Adolf Harnack History of Dogma

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. Marcions 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
iv
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 VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.
Ein theologisches Buch erhlt 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 abgelst. Es ist mir daher eine grosse Freude, dass
mein Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in das Englische bersetzt 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 spteren 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 wenigvielleicht haben Beide recht; ich kann dagegen nur anfhren, dass sich mir
die getroffene Auswahl nach wiederholtem Nachdenken und Experimentiren aufs Neue erprobt
hat.
Wer ein theologisches Buch aufschlagt, fragt gewhnlich 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 fr 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
vi kategorischen Imperativ fr den Historiker; aber nur indem man rastlos an sich selber arbeitet, sind
sie zu erfllen,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 AUTHORS 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
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
viii 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 AUTHORS 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.
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
x 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
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 Manichism 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 Mnter, 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 AUTHORS 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 Weizsckers work on the Apostolic Age, and his notice of
the first edition of this volume in the Gttinger 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 Heinricis commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and from Biggs
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
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
xiii 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 Grco-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 removedand the smallest number of them lie in the subject
matterI 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
xiv 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 AUTHORS 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.
Berlin, 31st December, 1893.
.
xvi , ,

5
.
, .
Marcellus of Ancyra
Die Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun, Sie ist
ein mchtiges Wesen fr 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 ber aller
Philosophie erhaben und bedarf von ihr keine Sttze.
Gesprche mit Goethe von
Eckermann, Th. p. 39
xvii CONTENTS.
Page
INTRODUCTORY DIVISION
CHAPTER I.Prolegomena to the Study of the History 140
1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma 123
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 2340
The Early, the Medival, and the 23
Roman Catholic Church
The Reformers and the 17th Century 25
Mosheim, Walch Ernesti 27
Lessing, Semler, Lange, Mnscher, 29
Baumgarten-Crusius, Meir
Baur, Neander, Kliefoth, Thomasius, 37
Nitzsch, Ritschl, Renan, Loofs
CHAPTER II.The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma 41136
1. Introductory 4157
The Gosppel and the Old Testament 41
The Detachment of the Christians from 43
the Jewish Church
6
The Church and the Grco-Roman 45

World
The Greek spirit an element of the 47
Ecclesiastical Doctrine of Faith
The Elements connecting Primitive 50
xviii 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 5876
Testimony concerning Himself
Fundamental Features 58
Details 61
Supplements 70
Literature 75
3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in 7698
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
4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the 99107

Jewish hopes of the future, in their significance for the
Earliest types of Christian preaching
The Rabbinical and Exegetical 99
Methods
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 107116
Philosophy of the Hellenistic Jews in their significance
for the later formulation of the Gospel
Spiritualising and Moralising of the 107
xix Jewish Religion
Philo 109
The Hermeneutic principles of Philo 114
6. The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans 116129
in the first two centuries, and the current Grco-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
(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 141144
CHAPTER II.The Element common to all Christians and the breach with 145149
Judaism
CHAPTER III.The Common Faith and the Beginnings of Knowledge in 150222
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 Christs work 199
(7) The Worship, the sacred actions, and the organization 204
of the Churches
The Worship and Sacrifice 204
Baptism and the Lords Supper 207
The organization 214
SUPPLEMENTARY.
9
The premises of Catholicism 218

Doctrinal diversities of the Apostolic 218
Fathers
223266
CHAPTER IV.The attempts of the Gnostics to create an Apostolic Dogmatic,
and a Christian theology; or the acute secularising of Christianity
(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 253
267286
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 Marcions attempt 267
xxi
(1) His estimate of the Old Testament and 271

the god of the Jews
(2) The God of the Gospel 272
(3) The relation of the two Gods according 274
to Marcion
The Gnostic woof in Marcions 275
Christianity
(4) The Christology 275
(5) Eschatology and Ethics 277
(6) Criticism of the Christian tradition, the 278
Marcionite Church
Remarks 282
287317
CHAPTER VI.The Christianity of Jewish Christians, Definition of the notion
Jewish Christianity
Characterisation of Marcions attempt 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
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 Irenus 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
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 mans 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
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 cumenical
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
3 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 Churchesthe very acceptance of the Catholic canon as the revealed record of faith is
opposed to that viewnor 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 Weizscker, 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 cumenical 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.
2 See Kattenbusch. Luthers Stellung zu den kumenischen Symbolen, 1883.
3 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 medival theology and asceticism. . . The scholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and
not the final form of Protestantism.
13
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
4 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 . 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
grace, grace and the means of grace. The number and importance of the dogmas that were, in the
middle ages, really fixed after Augustines 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
6 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 medival 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 (hc 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
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
7 altogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a statement such as belongs to a series
of historical phenomena that has been completed.
8
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
Baurs nor Kliefoths method of writing the history of dogmas has done justice to this fact. Not
Baurs, 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 Kliefoths, 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
9 as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in harmony with former styles, because neither
5 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.
6 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.
7 See Ritschls discussion of the methods of the early histories of dogma in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1871, p. 181 ff.
16
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.
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
10 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 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.
9 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
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
11 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 meansfor
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 understooddogma 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;
12 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
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 medival 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 Pandoras box, all doctrines which in course of time have
been formed, are extracted, and in this way legitimised as Christian. The simple fundamental
13 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.
No agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the history of dogma. Mnscher
(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
14 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 qu sine
scelere prodi non poterit (Cicero Qust. 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
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.
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
15 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
16 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
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.
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
17 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 dogmaone 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 religionis 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
18 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
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.
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,
19 though, as noted above, these at present do not very clearly characterise it, is to-day essentiallythat
is, so far as it is religionwhat 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 Weizscker, 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
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
20 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.
21 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
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
22 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 dogmarightly understoodtwo 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.
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
23 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
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
24 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 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.
13 See for example, B. Schwane, Dogmengesch. d. Vornicnischen 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.
14 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:
..., 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. Aufklrung 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 See Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, 1859. Hase, Handbuch der protest, Polemik. 1878. Joh. Delitszch, Das Lehrsystem der
rm. 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 Vornicnischen 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 Kuhns Dogmatik, as well as in the great controversial writings occasioned
25
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
26 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
by the celebrated work of Bellarmin; Disputationes de controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis hreticos, 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.
18 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 Lords supper, of the conception of it by the
Church Fathers; (see colampadius 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 Lords 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 Luthers 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.
19 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 Justins, 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-theologi de doctrina Christiana, 1645.
20 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, Dallus, 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.
21 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 Arnolds 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.
22 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
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
Mosheims 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
28 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 theologi histori et dogmatic
conjungend 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 Calixtus of Helmstdt 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.
24 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.
25 Walch, Entwurf einer vollstndigen Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten bis auf die Zeiten der
Reformation. II Thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. See also his Entwurf einer vollstndigen 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.).
26 Opusc. p. 576 f.: Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, qu omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grcis, 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, Ernestis opponent, De dogmatum Christianorum historia cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda,
1770, is significant of the new insight which was steadily making way.
27
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
29 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
30 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
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
31 planned and carefully written work, which shews a real understanding of the early history of dogma,
remains in-complete. Consequently, W. Mnscher, 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 Mnschers compendium is a counterpart to Gieslers 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
32 ideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. A series of manuals followed the work of Mnscher,
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 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. Schrckh (Christl. Kirchengesch., 1786) in the
spirit of Semler described with impartiality and care the changes of the dogmas.
28 Rssler, Lehrbegriff der Christlichen Kirche in den 3 ersten Jahrb., 1775; also, Arbeiten by Burscher, Heinrich, Studlin, etc.,
see especially, Lfflers Abhandlung welche eine kurze Darstellung der Entstehungsart der Dreieinigkeit enthlt, 1792, in the
translation of Souverains Le Platonisme devoil, 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.
29 Lange. Ausfhr. Gesch. der Dogmen, oder der Glaubenslehre der Christl. Kirche nach den Kirchenvater ausgearbeitet. 1796.
30 Mnscher, Handb. d. Christl. D. G. 4 vols. first 6 Centuries 1797-1809; Lehrbuch, 1st Edit. 1811; 3rd Edit. edited by v. Clln,
Hupfeld and Neudecker, 1832-1838. Plancks epoch-making work: Gesch. der Vernderungen und der Bildung unseres
protestantischen Lehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared. Contemporary with Mnscher are
Wundemann, Gesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Gregor. d. Gr. 2 Thle. 1789-1799; Mnter,
Handbuch der alteren Christl. D. G. hrsg. von Ewers. 2 vols. 1802-1804; Studlin, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte,
1800, last Edition 1822, and Beck, Comment. hist. decretorum religionis Christian, 1801.
31 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. Rperti, 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.
32 Baumgarten Crusius, Lehrb. d. Christl. D. G. 1852: also conpendium d. Christl. D. G. 2 parts 1830-1846, the second part edited
by Hase.
33 Meier, Lehrb. d. D. G, 1840, 2nd Edit. revised by G. Baur 1854.
34 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
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
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
33 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
34 conservative theology. But at the basis of the statement that the history of Christianity is the history
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.
35 Meiers 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.
36 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
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 Hegels
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.
35 But the general plan of the work, (General history of dogmaloci, 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
Kliefoths 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, Kliefoths 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,
material of consciousness in which the doctrine of Christs Divinity was at any time expressed. The process of this doctrinal
development was an inward necessary one.
37 Baur, Lehrbuch der Christl. D. G. 1847. 3rd Edit. 1867: also Vorles. ber die Christl. D. G. edited by F. Baur, 1865-68. Further
the Monographs, Ueber die Christl. Lehre v. d. Vershnung 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.
38 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.
39 Hagenbachs Manual of the history of dogma, might be put alongside of Neanders 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 Shedds 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.
40 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
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
36 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
37 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 Thomasius Die Christl. Dogmengesch. als Entwickel. Gesch. des Kirchl. Lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 187476. 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.
42 See Vol. I. p. 14.
43 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.
44 This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizscker (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 170 ff.).
32
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
38 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
39 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 See Ritschls 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 Justins, 1878,
and Zahns 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 quil existait vers lan 180, an Christianisme
du IVe et du Ve sicle, au Christianisme du moyen ge, an Christianisme de nos jours, nous trouvons quen ralit it sest
augmente des trs peu de chose dans les sicles qui ont suivis. En 180, le nouveau Testament est clos: it ne sy ajoutera plus un
seul livre nouveau(?). Lentement, les pitres de Paul ont conquis leur place la suite des Evangiles, dans le code sacr et dans
la liturgie. Quant aux dogmes, rien nest fix; mais le germe de tout existe; presque aucune ide napparaitra qui ne puisse faire
valoir des autorits du 1er et du 2e sicle. Il y a du trop, il y a des contradictions; le travail thologique consistera bien plus
monder, carter des superfuites qu inventer du nouveau. Lglise laissera tomber une foule de choses mal commences,
elle sortira de bien des impasses. Elle a encore deux curs, pour ainsi dire; elle a plusieurs ttes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais
aucun dogme vraiment original ne se formera plus. Also the discussions in chapter 2834 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 Bhringer,
Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographien. 2 Edit. 1864.
46 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
(Anfnge der patristischen Litteratur). Aube, Von Engelhardt (Justin), Khn (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 ber
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. 111 especially p. 7 f.). The development of the Christian Church
33
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
40 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 fr
seine Vorlesungen ber Dogmengeschichte, Halle, 1889, and in the following year, Leitfaden
zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, zunchst fr 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 Mller, the first vol. of the Symbolik of Kattenbusch, and Kaftans 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 Kaftans work.
41 II
in the Grco-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
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 appearedthe 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.
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
42 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
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
43 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 : but the Jewish Church persisting
44 in its unbelief is the Synagogue of Satan. Out of this consciousness sprangfirst as a power in
which one believed, but which immediately began to be operative, though not as a
commonwealththe 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 Grco-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
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
45 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 Grco-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
46 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
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 beginningapart from a few exceptionswas 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 Grco-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
47 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: ,
[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.
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
48 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
monuments of that short earliest period. The attempts at deducing the genesis of the Churchs
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
49 Churchs 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 Christs preaching and the sure hope of his Kingdom which was near at
49 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 Weizscker
(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 Apostles 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 Irenus.
50 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
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
50 nowhere find a yawning gulf in the great development which lies between the first Epistle of
Clement and the work of Origen, . 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
51 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 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 exclamationsAbba, 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. Gttingen, 1888).
52 It may even be said here that the ( ), on the one hand, and the , on the other, have already appeared
in place of the , and that the idea of Messiah has been finally replaced by that of the Divine Teacher and of
God manifest in the flesh.
40
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
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
52 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
53 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 Csaren, 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 seconda 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 ber den Galaterbrief).
Against these works see P. V. Schmidts 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
from Gods 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
54 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 Grco-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
55 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 rle 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 pne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt. Orig. c.
Celsum. 1. 46: , ...
(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. 35: XVI. 4 (prter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur
apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens tas, qu 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, dmonic. Even Constantine operated with dreams and visions of Christ (see his Vita).
42
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 Grco-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.
The Alexandrian and non-Palestinian Judaism is still Judaism. As the Gospel seized and moved
56
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
57 service of the Gospel. But the knowledge of Christ crucified, to which he subordinated all other
55 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,
Lenseignement des XII. Aptres. Paris. 1884, and in the Journal Le Tmoignage, 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 jdischen beiden Wege, 1886.
56 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.
57 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. Lhellnisme tient assez peu de place clans le N. T., du moins
43
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
Grco-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
lhellnisme voulu et rflchi. Ces livres sont crits en grec et leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec; il y a donc eu chez eux
infiltration des ides et des sentiments hellniques; quelquefois mme limagination hellnique y a pntr comme dans le 3
vangile et dans les Actes .... Dans son ensemble, le N. T. garde le caractre dun livre hbraque Le christianisme ne commence
avoir une littrature et des doctrines vraiment hellniques quau milieu du second sicle. Mais il y avait un judasme, celui
dAlexandrie, qui avait faite alliance avec 1hellnisme avant mme quil y et des chrtiens.
58 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
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.
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
59 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 ones 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 Gods 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
60 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
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.
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
61 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 evilfor God or against Godhe 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.
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 visiblefor one actually saw it. He lived and
spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which Judaism had developed more than two hundred
62 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
national, political and sensuous eudmonistic 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 Gods 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 mans 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 Gods 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 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.
60 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.
61 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 Gods free grace.
47
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
64 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
65 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 Some Criticsmost 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.
63 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:
). 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.
64 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.
65 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 Johns Gospel, Jesus finishes the work which the Father has given
him, and is obedient in everything even unto death. He declares Mat. XIX. 17: . 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.
66 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 Lords 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.
67 See the farewell discourses in John, the fundamental ideas of which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is, proceed from Jesus.
48
him to do, above all in withstanding the Devil and his kingdom,68 andaccording to the law of the
Kingdom of Godfor that very reason in the service which he performs. In this service Jesus also
66 reckoned the sacrifice of his life, designating it as a 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
67
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 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.
69 See Mark X. 45That Jesus at the celebration of the first Lords 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 . 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 obscurecritical, historical, and dogmatico-historical questionscannot at all be stated briefly. And yet I hesitate
to give a full recognition to Spittas exposition: the words I. Cor. XI. 23: ,
..., are too strong for me. Cf. besides, Weizsckers investigation in The Apostolic Age. Lobstein, La doctrine de la
s. cne, 1889. A. Harnack i. d. Texten u. Unters. VII. 2 p. 139 if. Schrer, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, p. 29 if. Jlicher Abhandl. f.
Weizsker, 1892, p. 215 ff.
70 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
ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in asceticism, as such, sanctification71he
himself did not live as an ascetic, but was reproached as a wine-bibberbut 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 Lords 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.
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
68 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
69 the conditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was attached, there already
71 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.
72 It is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be inferred from the Gospels (Mark XII. 3234; 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
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.
Supplement 1.The idea of the inestimable inherent value of every individual human soul, already
70
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 Godall 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, thatapart from the writings of the Prophets and the
Psalms, which originated in the Greek Maccabean periodsparallels 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 Verhltnissen 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
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
71 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.
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
72 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.]: Khler, Der sog. historische
52
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.
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
73 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.
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
74 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
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 heavenboth 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 growall that belongs to
75 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
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.
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
77 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
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
78 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
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
79 seems to have been united from the very first,76 and in their gatherings. They were a guarantee that
73 See the brilliant investigations of Weizscker (Apost. Zeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names, self-designations, of
the disciples. The twelve were in the first place (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.
74 The christian preaching is very pregnantly described in Acts XXVIII. 31, as ,
.
75 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.
76 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 , and indeed (1. Cor. I. 13: Acts XIX. 5). We cannot make
out when the formula, , , , emerged. The formula, ,
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 . 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
believers really were the , 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
80 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
81 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
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.
77 The designation of the Christian community as 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, is added to the . 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: , .
78 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.
79 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
the Christ. The (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
(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.
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
82 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 Weizscker in
above mentioned work, p. 110). The solemn protestation of Paul, I Cor. XII. 3;
, , , (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
3. Since Jesus had appeared and was believed on as the Messiah promised by the Prophets, the aim
83
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: , ,
. 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
84 there may have been many who were satisfied with basing its necessity on the fact that it had been
predicted, ( : 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 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:
, : 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.
82 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
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
85 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 Weizscker, 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 gloryeven 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: , 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: and Joh. XX. 29:
, ) 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:
60
5. After the appearance of Paul, the earliest communities were greatly exercised by the question as
86
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
87 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
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
88 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
. 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:
, . 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.
85 Weizscker (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
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.
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,
, 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
89 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: , 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
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
90 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 ChristianityGentile 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.
91 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 Only one of these four tendenciesthe Pauline, with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings which are related
to Paulinismhas 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.
87 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 Weizscker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f.
88 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 beforehandnot always the Jewish
63
Supplement 3.The appearance of Paul is the most important fact in the history of the Apostolic
92
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
93 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,
religion, (see Havet, Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 120: Je ne sais s'il y est entr, du vivant de Paul, un seul paen: je veux dire un
homme, qui ne connt pas dj, 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
ChristianityGentile 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.
89 The first edition of this volume could not appeal to Weizscker'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 Weizscker'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 Weizscker
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
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
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 . 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 Gospelwho can say whether Hellenism
95 had already a share in its conceptionrequired 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 Grco-Roman
world of thought. But, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world of thought to influence
90 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.
91 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
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.
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
96 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 developmentwith the exception of one peculiar movement, the
Montanistic which, however, does not rest on a true understanding of these writingsand 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
Weizscke, 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
97 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
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
Theologoumenaeven 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 one93but the Apostolic
testimony concerning Christ has created from the old faith of Psalmists and Prophets, a new faith
98 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
( ). 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. Weizscker, The Apostolic Age, 1892. Hatch, Article Paul in the Encyclopdia Britannica.
93 In the Ztschr. fr 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 itimplicitly opposing false Christologiesin order to substitute
for it Jesus Christ, the , 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 lifepurely 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
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
99
significance for the earliest types of Christian preaching.
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 textand the Old
Testament was regarded as suchone 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 The Jewish religion, specially since the (relative) close of the canon, had become more and more a religion of the Book.
95 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
TestamentHaggada and Rabbinic allegorismmay be found in many passages of Paul (see, e.g., Gal. III. 16, 19; IV. 2231;
1 Cor. IX. 9; X. 4; XI. 10; Rom. IV. etc.).
68
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
101 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
102
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 Schrer'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
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
103 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
104
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 Schrer, 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 prparatus sum, ut sim arbiter () testamenti illius ( ). 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 , which Origen has several times quoted, Jacob says of himself (ap. Orig. torn. II. in Joann.
c. 25. Op. IV. 84: , ,
, . . . . . 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:
(sci1. ): , , , . 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
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 , 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
105 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,
. 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 () who was , and whose
real act of love consisted in his very descent.
71
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
106 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
107 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; Schrer, History of the
Jewish People in the time of Christ; Baldensperger, in the work already mentioned. Weber, System
der Altsynagogalen palstinischen Theologie, 1880, Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1883. Hilgenfeld,
Die jdische 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 Schrer. The essay of
Hellwag in the Theol. Jahrb. von Baur and Zeller, 1848, Die Vorstellung von der Prexistenz
Christi in der ltesten Kirche, is worth noting; also Jol; 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.);
, the women) . . . . , .
. 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 clo, ascensus in clum; ascensus in clum,
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
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 Grco-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
108 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
The Judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the Greek culture with which
109
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 lantiquit judo-grecque, 1874. Schrer 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 rle in Gentile and Gnostic magical formul of the third century, as may be seen e.g., from
many passages in Origen c. Celtum.
73
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
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
110 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 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 The prerogative of Israel was, for all that, clung to: Israel remains the chosen people.
113 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 ( , ,
, ). 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 Schrer'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
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
111 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
112 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 (quod deus immut. 6. I. 277), or according to
Prov. VIII. 22, an offspring of God and wisdom:
(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 , 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 and were connected.
75
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
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
113 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
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,
114 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 Chronea, 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
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 centurythey were aided by the uncertainty that existed about the
115 extent of the Septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about the death upon the crossto
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, qu hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a
quibusdam, quia nec in armorium Judaicum admittitur ... sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam
de domino prdicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus
omnem scripturam dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judis potest jam videri propterea
reiecta, sicut et cetera fera qu 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,
116
became the watchword for the scientific Christian theology which was possible only on this basis,
121 Siegfried (Philo. pp. 160197) 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. 49), and in the dialogue of Justin with Trypho
(here they are objects of controversy, see cc. 7173, 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, Beitrge 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
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.Gefrrer, Das Jahr des Heils, 1838. Parthey, Das Alexandr. Museum, 1838. Matter,
Hist. de lcole dAlex. 1840. Dhne, Gesch. Darstellung der jd.-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 uvres de Philon. 1889. Hatch,
Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Drummond, Philo Judus, 1888. Bigg, The Christian Platonists
of Alexandria, 1886. Schrer, History of the Jewish People. The investigations of Freudenthal
(Hellenistische Studien), and Bernays (Ueber das phokylideische Gedicht; Theophrastos' Schrift
ber Frmmigkeit; 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
Grco-Roman Philosophy of Religion.
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 Grco-Roman world from the
beginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which embraced all classes of society,
117 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 Friedlnder, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.
78
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 prsens 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 ternum taurobolio). A
world beyond was desired, sought for, and viewed with an uncertain eye. By detachment from
118 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 ( and ). 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 prsens et corporalis deus, the Antinous
cult, etc.), and in many circles an incarnate ideal in the present or the past was sought, which might
119 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 Friedlnder, 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, Rville, and the Essay of Sayous, Le Taurobole in the
Rev. de lHist. 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 sculapius, the
God who helps the body and the soul; see my essay Medicinisches aus der ltesten Kirchengeschichte, 1892. p. 93 ff.
126 Hence the wide prevalence of the cult of sculapius.
127 Dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus; see Tertull. Apol. It signifies more than Soter: see Irenus I. 1. 3; .
.... , and are almost synonymous. See

Philo. Quis. rer. div. heres. 6: .
79
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 , 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;

, , ,
). They still regarded the
Gods as passionless, blessed men living for ever. The idea therefore of a , 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 speculationthe
Platonic, as well as in yet greater measure the Stoic, and in the greatest measure of all the Cynichad led to the recognition of
something divine in man's spirit (, ). Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations frequently speaks of the God who dwells
in us. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 14. 113) says: ,
. 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
[], becomes its , and further , , . 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, , , , , associated with the philosophers as with Christ, e.g, in
Justin; nay, the Cynics and Neoplatonics speak of ; cf. also the remarkable narrative in Laertius VI. 102,
concerning the Cynic Menedemus; , , ,
, , ,
(2) They also explain how the ecclesiastical 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 ). 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]: (Zeitschrift fr gypt. Sprache. XXXI.
Bd. p. 3). Domitian: , Kaibel Inscr. Gr. 829. 1053. , 1061the 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,
, .
Herod himself, 7, says to his friends in his sickness; ....
). 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). Ccilius 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 could all somehow be considered as , 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) , and the author of the Epistle of
Diognetus writes (X. 6) (i.e., the rich man) . That the concept
was again used only of one God, was due to the fact that one now started from the definition qui vitam ternam 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
The new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured by the old forms of
120
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 of Celsus).
121
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
122 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
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
123 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
124 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 Khn, 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 Rville,,
La Religion 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
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 weaknessaffected no doubt with many
shadowsbecame, for wide circles, a result of the practical philosophy of the Greeks as well as
125 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
126
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 worldwhich 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
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
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, Irenus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; the Alexandrians; Methodius, and the Cappadocians;
Dionysius, the Areopagite, have their parallels in Seneca, Marcus Aurelius; Plutarch, Epictetus,
127 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
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 SpiritApostles, Prophets, Teachershave been
changed into a class of professional moralists and preachers, who bridle the people by counsel and
reproof ( ), 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.
Literature.Besides the older works of Tzschirner, Dllinger, Burckhardt, Preller, see Friedlnder,
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. Rville, La Religion Rome sous les
Svres, 1886. Schiller, Geschichte der Rm Kaiserzeit, 1883. Marquardt, Rmische
Staatsverwaltung, 3 Bde. 1878. Foucart, Les Associations Relig. chez les Grecs, 1873. Liebeman,
Z. Gesch. u. Organisation d. Rm. Vereinswesen, 189o. K. J. Neumann, Der Rm. 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 religisen Genossenschaften der Griechen, in der Ztschr.
f. wissensch. Theol. 1876-77. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian
129 Church. Buechner, De neocoria, 1888. Hirschfeld. Z. Gesch. d. rm. Kaisercultus. The Histories
of Philosophy by Zeller, Erdmann, Ueberweg, Strmpell, Windelband, etc. Heinze, Die Lehre vom
Logos in der Griech. Philosophie, 1872. By same Author, Der Eudmonismus 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 Rmer, 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
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
130 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
131 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
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 , , [word of God,
132 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
133 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 , from Judaism, and how did the concept
become current? How old is the triad: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers? When were Baptism and
87
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.
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
134 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 foundationjust as the words of the Lord himselffor 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
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
135 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 mconnatre le caractre lev de son uvre. Je dirai en
un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans une proportion extraordinaire lattrait que le judasme exerait 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
136 the Apostolic Fathers; Irenus, 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 medival 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.
137
DIVISION I.
139 See Bigg, The Christian Platonist of Alexandria, pp. 53, 283 ff.
140 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.
89
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
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, Sprche in Prosa, 566.
141
140
BOOK I
THE PREPARATION
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL SURVEY
90
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
V. The want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract statement of the faith, and the
142
corresponding variety and freedom of Christian preaching on the basis of clear formul 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 otherevery ecclesia
is an image complete in itself, and an embodiment of the whole heavenly Churchwhile 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).
143 Every individual was, or at least should have been conscious, as a Christian, of having received the , 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 mens 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 .
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 centurybesides, 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,
91
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
IX. The reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of Apostolic Teachers with an uncertain
143
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
Supplement.The main features of the message concerning Christ, of the matter of the Evangelic
144
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 periodand not only in Gnostic circlesand 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 Anfnge 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 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 worldthese 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
, with , . 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 ().
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
(, ), then the preaching of moral purity and continence (), on the
basis of repentance toward God (), 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 () sent by God in
these last days, and who stands with God himself in a union special and unique, (cf. the ambiguous
, 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 ons, 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; ,
.
. ,
,
.
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
of God, as well as the gift of immortality ( , or , as an expression

for the sum of the Gospel. See the supper prayer in the Didache, c. IX. and X.; ,
), and is for
that very reason the redeemer ( 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
V. Christ has committed to chosen men, the Apostles (or to one Apostle), the proclamation of the
147
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.,
, , ).
VII. Everything that Jesus Christ brought with him, may be summed up in , 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 ltesten 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 sculapius 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
VIII. Christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions of race, age, rank, nationality
148
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, Ptolemus 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 materialcf.
only the so-called Apostolic Fathersthe 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
1. The Communities and the Church.

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
151 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 Irneus, 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: (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: .
... or the exhortation: ,
(1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as ) 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 disciplin unitate et spei foedere. (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.; , , ). 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 () 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 , so every community is a , 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 as the main requirement. Love
demands that everyone: (1. Clem. 48. 6. with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4.
10; Ignatius).
96
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
152 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 on, 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 ,171 the people whom
153 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 on of the future, the on 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;

.
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:
, . . . .
. , .
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; , .

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
though Clement of Alexandria and other Greeks held it fast, and the Gnostics by their on Church
brought it into discredit. Augustine was the first to return to it.
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
154 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
155 of the Grco-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 Justins 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 Grco-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
The foundations of the faithwhose abridged form was, on the one hand, the confession of the
one true God, ,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 Christs kingdom and the
resurrectionwere laid on the Old Testament interpreted in a Christian sense together with the
Apocalypses,178 and the progressively enriched traditions about Jesus Christ. (
or
, or
156 ).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 Jewishwent 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: , ,

, ... 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:
,
, ,
.
177 Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20. 5: , ,
, , . On the
Holy Spirit see previous note.
178 They were quoted as , , or with the formula () . 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:
, . 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, , , . Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2: cf. also Clem. Paedag.
I. 7. 59: ,
. , ,
, ,
.
181 See above 5, p. 114 f.
99
a fixed form. The 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
157 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 ( , 188).
182 See my edition of the Didache, Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, De disciplina arcani origine, 1841.
183 The earliest example is 1. Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16 where already the question is about
: 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; , .
185 The formul 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
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: () , (on this word see Westcotts

Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) ,
; , ,
, , ,
, . 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 () ,
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
100
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
158 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
159 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:
160 , ...,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
, it was now changed in .
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 regul fidei of Irenus 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 beside the more
frequent , is attested by Irenus, 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
, , (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, -; these forms were also
partly combined. (4) The designations Christ, Son of God and Lord; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or ,
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 ver carnis post resurrectionem , of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were
additional articles which appeared here and there. The , 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 regul 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 regul fide of Irenus 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 (. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2. Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might
be said simply (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E., IV. 22. 3: See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate
authorities under the formula: ; 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:
. In the second Epistle of
Clement (14. 2) we read: (O. T.) ; may also stand for (Ignat., Didache. 2
101
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.
On the contrary, there was a theory operative here regarding the special authority which the twelve
161
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 thatwith the exception of reminiscences of an activity of Peter
and John among the , not sufficiently clear to us192the 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 . (Justin, Tatian), or on the
other hand, as , (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 (). The declaration of Serapion at
the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3):
, 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:
), 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
, 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
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
162 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 See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter. ap. Iren., collecta in Parr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f.
195 The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelvea fact to be specially notedwas 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. Prd. 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 Irenus, 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 , and the twelve Apostles; the
Apostles are the branches
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
was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42):
, . ,
... 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: ; see Tertull., de
prscr. 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.
, 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 (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 ( ) 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: , ,
, 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: , 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 ones own position, (cf. the article from the kerygma of Peter in Clem.
Strom. VI. 6, 48: , ..., the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the
Apostolic Constitutions, and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, , ...). 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 Weizcker (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
(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),
. 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
3. The Main Articles of Christianity and the Conceptions of Salvation. Eschatology.

163
1. The main articles of Christianity were (1) belief in God the , 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 Lords Supper and the holy meal; (5) the sure hope of the nearness of Christs
164 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 , , , ( ), from the
165 , and the , and the (Barn. 16, 9, similarly
Hermas). Perception and knowledge of Divine things was a Charism, possessed only by individuals;
166 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
formul 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
167 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 salvationthough this point is
uncertain.
196 See , 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 , 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 Gods 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; (see similar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the
105
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); ,
, , ,
, , 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
, which implicitly contained the highest knowledge, and what the special ;
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 Chiliasmthe designation is unsuitable and misleadingis 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 Gods Ministers, as that which restrains2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan; see the various estimates in Justin,
Melito, Irenus 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 Christs 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
Christs 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 Christs 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
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
169 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
170 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 Judaismto 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 Grco-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 enjoymentsthese
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 rarelyat best, by fits and startsmarked
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:
); by above all, Constantine, orat. ad. s. ctum 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: . Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2:
. Barn. 5. 6 f.: 21. 1: 2 Clem. 1:

. 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:

, 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
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 ones own power, took the
171 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
172 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 ( ,206 .
,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,
, or , and 1 Clem.
36. 2: ). 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 , identical with and , as is proved by their being
often interchanged, gradually supplanted the () 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 were first added to the words 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 pristin ccitatis), 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: . Prd. Petri ap.
Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: , ,
. 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 veni, ut venia sit pnitenti 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 () 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
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 ( )

() (), 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
Supplement 1.The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and righteousness, in Clement,
Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius, gives place to Pauline formul; 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,
173 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 ideafor there exists here a fatal reciprocal action.
Supplement 2.The realisation of salvationas and as being

expected from the future, the whole present possession of salvation might be comprehended under
the title of vocation (): 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.).

210 The concepts , , , 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 must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though
we must not think of the Pauline idea of . 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 formul 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: (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 membersthis is the necessary inferencemust lead a sinless life.
109
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
174 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 ,
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.
175 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
Wredes Untersuchungen zum 1 Clementsbrief (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere
quite reliable, may be found in Hatchs 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
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 valuethese 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
176 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,
177 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 . (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 Gods 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
sayingsconfessions 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 Irenus.
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: ,
; ,
, ,
,
. 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 otherswith the
exception of the Jewishlacked. 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 Christs 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 Irenus.
111
testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort, love and communionwhich 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.
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 existenceeven apart from actual assaultsthreatened 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
178 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 Gods intention
179 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 pdagogic necessity with reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to idolatry,
218 See , 8.
219 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: , cf. Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom.
VI. 5. 41: ,
, , , ,
, , , . (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 Prd. 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: .
112
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 Gods words, have nothing inwardly
in common with the Jewish people. They are Gods 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 (); 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 Justins, p. 429.
ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a pdagogic measure of God with reference to a
stiff-necked people prone to idolatry. (2) That itlike circumcisionwas 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. fr 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 Israels
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: .
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; . I Clem. 59. 3. 4; Herm. Mand. I.; Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 9.:
, . 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 ,
a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find . As the
Lord and Creator, God is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2: .
35. 3: . 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 rle as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all
Gods 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
of man,231 he is at the same time the God of goodness and redemption ( ), and the true
faith in God and knowledge of him as the Father,232 is made perfect only in the knowledge of the
181 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:
(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 formul, 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,
, 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 Zahns 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 , as
the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1: 20, 5: . ). 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 mans need of redemption,
which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the worlds course (the : the Latins
afterwards used the word Sculum) 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 historyit is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic: see, for example,
Barn. 4and the empiric moralistic (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Prd. 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:
). But, perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the , 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 idolsand that was perhaps the rule, see Prd. Petri, I.
c.; 2 Clem. 3. 1; Didache, 6one 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 (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim. I; 2. Clem. 6. 3:
114
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,
182 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
183 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 worlds 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.
1. As surely as redemption was traced back to God himself, so surely was Jesus ( )
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 (), 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
184 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
, ; 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 Christs 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 Christs return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there
was still a lively expectation of Christs earthly Kingdom.
234 No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of : 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 prsumunt. 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 = , 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
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:
. . . .236
2. As the Gentile Christians did not understand the significance of the idea that Jesus is the Christ
(Messiah), the designation 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
185 Lords 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. 5961. , 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 prstandam 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 Gods 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 , though the concepts , () , () were just as
interchangeable as and . The full formula would be .
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 designationand this is not
surprisingappears 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 where the other Gospels use these names.
238 See 1 Clem. 64: , . ... (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:
.) Herm. Sim. V. 2: . V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48:
, .
239 See Barn. 14. 5: , . . . . .
The same word concerning the Church, 1. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: . 14. 6.

240 Angel is a very old designation for Christ (see Justins Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is
expressly claimed for him in Novatians 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. Sophoni, 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: . . . . ,

,
,
, ...) 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
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
186 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 , , and , but as
, 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 . This formula describes
in a classic manner the indirect theologia Christi which we find unanimously expressed in all
187 witnesses of the earliest epoch.247 We must think about Christ as we think about God, because, on
241 (after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with and with the adjectives and (see Barn. 3.
6: 4. 3: 4. 8: Valent. ap. Clem. Alex, Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isai), 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 Thecl, 17. 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324,
331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: , 9. I; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: , 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 Nestles correction is right,
Justins 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): , 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), , ibid., p. 28:
, ibid. p. 30: , . Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6:

. III. 7: . III. 19: III. 20: V. 12: 1 Clem. 13. 1 . . . .
, . Polyc. Ep. 2: . Ptolem. ad Floram. 5:
.
245 The baptismal formula, which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period, preserved it above all. The
addition of , is worthy of notice. (= 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: , , ,
, (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2),
, . This
argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive; for it shews the grounds on which the
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 Gods Son, and therefore has been destined from the
beginning, (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 Justins dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as (not as )
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. , 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
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 . 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 on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly
therefore in liturgical formul of exalted paradox, or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called God. See Ignat.
ad Rom. 6. 3; (the here should be observed); ad Eph. 1. 1:
: Tatian Orat. 13: . As to the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad
Cor. 2, 10: , (the refers to ) we may perhaps observe that that 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 Godand only this unionmust have been in Christendom from a very early period; see Acts XX. 28 . . .
, and from a later period, Melito, Fragm. (in Routh Rel., Sacra
I. 122): , Anonym. ap. Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11;
; Test. XII. Patriarch. (Levi 4):
; 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 formul 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); , . . . .
. 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, 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:
. 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 () of Christ, but 6, 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a
. 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 Christs 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 . 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
, 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. 46). In the following passages of the Ignatian Epistles appears as a designation
of Christ; he is called in Ephes. inscript; Rom. inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, ; Rom. 6. 3,
; Eph. 7. 2, 99 , in another reading, , Smyrn. I. 1., . .
. The latter passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with ,; seems to form the transition
to the three passages (Trail. 7. I; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called 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 . We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as in Clem. Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.;
,

118
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
188 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
189 the root of the theologia Christi; but we must also remember that the formula was inserted
beside , that the dominus ac deus was very common at that time,248 and that a Saviour
() could only be represented somehow as a Divine being.249 Yet Christ never was, as ,
placed on an equality with the Father,250monotheism guarded against that. Whether he was
190 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 , and as
[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
; , ,
.
248 On the further use of the word in antiquity, see above, 8, p. 120 f.; the formula for Augustus, even 24
years before Christs 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 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 rootsthese 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 and 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 ; see Tit. II. 13;
(cf. Abbot, Journal of the
Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I. 1: . . . In both cases
the should be specially noted., Besides, is also an ancient formula.
250 A very ancient formula ran , see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et Theoph. 4, etc. The
formula is equivalent to (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 was as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles, however,
philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the . But now there is no mistaking a new element everywhere.
In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of , 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
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,
191 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 formul, 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 Spiritit is not certain whether he is identified with the chief Archangelis
regarded as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was Gods counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the
virtuous man () 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 . 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: ,
, . . .
.) 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: ,
, , . ,
, , . 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:
, , ; 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 formul, 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
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 exclusivethe man
192 who has become a God, and the Divine being who has appeared in human formyet came very
193 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 or , that
is, had a pre-existence: , he says, ,
, (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 Prd. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et
Papisci, etc. The Classic formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5:
. According to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is ; to him God said,
, Let us make man, etc. He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old Testament revelation. He is
: , (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
(16. 2), who, if he had wished, could have appeared on earth ; he is exalted far above the angels (32), as
he is the Son of God ( , 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 (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): , , ,
, , , .
As the human predicates stand here first, it might appear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus became God (
, 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 (Magn. 7. 2), is (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 Irenus. 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 Prd. Petri calls Christ the (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: ). 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, , as equivalent to ()
Jerome, Qust. hebr. in Gen. p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: . Ignatius
(Eph. 3) also called Christ (Eph. 17: ); that is a more fitting expression than . 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 formul ,
or , 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
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
195 appeared rather, either as a gift,262 or the human nature () as a veil assumed for a time, or as
the metamorphosis of the Spirit.263 The formula that Jesus was a mere man ( ), was
196
257 Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link; Christologie des Hermas, and Weizscker, 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): , , 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 .
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 is not found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite distinctly,
(see Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: ,

, ). The stages of the 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 prbuisse discipuli. Also Acta Joh. p. 209, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his polemic against
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. ) 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 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, , was fixed only in consequence of the Gnostic controversy.
262 Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus thus: , ,
, . 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: ,
). 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: () (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
undoubtedly always and from the first regarded as offensive.264 But the converse formul, 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 formul 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
197 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 (Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2 is of special importance here). One is almost
throughout here satisfied with the of Christ, that is the , 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; ,
, ). 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: . . .
. One would fain believe this an interpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenus. (V. 1. 1).
264 Even Hermas does not speak of Jesus as (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 in 1 Tim. II. 5 is used in a special sense. The expression for Christ
appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2: ,
apart from the , 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: ; Eph.
20. 2: .
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 formul
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 Notus 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: , , , and the Acta Joh. (ed.
Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: , , , , , , ,
, , , ,
). In the Act. Joh. are found also prayers with the address (pp. 242, 247). Even
Marcion and in part the Montanistsboth bear witness to old traditionsput 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 Dionysi 1 (Ruinart, p. 205):
, . Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero, regi sculorum
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 Irenus I. 23, 1: hic igitur a multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsunr esse qui
inter Judos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus
Sanctus adventaverit.
123
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,
198 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
formul 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
199 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 formul,
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 formul 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. prf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided whether or not the Holy Spirit is likewise to be
regarded as Gods 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 , 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 , 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
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 formul, 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.
5. The ideas of Christs work which were influential in the communitiesChrist 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
200 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 Christs 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 thiswithout a technical reflection which cannot be provedthat
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 See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol. I. 55.
268 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 Gods saving
will (Didache, 10. 2: , , ,
, ), 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
Didachenay, 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;
( ) (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
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, and 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 (, ) and of
Jesus are to the same writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formul 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: , ). The same writer, who is constantly speaking of the and
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: . 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 Phnix 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
was communicated to the world through the shedding of Christs blood (7. 4.). But this transformation of the
into 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 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:
, , ,
, , ,
): 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); . The notion which Barnabas entertains
of the 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 greatnay, 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
Christs 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 ,
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: ) the future redemption is manifestly
to be understood by .
126
As to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the circumstance that they formed
201
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,
202 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 clum, not a mere assumptio, was favourable
to the idea of an actual descent of Christ de clo, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice
versa. But there is also closely connected with the ascensus in clum, 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
203
One can plainly see that the articles contained in the Kerygma were guarded and defended in their
reality ( ) 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,
204 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 formul (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 , in the fragment of an
old Hymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the . , .
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 ( ; ), and that even Marcion recognised it (in
Iren. I. 27. 3), as well as the Presbyter of Irenus (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 Christs 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 () Mary, is found the other, He was born through () 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 against the Valentinians.
127
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.
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,
.272 But as the Old Testament
205 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 Lords supper, and which were used
206 partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most
special sense (, ).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. Prd. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41): . The statement in
Joh. IV. 24: , , 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
, .
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: , ,
, ; see also still the later Fathers; Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: ,
, ; Iren. III. 18. 3. Ptolem. ad Floram.
3: ,
.
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:
, , was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology
(Polycarp. Ep. 4, called the Widows 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 ones 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 Lords 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
manner in the celebration of the Lords 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
207 especially in the solemn ordinance of the Lords 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 Lords 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 (), 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
208 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 Lords 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). ,
.
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 prdicare posterius tinguere (Tertull. de bapt. 14).
283 On the basis of repentance. See Prd. Petri in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48.
284 See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull. de bapt. 15: Felix aqua qu semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus
non est.
129
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 and , 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
209 enlightenment,287 it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign to it. It would be different if
we had to think of 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 .
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 ( ,
); 2 Clem. 6. 9: 7. 6: 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: . Specially important
is Justin, Apol I. 61. 65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullians treatise de bapt.; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in
the third pseudo-Solomonic ode in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcions baptismal formula in Irenus 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 Johns
baptism in its relation to Christian baptism is very old in Christendom; see also Tertull. de bapt. 10. Tertullian sees in Johns
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 Grcia participavi. Eorum qudam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.
Ever since the Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lords 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 extrane, 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 Mithr; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus
efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlat aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et
Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere prsumunt. Item penes veteres,
quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat. De praescr., 40: Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum
divinorum idolorum mysteriis mulatur. 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
Tertullians 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 Justins theory of baptism, see also I. 62.
and Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, 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
As regards the Lords 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
, 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
211 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
Christs 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 and
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. 4044) 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)
. 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 , 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 in the sense of . In the fourth place, payments
in kind were necessary for the agap 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 for the purpose of a sacrifice?
Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117).
The elements are only , , 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 (Justin, Apol. I. 66:
. Didache 9. 1: Ignat., because it is . It is a mistake to suppose that Justin
already understood the body of Christ to be the object of , 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 , whereby the
becomes the . 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, 6567; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116118).
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 is first found in the Didache, c. 14.
131
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,
212 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 , 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: , .
Cf. Didache, 10. 3: ; also 10. 21:
. Justin Apol. I. 66:
( , 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:
, ,
. 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 . In Philad. 1, we read: .
.
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 of Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the content of , viz., belief in the
, 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:
,
, ,
, (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 Lords Supper with bread and water. The latter has been contested by Zahn, Bread and wine in the Lords
Supper, in the early Church, 1892, and Jlicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahisfeier in der aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f. Weiszcker,
1892, p. 217 ff.).
132
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.
3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these
214
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 and , 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 () 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
, 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 , , and
had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of Christ. The were regarded as
the real in the communities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in
faith. In the second were , and , 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 , as independent officials,
were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen . But a
215 very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and
teachersas the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the worldfell
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, Rville etc.) will be found referred to in Sohms 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 15.1), to which Hatch in
conversation called my attention. The 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 bishops
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
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
, 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
216 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 , 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
217 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
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 ideathat 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.

299 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 prrogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit). This
statement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11: Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam
minors 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 Weizscker. Gtt. Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose statements I can almost entirely make my own.
135
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
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
and 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 Irenus, 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, Irenus, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here,
however, mixed with Origenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not
220 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 worlds 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 (
). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: , ,
, ; Rom. 7:
. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad Smyrn. I:
,
,
, ,
, , ,
,
,

. The Epistle of Polycarp is
136
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 and as ).
It is manifest that the lineage, Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenus, 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
221 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
Irenus 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 , in Irenus, 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
Justins, 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 Vter
(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: Hfling, Die Lehre der ltesten Kirche
vom Opfer, 1851, Hfling, 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.
222 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. Mller; on Hermas:
Zahn, Hckstdt, 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 Dobschtz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.
223
137
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.

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
224 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
, after enumerating and describing which, the author continues (11. 1):
, .
138
This necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an intellectual
philosophic element, , 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 , 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.
225 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
226
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
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 Lords
Supper), invite men to find here the realisation of the ideal which the Hellenic religious spirit was
227 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.
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
228 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 assertionthe parallel may be permittedas 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 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 idiot, qu 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
a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire, and a continuance, though with reservations,
of the old regime.
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
229 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 hresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona natur qu 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
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
230 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
231 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 (Rmische 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 Tbingen), vigorously emphasised the practical tendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way.
Hackenschmidt (Anfnge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged correctly.
142
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 Cosmosall 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
232 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 prsens
233 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 , 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 , however, united with
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
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
234 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 somethe Valentinians, for examplemade 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 schoolfor example, the Valentinianthe 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
235 their main strength to the working out of those religious, moral, philosophical and historical problems
312 See Koffmane, beforementioned work, p. 5 f.

313 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
prscr. 42: Et hoc est, quod schismata apud hreticos 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
which must engage the thoughtful of all times.314 We only need to read some actual Gnostic
document, such as the Epistle of Ptolemus 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
236 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 formul
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
237 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 Ptolemus 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): , , .
, ? 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, Ptolemus and Heracleon?
315 Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the difference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his disciple
Ptolemus. Ptolemus nomina et numeros onum 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
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 culteven the Mithras
cult is scarcely to be mentioned hereas 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
238 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 corcendisque 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 Platos 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 ( ).
318 Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenus (I. 29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Perat,
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, Mller, 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, formul, mysteries, and ceremonial. However,
from these very monuments it becomes plain that Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see below).
146
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
239 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
240 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.

320 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:
, ,

Here then, already, imitation of the poor life of Jesus, the Evangelic
life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a book, , 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 (
). But in wide circles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all boastfulness was
forbidden, and the watchword given out: , 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; , ,
, , , , , ,
, .
Clements 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 Platos State with the Christian
ideal of the union of men with each other. Christ was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see Irenus. 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 Pythagor et Platonis et Aristotelis
et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.
147
and jugglers, under the sign-board of Christianity, deceivers and hypocrites who appear using
mighty words with a host of unintelligible formul, 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
241 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
242 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., Lucians Peregrinus, and the Marcus,
of whose doings Irenus (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, Irenus says (I. 28. 1):
. . . . , . . . .
. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite . Other
names were: Collegium (Tertull. ad Valent. 1); Secta, the word had not always a bad meaning; , (Clem.
Strom. VII. 16. 98; on the other hand, VII. 15. 92: Tertull. de prscr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent); (Iren. I. 13, 4,
for the Marcosians), , , , , factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum,
conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly appears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenus, and
the Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as the Coptic-Gnostic documents that have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work,
pp. 6-22).
148
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 formul,
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
243 ascetic associations, the theological schools, the mysteries, the sacred formul, 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 Anfnge 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 Heracleons 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,
), 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). Irenus, 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, hr. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of
the language of Valentinus one extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89).
, , ,
, , ,
. 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 Baurs 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
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
244 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 andthis, however, was said at a comparatively late periodthat 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, Irenus, 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 limitedcertainly 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
245 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 prscr. 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 Freudenthals a Hellenistische Studien informs us as to the Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfelds Ketzergeschichte, p.
149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements in the elaborate article, Manichismus, by Kessler
(Real-Encycl. fr 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
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,
246 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
247 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 ons 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, Irenus, 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: ,
, ,
(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 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
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
248 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
ethicwith occasional use of Pauline formulalways 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, Irenus
(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 powerssending 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 on 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 Cerdos teaching has probably been transferred to
him from Marcion, and is therefore very doubtful.
152
It is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines in Syria in the form of a
249
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,
250 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 hreticos. Iren. 1. I.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35; Orig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: Valentini
robustissima secta.)
153
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.
251 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 doctrinesHermas is unable even to characterise the false doctrinesthe
warnings were commonly exhausted in the exhortation: ,
, [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
Irenus 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
252 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 prscr. 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 dificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua dificent. 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: , ,
, , ; see besides
the valuable account of Tertull. de prscr. 30. The account of Irenus (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 Polycarps 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 (Dial. 80).
345 Very important is the description which Irenus (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 prdicant; si tamen prdicant
qui occultant. Custodi officium conscienti officium est (a comparison with the Eleusinian mysteries follows). Si bona fide
quras, concreto vultu, suspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem
154
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
253 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 cde 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 prscr. 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.
Irenus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated the Common Christians (communes) ,
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 to . (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
(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 appearanceno
Old Testament Christ (negative); this appearance is itself redemption: the doctrine is the
announcement of it and of its presuppositions (positive).348
(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
255 (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, Perat, 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 prscr. 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 Tertullians de prscr.). 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 prscr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book,
, 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
As exoteric it is comprehended in the regula fidei350 (positive), as esoteric it is propagated by chosen

256
teachers.351
257
(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 prscr. 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: ,
, , [sic]
, 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 traditionnay, 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 regul, see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3: II. prf.: II. 19. 8: III. 11. 3: III. 16.
1. 5: Ptolem. ap. Epiph. h. 33. 7; Tertull. adv. Valent. 1. 4: de prscr. 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. Irenus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull. (de
carne, 20) state that the Valentinian regula contained the formula, ; 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 Irenus 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 prcr. 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
(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
(b) The separation of the supreme God from the God of the Old Testament, and therewith the
258
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
(f) The assumption of ons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in whom is unfolded the
259
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 Ptolemys 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 , 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 ons 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 on speculations were
158
(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.

(h) The doctrine that in the person of Jesus Christthe Gnostics saw in it redemption, but they
reduced the person to the physical naturethe heavenly on, Christ, and the human appearance
of that on 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. 39taught 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
260 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
261 to the notion of the .
partly reproduced among the Catholic theologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics have already made
use of the concept ; see Iren., I. 5. I: ,
(said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4,
, , . I. 5. 5:
, . 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., ) 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 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 birthit 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 , 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
(i) The conversion of the (it was no innovation to regard the heavenly Church as an on)
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
262 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 Christs 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 Christologythis, 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:
, ). 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 ,
. 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): .
, ,
. 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 viewsthey must have been regarded as very important,
had not the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic schoolswhich 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
In addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our attention on the ethics of
263
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
264 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 Irenus 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: , instead of . 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 , 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 thinkers joy in his knowledge, which
allays the desire (Iren., III. 15. 2: Inflatus est iste [scil. the Valentinian proud of knowledge] neque in clo, 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: ,

, ,
.
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 , may have soon appeared. It may be noted
161
Literature.The writings of Justin (his syntagma against heresies has not been preserved), Irenus,
265
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.
Harnack, Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. Gnostic, 1873 (continued i. D. Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874,
266
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 Lords 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 : , dixi vobis,
haud adduxi quidquam in 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
(); see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren. I. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336343, and cf. the
in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas. Mand XI. (3) Marcus represented the wine in the Lords Supper as
actual blood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13. 2: .
, ,
,
9; , . 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: ,
(that is, not into a new super-terrestrial material, not into the real body
of Christ, but into a spiritual power)
, . Irenus possessed a liturgical handbook of the Marcionites, and communicates many
sacramental formul from it (I. c. 13 sq.). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp. 5994) 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 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
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. rm. 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 Grubers 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 Herzogs 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 Smiths 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).
Jol, 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
MARCIONS 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
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
268 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 prscr. 41, and adv. Marc. IV. 5) and possessed
bishops, presbyters, etc. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 46: de Mart. Palst. X. 2: Les Bas and Waddington, Inscript. Grecq. et Latines
rec. en Grce et en Asie Min. Vol. III. No. 2558). Justin (Apol. 1. 26) about 150 tells us that Marcions preaching had spread
, 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 prscr. 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 prcipua bonitate sua (Tertull.
adv. Marc. I. 17).

368 Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, declared (Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5) ,
.
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
formul 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; , .
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, qu suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Rhodon
(Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 4) says of two prominent genuine disciples of Marcion: ,
, . Of Apelles, the most important of Marcions disciples who
laid aside the Gnostic, borrows of his master, we have the words (l. c.): , ,
, . ,
.... , , ....
, . It was Marcions 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 ons, 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 Clements Hypotyposes). Marcion did not really speculate even about the good God; yet see Tertull., adv.
Marc. I. 14. 15: IV. 7: Mundus ille superiorclum tertium.
164
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
269 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.
270 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 Marcions 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,375redemption from a world which even in the best that it
370 Tertull., de prscr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers chiefly to the Marcionites (see Epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and Esniks 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 pr se ferunt Marcionit:
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 Marcionit, 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
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
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 ).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 (). 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
272 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 Marcionit 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 Epistlerefers to Marcions Antitheses). Apelles, Marcions disciple,
composed a similar work under the title of Syllogismi. Marcions 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 hresim.
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 Marcions 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
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.
273 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 Marcions
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 Gods 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
274 flesh and Spirit, which in fact was also apparently the doctrine of Paul.
382 Solius bonitatis, deus melior, were Marcions standing expressions for him.
383 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
Marcions good God was a thief and a robber. See also Celsus, in Orig. VI. 53.
384 See Esniks account, which, however, is to be used cautiously.
385 Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages in Lukes 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. Marcions 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.
167
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 Marcions 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
275 certainly be drawn with little trouble, as the result of various considerations, but it is forbidden by
reliable testimony. The characteristic of Marcions 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 Marcions disciples, returned to the creed of the one God ( ), and conceived the creator
of the world and Satan as his angels, without departing from the fundamental thought of the master,
387 Tertull. I. 6: Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.

388 Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also II. 28; IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 4146): IV. 30. Marcions 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. Marcionit 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. Marcions 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
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
276 church. All those who lived in the faith for which the master had workedviz., 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
277 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 Marcions 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 Marcions docetism is all the more remarkable that,
under Pauls guidance, he put a high value on the fact of Christs 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
Marcuss 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 Marcions teaching. The only one of the disciples who really seceded from
the Master was Appelles (Tertull., de prscr. 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 Marcions 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 femin (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 Marcions 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
through Christ in the clearest light, and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ, but
chiefly in his death upon the cross.
5. Marcions 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,
278 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
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
279 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 prscr.
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) . 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 prscr. 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
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 misunderstoodnay, his Epistles
had been falsified in many passages,398 in order to make them teach the identity of the god of creation
280 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 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 Christianbut not of basing it
on a theological doctrineand 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 qu sunt legalia salvatoris verbis; III, 12. 12: Apostoli qu sunt
Judorum 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 Pauls 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 Marcions 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:
. We possess a Marcionite inscription which begins: ). 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 qudam 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
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
282 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 Marcions 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 Marcions Gospel see the Introductions to the New Testament and Zahns 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 (), 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 Marcions 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
outer sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of Jehovahs 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 minds eye,
but he was not able to realise it. That in the century of the great mixture of religion the greatest
283 apparent paradox was actually realisednamely, 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 Pauls 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 pdagogic 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
284 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
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
285 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 Hartels 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, Irenus).
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
286 of Marcion became very important for the heathen and Manichan 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
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 prscr.; 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 Zahns 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; Beitrge z. Gesch. der Marcionitischen Kirchen (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1876). Marcions
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 Grco-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
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,
288 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
289 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: , , ;
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 Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as synonymous.

