History of Dogma Vol 2

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from

University of Toronto
http://www.archive.org/details/historyofdog02harn
THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY
Edited by the Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor

of Interpretation, Oxford; and the Rev. A. B. BRUCE, D.D.,
Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church

College, Glasgow.
VOL. VII.
HARNACK'S HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. II.

t
HISTORY OF DOGMA
PBY 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
VOL. II.
WILLIAMS & NORGATE

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London
20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh
and 7 Broad Street, Oxford
1896.
c>
T
Z\
mi
Printed in Holland at the Motley Press.
V
CONTENTS.
Page
CHAPTER I— Historical Survey i— 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 Writings, Organization, Cultus) .... 5
The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith,
the Apologists 7
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus 9
Clement and Origen 11
Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most import-
ant Institutions 15
Difficulties in determining the importance of individual
Personalities 16
Differences of development in the Churches of different
countries 17
I. Fixing and gradual Secularising of Christianity as a

Church 18-168
CHAPTER II— The setting up of the Apostolic Standards

for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church . . 18—93
A. The transformation of the Baptismal Confession into
the Apostolic Rule of Faith 20—38
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
Irenaeus 27
Tertullian 29
CONTENTS.
Page
Results of 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 Apostolic Writings 38—67
Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the
year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. 38

Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Mura-
torian Fragment, in (Melito) Irenaeus and Tertullian .
43
Conditions under which the New Testament originated. 45
Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings
that were read in the Churches 47
Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon,
manner of using and results of the New Testament . 51
The Apostolic collection of writings can be proved at
first only in those Churches in which we find the

Apostolic Rule of Faith ;
probably there was no New
Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in
Alexandria (Clement) 56
Probable history of the genesis of the New Testament
in Alexandria up to the time of Origen 60
Addendum. The results which the creation of the New
Testament produced in the following period .... 62
C. The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the
Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the
remodelling of the conception of the Church .... 67 — 94
The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities
which were founded by the Apostles 67
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 vcritatis 70
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 Heaven and is destined for it ... 73
The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting
on the Law of Faith 74
1
CONTENTS. Ill
Page
Obscurities in the idea of the Church as held by Irenaeus
and Tertullian 77
By Clement and Origen 80
Transition to the Hierarchical idea of the Church . . 83
The Hierarchical idea of the Church : Calixtus an d Cyprian 84

Appendix I. Cyprian's idea of the Church and the actual
circumstances 9°
„ II. Church and Heresy 9°
„ III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences

of the new idea of the Church .... 93
CHAPTER III— Continuation— The Old Christianity and

the New Church 94—169
Introduction 94
The Original Montanism 95
The later Montanism as the dregs of the movement
and as the product of a compromise 100
The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by

the Catholic Bishops : importance of the victory for
the Church 104
History of penance : the old practice 109
The laxer practice in the days of Tertullian and Hippo-
lytus no
The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian 1 1
Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea
of the Church ; the Church no longer a Communion

of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salva-
tion and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus
permixtiim 113
After effect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian 115
Origen's idea of the Church 116
Novatian's idea of the Church and of penance, the
Church of the Catharists 118
Conclusion the Catholic Church as capable of being a
:
support to society and the state 122

Addenda I. The Priesthood 128
„ II. Sacrifice •
. . 131
„ III. Means of Grace. Baptism and the Eucharist 138
Excursus to Chapters II. and III.— Catholic and Roman. 149—169
IV CONTENTS.
Page
II. Fixing and gradual Hellenising of Christianity as
a System of Doctrine.
CHAPTER IV.— Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy.

The Apologists 169—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
Tatian 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 Logos 206
Doctrine of the World and of Man 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 Justin's
doctrines 225
CHAPTER V.— The Beginnings of an Ecclesiasti co-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 Apolo-
gists; Melito, Irenseus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian 231—319
.
CONTENTS.
Page
The theological position of Irenaeus and of the later
contemporary Church teachers 231
Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic
Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition 231
Loose structure of their Dogmas 234
Irenaeus' attempt to construct a systematic theology and
his fundamental theological convictions 236
Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology . .
237
Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ
(recapitulatio) 239
His conception of a history of salvation 244
His historical significance : conserving of tradition and
gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith 244
The Old Catholic Fathers' doctrine of the Church . .
247
The Antithesis to Gnosticism 247
The "Scripture theology" as a sign of the dependence
on "Gnosticism" and as a means of conserving tra-
dition 250
The Doctrine of God 253
The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus . . 256
(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit) 261
Irenaeus' doctrine of the Logos 262
(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit) 266
The views of Irenaeus regarding the destination of man,
the original state, the fall and the doom of death
(the disparate series of ideas in Irenaeus; rudiments
of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian) . . . 267
The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God 275
Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the
divine and human elements 275
Significance of Mary .' . 277
Tertullian's doctrine of the two natures and its origin 279
Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenaeus 283
The Gnostic character of this doctrine 286
Christology of Hippolytus 286
Views as to Christ's work 288
Redemption, Perfection 289
Reconciliation 292
Categories for the fruit of Christ's work 292
VI CONTENTS.
Page
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 advantage of connection with that .... 297
Conflict with Chiliasm in the East 299
The doctrine of the two Testaments 300
The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two
Testaments, the complexus oppositorwn; the Old Test-
ament a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists 301
The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New
Testament and a compound Book 304
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,
(Cyprian, Novatian) 312
CHAPTER VI— The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tra-
dition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of
the Theology and Dogmatic of the Church:
Scientific
(1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of
Alexandria 319
Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the
second and the beginning of the third century;
scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian
Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus,
Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage) .... 320
The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement . . . 323
The temper of Clement and his importance in the
History of Dogma; his relation to Irenseus, to the
Gnostics and to primitive Christianity ; his philosophy
of Religion 324
(2) The system of Origen 332
Introductory The personality and importance of Origen 332
:
The Elements of Origen's theology; its Gnostic features 334

The relative view of Origen 334, 336
His temper and final aim relation to Greek Philosophy
:
335
CONTENTS VII
Page
logical speculation 340

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 346
I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding 349
Doctrine of God 349
Doctrine of the Logos 352
Clement's 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 Christology 369
The Appropriation of Salvation 375
The Eschatology 377
Concluding Remarks : The importance of this system
to the following period 378
\/\l\
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL SURVEY.
The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian
Aube (Histoire des Persecutions de l'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878. pp. 1—68) has
given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions ofRenan
in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom
exaggerated iu particular points. See especially the concluding observations in
Vol. VII. cc. 28 — appearance of Ritschl's monograph on the
34. Since the
genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a
conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank
with the French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-
sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements
responsible for all the evil in the Church.
Chapter I. of the present volume begins Book IT. of Division I.
(vide Vol. I., page 137). Its subject, as indicated in the original
German Edition, is "The Laying of the Foundation" (of Dogma).
\/UV
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 devel-
opment 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 political commonwealth, school and union for
same time a
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. In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main
l
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.
1 Aube (Histoire des Persecutions de l'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878, pp. 1 — 68) has
given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan
in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom
exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in
Vol. VII. cc. 28—34. Since the appearance of Ritschl's monograph on the
genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a
conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank
with the French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one-
sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements
responsible for all the evil in the Church.
2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
How great the innovations actually were, however, may be

measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage
of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the im-
mediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the narrowest
limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed
that were still a considerable number of Christians who
there
valued immediateness and freedom; these were, however,
that
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 doc-
trinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine
l
institution.
The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes
its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory
1
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
Church and at the same time denotes the
the true
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
HISTORICAL SURVEY
over and to the preservation of an important part

Gnosticism
of early Christian tradition.If Gnosticism in all its phases was
the violent attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of

the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief
in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Cathol-
icism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, pre-
served 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 acknow-
ledged as a conservative force born from the vigour of Christi-
legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to

these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corres-
ponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and
well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general con-
viction that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and
infallible creation: its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic.
Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers,
this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must
certainly be a strong detestation of " the divine Church law." Indeed, the inclination
to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil
your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be
imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train
men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the
formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been
wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a
legal code. Sohm's distinction, that in the oldest period there was no "law", but
only a "regulation", is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth;
for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a
different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are
represented, and which has therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so ?
And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the
SixT&ett; of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm's proposition:
"The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church," does
not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow
and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The
Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only
course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found
a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope!
But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above
the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin,
even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible
with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with
the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.
;
4 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. I.
anity. If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look

at the facts given situation, we cannot but admire a
of the
creation which broke up the various outside forces assailing
first
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 be compatible with membership of the Synagogue
to
and of the Jewish law, there could at least be no
observance
impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church.
Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Cathol-
icism never clearly put the question, "What is Christian?" In-
stead 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 intro-
duction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protec-
tive covering Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it.
round the
It preserved from being hellenised to the most
Christianity
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 acommunion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political
commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside
other things. '
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 Christi-
1 In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the
attempt to create a rigid oecumenical community, held together solely by religion.
The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.
HISTORICAL SURVEY 5
anity discovered the formula which reconciled faith and know-

ledge. 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 grew out of two converging series of
Christianity
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 cele-
bration 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, cere-
monial, 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 pri-
marily based on a common was not
confession, which, however,
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 unfortun-
ately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities
led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circum-

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

to all the pressing questions which then occupied men's minds.
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 legitimis-
ing 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
Chap. i.J HISTORICAL SURVEY 7
connection Greek mythology and gross polytheism.

with 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.
This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do
not mean the Gospel,was not a gradual process; for the truth
rather is that was already accomplished the moment that the
it
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 with a fixed collection of writings having a title
face
to be reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old
Testament and the "Teachings of Christ" {hihxy^xrx Xpitrrou).
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 Christianitywas the first proper ex-
pression 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
1
The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Grceco-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.

s 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.''
between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of

Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that
tradition was not yet no religious
fixed in rigid forms, because
utterance monotheism, virtue, and reward was as
testifying to
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 assur-
ance 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 found-
ation of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests
within which was to move in the future.
it
'
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 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
1
They were not the first So far as we
to determine this circle of interests.
can demonstrate traces of independent knowledge among the so-called
religious
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.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 9
Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith

and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an
entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those
trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the
Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the
situation; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it. The '
work first began with the scientific treatment of individual

articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view
of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of
satisfying the Church's own needs. The framework in which
these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic
theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world,
which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much
as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian 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 confes-
sion interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed
into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from
the and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas
Gnostics
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 dogmas 2 dogmas but no —
1
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 maybe seen from the Shepherd of Hermas.
2 So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual
theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved,
IO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, l
system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was

by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar
capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional
and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as
they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than
the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet
Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a
very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still
lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds
required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression
of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects iden-
tical 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
The effects of this undertaking can never
constitutivus ecclesice.
be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philos-
ophy 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 Irenaeus 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 emanates from the con-
is,
troversy with Gnosticism. In them a

and realistic idea
religious
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
originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to

amalgamate historical material and natural theology.
1
connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son
of man (filius dei et Alius hominis). What the heathen faintly-
hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and
indeed as having already taken place. What a message This !
conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future.

A long time, however, elapsed* before it made its way into the
'
dogmatic system of the Church.
But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both
Testaments and the on the one hand, and the
rule of faith
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 re-
garded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely in-
dissoluble union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy
was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense
of religion
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 under-
taken 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 Fhilo, wrote
the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philoso-
phic 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,
1
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 vita and spes Jidet, and
who found no sort of edification in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the
1
ideas ""command'*, '••performance", "error* , "forgiveness". In Irenseus also,
moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the
Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.
12 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, i.]
while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical

aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite
consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christi-
anity 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 age with which
Christianity of the
he compared his own was already permeated by Hellenic
elements and in a very great measure secularised. But Origen, '
as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the con-

viction 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 recog-
nized 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 incom-
patible 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
Irenseus with his slavish dependence on authority.
The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which
1
On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck, "Uberdie Anfange
dei patristischen Litteratur" in d. Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol. XII. p. 417 ff.
3
was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted
in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some

parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of
Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not
only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in
the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved. l
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 appreciate systematic theology.
to 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 was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say
that
nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of
Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine
started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits.
Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a
peculiar mixture of Origen's theology with the inflexible Antignostic
regula fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured
to unite the theology of Irenaeus 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
1 Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen
(see especially his work against and above all from his history.
Celsus), but also
The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive
on the matter.
l
the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity, so the
Catholic dogmatic, as was developed after the second or third
it
century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity con-

ceived and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philos-
ophy of religion. s 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
phase of human knowledge and culture may be la-
historical
mented 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
3
justify the arrangement chosen for the following presentation,
which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian
dogma. 4 A few more remarks are, however, necessary.
1
The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the development of church
doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive
religiousand philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic
moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic
philosophy, and complete syncretism.
2 "Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur (Tertull., de bapt. 2.)
The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would
3
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 develop-
ment 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.
4
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
5
1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the

Catholic rules is that the churches, though on terms of close
connection and mutual intercourse, had no real forum publicum,
though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was in foro
publico. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in
the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without
being able to state precisely the ways and means which led
to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore
theoretically construct the development; but the real course of
things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious
Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can

no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the
conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of
the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct
evidence as to what communities had a special share in the
development, although we know that the Roman Church played
a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences,
common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting.
It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second
century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in

the East, but later also in the West, Synods in which an under-
standing was arrived at on all questions of importance to
Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon. \
2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics
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.
1
pudic. io: "Sed cederem
See Tertullian, de tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, qua;
sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio
;
ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur " de ieiun. 13:
u Aguntur praeterea per Grsecias ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis,
per quae et altiora quseque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprsesentatio totius
nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur."We must also take into account
here the intercourse which connection I may specially remind the
by letter, in
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 wahrend der drei ersten Jahrhunderte,
«8 7 7.
6
on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also

obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to
claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they intro-
duced, 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 Irenaeus. What amount of innovation these
men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained.
Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related
to Irenaeus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds
good in more than
one respect. First, Tertullian drew up
a series of plain dogmatic formulae which are not found in Ire-
naeus 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 Irenaeus. 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 develop-
ment. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception
of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas
in Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 cen-
tury. ' Every important work speedily found itsway 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 Cae-
sarea a Greek translation of Tertullian's Apology and a collection
1 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.

7
of Cyprian's epistles. '

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 almost completely derived from those leading
are
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
2
preserved.
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.
1
See Euseb., H.E. II. 2; VI. 43.
2 See the Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally
accounts of
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.
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. l
.
We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated

passages from Tertullian's "de praescriptione haereticorum." 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
being certain that as truth, it
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
1
In itself the predicate "Catholic" contains no element that signifies a secularising
of the Church. w Catholic " originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted
with single congregations. Hence the concepts " all communities " and the " universal
Church" are But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element
identical.
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 Christen-
dom. 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.
9
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 1
Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of
God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resur-
rection 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, clothesit with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the 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 bishop of theirs had as his authority and prede-
this first
cessor some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men,

who, however, associated with the Apostles." * From the con-
sideration 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 stand-
ards together, that is simultaneously. 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 Catho-
* Translator's note. The following is Tertullian's Latin as given by Professor

Harnack: Cap. 21: "Constat omnem doctrinam quae cum ecclesiis apostolicis
matricibus deputandam, id sine dubio tenen-
et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati
tem quod ecclesise 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 re-
surrectionem legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscetjinde
;
potat fidem, earn aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium
exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit." Chap. 32:"Evol-
vant 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."
1None 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.
;
20 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
lie standards had their preparatory stages, (

I
) in short kerygmatic
creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless
apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches
(3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers,
or the "elders" and leaders of the individual communities.
A. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession

into the Apostolic Ride 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, xxvoov -v,;
TTxpxhoesus (canon of tradition), originally included all that was

traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles
and was of value and life of the Church, together
for the faith
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 xxvow rijg threat;, xxveev ri^g xXvjdsixc (canon of
the faith, canon of the truth). 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
1
See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the
Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., espe-
cially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the xtx% irxpx-
Sot}s7<rz roii xyioic, tio-ti?, 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
xxvwv TiJc TritrTSuq, xxvwv tvj? xtyQei'xQ, or the like, might stand for xio-tii;, for the faith
itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehen-
sible and plainly denned. 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 6 xxvwv tv^ xXêixc, cum synonymis
(Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184 —205).
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 the faith had already grown out
of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The
shortest was that which defined the Christian faith as
formula
belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit. It appears to have been
l
universally current in Christendom about the year 150. In the

solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism,
in the great prayer of the Lord's Supper, as well as in the
2
exorcism of demons, fixed formulae were used. They embraced
also such articles as contained the most important facts in the
history of Jesus. We know definitely that not later than about
:t
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 4 and something similar must also have existed
;
1
In Hennas, Mand.I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the
confession monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula
of the
virrevu sl$ 'dvac 6eov xccvrxxpizTopcc, 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.
2 See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is not surprising that
formulae similar to those were employed in the exorcism of
used at baptism
demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the
wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established
fact that in Justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of
Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow
from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign
of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more
natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily
borrowed from a baptismal confession.
3 These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded
to in Luke I. 4.
* The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact studies is the
establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession.
(Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols
u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866 1875. —

Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des
Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u.
Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article "Apostol.
Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work,
Chap. III. § 2.
in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year

1 50, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that
formulae of similar plan and extent were also found in other
provincial Churches about this time. ' 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 y.-Jipwyy.x
r-?/S x/Ûixq, also accompanied the short baptismal formula

'
without being expressed in set terms.
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"
(AtixXV T$ v xko(tt6?>oov) 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 confederationChurches; but
of Christian
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 unavoid-
able necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest
and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was
s
practically assured. Objection was not taken to the principles
1 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. US—42.
2 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 formulae (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.
3 This caused the pronouncedtendency of the Church to the formation of

dogma, a movement which Paul had already paved the way. The development
for
of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the At$x%^ 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
P. II.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 23
7
of morality — at
was not a primary consideration for
least this —
there were whom they did not seem foolishness,
many Greeks to
but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition
and to the Church's worship of a God, who, as creator of the
world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the
Greeks, with their ideas of a purely'spiritual deity, to be inter-
woven 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
itsoriginal conditions. " It was admitted on all sides that Christi-
anity 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. In instruction, in exhortations,
'
and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aber-
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 pre-
paration 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 there were also fixed formulae
this,
in these cases.
1
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.
;
rations, this precept was inculcated from the beginning : xttoîttu/jcsv
rxq xevxq xx) ftxrxixz Qpovridxc, xx) eXQupev iiri rev iottX&j xx) trs//,vbv
rijg irxpx^QTsixc vj[j.Siv xxvbvx ("Let us leave off vain and foolish
thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of
"). But the very question was What is sound doctrine?
our tradition :
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 vvvrxyftx xxrx xxtrccv roov ysysvy^svoov

xipevsav); 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
l
Christianity.
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 discipline?, and
the fcedus spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that.
1 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 similar to Theophilus' remarks in "ad
Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formula
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. I ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulae in the sense of Irenseus
and Tertullian. We find him using the expression cpfloyvtyôves in Dial. 80. The
resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there
reckoned among the beliefs held by the opSoyvwpovec; y.xtx ttxvtx Xpia-rixvoi. 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 tjjs xxixpxs xx) evirspovi; yvuw^
though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine.
Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenseus 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.
Chap, n.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 2$
They show us merely the excess of a continuous trans-

rather
formation no community could escape.
which 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, (i) because they had
the "Spirit" and found in that an indestructible guarantee of
their Christian position, (2) observed all the
because they
commandments of Jesus (svrokx) But when these
'fyaw).
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 formulae 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." 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
1
Hatch, "Organisation of the Church ", p. 96.
that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was
not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the
period between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed
creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense and —
this —
cannot be proved, the most dangerous of all Gnostic
schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed,
since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text
in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic
creed definitely interpreted ; '
for it was only by the aid of
a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to

repel the Gnostic speculations and the Marcionite conception of
Christianity.
In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings
of which are known to us through Irenaeus and Tertullian, took,
with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed
to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpret-
ation 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. Irenaeus was not the
author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the cooper-
ation or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a
matter that is still probably never be deter-
obscure,
1
and will
mined with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished
practically was theoretically established by Irenaeus - and Ter-
tullian. The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, defi-
nitely interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to
be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried
1 We
can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with
Irenaeus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner,
adhering to Polycarp's exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV.
23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned.
2 Irenaeus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. haeres., especially in the
third book. Unfortunately his treatise, "Acy«S st( eir($ti%tv rov xtos-toîkov HtffU'y-
/x«to?", probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved
(Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)
Chap, ft.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 27
to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory

that this series of doctrinesembodied 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 assump-
tions 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 interpret-
ation. Finally, existence of a fides catkolica, in the strict
the
sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential
agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities. '
But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenaeus was the
only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive
Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A fides apos-
tolica 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 deter-

mined whether they were admissible or not.
The persuasive power with which Irenaeus 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. 2 The rule
1
Irenaeus 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.
2 We must further point out here that Irenseus 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 inter-
pretation 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
thesemay be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.)
;,
of truth (also uxq rijc exxtyeiaft zypv 7 trophy xhyOsix "the truth
j?
proclaimed by the Church;" and to rfc xXyQsix: <too;u,xtiov, " the

body of the truth") is the old baptismal confession well known
to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4
ovtoo 5f zx) tov xxvdvx rijg aXyQsixs xxhnvj h kxvrx z%T£%uv
h Six tov (3x7TTicr[txT05 stripe, "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. l
By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which

in the case of Irenaeus (I. 10. 1,2) naturally follows the arrange-
ment 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 Irenaeus
himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines :
s
1
Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule
of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit
resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith ; but the latter were the explan-
ations 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 that, beginning with Irenaeus' time, we meet with differently
fact
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
is the baptismal confession.
that the rule of faith 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 formulas and at the same time definitely
interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in
allchurches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulae 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
which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard
collection of doctrines
in so was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma we do not know
far as it —
—
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.
3 Besides Irenoeus I. 10. 1, 2*, cf. 9. 1
— 5; 22. 1 : II. 1. 1; 9. 1 ; 28. 1; 32. 3,
;
the unity of God; the identity of the supreme God with the
Creator ; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the
Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the
God who created the world the essential divinity of Christ
;
the incarnation ofSon of God; the

the prediction of the
entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old
Testament; the reality of that history; the bodily reception
(htrxpxoc xvx/s/îc) of Christ into heaven; the visible return
of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (xvxttxvic ttx^c <rxpxbs,
7TXG-4C x'jQpuxoTVTQc), the universal judgment. These dogmas,

the antitheses of the Gnostic regulae,
l
were consequently, as
apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all
discussion.
Tertullian followed Irenaeus in every particular. He also
interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it,
thus explained, as the regula fidei, ~

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.
Like Irenaeus, though more stringently, he also endeavoured
still
to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is,
from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demon-
stration 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 Irenaeus, Tertullian
4
conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith, as the law given
4: III. 1—4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 15 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1: IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6;
33. 7 sq.: V. Praf. 12. 5; 20. I.
1
See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Pnef. 19. 8.
s This expression is not found in Irenaeus, but is very common in Tertullian.
3 See de praescr. 13: "Haec regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos
quaestiones."
4 See 1. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulae in suo ordine quantumlibet

quaeras et tractes." See de virg. vol. I. •
"
to faith,
1
also as a " regula doctrinae " or "doctrina regulae
(here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even
simply as "doctrina" or "institutio". 2
As to the content of
the regula. it was set forth by Tertuliian in three passages.
;i
It is essentially the same as in Irenaeus. But Tertuliian

already gives prominence within the regula to the creation of
4
the universe out of nothing, the creative instrumentality of the
1
See 1. c. 14: "Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de obser-
vatione legis," and de vir. vol. I.
2 See de prsescr. 21: "Si hsec ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quae
cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati
deputandum . . .demonstremus an hsec nostra doctrina, cujus

Superest ergo ut
regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur Communicamus . . .
cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." De prsescr. 32: "Ecclesise,
quae licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores,
tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicse deputantur pro consan-
guinitate doctrinse." That Tertuliian regards the baptismal confession as identi-
cal with the regttla fidei, just as Irenaeus does, is shown by the fact that in de
spectac.4 ("Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suae verba profitemur,
renuntiassenos diabolo et pompse et angelis eius ore nostra contestamur.") the
baptismal confession is the lex. He also calls it " sacramentum " (military oath)
in ad mart. 3 ; de idolol. 6 de corona 1 1 Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the
; ;
same designation to the inteqjreted baptismal confession (de prascr. 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 respon-
dentes 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 Tertuliian. In de prsescr. 26 Tertuliian
admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things " inter domesticos ", but
declares that they could not be communications "quae aliam regulam fidei super-
ducerent."
3 De 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. Prax. 2.
prsescr. The latter passage is thus
worded: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam
btx.ovoix.ictv dicimus, filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit,
ut unici dei sit et
per quern omnia quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in
facta sunt et sine
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 ccelo 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."
4 De praescr. 13.
1
Logos, '
his origin before all creatures, ' a definite theory of
the Incarnation,
:i
the preaching by Christ of a nova lex and

4
a nova proniissio regni ccelorum. and finally also the Trinitarian
5
economy of God. Materially, therefore, the advance beyond
Irenaeus is already very significant. Tertullian's regula is in
point of fact a doctrina. In attempting to bind the communities
6
to this he represents them as schools. The apostolic H 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.
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 de prcescriptione and from other evidence, that
treatise
in communities with which Tertullian was acquainted,
the
mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to
depend on assent to formulae 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.
i L. c.
2 L. c.
3 L. c. :
" id
verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis,
in semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in
prophetis
virginem Mariam. carnem factum, " etc.
« L. c.
Adv. Prax. 2: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione
s
quam otKOvoptccv dicimus, ut unici dei sit et Alius sermo ipsius," etc.
But Tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinse" (according to the New

6
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.
7 Note here the use of " contesserare " in Tertullian. See de praescr. 20: "Itaque
tot ac tantse ecclesise una est ilia ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes
In so far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal for-

mula 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 character in the shape of certain briefly for-
'
mulated doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic lex of

Christians Church became a reality, and was at
the Catholic
the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But
more than this was gained, in so far as the Antignostic inter-
pretation 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 Irenaeus
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 Alexan-

-
dria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,
ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was
not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the
prima et omnes apostolicse, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis
et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, quse iura non alia ratio
regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De prsescr. 36: "Videamus, quid
ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."
1
We
need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the phil-
osophic 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. I 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.
2 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.
Chap. II.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 33
same 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. ~ Clement of
Alexandria in his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine)
1
Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about
the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenaeus), 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 (iv ttsvtb o-vyypxpi(xxyiv rijv xkXxvvi %xpx-
Soiriv tov xxo<ttoMxov xypvypixToc, viroiJ.vitpi.XTto-xix.tvog) as well as from the fragments
of this work (I.e. IV. 22. 2,$: 6 dp6b$ hoyoq, and § 5 eptipurxv tjjv evuo-iv Ttf?
exxhyo-ixi; cpiopipixiots &6yot$ xxtx tov Oeov 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 6 xxvwv t»J; Trio-retac, 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 xxtx xhjSetxv tt/o-t/? 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 to exxXynxo-Tixov (ppovjuxx or 6 xxviav tvic, xpxxixt; TnWeft); the interpreted
baptismal confession, just as Irenaeus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees
with these (see Philosoph. Pnef., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32 34). Whether we are —
to ascribe the theory of Irenaeus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church
is that of Irenaeus (ad Autol. II. 14): SeSwxsv i 0eo; tw xoo-piui xv^xtvoptivw xxi
Xt'ltxô/ievcii vto twv x(j.xpTvii4XT0)v txq o-vvxywyxs, Asyopcevxt; Ss ixx^trixi; xyix$,
iv xlc, xxSxTrsp hifj-io-iv evoppoit; iv vfroa; xi $i$x<rxx&txi tvji; xhyQsixs iio-tv. Kxi . .
UT7rep xv vv)o-oi elo-iv srepxi 7reTpw$ei(; xxi xvvdpoi xxi xxxpnoi xxi iypiuoetc xxi
xoixyroi iiri (2hx(3y twv 'KMovtwv . . . ovtcdq eliriv xi StSxTxxhtxi Tyc, xKxvv\t;, Ksyoo
Si tcov xipeosuv, xi i%XTrohhvov<rtv Toiit; 7rpoo-iovTXQ xvTX~i$.
2
This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7,
p. 352 "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clements time possess a baptismal
flf. :
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 *j Kepi tcSv
Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is
lityio-Toiv b[j.oKoyix,
supported in this view by Voigt, 1. 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 Hennas, 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. XXXIL 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.).
3
34 HISTORY OF DOOM A [Chap. ii.
Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord, 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 recon-
structed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of
tradition. '
In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenaeus
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 Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the
true
latter and has lost that naive view of tradition, that is, the
complete content of Christianity, which Irenaeus and Tertullian
still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the
ultimate of the tradition to the Apostles; but it is
authorship
characteristic he neither does this of such set purpose as
that
Irenaeus 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 import-
ance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric
alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenaeus and
throughout determined by opposition to the
Tertullian, his attitude is
Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them

by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which
must not oppose the xxvoov rijc sxxKyivlxc, 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 employ-
ed the fixed standard applied in those of Rome, Carthage
1
'H xvpizKij lihcuTKxXix, e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15 90:
1VL 18. 165, etc.
2 We do not Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession

find in
related to the Roman, we reckon the 0£o; KccvTOxptkrup or sit; 0. %. as such.
unless
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
" ircepec$6<rei<; ruv xpxuiwv vpttrfivTipuv " which had been transmitted to him.
Chap. H.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 35
and Lyons. Such a did not

' but Clement standard exist ;
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 article of it without
1 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
6 kxvuv riic 7t/itt£w;; but the context shows that itis 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 b'o-x 1/V0 tov kxvovx rv\c, tt/s-tewi; -koisIv sxitstpxktxi.
In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find
kxvodv tj$s sKxhytrixi; (sKKô-txa-TtKbo). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the
right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the
correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided
in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore
parallel to the SiSxvkxKix tov Kvptov); 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 6 kxvwv tv\c, xAyQsixt;. In the first
passage it is said: $ yovv kxtx tov tviq xtySs/xt; kxv6vx yviatTTtKvit; TrxpxSooswt;
$u<rio\oytx, [jlxXXov Ss sttotttsix, sk tov irspi KOQ-\Moyovixt; tfpTyTxi h6yov, svdsvSe
xvx(2xivov<rx hxt Here no one can understand by the rule of
to Qsohoyixbv sl$o$.
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 vxpxkxtxS^kvi x7roSiSo(j.sv^ ®sli
: kxtx tvjv tov Kvplov $i$xo-kx*./xv Six v\
t&v xTroo-TOhwv xvtov tvji; Ssotrsfiovs KxpxSoeswt; crvvso-li; ts kx) o-vvxa-xifo-it;; then
he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted kxtx tov t%q xtySs/xs kxvovx, or t.
sKKtytr. kxv. ; and continues (125) : kxvwv Ss skkô-ixo-tikoi; v\ o-vvuSix kxi v\ evy.-
^DiVtX v6{JL0V TS KXI TTpOtp^TUV T}J KXTX TVJV TOV KVpiOV KXpOVlTtXV TTXpxSlSofjLSVy
otx&viKy. Here agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of
then the
Christ is ecclesiastical canon.
described as the Apart from the question as to
whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his
rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church " legem et proph- :
etas 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\ x^Svit; t>j? i-ixxxpix^ SiSxtTKxAixswxpxSoo-ei;
(I. 1. 1 1), xi xyixi nxpxSdo-SK; (VII. 18. HO), *i svKteijs kxi o-e/xvdi; tSj? irxpxSoosws kxvcov
(all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also i\ kxtx tviv Ssixv 7rxpxSo<riv <pt*.ocroQ>'x,
I, I. 15. I: II. 52., also the expression $ dei'x TrxpxSorit; (VII. 16. 103), i\ skk^v\-
tixo-tikvi %xpxSotrt$ (VII. 16. 95), xi tov Xpio-TOv TrxpxSdtrsit; (VII. 16. 99), >) TOV
y.vpiov 7rxpx5oo-i<; (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), ^ 6so<rs@ijt; xxpxSo<ri$ (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 to xoivbv tJj? t/o-tsuq
(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 kxtx
xX^sixv svxyysîKOi kxvuv, 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:
kxtx tov kxv6vx tov svxyysXiov =z kxtx t. svxyy.). In none of these formulas is
;
hesitation,and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the

and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine.
ability to fix
Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics
chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits
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. I. II, where
he gives an account of his early teachers (0/ pilv Ttjv xfySij tvjc, fixxxpixt; gwôvtsz.
SiSxo-xxhixc, vxpxSoa-iv evSi/Q xto TlsTpov re xxi 'Ixxwfiov, 'Itaxvvov re xxi IJxvôv
rwv xy/wv x7T0(tt6awv, 7rx7$ 7rxpx xxTpbt; kxSextptvot; yxov $y o~i/v 6eS> xxi sl$ yi(j.xs
tx irpoyovixx ixsivx xxt x-xoo-TOhixx xxTxSyo-opevoi o"rip(j.xTx). 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
xkqgtoKixvi xxi ixxKvi<7ix<TTixij opSoroizix tuv doypxTuv (VII. 16. 104). He has no
doubt that [ticc y: ttxvtuv ysyove tuv xxo<tt6kuv utrirep S&xvxxhix o\jtu$ $1 xxi
v,%xpxloTic, (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in
the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric
tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131
xurtxx §i$x%xvtoc, tov <ruTYipoc, tovc, xkovtoKovc, it tJjs iyypxtyov xypxtyoc, 'y\$y xxi
sic, iifj-xi SixSiSorxi 7rxpx$o<ri$. VI. 7. 61 : vi yvuo-ic, Se xlri\ i\xxtx SixSoxxc, (this is
the only place where I find this expression) e<? ohfyovc, £* tuv xkoo-toKuv xypx<pu:
7rxpxdo&e7<rx xxTShfavfev, ibid if yvuo-Ttxif 7rxpx$oo-tc, ; VII. IO. 55 : it yvuvic, ex
•nxpxloo-euc, hxdiSopivii toUc, xh'ovc, o-tpxc, xvToiic, tvjc, l$x<rxxhixc, Trxpexoêvoiq ohv
x xpxxxx xfyxvi \y%npiîrxi. In VII. 1 7. 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: Mtj ti ovv, el xxi -xxpxfixiy tic,
trvvHitxxc, xxi tjjv bîoKoyixv -xxpihboi tv\v Ttpbc, i^xc,, Six tov ypsvo-xêvov tvjv 6/x.oXoyixv
x$e%6(Ji.eQx tyic, xhylleixc, xxi $(*/?(, «AA' «s x^svSelv XP*i T0V snieixii xxi /lAtjîv §>v
vTritrxwrxi xxvpovv xxv xhXoi Tivec, 7rxpx(2xi'vwo-i o-vvfyxxc,, ovtuc, xxi vi/ixc, xxtx
(/.vfcivx tpottov tov ixxhyo-ixo-Tixbv n xpxfixiveiv 7rpo<ryxsi xxvdvx xxi ^xXkttx tijv
irepi tSjv /teyiaTUV bfiohoyixv i^jLel^jtiv $vKxtto\i.sv, ci oe Trxpxfixtvovo-i. But in

the other passages in Clement where bfMoXoylx 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:
hyxpxTSix a-wpxToc, (rxtpofyix xxtx tjjv 7rpbc, Sebv b[i.oXoyixv). In the passage quoted
it means main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or
the confession of the
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.
an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenaeus and

Tertullian than to that of Clement.In the preface to his great work,
"De he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed
principiis,"
apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed
to the apostolic teaching. 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. 2 The Syrian Churches, or at least a
3
part of them, followed still later. 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 ex-
tending from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond
the Alps. * It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore
also a passport, mark of recognition, etc., for the orthodox Chris-
1
—
De princip. 1. I. prsef. § 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. and Christological and theological teachings,
I.,
so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already
to be found here?
- That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very
important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own
testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, "because he
wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn
from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus,
who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen
kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with
keen interets may be gathered from his works. (See Dollinger, "Hippolytus und
Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that
city. Bigg therefore I.e. rightly remarks " The West is as unknown to Clement as it
:
was to his favourite Homer." That there was a formulated •k'kttic, xeci cpo/.oy>iec in
Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8)
He says of Novatian, txvxrpeTsi TJfv npo hovrpov tt/o-t/v kxi b\j.ohoy'mv. Dionysius
would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian
Church had not possessed a similar t/Vt/?.
3 The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the
Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.
4
The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and
original this confession still wasbeginning of the fourth
in outlying districts at the
century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already
heavily weighted with theology.
;
tians. The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain

ground an Antignostic sense. But a definite
features, that is, in
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. !
They may have first become an " aposto-
lic confession of faith " through the Nicene Creed. But even
this creed was not adopted all at once.
B. The designation of selected writings read in the churches as

New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection
2
of apostolic writings.
Every word and every writing which testified of the xvpios

(Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from
his spirit : "OQsv >j zi/pioT>j$ XxKeltou ixsT Kupiog strriv. (Didache IV. I
1
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 Irenseus that the con-
fession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's
time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated
that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novation,
"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 xttogtxc, . . .
rov xxvdvoQ liri xi^v^Kx zxi voSx SiSxyfiXTX /-tETsAjjAt/flfv), 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).
2 See the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld,

histories of the
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. Weizsacker, Rede bei der akad. Preis-
;
vertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Koppel, 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.
Chap. It] THE NEW TESTAMENT 39
see also i Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy. ' 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
2
of the Church, 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 Scrip-
tures containing and attesting the truth.
Marcion had fpunded his conception of Christianity on a new
3
canon of Scripture, which seems to have enjoyed the same
authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Test-
ament 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
1
"Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority." There
are also various stages and degrees of "holy."
2 I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New
Testament. (1) It is writings, but the whole book that has been
not individual
immediately handed down Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we
to us.
must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are
genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it
became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume
interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon,
though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur's tendency-criticism has fallen
'
'
into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting
which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the
Tubingen 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 (5) We must
forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency.
remember from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known
that,
of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time,
Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become
vigorously consolidated.
:)
The lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was
novelty
worked inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel
out,
to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had orig-
inally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the
Church.
speculations. l
On the other hand, about the year 1 50 the main body
of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possess-
ing equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apoca-
lypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts,
were regarded as inspired and authoritative. 2 Here we leave
1 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 Manichseans in the Byzantine age.
* Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz.,
2 Peter 16; Polycarp ep. 12. 1; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is
III.
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 {(ivixoTe, «$
yiypxxrxi, ttcAAo/ kX^toi, ohiyot Se iaXexro) svpebuiMSv), 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 ypx<pj, 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: irspxli —
ypxipii hiytr tin ovk 5jA0ov xxhe<rxi Sixxiovq xXhx x\j.xpTO)Xovi; has introduced a —
saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Test-
ament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4 xiysi 6 deo? oh %xpic; v/iZv si
:
xyxxxrs x.t.a. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness
of this explanation confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula
is
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:^/0 Key si- 'sysips
6 xx&evZwv xxi x-jxq-tx Ik tcSv vsxpuv xxi s7rt<pxvosi trot 6 Xpi<Tr6$. That.
certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the
usual "Agyf/". 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: ii ypxtyii
«c/'tjj, '6-kov Ksyst. These examples may be multiplied still further. From
all this we may assume that the trite formulae of quotation u ypx<pii,
perhaps
yiypxxTxt" 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 inco a collection
of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.)
1
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 4
out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the

Spirit. From
works of Justin it is to be inferred that the
the
ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the
Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets. The '
memoirs of the Apostles {x7:o^v'/iôvkv^xrx roov xttogtqXoov =

rx svxyykhix) 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. a 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
3
read in Christian meetings. Such writings naturally possessed
a high degree of authority. the Holy Spirit and the Church As
are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates
with the Holy Spirit, 4 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
edificationand that of attesting and certifying the Christian
1
—
See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. Citate Justing. Gott., 189 1. We may also
infer from the expression of jHegesippus (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 epistobe Pauli viri iusti" («/ ku6' im&s filfixoi y.cd etl irpovevi-
rovroii ixivToXcti TlxChov tou 6<rtov ivSpSq), which is found in the Acta Mart.
Scillit anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891,
2, p. 1 14 f.), and tempts I.
us to make In the later recensions of the Acta the passage,

certain conclusions.
characteristicallyenough, is worded: "Libri evangeliorum et epistohe Pauli viri
sanctissimi apostoli" or u Quattuor evv. dom. nostri
J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et
omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."
5
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.
:l
Rev. I. 3;IIerm. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. It.
4
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 aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."
"
42 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. II.
Kerygma xvQxXeix r«» Xoyuv).

(y, The ecclesiastical canon -was
the of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of
result
a process of collection, for individual communities had already
made a far larger compilation, 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
2
in itself a proof of this. Our first three Gospels contain pas-
sages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before
about the year 50. Moreover, Tatian's attempt to create a new
1
Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet
fixed.
3
We may remark that he was the first in whom we
4
find the Gospel of John 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 1 60 the whole of
our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in
Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyp-
1
The history may be traced back to
of the collection of the Pauline Epistles
the first Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of
century (I
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 I John (though he has not
Peter, I
named the authors of these), the first and the Gospels. The
Epistle of Clement
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 which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by
in
introducing them with "etSdrei;" (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows him-
self 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.
2 It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of
Peter among the ccK0[j.\ivnj.0Mev[j.a.TX see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2.
•
3 See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian's
Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.
4 Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he
regarded and used it like the other Gospels.
; ;
Chap. ii.J THE NEW TESTAMENT 43
tians, the use of which was not confined to circles outside the
l
Church.
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 by side with the Old
canonical writings side
Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the
2
Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. 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 sup-
plies us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament I
canon orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called

in
" 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 authori-
tative 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 3 but we are prepared neither for
this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testa-
ment, 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, 4 the meaning of which is, however, still dubious
in the works of Irenseus and Tertullian; and in the so-called
Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin
1
'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.)
2 Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5.
3
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).
4
Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the xxpifietx tuv %xhxiu\
fitfiAiuv, and of rx fitfixix rv\$ -xxXxixc, Stxfyy.yc, we may assume that he knows rx
(2i(3*fx TiJ; Kxtvvis Six$yKy(.
and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something

all intents and purposes finished and complete.
l
to 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, be-
cause we learn nothing at all of such persons. 2
And yet the
collection is regarded by Irenaeus 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 Testa-
ment. 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
3
immediately observable result of the creation of the canon.
1
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 cir-
cumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the
Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: 01 onro tuv ccipetreuv t«$ xpo? Tipoieov
xSstovo-iv evia-To^xq). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church
at all till the middle of the second century.
2 Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1 ; see also the ' recep-
tior",de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hernias in the Muratorian Fragment
and Tertull. de bapt. 17: "Quodsi quae Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum
Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia
presbyterum, qui earn scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans,
convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The hypoth-
esis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament
was up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed.
definitely set
Augustine Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who
(c.
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. Irenaeus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.
3 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 Irenaeus
also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptole-
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 in-
'
dicated here.
The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writ-
ings by a process of selection " 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
mreus 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.
1
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 Frag-
ment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schrifteh" in
the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des
Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2:
Schmiedel, Art. "Kanon" in Ersch. u. Gruber*s Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII.
p. Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the
309 ff.;
conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The fol-
lowing sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without
influence on me.
2 use of the word "canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly
The
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
Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullian's p. 47 The most common name is " Holy Scrip-
f.
tures". In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as

to elzyyshiov kzi 6 xxotrrohoc; (evangelicse et apostolicas litterae); see Tertullian,
de bapt. "tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." The name
15:
-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 occa-
sionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire col-
lection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the
Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets.
Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the
media of God's revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its
"
account of Hernias, and the designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs
already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned
warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about

the Holy Scriptures, 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 Testa-
ment, 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 pos-
session 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 ener-
getically 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 sub-
ject 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
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" from the Old Testament and
as distinguished
the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it
was the Church which selected these writings.
1
Here there is a distinction between Irenseus and Tertullian. The former
disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although
he has read Irenseus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered
Irenseus' efforts as successful.
Chap, ii.j THE NEW TESTAMENT 47
from the very But what writings were apostolic? From

first.
the middle second century great numbers of writings

of the
named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there
were often different recensions of one and the same writing.
'
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 ( I ) 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., appeared to
be depreciated, —
and to exclude all recensions of apostolic
writings seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the
that
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, a
and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox
1 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).
2 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 canon-
ical 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 anony-
mously 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
48 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. n.
creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward

fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but
Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost
none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could im-
mediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical Kerygma. This
perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the
Apostles
1
and in some cases of Peter and John,
also the Epistles
though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As
a collection this group is the most interesting in the new com-
pilation. 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 and insufficient.
9
The Church, however, found
my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without
(see my edition of the
on the proof here ,;
indeed being able to enter Teaching
of the Apostles" p. 06 ff). (i) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been
1
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
kt
genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.
1
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.
- 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
the selection facilitated by the fact that the content of the

early Christian was
most part unintelligible to
writings for the
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
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 decep-
tive, 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 (i) writings
of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as x-Ko^v^ôviv^ccrx 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 explana-
tion of u difficult" passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by
the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which " in ordinatione ecclesiasticae
disciplinse sanctificatae 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 mis-
sionary 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 Irenaeus and Tertullian. There it is called "acta omnium apostolorum sub uno
libro scripta sunt, etc." Irenaeus says (III. 14. 1): "Lucas non solum prosecutor
sed et cooperarius fait Apostolorum^ maxime autem Pauli", and makes use of the
book to prove the subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages,
— —
de praescr. 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 Si$x%ii tuv SwSskx x7to<tt6?mv 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. u Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nee spiritus sancti
esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum,
sed nee ecclesiam se dicant defend ere 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
4
;
more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite

reading in the communities. 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
2
theological ends. But the causes and motives which led to
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 muchon in the background, perhaps
a level with xypvypa nirpov, but Clement has no New Testament at all in
the
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,
Irenseus, 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 Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st
settled.
and which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle
3rd)
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 Irenseus 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 Irenseus 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.
1
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.
3
At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory,
that the Gospelsand the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the
name New Testament is not yet found in Irenaeus, 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.
1
CHAP. U.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 5
its being formed into a canon, that is,being placed on a foot-

ing 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 utter-
ances, including had always pos-
the written records of these,
sessed standard Church; there were therefore
authority in the
parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was un-
doubted from the first. Secondly, what was called "Preaching
1
of the Apostles," "Teaching of the Apostles," etc., was like-
wise 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 sup-
posed 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
be transferred to the written records
to
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 Irenaeus and Tertullian that the duty of accommodating
herself to these Epistles was forced upon the Church by Marcion
and the heretics, but for this constraint, her method
and that,
of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly
have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon. '
See above, p. 40, note 2.

2 We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenaeus 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 theolo-
gians 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. I, 2.)
This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must

not be traced to the Church's effort to create for herself a
powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the
compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection
vanished as soon as it was viewed as a sacred collection. For
now the principle :
" as the teaching of the Apostles was one,
so also is the tradition" Qijlix v\ ttxvtccv ykyove rm xttoo-tg/.x-;
vvKsp S3x<rxxKix ovrug 5f y.x) vj Trxpo&ovig)" was to be applied

It was now
and objectionable l
to all contradictory details.
imperative to explain one by another; the Pauline Ep-

writing
istles, for example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral
Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles.
2
Now was required what
Tertullian calls the " mixture " of the Old and New Testaments, 3
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
4
felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit. Such
a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is char-
acterised by the perception that it has not the active and spon-
taneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its
1
Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (4)
Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.)
2 See Overbeck, "Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in
Antiochien bei den Kirchenvatern," 1877, p. 8.
3 See Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI.

also 15. 125. The expression is also
frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. prsef. 4.
* 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 "to7; 3<p ?
vj/auv yeypxppsvoit; Six rov xyi'ov TrvevpxTOS " (LXIII. 2).
Chap, m] THE NEW TESTAMENT 53
legitimacy in an indirect and "objective" way. The breach

with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things
is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves
their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past
on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of
their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of
the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort,
to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this
point, suspicion attaches to those who hold fast their
great
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 justifi-
cation 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 in-
fluence 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, paracle-
tum fugavit" ("he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Para-
clete"), can be far more truly said of the New Testament which
the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testa-
ment, 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 like-
wise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such
men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pre-
tensions 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 acknow-
ledged 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 revel-
ation, 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. '
The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative concep-

tions (Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were
more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scrip-
tures; 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 fulland only
intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients. 9
By
this assumption viewed as prophets, received a
the Apostles,
significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.
:i
But,
though Irenaeus 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
1 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 prophetise et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non
ex parte, quod ceteri." Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135 : '"Ekxo-toi; 'iSiov e%et xxpiT/ix
x7ro deov, 6 ply ovTwt;, 6 Ss ovrcct;, 61 onroo-TOhoi $s iv xx<ri Tre'zAtipu/j.evot ; Serapion
in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3 v^Ltls : xhtov$ x%o<tt6ôvc;
\xxl rov Tlerpov y.xi roiit;
&Tto$e%6ii.e(lci Sic, Xpia-rdv. The success of the canon here referred to was an un-
doubted 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."
2 See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun. de pudic. 12. Suf-
15,
ficiency is included in the concept "inspiration" (see for ex. Tertull., de
above all
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 ").
1
3 The direct designation "prophets" was, however, as a rule, avoided. The

conflict with Montanism made expedient to refrain from this name: but see Tertullian,
it
adv. Marc. IV. 24: "Tarn apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophets."
Chap - «•] THE NEW TESTAMENT 55
of "prophet." These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen

by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the
Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writ-
ings are with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Chris-
filled
tians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic author-

l
ship. 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 thenew
collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even
rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the charac-
ter and this was evidently done because they
of inspiration ;
did not attribute tothem the degree of authority which, in their

view, only belonged to that which was apostolic. a The new
canon of Scripture set up by Irenseus and Tertullian primarily
professes to be nothing else than a collection of apostolic writ-
3
ings, which, as such, claim absolute authority. It takes its place
beside the apostolic rule of faith ; and by this faithfully preserved
1
Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage
about the Shepherd of Hermas. *
2 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.
3 The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings

were regarded as canonical must be answered in the affirmative in reference to
Irenseus 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 regit la
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 praescr. 37 ff.). The regida 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 me/ely 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.
r'
possession, 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 words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church
all
as words of the Lord but a completed collection of apostolic

;
writings was not yet at his disposal. Hence it is very im- '
probable 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 Autoly-
cum" point to a completed New

Testament. 2 Theophilus makes
diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist
John (C.I.i.) 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 fourand the writer of the Apocalypse. It is
Gospels
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
» The fragment of Serapion's letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the
fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of
the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.
See my essay " Theophilus

2 v. Antiochien und das N. T. " in the Ztschr. f.
K. Gesch. XL n I ff.
Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline
Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theo-
philus 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 ist Peter and the Revelation of
John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an
acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles. '
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 every-
where 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. 2 In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians
Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i. e., inspired
1
The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: '66ev SiSxo-xovo-iv v^mxc, xl
xyixt y petty xi xxi ttxvtsi; of 7rvsv[/.xToty6poi, i| div 'Iwavi^; Aeye/ x.t.A. (follows John I. I)
III. 12: xxi Trepi Stxxtotrvviis, %$ 6 vo\/.oc, e'lpt^xsv, xxoXovbx svpfo-xsTXt xxi tx rajv
~potyvjTWv xxi Tuv euxyyehiwv s%eiv, Six to tovq ttxvtx$ yrvsv/x,XTO(p6povt; ivi wsv/ixri
isoC tehxhyxevxi, III. 13: 6 xyiot; hoyoc; —y ivxyyihioc, tytavvi. ; III. 14.: 'Ho-xtxc; —to
ii vjxyyixiov — fleXc; K6yo$. The latter formula is 'not a quotatioii 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 hooks 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."
2 There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of

Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner's Gesch. d. N.Tlichen
Kanon. p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual
prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at
58 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, it
writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is

based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs,
or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth
are in his view inspired. 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 book par excellence. (3) As Clement in
is, inspired
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 "Gosper'
(to svxyysXtov) and "Apostles" (0/ SlttchttoXgi) 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 and treated as completely on a level with the
considered
Old Testament. The formula vo,uoc zx) 01 Trpo&jrxt vSi r::
iuxyysAtoy ("the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel") is

frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings,
is judged by this group. 2 He does not consider even the
Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with
s
the Gospels, though he occasionally describes them as yp&Cpzi.
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.
According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain
1
words Ivfigw?; but on the other hand Homer was a prophet against his will. See
Psed. I. 6. 36", also § 51.
In the Pasd. the Gospels are regularly called $ ypz4>j, but this is seldom the
2
case with the Epistles. The word " Apostle " is used in quoting these.
3 It is also very Clement almost nowhere illustrates
interesting to note that
the parabolic character of the by quoting the Epistles, but in this
Holy Scriptures
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
Paed. I. 6. 49: to Iv t# unoa-ro^ta ocytov Trvev/z* t5j tov xvp/cv x%c%pw{J.svov $oovy
hiysi. We can hardly conclude from Pred. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a
" prophet."
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. would be wrong to say that Clement views
It
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. (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. " He quotes the Ai^x^'-i
as ypxcpvi. (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 ypxQm, but
it had given the concept "apostolic" a far wider content than
3
Irenaeus and Tertullian, 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
1 It is worthy of special note that Clem., Precl. 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.
2 In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is
perhaps used like the xjpvy/zx. It is quoted in Psed. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89,
91, 92. 153, i54;IIL 49; IV. 975 V. 75, 82;VI. 63. 101, 124, 165.
3 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. 11 1— 118.
and peculiarity characteristic and freely acknow-

of Clement,
ledge the serious difficulties from the attempt to
inseparable
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 NewTestament canon, or, to speak more
correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had
not yet been finally settled in Alexandria.
The of the Alexandrian Church of the time may
condition
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 Irenaeus 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. '
Had this undertaking succeeded
in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted
1
the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection
The formation of
with same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by
the
each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of
1
Chap. ii.J THE NEW TESTAMENT 6
than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it
was really the intention of those first Alexandrian collectors to

place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testa-
ment, side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking
was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In
view of the difference of Clement's attitude to the various
groups within this collection of ypxCpxl, 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
on the score of either
inspiration or of apostolic this was
authority. The reason of
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
thirteen PaulineEpistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything
certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes,
as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures but the attempt to fix this arrangement
;
is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement's "canon of the New Testament"

was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is
already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.
62 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ll.
designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as

'•
Antilegomena." The historian of dogma can take no great interest
in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon
being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this
was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent
of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority,
and in the following period the continuous efforts to estab-
lish 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, ' notwithstanding the fact that it
was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be

summed up in a series of antitheses, (i) 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.
(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
1
No greater creative act can he 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.
2 i 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.
Chap, ii
]
THE NEW TESTAMENT 63
time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed

on all the new Christian productions due to this cause. (3) 1
The
New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the histo-
rical 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 inter-
pretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was
explained accordance with the conception of Christianity that
in
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 writings "
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 neces-
1
See on Overbeck "Abhandlung iiber die Anfange der patristischen
this point
Litteratur, Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament
I.e., p. 469."
canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as
highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3 SeSiut; xect :
lt£vhctfioviJ.evo$, (ivi xvi I6%ta vrpiv eTrKrwyypxtpstv jj sTriSixTxa-asaSxi tm tv^ tov

slxyyehlov xxivvjs Stxfyxyt; Aoyu, We find similar remarks in other old Catholic
Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).
3 But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and
Tertullian, Scorp. 11.
sarily followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of

theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within
which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from
putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By
doing so it promoted the lowering of Christian ideals
directly
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 en-
thusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on
a level with the Old proved the most effective means of pre-
serving 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 revel-
ation. 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 Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to
It gave some degree of
l
exceedingly important consequences.
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 itand in fact always
to the narrowest limits,
continued to forbid it ; was constantly made to
for, as before, appeal
the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the
truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception
1 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, hie semper. Ceterum ibi
non ut semper in illis inesset, hie ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter
distributus, hie totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hie large commodatus."
of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions. l
(7) The fatal words of the Lord and words

identification of
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 posses-
sion 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
2
the keenest weapons against herself. 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.
*
1
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 Testa-
ment 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. 1 14 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.
2 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 Tar as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this
danger. See Tertullian, de praescr. passim, and de resurr. 63.
3 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
5
In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament
to take asecondary place in apologetic writings and disputes

with heretics. On the other hand it was regarded (i) as the
'
directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian

2
life, 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 second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still
in the
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 7rc&tT£V£<rdxt zxrx to
;
suxyysXiov ("live according to the Gospel") held good in every

respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by
the other one, viz., zxtx ryv xc&ivyv Sixfyxyv (" 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.
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.
1
We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenseus 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 the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed
refute
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.
2 Tertullian, de
corona 3, makes his Catholic
in opponent say: "Etiam in
traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."
Chap, h.] THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH 67
C. The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church in-
to an apostolic office. The history of the remodelling

of the conception of the Church. '
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 regulce. and in different ways tried
to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of in-
heriting the Apostles' doctrine in all its purity. ' An historical
demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old
Catholic Fathers. They
to communities of whose
pointed
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. ' But Irenaeus 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
. . .
1
Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883. Harnack, Die Lehre
der zwolf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892.
Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from
2
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 Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against
the
the were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was
heretics,
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.
3 See Tertullian, de prsescr. 20, 21, 32.

