History of Dogma V III 3rd Ed.

^mull Wimvmii^ J
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
3 1924 092 343 890

'
i7'
•^ I
{-J
\f,3
The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092343890
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. VIII.
HARNACK'S HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. III.

HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
Dr. ADOLPH HARNACK

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

EDITION
BY
JAMES MILLAR, B.D.
VOL. III.
SECOND EDITION
LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE

BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN & CO.
254 Washington Avenue
1897
^V^.
A)
V^
EDITOR'S PREFACE.
The first chapter in this vohime forms the conckiding chapter of

the First Volume of the German Work. It answers to the Seventh
Chapter of the Second Book of the first great division of the subject,
which has for its aim to shew the o>-igin of Ecclesiastical Dogma. The
First Book treats of the Preparation for Dogma-, the Second of the
Laying of the Foundation. This Second Book begins with the second
vokmne of the English Translation, and closes with the first chapter of
the third volume now published. Thereafter commences the Second
Part of the Work, which deals with the Development of Dogma. The
numbering of the chapters here begins anew, running on from I. to VI.
The Second Volume of the German Work commences with the
Second Part, and tells the story of the Development of Dogma till the
time of Augustine. Only a portion of it appears in this volume. The
remainder will form the contents of the Fourth Volume. The author
has prefixed to the volume two prefaces, one to the first, the other
to the third Edition. These are here given.
The Appendix on Manichaeism is the last of four which appear at
the end of the first volume of the German Edition. The first three
of these will be found at the end of the first volume of the English
Edition.
A. B. BRUCE.
Glasgow, August, 1897.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION OF
VOLUME II. OF THE GERMAN WORK.
The first half of the second part of the History of Dogma is here
given apart and as the second volume, because it is complete in itself,
and I shall be prevented from completing the work at once by other
tasks.
The account contained in the following pages would have been shorter,
if Icould have persuaded myself of the correctness of the opinion, that
a single, all-determining thought obtained its true development in the
History of Dogma from the fourth to the eighth century. This opinion
dominates, apart from a few monographs, all writings on the History of
Dogma, and gives a uniform impress to the accounts of Protestants

'
and Catholics. I share it within certain limits; but these very limits,
which I have endeavoured to define, '
have not yet received due
attention. In the fourth century the formula that was correct, when
judged by the conception of redemption of the ancient Church, pre-
vailed but the Fathers, who finally secured its triumph, did not give it
;
the exposition which it originally demanded. In the fifth century, or

the on the contrary, a formula that, measured by the same
seventh,
standard, was incorrect, prevailed; yet it was associated with an ex-
position that to some extent compensated for the incorrectness. In both
cases, however, the imperfections of the conclusion, which are explained
from various circumstances, became of the highest importance. For in
them we find the reason why
phantom Christ did not wholly oust
the
the historical; and, in order to overcome them, men turned anew to
Philosophy, especially to Aristotle. The orthodox Church owes two
things to the incorrect form in which the Trinitarian and Christological
Dogma was finally stated (i) contact with the Gospel, and (2) renewed
:
contact' with ancient science, i.e., scholasticism.
1 Vide pp. 167 ff. of this volume.

PREFACE. VII
The account of these conditions demanded a more minute discussion

of the process of the History of Dogma, than is usual in the ordinary
text-books. developed slowly and amid great obstacles. No
Dogma
single step should be overlooked in the description, and, in particular,
the period between the fourth and fifth Councils is not less important
than any other. Political relationships, at no point decisive by them-
selves, yet everywhere required, as well as western influences, careful
attention. I should have discussed them still more thoroughly, if I had
not been restrained by considerations of the extent of the book. I have
included the state of affairs and developments in the West, so far as
they were related to, and acted upon, those in the East. In the follow-
ing Book I shall begin with Augustine. The scientific theological ex-
positions of the Fathers have only been brought under review, where
they appeared indispensable for the understanding of Dogma. In any
case I was not afraid of doing too much here. I am convinced that
a shorter description ought not to be offered to students of Theology,
unlessit were to be a mere guide. The history of Christian Dogma—
perhaps the most complicated history of development which we can
completely review— presents the investigator with the greatest difficult-
ies and yet it is, along with the study of the New Testament, and in
;
the present position of Protestantism, the most important discipline for

every one who seeks really to study Theology. The theologian who
leaves the University without being thoroughly familiar with it, is, in
the most critical questions, helplessly at the mercy of the authorities
of the day. But the royal way to the understanding of the History of
Dogma, opened up by F. Chr. Baur, and pursued by Thomasius, does
not lead to the goal; for by it we become acquainted with the histori-
cal matter only in the abbreviated form required for the defence of
the completed Dogma.
The history of the development of Dogma does not offer the lofty in-
terestjwhich attaches to that of its genesis. When we return from the

most complicated and elaborate doctrinal formulas, from the mysticism
of the Cultus and Christian Neoplatonism, from the worship of saints
and ceremonial ritual of the seventh and eighth centuries, back to Origen
and the third century, we are astonished to find that all we have
mentioned was really in existence at the earlier date. Only it existed
then amid a mass of different material, and its footing was insecure.
In many respects the whole historical development of Dogma from the
fourth century to John of Damascus and Theodore of Studion was
simply a vast process of reduction, selection, and definition. In the
VIII PREFACE.
East we are no longer called upon to deal in any quarter with new
and original matter, but always rather with what is traditional, deriv-
ative, and, to an increasing extent, superstitious. Yet that to which
centuries devoted earnest reflection, holding it to be sacred, will
never lose its importance, as long as there still exists among us a
remnant of the same conditions which belonged to those times. But

who could deny that those conditions— in the Church and in learning
—are still powerful among us? Therefore even the religious formulas
are still which were created in the Byzantine age; nay, they
in force
are the dogmas y.-j.T iôxviv in all Churches, so that the popular idiom
is nowise wrong which with the word "dogma" primarily
designates
the doctrines of the Trinity and the divine humanity of Christ. The
inquirer who development of these dogmas after the fourth
follows the
century, to the want of originality and freshness in his
and who, owing
material, loses pleasure in his work, is ever and again reanimated,
when he considers that he has to deal with matters which have gained,
and still exercise, an immense power over the feelings and minds of
men. And how much it is still possible for us to learn, as free Evan-
have dedicated
gelical Christians, especially after generations of scholars
to this history themost devoted industry, so that no one can enter into
their labours without becoming their disciples!
I know very -well that it would be possible to treat the material
reviewed in this book more universally than I have done. My chief

purpose was to show how matters arose and were in tkeir concrete
manifestation. But the task of making dogma really intelligible in all its
aspects within the limits of a History of Dogma, is after all as insoluble
as any similar problem which isolates a single object from Universal

History, and requires its investigation in and by itself This limitation
I need only recall. But something further has to be said. Dogmas, un-
doubtedly, admit of a process of refinement, which would bring them
closer to our understanding and our feeling. But my powers are not
equal to this lofty task, and even if I possessed the uncommon qualities
of the psychologist and the religious philosopher, I should have hesitated
about employing them in this book; for I did not wish to endanger
the reliability of what I. had to present by which must always
reflections,
remain more or less subjective. Thus I have limited myself to a few

hints; these will only be found where the nature of the material itself
induced me to seek for the far remote thought underlying the ex-
pression.
I have throughout striven in this volume, to give such an account as
PREFACE. IX
would demand to be read connectedly; for a work on the history of

dogma, which is used only for reference, has missed its highest aim.
I have believed that I could not dispense with the addition of numerous
notes, but the text of the book is so written that the reader, if he
prefers it, may disregard them.
Marburg, 14 June, 1887.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

I HAVE subjected this volume to a thorough revision, and have
sought to improve and strengthen it in not a few places. May this new
edition also promote the study of a historical period whose products
are still held by many among us to be incapable of reform.
Berlin, 28 May, 1894. ADOLF HARNACK.
CONTENTS.
FIRST PART SECOND : BOOK CONTINUED. '
Page
CHAPTER I.— The decisive success of theological specula-
tion in the sphere of the Rule of Faith, or, the de-
fining of the norm of the Doctrine of the Church
due to the adoption of the Logos Christology ... i—
1. Introduction i
Significance of the Logos Doctrine 2

Consequences 3
Historical retrospect ... . .
5
Opposition to the Logos Doctrine ... . .
7
The Monarchians, within Catholicism . . ... 8
Precatholic only among the Alogi 12
Division of subject, defective information .... 13
2. Secession of Dj'^namistic Monarchianism, or Adoptianism 14
a. The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor 14
b. The Roman Monarchians Theodotus the leatherwOrker
:
and his party, Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollo-

nides. Theodotus the money-changer, also the Ar-
temonites 20
c. Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after
Artemas 32
d. Ejection of Adoptian Christology in the East -Be-
ryll of Bostra, Paul of Samosata etc. 34
Acta Archelai, Aphraates SO
3. Expulsion of Modalistic Monarchianism . 51
a. Modalistic Monarchians in Asia Minor and in the
West: Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, vEschines,
Praxeas, Victorinus, Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Cal-
listus 51
b. The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the
state of Theology . . . .
73
1 Vide Editor's Preface to ihLs volume.

CONTENTS.
Page
Commodian, Arnobius, Laqtantius . . . -77
Theology of the West about A.D. 300 78
Modalistic Monarchians in the East Sabellianism and
:
the History of Philosophical Christology and Theo-

logy after Origan 81
Various forms of Sabellianism 82
Doctrine of Sabellius 83
The fight of the two Dionysii 88
The Alexandrian training school 95
Pierius 96
Theognostus . . 96
Hieracas .... 98
Peter of Alexandria 99
Gregory Thaumaturgus .... loi
Theology of the future combination of theology of
:
Irenseus with that of Origen Methodius

: . . . 104
Union of speculation with Realism and Traditionalism 105
Dogmatic culminating in Monachism ... . . no
Close of the development: Identification of Faith
and Theology 113
SECOND PART.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA.
FIRST BOOK.
The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of
the God-man on the basis of Natural Theology.
Page
CHAPTER I.— Historical Situation 121-162
Internal position of the Church at the beginning of
the fourth Century .121
Relative unity of the Church as World-Church, aposto-
licity and secularisation 123
Asceticism culminating in monachism as bond of unity 127
State of Theology iî
Theology influenced by Origen departs from strict
monotheism 135
CONTENTS. XIII
Page
Conservative Theology in the East 137
Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epoch-
making importance of Athanasius 139
The two lines in which Dogma developed historically
after Nicene Council 144
Periods of History of Dogma, chiefly in the East . . 148
First period up to A.D. 381 150
Second period up to A.D. 451 152
Third period up to A.D. 553 154
Fourth period up to A.D. 680 156
Last period and close of process of History of Dogma 157
CHAPTER IL— Fundamental Conception of Salvation and
General Outline of System of Doctrine 163— igo
§ I. Conception of Redemption as deification of humanity
consequent upon Incarnation of Deity 163
Reasons for delay, and for acceptance in imperfect form,
of dogmatic formulas corresponding to conception
of Redemption 167 I
§ 2. Moral and Rational element in System of Doctrine.

Distinction between Dogmas and Dogmatic presup-
positions or conceptions . 172
Sketch of System of Doctrine and History of Dogma 177
Supplement i. Criticism of principle of Greek System
of doctrine . . 178
„ 2, Faith in Incarnation of God, and
Philosophy 179
„ 3. Greek Piety corresponding to Dogma 179
„ 4. Sources from which Greek Dogma is to
be derived Difficulty of selecting and
;
using them; Untruthfulness and for-

geries 181
„ 5. Form to which expression of faith was
subject 185
„ 6. of Eschatology agreement of
Details :
Realism and Spirituahsm Obscuration ;
of idea of Judgment 186

CHAPTER III.— Sources of knowledge or Scripture, Tradi-
:
tion and the Church 191—239

Introduction 191
I. Holy Scripture. Old Testament in the East 192
Old Testament in the West 194
New Testament in the East; its close; and hesitations 195
New Testament in the West 197
Dogma of Inspiration and pneumatic exegesis . . . 199
Uncertainties of exegesis (Spiritualism and literalism) 199
XIV CONTENTS.
Page
Exegesis of Antiochenes 201
Exegesis in the West, Augustine . 202
Uncertainties as to attributes and sufificiency of Scripture 205
The two Testaments 206
2. Tradition. Scripture and Tradition , • 207
The creed or contents of Symbol is tradition ; Develop-
ment of symbol, Distinction between East and West 208
Cultus, Constitution, and Disciplinary regulations cover-
ed by notion of Apostolic Tradition, the Tra^dloaiq
aypad)o? 211
Authority and representation of the Church 2 14 ....
Councils 215
Common Sense of Church '219
"Antiquity"; Category of the "Fathers" 219
Apostolic Communities, Patriarchate . .221
Rome and the Roman Bishop: prestige in East 224 . . .
View of innovations in the Church .... 228 ...

Summing up on general notion of Tradition 230 ....
Vincentius of Lerinum on Tradition 230
3. The Church. Notion and definition of the Church 233
Unimportance of the Church in Dogmatics proper 235 . .
Reasons for considering the Church: predominance of

interest in the Cultus .... 236
Divisions of the One Church 237 ...
K.— Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redeniptioti or Natural Theology.
Page
CHAPTER IV.— Presuppositions and Conceptions of God the
Creator as Dispenser of Salvation 241—254
Proofs of God, method in doctrine of God . . . 241
Doctrine of nature and attributes of God . . .
244
Cosmology 247
The upper world 248
Doctrine of Providence. Theodicies 249
Doctrine of Spirits; Influence of Neoplatonism . . . 251
Significance of doctrine of angels in practice and cultus 151
Criticism .... 254
CHAPTER v.— Presuppositions and conceptions of man as
recipient of Salvation 255 — 287
The common element ... . .
....
.
255
Anthropology . . . .
256
Origin of Souls .... . . . .
259
Image of God . . . 260
CONTENTS. XV
Page
Primitive State 261
Primitive State and Felicity . . 261
Doctrine of Sin, the Fall and Death .... . 263
Influence of Natural Theology on Doctrine of Re-
demption ... . . . 265
Blessing of Salvation something natural .... 266
Felicity as reward 266
Revelation as law, rationalism .... 267
Influence of rationalism on Dogma 269
Neutralising of the historical; affinity of rationahsm and
mysticism 270
More precise account of views of Athanasius .... 272
Of Gregory of Nyssa 276
Of Theodore 279
Of John of Damascus ... ... ... . 283
Conclusion ... ... . . 287
^.—The doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man, in its
historical development.
Page
CHAPTER VI.— Doctrine of the necessity and reality of
Redemption through the Incarnation of the Son of
God 288—304
The decisive importance of the Incarnation of God . 288
Theory of Athanasius 290
Doctrines of Gregory of Nyssa . . 296
Pantheistic perversions of thought of Incarnation . 299
Other teachers up John of Damascus
to ... . . 301
Was Incarnation necessary apart from sin? . . 303
Idea of predestination 303
Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the Devil, and
atonement through the work of the God-man . . . 305—315
Mortal sufferings of Christ 305
Christ's death and the removal of sin . . 306
Ransom paid to the Devil 307
Christ's death as sacrifice— vicarious suffering of punish-
ment 308
Western views of Christ's work. Juristic categories,
satisfactio ... . . . 310
Christ as man the atoner. . 313
Appendix on Manichaeism . . . . .316

CHAPTER I.
THE DECISIVE SUCCESS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION IN THE

SPHERE OF THE RULE OF FAITH, OR, THE DEFINING OF
THE NORM OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH DUE
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY.
I . Introduction.
From the great work of Irenaeus and the anti-gnostic writings

of Tertullian, it would seem as if the doctrine of the Logos,
or, the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as a distinct
person, was at the end of the second century an undisputed
tenet of Church orthodoxy, and formed a universally recognised
portion of the baptismal confession interpreted anti-gnostically,
i.e., of the rule of faith. °
But certain as it is that the Logos
Christology was in the second century not merely the property
of a few Christian philosophers, ^ it is, , on the other hand, as
clear that it did not belong to the solid structure of the Catho-
lic was not on the same footing as, e.g., the doctrines
faith. It
of God the Creator, the real body of Christ, the resurrection

of the body, etc. The great conflicts which, after c. A.D. 170,
See Domer, Entw.-Gesch. d. Lelire v. d. Person Christi, I Thl. 1845; Lange,

1
Gesch. a. Entw. der Systeme der Unitarier vor der nic. Synode, 1831 Hagemann, ;
Die rdmische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin und Dogma in den ersten drei
Jahrh. 1864, (tTie most important and most stimulating monograph on the subject);
and my art. Monarchianismus in Herzog's R. E., 2nd ed., vol. X., pp. 178 213,
' ' —
on which the following arguments are based.
2 See Vol. 11., pp. 20 —38 and Iren. I. 10, i; TertitU. Depraescr. 13; Adv. Prax. 2.
In the rule of faith, De virg., vel. I, there is no statement as to the pre-existence
of the Son of God.

3 See Vol. I., p. 192, Note (John's Gospel, Revelatiouj Ki</iuyf<a n/rfou, Ignatius,
and esp. Celsus in Orig. II. 31, etc.).
2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
were waged for more than a century within the Catholic Church
rather show, that the doctrine only gradually found its way
into the creed of the Church. ' But a higher than merely
Christological interest attaches to the gradual incorporation of
the Logos doctrine in the rule of faith. The formula of the
Logos, as it was almost universally understood, legitimised spe-
culation, i.e., Neo-platonic philosophy, within the creed of the
Church. ' When Christwas designated the incarnate Logos of
God, and when this was set up as His supreme characterisation,
men were directed to think of the divine in Christ as the
reason of God realised in the structure of the world and the
history of mankind. This implied a definite philosophical view
of God, of creation, and of the world, and the baptismal con-
fession became a compendium of scientific dogmatics, i.e., of a
system of doctrine entwined with the Metaphysics of Plato and
the Stoics. But at the same time an urgent impulse necessarily
made itself felt to define the contents and value of the Redeem-
er's life and work, not, primarily, from the point of view of
the proclamation of the Gospel, and the hopes of a future state,
but from that of the cosmic significance attaching to his
divine nature concealed in the flesh. Insomuch, however, as
such a view could only really reach and be intelligible to
those who had been trained in philosophical speculations, the
establishing of the Logos Christology within the rule of faith
was equivalent mass of Christians to the setting up
for the great
of a mystery, which in the first place could only make an im-
pression through its high-pitched formulas and the glamour of
the incomprehensible. But as soon as a religion expresses the
• The observation that Irenseus and TertuUian treat it as a fixed portion of the
rule of faith is shows that these theologians were ahead of
very instructive; for it
the Church of their time. Here we have a point given, at which we can estimate
the relation of what Irenasus maintained to be the creed of the Church, to the
doctrine which was, as a matter of fact, generally held at the time in the Church.
We may turn this insight to account for the history of the Canon and the constitu-
tion, where, unfortunately, an estimate of the statements of Irenseus is rendered
difficult.
2 By Neo-platonic philosophy we,of course, do not here mean Neo-platonism,

but the philosophy method and also in part, in results), develojted before Neo-
(in
platonism by Philo, Valentinus, Numenius, and others.

Chap, i.] INTRODUCTION 3
loftiest contents of its creed in formulas which must remain

mysterious and unintelligible to the great mass of its adherents,
those adherents come under guardians. In other words, the
multitude must believe in the creed; at the same time they no
longer derive from it directly the motives of their religious and
moral and they are dependent on the theologians, who,

life;
as professors of the mysterious, alone understand and are cap-

able of interpreting and practically applying the creed. The
necessary consequence of this development was that the mysteri-
ous creed, being no longer in a position practically to control
life, was superseded by the authority of the Church, the ailtus,
and prescribed duties, in determining the religious life of the

laity; while the theologians, or the priests, appeared alone as
the possessors of an independent faith and knowledge. But as
soon as the laity were actuated by a desire for religious inde-
pendence, which produced a reaction, and yet was not power-
ful enough to correct the conditions out of which this state of
matters arose, there made its appearance only an expedient of

a conservative sort, viz., the order of the monks. As this order
did not tamper with the prevailing system of the Church, the
Church could tolerate it, and could even use it as a valve, by
which to provide an outlet for all rehgious subjectivity, and
for the energies of a piety that renounced the world. The his-
tory of the Church shows us, or, at any rate, lets us divine,
this from the 3rd to the 4th century.
situation at the transition
On the one hand, we see— at least in the East that the —
Christian faith had become a theology, which was regarded, to
all intents without question, as the revealed faith, and only
capable of being represented and expounded by "teachers".
On the other hand, we find a lay Christendom tied to the priest,
the cultus, the sacraments, and a ceremonial penitence, and
revering the creed as a mystery. Between these arose with
elemental force the order of the monks, which apart from a —
few phenomena —did not attack the ecclesiastical system, and
which could not be suppressed by priests and theologians, be-
cause it strove to realise on earth the object to which they
themselves had subordinated the whole of theology, because it,
as it were, sought to soar on wings to the same height, to
which the steps of the long ladders constructed by theology

were meant to conduct.
Now the inco rporation in the creed of philosophic (Platon ic")
speculation, i.e., the Hellenising of the traditional doctri nes, was
not" the only condition, but it was certainly one of the most
important of the conditions, that led to the rise of this three-
fold Christendom of clergy, laity, and monks, in the Church.
That the Catholic Church was capable of accommodating these
three orders in its midst is a proof of its power. That the
combination forms up to the present day the signature of Catho-
lic Churches is evidence, moreover, of the practical value attached
by the Church to this unified differentiation. It, in fact, could

not but best correspond to the different wants of men united
to form a universal Church. So far as it was a consequence of
the general conditions under which the Church existed in the
third century, we must here leave its origin untouched, ° but
so far as it was due to the reception of philosophical specula-
tion into the Church, its prior history must be presented. Yet
it may not b e superfluous to begin by noticing- eypr pggljr tt^^^
th e confidence with which first the Apologists identified the

L ogos of the .philosophers and the Christ of faith, and the zeal
w ith which the anti-gnostic Fathers then incorporated the Loô s-
Christ in the creed of believers, are also to be explained fro m
a Christian inte rest. I n their scientific conception of the world
t he Logos had a fixed place, and was held to be the "alter
ego " of Go d, though at the same time he was also regard ed
a s the representative of the Reason that operated in the Cosm os.
Th eir conception of Christ as the appearance of the Logos in
a personal form only proves that they sought to make the
hi ghest possible assertionconcerning him, to justify worship being
rendered him, and demonstrate the absolute and unique
to
nature of the contents of the Christian religion. The Christian
religi on was only in a position _to gain the c ulturedrTo~conquer
Gno sticism, and to thrust aside Folytheism~Iirthe Roman em-

pi re, because' had concluded an alliance with that intellectua l
it
p otentate which already swayed the minds and hear ts M_the

' See my lecture on Monachism, 3rd ed. 1886.
2 Yet see Vol. II., pp. 122 — 127.
Chap, i.] INTRODUCTION S
b est men, the philosophic-religious ethics of the a pe. This

al liancefound expression in the formula: Chris t is word and
l aw (Xp<g-7og Xiyo^ y,£i The philosophic Christology arose
vopLog). ,
so to speak, at circumference of the Church, and then ce

the
moved gradually to the centre of the Christian faith. The sam e
is true of theology generally ; i ts most concise description is
p hilosophic Christ ology. A

complete fusion of the old faith and
theology, one that tranquillised the minds of the devout, was
not consummated till the fourth, strictly speaking, indeed, till
the fifth century (Cyril of Alexandria). Valentinus, Origen, the

Cappadocians mark the stages of the process. Valentinus was
very speedily ejected as a heretic. Origen, in spite of the
immense influence' which he exerted, was in the end unable
to retain his footing in the Church. The Cappadocians almost
perfected the complete fusion of the traditional faith of the
Church conceived as mystery and philosophy, by removing
Origen's distinction between those who knew and those who
believed (Gnostics and Pistics); meanwhile they retained much
that was comparatively free and looked on with suspicion by
the traditionalists. Cyril's theology first marked the complete
agreement between faith and philosophy, authority and specula-
tion, an agreement which finally, in the sixth century, sup-
pressed every independent theology. But from the end of the
second century up to the closing years of the third, the fund-
amental principle of philosophic theology had naturalised itself,
in the very faith of the Church. This process in which, on
the one hand, certain results of speculative theology became
legitimised within the Church as revelations and mysteries, and
on the other— as a sort of antidote the freedom of theology —
was limited, is to be described in what follows.
It has been shown above (Vol. I., p. 190 that abo ut fif.)
the middle of the second century there existed side by side in

the Churches two conceptions of the person of Ch rist.
chiefly
In the Adop tian view Jesus was regarded as the man in who m
divinity or the spirit of God dwelt, and who was finally exalte d
to godlike honour. In the Pneumatic conception. Tesus wa s
l ooked upon as a heavenly spirit who assumed an earthly bo dy.
The latter was adopted in their speculations by the Apologists.

6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. r.
The fixing of the apostolic tradition, which took place in
opposition to the Gnostics, as also to the so -called Montanists,

in the cours e ot the second half of the second century, did not
yet decide in favour of either The Hol y Scriptu res
view.
could be appealed to B ut those had decided ly
in support of both.
the best of it, in the circumstances~of the" time, who recognise d
th e of a special divine nature in Chr is t; and as
incarnation
c ertainlywere the others in the right, in view of the Synop tic
g ospels, who saw in Jesus the man chosen to be his Son by
God, a nd possessed of the S pirit. The former conception corre-
sponded to the interpretation of the O. T. theophanies which
had been accepted by the Alexandrians, and had proved so
convincing in apologetic arguments " it could be supported by
;
the testimony of a series of Apostohc writings, whose authority

was absolute " it protected the O. T. against Gnostic criticism.
;
It, further, reduced the highest conception of the value of Christi-

anity to a brief and convinc^ng formula " God became man in :
order that men mi^ht become ods ;" and, finally, which was
^ —
not least— it could be brought, with httle trouble, into line with
• The points, which, as regards Christ, belonged in the second half of the second
century to ecclesiastical orthodoxy, are given in the clauses of the Roman baptismal
confession to which aAi)Sw? is added, in the precise elaboration of the idea of
creation, in the eI? placed alongside Xpia-TOf 'Iwoii, and in the identification of the
Catholic institution of the Church with the Holy Church.
2 The Son of God could be most easily rendered acceptable

Christian doctrine of the
to cultured heathensby means of the Logos doctrine see the memorable confession ;
of Celsus placed by him in the lips of his "Jew" (II. 31): w? s'lys 6 y,6yoi; herriv
vij,7\i vlii ToS &£oS, XXI ttiiilii ivaivov(j.eii; see also the preceding: iro(pi'ôvTixi 0!
Xpta-Ttacvot iv t^ êyetv tov vlov tov &£qv elvai avTOôyov.
5 The conviction of the harmony of the Apostles, or, of all Apostolic writings,
could not but result in the Christology of the Synoptics and the Acts being inter-
preted in the light of John and Paul, or more accurately, in that of the philosophic
Christology held to be attested by John and Paul. It has been up to the present
day the usual fate of the Synoptics, and with them of the sayings of Jesus, to be
understood, on account of their place in the Canon, in accordance with tire caprices
of the dogmatics prevalent at the time, Pauline and Johannine theology having
assigned to it the role of mediator. The " lower " had to be explained by the
"higher" (see even Clemens Ale.\. with his criticism of the "pneumatic", the spiritual,
Fourth Gospel, as compared with the first three). In older times men transformed
the sense right ofTj nowadays they speak of slips which lead to the ///f//«- teaching,
and they diess the old illusion with a new scien.'if.c mantle.
the c osmological and theological tenets which had been borrowed

from the religious philosophy of the age to serve as a found-
ation for a rational Christian theology. Ihe adoption of the
belief in the divine Logos to explain the genesis and histo ry
of the worl d at once decided the means by which also the
divi ne dignity and sonship of the Redeemer were alone to b e
defined. ' In this procedure the theologians themsplvp'; harl rip
da nger to monotheism, even if thev mnde th p

fear to their
Loôs more than a product of the creative will of God. N eithpr
Tusti n. Tatian. nor any of the Apologists or Fathers show_t he
slightest anxiety on this point. For the infinite substance, rest-
ing behind the world, —
and as such the deity was conceived—
could display and unfold itself in different subjects. It could
impart its own inexhaustible being to a variety of bearers,
without thereby being emptied, or its unity being dissolved
(fi.ovxpx^'X' ô'''^^ ohovofiidiv, as the technical expression has it).
But, lastly, the theologians had no reason to fear for the " deity
of the Christ inwhom the incarnation of that Logos was to be
viewed. For the conception of the Logos was capable of the
most manifold contents, and its dexterous treatment could be
already supported by the most instructive precedents. This con-
ception could be adapted to every change and accentuation of
the religious interest, every deepening of speculation, as
' But the substitution of the Logos for the, otherwise undefined, spiritual being
(vvbSij,x) in Christ presented another very great advantage. It brought to an end
though not at once (see Clemens Alex.), the speculations which reckoned the heavenly
personality of Christ in some way number of the higher angels
or other in the
or conceived it as one y£on among many. Through'the definition of this" Spiritual
Being "as Logos his transcendent and unique dignity was firmly outlined and
assured.For the Logos was universally accepted as the Frius logically and tempor-
ally, and the causa not only of the world, but also of all powers, ideas, asons,
—
and angels. He, therefore, did not belong at least in every respect to their order. —
3 Augustine wrought to end this questionable monotheism, and endeavoured
first
to treat seriously the monotheism of the living God. But his efforts only produced
an impression in the West, and even there the attempt was weakened from the start
by a faulty respect for the prevalent Christology, and was forced to entangle itself
in absurd formulas. In the East the accommodating Substance-Monotheism of
philosophy remained with its permission of a plurality of divine persons; and this
doctrine was taught with such naivety and simplicity, that the Cappadocians, e.^.,
proclaimed the Christian conception of God to be the just mean between the
polytheism of the heathens and the monotheism of the Jews.
well as to all the needs of the Cultus, nay, even to new results
of Biblical exegesis. It revealed itself gradually to be a vari-
able quantity of the most accommodating kind, capable of being

at once determined by any new factor received into the theolog-
ical ferment. It even admitted contents which stood in the most
abrupt contradiction to the processes of thought out of which
the conception itself had sprung, i.e., contents which almost
completely concealed the cosmological genesis of the conception.
But it was long before this point was reached. And as long
as it was not, as long as the Logos was still employed as the
formula under which was comprehended either the original idea
of the world, or the rational law of the world, many did not
entirely cease to mistrust the fitness of the conception to establish
the divinity of Christ. For those, finally, could not but seek
to perceive the full who reckoned on
deity in the Redeemer,
a deification Athanasius first made this possible to
of man.
them by his explanation of the Logos, but he at the same time
began to empty the conception of its original cosmological con-
tents. And the history of Christology from Athanasius to
Augustine is the history of the displacing of the Logos con-
ception by the other, destitute of all cpsmical contents, of the
Son, —the history of the substitution of the immanent and
absolute trinity for the economic and relative. The complete
divinity Son was thereby secured, but
of the in the form of a
complicated and artificial speculation, which neither could be
maintained without reservation before the tribunal of the science
of the day, nor could claim the support of an ancient tradition.
But the first formulated opposition to the Logns Christology
di d not spring from anxiety for the complete divmity of Christ,
or e ven from solicitude for monotheism; it was rather called
fort h by interest in the evangelical, the Synoptic, idea of Chri st.
With thi s was combined the attack on the use of Platoni c
p hilosophy in Christian doc trine. The first public and literary
opponents of the Christian Logos-speculations, therefore, did not
escape t he reproach of depreciating, if not of destroying, th e
Redeem er. It was only in the subseq uent pprinH,
di gnity of the
in a second phase of the controversy, that these opponents of
the Logos Christology were able to fling back the reproach at
it s defende rs. With the Monarchians the first subj ect of inter est
wa s the man Jesus; then came monotheism and the divi ne
di gnity of Ch rist. From this point, however, the whole theo-
two first articles of the rule of faith,
logical interpretation of the
was again gradually involved in controversy. In so far as they
were understood to refute a crude docetism and the severance
of Jesus and Christ they were confirmed. But d id not th e doc-
trine of a h eavenly aeon, rendered incarnate in the R edeemer,
cont am remnant of the old Gnostic leave n? Did not~
another
the^ sending forth of the Logos (xpo/joAt? rov Xoyov) to cre ate
the world recall the emanation, of the aeo ns? Was not ditheism
s et up, if two divine beings were to be worshipp ed? Not only
were the uncultured Christian laity driven to such criticisms,

for what did they understand by the " economic mode of the
existence of God"? —but also all those theologians who refused
to give any place to Platonic philosophy in Christian dogmatics,
A conflict began which lasted for more than a century^ in
certain branches of it for almost two centuries. Who opened
it, or first assumed the aggressive, we know not. The contest
engages our deepest interest in different respects, and can be
described from different points of view. We cannot regard it,
indeed, directly as a fight waged by theology against a still
enthusiastic conception of reUgion; for the literary opponents

of the Logos Christolog y were no longer enthusiasts, but, rat her,
from the very beginning their declared enemi es Nor was it
directly a war of the theo logians against the laity, for it
'
was not laymen, but only theologians who had adopted the
creed of the laity, who opposed their brethren. ' We must
1 The Alogi opposed the Montanists and all prophecy; conversely the western
representativesof the Logos Christology, Irenxus, TertuUian and Hippolytus were
Chiliasts. But this feature makes no change in the fact that the incorporation of
the Logos Christology and the fading away of eschatological apocalyptic hopes
went hand in hand. Theologians were able to combine inconsistent beliefs for a
time; but for the great mass of the laity in the East the mystery of the person of
Christ took the place of the Christ who was to have set up his visible Kingdom
of glory upon earth. See especially the refutation of the Chiliasts by Origen
(s-Eff apx- II' 11) ^"<i Dionysius Alex. (Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25). The continued
embodiment in new visions of those eschatological hopes and apocalyptic fancies

by the monks and laymen of later times, proved that the latter could not make
the received mystery of dogma fruitful for their practical religion.
lO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
describe it as the strenuous effort of Stoic Platonism to obta in

su premacy in the theology of the Church ; the victory of Pl ato
ov er Zeno and Aristotle in Christian scie nce; the history of
th e displacement of the historical by the pre-existent Chris t, of
th e Christ of reality by the Christ of thought, in dogmat ics
fin ally, as the victorious attempt to substitute the mystery o f
th e person of Christ for the person Himse lf, and, by means of

a theological formula unintelligible to them, to put the laity with
their Christian faith under guardians —
a state desired and indeed
required by them an increasing extent. When the Logos
to
Chr istology obtained a complete victory, the traditional view of
the Supreme deity as one person, and, along with this, eve ry
tho ught of the real and complete human personality of t he
Redeemer was in condemned as being intolerable in the
fact
Chur ch. Its was taken by "the nature" [of Chris t],
place
w hich without "the person" is simply a c ipher. The defeated
part y had right on its side, but had not succeeded in makin g
its Chr istology agree with its conception of the object a nd
re sult of the Christian religion. This was the very reason of
its defeat. A religion which promised its adherents that their
nature would be rendered divine, could only be satisfied by a
redeemer who in his own person had deified human nature. If,
after the gradual fading away of eschatological hopes, the above
prospect was held valid, then those were right who worked
out this view of the Redeemer.
In accordance with an expression coined by Tertullian, we
u nderstand by Monarchians the representatives of strict, not
e conomic, monotheism in the ancient Chu rch. In other words,
they_were theologians who held firmly by the dignity of Te sus
as Redeemer, but at the same time would not give up t he
pe rsonal, the numerical, unity of G od; and who therefore
opposed the speculations which had led to the adoption of the
duality or trinity of the godhead. ' In order rightly to under-
1 This definition is, in truth, too narrow; for at least a section, if not all, of
the so-called Dynamistic Monarchians recognised, besides God, the Spirit as eternal
Son of God, and accordingly assumed two Hypostases. But they did not see in
Jesus an incarnation of this Holy Spirit, and they were therefore monarchian in
their docti'ine of Christ. Besides, so far as I know, the name of Monarchians
was
stand their position in the history of the genesis of the dogma-

tics of the Church, it is decisive, as will have been already
clear from the above, that they only came to the front,
after the anti-gnostic understanding of the baptismal confession
had been It results from
substantially assured in the Church.
this that they be criticised as men
are, generally speaking, to
who appeared on the soil of Catholicism, and that therefore,
apart from the points clearly in dispute, we must suppose agree-
ment between them and their opponents. It is not superfluous
to recall this expressly. The confusion to which the failure to
note this presupposition has led and still continually leads may
be seen, e.g., in the relative section in Dorner's History of the
development of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, or in
not applied in tlie ancient Church to these, but only to the theologians who taught
that there was in Christ an incarnation of God the Father Himself. was not
It
extended to the earlier Dynamistic Monarchians, because, so far as we know, the

question whether God consisted of one or more persons did not enter into the
dispute with them. In a wider sense, the Monarchians could be taken also to
include the Arians, and all those theologians, who, while they recognised the personal
independence of a divine nature in Christ, yet held this nature to have been one
created by God ; in any case, the Arians were undoubtedly connected with Paul of
Samosata through Lucian. However, it is not advisable to extend the conception
so widely; for, firstly, we would thus get too far away from the old classification, and,
secondly, it is not to be overlooked that, even in the case of the most thorough-
going Arians, their Christology reacted on their doctrine of God, and their striict
Monotheism was to some extent modified. Hence, both on historical and logical
grounds, it is best for our purpose to understand by Monarchians those theologians
exclusively who perceived in Jesus either a man filled, in a unique way, with the
Spirit, or an incarnation of God the Father; with the reservation, that the former
in certain of their groups regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine Hypostasis, and were
accordingly no longer really Monarchians in the strict sense of the term. For the
rest, the expression "Monarchians'' is in so far inappropriate as their opponents
would also have certainly maintained the "monarchia" of God. See TertuUi., Adv.
Prax. 3 f. Epiphan. H. 62. 3 oh irohMieioiM eia-tiyoviêice, aAA« liovcepxlzv y.ifpvTTOncv.
; :
They would even have cast back at the Monarchians the reproach that they were destroy-
ing the monarchy. "'H iJ,ovapX''<^ TO" @£oS " was in the second century a standing
title in the polemics of the theologians against polytheists and Gnostics see the —
passages collected from Justin, Tatian, Ireuceus etc. by Coustant in his Ep. Dionysii
adv. Sabell. (Routh, Reliq. Sacrse III., p. 385f.). Tertullian has therefore by no
means used the"Monarchians" as if he were thus directly branding his
term
opponents as heretical; he rather names them by their favourite catch-word in a
spirit of irony (Adv. Prax 10; "vanissimi Monarchiani"). Tlie name was therefore
not really synonymous with a form of heresy in the ancient Church, even if here
it was applied to the opponents of the doctrine of the
and there Trinity.
Krawutzcky's study on the origin of the Didache. The so- '
called Dy namistic M onarchianshave had especially to su ffer

fr om this criticism, their teaching be ing comfortably disposed
of as However, imperative as it certamly is, m
"Ebionit ic".
general, to describe the history of Monarchianism without refer-
ence to the ancient pre-Catholic controversies, and only to bring
in the history of Montanism with great caution, still many facts
observed in reference to the earliest bodies of Monarchians that
come clearly before us, seem to prove that they bore features
which must be characterised as pre-Catholic, but not un-Catholic.
This is especially true of their attitude to certain books of the
New Testament. Undoubtedly we have reason even here to
complain of the scantiness and uncertainty of our historical
material. The Church historians have attempted to bury or
distort the true history of Monarchianism to as great an extent
as they passed over and obscured that of the so-called Monta-
nism. At a very early date, if not in the first stages of the
controversy, they read Ebionitism and Gnosticism into the theses
of their opponents they attempted to discredit their theological
;
works as products of a specific secularisation, or as travesties,

of Christianity, and they sought to portray the Monarchians
themselves as renegades who had abandoned the rule of faith
and the Canon. By this kind of polemics they have made it
difficult for after among other things, whether
ages to decide,
certain of Monarchian bodies in dealing with the
peculiarities
Canon of the N. T. writings spring from a period when there
was as yet no N. T. Canon in the strict Catholic sense, or
whether these characteristics are to be regarded as deviations
from an already settled authority, and therefore innovations.
Meanwhile, looking to the Catholicity of the whole character
of Monarchian movements, and, further, to the fact that no
opposition is recorded as having been made by them to the
N. T. Canon after its essential contents and authority appear
to have been established; considering, finally, that the Monta-
nists,and even the Marcionites and Gnostics, were very early
charged with attempts on the Catholic Canon, we need no longer
1 See Theol. Quartalschr. 1884, p. 547 ff, ICrawutzcky holds the Didache to be
at oace Ebionitic and Theodotian.
<^'hap. I.] INTRODUCTION 1
doubt that the Monarchian deviations point exclusively to a time

when no such Canon existed; and that other "heresies", to be
met with in the older groups, are to be criticised on the under-
standing that the Church was becoming, but not yet become,
Catholic.
The history of Monarchianism is no clearer than its rise in
the form of particular theological tendencies. Here also we have
We cannot
before us, at the present day, only scanty fragments.
always trace completely even the settled distinction between
— —
Dynamistic better, Adoptian and Modalistic Monarchianism ' ;
between the theory that made the power or Spirit of God dwell
in the man Jesus, and the view that sees in Him the incarnation
of the deity Himself.
Ce rtainly the common element,
so far as there was one, of
th e Monarchian movements, lay in the form of the conception
o f God, the distinguishing feature, in the idea of revelad on
But all the phenomena under this head cannot be classified
with certainty, apart from the fact that the most numerous and
important "systems" exist in a very shaky tradition. A really
reliable division of the Monarchianism that in all its forms
rejected the idea of a physical fatherhood of God, and only
saw the Son of God in the historical Jesus, is impossible on
the strength of the authorities up till now known to us.
Apart from a fragment or two we only possess accounts by
opponents. The chronology, again, causes a special difficulty.
Much labour has been spent upon it since the discovery of the
Philosophumena but most of the details have remained very
;
uncertain. The. dates of the Alogi, Artemas, Praxeas, Sabel-

lius, the Antiochian Synods against Paul of Samosata, etc., have
not yet been firmly settled. The concise remarks on the sub-
ject in what follows rest on independent labours. Finally, we
' It is very remarkable that Irenasus has given us no hint in liis great work
of a Monarchian controversy in the Church.
2 It was pointed out above, (Vol. I., p. 193) and will be argued more fully
later on, that the different Christologies could pass into one another.
' We have already noticed. Vol. I., p. 195, that we can only speak of a naive
Modalism in the earlier periods; Modalism first appeared as an exclusive doctrine
at the close of the second century; see under.
[Chap.
HISTORY OF DOGMA
i.
14
are badly even as to the geographical range of the

informed
probability,
controversies. We may, however, suppose, with great
took place in all centres of
that at one time or other a conflict
Christianity in the Empire. But a connected history cannot be given.
2. The Secession of Dynamistic Monarchianism or

Adoptianism.
(a). The so-called Alogi in Asia Minor. '
Epiphanius ' know, from the Syntagma

and Philastrius (H. 6o)
of Hippolytus, of a party to which the latter had given the

nickname of "Alogi". Hippolytus had recorded that its mem-
^ attri-
bers reje cted the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John,
buting these books to Cerinthus, and had not recognised the
Lo gos~ot God to whom the Holy Spirit had borne witnesT 'in
theGospel. Hippolytus, the most prolific of the opponents of

the heretics, wrote, besides his Syntagma, a special work against
these men in defence of the Johannine writings ' and he per-
;
• Merkel, Aufklarung der Streitigkeiten der Aloger, 1782; Heinichen, De Alogis,

1829; Olshausen, Eclitheit der vier Kanonisclien Evangelien, p. 241 f. ; Schwegler,
Montanismus, p. 265 ff. etc.; Volkmar, Hippolytus, p. 112 f.; DoUinger, Hippolytus
u. Kallistus, p. 229 f.; Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphanius, p. 23 f., 233 f.;
Harnack in d. Ztsclir. f. d. histor. Theol. 1874, p. 166 f.; Lipsius, Quellen der
altesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 93 f., 214 f.; Zahn in d. Ztschr. fur die histor. Theol.,
1875, p. 72 f.; 377 f., 398 f., Soyres, Montanism, p. 49 f.

Caspari, Quellen III., p.
Konwetsch, Montanismus vv. 11.; Iwanzov-Platonov, Haresien und Schismen der

drei ersten Jahr. i, p. 233 f.; Zahn, Gesch. d. N. T. KanonsL, p. 220 ff.; Harnack,
das N. T. urn d. J. 200, p. 38 ff.; Julicher, Theol. Lit. Ztg., 1889, No. 7; Salmon
i. Hermathena, 1892, p. 161 ff.
2 Hasr. him Augustine H. 30, Prxdest. H. 30 etc. The statement of
51 ; after
the Prsedest. Bishop named Philo refuted the Alogi is worthless. Whether
that a
the choice of the name was due to the Alexandrian Jew is unknown.
3 Nothing is reported as to the Letters. Epiphanius is perhaps right in represent-
ing that they were also rejected (I.e. ch. 34); but perhaps they were not involved
in the discussion.
^ See the list of writings on the statue of Hippolytus: i/teji tou naru iaav[v]iiv
ivayysMov xai axoxaAuvf/ea;; ; and Ebed Jesu, catal. 7 (Assemani, Bibl. Orient.
III. I, 15): "Apologia pro apocalypsi
et evangelio Johannis apostoli et evange-
listse." Hippolytus wrote: "Capita adversus Caium," a Roman sym-
Besides this
pathiser with the Alogi. Of this writing a few fragments have been preserved
(Gwynn, Hermathena VL, p. 397 f.
; Harnack, Texte und Unters. VI. 3, p. 121 ff.;
Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kaaous, 11., p. 973 ff.

Chap. I.] MONARCHIANISM : THE ALOGl I
5
haps also attacked them in another work aimed at all Monarchi-

ans. ' The character of the party can still be defined, in its
main features, from the passages taken by Epiphanius from

these writings, due regard being given to Irenaeus III. 11,9.
Th e Christological problem seems not to have ôccupied a fo re-
m ost place in the discussion, but rather, the elimination of all
doc etic leaven, and the attitude to proj>hecv. The non-descript,
the Alogi, were a party of the radical, anti-montanist, opposi-
tion in Asia Minor, existing within the Church so radical that —
they refused to recognise the Montanist communities as Christian.
They wished to have all prophecy kept out of the Church; in
this sense they were decided contemners of the Spirit (Iren. I.e.
Epiph. 51, ch. 35). This attitude led them to an historical
criticism of the two Johannine books, the one of which con-
tained Christ's announcement of the Paraclete, a passage which
Montanus had made the most of for his own ends, while the
other imparted prophetic revelations. They came to the con-
clusion, on internal grounds, that these books could not be
genuine, that they were composed "in the name of John"
(fl? ovof/^x 'Iciiixvvoii ch. 3, 18), and that by Cerinthus
(ch. 3, 4,) the books ought not therefore to be received in the
;
' It is certain that Epiphanius, besides the relative section of the Syntagma, also
copied at least a second writing against the "Alogi", and it is probable that this
likewise came from Hippolytus. The date of its composition can be prelty
still
accurately determined from Epiphan. H. 31, ch. 33. It was written about A.D. 234
for Epiphanius' authority closes the period of the Apostles 93 years after the
Ascension, and remarks that had elapsed. Lipsius has
since that date 112 years
obtained another result, but only by an emendation of the text which is unnecessary
(see Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 109 f.). Hippolytus treats his un-
named opponents as contemporaries; but a closer examination shows that he only
—
knew them from their writings of which there were several (see ch. 33), and there-
fore knew nothing by personal observation of the conditions under which they
appeared. A certain criterion of the age of these writings, and therefore of the
party itself, is given by the fact that, at the time when the latter flourished, (he
only Church at Thyatira was, from their own testimony, Montanist, while the
above-mentioned authority was already able to tell of a rising catholic Church, and
of other Christian communities in that place. A Christian of Thyatira, by name
Papylus, appears in the Martyrium Carpi et Papyli (see Harnack, Texte u. Unters.
III. 3, 4). The date when this movement in Asia Minor flourished can be dis-
covered more definitely, however, by a combination, proved by Zahn to be justified,
of the statements of Hippolytus and Irenasus III. 11. 9. According to this, the
party existed in Asia Minor, A.D. 170 iSo. —
6
Church (ch. 3 cuz xîx xutJc (pxtriv slvmi sv sx,zKvi(jicf).

: The
Gospel was charged with containing what was untrue it contra- ;
dicted the other Gospels, and gave a quite different and, in-
'
deed, a notoriously false order of events it was devoid of any ;
sort of arrangement; it omitted important facts and inserted

new ones which were inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels;
and it was docetic. ^ Against the Apocalypse it was alleged,
above all, that its contents were often unintelligible, nay, ab-
surd and untrue (ch. 32 34). They ridiculed —the seven angels
and seven trumpets, and the four angels by the Euphrates;
and on Rev. II. 18, they supposed that there was no Christian
community in Thyatira at the time, and that accordingly the
Epistle was fictitious. Moreover, the objections to the Gospel
must also have included the charge (ch. 18) that it favoured
Docetism, seeing that it passed at once from the incarnation
of the Logos to the work of the ministry of Christ. In this
connection t hey attacked the expression "Logos" for the So n
of God ;
^ indeed, they scented Gnosticism in it, contrasted
John I. with the beginning of Mark's Gosp el, *
and arrived at
the result, whose contents were partly docetic,
that writings
partly sensuously Jewish and unworthy of God, must have been
composed by Cerinthus, the gnosticising Judaist. In view of this
fact it is extremely surprising to notice how mildly the party
was and treated by Irenaeus as well as by Hippolytus.
criticised
The former distinguishes them sharply from the declared
heretics. He places them on a line with the Schismatics, who
gave up communion with the Church on account of the hypo-
1 Epiph. LI., ch. 4 : (^xa-xoviTi on ou irU|ts<f>ftiv£7 rcc îjSîx toS 'laavvov roll; fôi-
TToti; oLTCoiTTOôic^^ ch. l8: TO suayyEîov to eit; '6vofza ^laixwov ^sv^srai . . . ^^syovtrt
ro Kccrx 'Iwavvjjv euxyysAiov, sTStSij [iij rx aurx ro7t; ixToa-ToôiQ 'iipvi, uhix^srov
eJvxt.
Epiphanius has preserved for us in part the criticism of the Alogi on John
2
I. II.,and on tlie Johannine chronology (ch. 3, 4, 15, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29). In their
conception the Gospel of John precluded the human birth and development of Jesus.
' Epiph. LI. 3, 28: Tov ôyov tov @eov xvoîiMovTai tov Sm 'luavvtjv xtfpur-
SevTX.
* Epiph. IJ., ch. 6: hiyoviriv 'iSat/ hurcpov euayyiîov iripi XpurroC <r\fii.a!yov
Kxi oiSxiôv UvuiSsv f,£yav riiv yin^mv if,?\a, (})t)ff;'i/, 'E» tw 'lopS&vvi xarijAJE to
vviunx '£T' a-JTOt Kxi (fiuvii- OCito; isTiv 6 uidg i ayaTjjTo'?, '1$ Sv yjl/SoKô-x.
Chap, l] MONARCHIANISM : THE ALOGI 1
crites to be found in it. He

approves of their decided opposition
to all pseudo-prophetic nonsense,
and he only complains that
in their zeal against the bad they had also fought against the
good, and had sought to eject all prophecy. In short, he feels
that between them and the Montanists, whom likewise he did
not look on as heretics, ' he held the middle position maintained
by the Church. And so with Hippolytus. The latter, apart
from features which he could not but blame, confirms the con-
formity to the Church, claimed by the party itself (ch. 3), and
conspicuous in their insistence on the harmony of the Scriptures
((TuiiCpcovix rav (3i(3xSJv).^ He nowhere sets them on a line with
Cerinthus, Ebion, etc., and he has undoubtedly treated even
their Christological views, on which Irenaeus had communicated
no information, more mildly, because he found so much in them
of an anti-docetic, anti-montanistic nature, with which he could
agree. But what was their teaching as to Christ? If Lipsius'
were correct in his opinion that the Alogi only saw in Jesus
a man naturally procreated, that they only pretended to hold
by the current doctrine, then the attitude to them of Irenaeus
and Hippolytus would be incomprehensible. But our authority
gives no support to such a view. It rather shows plainly that
the Alogi recognised the first three Gospels, and consequently

t/te miraculous birth from the Holy Ghost and the virgin. Th ey
p laced, however, the chi ef empha sis on the human life of Jesu s,
on his birth, baptism, and temptation as told by the Synoptic s,
an d for this very, reason rejected the formula of the Logos, as
well as th e "birth from abo v e", i.e., the eternal generation of
Christ . The equipment of Christ at his baptism was to them ,
in view of Mark, ch. I., of crucial importance (see p. 16, Note 4)

and thus they would assume, without themselves making u se
of the phrase "a mere man" {\lîôg KvQpwTrog), an advancement
' This milder criticism — and neither Montanists nor Alogi stand in Irenaeus'
catalogue of heretics —naturally did not prevent the view that those "unhappy-
people " had got into an extremely bad position by their opposition to the prophetic
activity of the Spirit in the Church, and had fallen into the unforgivable sin against
the Holy Ghost.
2 In Epiph. LI., ch. 4: SoxoSa-i xai aiiToi ta 'luu )5fi7v VKrTstjsrj.
' Quellen, p. 102 f., II3.

[TTpoMTryi) of the Christ, ordained at his baptism to be S on

o f God.
Th e earliest opponents known to us of the Logos C hrist-

ology were men whose adherence to the position of the
Church in Asia Minor was strongly ma rked. This attitude of
theirs was exhibited in a decided antagonism both to the Gnosti-
cism, say, of Cerinthus, and to " Kataphrygian " prophecy. In
their hostility to the latter they anticipated the development of

the Church by about a generation while rejecting all prophecy ;
and "gifts of the Spirit" (ch. 35), they, in doing so, gave the
clearest revelation of their Catholic character. Since they did
not beUeve in an age of the Paraclete, nor entertain material-
istichopes about the future state, they could not reconcile
themselves to the Johannine writings; and their attachment to
the of Christ in the Synoptics led them to reject
conception
the Gospel of the Logos. An explicitly Church party could
not have ventured to promulgate such views, if they had been
confronted by a Canon already closed, and giving a fixed place
to these Johannine books. The uncompromising criticism, both
internal —
and external as in the hypothesis of the Cerinthian
authorship —
to which these were subjected, proves that, when
the party arose, no Catholic Canon existed as yet in Asia Minor,
and that, accordingly, the movement was almost as ancient as
that of the Montanists, which it followed very closely. ^ On this
• It is not quite whether we may appeal to the words in Epiph. LI.,

certain
ch. 18 (20); vojii/ôvTES UTO MxfixQ Kxl SeCpo Xpia-TOV auriv xa^s7(T6ai kixi v!6v &eoS,
Kcct eJvoii fj.h TTpdrepov ^//Aov iivSpcdTov, KUTci TrpoKO'jriiv $i si^^yjtpsvxi rijv rov @eov
•jrpQiT^yoptccv.
2 As regards the problem of the origin and gradual reception of the Johannine
writings, and especially of the Gospel, their use by Montanus, and their abrupt rejection
by the Alogi, are of the greatest significance, especially when we bear in mind the
Churchly character of the latter. The rise of such an opposition in the very region in
which the Gospel undoubtedly first came to light; the application to the fourth of a
standard derived from the Synoptic Gospels; the denial without scruple, of its apostolic
origin; are facts which it seems to me have, at the present day, not been duly
appreciated. We must not weaken their force by an appeal to the dogmatic character
of the criticism practised by the Alogi the attestation of the Gospel cannot
;
have been convincing, if such a criticism was ventured on in the Church. But
the Alogi distinctly denied to John and ascribed to Cerinthus the Apocalypse as
—9
Chap, i.] MONARCHIANISM : THE ALOGI 1
understanding, the party had a legitimate place within the devel-

oping Cathohc Church, and only so can we explain the criti-
cism which their writings encountered in the period immediately
succeeding. Meanwhile, the first express opposition with which
we are acquainted to the Logos Christology was raised within
the Church, by a party which, yet, must be conceived by us
to have been in many respects specifically secularised. For the
radical opposition to Montanism, and the open, and at the same
time jesting, criticism on the Apocalypse, ' can only be so re-
garded. Yet the preference of the Logos Christology to others

is itself indeed, as Celsus teaches,' a symptom of secularisation
and innovation in the creed. The Alogi attacked it on this
ground when they took it as promoting Gnosticism (Docetism).
But they also tried to refute the Logos Doctrine and the Logos
Gospel on historical grounds, by a reference to the Synoptic
Gospels. The representatives of this movement were, as far as
we know, the first to zindertake ivilkin the Church a historical
criticism, worthy of the name, of the Christian Scriptures and
the Church tradition. They first confronted John's Gospel with
the Synoptics, and found numerous contradictions; Epiphanius,
and probably, before him, Hippolytus, called them, therefore, —
word-hunters {êîSt^povvTsi; H. 51, ch. 34). They and their oppo-
nents could retort on each other the charge of introducing
innovations; but we cannot mistake the fact that the larger
proportion of innovations be looked for on. the side of
is to
the Alogi. How long the latter held their ground; how, when,
and by whom they were expelled from the Church in Asia
Minor, we do not know.
well as the Gospel. Of Cerinthus we know far too little to be justified in sharing
in the holy horror of the Church Fathers. But even if the above hypothesis is
false,and it is in fact very probable that it is, yet the very fact that it could be
,
set up by Churchmen is instructive enough; for it shows us, what we do not know
from any other source, that the Johannine writings met with, and had to overcome,
opposition in their birth-place.
^ The Roman Caius took over this criticism from them, as is shown by Hip-
polytus' Caium. But, like Theodotus, to be mentioned presently, ho
Cap. adv.
rejected the view of the Alogi as regards John's Gospel.
(b). The Roman Adoptians.— Theodotus the leather-worker

and his party: Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, ApoUonides,
Theodotus the money-changer, and also the
Artemonites. '
Towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus, or at the

beginning of that of Victor (+ 1 90) there came from Byzantium
to Rome the leather-worker Theodotus, who afterwards was

See Kapp, Hist. Artemonis, 1737; Hagemann, Die romische Kirche in den drei
1
ersteo Jahrh., 1864; Lipsius, Quellenkritik, p. 235 f.; Lipsius, Chronologie der
rbmischen Bischofe, p. 173 f.; Harnack, in the Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874,
p. 200; Caspai-i, Qiiellen III., pp. 318—321, 404 f.; Langen, Geschichte der romi-
schen Kirche I., p. 192 f. ; Caspari, Om Melchizedekiterues eller Theodotianernes
eller Athinganemes Laerdomme og om hvad de herve at sige, naar de skulle Mine
optagne i. den kristelige Kirke, in the Tidsskr f. d. evang. luth. Kirke. Ny Raekke,
—
Bd. VIII., part 3, pp. 307 337. Authorities for the older Theodotus are; (i) the
Syntagma of Hippolytus according to Epiph. H. 54, Philaster-H. 50. and Pseudo-
TertuU. H. 28; (2) the Philosophumena VII. 35, X. 23, IX. 3, 12, X. 27; (3) the
fragment of Hippolytus against Noetus, ch. 3. 4) the fragments from the so-called
Little Labyrinth (in Euseb. H. E. V. 28), which was perhaps by Hippolytus, and
was written is the fourth decade of the third century, and after the Philosophumena.
This woric was directed against Roman Dynamistic Monarchians under the leader-
ship of a certain Artemas, who are to be distinguished from the Theodotians.
(For the age and author of the Little Labyrinth, and for its connection with the
writings against the Alogi and against Noetus; also for the appearance of Artemas,
which is not to be dated before ± 235 see Caspari, Quellen I.e., and my art.
:
"Monarchianismtis", p. 186). Eusebius has confined his extracts from the Little
Labyrinth to such as deal with the Theodotians. These extracts and Philos. Lib. X.
are used by Theodoret (li. F. II. 4. 5); it is not probable that the latter had him-
self examined the Little Labyrinth. A writing of Theodotus seems to have been
made use of in the Syntagma of Hippolytus. As regards the younger Theodotus, his
name has been handed down by the Little Labyrinth, the Philosoph. (VII. 36) and
Pseudo-TertuU. H. 29 (Theodoret H. F. 11. 6). The Syntagma tells of a party of
Melchizedekians, wliich is traced in the Philosoph. and by the Pseudo-TertuUian to
the younger Theodotus, but neitlier the party nor its founder is named. Very
mysterious in contents and origin is the piece, edited for the first time from Parisian
MSS. by Caspari (see above): TSfi M£A;)j<a-£j£x(av&iv xxi 0eoSoriavav xeei 'ASiy-
•yamv. Tlie only controversial writing known to us against Artemas (Artemon) is
the Little Labyrinth. Unfortunately Eusebius has not excerpted the passages aimed
at him. Artemas is, again, omitted in the Syntagma and in the Philosoph. For this
reason Epiphanius, Pseudo-TertuU. and Philaster have no articles expressly dealing
with him. He is, however, mentioned prominently in the edict of the last Synod
of Antioch held to oppose Paul of Samosata (so also in the Ep. Alexandri in
Theodoret H. E, I. 3 and in Pamphilus' Apology Pro Orig. in Routh, Reliq. S. IV.
p. 367); therefore many later writers against the heretics have named him (EpipL.
li. 65. I, esp. Theodoret H. F. IL 6. etc.). Finally, let it be noticed that the state-
Chap, i.] ROMAN ADOPTIANS 21
characterised as the " founder, leader, and father of the God-

denying revolt", i.e., of Adoptianism. Hippolytus calls him a
"rag" {i7ro(T7ra<Ti/M) of the Alogi, and it is in fact not improb-
able that he came from the of those theologians of Asia
circle
Minor. Stress is laid on his unusual culture; "he was supreme
in Greek culture, very learned in science " (ii/ TraiSsicf. 'EX^^y^viz^
dxpog, TToKvpfâJvii rou Xoyov); and he was, therefore, highly re-

spected in his native city. All we know for certain of his history
is that he yas excommunicated by the Roman Bishop, Victor,
on account of the Christology which he taught in Rome (Euseb.
V. 28. 6: (XTTSKvipv^s Tyjg Koivccviacg); his is, therefore, the first
case of which we are certain, where a Christian who took his
stand on the rule of faith was yet treated as a heretic. As '
regards his teaching, the Philosophumena expressly testify to

the orthodoxy of Theodot us in his theology and cosmology.
'^
In reference to the Person of Christ he taught: that Jesu s

w as a man, who, by a special decree of God, was born of a
v irgin through the operation of the Holy Sp irit; but that w e
w ere no t to see in him a heavenly being, who had assum ed
fl esh in the vir gin. A fter the piety of his life had been thorough ly
te sted, the Holy Ghost descended upon him in baptism; by

th is means he became Christ and re ceived his equipment
CS vvxfisig) for his special voca tion and he demonstrated the ;
righteousness, in virtue of which he excelled all men, and was,
of necessity, their authority. Yet t he descent of the Sp irit upon

Tesus was not sufficient to justify the co ntention that he was
now "God". Some of the followers of Theodotus represented
menls in the Synodicon Pappi, and in the Prsedestinatus are worthless, and that
the identification of the younger Theodotus with the Gnostic of the same name,
extracts from whose works we possess, is inadmissable, not less so than the iden-
tification with Theodotus, the Montanist, of whom we are informed by Eusebius.
In this we agree with Zahn (Forschungen III., p. 123) against Neander andDorner.
As an authority for the Roman Monarchians, Novatian, De Trinitate, also falls to
be considered.
' It took place in Rome. The Syntagma is further able

is significant that this
to Theodotus had denied Christ during the persecution in his native city
tell that
before he came to Rome. See on this point my article on Monarchianism, p. 187.
2 VII. 35 : (paiTxuv rk Trepi (.isv tj)? tov îiVTO{; apxî <7iii(pu\iu ex lispov; rc7Q
Tesu s as havinf^ become God through the resurrection; oth ers

di sputed This Christology, Theodotus and his"~p arty
even th is. '
so ught to prove from Script ure. Philaster says in general terms

" they use the chapters of Scripture which tell of Christ as man,
but they avoid those which speak of him as God, reading and
by no means understanding" (Utuntur capitulis scripturarum
quK de Christo veluti de homine edocent, quae autem ut deo
dicunt ea vero non accipiunt, legentes et nullo modo intelle-
gentes). Epiphanius has, fortunately, preserved for us fragments

of the biblical theological investigations of Theodotus, by the help
of the These show that there was no longer any
Syntagma.
dispute as to the extent of the N. T. Canon; the Gospel of
John is recognised, and in this respect also Theodotus is Catho-
lic. The investigations are interesting, however, because they
are worked out by the same prosaic methods of exegesis, adopted
^
in the above discussed works of the Alogi.
' Philos. VII. 35; 0£ov Ss olii'XOTS roSrov yeyovevai Hf.ov)nv ivi rji xx6dSa
ToS vMiviinroi;, 'irepot St jzsTa rijv Ix vsxfSv KvourTXtrn. The description in the
text is substantially taken from the Philos., with whose account the, contents of the
Syntagma are not inconsistent. The statement that Theodotus denied the birth by
the virgin is simply a calumny, first alleged by Epiphanius. The account of the
Philos. seems unreliable, at most, on a. single point, viz., where, interpreting Theo-
dotus, It calls which descended at the baptism "Christ" But possibly
the Spirit
this too is correct, seeing thatHermas, and, later, the author of the Acta Archelai
have also identified the Holy Spirit with the Son of God. (Compare also what
Origen [xipl cipx- pref-] has reported as Church tradition on the Holy Spirit.) In
that case we would only have to substitute the "Son of God " for " Christ ", and to
suppose that Hippolytus chose the latter term in order to be able to characterise
the teaching of Theodotus as Gnostic (Cerinthian). On the possibility that the Theo-
dotians, however, really named the Holy Spirit "Christ", see later on.
'Epiphanius mentions the appeal of the Theodotians to Deut. XVIII. 15; Jer.
XVII. 9; Isa. LIII. 2 f.; Mat. XII. 31; Lulce I. 35; John VIII. 40; Acts II. 22;
I Tim. II. 5. They deduced from Mat. XII. 31, that the Holy Spirit held a higher place
than the Son of Man. The treatment of the verses in Deut. and Luke is especially
instructive. In the former Theodotus emphasised, not only the " Trp o<|i)jti)v iSj e/xe ",
and the "Ix twv aSsA^wv", but also the "eyE/jsT", and concluded referring the
passage to the Resurrection 6 ix ®sov kyeipiiiSvoQ Xfia-roQ ouroQ oux i/v ®eoQ «AA^
:
ic'jQpai'jroQ, eTstSii e| al/ruv ^v, w$ xai Muva-)^^ Hv^pwjroi; ^v — accordingly the resus-
citated Christwas not God. On Luke I. 35 he argued thus " The Gospel itself says :
in reference to Mary: 'the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee'; but it does
not say ' the Spirit of the Lord will be in thy body ', or,' will enter into thee.' "
:
Further, if we may trust Epiphanius, Theodotus sought to divide the sentence^

Sii xaii ri 'ysvvwinvov ex roS Hyiov K^tfitiinTXi u/o; &£oS , from the first half of —
The odotus' form of tea ching was, even in the Hfe-time of

its author, held in Rome to be intolerable, and that by~rn en
rlii;p n<iprl to Modalism e.f.. the Bishop himself, see under — s
we ll as by the Logos Christo logy. It is

representatives of the
certain that he was excommunicated by Victor, accordingly
before A.D. 199, on the charge of teaching that Christ was
"mere man" (t^/Ao? civSpaôt;). We do not know how large his
following was in the city. We cannot put it at a high figure,
since in that case the Bishop would not have ventured on ex-
communication. It must, however, have been large enough to
allow experiment of forming an independent Church.
of the
This was attempted in the time of the Roman Bishop Zephyrine
—
(199 218) by the most important of the disciples of Theodotus,
viz., Theodotus the money-changer, and a certain Asclepiodotus.
It is extremely probable that both of these men were also

Greeks. A native, Natalius the confessor, was induced, so we
are told by the Little Labyrinth, to become Bishop of the party,
at a salary of 150 denarii a month. The attempt failed. The
oppressed Bishop soon deserted and returned into the bosorti of
the great Church. It was told that he had been persuaded by
visions and finally by blows with which "holy angels" pursued

him during the night. The above undertaking is interesting in
itself, since it proves how great had already become the gulf
between the Church and these Monarchians in Rome, about
A.D. 210; but still more instructive is the sketch given of the
leaders of the party by the Little Labyrinth, a sketch that
agrees excellently with the accounts given of the ^^.sîSijpovvTsg'
in Asia, and of the exegetic labours of the older Theodotus.

the verse, as if the words " Sio xai " did not exist, so that he obtained the meaning
that the Sonship of Christ would only begin later, — subsequent to the test. Perhaps,
however, Theodotus entirely deleted "JiS xai", just as he also read "TueS/zaxyp/ot/"
for "5rv6u/aa ceyiov" in order to avoid all ambiguity. And since Hippolytus urges
against him that John I. 14 did not contain "to wveviitt a-etp^ lyhsro" Theodotus ,
must at least have interpreted the word "A^yo?" in the sense of "weSiJ,ce" and ;
an ancient formula really ran: "Xp/iTTo? Siv fiiv to Trparov jDiivfitt iyhsro ircip^"
(2 Clem. IX. s), where later "/i^yo?'' was, indeed, inserted in place of "TV£C/.4a".
See the Cod. Constantinop.
1 Euseb. (H. E. V. 28): "They falsified the Holy Scriptures without scruple,
rejected the standards of the ancient faith, and misunderstood Christ. For they
did not examine what the Scriptures said, but carefully considered what logical
24 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. I.
The offence against the Theodotians was three-

charged
fold: the grammatical and formal exegesis of Holy Scripture, the
trenchant textual criticism, and the thorough-going study of
Logic, Mathematics, and the empirical sciences. It would seem
at a first glance as if these men were no longer as a rule inter-
ested in theology. But the opposite was the case. Their oppo-
nent had himself to testify that they pursued grammatical exe-
gesis " in order to prove their godless tenets," textual criticism
in order to correct the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and
philosophy "in order by the science of unbehevers to support
their heretical conception." He had also to bear witness to the
fact that these scholars had not tampered with the inspiration
of the Holy Scriptures, or the extent of the Canon (V. 28. 18).
Their whole work, therefore, was in the service of their theology.
—
But the method of this work, and we can infer it to have
been also that of the Alogi and the older Theodotus conflicted —
with the dominant theological method. Instead of Plato and
figure they could obtain from it that would prove their godless teaching. And
if any one brought before them a passage from Holy Scripture, they asked whether
a conjunctive or disjunctive figure could be made of it. They set aside the Holy
Scriptures of God, and employ themselves, instead, with geometry, being men who
are earthly, and talk of what is earthly, and know not what comes from above.
Some of them, therefore, study the geometry of Euclid with the greatest devotion
Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; Galen is even worshipped by some. But
what need is there of words to show that men who misuse the sciences of the
unbelievers to prove their heretical views, and falsify with their own godless cunning
the plain faith of Scripture, do not even stand on the borders of the faith? They
have therefore laid their hands so unscrupulously on the Holy Scriptures under
the pretext that they had only amended it critically {SiojfSaxhxi). He who will
can convince himself that this is no calumny. For, if one should collect the
manuscripts of any one of them and compare them, he would find them differ in
many passages. At least, the manuscripts of Asclepiodotus do not agree with those
of Theodotus. But we can have examples of this to excess for their scholars have
;
noted with ambitious zeal all that any one of them has, as they say, critically
amended, i.i., distorted (effaced?). Again, with these the manuscripts of Hermo-
philus do not agi'ee; and those of ApoUonides even differ from each other. For
if we compare the manuscripts first restored by them (him?) with the later re-corrected
copies, variations are found in many places. But some of them have not even
found it worth the trouble to falsify the Holy Scriptures, but hove simply rejected
the Law and the Prophets, and have by this lawless and godless doctrine hurled
themselves, under the pretext of grace, into the deepest abyss of perdition.
' See under.

Ze no, the Adop tians revered the Empiric ist s instead of the all e- ;
g orical interpretation of Scripture, the erammatical was alo ne

h eld to be vali d; instead of simply accepting or capriciously
trimming the traditional text, an attempt was made to discover
the original. How unique and valuable is this information 1
How instructive it is to observe that this method struck the dis-

ci ple"^ tne Apologists and Irenae us as strange, nay, even ~as
'
heretical, that while he would have seen nothing to object to

in the study of Plato, he was seized with horror at the idea of
Aristotle, Euclid, and Galen, being put in the place of Plato I
The one of method. In the

difference was, indeed, not merely
condition of the theology of the Church at that time, it could
not be supposed that religious conviction was especially strong
or ardent in men who depreciated the religious philosophy of
the Greeks. For whence, if not from this source, or from
Apocalyptics, did men then derive a distinctively pious enthusi-
asm ? ^ It is be wondered at that the attempt
also little to
made by these found a Church in Rome, was so
scholars to
quickly wrecked. They were fated to remain officers without
an army for with grammar, textual criticism, and logic one
;
could only throw discredit, in the communities, on the form of

Christological doctrine which held the highest place and had
been rendered venerable by long tradition. These scholars,
therefore, although they regarded themselves as Catholic, stood
outside the Church. ' Of the works of these, the earliest exeget-
ical scholars, nothing has come down to us. * They have gone
1 .See V. 28. 4, 5.
^ The triumph of Neo-platonic philosophy and of Logos Christology in
the
Christian theology is, in this sense, to be considered an advance.
That philosophy,
indeed, in the third century, triumphed throughout the empire over its rivals, and
therefore the exclusive alliance concluded with it by Christian tradition vi'as one
which, when it took place, could be said to have been inevitable. Suppose, how-
ever, that the theology of Sabellius or of Paul had established itself in (he Church
in the 3rd century, then a gulf would have been created between the Church and
Hellenism that would have made it impossible for the religion of the Church to
become that of the empire. Neo-platonic tradition was the final product of antiquity;
it disposed, but as u, living force, of the intellectual and moral capital of the past.
3 — —
As "genuine" scholars and this is a very characteristic feature tliey took very
great care that each should have the credit of his own amendments on the text.
* The Syntagma knows of these; Epiph. H. 55. c. I TA«TTOuir<v icevTo7i; xxi
:
without leaving any appreciable effect on the Church. Contrast

the significance gained by the schools of Alexandria and Anti-
och 1 The, latter, which rose about 6o years later, took up again
the work of this Roman school. It, too, came to stand outside
the great Church ; but it brought about one of the most import-
ant crises in the dogmatics of the Church, because in its philoso-
phico-theological starting-point it was at one with orthodoxy.
Th e methodi cal and exegetical examination of the Holy

Scriptures confirmed the Theod otians in their conception of
Christ as ttie man in whom
in an especial manner the Spi rit
of (jrod and had made them opponents of th e
had operate d,
Logos Christology. The author of the Little Labyrinth does
not state wherein the doctrine of the younger Theodotus differed
from that of the older. When he says that some of the Theo-
dotians rejected the law and the prophets TrpoCpxaei xdpiroi;, we
may well suppose that they simply emphasised in a Pauline —
sense, or because of considerations drawn from a historical
study of religion —the relativity of the authority of the O. T. ;
for there is as little known of any rejection of the Catholic

Canon on the part of the Theodotians, as of a departure from
the rule of faith. Now Hippolytus has extracted from the exe-
getical works of the younger Theodotus one passage, the dis-
cussion of Hebr. V. 6, lo; VI. 2of; VII. 3, 17; and out of
this he has made an important heresy. Later historians eagerly
seized on this; they ascribed to the younger Theodotus, as
distinguished from the older, a cultus of Melchizedek and in-
vented a sect of Melchizedekians (= Theodotians). The money-
changer taught, it was said (Epiph. H. 55), that Melchizedek
was a very great power, and more exalted than Christ, the
latter being merely related to the former as the copy to the
original. Melchizedek was the advocate of the heavenly powers
before God, and the High Priest among men, " while Jesus as
1 Even the great anti-gnostic teachers had come to this view (see Vol. II., p. 304)
without indeed drawing the consequences whicli the Theodotians may have deduced
more certainly.
2 L.c. A£( ^^/5c*t5j MEA%«rf JJk Trpotripspsiv, cpxo-i'v, 'Act Si' aurov Tfioacvsx^'l """Jp
1f/ZftJv, KXl supciJiisv Si' aVTOV ^CtJ^V.
Chap, i.] ROMAN ADOPTIANS 2/
priest stood a degree lower. The origin of the former was

completely concealed, because it was heavenly, but Jesus was
born of Mary. To this Epiphanius adds that the party
presented its oblations in the name of M. (iig ovoiâ, tou MfA%/-
as'Ssy,) he was the guide to God, the prince of righteous-
; for
ness, the true Son of God. It is apparent that the Theodotians
cannot have taught this simply as it stands. The explanation
is not far to seek. There was a wide-spread opinion in the
whole ancient Church, that Melchizedek was a manifestation of
the true Son of God; and to this view many speculations
attached themselves, here and there in connection with a subord-
inationist Christology. The Theodotians shared this conception.
'
Immediately after the sentence given above Epiphanius has

(5 5 c. 8)
> And Christ, they say, was chosen that he might
:
call us from many ways to this one knowledge, having been
anointed by God, and chosen, when he turned us from idols

and showed us the way. And the Apostle having been sent
by him revealed to us that Melchizedek is great and remains
a priest for ever, and behold how great he is; and because the
less is blessed by the greater, therefore he says that he as
being greater blessed Abraham the patriarch; of whom we are
initiated that we may obtain from him the blessing.
Now the Christological conception, formulated in the first half
^ See Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 25. 161; Hierakas in Epiph. H. 55, c. s,H. 67, c. 3;
Philast. H. 148. Epipli. has himself to confess (H. 55, c. 7), that even in his time
the view to be taken of Melchizedek was still a subject of dispute among Catholic
Christians: 01 /iiv yap aWov voiilXovtri tfiuasi tov viov tou @£ou iv ISex xvSfdiTTov
TOTS tSs 'A^paxfi veîjvevixi. Jerome Ep. 73 is important. The Egyptian hermit,
Marcus, wrote, about A.D. 400, an independent work Big rov Msf^xio-sSix kutcc
Vi.BhX'iTsisy.siSv, i.e., against those who saw in Melchizedek a manifestation of the
true Son of God (see Photius, Bibliolh. 200; Diet, of Christ. Biog. III. p. 827;
Herzog's R. E., 2 Aufl. IX. p. 290); cf. the above described fragment, edited for
the first lime by Caspari; further Theodoret H. F. II. 6, Timotheus Presb. in
Cotelier, Monum. Eccl. Grtecae III. p. 392 etc.
TavTi^y T^v yvcScriv, vtto @eov xe;^pô'^.tevo5 Kxt siiA£iiTdt;'y£v6[i£voi;,kTsi5iia'TEirTps^sv

ijIxaQ ccTTo slZuKtav aul vTsSei^sv -^fu'j T^y ohov. 'E^ ouTsp 6 xTTOfTTOôg aTTogToiêtg
ayriHix?iU'liev illûv, on liiycii htrriv 6 MfA^/o-eJf'x, xcci hpeug iJ,hei £;'{ tov ciiuvct,
axi, @Eupe7T£ ttjjA/xo? oZtoc;' kxi 'oti to 'ihairirov £tc tov (/.Etôvog £vôy£7rizt, Sta
TOVTO, <P^^t, KOI TOV Â^pasifi TOV TTOiTptlZpX^V £V^6yi1t7£V W? [jtSt^CtiV ItiV OXJ '^{^£'li
ia-iîv (iua-Tdi, uTraii tvX'Î''--^ ^"f' '^''T'oi t^c Elhoyiag.

28 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, i
of this paragraph, was certainly not reported from an opponent.

It is precisely that of the Shepher d, and accordingly very an- '
cient in the Roman Church. ^ From this, and by a reference

to the controversial writing of Hippolytus (Epiph. I.e. ch. 9),
the "heretical" cultus of Melchizedek is explained. These Theo-

dotians maintained, as is also shown by their exegesis on i Cor.
VIII. 6, ^
three points : First, that besides the Father the only
divine being was the Holy Spirit, who was identical with
the —
Son again simply the position of Hermas; secondly, that
this Holy Spirit appeared to Abraham in the form of the King
of Righteousness —
and this, as has been shown above, was no
novel contention; thirdly, that Jesus was a man anointed with
the power of the Holy Ghost. But, in that case, it was only
logical, and in itself not uncatholic, to teach that offerings and
worship were due, as to the true, eternal Son of God, to this
King of Righteousness who had appeared to Abraham, and
had blessed him and his real descendants, i.e., the Christians.
And if, in comparison with this Son of God, the chosen and
anointed servant of God, Jesus, appears inferior at first, pre-
cisely in so far as was no more
he is man, yet their position
unfavourable in this respect than that of Hermas. For Hermas
also taught that Jesus, being only the adopted Son of God,
was really not to be compared to the Holy Spirit, the Eternal
Son or, rather, he is related to the latter, to use a Theodotian
;
expression, as the copy to the original. Yet there is undoubt-

edly a great distinction between the Theodotians and Hermas.
They unmistakably used their speculations as to the eternal
' Cf. the striking agreement with Sim. V., especially ch. VI. 3 : outo; xafla/i/ira;
Ta? x/icepriixi; tov AaoS 'eSeiêv avro7( Ta; rpi'ôvi tvh âii)?.
2 The theologico-philosophical impress which, as distinguished from Sim. V.,

marks the whole passage, is of course unmistakable. Notice what is said as to
Paul, and the expression " /.ti/o-rai ".
' The Theodotians seem tohave taken Christ in this verse to mean not Jesus,
but the Holy Spirit, the eternalSon of God, deleting the name Jesus (Epiph.
H. 55, ch. 9). If that is so then the Philosophumena is right when it relates that
the Theodotians had also given thename of Christ to the pre-existent Son of God,
the Yet it is not certain whether we should regard the above
Holy Ghost.
quoted chapter of Epiphanius at all as reporting the Theodotian interpretation
of I Cor. VIII. 6.
Chap, i.] ROMAN ADOPTIANS. 29
Son of God in order to rise to that Son from the man Jesus
of history, and to transcend the historical in general as some-
thing There is not a word of this to be found
subordinate. '
in Thus, the Theodotians sought, in a similar way to

Hermas.
Origen, to rid themselves by speculation of what was merely
historical, setting, like him, the eternal Son of God above the
Crucified One. We have evidence of the correctness of this
opinion in the observation that these speculations on Melchi-
zedek were continued precisely in the school of Origen. We
find them, and that with the same tendency to depreciate the
historical Son of God, in Hieracas and the confederacy of
;
Hieraclte monks " as also in the monks who held the views of
Origen in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries.
We have accordingly found that these theologians retaine d
tVi p ancient Roman
represented by Hermas; but Christology
th at they and consequently changed its
edited it theologically
intention, ^f, at that time, the "Pastor" was still read in the
R oman Church, while the Theodotian Christolofyy was con-
demned, then its Christology must have been differently int er-
preted In view of the peculiar character of the book, this
.
would not be difficult. We may ask, however, whether the teach-

ing of the Theodotians is really to be characterised as Monarchian,
seeing that they assigned a special, and as it seems, an inde-
pendent role to the Holy Spirit apart from God. Meanwhile,
we can no longer determine how these theologians reconciled
the separate substance (hypostasis) of the Holy Ghost, with
the unity of the Person of God. But so much is certain, that
in their Christology the Spirit was considered by them only as
a power, and that, on the other hand, their rejection of the
Logos Christology was not due to any repugnance to the idea
of a second divine being. This is proved by their teaching as
to the Holy Spirit and His appearance in the Old Testament.
1 Epiph. H. 55, ch. 8: e/'c 'ivoij-x Si tovtov tov MeA;);«rejEx ii Vfoeiptîihti
u'lfimi Ku! Tot( '!rpo<T(popx{; uvix<îfei, xctl xvtov elvai eitrxyayea Tpo; tov @£ov xxi
Si^ avTOv, (piio'iy Se't tw &Eut 7rpoa-<pep£iv, on xutm tovtoi
ixpxt^v ea-Tt StKiztotrvvijQ, stt^
Kxriza-raCeii vto tov @sov hv oi/pavta, 7nfsv[iaiTiKdi; riq wv, KXt vtot; @sov T£ray(iivo^
, . . . i;. I : XpttrrS^^ <pija-tv, efrriv ert vToSssa-Tspo^ tov MeA;îo-e5ex.
3 See my art. in Herzog R. E., 2 Aufl. VI. p. 100 (Epiph. LV. 5; LXVII. 3).
But then the difference between them and their opponents does
not belong to the sphere of the doctrine of God they are rather ;
substantially at one on this subject with a theologian like Hippo-

lytus. If that is so, however, their opponents were undoubtedly
superior to them, while they themselves fell short of the traditional
estimate of Christ. In other words, if there was an eternal
Son of God, any one of that nature, and if
or He appeared
under the covenant, then the traditional estimate of Jesus
old
could not be maintained, once he was separated from that Son.
The formula of the man anointed with the Spirit was no
longer sufficient to establish the transcendent greatness of the
revelation of God in Christ, and it is only a natural conse-
quence that the O. T. theophanies should appear in a brighter
light. We see here why the old Christological conceptions
passed away so quickly, comparatively speaking, and gave place
so soon in the Churches to the complete and essential elevation
of Jesus to the rank of deity, whenever theological reflection
awoke to life. It was, above all, the distinctive method of viewing
the Old Testament and its theophanies that led to this.
In certain respects the attempt of the Theodotians presents
itself as an innovation. They sought
to raise a once accepted,
but, so to speak, form of faith to the stage of
enthusiastic
theology and to defend it as the only right one they expressly ;
refused, or, at least, 'declared to be matter of controversy, the

use of the title "God" (0m?) as applied to Jesus; they advanc-
ed beyond Jesus to an eternal, unchangeable Being (beside
God). In this sense, in consequence of the new interest which
the representatives of the above doctrine took in the old for-
mula, it be regarded as novel. For we can hardly attri-
is to
bute to pre-catholic Christians like Hermas, a special interest in
the essential humanity of Jesus. They certainly believed that
they gave full expression in their formulas to the highest pos-
sible estimate of the Redeemer they had no other idea. These
;
theologians, on the other hand, defended a lower conception

of Christ against a higher. Thus we may judge them on their
own ground; for they let the idea of a heavenly Son of God
• Hermas did not do this, in so far as iu the language of religion he speaks
only of a Son of God (Sirail. IX.).
stand, and did not carry out the complete revision of the pre-
vailing doctrine thatwould have justified them in proving their
Christological conception to be the one really legitimate and
satisfactory. They indeed supported it by Scriptural proof, and
in this certainly surpassed their opponents, but the proof did
not cover the gaps in their dogmatic procedure. Since they
took their stand on the regula fidei, it is unjust and at the
same time unhistorical to call their form of doctrine "Ebionitic",
or to dispose of them with the phrase that Christ was to them
exclusively a mere man (^4îXog &v6paTog). But if we consider the
circumstances in which they appeared, and the excessive ex-
pectations that were pretty generally attached to the possession
—
of faith above all, the prospect of the future deification of
—
every believer we cannot avoid the impression, that a doctrine
could not but be held to be destructive, which did not even
elevate Christ to divine honours, or, at most, assigned him
an apotheosis, like that imagined by the heathens for their
emperors or an Antinous. Apocalyptic enthusiasm passed grad-
ually into Neo-platonic mysticism. In -this transition these scho-
lars took no share. They rather sought to separate a part of
the old conceptions, and to defend that with the scientific means
of their opponents.
On ce more. 20 to .ô years later, the attempt w as

ma de in Rome by a certain Artemas to rejuvenate the ol d
Christology. We ar e extremely ill informe d as to this last phase
of Roman Adoptianism ; for the extracts taken by Kusebius
from the Little Labyrinth, the work written against Artemas and
his party, apply almost exclusively to the Theodotians. We
learn,however, that the party appealed to the historical justifi-
cation of their teaching in Rome, maintaining that Bishop
Zephyrine had first falsified the true doctrine which they de-
fended. ^
The relative correctness of this contention is indisput-
able, especially if we consider that Zephyrine had not dis-
1 Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3: (paa-t yap Toiig ijlev TTfiozspoui; esTrxvTOii; aal siurovt; tdvq
ctTTOiTTiôvg, TTapsiîîfiSvxt TS KCcl SeStSaxsvcii rcivTU, x vvv oi/TOt KsyoviTi^ y.cti m\\-
pvia-Sai rtiv uf.vthixv toS Kiipuyi/.aToi iJ.exP' twv pjpo'vmv toS BiKTopog . , . avo ii tov
itui6x<"J x'jToS Zs(pvp.'vov 7rapcixiX''f^X^^' "'"'t" xf^'îeic'J.
approved of the formula, certainly novel, that "the Father had

suffered". The author of the Little Labyrinth reminds them that
Theodotus had been already excommunicated by Victor, and
of this fact they themselves cannot have been ignorant. When,
moreover, we observe the evident anxiety of the writer to im-
pose Theodotus upon them as their spiritual father, we come
to the conclusion that the party did not identify themselves
with the Theodotians. What they regarded as the point of
difference we do not know. It is alone certain that they also
refused to call Christ "God"; for the writer feels it neces-
sary to justify the use of the from tradition. ' Artemas was
title
still alive in Rome at the close of the 7th decade of the 3rd century,
but he was completely severed from the great Church, and
without any real influence. No notice is taken of him even in
the letters of Cyprian." Since Artemas was characterised as the
"father" of Paul in the controversy with that Bishop (Euseb.