405 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
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
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
290 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.
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,
291 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
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,
292 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
(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 , and then find the following
definition of the Canon:
, 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 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
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
293 had been employed in the larger Christendom from the beginning.412 Baurs 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
294 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 Christendomthe forms were not criticised, but the contents spiritualisedso 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
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 attemptsunsuccessful ones indeedon the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile
295 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 Overbecks 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 Gentilein the former case he would far surpass the
Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claimswe 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. Weizscker (Art. Hegesippus in Herzogs 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
Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes between those who would
296
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
297 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 , legal polity, as characteristic of this
Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incidentally of a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly
presupposes that the , 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
298
among Gentile Christians has been attested by Justin and also by other contemporary
to Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5. (

, 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: (
). 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, . Yet Justin did not make this a controversial point of great moment.
181
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
299 them.420 Irenus 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 (
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 (the Jews)
(). But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from the Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 810: 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: ,
), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption that the prophets themselves
had already lived . 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,
; 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 prscr. 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
, 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 Christs name,
300 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
301 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 Pera, 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), (Ebionit) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a
patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis cremonias 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
Judos (!) hresis est, que dicitur Minorum et a Pharisis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaros 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 Judi esse et Christiani, nec Judi 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 Jeromes style of expression is not everywhere
clear.
183
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
302 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,
303 in which angelic powers especially played a great rle.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 Judo-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 Grco-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 Prdicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides. Cf. Jol, 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
reconciled with the universal religion which hovered before mens 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
304 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 Judo-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 Jol, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is
instructive. We may mention Grtz, 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. Grtz
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
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,
305 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
306 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 ali hujusmodi blasphemi.
The account given by Eusebius, H. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr. VII. 1) is important:
, ....
, . 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 Origens opinion.
437 Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites:

, .
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
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 (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
307 and manifested ( ,
, 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
308 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 Judo-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
( , ,
, ,
). 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
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
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: Lords Supper with bread and water). Finally, Epiphanius gives
309 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 ( ), 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 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):
, , .
, ,
. 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,
310 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) ,
, . 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 formul 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
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
311 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 ones 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 Mohammeds 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 Mandische Religion, 1889; (also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit.
Ztg., 1890 No. I. Lagarde i. d. Gtt. 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 Herzogs 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, qu fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sculo 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, (Gtt. 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) Marcions Antitheses, (2) Apelles Syllogisms, (3)
perhaps Callistus edict about penance (see III. 70) and writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression .
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
2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians, but most probably by
312
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 Irenus 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.
5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were edifying for them, because of
313
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, , 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
(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:
, . 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: ,
he had already learned that at his confession (Matt. XVI). The question, ,
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
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.
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
314 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
315 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
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.
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
316 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 ), the assumption that all things emanated
from God in antitheses (Son of GodDevil; heavenearth; malefemale; male and female
prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in God himself (goodness, to which corresponds
the Son of Godpunitive 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 Godall 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
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
317 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 Biggs 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 (). 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 natur nov, 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
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 casesand here the speculation gave rise to the most
exciting problemsthe 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 natur human, transmutatio, mixtura, du natur,
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.
However, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist between these speculations,
320
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 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 objectsfor things common and ever recurring give no impulse to such
speculationsthe 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
That took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps also the simultaneous
321
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 on 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 .
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
322 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 Justins 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
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 mens 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.
Jesus Christ designated himself as the Messiah, and the first of his disciples who recognised him
323
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:
, ,

, . 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 Gods 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
324 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 formul
, . In reference to all these points, we see even in the oldest Christian
writings, the appearance of formul which fix more precisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in
196
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:
, Col. I. 18: (Rev. I. 5), Eph. II. 6:
, I. 4: ,
I. 22: ,
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) .......
, .... , ,
. .
. . 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
325 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 , he is the (Rev. III. 14), the
, etc. According to the current conception of the time, these expressions
mean exactly the same as the simple , as is proved by the
parallel formul 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 ;
for the beginning of things () and their purpose form the real force to which their origin is due
(principle ). 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
, ...; 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
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 Apostles clearest trains of thought everything that he has to say of Christ hinges
326 on his death and resurrection. For this we need no proofs, but see, more
especially Rom. I. 3 f.: , ,

,
. 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 of God. The exposition in 1 Cor. XV. 45, also (
, , .
) is still capable of being understood as
to its fundamental features, in a sense which agrees with the conception of the Messiah, as
, the man from heaven who was hidden with God. There can be no doubt, however, that this
conception, as already shewn by the formul 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 Apostles 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 ( ), 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 Apostles ways of regarding the matter, Christ, after the accomplishment
of his work, became the 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.
This view is found in 2 Cor. VIII. 9: ; in Rom.

327
VIII. 3:
; and in Phil. II. 5 f.:
..... , ,
... In both forms of thought Paul presupposes a
real exaltation of Christ. Christ receives after the resurrection more than he ever possessed (
). In this view Paul retains a historical interpretation of Christ, even in
the conception of the . 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 , dies the death of
the cross, and then, raised by the Father, ascends again into heaven in order henceforth to act as
198
the and , 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.
He was also the first to designate Christs as assumpta, and to recognise its assumption as
in itself a humiliation. To him the appearance of Christ was no mere , but a ,
328 , .
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,
, , , says 2 Clem. (9. 5), and
that is also the Christology of 1 Clement, Barnabas and many other Greeks. From the sum total of
Judo-Christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition, the one which has been already
mentioned: the Messiah as is for that very reason also
, 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: , ,
, . 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 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 Pauls 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
the and the 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, , which in itself is foreign to the Logos conception. Just
fancy a proposition like the one in VI. 44, , , or in V.
17. 21, engrafted on Philos 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
With this transition the theories concerning Christ are removed from Jewish and Old Testament
329
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
330 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 correctionsby 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 GospelI
confess I do not notice themthe 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 Christs 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.:
, ,
). With this we must compare verses like III. 13:
, , and III. 31: .
(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 () and in Christ is
nowhere assumed in the Gospel except in the prologue. It is always Christs 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 , 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:
, , V. 19:
, V. 36: VIII. 38: , VIII. 40:
, XII. 49: XV. 15: .
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
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
331 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 Christs spiritual nature for granted, determined his religious significance by his moral
qualitiesPaul 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: ,
,
.
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 Chrtien, 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
of the Lords 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 Lords Supper and
sacred song. The Didache had already prescribed stated formul for prayer. The ritual of the Lords
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 periodno later in fact than
the end of the first and beginning of the second centurya fixed and a variable element were
distinguished; for responsory hymns, as is testified by the Epistle of Pliny and the still earlier Book
333 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
Lords 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 formul of later
times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to God, it returns thanks for knowledge and life; it speaks
of Jesus the (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.
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 , 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 Lightfoots edition and my own).
334 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 liturgiesa 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.
, (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
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.

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,
336 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 mans claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be legitimised.
203
It is an evidence of the vigour of mans 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
337 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
338 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
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.
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
339 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 spirits 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 preliminarythe 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
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
340 Neoplatonists. Porphyry, be-fore he became a disciple of Plotinus, wrote a book
; as a philosopher he no longer required the . 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
341 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
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
342 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
343 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, Gtt. Gel. Anz., 1 Mrz, 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
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.
And yet the significance of Neoplatonism in the history of our moral culture has been, and still is,
344
immeasurable. Not only because it refined and strengthened mans 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 Chronea, 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
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
345 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: m , , , ,
, , ... ... ,
, , . . . . . .
,
346 . 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
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
347 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 Christianityboth Gnostic and
Catholicon 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.
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
348 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
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
349 itself to this so far as its nature allows it.
The first emanation of the Original Essence is the 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 is the highest sphere which the human spirit
can reach ( ) and at the same time pure thought itself.
The soul which, according to Plotinus, is an immaterial substance like the ,457 is an image and
product of the immovable . It is related to the as the latter is to the Original Essence. It
stands between the and the world of phenomena. The penetrates and enlightens it, but
it itself already touches the world of phenomena. The is undivided, the soul can also preserve
its unity and abide in the ; 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 ,
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
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,
350 viz., matter, lies at the basis of bodies. Matter is the foundation of each ( );
it is the obscure, the indefinite, that which is without qualities, the . 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.
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 . 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 , 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 , 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
351 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
is, as it were, the second God; the 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
who were themselves deceived, and the restoration of the ancient worship of the Gods was not
his chief aim.
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 , 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
352 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
353 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
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
354 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 gyptiorum. 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 emperors romantic policy of restoration, as he himself must
have seen, had, however, no result, and his early death destroyed every hope of supplanting
Christianity.
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
355 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
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 formul. 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.
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
356 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 ProclusMarinus, Asclepiodotus, Ammonius, Zenodotus, Isidorus, Hegias,
Damasciusare 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
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
357 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 Boethiuswe can now regard this as certainwas 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.
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 Grco-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
358 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
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
359 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
360 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
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.
Literature.The best and fullest account of Neoplatonism, to which I have been much indebted
361
in preparing this sketch, is Zellers 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. grc. et rom. 531 ff. The Histories of Philosophy by Schwegler, Brandis,
Brucker, Thilo, Strmpell, Ueberweg (the most complete survey of the literature is found here),
Erdmann, Cousin, Prantl. Lewes. Further: Vacherot, Hist. de lcole dAlexandria, 1846, 1851.
Simon, Hist. de lcole dAlexandria, 1845. Steinhart, articles Neuplatonismus, Plotin,
Porphyrius, Proklus in Pauly, Realencyclop. des klass. Alterthums. Wagenmann, article
Neuplatonismus in Herzog, Realencyklopdie 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 ber Origenes, 1835. Redepenning, Origenes I. p. 421 f. Dehaut,
Essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine dAmmonius 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 reliqui, 1856. Mller, Fragmenta
hist. gr. III. 688 f. Mai, Ep. ad Marcellam, 1816. Bernays, Theophrast. 1866. Wagenmann, Jahrbcher
fr 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 gyptischen Mysterien,
1858. Meiners, Comment. Societ. Gtting. 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. qu 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
362 Hermes Th. XVI. p. 214 f. On Boethius, cf. Nitzsch, Das System des Bothius, 1860. Usener,
Anecdoton Holderi, 1877.
218
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 Lffler, Der Platonismus, der Kirchenvter, 1782. Huber, Die Philosophie der
Kirchenvter, 1859. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, 1829. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins
des Grossen, p. 155 f. Chastel, Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme dans lempire dOrient, 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. Rville, La rligion
Rome sous les Svres, 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
Medival Mystics. Special prominence is due to Jahn, Basilius Plotinizans, 1838. Dorner,
Augustinus, 1875. Bestmann, Qua ratione Augustinus notiones philos. Grc 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
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
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

221
,
, , .
, ,
.

, , ,

, ,
, , , ,
.

, , .
, ,
, .

, ...

m , , , , , , ... ...
, , ,
, , ,
, , , , ,
, .

, , , , ,
, .
, ;
, ,
, ,
.

, . . . . .

. .
222
, , ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
[sic]

,

; , , .
, , ,
, , , .
,
, ,
,
. ,
, .

()

, ....
,
,
. . . . , . . .
. .
. , ,
.
, .

, ,

, , , .
..... , ,
...

223

,

.

( )

.
,

,

.
, instead of .

.
... or the exhortation: ,

,
, .

, .

, ,
. .

224

,
, ,
, ,

, , ,
, , ,

, apart from the

()

.

,

()

,

225
, () , ()
.
, , ,

()
, .... , ,
. . .

,

, ,

, ...
, ,

(
, , , ;
;

, ,
,
.

the and the
. . .

()

226
,
, , ,
, , , ,
,

.
()
( ) () ()
, ,

, .
,
, , ,
,
, ,
,
,

,
,

, ,

()

, ,
.
.
227
, , ,
,
,

,

or

, .

,

, ,

, .

, ,

. . .

,

.

228
,

,

,

, ,
,
, , ,
.
, , V. 19:

.
)
, .
. , ,

()
.
,

;
,
, , ,
. , , ,
.
, ,
.
, he says, ,
,
.

229

, , ,
).

or
, ...

and
,

-
, .
,
, , .
, .

, and the
.

. . . . . . ,
.

,

, .

, ,

=
, , , ,
,

230

.

and
, ,

:

,

, , , .
, .... , ,
.... , .
, ,

, ,
, , , , ,
, .

;

231

.

, ,

, ...
.
.

, , , , , , , , ,
, ,

, .
, ,
, , .
, ,
, . . . . .
, or
, , .

, ,
.

....
() .
, . ...

()
.
232

, .

.

,
the women) . . . . , . .

,

, ,
, .

, , , ,
, ,

, . ,
...

, , .

,

,
,

: ,
,
, .
233
, . . . .

(, )

, ,

. Prd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom.
VI. 6. 48: , ,
.

, ,
,

.

,
,
,
, . . .
. . ,
.

,
, ...
234
. ,
, ,
9; ,
.
, , , ..

,

, ...
, he is the
,
,
, .

, and as

,
.
,

,

, , , ( ), from the

, , , ,

.

235
, .

,

,
, , , ,
, , ,
, .

.

()

()

. . . .

,

; Eph. 7

...
, ,
, ;
, , ,
, , , .
, and
, with ,
,

236
, or , and 1 Clem. 36.

2:
, ,

, ,
. . . .

. , .

,
, , .
, ?

. . .
. . . . , ,
, , ...
. . . . ,
Index of Latin Words and Phrases

Sufficit, said the Marcionites, unicum opsus deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et
prcipua bonitate sua
(Ebionit) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis
cremonias 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
Apostoli qu sunt Judorum sentientes scripserunt

Apostolorum principem
Apostolos admiscuisse ea qu sunt legalia salvatoris verbis
Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi.
Atque adeo pr se ferunt Marcionit: quod deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem,
inquiunt, timebitur; bonus autem diligitur.
Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo
Cessatio delicti radix est veni, ut venia sit pnitenti 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 dificio venit, sed de
veritatis destructione; nostra suffodiunt, ut sua dificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas
et creatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent.
Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova qudam 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 mulatur. 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 :
Dominus
Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum prparatus sum, ut sim arbiter (
Es quo fit, ut nullo modo in theologicis, qu omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grcis, 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 hreticos 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 prsumunt.
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 qu semel abluit, qum ludibrio pecatoribus non est.
238
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
prbuisse 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 Pythagor et Platonis et Aristotelis et reliquorum, et
reliquam observationem circa eas similiter ut gentes faciunt.
Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minors 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 corcendisque et in
accerrimo honestatis studio eo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.
Immo inquiunt Marcionit, 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 clo, 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 pne vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.
Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem psychicorum.
Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.
Marcionit 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 ali hujusmodi
blasphemi.
Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionit 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 hresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et habet dona natur qu 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 sculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.
Prius est prdicare posterius tinguere
239
Ptolemus nomina et numeros onum 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 Judos (!) hresis est, que dicitur Minorum et a Pharisis nunc usque damnatur, quos
vulgo Nazaros 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 Judi esse et Christiani, nec Judi sunt nec Christiani.
Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?
Quoniam opera bona, qu fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc sculo its prosunt
Sculum
Sacrorum pleraque initia in Grcia participavi. Eorum qudam 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, qu hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in
armorium Judaicum admittitur ... sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prdicarit,
a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam
dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judis potest jam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera
fera qu Christum sonant. .... Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium
possidet.
Sed enim nationes extrane, 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 Mithr; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos,
templa totasque urbes aspergine circumlat aqua expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et
Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere
prsumunt. 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 hresim.
Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis ... ex diversitate sententiarum
utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur deorum.
Si bona fide quras, 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 cde 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 prstandam salutem inefficax judicetur.
240
Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus.

Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est
Solius bonitatis
Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii
prrogativa loci potitum indignatus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit
Spiritus salutaris
Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, qu 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 hreticos.
Valentiniani nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod prdicant; si tamen prdicant qui occultant.
Custodi officium conscienti officium est
a ligno
a priori
analogia fidei
articuli fide
articulus constitutivus ecclesia
ascensus in clum
assumpta
assumptio
assumptio natur nov
clum tertium
carmen dicere Christo quasi deo
collegia tenuiorum
communem fidem adfirmant
consensus patrum et doctorum
corpus permixtum
de clo
de conscientia religionis et disciplin unitate et spei foedere.
decepti deceptores
dei filius
delicta pristin ccitatis
demonstratio ver carnis post resurrectionem
descensus ad inferna
descensus de clo, ascensus in clum; ascensus in clum, descensus ad inferna
deus
deus Jesus Christus
deus melior
disciplina Evangelii
distincte agere
dominus ac deus
dominus ac deus noster
dominus regnavit
241
ex errare per veritatem ad errorem

ex necessitate salutis
ex professo
factiuncula, congregatio, conciliabulum, conventiculum
fides implicita
finis religionis
frequentissimum collegium
hc 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 Judos 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 natur human, transmutatio, mixtura, du natur
plerique nec Ecclesias habent
prsens et corporalis deus
prsens numen
prter nocturnas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum innocens
tas, qu in ecstasi videt
primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem
profanum vulgus
qu 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 ternam habet
regul
regul fide
242
regula
regula fide
regula fidei
renatus in ternum taurobolio
restitutio in integrum
revelatio
salus legitima
sanctiores femin
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. Cyprians 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
Basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of the

Apologists: Melito, Irenus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian.. . . . . . .
1. The theological position of Irenus 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
HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN

EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOLUME II
vii CONTENTS.
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
Irenus, 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
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 this 27
transformation
Irenus 27
Tertullian 29
Results of t h e 31
viii transformation
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)
Irenus and Tertullian.
Conditions under which 45
the New Testament
originated.
Relation of the New 47
Testament to the
3
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
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 the 70
conceptions of the
Alexandrians
The Bishops as 70
successors of the
Apostles
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
Obscurities in the idea 77
ix 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. Cyprians 90
idea of the Church and
the actual circumstances
Appendix II. Church 90
and Heresy
5
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
After effect of the old 115

idea of the Church in
Cyprian
Origens idea of the 116
Church
Novatians 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 as 177
Philosophy and as
Revelation
Aristides 179
Justin 179
Athenagoras 188
Miltiades, Melito 190
Tatian 190
7
Pseudo Justin, Orat. ad 193

Gr.
Theophilus 194
Pseudo Justin, de 195
Resurr.
Tertullian and Minucius 196
Pseudo-Justin, de 199
Monarch
Results 199
3. 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 the 217
History of Jesus
Christology of Justin 220
Interpretation and 225
Criticism, especially of
Justins 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, Irenus, Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Novatian
8
1. The theological position 231

xi of Irenus 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
Irenus 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 to 247
Gnosticism
The Scripture 250
theology as a sign of
the dependence on
Gnosticism and as a
means of conserving
tradition
9
The Doctrine of God 253

The Logos Doctrine of 256
Tertullian and
Hippolytus
(Conceptions regarding 261
the Holy Spirit)
Irenus doctrine of the 262
Logos
(Conceptions regarding 266
the Holy Spirit)
The views of Irenus 267
regarding the
destination of man, the
original state, the fall
and the doom of death
(the disparate series of
ideas in Irenus;
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
Tertullians doctrine of 279
the two natures and its
origin
Rudiments of this 283
doctrine in Irenus
The Gnostic character 286
of this doctrine
Christology of 286
Hippolytus
Views as to Christs 288
work
Redemption, Perfection 289
10
Reconciliation 292
Categories for the fruit 292
of Christs work
Things peculiar to 293
xii Tertullian
Satisfacere Deo 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
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) The system of Origen 332
Introductory: The 332
personality and
importance of Origen
The Elements of 334
Origens theology; its
Gnostic features
The relative view of 334, 336
Origen
12
His temper and final 335

aim: relation to Greek
Philosophy
Theology as a 340
xiii Philosophy of
Revelation, and a
cosmologic al
speculation
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
Clements doctrine of 352
the Logos
Doctrine of the Holy 357
Spirit
Doctrine of Spirits 359
II. Doctrine of the Fall and 361
its consequences
Doctrine of Man 363
III. Doctrine of Redemption 365
and Restoration
The notions necessary 367
to the Psychical
The Christology 369
The Appropriation of 375
Salvation
The Eschatology 377
13
Concluding Remarks: 378

The importance of this
system to the
following period
xiv
xv
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
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,
2 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 Aub (Histoire des Perscutions de lEglise, 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 Ritschls 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. Sohms 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
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
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
3 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. Sohms 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 of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohms 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
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
4 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
5 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 cumenical community, held
together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.
16
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. 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
6 so-called Gnosticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de prscr. 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 Christianitys 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
mens 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 connection with Greek mythology and
gross polytheism.4 A motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both
7 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 Grco-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
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
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 ( ). 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
8 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
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.
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.
18
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
9 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 Churchs
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), Irenus, 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
10 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 ecclesi. 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 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.
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.
19
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 Irenus 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
11 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
12 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 vit and spes fidei, and who found no sort
of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas command, performance, error, forgiveness. In Irenus
also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the Pauline theology, is united with the
primitive Christian eschatology.
20
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 Irenus with his
slavish dependence on authority.
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
13 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 Origens theology
with the inflexible Antignostic regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured
to unite the theology of Irenus 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 On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, ber die Anfnge 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.
21
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
14 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.
1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic rules is that the churches,
15
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 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.)
14 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.
22
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
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
16 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 Irenus. What amount of innovation
these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are men of the second
generation. Tertullian is related to Irenus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds
good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formul which
are not found in Irenus 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 Irenus.
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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Csarea a Greek translation of Tertullians Apology and a
collection of Cyprians 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
17 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 See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, qu sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset
incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur; de ieiun. 13: Aguntur prterea
per Grcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qu et altiora quque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprsentatio
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 whrend der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877.
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.
23
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
We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from Tertullians de
prscriptione hreticorum. 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
19 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 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.
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.
24
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
20 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,
(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 , (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 Translators note. The following is Tertullians Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: Constat omnem doctrinam qu
cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesi
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.
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.
23 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
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 , , or the like, might stand for , 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
cum synonymis. (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).
25
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.
We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of
21
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 Lords Supper, as well as in
the exorcism of demons,25 fixed formul 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.
22 We may suppose that formul 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
, 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 (
) 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 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 , 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.
25 See on this point Justin, index to Ottos edition. It is not surprising that formul 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 Justins 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.
26 These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4.
27 The most important result of Casparis 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 Herzogs 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 formul (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
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
23 they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition and
to the Churchs 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: ,
24 (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 ); 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 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 , 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 formul in these cases.
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
27
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 disciplin, and the
fdus 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
25 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 ( ). 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 formul 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
26 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.
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 formul 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 formul in the sense of Irenus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression
in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned
among the beliefs held by the . 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 , though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important
doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenus 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.
28
In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through
Irenus 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. Irenus 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 Irenus35 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
27 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 the truth
proclaimed by the Church; and , the body of the truth) is the old
28 baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9.
34 We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenus, or even of older date, and especially
Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarps exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4)
may perhaps be also mentioned.
35 Irenus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise,
, probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)
36 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
4;
, 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
By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenus (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 Irenus 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
29 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
( ) of Christ into heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh
( , ), the universal judgment. These dogmas, the
antitheses of the Gnostic regul,40 were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic,
removed beyond all discussion.
Tertullian followed Irenus 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 Irenus, 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
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 Casparis 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 Irenus 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 formul 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 formul 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.
39 Besides Irenus 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. Prf. 12. 5; 20. 1.
40 See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Prf. 19. 8.
41 This expression is not found in Irenus, but is very common in Tertullian.
42 See de prscr. 13: Hc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos qustiones.
30
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 Irenus, Tertullian
conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith,43 as the law given to faith,44 also as a regula
doctrin or doctrina regul (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply
30 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 Irenus. 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
31 nova lex and a nova promissio regni clorum,51 and finally also the Trinitarian economy of God.52
Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenus is already very significant. Tertullians 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 See l. c. 14: Ceterum manente forma regul in suo ordine quantumlibet quras at tractes. See de virg. vol. 1.
44 See 1. c. 14: Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis, and de vir. vol. 1.
45 See de prscr. 21: Si hc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, qu cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus
fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus,
de apostolorum traditione censeatur ... Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. De prscr. 32:
Ecclesi, qu licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non
minus apostolic deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrin. That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with
the regula fidei, just as Irenus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 (Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis
su verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pomp 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 prscr. 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 prscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things
inter domesticos, but declares that they could not be communications qu aliam regulam fidei superducerent.
46 De prscr. 13; de virg. vol.1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded: Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen
dispensatione quam 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 clo 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 prscr. 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.
51 L. c.
52 Adv. Prax. 2: Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius
sermo ipsius, etc.
53 But Tertullian also knows of a regula disciplin (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
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.
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 prscriptione 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 formul 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
32 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 Irenus 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
33 of Rome, nor understood by regula fidei and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs
54 Note here the use of contesserare in Tertullian. See de prascr.2o: Itaque tot ac tant ecclesi una est ab apostolis prima, ex
qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolic, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis
et contesseratio hospitalitatis, qu iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio. De prscr. 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 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.
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 Irenus), 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 ( 9; ) as
well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: and 5
; 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 in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt
32
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
34 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
Irenus 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 nave view of tradition, that is, the complete content
of Christianity, which Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Irenus 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 , 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
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 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 or
the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see
Philosoph. Prf., p. 4. V. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenus to Theophilus is uncertain. His
idea of the Church is that of Irenus (ad Autol. II. 14):
, ,
...
... , .
58 This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: Did the Alexandrian Church in
Clements 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
, 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.).
59 , 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
or . . 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 which had
been transmitted to him.
33
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 ; 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
. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find
(). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lords 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 ); 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 . In the first passage it is said:
, , .
. 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:
; then he
demands that the Scriptures be interpreted , or . . .; and continues (125):
.
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
Tertullians 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: (I. 1. 11), (VII. 18. 110),
(all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also , I, 1. 15.
I: 11. 52., also the expression (VII. 16. 103), (VII. 16. 95),
(VII. 16. 99), (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), (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
(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 , 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:
= . .). In none of these formul 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 (
,
,
). 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 (VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that:
(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:
. VI. 7. 61: (this is the only place where I find this
expression) , ibid ; VII. 10. 55:
.
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: , ,
,
,
, . But in the other
34
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
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 Irenus and Tertullian
than to that of Clement. In the preface to his great work, De principiis, he prefixed the Church
37 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
38 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.
passages in Clement where 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:
. 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.
62 De princip. 1. I. prf. 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 Dllinger, 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 in Alexandria
about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian,
. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church
had not possessed a similar .
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.
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 Irenus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches;
for in Cyprians 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
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 (Lord) was originally regarded as
emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: . (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
39 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
40 equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apocalypses, no new writings at all, which
Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 ...
, 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.; Weizscker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Kppel, 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.
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 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) Baurs 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 Tbingen 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.
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 Manichans in the Byzantine age.
36
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
41 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 (
= ) 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 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 (,
, , ), 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 , 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: 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:
... 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: . That, certainly, is a saying of a
Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual . 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: , . These examples may be
multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formul of quotation , 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.)
73 See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. Citate Justins. Gtt., 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 epistol Pauli viri iusti (
), 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 epistol 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.
75 Rev. 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 dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari.
37
and certifying the Christian Kerygma ( ). The ecclesiastical canon was the
result of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual
42 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, Tatians 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 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 (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 ; see Texte u.
Unters. IX. 2.
79 See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatians 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
antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)
82 Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5.
83 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
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 Irenus 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,
44 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 Irenus 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
45
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 Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the , and of ,

we may assume that he knows .
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: ). They did not happen
to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century.
86 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 qu Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Thecl 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. Irenus and Tertullian already treat the
collection as simply existent.
87 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 Irenus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemus 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. Grubers
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
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
46 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
47 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 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 Rnsch, Das N. T. Tertullians
p. 47 f. The most common name is Holy Scriptures. In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as
(evangelic et apostolic litter); 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
Gods 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 Irenus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the
Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenus efforts
as successful.
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).
40
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
48 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 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.
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.
41
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,
49 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 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 ecclesiastic disciplin
sanctificat 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 Irenus and Tertullian. There it is called
acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc. Irenus 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 prscr. 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 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 , 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, Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
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,
51 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 Irenus 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 Churchs effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. But the
52 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 (
) 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 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.
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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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.)
99 Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I.
p. 150.)
43
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,
53 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 Kirchenvtern, 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. prf. 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 (LXIII. 2).
44
which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian
must be tested.103
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
Irenus 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
55 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
Irenus 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 propheti et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte,
quod ceteri. Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: , , ,
; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3:
. 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 prophet.
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 Irenus 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
by this faithfully preserved possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be
that of the Apostles.
56
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.
57 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 prscr. 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 Serapions 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: ,
... (follows John I. 1) III. I2: , ,

, ; III. 13:
.; III. 14.: . 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
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
58 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 ( ) and Apostles ( )
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:
(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 .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
59 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
Credners 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 ; but on the other hand Homer was
a prophet against his will. See Pd. I. 6. 36, also 51.

114 In the Pd. the Gospels are regularly called , 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 Pd. I. 6. 49:
. We can hardly conclude from Pd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a prophet.
47
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 as . (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 , but it had given the concept apostolic a far
wider content than Irenus 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
60 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 Irenus 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., Pd. 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 . It is quoted in Pd. 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
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
61 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 Clements attitude to the various groups within this collection
of , 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
62 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 Clements 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
(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
63 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
64 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 ber die Anfnge 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: ,
, 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
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 Irenus, 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
65 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 prscr. 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
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 (live according to the Gospel)
held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz.,
(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.
C. The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an apostolic office. The history of
67
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 regul, 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 Irenus 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 zwlf 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
agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.132 But Irenus 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,
68 were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception that the ecclesi (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
Irenus 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
69 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 Irenus 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 prscr. 20, 21, 32.

133 This theory is maintained by Irenus and Tertullian, and is as old as the association of the and the .
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 prscr.
36).
134 Tertull., de prscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, qu est ab apostolis, qu 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 Roman ecclesi, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata
hominihus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. III. 3. 4, 4. 1: Si de aliqua modica qustione 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 qu in unoquoque
loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, qu 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 qu est ab
apostolis ecclesi successio. The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenus (III. praef.) to the successors of
the Apostles.
53
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 Irenus and Tertullian, however, we
only find the first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the Churches as
70 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus, 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 Churchs 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 Irenus 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 ltesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfnge einer bischflichen 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 Soters 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 Tertullians treatise de prscr.
138 Special importance attaches to Tertullians 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: ,
,

, , ... In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception
54
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
(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
72 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 Irenus. 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 nostr religionis gradus artifex svitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos
tentationibus sculi 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. Pd. 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:
.
. 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: , ...
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 prdicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola
credenda est veritas, qu in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2:
. ). 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 Origens 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 Anfnge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837. Kestlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche
in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fr christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung
der altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenus Lehre von der Autoritt der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche,
1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfnge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der
christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Sder, Der Begriff der
Katholicitt der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This
contains the special literature treating of Cyprians conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c.
55
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
73 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
74 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 Irenus and
Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.145 But
140 See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.

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
.
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 and . 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): ,
, . 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 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 is first found. In his view the
is founded on the 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
56
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 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
75 thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an cumenical 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
76 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:
, .
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:
. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is
specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see also Hermas; Justin; Irenus; Tertullian, de prscr. 20; Clem.
Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenus 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: (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the
Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents Catholics. The word itself is not yet found in Irenus, but the idea is there
(sec I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19: ). is found as a designation
of the orthodox, visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: ; 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
prscr. 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, ; 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 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, (. ); 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. ,
, , , etc.
57
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
77 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 Irenus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old
147 Very significant is Tertullians expression in adv. Val. 4: Valentinus de ecclesia authentic regul 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 prteritur, 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 Tertullians time: credis in remissionem peccatorum
et vitam ternam 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: , ,
, (there is a different idea in Pd. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42:
). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named mother.
149 Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.
150 The phraseology of Irenus 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
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, Irenus frequently asserts that the
78 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Tertullians conception
79 of the Church was essentially the same as that of Irenus; 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:
: IV. 8.1: semen Abrah ecclesia., IV. 8.3: omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem; IV. 36.2: ubique prclara
est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum; IV. 33.7: ; IV. 26. 1 sq.:
V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34.3., Levit 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 ecclesi 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 prscr. 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, qu
trium corpus est; 8: columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de clis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata; 15: unus
deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in clis; de pnit. 10: in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecelesia vero Christus; de orat.
59
From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of
80
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 Clements 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 Irenus.155 Up to the 15th Chapter of the
7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in the Pdagogus, 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 Gods 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
81 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 ecclesi 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 Pd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27:
, ,
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: ,
; IV. 26. 172: ,
, ; VI. 13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: ,
; VII. 5. 29:
... , ; VII. 6. 32; VII. I. 68:
. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special
attention to the following sentences: ,
, ...
, .
60
much.157 The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clements 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
82 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 ,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
83 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 Clements 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: ; 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 ecclesi 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 (
, ). 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: ,
. 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 .

161 Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the city of God (see also pseudo-Cyprians 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 (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 Augustines equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many of the problems considered by the latter,
anticipated prophetically this Fathers view of the City of God of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f.). The Church is also
viewed as in Euseb., H. E. V. Prf. 4, and at an earlier period in Clement.
61
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 Churchs 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
84 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 Irenus 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.
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 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 Irenus says:
.
169 On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. 12, and Tertull., de pudic.
62
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,
85 in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Churchs 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 Hartels 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
86 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.
171 Cyprians 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 ecclesi 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 Irenus. Cyprians 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 cumenical
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. 8ep. 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 Korahs 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 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 prpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me
audit. Ep. 3. 3: dominus apostolos, i. e., episcopos elegit; ep. 75. 16.
63
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
87 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
88 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 Cyprians 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 mchis non putaverunt et in totem pnitenti
locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholic ecclesi 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; Sententi episc., prfat.): qua in re nec nos vim
cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesi administratione voluntatis su arbitrium liberum unusquisque
prpositus, 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, prcepta 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
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 latters
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
89 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 Cyprians conception of the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be
90 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 catholic ecclesi unitas pariter et caritas; de unit. 4: superunum dificat 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
dificavit 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 ecclesi catholic (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 prdicante
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 navely, even at the time
when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prcedere.
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 ecclesi
novell et poster (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice tyrannico terrore and insisted that
the unitas ecclesi required the observance of this Churchs 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
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
II. The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the Church. The designation 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
91 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, Irenus,
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.

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 latters study: Mmoire sur lorigine des diocses piscopaux dans lancienne 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: , , ,
..., 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 prscr. 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.
66
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
But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church with a harmoniously
92
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 mans 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,
93 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: Hretici nullum habent consortium nostr disciplin, quos extraneos
utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est prceptum, 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 prscr. 3-6.
189 Irenus 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 ecclesi. 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. Not; 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): hc sunt initia hreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut prpositum 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 hreses obort sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur;
epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam hresin 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 Cyprians 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
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
(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 ecclesi. 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
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
95 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
The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message especially
96
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; Rville, 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 Aurle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus,
1881; Harnack, Das Mnchthum, 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 Mller (Herzogs
Real-Encyklopdie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizscker in the
Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter in the
Zeitschrift fr 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 . , 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
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
97 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.

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 doubt the Montanist Churches in Asia and Phrygia, to which the bishop of Rome had already
issued liter 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): , or

or , though Old Testament prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla
says on one occasion (No. 11); ; and a
second time (No. 12): . The two utterances
do not exclude, but include, one another (cf. also No. 10: ). 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.
70
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
99 fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.204 These Christians as yet knew nothing of the
199 L.c., no. 9: . 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 sculo 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): , ; Prisca was a (l.c. 3); Proculus, the chief of the
Roman Montanists, virginis senect (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. prophet proprii of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find
in Philos. VIII. 19: ,
. 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:
..., ,
71
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.
100 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 Mnster. 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
101 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
. (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 latters 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 Marcions 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, qu
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 Tertullians
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
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
102 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 Christs names
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
103 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 Tertullians
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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians 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
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
104 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
105 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
Valerians 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 ecclesi? 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
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 Irenus 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 Irenus.
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
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
107 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
108 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.

221 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 prophet 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 Irenus
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): ... Origen
on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirits 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 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.
76
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 divin litteratur) 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 salvation, viz.,
the regulation that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the beginning of
109 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,
110 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 prser. 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-Encyklopdie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen,
Tertullians Schriften de pnit. et de pudic. mit Rcksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus,
1893.
227 In the work de pnit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K. Mller, 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
not directly opposed to his attitude. In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something
closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed (de pnit. 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
111 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
112 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: K
.
229 See Tertull., de pudic. 12: hinc est quod neque idololatri 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:

, . 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 Cyprians collection. He himself had to struggle
with painful doubts.
78
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 Novatians 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 Gods 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
4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered
113
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 Gods 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 Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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: ; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this
Tertuilians 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 fr 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
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
114 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 Gods 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 Christs 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.
115 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:
. ,
.
. 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 arc typum et corvus et milvus
et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arc 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
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 qu 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
116 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 Gods installing the bishops and always
appointing the right ones242 is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprians
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,: , , . 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 communitys right to choose and control
them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in Reuter Augustinische Studien (Zeitschrift fr 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; mult vero sunt adolescentul, 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 Churchs 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
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
118 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. Novatians
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
119 asserted: non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro glori su (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.: , ); 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 Gods 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. Dllinger (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. Origens 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 rmischen 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 Cyprians 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 Novatians schism, and the part then played by the
latter, who was still a member of the Church, see my essay: Die Briefe des rmischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im
Jahre 250 (Abhandl. f. Weizscker, 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 pnit. 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
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 Gods mercy can
only mean that in Novatians 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 qu 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 Gods 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,
120 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
ternam 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, () 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,
Novatians followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the Church.
83
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
121 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
122 presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.250 As Novatians
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 doctrin su 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 pnit., 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 Aub, Les Chrtiens dans
lempire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: Chrtiens intransigeants et Chrtiens 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: . 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 pnit. 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 suasori, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis prcordiis credam,
diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus prceptis tota lex pendet et prophet, 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 Novatians 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
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
123 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
124 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.

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 Neocsarea IV. sc. 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 Churchs 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 rmischen
Bischfe, pp. 250-255); the Donatist Revolution, and the Audiani in the East.
253 It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullians 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 Cyprians 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.
85
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
125 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
mdiocrit fonda lautorit). The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lords 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 Cyprians 55th epistle (c. 9.): Cornelius sedit intrepidus Rom in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus
sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se mulum
principem quam constitui Rom dei sacerdotem. On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted
by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mlanges Renier: Le Concile dElvire et les flamines chrtiens, 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 of Julius Africanus, and other examples). Much information on
this point is to be derived from Origens 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 Tertullians 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 in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops.
86
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
127 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 (
) of the towns almost everywhere consists. ,
, . ,
;
, , ,
.
; , , ,
. ,
,

, ,
,
,
.
87
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.260 What meaning it has
is shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic
129 Constitutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they
259 Rtschl, 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 Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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 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 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:
... , and through whose instrumentality union with God can alone be attained: the
(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 (sacerdotals 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 tngus 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 prscr. 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. prf.: , 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. Irenus (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
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 Gods 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
130 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
131 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 perquationem disciplin 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 Christs stead and to
grant or refuse the divine grace. In Cyprians 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 Irenus 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 Cyprians 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
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
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 Lords 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,
132 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 Irenus 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 Lords 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.
133 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 and 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 , prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Csarea 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 Dllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1826. Hfling, Die Lehre der ltesten Kirche
vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342
ff. Steitz, Art. Messe in Herzogs Real Encyklopdie, 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 Hfling, 1. c., who has also treated in detail Clement and Origens idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful
saying of Irenus IV. 18. 3: Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui
offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et prstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico (on the offering in the Lords 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:
90
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, Cyprians 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
134 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 Cyprians 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
, ...
(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 Tertullians time the theory, that it was on a level
with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: ,
), 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
Tertullians 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: ...
; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hosti 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 Biggs beautiful account in The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Lect. IV.-VI.
272 Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: Quomodo mult mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum.
273 See c. 1: Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, qu Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem
dedit sano et prcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocenti
prscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis human infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina
subveniens iustiti et misericordi operibus ostensis viam quandam tuend salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque
contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus. c. 2: sicut lavacro aqu salutaris gehenn 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
Cyprians 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:
prceptis 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 Gods
favour by their works.
91
means of grace in Cyprians 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 eleemosyn) 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
135 the guidance and intercessory coperation 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 eleemosyn 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 mans (the Christians) 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 Augustines 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 Christs grace and the divine factor in the case, as
Cyprians work de opere et eleemosynis.
136
No less significant is Cyprians 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 Lords 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 Lords Supper as an incorporation
of the congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony
137 as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators (vivi et defuncti),
274 Baptism with blood is not referred to here.

275 With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustines 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 Lords 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: dominic hosti veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare; ep. 63. 4:
92
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. Cyprians statement
that every celebration of the Lords Supper is a repetition or imitation of Christs 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
Lords Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras,
138 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 Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in
cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim cpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici. In Cyprians 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: and
. 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 Lords 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 Christs 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 prcepit, 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 Christs sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprians 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:
(in the old covenant) , . II. 53). The passage VI. 23:
,
, 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.: ,
we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius time of a sacrifice of Christs body in the Lords
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 Tertullians 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
reprsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.
93
place in mens 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.
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,
139 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 Gods 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, eleemosyn). 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 Cyprians 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 Christs
declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism,
140 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 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 () was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed.
This conception, however, is opposed to the Judo-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 su 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
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 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 ternitatis).
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
141 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 Hfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. Taufe in Herzogs Real Encyklopdie. Walch, Hist. pdobaptismi
quattuor priorum sculorum, 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 prparamur.
284 The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pdag. 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: ,
, , . 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 Tertullians 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, qu in actu videtur, et magnificentia, qu 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
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
142 and Spirit are associated with each other, especially in Cyprians 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 Churchs 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 Irenus
(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
143 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
ternitatis. 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 Tertullians 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:
.
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 Translators note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack: Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, prcipue
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 tas ad remissionem peccatorum?
Cautius agetur in scularibus, 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; Irenus 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 qu de clo
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 qu est ad incorruptionem unitatem
96
The Lords 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
144 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 Lords 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
145 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, anim 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: , ,
...
292 Dllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistic in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826. Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift fr die hist. Theologie,
1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Rckert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856. Leimbach,
Beitrge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbcher fr
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 Clements time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103.
293 The collocation of baptism and the Lords Supper, which, as the early Christian monuments prove, was a very familiar practice
(Tert., adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacramentum baptismi et eucharisti; 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
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 Pd. 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
146 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 mans own
free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are
from Origens 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 Lords 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 Leimbachs investigations of Tertullians 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; Pd. 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 Clements 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: ;
I. 20. 46: ; V. 10. 66: . 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 cesti ... 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 Origens doctrine of the Lords Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff.
98
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
147 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
148 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 Augustines
time it has still remained the same in its practice.
149 EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III.
CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.299
298 The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of Nica:
, , ,
a conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by the idea that the Supper was ),
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 Cheethams 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 fr 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
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 Judo-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
150 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
151
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: , , , , ). 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 Prohr. p. 90:
.
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
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 Irenus 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
152 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 Tatians 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 Irenus
and Tertullian. It was not till Origens 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 (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
, . 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 Irenus 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 Bez. 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
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 Irenus).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
154 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 ltester Zeit. 1887; the same writer in the Zeitschrift
fr 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 ltesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfnge einer bischflichen 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-Cyprians 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 clesti 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 fr 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
spread from that city to the rest of Christendom.313 (9) The different Churches communicated with
one another through the medium of Rome.314
From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental apostolic institutions
155
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 birds-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
156 pretends to no legal title of any kind, but she knows the commandments and ordinances
( and ) 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 , 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 Nica 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 Cyprians 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: ... ,
, . We must not forget, however, that
there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called cumenical 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 Romes central position in
the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: urbs terna 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,
. 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
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 worlds 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
157 of the particular duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan Church.320 After this
evidence we cannot wonder that Irenus 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 under-
as 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
158 particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many communities turned to Rome in order to testify
319 In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb is twice used about the Roman Church ( [to be understood in a
local sense] = 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.: . 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 .
320 Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf, above all, the words: , ,
... .
Note here the emphasis laid on .
321 According to Irenus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations
sprang from her (III. 12. 5: ,

). For obvious reasons Irenus 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, maxim et
antiquissim et omnibus cognit, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Rom fundat et constitut ecclesi, 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 ccitatem
et malam sententiam, prterquam 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 qu
est ab apostolis traditio. On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which Irenus 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 Churchs 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, , 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
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
159 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 Grco-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) Irenus 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 = = it cannot be otherwise. In reference
to principalitas = (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 authentic regul 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.):
. 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 (rconcilis), voil le chef-duvre qui
fondait la suprmatie ecclsiastique de Rome clans lavenir. Une nouvelle qualit mythique remplaait 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
prsc. 30). The Shepherd also contains instructive particulars with regard to this. As far as her influence is concerned, we
105
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
160 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
161 of enforcing it in every case unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions
of the common unity ( ) 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 ?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 (only begotten Son) was required to be understood in the
sense of (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:
, , ,
. Stress should be laid on two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the
people of Asia Minor were to be excluded from the , 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.
Victors 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 Augustines 54th and 55th epistles.
329 Irenus also (l.c. 11) does not appear to have questioned Victors proceeding as such, but as applied to this particular case.
106
Zephyrinus, Victors 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
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 Irenus 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
163 Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church of that city (Dionysius, Irenus,
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 tatem presbyter fuit ecclesi African,
invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Roman ecclesi 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 Cyprians 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:
,
.
332 In the treatise Die Briefe des rmischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250 (Abhandlungen fr Weizscker,
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 prsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like Irenus, 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 Itali adiaces habes Romam,
unde nobis quoque auctoritas prsto 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 Irenus. 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.: prcessorum 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
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 prpositum 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
164 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 Tertullians 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 Cyprians epistles that
the Roman Church was regarded as the ecclesia principalis, as the guardian par excellence of the
165 unity of the Church. We may explain from Cyprians 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 quro, unde hoc ius ecclesi usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram
dificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni clestis, vel, Qucumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel
soluta in clis, id circo prsumis 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 Peters mouth: ,
... ,
. ,
.
335 See Dionysius of Alexandrias letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., H. E. VII. 5. 2): ,
.
336 In the case of Origens 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 (Dllinger, 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
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 ecclesi catholic 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
Cyprians 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 prcedere) and his theory: the
166 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
167 to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome. The site of the worlds metropolis might be shifted,
the . 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
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 (
338). 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
168 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): , , . 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. Pauls 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 Serapions 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 Csar, who reigned there 13 years. (See also Tixeront,
desse, 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 ddesse, 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 prfectus urbis, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of princeps mulus, 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
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
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 Gods 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
170 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 Theodorets 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 Justins, Tatians
and Melitos 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
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.
The answers to these questions appear paradoxical. The theses of the Apologists finally overcame
all scruples in ecclesiastical circles and were accepted by the Grco-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,
171 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
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,
172 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
173 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
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
174 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
175 of an absolutely moral theism. The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold
destiny on Grco-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 Grcos, 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: .
114
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.
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
176 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
177 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.
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 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 Vter in Engelhardts Christenthum Justins des Martyrers, p. 375 ff., and my
article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift fr 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.
115
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.

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
mans 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
178 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
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
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
180 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 in a purely Stoic fashion. He opposes the truth also in
the Stoic manner to the .353 It was not to be a mere captatio benevolenti. 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 Mrtyrer, 2 vols., 1840 f. Aub, S. Justin, philosophe et martyr, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizscker, Die Theologie
des Mrtyrers Justins in the Jahrbuch fr deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, 1878; id.,
Justin, in Herzog Real Encyklopdie. Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer , 1880. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des
stoisch-christlichen Eudmonismus in Justins Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justins des
Martyrers, 1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justins, 1848. Bosse, Der prexistente 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
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 ( ) 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 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
181 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: (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.

357 Apol. I. 4, p. 14.
358 Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: .
359 L. c.: ,
.
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.
118
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?
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
183 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 mans 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 mans 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.:

... .
362 The utterances of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian portion of mankind has only a as
a natural possession, or whether this 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 and
and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and
philosophers are simply traced to (Apol. II. 8), the
119
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
184 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 ( ), 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 mans 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
185 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
(ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human 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 (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a
(II. 15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ; for Christ was and is the
Logos who dwells in every man. Further, according to the Apologist, the bestows the
power of recognising whatever is related to the Logos ( II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said:
, (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 ( ) 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 ... (I. 5). Nevertheless
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 and of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to ones 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
power that develops and matures the inalienable natural endowment of man and frees him from
the dominion of the demons.
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
186 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 Justins 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
? 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 Justins estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the
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 Justins 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 ( , II. 10). The principles of Plato are not foreign () 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:
(see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)
366 In Justins 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. ( ,
, ) 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
In the dialogue with the Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant for heathen readers, Justin ceased
187
to employ the idea of the existence of a seed of the Logos implanted by nature (
) 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
188 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: ).
The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the . Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations
in his description. Justins 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 Justins 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 Justins Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue.
369 Dial. 8: .
370 Dial., l. c.: .
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
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
189 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 ( ). 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
190 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.

377 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:
(Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as
(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
123
Tatians385 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 Justins case is still concealed.387 Hence it was
191 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 ();391 it brings nothing new, but only
192
Christianity philosophy, we must note that this expression alternates with the other , and that he uses the
formula: Thy forefathers held this philosophy in honour along with the other cults ( ). This excludes
the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians
are called ). He also wrote a treatise . In it (fragment in the Chron.
Pasch.) he called Christ .
385 See my treatise Tatians Rede an die Griechen bers., 1884 (Giessener Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes-
und 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: . 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 Tatians 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 mans 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:
. 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 mans 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):
, .
391 C. 31. init.: . 32 (p. 128): . In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women
are designated . C. 35: . 40 (p. 152):
124
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
193 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
. 42: . The 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 , once
also (12; cf. 40: ), and often .
392 See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us , .
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 (c. 1): (c. 35);
(c. 12); (c. 29); (c. 35);

(c. 42); (c. 31); see also c. 30, 32. In Tatians view barbarians and
Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.
397 See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff.
398 C. 30 (p. 114): .
399 Tatians 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 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: .
125
Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere appears to contrast Christianity with
194 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):
195 , 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 (
), 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 any better than Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views
which are found in him in a greater measure than in the others ( ), 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: , ).
402 Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does: , ,
,
, .
; 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: .
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. (
,
. ). 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
Tertullian and Minucius Felix.405 Whilst, in the case of the Greek Apologists, the
196
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
197 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 . 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 fr 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 Csarem (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 lhistoire 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
anim naturaliter Christian. We need merely mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Ciceros book,
de natura deorum. In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian.
407 In R. Khns 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 authors 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
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
198 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 Tertullians 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 mans need of redemption is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca
199 and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings of the prophets to be divine
truth than mans 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 prscr. 7.)
411 Tertull., de testim. I.: Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, qu 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 aliquantul periti tu nemo credit.
412 Tertull., Apol.46: Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Grci discipulus et cli? de prscr. 7: Quid ergo Athenis et
Hierosolymis? Quid academi et ecclesi? Minuc. 38.5: Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et adulteros
novimus ... nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente prferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos,
quod illi summa intentione qusiverunt 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
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
200 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: , (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:
, ,
, ..., 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 which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for
. 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
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
201 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
202 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.

417 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 . In
Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: , but
here exclusively mean the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in 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 and . 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 and not
. In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10) theology is the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom the predicate Deity
130
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 (
203 ), 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 mans own efforts. The prophets and Christ
204 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 . 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 and .
419 Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as : (2) as , and ; (3) as and
.
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
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.
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
205 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:
, ). 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 ( ); his supramundaneness ( ,
, , , , , ,
; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity ( ); his having no beginning
(, ); his eternity and unchangeableness ( ); his
perfection (); his need of nothing (); his spiritual nature ( ); his
absolute causality ( , the motionless mover, see Aristides
c. 1); his creative activity ( ); his sovereignty ( ); his
fatherhood ( ) his reason-power (God as , , ,
); his omnipotence ( ); his righteousness
and goodness ( ). These dogmas are set
421 Ciceros 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: .
132
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
206 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
207 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 Philos 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: , .
425 Tatian 5: ,
. 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:
.... , .
426 Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27:
.
427 The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatians Oration is specially instructive here.
133
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
208 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 formul of the Churchs faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos continually compelled
209 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 vers Christs 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 formul (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 . The conception
in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation
is first found in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: ,
; 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 , (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
the Christian tradition is shown in the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos as
the Son of God.430
The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous one. Since God cannot be
conceived as without reason, , but as the fulness of all reason,431 he has always Logos in
210 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 (
. 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,
211 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
dtre 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: , ) 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: ,
. , ,
, ,
, , .
, , . .
, ,
. ,
,
. 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 () is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name Son was the recognised expression
for the Logos. No doubt the words , , , and the like express the physical
process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, 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 Gods 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
independent product of the self-unfolding of God (), 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 , ,
(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 is for the first time a
hypostasis distinct from the Father, the 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 (
, 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
212 on his origin. In relation to the creatures, however, the Logos is the , 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,
(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 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 Irenus 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 qucumque
exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucumque
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
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 () for the
213 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 mans 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 Philos, 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
214 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
(, ), 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 mans preserving
(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 mans 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 Hexameron (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: ,
. ,
; , ,
, ,
.
137
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 mans 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
215 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
216 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 Makers 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 Gods sufferance, took possession of the world, and availed
themselves of mans 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.
442 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.
138
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.
217 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.
218
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 Engelhardts Das Christenthum
Justins des Mrtyrers pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer 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. Justins and Tatians confessions. Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also
be understood thus.
139
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
219 (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. Christs 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 Gods 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
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
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 and 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
221 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 Lords 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 Justins polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise
, quoted by Irenus (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 Tertullians 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 Justins 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 mankinds sinful history, and to regenerate humanity.
He is thus a forerunner of Irenus 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
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 formul, 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
222 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
223 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
. The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: , 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
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 () 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 Irenus (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
224 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 ( ) 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 Engelhardts concluding observations
in his Christenthum Justins 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 Justins, 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 fr wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragments
is worded as follows:
. , .
.
. ,
,
. , ( )
. , , , ,
, .
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
need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process as we are apt to imagine.
143
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
Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justins 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 Gods 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
( ), 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 prsens numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this
longing in the case of the Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latters idea of revelation with that
of the Apologists. It is probable indeed that the thought of redemption would have found stronger
226 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 Weizscker, Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also
Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer, 188, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardts book contains much that is worthy of note, though
it appears to me inappropriate in the main.
144
from the almost complete disregard 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 divine call to
repentance. The conception of the forgiveness of sins is also determined in accordance with this.
227 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 ones own person. The cleansing which takes place is Gods 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 Justins conception of the Lords Supper show
that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through the
mysteries. Augustines 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 ones 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
228 specially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no remains of Judo-Christianity are to
be recognised in these ideas about the new law. It is not Judo-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
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 the short confession of the Lord
Jesus Christ was regarded as a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vinculum),
229 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 ()
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 prexistent 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 prexistence 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
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, IRENUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.461
1. The theological position of Irenus 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. 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
231 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus (Stierens and Harveys editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehlers and
Reifferscheids editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius, Lagardes, Dunckers and Schneidewins editions), Cyprian (Hartels edition),
Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Bhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenus,
1889. Nldechen, Tertullian, 1890. Dllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Many monographs on Irenus and Tertullian.
462 The following exposition will show how much Irenus and the later old Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter
of fact the theology of Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus (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 Irenus.
464 See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.
147
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
232 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
233 of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, however, placed by Irenus and Tertullian
on the same level as the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something
of a different nature. Irenus uttered most urgent warnings against subtle speculations;473 but yet,
465 Tertullian does indeed say in de prscr. 14: Ceterum manente forma regul fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quras, 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. Irenus 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:
, .
468 On 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 (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 Irenus, 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, Irenus appealed to no charisms.

470 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.
471 Irenus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way.
472 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est,
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed
cum sua esse credendum, expavescunt ad . Similar remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c.
Net. 11.
473 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively emphasised by Irenus, 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 qu requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et
qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum qualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1: ,
,
, , and in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1: Concerning
148
in the navest 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 Irenus set forth the most important doctrines of Christianity. Some of these he
234 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 Irenus nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenus 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 Irenus,
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,
235 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 qu 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 Irenus 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 prsc. 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 Zahns judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.):
Irenus 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
Irenus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the proof from
prescription.
149
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 Justins 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 formul, 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,
236 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
formul.
It is different with Irenus. 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 formul, Irenus 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 Irenus is far superior to the theological
writings of Tertullian. This appears already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Tertullians 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 Irenus 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 prscr. hret., 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 Irenus.
480 Consequently the spirit of Irenus, 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
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 Irenus by his opposition to Gnosticism.
237 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 formul 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
238 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. hreses of Irenus 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 Irenus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenus,
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 Tatians 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
Irenus.
483 People are fond of speaking of the Asia Minor theology of Irenus, 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
(and Melito?).
151
of opposing elements,484 and therefore recognised in the redemption by Christ the separation of
what was unnaturally united. Irenus, 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 ().485 This speculative thought, which involved the highest imaginable
optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenus into touch with certain Pauline trains
239 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, Irenus 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
240 to attain communion with him. Nevertheless to Irenus 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 Irenus 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 in Ireni 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 Justins chief Antignostic work.