:
68 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. II.
invenitur, est erratum sed traditum") and similar ones which

non
Tertulliandoes not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But
the dogmatic conception that the ecclesia (ox ecclesia) are the
abode of the Holy Spirit, was incapable of making any impres-
'
sion on the heretics, as the correct, application of this theory

was the very point in question. To make their proof more
precise Tertullian and Irenaeus 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. ' 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
1 This theory maintained by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and is as old as the

is
association xyix eKxtyo-fcc and the Trvevpx xyiov. Just for that reason the
of 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 praescr. 36).
2
Tertull., 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2.2: "Cum autem ad earn iterum
de praescr.
traditionem, ab apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis
quae est
custoditur, provocamus eos, etc." III. 3. 1 " Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto
:
mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint
videre, ethabemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ec-
clesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos
. . .
volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii

tradentes . traditio Romanae ecclesiae, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata
. .
hominibus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos." III. 3. 4,

4. 1: "Si de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in anti-
quissimas 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. t>Z- 8 " Character :
corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli earn quae in

unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quae 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 certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt." IV. 26. 5: "Ubi
veritatis
igitur charismata
domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est
ea The declaration in Luke X. 16 was
quae est ab apostolis ecclesiae successio."
already applied by Irenaeus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.
Chap, ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 69
preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character.

The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation
of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series
of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and there-
fore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical con-
sideration, no appeal to the " Elders " was capable of affording the
assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenaeus 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 consti-
tution 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 c^m;«. This notion of the transmis-
sibility of the charism of truth became associated with the epis-
copal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising
authority over the Church in all its relations and after the ;
'
bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the

communities against the attacks of the secular power and of
1
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 devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the
persons
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 and formed a dogmatic justification for the
Church's faith,
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 theoiy of a succession of prophets, which
can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary
form and speedily disappeared.
JO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. h.
heresy. ' In Irenaeus and Tertullian, however, we only find the

first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded
the Churches as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far
as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful
influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic
view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the
-
heretics. Neither Irenaeus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings,
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 Irenaeus, 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 mentioned attribute
3
of the bishops. Cyprian found the theory already in existence,
but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every
1 This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time
when Irenaeus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Iremeus 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 :
a J )ie
Datirungen und die Anfange einer bischoflichen Chronographie

altesten christlichen
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 com-
munity, as early as Soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each
episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent
such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles.
2 We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian's treatise "de praescr."
3 Special importance which has

attaches to Tertullian's treatise "de pudicitia,*'
not been development of the episcopate and the
sufficiently utilised to explain the
pretensions at that time set up by
bishop. the Roman
It shows clearly that Ca-
lixtus 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
1
remnant 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
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:
Txq xipea-st: 'irtpos ovx ihey%£t, 5j to sv exxtyrtx xxpxSoSev xytov 7rvev/ix, 0x1
tv%6vts$ % port pot 01 xnoo-TOhoi tzereSoo-xv to7? op&ut; Trevto-revxdo-iv uv yi\j.uc, SixSoxot
rvyx» VOVTS i T *?S Te xvrvjt; xxptroi; i^srexovrei; xpx^pxreixi ts xxt %ilx<7xxKix$ xxt
Qpovpot exx^r/xi teXoyta pivot ovx d<p8xApici vvo-TX% tziv ° v ^ e M"yov opSov
t»5c >
>riw7r£iz£v, x.t.A. In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception
of Irenaeus. 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 Maxi-
mums Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see also the genuine
Martyr. Tacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. 10 [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit.
Ratisb.]): "Nam ita inter se nostra religionis gradus artifex ssevitia diviserat, ut
laicos clericis separatos tentationibus sseculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros"
that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in
the Churches). Rut 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
completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we
ecclesiastical Christianity is
have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hi-
erarchical 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. Psed. III. 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3;
III. VI. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons; VI. 13. 107,
12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity;
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: g|eo-T/i/ ovv xxt vvv t«i; xvpixxxtc; ivx<rxvi<rxvTxc;
evT0hx7t; xxtx to evxyyeAtov reêicat; (Siiixtxvtxi; xxt yva)o~Tix£i$ eit; tvjv exhoyifv ruv
*7ro9-Tc'A(wy eyypx^vjvxi. ovtoc, 7rp£tr(2vT£pdt; 1<tti tm 'ovti tvji; Ixx^tixz xxt Stxxovot;
«A»f S»jS ti$? rov Qeov (3ovAjereat<;. 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.
:
;
place from the last half of the second century. ' In order to
understand them it is necessary to go back. was only with
It
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
14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: yvwa-rixot; ovrot; a-vvs^dvri sme7v rijv
duroo-TOtoxiiv xvovvixv xvTXvx7rhypo7, x.r.K. Clement could not have expressed him-
self in this way if had at that time been as much esteemed
the office of bishop
in which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in
the Alexandrian Church, of
other Churches of the West (see Bigg I.e. 101). 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
prsedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in
ecclesiis permanens: ilia sola credenda est Veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et
apostolica discordat traditione" —
so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2 tov xxvovot;
:
tJj? 'Iô-oC Xpitrrov xxrx $ixdo%ijv t. x%o<tt6^wv ovpxvi'ov exxhvi<7ix$). The state of
things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic regula fidei
and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas
by Origen's time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory
that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural
result. —
This idea led to the assumption which, however, was not an immediate
consequence in all cases— that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of
Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: "Manifesta est sententia Iesu
Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam per-
mittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et
credentium fidem baptizantes (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459).
See Rothe, Die Anfange der christlichen Kirche und Hirer Verfassung, 1837.
1
Kostlin,Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung

in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben,
1855. Ritschl. Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche," 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler,
Des Irenaus Lehre von der Autoritat der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche,
1868. Hackenschmidt, Die Anfange des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874.
—
Hatch Harnack. Die Gesellschafts verfassung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum,
1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Soder,
Der Begriff der Katholicitat der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl,
Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the
special literature treating of Cyprian's conception of the Church). Sohm, I.e.
:
Chap, ii ] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 73
towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by

the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit
and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church,

or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her
unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in
brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal
and a common hope. 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 from the idea of the Church; there is a

yet separated
holy in so far as heaven is her destination. 2
Church on earth
Every individual congregation is to be an image of the heav-
enly Church. Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast
:i
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 out-
ward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the
4
personal Christianity of the individual Christian. All the lofty
1
See Hatch, I.e. pp. 191, 253.
2 See vol.
f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the
I. p. 150
Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the Ai$acx*i-
3 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 77vevfj.ee and IxxXyirice. But every individual
community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be.
4 The expression "Catholic Church" appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2)
'6-c-j &v $«vf; STTitncoxos, ixe7 to wAJjfle? 'itrrw uo-Tsp &v % Xpio-roi; 'lye-ovt;,
'6-xov
bus! $ xzio?.tici) htx^fftx. But in this passage these words do not yet express a
'
designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and

Justin from the Old Testament and applied to the
gathered
Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven
and returns thither.
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
Irenaeus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic,
traditional faith which legitimises her. 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 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
new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical common-

wealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal,
*'.<?., the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of
the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet " xxSohixoi; " does
not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church.
1
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.
2 It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression "% 'ivwtru; tv,c
skk^ti'xq" is first found. founded on the opOdi; ?>6ycn;

In his view the SKx^tja-ix is
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 conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one.
The way is very plainly prepared for it in i Tim. III. 15: olxot; Qsov ixicAjffl*/*',
fTTXlhOC, HXI c'jfZIW/XZ TJJ? XAvjieiXS.
;
all of the world had really united in opposition to

parts
the and "heresy", and had found compensation for the
state
incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical
obligations in the consciousness of forming an oecumenical 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. '
This expression corresponds to the
powerful position which the "great Church" (Celsus), or the
1
The oldest predicate which was given
Church and which was always to the
associated with it, was that of holiness. See theBarn. XIV. 6; Hermas, New Testament;
Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial.'i 19; Ignat. ad Trail, inscr.; Theophil., ad
Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, "holy churches"); Apollon. inEuseb,
H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 135 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: kxxAovv riiv ixxXyelxv
nxpHevov o\j7ru yxp 'ifybxpro xxox7i; ftxTxixit;. The unity of the Church according
to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55); see
also Hermas; Justin; Irenaeus; Tertullian, de praescr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII.
17. 107. Even before Irenaeus 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: *i ev Z/ivpvy xx&ohtxii exxhyo-ix (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenaeus,
III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents
••Catholics." The word itself is not yet found in Irenaeus, but the idea is there
(see I. 10. 2 ; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H. E. V. 19: xxvx ii ev xo$ij.m
xSe^dnii;). KxSohtxdt; is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible Church
in Mart. Polyc. inscr. : eel xxtx ttxvtx tqwov t>5$ xylxt; xxi xxiohtxvji; exxhyo-txi
Txpoixtxi: 19. 2 ; 16. 2 is probably an inter-
(in all these passages, however, it
polation, have shown in the "Expositor" for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f.); in the
as I
Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16.9.
iu Tertull. frequently, e.g., de praescr. 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,
"xxvuv xxSoAdcoq" in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, "cath-
olica fides et religio" in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the
word xxQoAtxdt; 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;
102; Athenag., 27; Theophil., I. 13 ; Pseudojustin, de monarch. I,
in Justin, Dial., 81,
(xxdo*. Ulx)\ 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; "*• 67.
The addition "catholicam" found its way into the symbols of the West only at a
comparatively late period. The earlier expressions for the whole of Christendom are
kxvxi xiixxhvjtTtxi, ixxXviTixi xxtx TZxfTXv tcTuv, exxAyo-ixi xt ev xoTfAtc, xlvty ovpxvou, etc
J6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
"old" Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the

second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the
school sects, the Christian and the
associations of all kinds,
independent Christians. This
was declared
Church, however,
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. 1). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic
heritage, has the assurance whereas
of possessing the Spirit ;
all communities other than inasmuch as they have not

herself,
received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are there-
fore separated from Christ and salvation. 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
2
recognised as the condition of redemption. 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;
1 Very significant is Tertullian's expression in adv. Val. 4 :

" Valentinus de ecclesia
authenticse regulse abrupit," (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman
Church).
2 Church mother (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is

Tertullian called the
called "mother"); see de orat. 2 "ne mater quidem ecclesia prceteritur", dejnonog. 7;
:
adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, 1. 45, had already
done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon
after Tertullian's time: "credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam teternam 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": pyrtip Ss ovx, #C tivsi; sxSeSuxaia-iv, ii eKxtytri'tz, #AA'
•4 Seiee yma-is xcci it <ro$ioc (there is a different idea in Pted. I. 5. 21 and 6. 42:
{mvitvip TxpUvoc; exichviirftzv tpoi (pfaov xvt*iv xztelv). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the
faith is named "mother."
Chap, ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH yj
but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of

the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter).
It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220
Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there must
be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church arid that the Ark
of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type. '
The
departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed
in this statement. But the following facts must not be over-
looked : — First, the new conception of the Church was not
yet a hierarchical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and
unity of
believers found here magnificent expression.
all
Thirdly, development of the communities into one solid

the
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 com-
munity had a wide scope not only at the end of the second
but also in the third century. 2 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 Irenseus and Tertullian we
rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the
1
Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.
The phraseology of Irenseus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks
2
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.
;
:
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, Irenaeus 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. ; form the very
in fact these doctrines
essence of his teaching. But, since she was also regarded as
the visible for objectively preserving and commun-
institution
icating and since the idea of the Church in contra-
the truth,
distinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far
as Irenaeus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could
not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify
the earthly Catholic Church. 1
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 Irenseus as already
referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every
2
other calling itself Christian. As to the second point, it can-
not be denied that, though Irenaeus 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 succes-
sion 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 Irenaeus, however, that theory was still
1 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; cuius 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. II. 8: o-ti/Ao; xcci a-nipty/tn SK%ty<rix$ to svxyysAiov koci 7rveviJ.ce %(>>%$ : IV. 8. 1 :
"semen Abrahae ecclesia"., IV. 8. 3: "omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem'*;

I V. 36. 2 " ubique praeclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum'':
:
IV. 33. 7 : extttya-ice liiya. aoci '4v$o%ov a-upx rov Xpto-rov ; IV. 26. I sq. : V. 20. I . : V. 32.
V. 34. 3., " Levitse et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini."
2 Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic
Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1 : IV. 26. 2; 33. 7).
Chap. II.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 79
nothing more than an artificial line ; but artificial lines are really
supports and must therefore soon attain the value of found-
ations. '
Tertullian's conception of the Church was essentially
the same as that of Irenaeus; 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.
1
On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, I.e., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the passage,
bin lias weakened its force. The fact that Irenaeus was here able to cite
the li
antiquus ecclesiae status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi
secundum successiones episcoporum", etc., as a second and independent item along-
side of the apostolic doctrine however, a proof that the transition from the idea
is,
uf the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical

institution was already revealing itself in his writings.
- The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine,
is spoken of in de
20; de virg. vol.
prsescr. 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, quae trium corpus est"; 8: " columba s. spiritus ad volat, pacem
<lei adferens, emissa de ccelis, ubi ecclesia est area figurata"; 15: " unus deus et
unum baptismum et una ecclesia in ccelis" ; de psenit. 10 " in uno et altero ecclesia :
est, ecclesia vero Christus " ; de orat. 28 " nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacer-
:
dotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus " Apolog. de exhort. 7 "differ-
;
39 ; :
entiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiae 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, already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7
is :
" 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
80 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ir.
From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how

vigorous the old conception of the
Church, as the heavenly
communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be
about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we
have already said as to Clement's views about the rule of faith,
the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his
philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to

the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be
more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenaeus. !
Up to the 5th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the
1
Stromateis, and in the Paedagogus, 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 which appears on earth as her image.

that Instead of
distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of
God's will aiming at the salvation of man a Church which is —
to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the
subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But,
beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is
influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies
this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the
visible "Church" in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the
empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the
institution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely
adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in
polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled
nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the
Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the
elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made
quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et Alius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam
congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam Humerus omnis
qui hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et
in
ideo quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem,
ecclesia
non ecclesia numerus episcoporum " de anima n, 21. Contradictions in detail
;
need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and
as a Montanist is contradictory.
1
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.
1'
as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church,

because he was still able to attributeindependent value to
Gnosis, that is, to independent piety he understood it.
as
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 much. 2
The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement's idea
3
of the Church is concerned. 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 con-
stantly before him.
4
When opposing heretics, he also, like Clem-
ent, cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church,
because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise
1 Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which
is the object of faith. See Psed. I. 5. 18, 21 ; 6. 27 : w$ yxp to UK\\[mx tov ®sov
spyov i<TTt xxi tovto x6<Tfj.o<; ovofix^STXi, ovtu xxi to $ovXy\{jlx xvtov xvSpu7ruv so-ti
a-UTtiptx, xxi tovto \xxhv\crix xsx^txi — here an idea which Hermas had in his
mind (see Vol. I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom.
II.12. 55; IV. 8. 66: eixuv v) tSj; ovpxviov hxxfyo-lx$
iTrtyeioi;, $i67rep evx6ps6x xxt
\ni yvtc, yevetrSxi to Qetypix tov ®eov ax; sv ovpxvtZ; IV. 26. 172 ^ exxAyo-tx V7tb :
Xbyov x7roAi6pxyTOs XTvpxvvyTOc; t6Ais ski yvj;, SeAy/tce 6e7ov eni yvt$, ui; ev ovpxvui;
VI. 13. 106, 107 VI. 14. 108 v) xvcctxtw ixxhyo-ix, xxtf ijv 61 (piAderctyct g-vvx-
; :
yovTxi tov ®eov ;

VII. 5- 29 : ""*'? ov xvpiais t*)v ht$ Tt{iv)v tov ®sov xxt' evriyvuviv
xyi'xv yevopievviv \xxKv\o~ixv ispbv xv 'inroiptev ®eov to •xoXKov x\tov ov yxp vvv . . .
tov tSkov, «AA« to

tuv IxXsxtwv ixxXyvixv xzhSi; VII. 6. 32; VII. II. 68:
xQpottrpix
in nvevpixTixii ixxXyeix. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly

formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sen-
tences Qxvspbv olfixt yeyevyo-Sxt ptixv elvxi tjjv aAjjflij exxXv/trixv tv)v r2 '6vti xp%xtxv,
:
ei? #v 01 xxtx 7rp6Sio-iv Sixxioi eyxxTxAeyovTXi, evb$ yxp '6vto$ tov @eov xxi ivb$
tov xvpiov Ty yovv tov ivbt; (pva-fi o-vyxKvtpovTXi \xxh*\o~ix v) y.ix, %v siq toAAa:$
. . .
xxTXTsptv3iv fiix%ovTXi xipeosi^.
2 It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim has fallen into the
background in Clement's conception of the Church.
3 A
significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the
earthlyChurch correspond to those in the heavenly one ; but this idea, which after-
wards 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, I.e., p. 100.
4
De princip. IV. 2. 2 : *) ovpxvtot; exxAy/o-fx ; Horn. IX. in Exod. c. 3: "ecclesia
credentium plebs" ; Horn. XI. in Lev. c.
5 ; Horn. VI. in Lev. c. 5 ; ibid. Horn. IX. " omni :
ecclesise dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum." T.XIV. in Mt. c. 1 7 c. Cels.

: :
VI. 48 : VI. 79 ; Horn. VII. in Lk. ; and de orat. 31a twofold Church is distinguished
6
refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy. '

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 Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw
of the
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 attainedby the Catholic Church by the time of Philip
the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old
2
Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,
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. 3 This magnificent idea, which regards
the Church as y.6<r;j,oc rov xdtrpou, 4 denoted indeed a complete
departure from the original theory of the subject, determined
by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget
(fti<rr£ elvxi B7Ti twv xyiwv <rvvxdpoi%otzevwv diKbyv Ikk^<tixv tjjv nev xvipooiruv, rijv Ss
xyyebuv). Origen does not assume two Churches, but, like Clement,
Nevertheless
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 allegoiy was not new: ov npGiTOv
'Slpiyevyv sirt rxvrtjv rv\v 7rpxy^XTBtxv ehie'iv <px<ri'v, xhhx rijv t%q skk^<t/x^ (jlvcf-
Tucijv ipwvsvtrxi 7rxpx$ocriv. 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.
1
De princip. IV. 2. 2 Horn. 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 to 'ohov <tu(jlx tuv a-vvxywyuv t>5; ixKAtfo-Ziz;.
Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the "city of God" (see also pseudo-Cyprian's
2
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.
3 See c. Cels. VIII. 68—75.
4 Comment, in Joh. VI. 38.
Chap ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 83
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, we already find in his theory a 1
combination of all the features that became essential parts of

the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the
2
exception of the clerical element.
3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear
to us, in Irenaeus 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
3
theory. Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old
article: "I believe in a holy Church." But, at the same time,
actual circumstances, though they did not at first succeed in
altering the Church's belief, forced her to realise her changed
position, she had in point of fact become an association
for
which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected
everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this
4
association with the ideal Church was a matter of course, 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 tradi-
tion in heart and life. From the principle that had been set
1
Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the '<S%Ao? Tifc iKKXytrixc,
(the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in
the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere).
* Origen, who is Augustine's equal in other respects also, and who anticipated
many of the problems considered by the latter, anticipated prophetically this Father's
—
view of the City of God of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f.). The Church is also
viewed as to xxrx &eov toMtbv^x in Euseb., H. E. V. Prsef. § 4, and at an earlier
period in Clement.
3 This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work "de principiis"
we find no section devoted to the Church.
4 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 development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its
in the
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 rap-
idly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.
84 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ir.
up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on

which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could
not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until living author-
ities 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 Irenaeus and
Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the fides
catholica and ecclesia catholica as inseparably connected, 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. Ter-
tullian 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
bishop 2 who first converted the proposition that the bishops are
direct successors of the Apostles and have the same " locus magis-
terii" (" 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. 3
Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church.
1
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
Irenaeus says: $ lixfywvix t>5? vyo-reiat; rijv opdvotxv tvis itiffrsiac, o-vviemitru
8 On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. 12, and Tertull., de pudic.
3 See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also. Hippol., I.e..
Chap. ii.J IDEA OF THE CHURCH 85
In one decisive point, however, he did not assist the secularising

process which had been completed by the Roman bishop,
in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the
Church's existence (see the following chapter). In the second
half of the third century there were no longer any Churches,
except remote communities, where the only requirement was to
preserve the Catholic faith ; the bishops had to be obeyed. The
idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main
one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith
as a bond of unity. The Church based on the bishops, the
successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the
legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation. This
idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East,
though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less
certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy
was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began
to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand,
circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a
l
finished theory. According to Cyprian, the Catholic Church,
to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible
apply (see Hartel's index under "ecclesia"), is the one institu-
tion of salvation outside of which there is no redemption
\ Cyprian's idea an imitation of the conception of a political

of the Church,
empire, viz., one great governed state with an ideal head, is the
aristocratically
result of the conflicts through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a
complete form in the treatise "de unitate ecclesiae" and, above all, in his later
epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines the 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 circum-
stances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenseus.
Cyprian's notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the epis-
copate 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 oecumenical 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).
86 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. U.
(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 feder
ation. This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate,
l
which sustains her, 2 because it is the continuance of the apostolic

3
office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.
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 her truth, because this union
4
is only brought about by love, 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
1
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 nee curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, cum foris doceat; quisquis ille
est et qualiscunque est, christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est." In the
famous (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): "habere non potest deum patrem qui
sentence
ecclesiam non habet matrem," we must understand the Church held together by
the sacramentum unitatis, i.e., by her constitution. Cyprian is fond of referring
to Korah's faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses.
2 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.
3 According the bishops are the sacerdotes kxt" e%o%jv and the
to Cyprian
indices vice See epp. 59. 5:66. 3 as well as c. 4: "Christus dicit ad
Christi.
apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes prsepositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione suc-
cedunt: qui audit vos me audit." Ep. 3. 3: "dominus apostolos, i.e., episcopos.
elegit"; ep. 75. 16.
4 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 main Christian virtue. That is the
the product of love, this being the
ideal thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. I 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 secu-
larised and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into
hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian's stamp.
"
so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and

guided by God, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and ex-
change, and each bishop represents the whole significance of
the episcopate. '
Hence the individual bishops are no longer
to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communi-
ties, 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
2
circumstances of his own diocese. But it also follows that
1 Ep. 43. 5:55. 24: "episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi num-
erositate 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.
8Cyprian 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 rcgula 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 anteces-
sores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis mcechis
non putaverunt et in totum paenitentiae locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen
a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicae ecclesiae 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: 73. 26;
Sententiae episc, praefat.): "qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem
damus, quando habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum
unusquisque praepositus, 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
the bishops of those communities founded by the Apostles them-

selves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity
of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office in-
volves the equality of all bishops. '
However, a special import-
ance 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 communion with that Church was in itself
the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical
baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically
denied the latter's pretensions to exercise special rights over
2
the Church in consequence of the Petrine succession. Finally,
Church practice in Carthage and which was the point in question for
Africa, —
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 consnetudo 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", "prsecepta 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.
1
Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles,
and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).
2 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. 1 1 : 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.) : " com-
municatio tua, id de unit. 4 " super-
est catholicse ecclesiae unitas pariter et caritas " ; :
unum aedificat 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
;
although Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the

Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved
the Christian element so far as to assume in all his statements
that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keep-
ing with their office, and that otherwise they have ipso facto
forfeited it. 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 contra-
"Stimmen aus Maria Laach," 1877, part 8, p. 355; but "ratio" cannot mean that)
e P- 73- 7 "Petro primum dominus, super quern sedificavit 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 ecclesiae cath-
•olicae" (the expression "radix et mater" in ep. 45. 1 no doubt also refers to her),
and ep. 59. 14: "navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam prin-
•cipalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre
nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prsedicante laudata est (see
3 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum." We can see
•epp- 3°- 2 5 :
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 naively, even at the time
when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), "quoniam fro magni-
tudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prcecedere." In the controversy about heretical
baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. 1) 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.
episc. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience
from the "ecclesise novelise et posterse" (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to
•enforce the Roman practice "tyrannico terrore" and insisted that the unitas ecclesice
required the observance of this Church's practice in all communities. But Cyprian
opposed him most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every
in the
bishop, a member of the episcopal confederation based on the regula and the
as
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. 7 1 3) " Petrus . :
non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se prin-
•cipatum 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,
I.e.,pp. 92 ft"., no —
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.
1
See specially epp. 65, 67, 68.
go HISTORY OF" DOGMA [Chap. ii.
dictions that remain unreconciled in Cyprian's conception of

the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown
the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of
the Church).
Addendum The
great confederation of Churches which
I.
Cyprian and which he terms the Church was in

presupposes
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. l 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 formu-
lated —
before the fourth century at least.
2
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 refutedby actual circumstances. 3
The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the
II.
Church. The designation aipscris implies an adherence to some-

1
Hatch I.e., p. 189 f.
2 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 Softer, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi
in (1879), PP- 439? 45^5 the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887
Italia
(Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol, Hieron. Rome
1885, but above all the latter's study: Memoire sur l'origine des dioceses episcopaux
dans l'ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the
4th century should also be studied.
3 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 cor-
respond with the Catholic regtda 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: /./t) Ss7v oA«? lh-
rxêtv rov hoyov, «AA' 'ixasTov, tuc 7r£7r;Wsi/xe, Stx^svetv trwQyaeaOxt yeep rove; hiri
to* ia-rxvpoophev Âttocct*; k.t.a., was naturally regarded as inadmissible.
; 1
Chap, II.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 9
thing self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of some-

thing objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the
particular thing which the apostasy consists.
in 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,
Irenaeus, 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 would at once have been an
of their origin
acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right
to their opinions, and such an explanation is not quite foreign
'
to Origen in one of his lines of argument. 2 Hence the ortho-

dox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to
any sacrament 3 or acts esteemed in their own communion,
when these were performed by heretics 4 and this was a prac-
tical application of the saying that the devil could transform
5
himself into an angel of light.
1
Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose
in theChurch 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 prsescr. 6: "Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet,
sed nee eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus
aactores, qui nee ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed
acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignaverunt."
2 See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1.
3 We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: "Haeretici nullum
habent consortium nostrse disciplinae, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio
communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est praeceptum, quia
non idem deus est nobis et illis, nee unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nee bapt-
ismus unus, quia non idem; quern cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent,
nee capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nee 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.
4 As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as
hypocrisy and love of ostentation in Euseb., H.E. V. 13. 2 and
(see e.g., Rhodon
others in the view was untenable, then all morality and
second century). If this
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. 1. X., c. 5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; ep. 73. 21 etc.
5
Tertull., de praescr. 3 6. —
;
But the we have named did not yet completely

Fathers
identify Church with a harmoniously organised institution.
the
For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christian-
ity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when
these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to them-
selves. 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. If it was desired to get
1
rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some devi-

ation from the rule of faith; and under this pretext the Church
2
freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians. Cyprian
was the first to proclaim the identity of heretics and schismatics,
by making a man's Christianity depend on his belonging to
3
the great episcopal Church confederation. But, both in East
1
Irenaeus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. II. 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 suam-
que utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesise." 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. Ter-
tullian 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 (?).
2 Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents
of Montanism and on the other, Tertull., adv. Prax. ; Hippol., c. Noet 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
of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even
misinterpretations
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).
3 Cyprian plainly asserts "haec sunt initia haereticorum et ortus
(ep. 3. 3):
adque conatus schismaticorum, superbo tumore contemnant" (as to
ut praepositum
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. Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad.

Valent. 4; de bapt. 17;
Epiphan. II. Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian
42. 1;
it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: "neque enim aliunde haereses
obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur"
•epp. 66. 5 : 69. I : " item b. apostolus Johannes nee ipse ullam haeresin aut schisma
discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit"; 52. 1:73. 2:74. II. Schism and
heresy are always identical.
Chap. ii.J IDEA OF THE CHURCH 93
and West, this theory of his became established only by very

imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process
was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics
and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public
denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political
grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence,,
and because it was always possible in case of need to prove
l
heresy against the schismatics.
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 func-
tions,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 Testament canon New
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 TxpdtiocrKr xypocCpog (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.
1
Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian's theory as the starting-point of
their but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic
disquisitions,
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 ecclesise". 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.
CHAPTER III.
CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH.

I . The legal forms by which the Church secured
and political
herself against power and heresy, and still more
the secular
the lower moral standard exacted from her members in con-
sequence of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world,
called forth a soon after the middle of the second
reaction
century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor
and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at
preserving restoring the old feelings and conditions, and
or
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 insti-
tution 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
Chap, hi.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 95
century, two great but numerically unequal Church confeder-

ations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the
title "ecclesia catholica", viz., the confederation which Constan-
tine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist
one. Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption
In
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 reaction '
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 Apo-
calypse, and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom
Christ —
had promised that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ him-
self, 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
2
prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above.
1
See Ritschl, c; Schwegler, Der Montanismus, 1841 Gottwald, DeMontanismo
1. ;
Tertulliani, 1862; Reville, Tertull. et le Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes
of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehlin, Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Mont-
anism 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 Aurele, 1882, p. 208 ff. Bonwetsch, Geschichte des
; ;
Montanismus, 1881 Harnack, Das Monchthum, 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 Moller (Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography),
and Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsacker in the Theologische Litter-
aturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im apostolischen und nach-
apostolischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift fiir 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.
2 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
96 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, hi
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 sub-
jected 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. Whatever l
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 commu-
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 un-
justifiable of interpreting them in accordance with their later application
practice
in the circles of Western Montanists. A completely new organisation of Christen-
dom, 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 par-
;
ticular 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 no standard
is
for the strength of Christian faith. (Since these words were written, we have
read in Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel [see Georgiades in the journal 'ExxA.
x^Ssix, 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).
1 Oracle of Prisca in Epiph. H. 49. 1.

:
nities in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the

prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies
were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were
circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time
they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at
Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the move-
ment 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. Whenever Montanism comes before us in the clear
'
light of history it movement already

rather appears as a religious
deadened, though very powerful. Montanus and his prophet-
still
esses had set no limits to their enthusiasm nor were there as ;
yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained

them. "
The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had
3
appeared in them and spoke through them. Imagination pic-
1
Even in its original home Montanism must have accommodated itself to
circumstances at a comparatively early date —which is not in the least extra-

ordinary. No doubt the Montanist Churches in Asia and Phrygia, to which the
bishop of Rome had already issued Uteres 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 ipsiseorum adseverando",
prophetis et ecclesiis
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, how-
ever, 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.
2 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.
3 See Oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, 21 in Bonwetsch, I.e., p. 197 f. It can
hardly have been customary for Christian prophets to speak like Montanus (Nos. 3 5) —
iyu Kvpio$ 6 Seo; 6 TxvroKpxrup Kxrxyivdpevos sv xvdpwnw, or eyu xvpio$ 6 Osbi;
or syu tifti 6 nxriip kxi 6 vibt; kxi 6 7rxpxK^ro^ though Old Testa-
irxriip Âflov,
ment prophecy takes an analogous form. Maximilla says on one occasion (No. 11) 5
rovrov rov %6vov kxi r*j? o-vvd^KtiiKxi TvîitxyytXixc, xlpsrio-rviv,
xireo-Ttihe (if y.vftoi
and a second time (No. 12): %iwko\jlxi w§ kCkqc, Ik Ttpofixrw ovk el(u Ai/xo$ pvifix -
7
'
98 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
tured Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.

The most extravagant promises were These prophets given.
2
spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they
were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations. 3 They
set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of
any tradition, 4 and they inveighed against the main body of
tlpi xxl Trvev(j.x xxl Svvxpis.The two utterances do not exclude, but include, one
another No. 10: ifiov
(cf. also w
xKOvo-tfTS *AA# Xpitrrov xkovitxts). 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.
1 L.c, no. 9: Xpt<rrb$ Iv iSsx yvvxixog s<T%y\j.xTHTiJ.tvoc,. 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.
See Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. In Oracle No. 2 an evangelical promise

2 is repeated
in a heightened form; but see Papias in Iren., V. 33. 3 f.
3 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, is no doubt that the new prophets themselves did not adhere
there
to apostolic and had no hesitation in deviating from them. Cf., moreover,
dicta
the direct declarations on this point in Hippolytus (Syntagma and Philos. VIII. 19)
and in Didymus (de trin. III. 41. 2).
4 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 sseculo 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): 6 SiSx^xt; hvtrets yxpwv, 6 vyivtbixi;
vopoSsTfoxt;; Prisca was a irxpievot; (l.c. § 3); Proculus, the chief of the Roman
Montanists r "virginis senectse" (Tert, adv. Val. 5). The oracle of Prisca (No. 8)
declares that sexual purity is the preliminary condition for the oracles and visions
—"
Chap. HI ]
OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 99
Christendom. l
They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets,
but as the last prophets, prophets in whom was
as notable
first fulfilled the promise sending of the Paraclete. *
of the
These Christians as yet knew nothing of the " absoluteness of
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, nee estsepulcrum
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 hot already
corrected? Such an assumption, however, is not necessary.
1 Euseb., V. 16. a:V. 18. 5.
2 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 doubt as to the claim of the new prophets to the
will remove all
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. 24:1V. 22, Prax. 30; Firmil. ep. 75. 7; alii). (2) Similarly,
the divine afflatus was, from the first, constantly designated as the "Paraclete" (Orac.
no. 55 Tertull. passim; Hippol. passim; Didymus etc.). (3) Even in the third
century the Montanist congregations of the Empire must stillhave 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. " prophetse proprii
of the Spirit (pudic. 12; see Acta Perpet. 21). On the contrary we find in Philos.
VIII. 19: V7rip Si &7rotTT6hov$ xxi irxv %xpi<rii.x t«£/t« rx yvvxix $o£x£ou<riv, «$
tqK\jlxv -xhtiov ti Xpio-rov hv rovTOtt; /.eyeiv tivxq xvtuv yeyovevxi. 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, I.e., we read : rov xko<tt6Xov ypx$ixvTOQ x.t.A., ixelvoi Keyovo-iv rbv
Movtajvov ehyhvQevxi kxi ho-xvxevxi to tsAe<ov to tow TrxpxKhvtrov, tovt' '£<ttiv to

toC xyiov TrvevfixTOS. (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 denoted by the very expression •' Paraclete."
is
What sort of mission they ascribed to themselves is seen from the last quoted
passage, for contained in it must be regarded as the enthusiastic

the promises
carrying out of Montanus programme. If we read 1
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 Mont-
anus to gather the scattered Christians and really form them into a flock, and also
IOO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. in.
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 Miinster. The " Montanists"
outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the
legal position of the great Church. They declared their adher-
his claim to be the bearer of the greatest and last revelations that lead to all
truth; and, if we call to mind that in those Johannine discourses Christ
finally,
designated the coming of the Paraclete as his own coming in the Paraclete and
spoke of an immanence and unity of Father, Son, and Paraclete, which one finds-
re-echoed in Montanus' Oracle No. V., we cannot avoid concluding that the latter's
undertaking is based on the impression made on excited and impatient prophets
by the promises contained in the Gospel of John, understood in an apocalyptic
and realistic sense, and also by Matt. XXIII. 34 (see Euseb., V. 16. 12 sq.). The
correctness of this interpretation is proved by the fact that the first decided opponents
— —
of the Montanists in Asia the so-called " Alogi" (Epiph., H. 51) rejected both
the Gospel and Revelation of John, that is, regarded them as written by some one
else. — —
Montanism therefore shows us the first and up till about 180 really the
only impression made by the Gospel of John on non-Gnostic Gentile Christians;
and what a remarkable one it was! It has a parallel in Marcion's conception
of Paulinism. Here we obtain glimpses of a state of matters which probably
explains why these writings were made innocuous in the canon. To the view
advanced here it cannot be objected that the later adherents of the new prophets
founded their claims on the recognised gift of prophecy in the Church, or on a
prophetic succession (Euseb., H. E. V. 17. 4; Proculus in the same author, EL
25. 7:111. 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
phenomenon within the Catholic
represent the unsuccessful attempt to legitimise this
Church. proof of the fact that Montanus appealed to the Gospel of John see
In
Jerome, Ep. 41 (Migne I. p. 474), which begins with the words: "Testimonia de
Johannis evangelio congregata, quae tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit, in
quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paracletum poll icetur etc."
In opposition to this Jerome argues that the promises about the Paraclete are ful-
filled 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."
Chap, in.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH IOI
ence to the apostolic " regula " and the New Testament canon. l
The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position

of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of
doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between
them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were
unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of
Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its
final form, in written records and in this shape may have pro-
duced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of
an exploded bomb. 2
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. * The belief in the efficacy of the Para-
1
We are assured of this not only by Tertullian, but also by the Roman Mon-
tanist 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 Holy
in the Scriptures, and
(as was asserted) completely rejected doctrines like the Monarchian (see fuga 1, 14;
corona 4; virg. vel. 1; Prax. 2, 13, 30; resurr. 63; pud. 1; monog. 2; ieiun. 10, 11).
Besides, we
see from Tertullian's writings that the secession of the Montanist convent-
icles from the Church was forced upon them.
2 The new prophecy had or had not to be recognised
question as to whether the
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
3 The situation that preceded the acceptance of the new prophecy in a portion
of Christendom may be studied in Tertullian's writings " de idolol." and "de
spectac." had already been conceived as a nova lex throughout the
Christianity
whole Church, and lex had, moreover, been clearly defined in its bearing on
this
the But, as regards outward conduct, there was no definite lex, and arguments
faith.
In favour both of strictness and of laxity were brought forward from the Holy
clete, who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard

of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few-
decades before, for several years given his revelations in a

remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original
enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to
the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained
was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation
between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had
made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new
prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage,
on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger
manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and
customs, and finally on the full resolve not to avoid suffering
and martyrdom for Christ's name's sake, but to bear them
willingly and joyfully, yet, under the given circumstances,
'
these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of every-

thing " Encratite," J implied a demand that directly endangered
the conquests already made by the Church and impeded
the progress of the new propaganda. 3 The people who put
forth demands, expressly based them on the injunctions
these
of the and really lived in accordance with them,
Paraclete,
were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in
the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands
Scriptures. No divine ordinances about morality could be adduced against the

progressive secularising of Christianity; but there was need of statutory command-
ments by which all the limits were clearly defined. In this state of perplexity the
oracles of the new prophets were gladly welcomed; they were utilised in order to
justify and invest with divine authority a reaction of a moderate kind. More than
that — as may be inferred from Tertullian's unwilling confession —could not be
attained; but it is well known that even this result was not reached. Thus the
Phrygian movement was employed in support of undertakings, that had no real
connection with it. But this was the form in which Montanism first became a
factor in the history of the Church. To what extent it had been so before, partic-
ularly as regards the creation of a New Testament canon (in Asia Minor and Rome),
cannot be made out with certainty.
1
See Bonwetsch, I.e., p. 82—108.
3 This is the point about which Tertullian's difficulties are greatest. Tatian is
expressly repudiated in de ieiun. 15.
3 Tertullian (de monog.) is not deterred by such a limitation: " qui potest capere
capiat, inquit, id est qui non potest discedat."
Chap, in] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH IO3
on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as

strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to re-
present the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the
programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail
that appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by
they
the that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the
Paraclete ;
new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions ;

'
that they showed all honour to the New Testament; and that
they did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted
in it.
s
As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temper-
1
It is very instructive, but at the same time very painful, to trace Tertullian's
endeavours to reconcile the irreconcilable, in other words, to show that the prophecy
is new and yet not so; that it does not impair the full authority of the New
Testament and yet supersedes it. He is forced to maintain the theory that the
Paraclete stands in the same relation to the Apostles as Christ does to Moses,
and he abrogates the concessions made by the Apostles and even by Christ
that
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 riot 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 regula-
tions —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
which forms the peculiar charac-
feature
teristic of the Acts of Perpetua and
still found in a similar shape in
Felicitas is
Cyprian himself, who makes powerful use of visions and dreams; and in the genuine
African Acts of the Martyrs, dating from Valerian's time, which are unfortunately
little studied. See, above all, the Acta Tacobi, Mariani etc., and the ActaMontani,
Lucii etc. (Ruinart, Acta Mart, edit Ratisb. 1859, p. 268 sq., p. 275 sq.)
2
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
104 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. Hi.
ate but demands, a deep gulf that neither side

far-reaching
could opened up between them and their opponents.
ignore
Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a
schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for vari-
ations 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 and they could only do so by reproaching the latter
;
'
with heresy and unchristian assumptions. Moreover, the follow-

ers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the
2
Churches of the "Psychical," which rejected the "Spirit" and
extended their toleration so far as to retain even whoremongers
and adulterers within their pale.
In in Asia Minor, the breach between the
the East, that is,
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 de-
clared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of
repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was
"novum testamentum." The preface to the Montanist Acts and

of Perpetua
Felicitas (was Tertulliau 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 ecclesiae" in the wider sense.
1 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).
2 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.
;
violently contested both in an abstract senseand in this appli-

cation of it. The . had received, they said,
Spirit the Apostles
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 though recommending them to the

gross sinners,
grace of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 2 1
"potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam "). Thus agree-
ment 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 re-
sisted 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. 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
3
holy community. In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously
1
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 recom-
mendation on behalf of Irenseus 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 Hum-
erus episcoporum, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian.
2 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
defended 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
2
not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,
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 theoretic-
ally 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; 2 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. 3 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. 4 To the
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 Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception
life.
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.
There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes
1
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 Irenseus.
2 Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subse-
quently subjected to sharp criticism.
3 This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated.
4 De ieiun. 12, 16.
claim of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God,

set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly-
formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christ-
ians 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, 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 repudi-
ating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard
felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-call-
ed Chiliasm, 2 congregational prophecy and the spiritual independ-

ence of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely
rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually un-
weakened (though subject to limitations 3) in the West and
certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force
so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away. 4
1
Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner.
2 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.
3 In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist
stru ggle. Chiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century.
In the East, on were immediately weakened
the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations
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).
4 " Lex et prophetoe 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 "
I08 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
However, the most effective means of legitimising the present

state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely con-
nected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writ-
ings, the distinction of an epoch of revelation, along with
viz.,
a corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable

by later generations. This period was connected with the pre-
sent 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 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 " instru-
ment of divine literature" (" instrumentum divinae litteraturae ")
and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor
that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of
the philosophers, which attained importance in the
Christian
Church soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her
as
conscience with an objective possession.
3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the natur-
of the Church in the world and the transformation of
alisation
a communion of the saved into an institution for obtaining
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 Irenseus
and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenseus still expressed himself
exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4 V. 6. 1): Kecdait; xxt
:
iroKXGiv xxovopev x$eK$>&v h ry exxâ-ia 7rpo(pyTtxx xxfio-pxTX hx^vruv x.t.A. Origen

on the contrary (see numerous passages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back
to a period after which the Spirit's gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very
characteristic circumstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the
world, the disappearance of charisms, and the struggle against Gnosticism, a strictly
ascetic mode of life came

be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is
to
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" tvttoq o-xxvSxAov" 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.
salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from

Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third
century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his
guilt
l
by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd.
in Euseb., H. E. V. iff.), 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 readmis-
sion of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas). 2 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 atonement to befirst relapse, to allow
made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condi-
tion of public confession.
3
For this, appeal was probably made
1
Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates "septem maculas capitalium delicto-
rum," 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 prsescr. 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.
2 Hermas based
the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine
revelation effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross
to this
sinners Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the-
into the
last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in
my article "Lapsi", in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertul-
lian's Schriften de psenit. et de pudic. mit Riicksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890;
Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893.

3 In the work de psenit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation..
K. Mtiller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892, p. 114, rightly remarks: "He who desired
this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her "antechamber"
IIO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service

he here unwittingly rendered. We say "unwittingly," for he
could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts,
though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his attitude.
In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something
closely approximating to a second baptism. Tertullian indeed
(de paenit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of tzvo planks of salvation.
'
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
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, —
performance of penance or
after the
exhomologesis. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. Mean-
while 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. Participa-
tion in the future for even by him who in this world is
kingdom may be hoped
shut out from full and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent.
citizenship
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 there-
foreinvolved 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.
1
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: 'Eth K«AA/o-tou irpairoo tsto^^txi Ssvr-
SflOV XVTolt; fix7TTl<r(JL6l.
Chap. HI.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH I I I
saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing whoremongers,

adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church,
in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there
was a boundary line dividing her from the world.
x
This state of matters continued till about 220. In reality
the was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop
rule
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. 2
At Rome this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippoly-
tus. But, 220 and 250, the milder practice with re-
between
gard to the became prevalent, though it was
sins of the flesh
not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no
further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no
3
concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.
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. 4 The majority of the
bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles. 5
1
See Tertull., de pudic. 12: "hinc est quod neque idololatrise neque sanguini
pax ab ecclesiis redditur." Orig., de orat. 28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50.
2 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: K«AA<o-to? TparoQ r» irpoG fk$ ijSovsc^ to7$ xvSpuiroit;
<rvy%«)peiv e7rev6yt<re, xiyuv ircitriv vtt' xvtov xQietrllcci xfixprlx^. 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 be forgotten that we
have nothing but Eusebius' report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his
accounts are not reliable.
3 No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220
and 260.
4
See Cypr., de lapsis.
s
What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters
in Cyprian's collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts.

,
1 1 2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, ilk
To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant

apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made be-
tween 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 assump-
tion that was untenable in principle — Novatian's schism took
place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in
cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed
the stricter practice down to the fifth century. '
What made
it difficult to introduce this change by regular legislation was
the authority to forgive sins in God's stead, ascribed in primitive
times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in
virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep.
Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. iff. ; Cypr. epp. ; Tertull. de pudic. 22).
The confusion by the confessors after the Decian
occasioned
persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of "spirit-
ual" 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 adop-
tion of the episcopal constitution coincided with the introduction
of the unlimited right to forgive sins.
Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, H. E. V. 22, is our chief source
1
of information on this point. See also Cone. Illib. can. 1,2,6 8,12,17, l % 47? — —
70—73, 75-
2 See my article "Novatian" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. One
might be tempted to assume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited for-
giveness of sins was an " evangelical reaction " against the merciless legalism which r
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: 4>«o-xovTf? Xpurrbv axpievcci to7«
ivSoKOva-i ; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt. XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Ter-
tullian's opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to
;
Chap, in.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 113
4. The Church to
original conception of the relation of the
salvation or was altered by this development.
eternal bliss
According to the older notion the Church was the sure com-
munion of salvation and of saints, which rested on the forgive-
ness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything un-
holy. 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, inheaven. 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 commit-
ted against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing
the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins. But '
in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God's

grace became weaker and 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 out-
side Church" ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), viz., the
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 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 indispens-

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 fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I.,
"Die Lehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche."
1
The distinction of sins committed against God himself, as we find it in Ter-
tullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot
clear up.
'
1
able medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual

the possibility of redemption. From this, however, it immedi-
ately follows Church would anticipate the judgment
that the
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.

But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of
repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with
baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With
this she acts in God's name and stead, but — and herein lies the
inconsistency —she cannot by this means establish any final
condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner

she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in
fact, merely removes the certainty of damnation. In accord-
ance with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely
consist in her possession of the means of salvation the Church :
is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts with which she is

endowed. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation
and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ's room.
Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms both ;
necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate.

(In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his
adversary by the saying, "ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.")
This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church
and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11).
The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary

outcome of existing circumstances and which, we may remark,
was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by
Roman bishops, 2 was the first thing that gave a fundamental
1
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.
Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: K«« xxpxfioXvtv ruv ^t^xviuv %po<; tovto %$vt 6 KaAA/o-rc?
2
KeyetrSxr "A<pers tx î^xvix avvxu^stv t$ <tit5i, tovts<tt(v hv r% exxô-ix tov$

x(J.xprxvovTxi;. 'AAA* xxi tvjv xtfiaiTOv tov Nate eit; oi-toiwiix kxx*.>i<rix$ e<py ysyovevxt,
SV % KXt XVVSQ XXI KljXOl KXI XOpXXSC, KXI TTXVTX TX XxSxpX XXI XXxQxpTX. OVTU
<px<7KCDv $e7v elvxt ev sKxAqo-iet ofioiu? xxi o<rx 7rpb$ tovto $vvxto$ vjv vvvxyftv
wtshc, {tpixvjveva-ev. 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.
$
Chap, hi.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH I 1
and laity. The

religious significance to the separation of clergy
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, in-
asmuch he not only defined the Church as essentially a mixed

as
body (corpus permixtum), but also asserted the unlawfulness of
deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin. But we do '
not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more im-

portance, he still required a definite degree of active Christianity
as a sine qua 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.
2
Now if we consider
(" Viderimus si secundum arcse typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens
in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in non habetur.
arcse typo Quod in area 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. (Horn. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark
as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Horn. 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). ;
1
Philos., l.c, : K«AA/ittoc eSoyiJixritrev 'ottox; et e7ri<rxo7roi; apxprot ti, el xxi t/jo;
6xvxtov, jtt>ji $e7v KxrxriievSxi. 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.
2
See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. II.
—
Il6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. in.
that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (plebs

credentium), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are
the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question
denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church
in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But
for thisvery reason it endangers the new conception in a point
of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop
are invalid and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no
;
l
longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system

ceases. Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God's installing
the and always appointing the right ones ~ is of no
bishops
avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian's
—
idea of the Church and this is no dishonour to him still in- —
volved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was des-
s
tined to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.
The view, however— which Cyprian never openly expressed,,
and which was merely the natural inference from his theory
thatthe Catholic Church, though the "one dove" ("una co-
lumba"), is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect,,
was clearly and frankly expressed by Origen be-

recognised
fore him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and
fleshly members of the Church and spoke of such as only be- ;
long to her outwardly, but are not Christians. As these are

finallyoverpowered 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
1
This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes onto
declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and
takes part in the offering celebrated by him.
2 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 them (e.g., in ep. 66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the
criticise
bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears
to acknowledge the community's right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections
referring to Cyprian in Reuter's " Augustinische Studien" (Zeitschrift fur Kirchen-
geschichte, Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.).
3 The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of
his two aspects.
Chap, hi ]
OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH I I
J
the eyes of God. '

Nevertheless he by no means attained to
clearness 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
1 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; Horn. II. in Genes. Chap. 3; Horn, in Cantic. Tom. I.
at Chap. I. 4: "ecclesia una quidem est, cum perfecta est; multas vero sunt
adolescentulse, cum adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt " Horn. III. in Levit. Chap, iii.),
;
but also between spiritual and carnal members (Horn. XXVI. in Num. Chap, vii.) i.e.,
between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith
— who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief
nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does
Clement of Alexandria (see Strom. VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the
Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem: they have no part in the promises of Christ,
but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church's task to remove
such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus' view of
the Church as a corpus permixtum, but to carry out this process so perfectly that
•only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond the powers of human sagacity.
One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners see Horn. XXI. ;
in Jos., c. i. "sunt qui ignobilem et degenerem vitam ducunt, qui et fide et actibus
:
«t 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. de zizaniis: Ne forte erad-
Sed sicut dicitur
icates zizania simul eradicetis et triticum, ita etiam super iis dici potest, in quibus
vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt Eos saltern 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. w
isviûixeSx, exv cpwpev Yifiuv
:
tx xbpoia-fJLxrx xtnhvipwiJt.evx hxi TrovypoSv); 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 andcivic communities existing
alongside of them. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus,
in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth,
and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of
these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In
conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly asserts that a person
unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in God's eyes; see
Horn. XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: "ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mittitur intussit, et
ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri." Dollinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page
254 ft.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hip-
polytus and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen's trenchant
remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth.
XI. 9. 15: XII. 9—14: XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, Horn. VI. in
Isai c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to
;
Il8 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. III.
use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and
gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christen-
dom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed
:
in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.
But a minority struggled against this Church, not with specu-
lations, 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. 2 Their ad-
herence to the old system of Church discipline involved a re-
action against the secularising process, which did not seem to
be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops. Novatian's
conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the
rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of
the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear
from a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers)
assigned to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross
sinners once for all 3 he denied her the authority to absolve
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 romischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three
greatest theologians of the age —
Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen.
1
assuming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin r
If, in
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 Church in the case of non-Catholics. In this instance they were again
the
induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of
the Church. It redounds to Cyprian's credit that he drew and firmly maintained
the undeniable from his own theory in
inferences spite of tradition. The matter
never led to a great dogmatic controversy.
2 As to the events during the vacancy in the Roman see immediately before
Novatian's schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member
of the Church, see my essay: "Die Briefe des romischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der
Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250" (Abhandl. f. Weizsiicker, 1892).
3 So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer
treatment toall 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 paenit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and
lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the
Chap, in.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 119
idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of God who alone

has the power of pardoning committed against himself;
sins
and he asserted: "non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria
habituro gloriae suae (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 depotentiate the
idea of the Church but secures both her proper religious signifi-
;
cance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace it limits :
her powers and extent in favour of her content. Refusal of her

forgiveness under certain circumstances though this does not —
exclude the confident hope of God's mercy can only mean —
that in view this forgiveness is the foundation of
Novatian's
salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition.
To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the
sine qua 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 re-
admission, that she does so. As the assembly of the baptised,

who have received God's forgiveness, the Church must be a
real communion of salvation and of saints hence she cannot ;
endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence.

Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legiti-
macy 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 likewise retained nothing but the
bishops,
secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to
those principles, the primary question as regards Church member-
truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as "a Stoic"
made no distinction between sins. Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian's
followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline
and intercession of the Church.
;
ship is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather

connection with the community, fellowship with which secures
the salvation that may indeed be found outside its pale, but
not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the
importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reach-
ing in its results, was unable and
to find a fruitful soil here,
the laity were treated same way as the clergy.
in exactly the
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
seternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur "). Nor did Diony-
sius 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 (Kotfapoi) corre-
sponds 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
;
;
Chap, in.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 1 2 I
the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in

view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim that they were
the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of
Christ 1
was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the
secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly,
considering the immediately following a
actual circumstances
great apostasy, a measure of radical importance but, estimated ;
by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Mon-

it was remarkably insignificant. These
tanists fifty years before,
Catharists go the length of expelling all so-called
did indeed
mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat
libellatici more severely than unabashed transgressors 2 but,
even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style them-
selves 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
1 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. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv.
I. p.
Marc. IV. 14: "Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem
doctrinse suae 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 psenit.,
de idolol.; in his de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de
later career, see
ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, 11; see Aube, Les Chretiens dans l'empire Romain
de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff. "Chretiens intransigeants et Chretiens :
opportunistes ") was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: "siNovatiani
se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur"; 46. 2: "nee putetis, sic vos
evangelium Christi adserere"). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. 11 calls
Novatian: 6 \k&ik\\tw tov tbctyysXiov. 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 conform-
ity with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de "Sed aiunt quidam,
psenit. 5:
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. "Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasorise, quam facile
2:
dicatur: Opus est de totis praecordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam
me. In his enim duobus prseceptis tota lex pendet et prophetse, non in pulmonum
et intestinorum meorum inanitate." The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly
understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262.
2 Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice.
the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary,

judging from the sources that have come down to us, we may
confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches
in the subsequent period was practically identical. As Nova- '
tian's adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine
and constitution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic
fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and
their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice
of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient
justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins,

a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could
not but prove especially them whereas their opponents,
fatal to ;
through their new regulations as to penance, softened this dis-

tinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. For an
entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial trans-
gressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards
the latter.
If we
5. glance at the Catholic Church and leave the
melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see
the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness 2 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. ' In learning to look upon the Church as a training
1
From Socrates' we can form a good idea of the state
Ecclesiastical History
of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later
history of the Catharist Church see my article "Novatian", I.e., 667 ff. The most
remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian's adherents in
Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their man-
ner of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians
were nevertheless very bitterly attacked.
2 This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen.

3 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 Neocsesarea IV. saec. 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
"

23
school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace,

and up its religious independence in deference to her
in giving
authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the
third century, 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 neces-
sarily 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
(the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Aries are lax), the Church
became "Catholic" in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a com-
munity where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain
regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church's pre-eminent im-
portance 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 and to remain in the Church,
possible to separate oneself from the world
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 Nova-
tian, 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 romischen Bischbfe, pp. 250 —
255), the Donatist
Revolution, and the Audiani in the East.
1
It is a characteristic circumstance that Tertullian's de ieiun. does not assume that
the great mass of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible.
'
:
incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise

unsparing severity. A
proceeding was necessary as
casuistic
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 constitu-
tion had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also
attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,
we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment
that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his domin-
3
ions. No doubt the Christianity had found its place in
old
the new Church, but was covered over and concealed. In
it
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
1 The condition of the constitution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd
century (in accordance with Cyprian's epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, 1. c,
pp. 142 — 237. Parallels to the provincial and communal constitution of secular
society are to be found throughout.
2 To how great an extent the Church in Decius' time was already a state
within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian's 55th epis-
tle (c. 9.) " Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romas in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore
:
cum tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, cum
multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se aemulum principem quam
constitui Romse dei sacerdotem." On the other hand the legislation with regard
to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as Duchesne (Me-
langes Renier: Le Concile d'Elvire et les flamines chretiens, 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 regu-
lations in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems
within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the Ketrroi of Julius Africanus,
and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen's
works and also, in many respects, from the attitude of this author himself. We
may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid
in the 3rd century, though the '-religion of the second order" did not become a
recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.
—
Chap. Hi.] OLD CHRISTIANITY AND NEW CHURCH 1

25
Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness.

In order be a Christian a man no longer required in any
to
sense to be a saint. "What made the Christian a Christian
was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to
ecclesiastical authority," share in the gifts of the Church, and
the performance of penance and good works. The Church by
her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality
had created the authority of the Church. (" La mediocrite fonda
1'autorite"). The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and
the Lord's Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy
Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments,
average morality in accordance with which the whole world could
live,were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: "Jesus
receives sinners", were subjected to an interpretation that
threatened to make them detrimental to morality. '
And with
all that the of proud ascetics was not excluded
self- righteousness
quite the Alongside of a code of morals, to which

contrary.
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. 2
A
comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those
of ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century a com- —
parison 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 al-
1
See Tertullian's frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against
the "Psychici", *'./., 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".
2 The Church to theology, what theology she required and what

relation of this
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 xiroffwccywyos in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three
successive bishops.
.
ready indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels.

III. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third century
and the non-Christian, between the Church and the Empire,

1
the clergy and the magistrates. Amidst the general disorgan-
isation of- all from amongst the ruins of a
relationships, and
shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one
God, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being labor-
iously 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
1
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 ameliora-
tion 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 iôhtrev-
6ij.svx ev rx~t$ exxô-txti; ruv iroXewv ttA^jj) of the towns almost everywhere consists."
A/ SI tov ®eov Xpto-TtZ pxSyTev&evo-xi exx^trtxt, o-vveêrxt^6(u.evxi recti; Siv 7rxpotxovo-t

Sv^jluv exxhyo- tests, <*>G §<a<rTv\pec, etertv ev xdo-fzea. rtt; yxp ovx xv ofAohoyvio-xi, xxi tov?
%eipov$ rcov X7CQ tJjs exxhya-txc; y.xi irvyxptirei (3ehTt6vcov bAxttovq ttoAAw xpe'tTTOvc,
Tvy%xvetv twv ev to7$ SÎjCoiq exxtytrtoHv ;

exxXyo-tx //.ev yxp tov ®eov, (pep'' st7rs7v, yi
'AtyvytTi %pxe"ix tic, xxi bv<ttx%$, xre ®e& xpeo-xetv r& eni nxo-i fiovKopevy %
S'AOyvxiwv ixxhycrix o-Txo-tooSyt; xxi ovSx\j.Zc, 7rxpx^x^ôfj.evi] ry exe"t \xxXv\<ria rov
©sot/- to S'xvto epelc,, 7rspt sxxXyj<t ix$ rov ®eov Tij? ev Kopfvdcp xxi tvis exxKya-'ixc, TOV
Svj(j.ov KoptvStaiv ; xxi, 4>ep' et7re7v, 7repi exx^^txt; rov ®eov tv\$ ev *A.he%xvSpeix, xxi
exxhycrfxc; rov 'AheZxvSpewv Sv\(/.ov. xxi exv evyvw/AUV y 6 tovtov xxovaiv xxi (ptAxhyQat;
e%erx%y tx TrpxypxTX, Oxvpxo-eTxt rov xxi $ovtev<rx\J.evov xxi xvvo-xt SvvÛvtx
•xxvtx%ov o-vo-Tyo-xo-Sxt exx^vjO-lxQ tov ®eov, 7rxpotxova-xc; exxXyG-ixtc,T&v xxt? exxo-ryv
•xdXtv Sy/iuv ovTta Se xxi fiovhijv ®eov fiovhy Ty xxfr ixxo-ryv tto'A/v ervve-
exxfyo-txt;
%eTxûv evpot$ 'xv 'drt rivet) /zev fiovXevTxi xhot sieri e't rif eo-rtv ev
t»5s exxô-'txc, —
tS Ttxvri 7roAiQ tov ®eov — ev exelvy ToAtTeveoSxt 01 Se ttxvtxxov fiovhevrxi ovSev x^tov
rijt; ex xxrxrxêui; vnepo%vi(;, yjv V7repe%eiv Soxovo-t tcSv -xohtT&v, <pepov<rtv ev to7$ ixvraiv
tfdeo-tv o'vru SI xxi xpxovrx exx^trtxi; exx$Ty$ Trohewt; xp%ovTt roov ev Ty vdhet
o-vyxptreov 't'vx xxTXvovj<ry$, on xxi exi rZv o-tyoSpx xxoTvy%xvo(j.evwv fiovhevTwv xxi
up%6vruv exxhyo-ixs ®eov, xxi pxbvyuoTepwv irxpx tovq evrovureptix; (Ziovvtx$ ovSev
%tt6v e<TTiv evpelv w; e7rt7rxv v%epo^v rijv ev Ty eni rx$ xperxt; Trpoxovry Trxpx rx
5^flj} rwv ev txIc, l
7?6heo'i fiovhevrwv xxi xpxovroov.
27
barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this

edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater bright-
ness than they did upon the earth generally; but within it
—
burned two mighty flames the assurance of eternal life, guaran-
teed 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 was also partly -founded on
existence,
the Gospel, and butwould neither have arisen nor
for this
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, ngr 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 and lack of genuineness pertaining to the
worldliness
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 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. m.
ADDENDA.
I. The Priesthood. The completion of the old Catholic
conception of the was developed in the
Church, as this idea
latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown
in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were in-
vested and which conferred on them the greatest importance. '
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. 2 What meaning it has
Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555,.
1
560, 576. Otto Ritschl, I.e., pp. 208, 218, 231. Hatch "Organisation of the
early Christian Church", Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. " Ordination ", " Priest ", in the
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. "Priester" in Herzog's Real-
Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. Voigt, I.e., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff.
Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892.
2 Clement of Rome was
to compare the conductors of public worship
the first
in Christian Churches with the priestsand Levites, and the author of the Ai$x%yj
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 A/ $. 13. 3. It is again different in Gnostic circles, which in
this case, too, anticipated the secularising process; read for example the description
of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, mutatis mutandis^ we have the later Catholic
bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person
—
powers of grace are attached the formula of bestowal was tterxSovvxt <rot 6eX& :
ri?? ifiviz %&piTO$ Aecpfixve isr' epov xxi St' epov x*P tv aQ d through whose
. . .
i
instrumentalityunion with God can alone be attained: the x7roAuTpu<rt$ (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. 1 was the first to call the bishop " summus sacerdos ", and the older opinion
7)
that he merely "played" with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian,
de aleat. 2 (" sacerdotali's 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 tinguis 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 praescr. 29, 41 : sacer-
;
Chap, in.] ADDENDA: THE PRIESTHOOD 1

29
is shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the

first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.).
The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as
they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as represent-

atives of the congregation before God * 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
2
judges in God's stead. The position here conceded to the
dotalia munera; de pud. 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7:
1,
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. prsef. : uv ê7; SixSoxoi Tvyxxvovre$ t»J$ re xvtvis x<*P tro $ p*ri%mnt$
Arabian canons) expressly claimed high
cip%itpxTtioi% kxi $i$x<tkx*.ix$, see also the
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., Horn. II. in
Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Horn. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment, in Joh.,Vol.
I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, I.e., 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. Irenseus
(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 persequationem disciplinse sacerdotalis provocamur,
deponimus infulas."
1
See Sohm, I. p. 207.
2
The "deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare" (Cypr .. ep. 67. 1) is the
distinctive function of the sacerdos del. It may
be said, however, that all further
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 aDd duty to
preserve the lex evangelica and the traditio dominica in every respect. As antistes
dei, however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and
the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers
the right to judge in Christ's stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In
9
1 30 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen

religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter. l
Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of

an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spirit-
ual 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 cere-
monial and ecclesiastical regulations. 2 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
3
in this. But it can be proved that this formal adoption every-
Cyprian's conception of the episcopal office the successio apostolica and the position
of vicegerent of Christ (of God) counterbalance each other; he also tried to
amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: "cathedra sacerdotalis). It is evident that as
far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily
proved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apos-
tolical 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, how-
ever, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities
based on a mysterious transference.
1 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.
2 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;
1 Sam. VIII. Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.;
7: 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 Irenaeus had still asserted to be abolished, was
now for the first time established (see Origen; Constit. Apost. and my remarks on
AiS. c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted
(see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.). Constantine was the
first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath.
Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In
Cyprian's time, however, the classification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere
upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still
continued to be made here and there.
3 Tertullian (de pud. I.) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome "pontifex maximus",
thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the
With
episcopal office. 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.
Chap, in.] ADDENDA : SACRIFICE 131
where took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practi-

cally 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 repudi-
ated 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 dogma ' and the interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest signifi-
cance. The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its
frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had

2
thus a most skilful champion at the very first.
II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have al-
ready shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied

in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected
with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The latter was re-
1
Yet a direct form at least, can only be made out at a compar-
this influence, in
atively late But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the
period.
priests alone are possessed of knowledge. As fixSêrii and pvarrxyayix are insep-
arably 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.
2
Examples are found in epp. I, 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 forma-
tion of a priestly and
class was that the independent "teachers" now
spiritual
shared the "prophets" and became extinct (see my edition of the
fate of the old
AiSxxv, prolegg. pp. 131 137). —
It is an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Cae-
sarea 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.).
IS 2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. uu.
garded as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart),

bloodless of which
Malachi had prophesied in
thank-offering
I. II. Priesthood and
however, are mutually conditioned.
sacrifice,
The alteration of the concept "priest" necessarily led to a
simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice,
just as, conversely, the latter reactedon the former. In Irenaeus
l
and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers

are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer
hallows his whole life even as it does his offering, and forms
a well-pleasing sacrifice to God, remains essentially unchanged.
In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the
notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord's Supper. 2 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 al- —
ready been done before; but he also attributes a God-propi-
tiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates
them as "merita" ("promere'ri deum"). To the best of my belief
Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic perform-
ances as propitiatory offerings and ascribed to them the "potestas
3
reconciliandi iratum deum." But he himself was far from using
1
See Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten,
1826. Honing, Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack,
Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter,
p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art. "Messe" in Herzog's Real Encyklopadie, 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.
2 See the proof passages in Honing, 1. c, who has also treated in detail Clement
and Origen's idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenaeus IV. 18. 3:
"Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim
indiget sacrificio deus; sed ccn-
scientia eius qui offert pura exsistens, et prsestat acceptare
sanctificat sacrificium,
deum quasi ab amico" (on the offering in the Lord's Supper see Iren. IV. 17. 5,
18. 1); TertulL, Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22 IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; ;
de virg. vel. 13.

3 Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise de ieiunio is the most impor-
tant 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 xasAov etevpoo-vvt) w? :
(itr&votx xpxpTtxf Kpei'<r<ruv vyo-rsix irpoo-evxiis, ltetii/.o<Tvvy $s xfityoTipwv . . . itey-

Chap. m. J ADDENDA: SACRIFICE 1 33
this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax

Church practice that made Christianity consist in outward 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. In '
the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of
ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholi-
city of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of
the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned,
Cyprian's injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on
the understanding that even after baptism no one can be with-
out 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
fjLOirvv^ yxp xovtpia-yx xyxprtxi yiverxi (16. 4; similar expressions occur in the
"Shepherd"). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunc-
tions borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no
effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea
that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful God. Martyrdom seems
to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian's
time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment
In Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: Svo a-winy rx 'xtyetriv xii.xpTyy.xrx %xpex6iJ.tvx,
xxiot; Six Xpurrbv xxi $xKTKry.x\ had long been universally diffused and was also
exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and asserted that the merits
of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long
before Tertullian's day, but was opposed by him (de pudic. 22), when martyrs abused
the powers universally conceded to them. Origen went furthest here see exhort, ad ;
mart. 50: iba-xep rtfiiu xVyxri rov 'lya-ov yyopxtr^yiv ovtus tS rtfiita xVyxri
. . .
r&v yxprvpuv xyopxtrllfoovTxi Tive$] Horn. X. in Num. c. II. "ne forte, ex quo mar- :
tyres non fiunt et hostise 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. I. 23, 41).
1
In the was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure
East it
of ancient ideas that had become associated with sacrifices. See Bigg's beautiful
account in "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria," Lect. IV. —VI.
134 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. in.
Cyprian terms "merita", which either possess the character of

atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle
the Christian to a special reward (merces). But, along with
l
lamentationes and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving

that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35,36). In
Cyprian's eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere
prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting
and alms, being regarded as "bare and unfruitful". In the
work "de opere et eleemosynis" which, after a fashion highly
characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and
Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may
call alms-giving as a means of grace in its relation to baptism
and salvation. 2 However, this practice can only be viewed as
a means of grace in Cyprian's sense in so far as God has ac-
cepted it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human
act. After the and the rearrangement of
Decian persecution
ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera
et eleemosynae) made their way into the absolution system of
the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in it. Even
1
Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said :
" Quomodo multae mansiones
apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum."
2 See
I Nam cum dominus adveniens sanasset ilia, quae Adam portaverit
c. :
vulnera venena serpentis autiqua curasset, legem dedit sano et praecepit, ne

et
ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret; coartati eramus et in angustum
innocentia; praescriptione conclusi, nee haberet quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas
adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iustitias et miseri-
cordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum
quascumque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus." c. 2 sicut lavacro aquae salutaris :
gehennae ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum

flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et
iugis operatio baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur." 5, 6, 9.
In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of
alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an
ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom,
he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for God and Christ. In Cyprian's
epistles " sat isfacere
deo " is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important
to note the frequent use of the expression u promereri deum (iudicem) " in Cyprian.
See de unitate 15: "iustitia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem:
praeceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem."
18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. II, 14, 15, 26; de
bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10. Here it is everywhere assumed that Christians
acquire God's favour by their works.
Chap, hi.] ADDENDA ! SACRIFICE 1
35
the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by ab-

juration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course
under the guidance and intercessory cooperation 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. '
A Church cap-
able 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
eleemosynce are merely to bear the relation of accompanying
acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form
a doctrine He never got beyond his
of the means of grace.
"propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism" ("pro-
mereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrifices "), and merely
hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has
committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same
readiness of God to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and
that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution.
His whole theory as to the legal nature of man's (the Chris-
tian's) relationship to God, and the by practice, inaugurated
Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from
Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augus-
2
tine's time. 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,
1
Baptism with blood is not referred to here.
J
With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine's
time down to the Catholicism of the present day. Cyprian is the father of the
Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not
yet familiar with the theory according to which man must acquire merita. In his
mind "merits" and "blessedness" are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the
rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p. 134, note 3).
with so little regard to Christ's grace and the divine factor in

the case, as Cyprian's work de opere et eleemosynis.
No less significant is Cyprian's advance as regards the idea
of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects.
To begin with, Cyprian was the first to associate the specific
offering, i.e., the Lord's Supper '
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
2
the eucharistic offering. Thirdly, he expressly represented the
1 * Sacrificare ", " sacrificium celebrare ", in all passages where they are unaccom-
panied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Cyprian
has never called prayer a "sacrifice" without qualifying terms; on the contrary he
collocates "preces" and "sacrificium", and sometimes also "oblatio" and "sacrifi-
cium". The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests.
s Cf. c. 7: "Et quia passionis eius men-
the whole 63rd epistle and above all
tionem in omnibus facimus, passio est enim domini sacrificium quod
sacrificiis
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: "dominicae
hostiae veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare"; ep. 63. 4: "sacramentum sacrificii
dominici". The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements,
which, in all Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based
probability,
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 xvxy.vv\aiv Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paul-
latim ccepta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici." In Cyprian's 63rd. epistle it is
still observable how the "calicem in commemorationem domini et passionis eius
offerre" passes over into the "sanguinem Christi offerre", see also Euseb. demonstr.
I. 13: tJ.vvtii.viv t55? Qvo-ixt; Xpia-rov %po<rQ>epsiv and tv)v evirxpKov rov Xpia-rov irxpovo-ixv
y.xl to Kxrxprio-fev xvrov o-wpx npoo-fysptiv. The other cause has been specially
pointed out by Theodore Harnack (I.e., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other
passages Cyprian expresses the thought "that in the Lord's Supper nothing else is
done by us but what the Lord has first done for us." But he says that at the
institution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to God the
Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ's stead only presents a true
and offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: "si Christus
perfect
Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificium
patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem prsecepit, utique ille
sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium
verum et plenum tunc offert deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum
in ecclesia
quod ipsum Christum videat This brings us to the conception of the
obtulisse").
repetition of Christ's sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian's case it was still, so
to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it,
Chap, in.] ADDENDA : SACRIFICE 1 37
celebration of the Lord's Supper as an incorporation of the

congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was
the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance
commemoration of the celebrators ("vivi et defuncti"),
attributed to
though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong
l
intercession. But this is really the essential effect of the sac-
rifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however
much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened,
and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness
of sins in the strict sense could not be associated with it.
Cyprian's statement that every celebration of the Lord's Supper
is a repetition or imitation of Christ's sacrifice of himself, and
that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a
mere assertion, though the Romish Church still continues to
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 with
et passionis eius offerre" as identical
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 cere-
monial has assumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25 x! r6re (in the :
old covenant) dvo-txt, vvv sv%xi kxi Ssfost$ kxi svxxpio-rixt. II. 53). The passage
VI, 23 : xvri Qvitixg tvis Si xipxTuv Ttjv hoyixijv kxi xvxiuxktov kxi rijv hvo-tikJv,
J)'t<? sis tov Sxvxrov tov y.vpiov ervfifidhitiv X*P IV liriTeterreu tov o-£>y.xT0$ xvtov kxi
toO x"(Jt.xTO$ 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. irpoo-fyopx tov o-u(mxto$ kxi : ft
rov x'i(ixTo$, we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before
Eusebius' time of a sacrifice of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper. From this,
however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration
of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there.
1
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 mention of the offerers
special (see already Tertullian's works: de corona 3,
de exhort, cast. II, and de monog. means that the latter commend
10) therefore
themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On
the Praxis see Cyprian ep. I. 2"... si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo nee
" 62. 5: "ut fratres nostros in mente

sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur ;
habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus

representees, subdidi nomina singulorum."
repeat this present day.

doctrine For the idea that
to the
partaking Supper cleansed from sin like the
of the Lord's
mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though
naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counter-
acted 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 develop-
ment of religious ceremonial in the third century, and to show
what a radical alteration took place in men's conceptions with
regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in
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 cere-
monial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a
remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries
and of the heathen is admitted
sacrificial system, and this fact
by Protestant Ceremonial and doctrine
scholars of all parties.
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.
Means of Grace, Baptism, and Eucharist. That which
III.
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. In strict theory she still held that the grace once
'
1
Much as the word "sacramentum" in the Western Church from
use of the
Tertullian to Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.)
Augustine (Hahn,
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 pvo-Typiov was translated
"sacramentum" and thus the new signification "mysterious, holy ordinance or
thing" was added to the meaning "oath", "sacred obligation". Accordingly Ter-
tullian 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
Chap, hi.] ADDENDA : MEANS OF GRACE, SACRAMENTS 1 39
bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony

of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised
Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his
disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2).
But, soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners,
as
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. The notions l
as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain

in so far as the thought of God's absolving the sinner through
the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which
asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential
acts of transgressors and next
(especially baptism with blood,
in importance lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynce). In the third
century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the
hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced
the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same
way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it.
From Cyprian's epistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the
first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions we indeed see
that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of for-
" sacred obligation" still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use,
further discussion of the word isunnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well
as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a " mystery " is never-
theless of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed
not removed from the original one so long as itwas merely meant to denote the
supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more
than was now intended; " sacramentum " {(jLvtrrvipiov) was rather intended to
this
was revealed as something relatively concealed. This

represent the holy thing that
conception, however, is opposed to the Judseo-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 stul-
titia et impossibilitate materias operationis suae instituit."
1
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; this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a
but
possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary
directions of the Spirit.
giving sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ's declaration

that he received sinnersbut, 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
a,b solutionis. In this respect, as well as in regard to the sac-

ramentum ordinis, by Augustine, theory remained
first instituted
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 middle of the second century the notions of bap-
the
tism 1
in Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I.
the
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. We
2
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 seternitatis ").
Examples are to be found in Tertullian 3 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. 4
The constant additions to the
1
Hofling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz. Art. " Taufe " in Her-
zog's Real Encyklopadie. Walcb, Hist, paedobaptismi quattuorpriorumsseculorum, 1739.
3 In de bono pudic. 2: "renati ex aqua et pudiciti a," Pseudo-Cyprian expresses an

idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.
3 But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): *'Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum con-
sequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto praeparamur."
* The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Paedag. I. 6 (baptism and sonship)
Chap, hi.] ADDENDA: MEANS OF GRACE, SACRAMENTS I4T
baptismal process which had begun at a very early

ritual, a
period, due to the intention of symbolising these
are partly
supposedly manifold virtues of baptism, and partly owe their '
origin to the endeavour to provide the great mystery with fit

accompaniments. 2 As yet the separate acts can hardly be
proved to have an independent signification. 3 The water was
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.
1 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: ov fiifv ou$i tuv Aoittwv '&Tv%e, Sixtyvyuv rijv v6<rov, <bv X9*l
f*eT«Aa^t/3«vf/v ksctx rov t»5; exxAjjo-Za;? xxv6vx, rov re <T<Ppxyio-i^vxi uvrb rov e7rt<rx67rov.
It is also remarkable that one of -the bishops who voted about heretic baptism
(Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. laying on of hands a
p. 439) calls the
sacrament like baptism: "neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest
nee 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 partic-
ulars found in Tertullian's work on baptism (cc. 1. 12 seq.) it may moreover be
seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispens-
ability of baptism (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis
to salvation
est). The assumption martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen),
that
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. EI, 12.
2 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, quae in actu videtur, et magnificentia,
quoniam tanta simplicitate, sine pompa,
quae in effecta repromittitur, ut hinc quoque,
sine apparatu novo sumptu homo in aqua demissus et inter
aliquo, denique sine
pauca verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit, eo incredibilis existimetur
consecutio aeternitatis. Mentior, si non e contrario idolorum solemnia vel arcana
de suggestu et apparatu deque sumptu fidem at auctoritatem sibi exstruunt."
3 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.
regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and

as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with
Gen. I. 2 water and Spirit are associated with each other,
;
especially in Cyprian's epistles on baptism). He who asserted

the latter thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in
did not
Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV. p. 133).
l
Complete obscurity
prevails as to the Church's adoption of the practice of child
baptism,which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this
ceremony being indispensable to is nevertheless a salvation,
proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased. 2 In
the time of Irenaeus (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 con-
scious 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 is the first mention of "godparents") also to be
(this
thrust danger ?into 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
—
See Tertullian's superstitious remarks in de bap. 3 9 to the effect that water
1
is element of the Holy Spirit and of unclean Spirits etc. Melito also makes
the
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. I7: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: ^cefiere VSoip Xoyixdv.
2 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.

;
Chap, hi.] ADDENDA : MEANS OF GRACE, SACRAMENTS 1 43
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." * 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, ad Rom. V. 9, Opp.
Comment, in ep.
IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down
by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, fre-
quently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved. '
The Lord's Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but

2
also as a divine gift. The effects of this gift were not theoretic-
ally fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme
'
:
* Translator's note. The following is the original Latin, as quoted by Prof.

Harnack: "Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, praecipue 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 aetas ad remissionem peccatorum ? Cautius
agetur in saecularibus, ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur ... Si
qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem."
Under such circumstances the recollection of the significance of baptism in
1
the establishment of the Church fell more and more into the background (see
Hermas: "the Church rests like the world upon water"; Irenseus III. 17. 2: "Sicut
de arido tritico massa una non fieri potest sine humore neque unus panis, ita nee
nos multi unum fieri in Christo Iesu poteramus sine aqua quae de ccelo 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 quae est ad incorruptionem uni-
tatem acceperunt, animae 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:
kxi tJjv 7rpuT*iv yfjLepxv Troiov/jiev xuToi/i Xpitrrixvovs, rijv Si Ssvrepcev Kafrfixov/jisvov^,
slrx rijv rpiryv iôpxiôi/.sv xvtovq x.t.A.
2 Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in dem ersten3 Jahrhunderten, 1826.
Engelhardt in the Zeitschrift fur die hist. Theologie, 1842, 1. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abend-
mahl, 1851. Riickert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Geschichte, 1856. Leim-
bach, Beitrage zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullian's, 1874. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre
der griechischen Kirche, in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1864— 1868;
cf. also the works of Probst. Whilst Eucharist and love feast had already been
separated from the middle of the 2nd century in the West, they were still united
in Alexandria in Clement's time; see Bigg, I.e., p. 103.
3
The collocation of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, as the early Christian
monuments prove, was a very familiar practice (Tert, adv. Marc. IV. 34: sacra-
;
of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice

Christians more and more assumed a real bestowal of heavenly
gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superstitious
theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual
and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is,
as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and
physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were inter-
mixed 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 be-
tween and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects
spiritual
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 communi-
cation 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 sancti-
fying of the whole personality. The thought of the forgiveness
of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing con-
ception, as
it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the
Lord's Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the
relation between the visible elements and the body of Christ.
So far as we are able to judge no one felt that there was a
problem here, no one enquired whether this relation was realistic
or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and the mystery
was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days
understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it
represents; at that time "symbol" denoted a thing which, in
some kind of way, really is what it signifies but, on the other ;
hand, according to the ideas of that period, the really heavenly

element lay either in or behind the visible form without being
mentum baplismi et eucharistiae " ; 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.
Chap, in.] MEANS OF GRACE: THE LORD'S SUPPER 1 45
identical with it. Accordingly the distinction of a symbolic

and realistic conception of the Supper is altogether to be re-
jected; 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 frag-
ments 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. l
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
2
is erroneously credited with a " symbolical " doctrine
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 Paed. 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, Cyprian at a later period, that the mixture

like
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. 3 It is true that Origen, the great
1
The by Dionysius (in Euseb., I.e.) is especially characteristic, as
story related
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
usutn is a very old habit of mind in the Gentile Church.
2
Leimbach's investigations of Tertullian's use of words have placed this beyond
doubt; see de orat. 6; adv. Marc. I. 14: IV. 40: III. 19; de resurr. 8.
3
The chief passages referring to the Supper in Clement are Protrept. 12. 120;
Paed. I. 6. 43: II. 2. 19 sq. : I. 5. 15 : I. 6. 38, 40; Quis div. 23; Strom. V. 10.
66: 10. 46: I. 19. 96: VI. 14. 113: V. 11. 70.
I. Clement thinks as little of for-
giveness 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 know-
"
146 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, hi
mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself ir

plainly " spiritualistic " fashion ; but in his eyes religious mysterie:
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 wa:

only able to recognise spiritual aids in the sphere of the intel
lectand the disposition, and in the assistance given to thes(
by man's own free and spontaneous efforts. Eating and drink
ing and, in general, participation in a ceremonial are fron
Origen's standpoint completely indifferent matters. The intel
ligent Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, tha
is,on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending
Supper (c. Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind t<
the fact that his doctrine of the Lord's Supper was just as fa
removed from the faith of the simple Christian as his doctrine
system generally. he accommodated hin
Here also, therefore,
self to that faith seemed necessary. Thi
in points where it
however, he did not find difficult; for, though with him ever)
thing is at bottom "spiritual", he was unwilling to dispens
with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one mu<
be initiated into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as or
learns the lower whether we consider simp
sciences. '
But,
believers, the or Origen, and, moreove
antignostic Fathers
whether we view the Supper as offering or sacrament, we ever
where observe that the holy ordinance had been entire
ledge and immortality. Ignatius had already said, "the body is faith, the bio
is hope". This is also Clement's opinion; he also knows of a transubstantiatic
not, however, into the real body of Christ, but into heavenly powers. His teaching v
therefore that of Valentinus (see the Exc. ex. Theod. § 82, already given on Vol. i. p. 2
Strom. V. 11. 70: Aoytubv iiiJ.lv (3po5[*x $ yvatrts; I. 20. 46: 7vx Sij Qxywpev AoytK>
V. IO. 66: (3pa<ri$ yxp xxi irons rov Ssiov x6yov {j yveHo-tt; Icrrt tJjs Sefxt; ohtn
Adumbrat. in epp. Joh.: "sanguis quod est cognitio"; see Bigg, I.e., p. 106 ff.
1
Orig. in Comment, ser. 85: "Panis iste, quern deus verbum cor
Matth.
suum esse fatetur, verbum est nutritorium animarum, verbum de deo verbo p
cedens et panis de pane coelesti Non enim panem ilium visibilem, quern tenej
. . .
[
in manibus, corpus suum dicebat deus verbum, sed verbum, in cuius mystt]
fuerat panis ille frangendus nee potum ilium visibilem sanguinem suum dice I
;
sed verbum in cuius mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus " see in Matt. XI. If ;
c. Cels. VIII. 33. Horn. XVI. 9 in Num. On Origen's doctrine of the Lol
Supper see Bigg, p. 219 ff.
'
Chap, in.] MEANS OF GRACE: THE LORD'S SUPPER. 147
diverted purpose and pressed into the service

from its original
of the spiritIn no other point perhaps is the
of antiquity.
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.
In the course of the third century a crass superstition became

developed in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the
mysteries connected According to this notion we
with her.
must subject ourselves Church and must have ourselves
to the
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 con-
ception 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 recog-
nition 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 insuffi-
:iency of the understanding is elevated into a convenient prin-
:iple of theory and life, and when the real mystery of the faith,
The conception of the Supper as viaticum mortis (fixed by the 13th canon of
• Jicsea: "Kepi Si ruv s%oSevovTUv 6 irxXxio^ xxi kxvovikoi; vdfj,o$ $vKx%M\<reToii xxi
Cv, latrrt s'/ti$ eôSevot, rov Te/\evrx/ov xxi xvxyx.xtOTX.rov etyoSiov fj.ii x7ro<rT£p£7oSxi,
conception which is genuinely Hellenic and which was strengthened by the idea
lat the Supper was <pxpt*xxov xSxvxo-ixi), the practice of benediction, and much
Ise in theory and practice connected with the Eucharist reveal the influence of
^ utiquity. See the relative articles in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian
*ntiquities.
viz., how one becomes a new man, must accordingly give place
to the injunction that we must obediently accept the religious
as a consecration, and add to this the zealous endeavour after
ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the character of Cath-
olicism since the third century, and even after Augustine's time
it has still remained the same in its practice.
;
EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III.
Catholic and Roman. '
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 Judaeo-
Christian districts and passing disturbances, Christianity had yet
an undivided history in vital questions 2 the independence of
individual congregations and of the provincial groups of Churches
was very great; and every advance in the development of the
1
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. 1 6) with the hypotheses about the primacy as propounded by him
89 1, No.
in his on the Clementine romances (1890, see especially p. 163 ff). The
treatise
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's "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 investiga-
tions. 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 arrange-
ment was first developed in Rome and then transferred from her to the other com-
munities." I think this is an exaggeration. Tschirn (Zeitschrift fur Kirchenge-
schichte, 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.
3 No doubt we must distinguish two halves in Christendom. The first, the ecclesi-
astical 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.
1 50 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. HI
communities at the same time denoted a forward step in their

adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first
two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further
apart the different Churches lay, the more various were the
conditions under which they arose and flourished; the looser
the relations between the towns in which they had their home
the looser also was the connection between them. Still, it is
evident that towards the end of the third century the develop-
ment in the Church had well-nigh attained the same point
everywhere —except in outlying communities. Catholicism, essen-
tially as we now, was what most of the Churches
conceive it
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, the Church of l
Rome; and that "Roman" and "Catholic" had therefore a

special relation from the beginning. It might a limine be ob-
jected 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

2
favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.
1
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. 156 1, p. 407:
topers n' 'Aê%txvSpstec, ustoixov ebxê SI 'Pufnt, oct KOtrpov xxi yifa, u %ive, i^tjrpo-
7r6tei$). 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 Prohaer. p. 90 *i @xiriAevov<r<z 'Pa/jcti.
; :
2 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
;
Chap, hi.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN I 5 I
It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church,

which up year 190 was closely connected with
to about the
that of Asia Minor, that all the elements on which Catholicism
is based first assumed a definite form. '
(1) We know that the
Roman Church possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confes-
sion, and that as early as the year 1 80 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 2 and Irenaeus 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
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.
1
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.
2 Ignatius already says that the Roman Christians are xtoSivAht/jisvix «to 7txvtoq
ocXXoTpiov y $i>\j.oc.T0<;
J (Rom. inscr.); he uses this expression of no others. Similar
remarks are not quite rare at a later period ; see, for instance, the oft-repeated eulogy that
no heresy ever arose in Rome. At a time when this city had long employed the
standard of the apostolic rule of faith with complete confidence, namely, at the
beginning of thewe hear that a lady of rank in Alexandria, who
3rd century,
was any rate a Christian, lodged and entertained in her house Origen, then
at
a young man, and a famous heretic. (See Euseb., H. E. VI. 2. 13, 14). The
lectures on doctrine delivered by this heretic and the conventicles over which
he presided were attended by a fivplov 7rA%6o$ oh im6vov xiperiKaiv, xhhh. xxl YiiJ-erspuv.
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.
exclusive authority is first traceable in her; in the other com-

munities can only be proved to exist at a later period. In
it
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 Egyp-
tians was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian Churches of the
same epoch used Tatian's Diatessaron and the original of the;
first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no

mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alex-
andria no doubt consequence of the common
testifies that, in
history of Christianity,group of Scriptures read in the
the
Roman congregations was also the same as that employed in
public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no New Testa-
ment canon before him in the sense of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
It was not till Origen's time that Alexandria reached the stage
already attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must,
however, be pointed out that a series of New Testament books,

in the form now found in the canon and universally recognised,
show marks of revision that can be traced back to the Roman
1
Church. Finally, the later investigations, which show that af-
ter the third century the Western readings, that is, the Roman
text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS.
of the Bible, 2 are of the utmost value here for the most natural;
1 must here refrain from proving the last assertion. The possibility of Asia Minor
I
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 con-
strained to lay the chief emphasis on Rome, for it must not be forgotten that
Irenseus 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 oppo-
nents 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.
2
See the Prolegg. of Westcott and Hort (these indeed give an opposite judg-
ment), andcf. Harris, Codex Bezce. 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 See Duchesne, " Les Sources du Marty rologe Hieron. " 1885.
further revelations.
Egli, " Altchristliche Studien, Martyrien und Martyrologieen altester Zeit. " 1887; the
same writer in the."Zeitschrift firr wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1891, p. 273 ff.
Chap, hi.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN I
5 3
•explanation facts is that the Eastern Churches then

of these
Teceived their New
Testament from Rome and used it to correct
their copies of books read in public worship. (3) Rome is
l
the first place which we can prove to have constructed a list

•of bishops reaching back to the Apostles (see Irenaeus).
2
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
3
of the apostolic succession of the episcopate was first turned
to account by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who
definitely formulated the political idea of the Church in con-
nection with this. The utterances and corresponding practical
4
measures of Victor, and Stephen are
Calixtus (Hippolytus),
the earliest of their and assurance
kind; whilst the precision
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 sov-
ereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third cen-
tury by Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and
1
On the relations between Edessa and Rome see the end of the Excursus.
2 See my treatise "Die Datirungen und die Anfange einer
altesten christlichen
bischoflichen 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.
3
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 consoli-
dated. (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, I.e., 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.
4
See Pseudo-Cyprian's work "de aleat" which, in spite of remarks to the
contrary, I am inclined to regard as written by Victor ; cf. " Texte und Untersuchungen "
V. 1 ; see c. I of this writing : " et quoniam in nobis divina et paterna pietas
apostolatus ducatum contulit et vicariam domini sedem cselesti dignatione ordinavit
ct originem authentici apostolatus, super quem Christus fundavit ecclesiam, in superiore
nostra portamus."
that at a very early period, to date occurrences according to

her bishops ; and, even outside that city, churches reckoned, not
according to their own, but according to the Roman episcopate. '
(6) The Oriental Churches say that two bishops of Rome com-
piled the chief apostolic regulations for the organisation of the
Church ; and this is only partially wrong. 2 (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 took place in Rome; but we know

minores first
that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that

3
city to the rest of Christendom. (9) The different Churches
communicated with one another through the medium of Rome. *
See report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892,
1
p. 622 ff.. To the material found there must be added a remarkable passage given
by Nestle (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1893, p. 437), where the dates
are reckoned after Sixtus I.
2 Cf. thebook of the Apostolic Constitutions with the articles referring to

8th
the regulation MSS. bear the name of Hippolytus.
of the Church, which in Greek
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.
3 See my proofs in " Texte und Untersuchungen ", Vol. II., Part 5. The canons
of the Council of Nicaea presuppose the distinction of higher and lower clergy for
the whole Church.
4 We see this from the Easter controversy, but there are proofs of it elsewhere,
e.g., in the collection of Cyprian's epistles. The Roman bishop Cornelius informs
Fabius, bishop of Antioch, of the resolutions of the Italian, African, and other
Churches (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 3 §Aflcv ciq vy-xc, ztzhttoKxi Kofvvjîov 'Vufj-xiuv
:
iTTia-KOTrov Tpo$ . . . <J>«/3<ov, Syhova-xi rx irspi t»Js 'Pwfixfwv <rvv6Sov, xxi rx §6£xvtx
itxvi rc<s kxtx tyjv 'ItxAixv kxi 'A<J>p/xi}v xxi tx% xvt6Qi x®P x $~ We must not
Chap, in.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN I
5 5
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. But it may be ob- '
jected 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 assump-
tion 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.
2
We shall give a bird's-
eye view of the most important facts bearing on the question,
in order to prove this.
No other community made a more brilliant entrance into

Church history than did that of Rome by the so-called First
Epistle of Clement —
Paul having already testified (Rom. i. 8)
that the faith of this Church was spoken of throughout the whole
world. That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end
of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up
fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with motherly
forget, however, that there were also bishops elsewhere who conducted a so-called
oecumenical 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 Alexan-
drien, 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."
1 This conception, as well as the ideas contained in this Excursus generally, is

now entirely shared by Weingarten (Zeittafeln, 3rd. ed., "The
1888, pp. 12, 21):
Catholic Church is essentially the work of those of Rome and Asia Minor. The
Alexandrian Church and theology do not completely adapt themselves to it till the
3rd century. The metropolitan community becomes the ideal centre of the Great
Church"... "The primacy of the Roman Church is essentially the transference to
her of Rome's central position in the religion of the heathen world during the
Empire: urbs ccterna urbs sacra."
2
This is also admitted by Langen (I.e., 184 f.), who even declares that this
precedence existed from the beginning.
;
care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to
use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and
authority. As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind,
'
but she knows the " commandments and ordinances " (TpotrrxyfiXTX
and doxxiaftuTtz) 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 dis-
solution; she adheres to the xxvuv r^q %ot,pxô<T6cct;, whilst the
other need of exhortation 2 and in these facts
body stands in
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 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 conceded to them a precedence
at least clear that Ignatius
in the circle of sister and that he was well acquainted
Churches ;
with the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and

3
instructing other communities. Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter
to bishop Soter, affords us a glimpse of the vast activity man-
ifested by
Christian Church of the world's metropolis on
the
behalf of Christendom and of all brethren far and near;
all
and reveals to us the feelings of filial affection and veneration

1
Cf. chaps. 59 and 62, but more especially 63.
2 At that time the Roman Church did not confine herself to a letter; she sent
ambassadors to Corinth, o'/rivei; (tuprvpei; 'so-ovtou perccl-v i(xaiv xeci ypuv. 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.)
3 In Ignatius, Rom. inscr., the verb xponxî^xt is twice used about the Roman
Church {%poax6^Txt sv [to be understood in a local sense] T<frrw x w P' 0V 'Pptoftoeiuv
— xpoxxfyi/.hvi Tife xyx-xyc, = 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. 'xMovt; e$idx%xre.
II.: Finally, it must be also noted that Ignatius presup-
poses 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 6 xXy&eixc; Tpoxx6e^6i/.evoQ.
Chap. hi. J CATHOLIC AND ROMAN 1 57
with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as in Antioch.

This author has specially emphasised the fact that the Roman
Christians are Romans, that is, are conscious of the particular
duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan
Church. '
After this evidence we cannot wonder that Irenaeus
expressly assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank
2
among those founded by the Apostles. His famous testimony
has been quite as often under- as over-estimated. Doubtless
his reference to the Roman Church
in such is introduced
a way merely mentioned by way of example, just
that she is
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. *
Whilst giving a
1
Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 9 — 12; cf., above all, the words: 'E| «/>%>?? viu.lv '£60$
S<TTl TOVTO, 7TXVTX$ fikv X$Sh$oil$ 7T0(Kt^Cl)Q sis fySTBlV, SKKhytTlXK; T£ WOAAflt/S TX~iq
xxtx 7rx<rxv t6mv e<p6$ix Trepireiv . . . 7rxTpo7rxpx$OTOv Mot; TtifuUtm 'Pwpx7oe
StxtpvAxTTOvret;. Note here the emphasis laid on 'Pwpxlot.
2 According to Irenaeus a peculiar significance belongs to the old Jerusalem
Church, in so far as all the Christian congregations sprang from her
(III. 12. 5:
xvrxi Quvxi r%$ exxâ-ixt;, \% fc ttxitx 'etrzyxsv inxhvi<rlx tvjz xpxJv xZtxi <puvxi t^q
WTpoTrotewt; ruv tvj$ xxivvit; lixbviKW ttoAitwv). For obvious reasons Irenaeus did not
speak of the Jerusalem Church of his own time. Hence that passage cannot be utilised.
3 1: "Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium
Iren. III. 3.
ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maximse et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae,
a duobus
gloriosissimis apostolis Paulo et Petro Romas fundatae et constitutae
ecclesiae, earn 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 caecitatem et malam sententiam, praeterquam oportet, colligunt. Ad hanc enim
ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam,
hoc est, eos undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique,
qui sunt
conservata est est ab apostolis traditio."
ea quae On this we may remark as
follows: (1) The special importance which Irenaeus claims for the Roman Church
•
— for he is only referring to her —
is not merely based by him on her assumed found-
ation by Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes "maxima",
" antiquissima " etc. Dionysius of Corinth also made this assumption (Euseb., II.
25. 8), but applied it quite as much to the Corinthian Church. As regards
capability of proving the truth of the Church's faith, all the communities founded
by the Apostles possess principalitas in relation to the others; but the Roman
Church has the potentior principalitas, in so far as she excels all the rest in her
qualities of eccksia maxima et omnibus cognita etc. Principalitas " sovereign =
;
formal scheme of proof that assigned the same theoretical value

to each Church founded by the Apostles, Irenaeus added a re-
ference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his time many
communities turned to Rome in order to testify their orthodoxy. '
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 im-
portance 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 Ma rcia- 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 2 it was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp,
authority," xv&evrix, for this was probably the word in the original text (see
proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 9th Nov., 1893). In com-
mon withmost 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) Irenaeus 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 xvxyK* =
" it cannot be otherwise." =
In reference to principalitas =
xv5svrix (see I. 31. I I. 26. 1) it must be remem- :
bered that Victor of Rome (I.e.) speaks of the "origo authentici apostolatus ", and
Tertullian remarks of Valentinus when he apostatised at Rome, "ab ecclesia
authenticce regulse abrupit" (adv. Valent. 4).
1 Beyond doubt his "convenire necesse est" is founded on actual circumstances.

2 On other important journeys of Christian men and bishops to Rome in the
2nd and 3rd centuries see Caspari, I.e. 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.) : elg 'Vi)(j.^v '6$ 'eireptyev tftlv @x<rfa*ixv xdpvjcrxi
xxl pxtrfatiro-xv tSelv xpvirdo-ToAov %puo-o7rg£<Aov. However, Ficker raises very serious
objections to the Christian origin of the inscription.
;
Chap, in.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN 1 59
but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the time when the controversy

with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church showed all the rest
an example of resolution ; it was naturally to be expected that,
as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should require
other communities to recognise the law by which she had reg-
ulated 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 Peter down to the present '
time; and she alone maintained a brief but definitely formu-

lated 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 Graeco-
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 a as well as the care which it displayed on
behalf of all Christendom. All these causes combined to convert
1
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 (reconcilies), voila le chef-
d'oeuvre qui fondait la suprematie ecclesiastique de Rome dans l'avenir. Une nouvelle
qualite mythique remplagait celle de Romulus et Remus." But it is highly probable
that Peter was really in Rome like Paul (see I Clem. V., Ignatius ad Rom. IV.);
both really performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs
in that city.
2 The wealth of the Roman Church is also illustrated by the present of 200,000
sesterces brought her by Marcion (Tertull., de praesc. 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.

the Christian communities into a real confederation under the

primacy of the Roman Church (and subsequently under the
leadership of her bishops). This primacy cannot of course be
further denned, 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 al-
ready 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. ' In
view of the was not Roman Montanists who were
facts that it
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
2
congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman arrangement,
i See Tertullian, adv. Prax. i; Euseb., H. E. V. 3, 4. Dictionary of Christian
Biography III., p. 937.
2 Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 9: 'E^r/ to6toi% 6 ftzv tvj? "Poofixtimv •Kpotariic, BiKTCop Mpdwi;
t*|s 'A<r/«s nxo-yc; Uptx rxlg 6(j.6poiQ ex>ch*i<rixii; txc, 7rxpot>tixt; xttoti^vsiv &<txv ere-
poSoôverxi, tjjs xo<v»j; ivwosus ireipxrxi, xxl a-rvtMrevsi ye Six ypxpipixruv, xkoivu-
vvjtovq 7rxvTxs 'xpSyv tov$ sxelo-e xvxxyipvTTt>)v xleh$ov$. Stress should be laid on
two points here: (1) Victor proclaimed that the people of Asia Minor were to be
excluded from the koivyi 'hwa-i^ and not merely from the fellowship of the Roman
Chap, hi.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN l6l
was excluded from the u.nion 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 of Rome to determine
special prerogative
the conditions of the "common
unity" (zoivij hearts) 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 re-
cognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special
guardian of the xoivvi evu<ri<; ? Thirdly, it was Victor who form-
1
ally excluded Theodotus from Church fellowship. This is the

first really well-attested case of a Christian taking his sta?id
on the rule of faith being excommunicated because a definite
interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance
the expression xjioz was required
ftovoysvvis (only begotten Son)
to be understood in the sense of (pvtxei ®so: (God by nature).
It was in Rome that this first took place. Fourthly, under
Zephyrinus, Victor's successor, the Roman ecclesiastics inter-
fered, in the Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause
with the and both appealed to
local clergy against Tertullian;
the authority of predecessors, that is, above all, of the Roman
bishops. " Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian were
Church; (2) he based the excommunication on the alleged heterodoxy of those

Churches. See Heinichen, Melet. VIII., on Euseb., I.e. Victor's action is parallelled
by that of Stephen. Firmilian says to the latter: "Dum enim putas, omnes abs
te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti." It is a very instructive fact
that in the 4th century Rome also made
have Sabbath fasting
the attempt to
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 un-
known to us. Cf. also Augustine's 54th and 55th epistles.