H. E. VIL 30. 16), he had afterwards attained a certain cele-
brity in the East, and had supplanted even Theodotus in the
recollection of the Church. In the subsequent age, the phrase:
"Ebion, Artemas, Paulus (or Photinus)" was stereotyped; this
was afterwards supplemented with the name of Nestorius, and

in that form the phrase became a constant feature in Byzantine
dogmatics and polemics.
(c). Traces of Adoptian Christology in the West after Artemas.
—
Adoptian Christology Dynamistic Monarchianism apparently —
passed rapidly and almost entirely away in the est. The W
str iking formula, settled by the Symbol, " Christu s, homo et
deus", and, above all, the conviction that Christ had appeared
liTThe O. T., brought about the destruction of the party. Yet,
1 Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4, J.
- We know he still lived about 270 from the document of the Synod of
that
Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata. We read there (Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 17):
"Paul may write letters to Artemas and the followers of A. are said to hold
communion with him." We have probably to regard as Artemonites those unnamed
persons, mentioned in Novalian De Trinitate, who explained Jesus lo be a mere
man (homo nudus et solitarius). Artemas is also named in Methodius Conviv.
VIII. 10, Ed. Jahn, p. 37.
Chap, l] LAST TRACES IN THE WEST 3 3
here and there — in connection, doubtless, with the reading of Her-

mas '
—the old faith, or the old formula, that the Holy Spirit is the
eternal Son of God and at the same time the Christ-Spirit, held its
ground, and, with it, conceptions which bordered on Adoptianism.
Thus we read in the writing " De montibus Sinaet Sion " ^ composed
in vulgar Latin and attributed wrongly to Cyprian, ch. IV: "The
body of the Lord was called Jesus by God the Father; the
Holy Spirit that descended from heaven was called Christ
by God the Father, i.e., anointed of the living God, the Spirit
joined to the body Jesus Christ" (Caro dominica a deo patre
Jesu vocita est spiritus sanctus, qui de cselo descendit, Christus,
;
id est unctus dei vivi, a deo vocitus est, spiritus carni mixtus
Compare ch. XIIL the H. S., Son of God, sees
Jesus Christus). :
Himself double, the Father sees Himself in the Son, the Son
in the Father, each in each (Sanctus spiritus, dei filius, gemi-
natum se videt, pater in filio et filius in patre utrosque se in se
vident). There were accordingly only two hypostases, and the
Redeemer is the flesh (caro), to which the pre-existent Holy
Spirit, the eternal Son of God, the Christ, descended. Whether
the author understood Christ as "forming a person" or as a

power cannot be decided probably, being no theologian, the
;
question did not occur to him. ' We do not hear that the
doctrine of Photinus, who was himself a Greek, gained any
considerable approval in the West. But we learn casually that
even in the beginning of the 5 th century a certain Marcus was
expelled from Rome for holding the heresy of Photinus, and
that he obtained a following in Dalmatia. Incomparably more
instructive, however, is the account given by Augustine (Con-
fess. VII. 19. [25]) of his own and his friend Alypius' Christ-
ological belief, at a time when both stood quite near the Catho-
• Even Tertulliau used the Christological formula of Hennas when he was not
engaged in Apologetics or in polemics against the Gnostics.
2 Haitel, Opp. Cypr. Ill,, p. 104 sq.
3 Hilary's work "De trinitate" also shows (esp. X. 18 iif., 50 ff.) what different
Christologies still existed in the West in the middle of the 4th century. There
were some who maintained :
" quod in eo ex virgine creando efficax dei sapientia
et virtus exstiterit, et in nativitate eius divinse prudentise et potestatis opus intelle-

gatur, sitque in eo efficientia potius quam natura sapientise.
lie Church, and had been preparing to enter it. At that time
Augustine's view of Christ was practically that of Photinus;
and Alypius denied that Christ had a human soul yet both had ;
held their Christology to be Catholic, and only afterwards learned

better. Now let us remember that Augustine had enjoyed a
'
Catholic education, and had been in constant intercourse with

Catholics, and we see clearly that among the laity of the West
very little was known of the Christological formulas, and very
different doctrines of Christ were in fact current even at the
"'
close of the 4th century.
(d). The Ejection of the Adoptian Christology in the East,—

Beryll of Bostra, Paul of Samosata, etc.
We can see from the writings of Origen that there were al so
many in the East who rejected the Logos Christology. Those

we re undoubtedly most numerous who identified the Father an d
the Son hu t there were not wanting such as, while they made a
;
dis tinction, attributed to the Son a human nature only, ' and
1 Augustine, Quia itaque vera scripta sunt (sc. the Holy Scriptures) totum
I.e. . . .
homiaem non corpus tanium hominis, aut cum coi-pore sine

in Christo agnoscebam;
mente animam, sed ipsum hominem, non persona veritatis, sed magna quadam natune
humanse excellentia et perfectiore participatione sapienti^ prseferri cceteris arbitrabar.
Alypius autem deum came indutum ita putabat credi a Catholicis, ut praeter deum
et carnem non esset in Christo anima, mentemque hominis non existimabat in eo
prsedicari Sed postea hsereticorum Apollinaristarum hunc errorem esse cognos-
. . .
cens, catholicje fidei colljetatus et contemperatus est. Ego autem aliquanto posterius
didicisse me fateor, in eo quod "verbum caro factum est " quomodo catholica Veritas
a Photini falsitate dirimatur.
- In Fragment, only preserved in Arabic, of a letter of Pope Innocent I.

the
to Bishop of G.abala (Mai, Spicileg. Rom. III., p. 702) we still read
Severianus,
the warning " Let no one believe that it was only at the time when the divine
:
Word on earth came to receive baptism from John that this divine nature originated,
when, i.e., John heard the voice of the Father from heaven. It was certainly
not so, etc."
2 Grig, on John II. 2, Lomm. I., p. 92 : Kai r'a 'aohhoi^ ((jMoJeoi/? sTi/af eu%o-
fievovQ Txpxirirov^ sv?^ciôv(ievovc^ §60 avayofsvffcci 6€0vt;, Kxt Trapa tovto TrspiTi-TTTOVTixt;
ijjevSsiri xai utrs^strt h6yiJ.aaiv, vjTot apvov[xsvovi; lîon^ra viov iripav irupcc rifv tov
TTXTpdg, OfjLO/iOyoGvTdt; @sov slvai rbv fiSXP^ ov6(J.uto^ 'jrap" uvroti; vthv TrpotTuyopsv-
oiêvov, i-/ xpvovi.ievovq TJjv fletfrjjr* tov vtov, tiHvtu^ Se avrov tvjv tStoT^TX Katrij)/
ov<7iixv xtxTX TTsptypx^^v Tvyxoivova-av srepoiv tov 7r«T/»dc, evreCSev ^^vstrQat Suvoirai,
see also what follows. Pseudo-Gregor. (ApoUinaris) in Mai (Nov. Coll. VII. 1,
Chap, i.] ADOPTIANISM IN THE EAST 35
accordingly taught like the Theodotians. Origen by no means

treated them, as a rule, as declared heretics, but as misled, or
"simple". Christian brethren who required friendly teaching.
He himself, besides, had also inserted the Adoptian Christology
into his complicated doctrine of Christ ; for he had attached the
greatest value to the tenet that Jesus should be held a real man
who had been chosen by God, who in virtue of his free will,
had steadfastly attested his excellence, and who, at last, had
become perfectly fused with the Logos in disposition, will,
and finally also in nature (see Vol. II., p. 369 f.). Origen laid
such decided emphasis on this that his opponents afterwards
classed him with Paul of Samosata and Artemas, and Pamphi- '
lus required to point out "that Origen said that the Son of
God was born of the very substance of God, i.e., was o!jt.oov(TiO(;,
which means, of the same substance with the Father, but that
he was not a creature who became a son by adoption, but a
true son by nature, generated by the Father Himself" (quod
Origines filium dei de ipsa del substantia natum dixerit, id est,
O!jioou(7iov, quod est, eiusdem cum patre substantise, et non esse
creaturam />er adoptionem sed natura filium verum, ex ipso patre
generatum)." So Origen in fact taught, and he was very far
from seeing more in the Adoptian doctrine than a fragment of
the complete Christology. He attempted to convince the Adop-
tians of their error, more correctly, of their questionable one-
sidedness, ' but he had seldom any other occasion to contend
with them.
p. 171) speaks of men who conceived Christ as being 'filled with divinity', but
made no specific distinction betwpen Him and the prophets, and worshipped a man
with divine power after the manner of the heathens.
' Pamphili Apolog. in Routh, IV., p. 367; Schultz in the Jahrbh. f. protest.
Theol. 1875, p. 193 f. On Origen and the Monarchians, see Hagemann, I.e., p. 300 f.
' See I.e., p, 36S.
^ Orig. in Ep. ad Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287 "Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt
dominum lesum prsecognitum et priedestinatum, qui ante adventum camalem sub-
stantialiter et non exstiterit, sed quod homo natus patris solam in se habuerit
propria
deitatem, ne illosquidem sine periculo est ecclesias numero sociari." This passage,
undoubtedly, need not necessarily be applied to Dynamistic Monarchians, any more
than the description about to be quoted of the doctrine of Beryll. There may have
existed a middle type between Dynamistic and Modalistic Monarchianism, according
to which the humanity as well as the deitas patris in Jesus Christ was held to
be personal.
Perhaps we should here include the action against Beryll

of Bostra. This Arabian Bishop taught Monarchianism. His
doctrine aroused The Bishops of the
a violent opposition.
province were deeply agitated and instituted many examinations
and discussions. But they appear not to have come to any
result. Origen was called in, and, as we are informed by
Eusebius, who had himself examined the acts of the Synods,
he succeeded in a disputation in amicably convincing the Bishop
of his error. ' This happened, according to the common view,
in A.D. 244. We have to depend, for the teaching of Beryll,
on one sentence in Eusebius, which has received very different
°
interpretations. Nitzsch says rightly, ' that Eusebius missed
in Beryll the recognition of the separate divine personality
(hypostasis) in Christ and of his pre-existence, but not the re-
cognition of his deity. However, this is not enough to class the
Bishop with certainty among the Patripassians, since Eusebius'
own Christological view, by which that of Beryll was here
gauged, was very vague. Even the circumstance, that at the
Synod of Bostra (according to Socrates) Christ was expressly
decreed to have a human soul, is not decisive; for Origen
might have carried the recognition of this dogma, which was
» Euseb. II. E. VI. 33. See also Socrates H. E. III. 7.
^ L.c. : Tov o-WTiJfa KCci Kvpwv iifiuv [iif 7rpoii^S(rrxvai xar' lilav ola-ieei Tefi-
ypatpiiv Trpo ri?; e;? avipuvovt; £7riStiiJ.io!(;, /itiSi Ssoritrce ISiav exs'v, aAA iiJ.Tof,iT£vi)-
ImSv^v cevTci 1MV11V riiv TrxTpixviv. The word Trepiypxi^vi is first found in the Excerpta
Theodoti 19, where xxrii !7epi'ypct<pviv contrasted in the sense of personality with
is
the kut' ola-lxv (tov ®bov). The latter was accordingly felt to be Modalistic xeii :
6 /,6yoq a-ap^ hysvsTQ, ov Kxra

Txpova-ixv fidvov HvSpaiTTOQ yev6[JL£vo^, a^?>cc xxi
rijv
h ipxfi h TXVTori^Ti hoyof xxrct wspiypxipiiv xxi oh xut' oiia-i'xv ysvoiisvoQ, 6 vioQ ;
cf, ch. 10, where TrspiypaipeirCai also expresses the personal existence, /.^., what was
afterwards termed i/TroVraa-i;. This word was not yet so used, so far as I know
in the 3rd century. In Origen wspiypcei^vt is likewise the expression for the strictly
self-contained personality; see Comm. on John I. 42, Lomm. I. 88: Ha-Trep oZv
$vviii{4et^ @£ou 7rAf/ove$ eiirtv^ civ exxa-ni xarcc 7reptypx(p)^v, cOv §iixlpepst 6 rrurvip,
oZtui; 6 ^dyof — el xxi wxp' iiiiiM olx 'sa-ri xxtx Trepiypacpiiv sxtoi; -^fiav votjSvitTCTXi
6 XpiiTTOi x.T.A. In our passage and Pseudo-Hippol. c. Beron. 1,4, it means simply
" configuration "-
Dogmengesch. I., p. 202. See on Beryll, who has become a favourite of the
3
historians of dogma, apart from the extended historical works, Ullmann, de Beryllo
1835; Theod. Stud. u. Krit., 1836; P'ock Diss, de Christologia B. 1843; Rossel in
the Berliner Jahrbb., 1844, No. 41 f.; Kober in the Theol. Qiiartalschr., 1848 I.
CilAP. I.] ADOPTIANISM IN THE EAST 37
of the highest importance to him, whatever the doctrine of

Beryll had been. That the Bishop rather taught Dynamistic
Monarchianism is supported, first, by the circumstance that
this form of doctrine had, as we can prove, long persisted in
Arabia and Syria; and, secondly, by the observation that Origen,
in the fragment of his commentary on the Ep. of Titus (see
above), has contrasted with the Patripassian belief ' a kind of
teaching which seems to coincide with that of Beryll. Primitive
Dynamistic Monarchian conceptions must, however, be im-
puted also to those Egyptian Millenarians whom Dionysius of
Alexandria opposed, and whom he considered it necessary to
instruct "in the glorious and truly divine appearing of our
Lord" (tte/)) Ti5? iv'Soôu vm) ixM^Sii; Mkv rov KUflou ^{/.mv
^
sTriCpoivsUg.
These were all, indeed, isolated and relatively unimportant

phenomena; but they prove that even about the middle of the
^r d century the Logos Christology was not universally recog -
nised in the East, and that the Monarchians were still treate d
indulgently.^ De cisive action was first taken and Adoptianism was
ran ked in the East with Ebionitism as a heresy, in the case o f
the incumbent of the most exalted Bishopric in the East. Pa ul
of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch from 260, but perhaps a little

ear lier. He opposed the already dominant doctrine of the
es sential natural deity of Christ, a nd set up once more the o ld
view of the human Person of the Redeemer. * That happened
1 It is contained in the words of Origen given above, p. 35, note 3.
Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 5. By the Epiphany vi'e have to understand the future
"
appearing; but thorough-going Millenarians in the East, in the country districts,

hardly recognised the doctrine of the Logos.
3 The uncertainty which still prevailed in the 3rd century in reference to
Christology is seen whenever we take up works not written by learned theologians.
Especially the circumstance that, according to the Creed and the Gospel, the Holy
Ghost took part in the conception of Jesus, constantly prompted the most curious
phrases regarding the personal divinity of Christ, and the assumptio carnis of the
Logos, see, e.g.^ Orac. Sibyll. VI. V. 6; where Christ is called " Sweet God whom
the Spirit, in the white plumage of the dove, begot."
4 Feuerlein, De hjeresi Pauli Samosat., 1741; Ehrlich, De erroribus P.S., 1745;
Schwab, Diss, de P.S. vita atque doctrina, 1839; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 2 Aufl. I.,
p. —
135; Routh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 286 367; Frohschammer, Ueber die Verwerfung
des iiioovirioq, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1850, 1.
at a time when, through Alexandrian theology, the use of the

categories AoVo? (word), oixriix (being), itTrocrTiza-ig (substance),
hjVTroaTXTog (subsisting), Trpoa-uTrov (person), TepiypxCpii ouaSag (con-
figuration of essence), etc., had almost already become legitim-
ised, and when in the widest circles the idea had taken root
that the Person of Jesus Christ must be accorded a background
peculiar to itself, and essentially divine.
W
e do not know the circumstances in which Paul felt him-
self impelled to attack the form of doctrine taught by Alex-
andrian philosophy. Yet it is noticeable that it was not a
province of the Roman Empire, but Antioch, then belonging
to Palmyra, which was the scene of this movement. When we
observe that Paul held a high political office in the kingdom
of Zenobia, that close relations are said to have existed
between him and the Queen, and that his fall implied the
triumph of the Roman party in Antioch, then we may assume
that a political conflict lay behind the theological, and that
Paul's opponents belonged to the Roman party in Syria. It
was not easy to get at the distinguished Metropolitan and ex-

perienced theologian, who was indeed portrayed by his enemies
as an unspiritual ecclesiastical prince, vain preacher, ambitious
man of the world, and wily Sophist. The provincial Synod,
over which he presided, did not serve the purpose. But already,
in the affair of Novatian, which had threatened to split up the
East, the experiment had been tried A.D. 252 (253) ofholding
an Oriental general-council, and that with success. It was re-
peated. —
A great Synod we do not know who called It met —
in Antioch A.D. 264; Bishops from various parts of the East
attended it, and, especially, Firmilian of Caesarea. The aged
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, excused his absence in a letter
in which he did not take Paul's side. The first Synod came
to an end without result, because, it is alleged, thevaccused
had cunningly concealed his false doctrines. A second was '
also unsuccessful. Firmilian himself gave up the idea of a con-

demnation "because Paul promised to change his opinions."
It was only at a third Synod, between 266 and 269, probably
1 Eusebius speaks (H. E. VII. 28. 2) of a whole party (0/ x/jKî tov tunoiruTiee)
having been able to conceal their heterodoxy at the time.
' "
268, at Firmilian having died at Tarsus on his way

Antioch,
thither, excommunication was pronounced on the Bishop,
that
and his successor Domnus was appointed. The number of the
members of Synod is stated differently at 70, 80, and 180;
and the argument against Paul was led by Malchion, a sophist
of Antioch and head of a high school, as also a presbyter of
the Church. He alone among them all was in a position to
unmask that "wily and deceitful man." The Acts of the dis-
cussion together with a detailed epistle, were sent by the Synod
to Rome, Alexandria, and all Catholic Churches. Paul, protected
by Zenobia, remained four years longer in his office the Church ;
in Antioch split up " there took place schisms among the

:
people, revolts among the priests, confusion among the pastors

'
{sysvovro a-xi'^f^'X'Tix, KxSov, ixKiXTizcrTxs-ixi hpeav, rxpccîj 7roif^.evMv).
In the year A.D. 272 Antioch was at last taken by Aurelian,
and the Emperor, to whom an appeal was brought, pronounced
on the spot the famous judgment, that the Church building was
to be handed to him with whom the Christian Bishops of Italy
and of Rome corresponded by letter. This decision was of course
founded on political grounds.
1 Basilius Diac, Acta Concilii Ephes., p. 427, Labb.
" The most important authorities for Paul's history and doctrine are the Acts
of the Synod of Antioch held against him, i.e., the shorthand report of the dis-
cussion between Paul and Malchion, and the Synodal epistle. These still existed
in the 6th century, but we now possess them only in a fragmentary form in :
—
Euseb. H. E. VII. 27 30 (Jerome de vir. inl. 71); in Justinian's Tract, c. Mono-
phys. in the Contestatio ad Clerum CP.; in the Acts of the Ephesian Council; in
;
the writing against Nestor, and Eutych. by Leontius of Byzant.; and in the book
of Petrus Diaconus, " De incarnat. ad Fulgentium " all in Routh I.e. where the places
:
in which theyfound are also stated. Not certainly genuine is the Synodal
are
epistle of six Bishops to Paul, published by Turrianus (Routh, I.e., p. 289 sq.) yet ;
its authenticity is supported by overwhelming reasons. Decidedly inauthentic is a

letter of Dionysius of Alex, to Paul (Mansi, I., p. 1039 sq.), also a pretended Nicene
Creed against him (Caspari, Quellen IV., p. i6j f.), and another found in the libel
against Nestorius (Mansi, IV., p. loio). Mai has published (Vet. Script. Nova
Coll. VII., p. 68 sq.) five fragments of Paul's speeches: ol 'iTf6(; 'La^vov hdyot (not
quite correctly printed in Routh, I.e., p. 328 sq.) which are of the highest value,
and may be considered genuine, in spite of their standing in the very worst
company, and of many doubts being roused by them which do not admit of being
completely silenced. Vincentius mentions writings by Paul (Commonit. 35). In
the second grade we have the testimony of the great Church Fathers of the 4th
century, which rested partly on the Acts, partly on oral tradition see, Athanas c. :
Th e teaching of Paul was characterised by the Fathers as a

ren ewal of that of Artemas, but sometimes also as Neo-Jew ish,
Ebi onitic, afterwards as Nestorian Monothelite. etc. It was as
follows. God was simply to be regarded as one person, leather,
Son^^ and Spir it were the One God (sv TrpoacoTrov). In God a
Logos Son) or a Sophia (Spirit) can be distingui shed both
(
—
c an again according to Paul become identified but they —
are qualities. G od puts torth ot Himselt the Logos from
'
Eternity, nay, He begets him, so that he can be called So n

and can have being ascribed to him, but he remains an im-
personal power. ^ Therefore it was absolutely impossible for
him to assume a visible form. ^ Thi s Loôs operated in the
pr ophets, to a still higher degree in Moses, then in m any
others, an d most of all {iJ,a.XKov kx) l ixipepovTac) in the Son of
D avid, born of the virgin by the Holy Ghost. The Redeemer
was by the constitution of his nature a man, wh o arose in time
" from beneath",
b y birth; he was accordingly but the Logos
of _God__i nspired him from abov e. I he union of theXo gos
•*
Apoll. IX. 3; de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 26, 43—45, 51, 93; Orat. u. Arian.
II. 3,
II., Hilai-ius, De synod. §§ 81, 86, pp. 1196, 1200; Epliriem Junior in
No. 43;
Photius, Cod. 229; Gregor Nyss, Antirrhet. adv. Apoll., § 9, p. 141 ; Basilius, ep.
52 (formerly 300); Epiphan. H. 65 and Anaceph.; cf. also the 3 Antiochian for-
mulas and the Form. Macrosiich. (Hahn Biblioth. der Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 85, 89),
as also the 19 Canon of the Council of Nicsea, according to which Paul's followers
were to be re-baptised before reception into the Catholic Church. One or two
notes also in Cramer's Catena on S. John, pp. 235, 259 sq. Useful details are given
by Innocentius I., ep. 22 ; by Marius Mercator, in tlie Suppl. Imp. Theodos. et
Valentinian adv. Nestor, of the Deacon Basilius; by Theodorus of Raithu (see
Routh, I.e., pp. 327 sq. 357); Fulgentius, etc. In the later opponentsof the heretics
from Philaster, and in resolutions of Synods from the 5th century, we find nothing
new. Sozom. H. E. IV. 15 and Theodoret H. F. 11. 8 are still of importance. The
Libellus Synodicus we must leave out of account.
* MJJ ehxi TOv V40V rov @£ov svvTrotrTiZTOV, ahXa sv auTw tm 0g5j ev ©ew sTtT-
Tij|ti^ hv7r6<j-TS!T0Q — £?? ©f 05 6 wxTiip Kdi 6 vloQ ccuroS ev avrSi w? Ao'70; Iv mifiiTia.
' A6yoi; TTfKKpofixai — i Vfo zlaivaiv ui'oQ — rov fôyov lyivvifG-sv 6 ©so; aveu wzp-
6evov KSii cxv€u rivot; ouSevo^ 'ovrot; 7rAJ}v tov ©fow" kxi oVtoji; vTreim^ ?^6yo^.
' 'Zo(^la ouK ^v SmxTOi h irxyiliCiTi eupi'a-xeaScei, oi/Ss sv Ua avip6i' (isiTav ycep
Tc3v 6pai[i£vuv strrlv.
* 'A6yoi lisv 'dva'isv, 'l-îa-ovi Si Xpia-rii avSpuTOQ hreSisv —
Xp/o-To; asro Mzpixi;
xai SsSf6 sfTTiv — Hvipaiwoi; ^v 6 'Itjo-ov^, xcei sv mra
hvswvsvirev avaSsv 6 fôyoQ- 6
yntriip yiip 'ilJ'X t^ via (soil, tw Kdyif) s7( @s6i, 6 Si 'avSpuTog xttTuHev to 'iSiov
TTpoactiTOV VTOipaivsi, xat ovro)^ Tct Svo '7rp6ôi7ra T?iifpovvTai —XpitTTOq hvTSilSsv TviC
vrdpêag rijv upx'i^ stj-^^xui; —>isysi 'Itâ-oSv Xpurrov xxrahv.
. 1
Chap i.] ADOPTIANISM IN THE EAST 4
with the man Jesus is to be represented as an indwelling ' by

m eans of an inspiration acting from without, ^ so that the Log os
bec omes that in Jesus which in the Christian is called by the
Apostle "the inner man"; i--"*- <-Tn» imi^n •.yjiiVVi k Vms orig in- f-
ated is a contact in knowledge and communion (crvviicpsiix kocto,

f^M'/jtriv vMi f/^srovirincv) a c oming togeth er (a-vvsf^sua-ig); there does
not arise a being existent in a bod y (ova-ix oucnccf/,£vyi iv a-uiôiTt),
i.e., the Logos dwelt in Jesus not "in substance but in quality"
(ova-ia'Sug, xXXxT herefore the Logos is to be

kxto, TroiorviTix). ^
ste adily from Jesus he is greater than the

distinguished ;
•*
latter ' Mary did not bear the Logos, but a man like us in
.
his nature^ and m his baptism it was not the Logos, but the
man, who was anointed with the Spirit. * However, Jesus was,
on the other hand, vouchsafed the divine grace in a special
degree, ' and his position was unique. ^ Moreover, the proof
he gave of his moral perfection corresponded to his peculiar
equipment. ' The only unity between two persons, accordingly
between God and Jesus, is that of the disposition and the will. '"
• 'H; Iv vaSi —i/.UvTX tov f,6yov xati haimô-xvTX Iv l-âoS avipawta 'ovTi in sup- ;
port of this Paul appealed to John XIV. 10: "sapientia habitavit in eo, sicut et
habitaraus et nos in domibus" —
2 A6yov evEfiyov e% ol/pavou ev ccvtoi — <ro<Ptac; ef^Tveova-iii; 'eâjhv.
3 Oy SiSu^, says Malchion, ovtriua-Sai gv t5j &'A^ (ruTiipi rbv {zovoyevi^.
* "AAA05 yxf hirriv 'lâ-ovi; XfitTTOt xxi 28/Ao5 6 ôyoQ.
^ *0 ^6yoQ [/.etâv §v rov Xpta-Tov' Xpia-To^ yxp Stx a-o<pta^ t^^yîi syhero.
^ Mxptx rbv ôyov oux stskev ow5^ yap ijv Trpo ataivaiv j^ Mxpix^ ah?\oi 'av^pccTov
iljj.~i\i Trov 'erexev — UvSpavoi pjf/£T«(, 6 fôyoQ ov %p/£Tac 6 Nciûpx7o( %f /£TiS!<, 6 xupioi;
flfiSv,
"
OuK etrriv 6 sx Aa^tS xpta-êti; a?.?i6Tpio^ rij? tro^ta^.
s ^H a-oipia sv iÂAw oitx ovru^ olxei — xpstrrcav xuTa 'Ku.vrx, eTStSyj Ix TTVEviûToq
ayiav xcii 1% eTrctyyeMuv xxi ix rav ew' aurSi x^P'i-

yeypaiJ.iiivii>v ii
^ Paul has even spoken of a §ia<pope£ t^c xxTXa-xsv^t; {trva-Tatrsaiq) rov Xpta-rov.
•" From this point weAoyoi Trpoi; £«(37vov of Paul. We give them
refer to the
here on account of unique importance: (i) Tw dyi'if ttvcv/xxti xftt^htq Trpoa--
their
iiyopeuSii Xpia-Toi;, ^rao-^wv xara <pv(Tiv, SauiiaTovpyav xxtcc X'^P"' rif yap arpiTrTifi
T)J5 yvai(jitii 6iJ,oiiohU tw ®£w, xzi {isivai xaixpoq ccf^xpriz:; {jvaiSti zirlf, xai hifpyi^Stf
TTOV £î(rSxi T^v Tftiv flajufiaraJv Svvx<7tsixv, e| Sv {j-iav xi/rbq xa.) rtiv xi/r^v yrpbq Tjj
6c^vi(T£i hipysiav 'ix^'" Ssix^^k^ ^vrpuriii; rov yivovQ xxi G-UTvip ixpyilJ.XTi(TBv. (2) At —
Siii<f>opoi (puirea; xxi rx Sixôpx Trpoa-niTrx 'hx xxi (mvov ivaasui; 'ixo'J'ri rp6xov rijv
xxTX fl£A!jo-;v a-uii^xiriv, 1% )J5 vi xxrx hspyeixv evi tuv o'urui; o-ufi/Jiâo-flevTSJv aA-
A!)A0(5 xvx(pxiv£Txi liovxt;. — (3) "Ayio; xxi Sixxici; yiysvtiiiho:; 6 a-UT^p, xyuvi xxi
yrbvia tx( toS Trpo^dropxi; viiiSv xpxTViirxi; xijLxpriXi' olq xxTOpS<o<rxi r^ «f£T{) o-uvif<fiSi/
T^ @£if, /iixii xxi r/fj xi/rfiv vpbt; x'jtqv fiouf^tio-iv xxi ivipyeixv Tx7g ruv xyxSHv
Such unity springs from love alone; but love can certainly
produce a complete unity, and only that which is due to love
— not that attained by "nature"— is of worth. Jesus was like
God in the unchangeableness of his love and his will, and be-
came one with God, being not only without sin himself, but
vanquishing, in conflict and labour, the sins of our ancestor.
As he himself, however, advanced in the manifestation of
goodness and continued in it, the Father furnished him with
power and miracles, in which he made known his steadfast
conformity to the will of God. So he became the Redeemer
and Saviour of the human race, and at the same time entered
into an eternally indissoluble union with God, because his love
can never cease. Now he has obtained from God, as the re-
ward of his love, the name which is above every name; God
has committed to him the judgment, and invested him with '
divine dignity, so that now we can call him God [born] of ''
the virgin"." So also we are entitled to speak of a pre-exist-

ence of Christ in the prior decree ' and prophecy ' of God, and
TpoxoTraiQ iiTX^>i&t' i)" aSiaiperav $uAa|«5 ro '6vaiiei xf:>ipovTXt to v^rip vm 'ovoizei,
o-TopyiJs '^77ai^.ov uWif ;^«f;o-8£v. — (4) Ta xpxTOvusvce tm AiJy^ Ti<5 (Pva-BUi oi/x 'ix^'
'eTTOiivov Tcc 5^ (TX^'^î tptîtx^ xparoviJisva vTspatve'tTCif^ jua xat rjj uut^ yvafM^ xpa-
TQViJLEVcc^ Six f'i.iai; xou TiJ$ ccuTVjti evspystdQ ^6âtQV{ji.evx, xdi Tvt^ xxt' eTrav^tâ-tv ov-
Settots Tuvaissvij^ xivvitrsuq' Kflj3' ijv rfii ©sw a-vvsc(p6£t^ 6 a-birijp ouSiwors ^sx^TUt
fiEpt<r[^bv eU Tovt; aiuvaq f/.tccv xutoq xat Tijv avriiv ex^v flgAô-iV xai svepyeiavy aei
xivov/iivtiv Tj) (peivepairei —
rav ayaiSv. (5) Mi) Sai/ftao-ji; Sti liluv lisrcc tov &eou
T^v 6ih;jtn)/ cTêv 6 irurvip' Ua-Trep yap <^vin( (/.Itiv rSv xoKt.uv xai t^v a^T^n
-h
vvapxoucav (âvepot r^v oviriav, olVa; trx^<^"i '^vii ayxT-î; fzi'av' ruv TrohKuv xai
ii
T^v avTtfV spydêrai Ssfit/a-iv Sics [itai xai tvii; airviQ C))avepovpLiviiv ei/apeiTTtitrsiiii;.
Similar detailsbe found in Theodorus of Mops.; but the genuineness of

are to
what is given here seems to me to be guaranteed by the fact that there is absolutely
not a word of an ethical unification of the eternal Son of God (the Logos) with
Jesus. It is God Himself who is thus united with the latter.
' Xpij Si yiyvua-xeiv, we read in the Catena S. Joh., 'dri 6 ij.h JTaCAo? 6 âfi.
ouTU (piô-tv 'eSajxsv aurSi xpitnv JFOn'tVy on vioQ av!ipwirov strTtv,
' Athanas. . IlaBAo; 6 Za//.. @£iv ex t>j; vapShou oiioKoyei, ®eo\i ix Naâptr
d(f)!hTa.
' Athanas.; 'O/MMyel ©eov ix iiaâpcT oipUvTa, xai hrsSlliv t?; vTcepêaf riiv
apxiiv itrxixoTCi, xai apxî" âo-iêia^ 5r«peM)<£()o'Ta, Ao'yov Si ivepyov e| oiipavoS, xai
irotpi'av Iv al/Tli otiofôyei, t5J /zev vpoopKr/iSi Tcpi alaivaiv 'Svra, Tji Se VTcipêi ex
Naâper avaSeixêvra, 'ha el(; e'k, (Ptfu-iv, 6 ewi Travra 0fo« 6 TXTvip. Therefore it
is said in the letter of the six Bishops that Christ is God from eternity, ol vpoyvairsi,
«AA' ovfTta xai vT0<7Td(ret.
* ripoxaTayye^TixZi;. See p. 41, note 8.
'
Chap, i] ADOPTIANISM IN THE EAST 43
to say that he became God through divine grace and his con-
stant manifestation of goodness. ' Paul undoubtedly perceived
in the imparting of the Spirit at the baptism a special stage
of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus; indeed Jesus
seems only to have been Christ from his baptism: "having
been anointed with the Holy Spirit he was named Christ the —
anointed son of David is not different from wisdom" (tw xyia
wvsiifitXTi ;t;p((7^f/? Tpoeri^'/opsuSi! XpiiTTog — o ax. A«/3;5 %/);(7^f}? oux
xXKoTpiog ia-ri rijg (ToCplxg) The Bishop supported his doctrine
by copious from Scripture, " and he also attacked the
proofs
opposite views. He
sought to prove that the assumption that
Jesus was by nature {<pu(T£i) Son of God, led to having two
gods, ' to the destruction of Monotheism * he fought openly, ;
with great energy, against the old expositors, i.e., the Alexandri-
ans, * and he banished from divine service all Church psalms
in which the essential divinity of Christ was expressed.
Th e teaching of Paul was certainly a developme nt of

th e old doctrine of Hermas and Theodotus, and the Chur ch
F athers had a right to judge it accordingly ; but on the ot her
h and we must not overlook the fact that Paul not only, as
r egards form, adapted himself more closely to the accepted
t ermino logy, but that he also gave to the ancient type of doc-
tri ne, already heterodox, a philosophical, an Aristotehan, ba sis,
an d treated it ethically and bib licall y. He undoubtedly learn ed
m uch from Origen but he recognised the worthlessness of the
;
double personality construed by Origen, for he has deepened

* K«Tw5ev uTOTSêutT^cit rov xvpiov —1| avQpuTrou ysyoyevat rov Xpta-rbv @s6v —
ila-Tspov avTOv £X TTpOKOTTiiq rs^soToivitrâi.
' Vincentius, Commonit. 35 —Athanasius (c. Ariam IV. 30) relates that the disci-
ples appealed to Acts X. 36 in support of their distinction between the
of Paul
Logos and Jesus tov ôyov uirea-TStKev roti; vtoii; ^la-paii^ shayy£î^6{/.evoi; slp^vvjv
:
Six 'Itfo-av Xpurrov. Tiiey said that there was a distinction here lilce that in the
O. T. between the word of the Lord and of the prophets.
3 Epiphan. I.e., c. 3; see also the letter of the six Bishops in Routh, I.e., p. 291.
* On the supreme interest taken by Paul in the unity of God see p. 42, note 3,
Epiph. I.e., ch. I.
6 Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 9.

^ Euseb. I.e., § 10.
the exposition given by the latter of the personality of Christ,

and seen that "what is attained by nature is void of merit"
(to. y^pxToufisvo: T^ Xoya rijg (piKreag ouz sxî sTraivov). Paul's
expositions of nature and will in the Persons, of the essence
and power of love, of the divinity of Christ, only to be per-
ceived in the work of His ministry, because exclusively con-
tained in unity of will with God, are almost unparalleled in
the whole dogmatic literature of the Oriental Churches in the
first three centuries. For, when such passages do occur in
Origen, they at once disappear again in metaphysics, and we
do not know the arguments of the Alogi and the Theodotians.
It is, above all, the deliberate rejection of metaphysical specu-
lation which distinguishes Paul; he substituted for it the study

of history and the determination of worth on moral grounds
alone, thus reversing Origen's maxim: b crarvip ov kiZt' /êTOvcrlxv,
xXAx x.ix.'f oiKTixv ia-r) êig (the God not by commu-

Saviour is
nion, but in essence). As he kept

dogmatic theology free his
from Platonism, his difference with his opponents began in his
conception of God. The latter described the controversy very
correctly, when they said that Paul "had betrayed the mystery
of the Christian faith," ^ i.e., the mystic conception of God and
Christ due to natural philosophy ; or ' when they complained
of Paul's denial that the difficulty of maintaining the unity
of deity, side by side with a plurality of persons, was got
• The three fragments of "
Ebion " given by Mai, I.e., p. 68, and strangely held
by Hilgenfeld be genuine (Ketzergeschichte, p. 437 f.), seem to me likewise to
to
belong to Paul: at any rate tliey correspond to his doctrine: 'Ex tj); jrspi xpoîjTav
iiviy^mwc, (l) K2t' e7r«yyEA£«i;v /j.syac xai ex^sxTOi TrpiKfiiiTi); ia-riv, '/a-aii; lisrirsf;
Kdi vo/ioSerni; xij; xosiTTOvcq Sixitixiji yBvii^svoQ- Hij-tii; ixurov isfovpyiâ-oti i/Vep jrav-
Toiv ft/av s(pxv^ XM Sf/Axo-fv Kxi hepyeiccy '^âv Xfo; xov &s6v, SeAwv lia-Trif ®£0?
TTizvTac avSpaiTTOvi; maivivcci xai eii; CTriyvititm a?.ijisixi; lAêTv rij; Si' aWoS tm xaa-iita
Si' an clpywdTO (pavepukia-tii. — (2) Sjjeo-ei yap rj) xxra Sixzioa-uvtfv xai xoStji t^
xoiTci (pi^ccv^puTTictv (ruvo!(pQ£î; Tw 0e53, ovSlv 'itrx^v fj^si^spt^tîvov Trpo^ tov ®s6v, Siot
TO tîxv auTOu xai tov &soV yevsirâi t^v fisAô-zv xai tvjv svspyeiav tuv stti tvj
ffbiTyjpta Tc3v avSpaiTUv uyaûv. — (3) E; yap He^yjcrsv aWov @£o^ trTavpoilivtvai, xai
xaTcSiâro fîyoDi. Mti to ei-iov, iÂa to a-ov yeviaSa) Ss^tfiâ, StfMv Uti /iiav 'ia-xev
liBTCi TOV @£ov Tiiv fle'A;)(7(V xai x^v ^rpaîv, ixBivo isKyia-a^ xai 'jrpaâi;, Vvep 'iSo^s
Tif 06ffl. The second and third fragments may be by Theodorus of Mops., but
hardly the first.
2 In Euseb. H. E. VII. 30. 10.
' Epiph. 1. t,, ch. Ill,: naCAo; ov hsyei uotov ®$h Sik to '^rt^yiiv itvai tqii waripx.
—
Chap, i.] ADOPTIANISM IN THE EAST 4J
over simply by making the Father their source. What is that

but to admit that Paul started in his idea of God, not from
the substance, but from the person? He here represented the
interests of theism as against the chaotic naturalism of Plato-
nism. And in appreciating the character of Jesus he refused
to recognise its uniqueness and divinity in his " nature " these ;
he found only in his disposition and the direction of his will.

Therefore while Christ as a person was never to him "mere
man" (-.p/As? civCpc^jTrog), yet Christ's natural endowment he would
not recognise as exceptional. But as Christ had been predestin-
ated by God in a unique manner, so in conformity to the prom-
ises the Spirit and the grace of God rested on him exception-
ally; and thus his work in his vocation and his life, with and
in God, had been unique. This view left room for a human
life, and if Paul has, ultimately, used the formula, that Christ
had become God, his appeal to Philipp. II. 9 shows in what
sense he understood the words.
His o pponents, indeed, charged him with sophistically an d
deceitfull y concealing his true opinion behind phrases with an
orthodox sound. It is possible, in view of the fact, e.g-., that
he called the impersonal Logos "Son", that there is some
truth in this; but it is not probable. He was not understood,
or rather he was misunderstood. Many theologians at the present
day regard the theology of Hermas as positively Nicene, al-
though it is hardly a whit more orthodox than that of Paul. If
such a misunderstanding is possible to the scholars of to-day
and Hermas was certainly no dissembler, why can Firmilian —
not have looked on Paul as orthodox for a time? He taught
that there was an eternal Son of God, and that he dwelt in
Jesus; he proclaimed the divinity of Christ, held there were
two persons (God and Jesus), and with the Alexandrians rejected
Sabellianism. On this very point, indeed, a sort of concession
seems to have been made to him at the Synod. We know that
the Synod expressly censured the term "ofioova-iog",^ and this
' This was a well-known matter at the time of the Avian controversy, and the Semi-
Arians, e.g:, appealed expressly to the decision at Ancyra. SeeSozomen H. E. IV. 15
;
Athanas., De Synod. 43 sq.; Basilius, Ep. 52; Hilarius desynodis 81,86; Routh,l.c.,
—
pp. 360 365, Hefele, Conciliengesch. I., 2, p. 140 f. Caspari, Quellen IV., p. 170 f.
:
46 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, i,
was done, Athanasius conjectures, to meet an objection of Paul.

He is said to have argued as follows: —
If Christ is not, as he
taught, essentially human, then he is ofôoiKTiog with the Father.

But if that be true then the Father is not the ultimate source
of the deity, but Being (the outyia), and thus we have three
ou(7iixi ; ' in other words the divinity of the Father is itself de-
rivative, and the Father is of identical origin with the Son,
"they become brothers ". This can have been an objection
made by Paul. The Aristotelian conception of the ovi7ix
would correspond to his turn of thought, and so would the

circumstance, that the possibility of a subordinate, natural,
divinity on the part of the Son is left out of the question. The
Synod again can very well have rejected of/.oovjiog in the inter-
ests of anti-sabellianism.
^ Yet it is just as possible that, as
Hilarius says, the Synod condemned the term because Paul
himself had declared God and the impersonal Logos (the Son)
to be ofiooiKTiog, i.e., "of the same substance, of one substance ".
However that may be, whenever Paul's view was seen through,
it was at once felt by the majority to be in the highest degree
heretical. No one was yet quite clear as to what sort of thing

this "naturally —divine" element in Christ was. Even Origen
had taught that he possessed a divinity to which prayer might
not be offered.* But to deny the divine nature (physis) to the
Redeemer, was universally held to be an attack on the Rule
of Faith. ' They correctly perceived the really weak point in
Paul's Christology, his teaching, namely, that there were actually
Sons of God Hermas, however, had already preached
;
two '
1 Athanas. I.e. ; mayxvf T(ii(i ohtiuii chai, i^fxv ij.iv Tpottyov/xiv^v, rai Si Svo
' This is also the opinion of Basilius (I.e.) : 'iiûircev yap ixetvoi (the Bishops
assembled against Paul) rii\i rot o/ioova-iov (puviiv wafKrTSv 'ivvoiccv ouirixQ re xxi
rcSv 01'^'' avTVii, utrre KaTaiêptsSe'ia-scv tvjv ohiriccv TxpEX^tv rov Sizoovtr/ov rjjv Trpo-
(Ttiyopiav Toii 6J5 a SitfpiSii.
3 Dorner's view (I.e. I. p. 513) is impossible because resting on a false inter-
pretation of the word diioova-iof, Paul held the Father and Jesus to be oiioous-ioim
so far as they were persons^ and therefore the Synod eondemned the term.
< See De orat. 15, 16.
s Euseb. H. E. VII. 30 6, 16.
' See Malchion in Leontius (Routh, I.e., p. 312): naCAo; (fXfo-A, ^/^ Jt/o IxiVraff-
5aj u/oi/s' f; Si vtoi; i 'I, Xp. tov ®sov, uJo; Si Kxi ii a-ocfiia, xai ceAô /^h i) ao(îx.
this, and Paul was not in earnest about the "eternal Son".
Yet thiswas only a secondary matter. The crucial difference
had its root in the question as to the divine nature (physis) of
the Redeemer.
Now here it is of the highest interest to notice how far, in
the minds of many Bishops in Palestine and Syria, the specu-
lative interpretation of the Rule of Faith had taken the place
of that rule itself. If we compare the letter of Hymenaeus of
Jerusalem and his five colleagues to Paul with the regula fidei
— not, say, that of TertuUian and Irenaeus — but the Rule of
Faith with which Origen has headed his great work : itsp'i apx^v,
then we are astonished at the advance in the times. The
Bishops explain at the opening of their letter, ' that they desired
to expound, "in writing, the faith which we received from the
beginning, and possess, having been transmitted and kept in
the Catholic Church, proclaimed up to our day by the successors
of the blessed Apostles, who were both eye-witnesses and assistants
of the Logos, from the law and prophets and the New Testament."
{ey/pxCpov Tviv wiaTiv vjv i§ Apx^'S '!rixps?^tx(3of/,£V koCi sxofisv vxpx-
Tijg a-i^piispov i^piipmg ix, §;«So%i^? xwh tcov f4,»xcipiav xTrotxroXuv, oi
icix) xuTOTTTXi Kd) vTriipsTOii ysyivdat Tov tôyov, yMTOLyyeXKoiJiêv^v,
iy. vofiov xx) wpoCpyiTuv xa) Tiji? But what they

xxiv^g "Sixbyix^g.)
presented as " the faith" and furnished with proofs from Scrip-
ture, was the speculative theology, ^ In no other writing can
'(kKXo JJ 'I. Xp., Ji/o v<piiTrii!VTXi viol. See also Ephraem in Photius, Biblioth. cod.
229. Farther the Ep. II. Felicis II. papje ad Petrum Fullouem.
> See Routh, I.e., p. 289 sq.
2 The Tr/o-Tis, i% izpîfS 7rxfaKf^(^h'liTos reads (I.e.) : "0t( ©eo? uyivvt^roi, siq avxf-
XO^, aoparo^, xvx^ôiajTOi;^ ov sJSsv ohSstq av^pwjrwv, ov^'i ?5e7v Svvartxr ou TJjv So^xv
ij TO fziyedoQ vovia-ai jj e^viyvi(r atrial xaSai^ hariv oi.%[ut; t^5 a^îeiai^y avSpwrtvifl <pva-€t
xvs<ptKTov 'hvotav Se Koi ottoio-ovv (Msrptav Trspt uvtov ^ct^stv, ayaTnirdv^ aToxoiûTr-
rovTQ^ TOV '
viov avTOv . . . toGtov §£ Toy vtov yevvjjT^v, fiovoyevii vtov, six6vx tov
aopuTOV @Eov Tvyx^vovTcc, TT paiTdTOxov Txa-iji; KTiosatg a-otpiav Kcci ^6yov xat Svvai{Mv
@£ov, TTpo atuvccv '6vTa, ov TTpoyvaia-si, aAA' ovîa. vat v'KotrTu.vsi ©gov ©got/ u/ov, 'ev
T£ TTdKcuci. XXI via SiaSt/jx^ syvuxdTeq 6iJ.of.oyovî)/ xa} xtipva-a-oiisv. S; J' av avTi/ia-
X^'ât TOV viov TOV @sov @£ov (jLVf slvai Trpo xaraôhiî; xotrfzov (Je7v) Tta-Tsvsiv xat
ofioôyE'tv, {paffxaiv Svo deovQ xaTayye^^^saSat, eav 6 vto^ tov &sov Qsbq x^pvtriniTai
TovTOv aMoTpiov TOV ixxf.ija-'xo-Tixov xavovoq viyoviaSa, xai Traa-ai at xaSo/.ixxi
kxx\ii<n'ai iiv{j.i^movutv iiiCiv. The prehistoric history of the Son is now expounded,
we see the triumph in the sphere of religion of the theology

of philosophy or of Origen, i.e., of Hellenism, so clearly, as in
this letter, in which philosophical dogmatics are put forward
as the faith itself. But further. At the end of the third century
even the were expanded in the East by
baptismal confessions
the of propositions borrowed frojn philosophical theo-
adoption
logy; or, to put it in another way,
' baptismal confessions ap- —
parently now first formulated, were introduced in many Oriental
communities, which also now contained the doctrine of the Logos.
Since these statements were directed against Sabellianism as
well as against " Ebionitism " they will be discussed later on. ;
With the deposition and removal of Paul the historian's inte-

rest in his case is at an end. It was henceforth no longer
possible to gain a hearing, in the great forum of Church life,

for a Christology which did not include the personal pre-exist-
ence of the Redeemer: no one was permitted henceforth to
content himself with the elucidation of the divinely-human life
was necessary to believe in the divine

of Jesus in his work. It
nature (physis) of the Redeemer. " The smaller and remote
communities were compelled to imitate the attitude of the
larger. Yet we know from the circular letter of Alexander of
Alexandria, A.D. 321,* that the doctrine of Paul did not by
any means pass away without leaving a trace. Lucian and his
and then it goes on : tok i\ vlov Tcefoi rif vuTfi 'ovtcc ©eov ij,iv xa.) xupiov tUv
yevviTUV aTrcevTUv, vto S^ tov Trarfiog oiToa-TOiMvTOC g^ ovpixvSiv xat trcepxaidsvTa Ivjfv-
SpaiTn^xsvai. Sidîf xa) to ix Tviq vxpShav a-uiix pjojfô-av ttxv to 7r>iVifi»iia Ti);
Se^TijTOQ truiiaTixSSg, r^ ê6rviri XTpsTTTOai; iivurai xai rsSsoToii^TXt and at the close:
e; Si @soS iiiiociiii xxi @ioC a-oîcc jr/jo filmtaii iiTTir ovTia xai xaSo XpiiT-
Xpiirroi
T05 ^v xoct TO auTO ojv T^ ohtria' si xxi ret fzdi?it(i-TX 'TToKKctig syrivo/aeiQ sTivosirott.
See also Hahn, Bibl. d. Symbol. 2 Aufl. § 82.
• The propositions are undoubtedly as a rule phrased biblically, and they are
biblical; but they are propositions preferred and edited by the learned exegesis of
the Alexandrian which certainly j was extremely closely allied with philosophical
speculation.
2 The followers of Paul were no longer looked upon as Christians even at the
beginning of the fourth century, and therefore they were re-baptised. See the 19
Canon of Nicasa; Tlepl ruv'navMxvicrcivTb)VySlrci7rpoiF^v'y6vTbivr^xotiohixvisxx?i^fftcit
UpoQ hxrHsircci avafiaTrrtêa-Qxt auTOvq e^XTTXVTOg.
3 Theodoret H. E. I. 4.
— —
famous academy, the alma mater of Arianism, were inspired by

the genius of Paul. ' —
Lucian himself perhaps, a native of Samo-
sata —
had, during the incumbency of three Bishops of Antioch,
remained, like Theodotus and his party in Rome, at the head
of a school outside of the great Catholic Church. ° I n his
teaching, and in that of Arius, the foundation laid by Pa ul is
unmistakab le. ^ But Lucian has falsified the fundamental thou ght
of Paul in yielding to the assumption of a Logos, though a
very subordmate and created L ogos, and
in putting this in the
pla ce of the man while his disciples, the Arians, have,
Jesus,
in the view s ketched by them of the person of Christ, b een
u nable to retam the features Paul ascribed t o it; though they

als Q have emphasised the importance of the will in Christ. We
must c onclude, however, that Arianism, as a whole, is nothin g
b ut a compromise between the Adoptian and the Logos Ch rist-
ology, wh ich proves that after the close of the 3rd cen tury,
no^ Christology was possible in the Church which failed to re-
c ognise the personal pre-existence of Christ.
P hotinus approximated to Paul of Samos ata in the fourth
century. Above all, however, the great theologians of Antioch
occupied a position by no means remote from him; for the
presupposition of the personal Logos Homousios in Christ,
which they as Church theologians had to accept simply, could
be combined much better with the thought of Paul, than the
> See my article "Lucian" in Herzog's R.E. 2 Aufl., Bd. VIII., p. 767 ff.
2 See Theodoret I.e. auTot yccf @io6>Say.roi strrs, oux xyvoovvTSi or; fj 'heiyxoi
:
kTixvatTTatrx t^ ey.K^îfTtxa-Tix^ evtre^siu hSaa-KX^îcc Ê(3{aiv6t; etrri xai 'ApT£[^x, Kat
Xy\^9<i ToC KctT^ 'AvTi6%sieev Tixuhov tou llci(j,(i(raTiai(;, a-vifdSifi xai xpi(T£i riSv ixTcev-
Tcexov STitrxoTuv xTTOxiifiuxfi^vTOi Tê fXKA^jo-Za^ iv StxSsâixsvoQ AovxrxvoQ ofjroiTV-
vxyayoi 'ii.t.eivB rpiav ETria-xorav TroAi/fTsT? jjpoVou; Sv rtJQ xa-i^sixg rifj rpvya
eppo(t»txpT£i (scil. Arian and his companions) vvv iiixiv to 'E% ovx 'ovtoiv ive(^ti>fiTXV,
Tcc hxsivaii/ xexpviii^hn f40o-%£i//iaT«.

3 See Arian I. 5. "Arius says tliat there are two wisdoms, one
esp. Athanas. c.
which is the true one and at the same time exists in God ; through this the Son arose
and by participation in it he was simply named Word and Wisdom; for wisdom, he
says, originated through wisdom according to the will of the wise God. Then he also
says that there is another Word apart from the Son in God, and through participation
therein the Son himself has been again named graciously Word and Son." This
is the doctrine of Paul of Samos., taken over by Arius from Lucian. On the
distinction see above.
JO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
Arian assumption of a subordinate god, with attributes half-

human, half-divine. So also the arguments of Theodore of Mop^
suestia as to the relation of the Logos and the man Jesus, as
to nature, will, disposition, etc., are here and there verbally iden-
tical with those af Paul his opponents, especially Leontius,
; and
were not so far charging Theodore with teaching like
wrong in
Paul. =
Paul was in fact condemned a second time in the great
scholars of Antioch, and — —
strangely his name was once more
mentioned, and for the third time, in the Monothelite contro-
versy. In this case his statements as to the one will {fiix
6sKyi(7tq sc. of God and Jesus) were shamefully misused, in order

to show to the opposition that their doctrine had been already
condemned in the person of the arch-heretic.
Wepossess, however, another ancient source of information,
of the beginning of the 4th century, the Acta Archelai. ' This
shows us that at the extreme eastern boundary of Christendom
there persisted even among Catholic clerics, if we may use here
the word Catholic, Christological conceptions which had remained
unaffected by Alexandrian theology, and must be classed with
Adoptianism. The author's exposition of Christ consists, so
far we can judge, in the doctrine of Paul of Samosata.
as
''
Here we are shown clearly that the Logos Christology had, at

the beginning of the 4th century, not yet passed beyond the
borders of the Christendom comprehended in the Roman
Empire.
' See in Routh, I.e., p. 347 sq.
See the careful and comprehensive collection of the arguments of Theodore

'
in reference to christology, in Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epp. B.

Pauli Commentarii, Vol. II. (1882), pp. 289 339. —
2 We have to compare also the treatises of Aphraates, written shortly before the
middle of the 4th century. He adheres to the designation of Christ as Logos
according to John 1. 1 ; but it is very striking that in our Persian author there is
not even the slightest allusion in which one could perceive an echo of the Arian
controversies (Bickell, Ausgewahlte Schriften der syr. Kirchenvater 1874, p. 15). See
tract I, "On faith", and 17, "Proof that Christ is the Son of God."
* On the of the Acta Archelai see my Texte und Unters. I. 3, 137 ff.
origin
The principal passages are to be found in ch. 49 and 50. In these the Churchman
disputes the view of Mani, that Jesus was a spirit, the eternal Son of God, perfect
by nature. "Die mihi, super quem spiritus sanctus sicut columba desceudit? Si
perfectus erat, si filius erat, si virtus erat, non poterat spiritus ingredi, sicut nee
1
Chap, i.] 5
3. Expulsion of Modalistic Monarchianism.
(a). The Modalistic Monarchians in Asia Minor and in the

"West NoStus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Aeschines, Praxeas,
:
Victorinus (Victor), Zephyrinus, Sabellius, Callistus. '
Th e dangerous opponent of the Logos Christolo gy

really
in th e period between A.D. 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism,
b ut the doctrine which saw the deity himself incarnate in Chri st,
an d conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Fath er
regnum potest ingredi intra regnum. Cuius autem ei cselitus emissa vox testimo-
nium detulit dicens: Hie est filius meus dilectus, in quo bene complacui? Die age
nihil remoreris, quis ille est, qui parat hsec omnia, qui agit universa? Responde
itane blasphemiam pro ratione impudenter allegas, at inferreconaris?" The following
Christology is put in the lips of Mani " Mihi pium videtur dicere, quod nihil eguerit
:
filius del in eo quod adventus eius procuratur ad terras, neque opus habuerit co-
lumba, neque baptismate, neque matre, neque fratribiis." On the other hand Mani
says in reference to the Church views: "Si enim hominem eum tantummodo ex
Maria esse dicis et in baptismate spiritum percepisse, ergo per profectum filius
videbitur et non per naturam. Si tamen tibi concedam dicere, secundum profectum
esse filium quasi hominem factum, hominem vere esse opinaris, id est, qui caro et
sanguis sit?" In what follows Archelaus says; "Quomodo poterit vera columba
verum hominem ingredi atque in eo permanere, caro enim camem ingredi non
potest? sed magis si lesum hominem verum confiteamur, eum vero, qui dicitur, sicut
columba, Spiritum Sanctum, salva est nobis ratio in utraque. Spiritus enim
secundum rectam rationem habitat in homine, et descendit et permanet et compe-
tenter hoc et factum est et fit semper Descendit spiritus super hominem dignum
. . .
se .. Poterat dominus in caelo positus facere quae voluerat, si spiritum eum esse
.
et non hominem dices. Sed non ita est, quoniam exinanivit semetipsum formam
servi accipiens. Dico autem de eo, qui ex Maria factus est homo. Quid enim?
non poleramus et nos multo facilius et lautius ista narrare? sed absit, ut a veritate
declinemus iota unum aut unum apicem. Est enim qui de Maria natus est filius,
qui tolum hoc quod magnum est, voluit perferre certamen lesus. Hie est Christus
dei, qui descendit super emn, qui de Maria est .Statim (post baptismum) in
. .
desertum a Spiritu ductus est lesus, quern cum diabolus ignoraret, dicebat ei: Si
(iei. Ignoratat autem propter quid genuisset filium dei (scil. Spiritus), qui
filius est
pradicabat regnum calorum, quod erat habitaculum magnum, nee ab ullo alio
parari potuisset; unde et affixus cruci cum resurrexisset ab inferis, assumptus est
illuc, ubi Christus filius dei regnabat . . . Sicut enim Paracleti pondus nuUus alius
valuit sustinere nisi soli discipuli et Paulus beatus, ita etiam spiritum, qui de cselis
descenderat, per quem vox paterna testatur dicens Hie est filius meus dilectus, :
nullus alius portare prcevaluit, nisi qui ex Maria natus est super omnes sanctos
lesus'' It is noteworthy that the author (in ch. 37) ranks Sabellius as a heretic
with Valentinus, Marcion, and Tatian.

1 Bollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853. Volkmar, Hippolyt. und die rom.
Zeitgenossen, 1855.Hagemann, Die rbmische Kirche, 1864. Langen, Gesch. d.
rbmischen Kirche I., p. 192 ff. Numerous monographs on Hippolytus and the
b ecome flesh. Against this view the great Doctors of the

—
Church Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, but above all, Hippo lytus
h ad principally to fight. Its defenders were called by Te rtuUiati
" IVIonarchia ni ", and, not altogether correctly, " Fatripass iani ",
which afterwards became the usual names in the West (see e.g.,
Cypr., Ep. 73. 4). I n the East they were all designated, after
the famou s head of the school, "SabelUan i" from the second
half of the third century ;
yet the name of "Fatripassiani"
was not quite unknown there also. '
Hippolytus tells us in
origin of the Philosophumena, as also on the authorities for the history of the
early heretics, come See also Caspari, Quellen III., vv. //. The authorites
in here.
are for Noetus, the Syntagma of Hippolytus (Epipli., Philaster, Pseudo-TertuU.), and
his great work against Monarchianism, of which the so-called 'O/zM/a 'iTfuoKvTov
£('5 T^v a'l'fsiriv JioyiTov riviQ (Lagarde, Hippol. quae feruntur, p. 43 sq.) may with
extreme probability be held to be the conclusion. Both these works have been
made use of by Epiph. H. 57. [When Epiph. (I.e. ch. i) remarks that "Noetus appeared
±130 years ago", it is to be inferred that he fixed the date from his authority, the
anti-monarchian work of Hippolytus. P"or the latter he must have had a date, which-
he believed he could simply transfer to the period of Noetus, since Noetus is
described in the book as ov jrpo !roA/oP ;^piJvoi/ yevoiiSvoQ. But in that case his
source was written about A.D. 230 — 240, «'.<., almost at the same time as the so-
called Little Labyrinth. It is also possible, however, that the above date refers to the
excommunication of Noetus. In that case the work which has recorded this event,
can have been written at the earliest in the fourth decade of the fourth century].
Most of the later accounts refer to that of Epiph. An independent one is the
section Philos. IX. 7 sq. pC 27 ; on this Theodoret is dependent H. F. III. 3).
.
For Epigonus and Cleomenes we have Philos. IX. 7, 10, 11, X. 275 Theodoret
H. F. III. 3. For ^schines: Pseudo-TertuU. 26; Philos. VIII. 19, X. 26; for
Praxeas :TertuU. adv. Prax., Pseudo-TertuU. 30. The later Latin writers against
heretics are at this point all dependent on Tertullian; yet see Optat., de schism.
I. 9. Lipsius has tried to prove that Tertullian has used " Hippolytus against
Noetus" in his work adv. Prax. (Quellen-kritik, p. 43; Ketzergeschichte, p. 183 f.
Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie, 186S, p. 704); but the attempt is not successful (see
Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1874, p. 200 f.). For Victorinus we have Pseudo-TertuU. 30.
For Zephyrinua and Callistus Philos. IX. 1 1 sq. Origen has also had Roman
:
Monarchians in view in many of the arguments in his commentaries. On Origen's

residence in Rome and his relations with Hippolytus, see Euseb. H. E. VI. 14;
Jerome, De vir. inl. 61 ; Photius Cod. 121 ; on his condemnation at Rome, see
Jerome Ep. 33, ch. 4.
1 Orig. in Titum, Lomm. V., p. 287"... sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis
quam religiose, ne videantur duos deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris
uti
deitatem, unam eandemque substantiam patris ac filii asseverant, id est, duo quidem
nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientes, unam tamen vv6c-Tx<riv sub-
sistere, id est, unam personam duobus nominibus subiacentem, qui latine Fatripas-
siani appeUantur." Athanas., de synod. 7 after the formula Autioch. macrostich.

Chap, i.] MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM 53
the Philosophumena, at that time the

Monarchian contro-
that
versy agitated the whole Church, and Tertullian and Origen '
testified, that in their day the "economic" trinity, and the
technical application of the conception of the Logos to Christ,

were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion. '
Modalism, as we now know from the Philosoph., was for almost
a generation the official theory in Rome. That it was not an
absolute novelty can be proved ' but it is very prdbable, on
;
1 IX. 6 : liiytiTTOv Txpaxov xxrci vainx rm x6itij,ov iv Tras-it Toig TrfsroT; Ifs-
2 Ad. Prax. 3 Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiote, quse maior

;
semper pars credentium est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sseculi ad
unicum et verum deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua
otxovoiiicc esse credendum, expavescunt ad oixovoiziav Itaque duos et tres iam . . .
iactitant a nobis prsedicari, se vero unius dei cultores praesumunt , . . monarchiam

inquiunt tenemus." Orig., in Joh. II 3. Lomm. 95: "Erepoi Si ol [itiSiv s'lSo-
I. p.
Te;, £1 fiij 'I^fo-oSv Xpia-rov xdi rouTOV ka-TXVfUvivov, riv 'ytv6iisvov a-apxes fiSyov to
ffav vopiiiTCiVTS^ slvxi Tov ^dyoVy Xpitrrbv xxTOi a-^pxx (zdvov yiyvuirxovirt toiovtov $s
itrri TO TThviôq tSv Tsvia-Tevxivxi

Origen has elsewhere distinguished
voinôjiivaiv.
four grades in religion: (i) those who worship idols, (2) those who worship angelic
powers, (3) those to whom Christ is the entire God^ (4) those whose thoughts rise
to the unchangeable deity. Clement (Strom. VI. 10) had already related that there
were Christians who, in their dread of heresy, demanded that everything should
be abandoned as superfluous and alien, which did not tend directly to blessedness.
3 above (Vol. I., p. 195) where reference is made, on the one hand,
See
to Modalism reflected in Gnostic and Enkratitic circles (Gosp. of the Egypt.,
the
and Acta Lenc, Simonians in Iren. I. 231); on the other, to the Church formulas
phrased, or capable of being interpreted, modalistically (see II. Ep. of Clement,
Ign. ad Ephes., Melito [Syr. Fragments]; and in addition, passages which speak
"of God having suffered, died, etc.). It is instructive to notice that the development
in Marcionite Churches and Montanist communities moved parallel to that in the
great Church. Marcion himself, being no dogmatist, did not take any interest in the
question of the relation of Christ to the higher God. Therefore it is not right to
reckon him among the Modalists, as Neander has done (Gnost. Syxteme, p. 294,
Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 796). But it is certain that later Marcionites in the West
taught Patripassianism (Ambros. de fide V. 13. 162, T. II., p. 579 j Ambrosiaster
ad I. Cor. II. 2, T. II., App. p. 117). Marcionites and Sabellians were therefore
at a later date not seldom classed together. Among the Montanists at Rome there
were, about A.D. 200, a Modalistic pai-ty and one that taught like Hippolytus; at
the head of the former stood .Êschines, at the head of the latter Proculus. Of
the Hippolytus says (Philos. X. 26) that their doctrine
followers of ^schines,
was of Noetus: cujtov elvai viav xxi vaTepa, opaTOV xxi adpxTOv; yevvtirdv xxi
that
uyhviiTOV, SvifTOV xxi okavaTOt. It is rather an idle question whether Montanus
himself and the prophetic women taught Modalism. They certainly used formulas
which had a Modalistic sound ; but they had also others which could afterwards be
54 HISTORY OF DOGMJî [Chap. i.
the that a Modalistic doctrine, which sought to

other hand,
exclude every other, only existed from the end of the second
century. It was in opposition to Gnosticism that the first effort
was made to fix theologically the formulas ofa naive Modahsm,
and that these were used to confront the Logos Christology in
order (i) to avert Ditheism, (2) to maintain the complete divin-

ity of Christ, and (3) to prevent the attacks of Gnosticism. An
attempt was also made, however, to prove Modalism by exe-
gesis. That is equivalent to saying that this form of doctrine,
which was embraced by the great majority of Christians, was '
supported by scientific authorities, from the end of the second

century. But it can be shown without difSculty, how hurtful
any contact with theology could not fail to be to the naive
conception of the incarnation of the deity in Christ, and we may say
that it was all over with it though of course the death-struggle —
lasted long — when it found itself compelled to attack others or
to defend itself. When it required to clothe itself in a cloak
manufactured by a scientific theology, and to reflect on the
idea of God, it belied its own nature, and lost its raison d'etre.
What it still retained was completely distorted by its opponents.
Hippolytus has in the Philosophumena represented the doctrine
of Noetus to have been borrowed from Heraclitus. That
nterpreted and could not but be interpreted "economically"- In the Test, of the
XII. Patriarchs many passages that, in the Jewish original, spoke of Jehovah's ap-
pearance among his people must now have received a Christian impress from their
Christian editor. , It is remarkable that, living in the third century, he did not
scruple to do this, see Simeon 6 : tfr; mfio% ©eo? liiyai toS 'la-favJA, (fmtivoiie-
voi eTi yvji ii( cevUfdiTroi; Kxi a-diâiv sv ai/Tai tov 'ASufj. ... 'drt 6 @bo( a-uiix Axpiiv
XXI (Tvveiriiav mipuTroiQ 'ia-aiasv mifuvovi ; Levi 5, Jud. 22, Issachar. 7 : 'sxovtiq
/zefl'iavrav rov 0eov rov oupxvQv, tTviJ.%opsv6[j,svov Toti; avQpaiTrott;', Zebul. g:'64''€o'6s
@Eov hv crxviiMaTt av6pai7rov Dan. 55 Naphth. 8: d<p(iii(rercet ®sot; kxtohcuv bv xv6pai'
:,
TTOiQ B'^t TiJ? yvici Asher 7 ^^5 "5

: uîitto^ ewitrKSîiraii rijv y^v, Kxi auTO^ gA^^v
'•
w? 'dApiii'Tro^ piBTct mipuTrm

ka-iim xcei vlvm Benjamin 10. Very different Christ- ;
ologies, however, can be exemplified from the Testaments. It is not certain what
sort of party Philaster (H. 51) meant (Lipsius Ketzergesch., p. 99 f.). In the third
century Modalism assumed various forms, among which the conception of a
formal transformation of God into man, and a real transition of the one into the
other, is noteworthy. An exclusive Modalistic doctrine first existed in the Chmxh
after the fight with Gnosticism.
' TertuU. I.e. and ch. I. :
" simplicitas doctrinse ", ch. 9, Epiphan. H. 62. 2
a(pBê<rTaTOi i) uKipmoi. Philos. IX. 7; " 2,£ipvp7vo( UiuTtfi; xxl uypijifiaTO^, I.e.
ch. 6 : uiiuHeii.
— •
Chap, i.] MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM 5 5
is, of course,
an exaggeration. But once we grasp the whole
problem and scientifically "—and it was so
"philosophically
understood even by some scientific defenders of Monarchianism —
then it undoubtedly resembles strikingly the controversy regard-
ing the idea of God between the genuine Stoics and the Pla-
tonists. As the latter set the transcendent, apathetic God of
Plato above the AoVo^-^fo? of Heraclitus and the Stoics, so
Origen, e.g., has charged the Monarchians especially with stop-
ping short at the God manifest, and at work, in the world,
instead of advancing to the "ultimate" God, and thus
apprehending the deity "economically". Nor can it surprise
us that Modalistic Monarchianism, after some of its represent-
atives had actually summoned science, i.e., the Stoa, to their
assistance, moved
in the direction of a pantheistic conception of
God. But does not seem to have happened at the outset,
this
or to the extent assumed by the opponents of the school. Not
to speak of its uncultured adherents, the earliest literary defend-
ers of Modalism were markedly monotheistic, and had a real
interest in Biblical Christianity. It marks the character of the
opposition, however, that they at once scented the God of
Heraclitus and Zeno —
a proof of how deeply they themselves
were involved in Neo-platonic theology. ' As it was in Asia
1 That the scientifiG defenders of Modalism adopted the Stoic method — ^just as
the Theodotians had the Aristotelian (see above) — is evident, and Hippolytus was
therefore so Noetus with Heraclitus, i.e., with the father
far correct in connecting
of the Stoa. To Hagemann
belongs the merit (Rom. Kirche, pp. 354 371) of having —
demonstrated the traces of Stoic Logic and Metaphysics in the few and imperfectly
transmitted tenets of the Medalists. (See here Hatch, The influence etc., p. 19 f. on
the trunTraa-x^'^ and the substantial unity of •\ivx^ and (rujiu). We can still re-
cognise, especially from Novatian's refutation, the syllogistic method of the Modalists,
which rested on nominalist, i.e., Stoic, logic. See, e.^., the proposition: Si unus
deus Christus, Christus autem deus, pater est Christus, quia unus deus; si non
pater sit Christus, dum et deus filius Christus, duo dii contra scripturas introducti
videantur." But those utterances in which contradictory attributes, such as visible
invisible etc., are ascribed to God, could be excellently supported by the Stoic system
of categories. That system distinguished "J;a (oyo-Mj, i/Troxe/jnevov) from <ri//i/3£f3))xo'T«,
or more accurately (i) uvoKeliiiva (substrata, subjects of judgment); (2) V01&
(qualitatives) (3);
wix; 'ix"^'^'^ (definite modifications) and (4) s-fo? t< Tfti; 'ixovTx
(relative modifications). —
Nos. 2 4 form the qualities of the idea as a rvyxex"-
o/ihov; but 2 and 3 belong to the conceptual sphere of the subject itself, while 4
embraces the variable relation of the subject to other subjects. The designations
Minor that Adoptianism first entered into conflict with the

Logos Christology, so the Church of Asia Minor seems to
have been the scene of the first ModaUstic controversy, while in
both cases natives of that country transferred the dispute to Rome.
Father and Son, visible and invisible etc., must be conceived as such relative
accidental, attributes. The same subject can in one relation be Father, in another
Son, or, according to circumstances, be visible or invisible. One sees that this
logical method could be
utilised excellently to prove the simple unreasoned propo-
sitions of the oldModalism. There are many traces to shovif that the system was
applied in the schools of Epigonus and Cleomenes, and it is with schools we have
here to deal. Thus, e.g.^ we have the accusation which, time and again, Origcn
made against the Monarchians, that they only assnme one uwoxeiiihov^ and combine
Father and Son indiscriminately as modes in which it is manifested. (Hagemann
refers to Orig. on Matt. XVI. 14: 01 irvyxôvTSi Trurfii xai vioS 'ivvoiav; and on
John X. 21 : (Tvyxôtievoi Iv r^ wspi vxTfii; xcc) viov to'ttm —but a-vyxhtv is the
Stoic term). The proposition is also Stoic that while the one vvoxeiiiivov is capable
of being divided
(Sixifs7v), it is only subjectively, in our conceptions of it (xij
Ittivoiiii so that merely hSiiara not differences xai' vTvia-rairn, result. Further
fi^Kj)),
the conception of the Logos as a mere sound is verbally that of the Stoics, who
defined the <pmvi {ôyog) as itip TtTrAvyfevo; '^ to 'iSiov usiVSijtov axoiii. TertuUian
adv. Prax. 7 ; " quid est enim, dices, sermo nis^ vox et sonus oris et sicut gram-
matici tradunt, aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio quid et
inane et incorporale ?
" Hippolyt., Philos. X. 33: ©to? Xoyot avoyemiS, ou f,6yov
u( (paivtjv. Novatian, 31 "sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono per-
de trinit. :
cussi aeris aut de visceribus vocis accipitur." The application of

tono coactse
Nominalist Logic and Stoic Methaphysics to theology was discredited in the
controversy with the Modalists under the names of "godless science", or "the
science of the unbelievers", just as much as Aristotelian philosophy had been in
the fight with the Adoptians. Therefore, even as early as about A.D. 250, one of
the most rancorous charges levelled at Novatian by his enemies was that he was
a follower of another, i.e., of the Stoic, philosophy (Cornelius ap. Euseb. H. E. VI.
43. 16; Cypr. Ep. 55.24,60.3). Novatian incurred this reproach because he opposed
the Monarchians with their own, i.e., the syllogistic, method, and because he had
maintained, as was alleged, imitating the Stoics, "omnia peccata paria esse."
Now if the philosophy of Adoptian scholars was Aristotelian, and that of
Modalistic scholars was Stoic, so the philosophy of Tatian, TertuUian Hippo-
lytus, and Origen, in reference to the One and Many, and the rea/ evolutions
of the one to the many is unmistakably Platonic. Hagemann (I.e.
{lj,epitrii6i;)
pp.
—
182 206) has shown the extent to which the expositions of Plotinus (or Porphyiy)
coincide in contents and form, method and expression see especially the conception—
of Hypostasis (substance) in Plotinus —with those of the Christian theologians mentioned
amon^ whom we have to include Valentinus. (See also Hipler in the dstr. Vierteljahrsschr.
Kath. Theol. 1869, p. 161 ff., quoted after Losche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, p.
f.
259).
When the Logos Christology triumphed completely in the Church at the end of
the third century, Neoplatpnism also triumphed over Aristotelianism and Stoicism in
ecclesiastical science, and it was only West that theologians, like Amobius
in the
were tolerated who in their pursuit of Christian knowledge rejected Platonism.
'
Chap. I.] MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM 57
It is possible that Noetus was not excommunicated till about
A.D. 230, and, even if we cannot now discover his date

more accurately, it seems to be certain that he first excited
attention as a Monarchian, and probably in the last twenty
years of the second century. This was perhaps in Smyrna,
his native place, perhaps in Ephesus. ^ He was excommuni-
cated in Asia Minor, only after the whole controversy had,
comparatively speaking, come Rome. ^ This ex-
to a close in
plains why Hippolytus has mentioned him last in his great work
against the Monarchians, while in the Philosoph. he describes
him as the originator (IX. 6 : Apxiyov) of the heresy. *
A
disciple of his, Epigonus, came to Rome in the time of Zephy-
rinus, or shortly before (-j- 200), and is said to have there dif-
fused the teaching of his master, and to have formed a separate

party of Patripassians. At first Cleomenes, the disciple of Epi-
gonus, was regarded as the head of the sect, and then, from
c. A.D. 215,
Sabellius. Against these there appeared, in the
Roman Church, especially the presbyter Hippolytus, who sought
to prove that the doctrine promulgated by them was a revolu-
tionary error. But the sympathies of the vast majority of the
Roman Christians, so any part in the
far as they could take
dispute, were on the side of the Monarchians, and even among
the clergy only a minority supported Hippolytus. The "unedu-
cated" Bishop Zephyrine, advised by the prudent Callistus, was
himself disposed, like Victor, his predecessor (see under), to the
Modalistic views; but his main effort seems to have been to
calm the contending parties, and at any cost to avoid a new
1 Hippol. c. Noet. I., Philos. IX. 7.
' Epiph. I.e., ch. I;
3 According to Hippol. c. Noet. I., he was not condemned after the first trial,
but only at the close of a second, —a proof of the uncertainty that still prevailed.
It is impossible now to discover
what ground there was for the statement that
Noetus gave himself out to be Moses, and his brother to be Aaron.
* The fact that Noetus was able to live for years in Asia Minor undisturbed,
has evidently led Theodoret into the mistake that he was a later Monarchian who
only appeared after Epigonus and Cleomenes. For the rest, Hippolytus used the
name of Noetus in his attack on him, simply as a symbol under which to oppose
later Monarchians (see Ztschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874, p. 201); this is at once clear
from ch. 2.
schism in the Roman Church, already sadly split up. After his
death the same policy was continued by Callistus (217 222), —
now raised to the Bishopric. But as the schools now attacked
each other more violently, and an agreement was past hoping
for, the Bishop determined to excommunicate both Sabellius and
Hippolytus, the two heads of the contending factions. The '
Christological formula, which CaUistus himself composed, was

meant to satisfy the less passionate adherents of both parties,
and this it did, so far as we may conjecture. The small party
of Hippolytus "the true Catholic Church", held its ground in
Rome for only about fifteen years, that of Sabellius probably
longer. The formula of Callistus was the bridge, on which the
Roman who were originally favourable to Monarchi-
Christians,
!
anism, passed over to the recognition of the Logos Christology,
'
following the trend of the times, and the science of the Church.
This doctrine must have already been the dominant theory in
Rome when work De Trinitate, and from
Novatian wrote his
that date it was never ousted thence. It had been established in
the Capital by a politician, who, for his own part, and so far
' Philos. IX. \2 : OVtuq 6 KiÂAhttos fjera t^k rov Zs(^vphov TBêvTifv •joiiiûv
Teruxt"^''^' oZ hiifpSTO, rov â^sKMov ajTESJo-evui liii (pfo-joCvra ^pSiSQ, SeSotxiiieiii
Kxi vofiiâjv oVra Svvxtrdxi aiXorpi^Jsctrdaii t^v Tpb^ rk^ eKxîia-iaq xxr^yopiaiVj w$ nijj
&Khorpi<iii ippovSiv. Hippolytus, whose treatment of Sabellius is respectful, compared

with his attitude to Callistus, says nothing of his own excommunication it is there- ;
fore possible that he and his small faction had already separated from CaUistus,
and for their part had put him under the ban. This cannot have happened under
Zephyrine, as shown directly by Philos. IX. II, and all we can infer from ch. 7
is
is that the party of Hippolytus had ceased to recognise even Zephyrine as Bishop
so coiTectly DoUinger, I.e., p. loi f., 223 f. ; a different view in Lipsius, Ketzerge-
schichte, p. 150. The situation was doubtless this: Epigonus and Cleomenes had
founded a real school (JfJajxaAeicv) in the Roman Church, perhaps in opposition
to that of the Theodotians, and this school was protected by the Roman bishops,
(s. Philos. IX. 7 : Zscpvp7vot; [rw xep$£t 'jrpot7<pepo[^hai •xeiSdiêvoq] ff-v-jsx^psi T0T5
Trpoa-ioiin r^ KAEOfi£ve( lizSifrevEa-icu . . . Tovtcdv kutcc SixSox>i''> Sie/j.enB to SiSairxit-

AeTov xpixTuv6{êvov xai STavôv hse to a-vvxipstrfiai oivroli; tov Zs^vplvov xai rbv
KaAAio-Tcv). Hippolytus attacked the orthodoxy and Church character of the school,
which possessed the sympathy of the Roman community, and he succeeded, after
Sabellius had become its head, in getting Callistus to expel the new leader from
the Church. But he himself was likewise excommunicated on account of his Christ-
ology, his "rigourism" and his passionate agitations. At the moment the com-
munity of Callistus was no longer to him a Catholic Church, but a SiSxs-xa^slot
(see Philos. IX. 12, p 458, i; p. 462, 42).
as he took any interest at all in dogmatics, had been more

^
inclined to the Modalistic theory.
The scantiness of our sources for the history of Monarchi-
anism in Rome, —not to speak of other cities— in spite of the
discovery of the Philosophumena, is shown most clearly by the
circumstance that TertuUian has not mentioned the names of
Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, or CalHstus; on the other hand,
he has introduced a Roman Monarchian, Praxeas, whose name
is not mentioned by Hippolytus in any of his numerous contro-
This fact has seemed so remarkable that very

versial writings.
hazardous hypotheses have been set up to explain it. It has
been thought that "Praxeas" is a nickname (= tradesman), and
that by we ought really to understand Noetus, ° Epigonus,
it ''
or CalHstus. * The correct view is to be found in DolUnger *

and Lipsius. * Praxeas ''
had come to Rome before Epigonus,
at a date anterior to the earliest of Hippolytus' personal re-
collections, accordingly about contemporaneously with Theodo-
tus, or a little earlier, while Victor was Bishop; according to
Lipsius, and this is even during the episcopate of
probable,
Eleutherus. ^ He probably resided only a short time in Rome,
• The attempt has been made in the above to separate the historical kernel from
the biassed description of Hippolytus
in the Philos. His account is reproduced
most correctly by Caspari (Quellen III., p. 325 ff.). Hippolytus has not disguised
the fact that the Bishops had the great mass of the Roman community on their
side (IX. 11), but he has everywhere scented hypocrisy, intrigues and subserviency,
where it is evident to the present day that the Bishops desired to protect the Church
from the rabies theologorum. In so doing, they only did what their office demanded,
and acted in the spirit of their predecessors, in whose days the acceptance of the
brief and broad Church confession was alone decisive, while beyond that freedom
ruled. It is also evident that Hippolytus considered Zephyrine and the rest a set
of ignorant beings {idiotes), because they would not accede to the new science
and the "economic" conception of God.
- According to Pseudo-Tertull. 30, where in fact the name of Praxeas is sub-
stituted for Noetus.
3 De Rossi, Bullet 1866, p. 170.
'
So, eg., Hagemann, I.e., p. 234 f., and similarly at an earlier date, Semler.
''
L.c, p. 198.
«
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1868, H. 4.
'i
The name has undoubtedly not been shown elsewhere up till now.
8 Chronol. rom. Bischofe,
d. p. 173 f.
6o HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
where he met with no opposition and he founded no school ;
in the city. When, twenty years afterwards, the controversy was

at its height in Rome and Carthage, and Tertullian found him-
self compelled to enter the lists against Patripassianism, the
name of Praxeas was almost forgotten. Tertullian, however,
laid hold of him because Praxeas had been the first to raise a
discussion in Carthage also, and because he had an antipathy
to Praxeas who was a decided anti-montanist. In his attack,
Tertullian has, however, reviewed the historical circumstances of
about the year A.D. 210, when his work Adv. Prax. was
written; nay, he manifestly alludes to the Roman Monarchians,
i.e., to Zephyrinus and those protected by him. This observ-
ation contains what truth there is in the hypothesis that
Praxeas
is only a name for another well-known .Roman Monarchian.
Praxeas was a confessor of Asia Minor, and the first to bring
the dispute as to the Logos Christology to Rome. ' At the
same time he brought from his birth-place a resolute zeal against
the new prophecy. We are here, again, reminded of the faction
of Alogi of Asia Minor who combined with the rejection of the
Logos Christology an aversion from Montanism; cf. also the
Roman presbyter Caius. Not only did his efforts meet with no
opposition in Rome, but Praxeas induced the Bishop, by giving
him information as to the new prophets and their communities
in Asia, to recall the littercB pacts, which he had already sent
them, and to aid in expelling the Paraclete. If this Bishop was ''
Eleutherus, and that is probable from Euseb. H. E. V. 4, then

we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared them-
selves in favour of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus,
Victor, Zephyrine, and Calhstus; for we learn from Pseudo-
Tertullian that Victor took the part of Praxeas. ' But it is also
1 Adv. Prax. primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romam, homo
: Iste
et alias inquietus, insuper de iactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex
et
breve carceris tedium.
2 L.c: Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romas procuravit, prophetiam expulit et
hffiresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.
3 Pseudo-TertuU. Praxeas quidem hieresim introduxit quam Victorinus
:
corrobo-
rare curavit. This Victorinus is rightly held by most scholars to be Bishop •
Victor
(l) there is the name (on Victor = Victorinus, see Langen I.e., 196; Caspari'
p.
Quellen III., p. 323, n. 102); (2) the date; (3) the expression "curavit" whici^
1;
possible that Victor was the Bishop whom TertuUian (Adv.

Prax.) was thinking of,and in that case Eleutherus has no
place here. It is at all events certain that when Dynamistic
Monarchianism was proscribed by Victor, it was expelled not
by a defender of the Logos Christology, but in the interests
of a Modalistic Christology. The labours of Praxeas did not
yet bring about a controversy in with the Logos Doctrine Rome
he was merely the forerunner of Epigonus and Cleomenes there.
From Rome he betook himself to Carthage, and strove against '
the assumption of any distinction between God and Christ. But

he was resisted by TertuUian, who, at that time, still belonged
to the Catholic Church, and he was silenced, and even com-
pelled to make a written recantation. With this ended the
first phase of the dispute. " The name of Praxeas does not again
occur. But was only several years afterwards that the con-
it
troversy became really acute in Rome and Carthage, and

caused TertuUian to write his polemical work. ^ Of the final
stages Monarchianism in Carthage and Africa we know
of
nothing certain. Yet see under.
It is not possible, from the state of our sources, to give a
complete and homogeneous description of the doctrine of the

older Modalistic Monarchianism. But the sources are not alone
to blame for this. As soon as the thought that God Himself
points high position, and is exactly paralleled by the trvvxipea-Sai used by

to a
Hippolytus referring to Zephyrine and Callistus (see p. 58, note i); lastly,
in
the fact that Victor's successors, as we know definitely, held Monarchian views.
The excommunication of Theodotus by Victor proves nothing, of course, to the
contrary; for the Monarchianism of this man was of quite a different type from
that of Praxeas.
' This is definitely to be inferred from the words of TertuUian (I.e.): "Fructi-
caverant avense Praxean^ hie quoque. superseminatse dormientibus multis in sim-
plicitate doctrinae"; see Caspari, I.e.; Haucic, TertuUian, p. 368; Lan{;en, I.e., p. 199;
on the other side Hesselberg, Tertullian's Lehre, p. 24, and Hagemann, I.e.
- TertuUian, Avense Praxeanae traductae dehinc per quem deus voluit (scil.
I.e. :
per me), etiam evulsie videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione
sua, et manet chirographum apud psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est; exinde
silentium.
3 TertuU., I.e. Aven^ vero illte ubique tunc semen excusserant. Ita altquamdiu
per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate et nunc denuo erupit.
latitavit, Sed et denuo
eradicabitur, si voluerit dominus.
was incarnate in Christ had to be construed theologically, very

various attempts These could lead,
could not fail to result.
and so on the one hand, to hazardous conceptions
far did lead,
involving transformation, and, on the other, almost to the border
of Adoptianism; for, as soon as the indwelling of the deity of the
Father (deitas patris] in Jesus was not grasped in the strict sense
as an incarnation, as soon as the element that in Jesus consti-
tuted his personality was not exclusively perceived in the deity
of the Father, these Christians were treading the ground of the
Artemonite heresy. Hippolytus also charged Callistus with
wavering between Sabellius and Theodotus, and in his work '
against Noetus he alludes (ch. III.) to a certain affinity between

the latter and the leather-worker. In the writings of Origen, more-
over, several passages occur, regarding which it will always
be uncertain whether they refer to Modalists or Adoptians. Nor
can this astonish us, for Monarchians of all shades had a com-
mon interest in opposition to the Logos Christology: they re-
presented the conception of the Person of Christ founded on the
history of salvation, as against one based on the history of his
nature.
Among the different expositions of the doctrine of the older
Modalists that of Hippolytus in his work against Noetus shows
us it in its simplest form. The Monarchians there described
are introduced to us as those who taught that Christ is the
Father himself, and that the Father was born, suffered and
died. " is God, then he is certainly the Father, or he
If Christ
would not be God. If Christ, accordingly, truly suffered, then
the God, who is God alone, suffered. ' But they were not only
influenced by a decided interest in Monotheism, " a cause which
they held to have been injured by their opponents, ° whom
1 Pliilos. IX. 12, X. 27. Epiph. M. 57. 2.
* C. I : ecfi^ TCv X^/iTTOv odnov ehxi tov TTiZTEpx K2i auTOv TQ'j TTXTspx ysyevvvjirlioit
'*
C. 2 : Et oii'j XfiCTTOv 6iio?,o'yaj Qeqv, uuto^ apa eirriv 6 TxTijpj eV ys 'itrriv 6
®€6t;. eTraOs'j $s Xpta-rbi;, ccuTOt; av ©eo'c, xpoc ovv sTrxhv Trariip, TTXT-^p yap xutoq ^v
* 4>xtniovtnv irvviiTTa'j tvz &s6v (c. 2).
5 Hippolytus defends himself, c. 11. 14: ou Sua icoii; ^sya, a. Philos. IX. II,
fin. 12: Sti(iOi!-i'x 6 KahM^Toq iifu-j hsihXii iiTreTv Si'Sioi sc-ts. From c. Noet. II it
;
they called ditheists {îhoi), but they fought in behalf of the

complete deity of Jesus, which, in their opinion, could only be
upheld by their doctrine. In support of the latter they appealed,
'
like the Theodotians, chiefly to the Holy Scriptures, and, indeed,

to the Catholic Canon thus they quoted Exod. III. 6, XX. 2f.
;
Isa. XLIV. 6, XLV. 5. U f-; Baruch. III. 36; John. X. 30,

XIV. 8f. Rom. IX. 5. Even John's Gospel is recognised; but
;
this is quahfied by the most important piece of information

which Hippolytus has given about their exposition of the Scrip-
tures. They
did not regard that book as justifying the intro-
ductionof a Logos, and the bestowal on him of the title Son
of God. The prologue of the Gospel, as well as, in general,
so many passages in the book, was to be understood allegoric-
ally. ^ The use of the category of the Logos was accordingly
emphatically rejected in their theology. We do not learn any
more about the Noetians here. Hippo- But in the Philosoph.
and has presented
lytus has discussed their conception of God,
it as follows ^ " They say that one and the same God was
:
creator and Father of all things; that he in his goodness

appeared to the righteous of olden times, although he is in-
visible; in other words, when he is not seen, he is invisible,
but when he permits himself to be seen, he is visible he is ;
incomprehensible,when he wills not to be apprehended, com-

prehensible when he permits himself to be apprehended. So in
the same way he is invincible and to be overcome, unbegotten
and begotten, immortal and mortal." Hippolytus continues:
appears that the Monarchians opposed the doctrine of the Logos, because it led to
the Gnostic doctrine of jEons. Hippolytus had to reply: t;5 xTocpxrjerai vAi^llvv
@eS-» !r«pu!(3aA/of6£v>)v xnTOi xciifovs. He sought to show (ch. 14 sq.) that the /tiuo--
T-.)f(cv oixctoiJ.icii of the Trinity taught by him was something different from the
doctrine of the .ôns.
1 Hippol. (c. Noet. I.) makes his opponent say, tj otiv xazov ttoiS Soîiâiv tov
Xpia-TQ-j; see also ch. II. sq : Xfitrroi ?v 0£O? xai iTrcea-x^v S'' ilfixg airofm Trxri^py
'ivx Kxl y/ixq SvvtiOp, &>\>iO ou Suvx/j-sSx f.iysn; see again ch. IX. where Hip-
aSiiTX.1
polytus says to his opponents that the Son must be revered in the way defined by
God in Holy Scriptures.
-
S. c. 15 : ÂA' ipe'i i-ioi tiq- SeVv (pipeii; AiJyov At'yiav vii-j. 'Iwavv:<5 {j-h yxp
KeyBi ^6'yc-j, aAA' 2eAAw5 aAA^yofe'.
3 L. IX. 10. See also Theodoret.
"Noetus says, 'So far, therefore, as the Father was not made,
he is appropriately called Father ; but in so far as he passively
submitted to be born, he is by birth the Son, not of another,
but of himself.'" In this way he meant to establish the Mon-
archia, and to say that he who was called Father and Son,
was one and the same, not one proceeding from the other, but
he himself from himself; he is distinguished in name as Father
and Son, according to the change of dispensations; but it is
one and the same who appeared in former times, and submit-
ted to be born of the virgin, and walked as man among men.
He confessed himself, on account of his birth, to be the Son to
those who saw him, but he did not conceal the truth that he was
the Father from those who were able to apprehend it. Cleo- '
menes and his party maintain that "he who was nailed to the
cross, who committed his spirit to himself, who died and did
not die, who raised himself on the third day and rested in
the grave, who was pierced with the lance and fastened with
nails, was the God and Father of all." The distinction between
Father and Son was accordingly nominal; yet it was to this

extent more than nominal, that the one God, in being born
man, appeared as Son it was real, so far, from the point of
;
view of the history of salvation. In support of the identity of

the "manifested" and the invisible, these Monarchians referred
to the O. T. theophanies, with as good a right as, nay, with
a better than, the defenders of the Logos Christology. Now as
regards the idea of God, it has been said that "the element of
finitude was here potentially placed in God himself," and that
these Monarchians were influenced by Stoicism, etc. While the
former statement is probably unwarranted, the Stoic influence,
on the contrary, is not to be denied. ^ But the foundation to
which we have to refer them consists of two ancient liturgical
• We perceive very clearly here that we have before us not an unstudied, but
a, thought-out, and theological Modalism. As it was evident, in the speculations
about Melchisedec of the Theodotians, that they, lilce Origen, desired to rise from
the crucified Jesus to the eternal, godlike Son, so these Modalists held the concep-
tion, that the Father himself was to be perceived in Jesus, to be one which was
only meant for those who could grasp it.
- See above (p. 55, note i). In addition Philos. X. 27: toutcv tov xxrifx
tti/riv vlh -lOjilôva-i y.xric nxipouQ KaAoiz/zevcv vfii; ra a-viJ-^xiynvTce.
Chap, i.] MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM 6$
formulas, used by Ignatius, the author of the II. Ep. of Clement,

and Melito, ' whom we include, although he wrote a work " Con-
cerning the creation and genesis of Christ" {Trsp) Kriuewq kx,)
ysvhsug XpiiTTOu). Further, even Ignatius, although he held
Christ to have been pre-existent, knew only of one birth of the
Son, namely, that of God from
have here to the virgin. ^
We
recognise the conception, according to which, God, in virtue of
his own resolve to become
finite, capable of suffering etc., can
and did decide be man, without giving up his divinity. It

to
is the old, reUgious, and artless Modalism, which has here been
raised, withmeans furnished by the Stoa, to a theological doc-
trine,and has become exclusive. But in the use of the formula
"the Father has suffered," we have undoubtedly an element of
novelty; for it cannot be indicated in the post-apostolic age.
It is very questionable, however, whether it was ever roundly
utteredby the theological defenders of Modalism. They prob-

ably merely said that " the Son, who suffered, is the same with
the Father."
We
do not learn what conception these Monarchians formed
of the human triip^ (flesh) of Jesus, or what significance they
attached to it. Even the Monarchian formulas, opposed by
Tertullian in "Adv. Prax", and attributed to Callistus by
Hippolytus, are already more complicated. We easily perceive
that they were coined in a controversy in which the theological
difficulties inherent in the Modalistic doctrine had become notori-
ous. Monarchians still cling strongly to the perfect
Tertullian's
identity of the Father and Son ^ they refuse to admit the Logos ;
into their Christology; for the "word" is no substance, but
• See Ignat. ad Ephes. VII. 2 : cTq iHrpdi; ea-Tiv a-ttpxixSi; re y.ai wevij.XTiy.6(,
yewiiToi; tcoci ayevvi^TOt;, hj trapxi ys-jofjêvoq ©e^c» Iv &u-jcirta û^ u^^6ivii, kou sk Mizpitxi;
Kui EK @eov, TTpMTOv 'Xu^vjTO^ KXi TOTS «5r«fliê, ^l^tTOvt^ Xpto-rd^-, and See for Clement
Vol. I., p. 186 ff.
" It is interesting to notice that in the Abyssinian Church of to-day there is a

theological school which teaches a threefold birth of Christ, from the Father in
eternity, from the virgin, and irom the Holy Ghost at the Baftism/seeticrzog^'R.'E,.,
2 Aufl., Bd. I., p. 70.
^ C. I " Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum
:
passum ipsum denique esse lesum Christum." c. 2: "post tempus pater natus et
pater passus, ipse deus, dominus omnipotens, lesus Christus prsedicatur " see also c. 1 3. ;
5
merely a "sound";' they are equally interested with the Noet-

ians in monotheism, " though not so evidently in the full divin-
ity of Christ; like them they dread the return of Gnosticism;'
they hold the same view as to the invisibility and visibility of
God * they appeal to the Holy Scriptures, sometimes to the
;
same passages as the opponents of Hippolytus ° but they find ;
themselves compelled to adapt their teaching to those proof-

texts which the Son is contrasted, as a distinctive subject,
in
with Father. This they did, not only by saying that
the
God made himself Son by assuming a body, * or that the Son
proceeded from himself for with God nothing is impossible * '
— ;
but they distinctly declared that the flesh changed the Father
into the Son; or even that in the person of the Redeemer the
1 C. 7 :
" Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut gi-amma-
tici tradunt, aer offensus, intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vanum nescio quid."
^ C. 2 :
" Unicum deum non alias putat credendum, quem siipsum eundemque
et patrera et filiutn et spiritum s. dicat." c. 3 :
" Duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis
prasdicari, se vero unius dei cultores prsesumunt . . . monarcliiam, inquiunt, tenemus."
c. 13: "inquis, duo dii prasdicuntur." <-. 19: "igitur si propterea eundem et patrem
et filium credendum putaverunt, ut unum deum vindicent etc." u. 23 " ut sic duos :
divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis etc."
3 C. 8 : "Hoc si qui putaverit me 7rpo(3oAi(v aliquam introducere," says Tertullian

"quod facit Valentinus, etc."
• See c. 14. 15: "Hie ex diverse volet aliquis etiam filium invisibilem conten-
dere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum Nam et illud adiiciunt ad argumentationem, quod
. . .
si filius tunc (Exod. 33) ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse faciem suam nemini visibilem
pronuntiaret, quia scil. ipse invisibilis pater fuerit in filii nomine. Ac per hoc si
eundem volunt accipi et visibilem et invisibilem, quomodo eundem patrem et filium . .
Ergo visibilis et invisibilis idem, et quia utrumque, ideo et ipse pater invisibilis, qua
et filius, visibilis Argumentantur, recte utrumque dictum, visibilem quidem
. . .
in carne, invisibilem vero ante carnem, ut idem sit pater invisibilis ante carnem,
qui et filius visibilis in came."
5 Thus to Exod. XXXIII. (ch. 14), Rev. I. 18 (ch. 17), Isa. XXIV. 24 (ch. 19),
esp. John X. 30; XIV. 9, 10 (ch. 20), Isa. XLV. 5 (ch. 20). They admit that in
the Scriptures sometimes two, sometimes one, are spoken of; but they argued
(ch. 18): "Ergo quia duos et unum invenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem et
filius et pater."
Ch. 10 :
" Ipse se sibi filium fecit."
7 Ch. n :
" Porro qui eundem jiatrem dicis et filium, eundem et protulisse ex
semetipso facis."
* To this verse the Monarchians, according to ch. 10, appealed, and they quoted
as a parallel the birth from the virgin.
Chap, i.] MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM 6"]
body man, Jesus) was the Son, but that the Spirit (God,
(the
was the Father.' For this they appealed to Luke I. 35.
Christ)
They conceived the Holy Spirit to be identical with the power
of the Almighty, i.e., with the Father himself, and they em-
phasised the fact that that which was born, accordingly the flesh,
not the Spirit, was to be called Son of God. The Spirit (God)
was not capable of suffering, but since he entered into the flesh,
he sympathised in the suffering. The Son suffered, ^
but the
Father "sympathised"" — this being a Stoic expression. There-
fore Tertullian says (ch. 23),"Granting that we would thus say,
as you assert, that there were two separate (gods), it was more
tolerable to affirm two separate (gods) than one dissembling
(turn-coat) god " [Ut sic divisos diceremus, quomodo iactitatis,
tolerabilius erat, duos divisos quam unum deum versipellem
praedicare].
It is very evident that whenever the distinction between caro

(filius) and spiritus (pater), between the flesh or Son and the
Spirit taken seriously, the doctrine approximates
or Father, is ,
to the Artemonite idea. It is in fact changing its coat (versi-
pellis). But it is obvious that even in this form it could not

satisfy the defenders of the Logos Christology, for the personal
identity between the Father and the Spirit or Christ is still re-
tained. On
every attempt made by Modalism to
the whole,
meet the demands of the Logos doctrine could not fail logically
to lead to Dynamistic Monarchianism. We know definitely that
the formulas of Zephyrine and Callistus arose out of attempts
' Ch. 27: "^que in una persona utrumque distinguunt, patrem et filium, dis-
centes filium carnem esse, id est hominem, id est lesum, patrem autem spiri-
tum, id est deum, id est Christum." On this Tertullian remarks : " et qui unum
eundemque contendunt patrem et filium, iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam
unare; talem monarchiam apud Valentinum fortasse didiceiunt, duos facere lesum
et Christum." Tertullian, accordingly, tries to retort on his opponents the charge
of dissolving the Monarchia; see even ch. 4. The attack on the assumption of a
transformation of the divine into the human does not, for the rest, affect these
Monarchians (ch. 27 if.).
" See ch. 26, 27: ''propterea quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius dei ; caro
itaque nata est, caro itaque erit filius dei."
^ Ch. 29 :
"'
mortuus est non e.t divina, sed ex humana substantia."
^ L. c. : " Compassus est pater filio."
at compromise, though the charge of having two gods was

a '
raised against Hippolytus and his party. Zephyrine's thesis

(IX. ii), "I know one God, Christ Jesus, and besides him no
other born and suffering," which he announced with the limiting
clause, "the Father did not die, but the Son," ^ agrees with the
doctrines of "Praxeas", but, as is clear from the Philos., is also
to be understood as a formula of compromise. Callistus went
still further. He found it advisable after the excommunication
of Sabellius and Hippolytus, to receive the category of the Logos
into the Christological formula meant to harmonise all parties,
an act for which he was especially abused by Hippolytus, while
Sabellius also accused him of apostasy. " According to Zephy-
rine God is in himself an indivisible Pneuma, which fills
:
all things, or, in other words, the Logos as Logos he is ;
nominally two. Father and Son. The Pneuma, become flesh in

the virgin, is thus in essence not different from, but identical
with, the Father (John XIV. ii). He who became manifest, «>.,
the man, is the Son, but the Spirit, which entered into the Son,
is the Father. "For the Father, who is in the Son, deified the
flesh, after he had assumed it, and united it with himself, and
established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son

are called one God, and that henceforth it is impossible that
this single person can be divided into two; rather the thesis
holds true that the Father suffered in sympathy with the Son "
not the Father suffered. *
1 Philos. IX. 7, p. 440. 35 sq. ; II, p. 450. 72 sq.
2 'Eyw ofSoi 'ha ©eov Xfô-Tov ^l^(70vv Kat Tî^v uvtdv 'srepcv ol/Shx yevvifTOv xa?
2 L.c. IX. 12, p. 458, 78 : a/Aa xcii Six ro vvo roS Sa(9eAA/ou 5-t/;^vw5 xxrifya-
peHa-Sai w? yrapocâvTX t^v t/iiut>)v vi'a-Tn. It is apparently the very formula '' Com-
passus est pater filio" that appeared unacceptable to the strict Monarchians.
• Philos. IX. 12, p. 458, 80: K4AA;«-r(J5 Afysi tov >,iyoy mrov efvai vi'6v,xuriv
not TuTspci dv6[j.ari (jl^v Kx?iOV{êvoVj %v Si 'ov to TrvsCfix xSixipsrov. ovk aAAo stvat
Txrepa, aAAo Si vlov, iv Si x«i to xl/ro vvxpxî'', >ix) Tie wxvtx yefisit tov Seiav
TTVSVf^XTO^ TX TS 't^VtU XXt KXTW KXl shxt TO 6V T^ 7rxp6sVta IT Xpttbiîv TTVEVl^X olx
'irepov •jrxpx tov Trxrepx, ÂAos iv xxt to xIt6. Kx) roBra elvxt to slpyiiiivct. John.
14. II. To fiSv yxp /3A£7rrf|ii£vcv, i/jrep Io-tiv Uv^paiTroQ, tovto eJvxi tov u/o'v, tS Si Iv
Tu u/5j x^p;i&iv TrvsCf^x rovro e7vxt tov Txrepx' oh yoip^ ^îrh^ spa Sub 6eovt; Txrepx
KXl vtov^ aAA' 6VX. 'O ykp Iv xhria yevîievaq 5r«T»Jp Tpoc^x^diêvoQ T^v a-xpnx Mso-
Hippolytus discovered in this formula a mixture of Sabellian

and Theodotian and he was right. ' The approximation
ideas,
to the Christology founded on the doctrine of substances
(hypostases), and the departure from the older Monarchianism,
are, in fact, only brought about by Callistus having also made
use of a Theodotian idea. ° He still kept aloof from the Plato-
nic conception of God nay, it sounds like a reminiscence of
;
Stoicism, when, in order to obtain a rational basis for the in-

carnation, he refers to the Pneuma (Spirit) which fills the uni-
verse, the upper and under world. But the fact that his formu-
las, in spite of this, could render valuable service in Rome in
harmonising different views, was not only due to their admission

of the Logos conception. It was rather a result of the thought
expressed in them, that God in becoming incarnate had deified
the and that the Son, in so far as he represented the
flesh,
was to be conceived as a second person,

essentially deified a-xp^,
and yet as one really united with God. ^ At this point the
ultimate Catholic interest in the Christology comes correctly to
light, and this is an interest not clearly perceptible elsewhere
in Monarchian theories. It was thus that men were gradually
tranquillised in Rome, and only the few extremists of the Left

and Right parties offered any resistance. Moreover, the formula
was extraordinarily adapted, by its very vagueness, to set up among
the believing people the religious Mystery, under whose pro-
tection the Logos Christology gradually made good its entrance.
The latter was elaborated in opposition to Modalism by Ter-
TToi^trev iviiTaQ exvT^j tcui STOtijersv ^v, ut; Kahsitrâi srajre/jfi: kou viov 'iva ®s6v. axi
TOUTO %v 8v 7rp6^tii7roy (juii Svvxa-^xt eJvxi hvo^ text oilraii; rov TXTSpx a-uiiTTSTrcjihxi
Tw Qv yccp 6s?\St êysiv rev Trxrepx TrSTrcvUvxt xxi

i//fii" ^v ehxt TrpderaTrcv . . .
Here something is wanting in the text.

' Catholic theologians endeavour to give a Nicene interpretation to the theses
of Callistus, and to malce Hippolytus a ditheist ; see Hagemann, I.e.; Kuhn, Theol.
Quartalschrift, 1885, II.; Lehir, Etudes bibliques, II., p. 383; de Rossi and various
others.
• This is also Zahn's vievf, Marcell., p. 214. The doctrine of Callistus is for
the rest so obscure, — and for this our informant does not seem to be alone td
blame— that, when we pass from it to the Logos Christology, we actually breathe
freely, and we can understand how the latter simpler and compact doctrine finally
triumphed over the laboured and tortuous theses of Callistus.
3 See the Christology of Origen.

tullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian in the West. ' While Adop-

tianism apparently played a very small part in the development
of the Logos Christology in the Church, the Christological theses
of TertuUian were completely dependent on the
and the rest
opposition to the
" This reveals itself especially in
IVIodalists.
the strict subordination of the Son to the Father. It was only
by such a subordination that it was possible to repel the charge,

made by opponents, of teaching that there were two Gods.
The philosophical conception of God implied in the Logos
theory was now set up definitely as the doctrine of the Church,
and was construed to mean that the unity of God was simply
to be understood as a "unicum imperium", which God could
cause to be administered by his chosen officials. Further, the
attempt was made to prove that Monotheism was satisfactorily
guarded by the Father remaining the sole First Cause. ' But
while the reproach was thus repelled of making Father and Son
"brothers", an approach was made to the Gnostic doctrine of
.ôns, and TertuUian himself felt, and was unable to avert, the
danger of falling into the channel of the Gnostics. * His argu-
ments in his writing Jdv. Praxeas are not free from half con-
cessions and uncertainties, while the whole tenor of the work
contrasts strikingly with that of the anti-gnostic tractates. Ter-
tuUian finds and again compelled in his work to
himself time
pass from the offensive to the defensive, and the admissions
that he makes show his uncertainty. Thus he concedes that
we may not speak of two Lords or two Gods, that in certain
circumstances the Son also can be called Almighty, or even
Father, that the Son will in the end restore all things to the
Father, and, as it would seem, will merge in the Father; finally,
and especially, that the Son is not only not aliud a patre
(different in substance from the Father), but even in some way
1 See Vol. II., p. 256.

