the 242observation of nature. No difference is here caused by the fact that some Fathers have described the existence of God and his distinctive nature as capable of proof, others, as incapable; for the latter only rejected the proof in so far as God could not be discovered by means of deduction from a prius. The psychological, cosmological,495 and natural theological proofs were not despised by them in meeting Atheism, Polytheism, Manichæism, etc. We already find in Augustine suggestions of an ontological proof.496 All these evidences were, indeed, given subject to the proviso, that all knowledge of God must be traced back to 11a8 God himself, that it became indistinct in proportion to man’s alienation from God, and that the revelation of Scripture first rendered everything clear and certain. Further, it was expressly contended that God, as the infinite one, was, strictly speaking, incapable of being known, because his nature could not be described by any predicate. But this inscrutability, so far as represented in the avowal “whatever the creature is, that God is not,” was held—and with this the Neoplatonists were agreed—to be the valuable and true knowledge (Athan. ad monach. 2: “even if it is not possible to comprehend what God is, it is possible to say what he is not:” καὶ εἰ µὴ δυνατὸν καταλαβέσθαι τί ἐστι Θεός, ἀλλὰ δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν, τί οὔκ ἐστιν.497 495

The influence of Aristotle is first conspicuous in Diodore of Tarsus, who reproduced independently the cosmological proof of Aristotle (see Photius, Biblioth. 223). From the sixth century it is evident in the majority of the Fathers, and especially John of Damascus. See De fide orthod. I. 3 (12): Everything perceptible by the senses, as also the higher world of spirits, is subject to change; therefore it must have had a beginning, and been created. There must accordingly exist a being who created it, and that is God. Two other proofs are found in John of Dam. 496 Augustine’s line of argument was first to demonstrate rules of human thought, which accordingly transcended it. These rules—logical and ethical—he stated to be truths, their sum being the truth. This truth was a living power, accordingly it existed. Thus the way to the existence of God was given; see esp. De lib. arbitr. II. 3-15, but the ab7 thought is also suggested elsewhere in his writings, e.g., the Confessions. 497 In this the great majority of the Fathers were agreed. Augustine describes (De doctr. I. 6) the impossibility of declaring God, in a way that coincides word for word with the tenets of the Basilidians (Hippol., Philos. VII. 20). Augustine writes: “Diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo? Immo vero nihil me aliud quam dicere voluisse sentio; si autem dixi, non hoc est quod dicere volui. Hoc unde scio, pisi quia deus ineffabilis est, quod autem a me dictum est, si ineffabile esset, dictum non esset? Ac per hoc ne ineffabilis quidem dicendus est deus, quia et hoc cum dicitur, aliquid dicitur. Et fit nescio quæ pugna verborum, quoniam si illud est ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non est ineffabile, quod vel ineffabile dici potest.” Basilides: Ἔστι γὰρ, φησίν, ἐκεῖνο οὐχ

The revelation through the Logos only 243went beyond this in that it established this knowledge regarding the infinite Spirit and his inexpressible nature, and made it possible to perceive him in his likeness.498 The Fathers influenced by Neoplatonism, however, assumed further that the contemplative ascetic, who was on the way to deification, could gain a direct vision of God in all his splendour, a conception which the Areopagite has combined with a scholastic theory of the knowableness of God by negation, eminence, causality.499