1
Irenseus also (I.e. § 11) does not appear to have questioned Victor's proceeding
as such, but as applied to this particular case.
2 See Tertull., de orat. 22: "Sed non putet institutionem unusquisque anteces-
soris commovendam." De virg. vel. I: "Paracletus solus antecessor, quia solus
post Christum"; 2: "Eas ego ecclesias proposui, quas et ipsi apostoli vel apostolici
viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam"; 3: "Sed nee 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 setatem
presbyter fuit ecclesise Africanae, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romance
ecclesine ad Montani dogma delapsus."
II
;
1 62 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, hi.]
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.
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
2
places. In Irenaeus' proof from prescription, however, it is
already the Roman bishops that are specially mentioned. 3
1
1 Stephen acted like Victor and excluded almost all the East from the fel-
lowship of the Church; see in addition to Cyprian's epistles that of Dionysius of
Alexandria in Euseb., II. E. VII. 5. In reference to Hippolytus, see Philosoph. 1. IX.
In regard to Origen, see the allusions in de orat. 28 fin.; in Matth. XL 9, 15 XII. :
9— 14: XVI. 22: XVII. 14; in Joh. X. 16; Rom. VI in Isai. c. 1. With regard
8,
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 evident that he appears just as responsible when bishops are not
is also
deposed consequence of their marrying. One cannot help concluding that the
in
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: hri K«AA/<ttow tfpZxvro
eTn'trxoToi xxi TrpstrfivTSpot xxi Stxxovoi Siyxôi xxi rpiyxyt.01 xxQIo-Txabxi stt; xKvipovq-
it SI xzi rtt; hv xKvtpca Hv yxfiolvi, fiiveiv rov rotovrov sv t& xhvipca wg f«j vuxxpryxdrx.
2 In the treatise " Die Briefe des romischen Klerus aus der Zeit der Sedisvacanz
im Jahre 250" (Abhandlungen fiir Weizsacker, 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.
3 In Tertullian, de praesc. 36, the bishops are not mentioned. He also, like
Irenaeus, cites the one amongst others. We have already remarked
Roman Church as
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
:
Chap, hi.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN 1

63
Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the authority of his

predecessors (" auctoritates praeeessorum 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, Irenaeus, 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 success-
The first who acted up to this idea was Calixtus.
ors of the Apostles.
The sarcastic titles of "pontifex maximus", " episcopus episco-
porum", " 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 per-
sonal 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",
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 Italise adiaces habes Romam, unde
nobis quoque auctoritas prsesto 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 Irenaeus. 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 Eleu-
therus (c. I. " prsecessorum 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.

;
1
"audio edictum esse praepositum 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 consulta-
tion,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. 1 8 ff. '
—
the first instance of the kind recorded in history
from Tertullian's opposition to it, because the latter treats it
not as local, Roman, but as pregnant in consequences for all
Christendom. But, as soon as the question took the form of

enquiring whether the Roman bishop was elevated above the
rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century,
as already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops,

still showed the rest an example in the process of giving a
political constitution to the Church. It can also be proved that
even far distant congregations were still being bound to the
3
Roman Church through financial support, 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. :1
It
1 De pudic. 21 : "De
tua nunc sententia qusero, unde hoc ius ecclesise usurpes.
Si quia dominus: Super hanc petram sedificabo ecclesiam meam, tibi
dixerit Petro
dedi claves regni vel, Qusecumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt
cselestis,
alligata vel soluta in ccelis, id circo prsesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi

potestatem?" Stephen did the same; see Firmilian in Cyprian ep. 75. With this
should be compared the description Clement of Rome gives in his epistles to James
of his own installation by Peter (c. 2). The following words are put in Peter's
mouth: K.A.jpevTX tovtov \%i<ry.o'Kov v(uv %sipQT0vu>, $ r v ^M v ™v Aoywv Tr/o-xet/w *l
xxUdpxv ... $10 kvtS) pierxotSuiJ.t rijv hZovo-t'xv roC Seo-pevsiv nxi Avetv, 7vx its pi
zxvtoi; ov xv xeipoTOvyo-y ski yv\$ e<rrxi SeSoypxTto-pevov sv olpx-jotg. Sy<rei yxp
oel Se&yvxt xxi Avo-ei Ss7 AvSiivxi, wg rov ryt; iMXyvixc, siSmc xxvdvx.
2 See Dionysius of Alexandria's letter to the Roman bishop Stephen (Euseb.,

II. E. VII. 5. 2): At pievrot Xvpt'xt ohxt xxi v\ 'ApxjBtx, 01$ e7rxpxs7TS inxa-TOTS y.xi
01$ Vtiv STSO-TefAXTE.
3 In the case of Origen's condemnation the decision of Rome seems to have

been of special importance. Origen sought to defend his orthodoxy in a letter
written by his own hand to the Roman bishop Fabian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 36;
Jerome, ep. 84. 10). The Roman bishop Pontian had previously condemned him
after summoning a "senate"; see Jerome, ep. 33 (Ddllinger, 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
Chap, in.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN 1
65
is further manifest from Cyprian's epistles that the Roman

Church was regarded as the ecclesia principalis, as the guardian
par excellence of the unity of the Church. We may explain
from Cyprian's own particular situation all else that he said 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 ecclesiae catholicae " 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 corre-
spondence 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 im-
portance of this cathedra oscillates between the significance of a
nee existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and
at 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
wil
f the cathedra Petri. If we remove from Cyprian's abstractions
erything to which he himself thinks there is nothing concrete

rresponding, then we must above all eliminate every prerog-
1 ive of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains
behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which in-
deed is represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite
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 xoivi) %vw<ri$. 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 came
frequently foreign bishops
to Rome shown by the 19th canon of Aries (A.D. 314): "De episcopis pere-
is
grinis, qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis locum dari ut offerant." The first
canon is also important in deciding the special position of Rome.
1 66 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
frankly: "owing to her magnitude Rome ought to have preced-

ence over Carthage" ("pro magnitudine sua debet Carthaginem
Roma praecedere ") and his theory: "the episcopate is one, and
a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole" ("episco-
patus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur "), virtu-
ally 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 Churches in the Empire after

consolidation of the
the Roman patternbut endanger the prestige and
could not
peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do so. If we con-
sider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of his
—
own diocese now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were re-
cognised 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 — that the rigid episcopal and provincial
in short,
constitution Church had become an accomplished fact,
of the
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 cathedra Petri.
the But, when that levelling
of the episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired
rights that could no longer be cancelled. Besides, there was '
1
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 Aries, whereas
the Gallic had not this right. Sohm, p. 391 ff., assumes that the Roman
prelates
bishop alone — not
Cyprian or the bishops of Gaul— had authority to exclude the
bishop of Aries 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
Chap, hi.] CATHOLIC AND ROMAN 1
67
one thing that could not be taken from the Roman Church,
nor therefore from her bishop, even if she were denied
the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of Rome.
The site of the world's metropolis might be shifted, 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 " (oh xv 01 xxrcc, rv,v 'IrxXixv xx) ryv 'Papxiccv
TroXtv £7ri<TX07roi tou loyyixroi; sttio-tsXXoisv '). In this instance the
spiritual authority and no legal power. Further, two Spanish bishops publicly ap-
pealed 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) : rc3v ôi7roSv eTiirxoirwv SixSoxovq sis tov$ to7tov$, sv eJt ytrocv, %sipor-
xTsa-rx^Kxizsv. This quotation refers to Italy, and the passage, which
ovvjtrxvrss
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.).
1
Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 19. The Church of Antioch sought to eoter upon an
independent line of development under Paul of Samosata. Paul's fall was the victory
of Rome. We may it to be highly probable, though to the best of my
suppose
belief there is no sure proof, that it was not till then that the Roman
for the present
standards and sacraments, catholic and apostolic collection of Scriptures (see, on the
contrary, the use of Scripture in the Didaskalia), apostolic rule of faith, and apostolic
episcopacy attained supremacy in Antioch [but that they began to be introduced
;
into that city about the time of Serapion's bishopric (that is, during the Easter
controversy). The old records of the Church of Edessa have an important bearing
on this point; and from these it is evident that her constitution did not begin to
assume a Catholic form till the beginning of the 3rd century, and that as the result
of connection with Rome. See the Doctrine of Addai by Phillips, p. 50: "Palut
himself went to Antioch and received the hand of the priesthood from Serapion,
bishop of Antioch. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, himself also received the hand
from Zephyrinus, bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of
the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from our Lord, who was there
bishop of Rome 25 years, (sic) in the days of the Caesar, who reigned there 13 years."
(See also Tixeront, Edesse, pp. 149, 152.) Cf. with this the prominence given in the Acts
of Scharbil and Barsamya were contemporaries of Fabian, bishop of
to the fact that they
Rome. We read there (see Rubens Duval, Les Actes de Scharbil et les Actes de
Barsamya, Paris, 1889, and Histoire d'Edesse, p. 130): "Barsamya (he was bishop of
Edessa at the time of Decius) lived at the time of Fabian, bishop of Rome. He had
;
1 68 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, hi.]
interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the emperor

coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now
completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more
help from outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue
their own interest. So the bishop of Rome had step by step
to fight for the new authority, which, being now based on a
purely and being forced to repudiate any
dogmatic theory
empirical was inconsistent with the Church system
foundation,
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 Church of the imperial capital, they contain a
to the
truth the denial of which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt
to explain the process by which the Church was unified and
'
catholicised.
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 prafcctus urbis, with his district superintendents,
the deacons, and in fact a sort of princeps cemulus, cf. (1) the recorded comments
of Alexander Severus on the Christians, and especially those on their organisation
(2) the edict of Maximums 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.
1
The memorable words in the lately discovered appeal by Eusebius of Dory-
lseum to Leo I. (Neues Archiv., Vol. XL, 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 humi iacentes erigere, secundum
inciderunt, adiuvare et
possibilitatem, quam habetis causa autem rei, quod sensum rectum tenetis et incon-
;
cussam servatis erga dominum nostrum Iesum Christum fidem, nee non etiam
indissimulatam universis fratribus et omnibus in nomine Christi vocatis tribuitis
caritatem, etc." See also Theodoret's letters addressed to Rome.
II. FIXING AND GRADUAL HELLENISING OF
CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEM OF
DOCTRINE.
CHAPTER IV.
ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY.

THE APOLOGISTS.
'
I. Introduction.
The object of the Christian Apologists, some of whom filled

ecclesiastical offices and in various ways promoted spiritual
progress, "
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 and maintain the faith. They acknowledged the
grasp
Old Testament to be the authoritative source of God's revel-
ation, maintained that the whole human race was meant to be
1
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, Ge-
schichte 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.
2 It is intrinsically probable that their works directly addressed to the Christian
Church- gave a more exposition of their Christianity than we find in the Apol-
full
ogies. This can moreover be proved with certainty from the fragments of Justin's,
Tatian's and MeliteTs 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.
170 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, iv.]
reached by and adhered to the early Christian

Christianity,
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 we have before us
the cultured world,
the attempts churchmen to represent the Christian
of Greek
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 Gnos-
tics, but rather became
subsequent times the foundation of
in
the ecclesiastical The Gnostic speculations were
dogmatic.
repudiated, whereas those of the Apologists were accepted. The
manner in which the latter set forth Christianity as a philos-
ophy 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 this union attain acceptance and permanence, whilst
did
"Gnosticism" was at first rejected? These are the two great
questions the correct answers to which are of fundamental impor-
tance 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 ecclesi-
astical circles and were accepted by the Graeco-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 explain-
ed 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. More-
over, 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
Chap, iv.] THE APOLOGISTS 171
sharply contrasted with natural religion, and

all polytheism,
ceremonial. They proclaimed most emphatic manner
it in the
as the religion of the spirit, of freedom, and of absolute moral-
ity. Almost the whole positive material of Christianity is em-
bodied 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 pri-
marily dependent on historical facts and finally overthrows all
polytheism.
Now was the very thing required. In the second cen-
this
tury many needs and aspirations were un-
of our era a great
doubtedly 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 however, was the longing men felt to
all others,
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 mes-
sage 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 be and as they had discovered it in their own
it to
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 and deeper needs enabled it to plead the
special
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 nature of
religion and morality, this philosophy enabled the Apologists
172 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, iv.]
to demonstrate the worthlessness of the traditional religion and

worship of the different nations. The same cause, however,l
made them take up the conservative position with regard to

the historical traditions of Christianity. These were not ulti-
mately 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 Christi-
anity is that it is revelation, real revelation. The Apologists
had no doubt as to what it reveals, and therefore any investi-
gation 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, 2 and Christi-
anity 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 poly-
theistic 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 ;
1
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.
2 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.
Chap, iv.] THE APOLOGISTS 1 73
also bore unmistakable testimony to the one God, who was a

Spirit, to virtue, and to immortality ; and that it was capable
of convincing men and of leading them to a virtuous life.
Viewed superficially, the Apologists were no doubt the conserva-

tives; 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 in-
vestigate 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 Gnos- ;
tics 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 in-
ferior. The Apologists, again, strove to discover an authority
for religious enlightenment and morality and to find the confirm-
ation 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 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 neces-

sary. 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 con-
trast between the Apologetic and the Gnostic theology. And,
174 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
as in the former case we meet with the most varied shades

and transitions, for no one writer has developed a consistent
theory, so also we find a similar state of things in the latter ;
'
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, menaced wherever we
is
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 re-
move 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 self-
consciousness which it awakened by the detachment of man
from nature, and the contrasts which it revealed led of necess-
ity to that frame of mind which manifested itself in the craving
for a revelation. The Apologists felt this. But their ration-
alism gave a strange turn to the satisfaction of that need. It
was not their Christian ideas which first involved them in con-
tradictions. 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
1
Note here particularly the attitude of Tatian, who has already introduced a
certain amount of the "Gnostic" element into his "Oratio ad Grsecos", although,
he adheres in the main to the ordinary apologetic doctrines.
Chap. IV.] THE APOLOGISTS 1 75
religion for the educated. The Apologists used it — we may

almost say inadvertently — to overthrow polytheism by maintaining
that Christianitywas the realisation of an absolutely moral theism.
The was not the first to experience this twofold
Christian religion
destiny on Graeco-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 Apol-
ogists 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. Three cen- '
turies 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 spi-
ritualised form which represents it as the absolute and highest
philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of re-
compense 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. J
We see from the Jewish Sibylline oracles how wide-spread it
was. Philo, however, was not only a Stoic rationalist, but a
liyper-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 trans-
formation 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
1
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: xre (pihotrotyot to ysvog 'ovtsi;.
2
On the relation of Christian literature to the writings of Philo, cf. Siegfried,
Philo von Alexandrien, p. 303 f.
;
with speculations concerning the essence and ultimate cause of

things. The idea of a religious dogma which was at once
to furnish a correct theory of the world and a principle of
conduct was from this standpoint completely unintelligible. But
philosophy, particularly in the Stoa, set out in search of this
idea, and, after further developments,
sought for one special
religion with which it could agree or through which
it could at
least attain certainty. The meagre cults of the Greeks and Romans
were unsuited for this. So men turned their eyes towards the
barbarians. Nothing more clearly characterises the position of
things in the second century than the agreement between two
men so radically different as Tatian and Celsus. Tatian emphat-
ically declares that salvation comes from the barbarians, and to
Celsus it is also a "truism" that the barbarians have more
capacity the Greeks for discovering valuable doctrines.
than '
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. 2 New and strange as the .
1
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.
2 See the section "Justin und die apostolischen Vater" in Engelhardt's "Christ-
enthum Justin's des Martyrers", p. 375 ff., and my article on the so-called 2nd
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Zeitschrift fur 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.
Chap, iv.] THE APOLOGISTS I
77
undertaking to represent Christianity as a philosophy might

seem at first, the Apologists, so far as they were understood,
appeared to advance nothing inconsistent with Christian common
sense. Besides, they did not question authorities, but rather
supported them, and introduced no foreign positive materials.
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 philo-
sophy 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 Ouadratus and the Athenian philosopher, Aristides, pre-
sented treatises in defence of Christianity to the emperor. '
About a century had elapsed had since the Gospel of Christ

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 ex-
pressly designates himself in his pamphlet as a philosopher of
the Athenians. Since the days when the words were written:
"Beware lest any man
you through philosophy and vain
spoil
deceit" had constantly been repeated (see, as
(Col. II. 8), it
evidence, Celsus, passim) that Christian preaching and philosophy

were things entirely different, that God had chosen the fools,
and that man's duty was not to investigate and seek, but to
1
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,
proved to it is
have existed Barlaam et Joasaph; finally,

in the original language in the Historia
a considerable fragment of it is found in Armenian. See an English edition by
Harris and Robinson in the Texts and Studies I. 1 891. 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.
12
believe and hope. Now a philosopher, as such, pleaded the cause

of Christianity. In the summary he gave of the content of
Christianity at the beginning of his address, he really spoke as
a philosopher and represented this faith as a philosophy. By
expounding pure monotheism and giving it the main place in
his argument, Aristides gave supreme prominence to the very
doctrine which simple Christians also prized as the most impor-
tant. Moreover, in emphasing not only the supernatural char-
'
acter 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 unphilosoph-
ical form which Christianity was first preached to the world.
in
That is the thesis maintained by all the Apologists from Justin
2
to Tertullian, and which Jewish philosophers before them pro-
pounded 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 "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
1
See Hennas, Mand I.
2 With reservations this also holds good of the Alexandrians. See particularly
Orig., c. Cels. I. 62.
rational ; but does that which is rational require a revelation ?
How the proposition was understood by the different Apologists

requires examination.
Aristidcs. 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,
and gives their origin. He derives the Christians
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 and Egyptians (down to
barbarians, Greeks,
chapter 12). In the 13th chapter the Greek authors and philo-
sophers 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 1 5th 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.
l
Justin. In his treatise addressed to the emperor Justin did
not call himself a philosopher as Aristides had done. In es-
1
Semisch, Justin der Martyrer, 2 Vols., 1840 f. Aube, S. Justin, philosophe et
martyre, 2nd reprint, 1875. Weizsacker, Die Theologie des Martyrers Justin's in
the Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p. 60 ff. Von Engelhardt, Christenthum
Justin's, 1878; id.,"Justin", in Herzog's Real Encyklopadie. Stahlin, Justin der
Martyrer, 1880. Clemen, Die religionsphilosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christ-
lichen Eudamonismus in Justin's Apologie, 1890. Flemming, zur Beurtheilung des
Christenthums Justin's des Martyrers, 1893. Duncker, Logoslehre Justin's, 1848.
Bosse, Der praexistente Christus des Justinus, 1891.
—
pousing the cause of the hated and despised Christians he re-

presented 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 judg-
ment of the time and their own intention. In addressing them
he appeals to the Xoyoc <T&(ppoov in a purely Stoic iashion. He
opposes the truth — also in the Stoic manner — to the ôtxi;
kxKxiuv. '
It was not to be a mere captatio benevolentics. 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." 2 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. 3 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 lifeand doctrines
(joiog zx) f&xfyf&xrx) 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 6y). Moreover,
4
in the first passage where he speaks of Greek philosophers, 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
1
Apol. I. 2, p. 6, ed. Otto.
2 Apol. I. 2, p. 6, sq.
3 See the numerous philosophical quotations and allusions in Justin's Apolog
pointed out by Otto. Above all, he made an extensive use of Plato's Apology of
Socrates.
4 Apol. I. 4. p. 16, also I. 7, p. 24 sq : 1. 26.
'
Chap. iv.J THE APOLOGISTS l8l
phenomenon is being repeated which otherwise is only observed

in the case of philosophers and how were those whom he was
;
addressing to understand him? In the same passage he speaks

for the first time of Christ. He introduces him with the plain
and intelligible formula : c TiiSxvxxXog Xpitrrdg (" the teacher
1
Christ"). 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.
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 philoso-
phers. same sentence where he represents Christ as the
In the
Socrates of the barbarians, 3 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 con-
ceal 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 about which he himself is perfectly clear. No Stoic
fact
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
1
Apol. I.
4, p. 14.
2
Apol. I.
5, p. 18 sq., see also I. 14 fin.: oh a-oCpio-Tiii; V7rypx£v otKKk Suvx/tit;
e>ccv 6 hoyoc; ocvtov v\v.
3
L. c. : oh yosp (/.ovov iv "EAAijs-/ Six Zuupxrovt; vko K6yov yhsyxfy rxvrx, xXXx
y.xi sv ftxpfixpoii; w' xhrov rov x6yov /toptywievToi; xxi xvipiii7rov y.xi
y
\y<rov Xpio-rov
Kh-îVTOC,.
1 82 HISTORY OF DOOMA [Chap. iv.
Son of God, ' 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 pre-
dictions, admit of no doubt, that the teacher Christ is the in-
carnate 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 quitefrom the Socrates of the Greeks, and

different
for that reason also his followers are not to be compared with
2
the disciples of the philosophers. 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, edu-
cated 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
1
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.
2 See Apol. II. IO fin. : 'Zemapxrei oi/Seit; Ite/V^ vnip rovrov rov SoypxTOS xxo-
SvjiTKeiv Xpia-Tli Si tm xxi i/Vo ~Zwy.pxrcv$ xtt'o i^spovt; yvwaSevrt . . . cv tyth6<ro$o>
cvoe $iK6hoyoi (idvov BTrsi/ritjirxv,
83
guided by the Logos ; what the Christians

and, conversely,
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 hence-
forth to regard the reasonable as the unreasonable or wisdom
as folly. But is the Christian wisdom not of divine origin?
How can it in that case be natural, and what connection can
exist between it and the wisdom of the Greeks? Justin bestowed
the closest attention on this question, but he never for a moment
doubted what the answer must be. Wherever the reasonable
has revealed itself, it has always been through the operation
of the divine reason. For "man's lofty endowment consists in
his having had a portion of the divine reason implanted within
him, and in his consequent capacity of attaining a knowledge
of divine things, though not a perfect and clear one, by dint
of persistent efforts after truth and virtue. When man remembers
his real nature and destination, that is, when he comes to him-
self, the divine reason is already revealing itself in him and
through him. As man's possession conferred on him at the
creation, it is at once his most peculiar property, and the power
which dominates and determines his nature. All that is reasonable 1
1
The of Justin do not clearly indicate whether the non-Christian
utterances
portion mankind has only a a-nippix tov x6yov as a natural possession, or
of
whether this o-nepfix 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 Affyo? and to o-7reppx tov hoyov
and we need not therefore attempt to remove it. On the one hand, the excellent
discoveries of poets and philosophers are simply traced to to s//.<pvTOv ttxvti yevei
uvifii)7ruvo-ireppx tov K6yov (Apol. II. 8), the pepot; <T7rep(jixTiKov *.6yov (ibid.)
which was implanted at the creation, and on which the human evpeo-ii; xxt dewp/x
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 7txvtuv svTOvuTepot; (ibid.), his philosophy also, like all pre-
Christian systems, being a <ptAo<ro(f>ix xv6pw7rsios (II. 15). But on the other hand
I 84 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
is based on revelation. In order to accomplish his true destiny

man requires from the beginning the inward working of that
divine reason which has created the world for the sake of man,
and therefore wishes to raise man beyond the world to God. 1
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"
(fTTTsppx rov may have been his exclusive guide
Xoyov), though it
to knowledge and conduct, was ever able to grasp the whole

truth and impart it in a convincing manner. Though Socrates
and Heraclitus may in a way be called Christians, they cannot
be so designated in any real sense. Reason is clogged with
unreasonableness, and the certainty of truth is doubtful wherever
the whole Logos has not been acting; for man's natural endow-
ment with reason is too weak to oppose the powers of evil and
of sense that work in the world, namely, the demons. We must
Christ was known by Socrates though only omo pepovt;; for "Christ was and is the
Logos who dwells in every man". Further, according to the Apologist, the pepot;
rov iT7rep(/.XTiKov Aet'ov Koyov bestows the power of recognising whatever is related
to the Logos (to <rvyy3vet; II. 13). Consequently it may not only be said: fox
xxpx 7rx/Ti xxheSt; e'pviTxt Si/toSv, rctiv Xpia-rixvcSv stti (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 ((zstx xdyov) —
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 vtto K6yov Six 'Zuxpxrovs i)K-
iy%fy x.t.a. (I. 5). Nevertheless eevros 6 hdyot; did not act in Socrates, for this
only appeared in Christ (ibid). Hence the prevailing aspect of the case in Justin
was to which he gave expression at the close of the 2nd Apology (II. 15
that :
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 a knowledge of true being, though only darkly, by

attain
means of the seed of the Logos naturally implanted within them. For the a-xopx and
\j.i{j.-4{j.x of a thing, which are bestowed in proportion to one's receptivity, are quite
different from the thing itself, which divine grace bestows on us for our possession
and imitation."
"For
1
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, be-
cause 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.
85
therefore believe in the prophets in whom the whole Logos

spoke. He who does that must also of necessity believe in
Christ; for the prophets clearly pointed to him as the perfect
embodiment of the Logos. Measured by the fulness, clearness,
and certainty of the knowledge imparted by the Logos-Christ,
all knowledge independent of him appears as merely human
wisdom, even when it emanates from the seed of the Logos.
The Stoic argument is consequently untenable. Men blind and
kept in bondage by the demons require be aided by a to
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 It is the divine help granted to man,
extraordinary.
who has under the power of the demons, and enabli?ig
fallen
him to follozu 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 revel-
ation rises or sinks. This revelation cannot do less than give
the necessary assurance and it cannot do more
of the truth,
than impart the power that develops and matures the inalien-
able 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, or as the certain is to the uncertain and hence also
'
;
1
Justin has destroyed the foixe of this argument in two passages (I. 44. 59)
by tracing (like theAlexandrian Jews) all true knowledge of the poets and philo-
sophers to borrowing from the books of the Old Testament (Moses). Of what further
use then is the inrspi^x Xoyov s/z^vtov ? Did Justin not really take it seriously ?
Did he merely wish he was addressing? We are not

to suit himself to those whom
justified in asserting this. Probably, however, the adoption of that Jewish view of
the history of the world is a proof that the results of the demon sovereignty were
in Justin's estimation so serious that he no longer expected anything from the TTeppx
>-6yo\j eptpvTOv when left to its own resources and therefore regarded truth and
:
prophetic revelation as inseparable. But this view is not the essential one in the
Apology. That assumption of Justin's is evidently dependent on a tradition, whilst
his real opinion was more '•

liberal".
1 86 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
as permanent is to the transient. For the final stage has

the
now and Christianity is destined to put an end to
arrived
natural human philosophy. When th? 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 inasmuch as it effects all and more
called Christian,
than all have done, and inasmuch as the
that these systems
speculations of the philosophers, which are uncertain and mingled
with error, are transformed by it into dogmas of indubitable
certainty.
1
The practical conclusion drawn in Justin's treatise
from this exposition is that the Christians are at least entitled
to ask the authorities to treat them as philosophers (Apol. I.
7, 20: II. 15). This demand, he says, is the more justifiable

because the freedom of philosophers is enjoyed even by such
people as merely bear the name, whereas in reality they set
2
forth immoral and pernicious doctrines.
1
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 honouredamong you, though in many cases
in a divineand 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 (to Acy<xov to o/ov, II. 10).
"The principles of Plato are not foreign (x^hdrpix) 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
from the school of Plato "' (II. 12). "Socrates convinced no
forth
one in such a way that he would have been willing to die for the doctrine pro-
claimed 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: Svvx(/.i$ so-ri
tov xppvjTOv freer po$ xxi ovx'i xvOpwireiov x6yov xxrxo-xevy (see also I. 14 and elsewhere.)
2 In Justin's estimate of the Greek philosophers two vother points deserve notice.
In the first place, he draws a very sharp distinction between real and nominal
philosophers. By means the Epicureans. They are no doubt
the latter he specially
referred to in 26 (I. 14: Atheists). Epicurus and Sardanapalus are classed
I.
4, 7,
together in II. 7 Epicurus and the immoral poets in II. 12 and in the conclu-
; ;
sion of II. 15 the same philosopher is ranked with the worst society. But according
Chap, iv.j THE APOLOGISTS 1
87
Jew Trypho, which is likewise meant

In the dialogue with the
for heathen ceased to employ the idea of the
readers, Justin
existence of a "seed of the Logos implanted by nature" (vweppx
Koyov s,uCp'jrov) 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; but, in so far 1
as this is "the only sure and saving philosophy ".

the case, it is
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,
to II. 3 fin. {xSuvxtov Kvvixci, xSixQopov to rehoi; 7rpoisi4.evcii, to xyxiov eiSevxi ttA>jv
x$tx<poptx$) 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 however, worthy of note and this
correctly. It is, —
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 to human philosophy,
once allied and opposed
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 x exo/^sv si$ xoivbv (pspovTSQ axt xxvtI Ssoizsvui kcivw-
:
vovvtsi;). The philosophical emperors were meant here to think of the "<J>/Ao/? ttxvtx
koivx" . Yet in I. 67 Justin corrected exaggerations in his description. Justin's

reference to the invaluable benefits which Christianity confers on the state deserves
notice (see particularly I. 12, 17.) The later Apologists make a similar remark.
1
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 Apology appeals
the other hand, the Dialogue as well as the
to the cultured heathen public, we may perhaps assume
two writings were that the
meant to present a graduated system of Christian instruction. (In one passage the
Dialogue expressly refers to the Apology). From Justin's time onward the apologetic
polemic of the early Church appears to have adhered throughout to the same method.
This consisted in giving the polemical writings directed against the Greeks the
form of an introduction to Christian knowledge, and in continuing this instruction
still further in those directed against the Jews.
1 88 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
because revelation was only given in the prophets and in Christ.

1
The Christian isbecause the followers of Plato

the philosopher, -
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, :t
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. 4 But, at the very
beginning of his writing Athenagoras also claims for the Christian
doctrines the toleration granted by the state to all philosophic
5
tenets. In support of his claim he argues that the state punishes
nothing but practical atheism, 6 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". 7
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."* He therefore takes up the standpoint that
the state is justified in refusing to tolerate people with com-
pletely new doctrines. When we add that he everywhere assumes
that the wisdom and piety of the emperors are sufficient to test
1
Dial. 2. sq. That Justin's Christianity is founded on theoretical scepticism is
clearly shown by the introduction to the Dialogue.

2 Dial. 8 : o'Jtwi; Sij y.xi Six txvtx (pilorotpoi; h/u.
3 rsheuc ys-jo^hK
Dial., 1. c. : 7rxfiarrj a-oi rov Xpia-ri-j rev &scv s7ri n/vdvTi y.xi
S\llxi[J.0-Ji1-J.
4
See particularly the closing chapter.
5 Suppl. 2,
6 Suppl. 4.
7 Suppl. 5—7.
8 Suppl. 24 (see also Aristides c. 13).
Chai\ iv.] THE APOLOGISTS 1
89
and approve '

the truth of the Christian teaching, that he merely
2
represents this faith itself as the reasonable doctrine, and that,
with the exception of the resurrection of the body, he leaves

all the positive and objectionable tenets of Christianity out of
a
account, 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, in-
asmuch as he does not introduce the assumption of a " seed

of the Logos implanted by nature" (fTrspiAxydyov sfttpurov). 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. 4 Here also then we have a repetition of
the thought that the truly reasonable is of supernatural origin.
Such is importance attached by Athenagoras to this pro-
the
"
position, that he declares any demonstration of the "reasonable
to be insufficient, no matter how luminous it may appear. Even
that which most evidently true— e.g., monotheism is not
is —
raised from the domain of mere human opinion into the sphere
of undoubted certainty till it can be confirmed by revelation,''
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. 6 All the praises which
Athenagoras from time to time bestows on philosophers, parti-
cularly Plato, are consequently to be understood in a merely
"'
1
Suppl, 7 fin. and many other places.
2
E. g-., Suppl. 8. 35 fin.
3 The Crucified Man, the incarnation of the Logos etc. are wanting. Nothing
at all is said about Christ.
4 Suppl. 7.
5
Cf. the arguments in c. 8 with c. 9 init.
6
Suppl. 11.
7 Suppl. 23.
relative sense. Their ultimate object is only to establish the

claim made by the Apologist with regard to the treatment of
Christians by the state; but they are not really meant to bring
the former into closer relationship to philosophers. Athenagoras
also holds the theory that Christians are philosophers', in so far
as the " philosophers " are not such in any true sense. It is only
the problems they set that connect the two. He exhibits less
clearness than Justin in tracing the necessity of revelation to
the fact that the demon sovereignty, which, above all, reveals
itself in can only be overthrown by revelation he
polytheism, ' ;
rather emphasises the other thought (cc. 7, 9) that the necessary

2
attestation of the truth can only be given in this way.
Tatiaris' chief aim was not to bring about a juster treat-
1,
ment of the Christians. 4 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" be-
1 Suppl. 18. 23 — 27. He, however, as well as the others, sets forth the demon
theory in detail.
' The Apology which Miltiades addressed to Marcus Aurelius and his fellow-
emperor perhaps bore the title vic\p Tifa xcerac XporTixvoiii; <piho<ro<pftx$ (Euseb., H. E. V.
:
17. 5). It is certain that Melito in his Apology designated Christianity as it xxP
vipt&i 7). But, while it is undeniable that this writer attempted,

<pi*.o<ro<pi'x (I.e., IV. 26.
toa 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
t© 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 "6 x«0' ^£5 \6yot; ", and that he uses the formula :
" Thy forefathers held
philosophy in honour along with the other cults" (xpc? t«7? «AAa»? Qpytrxetztt;).
this
This excludes the assumption that Melito in his Apology merely represented Christian-
ity as philosophy (see also IV. 26. 5, where the Christians are called "to tuv
6ico-e@65v ygvo$"). He also wrote a treatise nept ktio-sw$ xxi yeveasut; Xpurrov. In
it (fragment in the Chron. Pasch.) he called Christ ®sov A.6yot; %po celwvuv.
See my treatise "Tatian's Rede an die Griechen iibers.", 1884 (Giessener

:t
Programm). Daniel, Tatianus, 1837. Steuer, Die Gottes- und Logoslehre des Tatian,
1893.
4 But see Orat. 4 init., 24 fin., 25 fin., 27 ink.
; :
gins a violent polemic against all Greek philosophers.

with
Tatian merely acted up to a judgment of philosophers and
philosophy which in Justin's case is still concealed. Hence it '
was not possible for him to think of demonstrating analogies

between Christians and philosophers. no doubt views He also
"reasonable"; he who
•Christianity as and follows lives virtuously
wisdom receives it 3 but yet it is too sublime to be grasped
by earthly perception. 3 It is a heavenly thing which depends
on the communication of the "Spirit", and hence can only be
known by revelation. 4 But yet it is a "philosophy " with definite
1
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. Never-
theless found grace in his eyes (c. 3).
Socrates still With regard to other philo-
sophers he listened to foolish and slanderous gossip.
2 Orat. 20. Tatian also gave credence to it because imparts su"ch

13, 15 fin., it
an intelligible picture of the creation of the world (c. 29).

8 Orat. 12: rx Tt}$ vn/.STspxt; 7?xi5stx$ sa-rtv xvurspu Tif? y.o<ri/.ty.viQ xxtx^yi^bu^.
Tatian troubled himself very little with giving demonstrations. No other Apologist
made such bold assertions.
* (p. 54 fin.), 20 (p. 90), 25 fin., 26 fin., 29, 30 (p. 116), 13 (p. 62),
See Orat. 12
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 im-
mortality of the soul, declared the soul (the material spirit) to be something inherent
111 all matter, and accordingly looked on the distinction between men and animals
in respect of their inalienable natural constitution as only one of degree. According
to this Apologist the dignity of man does not consist in his natural endowments
but in the union of the human soul with the divine spirit, for which union indeed
he was planned. But, in Tatian's opinion, man lost this union by falling under
the sovereignty of the demons. The Spirit of God has left him, and consequently
he has fallen back to the level of the beasts. So it is man's task to unite the Spirit
again with himself, and thereby recover that religious principle on which all wisdom
and knowledge rest. This anthropology is opposed to that of the Stoics and related
to the "Gnostic" theory. It follows from it that man, in order to reach his
destination, must raise himself above his natural endowment; see c. 15: xvdponrov
Xeyai xov voppu (i&v avflpwxoTJjTO? 7rpb$ xvtov Si rbv ®ebv xex<t)pyy.6TX. 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., 13611.,
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 super natur ale. For if a proper spontaneous use of freedom infal-
libly leads to the return of the Spirit, it is evident that the decision and conse-
doctrines tyoypxrx) ;
'
it brings nothing new, but only such
blessings as we have already received, but could not retain -
owing to the power of error, i.e.. the dominion of the demons. :t
Christianity is therefore the philosophy in which, by virtue of

the Logos revelation through the prophets, 4
the rational know-
5
ledge that leads to life 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
6
also be called the barbarian philosophy. Its truth is proved
quently the realisation of man's destination depend on

That is. human freedom.
however, the proposition which But indeed Tatian
all the Apologists maintained.
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) Koyov rov Snipioa-iov xxi sTriyefov xsx u -
:
pta-pivot xxi ireiQotievot ®eov Kxpxyyeh(x.x<rt xxi v6pt(p nxTpbt; ztpQxpo-fzq e7rdpievoi, ~xv
to iv $6&y Ke/fisvov xvipaiTeviji 7rxpxiT0V(/.e&x.
1
C. 31. init. : vi vnierepx (pihoircxpix. 32 (p. 128): 0! fiovhoptevoi <Pi*o<ro<ps7v 7rxp'
Yifj.1v 'xvdpuiroi. In c. 33 (p. 130) Christian women are designated xl vxp' fifth
(PiAoo-oQovo-xi. C. 35: v\ xxfr vin&s j3xp(3xpo; <piAoo-o$ix. 40 (p. 152): of kxtz Mwvrix
xxi 6(ioi<as xxjtm <piô>ro(povvreg. 42 : 6 xxrx fixpfixpovt; <t>iho<TO<pwv Txtixvoq. The
S6y/J,XTX 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 a v) yperepx
ttxiSsix", once also "vopiobea-ix'' (12; cf. 40: oi /iiJ.irspot v6/j.oi), and often ttoKitsIx.
2
See, e.g., c. 29 fin.: the Christian doctrine gives us ov% o7rip ptii e^.xj3o(j.ev,
«AA' 07Tep &X@6VT£$ V7T0 T>5? 7TKxVVl% 'i%ZIV iX(ah.'J^V\[J.£V.
3 gave still stronger expression than Justin to the opinion that it is the
Tatian
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.
4 Tatian bottom distinguish between revelation through the
also cannot at
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.
5 Knowledge and
appear in Tatian most closely connected. See, e.g., c. 13
life
init.: "In not immortal, but mortal; it is also possible, however,

itself the soul is
that may not die. If it has not attained a knowledge of that truth it dies and
it
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."
6 Barbarian: the Christian doctrines are tx tuv j3xp(3xpccv Soypxrz (c. 1): *
Chap, iv.] THE APOLOGISTS I93
by its as well as by its intelligible form, which

ancient date '
enables even the most uneducated person that is initiated in

it * to understand it perfectly.
:t
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. *
kxT vt{ioi$ (3xp(3xpot; <pit.o<ro$tx (c. 35): it fixpfixpinvi vo/iodeo-ix (c. 12); y peeked fixp-
fixpixxl (c. 29); y.xrjoTope7v rx fixpfixpcov Sdypxrx (c. 35); 6 xxtx fixpfixpovt; <pt*o<r-
0$6/v Txtixv6$ (c. 42); M«t/«r>f? -xxayc, (3xp(3xpov <f,iho<ro<ptxt; xpxvy6t; (c. 31); see also
c. 30, 32. In Tatian's view barbarians and Greeks are the decisive contrasts in history.
1
See the proof from antiquity, c. 31 ff.
2 C. 30 (p. 114): rovruv ovv ryjv xxrxKâ [j.i[j.vvnxiMOC,.
3
Tatian's own confession (c. 26) " Whilst I was reflecting
is very important here :
on what happened that there fell into my hands certain writings of

was good it
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 unnrtificial 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
though they do not give
tyrants, 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.
4 The unknown author of the A6yo$ w/ids "EAA»fv#s also formed the same
judgment as Tatian (Coqx Apolog., T. III., p. 2 sq., ed. Otto; a Syrian trans-
lation, 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: Ssl yxp x7roxxTX<rTX$yvxi oisv xTea-m.
13
''
Theophilus agrees with Tatian, in so far as he everywhere

appears to contrast Christianity with philosophy. The religious
and moral culture of the Greeks is derived from their poets
(historians) and philosophers (ad Autol. II. 3 fin. and elsewhere).
However, not only do poets and philosophers contradict each
other (II. 5) ; but the latter also do not agree (II. 4. 8 : III. 7),
nay, many contradict themselves (III. 3). Not a single one of

the philosophers, however, is to be taken seriously
so-called ;
they have devised myths and follies (II. 8); everything they
have set forth is useless and godless (III. 2); vain and worth-
less 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 pro-
phetic testimony in regard to it was continued in the Gospel.
Revelation, however, is necessary because this wisdom of the
philosophers and poets is really demon wisdom, for they were
3
inspired by devils. Thus the most extreme contrasts appear
to exist here. Still, Theophilus is constrained to confess that
1
Noris Plato "0 SotccSv Iv xvto7q a-epvoTepov •xttyLXoirofyyY.ivxi'''' any better than
Epicurus and the Stoics (III. 6). Correct views which are found in him in a
greater measure than in the others (0 Soxwv 'Ehhyvaiv <ro<pci)Tepot; yeyevyo-dxi), 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:
£1 $£ SlKXO-pS), OVK XpX Xhybvi SUTIV TX Jx' XUTOV SlpiJ^SVx).
2
Theophilus confesses (I. 14) exactly as Tatian does axl yxp hyu vikio-tovvtqvto :
xhhx vvv kxtxvoJo-xi; xvtx 7cia-revco, x(j.x scxi s7riTvxoiiv hpxlc, ypxfyxlc, tuv
'iastrdxi,
xyimv irpotyyTUv, di xxt TrpceTxcv Six Trvsv/xxrot; ®sov t.'. 7rpoysyovdTX S> rpoKw
ysyovsv xxt tx eve<TT&TX rivi rp6xtA ytverxt, kxi tx \i:tp%6{i.ivx 7roix ro&et x-z-
xpTia-SîrsTxi. "AttoSsiZiv ovv Axfiuv twv yivo(/.svwv xxi 7rpoxvx7re$uvvi[J.evm ol/K
xttio-tw; see also II. 8 — 10, 22, 30, Theophilus merely

33—35: III. 10, 11, 17.
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).
3 See II. 8: into Sxipovwv $e si/.wevu-6evT£Q xxi i/tt' xvtcov .'pv<riw$evTS$ x tlvov
J/' xvtcov slnov.
truth was not only announced by the Sibyl, to whom his remarks
do not apply, for she is (II. 36) : iv "EAA^/v am iv rcl'g XoittoJc;
U-jsivj ys-jo^hy, TrpoCpyjris, but that poets and philosophers,

''though against their will", also gave clear utterances regard-
ing 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 37: I. 14), and on the other he admits
(II. 12,
that those writers, when the demons abandoned them {ry tyv%%
h-jvrlzvTsz i% xvtuv), 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 and control of his own
; for the freedom
destiny with which man
27) must infallibly lead
is endowed (II.
him to correct knowledge and obedience to God, as soon as

he is no longer under the sway of the demons. Theophilus
did not title of philosophy to Christian truth, this
apply the
title view discredited but Christianity is to him
being in his ;
the "wisdom of God", which by luminous proofs convinces the

men who reflect on their own nature. '
1
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. (
c
O \jl\m
tyis xhvjbet'xs hdyot; strrh eteviepdt; rs xxi xvts£ovo-io$, vko i^Ss/zixv (Bxrxvov \hiy%ov
Qihaiv 7ri7TT£iv i-tySi tvjv irxpx to7? xxovovai SI xTroSsi^But; e%£Tx<riv v7roizeveiv.
To
yzp evyevl$ xvrov xxl -ai^xyTi KHTTeverbxi ietet). He inveighs
TTSTroiSbt; xvtm rip
in the beginning of his all rationalism, and on the one hand
treatise against
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 tuv oXcav 7ri<TTi$ kxi X7r6$eil£i$. 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 adver-
;
Miles "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 im-
Tertullian and Minucius Felix. '

Whilst, in the case of the
Greek acknowledgment of revelation appears
Apologists, the
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 oppo-
sition to the sceptical philosophy and on the side of philosophical
2
dogmatism, i.e., Stoicism. Nevertheless the observations of Ter-
tullian and Minucius Felix with regard to the essence of Christian-
ity, 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
3
character of Christianity is placed in the background. The
recognition of this fact is exceedingly instructive, for it proves
mortality of the soul. But, for that very reason, this view is not sufficient, "for
if Redeemer had only brought the message of the (eternal) life of the soul
the
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. 1 o, p. 246)
This remark is very instructive, for it shows what considerations led the Apologists
to adhere to the belief of the body. Zahn, (Zeitschrift fiir
in the resurrection
Kirchengeschichte, 20 f.) has lately reassigned to Justin him-
Vol. VIII., pp. 1 f.,
self 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 un-
certain. We still possess an early-Church Apology in Pseudo-Melito's "Oratio ad
Antoninum Csesarem " (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.
1
Massebieau (Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1887, Vol. XV. No. 3) lias
convinced me that Minucius wrote at a later period than Tertullian and made use
of his works.
2 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 animse
naturaliter We need merely mention that
Christians ". the work of Minucius is
throughout dependent on Cicero's book, " de natura deorum." In this treatise he
takes up a position more nearly akin to heathen syncretism than Tertullian.
3 R.
In Kiihn's investigation ("Der Octavius des Min. Felix", Leipzig, 1882)
—the best special work we possess on an early Christian Apology from the point
that the conception of Christianity set forth by the Apologists

was not an individual one, but the necessary expression of the
conviction that Christian truth contains the completion and
guarantee of philosophical knowledge. To Minucius Felix (and
Tertullian) Christian truth chiefly presents itself as the wisdom
implanted by nature in every man (Oct. 16. 5). In so far as
man possesses reason and speech and accomplishes the task of
the "examination of the universe" (" inquisitio universitatis "),
conditioned by this gift, he has the Christian truth, that is, he
finds Christianity in his own constitution, and in the rational
order of the world. Accordingly, Minucius is also able to
demonstrate the Christian doctrines by means of the Stoic principle
of knowledge, and arrives at the conclusion that Christianity is
a philosophy,
i.e., the true philosophy, and that philosophers
are to be considered Christians in proportion as they have dis-
l
covered the truth. 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, 2 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 inconsist-
of view of the history of —

dogma based on a very careful analysis of the Octavius,
more emphasis is laid on the difference than on the agreement between Minucius
and the Greek Apologists. The author's exposition requires to be supplemented
in the latter respect (see Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1883, No. 6).
1
C. 20: Exposui opiniones omnium ferme philosophorum , ut quivis arbi-
. .
.
tretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christi-
anos."
2
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 peculi-
arity of the Christian societies.
encies himself. However, these deviations of his from the doctrines

of the Stoa are not merely prompted by Christianity, but rather
have already become an essential component of his philosophical
theory of the world. In the first place, Minucius developed a
detailed theory of the pernicious activity of the demons (cc. 26,
27). This was a confession that human nature was not what
it ought to be, because an evil element had penetrated it from
without. Secondly, he no doubt acknowledged (I. 4 16. 5) the :
natural light of wisdom in humanity, but nevertheless remarked

(32. 9) that our thoughts are darkness when measured by the
clearness of God. Finally, and this is the most essential point,
after appealing to various philosophers when expounding his
doctrine of the final conflagration of the world, he suddenly
repudiated this tribunal, declaring that the Christians follow the
prophets, and that philosophers " have formed this shadowy picture
of distorted truth in imitation of the divine predictions of the
prophets" (34). Here we have now a union of all the elements
already found in the Greek Apologists; only they are, as it
were, hid in the case of Minucius. But the final proof that
he agreed with them in the main is found in the exceedingly
contemptuous judgment which he in conclusion passed on all
philosophers and indeed on philosophy generally (34. 5:38. 5). '
This judgment is not to be explained, as in Tertullian's case,

by the fact that his Stoic opinions led him to oppose natural
perception to all philosophical theory — for this, at most, cannot
have been more than a secondary contributing cause, 2 but by
3
the fact that he is conscious of following revealed wisdom.
1
Tertullian has see Apolog. 46 (and de praescr. 7.)
done exactly the same thing ;
2 Tertull., u Sed non earn te (animam) advoco, quae scholis formata,

de testim. I.:
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 aliquantulae peritia
. . .
tuae nemo credit."

3 Tertull., Apol. 46: ''Quid simile philosophus et Christianus ? Graeciae discipulus
et de praescr. 7: "Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? Quid academirc et
cceli?"
ecclesiae?" Minuc. 38.5: "Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corruptores
et adulteros novimus nos, qui non habitu sapientiam sed mente praeferimus,
. . .
non eloquimur magna sed vivimus, gloriamur nos consecutos, quod illi summa
intentione quaesiverunt nee invenire potuerunt. Quid ingrati sumus, quid nobis
invidemus, si Veritas divinitatis nostri temporis aerate maturuit?"
'
Chap. iv.J THE APOLOGISTS 1 99
Revelation is necessary because mankind must be aided from

without, i.e., by God. In this idea man's need of redemption
is acknowledged, though not to the same extent as by Seneca
and Epictetus. But no sooner does Minucius perceive the teachings
of the prophets to be divine truth than man's natural endowment
and the speculation of philosophers sink for him into darkness.
Christianity is the wisdom which philosophers sought, but were
not able to find.
We may sum up the doctrines of the Apologists as follows:

(i) Christianity is revelation, i.e., it is the divine wisdom, pro-
claimed 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 Christ-
ianity is contrasted with, and puts an end to, all natural and
philosophical knowledge. (2) Christianity is the enlightenment
2
corresponding to the natural but impaired knowledge of man.
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
Minucius did not enter closely into the significance of Christ any more than
1
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).
" Among the Greek Apologists the unknown author of the work K de Monarchia ",
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 desig-
nated as the xx$o?.ixii 56Zx which has fallen into oblivion through bad habit; for
TtJ; xvipaiKivys tpva-eut; to x«t' xpx*fv irv^vyixv o-vveoswt; xxi a-urtfpixt; A«|3ej/3-jf;
»«? exiyvwa-tv xtyisixQ bpyey.tixc, re T*fa uc, tov 'ivx xxl Trxvraiv Sso-ttot^v. Accord-
ing to this, then, only an awakening is required,
'
200 HISTORY OF DOGMA [CHAP. iv.
it; at least it is uncertain whether they even attained a know-

ledge of fragments of the truth by their own independent efforts.
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 wis-
dom 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 ackowledged 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 ithas the powerof 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 : ''Ogx cuv Trxpx nxmxxKuc s'ipyrxi, vifAobv rwv Xpi<TTixvuv strri
(Justin, Apol. II. back to the beginning of the

13). It traced its origin
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: 01 perx Koyou (3iu<txvt£{
Xpurrixvoi efai, xxv xfeci ivoftifrOtitTXV, ohv iv "EAA)f57 f/Jv "Lcoy.px--/,;
zx) 'Hpxzteirog zx) 01 b'ftoioi xurolc, iv (oxppxpoic Vs 'Afipxxp x. .r./..,
"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 power-
fully expressed (hence also the endeavour of the Apologists to
1
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.
reconcile Christianity and the Empire), nor, on the other hand,

can we conceive of one where the specific content of traditional
Christianity is so thoroughly neutralised as it is here. But the
really epoch-making feature is the fact that the intellectual
culture of mankind now appears reconciled and united with
religion. The "dogmas 1
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 com-
munication through a miraculous inward working. All the media
of revelation are passive organs of the Holy Spirit (Athenag.
Supplic. 7; Pseudo-Justin, Cohort. 8; Dialogue 115. 7;
Justin,
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 re-
vealed truth as compared with all human knowledge and errors,

particularly as found among the Greeks (clear traces in Justin, '
first argument in Tatian). 2 If, however, strictly speaking,

detailed
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 con-
tent 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
1
See Justin, Apol. I. 31. Dial. 7, p. 30 etc.
J See Tatian, c. 31 ff.