2This can be elearly perceived by comparing the Cliristology of TertuUian and
Hippolytus with that of Irenceus.
s See TertuUian adv. Prax. 3 ; Hippol. t. Noet. 1 1
' Adv. Prax. 8, 13.same with Hippolytus; both have in their attacks
It is the
on the Medalists taken Valentine, comparatively speaking, under their protection.
This is once more a sign that the doctrine of the Church was modified Gnosticism.
— 1
not alius a patre ' (different in person etc). Yet Tertullian and
his comrades were by no means at a disadvantage in compari-
son with the Monarchians. They could appeal (i) to the Rule
of Faith in which the personal distinction between the Father
and Son was recognised = (2) to the Holy Scriptures from
;
which it was, in fact, easy to reduce the arguments of the

Monarchians ad absurdum;^ (3) to the distinction between
Christians and Jews which consisted, of course, in the belief of
the former in the Son " and lastly, and this was the most im-
;
portant point, they could cite the Johannine writings, especially

in support of the doctrine of the Logos. It was of the highest
importance in the controversy that Christ could be shown to
have been called the Logos in John's Gospel and the Apoca-
lypse. * way in which the Scriptures were then
In view of the
used in the Church, these passages were fatal to Monarchianism.
The attempts to interpret them symbolically ° could not but
failin the end, as completely as those, e.g., of Callistus and
Paul of Samasota, to combine the use of the expression "Logos"
with a rejection of the apologetic conception of it based on
Philo. Meanwhile Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all
appearance, yet succeed in getting their form of doctrine approved
in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they taught
was viewed as an unknown God, and their Christology did not
correspond to the wants of men. The Logos was, indeed, to
be held one in essence with God but yet he was, by his being ;
made the organ of the creation of the world, an inferior
1 Ch. 18, in other passages otherwise.

2 Tertull. adv. Prax. 2. Hippol. c. Noet. I.
^ The Monarchian was

conducted on both sides by the aid of proofs
dispute
drawn from exegesis. Tertullian, besides, in Adv. Prax.^ appealed in support of the
"economic" trinity to utterances of the Paraclete.
* See ad. Prax. 21: "Ceterum ludaicEE fidei ista res, sic unum deum credere, ut
filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post filium spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et
illos nisi differentia ista? Quod opus evangelii, si non exinde pater et filius et
spiritus, tres crediti, unum deum sistunt?"
5 IIia-TSva-uiieii, says Hippolyt. c. Noet. 17 xxrie t^v TrapceSoinv r«v xTroa-riôDi

Uti @£b( Adyoi xtt' oipavav x«r>jA^£v, — see already Tatian, Orat. 5 following Joh. I. I :
6 See above, p. 63.

divine being, or rather at once inferior and not inferior. This

conception, however, conflicted with tradition as embodied in
worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ, quite
as much was opposed by doctrinal tradition, to

as the attempt
derive the use of the name " Son of God " for Christ, not from
His miraculous birth, but from a decree dating before the world.
For the rest, the older enemies of Monarchianism still maintained
common ground with their opponents, in so far as God's evolving
of Himself in several substances (Hypostases) was throughout
affected by the and in this sense by
history of the world (cosmos),
the history of revelation. Thebetween them and at least
difference
the later Monarchians was here only one of degree. The latter
began at the incarnation (or at the theophanies of the O. T.),
and from it dated a nominal plurality, the former made the
"economic" self-unfolding of God originate immediately before
the creation of the world. Here we have the cosmological inter-
est coming once more to the front in the Church Fathers and
displacing the historical, while it ostensibly raised the latter to
a higher plane.
Wherever the doctrine of the Logos planted itself in the
whether the divine being who appeared
third century the question,
on earth was identical with the Deity, was answered in
the negative. In opposition to this Gnostic view, which was
''
first to be corrected in the fourth century, the Monarchians

maintained a very ancient and valuable position in clinging to
the of the eternal Deity, with the Deity revealed on
identity
earth. But does not the dilemma that arises show that the
speculation on both sides was as untenable as unevangehcal ?
Either we. preserve the identity, and in that case defend the
thesis, at once absurd and inconsistent with the Gospel, that
Christ was the Father himself; or with the Gospel we retain
the distinction between Father and Son, but then announce a
subordinate God after the fashion of a Gnostic polytheism.
Certainly, as regards religion, a very great advance was arrived
at, when Athanasius, by his exclusive formula of Aoyoi; ofio-
In the Symbolum the " yevvifiivTX Ik Tvsi/ftaTOj ayiov

1 " is to be understood as
explaining tov u/ov tov @sov,
' See Adv. Prax. i6.
Chap, i.] LAST STAGES IN TJ-IE WEST 73
ova-iog (consubstantial Logos), negatived both Modalism and sub-

ordinationist Gnosticism, but the Hellenic foundation of the
whole speculation was preserved, and for the rational observer
a second rock of offence was merely piled upon a first. How-
ever, under the conditions of scientific speculation at the time, the
formula was the saving clause by which men were once for
all turned from Adoptianism, whose doctrine of a deification of
Jesus could not fail, undoubtedly, to awaken the most question-
able recollections.
(b) The last stages of Modalism in the West, and the

State of Theology.
Our information very defective concerning the destinies of

is
Monarchianism in Rome and

the West, after the close of the
first thirty years of the third century; nor are we any better
off in respect to the gradual acceptance of the Logos Christ-
ology. The excommunication of Sabellius by CalHstus in Rome
resulted at once in the Monarchians ceasing to find any follow-
ers in the West, and in the complete withdrawal soon after-
wards of strict and aggressive Modalism. Callistus himself has;
'
besides, not an altogether clean reputation as

left to posterity
regards his ChristoJogy, although he had covered himself in the
main point by his compromise formula.^ Hippolytus' sect had
ceased to exist about A.D. 250; nay, it is not altogether
improbable that he himself made his peace with the great Church
shortly before his death. ' We can infer from Novatian's im-
portant work "De trinitate", that the following tenets were recog-
' On these grounds the doctrine of Sabellius will be described under, in the
history of Eastern Modalism.
' In forged Acts of Synod of the 6th century we read (Mansi, Concil. II.,
p. 621): "qui se Callistus ita docuit Sabellianum, ut arbitrio sue sumat unam per-
sonam esse trinitatis." The words which follow later, " in sua extollentia separabat
trinitatem" have without reason seemed particularly difficult to Dbllinger (I.e., p. 247)
and Langen (I.e., p. 215). Sabellianism was often blamed with dismembering
the Monas (see Zahn, Marcell. p. 211.)
See Dollinger, I.e., Hippolytus was under Maximinus banished along with the
•^
Roman Bishop Pontian to Sardinia. See the Catal. Liber, sub "Pontianus " (Lip-
sius, Chronologic, pp. 194, 275).
nised in Rome about 250: ' (i) Christ did not first become God.
(2)The Father did not suffer. (3) Christ pre-existed and is true
God and man. But it was not only
°-
in Rome that these tenets
were established, but also in many provinces. If the Roman
Bishop Dionysius could write in a work of his own against the
Sabellians, that " Sabellius blasphemed, saying that the Son was
himself Father",' then we must conclude that this doctrine
was then held inadmissible in the West. Cyprian again has
expressed himself as follows (Ep. 73. 4): " Fatripassiani, Valen-
tiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitse, Marcionitse et ceterae haereticorum
pestes" (—the other plagues of heretics), and we must decide
that the form of doctrine was then almost
strict Modalistic
universally condemned in the West. Of the difficulties met with
in the ejection of the heresy, or the means employed, we have
no information. Nothing was changed in the traditional Creed
— a noteworthy and momentous difference from the oriental
Churches But we know of one case in which an important
!
alteration was proposed. The Creed of the Church of Aquileia

began, in the fourth century, with the words " I believe in God
the Father omnipotent, invisible, and impassible " (Credo in deo
patre omnipotente, invisibili et impassibili), and Rufinus, who
1 This writing shows, on the one hand, that Adoptians and Medalists still existed
and were dangerous in Rome, and on the other, that they were not found wilhin
the Roman Church. On the significance of the writing see Vol. II., p. 313 f.
"^
The Roman doctrine of as follows: He has always been
Christ was then
with the Father (sermo dei), but he
proceeded before the world from the
first
substance of the Father (ex patre) for the purpose of creating the world. He was
born into the flesh, and thus as, filius dei and devs adopted a /;omo; thus he is also
filiiis hominis. "Filius dei" and "filius hominis" are thus to be distinguished as
—
two substances (substantia divina homo), but he is one person; for he has com-
pletely combined, imited, and fused the two substances in himself. At the end
of things, when he shall have subjected all to himself, he will subject himself
again to the Father, and will return to and be merged in him. Of the Holy Spirit
it is also true, that he is a person (Paraclete), and that he proceeds from the substance
of the Father; but he receives from the Son his power and sphere of work, he
is therefore less than the Son, as the latter is less than the Father. But all three
persons are combined as indwellers in the same substance, and united by love and
harmony. Thus there is only one God, from whom the two other persons proceed.
' E^/SeA/io; Â2o-4>!)f<E7, airSv tov u/ov H-txi hiywi tov Trxrefx. See Routh,
Reliq. S. III., p. 373.
Chap, i.] LAST STAGES IN THE WEST 75
has preserved it for us, tells ' that the addition was made, at
any rate as early as the third century, in order to exclude the
Patripassians.
But the exclusion of the strict Modalists involved neither their
immediate end, nor the wholesale adoption of the teaching of
Tertullian and Hippolytus, of the philosophical doctrine of the
Logos. As regards the latter, the recognition of the name of
Logos for Christ, side by side with other titles, did not at once
involve the reception of the Logos doctrine, and the very fact,
that no change was made in the Creed, shows how reluctant
men were to give more than a necessary minimum of space to
philosophical speculations. They were content with the formula,
extracted from the Creed, "Jesus Christus, deus et homo ", and
with the combination of the Biblical predicates applied to Christ,
predicates which also governed their conception of the Logos.
In this respect the second Book of the Testimonies of Cyprian
is of great importance. In the first six chapters the divinity of
Christ is discussed, in terms of Holy Scripture, under the follow-
ing headings, (i) et ipsum esse
Christum primogenitum esse
sapientiam dei, (2) quod
per quern omnia facta sunt;
sapientia
dei Christus (3) quod Christus
;
idem sit et sermo dei (4) quod ;
Christus idem manus et brachium dei; (5) quod idem angelus

et deus; (6) quod deus Christus. Then follows, after some
sections on the appearing of Christ: (10) quod et homo et deus
Christus. The later Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrine was the
property of the Western Church from the third century, not in
the form of a philosophically technical speculation, but in that
of a categorical Creed-like expression of faith —see Novatian's

"De which the doctrine of the Logos falls into the
trinitate", in
background. Accordingly the statement of Socrates (H. E. III. 7)
1 Expos. SymboH Apost. ch. 19. The changes which can be shown to have
been made on the first article of the Creed elsewhere in the West— see especially
the African additions— belong probably at the earliest to the fourth century.
Should
they be older, however, they are all, it would seem, to be understood anti-
gnostically; in other words, they contain nothing but explanations and

comfirmatory
additions. It is in itself incredible and incapable of proof that the

Roman and
after it the Western Churches should, at the beginning of the third century, have
deleted, Zahn holds, a which originally stood in the first article of the
as 'i^x.
Creed, in order to confute the Monarchians.

is not incredible, that the Western Churchman Hosius had al-

ready declared the distinction between ovcrix and vfroaracri? (sub-
stantia and persona) before the Council of Nicaea. ' The West
welconêd in the fourth century all statements which contained
the cornplete divinity of Christ, without troubling itself much

about arguments and proofs, and the controversy between the
two Dionysii in the middle of the third century (see under),
proves that a declared interest was kept up in the complete
divinity of Christ, as an inheritance from the Monarchian period
in Rome. ^ Nay,^ a latent Monarchian element really continued
to exist in the Western Church; this we can still study in the
poems of Commodian. ^ Commodian, again, was not yet acquainted
with speculations regarding the "complete" humanity of Jesus;
he is satisfied with the flesh of Christ being represented as a
sheath, (V. 224, "And suffers, as he willed, in our likeness";'
on the other hand, V. 280, " now the flesh was God, in
which the virtue of God acted.")* But these are only symptoms
1 See Vol. IV.
2 We, unfortunately, do not know on what grounds the Roman Bishop approved
of the excommunication of Origen, or whether Origen's doctrine of subordination
was regarded in Rome as heretical.
Here follow
' in the original illustrations which we relegate to this footnote.
Compare Instruct. II. i (Heading) " De populo absconso sancto omnipotentis Christi
:
dei vivi;" II. i, p. 28. 22, ed. Ludwig) :

" omnipotens Christus descendit ad suos
electos ;
" II. 23, p. 43, 11 sq. : "Unde deus clamat: Stulte, hac nocte vocaris."
II. 39. I, p. 52. Carmen apolog. 91 sq. : "Est deus omnipotens, unus, a semetipso
creatus, quern infra reperies magnum et humilem ipsum. Is erat in verbo positus,
sibi Qui pater et filius dicitur et spiritus sanctus;" 276: "Hie pater
solo notatus,
in filio venit, deus unus ubique." (See also the following verses according to the
edition of Dombart) 285: "hie erat Omnipotens;" "334: " (ligno) deus pependit
:
dominus " 353 " deum talia passum, Ut enuntietur crucifixus conditor orbis ; "
; :
359 sq. "Idcirco nee

: voluit se manifestare, quid esset, Sed filium dixit semissum
fuisse a patre " 398: "Prsedictus deus carnaliter nasci pro nobis
; est ; " 455: "quis
deus est quem nos crucifiximus " 610: "ipsa
ille, ; spes tota, deo credere, qui ligno
pependit;" 612: Quod filius dixit., cum sit deus '•'
pristinus ipse;" 625: "hie erat
venturus, commixtus sanguine nostro, ut videretur homo, sed deus in came latebat . .
dominus ipse veniet." 630, 764: "Unus est. in cselo deus dei, terrje marisque, Quem
Moyses docuit ligno pependisse pro nobis " etc. etc. ;
Commodian is usually
assigned to the second half of the third century, but doubts have recently been
expressed as to this date. Jacobi, Commodian u. d. alt Kirchlich. Trinitatslehre,
in der deutschen Ztschr. f. Christi. Wissensch., 1853, p, 203 ff.
' Et patitur, quomodo voluit sub imagine nostra.

5 lam caro deus erat, in qua dei virtus agebat.
'
Chap, i.] LAST STAGES IN THE WEST JJ
of a Christian standpoint which was fundamentally different from

that of oriental theologians, and whidi Commodian was by no
means the only one to occupy. He, Lactantius^ and Arnobius
are verj> different from each other. Commodian was a practical
Churchman; Arnobius was an empiricist and in some form also
;
a sceptic and decided opponent of Platonism " while Lactantius
was a disciple of Cicero and well acquainted besides with the
speculations of Greek Christian theology. But they are all thre6
closely connected in the contrast they present to the Greek
theologians of the school of Origen ; there is nothing mystical
about them, they are not Neoplatonists. Lactantius has, indeed,
expounded the doctrine of Christ, the incarnate Logos, as well
as any Greek; as a professional teacher it was all known and
familiar to him ^ but as he nowhere encounters any problems
;
in his Christology, as he discusses doctrines with very'' few

theological or philosophical formulas, almost in a light tone, as
if were mere matters of course, we see that he had no
they
interest of hisown in them. He was rather interested in exactly
the same questions as Arnobius and Commodian, who again
showed no anxiety to go beyond the simplest Christological for-
mulas—that Christ was God, that he had, however, also assumed
flesh, or united himself with a man, since otherwise we could
not have borne the deity: "And God was man, that he
might possess us in the future" (Et fuit homo deus, ut nos in
future haberet). "
'"
The Christianity and theology which these
1 See Francke's fine discussion, Die Psychologie und Erkentnisslehre des Arno-
bius (Leipzig, 1878).
- We recall the Theodotlans of Rome.
3 See Instit.30. —
The doctrine of the Logos is naturally worked out in
IV. 6
a subordinationist sense. Besides this, many other things occur which must have
seemed very questionable to the Latin Fathers 60 years afterwards " Utinam," says
:
Jerome, "tarn nostra confirmare potuisset quam facile alieua destruxit."
^ Commod., Carmen apolog. 761.

5 See the Christological in part extremely questionable, of Arno-
expositions,
elsewhere. A. demands that complete divinity should
bius I.
39, 42, 53, 60, 62, and
In
be predicated of Christ on account of the divine teaching of Christ (II. 60).
his own theology other antique features crop up ; he even defends the view
many
that the supreme God need not be conceived as creator of this world and of men
(see the remarkable chap. 46 of the second book,
which recalls Marcion and Celsus).
Many Church doctrines Arnobius cannot understand, and he admits them to be
Latins energetically supported against polytheism, were summed

up in Monotheism, a powerfully elaborated morality, the hope
of the Resurrection which was secured by the work of the God
Christ who had crushed the demons, and in unadulterated Chili-
—
asm. ' Monotheism in the sense of Cicero's " De natura deo-
rum" —Moralism,and ChiHasm: these are the clearly perceived
and firmly held points, and not only for Apologetic purposes,
but also, as is proved especially by the second book of Commo-
dian's " Instructiones ", in independent and positive expositions.
These Instructions are, along with the Carmen Apolog., of the
highest importance for our estimate of Western Christianity in
the period A.D. 250 — 315. We discover here, 100 years after
the Gnostic fight, a Christianity that was affected, neither by
the theology of the anti-gnostic Church Fathers, nor specially
by that of the Alexandrians, one which the dogmatic contentions
and conquests of the years 150 — 250 have passed over, hardly
leaving a trace. Almost all that is required to explain it by the
historian who starts be found in
with the period of Justin is to
the slightly altered conditions of the Roman world of culture,
and in the development of the Church system as a practical
/ power, a political and social quantity. ° Even in the use of
Scripture this Christianity of the West reveals its conservatism.
The Books of the O. T. and the Apocalypse are those still
most in vogue. ' Commodian does not stand alone, nor are the
features to be observed in his "Instructiones" accidental. And
puzzles whose solution is known to God alone (see e.g.^ B. 11. 74). Even in the
doctrine of the soul, which to him is mortal and only has its life prolonged by
receiving the doctrine brought by Christ, there is a curious mixture of antique
empiricism and Christianity. If we measure him by the theology of the foiu-th century,
Arnobius is heterodox on almost every page.
' See the Carmen apolog. with its detailed discussions of the final Drama, Anti-
christ (Nero) etc.; Lactant IV. 12, VII. 21 sq. ; Victorinus, Comm. on Revelation.
We can notice throughout in Commodian the influence of the institution of

penance, that measuring-tape of the extent to which Church and World are
entwined.
3 The oldest commentary preserved, in part, to us is that of Victorinus of Pettan
on the Apocalypse.
—
t^HAP. I.] LAST STAGES IN THE WEST 'jg
we are not limited to the Apologists Arnobius and Lactantius

for purposes of comparison. We
learn much the same thing
as to African Christianity from the works of Cyprian, or, even
from the theological attitude of the Bishop himself, as we infer
from Commodian's poems. And, on the other hand, Latin
Church Fathers of the fourth century, e.g., Zeno and Hilary,
show in their writings that we must not look for the theo-
logical interests of the West in the same quarter as those of
the East. In fact the West did not, strictly speaking, possess
a specifically Church " theology " at all. It was only from the
'
second half of the fourth century that the West was invaded
by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, TertulHan, and
Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough
success. Some of its results were accepted, but the theology
itself was not. Nor, in some ways, was it later on, when the
Western structure of Monotheism, energetic practical morality,
and conservative Chiliasm fell a prey to destruction. The mys-
tical tendencies, or the perceptions that led to them, were them-
selves awanting. Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand,
as we are taught by the Institutiones of Lactantius as well as
the Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and
the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West
the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact,
a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question

of time when this departure should take place. The recognition
of the Logos could not fail ultimately to produce everywhere
a ferment which transformed the Rule of Faith into the com-
pendium of a scientific religion. It is hardly possible to con-
jecture how long and where Monarchians maintained their ground
as independent sects in the West. It is yet most probable that
there were Patripassians in Rome in the fourth century. ,
The
Western Fathers and opponents of heretics from the middle of
the fourth century speak not infrequently of Monarchians
Sabellians ; but they, as a rule, have simply copied Greek sources,
1
The work of Arnobius is, in tliis respect, very instructive. This theologian
the
did not incline as a theologian to Neoplatonism, at a time when, in the East,
forbidden as
use of any other philosophy in Christian dogmatics was ipso facto
hei-etical.
from which they have transferred the confusion that prevailed

among the Greek representatives of SabeUianism, and to a
still greater extent, we must admit, among the historians who
were hostile to it.
1 Epiplianius (H. 62. i) tells us that there were Sabellians in Rome in his time.
Since he was acquainted with no other province or community in the West we may
perhaps believe him. This information seems to be confirmed by a discovery made
in A.D. 1742 by Marangoni. "He found at the Marancia gate on the road leading
to S, Paolo a, stair closed in his time which, as the discoverer believed, led to a
cubiculum of S. Callisto, and in which were painted Constantine's monogram in
very large letters, and, secondly, Christ sittingon a, globe, between Peter and Paul.
On the cover, in a mosaic of green stones, stood the inscription " Qui et fihus
diceris et pater inveniris" (Kraus,sott. 2 Aufl., p. 550). De Rossi, Kraus,
Rom.
and Schultze (Katakomben, suppose that we have here the discovery of a
p. 34)
burial place of Modalistic Monarchians, and that, as the monogram proves, of the
fourth century. The sepulchre has again disappeared, and we have to depend
entirely on Marangoni's account, which contains no facsimile. It is not probable
that a Sabellian burial-place lay in immediate proximity to Domitilla's catacomb in

the or that the grave-yard of any sect was preserved.
fourth century, If we can
come any decision at all, in view of the uncertainty of the whole information,
to
it seems more credible that the inscription belongs to the third century, and that
the monogram was added to deprive it of its heretical character.
Whether Ambrosius and Ambrosiaster refer in the following quotations to
Roman or say Western Monarchians living in their time is at least questionable.
(Ambrosius, de fide V. 13. 162, Ed. Bened. II. p. 579 " Sabelliani et Marcionits
dicunt, quod hasc futura sit Christi ad deum patrem subjectio, ut in patrem filius
refundatur"; Ambrosiaster in Ep. ad Cor. II. 2, Ed. Bened. App. II., p. 117,
"quia ipsum patrem sibi filium appellatum dicebant, ex quibus Marcion traxit
errorem ").
Optatus (I. 9) relates that in the African provinces not only the errors, but
even the names, of Praxeas and Sabellius had passed away ; in I. 10, IV. 5, V. I
he discusses the Patripassians briefly, but without giving anything new. Nor can
we infer from Hilary (de trinitate "VII. 39 ad Constant. II. 9) that there were ;
stillMonarchians in his time in the West. Augustine says (Ep. 118 c. II. [12]
ed. Bened. II., p. 498) dissensiones qusestionesque Sabellianorum silentur." Second-
hand information regarding them is to be found in Augustine, Tract, in Joh.
(passim) and Hser. 41. (The remarks here on the relation of Sabellius to Noetus
are interesting. Augustine cannot see why orientals count SabeUianism a separate
heresy from Monarchianism).
Again we have similar notices in Aug. Prsedest. IT. 41 in H. 70 Priscillians —
and Sabellians are classed together; as already in Leo I — , in Isidor, H. 43,
Gennadius, Eccl. Dogm. I. 4 (" Pentapolitana hsEresis ") Pseudo-hieron. H. 26
(" Unionita " etc., etc. In the Consult. Zacch. et AppoUon. 1. II. 1 1 sq. (Gallandi
T. IX., p. 231 sq )
—a book written about 430 —a distinction is made between the
Patripassians and Sabellians. The former are correctly described, the latter
confounded with the Macedonians. Vigilius Dial. adv. Arian. (Bibl. Lugd. T. VIII.).
1 ;
Chap, i.] MODALISM IN THE EAST 8
(c) The Modalistic Monarchians in the East: SabeUianism

and the History of Philosophical Christology and
Theology after Origen. *
After the close of the third century the name of "Sabel-

lians" became the common title of Modalistic Monarchians in the
East. In the West
term was used here and there, in the same
also the
way, in the fourth and
In consequence of this the fifth centuries.
traditional account of the doctrines taught by Sabellius and his

immediate disciples is very confused. Zahn has the credit of
having shown that the propositions, especially, which were first
published by Marcellus of Ancyra, were characterised by oppo-
nents as Sabellian because Monarchian, and in later times they
have been imputed to the older theologian. But not only does
the work of Marcellus pass under the name of Sabellius up to
the present day, Monarchianism undoubtedly assumed very dif-
ferent forms in the East in the period between Hippolytus
and Athanasius. It was steeped in philosophical speculation.
Doctrines based on kenosis and transformation were developed.
1 S. Schlelermacher in tlie Tlieol. Zeitschr. 1822, part 3; Lange in the Zeitschr.
f. d. liistor. Theol. 1832, II. 2. S. 17—46; Zahn, Marcell. 1867. Quellen Orig.,:
iTifi oLfX- I. 2; in Joh. I. 23, II. 2. 3, X. 21; in ep. ad Titum fragm. II; in
Mt. XVI. 8, XVII. 14; c. Cels. VIII. 12, etc. For Sabellius, Philosoph. IX. is, in
spite of its Hippolytus introduces him in
meagreness, of fundamental importance.
a way that shows plainly he was sufficiently well known at the time in the Roman
Church not to need any more precise characterisation (see Caspari, Quellen III.,
p. 327J. Epiphanius (H. 62) has borrowed from good sources. If we still possessed
them, the letters of Dionysius of Alex, would have been our most important original
authorities on S. and his Libyan party. But we have only fragments, partly in
Athanasius (de sententia Dionysii), partly in later writers— the collection in Routh
is not complete, Reliq. S. III., pp. 371—403. All that Athanasius imparts, though
fragmentary, is indispensable (espec. in the writings De synod.; de decret. synod.
Nic. and c. Arian. IV. This discourse has from its careless use led to a mis-
representation of Sabellian teaching; yet see Rettberg, Marcell. Prisf.; Kuhn,Kath.

Dogmatik 11. S. Zahn, Marcell. S. 198 f.).
344; few important notices in Nova- A
tian, de Method., Conviv. VIII. 10; Arius in ep. ad. Alex. Alexan-
trinit. 12 sq. ;
dria (Epiph., H. 69. 7) Alexander of Alex, (in Theodoret H. E. I. 3) ; Eusebius,

; ,
u. Marcell. and Prsepar. evang. Basilius, ep. 207, 210, 214, 235 Gregory of Nyssa,
; ;
i sq.)— tobe
h6yoti y.arci 'Apslau xai â^sMiav (Mai. V. P. Nova Coll. VIII. 2, p.
used cautiously—; Pseudo-Gregor (Appollinaris) in Mai, I.e. VII. i., p. 170 sq.
Theodoret. H. F. 11. 9 Anonymus, jrf 05 roii S«/3£AA('?'ovTa« (Athanas. 0pp. ed.
;
Montfaucon II., p. 37 sq.) Joh. Damascenus; Nicephorus Call., H. E. VI. 25. For
;
Monarchianism we have a few passages in Gregorius Thaumaturg. The theologians

after Origen and before Arius will be cited under.
And thewhole was provided by the historians with the same

label. Atthe same time these writers went on drawing in-
ferences, until they have described forms of doctrine which,
in this connection, in all probability never existed at all. Accord-
ingly, even after the most careful examination and sifting of the
information handed down, it is now unfortunately impossible to
write a history of Monarchianism from Sabellius to Marcellus for ;
the accounts are not only confused, but fragmentary and curt.
It is quite as impossible to give a connected history of the
Logos Christology from Origen to Arius and Athanasius, although

the tradition is in this case somewhat fuller. But the orthodox
of the fourth and fifth centuries found little to please them in the
Logos doctrine of those earlier disciples of Origen, and conse-
quently they transmitted a very insignificant part of their writings
to posterity. This much is certain, however, that in the East
the fight against Monarchianism in the second half of the third
century was a violent one, and that even the development of
the Logos Christology (of Origen) was directly and lastingly
influenced by this opposition. The circumstance, that " Sabel-
'
1 Emendations both to support and to refute Sabellianism were proposed in the

vahied works of the past; the N. T., as well as other writings belonging to primitive
Christian literature, being tampered with. Compare Lightfoot's excursus on I. Clem. II,,
where Cod. A reads toC @eov while C and S have roC XpurroS^ the latter an
emendation opposed to Monarchianism or Monophysitism (St. Clement of Rome,
Appendix, p. 400 sq.). The old formulas to a'l'iia, ra TraS^j/xara rov &eoS and
others came into disrepute after the third century. Athanasius himself disapproved
of them (c. ApoU. II. 13. 14, I., p. 758), and
Monophysite controversy they
in the
were thoroughly distrusted. Thus in Eph. I.) Iv a'/fiaTi ©ecu and
Ignatius (ad.
(ad. Rom. VI.) roS ttcHovq tov @sov (jlov were corrected. On the other hand
(II. Clem. IX.) the title of ttvsShx for Christ was changed into ?,6yo;. In the N. T.
there are not a few passages where the various readings show a Monarchian or
anti-Monarchian, a. monophysite or dyophysite leaning. The most important have
been discussed by Ezra Abbot in several essays in the " Bibliotheca Sacra " and the
" Unitarian Review ". But we can trace certain various readings due to a Christolog-
ical bias as far back as the second century thus especially the famous 6 //cvoyEvi)?
:
u/05 for {io-joyi-aifi; &£6( John I. 18; on this see ITort., Two Dissertations I., on
MONOrENHS ©EOS in Scripture and Tradition, 1878; Abbot in the Unitarian
Review, June 1875. Since the majority of the important various readings in the
N. T. belong to the second and third century, a connected examination of them
would be very important from the standpoint of the history of dogma. For dogmatic
changes in the western texts, the remarkable passage in Ambrosiaster on Rom. V. 14
falls especially to be noticed.
'
lianism " was almost the only name by which Monarchianism

was known in the East, points, for the rest, to schisms having
resulted only from, or, at any rate, after the appearance and
labours of Sabellius in the East, therefore at the earliest since
about —
230 240. So long as Origen lived in Alexandria no
schism took place in Egypt over the Christological question.
Sabellius, perhaps by birth a Lybian from Pentapolis, ^ seems
after his excommunication to have remained at the head of a
small community in Rome. He was still there, to all appearance,
when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena. Nor do we know
—
of his ever having left the city, we are nowhere told that he
did. Yet he must have, at least, set an important movement
at work abroad from Rome as his centre, and have especially
fostered relations with the East. When, in Pentapolis, about
A.D. 260, and several years after the death of Origen, the
Monarchian doctrine took hold of the Churches there (Dionys., I.e.)
— Churches which, it is significant, were to some extent Latin
in their culture —
Sabellius can hardly have been alive, yet it was
under his name that the heresy was promoted. ^ But it would
seem as if this prominence was given to him for the first time
about A.D. 260. Origen at least had not, so far as I know, men-
tioned the name of Sabellius in his discussions of Monarchianism.
These date from as early as A.D. 215. At the time, Origen was
in Rome, Zephyrine being still Bishop. From the relations which he
then entered into with Hippolytus, it has been rightly concluded
that he did not hold aloof from the contentions in Rome, and
took the side of Hippolytus. This attitude of Origen's may not
have been without influence on condemnation afterwards inhis
Rome by Pontian, 231 or 232. Origen's writings, moreover,
contain many sharp censures on Bishops who, in order to glorify
God, made the distinction between Father and Son merely
1 See Dionys. Alex, in Euseb. VII. 6. Dionysius spealis as if the appearance

of Sabellian doctrine in Iris time in tlie Pentapolis were something new and
unheard of.
"
This information, however, first appears in Basil, then in Philaster, Theodoret,
and Nicephorus; possibly, therefore, it is due to the fact that Sabellius' teaching
met with great success in Libya and Pentapolis.

» Athanas. de sententia Dionysii 5.
84 HISTORY OF DOGMA [t:HAP. i.
nominal. And this again seems to have been said not without
reference to the state of matters in Rome. The theology of
Origen made him an especially energetic opponent of the Modal-
istic form of doctrine; for although the new principles set up
—
by him that the Logos, looking to the content of his nature,
possessed the complete deity, and that he from eternity was
created from the being of the Father approached apparently —
a Monarchian mode of thought, yet they in fact repelled it more
energetically then Tertullian and Hippolytus could possibly have
done. He who followed the philosophical theology of Origen
was proof against all Monarchianism. But it is important to
notice that in all places where Origen comes to speak about
Monarchians, he merely seems to know their doctrines in an
extremely simple and without any speculative embroid-
form,
ery. They are always people who " deny that Father and Son are
two Hypostases" (they say: h ou f/Jvov ova-'icf,, x^Xx xcc) utto-
Ksifiiycfl), who "fuse together" Father and Son [s-uyx^^'^)) who
admit distinctions in God only in "conception" and "name",
and not in "number", etc. Origen considers them therefore to
be untheological creatures, mere "believers". Accordingly, he
did not know the doctrine of Sabellius, and living in Syria and
Palestine had even had no opportunity of learning it.
That doctrine was undoubtedly closely allied, as Epiphanius
has rightly seen (H. 62. i), to the teaching of Noetus; it was
distinguished from the latter, however, both by a more careful
theological elaboration, and by the place given to the Holy
Ghost. The opinion of Nitzsch and others, that we must dis-
'
tinguish between two stages in the theology of Sabellius, is un-

necessary, whenever we eliminate the unreliable sources. The
central proposition of Sabellius ran that Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit were the same. Three names accordingly were attached to
one and the same being. It was his interest in monotheism that
influenced SabelHus. "What shall we say," urge his followers
' This appears also from our oldest witness, the letter of Dionysius, Eusebius
H. E. VII. 6: TTspi Tov vSv xivijflevTO? ev tjj nxoAE/â'/Jf tij? nEvraToAfw? Wyfiaro;,
'SvToq aff-eôvi; xai ^?ât7<^mjLi»v ôAAjJv 'sx'^'^'^^^ Trepi tov TxVTOKparopoq Qsov 'TtccTpH
>txi TOV Kvpiou vi[mSsv ÎvjiToC XpKTToV, a'KKTriccj re TToAA^v 'iôvTO^ Trepi rov fMovoys-
vovi; 'rrxiSbi; ctvTOv KXt TTfuTOTdKou '^ô'vjq xr/Vew^, tov evavSpojTiâ-xvTOi; h6yov, avxtc-
Qijtrtaiv $^ TOV uyiov 'jrvsvfâTO^,
in Epiphanius "have we one God or three Gods?" (t/

(ch. 2),
XV e'lTufiev, T/jfr? 0£ou?;); and Epiphanius (ch.
svx @eov £;t;«^£!/, i?
3)
replies: "we do not propound polytheism" {ou TroKuk'ixv shy^you-
fieSx). Whether Sabellius himself used the comparison between
the threefold nature of man and the sun remains a question

(one nature, three energies : to CPmtkttkov light giving, to dikkitov
heat giving, to o-%>J|C4« the form). The one being was also
'
called by Sabellius uiottxtmp, ^ an expression which was certainly

chosen to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible
to suppose that two beings were in question. This uioTrtxToip
(son-father) was in Sabellius the ultimate designation for God
Himself, and not, say, merely for certain manifestations of a
//.ovdi; (unit) resting in the background. Sabellius, however,
taught —according and Athanasius— that God was
to Epiphanius
not at the same time Father and Son but that he had, rather, ;
put forth his activity in three successive "energies"; first, in

the Prosopon (= form of manifestation, figure not ; = Hypostasis)
of the Father and Lawgiver; secondly, in the
as Creator
Prosopon of the Son as Redeemer, beginning with the incarna-
tion and ending at the ascension finally, and up till the present ;
hour, in the Prosopon of the Spirit as giver and sustainer of

life. ' We do not know whether Sabellius was able strictly to
carry out the idea of the strict succession of the Prosopa, so
that the one should form the boundary of the other. It is
^ Epiph., 1. c. : AoyiJ^XTtêt ya^ oZro^ xsii ol «t' chutov Zxê/^Mavoi rov avrbv
stvat ^XTEpsCj Tov csvrov vtov, Tov avTOV sjvxi Uytov 'jrvsutâ' ait; slvai kv fxtS vTotrTaasi
rpe7q dvofj^seo-isi^^ jj wc ev a)/6jiu7rca ff-cSfza aaci 4'^X^ ^^' TvevfMcc, Koci elvcti /z£V to
irSiict wg smBiv riv TttnTSfu, vj'i';s^v ii 1S5 eiveTv tov vi6v, to srvEUfto! Si uii xvSfdiTrov,
ouTuii; xai to ciyiov Ti/EJ/fia Jv xj) ieiTifTi. '^H diQ exv p ev Â;'^ 'ovti fiEv Iv /ztZ
vTroa-Txtj-ei, Tpsig Si 'iôvTi Tag IvepyeixQ x.T.h. Method. Conviv. VIII. I0(ed. Jahu,
p. 37): âjSsMiog fêysi tov vavTOxpccTOfx TivovUvai.
2 Athanas., de synod. 16; Hilar., de trin. IV. iz.
^ Epiph, H. 62, c. I ; ne{^<p6svTa tov vtov xaipia ttote, ua-Ksp axTlvcc xxl spya-
(ruiievov tx ttxvtx iv Titi xdcr/xifi Tse TifQ oixovo/îxg r?? BvayysfLixifi; xai a-UTftpiai;
TcSv avSpuTtav, avaf^tftpSevTa Si auiii e'li; oipavov, aii; vvo Â/ou frefi^h7(7av uxtIvx,
xai TToiMv e'li; tov viXtov txvxSpxiJ.oSirav, To <»'l Hyiov wveuiix viiJ-viu-iui e<; tov xotriMV, '
xai KaU%vii xxi C. 3 Epiphanius

xu^' excca-Tu- sli 'ixxatTov rcSv xxTxîaviJ-ivav x.T.h.
says: 0u% 6 u/05 iauTov lysvvyia-iv, ouSi 6 TrxTiip iêTXî^fîiTxi xwo tov "vtXTifp"
TOV slvai "vloi" x.T.A. xxTtlp aei vcertjp, xai oux ?v xcupot; Hts ovx ?v vaTtjp
. . .
TTXTI^p.
possible, indeed it is not improbable, that he could not fail to

recognise in nature a continuous energy of God as Father. ' It
is self-evident that the Sabellians would approve of the Catholic

Canon; that they did, is confirmed by Epiphanius. They are
said to have appealed especially to passages like Deut. VI. 4,
Exod. XX. 3, Isa. XLIV, 6 and John X. 38. = But Epiphanius
remarks besides that the Sabellians derived their whole heresy
and its strength from certain Apocrypha, especially the so-called
Gospel of the Egyptians. ' This note is instructive for it not ;
only recalls our recollection a lost literature of the second

to
century, especially the Gospel of the Egyptians, * but it also
shows that the use of an uncanonical Gospel had long continued
among Catholics in the Pentapolis, or at any rate in Egypt.*
Finally, it confirms the view that the Christology of Sabellius
cannot have been essentially different from the older, the so-
called Patripassian doctrine. It is distinguished from the latter
neither by the assumption of a transcendental Monas resting

behind the Prosopa, nor by the introduction of the category of
—
the Logos which was made use of by Callistus, but not by
Sabellius nor by a speculative theory, borrowed from the Stoa,
;
of the Deity, self-contained, and again unfolding itself; nor,

finally, by a doctrine of the Trinity constructed in any fashion
or by the expression vioTTiZTap, which, as used by Sabellius, simply

affirmed the single personality of God. As to the doctrine of
the Trinity, a triad was distinctly out of the question in Sabel-
lius. The only noteworthy and real differences are found in
these three points ; first, in the attempt to demonstrate the suc-
cession of the Prosopa; secondly, as observed above, in the
1 See Zahn, Marcell., p. 213.
2 Epiph., 1. u., u. 2.
' L. i;. : Tiji/ ii v&irav aliTwv a'Aavijv kxi t^v tv? TrAavij? avreSv ivvujj.iv'ix'""^'^
g| ÂTToufv^wv TtvOlVy liu^ts^Tx xTTO TOv Kxôvfêvov AlyuTTTiOV sbayysXiov, 5 rivsti
TO ^SvoiJtx h'JrsdsvTO rovro. 'Ev otvT^ yxf TroAAa Toixvra a)^ ev TFocpee^vo'rtfi //uctij-
piccSSg ex TTfOiruvov toS <roirvifii(; aveKpepirui, diQ avrou JijAouvto? Tolq imSijTaii t'ov
ctijTOV shxt TaripXt rov xvrov elvxi vi6vy tov xvtov slvxi xytov TveCiix.
* In the 2nd Ep. of Clement where it is frequently used, though this is disputed
by some, Modalistic formulas occur.
6 Clemens Alex, knew it; see Hilgenfeld, Nov. Testam. extra can. recept., 2 ed.,
fasc. 4, p. 42 sq.
reference to the Holy Spirit; thirdly, in formally placing the

Father on a parallel line with the two other Prosopa. The
attempt mentioned above may be regarded as a return to the
strict form of Modalism, which it was possible to hold was im-
pugned by formulas like the compassus est pater filio (the Father
suffered in sympathy with the Son). In the reference to the
Holy Spirit, Sabellius simply followed the new theology, which
was beginning to take the Spirit more thoroughly into account.
Most important is the third point mentioned. For in ranging
the Prosopon and energy of the Father in a series with the
two others, not only was cosmology introduced into the Modal-
istic doctrine as a parallel to soteriology, but the preeminence
of the Father over the other Prosopa was departed from in

principle, and thus, in a curious fashion, the way was prepared
for the Athanasian, and still more for the Western and August-
inian Christology. Here, undoubtedly, we have the decisive
advance marked by Sabellianism within Monarchianism. It led
up to the exclusive ofiooinno? (consubstantial) for it is probable ;
that Sabellians employed this expression.' They could apply it

with perfect right. Further, while up to this time no evident
bond had connected cosmology and soteriology within Modalistic
theology, Sabellius now made the histories of the world and
salvation a history of the God who revealed himself in
into
them. In other words, this Monarchianism became commensurate
in form with that theology which employed the conception of
the Logos, and this fact may have constituted by no means the least
part of the attractiveness which Sabellianism proved itself to
possess in no small degree up to the beginning of the fourth
century and even later. ^ However, it is not to be concealed
that the teaching of Sabellius relative to the Prosopon of the
Father is particularly obscure. The sentence attributed to him
by Athanasius, ' "as there are diversities of spiritual gifts, but
' See above, p. 45.
2 There were still Sabellians in Neo-Csesarea in the time of Basilius; Epiphanius
Arche-
knows of them only in Mesopotamia (H. 62 c. I). The author of the Acta
lai (c. 37) also became acquainted with them there; he treats them like Valentinians,
Marcionites, and followers of Tatiau as heretics.

vvBCjisi,
3 Orat. c. Arian IV. 25 U^Trsp haifireiQ ;;i«f«r//«TWi/ siiri, to ii aliTO
:
fiuTU Koii 6 TOTJip airdi fisv hirri, vârvvBTXi Si sk "lov xai Trviviice,
the same spirit, so also the Father is the same, but unfolds
himself in Son and Spirit" — seems at the first glance to con-
tradict the details Yet the different gifts are

given above.
certainly the which so unfolds himself in them
Spirit himself,
that he does not remain an element behind them, but is complete-
ly merged in them. In the same way the Father unfolds him-
self in the Prosopa. The witnesses to the succession of the
Prosopa in Sabellius are too strong to allow us to infer from this
passage that the Father still remained Father after the unfolding
{TrXXTVdpuoi;) in the Son. But this passage shows that philosoph-
ical speculations could readily attach themselves to the simple
theory of Sabellius. Marcellus rejected his doctrine which he
knew accurately. What he missed in it was the recognition of
the Logos therefore the idea of God had also not been correctly
;
apprehended by him. But the form given to Monarchianism

'
by Marcellus' won few friends for that type of doctrine. Alex-

andrian theologians, or Western scholars who came to their
assistance, had already perfected the combination of Origen's
Logos with the Monarchian 'Ofiooua-ioi; in other
doctrine of the ;
words, they had turned the category used by Origen against

the AoVo? uriiTi^x conception (the Logos-created) of Origen him-
self. The saving formula, " the Logos of the same substance,
not made " (Aoyc? oiioouawg ou
was already uttered, and, 'irotvi&sk),
suspiciously like sounded at first, became

Monarchianism as it
for- that very reason the means of making Monarchianism super-
fluous in the Church, and of putting an end to it.

But that only happened after great fights. One of these
we know, the controversy of the two Dionysii, a prelude to
the Arian conflict. * In the Pentapolis the Sabellian doctrine
had, soon after the death of Origen, won a great following even
1 Euseb. c. Marcell., p. 76 sq.
2 See on this Volume IV.
3 Sabellius seems to have been held a heretic all over the West about A.D. 3C0;
see the Acta Arclielai, Methodius etc.
* Higemann, I.e., p. 411 ff. ; Dittrich, Dion. d. Gr. 1867; Fbrster, intheZtschr.
f. d. hist. Theol., 1871, p. 42 ff. ; Routh, Reliq. S. III.,pp. 373—403. The main
(Source is Athanasius de sentent, Dionysii, a defence of the Bishop, due to the appeal
of the Arians to him; see also Basilius de spiritu, p. 29; Athan. de synod. 43 45. —
among the Bishops, "so that the Son of God was no longer
preached." Dionysius of Alexandria, therefore, composed various
letters in which he tried to recall those who had been misled,
and to refute Sabellianism. In one of these, directed to Euphra- '
nor and Ammonius, he gave an extreme exposition of Origen's

doctrine of the subordination of the Son. This letter seemed
very questionable to some Christians — probably in Alexandria,
perhaps in Pentapolis. They lodged a complaint, soon after
A.D. 260, Alexandrian Bishop with Dionysius in
against the
Rome. ^ Theassembled a synod at Rome, which dis-
latter
approved of the expressions used by the Alexandrian, and him-
self despatched to Alexandria a didactic letter against the Sabel-
lians and their opponents, who inclined to subordinationism. In
this letter the Bishop so far spared his colleague as not to
mention his name but he sent him a letter privately, calling for
;
explanations. The Alexandrian Bishop sought to justify himself

in a long document in four books {s^syx^? '^"'^ dTroXoyix), maintained
that his accusers had wickedly torn sentences from their context,
and gave explanations which seem to have satisfied the Roman
Bishop, and which Athanasius at any rate admitted to be thor-
oughly orthodox. But the letter of the Roman Bishop appears
to have had no immediate influence on the further development in
Alexandria (see under) the universal collapse of the Empire in
;
the following decades permitted the Alexandrian theologians

' Euseb., H. E. VII. 26. I : 'Evi rmraii; toS Aiovv<7iov <pifOvrcti xotl a.>,Kcu
TXsiovf Ivia-TOKai, wo-^te/j ml xara Sa;|3£AA/oi/ 5rpo5 "Afi/âva Tije xxTa Bspsvixiiv sx-
xt^ffiTicii e7r/<7«05rcv, xai -h Tpoi; TeAeVcfopov xai y; ^rpo? Eu(ppeivopci, xxi TaA<v "Afcliuva
xau Ei/Vopov. ^vvrxTTSt S^ Trepi TtJc avT^c; vTroQea-sait; xai aKXx riirtTapct trvyypatij.-
ftara, a tm Kara: 'Pu/miv o/zmviz/zm Aiovva-iu! 7rpoircpaive7, Dionysius had already

called the attenlion of Sixtus II., the i^redecessor of the Roman Dionysius, to the
revolt in the Pentapolis.
2 Hagemanu maintains that they first turned to the Alexandrian Bishop himself,
and he wrote an explanatory letter, which, however, did not satisfy them;
that
but this cannot be proved (Athanasius de sentent. Dion. 13 is against it). The
standpoint of the accusers appears from their appeal to the Roman Bishop, from
the fact that he made their cause his own, and from the testimony of Athanasius.
who describes them as orthodox Churchmen (de sentent. Dion. 13)— they were
orthodox in the Roman sense. It is entirely wrong, with Dorner (Entwickelungs-
gesch. I., p. 748 f.) and Baur (Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit I., p. 313), to identify
with those heretics, who, according to Dionysius' letter, taught there

the accusers
were three Gods: for the heretics meant were rather the Alexandrian theologians.
go HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
to continue their speculations, without needing to fear further

immediate reproofs from Roman Bishops.
Two facts give a special interest to the controversy of the
Dionysii. First, in spite of the acceptance of the sacred Triad,
the Romans adhered simply, without any speculative harmon-
ising, to the unity of the Deity, and decided that Origen's
doctrine of subordination was Tritheism. Secondly, no scruple
was felt at Alexandria in carrying out the subordination of the
Son Father until it involved separation, though it was
to the
well known that such a view was supported, not by the tradition
of the Church, but by philosophy alone. The accusers of the
Alexandrian Dionysius charged him with separating Father and
Son denying the eternal existence of the Son ^ naming the
;
' ;
Father without the Son and vice versa ' omitting to use the
world ofioovtTiog ; ' and finally, with regarding the Son as a crea-
ture, related to the Father as the vine to the gardener, or the
boat to the shipbuilder. * In these censures, which were not
inaccurate, it is obvious that Dionysius, continuing the Neo-
platonic speculations of his teacher, conceived the ôyo? as
portio and derivatio of the iôva,/;, thus, in order to meet Sabel-
lianism, actually dividing him from the deity. Dionysius sought
to excuse himself in his eXeyxoq (Refutation), and emphasised
exclusively the other side of Origen's doctrine, at the same time
' De sententia lo. i6.

" De sententia 14 : oux au ~lfv 6 ©so? ârrfp, obx ail t)v u!6i;, a A A' 6 i^lv ©£05
01/ yccp citSi6i effrtv, «AA* Va-rsiiov sTtysyovsv.
3 De sententia 16: waripee Kiyav ^lovva-mg oux ovoiidiêi tov ulov, xal tixMv vilti
êyaiv oux ivopiiiêi tov TTxrefcc, sAA^ iiaipei xcei ftaxpvvei xui (xepi^si tov vloi eivi
roO irarpSi;.
* L. c. 18 : 7rpoir(p£pou!riv 'eyx^tiiix x«t' sjmS 4'îSog tv &i oh Ae'yovro; tom Xpii-

Tov SfjLOOija'iOV sivxt rifi ©£§).
5 L. c. 18 : tA^v iy^ yevtjTx rtvx — says Dion. Alex. xoii voiîra riva (piirai
voe'irSsti, tUv (iiv toioutoiv (65 axpiioripav l| iviipoiii^q elvov TrapaSsiyizaTX, Itsi
fiijTE TO (pvTOV 'e(Ptiv (to uvto fTvaf) T^ yeapya, litfrs t^ VKVTttiylf ro axa(pOi^ —
—
"Ev« Tuv ysvt/rcSv ehxi say the opponents of Dion. -tov viov xai (iif 6iJ.oou<riov t^
Tarpi. The passage in the letter to Euphranor ran (c. 4): Ttoltnioc xai yevifrov slvai
TOV vloV TOV @SOVy I^^TE Ss tpVOSt Y^/OV, ÂA^ ^fiVOV X«t' OVfftKV UVTOV ElVOil TOV
waTp6i, iirvep Io-tiv i yeaipyoi wpoi Tijv HiiTreôv xxi i voivv^yoi ?rpos to rx&<Ôi,
xxi yiip (S; Troitj/iie &v ovx ^v wph yevifTai.
—
admitting that in his incriminated writing he had incidentally

employed somewhat unsuitable similes. Now he said that the
Father had always been Father, and that Christ had always
existed as the Logos and wisdom and power of God; that the
Son had his being from the Father, and that he was related
to the Father as the rays are to the light. ' He explained that
while he had not used the word it did not of/.oova-iog, because
occur in Holy Scripture, figures were to be found in his earlier
writings which corresponded to it; thus the figure of parents
and children, of seed or root and plant, and of source and
stream. " The Father was the source of all good, the Son the
outflow the Father the mind (yov?), the Son the word (AcVo?)
;
reminding us very forcibly of Neoplatonism or the emanating —

mind (vou? TrpoTryi^wv), while the voii? itself remains " and is what
it was"
(kx) e(TTiv oJoi; ^v). "But being sent he flew forth and
is borne everywhere, and thus each is in each, the one being
of the other, and they are one^ being two" ('O §£ i^sTrnt
7rpo7i£iA,<p^s'ig Kx) CpepeTXi ttxvtxxou xxl ovrcog esTiv sxxTspoi; iv
sy.xrip^ srepo? uv But he now

Sxripou, x,x) ev ehiv, ovrsg "Svo). ^
went further: any separation between Father and Son was to

be repudiated. "I say Father, and before I add the Son, I
have already included and designated him in the Father." The
same holds true of the Holy Spirit. Their very names always
bind all three together inseparably. "How then do I who use
these names think that these are divided and entirely separated
from each other? (ttw? ovv rovroii; xpaiievo? TOiq hoiixsf fi,siiep~
itriai TXVTX xx) xiâpiaixi ttxvtsû? x>,>>ii>MV o'lopcxi;).* In these

words the retreat was sounded; for what the Roman Bishop
rejected, but Alexandrian theology never ventured wholly to
1 L. u. 15.
' L. c. 18.
* L. u. 23. The expositions of vou? and A^yo; wliicli were found botli in the
2 and 4 books of Dionysius quite remind us of Porphyry: xai '^crriv 6 iJ.h ohv
TXTvjp 6 vovg ToO ?^6yoVi Siv e4*' ectvToVy 6 ^s xcsSaTsp vto^ 6 ^6yoq rav vov. yrpb
exeivov fiiv HivaTOV, «AA' ouii 'i%aUv vohv, iriv hxeivif yeviiievoi;, /SAao-rifo-a; Si
«t' ai/rov. ouraii 6 Trariip 6 lisyirroi; xxi xaUKou vovg jrpwTOii tov v/ov ^dycv ipîtvea
Hui HyyeKov iuvroS 'ix^'-
* L. c. 17.
discard, was the "dividing" (y^spi^strSai).^ The reservation lies

in word "entirely" {ttocijtsXuii;). Dionysius added in con-
the
clusion: "Thus we unfold the unit into the triad without
dividing it, and we sum up the triad again into the unit with-
out diminishing it," (pvra [Av vifislg slg rs rviv rpiii^x rvjv fA,ovi/2ix,
7rXXTUV0[.A,SV OcSiyJpSTOV, KCi) TYIV TpioiSx TVX.'kiV Ctl/,elwTOV Eiq TifV fÔ-
vcila, a-v'yxs<pa?.xiou/^sSix,). In this he has accommodated himself

to a mode of looking at things which he could only allege to
-
be his own under a mental reservation, as in the case of the
qualification "entirely" (TTiXVTfAw?). For the terms TrXtzrvvsiv and
(7U'/y.e<poi,Xix,tou(j6i>!,i were not those current in the school of Origen,
and admit of a different interpretation. Finally, Dionysius denied
the charge of the "sycophants" that he made the Father the
^
Creator of Christ.
The letter of Dionysius of Rome falls midway between these
two manifestoes, which are so different, of the Alexandrian Bishop.
We have to regret very deeply that Athanasius has only pre-
served one, though a comprehensive, fragment of this document.
It is extremely characteristic of the Roman Bishop, to begin
with, that it seeks to settle the sound doctrine by representing
it as the just mean between the false unitarian or Sabellian,
and the false trinitarian or Alexandrian doctrine. *
The second
1 We see from the passages quoted by Basilius that Dionysius adhered to the
expression "rpET; i/Toorao-Ef;," but discarded the ^'iJ.epi(TiJ.£vxQ uvou." while his
accusers must have attacked the former expression also: E( tSi rpi'iQ elvxi tss
vTTcscTTxa'SiQ (jt,siJLspit7iJ,ivxt; slvact ?^syova-i, rps'tQ sltrt^ x«v /z^ SsfiOiff-tv tj rjjv hixv rpt~
aSa TTavTEAas avs?\iTao-xv. This accordingly is to be translated :
" if they maintain
that a separation is necessarily involved in the expression '
three Hypostases,' yet
there are three — vi'hether they admit it or no — or they must completely destroy the
divine triad."
' Lc. 20, 21. It is very noteworthy, that Dionysius has not even brought him-
self to use the expression oimovitux; in his 'iKB'yx'>'i- If he had Athanasius would
have given it in his extracts. For the rest, the attempt of Athanasius to explain
away the doubtful utterances of Dionysius, by referring them to the human nature
of Christ, is a makeshift born of perplexity.
3 De decret. synod. Nic. 26 (see besides de sentent. Dion. 13).
* The on the latter has alone been preserved by Athanasius along with
attack
the concluding argument; it is thus introduced: "Or; Se oh aoivinx ouSi xri'irixu 6
TOv @£ov ^6'yoq^ aAA' Hîov Ti^^ Tov TTarpoc ovtrtXQ ysyvvjiJ.a aStatpsrov Io-t/v, w5
'iypa^psv vj (jisyoih^ a-vvoSot;^ ISov kou 6 rvjt; 'Vatiîji; STritncoTot; Atovva-ioi; 'ypa<^(av naTct
rS'j TOi TOV i:,ci§£M!ov (PpovouvrMv^ o-êTîxêi xxra rSi rxvrx ToAftwvTWi' Aeyiiv
Kxi <f»^(7<v oVrinf.
——
Chap, i.] MODAtiSM IN THE EAST 93
characteristic of the letter is that it regards the Alexandrian

doctrine as teaching that there are three Gods, and draws a parallel
between it and the Three principles of the Marcionites. This
proves that the Roman Bishop did not trouble himself with the
speculation of the Alexandrians, and simply confined hitnself to
the result — as he conceived it — of three separate Hypostases. '
Finally —
and this is the third characteristic feature the letter —
shows that Dionysius had nothing positive to say, further
than that it was necessary to adhere to the ancient Creed,
definitely interpreting it to mean that the three, Father, Son,
and Spirit, were equally one. Absolutely no attempt is made
to explain or to prove this paradox. ^ But here undoubtedly
' 'E|i5? J' av sixoTHii; f.iyoiiu xce) vpoQ ToiJi Siaifovvrai y-cii KaraTEfivsvra? xcd
avxtpovvTaq to trsti'^STxrcv x^pvy[jLa r^t; SKU^^â-iac;tov @£ov, t^v {xovxp^fa-j thus —
begins the fragment communicated by Athanasius, sU rps'i^ Smiiieii; riva? xxi
(iBI-ispiirfiivseQ vTTOo-rxaeig xmi SeortfrxQ rps't^' 7r£W{^tJ.cii yap eTvxfrrJiXi; rm srap' iiitv
x«T;f%oi^yrwv xai hâtrxovTOiv tov ds7ov ^6yov, TavTtj{; vipyjy^Tai; tvj^ (ppovyjireo)^' o't
xxTci StaijLETpov, ut; 'sTTOi; eJ^reTv, avTtxetVTXi tjj â^£?^?^tov yvu[j.^- 6 (zh yap
f3?iixir(pii(jL£7, auTOV tov vibv slvai ?.iyuv t6v •TraTepUy xxl £pi.7ra?^tv oiSe Tpsii; deoijQ
TpOTTOV TlVOi XtfpUTTOVO-IV, Slf TpS'lQ UVOITTOUTSIIi %ava(; 0!h>\VI>\lilV, TcavTxvxa-i xe-
Xupio'i^svx!;, SisitpovvTeg tvjv ayixv iôvccStx. iivutrdai yap avxyx^j Tia 0£^ tuv Hûv
TOV fleTov >^6yov^ sfîptôxojpe'tv S^ tZ ©sw xai ivîaiTccirdai Ss7 to aytov ttvevizx, VjSii
xai Ti^v Qetav TpiaSa sti; 'ha^ utrTTsp stq xopv<ptjv Tiva {tov @ebv tuv H^ccv tov ttxv-
TOKpuTopa ?Êybi) <rvyxe<pa?âiovtrtiatT£ xai tj-vvaysirOai Traa-a avayxij. Mapxiuvoi; yap tov
fiXTaioippovot; SiSayfâ etc; Tpsli; apxoi^ Ti^t; [xovapXi^^^^ TO[iijv xai $ixtpe<Ttv (^topiêi);
Tai^svfj.a 'ov §ia(3o?îx6v, ovî ê tuv 'ovtu^ [îxdi^TcSv tov Xpt<rTov . . . oZtoi yap Tpt-
uâ {jl^v xi^pvTTOi^svvjv vTTO Tvi^ ^BtaQ ypatpi^q iraipat; £7rit;TavTat, Tp£7t; §£ Êovq oVtb
7ra?iatav ovts xatvvjv StaS^x^v KvipvTTOvtrav According to Dionysius, then, some
Alexandrian teachers taught ^^Tpdwov Tiva" this is the only limitation a form of — —
Tritheism. The whole effort of the Bishop was to prevent this. We recognise here
the old Roman interest in the unity of God, as represented by Victor, Zephyrine,
and Callistus, but Dionysius may also have remembered, that his predecessors,
Pontian and Fabian, assented to the condemnation of Origen. Should we not
connect the angry reproach, levelled at the Alexandrian teachers, that they were
Tritlieists, the charge made by Callistus against Hippolytus, that he was a
with
Ditheist; and may we not perhaps conclude that Origen himself was also accused
of Tritheism in Rome?
"
The positive conclusion runs: OEiV' olv xaTxiJ,£p!^£iv xpii eii;TpB7g hoTi^raQTiiv
CavfiaiTTifv xai deiav fj^cvzSa, o\jtb 'j:oi^(r£i xxKv£tv to a\lbi{j.a xai to vwipâT^Kov
[liysôc, TOV xvptov izAAa 7r€7rta-T£vx£vai £ig @£cv TaTspa 'KavTOxpaTopa xat£iQXptir~
TOV ÎjîTOvv TOV vlov avTov xai £it; to aytov TV£v(j.a, ^jVUfrOat ê tw @£^ tuv H^tuv
TOV KSyov iyii yap, <piia-i'. xai 6 waTVip %v £(j-iJ,£v. xai hyii h Tif waTpi xai S vaTiip £v
ijioi —these are the old Monarchian proof-texts ovtu yap av xai vi hla TpiaQ
xai TO ayiov xvipvyiia Ti^g iMvapxiag Siaa-ciiôiTo. We see that Dionysius simply
y
lies the strength of the Roman Bishop's position. When we

compare his letter with that of Leo I. to Flavian and Agatho's
to the Emperor, we are astonished at the close affinity of these
Roman manifestoes. In form they are absolutely identical. The
three Popes did not trouble themselves about proofs or argu-
ments, but fixed their attention solely on the consequences, or
what seemed to them- consequences, of disputed doctrines.
Starting with these deductions they refuted doctrines of the
right and and simply fixed a middle theory, which existed
left,
merely in words, for it was self-contradictory. This they grounded

formally on their ancient Creed without even attempting to argue
out the connection : —
one God Father, -Son and Spirit one ;
Person —perfect God and perfect man; one Person two wills. —
Their contentment with establishing a middle line, which possessed
the attribute of that known in mathematics, is, however, a proof
that they had not a positive, but merely a negative, religious
interest in these speculations. Otherwise they would not have
been satisfied with a definition it was impossible to grasp; for
no religion lives in conceptions which cannot be represented
and realised. Their religious interest centred in the God Jesus,
who had assumed the substantia humana.
The letter of the Roman Bishop produced only a passing
impression in Alexandria. Its adoption would have meant the
repudiation of science. A few years afterwards the great Synod
of Antioch expressly rejected the term oiioov(Jioq (consubstantial)
places the "holy preaching of the Monarchy" and the "Divine Triad" side hy
side: "stat pro ratione voluntas." Between this conclusion and the commencement
of the fragment preserved by Athanasius given In the preceding note, we liave a
detailed attack on those who hold the Son to be a To/ij/za like other creatures,
" while the Holy Scriptures witness to his having an appropriate birth, but not to
his being formed and created in some way." The attack on the iiv '6tb ovk ?»
touches the fundamental position of the Alexandrian scholars as little as the op-
position to three Gods; for Dionysius contents himself with arguing that God woidd
have been without understanding, if the Logos had not always been with him;
a thing which no Alexandrian doubted. The subtle distinction between Logos and
Logos Dionysius leaves wholly out of account, and the explanation of the Roman
Bishop on Proverbs VIIL 32 (xvpioi 'dxritrs //£ afX'iv °Suv avToE) 'ixria-e hrxCix:
UKOvtrriov avTi tov eTstrr^^tre toi^ vtt'' ccvtov yeyovdiriv 'ipyoK;^ yeyovdffi Je Si^ avrov
Tov vloS, must merely have caused a compassionate smile among the theologians
of Alexandria.
as being liable to misconstruction.' The followersofOrigenin

his training school continued their master's work, and they were
not molested in Alexandria itself, as it seems, up till about
the close of the third century. the great literary If we review
labours of Dionysius, of which we, unfortunately, only possess
fragments, and observe his attitude in the questions debated in
the Church in his^Jojne, we see how faithfully he followed in
the track of Origen. The only difference lay in greater laxity
in matters of discipline. ^ Reproved, in his work " On Promises
"
{TTsp)sirix.'yysXtSiv), that he possessed the zeal against all Chiliasm
and the dexterity in critical exegesis which characterised the

school of Origen;^ and in his work "On Nature " (TTf/)} (puirsai;)
he introduced, and endeavoured to carry out, a new task in
the science of Christian theology, viz., the systematic refu-
tation of Materialism, i.e., of the Atomic theory. "
Of the
later heads of the training school we know very little; but
that little is enough to let us see that they faithfully preserved the
theology of Origen. Pierius, who also led a life of strict asceticism,
wrote learned commentaries and treatises. Photius ' testifies that
he taught piously concerning the Father and Son, " except that
^ See above, page 45.
See the letter to Fabius of Antioch, and the attitude of Dionysius in the
-
Novatian controversy, in which he sought at first to act as mec|iator precisely as

he did in the dispute over the baptism of heretics (Euseb. H. E. VI. 41, 42,
44—46, VII. ^—9).
' See the fragments in Euseb. H. E. VII. 24, 25. Tlie criticism of tlie Apoc-
alypse is it master-piece.
«See Euseb. H. E. VII. 26, 2; tlie fragments of the workinRouth, Reliq. S. IV.,
P- 393 sq. On this, Roch, die Sehrift des Alex. Bischofs, Dionysius d. Gr. iiber
die Natur (Leipzig 1882) and my account of this dissertation in the Th. L. Z. 1883,
No. 2. Dionysius' work, apart from a few Biblical quotations which do not affect
the arguments, might have been composed by a Neo-platonic philosopher. Very
characteristic is the opening of the fii-st fragment preserved by Eusebius. TIoTSfov
ev strn trvvx<psi to ttxv, wc ^/.i7i/ rs Kxi TOtt; ôtpaiTXTOt^ 'EAAjjvwv n?^XTUvt Ktxl
TluSxydpec to% a'jro riii Xtox^ xai 'HpccKêiriii ipaiveTsci; there we have in a
y.oti
line the whole company of the saints with whom Epicurus and the Atomists were
confronted. We notice that from and after Justin Epicurus and his followers were
extremely abhoired by Christian theologians, and that in this abhorrence they felt
themselves at one witli Platonists, Pythagoreans, and Stoics. But Dionysius was the
first Christian to take over from these philosophers the task of a systematic refutation.
s Photius Cod. 119.
g6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
he speaks of two " beings " and two natures using the words ;
being and nature, as is plain from the context, in place of

Hypostasis, and not as those who adhere to ^rius" (ttAjjv on
ouiTixi; ^vo y.x) (pu(T£ig ûo KsyEi' tc5 tjJ? ouo'itxg '/.sci (pvirsu^ ovofimri,
ug ^Hjfôv, ex, rs rav sTTOfjisvwv vmi Trpot^youf/Jvuv tov x^piov iivr) rijg
uTTOTTixa-ecijc y.x) oiix w? o'l ''Apsiqi 7rpo<ji»vixy.£iiz£vot ^/jcijocfvo?). This

explanation is hardly trustworthy ; Photius himself is compelled
to add that Pierius held impious doctrines as to the Holy Ghost,
and ranked him far below the Father and Son. Now since he
further expressly testifies that Pierius, like Origan, held the pre-
existence of souls, and explained some passages in the O. T.
"economically", i.e., contested their literal meaning, it becomes
obvious that Pierius had not parted company with Origen ;
indeed, he was even called "Origen Junior"." He was the

teacher of Pamphilus, and the latter inherited from him his un-
was followed,
conditional devotion to Origen's theology. Pierius
by Theognostus at the Alexandrian school.
in Diocletian's time,
This scholar composed a great dogmatic work in seven books
called "Hypotyposes". It has been described for us by Photius,'
whose account shows that it was planned on a strict system,
and was distinguished from Origen's great work, in that the
whole was not discussed in each part under reference to one
main thought, but the system of doctrine was presented in
a continuous and consecutive exposition. * Thus Theognostus
1 Roulh, Reliq. S. III., pp. 425—435.

2 Jerome, de vir. inl. 76; see also Euseb. H. E. VII. 32.
3 Cod. 106.
^ The book dealt with the Father and Creator; the second, with the necessity
first
that God have a son, and the Son; the third, took up the Holy Ghost;
should
the fourth, angels and demons; the fifth and sixth, the possibility and actuality of the
Son's incarnation; the seventh, God's creative work. From the description by Photius
it appears that Theognostus laid the chief stress on the refutation of two opinions,
namely, that matter was eternal, and that the incarnation of the Logos was an
impossibility. T/iese are., however, the two theses with which the Neo-platonic theo-
logians of the 4th and^th centuries confronted Christian science, and in whose assertion
the whole difference between Neo-platonism, and the dogmatic of Alexandrian
churchmen at bottom consisted. It is very instructive to notice that even at the end
of the 3rd century the antithesis thus fixed came clearly to the front. If Theognostus,
for the rest, rejected the opinion that God created all things from a matter equally
eternal with himself, this did not necessarily imply his abandonment of Origen's
invented that form of scientific, Church dogmatic which was to

set a standard to posterity — though it was indeed long before
the Church took courage to erect a doctrinal structure of its

own. Athanasius had nothing but praise forthe work ofTheog-
nostus, and has quoted a passage from the second book which
undoubtedly proves that Theognostus did full justice to the
Homoousian side of Origen's Christology. But even the Cap- '
padocians remarked certain affinities between Arius and Theog-

nostus, ^ and Photius informs us that he called the Son a
"creature" {KTia-f^x), and said such mean things about him that one
might perhaps suppose that he was simply quoting, in order
to refute, the opinions of other men. He also, like Origen,
taught heterodox views as to the Holy Spirit, and the grounds
on which he based the possibility of the incarnation were empty
and worthless. As a matter of fact, Theognostus' exposition of
the sin against the Holy Ghost shows that he attached himself
most closely to Origen. For it is based on the well-known
idea of the master that the Father embraced the largest, the
Son, the medium, and the Holy Spirit the smallest sphere that ;
the sphere of the Son included all rational beings, inclusive of

the imperfect, while that of the Spirit comprehended only the perfect
principle of the eternity of matter; yet it is at any rate possible that in this point
he toolc a more guarded view of the master's doctrine.
' The fragment given by Athanasius (de deer. Nic. syn. 25) runs as follows:
Oi/K eû^B'j TtQ ea-rh ecpsvpeh7irx i) rou viou ovtria., ouhl sk {jîj ovruv kwstin^x^^' ^^ôi
SK rjj^ TOv TTXTpoQ overixt; 'i!^v, wc tov ^(liToi; to a'jrxvya(r(j.ai^ uq vSaroi; xTfjLit;' oVre
yap TO ofj? uvy a(r (MX qvts STTh ^ auTOQ 6 ^?^tot;, qI/te aKK6-
^ XTfMii xi/to to VSaip
Tptov Koi oijTE avToi; ea-Ttv 6 Trarvip oVts a/^ôrptot; xKKa a,'JT6p{oia TVii; tou TrxTpb^
ova-i'aQ, ou iJ.epi(r(J.ov vTOjJ.eiviia'iiQ Tjj? tou ttxt poi; oi/iriai- w; yxp (/.ivav 6 ijAio? 6
•
uliToi; ou [jcetouTxt Toii; skxeoizSvxk; utt' xhrou auyaii;, outwq ou§e -/j oua-txrou 'jrxTpot;
xKholaiiTiv uTrei^sivsv, s'lxhx nauTiff 'ixouax tov ulov. Notice that the fMi pur 11,61; is here
negatived; but this negative must have been limited by other definilions. At all
events we may perhaps regard Theognostus as midway between Pierius and

Alexander of Alexandria.
2 See Gregory of Nyssa, c. Eunom. III. in Routh, I.e., p. 412; he proscribes the
proposition of Theognostus : tov &iov ôufôfievov roSe to ttxv xaTao-xevacrai, wpuTov
TOV uiov o76v Tivct Kxvova T>i? SiJiJiioupyixi; TrpouTroa-Tifa-xirixi. Stephanus Gobarus has
expressly a scandal that Athanasius should nevertheless have praised
nbted it as
Theognostus (in Photius, Cod. 282). Jerome did not admit him into his catalogue
of authors, and it is remarkable that Eusebius has passed him over in silence; this
may, however, have been accidental.
7
(T£>iSioviMvoi), and that therefore the sin against the Holy Ghost, as the
sin of the"perfect", could not be forgiven.' The only novelty is
that Theognostus saw occasion expressly to attack the view " that
the teaching of the Spirit was superior to that of the Son " (tjjv
Tou 7rvevi/,o!.T0i; "BihotirxxXioiv u7rsp[3ii?,Xsiv rvji; tou u'lov Î'Sxx^'^)- Per-
haps he did oppose another disciple of Origen, Hieracas,
this to
who applied himself to speculations concerning Melchizedek, as
being the Holy Spirit, and emphasised the worship of the Spirit."
This Copt, who lived at the close of the third and in the first half of
the fourth century, cannot be passed over, because, a scholar
like Origen, ' he on the one hand modified and refined on certain
doctrines of his master, * and on the other hand, emphasised his
practical principles, requiring celibacy as a Christian law. *
Hieracas is for us the connecting link between Origen and the
* See Athanas. Ep. ad Serap. IV., ch. 1

1
; Routh, I.e., pp. 407 —422, where the
fragments of Theognostus aie collected.
2 See Epiph. H. 67. 3, 55. 5.
^ Epiphanius (H. 67) speaks in the highest terms of the knowledge, learning,
and power of memory, possessed by Hieracas.
* H. understood and repudiated the
the resurrection in a purely spiritual sense,
restitutio carnis. He would havedo with a material Paradise; and
nothing to
Epiphanius indicates other heresies, which H. tried to support by a comprehensive

scriptural proof. The jnost important point is that he disputed, on the ground
of 2 Tim. II. S, the salvation of children who died even when baptised; "for
without knowledge no conflict, without conflict no reward." Epiphanius expressly
certifies his orthodoxy in the doctrine of the Trinity ; in fact Arius rejected his
Christology along with that of Valentinus, Mani, and Sabellius, in his letter to
Alexander of Alex. (Epiph. H. 69. 7). P'rom his short description of it {oil iSs
'Upcixa? Ai/;i;vcv xto ^vxôu, w? Kxij.7rxSx elf Sua— these are figures already
tj
employed by Tatian) we can only, however, conclude that H. declared the owfr/o! of
the Son to be identical with that of the Father. He may have developed Origen's
Christology in the direction of Athanasius.
' See my Herzog's R. E. 2 Aufl. VI, p. 100 f. Hieracas recognised the
Art. in
essential between the O. and N. T. in the commandments as to ayve/'«,
difference
iyxpcersiie, and especially, celibacy. "What then did the Logos bring that was new?"
or what is the novelty proclaimed and instituted by the Only-begotten? The fear
of God? The law already contained that. Was it as to marriage? The Scriptures
(r=. the O. T.) had already dealt with it. Or as to envy, greed, and unrighteous-
ness ? All that is already contained in the O. T. 'Êv Si fio'vov tovto xxTopiaa-ai
Âê, rb rijv iyxp^TSiav tiJipvâi ^v t^ xoffiita iuvTu avaêôtirâi dyvs.'av Koii
xoii
lyxp^TSixv. "Avev Si rovrou iît Svvxa-iai îiv (Epiph. H. 67, ch. l). He appealed
•^•ÂP. 1.] PETER OF ALEXANDRIA 99
Coptic monks the union of ascetics founded by him may mark
;
the from the learned schools of theologians to the

transition
society of monks. But in his proposition that, as regards practice,
the suppression of the sexual impulse was the decisive, and
original, demand of
the Logos Christ, Hieracas set up the great
theme of the Church of the fourth and following century.
In Alexandria the system of faith and the theology of Origen
were fused more and more completely together, and it cannot
be proved that the immediate disciples of Origen, the heads of
the training-school, corrected their master. ' The first to do this
in Alexandria was Peter, Bishop and Martyr. ^ In his writings
"Concerning divinity" {Trsp) 6£OTy,Tog), "Concerning the sojourn
of our Saviour" {Trsp) Tiji; trari^pog j^fiav iwi^t^fiiag), and especially
in his books "Concerning (the fact) that the soul does not pre-
exist, nor has entered this body after having sinned" (Trep) tou
i^j^Sf TpouTrdpxi'V rvjv ^pvxhv jCtsjSe ix,iJt,xpTVj7a,<70iv touto iig trufix

he maintains against Origen the complete humanity
(iX'/j^vivai),
of the Redeemer, the creation of our souls along with our

bodies, and the historical character of the events narrated in
Gen. III., and he characterises the doctrine of a pre-mundane
fall as a '' precept of Greek philosophy which is foreign and alien
to those who desire to live piously in Christ" (/Cii^jîCi^ri^^'EAAjjv/xJ^?
<piK070<pia,(;, ^hvji; kx) xXXoTplxi; ova-'^g rSiv hXpKTTcp ev(7e(iS>i; deXovTuv

This utterance proves that Peter had taken up a position defi-
Kyi^).^
nitely opposed to Origen * but his own expositions show, on the

;
other hand, that he only deprived Origen's doctrines of their extreme

conclusions, while otherwise he maintained them, in so far as they
did not come into direct conflict with the rule of faith. The correc-
tions on Origen's system were therefore not undertaken silently
1 Procopius undoubtedly maintains (Coram, in Genes , ch. III., p. 76, in Routh,
Reliq. S. IV., p. 50) that Dionysius Alex., in his commentary on Ecc'esiastes, con-
tradicted the allegorical explanation of Gen. II., Ill; but we da»pot know in what
the contradiction consisted.
"
Eusebius, H. E. IX. 6: Peter was made a martyr, probably in A.D. 311.
' See the fragments of Peter's writings in Routh, I.e., pp. 21 82, especially —
pp. 46 —
50. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra IV., p. 187 sq., 425 sq.
* Decidedly spurious is the fragment of an alleged JAviTTayuyla of Peter, in
which occur the words: t! Si iha 'Hfax^Hv xai Atfi^tirpiov raii; lictxeifiovi Wkt-
xavovi;, o'/ovi; 7TiifcicriJ.oi<; vtso-tviitixii utto roi /xavevroi; 'npiyhovQ, xxi ccvroS o-%/V/zaTa
âhhivTOi h T{) exK?iti<rix, ra '^(U5 i7i)/.<s/iov Tap«%a; ai-Tj) £yE(pavT« (Routh, I.e., p. 81).
lOO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
even A compromise took place between scientific

in Alexandria.
theology, and the ancient antignostically determined Creed of
the Church, or the letter of Holy Scripture, to which all the
doctrines of Origen were sacrificed that contradicted the tenor
of the sacred tradition. But above all, the distinction made by
'
him between the Christian science of the perfect and the faith
of the simple was to be abolished. The former must be cur-
tailed, the latter added to, and thus a product arrived at in a
uniform faith which should be at the same time ecclesiastical
and scientific. After theology had enjoyed a period of liberty,
the four last decades of the third century, a reaction seems to
have set in at the beginning of the fourth, or even at the end of
the third century, in Alexandria. But the man had not yet risen
who was to preserve theology from stagnation, or from being
resolved into the ideas of the time. All the categories employed
by the theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries were already
current in theology, ^ but they had not yet received their defi-
nite impress and fixed value. ' Even the Biblical texts which
in those centuries were especially exploited pro and contra,
' We have unfortunately no more precise informatioQ as to Peter's attitude; we
may determine it, however, by that of Methodius (see under).
2 So — —
ficv^Q — Tptcii; — utoke/ixsvqv — VToa'TCsa'tQ — TrpotriUTrov— Trepfypa-
ovtrici (pvtri^
4)>f
— Statpeh — Tr^xTvvstv —
fxepi^sa-Qat — KTi^stv — ttoluv — ytyvsa-Hxi
irv'yy.eipa?âtDV(r(iat
yevvxv — — sk t^? olaia^ rov nrarpdi; — tov

ciôovirtoi; — @eb^ £k @sov —
^loc flfAjf/zizToe
hx <Put6g — ysvviiOevTCi
<pa}i; — ore ovk — ^v
oli TToii^'isvrx qvk ^v — §v ore
v.* v,v oliK lire
ovx ^v — erepot; xar^ ov<Tiav — aTpsTTO^ — «vfliAAci/«TO^ /xysvvtjTOi; — ahôrpLOc; — .TTjjyij
Tvi^ QsoTi^TOt; — §vo outrtai — ouTtx oua-taiixsvii — hvxvOpciiTnitrit;— êxvUpoiTro^— evuiri^ ov^tai-
Sifi — 'hutrti; JiCCTOC t^sTovtriav — a-vvtx<p€ia nara fixîîrrj koi [zsrovtrixv — trvyxpaî^ —
ivoixeiv etc. Hipler in the Oesterr. Vierteljahrsclirift fiir kathol. Theol. 1869, p.
161 ff. (quoted after Losche, Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1884, 8. 259) maintains that
expressions occurred in the speculations of Numenius and Porphyry as lo the nature
of God, which only emerged in the Church in consequence of the Nicene Council.
Those technical terms of religio-philosophical speculation, common to the Neo-
platonists of the 3rd century, the Gnostics and Catholic theologians, require re-
examination. One result of this will be perhaps the conclusion that the philosophy
of Plotinus and Poi-phyry was not uninfluenced by the Christian system, Gnostic
and Origenistic, which they opposed. We await details under this head from
Dr. Carl Schmidt.
' The meaning which was afterwards attached to the received categories was
absolutely unthinkable, and corresponded perfectly to none of the definitions previously
hit upon by the philosophical schools. But this only convinced men that Chiistianily
was a revealed doctrine, which was distinguished from philosophical systems by
mysterious ideas or categories.
'
Chap, i.] GREGORY THAUMATURGUS lOl
had already been collected in the third. Dionysius of Alexan-

dria had already given warning that the word oi/,ooviyioi; did not
occur in Holy Scripture, and this point of view seems, as a rule,
to have been thoroughly decisive even in the third century.
We get an insight into the state of religious doctrine about the
middle of the third century and afterwards from the works of
Gregory,^ the miracle- worker, who was one of the most eminent of
Origen's disciples, and whose influence in the provinces of Asia
Minor extended far into the fourth century. This scholar and
Bishop who delivered the first Christian panegyric one on —
—
Origen and has in it given his autobiography, remained through-
out his life an enthusiastic follower of Origen, and adhered,
in what was essential, to his doctrine of the Trinity. ^ But
Gregory felt compelled, in opposition to Christians whose con-
ception of the Trinity was absolutely polytheistic, to emphasise
the unity of the Godhead. He did this in his "Confession of
faith ", and in a still greater degree, according to the testimony
''
of Basilius, in his lost work ^txXsîg Tvpog ''AiXixvov (Debate with

Ailianus), * which contained a proposition, afterwards appealed
to by SabelHans, and somewhat to the following effect, viz..
Father and Son are two in thought, but one in substance
{TTaryip x,x) vwi; eTrtvoicf, f^sv sltn Sua, bitoaTauei Se %v). Gregory,
on the other hand, described the Logos as creature (kt/V^^j)
1 But we have not yet ascertained the method followed in the earlier period of
and of presenting them as precedents yet it is
collecting the verdicts of the older Fathers, ;
noteworthy that Irenasus and Clement already delighted in appealing to the vfurîr-
epoi, which meant for them, however, citing the Apostles' disciples, and that Paul
of Samosata was accused in the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, of despising the
ancient interpreters of the Divine Word (Euseb. VII. 30).
2 See Caspari IV., p. 10 ff. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus, 1880. Vide also
;
Overbeck in the Th. L.— Z 1881, No. 12, and Drascke in the Jahrb. f. protest.
,
Theol. 1881, H. 2. Edition by Fronto. Duciius, 1621. Pitra, Analecta Sacra III.; also
Loofs, Theol. L. Z., 1884, No. 23.
3 See Caspari's (I.e.) conclusions as to Gregory's confession of failh, whose
genuineness seems to me made out. Origen's doctrine of the Trinity appears clearly
in the Panegyric. The fragment printed by Ryssel, p. 44 f is not by Gr.
Thaumaturgus. ,
^ See Caspari, I.e., p. rpiai reêia, S6^>i xxi xiSiortiri xai /3ao-;A£/« i-tii l-ispi-
10 :
XoiUvvi liviii x'âf.^ôrfwuiêvii. Oi/Vf avv ktuttov t( j) JoCaov ev Tji TpixSt oVts
hveicraxTov, lig TfOTifOV fiiv olx i'Vaf^cv, ila-TSpov Si l7r£(o-eAio'v oiirs yap hehive
aiiTif rpiaiaei'.
u-OTE t//05 xa-rpi, oVre viif TveS/^LX, 2ÂA' arpsTTOi; xxi otvuhholuTOf; ii
^ Basil., ep. 210.

I02 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
and created {TroiniJt.oi) — so Basilius tells us, —and

form of this
expression can probably be explained by the he thoughtfact that
it necessary, in this way and aggressively {ixyaviiTTiKwi;), to em-

phasise, on the basis of Origen's idea of the Homoousia of the
Son, the substantial unity of the deity, in opposition to a view
of the divine Hypostases which approximated to polytheism.
On the whole, however, we cannot avoid supposing, that at the
time when theology was introduced into the faith a work —
in which Gregory especially took part, and in consequence —
the worst confusions set in, the tendency to heathen Tritheism
'
had grown, and theologians found themselves compelled to

maintain the " preaching of the monarchy " [v.vipvyij.x rij? [z,ovxpx>'>^?)
to an increasing extent. This is proved by the correspondence
of the Dionysii, the theology of Hieracas, and the attitude of
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria but we have also the evidence ;
of Gregory. True, the genuineness of the writing ascribed to

him, on the "essential identity"^ (of the three Persons), is not
yet decided, but it belongs, at all events, to the period before
Athanasius. In this treatise the author seeks to establish the
indivisibilityand uniqueness of God, subject to the hypothesis
of a certain hypostatic difference. In this he obviously approaches
Monarchian ideas, yet without falling into them. Further, the
very remarkable tractate, addressed to Theopompus, on the
incapability and capability of suffering, ' treats this very subject,
without even hinting at a division between Father and Son
in this connection; on the other hand, the author certainly
does not call it in question. We can study in the works of
Gregory, and in the two treatises * just mentioned, which bear
his name, the state of theological stagnation, connected with
the indeterminateness of all dogmatic ideas, and the danger,
1 It remained a matter of doubt in the East up to tlie beginning of the fourth

century, whether one ought to speak of three Hypostases (essences, natures), or one.
2 Ryssel, p. 65 f., 100 f. ; see Gregor. Naz., Ep. 243, Opp , p. II,, p. 196 sq.,
ed. Paris, 1840.
^ Ryssel, p. 71 f., 118 f. The genuineness of the tractate is not so certain as

its origin in the 3rd century; yet see Loofs, I.e.
• See also the Sermo de incarnatione attributed to Gregoj-y (Pitra III., p. 144 sq,
395 sq.)
Chap, i.] METHODIUS IO3
then imminent, over to the domain of ab-

of passing wholly
stract philosophy, and of relaxing the union of speculation with
the exegesis of Holy Scripture. The problems are strictly con-
fined to the sphere of Origen's theology; but that theology was
so elastic that they threatened to run wild and become thoroughly
secular. we review the Christological tenets of Euse-
' If, e.g.,
bius one of Origen's most enthusiastic followers,

of Csesarea,
we are struck by their universal hoUowness and emptiness, un-
certainty and instability. While Monotheism is maintained with
an immense stock of Bible texts and a display of all possible
formulas, a created and subordinate God is, in fact, interposed
between the deity and mankind.
But there was also in the East a theology which, while
it sought to make use of philosophy, at the same time tried to
preserve in their realistic form the religious truths established in

the fight with Gnosticism. There were theologians who, follow-
ing in the footsteps of Irenseus and Hippolytus, by no means
despised science, yet found the highest truth expressed in the
tenets handed down by the Church and who therefore, refusing ;
the claim of philosophical Gnosis to re-edit the principles of

faith, only permitted it to support, connect, and interpret them.
These theologians were necessarily hostile to the science of

religion cultivated in Alexandria, and enemies of its founder
Origen. We do not know whether, during his Hfe-time, Origen
came into conflict in the East with opponents who met him in
the spirit of an Irenseus. ^ From his own statements we must
suppose that he only had to deal with untrained disputants.
Origen himself always possessed in his unconditional adherence to the Bible
'
a kind of corrective against the danger of passing entirely over to philosophy.

Though thoroughly versed in philosophical science, he sought never to be more
than a scriptural theologian, and urged his disciples — witoess his letter to Gregor.
Thaum. — to give up their philosophical studies, and devote themselves wholly to
the Bible. professedly philosophical expositions occur in Origen himself, so far

No
as I know, like those transmitted by his disciples. For the latter the comprehensive
chapter of Eusebius (H. E. VII. 32) is very instructive. Here we meet with Bishops
who seem to have been scholars first and clerics afterwards. This Eusebius (§ 22)
has to tell of one: haym (J.'i'J <pi>\oii-6cpiiiv xai Ti(« «AAij; Tap' "EAAifo-; 7ra<j£/a? jrafi
To7s 7ro/Ao7« SaviJ-aa-hk, olx oimihk; ye fziiv wsfl ri)v Oei'av TTia-Tiv SiXTeisil^hoi.
- It is unknown who was the KUhKluv iiiJ.uv VferûTti? xxi iJ.ciKixfi(Trig xvfip
quoted by Epiph. (H. 64, ch. 8 and 67) as an opponent of Origen.

But in the second half of the third century, and at the begin-
ning of the fourth, there were on the side of the Church antag-
onists of Origen's theology who were well versed in philo-
sophical knowledge, and who not merely trumped his doctrine
with their -^JiAii n-'tcTig (bare faith), but protected the principles
transmitted by the Church from spiritualising and artificial inter-
pretations, with all the weapons of science. The most impor- '
tant among them, indeed whom we have

really the only one of
any very knowledge, besides Peter of Alexandria
precise
(see above), is Methodius. ^ But of the great number of treatises
by this original and prolific author only one has been till now
preserved complete in the original — Conviv. decem virg., while
we have the greater part of a second —De resurr. ' The rest
' Besides these we have who, while they did not wrije
Eastern theologians,
against Origen, show no signs in their works of having been influenced by Alex-
andrian theology, but rather resemble in their attitude Irenseus and Hippolytus.
Here we have especially to mention the author of five dialogues against the Gnostics,
which, under the title '-De recta in deum fide," bear the name of Adamantius ;see
the editio princeps by Wetstein, 1673, and the version of Rufinus discovered by Caspari
(Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, 1883; also Th. L. —
Z. 1884, No. 8) which shows
that the Greek text is interpolated. The author, for whom we have perhaps to look
in the circle of Methodius, has at any rate borrowed not a little from him (and
also from the work of Theophilus against Marcionr). See Jahn, Methodii, Opp. I,,
p. 99, II. Nos. 474, 542, 733 —
749, 771, 777. Mdller in Herzog's R. E., 2 Ed.,
IX., p. 725. Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch., Vol. IX., p. 193 ff. "Die Dialoge des
:
Adamantius mit den Gnoslikem." The dialogues were written + 300, probably
somewhere in East Asia Minor, or in West Syria, according to Zahn about 300
— 313 in Hellenic Syria, or Antioch. They are skilfully written and instructive; a
very moderate use is made of philosophical theology. Perhaps the Ep. ad Diogn. also
came from the circle of Methodius. Again, there is little philosophical theology to
be discovered in the original edition of the first six books of the apostolic Consti-
tutions, which belongs to the third century. See Lagarde in Bunsen's Analecta
Ante-Nic£ena T. 11. The author still occupied the standpoint of Ignatius, or the old
anti-gnostic teachers. The dogmatic theology, in the longer recension of the work,
who lived in or after the middle
preserved in Greek, belongs entirely to the reviser
of the 4th century (so App. Const. II. 24, VI. 11, 14, 41 [Hahn, Biblioth. der
Symbole, 2 Aufl., §§ 10, 11, 64]; see my edition of the AiSxx'i, P- 241 ff. That
Aphraates and the author of the Acta Archelai were unaffected by Origen's theology
will have been clear from what was said above, p. 50 f.
= Jahn, S. Methodii Opp, 1865; Pars II. S. Methodius Platonizans, 1865;

Bonwetsch, M. von Olympus I. 1S91. Vide also Pitra, Analecta Sacra T. III., IV.
(see Loofs, Th. L. —
Z., 1884, No. 23, col. 556 ff.). Mdhler, Patrologie, pp. 680—
700. MoUer, I.e., p. 724 ff. Salmon Diet, of Christian Biogr. III. p. 909 sq.
' Besides smaller fragments are found, increased by Pitra.
Chap, i.] METHODIUS 105
has been preserved in the Slavic language, and only very lately
been rendered accessible. The personality of Methodius himself,
with his position in history, is obscure. ' But what we do know
is enough to show
he was able to combine the defence of
that
the Rule of Faith by Irenseus, Hippolytus, and
as understood
Tertullian, " with the most thorough study of Plato's writings
and the reverent appropriation of Plato's ideas. Indeed he lived
in these. ' Accordingly, he defended " the popular conception of
the common faith of the Church " in an energetic counterblast
to Origen, and rejected all his doctrines which contained an
artificial version of traditional principles. ' But on the other hand,
he did not repudiate the basis on which Origen's speculation

rested. He rather attempted with its presuppositions and method
to arrive at a result in harmony with the common faith.
There seems to be no doubt that he took the great work of
Irenseus as his model; for the manner in which Methodius has
endeavoured to overcome dualism and spiritualism, and to
estabhsh a speculative realism, recalls strikingly the undertaking
of Irenffius. Like the latter, Methodius sought to demonstrate
the eternal importance of the natural constitution in spirit and
body of the creatures made by God and he conceived salvation ;
not as a disembodying, not in any sense as a division and

separation, but as a transfiguration of the corporeal, and a union
of what had been unnaturally divided. He rejected the pessim-
ism with which Origen had, like the Gnostics, viewed the world
as it is, the a-utrrxa-ig rov Koa-fiou, making it, if a well-ordered
and necessary prison, yet a prison after all. This he confronted
with the optimistic conviction, that everything which God has
created, and as he has created it, is capable of permanence and
1 See Zahn, Ztschr. f. Kirchengesch. Vol. VIII., p. 15 ff. Place : Olympus ia Lycia.
°
He was ranked in with Irensius and Hippolytus (see Andreas C^s.
later times
in prtef. in Apoc, p. 2) and that as a witness to the inspiration of John's Apocalypse.
See Jahn, I.e.

^
See the long fragments of the writing i/e restirrectiane which was directed
^
against Origen, as also the work Trepi rav ysnirSv. Methodius called Origen a
"Centaur" (Opp. I. 100, loi), i.e., "Sophist," and compared his doctrine with the
Hydra (I. 86). See the violent attack on the new-fashioned exegetes and teachers
De and 20, where the oo-tS voifra and ir&fxcc^
in resurr. 8, 9 (Opp I. 67 sq.) (p. 74),
voviTUQ of Origen's school are ridiculed; eh. 21, p. 75 ; 39, p. 83.