488 According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante, according to that of Irenus 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 Irenus idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but
the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenus himself did so in II. 20. 3.
490 After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenus continues 7: Dicemus autem
adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prdicti 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 Irenus 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. prf.: veritas, hoc est
dei filii doctrina, III. 10. 3: Hc est salutis agnitio qu deerat eis, qu 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
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 ( ). 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
241 Irenus as follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our present one and indeed
of mans natural condition. For immortality is at once Gods 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 Irenus. 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
242 consequently brings about a final condition which existed from the beginning in Gods 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. Irenus
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 mans 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. Hc 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 prstans, 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: . ,
. , , .
.
153
could not be immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It is perhaps Irenus
highest merit, from a historical and ecclesiastical point of view, to have worked out this thought in
243 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: ,
(Who is ignorant of the books of Irenus, 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 Irenus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the centre of history

. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam qu est ad ipsum
recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit tatem,
omnibus restituens eam qu est ad deum communionem. The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by
Irenus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenus turns
to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, perseverantes in servitute pristin inobedienti moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo
dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem ... privantur munere eius, quod est vita terna: non recipientes autem verbum
incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vit non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum
munus grati narrans: , .
,
... et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est,
. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus
incorruptel et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptel 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: ,
. , ,
.
, ;
, ; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16,
19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions
regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatians 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 Adams 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 qu sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis,
qu 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 incorruptel hreditatem.
493 Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.
154
and faith.494 Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching a history of salvation,
the gradual realising of the culminating in the deification of believing humanity,
244 but here he always managed to keep his language essentially within the limits of the Biblical. The
various acting ons 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 Gods 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 Irenus 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 Irenus. 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
245 into the Churchs rule of faith, see Chapter 7.
The manner in which Irenus 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 Melitos 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 . 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 Irenus (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
Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest
problem, Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
246 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? Irenus 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 Irenus himself always seeks to refer everything again to the simple faith
( ), 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 Irenus and the later ecclesiastical teachers by
247 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 formul. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversarys 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 Irenus 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 Gods ways of salvation. Faith and
theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenus 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: (scil. than the regula fidei)
.
, .
156
2. The Doctrines of the Church.

In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenus 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 Irenus 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
248 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 Irenus 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 Bhringers careful reviews of the theology of Irenus 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 prscr. 7;
Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenus criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze,
Gotteslehre des Irenus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff.
500 See Irenus 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 Irenus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the ons of Ptolemy as personales substantias extra
deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.
502 See Irenus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenus still treated the
first 8 Ptolemaic ons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical
foundation. In confuting the doctrine of ons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians
discussed in later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. Quritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui ones? 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
substanti 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 quales 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 facul, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem
autem substanti cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit
passiones. Neque enim qu 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
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.
250 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 Irenus
was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter
betrayed what interest he took in the prexistent 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.
Irenus 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 Marcions 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. Irenus 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 ons, 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
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.
Irenus 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
251 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. Irenus 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 vers;514 but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the
252 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 Irenus 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 prscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim.
509 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 prscr. 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 prscr. 25: Scriptur quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dict,
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. Irenus 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 Irenus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ips
scriptur increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis ... de quibus autem scriptur non increpant (scil.
delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum qurere.
517 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit.
159
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 Irenus 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
253 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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. Irenus, 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.

519 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 iudaic literatur 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.
160
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. Irenus also
254 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. Irenus certainly did not succeed in
reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love
resting on revelation. Irenus 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
255 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 hc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hc secundum magnitudinem. Irenus 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 hc est
enim qu 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. Gods 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:
, ,
. ... ,
. See also what follows down to the words:
, 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: , , , ,
,
.
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 qu providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; qu
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. anim; 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 Irenus 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
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 Gods 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
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 formul of succeeding orthodoxy by
257 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 mans 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 , 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 Gods 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 Irenus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de
orat. 4: Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit; de pnit. 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 Lords 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 Origens
work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lords 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 , 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 qu omnia molitum deum ediximus,
propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus prsit perficienti.
Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substanti, 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 materi 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 prdicabatur, 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 Notus the setting forth of the truth (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition:
. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention.
533 See Hagemann, Die rmische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.
162
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
258 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 ( ),
because with them also, the whole goes back to one ( ).536 The only
difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the economy of God ( ) 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 hresim facit) is
already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is
keeping in view the different stages of Gods 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 Tertullians doctrine of the Trinity (orthodox in the later sense of the word),
in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formul were due to Tertullians juristic bias. The formul, una substantia, tres
person, never alternates in his case with the others, una natura, tres person; 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 substanti; 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 lan, mollitia plum pariant
naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant ... Et tunc natur similitudo notatur, cum substanti 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 substanti patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? (! !) c. 4:
Videmus igitur non obesse monarchi 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. Notum 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 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 hresis utitur; immo
hresis 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
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
259 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 substanti
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. Notum 10).540 For that very reason Son is the
most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way ( ). Moreover,
since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (unius substanti = )
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
260 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.

539 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 sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed
gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substanti 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,
qu 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: Qucunque exigitis
deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucunque 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 (see c. Notum 15).
164
meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the unius substanti
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 Gods 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
261 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 Sons 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
in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullians 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 monarchi nihil obstrepit et
statum protegit; de pudic. 21. In de prscr. 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. Not. 14): , ,
, , , .
In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33:
, ) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos
is called before his coming forth ; he is produced , 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 prexistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his
165
It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenus.550 Whereas Tertullian and
262 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus
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 (, , only begotten,
first born) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from
263 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
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
Irenus 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 Irenus has both; the Apologists
base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenus on both Old
and New.
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus,
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 Irenus sense we shall have to say: The
264 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 Tertullians 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 prexistent 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
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 Irenus
conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of God
265 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 Irenus is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, navely
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. Irenus 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 Irenus 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 coxsistens 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 cpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: non enim infectus es, o
homo, neque semper coxsistebas 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.).
Irenus 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). Irenus (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 Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus. We have rather simply to recognise the
contradiction, which was not felt by Irenus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a
167
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
266 the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about ons. It has been correctly remarked
that with Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 preminent interest of Irenus,
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 Irenus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3:
, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator patern grati

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 sapienti eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. V. 29. 1: Non homo propter conditionem, sed
conditio facta est propter hominem.
557 Irenus 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; Irenus
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). Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, but he never uses the formula , to say nothing of the abstract formul of
Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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: ,
, , ,
. Here one of Origens thoughts appears.
168
Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenus views with regard to the destination
267
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
268 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 mans possession of the divine image, which,
269 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 Gods Spirit, but only
comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenus has also the idea that mans
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. Nldechen (Zeitschrift fr
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:
; , ,
, , , ,
. ,
. , ,
. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot
stand it: , see also 2-4: Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem
homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis su hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut
imprstantem. 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.:
, ...
. In this chapter Irenus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a
. 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 Irenus 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 Irenus II. 29. 1: Si propter substantiam
omnes succedunt anim in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter
iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint anim sed quoniam sunt iust ... Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur
anim; 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
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 Adams whole posterity.561
270 Here Irenus 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 mans fall562 and,
secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not,
as in Pauls case, the consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was
conducive to mans development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death,
271 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 Irenus. It is
560 On the psychology of Irenus see Bhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the in
man as the latters 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 is realised in the body, the is not given by nature, but is brought about by the
union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The is therefore subject to growth, and was not
perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatians opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is
only the , not the , that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenus appealed to 1 Cor. XV.
45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenus also views everything as ultimately dependent on mans
inalienable freedom. Alongside of this Gods goodness has scope for displaying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation,
because it guides mans knowledge through counsel; see 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenus 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 Irenus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and
wickedness: . In 4 he interprets the Pauline: omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt, as referring
to mans inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): liber sententi ab initio est homo
et liber sententi est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. 5: Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et
su 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:
. IV. 4. 3: homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et su 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 Irenus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam.
See, however, V. 27. 2: Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his prstat communionem. Communio autem dei
vita et lumen et fruitio eorum qu sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his
eam qu electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebr, et separatio dei amissio
omnium qu 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 su 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 Mans 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 Irenus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite
different sense, he is very far from sharing Pauls 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 cleste 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
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 Irenus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus
272 taught essentially the same doctrine;567 only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God
expressly and exclusively in the fact that mans will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom
an argument in justification of Gods ways.568
But, in addition to this, Irenus 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. Irenus 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 Irenus
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 qu 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. Wendts summary, l.c., p. 24: By the Logos becoming
man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance, formulates Irenus 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.): ,
, , . ,
, , . 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
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
273 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, Irenus 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 Christs 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
274 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 Irenus 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. Hc enim gloria hominis,
perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenus speaks of the adoptio,
is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenus great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions
which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: .
571 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.
572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: ,
, , .
; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenus 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 Irenus with regard to mans 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 Irenus 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,
Irenus has only given us fragments.
574 See V. 16. 3: , . 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 Irenus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Bhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly
remarked: We cannot say that Irenus, in making Adams 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 Irenus 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 Irenus; see the index in Oehlers edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint
172
as the second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576 show what an almost naturalistic shape the
religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenus mind. This is, however, more especially evident
275 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 Irenus 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 Irenus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too
has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenus, 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 Irenus thought the
Son of God became the Son of man, (filius dei factus filius hominis). Finally, the manner in
276 which Irenus 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 Irenus: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 prceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine
infectum su 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 tas festinat ad baptismum? For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and
spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenus; 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 Irenus (dominus sanavit illa qu Adam portaverat vulnera); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: Recens
natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqu, 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. Tertullians 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 qu est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum
est solveretur, nisi ips compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut prim coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secund
rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem
prim solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.
Irenus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): ,
. 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
opinion that the Word of God became flesh (secundum nullam sententiam hreticorum 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. Irenus maintains the first statement as well against the Ebionites as against
the Valentinians who thought that Christs 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
277 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 Irenus, 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.

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 prscr. 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,
qua 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 Mari
in partu can hardly be traced in Irenus 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 Christs 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 Irenus and Tertullian. The fact of Christs
birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christs 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 Justins 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 unic spei totius orbis. Irenus and Tertullian mean that Christs
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 nave Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: spiritum Christus cum
verbo sponte dimisit, prvento carnificis officio. Yet Irenus in several passages spoke of Christs human soul (III. 22. 1: V.
1.1) as also did Melito ( ,
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
174
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
278 really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is
permanently united with humanity.588 Irenus 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
279 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 Saviours flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to teach the
annihilation of Christs flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenus 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 Irenus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From
it also Irenus 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 Irenus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely
being that Irenus 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 clis qui est
passus ... et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam svierunt, 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 Irenus was able to adopt the old formula God has suffered and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416:
(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, clestis 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 Irenus 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 Saviours 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 Irenus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): Propterea
misit pater filium suum e clo 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 qu mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,
but also by the propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est? (l.c.).
175
found in Irenus; 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
280 God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenus. 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
281 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 Irenus in his exposition.600 He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic
593 The concepts employed by Irenus 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 Irenus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words,
, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words:
in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs
to Irenus, 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 Irenus 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: , is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24.
596 De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substanti.
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
substanti, 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 substanti. In what follows the actus utriusque substanti are sharply demarcated: amb substanti in
statu suo quque distincte agebant, ideo illis et oper et exitus sui occurrerunt ... neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in
uno plane esse possunt. See also c. 29: Quamquam cum du substanti 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 substanti census hominem et
deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem etc. Then: Qu proprietas conditionum, divin
et human, qua utique natur cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.
600 In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula deus et homo, or, after Tertullians time du substanti, 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
principle. Irenus 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
282 passages.601 Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents
who understood Johns statement in the sense of the Words 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 formul 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.
283
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 Christs 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 nave confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features
in Irenus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect unity of Christs
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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians view, not from that of the Alexandrians.
Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating.
601 Quare, says Irenus 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 qu 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
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 Irenus 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 Gods 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
284 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus thought
of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where
he writes: , .
,
(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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
285 in Christ already compelled Irenus to limit the deus crucifixus and to lay the foundation for
Tertullians formul. 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 Irenus 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 (Bhringer, 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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
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.? Irenus
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 Irenus was obliged to advance from the creed of
286 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 Irenus 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 (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 Tertullians Christology or even of that of Irenus without
taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well
as those old traditional formul: deus passus, deus crucifixus est (God suffered, God was
crucified).608
607 Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrah, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum
... secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat. All that Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formul about
Christ: , ..., , Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei
testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. But Irenus only expressed himself thus because of these passages,
whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ .
608 On Hippolytus views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. an account to be used with caution and Overbeck,
Qust. 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 Irenus
in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenus 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 Kimmels untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et
scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus treatise c. Not. we find positive teachings that remind us of
Tertullian. An important passage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: (Iren.),
(see
Iren.) (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.)
(Irenus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object
179
But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in Irenus is the idea that there was the
most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of
287 his doctrine of redemption, that Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse
quod et ipse609 (Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself
is). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenus developed the factus est quod
288 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 Irenus 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), (Iren., Tertull.)

(Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular
note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenus 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 , l.c., c.
26, with the of Irenus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542
and c. Not. 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 Irenus 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:
; .
( ).
. . Hippolytus partook to a much greater
extent than his teacher Irenus 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 Irenus had not by any means yet
become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latters 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): . ,
, , , , ,
. If we consider how Irenus 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 doctrin inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. From
this standpoint Origens 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 rechoed 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: , . Another result of the Gnostic struggle
is Irenus 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 qu ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius
180
from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies
the benefits of Christs work not to the pneumatic ipso facto, but in principle to all men, though
practically only to those who listen to the Saviours words and adorn themselves with works of
righteousness.612 Irenus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it
as the realisation of mans 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
289 Adams 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 Irenus 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, Irenus 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 Christs 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 Irenus is already involved in the same
290 ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christs
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, Irenus 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 Adams 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 qu prdicta sunt bona.
612 See IV. 36. 6: Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., ) et iustiti 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 Gods 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
virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eves disobedience,
so the story of Jesus temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adams
temptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenus 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 Satans temptation.614 As yet Irenus 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
His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical
291
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 Irenus 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 qu sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea qu non erant sua
insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere qu
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 Irenus 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
Casparis Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense):
, ; ; ;
, ,
, . .

.
. , . ,
, . (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows).
; , , ,
. , ; , , ;
; ! !
! , ;
; , ! 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 Irenus 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
Irenus, 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 Christs restoring man to communion
292 and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being
offended through Adams 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 Christs work which makes this appear more as a
completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenus 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,
293 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: ,

.
618 There are not a few passages where Irenus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adams 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 Pauls thoughts.
619 Irenus 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, Irenus 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 superclestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus
principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesi, universa attrahat ad semetipsum
apto in tempore.
183
aspects of Christs work as in Irenus, 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 Christs 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 nostr et prdictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the
other hand he has also adopted from Irenus 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 quo agebat deus cum homine,
ut homo ex quo 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:
, , ,
, , .
, , , ,
, , . , .
. , ,
. , ,
, , ,
, , .
. It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century,
Christs 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, qu divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed
sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est. Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: Exempto reatu eximitur et pna. On the other hand he
speaks of fasting as officia humiliationis, through which we can inlicere God. Among these Western writers the thought
that Gods anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in
Irenus. 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 Irenus. That many of the latters speculations are not found in Hippolytus
is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Qust. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29.
On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenus; 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 Irenus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after
Origens 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: ,
. 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 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
fderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spons comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine
184
Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds
294 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
295 majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenus 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
296 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
297 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 Irenus and
sequetur animam caro ... Caro est sponsa, qu 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
. 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 Irenus and Hippolytus as well as of the latters 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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
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.
As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenus 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 Irenus.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
298 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
299 apologetics.
625 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 worlds 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. Irenus
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 Saviours 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 Irenus 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. Irenus 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
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 Irenus (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 fathers 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 idiot could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually
300 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 . 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 Arsino 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
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
301 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
302 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, Irenus
and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629 and primarily
629 See Irenus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.
188
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 quras).631 But
they went a step further still. In opposition to Marcions antitheses and his demonstration that the
God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek
303 to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenus 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 Irenus 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. Irenus, for example, emphasised
in the most nave 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. Irenus 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
304 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 Abrah et Moysi collocutus est. Both Testaments are unius et
eiusdem substanti. IV. 2. 3: Moysis liter 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 univers doctrin dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant
circa dispositionem legis, qu est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo; see Overbeck Ueber die
Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvtern, 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenus.
633 Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogami debitores, ex pristina dei lege, qu nos tunc in
suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. Here also Tertullians 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 Origens works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and
the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI.
189
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 Gods 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 Irenus 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
305 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator
is principium evangelii. (III. 11. 7).
190
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
306 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 Irenus 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 Irenus leaves Adams sin entirely out of sight). But it was Gods 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 Irenus, 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,
307 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.
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 frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per qu homo iustificatur, qu etiam
ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. IV. 15. 1.
643 Irenus, 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 Sons 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 Irenus 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. Irenus 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 Irenus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem.
191
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 prdocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested
308 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
309 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus to remind us of Paul, because he
used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.
192
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
310 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 qu in libertatem, quam qu 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; qu autem formant hominem, prcepta 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). Irenus 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 Christs
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 Pauls conception, to which
311 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 Irenus 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 prcepto 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: Hc
ergo, qu in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Qu 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
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, Irenus, 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 Irenus in the additions he invented as a Montanist.
Yet this is also prefigured in Irenus 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 prscr. 13): Christus prdicavit novam legem et novam
promissionem regni clorum; 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 qu volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem,
ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, qu nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, qu 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus;
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 Nldechens article in the Zeitschrift fr 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:
, 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 Tertullians Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und
seines Verhltnisses zu den Uraposteln (Jahrbuch fr 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
theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the third century, because Irenus
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 Cyprians work Testimonia,
313 written for a layman, with Novatians work De Trinitate.
In the Testimonia the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by Irenus, 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 Novatians 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 Origens work . 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 Tertullians 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
314 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 formul. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullians 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 Nica and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted Tertullians formul one
substance, three persons (una substantia, tres person), 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 (. . 1886, p. 242):
.
652 In the case of Irenus, 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 Novatians adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nieman
type. This furnishes material for reflection.
195
homo), two substances (dux substanti), 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
315 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 , 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 formul, 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: prsertim 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 clestium, 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 prstat et filium illum dei facit,
quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatians 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 hreticis 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 adhret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem
fneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hretici,
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 substanti concordia mutui ad invicem fderis
confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scriptur hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant. c. 21: hretici 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 person su id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo
de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine disposit potestatis ... unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem
person 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 concordi unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione.
(Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! Quos person 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
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
316 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 Gods book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of
317 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 Gods 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 mens
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, Irenus, 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 prdestinatione qu 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, ternus, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui
non in sono percussi aris aut tono coact de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolat a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius
sacr et divin 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 prcedit, 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 inqualitate 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 ternus pater, a quo solo hc vis divinitatis
emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substanti 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
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
318 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
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 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, qu Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de lcole dAlex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De
Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning, Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Lmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem. theolog.
moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement dAlex. 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 Abhngigkeit 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 Anfnge 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, Qust. Musonian,
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 Horts 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. hr. 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 prscr. hr. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: Venio itaque ad illum articulum,
quem et nostri prtendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Qurite et invenietis etc.).
198
The work of Irenus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the worlds 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
320 introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandrias great masterpiece from the standpoint of
the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown,
Irenus, 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
321 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 Csarea), 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 Irenus 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
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 Irenus 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
Churchs attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the
apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his , 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 lia and Theoktistus of
Csarea, 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.
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
323 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, Tatians 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 Pantnus (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 Pantnus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. Alexander
and Origen were disciples of Pantnus.
664 See my article Heraklas in the Real-Encyklopdie.
200
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. Clements intention is nothing less than an
introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his
324 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,
325 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, Pdagogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clements 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 Pdagogus.
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 Pantnus
and Clement are called Father , but whilst the former receives the title, , the latter is called:
, .
668 Strom. VI. 14, 109 . Pistis is (VII. 10. 57, see the
whole chapter), Gnosis is (l.c.),

(l.c.), (II. 11.48).
201
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 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
326 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 Justins 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 mans raising himself to the divine life.672 While this is already
clear evidence of Clements affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same
327 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:
, ,
,
, ,
. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113:
, . 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.: ,

, .
. .
672 See Bratkes instructive treatise cited above.
202
35 f.),673 and in the solution of the problems. But Clements 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
328 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 Biggs
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
to his mind.675 If we compare this theory with the rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenus,
we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of
329 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. Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 (
,
, , ).676 No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the
330 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 Clements 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:
,
, .
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:
, , . VI. 11. 93.
204
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 Irenus 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 Irenus and his theological confrres 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
Irenus 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 the history of dogma is not associated
with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.677 This was not because Clement was more heterodox
331 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,
332 some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenus; 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.
678 Clements 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 Origens 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.
205
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

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 Churchs 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
333 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 Hutius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols.
1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie dOrigne, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892.
Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.).
Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV Mller in Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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
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
334 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 Philos science, bears unmistakable marks of
335 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 Gods 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 Origens 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 Origens 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 , but
. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing , 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 .
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
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
336 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:
, 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 Origens 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:
, , .
688 See the preface to the work.
689 From the conclusion of Hippolytus Philosophoumena it is also evident how the Socratic was in that age based
on a philosophy of religion and was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pdag. III. 11. 1.
208
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
337 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
338 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 Origens 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.
691 Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: ,
. 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: Origens 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:
.
But note what a distinction Clement makes between 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 Origens 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.
209
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 describe699 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
339 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 Origens 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 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, qu usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hc 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, sapienti 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 intelligenti
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, ,
(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
Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek
340
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
341 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 Origens 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:
,
. (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 Origens 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
342 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 Origens 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 .
703 See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535.
704 A full presentation of Origens 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
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 mens 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 (
, , ,
)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;
343 but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origens 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 Irenus 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): ,
. 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): ,
, , , ,
. 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
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
344 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
345 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,
346 Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origens fundamental idea is the original indestructible
708 To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important; see Book III. of 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: ):
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
III. 17-22. (Here, and also in other parts, Origens 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: . ,
); 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 Irenus, is developed by
Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in order to justify Gods 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 fr 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 Origens system cannot be made
out with complete clearness from the work , because he endeavoured to treat each of the first three parts as a whole.
213
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 truths, but these have
only a propdeutic 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
347 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 ( and ) it only leads to a
somatic Christianity ). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher
spiritual Christianity ( ) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith
Origens 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 , 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 nave 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 thories dOrigne, mme les plus imaginaires, reprsent ltat intellectuel et moral
du sicle o 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:
; . 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, Origens 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 preface.
214
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
348 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 Gods 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 Origens 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 Origens 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
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.720 The world

349
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
350 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 (c. Cels. VII. 42-51; 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 and , being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis
(the ) 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 ( 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 ( , , ) this is maintained both in opposition
to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. I. 1, Origens polemic against Melitos 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
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
351 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 Irenus 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
352
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 Origens 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. II. 1. 3.

723 C. Cels. V. 23.
724 L.c.
725 II. 9. 1: Certum est, quippe quod prfinito 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, qu 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 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 Nitzschs opinion, l.c., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account.
217
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
353 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
354 there is nothing corporeal in him733 and he is therefore really God, not , nor , nor
(beginningless beginning), but the second God.734 But, as such, immutability is
730 Clements 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). these are said to have been the words of a passage in the
Hypotyposes , ,
, . .
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
and (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 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 , and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91:
, , . 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: , , ). In
Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father:
(see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: ,
, 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: ,
,
, , ,
, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the
Son (Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called primitiv e virtutes ac primo creat, immobiles
exsistentes secundum substantiam. That is exactly Origens 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 ( ,
) 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 fr protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff. 369 ff.
732 It is very remarkable that Origen 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 I. 2. 2, 6.
734 The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c. Cels. V. 39:
, ,
,
218
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 Fathers 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: , 736 (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 (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
355 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:740 , , ,
, ,
, ,
. (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 I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have been to the effect that the Son is indeed ,
but not, like the Father, .
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
aporrh esse dicitur aporrha glori omnipotentis pura qudam et sincera. Qu utrque similitudines (see the beginning of
the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substanti esse filio cum patre. Aporrha enim videtur, id
est, unius substanti cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrha vel vapor. In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh.
XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ,
. On the meaning of , 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 Origens teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite
wanting. See Hom. VIII. in Jerem. no. 2: , .
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 , de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5.
739 I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de
terna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenit lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem
initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. See the comprehensive disquisition in
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: ,
. , . ; see also other passages.
740 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.
219
emanation the expression 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
356 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 Fathers 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 Origens second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular
hypostasis, which has its first cause ( ) in God, the Son is that which is caused
(), 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
357 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 and , 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 Gods 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 IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as the conversio partis alicuius substanti 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: . This, however, is not meant to designate a deity of a
hybrid nature, but to mark the personal distinction.

745 C. Cels. VIII. 12.: . This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origens commentaries;
see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists . Not that Origen has not yet the later terminology
, , , . 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.: . The Son is
, (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 II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum.
749 See I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).
220
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 whether
he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of God or not.751 As the
358 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 latters 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 Spirits 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 (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 universa755 (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 Origens sense the union
of these only exists because the Father alone is the source of deity ( ) 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,
359 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.
751 See prf. and in addition to this Hermas view of the Spirit.
752 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.: , (logically) . Yet Origen

is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine.
753 See 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 hc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, qu ad
pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.
756 prf.
221
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
().759 Growth is conditioned by freedom: omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culp
capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culp, si rationem
recti declinet760 (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
360 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
ternitatis, 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 spirits
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 natur rationabiles consisted in the
possibilitas utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the
natur 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
361 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 I. 5.
759 So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c.
760 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 with the divine one. The same
had already been expressly taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74:
. 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 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 scula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, qu facta sunt,
sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est. God
would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a , and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3.
765 I. 8.
222
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 natur 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 II. 9. 2).
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
362 place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by Gods 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 (), 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 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 Pantnus 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 I. 7, belong to the number
of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek idea. The doctrine of the prexistence 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: . This cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig.,
II. 3.
769 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 ( II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said
to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot., l.c.: ); 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 Origens system with Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said:
Creation, as the word is commonly understood, was in Origens views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human
history. ons rolled away before this world was made; ons upon ons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee
years of ons 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
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
363 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 Origens great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As
it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is nonexistent ( ) and unreal
().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 Gods 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 Origens 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
364 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 Mans 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. 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 ( I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced
(); 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 (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.), and treated at length of in the
Strom.; see Orig. 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 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 maliti deveniret. In the passage in Johann. II. 7,
Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as and an argument to the effect that
are .
775 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
we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely an element in the cosmos.
777 The doctrine of mans threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pdag. 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 , and at other times distinguishes two parts in the one soul. Of course he also professes to derive his
224
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
365 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 mans 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 III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine of the prexistence 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:
, , Orig. c. Cels.
IV. 30: , .
779 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently emphasised. One must attain the .
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:
.
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., Pd. III. 12. 93: .

782 See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101:
, , , . Two remedies
correspond to this (102): and
, or otherwise expressed: and , 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 () 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; IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had
met with the practice of child baptism in Csarea 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 prexisting 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
In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: God wishes us to be saved by means of
ourselves ( ) 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
366 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 Gods highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These elements
compose Origens 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. Origens
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
367 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 devils sovereignty over mens 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,
368 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.
788 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 (Tbinger 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 Irenus 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 Christs 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 Pauls 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
226
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
369 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
Origens 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Irenus. 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: (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 and , 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:
, ,

,
,
, .
227
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 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 Clements 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
370 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 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 Origens 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 (
), 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 prbuisse discipuli, and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and
III. 7. 59. Clements 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 (Pd. 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 Christs 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 Origens case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.
228
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
371 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 (, , ) 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 of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real
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 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 prterea putetur operata; sed inter
utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna
substantia, qu ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. On the perfect ethical union of Jesus soul with the Logos see
II. 6. 3: anima Iesu ab initio creatur et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhrens 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 inhreret, 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). ;
(c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation
of the union is set forth in II. 6. 2: Substantia anim 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
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
373 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 hairs-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 Christs 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 Origens 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
374 the Logos, God in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenus set
forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origens
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:
,
, ,
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:
, ,
; 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: , .
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 of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not
suffer at all. In Origens case we may speak of a communicatio ideomatum (see p. 190 f.).
796 In opposition to Redepenning.
230
applied to the historical Christ.797 But Origens conception of Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 Gods. 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 Christs 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
substanti 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 Pd. I. 3. 7:
, ,
..
799 Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin);
voluntas humana prcedit. 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, qu est ex nobis, dabitur
gratia fidei qu 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: .
800 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.
231
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
376 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 Origens
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
377 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.
Origens eschatology occupies a middle position between that of Irenus and the theory of the
Valentinian Gnostics, but is more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenus, 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: , . VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83:
,
; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div.
salv. 21. Orig. III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem
boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quque perducitur. III. 2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450:
. 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 Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wrter, 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 Pdag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq. the interpretation of the Lords
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 II. 11.
232
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
378 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 Origens own language that enabled a new world of spirits to arise after the old one
had finished its course.
During the following century Origens 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
379 philosophy of religion that the most of its formul 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 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: , ,

, , (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa),
. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments
in hell and regnum dei.
811 See . II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c.
812 See . 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
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.
In the East the history of dogma and of the Church during the succeeding centuries is the history
of Origens 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
380 belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the endeavours of Irenus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus
were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say nave, 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. Gotting 1885.
234
Indexes

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
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

.

, ,
,

,

236

,

,

.

,

=

, ,

,
.

.
237
, ,
,
, , .

, .

9;
,

.... , .
, , ,

,
,
.

, .
, .

,

.
.

; V. 10. 66: .
, . ,
... et qui filius dei est filius hominis
factus est, .
, , , ,
, .
238
; , , ,
. , ; , , ;
; ! ! ! , ;
; , !
.
. .
,
, , ,
.
, , ...
.
,
, , .
, , , .
, , ,

K .

, , ,
, , , , ,
.

,

, ,

.

.

, .

, , .

,

.
239

.

... , ,
.

.
. , . ,
, . .

.
,

, .
.
.
.

,

.

.

, ..., ,
,
240
, ...
.
,

, ,
,

()

.

,

,

, ...
, ,

,
,
.
.
,

, .

.
241
... (I. 5). Nevertheless

.
, ... .

, ,
, . ,

, ,
. ... ,
.
...
,

, , ,

, , . ,
; ,
, ,
. ; , ,
, . ,
,

, ,
,
,
.
, .

.
,
. , ; , ,
, , .
,
; , , ,
, , ,
. , . , ,
.
242
, .
, , .
, ; ,

.
, . , ,
, ,
, , . , , .
. , ,
. ,
, .

.
, ,
, , ,

, , .
, .
, .
, ,
,
, , ,
, .
(scil. than the regula fidei)
. ,
.
.
, .
.
, , ,
, , .
, , , , , , .
, . . ,
, . , ,
, , , ,
, . .

243
, ... ,
. ,
.

, , ,
,
,

, ,
,
, , .
,

,
.
,
, ,

.
, . .
. ,
, .
, ( ) . , , ,
, , .
...
.
,
, ,
,
, ...
;

,
, ; ; ;
, , , .
.
.
. , . , , .

.
244

,
.

.

,

.

, ,
...
... ,

,

.
,

245

.

.

, ,
, ,
,
, .
,
, .

,

.
,

. .
, , , , ,
, , .

and .
.

, , , ,
, .
,
, ,
, , , .
.

, , ,
, .

246
, , ,
, ,
, , ,

, , ...

,
...

.

, ...

,

,

,
.

= .

, ,

.

...

, , ,
, .

247

and

, , , ...,
,

, , ,
, , ,

...

and .
,
, , ,
.
, .

,
, and

.
248

.

.
, ,

, , ,
...
.
.
,

, .

, , , .
. , , ,
, , , .
.

, , ,
, .

.
, .
, , .
.
, , .
.
.
.

, , ,
... ,

249

.

.
, ,
.

.

, ,

,
; .
( ).
. .

.

, , .

; .
, ,

and not .

,
.

[to be understood in a local sense]
250

, , ,

?

, but

.

,

.

,
, . , .
, , , , , , ,
,

.

.

. ,
, ,

251

.

.

.

, , .

.

.

..., , .

.
.

. . .

, , , ,
, ,
... , .

, .

...
See
252

... 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 clestium, 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 prterea per Grcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qu et altiora
quque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprsentatio 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 cleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.
Austero dei prcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem
Bene quod idem veniet de clis qui est passus ... et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam
carnem in quam svierunt, 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 fderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spons
comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro
... Caro est sponsa, qu in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est
Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogami debitores, ex pristina dei lege, qu nos tunc
in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.
Certum est, quippe quod prfinito 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, qu facta
sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit.
Ceterum manente forma regul fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quras, et tractes, et omnem
libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari
Ceterum manente forma regul in suo ordine quantumlibet quras at tractes.
Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam qu in
unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, qu pervenit usque ad nos, etc.
253
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 prpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione
succedunt: qui audit vos me audit.
Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus
Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptel hreditatem.
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 prdicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni clorum
Constat omnem doctrinam qu cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret
veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesi ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus
a deo accepit.
Cornelius sedit intrepidus Rom in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus
sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret
levari adversus se mulum principem quam constitui Rom 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 su verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et
pomp et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.
Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, qu est ab apostolis, qu per successiones presbyterorum
in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc.
Cum perceperunt eam qu 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 qu prdicta sunt bona.
Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, prcipue 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 tas ad remissionem
peccatorum? Cautius agetur in scularibus, 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
De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant.
254
De his quidem delictis, de quibus ips scriptur increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non
oportere exprobare eis ... de quibus autem scriptur non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter
sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum qurere.
De tua nunc sententia quro, unde hoc ius ecclesi usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super
hanc petram dificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni clestis, vel, Qucumque alligaveris
vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in clis, id circo prsumis 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. Hc enim est synagoga dei
Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prdicti 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
Ecclesi, qu licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in
eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolic deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrin.
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, ternus, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non
in sono percussi aris aut tono coact de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolat a
deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacr et divin 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 prcedit, 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
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 inqualitate 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 ternus
pater, a quo solo hc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substanti
communionem ad patrem revolvitur.
Est hc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, qu 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 su potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit
(that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.
Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per qu omnia molitum deum ediximus,
propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti
et virtus prsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco
filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substanti, 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 materi 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 prdicabatur, 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 qu homo iustificatur, qu 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
mchis non putaverunt et in totem pnitenti locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a
co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholic ecclesi 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 qu volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic
dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, qu nec patres sustinere
valuerunt, concesserint, qu vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum
et ampliata.
Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasori, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis
prcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus prceptis tota
lex pendet et prophet, 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
Exempto reatu eximitur et pna.

Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum ... , ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos
philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos.
Fidem habenti, qu est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei qu 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 sapienti eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.
Hc ergo, qu in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento.
Qu 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
Hc est salutis agnitio qu deerat eis, qu est filii dei agnitio ... agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii
dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.
Hc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos qustiones.
Hretici nullum habent consortium nostr disciplin, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio
communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est prceptum, 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 su 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 qucumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido
et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucumque 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 hc est enim qu 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 substanti patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?
257
In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem
boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quque 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 superclestibus et spiritalibus
et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat,
in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesi, universa attrahat ad
semetipsum apto in tempore.
In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hc 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 tant ecclesi una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes
apostolic, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et
contesseratio
Itaque utriusque substanti census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!),
hinc carneum, inde spiritalem etc. Then: Qu proprietas conditionum, divin et human, qua
utique natur 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 dificationi habilem divinitus inspirari.
Levit et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini.
Lex et prophet usque ad Johannem
Lex evangelii
Libri et epistol Pauli viri iusti
Libri evangeliorum et epistol 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 liter sunt verba Christi.
Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, qu Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis
antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et prcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius
eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocenti prscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid
fragilitatis human infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens
258
iustiti et misericordi operibus ostensis viam quandam tuend salutis aperiret, ut sordes
postmodum quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus.
Nam ita inter se nostr religionis gradus artifex svitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos
tentationibus sculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros
Nam si quis est, qui velit vel scula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare
vult, cum nondum facta essent, qu facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sculis 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, qu in actu
videtur, et magnificentia, qu 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
ternitatis. 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 su hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut imprstantem. 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 qu sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo
factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, qu 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 qu 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
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
incorruptel et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptel 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
prparamur.
Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui
offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et prstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico
Non solum de his, qu usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hc 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, sapienti 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 intelligenti 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 terna luce diximus, innatus, ne
duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenit 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 cesti ... 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 unic spei totius orbis.
Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio
Petro primum dominus, super quem dificavit 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 prferimus, non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos
consecutos, quod illi summa intentione qusiverunt nec invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus,
quid nobis invidemus, si veritas divinitatis nostri temporis rate maturuit?
Primo illud nos oportere scire
Principalitas
260
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 clo 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 qu 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 qu providentur et gubernantur cognoscere
suum directorem; qu 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.
Qucunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut
ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucunque 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.
Quritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui ones? 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 substanti 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 quales 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 qu est
ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset nobis caro factum?
Quapropter et per omnem venit tatem, omnibus restituens eam qu est ad deum communionem.
Quamquam cum du substanti 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 prstans, 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 tas festinat ad baptismum?
Quare, says Irenus 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 qu 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, qua
lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,
261
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 prstat communionem. Communio autem
dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum qu sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt
secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam qu electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio
autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebr, et separatio dei amissio omnium qu sunt apud eum
bonorum.
Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academi et ecclesi?
Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Grci discipulus et cli?
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,
clestis 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 qu Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Thecl 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 mult 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 person 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
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 maliti
deveniret.
Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqu,
prima nativitate contraxit
Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.
Sacrificare
Scriptur quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dict, 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 Abrah, 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, qu 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 perquationem disciplin 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, qu 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 aliquantul
periti tu nemo credit.
Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris commovendam.
Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones,
maxim et antiquissim et omnibus cognit, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro
Rom fundat et constitut ecclesi, 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 ccitatem
et malam sententiam, prterquam 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 qu 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 Itali adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas prsto est.
Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium qu requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in
infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum qualis vel similis
sit factori
263
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 facul, generatione
quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substanti cum sint cum
principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit
passiones. Neque enim qu postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod
ante eam fuit.
Si de aliqua modica qustione 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 hc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, qu cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus
et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hc
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 nostr et prdictionis sum
Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt anim in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua
autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint anim sed
quoniam sunt iust ... Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur anim; si autem
iustitia et fides etc.
Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et univers doctrin dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa
dispositionem legis, qu 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 hc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hc secundum magnitudinem.
Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum
similitudinem corporalis aporrh esse dicitur aporrha glori omnipotentis pura qudam et
sincera. Qu utrque similitudines (see the beginning of the passage) manifestissime ostendunt
communionem substanti esse filio cum patre. Aporrha enim
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 qu de clo 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 qu est ad
incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, anim autem per spiritum
Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est,
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non
intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua
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 propheti et efficacia virtutum
documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri.
264
Sub specie ternitatis

Sublata ergo prdestinatione qu non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem
Substantia anim 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 prophet.
Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere
Tertullianus ad mediam tatem presbyter fuit ecclesi African, invidia postea et contumeliis
clericorum Roman ecclesi ad Montani dogma delapsus.
Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, qu 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
Roman ecclesi, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per successiones
episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos.
Typum quras
Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea qu est
ab apostolis ecclesi successio.
Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam
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 Abrah et Moysi collocutus est.
Valentinus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit
Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri prtendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum
est, inquiunt, Qurite et invenietis
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrin su 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 patern grati 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 qu sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi,
quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea qu non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed
265
secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere
qu 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 monarchi 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 arc typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia
erit. Certe idololatres in arc 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 authentic
ab initio
actus utriusque substanti
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 substanti; 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 lan, mollitia
plum pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant ... Et tunc natur similitudo notatur, cum
substanti dissimilitudo conspicitur.
266
amb substanti in statu suo quque distincte agebant, ideo illis et oper 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 inhreret, 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 creatur et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhrens 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 ecclesi status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones
episcoporum
antistes Christi
antistes dei
apostolice
apostolicus
articulus constitutivus ecclesi
articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesi
assumptio carnis ex virgine
auctoritas divina
auctoritas et ratio
auctoritates praecessorum eius
audio edictum esse prpositum 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 benevolenti
caro
catalogus testimoniorum
cathedra
cathedra Petri
cathedra sacerdotalis
catholica fides et religio
catholica traditio
267
catholicam
charisma veritatis
clerici maiores
columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de clis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata
commixtio et communio dei et hominis
communicatio ideomatum
communicatio tua, id est catholic ecclesi unitas pariter et caritas
commutatio agnitionis
completus numerus prophetarum
complexus oppositorum
concordia episcoporum
conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat
conscientia religionis
consecutio ternitatis
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 substanti dei in filium
corporalis et spiritalis [i.e.
corpus permixtum
corpus spiritale
credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam ternam 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 ecclesi
de virginitate
dei
dei spiritus
deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare
deum corpus esse
deus
268
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 su 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 ecclesi 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 vit
dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat
dispositio, distinctio, numerus
distincte agere
divisio
doctrin inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.
doctrina
doctrina apostolorum
doctrina regul
dominic hosti 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 qu Adam portaverat vulnera
donum superadditum et supernaturale
du substanti
duplex adventus Christi
duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus
dux substanti
e sculo excedere
eam qu est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est
solveretur, nisi ips compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut prim coniunctiones solvantur
per secundas, secund rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda
colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem prim solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc
dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.
ecclesi
ecclesi novell et poster
ecclesia
269
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; mult vero sunt adolescentul, cum adhuc instruuntur
et proficiunt
ego et pater unum sumus ad substanti 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
clesti 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.
evangelic et apostolic litter
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
fdus 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
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 quo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo
ex quo agere cum deo posset.
filius portio plenitudinis
forum publicum
fraus
fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.
gratia
hc sunt initia hreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut prpositum superbo tumore
contemnant
hretici 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 idololatri 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 su potestatis, ipse sibi
causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.
271
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 ecclesiastic disciplin sanctificat 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 divin litteratur
instrumentum ecclesi
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 hresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim
separes posuit
iudices vice Christi
iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: prceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum
est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem.
lamentationes
lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosyn
lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis
legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.
lex
lex et doctrina
lex evangelica
lex prdocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum
libellatici
liber sententi ab initio est homo et liber sententi est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.
libertatem restauravit
272
liberum arbitrium
liter pacis
locum magisterii apostolorum
longa hominum expositio
magisterium
magna mater
maior est legisdatio qu in libertatem, quam qu data est in servitutem
matrix et radix ecclesi catholic
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
natur 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 prdicante 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 hosti sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris,
peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur.
ne mater quidem ecclesia prteritur
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 hreses obort 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
nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum

noli me tangere
non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.
non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro glori su (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 ternam 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 prterea putetur
operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in
Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, qu 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 cpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem
nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? ... adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et
tngus 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 clorum
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 ecclesi dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.
omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt
omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culp capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet,
ad meliora proficiat, culp, si rationem recti declinet
opera et eleemosyn
oportet vero mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote
oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere
opuscula
ordines
ordines minores
274
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 prceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem
datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum su etiam damnationis traducem fecit.
per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti
per verbum eius Iesum Christum.
perficere, solvere, demutare
permixtio
perseverantes in servitute pristin inobedienti moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris
neque per filium percipientes libertatem ... privantur munere eius, quod est vita terna: non
recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis,
antidotum vit non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus grati 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.
prcepta dominica
prcessorum auctoritates
prfectus urbis
prsens numen
prsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam
nativitatis Christi foederasse concordiam
preces
predestinatione
primitiv e virtutes ac primo creat, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam
275
princeps mulus
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 prcedere
procedere
promereri deum
promereri deum (iudicem)
promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis
prophet proprii
proprietates iudaic literatur
propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur
propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?
qu aliam regulam fidei superducerent
qu ante oculos nostros occurrunt
qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesi administratione
voluntatis su arbitrium liberum unusquisque prpositus, 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 ecclesi.
qui nimis probat nihil probat.
qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat.
qui sunt extra veritatem
quia eucharistia habet
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 prbuisse discipuli
quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata
est, qu 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
regul
regula
regula disciplin
regula doctrin
regula fidei
regula sacramenti
regula veritatis
remissio delictorum
renati ex aqua et pudicitia
restitutio
restitutio ad similitudinem dei
sacerdos
sacerdos dei
sacerdotals dignitas
sacerdotale officium
sacerdotalia munera
sacerdotalis ordo
sacerdotium
sacramentum
sacramentum absolutionis
sacramentum baptismi et eucharisti
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 hreticorum verbum dei caro factum est
secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma
semen Abrah ecclesia
277
semper apud patrem

semper autem coxsistens 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 prdicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens
in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, qu 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 prcepit, 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 aqu salutaris gehenn 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 qu non
species
speciosior quam verior
spes fidei
spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prvento 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
substanti 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
superunum dificat 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 monarchi nihil obstrepit
et
tessera hospitalitas
testamentum libertatis
theologia physica, mythica
toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, qu 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 hresim facit
typice et temporaliter et mediocrius
tyrannico terrore
ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, qu trium corpus est
ubique prclara 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; qu autem formant hominem, prcepta multa et non pauci gradus,
qui adducunt hominem ad deum
una natura
una persona
una substantia
una substantia, tres person
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 disciplin
unitas ecclesi
unitas sacerdotalis
unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam
279
unius et eiusdem substanti.

unius substanti
unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in clis
urbs terna urbs sacra
ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et
precibus reprsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.
ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substanti.
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 vers
virginis senect
virginitas Mari in partu
virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens
visio dei
vivi et defuncti
voluntas humana prcedit

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
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
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

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

EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOLUME II
CONTENTS.
Page
CHAPTER 1. Historical Survey 1-18
The Old and New Elements in the formation of the Catholic Church 2
The fixing of that which is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, Collection of
5
Writings, Organization, Cultus)
The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, the Apologists 7
564 Irenus, Tertullian, Hippolytus 9
Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most important
15
Institutions
Difficulties in determining the importance of individual Personalities 16
Differences of development in the Churches of different countries 17
56e 18-
FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH
I. 168
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
20-38
Rule of Faith
Necessities for setting up the Apostolic Rule of Faith 21
The Rule of Faith is the Baptismal Confession definitely interpreted 24
Estimate of this transformation 27
Irenus 27
29
Tertullian
53c
viiiResultsof the transformation 31
Slower development in Alexandria: Clement and Origen 32
B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches as New
Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of 38-67
Apostolic Writings
Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the year 150
38
there was no New Testament in the Church.
Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Muratorian
43
Fragment, in (Melito) Irenus and Tertullian.
Conditions under which the New Testament originated. 45
aef
Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings that were read 47
in the Churches
Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon, manner of using 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
56
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
60
to the time of Origen
ADDENDUM. The results which the creation of the New Testament
62
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 67-94
conception of the Church
The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities which were
67
founded by the Apostles
By the Elders 68
By the Bishops of Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles) 69
By the Bishops as such, who have received the Apostolic Charisma
70
veritatis
Excursus on the conceptions of the Alexandrians 70
The Bishops as successors of the Apostles 70
Original idea of the Church as the Holy Community that comes from
73565
Heaven and is destined for it
The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting on the Law
74
of Faith
ixObscuritiesin the idea of the Church as held by Irenmus and Tertullian 77
By Clement and Origen 80
Transition to the Hierarchical Idea of the Church 83
The Hierarchical idea of the Church: Calixtus and Cyprian 84
Appendix I. Cyprians 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 94-
Church 169
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
109
History of penance: the old practice
The laxer practice in the days of Tertullian and Hippolytus 110
The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian 111
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
113
condition of Salvation and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus
permixtum
After effect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian 115
Origens idea of the Church 116
Novatians 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
149-
Excursus to Chapters II. and III. Catholic and Roman
169
x
II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER IV. Ecclesiastical Christia 55b nity and Philosophy.
169-
The Apologists
230
1. Introduction 169
The historical position of the Apologists 169
Apologists and Gnostics 170
Nature and importance of the Apologists theology 172
2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation 177
Aristides 179
Justin 179
Athenagoras 188
Miltiades, Melito 190
Tatian55b 190
Pseudo Justin, Orat. ad Gr. 193
Theophilus 194
Pseudo Justin, de Resurr. 195
Tertullian and Minucius 196
Pseudo-Justin, de Monarch 199
Results 199
3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and rational religion 202
Arrangement 202
The Monotheistic Cosmology 204
Theology 205
Doctrine of the World and of Man541 212
Doctrine of Freedom and Morality 214
Doctrine of Revelation (Proofs from Prophecy) 215
Significance of the History of Jesus 217
Christology of Justin 220
Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justins doctrines 225
CHAPTER V. The Beginnings of an Ecclesiastico-theological interpretation

and revision of the Rule of Faith in opposition to Gnosticism, on 231-
the basis of the New Testament and the Christian Philosophy of 319
the Apologists; Melito, Irenus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian
afd 1. xiThe theological position of Irenus and of the later

231
contemporary Church teachers
Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic Fathers, their
231
wavering between Reason and Tradition
Loose structure of their Dogmas 234
Irenus attempt to construct a systematic theology and his
236
fundamental theological convictions
Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology 237
Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ
239
(recapitulatio)
His conception of a history of salvation 244
His historical significance: conserving of tradition and gradual
244
hellenising of the Rule of Faith
2. The Old Catholic Fathers doctrine of the Church 247
The Antithesis to Gnosticism 247
The Scripture theology as a sign of the dependence on
250
Gnosticism and as a means of conserving tradition
The Doctrine of God 253
The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus 256
(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit) 261
Irenus doctrine of the Logos 262
(Conceptions regard ac8 ing the Holy Spirit) 266
The views of Irenus regarding the destination of man, the
original state, the fall and the doom of death (the disparate
267
series of ideas in Irenus; rudiments of the doctrine of
original sin in Tertullian)
The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God 275
Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the divine and
275
human elements
Significance of Mary 277
Tertullians doctrine of the two natures and its origin 279
Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenus 283
The Gnostic character of this doctrine 286
Christology of Hippolytus 286
Views as to Christs work 288
Redemption, Perfection 289
Reconciliation 292
Categories for the fruit of Christs work 292
xii Things peculiar to Tertullian 293
Satisfacere Deo 294
The Soul as the Bride of Christ 294
The Eschatology 294
Its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation and the
297
advantage of connection with that
Conflict with Chiliasm in the East 299
The doctrine ac8 of the two Testaments 300
The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two
Testaments, the complexus oppositorum; the Old Testament 301
a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists
The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New Testament
304
and a compound Book
The stages in the history of salvation 305
The law of freedom the climax of the revelation in Christ 309
3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West,
312
(Cyprian, Novatian)
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 320
Edessa, Julius Africanus, Scholars in Palestine, Rome and
Carthage)
The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement 323
The temper of Clement and his importance in the History of
Dogma; his relation to Irenus, to the Gnostics and to 324
primitive Christianity; his philosophyof Religion
(2)556 The system of Origen 332
Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen 332
The Elements of Origens theology; its Gnostic features 334
334,
The relative view of Origen
336
His temper and final aim: relation to Greek Philosophy 335
xiiiTheology as a Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmological
340
speculation
Porphyry on Origen 341
The neutralising of History, esoteric and exoteric Christianity 342
Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system 343
Sources of truth, doctrine of Scripture 346572
I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding 349
Doctrine of God 349
Clements doctrine of the Logos 352
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit 357
Doctrine of Spirits 359
II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences 361
Doctrine of Man 363
III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration 365
The notions necessary to the Psychical 367
The Christ 564 ology 369
The Appropriation of Salvation 375
The Eschatology 377
Concluding Remarks: The importance of this system to the
378
following period
xiv
xv
DIVISION I.
BOOK II.
THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS
xvi
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
Aub (Histoire des Perscutions de lEglise, 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 Ritschls 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. Sohms 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 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
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. Sohms 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 of the Apostles? Were
these no code of laws? Sohms 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 cumenical 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 prscr. 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 Christianitys 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 mens 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 Grco-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 ( ). 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 Churchs 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), Irenus,
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 ecclesi. 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 Irenus 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 vit and spes fidei, and who found no sort of
edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas command,
performance, error, forgiveness. In Irenus 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 Irenus 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, ber die Anfnge 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 Origens theology with the inflexible
Antignostic regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius,
endeavoured to unite the theology of Irenus 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 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
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 Irenus. What amount of innovation these men
independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both
are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenus
pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more
than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain
dogmatic formul which are not found in Irenus 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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, qu sola
moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum
etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur; de ieiun. 13: Aguntur prterea
per Grcias certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qu et altiora quque in
commune tractantur, et ipsa reprsentatio 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 whrend 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 Csarea a Greek translation of Tertullians Apology
and a collection 17of Cyprians 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 Tertullians de prscriptione hreticorum. 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
Translators note. The following is Tertullians Latin as given by Professor
Harnack: Cap. 21: Constat omnem doctrinam qu cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus
et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesi
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,
(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
, (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
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 ,
, or the like, might stand for , 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
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
, 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 Lords Supper, as well as in the exorcism of
demons,25 fixed formul 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 formul 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 , also accompanied the
short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms.29
25
See on this point Justin, index to Ottos edition. It is not surprising that formul
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 Justins 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 Casparis 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 Herzogs 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 formul (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 (
) 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 Churchs 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 , 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
formul 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: ,

(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
); 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 formul 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 formul in the sense of
Irenus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression in Dial. 80.
The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there
reckoned among the beliefs held by the . 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 , 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 disciplin, and
the fdus spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that.
25They 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 (
). 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 formul 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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. Irenus 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 Irenus35 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
Irenus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering
to Polycarps exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may
perhaps be also mentioned.
35
Irenus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hres., especially in the third
book. Unfortunately his treatise, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
the truth proclaimed by the Church; and
, the body of the truth) is the old baptismal confession
well known to the communities for which he immediately writes.
(See I. 9. 4;
, 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Casparis 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 Irenus (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 Irenus
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 ( ) of Christ into
heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh
( , ), the universal
judgment. These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regul, 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
Irenus 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 formul 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 formul 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 Irenus 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. Prf. 12. 5; 20. 1.
40
See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Prf. 19. 8.
Tertullian followed Irenus 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 Irenus,
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 Irenus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as
a rule for the faith,43 as the law given 30to faith,44 also as a regula
doctrin or doctrina regul (here the creed itself is quite
plainly the regula), and even simply as doctrina or institutio.
41
This expression is not found in Irenus, but is very common in Tertullian.
42
See de prscr. 13: Hc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos
qustiones.
43
See l. c. 14: Ceterum manente forma regul in suo ordine quantumlibet quras 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 prscr. 21: Si hc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, qu cum
illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum
. . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra
edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis
catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. De prscr. 32: Ecclesi, qu licet nullum ex
apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide
conspirantes non minus apostolic deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrin. That
Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the regula fidei, just as
Irenus does, is shown by the fact that in abe de spectac. 4 (Cum aquam ingressi
Christianam fidem in legis su verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pomp 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 prscr.
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
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 Irenus. 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 clorum,51 and finally also
the Trinitarian economy of God.52 Materially, therefore, the
advance beyond Irenus is already very significant. Tertullians
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 prscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some
things inter domesticos, but declares that they could not be communications qu
aliam regulam fidei superducerent.
46
De prscr. 13; de virg. vol.1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded:
Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam
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
clo 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 prscr. 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
dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, etc.
53
But Tertullian also knows of a regula disciplin (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
prscriptione 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 formul
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 Irenus 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
tant ecclesi una est ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes
apostolic, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio
fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, qu iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem
sacramenti una traditio. De prscr. 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 Irenus), 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 ( 9;
) as well as from the fragments of this
work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: and 5
; 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 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 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 or aaf
the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenus and Tertullian did.
Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Prf., p. 4. V. 50 sq. and X. 32-34).
Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of
the Church is that of Irenus (ad Autol. II. 14):
,
,
. . .
. . .
,
.
58
This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p.
352 ff.: Did the Alexandrian Church in Clements 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 , 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 Irenus 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 nave view of tradition, that
is, the complete content of Christianity, which Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 , 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
, 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 or . . 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
which had been transmitted to him.
those of Rome, Carthage 35and Lyons.61 Such a standard did not
acb 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
; 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
. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125;
VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find
(). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of
the Lords 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 ); 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
. In the first passage it is said:
, ,
. . 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:

; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted
, or . . .; and continues (125):

. 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 Tertullians 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:
(I. 1. 11), (VII. 18. 110),
(all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also
, I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression (VII. 16. 103),
(VII. 16. 95), (VII. 16. 99),
(VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), (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 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
, 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:
= . .). In none of these formul 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 (
, ,

). 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
(VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that:
(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:
. VI. 7. 61:
(this is the only place where I find this expression)
, ibid ; VII. 10. 55:

564 . 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: ,
,
,
,
ac8
, . But in the other
passages in Clement where 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:
. 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 Irenus 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. prf. 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
Dllinger, 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
in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius
(Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian,
. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if
the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar .
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
(Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is,
from his spirit: . (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 Irenus that the confession expounded by
him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprians 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 . . .
, 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.;
Weizscker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Kpp 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) Baurs 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 Tbingen 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 Manichans 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 (, , ,
), 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 , 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:
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:
... 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:
. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian
prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual . 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: , . These examples may be
multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formul of
quotation , 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 (
= ) 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 (
). 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. Gtt., 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 epistol Pauli viri iusti (
), 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 epistol 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 dificationi 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, Tatians 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 (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 ; see Tex 564 te u. Unters. IX. 2.
79
See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatians
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 Irenus 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 Irenus
82
Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5.
83
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
, and of , we may assume that he knows
.
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:
). 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
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 qu Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum
Thecl 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. Irenus 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 Irenus also. He is not
yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemus 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. Grubers 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 Rnsch, Das N. T. Tertullians ac4 p.
47 f. The most common name is Holy Scriptures. In accordance with its main
components the collection is designated as (evangelic
et apostolic litter); 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 Gods 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 Irenus and Tertullian. The former disputed
with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read
Irenus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenus 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
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 ecclesiastic disciplin sanctificat 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 Irenus and Tertullian. There it is
called acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc. Irenus 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 prscr. 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 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
, 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, Irenus, 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 Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Churchs
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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 (
) 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 Kirchenvtern, 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. prf. 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
(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 propheti et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod
ceteri. Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: ac7 ,
, , ; Serapion in Euseb.,
H. E. VI. 12. 3:
. 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 Irenus 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 prophet.
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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 prscr. 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 Serapions 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:
, ... (follows John I. 1) III.
I2: 564 , ,
,
; III. 13: .; III. 14.:
. 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 (
) and Apostles ( ) 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:
(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 Credners 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 ; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See Pd. I. 6.
36, also 51.
114
In the Pd. the Gospels are regularly called , but this is seldom the case
with the Epistles. The word Apostle is used in quoting these.
them as .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
as . (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 , but it
had given the concept apostolic a far wider content than Irenus
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 Pd. I. 6. 49:
. We can hardly conclude from
Pd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a prophet.
116
It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pd. 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 . It is quoted in Pd. 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 Irenus
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
Clements 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 Clements attitude to
the various groups within this collection of , 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 ber die Anfnge 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: ,

, 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 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 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 Irenus, 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 prscr. 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
(live according to the Gospel) held good in every respect.
Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one,
viz., (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 Irenus 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 regul, 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 Irenus 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
zwlf 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 prscr. 20, 21, 32.
that the ecclesi (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 Irenus 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 Irenus and Tertullian, and is as old as the association
of the and the . 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 prscr. 36).
134
Tertull., de prscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: Cum autem ad eam iterum
traditionem, qu est ab apostolis, qu 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
Roman ecclesi, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides per
successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos. III. 3. 4, 4. 1: Si de aliqua modica
qustione 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 qu in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, qu
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 qu est ab apostolis ecclesi successio. The declaration in
Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.
affording the assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Churchs 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 Irenus 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 ltesten christlichen Datirungen
und die Anfnge einer bischflichen 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus, 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 Soters 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 Tertullians treatise de prscr.
138
Special importance attaches to Tertullians 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: ,
,

, , ... In these words we have an
immense advance beyond the conception of Irenus. 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 nostr religionis gradus artifex svitia diviserat, ut
laicos clericis separat ac8 os tentationibus sculi 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. Pd. 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:

.
. 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:
, ... 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 prdicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad
praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, qu in nullo ab
ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2:
. ). 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 Origens 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 Anfnge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, 1837.
Kestlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the
Deutsche Zeitschrift fr christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl,
Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenus Lehre von
der Autoritt der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868. Hackenschmidt, Die
Anfnge 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. Sder, Der Begriff der Katholicitt der
Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung
der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprians 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 .
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 and
. 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):
, ,
. 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 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 Irenus 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 cumenical 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
is first found. In his view the is founded on the
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: ,
.
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: ac8
. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus
is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see also Hermas; Justin;
Irenus; Tertullian, de prscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenus
and Tertullian the universality of the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In
position which the great Church (Celsus), or the 76old 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:
(Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians
called their ecclesiastical opponents Catholics. The word itself is not yet found in
Irenus, but the idea is there (sec I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19:
). is found as a designation of the orthodox,
visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.:
; 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 prscr. 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, ; 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 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, ( . ); 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. ,
, , , 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 Tertullians expression in adv. Val. 4: Valentinus de ecclesia
authentic regul 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 prteritur, 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 Tertullians
time: credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam ternam 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:
, , ,
(there is a different idea in Pd. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42:
). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named mother.
149
Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.
150
The phraseology of Irenus 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 Irenus 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,
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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:
: IV. 8.1: semen Abrah ecclesia., IV. 8.3:
omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem; IV. 36.2: ubique prclara est ecclesia;
ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum; IV. 33.7:
; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34.3., Levit 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 Irenus 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
Tertullians conception of the Church was essentially the same as
that of Irenus; 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 ecclesi
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 prscr. 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,
qu trium corpus est; 8: columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de
clis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata; 15: unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia
in clis; de pnit. 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 ecclesi
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 Clements 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 Irenus.155 Up to the 15th
Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in
the Pdagogus, 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 Gods 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 Pd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27:
, ,
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 Clements 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
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:
,
; IV. 26. 172:
, , ; VI. 13. 106, 107;
VI. 14. 108: , ; VII. 5.
29:
564 . . . ,
; VII. 6. 32; VII. I. 68:
. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17.
107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences:
,
, . . .
,
.
157
It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim 564 has fallen into the
background in Clements 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: ; 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
ecclesi 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
( ,
). 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: ,
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 ,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
. 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 .
161
Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the city of God (see also pseudo-Cyprians
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
(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 Augustines equal in other respects also, and who anticipated many
564 of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Fathers 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
Churchs 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 Irenus and Tertullian, though they in all
earnestness represented the fides catholica and ecclesia catholica
as inseparably connected,168 were already compelled to have
as in Euseb., H. E. V. Prf. 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
Churchs 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 Irenus says:
.
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
Cyprians 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 Hartels 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 ecclesi 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 Irenus.
Cyprians 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
cumenical 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 Korahs 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 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 prpositos, 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
175
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 Cyprians 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 mchis non putaverunt et in totem pnitenti locum contra
adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut
catholic ecclesi 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
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
latters 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; Sententi episc., prfat.): qua
in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesi
administratione voluntatis su arbitrium liberum unusquisque prpositus, 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,
prcepta 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, 89although
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 catholic
ecclesi unitas pariter et caritas; de unit. 4: superunum dificat 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 dificavit 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 ecclesi
catholic (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 prdicante 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 navely, even at the time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so
highly (ep. 52. 2), quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prcedere.
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 ecclesi novell et poster (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he
endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice tyrannico terrore and insisted that the
unitas ecclesi required the observance of this Churchs 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 Cyprians 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. Cyprians 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 latters
study: Mmoire sur lorigine des diocses piscopaux dans lancienne 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 an adherence to something 91self-
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, Irenus,
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: , ,
,
..., 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
prscr. 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: Hretici nullum habent
consortium nostr disciplin, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio
communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est prceptum, 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 mans
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 prscr. 3-6.
189
Irenus 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 ecclesi. 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. Not; 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): hc sunt initia hreticorum et ortus adque
conatus schismaticorum, ut prpositum 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 (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 hreses obort sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam
quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur; epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: item b. apostolus Johannes
nec ipse ullam hresin 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 Cyprians 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 ecclesi. 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; Rville, 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 Aurle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1881;
Harnack, Das Mnchthum, 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 Mller
(Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and
Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizscker in the Theologische Litteraturzeitung,
1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter
in the Zeitschrift fr 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 . , 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 liter 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):
, or
or , though Old Testament
prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11);
; and a
second time (No. 12):
. The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one another (cf.
also No. 10: ). 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: . 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 sculo 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): ,
; Prisca was a (l.c. 3); Proculus, the chief of the Roman
Montanists, virginis senect (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. prophet proprii of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta
Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos. VIII. 19:
,
. 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:
...,
, . (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 latters
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 Marcions 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 Mnster. 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, qu 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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians 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 Christs
names 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.
209
This is the point about which Tertullians 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 Tertullians
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
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 Valerians 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 ecclesi? 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
Irenus 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
Irenus.
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.
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. 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 prophet 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 Irenus 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):
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 divin litteratur) 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
... Origen on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in

the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirits 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 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 prser. 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-Encyklopdie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullians Schriften de pnit. et de
pudic. mit Rcksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus,
1893.
227
In the work de pnit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K.
Mller, 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 pnit. 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: K .
229
See Tertull., de pudic. 12: hinc est quod neque idololatri 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:
526 , . 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 Novatians 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 Gods 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
Cyprians 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 Gods 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 Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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: ; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt.
XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertuilians 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 fr 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 Gods 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 Christs 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:

.
, .