ἁπλῶς ἄρρητον, ὃ ὀνοµάζεται· ἄρρητον γοῦν αὐτὸ καλοῦµεν, ἐκεῖνο δὲ οὐδὲ ἄρρητον· καὶ γὰρ τὸ οὐδ᾽ ἄρρητον οὐκ ἄρρητον ὀνοµάζεται, ἀλλὰ ἔστι, φησίν, ὐπεράνω παντὸς ὀνόµατος ὀνοµαζοµένου.. Men were therefore at the point already reached by Basilides’ followers in the second century. Even Catechumens were taught this; see Cyril, Cat. VI., ch. 2: οὐ τὸ τί ἐστι Θεὸς ἐξηγούµεθα . . . ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ µεγάλη γνῶσις το τὴν ἀγνωσίαν ὁµολογεῖν. Similar teaching is very frequent in Plotinus. In the Vita Plot. of Porphyry, ch. 23, the supreme God is thus defined: ὁ Θεὸς ὁ µήτε µορφὴν µήτε τινὰ ἰδέαν ἔχων, ὑπὲρ δὲ νοῦν καὶ πᾶν τὸ νοητὸν ἱδρύµενος. 498 The Dogmatics of John of Damascus begin with John I. 18, Matt. XI. 17, and 1 Cor. II. 11. 499 The striking contention of some disciples of Lucian (according to Philostorgius), and the most extreme Arians, Eunomius and Aëtius, but not Arius himself, that men could know the nature of God as well as God himself did, and as well as they knew themselves, is most closely connected with their Christology and their Aristotelianism. When the orthodox Fathers argued that the indescribable God could only be perceived in the Logos and through his work, and that God therefore would have been unknowable had not the Logos been his image, possessed of a like nature, those Arians had to meet the objection by emphasising even in the course of the christological controversy, the possibility of knowing God directly. In taking up this position they had of course to leave the nature of God out of the question, and to confine themselves to his will, as it had been clearly manifested in creation, and the preaching of the truth by the Logos. But this to them was no limitation; for they only attached importance in the first place to the knowledge of the divine will ac8 , and secondly to the renewed submission of men to the sovereignty of the divine will: (not to participation in the divine nature. unless in so far as that was already involved in the original equipment of man; see Socrates IV. 7; Epiph. H. LXXVI. 4, and the counter-observations of the Cappadocians). Their expositions are exceded by the Areopagite’s completely Neoplatonic theology, from which, meanwhile, Augustine in one of his lines of thought was not far removed. The Areopagite already adopted the position that ruled for more than a thousand years, in which the contention that God—by reason of his splendour—was absolutely unknowable, was balanced by the mystical assumption of a sensuous, suprasensuous knowableness in virtue of the fusion of the mind of God with the mind of man. To him also we trace back the theology of affirmation and negation (kataphatic and apophatic)—the thing had, indeed, been very long in existence—i.e., the method of making statements about God via eminentiæ and via negationis; see his Letters, the work, De divinis nominibus, and the beginning of the

244

§ 2. The Doctrine of God’s Nature and Attributes. The Being of God was immortal substance and was primarily defined—as already results from the method of knowing God—by affirming that he was without beginning or end, that he was a spirit and the supreme First Cause, all which predicates were proved in connection with the proofs of his existence. The deity is the pneumatic Ὄν which, because it is not the world, is supramundane, simply governing the world, the one, indivisible, imperishable, unchangeable, supremely good and impassive being, to which, in the strict sense, a real existence alone belongs: the Fathers influenced by Aristotelianism emphasised especially the spiritual power which determined its own aims and the causality of the deity. God is the intelligible reality and infinite reason. So far as it is maintained of this being (secundum hominem) that he is good, the predicate affirms nothing but that he is perfect, i.e., is completely self-sufficient and possesses blessedness in himself and therefore is not envious—see esp. Athanasius adv. pagan., also the Catechisms of Cyril. But the goodness of the Deity was also established from the fact of the revelation of God, first from creation, and here meant that God, since he is the gracious one, willed that creatures should participate in his blessedness, and carried out his intention under all circumstances. Augustine broke through this natural conception of the goodness of God; for he understands by the Deity as summum bonum the power of love which takes hold of man, and leads him from worldliness and selfishness to peace and felicity. But even in Augustine this idea is intimately connected with the natural view. As regards the divine attributes, the Fathers sought, while speaking of such, to keep clear of the idea of a plurality in 245God, or conceptions o ac8 f anything accidental. It is only for human thought that the absolute, perfect, homogeneous Being has attributes assigned to him, as varied representations of him in relation to the finite. The elevation above time and space presented itself as eternity and omnipresence; the latter attribute at the same time was the root of omniscience and omnipotence. Omnipotence was limited by the Fathers by two thoughts: it was circumscribed

tractate, De mystica theologia. The importance of John of Damascus consists for posterity in his having united the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian elements in his doctrine of God; see De fide orthod. I. 1-4.