Io6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. I.
transfiguration. Accordingly, he opposed Origen's doctrines of

'
tiie pre-existence of souls, the nature and object of the world
and of corporeality, the eternal duration of the world, a pre-

mundane Fall, the resurrection as a destruction of the body, etc.
At the same time he certainly misrepresented them, as, e.g.,
Origen's doctrine of sin, p. Like Irenaeus, Methodius
68 sq.
introduced curious speculations Adam for the purpose
as to
of establishing realism, i.e., the maintenance of the literal truth
of sacred was to him the whole of natural
history. Adam
humanity, and he assumed, going beyond Irenaeus, that the
Logos combined the first man created (protoplast) with himself. ^
See the short argument against Origen, De resurr. 28, p. 78: E< yhf xfiirrc-t
'
TO eJvat Tov ehxt tov k6it(j.ov, dia Tt to ;|je7pov iipsliTQ Ton^tra^ tov xoa-izov 6
iJ.il
@s6q; «AA' ovS^v 6 ©eo5 ûTUta^ j) X^''P^^ sttoisi. ovjcoVv sit; to elvoit xai fievetv Tijv
XTi'iTiv &eoi Siexotriitfij-aTO. Wisdom I. 14 and Rom. VIII. 19 follow. The fight waged
by Methodius against Origen presents itself as a continuation of that conducted by
Irenseus against the Gnostics. It dealt in part with the same problems, and used
the same arguments and proofs. The extent to which Origen hellenised the Christian
tradition was in the end as little tolerated in the Church as the latitude taken by
the Gnostics. But while Gnosticism was completely ejected in two or three genera-
tions it took much longer to get rid of Origenism. Therefore, still more of Ori-
gen's theology passed into the "revealed" system of Church doctrine, than of the
theology of the Gnostics.
2 See Conviv. III. 6 (p. 18 sq.) ; rai/Tji yaf tov mUfonrov avei'Aijêi' >i6yo(;,
ijTut; 5Jf 5*' auTov xaTocXvaîJ r^v e^r' o^êQpoi ysyovvtuv xaTotÛi^v^ ijTTvia-aQTbv'6<ptv,
ifpiio^s yhp fJ-yj Si' STepov vixijdiivcii tov Trovt^pov a?i?âi h' exstvov, iv 5^ xaci Ex6(i'
'jrx^sv awoiTâ-xq auTOv TETvpavvifxhai^ cjTt iîj cÂAiu^ Tjjv u(MapTiuv ?^v6^vai xcct tjjv
xciTixxpit7tv SvvxTov ^v, St (/.ij TTaKiv 6 avTOQ Ixzlvoi; avdpwJToq^ St' iv sipviTO TO ^^yvi
SI xxi siq y^v aT7e^sv(ni\^'" xvtxT^xa-hiQ uvs^vtrs Tt^v X7r6<pa(rtv rijv St" avTov stq
TxvTai s%sv^tvsyiih^v. 'dvai;, xxiiiQ iv tSJ 'ASafj, TrpoTspov ttxvtsq xvo(ivviiTXO\i(nv,

ovTcc Sij izaKtv xai sv tw 0LvstK'^<^QTi Xpta-T^ tov 'ASxij. TrtivTSQ â)07ro:}i/ic3trtv. Still
clearer is III. 4, where it is expressly denied that Adam is only a type of Christ
tpsps yap i5//£7; svtcrxS'puiisSa TraJ? opSoSoâQ {xvijyays tov 'Aja/.i £;'? tov XpiiTTOv,
oil iJt,6vov Ti/TTov avTov iiyoî^svog slvat xai s}x6va, xMk xai auTO toSto Xpia-Tov xxi
avTQV ysyovevai Sia to tov Trpb atavcav s]t; avTov syxXTX^xviûi ?\6yov. vipfio^s yap
TO 7rpuT6yovQV tov &sqV xai 'JrpuTov (3/itxa-Tiii/ix xai (iovoyev^q rijv tro^tav tw TpUTO-
Tâa-Tia xai TrpajTU xai TpuToyovo} tuv avSpaiTtuv av6pu7rcc.xspaa'5s7a-av sv^vSpuTrijxsvxt,
TOVTO yap sivat tov Xpitrrov, avOpuTov sv axpaTu Qsot^ti xai TS^sia TrsT^î^papievov
xai @sbv sv avdpuTifi xexcaptif^svov ^v yap TrpsTaiSea-TaTov tov TTpstr^vTaTov Tuv
attavuv xai TpcSTOv tuv apxayysîUV, avUpuToit; (jLe?^XovTa ffvvo[it?.s7v, s]q tov Tpsff-
^VTaTOV xai xpaTov tSv avSpuvov siroixKrCiivai tov 'ASa/j,. See also III. 7 8 Trpo- :
ysyv/ivxa-ieti yctp ui apx 6 wpaT6%Kaa-T0i; oixeiuq siq xvtov xvaCpspstrSai SvvxTai tov
. . .
XpttTTOv^ ouxsTt TUTToq Ciiv xxi iZTStxxtr[ja [iovov xai sixoiv TOV (jiovoysvovQ, a?iâ xai xvTO
toCto (70<Pia yeyovaii xai îyoq. Sixviv yap vSxtoq avyxspairHsiQ 6 'avSpccTTOQ Tji <ro<pia
xai T^ ûf TOVTO ysyovsv, (^Tsp ijv auTo to sit; ai/Tov syxaTxa-xi^^xv xxpaTov ûq.
a
Chap, i.] . METHODIUS I07
This union was conceived as a complete incorporation :

" God
embraced and comprehended in man;" and, starting from this
incorporation, the attempt was made to explain redemption in
terms of a mystical realism. Salvation was not consummated
in knowledge (Gnosis), but it came to light, already achieved
for mankind, in the constitution of the God-man. But for this '
very reason Methodius borders, just like Irenûs, on a mode

of thought which sees in the incarnation the necessary comple-
tion of creation, and conceives the imperfection of the first Adam
to have been natural.
" Adam, i.e., mankind, was before Christ
still in a plastic condition, capable of receiving any impression
and liable to dissolution. Sin, which had exclusively an external

source, had therefore an easy task humanity was first consolidated ;
in Christ. In this way freedom is retained, but we easily see

that Origen's idea of sin was more profound than that of
Methodius. ^
The fantastic realism of the latter's view is carried
out in his speculations on the transference of salvation from
' Yet see, under, the new turn given to the speculation.
^ S. Conviv. III. 5: 'in ya( TtiÂoufyovi-ievov riv 'Aâft, dii; 'ic-riv s/VeTv, xaii
T^fXTOV '6vrx rcei vSxp^, xcei iJ.ifSc7ra> (piaa-eivTX Sixifv 6(rTpixov t^ xif-Bxpa-ix xparxiu-
ivjvai XXI TTccyiaivivai, ilSiup atrvsp xaTa?KSiôiJ.e\iff xcei xxTraa-riôvo-a iieKva-ev xl/TO
il uiiupTia. Sio Sij TTxMv 'avsohv mxSeuuv xxi wti?iOV>\xa-Tm tov xlirov sii ri/j-iiv 6
©£o'? vxphvixf xpxTxiaia-xQ Trparov xxi wiîxf l^^Tpx xxi a-vvsvurxi; xxi
BV Tji
a-vyxipxirxQ t^ ôya, 'xr^xTOV xxi xSpav<TTOv hî^yxyev sii; tov |3;'ov, "vx iJ.ii kxKdi
ro7q TifS (pOopxi; 'iiaiev eTnxhVirhii fev/jxriv, mxsSovx yevvvia-xi; SixTea-iii. Methodius,
like gave much study to Paul's Epistles, because they were especially
Irenjeus,
quoted by Origen and his school (see ch. 51 fin., p. 90); on the difficulties which
he felt see De resurr. 26, p. 77; 38, p- 83.
' Theexpositions of concupiscence, sin, and death, are distinguished very
strongly from those of Origen. (For deatli^ as means of salvation see De resun-.
23 49). They resemble the discussions of Irenseus, only
Methodius maintains —
—
sign of the times that sinlessness is impossible even to the Christian. See De
resurr. 22 (I. p. 75) âifroi; yxp 'in roS a-ai/iXTOQ vpo rov rsSvt^êa-Sxi a-vîiv xvxyxii
:
xxi'iioiUv Toiixi'i;
xxi Tijv xiJ.xpTluv, 'ivSov rxQ pVâ? awTiJ? Iv îJ.1v xTToxpvTrrouiT-xv, ei
txIq xtto tuv !riiiCppovi(7iJ.uv xxi tSv vovdBTvta-suv xv£{rTi^?îTO, STret oix ot]/ i^btx to
(ftuiTiirOiivxi a-vvi^xivsv xSixslv, xts vxvTcmxat^
s'lMxpivui x(pifptiiJ.ivii<; a<f>' iilJ-uv xijc
i^^Silv rov xyvi<rij.oS vo},-
xiixpTixQ- vSv^ Si xxi iJ-srx to vio-tbuitxi xxi 'exi to uSap
ixvTOV
Aiz;5 Iv litixpTiXii 'OMTBC, sipia-xoiieix- oiSsis yiip o'llrai; xpixprixi; sxroi shxi
xxvxô-STXi, w« x&v ivSviitjiiivxt ro aCvoXov '6>.i>ii; rv,^ xSixixv. To this concep-
iJ.tiS£
tion corresponds the view of Methodius that Christianity is a cultus of mysteries,

in which consecration is unceasingly bestowed on the TeAe(0!/>evo<. Methodius
also referred Rom. VII. 18 f. to those bom again.
Christ to individuals. The deep sleep of the Protoplast is paral-

leled in the second Adam by Eve the sleep of death. Now as
was formed from, and was part of the being of sleeping Adam,
so the Holy Spirit issued from Christ lying in the sleep of death,
and was part of his being and from him the Church was ;
'
fashioned. " The Apostle has excellently applied the history of

"Adam to Christ. So we will require to say with him that the
" Church is of the bone and flesh of Christ, since for her sake
"the Logos left the Heavenly Father, and came down that he
"might cleave to his spouse; and he fell asleep unconscious
"of suffering, dying voluntarily for her, that he might present
"the Church to himself glorious and faultless, after he had purified
" her by the bath so that she might receive the spiritual and
;
" blessed seed, which he himself, instilling and implanting, scatters

"into the depths of the Spirit, whom the Church receives and,
" fashioning, develops like a sptjuse, that she may bear and
" rear virtue. For in this way the word is also excellently ful-
" filled Grow and increase
'
since the Church increases daily
'
;
"in greatness, beauty, and extent; because the Logos dwells

"with her, and holds communion with her, and he even now
"descends to us, and in remembrance (Anamnesis) of his suffering
" (continually) dies to himself. For not otherwise could the
" Church continually conceive believers in her womb, and bear
"them anew through the bath of regeneration, unless Christ

"were repeatedly to die, emptying himself for the sake of each
"individual, in order to find acceptance by means of his sufferings
"continuing and completing themselves; unless, descending from
" heaven, and united with his spouse, the Church, he imparted
" from his own side a certain power, that all who are edified
" in him should attain growth, those, namely, who, born again
" through baptism, have received flesh of his flesh, bone of his
' The allegory receives another version 0pp. I., p. 119: //ij ^015 %« ai rfsif
xuTXt rSjv Tpoydvaiv iiscpx?ât Tratr^^ t^5 oLvdptaTOT^roc; c(ioov<noi vTTOirrairstQ x«t'
sWovcc Tivx, ui; xai MsHoStui SaKs7 —the passage occurs in Anastasius Siti. ap. Mai,
Script. Vet. N. Coll. IX. p. 619 ruTrticoSi; yeyovxiri ri^t; tkyicc^ xal ofjLOQvtriov Tp/«-
5o5, Tov iJL^v uvcctriov xai ayevvvirov 'Aja// tvttov koH sIk:vx ¥;ôi'toc rov avotirlov
Kcti 'JTavTuv Oilriov TavroKpaTopo^ &€0u KOti Tarpot;, tov Si yevv^rov viov avTov
ettcova 7rpohixypa<povTot; tov yevvijrov vtov Kat yôyov tov &eov. tvi^ 5t- IxTopgfTtjs
Ei/ac (7viiJ.arj3V(n^(; t^v tov xyiov Tvevy.siTOCi hxTopsvTiiv vTratrTxîv.
'
Chap, i.] METHODIUS 109
" bone, i.e,, He, however, who calls

of his holiness and glory.
" bone and flesh wisdom and but the side
virtue, speaks truly ;
"is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, from whom the enlightened
"receiving their portion are born again, in a worthy mariner, to
" immortality. But no one can participate in the Holy Spirit,
"and be accounted a member of Christ, unless the Logos has
" first descended upon him, and, faUing asleep, has emptied '
" himself, that he, rising again and rejuvenated, along with him
" who fell asleep for his sake, and re-fashioned in his own
" person, may participate in the Holy Spirit. For the side (ivXeuâ)
"of the Logos is really the spirit of truth, the seven- formed
"of the prophet, from whom God, in accordance with the self-
" sacrifice of Christ, that is, the incarnation and suffering of Christ,
"takes away something, and fashions for him his spouse, in
"other words, souls fit for him and prepared like a bride." ^
Methodius accordingly, starts in his speculations from Adam and
Eve as the real types of Christ and the Church but he then ;
varies this, holding that the individual soul rather must become
the bride of Christ, and that for each the descent of the Logos
from heaven and his death must be repeated — mysteriously and
in the heart of the believer.
This variation became, and precisely through the instrumentahty
of Methodius, of eminent importance in the history of dogma.^
We would not have had in the third century all the premises
from which Catholic Christianity was developed in the following
centuries, unless this speculation had been brought forward, or,
been given a central place, by a Christian theologian of the
earlier period. It marks nothing less than the tapering of the
realistic doct7-inal system of the Church into the subjectivity of
monkish mysticism. For to Methodius, the history of the Logos-
Christ, as maintained by faith, was only the general background
of an inner history, which required to repeat itself in each be-
liever: the Logos had to descend from heaven, suffer, die,
and
' Conviv. III. 8.
times, and on this see ch. V. § 2. As

2 was not altogether absent in earlier
It
extreme form occurs also in Origen;
we have remarked above, individualism in this
"De orat." 17.: "He who has perceived the beauty of the bride whom
see e.(j.
the Son of God loves as bridegroom, namely, the soul."

I lO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
rise again for him. Nay, Methodius already formulated his view
to the effect that every believer must, through participation in
Christ, be born as a Christ. ' The background was, however,
not a matter of indifference, seeing that what took place in the
individual must have first taken place in the Church. The Church,
accordingly, was to be revered as mother, by the individual
soul which was to become the bride of Christ. In a word here :
we have the theological speculation of the future monachism

of the Church, and we see why it could not but pair with the
loftiest obedience, and greatest devotion to the Church.
But the evidence that we have really here the fundamental

features of the monkish mysticism of the Church, is contained
in the correct perception of the final object of the work from
which the above details are taken. The whole writing seeks to
represent the state of virginity as the condition of Christlikeness
(I. 5, p. 13). Everything is directed to this end; yet marriage
is not forbidden, but admitted to possess a mystery of its

is
own. Unstained virginity is ranked high above the married

state; towards Christians must strive; it is the perfectly
it all
Christian life Yet

itselfMethodius succeeds in maintaining,
beside it, marriage and sin-stained birth from the flesh (II. i sq,).
He had already arrived at the position of Catholic monasticism
the body belonging to the soul that would be the bride of
Christ must remain virgin. The proper result of the work of
Christ is represented in the state of virginity of the believers
who walk upon earth, and it is the bloom ofimperishable-
still
ness: "Exceedingly great and wonderful and glorious is virginity,

" and to speak plainly, following Holy Scripture, this most noble
* CoQviv. VIII. 8: 'Eyw ya.^ tq'j iipa-evx (Apoc. XII. i f.) rxvT^ 'ysvvSv £/pij-
erSxt vofiiôj tjjv gxxAj/^/av, ETrsiSyj tovi; x^P^'^'^^P^Q ^^' '^^^ sxtuttuitiv xat tv,v
appsvaiT/xv tov Xpttrrov 7rpoa-^ci[jC.^^vovtriv 01 (purtôfÊvot, rviQ Kxi' 6fj.oiutrty [zop<p^^

ev Bthrot^ SKTUTTOvfjcsvi^Q TOV âyov axl Iv auTo'ti; ysvvuiJ.tviî; xara tj^v xnpi^^ yvutrtv
nxi TTi^riv Mo-rs ev SKUirria yevvSctrdint TwV Xpia-riv voi^rai;' acti §tai tovto vj SKtc^î^tria
CTTrxpyx y.sci ai^.'vii, /ze%/)/7rep xv 6 Xpitrrot; kv yiiJ-lv {ôpCpctiH^ ysvvijisti;^ Uttoi^ '^KXtrroi;
Tuv ayittiv rto i^sreXEiv XpttrroV Xpta-Tcq ysvvi^Q^, KaO" "bv Koyov xat 'iv Ttvt ypci<p^
<Psp£Tat ^^
{jiii ci^\jt^(rê tuv Xpii7Tc3v pLov" oiavei Xpia-Tuv yeyovorav rcSv xotTct {J.stov-
aiotv TOV 7rvsvfji.txT0^ elt; Xpitrrov êâTTta-f^fjuv, ff-u^z/SaAAoi/o-jfS evTav6x t^v ev toj
Ao'y^ Tpdvaitriv avTuv xa) {^sTxi/.6p!pua-iy rijs EXK^îriai;. Even TertuUian teaches
(De pud. 22) that the martyr who does what Christ did, and lives in Christ, is
Christ.
Chap, i.] METHODIUS III
"and fair practice is alone the ripe result, the flower and first
" fruits of incorruption, and therefore the Lord promises to admit
"those who have preserved their virginity into the kingdom of
" heaven ... for we must understand that virginity, while walking
"upon the earth, reaches the heavens ": /^^f/iXA)^ rig ia-Tiv VTrepCpvag
y.x) Sxufixa-rit y.x) h'SoÔi vi wxp&svU,
xp^ Cpxvspug sIttsTv
zx,) el
ETTO^Jv'/iv TxTg xylxig ypxipxlg, to ov6ap ryjg dCpSxpa-Ug zx) to xvioi;

KX) ^ XTTXpxh XUTijg TOUTO TO XptajOV Xx) KXKKl7T0V eTTlTyi'SsVfiX
yJvov TU7%iXi/f;, y.x) îx txiitx kx) o xupiog iii; tviv (oX(TiKsixv dtrs-
^x(rxi Twv oupxvav rohg x7rowxpÊvsu(TXVTXq crCpxg xdroug eTTxy/eX-
KsTXi . . . , TTxphvixy yxp (oxivsiv f/Av stt) yî;, ewi^xveiv Vs ruv
ovpxvSiv yiy/iTsov (Conv. I. i, p. ii).
Methodius started from other premises than the school of
Origen, and bitterly opposed the latter, but in the end he came
to the —
same practical result witness the followers ofHieracas.
Their speculations also led to the depreciation of the objective
redemption, and to monachism. But the concrete forms were
very different. In Origen himself and his earliest disciples the
Church was by no means really the mother, or, if it were, it
was in a wholly different sense from that of Methodius. Ascet-
icism and in particular virginity were not in themselves valuable,
an end in themselves, but means to the end. Finally, Gnosis
(knowledge) was different from Pistis (faith), and the ideal was
the perfect Gnostic, who is freed from all that is alien and
fleeting, and Hves in the eternal and abiding. Methodius' teaching
was different. Pistis and Gnosis were related to each other as
theme and exposition there is only one truth, which is the
:
same for all; but on the soil of the Church there is room for
the state of virginity, zvhich is the goal of the incarnation, \h.on^
all may not yet reach it. The important and momentous
achievement of Methodius consisted in subordinating a reahstic
'
Church theology, which yet was not destitute of a speculative
phase, and even made a moderate use of the allegorical method,
• The theology of Methodius was in the Eastern Church, like TertuUiau's in

the West a prophecy of the future. His method of combining tradition and
speculation was not quite attained even by the Cappadocians in the 4th century.
Men like Cyril of Alexandria were the first to resemble him. In Methodius we
have already the final stage of Greek theology.
1 1 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
to the practical object of securing virginity, a life in which God

and Christ were imitated, (Conv. I. 5, p. 13: to imitate God
is to escape from corruption [ofMlccTig QeSi (piopZg ocxoCpuyvj] ;
Christ is not only arch-shepherd and arch-prophet [a.px^'ôiiJi^vjV-
lipxi^po^p'îTii?], but also archetypal virgin [dpx'^'^'P^^vog]). This

doctrine, as well as the practical attitude of Hieracas, and many
other features, as, e.£^., the considerably earlier Pseudo-Clementine
epistles "De virginitate," ' prove that the great aspiration of
the time in the East was towards monachism, and Methodius
succeeded in uniting this with a Church theology. In spite of his
polemic against Origen he did not despise those phases of the
latter's theology, which were at all compatible with the traditional
comprehension of religious doctrine. Thus he accepted the
doctrine of the Logos implicitly in the form given to it by
Origen's school, without, of course, entangling himself in the
disputed terminology (see, e.g:, De creat. 11, p. 102); so far as
I know, he made no express defence of Chiliasm, in spite of the
high value he put on the Apocalypse. He is even said by
Socrates (H. E. VI. 13) to have admired Origen, in one of his
"a sort of recantation" {ug ix
latest writings, Tn^fîvallixg). How-
ever that may be, the future belonged not to Origen, nor to
the scientific religion that soared above faith, but to compromises,
such as those, stamped with monachism, which Methodius
concluded, to the combination of realistic and speculative elements,
of the objectivity of the Church and the mysticism of the
monks. " The great fight in the next decades was undoubtedly
to be fought out between two forms of the doctrine of the
Logos; the one, that of Lucian the martyr and his school,
which had adopted elements distinctive of Adoptianism, and the
other, professed by Alexander of Alexandria and the Western
theologians, which with Sabellianism held fast the unity of the
divine nature. But, in the case of the majority of Eastern
1 See Funk, Patr. App. Opp, II., pp. i — 27, and Harnack, Sitzungsberichte d.
Pi'euss. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 fF.
- On the authority of Methodius in later times, see the Testimonia Veterum in
Jahn, 1. c. I., p. 6 sq. The defence of Origen against Methodius by Pamphilus and
Eusebius has unfortunately been preserved only to a very small extent. SeeRouth,
Reliq. S. IV., p. 339 sq.
3
Chap, i.] DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EAST 1

1
Christians in the 4th century, the background or basis of these

opposite views was formed, not by a theology purely Origenist,
but by one of compromise, which had resulted from a combina-
tion of the former with the popular idea of the rules of faith,
and which sought its goal, not in an absolute knowledge and
the calm confidence of the pious sage, but in virginity, ecclesias-
ticism, and a mystical deification. Men like Methodius became
of the highest consequence in the development of this theological
genus, which, indeed, could not but gain the upper hand more
and more, from the elemental force of factors existent in the
Church.'
But while as regards Origen's theology reservations may have
gradually grown stronger and more numerous in the course of
the next decades, theological speculation aimed in the East,
—
from about 250 320, at a result than which nothing grander
or more assured could be imagined. In the West the old, short,
Creed was retained, and, except in one case, ^ the Christological
conflicts did not induce men to change it. But in the leading
Churches of the East, and during the given period, the Creeds
were expanded by theological additions, ^ and thus exegetical and
speculative theology was introduced into the Apostolic faith
itself. * Thus, in the Catholic Churches of the East, this
1 It is instructive to notice liow Athanasius has silently and calmly shelved

those doctrines of Origen which did not harmonise with the wording of the rule
of faith, or allegorised facts whose artificial interpretation had ceased to be tolerated.
2 See above, p. 75.
3 It is possible, and indeed probable, that Creeds were then set up for the first
time in many Churches. The history of the rise of Creeds — furtlier than the Bap-
tismal formula — in the East is wholly obscure. Of course there always were detailed
Christological formulas, but the question is whether they were inserted into the
Baptismal formula.
* It has been already pointed out oni p. 48, note I, that the Biblical character
of some of those additions cannot be used against their being regarded as theolo-
gical and philosophical formulas. The theology of Origen witness his letter to —
—
Gregory was throughout exegetical and speculative; therefore the reception of
certain Biblical predicates of Christ into the Creeds meant a desire to legitimise the
speculation which clung to them as Apostolic. The Churches, however, by setting

up theological Creeds only repeated a development in which they had been anti-
cipated about 120 years before by the "Gnostics." The latter had theologically
worked out Creeds as early as in the second century. Tertullian, it is true, says of
the Valentinians (adv. Valent. I.)

"-^
communem fidem affirmant^'' i.e., they adapt
I 14 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
theology was for ever fused with the faith itself. A striking
example has been already quoted; those six Bishops who
wrote against Paul of Samosata in the seventh decade of the
third century, submitted a Rule of Faith, which had been elabor-
ated philosophically and theologically, as the faith handed down
themselves to the common faith; but he himself relates (De carne, 20; see Iren. I. 7,2)
that they preferred "Six Map/a?" to "ek Mapiui"; in other words, of these two
prepositions, which were still used without question even in Justin's time, they, on
theological grounds, admitted only the one. So also they said "Resurrection from
the dead" instead of "of the body." Irenteus as well as TertuUian has spolien of
the " blasphemous " regulce of the Gnostics and Marcionites which were always
being changed 5, III. II 3, I. 31 3; II preef ; IL 19 8, III. 16, I, 5;
(Iren. I. 21
TertuU., De prsescr. 42; Adv. Valent. 4; Adv. Marc. I. i, IV. 5, IV. 17). We can
still partly reconstruct these " Rules " from the Philosoph. and the Syntagma of
Hippolytus (see esp. the regula of Apelles in Epiphan. H. XLIV. 2). They have
nmtatis mutandis the most striking similarity to the oriental confessions of faith
published since the end of the third century compare, e.g.^ the Creed, given under, ;
of Gregorius Thaumaturgus with the Gnostic rules of faith which Hippolytus had
before him in the Philosoph. There is, further, a striliing affinity between them in
the fact that the ancient Gnostics already appealed in support of their regula to
secret tradition, be it of one of the Apostles or all, yet without renouncing the
by Holy Scripture through the spiritual (pneumatic) method
attestation of these rules
of Exegesis. Precisely the same thing took place in the Eastern Churches of the
next age. Kor the tenor and phrasing of the new Creeds which seemed to be
necessary, the appeal to Holy Scripture was even here insufficient, and it was
necessary to resort to special revelations, as in the case alluded to, p. 115, note 3,
or to a TrxfuSorii xypitipot; of the Church. That the new theology and Christology
had found their way into the psalms sung in the Church, can be seen from the
Synodal document on Paul of Samosata (Euseb. VII. 30, 11), where it is said of
the Bishop : ypa/îôiii; roiit; [x^v si^ tov xvptov y^fiuv 'I. Xp. 'jrixva-at; aq Sij veurepovq
XXI vsciiTefuy xvSfuv a-vyypiiiiiJ.XTx; i.e.^ Paul set aside those Church songs which
contained the philosophical or Alexandrian christology. In this respect also the
Church followed the Gnostics: compare in the period immediately following, the
songs of Arius, on the one hand, and the orthodox hymns on the other; for we
know of Marcionite, Valentinian, and Bardesanian psalms and hymns. (See the close
of the Muratorian Fragment, further my investigations in the Ztschr. f. wissensch.
Theol., 1876, p. 109 ff.; Tertull., De Carne Chr. 17 ; Hippol., Philos. VI. 37; the
psalms of Bardesanes in Ephraim ; the Gnostic hymns in the Acts of John and
Thomas, in the Pistis Sophite, etc.). It is self-evident that these psalms contained
the characteristic theology of the Gnostics; this also appears from the fragments
that have been preserved, and is very clearly confirmed by TertuUian, who says of
Alexander the Valentinian (I.e.): sedremisso Alexandra suis syllogismisêiiam
'•''
mm
cum Psalmis Valentim\ quos magna impudeniia^ quasi idonei alictiius aucioris
interserit." The scholastic form of the Church was more and more complete in
the East in the second half of the third century, after one school, that of the
Alexandrian Catechisls, had finally succeeded in partly insinuating its teaching into
Chap. I.] DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EAST II5
in the holy Catholic Church from the Apostles. But we possess '
numerous other proofs. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that from the

days of Gregory Thaumaturgus till his own, the Creed of the
latter formed the foundation of the instruction given to catechu-
mens in Neo-Caesarea. But this Creed ^ was neither more nor
less than a compendium of Origen's theology, ' which, here,
the Church. Where Valentine had absolutely failed, and Bardesanes
Basilides, etc.,
partly succeeded, the School of Origen had been almost entirely successful. It is
very characteristic that the ecclesiastical parties which opposed each other in the
third century applied the term "school" (JiJao-xaAeTov) as an opprobrious epithet
to their antagonists. This term was meant to signify u communion which rested
on II merely human, instead of a revealed doctrine. But the Church nearly approx-
imated, in respect of doctrine, to the form of the philosophic schools, at the
moment when her powerful organisation destroyed every analogy with them, and
when the possession of the two Testaments marked her off definitely from them.
Much might be said on "schola" and "ecclesia"; a good beginning has been
made by Lange, Haus und Halle, 1885, p. 288 ff. See also v. Wilamowitz-MoUen-
dorff, "Die rechtliche Stellung der Philosophenschulen," 1881.
' See also the document in Eusebius, H. E. VIII. 30, 6, where it is said of Paul:
2 Caspari, 1. u. IV., p. 10. 27. Hahn, § 114.

3 It runs: ETi; ©sot^y Trizriip ?^6yov ^mvtoc;^ trotplcc^ v^peerTattr^î; Kxt 5vvix{j.su^ Kcit
XxpaKT^^po^ OiiSiav, re^stot; rsêiau ysvvvjTup, irxTi^p viou [jLOvoyevov^^ E/? Kvptoi;^
(ôvOQ etc [zovov^ ©eo? sk ©gov, %ap«;cT^p xai eiKuv r^t; QsoTîrot;, ôyoQ ivspyo^, a-ocptoi
TvJQ rav 'o'^.uv o-va-rxirsaii vepisxTixii rt-cii SvvxiJ.11; rvii '(Sf\îi XTio-sui vmvjTixvi, vi'oi
aîfliivoi; xKyidivoS varpoc;, aopxTog xopxTOU xai aCpflapTo; x(pSaprov xxi ceiivxroi; xdu-
vaTOV xa) xidio^ oiiStov. Kat "i-j ttvevimx xytov, sx ©eov r^v uTrap'^tv 'e%ov xxt St'' vtou
TKptfvoQ [StffixSii To1% xvSpaiwoii], eixwv rov viov, Tihiiov TiKitx, Z,oiy\ âvrav airlx,
[yrviyij xyix\ xyiortfi; xyixtriJ.ov xopviyoq, ev ^ cpxvEpovrxi @s6i 6 frxriip 6 Isrj ttxvtoiv
Kxi hv vxa-i, XXI ©£o? 6 vioi 6 Six wxvriov-Tpixs reAe/a, Soi^ xxi xiSiirîri xcci
^x<n?i.e!x fij) (j-epiÔfihyi fiviSs xTtxK^.OTpiovtxsv^. OVre oZv XTia-riv ti tj Sovhov Iv Tjj
rpixSi, ovrs iveltrxxTcv, ws vporipov iîv olx vvxpxoî, vtrrepov Si s'Tsia-eîor o'vrs
yxp iviMTS totb vioi 'KXTpi ovtb vuf ttviv/jx, aAA' xTpsTrTOi xxi rnxXKo'iarm; if
xbrti rpixQ xii. It ought to be distinctly noticed that the genuineness of this Creed
is in spite of Caspari's brilliant defence, not raised above all doubt. But the
external and internal evidence in support of its authenticity seem to me over-
whelming. According to Gregory of Nyssa it was said to have been revealed to
Gregory Thaumaturgus immediately before entering on his Bishopric, by the
Virgin Mary and the Apostle John. If this legend is old, and there is nothing to
show it is not then we may regard it as proving that this confession of faith could
only be introduced into the Church by the use of extraordinary means. The
abstract,
follower of
unbiblical character of the Creed is noteworthy it is admirably suited to a ;
himself
Origen lilce Gregory; but it is less suited to a post-Nicene Bishop. Origen
in which
would hardly have approved of so unbiblical a Creed. It points to a time
relaxing connection with
there was imminent danger of theological speculation
its
the Books of Revelation.

Il6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
was thus introduced into the faith and instruction of the

Church. Further, it is clear from the letter of Alexander of
Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople, that the Church of
Alexandria possessed at that time a Creed which had been
elaborated theologically. After the Bishop has quoted extensive '
portions of which he describes as " the whole pious Apostolic

it,
doctrine" (itoLua, ^ a-KOtJToXiyM futrf/SJi? ôâ), he closes with the

words " these things we teach and preach, that is the Apostolic
dogmas of the Church" (ravrx 'Si'SJia-Koy^sv, tucvtx KtipuTTOfisv,
TOtAjra, But these dogmas
Tijg skkXiîtiiXi; to, x7:o(ttoXizx ôyfiocTix,).
belong to Origen's theology. Finally, we perceive from the

Nicene transactions, that many Churches then possessed Creeds,
which contained the Biblical theological formulas of Origen.
We may assert this decidedly of the Churches of Csesarea,
Jerusalem, and Antioch. ° The entire undertaking of the Fathers
' See Theodoiet, H. E. I. 4; Hahn, I.e., § 65: nio-revoiJ-ev, w? xji uttoittoKik^
SJitiXijiTtai 5oK£7, sit; iJi6vov ayevv^rov Trarep*, ouSsva rov shai avru tov aiTiov
'^X^^'^^ • • • ***' ^'^ ^^^ Kvptov 'Ii^ff-oi/v Xpia-TOVy tov vtov TOV @£ov TOV fjLQVoysvi^, ysv-
V^HvTX OVK SK TOV /.ijj 'SvTO^, aAA' SX TOV 'SvTO^ TTSiTpd^ . . . TpoQ SI T^ SVtrS^st TKUTJI
vspl TTZTfOQ xai viov Jo'|{i, xaiiiQ iili&i cii h'leu ypmipx} SiSxirxovtriv, 'iv weviia Uyiov
6izoô:yovfz£Vy TO xuivitrav TOvq t£ tiî; 7ru?âiSc^ ^lu^^x^^ uytovQ avSpai-Trovi; xxi tov^
TiiQ ;^/)tf/.iaTf^£?yo"*f? Kxiviî; Tdi^svTai; 6eiov^. (Miuv xca fj,6v^v xaô/îx^v, tvjv utoitto-
Xix^v hxx^îjtriixVj axxâtpsTOv îjv a£t, xxv Trace; 6 xStrfx-o^ avT^ 'Tro^sfxs'tv ôvhe6^Txi .
'.
Mera; tovtuv rijv Ix vexpuv ^vxa-TXa-iv o'lSafzev, xTxpxii yeyovev 6 xvptog iiâv
î;
'I. X/)., (rc3[^x (popstra^ aAjjfltw^ xxi ov Soxiâsi sx t^^ 6£ot6xov (one of the earliest
passages, of which we are certain, for this expression; yet it was probably already
used in the middle of the third century; a treatise was also written 7r£pi tvi(;^£ot6-
xou by Pierius) Map/ac, stti a-vvT£A£i'x tSv xioividv, £11; xSiTiiiriv xpixpTixch 7riSttiJ.î!-xi;
T^ y£V£t rav xvCpaiTrav^ <rrxvpai&£t{; Kxi xttoSxvoiv, aAA' ov Sta txvtx tjJc ixvTov
^£6t:jtoi; iiTTOiv y£y£Viii^£Voq^ xvaa-Tcti; Ix v£xp^v, avaA^^/x^flg/^ hv oi/pxvo'i^, xa^^fjLEVo^
£v Se'^t^ Tvji; (^£yx?^6ja-vviiQ.
2 The CsKsarean Creed in Athanasius, Socrates, Theodoret and Gelasius, see
Hahn, § 116 and Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 138, 139. It runs: Yli!TT£uoii£v £11;
£VX @£bv TUTEpU TXVTOXpaTOpa, TOV TUV XTTXVTUV OpXTUV T£ Xxi UOpuTOiV TTOI^T^V.
Kai £ii 'ivx xvpiov 'I Xp., tov tov @£ov ?\6yov, &£iv Ix ©£oC, <}>£; ix (fxiiTOQ, ûiiv
£x ^wij$, viov iôvoy£Vij, ttpoitStoxov TTXtr^Q KTitrsaj^, Trpb Tr^vrav T&iv xiuvuv sx tov
TxTpbt; y£y£vvij[j.£VOVj St^ ov xxi kysvsTo tx ttxvtx' tov hx t^v VjiJ.£T£pav a-atTvjptxv
a-xpxwUvTX xxi Ev xv^puTTOii 7ro?nT£virxii£voy, xxi TTxidvTX, xxi XVatJ-TXVTX Tif TpiTI)
iêpXy xxi XV£KHvTX TpQi; TOV TXT£pUj Kxi ijÔVTX TTX/ÎV £V So£^ Xplvxl ^cSvTXQ Xxi
v£xpovg. Kxi ei? wsuij-x from its markedly
xyiov. This Creed is also remai-kable
theological character. On
and Jerusalem, which are at any
the Creeds of Antioch
rate earlier then A.D. 325, see Hort, (I.e. 73) and Hahn, § 63. We cannot appeal,
as regards the phrasing, to the so-called Creed of Lucian (Hahn, § 115). Yet it is
extremely probable that it is based on a Creed by Lucian.
— —7
Chap, i.] DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE EAST 1

1
of the Nicene Council to set up a theological Creed to be ob-

served by the whole Church, would have been impossible, had
not the Churches, or at least the chief Churches, of the East
already been accustomed to such Symbols. These Churches
had thus passed, in the generations
preceding immediately
the Nicene, through a Creed-forming period,
which little to
attention has hitherto been paid. In its beginning and its
course it is wholly obscure, but it laid the foundation for
the development of theological dogmatics, peculiar to the
Church, in the fourth and fifth centuries. It laid the foundation
— for the following epoch was distinguished from this one by
the fact that the precise definitions demanded by the doctrine
of redemption, as contained within the frame-work of Origen's
theology, were fixed and made exclusive. Thus the dangers
were guarded against, which rose out of the circumstance, that
the philosophical theory of God, and the idea of the Logos
which belonged to it, had been received into the system of
religion, i.e., the Neo-platonic method and circle of ideas had
been legitimised, without the traditional tenets of the faith having
been sufficiently protected against them. In the new Creeds of
the period 260 —
325 we find the conditions to hand for a system
of religion based on the philosophical doctrine of God, a system
specifically belonging to the Church, completely expressed in
fixed and technical terms, and scientific. We find the condi-
tions ready —
but nothing more, or less. But it was also due to
the Creeds that in after times every controversy of the schools
necessarily became a conflict that moved and shook the Church
to its very depths. The men, however, who in the fourth and
fifth centuries made orthodox dogma, were undoubtedly influenced,
to a greater degree than their predecessors of from A.D. 260
315, by specifically Church ideas; and their work, if we measure
it by the mixture of ideas and methods which they received
from tradition, was eminently a conservative reduction and
securing of tradition, so far as that was still in their possession.
It was really a new thing, a first step of immeasurable

significance, when Athanasius staked his whole life on the re-
cognition of a single attribute the consubstantiality of Christ, —

and rejected all others as being liable to pagan misinterpretation.
I
At the beginning of the fourth century, Rules of Faith and

theology were differently related to each other in the Churches
of the and West. In the latter, the phraseology of the
East
primitive Creed was strictly adhered to, and a simple antignostic
interpretation was thought sufficient, by means of formulas like
"Father, Son, and Spirit: one God" "Jesus Christ, God and —
—
man" "Jesus Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of God "
In the former, theological formulas were admitted into the Con-
fession of Faith itself, which was thus shaped into a theological
compendium ostensibly coming from the Apostles. But in both
cases, the personal reality, and, with it, the pre-existence of the
divinity manifested in Christ, were recognised by the vast
majority ;
' they were included in the instruction given to Cate-
chumens; they furnished the point of view from which men
sought to understand the Person of Christ. And, accordingly,
the accurate definition of the relation of the Deity to that other
divine nature which appeared on earth necessarily became the
chief problem of the future.
' See the interesting passage in Eusebius' letter to his Church, in which he
(sophistically) so defends the rejection of the ohx ^v irpo toS yev\iti^v\vxi, as to fall
back upon the universally recognised pre-existence of Christ (Theodoret, H. E. 1. 12).
DIVISION II.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA OF
THE CHURCH.
BOOK I.
THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA AS THE

DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE BASIS OF
NATURAL THEOLOGY.
TO! §e (Têo-g; (pi?îag xpdTOvfMsvu v'TcepxiysiTCit.
Paul of Samosata.
Ohne Autoritat kaun der Mensch nicht existiren,
und doch bringt sie ebensoviel Irrthum als
Wahrheit mit sich sie verewigt im Einzelnen,
;
was einzeln voriibergehen sollte, lehnt ab und

lasst voriibergehen, was festgehalten werden
sollte, und ist hauptsSclilich Ursache dass die
Menschheit nicht vom Flecke kommt.

BOOK I.
THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA

AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOD-MAN ON THE
BASIS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL SITUATION. '
The first main division of the history of dogma closed with

the adoption of theLogos doctrine as the central dogma of the
Church, and with the accompanying revision in the East of the old
formulas of the faith under the influence of philosophical theology.
The testament of primitive Christianity — the Holy Scriptures — and
the Testament of Antiquity —Neoplatonic
speculation were in- —
timately and, seemed, inseparably connected in the great
as it
Churches of the East. The system of doctrine established by

the Church in the third century corresponded to the Church
whose structure appeared complete in the same period. As the
political powers of the Roman Empire were conserved in the
Catholic Church, so also were the spiritual forces of Antiquity
in its faith. Both required to be invested with divine lustre in •
order to live through storms and amid universal ruin. ^ But

Christianity was by no means completely Hellenised in Catho-
licism; that is proved, if we needed proof, by the attacks of
1 Walch, Entw. einer voUst. Historie der Ketzereien, 1762 ff. Hefele, Koncilien-
gesch., 2 Bd.
I. —
IV. Histories of the Roman Empire by Tillemont, Gibbon, RiclUer
und Rauke (Weltgesch., Bd. IV. und V.). Reville, Die Religion z. Rom unter den
Severem (German translation by Kriiger, 1888). V. Schultze, Gesch. des Unter-
gangs des griechisch-romischen Heidenthums, 2 Bde., 1887 f. Boissier, La fin du
paganisme, 2 Bde. 1891. Dorner, Entw.-Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi, II., 1853.
H. Schultz, Die L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, 1881. Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche,
1872. Kattenbuch, Lehrbuch d. vergleichenden Konfessionskunde. I Bd., 1890.
Denz-nger, Ritus Orientalium, 2 Bde. 1863 f.
2 Tiele, Kompendiiim der Relig. Gesch. (German transl.), p. 283: "the Catholic
Church is the secular Roman rule, modified and consecrated by Christian ideas."
Porphyry and Julian. Undoubtedly all the institutions and ideas

felt to be necessary were included in the " Apostolic tradition
to an increasing extent. But since a place had been given in

that tradition to the O. T. and the written memorials of primitive
Christianity, these really furnished aids to the comprehension of
the Gospel, which had certainly been obscured inthe" Gnosis"
as well as in the "New Law". The theology of Origen, in
spite of some very earnest attacks upon it, was held in the
East to be the pattern and the inexhaustible source of the theology
of the Church, so far as a scientific system was desired. Even its
opponents, like Methodius, could not escape its influence. From
its rich store of formulas were more fully elaborated, in opposi-
tion what was called Ebionitism and Sabellianism, those
to
confessions which were employed in the cultus and instruction
of the Church, and which, thus enriched, were then invested
with some sort of ApostoHc authority.' The West did, not go
so far; yet it was perfectly defenceless against the "advances"
made by the Church in the Eastern half of the Empire for ;
certain theological and Christological conceptions to which it

also clung, made any counter-movement impossible, though many
teachers, preachers, and apologists went ways of their own, and
in their doctrines of Christ and salvation mixed up obselete
Christian traditions with the popular philosophy of the West.
Looking to theological metaphysics as wrapped up in the official
formulas of the Church, the difference was finally only one of
. degree. It showed itself among those less interested and scholarly,
who were therefore conservative in their instincts and looked
with distrust on the theology of Origen ; they thought with
perfect simplicity that their own formulas :
" Father, Son, and
Spirit;one God", "Christ, the Logos, wisdom, and power of
God", "dues substantice, una persona" , "Jesus Christ,God and
man", constituted the "faith" which needed no explanation.
The element of speculative philosophy was as a rule weak in
the system of religion of the West. In place of it, the West
of TertuUian possessed a series of juristic "plans" which were
destined to have a great future.
In spite of many far-reaching differences in their practical and
1 See above p. 47 ff., 113 fl".
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1
23
development in ecclesiastical
theoretical interests, in spite of the
affairs, East and West felt that they belonged to
Christians in
one united Church. The Novatian and Samosatian controversies
ultimately resulted in strengthening the consciousness of
unity, êven though a not altogether insignificant part of Chris-
tendom cast itself adrift. These controversies showed plainly
that the Western and Eastern communities held substantially
the same position in the world, and that both required to use
the same means to maintain it. Communities everywhere adopted
the character of the Church of the world. Their union preserved
all the features of a political society, and, at the same time,
of a disciplinary institution, equipped with sacred sanctions and
'
dreadful punishments, in which individual independence was lost.
Of course, in proportion as this confederacy of Christians adapted
itself to civic, national, and political relationships, in order to
maintain and strengthen itself, the integrity of the Church was

most gravely imperilled, when these very relationships lost their
last shreds of unity in the collapse of the Empire. Above all,
the great cleavage between the Eastern and Western halves of
the Empire could not fail to be prejudicial to the Church. But
about the close of the third century the latter, in spite of
discontent in its midst, held more firmly together than the
Empire, and its unity was still maintained after the fourth
^
century by great Emperors and influential theologians.
In addition to the episcopal constitution, uniformly and strictly
carried out, the common basis of the Churches was due to the
recognition of the same authorities and designs, the uniform
appreciation of sacramental rites, and the strong tendency to
asceticism for the sake of a future life. It was, at first, too
stable for the which threatened to shatter the
different forces
Empire, and also, in consequence, beat upon the Imperial Church.
But this basis was nevertheless insufficient. It can be easily
shown that the elements composing it were as incapable ot
1 See on this the correspondence between the oriental Bishops and Julius of
Rome; Socr., H. E., II. 15; Ep. Julii ap Athan., Apolog. u. Arian, ch. 21 sq.
2 See Vol. II., p. 122 f.
3 Reuter, Augustinische Studien, in the Zeitschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 349 ff.,
VI., p. 15s ff-) 190-

guaranteeing the unity, as of protecting the Christianity, of the

Church, through a prolonged period.
Among the authorities the two Testaments, combined by the
evidence of prophecy and allegorical explanation, took the first,
indeed, strictly speaking, a unique place. But not only was their
extent not absolutely decided, but their interpretation was wholly
uncertain. In addition to this, the scope to be left to the "Apos-
tolic tradition ", i.e., the illusion of" antiquity ", and to the decision
of episcopal synods, was by no means defined ; for the sufficiency
of Holy Scripture was placed, theoretically, beyond doubt.
But where elementary wants, felt by the great majority, were
to be satisfied, where a reassuring sanction was required for the
advancing secularisation, men did not rack their brains, if no
inconvenient monitors were in the way, to find precedents
in Holy Scripture for what was novel. They went right back
to the Apostles, and deduced from secret traditions what no
tradition ever possessed. Huge spheres of ecclesiastical activity
—
embracing new and extensive institutions the reception of na-
tional customs and of the practices of heathen sects were in —
this way placed under " Apostolic " sanction, without any
controversy starting worth mention. This is true, e.g., of the
ritual of worship and ecclesiastical discipline, "The sacred
canons" or "the apostohc canons" constituted from the close of
the third century, a court of appeal, which practically held the
same rank as the sacred writings, and which, especially in the
East, cast its protection to an increasing extent over national
customs and traditional morals in the face of attacks of every
kind. It is obvious that authorities so obtained were likely, in
the end, to divide the Churches of the different nations.
The crudest superstition was thus consecrated by " apostolic
decrees, or legitimised, after the event, from the O. T., and '
from the middle of the third century it ascended from the lower
strata of Christians to the upper, which had lost all spiritual
stability. And now in the fourth century, when Church and
State were fused into one, everything was assigned to the former
which had ever, or anywhere been regarded as venerable or
holy. As it had submitted to the Church, it demanded indulgent
' See my Edilion of the A(Ja%^, Piolegg. pp. 222 239
ff., ff.
25
treatment. The religion of pure reason and of the strictest

morahty, the Christianity which the ancient apologists had once
portrayed, had long changed into a religion of the most power-
ful rites, of mysterious means, and an external sanctity. The
historical tradition of Christ and the founding of Christianity was
turned into a romance, and this historical romance, which was
interwoven with the religion, constantly received new chapters.
The stream of the history of salvation ended in a waste swamp
of countless and confused sacred tales, and in its course took
in heathen and the stories of gods and heroes. Every
fictions
traditional holy rite became the centre of new sacred ceremonies,
and every falling off in morality was covered by increasing the
religious apparatus. The idea of forgiveness of sins was to many
a cloak for frivohty and wickedness. Up to the middle of the
third century, every Catholic Christian was, in all probabiHty,
a genuine monotheist. That can no longer be said of the
generations who afterwards pressed into the Church. Polytheism
had name, indeed, but not its influence in the Church
lost its
of the fourth century. Great masses preserved, in spite of their

baptism, the piety to which they had been accustomed. Christian
priests had to respect and adjust superstition, in order to keep
the leadership in their hands, and theologians had no difficulty
in finding, in the O. T. and in many views and usages of
Christian antiquity, means of justifying what was most novel,
alien, and absurd. Miracles, were of everyday occurrence, and
they were barbarous and detestable miracles, directed to meet
the meanest instincts, and offensive to even moderately clear
heads. ' The Christian religion threatened to become a new
1 Compare the criticism by Julian and his friends of the Christian religion and
the worship paid to saints and relics, or read the writings in which Sulpicius
Severus attempts to recommend Christianity to the refined society of Aquitania.
We can study in the works of the historians Socrates and Sozomen the attitude
of cultured Catholic Christians, after the complete triumph of the Church over
paganism. Even Sozomen cannot be regarded as having reached the stage of the
" dry tree," and yet into what a superstition the Christian faith is transformed in
his pages! We see how paganism thrust itself into worship, in —to quote a well-
known instance — August. Confess. "VI. 2 ff. Let us, above all, remember that from
the beginning of the fourth century special chapels and churches were built to
different saints. The saints took the place of the local deities their festivals
the ;
of the old provincial services of the gods. We have just begun to investigate the
paganism ;
' while, at the same
making shipwreck of its
time,
own and common
unity For iven if priests and
character.
theologians were always to be in a position to keep the reins
in their hands, dissolution threatened the one undivided Church
which girt the Empire, if the local rites, customs, usages of
men were consecrated as Christian in every province, and might
establish themselves without any decided counterpoise.
But where was such a counterpoise to be found? In the
constitution ? That was indeed a firm structure, binding Christendom
strongly together; but even it presented sides on which the
centrifugal forces, destructive of unity, found entrance. Love of
rule and ambition were encouraged by the episcopal chair. And
when the danger of dismemberment into independent bishoprics
was met by a rigid metropolitan leadership, the way was opened
up to that lofty ambition which desired the first place and the
highest influence in the province, and which sought to domineer
over the civil powers and to master neighbouring provinces.
The Patriarchs and Metropolitans who to use an expression of —
transformation of heathen tales of gods and heroes into legends of the saints, and
ancient contributed its quota in works of travel and adventure
light literature has
by land and These researches promise, if instituted critically and soberly, to
sea.
give interesting results; yet I doubt if the state of our materials vifill admit of
confident conclusions. Besides the worship of the saints, the cultus of the Emperor
threatened in the fourth century to intrude itself into the Cliurch. Philostorgius
relates (H. E. II. 17) that Christians presented offerings to the picture of Constantine,
and honoured it wilh lanterns and incense; they also seem to have offered vota
to him that they might be protected from calamities.
1 Besides the worship of saints, martyrs, and relics, we have to notice the new
forms of faith in demons. It would be impossible to believe more sincerely in
demons than Christians did in the second century. But that age was yet ignorant
of the fantastic tricks with them, which almost turned Christendom into a society
of deceived deceivers. (The expression was first applied to Christians by Plotinus
see Vita Plot, by Porphyrins 16: 6|))7raTwv xai avToi liTccnuiivoi). When we reflect
that the Vita Antonii was written by an Athanasius, nothing can again surprise
us. Spiritualism with all its absurdity, which we are once more conversant witli in
the nineteenth century, had long been familiar in heathen circles, and then, as
now, it was connected with religious ideas on the one hand, and physical ex-
lêriments and speculations on the other. It forced its way into the Church, in spite
of all protests, from the third, still more, however, from the fourth century, after
it had long been wide-spread in "Gnostic circles." As a religious phenomenon it
signified a renaissance of the lowest forms of religion. But even the most enlightened
minds could not keep clear of it, Augustine proves this.
;
Chap. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 12/
Socrates —
played at being "hereditary lords" (Dynastai) no
longer protected, but undermined the unity of the Church. The
great Bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who sought to rule over
the Church in order to preserve its unity and independence,
entangled themselves in an and produced
ambitious policy,
division. The Emperors were and the
really patrons of unity,
supreme means at their disposal, the CEcumenical Synod, was
their contrivance; in all cases it was a political institution,
invented by the greatest of politicians, a two-edged sword which
protected the endangered unity of the Church at the price of
its independence.
But was not the bond of unity, the common ground, to be
found in the common ideal, in the certain hope of a future life,
and in asceticism? This bond was assuredly a strong one. The
Church would hardly have succeeded in following out the free
path opened up to it by Constantine had it not had in its midst,
besides its transcendent promises, a power to which all, Greek
and barbarian, polytheist and monotheist, learned and unlearned
required ultimately, if reluctantly, to bow. And that power was
the asceticism which culminated in monachism. The ancient
world had arrived, by all the routes of its complicated devel-
opment, at the bitterest criticism of and disgust at its own
existence but in no other faith was
; religion itself as effectively
combined with asceticism, in none did the lattet come so power-

fully to the front, yet in none did it submit itself so pliably to
Church government, as in Catholicism. A religion comprehended
in a mere sacramental communion could not have gained the
allegiance ofthe more clear-sighted and earnest. One that imposed
on as an inalienable duty, the perfect fulfilment ofthe positive
all,
moral law, could not have held its ground. One that commanded
all alike to renounce the world would have closed the world against
it. But a religion which graded its members as priests, monks, and
laity, embraced a threefold piety of initiated, perfect, and novices,
and succeeded in the hardest task of all, that of reconciling priest

with monk, and of admitting the layman to a share in the
'
monks had to pass through crises and conflicts before it was

• The order of the
by side with, and to influence a secularised priesthood
able to establish itself side
posspss the key to this struggle in the East in the
writings of the forger who
we
blessings of both, was superior to all others, and possessed in its

organisation, generally established, a strong bond of association.
Protestants at the present day can hardly form a conception
of the hold which mind in the
asceticism possessed over the
fourth and fifth centuries, or of the manner in which it influenced
imagination, thought, and the whole of life. At bottom only a
single point was dealt with, abstinence from sexual relationships
everything else was Secondary for he who had renounced these,
;
found nothing hard. Renunciation of the servile yoke of sin

(servile peccati iugum discutere) was the watchword of Christians,
and an extraordinary, unanimity prevailed as to the meaning of
this watchword, whether we turn to the Coptic porter or the
learned Greek teacher, to the Bishop of Hippo, or Jerome, the
Roman presbyter, or the biographer of Saint Martin. Virginity was
the specifically Christian virtue, and the essence of all virtues: in
this conviction the meaning of the evangelical law was summed up.'
composed the Apostolic and the longer recension of the Ignatian

constitutions
Epistles in the West in
; from the opjjosite standpoint, of Sul-
the works, written
picius, as also iii those of Jerome, Augustine, and the Gallican authors of the fifth
century. Compare Hauck, K.-Gesch. Deutschlands, I., p. 49 ff. The order of the
monks was imported into the West. It was not till about the middle of the fifth
century that its opponents, inside and outside the ranks of the clergy, were silenced.
— —
For a time ât the end of tlie fourth century -it was in danger of being included
in the condemnation of the Ascetics who held dualistic views.
' The Fathers of the fourth century could not proceed so consistently as Hieracas
(see above, p. 98, n. 5) since they had to sanction the "lower" morality in the
Church. The Eustathians who condemned marriage —see the decrees of the Synod
of Gangra in Hefele, Concil. Gesch., I. 2, p. 777 — were therefore opposed. But
ff.
the numerous tractates '' De virginitate '' show how near the great Fathers of the
Church came to the Eustathian view. We can hardly point to one who did not
write on the subject. And the same thing is, above all, 'proved by Jerome's polemic
against Jovinian, in spite of its limitation, in the Ep. (48) ad Pammachium. For
the rest, Augustine did not differ from Jerome. His Confessions are pervaded by
the thought that he alone can enjoy peace with God who renounces all sexual
intercourse. Like Hieracas, Ambrose celebrated virginity as the real novelty in Christian
morality; see De virginibus, I. 3 sq. "Since the Lord wrapped himself in a bodily
:
form, and consummated the marriage of deity with humanity, without the shadow
of a stain, he has infused poor frail men with heavenly life over the whole globe.
That is the race which the angels symbolised when they came to serve the Lord
in the wilderness That is the heavenly host which on that holy Christmas the
. . .
exulting choirs of angels promised to the earth. We have the testimony of antiquity
therefore from the beginning of time, but complete submission only since the word
became flesh. This virtue is, in fact, our exclusive possession. The heathens had
29
But not only did the evangelical law culminate in virginity, but
to it also belonged all promises. Methodius' teaching that it
prepared the soul to be the bride of Christ, was from the fourth
century repeated by everyone. Virginity lies at the root of the
figure of bridegoom (Christ) . and bride (the soul) which is con-
stantly recurring in the greatest tdâchers of East and West,
and it is the key to the corresponding exposition of the Song
of which often appear a surprising Religious
Songs, in individ-
ualism and an impassioned love of Christ.
it not; it is not practised by the

uncivilised barbarians; there are no other
still
living creatures be found. We breathe the same air as they

among whom it is to
do, we share in all the conditions of an earthly life, we are not distinguished from
them in birth, and so we only escape from the miseries of a nature otherwise
similar to theirs through the virgin chastity, which, apparently extolled by the
heathens, is yet, even if placed under the patronage of religion, outraged by them,
which is persecuted by the barbarians, and is known to no other creatures." Com-
pare with this Chrysostom's tractate on the state of virginity. Much'thought was
given after the middle of the fourth century to the relation of priest and monk,
especially by those who wished to be monks and had to be priests. The virgin
state (of the monks) was held by the earnest to be the easier and safer, the priestly
condition the more perilous and responsible yet in many respects it was regarded ;
as also loftier, because the priest consummated the holy sacrifice and had to wield
authority (Chrysostom de sacerdotio, esp. VI. 6 8 and III. 4. 6, VI. 4). But the — —
danger to which priests and bishops were subject of becoming worldly, was felt,
not only by men like Gregory of Nasianzum and Chrysostom, but by countless
earnest minded Christians. A combination of the priestly (episcopal) office and
professional asceticism was therefore early attempted and carried out.
' See Vols. II., III., p. 109. The allegory of the soul of the Gnostic as the bride
received its first Thence Origen got it.
lofty treatment in the Valentinian school.
The drawn upon by later writers were Origen's homilies and commentary
sources
on the Song of Songs (Lommatzsch. XIV., p. 233 sq.): the prologue of the latter
in Rufinus begins with the words: " Epithalamium libellus hie, id est, nuptiale
carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone conscriptus, quern cecinit
instar nubentls sponsse, et erga sponsum suum, qui est sermo dei, coelesti amore
flagrantis. Adamavit enim eum, sive anima, quae ad imaginem eius facta est, sive
ecclesia." Jerome, who has translated the book, says that Origen surpassed himself
in it. Methodius' "Convivium" in which the same thought often occurs,
writing
was also much read. The purest and most attractive form of the conception in the
East appears in Gregory of Nyssa; see e g.^ his homilies on the Song of Songs,
and his description of the life of Macrina (Ed. Oehler, 1858, p. 172 sq.); we read
p. 210 sq. ^la. rovr6 iiot Soxs't rbv detov £Ke7v3v kxi y.xdxpov 'ipuTa rov oioparov
:
wi-iiPiov. Sv gy«£X|3u/A|Wevcy eT%£v Iv to7^ Ti?^ ^vx^<i a'jropp^TOt^ rpsipoiêvcv, 'evJjjAov
TTois^v TOTS rot^ TTxpovo-i XXI SiiiJioa-iev€iv Tifv sv xapSiix Stxdea-iv^ to STSiysa-dxt Tpd^
TOv JToHouizevcv, we av Stoi Taôvi; triv xvrai yevotTO tuv Seo-ixcSv SK^^vSs'iirx rov
a-eSi-iaroQ. Besides Gregory we have to mention Macarius with his "Spiritual
9
But the ascetic ideal did not succeed in establishing itself,
especially West, without severe conflicts, and it con-

in the
cealed within it dangers to the Church. Asceticism threatened
to become an end in itself, and to depart from the historical
foundation of the Christian religion. When the Church authorised
Homilies" (Migne T. XXXIV.; see Floss, Macarii Aegypt. epp. etc., 1850,
German by Jocham, Kempten, 1878); compare especially the 15th homily
translation
which contains already the figure, repeated a hundred times afterwards, of the soul
as the poor maiden who possesses nothing but her own body and whom the
heavenly bridegroom loves. If she worthily cherishes chastity and love for him,
then she becomes mistress of all the treasures of her Lord, and her transfigured
body itself shares in his divinity. Further, Horn. IV., ch. 6 sq., 14 sq. Compare
also Ep. 2. "A soul which has cast aside the ignominy of its outward form, which
is no longer ruled by shameful thoughts or violated by evil desires, has manifestly
become a partner of the heavenly bridegroom; for henceforth it has only one
requirement. Stung by love to him it demands and, to speak boldly, longs for the
immediate fulfilment of a. spiritual and mysterious union that it may enter the
indissoluble embrace of communion in sanctification." See Cyril Catech. III., ch. 16 ;
xai yivoiTO 5ravT«; i/fta? aiiaiûQ tw voi^tui mjii^lu TTxfeeaTxvreii; x.t./. Before this:
^ 'yoip TrpoTEôv ôv?^^ "^^x^ vuv a$£^<piSovv (xvtov tov êcTTOTJjv sTreypa^xTO, ÔQ TJfV
awTTOKpirov x'TToSex^l^^vot; Trpoaipetriv £7ri(ptavâ-sr îSov cT xaA*^ -^ 7F?^'^crlov tôv^ iSou
si w? xyi^xi rwy Kexxppcsvuv (Cantic. 4, I). Stat rijv sutrvveiSiiTOV
xaA;}' oSSvTEQ trov
6iJ.oKoylav. We
can point to very few Greek Fathers in whom the figure does not
occur. All the greater is the contrast presented by the depreciatory verdict of
Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Song of Songs (Kihn, Theodorv. M. 1880, p. 69 f.).
It may be expressly noticed, besides, that Clement of Alex, as well as Methodius
and Macarius had already transferred the figure of the bride to the married woman.
Indeed, Macarius was conscious that he was acting boldly in doing so. Western
nuns and monks were distinguished by lavishing those sexual feelings which were
forbidden them on Christ (and Mary). Ambrose especially taught the West the
conception of the soul as the bride of Christ; while Augustine was, apart from a.
few passages, more reserved, and Jerome wanted strength in sentiment and language.
Not only in Ambrose's tractate '"De Isaac et anima", really a commentary on the
Song of Songs, but in innumerable passages in his works even when it is least —
expected, as in the consolatory discourse on Valentinian's death (ch. 59 sq.) the —
idea of a special tie between the virgin soul and Christ comes to the front. But
Ambrose gave it a colouring of his own due to the deep sentiment of a great
man, and his peculiar faculty of giving a warm expression to his personal love of
Christ (see also Prudentius); compare passages like De poenit. II. 8. We cannot
appreciate too highly the important influence exerted on after times, and first on
Augustine, by Ambrose's expression of his personal religion. The light that dawned
in Augustine's confessions already shone from the works of Ambrose, and it was
the latter, not the former, who conducted western piety to the specific love of
Christ. On the mysticism of Macarius, who was in many respects allied to these
western Christians, compare also the details in Fdrster (in the Jahrb. f. deutsche
Theol. 1873, p. 439 f.). Bigg (the Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 188 f.) has very
Chap. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 131
the Christianity of 'the perfect', it really declared the great

mass of and apostolic institutions to be mere appar-
its divine
atus, meaningless to him who had resolved to renounce the
world, and to prepare for eternity. Those settlers in Egypt,
who sought to obtain redemption by torturing themselves, in
the end imperilled religion not less than the great crowds who
simply submitted to certain sacramental observances, and with
the approval of the priests dragged into Christianity whatever
pleased them. It was possible, and in fact the danger was
imminent, for the ascetic ideal to lose any assured connection

with Jesus Christ. Asceticism had also been proclaimed indeed
by Greek science. But in that case the common character of
religion disappeared; for a merely negative ideal of life, which
at the same time was without a close dependence on history,
could not form a lasting bond of connection among men.
Our information is exceptionally bad, and not from accident,
as to the internal state of the Church, at the time when Con-
stantine chose it to be the support of the Empire. But what
we know is enough to establish the fact that the internal solid-
ity by no means corresponded to the external. We may with
greater propriety affirm that the Churches of the East were in
danger of relapsing into worldliness, and that not only in the
form of worldly modes of action. The peril went deeper. '
Theology, the power which, as matters then were, could alone

rightly seen that Origan's homilies on the Song of Songs were at the root of
Christian mysticism :
" This book gave welcome expression to what after the triumph
of Athanasius was the dominant feeling, and redeemed in some degree the name
of its author, damaged by his supposed inclination to Ariaaism. And thus Origen,
the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his
many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of
Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the De Imitatione,
of Tauler, and Molinos
and Mme, de Guyon."
1 Church history has at this point in its investigations to collect the numerous
data which prove how deeply members of the Church had become involved in heathen
polytheistic morals, usages, customs, and conceptions, how strong reliance on sacred
witchcraft, amulets, and sacramental vehicles had grown, and how far stability and
peace of heart and mind had been lost. For the latter we can especially compare
Eusebius (H. E. VIII. i), (further the epitaph of Damasus on Euseb. the Roman
Bishop, in Duchesne, Le liber Pontificalis,Tom. I., 1885, p. 167); of a later date,
Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 7. As regards syncretism, see the work on the Egyptian
mysteries (ed. Parthey).
give an energetic protection to the distinctive character of

religion, was at the point of dissolving it and abandoning it to
the world.
We have already described in this volume the state of

Eastern theology at the beginning of the fourth century. Con-
ceptions of the faith which began and ended with the historical
personality of Jesus Christ were equally condemned with the
attempts, whether unstudied or philosophical, to identify the
Person of Jesus with the Deity. '
The realistic and eclectic
theology had probably very few defenders in the
of Irenaeus
West. The theology of the Apologists had triumphed, and all
thinkers stood under the influence of Origen. But the genius
of this great man was too powerful for the Epigoni. The im-
portance of his system lay in a threefold direction : first, in the
sharp distinction between Pistis and Gnosis, which he kept
apart, and connected only by unity of aim; secondly, in the
abundant material in his speculations, the conservatism that he
showed in inweaving all that was valuable, and the balance
which he knew how to preserve between the different factors
of his system, relating them all to one uniform aim; thirdly, in
the Biblical impress which he gave hig theology by strict adhe-
rence to the text of Holy Scripture. In all these respects the
Epigoni introduced changes. The most important in its conse-
quences was the mingling of Pistis and Gnosis, of faith and
theology. Origen had not published his system, in which the
faith of the Church was reconciled with science, as Church
doctrine. To him the distinction between the faith of the Church
and the science of faith remained fixed. But in the next period
— following the precedent of Methodius^ and opposing Basil's
principle — it was thought necessary to identify them. Reactionary
and progressive tendencies met in these efforts. The Pistis
1 See the short disclaimers in the fourth Catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem,
(ch. "]. 8): OlXt w? TivEC h6iJ.i<rciv, 6 vioq lierh ro 7riih( (TTe^pxvuieii aa-Trip vtt'o
rov &£oV hx Tijv vTrojioviiv 'sAa/Se rov ev Ss^ta dp^vov^ u^^K" ac|)' ouTrsp itrriv '^%£/ to
^xtj-t^txov aîxiJi-a . . . Mjfre aTTu^ôrpiuff^jt; tov TrccrpoQ rev v;Vv, îjTg o-uvaAOf^J^v
ipycia-uiJ.ivoi vlo^xrpiav TnimviDiiQ. Further, the llth Catechism. So also Athana-

sius steadily disavows the heresy of the Adoptians as well as of the Sabellians.
' See Vol. Ill, p. 103.
Chap. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 33
(faith)was supplied with the formulas of Origen's theology, and

Gnosis was to stop short at certain tenets of tradition, and to
receive them without revision. The point was to find a new
medium which should be at once tradition and speculation,
and Gnosis. This endeavour was undoubtedly justified
Pistis
by an actual change accomplished before this and promoted
by Origen himself, viz., the incorporation of the doctrine of
the Logos "the simple." These simple Christians
in the faith of
already possessed a dogma which was shaped by exegesis and
speculation, and confronted them as an external authority, a
law of faith. This creation had forced its way from the circum-
ference of the ecclesiastical system into its centre. Besides, the
sharp distinction between a traditional doctrine of the Church
and a science of religion contradicted the whole ecclesiastical
tradition as established in the fight with Gnosticism. But the
intermingling at first produced a kind of stagnation. It threat-
ened to make faith lose its certainty, speculation its reasoning
power, and the Church the unity of its confession. If we review
the new religious formulas, which were brought into circulation
about the year 300, and if we compare the theologies of the
—
period which unfortunately we only know in part the theolo- —
gies, namely, of the Alexandrian teachers, Gregory Thaumatur-
gus, Lucian, Methodius, Hieracas etc., we see a wealth of forms
which, if blood-relations, are extremely different. How could
the unity of the Church continue under their sway ? and if it
continued, was it Christianity after all that furnished the common

element ?
And this has brought us to the second point Origen had
recognised the full significance of the historical Christ for the
stage of Pistis; while he directed the Gnostic to the eternal
Logos. Now uncertainties arose here also. The historical Christ
threatened to fall entirely into the background. We can ob-
serve this in the works of two of the Epigoni, which have no
affinity to each other. Gregory Thaumaturgus has in his
"
famous Symbol dealt only with the Logos " apart from the flesh
(Xoyoq xiTxpKog), '
and Methodius intended to declare the loftiest
' See Vol. III., p.115, the words run: eTc xvpioQ, ii6vog ex [idvov, ©eo? ix ®sov.
truth when he demanded be born in every

,that Christ should
man 'consciously' {vo>^Tag),âr\d that each must become a Christ
by participation in Christ. Further, in Origen the cosmological
'
and soteriojogical interests balanced each other. We recognise

this in his formulas which relate to the Logos. But here also
a displacement was introduced, one that favoured cosmology.
The word '0/ôova-iog (consubstantial) was, indeed, retained by
some, perhaps by many theologians; but as it was in itself
ambiguous, so also it was no evidence of an interest in soterio-
logy. The crowd of rhetorical and philosophical predicates
heaped upon the Logos, did not serve to illustrate and estab-
lish the significance of the Logos as the principal factor in re-
demption; was rather a term for the reason and order reign-
it
ing in the and for the spiritual forces with which

universe,
humanity had been gifted. Men indeed held firmly, on all
hands, to the incarnation nay, it was regarded, as is proved
;
by the great work of Theognostus, as being, next to the doc-

trine of the creation of matter, the feature that distinguished
the speculation of the Church from that of the Neo-platonists.
But the whole stress was laid on the question, what idea was
to be formed of the constitution of the subject of which incar-
nation was predicated. A great school, that of Lucian of An tioch,
distinguished, in the manner of Paul of Samosata, between
wisdom proper, eternal, existent in God, and a created wisdom
or Logos and identified the latter alone with the incarnate Son
;
'
wisdom arose through wisdom according to the will of the
wise God'. But in drawing this line, not only was the incar-
nation of the Deity rendered impossible, but every form of His
personal activity on earth. The theological interest in Christ threat-
ened to resolve itself entirely into cosmology and morality, or, as
in Methodius, to be deprived of its meaning by a mystical alloy.
The liberty which theology enjoyed in the East up to the
beginning of the fourth century, and the influence which it
exerted on the Church in the same period, could not but pro-
duce complete confusion and loss of meaning. All the elements
trepisxTiK^ xxi Sdvxinf t>); cfAi); XTiWeuf voitiTixtj, viof a^tjiivof aKifdivou TaTfrf;,
adfXTOi aofiiTov xal lx(p6ii!pT0<; iipDeefrou nctt aJavJSTo; oi'icf.vilirov kxi a'/J/oj «/J/ow.
I
See. Vol. III.j p. 1 10.
united by Origen in liis vast system sought to establish them

selves independently. Even tritheistic tendencies were not want-
ing; but, above all, the idea of a subordinate God and semi-
divine beings began to be fanjiliar. The idea of the subordinate
God is indeed as old as the theology of the Christian Church
even the Apologists shared it, and Origen, with all caution,
adopted and justified it in working out his doctrine of the Son.
But in the earlier period the simplices et rudes (the simple and
'uncultured) were still startled at the suggestion theologians pro- ;
vided the idea with strong safe-guards, and Origen himself, who
in many points bordered on Polytheism, on the other hand
restored the Logos to the being of God, and united Father and
Son as closely as possible. But opposition to Sabellianism '
evidently rendered a later age much more careless. And it is

indubitable that the idea of the created God, the God who
came into being, coalesced with ancient polytheistic incHnations.
The claims of Monotheism were considered to be satisfied by
the effort to protect the supreme Deity, as against Modalism,
from change and plurality; and the Logos and other beings
entitled to worship were suffered calmly to spring up side by
side with God they could not, it was presumed, endanger
;
Monotheism, because they belonged to the domain of the cre-

ated. Add that theologians dealt in their speculations with a
plethora of philosophical categories destitute of a fixed impress,
further, that this terminology, unsifted and un-
;
or fixed value '
controlled, everywhere forced its way into the faith of the

community, and we can form a conception of the danger which
hovered over the Church. We find a Monotheism which did not
exclude polytheism, a Logos-Christ, who, as a cosmological
quantity, was of shifting nature and origin, ideas of the incar-
nation and redemption as designed to "enlighten" the human
race, and to effect an incarnation of God in every individual
soul. All this, too, was clothed in a rank growth of artificial
philosophical expressions, identical with that used in contempor-
ary science. And we may well ask whether such a theology
was in a condition to protect even the scanty remains of the
> See Vol. III., p. 103.

evangelic tradition, above all, at the moment when the partition

between State and Church was torn down and the Church was
brought face to face with its greatest task. deism if the A —
—
term may be allowed was at hand, surrounded by the shifting
forms of a speculation which had neither a settled boundary
nor an assured object. It almost seemed as if the special char-
acteristics of the Christian religion were to be reduced to the
evidence of and prophecy, what Porphyry called
antiquity
'
Yet even Scriptural proof was no longer every-
foreign fables '.
where called for and given with the zeal so noticeable in Origen
although it was just the school of Lucian which neglected it
least. But what could Scripture avail against the method? If
a Bishop so capable and learned, and so well versed in tradi-
tion as Eusebius of Csesarea was satisfied in his Christology
with the formulas we read there, if he could praise the religious
edicts and manifestoes of his Emperor, though they substantially
celebrated "God in nature", as briUiant specimens of his
we must conclude that the Logos doctrine
Christian conviction,
settled Church was the strongest means of completely
in the
effacing the figure of the historical Christ, and of resolving
everything into mist. ' Even the rationalist, who in his study
of the history of religions always follows with sympathy the
progress to natural religion, would require to restrain his
'
'
sympathy here. For the pure rehgion of humanity could not

have resulted from this development, but one that was wholly
indefinite, and therefore capable of being influenced from any
quarter, one in whose centre was throned that hollow and
helpless figment of thought, the ov, the vpuTvi owiot, (being
primal being). And men would have gone on proclaiming this
' On Eusebius' Christology see Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I. (1845)

p. 792 fF. Lee, on the Theophan. 1843, Preliminary Dissert. The Christology of
Euseb. is that of the ancient apologists, approximating in its terms to Neoplatonic
speculations and richer in its phases on account of the many antitheses. In spite
of his dependence on Origen, Euseb. was chary of receiving all the ideas and
predicates which the former applied to the Son and to which orthodoxy afterwards
appealed. That is of consequence. Euseb. was more convinced than Origen that
the idea of deity was completely exhausted in that of the strictly one and un-
changeable '6v the VfUTV) ova-ix he separated the Sevrspog 0eo'? much further from
;
Cod than the Apologistsj see Zalin, Marcell., p. 37 f,

'
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 37
religion to be Christianity, simply because they possessed in

Holy Scripture the means of proving it, and of dating it back
to the beginning of the world as the universal religion. And

they would have adopted sacred media, charms, and intermedi-
ary powers more and more boldly, because they were incapable
of understanding and applying either to God or to Jesus Christ
the tradition that God redeemed men through Jesus Christ.
The Bishops and theologians in the East about A.D. 320,
whose views were similar to those of Eusebius, had on their
side the strongest power to be found in an ecclesiastical com-
munion tradition — they were the conservatives. Conservative
:
theology, the theology that took its stand on Origen, Umited

the idea of Deity to the primal being {jrpinvi ovuiix), inoperative
and really incapable of being revealed, i.e., to the Father. It
accordingly ignored the Logos and Christ in determining the

conception of God. Further, it deduced, like the Neoplatonists,
a second or third Ousia (being) from the first, and adorned the
Logos created by the will of the Father with the loftiest, yet
vacillating, predicates. It taught the incarnation of the Logos, and
celebrated its result, yet once more in indefinite, in high-sounding
and meaningless. Biblical phrases. Finally, it subordinated
everything spiritual and moral to the thought of free-will and
human independence. Any attempt at precision could not fail,
on this domain, to be regarded as an innovation. Anything

might establish itself as long as it did not claim to be exclusive.
There never did exist in the Church a general tendency to
—
form new dogmas the terms 'new' and 'dogma' are mutually
exclusive ; least of all did it exist in the East ; there was either
indifference to philosophical speculation, or a desire that it
should have liberty, or it was regarded with suspicion. For the
' GwatkiQ says very justly in Studies of Ariaaism (1882), p. 52: "In fact
Christendom as a wltole was neither Arian nor Nicene. If the East was not Nicene,
neither was it Arian, but conservative and if the West was not Arian, neither was
:
it Nicene, but conservative also. Conservatism, however, had different meanings in
East and West." In the East it was considered conservative to uphold the formulas
of OrigeQ strengthened against Sabellianism. On the doctrine of the Logos and
Christ in Origen Bigg says very truly (The Christian Platonists of Alex., p. 182):
" What struck later ages as the novelty and audacity of Oi'igen's doctrine was in
truth its archaism and conservatism."
rest, men i.e., the com-

reverenced in the cultus the mystery,
plex of formulas whose had already become obscure.
origin
Nevertheless, there probably never was a time in the East
when a reaction did not exist against the development of the
' When theology engaged in forming dogmas, it has never, as is really self-
is
evident, enjoyed the sympathy of any large section ia the Church. There is nothing
to support the contention that the Christian Church passed through a period
from Origen up to the Synod of Chalcedon or A.D. 431 ^during which there —
prevailed universally, or even to a great extent, a supreme interest in the abstract
form of the contents of Religion, and an effort, with all the means at hand, to
expound it as exactly as possible. The great mass of Bishops, monks, and laity,
were then wholly occupied in satisfying themselves with what had been given.
This was the highest demand of the Catholic religion itself, which presupposed
the "Apostolic" as its foundation, which called everything else "heresy" (vemts-
f(o-/iif;), and as an institution for worship did not permit changes. Undoubtedly,
the period from Origen, or say, from Athanasius up to the Ephesian Council,
appears unique in the history of the Church. But that was an episode enacted in
opposition to the great body of Christians, and the theological leaders themselves,
in proportion to their piety, conceived their task to be compulsory, dangerous, and
ensnaring them in guilt. To prove the former read Socrates' Church History (see
my discussion in Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV. p. 408 ff.). This man was, on the one
hand, orthodox at every point, on the other, an enthusiastic partisan of 'EAAs(V(z^
•KUiîia, full of veneration for the great Origen and his science, which he held
was lo be fostered continually. But the production of dogma by scientific theology
was repugnant to him in every sense, i.e.^ he accused and execrated dogmatic
controversies as much in the interest of a dogma fixed once for all as in that of
science. The Nicene Symbol belonged sufficiently to the past to be accepted by
him as holy and apostolical; but beyond this every new formula seemed to Socrates
pernicious, the controversies sometimes fights in the dark (nyktomachies), sometimes
an outflow of deceptive sophistry and ambitious rivalry: (7;o)Xjj xpoa-xvvciirliiii to
UpptlTov, i.e., the mystery of the trinity. Had Socrates lived 100 years earlier, he
would not have been a Nicene, but a Eusebian Christian. He therefore passes very
liberal judgments on, and can make excuses for, the latest "heretics ",/.^., theologians
who have been recently refuted by the Church. In this he stood by no means
alone. Others, even at a later date, went still further. Compare Evagrius (H. E. I. 1 1)
whose argument recalls Orig. c. Cels. III. 12.
Dogma has been created by the small number of theologians who sought for
precise notions, in the endeavour to make clear the characteristic meaning of the
Christian religion (Athanasius, Apollinaris, Cyril). That these notions, separated
from their underlying thought, fell into the hands of ambitious ecclesiastical
politicians, that the latter excited the fanaticism of the ignorant in their support,
and that the final was often due to motives which had nothing to do
decision
with the case, is admittedly undeniable. But the theologians are not therefore to
blame, who opposed in the Church a lazy contentment with mystery, or an un-
limited pursuit of scientific speculation. Their effort to make clear the essence of
Christianity, as they understood it, and at the same time to provide a Aoyixi)
MTfeix, was rather, next to the zealous order of monks with whom they were intimately
CHA.P. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 39
Logos doctrine towards complete separation of the Son from

the Father. ' It sprang not only from Medalists, but also from
disciples of Origen, and it celebrated at Nicasa an amazingly
rapid triumph. In opposition to a school which had ventured
too far forward, and had embroidered the doctrines of Paul of
Samosata with questionable tenets of Origen, the term 'Of/ôovTiog,
once banned at Antioch, was successfully elevated to the dignity
of the watchword of faith.
The importance of this rapid triumph for the history of

dogma cannot be rated too highly. But procured as it was by
the Emperor, the victory would have been resultless, had it not
been for the man whose biography coincides with the history
of dogma of the fourth century Athanasius. —
The second division of the history of dogma,
the account of
its development,
opens with Athanasius, but his conception of
the faith also dominated following centuries. Augustine alone
surpassed him in importance for Augustine was an Origen and ;
Athanasius in one — and he was still more. ^ However, the

connected, the sole great feature in the epoch. They set themselves to stem the
vis inertia of the pious, and with the highest success. When indolence in the end
held the field, an important result had at any rate been attained. The period from
Athanasius till about the middle of the fifth century was in many respects the
brilliant epoch of theology in the Church. Not even the age of Scholasticism can
compare with it. That the work of the theologians became faith according to the
—
Church a thing Origen never thought of involved its strength and weakness —
alike. The fanaticism of the masses for dogmatic and philosophical catch-words
see the amusing narrative of Gregory of Nyssa, Opp. ed. Paris, 1638, T. III.
p. 466 —
affords no information as to the measure of their comprehension; for the
dogmatic catch-word is merely a fetish in wide circles.
1 Origen's doctrine of subordination was felt in the West simply to constitute
ditheism; see Vol. 85 ff.III., p.
- See Ranke, Weltgeschichte Vol. IV. I, p. 307: "Augustine's system is, if I
mistake not, the second that arose in the Church; it set aside the peculiar charac-
teristics of the first, that of Origen, and then made good its position." We can only
admit that it held its ground in a modified sense. In fact we see here a parallel
of the highest significance in the history of the world. The Church has produced
two fundamental systems, Origen's and Augustine's. But the history of theology in
the East is the history of the setting aside of Origen's system, and the same is to
be said of the Augustinian in the Catholic West. Only the procedure in the East
was more thorough-going and open than in the West. In the former Origen was
condemned, in the latter Augustine was constantly celebrated as the greatest
Doctor ecclesicc. In both cases, however, the rejection of the theological system
caused the loss of a coherent and uniform Christian conception of the world.
I40 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, i,
future course of history has yet to decide whether Athanasius'

thought will not in the end live longer than the conceptions of
Augustine. At the present day at least Augustine is given up
sooner than Athanasius in the Churches.
But it is really not permissible to compare these great men.
Augustine was a loftier genius, a man of inexhaustible wealth
of ideas and sentiment; Athanasius' greatness consisted in re-
duction, in the energy with which, from a multitude of diverg-

ent speculations claiming to rest on tradition, he gave exclusive
validity to those in which the strength of religion then lay.
Augustine opened up a new view of the highest blessings and
of human nature in the Church, he scattered a thousand germs
for the future Athanasius, like every reformer, reduced, he first
;
secured a sphere of its own to the Christian religion on the

soil, already won, of Greek speculation, and he referred every-
thing to the thought of redemption. Augustine invented a new
speculation, and the fascinating language of the deepest religious
feeling, beyond which changed times and manners seem unable to
go Athanasius was unable to put forward either gifts of specula-
;
tion or of eloquence on behalf of the thought in which he

lived. His strength arose out of his conviction and his office.
Athanasius was a reformer, though not in the highest sense
of the word. Behind and beside him existed a speculation
which led on a shoreless sea, and the ship was in danger of
losing its helm. He grasped the rudder. We may compare
'
the situation with that in which Luther found himself when

confronting the mediaeval Church and Scholasticism. It was not
for a word, or a formula, ^ that he was concerned, but a crucial
1 It might seem as if we ought

same credit to Arius of having
to grant the
reduced and given and divergent speculations. But apart from
fixity to vacillating
the contents and value of his doctrine, Arius was always disposed to make conces-
sions, and as semi-opponents defended him, so he unhesitatingly accepted half
friends for complete allies. This very fact proves, however, that he would never
have succeeded in clearing up the position.
"^
Athanasius always made a sparing use of the catch-word 'Ofioovirioi in his works.
The formula was him, but only the cause which he apprehended
not sacred to
and established under cover of the formula. His conduct at the Synod of Alexandria
shows that he laid no stress on words. For his theology he needed no Creed. The
existence of one in the Nicene was valuable to him, but he was far from wor-
Chap, i,] HISTORICAL SITUATION 141
thought of his faith, the redemption and raising of humanity

to divine hfe through the God-man. It was only from the cer-
tainty that the divinity manifest in Jesus Christ possessed the

nature of the Deity (unity of being) and was for this reason
alone in a position to raise us to divine life, that faith was to
receive its strength, life its law, and theology its direction.
But Athanasius in thus giving the chief place to faith in the
God-man who alone delivers from death
and sin, furnished prac-
tical piety, then almost be found in monkish
exclusively to
asceticism, with its loftiest motive. To speak briefly, this com-
bined as closely as possible the 'Ofioova-iog (consubstantial), which
guaranteed the deification of human nature, with monkish asceti-
cism, and raised the latter from its still under-ground or, at least,
insecure realm to the public life of the Church. While fighting
against the phrase the created Logos (Xoyog-HTitTf/âi) as heathen
and as a denial of the power of the Christian religion, he at the
same time as strenuously opposed worldly pursuits. He sub-
ordinated Scripture, tradition, and theology to the thought that
the Redeemer was God by nature, but he also strove to work
out the Christian life which received its motive from close
communion with the God-Christ, and the prospect of being
'
invested both the divine nature. If we would do justice to
. Athanasius, both these facts must be kept in mind. He became

the father of Catholic orthodoxy and the patron of ecclesiastical
monachism, and that he never would have been, had he not
also set the practical ideal of the piety of the time 'on the
candlestick'.^
There is here nothing new in the common sense of the word
Athanasius had really on his side, the best part of the tradition
of the Church, to which he also appealed. Irenseus had already
given the central place to the object, nature, and accomplish-
shipping Symbols. While many of his friends sought support in the authority of
the formula, he sought and found it solely in the cause.
' Bigg (I.e., p. 188) has very rightly called attention to the high value attached
by orthodox Fathers after Athanasius' triumph to the Song of Songs in Origan's
exposition.
2 See the Vita Anton, of Athanasius and Gregory of Naz., Orat. 21.lt isnote-
vtforthy that Paul of Samosata and the Eusebians were v^forldly Christians. On the
other hand, the puritaiiism of Arius is, of course, famous.
ment of redemption in the categories: Logos, incarnation, God-

man, deification, and sons of God. Athanasius could refer to
a series of ideas in Origan and other Alexandrian catechists in
support of his distinctive treatment of the Logos doctrine. New
alone was the fact, the energy and exclusiveness of his view
and action at a time when everything threatened to undergo
dissolution.
Athanasius was no scientific theologian in the strict sense of
the term; from theology he descended to piety, and found the
exact word required. A man of authority, and attached to the
tradition of his school, he was not in a position to disentangle
the problem from the context in which the Apologists and
Origen had set it. He was a disciple of Origen, but his attitude
first to Marcellus, and then to the recent defenders of 'Oy.oou(swq,
the Cappadocians, proves that he was as destitute of scientific
interest in a philosophical theory of life, as of the obstinacy of
theologians. He had which transcended theo-
to deal with that
logy. He was the first to raise to honour in the Church in all
its force the old maxim that we must think of Christ as God
(w? wsfi ^sou), and therefore he paved the way for the new
principle, that we must think of God as in Christ (w? ev Xpitrrqi).
In this he stood aloof from the rational thought of his time.
While admitting its premises, he added an element, which
neutral speculation was incapable of assimilating completely.
Nothing certainly was more unintelligible to it, than the assump-
,
tion of an essential unity of the quiescent and the active Deity.

Athanasius fixed a gulf between the Logos of the philosophers,
and the Logos whose redeeming work he proclaimed. What
he said of the latter, declaring the mystery strongly and
simply, and by no means committing himself to new distinc-
tions, could not but appear to the Greeks 'an offence and folly'.
But he did not shrink from reproach; with firm hand, though
in awkward lines, he marked off a sphere of its own for the
'
Christian faith.
1 The Cappadocians, theologians who reconciled the faith of Athanasius with

the and apprehended it abstractly, did not retain his teaching
current philosophy,
pure and simple. This is especially shown by their doubtful contention that the
Christian idea of God was the true mean between the Jewish and Greek. They
Andthis man respected science and its free development.

We can observe this in his criticisms of Origen and the Alex-
andrian catechists. Undoubtedly it must have been important
to him to obtain reliable witnesses (testes veritatis) for his
doctrine, and the effort to do this explains frequently his prac-
tice of making the best of everything. But it does not entirely
explain his conduct. Christian faith was in his view exhausted
in faith in the God-man, the incarnation, and the redemption
which constituted a divine nature; for this reason he permitted
liberty in everything else. It would seem that he had no desire
to abolish Origen's distinction between the Christian science of

the perfect and the faith of the imperfect. He did not sit as
a judge of heretics on Origen's doubtful tenets and correct
them by the regula fidei, nor did he follow the course first
taken by Bishop Peter, one of his predecessors, in Alexandria.
This is all the more remarkable, as for his own part he could
hardly find a single point in the Gnostic heterodoxies of Origen
with which he could agree.
Athanasius did not see beyond the horizon of his own time.
He attributed the highest efficacy to the mysteries of the cultus.
He regarded them as the personal legacy of Christ, immediate
emanations of his life as God-man, and as containing the means
of applying salvation. If in succeeding centuries the religious
interest attached itself more and more closely to ritual, that
did not imply any contradiction of the conception of the great
Alexandrian. He also laboured on behalf of the dogma which
was to obtain its practical and effective presentation in the
boldly characterised the plurality of Hypostases, e.g.^ as a phase of truth preserved in

Greek polytheism. Athanasius, therefore, did not take unmixed pleasure in their
work. Cf. the \6yoi xxTtixiirixdi of Gregory of Nyssa (ch. 4, ed. Oehler) "Jewish :
dogma is refuted by adoption of the Word, and by faith in the Spirit, but the
illusion of the Greeks (EAA^v/ôvre?) in worshipping a multiplicity of Gods is
dispelled by the (doctrine of the) unity of nature which destroys the extravagant
opinion We must, in turn, retain the unity of being from
of a (divine) plurality.
the Jewish type of and only the distinction of personal (divine) existences
faith,
from the Greek; and by this means godless conceptions are met on the left and
right in correspondingly salutary ways. For the trinity is a corrective for those
who err as to unity, just as the doctrine of the unity (of God) is for those who
have made shipwreck by belief in plurality."
1 See Vol. III., p. 99 ff.
144 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, i.
monks on the one hand, and in ritual on the other, until the
transitory was exalted into the permanent.
Atkanasius' importance to posterity consisted in this, that he
defined Christian faith exclusively as faith in redemption through
the God-man who was identical in nature with God, and that
fixed boundaries and specific contents.
'
thereby he restored to it
Eastern Christendom has been able to add nothing up to the

present day. Even in theory it has hit on no change, merely
overloading the idea of Athanasius; but the Western Church
also preserved this faith as fundamental. Following on the
theology of the Apologists and Origen, it was the efficient means
of preventing the complete Hellenising and secularisation of
Christianity.
The history of dogma in the East after the Nicene Council

reveals two interlacing lines of development. First, the idea of
the God-man from the point of view of the redemption and
elevation of the human race to divine life, in other words, the
faith of Athanasius, was elaborated on all sides. In this the
history of dogma, in the strict sense of the term, exhausted
itself, for dogma was faith in the God-man. But with this a
second development was closely connected, one which dealt
' In the cleverly written to his description of "Western Church

introduction
architecture" (Stuttgart, Dehio works out the idea that the classical period
1884),
of ancient Christian architecture, the fourth century, was distinguished not by the
multiplicity of ideas and forms of construction, but rather by the simplification or
reduction of the forms. The Church, confronted by the number of models in ancient
architecture, laid hold of one of them, the Basilica, and transmitted it alone to
the Middle Ages. That, however, meant not a loss, but an advance. " The genius
of Christianity contributed nothing, new to the architectural creations of Rome and
Alexandria. The great revolution it evoked lay in another direction. It consisted in
the reduction of the multiplicity of styles to one dominant and sole form, not so much
by a metamorphosis of artistic feeling, as by making religion once more the central
motive of life. It thus assigned to the future architecture of the Middle Ages con-
ditions analogous to those which governed the beginnings of Greek art; and thus
the birth of Gothic art was possible at the climax of the Middle Ages for the—
second time in history, a true organic style, like that of the Greek temple." This
observation is extremely instructive to the historian of dogma. The thought of
Athanasius corresponds in theology to the meaning of the Basilica in the history
of architecture in the fourth century. Both were happy simplifications from a wealth
—
of ideas reductions which concealed full and varied contents.
with the relations of dogma and theology. Here also one man
can be named it was the science that Origen had cultivated
:
which formed the centre of interest. However, since his days

the problem had become more compHcated, for theological
principles that penetrated deeply had been received into faith
itself, and the great development up to the Council of Chalce-
don, and still later, consisted in the incorporation of theological

results and formulas in the general belief of the Church. The
question, accordingly, was not merely whether a freer and more
independent theology, like Origen's in spirit and method, could
receive an acknowledged position and latitude in the Church;
whether, in general, the phases of criticism and idealistic spirit-
uaUsm, included in Origen's science, were to be tolerated. It
was a much harder problem that arose, though one that from
its nature was always half concealed. If the theological dogma,
at the moment when it became a creed of the Church, received

the value of an apostolic doctrine which had never been want-
ing in the Church, how were the theologians to be regarded
who had really it, and how were the most venerated
created
men of the past be looked upon who had either been wholly
to
ignorant of the dogma, or had incidentally, or avowedly, con-
tradicted it? The conclusion is clear. The former were to receive
special honour as witnesses to, but not as creators of, the
truth. The latter it was necessary to abandon, however real
and constructive their labours may once have been, or their
works were to be coloured, corrected, or even amended by the
insertion of glosses. But how long will a theology receive room
to work on dogma, if the work is again and again to be disguised
and how long will theologians be found to continue the dan-
gerous business? "Theology is the most thankless of sciences.
It crushes its builders with the very stones which they have
helped to erect." The relation of theology to dogma recalls

the myth of Chronos. But here it is not the father who swal-
lows his children, it is the creature that devours its creators up
to the third and fourth generations. As, moreover, the age from
the fourth to the sixth centuries is the classic period of all
dogma, so in no other period does it so clearly exhibit to the

historian its characteristic of demanding living sacrifices.
Accordingly we observe two phenomena in these centuries.

First, we have a continuous fight against the free theology of
Origen, against the heterodoxies which it embraced, its critical
phase, and its idealistic speculation. At any rate, more than two
centuries elapsed before it was finally refused all right of citizen-
ship in the Church, and at the same time 'EAA)^y;;c»j ttixiSsiix,
(Greek culture) was deprived of any greater influence on dogma,

than what the latter required for its correct exposition and
justification. ' But, in the second place, a traditionalism arose
which looked distrustfully on theology taking any share in the
work of the Church at the time, which substituted authority
for science, while it heaven
either exalted ancient teachers to
as saints, or hurled them down was due to hell as heretics. It
to the secret logic of events that such a tendency gained

strength and finally triumphed; for if even the most capable
and independent theologians were compelled to live under the
delusion that what was new in their teaching could never be
true, or that the true could not possibly be new, it necessarily
followed that fewer and fewer would be found to undertake their
dangerous work. ' Accordingly, after dogma had developed to
' The prestige of Origen in the Church was still in the first half of the fifth
centuiy almost absolute and incomparable in wide circles. As we have above

remarked, the Church history of Socrates is in this respect particularly instructive.
The belittlers and enemies of this man were vain and ambitious obscurantists,
hero-levelling fellows; against them —Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and
—
Theophilus he appealed to the testimony of Athanasius on behalf of Origen's
orthodoxy (VI. 13). Even the view that Origen's works and utterances required to
be sifted, appeared to him folly (VI. 17). He defended everything that the master
wrote. It was incomprehensible to him how the Arians could study and value
Origen, without becoming orthodox
(VII, 6) —
to the Arians the opposite was in-
comprehensible — and
he declares with absolute conviction that Porphyry and Julian
would not have written what they did if they had read the great teacher (III. 23).
Further, Origen was once more quoted in the Monophysite controversies. Apart
from special uses of it, his name represented a great cause, namely, no less than
the right of science, 'EAAi(v(x^ wcciisla, in the Church, a right contested by tradi-
tionalism in conjunction with the monks.
2 It was pointed out above, p. 138, note i, that even orthodox theological
leaders were not comfortable in their dogmatic work, so that the position from
the middle of the sixth century, the sovereign rule of traditionalism, was really
the goal desired from the beginning. The works of all prominent theologians
testify to this. Some deplored the fact that the mystery could not be worshipped
in silence, that they were compelled to speak; and the rest say explicitly, that the
a certain extent, held a certain number of conceptions capable

of employing the intelligence, and was adapted to scholastic
treatment, it became so sensitive that it ceased to tolerate a
theology that would carry it further, even under all possible
safe-guards. The theology
that did independent work, that at
no time professed produce dogma, and therefore really had
to
not existed, now came actually to an end. The date coincides
with that at which Origen was condemned (the sixth century).
The history of this process ran its course very gradually. On
the other hand, there was no want of important actions in the
history of the ejection of Origen's doctrine. We have here to
mention the Origenist controversies ', though we must not limit
'
them, as has been customary, to a few decades. Along with

them the opposition to the school of Antioch and its condemn-
ation come before us. But we must" not look at the victory of
the creed of the Church over theological liberties merely from
the point of view of a decline of science in the Church. We
have rather to consider what a more liberal speculative and
critical science had to offer at the time to the Church. \a view
of the way in which the pursuit of theology and the exposition

of the faith were intertwined, there were gifts which the Church
had to decline in order to maintain its tradition, z.e., the stand-
ard left to it of its Christianity. But the heterodoxies of the
theologians presented neither an incentive to nor the means for a
revision of the whole doctrine in its possession. Besides, the
entire process of expelling the freer theology was carried out
without crises worth mentioning, as if spontaneously. That is
the strongest evidence of the weakness of the speculations and
critical views which sought to hold their ground alongside the
doctrine of the Church. The condition of affairs at the close,
when we have (i) dogma (2) a theology of scholastic mysticism,
and (3) antiquarian and formal science not confused with religion,
truth of their propositioQS lay in their negations alone. Hilary expresses himself per-
haps most strongly (De trinit. II. 2) " Compellimur hsereticorum et blasphemantium
:
ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa praesumere. Et cum

vitiis illicita agere,
sola fide explorari, quae prascepta sunt, oporteret, adorare scilicet patrem et venerari
cum eo filium, sancto spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea,
quae inenarrabilia sunt extendere et in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno, ut, quae
conlineri religione mentium oportuisset, nunc in periculumhumauieloquii proferantur,"
was in many respects an improvement, and the value of the

product received its strongest attestation in the duration of the
system. Leaving out of account a few oscillations, that had
been actually attained, which the conservatives i.e., the great
'
',
majority in all phases of violent dogmatic conflicts, had longed

for, and had therefore always contemplated. A mysterious
dogma had been arrived at, one elevated above the schools,
which gave theologians liberty to be antiquarians, philologists,
or philosophers; for what independent work was left in the
pursuit of dogma was subject to the jurisdiction of these special-
ists, so far as it did not come under the review of the experts
in mysteries and liturgies. But the great loss consisted in

the fact that men no longer possessed a theological system
complete in itself. Origen's was the only one that the Greek
Church had produced. After its rejection there existed, besides
dogma, a vast sum of incongruous fragments, bound artificially
together by quotations from Scripture and tradition and from
Aristotelian scholasticism. The great dogmatic work of John of
Damascus only appears to be a logically connected system; it
is in reality far from that.
As regards the periods, the dividing lines are formed by

the CEcumenical Synods, namely, the so-called 2nd, then the
4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. But we can also use the names of
Theodosius I., Pope Leo L, Justinian, and Pope Agatho. The
unification of the Churches was rendered possible by the fact,
that they obtained a foru7n publicum (a public tribunal) in the
universal Synods. For the Creeds of the provincial Churches,
'
which agreed only in the main points, and not even in all
these, the Councils substituted a dogmatic confession whose
proclamation, enactment, and extension excited the most violent
conflicts. At the same time the confederation of the Churches
1 But for CoQstantine the Nicene Council would not have been carried through,
and but for the Emperor's uniform creeds would not been arrived at. They were
Athanasius' best coadjutors. Nay, even the Emperors hostile to him helped him
for they used every effort to unite the Church on the basis of a fixed confession.
It is therefore absurd to abuse the State Church, and yet to regard the establishment
of the orthodox creed as a gain.
Chap, i.] mSTORICAL SITUATION 1 49
became a reality through the imperial policy, which sought to

come into touch with the strongest dogmatic currents, though
not infrequently it supported trivialities. The last traces of
independence possessed by individual communities were des-
troyed; along with unity, uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and
worship was almost re-established, and the constitution of the
Church, even in the higher ranks, was gradually so adapted to
that of the empire that the hierarchical organisation and ad-
ministration Church corresponded to the order of the
of the
State. But
re-arrangement required, in part, to be carried
this
out by force (Tvpxvvii; of the Emperors and a few great Bishops),
and speaking strictly, was a reality for only a few decades. It
excited counter-movements; in opposition to it nationalistic feeling
first really gained strength, especially in the East, and the great
schisms of the national Churches there were also a consequence
of the absolutist attempts at unification. ' In the West the State
collapsed under the storms of the tribal migration at the moment
when, in the East, the dismemberment of the imperial Church
into national Churches began. The attempts of the East Roman
' See Hatch, The Councils and the Unity of the Church, in his Social Constitution
of the Christian Churches, p. 172 ff. he has given an excellent account of the
;
share of the State in this unity and its limitations compare also my Analekten,
;
p. 253 ff. In the process by which Christendom was united externally and ecclesias-
tically, we can distinguish in the East three, and in the West four, epochs. The
first three were common to the Churches of both East and West. The first was
characterised by the recognition of the apostolic rule of faith in opposition to the
erroneous creeds of heretical associations,a common ideal and a common
after
hope had united Christians up to the middle of the second century. The xctvuiv
T^( vi'a-Tcai; became the basis of oJeAcfoT));. The second epoch, in which organisa-
tion became already of supreme importance, was represented in the theory of the
episcopal office, and in the creation of the metropolitan constitution. While this
was struggling to establish itself amid violent crises, the State of Constantine
brought about the third epoch, in which the Church, by becoming completely
political, was united, and thus arrived at an external and uniform unity, so that
in it the essential nature of the Empire was continued. The Church became the
most solid organisation in the Empire, because it rested on the imperial order of
the ancient kingdom. It got no further than this organisation in the East; indeed,
several great provincial Churches soon separated from it for the creation of Con-
;
stantine concealed germs of dissolution see Zahn, Konstantin d. Gr. 1876, p. 31 f. In

;
the West, on the contrary, the Roman Bishop began to engage in those enterprises
which, favoured by circumstances, succeeded In the course of centuries in sub-
stituting a new and distinctively ecclesiastical unity for that created by the state.
emperors to recover the Western half of the realm, or at least

parts of it, more than once thwarted the oriental policy imper-
atively required of them, and are also, from the complications

to which they led, of great importance for the history of dogma.
While the Emperors of Byzantium were involved in a double
task, which constituted an insoluble dilemma, the Roman Bishops
served themselves heirs to the West Roman kingdom. In the
revolution in political and social affairs, Christians and Latins
were compelled to postpone their separate interests and to attach
themselves closely to the most powerful defender of the old
institutions. The Germans, who apparently broke up the Empire,
brought about the internal unity of all that was Catholic and
Latin, and strengthened the position of ecclesiastical Rome. The
East, on the contrary, which had been less endangered actually
did break up. In the Western Catholic Church the ancient
Roman Empire was preserved after a fashion with its order and
culture. This Church had no longer beside it a state similar
in character and closely related to itself and thus its Bishop
could train the new peoples to his service, and soon undertook
an independent policy against the Western schemes of the East
Roman Emperors. The internal separation between East and
West was complete, when neither understood the language of
the other. Yet the West still took an active interest in the
controversy of the Three Chapters
'
and at the same time
',
obtained, in the translation of the Antiochene and Persian In-

stituta regularia divines legis, and in the great works translated
at the instigation of Cassiodorus, valuable gifts from the East
which stand comparison with those made by Hilary, Ambrose,
Rufinus, and Jerome. Even in the seventh century Rome and
the East were for a time engaged in a lively correspondence.
But the rule of Byzantium over Rome was felt to be that of
the foreigner, and conversely the Roman spirit was alien to the
Orientals. Their relations were forced. Augustine hardly left a
trace in the Eastern Church. That was its greatest calamity.
Of course it was less disposed by its past to understand him
than the Western Church, and it was at no time really inclined
to accept instruction from its rival.
The first period of the History of Dogma closes with the
Chap, t.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 5
Synods of Constantinople (381 383). At them faith in the —

complete divinity of the Redeemer was finally settled as the
creed of the Catholic Church, and his complete humanity was also
expressly acknowledged. Next to Athanasius the chief part in
the decision was taken by the Cappadocians on the one hand,
and by the Roman Bishop and Ambrose on the other. It would
not have been arrived at, however, so early, if it had not been
carried through in Constantinople by a powerful ruler who came
from the West. The theologians, so far as any took part in it,
were men who were equipped with the full culture of the period,
and were also devoted to the ideals of monastic piety. The
Cappadocians were still relatively independent theologians,
worthy disciples and admirers of Origen, using new forms to
make the faith of Athanasius intelligible to contemporary thought,
and thus establishing them, though with modifications, on a
secure basis. Beside them stood ApoUinaris of Laodicea, a man
who anticipated the problems of the future, who was their equal
in scholarship, and surpassed them in many respects in theology.
But Arianism revealed its weakness by nothing more than its
rapid decline after it ceased to possess the imperial favour.
The impression on the German nations, and its
made by it
prolonged popularity with them, must be described as an

'
accident in history. Catholicism was first made a reality by
—
'
Theodosius I. 'the idea of a communion which should unite

East and West in the same confession, beyond which no other
form of confession was recognised.' But Ranke remarks rightly '
that the Christian idea (of Nicene orthodoxy) gained the upper
hand over Hellenistic and heretical systems, not from the doc-
trine alone, but from the course of events. The victory of the
Nicene 'Council was also decided at the Tigris by the defeat
of Julian, and at Adrianople by the death of Valens. In this
first period the Christian Church was still in constant touch with
Hellenism, and adopted from it whatever it could use. But the

history of dogma can only give a very meagre view of these
relations. Its boundaries gradually become altogether more
restricted. In the first three centuries it can hardly be separated
' Weltgeschichte IV. i, p. 305 f.