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 qu 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
. 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 arc typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in
ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arc 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,: ,
, . 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 Gods installing the bishops and always
appointing the right ones241 is of no avail, if false ones manifestly
find their way in. Hence Cyprians 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
communitys right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in
Reuter Augustinische Studien (Zeitschrift fr 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; mult vero sunt adolescentul, 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 Churchs 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.:
, ); 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 Gods 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. Dllinger (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. Origens 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 rmischen 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 non-
Catholics. 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. Novatians 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 glori su (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 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 Cyprians 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
Novatians schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the
Church, see my essay: Die Briefe des rmischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im
Jahre 250 (Abhandl. f. Weizscker, 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 pnit. 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, Novatians 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 Gods mercy can
only mean that in Novatians 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 qu 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 Gods 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 ternam 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, () 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 doctrin su
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 pnit., 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 Aub,
Les Chrtiens dans lempire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: Chrtiens
intransigeants et Chrtiens 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: 564 . 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 pnit. 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 suasori, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis prcordiis credam, diligam
deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus prceptis tota lex pendet et
prophet, 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 Novatians
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.
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 Novatians 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
Neocsarea IV. sc. 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
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 Churchs 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 rmischen Bischfe, pp. 250-255); the Donatist
Revolution, and the Audiani in the East.
253
It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullians 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 Cyprians 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 Cyprians 55th epistle (c. 9.):
Cornelius sedit intrepidus Rom in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus
infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius et
tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se mulum principem quam constitui Rom dei
sacerdotem. On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted
by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Mlanges Renier: Le Concile dElvir ac8 e
et les flamines chrtiens, 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
of Julius Africanus, and other examples). Much information on this point is to be
derived from Origens 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 mdiocrit fonda lautorit). The dispensations of grace, that
is, absolution and the Lords 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 non-
Christian, between the Church and the Empire, the clergy and the
magistrates.258 Amidst the general disorganisation of all
256
See Tertullians 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 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 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
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 ( ) of
the towns almost everywhere consists. ac8
, ,
. ,

; , ,
,
.
; ,
, ,
.
,
,

, ,

, ac8
,

.
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
Rtschl, 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 Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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 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:
. . . , and through whose
instrumentality union with Go 564 d can alone be attained: the (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 (sacerdotals 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 tngus 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 prscr. 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. prf.:
, 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. Irenus (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 perquationem disciplin 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 Gods 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.
262
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 Christs stead and to grant or
refuse the divine grace. In Cyprians 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
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 Irenus 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 Cyprians 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 and 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 , 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 Lords Supper. The latter was regarded 132as 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 Irenus 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 Lords 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 Csarea 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 Dllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten,
1826. Hfling, Die Lehre der ltesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der
christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342
ff. Steitz, Art. Messe in Herzogs Real Encyklopdie, 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 Hfling, 1. c., who has also treated in detail Clement and
Origens idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenus IV. 18. 3: Non
sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui
offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et prstat acceptare deum quasi ab amico
(on the offering in the Lords 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, Cyprians 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:
, . . .
(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 Tertullians time the theory, that it was on a level
with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418:
, ), 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 Tertullians 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: . . .
; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: ne
forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hosti 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 Biggs 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
Cyprians 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 Cyprians 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 eleemosyn) 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 mult mansiones
apud pa ac5 trem, si non pro varietate meritorum.
273
See c. 1: Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, qu Adam portaverit vulnera
et venena serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et prcepit, ne ultra iam peccaret,
ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum innocenti
prscriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis human infirmitas adque imbecillitas
faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustiti et misericordi operibus ostensis
viam quandam tuend salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus
eleemosynis abluamus. c. 2: sicut lavacro aqu salutaris gehenn 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 Cyprians 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: prceptis 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
Gods 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 coperation 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 eleemosyn
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
mans ( 564 the Christians) 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
Augustines 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 Christs grace and the divine factor in the
case, as Cyprians work de opere et eleemosynis.
No less significant is Cyprians 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.
275
With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustines 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 ).
the Lords 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 Lords 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: dominic hosti 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 566 Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim
cpta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici. In Cyprians 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:
and
. 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 Lords 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 Christs
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 prcepit, 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 Christs sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprians 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:
the Lords 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. Cyprians statement that every
celebration of the Lords Supper is a repetition or imitation of
Christs 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 Lords 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
(in the old covenant) , . II. 53). The

passage VI. 23: ,
,
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.: , we possess
no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius time of a sacrifice of
Christs body in the Lords 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 Tertullians 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 reprsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.
ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical
alteration took place in mens 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 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 ( ) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was
revealed as something relatively concealed. This conception, however, is opposed to the
Judo-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 su 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 Gods
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,
eleemosyn). 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 Cyprians 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 Christs
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
Hfling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. Taufe in Herzogs
Real Encyklopdie. Walch, Hist. pdobaptismi ac8 quattuor priorum sculorum, 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 ternitatis). 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 prparamur.
284
The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Pdag. 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:
, , 559
, . 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 Tertullians 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 Cyprians 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 Churchs 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 Irenus (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, qu in actu videtur, et magnificentia, qu
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
ternitatis. 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 Tertullians 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: .
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 Lords Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but
also as a divine gift.292 The effects of this gift were not
290
Translators note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof. Harnack:
Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, prcipue 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 tas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in scularibus, 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; Irenus 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 qu de clo 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 qu est ad
incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt, anim 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
, ,
...
292
Dllinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistic in dem ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1826.
Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift fr die hist. Theologie, 1842, I. Kahnis, Lehre vom
Abendmahl, 1851. Rckert, 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 Lords 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, Beitrge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians, 1874. Steitz, Die

Abendmahlslehre der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbcher fr 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 Clements time; see Bigg, l.c., p. 103.
293
The collocation of baptism and the Lords Supper, which, as the early Christian
monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert., adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacramentum
baptismi et eucharisti; 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 Pd.
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
Leimbachs investigations of Tertullians 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; Pd. 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 Clements 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: ; I. 20. 46:
; V. 10. 66:
. 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
mans own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drinking and,
in general, participation in a ceremonial are from Origens
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
Lords 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 cesti . . . 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 Origens doctrine of the Lords Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff.
298
The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of
Nica:
, ,
, 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 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, 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
Augustines 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 ), 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 Cheethams 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 Judo-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 fr 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:
, , , , ).
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 Irenus
(inscription V. 7 f.) designates Rome as queen. This was a customary appellation; see
Eunap., vita Prohr. p. 90: .
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
(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
Tatians 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 Irenus
and Tertullian. It was not till Origens 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
, . 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 Irenus 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 Irenus).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 Bez. 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 ltester Zeit. 1887; the same writer in the Zeitschrift fr
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 ltesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfnge einer
bischflichen 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-Cyprians 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 clesti 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 fr 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 Nica 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 Cyprians 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: . . .
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 birds-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
, ,
. We must not forget, however, that there
were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called cumenical 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 Romes central
position in the religion of the heathen world during the Empire: urbs terna 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 ( and )
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 , 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 worlds
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, . 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 is twice used about the Roman
Church ( [to be understood in a local sense]
= 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.:
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 .
320
Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9-12; cf, above all, the words:
, ,
Irenus 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 under- as 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
. . .
. Note here the emphasis laid on .
321
According to Irenus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem Church,
in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her (III. 12. 5:
,
). For obvious reasons Irenus 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, maxim et antiquissim et omnibus cognit, a
gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Paulo et Pet 558 ro Rom fundat et constitut ecclesi,
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 ccitatem
et malam sententiam, prterquam 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 qu est ab
apostolis traditio. On this we may remark as follows: (1) The special importance which
Irenus 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 Churchs 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, ,
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) Irenus 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 = = it cannot be otherwise. In reference to

principalitas = (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 authentic regul 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.):
. 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 Grco-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 (rconcilis), voil le chef-duvre qui
fondait la suprmatie ecclsiastique de Rome clans lavenir. Une nouvelle qualit
mythique remplaait 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 prsc 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 ( ) in the vital
ques 564 tions 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
?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
(only begotten Son) was required to be understood in the sense of
(God by nature). It was in Rome that this first took
328
Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 9:

, ,
, .
Stress should be laid on two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia
Minor were to be excluded from the , 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. Victors 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 Augustines 54th and 55th
epistles.
329
Irenus also (l.c. 11) does not appear to have questioned Victors proceeding as
such, but as applied to this particular case.
place. Fourthly, under Zephyrinus, Victors 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 tatem presbyter fuit ecclesi African, invidia
postea et contumeliis clericorum Roman ecclesi 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 Cyprians 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:

, .
332
In the treatise Die Briefe des rmischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz im
Jahre 250 (Abhandlungen fr Weizscker, 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
Irenus 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, Irenus,
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 prsc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like Irenus,
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 Itali adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas prsto 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 Irenus.
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.: prcessorum
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, 164audio edictum esse prpositum 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
Tertullians 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 quro, unde hoc ius ecclesi usurpes. Si quia
dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc petram dificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves
regni clestis, vel, Qucumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in
clis, id circo prsumis 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 Peters mouth:
, . . .
, 564
. ,
.
335
See Dionysius of Alexandrias letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb., H. E.
VII. 5. 2): ,
.
336
In the case of Origens 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 (Dllinger, 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 Cyprians 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
Cyprians 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
ecclesi catholic 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 Cyprians
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
prcedere) 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 .
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 worlds 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):
, , 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 ( 564
338). 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. Pauls 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 Serapions 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 Csar, who reigned there 13 years. (See also
Tixeront, desse, 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 ddesse, 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 prfectus urbis, with his district superintendents, the deacons, and in fact a sort of
princeps mulus, 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
Theodorets 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 Gods 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 Justins, Tatians and
Melitos 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 Grco-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 Grcos, 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 Grco-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: .
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.

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 Vter in Engelhardts Christenthum
Justins des Martyrers, p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement
to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift fr 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 mans 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 Mrtyrer, 2 vols., 1840 f. Aub, S. Justin, philosophe et martyr,
2nd reprint, 1875. Weizscker, Die Theologie des Mrtyrers Justins in the Jahrbuch fr
deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justins, 1878; id.,
Justin, in Herzog Real Encyklopdie. Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer , 1880. Clemen, Die
religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudmonismus in Justins
Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des Christenthums Justins 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 in a purely Stoic fashion. He opposes the truth
also in the Stoic manner to the .353 It was not
to be a mere captatio benevolenti. 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 ( ) 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:
1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justins, 1848. Bosse, Der prexistente 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.
(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.
358
Apol. I. 5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.:
.
359 564
L. c.: ,

.
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.
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.:
ac8 . . .
.
operation of the divine reason. For mans 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
mans 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 as a natural possession, or whether this
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 and and we need not therefore attempt
to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent discoveries of poets and philosophers are
simply traced to (Apol. II. 8),
the (ibid.) which was implanted at the creation, and on which
the human 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 (ibid.), his
philosophy also, like all pre-Christian systems, being a (II.
15). But on the other hand Christ was known by Socrates though only ; for
Christ was and is the Logos who dwells in every man. Further, according to the
Apologist, the bestows the power of recognising
whatever is related to the Logos ( II. 13). Consequently it may not only be
said: , (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 ( ) 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 564 ... (I. 5).
Nevertheless 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 and of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to
ones 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 (
), 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 mans 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 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 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 Justins 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
? 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 Justins estimation so serious that he no
longer expected anything from the 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 Justins 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 (
, II. 10). The principles of Plato are not foreign ( 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:
(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 (
) 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 Justins 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. ( ,
, ) 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:
). The philosophical emperors
were meant here to think of the . Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected
exaggerations in his description. Justins 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 Justins 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 Justins Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is clearly
shown by the introduction to the Dialogue.
369
Dial. 8: ab3 .
370
Dial., l. c.:
.
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 ( ). 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
Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).
376
Suppl. 7 fin. and many other places.
574
377
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 acd
Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init.
381
Suppl. 11.
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
Tatians385 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
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: (Euseb., H. E. V.
17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as
(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 Christianity
philosophy, we must note that this expression alternates with the other
, and that he uses the formula: Thy forefat 564 hers held this philosophy in
honour along with the other cults ( ). This excludes the
assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christianity as philosophy (see
also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called ). He also wrote
a treatise . In it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he
called Christ .
385
See my treatise Tatians Rede an die Griechen bers., 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 Justins 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: .
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 Tatians
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
mans 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:

. 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
mans 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 (); 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):
,
.
391
C. 31. init.: . 32 (p. 128): 540
. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated
. C. 35: . 40 (p. 152):
. 42: . The
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 ,
once also (12; cf. 40: ), and often .
392
See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us ,
.
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 (c. 1):
(c. 35); (c. 12);
(c. 29); (c. 35);
(c. 42); 564 (c. 31); see also
c. 30, 32. In Tatians 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.
398
C. 30 (p. 114): .
399
Tatians 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 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:
.
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):
, 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 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 ( ), 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: ,
).
402
Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does:
, ,
,
,
.
; 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:
.
other he admits that those writers, when the demons abandoned
them ( ), 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. (
,
.
). 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
. 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 fr 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
Csarem (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 lhistoire 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 anim naturaliter Christian. We need merely
mention that the work of Minucius is throughout dependent on Ciceros book, de natura
deorum. In this treatise he takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism
than Tertullian.
407
In R. Khns 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 authors 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 Tertullians 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 mans 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 mans 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 prscr. 7.)
411
Tertull., de testim. I.: Sed non eam te (animam) advoco, qu 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 aliquantul periti tu nemo credit.
412
Tertull., Apol.46: Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Grci discipulus et
cli? 541 de prscr. 7: Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academi et
ecclesi? Minuc. 38.5: Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores et
adulteros novimus . . . nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente prferimus, non
eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione
qusiverunt 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. 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
which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for
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:
, (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:
, ,
,
..., those that have lived with reason are Christians,
even though they were accounted atheists, such as Socrates and

. 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; 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 202and morality are the natural
content of reason. Even Tatian forms no exception, thoug 564 h he
himself protests against the idea.
416
See Justin, Apol. I. 31, Dial. 7, p. 30 etc.
417
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 .
In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read:
, but here exclusively mean the rules of life (see
Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in 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 and
. 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 ac8
and not . 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
. 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 and
.
( ), 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
mans 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 : (2) as ,
and ; (3) as and .
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:
,
). As the living and spiritual Being he reveals himself in
free creations, which make known his omnipotence and wisdom,
421
Ciceros 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:
.
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 ( ); his
supramundaneness ( , , ,
, , , ,
; see Justin, Apol, II. 6; Theoph. I. 3); his unity
( ); his having no beginning (, ); his
eternity and unchangeableness ( );
his perfection (); his need of nothing ( a94 ); his
spiritual nature ( ); his absolute causality (
, the motionless mover, see
Aristides c. 1); his creative activity ( ); his
sovereignty ( ); his fatherhood (
) his reason-power (God as , ,
, ); his omnipotence (
); his righteousness and goodness
( ).
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 Philos 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: ,
.
425
Tatian 5: ,

. 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: . . . . ,
.
584 426Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are most
closely connected; see Tatian 27: .
427
The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatians 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 formul of the Churchs 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 vers Christs 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 formul (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
. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and
prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation is first found
in. Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15:
, ; 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 , (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 dtre 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, , 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
( . 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: ,

) 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: , .
, ,
,
,
, , .
, ,
. . ,
,
.
,
,
. 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 () is used by the Apologists, especially Justin,
because the name Son was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the
words , , , and the like express the
physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however,
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
(), 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
, , (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 is for the first time a hypostasis distinct
from the Father, the 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 ( , 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 Gods 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 Irenus 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 , 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,
(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 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 ()
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 qucumque exigitis
deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim,
philosophorum deo. Qucumque 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 mans 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 Philos, 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
(, ), 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
Hexameron (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 mans preserving
(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 mans 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 mans
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:
,
.
, ; ,
,
, ,
.
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
Makers 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 Gods sufferance,
took possession of the world, and availed themselves of mans
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.
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.
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 Engelhardts Das Christenthum
Justins des Mrtyrers pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer 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
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.
Justins and Tatians 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. Christs 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 Gods 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 and
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 Lords Supper) and tried to give them a
450
In Justins polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way.
Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise , quoted by Irenus (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 Tertullians 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 Justins 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 formul, 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 mankinds sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He
is thus a forerunner of Irenus 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 . The idea of
the new birth is exhausted in the thought: , 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
() 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 Irenus (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 Justins, 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 fr wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f.
The fragments is w ac0 orded as follows:

. ,
.
.
.
,
,
. , ( )
. , ,
, ,
, .
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
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 (
) 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 Engelhardts
concluding observations in his Christenthum Justins 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, 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 Justins 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 Gods 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 (
), 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
Weizscker, Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 119, has with good
reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Sthlin, Justin der Mrtyrer, 188, p. 63
f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardts 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 prsens
numen, and some new thing. Still more powerful was this longing
in the case of the 226Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latters
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 ones own person. The cleansing which takes place
is Gods 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 Justins
conception of the Lords Supper show that the Apologists strove to
get beyond moralism, that is, they tried to supplement it through
the mysteries. Augustines 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
ones 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 Judo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas
about the new law. It is not Judo-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 () 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 prexistent 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 prexistence 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 us, Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Novatian.
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,
IRENUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS,
NOVATIAN.461
461
Authorities: The works of Irenus (Stierens and Harveys editions), Melito (Otto,
Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehlers and Reifferscheids editions), Hippolytus
(Fabricius, Lagardes, Dunckers and Schneidewins editions), Cyprian (Hartels
edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Bhringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre
Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenus, 1889. Nldechen, Tertullian,
1890. Dllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Many monographs on Irenus and
Tertullian.
1. The theological position of Irenus and the later
contemporary Church teachers.
1. The theological position of Irenus 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 Irenus,
462
The following exposition will show how much Irenus and the later old Catholic te
564 achers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Irenus (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 Irenus.
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 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. 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.
465
Tertullian does indeed say in de prscr. 14: Ceterum manente forma regul fidei
in suo ordine quantumlibet quras, 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. Irenus 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: ,
.
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
(Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39) became lay-
teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions.
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 Irenus and Tertullian on the same level as the hallowed
doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by them as something
of a different nature. Irenus uttered most urgent warnings against
subtle speculations;473 but yet, in the navest way, associated with
469
In the case of Irenus, 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, Irenus appealed to no charisms.
470
See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.
471
Irenus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way.
472
Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot,
qu major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sculi
ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua
esse credendum, expavescunt ad . Similar remarks often occur in
Origen. See also Hippol., c. Net. 11.
473
The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was impressively
emphasised by Irenus, 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 qu requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex
parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum qualis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. 1:
, ,
,
, 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 qu 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus nor by
Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 prsc. 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 Zahns
judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): Irenus 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 Irenus. 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 Justins 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 formul, 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 Tertullians
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
Irenus 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 prscr. hret., 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 formul.
It is different with Irenus. 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 formul, Irenus 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 Irenus is
far superior to the theological writings of Tertullian. This appears
already in the task, voluntarily undertaken by Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
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 Irenus 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
Irenus.
56d 480Consequently the spirit of Irenus, 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 formul
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.
hreses of Irenus 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 Irenus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: The Manuscripts of
the Latin translation of Irenus, 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 Tatians 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 Irenus.
483
People are fond of speaking of the Asia Minor theology of Irenus, 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
Irenus. 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. Irenus, 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 ().485
This speculative 239thought, which involved the highest imaginable
optimism in contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenus 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, Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus (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 in Ireni 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 Justins chief Antignostic work.
488
According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante,
according to that of Irenus 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 Irenus idea
the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the
Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus con ac8 tinues 7: Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi
omnes qui prdicti 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 Irenus 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. prf.: veritas, hoc est dei filii
doctrina, III. 10. 3: Hc est salutis agnitio qu deerat eis, qu 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 ( ). 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 Irenus as
follows: Incorruptibility is a habitus which is the opposite of our
present one and abf indeed of mans natural condition. For
immortality is at once Gods 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
Irenus. 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. Irenus 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 mans 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. Hc 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 prstans, 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:
. ,
. , ,
.
.

. Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium
eam qu est ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius
communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit tatem, omnibus
restituens eam qu est ad deum communionem. The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and
bondage are incorporated by Irenus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23
are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Irenus turns to those who hold
Jesus to be a mere man, perseverantes in servitute pristin inobedienti moriuntur,
nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur
munere eius, quod est vita terna: non recipientes autem verbum incorruptionis
perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vit non accipientes. Ad
quos verbum ait, suum munus grati narrans: ,
. ac8
,
. . . et qui filius dei est filius
hominis factus est,
. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere,
nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptel et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari
possumus incorruptel 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:
,
. ,
,
.
, ;
,
; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16,
19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenus 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 Gods plan, but could not be
immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It 243is
perhaps Irenus 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
,
(Who is ignorant of the books of Irenus, 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
Irenus is the first to whom Jesus Christ, God and man, is the
Tatians 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 Adams 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 qu
sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius
poterat enarrare nobis, qu 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 incorruptel
hreditatem.
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 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 ons 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 Gods 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 Irenus 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 Irenus.
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
Melitos 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
. 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 Irenus (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 Churchs rule of faith, see
Chapter 7.
The manner in which Irenus 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, Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Gods
ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely
interwoven with each other. Irenus 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? Irenus 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 Irenus himself always seeks to refer everything again
to the simple faith ( ), 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 Irenus 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 formul.
Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted the adversarys 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:
(scil. than the regula fidei)
.
,
.
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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Bhringers careful reviews of the theology of Irenus 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 prscr. 7;
Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenus criticism
of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff.
500
See Irenus 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 Irenus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the ons of
Ptolemy as personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa
summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.
502
See Irenus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several
passages. Moreover, Irenus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic ons with more respect
than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical
foundation. In confuting the doctrine of ons he incidentally raised several questions (II.
17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference ac8 to the Son
and Spirit. Quritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui ones? 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 Irenus 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 substanti

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 quales 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 facul, generatione quidem et
magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substanti cum sint cum
principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum
participabit passiones. Neque enim qu 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 Marcions 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. Irenus 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 ons, 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 Irenus was still very much more successful than
Tertullian.507 Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what
interest he took in the prexistent 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.
Irenus 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. Irenus 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. Irenus 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 prscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim.
509
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 prscr. 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 prscr. 25: Scriptur quidem perfecta
sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dict, 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. Irenus 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
maxim that the obscure passages 252are to be interpreted from the
clear ones, not vice vers;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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Irenus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32.
I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ips scriptur increpant patriarchas et prophetas,
nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scriptur non increpant (scil.
delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum
qurere.
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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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. Irenus, 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 iudaic
literatur 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 hc propter delectionem, sentitur autem
super hc secundum magnitudinem. Irenus 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 hc est enim qu 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. Gods
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:
,
,
254because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the
creation and the word of revelation. Irenus 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. Irenus certainly did not succeed in
reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the
knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenus
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
.
. . . ,
. See also what follows down to the words:
, 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: , ,
, ,
,
.
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 qu providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem;
qu 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.
anim; 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
Gods 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 Irenus 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 mans 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 , 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 Gods 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 Irenus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4:
Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit; de pnit. 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 Lords
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 formul 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 Origens work de orat., and,
in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lords 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 , 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 qu omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum
inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus prsit
perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei
et deum dictum ex unitate substanti, 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
materi 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 prdicabatur, 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 Notus the setting forth of the truth (c. 10 ff.)
he begins with the proposition: . The Logos whose
essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention.
533
See Hagemann, Die rmische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.
534
See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullians doctrine of the
Trinity (orthodox in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that
these formul were due to Tertullians juristic bias. The formul, 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 (
), because with them also, the
person, never alternates in his case with the others, una natura, tres person; 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 substanti; 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 lan, mollitia plum pariant naturalia eorum,
substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc natur similitudo notatur, cum substanti
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
substanti patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero? (! !) c. 4: Videmus igitur
non obesse monarchi 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 ( ).536 The only
difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the economy of
God ( ) 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 hresim facit) is
already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he
considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different
stages of Gods 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
substanti 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. Notum
536
See Hippol., c. Notum 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 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 hresis utitur; immo
hresis 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 ( ).
Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance
as the Father (unius substanti = ) 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 sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem
disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec
potestate, sed specie, unius autem substanti 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, qu 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: Qucunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili
incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucunque 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 substanti 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 Gods 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 (see c. Notum 15).
546
According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Sons 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
in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed
with Tertullians 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 Irenus.
56a 1
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
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 monarchi nihil obstrepit et statum
protegit; de pudic. 21. In de prscr. 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. Not. 14): ,
, ,
, , . In his Logos doctrine
apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X.
33: ,
) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before
his coming forth ; he is produced , 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 prexistence; 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 Tertullians 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 prexistent
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 Irenus
Christologie, 1843.
theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 (, , 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 Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus has both; the Apologists base their
speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament,
Irenus on both Old and New.
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of
God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father
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.
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 Irenus 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 Irenus conceived a relationship
of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of
553
A great many passages clearly show that Irenus 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 Irenus 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
coxsistens 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 cpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud
patrem; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper
coxsistebas 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.).
Irenus 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). Irenus (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 Irenus 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 Iren ac8 us is in saying anything about the Son,
apart from his historical mission, navely 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. Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which
was not felt by Irenus 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 ons. It has been correctly remarked
that with Irenus 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 Irenus, 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
Irenus 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 preminent interest of Irenus, 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
Irenus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers
to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3:
, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator patern grati
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 sapienti eius et virtutis receptaculum homo. V. 29. 1:
Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.
557
Irenus 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; Irenus 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). Irenus 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 Irenus

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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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
Irenus, but he never uses the formula , to say nothing of the abstract formul of
Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenus 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 Irenus
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
Irenus 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:
, ,
, ,
. Here one of
Origens thoughts appears.
558
The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about
redemption. Nldechen (Zeitschrift fr 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 mans
559
Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following
sentences are perhaps the most important:
; , ,
, , ,
,
.
, . ,
, ac8
. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but
the child cannot stand it: , see also 2-
4: Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis
deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis su hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut
imprstantem. 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.: ,
. . .
. In this chapter Irenus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as
man) from the point of view of a . 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 Irenus 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 Irenus II. 29. 1: Si
propter substantiam omnes succedunt anim in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere,
superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id,
quod sint anim sed quoniam sunt iust . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes
salvabuntur anim; 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 Gods Spirit, but only comes about when man is
obedient to him. Along with this Irenus has also the idea that
mans 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 Adams whole posterity.561
560
On the psychology of Irenus see Bhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that
in some passages he reckoned the in man as the latters 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 is realised in the body, the is not given by
nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through
obedience (V. 6. 1). The is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at
the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatians opinion). It is clear,
especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the , not the , that is to be conceived
as an original possession. On this point Irenus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain
from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenus also views everything as ultimately
dependent on mans inalienable freedom. Alongside of this Gods goodness has scope for
displ ac8 aying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides mans
knowledge through counsel; see 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenus 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 Irenus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and
wickedness: . In 4 he interprets the Pauline: omnia
licent, sed non omnia expediunt, as referring to mans inalienable freedom and to the
way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): liber sententi ab initio est homo et
liber sententi est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est. 5: Et non tantum in
operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et su 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:
. IV. 4. 3: homo rationabilis et secundum
hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et su 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 Irenus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of
Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his
prstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum qu sunt
Here Irenus 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 mans fall562
and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological
significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Pauls case, the 271c
a98 onsequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that
disobedience was conducive to mans 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 Irenus. 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 qu electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio
lucis tenebr, et separatio dei amissio omnium qu 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 su 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
Mans 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
Irenus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a
quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Pauls 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 cleste
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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 mans will and capacity are free, and
based on this freedom an argument in justification of Gods
ways.568
564
See Wendt, l.c., p. 24.
565
See III. 23. 6.
566
See V. 1. 1: Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus qu 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. Wendts summary, l.c., p. 24: By the Logos
becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance, formulates Irenus
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.):
, ,
, ac1 . ,
,
, . 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
But, in addition to this, Irenus 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. Irenus
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, Irenus 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. Hc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute. This
statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenus speaks of the adoptio, is
opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenus great work, however, we can
point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV.
38. 3: .
56b 571
See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.
572
See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable:
, ,
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 Christs 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 Irenus 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
, .
; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenus 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
Irenus with regard to mans 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 Irenus 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, Irenus
has only given us fragments.
574
See V. 16. 3: ,
. 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 Irenus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential
ideas. Bhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: We cannot say that Irenus, in
making Adams 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 Irenus 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 Irenus; see the index in Oehlers 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 prceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo
semine infectum su 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 tas festinat ad baptismum? For the rest, Tertullian
discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more
thoroughly than Irenus; 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 Irenus
(dominus sanavit illa qu Adam portaverat vulnera); but the statement in ep. 64. 5:
Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium
mortis antiqu, 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. Tertullians 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 qu est a Maria in Evam
recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ips
compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut prim coniunctiones solvantur per
secundas, secund rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a
secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem prim solutionis habere
locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos
primos. Irenus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12.
3): , . 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
Irenus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has
the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenus, 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 Irenus thought the Son of God became the Son of
man, (filius dei factus filius hominis). Finally, the manner in
which Irenus 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 c ac8 ardinal doctrine of Irenus: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 hreticorum 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. Irenus maintains the first statement as well
against the Ebionites as against the Valentinians who thought
that Christs 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 prscr. 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 Irenus, 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, qua 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 Mari in partu can hardly
be traced in Irenus 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 Christs 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
Irenus and Tertullian. The fact of Christs birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian
in order to prove Christs 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 Justins 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 unic spei totius orbis. Irenus and Tertullian mean that
Christs 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 Irenus 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 nave Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh.
See Apolog. 21: spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prvento carnificis
officio. Yet Irenus in several passages spoke of Christs human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1)
as also did Melito ( ,
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 Saviours flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to
ac7 teach the annihilation of Christs flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenus 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 Irenus, and for good reasons was not repeated in
succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenus 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 Irenus was not a personal man, but
only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that
Irenus 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 clis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt,
utique ipsam carnem in quam svierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci; see
also what follows.
589
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 Irenus; 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 Irenus was able to adopt the old formula God has suffered and the
like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416:
(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, clestis 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 Irenus 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 Saviours
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 Irenus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419):
Propterea misit pater filium suum e clo 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 qu 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 Irenus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius
hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case
closely imitates Irenus. 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 person-
God 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 Irenus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words,
, is by no means genuine. How
we are to understand the words:
in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to
Irenus, 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 Irenus 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: ,
is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24.
596
De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione
substanti.
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 Irenus in his exposition.600 He was,
moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic principle. Irenus
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
Johns statement in the sense of the Words transforming himself
non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo
autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substanti, 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 substanti. In what follows
the actus utriusque substanti are sharply demarcated: amb substanti in statu suo
quque distincte agebant, ideo illis et oper et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro
spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. See also c. 29: Quamquam
cum du substanti 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 substanti census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!),
hinc carneum, inde spiritalem etc. Then: Qu proprietas conditionum, divin et
human, qua utique natur cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.
600
In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula de 52c us et homo, or, after
Tertullians time du substanti, 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 Tertullians 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 Tertullians view, not from that of the Alexandrians.
Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating.
ad6 601Quare, says Irenus 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 qu 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 formul 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 Christs 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 nave confidence of the
utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two
features in Irenus 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 Christs 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 Irenus 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 Gods 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the
perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes:
,
604
So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a
twofold conception into Irenus 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 (Bhringer, 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 Irenus.
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 Irenus 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.
.
,

(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 Irenu 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 Irenus 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 Irenus to limit the deus crucifixus and to lay
the foundation for Tertullians formul. 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 us 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 Abrah,
secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat,
non secundum gloriam iudicabat. All that Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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
(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 Tertullians Christology or even of that of
Irenus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the
Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old
traditional formul: deus passus, deus crucifixus est (God
suffered, God was crucified).608
following other formul about Christ: , ...,

, Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est,
qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur. But Irenus only expressed himself thus
because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ .
608
On Hippolytus views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. an account
to be used with caution and Overbeck, Qust. 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 Irenus in this case also. It is instructive to see what
Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenus 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 Kimmels untenable hypothesis (de Hippol.
vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus treatise c. Not.
we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de
Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: (Iren.),

(see Iren.)
(see Melito, Iren., Tertull.)
(Irenus and Tertullian also
make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh),
(Iren., Tertull.)
(Iren.). The
succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has
also borrowed from Irenus 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
, l.c., c. 26, with the of Irenus and
l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c.
Not. 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 Irenus
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:
; .
(
).
. . Hippolytus
partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenus 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 Irenus had not by any means yet become predominant in the
Church, as we might suppose from the latters 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):
. , , ,
, , ,
. If we
consider how Irenus 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 doctrin inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum. From
this standpoint Origens 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
287Irenus 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 ipse609
288(Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might
become what he himself is). But, in accordance with the
recapitulation theory, Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Christs work not to the pneumatic ipso facto, 564 but
in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen
to the Saviours words and adorn themselves with works of
609
See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also rechoed 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: ,
. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenus 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 qu 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
qu prdicta sunt bona.
righteousness.612 Irenus presented this work of Christ from
various points of view. He regards it as 289the realisation of mans
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 Adams
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 Irenus 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, Irenus 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
Christs 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 Irenus is already involved in
612
See IV. 36. 6: Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e.,
) et iustiti 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 Gods 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 Christs 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, Irenus 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 Adams birth from
the virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the
counterpart of Eves disobedience, so the story of Jesus
temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of
Adams te 54c mptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the
temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenus 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 Satans temptation.614 As yet
Irenus 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
Irenus 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 qu sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio
dominabatur nostri, ea qu non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam,
quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere qu 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 Irenus 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 Irenus, 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 Christs 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 Casparis
Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved
the right sense): , ; ;
;
,
, ,
. .

ab9
.
.
, . , ,
. (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows).
;
, , , .
, ; ,
, ;
; ! ! ! ,
;
; ,
! 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
Irenus 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:
,

.
with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks
of God being offended through Adams 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 Christs
work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a
restoration. In this connection Irenus 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 Irenus said that Christ has annihilated sin,
abolished Adams 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 Pauls thoughts.
ade 619 Irenus 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, Irenus 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 Christs work as in Irenus, 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 superclestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est
verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum
primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesi, 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
Christs 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
nostr et prdictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand
he has also adopted from Irenus 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
quo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex quo 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:
, ,
, ,
,
. ,
, , ,
, , . ,
.
. , ,
. ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
.
. It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd
centur ac8 y, Christs 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, qu divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis
culpa merito reprehensa est. Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: Exempto reatu eximitur et
pna. On the other hand he speaks of fasting as officia humiliationis, through which
we can inlicere God. Among these Western writers the thought that Gods anger must
be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more
pronounced form than in Irenus. 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 Irenus. That many
of the latters speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact
that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Qust. Hippol., Specimen p. 75,
note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of
view than Irenus; 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 Irenus, and which in after times was to
attain great importance in the East (after Origens 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:
,
. 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 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 fderavit, sponsam sponso et
sponsum spons comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis
nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, qu 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
. 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 Irenus and Hippolytus as well as of the latters 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 Irenus. 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus.625 There is
572
625
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 worlds
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. Irenus 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 Saviours 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 Irenus
(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 fathers 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 Irenus 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. Irenus 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
. 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 idiot 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 Arsino 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, Iren 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
quras).631 But they went 303a step further still. In opposition to
Marcions 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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. Irenus,
for example, emphasised in the most nave 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 Irenus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.
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 Abrah et Moysi collocutus est. Both Testaments are unius et
eiusdem substanti. IV. 2. 3: Moysis liter sunt verba Christi.
631
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. Irenus 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 univers
doctrin dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, qu est
secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo; see Overbeck Ueber die
Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvtern, 1877, p. 8 f. Similar
remarks are frequent in Irenus.
633
Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogami
debitores, ex pristina dei lege, qu nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit. Here also
Tertullians 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 Origens 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 Gods 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
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 us leaves
Adams sin entirely out of sight). But it was Gods 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.
639
No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenus, 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 qu homo iustificatur, qu etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui
fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc. IV. 15. 1.
643
Irenus, 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 Sons 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).
God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment
Irenus, 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 prdocuit 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 Irenus 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. Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 prcepto
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: Hc ergo, qu in
servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Qu
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 Irenus 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 qu in libertatem, quam qu 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; qu autem
formant hominem, prcepta 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). Irenus 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 Christs 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 Pauls 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 Irenus 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 Irenus
in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenus 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 prscr. 13): Christus prdicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni
clorum; 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 qu volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic
dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, qu nec patres
sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, qu 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 Irenus. 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
Irenus; 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
Nldechens article in the Zeitschrift fr 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:
, 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 Tertullians Auffassung des
Apostels Paulus und seines Verhltnisses zu den Uraposteln (Jahrbuch fr
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, Irenus, 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
Irenus 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 Cyprians work Testimonia,
written for a layman, with Novatians work De Trinitate.
In the Testimonia the doctrine of the two Testaments, as
developed by Irenus, 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 Novatians
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 Origens work
. 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 (. . 1886, p. 242):
.
652
In the case of Irenus, 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 Tertullians 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 formul. It
probably contributed not least to make Tertullians 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 Nica and Chalcedon.653 Novatian adopted
Tertullians formul one substance, three persons (una
substantia, tres person), from the substance of God (ex
substantia dei), always with the Father (semper apud patrem),
God and man (deus et homo), two substances (dux
substanti), 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 Novatians 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 , 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 formul, 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: prsertim 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 clestium, 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 prstat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit
(Novatians 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 hreticis
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 adhret in
nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura
propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt hretici, 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 substanti concordia mutui ad
invicem fderis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scriptur hoc ipsum
dicentis veritate cognoscant. c. 21: hretici 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 person su id est filii a paterna
auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de
ordine disposit potestatis . . . unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non
unitatem person 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 concordi unitatem est apostolus
Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione. (Comparison with the relationship between
Paul and Apollos! Quos person 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 prdestinatione qu 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, ternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo
quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aris aut tono coact
de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolat a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius
sacr et divin 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 prcedit, 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 inqualitate 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 Gods
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 Gods 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
mens 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
ternus pater, a quo solo hc vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa
rursus per substanti 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, Irenus, 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 Irenus still leaves it undecided whether the
form of the worlds 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 Alexandrias great masterpiece from
the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also
applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenus,
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, qu Alex. floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist.
crit. de lcole dAlex., 1846-51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning,
Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 ff. Lmmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter, Clem.
theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement dAlex. 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 Abhngigkeit 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 Anfnge 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, Qust. Musonian, 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 Horts 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. hr. 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
prscr. hr. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8: Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et
nostri prtendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est, inquiunt, Qurite 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 Csarea), 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 Irenus 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 Irenus 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 Churchs attention had been drawn to problems of
historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is
subordinate to the historical, and in his , 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 lia and
Theoktistus of Csarea, 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, Tatians 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.
Clements 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 Pantnus (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 Pantnus, Clement, and Origen, see the 6th
Book of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen were disciples of
Pantnus.
664
See my article Heraklas in the Real-Encyklopdie.
665
We have the most complete materials in Zahn, Forschungen Vol. III. pp. 17-176.
The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Pdagogus, Stromateis) is
found in Overbeck, l.c. The titles of Clements 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 Pdagogus.
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 Pantnus and
Clement are called Father , but whilst the former receives the title,
, the latter is called: ,
.
668
Strom. VI. 14, 109 . Pistis is
(VII. 10. 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is
(l.c.),
(l.c.), (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 Justins 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:

, ,

, ,
,
. Strom. VII. 69-83: VI. 14, 113:
,
. 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 mans raising himself to the
divine life.672 While this is already clear evidence of Clements
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 Clements
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.:
,
, .

.
.
672
See Bratkes 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 Biggs 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 Irenus, 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. Irenus
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 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 Irenus, 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:
,
,
.
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 (
,
330
, ,
).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 Clements 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 Irenus 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 Irenus and his theological
confrres 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:
, ,
. VI. 11. 93.
as prized by Irenus 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
331the 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
677
Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement.
678
Clements 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 Origens 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
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 Irenus; 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 Churchs 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 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
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 Hutius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch. Thomasius, Origenes
1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841-46. Denis, de la philosophie dOrigne, Paris
1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes, Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn,
Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeitschrift fr
Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the Dictionary of Christian
Biography Vol. IV Mller in Herzogs Real-Encyklopdie, 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.
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 Origens 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 Origens 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 , but .
Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13), after defending the right of writing
, 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.
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 Philos 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 Gods 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 .
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.
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:

, 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
Origens 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:
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
, ,
.
688
See the preface to the work.
689
From the conclusion of Hippolytus Philosophoumena it is also evident how the
Socratic was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and was
regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Pdag. 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:
, e92 .
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 Origens 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: Origens 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:

. But note what a distinction Clement makes between 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 Origens 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 describe699 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 Origens 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 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, qu usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, hc 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, sapienti 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 intelligenti 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,
, (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 Origens 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:
,

. (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 Origens 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 Origens
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 .
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 mens 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 (
,
, ,
)706 No doubt the true theology based on revelation 343makes
704
A full presentation of Origens 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):
,
. 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):
,
, ,
, ,
. 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 Origens 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 Irenus
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
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:
): 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 III. 17-22. (Here, and
also in other parts, Origens 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: .
,
); 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 Irenus, is developed by
Origen with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in
order to justify Gods 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
fr 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 Origens system cannot be made out with
complete clearness from the work , because he endeavoured to treat each of
the first three parts as a whole. Origens 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 , 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 nave 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 thories dOrigne, mme les plus
imaginaires, reprsent ltat intellectuel et moral du sicle o 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.
Origens 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
propdeutic 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 ( and ) it
only leads to a somatic Christianity ).
It is the task of theology, however, to decipher spiritual
Christianity ( ) 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:
; .
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, Origens
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
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 Gods 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 Origens 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 Origens 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.
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.
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.
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; 350as 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 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
(c. Cels. VII. 42-51; 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 and ,
being rather a self-comprehending Spirit, and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the
) 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 ( 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 ( , ,
) this is maintained both in opposition to Stoicism and
anthropomorphism; see Orig. I. 1, Origens polemic against Melitos
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
Irenus 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. II. 1. 3.
723
C. Cels. V. 23.
724
L.c.
725
II. 9. 1: Certum est, quippe quod prfinito 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, qu 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 II. 5, especially 3 sq.
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 Origens
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 Nitzschs opinion, l.c., p. 285). The
confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be taken into account.
730
Clements 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).
these are said to have been the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes
,
, , .
. 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 and (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 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
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.
, and because he says in Strom. IV. 13. 91:

, ,
. 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: ,
, ). In Strom. V. 1. 1 Clement
emphatically declared that the Son was equally eternal with the Father:
(see also Strom. IV. 7. 58:
, , 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: ,
,

, ,
,
, But that does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen, named the Son
(Phot., l.c.). In the Adumbrat. (p. 88) Son and Spirit are called primitiv e virtutes ac
primo creat, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam. That is exactly Origens
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 (
, ) 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 fr protestantische Theologie I. pp. 193 ff.
369 ff.
732
It is very remarkable that Origen 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
, nor , nor (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 Fathers 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:
, 736 (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 (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
I. 2. 2, 6.
734
The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph). See c.
Cels. V. 39: ,
,
,
735
I. 2. 13 has been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have
been to the effect that the Son is indeed , but not, like the Father,
.
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 aporrh esse dicitur aporrha glori
omnipotentis pura qudam et sincera. Qu utrque similitudines (see the beginning of
the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substanti esse filio cum patre.
Aporrha enim videtur, id est, unius substanti cum illo corpore, ex quo est
vel aporrha vel vapor. In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in Joh. XIII. 25.,
Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are not homousios with God: ,

. On the meaning of , 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 Origens teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII.
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 1
, , ,
, ,
,
,
. (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 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: ,
. 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
, de princip. I. 2. 9; in Rom. I. 5.
739
I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296: Nunquam est,
quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de terna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo
principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenit lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem
initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando non erat. See the
comprehensive disquisition in 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:
, . , . ; see
also other passages.
740
See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.
741
In IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as well as
the conversio partis alicuius substanti 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
Fathers 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
Origens second train of thought which limits the first that we have
set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its first cause
( ) in God, the Son is that which is caused
(), 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 and , 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.
743
L.c. I. 2. 3.
744
De orat. 15: . This,
however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the personal
distinction.
745
C. Cels. VIII. 12.: . This was frequently urged
against the Monarchians in Origens commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son
exists . Not that Origen has not yet the later
terminology , , , . 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.:
. The Son is ,
(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.
Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from Gods
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 latters 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 Spirits 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
748
II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum.
749
See 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 prf. and in addition to this Hermas view of the Spirit.
752
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.:
, (logically) . Yet
Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine.
(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 universa755 (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 Origens sense the
union of these only exists because the Father alone is the source
of deity ( ) 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 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 hc trium distinctio personarum
in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, qu ad pluralem puteorum numerum revocatur. Sed
horum puteorum unum est fous. Una enim substantia est et natura trinitatis.
756
prf.
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 well-
arranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason.
Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress ().759 Growth
is conditioned by freedom: omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et
culp capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad
meliora proficiat, culp, si rationem recti declinet760 (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 ternitatis, 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 spirits 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 natur rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas
utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this
freedom. To the natur 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.
582 758 I. 5.
759
So also Clement, see Zahn, l.c.
760
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 with the divine one. The same had already been expressly taught by
Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74:
. 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 natur 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 II. 9. 2).
II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences.
764
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 scula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel
quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta essent, qu facta sunt, sine dubio
hoc ostendet, quod in illis sculis vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum
omnipotens factus est. God would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a
, and thus be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3.
765
I. 8.
766
Here, however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong development,
that is of growth. See 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 Pantnus 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 I. 7, belong to the number of the angels. This is a genuinely Greek
idea. The doctrine of the prexistence 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 Gods
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 (), 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: . This
cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., II. 3.
769
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 (
II. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the Hypotyposes (Phot.,
l.c.: ); 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 Origens system with
Buddhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: Creation, as the word is commonly
understood, was in Origens views not the beginning, but an intermediate phase in human
history. ons rolled away before this world was made; ons upon ons, days, weeks,
months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of ons 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 Origens great
optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing
eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is nonexistent (
) and unreal ().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 Gods
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
Origens 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.
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 ( I. 6). Accordingly they are also to be reverenced
(); 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 (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39
ff.), and treated at length of in the Strom.; see Orig. 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
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 maliti deveniret. In the passage in Johann.
II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned exposition of evil as
and an argument to the effect that are .
775
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
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 Mans 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 mans threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See Pdag.
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 , 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 III. 4. 1 sq.: II. 8. 1-5). By his doctrine
of the prexistence 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:
, ,
Orig. c. Cels. IV. 30: ,
.
779
This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently
emphasised. One must attain the .
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:
.
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 mans 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 (
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.,
Pd. III. 12. 93: .
782
See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101:
, ,
, . Two
remedies correspond to this (102):
and
, or otherwise expressed: and , 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 () 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; IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had
met with the practice of child baptism in Csarea 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 prexisting 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.
) 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 Gods highest
intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788 These
elements compose Origens 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. Origens 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.
788
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 (Tbinger Theologische
Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851.
Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62.
make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to
pay a ransom which put an end to the devils sovereignty over
mens 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 Irenus
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 Christs 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 Pauls 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
Origens 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 Christs 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 Christs 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
Christs 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 Irenus. 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:
(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 and , 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:
, ac8
,
,

,
, .
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 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 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 Clements 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 Origens 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 ( ), 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 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 prbuisse discipuli, and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59.
Clements 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 (Pd. 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 Christs 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 Origens 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 (,
, ) 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
of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special
problem of conceiving Christ as a real 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 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 prterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet
esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a
paterna substantia, qu ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio. On the perfect ethical
union of Jesus soul with the Logos see II. 6. 3: anima Iesu ab initio
creatur et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhrens 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 inhreret, 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).
;
(c.
Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in II. 6.
2: Substantia anim 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 hairs-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:
,

, ,

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: , ,

; 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: ,
ac0 .
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
of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does
not suffer at all. In Origens 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 Christs
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 Origens
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 Irenus set forth respecting Christ as the
second Adam, the recapitulatur generis humani; whereas Origens
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 Origens
conception of Christs 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 Christs 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 Christs 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
Gods. 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 Christs 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 substanti 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 Pd. I. 3. 7:
, ,
..
799 554
Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum is the
fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); voluntas humana prcedit. 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, qu est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei qu 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: .
800
This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.
ac2
801
See Clem., Strom. V. 1. 7: , .
VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83:
,
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 Origens 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
; The
amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. III. 2. 2: In
bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad
consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quque perducitur. III. 2. 5,
1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450:

. 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 Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Wrter,
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 Pdag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat.
22 sq. the interpretation of the Lords 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.
Origens eschatology occupies a middle position between that
of Irenus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is more
akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenus, 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 II. 11.
807
See 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: , ,
, ,
(cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), . For
Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the
punishments in hell and regnum dei.
811
See . II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c.
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 Origens own language that enabled a new world of spirits
to arise after the old one had finished its course.
During the following century Origens 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 formul 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 . 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.
2f0 814c. Cels. l.c.
815
We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.
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 Origens 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 Irenus, Tertullian, and
Hippolytus were already found hesitating, nay, we may almost say
nave, 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. Gotting 1885.
contemporaneous transformation of the Church into a holy
commonwealth (see above, chapter 3).
Indexes
Indexes

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

<insertIndex type="foreign" lang="EL" />

.

,
,
,

,

ad1 ,

,

.

,

=
551

, ,

ae8
,

.

.

,
,

,

,
, .

,

.

54c

ae0

9;
,

. . . . ,
.
, , ,

,

,
.

, 564

.
,
.

,

ac8 .

.

; V. 10. 66:

.
,
.
,

. . .
et qui filius dei est filius hominis
factus est,
.
,
, , ,

,
.

;
, , ,
. ,
; ,
, ;

; !
! ! , 564
;

;
, !
.
. .
,

, ,
,
.

,
, ac8
. . .

.

, ,
,
.

,
, ,
. ,

,
,

K
.

,
, ,

, ,

, , ,
.
564
,

, ,

.
ac7
.

, .

, ,
.

,

.

565

.

abb

. . . ,
,
.

.
.
,
. ,
,
.
.

.
,

ad5
,
.
.
.
.

,

.

.

, ...,
,
,

, ...
.
, ac8

, ,

,

()

.

,

, aa2

, ...
,
,

,

,

.

.
,

58a

,
.