by the good will of God, and it left scope for human liberty.500 Origen’s thesis of the limitation of omniscience found no supporters in later times. From the goodness (perfection) of God501 all conceivable ethical qualities were deduced. But they did not obtain their due significance, because the abstract idea that God was the requiter, i.e., rewarded the good and punished the wicked, formed, in spite of all Neoplatonic philosophy, the foundation of the whole conceptions of God, in so far as ethics were taken into account at all. This view, however, which was considered the “natural” one, readily became indifferent to the thought that men as God’s creatures are dependent on him, that they are meant to form an inner unity, and that their life is conducted to a definite goal; in other words, it endangered the religious view of Christianity. It gave man complete independence in presence of God, and broke mankind up into a group of disconnected individuals. It descended from Judaism and the ancient world—the gods are just, because they reward and punish, the two facts being conceived in coördination. This view, further, was entitled to its place within the narrow 246horizon of the citizens of ancient communities,502 but while it could not be omitted from Christianity, it required to be subordinated to a higher thought. Accordingly, significant tendencies to correct the prevalent system of thought were not wanting on 564 the part of the Fathers. Origen had already tried to regard the righteousness of God as a form of his loving discipline; the conception that suffering is always bound up with penal justice, had undoubtedly something to do with this attempt. The continued fight with dualism—Manichæism—constantly made it necessary to

500

Along with all fatalism and astrology the Greek Fathers also unanimously rejected the idea that God’s prescience acted as fate and was the first cause of human actions, or that prophecy controlled the course of events. It was rather taught that prescience was consequent to the event perceived beforehand. But Augustine was not perfectly satisfied with this idea. He deepened it through the thought that the sum of all that happened was before God in an eternal now. 501 But of this the saying of Gregory of Nyssa is true (περὶ ψυχ. κ. ἀναστασ· Oehler, p. 92): Παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἡ θεία φύσις, τὸ δὲ ἀγαθὍ 54f ν ἀγαθῷ φίλον πάντως, διὰ τοῦτο ἑαυτὴν βλέπουσα καὶ ὃ ἔχει θέλει καὶ ὃ θέλει ἔχει οὐδὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς ἑαυτὸν δεχοµένη. Ἔξω δὲ αὐτῆς οὐδέν, ὅτι µὴ ἡ κακία µόνη, ἥτις, κἂν παράδοξον ᾖ, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι τὸ εἶναι ἔχει. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη τίς ἐστι κακίας γένεσις, εἰ µὴ ἡ τοῦ ὄντος στέρησις. Τὸ δὲ κυρίως ὂν ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσις ἐστίν· ὃ οὖν ἐν τῷ ὅντι οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐν τῷ µὴ εἶναι πάντως ἐστίν. 502 See Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2 Vols., 1882; further, Ritschl in the Th. L. Z. 1883, Col. 6 f.

demonstrate that power, goodness, wisdom, and justice were combined in the Deity.503 But in almost all the Fathers the attributes of goodness and justice stood asunder. We can see the reason of this in the fact that up to Augustine no serious effort was made to understand the goodness of God as moral holiness, and this failure was in turn due to the characteristic method of obtaining a knowledge of God, the attempt to rise to the Deity from the notion of the finite by means of sublimations.504 The theory of God was beset at this most important point with u 544 ncertainties, nay, inconsistencies. He was at once the impassive Being (Ὄν) and the judge who requited actions505—the latter conception, further, not only including the coördination of goodness and justice, but also the superiority of the former to the latter. The Alexandrians had grasped at the expedient, following Philo,506 of representing God as absolutely benevolent, but the Logos as the Just; this, however, was to confess despair of solving the problem, showing once more very clearly that men could not think without compunction (affectiones humanæ) of the (penal) justice 247of which at most the Logos was capable; and it is interesting as a counterpart to the opposite idea adopted in later times. 584 507 But we see even here, why the doctrine of redemption could not become one of atonement in the ancient Church. If the distinctive form in which redemption was accomplished was to be justified, and its intrinsic necessity to be proved, then there must not only exist, but speculation must be founded on, the conviction that God’s saving purpose transcended the thought of requital, and that he was morally holy. But that is out of the question where the Fathers are concerned.508

add 503These four attributes Gregory of Nyssa has particularised and sought to harmonise in his great Catechism. 504 This method, however, was by no means despised by Augustine himself. 505 The doctrine of God came in this form to the theologians of the middle ages. The nuances and inconsistencies of scholastic theology were caused by the necessity of alternating between the two ideas of God as the intelligible Ὄν and the Requiter. Some emphasised the one, others the other, more strongly. In certain doctrines only the former, in others only the latter conception, could be used. 506 See Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex. (1886), p. 12 f. 507 In this view—in the Middle Ages—God appears rather as the strictly Just, Christ as the “good”; but the idea of goodness had changed. 508 In the lower ranks of the communities, and among a few Oriental sects (Audians), anthropomorphic conceptions of God, the belief that he had a human shape, a body e 54f tc., held their ground. But they were retained also in some circles of monks (e.g., those of the Scetian Desert), and even by a few Bishops. From the close of the fourth century, with the hostility to Origen’s spiritualism was combined active resistance to this opposite