;
and morality are the natural content of reason. Even Tatian

forms no exception, though he himself protests against the idea.
3. Tlie 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 philo-
sophy is included in these dogmas.
x
According to what we have
already set forth there can be no doubt about the character of
1
In the New Testament the content of the Christian faith is nowhere designated
as dogma. In Clement (I. II.), Hennas, and Polycarp the word is not found at all
yet Clement (I. 20. 4, 27. 5) called the divine order of nature rx StSoy/xxTia-ixevx
vno &eov. In Ignatius (ad Magn. XIII. 1) we read: <T7rovSx^sTS olv pepxiwiyvxi
iv role, ioypxviv tov Kvpt'ov xxi toSv xirovToKwv, but I6y\j.xrx here exclusively mean
the rules of life (see Zahn on this passage), and this is also their signification in
Ai$x%y 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 ieohoyelv and QsoAoyix. The latter
word twice found in Justin (Dial. 56) in the sense of "ali quern nominare deum".
is
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 " 7rpot; roi/t; xKo$yvxiJ.ivovi;
rx &eov" and not u 7rpb$ rovt; 6eoôyovvrxi; \ In Athenagoras (Suppl. 10)
,
ws/)/
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 em-
ployed 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
iseven earlier than the "childhood" of "physicists" (so Aristotle speaks throughout).
To the Fathers of the Church also the old poets are still of kx^xioi Qeohoyot. 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 xoa-fUKii and
6eohoyiKyi <ro<pix.
Christian dogmas. They are the rational truths, revealed by the

prophets in Holy Scriptures, and summarised in Christ
the
(XptTrbg Koyoc xx) voftoc), 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 and hence they can be reproduced with all
doctrines,
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). Whilst the first two ideas are 1
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, on the one hand, the result of the Apol-
is,
ogists' 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 is viewed by the
essential content of revealed philosophy
Apologists (see A, B) as comprised in three doctrines. 2 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
1
Christ has a relation to all three parts of the scheme, (1) as Ao'yo?: (2) as
vo'ô?, vo/zoJeTs^, and KpiTyt; ; (3) as SiSxo-y.xhot; and a-aorvip.
- 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.
life (of righteousness) has been necessarily left by God to men

themselves ; for God has created man and virtue can only
free,
be acquired by man's own efforts. The prophets and Christ are
therefore a source of righteousness in so far as they are teachers.
But as God, that is, the divine Word (which we need not here
discuss) has spoken in them, Christianity is to be defined as the
Knowledge of God, mediated by the Deity himself, and as a
virtuous walk in the longing after eternal and perfect life with
God, as well as in the sure hope of this imperishable reward.
By knowing what is true and doing what is good man becomes
righteous and a partaker of the highest bliss. This knowledge,
which has the character of divine instruction, 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 renuncia-
tion of the world and as a new order of society. The goal '-'
is immortal life,which consists in the full knowledge and con-

templation of God. The dogmas of revelation lie between the
cosmology and they are indefinitely expressed so far as
ethics ;
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.
The dogmas which express the knowledge of God and the
I.
world are dominated by the fundamental idea that the world as the
created, conditioned, and transient is contrasted with something
1 Cicero's proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): "nemo vir magnus sine ali quo
afflatu divino unquam fuit," which was the property of all the idealistic philoso-
phers of the age,is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms
Tatian 29). That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets
(see, *.£.,
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.
3 Justin, Apol. I. 3 : 'H/zsrspov oZv spyov xzi fiiov xxi (j.x^(iXT(av rijv tittvM^t*
7rx<ri TTxpexeiv.
Chap. iv.J THE APOLOGISTS 205
unchangeable and eternal, which is the first cause

self-existing,
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 un-
conditioned, he is the fulness of all being or true being itself
(Tatian 5 : zxOb ttxtx duvxptz opxruv re y,x) adpxruv xvTog v7T07-

7x71c tjv, <rvv xutcc tx ttxvtx). 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 (t£v oKoovto [JLOvxpxr/.ov); his supramundaneness (to xppviTov,
TO XVSXQpOKTTOV, TO X%UpyT0y, TO xy,XTXKV,77T0V, to <%7rsptvdviT0v, TO
fovyxptrov, to x<7vij,$'hdx<ttov, to <zv£x,$(w/,tov ; see Justin, Apol,
II. 6 ; Theoph. I. 3) ; his unity (sfg Qsog) his having no beginning
;
(&vxp%oc, on xykvvjToc) ; his eternity and unchangeableness (xvxh-

Tioluroq zxJoTi MxvxTog); his perfection (tsKsioc); his need of
nothing (xirpo<r$£ii<;) ; his spiritual nature (m&[Mt ®soc); his
absolute causality (x-jtoc vTxp%uv tov ir&vtbf y uiroTTXtxic^ the
motionless mover, see Aristides c. 1); his creative activity
(xTiJTijg txv ttxvtccv); his sovereignty ($so-7t6t>ic toov oKccv); his
fatherhood (ttjjtjj/? Six to shxi xvtov rrpb rm oXcov) his reason-
power (God as Xoyog, vovg, tt-jsv^x, troQix); his omnipotence
(irxvTOxpxrap on xvtoc tx ttxvtx. xpxTsT xx) epcTrspisxei); his
righteousness and goodness (ttxtvip tvjc dtxxioo-uvyg xx) txtoov t&v
xperm %py,7t6tvic). These dogmas are set forth by one Apologist
in a more detailed, and by another in a more concise form,
206 HISTORY OF DOGMA [CHAP. IV.
but three points are emphasised by all. First, God is primarily

to be conceived as the First Cause. Secondly, the principle of
moral good is also the principle of the world. Thirdly, the
principle of the world, that is, the Deity, as being the immortal
and eternal, forms the contrast to the world which is the transient.
In the cosmology of the Apologists the two fundamental ideas
are that God is the Father and Creator of the world, but that,
as uncreated and
eternal, he is also the complete contrast to it. '
These dogmas about God were not determined by the Apol-

ogists 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; 2 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 pro-
;
duct of a rational will. Moreover, the matter which lies at its

basis is nothing bad, but an indifferent substance created by
3
God, though indeed perishable. In its constitution the world
4
is in every respect a structure worthy of God. Nevertheless,
according to the Apologists, the direct author, of the world was
not God, but the personified power of reason which they per-
1
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.
2 Even Tatian yxp kx^vj, to Se ev xvto:
says in c. 19: Koo-pov jzev it xxTxe*y.evvj
7T0^1TSUJjI.X <pXV?iOV.
3 Tatian 5: O'Xjts xvxp%oi; y vKvj xxftxirep 6 ©eo'?, olSe Six rb xvxp%ov text xi/n;
1<toSvvx(x.oc; tw ©£5S- yevvjjT>7 Se xxi oi/% wo tov xKKov yeyovvtx' povov Se vtto
tov 7rxvTwv Sînovpyov 7rpo(3e(3Amzevti. 12'. Even Justin does not seem to have
taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol.
10, 59, 64, 67:I.
13 says very plainly: e| ovk 6vtuv tx kxvtx

:
II. 6. Theophilus
4: I. II. 4, 10,
Wofyosv .... Tt Ss piyx, el 6 SeoQ \% v7rox.eiiJ.ewit; t/'Asj? STTOiei tov xoo-fiov,
* Hence the knowledge of God and the right knowledge of the world are
most closely connected; see Tatian 27: y ®eoii kxtxK^h; ijv e%a) 7repi tuv ohm.
Chap, iv.1 THE APOLOGISTS 207
ceived in the cosmos and represented as the immediate source

of the universe. The motive for this dogma and the interest
in would be wrongly determined by alleging that the Apol-
it
ogists purposely introduced the Logos in order to separate God

from matter, because they regarded this as something bad.
This idea of Philo's cannot at least have been adopted by them
as the result of conscious reflection, for it does not agree with
their conception of matter; nor is compatible with their idea
it
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 Ter-
tullian, they manifested no specific interest in the incarnation
of the Logos in Jesus. The adoption of the dogma of the
Logos is be explained thus: (1) The idea of God,
rather to
derived by abstraction from the cosmos, did indeed, like that of
the idealistic philosophy, involve the element of unity and spirit-
uality, 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. l
Accordingly, they
required a formula capable of expressing the transcendent and
unchangeable God on
the one hand, and his fulness
nature of
of creative and
powers on the other. But the latter
spiritual
attributes themselves had again to be comprehended in a unity,
because the law of the cosmos bore the appearance of a har-
monious one. From this arose the idea of the Logos, and in-
deed 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
1
The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian's Oration is specially instruc-
tive here.
all knowledge of truth is based, they could nevertheless not be

induced by this idea to represent God himself as a direct actor.
For that revelation presupposes a speaker and a spoken word;
but it would be an impossible thought to make the fulness of
all essence and the first cause of all things speak. The Deity
cannot be a speaking and still less a visible person, yet
according to the testimony of the prophets, a Divine Person
was seen by them. The Divine Being who makes himself known
on earth in audible and visible fashion can only be the Divine
Word. As, however, according to the fundamental view of the
Apologists the principle of religion, i.e., of the knowledge of
the truth, is also the principle of the world, so that Divine
Word, which imparts the right knowledge of the world, must
be identical with the Divine Reason which produced the world
itself. In other words, the Logos is not only the creative Reason
of God, but also his revealing Word. This explains the motive
and aim of the dogma of the Logos. We need not specially
point out that nothing more than the precision and certainty
of the Apologists' manner of statement is peculiar here; the
train of thought itself belongs to Greek philosophy. But that
very confidence is the most essential feature of the case; for
in fact the firm belief that the principle of the world is also
that of revelation represents an important early-Christian idea,
though indeed in the form of philosophical reflection. To the
majority of the Apologists the theoretical content of the Chris-
tian faith is completely exhausted in this proposition. They re-
quired 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 Chris-
tianity in mice. But the fact that the Apologists made a dis-
l
tinction in between the prophetic Spirit of God and the

thesi
Logos, without being able to make any use of this distinction,
1
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 versa Christ's right to divine honours was
to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine.
a
is a very clear instance of their dependence on the formulae of

the Church's faith. Indeed their conception of the Logos con-
tinually 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.
'
Further their dependence on the Christian tradition shown in is
the fact that the most of them expressly designated the Logos
2
as the Sou of God.
The Logos doctrine of the Apologists is an essentially unanimous
1
We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and
in every case where he quotes formulae (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 6 Sixxovot; tov xsitovSotos &eov. The conception in Justin, Dial.
116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10.
The express designation rp/x; is found in Theophilus (but see the Excerpta
first
ex Theodoto); see II. 15: eel Tpeft; vipispxi rviroi iio-tv tv\c, rpixSot;, tov Qsov
xxi tov Kdyov xvtov y.xi tjj? <ro$ixc, xvtov; 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 be-
tween Son and found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly
Spirit
striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this inter-
position is only found in a single passage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the
reproach of xieoTtts, (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 of Justin, see Zahn's Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: "If there be any
theology
one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy
Spirit of all scientific raison d'etre at least on the ground of having no distinc-
tive^) 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.
2 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: 6 vie; tov ^xTpo; xxt ®eov, 6 jmovo; teydpevog xvptait; vt6$) —
momentous expression.
14
2IO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, i v.
one. Since God cannot be conceived as without reason, uXoyog,

but as the fulness of he has always Logos in him-
all reason, 1
self. 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.
c
For the sake of the creation God produced
(sent forth, projected) the Logos from himself, that is, he en-
gendered 3 him from his essence by a free and simple act of
will (&sbg £% kxvrov. Dial. 61).
h, &60v 7rsCpuzooc Then for the
first time Logos became a hypostasis separate from God,
the
or, in other words, he first came into existence; and, in virtue
4
of his origin, he possesses the following distinctive features :
1
Athenag., io; Tatian, Orat. 5.
2 The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which passage is also to be

compared with the following: ®ebt; yv hv xpxy,, rijv Se xpx^v ôyov Svvx/ziv
7rxpeib.vj$x(Aev. 'O yxp SetnroTys twv o'Aftw, cdirbc, virdip%wv tov 'kxvtoc, % v7t6crTK<ri$,
xxtx fjt.lv tv)v (i^Sevu yeyevyn-evviv iroiyo-iv /zovot; yjv xxdb Se Trxtrx Svvxiz.it;, 6pxT&v
re xxi xopxTWV xvrbg v7r6trTX0-tt; y)v, tri/v xvtSi tx ttxvtx- <tvv xvtoj Six Koytxvit;
SvvxfieaiQ xvtoq xxi 6 x6yo$, o$ v)v ev xi/Tci, v7rio~Tyo-e. ®ehvt\i.XTi Se rye, x7tX6tvjtoq
xvtcv irpo7Ti}S& htiyot;- 6 Se &6yos, hv xxtx xevov x u PV ITX S> epyov 7rpuTOToxov tov
7TXTpbt; yivsrxi. Tovrov 'ta-fisv tov xbtr/iov tjjv xpxJv. Teyove Se xxtx jj.epicr(J.6v,
ov xxtx x7roxo7ryv to yxp onroT(/.ybev tov Trpairov xz%i)pt<TTXi, to Ss /zepicrQev

olxovofiixi tv)v x'i'petriv Ttpoo-hxfibv ol/x evSex tov b'iev e'lKyxTXi %e%6i^xev. "flo-xep
yxp X7rb /jCixq SxSoq XVX7TTSTXI \z\v wpx xoAAa, tvh St TrpuT^t; SxSbt; Six rijv
'e£x\tv toov sroAAwv SxSwv ovx sKxttovtxi to tpoSi;, ovtu xxi 6 Xoyo$ TrposAflaiv ex
tyi$ tov 7rxTpbt; Swcc/zewQ ovx xAoyov xs770iysxs tov yeyevvyxoTX. In the identifi-
cationof the divine consciousness, that is, the power of God, with the force to
which the world is due the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is
most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129.

3 The word "beget" (yevvxv) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, be-
cause the name "Son" was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt
the words eZepevyeoSxi, xpofixhtecr&xi, TrpoepxetrQxi, %po-j:viSxv and the like express
the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other
hand, however, yevvxv 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".
4 None of the Apologists Logos idea. Zahn, I.e..
has precisely defined the
p. 233, correctly remarks: drawn between the hitherto
"Whilst the distinction
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
CHAP. IV.] THE APOLOGISTS 211
(i) The inner essence of the Logos is identical with the essence
of God himself; for it is the product of self-separation in God,
and brought about by himself. Further, the Logos is not
willed
cut and separated from God, nor is he a mere modality in
off
him. He is rather the independent product of the self-unfolding
of God (phovofiix), 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 Apol-
ogists, only know of one kind of divine nature and
however,
this is thatwhich belongs to the Logos. (2) From the moment
when he was begotten the Logos is a being distinct from the
Father; he is xpiQpx faspov r/, 0«: crepes, 0«r dsvrspos 1" some-
thing 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 Koycc Trpoipop-
txoc is for the first time a hypostasis distinct from the Father,
the Koyoc ZvSiMsroc is not. '
(3) The Logos has an origin, the
Father hence it follows that in relation to God the
has not;
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 (iv Ssvrepx %i&px deurepoc Qsdc, " in the second place,—
God's thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something
else in God: occasionally also the reason of God which is in a state of active
exercise and without which he would not be rational.'" Considering this evident
uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the con-
ceptions of the Logos and Theophilus, as is usually
in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian,
done. If we consider that on the Logos,
no Apologist wrote a special treatise
that Tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise state-
ments, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears in-
advisable 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 appear-
ance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine
relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenseus took up here.
1
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.
212 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i\.
and a second God "), the messenger and servant of God. The
subordination of the Logos is not founded on the content of
his essence, but on his origin. In relation to the creatures,
however, the Logos is the ipxti i- c -> n °t 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 ;
'
but, as having a
beginning, he again stands on a level with them. Hence the
paradoxical expression, spyov TparoTOxov rou 7rarp6g (" first be-
gotten 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
a
God.
With the issuing forth of the Logos from God began the
realisation of the idea of the world.The world as xda-fto?
voyjtqc is contained in the Logos. But the world is material
and manifold, the Logos is spiritual and one. Therefore the
1
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.
' All the Apologists assume that the Logos in virtue of his origin lias
tacitly
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 quaecumque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique
et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quaecumque 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.
Logos is not himself the world, but he is its creator and in a
certain fashion its archetype. Justin and Tatian used the ex-
pression "beget" (ysvvxv) 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,assumed by most Apologists, had been created
as is
along with heaven, which is a higher, glorious world. The

purpose of the creation of the world was and is the production
of men, i.e., beings possessed of soul and body, endowed with
reason and freedom, and therefore made in the image of God;
beings who are to partake of the blessedness and perfection of
God. Everything is created for man's sake, and his own creation
is a proof of the goodness of God. As beings possessed of
soul and body, men are neither mortal nor immortal, but cap-
able either of death or immortality. The condition on which '
men can attain the latter introduces us to ethics. The doctrines,

that God is also the absolute Lord of matter; that evil cannot
be a quality of matter, but rather arose in time and from the
free decision of the spirits or angels ; and finally that the world
will have an end, but God can call the destroyed material into
existence, just as he once created it out of nothing, appear in
principle to reconcile the dualism in the cosmology. We have
the less occasion to give the details here, because they are
known from the philosophical systems of the period, especially
Philo's, and vary in manifold ways. All the Apologists, how-
ever, are imbued with the idea that knowledge of God and
this
the world, the genesis of the Logos and cosmos, are the most
*
. essential part of Christianity itself. 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, re-
1
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.
3 The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and
therefore of all Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to
Christianity.
the Hexaemeron (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 I.ook 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.

garded the monotheistic explanation of the world as a main part

of the Christian religion.The theoretical view of the world as
a harmonious whole, of its order, regularity and beauty; the
certainty that all this had been called into existence by an
Almighty Spirit; the sure hope that heaven and earth will pass
away, but will give place to a still more glorious structure,
were always present, and put an end to the bright and gor-
geously 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
(Mxyxvix, xQQxprix), by the attainment of which he was to become
a being similar to God. To the gift of imperishability God,
'
however, attached the condition of man's preserving rx r-/,s

Mxyxvixc ("the things of immortality"), i.e., preserving the
knowledge of God and maintaining a holy walk in imitation of
the divine perfection. This demand is as natural as it is just;
moreover, nobody can fulfil it in man's stead, for an essential
feature of virtue is its being free, independent 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 good- ;
ness 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 resulting from the natural basis of man.
affection The
Apologists undoubtedly believe that virtue consists negatively in
man's renunciation of what his natural constitution of soul and
body demands or impels him to. Some express this thought
1
See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: E< yxp 6 ©go? xOxvxtov tov HvSpuirov xtt'
&PX*i5 ê%oiY\nei, ©gov xvt'ov nexoiYixer kxMv el Sv^tov xvtov veyrotviyiet edoxei xj 6
©gC$ XITIOC, elvXt TOV 6xVXT0V XVTOV. Ot/T£ OVV X&XVXTOV XVTOV iTZ0iv\O-£'J OVTi (iijV
6vyT0v, x.K\x Ssxtikov xpifyoTepuv, Yvx, elpe^V *""' T * T *5? x$xvx<rtx; Typjo-xf rijv
evTohifv tov &eov, (4tcr6bv koiîo-^txi 7rxp xvtov t>jv xbxvxaixv xxl yevyTxi ©g 6q, el 3'
xv Tpxiry exl tx tov Qxvxtov TtpxyiAXTX xxpxxcvaxt: tov &ecv, xiiTcg exvTic Uitioc,
§ TOV QxVXTCV.
in a more pregnant and unvarnished fashion, others in a milder

way. Tatian, for we must divest ourselves
instance, says that
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, l
calls upon man to raise
himself above his nature and to enter into a corresponding union
with his which
something higher than natural
fellow-man is
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 equa-
nimity, 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 imperish-
able 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, 2 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. 3
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
1
See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel passages in the other Apologists.
2 See Tatian, Orat. II. and many other passages.
3 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 pos-
sibility 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 omni-
potence 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.
2l6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
is no soul is virtuous unless it follows the will

just as sure that
of God, knows and judges of God and all things as they
i.e.,
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
1
of man, he being created in his Maker's image. But exper-
ience has shown that this revelation is insufficient to enable
men to retain clear knowledge. They yielded to the seduction
of evil demons, who, by God's sufferance, took possession of the
world, and availed themselves of man's sensuous side to draw
him away from the contemplation of the divine and lead him
to the earthly.
2
The results of this temptation appeared in the
facts that humanity as a whole fell a prey to error, was sub-
jected to the bonds of the sensuous and of the demons, and
therefore became doomed to death, which is at once a punish-
ment and the natural consequence of want of knowledge of
1
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.
2 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, 1. c,
p. 1 1 has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt's " Das Chris-
f., who
tenthum Justin's des Martyrers" pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stahlin," Justin der
Martyrer unci sein neuester Beurtheiler" 1880, p. 16 f.). Tatian expressed a dif-
ferent opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above,
p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following pro-
positions: (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 arbitrhtm
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 per-
petuation 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.
7
God. '
Hence fresh efforts of the Logos to free
it required
men from which is indeed in no instance an unavoid-
a state
able 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. " 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
1
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.
- 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 Chris-
tianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin's and Tatian's confessions. Per-
haps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus.
is enabled even now to rescue his soul from the rule of the
demons, and may confidently expect the gift of immortality.
With the majority of the Apologists "Christianity" seems to
be exhausted in these doctrines in fact, they do not even con- ;
sider it necessary to mention ex professo the appearance of the

Logos in Christ (see above, p. 1 89 ff.j. But, while it is certain
that they all recognised that the teachings of the prophets
contained full revelation of the truth, we would be quite
the
wrong assuming that they view the appearance and history
in
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 indica-
tions show that they regarded the manifestation of the Logos
in Christ as of special. moment. For the prophetic utterances, 1
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 fulfil-
ment 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 pro-
;
longed appearance of the Logos in human form at the end of

history, and to a future judgment. Now, so long as the pre-
dictions had not yet come to pass, the teachings of the pro-
phets were not sufficiently impressive, for the only sure witness
of the truth is its outward attestation. In the history of Christ,
1
The Oratio of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he
has nowhere spoken of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but
ex professo
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 no part of Aristides' Apology is there any
Felix. In
mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks
of the revelation of the Son of God in Tesus Christ.
however, the majority of these prophecies were fulfilled in the

most striking fashion, and this not only guarantees the fulfil-
ment 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 pre-
;
diction is not a proof of its divine origin unless it refers to

something extraordinary. Any one can predict regular occur-
rences which always take place, Accordingly, a part of what
was predicted had to be irrational. Every particular in the
history of Christ has therefore a significance, not as regards the
future, but as regards the past. Here everything happened
"that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled." Because the
prophet had said so, it had to happen. Christ's destiny attests
the ancient teachings of the prophets. Everything, however,
depends on this attestation, for it was no longer the full truth
that was wanting, but a convincing proof that the truth was a
reality and not a fancy. But prophecy testifies that Christ is
'
the ambassador of God, the Logos that has appeared in human

form, and the Son of God. If the future destiny of Jesus is
recorded in the Old Testament down to the smallest particular,
and the book at the same time declares that this predicted
One is the Son of God and will be crucified, then the paying
of divine honours to this crucified man, to whom all the features
of prophecy apply, is completely justified. The stage marked
by Christ in the history of God's revelation, the content of
which is always the same, is therefore the highest and last,
because in it the "truth along with the proof" has appeared.

This circumstance explains why the truth is so much more im-
pressive and convinces more men than formerly, especially since
Christ has also made special provision for the spread of the
1
We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that parti-
cular 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 occur-
rences attest the prophetic teachings of God, freedom, etc.
truth and is himself an unequalled exemplification of a virtuous

life, the of which have now become known in the
principles
whole world through the spread of his precepts.
These statements exhaust the arguments in most of the Apol-
ogies 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 ccKkxyv) and stx-
vxyxy/i of the human race, its restoration to its original destina-
tion. 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 two groups having no inward connection, i.e., the pro-
into
positions 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. Accordingly, if the Christian dogmatic of
x
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.
(i) He between the appearance of the Logos
tried to distinguish
in pre-Christianand in Christ he emphasised the fact
times ;
that the whole Logos appeared only in Christ, and that the
manner of this appearance has no counterpart in the past. (2)
1
In Justin's polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking
way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise 7rpd$ Mxpxiaivx, quoted by

Irenseus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence '"unigenitus Alius venit ad nos, suum plasma
in semetipsum recapitulans." So the theologoumenon of the recapitulatio per
Christum already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Try ph. 100.) If we
compare Tertullian's Apologeticnm with his Ant gnostic writings we easily see how
i
impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and
knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin's
apologetic writings.
Justinshowed in the Dialogue that, independently of the theo-

logoumenon 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. (3)
l
In addition to the story of the
exaltation of Christ, Justin also emphasised other portions of his
history, especially the death on the cross (together with baptism
and the Lord's Supper) and tried to give them a positive
significance.
3
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 forgivene ss of sins
through and confessed that men are changed, through
Christ
the new birth in baptism, from children of necessity and ignorance
into children of purpose and understanding and forgiveness of
sins.
3
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 formulae,
"perfect philosophy", "divine teacher "new law", "freedom", ",
"repentance", "sinless hope", "reward", " immortal-

life", sure
ity", the ideas, "forgiveness of sins", "redemption ", "reconcilia-
tion", "new birth", "faith" (in the Pauline sense) must remain
1
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.
2 We where the various incidents in the history of the

find allusions in Justin
incarnate Logos are conceived meant to form part of
as a series of arrangements
the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind's sinful history, and to regenerate
humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenaeus and Melito.
3
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.
words, or be relegated to the sphere of magic and mystery.

'"
'
Nevertheless we must not on that account overlook the intention.

Justin tried to see the divine revelation not only in the sayings
of the prophets, but in unique fashion in the person of Christ,
and to conceive Christ not only as the divine teacher, but
also as the"Lord and Redeemer". In two points he actually
succeeded in this. By the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus
Justin proved that Christ, the divine teacher, is also the future
judge and bestower of reward. Christ himself is able to give
what he has promised a life after death free from sufferings—
and sins, that is the first point. The other thing, however,
which Justin very strongly emphasised is that Jesus is even now
reigning in heaven, and shows his future visible sovereignty of
the world by giving his own people the power to cast out and
vanquish the demons in and by his name. Even at the present
3
time the latter are put to flight by believers in Christ. So the
redemption is no mere future one ; it even now taking place,
is
and the revelation of the Logos in Jesus Christ is not merely

intended prove the doctrines of the rational religion, but
to
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
1
"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, how-
ever, this took place through The
(/.erxvoioc.''' idea of the new birth is exhausted
in the thought: ®sbt; y.ztel sit; psTavoixv, that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea:
"God is so he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man
good that
has changed his mind." Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has
brought about all the conditions which make for repentance.
2 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.
3 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, u, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, in, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23.
2 7i 3 2 i 37 etc Tatian also (16
- fin,) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 ff. (ed.
Otto) does not contradict this.

truth and of a new law, which is the rational, the oldest, and
the divine, the only being who has understood how to call
men from all the different nations and in all stages of culture
into a union of holy life, the inspiring One, for whom his disciples
go to death, the mighty One, through whose name the demons

are cast out, the risen One, who will one day reward and punish
as judge, must be identical with the Son of God, who is the divine
reason and the divine power. In this belief which accompanies
the confession of the one God, creator of heaven and earth,
Justin finds the special content of Christianity, which the later
Apologists, with the probable exception of Melito, reproduced
in a much more imperfect and meagre form. One thing, how-
ever, 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" (<rartjpix) 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 Irenaeus (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. But the precise form of the presentation
1
1
Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, p. 432 f., has pronounced against its
genuineness; see also my Teste und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of
its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883,
p. 26 f. The fragment
worded as follows: riAaa-a? 6 ®eb$ xxt* xpxxt; r ° v <* v -
is
$pct)Tov TtJs yvw/zif? xhrov rx ryi; <pv<r£a$ xirywpytrsv \\noXy \j.ix jroiya-xiJ.tvoc; rijv
Sixireipxv. <f>v*x£xvTX fj.sv yxp rxvryv tyi$ Mxvxtov hvfetws 7rs7roiii>cev s<recr6xi,
irxpx(2xvrx Si tjj; evxvTixt;. Ovtu yeyovw$ xvipuvrot; kxi irpb? rijv 7rxpx@xa-tv si/Svt;
*Afl«v rijv (piopxv (pva-tKoo!; eiasSe^xro. <i>vasi $e Tifc (pQopxt; 7rpo<r'yevoi/.evy<; xvxyKx7ov
*jv on <tZ<txi (3ou?,6i4£voi; 5jv tjjv Q>Qopo7rotdv ovtrtorv xtpxvtirxt;. Tovto Se oiiK yv irspui;
"
224 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chai\ IV.
makes this very improbable. The question as to how, i.e., in

what conceivable way, immortality can be imparted to the mortal
nature as yet received little attention from Justin and the Apol-
ogists 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 resur-
rection 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
theirknowledge 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." The philosophical
doctrines of God, and immortality became through the
virtue,
Apologists the certain content of a world-wide religion, which
is Christian because Christ guarantees its certainty. They made
Christianity a deistical religion the whole world without
for
abandoning in word at least the old " teachings and knowledge
(S&xyi&xrx xx) i&xQyi&xtx) of the Christians. They thus marked
out the task of "dogmatic" and, so to speak, wrote the prole-
gomena for every future theological system in the Church (see Von
"
Engelhardt's concluding observations in his " Christenthum Justin's
pp. —
447 490, also Overbeck in the Historische Zeitschrift,
1880, pp. 499 505.) —
At the same time, however, they adher-
ed to the early-Christian eschatology (see Justin, Melito, and,
with reference to the resurrection of the flesh, the Apologists
yeveaSxi, si ptvi^sp vi xxrx <p6<riv %uij T?po<reTtXxy.vi rSs tjjv <p$opxv 5e£xpevt>), x<f,xvi'(-
ovo-x (ilv tvjv ipQopxv, xQxvxtov 5e tov Xomov ro he%xfj.evov Sixrypovtrx. Aix tovto
tov Koyov eSiya-ev ev o-wpixTi ysveo-Sxt, Yvx (tov 6xvxtov) tyj$ kxtx <pvtrtv 'a\j.xc, <p6opxs
etevQtpaxry. El yxp, «; Qxre, vsv/zxti povovTOv Qxvxtov v\{jluv xkskwKvo-sv, ov Trpoefei

IJ.h Six tviv {ZovKvi<riv 6 Sxvxtoi;, ov$sv Si jttov (pdxproi nxAiv vii-tsv, Qvtrtxiiv h
ixvTOit; rijv <p6opxv KeptfyipovTeq.
1 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 x<p&xp<rix need not necessarily be thought so naturalistic and mystic a process
as we are apt to imagine.
Chap. iv.] THE APOLOGISTS 225
generally), and thus did not belie their connection with early
'
Christianity.
Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin's Doctrines.
1 . The fundamental assumption of all the Apologists is that

there can only be one and the same relation on earth between
God and and that it has been conditioned by the
free man,
creation. which presupposes the idea of God's
This thought,
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 exist-
ent in man; revelation is supernatural only in respect of its
form, and the redemption merely enables us to redeem our-

selves, just as this possibility was given at the creation. Sin,
which through temptation, appears on the one hand as
arose
error which must almost of necessity have arisen so long as
man only possessed the "germs of the Logos" {fnrspf^xTa, rov
Xoyov), 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 mytho-
logical idea of the invading sway of the demons is really the
only of the rationalistic scheme.
interruption So far as Chris-
tianity something different from morality, it is the antithesis
is
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 revelationor 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 prcesens numen, and some new
thing. Still more powerful was this longing in the case of the
1
Weizsacker, Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1867. p. 119, has with good
reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stahlin, Justin der Martyrer,
1880, 63 p. f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardfs book contains much that is
worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.
15
Gnostics and Marcion; compare the latter's idea of revelation

with that of the Apologists. probable indeed that the thought
It is
of redemption would have found stronger expression among

them also, had not the task of proof, which could be best dis-
charged by the aid of the Stoic philosophy, demanded religious
rationalism. But, admitting this, the determination of the high-
est good itself involved rationalism and moralism. For immor-
tality 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 im-
mortal condition is the prius and the knowledge the posterius.
But, where this conception is the prevailing one, moralistic in-
tellectualism is broken and we can now point to a

through,
specific, supernatural blessing of salvation, produced by revel-
ation and redemption. Corresponding to the general develop-
ment of religious philosophy from moralism into mysticism
(transition from the second to the third century), a displace-
ment in this direction can also be noticed in the history of
Greek apologetics (in the West it was different) but this dis- ;
placement 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 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. Only those
sins be forgiven, i.e., overlooked, which are really none,
can
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 regener-
ation in so far as it is the voluntary consecration of one's own
person. The cleansing which takes place is God's work in so
far as baptism was instituted by him, but it is effected by the man
who in change of mind lays aside his sins. The name of
his
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 know-
ledge to which the baptised person has attained." If, as all this seems
to show, the thought of a specific grace of God in Christ appears
virtually neutralised, the adherence to the language of the cultus
(Justin and Tatian) and Justin's conception of the Lord's Supper
show that the Apologists strove to get beyond moralism, that
is, they tried to supplement it through the mysteries. Augus-
tine's assertion (de predest. sanct. 27) that the faith of the old
Church in the efficacy of divine grace was not so much ex-
pressed 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 thenew law. In virtue of its eternally valid content this
new law is in reality it is new because Christ
the oldest ; but
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 impres-
siveness 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 be-
cause it appears now for the first time as purely spiritual, per-
fect, and final. The commandment of love to one's neighbour
also belongs to the law; but it does not form its essence (still
less love to God, the place of which is taken by faith, obedience,
and imitation). The content of all moral demands is compre-
hended 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 spe-
cially powerful manner. There is no need to prove that no re-
mains of Judaeo-Christianity are to be recognised in these ideas
about the new law. It is not Judaeo-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 con-
viction 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 im-
portant than the content. By dint of thinking one can con-
ceive 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 philo-
sophers.
4. By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apol-
ogists founded philosophic and dogmatic Christianity (Loofs:
"they laid the foundation for the conversion of Christianity into
1
a revealed doctrine." If about the middle of the second century
1
Loofs continues: "The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept
'Son' to the preexistent 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 pree'xistence
and depreciated the importance of Jesus' life as compared with the incarnation.
the short confession of the Lord Jesus Christ was regarded as

a watchword, passport, and tessera hospitalitas (signum et vin-
culum), 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 con-
ceived 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" (yd pot) 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 knozvn 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.
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 isGod who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos,
not the depoten-
tiated God, who as God is subordinate to the supreme Deity."
CHAPTER V.
THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICO-THEOLOGICAL INTER-

PRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN
OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILO-
SOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS:
MELITO, IRENÊUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN. '
I. The theological position of Irenceus 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,
1
Authorities: The works of Irenseus (Stieren's and Harvey's editions), Melito
(Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler's and Reifferscheid's editions), Hippolytus
(Fabricius', Lagarde's, Duncker's and Schneidewin's editions), Cyprian (Hartel's
edition), Novatian (Jackson). Biographies of Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und
ihre Zeugen, 1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaus, 1889. Noldechen,
.
Tertullian, 1890. Dollinger, "Hippolytus und Kallistus," 1853. Many monographs

on Irenseus and Tertullian.
1
Chap, v.] IRENÊUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 23
on the one hand to philosophical theology, as set forth by the

Apologists, and on the other to the earnest endeavour to maintain
and defend against all attacks the traditional convictions and
hopes of believers, as professed in the past generation by the
enthusiastic forefathers of the Church. In addition to this, certain
interests,which had found expression in the speculations of the
the so-called Gnostics, were adopted in an increasing degree
among all thinking Christians, and also could not but influence
the ecclesiastical teachers. '
The theological labours, thus initiated,
accordingly bear the impress of great uniqueness and complexity.
2 3
In the first place, the old Catholic Fathers, Melito, Rhodon,
Irensus, 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. 4
The creation of the New Testament furnished all at once a quite
1 The following exposition will show how much Irenseus and the later old
Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter of fact the theology of
Irenseus remains a riddle so long as we try to explain it merely from the Apologists
and only consider its antithetical relations to Gnosis. we can understand
Little as
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 Irenseus without taking
into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion.
2 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.24off.).
The polemic writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that " ancient " quoted
by Irenseus (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 Irenaeus.
3 See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.
4 Tertullian does indeed say in de praescr. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulae
fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quseras, et trades, 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.
232 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
unlimited multitude of conceptions, the whole of which appeared

as "doctrines" and offered themselves for incorporation with
the "faith". 1
The seem to be in-
limits of the latter therefore
definitely on the other hand tradition, and
extended, whilst
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 ful-
ness, 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 ;
' and, being themselves
children they required this proof for their own
of their time,
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,
3
was in the main a thing of the past. Tradition and reason
had taken the place But this
of charisms as courts of appeal.
change had neither be clearly recognised, nor was
come to '
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 regu-
lations not prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.
s
The bishops
themselves in fact encouraged this apprehension in order to
1
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's Basler Univ. — Programm, 1877. Irenreus immediately
shows the influence of Paulinism very clearly.
2 See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation with Appelles in
Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7 : hyi> Ss yshxo-xt; Kxreyvuv xvrov, Iioti 5i$xo-kxAo$ theu

y
y.iyuv buy. if,Sei to SiSxrxopsvov E/V xvrov xpxTvveiv.
3 On the old "prophets and teachers" see my remarks on the AiSxxv-, c. 11 ft.,
and the section, pp. 93—137, of the prolegomena to my edition of this work. The
StSxo-xxKoi xTTOTTotoxot kxi xfotyyTixoi (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39)
became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred traditions.
4 In the case of Irenseus, 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, Irenseus appealed to no charisms.
5 See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.
Chap, v.] IREN/EUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 233
1
warn people against the Gnostics, and after the deluge of
heresy, representatives of Church orthodoxy looked with distrust
on every philosophic-theological formula. 2 Such propositions
of rationalistic theology as were absolutely required, were, how-
ever, placed by Irenaeus and Tertullian on the same level as
the hallowed doctrines of tradition, and were not viewed by
them as something of a different nature. Irenaeus uttered most
3
urgent warnings against subtle speculations ; but yet, in the
naivest 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.
4
The
1 Irenaeus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology in the most bitter way.
2 Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3 : " Simplices
enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et
idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus
diis saeculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem,
sed cum sua otKovopitat esse credendum, expavescunt ad oly.ovoiu.ixv." Similar remarks
often occur in Origen. See also Hippbl., c. Noet II.
3 The danger of speculation and of the desire to know everything was im-
pressively —
emphasised by Irenaeus, II. 25 28. As a pronounced ecclesiastical pos-
itivist 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: "Siautem
et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quae requiruntur, cogitet, quia homo est
in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.) acceperit gratiam et qui nondum
aequalis vel similis sit factori; II. 26. I : ""A/j-eivov axi o-vfttpopwrspov, \Stmrx% kxi
oAyyoftxdelt; vTxpxetv, kxI Six t>}$ xyxTr^t; 7rô-/ov ysvetr&xi tov &sov ij xoXviJ.x'istc,
xxl tfJiTre/povs Soxovvtxs slvxi, p^xo-tyy/iovi; el$ tov sxvtoHv svp/trKeoSxi Sbo-7t6t^v, and
in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27. 1 : Concerning the sphere within
which we are Holy Scriptures and "quae ante oculos nostros occurrunt'',
to search (the
much remains dark even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3) II. 28. 1 f. on the
to us :
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 in which the Son was
is, the manner
begotten, the way
which matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to
in
the claim to absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes
of causation, which Irenaeus 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.
4 The same observation applies to Tertullian. Cf. his point blank repudiation
"
Holy Scriptures of the New

Testament were the basis on
which Irenaeus most important doctrines of Chris-
set forth the
tianity. 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 Irenaeus
nor by Hippolytus and Tertullian. According to Irenaeus I. 10.3
this distinction is merely quantitative. Here faith and theolog-
ical 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 in-
telligent 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.
Corresponding to the baptismal confession there thus arose
at the first a loose system of dogmas which were necessarily
devoid of definite principle, or fixed and harmoni-
strict style,
ous aim. form we find them with special plainness in
In this
Tertullian.
:
This writer was still completely incapable of in-
wardly connecting his rational (Stoic) theology, as developed
by him for apologetic purposes, with the Christological doctrines
of the regula fidci, which, after the example of Irenaeus, he
constructed and defended from Scripture and tradition in opposi-
tion to heresy. Whenever he attempts in any place to prove
of philosophy in de prase. 7, and the use he himself nevertheless made of it
everywhere.
1
In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from the ordinary Gnostic
position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge, and by its corresponding lack
of systematic completeness. That, however, is an important distinction in favour

of the Catholic Fathers. According to what has been set forth in the text I cannot
agree with Zahn's judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): "Irenaeus 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."

2 Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation for the degree of
systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of Irenaeus. He did not reproduce
these arguments at least, but preferred after considering them to fall back on the
proof from prescription.
;
the intrinsic necessity of these dogmas, he seldom gets beyond

rhetorical statements, holy paradoxes, or juristic forms. As a
systematic thinker, a cosmologist, moralist, and jurist rather than
a theosophist, as a churchman, a masterly defender of tradition, as
a Christian exclusively guided in practical life by the strict pre-
cepts and hopes of the Gospel, his theology, if by that we under-
stand 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. To Tertullian everything lies side by side
l
problems which chance to turn up are just as quickly solved.

The specific faith of Christians is indeed no longer, as it some-
times seems to be in Justin's case, a great apparatus of proof
ior 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. 2 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 formulae, which Cyprian, Novatian,
Hosius, and the Roman bishops of the fourth century, Ambro-
sius 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 con-

cepts (satisfacere. meritum, sacramentum. vitium originis etc., etc.).
1
The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the more frequently we
meet with inconsistencies, and dogmatic and moral
that in his treatment both of
questions. Such inconsistencies could not but make their appearance, because Ter-
tullian's dogmatising was only incidental. As far as he himself was concerned,
lie did not feel the slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity.
- With reference to from

certain articles of doctrine, however, Tertullian adopted
Ireiueus some guiding and some points of view arising from the nature
principles
of faith; but he almost everywhere changed them for the worse. The fact that he
was capable of writing a treatise like the de prsescr. hseret., 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.
Finally it was he who at the very outset imparted to the type

of dogmatic that arose in the West its momentous bias in the
direction of auctoritas et ratio, and its corresponding tendency
to assume a legal character {lex, formal and material), peculiari-
ties which were to become more and more clearly marked as
time went on. 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 in-
fluenced the history of dogma was not his Christianity, but his
masterly power of framing formulae.
It is different with Irenaeus. 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 formulas, Irenaeus clearly
sketched for it its fundamental idea, by combining the ancient
'
notion of salvation with New Testament (Pauline) thoughts.

Accordingly, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned,
the great work of Irenaeus is far superior to the theological
writings of Tertullian.This appears already in the task, volun-
tarily undertaken by Irenaeus, 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 itsappearance
as the result But Irenaeus to a certain
of polemical motives.
degree succeeded amalgamating philosophic theology and the
in
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,
1 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 Irenaeus.
2 Consequently the spirit of Irenaeus, though indeed strongly modified by that
of Origen, prevails in the later Church dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not
to be traced there.
Chap, v.] IREN/liUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 237
that is, a theory of its purpose. The first fundamental idea,

in its all-dominating importance, was suggested to Irenaeus by
his opposition to Gnosticism. It is the conviction that the Creator
of the world and the supreme God are one and the same. l
The other theory as to the aim of Christianity, however, is

shared by Irenaeus with Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion. It is
is real redemption, and that this
the conviction that Christianity
redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. The
working out of these two ideas is the most important feature
in Irenaeus' book. As yet, indeed, he by no means really suc-
ceeded 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 eschato-
logical disquisitions are of a heterogeneous nature, and a great
deal of his material, as, for instance, Pauline formulae 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. 2 God the Creator and the one Jesus Christ
1
The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the identity of
the creator of the world and the supreme Ood also denotes the unity of nature,
morality, and revelation.
2 What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost
•completely unknown to us 5 but we are justified in saying that the five books " adv.
haereses" we can prove the favourable reception of
of Irenaeus were successful, for
this work and had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hip-
the effects it
polytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epi-

phanius, 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 Irenaeus cf. the exhaustive
examination of Loof: "The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenaeus", 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
are really middle points of his theological system, and in

the
this way he an intrinsic significance to the several
tried to assign
historical statements of the baptismal confession. Looked at
from this point of view, his speculations were almost of an
identical nature with the Gnostic. ' 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 dual-
ism they saw in the empiric world a faulty combination of
opposing elements, s and therefore recognised in the redemption
by Christ the separation of what was unnaturally united. Irenaeus,
on the contrary, who began with the idea of the absolute caus-
ality of God the Creator, saw in the empiric world faulty
estrangements and separations, and therefore viewed the re-
demption by Christ as the reunion of things unnaturally separ-
ated — the "recapitulatio" (xvaxeQxteiuffic).
s
This speculative
to which Tatian's Christology was subjected by Arethas in the 10th century (Oratio 5 :
see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judg-

ment 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 Irenseus.
1
fond of speaking of the "Asia Minor" theology of Irenseus,
People are
ascribe it to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from
already
these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation :
John— Irenseus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the
Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and Gnosti-
cism 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 Irenaeus learned more from him and his fellow-.
than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions
and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irenseus cannot be separated from the received
canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as
(3) The presbyter from whom Irenaeus adopted
yet no such compilation. 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
Irenaeus (and Melitor).
2 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.
3 See Molwitz, De "AvxxsQxhxiuaswt; in Irensei theologia potestate, Dresden, 1874.
:
Chap, v.] IREN.+:US AND CONTEMPORARIES 239
thought, which involved the highest imaginable optimism in

contrast to Gnostic pessimism, brought Irenaeus into touch with
certain Pauline trains of thought, '
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
s
great defect of that theology, surpassed the Christology of the
3
Gnostics, and made it possible to utilise the Christological
statements contained in certain books of the New Testament. *
So far as we know at least, Irenaeus is the first ecclesiastical

theologian after the time of the Apologists (see Ignatius before
that) who assigned a quite specific significance to the person
5
of Christ and in fact regarded it as the vital factor. That
was possible for him because of
view of redemption. his realistic
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 Apolo-
gists, he held, along with the realistic conception of salvation,
the other dissimilar theory that Christ, as the teacher, imparts
1
See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans
and Galatians.
2But see the remark made above, p. 220, note I. We might without loss give
up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin's chief Anti-
gnostic work.
3
According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the status quo ante,
according to that of Irenaeus he first and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished
destination of humanity.
4
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
Irenaeus' idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the
Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenaeus
himself did so in II. 20. 3.
5
After tracing in of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek
II. 14 the origin
philosophers Irenaeus "Dicemus autem adversus eos utramne hi
continues § 7: :
omnes qui prredicti 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 descendebatr" It is characteristic of Irenaeus 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. praef. " Veritas, hoc :
est dei filii doctrina", III. 10. 3: "Haec est salutis agnitio quae deerat eis, quae est
filii dei agnitio . . . agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et
salutare vere et dicitur et est." III. II. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.
to men, who are free and naturally constituted for fellowship

with God, the knowledge which enables them to imitate God,
and thus by their own act to attain communion with him.
Nevertheless to Irenseus the pith of the matter is already found
in the idea that Christianity is real redemption, i.e., that the
highest bestowed in Christianity is the deification of
blessing
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 "homo" only meant appearance among men, and
in these
the "why" was answered by referring to prophecy and the
necessity of divine teaching, was by Irenaeus made the central
point. The reasons why answer he gave was so highly
the
satisfactory may be stated as follows: (i) 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 harmo-
nised 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 trans-
formation 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 (oixovopix Ssov). Accord-
ing 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 balancedby a really
religious one. An approach was thus made to the Pauline
1 .:
Chap, v.] IREN.EUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 24
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 Irenseus as
follows : is a habitus which is the opposite of
Incorruptibility
our one and indeed of man's natural condition. For
present
immortality is at once God's manner of existence and his attri-
bute; as a created being man is only "capable of incorruption
and immortality" (" capax incorruptionis et immortalitatis"); l
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 im-
mortality 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'' ),
1
such is the
technical term of Irenaeus.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." 3
1 See II. 24. 3, 4: "Noil enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed
secundum gratiam dei datur." Cf. what follows. Irenaeus has in various places
argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is capax incomtptibilitatis, and
likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man's destiny.
2 Book V. pref. :
" lesus 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. Hasc enim est synagoga dei," etc.; see also what follows
III. 16. 3: "Filius dei hominis nlius 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 se-
cundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est lesus Christus dominus noster . .
unus lesus 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, uni versa in semetipsum
recapitulans ... in semetipsum primatum assumens . . . universa attrahat ad semet-
ipsum apto in tempore." III. 18. 1 : "Quando incarnatus est nlius homo et homo
factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis
salutem praestans, 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
16
But this work of Christ can be conceived as rccapitulatio be-

cause God the Redeemer is identical with God the Creator;
and Christ consequently brings about a final condition which
existed from the beginning in God's plan, but could not be
immediately realised in consequence of the entrance of sin. It
are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7:
""Hvwo-fv ovv tov xv8p<t>7rov Tw ®eci. E/ yxp (iij xvdpai7rog evixv\o-ev rijv xvtittxôv
tov xvbp&'xov^ ovx xv Sixxiug evixybvi 6 \%bpo$. Hxhiv ts, el /z>i 6 ©so? eSupjo-xro
T\fJ trwTypixv, ovx xv @e(3xiw$ 'eo-%o\i.ev xvtvjv. Kxi el {av\ crvvyvwQvi 6 xvApaiTros xw ®e&, ovx
ocv ySvvydij (j.eTx<r%e~iv ryt; x<pSxp<rix$. "ESei yxp tov ij.z<titv\v ®eov re kxi xvbpuirwv
Six t%g ISixc, Trpo? exxTepov$ olxeiOT^TOQ el$ (piîxv xxt 6(z6votxv tov$ x(j.<pOTepov$
rrvvxyxyelv kxi ®eu> (Jt.lv %xpx<Trv\o'xi rbv xvSpai7rov xvipwirott; Si yvcopt'/rxi tov ®b6v.
Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium
earn quae ad ipsum recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius com-
est
municasset caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit aetatem, omnibus
nobis
restituens earn quae est ad deum communionem." The Pauline ideas about sin, law,
and bondage are incorporated by Irenaeus in what follows. The disquisitions in
capp. 19—23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea. In cap. 19 Iren,aeus
turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, " perseverantes in servitute pris-
tinae inobedientiae moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium
percipientes libertatem privantur munere eius, quod est vita aeterna non reci-
. . . :
pientes autem verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores

mortis, antidotum vitae non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus gratiae
narrans : 'Eyw elirx, viol \f\ihrov sa-re ttxvtsq kxi 8eof v{x.e1c, Si w$ xvSpuTroi x7ro-
dvYio-xere. Txvrx heyei 7rpbt; tovq fj.ii Se%x(/.evovi; rijv Supexv tyi$ vtoSeo-ixt;, «AA'
xti{j.x%
>
ovtx$ Tt)v o-xpxuo-iv tijs xxbxpxc, yevvyo-ewQ tov Xoyov tov ®eov . . . E/? tovto
yxp hdyog xv&panrot; et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, Yvx 6 xvipuirot;
t'ov h6yov xwpvio-xs xxi t^v vto&eo-i'xv A«/3«v vib$ yevtjTxt ®eov. Non enim poteramus
aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelae et
immortalitati. Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelae 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: E/ toivvv 6 irpwTOt; 'A5*/x 'ia%$
"KXTepx xv&pwKov xxi ex <T7repij,XT0(; eyevvYiby, elxb$ 5jv xxi tov SevTepov ÂSx/z heyeiv
e\ 'I<oo-jj<J> ysyevvô-Sxi. yfo lAij^fijf, -kKxo-t^c, Si xvtov 6 ®eoi;, eSei
El Si exeHvoQ ex
xxi tov xvxxe$xhxiov\x,evov el$ xvtov V7rb tov ®eov 7rs7rhxo~(iivov xvipwirov Ttjv xvt^v
kxeivus tjj$ yevvvja-ewi; 'e%etv 6ij.oi6tvjtx. E/? ti ovv irxhtv oitx ehxfie %ovv 6 ®eo$, #AA'
ex Mxpixt; hvypyyo-e tjjv tt/\X<tiv yeveo-Qxt; "Ivx fit) aAAij ttA«o-;? yevv^TXi [iviSi #AAo
to o-u%6iJ.evov 3j, «AA' xvtoc, exelvoi; xvxxe(pxt.xiu$y Typov/zevvit; t%$ o/ioiStvitoi;; III.
23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, —

icj 21, 22. In working out this thought
Irenaeus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disqui-
sitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatian's views, in III. 23). But
he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history
of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view
the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ
(See II. 20. 3: "dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem cor-
is perhaps Irenaeus' highest merit, from a historical and ecclesi-

astical point of view, to have worked out this thought in preg-
nant 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
4'
with regard to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement,

etc., that they declared Christ to be God, but then continues:
Tx Elpyvatov ts y.xi MeXiruvog xxi t&v Xoiiruv tic xyvoei fiifihix,
(tio-j y,x) cev&pcoxov y.XTxy/b.Ko'JTX rbv Xpicrrov (" Who is ignorant of

the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim
Christ to be God and man"). The progress in theological views
isvery 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 ;
'
but Irenaeus is the first to whom
"
Jesus Christ, God and man, is the centre of history and faith.
ruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et

ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit"; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1 —7 and many
other passages), that is, to regard Christ as having performed a work. Secondly,
alongside of the deification of Adam's children, viewed as a mechanical result of
the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the
teacher, imparts knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the
complete
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. I.:
"Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quae sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum
exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis, quae 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 habe-
amus cum ipso", and many other passages. We find a combined formula in III. 5. 3 :
"Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelae haereditatem."