.
... (I. 5).
Nevertheless
.
, abc
. . .
.

,
,

,
.
,

,
,
.

. . . ,

.
. . .

,

570

,
,

,

,

, .
,

ab7
; ,
, ,

.

; , ,
,
.

,

,

,
,

,

,

.
ad9 ,
.

.

,

.
,
; ,
,
,

,
.
,

; ,
,
, ,
,
,

. ,
ac8 .
, ,
.

,
.
,
,

.
,
;
,

.
,
. ,
,

,
,
,
, .
,
,
.
. ,
,
564
.
,

,

.

.
,
,

,
564 ,
,

, ,
.

,
.
,
.
,
ac8 ,

,

, ,
,
,

.

(scil. than
the regula fidei)

.

, .

.
,

.

.
,

, ,
abb ,
,
.

, , ,
,
, , .
,
.
.
, ,
.
,
,
, ,
,
,
,
.
.

,
. . .
,

.
,
.
ad3

,
,

,

,

,

,
,

,

, ,

.
,

556
,

.

,

,
,

574

.

, .

.

. ,

,
.
,
( )
564 . , ,
,
,
,
.

. . .
.

,

,
,
ab2

,
, ...

;

,

, ;
;
;
,

, ,
.
.

.

. ,
. ,
, .

ada .

,

.

.

,

acc

.

, ,

. . .

. . . ,

,

.
,

564

ac4

.

.

,
,

, ,

,
,

.
,

,
.

,

acc

.

,

. .
, , ,
, ,

,
,

.

and .
.

ac8 ,
, , ,
, .

,

, ,

,
,
, .

.

,
,
,

,
.

,
, ab2
, ,
,

, ,

,

, ,
...

,

...

.

,
. . .

57a

,

,

,

.
ab9

= .

, ,

.

...

, , ,

,
.

abf

and

, ,
,
...,
,

, , ,

, , ,

ae0 . . .

and

.
,

,
, ,

.
,
.

,

, and

564

.

.

ac8
.

,
,

,
,
,
...
.
.
,

,

.

,
,
,
.
564
.
, , ,
,
, ,

.

.

, , ,
,
.

ac8

.

,
.

,
,
.
.
,

,
.

.
.
.

564
, ,
,

. . .
,

eb0 .

.

, ,

.

.

, ,

,

;
.

(
).
161
.
.

abf .

,
,
.

;
.

,
,

and not
.

,

.

[to be understood in a local sense]

ad1

,
, ,

?

, but

.

,
578

.

,
,
. , .

, , ,
, , ,
,
acf
,

.

.

.

,

,

,

564 .

.

.

,
, ac3 .

.

.

...,

,
.

.

.

566
. . .

, ,
,
,

,
,
. . .
,
.
ac5
,
.

. . .

See
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 clestium, 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 prterea per Grcias certis in locis concilia ex
universis ecclesiis, per qu et altiora quque in
commune tractantur, et ipsa reprsentatio 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 cleste regnum
honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.
Austero dei prcepto miscent seniores aquatam
traditionem
Bene quod idem veniet de clis qui est passus . . . et
agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in
quam svierunt, 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
fderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spons
comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit
sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . .
Caro est sponsa, qu in Christo spiritum sponsum per
sanguinem pacta est
Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogami
debitores, ex pristina dei lege, qu nos tunc in suis
sacerdotibus prophetavit.
Certum est, quippe quod prfinito 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, qu facta sunt, poterunt. Naturaliter
nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile
erit.
Ceterum manente forma regul fidei in suo ordine
quantumlibet quras, et tractes, et omnem libidinem
curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate
pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari
Ceterum manente forma regul in suo ordine
quantumlibet quras at tractes.
Character corporis Christi secundum successiones
episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam qu in unoquoque
loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, qu 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
prpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt:
qui audit vos me audit.
Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus
Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit
incorruptel hreditatem.
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 prdicavit novam legem et novam

promissionem regni clorum
Constat omnem doctrinam qu cum ecclesiis apostolicis
matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati
deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesi ab
apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit.
Cornelius sedit intrepidus Rom in sacerdotali
cathedra eo tempore: cum tyrannus infestus
sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur,
cum multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari
adversus se mulum principem quam constitui Rom
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 su
verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pomp et
angelis eius ab3 ore nostro contestamur.
Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, qu est ab
apostolis, qu per successiones presbyterorum in
ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc.
Cum perceperunt eam qu 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 qu
prdicta sunt bona.
Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, prcipue 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
tas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in
scularibus, 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
De episcopis peregrinis, qui in urbem solent venire,
placuit iis locum dari ut offerant.
De his quidem delictis, de quibus ips scriptur
increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere
exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scriptur non
increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos
non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum qurere.
De tua nunc sententia quro, unde hoc ius ecclesi
usurpes. Si quia dixerit Petro dominus: Super hanc
petram dificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi dedi claves regni
clestis, vel, Qucumque alligaveris vel solveris in
terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in clis, id circo
prsumis 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. Hc enim est synagoga dei
Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui
prdicti 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
Ecclesi, qu licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum
proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide
conspirantes non minus apostolic deputantur pro
consanguinitate doctrin.
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,
ternus, unus deus(!), . . . ex quo quando ipse voluit,
sermo filius ac8 natus est, qui non in sono percussi aris
aut tono coact de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in
substantia prolat a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius
sacr et divin 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
prcedit, 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
inqualitate 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 ternus pater, a quo solo hc vis
divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa
rursus per substanti communionem ad patrem
revolvitur.
Est hc trium distinctio personarum in patre et filio et
spiritu sancto, qu 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
su potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is,
respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat
tibi.
Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per
qu omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam
substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit
pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus prsit
perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et
prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum
dictum ex unitate substanti, 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 materi 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 prdicabatur, 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 qu homo
iustificatur, qu 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 mchis
non putaverunt et in totem pnitenti locum contra
adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum
suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholic ecclesi
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 qu volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that
continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera
quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, qu
nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, qu vero
ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata
permaneant, verum et ampliata.
Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum
suasori, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis
prcordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum
tanquam me. In his enim duobus prceptis tota lex
pendet et prophet, 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 pna.
Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum . . . ,
ut quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos phil ac8
osophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc
Christianos.
Fidem habenti, qu est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei
qu 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
sapienti eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.
Hc ergo, qu in servitutem et in signum data sunt
illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Qu
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
Hc est salutis agnitio qu deerat eis, qu est filii dei
agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et
salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est.
Hc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos
qustiones.
Hretici nullum habent consortium nostr disciplin,
quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio
communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod
mihi est prceptum, 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 su 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 qucumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in
patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita
dixerim, philosophorum deo. Qucumque 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 hc est enim qu 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 substanti 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 quque
perducitur.
In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et
hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est,
comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum
homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in
superclestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps
est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus
principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum
assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesi,
universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.
In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo
indiget dei communione. Hc 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 tant ecclesi una est ab apostolis prima,
ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolic,
dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis
et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio
Itaque utriusque substanti census hominem et deum
exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum,
inde spiritalem etc. Then: Qu proprietas
conditionum, divin et human, qua utique natur
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 dificationi habilem
divinitus inspirari.
Levit et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini.
Lex et pro 564 phet usque ad Johannem
Lex evangelii
Libri et epistol Pauli viri iusti
Libri evangeliorum et epistol 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 liter sunt verba Christi.
Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset illa, ac8 qu
Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua
curasset, legem dedit sano et prcepit, ne ultra iam
peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati
eramus et in angustum innocenti prscriptione
conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis human
infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas
divina subveniens iustiti et misericordi operibus
ostensis viam quandam tuend salutis aperiret, ut
sordes postmodum quascumque contrahimus
eleemosynis abluamus.
Nam ita inter se nostr religionis gradus artifex svitia
diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus
sculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros
Nam si quis est, qui velit vel scula aliqua vel spatia
transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum
nondum facta essent, qu facta sunt, sine dubio hoc
ostendet, quod in illis sculis 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, qu in actu videtur, et
magnificentia, qu 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 ternitatis. 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 su hoc fecerit, nequis eum
putet invidiosum aut imprstantem. 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 qu sunt dei,
nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus
fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, qu
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 qu 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
incorruptel et immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem
adunari possumus incorruptel 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
prparamur.
Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget
sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat
sacrificium, pura exsistens, et prstat acceptare deum
quasi ab amico
Non solum de his, qu usque ad adventum Christi
scripta sunt, hc 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, sapienti 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
intelligenti 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 terna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia
lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenit 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 cesti . . . 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 unic spei totius orbis.
Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et
portio
Petro primum dominus, super quem dificavit
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 prferimus, non
eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos
consecutos, quod illi summa intentione qusiverunt 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 clo 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 qu 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 qu
providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum
directorem; qu 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.
Qucunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre
invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim,
philosophorum deo. Qucunque 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.
Quritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui ones?
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 substanti 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 quales 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 qu est ad ipsum
recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius
communicasset nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per
omnem venit tatem, omnibus restituens eam qu est
ad deum communionem.
Quamquam cum du substanti 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 prstans, 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 tas festinat ad baptismum?
Quare, says Irenus 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 qu 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, qua 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
prstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et
lumen et fruitio eorum qu sunt apud deum bonorum.
Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam
suam ab eo, his eam qu electa est ab ipsis
separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et
separatio lucis tenebr, et separatio dei amissio
omnium qu sunt apud eum bonorum.
Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academi et
ecclesi?
Quid simile philosophus et Christianus? Grci
discipulus et cli?
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, clestis 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 qu Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum
Thecl 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 mult 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 person 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 maliti deveniret. 547
Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam
carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqu, prima
nativitate contraxit
Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.
Sacrificare
Scriptur quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et
spiritu eius dict, 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 Abrah, 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, qu 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
perquationem disciplin 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, qu 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 aliquantul periti tu nemo credit.
Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque antecessoris
commovendam.
Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine
omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maxim
et antiquissim et omnibus cognit, a gloriosissimis
duobus apostolis Paulo et Petro Rom fundat et
constitut ecclesi, 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
ccitatem et malam sententiam, prterquam 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 qu 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 Itali adiaces habes Romam, unde nobis
quoque auctoritas prsto est.
Si autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium qu
requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est in infinitum minor
deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui
nondum qualis 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 facul, generatione quidem et
magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem
autem substanti cum sint cum principe emissionis
ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et
pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim qu
postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam
illud quod ante eam fuit.
Si de aliqua modica qustione 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 hc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, qu
cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus
fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo
ut demonstremus an hc 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 nostr et
prdictionis sum
Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt anim in
refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem
et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam
non propter id, quod sint anim sed quoniam sunt
iust . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes
salvabuntur anim; si autem iustitia et fides etc.
Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et univers doctrin
dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa
dispositionem legis, qu 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
hc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hc
secundum magnitudinem.
Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei
generatur. Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem
corporalis aporrh esse dicitur aporr ac8 ha glori
omnipotentis pura qudam et sincera. Qu utrque
similitudines (see the beginning of the passage)
manifestissime ostendunt communionem substanti
esse filio cum patre. Aporrha enim
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 qu de clo 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 qu est ad incorruptionem unitatem acceperunt,
anim autem per spiritum
Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et
idiot, qu major semper credentium pars est,
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sculi ad
unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes
unicum quidem, sed cum sua
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
propheti et efficacia virtutum documentisque
linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri.
Sub specie ternitatis
Sublata ergo prdestinatione qu non est posita, in
substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem
Substantia anim 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 prophet.
Tenemur hic de somniis quoque Christianam
sententiam expromere
Tertullianus ad mediam tatem presbyter fuit ecclesi
ac8 African, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum
Roman ecclesi ad Montani dogma delapsus.
Testimonia de Johannis evangelio congregata, qu 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 Roman ecclesi,
quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominihus fides
per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos.
Typum quras
Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere
oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea qu est ab apostolis
ecclesi successio.
Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen
dispensatione quam
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 Abrah et Moysi collocutus est.
Valentinus de ecclesia authentic regul abrupit
Venio itaque ad illum articulum, quem et nostri
prtendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est,
inquiunt, Qurite et invenietis
Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per
quas proprietatem doctrin su 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 patern grati 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 qu sunt
sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa
initio dominabatur nostri, ea qu non erant sua
insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam,
quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim
inferentem, accipere qu 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 monarchi 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 arc typum et corvus et milvus
et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe
idololatres in arc 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 authentic
ab initio
actus utriusque substanti
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 substanti; 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 lan, mollitia plum pariant naturalia
eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc natur
similitudo notatur, cum substanti dissimilitudo
conspicitur.
amb substanti in statu suo quque distincte
agebant, ideo illis et oper 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 inhreret, 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 creatur et deinceps
inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhrens 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 ecclesi status in universo mundo et character
corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum
antistes Christi
antistes dei
apostolice
apostolicus
articulus constitutivus ecclesi
articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesi
assumptio carnis ex virgine
auctoritas divina
auctoritas et ratio
auctoritates praecessorum eius
audio edictum esse prpositum 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 benevolenti
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 clis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata
commixtio et communio dei et hominis
communicatio ideomatum
communicatio tua, id est catholic ecclesi unitas
pariter et caritas
commutatio agnitionis
completus numerus prophetarum
complexus oppositorum
concordia episcoporum
conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse
gestat
conscientia religionis
consecutio ternitatis
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 substanti dei in filium
corporalis et spiritalis [i.e.
corpus permixtum
corpus spiritale
credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam ternam
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 ecclesi
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
su 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 ecclesi
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 vit
dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa
[trinitatem] derivat
dispositio, distinctio, numerus
distincte agere
divisio
doctrin inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt
Gnosticorum.
doctrina
doctrina apostolorum
ac3 doctrina regul
dominic hosti 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 qu Adam portaverat vulnera
donum superadditum et supernaturale
du substanti
duplex adventus Christi
duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus
dux substanti
e sculo excedere
eam qu est a Maria in Evam recirculationem
significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est
solveretur, nisi ips compagines alligationis
reflectantur retrorsus, ut prim coniunctiones
solvantur per secundas, secund rursus liberent
primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a
secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero
colligationem prim solutionis habere locum. Et
propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos
futuros et novissimos primos.
ecclesi
ecclesi novell et poster
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; mult vero
sunt adolescentul, cum adhuc instruuntur et
proficiunt
575 ego et pater unum sumus ad substanti 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,
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 clesti
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.
evangelic et apostolic litter
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
fdus 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 quo agebat
deus cum homine, ut homo ex quo agere cum deo
posset.
filius portio plenitudinis
forum publicum
fraus
fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.
588 gratia
hc sunt initia hreticorum et ortus adque conatus
schismaticorum, ut prpositum superbo tumore
contemnant
hretici 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 idololatri 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 su 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 ecclesiastic disciplin sanctificat
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 divin litteratur
instrumentum ecclesi
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 hresin aut
schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit
iudices vice Christi
iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem:
prceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut
accipiant merita nostra mercedem.
lamentationes
lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosyn
lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis
legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris
miscet.
lex
lex et doctrina
lex evangelica
lex prdocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum
libel ac1 latici
liber sententi ab initio est homo et liber sententi
est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.
libertatem restauravit
liberum arbitrium
liter pacis
locum magisterii apostolorum
longa hominum expositio
magisterium
magna mater
maior est legisdatio qu in libertatem, quam qu data
est in servitutem
matrix et radix ecclesi catholic
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
natur 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 prdicante
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 hosti sanctorum
non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum
nostrorum remissionem non mereamur.
ne mater quidem ecclesia prteritur
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 hreses obort 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
coxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.
non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro glori
su (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 ternam 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
prterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta
pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis
in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna
substantia, qu 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 cpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem
nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? . . . adeo ubi
ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tngus
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 clorum
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 ecclesi dei et credentium populo sacerdotium
datum.
omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt
omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culp capax:
laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad
meliora proficiat, culp, si rationem recti declinet
opera et eleemosyn
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
prceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus
exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum su etiam
damnationis traducem fecit.
per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti
per verbum eius Iesum Christum.
perficere, solvere, demutare
permixtio
perseverantes in servitute pristin inobedienti
moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque
per filium percipientes libertatem . . . privantur munere
eius, quod est vita terna: non recipientes autem
verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et
sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vit non accipientes.
Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus grati 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.
prcepta dominica
prcessorum auctoritates
prfectus urbis
prsens numen
prsertim cum animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam
utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi
foederasse concordiam
preces
predestinatione
primitiv e virtutes ac primo creat, immobiles
exsistentes secundum substantiam
princeps mulus
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
prcedere
procedere
promereri deum
promereri deum (iudicem)
promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis
prophet proprii
proprietates iudaic literatur
propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam
morietur
propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis
passus est?
qu aliam regulam fidei superducerent
qu ante oculos nostros occurrunt
qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem
damus, quando habeat in ecclesi administratione
voluntatis su arbitrium liberum unusquisque
prpositus, 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 ecclesi.
qui nimis probat nihil probat.
qui potest capere capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest
discedat.
qui sunt extra veritatem
quia eucharistia habet
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 prbuisse discipuli
quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei
scribitur, non car 561 nis substantia damnata est, qu
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
regul
regula
regula disciplin
regula doctrin
regula fidei
regula sacramenti
regula veritatis 541
remissio delictorum
renati ex aqua et pudicitia
restitutio
restitutio ad similitudinem dei
sacerdos
sacerdos dei
sacerdotals dignitas
sacerdotale officium
sacerdotalia munera
sacerdotalis ordo
sacerdotium
sacramentum
sacramentum absolutionis
sacramentum baptismi et eucharisti
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 hreticorum verbum dei
caro factum est
secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma
semen Abrah ecclesia
semper apud patrem
semper autem coxsistens 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 prdicatio per successionis
ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in
ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, qu
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
prcepit, 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 aqu salutaris gehenn 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 qu non
species
speciosior quam verior
spes fidei
spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prvento
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
substanti 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 dificat 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
monarchi nihil obstrepit et
tessera hospitalitas
ae1 testamentum libertatis
theologia physica, mythica
toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, qu
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 hresim facit
typice et temporaliter et mediocrius
tyrannico terrore
ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi
ecclesia, qu trium corpus est
ubique prclara 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; qu autem formant
hominem, prcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui
adducunt hominem ad deum
una natura
una persona
una substantia
una substantia, tres person
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 disciplin
unitas ecclesi
unitas sacerdotalis
unitatem a d 564 omino et per apostolos nobis
successoribus traditam
unius et eiusdem substanti.
unius substanti
unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in clis
urbs terna urbs sacra
ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris
et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus
reprsentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum.
ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione
substanti.
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 vers
virginis senect
virginitas Mari in partu
virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens
visio dei
vivi et defuncti
voluntas humana prcedit

iii vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi 547 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 ac9 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 81 578 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 ac4 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 54e 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 56d 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 ae0 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 acb 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
315 316 552 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329
330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 ada 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
i
HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

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

EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOLUME III
ii
iii
EDITORS 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 Manichism 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
AUTHORS 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 reviewpresents 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 conditionsin 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 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
1-
the Rule of Faith, or, the defining of the norm of 54f the Doctrine
118
of the Church due to the adoption of the Logos Christology
1. Introduction 1
Significance of the Logos Doctrine 2
Consequences 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
b. party; Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides. Theodotus 20
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,
a. Epigonus, Cleomenes, schines, Praxeas, Victorinus, 51
Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus
b. The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the state of Theology 73
x
Commodian, Amobius, Lactantius 77
Theology of the West about A.D. 300 78565
c. Modalistic Monarchians in the East: Sabellianism and the History of
81
Philosophical Christology and Theology after Origen
Various forms of Sabellianism 82
Doctrine of Sabellius 83
ae5 2Vide Editors Preface to this volume.

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 Irenus 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.
121-
CHAPTER I.Historical Situation
162
Internal position of the Church at the beginning of the fourth Century 121
590
Relative unity of the Church as World-Church, apostolicity and 123
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 137
Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epochmaking
138556
importance of Athanasius
The two lines in which Dogma developed historically after Nicene
144
Council
Periods of History of Dogma, chiefly in the East 148
First period up to A.D. 381 150
Second period up to A.D. 451 152
Third period up to A.D. 553 154
Fourth period up to A.D. 680 156
Last period and close of process of History of Dogma 157
CHAPTER II.Fundamental Conception of Salvation and General 163-
Outline of System of Doctrine 190
Conception of Redemption as deification of humanity consequent
163
1.56d upon Incarnation of Deity
Reasons for delay, and for acceptance in imperfect form, of
dogmatic formulas corresponding to conception of 167
Redemption
2. Moral and Rational element in System of Doctrine. Distinction
between Dogmas and Dogmatic presuppositions or 172
conceptions
Sketch of System of Doctrine and History of Dogma 177
Supplement 1. Criticism of principle of Greek System of doctrine 178
2. Faith in Incarnation of God, and Philosophy 179
3. Greek Piety corresponding to Dogma 56d 179
4. Sources from which Greek Dogma is to be derived;
Difficulty of selecting and using them; 181
Untruthfulness and forgeries
5. Form to which expression of faith was subject 185
6. Details of Eschatology: agreement of Realism and
186
Spiritualism; Obscuration of idea of Judgment
CHAPTER III.Sources of knowledge: or Scripture, Tradition and the 191-
Church 239
Introduction 191
1 Holy Scripture. Old Testament i 564 n the East 192
Old Testament in the West 194
New Testament in the East; its close; and hesitations New
195
Testament in the West
Dogma of Inspiration and pneumatic exegesis 199
Uncertainties of exegesis (Spiritualism and literalism) 199
xii
Exegesis of Antiochenes 201
2 564
Exegesis in the West, Augustine
02
Uncertainties as to attributes and sufficiency of Scripture 205
The two Testaments 206
2. 2. Tradition. Scripture and Tradition 207
The creed or contents of Symbol is tradition; Development of symbol,
208
Distinction between East and West
Cultus, Constitution, and Disciplinary regulations covered by notion of
211
Apostolic Tradition, the
Authority and representation of the Church 214
Councils 215
Common Sense of Church 219
563
219
"Antiquity"; Category of the "Fathers"
Apostolic Communities, Patriarchate 221
Rome and the Roman Bishop: prestige in East 224
View of innovations in the Church 228
Summing up on general notion of Tradition 230
Vincentius of Lerinum on Tradition 230
3. The Church. Notion and definition of the Church 233
Unimportance of the Church in Dogmatics proper 235
Reasons for considering the Church: predominance of interest in the
236
Cultus
Divisions of the One Church 237565
A.Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redemption or Natural Theology.
CHAPTER IV.Presuppositions and Conceptions of God the Creator as 241-
Dispenser of Salvation 254
Proofs of God, method in doctrine of God 241
Doctrine of nature and attributes of God 244
Cosmology 247
The upper world 248
Doctrine of Providence. Theodicies 249
Doctrine of Spirits; Influence of Neoplatonism 251
Significance of doctrine of angels in practice and cultus 251
Criticism 55c 254
CHAPTER V.Presuppositions and conceptions of man as recipient of 255-
Salvation 287
The common element 255
Anthropology 256
Origin of Souls 259
Image of God 260
xiii
Primitive State 261
564
261
Primitive State and Felicity
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 266
Revelation as law; rationalism 267
Influence of rationalism on Dogma 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 288-
through 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 305-
through 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 sacrificevicarious suffering of punishment 308
Western views of Christ's work. Juristic categories, satisfactio 310
Christ as man the atoner 313
Appendix on Manichism 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 Irenus 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 rmische
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 Herzogs 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 prscr. 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, , 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 high-
pitched 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 Irenus 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
Irenus 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 Irenus 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
seeat least in the Eastthat 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,
whichapart from a few phenomenadid 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 philosophic-
religious ethics of the age. This alliance found expression in the
formula: Christ is word and law ( ). 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 otheras a sort of
antidotethe 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 is added, in the precise elaboration of the idea of creation,
in the placed alongside , 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);
564 , ; see also the preceeding:
.
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 leastit 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 conceivedcould 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
( , 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
() 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 on 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, ons, and angels. He, therefore, did not
belongat least in every respectto 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 navety 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 on,
rendered incarnate in the Redeemer, contain another remnant of the
old Gnostic leaven? Did not the sending forth of the Logos
( ) to create the world recall the emanation of
the ons? 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, Irenus, 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 ( . 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 so-
called 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 Dorners History of the development
of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, or in 12Krawutzckys 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 pre-
Catholic, 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 so-
called 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:
, . They would even have cast back at the
Monarchians the reproach that they were destroying the monarchy.
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,
Irenus etc. by Coustant in his Ep. Dionysii adv. Sabell. (Routh, Reliq. Sacr 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 Irenus 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 nave
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, Aufklrung 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.; Dllinger, 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 ltesten Ketzergeschichte,
p. 93 f., 214 f.; Zahn in d. Ztschr. fr 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, Hresien 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.; Jlicher, Theol.
Lit. Ztg., 1889, No. 7; Salmon i. Hermathena, 1892, p. 161 ff.
22
Hr.51; after him Augustine H.30, Prdest. H.30 etc. The statement of the Prdest.
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 Irenus 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 Christs 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: []
; and Ebed Jesu, catal. 7 (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. 1, 15): Apologia pro
apocalypsi et evangelio Johannis apostoli et evangelist. 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 ltesten 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 Irenus 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 ( ch. 3,
18), and that by Cerinthus (ch. 3, 4,); the books ought not therefore
to be received 564 in the 16Church (ch. 3:
). 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 Marks
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 Irenus 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:
, ch. 18: . . .
, , .
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:
.
29
Epiph. LI., ch. 6:
, ,
ac8 , .
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 (
).31 567 He nowhere sets them on a line with Cerinthus,
Ebion, etc., and he has undoubtedly treated even their
Christological views, on which Irenus 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 Irenus 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
( ), an advancement 18() 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 Irenus
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: .
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):
,
,
.
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 Johns Gospel with the Synoptics, and found
numerous contradictions; Epiphanius, and probably, before him,
Hippolytus, called them, therefore, word-hunters
( 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 Johns Gospel.
36
See Kapp, Hist. Artemonis, 1737; Hagemann, Die rmische Kirche in den drei
ersten Jahrh., 1864; Lipsius, Quellenkritik, p. 235 f.; Lipsius, Chronologie der rmischen
Bischfe, 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 rmischen 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 Notus, 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 Notus; 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 God-
denying revolt, i.e., of Adoptianism. Hippolytus calls him a rag
() 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 ( ,
); 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:
); 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): . 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, Pseudo-
Tertull. 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 Prdestinatus 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
() 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 qu de Christo veluti de homine
edocent, qu 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:
, 564 .
39
Philos. VII. 35:
, . 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 [ . 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 (
). 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 , and the ,
but also the , and concluded referring the passage to the Resurrection:
, ,
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
, from the first half of the verse, as if the words 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 , just as he also read
for in order to avoid all ambiguity. And since
Hippolytus urges against him that John I. 14 did not contain ,
Theodotus must at least have interpreted the word in the sense of ; and
an ancient formula really ran: (2
Clem. IX. 5), where later was, indeed, inserted in place of . 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 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 thorough-
going 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 (). 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 Irenus 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.
44
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:
,
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 , 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. ( ); 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. , ,
, .
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:

. Jerome Ep. 73 is important. The Egyptian hermit, Marcus, wrote,
about A.D. 400, an independent work , 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; Herzogs 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. Grc III. p. 392 etc.
50
, , ,
, aab ,
.
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, .
51
Cf. the striking agreement with Sim. V., especially ch. VI. 3:
.
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 .
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:
,
, , , ,
, , .
. . . c. 1: , , .
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 () 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 (
). 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:
, , ,
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
. . .
.
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
Sion61 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 clo 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 Augustines 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.
62
Hilarys 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 divin prudenti et potestatis opus intellegatur, sitque in eo
efficientia potius quam natura sapienti.
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 nature
human excellentia et perfectiore participatione sapienti prferri cteris arbitrabar.
Alypius autem deum carne indutum ita putabat credi a Catholicis, ut prter deum et
carnem non esset in Christo anima, mentemque hominis non existimabat in eo prdicari
. . . Sed postea hreticorum Apollinaristarum hunc errorem esse cognoscens, catholic
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 colltatus 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:
, ,
,
,
abd , ,
,
, 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 , 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, , quod est, eiusdem cum patre substanti,
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 one-
sidedness,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 prcognitum et prdestinatum, 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 ecclesi 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.:
, ,
. The word is first found in the
Excerpta Theodoti 19, where is contrasted in the sense of personality
with the ( )). The latter was accordingly felt to be Modalistic:
, ,
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 (
73
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
, ;
cf., ch. 10, where also expresses the personal existence, i.e., what was
afterwards termed . This word was not yet so used, so far as I know, in the 3rd
century. In Origen is likewise the expression for the strictly self-contained
personality; see Comm. on John I. 42, Lomm. I. 88:
, , ,
... 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
(word), (being), (substance),
(subsisting), (person), (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 Pauls 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 general-
council, 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 hresi 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
, 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
Pauls 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 (
, , ).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 ( )

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 Pauls 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 Justinians 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 ( ). 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 (
) 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 Pauls speeches: (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; Ephrm 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 Nica, according to which Pauls 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
,

.
80

.
81
ac4 ,
.
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 (
) a coming together (); there does not
arise a being existent in a body ( ), i.e.,
the Logos dwelt in Jesus not in substance but in quality
(, ).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
,
,
(scil. ) ,
,
,
83
; in
support of this Paul appealed to John XIV. 10: sapientia habitavit in eo, sicut et
habitamus et nos in domibus
84
.
85
, says Malchion, .
568
86
.
87
.
88
,
ac8 ,
, ,
89
.
90
,
.
91
Paul has even spoken of a () .
92
From this point we refer to the of Paul. We give them here on
account of their unique importance: (1)
, ,
, ,
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
,
, ac8 .
(2)
,
. (3)
,
,

, . (4)

, ,
,

, .
(5)
,

. 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
, we read in the Catena S. Joh., .
, .
94
Athanas.: . ,
.
95
Athanas.: ,
, , ,
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
(
) 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 () 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
, ,
, , , . Therefore it is
said in the letter of the six Bishops that Christ is God from eternity, ,
.
96
. See p.41, note 8.
ae1 97

.
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:
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 (
). Pauls 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
Origens maxim: ,
(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 Pauls 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: (1)
,

,

. (2)
, ,

. (3) ,
. , ,
, ,
. 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.:
.
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 ( ), yet
Christs 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 ,
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 ; with
the Father. But if that be true then the Father is not the ultimate
source of the deity, but Being (the ), and thus we have three
;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 Semi-
Arians, 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.; , ,
.
they become brothers. This can have been an objection made by
Paul. The Aristotelian conception of the 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 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 , i.e., of the same substance, of
one substance.109 However that may be, whenever Pauls 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
Pauls 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 Hymenus of Jerusalem and his
five colleagues to Paul with the regula fidei not, say, that of
Tertullian and Irenus but the Rule of Faith with which Origen
has headed his great work: 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.): (the Bishops
assembled against Paul)
,
.
109
Dorners view (l.c. I. p.513) is impossible because resting on a false interpretation
of the word ; Paul held the Father and Jesus to be ac8 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): ,
. . , , ,
. ., . See also Ephraem in Photius, biblioth. cod. 229. Farther the
Ep. II. Felicis II. pap 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 eye-
witnesses and assistants of the Logos, from the law and prophets
and the New Testament. (
54a
,
,
, ,
.) 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.
114
The reads (l.c.): ,
, , , ,
,
ac8
, , . . . ,
, ,
, , ,
,
.
() ,
,
,
. The prehistoric history of the Son is now expounded, and then it goes on:
,
.
,
and at the close:

. 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.
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 historians 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
Nica: , ,
.
117
Theodoret H. E. I. 4.
ab2 118See my article Lucian in Herzogs R.E. 2 Aufl., Bd. VIII., p. 767 ff.
119
See Theodoret 1.c.: ,
,
,

(scil. Arian and his companions)
, .
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, half-
divine. 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 ( 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.
122
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,
Ausgewhlte Schriften der syr. Kirchenvter 1874, p. 15). See tract 1, On faith, and 17,
Proof that Christ is the Son of God.
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 authors 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 clitus emissa vox testimonium detulit dicens: Hic est filius meus
dilectus, in quo bene complacui? Dic age nihil remoreris, quis ille est, qui parat hc
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 clo positus
facere qu 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 prdicabat regnum
clorum, 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 clis descenderat, per quem vox paterna testatur
dicens: Hic est filius meus dilectus, nullus alius portare prvaluit, 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.
51
3. Expulsion of Modalistic Monarchianism.

(a). The Modalistic Monarchians in Asia M 554 inor and in the
West: Notus, 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
Dllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Volkmar, Hippolyt. und die rm.
Zeitgenossen, 1855. Hagemann, Die rm ac8 ische Kirche, 1864. Langen, Gesch. d.
rmischen 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 Notus, the Syntagma
of Hippolytus (Epiph., Philaster, Pseudo-Tertull.), and his great work against
Monarchianism, of which the so-called
(Lagarde, Hippol. qu 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 Notus 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
Notus, since Notus is described in the book as . 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 Notus. 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 schines: 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
Notus in his work adv. Prax. (Quellen-kritik, p. 43; Ketzergeschichte, p. 183 f.;
Jahrbuch fr 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 Origens 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 subsistere,
id est, unam personam duobus nominibus subiacentem, qui latine Patripassiani
appellantur. Athanas., de synod. 7 after the formula Antioch. macrostich.
127
IX. 6:
.
128
Ad. Prax. 3: Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiot, qu maior
semper pars credentium est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sculi ad unicum
et verum deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua esse
credendum, expavescunt ad . . . Itaque duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis
prdicari, se vero unius dei cultores prsumunt, . . . monarchiam inquiunt tenemus.
Orig., in Joh. II 3. Lomm. I. p. 95: ,
,
,
. 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 nave
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 nave
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 schines, at the head of the latter Proculus. Of the followers of
schines, Hippolytus says (Philos. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Notus:
, ; ,
. 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 Jehovahs 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:
,
. . . ; Levi 5,
Jud. 22, Issachar. 7: ,
: Zebul. 9: ; Dan. 5; Naphth. 8:
: Asher 7:
,
; 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 doctrin, ch. 9, Epiphan. H. 62. 2
. Philos. IX. 7, 11: , l.c. ch.
6: .
say that it was all over with it though of course the death-
struggle 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 dtre.
What it still retained was completely distorted by its opponents.
Hippolytus has in the Philosophumena represented the doctrine of
Notus 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 -
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 Neo-
platonic 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 Notus with Heraclitas, i.e., with the father of the Stoa. To
Hagemann belongs the merit (Rm. 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 and the
substantial unity of and ). We can still recognise, especially from Novatians
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 (,
) from , or more accurately (1) (substrata,
subjects of judgment); (2) (qualitatives); (3) (definite modifications)
and (4) (relative modifications). Nos. 2-4 form the qualities of the
idea as a ; 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 , and combine Father and Son indiscriminately as
modes in which it is manifested. (Hagemann refers to Orig. on Matt. XVI. 14:
; and on John X. 21:
but is the Stoic term). The proposition is also Stoic
that while the one is capable of being divided (), it is only
subjectively, in our conceptions of it ( ), so that merely not
differences , result. Further, the conception of the Logos as a mere sound
is verbally that of the Stoics, who ac8 defined the () as
. Tertullian adv. Prax.7; quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et
sonus oris et sicut grammatici tradunt, ar offensus, intelligibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum
nescio quid et inane et incorporale? Hippolyt., Philos. X. 33: ,
. Novatian, de trinit. 31: sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi
aris aut tono coact 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 () 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 str. Vierteljahrsschr. f. Kath. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff., quoted after Lsche,
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 Notus 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:
) 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. Not. I., Philos. IX. 7.
133
Epiph. l.c., ch. I.
134
According to Hippol. c. Not. 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 Notus gave himself out to
be Moses, and his brother to be Aaron.
135
ac9 The fact that Notus 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
Notus 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.
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:
, ,
,
. 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 Dllinger,
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 () 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: [
] . . .

). 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
(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 Notus, 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 Notus,138 Epigonus,139 or Callistus.140 The
correct view is to be found in Dllinger141 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 Notus.
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. rm. Bischfe, 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 litter 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 tdium.
146
L.c.: Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Rom procuravit, prophetiam expulit et
hresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.
aa6 147Pseudo-Tertull.: Praxeas quidem hresim 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 used by Hippolytus in referring to
Zephyrine and Callistus (see p. 58, note 1); lastly, the fact that Victors 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
aven Praxean hic quoque superseminat dormientibus multis in simplicitate
doctrin; 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 Notus 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 Notus shows us
it in its simplest form. The Monarchians there described are
149
Tertullian, l.c.: Aven Praxean traduct dehinc per quem deus voluit (scil. per
me), etiam evuls 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. Aven vero ill 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
(), 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 Johns
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 Notians 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:
.
153
C. 2: , ,
. ac6 , , ,
.
154
(c. 2).
155
Hippolytus defends himself, c. 11. 14: , s. Philos. IX. 11, fin.
12: . From c. Not. 11 it appears
that the Monarchians opposed the doctrine of the Logos, because it led to the Gnostic
doctrine of ons. Hippolytus had to reply:
. He sought to show (ch. 14 sq.) that the
, of the Trinity taught by him was something different from the doctrine of the
ons.
156
Hippol. (c. Not. I.) makes his opponent say,
; 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: .
, .
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: 64Notus 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:
.
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
). 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 (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. Tertullians
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: ,
, , ,
, , ; 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 prdicatur; see also c. 13.
164
C. 7: Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut grammatici
tradunt, ar offensus, intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vanum nescio quid.
equally interested with the Notians 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 prdicari, se
vero unius dei cultores prsamunt . . . monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. c. 13: inquis,
duo dii prdicuntur. 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 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: que 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 sympathised175
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 prdicare].
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. Zephyrines 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

, .
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:
. It is apparently the very formula
Compassus est pater filio that appeared unacceptable to the strict Monarchians.
179
Philos. IX. 12, p. 458, 80: ,
, .
, , ,

, . . John. 14.
11. , , ,
, B, ,
. 8
, , .
,
. . . 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, tudes bibliques, II., p. 383; de Rossi and various others.
181
This is also Zahns 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 , 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 ons, 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 Irenus.
185
See Tertullian adv. Prax. 3; Hippol. c. Not. 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 Johns 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. Not. 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 Iudaic 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
, says Hippolyt. c. Not. 17
564 , see already Tatian, Orat. 5
following Joh. I. 1: , .
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 Gods 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.
193
In the Symbolum the is to be understood as
explaining .
194
See Adv. P ac8 rax. 16.
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
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 Novatians 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 Dllinger (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 Dllinger, 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, Ophit, Marcionit et cetere
hreticorum 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
, . 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 Novatians 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 and (substantia and persona) before the
Council of Nica.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 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 Origens 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: Prdictus 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 clo deus dei, terr 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. Trinittslehre, 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 Franckes 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 Commodians 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
Commodians 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 Constantines 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 Marangonis account, which contains no facsimile. It is not
probable that a Sabellian burial-place lay in immediate proximity to Domitillas
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 Marcionit dicunt, quod hc 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 qustionesque Sabellianorum silentur. Secondhand information regarding
them is to be found in Augustine, Tract. in Joh. (passim) and Hr. 41. (The remarks here
on the relation of Sabellius to Notus 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. Prdest. 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 hresis) 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., . 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. Prf.; 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. Alexandri (Epiph., H.
69. 7); Alexander of Alex. (in Theodoret , H. E. I.3); Eusebius, c. Marcell. and Prpar.
evang.; Basilius, ep. 207, 210, 214, 235; Gregory of Nyssa,
(Mai. V. P. Nova Coll. VIII. 2, p. 1 sq.) to be used cautiously ; Pseudo-
Gregor (Appollinaris) in Mai, 1.c. VII. 1., p. 170 sq.; Theodoret. H. F. II. ab6 9;
Anonymus, (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 Lightfoots excursus on I. Clem. II.,
where Cod. A reads while C and S have , the latter an emendation
opposed to Monarchianism or Monophysitism (St. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 400
sq.). The old formulas , 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.) and (ad. Rom. VI.) were
corrected. On the other hand (II. Clem. IX.) the title of for Christ was changed
into . 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
for 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 Origens may not have been without influence on
his condemnation afterwards in Rome by Pontian, 231 or 232.
Origens 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:
, ), who fuse together Father
and Son (), 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 Notus; 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? (
, , ); and Epiphanius (ch. 3)
replies: we do not propound polytheism (
). Whether Sabellius himself used the comparison
between the threefold nature of man and the sun remains a
question (one nature, three energies: light giving,
heat giving, 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: ,

,
, ,
.
223
Epiph., l. c.: aa4
, ,
, .
called by Sabellius ,224 an expression which was certainly
chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to
suppose that two beings were in question. This (son-
father) was in Sabellius the ultimate designation for God Himself,
and not, say, merely for certain manifestations of a (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
, ,
, .
, ... Method. Conviv. VIII. 10 (ed. Jahn,
p. 37): .
224
Athanas., de synod. 16; Hilar., de trin IV. 12.
225
Epiph. H. 62, c. 1: ,

, ,
, ,
, ... C. 3
Epiphanius says: ,
... . . . ,
.
226
See Zahn, Marcell., p. 213.
227
Epiph., l. c., c. 2.
228
L. c.:
, ,
.
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 , 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 preminence 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
(consubstantial); for it is probable that Sabellians
employed this expression.231 They could apply it with perfect right.
,
, , .
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 () 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 Origens doctrine of the Logos with the
Monarchian ; in other words, they had turned the
category used by Origen against the conception (the
Logos-created) of Origen himself. The saving formula, ,the Logos
of the same substance, not made ( ),
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-Csarea 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: , ,
, ac8 .
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 Origens 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; Frster, 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:
,
, ,
. 564
, . 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 (
), 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 Origens 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 vers;242omitting to use the word ;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.
241
De sententia 14: , ,
, , ,
, .
242
De sententia 16: ,
,
.
243
L. c. 18:
.
244
L. c. 18: says Dion. Alex. 537
, ,
( ) ,
say the opponents of Dion.
. The passage in the letter to Euphranor ran (c. 4):
, , ,
.
.
continuing the Neoplatonic speculations of his teacher, conceived
the as portio and derivatio of the , thus, in order to
meet Sabellianism, actually dividing him from the deity. Dionysius
sought to excuse himself in his (Refutation), and
emphasised exclusively the other side of Origens 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 , 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 (),
the Son the word () reminding us very forcibly of
Neoplatonism or the emanating mind ( ), while
the itself remains and is what it was ( ).
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 (
, ,
).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? (
564 ;).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.
246
L. c. 18.
247
L. C. 23. The expositions of and which were found both in the 2 and 4
books of Dionysius quite remind us of Porphyry:
, , .
, , , .

.
248
L. c. 17.
92discard, was the dividing ().249 The reservation lies
in the word entirely (). 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, (
,
55d
). 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 (). For the terms and
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
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 , but discarded the . while his accusers
must have attacked the former expression also:
, ,
.. 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 in his . 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:
, ,
,
,
.
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

, thus
begins the fragment communicated by Athanasius,

,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
,
, , ( ac8
) .

(), ,
. . .
,
According to Dionysius, then, some Alexandrian teachers taught 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:
,

,
, . .
these are the old Monarchian proof-texts
ac8 . 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 Bishops position.
When we compare his letter with that of Leo I. to Flavian and
Agathos 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 (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 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 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 ( ):
,
, 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 ( ) 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 ( ) 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 (

, , 564

). 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. ber 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. ,

; 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 Origens Christology.264 But
260
Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 425-435.
261
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:
,
, ,
,

even the Cappadocians remarked certain affinities between Arius
and Theognostus,265 and Photius informs us that he called the Son
a creature (), 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(), 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 (
). 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
,
,
, . Notice that the
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: ,
ac8 . 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 ( ), Concerning the sojourn of
our Saviour ( ), 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 ( ab8 , these are
figures already employed by Tatian) we can only, however, conclude that H. declared the
of the Son to be identical with that of the Father. He may have developed Origens
Christology in the direction of Athanasius.
270
See my Art. in Herzogs R. E. 2 Aufl. VI., p. 100 f. Hieracas recognised the
essential difference between the O. and N. T. in the commandments as to ,
, 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. ,
.
(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 (

), 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 ( ,
).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 Origens 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 Origens 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 Peters 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 alleged of Peter, in which
occur the words: ,
,
, (Routh, l.c., p.
81).
275
We have unfortunately no more precise information as to Peters attitude; we may
determine it, however, by that of Methodius (see under).
276
So

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 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 Origens 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

550

etc. Hipler in the Oesterr.
Vierteljahrschrift fr kathol. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff. (quoted after Lsche, 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 Irenus and Clement already delighted in appealing to the ,
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 Drscke in the Jahrb. f. protest. Theol.
1881, H. 2. Edition by Fronto. Ducus, 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 (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 (
561 , ). Gregory, on the other
hand, described the Logos as creature () 102and created
() 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 (), to emphasise, on the
basis of Origens 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 ) 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 identity284 (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 Casparis (l.c.) conclusions as to Gregorys confession of faith, whose
genuineness seems to me made out. Origens 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: ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
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 Origens 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
Csarea, one of Origens 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 Irenus 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:
, 564
.
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
Irenus.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 Origens theology
who were well versed in philosophical knowledge, and who not
merely trumped his doctrine with their (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
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 Irenus 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. Mller in
Herzogs 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 300-
313 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 Bunsens Analecta Ante-Nicna 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 , p. 241 ff. That Aphraates and the author of the Acta Archelai were
unaffected by Origens 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 Irenus,
Hippolytus, and Tertullian,293 with the most thorough study of
Platos writings and the reverent appropriation of Platos 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
Origens 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 Irenus 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 Irenus. 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.). Mhler, Patrologie, pp. 680-700. Mller, 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 Irenus and Hippolytus (see Andreas Cs. in
prf. in Apoc., p. 2.) and that as a witness to the inspiration of Johns 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 . 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 and of Origens school are
ridiculed; ch. 21, p. 75; 39, p. 83.
, 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 Origens 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., Origens doctrine of sin, p. 68 sq.
Like Irenus, 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
Irenus, 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:
, ;
.
. Wisdom I. 14 and Rom. VIII. 19 follow. The fight waged by
Methodius against Origen presents itself as a continuation of that conducted by Irenus
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 Origens theology passed into the revealed
system of Church doctrine, than of the theology of the Gnostics.
297
See Conviv. III. 6 (p. 18 sq.): ,
ac8 ,
. ,
,
, ,
,
. , ,
. Still
clearer is III. 4, where it is expressly denied that Adam is only a type of Christ:
,
,
.

, ,

,
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 Irenus, 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 Origens idea of sin was more profound than that of
Methodius.299 The fantastic realism of the latters view is carried
, .
See also III. 7 8: . . .
, ac8
, .
,
.
298
Yet see, under, the new turn given to the speculation.
299
S. Conviv. III. 5: , ,
,
,
.

, ,
, .
Methodius, like Irenus, gave much study to Pauls 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 Irenus, only Methodius maintains a sign of the
times that sinlessness is impossible even to the Christian. See De resurr. 22 (I., p. 75):
,
,
,
,

, . 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 . Methodius also
referred Rom. VII. 18 f. to those born again.
301
The allegory receives another version Opp. I., p. 119:

, the passage occurs in Anastasius Sin. ap. Mai, Script. Vet.
N. Coll. IX. p. 619 ,

, 552
.
.
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 ()
of the Logos is really the spirit of truth, the seven-
formed 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.
303
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.
the realistic doctrinal system of the Church into the subjectivity of
monkish mysticism. For to Methodius, the history of the Logos-
Christ, 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: (Apoc. XII. 1 f.)
o ,
,

,
, ,

,

. 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:

, ,

,

. . . ,
,
(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 Tertullians 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 [
]; Christ is not only arch-shepherd and arch-
prophet [-], but also archetypal virgin
[]). 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 latters 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
Origens 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 ( ). 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 Origens 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 to
; in other words, of these two prepositions, which were still used without
question even in Justins time, they, on theological grounds, admitted only the one. So
also they said Resurrection from the dead instead of of the body. Irenus as well as
Tertullian has spoken of the blasphemous564 regul of the Gnostics and Marcionites
which were always being changed (Iren. I. 21 5, III. 11 3, I. 31 3; II prf.; II. 19 8, III.
16, I. 5; Tertull., De prscr. 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 regul 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 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:
. .
; 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 Sophi, 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 () 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-Mllendorff, 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 Neo-
Csarea. But this Creed313 was neither more nor less than a
compendium of Origens 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:
.
313
Caspari, l. c. IV., p. 10. 27. Hahn, 114.
314
It runs: , ,
, , , ,
, , , ,
,
,
. ,
[ ], , ,
, [ ] ,
, - , ac8
.
, , ,
,
. It ought to be distinctly noticed that the genuineness of
this Creed is, in spite of Casparis 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: ,
, ,
. . . , ,
, . . .
Bishop has quoted extensive portions of it, which he describes as
the whole pious Apostolic doctrine (
), he closes with the words these things we teach
and preach, that is the Apostolic dogmas of the Church (
, ,
) But these dogmas belong to Origens
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 Csarea, 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
, ,
, ac8
.
, , ,
. . . ,
. .,
(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
by Pierius) ,
, ,
, ,
, .
316
The Csarean Creed in Athanasius, Socrates, Theodoret and Gelasius, see. Hahn,
116 and Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 138, 139. It runs:
, .
. ., , , , ,
, ,
,
, ,
, 561 ,
. . 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
Origens 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
,
.
PAUL OF SAMOSATA.
Ohne Autoritt kann der Mensch nicht existiren, und doch bringt
sie ebensoviel Irrthum als Wahrheit mit sich; sie verewigt im
Einzelnen. was einzeln vorbergehen sollte, lehnt ab und lsst
vorbergehen, 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 , as to fall back
upon the universally recognised pre-existence of Christ (Theodoret, H. E. I. 12).
hauptschlich 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.). Rville, Die Religion z. Rom unter den
Severern (German translation by Krger, 1888). V. Schultze, Gesch. des Untergangs des
griechisch-rmischen 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, du substanti, 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 , 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: ). 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 cumenical 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 clear-
sighted 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 Jeromes 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 Chrysostoms 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 Origens 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 spons, et
erga sponsum suum, qui est sermo dei, clesti amore flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum,
sive anima, qu 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.:
.
,
, ,
. 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; ... Before
this: ,

, (Cantic. 4, 1)
. 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 Ambroses 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
Valentinians 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 pnit. II. 8. We
cannot appreciate too highly the important influence exerted on after times, and first on
Augustine, by Ambroses expression of his personal religion. The light that dawned in
Augustines 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 Frster (in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1873, p. 439 f.). Bigg
(the Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 188 f.) has very rightly seen that Origens 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 Irenaus 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): , ,
,
. . . ,
.. 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 Basils 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 Origens 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 ( ),333 and
332
See Vol. III, p. 103.
333
See Vol. III., p. 1157 the words run: , , ,
, ,
, ,

..
Methodius intended to declare the loftiest 134truth when he
demanded that Christ should be born in every man consciously
(), 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
(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 , the
(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 ( ), 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 the ; he separated the
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 Origens doctrine was in truth its archaism and conservatism.
338
When theology is engaged in forming dogmas, it has never, as is really self-
evident, 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 (), 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
, 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: , 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 Nica 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 , 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 , 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 inerti 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
Origens 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: Augustines 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, Origens
and Augustines. But the history of theology in the East is the history of the setting aside
of Origens 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 ecclesi. 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 semi-
opponents 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 medival
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 God-
man. 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 (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 (-) 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. Irenus had already
given the central place to the object, nature, and accomplishment
342
Athanasius always made a sparing use of the catch-word 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 Origens 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 , 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 ( ), and therefore
he paved the way for the new principle, that we must think of God
as in Christ ( ).
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
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
() 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 Origens distinction
between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith of the
imperfect. He did not sit as a judge of heretics on Origens
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 Origens 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 Origens 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
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 Origens orthodoxy (VI. 13). Even the view
that Origens 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 Origens 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, , 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
hreticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui,
inconcessa prsumere. Et cum sola fide explorari, qu prcepta sunt, oporteret, adorare
scilicet patrem et venerari cum eo filium, sancto spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis
nostri humilitatem ad ea, qu inenarrabilia sunt extendere et in vitium vitio coarctamur
alieno, ut, qu 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. Origens 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
cumenical 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 Emperors 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 ( 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 became the basis of ac8 . 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 divin 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
151Synods 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
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.
353
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
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 Manichans 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 cumenical 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
Cyrils 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 cumenical
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 Cyrils 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 latters 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. Justinians 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.
cumenical Council (A.D. 680). Justinians 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. Justinians success in curbing the
latters 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 (sc. IV.):
, , ,
, . 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
() thereby obtained side by side with the conceived
() 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 . . . Natur vox designat, quid sit aliqua res, vel essentiam vel
quidditatem; hypostasis vero modum metaphysicum existendi monstrat. Ex quo patet, ad
notionem perfect natur modum illum perfectum existendi non requiri. Hac in re
erravit Mopsuestenus, et hresis 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 (Rm 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.
Swainsons 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 (Gtt. Gel.-Auz. 1883, no. 28, p.
870) has rightly described it as a phenomenon requiring explanation that the gnat-
straining centuries which followed Nica, 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 coperated. 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 (Aufklrung)
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 rle, 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 Augustines 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 , P 564 hotius defined it
as . 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 Grco-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. Patrologi, 1850-52), Alzogs is
the most familiar, and Nirschls 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.
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 Manichism, Fatalism, and Epicureanism, did not possess the
366
Very instructive in this respect is the Church History of Socrates. A mans
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, Irenus, 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
and 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: , ,
, 564
, ,
, 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 victori gaudia gustaret et dona grati
explorata et cognita haberet. Si deus sine carne vicisset, qu 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):
,
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 (
166 In the present there
only existed a preliminary possession of salvation. This was
represented (1) in the knowledge of God and of the accomplished
, , ,
, , , ,
564 . Gregory of Naz., Orat. 40, c. 45 (Decalogus fidei, ed
Caspari, Alte und Neue Quellen, 1879, p. 21): . . .
, . 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:
, , , 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., (ed. Lagarde, p. 110):
,
. Macar., hom. 39. Pseudo-hippolytus, Theophan. (ed. Lagarde, p. 41, 21):
, . Dionys. Areopag., spissime,
e.g., de clesti hierar. c. 1: . Sophronius, Christmas Sermon
(ed. Usener, Rhein. Mus. fr Philologie, 188 aad 6, p. 505):
. Leo, Patriarch of Russia ( Pawlow, p. 126):
. 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 , 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 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 conditionsthe 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 Lords supperand 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. gypt. 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 giftthe 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.
redemptionfor 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 Redeemers
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.):
. (ch. X.):
. 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 , 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
( ), and must have left the
paradox standing that the humanity of Christ was consubstantial
() with ours, and was yet from the beginning not only
without sin, but free from any kind of corruption (). 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 formulacorrect, i.e., when gauged by
the conception of redemptiontriumphed, 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 (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 as (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 redemptiondid
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 naturethat
phantomreduced 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.
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 , it is as
a rule the substantial grace imparted in the sacraments (baptism) that is meant. The
beginning of Cyrils first Catechism is very instructive:
, , ,
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 imaginableby 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 (

. . . . a93 .
.
).376 In the last phrase the Greek
,
.
374
See Cyril, Catech. 4, c. 2: ,
.
,
. . . .
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:

fundamental thought is put into a classic form. Only we must not
take and to be equivalent. The former
signifies the actual process, the latter its condition and form; not
the sufficient reason, as is proved by .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
(), 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
, ).
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.
. Accordingly, faith is that given from without, divine. Moral self-

knowledge 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 onlyso far as I knowwhen 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 Nyssas 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
Manichans, 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):
. . . ,

,
, . 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 manwith 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 redemptionthe mysteriesand 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):
,
, , ,
, ,

,
Socrates had already in view violent
opponents of the intrusion of 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):
.
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 self-
deception, 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 wereto use a strong figure of Goethes
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 theologiansSynesius, for
examplewho 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? ( , ,
;).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. (
, ). 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:

,
.
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 Logosor 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 monographson 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
Cyrils 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
Juniliuswhere 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 theologythe monotheistic faith and doctrine of
freedomis unfolded, and the Christian view of history, as well as
381
The plan of Cyrils 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
. Compare also ch. VI:
. . . ac8
, . . .
,
, , c. 12: ,
,
. 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:
,
, .
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 periodyet 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
(), 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 (), but for the sake of argument
(). 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 ( ). 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 ()! Moreover, Gregory of
Nazianzus speaks 184of a necessary and salutary
, 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,
(Orat. 41. 6, Ep. 26). Cyrus declares, in the
monothelite controversy, that one must assume 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 Irenus. But what did these often nave 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
Fatherse.g., that of Athanasius to Epictetuswere 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 Drseke.
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 conceivedthough, so far as I
know, seldomas 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 Origens doctrine of the consummation on the other, subject to
due regard for the sacred writings. Origens 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 traditionalismitself indeed
impregnated with speculationover 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 Christs 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 ( undying death)
384
Gregory of Nyssa still defended it, appealing to 1 Cor. XV. 28; see the second half
of his writing , and Orat. catech. 8, 35. So alsofor a
timeJerome 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 pseudo-
hippolytan work , 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
Christs 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
). 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 matterthe thought of the judgementhad 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 Origens 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 Jeromes polemic against Vigilantius and
Augustines 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 ( , 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
universalismwas indeed condemned in the East, and Origens
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 Agesthe theologians, not the laityno
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 sententi 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 Vershnung, 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.
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 authoritiesScripture 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 Manichans, 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.
394
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 monks life on Christians. On the contrary, it is
noteworthy that Arius, once a friend of Eustathius (Epiph. H.75) not only maintained the
original identity of bishops and presbytersthat had also been done, and supported from
the N. T., by Jerome and the theologians of Antiochbut he made the question an
articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesi. 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 , 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 Manichans, Paulicians,
Euchites, and Bogomilians, etc., came upon the scene. These Churches contested the
Catholic foundations as the Marcionites and Manichans 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.
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
1. Holy Scripture.396
To the two Testaments a unique authority was ascribed. They
were the Holy Scriptures ; 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 ... . . . 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 Grco-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
Theodores criticism and interpretation of Job and the Song of Songs, as well as his idea
of inspiration in reference to Solomons writings, and his exposition of some of the
Psalms. On Theodores 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 Theodores, see
Noeldeke in the Gtt. 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 uncertaintye.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 Tatians 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
whoif we are to understand the passage sohad 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 Constantinopledirect and indirect statements
by Church Fathers, Synodal decisions, Bible manuscripts and
indices from the Churches of various provinces, and especially
Syriawe 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 not 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 Clements 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 Bibelbersetzungen in the Prot. R.-E. Vol. XV.; Bthgens
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 Johns 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 prsentem epistolam esse falsatam, qu 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 Augustines 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 ill sint, qu apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere
meruerunt. Accordingly, this principle still holds. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in
scripturis canonicis, ut eas qu ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, prponat eis
quas qudam non accipiunt; in iis vero qu non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prponat eas,
quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesi
tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc
facile inveniri non possit, qualis 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
CanonGospels, Acts, 13 Pauline Ep., 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, Revelationbut 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 Manichan, 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.
.
57e
409
The Neoplatonic opponents of the Church were not quite honest, they were rather
talking , 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 , and not .
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
200Origen 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
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 litter ad decorem intelligenti 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 Origens 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): , ,
, . Origens 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 Origens 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: ,
, ,
, , ,

. The same contention was often upheld in earlier times by Tertullian
when driven into a corner by the exegesis of the Marcionites (see De prscr. 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):
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
: or men spoke of the turpitudo litterr, 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 , , Holy Scripture is not to be understood according to Plato, etc.
415 569
The distinction between AlexandrianOrigenisticand 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
, 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 (, not ), 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 theologiansCocceiusan 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):
. 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 Irenus (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 expositorsHippolytus, 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 Jeromecould 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 Origens. 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:
. 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
Bishops 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 versasee 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,
hreamus 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 cperam, si ea sententia
fallitur, qua dificet caritatem, qu finis prcepti 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 hc 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 qu sunt ex parte non
qurant; 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:
, ; besides
Augustine expressly argued against those who supposed they could dispense with
Scripture from the start, and appealed to an inner revelation (see the Prfat. 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 Origens 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 intelligenti ad Veranium
filium, in Migne, Ser. lat. T. 50, p. 727. In later times the mnemonic formula was
composed: <verse> <l class="t1">Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,</l> <l
class="t1">Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. </l> </verse>
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 faithbased on the Symbolas 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 Irenus 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
tu, 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 Lords hands, and had written what he commanded. It is extremely
surprising that this being the view taken of the Bibleand even the translation of the
LXX. was held to be inspiredyet 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): .
. Cyril of Jerusalem has
expressed himself similarly (Cat. 4, 17:

. ,

54e ,
); cf. Athanasius (Orat. adv. gentes init.:
). So also
the Antiochenes, moreover Augustine De doctr. II. 9: In iis qu aperte in scriptura
posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, qu 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
respectsspeaking generallythe assumption of heathen
prophets and inspired philosophers excited suspicion.
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) declaredcertainly 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
Reuters excellent explanation of Augustines position (Ztschrft. fr 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 cordinated sedes apostolic, 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 post-
Constantinian 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) cumenical 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.
428
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.;
Casparis works, Horts 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
however, to be of Apostolic originin 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
(
210). 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):
.
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 Lords
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 . Justinians 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 provisionsstill differing, indeed, in part in the
various provincial Churches439and 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
Justinians 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 {, , }. 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, qu 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 centurynot uninfluenced by Clement and Origento
introduce the notion of a (unwritten tradition),
in whose wholly undefined contents were even included dogmatic
theories which it was not everyones 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, qu universa tenet ecclesia et
ob hoc ab apostolis prcepta 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
, 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 centuryat least in the Byzantine
Churchto 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 o ac8 r , and that these, having no
individual impress, were thoroughly adapted for constant remodelling and expansion.
tradition which dispensed with all criteriaand that was what the
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 traditionthat is, the
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):
. 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 and , being meant to embrace
the theological formulation of the faith (
,

. . . ,
, , ). The latter
distinction was opposed to the tendency of the age, and remained without effect. (With
that which Basil named dogma, the 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
ac8 , Basil appeals merely to matters of ritualsigns 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 does not occur, but it does in Epiphanius
(H. 61, ch. 6: .
,
). 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):
, (see details in
C. All conceptions of the authority of tradition, of which many
Fatherse.g., Cypriandescribed 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: (see Gass, Symbolik
der griech. Kirche, p. 107 ff.) Quotations are especially taken from Pauline texts in which
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 prdicatur et creditur per ecclesiam totam; qu 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 Cyprians authority) to the unwritten testimony of the whole Church
(see note 6, p. 211).
444
Cyprian calls Scripture divin 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 catholic ecclesi 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 Irenus 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
alreadythough not without differences of opinionattributed 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
Chrysostoms work, , 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
Irenus 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, prsente 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
cleste 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 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 Sohms 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 Hatchs fine lecture in his book The Social
Constitution of Christian Churches, p. 172 f.
450
See Constantines letter to the Bishops after the Council of Nica (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 cumenical Synods generally, yet so that onethe
secondwas only subsequently stamped as cumenical.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 Nica by
318 Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghostthus 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 cumenical 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 cumenical 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 prponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et
disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse
constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras qu post confirmatum canonem vel script sunt
the sixth 217century there gradually ceased to be any doubt that the
resolutions of cumenical 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 qu per
singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati qu fiunt ex
universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria spe priora
posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et
cognoscitur quod latebat. Emendari can only mean here actual emendationnot merely
explanation, as Catholic historians of dogma have to assume. It is also worthy of note,
that Augustine assigned cumenical rank to several Synodse.g., that of Arleswhich
afterwards were not held to be cumenical. 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 Reuters 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 cumenical 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 cumenical 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, Justinians legislation which
confirmed and popularised, even in the West, the view that there had been four
umenical Councils: see his edict on the Three Chapters, 131:
, ,

, 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 cumenical 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 generallyeven for the
above dateare 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 cumenical 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 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 cumenical 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, , Athens, 1877, p. 3 ff.;

.