§ 3. The Cosmology. The Cosmological and allied anthropological problems were treated by the Fathers—who formally used Gen. I.-III. as their text—with the whole apparatus of contemporary philosophy, in this way satisfying their scientific craving for a rational conception of the world. The systems are therefore very different in det 53f ails; but on the whole they existed peaceably side by side, showing that the differences presupposed a measure of agreement, sufficient for the solidarity of the doctrinal structure. 248

These differences were slightest in the Cosmology proper. The task set the theologians of the fourth century was to bring Origen’s cosmology more into harmony with the demands of the rule of faith, to adapt it more closely to the account given in Gen. I., and to defeat the Manichæan Cosmology. After the last decades of the fourth century, the slow course of development was hastened by violent opposition to Origen’s cosmology, and the view of the Church, held before Origen, was substantially restored, though now as a scientific theory.509 Yet the conception of an upper world of spirits, related to the present world as its ideal and type, continued to exist, and ever threw its shadow on the latter. 589 510

view (Sozom. VIII. 11). The Stoic notion of God’s corporeality had scarcely a defender after Tertullian; for Lactantius’ view of the “figura” and “affectus” of God is not Stoic, but belongs to popular realism. In general, much that was anthropomorphic was retained in Western theology along with the realistic eschatology, and that by theologians who cherished a colourless eclectic moralism. Very instructive is Augustine’s confession (Confess. V. fin.; VI. 3) that it was the sermons of Ambrose that first delivered him from the prejudice that the Catholic Church taught that the Deity was fashioned like man. If we reflect how much Augustine had mingled with Catholic Christians before his conversion, and how much he had heard of the Church, we cannot suppose he was the only one guilty of this prejudice. We need only recall the “apocryphal” writings of the Byzantine age, which were read to an extraordinary extent, to see how strong were anthropomorphism and the conceptions of a magic God. 579 509 See Justinian’s edict against Origen, and the fifth Synod of Constantinople, Hefele, Concil. Gesch. II. 21 p. 780-797; at an earlier date, the attacks of Theophilus and Jerome on Origen. 510 Origen held that the present world was only a place of punishment and purification. This view, which approximated very closely to the old Gnostic idea, was rejected; but the conception remained of an upper world of spirits, of which our world was the materialised copy. Where this conception was potent, a considerable part of the feeling which possessed Origen (after Plato) as he looked at our world must have endured. It was never wanting among the orthodox Fathers, and the Greeks of to-day have not lost it.

On the other hand, the Trinitarian 249conflicts led to a precise distinction being drawn between creating, making, begetting, and emanating, and thus the notion of creation out of nothing now first received its strict impress. But Neoplatonic ideas of the origin of the world lasted till after the beginning of the fifth century, even in the case of some Bishops, and side by side with it the Manichæan conception of the world spread secretly and found adherents among the clergy themselves up to the middle of it. The following proposition may be regarded as containing the quintessence of the orthodox Fathers from the fifth century, and at the same time as the presupposition that gave scope to all their further speculations. It