I
S3 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
from the universal history of the Church ; in those following the
general life of the Church is less and less clearly reflected in
it. He who desires to become acquainted with that life, must

study the monachism, worship, ethics, and especially the theolo-
gical science of the age. There is nothing in the history of
dogma to require us to portray a figure like that of Synesius,
and, if we define our task strictly, we can make little use of
the rich epistolary literature of the time.
The second period extends to the Council of Chalcedon
(451). Its first and longer half covers the time in which the
imperial Church, resting on the Nicene basis and directed by
emperor, priest, and monk, established itself. But after a time
of comparative the question again emerged as to the
peace, '
and human in the person of the Redeemer.

relation of the divine
The opposition between the school of Antiochand the new
Alexandrian theology, which felt itself to be the sole teaching
of the Church, culminated in this question, and the Alexandrian
Bishop succeeded in making it the centre of ecclesiastical interest.
The theologians of the school of Antioch still wrought in free-
dom nay, even among their opponents there were to be found
;
men who defined the faith by its aim, and were not overawed
by traditionalism. Yet traditionalism grew more and more
powerful. Under the leadership of Epiphanius the great re-
action against Origen began, ^ and not only the Alexandrian
Bishop, but the greatest scholar of the age took part in
1 Oa these decades, which are to be described as in many respects the most

prosperous period of the Byzantine Church, see Herzog R. E., Vol. XIV., p. 403 ff.
Heathenism was then first completely overthrown, and the heretics, even finally the
Novatians, were hard pressed. The regime of Chrysostom seems to have been
especially signalisedby the suppression of heretics in the patriarchate of Constan-
tinople; see the account of Socrates. We know of other Bishops who were active
in extirpating heresy in the first half of the fifth century, a work in which Theo-
doret took part. The and Theodosius, on the one hand, the
reigns of Gratian
indefatigable labours of Epiphanius
on the other, laid the foundation. Their
programme was carried out from the end of the fourth century. But from about
the middle of the fifth century, when the last traces of the ancient Gnostics,
Novatians and Manichseans were substantially removed, great schisms began to
take place on the basis of the Chalcedonian decree.
= See before this Demetrius, Peter, Methodius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and
ApoUinaris.
'
Chap. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 53
it. ' To was added another fact. The constitution of the

this
Patriarchate began to reveal its effect in threatening the unity
of the Church. The Cappadocian Churches of Asia Minor re-
ceded into the background simply because they possessed no
patriarch of their own, dogmatics began to constitute an instru-
ment of provincial ecclesiastical policy, and the dogmatic for-
mula to be a mark of the diocese and nationality. In proportion
as this took place, the state was compelled to intervene. Dog-
matic questions became vital to it, and the appointment in the
capital to the Patriarchate, which it had fostered, was now a
political problem of the first rank for the occupant of the chair
;
stood at the head of the spiritual affairs of the empire. The

great controversy was not settled at the two Synods of Ephesus
(431, 449), but it was, ostensibly, at the Synod of Chalcedon
(451) by means of a long formula. This formula was proposed
and dictated by the West in the person of Bishop Leo and
was approved by the Emperor; it was regarded in the West
as the simple and unchanged creed of the Fathers, in tte East
as a compromise which was felt by some not to be sufficiently
orthodox, and by others to require interpretation. Meanwhile
the East hardly possessed as yet the rudiments of a theology
capable of interpreting it. Therefore the formula of Chalcedon
has not been called a national misfortune for
unjustifiably '
'
the Byzantine Empire. But even as regards the Church its

advantages no more than balanced its disadvantages. During
this period the monks obtained the mastery over the Church.
Although their relations with the hierarchy were not infrequently
strained, they added very greatly to its strength. The clergy
would have been completely eclipsed in the world and the state,
if they had not obtained a new support from the religiosi '
and religiosity '. But while monachism became an important

'
element in the Church, the prestige of the state declined in the

minds of men; nothing was left to the Emperors but to adopt
certain monkish fashions for themselves, and along with the •
state the life of social morality was depreciated in favour of

'religiosity' and a magical cultus. For monachism merely pro-
1 —
"Babylon is fallen, fallen," with these words of triumph did Jerome accom-
pany the overthrow of Chrysostom in the Origenist controversy (Ep. 88).
motes and next to that a religion of idol-worship; it

itself
quits the field where a vigorous morality arises. On the other

hand, however, the State was delivered at the close of this
period from its most powerful opponent, the Bishop of Alex-
andria, though at much too high a cost.
The third period extends up to the fifth CEcumenical Council
(Constantinople A.D. 553). The disadvantages of the Chalcedonian
formula made themselves felt in the first half of this century.
Great ecclesiastical provinces were in revolt, and threatened to

secede from the membership of the universal Church. Greek
piety everywhere showed itself to have been unsettled by the
decree of Chalcedon. Theology could not follow it; nay, it

appeared to be stifled by the decision, while in Monophysitism
life and movement prevailed. The perplexed Emperors were
at their wits' end, and tried provisionally to recall, or at
any rate to tone down, the formula, but in doing so they
prejudiced the union with the West. This was changed under
Justin I., but above all under Justinian I. As the reign of
the latter was signalised politically by the restoration of the
Byzantine supremacy, and the codification of its laws, it was
ecclesiastically distinguished by the restoration and establish-
ment of the constitution and dogmatics of the Church. The
creed of Rome was recognised so far as its wording was con-
cerned, but Rome itself was humbled the Chalcedonian formula
;
remained in force, but it was interpreted in termsôf^yrills,

teaching, and its future position was assured by the condemn-
ation of the writings of the Antiochene schools on the one hand,
and of Origen on the other. Thus was the theology of the
past judged solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant
:
'
The Justin-
'.
ian Church condemned the glorious Fathers, and the fifth CEcu-
menical Council blotted out the freer theological science. How-
ever, measure was only possible because an orthodox
this
Church theology had developed in the first half of the sixth
century. It presupposed the Chalcedonian formula, which had
'
become more venerable by age, and explained it by means of

the philosophy of Aristotle, which had then come once more
' See Loofs, Iêontius von Byzanz in the "Texten und Unters. i. alt-chrisH.
Literatuigesch.," Vol.III., parts i and 2, p. 37 ff., 303 ff.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SITUATION 1 5 S
to the front, in order to reconcile it with the spirit of Cyril's

theology,and to make it in some measure comprehensible.
H^re we have the rise of ecclesiastical scholasticism which now
took its place beside the mystical Neo-platonic theology that
had been most comprehensively stated by the Pseudo-areopagite,
and which corrected and defined it, uniting with and balancing
it. The effect of this development was extremely significant.
Men now began for the first time to feel themselves at home
on the ground of the Chalcedonian formula; piety also was
reconciled to it. Productive dogmatic work ceased entirely;
its place was taken by the mystical theology of scholasticism
based on the inheritance from antiquity and the enumeration of
authorities. Justinian in reality closed not only the school of
Athens, but also that of Origen, the schools, i.e., of productive
theological science and criticism. ' Henceforth theology only
existed as a servant to the tradition of Justinianand Chalcedon.
It was served in turn by the dialectic of Aristotle on the one
hand, and the Neo-platonic mysticism of the Areopagite on the
other. It did important work in the way of elaboration and
adaptation; we are not warranted in passing a sweeping ver-

dict of stultification and sleep ^ but it made no further change
;
in the creed of the Church and was bound hand and foot.
1 The closing of the school of Athens has been disputed. It was certainly not
a great, formal action; see Krummacher, Gesch. d. Byzant. Litt., p. 4.
^ See the works of Gass and Gelzer, especially the latter's interesting lecture:
"Die politische und kirchliche Stellung von Byzanz.
' Noteworthy, but not surprising, is the parallel capable of being drawn between
the .history of theology and that of (heathen) philosQphy during the whole period
from Origen to Justinian. The history of Greek philosophy finds its limits in the
middle of the fifth century, and again in the age of Justinian; the same is true
of the science of the Church. In the general history of science Plato comes to be
supplanted by Aristotle from the close of the fifth century ; in dogmatics the
influence of the Stagirite makes itself felt to an increased extent from the same
date. Justinian's epoch-making measures, the codification of the law, the closing of
the school of Athens, and the restoration of the Byzantine Church and Empire,
point to an inner connection. This has not escaped Ranke. On account of the
importance of the matter I give here his excellent discussion (Vol. IV. 2, p. 20 ff.)
"Justinian closed the school of Athens An event of importance for the whole
. . .
continued development of the human race; any further development in a direct

line on the basis laid in classical antiquity was rendered impossible to the Greek
As regards the history of dogma the fourth period possesses

no real independence. The dogmatic
activity which charac-
terised was exclusively pohtical but since it created a new
it ;
formula, we may here assume a special period. It ends with
spirit,while to Roman genius sucli an advance was left open and was only now
rendered truly possible for after ages by means of the law-books. The philosophical
spirit perished in the contentions of religious parties the legal found a mode of
:
expression which, as it were, concentrated it. The close of Greek philosophy recalls
its beginning ; nearly a thousand years had elapsed during which the greatest
transformations in the history of the world had taken place. May I be permitted to
add a general reflection, as to which I merely desire that it may not be rejected
by the general feeling of scholars.
The Christian religion had risen upon earth in the conflict of religious opinions
waged by nations, and had then in opposition to these developed into a Church.
Christian theology which set itself to appropriate the mysterious and to come to
terms with the intellect had grown up in constant contact, sometimes of a friendly,
more often of a hostile kind, with Greeli philosophy. That was the business of
those centuries. Then appeared the great Christian theologians from Origen on-
wards as we said in passing, they passed through, without exception, Greek or
;
closely related Latin schools, and framed their doctrines accordingly. Greek philo-
sophy had produced nothing comparable to them it had, as regards public life,
;
been thrust into the background and now it had perished. But it is striking that
the great Christian theologians also came to an end. Never again do we find in
later times men like Athanasius, the Gregories of Cappadocia, Chrysostom, Am-
brose and Augustine. I mean Greek philosophy the original devel-
that along with
opment of Christian theology also came to a, stand-still. The energy of the Church
doctors, or the importance 'of the Church assemblies in these centuries cannot be
parallelled by analogous phenomena belonging to later times. DiflTerent as they are
in themselves we find a certain resemblance in the state of Roman law and of
Christian theology. The old Roman jurisprudence now appeared as universally
valid law in a redaction which while historical was yet swayed by the conditions
of the day. At the same time, limits were set by the triumph of orthodoxy, espe-
cially of the dogmas declared in the Chalcedonian resolutions, to all the internal
divisions of theology in which the divergent opinions were also defended with
ability and thoroughness Justinian who reinstated orthodoxy, and gave the force
. . .
of law to juridical conceptions, takes a high place in the rivalry of the centuries.
Yet, while he raised his government to such a pinnacle of authority, he felt the
ground shake momentarily under his feet." Qreek science and the monkish view
of the world, leagued as they were, dominated the spiritual life of the Church
before as well as after the Justinian age; they were at bottom indeed far from
being opposed, but possessed a common root. But how differently it was possible
to combioe them, what variations they were capable of! If we compare, e.g.^ Gre-
goiy of Nyssa with John of Damascus it is easy to see that the former still really
thinks independently, while the latter confines himself to editing what is given.
It is above all clear that the critical elements of theology had been lost. They
only held, their ground in the vagaries of mystical speculation; in all ages they
are most readily tolerated there.
the CEcumenical Council (A.D. 680). 'Justinian's policy

sixth
of conquest was in the highest degree unstable, and went far
beyond the resources of the Empire '. Whether his dogmatic
policy was correct, which maintained union with the West at
the cost of losing a large section of the Oriental Churches, is
a question which may be debated. But whether an open and
consistently monophysite policy was then still possible in Con-
stantinople is very doubtful. Egypt, Syria, and Armenia were
lost, not only to the state, but also to Greek language and
culture. In order to keep them, or win them back from the

Persians and Arabians, an energetic Emperor resolved to pub-
lish a monophysite rallying cry without prejudicing the wording
of the Chalcedonian Creed. Monothelitism on the basis of the
doctrine of the two natures is in itself no artificial creation; it
is founded on the old consideration rising out of the doctrine

of redemption; but at that time it had its origin in policy. Yet
this still-born child of politics set the Eastern Church in an
uproar for more than two generations. To prevent the loss
not only of the East but of Italy also, the Emperor required
the help of the Roman Bishop. Justinian's success in curbing
the latter's had only continued for a little under his
authority
successors. The of Gregory I. still exerted an in-
pontificate
fluence, and, at the sixth Council, Agatho, repairing the fault
of one of his predecessors, dictated the formula, as Leo had
done at Chalcedon. This bore the impress of the West, and
did not correspond perfectly to the eastern conception. It further
became manifest at the Council that, when it was a question
of defining dogma, theology had been completely transformed
into a rehearsal of authorities. Next to the older synodal
decisions, the decisive precedent was formed by the immense,
and frequently forged, collection of the dicta patrum.
After the sixth Council, orthodoxy and Monophysitism were
definitively separated, though attempts were not wanting to
harmonise them in the following centuries, in keeping with the
monophysite tendencies, never wholly destroyed, of eastern
orthodoxy. The mystery was firmly established, and obtained
further definition; for the doctrine taught by John of Damascus
of the enhypostasis of the human nature in the Logos)
had been accepted, even in '

the age of Justinian, to be
the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the two natures.
The movement of thought in the Church passed accordingly to
a new sphere or, more correctly, the old absorbing interest of
;
the Church in the mysteries of the cultus now came to light '
undisguised, because the pursuit of theology, converted as it

was into scholasticism, had become the business of scholars and
experts in the mysteries, and it was only temporarily that a
controversy springing out of it agitated the Church. Dogma,
designed by the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds to be looked
at and treated formally, henceforth revealed this its character
thoroughly.The philosophy appropriate to it was found, or
invented — that
compound of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism,
with which no one could dispense who desired to unfold or
comment on dogma orthodoxly. ' He who passed over the
philosophy of the Church stood in danger of becoming a heretic.
' It is said of Polycarp in his Vita per Pionium (ssec. IV.) : ifinfiisSra! n
iKXvog iJLVfTTvipiu^ Qi To7i; 'KoKKoic, ^v a^dxptjipx, ourta <poivspc3t; xvtx sêriHro^ tatrre
Toi/G atiovovTXt; iJ,aprvpstv^ 'on oh fidvcj axowovtriv «AA^ Kai dpuirty uvrd. That was
accordingly the supreme thing;, to be able also to see the mystery, the Christian
possession of salvation.
" The fight between Platonism and Aristotelianism was accordingly acute among
theologians in the following centuries; they often indeed made heretics of one
another. Up till now we only know these disputes in part ; they are important for
the later conflicts in the West, but they do not belong to the history of dogma
' Even to-day simple-minded Catholic historians of dogma exist who frankly
admit that he becomes necessarily a heretic who does not, e.g.^ use the conceptions
"nature'' and "person" correctly; and they even derive heresy from this starting-
poiat. Thus Bertram (Theodoreti, Ep. Cyrensis, doctrina christologica, 1883) writes
of Theodore of Mopsuestia: "Manifesto declarat, simile vel idem esse perfectara
naturam et perfectam personam Naturse vox designat, quid sit aliqua res, vel
. . .
essentiam vel quidditatem ;

hypostasis vero modum metaphysicum existendi monstrat.
Ex quo patet, ad notionem perfectse naturae modum ilium perfectum existendi non
requiri. Uac in re erravit Mofistiestemis, et hceresis ferniciosa ex hoc errore nata
est. What a quid pro quo I The ignorance of the terminology, which was yet first
created ad hoc, in order to escape Scylla and Charybdis, is held to be the real
ground of the origin of the heresy. Such a view of things, which is as old as
scholasticism, undouljtedly needed mysticism as its counterpoise, in order not to
perish wholly from the religious sphere. Atzberger (Die Logoslehre d. h. Athan.,
1880) has expressed himself still more unsophisticatedly, and therefore more
iixstructively, on the relation of philosophy and dogma (p. 8, 29). But see also
Hagemann (Rom. Kirche, p. 361): "The Patripassians arrived at their doctrines of
CiiAP. I.] HISTORICAL SITUATION I
$9
But dogmatics, undoubtedly the foundation, did not dominate

the Church as a Hving power. The conception of the natures
of Christ found its continuation in that of the sacraments and
sacramental things by which men became participators in Christ.
The perceived thereby obtained side by side with the
{ixhSi^Tov)
conceived (yot^Tov) an ever loftier, and independent significance.
Symbolism was more and more expunged the mystery became ;
more and more sensuous. But, in proportion as the latter was

made operative in the cultus, the cultus itself was regarded, in
all its setting and performance, in the hght of the divino-
human. ' All its sensuous side, which was presented for his
benefit to the worshipper, was regarded as deified and as pro-
moting deification. Now in so far as the behever derived his
life entirely from
a ritual system, to which the
this cultus,
character divino-human attached, took the place of the
of the
God-man, Christ. Piety threatened to be submerged in a con-
templation of wonders, the spiritual in the sensuous, and theo-
logy, in so far as not identified with scholasticism and polemics,
in a science of mysteries. ' From this point of view we can
understand the worship of images and the reaction of icono-
God, his attributes, his creation, and incarnation, because they took their stand on
Stoic logic and with it cherished the most extreme nominalism, and because they
absolutely rejected the objective existence of ideas."
1 For the history of the development of tlie Greek liturgy after the fourth century
Swainson's The Greek Liturgies, chiefly from original authorities (London 1884),
is the standard work. For the doctrine of the mysteries cf. Steitz' Abhandlungen
in the Lehrbb. f. deutsche Theol. 1864 ff.
2 If we collect the fourth-century evidence of crude sensuous superstition

intimately combined with Christian piety, we might believe that it could go no
further. And yet it did go further from century to century, as anyone can easily
convince himself by reading the tales of saints and relics, among which those of
the oriental monophysites are the worst. But apart from this increase, we have to
call attention to the fact that this barbarous superstition ascended into higher and
more influential circles and was systematically cultivated by the monks, while the
corrective of a more rational theology grew ever weaker. Theology became more
defenceless, because it had to adapt itself to sacred ceremony. The worst gift
bequeathed by moribund antiquity to the Church, was the ritual of magic and the
monstrous number of great and little aids in need and means of atonement. It is
not the case that this state of matters was produced by the inrush of barbarian
peoples; on the contrary, the decomposition of ancient culture and religion takes
the first place in the process, and even the Neo-platonic philosophers are not free
from blame. Id view of this circumstance it is natural to conclude that the reforma-
l6o HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
clasm which opened the fifth period. But this explanation is
not complete; another factor co5perated.This was the relation

of Church and State which was also involved in the controversy
about images. There always were discords between them but ;
these became more and more acute when the priesthood fell
completely under the sway of the monks. Even from the fifth
century the practice had begun of transferring monks to episco-
pal chairs, and it had almost become the rule in the following
centuries. But the monks both strove zealously to make the
Church independent and claimed sovereignty among the people,
and as a rule, though interested on behalf of the nations, they
also cherished a strong hostility to the State: in other words
they endangered the settlement of Church and State established
in the fifth and sixth centuries. Their most powerful instrument
was the sensuous cultus which had captivated the people, but
which undoubtedly, barbarous and mechanical as it was with
all its appliances and amulets, was yet connected with the ideal
forces still to be credited to the age, with science, art, and

especially piety. Here we have the miserable dilemma of the
period, and of the Church; the worship of images was barbarous,
but iconoclasm threatened to introduce an increased degree of bar-
barism. For the enlightened (Aufklarung) were at the disposal of
'
'
an iron military despotism, and despised science, art, and religion.
tion of Athanasius bore that it only checked for a time the polytheistic
little fruit,
under-current, and, word, that the Church could not have got into a worse
in a,
state than, in spite of Athanasius, it did, as regards the worship of Mary, angels,
saints, martyrs, images and relics, and the trickery practised with amulets. But even
if we were go further and suggest that the later development of dogma itself, as
to
e.g.i in Mary and images, directly promoted religious materialism,

the worship of
yet we cannot rate too highly the salutary imporlance of this dogma. For it kept
the worship of saints, images and the rest at the stage of a Christianity of the
second order, invested with doubtful authority, and it prevented the monks from
cutting themselves wholly adrift from the religio publico. Finally, it is to be
pointed out that superstition has brought with it at all times ideas and conceptions
extremely questionable from the point of view of dogmatics, ideas which seem to be
affected by no amount of censure. Overbeck (Gott. Gel.- Auz. 1883, no. 28, p. 870)
has rightly described it as a phenomenon requiring explanation that the gnat-
straining centuries which followed Niciiea, could have swallowed such camels as,
e.g., delighted the readers of the Acts of Thomas (even in the Catholic edition) or
of the numerous Apocalypses (see the edition of the Apoc. Apocal. by Tlschendorf
and James, Apocrypha anecdota, 1893).
Chap. i.J HISTORICAL SITUATION l6l
The Church of Byzantium was at that time engaged in a life

and death struggle. Its existence was really at stake, and with
it the existence of the old form of society and culture, in
opposition to forces which as yet had no positive policy, but
at first merely ruled by brute force. The priestly caste was
arrayed against the military, the hosts of shaven monks against
the standing army, which from the fourth century had played
a great role, but now sought to be master in the state. These
fearful fights ended in the restoration of the status quo ante,
in so far as dogma and
cultus were concerned, and the old
order seemed all the more sacred after the attacks that had
been made upon it. But on the political side, the state sup-
ported by the army carried off the victory and this was not —
without consequences for the system and life of the Church.
The monks were given a free hand in dogma, but their activity
as ecclesiastical politicians was checked. The Emperor remained
chief priest, in spite of some patriarchs who, until after the
eleventh century, attempted to maintain an independent and
equal position side by side with him. With the support of his
army he resisted them. The independence of the Church was
gone, in so far as it sought to rise above the level of an in-
stitution devoted to ritual and worship. Its activity was com-
pletely restricted to the mysteries and the preparation for death.

It became an institution of the state, impressing it only by the
unchangeableness of its doctrine and ceremonies. To the new

peoples to whom this Church came, the Slavs, it was far more
than to the Greeks an unchangeable, heavenly creation. A
thousand years have passed away since the Slavs were hellen-
ised and they have not yet ventured, like the Germans, to think
;
and feel freely and at their ease in the Church, although they
recognise in it a main defence of their national characteristics
against the West. From the West these Greek Slavs were'
'
spiritually separated, after were admitted

Augustine's ideas
there. The external cleavage, though only complete in the
eleventh century, began immediately after the image controversy.

The states in the territory of the Greek Church stiU really stand
under a military dictatorship: where this has fallen, as in the
kingdom of Greece, a final stage has not yet been reached.
States like the former support an ecclesiastical department, but

no Church.
The path into which Athanasius led the Church has not been
abandoned; but the other forces of life completely restricted it.
Orthodox dogma corresponds on the whole to the conception of
Athanasius; but the balance which he held between the religious
creed and the cultus has been disturbed to the disadvantage of the
former. The creed still shows life when it is called in question,
or when the nation it serves requires a flag. In other cases it
lives in the science of scholastic mysticism, which has already

become by degrees stereotyped and sacred, and in its presentation
in public worship. Theology also is bound to the latter; it has
thus received a standard of which Athanasius knew nothing.
Our sources are the works of the Church Fathers and the
Acts of Councils (Mansi). We still want a history of Greek
ecclesiastical literature after Eusebius, capable of satisfying the
most reasonable demands. Of more recent works on the sub-
ject that of Fessler is the best (Instit. Patrologiae, 1850 — 52),
Alzog's is the most familiar, and Nirschl's the newest.
I It is very characteristic as regards this, that while Cyril of Jerusalem described

the Christian religion as fixSiffia xav Soy/âTwv nai vpaêiQ uyctûl, Photius defined
it as iJ-aSvia-iQ xeci iJ-va-Taywyix. From the fourth century interest was more and more
transferred from the regulation of the whole life by religion, to its external consecra-
tion through the mysteries. The distinctions are indeed only gradual, but the
descent was very significant. The Greek Church ultimately gave up the regulation
of moral social life, and therewith renounced the power to determine private
morality so far as the latter was not dominated by fear of death. The ultimate
reason of this is to be sought in the oTder of the monks and the constitution of
the Grseco-Slavic states.
CHAPTER II.
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTION OF SALVATION AND GENERAL

OUTLINE OF THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM.
I. The dogmatic conflicts in the East from the fourth up

to the seventh century have this in common, that they centred
almost entirely in Christology in the narrower sense, as well
as in the incarnation of the Deity. Since men of all parties
were meanwhile conscious that they were contending for the
essence of Christianity, it follows that the conception of the
salvation offered in the Christian religion is to be deduced from
the formulas over which they fought, and which then made
good ground. This conclusion is, however, made further
their
certain from the fact that the oriental Church took no interest
in dogma, apart from those formulas, at least in the time of
these, conflicts. Anything else, therefore, outside of the formu-
'
las, which was either fixed as matter of course, or maintained
in ambiguous propositions in opposition to Manichaeism, Fatal-

ism, and Epicureanism, did not possess the value of a dog-
' Very instructive in this respect is tlie Church History of Socrates. A man's
orthodoxy is completely decided for him by his attitude to the dogma of the
Trinity (see H. E. III. 7, VI. 13, VII. 6, 11). The Cappadocians and the theo-
logians after Socrates held similar views; see Gregory of Naz. Orat. XXVII. 10:
" Philosophise about the world and worlds, matter, the soul, rational beings, good
and bad alike, about resurrection, judgment, and retribution, and the sufferings of
Christ. For if on these points you hit on the truth it is not without service, but
if you fail, you can suffer no harm" (cf. UUmann, Gregory of Naz., 1867, p. 217 f.).
We have also to consider here tire contents of the oriental symbols, creed-decalogues
etc. The taken to an increasing extent from the fifth century in the tenets
interest
levelled Origen was biblical and traditional. It only became dogmatic at
against
a time when In theology and Christology the influence of " antiquity " had taken
the place of that of dogma. On the place and importance of the doctrine of the
Trinity in Gregory, see Ullman, p. 232 ff.
164 HISTORY OK DOGMA [Chap. n.
matic declaration in the-* strict sense. Remembering this, there

can be no doubt that the essence of the Christian religion, and
therefore the contents of its creed, are summed up in the
following proposition. The salvation presented in Christianity
consists in the redemption of the human racefrom the state
of mortality and the sin involved in it, that men might attain
divine life, everlasting contemplation of God, this re-
i.e., the
demption having already been consummated in the incarnation
of the Son of God, and being conferred on men by their close
union with him.: Christianity is the religion which delivers
from death and leads to the contemplation of God. '
This pro-
position can be more precisely defined as follows : the highest
blessing bestowed in Christianity is adoption into the divine
sonship, which is assured to the believer, and is completed in
participation in the divine nature, or more accurately, in the
deification of man through the gift of immortality. This gift
includes the perfect knowledge and the lasting vision of God,

in a blessedness void of suffering, but it does not do away
with the interval between Christ and the believer. "'
From this
1 I share fully the view of Kattenbusch (Confessionskunde I., p. 296) that the
dogma was not merely supported by one idea, and that in the Greek Church of
to-day the idea of redemption held by the ancient Church no longer rules directly
but this view does not contradict the exposition given in the text.
2 The fact that the idea of deification was

and supreme thought
the ultimate
is not a discovery of recent times, but it is only in recent times that it has been
appreciated in all its importance. After Theophilus, Irenûs, Hippolylus, and Origen,
it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position.
We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius

and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russian theologians.
In proof of it Psalm LXXXII. 6 is very often quoted " I said ye are gods and all —
sons of the most High.'' Just as often are Seovoitiirif and aiuvxtrla expressly combined.
Some Fathers feel the boldness of the formula; but that is very rare. I select
merely a few from my collection of passages: Athanas. de incam. 54; "Autoc
ev^v6pdi7rv]<reVj rjx viiê'ii $eo7rotii6afi€Vj Kui avrbt; ecpavepaio-sv ictvTov Stsc tru{iaTOt;, Vvx
vtiiEti; TOv aofxrov Trarpoi; 'svvoiav ^xâizsv, Koti avTO^ vTsfieivsv ri^v ?rscp' avSpuTrav
V^piv, I'va viiJ.Bti xSavaa-i'xv xAiipoiiopitja-iojiev, cf. Ep. ad Serap. I. 24, Orat. c. Arian. I.
38, and often; Vita Antonii, c. 74, Ephraem, Comment, in Diatess., init. (ed.
39,
Moesinger, p. i) "Quare dominus noster camera induit? Ut ipsa caro victoria;
:
gaudia gustaret et dona gratise explorata et cognita haberet. Si deus sine carne
vicisset, quae ei tribuerentur laudes ? Secundo, ut dominus nosier manifestum faceret,
se initio creationis nequaquam ex invidia prohibuisse, quominus homo fieret deus,

quia maius est, quod dominus noster in homine humiliabatur, quam quod in eo,
Chap, ii.] DOCTRINAL SYSTEM IN OUTLINE 1
65
it follows (i) that redemption, as seen in its final effect, was

:
conceived to be the abrogation of the natural state by a miracu-

lous transformation of our nature; that accordingly (2) the
supreme good was definitely distinguished from the morally
good; and that (3) an atonement was not included in it. For
atonement can only be thought of where the division between
God and man is regarded as an opposition of the will. But it
further follows from this that this theology, in agreement witji^
the apologetic and old Catholic doctrine, admitted no indepen-
dent object to our present life. The work of the Christian consisted
wholly in preparing for death (to i^yov to\) Xpiffriavoti ouyev otX'Ko
dum magnus et gloriosus erat, habitabat. Hinc illud: 'Ego dixi, dii estis'." Gregory
of Nyss., CoUoq. cum Macrina (ed. Oehler, p. 170): Taiv oSv roiouruv ToCiii Siarov
TTVpOQ tOirpEtXt^ EKKaixp6sVTCtiV T£ Kcii a<pX'yVta-6sVTUVj 'sKXa-rCV Tc3v TrpOQ TO Kpe^TTOV
voav(j.hm mTii<rsKi\iimcu, Vi xCîaptTia, ii 'âiyj; vi rilJ.^, ii %api?, vi Soâ, -^ Suv1xiJ.11;,
xai e/ Ti «AAo TotovTOv auT^ ts t5j 06^ h-TriÊupeta-ât sixxÔfzev. Gregory of Naz.,
Orat. 40, 45 (Decalogus fidei, ed Caspari, Alte und Neue Quellen, 1879, p. 21):
c.
tou @eov
TVta-TsvB rov vfov TOG-ovTOv av^paiTTov Stx o-f, iitrov av yhiji St^ exe7vcv @eoQ.
. . .
So also Orat. I. 5 " We become like Christ, since Christ also became like us we
: ;
become gods on his account, since he also became man for our sake.'' On the
other hand, compare Orat. XLII. 17: fjel)' it/iSv to xr/ir/ia, tS\i oi &sur I'l nr'nrîot
Si, oil @sdg, and XXXIX. 17: "How should he not be God, (o insert in passing
a bold deduction., by whom thou also dost become God?" Apollioaris Laod., Kara
lJ.ipo!i T(Vt;c (ed. Lagarde, p. no): (paiiiv mipavcv ysyBvija-Sxi tov tou @£ou f^Syov,
Vva TJJv Qfio/urtv TOU s'JTOupxvfov ^ci^caiMSv xxt hoTroit^QuiJSv. Macar., horn. 39. Pseudo-
hippolytus, Theophan. (ed. Lagarde, p. 41, 21): £i oiv oiUvceToiyeyovev zvipaivoi,
'ia-Tct xctt SeoQ. Dionys. Areopag., ssepissime, e.g., de caelesti hierar. c. i : -^ tiiJiSv
avec?iOy'o( iiua-tQ. Sophronius, Christmas Sermon (ed. Usener, Rhein. Mus. fiir Philo-
logie, 1886, p. 505) : huâfiev hlaii iJ,£Tctô?\Citi xx) iniiiâ-sa-iv. Leo, Patriarch of
Russia (Pawlow, p. 126): iSeaSiiiie-j @iou t^ i^sTX^^'i^Bi. Gennadius, Confess, (ed.
Kimmel, p. 10): "dixit deus: Induam me carne . . . et erit omnis homo tamquam
deus non secundum naturam sed secundum participationem.'' We have, however, to
notice that this deification, as understood by the Greek Church, did not by any
means signify roundly "Becoming like God". The Greeks in the main did not
connect any clear conception with the thought of the possession of salvation (felicity)
further than the idea of imperishableness and this very fact was their characteristic
;
feature. It is the ineffable, the transcendent which may therefore be described as

the hi'a (fii/o-;;, because it is enjoyed for ever. The interval between Christ who —
was born, and did not become, Son of God and the sons by adoption is always —
very strongly emphasised; compare (the precise expositions in Augustine, De remiss,
pace. II. 24) and above all, Athanasius' third discourse against the Arians ; further,
Cyril Catech. II., ch. 4 —
7 and 19. Yet the Ssuo-k; of Mary forms a kind of excep-
tion. The idea of deification is also found in Western writers,, especially Augustine.
But if I am not deceived Augustine himself brought it to an edifying end.
l66 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
ii7r]v yj fisXsT^v (x,7ro^v>ii7X,siv). In the present there only existed

a prehminary possession of salvation. This was represented (i)
in the knowledge of God and of the accomplished incarnation of
the Son of God, and therewith in the certain hope of being
deified (2) in power over demons
; (3) in the call to salvation ;
and perfect acquaintance with the conditions of its reception;

(4) in certain communications of divine Grace which supported
believers in fulfilling those conditions — the forgiveness of sin in
baptism, the power of certain holy rites, and holy vehicles,
the êxample of the God-man etc. ; and (5) in participation in
the nTJTsteries —
worship and the Lord's supper and in the en- —
joyment of the consecration they imparted, as also, for ascetics,
in a foretaste of the future liberation from the senses and
deification.
The certainty of faith in the future deification, however, because
its possibility and reality, rested exclusively on the fact of the
incarnation of the Son of God. The divine had already appeared
on earth and had united itself inseparably with human nature.
This conception formed the universal foundation for the
development of dogmas in the fourth to the seventh century,
though all might not equally understand it or see its conse-
quences clearly. Only thus can we comprehend how the Church
could perceive, define, and establish the nature of salvation in
the constitution of the incarnate Son of God. Faith simply
embraces the correct perception of the nature of the incarnate
Logos, because this perception of faith includes the assured
hope of a change of human nature analogous to the divinity
of Jesus Christ, and therewith everything worth striving for.
'
We become divine through him, because for our sake he be-
came man'. But the dogmatic formulas corresponding to this
conception only established their position after severe fights
they never arrived at and they
a perfectly exact expression ;
never obtained the exclusive supremacy which they demanded.
1 Athanasius (Ep. encycl. ad episc. ^gypt. et Lib. ch. I.) mentions as the gifts
of grace already possessed by Christians: (i) the type of the heavenly mode of
life, (2)power over demons, (3) adoption to be sons,and what is exalted and
(4)
rises high above every gift — the knowledge of the Father and the Word himself
and the grant of the Holy. Spirit. This list is not quite complete.
6/
The reasons for this delay, inexactness, and failure to obtain

supremacy are numerous and various. The most important
deserve to be emphasised.
Firstly, every new formula, however necessary it might appear,
had the spirit of the Catholic Church against it, simply because
it was new; it could only gain acceptance by deceiving as to
its character of novelty, and as long as the attempt to do so

was unsuccessful, it was regarded by the pious with suspicion.
Secondly, the ability of the Catholic Fathers really to explain
their faith,and to deduce dogmatic consequences, was extremely
slight. Grown up in the schools of philosophy and rhetoric,
they never clearly felt it to be their duty to give an abstract
account of their faith, however they might understand it. Far
from describing the system of doctrine as a statement of the
nature and contents of Christian piety, and from evolving the
latter from its distinctive conditions, they found it difficult even
to make a simple inference from their conception of salvation
to the person of Christ and vice versa. Their reasoning was
always being disturbed by apologetic or other considerations
foreign to it. Energetic men, to whom the matter of religion
should be all in all, were accordingly required, an advance if
were to take place in the work of formulating But such it.
men have been extremely rare. There have been few in all
periods of the history of dogma who clearly perceived and duly
appreciated the final interests which moved themselves. This
is true of the ancient Church, though then matters were a little
better than in later centuries. Thirdly, the formulas required

conflicted with every kind of philosophy; they amounted to an
offence to the thought of the schools. This circumstance un-
doubtedly might afterwards prove an advantage it was possible ;
to show the and sacredness of the formulas by refer-

divinity
ring to their inscrutability and therefore to the mystery that
surrounded them. But as long as the formula was still new,
this confirmation encountered doubts, and even afterwards, in
spite of the 'mystery', it was impossible to do without a philo-
sophy which should interpret it, and should restore confidence,
I See above,. p. 137, f.

1 68 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
as to the contradictions, by new combinations of categories.

Now, as long as no such philosophy was created, faith was not satis-
fied, and the formula was not guaranteed permanence. Fourthly,
it was of the highest importance that by almost all the Fathers

their conception by the God-man
of the salvation procured
(deification) was appended to, or bolstered up by, the system
of 'natural theology'. But under this system knowledge and
virtue were the highest blessings, and God was exclusively the
judge who rewarded the good and punished the wicked. Now,
it was undoubtedly possible so to combine these two lines of
thought that neither was prejudiced, and we will see that such
a combination alone corresponded to the ideas of those Christ-
ians, and was actually brought about. But it was impossible to
prevent natural theology from intruding more and more into
dogmatics, and from interfering with the success of the mystical
doctrine of redemption — for so we may well name it. Men were
not in a position to strike at the roots of those views of Christ-
ian salvation which did not definitely conceive the latter to be
distinctive, and which therefore did not sufficiently differentiate
itfrom virtue and the natural knowledge of God.
Fifthly, the complete acceptance of the mystical doctrine of
redemption was imperilled from another side, and this menace
also could never be completely averted. The picture of the
hfe of Jesus contained in the Gospels, in spite of all the arts
of exegesis, contradicted in a way
was impossible to dis-
it
regard the Christological formulas called for by the doctrine.

The even influenced the form given to the dogma of the
life
incarnation and its consequences to an extent which, from the '
standpoint of the theory of redemption, was questionable; and

it subsequently always accompanied the dogmatic formulas,
1 In the introductory fourth Catechism in which Cyril summarises the main

points of the faith, he says (ch. IX.): Trta-rsve 5^ 'dri ovro^ 6 (ôvoyevi^^ u/o$ roS
&£ov hx Tat; uiMxprlai; y}{/.av e| ovpxvuv KCtTvj^êv stti Tvii yviii- (ch. X.) : ovtoq ia-rav-
pwflif Tuv «fta/!Ti»v viij.uv. Nothing is said of the abolition of death. So also
iv'if
in the Homilies of Chrysostom who generally tried to follow Paul, sin comes to
the front. The saying " Let us not fear death, but only sin," is often repeated with
variations by Chrysostom. Alexander of Alex, also in his letter to Alexander (Theo-
doret H. E. I. 4) gives as the only ground of the incarnation of the Son of God,
that he came £/'? ciSsTtia-iv djiUfTlcei;, but he is unable to carry out the thought.
69
keeping alive in the Church the remnant of a conception of the

Redeemer's personality which did not agree with them. The
Church indeed never lost recollection of the human individu-
ality of Jesus in its simple loftiness, its heart-winning love, and
its holy earnestness; it never forgot the revelation of God in
humanity. Scripture reading and, in part also, preaching pre-
served the memory, and with and by it thought was ever again
led to the simplest and highest of facts, the love of God which
is loftier than all reason, the rendering of service to our neigh-
bour, sincere humility, and patience. But as the gospel pre-
vented dogma from obtaining an exclusive supremacy, so also
Pauline and kindred views found in Holy Scripture,
theology,
exerted an influence, which maintained its ground
important
side by side with the dogma, and often very strongly decided
its exposition. That the work of Christ consisted in what he
achieved, culminating in his sacrificial death, and signifying the
overcoming and removal of guilt; that salvation accordingly
consisted in the forgiveness, justification and adoption of men,
are ideas absolutely wanting in none of the Church Fathers,
and very prominent in a few, while in the majority they find
their way into the exposition of the dogma of redemption. They
do not agree with the latter, nay, in this combination can hardly
be held to have deepened the conception in any point ; for they
rather menaced the finality of the fundamental dogmatic thought
in which men lived. In fact they wrought mischief, i.e., they
led to moral laxity, as in all cases where they are only allowed
a secondary authority. But their existence must be expressly
stated if our view is to be complete. New Testament reminis-
cences and thoughts and in general Biblical theological ideas
of the most varied kind, always accompanied and impinged on
dogma growing or full-grown. They helped to delay its re-
'
duction into formulas, and prevented the mystical doctrine of

redemption and its corresponding dogmas obtaining a completely
exclusive supremacy in the Eastern Churches.
Sixthly and finally, the scheme of Christology, distinctive of the
1 The contradictions and inconsistencies were not felt if it was possible to support
the separate propositions by an appeal to Holy Scripture; see on this Vol. II.,
p. 331, u. I.
lyo HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap ii.
West, forced on the Church by the policy of the emperors, brought a

disturbing and confusing influence into the Eastern history of dogma.
The Eastern Church, left to itself, could only, if it had simply
given expression to its own idea of redemption, have raised to
a dogma the one nature, made flesh, of God, the Logos (fîa
Cpvcn? hou y.iyciu a-ea-apKafisvii), and must have left the paradox
standing that the humanity of Christ was consubstantial (oftooutriog)
with ours, and was yet from the beginning not only without
sin, but free from any kind of corruption {(phpiz). This dogma
was condemned as heretical in the process, as we know, of
forming an exclusive authoritative doctrine, and another was
set up in its place which it required the most elaborate efforts
of theologians to connect closely with the idea of redemption.
Conversely, as regards the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth
century, while the correct formula — correct, i.e., when gauged
by the conception of redemption — triumphed, yet the consider-
ations from natural theology and science were here
springing
so strong Eastern Church could only reconcile itself
that the
to the doctrine by the aid of a complicated theology, which in
this case, however, was really heterodox, because it weakened
the meaning of the formula. In the fourth century the correct
formula triumphed, but the triumph was procured by a theology
really heterodox; in the fifth and up to the seventh an incorrect
formula, if gauged by the idea of redemption, became supreme,
but theology was able to treat it orthodoxly. In view of these
incongruities one is almost tempted to beheve in the 'cunning
of the idea '
; for this development alone made possible, or demand-
ed, the application of the whole apparatus of Platonic and
Aristotelian philosophy to dogma. Neither the conception of
the ofiooiKTioi (consubstantial) as given by Athanasius, nor the
strictly Monophysite form of the incarnation dogma, would have
conjured philosophy anew to its aid, and to a greater extent
than was contained in the dogma itself. This happened and
could not but happen, because men would not understand
o[/,oou(7to'; as TXUToua-io^ (of the same substance); and because
they were forced to the two natures into their system. Dog-
fit
matics (the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation) became

the high school of Philosophy. By them the Middle Ages
received all that they ever did of philosophical thought. And

these were due to the circumstance that the idea of re-
facts
demption was not expressed purely and absolutely in dogma,
that rather in the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as in the
Christology, the formula overlapped its support, or the support
the formula, and therefore necessarily called for endless exertions.
Where would Plato and Aristotle have been in the Church or
Ages if the East had honoured Athanasius and Julian
the Middle
of Halicarnassus as the sole authoritative Fathers of the Church,
and how nearly was this the case with both! How much the
East owes to the interference of the West, and yet, on the
other hand, how greatly did the same West disturb it! But it
is be described as a gain from another point of view, that
to
the correct —
formulas those which corresponded to the Greek
idea of redemption —
did not establish their position. The evan-
gelical of Christ was preserved to a greater degree
conception
in Byzantine and Nestorian Church, based on the doctrine
the
of the two natures, than in the Monophysite Churches. The
latter only prove that the consistent development of the materi-
alistic idea of redemption reduces Christianity to barbarism.
The Arabians taught Aristotle to the Nestorians and not to the

Monophysites. But those Churches also show that the Christ
who possessed —
one incarnate nature that phantom reduced —
the historical Christ almost to the vanishing point. All the
features of the man Christ of history, which the Byzantine and
Nestorian Church still kept alive in their communities, are so
many evidences that the old idea of redemption was forced to
submit to limitations.
But in spite of this the dogma of the God-man which sprang
from the doctrine of redemption assumed a unique and pre-
dominant position and alone constituted dogma in the strict
sense. Theology =: the doctrine of the Trinity, Economy in the
idea and realisation of the Incarnation. The course of develop-
ment also shows by its inner logic, which indeed, as already
pointed out, was not so stringent as more recent scholars would
have us believe, that it was in this dogma that the strongest
interest was taken. After Athanasius had proved the necessity
and realisation of redemption through the incarnation of the
172 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
Son q^ God, the consubstantiality (Homoousia) of the Son

of God with God himself was first established. Then the
fact was emphasised that the Incarnate was constituted similarly
with m^n, and finally, the unity of deity and humanity in the
incarnate Son of God was settled. The historian of dogma has
here simply to follow the course of history. It is in this con-
nectionby no means clear how besides this the work of the
God-man is to be treated. As regards the work of Christ we
can only deal with conceptions which are not firmly allied to the
'
'
dogma. But we have to remark finally, that not only in theory was
the dogma planned eschatologically, i.e., with a view to the future
life, tfut that also in practice faith in the imminent approach of the
end of the world still influenced the pious. In a few Fathers this
faith undoubtedly held a subordinate place; but yet it formed
the rule, and the storms caused by the invasion of the tribes
as well as the political revolutions constantly gave it strength.
II. In relation to the blessing of salvation man is receptive
and passive. He receives it in this world in the hope of his
faith, and enjoys it in the other as a transcendently glorious
gift of grace. God alone can grant it, and no human effort
can deserve it. As we have already noticed, this religious blessing
of salvation is wholly different from moral goodness; for moral
goodness cannot be presented, but must be gained by our own

actions. On the other hand, Christianity as a religion cannot
take up- a neutral attitude to moral goodness, but must rather
embrace the loftiest morality. That was also the universal con-
viction of the Greek Church and its theologians. The problem
which thus arose was solved without noteworthy vacillations,
and in the sense of the theology of the apologists and Origen.
It was assumed that freedom in the moral sphere corresponded
to receptivity in the domain of religion and the blessings of

salvation conferred by it; and that God attached the grant of
the religious blessing of salvation to the achievement of a

perfectly moral life, whose law, though not new^ had first
found expression in the Christian religion as something perfect
and capable of being easily recognised. The scheme of nature
and grace current in the West since Augustine, was not
entirely unknown in the East, so far as words were concern-
Chap, u.] DOCTRINAL SYSTEM IN OUTLINE 1 73
ed. ' But the latter already found "grace" in "nature", i.e.,
in the inalienable natural disposition to freedom, and, on the

other hand, conceived "grace" to be the communication of a
higher nature. Hence the above scheme was not adapted to
express Greek thought. Christianity was rather, on the one hand,
the perfect law of goodness, and, on the other, a promise and sure
pledge of immortality. " It was therefore holy living and correct
faith. The convictions that God himself is the good; that he is
the creator of the inalienable reason and freedom of man; that

the perfect morality of man represents the only form of his
similarity to God attainable in the sphere of the temporal and
created; that the supreme law of goodness, hitherto obscured,
has been once more revealed to men in the Christian reHgion,
and that in the most impressive way imaginable — by the deity
in a human form; finally, that the rehgious blessing of salvation
procured by Christ contains the strongest motive to practise
morality, ^ while it also includes mysterious forces which promote
it: these convictions, according to the conception of Greek theo-
logians, bound reHgion and morality together as closely as
possible, and, since only the good man could receive salvation,
guaranteed the character of Christianity as the moral religion.
The monk Sophronius (seventh century) says in his Christmas
Sermon " Therefore the Son of God assumed human poverty,
:
that he might make us gods by grace; and the divine father

David sings in his psalms ... I said, ye are gods and all sons
of the highest. God is in us; let us become gods by divine"
' It occurs, e.ff.^j in the Homilies of Macarius. If elsewhere he speaks of X'^f'ii
it is as a rule the substantial grace imparted in the sacraments (baptism) that is
meant. The beginning of Cyril's first Catechism is very instructive: Kaiv?; J/aSijKij?
tixitlTx} KCei Xpia-ToS liua-Tiipiav xoivuvoi, vSv iîv r^ xAifa-e;, tier' oKiyov ii xai Tjj
Xxp'Ti, xxfSiav iuvrot^ Ttotvia-dTi xxiviiv xal ttvivjiu xciiv6v, Yvx eu<ppiia-iJViii v'!rdh(Tii
2 See Cyril, Catech. 4, c. 2 : 'O tvj^ dsoirs^sia^ Tp6%oci ex $vo tqvtuv trvviiTTyjKS,
ôytîxTCttv elitre^cSv xcci Trptiêaiv ayxScSv. Kxi oijrs toc ^dyfâra ^wp?? 'ip^ttiv ayu^Siv
su'jrpdtrSsxTX roi ®sta, oVt£ tx iJ.ii {xsr'' svt3-£(3i5v Soyi.txruv 'ipya tsôui^svix TrpoaSs-
XSTXi 6 @s6i; . . . i^syio-TOV rotvvv XT^^pi.cc so-rt to tuv §oy{.cxTa}v fixdiîja.
* Cyril begins his 18th Catechism with the words "The root of every good
action is the hope of the resurrection. For the expectation of obtaining a corres-
ponding reward is a spur to incite the soul to practise good works." The way to
morality is made easy by removal of the fear of death.
174 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
transformations and imitations" (Aix rffuTO b v'lhg TOuQeov xv6pu-

TTivviv '^Tccxeixv svSverxi "vx hovg viiaS.? xxspydi.a-viTOii ;^«/);r/. kcu
TXuTX fisâ'Suv ÊOTTXTap AUDI'S .... 'Ej^w siTrx' Qeoi s/tts KOii
viol u\pii7T0u TvxvTeq. ®soq Iv viiyuv Sscodufisv hixig fisrxlBo^xic ztx)
fiif/,^(r£(riv). '
In the last phrase the Greek fundamental thought is
put into a classic form. Only we must not take " iêTxôXxlg
and " be equivalent. The former signifies the actual
(iifA,>îr£(riv" to
process, its condition and form; not the sufficient
the latter
reason, as is proved by ";^j«p;T;."^ There is, however, a form of
morality which does not appear to be merely subordinate to
religious faith and hope, but which anticipates the future blessings,
or puts man into the condition of being able to receive them
immediately. This is negative morality, or asceticism. It corresponds
in a true sense to the characteristic of the religious gift of salva-
tion ; it is no longer a mere adjunct to the latter,
also therefore
but it is the adequate and essential disposition for the reception
of salvation. But in so far as ecstasy, intuition, and the power
of working miracles can be combined with it, it forms the anti-
cipation of the future state. The ultimate rule of this conception
of Christianity may accordingly be compressed, perhaps, into the
saying: "Dost thou desire the supreme good, incorruption
(a<pdxp(jlt)i), then divest thyself of all that is perishable." Side
by side with this we have the more general rule "Dost thou
' Ed. Usener, 1, c. Once more we have to compare Cyril of Jerusalem. After
he has limited the "creed" to the ten sections of the Symbol he continues: jutx
$^ T*iv yvu(Tiv TVji; a-efivii^ xai evSoôv ravTi]^ Kot TTuvayiuq 'jrhreon; Kcti a-eavTov
yvSSi Mmov 'da-Tii; ci. Accordingly, faith is that given from without, divine. Moral
self-kr»owledge and self-discipline are independent of it.
2 The Greek Fathers speak not infrequently of the new birth in connection
with N. T. passages, and
be admitted that some succeed in reproducing
it is to
the thought satisfactorily, but only so far as I know —
when they adhere closely to —
the sacred texts. At all events we must not let ourselves be misled by the mere
title. This is shown most clearly by the closing chapters of Gregory of Nyssa's
Orat. catechet. (ch. 33 sq). By regeneration Gregory understands the mysterious
birth in us of the divine nature^ which is implanted by baptism. As the natural
man is born of moist seed, so the new undying man is born of water at the
invocation of the Holy Trinity. The new immortal nature is thus begun in germ
by baptism and is nourished by the Eucharist. That this conception has nothing
in common with the new birth of the New Test., since it has a physical process
in view, needs no proof. According to Cyril, regeneration only takes place after
man has voluntarily left the service of sin (see Catech. I., ch. 2).
Chap. II.] DOCTRINAL SYSTEM IN OUTLINE 1 75
desire the supreme good, then first be good and nourish the
new nature implanted in thee in Baptism by the Eucharist and
the other mysterious gifts." The extent to which all this was
connected with Christ is shown by the saying of Clemens Alex.
(Protrept. I. 7) — a saying which retained its force in after times :
" Appearing as a teacher he taught the good life, in order that after-
wards as God he might grant everlasting lik" (to eu îjv sîâêv
s'TTi^xveK; (ig "StSia-y.a.Kog, "vac to xs) îjiv vffTepov ut; @6oq X'>P17'i'^li)-
This whole conception of the importance of morality needed,
however, no doctrinal and specific description, any more than
the nature of morality and the principles of natural theology in
general. All that was already setded in its fundamental lines;
man knew it by his own reason; it formed the self-evident pre-
supposition of the doctrine of redemption. The very freedom
used by the Church Fathers in dealing with details shows that
here they were treating matters generally recognised and only
called in question by Manichaeans, Fatalists, etc., and that it
was therefore unnecessary to have recourse to revelation. In
describing the dogma of the Greek Fathers, therefore, we have
to consider their views of the nature of salvation, ' of God as
1 The fundamental conception of the nature of the blessing secured by salvation

is yet not wholly unknown to rational theology, since the latter supposed, though
with some uncertainty, that it could perceive a divine element in the original con-
stitution of men (see, e^., Gregory of Nyssa). Even for the doctrine of the Trinity
recourse was had here and there to reason and the philosophers. But we must go
still farther. If the doctrine of redemption has been characterised above as mystical,
this does not exclude the fact that faith confers redemption in so far as it confers
a knowledge which in and by itself includes liberation. As long as men dealt in-
dependently with dogma, this conception was by no means wanting; indeed it
was really the hidden mystery in dogma which was clearly expressed by Clement
and Origen, but only dimly shadowed by later teachers. From this point, however,
faith and ethics were intimately combined; for ethics was also intellectual. No
later writer has stated and known the thought so clearly expressed by Clement of
Alex. (Strom. IV. 23, 149): Ai6T£p 6 Aijiioxpiroi eZ hsysi "uiii ipva-iQTe xteiSiSxxii
TxpciT^,i^tj-iov ea-Tt'" . KCti yap vi StSxxii l^STappvîîêt rov avQpwjrcVj (isroippvîii-
. .
ôutra $e (pva-fOTrois't Kcet Sn^veyxev oi/Sev ij <putret 7r?âir6iivat roi6vSe ^ ^tpovw xai
[jcaîTSi [j.eTXTi/7rai&i^vcer 'dcf^Ôi 5^ Kara ri^v Si^fjuovpyiaVj
Kvptot; ff^^!/)eo;^JJfTfl!/, to [jC£v
TO Si Kara ex rij; Sia^xî; aviixriinv re xai mavsoitnt. The whole matter gradually
became really mystical, /.f., indescribable and inconceivable in every sense in the
Fathers; the intellectual phase and intention almost disappeared. Conversely, the
reality of the blessing in salvation was thought of from the beginning as something
supernatural, surprising, and bestowed from without.
Vj6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
the Good and

the Giver of salvation, of the state and duties of
man, on the one hand, as a kind of «/wrz' presuppositions
etc.,
of the doctrine of redemption but, on the other, as individual ;
conceptions, framed partly from contemporary philosophy, and

partly from the Bible. They certainly have a right to a place
in a description of the complete view taken by the ancient
Church of Christianity but as certainly they cannot be called ;
dogmas for dogmas are as essentially different from self-evident

;
presuppositions as from fluctuating conceptions. Our only reason

for discussing them in the history of dogma is that we may
guard dogma from misunderstanding and correctly mark off the
space due to it. The Greek conception of Christianity has, like
'
an ellipse, two centres the doctrine of liberty, which embraces

:
the whole of rational theology. Stoic and Platonic, and the

doctrine of the actual redemption, which is supranatural. Supra-
natural as it was it admitted a relationship to natural theology,
just as, conversely, freedom was regarded as a gift of divine
grace. We find, indeed, that the two centres were first brought
into the greatest possible proximity by the negative morality.
Therefore from this point also the achievements of positive
morality necessarily appear as a minimum to which the shadow
of essential imperfection always clings.
It follows from the above exposition that the doctrines of God,
—
the world, and man with freedom and sin, are to be prefixed, as
presuppositions and conceptions, to dogma, i.e., the doctrines
of the godman, while they are only to be discussed in so far as
1 One might be disposed assume that the dogmatic of the ancieat Church
to
also contained articuli j>uri et would be misleading.
mixti^ but this designation
In the opinion of the Fathers, the gospel must have made everything clear; con-
versely, there is hardly anything in the dogmatics vifhich able philosophers had -
not foreshadowed. The realisation was the mystery. Socrates says (H. E. III. 1 6):
rioAAOf Twv Trap' "EAA'^tr; <Pt?iOff-o(p^<ravr6iv oh izaxpoiv tov yvuitxt rov @eov syEvovro,
xxi ycif Kxi TrfOQ toC; aTrpovoiia-ieev iltrctyovrxt;, o'ln 'ETriKOVfi'ovi;, i) ÂAoi; ifio-Tixoui;,
liETa TVi^ }^0'yiiiyii W tarvn^^ji; ysvvxioj^ XTr^VTiitrciv, TJjv a(xa6tav xi/rcov xvarpeTFCyre^,
xou hx rovrav rcSv Aoywv ;|^pf/wje/^ {/.iv ro7g ri^v sva-sêtav uywTTucri xccTetTTiâ'oev
ov fiiiv T>)5 Ke<f*^')5 fiij yvSvcu to xvoHfVTrrdiiivov mro
''''''' AiJyou ixpaTiâ-av, tov
Tuv yej/eSv xai xvo ruv xiavav xaTU Xpiu-Tov fiva-Tijpiov Socrates had already in
view violent opponents of the intrusion of 'EAA>(v;x)) waiislcc into theology; but
the dispute so passionately conducted never really weakened the confidence placed
in natural theology. The actual position is correctly described in Eusebius' phrase
(H. E, IV. 7, 14) : if xxi' tiiJ-Hi Itt) hloiq ts xxi !(iifiOr6(poii SoyiJ.a!iTi Siâa-xahla.
Chap, ii.] OUTLINE OF TREATMENT 1 77
such discussion is required for the comprehension of dogma.

But this does not complete the list of our tasks; the whole
presentment of dogma must be prefaced by a chapter treating
of the sources of our knowledge and our authorities, i.e., Scrip-
ture, tradition, and the Church. So also we must at the close
examine the mysterious application of redemption the mysteries —
— and all that is connected with it.
The following arrangement of our material, in which a system-
atic exposition forms the basis of the historical, because the
foundations of our view have not changed since the time of
Origen, will thus be appropriate.
Ch. III. Of the sources of knowledge and the authorities,
or of Scripture, tradition, and the Church.
A. The Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption,
or Natural Theology.
Ch. IV. The presuppositions and conceptions of God the
Creator as bestower of salvation.
Ch. V. The presuppositions and conceptions of man as re-
cipient of salvation.
B. The Doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the

God-man in its Historical Development.
Ch. VI. The doctrine of the necessity and realisation of re-
demption through the incarnation of the Son of God.
Appendix. The ideas of redemption from the devil and
atonement through the work of the God-man.
Ch. VII.The doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son
of God God himself.
with
Appendix. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity.
Ch. VIII. The doctrine of the perfect similarity of constitu-
tion between the incarnate Son of God and humanity.
Ch. IX. Continuation. The doctrine of the personal unity
of the divine, and human nature in the incarnate Son of God.
C. The Foretaste of Redemption.

Ch. X. The mysteries and the like.
Ch. XI. Conclusion. Sketch of the history of the genesis

of the orthodox system.
—
Supplement i. The Greek conception of Christianity appears
undoubtedly to be exceedingly compact and clear, as long as
we do not look too deeply into the heart of it. The freeing
of dogmatics of all matters which do not fall within the scope
of the' doctrine of redemption is very remarkable. But these
advantages are purchased, first, by abandoning any attempt to
establish an inner unity between the supreme notions of " moral
good" and "blessedness" (imperishableness) secondly, by the ;
depreciation of positive morality in favour of asceticism ; thirdly,

by completely caricaturing the historical Christ. But the know-
ledge of the Christian faith possessed by the Fathers up to the
middle of the century was still far from being in the deso-
fifth
late slate which theology makes no resolute attempt to

in
deduce the consequences of a doctrine, while it does not venture
to abandon it, but contents itself with perceiving "a profound
element of truth " in any or every theologoumenon brought to
it by tradition. The idea of the Greek Fathers, to which every-
thing was subordinate, that Christianity is the religion which

delivers from perishableness and death, was derived from the
ailcient Catholic Church. It presents itself as a specific limit-
ation of primitive Christian hopes under the influence of views

held by the ancients. It is possible to express it in a grand
and awe-inspiring form, and this the Greek Fathers understood.

Further, where misery, mortality, and finitude are felt to be
the heaviest burdens laid upon men, the supreme good can
be nothing but endless, blessed rest. In so far as the Greek
Fathers perceived and firmly believed in this gift being confer-
red by the Christian religion, while they connected its bestowal
with Jesus Christ, they assigned to Christianity the highest con-
ceivable significance, and to its founder the highest conceivable
dignity, within their range of vision. But the mood which
looked on Christianity from this point of view and regarded it
as consolatory, was that of the fall and ruin of the ancient
world, which no longer possessed the power to turn earnestly to
an energetic life. Without premising this the dogmatic develop-
ments are not intelligible. But we cannot retain the formulas
of the Greek faith without self-deception, if we change or refuse
to admit the validity of its premises. But if we are ready
Chap, ii.] SUPPLEMENTARY ~
1 79
honestly to retain them, then let us clearly understand to

what Orthodoxy and Monophysitism came in the East. After
they had piled one monstrosity on the top of the other, they
—
were to use a strong figure of Goethe's almost choked in —
chewing the cud of moral and religious absurdities. Originally
their doctrine was good for nothing in the world but for dying
afterwards they became deadly sick on this very doctrine.
—
Supplement 2. If the conception of the supreme good may
be regarded as a revised version, made by Greek philosophy, of
the ancient Christian hopes of the future, yet this philosophy
always rejected the idea of the incarnation of God, and there-
fore could not, in its definition of the supreme good, attain the
certainty which was given in the Christian conception. In the

fourth and fifth centuries, however, there were even Christian
theologians —
Synesius, for example — who would not admit the
incarnation of God without revision, and yet held by the thought
of deification ; who accordingly approached, not rationalistic, but
rather pantheistic views.At any rate, faith in the incarnation of
God, along with the idea of creation, formed the dividing line
between Greek philosophy and the dogmatics of the Church.
"For what," says Athanasius, de incarn. 41, '^ is absurd or ridicu-
lous in our teaching, except merely our saying that the Logos
was made manifest in a human body?" (t/ yoi-p x-tottov, yj tI
%Afu;j? Trap' ^(iiv xîov, jj TrivTug on rbv Xoyov h irdfioiTi vreCjixv-
spwaSxi Ksyo;/,sv^.^ On the other hand, the Christian says (Cyril,

Catech. 4, ch. 9): "If the incarnation was a dream, then salva-
tion is also a dream." (E( (^dvrcurf/^x viV vi svavSpuTTfâ-ii;, 0dvT(X(Tf/M
xm) (rcoT>tpiix,).
!^ That is the confession which in the Greek
Church was the equivalent of i Cor. XV. 17 f.
—
Supplement 3. In order to learn the classical form of Greek
piety, the strongest root of dogma, it is necessary to study the
literature of asceticism. For it seldom comes clearly to light
in the dogmatic, apologetic, and polemical works, with the ex-
ception of the writings of Athanasius, and in the homiletic
1 Compare Gregory Nyss., Orat. catech. 5 : To fiJv tTva; h6ya)t @£oV xctl TrveSiia
Six re tUv xoivcSv ivvoiSv 6 "EAAi^v Kxi Six rav 'yfa(pixSv 6 ^lauSxtoi; 'i(j-ug olx xvti-
Ae|£<, r^v Si KXTX r'ov 'xvSpiiixov oixovoiJ.ixv raS @soi Aoy"" xxtx to 'lirov ixxrspoi;
aurSv xxoSaxiiixa-ei (6; uvl&xviv rs xai xwpiTr^ vsfi @soS f^sysirixi.

l8o HISTORY OF DOGMA. [Chap. ii.
literature, apart always greatly disguised

from Chrysostom, it is
by rhetoric. But a distinction must be made even in ascetic

literature. The descriptions of the piety of monkish heroes lose
themselves as a rule in extravagance and eccentricity, and are
not typical because the writers set out to prove the already
supramundane character of those heroes. We have especially
to examine numerous writings on "the resurrection," "virginity,"
"perfection," and similar subjects, and also the practical homi-
lies. We obtain perhaps the clearest and truest impression of
the piety of the Greek Church from reading the biography
of sister Macrina, by Gregory of Nyssa (Oehler, Biblioth. d.
KVV. I. I, 1858, p. 172 ff.). The dying prayer put in her
lips (p. 213 f.) is given here because it expresses inimitably
the hopes and consolation of Greek Christianity, yet without
omitting the characteristic warmth of feeling which belonged to
its very essence.
"
Her prayer was such that one could not doubt that she
was with God, and heard his voice. She said: Thou, Lord,
hast for us destroyed the fear of death. Thou hast made the end
of this earthly life the beginning of the true life. Thou makest
our bodies rest for a time in sleep, and dost awaken them again
with the last trumpet. Thou givest our clay, which Thou didst
fashion with Thy hands, to the earth to keep it, and Thou
takest again what Thou didst give, and dost transform into im-
perishableness and beauty that which was mortal and unseemly.
Thou hast snatched us from the curse and sin, having Thy-
self become both for us. Thou hast crushed the heads of the
dragon, which had grasped man with its jaw in the abyss of
disobedience. Thou hast paved the way of the resurrection
for us, having shattered the gate of Hades, and destroyed him
who had the power of death. Thou has given those who fear
Thee the image of Thy holy cross for a sign for the destruc-
tion of the adversary and the safety of our life. Eternal God,
to Whom I was dedicated from the womb, Whom my soul has
loved with all its power, to Whom I have consecrated my flesh
and my soul from my youth and till now 1 Place Thou an angel
of light by my side to lead me to the place of quickening
where is the source of rest in the bosom of the Holy Fathers.
Chap, ii.] SUPPLEMENTARY l8l
Oh Thou who didst break the flaming sword, and didst restore
to Paradise man crucified with Thee who begged Thy
the
mercy. Remember me, too, in Thy kingdom, because I also
am crucified with Thee, piercing my flesh with nails fi-om fear
of Thee, and fainting in dread of May the
Thy judgments 1
awful abyss not me from Thine elect, nor the calumni-

divide
ator block my way; may my sin not be found before Thine
eyes, I, having failed through the weakness of our nature,
if
should have sinned in word, or deed, or thought Thou who 1
hast power on earth to forgive sins, grant me forgiveness, that

I may be quickened, and when I put off my body may I be
found by Thee without stain in my soul, so that my soul,
spotless and blameless, may be received into Thy hands like
a sacrifice before Thy presence."
—
Supplement 4. For centuries after the great work of Theog-
nostus, which we only know very imperfectly, no complete system
of scientific theology was written in the East. The idea of a
system was in itself a philosophical one, and for its execution
all that was in existence were examples whose authority was
already shaken. Platonism only contributed to form a hetero-

dox system. Aristotelianism with its formal logic, which triumphed
over all difficulties, first succeeded in creating an orthodox sys-
tem. Systematic works, in the period up to Johannes Damas-
cenus, fall into the following lists.
(i) On the incarnation of the Logos — or Son of God. In these

works the central question of Greek dogma is discussed. The title
varies, or is more precise, according to the standpoint of each

"On the two natures", "On not confounding the natures ", etc.
Under this head come also the polemical, dogmatic tractates

against Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, ApoUinaris, Nestorius, etc.
as well as dogmatic monographs —on the Holy Ghost, the Trinity,
etc. We have to notice finally the Expositiones veritatis at the close
of the writings against the heretics, like those found, after the
precedent of Hippolytus, in, e.g., Epiphanius and Theodoret.
(2) Exposition of Christian doctrines in catechetical form.
Here Cyril's catechisms are especially important. ' The catechism
' The plan of Cyril's catechisms is very instructive. First, there is in the preface
an inquiry as to the aim and nature of the instruction. It begins with the words
was always bound by the Symbol, but the Symbol necessitated

the treatment of the main points of Jesus' history as points of
doctrine, and the expiscation of their exact value for faith. Thus
dogma gained an important supplement from the exposition of
the Symbol.The decalogue of the creed by Gregory of Nazianzus
also falls to be mentioned here. In the great catechism of Gre-
gory of Nyssa catechetic treatment is combined with apologetic.
Instructions pursue theological science came from the
how to
Antiochene school and thence penetrated into the West ^Junilius —
— where Augustine had already written his work De doctrina
Christiana. So far as I know, the older Byzantine Church pos-
sessed no such instructions.
(3) Apologetic works in reference to heathens and Jews. In these,
natural theology — the monotheistic faith and doctrine of freedom
— is unfolded, and the Christian view of history, as well as the
proof of its antiquity, presented in opposition to polytheism and
ceremonial religions; so in several works by Eusebius, Apol-
linaris, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.
"hJ;> liixxixpi6T>iroQ txriiy, vpoQ viJâg. Compare also ch. VI: EAsTre fioi v^kUijii troi
uîav 6 Îtio-ovQ ^ccpilÊTUi ... iîf voiiia-iii^ on (uxpov Tp&yixx ^x/^âvsit;' avipuTOQ
av otxrpdi, Qeou A«fi/3avg/5 Tcpocrviyoplav . . . tovto 'Jrpo^?^s7raiv 6 îxAfiwJoc 'sAeyev ex
Trpoa-aiTTOv rov ®sov, sTreiSii [i.i?^?ôv<Tfj xvSpaiTrot @£ov Trpoa-iiyopiav ?^xiiâvetv 'Eyw
simx, 6eoi etrre xai vioi viiia-TOv TravrsQ, c. 12: lav ire xanjôy/Êvo; hisraa-iji, ti
stp^xxa-tv 01 StSixa-xoVTet;^ (jl^SIv Xsye r^ 'i|w fjcvtrn^ptov ycip trot "jTccpa^tôiJiev xoci
h?,vlSa ft£AAovTO« aiavoi' Tvipyitrov to liva-rtipiov tw lua-SxTroSoT^. Then follow three

Catechisms which impart information concerning sin, baptism, and penitence in
general, and are meant to awaken the right disposition. In the fourth a sketch is
given of the system of faith according to the Symbol. Ten systems are distinguished,
whose numbering, however, can no longer be established with certainty. The
exposition contained in Catechisms 5 —
18 do not agree with the sketch, seeing that
to the latter is appended a didactic section on the soul, the body, food, and clothing,
a section which is wanting in the exposition the latter rather in the last catechism
;
deals with the Church, which is not mentioned in the sketch. The whole is con-
cluded by five catechisms which explain the secret rites of the mysteries to the
baptised. The decalogue of the faith by Gregory contains, in the first commandment,
the doctrine of the Trinity in the second, the creation out of nothing and the
;
providence of God ; in the third, the origin of evil from freedom, not from an evil
matter or God; in the fourth, the doctrine of the incarnation and constitution of the
Redeemer; in the fifth, the crucifixion and burial ; in the sixth, the resurrection and
ascension in the seventh, the return of Christ in glory to act as judge ; in the
;
eight and ninth, the general resurrection and retributive judgment; the tenth runs:
AixxTOV ipyaôv to ayceSiv 1%) rovra tSi 6£iJ.£?\iif tSv Soyixiirav, eweiiSi Tr/ffTi?
XiopiQ '^pyoiv vixpii, w? '^pya Slxt T/Wew;.
Chap, ii.] SUPPLEMENTARY 1
83
(4) Monographs on the work of the six days, on the human

soul, the body, the immortality of the soul, etc. In these, also,
natural theology is developed and the scientific cosmology and
psychology in the oldest sources of the Bible stated.
(5) Monographs on virginity, monachism, perfection, the

virtues, the resurrection. Here the ultimate and supreme practical
interests of piety and faith find expression.
(6) Monographs on the mysteries, cultus and priesthood.

These are not numerous in the earlier period yet instruction
in the sacraments and their ritual was regularly attached to the
—
training in the Symbol see the Catechisms of Cyril which form
;
a guide to the mysteries. Their number, however, increased from

the sixth century. |
Copious, often intentionally elaborated, dogmatic material, finally,

is also contained in scientific commentaries on the BibHcal books
and in the Homilies.
The right use for the history of dogma of these different
kinds of sources is an art of method
rules can hardly for which
be given. The rhetorical, exegetical, philosophical, and strictly
dogmatic expositions must be recognised as such and distinguished.
At the same time we have to remember that this was an age
of rhetoric which did not shrink from artifices and untruths of
every kind. Jerome admits that in the works of the most celebrated
Fathers one must always distinguish between what they wrote
argumentatively {^laXsv-raSiq), and what they set down as truth.
Basilius also (Ep. 210) was at once prepared to explain a
heterodox passage in Gregory Thaumaturgus, by supposing that
he had been speaking not dogmatically (SoyfiXTiicug), but for the
sake of argument [dyavia-Tixag). So also Athanasius excuses
Origen on the ground that he wrote much for the sake of
practice and investigation (De decretis synod. Nic. 27, cf. ad
Scrap. IV. 9); and while completely defending the Christology
of Dionysius Alex., he remarks that the latter in many details
spoke from policy [xxr" oMovof/,i(Zv). The same stock excuse was
seizedupon by the Fathers at Sardica in the case of Marcellus.
According to this, how often must the great writers of the fourth
and fifth centuries themselves have written for the sake of
argument {dyMvitrrmui;) Moreover, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks
1
1
84 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. II.
of a necessary and salutary ohovo/iyjSi^vxi tJji/ kK'/jIIsmv, i.e., of

the politic and prudent disguise and the gradual communication
of the truth; and he appeals in support of this to God himself
who only revealed the truth at the fitting time, ohovof4,i!cwg
(Orat. 41. 6, Ep. 26). Cyrus declares, in the monothelite
controversy, that one must assume xcct^ ohovof/,ii!6v a not altogether
correct dogma, in order to attain something of importance.
Some, however, went much farther in this matter. As they did
not hold themselves bound to stick to the truth in deahngwith
an opponent, and thus had forgotten the command of the gospel,
so they went on in theology to impute untruthfulness to the
Apostles, citing the dispute between Paul and Peter, and to
Christ (he concealed his omniscience, etc.). They even charged
God with falsehood in dealing with his enemy, the devil, as is
proved by the views held by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and
most of the later Fathers, of redemption from the power of the
devil. But if God himself deceived his enemy by stratagem
(pza fraus), then so also might men. Under such circumstances
it cannot be wondered at that forgeries were the order of the
day. And this was the case. We read even in the second cen-
tury of numerous falsifications and interpolations made under
their very eyes on the works of still living authors. Think of
the grievances of the Church Fathers against the Gnostics, and
the complaints of Dionysius of Corinth and Irenaeus. But what
did these often naive and subjectively innocent falsifications
signify compared with that spirit of lying which was powerfully
at work even in ofificial compositions in the third and fourth
centuries? Read Rufinus' De adulterat. libr. Origenis, and weigh
Rufinus' principles in translating the works of Origen. And
the same spirit prevailed in the Church in the fifth and sixth
centuries; see a collection of the means employed to deceive
in my altchrist. Litt.-Gesch. I., p. xlii ff. In these centuries
no one continued to put any trust in a documentary authority,
a record of proceedings, or protocol. The letters by Bishops of
this period throng with complaints of forgeries the defeated ;
party at Synod almost regularly raises the charge that the

a
acts of Synod are falsified; Cyril and the great letter-writers
complain that their letters are circulated in a corrupt form the ;
85
epistles of dead Fathers e.g., that of Athanasius to Epictetus —

were and foreign matter was inserted into them the fol-
falsified, ;
lowers of Apollinaris and Monophysites, e.g., systematically corrupt-

ed the tradition. See the investigations of Caspari and Draseke.
Conversely, the simplest method of defending an ancient Church
Father who was cited by the opposition, or on whose orthodoxy
suspicion was cast, was to say that the heretics had corrected
his works to suit themselves and had sown weeds among his
wheat. The official literature of the Nestorian and Mpnophysite
controversy is a swamp of mendacity and knavery, above which
only a few spots rise on which it is possible to find a firm
footing. Gregory I. (Ep. VI. 14) at once recalls in a given case
the forging of the acts of the Ephesian Synod. What was not
published as Nicene in later times, and to some extent very
soon Much indeed was even then dismissed as mendacity and
1
deceit, much has been laid bare by the scholars of the seven-
teenth century. But if one considers the verdicts, anxieties,
and assertions of suspicion of contemporaries of those conflicts,
he cannot avoid the fear that present-day historians are still
much too confiding in dealing with this whole literature. The
uncertainties which remain in the study precisely of the most
important alterations of the history of dogma, and of the Church
of the Byzantine period, necessarily awaken the suspicion that
we almost throughout more or less helpless in face of the
are
systematically corrupted tradition. All the same I would not
recommend so bold a handhng of the sources as that formerly
by the Jesuits, and to-day by Vincenzi (Ketzertaufstreit,
practised
Acten des 5 Concils, Honoriusfrage).
—
Supplement 5. The form assumed by the substance of the
faith in the Greek Church shows very clearly the characteristic
point of view. First, namely, it was conceived though, so far —
as I know, seldom —
as law indeed Gregory of Nazianzus sketched
;
a decalogue of faith. This form must not be misunderstood.

The faith appears as law only in so far as its contents consti-
tute a revealed ordinance of God to which man has to submit

we must not let suggest to us a parallel to the moral law.
it
Secondly, however, the creed is regarded in its formulas as a

mystery to be kept secret. Men were initiated into the faith
as they were initiated into Secrecy was,

the sacred rites. '
according to ancient ideas, the necessary nimbus of all conse-

cration. The conceptions of the creed as law and as mystery
have this in common, that in them the content of the faith
appears as something strictly objective, something given from
without. ° But in so far as the authority of any formula what-
ever conflicts with original Christianity as much as this secrecy,
the dependence of the Greek Church on the practice of the
ancient mysteries and schools of philosophy is here manifest.
—
Supplement 6. Ideas of the realisation of the supreme good
in the world beyond had to attach themselves to the phrases
of the creed known in the Symbols, and were not permitted to
disregard the numerous and diversified statements of Holy
Scripture. The motley and manifold conceptions which resulted
were owing to harmonising with primitive Christian eschatology
on the one hand, and Origen's doctrine of the consummation
on the other, subject to due regard for the sacred writings.
Origen's doctrine was more and more regarded as heretical from
the end of the fourth century, while previously recognised
theologians, like Gregory of Nyssa, had reproduced it in all its
main points. Its rejection marks the first decisive victory of
traditionalism —
itself indeed impregnated with speculation over —
spiritualising speculation. In the fifth century, there were counted
as heretical, (i) the doctrine of apokatastasis (universaHsm) and
the possibility of redemption for the devil ^ (2) the doctrine of ;
the complete annihilation of evil; (3) the conception of the

penalties of hell as tortures of conscience; (4) the spiritualising
version of the resuscitation of the body ; and (5) the idea of
1 See the investigations into the so-called Arcan-Disciplin, by Rothe, Th. Har-
nack, Bonwetsch, and Von Zezschwitz.
- Constantine delighted in applying the name "law'' to the whole of the
Christian religion. This is western (nostra lex ^ nostra religio) j it is rare in the
East. On the other hand, the whole Bible was not infrequently "the law" in the
one Church as well as in the other.
3 Gregory of Nyssa still defended it, appealing to I Cor. XV. 28; see the
second half of his writing xep; 4'vX'ii ""' avsurTacreui, and Orat. catech. 8, 35.
— —
So also for a time Jerome and the older Antiochenes even in the fifth century ;
it had numerous defenders in both East and West. It was definitively condemned
with the condemnation of Origen under Justinian. See under, ch. XI.
Chap. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY 187
the colitinued creation of new worlds. On the other hand, the

doctrines of Christ's reign on earth for a thousand years, and
the double resurrection, etc., were in the East in part shelved,
in part absolutely characterised as Jewish heresies. ' The return
of Christ, which was still described as imminent, though for
many theologians it had lost its essential significance, the judg-
ment of the world, the resurrection of the body, ^ the eternal
—
misery {MvaTO? sv xSixvixitI^ undying death) of the wicked, were
maintained, and even the conception of a transfiguration of
heaven and this earth was not everywhere rejected. Retained
accordingly were only those points enumerated in the symbols,
and therefore no longer to be passed over. To these were
added the expectation of Antichrist, which, however, only
emerged, as a rule, during exceptional distress, as in the times
of Arian emperors, Julian, barbarous nations, Mohammed, etc.,
and by no means now belonged to the solid substance of
theological eschatology; (yet see Cyril, Catech. 15, ch. 11 f., the
pseudo-hippolytan work Trsp) uvvTs^sieng, and the late apocalyp-
ses offrom the fourth to the seventh century). Blessedness was
regarded as a state of freedom from suffering, of the perfect
knowledge, and the intuitive and entrancing enjoyment, of God.
Yet the majority recognised different degrees and stages of
• The last important theological representative of Chiliasm in the East was
ApoUinaris of Laodicea; see Epiph. H. 77, ch. 37, Jerome de vir. inl. 18. Jerome
labours to prove (Ep. 129) that the terra promissionis was not Palestine, but a
heavenly place. The Apocalypse was, as a rule, not included in the Canon in the East
(in older times). With this state of matters is contrasted very strongly the fact that
monks, and laity apocalypses continued to be eagerly
in the lower ranks of priests,
read, and new ones were ever being produced on the basis of the old.
2 The doctrine of the resurrection of man always formed

in spirit and body still
a main point in Apologetic evidences, proved from the

and was, as formerly,
omnipotence of God, from various analogical inferences, and from the essential
importance of the body for human personality. The Cappadocians and some later
Greek theologians still held, though in u much weakened form, to the spiritualistic
version of the doctrine attempted by Origen. But, following Methodius, Epiphanius
(H. 64, ch. 12 especially insisted that there was the most perfect identity between
ff.)
the resurrectionbody and our material body, and this faith, enforced in the West
by Jerome, soon established itself as alone orthodox. There now arose many problems
concerning the limbs and members of the future body, and even Augustine seriously
considered these. He experimented on the flesh of a peacock, and confirmed his
faith in the resurrection by the discovery of its preservation from decay.
blessedness, a conception in which we perceive the moraHst

encroach upon the ground of religion, ' since it put a high value
on special earthly achievements, such as asceticism and martyr-
dom. As regards the blessed dead, it was supposed in wide
circles that their souls waited in Hades, a subterranean place,
for the return of Christ; "
there Christ had also preached the
gospel to the good who had died
before him. ' Not a few Fathers
of the fourth century maintained, following Origen, that the
souls of the pious at once enter Paradise, or come to Christ,
and this opinion gained ground more and more. It was uni-
versal in regard to saints and martyrs. Besides, the conceptions

of the intermediate state, like everything else in this connection,
were altogether vague, since Greek theologians were only inter-
• The assumption of various degrees of blessedness (and damnation) must have

been almost universal for the divergent opinion of Jovinian was felt to be heret-
;
ical; see Jerome adv. Jovin. I. 3, II. 18 —

34. Still it excited more real interest in
the West than in the East (Augustine, De civitate, XXII., ch. 30). As regards the
idea of future existence, some Fathers supposed that men would positively become
angels, others that they would be like the angels.
- The different conceptions as to the relations of Hades, Hell, Paradise, the

bosom of Abraham, etc., do not come in here. According to Gregory of Nyssa,
Hades is not to be held a place, but an invisible and incorporeal state of the life
of the soul.
3 This I., p. 203) occurs in western and eastern

old theologoumenon (see Vol.
theologians. Those who would have become Christians if they had lived later, i.e.,
after Christ's appearance, were redeemed. The phrase descendit ad infe7-na came
into the Symbols from the fourth century. We find it in the West first, in the
Symbol of Aquileia, in the East in the formula of the fourth Synod at Sirmium
(359 eI? t« xxTxxiovnx xxTSfiSovTa). Il is at least questionable whether it was
already in the Jerusalemite Symbol at the same date. Compare Hahn, Bibliothek
d. Symbole, 2 Aufl. §§ 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 39—41, 43, 45, 46—60, 93, 94, 96,
108; Caspari, Ueber das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss in Cyrillus' Katechesen, with an
excursus: Hat das Jerus. Taufbekenntniss den descensus ad inferos enthalten, in
the norweg. Theol. Ztschr. Vol. I.
* With this it cimld be and, as a rule, was understood that their

felicity up to
the judgment was only preliminary. Two interests met here

last those of a :
spiritualising religion and of primitive Christian eschatology; see Vol. I., p. 129 f.
The latter required that blessedness should be attached to the return of Christ and
the last judgment; the former demanded that it should be comjDlete as soon as the
believing soul had parted fro^n the mortal body. Therefore, in spite of Jerome's
polemic against Vigilantius and Augustine's against Pelagius, no fixed Church
doctrine could be arrived at here, however much piety desired an absolute decision.
See for details Fetavius and Schwane D. Gesch. d. patrist Zeit, p. 749 ff.
89
ested ultimately in the hope of deification. ' In the West, on

the contrary, the entire primitive Christian eschatology was up-
held pretty nearly intact during the fourth century, and even
the idea of Nero returning as Antichrist had numerous support-
ers. The reason of this lies in the fact that Neoplatonic specu-
lation, and speculation generally, obtained at first no footing
here, and the specific import of Christianity at the same time
was still always expressed in the dramatically conceived eschat-
ology. But the distinction between West and East goes at this
point much deeper. Strongly eschatological as was the aim of
the whole dogmatics of the East, it cannot be overlooked that
the heart of the matter —the
thought of the judgment had —
been torn away from the eschatology since Origen. This thought
which expresses the fearful responsibility of every soul to the
God of holiness, and without which the forgiveness of sins
must remain an enigma and an empty word, dominated the gos-
pel, and determined ancient Christianity. But "scientific"
theology had shelved it. The name is not wanting in Origen's
"^
system, but the thing had disappeared. In spite of all the em-
phasis laid on freedom, nothing exists but a cosmic process, in
which the many issues from the one, in order to return into
the one. In such a scheme the Judgment has been deprived
of meaning. In subsequent times apokatastasis univers-
its —
alism —was
indeed condemned in the East, and Origen's system
was rejected; but any one who studies closely Greek Byzantiqe
dogmatics will see how profound was the attachment to this
most important point in Origenism and Neoplatonism. The
problems to which the creed gave birth in the fourth to the
seventh century, and which men

laboured to solve, discounten-
ance any effective reference to the judgment. Again and again
we have deification as a hyperphysical and therefore physical
1 Clement and Origen had assumed a purgatory in the shape of a cleansing fire
Greek Fathers, however, have, so far as I know, dropped
(see "Vol. n., p. 377, u. 5); the
the idea, with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa (t£/)i rî/%ijc Kai
my.irTii(TBUi;,
Oehler, Vol. I., p. 98 f.). From Origen and Gregory the conception passed to
Ambrose who established it in the West, after the way had been prepared for it
by TertuUian. The Scriptural proof was i Cor. III. 13 f.; compare .Augustine De
civitate dei, XXI. 23 sq. Euchir. 68 sq. (ignis purgatorius).
2 It still lived in the popular views of Christianity held by the Orientals.
19° HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
process, but dogmatics tell us little of the tenet that it is
appointed unto man to die and

judgment. For this
after that the
reason also the strict connection with morahty was lost, and there-
fore in some regions even Islam was a deliverer. It was different
in the West. What has been named the "Chiliasm" of the
West, possessed its essential significance in the prospect of the
judgment. If we compare West and East in the Middle Ages
the theologians, not the laity —
no impression is stronger than
that the former knew the fear of the judge to which the latter
had become indifferent. It was the restless element in the life
of faith of the West; it sustained the thought of forgiveness of
sins ; it accordingly made the reformation of Catholicism possible.
And any reformation, if it should ever take place in the Greek
Church, begin by restoring the conviction of the respons-
will
ibility of every individual soul, emphasising the judgment, and
thus gaining the fixed point from which to cast down the walls
of dogmatics.
Literature. — Hermann, Nysseni sententiae de salute
Gregorii
adipiscenda, 1875. H. Die Lehre von der Gottheit
Schultz,
Christi, 1881. Kattenbusch, Kritische Studien der Symbolik, in
the Studien und Kritiken, 1878, p. 94 ff. Ritschl, Die Christi.
Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 2 Ed., Vol. I.,
pp. 3 — 21. Kattenbusch, Konfessionskunde I., p. 296 ff. Oq
Monachism, especially in Russia, see Frank, Russ. Kirche, p. igo ff.
CHAPTER III.
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE AND AUTHORITIES; OR, SCRIPTURE,

TRADITION, AND THE CHURCH.
The extent and authority of the CathoUc authorities were

already substantially fixed at the beginning of the fourth century,
though their mutual relations and the manner of using them in-
detail were not. Among the parties which contended over the
'
correct definition of the dogma of redemption, they had to a

certain degree become undoubtedly subjects of controversy.
The great opposition between a more liberal theology and pure
traditionalism was based upon a difference in the way of looking
at the authorities. But this opposition never culminated in a
clear contrast of principles. Consequently, theologians had no
occasion to frame a special doctrine of the Church and the
authorities — Scripture and tradition. The need was not, as in
the case of the dogma of redemption, so pressing as to lead
men to adopt the perilous and obnoxious course of formulating
laws of faith anew. The petty skirmishes, however, with more
or less obscure theologians and reformers, who point-blank ob-
jected to this or that portion of the traditional basis, did not
come before the great tribunal of the Church, and the conflict
with Manichseans, Paulicians, Euchites, and BogomiUans, has
^
left no trace in the history of dogma.
' See the account given in Vol. II., pp. i8 — 127, and elsewhere.
2 The opposition to the Eustathians and Andians (see the Acts of the Synod of
Gangra and Epiph. H. 70) does not belong to this section; for it arose from a
differentconception of the obligatoriness of the monk's life on Christians. On the
contrary, it is noteworthy that Aerius, once a friend of Eustathius (Epiph. H. 75)
not only maintained the original identity of bishops and presbyters that had also —
been done, and supported from the N. T., by Jerome and the theologians of Antiocli
192 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
Still, changes took place in the period between Eusebius and
Johannes Damascenus. They followed simply the altered re-

quirements of the Church. They gave utterance to the increased
traditionalism. i.e., every new point
Necessity became a virtue,
which was be needed in order to preserve the unity of
felt to
the Church, or to adapt its institutions to the taste of the time,

was inserted in the list of authorities. This method was in
vogue even in the third century. It was now only further and
further extended. But it is hard to fix its results, since at that
time there was no fixity and there could be none, from the
nature of the principle that the state of the Church at any time
was to be declared as in every respect the traditional one.
^
I . Holy Scripture.
To the two Testaments a unique authority was ascribed.

They were the Holy Scriptures kixt' iôxviv every doctrine had ;
but he made the question an articulus stantis et cadeniis ecclesia. We cannot now
determine what motive influenced him. The attacli of Marcellus of Ancyra on the
foundations of the prevalent theology, and his argument that the dogma was
essentially avifUTrivi^f (3ouA>(5 te xxi yvwfi))?, are of incomparably greater significance
in principle. But his arguments were not understood, and produced no effect. Mean-
while, Church in the East was at
the basis of the whole structure of the Catholic
no time left unassailed. The Church has never embraced everything which was,
and might be, named Christian. After the Marcionites and the older sects had
retired from the stage, or had fused with the Manichaeans, Paulicians, Euchites, and
Bogomilians, etc., came upon the scene. These Churches contested the Catholic
foundations as the Marcionites and Manichseans had done; they accepted neither
the Catholic Canon, nor the hierarchical order and tradition. They succeeded, in
part, in creating lasting, comprehensive, and exclusive systems, and afforded work
to Byzantine theologians and politicians for centuries. But important as it is to
assert their existence, they have no place in the history of dogma; for at no time
had they any' influence whatever on the formation of dogma in the East; they have
left no effect on the Church. Therefore general Church history has alone to deal
with them.
' The view held of the apostolate of the twelve first fully reached its Catholic
level in the fourth and fifth centuries. The Apostles were (i) missionaries who had
traversed the whole world and performed unheard of miracles, (2) the rulers of the
Churches, (3) teachers and law-givers in succession to Christ, having given in speech
and writing to the least detail all the regulations necessary to the Church for faith
and morals, (4) the authors of the order of worship, the liturgy, (5) heroic ascetics
and fathers of monachism, (6) though hesitatingly, the mediators of salvation.
2 See histories of the Canon by Holtzmann, Schmiedel (in Ersch and Gruber
"Kanon"); Weiss, Westcott, aod especially Zahn. Overbeck, Z. Gesch. des Kanons,
Chap, hi,] HOLY SCRIPTURE 1 93
to be proved out of them, in other words, opinions that held

something necessary to faith which did not occur in Scripture,
had no absolute validity. Any one who declared that he took
his stand on Scripture alone did not assume an uncatholic
attitude. This view of the Holy Scriptures presupposed that
their extent was strictly defined, and placed beyond all doubt.
But this supposition was for centuries contradicted by the ac-
tual facts, which, however, were concealed, partly because men
neither would nor dared look at them, partly because they really
did not see them. The theologians of Antioch, and especially
Theodore, criticised on internal and external grounds the contents
of the Canon, as these were gradually being fixed but in doing so ;
even they were guided by an ecclesiastical tradition. Their criti-

cism still had its supporters in the sixth century, and its influence
extended not only to Persia, but even, through Junilius, to the
West. But neither the spirit of the criticism nor its results ever
made any impression whatever on the great Church.
As regards the O. T., the oldest and most revered of the
Greek Fathers followed Melito and Origen, and only recognised
the 22 —
24 books of the Hebrew Canon, ^ according to the
others in the Alexandrian Canon only a secondary validity, or
none at all. While there was some hesitation about the Book
of Esther, and that not only in Antioch, this decision obtained
1880. The controversy with the Jews as to the possession and exposition of the
O. T. still continued in the Byzantine period; see on this McGiffert, Dialogue
between a Christian and a Jew, entitled 'AvTif3oAi} TTxTria-Kou xcct tli/Awvo? k.t.A. . .
together with a discussion of Christian polemics against the Jews. New York, i88g.
1 On and his disciples to the Canon, see the thorough
the attitude of Theodore
of Kihn (Theodorus von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus, 1880).
investigations
Theodore rejected from the O. T., Job, the Song of Songs, Chronicles, Ezra and
Nehemiah, Esther, and the inscriptions of the Psalms; see Leontius Byz. Contra
Nestor, et Eutych. L. III., ch. 13—17, Migne T. 86, p. 1365 sq. The fifth Synod
expressly condemned Theodore's criticism and interpretation of Job and the Song
of Songs, as well as his idea of inspiration in reference to Solomon's writings, and
his exposition of some of the Psalms. On Theodore's prestige in Nisibis, see Kihn,
P- —
333 f- j °" Junilius' dependence on him, 1. c, 350 382. For the dependence of
the Nestorian Canon on Theodore's, see Noeldeke in the Gott. Gel. Anz. 1868,
St. 46, p. 1826 and Kihn, 1. c, 336.