,
, . . .

, . 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 Irenus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis
and Hippolytus even were called
(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 memorywith 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 masters 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 was also applied. Thus Athanasius
writes (De incarn. verbi 56):
.
, ,
. Similarly, though very rhetorically, Arius in
his Thalia (Athanas. Orat. c. Arian I. 5): , ,
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 backwardsso 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
, , ,
, , , .
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. Irenus and especially Clemens Alex. had already referred
to deceased presbyters as authoritative teachers; and Eusebius conception of Church
History embraced the ideasee preface and outlinethat 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 ones 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 Fathersotherwise
orthodoxheld 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 Nica accepted, the term . 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:
. Therefore Athanasius sought
and found evidences of the word before the Samosatian controversy.
Ultimately, however, he had to adopt a different treatment of the whole question, i.e., to
show that 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 ;, for it was hard to find an
instance of that in antiquity. Of Eutyches the following expression is recorded (Mansi
VI., p. 700):

, ,
. 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 ( ). 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,
Alexandriathe founding of whose Church by Mark was
undisputed about A.D. 300and 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 prestigeonly that of Jerusalem, in spite of the
political insignificance of the city, was ranked with those more
distinguished461but 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 prdicari). 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 Nica, and in addition, Hefeles 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.;
, ,
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 preminent degree to Rome. The works of the only
western author before Jerome who was also read in the Easti.e.,
Cypriancould 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

, ,

. , , ,
. 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 Nica 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 Cyprians 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 equivalentat 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
rmische Bischop in 4 Jahrh., 1881; Rade, Damasus, 1881; Langen, Gesch. der
rmischen Kirche, 2 Vol., 1881, 1885; Sohm, l. c. In what follows we only discuss
Romes 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 Nica,
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):
. 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 Romethey changed their tone. They still conceded a
peculiar dignity to Rome; it does not seem to me possible to translate (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 Romes
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 clementi nostr 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 Synodor 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
wantingsee, 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 Theodorets 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
increased472though, 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 Abb Martin: Saint Pierre, sa venue et son
martyre Rome, in the Rev. des quest. historiq., 1873 (principally from oriental
sources); S. Pierre et S. Paul dans lglise Nestorienne, Paris, 1875; S. Pierre et le
Rationalisme devant les glises 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 littleeven for the period about the year A.D. 380to 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; Hergenrther, 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 and 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 cumenical 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 (), for a time directly rejected by the
473
The importance of the four Patriarchsof Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalemwas 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 cumenical 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 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 formulaswhich were never, so far as
I know, bluntly deduced from unwritten tradition (
); but a strong preference was shown for understanding
them as a repetition of the Nicene Symbol, the explication being
disregarded, just as Irenus 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 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
at Antioch:
. 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 formerif we may use such a bold
expressionthat 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 Augustines 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 allor, 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 whatnot two, or threebut 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 Cyprians) 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 (29-
31). 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
prterea, hreticorum 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 scriptur chirographum consignaret, magnam
rerum summam paucis litteris comprehendendo et plerumque propter intelligenti lucem
non novum fidei sensum nov 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
ones guard when heretics appealed to Scriptureas e.g., the Arians did to predicates
taken from the Bible against the term 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 thorough-
going 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 aloneaccordingly 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 suchapart 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 Cyprians 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
formnow that of the Councils, and one more profound and
indefinitecorresponding to the scientific tradition (
) of the ancient Alexandrians.
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
catholic478 he completely identifies this spiritual communion with
the empirical Church. It is called , because it summons
all men together, and unites them with one another. This it does at
Gods 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, Manichans,
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 [] must have stood in the Symbols of
by far the most of the provincial Churches in the East. The 564 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, orwhat was even more significantthey 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 Donatismthe 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
480
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:
, , .
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.
statements, besides, which are altogether few in numberwe 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 appliednot to the Church236but 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 ( )
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., Vi
dux (Migne, Patrol., Vol. 89, p. 76 sq.):
, .
488
Damalas has given a very pregnant summary of the old Patristic conception
(1877) p. 3:
(learning) and it possessed the mysteries. Thereforeand
of this there was no doubtit 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 Gods 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.
,
,
.
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 restunity, holiness and catholicity. The otherwise
substantially identical expositions by the Greek Fathers of the word catholic have been
collected by Sder, Der Begriff der Katholicitt 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 datee.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 convictionwe can hardly call it a doctrinethe 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 Grco-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):

.
,
.
ac8
493
The question whether the holiness of Christians was founded on being members in
the Churchinitiation into itor 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 gean 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, Peters 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). Sder, Der Begriff der Katholicitt 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.
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
See, e.g., Elias of Nisibis, Proof of the truth of the faith (Ed. by Horst, 1886, p. 112
ff.).
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 () 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
( ), 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,
Manichism, 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
mans 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 heldand with this the
Neoplatonists were agreedto 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:
, , .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
Augustines line of argument was first to demonstrate rules of human thought,
which accordingly transcended it. These ruleslogical and ethicalhe 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 qu pugna verborum, quoniam si illud est ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non est
ineffabile, quod vel ineffabile dici potest. Basilides: , ,
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
, ,
, , ,
.. 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: . . .
. Similar teaching is very frequent in
Plotinus. In the Vita Plot. of Porphyry, ch. 23, the supreme God is thus defined:
, .
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 Atius, 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 Areopagites 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 Godby reason of his splendourwas 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 existencei.e., the method of making statements about God via eminenti and
via negationis; see his Letters, the work, De divinis nominibus, and the beginning of the
244
2. The Doctrine of Gods Nature and Attributes.

The Being of God was immortal substance and was primarily
definedas already results from the method of knowing Godby
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 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 envioussee 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
Origens 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 Gods
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 worldthe gods are just, because
they reward and punish, the two facts being conceived in
cordination. 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 dualismManichismconstantly made it necessary to
500
Along with all fatalism and astrology the Greek Fathers also unanimously rejected
the idea that Gods 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 ( . . Oehler,
p. 92): , 54f
,
. , , ,
, . ,
.
, .
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 () and the judge who requited actions505the latter
conception, further, not only including the cordination 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 human) 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 Gods 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 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 viewin the Middle AgesGod 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 Origens spiritualism was combined active resistance to this opposite
3. The Cosmology.
The Cosmological and allied anthropological problems were
treated by the Fatherswho formally used Gen. I.-III. as their
textwith 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 Origens
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 Manichan Cosmology. After the last decades of the
fourth century, the slow course of development was hastened by
violent opposition to Origens 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 Gods 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 Augustines 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 Justinians 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 Manichan
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 ( ) 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 , the intelligible world, whose most characteristic
feature consisted in its (3) gradations (), 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: .
, 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 Hexameron; among them that of
Johannes Philoponus is scientific. ally the most advanced ( ); 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 Manichism 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 worlde.g., of vermincould 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 notbeing;513 (3) by defending the mala
pn or evils 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 Manichism.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 ( ). (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. prf. 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 Illgens Ztschr., 1838, Part I., p. 68 ff.; Gass, Die Mystik des Nik.
Kabasilas, 1849, p. 1. ff., and in Herzogs 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 menin 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
Christs 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 cumenical Synod (A.D. 787).
There it was defined as adoration () in distinction
from service ( 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 Origens 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 ons 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, qu creditur. We may here perhaps recall even 1 Tim. V. 21:
ac8 . We can at any
rate refer to Justin., Apol I. 6: (We worship God) . . .
. 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 longas early as the fourth centurybeen on the way; see the miraculous
oratories of St. Michael; Sozom. II. 3, Theodoret on Coloss. T. III., p. 355 ff.
functionsas 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 ons 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 ideasee Hebrews
and First Clementthat Christ was in Heaven the High Priest and
head () of believers in the presence of God. Clement of
Alex. had already worked out this conception, following Philos
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 ( ); 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
Alexandrians 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
ideasthe Son, the Holy Ghost and the angelic hosts on the one
hand, and the earthly priesthood, on the otheronly needed to be
combined, and a new stage of ecclesiastical theosophy was
reached. The Pseudo-areopagite was the first to gain itafter,
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 ons 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 world was evolved. Even Athanasius was not in a
position thoroughly to correct this view,see Atzberger, Die
Logoslehre des heiligen Athanasius, 1880, p. 138 ff. Consequently,
even the most clear-sighted of the Fathers were helpless against
speculations which deduced redemption from the Cosmology. And
thus a new Church Theosophy arose. A fantastic pantheism was
introduced which had been created by the barbarous theosophy of
expiring antiquity. It harmonised excellently with the religious
barbarism which satisfied itself in the crudest and most daring
myths and legends; nay, it kindled into fresh life with it. The living
God, apart from whom the Soul possesses nothing, and the fervour
of the saint threatened meanwhile to disappear. And side by side,
nay, in cordial agreement, with these fantastic speculations, there
existed a prosaic worship of the letter.
Literature.See Nitzsch account, here especially thorough,
Dogmengesch. I. pp. 268-287, 328-347, and Schwane, Vol. II. pp.
15-108, 272-328.
Chapter V. Presuppositions and Conceptions

Regarding Man as the Recipient of Salvation.
255
CHAPTER V.
PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS
REGARDING MAN AS THE RECIPIENT OF
SALVATION.
1. Introductory.
ACCORDING to the ideas of the Fathers, the doctrines of the
condition and destiny of man belonged to Natural Theology. This
appears from the fact that, starting from their Cosmology, they all
strove to ascertain, from the original state of man, the nature of
Christian redemption, in other words, the state of perfection. At the
same time the reservation held good, that we should recei 564 ve
more than we could think or expect, and, in fact, that which was
expected, and was deduced from the religious and ethical value
which man had come to put upon himself in the course of history,
was only carried back into his original state. The following
propositions contain everything that can be stated as embodying a
common conviction and common presupposition of all further
conceptions, which in this matter turned out very different, in
accordance with the speculative and empirical studies of the
Fathers, and the object of their investigations for the time. Man
made in the image of God is a free self-determining being. He was
endowed with reason by God, that he might decide for the good,
and enjoy immortality. He has fallen short of this destiny by having
voluntarily yielded and continuing to yield himselfunder
temptation, but not under compulsionto sin, yet without having
lost the possibility and power of a virtuous life, or the capacity for
immortality. The possibility was strengthened and immortality
restored and offered by the Christian revelation which came to the
aid of the darkened reason with complete knowledge 256of God.
Accordingly, knowledge decides between good and evil. Strictly
taken, the will is morally nothing. On this basis very different
views were possible. It was asked, f 564 irst, what was original
endowment, and what destiny, in the case of man; secondly, in
connection with this, how much was to be claimed as human
nature, and how much as a gift of grace originally bestowed; and
thirdly, in keeping with the above, how far and how deep the
consequences of sin extended. The question was put, in the fourth
place, whether bare freedom constituted mans character, or
whether it did not correspond to his nature to be good. Fifthly, the
philosophical question as to the constitution of man was here
introduced and answered in various ways [dichotomically,
trichotomically, the extent and scope of the flesh () in human
nature, in its relation to the spirit () and to sin]. Sixthly, the
relation of the creaturely spirit () to the divine, in other
words, the origin of the human spirit, was discussed. Seventhly,
lastly, and above all, men possessed two sources of knowledge: the
account in Genesis with a realistic exposition, which seemed to
pour scorn on all spiritual conceptions, but had nevertheless to
be respected; and the relative section from Origens theology,
which was felt to an increa 564 sing extent to be intolerable to the
Church, and which yet expressed the scientific, religious
conviction of the Fathers, in so far as their thought was scientific.
Under such circumstances different conceptions, compromises of
all sorts, necessarily arose; but hardly anywhere was an advance
made in the end on the views already presented by Irenus. In the
latest results, as they are to be found in the Dogmatics of John of
Damascus, there is much that is more realistic than in Irenus, but
on the whole a type of doctrine is obtained which is more
inadequate and confused, and less valuable. In what follows we
intend to enter in detail only into the most important points.
2. The Anthropology.
Since the end of the creation of the world was held to consist in
the creation of rational beings, who could exhibit 257the image of
God and share in his blessedness, it followed that the power of free
self-determination and the capacity for immortality belonged to the
notion of man, and that they were therefore regarded as
inalienable. All the doctors of the Church, however,
comprehended, in the idea of innate freedom, the conceptions of
the rational and moral plan of mans nature as a whole, and they
defined this natural disposition eb0 to be the power to know Gods
will accurately, to follow it, and thus to rise above nature. While it
was left in doubt whether this whole natural plan implied that man
possessed bare freedom or freedom directed to the good, it
certainly characterised man as a spiritual being, and for that very
reason as an image of God. Being such, man was independent as
regards God. In other words, the fact that he was an image did
not directly establish a lasting dependence on God, nor did it find
expression in such a dependence. On the contrary, it established his
freedom in relation to God, so that man, being independent, was
now only subject to the law of God, i.e., to that dispensation in
virtue of which he was either rewarded or punished according as
he behaved. The connection with God was thus exhausted in the
noble constitution of man fixed once for all, but was supremely
valued and acutely felt as a gift of divine grace, in the comparison
with irrational animals. Meanwhile, the Fathers differed from one
another. Somelike Athanasius, see even Tatianassigned to
human nature, in the strictest sense of the term, only the creaturely
and sensuous state of being, in respect of which man is perishable,
and they described everything else as a gift of divine grace
inherent in human nature. Others embraced in this nature the moral
capacity, endowment of reason, and knowledge of God;so the
majority; and very strenuously John of Damascus who repeatedly
characterises the good as the natural: see De fide orthod. II. 30, III.
14. The third class, finally, included even immortality, as a
possession and not merely as a destiny, among the natural
attributes of the human soul. These distinctions, which, however,
are not particularly important for dogmatics, since all ultimately
held nature to be a gift of grace, and the gift of grace to be a
natural provision, were due partly to the different 258psychological
conceptions of the Fathers, partly to the standpoint from which
they investigated the problems; they mightas e.g., Athanasius
start from the doctrine of redemption or depend on moral, or
empirical philosophical considerations. In psychology, the only
point settled was that the fundamental form of human nature was
twofold, spiritual and corporeal. This conception existed even
where the soul itself was represented as something corporeal, or as
only as nearly as possible incorporeal (
). Very many Greek Fathers, however, followed the
view of Plato and Origen, according to which man consists of
spirit, body, and soulthe soul uniting the other two. Consistently
carried out, this opinion constantly led them back to the conception
of Origen (Philo) that the spirit in man alone constituted his true
nature, that it had its own, even a pretemporal, history, that in itself
it belonged to the supernatural and divine sphere, and that the body
was only a prison which had to be stripped off before the spirit
could present itself in its true being. In order to escape these
consequences, which were already discredited in the controversy
with Neoplatonism and Manichism, different methods were
adopted. Among these occurred that already alluded to above, the
conception of the spirit solely as a superadded gift (donum
superadditum), a religious principle, to be found exclusively in the
pious. But this expedient was seldom chosen; the whole question,
so important and crucial, was rather stifled in a hundred questions
of detail, tortured out of, or read into, the a 1c70 ccount in Genesis.
The ever increasing restriction of the allegorical and spiritualising
method of interpreting Gen. I. ff., led the Fathers nolens-volens to
opinions remote from their scientific thought on religion The only
passage in that account, moreover, which seemed to support the
spiritualistic conceptionGod breathed his own breath into
manproved too much, and had therefore to be let alone.521
521
Augustines exposition in Ep. CCV. 19, was ultimately the opinion of most of the
Greek Fathers, so far as they were not completely devoted to Neoplatonism. Vis etiam
per me scire, utrum dei flatus ille in Adam idem ipse sit anima. Breviter respondeo, aut
ipse est aut ipso anima facta est. Sed si ipse est, factus est . . . In hac enim quaestione
maxime cavendum est, ne anima non a deo facta natura, sed ipsius dei substantia
tamquam unigenitus filius, quod est verbum eius, aut aliqua eius particula esse credatur,
tamquam illa natura atque substantia, qua deus est 564 quidquid est, commutabilis esse
possit: quod esse animam nemo non sentit, qui se animam habere sentit. But the thought
which underlay the last saying of the dying Plotinus (Porphyr., Vita Plot., ch. 2):
Origens idea, that the 259body was a prison of the soul, was
contrasted with the other, also ancient, that man was rather a
microcosm, having received parts from the two created worlds, the
upper and under.522 But this conception, the only one which
contained a coherent theory of equal value formally with the
doctrine of Origen, could not fail to remain a mere theory, for the
ethics corresponding to it, or its ethical ideal, were not supported
by the final aims of the dominant theology. When anthropological
questions or the Biblical narrative were not directly taken into
account, it becomes everywhere obvious, that the old Platonic
antithesis of spirit and body was regarded by the Fathers as the
antithesis between that which was precious and that which was to
be mortified, and that the earthly and creaturely in man was felt to
be a hampering barrier which was to be surmounted. Monachism
and the eschatological prospect of deification are examples which
show how thoroughly practical ideas and hopes were determined
by the dualistic view, though its point had been blunted by the
tenet of the resurrection of the body. Meanwhile the theoretical
doctrines as to the nature of man continued to be beset by a
profound inconsistency, and ultimately, in consequence of
Biblicism, became aimless and barren.523
Supplement.The different psychological views of the Fathers
are reflected in the various theories as to the origin of individual
souls. The oldest of these was the traducian theory of Tertullian,
which was also represented by a few GreeksGregory of Nyssa,
Anastasius Sinaita. According to 260it the soul was begotten along
with the body. Its extreme opposite was Origens idea of pre-
existence which had still many adherents in the fourth century, but
fell more and more into discredit, until, finally, it was expressly
condemned at the Synod of Constantinople, A. D. 553. According
to this doctrine, all souls were created at once by God along with
the upper world, and fell successively into the lower world, and
into their bodies. The middle viewan expedient of perplexity
was the creatian which gradually gained ground all through the
was not entirely

surmounted by many Greek Fathers.
522
Therefore the great controversy lasting for centuries, whether the skins with which
God clothed Adam and Eve were real skins, or bodies. He who agreed with Origen taught
the latter; he who looked on man as a microcosm, the former. Yet here also there were
composite forms: e.g., the skin meant only the fleshly body.
523
Scriptural pro ab0 ofs in support of the pre-existence of souls were not wanting: see
John IX. 2. Jerome held to the doctrine for a time. Even Augustine was uncertain, and up
to the time of Gregory the Great its flat rejection had not been determined on in the West
(see Ep. VII. 53).
fourth century, and can be characterised as the most wide-spread,
at least in the West, from the beginning of the fifth. It taught that
God was ever creating souls and planting them in the embryos. The
East contented itself with disowning Origens theory. Augustine,
the greatest theologian of the West, was unable to come to any
fixed view regarding the origin of the soul.
The different views of the Fathers are further reflected in the
different conceptions of the image of God in man. Religious and
moral speculation were to be harmonised at this point; for the
former was, indeed, never wholly wanting. Apart from such
theologians as saw the image of God, somehow or other, even in
the human figure, almost all were convinced that it consisted in
reason and freedom. But with this it was impossible to remain
perfectly satisfied, since man was still able to break away from
God, so as in fact to become unlike him, and to die. On the other
hand, theologians were certain that goodness and moral purity
never could be innate. In order to solve the problem, different
methods were adopted. Some abandoned the premise that the
possession of the divine image was inalienable, and maintained
that as it resided in the spirit that had been bestowed it could be
completely lost through sinful sensuousness. The spirit returned to
God, and the man relapsed to the level of the beasts. But this
solution seemed unsatisfactory, because it was necessary, in spite
of it, to retain the freedom that still, under all circumstances,
existed to choose the good. Accordingly, it was impossible to treat
this theory with any real seriousness. Others saw the possession of
the Divine image, resting on reason and freedom, in the destiny of
man to virtue and immortality, yet without stating what 261change
in that case was actually made by falling short of this destiny. The
third section, finally, distinguished, after the example of Origen,
between image () and likeness () and saw the
former in the inalienable spiritual plan of man, the latter in moral
similarity to God, which was, indeed, one always to be gained on
the basis of natural endowments. The Fathers were unwilling, as
this review shows, to rest content with the thought that the
inalienable spiritual natural endowment of man constituted the
divine image, but they found no means of getting beyond it. Their
conception of moral goodness as the product of human freedom
hindered them. All the more strongly did they emphasise and
praise, as a kind of set-off, the goodness of God as Creator
revealed in the natural constitution of man.
The different views of the Fathers are finally reflected in their
conception of the primitive state. Christianity restores man to his
state of ideal perfection. This state must, however, have already
existed in some form at the beginning, since Gods creation is
perfect, and Genesis teaches, that man when created was good, and
in a condition of blessedness (Paradise). On the other hand, it
could not have been perfect, since mans perfection could not be
attained except through freedom. The problem resolves itself into a
complete contradiction, which, indeed, was already clearly to be
found in Irenus: the original condition of man must coincide with
the state of perfection, and yet it must only have been preliminary.
The Fathers tried various ways of solving this crucial and insoluble
difficulty, in which again the empirical and moral philosoph eb0
ical conception combined with a religious one. An attempt was
made by very many Fathers to limit somewhat the blessedness of
the Paradisaical state, or to give a form to their conceptions of it
different in qualityfanciful and materialfrom that of their ideas
of the final perfection; accordingly, it was explainedby Gregory
of Nyssathat God himself, looking to the Fall, had not ordained
the Paradisaical state to be perfect. By some, again, the
inconsistencies were glossed over, while others determined,
following Origen, wholly to abandon the historical interpretation
of the state in Paradise, and to construct independently 262a
primitive state for themselves. The last method had the advantage,
in combination with the assumption of the preexistence of souls,
that it could transfer all men mystically into the original state.
However, this radical solution conflicted too strongly with the
letter of revelation, and the spirit of the Church tradition. It was
rejected, and thus the problem remained in its obscurity. Therefore
men contented themselves more and more with disregarding the
main question: they set down incongruities side by side, and
extracted separate points from the account in Genesis. To the latter
belonged especially those which were believed to recommend
virginity and asceticism, and to prove that these formed the mode
of life (habitus) which corresponded to the true nature of man. Nor
were opinions wanting that characterised asceticism as a salutary
means of correcting the deterioration of the human state.
Asceticism and its toils were not invented to procure the virtue
that comes from without, but to remove superinduced and
unnatural vileness, just as we restore the natural brightness of iron
by carefully removing the rust, which is not natural, but has come
to it through negligence (John of Damascus, De fide orth. III. 14).
The principles of ethics were, as a rule, discussed in connection
with the original state of man. But even in reference to the
blessedness enjoyed in that state no clear conception was reached;
for if mans distinctive nature was based on bare freedom, what
sort of blessedness could there be for him? What could be
bestowed on him which he did not possess already, or which, if
bestowed, did not once more call in question the original
possession? What could fall to his lot except an arbitrarily chosen
reward? Again, as regards ethics, nothing certain could be
established. While negative morality, asceticism, was conceived,
as a rule, to be the natural and destined condition of man, yet an
effort was made to construct an ideal of positive morality, in which
the virtues of philosophy appeared in a rather superficial
connection with those of religion.524 Negative and positive
morality each looked up, after 263all, to a different supreme good,
in the one case immortality, in the other the loftiest virtue.
Therefore they could not be combined. The assumption of works
of supererogation, which the Christian could accomplish while
remaining in the world, formed the bridge between the two ethical
ideals, but one which it must be admitted, contributed to flight
from the one sphere to the other, rather than their connection. All
attacks on the theory that ascetic achievements were especially
valuable and meritorious were regarde 1c70 d as the outcome of
moral laxity, and it is certain that in many cases they actually were.
3. Ethics. Sin.
It was recognised by all the Fathers that the human race had
turned from the good and thus degenerated from its origin, i.e.,
according to the view of the majorityfrom Adam. This
universality of sin was throughout explained, not from an innate
wicked power in man impelling him necessarily to sin, nor from
matter in itself, still less from complicity on the part of the
Deity.525 Nor, on the other hand, was it as a rule ascribed to a
direct inheritance of Adams sin, for inherited sin is a contradiction
in itself; Adam was the type, but not the ancestor, of sinners. The
true explanation was found in the misuse of freedom, caused by the
seductions of wicked demons, and the transmission of wicked
customs. Along with this, the majority undoubtedly cherished the
secret idea, which was not surmounted, that the incentive to revolt
524
See here even the Latins. Ambrosius learned the combination, as carried out by
him in his De officiis, from the Cappadocians; see also the remarkable opening of his
work De pnit. I. 1: If the final and supreme aim of all virtue is to minister as far as
possible to the spiritual benefit of our fellow-man, we may characterise benevolent
moderation as one of the finest virtues. For the popular conceptions of Greek Christians,
see Socr. H. E. III. 16, in connection with Rom. I. On the other hand, Augustine
attempted to derive the philosophic virtues from mans dependence on God, from love;
see, above all, the splendid exposition, Ep. CLV., ch. 12.
525
Even the subtle way in which Origen justified evil as an element in the best
possible world (see Vol. II., p. 343 f.) was seldom repeated. Yet see Augustine, De ordine
II. 11 sq. (one of his oldest writings): mala in ordinem redacta faciunt decorem
universi.
from God526 came to a certain extent 264necessarily from the
sensuous nature and creaturely infirmity of man, and resulted from
his composite constitution, and his liability to death, whether that
was acquired naturally or by transgression, or inherited. Decay and
death were especially held to constitute an inducement to and
cause of continuance in sin. With natural sensuousness the fate of
death was conjoined. Both drove man from God. But in spite of
this view the assumption was retained of unaltered freedom. If on
the one hand stress was laid on sensuousness being a natural
endowment of man, the unnaturalness of wickedness was
emphasised on the other, and thus bare freedom received a closer
relation to goodness, which, of course, was conceived as repressed
by sin. The good was the natural, but, again, in view of mans
sensuousness, unnatural evil was also natural to him. The essence
of sin, since wickedness was held to be something purely negative,
was universally seen in alienation from God, being and goodness;
but all that this meant positively was that man had subordinated his
will to his sensuousness, and thereby lost the feeling, desire, and
knowledge of the divine. The consequences of sin were held to be
the following: First, by the majority, the universal mortality which
had prevailed from Adam, or the loss of the true life;527 secondly,
the obscuration of the knowledge of God, and with it of religion in
general. This darkening made it possible for the demons to seduce
man from the true God, to gain him to their own service, and the
idolatry of the creature, in the form of polytheism, and so even to
exercise an almost complete dominion over him, and the earth
associated with humanity. A third consequence of sin was found in
a certain weakening of freedom, which, though still existing, yet
only in rare cases succeeded, without new divine influences, in
reaching a morally good, perfect life.
265
Supplement.The view taken by Irenus and Tertullian of the

fundamental importance of the first Fall for the whole future race,
was imperilled by Origens theory of a fall on the part of spirits in
their prexistent state. It once more gradually won acceptance as
526
Sin was described as something negative not only by Augustine, but by all thinking
Greeks before him. Their conception was undoubtedly based on a philosophical view that
God was not only the originator of being, but really the sole being. On the other hand, a
distinction was made between the eternal being and the creaturely, which came from
God.
57c 527
The Antiochenes thought differently (see under), and so did the author of the
App. Const., who is exceedingly lax in his views; see, e.g., V. 7, p. 132 (Ed. Lagarde).
The latter regards death as an original divine institution, which makes it possible for God
to punish or reward. The resurrection was due to the rational soul from God.
an authoritative Biblical doctrine, but it never obtained the same
certainty, clearness, or importance among the Greek Fathers as
among the Latin (i.e., after Ambrose); see Book II. of our
description. The explanation which the theory of original sin
furnished for the phenomenon of universal sinfulness was in form
similar to Origens, but was inferior to it in intelligibility, and was
never unreservedly accepted by the Orientals. The later Greeks
indeed, doubtless under the influence of the West, recognised
original sin, but this only resulted in a contradiction; for the
thought that each man was born in puris naturalibus, was, while no
longer strictly formulated, never actually condemned. The old
dilemma remained, that each man sinned either from a necessity of
his nature or in virtue of his freedom; and the former opinion was
at all times held in the East to be Manichan. Inherited death, due
to Adam, was taught as a rule; yet even in this matter certain views
were never wholly obliterated which are only intelligible if death
was regarded as something natural. From the point of view of the
doctrine of redemption especially, it could seem more pertinent to
hold death to be the natural destiny of man, from which, however,
redemption delivered him. Accordingly, after Origens theory had
been abandoned on account of its want of Biblical support, all that
was got in exchange for it was a contradiction: death was
something natural and again unnatural. We cannot wonder at this
contradiction; in the same way, no one really held the immortality
assigned to the primitive state to be something indisputably
natural, but neither was it regarded as absolutely supernatural.
4. The Fall and Original Sin. Doctrine of Redemption.
This is the place to define more precisely the influence which
this Natural Theology gained on Dogmatics, i.e., on the
conceptions of redemption through Jesus Christ. In so doing we
266must keep firmly in mind, that, in spite of this influence, the
feeling remained uppermost that redemption was something
superlatively exalted, something unmerited, a pure gift of God to
humanity. This feeling was, however, more and more encouraged
also by the fact that the simple tenets of Natural Theology fell into
confusion and became less impressive through the enjoined and
ever increasing attention to Biblical texts realistically interpreted,
and the necessity of repelling the system of Origen. To this was
added the constantly growing reluctance to reflect independently at
all, as well as the grand impressions made by the divine
dispensation which culminated in the incarnation of the Son of
God, and was brought to view in the mysteries.
In the first place, the conviction of the lofty and, at bottom,
inalienable dignity of man roused the idea that man receives
through redemption that which corresponds to his nature. If
adoption to the sons e79 hip of God and participation in the divine
nature appeared on the one hand as a gift above all reason and
expectation, yet it was looked at on the other as corresponding to
the nature of man already fixed in his creation. For man is Gods
image, and exalted as he is above the lower animals by his
constitution, rises as a spiritual being into the heavenly sphere.
Secondly, the last word that Natural Theology has to say of
man is that he is a free and rational being, introduced into the
opposition of good and evil. Such a being has really to do with
God only in his capacity of creator and rewarder. All other points
of contact must necessarily always resolve into that. Again, for
such a being there can only exist one good, that is knowledge,
which includes virtue, and besides this certain rewards alone find a
place; for his nature requires that he should be independent in all
his movements, nay, these only possess any value through such
independence. The Deity stands at the beginning and the close of
the history of free men as the power that creates and rewards. But
the intervening space is not occupied by the Deity himself in order
to govern man, and to preserve his allegiance. On the contrary,
man has to deal solely with divine knowledge and rules in
accordance with 267which his freedom is meant to evince itself; for
this freedom, while in itself a liberty of choice, was given to him
that he might achieve, in a zealous pursuit of virtue based on
rational knowledge, the moral perfection possessed by the Deity
Himself.
This whole view, which is familiar to us from the Apologists,
was never completely lost by the Greek Fathers. Its first
consequence was that henceforth the whole of religion could be,
as already in the case of the Apologistsand was, looked at from
the point of view of knowledge and law. It appeared as a morality
based on pure knowledge of God and the world, one to which
nothing could be added. Along with freedom, the natural moral law
was implanted in man, that is, the sure consciousness of the rules,
by which he had to prove what was in him. The rules corresponded
ultimately to the laws of the universe set in operation and
maintained by God as supreme First Cause. This natural law, when
it had been obscured in the mind of man, was repeated in the
Decalogue by an external legislation, and, on account of the hard-
heartedness of the Jews, was supplemented with burdens,
temporary commandments and it was finally reduced by Jesus
Christ to the simplest of formulas, set in operation by the
impressive preaching of rewards and punishments, and perfectly
fulfilled by Jesus. He revealed the perfect knowledge of God, and
restored the natural moral lawthese two statements being really
identical, for in both God appears as the supreme cause.528 In this
statement 268we have already mentioned the second consequence
of the speculation: all grace can only possess the character of a
support, of a rectification of knowledge. The whole of the
operations of Gods grace are in the end, crutches offered to feeble
man. In offering them, God reveals a goodness which, after what
he has already done in creation, is without any fixed limit. Grace is
therefore not absolutely necessary for every man. ee7 529 God,
again, by no means reveals himself in it even as the blessing which
man requires, but he simply imparts complete knowledge, and thus
explains, and strengthens the motives for observing, the rules of
conduct which man had long possessed. But in the third place, it
follows from the speculation, that sin is nothing but the
transgression, induced by imperfect knowledge, of those rules,
whose observance does not exhibit mans dependence on God, but
his independence and freedom. Sin subjects man to the judgment
of God. Punishment is the gravest result of sin. But God would not
be just, if he were not an indulgent judge. His goodness which
supports man, has its counterpart in the indulgence which
overlooks the time of ignorance of the individual, and leaves
528
We perceive the Greek conception most clearly from the law in Apost. Const. VI.
19-24. The section begins with the words:
,
, , ,
. The Decalogue is meant; it was given to the nation before 564 its revolt,
and God had no intention of adding sacrificial regulations, but tolerated sacrifices. After
the revolt (of the golden calf) he himself, however, gave the ceremonial law: He bound
the people with irremovable fetters, and imposed heavy burdens and a hard yoke upon
them, that they might abandon idolatry and turn again to that law which God had
implanted by nature in all men (ch. XX.). These branding irons, lancets, and
medicines were, however, only for the sick. Christians who voluntarily believed in one
God were delivered by him, above all, from the sacrificial service. Christ has fulfilled
() the law, but removed the additions, if not all, yet the more irksome; this is
the opposite of Tertullians opinion. He restored mans right of self-determination, and in
doing so confirmed the natural law ( ). More rigorous
conditions are only apparent. Just vengeance is even yet permitted, toleration is only
better: (This
is not the usual Greek view, but a conception peculiar to this lax author). But Christ
himself abolished what had been added solely by fulfilling it first in his life and death,
or by trans 564 forming the ceremonies into spiritual rites. The respect which Irenus, as
distinguished from the older teachers, had already entertained for the ceremonial law is
shown even more clearly here.
529
Yet see what is said below on Macarius.
unpunished the sins of men whenever they feel penitent.530 Since it
is impossible in this whole 269question that there can be any
suggestion of a restoration of man to that communion with God
which he had forsaken, since on the contrary, the sole point was
that man, to whom it was always possible to return, should not be
impeded while striving and yet stumbling, the view was, in fact,
inevitable that God remits punishment to every penitent. God
would not appear just, but harsh and unloving, if he did not accept
sincere penitence as an equivalent for transgressions. It was
accordingly agreed that, although men are sinners, they become
just in the sight of God through virtue and penitence, and
redemption to eternal life through Christ can only benefit such as
have acquired this righteousness through their independent efforts.
The sacraments initiated men into this effort to obtain virtue, and
they had also an indescribable influence upon it. But personal
fulfilment of the law was still something thoroughly independent.
Finally, it followed from this moral view, that it was impossible to
gain a clear idea of the state of perfection. A state of freedom and a
perfect virtue based on perfect knowledge cannot be raised higher
than they are, and that which is given to reward the latter can never
be intrinsically connected with it. The complete vacuity of the
conceptions held of the final state, apart from the effect of the hope
of an ever increasing knowledge, i.e., vision of God, was
accordingly also the natural consequence of the conviction that
man, because he is free, is dependent on no one, and that he is
always at the goal when he fulfils the law of God.
Thirdly, the rationalistic exposition of the doctrine of God and
creation could not fail to impel apologists to expound the
reasonableness of the doctrines of the Trinity, the resurrection of
the body, etc. As a matter of fact the attempt was even made to
prove the existence of a general agreement, a common sense, as
to the doctrine of the Trinity, and references were especially made
to heathen philosophers, though, on the other hand, when it seemed
530
Forgiveness of sins was a conception which in this connection could hardly be
carried out by the Fathers. The passing over of the time of ignorance and the acceptance
of the reparation involved in penitence constituted forgiveness. Hardly another teacher
from and after the fourth century, has expressed it so clearly as Clemens Alex.:
, 564
(Quis div. salv. 40, cf. Strom. II. 14, 58, and elsewhere); but the statement as to Christ in
Pdag. I. 3, 7: ,
, formed a part of the fundamental view of the following age.
We cannot wonder at this. Between mechanical expiations and penitence there is in fact
no third term, as soon as the forgiveness of sins is applied to individual cases. Only where
faith in forgiveness is the faith itself, is it more than a word, and yet not magical.
expedient, the Greeks were denied any knowledge of the Trinity.
Such references were all the more natural, since Neoplatonic
philosophers, and at an earlier date Numenius, had constructed a
kind of trinity. Cyril, again, in his Catechisms, supported 270the
resurrection of the b 3dd4 ody to a very large extent on rational
grounds, and others followed his example. For the extent to which
even the doctrine of the Incarnation was included in Natural
Theology, see following chapter.
Fourthly, from all this it followed, that man could ultimately
receive nothing from history which he could not, nay, had not to,
wrest for himself. But the Logos in the flesh ( )
belonged to history. Accordingly, it was impossible wholly to get
rid of the view that there was a standpoint for which the historical
Christ, since he was merely the edifying teacher, meant nothing.
This view was, as we know, expressed perfectly plainly by Origen
(see Vol. II., p. 342, n. 1); and in this he by no means stood alone.
It was not only repeated by half-heathen theologians, like
Synesius, but it runs like a hidden thread through the conceptions
of all Greek theologians, as long as they continued to think
independently. It is the negative complement of the idea that the
knowledge accompanied by virtue, which transcends all that is
visible, and therefore all that is historical, includes blessedness in
itself, and moreover, that it can be achieved from our own
resources through a direct afflatus divinus. But still further: even in
Augustine this view was not wholly surmounted. The man, who
perceived the Deity, and had gained faith, love, and hope, stood
beside the throne of God, and was with the Father of light and his
essential Word; the historical Christ lay beneath him.531 Further,
even opponents of Origen, like Methodius and his successors, the
mystics, had arrived at the same conception (see Vol. III., p. 110).
For the ascetic mystic history passed away along with the world;
he might cast aside all crutches, traversing independently the long,
mysterious path from the extreme outside to the inmost recess of
the spiritual. At the end of this path there stood, not Jesus Christ,
but the unembodied Logos ( ), since he was pure
truth and pure life. An incarnate Christ () was born in
each who traversed this path. He in whom Christ was born,
however, no longer needed the historical Christ.532
271
531
Augustine, De doctr. I. 34.
532
See even Augustine, on John, tract. 21, n. 8: Gratulemur e 564 t gratias agamus
non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed Christum . . . admiramini gaudete: Christus
facti sumus.
Rationalism, or Christianity as the moral law which is freely
fulfilled, and mysticism are regarded as opposites, and so they are
before the tribunal of philosophy. But before that of positive
religion they are not, they are rather akin, at least in the form in
which they confront us in antiquity.533 Mysticism of course
embraces germs which when unfolded will resist rationalism. But
at first it is nothing but rationalism applied to a sphere above
reason (ratio). The admission that there was such a sphere formed
the difference. It was mysticism as much as rationalistic moralism
which secretly formed an opposition to the Christianity proclaimed
by Jesus Christ to be the way and the truth for all men and for
every grade. The most vital piety of the Greek Fathers, and the
strenuous effort to make themselves at home in religion, insured
them at least against losing the historical Christ.
But it was only a danger that here threatened. We may not say
more. The Deity had come down to earth, God had become man,
and that in the historical Jesusfaith in this stupendous fact, the
newest of the new, nay, the only new thing under the sun, limited
all rationalism. It imperatively demanded the investigation, on the
one hand, of the ground and cause, on the other, of the fruit and
blessing, of this divine dispensation. It was necessary to find the
relation of the latter to the mystery and horror of death. It was
indeed impossible to make the naturalness of death credible; for
all nature, higher and lower, rebelled against it. And the
consciousness of a capacity for perfect knowledge and goodness
underlay in practical life the sense of incapacity. Hence the
conviction that man must be redeemed, and through Jesus Christ is
redeemed. The doctrines of innate freedom, the law, and the
independent achievement of virtue were not abandoned; 272but
they were counterbalanced by faith in the necessity and reality of
redemption. And this combination, unsatisfactory as it seems to us,
was yet capable of forming men of Christian character. Such men
were never wanting in any century of the older Greek Church after
Athanasius and Chrysostom, although their theology lacked the
confession of the Psalmist: It is good for me to cleave to God
(Mihi adhrere deo bonum est).534
533
Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alex., 1886, p. 51 f.) has also correctly perceived
this; he is speaking of the attitude of Clement and of the Alexandrians generally: On one
side Rationalist, on another Mystic. Though there is in them a strong vein of Common
Sense or Rationalism, they were not less sensible of the mystic supernatural side of the
religious life than Irenaeus. The difference is that with them the mystical grows out of the
rational.
534
The text is indeed quoted by Macarius (Ep. I. fin) as the sum of all knowledge. But
even to this theologian, who came neare a94 st Western thought in some paraenetic
Instead of multiplying details we may here give the views on
freedom, sin, and grace, of four eminent Greek Fathers,
Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John
of Damascus.
(1) Athanasius.The conceptions formed by Athanasius of the
original state of man, of sin and grace, show especially his inability
to distinguish between nature and grace. In his work De
incarnatione535 he strove to prove that the incarnation was a
necessity on the part of God. Therefore he emphasises strongly the
destiny of man, and distinguishes it sharply from his empirical
condition; for this destiny sets God a task which he must carry out
under all circumstances, if his goodness () is to remain in
force. Therefore, in many of the arguments of this work, human
nature appears as the creaturely and sensuous constitution, while
everything else, including the endowment of reason, takes the form
of a donum superadditum, potentially given in the original state,
and binding on God himself, a gift of grace, which was meant to
rise to complete 273knowledge of God through the free moral
development of man.for that was the goal. [Athanasius uses very
different expressions for this in his writings:
(power of conceiving God), (knowledge)
(perception) (comprehension) (theory
of divine things) (of the intelligible)
(science of God)
(concept of knowledge as to the Father)]. The change which took
place in man through sin, or through death, is accordingly
conceived as a loss of the divine. God is at the same time
supremely interested in preventing man, once destined to obtain
remarks, and frequently drew the sharpest contrast between nature and grace (see Hom. I.
10, IV. 7-9), the cleaving to God meant nothing but the independent decision for God.
The following passage (Hom. IV. 5) proves how remote Macarius was from Augustine:
How should God treat a man who, in the exercise of free will, devotes himself to the
world, lets himself be seduced by its pleasures, or revels in dissipations? God only sends
his help to him who renounces worldly pleasures, and preserves himself completely from
the snares and traps of the sensuous world, etc. Here we see that the contrast between
nature and grace was not so seriously meant. The same is the case with law and gospel.
No Greek Father was able to regard these as contrasted in the same way as we see them
in the writings of Paul and Augustine.
535
On its authenticity, see the next chapter.
perfect divine knowledge, from becoming a prey to his lower
nature, and being destroyed.536
But even in the De incarn., and to a still greater extent in his
later anti-Arian writings, Athanasius defends the idea that the
rational spirit ( Athanasius being a dichotomist)
belongs to mans constitution, is immortal, and at bottom also
inalienable. This can gradually recognise the Logos
and God from creation; it is, accordingly, not only an inalienable
religious talent, but also an inalienable religious factor. Its power
extends so far that there have been holy men in all ages (c. gent. 2;
c. Arian. III: 33:
). The reconciliation of the two contradictory statements,
that the higher endowment appears first as grace, then as nature, is
to be found in the following points. (1) The is only
rational (logical) because it participates in the Logos, is his image,
possesses a shadow of him (De incarn. 3), and retains its power
only when steadfastly connected with him. For this reason it can be
termed, although a natural provision, an external (c. Arian. II.
68: Adam was outside before his transgression, having received
grace and not having had it adapted to his body;
,
.). (2) It is only in the apologetic arguments
of the treatise De incarn. that Adams fall and its consequence
appear as forming a tremendous cleavage, and the state before
274and after the fall as a contrast. That was not the characteristic
view of Athanasius,537 as is shown by other arguments in the same
writing, and the rest of the tractates. He contemplates not a loss
once for all, but a gradual enfeeblement. Mankind has more and
more lost, from generation to generation, the consciousness of
God, i.e., through the darkening of his mind. That which above all
burdened humanity, however, was not sin, but the sentence of
death pronounced by God on the sinnersee next chapter. The
faculties for knowing God, and thus for attaining the goal,
remained, but there was no corresponding power actually to reach
the goal. A Catholic investigator has expressed this as follows:538
Sinful man gradually lost, according to Athanasius, what was
supernatural in his prerogatives, and retained only what was
536
De incarn. IV.:
.. Accordingly, everything is supernatural which raises man above the level
of nature.
537
Against Wendt Die christl. Lehre von der menschlichen Volkommenheit (1880), p.
47 f.
538
Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. Athainasius. (1880), p. 156.
natural. Supernatural were moral goodness on the one hand, the
correct consciousness and due use of rationality and immortality
on the other; while rationality and immortality generally were
natural. The intrusion here of the modern Catholic categories of
natural and supernatural is incorrect; for the spiritual nature of
man was held by all the Fathers to be supernatural. But the idea is
correct. But we must go further. The difference here is exclusively
quantitative; it is only qualitative from the fact that what remains
of higher powers is as a rule of less than its initial value, i.e., is no
longer capable of reaching the goal. The same Catholic scholar is
therefore perfectly correct, whenexpressing himself with due
cautionhe finds (p. 159 f.) that Athanasius does not seem to
treat the punishment of sinbetter, sinwith sufficient
gravity. He teaches, indeed, that the spiritual gifts of man were
lost through sin, but he conceives this ruin as gradual in time and
degree, depending on the extent to which men had turned from the
contemplation of the spiritual and to the sensuous; i.e., Athanasius
simply follows an empirical and natural line of thought, in virtue of
which he finds in mankind very different grades of moral and
intellectual position. That this was a consequence of human
freedom constituted 275a sufficient explanation in itself and freed
the Deity of all blame. But it did not explain the universality of
death, and left out of account Gen. I.III. The above empirical
view, which ultimately, indeed, cast a certain shadow on the Deity,
and these chapters of the Bible compelled him to secure, somehow
or other, a historical beginning for the present condition and
therewith an original state of man. But the relations of the present
to that beginning are really exhausted in the continuance of the
once pronounced sentence of death;539 and the primitive state,
which is clearly enough described (c. gentes 2, De incarn. 3, 4) as a
destinyAdam himself having not yet attained what his
endowments fitted him for, continued in this sense; nay, it
ultimately embraced the idea that God was under the necessity of
bringing the sentence of death to an end.
However, Athanasius did arrive at positive conclusions as to
the specific grace bestowed in the Christian redemption, in his
polemic against the Arians. It is not to be wondered at that the
discussion of grace in connection with creation and the natural
endowments of man only resulted, on the premises stated by the
Fathers, in tautologies. But against the Arians, where Athanasius
was not interested in cosmology, he shows that we have received
from grace what was by nature peculiar to the Son, and he
definitely distinguishes between grace in creation and in
af6 539All men were lost in Adams transgression, c. Arian. II. 61.
redemption. 1b64 Deut. XXXII. 6, 7, 18, where it is said that God
created and begot men, he interprets as follows: By creating,
Moses describes the natural state of men, for they are works and
beings made; by begetting, he lets us see the love of God to them
after their creation (c. Arian. II. 58). Similarly on John I. 12, 13:
John makes use of the words to become because they are called
sons, not by nature, but by adoption; but he has employed the word
begotten, because they in any case have received the name of son
. . . The goodness of God consists in this, that he afterwards
becomes, by grace, the father of those whose creator he already is.
He becomes their father, however, whenas the Apostle says
the men who have been created receive into their hearts the Spirit
of his Son, which calls, Abba, Father. But the latter 276consist of
all who have received the Word and have obtained power from
him to become children of God. For since by nature they are
creatures, they can only become sons by receiving the spirit of the
natural and true Son. In order that this may happen the Word
became flesh, that men might be made capable of receiving the
Deity. This conception can also be found in the Prophet Malachi,
who says: Did not one God create you? Have you not all one
Father? For here again he says in the first place created, and in
the second father, in order similarly to show that we are first, and
by nature, creatures, but afterwards are adopted as sons, God the
creator becoming also our father, etc. (c. Arian. II. 59). These
expositions are certainly worth noting, but we must not
overestimate them; for in the same discourses against the Arians
they are modified to the effect that our sonship depends on the
Logos dwelling in us, i.e., it receives a cosmological basis (see c.
Arian. III. 10). In some passages it indeed looks as if the Logos
only dwelt in us in consequence of the incarnation (see above and
l. c. IV. 22); but it is quite clear in others that Athanasius thought
of an indwelling before the incarnation, an indwelling wholly
independent of it. With the recollection that there were sons of God
in the O. T., Athanasius proves that the Logos was eternal.
Accordingly, it is with him as with Clement of Alexandria: when
the Fathers are not dealing with apologetic theology, and disregard
the O. T., they are able to comprehend and describe the grace due
to the historical Christ in its specific significance; but when they
reason connectedly everything ultimately resolves into the natural
endowment fixed once for all.
Literature.See, besides the works quoted of Atzberger and
Wendt, Mhler, Athanasius, I. p. 136 ff. Voigt, Athanasius, p. 104
ff., and Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Vershnung, 2 Ed. Vol. I. p. 8
ff.
(2) Gregory of Nyssa.Gregorys theories also appear to be
hampered by a contradiction because they are sketched from two
different points of view. On the one hand he regards the nature of
man in spirit and body as constituting his true being. To him, as
opposed to Origen, the whole earthly world is 277good, a mirror of
divine wisdom and power, a place meant to be pervaded by the
divine. Before this could be possible it was necessary that a union
should be effected between its essential elements and the higher
spiritual and divine nature, whereby first the divine shone as
through a glass into the earthly world, after which the earthly,
elevated with the divine, could be freed from liability to decay, and
be transfigured. This central significance, this part of constituting a
bond between two worlds in themselves opposed, was assigned to
man, who stood at the head of the ascending scale of earthly
creatures, which he comprehended like a microcosm, while he also
as (a rational being) projected into the invisible
world, in virtue of his nature made in the image of God, i.e.,
spiritual and moral, and, especially, ethically free. This nature of
man, besides, being created, possessed nothing of itself, but only
like the sun-loving eye turned ever of its own accord to the eternal
light, living on it, and interpreting it to the earthly world to which
it essentially belonged.540 But on the other hand, though Gregory
rejected Origens theories of the pre-existence of souls, the pre-
temporal fall, and the world as a place of punishment (
, ch. 28, 29), regarding them as Hellenic
dogmas and therefore mythological, yet he was dominated by the
fundamental thought which led Origen to the above view. The
spiritual and the earthly and sensuous resisted each other. If man
was, as Scripture says, created in the image of God,541 then he was
a spiritual being, and his being so constituted his nature (see l.c. ch.
16-18). Man was a self-determining, but, because created, a
changeable spirit, meant to share in all the blessings of God. So far
as he had a sensuous side, and was mortal, he was not an 278image
of God. Gregory now laid stress on man (homo)as he conceived
it, humanityhaving been first created, and then having been
540
See Catech. mag. 5, 6, and the work, . . ., as also .
. 2 ff. 16. Mller in Herzog R.-E., 2 Ed. Vol. V., p. 401, and his work, Gregorii
Nyss. de natura hom. doctr. illustr. et cum Origeniana comparata, 1854.
541
Orat. I. T. I., p. 150:
. The image cannot consist in the bodily. The latter is at
most a copy of the image, see . . 8, 12. But the image itself
implies that it can only really be completely produced by free self-determination on the
part of man. If any compulsion obtained, the image would not be realised. (Catech.
mag. 5).
fashioned into male and female. He concluded from this that the
earthly and sensuous side of man was , a
subsequent creation, that, accordingly, the spiritual in man was
conceptually the primary, and his sensuous and bodily nature the
secondary, part of him.542 He further concluded that man was
originally designed to l 50dc ive a sexless life like the angels, that
God would have multiplied men as he did the angels by his power
in a noble fashion ( ., 17), and that the proper and
natural dwelling-place of men was the pure and incorporeal future
state.
But near as he was to consequences drawn by Origen,543
Gregory rejected them. The destiny of man sketched above was an
ideal one. In other words, God, looking to the Fall, at once created
and added the earthly and sensuous nature of man; nay, this was
not merely due to the Fall, but, as is shown by the first line of
thought given above, the earthly nature of man had also, since it
was possessed by divine energies and transfigured, a lasting
significance. But the Paradisaical state in which men lived before
the Fall, was not the highest; for the body was not transfigured,
though it had not yet been stained by sexual intercourse. The
highest state, in so far as it was brought about by the resurrection
( ), was that which
notionally preceded the life in Paradise, but had never till now
been concretely realised. It was life in its incorporeal abode after
the fashion of the angels.544 The incarnation of God had procured
this state 279for all who, in virtue of their freedom, led a holy life,
i.e., who lived as man did in Paradise before the Fall; for that was
possible to man even when on earth. In all this we must remember
that Gregorys hold on the traditional dependence on Gen. I.-III.
was very loose: he does not speak of Adam, but always of us. All
men had the same freedom as Adam.545 All souls really passed
542
We have, however, to make a distinction here. As a creaturely spirit man
necessarily has a body, just as every picture has a material foundation, and every mirror a
back. This body, therefore, belonged, according to Gregory, to the notion of mans
nature; it was the phenomenon of the soul as the latter was the noumenon of the body.
But Gregory distinguishes this body from the sensuous and sexually differentiated one.
543 ace
Gregory borders very closely upon them, not only in ., but also in
other writings. The fall does not, indeed, take the form of an event in the experience of
individual men actually to be found in a pre-existent state, but of a kind of intelligible
collective deed of all humanity.
544
See . . 16-18.
545
Gregory here carries his speculation still further: God did not first create a single
man, but the whole race in a previously fixed number; these collectively composed only
through Adams history. Above all, no transference of sin took
place, although Gregory is a Traducian (see . . ch.
29); every man sinned, because in virtue of his freedom he could
sin, and by his sensuous nature () was induced to sin. By this
means a state of depravity and death was introducedsin also
being deathfrom which man in fact could not deliver himself.
Nothing but the union of God with humanity procured redemption.
Redemption was, in harmony with the speculations as to Adam,
strictly objective, and the question as to its appropriation was
therefore, at bottom, no question. A new condition was revealed
for all men without any co-operation on their part, but it became
real only to those who led a holy life, i.e., who abstained entirely
from sin.
Literature.See, besides Mllers work, Wendt, l.c., P. 49 f.;
Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. sententi de salute adipiscenda, 1875;
Bergades, De universo et de anima hominis doctrina Gregorii
Nyss., Thessalonich, 1876; Stigler, Die Psychologie des hl. Gregor
von Nyssa, Regensburg, 1857; Ritschl., l.c. Vol. I. p. 12 ff.; Hilt,
Des hl. Gregor von Nyssa Lehre vom Menschen, Kln, 1890.
(3) Theodore.Even in Irenus546 two inconsistent
conceptions of the result of redemption stood side by side. It was
held, on the one hand, to restore man to the original state from
which he had fallen, and, on the other, to raise him from the
primitive natural state of childhood to a higher stage. The
280majority of the Greek Fathers were not in a position to decide
bluntly for either of these ideas; yet the former, under the influence
of Origen, prevailed. It was only in the school of Antioch that it
was really rejected, that the other view was emphatically avowed,
and thus the most decided attitude adopted of opposition to
Origens theology.547 The view of the Antiochenes was
teleologicalbut there was an entire absence of any religious view
of sin. In this respect it was directly opposed to Augustines
system.
one nature. They were really one man, divided into a multiplicity. Adamthat means all
( . 16, 17, 22). In Gods prescience the whole of humanity was comprised in
the first preparation.
546
See Vol. II., p. 267 ff.
547
It is instructive that Marcellus also thinks of a glory presented through redemption,
which is .
According to Theodore,548 Gods plan included from the
beginning two epochs (), the present and future
states of the world. The former was characterised by
changeableness, temptation, and mortality, the latter by perfection,
immutability, and immortality. The new age only began with the
resurrection of the dead, its original starting-point being the
incarnation of the Son of God. Further, there was a spiritual and a
sensuous. Man was composed of both, the body having been
created first, and the soul having then been breathed into it. This is
the opposite of Gregory of Nyssas view. Man was the connecting
link between the two spheres; he was designed to reveal the image
of God in this world. Like a king, who, after building a great city
and adorning it with works of every kind, causes, when the whole
is completed, a fine statue of himself to be erected, in which all the
inhabitants may gratefully revere the constructor, so the Creator of
the world, after he had elaborated his work, finally produced man
to be his own image, and all creatures find in him their centre, and
thus contribute to the due glorification of God. Now although
man is equipped with all the powers of reason and of will, yet,
from the very nature of his Present condition, he is changeable, is
defeated in the conflict, and is mortal. Not till the new principle of
life was imparted by means of Christ 281could the changeable
nature be raised to immutability. Till then, accordingly, man was
exposed to temptation, and as a being made up of spirit and body
was necessarily mortal. The threat of death in Paradise did not
mean that death was the consequence of sinit was rather natural;
but it was designed to inspire man with as great a hatred of sin, as
if the latter were punished by death. Death, natural in itself, was a
divine means of education, and accordingly salutary. God knew
that mortality would be beneficial to Adam, for if they had been
invested with immortality, men, when they sinned, would have
been exposed to eternal destruction. But even the permission of
sin was salutary, and formed part of the divine plan of education.
God gave a command, and thereby elicited sin, in order that he
might, like a loving Father, teach man his freedom of choice and
weakness. Man was to learn that while he was in a state of moral
changeableness, he would not be capable of sustaining an immortal
existence. Therefore death was announced to him as the penalty of
disobedience, although mortality was from the beginning an
548
See Kihn, Theodor von Mops., p. 171 ff. Also the examples partly taken from
Theodores commentaries on Gene aa4 sis, Job, and Pauls epistles (see Swete, Theodori
in epp. Pauli comment. 1880, 1881), partly from fragments of other writings of Theodore;
cf. also Dorner, Theodori de imagine dei doctrina, 1844.
attribute of human nature.549 No sin without a command, but also
no knowledge of good and evil, of the possession of spiritual
faculties, finally, no conflict. Accordingly, God gave the command
in order to raise Adam above the stage of childhood, and it
necessarily provoked conflict and defeat.
Adam is, however, to be thought of here, not as the ancestor,
but as the type, of the human race. The law was given with the
same object to all his descendants, to teach them to distinguish
between good and evil, and to know their own powers and
weakness. In the history of Adam we become acquainted with our
own natural disposition. In keeping with this we are under the
necessity in our present life of rendering obedience to laws by
which our natural power of making distinctions is awakened, we,
meanwhile, being taught from what we ought to abstain and what
to do, that the principles of reason may be active in us. Only when
we find ourselves in the future state (Katastasis) will we be able
with slight effort to perform what we recognise as good. Without
law, therefore, 282we would have had no distinction between good
and evil, and no knowledge of sin, and like irrational animals we
would have done whatever occurred to us. In this state knowledge
and fighting are required to obtain the victory, but we are
constantly hampered by the body, the source of temptations. Christ
first gave us redemption from death, an immortal nature, which,
therefore, will obtain the victory without effort (on Rom. V. 18).
Theodore was able to explain away the Pauline passages which
support a transmission of the death worked by sin, just as he
ignored the life of the first man in Paradise before the Fall. All men
died because of their own sinful actions; but even this was meant
figuratively. They died because of their natural constitution, in
which sin was latent. He opposed Augustines and Jeromes
doctrine of original sin in an independent work, fragments of
which have been preserved by Marius Mercator. Adam was
created mortal whether he sinned or not. For God did not say, Ye
will be mortal, but Ye will die. Theodore quoted Ps. CIII. 15,
and Rome. II. 6. Against original sin he appealed to the case of
saints like Noah, Abraham, and Moses. If God had passed sentence
of death on all as the punishment of sin, he would not have made
Enoch immortal. Accordingly, Baptism did not, according to
Theodore, remove inherited sin, but initiated the believer into
sinless discipleship of Christ, and at the same time blotted out the
sins he had himself committed. In the former sense it had its use
even for children; for Baptism, like all grace emanating from the
549
Kihn, l. c., p. 174.
incarnation, raised man to a new stage, elevated him above his
present nature, and prepared him for the future state (Katastasis).
This is most strongly emphasised by Theodore, and here his
teaching is distinguished from the doctrines of Pelagius and Julian
of Eclanum,550 who subordinated redemption through Christ
completely to the rationalistic theory. That Theodore did not do.
While he was thoroughly convinced, with Pelagius, that in the
present state everything turned on mens own actions which rested
on knowledge, freedom, effort, and heroic fighting, yet he was
equally certain on the other hand, 283that human nature did not
attain immutability, immortality, and sinlessness through this
conflictit was merely a conditionbut only through redemption.
For this reason Christ came. He did not restore, but produced a
new, a higher state. He did not heal, but transfigured.551
Theodores doctrine of man was strictly rationalistic and
Aristotelian; it surpassed the theories of all the rest of the Greek
Fathers in intelligibility and consistency. But for that very reason it
did not correspond to all the ideas and desires embraced in the
tradition of the Church.
(4) John of Damascus.The doctrines taught by this dogmatist
became final in the Greek Church, the later Symbols being
substantially at one with them,552 because he combined the
conceptions of the Cappadocians with the Antiochene tradition, in
the modified form assumed by the latter in Chrysostom, and at the
same time did justice to the constantly increasing tendency to
refrain as much as possible from allegorising Gen. I. ff. Briefly,
John taught as follows:553
Since God, overflowing with goodness, was not satisfied
with the contemplation of himself, but desired to have some one to
whom he could do good, he created the universe, angels, and men.
Even the angels were immortal, not by nature, but by grace; for
everything which has a beginning has necessarily an end. But
550
See Kihn, l. c., p. 179 f.
551
Chrysostom agrees entirely with Theodore in the opinion that mans free will takes
the first step, which is then seconded by God with his power, in the appropriation of the
good; see his notes on Rom. IX. 16, in Hom. 16; in ep. ad Heb., Hom. 12; in Ev. Joh.,
Hom. 17, etc. The passages are reproduced in Mnscher, Lehrbuch der
Dogmengeschichte (1832), p. 363 ff.
552
See Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche, p. 150 ff.
553
De fide orthod. II. 2 ff., 11 ff. 24-30; III. 1, 14, 20; IV. 4, 11, 19-22, and the
Homily in ficum arefactum, as also the Dialogue against the Manichans. Langen. l. c.,
p. 289 ff.; Wendt, l. c., p. 59 ff.
immortality being a gift became natural to spiritual beings, and
therefore also to men. Men were created by God from nature,
visible and invisible, in his own image, to be kings and rulers of
the whole earth. Before their creation God had prepared Paradise
for them to be as it were a royal castle, set by his hands in Eden, a
store-house of all joy and delight, situated to the East, and higher
than the whole earth, but 284tempered and illumined by the finest
and purest air, planted with ever blossoming flowers, filled with
perfume, full of light, surpassing every idea of earthly grace and
beauty, a truly divine place.554 But it was only with his body that
man was supposed to live in this material Paradise; he inhabited
with his spirit at the same time the spiritual Paradise, which is
indicated by the tree of life.555 Of the tree of knowledge he was not
at first to eat; for knowledge, while good for the perfect, is bad for
the imperfect. The result of knowledge in the case of the imperfect
was to make man, instead of devoting himself to the contemplation
and praise of God, think of himself: Adam, immediately after
eating, noticed that he was naked. God intended that we should be
free from desire and care, and occupied solely with luxuriating in
the contemplation of himself. The eating of all the trees denoted
the knowledge of God from the works of nature. In created man
the union of visible and invisible naturethe image of God
consisted in power of thought and freedom of will, likeness to him
in similarity in virtue, so far as that was possible. Soul and body
(as against Origen) were created together. Man was originally
innocent, upright, and adorned with all virtues;556 his being so was
a gift of grace; but so also was the fact that he was spiritual. He
was spiritual that he might endure and praise his benefactor;
corporeal, that he might be disciplined by suffering and the
recollection of suffering; he was too proud of his greatness. Man
was created a being who ruled in this present life, and was
transferred to another.557 He was finally to be made divine by
submission to God: his deification 285consisting in participation in
the divine glory, not in a transformation into the divine essence.
acf 554
Accordingly we have here a recrudescence to some extent of what the older
Greek Fathers called Judaism or earthly conceptions, cf. Peters Apocalypse.
555
Two traditional, inconsistent ideas are combined here; John was not quite clear as
to the tree of life. He gives different explanations of it in De fide II. 11 and IV. 11.
556
This is strongly emphasised by John (II. 12, IV. 4); but he has carefully avoided
stating how God could on his part adorn men with virtues. It cannot be proved that this is
to be attributed to the influence of the West. Such an assumption is not necessary, for we
also find in the older Greek Fathers rhetorical glorifications of the primitive state which
do not harmonise with the system of doctrine.
557
These are the two states (katastaseis) of the Antiochenes.
Actually, i.e., according to the logical development of the
system, the innocence of primitive man consisted in his power to
be innocent, and, with the support of divine grace, to abide by and
advance in goodness. A necessary converse of this was the power
to revolt; for it is no virtue which is done under compulsion.
Man, that little world, retained, however, along with his spiritual
attributes, those of irrational nature; even in his soul there was an
irrational part, which was partly capable of submitting to the
rational, but was partly independent of it (the vital functions). The
former embraced the desires, some of which were within limits
permitted, while the others were not. But, the vital functions apart,
over all was placed free will. It is in our power to choose, and man
decides on his own actions. His origin alone is Gods affair. But
error was produced by our wickedness for our punishment and
benefit For God did not make death, nor did he delight in the ruin
of the living; on the contrary, death was due to man, i.e., to
Adams transgression, and so also were the other penalties.558 It
was not right to attribute everything to divine providence; for that
which is in our power is not the affair of providence, but of our
own free will. God, certainly, in virtue of his omniscience, knows
everything from all eternity; he therefore assists by his grace those
who, he knows, will avail themselves of it. They alone are also
predestinated; their decision to be and do good is known to God.
Those are damned to whom all the supports of grace are in vain.559
With all this it remains true that all virtue comes from God; for by
him it was implanted in nature, and by his support alone it is
maintained. Accordingly, we have once 1590 more the principle
that nature, rational and free, is a gift of grace; to be natural is to be
virtuous, and conversion is the return from the unnatural.560
286
Man was created male. Woman was formed merely because