“The world is a whole, but divided into two spheres of which the higher is the nece ac8 ssary prius and type of the lower”: that is still the Greek view (see Gass, Symbolik, p. 143 f.). “God first and by his mere thought evoked out of non-existence all heavenly powers to exhibit his glory, and this intelligible world (κόσµος νοερός) is the expression of undisturbed harmony and obedient service.” Man belongs to both worlds. The conception, as expounded by the Areopagite and established by John of Damascus (De fide orthod. II 2-12), that the world was created in successive stages, has not the importance of a dogma, but it has that of a wide-spread theologoumenon. It is Neoplatonic and Gnostic, and its publication and recognition show that the dissatisfaction felt by Origen with the account of the creation in Gen. I. was constantly shared by others. Men felt a living interest, not in the way plants, fishes, and birds came into being, but in the emanation of the spiritual from the Deity at the head of creation down to man. Therefore we have the κόσµος νοερός, the intelligible world, whose most characteristic feature consisted in its (3) gradations (διακοσµήσεις), which again fell into (three) orders, down to archangels and angels. (See Dionys. De divina hierarch. 6 sq., and John of Damascus, l.c., ch. III: πᾶσα ἡ θεολογία τὰς οὐρανίους οὐσίας ἐννέα κέκληκε. ταύτας ὁ Θεῖος ἱεροτελέστης εἰς τρεῖς ἀφορίζει τριαδικὰς διακοσµήσεις, Seraphim, Cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, forces, principalities, archangels, and angels. We find a step in this direction as early as the App. Constit. VII. 35). In the creation, the system of spiritual powers was built from above downwards; while in sanctification by the mysteries, it was necessary to ascend the same series. The significant point was the union of the conception of creation with the system of the cultus, or, better, the scheme which embodied the idea of creation in accordance with the line of progress laid down for asceticism and sanctification. This was retained by Greek theology in spite of all its disavowal of Origen, Neoplatonism, and Gnosticism. But even in the region of the material, incomparably greater interest was taken in warmth, cold, moisture, drought, in fire, air, earth, and water, in the four vital humours, than in the childish elements which the O. T. narrative of creation takes into account. Yet the whole was included under the title of the ‘work of the six days’, and the allegories of Origen were, in theory, rejected. The exegesis of Gen. I. became the doctoral problem proper among the Gre 564 ek Fathers. The most important wrote works on the Hexaëmeron; among them that of Johannes Philoponus is scientific. ally the most advanced (περὶ κοσµοποιίας); it is dependent, not on Platonism, but on Aristotle, though it also opposes the latter.

can be stated thus: God from eternity bore in his own mind the idea of the world. In free self-determination he, in order to prove his goodness, created by the Logos, who embraces all ideas, this world, which has had a beginning and will have an end, in six days out of nothing, in accordance with the pattern of an upper world created by him. The justif 558 ication of divine providence and the production of Theodicies were called for by Manichæism and fatalism on the one hand, and the great political catastrophes and calamities on the other. It was taught that God constantly remained close to his creation, preserving and governing it. With this, rational beings were looked upon in their numerical sum total as the peculiar objects of divine providence. Providence was also defended in opposition to the loose and unstable form in which earlier and contemporary monotheistic philosophers had avowed it; it was recognised in principle to be a power protecting 250also the individual creature. Yet here Christian theologians themselves did not arrive at complete certainty. It was admitted that providence was above human freedom in so far as it was maintained that neither that freedom nor the evil proceeding from it could hinder the divine intentions. But the belief in providence was not definitely connected with redemption by Christ or with the Church, for it was considered a selfevident presupposition of redemption and a piece of Natural Theology. Therefore it was also destitute of any strict object. The uncertainty of the ancient world as to the extent and method of providence had left its influence, ad4 1 and empirical reflections on the objectlessness of certain institutions, or phenomena in the world—e.g., of vermin—could not be defeated by a view which had itself a naturalistic basis. Yet in proportion as the sure and real knowledge of God was only derived from the Christian religion, it was also recognised that faith in providence was first made certain through Christ, and that Christians were under the particular providence of God.511 The problem of the theodicy was solved (1) by proving that the freedom of the creature was something appropriate and good, the possibility of wickedness and evil, however, being necessarily combined with it; (2) by denying to wickedness any reality in the higher sense of the term, since wickedness as it was separated from God, the principle of all

511

For this reason a startling casuistry is to be noticed here and there, and exceptions are laid down. 512 Degrees of providence were generally distinguished.

being, was held to be not—being;513 (3) by defending the mala pœnæ or evil’s fitting means of purification; and finally, (4) by representing temporal sufferings as indifferent to the soul. Some older Fathers, e.g., Lactantius, emphasised, besides, even the necessity of wickedness in the interest of moralism: without it virtue would be impossible.514 But such opinions died out in the fight with Manichæism.515 251

In reference to the heavenly spirits which belonged to, and indeed formed, the upper world, the recognised Fathers were convinced of the following points. (1) They were created by God (see the Symb. Nic.). (2) They were endowed with freedom, but had ac4 no material bodies (ἐγγύτατα τοῦ ἀσωµάτου). (3) They had passed through a crisis after which a section had remained true to the good, while another had revolted. (4) The good spirits were instruments of the divine government of the world, their activity being useful and beneficial to men, even entering into the sacramental system by which grace was imparted. (5) The reality of wickedness in the world was to be attributed to the bad spirits, and especially to their head, the devil; they exercised an almost unbounded power on earth, not being able indeed to compel man, but only to induce him, to sin; they could also be scared away without fail by the name of Christ, the sign of the cross, and the Sacraments.516 As regards the relation of the good angels to men,