2 Authoritative were especially the views of Afcanasius, Cyril of Jerus. and
Gregory of Nazianzus, who reckoned only 22 Books; see also the sixtieth Canon
of the Council of Laodicea (363 ? inauthentic ?).
13
194 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. m.
in Greek Churches, though divergences were not wanting

the
in communities. But it was always in danger of
provincial
being disregarded, for the sacred books were continually tran-
scribed from the LXX. and so, as a rule, those writings, ex-
;
cluded in theory, were copied along with the others. The legend
of the genesis of the LXX., again, was always highly valued,,
and it seemed to imply the sacredness of the whole translation.
Yet it was only in consequence of the attempts at union with
the Roman Church in the Middle Ages, and still more after
the ill-fated enterprise of Cyrillus Lîcaris (17th century),
that the Greek Church was persuaded to give up the Hebrew
and adopt the Alexandrian and Roman Canon. But a binding,
official declaration never followed; the passiveness and thought-
lessness with which it changed, or upturned its position in so

important a question, is extraordinarily characteristic of the
modern Grasco-Slavic Church. The question is not even yet
decided, and there are distinguished Russian theologians, who
regard the books of the Hebrew Canon as being alone strictly
canonical. They are, however, growing ever fewer. ' In the
Western Church a state of complete uncertainty still prevailed
in the fourth century as to the extent of the O. T. But the
Latin Bible, complete copies of which may not have been very
common, was a translation of the LXX. This fact was more
potent than the historical views which found their way into the
West from the East, in a disjointed form, and for whose
triumph Jerome had laboured. Augustine, who was ignorant of
Biblical criticism, held to the current Latin collection (see, e.g.,
his Hst inDe doct. christ. II., 8), and at the Synods of Hippo,
A.D. 393 (can. 36), and Carthage, A.D. 397 (can. 47), the Alex-
andrian Canon was adopted. The decision that the Roman
Church was to be asked for a confirmation of this conclusion
does not seem to have been carried out. From that date the
Hebrew Canon was departed from in the West, though the
view of Athanasius, conveyed to it by Rufinus, and the decision
of Jerome, exerted a quiet influence, and even apart from this
• See Gass, Symbolilc der griechischen Kirche, p. 97 ff.; Strack, Kanon des
A. T. in Prot. R.-E., Vol. VII. 2, p. 412 ff. The reader is referred to this article and
to Introductions to the O. T, for details. Kattenbusch, Confessionsliunde I., p 292.
Chap, iii.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 1 95
some uncertainty the

case of 4 Esra, the Pastor of
e.g., in
Hermas, etc., — Cassiodorus seems to have taken
still remained. '
a very important part in finally shaping the Latin -Bible. But

we cannot by any means describe the attitude of the West as
only avoided the inconsistency into which scholars
uncritical. It
had fallen in extolling the LXX. as a divinely composed and
authentic work, while they ranked the Hebrew Bible above it.
As regards the N. T., the Alexandrian Church accepted the
Western collection in the time of Origen, and in the course of
the third century most of the others, though not yet all, ^ seem
to have followed its example. In so far as any reflection
was given to their historical characteristics, the Scriptures were
regarded as Apostolic-catholic, and were acknowledged to con-
tain the real sources of evidence for Christian doctrine. But
the principle of apostolicity could not be strictly carried out.
In many national Churches apostolic writings were known and
revered which were not found in the Western collection, and
conversely, it was not always possible to perceive the Apostolic
origin and Catholic recognition of a received book. Origen

already therefore adopted the idea, consonant to the spirit of
embraced those books about whose
antiquity, that the collection
title a general agreement had prevailed from the earhest timfes.
Canonicity was decided by unanimous testimony. But even

this principle did not meet the whole case Origen himself ;
violated it in forming the group of seven Catholic Epistles.

Yet it became the established rule, and put an end to any
consideration of the question based on criticism of the facts.
• Gregory I. (Moral XIX. 13) thought it necessary to excuse himself for arguing
from Maccabees.
- Thus Syrian Churches still used Tatian's Diatessaron in the fourth century and in
;
a few circles among them there were retained in the Canon, the apocryphal con-espon-
dence of the Corinthians and Paul, the two Epp. of Clement, nay, even the Ep. of
Clement de virgiiiitate. On the other hand, some books were wanting. Not a few
apocryphal writings held an undefined rank in the Syrian Patriarchate. In a word,
the old Roman Canon, expanded in the course of the third century in Alexandria,
did not get the length of being acknowledged in vast territories of the East
proper. In spite of the association of the Apostolic Epistles with the Gospels, the
higher rank peculiar to the latter was not done away with as late as the fourth
century. Alexander of Alexandria (in Theodoret H. E. I. 4) describes the contents
of Holy Scripture briefly as 'Law, Prophets, and Gospels.'
Eusebius, who was a very important authority, and who — if we

are understand the passage so had been commissioned by
to —
the Emperor to prepare standard Bibles, followed the view of
Origen yet in the case of one book, the Apocalypse, he expressed
;
his dislike in a way that ran counter to the principle of the

Canon. The three, or four, categories, in which he required to
arrange the books, show that men were struggling with a diffi-
culty not to be solved in this way, which could only be solved

by time with its power to hallow all inconsistencies. ' If we
collected statistically all the Eastern information we possess
concerning the extent of the N. T. from the date of Eusebius
up to the of Constantinople direct and indirect
destruction —
statements by Church Fathers, Synodal decisions, Bible manu-
scripts and indices from the Churches of various provinces, and
especially Syria —
we would be forced to the conclusion that
complete confusion and uncertainty prevailed. ^ But this view
would be erroneous. We have to multiply by hundreds the
lists which enumerate 26 (27) books, i.e., the Acknowledged and
the Disputed melioris nota of Eusebius. Athanasius' Festival —

Epistle, A.D. 367, was of paramount importance in settling the
complete equality of these two classes in the Patriarchates of
Alexandria and Constantinople and in the West. On the other —
hand, apart from the Syrian Churches, ^ the lists which diverge
• On the efforts of Eusebius to fix tlie extent of the N. T., see Texte und
Untersuch. zur altchristl. Litteratur-Geschichte, Vol. 11. I, 2, p. 5 ff.
2 Almost everything which was esteemed in quite different circumstances in the

be again found somewhere or other in the Byzantine age. Most
earliest period, is to
instructive is the history of Clement's Epistles and Ilermas. Conversely, the old
doubts also remain and even new ones emerge (Philemon, see Jerome in his preface
to the Epistle).
' The N. T. had a peculiar history in the Syrian Churches, which has not yet
been written; see Nestle, 'Syrische Bibeliibersetzungen in the Prot. R.-E. Vol. XV.
'
Bathgen's work on the Syrus Cureton. 1885, and my 'das N. T. um dasjahraoo'

(1888). It is more than questionable whether Theodore of Mopsueslia did any
independent criticism on the extent of the N. T. He, probably, simply adhered to

the Canon of his Church, which then of the Catholic Epistles only admitted
I Peter and i John, and rejected the Apocalypse; see Kihn, 1. c, 65 ff. and the
Canon of Chrysostom. While the whole Church was substantially agi-eed about the
extent of the N. T., from the end of the fourth century, wide districts in the Pa-
triarchate of Antioch retained their separate traditions. Only we nmst not forget
Chap, hi.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 1 97
from the above owe their existence either to a badly applied

scholarship, or to individual reminiscences, in rare cases to a
divergent usage on the part of provincial Churches. From the
end of the fourth century real unanimity prevailed, in the main,
as to the contents of the N. T. and the authorship of the
separate books, in Constantinople, Asia Minor, Alexandria, and
the West. Apart from doubts of long standing, yet ineffectual
and isolated, about the Catholic Epistles (and Philemon?), the
one exception was John's Revelation, for which Eusebius' ver-
dict was momentous. But even in this case attempts to come
'
to a decision were given up the book was shelved, and re-

:
emerged, from the circles in which it had maintained its ground,

without exciting any controversy worth mentioning. The dis-
quieting distinction between Acknowledged and Disputed books,
abolished by Athanasius, was but very seldom of any conse-
quence in practice; but scholars still recalled it here and there.
When the collection was limited to 26 (27) books, the reading
of others in the Church was, from the end of the fourth cen-
tury, more strictly prohibited. But even at the beginning of
the fifth, men in a position to know, like Jerome and Sozomen,
can tell us that the prohibition was here and there unknown
or disregarded. Some primitive Christian writings were thus in
use in the Churches down to the fifth century and later but the ;
Monophysite Churches preserved, as a monkish protest against

the spiritualism of Origen, Jewish Apocalypses revised by
Christians and belonging to the earliest period, and the barbar-
ism into which they fell spread a protective covering over
these writings.
The details are obscure of the way in which the Western
that the vast majority even of these had accepted the Roman Canon of undisputed
books in the second half of the third century. But the agreement went no further;
for from the fourth century they vôuld take no more instruction from Alexandria.
1 rest, Weiss has rightly shown (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 98) that
For the
the extent towhich the Apocalypse was rejected, has been somewhat exaggerated.
Extremely noteworthy is the view of Didymus on 2 Peter (Enarrat. in epp. cathol.)
"Non est ignorandum praesentem epistolam esse falsatam, quae licet publicetur non
tamen in canone est."
" In the Byzantine Church also Apocalypses continued to be read, and new
ones were constantly being produced.
1 98 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
Church obtained the Epistle of James, second Peter, and third

John. The Epistle to the Hebrews, not unknown to it from
the first, it received in the fourth century as a Pauline com-
position, from the East, through the famous intermediaries.
Those same men did away with all uncertainty at the close of
the fourth century on the ground of the decisions given by
Eusebius and Athanasius. The 27 books, i.e., the Canon of
Athanasius, were alone recognised at the Synods of Hippo and
Carthage (397), and this result was confirmed by Augustine's
authority (see, e.g., De doctr. christ. II. 8) without any general
declaration having been made. But the sharper the line drawn
'
between the collection and all other writings, the more suspi-
cious must those have appeared whose title could lead, or had
once admittedly led, to a claim for recognition as Catholic and
Apostolic. The category of "apocryphal" in which they had
formerly been placed, solely in order to mark the alleged or
real absence of general testimony in their favour, now obtained
more and more an additional meaning; they were of unknown
origin, or 'fabricated', and this was often supplemented by the
charge of being 'heretical'. But however great the gulf between
the canonical and uncanonical books, it is impossible to con-
• See also under this head the verdict, freer because dependent on Theodore,
which Junilius passed on the Catholic Epistles. Critical investigations have not yet
arrived at a final result regarding the Decretum Gelasii. Augustine himself has not
failed, besides, to notice the doubts that existed in his lime; see Retractat. II. 4, 2.
In his De pecc. mer. I. 27, he still leaves the Ep. to the Hebrews unassigned. In
De doctr. christ. II. 8, he writes :
" In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catho-
licarum quam plurimum auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illse sint, qu£e
apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt." Accordingly, this principle
still holds. "Tenebit igitur hunc raodum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quae ab
omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, prjeponat eis quas qusedam nou accipiunt;
in iis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, prasponat eas, quas plures gravioresque
accipiunt eis, quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesise tenent. Si autem alias
invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile inveniri non
possit, sequalis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto." Since the older copies of
the Bible continued to be transcribed, uniformity had not been secured. It is true
we no longer possess western Bibles whose contents are limited to the earliest
Roman Canon— Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline Ep., I and 2 John, i Peter, Jude, Reve-
—
lation but we have them with an Ep. to the Laodiceans, the Pastor (though in
the O. T,), and even with the apocryphal correspondence of the Corinthians and
Paul.
Chap, hi.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 1 99
ceal the fact that the Church never published a general decision,
excluding all on the extent of the Canon in ancient
doubt,
times. The Canon of Augustine was adopted by Pope Innocent I.
(Ep. 6, ch. 7, ad Exsuperium).
With the complete elaboration of the conception of canonical
books, every other description applied to them gave way to
the idea of their divinity. ' What could any predicate signify
compared with the conviction that they had been composed
by the Holy Ghost himself? Therefore the categories of canon-
ical and inspired writings coincided, nay, inspiration in its
highest sense was Hmited to the canonical books. The belief
in inspiration was necessarily attended by the duty of pneu-
matic or allegorical exegesis. This sacred art was then prac-
tised by all, who were able thus to disregard the results of
any other kind of exposition. The problems which pneumatic
exegesis, praised even by cultured Hellenists, had to solve,
were mainly the following. It had (i) to demonstrate the agree-
ment between the two Testaments, in other words to christi- ;
anise the O. T. completely, to discover prophecy every-

where, to get rid of the literal meaning where it was ob-
noxious, and to repel Jewish claims ' (2) to harmonise the ;
statements of Holy Scripture with the prevailing dogmatics (3) ;
to furnish every text with a profound meaning, one valuable

for the time. Exegesis became a kind of black art, and Augus-
tine was not the only man who was delivered from Manichaean,
by Biblical, Alchemy.
But while these tasks were generally fixed, a sure and un-
varying method was still wanting. * Even the principles of
' The conception books were solemnly set apart, occurs first
that the canonical
in Athanasius; the however, including Origen, had the idea and
Alexandrians,
even the word before him (Orig. Prolog, in Cantic). Athanasius writes in his
Festival Ep. ra xctvovi^6iJ.svx xai TrufaSoSivTix Trm-TivShTX r£ hla slvai §i^îx.
The Neoplatonic opponents of the Church were not quite honest, they were rather
'
when they objected to the allegorical method of interpreting

talking SiccAsktixSi;,
Holy Scripture. They treated their own sacred writings in exactly the same way.
' Sozomen says (H. E. V. 22) that the Jews were more readily seduced to
heathenism, because they only interpreted Holy Scripture srpo; ftjrSv, and not Vfig
Ceuflm.
* Thus Arians and Orthodox sometimes appealed to the same texts. But the
impossibility of drawing up a rule deciding how far the letter of Scripture was
Origen were not strictly retained. ^

On the other hand, the
historical antiquarian interest, which he had awakened, in Holy
Scripture, continued to exert its influence. It not only lasted
up to the fifth century, " but it also exerted a critical and re-
authoritative,caused more anxiety. Had God a human form, eyes, or voice was ;
Paradise situated on the earth did the dead rise with all their bodily members,
;
—
even with their hair, etc.? to all these and a hundred similar questions there was
no sure answer, and consequently disputes arose between adherents of one and
the same confession. All had to allegorise, and, in turn, all had to take certain
texts literally. But what a difference existed between an Epiphanius and a Gregory
of Nyssa, and how many shades of belief there were between the crude anthro-
pomorphists and the spiritualists The latter, as a rule, had reason to dread the
!
arguments, and frequently the fists, of the former; they could not but be anxious about
their own orthodoxy, for the old regula was on the side of their opponents, and
the most absurd opinion had the prejudice that it was the most pious in its favour.
Ultimately, in the course of the' fifth century, a sort of common sense established
itself,which could be taken as forming, with regard to the anthropomorphists, a
middle line between the exegetic methods of Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria,
and which had been anticipated by a few Fathers of the fourth century. Yet not
many concessions were made to the anthropomorphists. Even Antiochians like
Theodore had become suspected of an anthropomorphism incompatible with the
honour of God (see Johannes Philoponus, De creat. mundi, I. 22. in Gallandi XII.,
p. 496). He who did not rise from the turpitude Utterce ad decorem intelligentim
(Jerome ad Amos. 2) might come under suspicion of heresy. But, on the
spiritalis
other the Cappadocians themselves opposed those who allegorised "too
hand,
much", and thus approximated too closely to heathen philosophers; and after a
part of Origeh's expositions had passed into the traditional possessions of the
Church, the restwas declared heretical.. Even before this Epiphanius had written
(H. 61, ch. 6): Tlana tic 6eix fvniXTcc ovx aAAijyof/ar; ieiTUi, aAA« (£5 £X"> '^X^''
ieafiui a Ss^Tou lecei aia-itjiTSux;. Origen's thorough-going principle that " God can
say and do nothing, which good and just", by which he criticised and
is not
occasionally set aside the letter of Scripture, was too bold for the Epigoni with
their faith in authority. God had done what Scripture said of him, and what God
did was good. This principle not only ruined all lucid science, but also deprived
the Church of the intrinsic completeness of her creed. Yet we must not minimise
the result of the compromise made in the fourth and fifth centuries, between the
literal, allegorical, and typical methods of inteipreting Scripture; for it has held
its ground up to the present day in u way really identical in all Churches, and
it seems to possess no small power to convince.
' For Origen's principles see Vol. II., p. 346.

" Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome are links in a chain of scholarly tradition and
work. The succession, however, marked a descent not only in point of time. The
attitude of Jerome and the conflicts in which he was involved show at the same
time that the age no longer tolerated independent scholarship in historical criticism.
Therefore it ceased after Jerome such work was confined to registering antiquarian
;
notices, even doubtful ones, which were accepted without reflection, since, having
entered into the stock of tradition, they no Ibnger roused criticism.
Chap, hi.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 201
strictive on pneumatic exegesis.

influence This was the case '
among Diodorus and Theodore tried,

the scholars of Antioch.
following the precedent set by Lucian and Dorotheus, to form
an inner connection between the pneumatic and the grammatico-
historical exegesis. It cannot be held that this gave rise to a
more rational method, or one more tenable from the critical

standpoint. Yet in detail they followed sound principles. These
again had been already pared down by Chrysostom and Theo-
doret in favour of the dominant method, but they lasted in the
Nestorian Church and its schools as long as science existed
there at all, and their influence extended into the West through
^
Junilius.
1 Besides, when driven by necessity, i.e., when brought face to face with in-
convenient passages of Scripture, n. way was found out of the difficuhy in the
demand that the liistorical occasion of the text must be carefully weighed. Thus
Athanasius writes (Orat. c. Arian. I. 54), when setti];ig himself to refute the Scrip-
tural proofs of the Arians, and finding that he is in considerable straits: 6tt Si,
w? 65ri votiTî; Tiji; &e!x( yfxi^viQ Trpoa-tixei 'ttoisiv xctl mccyKXiov eiTTiv, outui xxi
evTuvâ, x«d' "Bv sIttev 6 xT6a-Taô{;^xxipov xai to TrpoffoiTrov xai to Trpxy/.tx, St67rep
'iypefîs, TTiiTTai cxâii^xveiv, ivx fsij 5r«pa tuvtcc >} xxi iruf' '^Tipov ti tovtuv ocyvoav
'0 mayiyt/aa-xaiv '^|fti Ti?; aAifSiviJj SiavoiaQ yevijTxi. The same contention was often
upheld in earlier times by TertuUian when driven into a corner by the exegesis of
the Marcionites (see De praescr. adv. Marc. II. — V.). The exegetical "principle " of
the Fathers gradually became the comfhxus oppositorum ; i.e., when the literal
meaning was disturbing, then it was, in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat.
XXXI. 3): 'hSu/xx TvJQ xtreêixg ha-Tiv {> (fiiKla tov ypxniJ.XToi: or men spoke of the
turpitudo litterce, the Jewish understanding of Scripture, the necessity of considering
historical circumstances or the like. Butif "advanced" theologians produced suspected
allegorical explanations, then the cry was raised w; 'ixn, '^X^'t Holy Scripture is
not to be understood according to Plato, etc.
2 The distinction between Alexandrian — Origenistic — and Antiochene exegesis

does not consist in the representatives of the latter having rejected wholesale the
spiritual meaning. They rather recognised it, but they tried to determine it typi-
cally from the literal meaning. While the Alexandrians avowedly set aside the
literal meaning in many passages, and attached the pneumatic sense to texts by
some sort of device, the Antiochenes started from the literal meaning, seeking to
discover it by all the means of a sound exegesis, and then showed that the nar-
rative concerned was a irxix tuv ij.i>^f.6vTUV, a type created by God, which had
been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. They set up definite rules for the discovery of the
literal meaning as well as for that of the typical and allegorical sense {Seupix, not
aAAifyop/a), which lay not in the words, but the realities, persons, and events de-
signated by the words. The rules are strikingly like those of the Federal theolo-
gians —Cocceius — and the school of Hofmann; the method of the author of the
Hebrews furnished their model. This procedure had various results. First, the
202 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. in.
The West Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and

received through
Rufinus, the method of the Greeks, as prac-
erudite pneumatic
tised especially by the Cappadocians. Before this, and for a
few decades afterwards, the exegesis of the West was mainly
method of Philo and Origen followed by the Alexandrians was strenuously opposed
both in independent treatises, and in connection with exegesis. Secondly, an effort
was made to give the literal meaning in all cases its due; thus Diodorus says in
the Catena of Nicephorus (Leipz. 1772, I. p. 524): tov a/.îttyofixoS ro la-rofixov
7r>.e7<rT0v Utov 7rpaTiiJ.uiJ.cv. Thirdly, a was accordingly recognised
real covenant
between God and the Jewish people, was accorded its significant
and that nation
place in the history of salvation: the " history of salvation" which thus originated
differed essentially from that of Irenjeus (see Vol. II., p. 305). Fourthly and finally,
the number of directly Messianic passages in the O. T. became extraordinarily
limited; while, according to pneumatic exegesis, everything in the O. T. was in a
sense directly Messianic, I.e., Christian, the Antiochenes only retained a few such
passages. The horizon of O. T. authors was more Theodore
correctly defined.
decidedly disputed the presence of anything in the O. T. about the Son of God
or the Trinity. Further, the Antiochenes distinguished grades of inspiration, namely,
the spirit of prophecy, and that of wisdom, and they placed the former far above
the latter. Although the advance of this exegesis on the Alexandrian is obvious,
yet it is seriously defective in completeness and consistency in method. First, the
Antiochenes, in spite of their polemic against the older expositors — Hippolytus, Origen,
Eusebius, Apollinaris, Didymus, and Jerome — could not altogether divest them-
selves of the old principle of the authoritative interpretation of Scripture; "they
regarded the old traditional doctrine, the exposition given by the Fathers, and the
definitions of Synods, as the standard and touch-stone of agreement with the creed
of the Church, and they made of this rule what use they pleased " from this source ;
their became somewhat uncertain. Secondly, they only rarely succeeded in

attitude
criticising the literal meaning historically ; where they did, they employed rational-
istic interpretations, and accordingly their procedure approximated to Origen's
speculative exegesis, yet without following any fixed principle. Thirdly, their typolo-
gical exegesis also often bordered very closely on the allegorical, and since they assumed
a double sense in Scripture, they did not remove, but only disguised, the fundamental
error of current exegesis. Fourthly, they could not make clear the difference between the
O. T. and the N. T., because, in spite of their assumption of different degrees of
inspiration, they placed the O. T. prophets on a level with the Apostles see ;
Theodore, Comment, on Neh. I. in Migne, T. LXVI., p. 402 : Tij? airiii toS ikyiav
TTveviJarog ;)jap;T05 0" te TraP^xi (J€Te7xov Ksci 01 Tut tvj(^ kkivvii; Sta&i^xiit; vTr^peTOVijsvot
IjviTTifpiiji. by assuming directly Messianic passages in the O. T. they gave
Finally,
up their own position, and placed themselves at the mercy of their opponents.
See later for the history of the school of Antioch, especially its relation to
Aristotle. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der christl. Kirche, p. 126 ff. Fritzsche, de
Theod. Mops, vita et scriptis, Halae, 1836. Above all, the works of Kihn, Die
Bedeutung der Antioch. Schule a. d. exeget. Gebiete (1866), and Theodor von
Mopsuestia und Junilius als Exegeten (1880), where the older literature is given.
Swete, Theodori ep. Mops, in epp. Pauli Comment. Cambridge, 1880, 1881.
Chap, hi.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 203
characterised by absence of system; along with reverence for

the letter we find all sorts of allegorical explanations, and in
turn a predilection for a dramatic close to earthly history.
Jerome was from having fixed exegetic principles, since he
far
allegorised against his better knowledge wherever the orthodox
confession required it. In his time Tychonius, a Donatist, drew
up for the interpretation of Holy Scripture seven rules which
were to remove all difficulties (Augustine, De doctr. christ. III.
30 sq.). •
These were adopted by Augustine in his work '
On
Christian Science ', which, subject as it is to the errors of the
age, is a glorious memorial of the great Bishop's love of truth,
and evangelical feeling. Of evangelical feeling, in so far as
Augustine, in opposition to all biblicism, declared the study of
Holy Scripture be merely the path towards love he who
to . ;
possessed love, no longer needed the Scripture, he Uved with

Christ and God accordingly he had ceased to require separate
;
'saving truths', for he lived in truth and love. ^
1 These rules are of material importance (for theology). The first treats of the
Lord and body: i.e., we must and may apply the truth concerning the Lord
his
to the Church, and vice versa, since they form one person ; only in this way do
we frequently get a correct sense. The second deals with the bi-partite body of
the Lord: we must carefully consider whether the true or the empirical Church is
meant. The third takes up the promises and the law, i.e., the spirit and letter;
the fourth treats of genus and species: we must observe the extent to which texts
apply; the fifth, of the dates: we must harmonise contradictory dates by a fixed
method, and understand certain stereotyped numbers as symbolical. The sixth
discusses repetition i.e., we have frequently to refrain from assuming a chronolo-
:
gical order, where such an order appears to exist, and the seventh deals with the
devil and his body, i.e., the devil and the godless, many things referring to the
latter which are said of the devil and vice versa —see the first rule.
^ The thought wavers between that of Origen, who also elevates himself above
the historical Christ, and the genuinely evangelical idea that the Christian must
stop short at "means of salvation"; see De doctr. L 34: "Nulla res in via (ad
deum) tenere nos debet, quando nee ipse dominus, in quantum via nostra esse
dignatus est, tenere nos voluerit, sed transire ; ne rebus temporalibus, quamvis ab
illo pro salute nostra susceptis et gestis, h^reamus infirmiter, sed per eas potius
curramus alacriter etc." In ch. 35 love is held up as the exclusive goal: ch. 36
teaches that no one has understood Scripture who has not been led by it to love
God and his neighbour; but if he has been led to this love, then he loses nothing
by failing to hit on the correct sense of detached texts: in that case he is deceived,
but without guilt :
" Quisquis in scripturis (I. 37) aliud sentit quam ille qui scripsit,
Butthought of the book does not give its prevailing

this
colour; is furnished, on
this the contrary, by the other ideas
that Scripture is the only way by which to come to God and
Christ, that it is to be interpreted by the rule of faith, that
obscure passages to be explained by clear ones, and that
are
the where offensive, must yield to the deeper
literal meaning,
sense. The numerous hermeneutic rules set up by Augustine,
which are so many expedients and very like Origen's methodic
principles,determined the nature of exegesis in later periods in the
West. In connection with whatever else was derived from the East,
the view that there was a triple and fourfold meaning in Scripture
became a fixed doctrine. ^ The little book by Junilius which
illisnon meiitientibus fallitur; sed tamen, ut dicere coeperam, si ea sententia falli-
lur, qua Eedificet caritatem, quae finis' prsecepti est, ita fallitur ac si quisquam errore
deserens viam, eo tamen per agrum pergat, quo etiara via ilia pSrducit." Augustine
says indeed (1. c.) " titubabit fides, si divinarum scripturarum vacillat auctoritas,"
:
but, on the other hand (I. 39) " Homo, fide, spe et caritate subnixus eaque incon-
:
cusse retinens, non indiget scrifturis nisi ad alios instruendos. Itaque multi per
h£EC tria etlam in solitudlne sine codicibus vivunt Quibus tamen quasi macliinis
. . .
tanta fidei, spei et caritatis in eis surrexit instructio, ut perfectum aliquid tenentes,
ea qu£e sunt ex parte non qucerant; perfectum sane, quantum in hac vita potest."
This forcible way of assigning a practical purpose to the reading of Scripture and
the understanding at the root of it, viz., that it was the whole that was of im-
portance, is the opposite of the conception that Scripture embraces innumerable
mysteries; but an affinity exists far down between them, inasmuch as Augustine
seems to reserve to the monks the state in which Scripture is not required, and
he borders on the belief of Origen (I. 34) that the Christ of history belongs to
the past for him who lives in love. The whole conception is first found, besides,
in the description by the Valentinian school of the perfect Gnostic; see Excerpta
ex Theodoto, ch. 27: vov it 'in ypafj)?; xcii naiyj<reaf xarifiuixit rji <|'i'%{i ixelvif
T^ KU&ccpSi ysvoiisviiit &Vov KXt a\iovTC6t TTpda-aiTTOv 'jrpoq 7rp6a-uvov &eov opSv besides ;
Augustine expressly argued against those who supposed they could dispense with
Scripture from the start, and appealed to an inner revelation (see the Prsefat. to
De doctr. christ.). He puts it beyond doubt that he who uses Scripture must bow
to its authority even where he does not understand it.
1See the second and especially the third book of the work quoted. The second
contains a short and precise review of all branches of knowledge which are
collectively perceived to spring from heathenism, and it states which may and must be
used by the Christian, and to what extent. The third book contains the hermeneutics
proper.
See Eucherius of Lyons, liber formularum spiritalis intelligentije adVeranium
-
filium, inMigne, Ser. lat. T. 50, p. 727. In later times the mnemonic formula was
composed: Lit/era gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
Chap, hi.] HOLY SCRIPTURE 20S
contained the Antiochene system of hermeneutics as handed

down at Nisibis, although made few changes. But much read,
it was exceedingly significant that Augustine, in spite of his
view that it was only a means, had placed the Bible on such
a pinnacle that all theologians who afterwards took their stand
upon it alone as against tradition, were able to appeal to him.
As a matter of fact Scripture held quite a different place in the
Church life of the West from that in the East: it came more
into 'the foreground. That also is to be explained, above all,
by the influence of Augustine, ' and the deficiency of the

West in speculative ability.
As Church had never published a general decree, ex-
the
clusive all doubt, on the extent of Scripture, it had also
of
failed to publish one concerning its characteristics. Freedom
from error was generally deduced from inspiration, and it was,
as a rule, referred to the very words. But on the other hand,
an attempt was made here and there to leave room for the
individuality and historical limitation of the authors; minor in-
consistencies were not wholly denied (see even Aug., De con-
sensu evang.) and exegesis was often practised as if the strict
;
dogma of inspiration did not exist. ' A clear idea of the suffi-
1 The work " Oq Christian Science " points to Scripture as its sole object, and
does not discuss tradition at all. However, the latter receives its due inasmuch as
Augustine regards the propositions of the rule of faith based on the Symbol as — —
the matters, which constituted the essential contents of Scripture. In this definition
we find the reason why dogmatics never ceased to waver between Scripture and
the rule of faith. Yet we know that Augustine was by no means the first to hold
this view. Even the writer of the Muratorian fragment and Irenseus knew no better.
2' Origen taught that Christian science was the science of Scripture; Augustine
stands upon his shoulders. But afterwards, in the East, the interest in dogmatic
formulas became uppermost, while in the West, the Bible remained pre-eminently'
the direct source of knowledge of the faith.
3 Even the men of Antioch, by whom, Chrysostom not excepted, human elements
were aknowledged to exist in the Bible, maintained the inspiration of other passages
quoad litleram, just like Origen and the Cappadocians. Augustine accepted this
freedom from error in its strictest sense; see Ep. 82. 3 (ad Hieron.): "Ego fateor
caritali tuse, solis eis scriptuarum libris, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc
timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auclorem scribendo aliquid errasse

firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis otfendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium
veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel interpretem non assecu-
tum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse non ambigam." In his
work De consensu evang.., which is particularly instructive as regards his whole
2o6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
ciency of Scripture was certainly not reached ; it was maintained

^
in general phrases, and was violated in generalities and in details.
Finally, as regards the relation of the two Testaments to each
other, three views existed side by side. The Old Testament
was a Christian book as well as the New : it was throughout
the record of prophecy: it contained the true creed under cer-
tain Hmitationsand imperfections, and led and still leads educa-
tionally These points of view were adopted alter-
to Christ.
nately as the occasion required. It was recognised that the
Jewish nation had possessed a covenant with God, yet the

consequences of this were far from being admitted. The same
method of employing the Bible was still upheld in apologetic
arguments as was followed by the Apologists of the second
century. ^ For the rest, even Cyril of Alexandria still brought
"heathen prophecy" to bear in this matter, while in other re-
spects —speaking generally—the assumption of heathen '
prophets
and inspired philosophers excited suspicion.
attitude toHoly Writ, he declares that the Apostles' writings make up sufficiently
for the absence ofany by our Lord for the Apostles were the Lord's hands, and
;
had written what he commanded. It is extremely surprising that this being the
—
view taken of the Bible and even the translation of the LXX. was held to be
—
inspired yet no one ever ex professo reflected on how the Canon was formed.
No miracle was assumed. Even Augustine quite naively stated, sancti ei docti
homines had formed the N. T. (c. Faustum XXII. 79). Here the authority of the
Church comes in.
• The early Catholic Fathers had already maintained the sufficiency of Holy
Scripture, as well as the necessity of proving everything out of it; see for the
latter point Orig. in Jerem., Horn. I. u. 7 (Lomm. XV. p. 115): Mapxi/fa; JeT Aa(3£7v
Ta:? ypccipa^. Âfâprvpot yap at e'riôfât >i(j.uv Kat at e^vjyîrsii; aTia-roiettrtv. Cyril
of Jerusalem has expressed himself sinailarly (Cat. 4, 17: Ae7 yap Trsp) rSv him
Kat aytojv tvi^ Trta-TSO)^ ixvffT^piaiv fiJjJ^ to rvxov avev rav Setav TrapaSiSotTdat ypa-
</)wv <eai liij dvASi 7n6av6T>i(7i xxi Arfywv y.aTa(TX£ua1<; 7rapa<Pep£a-$ai. Mi}5J Ifto;
Tctt ravToc. trot êyovrt^ u/TrKut; 'KiiTTSvfT^c; \av t^v aTrdSsihv rwv KaTayys?iô{.iev6]v
avro TUV Ssiiiiv /^vj Aaj3^c ypacpcSv 'H trcari^pla yap aVr^ rij^ Trta-recii^ yifzcSv qvx s%
ivpeiriôy/aQ, a>^f,k IJ aToSeiîuQ twv Oeiiov ia-Ti ypaûv); cf. Athanasius (Orat. adv.
gentes init. Avt^pkeiq f^sv eta-tv at ay tat xai SsdTvsvtrrot ypa(pat Trpdt; t^v tjj$
:
a^yiiela^ arayyeîav). So also the Antiochenes, moreover Augustine De doctr. II. 9

"In iis quae aperte in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia, quae continent
fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem." Vincent., Commonit. 2.
^ All the more did the use made of Church the 0. T. for the constitution of the
differ from the apologetic view. Very many of the regulations of the O. T.
ceremonial law came once more to be highly valued by the Church, not as spir-
itually understood, but as direcily applied to ecclesiastical institutions of every sort.
Chap, hi,] TRADITION 20/
2. Tradition.
The authority of Holy Scripture frequently appears in the

Fathers as something wholly abstract and despotic. It con-
tained, in fact, a latent tendency to assert its independence of the

conditions out of which it had arisen. But the' revolution which
was characterised by the isolation of the Bible, its deliverance
from the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, and the annihilation
of the latter, only took place in the sixteenth century, and even
then it was, we know, not completely successful. In ecclesias-
tical antiquity, on the contrary, the bond was by no means sever-
ed which connected Scripture with the maternal organism of
the Church. The Church, its doctrine, institutions, and consti-
tution, were held, in and by themselves, to constitute the source
of knowledge and the authoritative guarantee of truth. As the
holy, Apostolic, and Catholic institution, it possessed nothing
whatever untrue or capable of amendment either in its found-
ations or its development. Everything in it, rather, was apo-
stolic, and the guidance of the Church by the Holy Ghost
had preserved this apostolic fabric from any change. This

thought was necessarily emphasised more and more strongly in
consequence of the development undergone by Church affairs
in the fourth and following centuries. Since at the same time,
however, the independent authority and the sufficiency of the
Bible were also emphasised, there arose difficulties, in part even
manifest inconsistencies, which were never removed. But they '
were not clearly felt, because men always possessed the power,
when confronted by inconvenient monitors, to carry through
ultimately, whether in the form of dogma, or in that of order,
whatever was required. In face of traditions become obsolete
an appeal was made to other traditions, or to the Bible; where
written testimony was uncertain or awanting, recourse was had
to tradition ; i.e., that was declared to be tradition which was
' The Orientals, especially the Antiochenes, but Cyril of Jems, also, adhered
more exclusively to Scripture ; the Alexandrians, and even the Cappadocians relied
more strongly on tradition. Yet the differences are only in degi'ee. At any rate,
the difference comes out more strongly on d. comparison of Theodoret and Cyril
of Alexandria.
not to be justified under another title. Hence it is already clear

that tradition never was and never could be systematised and
catalogued, that an authentic declaration never was and never
could be published as to its extent and scope. There was no
singledeliverance on the application of tradition, which would
not, if consistently carried out, have thrown the Church into
confusion. If Augustine therefore (De bapt. c. Donat. II. 3, 4)
declared — certainly against his better knowledge that canonical — '
Scripture was contained within fixed limits of its own ' (scriptura
canonica certis suis terminis continetur), yet it never occurred
to him or any one else to maintain as much about tradition.
The latter was in antiquity a wholly elastic category, as we see

when we look at its use in individual cases; in summa it was,
however, an extremely rigid and clear notion: meaning simply
that the Church was determined, in spite of all changes, to
regard itself as the unchangeable creation of the Apostles. It
derived its claim to this view partly from the divine promises,
partly from the organisation instituted for it, yet without alleg-
ing confidently any empirical factor within the Church which
should be the bearer of its infallibility. The most important '
consequences of this view held by the Church regarding itself

have been already stated in the second volume; but others
came to be added in the post-Constantinian period.
A. The creed of the Church was always held to be the
most important part of its tradition. The anti-gnostic formulas
which the creed had preserved passed over in the East, along
with theorems, half biblical half speculative, and here and there
with purely philosophical or polemical discussions, into the
Symbols. ^ These Symbols, which had been adopted for use
1 Renter's excellent explanation of Augustine's position (Ztschrft. fiir K.-Gesch.,
Vol. VIII., pp. 181 f., was then true of very wide circles " The Episcopate
186 f.) :
and the Roman sedes aposlolica, the whole relatively coordinated sides apostolica,
the relative and the absolute plenary councils were held to be representations of
the (infallible) Church; but not one of these factors, not all of them combined,
formed the (infallible) representation of the (infallible) Church. The latter possessed
no indubitably sure institution or organs indubitably representative of it." The
decrees of councils were only placed on a complete equality with Scripture in the
East, after councils had ceased to be held, and when the latter therefore were
seen, like Scripture, in a nimbus of hoary antiquity.
" See Vol. II., p. 20 f. and III., pp. 48 if., in ff.
Chap, in.] TRADITION 209
in were regarded as apostolic testimonies. Their

the Church,
phrasing was not considered in the East to be due to the
Apostles, but the honour paid them was justified from the
Apostles' preaching. These Symbols of the provincial Churches
'
were supplanted in the period between the first and third (fourth)
CEcumenical Councils by the Nicene, or soon thereafter by the
so-called Constantinopolitan Symbol. " This confession ^ had
already been held at Chalcedon to be the creed pure and simple,
and it never lost this place of honour. If it had already been
constantly assumed that the doctrine of the Church was the
theme, or the matter, constituting the real contents of Scripture,
then this assumption was now definitely transferred to the
Nicene or the Constantinopolitan Symbol. All subsequent
dogmatic conclusions were accordingly regarded solely as ex-
planations of this Symbol, which was not maintained, how-
''
ever, to be of Apostolic origin in its language. —

Traditioji, in
the strictest sense of the term, consisted in the contents of the
Symbol for the time being. Cyril says of this (Cat. V. 12):
'
In these few paragraphs the whole dogma of the faith (is)
comprised' (fv oxiyoit; Tolg crrixoig ro ttHv ôy(/,x rijg TfiaTsag
' The Symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus was derived from a special revelation
see Vol. III., p. 115.
There were two symbol-constructing periods in the East before a universal

2
Confession was framed. The former of these embraced A.D. 250 —-325, the second,
A.D. 325 up to the beginning or the middle of the fifth century. In the latter
period the attempt was made either to transform the Nicene Creed into a baptismal
Confession, or to displace it by parallel formulas sometimes the leading words of
;
the Nicene Symbol were inserted in those of the provincial Churches. See on the
history of this, the part played by the Bishops of Asia Minor in these develop-
ments, and the history of the so-called Constanlinop. Symbol, my art. " Konstantinop.
Symbol" in Herzog's R.-E. 2, Vol. VIII.; Caspari's works, Hort's investigations,
Two Dissertations, Cambridge, 1876, and Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I., p. 252 ff.
' It was originally the Baptismal Confession of the Church of Jerusalem, revised
soon after the middle of the fourth century, and furnished with a regtila fidei
concerning the Holy Spirit it came thus to be
; honoured first through the authority
of Epiphanius, and then through the energy of the Bishop of Constantinople, which
also led to its supplanting the Nicene Symbol.
Monophysites and orthodox believers always professed to be able to read their

*
Christological formulasword for word in the Symbol. The Greek Church maintains
to the present day that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol contains everything
we require to believe.
14
As the Church had obtained in the Nicene

TTspi^xf^lSDivofisvov).
Creed a complete and uniform Symbol, the view was transfer-

red to it. There were two sides meanwhile to the relations of
Scripture and Symbol. You might not believe the contents of
the Symbol unless you could convince yourself of their truth
from Scripture but on the other hand, your interpretation of
;
'
Scripture had to be regulated by the creed laid down in the

Symbol. ' In the West a unique dignity was retained by the
old Roman Symbol (or its parallel forms in the provincial
Churches) which was regarded as being composed of twelve
articles. From the fourth century at least it was held to be
the Apostolic Creed in the strict sense of the term. ' Its brevity
and simplicity long preserved the Roman Church from extrav-
agant theological speculations, but they could not barricade it
against the theological development of the East. An industri-

ous was made, or at least professed, to derive the
attempt
decision of dogmatic questions, as they emerged, from this
Apostolic Symbol, and to rest upon it the whole of the ever
increasing material of dogmatics. " It was only after the begin-
• So, above all, Cyril and the Antiochenes.

' No hesitation prevailed in the Church on this point; yet Synods simply for-
bade certain expositions of Scriptural texts as heretical. The Church alone furnished
the giibernaculum interpretationis (see Vincent., Commonit. 2, 41)and that in its
concise guide to faith, the Symbol. After the Constantinopolitan Symbol had been
placed on an inaccessible height, we no longer find the blunt assertion that the
creed is compiled from the Holy Scriptures. But this contention was also historically
false. (For it di^ VSo^sv av^fuvoii a-vviTsiii rk rifQ
see Cyril, Cat. V. 12): ow yitp
n/(7T6iu«' a/A' £X TX xxipiUTUTU (ri/AAe^Sfvxa liiav uvcfTT^^foi t^v
TTuiFm ypci^î;
TVii Uia-Tciiii JiJao-xaA/av. ''Canon" was originally the rule of faith; the Scripture
had in truth intervened, yet so that its authority had a support placed still further
back, namely, the O. T. and the Lord's sayings.
3 See my
" Apostolisches Symbol " in Herzog's R.-E. 2 B. I. The opinion that
art.
the had composed the Symbol jointly (Rufinus) cannot be traced earlier
Apostles
than the middle of the fourth century, but it may be much older. Yet )\e must
not date it too soon; for if the Churches of the western provinces had received
the Symbol with this legend attached, they would hardly have ventured to propose
changes on it. It was certainly not extolled even in Rome in the third century,
so exuberantly as it was afterwards by Ambrose.
^ This point falls to be discussed in the next book. Augustine had to rest his
distinctive theology on the Symbol, though the latter was only imperfectly adapted
for the purpose.
Chap, hi.] TRADITION 2 1
ning of the fifth century that the Constantinopolitan Symbol

supplanted the apostolic in Church use in Rome and the West,
yet without the latter losing its prestige. This was of course
transferred in part to the new Symbol, but the old remained,
though latent, in force. " The twelve articles of the Apostolic
Symbol, to be explained by the Constantinopolitan, constituted
in the West the ecclesiastical tradition kxt'' sôx>lv- Justinian's
legislation confirmed this conception, though, indeed, that was
not needed.
B. At the beginning of the fourth century there already
entered into the composition of the Church, not only its creed,
but a cultus fixed in its main features ; there were further
disciplinary and ceremonial provisions — still differing, indeed, in
part in the various provincial Churches
*
— and finally, a settled
constitution. Itwas only in a very late period that the notion
of apostolicity was applied, in the strict sense, to the whole of
;
these elements " but not only did the foundations of these
ordinances come
be characterised as apostolic, but as a rule,
to
and to an increasing extent, everything which there was a desire
to assure of permanence. Different methods were adopted,
however, of establishing the apostolic character of these institu-
tions. First, it was maintained that regulations observed by the
whole Church required no proof that they were Apostolic.
• See my art. on the Constantiaop. Symbol, 1. c.
" The history of the Apostolic Symbol between the fifth and sixth centuries
urgently requires investigation.
' Justinian's law-book is headed by the art. " De summa trinitate et de fide catholica
et ut nemo de ea publice contendere audeat " ; but see also the famous decree of
the Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, A.D. 380, with which the
law-book begins.
* See, e.g.^ Socrates, H. E. V. 22.
5 When this made between

occurred a very exact distinction had already been
faith and disciplinary law. Apostolic faith was something
from and higher different
than apostolic laws (htarx^stt;, vd(xot, kxvSvsi; eKK?îf<riait7riK0i §ix tuv XToa-T^^tiiv').
This corrected the equality apparently attributed to the two branches of tradition
by the common predicate "apostolic."
See August., De bapt. c. Donat. II. 7, 12: "Multa, quae non inveniuntur in
6
litterisapostolorum neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam

custodiuntur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduntur." IV.
24. 31: "Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nee conciliis inslitutum sed semper retentum
Secondly, advantage was taken in the East, of the numerous

legends of the Apostles current in the Churches; they began
to be used in connection with the government and cultus of
the Churches in such a way that definite detailed regulations
were attributed to the Apostles, individually or collectively,
whenever they were required for the discipline or cultus of the
time. ' men began in the fourth century — not un-
Thirdly,
influenced by Clement and Origen to introduce the notion of —
a TTxpx'SoiTig xypaCpiii; (unwritten tradition), in whose wholly un-
defined contents were even included dogmatic theories which
it was not everyone's business to understand ;
yet it dealt
extremely seldom with the trinitarian and Christological catch-
words. This idea of an unwritten tradition crept in in a very
'
'
real sense; for it conflicted with more than one main point in
the fundamental positions of the Church. But it attained high
honour, and its existence absolutely became a dogma. But
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur." V. 23. 31; " Multa,
quae universa tenet ecclesia et ob hoc ab apostolis prtecepta bene creduntur, quam-
quam scripta non reperiantur."
1 The Apologists had God in Spirit and
exhibited Cluistianity as the worship of
in truth, and by equality and fraternity. But there had grad-
as an alliance regulated
ually developed a complicated cultus round the mysteries, and a comprehensive and
detailed code of discipline had become necessary. For both of these appeal was
made to an increasing extent to apostolic authority. Compare the Apostolic Con-
stitutions, the Kuvivei; ixx^tjo-iaa-Tixoi, the Apostolic Canons, in general the mass of
material, partly published, partly discussed, by Bicliell, Pitra, and Lagarde ; further,
the designation of the Liturgies of the provincial Churches as by Marlt, James, etc.
The history, still partly unwritten, of these Eastern forgeries under apostolic names
is closely connected witli the general history of the legends of the Apostles (see
Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgesch.). The O. T. commandments were again
introduced into the Church by means of apostolic fictions, until the ancient awe of
Moses, the law-giver, was surmounted. After apostolic commandments of this sort
had been allowed to spring up luxuriantly for a time, the Church liad no little
trouble to exorcise the spirits it had conjured. A sifting process began from the
sixth century — at least in the Byzantine Church — to which, e.^., the Constitutions fell
a victim. In the law books of the Monophysite and Nestorian Churches, much more
compreliensive matter had been preserved, under apostolic names, as possessed of
the value of law. Yet it did not receive the same honour as the Holy Scriptures.
In order to an unabashed invention of regulations
realise the possibility of such
cloaked with the a,uthority and name we must remember that, from
of the Apostles,
the second century, writings bearing on discipline were in existence, called SiSax"!'
or SiaTiiÊi( Tuv a5roo-T<(A<ui', and that these, having no individual impress, were
thoroughly adapted for constant remodelling and expansion.
Chap, hi.] TRADITION 213
because it really made all else unnecessary and was a dangerous

drastic expedient, it was not defined, nor was its extent ever
determined. And it did not banish Scriptural proof or the
appeal to familiar and demonstrable tradition. The existence
was maintained of a tradition ivhich dispensed with all criteria
— and that was what the 7r(zpciô<jig x'ypix(pog was ; but a prudent
use zvas made of it. Unwritten tradition was preferentially
applied to the development of ritual and the sacramental per-
formance of the mysteries, while the secret truths of the creed
were based exclusively on Scripture and the Councils. But ^
1 The assumption of a secret apostolic tradition —that is, the vap&Soa-i:; ci'ypa(poq
— first appeared among the Gnostics, i.e., among the first theologians, who had to
legitimise as apostolic a world of notions alien to piimitive Christianity. It then
was found quite logically among the Alexandrians, and from them passed to Euse-
bius, who not only accepted it (H. E. II. I, 4), but also vindicated it against Mar-
cellus (lib. I. c. tx^ xTrb rcSv 6siuv ypxiûv /zxprvpiaQ s^ xypxipov
l) : SKKhîrixi;
vxpxSotrsuQ o-tppxyiôiihiiQ. But the Cappadocians first established it in their conflict
with the Eunomians and Pneumatomachoi, yet the bold use made of it by them in
defence of the dogma of the Trinity, was not afterwards parallelled. Basil (De
spiritu sancto, 27) referred the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost to the un-
written tradition, placing the latter on an equality with the public tradition; but
he endeavoured at the same time to retain the old Alexandrian distinction between
Kt^pwy/ix and S6yiJ.x, SSyiiX being meant to embrace the theological formulation of
the faith {rav ev t^ hutc^îâ-ix 'jre(pv?ixy[.civti)v Soyt^xraiv xxt Ktjpvyi^xTuv rx (ziv e«
rij? hyypx<pov SiSx<7KX?îx^ '^_3jo/êv, rx S^ ey. tvjq twv xyroiTT6?^(av TrxpaSoa-EccQ Stx5o-
6evTX ^luv sv [zva-Tiipioi TxpeSsîiiJieSx, xTsp xi^(p6T£px Tijv xvTyjv lirxvv 'g;^^; 5rpo5
TJ^v sua-iêtxv ÂAo yxp §6y[iX, kxi aAAo K^pvy{/.x, rx fMSv yxp S6y[zarx (Tiw-
. . .
TT^Txi, Tx Si xvipiyiJLXTx StiiiinrisvsTxi). The latter distinction was opposed to the

tendency of the age, and remained without effect. (With that which Basil named
dogma, the liua-Tiy.ij TrxpaSoa-ii: was identical, of which Pamphilus and Eusebius
speak, and by the aid of which they defended the orthodoxy of Origen; see
Socrates III. 7.) But it is important that in order to prove the existence of a
TTxpxioa-ii 'xypx(poQ, Basil appeals merely to matters of ritual signs of the Cross, —
prayers of consecration, and baptismal rites. To these the unwritten tradition was in
later times almost exclusively applied. Gregory of Nazianzus advanced in a diiferent
direction from Basil: he admitted to his opponents (Orat. 37) that tradition was
defective in reference to the doctrine of the Spirit, but he believed he could
assume a progressive development of the truth of revelation. But, as far as I know,
he only once expressed himself so imprudently, and he found absolutely no imitators.
His attempt only proves the difficulty caused by the defence of the dogma of the Trinity
in the fourth century. In Cyril of Jerusalem (see his view so divergent from that of the
Cappadocians, Cat. 16, oh. 2) and the older Antiochenes the ^rapaJoo-;; ieypaif"'? does
not occur, but it does in Epiphanius (H. 61, ch. 6: Je; kxi wxpxSdersi xsxpâ-Sxi.
ou yxp TtxvTX x'ni Tvii hi'x^ ypxipiii Sv-jxtxi ^.xi^îivss-ixi- Sio tos (ih h ypx(px7/;,
TX Ss h TTxpxSiirsa-iv TtxpiSuxxv oS Hytoi x'!t6(ttoôi). It is also found in Chrysostom,

this distinction was not sufficient, nor was it firmly held to be

unalterable.
C. All conceptions of the authority of tradition, of which
many Fathers e.g., Cyprian described Scripture to be the —
main element, were based ultimately on the conviction that
'
the Church had been invested with authority through its con-
nection with the Holy Spirit himself. ^ At this point two pro-
blems arose, which, though hardly ever clearly formulated, were
yet felt, and which attempts were made to solve. I.
By —
whom and when did the Church speak? II. How were novel- —
ties to be explained in the Church, especially in the sphere of
doctrine, if the authority of the Church had its root exclusively

in its apostolic character, that is, its ability to preserve the
legacy of the Apostles?
As to I. It was a settled doctrine from the third cen-
tury, that the representation of the Church was vested in the
Cyril of Alexandria, and others down to John of Damascus, who says plainly (De
fide orthod. IV. ch. 12): t^ypa(p6i; ktrrtv ^ TrapxSoa-ti; uutvi tcSv aTroa-riâiv, TroAAa
yap aypx(paif iifiiv TTcepiioirxv (see details in Langen, Joh. von Damaskus, 1879,
p. 271 ff.). So also the Greek Church of to-day teaches SiuptiTai to Se7ov p^fta :
£?C TB TO ypaTTTOv xat ixypx<po'j (see Gass, Symbolik der griech. Kirche, p. 107 ff.)
Quotations are especially taken from Pauline texts in which TrapaSoa-eii occur, and
thus a sort of Scriptural proof is led in support of what does not occur in Scripture.
The unwritten tradition is hardly again applied to the creed, since it was thought
to be sufficiently supported by Scripture and the Symbol. In the West, Augustine
was in the same doubtful position, with regard to certain theses which he defended
against Donatists and Pelagians, as the Cappadocians were in reference to the
orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost. Hence he derived, f.^., the doctrine of original
sin, which could not be otherwise proved out of tradition, from the rite of ex-
orcism, declaring this to have been an apostolic tradition ; (see c. Julian. VI. 5, 11):
"Sed etsi nulla ratione indagetur, nuUo sermone explicetur, varum tamen est quod
antiquitus veraci fide catholica praedicatur et creditur per ecclesiam totam; qu£e
filios fidelium nee exorcizaret, nee exsufflaret, si non eos de potestate tenebrarum.
et a principe mortis erueret, etc ). So also he appealed against the Donatists in
the controversy as to Baptism by Heretics (against Cyprian's authority) to Ihe un-
written testimony of the whole Church (see note 6, p. 211).
' Cyprian calls Scripture "dimna; tradifiom's caput et origo" (Ep. 74; ch. 10).
This designation is not common.
^ The universalis expressed in the famous sentence of Augustine
conviction
(C. ep. which he has given in various forms in the Confessions and
Manich. 6)
elsewhere Ego vera evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicce ecclesice commoveret
:
auctoritas. Even Cyril of Jerusalem, who has emphasised most strongly the authority
of Scripture, could not pass over that of the Church (Cat. IV., ch. 33).
Episcopate, though the strict conception of the latter, as first
taught by Cyprian, that it was the main support of the Church,

was for a long time not universally held. We find, meanwhile, '
even, e.g., from the plan of Eusebius' Church History, that the
Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, were regarded as guar-
antors of the legitimacy of the Church. The conception never
emerged that the Bishop was infallible as an individual but ''
a certain inspiration was already -though not without differences —

of opinion — âttributed to the provincial Synods. ' Constantine
was the first to form the idea of a universal Synod, " and he
1 In his studies on Augustine, Reuter has shown that Augustine fell short of
Cyprian (see his theses in the Ztschr. K.-Gesch., Vol. VIII., p. 184, and the
f.
relative discussions in Vol. VII.). In the East the compiler of Apostolic Constitu-
tions took substantially the view of the Episcopate held by Ignatius, but not by
Irenaeus and Cyprian. Even Chrysostom's work, srep; lepcinrvviK, tends in the same
direction as the Constitutions. It is very remarkable that Cyril of Jerusalem
(Cat. XVIII., ch. 27) makes no mention of the hierarchy, but only of the Apostles,
prophets, teachers and other office-bearers enumerated in the well-known passage
in the Ep. to the Corinthians. That is a memorable archaism yet see even Vincentius, ;
Commonit. 40. He also says very little about Bishops, and nothing at all about
the apostolic succession.
- On the contrary, the fallibility of individual bishops was always admitted

from Irenaeus down- (III. 3, i): '•'•
omnibus eos
Valde perfectos et irreprehensibiles in
valebant esse (apostoli), quos et ipsorum locum

successores relinquebani, sutim
magisterii tradentes, quibus emendate agentibtis fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem
summa calamitas."
Cyprian (Ep. LVII., ch. 5) introduces the decree of the provincial Council of Carthage
'
with the words, ''Placuit nobis spiritu sancto stiggerente." Acts XV. 28 certainly
influenced this phrase. On the other hand, we must not allow it too much weight,
for often appeals to instructions given to him personally by the Holy
Cyprian
Ghost. See also the Votum of Bishop Lucius of Ausafa, No. 73 of the sentent.
episcoporum LXXXVII. at the Carthaginian Council: Secundum motum animi mei '•'
et spiritus sancti." The Synod of Aries, A.D. 314, also used the formula, " /'/arazV
ergo, prccsenie spiritu sancto et angelis eius" (see Mansi, Collect. Concil. II. p. 469,
and Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. 2, p. 204) and Constantine wished to have its ;
decision regarded as '^cceleste iudicium": this judgment by priests was to have the
same honour as if it had been pronounced by the Lord himself (Mansi, I.e. p. 478).
For the rest, we may here recall the fact that lepce a-vvoSoQ had long been a ii
technical term in common use among the Greeks (see also ''holy senate" in
Justin). On the origin of the ecclesiastical Synods see Sohm's excellent discussions
in Kirchenrecht. I. p. 247 ff.
* This almost universally admitted; yet the idea was introduced by the
is now
great Oriental Synods in the cases of Novatian and Paul of Samosata, as well as
by the Synod of Aries already indeed summoned by Constantine. The latter has
also supposed such a body to be under the special guidance

of the Holy Spirit, and therefore incapable of error. In the '
course of the fourth century the idea that the Nicene Synod
possessed an infallible authority became slowly established ' ;
it was transferred in the following centuries to the CEcumen-

ical Synods generally, yet so that one the second was — —
only subsequently stamped as CEcumenical. ^ From the sixth
been looked on in the West as a General Council for more than a century, and can
also be regarded as such in many respects. On the Councils see Hatch's fine lecture
in his book "The Social Constitution of Christian Churches," p. 172 f.
See Constantine's letter to the Bishops after the Council of Nicjea (in Theodoret
'
H. E. I. 9 fin") " Whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the Bishops,

:
may be attributed to the divine will." Further, Socrates H. E. I. g, who contrasts

the recognition by the Emperor of the divine character of the Synod, with the
aspersions of Sabinus the Macedonian.
2 The oi-thodox party made use of the advantage presented by the decision of
a Synod which none could refuse to recognise as a wholly extraordinary event.
On the other hand, nothing but such an event could atone for the unusual forms
given the creed, and thus attest a new theory.
to For in spite of everything
which had been hitherto possible to relate of Synods being under divine leader-
it
ship, it was a novelty to raise the decision of a Synod to the level of an author-
ity above discussion. Of such a thing even Bishop Julius of Rome, e.g.^ knew
nothing. And it was all the more startling when the decision was supported
neither by the letter of Scripture, nor a clear tradition, nor even an analogy of
any sort. But this very fact promoted the assumption of an absolute authority,
though not yet in the case of Athanasius (see Gwatkin, Stud, of Arianism, p. 50)
a virtue was made of necessity. With the first victory over Arianism, the view
arose that the dogma of the Trinity was a certain truth because it had been af-
firmed at Niccea by 318 Bishops inspired by the Holy Ghost thus the Cappado- —
cians, Cyril however, extremely paradoxical, that even up to
of Alex. etc. It is,
the middle of the fourth century the Eusebians laid greater stress on the author-
ity of Synodical decisions than the orthodox party. In order to get the West to
accept the deposition of Athanasius, they continued to appeal to their Antiochene
Synod, and declared its decisions to be irreversible. Although their tactics com-
pelled them also to admit the validity of the Nicene Creed, they did so in the
hope that after the removal of Athanasius they would be able to carry an inter-
pretation of it suitable to their own views.
3 The latter fact is admitted also by Hefele
(1. u. Vol. I., p. 3). Besides, nothing
could be more incorrect than the opinion that the distinction between GEcumenical
and other Synods, as regards dogmatics, was established soon after the Nicene
Council. The greatest variety of opinion prevailed till past the middle of the fifth
century as to what Synods were oecumenical and might be ranked along with the
Nicene. Gregory of Nazianzus we know, e.g., to have spoken very contemptuously
of the Constantinopolitan Synod, and, indeed, of Synods in general. Conversely
a certain authority was still ascribed to Provincial Synods in dogmatic questions.
Chap, hi.] TRADITION 2 1
century there to be any doubt that the

gradually ceased
Synods possessed an absolute author-
resolutions of QEcumenical
ity. Whoever rebelled against them refused to admit that the
'
Synods in question were regular, but did not dispute the
Further, there is a passage in Augustine whicli infers not only a relatively bind-
ing authority on the part of Provincial Councils, but also uncertainty as to the
absolute authority of General Councils. The passage is extraordinarily character-
istic of the unsteadiness of the whole structure of tradition. Meanwhile Renter
(Zeitschr. f. IC-Gesch. VIII. p. 167, 173, 176, 186) has rightly decided that we
must keep steadily in view the special circumstances under which Augustine has
here written; De bap. c. Donat. II. 3, 4: "Quis nesciat sanctam scripturam canon-
icam tarn veteris quam novi testamenti certis suis terminis contineri, eamque om-
nibus posterioribus episcoporum litferis ita prseponi, ut de ilia omnino dubitari et
disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum
esse constiterit: episcoporum autem litteras quES post confirmatum canonem vel
scriptse sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re
peritioris, et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque pruden-
tiam et per concilia licere reprehend!, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est:
et ipsa concilia quas per siugulas regiones vel provincias hunt, plenariorum concili-
orum auctoritati qu£e fiunt ex uni verso orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere:
ipsaque plenaria ssepe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum
aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat." Etnendari can only
mean here actual emendation — not merely explanation, as Catholic historians of
dogma have to assume. It is also worthy of note, that Augustine assigned
CEcumenical rank to several Synods e.g.^ that of Aries — which afterwards were
not held to be CEcumenical. On the other hand, it is instructive that he himself
did not, like the Orientals, regard the Nicene decree as the foundation of the
doctrine of the Trinity see Renter's arguments on the relation of the work " De
;
trinitate" to the Nicene Symbol, (Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V. p. 375 ff.). The Council
of Chalcedon first put an end to dubiety as to the number, and the author-
ity, of CEcumenical Councils in the East (even at the Robber Synod, A.D. 449,
only two had been recognised). Up till then the Nicene stood alone on an in-
accessible height moreover, in after times the uniqueness of this Council was still
;
remembered, though others were added beside it. For the rest, Roman Bishops
spoke very depreciaforily of, or even refused to recognise, many canons of later
councils; so Leo I. of the third of Constantinople (Ep. 106 [al. 80]), to say nothing
of the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon. But Leo did not recognise the second Council
as legitimate.Even Felix III. and Gelasius knew only of three Qicumenical Coun-
cils.General Synods Leo I. declared to be inspired (see Ep. 114, 2, to the Bishops
assembled at Chalcedon); but it is more than questionable whether he therefore
held all their resolutions to be absolutely irreversible.
1 After the Council of Chalcedon, it was, above all, Justinian's legislation which
confirmed and popularised, even in the West, the view that there had been four
CEcumenical Councils: see his edict on the Three Chapters, 131 : Of vto tuv re!r(rxpav
(TVvdSaVj Tuv ev Nitcaitx xai Kaiva-rxvTtvovTrd^si, sv 'Eipeo-w Kxt kv Xcc^^XijSovi ti^svtsq
'4foi vijinv reiîy ep{e7-««'«v Kxi rk SdyiiXTX xirSv uf eel iedTTViuvTOi riiziijiiiireev
2l8 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
authority of regular Synods in general. After the seventh

Synod it was a orthodox Church of the
settled principle in the
East that Scripture and the decisions of the seven QEcumenical
Councils formed the sources of the knowledge of Christian
truth. They were characterised simply as the tradition, nay,
'
men spoke, and not infrequently speak and act up to the present
day, as if the Church possessed and required no other sources
of knowledge or authorities. As a rule, the Trxpiôtng xypaCpog
is not included when Holy Scripture and the seven Councils
are spoken of.
This apparently simple, consistent development, seemingly

corresponding to all requirements, did not, however, solve all
difficulties, had come to an end, or still less

either after it
during its course. But it had further to reckon with authorities,

some of which were of long standing, while others emerged in
the contemporary organisation of the Church. What position
was to be taken up in doctrinal controversies in which an CEcu-
menical Synod had not pronounced its decision? Must there not
'ypx(pai'. Accordingly, this development was inaugurated by Constantine and closed

by Justinian. After him Gregory I. (Ep. L. I. 25) wrote: "Sicut sancti evangelii
quattuor libros, sic quattuor concilia suscipere et venerari fateor.'' But this very me
utterance proves that the West only slowly accepted
whole development; for this
Gregory leaves out of account the fifth Qicumenical Council held meanwhile. Again,
the attitude of the North African Church in the sixth century proves that there the
dubiety felt by Augustine had not yet been wholly overcome. But the attempts of
the papal theologian Vincenzi to dispute the independent authority of the councils
generally — —
even for the above date are thoroughly biassed, and carried out with
the most daring indifference to historical fact. See his "In St. Gregorii Nyss. et
Origenis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio", 5 T., 1865 f. and "De processione
spiritus s. ex patre et filio", 1878.
1 This is any variation by the later so-called Symbols of the

taught without
Greek Church and the most distinguished theologians up to the present day; see,
e.^., Damalas, 'H ofioSoôQ ttio-tii;, Athens, 1877, p. 3 ff.: ouSsiQ ^nrrevsi £;'; lu'xv
SKX/i^Tiav 6 {xij 6no?>o'yc3v Urt Tag sKTpofTUTouiTixi; ravTi^v oiKOVf^svtKxg (rvvoSovi; to
TTVEviJ-x TO Hyiov ci^yii sli TrZtrxv x^^Siiav. xcei 'on ii exxfLiitn'a x'jTii Siv Suvariei
vx 5 iÂAi) TTxpx T^v ETMKoJo/zjfftEvifv Itti ivovmoS xpxî '''"'" oixoviJ.ivixSv
Tij; fj-dvifi;
a-vv6§(Dy SioTt i} xpxii tuv [isptxuv vxoxpeajrtx&v SiJio^-oyiuv, yjv xxhspuo-xv xi ôittxI
SKX^tftrixi, lo'Tiv ^ (J-yiTftp t?; Sizipia-saii; i) 77poiJ.vyiiiOvevh7a-a xvxyvui pitriQ ruv sttx
. . .
oixoviiSvtxcSv iruvdSav sitti ysyovoi; ia-rapix6y, ij.yiisij.lxv vhsov ixx?i.>fiTixirrixijv avx-

^vi?<x(^tlirn eTriSex^lJEvov. According to present Greek ideas, the whole period of the
Councils belongs to the classical antiquity of the Church; this period has long run
its course.
Chap. III.] TRADITION 219
be forthcoming Church at any moment a clear testimony

in the
to the truth, solving doubtful questions, and giving forth no
all
uncertain sound ? What importance was due to the occupants

of the great episcopal chairs, the Bishops of the apostolic com-
munities, and especially of Rome? Decisions were not reached
in all these questions, but a certain common sense arose. First,
the Church speaks also by a unanimous testimony, audible from
the earUest days, and this testimony never has been and never
fora moment is, lacking. What has been always, everywhere,
and by all, beheved is inerrant tradition, even if it has not
been solemnly and formally attested, or laid down in primitive
authorities. This leads to a procedure similar to that followed
by Eusebius in settling the N. T., viz., that the antiquity,
unanimous attestation, and catholicity of a doctrine are to be
expiscated in order that it may be certified a doctrine of the
Church. The notion of '
antiquity ' had now been extended
and shifted with the advance of the Church. In the fourth
century all the teachers held orthodox before Origen had been
regarded as ancient, or vicini apostolorum (neighbours of the
Apostles) the latter predicate especially had gradually been
;
extended to the beginning of the third century: men Hke Ire-

naeus, Apollinaris of HierapoHs and Hippolytus even were called
yvaptiôi rSiv (xwoiTToKav (friends of the Apostles). '
Then the
whole period of the martyrs came to be considered sacred as the
ancient time. But the Church was compelled to recognise to
an increasing extent, that not much was to be gained for its
purposes from its theological witnesses before Athanasius,
'
'
from those before as well as after Origen. Their names were

still held in sacred memory —with the exception of those who
seemed too greatly compromised, or had even fallen into bad
odour with their own contemporaries but their works disappeared ;
more and more, or gave place to forgeries. Accordingly, from

the fifth century, Athanasius and orthodox teachers of similar
°
views of the fourth century, appeared as the "Fathers" proper.
> See as to this the Introduction to my History of Ancient Christian Literature

up to Eusebius, Vol. I. 1893.
2 Athanasius was not indeed so frequently quoted as one would believe. His
works have been comparatively eclipsed by those of the Cappadocians, and the
When controversies arose, and soon even at Synods, the votes

of these men were on as armed
counted. Doctrines were looked
with the testimony of antiquity, when they could be supported
from the Fathers from Athanasius to Cyril. Nor were forgeries
wanting here. The disciples of Apollinaris of Laodicea practised
these frauds to a vast extent, in order to rediscover their mas-
ter's teaching in antiquity; they were afterwards imitated by
others. In any of the 'Fathers' remained
case, the tribunal
an uncertain one; great as was the scope assigned to it, its
place and value were not dogmatically detailed. It was not
even really decided what relation the inspiration of the Councils

held to the consensus patrum, (see under). Such a consensus '
had often enough to be first restored this was done by exe- ;
gesis, or even by fabrications, because it was necessary to pre-

suppose it. References of an opposite character remained of
no effect; but when needs must a want of accuracy (akribeia)
and detached errors were admitted in the case of individual
Fathers, without the general conception being modified by these
concessions. The Fathers were just read backwards so to —
speak i.e., from the standpoint of the dogma of the time being,
and their undeveloped or divergent doctrines were interpreted
in accordance with the principle of making the best of every-
^
thing.
final statement an-ived at in A.D. 381, of the dogma of the Trinity was
tlie East,
more favourable to them than The Synod of Constantinople, A.D.
to Athanasius.
383, (see in loco) furnishes the first example of the authority of the Fathers being
made decisive, and of the Scriptures themselves being ignored. But the attempt
miscarried at the time.
' To the "teachers" the predicate " QeiTrveua-TOi" was also applied. Thus
Athanasius writes (De incarn. verbi 56): A/ yfacfia; /ziv ykf Sih $£oX6yciiv avifSiv
TFCi^ci @sov £Ka>,viO-^trav KCti kypacpifa-av. yif-is't^ S^ Trccpcc tuv avTCct^ £vrvyx^v6))ruv
êoTvsvtTTUv îâctTKKâiv, di Kott [jLixpTvpet; t^q Xpia-TOu HsoriiTO^ ysydvixiri, iJ.aHvreQ
nerxSiSo/j-ev xeel Tjj o-}) <î?iOiici'ila. Similarly, though very rhetorically, Arius in his
Thalia (Athanas. Orat. c. Arian I.
5) xctrk w/Vt/v hxîXTuv @bdS, a-vvETUV BsoS,
:
TtulSuv ayiaiv, hpHindiiuiv, Hyiov 0eo5 TveS/â >,ct^6tTUV, tkSc 'i/iuiov 'syuye i/tto t«v
o-otpiV? //ETe;(jrfvTWv, ao-reiav, hoSiSccxruv, xark jravTa a-ocpuv re.
2 It would take us too far to give detailed instances of the points discussed
under this head. We only emphasise the following. (1) The attestation of a doctrine
by the Councils was often set side by side with that given by the "Fathers", the
"ancient" or "holy doctors", in such m, way that the former seemed often to be
merely a special case of the latter. Aiid this was quite natural. The Church
Chap. III.] 'TRADITION 221
Secondly, a peculiar reverence was inherited from the past

for Churches or their bishops, entwined with the
Apostolic
evidence based on history and dogmatics. Although the theory
of Cyprian, which allowed no special importance to the Bishops
possessed no continuous testimony in the Councils ; from its distinctive character,

however, it required one. And this could only be furnished by the unbroken chorus
of orthodox doctors. Even taken
historically this court of appeal was the older.
Ireneeus and Clemens Alex, had already referred to deceased presbyters
especially
as authoritative teachers; and Eusebius' conception of Church History embraced
—
the idea see preface and outline —
that side by side with the sticcessio episcoporttm
there stood a series of witnesses who, in uninterrupted succession, had declared the
true doctrine orally and in writing. (2) No definitions were arrived at of the manner
in which the authority of the Bishops was related to that of the doctors. It was
possible to shut one's eyes to this question, because in most cases the teachers
were also bishops. As a rule, the Greeks spoke not of bishops, but the ancient
doctors, when appealing to the witnesses to the truth. It was otherwise with the
majority of the Latins after Cyprian (see p. 214). (3) As the usual procedure at
the Councils was to set up no doctrinal tenet unless ithave the
was believed to
support of the doctors, and as the claim was made always
that this course should
be adopted, the idea that the Councils were inspired was already abolished, and
they were subordinated to the continuous testimony of the Church (see under).
(4) The practice of consulting authorities began at the Ephesian Council it played ;
a more prominent part in every succeeding Synod. Athanasius and the Arians had
undoubtedly disputed before this over passages in the Fathers, but their disputes
were of slight importance compared with those that took place afterwards. (5) The
notion of ecclesiastical antiquity gradually became more and more comprehensive;
meanwhile the real ancient period of Christianity became more obscure, and bit by
bit came to be forgotten. After the seventh the whole period of the Councils was
looked on as the classical antiquity of the Church. If even in the fourth, nay, up
to the middle of the fifth century, Councils were held to be an innovation, their
absence was now considered a characteristic of the age of the Epigoni ; indeed they
were thought to be unnecessary, because everything was already settled. (6) The
opinion held by faith that the "Fathers" had decided every disputed point before-
hand, was a strong challenge to produce forgeries, and resulted in objective and
and subjective falsehood. Caspari (Alte und neue Quellen, etc., 1879) has shown
that the followers of ApoUinaris were the first to forge on a large scale; but the
Acts of Councils, and the examination of writings circulated under the names of
celebrated Fathers, show that they had numerous imitators in the ranks of all parties.
The practice of compiling collections of extracts, which was so much favoured
after the middle of the fifth century, was, besides, especially adapted to conceal
forgeries or inaccuracies. (7) But the limits, authority, and character of the Court
of Appeal of the "Fathers" were never determined. It was taught that the orthodox
Fathers agi-eed in all matters, nay, this theory was treated as a dogma. Stephen
Gobarus' attempt Cod. 232) to demonstrate the contradictions of the
(Photius,
Fathers was be profane, just as Eusebius had condemned as unchurchmanlike
felt to
the attitude of Marcellus of Ancyra, who had censured the consultation, without
of Apostolic communities within the general authority of the

Episcopate, had weakened this prestige, it still held its ground.
Augustine still recalled it in the question of the extent of the
Holy Scriptures. ' But there now grew up, in consequence of
independent examination, of the "wisest" Fathers. But even John of Damascus had
to admit that Fathers — —
otherwise orthodox held divergent opinions on single
points (De imag. I. 25), and Photius actually was more than once compelled, in
the course by them (see his
of his learned studies, to notice mistakes committed
Bibliotheca). Therefore was never decided who constituted the ortho-
the question
dox Fathers. It became the custom to prefer (Athanasius), Gregory of Nazianzus,
Chrysostom, Cyril, and aftenvards also John of Damascus. In the fourth century
the orthodox were much troubled by the fact that the Synod of Antioch (A.D. 268)
rejected, while that of Nicsea accepted, the term 'Ofioova-wi. The treatment of this
difficulty in Athanasius, " De synod." 43 sq., shows that no one had
on the idea that
hit
the later decision made the earlier obsolete. It was rather held on the contrary:
Of a(pavtôvtrtv rovg [êrai rxvra yevofisvovt;.
5r/)DAflt/3ovTe5 Therefore Athanasius
sought and found evidences of the word 'Oii0ov<no( before the Samosatian con-
troversy. Ultimately, however, he had to adopt a different treatment of the whole
question, i.e., to show that 'Oftooi/o-fo; had only been rejected at Antioch as against
Paul, in order not to admit a contradiction in the chorus of the Fathers. The
same difficulty was caused about the middle of the fifth century by the term "Svo
cl>v(T£ii'", for it was hard to find an instance of that in antiquity. Of Eutyches the
following expression is recorded (Mansi VI., p. 700): ro hx ivo (pu(r£Ciiv ivahi(Ti3v

xafl' vT6ij-rcsa-iv ysysvyvj(r6ai tov xvptov iiijLuv "liia-ovv Xfitrrbv /zjjts iie[j.aSiiK£vxt ev
Toic, eK^ff-stn tcSv dyttav Trarspav [i^re KatTa5e;êfl-fla:/, ei rvôt Tt auTtii toiovto Trapx
Tivoi v7rctvocyi]iui7Kia-6cii, Sik to ra? Osixg ypa(pag aiiihovctQ ilvou Tif? tSv 'rxrepav
SiSairKxîixi. He afterwards disowned this expression as being distorted, his advocate
corrected it in his name thus: "The P'athers have spoken in different ways, and
I accept everything they say, but not as a rule of faith" (ej? xxvovoe ii Tclareuii
oh Sixo/ixi). That very instructive. The words excited the greatest consternation
is
in the assembly in which they were uttered, and the speaker felt himself compelled
at once to excuse them on the gi-ound of a momentary confusion.
• See above. Note 1, p. 198, and compare "De peccator. mer. et remiss." I., 50.
Here the auctoritas ecclesiartim orientalmm is mentioned (in reference to the Ep.
to the Hebrews), and to Augustine this auctoritas was exalted, because Christianity
had come from the Apostolic Churches, from the communities to which John and
Paul had written, above all, from Jerusalem {unde ipsum evangelium coefit fradi-
cari). The fact that the Donatists had been separated from Apostolic Churches
proved to him that they were wrong; see especially the Liber ad Donat. post
coUat. u. 4, c. 29; also Ep. 52, u. 3 and u. Lib. Petil. 1. II., c. 51 (Renter in the
Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. V., p. 361 ff.). Optatus had already held the same view as
Augustine; see the important details "De schism. Donat." II., 6, VI., 3. But even
after middle of the sixth century a Roman Pope, Pelagius I., singled out the
the
fact in praise of Augustine, that he, "mindful of the divine teaching which founded the
Church on the Apostolic Chairs, taught that those were schismatics who seceded
from the doctrine and communion of these Apostolic Chairs" (Mansi, Concil. IX.,
Chap, in.] TRADITION 223
the and Patriarchate form of government, a new

Metropolitan
aristocracy among the Bishops, which received its importance
from the size and influence of the episcopal cities. Rome, Alex-
—
andria the founding of whose Church by Mark was undisputed
—
about A.D. 300 and Antioch were not affected by the rivalry
involved in this new principle ; for in these cases the special
connection with the Apostles coincided with the greatness of the
city. But the political factor prevailed so strongly that the
Chairs of Corinth, Thessalonica, etc., and finally, even that of
Ephesus, lost all peculiar prestige
' only that of Jerusalem, in —
spite of the political insignificance of the city, was ranked with
those more distinguished" — but Constantinople was added to
the list of the outstanding episcopates. In the East this was
;
frankly justified by the political position of the city " but this
justification was so far insufficient as the chair, by its co-ordin-
ation with the Apostolic sees, participated in the attributes
p. 716). Pelagius even declared that when doubts as to the faith arose it was
necessary to conform to the Apostolic Chairs (1. c. p. 732). This form of expres-
sion is all the more remarkable since the Roman Bishops of the fifth century spoke,
as a rule, as if the designation sedes apostolica belonged peculiarly to their Chair.
> At the transition from the fourth to the fifth century; see Hefele II., pp. 77 ff.,
495 t-, 528 ff-
"
See the 7th Canon of Nicfea, and in addition, Hefele's details, Vol. I., p. 403 f.;
II., 213. Jerusalem was first raised to a Patriarchate at Chalcedon, see Hefele
p.
II., pp. 477, 502. Jerusalem became once more the 'holy city' in the fourth cen-
tury; see Epiphanius and others.
3 See the 3rd Canon of Constantinople, Hefele, II., p. 1 7 f. and the 28th of Chal-
cedon, Hefele, II., p. 527 f.; t^ Of6ta rvii; vpea-fivTepai; 'P«/x>(? iik to âîheieiv
riiv TToKiv tKsivitv, 01 xxTSfsi; iixoTCO^ aToSeSdxxa-i rce Vfea-fieia, xai Tu avT& (tkovSi
Kivoviievoi 01 EKarov vivti^xovtci Sso(pi>i.ea-TXTOi eTria-xoToi ra "tax. Vfia-fê^x xTTEveiimv
rif Ti(C v£«5 'P«f«)(? ayiUTarai ifovip, evôyuf xphxvrei, rtiv ^ctcrihelcf. xai o-tiy>!A>)TW
Tiiitfie7i!-av TToîv xal rcSti 'la-iov ccvof^nuovirav Tpea-êiiov Tji VfKr^VTBfa âa-ifîSi
'Vuii^y xail iv toii; ixx^.â-icetrTiKolt;, W5 £K£i'v)Jv, ii£'yx?:vv£(Tl)xi 'rrpayiic/iri, Sevrepxv

ixsivijv vv&pxovirm. Constantinople was factitiously promoted to the
place of
IJ.sr^
Ephesus by reason of this unexampled act of legitimation. At the Robber Synod,

nevertheless, it still held the fifth place. As regards the historical interpretation of
the sixth Canon of Nicfea and the third of Constantinople, I agree substantially with
the excellent arguments of Kattenbusch (I.e. I., p. 81 ff.); only it must be still
more strongly emphasised that the Canons of A.D. 381 bore a clearly marked
hostility to was considered necessary to suppress the
Alexandria. Even then it
authority of the Alexandrian Church, which was on the point of developing into
the premier Church of the East.
which the latter possessed in virtue of their apostolic character.

Such attributes continued to be ascribed to those chairs without
it being stated, however, in what they really consisted. They
were nothing tangible, and yet they were held to exist. ^ But
even in the view of Orientals they belonged in a preeminent
degree to Rome. The works of the only western author before
Jerome who was also read in the East i.e., Cyprian could —
not fail to heighten the prestige of Rome. ^ But that was
already great enough in itself. As the ancient capital of the
Empire, as the city of the two chief Apostles, of the Cathedra
Petri, as the only apostolic community of the West, that which
had done more for the whole Church than any other, Rome
even in the East enjoyed a unique prestige. * But as early as
the fourth century, and certainly from the fifth onwards, Rome
meant the Roman Bishop, with whose spiritual dignity were
fused the memories of the ancient city that had ruled the world.
These memories overhung the place, after the Emperor had
left, and the most of them clung to the Bishop. In the
momentous Arian conflict the great Eastern sees, except Alex-
andria, became compromised or dishonoured; the orthodox
Orientals sought and found their support in Rome. " The Emperor
' An energetic protest was admittedly raised, especially by Leo I. and his suc-
cessors. Leo at the same time also advocated the rights of the Apostolic Churches
in general (Ep. io6). We cannot here follow out the controversy, although it
reflects the revivificationof the Byzantine Church and State, and the attitude of
the Roman Bishops, which was purely ecclesiastical, though it did rest on fictions
see Hefele IL, pp. 408, 539 ff., 549 ff., and Sohm 1. c. I., pp. 377 440. It was not —
until the fourth Lateran Synod (Can. 5), when a Latin Pati-iachate existed at Con-
stantinople (1215), that Rome recognised the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
2 Although Bishops were held to be successors of the Apostles, yet Leo I.
all
singles out very distinctly those who had inherited the chairs of the Apostles; see
his letter to the Emperor Marcian (Ep. 104).
Not only Eusebius, but also Theodore of Mopsuestia had read Cyprian's
3
Epistles.At the Council of Ephesus evidence taken from him was read; see Vin-
cent, Commonit. 42. Of the Westerns, after Cyprian, Ambrose was especially
esteemed in the East. Augustine also possessed a certain authority.
* See Vol. II., p. 149 f.
5 On Roman Bishop in the fourth century, see Hauck, Der

the authority of the
romische Bischop in
4 Jahrh., 1881; Rade, Damasus, 1881; Langen, Gesch. der
romischen Kirche, 2 Vols., 1881, 1885; Sohm, 1. u. In what follows we only discuss
Rome's prestige in the East. Even Hefele (1. i.. I., p. 8) admits that the first eight
in Constantinople who brought the great controversy to an end

was a Western, Rome. The promotion
full of veneration for
which he afterwards assigned to Constantinople was no equi-
valent —
at first, at least, —
for the advance in political power
secured to Rome by the Arian controversy. The role of '
Synods were not appointed and convoked by the Roman Bishops. His arguments
as to the presidency at tlie Synods are, however, biassed (pp. 29 44). It was at —
Clialcedon that the legates of the Roman Bishop first occupied a special position.
The sixth Canon of Nicaea, when correctly intei-preted, gives no preference to Rome,
but refers merely to the fact that it was the ecclesiastical metropolis for the Churches
of several provinces. It is credible that Julius I. uttered the principle (Socrates
H. E. II. 17): (Jîj §e7v Trapx yvw^ztjv rov STrttncoTrav 'Pajf^îi; juxvovt^sivroi^ SKtcîjcrixt;.
The peculiar authority of the Roman Chair showed itself in the fourth century in
the following facts. First, Coustantiue transferred to the Roman Bishop the duty
of presiding over the commission to examine the case of the Douatists. Secondly,
the oppressed of the Nicene Symbol in the East turned to him for
adherents
protection even Langen, 1. c. I., p. 425 f.). Thirdly, we have the request of
(see
the Eusebians that Julius should decide the dogmatic question it is true that very ;
—
soon when they foresaw their defeat in Rome they changed their tone. They —
still conceded a peculiar dignity to Rome; it does not seem to me possible to
translate (piôriiiiav (Sozom. III. 8) with Langen by "ambition." Yet they pointed
out that Rome had received its Christianity from the East, and that it was as little
entitled to review the decision of a dogmatic question given in the East, as the
Oriental Bishops would have been to take up the Novatian affair after Rome had
spoken. (The letter is to be reconstructed from Sozom. III. 8, and Athanas. apolog.
0. Arian. 25 — 35.) Fourthly, we have evidence of Rome's position also in Julius'
epistle to the Orientals (Athanas. 1. c); fifthly, in Canons 3 and 5 of the Synod
of Sardica; and sixthly, in the request of the Antiochenes, or Jerome, to Damasus,
for a decision in the Antiochene schism (Ep. 16).
' Damasus' policy did not at once succeed in raising the prestige of the Roman
Chair in the East (see Rade, 1. c, p, 137 f.), but the manner in which Theodosius I.
at first decided the Arian controversy there, did. " Cunclos fopulos^ quos dementia:
nostres regit temperamentum^ in tali volumus religione versari^ quam divinum
Petrum afostolum tradidisse Romanis religiousque ad nunc ab ipso insinuate
declarat" etc. Besides, the new style adopted by Damasus in his letter to the
Oriental Bishops (Theodoret H. E. V. 10) was not without effect in the East. He
calls them "sons" instead of my "brethren,'' and he no longer speaks, like
my
other Bishops, as commissioned by the Synod though the question at issue was —
—
a decision of the Synod or as representing the Western Church. On the contrary,
he addresses them in virtue of the authority of his " Apostolic Chair," which he
connects solely with Peter and without any reference to Paul. "The first rank is
due to the Holy Church, in which the Holy Apostle had his seat, and taught
how we should fitly guide the helm which we have undertaken to control." Rade
has, besides, here rightly conjectured (p. 136) that Jerome had a share in this letter,
which did a great deal to raise the influence of the Roman Chair in the East.
15
observer and arbiter, which the Roman Bishop was able to play
in the Christological controversies, made it possible for him to
maintain a time the lofty position he had won.
for ' (On the
of the Alexandrian Bishops, Athanasius, Peter, etc.,
aspirations
and the successful opposition to them by Leo, see chap. IX.)
There can be no doubt that even in the eyes of the Orientals
there attached to the Roman Bishop a special something, which
was wanting to all the rest,a nimbus which conferred upon
him a peculiar authority. ^ Yet this nimbus was not sufficiently
• From and after Siricius I., the Roman Bishops maintained that it was their
province to care for Churches (Constant., p. 659. Ep. 6, ch. i). On the relation
all
of Leo I. to the East, and to the fourth Council, see Langen, 1. c. II., pp. 10 f., 50 ff.
The phrase "our fatherly solicitude" occurs frequently even in the letters of his
predecessors to the East. The appeal of Cyril to Coelestine is very important in
its bearing on the dignity of the Roman Chair compare the language of the
;
Roman legate at the Council of Ephesus (Mansi III., p. 1279 sq.).
2 In the v^ôrk "Der Papst und das Concil von Janus" (1869), p. 93, we find
this "In the writings of the doctors of the Greek Church, Eusebius,
passage.
Athanasius, Basil the Great, the two Gregorys, and Epiphanius, not a word is to
be found of peculiar pregrogatives being assigned to a Roman Bishop. Chrysostom,
the most prolific of the Greek Fathers, is absolutely silent on the point, and so also
are the two Cyrils. Basil (Opp. ed. Bened. III. 301, Ep. 239 and 214) has expressed
his contempt for the writings of the Popes in the strongest terms [in the affairs of
Marcellus] these proud and conceited westerns, who would only fortify heresy
: '
'
even if their letters descended from heaven, he would not accept them." It is true
that, seeing the now wide-spread view of the apostolic succession of all Bishops,
the prestige of the Roman Bishop is hardly perceptible in the East at the be-
ginning of the fourth century, and that he had to fight, i.e., to wrest for himself
the position which had formerly belonged to the Roman Church. Therefore the
testimonies to a. special dignity being possessed by the Roman Bishops in the East
in the fourth century are in fact comparatively scanty. But they are not wanting
see, e.^.. Greg. Naz., Carmen de vita sua T. II., p. 9, and Chrysostom, Ep. ad
—
Innocent I. and from A.D. 380 this dignity bulked more largely in the eyes of
Orientals, though indeed, without receiving a definite and fixed meaning. Very
characteristic in this respect are the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen,
who on this point are free from partiality, and reflect the universal opinion. But
it does not occur to them to doubt that the Roman Bishop had a special authority
and a unique relation to the whole Church (see, e.g., Socrat. II. 8, 15, 17; Soz.
III. 8 ; also Theodoret's letter to Leo I.). Instructive here are the collections of Leo
AUatius and in the Innsbrucker Theol. Ztschr., 1877, p. 662 f. see also three ;
treatises by the Abbe Martin " Saint Pierre, sa venue et son martyre a Rome,"
:
in the Rev. des quest, historiq., 1873 (principally from oriental sources) ; "S.Pierre
et S. Paul dans I'^glise Nestorienne," Paris, 1875; "S. Pierre et le Rationalisme
devant les eglises orientales," Amiens, 1876. These discussions, though in part un-
critical, are very full of matter. Matt, XVI. 18, John XXI. 18, were undoubtedly
bright and luminous to bestow upon its possessor an unimpeach-

able authority; it was rather so nebulous that it was possible
to disregard it without running counter to the spirit of the
universal Church. And it gradually became fainter. The more
completely, after the middle of the fifth century, the internal
relations of West and East ceased, and the more strongly the
distinctively Byzantine spirit could assert itself in the diminished
Church of the East, so the more rapidly declined the prestige
of the Roman Bishop. Constantinople put an end to it in its
own midst, when the Roman Bishop set up claims which in the
fourth and fifth centuries had been paUiated by actual circum-
stances and the necessities of the time, but which 500 years
afterwards could not fail to be felt as the intrusion of an alien
spirit. ' Yet, in spite of this, the idea of the unity of the Church
stillheld its ground for a long time. After Synods ceased to
be held, the influence of the great Patriarchates throughout the
whole Church in the East increased ^—though, indeed, the
orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, had
lost their real importance; and theoretically the dignity of the
never referred in the East to the primacy of Rome (see Janus, p. 97). Still in any
case it is saying too little — even for the period about the year A.D. 380 — to
remark as Rade does (1. <.., p. 137). To the Orientals the Bishop of Rome was like
the rest, only, thanks to his situation, the natural representative of the Churches of
the western half of the Empire, acting, as it were, as correspondent in the name
of the Christians of the West.
• prestige of the Roman Bishop in the East was accordingly on the in-
The
crease from the beginning of the fourth till the middle of the fifth century, re-
mained at its height till about the time of Justinian, when, however, it lost its
practical importance, and then, apart from the events about A.D. 680 and the next
decades, slowly declined, yet without ever being wholly destroyed. The Roman
Chair was now held to be schismatic; if not that, it would still have been the
first. Undoubtedly there was a strong inclination in later times to oppose it by
advancing the see of Jerusalem, the seat of James, but it was not possible to gain
any confidence in the claim of the latter to the first place. See on the criticism
of the papacy by the Greeks, Pichler, Gesch. der kirchl. Trennung zwischen Or.
u. Occ, 1864; Hergenrother, Photius, 3 Vols. 1867 ff Gass, Symbolik, p. 2l6fr. ;
Kattenbusch, 1. c, pp. 79 —
124. It was a settled doctrine of the Church in the East,
that the Church has no visible head.
2 The terms Tvpavvii and Svvaa-Teia are first used, so far as I know, in reference
to Antioch, z.c, against Paul of Samos. (Eus. H.E. VII. 30), after Origen had already
complained of the ambition of the Great Bishops. Socrates has expressed himself
very frankly about this matter.
Roman Bishop as primus inter pares, though not unassailed,

was embraced in that of the great Eastern sees. But it was
never made clear how far the Patriarchs in their collective cap?
acity really constituted an authority in dogma: there is not
even an explicit statement that they did form such an authority.
There was an uncertainty of opinion as to their position along-
side of and in the CEcumenical Synods. Here also there was '
an absence of fixed definitions. The Church as it is, with its

graduated orders, crowned by the Patriarchs, constituted the
tradition and the authority. But the authority of no factor in
this system possessed, when isolated, any significance whatever.
It might not assert itself at the expense of the rest. Its dignity
was founded on its being a part of antiquity.