God foresaw the Fall, and in order that the race might be preserved
in spite of death.561 Man did not allow reason to triumph; he
mistook the path of honour, and preferred his lusts. Consequently,
instead of living for ever, he fell a prey to death and became
subject to tribulation and a miserable life. For it was not good that
he should enjoy immortality untempted and unproved, lest he
should share the pride and condemnation of the devil.
558
The significance of Adams fall for his posterity is recognised (II. 28), but it is
noteworthy, only cursorily. John has no separate chapter on the Fall in his great work.
Even II. 30, only discusses it under a more general heading.
559
See, l. c., II. 29, 30; IV. 22.
560
II. 30.
561
L. c., see Gregory of Nyssa.
Accordingly, man was first to attest himself, and, made perfect by
observance of the commandment when tempted, was then to obtain
immortality as the reward of virtue. For, placed between God and
matter, he was to acquire steadfastness in goodness, after he had
abandoned his natural relation to things, and become habitually
united to God. But, seduced by the devil who enviously grudged
man the possession which he had himself lost, man turned to
matter, and so, severed from God, his First Cause, became subject
to suffering, and mortal, and required sexual intercourse. (The fig-
leaves denote the tribulations of life, and the skins the mortal
body). Death, come into the world through sin, henceforth, like a
hideous wild beast, made havoc of human life, although the liberty
to choose good as well as evil was never destroyed.562 But God did
not leave himself without a witness, and at last sent his own Son,
who was to strengthen nature, and to renew and show and teach by
his action the way of virtue which led from destruction to eternal
life. The union of Deity with humanity was the newest of the new,
the only new thing under the sun.563 It applied, moreover, to the
whole of human nature in order to bestow salvation on the
whole.564 This union resulted in the restitutio to the original state,
which was perfect in so far as man, though not yet tested, was
adorned with virtues. Christ participated in the worst part of our
nature in order, by and in himself, to restore the form of the image
and likeness, and to teach us further by virtuous conduct, which by
his aid 287he made light for us. Then he overcame death, becoming
the first-fruits of our resurrection, and renewing the worn-out and
cast-off vessel.565
It has been pointed out above (p. 240) that natural theology
underwent no development in the Greek Church. We must
premise, however, that the course of the history of philosophy is of
greater moment for the development of the system, or for
systematic monographs. Without anticipating we may here make
the following remark. The Fathers of orthodox dogma in the fourth
and fifth centuries were Platonists. Aristotelianism always led in
this period to a heterodox form of dogmaLucian, the Arians, the
Antiochenes, etc. But a theological system constructed by the aid
of Platonism could not fail at that time to become equally
heterodox. After Platonism had done its work on dogma, and
certain notions and conceptions were generally fixed, an orthodox
562
II. 26 ff.
563
III. 1.
564
III. 6.
565
IV. 4, II. 12.
system could only be created by means of Aristotelianism. Any
further use of Platonism led to questionable propositions.
Chapter VI. The Doctrine of the Necessity and Realit

of Redemption throught the Incarnation of the Son to
God.
288
B.THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION IN THE PERSON OF

THE GOD-MAN IN ITS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NECESSITY AND
REALITY OF REDEMPTION THROUGH THE
INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD.
N 40B0 ATURAL theology was so wide in its scope as

understood by the Greek Church, that, as indications in the
preceding chapter will have already shown, only a historical fact
absolutely unparallelled could make headway against it. The Greek
Fathers knew of such a factthe newest of the new, yea, the only
new thing under the sun; it was the Incarnation of the Son of God.
It alone balanced the whole system of natural theology, so far as it
was balanced, and exerted a decisive influence upon it. But the
incarnation could only be attached with complete perspicuity to
that point in the natural system which seemed the more irrational,
the more highly the value of human nature was ratedthis point of
contact being death. The dreadful paradox of death was destroyed
by the most paradoxical fact conceivable the incarnation of the
Deity.
This at once implied that the fact could not but be capable of a
subsequent explanation, nay, even of a kind of a priori deduction.
But its glory, as an expression of the unfathomable goodness of
God, was not thereby to be diminished. The necessity of
redemption, whether that consisted in the restoration or the
perfection of the human race, was based by the Fathers, as a rule,
on the actual state of wretchedness of mankind under the dominion
of death and sin. So far, however, as this condition was compared
with the original state or destiny of man, redemption was already
thought of as intrinsically necessary, 289and was no longer merely
regarded as a postulate of mans need of salvation. In this
connection the Fathers often lost sight of the capacity left to man
of being and doing good. In innumerable passages they speak of
the helplessness and irredeemableness of mankind, using
expressions which could without difficulty be inserted in
Augustines doctrine of sin. But just as often a phrase occurs which
betrays the fact that the whole view is nevertheless quite different;
in other words, that the outward condition characterised by
feebleness and death, and the sensuousness of corruptible human
nature are thought of as the source of all evil and all sin. This state
is accompanied by a darkening of knowledge which could not fail
to subject man to the influence of the demons and lead him into
idolatry.
The divine act of grace in Christ applied to death, the demonic
rule, sin, and error. In Homilies, Biblical commentaries, and
devotional writings, these points of view interchange, or are
apparently regarded as equivalent.566 But since natural theology
formed the background of their conceptions, the absolute necessity
of the form assumed by the act of grace in the incarnation could be
demonstrated neither in relation to sin nor to error. The whole
question turned here on support, example, and illumination, or, if
this line was crossed, theology ceased to be systematic and
consistent. The importance of Athanasius and the Cappadocians
consisted in the strenuous emphasis laid by them on the impressive
connection existing between the incarnation and the restoration of
the human race 290to the divine life, and in their consequent escape
to some extent from the rationalistic scheme of doctrine; for the
reference of the incarnation to sin did not carry the Greeks beyond
it. The above combination had been made in the Church long
before this (see Irenus), but in the theology of Origen it had been
subordinated to, and obscured by, complicated presuppositions.
Athanasius wrote a treatise Concerning the incarnation of the
Logos ( ), an early writing whose
566
Perhaps the most comprehensive passage is Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. IV. 12. But it
also shows how far Eusebius still was from the thorough-going view of Athanasius:
,
,
,

,
,
,
ac8
.
value is so great because it dates before the outbreak of the Arian
controversy.567 In this work he went a step further: for he strove to
prove that the redemption was a necessity on the part of God. He
based this necessity on the goodness () of God. This
goodness, i.e., Gods consistency and honour, involved as they
were in his goodness, were necessarily expressed in the
maintenance and execution of decrees once formed by him. His
decrees, however, consisted, on the one hand, in his appointment
of rational creatures to share in the divine life, and, on the other, in
the sentence of death on transgressions. Both of these had to be
established. Gods intention could not be allowed to suffer
shipwreck through the wickedness of the devil and the sad choice
of humanity. If it were, God would seem weak, and it would have
been better if he had never created man at all. Then the
transgression occurred. What was God now to do? Ought he to
have demanded penitence on the part of man? For one could have
deemed that worthy of God and said, that as men had become
mortal through the transgression, they should in like manner
recover immortality through repentance (change of mind). But
repentance (in itself) did not retain the true knowledge as regards
God; God accordingly would in his turn have shown himself
568
291untruthful, if death had not compelled men; nor did
repentance deliver from the physical, but only put an end to sins.
Therefore, if the transgression had alone existed, and not its
consequence, mortality, repentance would have been all very well.
But when, the transgression having occurred, men were fettered to
the mortality that had become natural to them, and were robbed of
the grace which corresponded to their creation in the divine image,
what else should have happened? Or what was needed for this
grace and renewal except (the coming of) him who also in the
567
Draescke has attempted to show in a full discussion (Athanasiana i. d. Stud. u.
Krit., 1893, pp. 251-315 that the writings Against the Greeks and the Incarnation of
the Logos belong, not to Athanasius, but to Eusebius of Emesa, and were written A.D.
350. But after a close examination of his numerous arguments I find none of them
convincing, and I am rather confirmed in my belief that no important objection can be
raised against the authenticity of the two tractates. An accurate analysis of De incarn. is
given by Kattenbusch, l. c. I., p. 297 ff.
568
This sentence does not seem to me quite clear; the meaning is probably: since
repentance does not convey the true knowledge of God, but death resulted from loss of
the latter, God would have broken his word if he had abolished death in consequence of
mere repentance.
beginning made all things of nothing, the Logos of God? For it was
his part once more to restore the corruptible to incorruption.569
Athanasius shows that the Logos who originally created all
things from nothing required to assume a body and thus to secure
the restoration of man from corruptibility to incorruption
(). How this happened Athanasius discusses in various, to
some extent inconsistent, lines of thought, in which he speaks
especially of a removal of mens guilt through the death of Christ,
as well as of an exhaustion of the sentence of death in the sacrifice
of his body presented by the Logos. From these premises it follows
that Athanasius had the death of Christ in view, whenever he
thought of the incarnation of the Logos. The Logos could not
suffer (the power of death in
mankind), and therefore took up the 292fight with death. He
assumed a body and so became mortal. This body he surrendered
to death on behalf of all. His body could not be really overcome,
kept, by death. In it all died, and for this very reason the law of
death ( ) is now abrogated; its power was
exhausted on the body of the Lord ( ); it had no
further claim on his fellow-men ( ) . . .
The body assumed by the Logos came to share in the universal
meaning of the Logos. The resurrection of the body and of the
Logos guaranteed the general resurrection and incorruption
().570 Here follows the place assigned to the sacrifice. It
presented that which was due () to God in place of
death. But the pervading and prominent thought of Athanasius is
that the incarnation itself involved the Christians passage from the
fate of death to incorruption (), since the physical union
569
De incarn. 7: ;
;
, , ,
.
,
ac8 ,
.
,
, ,
, ;
,
;
.
Compare Orat. c. Arian. II. 68.
570
Kattenbusch, p. 298.
of the human with the divine nature in the midst of mankind raised
the latter to the region of divine rest and blessedness.571 The result
of the incarnation consisted accordingly, first, in the eradication of
corruption ()by the existence of the divine in its midst,
but, finally, by the death of Christ, in which the truthfulness of
God was justifiedand in the corresponding transformation into
incorruptibilityrenewal, or completion of the divine image by
participation in the nature, free from all suffering, of the Deity.572
But, secondly, the incarnation also resulted, 293as indeed had been
long before held by the Apologists, in the restoration of the correct
knowledge of God, which embraced the power of living rightly,
through the incarnate Logos. But while Athanasius kept firmly in
view this restoration of the knowledge of God through the Logos,
he was not thinking merely of the new law, i.e., the preaching of
Christ; he held it to have been given in the contemplation of the
Person of Christ. In his work, that of a man, God came down to us.
The dullest eye was now in a position to perceive the one true
Godviz., in Christand to escape from the error of demon-
worship. This thought is very significant; it had already been
expressed by Clement and Origen, having received a deeper
meaning from the latter, though he had not yet given it so central a
place in his system. Athanasius expressly notes that creation was
not sufficient to let us perceive the Creator and Father; we needed
571
L. c., ch. IX.: ,
,
, ,

.
564 ,
,
. Kattenbusch is right in considering Ritschl (l. c.,
I., p. 10, 11) to have gone too far in his assertion that Athanasius interpretation of the
death and resurrection of Christ is a particular instance of the main thought that the Logos
of God guarantees all redemptive work, using the human body in which he dwells as the
means. Athanasius certainly did not regard the death and resurrection as merely
particular instances. They formed the object of the incarnation; not that they were added
or supplementary to it; they were bound up with it.
572
Yet the view of Athanasius was not simply naturalistic; incorruptibleness rather
included the elements of goodness, love, and wisdom; a renewal affecting the inner
nature of man was also involved. Bu ac8 t it was not possible for Athanasius to expound
this systematically; therefore Schultz seems to me to have asserted too much (Gottheit
Christi, p. 80).
a man to live and work among us before we could see clearly and
certainly the God and Father of all.573
294
When Athanasius placed the knowledge of God side by side

with the deliverance from death, the transition was obtained from
the fact of redemption to the doctrine of the appropriation, and to
the explanation of the particular result, of the work of love done by
the Logos. This only benefited those who voluntarily appropriated
the divine knowledge made accessible by the incarnate Logos, and
who regulated their conduct by the standards and with the power
thus given them.574 In any case the transformation of the
573
The chief passages occur l. c., XIV-XVI., chap. XIV. fin: One might suppose that
the fitting way to know God was to recover our knowledge of him from the works of
creation. It is not so, for men are no longer capable of directing their gaze upward; they
look down. Therefore, when he seeks to benefit men, he takes up his dwelling among us
as man, and assumes a body like the human one, and instructs men within their own
lower sphere, i.e., through the works of the body, that those who would not perceive him
from his care for all and his rule might at least from the works of the body itself know the
Logos of God in the body, and through him the Father. C. 15:
.
, ,

, ,

, ,
, ,
. The sequel shows, indeed, that Athanasius thought
above all of Jesus miraculous works. He has summarised his whole conception of the
result of redemption in the pregnant sentence (ch. XVI.):
,
564
,
. Origen had already laid stress on the perception of God in Christ, and set it
above philosophical knowledge (analytic, synthetic, and analogical, against Alcinous,
Maximus of Tyre, and Celsus): see c. Cels. VII. 42, 44; De princip. I. 1. For Clement see
Protrept. I. 8: ,
, .
574
Parallel with this view and intertwined with it we undoubtedly have the other, that
eternal life is mystically appropriated by means of sacred rites and the holy food. In this
conception, which is extremely ancient, Christianity seems degraded to the level of the
abe nature-religions of the East or the Grco-oriental mysteries (see Schultz, Gottheit
Christi, p. 69). But as even the earliest Alexandrians (also Ignatius) constantly resolved
the naturalistic view into a spiritual and moral one, so also hardly any one of the
corruptible into the incorruptible (the Theopoiesis) remained under
this conception the ultimate and proper result of the work of the
Logos, being ranked higher than the other, the knowledge of
God.575 But here we find the greatest difference between
Athanasius and like-minded theologians on the one hand, and
Arius, the Eusebians, etc., on the other. The elements contained in
their views are the same; but the order is different. For these
conservative theologians saw the work of the Logos primarily in
the communication of the true and complete knowledge which
should be followed by a state of perfection. But Athanasius made
everything 295tend to this consummation as the restoration and the
communication of the divine nature. Accordingly, it was to him a
vital theological question how the incorruptible was constituted
which was represented in the Logos, and what kind of union it had
formed with the corruptible. But while he put the question he was
sure of the answer. His opponents, however, could not at all share
in his interest in this point, since their interest in Christ as the
supreme teacher did not lead them directly to define more precisely
the kind of heavenly manifestation which he represented even for
them. When they did give such definitions, they were influenced
by theoretical, or exegetical considerations, or were engaged in
refuting the propositions of their opponents by setting up others.
The Trinitarian and Christological problems which had
occupied the ancient Church for more than three centuries here rise
before us. That their decision was so long delayed, and only slowly
found a more general acceptance, was not merely due to outward
circumstances, such as the absence of a clearly marked tradition,
the letter of the Bible, or the politics of Bishops and Emperors. It
was, on the contrary, owing chiefly to the fact that large circles in
theologians of the following centuries can be named who would have purely and simply
defended the former.
575
See esp. Orat. c. Arian. II. 67-70, where the final designs of Athanasius
Christianity are revealed. It is at the same time to be noted that while redemption meant
restoration, it was the transference into a still higher grace. We experience all that was
done to the body of Christ. We are baptised, as Christ was in Jordan, we next received the
Holy Spirit, and so also our flesh has died, and been renewed, sanctified and raised to
eternal life in his resurrection. Accordingly, Athanasius sums up at the close of his work,
ch. 54: ,
.
, .
,
, ,
.
the Church felt the need of subordinating even the doctrine of
redemption to rational theology, or of keeping it within the
framework of moralism. The opposite conviction, that nature was
transformed through the incarnate Logos, resulted here and there in
a chaotic pantheism;576 but that was the least danger. The gravest
hindrance to the acceptance of the view of Athanasius consisted in
the paradoxical tenets which arose regarding the Deity and Jesus
Christ. Here his opponents found their strength; they were more
strongly supported by the letter of Scripture and tradition, as well
as by reason.
Supplement I.No subsequent Greek theologian answered the
question, why God became man, so decidedly and clearly as
Athanasius. But all Fathers of unimpeached orthodoxy followed in
his footsteps, and at the same time showed that his doctrinal
296ideas could only be held on the basis of Platonism. This is at
once clear in the case of Gregory of Nyssa, who in some points
strengthened the expositions given by Athanasius. Yet his model
was Methodius rather ac8 than Athanasius.577
Gregory sought, in the first place, to give a more elaborate
defence of the method of redemptionby means of the
incarnation,but in doing so he obscured Athanasius simple
combination of the incarnation and its effect. According to
Gregory, God is boundless might, but his might was never
divorced from goodness, wisdom, and righteousness. He next
shows in detail (Catech. magn. 17-26) against Jews and heathens
as Anselm did afterwardsthat the incarnation was the best
form of redemption, because the above four fundamental attributes
of God came clearly to light in it. Especially interesting in these
arguments is the emphasis laid on Gods treatment of those who
had passed over to his enemies, his respect for their freedom in
everything, and his redemption of men without wronging the devil,
their master, who possessed a certain claim upon them. This
account of the matter indeed had strictly an apologetic purpose.578
576
Not in Athanasius himselfKattenbusch says rightly (p. 299): The is
for A. an enhancement of human life physically and morally; his idea of it does not look
forward to man being pantheistically merged in God, but to the renewal of man after his
original type.
ad2 577See Vol. III., p. 104 ff.
578
The Apologetic argument also includes the treatment of the question, why the
redemption was not accomplished sooner. Apologists from Justin to Eusebius and
Athanasius had put it and attempted to answer it. Gregory also got rid of it by referring to
the physician who waits till illness has fully developed before he interferes (Catech.
magn., ch. 29 ff.).
In the second place, Gregory, while following Athanasius, still
more strongly identified the state from which God has delivered us
with death. The state of sin was death. He taught, with the
Neoplatonists, that God alone was Being. Therefore all revolt from
God to the sensuous, i.e., to not-being, was death. Natural death
was not the only death; it might rather mean deliverance from the
bonds of the body become brutal (l. c., ch. 8). Sensuousness was
death. In the third place, although he also saw the redemption in
the act of incarnation, Gregory held that it was not perfected until
the resurrection of Jesus. That is, he was more thoroughly
influenced than Athanasius by the conviction that the actual
redemption presupposed renunciation of the body. We are first
297redeemed, when we share in the resurrection which the human
nature assumed by Christ experienced through the resurrection (l.
c., ch. 16). The mystery of the incarnation only becomes clear in
this resurrection. The Deity assumed human nature, in order by this
union to exhaust, until it had wholly disappeared, that which was
liable to death in this nature, viz., evil. This result was only
perfected in the resurrection of the h ac8 uman nature of Christ; for
in it that nature was first shown completely purified and rendered
capable of being possessed of eternal life.579 In the fourth place,
Gregory was able to demonstrate the application of the incarnation
more definitely than Athanasius could with his figure of the king
and the city. But he does so by the aid of a thoroughly Platonic
idea which is only slightly suggested in Athanasius, and is not
really covered by a Biblical reference (to the two Adams; see
Irenus). Christ did not assume the human nature of an individual
person, but human nature. Accordingly, all that was human was
intertwined with the Deity; the whole of human nature became
divine by intermixture with the Divine. Gregory conceives this as a
strictly physical process: the leaven of the Deity has pervaded the
whole dough of humanity, through and in Christ; for Christ united
with himself the whole of human nature with all its
579
L. c., ch. 16. For, since our nature in its regular course changed also in him into the
separation of body and soul, he reunited that which had been divided by his divine power
as if by a kind of cement, and rejoined in an indissoluble union the severed parts (comp.
Irenus and Methodius). And that was the resurrection, viz., the return after dissolution
and division of the allies to an indissoluble union, both being so bound together, that
mans original state of grace was recalled, and we return to eternal life, after the evil
mingled with our nature has been removed by our dissolution (!); just as it happens with
liquids, which, the vessel being broken, escape and are lost, because there is nothing now
to hold them. But as death began in one man and from him passed to the whole of nature
and the human race, in the same way the beginning of the resurrection extended through
one man to the whole of humanity.
characteristics.580 This conception, which was based on the
Platonic universal 298notion humanity, differed from that of
Origen; but it also led to the doctrine of Apokatastasis
(universalism), which Gregory adopted. Meanwhile, in order to
counterbalance this whole mystical, i.e., physical, conception, he
emphasised the personal and spontaneous fulfilment of the law as a
condition, in the same way as the later Antiochenes. The perfect
fulfilment of the law was, however, according to Gregory, only
possible to ascetics.581
In the fifth place, Gregory set the sacraments in the closest
relation to the incarnation, recognising (l. c., ch. 33-40) Baptism
and the Lords Supper as the only means by which mortal man was
renewed and became immortal. It undoubtedly appears superfluous
to a rigorous thinker to require that something special should
happen to the individual when all mankind has been deified in the
humanity assumed by Christ. But the form given to his ideas by
Gregory was ac8 in keeping with the thought of his time, when
mysterious rites were held to portray and represent that which was
inconceivable. Sixthly, and lastly, Gregory gave a turn to the
thought of the incarnation in which justice was done to the boldest
conception of Origen, and the newest of the new was
subordinated to a cosmological and more general view. Origen had
already, following the Gnostics, taughtin connection with
Philipp. II. 10 and other textsthat the incarnation and sacrificial
death of Christ had an importance that went beyond mankind. The
work of Christ extended to wherever there were spiritual creatures;
wherever there was alienation from God, there was restoration
through Christ. He offered himself to the Father for angels and
ons (see Valentine). To all orders of spiritual beings he appeared
in their own shape. He restored harmony to the whole universe.
Nay, Christs blood was not only shed on earth at Jerusalem for
sin (pro peccato); but also for a gift on the high altar which is in
the heavens (pro munere in superno altari quod est in clis).582
Gregory took up this thought. The reconciliation and restitution
extend to all rational creation.583 Christ came down to all spiritual
580
See conclusion of the preceding note, and Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. sententias de
salute adipis., p. 16 ff. Underlying all the arguments of the: Great Catechism we have
the thought that the incarna ac8 tion was an actus medicinalis which is to be thought of as
strictly natural, and that extends to all mankind. See Dorner (Entwick.-Gesch. d. L. v. d.
Person Christi, I., p. 958 f.), who, besides, regards Gregorys whole conception as strictly
ethical.
581
See Herrmann, l. c., p. 2 sq.
582
Passages in Bigg, l. c. p. 212 f.
583
See . . ., p. 66 sq., ed. Oehler. Orat. cat. 26.
creatures, 299tures, and adopted the forms in which they lived, in
order to bring them into harmony with God:
,

.584 This thought, far from enriching the work of the
historical Christ, served only, a eb0 s in the case of the Gnostics, to
dissipate it. And, in fact, it was only as an apologist of Catholic
Christianity that Gregory held closely to the historical personality
of Christ. When he philosophised and took his own way, he said
little or nothing of the Christ of history.585 It is almost with him as
with Origen. He also reveals a supreme view of the world,
according to which that which alienates the Kosmos from God
forms part of its plan as much as that which restores it to him, the
Kosmos being, from its creation, full of God, and, because it is,
existing in God. The incarnation is only a particular instance of the
universal presence of the divine in creation. Gregory contributed to
transmit to posterity the pantheistic conception, which be himself
never thought out abstractly, or apart from history. A real affinity
existed between him and the pantheistic Monophysites, the
Areopagite, and Scotus Erigena, and even modern liberal
theology of the Hegelian shade may appeal to him. In the Great
Catechism (ch. XXV.), which was meant to defend the historical
act of the incarnation, he has an argument which is in this respect
extremely significant.586 The assumption of our nature by the
deity should, however, excite no well-founded surprise on the part
of those who view things ( ) with any breadth of mind, (not
too 300). For who is so weak in mind as not to believe
when he looks at the universe that the divine is in everything,
pervading and embracing it, and dwelling in it? For everything
depends on the existent, and it is impossible that there should be
anything not having its existence in that which is. Now, if all is in
584
Orat. in ascens. Christi in Migne T. XLVI., p. 693; on the other hand, Didymus (De
trinit. II. 7, ed. Mingarelli, p. 200):
, ,
, . Yet in other places he has expressed himself like Origen.
The latter was attacked by Jerome and Theophilus on account of this doctrine. The Synod
of Constantinople condemned it.
585
Compare the whole dialogue with Macrina on the soul an 562 d the resurrection,
where the historical Christ is quite overlooked.
586
To Athanasius also it was not unknown; see De incarn.41:
.
.
, .
..., c. 42.
it and it in all, why do they take offence at the dispensation of the
mystery taught by the incarnation of God, of him who, we are
convinced, is not even now outside of mankind? For if the form of
the divine presence is not now the same, yet we are as much agreed
that God is among us to-day as that he was in the world then. Now
he is united with us as the one who embraces nature in his being,
but then he had united himself with our being, that our nature,
snatched from death, and delivered from the tyranny of the
Adversary, might become divine through intermixture with the
divine. For his return from death was for the mortal race the
beginning of return to eternal life. The pantheistic theory of
redemption appeared in after times in two forms. In one of these
the work of the historical Christ was regarded as a particular
instance, or symbol, of the universal, purifying and sanctifying
operations continuously carried out through sanctifying media
the sacramentsby the Logos in combination with, as in their turn
on behalf of, the graded orders of supersensuous creatures; this
was the view of Dionysius the Areopagite. The other form of the
theory included in the very idea of the incarnation the union of the
Logos with those individual believing souls in whom he was well
pleased. The latter conception which was already prominent in
Methodius is especially marked in eb0 Macarius. In Homily IV.
e.g., (ch. 8, 9), his first words lead us to expect an exposition of the
one historical incarnation. Instead of that we read: Thus in his
love the infinite, inscrutable God humbled himself and assumed
the members of our bodily nature . . . and transformed in love and
benevolence to men he incorporates and unites himself with the
holy and faithful souls in whom he is well pleased, etc. In each a
Christ is born.587
587 ac6
A third form of the pantheistic conception of the incarnation can be perceived in
the thesis, that the humanity of Christ was heavenly; in other words, that the Logos had
always borne humanity in himself, so that his body was not of later origin than his
divinity. This Gnostic view, which, however, is not necessarily pantheistic, had
supporters, e.g., in Corinth in the time of Athanasius, who himself opposed it. (Ep. ad
Epictetum Corinth.: see Epiphan.. p. 77, c. Dimoeritas). They said that the body born of
Mary was , ,
. They taught, accordingly, that humanity
itself sprang from the Logos; he had for the purpose of his manifestation formed for
himself by metamorphosis a body capable of suffering. He had, therefore, on one side of
his being given up his immutability, departed from his own nature (
) and transformed himself into a sensuous man. The point of interest here was the
perfect unity of Christ. Those whom Hilary opposed (De trinit. X. 15 sq.) did not
maintain the heavenly and eternal humanity of the Logos. On the other hand, this thesis
occurs in Apollinaris, in whom, however, it is not to be explained pantheistically,
301
The thought that Christ assumed the general concept of

humanity occurs, though mingled with distinctive ideas, in Hilary,
who was dependent on Gregory.588 We find it also in Basil,589
Ephrm,590 Apollinaris,591 Cyril of Alexandria, etc. Throughout
these writers the conception is clearly marked that in Christ our
nature is sanctified and rendered divine, that what it has
experienced benefits us, as a matter of course, in our 302individual
capacity, and that we in a very real way have risen with Christ.
Even in the Antiochenes passages occur which are thus to be
interpretedexegesis led them to this view;592 but they exist, so
far as I know, even in Chrysostom,593 and they are so phrased in
general as to show that according to them this suffering and dying
with Christ, as an independent fact, was not merely a
although pantheistic inferences can hardly be averted. The heavenly humanity of Christ is
also opposed by Basil in Ep. ad Sozopol. (65); it re-emerged in the circles of the most
extreme Monophysites; but it was at the same time openly affirmed there by Stephen Bar
Sudaili: everything is of one nature with God; all nature is consubstantial with the
divine essence (Assem., Biblioth. II, 30, 291); see Dorner, l. c., II., p. 162 f., and
Frothingham, Stephen Bar Sudaili (1886) who has printed, p. 28 sq., the letter of Xenaias
which warns against the heresy that assimilates the creation to God. Finally, a kind of
subtilised form of this phenomenon is found in the old-catholic conception, that the Son
of God came down to men immediately after the Fall, that he repeatedly dwelt among
them, and thus accustomed himself to his future manifestation (see Irenus conception,
Vol. II., p. 236). In the later Fathers, when they were not writing, apologetically, this old
conception does not, so far as I know, occur often, or, it is very strictly distinguished
from the incarnation; see, e.g., Athan., Orat. III. 30.
acc 588See, e.g., Hilary, Tract. in Ps. LI, ch. 16: Ut et filius hominis esset filius dei,
naturam in se univers carnis assumpsit, per quam effectus vera vitis genus in se
univers propaginis tenet. Ps. LIV. ch. 9: Universitatis nostr caro est factus. Other
passages are given in Dorner, Entw-Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I., p. 1067, and
Ritschl, l. c., I. p. 15.
589
Hom. 25, T. I. p. 504 sq. This exposition coincides completely with Gregorys
thought.
590
Dorner, l. c., p. 961.
591
>Dorner, l. c., the . See besides the passage given in Vol. II.,
p. 223, n. 1.
592
See Theodore on Rom. VI. 6: ,
,
,
, ac8
.
593
Frster, Chrysostomus, p. 126 ff.
supplementary condition of the actual union with Christ, but the
only form in which it was accomplished. In them the general
concept of humanity does not occur; accordingly, the humanity of
Christ is conceived much more concretely. He is really a fighting,
striving man who reaches victory through free-will.594 As this man
himself is united morally with the deity, the moral elem e98 ent
must never be left out of account in our union with him. But in so
far as the incarnation of Christ produces a new state (Katastasis),
one not included in the plan of humanity, it undoubtedly results in
our glorification, a state not involved in the moral element per se.
When we come to John of Damascus we no longer find any
definitive conception of the incarnation. The clear intention
assigned to it by Athanasius has escaped him; even of the ideas of
Gregory of Nyssa only a part, and that the apologetic part, are
reproduced (De fide Orth. III. 1, 6). At this point also the attempt
to unite the Aristotelian tradition of the school of Antioch with the
Alexandrian only led to a combination of fragments. Yet the
sentence, Christ did not come to this or that one, but to our
common nature,595 never wholly became a dead letter in the
Greek Church. But everything taught in that Church as to the
incarnation is already to be found either developed, or in germ, in
Irenus; not the simple exposition of Athanasius, but a mixture of
the thought of the historical 303with that of the mystical
redemption, is to be traced in the majority of the Fathers. It is the
Christ in us, the cosmical Christ, as we already saw in Methodius.
Supplement II.Those Fathers, and they were in the majority,
who found the cause of the incarnation in the intention of God to
rehabilitate the human race, knew of no necessity for the
incarnation apart from the entrance of sin. While they almost all
explained that what Christ conferred was more and greater than
what man had lost, yet they did not use this idea in their
speculations, and they attached as a rule no special significance to
it. But even Irenus had also looked at the incarnation as the final
and supreme means of the divine economy by which God
gradually brought the original creation, at first necessarily
imperfect, to completion.596 Where this idea occurred, it also
involved the other, that Christ would have come even if there had
been no sin. Accordingly, those Fathers who laid no special stress
on sin, seeing it appeared to them to be more or less natural, and
who conceived redemption rather as a perfecting than restitution,
594
See Kihn, Theodor., p. 180 ff.
595
, .
596
See Vol. II., p. 272, 307; the thought is not wanting in Tertullian.
maintained the necessity of the incarnation even apart from sin: so
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pelagius and others.597 The incarnation
was regarded by them as forming the basis of the life in which man
is raised above his nature and common virtue, that is, the ascetic
and angelic life. Clement of Alex., starting from quite different
premises, expressed the same thought. Abstinence from evil was
the perfection that had been attained even by Greeks and Jews; on
the other hand, the perfect Gnostic, only possible after the
complete revelation of the Logos, found perfection in the ascetic
life of intuition, a life resting on faith, hope, and love. f54 598
Therefore in order to institute this life, the complete revelation of
the Logos was required; it was unnecessary to bring sin into the
question. However, the proposition that Christ would have come
even if Adam had not sinned was, so far as I know, bluntly
asserted by no Greek theologian; the combination of Adam and
Christ in the Bible stood in the way.
Supplement III.On the ground of Biblical texts like Matt.
304XXV. 24, Eph. I. 3-5, 11, II. Tim. I. 8-10, the Greeks have also
spoken (e.g., Athan. c. Arian. II. 75-77) of an election of believers
in Christ before the foundation of the world, and of the decree of
redemption framed by God, with reference already to sin, before
the creation. Athanasius even says that our future eternal life in
Christ is conditioned by the fact that our life was founded on Christ
even before time was. But the idea of predestination, like the
thought that Christ is the head of his Church, is confined to the
lines of a Biblical doctrine, which for that very reason is true.
Neither the doctrine of the work of Christ, nor of the appropriation
of his work, is influenced by those conceptions. As a rule,
however, the idea of predestination takes the form that God having
foreseen mens attainments in virtue elected them. This version is
especially clear in the school of Antioch, and even enters into their
Christology; but it is the opposite of what Paul meant.
Appendix to Chapter VI. The Ideas of Redemption

from the Devil, and of Atonement through the Work of
the God-Man
305
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.
597
See Dorner, l. c. II., p. 432 ff. Kihn, Theodor., p. 179 f.
598
Strom. VI. 7, 60.
THE IDEAS OF REDEMPTION FROM THE DEVIL,
AND OF ATONEMENT THROUGH THE WORK OF
THE GOD-MAN.
1. Christs Death as Ransom and Sacrifice.

THE Greek Fathers did not go beyond, nor could they give a
more consistent form to, the views on this subject already
expounded by Irenus and Origen.599 The fact of the incarnation
was so closely and exclusively connected, at least in the East, with
the conception of the result of redemption, that everything else had
to yield in importance to the latter. Of course at all times and in all
directions the attempt was made, after the example of Irenus and
the indications of Holy Scripture, to insert the facts of Jesus
history in the work of redemption. This can be seen especially in
Athanasius and the two CyrilsWhatever happened to his
humanity has happened to us. Again, the death of Christ was
frequently recalled when the forgiveness of sins was taken into
account; but it is difficult here to draw the line between exegesis,
rhetoric, and dogmatics. As a rule, we obtain the impression that
theology could have dispensed with all the facts of Chr 1590 ists
life.600 On the other hand, the death of Christ always appeared so
tragic and wonderful an event, that men were compelled to
attribute a special 306saving value to it. But just as it was not
represented in art up to the fifth century, so the majority of the
Greeks really regarded it, along with Christs whole passion, as a
sacred mystery, and that not only in the intellectual sense. Here
thought yielded to emotion, and imposed silence on itself. Goethe
said towards the close of his life, We draw a veil over the
sufferings of Christ simply because we revere them so deeply; we
hold it to be reprehensible presumption to play and trifle with and
embellish those profound mysteries in which the divine depths of
suffering lie hidden, never to rest until even the noblest seems
mean and tasteless. That exactly represents the Greek feeling. It
also gives the key to the saying of Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat.
XXVII. 10) that the appreciation of the sufferings of Christ was
one of those points on which it was possible to make a mistake
599
Se ac5 e Vol. II., pp. 286 ff., 365 ff.
600
The two Cappadocians doubted, not without reserve, the necessity of Christs
death. G. of Nazianzus says that the divine Logos could also have redeemed us
, and G. of Nyssa (Orat. cat. 17) thought that the method of redemption was to be
considered as arbitrary as the remedies of physicians. In other places, indeed, they
expressed themselves differently, and Athanasius connected the death of Christ closely
with the incarnation (see above).
with impunity (cf. Iren. I. 10). By this he meant, not only that the
specific result of the passion was uncertain, but also that it was
inexpressible.601 It was reserved for the Middle Ages and our
modern times to cast off all modesty and reverence here.
Yet a few theologians and exegetes could not refrain from
speculating about the death of Christ, though they did not yet use
frivolous arithmetical sums. The death of Christ was, in the first
place, connected, following Rom. VIII. 3, with the condemnation
of sindeathin the flesh ( (
) ). That constituted the strongest connection of
Ensarkosis (embodiment in the flesh), death, resurrection, and
redemption, reached within the Greek Church. In Christs final
agony the Ensarkosis first came to some extent to its end, for by
death the flesh was purified from sin and mortality, and was
presented in Christs resurrection pure, holy, and incorruptible.
This thought was worked out in various ways by Athanasius,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as, especially,
by Apollinaris.602 But in later times the conception of the complete
hypostatic union forbade the vanquishing 307of corruption ()
and death being dated a moment later than the assumption of
human nature. Therefore it was held that Christ had even at the
incarnation destroyed corruption and death (the penalty of sin)
from the flesh; but his death was wholly voluntary and economic.
In the second place Irenus had already, in a connected
argument, emphasised the necessity of tracing the incarnation of
the Logos and his passion to the goodness and righteousness of
God, and he further insisted that Christ had delivered us not from a
state of infirmity, but from the power of the devil, redeeming those
estranged from God, and unnaturally imprisoned, not by force, but
with due regard to justice. Origen, however, was the first to explain
the passion and death of Christ with logical precision under the
points of view of ransom and sacrifice. With regard to the former
he was the first to set up the theory that the devil had acquired a
legal claim on men, and therefore to regard the death of Christ (or
his soul) as a ransom paid to the devil. This Marcionite doctrine of
price and barter was already supplemented by Origen with the
assumption of an act of deceit on the part of God. It was, in spite of
an energetic protest, taken up by his disciples, and afterwards
carried out still more offensively. It occurs in Gregory of Nyssa
601
See the great importance laid already by Justin on the Cross, an importance which
it still has for the piety of the Greek Church.
602
Apollinaris who was the strictest dogmatist of the fourth century, substantially
limited the significance of Christs death, so far as I know, to this effect.
who (Catech. 15-27), in dealing with the notion of God, treats it
broadly and repulsively. We find it in Ambrose, who speaks of the
pia fraus, in Augustine and Leo I. It assumes its worst form in
Gregory I.: the humanity of Christ was the bait; the fish, the devil,
snapped at it, and was left hanging on the invisible hook, Christs
divinity. It proves that the Fathers had gradually lost any fixed
conception of the holiness and righteousness of God; but on the
other hand, it expresses the belief that the devils power will not
first be broken by the future appearing of Christ, but has been
already shattered by his death. In this sense it is 1ad4 the epitaph of
the old dogmatics which turned on eschatology.603 For the rest,
Gregory of Nazianus604 308and John of Damascus felt scruples
about admitting God and the devil to have been partners in a legal
transaction.
With reference to the sacrifice of Christ, Origen was of epoch-
making importance. On the one hand, he started from Rom. III. 25
and similar texts, on the other, he was strongly influenced by the
Grco-oriental expiatory mysteries, and was the first to introduce
into the Church, following the precedent set by the Gnostics, a
theology of sacrifice or propitiation based on the death of Christ.
He thereby enriched, but at the same time confused, Greek
theology. He taught that all sins required a holy and pure sacrifice
in order to be atoned for, in other words, to be forgiven by God;
this sacrifice was the body of Christ, presented to the Father. This
thought which, as expounded, approximates to the idea of a
vicarious suffering of punishment, was adopted by Athanasius who
combined it with the other ideas that Gods veracity required the
threat of death to be carried out, and that death accordingly was
accepted by Christ on behalf of all, and by him was destroyed.605
603
Irenus held that men were Gods debtors, but in the power (unjustly) of the devil.
Origen held a different view. The devil had a claim on men, and Christ paid him his soul
as the price, but the devil could not keep it. The devil acted unjustly to Christ, he was not
entitled to take possession of one who was sinless; see passages given in Mnscher, p.
428 ff. Leo I, following Ambrose, gives the deception theory in a crude form.
acb 604
See Ullman, Gregor, p. 318 f.
605
De incarnat. 9: ,
, , ,
,
, ,
,

, ,
. We
The idea that only the sacrificial death of God could vanquish
death which was decreed by him, and thus conciliate God, occurs
also 309in other Greek Fathers of the fourth century.606 Following
the estimate formed of the infinite value of the final passion of the
God-man,607 we constantly find in them also traces, sometimes
more, sometimes less, distinct, of the thought of substitution in
connection with satisfaction; but it remains obscure,608 nay, it is
frequently again withdrawn. In other words, it was sometimes
twisted, as already in Irenus, into the idea of example pure and
simple. Thus the Antiochene school especially, who held his death
to have been a natural event, considered that Christs final passion
influenced our freely-formed resolutions, but this version is not
entirely wanting in any Greek Father. Others, e.g., Gregory of
Nazianzus, explained that God did not demand the sacrificeor
ransombut received it .609 In this case, as much as
in earlier times, meant that the Scriptures might be
fulfilled; that is, it was tantamount to abandoning a direct
explanation of the fact itself. In any case Cyril of Alexandria
shows most clearly the vicarious idea of the passion and death of
the God-man in connection with the whole Christological
conception.610 Eusebius 310method of formulating the idea comes
see how the conceptions of the vicarious endurance of punishment, and of a sacrifice,
meet here; indeed, generally speaking, it was difficult to keep them apart. Athanasius
throughout lays greater stress on the former; Origen, as a Hellenist, on the latter; see
Athan., l. c., 6-10, but esp. Ch. XX: . . .
, ,
. . .