513

After Origen this Platonic proposition enjoyed the widest circulation: see esp. Athanasius and the Cappadocians; but the Antiochians held no other view. Augustine made use of it in a peculiar and characteristic way. 514 Lactant. Instit. div. II., ch. 8, 12; V., ch. 7. 515 See Vol. V ., for the extent and form in which Augustine held such views. 516 No doubt existed of the necessity of believing in heavenly spiritual beings. Origen counted this belief a doctrine of the Church (De princip. præf. 10). The points numbered in the text may be regarded as the quintessence of what obtained generally. But such an agreement only made its appearance in the sixth century. Until then this point was a centre of contention between a form of Biblical “realism,” and the Origenistic, i.e., the Greek philosophical, view as to the world of spirits. The treatment of the question by the Areopagite, and its approval by the Church, constituted a triumph of Neoplatonic mysticism over Biblicism. But that tendencies which went still farther in this direction had not been wholly destroyed, was shown by the Hesychastic controversy of the fourteenth century, or the assumption of an uncreated divine light, which was not the nature of God, but a specific energy, different from himself, and which could be seen. (See Engelhardt in Illgen’s Ztschr., 1838, Part I., p. 68 ff.; Gass, Die Mystik des Nik. Kabasilas, 1849, p. 1. ff., and in Herzog’s R.-E., 2nd Ed.). The Logos, accordingly, no longer satisfied, or rather, as Scholasticism had placed the Logos under an embargo, piety sought for a new mediator. He was to accomplish what the Logos no longer did: he was

their superiority to men—in the 252present condition of the latter— was emphasised, but it was also taught on the other hand, that man after he was made perfect would be at least equal to them. The former position gave rise to a sort of angel-worship, which nevertheless in earlier times was no proper part of religion. The Synod of Laodicea, about A.D. 360, declared it in its thirty-fifth Canon to be idolatry.517 And it was kept in check by the idea that Christ’s work possessed also a mysterious significance for the upper world. But the polytheistic cravings of man constantly influenced religious ideas, and as the Deity was farther and farther removed from ordinary Christian people by speculation, there gradually arose, along with the thought of the intercession of the angels,518 a worshipping of them, which was indeed only settled ecclesiastically at the seventh Œcumenical Synod (A.D. 787). There it was defined as adoration (προσκύνησις) in distinction from service (λατρεία acc ).519 Even Gregory I. had assigned the service of angels to the pre-christian stage of religion. The points of doctrine which we have above grouped together became the bases of a great number of very different conceptions, which grew up in opposition to Origen’s doctrine, or under its influence, or in dependence on exegesis (esp. of Gen. VI.), or, lastly, as a result of reminiscences of Greek folk-lore and philosophy. Men speculated on the date of the creation of angels, and the method by which they were created, on their spirituality or higher corporeality, their

to be a visible revelation of God, himself and yet not himself; 564 for God himself was simply quiescent being; accordingly he himself was conceived and realised in the form of an energy that could be traced. The theory of the Areopagite was, however, not satisfactory in this respect; for while the spirits might doctrinally be regarded as created beings, they were perceived as divine forces, emanations, rays of the perfect light, conceivable by degrees by man, and bridging him nearer to the deity. We have here a great difference from the western conception; in the East the Platonic and Gnostic doctrine of Æons had never been entirely abolished. In the West, while the gradation of angelic powers had been accepted, the pious impulse from which it originated had not. 517 There undoubtedly existed, even in the earliest time, a view which conjoined the angels with God, and thus made them also objects of worship, or, included them in the fides, quœ creditur. We may here perhaps recall even 1 Tim. V. 21: διαµαρτύροµαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ιησ ac8 ῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων. We can at any rate refer to Justin., Apol I. 6: (We worship God) καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν . . . καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑποµένων καὶ ἐξοµοιουµένων ἁγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν. Athenag. Suppl. 10, 24. 518 This thought is undoubtedly extremely ancient, but at the earlier date it only existed in the outer circle of the faith. 519 It had long—as early as the fourth century—been on the way; see the miraculous oratories of St. Michael; Sozom. II. 3, Theodoret on Coloss. T. III., p. 355 ff.