1
Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, I.e., 17 ff.
2 Melito's must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him

teaching
(see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression
"<*/ 5ô ovrixi Xpia-rov". 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 Irenaeus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419)
shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ.
Following the method of Valentinus, he succeeded in sketching

a history of salvation, the gradual realising of the ohovoyJx
0fcD 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 aeons of the
Gnostics became
him different stages in the saving work of
to
the one Creator and his Logos. His system seemed to have
absorbed the rationalism of the Apologists and the intel-
ligible simplicity of their moral theology, just as much as it
did the Gnostic dualism with its particoloured mythology.
Revelation had become history, the history of salvation and ;
.dogmatics had in a certain fashion become a way of looking

at history, the knowledge of God's ways of salvation that lead
'
historically to an appointed goal.
But, as this realistic, quasi-historical view of the subject was
by no means completely worked out by Irenaeus 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 latterwere 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 Irenaeus. 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 Ire-
naeus and the Antignostic teachers in the Church consisted in
the fixing of tradition and in the intelligent treatment of indi-
vidual doctrines, which gradually became established. The most
1
The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of (Joel
and the corresponding idea of covenants" (I. 10. 3: III. 11

'•'several 15 and else- —
where) 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.
important will be set forth in what follows. On the most vital

point, the introduction of the philosophical Christology into the
Church's rule of see Chapter 7.
faith,
The manner which Irenaeus undertook his great task of

in
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, tradi-
tion against the obscurity of the Scriptures; and combats fan-
tastic speculation by an appeal sometimes to reason, sometimes
to the limits of human knowledge. Behind all this and domin-
ating everything, we find his firm belief in the bestowal of
divine on believers through the work of the
incorruptibility
God-man. This eclectic method did not arise from shrewd cal-
culation. It was equally the result of a rare capacity for ap-
propriating 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 be-
tween the Christian tradition and the world of ideas prevailing
at that time. Still unconscious of the greatest problem, Irenaeus
with inward sincerity sketched out that future dogmatic method
according to which the theology compiled by an eclectic pro-
cess 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 Irenaeus 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 Word became flesh and suffered, why the
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
246 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chav. v.
fixed by Irenaeus to the effect that the latter is simply a con-

tinuation of the former. ' At the same time, however, he did
not clearly show how the collection of historical statements found
in the confession can of itself guarantee a sufficient and ten-
able knowledge of Here the speculative theories
Christianity.
are as a matter of fact quiteimbedded in the historical propo-
sitions 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 com-
promise, method will find acceptance which, distinguishing
a
between and theology, will interpret in a new and specu-
faith
lative sense the whole complex of tradition ? Irenaeus' process
has at least this one advantage over the other method accord- :
ing to it everything can be reckoned part of the faith, provid-

ing 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. ' The latter, however, im-
perceptibly becomes a revealed system of doctrine and history;
and though Irenaeus himself always seeks to refer everything
again to the "simple faith" and to believing sim-(ipihij tcIttic),
plicity, that is, and the Son of God

to the belief in the Creator
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,
1
It would seem from some passages as if faith and theological knowledge were
according to Irenaeus 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 relation-
ship thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of
the reason and aim of God's ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge
are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenaeus merely sought
for a clear distinction, but was impossible for him to
it 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.
2 See I. IO. 2: Kcei o\jts 6 nocvv Svvxrot; hv hoyta tuv h rxit; Iv.KXya ixic, Trpoeo--
twtuv 'drepx tovtuv (scil. than the regula fidei) ipst' ovSsi; ykp vnep rbv SiSxo-xxlev
oVn 6 ioSeviis hv tw Arfyw ehxrrua-st t>jv irxpu$o<rtv. Miles 7&P * xt T %$ avryi; tt/V-
ts«c otivvjc, oIjts 6 woAt) T?j5< «VTJ}? Swd/itvot; iIttsIv ItAe^v«o-£v, o\Jrs 6 ro ohi'yov
brought about by the Gnostic systems, was averted by Irenaeus

and the later ecclesiastical teachers by preserving a great portion
of the early Christian tradition, partly as regards its letter, partly
as regards and thus rescuing it for the future. But
its spirit,
the price of this preservation was the adoption of a series of

"Gnostic" formulae. Churchmen, though with hesitation, adopted
the adversary's way of looking at things, and necessarily did
so, because as they became ever further and further removed
from the early-Christian feelings and thoughts, they had always
more and more lost every other point of view. The old Catholic
Fathers permanently settled a great part of early tradition for
Christendom, but at the same time promoted the gradual hellen-
ising of Christianity.
2. The Doctrines of the Church.
In the following section we do not intend to give a present-

ation of the and the other Antignostic
theology of Irenaeus
Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine
to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeed-
ing times.
Against the Gnostic theses Irenaeus and his successors, apart
'
from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrin-

sic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion
the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace

everything, is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the
that
sphere second God; and also because his omnipresence,
of a
omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation. 2
(2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated
1
See Bohringer"s careful reviews of the theology of Irenaeus and Tertullian
(Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378 — 612,
2nd half, pp. 484—739).
2
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 prsescr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus.
On Irenseus criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenaus,
1
Leipzig, 1 891, p. 8 ff.

divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,

1
finite
being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities
is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon
as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and
2
qualities of man in a similar way. The attempt to make out
(3)
conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and
3
audacious. (4) The theory of
the passion and ignorance of
Sophia introduces pleroma itself, i.e., into the God-
sin into the
head. 4 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. 5 Irenaeus and Tertullian employ lengthy
arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is in-
1 See Irenaeus 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.
2 See Irenaeus II. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately denned the
13.
aeons of Ptolemy as "personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valen-
tinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat."
3 See Irenaeus, I.e., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent.
in several passages. Moreover, Irenaeus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic aeons with
more .respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appear-
ance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of aeons he incidentally
raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later
times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. "•Quaeriturquemadmodum emissi
sunt reliqui aeones? 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, quem-
admodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantias exsistebant his qui se
quadam substantia substantiam habentes ? Et utrum in eodem
emiserunt, an ex altera
emissi eiusdem temporis essent sibi ?
sunt, ut Et utrum simplices quidam et . . .
uniformes et undique sibi aequales 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 faculae, generatione
. . .
quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantias cum

sint cum
principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et
pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quae postea accensa est facula,
alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante earn fuit." Here we have already a
statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian
doctrine.
4 See Iren. and 18.
II. 17. 5 II.
5 See Iren. II. 4. 2.

Chap, v.] IRENÛS AND CONTEMPORARIES 249
conceivable, and that a Demiurge occupying a position along-

side of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inas-
much 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. The Fathers everywhere argue on
l
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 char-
acteristic proves that the apologetico-philosophical theol-
; for it
ogy 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 asbasis of their arguments, reveals what was fund-
the
amental 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. Accord-
ingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and
Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico-
1
Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9 — 19) that every
God must, above have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion's
all,
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. Irenseus 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 oeons,
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.
rational kind. As a rule they do not here carry on their

'
controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views
of religion. as the rational argument fails, however,
As soon
there is an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds,
really
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 Irenaeus was still very much more successful than
Tertullian. Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed
what interest he took in the preexistent Christ as distinguished
from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the argu-
ments 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.
Irenaeus 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 must be said that Scripture theology was not the pri-
it
mary 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 was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both
Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been
Scripture theologians. Irenaeus 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 pic-
1 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.
2 See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one
Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. I, 8 and elsewhere.
; ; 1;
and the poems of Homer

ture of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox,
into any others one might choose but they just as decidedly protest- ;
'
led against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical
method of interpretation, 2 and therefore were not able to set up a

canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from
3
that of the Gnostics. The Scripture theology of the old Catho-
lic 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. may, on the other hand, be a whole-
But it
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" arbitra-
rily read into it, and at length banish this "spirit" completely.
Irenseus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures
as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the ac-
commodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves 4
he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency
of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines; 5 he re-
jects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the
sacred books 6
he lays down the maxim that the obscure pas-
1
See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de prsescr. 39, adv. Valent. passim.
2 See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5,6, 14, 19: V. 1.; Orig. Comm.
in Matth., T. XV. Opp. III., p. 655: Comm.
3, 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.
3 For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics,
see de praescr. 16 19: —
u Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nee in his con-
stituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa."'
* See Iren., III. 5. 1 : III. 12. 6.

5
See III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de pnescr. 25: "Scripturas quidem
Iren.,
perfects quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictse, nos autem secundum quod
sunt,
minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia
mysteriorum eius indigemus."
6
See Iren. II. 35. 2 : IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenaeus 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.
; ;
l
sages are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versa
but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite
unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything accord-
2
ing to the rule of faith and, in the case of all objectionable
3
passages, to seek the type. Not only did Irenaeus explain
the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional
usage 4 but according to the principle " with God there is :
nothing without purpose or due signification" ("nihil vacuum

neque sine signo apud deum ") (IV. 21. 3), he was also the
first to scientific and mystical explanation to the
apply the
New and was consequently obliged to adopt the
Testament,
Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic
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 gen-
erations 5 and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets
;
the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and
Son. 6 To Irenaeus 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 " Gnos-
ticism" nothing else than the learned construction of religion
is
with the means of those days. As soon as Church-

scientific
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
1
See Iren. II. 10. i : II. 27. I, 2.
2 See Iren. II. 25. 1.
3 Irenaeus the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says

appropriates
(IV. 31. I): De
quidem delictis, de quibus ipste scripture increpant patriarchas
his
et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis de quibus autem scripturoe non
. . .
increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt positse, nos non debere fieri accusatores,
sed typum quserere."
4 See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained
to be Father, Son, and Spirit.
5 See Iren. IV. 22. 1.
6 See Iren. III. 17. 3.

* —
Chap, v.] IREN.ÛS AND CONTEMPORARIES 253
order to establish of the tradition from Adam

the continuity
down to the present time — not
merely down to Christ against —
the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this
continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the
rest, the disquisitions of Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus 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 pro-
blems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate
and consequently did not answer.
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
2
and the attempt to fathom —
the depths of the Godhead. Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics,
strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of
God. Irenaeus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate
the mysticism of later theologians, made love a prelimin-
ary condition of knowledge and acknowledged
plainly it as
the principle of knowledge.
3
God can be known from revel-
1
Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distin-
guished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaica: literature
in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind
of complete theories of inspiration.
2 See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, I.e.
3 See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: "Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium
pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum haec propter delectionem,
sentitur autem super hsec secundum magnitudinem." Irenaeus 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
;
ation, ' is, both by

because he has really revealed himself, that
the and the word of revelation. Irenaeus also taught
creation
that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide,
can be obtained irom the creation, and indeed this knowledge
always continues, so that all men are without excuse.
2
In this
case the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the
prophets, the
Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be
already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenaeus certainly
did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former
assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting
on revelation. Irenaeus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic,
with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that
is a phantom 3
and every sublime religious state of mind which
cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem secundum autem dilect- ;
—
ionem eius haec est enim quae 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 denned by the words u per verbum
eius Iesum Christum." The statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially import-
ant: they who are pure in heart will see God. God's omnipotence and goodness
remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually,
in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state
of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: uo-irep 01 Âs7tovtsi; to
(petit; evr6s sto-i rov (pWTOt; kxi tvi$ ^x^poT^roc, xlrov (isrixovo-tv, ovrut; 01 (Zki-
ttovtsi; rov rov ®eov, (JLSTe%o'JTS$ xlrov rv^ XxpTTporviTOC,. Kxi Six
®ebv kvrot; sla-i
rovro 6 xkxtx^tttoc; kxi xopxroq opupievov ixvrov

x%wpifTOi; kxi to7; xio~ro~ic, . . .
irxp£ir%ev, 7vx %uo7rotqo-y rovi; %wpovvTxc, kxi (3Ae7rovTX$ xlrov Six irto-rewt;. See
also what follows down to the words: perox*l ®tov so-ri to yivuo-xetv 0eov kxi
a7ro>.xveiv rfc xpyo-TOTifTOt; xlrov, 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.
1
See Iren., IV. 6. 4 'EStSx&v y\(j.x$ 6 y.vptot;, on ®eov elSevxi olSstg Svvxtxi, piii
:
olx' ®eov SiSx£xvto$, Tovrso-Tiv, xvev ®eov \j.v\ yivwa-KSoSxi rov ®edv xlrb Se to
ytvMo-Kso-Qxi rov ®eov de^px elvxt rov irxrpdi;, Tvwo-ovtxi yxp xlrov oi; xv x-xo-
KxKvfyy vide.
2 Iren. II. 6. I, 9. 1, 27.2: III. 25.
1 " Providentiam habet deus omnium propter
:
hoc et consilium dat : consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam
habent. Necesse est igitur ea quae providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum
directorem; quae quidem non sunt habent sensibilitatem
irrationalia n'eque vana, sed
perceptam de providentia Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus ille-
dei.
cebris 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. animae; Apolog. 17.
3 Marc.
See Iren., IV. 6. 2 ; Tertull., adv. I, II.
; ;
Chap, v.] IREN/KUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 255
does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the

Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to de-
grade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination

of the devil that has produced the blasp hernia creatoris. Like
l
the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the

doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of
2
the main articles of Christian faith the belief in his oneness
3
as well as his absoluteness is the main point. God is all light,
4
all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit everything an-
thropopathic and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as in-
compatible with his nature.
5
The early- Catholic doctrine of
God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so
far as God's attributes of goodness and righteousness are ex-
pressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that
1
See lien., V. 26. 2.
2 See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9.

3 See Iren., Very pregnant are Irenseus' utterances in II. 34. 4 and
III. 8. 3.
II. 30. 9: "Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua
antem 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."

4 See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2.
5
makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his asser-
Tertullian also
tion "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 came 1 1 '• omne quod est, corpus est sui generis nihil
: ;
est incorporate, nisi quod non est." Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic
philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a
human form, since he recognised that man's likeness to God consists merely in
his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence
of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title "0 ire pi
iv<rwiJ.&Tov ®sov ^6yo^\ and Origen reckoned him among the teachers who recognised
that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Unter-
suchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological
ideasno 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.).
256 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chav. v.
they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each

l
other.
In the case of the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippo-
lytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists,
whilst Irenaeus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologcti-
cum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down
by Tatian, the only noteworthy between him and his difference
predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the
Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation. -
1
See Iren., III. 25. 2: Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 23—28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus
briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the
Apologists' idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God's
attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now
much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose
in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment oflren-
aeus (Harvey, 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: "Summa est voluntatis dei salus
II. p.
eorum, quos adoptavit"; de psenit. 2: "Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum";
adv. Marc. II. 27: "Nihil tarn dignum deo quam salus hominis." They had here
undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the
work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord's Prayer, he succeeded
in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for
him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen's work de orat., and, in
general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord's Prayer in the
succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning
of the Gospel.
2 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 Aoyov, 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 quae omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spi-
ritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus
praesit Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et id-
perficienti.
circo filium deum dictum ex unitate substantive, nam et deus spiritus (that
dei et
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 nee separator sub-
stantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de
lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materia; matrix, etsi plures inde traduces
qualitatis mutueris : ita etquod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei Alius 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 prsedicabatur, 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 must have viewed this statement as
a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive
;
Chap, v.] IREN.FUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 257
He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the

Monarchian Praxeas. Here he created the formulae of succeed-
l
"
ing orthodoxy by introducing the ideas " substance" and " person
and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordination-
ism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, defini-
tions of the relations between the persons which could be fully
adopted in the Nicene creed. 3 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 ?ma substantia and the una
dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clear-
ness. 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
book against Noe'tus "the setting forth of the truth"'

to ascertain that in Hippolytus'
(c. he begins with the proposition: ©so? efiovhyfa xdo-pov ktio-xi. The Logos
10 ff.)
whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention.
1
See Hagemann, Die romische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.
2 See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian's doctrine of the

Trinity ("orthodox" in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also
shown that these formulas were due to Tertullian's juristic bias. The formuke,
•l
una substantia, tres persona: ", never alternates in his case with the others, "una
natura, tres persona;'" ; 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
the fact that Tertullian
this remarkable is
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 substantias; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque,
natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum
Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia
duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantias est.
rliscordat. lanas, mollitia plumge pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non
Mollitia
pariant Et tunc naturae similitudo notatur, cum substantias dissimilitudo con-
spicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantial 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
J
the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept "person" aided in the
I
matter here.
17
unity; the "arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves

the trinity from itself" (" dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex
semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat") does not abolish the unity, and,
moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father,
so that God willbe all in all. Here then the Gnostic doctrine
'
of aeons 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" ("rov hx oftohoyovtriv xlnov t&v kxvtuv"}, because with them
also, "the whole goes back to one " (" to ttxv s)q hx xvxr psxsi ").
2
The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the

"economy of God" (ohovof/Jx tou &sov) to Father, Son, and
3
Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number. Accord-
ing to Tertullian "a
rational conception of the Trinity consti-
tutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy " ("trini-
tas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter
collecta hseresim facit") is already the watchword of the Christian
dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keep-
ing view the different stages of God's economy, and distin-
in
guishing between dispositio, distinctio. Humerus 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,
1
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, nee ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat
monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divi-
sionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium
sortitis locum, tarn consortibus substantise patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum
numero?" (! !) c. 4: "Videmus igitur non obesse monarchic filium, etsi hodieapud

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."
2 See Hippol., c. Noetum II. According to these doctrines the unity is suf-
ficiently 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.
3 Adv. Prax. 8: "Hoc si me n po(3o*.iiv
aliquam introducere id est
qui putaverit,
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 haeresis
utitur; immo
hseresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret";
cf. what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already " The economy
also :
is founded on as many names as God willed" (c. 4).

he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even

men can carry on conversations with themselves and make
themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible
with God. '
But as yet he was the only person. 2 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 (" alius pater,
alius filius, alius non aliud" —
"ego et pater unum sumus ad
substantia imitate m, 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", "/
and Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to
the
singleness in number" —
"the three are one thing not one per-
son "), 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
3
(see also Hippolytus, c. Noetum 10). For that very reason
"Son" is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has
emanated in this way {xxtx (&spi<rf4,6v). Moreover, since he (as
well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (" unius
substantias " =
opoovvioc) he has also the same pozver* 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. 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
1
See adv. Prax. 5.
2
Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3 : "fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit."
3
Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between " factum esse " and
"procedere".
4 Adv. Prax. 2: "Custodiatur olKOvof/.tct$ sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem
disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nee substantia, sed forma,
nee potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantia et unius status et potestatis."
5
See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff.
is subordinate to the Father. J

" Pater tota substantia est, Alius
3
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 Father, is incapable of entering into

the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, un-
approachable, 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 exist-
ence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in
itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which
has an origin.
3
We 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 substantias " disproves this.
But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated
for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the
world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose
power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the
standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God
whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but
from God's standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom,
this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Ter-
tullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity
1 Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: "filius portio plenitudinis." In another passage

Tertullian has ironically remarked in opposition to Marcion (IV. 39) : "NisiMarcion
Christum non subiectum patri infert."
2 Adv. Prax. 9.
3 See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: "lam ergo alius
erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et conse-
quens 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, quae in terrain inde porri-
gitur." 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: Quaecunque exigitis deo digna, habe-
buntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum
deo. Quaecunque 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 hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo
pusillitatibus
detrahit." In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that theFatlier
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 ocx xbyq, (see c. Noetum 15).
1
as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the

unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised ; but in
truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is
simply the background of the process that produces the history

of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by
the fact that in course of the process of the world and of sal-
vation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a
finite process and secondly by the fact that the Son himself
;
'
will one day restore the monarchy to the Father. 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 philoso-
phers, 3 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, 4 With peculiar versatility he contrived
to make himself at home in both wings.
1
According to Tertullian an essential part of the Son's nature to
it is certainly
appear, teach, and thus come men; but he neither asserted
into connection with
the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor
can this view be inferred from his premises.
2
See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is
derived from I Cor. XV.

:i
Cf. which is
specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity
conceived as the principle of and fulness of
the universe with the manifoldness
the real and the —
employs the subsidiary
particular (Ennead. lib. III. V.). Plotinus
notion pepio-poi; in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann I.e. p. 186 f. Plotinus
would have agreed with Tertullian's proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15 u Deinomen :
quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur."

Plotinus' idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination.
4
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 sub-
It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine oflrenaeus. '
Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine

without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that
they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the
subject, there no doubt that Irenaeus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ,
is
whom as God and man, the starting-point of his

he views
speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius.
It is of Jesus that Irenaeus 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. That
ordination 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 a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates
tertius
suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monar-
chic nihil obstrepit et olKovopixt; statum protegit"; de pudic. 21. In de praescr. 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. Noet. 14): "Ev« ®tbv epai, Trpoo-wxx Si $60, olxovofiix Se rp-fnjk
T>jv %xpiv rov xyiov w£v\J.xroc,- frxritp plv yxp tic,, xpovoiKX $e $vo, 'dri xxi 6 vi&L
ro $i rpirov to 'dyiov ttvsv^x. In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis
he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos X. 33 El yxp ®edv <rt We^re
(see Philos. :
7rotvj<rxi 6 ®s6$, sSvvxro- 'e%eit; rov Kdyov ro irxpx$eiyiJ.x) he quite agrees with Ter-
tullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth "ivSixierot;
rov 7t#vtoc " ; he is produced
Aoy/o-jKO'? ex ruv 'oW«v, i.e., from the Father who
then alone existed; his essence is "that he bears in himself the will of him who
has begotten or " that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived
him"
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 preexistence ; see Testim. II. 1— 10. Lactantius was
still quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the
Holy Ghost not as a person but as ••'
sanctificatio " proceeding from the Father or
from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced
Tertullian's views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563—634,
Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste ; Hagemann, I.e., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy
that Tertullian still very frequently called the preexistent 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.
1 See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235 — 244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenaus
Christologie, 1843.
2 Zahn, I.e., p. 238.

he makes Logos {ôvoysv/ic, tputotoxoc, "only be-

nevertheless
gotten", born") the regular designation of Christ as the
"first
preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic
tradition which in his time was already recognised as authori-
tative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified
and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenaeus and Valentinus
consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmo-
logical interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-
ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenaeus' system
(in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be im-
agined 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 Irenaeus occupies a middle
position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Mar-
cion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apol-
ogists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest,
Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenaeus has both;
the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Test-
ament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenaeus on both Old
and New.
Irenaeus 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 ad-
mit 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 Irenaeus 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. '
Nevertheless Irenaeus, too, calls
the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains
the personal distinction between Father and Son. What makes
1
See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4 —9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important
passage II. 29. 3 fin.
264 HISTORY OF DOGMA ,
[Chap. v.
the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does

not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology. '
In
Irenaeus' sense we shall have to say : The Logos is the revel-
ation 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, ahvays
revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that
he revealed words, he is God in his specific
in himself. In other
nature, God, and there is no distinction of essence be-
truly
tween him and God. Now we might conclude from the strong
'"
1
A great many passages clearly show that Irenaeus decidedly distinguished the
Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic
ideas to him. See and all the other passages where Irenaeus
III. 6. 1 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. 1 7. 6 : II. 28. 6.
2 The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine orace as
regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7 :
'•
agnitio
autem filii in patre et per filium revelata"); IV. 5 IV. 16. 7:
patris filius, agnitio :
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 coexsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper
revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis etpotestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus
vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9:111. 18. 1 :
"non tunc ccepit semper apud patrem"; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1:

filius dei, exsistens
II.25. 3: "non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coe'xsistebas deo, sicu*
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 semit-
ipsum, 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 ver-
bum homo " (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX.
p. 419 sq.). Irenaeus also says in III. 6. 2: "filius est in patre et habet in se
patrem," III. 6. I.: 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). Irenaeus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient "im-
mensum patrem mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit
in filio
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 Irenaeus adhered to an ancient
tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational
system.
— — ;
emphasis laid on "always" that Irenaeus conceived a relationship

of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence
of God himself and existing independently of revelation. But
the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all
eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of

Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the
Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always
within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because
he gives a revelation. Little interested as Irenaeus is in saying
anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission,
naively he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the
as
universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead
beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid re-
flecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside
of God, and how the two are related to one another. His in-
cidental answers are not essentially different from those of the
Apologists and Tertullian the only distinction is this incidental ;
character. Irenaeus too looked on the Son as "the hand of God ",
the mediator of creation he also seems in one passage to dis-
;
tinguish 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. Irenaeus had no opportunity of writing against
'
1
Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. 10: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6:
'Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris nlius." Judging from this passage, it is
always doubtful whether Irenreus, 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 Irenaeus
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 Sou receives from the Father the sovereignty)
IV. 17. 6 (a name of Jesus
very important passage: the Father owns the Christ as
his, first, because it is name of his
Son, and, secondly, because he gave it
the himself);
V. 18. 21, 3 ("pater conditionem simulet verbum suumportans" " verbum — portatuni
a patre" u et sic unus deus pater ostenditur,
qui est super omnia et peromnia et
in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem verbum universorum
et ipse est caput Christi" u
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
(I.e., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenaeus.
the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic

writings of his. It determined how he
cannot therefore be
would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the
danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about aeons.
It has been correctly remarked that with Irenaeus the Godhead
and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each

other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, be-
cause, 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, accord-
ing to Irenaeus, " 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;" 1
but we ought
not to ask if Irenaeus 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 preeminent interest of Irenaeus,
and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw
a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists re-
garding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological

'
question.
We have rather simply which was not felt by Irenaeus

to recognise the contradiction,
because, in his he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a
religious belief,
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.
1 Irenaeus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God
refers mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3 £K$iiiyu<r6xi tjjv ffpzypare/xv xxi oIkovoiuxv
to :
rov ®sov ri^v girt ry xvipu7roTiiTi ysvofiivyiv, IV. 20. 7 Verbum dispensator paterme :
gratire 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 sapientise eius et virtutis recep-
taculum homo." V. 29. 1 "Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est
:
propter hominem."
2 Irenaeus speaks about the Holy Spirit innumerous 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
Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenaeus'

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
in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are every-
where applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was any
creation (IV. 20. 3; Irengeus 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 by reference to
is the Spirit). Irengeus also tried
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 Irengeus 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 Irengeus launched forth into
the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes
with him, <?.?•., 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 Irengeus, but he
never uses the formula rpixe, to say nothing of the abstract formulae of Tertullian.
In two passages (IV. 20. 5 V. 36. 2) Irengeus 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 (Papiasr) 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 re-
markable 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 Irengeus the
equality of Father, Son. and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of
Son and Spirit Here also we plainly perceive that the several
is not absolute.
disquisitions were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in
in Irengeus
IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the
Spirit: Kxi Six tovto TlxvXoc, KoptvSi'oit; $vj<ri yxhx vpix$ Ittotktx, oil fipwux, olSi
yxp ySvvxo-ie (3x<TTX%etv rovre<rri, r^v (jlIv kxtx xv&pw7rov 7rxpovirixv rov xvpfov
eiJ.x5^rev6ijTs, oiiSfaov Se to tov 7rxrpbi; 7rvevfix sTrxvxxxverxi ip v(j.xi Six rijv
vptuv xa-Bheixv. Here one of Origen's thoughts appears.
Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsist-

encies which he was led are very plain. But these very
into
contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal
system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being re-
moved hence his attitude on these points is typical.
; 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 destin-
ation of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable

of it. That destination is realised through the guidance of God
-
1
The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about
redemption. Noldechen (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ft):
" Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts."
2 Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following
sentences are perhaps the most important: E; Si Xsysi ovk vjSvvxto 6 ®boq £*•' tiq-
&?%%$ TShSlOV XVxSe'lJ'Xl TOV XvipCt)7rOV;©£«, XSl XXTX TX XVTX

TvUTU, OTl Tfti fJ.Iv
'ovti KXt xyevvvfTic v7rxp%ovTi, w$ 7rpbg zxvtSv, ttxvtx Svvxtx' tx Si yeyovOTX, xxib
lu.srs7rsiTX ysvsosui; xpxyv ISixv etr%s, xxtx tovto scxt vo-TspsHo-dxi Set xvtx tov
7ri7roi^K6roi;- bv yxp v\Svvxvto xy svvxtx elvxi Tofvewrri ysyevvyifiivx. KxQb Si py
sa-Tiv xyivvyrx, xxtx tovto y.x) vo-TspovvTxi tov TStetov. Kx$b Si veuTspx, v.xtx
tovto KXt vyittix, y.xtx tovto xxi xvvvvibvj v.xi xyv(x.vxo-Tx 7rpbt; Tvjv TShstxv xywyyv.
The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but
the child cannot stand it: xv6pa)7ro$ xSvvxtoq hxfiiiv xvto- vfaios yxp yv, see also
—
§ 2 4: "Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum
dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suae hoc fecerit, nequis eum
putet invidiosum aut imprsestantem. "Ego," inquit, -dixi, dii estis et filii excelsi
omnes, nobis autem potestatem 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 et simili-
tudinem dei, agnitione accepta boni et mali." Ibid. : vnoTxyii ®eov xipixpirtx, y.xi
7rxpx\JL0vv\ x$&xpo-/x<; S6\x xyzwyTOC, . . . b'pxo-ii; ®sov 7rsp17roiitTiy.i1 xj-Qxpo-ixi;- x<p6xp<rix
Si hyyvt; elvxi 7roielchapter Irenaeus contemplates the manner of

®eov. In this
appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a (fvvvvtxixêiv. 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
and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from
free choice The capacity in question is on the
has no value.
one man's possession of the divine image,
hand involved in
which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at
bottom a matter of indifference and, on the other, in his like- ;
ness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God's
Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him.
Along with this Irenaeus has also the idea that man's likeness
consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient immedi-
ately after the creation, this likeness to God did not become
perfect. '
Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to
nature, suggested both to Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus II. 29. 1 :
"Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animae in refrigerium, et superfluum est
credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris ; si autem propter iustitiam, iam

non propter id, quod sint animae sed quoniam sunt iustae ... Si enim natura et
substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animae 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.
1
On the psychology of Irenaeus see Bbhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The
fact that in some passages he reckoned the Trvevpx in man as the latter's inalienable
nature II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine
(e.g.
Spirit, an evident inconsistency on his part. The eixwv is realised in the body,
is
the 6fioiuo-i<; is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the
Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The c/-to/W<s is therefore sub-
ject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where
he opposes Tatian's opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only
the 5rvo>), not the be conceived as an original possession. On
srvft/â:, that is to
this point XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter

Irenaeus appealed to 1 Cor.
of the 4th Book, that Irenaeus also views everything as ultimately dependent on
man's inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God's goodness has scope for dis-
playing itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man's
knowledge through counsel; see §1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenaeus 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 etnon
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 ifsis." An appeal to Rome II. 4 7 (!) —
follows. In § 2 Irenaeus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural
;
27O HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
which he was destined, i.e.. he is forfeit to death. This death

was transmitted to Adam's whole posterity. . Here Irenaeus '
followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than

the for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very
sense;
strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man's fall J and,
secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological signi-
ficance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul's case, the
goodness and wickedness: ?r«VTf? In § 4 he interprets the

rye, xhryc, slo-t ipva-eait;.
Pauline: "omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt," as referring to man's inalienable
freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!) " libera? :
sententiae ab initio est homo et liberie sententiae est deus, cuius ad similitudinem
factus est." § 5 : Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suae
'•
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 :
" ri xlrsôvtriov rov xv6pii)7rov kxi to a-viifiovtevTutov tov ®sou
\xvi fiitzZophov. IV. 4. 3: "homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in
arbitrio factus et sure potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum
aliquando autem palea fiat."
1
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 Irenaeus almost everywhere referred back
to the Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: "Quicunque erga eum custodiunt
fall of
dilectionem, suam his praestat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen
et fruitio eorum quae sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum
sententiam suam ab eo, his earn quae electa est ab ipsisseparationem inducit. Separatio
autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebrae, et separatio dei amissio omnium quae
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 suae potestatis in homine
:
semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicenturquinon obediunt ei quoniam

non obedierunt, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate."
Man's sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact
2
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
Irenaeus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as
have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul's view.
-
.Chap, v.] IRENVEUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 27 I
consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that

disobedience was conducive to man's development. Man had
to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order
that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the
commandments of God. man was obliged to learn Further,
through the and life do not belong to him
fall that goodness
by nature as they do to God. Here life and death are always '
the ultimate question to Irenaeus. It is only when he quotes
sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with re-

demption 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
s
to which they were destined." Moreover, the goodness of God
immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of
life and in the sentence of temporal death.
3
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 to
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 incor-
ruptibility. * One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian
1
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 coeleste
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 Irenaeus has designated
the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7.
2
See Wendt, I.e., p. 24.
3
See III. 23. 6.
4
See V. 1. 1 : "Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quae 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

:
" liber
tatem restauravit " ; IV. 24. 1 : "reformavit humanum genus"; III. 17. 1 :
" spiritus
; :
and Theophilus, with which Irenaeus has incorporated utterances

of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same
doctrine only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of
l
God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man's will and
capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in
2
justification of God's ways.
But, in addition to this, Irenaeus 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 moral-
istic 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 which they did not give a specifically Christ-
and to
ological Irenaeus understood this proposition in a
signification.
3
Christological sense, and at the same time conceived the bless-
ing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorrupt-
ibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience
IV. 20. 5 — 7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which
sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare
in genere humano." III. 19. 1 IV. 38. 3 39. 1, 2. Wendt's summary, 1. c, p. 24
: :
"By Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance."
the
formulates Irenaeus' meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that lie
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.
1
See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.) : 'Ett< tovtoii; rov 7txvtuv xp%ovrx St;iJ.i-
oupyoSv la 7roc<rwv htrxevxs-ev, ov ®sbv (leAwv 7rois7v 'itrfyytev, ou$e

o-vvQstuv ovtrioSv
xyysAov, #AA' xvOpuKoii. E; yxp ®sdv as iffleAjjs-e Kofia-xi, sdvvxro' i%ei$ rov Xoyov
to 7rxpx$Ecyju.x- xvQpwTov QeAwv, xvdpuxov as SKOiyo-ev si Se QeAett; y.xi ®so? ysvecrQcu,
vtvxkovs tw 7rf9ro/jj>coT/. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena
with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34).
2 See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4 — 1

1
; 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's opinion, I.e., 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.
3
See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4.
has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in con-

stant fellowship with God and dependence on him. '
No doubt
he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the trans-
formation of human nature ; but the point of immediate import-
ance 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 and Corinthians. Everything, that is,
to the Ephesians
the "longa hominum expositio", was recapitulated by Christ in
himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it origin-
ally was and again included under one head what was divided.-
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, Irenaeus now says "What :
we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and

likeness of God, we recover in Christ. 3 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 be-
longing to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as
Christ's obedience and possession of salvation are the property
1
See IV. 14. 1: "In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget
dei communione. Hsec enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servi-
tute." This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenaeus speaks of
the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenaeus' great
work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear
the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: vKOTxyij ®sov x<pixpa-/x.
2 See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.
3 See III. 18. 1. V. 16. 1 is very remarkable: 'Ev role; 7rp6a-Sev %p6voi$ sKeyero
Khv hxt' sixovx ®sov ysyovsvxi tov HvipooTrov, olx sSbixvvto Si, 'in yxp xopxrot; Jjv
6 Xoyo$, oZ k#t' £ix6vx 6 'xvQpairot; eyeydvsi. Six tovto Sij kxi t$v 6(j.oioio-i\i pxSiuq
xTTsfixXtv, see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenaeus 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.
18
of all mankind united under him as their head." 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. ?
Here Irenaeus 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
3
of a mystic unity as in the case of Christ, viewed as the
1 See Wendt, I.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought
in Irenaeus with regard to man's original state, Duncker having already done so in
regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and
not a seeming contradiction 5 but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned,
the truth does not seem to me
have been arrived at. The circumstance that
to
Irenaeus 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, Irenaeus has only given us fragments.
2 See V. 16. 3 : h t3 7rpaiTo> 'ASap ^foasy.6-it/xiJi.ev, py iroiyo-zvTSt; xlrov t>jv
ivrohvjv. IV. 34. 2: "homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussusest;"
III. 18. 7—23: V. 19. 1 :V. 21. 1 : V. 17. 1 sq.
3 Here also background death and life are the essential

Irenaeus keeps sin in the ;
ideas. Bohringer I.e., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: "We cannot say that
Irenaeus, in making Adam's conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race
had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling
of the need of salvation founded on this." It is the thoughts of Paul to which
Irenaeus 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 donee in Christo recenseatur," and other passages; but he has speculations
about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenaeus; see the
index in Oehler's edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a 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
:
praeceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo
semine infectum suae 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 aetas festinat ad baptismum?"
For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness
and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenaeus; 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
;;
second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10 — 23 '

show what
an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea
assumed in Irenaeus' 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. 2 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 Irenaeus' doctrine of the God-man. The historical
importance of this author lies in the development of the Christ -
ology. 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 Irenaeus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here
he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like
Irenaeus, 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
this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This
was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through "philo-
sophy" 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 Irenaeus ("dominus sanavit ilia quae Adam portaverat vulnera")
but the statement in ep. 64. 5: "Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum
Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit" is
quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed
with the continuation: " infanti remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata." Ter-
tullian's proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained
without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g.^ de op. et eleem. 3).
1
III. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound ..." earn quae est a Maria in Evam
22.
recirculationem significans quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsse
;
compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primee coniunctiones solvantur per

secundas, secundae rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a
secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primse solutionis habere
locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novis-
simos primos." Irenseus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly
says (V. 12. 3): 'Ei/ t5 'ASk//. xxvtss zTroivyrxopev, on -^vx'y-oi. But Paul, too,
made an approach to this thought.
2
See III. 23. 1. 2, a highly characteristic statement.
of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenaeus' thought "the Son

of God became the Son of man", ("filius dei factus filius homi-
nis"). Finally, the manner in which Irenaeus 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 an epoch-making fact. is also
"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 aeon 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 doc-
trine of Irenaeus:
1
"Jesus Christ truly man and truly God"
2
("Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus "). 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 nul-
lam sententiam haereticorum verbum dei caro factum est"). 3
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.
Irenaeus maintains the first statement as well against the "Ebi-
onites"' as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ's
advent was the descent of one of the many aeons. In opposi-
tion to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural
and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in
4
favour of the divinity of Christ, and moreover argues that we
would still bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus
be in the
5
Christ had only been a man, In this connection he also dis-
cussed the birth from the virgin.
6
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
1
See, e.g., III. 9. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6—9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: "verbum dei,
per quern facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus."
2 See IV. 6. 7.
3 See III. 11. 3.
" See III. 6.
5 See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. I. 3; see also Tertullian against "Ebion"
de came 14, 18, 24; de prsescr. 10. 33.
6 See III. 21, 22 : V. 19—21.
—"
and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the
virgin. '
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.
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 Irenaeus,
and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this
3
identity. In the latter he also includes the fact that Jesus must
1
See the arguments, 1 c, V. 19. 1 :
" Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus hu-
inanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, Eequa 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., I.e. 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 same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way
fact the
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 Maria: in partti can hardly be traced in Irenaeus III.
21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) anything about it as

does not seem to know
yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular
conception as to the reason of Christ's birth from a virgin, in the form still current
to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18 :
" Non
competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non
esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione
credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et
hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis carne 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 by Irenaeus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ's
scarcely hinted at
birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ's kinship to
Cod the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regu la fi dei
received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of
the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin's
name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220.
2
See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276.
3 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
'
have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions

of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.
l
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. 2 Irenseus called

this union "union of the Word of God with the creature"
3
("adunitio verbi dei ad plasma") and "blending and commu-
nion of God and man " (" commixtio et communio dei et hominis ")
Docetist Marcion in "Parce imicse spei totius orbis." Irenseus and Tertullian
c. 5:
mean that Christ's of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently
assumption
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 naive Docetic ideas and really looked upon
the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21 "spiritum Christus cum :
verbo sponte dimisit, prsevento carnincis officio." Yet Irenseus in several passages
spoke of Christ's human soul (III. 22. 1 : V. 1.1) as also did Melito (to x\y6e$ xxi
oKpxvTcea-TOv t>5; ^v%i5? XpiirTov kxI tov o-apxTOt;, rye; kx&' Vj\j.xc, xvbponzivvic, $vasu%
Otto, IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53) What we
I.e.,
possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., I.e., III. 22. 2.)
Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to
the flesh of Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the
Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in
himself, he shows that the Saviour's flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible
to teach the annihilation of Christ's flesh (de carne 16; see also IrenseusY. 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.
1
This conception was peculiar to Irenreus, and for good reasons was not repeated
in succeeding times ; see II. 22 : III. 1 7. 4. From it also Irenseus already inferred the
necessity of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. I, 2.
of the death
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 Irenanis
was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incor-
rect, the truth merely being that Irenseus did not draw all the inferences from the
personal humanity of Christ.
2 See Iren. V. 31. 2: "Surgens in carne sic ascendit ad patrem." Tertullian, de
carne 24 :Bene quod idem veniet de cselis qui est passus
';
et agnoscent qui . . .
eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam seevierunt, sine qua nee ipse esse
poterit et agnosci;" see also what follows.
3 See Iren. IV. 33. II.
4 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1.

"
Chap, v.] IRENvEUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 279
without thereby describing it any more clearly.

1
He views
it as perfect, for, as any separation
a rule, he will not listen to
of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word. :
The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is

not found in Irenaeus; but Tertullian already used it. It never
1
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 "Ipsuni :
verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum."

2 Here Irenaeus was able to adopt the old formula "God has suffered" and the
like; so also Melito, see Otto I.e., IX. p. 416: 6 0eo? TSTOviev vtto Izhxc, 'la-pay
*tTi$os (p. 422) :

" hoc novum mysterium ? iudex iudicatur et quietus
Quidnam est
est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indig-
:
natur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque

ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, ccelestis 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 uni-
versallyadmitted (Otto, I.e., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that
Christproved 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 Irenaeus 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 him-
self could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates apply-
ing to the human good of his divinity, in fact he
nature of Jesus do not also hold
actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour's
person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in
the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he
and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple "filius dei filius hominis factus" and
did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world
and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this
very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenaeus is shown not only
by the proposition (p. 419): " Propterea misit pater filium suum e ccelo 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
quae mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret," but also by the " propter hominem
iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?" (I.e.).
occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking

as a theologian,, but expressing his belief. In his utterances '
about the God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenaeus. Like the

latter he uses the expression "man united with God" ("homo
deo mixtus") 2 and like him he applies the predicates of the
man to the Son of God. 3 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" (" Alius dei Alius hominis factus"). He speaks of a "cor-
poral and spiritual, i.e., divine, substance of the Lord ", (" cor-
4
poralis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini ") 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
5
duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat") and of
1
The concepts employed by Irenaeus are dens, verbum, filius dei, homo, films
hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in
his case the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the
was
plasma humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory)
dei,
not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human
life. The fragment attributed to Irenaeus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words,
tov &sov >\6yov ivuoei r\ji xxi' vKovrxirtv (pvtriscy iva>9evT0<; Ty <7ZKpi\ is by no means
genuine. How we are to understand the words: Yvx s% acîpoTspuv to 7rsp>cpxvet;Tuv
$v<rsuv 7rzpx$etzQy in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece
belongs to Irenaeus, That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the

is uncertain.
fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; foi (1) Melito
was also a philosopher, which Irenaeus 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.
2 See Apol. 21: "verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus adv. Marc.
; II. 27 :
"filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;" de came 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.
s De carne 5: "Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est: etmortuus
est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum
quia impossibile est " but compare the whole book ; c. 5 init. " deus cruci-
;
est, :
fixus" "nasci se voluit deus". De pat. 3: "nasci se deus in utero patitur." The
formula: "0 yevvydei's, 6 [j.eya.c, ®eos is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24.
* De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: "utiure consistat collegium nominis communione
substantiae."
5 De carne 18 fin.
— 1
the " twofold condition not blended but united in one person
God and man" (" duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in
una persona deus et homo". — Here we already have in a 1
complete form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two sub-

stances in one person.
2
At the same time, however, we can
clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenseus in his exposi-
tion.
3
He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic
principle. Irenseus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail
that the proposition "the Word became flesh" (" verbum caro
1
Adv. Prax. 27: "Serl enim invenimus ilium directo et deum et hominem
expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hie erit homo et filius
hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum Videmus duplicem statum,
. . .
nou confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo
autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantise, 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
Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex
et mortua est.
utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque sub-
stantise." In what follows the actus utriusque substantia: are sharply demarcated:
"ambse substantise in statu suo quseque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operse et
exitus sui occurrerunt neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro in uno plane
. . . :
esse possunt." See also c. 29 " Quamquam cum duse substantise censeantur in
:
Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.
- 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 Ter-
tullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves
nothing; de came 5 "Itaque utriusque substantise census hominem et deum exhi-
:
buit, hinc natum, hide non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem"' etc. Then:
"Quse proprietas conditionum, divinse et humanse, sequa utique natural cuiusque
veritate disjuncta est."
I. the formula "deus et homo", or,

3 time of Leo
In the West up to the after
Tertullian's time -
'duas substantise", was always a simple expression of the facts
acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of
redemption. shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmix-
This is
edness. With was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part
this
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 him-
self into flesh. As to Tertullian"s opposition to this view see what follows. In
contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated
to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian
creed, as is admitted by Schulz, I.e., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained
from Tertullian's view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse
us for thus anticipating.
.
factum") denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea

of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos' assumption
of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages. Tertullian, '
on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic)

opponents who understood John's statement in the sense of the
Word's transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued
against the "assumption of flesh from the Virgin" (" assumptio
2
carnis ex virgine"); 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. :!
In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid

great weight on formulae like "the crucified God", "God con-
sented to be born" ("deus crucifixus ", " nasci se voluitdeus")
and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apolo-
getic 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,
1 " Quare," says Irenseus III. 21. io — "igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus.
sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieretneque alia
esset plasmatio quae salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudiner'
2 de carne
See Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mis-
18.
pointed it. It is as follows: u Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur.
nee 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.
3 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 him-
self into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a trans-
formation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.
; :
for all his elucidations of "substance" and "person" are of

this nature.
A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos
doctrine in the struggle against the " Patripassians " was the
increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity
and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only
essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert
the substantial reality of Christ's body, it was Tertullian who
distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God
in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discrim-
inating 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 naive confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If
I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenaeus both of
which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the per-
fect unity of Christ's person. The first was the intellectual con-
templation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second was
found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition
connected with these. With regard to the first we may point
1
out that Irenaeus indeed regarded the union of the human and
divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the be-
ginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image
of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is
the realisation of our possession of God's image 2 but this
1
So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read
a twofold conception into Irenaeus' 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 (Bohringer, I.e., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius
in opposition to him).
2
See, e.g.^ V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own
peculiar fashion, more clearly the thought transmitted to him by
developed still
Irenaeus. See adv. Prax. 12: "Quibus faciebat deushominem similem? Filio quidem,
qui erat induturus 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 similitude" 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.
:
thought,if no further developed, may be still united with the

Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with
it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when
it not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the
is
human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more
accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to commun-
ion with God,at last the perfect man appeared in Christ.
'
till
For in this might appear as if the really essential element

view it
in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new
Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That
Irenaeus, in explaining the life of Jesus as that of Adam accord-
ing to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses him-
self 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 Irenaeus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the
perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he
writes: " u&Trsp yxp v,v xvQpco7ro$ hx 7T£ipx(r^, ovrco xx) "koyoc ivx
So£#<r0#. yvvxtzôvTog (juv tov Xoyov h rw 7T£ipx^£7$xi xx) 7TXvpov<r6xt
xx) xirofovjffKeiv, vvyyivopthov ^£ toj xvdpu7ry h rep vixfyv xat
•J7T0(t£V£lV Xx) %pYI<rT£V£<x6xi Xx) XvitTTXvQxi Xx) OC'JXXX^fixiJwbxi"
("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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus the perfect
manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental
quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man
1
Iren. IV. 14. 2 ; for further particulars on the point see below, wher
Irenaeus' views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Domer,
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.
:
Chap, v.] IRENAEUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 285
in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders

him possible, or the Logos always existsbehind Christ the
perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the
humanity in Christ already compelled Irenaeus to limit the "deus
crucifixus " and to lay the foundation for Tertullian's formulae.
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. ?
Irenaeus 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. This '
separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of human-

ity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the
same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating specu-
lations, 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
1
"Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et Alius Abrahae,
secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum secundum autem quod deus
. . .
erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat." All that Irenaeus said of the Spirit in ref-
erence 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 Ter-
tullian). Dorner (I.e., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenaeus'
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 Irenaeus, in —
conformity with Acts IV. 27 : X. 38, used the following other formulae about Christ
6 ®e6$, 7roij<rx<; rov ovpxvov x.t.A;, xxi 6 tovtov nocli;, ov 'i%fi<rtv 6 ®e6$ —
"Petrus
Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur."
But Irenaeus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippo-
lytus not unfrequently calls Christ T:xi$ ®sov.
to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenaeus was

obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the
assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assump-
tion which in the earlier period has only ''Gnostic" testimony
in its favour. Before Irenaeus' day, in fact, none but these
earliest theologians taught that Jesus Christ had two natures,
and ascribed to them
and experiences. The
particular actions
Gnostic distinction of the Jesus p'atibilis ("capable of suffering")
and the Christ xicx^q ("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 : "filiusdei
Alius hominis factus ". No doubt the old early-Christian in-
terest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person.
Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Ter-
tullian's Christology or even of that of Irenaeus without taking
into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of
Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulae :
" deus
passus, deus crucifixus est" ("God suffered, God was crucified"). 1
But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in

1
On Hippolytus' views of the Domer, I.e., I. p. 609 ff. an
incarnation see —
account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quaest. 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 Irenaeus in this case also. It
is what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenaeus or what has

instructive to see
become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at
bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenaeus. 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 controver-
sialists like Irenaeusand 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. also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no

I., ep. 36 is
means intended countenance to Kimmel's untenable hypothesis (de Hippol.

to give
vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus' treatise c.
Noet. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage
is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: sic, yxp kxi 6 rov Osov %x~ic, (Iren.), $S oil v.c&i
viatic, tv%ovt£c, rijv Six rov xytov wveviMXToa. xvxyivvvjo-iv stq svx reteiov xxi Inou-
pxviov xv8pa>7rov 01 TtxvTSt; kxtxvtyjo-X( £7TiSvi/.ov[Aev (see Iren.) ''E7rsiSij yxp i.6yoc,
rov ®sov xtTxpxoc, wv (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) IvsSvo-xto rijv xyixv axpxx Ik tSj?
xyiaq 7rxp8evow wc. vvpcpioc, ipxTtov ¥£v$xvxc, ixvrti ijv ru crrxvpixui nxSsi (Irenaeus
and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of
Irenaeus 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
/actus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse" •
the flesh), onus o-vyxepxo-x$ to Qvyrbv -h(J.&v o-S>[J.x ry ixvrov Svvx^si xxi (/.feat (Iren.,
Tertull.) rw xcpSxpru to tydxprbv xxi to xo-$svi$ tw i<r%vpii trwo-y rbv XTrohhv(j.evov
xv5poi)7rov (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it
shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenaeus 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 xvx7r*x<ro-eiv §S ixvrov rbv 'ASxp, I.e., c. 26,
with the xvxxecpxhxiovv of Irenaeus and I.e., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippo-
lytus' Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noe't. 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 Irenaeus and Tertullian,
insists on applying the full name of Son
oidy 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 ttoIov ovv vlbv ixvrov 6 ©so; $ix ryji; trxpxbt;
:
nxTeTrei^sv #AA' $ rbv x6yov; ov vlbv 7rpo<rtjydpeve Six to fiehteiv xvrbv yeve<r$xt.
xxi to xoivbv 'Svopx t5?c sit; xv&pwTrovt; QiAoo-ropy/xt; xvxhx(j,fixvei 6 vibt; {xxiroi
rixaoc, Xbyot; hv povoyevfc). oVS' % <rxp% xxQ' ixvrov $t'%x rov x6yov vTtoo-r^vxi
ySvvxTO Six to sv hdyii) rijv o-vo-rxciv 'i%ztv. ovruc, ovv sJi; w/o? riteioc, ®sov etyxvspuiQy.
Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenaeus of the tree
of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the
latter of the u 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 Irenaeus had not by
any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the
1
confident tone.
latter s 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 Anti-
christo 61) ov %xvosrxt $ exKtytrt'x ysvvcSo-x in xxpdt'xt; rbv Koyov rbv ev xoa-jza
:
V7T0 XTIO-TODV SlUKCfiSVOV. " XXI '£t£K£ ", (PÎV, " VtOV XppeVX,0$ [MiKKSi 7T0II/.XIVE1V 7TXVTX
tx eHvy", rbv xppevx xxi re/.£(Ov Xpurrov, ttxI^x ®sov, ®sbv xxi xv5pa)7rov xxrxy-
yiKX6{JL£vov xei rixrova-x vi exxô-ix 5t$xo-xsi ttxvtx tx '46vy. If we consider how
Irenaeus' 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 Valentini an
schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same
result —
was threatened here " doctrinae inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosti-
corum." From this standpoint Origen's undertaking to subject the whole material
of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.
1
See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reechoed in Cyprian. See,
for example, ep. 58. 6: " filius dei passus est ut nos filiosdei faceret, etfilius ho minis
(sett, the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit."
—
("JesusChrist became what we are in order that we might

become what he. himself is"). But, in accordance with the re-
capitulation theory, Irenaeus developed the "factus est quod
sumus nos " in such a way that the individual portions of the
lifeof 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"), ' but he also views his whole life as a work of sal-
vation. All that has taken place between the conception and
the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation.
This a highly significant advance beyond the conception of
is
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 Irenaeus 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 appear-
ance. 2 But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he
decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he
applies the benefits of Christ's work not to the "pneumatic"
ipso facto, but in principle to all men, though practically only
to those who listen to the Saviour's words and adorn them-
3
selves with works of righteousness. Irenaeus presented this
work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as
1
See III. 10. 3.
2See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7 $ yvuo-a; rov vlov rov ©sot/, #t<; 5fv :
&<p8xpo-ix. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenaeus' raising the question as
to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): "Si autem subit vos huius-
modi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens ? cognoscite, quo-
niam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus." The
new thing is then defined thus :
" Cum perceperunt earn quae 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 adven-
um eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quae prsedicta sunt bona."
3 See IV. 36. 6 :
" Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (?.*., perk
ryv x^triv) et iustitiae operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei "
we must provide ourselves with the wedding garment.
;
the realisation of man's original destiny, that is, being in com-
munion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like

God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences
of Adam's disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men
from death and the dominion of the devil and finally he looks ;
upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions

Irenaeus 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 Valentin-
ians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesias-
tical 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 con-
sideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3).
Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint accord-
ing to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confes-
sion and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the
resurrectionof the body. On the other hand, Irenaeus 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 man, thus solving the question "cur deus
of
homo" in the highest sense.
1
Finally, he adopted from Paul
the thought that Christ's real work of salvation consists in his
death on and so he tried to amalgamate the two
the cross ;
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
1
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 necess-
ity of God's appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: "Si Adam iam non
reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset deus et superasset
serpentis nequitia voluntatem Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est,
dei.
magnanimem quidem That the accomplishment of salvation must be
se exhibuit etc."
effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the right-
eousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1 V. 21. :
19
of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation

of Irenaeus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was
destined be the permanent characteristic of Church specula-
to
tion work in succeeding times. For on the one
as to Christ's
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 in-
volved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still,
Irenaeus 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 re-

capitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception
of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way
of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For,
as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating
counterpart of Adam's birth from the virgin earth, and as the
obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve's
disobedience, so the story of Jesus' temptation is to him the
recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam's temptation.
In the way
overcame the temptation by the devil
that Jesus
(Matt. IV.) sees the redemption of mankind
Irenaeus already
from Satan even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas
;
the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-

justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by
which Jesus resisted Satan's temptation. l
As yet Irenaeus is
quite from the thought that the devil has real rights
as free
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 redemp-
tion 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. '
1 Irenaeus 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.
2 See particularly V. 1. 1 : "Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio-
1
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 obe-
dience at the tree God But teachings as to vica-
is reconciled. '
rious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in Irenaeus,
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 quae sunt sua redimens ah ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum
ilia initio dominabatur nostri, ea quae non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed
secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem,
accipere quae 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
possesswith Irenaeus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of
one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea
to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it
by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I.
p. 38 sq. See Rufinus' translation in Caspari's Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I.
1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Tov xpiu-
psvov e<Py$, eJvxi tov Xpia-rdv, %e%pxx<>)$ t/? e<rrtv, yAdev et$ <rs 6 XKAovt; //.vSo?
on 6 7T(tiAe3v xxi 6 xyopx^wv xdeAtyoi eie~iv et xxxdt; t6v 6 SixfioAos t8> xyxiw 7reTpxxev,
;
ovx 'eo-Ti xxxbt; xXhx kyxboc,' yxp xvr* xpx%G tp&ovjcrxt; tw xvQpoo7roi, vvv ovx en
vwb <pddvov xysrxi, t& xyxicZ tvjv vo[jly\v %xpxvOvs. eo-Txt oZv Stxxiot; 6 tov <p66vov
xxi 7rxvrbt; xxxov 7rxvirxizevo$. xvto$ yovv 6 ®eb$ evpio-xerxt kuKîtxc,' ijlxXXov Se
et tii-ixpriiKOTes ixvroiii; #7TjjAAct picas'xv 01 xv&puixot Six txc, x\j.xprixc, xvtcov Kxhtv
Se eKvTpwbvitrxv Six tv/v evo-xhxyxvtxv xvtov. tovto yxp <pyo-tv 6 •xpofyyTW Tx7q xpxp-
Ti'xtt; v[jluv sTrpxdvtTS xxi rx7$ xvo(/.ixt(; eix'KerrTethx rijv fi^repx v[j.&v. Kxi xh&ct;
nxhiv Acopexv e7rpxQyTe, xxi ov (J.erx xpyvpiov AvrpwOyoso-Qe. rb, ov§e (jlstxxpyvpiov
oviXovoti, tov x'i'i/.xtoq tov XpitrTov. tovto yxp cpxo-xet 6 ?rpo4>ifTjj$ (Isaiah, LIII. 5
follows). 'E/xd$ Se OTt y.xtx ere eirpfxTO Soi/Q sxvtov to x~i(j.x- 7T<w; ovv kxi ex vexpajv
yyeipeTO ; et yxp 6 hxfiiav t^v Tt(j.ifv tcSv xvipw7ruv, to xiftx, xxeSwxev, ovxeTi e7rw/>qo-ev.
Ei $e fj.ii xveSwxe, Tut; xveo-TVf Xpto-Tos\ ovxert ovv to, 'Et-ovo-ixv 'ex® Q^vxt xxi
eiovtrixv ex® Axfieiv, 'i'o-txtxi ; 6 yovv SixfioAot; xxtSx^' to x1/j,x tov Xpto-Tov xvti
Tf}{ Tifivic, t&v xvQpcinrwv ; srcAAij $\xt7$vuJ.io$ xvotx fyeC tuv xxxuv 'Aneixvev, xveo-Tvi
! !
d)$ Svvxtoi;- eQyxev e/iX@ev xvTy -xoix 7rpxo-t$ ; tov 7rpo<pyTOv AeyovTOt;- 'Avxo-tJtw
6 ®ebt; xxi Six<rxop7rio-^TCi)o-xv 01 ex^poi xvtov; "O7rov xvxo-txo-ii;, \xe~i SxvxTct; !
Tliat is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.
1
See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17 — 4. In III. 16. 9 he says : Christus per passionem
reconciliavit nos deo." It is compare the way in which
moreover very instructive to
Irenaeus 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.
;
and his seldom presented from the point of view of

death is
a sacrifice to God. According to this author the re-

offered '
conciliation virtually consists in Christ's restoring man to com-

munion and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of
sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through
Adam's sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the for-
giveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has
not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the re-
demption 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. 3

Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ's work
which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restor-
ation. In this connection Irenaeus employed the following
categories restoring of the likeness of God in humanity ; aboli-
:
tion of death ; connection and union of man ivith God; adoption

of men as sons of God and as gods ; imparting of the Spirit
who noiv becomes accustomed to abide with men 3 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
1
See, e.g., IV. 5. 4 : TrpoSu/zaig Âfipxx/u. tov 'tStov [Jiovoysvvi xxi xyxx^TOv nxpx-
%aipvi<rx$ Qvtrixv ru ®e&, 't'vx xxi 6 ®ed$ svSoxytry vft'kp tov o-repizxToi; xvtov ttxvtoc;
tov 'tStov (/.ovoysvij xxi xyzvyTOv vidv 6vo-ixv 7:xpxo-%siv £<? XvTpwa-iv fi/zSTspxv.
There are not a few passages where Irenaeus said that Christ has annihilated
2
sin, abolished Adam's disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his

obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16—21); but he only once tried to explain
how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul's thoughts.
3 Irenaeus 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, knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of
true
salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the
episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and inter
pretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic.
Chap, v.] IRENîUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 293
thrust more
background; his work is contained in his
into the
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." Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately
l
joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church,
whose head he himself is. 2 This Church is the communion of
the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him
and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work
of Christ the God-man is fulfilled.
In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament

exegesis, we again find the same aspects of Christ's work as
in Irenaeus, only with them the mystical form of redemption
3
recedes into the background.
1
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, Irenaeus
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 sal-
vation through the arrival of Christ among them.
See III. 16. 6: "In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei et hominem ergo
2 ;
in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus

comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum
recapitulans, uti sicut in supercaelestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est
verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum
primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiae, universa attrahat ad
semetipsum apto in tempore."
3 There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole
work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death
was the aim of Christ's mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: "Taceo quod figitur; in
hoc enim venerat" de bapt. 11: "Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini
;
passione, nee vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius'': adv. Marc. III. 8: "Si men-
dacium deprehenditur Christi caro nee passiones Christ i fidem merebuntur.
. . .
Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus,
mors Christi, negatur, quam tarn impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, sum-
mum earn fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostras et praedictionis
suae, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4: he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also
adopted from Irenaeus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of
Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenaeus 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
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 Ex divina agere doceretur.
aequo agebat deus cum homine, homo ex aequo agere cum deo posset." Here
ut
therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts
to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called u 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: "K«< txStx /j.£v ex<pev£y ®ebv tov 'ovtx $i$x%6et$, 'e%eic. Se
xQxvxtov to iria {j. a. xx) xtp&xpTOV x/j,x TpvXV' fixeiXeixv bvpxvuv x7ro?i.qipy, 6 ev lyy
@iov$ kxi £7rovpxviov fixtrtKex emyvovc., 'etry Se o^'Ajjxjje ®eov xxi <Tvyx.Kypov6iJ.oc,
Xpto-Tov, ovx S7ri&vi/.i'xic. v\ 7rxieo-i kxi vdo-oii; Sovf.oviJ.evot;. Teyovxt; yxp ®e6? b'erx yxp
vireftetveeQ 7rx!)y %v$pa7ro$ lav, T«t/T« eSiSov, on xv&poe7ro<; elt;, ocrx Se xxpxxot.ov(tel
®eu, txvtx Kxpexetv enviyyeXTXt ©eo;, 'on e8eo7ror4iyc., Mxvxtoc. yevvydeit;. Tovtsitti
to Tva/St a-exvTdv, e7riyvovc, tov TreToiyxoTX ®eov. To yxp extyvavxi ixvrov eTiyvwo-^vxi
<Tv/j,fie(Bttxe tw xxXovfxevia i/tt' xvtov. Mij $ihe%bpvi<TviTe toivvv ixvTolc., xvdpu7roi :
(zySe to irx/\ivSpotJ.e7v Sio-Txo-yTe. Xpto-Toc. yxp Icttiv 6 xxtx 7txvtmv ©so'?, 0? tjjv
xfj.xpTtxv e% xvipw7T(ov xTzoTcKvveiv 7rpoeTx£e, veov tov TtxXxibv %v$pw7rov x7TOTe?.o5v,

etxdvx tovtov xxfetrxt; <£tt' xp%yc., Six tvttov tv\v eif <re exiSeixvv(j.evot; <rTopyyv, ov
7rpo(TTxyiJ.xo-iv vxxxovo-xc. o-e\J.vo~i$, xxi xyxSov xyxQbt; yevo/J-evoc. (j,iiJ,yiTv]c., eo-y o(J.otoc
t/7r' xvtov Ti/J-vtieic.. Ov yxp "KTUxiva Qebc. xxi <re ®ebv 7roty<rxc. etc. S6%xv xvtov."
It is which became prevalent in the 3rd cen-
clear that with a conception like this,
tury, Christ's death have no proper significance; nothing but
on the cross could
the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Ter-
tullian 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 frequent in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In
both writers, moreover, we find u meritum" {e.g., Scorp. 6) and "promereri deum".
Novatian the idea of u culpa
1
With them and with is also more strongly empha- '
sised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: "quoniam
cum caro et sanguis 11011 obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia dam-
nata est, qua divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito
reprehensa Tertullian
est." de bapt. 5 says: u
Exempto reatu eximitur et poena."
On hand he speaks of fasting as "officia humiliationis", through which
the other
we can " inlicere " God. Among these Western writers the thought that God*s
anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a
much more pronounced form than in Irenseus. 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 Scrip-
ture texts than those of Irenaeus. That many of the latter's speculations are not
speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the

regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the
material hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would
be a great mistake to assume that Irenaeus 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.
l
found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear
scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Qusest. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a
superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view
than Iremeus; 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 Irenaeus, and which
in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen's day) and
in the West (after the may be further referred to. We mean
time of Ambrosius),
the notion that bridegroom and the human soul (and also the
Christ is the
human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combina-
tion of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the
Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philo-
sophical 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. Horn. III. 27 vv/x.<p*i yxp ecrrtv 6 nut; xvipanroi;, ondrxv tov xhôvc,
:
xpotyviTov tevxZi Koyta xAvfieixt; o-n-siponevos 4)ft,T 'T < Ta!/ tov vovv. The second is the
!
apostolic notion that theChurch 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), be-
longs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2: Tertull. de
monog. 11, and my notes on At$x%vj 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 deresurr.
63: "Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus foederavit, sponsam sponso et
sponsum sponsse comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel
dotis nomine sequetur animam caro Caro est sponsa, quae 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.
1
By regula inasmuch as the words "from thence he will come to judge
the
the and the dead" had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in
quick
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
:
The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Ter-

tullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these
hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and
l
Justin. 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 situ-
ation 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
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 nourish.
1
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
7rept tow Sixpohov xxi r%t; xxoxxXv^swc, 'Iwkvvov." 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's careful account (1c, p. 70 sq.) of the
agreement here existing between Irenseus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter" s
chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my
opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a
later period both from Hippolytus' book and the great work of Irenseus. The ex-
tensive 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 sub-
sequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Com-
modian, 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 down-
wards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped, in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254.
Iren. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq.
V. According to Irenaeus 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 anima 57 and 58 ("modicum delictum illuc luendum''). He speaks in
de
several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally
diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).
God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting

perfectknowledge and filling mankind with divine life and in-
corruptibility. 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 Irenaeus 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 There is, however, no doubt that the
novelty.
strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnos-
tics 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 But

richness in dissimilar trains of thought.
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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus. There is no need to show in detail that

'
1
Irenaeus 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
chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much

opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemp-
tion, 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,
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 Irenaeus sees the chief proof in the in-
carnation 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 dis-
cusses 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 him-
self 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 and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is
all sin
described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according
to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom
that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan
(V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ
will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the
world's histoiy 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. Irenseus expressly argued
against such "as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the
righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility" (V. 31). By this
he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the
contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection
which takes place on the return of Christ, after which the souls receive back their
bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour's Kingdom (V. 31. 2).
This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; "for it is just that they
should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they
suffered tribulation"; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine
would be given to him and to his seed, /.*., 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 eaith affords in miraculous fruitfulness.Here Irenaeus 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. Irenaeus 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 re-
surrection, the general judgment, and the final end.
and 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
Irenseus (V. 33 fif.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus 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 criti-
cism. These were the so-called Alogi. 2 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 ap-
pears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his po-
lemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops
of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to
combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us
by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of
Alexandria, about that father's struggles with whole communities
in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest
interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theol-
ogy 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. Cultured :i
1
Hippolytus in the lost book virep rov xxtx 'luxvvyv svxyyeXiov kxi xto-
y.x^v^song. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of
Chiliasm.
2
See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus.
S In the Christian village communities of the
district of Arsinoe the people would
not partwith chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an "apostasy" from
the Alexandrian Church. A
book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled "Refuta-
tion 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
theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and

religiousphilosophy; but the "simplices et idiotas" could only
understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually
obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic
theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes
the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under-
stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith
they could not understand in other words, the old faith and
;
the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a

mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation
or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in
the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also

lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ,
and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is
a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as
remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which,
when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to
dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes
retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know
of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With
this,however, was preserved a portion of the earliest Christianity
which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of
Augustine.
Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions re-
garding the Old Testament which the creation of the New pro-
duced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barna-

bas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory
of the Old Testament which represented it as the Chris-
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 hisown 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 Ethi-
opian languages.
tianbook 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 proclam-
ation 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 com-
ponents of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to
the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and male-
volent 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 and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far
Justin
as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature
—
contained in the Old Testament the Decalogue and the cere- —
monial 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 conse-
quence. On the one hand, the proposition that the "Father of
'
Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the
Old Testament" required the strictest adherence to the unity
of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view
of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development;
on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created,
it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior
to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the
Christian doctrine worked out by the Gnostics and Marcion had
in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We
now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of
this twofold problem and their method of accomplishing it has
;
continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the

present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic prac-
tice 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, Irenaeus and Tertullian gave a
most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,
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. 2 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 watch-
word is: "Seek the type" ("Typum quaeras"). 3 But they went.
1
See Irenaeus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.
2 would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren.
It
IV. 9. 1 "Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei,

:
dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahse et Moysi collocutus est." Both Testa-
ments are "unius et eiusdem substantise." IV. 2. 3: "Moysis litera; sunt verba
Christi."
3 See Iren. IV. 31. 1.
Chap, v.] IREN.*:US AND CONTEMPORARIES 303
a step further still. In opposition to Marcion's antitheses and

his demonstration the God of the Old Testament is a
that
petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they
seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the
New. (See Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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.
Irenaeus, for example, emphasised in the most naive 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. '
In connection with this we observe that the radical
antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Ire-
naeus 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 fif.). In Tertul-
lian we find this only in its most rudimentary form ; but in
1
Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.) : Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et
universse doctrinse dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis,
qnae est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo"; see Over-
beck l
'Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchen-
vatern," 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenaeus.
2
Cf., e.g., de monog. 7 : " Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monoga-
mise debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quse nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit."
Here also Tertullian's Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions
of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view
;
the course of the third century these needs grew mightily '
and
were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to
become an book of revelation to the Church, and that
authentic
in much more dangerous sense than was
a quite different and
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 eccleciastical 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 no-
where 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 dis-
tinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature,
and the ceremonial law whilst the oldest theologians (the Gnos-
;
tics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought

of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the
New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal
sense of the ceremonial law and God's covenant with the Jews;
and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in
the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of
salvation. This economy and history of salvation which con-
tained 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 Irenseus and accepted
by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy
without modifying it 2 and thus appears as something inter-
that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of
revelation.
1
Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen's works and
the literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions,
later
lib. I.— VI.
2 Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional
;
mediate between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the

unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which
neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor re-
cognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justi-
fied in regarding this history of salvation approved by the
Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenaeus 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 sal-
vation " as a remnant of that bright light which may be recog-
nised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament. Still, '
it is a striking advance that Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus' 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 appro-
priate to the times. ' The two are in part different but the ;
difference due to causes 3 that do not

must be conceived as
affect the unity of the author and of the main points.
4
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 ''
application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every
< >ld Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case
even to the present day.
1
With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing
in common.
2 Iren. III. 12. 11.
3 See III. 12. 12.
4 No commutatio agniticnis takes place, says Irenseus, but only an increased
gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is "principium evangelii."
(III. 11. 7).
5
See IV. 1 1. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7 : IV. 26. 1 : IV. 37. 7 : IV. 38. 1—4.
20
3° 6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, v .
God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not

God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility,
which he advancing from the child-
is to attain step by step,
hood 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 Irenaeus therefore
the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the
Valentinians by the one God, who stoops to the
is occupied
level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides
it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace. The '
fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e.,

natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in
his heart 2
by the creator. He who preserves these, as for
example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenaeus
leaves Adam's sin entirely out of sight). But it was God's will
to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his
Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed him-
self to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and re-
frained 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 them-
selves.
3
But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned,
they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest con-
dition.From this moment Irenaeus, keeping strictly to the Old
Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These
1
Several covenants I. 10.3 four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ)
;
III. 1 1 . 8 ; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned.
2 This is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: "Et quia dominus
naturalia legis, per quae homo iustificatur, quae etiam ante legisdationem custo-
diebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc." IV. 15. 1.
3 a
Irenaeus, as rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8:
"Verbum quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divini-
dei illis
tatem et gloriam colloquebatur", and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son's having
descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also,
see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew
both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to
the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to
bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2).
;
are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this

period that the training of the human race is given to them but ;
it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this
he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas. '
When righteous-
ness 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
the moral law of nature that had
else than
J
fallen into But when they made to themselves a
oblivion.
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 constit-
uent 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
1
On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he
frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenseus 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. Irenseus 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.
2 Irenseus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: "Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet
salutem".
:
the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to
follow his Son (IV. 12, 5 ;
" lex praedocuit hominem sequi oportere
Christum"). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested
himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he
indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. In
• the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments
of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in
them; and inthem he habituated himself to enter bodily into
humanity. l
Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being
now sufficiently trained, were to receive the " testamentum liber-
tatis" 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 search-
ing out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling
the law in whole severity and lastly the particularia
its ; legis,
i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter
1
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. peromnes. . .
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 hard-
ness of heart (IV. 15. But Irenseus still distinguishes very decidedly between
2).
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 typi-
cal 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 peculi-
arity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, be-
cause 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 Irensus
to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training,
instead of the religious ones, sin and grace.
.
connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every

transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also
had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first
permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ him-

self 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 Irenaeus in the following
manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent trans-
formation 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. But in !
1
The law, *.*., 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.
11. 1 : IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: -IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV.
36. 2 and
Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended
fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Ser-
mon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irengeus 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 ful-
filling, 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 . :
prrecepto 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". proved in the next passage from the Sermon on
That is
the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire.
IV. 16. 5: "Haec ergo, quae in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circum-
scripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quae 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, "prop-
ter 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, u vere et semper et austerius " as under the new cove- . . .
nant "fides aucta est", so also it is true that u 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
310 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. V.
these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his

opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves
this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpreta-
tion of i Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that
passage to be those of the Old Testament. He therefore views r
the two Testaments as of the same nature, but " greater is

the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings
bondage" ("maior est legisdatio quae in libertatem, quam quae
data est in servitutem Through the two covenants the accom-
").
plishment 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 quae autem formant hominem, ;
praecepta 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, honour continually with greater gifts those who
to
are him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenaeus makes no direct
well pleasing to
statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people
have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence
after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this
nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought.
It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital
of Christ's earthly kingdom ; but the nation itself, which, according

to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ,
just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.
-
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
(III. 5. 3). But Irenaeus also proved how little the old and new covenants contra-
dict 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.).
1
See There too we find
III. 11. 4. it argued that John the Baptist was not
merely a prophet, but also an Apostle.
2 From Irenaeus' 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 oft" and has no further importance.
— 1
Chap, v.] IREBLEUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 3 1
with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon
reckoned as Paul's conception, to which in fact it has a distant rela-

tionship. 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
1
Church.
1 No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from

Irenaeus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in
Irenaeus' 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 sup-
pletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia
de caroalibus 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
praescr. 13): u Christus praedicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelo-
rum"; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6 " am- :
plianda adimplendaque lex." Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2 ; de monog. 7 "Etquoniam :
quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed
adimplevit, interdum quae volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually),
plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam aposto-
lorum, quae nee patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quae vero ad iustitiam
spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata." That the new law
of the in a stricter form, and that the
new covenant is the moral law of nature
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 Irenaeus. In ad
uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: "Quod permittitur, bonum non est," and this
proposition istheme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the
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 contradic-
tions. 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 Irenaeus; 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
2
3 1 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
3. Residts to ecclesiastical Christianity.
As we have shown, Irenaeus, 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 theolo-
gical fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and interpreted
in an antignostic sense. As yet the rule of faith and theology
'
nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the

third century, because Irenaeus 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
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
Noldechen's article in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885,
P- 333 f- On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian
required the prophecy extended down to John (see also the
proposition that
Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum ", Sibyll. 1. 386: xxi tots
§*1 7rxv<Tiq 'icTTCtt //.STSTTstTX n potyyTcov, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as
a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In

like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the
Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied
this thesis. Cf. also Barth " Tertullian's Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines
Verhaltnisses zu den Uraposteln" (Jahrbuch fiir 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.
this, however, they definitely established within the Church the

1
In addition to
idea that there is a u 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: u Tene-
mur hie 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., Coram, in Daniel
,
('EjcxA. 'AAj?5. 1886, p. 242): of siiTd'ovo/ix tov ®sov 7tio-tsvovts; xxi §S xyxiospyfxQ
TO Trpdo-UKOV XVTOV ihAXTKOfiSVOl.
3
Chap, v.] IREN.-EUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 3 1
wish to form a notion as to what ideas had become universally

prevalent in the Church in the middle of the third century let
us compare Cyprian's work " Testimonia", written for a layman,
with Novatian's work "De Trinitate".
"Testimonia" the doctrine of the two Testaments, as
In the
developed by Irenaeus, 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 philosoph-
ical 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. The theological counterpart
'
to this is Novatian's work " De Trinitate". This first great

Latin work that appeared in Rome is highly important. In regard
to completeness, extent of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its
influence on succeeding times, it may in many respects be
compared with Origen's work nsp) xp%5>v. 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 com-
prehensive 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 3 1 contain the recapitulation
and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian's treatise against
Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped No-
vatian; but everything is extended, and made more systematic
1
In the case of Irer.oeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they
observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof
from Scripture.
314 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, v .
and polished. No trace of Platonism is to be found in this

dogmatic; on the contrary he employs the Stoic and Aristotelian
syllogistic and dialectic method used also by his Monarchian
opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude gives the
work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help
concluding tha this work must have made a deep impression
1
:
wherever it was read, although the real difficulties of the matter

are not at all touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and for-
mulae. It probably contributed not least to make Tertullian's
type of Christology the universal Western one. This type, how-

ever, as will be set forth in greater detail hereafter, already
approximates closely to the resolutions of Nicaea and Chalcedon. 1
Novatian adopted Tertullian's formulae "one substance, three

persons" ("una substantia, tres personae"), "from the substance
of God" ("ex substantia dei"), "always with the Father"
("semper apud patrem"), "God and man" (" deus et homo"),
"two substances" ("duae substantias "), "one person" ("una
persona "), as well as his expressions for the union and separa-
tion of the two natures adding to them similar ones and giving
them a wider extension. 2
Taking his book in all we may see
1 worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in
It is
the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian's
adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates' Ecclesiastical History), were of the
orthodox Nicasan type. This furnishes material for reflection.
2 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 consider-
ations. (1) Novatian asserts that the Logos was indeed always
Like Tertullian,
with the he only went forth from him at a definite period of
Father, but that
time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that
Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are 6ô6va-ioi., the hotnoousia
of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the Son is subordinate
and obedient Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they
to the
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 be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of
to
Sardika). Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the
work, in its formulae, 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
5.
Chap. v.J IREN.EUS AND CONTEMPORARIES 3 1
that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic vademecum,

which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from Scrip-
ture, must have been of extraordinary service.
The most important articles which were now fixed and trans-
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 ilium
esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum
ilium teneamus"; c. 11 Christ has attctoritas divina., "tarn enim scriptura etiam
deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tarn homi-
nem Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum
descripsit
dominum." In c. 12 the term ''Immanuel" is used to designate Christ as God in
a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: "prsesertim cum animadvertat,
scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in imam nativitatis Christi
foederasse concordiam"; c. 14: "Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concre-
tus"; c. 16: "...nt neque homo Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur . .
utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque con-

nexum est... pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia...
qui mediator dei et hominum eflfectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem sociasse
reperitur . . . nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam . . . lavit sub-
stantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, passione";
c. 17: "... nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim
conquiescens nee se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum
hominem fert, quern suscepit"; c. 18: "... ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet
terrenorum pariter atque caelestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora
et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito Alius dei per assumptionem
carnis filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici
hominis et nlius
possit'"; c. 19:
il
hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum
sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) assumit, sibi filium hominis annectit et ilium ad se
rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata prsestat et filium ilium
dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian's teaching is therefore like that
of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut principalitas nominis istius
"filius dei" in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius
in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hie 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 dis-
tinctionis 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 hrereticis
contulisset, ut hominis filium qua homo est, eundum et dei et hominis filium pro-
nuntiare ileberent Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter
. . .
ilium filium dei fecit, quoniam ilium filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum
filius hominis adhreret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem fceneratum et mutuat-
um quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli
teneret,
voce, quod nolunt hseretici, 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
3 16 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, v.
ferred to the general creed along with the necessary proofs,

especially West, were: (i) the nnity of God, (2) the
in the
identity of the supreme God and the creator of the world, that
is, the identity of the mediators of creation and redemption,
(3)
Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque context um atque con-
cretum et in eadem Utriusque substantive concordia mutui ad invicem foederis con-
fibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturae hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cog-
noscant". c. 21: "haeretici 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 personae suae id est filii a paterna
auctoritate non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam
discernit atque distinguit,
de ordine dispositse potestatis unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concor-
. . .
diam, non unitatem personam 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 concordiae unitatem est apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen dis-
tinctione." (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! "Quos
personae 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 pro-
cessisse; ex deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic dei verbum processit".
In c. 24 it argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that
is
not merely " predestinatione ", for then he would be subsequent and therefore in-
ferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. "Sublata ergo praedestinatione quae non est
posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi institutionem"; c. 31: "Est ergo
deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(I), invisibilis, im-
mensus, immortalis, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo
aeternus,
filius natus est, non
sono percussi aeris aut tono coactae de visceribus vocis
qui in
accipitur, sed in substantia prolatae a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacrae et divinse
nativitatis arcana nee apostolus didicit..., filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta
cognovit. Hie 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, nee enim tempus illi assignari potest, qui ante tem-
pus est; semper enim in ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater ilium
patre,
etiam praecedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat
necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hie 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 origi-
nem 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 inaequalitate 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
aeternus pater, a quo solo haec vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et
directa rursus per substantiae communionem ad patrem revolvitur."
the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testa-
ment, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God's
book of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing,
(5) the unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from
freedom, and the inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two
Testaments, (8) Christ as God and Man, the unity of his
personality, the truth of his divinity, the actuality of his
humanity, the reality of his fate. (9) the redemption and
conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning
manifestation God's grace to all men, (10) the resurrection
of
of man and body. But the transmission and interpretation
in soul
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
was the means of establishing and
it
legitimising philosophical faith, will be

theology as part of the
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 ;
'
but that the other hope, viz.,
that of being was gaining adherents more and more.

deified,
The latter result was due to men's increasing indifference
to daily life and growing aspiration after a higher one, a longing
that was moreover nourished among the more cultured by the philo-
sophy 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, Ire-
naeus, and Hippolytus expressly declared this to be a legitimate
Christian hope and held out a sure prospect of its fulfilment
1
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).
3l8 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
through Christ, must have given the greatest impulse to the

spread and adoption of But, when
this ecclesiastical Christianity.
was represented as the belief in the incarna-
the Christian religion
tion 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. '
1
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.
CHAPTER VI.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL

TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION,
OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOL-
OG V AND DOGMA TIC OF THE CHURCH
Cleme?it a?id Origen.
The Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable impor-

tance 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.
i. The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement ofAlexandria}
" The work of Irenaeus still leaves it undecided whether the

form of the world's literature, as found inthe Christian Church,
1
Guericke, De schola, quae Alex, floruit catechetica 1824, 1825. Vacherot, Hist.
—
de l'ecole d'Alex., 1846 51. Reinkens, De Clemente Alex., 1850. Redepenning,
crit.
Origenes Thl. I. p. 57 Laemmer, Clem. Al. de Logo doctrina, 1855. Reuter,

flf.
Clem, theolog. moralis, 1853. Cognat, Clement d'Alex. Paris, 1859. Westcott, Origen
320 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
is destined only to remain aweapon to combat its enemies, or

is tobecome an instrument of peaceful labour within its own
territory." With these words Overbeck has introduced his examina-
tion of Clement of Alexandria's great masterpiece from the
standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied
to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian (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 faithitself. 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 eschatol-
ogy 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 theolog-

ical speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was
virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition,
with the hopes, and with the rules for a holy
early-Christian
life.But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases
even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the
and the beginnings of Christian Philosophy (Contemporary Review, May 1879).

Winter, Die Ethik des Clemens von Alex., 1882. Merk, CI. Alex, in seiner Ab-
hangigkeit von der griech. Philosophie, Leipzig, 1879 (see besides Overbeck, Theol.
Lit. Ztg., 1879. No. 20 and cf. above all his disquisitions in the treatise "Leber.
die Anfange der patristischen Litteratur," Hist. Ztschr. N. F., Vol.XIL, pp. 455— 472
Zahn, Forschungen, Vol. III. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford,.
1886. Kremmer, De heurematum, Lips. 1890. Wendland, Qusest. Musonianre,
catal.
Berol. 1886. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clem. Alex. z. antiken Mysterienwesen
(Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 647 ff.). On Alexander of Jerusalem see Routh, Reliq. Sacr.
T. II. p. 161 sq.; on Julius Africanus see Gelzer, Sextus Jul. Afr. I. Thl., 1880,
p. 1 ff., Spitta, Der Brief des Jul. Afr. an Aristides, Halle 1877, and my article
in the Real-Encykl. On Bardesanes see Hilgenfeld, B., der letzte Gnostiker, 1864,
and Hort's article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. On the labours in

scientific theology on the part of the so-called Alogi in Asia Minor and of the
Roman Theodotianists see Epiph. hasr. 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 praescr. hser. 8 ff. (cf. the first words of c. 8 : "Venio itaque ad
ilium articulum, quem et nostri prsetendunt ad ineundam curiositatem. Scriptum est,
inquiunt, Quserite et invenietis" etc.).

1
Chap, vi.] ORIGIN OF SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY 32
growing independence and might of the aspiration for a

scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that
is of Christian tradition. 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 which now possessed divine authority. 2
of Paul
Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appear-
ance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the
Church. 3 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 Caesarea), we learn
that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of
ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pur-
suits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian
kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on
philosophical which indeed, judged by a Western
theology,
standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a
theological school which maintained its ground in the third
1
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
is, under the sway of a tradition which was now
under altered circumstances, that
more and more firmly fenced round as a noli me tangere.
clearly defined
2 This was begun in the Church by Iremeus 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.
3 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.
21
century and attained great importance. l

In Palestine, during
the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Afri-
canus composed a series of books on scientific theology, which
were specifically different from the writings of Irenaeus and
Tertullian but which on the other hand show the closest relation-
;
ship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics.

His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus
and Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed
into certain parts of the
that the Church's had been drawn to problems of
attention
historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest
is subordinate to the historical, and in his Ksttoi, 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 y£lia and Theoktistus of Caesarea, 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 Christ-
ians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to
naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Euse-
bius (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
1
On the school of Edessa see Assemani, Bibl. orient, T. III., P. II., p. 924;
Von Lengerke, De Ephraemi 86 sq. Kihn, Die Bedeutung der
arte hermen., p. :
antiochenischen Schule etc., pp. 32 f. 79 f., Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, p. 54.

About the middle of the 3rd century Macarius, of whom Lucian the Martyr was a
disciple, taught at this school. Special attention was given to the exegesis of the
Holy Scriptures.
that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church,

but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking
proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school
of catechists in Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin
of this comes under our notice in the year
school, which first
190,
l
but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy
was concluded in Alexandria at a
in the West. later period than
We know further that the school
extended its of catechists
labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200,
and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pur-
suits there. * 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
a
In the Alexandrian school of catechists the
scientific interests.
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, Clement of Alexandria. 4
is
His main work is epoch-making. " Clement's intention is nothing
Overbeck, 455, has very rightly remarked: "The origin of the Alex-
1
I.e., p.
andrian school of catechists is not a portion of the Church history of the 2nd
century, that has somehow been
dark by a mere accident but a part
left in the ;
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 Pantaenus (with regard to him see Zahn, u 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.
2
On the connection of Julius Africanus with this school see Eusebius, VI. 31.
As to his Origen see the correspondence. Julius Africanus had,
relations with
moreover, relations with Edessa. He mentions Clement in his chronicles. On the
connection of Alexander and the Cappadocian circle with Pantaenus, Clement, and
Origen, see the 6th Book of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Alexander and Origen
were disciples of Pantaenus.
3 See my article "Heraklas" in the Real-Encyklopadie.
4 We have the most complete materials in Zahn, "Forschungen" Vol. III.

pp. 17—176. The best estimate of the great tripartite work (Protrepticus, Paeda-
gogus, Stromateis) is found in Overbeck, I.e. The titles of Clement's remaining
works, which are lost to us or only preserved in fragments, show how compre-
hensive his scientific labours were.
less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more cor-

rectly 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 making Christians perfect Christians by
speak, at first
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, how-
ever, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradi-
tion, 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. His great work, which has rightly
l
been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of

the Church,
2
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
1 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: "Qui*
dives salvetur", and to the 2nd and 3rd Books of the Pasdagogus.
Clement was also conscious of the novelty of his undertaking; see Overbeck,
2
/.<-., 464 f. The respect enjoyed by Clement as a master is shown by the letters
p.
of Alexander of Jerusalem. See Euseb., H. E. VI. 11 and specially VI. 14. Here
both Pantaenus and Clement are called "Father", but whilst the former receives
the title, 6 pxxtxpios w; x^Sii; xxi xvpiot;, the latter is called: tepb$ KAifpiK,
nvptcc [J.QV ysvoi/svOQ xxi wipsKfoxs y.e.

Chap. VI.] ORIGIN OF SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY 325
not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it
to and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the

another
province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge
and inward, intellectual assent emanating from love to God. 1
Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, as found in

tradition,can of itself produce the union of intellectual indepen-
dence 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 know-
ledge 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 ecclesias-
tical 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."
In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage
that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter
1 Strom. VI. 14, 109: ttXsov hrrh rov TTttrreva-xi to yvuvcu. Pistis is yvcStrii;
ruv y.xrexeiyovTuv (VII. 10.

<rvvTopt.o$ 57, see the whole chapter), Gnosis is
XKoSs&i; TUV OIX 7r/<7T£«S 7TXpSt^tilX.(/.SV(0V Tf, 7Tt'<TTSl STrOtKoSoiAOVlJieVy (I.C.), T£Ag/ft)(7/;
xvipuirov (I.e.), tt/o-t/? Ix/o-TJjôy/xi} (II. II. 48).
- We have here more particularly to consider those paragraphs of the Stroma-

teis 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: Oi/Se yxp ivSet rt xvtm xpo$ s%oimo1(d<tiv tZZ *.x\<i> text
xyxQZ elvxr ovSe xpx <pihs7 rivx Ttf/ Koivyv tx(itv\v (piht'xv, #AA' xyxxx tov xt/o-tjjv
Six rcov ktht/axtuv, Oi/V' ovv \-Kihxj\j.icf. xxi bpeiei tivi xepixixret oMire evSejt; erri
y.xrx ye r^v ôîjv twv xhhm tivo$ trvvwv i^>j $1' xyxxyt; tw spxa-ru, %> Si] caxei-
utxi y.xTx ry/v x'i'pe<riv xxi ry e% tovtu tt poire %etrrepov a-vveyy/ûv,

x(rx.v\<retac, eiei,
(ixy.xpioi &v Six Tjjv r&v xyxicSv 7reptov<rt'xv, mtne evexx ye tovtuv e%o{J.oioZ<T%xi
fiixêrxt tS SiSxo-y.xhu sit; xxxteixv. Strom. VII. 69 83: VI. 14, 1 13 ovrouc; Svvxpiv — :
XxQqvgx Kvpixxyv vi 4>vx>l 1-teKerS. eJvxi &edg, xxxbv (/.ev ovdsv «AAo TAiji/ xyvotxt;
ehxi vc/jliôvo-x. The whole 7th Book should be read.
;
exercised great influence over him. Moreover, Clement stands l
on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has

advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin
not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic
task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive
one but above all in the circumstance that he transformed the
;
tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far

more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin's time,
into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the
greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of
the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos

who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explana-
tion 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 counter-
part of the Old Testament law 2 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
1
Philo quoted by Clement several times and still more frequently made use
is
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.
2 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.
; kxvtodv :
Ijlsv xtTtoQ ruv xxAaiv 6 ®sos, xhh.x roSv (iev xxrx Trpotjyovfievov w? rfc re SixSyxyt;
t%$ irx^xtxt; xxi tjjs vex$, tuv Se xxr' \ts xxoAovfypx wc, tSj; <piAo<ro<pfxt;. rx%x $e
xxi irpovtyovpevoet; role, "EAA^/v kdoiy r6re npiv >? rov xvpiov xxhee-xi kxi tovq
"EAAijva!?. eirxiSxyuysi yxp xxi xvrij ro 'EAAjjwxov w? 6 v6po$ tov$ 'E(2pxi'ov$ sl$
Xpia-rov.
—
alone contain the possibility of man's raising himself to the

divine life. '
While this is already clear evidence of Clement's
affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same
similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the
task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal
principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition ; see above,
3
p. 35 f.), and in the solution of the problems. But Clement's
great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving
to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the
main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of master-
ing 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
See Bratke's instructive treatise cited above.
1
2 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
riot be got ridthough the incongruity was no doubt felt. Contempt for empir-
of,
icism, 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.
;
Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest

philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and
guarantee of the Church, and the whole Hellenic civilisation was
thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos
is Christ, the Logos is at the same time the moral and
but
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 revela-
tion is of a higher kind, wherever love to God alone determines
the wholeand exalts man above everything sensuous and
life
finite. What Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts

1
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 to his mind. 2 If we compare this theory with the
Clement was not a Neoplatonic mystic in the strict sense of the word. When
1
he describes the highest ethical ideal, ecstasy is wanting; and the freshness with
which he describes Quietism shows he himself was no Quietist. See on this
that
point Bigg's third lecture, I.e., "... The silent prayer of the
particularly p. 98
f.
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 Epop-
teia, 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."
2
What a bold and joyous thinker Clement was is shown by the almost auda-
cious remark in Strom. IV. 22. 136: si yovv rit; kx$' V7rd$etriv irpotefyrBi yvuo-TixiZ
TTOTSpov e^seHou fiovXoiro rijv yvutrtv rov ®eov % TVfv trurviptxv ryv xiuvixv, s'ivj Ss
rxvrx xexcopia-1/.hx 7rxvrb<; /zSAAcv ev txvt6tvts '6vtx, ovSs xxQ' otiovv Iittxtxc,
'shoiT~ xv ryv yvoaartv tov ®eov.
rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenaeus, we see clearly

the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and nar-
rowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he
understood and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture,
it
Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance

from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss
what apparatus he used for this end. Irenaeus again remained
entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the novum
testamentiun libertatis, his great work little conveys the impres-
sion 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 through-
out 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 secularisa-
tion lies in the cramped conception of Irenaeus, 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"
(xJb faspoTx nil ruv tcoKImv KXTxQxivijTaii rx vCp' vji/.iiv Xeyo(iev»
ruv xvpixxoov ypxtpuv, hriov on sxeiQev ctvxwvei rs xx) <•/, zx) rxg
xCpcppx: xtt" x-jtccv £%ovtx rh vdvv ,uovov, ou ryv &s%iv, TrxpiuTx-/

sTrxyysKKsTxi). l
No
Clement conceives the aim of the
doubt
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 good-
ness of God and the responsibility of man are the central ideas
of Clement and the Alexandrians they also occupy the foremost ;
place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must

avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how
far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy.
But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition
was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of
religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian
character of Clement's " dogmas " in acknowledging the evangelical
spirit of his practical position. What would be left of Christianity,
if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philo-
sophy, 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 inter-
preted; and the attempts of Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus and his
theological confreres 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 methods of religious philosophy vanishes,
trust in the
men will revert which will still be recognisable in
to history,
the preserved tradition, as prized by Irenaeus 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
i Strom. VII. I. I. 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. IO. 80: «toAAo< xxSx7rep 01 noiSei; rx ix.op(zohvx£7x, ovtoos SeSixrt rijv gAA»fv/K$y
tythctrotyixv, <pofioviJ.evci ixYj X7rxyxyy xvtov$. VI. II. 93.

; — 1
the history of dogma

is not associated with Clement, but with
his disciple Origen. 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 2 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
Clement did not possess
is that
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.
3
Now a sharp eye indeed perceives that Origen
1
Eusebius, H. E. VI. 14. 8, tells us that Origen was a disciple of Clement.
2 Clement's authority in the Church continued much longer than that of Origen
See Zahn, " Forschungen " III. p. 140 f. The heterodox opinions advanced by
Clement in the Hypotyposes are for the most part only known to us in an ex-
aggerated form from the report of Photius.
3 In antiquity all systematising was merely relative and limited,
ecclesiastical
because complex of sacred writings enjoyed a different authority from that
the
which it possessed in the following period. Here the reference of a theologou-
menon to a passage of Scripture was of itself sufficient, and the manifold and in-
congruous 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 doc-
trines, and, in certain circumstances, relieved the framer of the system of a great
part Hitherto little justice has been done to this view of the history
of his task.
of dogma, though it is the only solution of a series of otherwise insoluble pro-
blems. We cannot for example understand the theology of Augustine, and neces-
sarily create for ourselves the most difficult problems by our own fault, if we make no
use of that theory. In Origen's dogmatic and that of subsequent Church Fathers
so far as we can speak of a dogmatic in their case —
the unity lies partly in the
canon of Holy Scripture and partly in the ultimate aim; but these two principles
interfere with each other. As far as the Stromateis of Clement is concerned,
Overbeek (I.e.) has furnisheel the explanation of its striking plan. Moreover, how
personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious

theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more
tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which
here and there led him into compromises that remind us of
Irenaeus; but it was in connection with his work that the devel-
opment of the following period took place. It is therefore suf-
ficient, 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. l
Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was

the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He
proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense
of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that
theology which reached its complete development in the fourth
and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its
author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on
it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the
sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of
that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything
clear in Christianity; the antignostic Fathers had confused the
Church's faith and the science that treats of
it. Origen recog-
nised problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit
the
of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by
freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become
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.
1
treatises of Huetius (1668) reprinted by Lommatzsch.
See the Thomasius, Ori-
genes 1837. Redepenning, Origenes, 2 Vols. 1841 46. Denis, de la philosophic —
d'Origene, Paris 1884. Lang, Die Leiblichkeit der Vernunftwesen bei Origenes,
Leipzig, 1892. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes
(Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.). Westcott, Origenes, in the
Dictionary of Christian Biography Vol. IV. M oiler in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie,
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 Philosophic, 5th ed., p. 62 f.
what he two generations had not preceded him in paving

did, if
the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give
it a philosophical foundation. Like all epoch-making personalities,
he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though

he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family
which was faithfully attached to the Church, he lived at a time
when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted
peace and were being naturalised in the world he was a member ;
of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was

already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position
in an organised school. 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. 2
1
See his letter in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 19. 11 ff.
'-
In the polemic against Celsus it seems to us in not a few passages as if the
feeling for truthhad forsaken him. If we consider, however, that in Origen's idea
the premises of his speculation were unassailable, and if we further consider into
what straits he was driven by Celsus, we will conclude that no proof has been
advanced of Origen's having sinned against the current rules of truth. These, how-
ever, 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 hoy(j.xTinu^ but xyavto-TiKoSt;. Jerome also (ad Pammach. ep. 48, c. 13),
after defending the right of writing 7i//zv«o-t/xw;, 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
334 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. VI.
To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents

various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present
day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able
to unite the different materials ; but, considering the solidity of
his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot
doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts
of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect
and in another to the mass of Christian people. The narrow-
minded or the immature will at all times necessarily consider
such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious
and scientific conception of the world required the twofold lan-
guage. 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 Origen
!
is worked out in opposition
to thesystems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian
Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies
2
of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews. But the
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 "
1
See, above all, the systematic main work "xep) xp%av".
2 Many of Origen are pervaded by arguments, evincing equal discre-
writings
tion 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.
science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up

with the appliances of Philo's science, bears unmistakable marks
of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in
the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore
likewise after the fashion of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised
by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the
axioms current in of Valentinus and traceable in
the schools
Neoplatonism. method implied the acknowledgment
But, as this
of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in
the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theol-
ogy as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. Finally, however,
since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that
the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure
Church) is the sole possessor of God's holy revelations with whose
authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the
two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as
the absolutely reliable divine revelation. '
But, in addition to
these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule
of faith, was authoritative and holy. ' 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 het-
erodox 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
1
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, re-
peated by Origen. (See especially Clement, Strom. I. 5.28 —
32: 13. 57, 58 etc.); yet
he also acknowledges revelations of God in Greek philosophy (see, e.g., c. Cels.
VI. 3), and the Christian doctrine is to him the completion of Greek philosophy
<see the remains of Origen's lost Stromateis and Horn. XIV. in Genes. § 3; other
passages in Redepenning II., p, 324 ff.).
2
We must here content ourselves with merely pointing out that the method of
scientific Scriptural exegesis also led to historico-critical investigations, that accord-
ingly 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 problem, namely, the critical restoration of

another
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.
the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis
had extended its. horizon far enough to see that what the heretical
Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the
same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance
from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was
to Clement and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite
;
of the absolute attitude he had arrived at through the Christian

Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him
and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: yj
yvtoTiq xyxirq. y.x) rove xyvoovvrxq îSxTzei ts jcx) ttxi^susi rqv

Tapav Ktierai rou Qsov rtfixv, "Gnosis loves and
xavrOKpxropog
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. 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, 2 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 Neopla-
tonists, 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.
3
These rules made the true "sage"
1 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:
ftpoKsiTxi Si to7c £<; reteiwo-iv <r7rev$ov<riv is yvc3<rit; is Acyixii -fa ^[Mihioc, ij xyict
rpixi; 7T(crTiQ, xyxTrvj, lAx/s.

2 See the preface to the work'xsp* xpxZ*.
3 From the conclusion of Hippolytus' Philosophoumena it is also evident how
Chap, vi.] ORIGEN 337
abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and

"from burdensome appearance in public". They asserted that
the mind "can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself.
This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying
itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring
its own nature to and thus practising righteousness." Here
itself '
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 calm
his rich Ego and through
contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed
2
that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous 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
3
of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness. 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
4
world, trusting in the divine Logos, rich in disinterested love to
God and the brethen, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking
5
up with longing to heaven its native city, the created spirit
the Socratic rvwQi <rexvrov was in that age based on a philosophy of religion and
was regarded as a watchword in wide circles. See Clem. Paidag. III. II. 1.
See Gregory Thaumaturgus' panegyric on Origen, one of the most instructive

1
writings of the 3rd century, especially cc. 11 18. —

2
Yet all excesses are repudiated. See Clem. Strom. IV. 22. 138: Ovx gyxparfo
ovrot; '£ti, #AA' sv 'i%£t ysyovev xttxQsixs (txvijlx delov s7rsvSv<rxa-ixi xvxpevuv.
Similar remarks are found in Origen.
3 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.)
4 See the beautiful prayer of the Christian Gnostic in Strom. IV. 23. 148.
5 See Strom. IV. 26. 172: Origen's commentaries are continually interrupted by
similar outbursts of feeling.
22
33 8 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
attains its likeness to God and eternal bliss. It reaches this by

the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself
with the divine — " Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field
of eternity " —by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which,
however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of God, that
is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom ''The soul practises :
viewing herself as in a mirror she displays the divine Spirit in :
herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellow-
ship and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to

;
deification." Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic systems

'
of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.

With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramen-
tal element is still in the background, though it is not wanting.
To Origen's mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical

injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considera-
tions, (i) 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
become universally accessible through them. 3 (3) As the result
4
of these facts they did not possess sufficient power. In contrast
to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people
—
through Moses "Would to God the Jews had not transgressed
the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would
then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which
Plato has sought to describe " 5 —
and the Logos shows his universal
1
On deification as the ultimate aim see Clem., Strom. IV. 23. 149 — 155 : VII.
IO. 56, 13. 82, 16. 95 : otiTiac, 6 r& xvpi'cc 7rsi^6êvog xxt rjj SoSeiiry St' xvtov xxtx-
xohoviyo-xt; TTpo^Teix TShewt; ixrehtlrxi xxt'' elxdvx rov SiSxo-xxhov sv <rxpxi nspt-
•xoKwv ®edi;. But note what a distinction Clement makes between 6 &eoi; and the
perfect man in VII.15. 88 (in contradistinction to the Stoic identification); Origen
does this also.
13) relates that all the works of the poets and philosophers were
2 Gregory (1. c, c.
read in Origen's school, and that every part of these works that would stand the
test was admitted. Only the works of atheists were excluded , u because these
overpass the limits of human thought." However, Origen did not judge philo-
sophers in such an unprejudiced manner as Clement, or, to speak more correctly,
he no longer valued them so highly. See Bigg, I.e., p. 133, Denis I.e. Introd.
3 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.
4 See, for example, c. Cels. VI. 2.
'>
C. Cels. V. 43.
:
Chap. vr.J ORIGEN 339
power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism,

and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge
and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to,
and susceptible of, that which is good. '
1
One of Origen's main ideas, which we everywhere meet with, particularly in
the work against Celsus (see, for example, VI. 2) is the thought that Christ has
come to improve all men according to their several capacities, and to lead some
to the highest knowledge. This conception appears to fall short of the Christian
ideal and perhaps really does so but as soon as we measure it not by the Gospel
;
but by the aims of Greek philosophy, we see very clearly the progress that has
been attained through this same Gospel. What Origen has in his eye is mankind,
and he is anxious for the amendment not merely of a few, but of all. The actual
state of things in the Church no longer allowed him to repeat the exclamations
of the Apologists that all Christians were philosophers and that all were filled
with the same wisdom and virtue. These exclamations were naive and inappropri-
ate 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 be 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 sacra-
menium 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 Kept xp%uv IV. 2. 8—27) in order to lead men to the
spiritual interpretation, and as many passages contain no literal sense at all (I.e.
§ 12), so also, in the historical narratives, we frequently discover a mythical element

from which consequently nothing but the idea is to be evolved (I.e. § 16 sq.
"Non solum de his, quae usque ad adventum Christi scripta sunt, haec 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, sapientiae suae arte contexuit. Unde etiam in ipsis non
parva promiscuit, quibus historialis narrandi ordo interpolatus, vel intercisus per
Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its
varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed
the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals.
The Gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a
Scripture theology, '
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 theol-
impossibilitatem sui reflecteret atque revocaret intentionem legentis ad intelligent^

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 Scrip-
ture 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. Cel-
—
sum 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, ttoi'x xv #AAjj /SeAt/wv //.sioSot; 7rpo? to tc7$ ttoAAc/i;
fiotjQiio-xi svps6si>i, t»js xtto tov 'lytrov tc7s eSvstri 7rxpx§o6ei<riiG (I.e., 9). This
thought is quite and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could
in the spirit of antiquity,
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 histori-
cal greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the same
direction and rejected polytheism.
1
Bigg (I.e., 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."
1
ogy, 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 cosmol-
ogy, though themselves practically conditioned, do not
which,
seem be of this character. This also applies to Origen's
to
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, ' but the culminating
point is the judgment contained in § 7 : xxtx ft,h rov fiicv XpiT-
ix-kc: %uv kx) irxpxvdfAUt;, xxrx £f rxz 7rsp) tuu Tpxy^xrav y,x)
ov Cslcv 'Bo'Zxc 'EAAjfv/vWv y.x) rx '\LKavjvm toTs o&vsioig vtto$xK-
jjfiatog pMaiq. (" 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 observation from Origen's works and
verify this
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. 2 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 immov-
able, and only assumes such a complicated form here from its
3
relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ. The
1
Note, for example, § 8, where it is said that Origen adopted the allegorical
method from the Stoic philosophers and applied it to the Jewish writings. On
Origen's hermeneutic principles in their relation to those of Philo see Siegfried,
I.e., pp. 351 62. —
Origen has developed them fully and clearly in the 4th Book
of vspt xpx&v-
- See Overbeck, Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1878, Col. 535.
3 A full presentation of Origen's theology would require many hundreds of
Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history and ;
if thisdoes 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 (i) that Or igen
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. l
The
Gospel too only teaches the "shadow of the secrets of Christ; "
but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, " clearly
places before men's minds all things concerning the Son of God
himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things
of which his acts were the riddles" (<rx(pwc Tapia-Ttjtri ro7$ voovrt
TX 7TXVTX SVUTTIOV 7T£p) XVTOV TOV v'lOV TOV &£0V, Zx\ TX 7TXpi7TX{/,£VX
(AV<TTyptX V7T0 TCCV KoyOOV XVTOV, TX T£ 17 pxy^XTX, W xhl'/f/.XTX y,7XV
xl Trpx^stc xvtov)
2
No doubt the true theology based on revela-
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.
1 In c. Cels. III. 61 it is said (Lommatzsch XVIII., p. 337): sttsij.^^ ovv 0eo?
x6yoc, xx&b \jl\m Ixrpot; rent; x^xpTWôli;, xxQb $£ SiSxa-xxhot; Qet'uv [zvcrr^piuv rots
vihvi xxQxpott; xxi /z^xeri x^xprxvova-iv. See also what follows. In Comment, in
John I. 20 sq. the crucified Christ, as the Christ of faith, is distinguished from
the Christ who takes up his abode in us, as the Christ of the perfect. See 22
(Lomm. I. p. 43) : xxi \j.xxxpioi ye '01701 Seo/Aevoi tov viov tov ®eov toiovtoi
yeydvxo-iv, w? fiyxeTt xvtov Xf>vK £lv '^Tpov rovt; xxx&c, '£%ovtxc, Qepx7revovTOC, \ivi$e
%otiJ.ivo$, wSe #AA# vofyixc, xxi Xoyov xou Sixxioo-vvys, y

x7rohvTpcl)<recot;, ri xKXo e't
roli; Six tbMi6t^tx xwpelv xvtov tx xxXKio-rx Svvxpievotg. 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.
2 Comment, in Joh. I. 9, Lomm. I. p. 20. The "mysteries" of Christ is the
hap. vi.] ORIGEN 343
tion makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism,

and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken ;
but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen's system, whilst

the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philo-
sophy 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
knowledge have no history
objects of religious
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 of his theory proceeded from the top down-
construction
wards, he could find support for it on the steps of the regula
1
fidei, already developed by Irenaeus into the history of salvation.
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 purifica-
tion for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the
2
system, as far as its practical application is concerned. The pre-
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.
1
See Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 136.
2 To Origen the problem of evil was one of the most important: see Book III.
of xpx&v and c. Cels. VI. 53 59.