As to II. This at once involves the answer to the second
question (see p. 214). The assumption that the Councils were
inspired did not imply any power on their part to deliver new
revelations to the Church. On the contrary, they proved their
peculiar possession of the Holy Spirit by their unfailing testi-
mony to the ancient doctrinal tradition. ^ But in that case the
new formulas created by the Councils could not but cause
1 The importance of the four Patriarchs —of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,

—
and Jerusalem was celebrated here and there in lofty expressions; it was especially
prominent in the later Symbols, so-called, of the Greek Church (see Gass, 1. u.,
p. 222 f.). Their presence or that of their representative was even held to be
absolutely necessary at an CEcumenical Synod but not only was the extent of their
;
authority never defined, but the essential equality of all Bishops was steadily main-
tained in the East and the latest development of the Greek Church, z.«., its dis-
;
ruption into perfectly independent National Churches, has thrown overboard the
whole 'Constitution of the Patriarchate', which in all ages was more a matter of
assertion than reality. The Bishop of Alexandria, undoubtedly, nearly succeeded
in becoming in the fifth century supreme Bishop of the East, but Leo and Pul-
cheria overthrew him. Kattenbusch (1. c. p. 357 ff.) furnishes further details as
to the "five Patriarchs as symbolical figures." Has the Patriarchate of Rome come
to an end in the view of the Greek Church? In the abstract, no; in the concrete,
yes.
2 See above, p. 215 f. Augustine gives utterance to a vei-y remarkable statement
in De bapt. c. Donat. II., 4, 5 " Quomodo potuit ista res (the baptism by heretics)
:
tantis altercationum nebulis involuta, ad plenarii concilii luculentam illustrationem

confinnationemque primo diutius per orbis terrarum regiones multis
perduci, nisi
hinc atque hinc disputationibus coUationibus episcoporum pertractata constaret?"
et
Accordingly, only a matter which had already become ripe for decision through
frequent deliberations could be submitted to and decided by a Council.
Chap, ih.] TRADITION 229
offence. How far they did is showii by the history of the dog-
matic controversies. Above all, the unbiblical catch-word 'con-
substantial' ('Ojaaouir/o?), for a time directly rejected by the
Church, won acceptance under great difficulties, even
only
among those who had little or no objection to the cause it
represented. These formulas had to be proved in some way or
other to have been anciently held. For was of the 'OiAooutiioq it
highest importance that a Council had an accomplished made it
fact. As the word gradually made good its ground, the Coun-
cil lay far enough in the past to be itself regarded as belong-
ing to antiquity. The evidence was got by reasoning in a

circle; the authority of the Council supported the word which
was anything but old, but the authority of any Council was
dependent on its rejection of all innovations. Numerous pas-
sages in the Fathers furnished material in confirmation of the
later formulas— which were never, so far as I know, bluntly
deduced from unwritten tradition {Troipxôcng aypxCpog) but a ;
strong preference was shown for understanding them as a repe-

tition of the Nicene Symbol, the explication being disregarded,
just as Irenaeus in his time had passed off the Symbol unfolded
in an antignostic sense, the regula fidei, for the Symbol itself,
i.e., for the ancient repository of the truth. In spite of all novel-
ties, it was thus contended that novelties were not forthcoming
in the Church. Nay, even the power of the Councils to unfold
doctrines authoritatively was not plainly asserted in the East;
on the other Western, Vincentius of Lerinum, did
hand, a
maintain it, and essayed to furnish a theory on the subject.
After the uncertainties of the Greeks over the conception of
tradition, we really breathe freely when we study the attempt
of thisman to introduce light and certainty into the question.
However, even in the East, the younger generation now and
then gave the older Fathers the benefit of looking at their
words as having been uttered at a time when dogma was
not yet explained, or sharply formulated. Strictly speaking,
this expedient was not tenable on Greek ground. Only a
very sparing use therefore was made of it there, '
while the
• The more common way of putting it in the East was that the writer in
question had failed in the necessary "Akribeia" (exactness), /.?., he could, and
Catholic West employs it to a great extent up to the present

day.'
The conception of tradition is accordingly quite obscure.
The hierarchical element does not in theory play the leading
should, have done (see, above all, the views of Photiiis).
it better But it was
rarely admitted that the Church at the time referred to did not yet possess complete
akriheia in dogma. But we have further to notice here that a distinction was
still drawn both in East and West between questions of faith, in the strict sense
of the term, and theological doctrines, and that imity in the former was alone
demanded. But as this distinction was in itself obscure, since in fact questions of
faith had been transformed into theological and scientific ones, so in the East it became
more and more restricted, though it was never wholly effaced. Augustine, besides,
still laid great stress on this distinction, and accepted a whole group of theolo-
gical doctrines in which differences did not endanger unity the passages are given ;
in Reuter, Ztschr. f.K.-Gesch. V., p. 363 ff. But if " faith " is itself a doctrine,
where does it cease and the doctrine begin? Besides the excuse of want of ac-
curacy, which, indeed, involves censure, that of a7rAoyo"Tgpov'yey/)fl!4'^''*''^^s asserted.
It no fault. Thus Athanasius writes (De Synod. 45) of the Fathers who
involved
in A.D. 268 rejected the term 'Oiioova-ioQ at Antioch Trspi rij? roS vi'oS isor^TO^
:
d'T?iOvcrTepov ypaôvrsq ov KXTsyevovro Trspi riit; rov SfMovtriov ccxptêiai;. Precisely

in the same way the Homoiousians at Nice excused the Niceue Fathers. Unique,
so far as I know, is the statement of Gregory of Naz. (Orat. 31.28), which is only
explicable from the still wholly confused state of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost in his
time. " As the O. T. declared the Father clearly, but the .Son more'vaguely, so the
N. T. has revealed the Son, but only suggested the divinity of the [compare Spirit "
the contentions of the Montanists]. "Now, however, us, and
the Spirit reigns among
makes himself more clearly known to us for it was not advisable to proclaim the
;
divinity of the Son, so long as that of the Father was not recognised, or to impose
—
upon the former if we may use such a bold expression that of the Spirit, while —
it (viz., the divinity of the Son) was not accepted." We may in this passage study
the distinction between Gregory the theologian and Athanasius.
So, above all, Augustine, who excused Cyprian in this way, and further, set
'
up the general rule that as long as no unequivocal decisions had been giveii in a
question, the bond of unity was to be maintained among the dissentient Bishops
(De bapt. u. Donat. II. 4, 5). Augustine thus admitted that ecclesiastical tradition
did not at every moment solve all questions pending in the Church. The Donatist
and Pelagian controversy roused Western theologians to reflect on tradition. One
fruit of this reflection was the Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerinum, unique,
because it deals professedly with the question of tradition. The arguments are
decisive of Western views, but the book did not extend its influence into the East;
there the ideas about tradition remained characteristically indefinite. A short analy-
sis of the Commonitorium is necessary. Let it be noticed that it is ultimately
aimed at Augustine's doctrine of grace and predestination, but that a large part
of the rules are taken from that theologian.
After a preface, in which Vincentius remarks that he is only sketching out what
he had received from the past, he sets side by side the two foundations of the
Chap, iti.] TRADITION 23
part in it. The apostolical succession has in theory had no such
thorough-going importance even in the West for the proof of

tradition as one would expect. After the time of the Councils
the authority of the Bishops as bearers of tradition was wholly
faith, the divine law (Holy Scripture) and the tradition of the Catholic Church (i).
The former is sufficient by itself, but it requires the latter for its conect explana-
tion (2). The latter embraces what had been believed everywhere^ at all ti7nes, s.-ai
by all—ox^ at least, by almost all priests and doctors (3). Accordingly, the following
criteria were to be applied: (a) When a section of the Church renounced the
communion of the Catholic faith, the Christian followed the great communion;
(b) when a heresy threatened danger to the whole Church, he held by antiquity,
"which, certainly, could not now be seduced"; (c) when he came upon heresy in
antiquity itself, in a few men, or in a city or province, he followed the decision
of a General Council; (d) if no such Council had spoken, he examined and compared
—
the orthodox doctors and retained what not two, or three but all, had alike —
taught clearly, frequently, and persistently, in one and the same sense (4). These
rules are illustrated by reference to the dangers, which had threatened the Church
—
from Douatism, Arianism, and the Anabaptists (5 10). At this point, however,
it is conceded that orthodox teachers might have and had fallen into error on
one point; nevertheless they were blessed, but hell received the Epigoni, who, in
order to start a, heresy, took hold of the writings of one or other of the ancients
(as the Donatists did of Cyprian's) which were composed in obscure language,
and which, owing to the obscurity prevailing in them, seemed to coincide with
their teaching, so that the views brought forward by these heretics bore not to
have been maintained for the first time and exclusively by them. Such people
were like Ham in uncovering the shame of their father (11). After this excursus
the author adduces proofs from Paul's Epistles, that changes in the creed, in short,
—
any kind of innovation, constituted the worst evil (12 14). In order to prove and
tempt his own, God had permitted teachers belonging to the Church, and there-
fore not foisted in from without, to essay the setting up of new tenets in the
Church; examples are taken from Nestorius, Photinus, and ApoUinaris their heresy ;
is described, and contrasted with the true faith (15 22). —

But the greatest tempt-
ation of the Church was due to the innovations of Origen, who was so famous
(23), and of the no less distinguished Tertullian (24). Here follows a detailed
practical application; those who have been seduced by the great heretics should
unlearn to their salvation, what they have learned to their destruction; they must
apprehend as much of the doctrine of the Church as can be grasped by the
mind, and believe what they cannot understand; all novelty is wickedness and
folly; in making innovations ignorance cloaks itself under the 'scientific spirit',
imbecility under 'enlightenment', darkness under 'light'. The pure science of the
worship of God is only given in the Catholic, ancient, and harmonious tradition
(25 — 27). Antiquity is really the thorough-going criterion of the truth.
This is the second part, which contains the most original matter.
followed by
It opens with the question whether there is any progress in the Church of Christ
in religion. This is answered in the affirmative; Ihe progress is 'very great';
but it consists in deepening, not in altering. It is organic growth of knowledge
both on the part of individuals and the Church (28). In order to illustrate this,
spent on that proof. Yet even that is perhaps saying too much.
Everything was really obscure. So far, however, as the Greek

Church has not changed since John of Damascus, the Greek has at
present a perfectly definite sense of the foundation of religion.
use is made growth of the child and plants religion is fortified

figuratively of the ;
with expanded with time, and developed more subtly with age yet every-
years, ;
thing remains really what it was, no innovation takes place, for a single novelty
—
would destroy everything (29 31). The Church is intent only on clearness, light,
a more subtle differentiation and invigoration of doctrine. What then did it ever
seek to attain by the decrees of Councils, except that simple belief should become
more definite, supine preaching be rendered more urgent, and that a wholly in-
dolent conduct of affairs should give place to a correspondingly anxious perform-
ance of duty ? "Hoc inquam semper neque quidquam praeterea, hEereticorum novitati
bus excitata [that then is admitted], conciliorum suorum decretis catholica perfecit
ecclesia, nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola tradilione susceperat, hoc deinde pos-
teris etiam per scripturje chirographum consignaret, magnam rerum summam paucis
litteris comprehendendo et flerumque propter intelligeniim lucent non novuvi fidei
sensum novce appellationis proprietate signando" (32). As compared with this ad-
mission, the author attacks all the more vigorously the wicked verbal innovations '
practised by all heretics (33, 34). But it was still more necessary to be on one's
guard when heretics appealed to Scripture as e.g., the Arians did to predicates —
taken from the Bible against the term 0{J.ooi(no^ for they were the real wolves'
—
in sheeps' clothing, sons of the devil, for the devil also quoted the Bible (35 — 37).
All that meet their exposition and obtain the correct sense, was
was necessary to
simply to apply the criteria given in ch. 4. (38). The last of these was the search
for the concordant views of many and great teachers, when a Council had not
yet decided the question concerned. Then follows a particular instruction which
betrays very clearly the uncertainty of that citerion. It was to be applied, not to
every unimportant question, but only, at least for the most part only, in the case
of the rule of faith; it was, further, only to be used when heresies had just arisen,
"before they had time to falsify the standards of the ancient creed, before they
could by a wider diffusion of the poison adulterate the writings of the forefathers.
Heresies already circulated and deeply rooted were not to be attacked in this
way, because in the long lapse of time they had had sufficient opportunity to pur-
loin the truth ''
( !
!
). Christians must try to refute these ancient heresies by the
authority of Scripture alone — accordingly the principle of tradition is declai-ed in-
solvent; or they must simply be avoided as having been already condemned. But
even the principle of the consensus of the teachers is to be used with the greatest
caution; it is strictly guarded; it is only of weight when, as it were, a whole
Council of doctors can be cited (39). But in that case no one is entitled to dis-
regard it, and teachers' ranked by Paul
for the ancient doctors are the 'prophets
next "to the and described by him as presented to the Church by God.
Apostles,
He who despises them despises God. We must cling to the agreement of the holy
Churches, which are holy because they continue in the communion of the faith (40).
In the so-called second Commonitorium (ch. 41 43) there is first a recapitulation —
in which the sufficiency of Scripture as source of truth is once more emphasised.
Chap, in.] THE CHURCH 233
Besides Holy Scripture, tradition is the source of knowledge of,
the authority for, the truth; and tradition is the Church itself,
not, as in the West, governed by Rome, as a sovereign, living

power, but its immovable, in thousand-year-old doctrines and
orders. Even Scripture is to be explained by the tradition
which transmits it, although Scripture is itself to some extent
the caput et origo traditionis. But tradition still really presents
itself in two forms as it did among the earliest Alexandrians
there is a perfectly official form now that of the Councils, —

and one more profound and indefinite — corresponding to the
'scientific tradition' [ôt-ôLhoTiq ^vatTrixi^) of the ancient Alex-
andrians.
'
3. T/ie Church.
Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms portrays the Church

to his disciples as a spiritual communion. But in explaining the
predicate '
catholic '
^
he completely identifies this spiritual com-
munion with the empirical Church. It is called 'EjckA)^(7/«;, be-
cause it summons all men together, and unites them with one
another. This it does at God's command; for after God had
rejected the first community as the 'synagogue of the wicked'.
It shown that, at the Council of Ephesus held three years before, no

is then
noveltywas proposed, but decisions were based on the sayings of the Fathers.
The Fathers are named singly whose works were publicly read there (42). Vin-
centius therefore considered that the authority of the Council consisted wholly in
its strict adherence to the testimony of tradition. In the last chapter statements
follow same effect by the two last Roman Bishops. The authority of the
to the
Roman Chair is appended that nothing may seem wanting to completeness
'
'.
Perhaps the most notable feature in the whole of Vincentius' exposition is that
the Bishops as such— apart from the Council play absolutely no part, and that, —
in particular, no reference is made to their Apostolic succession as sharing in the
proof of doctrine. The ancient "teachers" are the court of appeal. We see tliat
Cyprian's influence was not so far-reaching, even in the West, as one should have
supposed. The proof of tradition was not really based on the hierarchy.
' Compare the statements of Kattenbusch, I.e., p. 330 ff. The East never arrived
at a definite theory of the nature and features of the Church.
2 On this attribute see Vol. II., p, 75, 11. i. From the middle of the fourth
century the clause "xa< [e<?] ft/av xyi'av Kx$oîxiiv ixKAtfa-iccv" must have stood in
the Symbols of by far the most of the provincial Churches in the East. Tlie E/5
is to be referred also to the Church.

because they had crucified the Saviour, he built out of the heathen
a second Church, on which his favour rests that is the Church ;
of the hving God, pillar and foundation of the truth. To

it belong the predicates one, holy, and
alone catholic; the
communities of the Marcionites, Manichaeans, and other heretics
are societies of godlessness. The Church, which was formerly
barren, is the mother of us all; she is the Bride of Christ. In
this second Church God has appointed Apostles, Prophets, and
teachers, and miraculous gifts of every kind; he has adorned
it with all virtues, be unconquerable in persecution,
proved it to
and made it an object of veneration even to kings, since its
boundaries are wider than those of any secular kingdom. It is
called Catholic because it extends over the whole globe, teaches
all necessary dogmas to men universally and unceasingly, com-
prehends and leads to the true worship of God all men with-
out respect of class, is able to cure all sins in soul and body,
and possesses in its midst all virtues and all conceivable gifts
of grace.
These utterances of Cyril concerning the Church contain the
^
quintessence ofall that has ever been said of it by the Greeks.
They have adorned it with all conceivable attributes, applying

to it all the O. T. passages descriptive of the people of Israel.
They glorified it as the communion of faith and virtue, and as
a rule clung to this description of it in their catechetical and
1 Cyril, Cat. XVIIL, ch. 22—27.

2For Westera doctrines of the Church see the next book. But they are not so
different in theory from those of the East as some suppose.
^ The Greeks spoke not infrequently of the "state" or "city" of God; Origen
had already used the term, and it is common in Eusebius. On the other hand, the
fine combination "Christ and the Church (as bride)" or "the Church as the body
of Christ", which had been at a very early date reduced to the level of ahomilet-
ical or rhetorical view, was either thrust into tl\e background, or superseded by
the phrase "Christ and the individual soul." At a later date, the proposition, that
Christ is the head of the Church, was often asserted against the Latins; Ijut it
was not very effective; for, seeing that the Greeks granted that the Church was a
visible body in the common sense of the term, their thesis that this visible Church
had none but an invisible head was beset with difficulties. Besides, Origen had been
attacked as early as about A.D. 300, because he had explained Adam and Eve as
referring to Christ and the Church (Socrates H. E. III. 7), though this allegory
was supported by a very ancient tradition. Tychonius repeated it.
Chap, hi.] THE CHURCH 235
homiletical teaching. ' Indeed, their position was here so far

archaic, that they either did not mention the organisation ot
the Church at all, or — what was even more significant — they
named in this connection the Apostles, Prophets, teachers and
the rest, in brief, and gifts of the Spirit (see
the possessors
above in Cyril). We
same teaching even in John ot
find the
Damascus, who in his great work on dogma has given no
place at all to the Church, " and in the later so-called Symbols
of the Greek Church. ' The diflScult question, which Origen
first discussed, and which Augustine considered so thoroughly
in his fight with Donatism —
the question about the Church as
corpus verunt (the true body) and corpus permixtum (the mixed
—
body) was hardly touched on in the East. When we read '
Greek statements as to the Church statements, besides, which —

are altogether few in number we not infrequently believe that —
we are Uving in the second century, nay, before the Gnostic
controversy. We Greek
must not perceive in this attitude of the
Fathers any sign of exceptional maturity. was prescribed to It
them, on the one hand, by natural theology, on the other, by

the narrowness of their view of the task of the Church. Re-
demption through Christ applied in intention to the whole
human race, which meanwhile was always simply conceived as
the sum of all individuals. In its result, it was limited by the
liberty of man to resist salvation through sin. The Church was
really, therefore, nothing but the sum of all individual believers
in heaven and upon earth. The view that the Church was the
mother of believers, a divine creation, the body of Christ, was
not properly carried out in dogma. Even the thought that
Christ had so assumed human nature that all it experienced in
him benefited mankind, was only applied —not to the Church
' There are very numerous instances of this, and most of all in the influential
Chrysostom. Epiphanius' contention in the Expos, fid. cathol., ch. 3 is worthy of
notice: 'O ©eo;, h'xi vmrav, iiij,7v ©eo? vTTcifxii to7? sk tî; ayixi; exxKifirioK;
7£vvi)fle7o-/v. This Jewish Christian regarded the Church as Israel, aod its God as
the God of Israel ; see what follows.
2 Langen, Joh. Damascenus, p. 299 f.
3 Gass, 1. c, p. 205 f.
• It is treated in the later .Symbols; see Gass, p. 206 f.

but to mankind as it existed, and the Eucharist itself did not

help the Church to a special place in dogmatics. ' In spite of
the 'behef in one holy Church' (Tria-reusiv dg yJxv
Catholic
xyixv y.x&oXMyiv sicxXi](TMv) Church was no dogmatic concep-
the
tion in the strict sense of the term. It did not form a link in
the chain of the doctrines of redemption. And that is not

surprising. Seeing the form given to the blessing of salvation,
a religious conception of the Church could not be obtained.
All was contained in the factors, God, mankind, Christ, the
mysteries, and the individual.
But occasion was given to draw up definitions of the Church
by (i) the O. T. and the spurious Jewish Church, (2) heresy
and the actual organisation of the Church, (3) the administration
of the mysteries, (4) and the fight against the Roman claims to
the primacy. As regards the first point, all that was necessary
had been said in the second and third centuries ; there was no-
thing to add; it was repeated with greater or less animosity to
Judaism, whose history appeared sometimes as the mysterious
type of the Church, sometimes as its antitype. As to the second
and there was no doubt that the Church was the true
third,
teacher of the truth " and the legitimate administrator of the
mysteries. It transmitted the [/.iMaiq (learning) and it possessed
''
the mysteries. Therefore— and of this there was no doubt it —

was essential to her to have the organisation, which was crowned
by Bishops and Councils, and priests who should present' the
sacrifices and judge in God's stead. Bishops and Councils we
have spoken of above, the priests and their duties will be
discussed in Chap. X. * It is remarkable, however, that the latter
1 Cyril of Alexandria frequently connects the Church with the incarnation and
the Eucharist; but even he has not gone beyond the horailetic and edifying point
of view.
" Religious truth, however, really embraced all philosophy, see Anastasius Sin.,
ViiE dux (Migne, Patrol., Vol. 8g, p. 76 sq.): 'OpôJo|/a! eo-tiv aiJ/euJ^c ^te/ij @iov
nat KTia-sajt; tjT(Â)^4//$ j) 'hvota 'jrspi Trtivruv aAjjflj^^, »} §6%<x ruv '6vTa)v KocâTrep etertv,
3 Damalas has given a very pregnant summary of the old Patristic conception
'H opSdSoôi; Trla-rif (1877) p. 3 : ^ JJ %iint(i aL/Ts) iXc, rijV (j-ixv dy/xv xxiofîxifj xxi
aTTOiTTOMxiiv ixxîjtr/av irrri 'jrsTroiOiâ-ig, on avrif ktrrtv 6 (popsv^ tviq 6sia^ âptToi;
Tii^ svS€tKVV(xsvii^ si^ ^vo Ttva, wpMTOv '6ti xvt^ £(7riv 6 aâviaa-TOQ Stâo-xcx?Ôi; rif?
Xpto'Tioivtx^c; a?.ij&sia^ xai Sevrspov d yv^trto^ ruv {^va-r)^piaiv oikov6iioq.
* See Kattenbusch, 1. c, pp. 346 ff., 357 ff., 393 ff.
Chap, hi.] THE CHURCH ,237
r
is brought more to the front than the former. The Pseudo-

areopagite was not the first to make his view of the Church
depend essentially on the mysteries, and to regard the hierarchy
primarily as performers of the sacred rites ; he only completed
what Ignatius, Clement, the first draft of the Apostolic Consti-
tutions,Chrysostom de sacerdotio, and many others had developed '
before or contemporaneously with him. The Church had been

entrusted to the Bishops, because they constituted the living
representation of God on earth, the vicars of Christ, participators
in the activity of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the source of
all sacraments. They were much less thought of as successors
of the Apostles; the Church was the legacy not of the Apostles,
°
but of Christ, and the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.
In the polemic against the Roman claims to supremacy, the
view was strongly emphasised that Christ is the foundation and
sole head of the Church, and this principle was opposed even
to an exaggerated estimate of the Apostles in general and Peter
in particular.
" He who secedes from the Church, withdraws himself at the
same time from the influences of the Holy Spirit, and it is not
easy to find a wise man among the heretics";' but on what
1 See Vol. III. 4 — 6, VI. 4; also the Homily on the day of his ordination as
priest, Montfaucon I., p. 436 sq.
2 Church was conscious of being, and called itself " apostolic."

-Qf course the
But it is a mere accident that this predicate is not so stereotyped
perhaps not
in the Symbols and other official manifestoes as the rest unity, holiness and —
catholicity. The otherwise substantially identical expositions by the Greek Fathers
of the word "catholic" have been collected by Soder, Der Begriff der Katholicitat
der Kirche und des Glaubens (1881), pp. 95 ff., no ff., 113 f., 115 f. "Catholic"
was equivalent to orthodox even before Eusebius, as is shown by the interpolations
of the word into the Martyrium Polycarpi. Tliat this word was interpolated I have
tried to prove in "The Expositor," 1885, Dec, p. 410 sq. It may be in place here
to remark generally that the copyists are least to be trusted in the case of such
predicates as were current at a later date e.g.^ as regards words like "bearer of
God" " Homoousios ", "Catholic" etc. The Monophysites especially made great
efforts to introduce their catch-words into older writers. Even to-day the Armenians
are not to be trusted.
3 Heretics and Schismatics were more and more identified; see the so-called
6th Canon of Constantinople, A.D. 381 (it really dates from A.D. 382) aipsTixovi; :
îyofxev roui re aahcu rvii ixKhyiirlxi a7ro«;^/Jt/%fl£'vra5 Kui Tot/5 fiirii roanx, t!<))'
points the was based has not been made

unity of the Church
clear. It first appears asand virtue were sufficient, but
if faith
participation in the mysteries of the Church, and submission

to its organisation and tradition were added; indeed these in
practice took the first place. Yet the organisation of the Church
was not really carried higher than the Bishops, in spite of all
the empty words used about the Patriarchs: the Church was
orthodox and perfect, because it offered a security in its episcopal
and priestly constitution that it was the ancient institution founded
—
by Christ. In this conviction we can hardly call it a doctrine
the Church became more and more narrow; it made itself
a holy piece of antiquity.
But after the close of the fifth century it ceased to be the
one Church. Tradition, which had been created to maintain the
unity of the Church, served in the end to split it up, because
national and local traditions, views, and customs had been
received into it to an increasing extent. The great cleavage into
CathoUc and Novatian Catholic was not yet determined, or
supported by national considerations. The division into Graeco-
Roman Catholicism and Germanic Arianism did owe its dura-
tion to opposite national tendencies. On the other hand, the
disruption of the Eastern Church into the Byzantine (Roman)
and the Oriental (Nestorian-Syrian, Jacobitish-Syrian, Coptic, and
Armenian) rested entirely on national antitheses, and, preserved
mainly by the monks who, in spite of all their renunciation of
the world, have always adopted a National Church attitude, has
continued up to the present day. Now, after the schism had
further taken place between the Byzantjne (Neo-Roman) and the
Roman branches, the Church was divided into three (four) great
territories distinguished by their nationality : the Germano-Roman
yîim ctvscQef'CSiTttrSsvTai;. TrpoQ $^ rovrotq nxt rove; t^v "jritFri-it ^^v rvjv Cyti^ Trpotr-
JTOtovnevov^ oi^Q^ôyetv^ X'jrotrxô'OiVTX^ S^ Kol avTttrvvayovTCtQ Toi^ xavoviKo't^ vifzuv

STna-KdTot^.
1 The question whether the holiness of Christians was founded on being members
in the Church — initiation into it — or depended on personal virtue was not decided
in the East, but was never even definitely put. The cause of this vagueness existed
it
ultimately in the obscuritywhich prevailed among the Greeks in reference to the

relation of natural theology and dogma in general; see on this the following
chapters.
Chap, in.] THE CHURCH 239
West (Rome), the countries on the ^gean sea (Constantinople),

and the East spUt into Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Each
had its own peculiar traditions and authorities. The Orientals,
though rent asunder and quarrelling with each other, felt that
they formed a unity compared with the two other sections, i.e.,
the "Romans," and could, in reply to the "bragging of the
Romans," point to a hundred marks which revealed the superi-
ority of their Churches. They regarded their land as the cradle
of the human Church as the primitive home of religion
race, their
and if Jerusalem was no longer in their possession, yet they
still had the ancient site of Paradise. '
The Neo-Romans boasted
of their Patriarchate, faith, and their nation,
their unchanged
which no part in the crucifixion of Christ, in which
took
the Romans and Barbarians had made common cause. The
Romans, finally, had the chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and
Paul, and the Pope, Peter's successor, with the secular power
committed to him by Christ and Constantine. The common
foundation of these Churches was not solid enough to resist the
elements that were dissolving it. NationaUty was stronger than
religion.
Literature. —Jacobi,
Die kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition u.
heil. Schrift,1847. Holtzmann, Kanon u. Tradition,
Part I.,
1859 (does not discuss to any extent the Church in antiquity).

Soder, Der Begriff der Katholicitat der Kirche, 1881. Seeberg,
Studien zur Geschichte des Begrififs der Kirche, 1885. Katten-
busch, 1. c. There is much material in Schwane, also in the
writings which passed between Old Catholics and Roman
Catholics after A.D. 1869.
1 See, e.g., Elias of Nisibis, Proof of the truth of the faith (Ed. by Horst, 1886,
p. 112 ff.).
240 J4IST0RY OF DOGMA [Chap. hi.
—
A. Presuppositions of the Doctrine of Redemption,
or Natural Theology.
"Natural Theology" did not pass through any very thorough-
going development in the Greek Church; but it reveals differ-
ences, according as Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism prevailed.
By Natural Theology we are to understand the complex of
conceptions that, according to the view then held, formed the
self-evidentand certain contents of the human mind, which was
only held to be more or less darkened (see Chap. II.). These
conceptions, however, arose in fact historically, and corresponded
to the degree of culture at which the ancient world had arrived,
especially through the work of the Greek Philosophers. We
can divide them appropriately into doctrines concerning God
and concerning man. But changes also took place in pro-
portion to the growing influence exerted on these conceptions
by the words of the Bible literally understood. Nevertheless
the fundamental features remained in force; yet they were dis-
placed and confused by foreign material during the period
from Origen to John of Damascus.
A.— PRESUPPOSITION OF DOCTRINE OF REDEMP-
TION OR NATURAL THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER IV.
PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS REGARDING GOD,

THE CREATOR, AS DISPENSER OF SALVATION.
§ I, The Doctrine of God. Its Method.
The main features of the doctrine of God were those familiar

from the theology of the Apologists, as they were partly fixed and
partly supplemented by the fight with Gnosticism. Specula-
tions on the Deity as a Trinity (rpitig) modified but little the
general doctrine of God (yet see attempts in Augustine, De
trinitate) ; and unchange-
for the unity, simplicity, indivisibility,
ableness of God were at the same time maintained most defin-
itely :in other words, the Father alone was almost always
regarded as "root of the Deity" (pi^x rij? Ssdryirog), where the
Deity, in its essential being, was described in comparison with
the world. The ultimate reason of this was that theology
counted on a general intelligence for its general doctrine
of God, and therefore had recourse to natural religion and
theology, i. e., to the results of Greek philosophy. It was
indeed admitted by many Fathers (see esp. Athanasius, De

incarn.) that men
could know the Deity from creation only
dimly, if at all and that therefore the manifestation of God in
;
Christ alone made it possible to recognise the nature of God

as the undivided, spiritual and good Lord of the World. But,
in fact, was only a question of more or less as regards the
it
natural knowledge of the spiritual and good God, the Creator.

Qther Fathers, especially those influenced by Aristotle, declared
the knowledge of God in its whole extent to be innate (see
Arnobius), or, a knowledge to be constantly tested by the
i6
242 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
observation of nature. No difference is here caused by the fact

that some Fathers have described the existence of God and his
distinctive nature as capable of proof, others, as incapable; for
the latter only rejected the proof in so far as God could not
be discovered means of deduction from a prius. The
by
psychological, cosmological, and natural theological proofs were
'
not despised by them in meeting Atheism, Polytheism, Mani-

chaeism, etc. We already find in Augustine suggestions of an
ontological proof. ^ All these evidences were, indeed, given
subject to the proviso, that all knowledge of God must be
traced back to God himself, that it became indistinct in pro-
portion to man's alienation from God, and that the revelation
of Scripture first rendered everything clear and certain.
Further, it was expressly contended that God, as the infinite
one, was, strictly speaking, incapable of being known, because
his nature could not be described by any predicate. But this
inscrutability, so far as represented in the avowal " whatever
the creature is, that God is not," was held and with this —
the Neoplatonists were agreed to be the valuable and true —
knowledge (Athan. ad monach. 2 " even if it is not possible :
to comprehend what God is, it is possible to say what he is

not:" KOii, s\ f/,ii "BuvxTov yMrxXixlSea-Scii ri ia-ri @soc, a.'kXa, 'Suvxtov
iiTTsTv, Ti ovx, ia-Tiv). ^ The revelation through the Logos only
• The influence of Aristotle is first conspicuous in Diodore of Tarsus, who re-
produced independently the cosmological proof of Aristotle (see Photius, Biblioth.
223). From
the sixth century it is evident in the majority of the Fathers, and
especiallyJohn of Damascus. See De fide orthod. I. 3(12): Everything perceptible
by the senses, as also the higher world of spirits, is subject to change; therefore
it must have had a beginning, and been created. There must accordingly exist a
being who created it, and that is God. Two other proofs are found in John of Dam.
3 iûgustine's line of argument was first to demonstrate rules of human thought,
—
which accordingly transcended it. These rules logical and ethical he stated to —
be imlhs, their sum being the truth. This truth was a living power, accordingly
it existed. Thus the way to the existence of God was given see esp. De lib. arbitr. II.
;
3 — 15, but the thought is also suggested elsewhere in his writings, e.g., the Confessions.
3 In this the great majority of the Fathers were agreed. Augustine describes (De
doctr. I. 6) tlie impossibility of declaring God, in a way that coincides word for
word with the tenets of the Basilidians (Hippol., Philos. VII. 20). Augustine writes
"Diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo? Immo vero nihil me aliud
quam dicere voluisse sentio; si autem dixi, non hoc est quod dicere volui. Hoc
unde scio, nisi quia deus ineffabilis est, quod autem a me dictum est, si ineffabile
Chap, iv.] THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 243
went beyond it established this knowledge regarding

this in that
the infinite and his inexpressible nature, and made it
Spirit
possible to perceive him in his likeness. The Fathers influenced '
by Neoplatonism, however, assumed further that the contempla-

tive ascetic, who was on the way to deification, could gain a
direct vision of God in all his splendour, a conception which the
Areopagite has combined with a scholastic theory of the know-
ableness of God by negation, eminence, causality.
esset, dictum non esset? Ac per hoc ne ineffabilis quidem dicendus est deuS) quia
et hoc cum dicitur, aliquid dicitur. Et fit nescio quae pugna verborum, quoniam
si illud est ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non quod vel ineffabile
est ineffabile,
dici potest." Basilides: "Ea-ri yasp, (pâ-iv, Ixelvo oux «tAim5 appsjTOv, i bvoiiX^STxr
'i^fp^TOV yoGy aitro xîfAovjuev, sKsivo J^ ovî ^ppijTOv jcixt ykp to ovS" xfipi^TOv ova
'dffyiTOv cvoiid^srai, aAA^ Va-ri, tptfiriv, inrepmai ffavros bv6iiaT0i; ovoiiaôiihov. Men
were therefore at the point already reached by Basilides' followers in the second
century. Even Catechumens were taught this ; see Cyril, Cat. VI., ,ch. 2: ov ri t'i
ha-Ti @siQ h%viyoviJt.iâ . .. hv roi( Tepi @£oS iJ.£yii^>i yviHa-ii; ro rifv zyvaa-ixv 6iJ.oAoys7v.
Similar teaching is very frequent in Plotinus. In the Vita Plot, of Porphyry, ch. 23,
the supreme God is thus defined: S @£0i 6 {jl^ts liopipfjv ij-viti tivx liicnt 'ix'»''>
vTT^p Si vovv xai T&v TO voijTav iSpvfjcsvoi;^
' The Dogmatics of John of Damascus begin with John I. 18, Matt. XI. 17,
and I Cor. II. 11.
^ striking contention of some disciples of Lucian (according to Philostor-

The
gius),and the most extreme Arians, Eunomius and Aetius, but not Arius himself,
that men could know the nature of God as well as God himself did, and as well
as they knew themselves, is most closely connected with their Christology and
their Aristotelianism. When the orthodox Fathers argued that the indescribable God
could only be perceived in the Logos and through his work, and that God therefore
would have been unknowable had not the Logos been his image, possessed of a
like nature, those Arians had to meet the objection by emphasising even in the
course of the christological controversy, the possibility of knowing God directly.
In taking up this position they had of course to leave the nature of God out
of the question, and to confine themselves to his will, as it had been clearly
manifested in creation, and the preaching of the truth by the Logos. But this to
them was no limitation; for they only attached importance in the first place to
the knowledge of the divine will, and secondly to the renewed submission of men
to the sovereignty of the divine will : (not to participation in the divine nature,
unless in so far as that in the original equipment of man;
was already involved
see Socrates IV. 7; Epiph. H. LXXVI.
and the counter-observations of the 4,
Cappadocians). Their expositions are exceded by the Areopagite's completely Neo-
platonic theology, from which, meanwhile,. Augustine in one of his lines of thought
was not far removed. The Areopagite already adopted the position that ruled for
more than a thousand years, in which the contention that God by reason of his —
splendour— was absolutely unknowable, was balanced by the mystical assumption
of a sensuous, suprasensuous knowableness in virtue of the fusion of the mind of
§ 2. The Doctrine of God's Nature and Attributes.
The Being of God was immortal substance and was primarily

defined —as already results from the method of knowing God
by affirming that he was -without beginning or end, that he
was a spirit and the supreme First Cause, all which predicates
were proved in connection with the proofs of his existence.
The deity pneumatic "Oi/ which, because it is not the
is the
world, is supramundane, simply governing the world, -the one,
indivisible, imperishable, unchangeable, supremely good and
impassive being, to which, in the strict sense, a real existence
alone belongs : the Fathers influenced by Aristotelianism
emphasised especially the spiritual power which determined its
own aims and the causality of the deity. God is the intelligible
reality and infinite reason. So far as it is maintained of this
being (secundum hominem) that he is good, the predicate
affirms nothing but that he is perfect, i. e., is completely self-
sufficient and possesses blessedness in himself and therefore is
—
not envious see esp. Athanasius adv. pagan., also the
Catechisms of Cyril. But the goodness of the Deity was also
established from the fact of the revelation of God, first from
creation, and here meant that God, since he is the gracious
one, willed that creatures should participate in his blessedness,
and carried out his intention under all circumstances.
Augustine broke through this natural conception of the
goodness of God for he understands by the Deity as summum
;
bonum power of love which takes hold of man, and leads

the
him from worldliness and selfishness to peace and fehcity. But
even in Augustine this idea is intimately connected with the
natural view.
As regards the divine attributes, the Fathers sought, while
speaking of such, to keep clear of the idea of a plurality in
God with the miad of man. To him also we trace back the theology of affirmation
—
and negation (kataphatic and apophatic) the thing had, indeed, been very long
in existence —
z.«., the method of making statements about God via eminentia and
via negattonis; see his Letters, the work, De divinis nominibus, and the beginning
of the tractate, De mystica theologia. The importance of John of Damascus consists
for posterity in his having united the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian elements in his
doctrine of God; see De fide orthod. I. 1—4.
God, or conceptions of anything accidental. It is only for

human thought that the absolute, perfect, homogeneous Being
has attributes assigned to him, as varied representations of
him in relation to the finite. The elevation above time and
space presented as -eternity and omnipresence the latter
itself ;
attribute same time was the root of omniscience and

at the
omnipotence. Omnipotence yas limited by the Fathers by two
thoughts: it was circumscribed by the good will of God, and
it left scope for human liberty. ' Origen's thesis of the Hmitation
of omniscience found no supporters in later times.
From goodness (perfection) of God ^ all conceivable
the
ethical qualities were deduced. But they did not obtain their
due significance, because the abstract idea that God was the
requiter, i. e., rewarded the good and punished the wicked,
formed, in spite of all Neoplatonic philosophy, the foundation
of the whole conceptions of God, in so far as ethics were taken
into account at all. This view, however, which was considered
the readily became indifferent to the thought
"natural" one,
that men
God's creatures are dependent on him, that they
as
are meant to form an inner unity, and that their life is con-
ducted to a definite goal; in other words, it endangered
the rehgious view of Christianity. It gave man complete in-
dependence in presence of God, and broke mankind up into a

group of disconnected individuals. It descended from Judaism
—
and the ancient world the gods are just, because they reward
and punish, the two facts being conceived in coordination.
This view, further, was entitled to its place within the narrow
1 Along with all fatalism and astrology the Greek Fathers also unanimously
rejected the idea that God's prescience acted as fate and was the first cause of
human actions, was rather
or that prophecy controlled the course of events. It
taught that prescience was consequent to the event perceived beforehand. But
Augustine was not perfectly satisfied with this idea. He deepened it through the
thought that the sum of all that happened was before God in an eternal now.
2 But of this the saying of Gregory of Nyssa is true (TSfi ^mX- " «vai7Ta5"
Oehler, p. 92): TIuvt6% aya&oi iTTBKSiva ij hia <pva-tg, ro Se ixyaSov ccyz^Si <pi?iOv
TravTWC, Six rovTO iavTyjV ^?.£7rova-x y.cii

''0
£%st dsMi text '$ fleAff e%ef ouSiv tuv 'iôj-
dsv £iQ Eavrov SsxQixsvv]. "E%u 51 avrij^ ouSsv^ '6ti (j.ij vi Kxy-tix. [iSvi^, ^rt^^ tcxv
7rxfaSa%ov p, h tm /i^ slvxi ro iliixi 'ixii. oh yxf 'i-Khvi tic, so-ti xxxlxi; yhso-iq, si
fiij Vi Tov 'ovTOQ a-TEpyjtriQ, To §s xvptajq "fiv ^ rov xyx6ov (^va-tt; etrriv S ovv |v tw
'ovT/ ovK 'itTTiVt ev TW fj,^
slvat 5ravT«? Ittiv,
horizon of the citizens of ancient communities, '

but while it
could not be omitted from Christianity, it required to be sub-

ordinated a higher thought. Accordingly, significant ten-
to
dencies to correct the prevalent system of thought were not
wanting on the part of the Fathers. Origen had already tried
to regard the righteousness of God as a form of his loving
discipline; the conception that suffering is always bound up
with penal justice, had undoubtedly something to do with this
attempt. The continued fight with duahsm— Manichaeism con- —
stantly made it necessary to demonstrate that power, goodness,
wisdom, and justice were combined in the Deity. ^ But in al-
most all the Fathers the attributes of goodness and justice
stood asunder. We can see the reason of this in the fact that
up to Augustine no serious effort was made to understand the
goodness of God as moral holiness, and this failure was in turn
due to the characteristic method of obtaining a knowledge of
God, the attempt to rise to the Deity from the notion of the
finite by means of sublimations. ^ The theory of God was beset
at this most important point with uncertainties, nay, inconsist-

encies. He was at once the impassive Being ("Of) and the
Judge who requited actions "
—the latter conception, further, not
only including the coordination of goodness and justice, but
also the superiority of the former to the latter. The Alex-
andrians had grasped at the expedient, following Philo, * of
representing God as absolutely benevolent, but the Logos as the
Justj this,however, was to confess despair of solving the pro-
blem, showing once more very clearly that men could not think
without compunction [affectiones humance) of the (penal) justice
1 See Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2 Vols., 1882; further,
Ritschl in the Th. L. Z. 1883, Col. 6 f.
2 These four attributes Gregory of Nyssa has particularised and sought to

hai-monise in his great Catechism.
3 This method, however, was by no means despised by Augustine himself.
1 The doctrine of God came in this form to the theologians of the middle
ages. The nuances and inconsistencies of scholastic theology were caused by the
necessity of alternating between the two ideas of God as the intelligible "Ov and
the Requiter. Some emphasised the one, others the other, more strongly. In certain
doctrines only the former, in others only the latter conception, could be used.
5 See Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alex. (1886), p. 12 f.
of which at most the Logos was capable; and it is interesting

as a counterpart to the opposite idea adopted in later times.
But we see even here, why the doctrine of redemption could
not become one of atonement in the ancient Church. If the
distinctive form in which redemption was accomplished was to
be justified^ and its intrinsic necessity to be proved, then there
must not only exist, but speculation must be^ founded on, the
conviction that God's saving purpose transcended the thought
of requital, and that he was morally holy. But that is out of
the question where the Fathers are concerned.
§ 3. The Cosmology.
The Cosmological and allied anthropological problems were

treated by the Fathers —
who formally used Gen. I. III. as their —
text — with the whole apparatus of contemporary philosophy, in
this way satisfyingcraving for a rational con-
their scientific
ception of the world. The systems are therefore very different

in details; but on the whole they existed peaceably side by
side, showing that the differences presupposed a measure of
agreement, sufficient for the solidarity of the doctrinal structure.
' In this view — in the Middle Ages — God appears rather as the strictly Just,
Christ as the "good"; but the idea of goodness had changed.

' In the lower ranks of the communities, and among a few Oriental sects
(Audians), anthropomorphic conceptions of God, the belief that he had a. human
shape, a body etc., held their ground. But they were retained also in some circles
of monks («..?., those of the Scetian Desert), and even by a few Bishops. From
the close of the fourth century, with the hostility to Origan's spiritualism was
combined active resistance to this opposite view (Sozom. VIII. 1 1). The Stoic
notion of God's corporeality had scarcely a defender after Tertullian ; for Lactan-
tius' view of the "figura" and "affectus" of God is not Stoic, but belongs to
popular realism. In general, much that was anthropomorphic was retained in
Western theology along with the realistic eschatology, and that by theologians who
cherished a' colourless eclectic moralism. Very instructive is Augustine's confession
(Confess. V, Jin.; VI. 3) that it was the sermons of Ambrose that first delivered him
from the prejudice that the Catholic Church taught that the Deity was fashioned
like man. If we reflect how much Augustine had mingled with Catholic Christians
before his conversion, and how much he had heard of the Church, we cannot
suppose he was the only one guilty of this prejudice. We need only recall the
" apocryphal " writings of the Byzantine age, which were read to an extraordinary
extent, to see how strong were anthropomorphism and the conceptions of a magic
God,
248 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Ciiap. iv.
These differences were Cosmology proper. The

slightest in the
task set the theologians of the fourth century was to bring
Origen's cosmology more into harmony with the demands of
the rule of faith, to adapt it more closely to the account given
in Gen. .L, and to defeat the Manichsean Cosmology. After
the last decades of the fourth century, the slow course of develop-
ment was hastened by violent opposition to Origen's cosmology,
and the view of the Church, held before Origen, was substantially
restored, though now as a scientific theory. Yet the con- '
ception upper world of spirits, related to the present

of an
world as its ideal and type, continued to exist, and ever threw
its shadow on the latter. ^ On the other hand, the Trinitarian
' See Justinian's edict against Origen, and the fifth Synod of Constantinople,
Hefele, Concil. Gesch. II. 2, p. 780 —
797 j ^' ^^ earlier date, the attacks of Theo-
philus and Jerome on Origen.
2 Origen held that the present world was only a place of punishment and
purification. This view, which approximated very closely to the old Gnostic idea,
was rejected; but the conception remained of an upper world of spirits, of which
our world was the materialised copy. Where this conception was potent, a con-
siderable part of the feeling which possessed Origen (after Plato) as he looked at
our world must have endured. It was never wanting among the orthodox Fathers,
and the Greeks of to-day have not lost it. "The world is a whole, but divided
into two spheres of which the higher is the necessary prius and type of the lower "
that is still the Greek view (see Gass, Symbolik, p. 143 f.). "God first and by
his mere thought evoked out of non-existence all heavenly powers to exhibit his
glory, and this intelligible world {xSa-iMf voEprf?) is the expression of undisturbed
harmony and obedient service." Man belongs to both worlds. The conception,
as expounded by the Areopagite and established by John of Damascus (De fide
—
orthod. II 2 -12), that the world was created in successive stages, has not the
importance of a dogma, but it has that of a wide-spread theologoumenon. It is
Neoplatonic and Gnostic, and its publication and recognition show that the dis-
satisfaction felt by Origen with the account of the creation in Gen. I. was con-
stantly shared by others. Men felt a living interest, not in the way plants, fishes,
and birds came into being, but in the emanation of the spiritual from the Deity
at the head of creation down to man. Therefore we have the x6iriJ.oi voif6Q, the
intelligible world, whose most characteristic feature consisted in its
(3) gradations
{iMxotrij.via-sii), which again fell into (three) orders, down to archangels .tnd angels.
(See Dionys. De divina hierarch. 6 sq., and John of Damascus, I.e., ch. Ill: vxa-civi
isohoyla Tx( olpxviovi; oi/a-iai; ivvex ksk?:iixi. nxureci; 6 Qs'ioi; /epoTe/fa'Ti/; e;; t/jei;
xtpopiXei TpiaSiKXQ Sixxoi7iJ.vi(7ii(;^ Seraphim, Cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers,
forces, principalities, archangels, and angels. We find a step in this direction as
early as theApp. Constit. VII. 35). In the creation, the system of spiritual powers
was from above downwards; while in sanctification by the mysteries, it was
built
necessary to ascend the same series. The significant point was the union of the
conflicts led to a precise distinction being drawn between

creating, making, begetting, and emanating, and thus the notion
of creation out of nothing now first received its strict impress.
But Neoplatonic ideas of the origin of the world lasted till
after the beginning of the fifth century, even in the case of

some Bishops, and side by side with it the Manichaean con-
ception of the world spread secretly and found adherents among
the clergy themselves up to the middle of it. The following
proposition may be regarded as containing the quintessence of
the orthodox Fathers from the fifth century, and at the same
time as the presupposition that gave scope to all their further
speculations. It- can be stated thus: God from eternity bore
in his own mind the idea of the world. In free self-determin-
ation he, in order to prove his goodness, created by the Logos,
who embraces all ideas, this world, which has had a beginning
and will have an end, in six days out of nothing, in accordance
with the pattern of an upper world created by him.
The of divine providence and the production of
justification
Theodicies were called for by Manichseism and fatalism on the
one hand, and the great political catastrophes and calamities
on the other. It was taught that God constantly remained
close to his creation, preserving and governing it. With this,
rational beings were looked upon in their numerical sum total
as the peculiar objects of divine providence. Providence was
also defended in opposition to the loose and unstable form in
which earlier and contemporary monotheistic philosophers had
avowed it; it was recognised in principle to be a power pro-
conception of creatioa with tlie system of the cultiis, or, better, the scheme which
embodied the idea of creation in accordance with the line of progress laid down
for asceticism and sanctification. This was retained by Greek theology in spite
of all its disavowal of Origen, Neoplatonism, and Gnosticism. But even in the
region of the material, incomparably gi-eater interest was talien in warmth, cold,
moistm-e, drought, in fire, air, earth, and water, in the four vital humours, than in
the childish elements which the O. T. narrative of creation takes into account.
Yet the whole was included under the title of the 'work of the six days', and the
allegories of Origen were, in theory, rejected. The exegesis of Gen. I. became the
doctoral problem proper among the Greek Fathers. The most important wrote
works on the Hexaemeron among them that of Johannes Philoponus is scientific-
;
ally the most advanced {vefi y.o<j-no7roiiix(); it is dependent, not on Platonism, but
on Aristotle, though it also opposes the latter.
tecting also the individual creature. Yet here Christian theolo-

gians It was
themselves did not arrive at complete certainty.
admitted that providence was above human freedom in so far
as it was maintained that neither that freedom nor the evil
proceeding from it could hinder the divine intentions. But the
belief in providence was not definitely connected with redemp-
tion by Christ or with the Church, for it was considered a self-
evident presupposition of redemption and a piece of Natural
Theology. Therefore it was also destitute of any strict object.
The uncertainty of the ancient world as to the extent and
method of providence had left its influence, and empirical '
reflections on the objectlessness of certain institutions, or

phenomena in the world e. g., of vermin could not be —
defeated by a view which had itself a naturalistic basis. Yet
in proportion as the sure and real knowledge of God was only
derived from the Christian religion, it was also recognised that
faith in providence was first made
and certain through Christ,
that were under the particular providence of God. ^
Christians
The problem of the theodicy was solved (i) by proving that the
freedom of the creature was something appropriate and good,
the possibility of wickedness and evil, however, being neces-
sarily combined with it; (2) by denying to wickedness any'
reality in the higher sense of the term, since wickedness as it
was separated from God, the principle of all being, was held
to be not —
being;'' (3) by defending the mala poencs or evil as
fitting means of purification; and finally, (4) by representing
temporal as indifferent to the soul.
sufferings Some oldef
Fathers, Lactantius, emphasised, besides, even the neces-
e.g.,
sity of wickedness in the interest of moralism without it :
virtue would be impossible. *

But such opinions died out in the
''
fight with Manichseism.

' For this reason a startling casuistry is to be noticed here and there, and
exceptions are laid down.
- Degi-ees of providence were generally distinguished.
' After Origen this Platonic proposition enjoyed the widest circulation; see esp.
Athanasius and the Cappadocians ; but the Antiochians held no other view. Augustine
made use of it in v. peculiar and characteristic way.
* Lactant. Instit. div. II., ch. 8, 12; V., ch. 7.
5 See Vol. v., for the extent and form in which Augustine held such views.
Chap. IV.] THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 25 I
In reference to the heavenly spirits which belonged to, and

indeed upper world, the recognised Fathers were
formed, the
convinced of the following points, (i) They were created by
God (see the Symb. Nic). (2) They were endowed with free-
dom, but had no material bodies {eyyuraTot, rov xtrafixrov). (3)
They had passed through a crisis after which a section had
remained true to the good, while another had revolted. (4)
The good spirits were instruments of the divine government of
the world, their activity being useful and beneficial to men,
even entering into the sacramental system by which grace was
imparted. (5) The reality of wickedness in the world was to be
attributed to the bad spirits, and especially to their head, the
devil; they exercised an almost unbounded power on earth,
not being able indeed to compel man, but only to induce him,
to sin ; they could also be scared away without fail by the name of
Christ, the sign of the cross, and the Sacraments. As regards the
'
relation of the good angels to men, their superiority to men in the —

I No doubt existed of the necessity of believing in heavenly spiritual beings.
Origen counted this belief a doctrine of the Church (De princip. pr^f. 10). The
points numbered in the text may be regarded as the quintessence of what obtained
generally. But such an agreement only made its appearance in the sixth century.
Until then this point was a centre of contention between a form of Biblical
"realism," and the Origeuistic, i.e., the Greek philosophical, view as to the world
of spirits. The treatment of the question by the Areopagite, and its approval by
the Church, constituted a triumph of Neoplatonic mysticism over Biblicism. But
that tendencies which went still farther in this direction had not been wholly
destroyed, was shown by the Hesychastic controversy of the fourteenth century, or
the assumption of an uncreated divine light, which was not the nature of God, but
a specific energy, different from himself, and which could be seen. (See Engelhardt
in lUgen's Ztschr., 1838, Part I., p. 68' ff.; Gass, Die Mystik des Nik. Kabasilas,
1849, p. I ff., and in Ed.). The Logos, accordingly, no
Herzog's R.-E., 2nd
longer satisfied, had placed the Logos under an embargo,
or rather, as Scholasticism
piety sought for a new mediator. He was to accomplish what the Logos no longer
did: he was to be a visible revelation of God, himself and yet not himself; for
God himself was simply quiescent being; accordingly he himself was conceived
and realised in the form of an energy that could be traced. The theory of the
Areopagite was, however, not satisfactory in this respect; for while the spirits
might doctrinally be regarded as created beings, they were perceived as divine
forces, emanations, rays of the perfect light, conceivable by degrees by man, and
bringing him nearer to the deity. We have here a great difference from the western
conception; in the East the Platonic and Gnostic doctrine of ôns had never
been entirely abolished. In the West, while the gradation of angelic powers had
been accepted, the pious impulse from which it originated had not.
present condition of the latter — was emphasised, but it was also

taught on the other hand, that man after he was made perfect would
be at least equal to them. The former position gave rise to a sort of
angel-worship, which nevertheless in earlier times was no proper
part of religion. The Synod of Laodicea, about A.D. 360,
declared it Canon to be idolatry. And it was
in its thirty-fifth '
kept in check by the idea that Christ's work possessed also a

mysterious significance for the upper world. But the polythe-
istic cravings of man constantly influenced religious ideas, and
as the Deity was farther and farther removed from ordinary
Christian people by speculation, there gradually arose^ along
with the thought of the intercession of the angels, ^ a worship-
ping of them, which was indeed only settled ecclesiastically at
the seventh CEcumenical Synod (A.D. 787). There it was defined
^
as adoration {7rpoiTiiuvyi(rig) in distinction from service [XXTpeia,).
Even Gregory I. had assigned the service of angels to the pre-

Christian stage of religion. The points of doctrine which we
have above grouped together became the bases of a great
number of very diflferent conceptions, which grew up in oppo-
sition to Origen's doctrine, or under its influence, or in depen-
dence on exegesis (esp. of Gen. VI.), or, lastly, as a result of
reminiscences and philosophy. Men specu-
of Greek folk-lore
lated on the date of the creation of angels, and the method
by which they were created, on their spirituality or higher
corporeality, their functions as guardian angels and genii,—
the manner in which the wicked angels fell, " the orders and
> There undoubtedly existed, even in the earliest time, a view which conjoined
the with God, and thus made them also objects of worship, or, included
angels
them in the fiiies^ qiice creditiir. We may here perhaps recall even i Tim. V. 21:
SiXfxcepTvpoiJiat evuTtov rov @eov zai Xpt<7Tov It^trov xat tuv eKêKrav ayyeAiuv. We
can at any rate refer to Justin., Apol I. 6 (We worship God) xai rov Tap' uvtoS
:
vidv . text
. Tov ruv a^?^(av iTOfj-svav kxi £ô{zoiovi^svuv ayaSav ayyeûv a-rpaT6v.
.
Athenag. Suppl. 10, .24.
2 This thought is undoubtedly extremely ancient, but at the earlier date it only
existed in the outer circle of the faith.
3 It had long — as early as the fourth century — been on the way see the mirac-
;
ulous oratories of St. Michael; Sozom. II. 3, Theodoret on Coloss. T. Ill, p. 355 ff.
••
On the devil, " the prince of the ranks encircling the earth," see the exposi-
tion by John of Dam., De The
fide orthod. II. 4. devil and the demons of their
own free will turned away unnaturally from God,
divisions of angels, and much else. Here also the doctrine of

Origen, which culminated in the restoration of the revolted
spirits, was in the end expressly disowned. On the other hand,
the Neoplatonic conception of spirits and their orders, or the

Gnostic idea of the jEons as interpreters of the divine, was
more and more legitimised in the Church doctrine of angels,
and was combined by the Areopagite with the mystic system
of the illumination of the world, and the communication of the
divine to the creaturely. It was a very old idea see Hebrews —
—
and First Clement that Christ was in Heaven the High Priest
and head {7rpo(7rxr>i?) of beHevers in the presence of God.
Clement of Alex, had already worked out this conception,
following Philo's model, to the effect that Christ, in conjunction
with the angelic powers subject to him, conveyed to men the
energies heavenly sphere that he ever offered himself
of the ; ,
for men to the Father as a sacrifice without fire [dtif^x aTfupov);

that the Holy Spirit along with the angels kept the heavenly
and the earthly Church in constant contact. In short, the thought
of a graded hierarchy in heaven, with heavenly sacrifices,
intercessions, etc., as it also occurs among the Valentinians,

lay on the confines of the Alexandrian's speculation. These
thoughts are more fully matured in Origen: the sacrifice of
Christ applied also to the celestials, and the upper world,
brought into harmony, contributed to the redemption of the
lower. They were confirmed by the Neoplatonic philosophy of
religion. On the other hand, Ignatius conceived the govern-
ing body of the Church on earth as a hierarchy which repre-
sented the heavenly order, and put it in operation. The two
ideas —
the Son, the Holy Ghost and the angelic hosts on the
one hand, and the earthly priesthood, on the other only needed —
to be combined, and a new stage of ecclesiastical theosophy
was reached. The Pseudo-areopagite was the first to gain it
after, indeed, it had been already suggested clearly enough by
Clement of Alex.; see Strom. VI. 13, 107, and other passages.
Clement makes three dwellings in heaven correspond on one side to
the divisions of angels, and, again, to the threefold hierarchy on
earth. On the spread of this form of theosophy among the Syrian
Monophysite monks, see Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaih, 1886.
2 54 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. iv.
This whole conception was after all, indeed, nothing but a

timid expression of the thought that the plan of creation itself,
extending down from the deity to man, included the means of
redemption, and that, as alienation from the deity was due to
the existence of graduated creations, so, at the same time, was
the restoration to God. This conception, which contrasts
abruptly with that of the Old Testament and Christianity, was
compatible in principle neither with the idea of the creation,
nor with the one historical redemption that took place once for
all. It was Gnostic and Neoplatonic, i. e., pagan. This its
character was simply disguised by the retention of the creation
so far as words went, and by the substitution for the ôns of
Jesus Christ, theHoly Ghost, and angelic powers with Biblical
names and, further, of sacraments, sacrifices, and priests, whose
;
existence and operations were derived from the work of Christ.

The root of this whole conception
is ultimately found in the
notion that Logos, who was identified with the Son of

the
God, continued to be conceived as the abode and bearer of
all the ideas from which the world was evolved. Even Athan-
asius was not in a position thoroughly to correct this view,
see Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des heiligen Athanasius, 1880,
p. 138 ff. Consequently, even the most clear-sighted of the
Fathers were helpless against speculations which deduced
redemption from the Cosmology. And thus a new Church
Theosophy arose. A fantastic pantheism was introduced which
had been created by the barbarous theosophy of expiring
antiquity. It harmonised excellently with the religious barbarism
which satisfied itself in the crudest and most daring myths and
legends; nay, it kindled into fresh life with it. The living
God, apart from whom the Soul possesses nothing, and the
fervour of the saint threatened meanwhile to disappear. And
side by side, nay, in cordial agreement, with these fantastic
speculations, there existed a prosaic worship of the letter.
Literature. —See Nitzsch's account, here especially thorough,

Dogmengesch. I. pp. 268 — 287, 328—347, and Schwane, Vol. II.
pp.15 — 108, 272 — 328.

~ CHAPTER V.
PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONCEPTIONS REGARDING MAN AS THE

RECIPIENT OF SALVATION.
§ I . Introductory
According to the ideas of the Fathers, the doctrines of the

condition and destiny of man belonged to Natural Theology.
This appears from the fact that, starting from their Cosmology,
they all strove to ascertain, from the original state of man, the
nature of Christian redemption, in other words, the state of
perfection. At same time the reservation held good, that
the
we should receive more than we could think or expect, and,
in fact, that which was expected, and was deduced from the
religious and ethical value which man had come to put upon
himself in the course of history, was only carried back into
his original state. The following propositions contain every-
thing that can be stated as embodying a common conviction
and common presupposition of all further conceptions, which
in this matter turned out very different, in accordance with the
speculative and empirical studies of the Fathers, and the object
of their investigations for the time. Man made in the image
of God is a free self-determining being. He was endowed with
reason by God, that he might decide for the good, and enjoy im-
mortality. He has fallen short of this destiny by having
voluntarily yielded and continuing to yield himself — under
temptation, but not under compulsion— to sin, yet without having
lost the possibility and power of a virtuous life, or the capacity
for immortality. The possibility was strengthened and immor-
tality restored and offered by the Christian revelation which
came to the aid of the darkened reason with complete know-
256 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
ledge of God. Accordingly, knowledge decides between good and

evil. Strictly taken, the will is morally nothing. On this basis very
different views were possible. It was asked, first, what was
original endowment, and what destiny, in the case of man;
secondly, in connection with this, how much was to be claimed
as human nature, and how much as a gift of grace originally
bestowed; and thirdly, in keeping with' the above, how far
and how deep the consequences of sin extended. The question
was put, in the fourth place, whether bare freedom constituted
man's character, or whether it did not correspond to his nature
to be good. Fifthly, the philosophical question as to the consti-
tution of man was here introduced and answered in various
ways [dichotomically, trichotomically, the extent and scope of
the flesh (s-ip^) in human nature, in its relation to the spirit
{'Kvsxjy.oC] and to sin]. Sixthly, the relation of the creaturely
spirit {wvso(ioC) to the divine, in other words, the origin of the
human was discussed. Seventhly, lastly, and above all,
spirit,
men possessed two sources of knowledge: the account in

Genesis with a reahstic exposition, which seemed to pour scorn
on all "spiritual" conceptions, but had nevertheless to be
respected; and the relative section from Origen's theology,
which was felt to an increasing .extent to be intolerable to the
Church, and which yet expressed the scientific, religious con-
viction of the Fathers, in so far as their thought was scientific.
Under such circumstances different conceptions, compromises of
all sorts, necessarily arose; but hardly anywhere was an
advance made in the end on the views already presented by
Irenseus. In the latest results, as they are to be found in the
Dogmatics of John of Damascus, there is much that is more
realistic than in Irenaeus, but on the whole a type of doctrine
is obtained which is more inadequate and confused, and less

valuable. In what follows we intend to enter in detail only
into the most important points.
§ 2. The Anthropology.
Since the end of the creation of the world was held to

consist in the creation of rational beings, who could exhibit
Chap, v.] THE DOCTRINE OF MAN 257
the image of God and share in his blessedness, it followed that

the power of free self-determination and the capacity for im-
mortality belonged to the notion of man, and that they were
therefore regarded as inalienable. All the doctors of the Church,
however, comprehended, in the idea of innate freedom, the
conceptions of the rational and moral plan of man's nature as
a whole, and they defined this natural disposition to be the
power to know God's will accurately, to follow it, and thus to
rise above nature. While it was left in doubt whether this
whole natural plan implied that man possessed bare freedom or
freedom directed to the good, it certainly characterised man as
a spiritual being, and for that very reason as an image of God.
Being such, man was independent as regards God. In other
words, the fact that he was an "image" did not directly
establish a lasting dependence on God, nor did it find expres-
sion in such a dependence. On the contrary, it established his
freedom in God, so that man, being independent,
relation to
was now only subject law of God, i.e., to that dispen-
to the
sation in virtue of which he was either rewarded or punished
according as he behaved. The connection with God was thus
exhausted in the noble constitution of man fixed once for all,
but was supremely valued and acutely felt as a gift of divine
grace, in the comparison with irrational animals. Meanwhile,
the Fathers differed from one another. Some like Athanasius, —
see even Tatian —
assigned to human nature, in the strictest
sense of the term, only the creaturely and sensuous state of
being, in respect of which man is perishable, and they de-
scribed everything else as a gift of divine grace inherbnt in
human nature. Others embraced in this nature the moral cap-
acity, endowment of reason, and knowledge of God; —sb the
majority; and very strenuously John of Damascus who repeat-
edly characterises the good as the natural: see De fide orthod.
II. 30, III. 14. The third class, finally, included even immor-
tality, as a possession and not merely as a destiny, among the
natural attributes of the human soul. These distinctions, which,

however, are not particularly important for dogmatics, since all
ultimately held nature to be a gift of grace, and the gift of
grace to be a natural provision, were due partly to the differ-
17
ent psychological conceptions of the Fathers, partly to the

standpoint from which they investigated the problems ; they might
— as e.g., Athanasius —
start from the doctrine of redemption
or depend on moral, or empirical philosophical considerations.
In psychology, the only point settled was that the fundamental
form of human nature was twofold, spiritual and corporeal.
This conception existed even where the soul itself was repre-
sented as something corporeal, or as only " as nearly as pos-
sible incorporeal" {lyyvT ci.t «, rou xa-afiixTOu). Very many Greek
Fathers, however, followed the view of Plato and Origen, accord-
ing to which man consists of spirit, body, and soul the soul —
uniting the other two. Consistently carried out, this opinion
constantly led them back to the conception of Origen (Philo)
that the spirit in man alone constituted his true nature, that it
had own, even a pretemporal, history, that in itself it be-

its
longed to the supernatural and divine sphere, and that the

body was only a prison which had to be stripped off before
the spirit could present itself in its true being. In order to
escape these consequences, which were already discredited in
the controversy with Neoplatonism and Manichaeism, different
methods were adopted. Among these occurred that already
alluded to above, the conception of the spirit solely as a " super-
added gift" (donum superadditum), a religious principle, to be
found exclusively in the pious. But this expedient was seldom
chosen the whole question, so important and crucial, was rather
;
stifled in a hundred questions of detail, tortured out of, or read
into, the account in Genesis. The ever increasing restriction of

the allegorical and spiritualising method of interpreting Gen. I. ff.,
led the Fathers nolens-volens remote from their

to opinions
scientific thought on religion. The only passage in that account,
moreover, which seemed to support the spiritualistic conception
— "God breathed his own breath into man" proved too much, —
and had therefore to be let alone. Origen's idea, that the
'
1 Augustine's exposition in Ep. CCV. 19, was ultimately the opinion of most
of the Greek Fathers, so far as they were not completely devoted to Neoplatonism.
" Vis etiam per me scire, uti-um dei flatus ille in Adam idem ipse sit anima. Bre-
viter respondeo, aut ipse est aut ipso anima facta est. Sed si ipse est., actus est f . .
In hac enim quEestione maxima cavendum est, ne aiiima non a deo facta natura,
body was a prison of the soul, was contrasted with the other,
also ancient, that man was rather a microcosm, having received
parts from the two created worlds, the upper and under. ' But
this conception, theonly one which contained a coherent theory
of equal value formally with the doctrine of Origen, could not
fail remain a mere theory, for the ethics corresponding to
to
it, ethical ideal, were not supported by the final aims of
or its
the dominant theology. When anthropological questions or the

Biblical narrative were not directly taken into account, it be-
comes everywhere obvious, that the old Platonic antithesis of
spirit and body was regarded by the Fathers as the antithesis
between that which was precious and that which was to be

mortified, and that the earthly and creaturely in man was felt
to be a hampering barrier which was to be surmounted. Mona-
chism and the eschatological prospect of deification are examples
which show how thoroughly practical ideas and hopes were
determined by the duaHstic view, though its point had been
blunted by the tenet of the resurrection of the body. Mean-
while the theoretical doctrines as to the nature of man con-
tinued to be beset by a profound inconsistency, -and ultimately,
in consequence of Biblicism, became aimless and barren. ^
Supplement. —The different psychological views of the
Fathers are reflected in the various theories as to the origin
of individual souls. The oldest of these was the traducian
theory of Tertullian, which was also representedby a few
Greeks — Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius Sinaita. According to
sed ipsius del substantia tamquam unigenitus filius, quod est verbum eius, aut aliqua
eius particula esse tamquam ilia natura atque substantia, qua deus est
credatur,
quidquid est, commutabilis esse possit quod esse animam nemo non sentit, qui
:
se animam habere sentit." But the thought which underlay the last saying of the
dying Plotinus (Porphyr., Vita Plot., ch. 2) : 'rriipiSiixi to Iv fiiiiv ieiov aviyeiv a-po;
TO iv TM Tnxvri hlov, was not entirely surmounted by many Greek Fathers.
1 Therefore the great controversy lasting for centuries, whether the skins with
which God clothed Adam and Eve were real skins, or bodies. He who agreed with
Origen taught the latter; he who looked on man. as a microcosm, the former. Yet
here also there were composite forms: e.g., the skin meant only the fleshly body.
"Scriptural proofs in support of the pre-existence of souls were not wanting:
see John IX. 2. Jerome held to the doctrine for a time. Even Augustine was un-
certain, and up to the time of Gregory the Great its flat rejection had not been
determined on in the West (see Kp. VII, 53).
26o HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
it the soul was begotten along with the body. Its extreme
opposite was Origen's idea of pre-existence which had still many
adherents in the fourth century, but more and more into
fell
discredit, until, finally, it was expressly condemned at the

Synod of Constantinople, A. D. 553. According to this doctrine,
all souls were created at once by God along with the upper
world, and fell successively into the lower world, and into their
bodies. The middle view —
an expedient of perplexity was the —
creatian which gradually gained ground all through the fourth
century, and can be characterised as the most wide-spread, at
least in the West, from the beginning of the fifth. It taught
that God was ever creating souls and planting them in the
embryos. The East contented itself with disowning Origen's
theory. Augustine, the greatest theologian of the West, was
unable to come to any fixed view regarding the origin of the soul.
The different views of the Fathers are further reflected in
the different conceptions of the image of God in man. Religious
and moral speculation were to be harmonised at this point;
for the former was, indeed, never wholly wanting. Apart from
such theologians as saw the image of God, somehow or other,
even in the human figure, almost all were convinced that it
consisted in reason and freedom. But with this it was impossible
to remain perfectly satisfied, since man was still able to break
away from God, so as in fact to become unlike him, and to die.
On the other hand, theologians were certain that goodness and
moral purity never could be innate. In order to solve the
problem, different methods were adopted. Some abandoned
the premise that the possession of the divine image was
inalienable, and maintained that as it resided in the spirit that
had been bestowed it could be completely lost through sinful
sensuousness. The spirit returned to God, and the man relapsed
to the level of the beasts. But this solution seemed unsatis-
factory, was necessary, in spite of it, to retain the
because it
freedom that still, under all circumstances, existed to choose

the good. Accordingly, it was impossible to treat this theory
with any real seriousness. Others saw the possession of the
Divine image, resting on reason and freedom, in the destiny
of man to virtue and immortality, yet without stating what
change in that case was actually made by falling short of this

destiny. The third section, finally, distinguished, after the
example of Origen, between "image" {shuv) and "likeness"
(ofitiw(ng), and saw the former in the inalienable spiritual plan
of man, the moral similarity to God, which was,
latter in
indeed, one always to be gained on the basis of natural
endowments. The Fathers were unwilling, as this review shows,
to rest content with the thought that the inalienable spiritual
natural endowment of man constituted the divine image, but
they found no means of getting beyond
it. Their conception
of moral goodness as the product of human, freedom hindered
them. All the more strongly did they emphasise and praise,
as a kind of set-off, the goodness of God as Creator revealed
in the natural constitution of man.
The different views of the Fathers are finally reflected in
their conception of the primitive state. Christianity restores
man to his state of ideal perfection. This state must, however,
have already existed in some form at the beginning, since
God's creation is perfect, and Genesis teaches, that man when
created was good, and in a condition of blessedness (Paradise).
On the other hand, it could not have been perfect, since man's
perfection could not be attained except through freedom. The
problem resolves itself into a complete contradiction, which,
indeed, was aêady clearly to be found in Irenseus the original :
condition of man must coincide with the state of perfection,

and yet it must only have been preliminary. The Fathers
tried various ways of solving this crucial and insoluble diffi-
culty, in which again the empirical and moral philosophical
conception combined with a religious one. An attempt was
made by very many Fathers to limit somewhat the blessedness
of the Paradisaical state, or to give a form to their conceptions
—
of it different in quality fanciful and material from that of —
their ideas of the final perfection accordingly, it was explained
;
— by Gregory of Nyssa — that God himself, looking to the Fall,

had not ordained the Paradisaical state to be perfect. By some,
again, the inconsistencies were glossed over, while others deter-
mined, following Origen, wholly to abandon the historical
interpretation of the state in Paradise, and to construct indepen-
dently a primitive state for themselves. The last method had

the advantage, in combination with the assumption of the pre-
existence of souls, that it could transfer all men mystically
into the original state. However, this radical solution conflicted
too strongly with the letter of revelation, and the spirit of the
Church tradition. It was rejected, and thus the problem
remained in its obscurity. Therefore men contented themselves
more and more with disregarding the main question they set :
down incongruities side by side, and extracted separate points

from the account in Genesis. To the latter belonged especially
those which were believed to recommend virginity and as-
ceticism, and to prove that these formed the mode of life
(habitus) which corresponded to the true nature of man. Nor
were opinions wanting that characterised asceticism as a salutary
means of correcting the deterioration of the human state.
" Asceticism and its toils were not invented to procure the
virtue that comes from without, but to remove superinduced
and unnatural vileness, just as we restore the natural brightness
of iron by carefully removing the rust, which is not natural,
but has come to it through negligence" (John of Damascus,
De fide orth. III. 14).
The principles of ethics were, as a rule, discussed in con-
nection with the original state of man. But even in reference
to the blessedness enjoyed in that state no clear conception
was reached ; for if man's distinctive nature was based on bare
freedom, what sort of blessedness could there be for him?
What could be bestowed onhim which he did not possess
already, or which, if bestowed, did not once more call in
question the original possession? What could fall to his lot
except an arbitrarily chosen reward? Again, as regards ethics,
nothing certain could be established. While negative morality,
asceticism, was conceived,
to be the natural and
as a rule,
destined condition of man, yet an effort was made to construct
an ideal of positive morality, in which the virtues of philoso-
phy appeared in a rather superficial connection with those of
rehgion. Negative and positive morality each looked up, after
'
See here even the Latins. Ambrosius learned the combination, as carried out by
>
him in his De officiis, from the Cappadocians see also the remarkable opening
;
all, to a different supreme good, in the one case immortality,

in the other the loftiest virtue. Therefore they could not be
combined. The assumption of works of supererogation, which
the Christian could accomplish while remaining in the world,
formed the bridge between the two ethical ideals, but one
which it must be admitted, contributed to flight from the one
sphere to the other, rather than their connection. All attacks
on the theory that ascetic achievements were especially valu-
able and meritorious were regarded as the outcome of moral
laxity, and it is certain that in many cases they actually were.
§ 3. Ethics. Sin.
It. was recognised by all the Fathers that the human race
had turned from the good and thus degenerated from its origin,
i.e., — according to the view of the majority — from Adam. This
universality of sin was throughout explained, not from an innate
wicked power in man impelling him necessarily to sin, nor from
matter in itself, still less from complicity on the part of the
Deity. Nor, on the other hand, was it as a rule ascribed to
'
a direct inheritance of Adam's sin, for inherited sin is a contra-

diction in itself; Adam was the type, but not the ancestor, of
sinners. The true explanation was found in the misuse of free-
dom, caused by the seductions of wicked demons, and the trans-
mission of wicked customs. Along with this, the majority un-
doubtedly cherished the secret idea, which was not surmounted,
that the incentive to revolt from God ^ came to a certain extent
of his work De poenit. I. i :

" If the final and supreme aim of all virtue is to
minister as far as possible to the spiritual benefit of our fellow-man, we may

characterise moderation as one of the finest virtues." For the popular
benevolent
conceptions of Greek Christians, see Socr. H. E. III. 16, in connection with Rom. I.
On the other hand, Augustine attempted to derive the philosophic virtues from
man's dependence on God, from love ; see, above all, the splendid exposition, Ep.
CLV., ch. 12.
' Even the subtle way which Origen justified evil as an element in the best
in
possible world (see Vol. 343 f.) was seldom repeated. Yet see Augustine, De
II., p.
ordine II. 11 sq. (one of his oldest writings) " mala in ordinem redacta faciunt
:
decorem universi."
2 Sin was described as something negative not only by Augustine, but by all
thinking Greeks before him. Their conception was undoubtedly based on aphilo-
necessarily from the sensuous nature and creaturely infirmity

of man, and resulted from his composite constitution, and his
liability to death, whether that was acquired naturally or by
transgression, or inherited. Decay and death were especially

held to constitute an inducement to and cause of continuance in
sin. With natural sensuousness the fate of death was conjoined.
Both drove man from God. But in spite of this view the
assumption was retained of unaltered freedom. If on the one
hand stress was laid on sensuousness being a natural endow-
ment of man, the unnaturalness of wickedness was emphasised
on the other, and thus bare freedom received a closer relation
to goodness, which, of course, was conceived as repressed by
sin. The good was the natural, but, again, in view of man's
sensuousness, unnatural evil was also natural to him. The essence
of sin, since wickedness was held to be something purely nega-
tive, was universally seen in alienation from God, being and
goodness; but all that this meant positively was that man had
subordinated his will to his sensuousness, and thereby lost the
feehng, desire, and knowledge of the divine. The consequences
of sin were held to be the following: First, by the majority,
the universal mortality which had prevailed from Adam, or the
loss of the true Ufe secondly, the obscuration of the know-
;
'
ledge of God, and with it of religion in general. This darken-

ing made it possible for the demons to seduce man from the
true God, to gain him to their own service, and the idolatry of
the creature, in the form of polytheism, and so even to exercise
an almost complete dominion over him, and the earth associated
with humanity. A third consequence of sin was found in a
certain weakening of freedom, which, though still existing, yet
only in rare cases succeeded, without new divine influences,
in reaching a morally good, perfect life.
sophical view that God was not only the originator of being, but really the sole
being. On the other hand, a distinction was made between the eternal being and
the creaturely, which came from God.
1 The Antiochenes thought differently (see under), and so did the author of the
App. Const., who is exceedingly lax in his views; see, e.g.^ V. 7, p. 132 (Ed.
Lagarde). The latter regards death as an original divine institution, which makes
it possible for God to punish or reward. The resurrection was due to the rational
soul from God.

Chap, v.] •
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN 265
Supplement. — The
view taken by Irenseus and Tertullian of
the fundamental importance of the first Fall for the whole future
race, was imperilled by Origen's theory of a fall on the part

of spirits in their preexistent state. It once more gradually
won acceptance as an authoritative Biblical doctrine, but it

never obtained the same certainty, clearness, or importance
among the Greek Fathers as among the Latin (i.e., after Am-
brose); see Book II. of our description. The explanation which
the theory of original sin furnished for the phenomenon of
universal sinfulness was in form similar to Origen's, but was
inferior to it in intelligibility, and was never unreservedly
accepted by the Orientals. The later Greeks indeed, doubtless
under the influence of the West, recognised original sin, but
this only resulted in a contradiction for the thought that each
;
man was born in puris naturalibus, was, while no longer strictly

formulated, never actually condemned. The old dilemma re-
mained, that each man sinned either from a necessity of his

nature or in virtue of his freedom; and the former opinion
was at all times held in the East to be Manichaean. Inherited
death, due to Adam, was taught as a rule; yet even in this
matter certain views were never wholly obliterated which are
only intelligible if death was regarded as something natural.
From the point of view of the doctrine of redemption espe-
cially, it seem more pertinent to hold death to be the
could
natural destiny of man, from which, however, redemption delivered
him. Accordingly, after Origen's theory had been abandoned
on account of its want of Biblical support, all that was got in
exchange for it was a contradiction death was something
:
natural and again unnatural. We cannot wonder at this contra-

diction; in the same way, no one really held the immortality
assigned to the primitive state to be something indisputably
natural, but neither was it regarded as absolutely supernatural.
§ 4. The Fall and Original Sin. Doctrine of Redemption.
This is the place to define more precisely the influence which
this Natural Theology gained on Dogmatics, i.e., on the con-

ceptions of redemption through Jesus Christ. In so doing we
must keep firmly in mind, that, in spite of this influence, the

feeling remained uppermost that redemption was something
superlatively exalted, something unmerited, a pure gift of God
to humanity. This feeling was, however, more and more en-
couraged also by the fact that the simple tenets of Natural
Theology fell into confusion and became less impressive through
the enjoined and ever increasing attention to Biblical texts re-
alistically interpreted, and the necessity of repelling the system
of Origen. To this was added the constantly growing reluctance

to reflect independently at all, as well as the grand impressions
made by the divine dispensation which culminated in the in-
carnation of the Son of God, and was brought to view in the
mysteries.
In the first place, the conviction of the lofty and, at bottom,
inalienable dignity of man roused the idea that man receives
through redemption which corresponds to his nature. If
that
adoption to the sonship of God and participation in the divine
nature appeared on the one hand as a gift above all reason
and expectation, yet it was looked at on the other as corre-
sponding to the nature of man already fixed in his creation.
For man is God's image, and exalted as he is above the lower
animals by his constitution, rises as a spiritual being into the
heavenly sphere.
Secondly, the last word that Natural Theology has to say
of man is that he is a free and rational being, introduced into
the opposition of good and evil. Such a being has really to
do with God only in his capacity of creator and rewarder.
All other points of contact must necessarily always resolve into
that. Again, for such a being there can only exist one good,
that knowledge, which includes virtue, and besides this cer-
is
tain rewards alone find a place; for his nature requires that he
should be independent in all his movements, nay, these only
possess any value through such independence. The Deity stands
at the and the close of the history of free men as
beginning
the power that creates and rewards. But the intervening space
is not occupied by the Deity himself in order to govern man,
and to preserve his allegiance. On the contrary, man has to
deal solely with divine knowledge and rules in accordance with
which his freedom is meant to evince itself; for this freedom,

while in itself a liberty of choice, was given to him that he
might achieve, in a zealous pursuit of virtue based on rational
knowledge, the moral perfection possessed by the Deity Himself
This whole view, which is familiar to us from the Apologists,
was never completely lost by the Greek Fathers. Its first
consequence was that henceforth the whole of religion could
be, —
as already in the case o^ the Apologists and was, looked —
at from the point of view of knowledge and law. It appeared
as a morality based on pure knowledge of God and the world,

one to which nothing could be added. Along with freedom,
the natural moral law was implanted in man, that is, the sure
consciousness of the rules, by which he had to prove what
was in him. The rules corresponded ultimately to the laws of
the universe set in operation and maintained by God as su-
preme First Cause. This natural law, when it had been obscured
in the mind of man, was repeated in the Decalogue by an
external legislation, and, on account of the hard-heartedness of
the Jews, was supplemented with burdens, temporary command-
ments and it was finally reduced by Jesus Christ to the sim-
;
plest of formulas, set in operation by the impressive preaching

of rewards and punishments, and perfectly fulfilled by Jesus.
He revealed the perfect knowledge of God, and restored the
natural moral law —
these two statements being really identical,
for in both God appears as the supreme cause. In this state- '
' We perceive the Greek conception most clearly from the law in Apost. Const.
VI. 19 —24. The, section begins with the words: yi/iJuTs; yap ©eov J(« 'liJo-oC Xpfa-xoC
KOii T^v a-vi^Traa-av aurov otxovoi^tav apx^hv ygyevjj^xgvj^v, tjTi SsSaixs vdfiov XTr^ôvv
stQ ô^5etav tov i^vo-ikov KSiâpov, tTbtr^ptov, xytov^ ev ^ Kxi To'tSiov'Svofxa hyxaredsTO.
The Decalogue is meant; it was given to the nation before its revolt, and God
had no intention of adding sacrificial regulations, but tolerated sacrifices. After the
revolt (of the he himself, however, gave the ceremonial law: "He
golden calf)
bound the people with irremovable fetters, and imposed heavy burdens and a
hard yoke upon them, that they might abandon idolatry and turn again to that
law which God had implanted by nature in all men" (ch. XX,). These "branding
irons, lancets, and medicines" were, however, only for the sick. Christians who
voluntarily believed in one God were delivered by him, above all, from the sacri-
ficial service. Christ has fulfilled {xvpuraq) the law, but removed the additions,
"if not all, yet the more irksome"; this is the opposite of TertuUian's opinion.
He restored man's right of self-determination, and in doing so confirmed the
natural law {tov (puirixov v6iJ.ov l^s^xluo-si). More rigorous conditions ai'e only
ment we have already mentioned the second consequence of the

speculation ; all grace can only possess the character of a sup-
pcSrt, of a rectification of knowledge. The whole of the oper-
ations of God's grace are in the end, crutches offered to feeble
man. In offering them, God reveals a goodness which, after
what he has already done in creation, is without any fixed
limit. Grace is therefore not absolutely necessary for every man.
God, again, by no means reveals himself in it even as the

blessing which man requires, but he simply imparts complete
knowledge, and thus explains, and strengthens the motives for
observing, the rules of conduct which man had long possessed.
But in the third place, it follows from the speculation, that sin
is nothing but the transgression, induced by imperfect knowledge,
of those rules, whose observance does not exhibit man's depen-

dence on God, but his independence and freedom. Sin subjects
man to the judgment of God. Punishment is the gravest result
of sin. But God would not be just, if he were not an indul-
gent judge. His goodness which supports man, has its counter-
part in the indulgence which overlooks the time of ignorance
of the individual, and leaves unpunished the sins of men when-
ever they feel penitent. ^ Since it is impossible in this whole
apparent. Just vengeance is even yet permitted, toleration is only better; ou tx

^va-txa TTxQii SKKdTTTStv evo{soSeTiiir£v ÂAa; ri^v tovtoiv afterptav (This is not the
usual Greek view, but a conception peculiar to this lax author). But Christ himself
abolished what had been " added " solely by fulfilling it first in his life and death,
or by transforming the ceremonies into spiritual rites. The respect which Irenseus,
as distinguished from the older teachers, had already entertained for the ceremonial
law is shown even more clearly here.
• Yet see what is said below on Macarius.

- Forgiveness of sins was a conception which in this connection could hardly
be carried out by the Fathers. The passing over of the time of ignorance and the
acceptance of the reparation involved in penitence constituted forgiveness. Hardly
another teacher from and after the fourth century, has expressed it so clearly as
Clemens Alex. : ruv Tpoyeyevtiiiivuv ©f 05 S/Sairiv a(êiriv, tSv î Ejrw'vriav auro;
'ixaa-Toq ioturif (Quis div. salv. 40, cf. Strom, II. 14, 58, and elsewhere); but the
statement as to Christ in Psedag. I.
3, 7 : tu fiiv uiiocfrvniaTcc w; 0eo5 a<pisif, s'li;
ii TO fiii i^xizupreivsiv veniotyaiySti formed a part of the fundamental

<5; avSpwTroc,
view of the following age. We cannot wonder at this. Between mechanical ex-
piations and penitence there is in fact no third term, as soon as the forgiveness
of sins is applied to individual cases. Only where faith in forgiveness is the faith
itself, is it more than a word, and yet not magical.
question that there can be any suggestion of a restoration of

man to communion with God which he had
that forsaken,
since on the contrary, the sole point was that man, to whom
it was always possible to return, should not be impeded while
striving and yet stumbling, the view was, in fact, inevitable
that God remits punishment to every penitent. God would not
appear just, but harsh and unloving, if he did not accept sincere
penitence as an equivalent for transgressions. It was accord-
ingly agreed that, although men are sinners, they become just
in the sight of God through virtue and penitence, and redemp-
tion to eternal life through Christ can only benefit such as have
acquired this righteousness through their independent efforts.
The sacraments initiated men into this effort to obtain virtue,
and they had also an indescribable influence upon it. But
personal fulfilment of the law was still something thoroughly
independent. Finally, it followed from this moral view, that it
was impossible to gain a clear idea of the state of perfection.

A state of freedom and a perfect virtue based on perfect
knowledge cannot be raised higher than they are, and that
which is given to reward the latter can never be intrinsically
connected with it. The complete vacuity of the conceptions
held of the final state, apart from the effect of the hope of an
ever increasing knowledge, God, was accordingly
i.e., vision of
also the natural consequence
conviction that man,
of the
because he is free, is dependent on no one, and that he is
always at the goal when he fulfils the law of God.
Thirdly, the rationalistic exposition of the doctrine of God
and creation could not fail to impel apologists to expound the
reasonableness of the doctrines of the Trinity, the resurrection
of the body, etc. As a matter of fact the attempt was
even made to prove the existence of a general agreement,
a "common sense", as to the, doctrine of the Trinity, and
references were especially
to made
heathen philosophers,
though, on the other hand, when
it seemed expedient, the
Greeks were denied any knowledge of the Trinity. Such
references were all the more natural, since Neoplatonic philo-
sophers, and at an earlier date Numenius, had constructed
a kind of trinity. Cyril, again, in his Catechisms, supported
2/0 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
body to a very large extent on rational

the resurrection of the
grounds, and others followed his example. For the extent to
which even the doctrine of the Incarnation was included in
Natural Theology, see following chapter.
Fourthly, from all this it followed, that man could ultimately
receive nothing from history which he could not, nay, had not
to, wrest for himself But the Logos in the flesh [Koyog hffxpxog)
belonged to history. Accordingly, it was impossible wholly to
get rid of the view that there was a standpoint for which the
historical Christ, since he was merely the edifying teacher,
meant nothing. This view was, as we know, expressed per-
fectly plainly by Origen (see Vol. II., p. 342, n. i); and in
this he by no means stood alone. It was not only repeated
by halfheathen theologians, like Synesius, but it runs hke a

hidden thread through the conceptions of all Greek theologians,
as long as they continued to think independently. It is the
negative complement of the idea that the knowledge accom-

panied by virtue, which transcends all that is visible, and there-
fore all that is historical, includes blessedness in itself, and
moreover, that it can be achieved from our own resources
through a direct afflatus divinus. But still further: even in
Augustine this view was not wholly surmounted. The man,
who perceived the Deity, and had gained faith, love, and hope,
1
stood beside the throne of God, and was with the Father of
!
light and his essential Word; the historical Christ lay beneath
him. ' Further, even opponents of Origen, like Methodius and
'
his successors, the mystics, had arrived at the same conception

(see Vol. III., p. For the ascetic mystic history passed
no).
away along with the world; he might cast aside all crutches,
traversing independently the long, mysterious path from the
extreme outside to the inmost recess of the spiritual. At the
end of this path there stood, not Jesus Christ, but the unem-
bodied Logos [Xoyoq oi,(rxp}iog), since he was pure truth and pure
life. An incarnate Christ (ha-oipxcg) was born in each who tra-
versed this path. He in whom Christ was born, however, no
longer needed the historical Christ. ^
' Augustine, De docti-. I. 34.
- See even Augustine, on John, tract. 21, n. 8: " Gratulemur et gratias agamus
Rationalism, or Christianity as the moral law which is freely

fulfilled, and mysticism are regarded as opposites, and so they
are before the tribunal of philosophy. But before that of positive
religion they are not, they are rather akin, at least in the form
in which they confront us in antiquity. Mysticism of course '
embraces germs which when unfolded will resist rationahsm.

But at first it is nothing but rationalism applied to a sphere
above reason (ratio). The admission that there was such a
sphere formed the difference. It was mysticism as much as
rationalistic moralism which secretly formed an opposition to the

Christianity proclaimed by Jesus Christ to be the way and the
truth for all men and for every grade. The most vital piety
of the Greek Fathers, and the strenuous effort to make them-
selves at home in rehgion, insured them at least against losing
the historical Christ.
was only a danger that here threatened. We may
But it
not say more.The Deity had come down to earth, God had
become man, and that in the historical Jesus faith in this —
stupendous fact, "the newest of the new, nay, the only new
thing under the sun," limited all rationalism. It imperatively
demanded the investigation, on the one hand, of the ground
and cause, on the other, of the fruit and blessing, of this divine
dispensation. was necessary to find the
It relation of the
latter to the mystery and horror of death. It was indeed
impossible to make the "naturalness" of death credible; for
all nature, and lower, rebelled against it. And the
higher
consciousness of a capacity for perfect knowledge and goodness
underlay in practical life the sense of incapacity. Hence the
conviction that man must be redeemed, and through Jesus
Christ is redeemed. The doctrines of innate freedom, the law,
and the independent achievement of virtue were not abandoned
non solum nos Cliristianos factos esse, sed Christum . . . aclmiramiui gaudete
Christus fecti sumus."
1 Platonists of Alex., 1886, p. 51 f.) has also correctly
Bigg (The Christian
perceived this; he speaking of the attitude of Clement and of the Alexandrians
is
generally: "On one side Rationalist, on another Mystic." " Though there is in them
a, strong vein of Common Sense or Rationalism, they were not less sensible of the
mystic supernatural side of the religious life than Irenaeus. The difference is that
with them the mystical grows out of the rational,"
but they were counterbalanced by faith in the necessity and

reality of redemption. And combination, unsatisfactory as
this
it seems to us, was yet capable of forming men of Christian
character. Such men were never wanting in any century of the
older Greek Church after Athanasius and Chrysostom, although
their theology lacked the confession of the Psalmist :
" It is
good for me to cleave to God " (Mihi adhaerere deo bonum est).
Instead of multiplying details we may here give the views on

freedom, and grace, of four eminent Greek Fathers, Athanasius,
sin,
Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John of Damascus.