functions—as guardian angels and genii, the manner in which the wicked angels fell,520 the orders and 253divisions of angels, and much else. Here also the doctrine of Origen, which culminated in the restoration of the revolted spirits, was in the end expressly disowned. On the other hand, the Neoplatonic conception of spirits and their orders, or the Gnostic idea of the Æons as interpreters of the divine, was more and more legitimised in the Church doctrine of angels, and was combined by the Areopagite with the mystic system of the illumination of the world, and the communication of the divine to the creaturely. It was a very old idea—see Hebrews and First Clement—that Christ was in Heaven the High Priest and head (προστάτης) of believers in the presence of God. Clement of Alex. had already worked out this conception, following Philo’s model, to the effect that Christ, in conjunction with the angelic powers subject to him, conveyed to men the energies of the heavenly sphere; that he ever offered himself for men to the Father as a sacrifice without fire (θῦµα ἄπυρον); that the Holy Spirit along with the angels kept the heavenly and the earthly Church in constant contact. In short, the thought of a graded hierarchy in heaven, with heavenly sacrifices, intercessions, etc., as it also occurs among the Valentinians, lay on the confines of the Alexandrian’s speculation. These thoughts are more fully matured in Origen: the sacrifice of Christ applied also to the celestials, a 564 nd the upper world, brought into harmony, contributed to the redemption of the lower. They were confirmed by the Neoplatonic philosophy of religion. On the other hand, Ignatius conceived the governing body of the Church on earth as a hierarchy which represented the heavenly order, and put it in operation. The two ideas—the Son, the Holy Ghost and the angelic hosts on the one hand, and the earthly priesthood, on the other—only needed to be combined, and a new stage of ecclesiastical theosophy was reached. The Pseudo-areopagite was the first to gain it—after, indeed, it had been already suggested clearly enough by Clement of Alex.; see Strom. VI. 13, 107, and other passages. Clement makes three dwellings in heaven correspond on one side to the divisions of angels, and, again, to the threefold hierarchy on earth. On the spread of this form of theosophy among the Syrian Monophysite monks, see Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaili, 1886. 254

This whole conception was after all, indeed, nothing but a timid expression of the thought that the plan of creation itself,

520

On the devil, “the prince of the ranks encircling the earth,” see the exposition by John of Dam., De fide orthod. II. 4. The devil and the demons of their own free will turned away unnaturally from God.

extending down from the deity to man, included the means of redemption, and that, as alienation from the deity was due to the existence of graduated creations, so, at the same time was the restoration to God. This conce ac8 ption, which contrasts abruptly with that of the Old Testament and Christianity, was compatible in principle neither with the idea of the creation, nor with the one historical redemption that took place once for all. It was Gnostic and Neoplatonic, i.e., pagan. This its character was simply disguised by the retention of the creation so far as words went, and by the substitution for the Æons of Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and angelic powers with Biblical names; and, further, of sacraments, sacrifices, and priests, whose existence and operations were derived from the work of Christ. The root of this whole conception is ultimately found in the notion that the Logos, who was identified with the Son of God, continued to be conceived as the abode and bearer of all the ideas from which the w

History of Dogma

History of Dogma 5

Outlines of the History of Dogma

Dogma Daze

Velvet Dogma

Velvet Dogma

Velvet Dogma

Dogma (Thriller)

History Of Dogma Volumes 1-6 of 7 Volume set

In Defence of a Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma

Gematria Dogma Kabalistico

Dogma 1: God In Revelation

Toward Islamic Anthropology Definition, Dogma, and Directions

Evolution and Dogma (Cambridge Library Collection - Religion)

El Dogma Socialista De La Juventud Argentina

Dogma o Kristu (Bit ćete kao Bog)

Morals and Dogma - Apprentice - Part 1

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

Dogma Y Ritual De La Alta Magia 1

History of Dogma

History of Dogma 5

Outlines of the History of Dogma

Dogma Daze

Velvet Dogma

Velvet Dogma

Velvet Dogma

Dogma (Thriller)

History Of Dogma Volumes 1-6 of 7 Volume set

In Defence of a Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Das jüdische Holocaust-Dogma

Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma

Gematria Dogma Kabalistico

Dogma 1: God In Revelation

Toward Islamic Anthropology Definition, Dogma, and Directions

Evolution and Dogma (Cambridge Library Collection - Religion)

El Dogma Socialista De La Juventud Argentina

Dogma o Kristu (Bit ćete kao Bog)

Morals and Dogma - Apprentice - Part 1

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

The History of History

Dogma Y Ritual De La Alta Magia 1

Recommend Documents