. ,
564 , , c. Arian. I. 60, II. 7, 66
sq.
606
See esp. Cyril, Catech. XIII. 33, but also the Cappadocians; cf. Ullmann, l. c., p.
316 ff.
607
Even Cyril of Jerusalem says, l. c.: ,
. ,
. Similarly Chrysostom in the Ep.
ad Rom., Hom. 10, T. X., p. 121. But the idea is emotional, and not the starting-point of a
philosoph ac8 ical theory. It is different with the Westerns.
608
The expiation of our guilt is more infrequently thought of than the taking over of
sins punishment; that is guilt is only indirectly referred to.
609
See Ullmann, l. c., p. 319.
610
The idea of sacrifice falls into the background, which was only to be expected in
the case of this energetic spokesman of genuine Greek Christian theology. Substitution
passed naturally into, or rather grew out of, the idea of mystical mediation. Because all
nearest Pauls, but it is only a paraphrase;611 and the inability of
theologians to recognise, expose and dispute the differences in
their divergent conceptions is the strongest proof that they were not
clearly aware of the bearing and weight of their own propositions.
2. Christ as man the Mediator.
The West, which had a scheme of its own in Christology, (see
below) also possessed characteristic features in its conception of
the work of Christ.612 Here, as in almost all departments of activity
in the Latin Church, it was of the highest moment that Tertullian,
the jurist, and Cyprian, the ecclesiastical ruler, were the first Latin
theologians. Disinclined for philosophical and strictly religious
speculation, and dominated by a prosaic but powerful moralism,
the Latins were possessed from the first of an impulse to carry
religion into the legal sphere. The sacred authorities, or the
Symbol, were regarded as the law (lex) of God; divine service
was the place where the censure of God was pronounced; the deity
was thought of as judge. Father, Son, and Spirit were held to be
person who possessed a common property (substantia not
2078 natura). Christ as the persona who controlled a two-fold
property, one inherited from his Father (his divinity) and one
from his mother (his humanity). Christ required to be obedient to
God, andas Tertullian first said613 and Cyprian repeatedhad to
satisfy God (deo satisfacere).614 In this phrase everything was
comprised: manthe Christianwas to give God that which he
owed him, i.e., he was to satisfy Gods legal claims. After this
came the promereri deum, i.e., rendering services to God,
human nature was purified and transfigured really and physically in Christ, he could,
regarded as an individual, be conceived as substitute or ; see Cyril on John I.
29 and Gal. III. 13. Meanwhile Cyril also says that Christ outweighed all in merit. For the
rest, he does not venture to affirm that Christ became a curse, but explains that he
endured what one burdened with a curse must suffer. Compare also the exposition in the
Orat. de recta fide ad reginas (Mansi IV., p. 809). The points of voluntariness and
substitution were emphasised more strongly by orthodox theologians after Cyril, in order
not to compromise the perfectly hypostatic deificationfrom the moment of the
incarnationof Christs human nature.
611
Demonstr. X. 1: ,
, 55f ,
. . .
, .
612
See fuller details in next book. Here we only give a sketch. Comp. Wirth, Der
verdienstbegriff bei Tertullian, 1892.
613
See Vol. II., p. 294.
614 aca
This notion was afterwards one of the most common in the West.
gaining Gods favour by our merits. But in Tertullian 311and
Cyprian satisfacere deo meant more precisely to atone for
wrongs inflicted on God by acts of penitence, and to appease him
(placare deum, satisfacere deo per hostias: Arnobius). Further
promereri was applied above all to bona opera, works (fasting)
and alms-giving (Cypr., De oper. et eleemos.). Even from the
middle of the third century an ecclesiastical system was drawn out
in the Latin West of works to be rendered to God (order of
penance);615 and this system gradually took in, like a net, all mans
relations to God. It was throughout governed by the idea that the
magnitude of transgressions and that of the works rendered to God,
the penitential offerings, were to have a strictly legal relation, and,
similarly, that what a mans merits entitled him to from God had a
fixed and regulated value. It is not the case, as has been supposed,
that this idea first arose in the Church in the Romano-German
period, and is therefore to be described as a result of German
criminal law. On the contrary, the idea of satisfactiones and merita
already belonged in its entirety to the Roman age, and during it
was strictly worked out. From the days of Tertullian and Cyprian
the Latins were familiar with the notion that the Christian had to
propitiate God, that cries of pain, sufferings, and deprivations were
means, sacrificial means, of expiation, that God took strict account
of the quantity of the atonement, and that, where there was no guilt
to be blotted out, those very means were represented as merits. All
those trivial definitions, which betray a low state of legal and
moral views, and which one would gladly attribute to barbarous
nations, had become the property of the Church before the
incursion of the Germans; and Anselms principle, Every sin must
be followed either by satisfaction or punishment,616 can be
already shown in Sulpicius Severus,617 and corresponds to the
thought of Cyprian and his successors.618
312
But Cyprian also applied the satisfacere deo to Christ

himself. As in the Middle Ages the most questionable
consequences of the theory and practice of penance reacted on the
conception of Christs work, so from the time of Cyprian the latter
was influenced by the view taken of human acts of penitence. His
suffering and death constituted a sacrifice presented by Christ to
615
It occurs already in Tertullian; but we do not yet perceive its full extent in the
Church in his time; it has not even the full significance that it possesses in Cyprian.
616
Necesse est ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut pna sequatur.
617
See Sulp. Sev., Dial. II. 10: Fornicatio deputetur ad pnam, nisi satisfactione
purgetur.
618
For fuller details see a later Vol.
God in order to propitiate him. This thought, started by Cyprian,
was never afterwards lost sight of in the West. The angry God
whom it was necessary to propitiate and of whom the Greeks knew
so little, became more and more familiar in the West. Jewish and
Pauline traditions here joined with those of Roman law. Hilary is
especially clear in combining the sacrifice of Christ with the
removal of guilt and of punishment.619 This combination was
repeated by Ambrose,620 Augustine, and the great popes of
antiquity;621 least certainly, perhaps, by Augustine, 313who being a
Neoplatonic philosopher and profound Christian thinker, was also
familiar with other and more productive points of view.622 The
distinctive nature, however, of this Latin view of the work of
Christ, as the propitiation of an angry God by a sacrificial death,
was characteristically expressed in the firmly established thought
that Christ performed it as man, therefore, by means, not of his
619
On Ps. LIII. 12: passio suscepta voluntarie est, officio ipsa satisfactura pnali;
Ch. 13: maledictorum se obtulit morti, ut maledictionem legis solveret, hostiam se
ipsum voluntarie offerendo. Along with this Hilary has the mystical realistic theory of
the Greeks.
620
A few passages are given in Frster, Ambrosius, pp. 136 ff., 297 f. The redimere a
culpa is for Ambrose the decisive point. In his work De incarn. dom. he is never tired of
answering the question as to the motive of the incarnation with the phrase: ut caro, qu
peccaverat, redimeretur, frequently adding a culpa He also uses very often the word
offerre (applied to the death of Christ). In Ps. XLVIII., exp. 17, we read: qu major
misericordia quam quod pro nostris flagitiis se prbuit immolandum, ut sanguine suo
mundum levaret, cuius peccatum nullo alio modo potuisset aboleri. See Deutsch, Des
Ambrosius Lehre von der Snde und Sndentilgung, 1867.
621
There are many striking passages in Leo I. in which death is described as an
expiatory sacrifice which blots out guilt. See, further, Gregory ac8 I., Moral. XVII. 46:
delenda erat culpa, sed nisi per sacrificium deleri non poterat. Qurendum erat
sacrificium, sed quale sacrificium poterat pro absolvendis hominibus inveniri? Neque
etenim iustum fuit, ut pro rationali homine brutorum animalium victim cderentur . . .
Ergo requirendus erat homo . . . qui pro hominibus offerri debuisset, ut pro rationali
creatura rationalis hostia mactaretur. Sed quid quod homo sine peccato inveniri non
poterat, et oblata pro nobis hostia quando nos a peccato inundate potuisset, si ipsa hostia
peccati contagio non careret? Ergo ut rationalis esset hostia, homo fuerat offerendus: ut
vero a peccatis mundaret hominem, homo et sine peccato. Sed quis esset sine peccato
homo, si ex peccati commixtione descenderet. Proinde venit propter nos in uterum
virginis filius dei, ibi pro nobis factus est homo. Sumpta est ab illo natura, non culpa.
Fecit pro nobis sacrificium, corpus suum exhibuit pro peccatoribus, victimam sine
peccato, qu et humanitate mori et iustitia mundare potuisset.
622
Whatever occurs in Ambrose is to be found also in Augustine; for the latter has not,
so far as I know, omitted to use a single thought of the former; he only adds something
new.
divine, but of his human attributes.623 The Latins were shut up to
this conclusion. Their views regarding the work of Christ had been
influenced by the works of penance enjoined by the Church, and
on the other hand, the latter owed their value to the voluntary
acceptance of suffering. Again, sacrifices in general were
something humanGod does not render, but receives sacrifices.
Finally, mankind was in Gods debt. From all this it necessarily
followed that Christ in presenting himself as a sacrifice did so as
man. But with this conclusion the Latins severed themselves from
the supreme and final interests of Greek pietyfor this rather
required that the deity should have assumed with human nature all
the passiones of the latter and made them its own. If the rigid
Greek conception, 314which, indeed, in after times was full of gaps
and inconsistencies, represent 25bc ed Christs sufferings as a
whole to be not voluntary, but the complete acceptance of the
Ensarkosis (life in the flesh), yet God is always the subject.624 On
623
See Ambrose, De fide III. 5: Idem igitur sacerdos, idem et hostia, et sacerdotium
tamen et sacrificium human condicionis officium est. Nam et agnus ad immolandum
ductus est et sacerdos erat secundum ordinem Melchisedech. This thought recalls
Cyprian, although Ambrose has hardly taken it from him; Cypr. Ep. LXIII. 14: Christus
Iesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium patri se
ipsum obtulit. The same idea is repeated in contents and form, but rendered more
profound, by Augustine (Confess. X. 68, 69, see Ritschl, l. c., I., p. 38): In quantum
enim homo, in tantum mediator; in quantum autem verbum, non medius, quia qualis
deo . . . pro nobis deo victor et victor et victima, et ideo victor quia victima; pro nobis deo
sacerdos et sacrificium; et ideo sacerdos quia sacrificium; see De civi 564 t. dei IX. 15:
Nec tamen ab hoc mediator est, quia verbum, maxime quippe immortale et maxime
beatum verbum longe est a mortalibus miseris; sed mediator per quod homo.
Accordingly, not only was that which Christ presented in sacrifice human Ambrose,
De incarn. VI.: ex nobis accepit quod proprium offeret pro nobis . . . sacrificium de
nostro obtulit; but Christ as priest and mediator was man. He had to represent man, and
that again only a man could do. Very pregnant is the sentence of Ambrose (in Luc. exp.
IV. 7) ut quia solvi non queunt divina decreta, persona magis quam sententia mutaretur.
That is the genuine idea of substitution. Ambrose does not even shrink from saying quia
peccata nostra suscepit, peccatum dictus est (Expos. in Ps. CXIX., X. 14).
624
The subtle distinction between East and West is accordingly to be defined as
follows. Both held that the human nature of Christ suffered, for the divine was incapable
of suffering; but the East taught that the deity suffered through the human nature ac8
which he had made his own, the West that the man suffered and presented his human
nature as a sacrifice in death; the latter, however, obtained an infinite value, for the deity
was associated with it. From this we have two consequences. First, the idea of
substitution could take root on Greek ground only superficially, and in an indefinite form;
for the dying God-man really represented no one, but rather received all really into the
plenitude of his divinity; it was different in the West. Secondly, the method of computing
the whole, therefore, the conception of sacrifice is really alien in
the view of the Greeks to the strict theory of Christs significance.
It found its way in through exegesis and the mysteries, and
threatened the compactness of the dogmatic conception, according
to which everything that Christ did was summed up in the
complete assumptio carnis (assumption of the flesh). Nor was the
alien view able to shake the fundamental conception that the God-
Logos was the subject in all that pertained to Christ. Among the
Latins, on the other hand, the idea of the atoning sacrifice plus
substitution is genuine, and has no general theory 315against it; for
they never were able to rise perfectly to the contemplation of
Christs work as the assumptio carnis, an expression of the loftiest
piety among the Greeks. Those of the latter who, like the
Antiochenes, either did not share or only imperfectly shared the
realistic idea of redemption, referred, it is worth remarking, the
work of Christ, like the Latins, to the human side of his
personality.625
the value of Christs mortal agony could similarly find no footing in the East; for the
deity was the subject of the transaction, and precluded all questioning and computing.
The striking utterances of Orientals as to the supreme value of Christs work are really
therefore only rhetorical (see above). If, on the other hand, the means of atonement under
discussion, and the substitution are human, the question, of course, arises what value
these possess, or what value is lent them by the divinity that is behind this sacrifice and
this priest. We must take the statements of the Latin Fathers more literally. Ambrose
confesses Felix ruina qu reparatur in melius and Amplius nobis profuit culpa quam
nocuit: in quo redemptio quidem nostra divinum munus invenit. Facta est mihi culpa mea
merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Christus advenit . . . Fructuosior culpa quam
innocentia; innocentia arrogantem me feceratand here indeed the paradox becomes
nonsensicalculpa subjectum reddidit. (Numerous passages are given in Deutsch, l. c.,
see also Frster, l. c., pp. 136, 297). Augustine often repeats and varies this thought, and
other Western writers reproduce it from him. Felix culpa qu tantum et talem meruit
habere redemptorem. Lastly, Leo L preaches (Serm. LXI. 3): validius donum factum
est libertatis, quam debitum servitutis. Sayings like these, apart from the special
pleading in which Western writers have always delighted since Tertullian, are to be taken
much more seriously than if they had come from the East. And in fact momentous
speculations were certainly instituted by them.
625
An affinity exists between the theology of the Antiochenes and Latinsesp. pre-
Augustinian; but it is greater to a superficial than to a more exact observer. The
Antiochene conception always had the Alexandrian for a foil; it never eman 6a2 cipated
itself sufficiently from the latter to set up a perfectly compact counter-theology; it was in
a sense Greek piety and Greek theology watered down. The Latins did not possess this
foil. Their theology must not be gauged by Origen and Neoplatonism as if they furnished
its starting-point.
Great as are the distinctions herethe West did not possess in
antiquity a definite dogmatic theory as to the atoning work of
Christ. Greek views exerted their influence;626 and, besides,
Western Christians were not yet disposed, with a very few
exceptions, to trouble themselves with thoughts that had no bearing
on practical life.
Appendix on Manichism
316
APPENDIX ON MANICHISM.
THREE great religious systems confronted each other in
Western Asia and Southern Europe from the close of the third
century: Neoplatonism, Catholicism and Manichism. All three
may be characterised as the final results of a history, lasting for
more than a thousand years, of the religious development of the
civilised peoples from Persia to Italy. In all three the old national
and particular character of religions was laid aside; they were
world-religions of the most universal tendency, and making
demands which in their consequences transformed the whole of
human life, public and private. For the national cultus they
substituted a system which aspired to be theology, theory of the
universe and science of history, and at the same time embraced a
definite ethics, and a ritual of divine service. Formally, therefore,
the three religions were alike, and they were also similar in that
each had appropriated the elements of different older religions.
Further, they showed their similarity in bringing to the front the
ideas of revelation, redemption, ascetic virtue, and immortality.
But Neoplatonism was natural religion spiritualised, the
polytheism of Greece transfigured by Oriental influences and
developed into pantheism. Catholicism was the monotheistic
world-religion based on the O. T. and the Gospel, but constructed
by the aid of Hellenic speculation and ethics. Manichism was the
dualistic world-religion resting on Chaldism,627 but interspersed
with Christian, Parsi, and perhaps Buddhist thoughts. To
626
So from Hilary down to Augustine. The most important of the Western Fathers
accepted the Greek idea of the purchase from the devil, although it flatly contradicted
their own doctrine of the atonement; and this proves how uncertain they were. The
grotesque conception of the role played by the devil at the death of Christ, had
nevertheless something good about it. It reminded men that every knave is a stupid devil,
and that the devil is always a stupid knave.
627
See Brandt, Die mandische Religion, 1889 (further, Wellhausen in the deutsch.
Litt.-Ztg., 1890, No. 41).
Manichism the Hellenic element was wanting, to Catholicism the
Chaldee and Persian. These three world-religions 317developed in
the course of two centuries (c. A.D. 50-250), Catholicism coming
first and Manichism last. Catholicism and Manichism were
superior to Neoplatonism for the very reason that the latter
possessed no founder; it, therefore, developed no elemental force,
and never lost the character of being an artificial creation.
Attempts which were made to invent a founder for it naturally
failed. But, even apart from the contents of its religion,
Catholicism was superior to Manichism, because its founder was
venerated not merely as the bearer of revelation, but as the
Redeemer in person and the Son of God. The fight waged by
Catholicism with Neoplatonism had been already decided about
the middle of the fourth century, although the latter continued to
hold its ground in the Greek Empire for almost two centuries
longer. As against Manichism the Catholic Church was certain of
victory from the beginning; for at the moment when Manichism
disputed its supremacy, it became the privileged State Church. But
its opponent did not suffer itself to be annihilated; it lasted till far
into the Middle Ages in East and West, though in various
modifications and forms.
Authorities(a) Oriental.
1. Mohammedan.Among our sources for the history of
Manichism the Oriental are the most important; of these the
Mohammedan, though comparatively late, are distinguished by the
excellence of the tradition and their impartiality, and must be given
the first place, since in them old Manichan writings are
employed, and we possess no other originals of this sort belonging
to the third century, except a few short and rather unimportant
fragments. At the head stands Abulfaragius, Fihrist (c. 980), see
the edition by Flgel and the work of the latter: Mani, seine Lehre
und seine Schriften, 1862; further, Shahrastni , Kitb al-milal
wan-nuhal (12th century), see edition by Cureton and German
translation by Haarbrcker, 1851; some notes and extracts in
Tabari (10th century), al-Birun (11th century), Ibn al-Murtada (see
Kessler, Mani, I., p. 346 ff.), and other Arabian and Persian
historians.
2. Christian.Of Eastern Christians we learn most from
318Ephraem Syrus (+373) in various writings, and in a tractate on
the subject edited by Overbeck; from Esnk, the Armenian (see
Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1840, II.; Langlois, Collection, etc., II.,
p. 395 sq.), who wrote in the fifth century against Marcion and
Mani; and from the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius (+916) who
composed a chronicle (ed. by Pococke, 1628). Besides this,
separate pieces of information occur in Aphraates (4th century),
Barhebraeus (Arab. and Syr. 13th century) and others.
(b) Greek and Latin.
The earliest mention of the Manichans in the Roman or Greek
empire occurs in an edict of Diocletian (see Hnel, Cod. Gregor.
tit. XV.), which is held by some not to be genuine, and by others is
dated A.D. 287, 290, 296, or 308 (so Mason, The Persec. of
Dioclet., p. 275 sq.). Eusebius gives a brief account (H. E. VII. 31).
The main authority, however, for Greek and Roman writers was
the Acta Archelai, which though not what they pretended to be,
namely, an account of a disputation between Mani and Bishop
Archelaus of Cascar in Mesopotamia, yet contain much that is
reliable, esp as to the doctrine of Mani, and also embrace
Manichan fragments. The Acts, which for the rest consist of
various documents, originated at the beginning of the fourth
century (in Edessa?). Jerome maintains (De vir. inl.72) that they
were originally composed in Syria (so also Kessler); but Nldeke
(Ztschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. vol. 43, p. 537 ff.) and
Rahlfs have disproved Kesslers arguments (Gtt. Gel. Anz., 1889,
No. 23). They have made it very probable that the Acts, while they
may have been based on Syrian sources, were originally written in
Greek. They were soon afterwards translated into Latin. We only
possess this version (Edited by Zacagni, 1698; Routh, Reliq. S.
Vol. V., 1848); of the Greek version small fragments have been
preserved (see on the Acta Archelai the discussions by Zittwitz in
the Zeitschr. f. die histor. Theol., 1873, and the Dissertation by
Oblasinski. Acta disp. Arch. et Manetis, 1874. In the form in which
we now have them, they are a compilation largely edited on the
pattern of the Clementine Homilies). The 319Acta were made use
of by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. VI.), Epiphanius (Hr. 66) and
very many others. All Greek and Latin students of heresy have put
the Manichans in their catalogues; but they only rarely give any
original information about them (see Theodoret Haer. fab. I. 26).
Important matter occurs in the decrees of Cou 2b20 ncils from
the fourth century (see Mansi, Acta Concil., and Hefele,
Conciliengeschichte, Vols. I.III.), and in the controversial
writings of Titus of Bostra (4th century, in Syriac after a MS. of
A.D. 411) (edit. by de Lagarde, 1859), and
Alexander of Lycopolis, (edit.
by Combefis.). Of Byzantines, John of Damascus (De hres and
Dial.) and Photius (cod. 179 Biblioth.) deserve special mention;
see also the Manichan form of oath in Tollii insignia itiner. ital.
p. 126 sq., and in Cotelier, P. P. App. Opp. I. p. 543; further,
Rahlfs, 1.c. The controversy with the Paulicians and Bogomilians,
who were frequently identified with the Manichans, renewed the
interest in the latter. In the West the works of Augustine are the
great repository for our knowledge of the Manichans:Contra
epistolam Manichi, quam vocant fundamenti, Contra Faustum
Manichum, Contra Fortunatum, Contra Adimantum,
Contra Secundinum, De actis cum Felice Manicho, De
genesi c. Manichos, De natura boni, De duabus animabus,
De utilitate credendi, De moribus eccl. Cathol. et de moribus
Manichorum, De vera religione, De hres. But the more
complete the view of Manichism to be obtained from these
writings, the more cautious we must be in our generalisations; for
the Manichism of the West undoubtedly received Christian
elements which were wanting in its original and oriental form.
Manis Life.
Mani (; Manes, , Manichusthe name has
not yet been explained; it is not even known whether it is of
Persian or Semitic origin) is said, as the Acta Archelai inform us,
to have been originally called Cubricus. Nothing reliable was
ever known as to his life in the Romano-Greek 320empire; for the
account in the Acta Archelai is wholly biassed and untrustworthy.
Even if criticism succeeded in pointing out the sources from which
it was derived, in discovering the tendencies that were at work, and
in thus sifting out portions that were tenable, yet it could only do
so by depending on the comparatively trustworthy Oriental
Mohammedan tradition. We must therefore examine the latter
alone. According to it, Mani was a Persian of distinguished birth
belonging to Mardin. The date of his birth is uncertain; Kessler
holds the statement in Brun to be reliable, that he was born in
anno 527 of the era of the Babylonian astronomers, i.e., A.D. 215-
216. He received a careful education from his father Ftk
() at Ctesiphon. Since the father afterwards adhered to the
confession of the Moghtasilah, the Baptists, in southern
Babylonia, the son was also brought up in their religious doctrines
and practices. The Baptists (see the Fihrist) were probably not
unconnected with the Elkesaites and Hemerobaptists, and were in
any case allied to the Mandans. It is not improbable that this
Babylonian sect had adopted Christian elements. The boy
accordingly became early acquainted with very different forms of
religion. If even a small proportion of the narratives about his
father rest on truththe greater number being certainly only
Manichan legendshe had already introduced his son into the
religious medley, out of which the Manichan system arose.
Manichan tradition tells us that Mani received revelations, and
took up a critical attitude towards religious instruction, even when
a boy. But it is all the less trustworthy, as it also relates that he was
forbidden to ventilate publicly his new religious knowledge. It was
only when he was from 25 to 30 years of age that he began to
preach his new religion at the court of the Persian king, Sapores
I.on the day, it is stated, of the kings coronation, A.D. 241-242.
A Persian tradition says that he was previously a Christian
presbyter, but this, in any case, is wrong. Mani did not remain long
in Persia, but undertook long journeys for the purpose of spreading
his religion, and he also sent out disciples. According to the Acta
Archelai, his missionary activity extended into the West, into the
territory of the Christian Church; but it is certain from Oriental
321sources that his work was rather carried on in Transoxania,
Western China, and southwards into India. His labours met with
success there as well as in Persia. Like Mohammed after him, and
the founder of the Elkesaites before him, he proclaimed himself the
last and greatest of the prophets, whose revelation of God
surpassed all that had been given till then, the latter being allowed
only a relative value. He instituted the absolute religion. In the last
years of the reign of Sapores I. (c. A.D. 270) Mani returned to the
Persian capital, and gained adherents even at the court. Naturally,
however, the ruling priestly caste of the Magi, on whom the king
was compelled to lean, were hostile to him, and after a few
successes Mani was taken prisoner and driven into exile. The
successor of Sapores, Hormuz (272-273), seems to have been
favourable to him, but Bahrm I. abandoned him to the fanaticism
of the Magi, and had him crucified at the capital, A.D. 276-277.
His dead body was skinned; and his adherents were dreadfully
persecuted by Bahrm.
Manis Writings.
Mani himself composed very many writings and epistles, of
which a large proportion were still known to the Mohammedan
historians, but which are now all lost. The later heads of the
Manichan Churches also wrote religious tractates, so that the
ancient Manichan literature must have been very extensive.
According to the Fihrist, Mani made use of the Persian and Syriac
languages; he invented, however, like the Oriental Marcionites
before him, an alphabet of his own which the Fihrist has
transmitted to us. In this alphabet the sacred works of the
Manichans were afterwards written. The Fihrist enumerates
seven principal works by Mani, six in Syriac and one in Persian; as
to some of them we possess statements also in Titus of Bostra,
Epiphanius, Augustine, and Photius, as well as in the oath-formula
and the Acta Archelai. We have (1) The Book of mysteries: see
Acta Archelai; it contained discussions with the Christian sects
which were spreading in the East, especially the Marcionites and
Bardesanians, as well as with 322their conception of the Old and
New Testaments. (2) The Book of Giants (demons? probably in
connection with Gen. VI.). (3) The Book of Regulations for the
hearers,apparently identical with the epistula fundamenti of
Augustine and the Book of the Chapters of Epiphanius and the
Acta Archelai. It was the most extensively circulated and popular
of Manichan works, and was also translated into Greek and
Latin-being a brief summary of the whole fundamentally
authoritative doctrine. (4) The Book Schhprakn. Flgel was
unable to explain this title; according to Kessler, it means Epistle
to King Sapores. This tractate contained eschatological teaching.
(5) The Book of quickening. It is identified by Kessler with the
Thesaurus (vit) of the Acta Archelai, Epiphanius, Photius, and
Augustine; in that case it was also in use among the Latin
Manichans. (6) The Book contents unknown. (7)
In the Persian language; a book whose title is not stated in the
Fihrist, as we have it, but which is probably identical with the
Holy Gospel of the Manichans; see the Acta Archelai and
many witnesses. This was the work set up by the Manichans in
opposition to the Gospels of the Church. Besides these main
works, Mani wrote a great number of shorter tractates and letters.
The epistolography was then established by his successors. These
Manichan treatises were also familiar in the Grco-Roman
empire and existed in collectionssee the in
the oath-formula; and an epistula ad virginem Menoch in
Augustine. Fabricius has collected the Greek fragments of
Manichan epistles in the Bibliotheca Grca VII. 2, p. 311 sq.
There also existed a Manichan Book of memoirs and one of
prayers in the Greek language, as well as many others (e.g., the
Canticum Amatorium cited by Augustine), all of which,
however, were destroyed by Christian Bishops in alliance with the
magistracy. A Manichan Epistle to one Marcellus has been
preserved to us in the Acta Archelai. Zittwitz supposes that this
letter was much fuller in its original form, and that the author of
the Acts has borrowed from it the material for the speeches which
he makes Mani deliver in the discussion. The same scholar refers
the account of Turbo in the Acts and their historical statements (in
section 4) to the 323writing of a Turbo of Mesopotamia, a
Manichan renegade and Christian. But on this point it is at least
possible to hold a different opinion.
Manis Doctrine. The Manichan System.
Clearly as the main features of the Manichan doctrine can be
presented even at the present day, and certain as it is that Mani
himself published a complete system, yet many details are
uncertain, being differently described in different places, and it
often remains doubtful what the original doctrinal view of the
founder was.
The Manichan system of religion was a consistent and
uncompromising dualism, in the form of a fanciful view of nature.
No distinction was drawn between the physical and ethical: in this
respect the character of the system was thoroughly materialistic;
for Manis identification of the good with light, and the bad with
darkness, was not merely figurative. The light was really the only
good, and darkness the only bad. Hence it followed, that religious
knowledge could be nothing but the knowledge of nature and its
elements, and that redemption consisted exclusively in a physical
deliverance of the fractions of light from darkness. Bu 3084 t under
such circumstances, ethics became a doctrine of abstinence from
all elements arising from the realm of darkness.
The self-contradictory character of the present world formed
for Mani the starting-point of his speculation. But the
inconsistency appeared to him to be primarily elemental, and only
secondarily ethical, in so far as he regarded the material side of
man as an emanation from the bad parts of nature. From the self-
contradictory character of the world he inferred two beings,
originally wholly separate from each other,light and darkness.
Both were, however, to be thought of after the analogy of a
kingdom. The light appeared as the good Primeval Spirit-God,
shining in the ten (twelve) virtues of love, faith, fidelity,
magnanimity, wisdom, gentleness, knowledge, intelligence,
mystery, and insight. It also manifested itself in the heaven and
earth of light with their guardians, the 324glorious ons. The
darkness, similarly, was a spiritual realm: more correctly, it was
represented in a spiritual, or feminine, personification; but it had
no God at its head. It embraced an earth of darkness. As the
earth of light had five distinguishing featuresthe gentle breeze,
cooling wind, bright light, cheering fire, and clear waterso also
the earth of darkness had fivefog, fiery heat, burning wind,
darkness, and damp. Satan with his demons was born from the
realm of darkness. From eternity the two realms stood opposed.
They came into contact on one side, but they did not mingle. Then
Satan began to storm, and made an attack on the realm, the earth,
of light. The God of light, with his Syzygos (mate) the spirit of
his right hand, now generated the Primeval man, and sent him,
equipped with the five pure elements, to fight against Satan. But
Satan proved himself the stronger. Primeval man was defeated for
a moment. Now indeed the God of light himself marched forth,
utterly defeated Satan by the help of new onsthe spirit of life,
etc.and delivered the Primeval man. But a part of the light of the
latter had already been robbed by darkness, the five dark elements
had already mingled with the generations of light. The Primeval
man could only descend into the abyss and hinder the increase of
the dark generations by cutting off their roots; but the elements
once mixed he could never again separate. The mixed elements
were the elements of the present visible world. This was fashioned
out of them at the command of the God of light; the formation of
the world was itself the first step in the redemption of the
imprisoned portions of light. The world itself was represented as
an ordered chain of different heavens and different earths, which
was borne and supported by the ons, the angels of light. In sun
and moon, which from their nature were almost wholly pure, it
possessed great reservoirs, in which the rescued portions of light
were stored. In the sun Primeval man himself dwelt along with the
holy spirits, who pursued the work of redemption; in the moon the
Mother of life was throned. The twelve signs of the zodiac
constituted an artificial machine, a great wheel with buckets which
poured the portions of light delivered from the world into the moon
325and sun, the illuminating vessels swimming in space. There they
were purified anew, and finally reached God himself in the realm
of pure light. The later Manichans of the West designated the
portions of light scattered in the worldin elements and
organismsand waiting for redemption, Jesus patibilis.
Now it is characteristic of the materialistic and unhuman
character of the system, that while the construction of the world is
regarded as the work of the good spirits, the creation of man is
referred to the princes of darkness. The first man, Adam, was
begotten by Satan in conjunction with sin, greed and lust.
But the spirit of darkness conjured into him all the portions of light
which he had robbed, in order to make more certain of his power to
rule over them. Adam was accordingly a divided being, created in
the image of Satan, but bearing the stronger spark of light within
him. Eve was associated with him by Satan. She was seductive
sensuousness, although even she had a tiny spark of light in her. If
the first human beings thus stood under the rule of Satan, yet from
the very first the glorious spirits took an interest in them. These
sent onse.g., Jesusdown to them, who instructed them as to
their nature, and warned Adam especially against the senses. But
the first man fell a victim to sexual lust. Cain and Abel, indeed,
were not sons of Adam, but of Satan and Eve; but Seth was the
lightpossessed offspring of Adam and Eve. Thus arose mankind,
among whose individual members light was very variously
distributed. It was always stronger, however, in men than women.
Now the demons sought in the course of history to bind men to
themselves through sensuality, error, and false religions, which
included above all the religion of Moses and the prophets, while
the spirits of light continued their process of distillation, in order to
obtain the pure light in the world. But they could only deliver men
by giving the true Gnosis as to nature and its powers, and by
recalling them from the service of darkness and sensuousness. For
this purpose prophets, preachers of the true knowledge, were sent
into the world. Mani himself appears, in accordance with the
example set by Gnostic Jewish Christians, to have held Adam,
Noah, and Abraham, and perhaps Zoroaster 326and Buddha to have
been such prophets. Probably Jesus was also considered by him to
have been a prophet come down from the world of light; not,
however, the historical Jesus, but a contemporary, seemingly
human, Jesus who neither suffered nor died (Jesus impatibilis).
Some Manichans taught that Primeval man himself, as Christ,
spread the true Gnosis. But in any case Mani was held, as he
claimed, to be the last and greatest prophet, having taken up the
work of Jesus impatibilis, and of Paul, who is also recognised,
and having been the first to bring complete knowledge. He was the
guide, the ambassador of the light, the Paraclete. Only by
his labours and those of his imitators, the Elect, was the
separation of light from darkness accomplished. The process by
which the unfettered parts of light finally ascend to the God of
light himself are very fancifully elaborated. He who has not
succeeded in becoming elect in his life-time, has not completely
redeemed himself, has to pass through severe purifications in the
future state, until he also is gathered to the blessedness of the light.
A doctrine of transmigration of souls has, however, been
erroneously imputed to the Manichans. Bodies fall naturally, like
the souls of unredeemed men, to the powers of darkness. But those
souls, according at least to the oldest conception, contain no light
at all; a later view, adapted to the Christian, taught that the parts of
light existing in them were really lost. Finally, when the elements
of light are deliveredcompletely, or as far as possiblethe end
of the world takes place. All glorious spirits assemble, the God of
light himself appears, accompanied by the ons and the perfectly
righteous. The angels who uphold the world withdraw from their
burden, and everything collapses. An enormous conflagration
destroys the world: once more the two powers are completely
severed: high above is the realm of light restored to its perfect
state, low down is the darkness (now powerless?).
Ethics, Social Constitution and Cultus of the Manichans.
The only possible ethics based on this doctrine of the world
were dualistic and ascetic. But as it was not only considered
327necessary to escape from darkness, but also to cherish,
strengthen, and purify the parts of light, the ethics were not merely
negative. They aimed not at suicide, but at preservation. Yet in
practice they assumed a thoroughly ascetic form. The Manichan
had to abstain above all from sensuous enjoyment. He was to deny
himself to it by means of three seals: the signaculum oris, manus,
and sinus (the seal of the mouth, hand, and breast). The
signaculum oris forbade any use of unclean food, as well as impure
talk; unclean were all animal flesh, wine etc.; vegetable food was
permitted, because plants contained more light; but the destruction
of plants, even the plucking of fruits or breaking of twigs, was not
allowed. The sign. manus prevented any occupation with things, in
so far as they contained elements of darkness. Finally, the sign.
sinus forbade especially any satisfaction of sexual desire, and
therefore prohibited marriage. Besides, life was regulated by an
extremely rigorous list of fasts. Fast-days were selected in
obedience to certain astronomical conjunctures. Moreover, men
fasted, i.e., held holiday, regularly on Sunday, and generally also
on Monday. The number of fast-days amounted almost to a quarter
of the year. Times of prayer were appointed just as exactly. Four
times a day had the Manichan to utter prayers; and these were
preceded by ablutions. He who prayed turned to the sun or moon,
or to the North as the seat of light. Yet the inference that the
Manichans worshipped the sun and moon themselves is wrong.
The Fihrist has preserved some Manichan forms of prayer. They
were directed to the God of light, the whole realm of light, the
glorious angels and Mani himself, who is addressed in them as the
great tree in whom is all healing. According to Kessler, these
prayers are closely allied to the Mandan and ancient Babylonian
hymns.
An asceticism so minute and strict as that demanded by
Manichism,628 could only be practised thoroughly by a few. The
religion would, therefore, have been compelled to forego an
extensive propaganda, had it not conceded a morality of two kinds.
A distinction was accordingly drawn within the 328community
between the Electi (perfecti), the perfect Manichaeans, and the
Catechumeni (auditores), the secular Manichans. Only the former
submitted to all the demands imposed by the religion; for the latter
the regulations were relaxed. They required to avoid idolatry,
witchcraft, greed, lying, fornication, etc.; above all, they must kill
no living creaturekeeping Manis ten commandments. They
were to renounce the world as far as possible; but they lived in fact
very much like their fellow-citizens of other faiths. We have here,
accordingly, substantially the same state of matters as in the
Catholic Church, where a twofold morality also prevailed, viz.,
that of the religious orders and of the secular Christians. The only
628It also professed imitation of the apostolic life; see Raumers note on Confess.
Aug. VI. 7 (12).
difference was that the position of the Electi was still more
distinguished than that of the monks. For the Christian monks
never wholly forgot that redemption was a gift of God through
Christ, while the Manichean Electi were really themselves
redeemers; therefore it was the duty of the Auditores to pay t 40b0
he deepest veneration and render the greatest services to the Electi.
These perfect beings, as they languished away in their asceticism,
were admired and cherished most devotedly. Analogous is the
reverence paid by Catholics to the saints, and by Neoplatonists to
the philosophers, but the prestige of the Manichan Electi
surpassed that of both. Foods were brought to them in abundance;
by using them the Electi delivered the parts of light from the
plants. They prayed for the Auditores, they blessed and interceded
for them, thereby abbreviating the purgatory through which the
latter had to pass after death. And the Electi alone possessed
complete knowledge of religious truthsit was otherwise in
Catholicism.
The distinction between Electi and Auditores did not, however,
constitute the whole idea of the Manichan Church; it possessed a
hierarchy also. This fell into three grades, so that altogether there
were five in the religious constitution. In its fivefold division the
social order was conceived to be a copy of the numbers of the
realm of light. At the head stood the Teachers (the sons of
gentleness = Mani and his successors); these were followed by
the Administrators (sons of knowledge = the Bishops); then the
Elders (sons of understanding = the 329presbyters); the Electi
(sons of mystery); and finally the Auditores (sons of insight).
The number of Electi was at all times small. According to
Augustine, there were twelve Teachers and seventy-two Bishops.
One of the Teachers appears to have stood as president at the head
of the whole Manichan Church. At least Augustine speaks of
such an one, and the Fihrist also knows of a supreme head over all
Manichans. The constitution accordingly had here also a
monarchical head.
The cultus of the Manichans must have been very simple, and
have consisted essentially of prayers, hymns, and ceremonies of
adoration. This simple divine service promoted the secret spread of
the doctrine. Besides, the Manichans seem, at least in the West,
to have adhered to the Churchs order of festivals. The Electi
celebrated special festivals; but the chief one common to all was
the Bema (), the festival of the doctoral chair, in memory
of the death of Mani, in the month of March. Believers prostrated
themselves before a decorated, but vacant chair, erected on a
pedestal with five steps. Long fasts accompanied the festival.
Christian and Mohammedan writers were able to learn little
concerning the mysteries and sacraments of the Manichans; the
Christians therefore raised the charge that obscene rites and
repulsive practices were observed. But it may be held certain that
the later Manichan mysteries were solemnised after the style of
Christian Baptism and the Lords Supper. They may have been
based on old rites and ceremonies instituted by Mani himself, and
descended from natural religion.
The Historical Position of Manichism.
In the present state of the inquiry it is made out, and the
account given above will also have shown, that Manichism did
not rise on the soil of Christianity. We would even be better
justified if we were to call Mohammedanism a Christian sect; for
Mohammed approaches the Jewish and Christian religions
incomparably more closely than Mani. Kessler has the credit of
having shown that the ancient Babylonian religion, the original
source of all the Gnosis of Western Asia, was the foundation of the
Manichan system. The opinion formerly held is accordingly
330wrong, viz., that Manichism was a reformation on the ground
of Parsiism, a modification of Zoroastrianism under the influence
of Christianity. It was rather a religious creation belonging to the
circle of Semitic religions: it was the Semitic nature-religion lifted
out of national limitations, modified by Christian and Persian
elements, raised to the level of Gnosis, and transforming human
life by strict rules. But when we have perceived this, we have only
obtained a very general explanation of the origin of Manichism.
The question rises, through what means and to what extent Mani
adopted Persian and Christian elements, and further, in which form
the nature-religion of ancient Babylonia was made use of by him.
Now as regards the latter point, it is well known that the
Semitic nature-religions had been taken up, centuries before Mani,
by isolated enthusiastic or speculative heads, had been
philosophically deepened and remodelled into systems, in
support of which missions were conducted by means of mysterious
cults. Manis enterprise was accordingly nothing new, but was
rather the last in a long series of similar attempts. Even the earlier
ones, from Simon Magus the Samaritan down, had adopted
Christian elements to a greater or less extent, and the Christian
Gnostic scholastic sects of Syria and Western Asia all pointed back
to ancient Semitic nature-religions, which were transformed by
them into a philosophy of the world and of life. But in particular
the doctrines of the Babylonian sect of Moghtasilah, which were
indeed influenced also by Christianity, seem to have afforded Mani
material for his religio-philosophical speculation. The religion of
this sect was not, however, purely Semitic (see the treatise by
Kessler on the Mandans in the Real-Encyklopaedia fr prot.
Theol. u. Kirche, 2 Ed., Vol. IX., p. 205 ff.; the Mandans were
allied to the Moghtasilah, Brandt, 1. c.). From this source sprang
the rigid dualism on which Manis system was based; for the
ancient Persian religion was not in principle dualistic, but in its
ultimate foundation Monistic, since Ahriman was created by
Ormuzd. However, ancient Persian theologoumena were employed
by Mani. Even the designation of the antitheses as light and
darkness was hardly independent of Parsiism, and elsewhere in
Manichism there occur 331technical terms taken from the Persian
religion. Whether Manis idea of redemption goes back to the
ancient Babylonian religion or to Zoroastrianism, I do not venture
to decide; the idea of the Prophet and the Primeval man is at
all events Semitic.
It is very difficult to determine how far Manis acquaintance
with Christianity went, and how much he borrowed from it;
further, through what agencies Christian knowledge reached him.
In any case, in those regions where Manichism was settled and
where it came more closely into contact with Christianity, it was at
a later stage influenced by the latter. Western Manichans of the
fourth and fifth centuries were much more Christian than those
of the East. In this respect the system passed through the same
development as Neoplatonism. As regards Mani himself, it is
safest to suppose that he held Judaism as well as Christianity to be
entirely false religions. But if he not only characterised himself as
the Paracleteand it is probable that he originated this use of the
titlebut also admitted Jesus to so high a role in his system, we
can hardly explain this otherwise than by supposing that he
distinguished between Christianity and Christianity. The religion
which emanated from the historical Christ was to him as
objectionable as that Christ himself and as Judaism; i.e.,
Catholicism was to him a diabolical religion. But he distinguished
the Jesus of darkness from the Jesus of light, who wrought
contemporaneously with the other, This distinction agrees as
strikingly with that of the Gnostic Basilides, as the criticism of the
O. T. conducted by Manichism with that of the Marcionites; (see
even the Acta Archelai in which Marcions antitheses are placed in
Manis lips). Finally, Manichan doctrines show agreement with
those of the Christian Elkesaites; yet it is possible, nay, probable,
that the latter are to be derived from the common ancient Semitic
source, and therefore they do not come further into consideration.
Manis historical relation to Christianity will therefore be as
follows: from Catholicism, with which in all probability he was not
very accurately acquainted, Mani borrowed nothing, rejecting it
rather as a devilish error. On the other hand, he regarded
Christianity in the form which it had assumed in the Basilidian and
Marcionite sects (also among the Bardesanians ?) 332as a relatively
valuable and correct religion. But from them, as also from the
Persians, he took hardly anything but names, and perhaps, besides,
what criticism he had of the O. T. and Judaism. His lofty estimate
of Paul (and his epistles?), as well as his express rejection of the
Acts of the Apostles, also point to influences due to Marcionitism.
He seems to have recognised and to have interpreted in accordance
with his own teaching a part of the historical matter of the Gospel.
Finally, the question further rises whether Buddhistic elements
are not to be observed in Manichaeism. The majority of later
scholars since F. Chr. Baur have answered this question in the
affirmative. According to Kessler, Mani used Buddhas teaching,
at least for his ethics. There is no doubt that he took long journeys
to India, and was familiar with Buddhism. The occurrence of the
name of Buddha (Budda) in the legend about Mani and perhaps in
his own writings points to the fact that the founder of this religion
concerned himself with Buddhism. But what he borrowed from it
for his own doctrine must have been very unimportant On a closer
comparison we find that the difference between the two faiths is in
all their main doctrines very great, and that the resemblances are
almost always merely accidental. This is true even as regards
morality and asceticism. There is no point in Manichism for
whose explanation we need have recourse to Buddhism. Under
such circumstances any relationship between the two religions
remains a bare possibility; nor has the investigation of Geyler
raised this possibility to a probability (Das System des
Manichismus und sein Verhltniss zum Buddhismus, Jena 1875).
How are we to explain the fact that Manichaeism spread so
rapidly and really became a world-religion? The answer has been
given that it was because it was the complete Gnosis, the fullest,
most consistent, and most artistic system based on the ancient
Babylonian religion (so Kessler). This explanation is not sufficient,
for no religion makes an impression mainly by its doctrinal system,
however complete that may be. But it is also incorrect, for the
older Gnostic systems were not more meagre than the Manichaean.
What rather gave Manichism its strength was, above all, the
combination of ancient mythology and a rigid 333materialistic
dualism with an extremely simple, spiritual cultus, and a strict
morality; this was supplemented by the personality of the founder
(of which indeed we know little enough). If we compare it with the
Semitic nature-religions, it is obvious that it retained their
mythologies, transformed into doctrines, but did away with the
whole sensuous cultus, substituting a spiritual worship as well as a
strict morality. Thus it was capable of satisfying the new wants of
an old world. It offered revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and
immortality, spiritual blessings, on the ground of nature-religion.
Further, the simple and yet firm constitution calls for attention
which Mani himself gave to his institution. The learned and the
ignorant, the enthusiast and the man of the world, could here find a
welcome, no one had more laid upon him than he could and would
bear; moreover, each was attracted and secured by the prospect of
reaching a higher stage, while those who were gifted were besides
promised that they would require to submit to no authority, but
would be led by pure reason to God. As this religion was thus
adapted, perhaps beforehand, to individual needs, it was also
capable of continuously appropriating what was foreign. Furnished
from the first with fragments of different religions, it could
increase or diminish its store, without breaking its own elastic
structure. But a great capacity for adaptation was quite as
necessary to a world-religion, as a divine founder in whom men
could see and venerate the supreme revelation of God himself.
While Manichism in fact knew of no redeemer, although it gave
Mani this title; while it only recognised a physical and Gnostic
process of redemption; yet in Mani it possessed the chief prophet
of God.
If we notice, finally, that Manichism presented a simple,
apparently profound, and yet easy, solution of the problem of good
and evil, which had become especially burdensome in the second
and third centuries, we have named the most important phenomena
which explain its rapid extension.
Sketch of the History of Manichceism.
Manichaeism first got a firm footing in the East, in Persia,
Mesopotamia, and Transoxania. The persecutions which it had to
endure did not hinder its extension. The seat of the Manichan
334Pope was for centuries in Babylon, and afterwards in
Samarcand. Even after Islam had conquered the East, Manichism
held its ground; it even seems to have spread still further owing to
the Mohammedan conquest, and it gained secret adherents among
the Mohammedans themselves. The doctrine and discipline of the
Manichan Church underwent little change in the East, it
especially did not there approach much nearer the Christian
religion. But it experienced attempts at reform several times; for,
as was natural, its Auditores readily became secularised. These
attempts also led temporarily to schisms and the formation of sects.
At the close of the tenth century, the time when the Fihrist was
written, the Manichans had been already expelled from the cities
in Mesopotamia and Persia, and had withdrawn into the villages.
But in Turkestan and up to the borders of China, there existed
numerous Manichan communities, nay, even whole tribes which
had adopted the religion of Mani. Probably the great Mongolian
migrations first put an end to Manichism in Central Asia. But in
India, on the coasts of Malabar, there were Manichans even in
the fifteenth century, side by side with Thomist Christians (see
Germann, Die Thomaschristen, 1875). Manichaeism first
penetrated into the Grco-Roman Empire about A.D. 280, in the
time of the Emperor Probus (see Eusebius. Chronicon). If we may
hold Diocletians edict against the Manichans to be genuine, they
already had a firm footing in the West at the beginning of the
fourth century; but Eusebius did not know the sect accurately as
late as about A.D. 325. It was only after about A.D. 330 that the
religion spread rapidly in the Roman Empire. Its adherents were
recruited, on the one hand, from the ancient Gnostic sects,
especially the Marcionites, Manichaeism having, besides, strongly
influenced the development of the Marcionite Churches in the
fourth century. On the other hand, it gained followers from the
great number of the cultured, who sought for a rational and yet
to some extent Christian, religion, and who had exalted 40b0 free
inquiryesp. as regards the O. T.into a battle-flag. Criticism
on Catholicism, and polemics, were now the strong point of
Manichaeism, esp. in the West. It admitted the stumbling-blocks
which the O. T. 335presented to every thinker, and gave itself out as
a Christianity without the O. T. Instead of the subtle Catholic
theories about divine predestination and human freedom, and the
difficult Theodicy, it offered an extremely simple conception of sin
and goodness. It did not preach the doctrine of the incarnation,
which was particularly repugnant to those who were passing from
the ancient cults to the Universal Religion. In its rejection of this
doctrine, it coincided with Neoplatonism. But while the latter, with
all its attempts to accommodate itself at various points to
Christianity, found no formula that would introduce into its midst
the special veneration of Christ, the Western Manichans
succeeded in giving their doctrine a Christian colouring. Of the
Manichan mythology all that became popular was the rigid
physical dualism; its barbarous portions were prudently disguised
as mysteries; nay, they were even frankly disavowed here and
there by the adepts. The farther Manichism pushed into the West,
the more Christian and philosophical it became; in Syria it kept
itself comparatively pure. It found its most numerous adherents in
North Africa, where it had secret followers even among the clergy;
this may perhaps be explained by the Semitic origin of a part of the
population. Augustine was an Auditor for nine years, while
Faustus was at the time the most distinguished Manichan teacher
in the West. In his later writings against Manichism Augustine
chiefly discusses the following problems: (1) the relations of
knowledge and faith, reason and authority; (2) the nature of good
and evil, and the origin of the latter; (3) the existence of free-will,
and its relation to divine omnipotence; (4) the relation of evil in the
world to the divine government.
The Christian Byzantine and Roman Emperors from Valens
onwards issued strict laws against the Manichans. But at first
these bore little fruit. The Auditores were difficult to detect, and
really gave slight occasion for a persecution. In Rome itself the
doctrine had a large following, especially among the scholars and
professors, between A.D. 370 and 440, and it made its way among
the mass of the people by means of a popular literature, in which
even the Apostles played a prominent part (Apocryphal Acts of
the Apostles). Manichism 336also experienced attempts at
reform in the West; but we know little about them. Leo the Great,
in alliance with the civil power, was the first to adopt active
measures against Manichism. Valentinian III. sentenced its
adherents to banishment, Justinian made the penalty death. It
seems to have been extinguished in North Africa by the
persecution of the Vandals. It really died out nowhere else, either
in the Byzantine Empire, or in the West; for it gave an impulse to
the formation of new sects which were allied to it in the early part
of the Middle Ages. If it has not been proved that the Spanish
Priscillians had been already influenced by Manichism in the
fourth century, still it is undoubted that the Paulicians and
Bogomilians, as well as the Cathari, are to be traced back to it (and
Marcionitism). Thus, if not the system of Mani the Persian, yet
Manichism modified by Christianity accompanied the Catholic
Church of the West on into the thirteenth century.
Literature.Beausobre, Hist. critique de Maniche et du
Manichisme, 2 vols. 1734 sq. Too great prominence is given in
this work to the Christian elements in Manichism. Baur, Das
manichische Religionssystem, 1831. Manichan speculation is
here presented speculatively. Flgel, Mani, 1862; an investigation
based on the Fihrist. Kessler, Unters. z. Genesis des manich.
Religionssystems, 1876; by the same author, Mani, Manicher in
the R.-Encykl. f. protest Theol. u. Kirche, 2 Ed., Vol. IX., p. 223-
259 ; the account given above is based in several of its expositions
on this article. Kessler has since published a work, Mani,
Forschungen ber die manich. Relig. Ein Beitrag z. vergleichenden
Religionsgeschichte des Orients. I. Bd. Voruntersuchungen und
Quellen, 1889; see on this the acute reviews of Rahlfs (Gtt Gel.
Anz. 1889, No. 23), Nldeke (Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl.
Gesellsch. Vol. XLIII., p. 535 ff.) and August Mller (Theol. Lit.-
Ztg., 1890, No. 4). The older accounts may be mentioned of
Mosheim, Lardner, Walch, and Schrckh, as also the monograph
of Trechsel, Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der Manicher,
1832, and A. Newmanns Introductory Essay on the Manichan
heresy, 1887.
Indexes
Genesis
1:1-31 1:1-3:24 1:1-3:24 3:1-24
Exodus
3:6 20:2 20:3 33:1-23 33:1-23
Deuteronomy
6:4 18:15 32:6 32:7 32:18
Judges
22
Psalms
53:12 82:6 103:15
Proverbs
8:32
Song of Solomon
4:1
Isaiah
24:24 44:6 44:6 45:5 45:5 45:14 53:2
Jeremiah
17:9
Daniel
5
Amos
2
Matthew
11:17 12:31 12:31 16:14 16:18 19:12 25:21 25:24
Luke
1:35 1:35
John
1:1 1:1 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:29 2:3 8:40
9:2 10:21 10:30 10:30 10:38 14 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:10
14:11 21:18
Acts
2:22 10:36 15:28
Romans
1:1-32 2:6 3:25 5:18 6:6 7:18 8:3 8:19 9:5 9:16
1 Corinthians
2:11 3:13 7:1-40 8:6 8:6 15:17 15:28
Galatians
3:13
Ephesians
1:3-5 1:11 2 2 6 6 7:2 16 26 33 52 52 55 73
73 73 82 88 104 106 106 114 118 210 239 243
Philippians
2:9 2:10
Colossians
6
1 Timothy
2:5 5:21
2 Timothy
1:8-10 2:5
Hebrews
12:14
Revelation
1:18 2:18
Wisdom of Solomon
1:14
Baruch
3:36
,
.
(1)
, ,

, ,

,
,
. (2)

,
.
(3) ,

,

, .
(4)

, ,
,

,
. (5) 3b4c

,

.

.
,
,
.

,

.

, .
,

,
,
.
, ,
,
,
,
,
. . .

,
. . .
,
,
,

.
,

,

, ,
,
.

.
. . . .
.

.
,

,
,
.

. . .
,

,
,
.

, ,

,
.
, ,
,
.
, ...

, ,

,

; .

,
, . ,
, ,
.

, ,
.
,

, ,
,
, ,
, , ,
, ,

,
,

. ,
[
], , ,
, [ ]
,
, -
,
.
, ,
,

,
.
[ ]

. . .

,
.
,
,
.

, ,
,
,
.

, , ,
,
,

.
, ,
, ,

, , ,

,
.

, 3b4c
,
,
,

,
,

,

,
,
. ,
, ,

, .
.

.

.

,
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
, ,
.

.
.
,

.
,
,

, says Malchion,
.

,
,
,

,

,

,

, .
,

... . . . ,

, ,

,
. . .
,
.

.

,

,
, . .

,
,

,

,
,

.
, , ,
, .
, .

, .

.
,
. . , ,
, . ., .
. ,
.
,

, ,
,
,
,
...
,
,

,

. . .,
, , , ,
, ,
,

, ,
, ,
.
.
, ,
,
. . .
, ,
,
. . .
,
, ,

. ,
, ,
. . .
,
. .,

,
,
, 35e8 ,
,
,

,

.
,
, ,
.
,

,
.
.
,

.
,
,
, ,
,

, ,

,

,
,

.

,
.

,

, .

,
, ,
.

;
; ,
,
,
.

,

,
.
,

,
,
, ;

,
;

.
, ,
,
, B,
, .
8
, ,
.
,

. . .

,

.

,
,

,

,

,

,

.

,
,
, , , , ,
,

,
.

, ,
.

.
,

.
,

,
,

, ;
,

,
, , 5618
, .

(knowledge)

,
, ,

, , ,

.
.

,

.

, ,

() .

.

.

,
;

.
,

,
, ,

, ,

, ,
,
.
,
,
, (
)
.

(), ,
. . .

,

,
, ,
,
,
, ,
. . . .

,
, ,
,
, ,

, , ,
, ,

,
,

.

,
,

,
,

,
.

,

( )

, ,
, , ,
,
, , .

.

( )

[]

...
,
, .
,
,
( )
,

. . .

.

,
, .
,
, ,
.

.
,
,

,

):

,

, ,

, .

-
-

,
.

,
,

,

Adolf Harnack History of Dogma

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adolf Harnack History of Dogma

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

History of Dogma

About This Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. ii

DR. ADOLPH HARNACK

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

v VORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.

vii THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

xix FROM THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

xii AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

xv AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The Church and the Grco-Roman 45

4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the 99107

(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising 133

The premises of Catholicism 218

(1) His estimate of the Old Testament and 271

Alleged documents of Jewish 295

PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF

THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE

PROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.

I. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma.

regarding dogma as unchangeable.12 This presupposition is so much a part of the nature of

THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA

I. The Fundamental Features.

Job. Weiss. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892.

the Christ. The (teaching to observe all that Jesus

but he knows that there are such people.

At a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in thought.

combination were sufficient.

124 Proofs in Friedlnder, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.

.... , and are almost synonymous. See

THE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA,

THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL

145 CHAPTER II.

to the great majority of them, and in the main to Marcion also.

of God, as well as the gift of immortality ( , or , as an expression

THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE

1. The Communities and the Church.

166 1 Clem. 59. 2, in the church prayer;

Kanons, II p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read; , .

Christians, (see Aristides, Apol.).

176 Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession: , ,

, . Besides the Old Testament

Alexandria presupposes a symbol.

reads: () , (on this word see Westcotts

of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias.

is the head and spokesman for them all.

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

Polycarp and Justin.

. Barn. 5. 6 f.: 21. 1: 2 Clem. 1:

truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12:

The expression of the contents of the Gospel in the concepts ( )

Supplement 2.The realisation of salvationas and as being

209 Didache, c I., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p. 45 f.).

, . Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr.): The Christians

, ; Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very

speaks only of faith in God.

The same word concerning the Church, 1. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: . 14. 6.

III. 20 6: Justin Dial. 118.

, ibid. p. 30: , . Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6:

formula is equivalent to (see Joh. I. 18).

(see Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: ,

, . The point in question is a reward of

). The formulation of the

not often found.