Trept
— He is convinced (1) that the world is
not the work of a second, hostile God; (2) that virtues and the works arising from
;
vailing contrast is between the one transcendent essence

that
and the The pervading ambigu-
multiplicity of all created things.
ity 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
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 66 VI. 54). Accordingly he makes a very decided
(see c. Cels. IV. :
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 conse-
quence of carrying out even the best intentions (c. Cels. VI. 53: rx xxxx ex
7rxpx>ioAovSjcr£ui; yeyevyrxi -rifc xpo? rx vrpoyyovtMevx) '• 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; (I.e., 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 Theodicy in Kept xp%G>v III. 17 22. (Here, and also in
the —
other parts, Origen's Theodicy reminds us of that of Leibnitz; see Denis, I.e.,
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 gi-eat 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:
to xvpt'oot; (jLtxpov X7rb xxxixc, roiovrov Btrrt. <t>vtTit; Si /tw/axtoi; oh //.ixpx- oh yxp
y <pv<ri$ 0-hHj.xroc, lo-rt, to yswyrixov tJjs [/.ixporviroc; &X £t r v xxxtxv); but a closer
*l
examination shows that there can be no man without sin (III. 61) because error is in-
separable 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 Irenseus, is developed by Origen
with the utmost clearness. He was not content with proving it, however, but in
order to justify God's ways proceeded to the assumption of a Fall before time
began (see below).
and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human

spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of God without
allowing his goodness to be called in question. The assumption

that created spirits can freely determine their own course is
therefore a necessity of the system

assumption is ; in fact this
one of its main presuppositions 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 Valen-
tinus, 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,
s
(3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration. Like Denis,
1
See Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Origenes (Zeit-
schrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II., p. 234 ff.)
- The distinction between Valentinus and Origen consists in the fact that the former
makes an aeon or, in other words, a part of the AWme pleioma, itself fall, and that he
does not utilise the idea of freedom. The outline of Origen's system cannot be
made out with complete clearness from the work %efi xpx&v, because he endeavoured
to treat each of the first three parts as a whole. Origen's four principles are God,
the World, Freedom, Revelation (Holy Scripture). Each principle, however, is brought
into relation with Christ. The first part treats of God and the spirits, and follows
the history of the latter down to their restoration. The second part treats of the
world and humanity, and likewise closes with the prospect of the resurrection,
punishment in hell, and eternal life. Here Origen makes a magnificent attempt to
give a conception of bliss and yet to exclude all sensuous joys. The third book
treats of sin and redemption, that is, of freedom of will, temptation, the struggle
with the powers of evil, internal struggles, the moral aim of the world, and the
restoration of all things. A special book on Christ is wanting, for Christ is no
K 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 mpt oipx^v, or the treatise against Celsus, or the commentaries
connectedly, we never cease towonder 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 downto the most naive 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
;
346 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. VI.
however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of

method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology,
Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen's fundamental
idea is "the original indestructible 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 specula-
tions of Greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have
only a propaedeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to
offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to them-
selves in the fulfilment of prophecy. On the other hand Origen '
assumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addi-

tion to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted
this deeper wisdom to a few 2 but, as a correct Church theol-
ogian, he scarcely made use of this assumption. The first
by his age. This we realise on reading Celsus or Porphyry (see Denis I.e., p. 613 :
" Toutes les theories d'Origene, meme les plus imaginaires, represent l'etat intel-
lectuel et moral du siecle oil il a paru"). Moreover, Origen is not a teacher who,
like Augustine, was
advance of his time, though he no doubt anticipated the
in
course its greatest men,
of ecclesiastical development. This age, as represented by
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 Cheek
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.
The proof from prophecy was reckoned by Origen among the articles belonging
1
c. Cels. II. 37): but, like the Apologists, he

to faith, but not to Gnosis (see for ex.
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 t/>o? txvtx S'vi^s fyvj- :
o-opsv of fi£teTvi<TccvT£c; pyZevi xTexixveaSxi t&v xxXuc, teyoixevuv, ttuv 01 s£« tsj?
Trio-recci; /.syua-i kx^cSq. In that same place it is asserted that God in his love has
not only revealed himself to such as entirely consecrate themselves to his service, but
also to such as do not know the true adoration and reverence which he requires.
But as remarked above, p. 338, Origen's attitude to the Greek philosophers is much
more reserved than that of Clement.
2 See, for ex., c. Cels. VI. 6, Comment in Johann. XIII. 59, Lomm. II., p. 9 sq.
Chap. vi.J ORIGEN 347
methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed

in the Church must not be tam-
in contradistinction to heresy,
pered with. 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" {ttittic IS/wtwcjj and xKoyoc), it only leads to a " somatic
Christianity" (%pi<TTixviT,ubc Tcoftxrizdc). It is the task of theology,
however, to decipher "spiritual Christianity" (%pi<7Tixvi<r[/Jc
Tvs'jpxTiy.cc) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to

knowledge and clear vision. This is effected by the method of
Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of
God. 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 must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of
that
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. 3 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 Old Testament more especially
nature: in the
most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily
find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain
1
Uspi xpx^v preface.
2 On Origen's exegetical method see Kihn, Theodor v. Mopsu. p. 20 ff, Bigg,
I.e. 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.
3
Origen noted several such passages in the very first chapter of (ienesis.
Examples are given in Bigg, p. 137 f.
348 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vr.
passages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneuma-
tic 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. When the '
Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders
by which he has reached this height. 2 He is then inwardly united
with God's Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires.
In most passages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal
value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures but in some he showed ;
that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the
receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his
relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ
the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed his Apostles ;
did not possess the same inspiration as he, and among the :J
Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspira-

tion 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
4
she could not satisfy.
1
^'SS? 1- c 'j nas very appropriately named Origen's allegorism " Biblical alchemy".
2 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).

3 See Horn, in Luc. XXIX., Lomm. V., p. 193 sq.
4 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 literaland its spiritual sense. —
See c. Cels. II. 1 4, 7, 75 IV. 31 sq. V. 10,
: :
30, 31, 42 sq., 66: VII. 26.

;
Chap, vl] ORIGEN 349
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREA-

TIONS. 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 depend-
ence, 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
determiningthe essence of God, he attributed self-consciousness and
will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus,
Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists). " The created is one thing
and the Self-existent is another, but both are connected together
1
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.
2 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 re-
gards the Deity as sTsxeivac rijs bvtri'zt; (c. Cels. VII. 42—51; vep) xf>x% v I- '5
Clement made a closer approach to the heretical abstractions of the Gnostics inas-
much as he still more expressly renounced any designation of God; see Strom. V.
12, 13), but he is not (2v6o$ and <Ttyj, being rather a self-comprehending Spirit,
and therefore does not require a hypostasis (the vovq) before he can come to him-
self. 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
;
as the created can only be understood from something self-
existent, so the self-existent is not without analogy to the created.

The Self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute
that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom
he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living,
and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek
philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a
doctrine of the attributes of God. Here he did not even shrink
from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will
be seen, he never thinks of God without revelation, and because
all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of
God indeed suffers from no limitation. God is potentially every-

where but he is everywhere only potentially that is, he neither
; ;
encompasses nor is encompassed. 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. But the omniscience and l
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; 2 secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot
produce things containing an inward contradiction God can do :
to thought, that is, elevated above it as something new, as is held by the Neopla-
tonists 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 (Pro-
trept. VI. 68; Strom. V. 13. 78), and extended the ideological proof of God fur-
nished by Philo (xepi <zpx&v I. I. 6; c. Cels. I. 23). The relatively correct predi-
cates of God to be determined from revelation are his unity (c. Cels. I. 23), his
absolute spirituality (weCpec xo-odij-xtoi;, zv*.ot;, z<txw<%ti<ttoi;) this is maintained —
both in opposition to Stoicism and anthropomorphism; see Orig. ire pi xp%wv I. 1,
Origen's polemic against Melito's conception of God, and Clem., Strom. V. 11.68:
V. 12. 82, — his unbegottenness, his immortality (this is eternity conceived as en-
joyment; 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 caus-
ality. All these concepts together constitute the conception of perfection. See
Fischer, De Orig. theologia et cosmologia, 1840.
1
Orig. ire ft ctpx&v II. 1. 3.
2 C. Cels. V. 23.
1
nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the

highest sense '
— thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in
itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the

extent of everything created must be limited
2
—fourthly, by the
impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing
3
elements. 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.

4
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 Irenaeus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed
the attributes of goodness and justice in God in opposition to
5
the Marcionites. 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 and prevent. Passions, anger, and
to improve, deter,
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 opposi-
tion 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)
1
L.c.
2 Ylept xf%G)v II. 9.1: "Certum est, quippe quod praefinito aliquo apud se numero
creaturas fecit: non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum est non habere crea-
turas; quia ubi finis non est, nee comprehensio ulla nee circumscriptio esse potest.
Quod si fuerit utique nee contineri vel dispensari a deo, quae facta sunt, poterunt.
Naturaliter nempe quicquid infinitum fuerit, et incomprehensibile erit." In Matth.,
t. 13., c. 1 fin., Lomm. III., p. 209 sq.
3 See above, p. 343, note 2.
4
See c. Cels. II. 20.
5 Clement also did so; see with respect to Origen vepi &px«> v H« 5? especially
§ 3 sq.
—— —
35 2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the peda-

l
gogus, is just.
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 Ori-
gen 's teaching about this Logos was not essentially different
from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory;
only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the
hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the Monarchians) more
2
clearly and precisely stated. Nevertheless the personal independ-
1
See Comment, in Johann. I. 40, Lomm. I. p. 77 sq. I cannot agree that
this view is a rapprochement to the Marcionites (contrary to Nitzsch's opinion,
I.e., p. 285). The confused accounts in Epiph., H. 43. 13 are at any rate not to be
taken into account.
2 Clement's doctrine of the Logos, to judge from the Hypotyposes, was perhaps
different from that of Origen. According to Photius (Biblioth. 109) Clement
assumed two Logoi (Origen indeed was also reproached with the same; see Pam-
phili 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). —
Aiyerxt \/.h these are said to have been
the words of a passage in the Hypotyposes xxt 6 vibe, hoyoc. oôjv^^mc tS 7rxrpticM
hoyta, <£aa' oi/x ovroc, e<7Tiv 6 <rxp% yev6(ievo$, 01/Se y.y\v 6 Trxrp&oc, hoyoq, xKKx
$vvx/x.ic, tic, tov ®sov, oiov x7r6ppoixxutov vovc. yevd/-ievoc, tx$ twv
tov hoyov
xvSpd)7rwv KxpS/xc. Six7T€<poiTiiKS. The between an impersonal Logos-
distinction
God and the Logos-Christ necessarily appeared as soon as the Logos was defin-
itely hypostatised. In the so-called Monarchian struggles of the 3rd century the
disputants made use of these two Logoi, who formed excellent material for sophis-
tical discussions. In the Strom. Clement did not reject the distinction between a
Aoyot; evStxisToc. and 7rpo<popi)c6t; (on Strom. V. 1. 6. see Zahn, I.e., 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 oôoduioc.
for the Logos, or at least an identical one (See Zahn, Forschungen III., pp. 87
ence of the Logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as

in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness
of God, the spiritual Activity of God. Hence he is on the one
hand the idea of the world existing in God, and on the other
the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of God.
The following are the most important propositions. The Logos '
who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1
and Heb. I. 1 , is the perfect image - of God. He is the Wisdom
138 f.). This is the more probable because Clement, Strom. 16. 74, expressly re-
marked that men are not n-epoi; 6sov xxi tw &su 6/j.oovo-ioi, and because he says
in Strom. IV. 13. 91 : ti swi rb xxtxKvvxi Oxvxtov aXpixvs'iTxt to Sixfyepov yevoc,
cvx Xpio-TOt; tov Sxvxtov xxTYipyvitrev, u /zij xxi xvtoc, xiirolq cpoovtrioQ Xt%fitiv\.
One must assume from word was
Clement as a design-
this that the really familiar to
ation of the community of nature, possessed by the Logos, both with God and
with men. See Protrept. 10. 1 10: 6 Qe7o<; Xiyo^ 6 tyxvepuiTxrot; 'ovtwq 0eo?, 6
tw Seo-irdTy twv oAwv sfyo-uSeici). In Strom. V. I. I Clement emphatically declared
that the Son was equally eternal with the Father: ov \jlv\v ov$s kxtvjp xvev viov-
xptx yxp tS TTxrvtp viov ttxtvip (see also Strom. IV. 7. 58: sv fj.lv to xysvvvjTOV
6 7txvT0KpxT<ap, %v $s text to 7t poytwybtv §f ov tx vxvtx eysvETO, and Adumbrat.
in Zahn, I.e., p. 87, where 1 John I. 1 is explained: "principium generationis
separatum ab opificis principio non est. Cum enim dicit "quod erat ab initio"
generationem tangit sine principio filii cum patre simul exstantis." See besides the
remarkable passage, Quis dives salv. 37: &ea tx tvic, xyxwyt; /tvo-Typix, xxi tots
£7ro7rT£vo'S(i; tov xoKwov tov 7rxTpd$, ''ov 6 [tovoyevvis vtbt; 0eo; i-tdvot; h£*tyyo~XTO' £(tti
le xxi xiiTOt; 6 @eo$ xyonrvj kxi <J<' xyxTyvxvexpxby xxi to //.sv xpp^TOv
v^yuv
xvtov 7rxTJp, to Ss vs/zlv a-vpn xfec, ysyovs wtvjp' xyxTya-xs 6 ttxtvjp efljjAt/v5j?, xxi
tovtov (zeyx <rm/.e~iov, "ov xvtoc, eyevvya-ev l£ xvtov xxi 6 Texîi i% xyx7ryc, xxpxbc,
xyxKy, But that named the Son
does not exclude the fact that he, like Origen,
xt'iu[j.x (Phot., I.e.). Son and Spirit are called "primiti-
In the Adumbrat. (p. 88)
ve virtutes ac primo creatse, immobiles exsistentes secundum substantiam ". That
is exactly Origen's doctrine, and Zahn (I.e., p. 99) has rightly compared Strom. V.
14. 89: VI. 7. 58; and Epit. ex Theod. 20. The Son stands at the head of the
series 2. 5; see also below), but he is nevertheless
of created beings (Strom. VII.
specifically differentfrom 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 (6 (/.ev ovv ®ebc, xvx7t6Ssixtoi; aiv ovx so-tiv e7rio-TtjiJ.ovixdc,
6 Ss vlbs <ro$ix ts so-ti xxi £7rto-Ty py) will hardly be found in Origen I think.
Cf. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 45 ff.
1
See Schultz, I.e., p. 51 ff. and Jahrbuch fiir protestantische Theologie I.
pp. 193 ff. 369 ff.
2 It is very remarkable that Origen ire pi xp%aiv 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
23
:
of God, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible

image of God. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal
in him and he is therefore really God, not xvrodsos, nor o &sbg,
'
nor wapxfii *PXfl (" beginningless beginning"), but the second

God. ' But, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that
is, he can never he can also in this
lose his divine essence,
respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however,
is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an
image of the Father's perfection). 3 Accordingly this deity is not
a communicated one in the sense of his having another inde-
pendent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity
rather constitutes his essence : o (jcorv,p ov y.xrx (teroviriav, x?.).x
zxr' ofotxv ear) Ssoc
4
(" the Saviour is not God by communica-
tion, but in his essence"). From this it follows that he shares in
the essence of God, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly
SfioovcrtOf tx TTxrpi ("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. 5 But having
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."
1
Tlepi xpxobv I. 2. 2, 6.
2 The expression was familiar to Origen as to Justin (see Dial. c. Tryph).

See c. Cels. V. 39 : Keel Ssvrspov ovv hiyu(j.ev ®sov 'i'o-two-xv, b'rt rbv Sevrepov &ebv
olix. «AAo Tt êyo/zsv, $ ryv 7repi£XTociiv 7rxircSv xpsruv aperifv xxi rbv Trspisxrtxbv
7rxvrbt; ouTivotrovv hoyov twv xxtx Qivpiv xxi 7rpo>tyoviêvci)i; yiyEvypevoov,
3 nepi xpxav I- 2. 13 lias been much corrupted by Rufinus. The passage must have
been to the effect that the Son is indeed xyecibt;, but not, like the Father, x-xxpxX-
XxxTtdt; xyxibt;
4 Selecta in Psalm., Lomm. XIII., p. 134; see also Fragm. comm. in ep. ad
Hebr., Lomm. V., p. 299 sq.
5 L.c. :
" Sic et sapientia ex deo procedens, ex ipsa substantia dei generatur. Sic nihil-
ominus et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhceae esse dicitur aporrhcea glorias
omnipotentis pura quajdam et sincera. Qua? utrasque similitudines (see the beginning of
the passage) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantia? esse filio cum patre.
Aporrhcea enim opoovrtOQ videtur, id est, unius substantia; cum illo corpore, ex
quo est vel aporrhcea vel vapor." In opposition to Heracleon Origen argues (in
Joh. XIII. 25., Lomm. II., p. 43 sq.) that we are nothomousios with God
STTt<7rv\(7UiJ.ev Ss, si [j.v\ tr<pbSpx so-tiv xtrefiet; 6\j.oo\j<7iov$ Ty xyevvyrw (pva-ei KXI
77X(/.(j.XKXpix
i
slvxi Aeystv roi/<; Trpoa-Kvvovvrxt; hv Trvevfixn ru ®su. On the meaning
of 6(/.oo6<rio$ 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
:
proceeded, like the will,he was always with God from the Spirit, ;
there was not a time when he was not, nay, even this expres- '
sion 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. 2 It is the theology
of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up :i
st$ xvpios, [jlo-k: ex ftcvcv, Qsbc ex <r)sou, %xpxxrvip xx) iizocv rijc
(isirv-oq, ?.o yo:

i
hspyoc, (roCpix rijc toov okoov Tutrrxtrsac 7rspi£xnx^
xx) tivvctftiq r>js oXyc xt'itsuz ttciyiTix'/i, xjioc xXvjQwoz xXy,Qivou Tvxrpoc,
xizxroz xopxrov xx) xQQxpro: xQQxprov xx\ xQxvxto: Mxvxtov xx)
One Lord, one from one, God from God, impress
aiîcc xidicv. ("
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 in-
corruptible 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 7rpo(3o?.>i is not found, so far as I
says nothing about how

came to have one essence and in what measure they
they
possess it. On hand it abolishes the distinction of persons the moment
the other
the essence itself is identified with the one person. Here then is found the Unitar-
ian danger, which could only be averted by assertions. In some of Origen's
teachings a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Horn. VIII. in
Jerem. no. 2 : To (/.tv v7roxei(/.evov ev so-ti, txiq $s sttivoIxic, rx TroAAas ovo^xtx ItI
Stxôpwv. 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).
1
Ovk '£<rriv ore oux >iv, de princip. I. 2. 9 ; in Rom. I. 5.
2 Uspi ocpx®'' I- 2. 2 — 9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr. Lomm. V., p. 296 "Nunquam
:
est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non, sicut de seterna luce diximus, innatus,
ne duo principia lucis videamur inducere, sed sicut ingenitse lucis splendor, ipsam
illam lucem initium habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa sed non erat quando ;
non erat." See the comprehensive disquisition in Kept xpx^v 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: to omxvyxriix Tij? I6%v& ov%t xkoc% ysyivvyTeci, xxi oh%i yevvxrxi KXt .
, .
Azl yewxrxi 6 o-uri^p t/rro rov 7rxTpdt;; see also other passages.
3 See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., 10.
p.
"
know '
is — but
rather to be designated as an act of the will
arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason
is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced
is really a personally existing being he is not an impersonal ;
force of the Father, though this still appears to be the case in

some passages of Clement, but he is the " sapientia dei substan-
tialiter ("the wisdom of God substantially existing")
subsistens
2
"figura expressa substantiae patris " (express image of the Father's

substance"), "virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens" (a
second force existing in its own characteristic fashion "). He is,

and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an "animal
vivens" with an independent existence.' He is another person, 4
namely, the second person in number. 5 But here already begins
Origen's second train of thought which limits the first that we
have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its " first
cause" (7rpcoTov stfouv) in God, the Son is " that which is caused
(xiTixroy),moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends
in all the forms that are to have an active existence,
himself
the Son is no longer an absolute simplex like the Father. He G
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 begin-
1 In Tepi xp%&v IV. 28 the prolatio is expressly rejected (see also I. 2. 4) as

u
well as the "conversio partis alicuius substantia; dei in filium" and the procreatio
ex nullis substantibus."
2 L.c. I. 2. 2.
3 L.c. I. 2. 3.
4
De orat. 15: "Erspoi; x«t' ol<rlxv xxi v7roKeif/.evov 6 viot; 1<j-ti tov nxTpoc;. This,
however, is not meant to designate a deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the
personal distinction.
5 C. Cels. VIII. 12. : Svo ry vxoo-Txeet xpxynxTX. This was frequently urged
against the Monarchians in Origen's commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc.
The Son exists kxt' IStxv t»j« ovtrtxt; 7repiypx<pjv. Not that Origen has not yet the
later terminology ovo-ix, vwoa-rxirit;, vxoKeii/.evov, np6<TW7rov. We find three hypostases
in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly the case in c. Cels.
6 In Joh. I.22, Lomm.

p. 41 sq. 6 ©so? fiiv olv ttxvtvi '4v 1<tti xxl xttAovv
I., :
6 51 trurvip iinuv Six rx kqXXx. The Son is i$sx i$eav, <tv<ttwj.x isapypxTuv kv-
xvtui (Lomm. I., p. 127).
ning. '
As sooa 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 xrhfia and $tf(itoupytt{**i but all the utterances
about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. nowhere We
find the express assertion that this quality is inferior or of a different
kind when compared with that of God; but these utterances
lose force when it is asserted that complete similarity
their
between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world.
We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in Christ
to be the manifestation of the Deity but, from God's standpoint,
;
the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and subordinated to

him. ' 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. s 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. 4
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 ;
1
See the remarks on the saying: "• The Father is greater than I," in Joh. XIII. 25,
Lomin. II., p. 45sq. and other passages. Here Origen shows that he considers the homo-
ousia of the Son and the Father just as relative as the unchangeability of the Son.
2 Uspi xpx&v II. 2. 6 has been corrupted by Rufinus; see Jerome ep. ad Avitum.
3 See 7repi xp%uiv I. 2. 13 (see above, p. 354, note 3).
4
supplemented
Athanasius this by determining the essence of the Logos from
the redeeming work of Christ.
whether he be created or uncreated, and whether hetooistobe

considered the Son of God or not. As the third hypostasis, Origen 1
reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him
after the analogy of the Son, without producing an impressive
proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became
the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter as
the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is sub-
ordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through
2
the Son. Here Origen was following an old tradition. Considered
quantitively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most
important consideration, the Spirit's sphere of action is the
smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son
has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified,
that is Church
in this he has to
the rule over and per-
;
Father, Son, and Spirit form a rpixg ("triad") to which

1
'
fect.
nothing may be compared they are equal in dignity and honour, ;
and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not

4
one of Rufinus' corrections, Origen said Nihil in trinitate maius :
minusve dicendum est cum unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione

5
sua teneat universa" ("nothing in the Trinity is to be called
greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his
parts by word and reason"). But, as in Origen's sense the union
of these only exists because the Father alone is the " source of
deity" {jrvrA *%$ and principle of the other two hypo-
Qsotyitoc)
stases, 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
1
1
See 7rspl xpxwv praef. and in addition to this Hernias view of the Spirit.
2 nepi xpxuv I. 3. The Holy Spirit is eternal, ever being breathed out. but
is
is to be termed a creature. See also in Joh. II. 6, Lorara. I., p. 109 sq. to xyiov :
%vev(j.x $icc tov x6yov eyevsro, Trpea-^vTspov (logically) oratp' cthro rov hoyov rvy-
XxvovTcq. Yet Origen is not so confident here as in his Logos doctrine.
3 See Kept »pxuv 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).
4 L.c. § 7.
5See Horn, in Num. XII. 1, Lomm. X, p. 127: "Est hoec trium distinctio per-
sonarum in patre et filio et spiritu sancto, quse ad pluralem puteorum numerum revo-
catur. Sed horum puteorum unum est fons. Una enim substantia est et nntura
trinitatis."
hap. vi.] ORIGEN 359
r:
Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence
of God, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery
beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling

or at least the greatest narrowness of conception.
The more closely associated
idea of createdness was already
with Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still
the
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. With Clement even the association
'
of the Son and Holy Ghost with the great angelic spirits is as
'
2
yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions. Origen
was more cautious in this respect. 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 (xpoxomi). 4
Growth is conditioned by freedom :
••
omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpa; cap ax : laudzs, si
secundum rationem, quam in se habet. ad meliora proficiat, culpa,
b
si rationem recti declinet" ("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
1
TJspi zpx$v prsef.
2 From and Athenagoras we learn how, in the 2nd century,

Hernias, Justin,
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
between Logos and Spirit
living in the flesh, there cannot fail to be elements of affinity
on one hand and the highest angels on the other, all of whom indeed have
the
the capacity and need of development. Hence they have certain names and pre-
dicates 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.
3 Uspi zpxwv I. 5.
4
So also Clement, see Zahn, I.e.
4 Tlepl xp%S>v I. 5. 2.
360 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vr.
characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created

spirit.
1
In this goes beyond the assumption of
thesis Origen
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 changeable 2 ) 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 spir-
itual is indestructible. Sub specie ceternitatis then, the mere ,
communication of the divine element to the created spirit 3 is

not a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom but the ;
absolute necessity of the created spirit's developing itself merely

appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this
conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that
the freedom of nature? rationabiles consisted in the possibilitas
utriusque, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from
this To the naturce rationabiles, which have different
freedom.
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 everything 4 in virtue ;
of their origin they are equal, for their original community with
1
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.
"
J
See Comm. in Joh. XIII. 25, Lomm. II., p. 45 : we must not look on the
human spirit as opoov/rios with the divine one. The same had already been expressly
taught by Clement. See Strom., II. 16. 74: 6 ©eo? ovSepixv %%tt Tpbt;{iizx$<pvtTiKiiv
<r%i(Ttv Adumbr., p. 91 (ed. Zahn). This does
uq of raiv xlpio-tuv xtio-txi 8ehov<riv.
not exclude God and souls having quodammodo one substance.
3 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.
4 xp%wv I. 2. 10: "Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius non
Tlepi
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 dep ut omni-
potens ostendatur deus, omnia subsistere necesse est." (So the Hermogenes against
whom Tertullian wrote had already argued). "Nam si quis est, qui velit vel
ssecula aliqua vel spatia transisse, vel quodcunque aliud nominare vult, cum non-
dum facta essent, quse facta sunt, sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis sreculis
vel spatiis omnipotens non erat deus et postmodum omnipotens factus est." God
would therefore, it is said in what follows, be subjected to a Kpoxoirvi, and thus
be proved to be a finite being. III. 5. 3.
1
the Logos permits of no diversity '

; 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
2
are burdened with a kind of bodily nature, 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. Now
;
:t
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 natures
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 exposi-
tion in xspi »p%m II. 9. 2).
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. All
created must develop.
spirits When they have done so, they
4
attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.
In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity,
laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an
endless multiplicity of ways. '"
The disciplining and purifying
1
nspi &p%uv I. 8.
2 Here,however, Origen is already thinking of the temporary wrong develop-

ment, that is of growth. See ire pi apx&v I. 7. Created spirits are also of them-
selves immaterial, though indeed not in the sense that this can be said of Clod
who can never attach anything material to himself.
a 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 Pantrenus 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 irepi xpx^v I. 7, belong to the number of the angels.
This is Greek idea. The doctrine of the pree'xistence of human souls
a genuinely
was probably by Clement in the Hypotyposes. The theory of the trans-
set forth
migration of souls was probably found there also (Phot. Biblioth. 109). In the
Adumbrat., which has been preserved to us, the former doctrine is, however, con-
tested and is not found in the Stromateis VI. 16. I. sq.
4
Phot. Biblioth. 109: KAafrttK ttoAAoi/; irpo too 'A$as^ Koo-povs rspatTSverxi. This
cannot be verified from the Strom. Orig., irepi xp%cAv II. 3.
5
nepi <zp%6iv I. 5 and the whole 3rd Book. The Fall is something that
happened before time began.
3^2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world
was created by God. l
It is therefore a place of purification,
ruled and harmoniously arranged by God's wisdom. 2 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 restitu-
tion, guide the world, are servants of God {xyys/.oi), 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 the demons, but lightened by the angels, 3 for these
spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon
1
The assumption of uncreated matter was decidedly rejected by Origen (vepi
xpxoav'U. 1, 2). On the other hand Clement is said to have taught it in the
Hypotyposes (Phot., I.e. : vAyv xxpovcv So£x%st) ; this cannot be noticed in the
Strom.; in fact in VI. 147 he vigorously contested the view of the uncreated-
16.
ness 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).
2 This conception has given occasion to compare Origen's system with Bud-
dhism. Bigg. (p. 193) has very beautifully said: "Creation, as the word is com-
monly understood, was views not the beginuing, but an intermediate
in Origen's
phase in human Êons rolled away before this world was made: aeons
history.
upon aeons, days, weeks, months and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of aeons
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.
3 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. See Tepi xpx&v III. 2 and numerous passages in the Commentaries
and Homilies, in which he approves the kindred views of the Greeks as well as of
Hennas and Barnabas. The spirits ascend and descend; each man has his guard-
ian spirit, and the superior spirits support the inferior (ptpl xpx^v I. 6). Accord-
ingly they are also to be reverenced (ispx7revs<r5xi); yet such reverence as belongs
to a Gabriel, a Michael, etc., is far different from the adoration of God (c. Cels. VIII. 13).
— — -
the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject

to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the
guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for
itself a limit in freedom. Evil, however, and it is in this idea
'
that Origen's great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the

end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing
real; it is "nonexistent" {ovx ov) and "unreal" (xvj7ro<7TZTsv).
For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from God
must finally cease even the devil, who, as far as his being is
;
concerned, resulted from God's will, cannot always remain a

devil. The spirits must return to God, and this moment is also
the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate
3
phase.
According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in
Origen's view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same
extent as he is with the other Fathers, 4 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,
1
Clement wrote a special work ntpl npcvoixs (see Zahn, Forschungen III., p. 39 ff.),
an d treated at length of Trpcvo/x in the Strom. ; see Orig. Kept xp%&v III. 1 ; de
orat. 6 etc. Evil is also subject to divine guidance; see Clem., Strom. I. 17. 81
87: IV. 12. 86 sq. Orig. Horn, 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).
2 Tlspi "Recedere a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo.

x.p%5bv II- 9- 2:
Ceterum namque est, malum esse bono carere. Ex quo accidit. at in quanta
mensura quis devolveretur a bono, in tantam mensuram malitire deveniret.'' In
the passage in Johann. II. 7, Lomm. I., p. 115, we find a closely reasoned ex-
position of evil as xvv?t6ttxtov and an argument to the effect that tx vevypx
are ptii '6vrx.
3 nspi xpx&v 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 (I.e., and in
Joh. II. 7, Lomm., I.e.).
Origen defended the teleology culminating in man against Celsus' attacks on

«
it; his assumption that the spirits of men are only a part of the universal
but
spirit world is, as a matter of fact, quite akin to Celsus' view. If we consider the
plan of the work yrspi xp%5iv we easily see that to Origen humanity was merely
an element in the cosmos.
because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced

the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly,
because the rational soul can neverin 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 one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a

the
course opposed to God, and, on the other, that which is rational
and free in man must be shown to be something remaining
intact. Man's struggle consists in the endeavour of the two
'
factors forming his constitution to gain control of his sphere of

action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains likeness to
God the image of God he bears beyond danger of loss in his
;
2
indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit. Victory,
however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts
and passions. A No doubt God affords help in the struggle, for
nothing good is without God, 4 but in such a way as not to
interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a
1
The doctrine of man's threefold constitution is also found in Clement. See
Psedag. III. 1. 1 5 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 ^vx>i hoyixt. 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 one, became as were a soul, and
it
can develop from that condition partly into a spirit as before and partly into the
flesh (see xsp) xpx&v III. 4. 1 sq. : II. 8. 1
— 5). By his doctrine of the preexistence
of souls Origen excluded both the creation and traducian hypotheses of the origin
of the soul.
2 Clement some
(see Strom. II. 22. 131) gives the following as the opinion of
Christian teachers : to (tiv y.xr' sikovx ev&ewt; xxrx t>jv ysveo-iv elhycpevxt rbv xvQpw-
ttov, to ax^ 6/j.oiCiii7iv Ss va-repov kxtx tjjv 7re}.eiai<Ttv \j.ikteiv xTrohx/zfixvsiv. Orig.
c. Cels. IV. 30 : tTroiyo-z 5'c ©go? rbv xvbpwxov kxt* bIkovx ®sov, «AA' ot/%; v.x^
Sizoiuo-iv VfSvj.
3 This follows from the fundamental psychological view and is frequently

emphasised. One must attain the a-oxpopo-vvvj.
4 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 ^/S? ££ ^fti" :
xlroov fiovhZTXi a-wêoSxi.

:
matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits ; all men are

met with and are so, for they were already sinners.
as sinners 1
Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the

weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin. ' 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 appearance" it does not avail against the constitution of

man and the sinful habit propagated in human society. 4 All
must be sinners at first, 8 for that is as much their destiny as
is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man's
6
material nature.
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" (0 (r>sbg ypxc i£
vj^-j z-jTccv iZc-Jterzi tcc^sjOxi) is quite as true as the other state-
1
See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the univer-
sality of sin in the strongest expressions:! c. Cels. III. 61—66: VII. 505 Clem.,
Poed. III. 12. 93 : to e^x/j.xprxveiv ttxo-iv epfyvrov.
2 See Clem., Strom. VII.
16. 101 ftupim yovv 'ovruv kxt' xpidfibv x irpxtrarovo-iv
:
xvipairot tx^Sov Svo elviv xp%xi ttx<t^q x/x-xprixi;, xyvoix xxi xtrSeveix, 'x.[i.$(ti l\ hep'
yiIjuv, tZv pyre hSehovrwv pxvQxvsiv pyre xv rvji; eTiSuizixg xpxrelv. Two remedies
correspond to this (102) »j yvutrii; re xxi *i t%q ex tuv ypxtywv i-txprvplxt evxpyifi
:
X7rc§ei£t$ and % xxrx Adyov x<rv.y<ric; ex iriarewc, re xxi tyofiov nxtSxywyoviJt.e'vy, or

otherwise expressed: vi Sewpt'x % e7rnmii/.ovixy and ^ 7rpS|/?, which lead to perfect love.
3 Freedom is by the idea of election that is found here and
not prejudiced
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 (7rpoupi<rev) him to son-
ship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107.
4 C. Cels. III. 69.
5 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 Cels. IV. 40; Kept xp%wv IV. 16; in Levit. horn. VI. 2. In his later writings,
c.
after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Caesarea 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 preexisting 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. horn. 2
(
Bi gg P- 2 ° 2 f-)-
5
6
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 Joh. XIII. 43 ad fin
II. 24, 25 ; in Matth. XII. 30.
ment that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellow-

ship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction. :
They
moreover hold that the Logos, through his various
after passing
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 hap-
piness men, however different their capacities may be.
to all
Finally, assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures,
it is
from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons,

have the capacity and need of redemption while for the highest ;
stage, the "spiritual Church", there is an eternal Gospel which

is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This
eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God's highest
intentions,and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures. 2 These
elements compose Origen's doctrine of revelation in general and
3
of Christ in particular. They presuppose the sighing of the
creature and the great struggle which more especially carried is
on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and

demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute
the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do
so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos
has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen's teaching
corcerning 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
1
Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace.
2 See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim
and all spiritualists.
3 See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tiibinger Theologische

Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches,
1 85 1. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51—62.
lead men
back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the
spirits,and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos
that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case
of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons
and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of
Valentinus. He had, as the " Godman," to make a sacrifice which
represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which
put an end to the devil's sovereignty over men's souls, and in
short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to
all. To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant
'
1
With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in
Irenreus 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 Accordingly he propounded views as to
have any moral value.
the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ's death on the cross,
with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg
{p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul's time that
gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important
of his views, (i) 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. VII. 31; in Rorri. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm.
17: I.
VI., pp. 196—216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom
paid to the devil. This
view must have been widely diffused in Origen's time;
it suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Mar-
readily
cionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of
a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians.
By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right
cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ's soul in
exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, in-
sincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ's soul, because
a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain
and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but
overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion
in different places (see Exhort, ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV.,
p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224— 229; in
Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 shows in a specially clear way the con-
sq. etc.),
servative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea-
he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart

in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might
now partake of his life and themselves become divine through
being interwoven 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 up-
ward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of
the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal
Gospel. l
What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or
No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applica-
bilityof popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici.
We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity
towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered
as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the
above-mentioned conceptions of Christ's work were, moreover, worked out by
Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences
from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought
as Irenseus. 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). on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing
Yet,
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 every-
where found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While
he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared:
svtrepia-TEpoi itr/iev xxt ©gov xxi rx xyxK\j.xTX o-ifiovret; (Clemens Rom., Horn.
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)
1
See above, 1 on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no
p. 342, note ,
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 itxiqa-K; and pvirTxywyix, 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: 'AAA«
yxp xxi tjJv xxtx(Zxvxv Bit; xvSpaiTivifv (pvtriv xxt sig xv8pw7rfvxt; Tspitrrxa-eit; Svvxpiv,
xxt xvxhxfiovtrxv 4>vx$v text <roi[j.x xvQpo37rtvov, eupwv ex rov 7rt<TTeveoSx( perx ruv
Seiorepuv trv[/.fixKho(jLeviiv tic, erwrypi'xv toiq 7riffrevoviTiv SpcSo-iv, anr* exeivov tfpzxTO
Us ix xxi xv$pw7rtvii vvvvtyxivstrSxt (pva-iQ- 'A* vi xv^pu7fivvj ry 7rpot; to Setorepov xotvaivix

yivvjTXi Qsix ovx iv (iovta tu> 'Iijo-oO, xKKx xxi xxTt tg7? /zstx too xta-rsveiv xvxKxf/.-
fixvovo-f (2/ov, b'v 'lyrovs eSi'Sxt-evx.
'
less valuable appearance — namely, the historical work of Christ

— was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view
it as the truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as a
truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of
Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more
limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the
perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal
life. Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradic-
tions 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 death of Christ on the cross is the turning-
point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and hell.
On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed
his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the
Redeemer, God-man, could not but be as many-
this Christ, the
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 homoge-
neous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol
of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, how-
ever, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced
is ultimately be accounted for by the fact that this very
to
speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances
about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being
the highest one. The whole " humanity" of the Redeemer together
with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect
one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which
became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect
one, and this remark also applies to Clement's perfect Gnostic,
thus knows no " Christology ", but only an indwelling of the
1
From this also we can
very clearly understand Origen's aversion to the early
Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work
of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a most
important influence on his frame of mind and on politics.
24
—
37° HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, vi
Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same

Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity
of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The
former no question, because speculation, starting above and
is
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. His doctrine was 1
accordingly as follows As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos

:
could not unite with matter, because this as ov would have m

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
1 Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth.

109) reproached him with these (/-tij <rxp>ca)$%vcci rov Xoyov oihXct Sd%xi), 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
manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo
extrinsecus, tangens
reluctatam esse, sed locum manui prsebuisse discipuli," and likewise from Strom. VI.
9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement's repudiation of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does
not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man,
and spoke of his flesh (Paed. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. no) matters just as little. This
teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted
the apparent reality of Christ's body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew
neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the
Docetists (Strom. VI. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen's case
appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.
1'
connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real

union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceas-
ing 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. humanity of the body, however, does not exclude
This
its all possible qualities the Logos wishes
capacity of assuming
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 (zoivuvlx, %vu<riq, xv<zxpjc<rig)
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.
1
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 jj-vittikyj 7rxpx$otrit; of the Church, and was not first
broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real Sezvtlpaiwot;
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 «p%«v IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ
its pi
and yet, as before, the Logos operated wherever he wished (1. c, 30): "non ita
24*
In this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible

"heresies": — the conception of Jesus as a heavenlyman but —
all men are heavenly; —the Adoptianist (" Ebionite ") Christology
—but the Logos as a person stands behind it; — the conception
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
nee usquam prseterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse
confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus
a paterna substantia, quae ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio." On the perfect
ethical union of Jesus' soul with the Logos see icepi xp%&v H- 6. 3 :
" anima Iesu
ab initio creaturae et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhserens 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 iusti-
tiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhsereret,
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 became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man
thus
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," "nee convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest" (I.e.). "Dilectionis merito
anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur." (II. 6. 4). T/? nxKhov rvtc, 'lyo-ov
4* V X%? $ *xv TcxpxicXya-iwt; Key.bXK^rxi tu tcvpfui oictp el o'vtwc, e%ei ovk elo-i Svo ; v\
Tpv%*l T °v 'lyo-ov icpb$ rbv icxo-yt; xrio-enic, ic pour or okov ®ebv x6yov (c. Cels. VI. 47).
The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in ice pi xp%5bv II. 6. 2 :
" Substantia animse inter deum carnemque mediante non enim possibile erat dei —
naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere nascitur deus homo, ilia substantia media —
exsistente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus
anima ilia, Even
utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum."
during his body of Christ was ever more and more glorified,
historical life the
acquired therefore 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 "Ov \j.ev vo/iiô/iev kxi iceiceio-fêSx txp%y&ev elvxi ®ebv kxi vibv ®eov, ovroc,
:
6 xvroX6yo$ ea-ri xxi ft xliroo-ofyix kxi y xvroxhy&etx- rb Se Svyrbv xvrov o-wpcx kxi
T>fv xv$ p 001c ivy v ev xvru ip v
X^ v T V ""po? exelvov ov \movov xotvaivtx, xhhx kxi ivcoo-ei
kxI xvxxpxo-ei, rx [leyio-rx (px/tev icpocreiXYityivxi kxI rvi$ etteivov Hedryros KeKoivw-
vvikotx eli; ®ebv /zerxpefiyKevxi. 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: el vyivj rx roixvrx, ri
Qxvpxe-To'v, rv\v icoioryrx rov Qvyrov Kxrx rbv 'lya-ovv trw/txroi; icpovoici ®eov fiovfy-
6evro$ (/.erxfixhelv el% xiieptov kxi Seixv icotdrvjrx -, The man is now the same as
the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq.; Horn, in Jerem. XV. 6,
Lomm. XV., p. 288 : el kxi yjv xvQpooicoc;, «AA« vvv ovSxpioliQ ea-riv xvbpcaxoi;.
Chap. vi.] ORIGEN 373
of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal the Gnostic separa- ;
tion of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of

fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of
them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some
extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the
slightest logical analysis. This structure is so constituted that
not a stone of it admits of being a hair's-breadth broader or
narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely
unemployed by Origen, that is, the modalistic view. Origen is
the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplic-
ity 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. The Logos 1
retains his human nature eternally, 2 but only in the same sense
in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection.
The significance which this Christological attempt possessed
for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the
energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ's
humanity, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a
creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a
meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen 's
Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is,
by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important
advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christol-
ogy in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity
of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christol-
ogies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something
1
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 xMxttso-Qxi xxi (/.STxvhxTTttrQxi of the Logos is decidedly rejected;
for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen's case we may speak of a com-
mtinicalio idiomatum (see Bigg, p. 190 f.).
2 In opposition to Redepenning.
indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt

to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice
to the Logos, in nature and person. No Greek philosopher
God
probably heeded what Irenaeus set forth respecting Christ as
the second Adam, the recapitulatur generis hutnani; whereas
Origen's speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the
Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the
same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the God-
man 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 applied to the
historical Christ. But Origen's conception of Christ's person
'
as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical

theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like
Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to
show that in Christ's case a human subject with his will and
feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he
can say that the union of the divine and human natures had
its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this
beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example
of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be
given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his
work, but the person of Christ which cannot be known to any
but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real
redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly
blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically
transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise
the strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the
highest value of Christ's person lies in the fact that the Deity
has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his
essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a
man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable
of becoming entirely God's. At bottom there is nothing obscure
1
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.
Chap, vi.j ORIGEN 375
and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will
and in the feelings through knowledge. 1
This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal

attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace
follows. As in Christ's case his human soul gradually united
itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected
its will to God, so also every man receives grace according to
his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend
actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of
the gradations by which the soul rises to God already resembles
that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with
faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own
2
work. 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 substantia rationabiles, the Logos, the
knowable essence of God, and the whole fulness of the Deity. 3
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
4
every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment. Thus a
1
A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ
is found in Clement Psed. I. 3. 7: "xxvtx ov/vytriv 6 xvpioq xxi ttxvtx u<ps/\e1 xxi
&$ %vdpuiro$ xxi uc, ®edt;, rx fj.lv xij.xptyjij.xtx uq ®e 0? x<pi£i's, elq $s to fj-v) e %xfj.xpT xveiv
TTxi^xytayuv wt; xvbpwxoq.
3 "Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum" is the fun-

damental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); "voluntas humana prsecedit".
In Ezech. hom. I. c. 1 1 " In tua potestate positum est, ut sis palea vel frumen-
:
tum". But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth.
series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: "Fidem habenti, quae est ex nobis, dabitur gratia
fidei quae est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis exnaturali
creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et
firmior sit quod habet"; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in
in eo ipso
Rom. IX. 3, Lomm. VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: 6 Osbt; v)fj.x<;
f| Yifjuv xvtuv (ZovteTxt o-wêo-ixt.
3 This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.
See Clem., Strom. V. I. 7: %xpiTi o-a>%6fj,eQx, ovk xvev (j.svtoi tcov xxK&v 'epyuv.
4
VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: s'its to ev filth xvTS%ov<riov tit yveSo-tv x<ptKO(J.evov
TxyxioO o-KipTx te xxt "Kv]hS. vvep tx io-xxfJ.fJ.ivx, xAsjv oh xtzpiTOt; 'xvev tvic; S^XipSTOV
TTepovTxi ts xxi xvio-TXTXt xxi xvw tuv v7repKeifj,£vaiv x'ipSTXt vi tf^/Cl; The
amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis div. salv. 21. Orig. ire pi xp%G>v III.
2. 2 : In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est
;
union offreedom takes place within the sphere of

grace and
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. In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense
1
of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place 2 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. 3 It is evident
that in Origen's view there can be no visible means of grace;
but it likewise follows from his whole way of thinking that the
symbols attending the enlightening operation of grace are not
a matter of indifference to the Christian Gnostic, whilst to the
common man they are indispensable. 4
In the same way he brought
ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quaeque perducitur."

III.2. 5, 1. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XL, p. 450: to tov Aoyixov xyxQbv /xhctov
iaTiv ex rs ryt;7rpoxipe<rect)i; xiirov kxi ryt; <rv [/.7rvsoviryii; Ssext; SvvxfxscijQ rSi tx xxKXkttx
7Tf>oehoiJ.£vic. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enlightenment; but

this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account
see Landerer in the Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, Vol. II., Part 3, p. 500 ff.,
and Worter, Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis anf Angus tin, i860.
1
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.) u Origen, the :
first pioneer in so of Christian thought, the father in one of his many

many fields
aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Ber-
nard, the Victorines, and the author of the u De imitatione", of Tauler and
Molinos and Madame de Guyon."
2
See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467.
3
See e.g., 37 and especially Psedag. I. 6. 25 32 Orig.
Clem. Quis dives salv. — ;
—
de orat. 22 sq. the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. This exegesis begins with
the words " It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called
:
Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by any-
one for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking
; . . . Constant and
unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant."
4
See above, p. 339 f.
;
Chap, vi.j ORIGEN 377
into system of numerous mediators and intercessors

play the
with angels and
God, dead and living saints, and
viz.,
counselled an appeal to them. In this respect he preserved a

heathen custom. Moreover, Origen regards Christ as playing an
important part in prayer, particularly as mediator and high
priest. On prayer to Christ he expressed himself with great
reserve.
Origen's eschatology occupies a middle position between that
of Irenaeus and the theory of the Valentinian Gnostics, but is
more akin to the latter view. Whilst, according to Irenaeus,
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

form of its glorified, each in the
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'. He accepted the formula, " resur- 1
rection 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
2
like the angels and stars. Rejecting the doctrine that souls
3
sleep, Origen assumed that the souls of the departed immediately
enter Paradise, 4 and that souls not yet purified pass into a state
of punishment, a penal fire, which, however, like the whole world,
In this way also
5
is to be conceived as a place of purification.
1
See Tspi xp%m II. 11.
2 See Kept xp%uv 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.

3 See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37.
4 Orig., Horn. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XL, p. 317 sq.
5 C. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Horn. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto,
Cels.
quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus Sacramento eluente nos atque
purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: fyxyikv $' vi(/.e7t; xyix^siv to nvp, ourxxpsx,
«AA« rxQ xfiocpTODhoi/c; 4>vx<*S, ûp oh ro 7rxtJ.<pxyov xxi fixvxvtrov, «AA« to (ppdvifiov
37^ HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
Origen contrived to reconcile his position with the Church

doctrines of the judgment and the punishments in hell ; but, like
Clement, he viewed the purifying fire as a temporary and
1
figurative one; it consists in the torments of conscience. 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, 2
after
3
they have ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens.
Hence Origen treated this doctrine as an esoteric one: "for the
common man it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished." 4
system overthrew those of the Gnostics, attracted Greek

This
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
5
ethic. But no one is justified in subjecting it to this process.
The method according to which Origen preserved whatever
appeared valuable in the content of tradition is no less significant
than his system of ethics and the great principle of viewing
everything created in a relative sense. Supposing minds of a
radical cast, to have existed at the close of the history of ancient
civilisation, what would have been left to us ? The fact of a
strong and undivided religious interest attaching itself to the
traditions of the philosophers and of the two Testaments was
the condition — to use Origen's own language —
that enabled a
new world of spirits to arise after the old one had finished its
course.
During the following century Origen's theology at first acted
But it likewise attained this position of influence,
in its entirety.
because some important propositions could be detached from
Asyovrs? (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), rb Su>cvovi/.evav Six 4iv%y$T%t;§iepx°(*z v <1$ T °
7rvp. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage
between the punishments in hell and regnum dei.
1
See vspi xp%. H. 10. 4 — 7; c. Cels. I.e.
2 See w$fi xp%. I. 6. 1—4: III. 6. 1—8; c. Cels. VI. 26.
3 On heavens in Clem, see Strom. V.

{he seven II. 77 and other passages.
Origen does not mention them, so far as I know.
4 c. Cels. I.e.
5 We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.

Chap, vi.1 ORIGEN 379
their original connection and fitted into a new one. It is one

of the peculiarities of this ecclesiastical philosophy of religion
that the most of its formulae 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 distin-
guishes the system no doubt vanished ; but how many are there
who strive and completeness in their theory of the
after unity
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 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 Origen's philosophy.
Arians and orthodox, critics and mystics, priests who overcame
the world and monks who shunned it but were eager for know-
1
ledge 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 pro-
pounded 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
1
See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio
habenda sit Origenis. Gottingse 1885.

the Church till a new accommodation, capable of being accounted
both and Gnosis, was found between what Origen looked

Pistis
on as Church belief and what he regarded as Gnosis. In the
endeavours of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were already
found hesitating, nay, we may almost say naive, 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, bnt 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 specula-
tion, 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).
\
-ENDING DEPT. JUN 4 1953
BT
21
H33
1897
V.2
C.l
ROBA

History of Dogma Vol 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Dogma Vol 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Dogma Vol 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2009 with funding from

Edited by the Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor

Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church

HARNACK'S HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. II.

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

WILLIAMS & NORGATE

Printed in Holland at the Motley Press.

I. Fixing and gradual Secularising of Christianity as a

CHAPTER II— The setting up of the Apostolic Standards

B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches

year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. 38

first only in those Churches in which we find the

Transition to the Hierarchical idea of the Church . . 83

The Hierarchical idea of the Church : Calixtus an d Cyprian 84

„ II. Church and Heresy 9°

„ III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences

CHAPTER III— Continuation— The Old Christianity and

The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by

Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea

of the Church ; the Church no longer a Communion

support to society and the state 122

CHAPTER IV.— Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy.

The Elements of Origen's theology; its Gnostic features 334

logical speculation 340

The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian

German Edition, is "The Laying of the Foundation" (of Dogma).

The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian

articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity

How great the innovations actually were, however, may be

discipline into a communion "eiusdem sacramenti", that is, into

over and to the preservation of an important part

the violent attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of

legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to

4 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. I.

anity. If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look

Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have

recognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism.

anity discovered the formula which reconciled faith and know-

led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circum-

the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer

connection Greek mythology and gross polytheism.

motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived

reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had

men on these foundations.

between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of

But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand,

Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith

work first began with the scientific treatment of individual

system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was

of Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up

troversy with Gnosticism. In them a

one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained

originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to

Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 1

conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future.

while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical

as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the con-

less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was

Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 1