(i) Athanasius. —
The conceptions formed by Athanasius of the
original state of man, of sin and grace, show especially his
inability to distinguish between nature and grace. In his work
"De incarnatione " ^ he strove to prove that the incarnation
was a necessity on the part of God. Therefore he emphasises
strongly the destiny of man, and distinguishes it sharply from
his empirical condition for this destiny sets God a task which
;
he must carry out under all circumstances, if his goodness

[xyxSoryig) is to remain in force. Therefore, in many of the
arguments of this work, human nature appears as the creaturely
and sensuous constitution, while everything else, including the
endowment of reason, takes the form o{ z. donum superadditum,
potentially given in the original state, and binding on God
himself, a gift of grace, which was meant to rise to complete
' The text is indeed quoted by Macarius (Ep. know-

I. fi?i) as the sum of all
ledge. But even to this theologian, who came some

nearest Western thought in
paraenetic remarks, and frequently drew the sharpest contrast between nature and
—
grace (see Horn. I. lo, IV. 7 9), the "cleaving to God" meant nothing but the
independent decision for God. The following passage (Horn. IV. 5) proves how
remote Macarius was from Augustine " How should God treat a man who, in the
:
exercise of free will, devotes himself to the world, lets himself be seduced by its
pleasures, or revels in dissipations ? God only sends his help to him who renounces
worldly pleasures, and preserves himself completely from the snares and traps of
the sensuous world," etc. Here we see that the contrast between nature and grace
was not so seriously meant. The same is the case with "law and gospel." No
Greek Father was able to regard these as contrasted in the same way as we see
them in the writings of Paul and Augustine.
2 On its authenticity, see the next chapter.
Chap, v.] VIEWS OF ATHANASIUS 2/3
knowledge of God through the free moral development of man

— for that was the goal. [Athanasius uses very different ex-
pressions for this in his writings: Cpavrixcrix vrep) &sov (power
of conceiving God), yvmig (knowledge) KOiTavoyidii; (perception)
KXTiX^yi\pig (comprehension) hcopim tuv Ssiwv (theory of divine
things) ieapla, rSiv voi/jtSiv ( —of the intelligible) hccplx Tsp) tov
@£0u (science of God) hvoix rvig sU TraTspa yvuirsui; (concept
of knowledge as to the Father)]. The change which took place
in man through sin, or through death, is accordingly conceived
as a loss of the divine. God
same time supremely
is at the
interested in preventing man, once destined to obtain perfect
divine knowledge, from becoming a prey to his lower nature,
and being destroyed.
But even in the De incarn., and to a still greater extent
in his later anti-Arian writings, Athanasius defends the idea that
the rational spirit {^vxh Koyizvi —Athanasius being a dichotomist)
belongs to man's constitution, is immortal, and at bottom also
inalienable. This 4'^%^ Koymvi can gradually recognise the Logos
and God from creation ; it is, accordingly, not only an inalien-
able religious talent, but also an inalienable religious factor.
Its power extends so far that there have been holy men in all
ages (c. gent. 2; c. Arian. III. 33: ykp ovv kyioi ysyivxat
ttoKXo)
KcaSoipo) TTxa-yjg xiM&priaq). The reconciliation of the two contra-
dictory statements, that the higher endowment appears first as
grace, then as nature, is to be found in the following points,
(i) The îvxvi Xoyixn is only rational (logical) because it parti-
cipates in the Logos, is his image^ possesses a shadow of him
(De incarn. 3), and retains its power only when steadfastly con-
nected with him. For this reason it can be termed, although a
natural provision, an "external" (c. Arian. 11.68: "Adam was
outside before his transgression, having received grace and not
having had it adapted to his body"; '0 "A'Sotfi, wpo t^? Trxptic-
(2ii(r£co? sâhv vjv, A«5/3«y rviv X'^P'" '*'"' f^^ a-uviipizoa-fisvyjv l%wv
xurtiv T^ (ru[y.t>iTi). (2) It is only in the apologetic arguments
of the treatise De incarn. that Adam's fall and its consequence

appear as forming a tremendous cleavage, and the state before
^ De incarn. IV. : ^ jrapx^xa-ii; Ti5c IvroAij^ sii; to xxrk ipvtrtv xutov^ s'ricrTpB^sv.
Accordingly, everything is supernatural which raises man above the level of nature.
18
and after the fall as a contrast. That was not the characteristic
view of Athanasius, ' as is shown by other arguments in the
same writing, and the rest of the tractates. He contemplates
not a loss once for all, but a gradual enfeeblement. Mankind
has more and more lost, from generation to generation, the
consciousness i.e., through the darkening of his mind.
of God,
That which above burdened humanity, however, was not sin,
all
but the sentence of death pronounced by God on the sinner

see next chapter. The faculties for knowing God, and thus for -
attaining the goal, remained, but there was no corresponding

power actually to reach the goal. A Catholic investigator has ex-
pressed this as follows :
^ " Sinful man gradually lost, according
to what was supernatural in his prerogatives, and
Athanasius,
retained only what was natural. Supernatural were moral good-
ness on the one hand, the correct consciousness and due use
of .rationality and immortality on the other; while ration-
ality and immortality generally were natural." The intrusion
here of the modern Catholic categories of "natural 'and
"supernatural" is incorrect; for the spiritual nature of man
was held by all the Fathers to be supernatural. But the
idea is correct. But we must go further. The difference here
is exclusively quantitative; it is only qualitative from the fact
that what remains of higher powers is as a rule of less than its
initial value, i.e., is no longer capable of reaching the goal.
The same Catholic scholar is therefore perfectly correct, when
— expressing himself with due caution he finds (p. 159 f.) that —
Athanasius " does not seem to treat " the punishment of sin better, —
sin — "with sufficient gravity ". "He teaches, indeed, that the spirit-
ual gifts of man were lost through sin, but he conceives this
ruin as gradual in time and degree, depending on the extent
to which men had turned from the contemplation of the spirit-
ual and to the sensuous"; i.e., Athanasius simply follows an
empirical and natural line of thought, in virtue of which he finds
in mankind very different grades of moral and intellectual
position. That this was a consequence of human freedom con-
1 Against Wendt, Die cliristl. Lehre von der menschlichen Vollcommenheit
(1880), p. 47 f.
° Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des Atlianasius.

li. (1880), p. 156.
Chap, v.] VIEWS OF ATHANASIUS 275
stituted a sufficient explanation in itself and freed the Deity of

all blame. But it did not explain the universality of death,
—
and left out of account Gen. I. III. The above empirical view,
which ultimately, indeed, cast a certain shadow on the Deity,
and these chapters of the Bible compelled him to secure, some-
how or other, a historical beginning for the present condition
and therewith an original state of man. But the relations of
the present to that beginning are really exhausted in the con-
tinuance of the once pronounced sentence of death and the ;
'
primitive state, which is clearly enough described (c. gentes 2,

De incarn. 3, 4) as a destiny— Adam himself having not yet
attained what his endowments fitted him for, continued in this
sense ; nay, it ultimately embraced the idea that God was under
the necessity of bringing the sentence of death to an end.
However, Athanasius did arrive at positive conclusions as to
the specific grace bestowed in the Christian redemption, in his
polemic against the Arians. It is not to be wondered at that
the discussion of grace in connection with creation and the
natural endowments of man only resulted, on the premises
stated by the Fathers, in tautologies. But against the Arians,
where Athanasius was not interested in cosmology, he shows
that we have received from grace what was by nature peculiar
to the Son, and he definitely distinguishes between grace in
creation and in redemption. Deut. XXXII. 6, 7, 18, where it
is said that God created and begot men, he interprets as follows
" By creating, Moses describes the natural state of men, for
they are works and beings made; by begetting, he lets us see
the love of God to them after their creation" (c. Arian. II. 58).
Similarly on John I. 12, 13 "John makes use of the words
:
'to become' because they are called sons, not by nature, but
by adoption; but he has employed the word 'begotten', because
they in any case have received the name of son The good- . . .
ness of God consists in this, that he afterwards becomes, by

grace, the father of those whose creator he already is. He
becomes their father, however, when as the Apostle says —
the men who have been created receive into their hearts the
Spirit of his Son, which calls, 'Abba, Father.' But the latter
1 All men were lost in Adam's transgression," i,. Arian. II. 61.
276 HISTORY OF POGMA" [Chap. v.
consist of all who have received the Word and have obtained
power from him to become For since by
children of God.
nature they are creatures, they can only become sons by receiv-
ing the spirit of the natural and true Son. In order that this
may happen the Word became flesh, that men might be made
capable of receiving the Deity. This conception can also be
found in the Prophet Malachi, who says: 'Did not one God
create you? Have you notone Father?' For here again he
all
says in the first and in the second father

place '
created ',
'
',
in order similarly to show that we are first, and by nature,

creatures, but afterwards are adopted as sons, God the creator
becoming also our father," etc. (c. Arian. II. 59). These ex-
positions are certainly worth noting, but we must not over-
estimate them for in the same discourses against the Arians
;
they are modified to the effect that our sonship depends on the
Logos dwelling in us, i.e., it receives a cosmological basis (see
c. Arian. III. 10). In some passages it indeed looks as if the
Logos only dwelt in us in consequence of the incarnation (see
above and 1. c. IV. 22) but it is quite clear in others that
;
Athanasius thought of an indwelling before the incarnation, an

indwelling wholly independent of it. With the recollection that
there were sons of God in the O. T., Athanasius proves that
the Logos was eternal. Accordingly, it is with him as with
Clement of Alexandria: when the Fathers are not dealing with
apologetic theology, and disregard the O. T., they are able
to comprehend and describe the grace due to the historical
Christ in its specific significance but when they reason connect-
;
edly everything ultimately resolves into the natural endowment

fixed once for all.
Literature. —See,
besides the works quoted of Atzberger and
Wendt, Mohler, Athanasius, I. p. 136 ff. Voigt, Athanasius,
p. 104 ff., and Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 2 Ed.
Vol. I. p. 8 ff
—
Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory's theories also appear to be
(2)
hampered by a contradiction because they are sketched from

two different points of view. On the one hand he regards the
nature of man in spirit and body as constituting his true being.
To him, as opposed to Origen, the whole earthly world is
Chap, v.] VIEWS OF GREGORY OF NYSSA 277
good, a mirror of divine wisdom and power, a place meant to

be pervaded by the divine. Before this could be possible "it
was necessary that a union should be effected between its
essential elements and the higher spiritual and divine nature,
whereby the divine shone as through a glass into the earthly
first
world, which the earthly, elevated with the divine, could

after
be freed from liability to decay, and be transfigured. This cen-
tral significance, this part of constituting a bond between two
worlds in themselves opposed, was assigned to man, who stood

at the head of the ascending scale of earthly creatures, which
he comprehended like a microcosm, while he also as Xoymov
tâov (a rational being) projected into the invisible world, in
virtue of his nature made in the image of God, i.e., spiritual
and moral, and, especially, ethically free. This nature of man,
besides, being created, possessed nothing of itself, but only like
the sun-loving eye turned ever of its own accord to the eternal
light, living on it, and interpreting it to the earthly world
to which it essentially belonged." But ' on the other hand,
though Gregory rejected Origen's theories of the pre-existence
of souls, the pre-temporal fall, and the world as a place of
punishment {Trsp) xxratTêuiî; dvSpuTrcov, ch. 28, 29), regarding
them as Hellenic dogmas and therefore mythological, yet he
was dominated by the fundamental thought which led Origen
to the above view. The spiritual and the earthly and sen-
suous resisted each other. If man was, as Scripture says,
created in the image of God, ^ then he was a spiritual being,
and his being so constituted his nature (see I.e. ch. 16 18). —
Man was a self-determining, but, because created, a change-
able spirit, meant to share in all the blessings of God. So far
as he had a sensuous side, and was mortal, he was not an
1 See Catech. mag. 5, 6, and the work, Tripl ipu%. h. xvcurrai., as also xspt
KaraiTK. avSpuiv. 2 ff. 16. MoUer in HerzogR.-E., 2 Ed. Vol. V.,p. 401, and his work,
Gregorii Nyss. de natura hom. doctr. illustr. et cum Origeniana comparata, 1854.
2 Orat. I. T. 150: Kax' £ix6va '^x'" '^^ Aoy;xo? elvai kuS' oiMioxriv hi yhoiJ.cci
I., p.
h TM Xpia-TicivoQ yevefrStxi. The " image " cannot consist in the bodily. The latter
is at most a copy of the "image," see Trsp? xarao-K. avSpww. 8, 12. But the " image
itself implies that it can only really be completely produced by free self-determination
on the part of man. " If any compulsion obtained, the image would not be realised,"
(Catech. mag. 5).
image of God. Gregory now laid stress on man (homo) as —

—
he conceived it, humanity having been first created, and then
having been fashioned into male and female. He concluded
from this that the earthly and sensuous side of man was
£7ri'ysmj^f/,XTiz^, a subsequent creation, that, accordingly, the
man was conceptually the primary, and his sensuous
spiritual in
and bodily nature the secondary, part of him. He further '
concluded that man was originally designed to live a sexless

life hke the angels, that God would have multiplied men as
he the angels by
did power "in a noble fashion" ('^rsp)
his
KXTxtTK., 17), and that the proper and natural dwelling-place of
men was the pure and incorporeal future state.
But near as he was to consequences drawn by Origen,
Gregory rejected them. The destiny of man sketched above
was an ideal one. In other words, God, looking to the Fall,
at once created and added the earthly and sensuous nature of
rnan nay, this was not merely due to the Fall, but, as is
;
shoWn by the first line of thought given above, the earthly

nature of man had also, since it was possessed by divine energies
and transfigured, a lasting significance. But the Paradisaical
state in which men lived before the Fall, was not the highest;
for the body was not transfigured, though it had not yet been
stained by sexual intercourse. The highest state, in so far as
it was brought about by the resurrection (fl? to xpx<xTov Tvig
(puasu^ i^fiuv xTToxxTcia-TiziTi!;), was that which notionally preceded
the life in Paradise, but had never till now been concretely
reaUsed. It was life in its incorporeal abode after the fashion
of the angels. ^ The incarnation of God had procured this state
1 We however, to mal<e a distinction here. As a creaturely spirit man

have,
necessarilyhas a body, just as every picture has u material foundation, and every
mirror a bapk. This body, therefore, belonged, according to Gregory, to the notion
of man's nature; it was tlie phenomenon of the soul as the latter was the noumenon
of the body. But Gregory distinguishes this body from the sensuous and sexually
differentiated one.
Gregory borders very closely upon them, not only in wsfi Karxiry.., but also
in other
writings. The fall does not, indeed, take the form of an event in the
experience of individual men actually to be found in : pre-existent state, but of a
kind of "intelligible collective deed of all humanity,"
3 See vsfi xxrao-K- avSpuTr. i6 — 18,
Chap, v.] VIEWS OF THEODORE 279
for all who, in virtue of their freedom, led a holy life, i.e.,
who lived as man did in Paradise before the Fall; for that
was possible to man even when on earth. In all this we must
remember that Gregory's hold on the traditional dependence on
Gen. I. — was very loose he does not speak of Adam, but always
III. :
of us. All men had the same freedom as Adam. All souls '
really through Adam's history. Above all, no trans-

passed
ference of sin took place, although Gregory is a Traducian
(see Tttpi KIX.T. xvSp. ch. 29) every man sinned, because in ;
virtue of his freedom he could sin, and by his sensuous nature

was induced to sin. By this means a state of depravity
(tt^^j^)
and death was introduced sin also being death from which — —
man in fact could not deliver himself. Nothing but the union
of God with humanity procured redemption. Redemption was,
in harmony with the speculations as to Adam, strictly objective,
and the question as to its appropriation was therefore, at bot-

tom, no question. A new condition was revealed for all men
without any co-operation on their part, but it became real only
to those who led a holy life, i.e., who abstained entirely
from sin.
Literature. — See, besides Moller's work, Wendt, I.e., p. 49 f

Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. de salute adipiscenda, 1875; sententiae
Bergades, De universo et de anima hominis doctrina Gregorii
Nyss., Thessalonich, 1876; Stigler, Die Psychologic des hi.
Gregor von Nyssa, Regensburg, 1857; Ritschl., I.e. Vol. I.
p. 1 2 ff. ; Hilt, Des hi. Gregor von Nyssa Lehre vom Menschen,
Koln, 1890.
(3) Theodore.— Even two inconsistent conceptions
in Irenseus "
of the result by side. It was held,

of redemption stood side
on the one hand, to restore man to the original state from
which he had fallen, and, on the other, to raise him from the
primitive natural state of childhood to a higher stage. The
Gregory here carries his speculation still further: God did not first create a
I
singleman, but the whole race in a previously fixed number; these collectively
composed only one nature. They vifere really one man, divided into a multiplicity.
Adam— that means all (xEp? ko!t«o-z. 16, 17, 22). In God's prescience the whole of
humanity was comprised in the first preparation,
3 See Vol. II., p. 267 ff.

28o HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
majority of the Greek Fathers were not in a position to decide

bluntly for either of these ideas; yet the former, under the
influence of Origen, prevailed. It was only in the school of
Antioch that it was really was
rejected, that the other view
emphatically avowed, most decided attitude
and thus the
adopted of opposition to Origen's theology. The view of the '
—
Antiochenes was teleological -but there was an entire absence of
any religious view of sin. In this respect it was directly opposed
to Augustine's system.
According Theodore, ^ God's plan included from the
to
beginning two epochs (" Ki!irx(Trci(reii; "), the present and future
states of the world. The former was characterised by change-
ableness, temptation, and mortality, the latter by perfection,
immutability, and immortality. The new age only began with
the resurrection of the dead, its original starting-point being
the Son of God. Further, there was a
incarnation of the
spiritual and a sensuous. Man was composed of both, the
body having been created first, and the soul having then been
breathed into it. This is the opposite of Gregory of Nyssa's
view. Man was the connecting link between the two spheres;
he was designed to reveal the image of God in this world.
"Like a king, who, after building a great city and adorning
it with works of every kind, causes, when the whole is com-
pleted, a fine statue of himself to be erected, in which all the
inhabitants may gratefully revere the constructor, so the Creator
of the world, after he had elaborated his work, finally produced
man be his own image, and all creatures find in him their
to
centre,and thus contribute to the due glorification of God." Now
although man is equipped with all the powers of reason and
of will, j/ei, from the very nature of his present condition, he
is changeable, is defeated in the conflict, and is mortal. Not till
the new principle of life was imparted by means of Christ
' It is instructive that Marcellus also thinks of a glory presented through

redemption, wliich is i/Trsp 'itifomot.
2 See Kihn, Theodor von Mops., p. 171 ff. Also the examples partly taken
from Theodore's commentaries on Genesis, Job, and Paul's epistles (see Swete, Theodori
in epp. Pauli comment. 1880, 1881), partly from fragments of other writings of
Theodore; of. also Dorner, Theodori de imagine dei doctrina, 1844,
Chap. v.J VIEWS OF THEODORE 28
could the changeablebe raised to immutability. Till

nature
then, man was exposed to temptation, and as a
accordingly,
being made up of spirit and body was necessarily mortal. The
threat of death in Paradise did not mean that death was the
'
—
consequence of sin it was rather natural; but it was designed
to inspire man with as great a hatred of sin, as if the latter
were punished by death. Death, natural in itself, was a divine
means of education, and accordingly salutary. " God knew
that mortality would be beneficial to Adam, for if they had
been invested with immortality, men, when they sinned, would
have been exposed to eternal destruction." But even the per-
mission of sin was salutary, and formed part of the divine
plan of education. God gave a command, and thereby elicited
sin, in order that he might, like a loving Father, teach man
his freedom of choice and weakness. " Man was to learn that
while he was in a state of moral changeableness, he would not
be capable of sustaining an immortal existence. Therefore
death was announced to him as the penalty of disobedience,
although mortality was from the beginning an attribute of
human nature." No sin without a command, but also no
'
knowledge of good and evil, of the possession of spiritual

faculties, finally, no conflict. Accordingly, God gave the com-
mand in order to raise Adam above the stage of childhood,
and it necessarily provoked conflict and defeat.
Adam is, however, to be thought of here, not as the
ancestor, but as the type, of the human race. The law was
given with the same object to all his descendants, to teach
them to distinguish between good and evil, and to kijow their
own powers and weakness. In the history of Adam we become
acquainted with our own natural disposition. "In keeping with
this we are under the necessity in our present life of rendering
obedience to laws by which our natural power of making dis-

tinctions is awakened, we, meanwhile, being taught from what
we ought to abstain and what to do, that the principles of
reason may be active in us. Only when we find ourselves in
the future state (Katastasis) will we be able with slight effort
to perform what we recognise as good. Without law, therefore,
1 Kihn, 1. c, p. 174.
we would have had no distinction between good and evil, and

no knowledge of sin, and like irrational animals we would
have done whatever occurred to us." In this state knowledge
and fighting are required to obtain the victory, but we are
constantly hampered by the body, the source of temptations.
Christ first gave us redemption from death, an immortal nature,
which, therefore, will obtain the victory without effort (on
Rom. V. 1 8).
Theodore was able to explain away the Pauline passages

which support a transmission of the death worked by sin, just
as he ignored the life of the first man in Paradise before the
Fall. All men died because of their own sinful actions; but
even this was meant figuratively. They died because of their
natural constitution, in which sin was latent. He opposed
Augustine's and Jerome's doctrine of original sin in an indepen-
dent work, fragments of which have been preserved by Marius
Mercator. " Adam was created mortal whether he sinned or
not. For God did not say, Ye will be mortal,' but Ye

' '
will die.'" Theodore quoted Ps. CIII. 15, and Rome. II. 6.
Against original sin he appealed to the case of saints like
Noah, Abraham, and Moses. If God had passed sentence of
death on all as the punishment of sin, he would not have made
Enoch immortal. Accordingly, Baptism did not, according to
Theodore, remove inherited sin, but initiated the believer into
sinless discipleship of Christ, and at the same time blotted out
the sins he had himself committed. In the former sense it had
its use even for children; for Baptism, like all grace emanating
from the incarnation, raised man to a new stage, elevated him

above his present nature, and prepared him for the future state
(Katastasis). This is most strongly emphasised by Theodore,
and here his teaching is distinguished from the doctrines of
Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum, who subordinated redemption
'
through Christ completely to the rationalistic theory. That

Theodore did not do. While he was thoroughly convinced,
with Pelagius, that in the present state everything turned on
men's own actions which rested on knowledge, freedom, effort, and
heroic fighting, yet he was equally certain on the other hand,
I See Kihn, 1. t., p. 179 f.
Chap, v.] VIEWS OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS 283
that human nature did not attain immutability, immortality, and

it was merely a condition
sinlessness through this conflict but — —
only through redemption. For this reason Christ came. He
did not restore, but produced a new, a higher state. He did
not heal, but transfigured.
Theodore's doctrine of man was strictly rationalistic and
Aristotelian; it surpassed the theories of all the rest of the
Greek Fathers in intelligibility and consistency. But for that
very reason it did not correspond to all the ideas and desires
embraced in the tradition of the Church.
(4) John of Damascus. —
The doctrines taught by this dog-
matist became final in the Greek Church, the later Symbols
being substantially at one with them, " because he combined the
conceptions of the Cappadocians with the Antiochene tradition,
in the modified form assumed by the latter in Chrysostom,
and at the same time did justice to the constantly increasing
tendency to refrain as much as possible from allegorising Gen.
I. ff. Briefly, John taught as follows ^ :
Since God, "overflowing with goodness ", was not satisfied with
the contemplation of himself, but desired to have some one to
whom he could do good, he created the universe, angels, and
men. Even were immortal, not by nature, but by
the angels
grace; for which has a beginning has necessarily
everything
an end. But immortality being a gift became natural to spirit-
ual beings, and therefore also to men. Men were created by
God from nature, visible and invisible, in his own image, to be
kings and rulers of the whole earth. Before their creation God
had prepared Paradise for them to be as it were a royal castle,
" set by his hands in Eden, a store-house of all joy and delight,
situated to the East, and higher than the whole earth, but
1 Chrysostom agrees entirely with Theodore in the opinion that man's freewill
first step, which is then seconded by God with his power, in
takes the the appro-
priation of the good; see his notes on Rom. IX. 16, in Horn. 16; in ep. ad Heb.,
Horn. 12; in Ev. Joh., Horn. 17, etc. The passages are reproduced in Miinscher,
Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1832), p. 363 fif.
2 See Gass, Symbolik d. griech. Kirche, p. 150 ff.
3 De fide orthod. II. 2 ff., 11 ff. 24—30; III. 1, 14, 20; IV. 4, II, 19—22,
and the Homily in "ficum arefactum," as also the Dialogue against the Manichseans,
Langen, 1. c, p. 289 ff.; Wendt, 1. c, p. 59 ff.
tempered and illumined by the finest and purest air, planted

with ever blossoming flowers, filled with perfiime, full of light,
surpassing every idea ofand beauty, a truly
earthly grace
divine place." '
But it body that man was
was only with his
supposed to live in this material Paradise; he inhabited with
his spirit at the same time the "spiritual" Paradise, which is
indicated by the tree of hfe. ^ Of the tree of knowledge he
was not at first to eat; for knowledge, while good for the
perfect, is bad for the imperfect. The result of knowledge in
the case of the imperfect was to make man, instead of devot-
ing himself to the contemplation and praise of God, think of
himself: Adam, immediately after eating, noticed that he was
naked. " God intended that we should be free from desire and
care, and occupied solely with luxuriating in the contemplation
of himself." The eating "of all the trees" denoted the know-
ledge of God from the works of nature. In created man the —
union of visible and invisible nature — the image of God con-
sisted in power of thought and freedom of will, likeness to him
in similarity in virtue, so far as that was possible. Soul and
body (as against Origen) were created together. Man was
originally innocent, upright, and adorned with all virtues;' his
being so was a gift of grace but so also was the fact that he
;
was spiritual. He was spiritual that he might endure and

praise his benefactor corporeal, that he might be disciplined
;
by suffering and the recollection of suffering; he was too proud

of his greatness. Man was created a being who ruled in this
present life, and was transferred to another. * He was finally
to be made divine by submission to God: his deification
1 Accordingly we have here a recrudescence to some extent of what the older
Greek Fathers called "Judaism'' or "earthly conceptions," cf. Peter's Apocalypse.
" Two traditional, inconsistent ideas are combined here: John was not quite
clear as to the tree of life. He gives different explanations of it in De fide II. 11
and IV. i:.
3 This is strongly emphasised by John(II. 12, IV. 4); but he has carefully
avoided stating how God could on hisadorn men with virtues. It cannot be
pai-t
proved that this is to be attributed to the influence of the West. Such an assump-
tion is not necessary, for we also find in the older Greek Fathers rhetorical
glorifications of the primitive state which do not harmonise with the
system of
doctrine.
* These are the two states (katastaseis) of the Antiochenes,
consisting in participation in tlie divine glory, not in a trans-

formation into the divine essence.
Actually, i.e., according to the logical development of the
system, the innocence of primitive man consisted in his power
to be innocent, and, with the support of divine grace, to abide
by and advance in goodness. A necessary converse of this was
the power to revolt; "for it is no virtue which is done under com-
pulsion". Man, "that little world ", retained, however, along with
his spiritual attributes, those of irrational nature even in his soul ;
there was an which was partly capable of sub-

irrational part,
mitting to the rational, but was partly independent of it (the
vital functions). The former embraced the desires, some of which
were within limits permitted, while the others were not. But,
the vital functions apart, over all was placed free will. It is in
our power to choose, and man decides on his own actions.
His origin alone is God's affair. " But error was produced by
our wickedness for our punishment and benefit For God did
not make death, nor did he delight in the ruin of the living; on
the contrary, death was due to man, i.e., to Adam's transgres-
sion, and so also were the other penalties." It was not right '
to attribute everything to divine providence " for that which ;
is in our power is not the affair of providence, but of our own
free will." God, certainly, in virtue of his omniscience, knows

everything from all eternity; he therefore assists by his grace
those who, he knows, will avail themselves of it. They alone
are also predestinated their decision to be and do good is
;
known to God. Those are damned to whom all the supports

of grace are in vain. ' With all this it remains true that all
virtue comes from God for by him it was implanted in nature,
;
and by his support alone it is maintained. Accordingly, we

have once more the principle that nature, rational and free, is
a gift of grace; to be natural is to be virtuous, and conversion
is the return from the unnatural.
The significance of Adam's fall for his posterity is recognised (II. 28), but it
is noteworthy, only cursorily.John has no separate chapter on the Fall in his

great work. Even II. 30, only discusses it under a more general heading.
= See, 1. c, II. 29, 30; IV. 22.
3 II. 30.
2 86 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. v.
Man was created male. Woman was formed merely because God
foresaw the Fall, and in order that the race might be preserved
in spite of death. ' Man did not allow reason to triumph ; he
mistook the path and preferred his lusts. Conse-
of honour,
quently, instead of living for ever, he fell a prey to death and
became subject to tribulation and a miserable life. For it was
not good that he should enjoy immortality untempted and
unproved, lest he should share the pride and condemnation of
the devil. "Accordingly, man was first to attest himself, and,
made perfect by observance of the commandment when tempted,
was then to obtain immortality as the reward of virtue. For,
placed between God and matter, he was to acquire steadfast-
ness in goodness, after he had abandoned his natural relation
to things, and become habitually united to God." But, seduced
by the devil who enviously grudged man the possession which
he had himself lost, man turned to matter, and so, severed
from God, his First Cause, became subject to suffering, and
mortal, and required sexual intercourse. (The fig-leaves denote
the tribulations of life, and the skins the mortal body). Death,
come into the world through sin, henceforth^ like a hideous
wild beast, made havoc of human life, although the liberty to
choose good as well as evil was never destroyed. ^ But God
did not leave himself without a witness, and at last sent his
own Son, who was to strengthen nature, and to renew and
show and teach by his action the way of virtue which led from
destruction to eternal life. The union of Deity with humanity
was "the newest of the new, the only new thing under the
sun." ' It applied, moreover, to the whole of human nature in
order to bestow salvation on the whole. * This union resulted
in the restitutio to the original state, which was perfect in so
far as man, though not yet tested, was adorned with virtues.
Christ participated in the worst part of our nature in order, by
and in himself, to restore the form of the image and likeness,
and to teach us further by virtuous conduct, which by his aid
•
L. c, see Gregory of Nyssa.
2 11. 26 ff.
3 III. I.
4 III. 6.
he made light for us. '
Then he overcame death, becommg the

first-fruits of our resurrection, and renewing the worn-out and
cast-off vessel.
It has been pointed out above (p. 240) that natural theology
underwent no development in the Greek Church. We must

premise, however, that the course of the history of philosophy
is of greater moment for the development of the system, or
for systematic monographs. Without anticipating we may here
make the following remark. The Fathers of orthodox dogma
in the fourth and fifth centuries were Platonists. Aristotelianism
always led in this period to a heterodox form of dogma
Lucian, the Arians, the Antiochenes, etc. But a theological
system constructed by the aid of Platonism could not fail at
that time to become equally heterodox. After Platonism had
done its work on dogma, and certain notions and conceptions
were generally fixed, an orthodox system could only be created
by means of Aristotelianism. Any further use of Platonism led
to questionable propositions.
1 IV. 4, II. 12.

B.— THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION IN THE
PERSON OF THE GOD-MAN IN ITS
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER VI.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NECESSITY AND REALITY OF REDEMP-

TION THROUGH THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD.
Natural theology was so wide in its scope as understood

by the Greek Church, that, as indications in the preceding
chapter will have already shown, only a historical fact absolutely
unparallelled could make headway against it. The Greek
Fathers —
knew of such a fact "the newest of the new, yea, the
only new thing under the sun"; it was the Incarnation of the
Son of God. It alone balanced the whole system of natural
it was balanced, and exerted a decisive in-
theology, so far as
fluence upon But the incarnation could only be attached
it.
with complete perspicuity to that point in the natural, system

which seemed the more irrational, the more highly the value
—
of human nature was rated this point of contact being death.
The dreadful paradox of death was destroyed by the most
paradoxical fact conceivablCi the incarnation of the Deity.
This at once implied that the fact could not but be capable
of a subsequent explanation, nay, even of a kind of a priori
deduction. But its glory, as an expression of the unfathomable
goodness of God, was not thereby to be diminished. The neces-
sity of redemption, whether that consisted in the restoration or
the perfection of the human race, was based by the Fathers,
as a rule, on the actual state of wretchedness of mankind under
the dominion of death and sin. So far, however, as this condi-
tion was compared with the original state or destiny of man,
redemption' was already thought of as intrinsically necessary,
Chap, vi.] THE INCARNATION 289
and was no longer merely regarded as a postulate of man's

need of salvation. In this connection the Fathers often lost
sight of the capacity left to man of being and doing good.
In innumerable passages they speak of the helplessness and
irredeemableness of mankind, using expressions which could
without difficulty be inserted in Augustine's doctrine of sin.
But just as often a phrase occurs which betrays the fact that
the whole view is nevertheless quite different; in other words,
that the outward condition characterised by feebleness and
death, and the sensuousness of corruptible human nature are
thought of as the source of all evil and all sin. This state is
accompanied by a darkening of knowledge which could not
fail to subject man to the influence of the demons and lead
him into idolatry.
The divine act of grace in Christ applied to death, the
demonic rule, sin, and error. In Homilies, Biblical commen-
taries, and devotional writings, these points of view interchange,
or are apparently regarded as equivalent. But since natural '
theology formed the background of their conceptions, the

absolute necessity of the form assumed by the act of grace in
the incarnation could be demonstrated neither in relation to
sin nor to error. The whole question turned here on support,
example, and illumination, or, if this line was crossed, theology
ceased to be systematic and consistent. The importance of
Athanasius and the Cappadocians consisted in the strenuous
emphasis laid by them on the impressive connection existing
between the incarnation and the restoration of the human race
Perhaps the most comprehensive passage is Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. IV. 12.
'
But it also shows how far Eusebius still was from the thorough-going view of
Athanasius: T^5 oiKovaizta^ oh fiixv aiTtav ÂAo: ncci •7r?\siovi; supot liv to; hQe^.'îrat;
^vfTslVy TrpwTJJv iJ.t]i yxp 6 ?^6yoi; hSxa-Ket^ Vva hxi vsKpav aai ûvrtav Kvpisvcr^' §sv-
Tspav S^ iSTCi)g rkt; yji^srspcs:; ai7ro[£ixôiTO aiJLxpria^, vTr^p viimccv Tpai6st^ Katy£v6{iSvoi;
vTTip iiijLav Karapa' rpiTijv wt; civ Ispstov &£ov xxi (jcsya^vi Qvtriix vTrsp a-v[iWxvTC^
xia-iiov vpoa-ax^^'1 '''? ^''' "'avTSJV ©ew- riTzpriiv diq av xvToi; rij; TroAi/Âavou? xaj
^cii[jt,oyiKvi^ Evspysia^ aToppvjTotc; Pôyotq Kaâipeatv a'TTspyatrairo' TrefXTTTtjv Wi raur^,
(65 Sv To7? xiirov yvapi(j.oii; xal liait^raii rijc xutx rov iixvarov wapx Oeti âvii; Tijv
ihTTtSu iJ.il fidyoiq i^fiSi fiijiiaa-iv xceV (paivziQ aAA« aliTO'ii; 'spyoiQ Tafao-Tô-a?, otfiia^.-
lJ.oi<; ii weipxSavi; riiv Sik reSv Aoyaiv BTrayysîeiVj euâpo-s;; uuToii; xai H-poSufiOTEfOu;
canpy&iraiTO xca Trcia-iv "EAA!>ir(V ofJoC xa) âp^^poi? Tijv •rpb? otliTov xcira^}\vfi€i!7a,v
Eyo-£/3ij nohntim xtipviai.
19
290 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
to the divine consequent escape to some extent

life, and in their
from the rationalistic scheme of doctrine for the reference of
\ ;
the incarnation to sin did not carry the Greeks beyond it.
The above combination had been made in the Church long
before this (see Irenseus), but in the theology of Origen it had
been subordinated to, and obscured by, complicated presup-
positions.
Athanasius wrote a treatise "Concerning the incarnation of
the Logos " [wsp) hxvSpcoTTjîTsug rod Xoyou), an early writing whose
value is so great because it dates before the outbreak of the
Arian controversy. In this work he went a step further for
' :
he strove to prove that the redemption was a necessity on the

part of God. He based this necessity on the goodness (ay/yJoryig)
of God. This goodness, z.e., God's consistency and honour,
involved as they were in his goodness, were necessarily express-
ed in the maintenance and execution of decrees once formed
by him. His decrees, however, consisted, on the one hand, in
his appointment of rational creatures to share in the. divine
life, on the other, in the sentence of death on trans-
and,
gressions. Both of these had to be estabhshed. God's intention
could not be allowed to suffer shipwreck through the wicked-
ness of the devil and the sad choice of humanity. If it were,
God would seem weak, and it would have been better if he

had never created man at all. Then the transgression occurred.
"What was God now to do? Ought he to have demanded
penitence on the part of man? For one could have deemed
that worthy of God and said, that as men had become mortal
through the transgression, they should in like manner recover
immortality through repentance (change of mind). But repen-
tance (in itself) did not retain the true knowledge as regards
God; God accordingly would in his turn have shown himself
1 Draescke has attempted to show in a full discussion (Athanasiana i. d. Stud,
u. Krit, 1893, pp. 251 —
315 that the writings "Against the Greeks" and the "In-
carnation of the Logos " belong, not to Athanasius, but to Eusebius of Emesa, and
were written A.D. 350. But after a close examination of his numerous arguments
I find none of them convincing, and I am rather confirmed in my belief
that no important objection can be raised against the authenticity of the two
tractates. An accurate analysis of "De incarn," is given by Kattenbusch, 1. c. I.,
p. 297 ff.
untruthful, if death had not compelled men ; / nor did repentance

deliver from the physical, but only put an end to sins. There-
fore, if the transgression had alone existed, and not its conse-
quence, mortality, repentance would have beeti all very well.
But when, the transgression having occurred, men were fettered
to the mortality that had become natural to them, and were
robbed of the grace which corresponded to their creation in
the divine image, what else should have happened? Or what
was needed for this grace and renewal except (the coming of)
him who also in the beginning made all things of nothing, the
Logos of God? For it was his part once more to restore the
^
corruptible to incorruption."
Athanasiusshows that the Logos who originally created all
things from required to assume a body and thus to
nothing
secure the restoration of man from corruptibility to incorruption
{xCpdxptrlci). How this happened Athanasius discusses in various,
to some extent inconsistent, lines of thought, in which he

speaks especially of a removal of men's guilt through the death
.
of Christ, as well as of an exhaustion of the sentence of death

in the sacrifice of his body presented by the Logos. From
these premises it follows that Athanasius had the death of Christ
in view, whenever he thought of the incarnation of the Logos.
"The Logos could not suffer rijv rod 6tx,v(x,rov zpxTiii7iv ('the
power of death' in mankind), and therefore took up the
• This sentence does not seem to me quite clear; the meaning is probably:
since repentance does not convey the true knowledge of God, but death resulted
from loss of the latter, God would have broken his word if he had abolished
death in consequence of mere repentance.
2 De incarn. 7: T/ oZv 'sSet nat Trspt rovrov ysvstr&at ^ Trot^trxt rov @s6v\ (/.eru-
voiav STCi Tv\ 'KafOLôcfTSt Toi/t; avdpuTrovQ oiTrxirvjtTai; tovto yap 'av tiq '^^tov <p:jcr£tsv
@sov, As'ywv, 'dri !ia-!rsf ex Tvii TrxfaîitTBiiK; eii; tphpciv yeyovcca-iv, outoii; hx t>)5
(.ceTSivotcsQ yi'joivTO TruXtv av s)c; oiip6ap<r(ixv. 'AAA' -^ [/.sravoia ovTSTOsliîOyovTOTrpo^
Tov ©gov s<pv?\Cirrev 'i(JLev£ yxp âA/v ovx a/^yj^yjc;^ (xvi xpxTov(/.svuy sv ru QavxTcii
rav avSpuTrav ovts S^ w l^srixvottx xtto tuv kgctx <pva-iv uTcoxa^slrxi, iKAAa (j.6vov
wzuii Tuv ciiJ,ixpriîJ.aTCii\i. El {/.sv olv /zo'vov y/v wA-.</.4f4£A!j^/« xcci iJ.ii (pSapî IttaikoA-
ovStfirii;, xaAiMC xv ifv iJ.BTivoicf eJ Si avx^ v poKa§ov(Tm tJi^ Trxpz^dasui;, eh rifv
if
xara (pvciv <pdopav expxrovvro oi Hv^paiTToi, xcct t^v tov xxt^ eixovx X'^P^^ a(paipe~
Sevrei; via-av, ti ii^^ô 'eSei yevetrSai ; 'ij rivoQ ^v XP^'" "?»? '''*i^ toiocvt^v p;a/»v xu)
avcix^tia-iv, tj tou xai xaric t)}V apx'i'' £>« 'ô" f^ 'ivroQ wevoivix6TO(; Tx JfAa rov @eov
^6yov ; al/rov yap ?jv txMv xxi to (pdxprov eti; a<pdxp<rfxv eveyxetv xxi to VTTep TrxvTav
e1j?.oyov xTToirutrxt Trpb^ tov TrxTspx. Compare Orat, c. Arian. II. 68.
292 . HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. vi.
fight with death. He assumed a body and so became mortal.

This body he surrendered to death on behalf of all. His body
could not be really overcome, 'kept', by death. In it all
died, and for this very reason the ,

law of death {vof/,01; rou
©xvccTov) is now abrogated;
power was exhausted on the its
body of the Lord it had no further claim on

[xvpiiaxov (raf/,ix.);
his fellow-men (xxtx tuv S/xoiccv dv6pc!i7rav) The body assumed . . .
by the Logos came to share in the universal meaning of the

Logos. The resurrection of the body and of the Logos guaranteed
the general resurrection and incorruption [xCpîzpa-M)." Here '
follows the place assigned to the sacrifice. It presented that

which was due [ocpsiôfievov) to God in place of death. But
the pervading and prominent thought of Athanasius is that the
incarnation itself involved the Christian's passage from the fate of
death to incorruption (dcp6izpiTi(x), since the physical union of the
human with the divine nature in the midst of mankind raised the
latter to the region of divine rest and blessedness. °
The result
of the incarnation consisted accordingly, first, in the eradication
of corruption {Cp6op£) —
by the existence of the divine in its
midst, but, by the death of Christ, in which the

finally, truth-
fulness of God was justified and in the corresponding — trans-
formation into incorruptibility —renewal, or completion of the
divine image by participation in the nature, free from all suffer-
ing, of the Deity. ^ But, secondly, the incarnation also resulted,
' Kattenbusch, p. 298.

2 L. c, ch. IX. : "iltj-wip nsyuXou ^^(rtXeoii; EiVfAWvro; e"? tivx to^liv /j.eydîfv,
XXI OiKi^croiVTOi; slt^ fj.iav tuv kv aur^ otKiuv, TravTCii; ^ rotavr^ TrdMt; r^/zjj^ tto^^îî;
xctTxîovroti, Kxi oIksti Tii ex^PH aurijv oVrs k^rriiq eTrijSxivav xccTaa-rfi<pei, Tao-i)5
Si i^&AMiv BTriiê^siui; a.%iourxi Six rov eiQ filxv uvTvii oixixv oix!j(rxvTX ^xriîx-
oVru^ XXI S'jrt tov 'jtxvtuv /SacjAew? ysyovev. E^SSvtoi; yxp xvrov eTri riiv îêrspxv
Xupxv XXI olx^trxvTOi; sii; ^v tmv ofôiaiv truiix, ^qittov -xxcrx ^ xxtx tc3v av^puTuv
TTxpx T&v ix^p&v hTi(3ovîi TSTrxuTxt^ Kxt TOV $xvxrov vj<^xvtcrTUi <p&opci
vj ttx^xi y;
xxt' xutSv ](yxvov(!-x. Kattenbusch is right in considering Ritschl (1. c, I., p. 10,
II) to have gone too far in liis assertion tliat "Athanasius' interpretation of the
death and resurrection of Christ is a particular instance of tire main thought that
tlie Logos of God guarantees all redemptive work, using the human body in which
he dwells as the means." Athanasius certainly did not regard the death and resur-
rection as merely particular instances. They formed the object of the incarnation;
not that they were added or supplementary to it; tliey were bound up with it.
3 Yet the view of Athanasius was not simply naturalistic; incorruptibleness
rather included the elements of goodness, love, and wisdom; a renewal affecting.
as indeedhad been long before held by the Apologists, in the

of the correct knowledge of God, which embraced
restoration
the power of living rightly, through the incarnate Logos. But
while Athanasius kept firmly in view this restoration of the
knowledge of God through the Logos, he was not thinking
merely of the new law, i.e., the preaching of Christ; he held
it to have been given in the contemplation of the Person of
Christ. that of a man, God came down to us.
In his work,
The dullest eye was now in a position to perceive the one true
God — viz., in Christ^— and to escape from the error of demon-
worship. This thought is very significant; it had already been
expressed by Clement and Origen, having received a deeper
meaning from the latter, though he had not yet given it so
central a place in his system. Athanasius expressly notes that
creation was not sufficient to let us perceive the Creator and
Father; we needed a man to live and work among us before
we could see clearly and certainly the God and Father of all.
the inner nature of man was also involved. But it was not possible for Athanasius
to expound this systematically ; therefore Schultz seems to me to have asserted too
much (Gottlieit Christi, p. 80).
> The chief 1. c, XIV
passages occur —
XVI., chap. XIV. yfw: One might suppose
that the fitting know God was to recover our knowledge of him from the works
way to
of creation. It is not so, for men are no longer capable of directing their gaze
upward; they look down. "Therefore, when he seeks to benefit men, he takes up
his dwelling among us as man, and assumes a body like the human one, and
instructs men within their own lower sphere, i.e., through the works of the body,
that those who would not perceive him from his care for all and his rule might
at least from the works of the body itself know the Logos of God in the body,
and through him the Father." C. 15: 'ETre/Jij 0/ <iv()pw9ro< a!roo-Tfa!<|)EVT£? t))i/ 5rfo;
TOv ©Eov haipiav, xxi uf sv (3uS!f fivSia-UvTSi; xccToi rov( offiâAfioi; eôvTEC, h ysvsasi
Koi Toic, xla-{i)^ro7g rov ©eov aveîjTOvv. xv^paiTovi; Hvvjrovci xxt ^xi(j.ovx^ ixvToi^ ^soiit;
xvdTUTOviiSvor ravTov evsâz 6 (piAxv^paiTOQ Kca y.oivo^ TTciyTitiv cruri^p, rov @eov
>^6y!iii, PiX/ji^met iaurVf a-a[J.x xxt w« xvipaiTroi sv mipamOK^ mxa-TiifsTXi xai rxi;
xia-liiis-eig vxvrciiv xvipaiTrwv 7rpc(F;^x(J,^xvsi, ;W oi h a-aiMxrixo'lc; vooSvtsi; elvxi ri\i
@e6v, at})' Sv 6 xvpioi ipyx't^STXi Six tuv toC a-coizxroi; 'spyoiv, xr' xvtuv ml\(TOi<n
TVjt xhviîixi, Kxl Si' xutoS tqv TTxTifx ?ôy i(j- iii^T XI . The sequel shows, indeed,
that Athanasius thought above all of Jesus' miraculous works. He has summarised
his whole conception of the result of redemption in the pregnant sentence (ch. XVI.):
'Ai-KpoTspx yxp ^(pi^^xvSpoiTrsusTO 6 o-arjjp Sui rî ivxvSpuvi^treMi. iiTi xxi rov Sxvxtov
i% ijliSv ii<pxvi^£ XXI xvsxxiviêv iii-iî;- xxi on x0xviif &v xxi xopxTOi; Six rm 'ipym
svetpatvs kxi syvciipt^sv ixvrbv slvxi rbv ^Syov.rov TrxrpSt;, rbv rov ttxvto^ iiye{j.6yx
XXI ^xm\ex. Origen had already laid stress on the perception of God in Christ,
and set it above philosophical knowledge (analytic, synthetic, and analogical, against
When Athanasius placed the knowledge of God side by side

with the deliverance from death, the transition was obtained
from the fact of redemption to the doctrine of the appropriation,
and to the explanation of the particular result, of the work of
love done by the Logos. This only benefited those who
voluntarily appropriated the divine knowledge made accessible
by the incarnate Logos, and who regulated their conduct by
the staildards and with the power thus given them. In any '
case the transformation of the corruptible into the incorruptible

(the Theopoiesis) remained under this conception the ultimate
and proper work of the Logos, being ranked
result of the
higher than the other, the knowledge of God. ^ But here we
find the greatest difference between Athanasius and like-minded
theologians on the one hand, and Arius, the Eusebians, etc.,
on the other. The elements contained in their views are the
same; but the order is different. For these "conservative"
theologians saw the work of the Logos primarily in the com-
munication of the true and complete knowledge which should
be followed by a state of perfection. But Athanasius made every-
Alcinous, Maximus of Tyre, and Celsus): see c. Cels. VII. 42, 44; De princip. I. i.
For Clement see Protrept I. 8: 6 hoyof 6 tou OboC 'dvSfioTroi ysvoi.csvoi, i'va Sii kxi
(TV TTupa avOpaiTTOv fiadjjc* ^^ TTori 'apx iivSpuTroq ysvt^TXi 0£oc.

• view and intertwined with it we undoubtedly have the other,
Parallel with this
that eternal life is mystically appropriated by means of sacred rites and the holy
food. In this conception, which is extremely ancient, Christianity seems degraded
to the level of the nature-religions of the East or the Graeco-oriental mysteries
(see Schultz, Gottheit But as even the earliest Alexandrians (also
Christi, p. 69).
Ignatius) constantly resolved view into a spiritual and moral one,
the naturalistic
so also hardly any one of the theologians of the following centuries can be named
who would have purely and simply defended the former.
" See asp. Orat. c. Arian. II. 67 — 70, where the final designs of Athanasius'
Christianity are revealed. It is at the same time to be noted that while redemption
meant restoration, it was the transference into u still higher grace. We experience
all that was done to the body of Christ. We are baptised, as Clirist was in Jordan,
we next received the Holy Spirit, and so also our flesh has died, and been renewed,
sanctified and raised to eternal life in his resurrection. Accordingly, Athanasius
sums up at the close of his work, ch. 54: Auto? ykf ivtfvifui'Trtia-ev, 'hoc. ynj-sHi; Ssa-
Troti^Qaijcsv y.ai alrot; eipotvepcatrev ixvTOV §tai a-di(j[.xroi;, Yva viiJistq rov aoparov TrarpoQ
^hvoixv ââifisv xat ai/roQ v7rs{XEive tjJv Trap^ av'ipcdTruv v^ptv^ 7â ijiisii; afiavcanav
xA^fpovo/zifa-iafiEV. k^?\X'!mTO iJ-ev yxp tciiTOf oiiSh, a7rieSii( xai ii<p6ctpT0i; xcei uurofiOyoi
oiv Koii @s6i;' Tovt; §e TrceTX^vroiQ avSpaiTovi;, ^;' oi/Q Hctt tkutx vTrei^-etvEV^ sv r^ iavTov
xTaSeiy. irvipei xcti Sis(J'u^s.
thing tend to this consummation as the restoration and the

communication of the divine nature. Accordingly, it was to
him a vital theological question how the incorruptible was
constituted which was
represented in the Logos, and what
kind had formed with the corruptible. But while
of union it
he put the question he was sure of the answer. His opponents,

however, could not at all share in his interest in this point,
since their interest in Christ as the supreme teacher did not
lead them directly to define more precisely the kind of heavenly
manifestation which he represented even for them. When they
did give such definitions, they were influenced by theoretical,
or exegetical were engaged in refuting the
considerations, or
propositions of their opponents setting up others.by
The Trinitarian and Christological problems which had
occupied the ancient Church for more than three centuries here
rise before us. That their decision was so long delayed, and
only slowly found a more general acceptance, was not merely
due to outward circumstances, such as the absence of a clearly
marked tradition, the letter of the Bible, or the politics of
Bishops and Emperors. It was, on the contrary, owing chiefly
to the fact that large circles in the Church felt the need of
subordinating even the doctrine of redemption to rational theo-
logy, or of keeping it within the framework of moralism. The
opposite conviction, that nature was transformed through the
incarnate Logos, resulted here and there in a chaotic panthe-
ism but that was the least danger. The gravest hindrance to the
;
'
acceptance of the view of Athanasius consisted in the paradoxical

tenets which arose regarding the Deity and Jesus Christ. Here his
opponents found their strength they were more strongly supported
;
by the letter of Scripture and tradition, as well as by reason.

—
Supplement I. No subsequent Greek theologian answered the
question, why. God became man, so decidedly and clearly as
Athanasius. But all Fathers of unimpeached orthodoxy followed
in his footsteps, and at the same time showed that his doctrinal
> Not in Athanasius himself —

Katlenhusch says rightly (p. 299) The Uovo'mtric,
:
is an enhancement of human life physically and morally; his idea of it

for A.
does not look forward to man being pantheistically merged in God, but to the
renewal of man after his original type.
ideas could only be held on the basis of Platonism. This is at

once clear in the case of Gregory of Nyssa, who
some points
in
strengthened the expositions given by Athanasius. Yet his
model was Methodius rather than Athanasius. '
Gregory sought, in the first place, to give a more elaborate

defence of the method of redemption by means of the incarna- —
tion, —-butdoing so he obscured Athanasius' simple combin-
in
ation of the incarnation and its effect. According to Gregory,
God is boundless might was never divorced
might, but his
from He next shows in
goodness, wisdom, and righteousness.
detail (Catech. magn. 17 —
26) against Jews and heathens — as
Anselm did afterwards — that the incarnation was the best form
of redemption, because the above four fundamental attributes
of God came clearly to light in it. Especially interesting in
these arguments is the emphasis laid on God's treatment of
those who had passed over to his enemies, his respect for their
freedom in everything, and his redemption of men without
wronging the devil, their master, who possessed a certain claim
upon them. This account of the matter indeed had strictly an
apologetic purpose. ^ In the second place, Gregory, while follow-
ing Athanasius, still more strongly identified the state from
which God has delivered us with death. The state of sin was
death. He taught, with the Neoplatonists, that God alone was
Being. Therefore all revolt from God to the sensuous, i.e., to
not- being, was death. Natural death was not the only death
it might rather mean deliverance from the bonds of the body
become brutal (1. c, ch. 8). Sensuousness was death. In the
third place, although he also saw the redemption in the act of
incarnation, Gregory held that it was not perfected until the
resurrection of Jesus. That is, he was more thoroughly in-
fluenced than Athanasius by the conviction that the actual re-
demption presupposed renunciation of the body. We are first
' See Vol. III., p. 104 ff.
2 The Apologetic argument also includes the treatment of the question, why the
redemption was not accomplished sooner. Apologists from Justin to Eusebius and
Athanasius had put it and attempted to answer it. Gregory also got rid of it by
referring to the physician who waits till illness has fully developed before he
interferes (Catech. magn., ch. 29 ff).
Chap vi.] THE INCARNATION 297
,
redeemed, when we share in the resurrection which the human

nature assumed by Christ experienced through the resurrection
(I.e., ch. 16). The mystery of the incarnation only becomes
clear in this resurrection. The Deity assumed human nature,
in order by this union to exhaust, until it had wholly disap-
peared, that which was liable to death in this nature, viz., evil.
This result was only perfected in the resurrection of the human
nature of Christ for in it that nature was first shown completely
;
purified and rendered capable of being possessed of eternal life.

In the fourth place, Gregory was able to demonstrate the appli-
cation of the incarnation more definitely than Athanasius could
with his figure of the king and the city. But he does so by
the aid of a thoroughly Platonic idea which is only slightly
suggested in Athanasius, and is not really covered by a Biblical
reference (to the two Adams; see Irenseus). Christ did not
assume the human nature of an individual person, but human
nature. Accordingly, all that was human was intertwined with
the Deity the whole of human nature became divine by inter-
;
mixture with the Divine. Gregory conceives this as a strictly

physical process the leaven of the Deity has pervaded the whole
:
dough of humanity, through and in Christ for Christ united with

;
himself the whole of human nature with all its characteristics. ^

This conception, which was based on the Platonic universal
' L. c, ch. 16. For, since our nature in its regular course changed also in him
into the separation of body and soul, he reunited that which had been divided by
his divine power as if by a kind of cement, and rejoined in an indissoluble union
the severed parts (comp. IrenEeus and Methodius). And that was the resurrection,
viz., the return after dissolution and division of the allies to an indissoluble union,
both being so bound together, that man's original state of grace was recalled, and
we return to eternal life, after the evil mingled with our nature has been removed
by our dissolution (!); just as it happens with liquids, which, the vessel being
broken, escape and are lost, because there is nothing now to hold them. But as
death began in one man and from him passed to the whole of nature and the
human race, in the same way the beginning of the resurrection extended through
one man to the whole of humanity."
- See conclusion of the preceding note, and Herrmann, Gregorii Nyss. sententias
de salute adipis., p. 16 ff. Underlying all the arguments of the ' Great Catechism
we have the thought that the incarnation was an actus medicinalis which is to be
thought of as strictly natural, and that extends to all mankind. See Dorner (Entwick.-
Gesch. d. L. v. d. Person Christi, I., p. 958 f.), who, besides, regards Gregory's
whole conception as strictly ethical.
298 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. VI.
notion "humanity", from that of Origen; but it also

differed
which Gregory
led to the doctrine of Apokatastasis (universalism),
adopted. Meanwhile, in order to counterbalance this whole
"mystical", i.e., physical, conception, he emphasised the personal'
and spontaneous fulfilment of the law as a condition, in the same
way as the later Antiochenes. The perfect fulfilment of the law
was, however, according to Gregory, only possible to ascetics.
In the fifth place, Gregory set the sacraments in the closest
relation to the incarnation, recognising (1. c, ch. 33 —
40) Bap-
tism and the Lord's Supper as the only means by which
mortal man was renewed and became immortal. It undoubt-
edly appears superfluous to a rigorous thinker to require
that something special should happen to the individual when
all mankind been deified in the humanity assumed
has
by Christ. But the form given to his ideas by Gregory
was in keeping with the thought of his time, when mysteri-
ous rites were held to portray and represent that which was
inconceivable. Sixthly, and lastly, Gregory gave a turn to
the thought of the incarnation in which justice was done to
the boldest conception of Origen, and "the newest of the new"
was subordinated to a cosmological and more general view.
Origen had already, following the Gnostics, taught in con- —
nection with Philipp. II. 10 and other texts that the incarnation —
and sacrificial death of Christ had an importance that went
beyond mankind. The work of Christ extended to wherever there
were spiritual creatures wherever there was alienation from
;
God, there was restoration through Christ. He offered himself

to the Father for angels and sons (see Valentine). To all
orders of spiritual beings he appeared in their own shape. He
restored harmony to the whole universe. Nay, Christ's blood
was not only shed on earth at Jerusalem "for sin" (pro peccato);
but also "for a gift on the high altar which is in the heavens"
(pro munere in superno altari quod est in coelis).^ Gregory took
up this thought. The reconciliation and restitution extend to
all rational creation. ' Christ came down to all spiritual crea-
' See Herrmann, 1. c, p. 2 sq.
^ Passages in Bigg, 1. c, p. 212 f.
' See TTEff J/upj. K. icvx<Tr!i<r., p. 66 sq., ed. Oehler. Orat. cat. 26.
tures,and adopted the forms in which they lived, in order to

bring them into harmony with God : ov imvov sv xvSpctiTroig hSpco-
TTog yivsrai, xXXa, Kxroc. to xxoAouSov TTiivTcog kx) ev txyyeôig
yivoi/^svog wpog tvjv hehaiv Cpuaiv sxutov svyy.oiTa.'yei. '
This thought,
far from enriching the work of the historical Christ, served
only, as in the case of the Gnostics, to îssipate it. And, in
fact, it was only as an apologist of Catholic Christianity that
Gregory held closely to the historical personality of Christ,
When he philosophised and took his own way, he said little
or nothing of the Christ of history. ^ It is almost with him as
with Origen. He also reveals a supreme view of the world,
according to which that which alienates the Kosmos from God
forms part of its plan as much as that which restores it to
him, the Kosmos being, from its creation, full of God, and,
because it is, existing in God. The incarnation is only a
particular instance of the universal presence of the divine in crea-
tion.Gregory contributed to transmit to posterity the pantheistic
conception,which be himself never thought out abstractly, or
apart from history. A real affinity existed between him and
the pantheistic Monophysites, the Areopagite, and Scotus
Erigena, and even modern "liberal" theology of the Hegelian
shade may appeal to him. In the " Great Catechism " (ch. XXV.),
which was meant to defend the historical act of the incarnation,
he has an argument which is in this respect extremely signi-
ficant. ' " The assumption of our nature by the deity should,
however, excite no well-founded surprise on the part of those

who view things [to, ovtix) with any breadth of mind, (not too
' Orat. in ascens. Christi ih Migne T. XLVL, p. 693; on the other hand, Di-
dymus (De trinit, II. 7i ^d. Mingarelli, p. 200): 6 0e5? >\6yoi; ov iia roi/i afjapTj)-
a-avTOCQ ayyi^.ovQ oiyyeKot;' aAAa îci Toiji; £v afjâpriix av^ptoTovt; UvipaiToi; ixrfeTTa^,
atrvyx^TbKiy avafâpTT^Tca^j a(ppatrran;. Yet iu other places he has expressed himself
like Origen. The latter was attacked by Jerome and Theophilus on account of this
doctrine. The Synod of Constantinople condemned it.
- Compare the whole dialogue with Macriua on the soul and the resurrection,
where the historical Christ is quite overlooked.
3 To Athanasius also it was not unknown; see De incani. 41 ; tov K^tr/jLov a-uiicx
lJ.iya (patrtv slvxi ot twv 'EAAtfvaJv <Pt?^6t7ocpot xut a/^yjSevovtri Keyovrsi;. 'Opuj^sv yap
ai/Tov xal ra rovTov {êpii Taut; atir$ija-£<n VTOTTiTTOvra. E; rotvvv hv r^ x6a-(ita trufôiTi
^6vri 6 TOV ®sov ^6yo(; so-ti, Koii sv 'dZ-ott; xat toi^ Kara fîpo^ avTCov Tratrtv eTrtêjBiiKe.
Tt $av[4{x(rTQv j) Ti Utotov si Kai sv avOpaTToi (âpisv ahrov £7r/|3e/3^K£va/ k.t. A., u. 42.
lMy.po^vXc-i<;)- For who is so weak in mind as not to believe

when he looks at the universe that the divine is in everything,
pervading and embracing it, and dwelling in it? For every-
thing depends on the existent, and it is impossible that there
should be anything not having its existence in that which is.
Now, if all is in it and in all, why do they take offence at
it
the dispensation of the mystery taught by the incarnation of

God, of him who, we are convinced, is not even now outside
of mankind ? For if the form of the divine presence is not now
the same, yet we are as much agreed that God is among us
to-day as that he was in the world then. Now he is united
with us as the one who embraces nature in his being, but then
he had united himself with our being, that our nature, snatched
from death, and delivered from the tyranny of the Adversary,
might become divine through intermixture with the divine. For
his return from death was for the mortal race the beginning
of return to eternal life." The pantheistic theory of redemp-
tion appeared in after times in two forms. In one of these the
work of the historical Christ was regarded as a particular
instance, or symbol, of the universal, purifying and sanctify-
ing operations continuously carried out through sanctifying
— —
media the sacraments by the Logos in combination with, as
in their turn on behalf of, the graded orders of supersensuous
creatures; this was the view of Dionysius the Areopagite. The
other form of the theory included in the very idea of the
incarnation the union of the Logos with those individual believ-
ing souls in whom
he was well pleased. The latter conception
which was already prominent in Methodius is especially marked
in Macarius. In Homily IV. e.g., (ch. 8, 9), his first words
lead us to expect an exposition of the one historical incarnation.
Instead of thatwe read: "Thus in his love the infinite, inscrut-
able God humbled himself and assumed the members of our bodily
nature and transformed in love and benevolence to men he
. . .
incorporates and unites himself with the holy and faithful souls
in whom he is well pleased, etc." In each a Christ is born.
' Aform of the pantheistic conception of tlie incarnation can be perceived

third
in the humanity of Christ was heavenly; in other words, that the
thesis, that the
Logos had always borne humanity in himself, so that his body was not of later
Chap, vi.] THE INCARNATION 30I
The thought Christ assumed the general concept of

that
humanity though mingled with distinctive ideas, in
occurs,
Hilary, who was dependent on Gregory. We find it also in '
Basil, ° Ephrzem, ^ Apollinaris, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. Through- *
out these writers the conception is clearly marked that in

Christ our nature is sanctified and rendered divine, that what
it has experienced benefits us, as a matter of course, in our
origin than his divinity. This Gnostic view, wliich, however, is not necessarily-
pantheistic,had supporters, e.g.^ in Corinth in the time of Athanasius, who himself
opposed it. (Ep. ad Epictetum Corinth.: see Epiphan.. p. 77, c. Dimoeritas). They
said that the body born of Mary was iy.ooi<Tioy t% tov f,6yov isoniTi, irvva'iSiov
uItSs Sik TTavrof ys'y£vii<T&xi, hvsiSti hx xii; ol/a-ixi Tij; ZoiplxQ irvvsirrvi. They taught,
accordingly, humanity itself sprang from the Logos; he had for the purpose
that
of his manifestation formed for himself by metamol-phosis a body capable of
suffering. He had, therefore, on one side of his being given up his immutability,
departed from his own nature (ÂAayij t?; lilai (îiriui;) and transfonned himself
into a sensuous man. The point of interest here was the perfect unity of Christ.
Those whom Hilary opposed (De trinit. X. 15 sq.) did not maintain the heavenly
and eternal humanity of the Logos. On the other hand, this thesis occurs in Apol-
linaris, in whom, however, it is not to be explained pantheistically, although
pantheistic inferences can hardly be averted. The heavenly humanity of Christ is
also opposed by Basil in Ep. ad Sozopol. (65); it re-emerged in the circles of the
most extreme Monophysites but it was at the same time openly affirmed there by
;
Stephen Bar Sudaili: "everything is of one nature with God"; "all nature is con-
substantial with the divine essence" (Assem., Biblioth. II. 30, 291); see Dorner,
1. c, II., p. 162 f., and Frothinghani, Stephen Bar Sudaili (1886) who has printed,
p. 28 sq., the letter of Xenaias which warns against the heresy " that assimilates the
creation to God." Finally, a kind of subtilised form of this phenomenon is found
in the old-catholic conception, that the Son of God came down to men immediately
after the Fall, that he repeatedly dwelt among them, and thus accustomed himself
to his future manifestation (see Irenseus' conception. Vol. II., p. 236). In the later
Fathers, they were not writing apologetically, this old conception does not,
when
so far as I know, occur often, or, it is very strictly distinguished from the incarna-
tion; see, e.g., Athan., Orat. III. 30.
1 See, e.g., Hilary, Tract, in Ps. LI, ch. 16: "Ut et filius hominis esset filius
dei, naturam in se universse carnis assumpsit, per quam effectus vera vitis genus in
se universfe propaginis tenet." Ps. LIV. ch. 9 " Universitatis : nostrse caro est factus.''
Other passages are given in Domer, Entw-Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi, I.,
p. 1067, and Ritschl, 1. c, I. p. 15.
2 Horn. 25, T. I., p. 504 sq. This exposition coincides completely with Gregory's
thought.
3 Dorner, 1. i;., p. 961.
Dorner, 1. u., the xaxa; liifoi Trirrif. See besides the passage given in Vol. II.,
p. 223, n. 1.
individual capacity, and that we in a very real way have risen

with Christ.
Even in the Antiochenes passages occur which are thus to be
interpreted— exegesis led them to this view but they exist, so ;
'
far as I know, even in Chrysostom," and they are so phrased

in general as to show that according to them this suffering and
dying with Christ, as an independent fact, was not merely a
supplementary condition of the actual union with Christ, but
the only form in which it was accomplished. In them the
general concept of humanity does not occur; accordingly, the
humanity of Christ is conceived much more concretely. He is
really a fighting, striving man who reaches victory through
free-will. ' As this man himself is united morally with the
deity, the moral element must never be left out of account in
our union with him. But in so far as the incarnation of Christ
produces a new state (Katastasis), one not included in the plan
of humanity, it undoubtedly results in our glorification, a state
not involved in the moral element per se.
When we come to John of Damascus we no longer find any
definitive conception of the incarnation. The clear intention
assigned to it by Athanasius has escaped him even of the ideas ;
of Gregory of Nyssa only a part, and that the apologetic part,

are reproduced (De fide Orth. III. i, 6). At this point also
the attempt to unite the Aristotelian tradition of the school of
Antioch with the Alexandrian only led to a combination of
fragments. Yet the sentence, " Christ did not come to this or
that one, but to our common nature ", " never wholly became
a dead letter in the Greek Church. But everything taught in
that Church as to the incarnation is already to be found either
.
developed, or in germ, in Irenaeus; not the simple exposition

of Athanasius, but a mixture of the thought of the historical
^' See Theodore on Rom. VI. 6: t^ XpttTT^^ (pijtriv, sa-Tavpaiizivcfj cia-TTsp aTtatra
iHJ,Sv fi VTO rijv ir^r^mrce xsi/iivti i^va-iq trvvsaTavpioiij, h^rsiSii xcti wara avTlf a-vvav
flgy (rvvx(pxvi(76ijvxt (j^sv TJjv 'TTspl ro aiJLapToivsiv y][ic3v svKO?iioiv, Sici tviq STt r^v a&ccv-
aa-ixv rov a-uiîzTOi; pcercca-ratrsu^.
- Forster, Chrysostomus, p. 126 ff.
3 See Kihn, Theodor., p. 180 ff.
^ Xpiu'TOi oil TTfOS 'ivx XXI Ssvrspov Âisv, uMce vpog t^v xaiiiijiJ (purtv.
with that of the mystical redemption, is to be traced in the

majority of the Fathers. It is the Christ in us, the cosmical
Christ, as we already saw in Methodius.
Supplement II. —
Those Fathers, and they were in the majority,
who found the cause of the incarnation in the intention of God
to rehabilitate the human race, knew of no necessity for the
incarnation apart from the entrance of sin. While they almost
all explained that what Christ conferred was more and greater
than what man had lost, yet they did not use this idea in their
speculations, and they attached as a rule no special significance
to But even Irenseus had also looked at the incarnation a,s
it.
the and supreme means of the divine economy by which

final
God gradually brought the original creation, at first neces-

sarily imperfect, to completion. '
Where this idea occurred, it
also involved the other, that Christ would have come even if
there had been no sin. Accordingly, those Fathers who laid no
special stress on sin, seeing it appeared to them to be more or
less natural, and who conceived redemption rather as a perfecting
than restitution, maintained the necessity of the incarnation even
apart from sin: so Theodore of Mopsuestia, Pelagius and others. ^
The incarnation was regarded by them as forming the basis of
the life in which man and common
is raised above his nature
virtue, that is, the ascetic and angelic
Clement of Alex., life.
starting from quite different premises, expressed the same thought.

Abstinence from evil was the perfection that had been attained
even by Greeks and Jews; on the other hand, the perfect
Gnostic, only possible after the complete revelation of the Logos,
found perfection in the ascetic life of intuition, a life resting on
faith, hope, and love. " Therefore in order to institute this life,
the complete revelation of the Logos was required it was un- ;
necessary to bring sin into the question. However, the proposi-

tion that Christwould have come even if Adam had not sinned
was, so far as know, bluntly asserted by no Greek theologian
I
the combination of Adam and Christ in the Bible stood in the way.
—
Supplement III. On the ground of Biblical texts like Matt.
1 See Vol. II., p. 272, 307; the thought is not wanting in Tertullian.
" See Dorner, Kihn, Theodor.,
1. i,. II., p. 432 ff. p. 179 f.
3 Strom. VI. 7, 60.

XXV. 24, Eph. I. 3 — 5, II, II. Tim. I. 8 — 10, the Greeks have
also spoken {e.g., Athan. c. 75 Tj) of an election
Arian. II.
of believers in Christ before the foundation of the world, and

of the decree of redemption framed by God, with reference
already to sin, before the creation. Athanasius even says that
our future eternal life in Christ is conditioned by the fact that
our life was founded on Christ even before time was. But the
idea of predestination, like the thought that Christ is the head
of his Church, is confined to the lines of a Biblical doctrine,
which for that very reason is true. Neither the doctrine of the
work of Christ, nor of the appropriation of his work, is influenced
by those conceptions. As a rule, however, the idea of predesti-
nation takes the form that God having foreseen men's attainments
in virtue elected them. This version is especially clear in the
school of Antioch, and even enters into their Christology; but
it is the opposite of what Paul meant.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.
THE IDEAS OF REDEMPTION FROM THE DEVIL, AND OF ATONE-

MENT THROUGH THE WORK OF THE GOD-MAN.
§ I. Christ's Death as Ransom and Sacrifice.
The Greek Fathers did not go' beyond, nor could they giye
a more consistent form to, the views on this subject already
expounded by Irenaeus and Origan. The fact of the incarna- '
tion was so closely and exclusively connected, at least in the

East, with the conception of the result of redemption, that every-
thing else had to yield in importance to the latter. Of course
at all times and in all was made, after
directions the attempt
the example of IrenEus and the indications of Holy Scripture,
to insert the facts of Jesus' history in the work of redemption.
This can be seen especially in Athanasius and the two Cyrils
"Whatever happened to his humanity has happened to us."
Again, the death of Christ was frequently recalled when the
forgiveness of sins was taken into account; but it is difficult
here to draw the line between exegesis, rhetoric, and dogma-
tics. As a rule, we obtain the impression that theology could
have dispensed with all the facts of Christ's life. ^ On the other
hand, the death of Christ always appeared so tragic and wonder-
ful an event, that men were compelled to attribute a special
1 See Vol. II., pp. 286 ff., 365 ff.
2 The two Cappadocians doubted, not without reserve, the necessity of Christ's
death. of Nazianzus says that the divine Logos could also have redeemed us
G.
S£A)fftaT( ij.6mt^ and G. of Nyssa (Orat. cat. 17) thought that the method of redemp-
tion was to be considered as arbitrary as the remedies of physicians. In other
places, indeed, they expressed themselves differently, and Athanasius connected the
death of Christ closely with the incarnation (see above).
20
306 HISTORY OF DOGMA
saving value to it. But just as it was not represented in art
up to the fifth century, so the majority of the Greeks really

regarded it, along with Christ's whole passion, as a sacred mys-
tery, and that not only in the intellectual sense. Here thought
yielded to emotion, and imposed silence on itself. Goethe said
towards the close of his Hfe, "We draw a veil over the suffer-
ings of Christ simply because we revere them so deeply; we
hold it to be reprehensible presumption to play and trifle with
and embeUish those profound mysteries in which the divine
jdepths of suffering lie hidden, never to rest until even the
noblest seems mean and tasteless." That exactly represents the
Greek feeling. It also gives the key to the saying of Gregory
of Nazianzus (Orat. XXVII. lo) that the appreciation of the
sufferings one of those points on which it was
of Christ was
possible to make a mistake with impunity (cf. Iren. I. lo). By
this he meant, not only that the specific result of the passion
was uncertain, but also that it was inexpressible. It was re- '
served for the Middle Ages and our modern times to cast off
all modesty and reverence here.
Yet a few theologians and exegetes could not refrain from

speculating about the death of Christ, though they did not yet
use frivolous arithmetical sums. The death of Christ was, in
the first place, connected, following Rom. VIII. 3, with the
condemnation of sin — death — in the flesh [nixrxxplvsiv Tyjv xf/,ix,p-
Tixv [rov SxvxTOv) h That constituted the strongest

t^ a-ixpx,!).
connection of Ensarkosis (embodiment in the flesh), death, resur-

rection, and redemption, reached within the Greek Church. In
Christ's final agony i/ie Ensarkosis first came to some extent to
its end, for by death the flesh was purified from sin and mor-
tality, and was presented in Christ's resurrection pure, holy,
and incorruptible. This thought was worked out in various

ways by Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Jerusalem,
as well as, especially, by Apollinaris. ^ But in later times the
conception of the complete hypostatic union forbade the vanquish-
' See the great importance laid already by Justin on the Cross, an importance
*
which it still has for the piety of the Greek Church.
2 Apollinaris who was the strictest dogmatist of the fourth century, substantially
limited the significance of Christ's death, so far as I know, to this effect.
REDEMPTION FROM SATAN 307
ing of corruption((pSopcc) and death being dated a moment later
tlian assumption of human nature. Therefore it was held

tlie
that Christ had even at the incarnation destroyed corruption

and death (the penalty of sin) from the flesh but his death ;
was wholly voluntary and economic.

In second place Irenseus had already, in a connected
the
argument, emphasised the necessity of tracing the incarnation
of the Logos and his passion to the goodness and righteousness
of God, and he further insisted that Christ had delivered us not
from a state of infirmity, but from the power of the devil, re-
deeming those estranged from God, and unnaturally imprisoned,
not by force, but with due regard to justice. Origen, however,
was the first to explain the passion and death of Christ with
logical precision under the points of view of ransom and sacrifice.
With regard to the former he was the first to set up the theory
that the devil had acquired a legal claim on men, and therefore
to regard the death of Christ (or his soul) as a ransom paid to
the devil. This Marcionite doctrine of price and barter was
already supplemented by Origen with the assumption of an act
of deceit on the part of God. It was, in spite of an energetic
protest, taken up by his disciples, and afterwards carried out
still more offensively. It occurs in Gregory of Nyssa who
(Catech. 15 — 27), in dealing with the notion of God, treats it
broadly and repulsively. We

Ambrose, who speaks
find it in
of the pia fraus, in Augustine and Leo I. It assumes its worst
form in Gregory I. the humanity: of Christ was the bait the ;
fish, the devil, snapped at it, and was left hanging on the in-
visible hook, Christ's divinity. It proves that the Fathers had
gradually lost any fixed conception of the holiness and right-
eousness of but on the other hand, it expresses the beHef

God ;
that the devil's power will not first be broken by the future
appearing of Christ, but has been already shattered by his
death. In this sense it is the epitaph of the old dogmatics
which turned on eschatology. ' For the rest, Gregory of Nazi-
' Irenseus held, that men were God's debtors, but in ,the power (unjustly) of the
devil. Origen held a different view. The devil had a claim on men, and Christ
paid him his soul as the price, but the devil could not keep it. The devil acted
unjustly to Christ, he was not entitled to take possession of one who was sinless;
3o8 HISTORY OF DOGMA
anzus and John of Damascus felt scruples about admitting God

'
and the devil to have been partners in a legal transaction.

With reference to the sacrifice of Christ, Origen was of
epoch-making importance. On the one hand, he started from
Rom. III. 25 and similar texts, on the other, he was strongly
influenced by the Graeco-oriental expiatory mysteries, and was
the first to introduce into the Church, following the precedent
set by the
Gnostics, a theology of sacrifice or propitiation
based on the death of Christ. He thereby enriched, but at the
same time confused, Greek theology. He taught that all sins
required a holy and pure sacrifice in order to be atoned for,
in other words, to be forgiven by God ; this sacrifice was the
body of Christ, presented to the Father. This thought which,
as expounded, approximates to the idea of a vicarious suffering
of punishment, was adopted by Athanasius who combined it
with the other ideas that God's veracity required the threat of
death to be carried out, and that death accordingly was accepted
by Christ on behalf of all, and by him was destroyed. ^ The
idea that only the sacrificial death of God could vanquish death
which was decreed by him, and thus conciliate God, occurs also
see passages given in Miinscher, p. 428 ff. Leo I , following Ambrose, gives the
deception theory in a crude form.
' See UUman, Gregor, p. 318 f.
3 De incarnat. 9 : ZvviSav yap 6 ôyot;, '6ti a?^âjQ ovk av Auê/*) ruv avdpuTrajv
vj <pdopx, £1 iJ.ij ha TOv TTccvrat; aTroHavs'iv, ol/x oJov rs Se ijv tov ^6yov aToSave'tVj
uâvarov 'hvra Kxt tov TrccTpb^ vtov, tovtov evsxsv to Swufxevov QiTo6avs7v eavTu
Aa/^P«ve/ tyuiâ^ "vx tovto tov £7rt TravT&iv ôyov fj.£rct?â^6vj ^vrt wxvrav txavov
ysv^Tai Tia Sxvartii kxi Stx tov evoiKvitravTX ?^6yov x<p6ixpTov ^lUfMstv^, nai Ao^ttov awo
TxvTOiv vi <p6opx 'JTdviTVjTat Tjj TvjQ uvxtTTaiTSUQ x^piTi' oSev w? Hpstov KBii 6vfA.a
•xscvTot; h^svdspov trTrfôv, '0 avToi; iavTui 'gAajSe truâ Trpotrxyaiv stg BavxTov, xtto
TTXVTUv sliQvi; Tuv o\iom)i ijcpxvtê tov hxvxTOV t^ yrpotrôp^ tov xxTX^îjôv. We
see hovi' the conceptions of the vicarious endurance of punishment, and of a sacri-
fice, meet here ; indeed, generally speaking, it was difficult to keep them apart.
Athanasius throughout lays greater stress on the former; Origen, as a Hellenist,

on the latter; see Athan., 1. c, 6 — 10, but esp. Ch. XX: u4>£iA£to ttxvtxi;
xTo^xvs^v . . . t/TT^p TTxvTUv rijv dutrtxv xvi<pepsVi xvTt '77XVT03V TOV ixvTOv vxov slg
QxvXTOV TXpxSlSoV^^ VvX TOVQ /Z£V TXVTX^ XVVJTSvdvVOV^ KXl S^SV&SpOVq T^Q Oip^xixi;
Trxpx^xa-eait; Trotijo-i;! ... 6 TxvTOiv ^xvxTog sv Ttti KvptxK^ <rui/.XTi eÂj/poL/ro Kxt 6
SxvxTO( Hxi ti cfiCopx Six tov itvvovtx >.6yov i%^<pxvit^£To. 6xvxtov yxp ^v Xf^'"-, "*'
Gi^VXTOV VTT^p TTXVTCIIV 'i§Et ySVSIT^Xl, 'ivx TO Trxpx TTXVTUV d<pei^6[Ji€V0V yeVijTXt; c.
Arian. I. 60, II. 7, 66 sq.

REDEMPTION FROM SATAN 309
in other Greek Fathers of the fourth century. ' Following the

estimate formed of the infinite value of the final passion of the
God-man, ^ we constantly find in them also traces, sometimes
more, sometimes less, distinct, of the thought of substitution in
connection with satisfaction ; but it remains obscure, ^
nay, it
is frequently again withdrawn. In other words, was some-

it
times twisted, as already in Irenseus, into the idea of example

pure and simple. Thus the Antiochene school especially, who
held his death to have been a natural event, considered that
Christ's final passion influenced our freely-formed resolutions,
but this version is not entirely wanting in any Greek Father.
Others, Gregory of Nazianzus, explained that God did not
'^.^.^
demand or ransom
the sacrifice —
but received it §;' ohovof/Jav. * —
In this case, as much as in earlier times, 5/' chovof/Jixv meant
"that the Scriptures might be fulfilled"; that is, it was tanta-
mount to abandoning a direct explanation of the fact itself.
In any case Cyril of Alexandria shows most clearly the
vicarious idea of the passion and death of the God-man in
connection with the whole Christological conception. ' Eusebius'
1 See esp. Cyril, Catech. XIII. 33, but also the Cappadocians ; cf. UUmann, 1. c,
p. 316 ff.
2 Even Cyril of Jerusalem says, 1. c. : ou Toa-auTti ijv rav uiJ-xfTiiiKuv i5 monia,

oir^ rov v'Tepx7ro6v)^(j-Kovroi; i] ^tKcctoirvv^. oh roa-ovrov yjiJtdproiêVj 'dtrcv shiKdioirpd^yi^tTSv
6 Ttjii vj/ux*)" "^^P yn-iiH" rshixdic;. Similarly Chrysostom in the Ep. ad Rom., Hom.
10, T. X., p. 121. But the idea is emotional, and not the starting-point of a
philosophical theory. It is different with the Westerns.
2 The expiation of our guilt is more infrequently thought of than the taking
over of sin's punishment; that is, guilt is only indirectly referred to.
* .See UUmann, 1. c, p. 319.
6 idea of sacrifice falls into the background, which was only to be expected
The
in the case of this energetic spokesman of genuine Greek Christian theology. Sub-
stitution passed naturally into, or rather grew out of, the idea of mystical mediation.
Because all human nature was purified and transfigured really and physically in
Christ,he could, regarded as an individual, be conceived as substitute or xvtIav-

rpov; see Cyril on John I. 29 and Gal. III. 13 Meanwhile Cyril also says that
Christ outweighed all in merit. For the rest, he does not venture to affirm that
Christ became a curse, but explains that he endured what one burdened with a
curse must suffer. Compare also the exposition in the Orat. de recta fide ad reginas
(Mansi IV., p. 8og). The points of voluntariness and substitution were emphasised
more strongly by orthodox theologians after Cyril, in order not to compromise the
perfectly hypostatic deification— from the moment of the incarnation— of Christ's
human nature
3IO .
HISTORY OF DOGMA
method of formulating the idea comes nearest Paul's, but it is

only a paraphrase and the inability of theologians to recognise,
;
'
expose and dispute the differences in their divergent concep-

tions is the strongest proof that they were not clearly aware of
the bearing and weight of their own propositions.
§ 2. Christ as man the Mediator.
The West, which had a scheme of its own in Christology,

(see below) also possessed characteristic features 'in its conception
of the work of Christ. " Here, as in almost all departments of
activity in the Latin Church, it was of the highest 'moment
that Tertullian, the jurist, and Cyprian, the ecclesiastical ruler,
were the first Latin theologians. Disinclined for philosophical
and strictly religious speculation, and dominated by a prosaic
but powerful moralism, the Latins were possessed from the
first of an impulse to carry religion into the legal sphere. The
sacred authorities, or the Symbol, were regarded as the " law

[lex] of God divine service was the place where the censure of
;
God was pronounced the deity was thought of as judge.

;'
Father, Son, and Spirit were held to be " personcz" who

possessed a common property ("substantia" not "natura").
Christ as the "persona" who controlled a two-fold "property,"
one inherited from his Father" (his divinity) and one from his
mother (his humanity). Christ required to be obedient to God,
—
and as TertuUian first said ^ and Cyprian repeated had to —
satisfy God (deo satisfacere). " In this phrase everything was
—
comprised: man the Christian was to give God that which —
he owed him, i.e., he was to satisfy God's legal claims. After
this came the "promereri deum", i.e., rendering services to
God, gaining God's favour "by our merits. But in" TertuUian
1 Demonstr. X. i:'i'!rip vi(j.uii xo^xa-Seii; xxi rtiioifltai i/Toa-^wv, ^v uutoq filv ovx
dimpTtJiiXTUv a(pS(rswQ xaTstmi , . . rjjv ^/^7y wpocTTSTii^vjiêv^v xardpxv £(p^ iavTOv

EAxt/o-ac, yiviiisvoi v?rip ii[j.S)/ v.ar&pa.
' See fuller details in next book. Here we only give a sketch. Comp. Wirth,
Der verdienstbegriff bei TertuUian, 1892.
3 See Vol. II., p. 294.
* This notion was afterwards one of the most common in the West.
SATISFACTION 3 1
and Cyprian "satisfacere deo" meant more precisely to atone

for wrongs inflicted on God by acts of penitence, and to appease
him (placare deum, satisfacere deo per hostias: Arnobius).
Further " promereri" was applied above all to bona opera, works
(fasting) and alms-giving (Cypr., De oper. et eleemos.). Even
from the middle of the third century an ecclesiastical system was
drawn out in the Latin West of works to be rendered to God
(order of penance) and this system gradually took in, like a
;
^
net, all man's relations to God. It was throughout governed
by the idea that the magnitude of transgressions and that of

the works rendered to God, the penitential, offerings, were to
have a strictly legal relation, and, similarly, that what a man's
merits entitled him to from God had a fixed and regulated
value. It is not the case, as has been supposed, that this idea
first arose in the Church in the Romano-German period, and

is therefore to be described as a result of German criminal
law. On the contrary, the idea of satisfactiones and nterita
already belonged in its entirety to the Roman age, and during
it was strictly worked out. From the days of TertuUian and
Cyprian the Latins were familiar with the notion that the
Christian had to propitiate God, that cries of pain, sufferings,
and deprivations were means, sacrificial means, of expiation,
that God took strict account of the quantity of the atonement,
and that, where there was no guilt to be blotted out, those
very means were represented as merits. All those trivial
definitions, which betray a low state of legal and moral views,
and which one would gladly attribute to barbarous nations,
had become the property of the Church before the incursion
of the Germans; and Anselm's principle, "Every sin must be
followed either by satisfaction or punishment"," can be already
shown in Sulpicius Severus, ' and corresponds to the thought
*
of Cyprian and his successors.
1 It occurs already in TertuUian ; but we do not yet perceive its full extent in
the Church in his time; it has not even the full significance that it possesses in
Cyprian.
° Necesse est ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena sequatur.
3 See Sulp. Sev., Dial. II. 10: Fornicatio deputetur ad poenam, nisi satisfactione
purgetur.
1 For fuller details see a later Vol,
But Cyprian also applied the "satisfacere ^ô" to. Christ him-
self. As in the Middle Ages the most questionable consequences
of the theory and practice of penance reacted on the conception

of Christ's work, so from the time of Cyprian the latter was
influenced by the view taken of human acts of penitence. His
suffering and death constituted a sacrifice presented by Christ
to God in order to propitiate him. This thought, started by
Cyprian, was never afterwards lost sight of in the West. The
angry God whom it was necessary to propitiate and of whom the
Greeks knew so little, became more and more familiar in the
West. Jewish and Pauline traditions here joined with those of
Roman law. Hilary is especially clear in combining the sacrifice
of Christ with the removal of guilt and of punishment. This '
combination was repeated by Ambrose, "

Augustine, and the
great popes of antiquity ' least certainly, perhaps, by August-
;
1 On Ps. LIII. 12" passio suscepta voluntarie est, officio ipsa satisfactura poenali ";
:
Ch. 13: " maledictorum se obtulit morti, ut maledictionem legis solveret, hostiam
se ipsum voluntarie offerendo." Along with this Hilary has the mystical realistic
theory of the Greeks.

- A few passages are given in Forster, Ambrosius, pp. 136 ff., 297 f. The
''redimere a culpa^' is for Ambrose the decisive point. In his work De incarn.
dom. he is never tired of answering the question as to the motive of the incarna-
tion with the phrase :
" ut caro, qua: peccaverat^ i-edimeretur^' frequently adding
"a culpa." He also uses very often the word ''offerr e" (applied to the death of
Christ). In Ps. XLVIII., exp. 17, we read: "qute maior misericordia quam quod
pro nostris fiagitiis se praebuit immolandum, ut sanguine sue mundum levaret, cuius
peccatum nullo alio modo potuisset aboleri." See Deutsch, Des Ambrosius Lehre
von der Siinde und Siindentilgung, 1867.
^ There are many striking passages in Leo which death is described as I. in
an expiatory sacrifice which blots out guilt. vSee, Gregory I., Moral. XVII. further,
46 " delenda erat culpa, sed nisi per sacrificium deleri non poterat. Qujerendum
:
erat sacrificium, sed quale sacrificium poterat pro absolvendis hominibus inveniri?
Neque etenim iustum fuit, ut pro rationali homine brutorum animalium victims;
CEederentur Ergo requirendus erat homo
. . . qui pro hominibus offerri debuisset,
. . .
ut pro rationali creatura rationalis hostia mactaretur. Sed quid quod homo sine
peccato inveniri non poterat, et oblata pro nobis hostia quando nos a peccato
mundare potuisset, si ipsa hostia peccali contagio non careret? Ergo ut rationalis
esset hostia, homo fuerat offerendus: ut vero a peccatis mundaret hominem, homo
et sine peccato. Sed quis esset sine peccato homo, si ex peccati commixtione de-
scenderet. Proinde venit propter nos in uterum virginis filius dei, ibi pro nobis
factus est homo. Sumpta est ab illo uatura, non culpa. Fecit pro nobis sacrificium,
corpus suum exhibuit pro peccatoribus, victimam sine peccato, quae et hum^nitate
raori et iustitia mundare potuisset."
SATISFACTION 3 I
3
ine, who being a Neoplatonic philosopher and profound Christian

thinker, was also familiar with other and more productive points
of view. '
The however, of this Latin view
distinctive nature,
of the work of Christ, as the propitiation of an angry God by
a sacrificial death, was characteristically expressed in the firmly
established thought that Christ performed it as man, therefore,
by means, not of his divine, but of his human attributes.^ The
Latins were shut up to this conclusion. Their views regarding
the work of Christ had been influenced by the works of
penance enjoined by the Church, and on the other hand, the
latter owed their value to the voluntary acceptance of suffering.
Again, "sacrifices" in general were something human — God
does not render, but receives sacrifices. Finally, mankind was
in God's debt. From all this it necessarily followed that Christ
in presenting himself as a sacrifice did so as man. But with this
conclusion the Latins severed themselves from the supreme and
final interests of —
Greek piety for this rather required that the
"
deity should have assumed with human nature all the "/«i'«'(?»^J
of the latter and made them its own. If the rigid Greek con-
' Whatever occurs in Ambrose is to be found also in Augustine; for the latter
has not, so far as I know, omitted to use a single thought of the former; he only
adds something new.
2 See Ambrose, De fide III. 5 :
" Idem igitur sacerdos, idem et hostia, et sacer-
dotium tamen et sacrificiutn humauas condicionis officium est. Nam et agnus ad

immolandum ductus secundum ordinem Melchisedech." This
est et sacerdos erat
thought recalls Cyprian, although Ambrose has hardly taken it from him; Cypr.
Ep. LXIII. 14: "Christus lesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei
patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum obtulit." The same idea is repeated in contents
and form, but rendered more profound, by Augustine (Confess. X. 68, 69, see
Ritschl, 1. i;., I., p. 38): "In quantum enim homo, in tantum mediator; in quantum
autem verbum, non medius, quia pro nobis dec victor etvictoret victima,
eequalis deo . . .
et ideo victor et sacrificium; et ideo sacerdos

quia victima; pro nobis deo sacerdos
quia sacrificium;" see De civit. dei IX. 15: "Nee tamen ab hoc mediator est, quia
verbum, maxime quippe immortale et maxime beatum verbum ionge est a mor-
talibus miseris; sed mediator per quod homo." Accordingly, not only was that
which
Christ presented in sacrifice human— Ambrose, De incarn. VI.: "ex nobis accepit
quod proprium offeret pro nobis... sacrificium de nostro obtulit"; but Christ as
priestand mediator was man. He had to represent man, and that again only a man
could do. Very pregnant is the sentence of Ambrose (in Luc. exp. IV. 7)
"utquia
solvi non queunt divina decreta, persona magis quam sententia mutaretur." That
is the genuine idea of substitution. Ambrose does not even
shrink from saying
"quia peccata nostra suscepit, peccatum dictus est" (Expos, in Ps. CXIX., X. 14).
ception, which, indeed, in after times was full of gaps and in-
consistencies, represented Christ's sufferings as a whole to be not

voluntary, but the complete acceptance of the Ensarkosis (life
in the flesh), yet Qod is always the subject. ' On the whole,
therefore, the conception of sacrifice is really alien in the view
of the Greeks to the strict theory of Christ's significance. It
found its way in and the mysteries, and

through exegesis
threatened the compactness of the dogmatic conception, according
to which everything that Christ did was summed up in the
complete assumptio carnis (assumption of the flesh). Nor was the
alien view able to shake the fundamental conception that the
God-Logos was the subject in all that pertained to Christ.
Among the Latins, on -the other hand, the idea of the atoning
sacrifice plus substitution is genuine, and has no general theory
' Thesubtle distinction between East and West is accordingly to be defined as

follows. Both held that the human nature of Christ suffered, for the divine was
incapable of suffering; but the East taught that the deity suffered through the
human nature which he had made his own, the West that the man suffered and
presented his human nature as a sacrifice in death; the latter, however, obtained
an infinite value, for the deity was associated with it. From this we have two
consequences. First, the idea of substitution could take root on Greek ground only
superficially, and in an indefinite form; for the dying God-raxa. really represented
no one, but rather received all really into the plenitude of his divinity; it was
different in the West. Secondly, the method of computing the value of Christ's
mortal agony could similarly find no footing in the East; for the deity was the
subject of the transaction, and precluded all questioning and computing. The striking
utterances of Orientals as to the supreme value of Christ's work are really there-
fore only rhetorical (see above). If, on the other hand, the means of atonement under
discussion, and the substitution are human, the question, of course, arises what
value these possess, or what value is lent them by the divinity that is behind this
sacrifice and this priest. We must take the statements of the Latin Fathers more
literally. Ambrose confesses "Felix ruina quae reparatur in melius" and "Amplius
nobis profuit culpa quam nocuit: in quo redemptio quidem nostra divinum munus
invenit. Facta est mihi culpa mea merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Christus
advenit... Fructuosior culpa quam innocentia; innocentia arrogantem me fecerat —
—
and here indeed the paradox becomes nonsensical culpa subjectum reddidit."
(Numerous passages are given in Deutsch, 1. c, see also Fdrster, 1. c,, pp. 136, 297).
Augustine often repeats and varies this thought, and other Western writers repro-
duce it from him. "Felix culpa quae tantum et talem meruit habere redemptorem."
Lastly, Leo I. preaches (Serm. LXI. 3) " validius donum factum est libertatis, quam
:
debitum servitutis." Sayings like these, apart from the special pleading in which
Western writers have always delighted since TertuUian, are to be taken much
more seriously than if they had come from the East. And in fact momentous
speculations were certainly instituted by them.
SATISFACTION 3 1
5
against it; for they never were able to rise perfectly to the
contemplation of Christ's work as the assumptio carnis, an ex-
pression of the loftiest piety among the Greeks. Those of the
latter who, like the Antiochenes, either did not share or only
imperfectly shared the realistic idea of redemption, referred, it
is worth remarking, the work of Christ, like the Latins, to the

human side of his personality. '
Great as are the distinctions here — the West did not possess
in work
antiquity a definite dogmatic theory as to the atoning
of Christ. Greek views exerted their influence " and, besides. ;
Western Christians were not yet disposed, with a very few ex-
ceptions, to trouble themselves with thoughts that had no bearing
on practical life.
• An affinity exists between tlie theology of tlie Antioclienes and Latins
esp. pre-Augustinian; but it is greater to a superficial than to a more exact
observer. The Antiochene conception always had the Alexandrian for a foil; it
never emancipated from the latter

itself sufficiently up a perfectly compact
to set
counter-theology; it was in a sense Greek piety and G-c&sk\}as:o\og'j watered down.
The Latins did not possess this foil. Their theology must not be gauged by Origen
and Neoplatonism as if they furnished its starting-point.
So from Hilary down to Augustine. The most important of the Western Fathers
2
accepted the Greek idea of the purchase from the devil, although -it flatly contra-
dicted their own doctrine of the atonement; and this proves how uncertain they
were. The grotesque conception of the role played by the devil at the death of
Christ, had nevertheless something good about it. It reminded men that every knave
is a stupid devil, and that the devil is always a stupid knave.
APPENDIX ON MANICHiEISM.
Three great religious systems confronted each other in

Western Asia and Southern Europe from the close of the third
century Neoplatonism, Catholicism and Manichseism. All three
:
may be characterised as the final results of a history, lasting

for more than a thousand years, of the religious development
of the civilised peoples from Persia to Italy. In all three the
old national and particular character of religions was laid aside
they were world-religions of the most universal tendency, and
making demands which in their consequences transformed the
whole of human life, public and private. For the national cultus
they substituted a system which aspired to be theology, theory of
the universe and science of history, and at the same time em-
braced a definite ethics, and a ritual of divine service. Formally,
therefore, the three religions were alike, and they were also similar
in that each had appropriated the elements of different older
religions. Further, they showed their similarity in bringing to the
front the ideas of revelation, redemption, ascetic virtue, and
immortality. But Neoplatonism was natural religion spiritualised,
the polytheism of Greece transfigured by Oriental influences and
developed into pantheism. Catholicism was the monotheistic
world-religion based on the O. T. and the Gospel, but constructed
by the aid of Hellenic speculation and ethics. Manichaeism was
the dualistic world-religion resting on Chaldaeism,' but inter-
spersed with Christian, Parsi, and perhaps Buddhist thoughts.
To Manichaeism the Hellenic element was wanting, to Cathol-
icism the Chaldee and Persian. These three world-religions
1 See Brandt, Die manclaische Religion, 1889 (further, Wellhausen in the deutsch.
Litt.-Ztg., 1890,No. 41).
MANICHÊISM 317
developed in the course (c. A.D. 50

of two centuries 250), —
Catholicism coming and Manichaeism last. Catholicism and
first
Maniakaeism were superior to Neoplatonism for the very reason

that the latter possessed no founder; it, therefore, developed
no elemental force, and never lost the character of_being an
artificial creation. Attempts which were made to invent a founder
for it naturally failed. But, even apart from the contents of its
religion, Catholicism was superior to Manichaeism, because its
founder was venerated not merely as the bearer of revelation,
but as the Redeemer in person and the Son of God. The fight
waged by Catholicism with Neoplatonism had been already
decided middle of the fourth century, although the
about the
latter hold its ground in the Greek Empire for
continued to
almost two centuries longer. As against Manichaeism the Catholic
Church was certain of victory from the beginning; for at the'
moment when Manichaeism disputed its supremacy, it became
the privileged State Church. But opponent did not suffer
its
itself be annihilated; it
to lasted till Middle Ages
far into the
in East and West, though in various modifications and forms.
Authorities — (a) Oriental.
1. Mohammedan.— Among our sources for the history of

Manichaeism the Oriental are the most important; of these the
Mohammedan, though comparatively late, are distinguished by
the excellence of the tradition and their impartiality, and must
be given the first place, since in them old Manichsean writings
are employed, and we possess no other originals of this sort
belonging the third century, except a few short and rather
to
unimportant fragments. At the head stands Abulfaragius, Fihrist
(c. 980), see the edition by Fliigel and the work of the latter
"Mani, Lehre und seine Schriften," 1862; further, Shah-
seine
rastani, Kitab al-milal wan-nuhal (12th century), see edition by
Cureton and German translation by Haarbriicker, 1851; some
notes and extracts in Tabari (loth century), al-Biruni (nth
century), Ibn al-Murtada (see Kessler, Mani, I., p. 346 'ff-)- and
other Arabian and Persian historians.
2. Christian.— Of Eastern Christians we learn most from
3l8 HISTORY OF DOGMA
Ephraem Syrus (+373) in various writings, and in a tractate on

the subject edited by Overbcck; from Esnik, the Armenian (see
Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol., 1840, II.; Langlois, Collection, etc.,
II., p. 395 sq.), who wrote in the fifth century against Marcion
and Mani; and from the Alexandrian Patriarch Eutychius (-(-916)
who composed a chronicle (ed. by Pococke, 1628). Besides this,
separate pieces of information occur in Aphraates (4th century),
Barhebraeus (Arab, and Syr. 13th century) and others.
(b) Greek and Latin.
The earliest mention of the Manichaeans in the Roman or

Greek empire occurs in an edict of Diocletian (see Hanel, Cod.
Gregor. tit. XV.), which is held by some not to be genuine,
and by others is dated A.D. 287, 290, 296, or 308 (so Mason,
The Persec. of Dioclet., p. 275 sq.). Eusebius gives a brief
account (H. E. VII. 31). The main authority, however, for
Greek and Roman writers was the Acta Archelai, which though
not what they pretended to be, namely, an account of a dis-
putation between Mani and Bishop Archelaus of Cascar in
Mesopotamia, yet contain much that is reUable, esp. as to the
doctrine of Mani, and also embrace Manichaean fragments.
The Acts, which for the rest consist of various documents,
originated at the beginning of the fourth century (in Edessaf).
Jerome maintains (De vir. inl. 72) that they were originally
composed in Syria (so also Kessler) ; but Noldeke (Ztschr. d.
deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. vol. 43, p. 537 ff.) and Rahlfs have
disproved Kessler's arguments (Gott. Gel. Anz., 1889, No. 23).
They have made it very probable that the Acts, while they may
have been based on Syrian sources, were originally written in

Greek. They were soon afterwards translated into Latin. We
only possess this version (Edited by Zacagni, 1698; Routh,
Reliq. S* Vol. V., 1848); of the Greek version small fragments
have been preserved (see on the Acta Archelai the discussions
by Zittwitz in the Zeitschr.
die histor. Theol., 1873, and the
f.
Dissertation by Acta disp. Arch, et Manetis, 1874.

Oblasinski,
In the form in which we now have them, they are a compilation
largely edited on the pattern of the Clementine Homilies). The
MANICH/EISM 3 I
9
Acta were made use of by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. VI.),

Epiphanius (Hser. and very many others. All Greek and
66)
Latin students of heresy have put the Manichaeans in their
catalogues; but they only rarely give any original information
about them (see Theodoret Haer. fab. I. 26).
Important matter occurs in the decrees of Councils from the
fourth century (see Mansi, Acta Concil., and Hefele, Concilien-
geschichte, Vols. I. — III.), and in the controversial writings of
Titus of Bostra (4th century, in Syriac after a MS. of A.D. 411)
Trpog Mavixoiiovq (edit, by de Lagarde, 1859), and Alexander of
Lycopolis, Aoyog wpog rxg Mxvixo^'O^ ^d^tui; (edit, by Combefis.).
Of Byzantines, John of Damascus (De haeres and Dial.) and
Photius 179 Bibhoth.) deserve special mention; see also
(cod.
the Manichsean form of oath in Tollii insignia itiner. ital. p.
126 sq., and in Cotelier, P. P. App. 0pp. I. p. 543; further,
Rahlfs, I.e. The controversy with the Paulicians and BogomiHans,
who were frequently identified with the Manichaeans, renewed
the interest in the latter. In the West the works of Augustine
are the great repository for ourknowledge of the Manichaeans :
"Contra epistolam Manichsi, quam vocant fundamenti", "Contra

Faustum Manichaeum", "Contra Fortunatum", "Contra Adim-
antum ", " Contra Secundinum ", " De actis cum Felice Manichaeo",
"De genesi c. Manichseos", " De natura boni ", " De duabus anim-
abus", "De utilitate credendi", "De moribus eccl. Cathol. et
de moribus Manichaeorum ", "De vera reUgione", "De haeres."
But the more complete the view of Manichaeism to be obtained
from these writings, the more cautious we must be in our
generalisations ; for the Manichaeism of the West undoubtedly
received Christian elements which were wanting in its original
and oriental form.
Mam's Life.
Mani (M^!/^?; Manes, M.ix,vi%ouo(;, Manichaeus —

the name has
not yet been explained; it is not even known whether it is of
Persian or Semitic origin) is said, as the Acta Archelai inform
us, to have been originally called "Cubricus". Nothing re-
liable was ever known as to his Hfe in the Romano-Greek
empire for the account in the Acta Archelai is wholly biassed

;
and untrustworthy. Even if criticism succeeded in pointing out

the sources from which it was derived, in discovering the ten-
dencies that were at work, and in thus sifting out portions that
were tenable, yet it could only do so by depending on the
comparatively trustworthy Oriental Mohammedan tradition. We-
must therefore examine the latter alone. According to it, Mani
was a Persian of distinguished birth belonging to Mardin. The
date of his birth is uncertain ; Kessler holds the statement in
Biruni to be reliable, that he was born in anno 527 of the era
of the Babylonian astronomers, i.e., A.D. 215 — 216. He re-
ceived a careful education from his father Fatak (n«r£;c;(j?) at
Ctesiphon. Since the father afterwards adhered to the confession

of the " Moghtasilah ", the Baptists, in southern Babylonia, the
son was also brought up in their religious doctrines and prac-
tices. The Baptists (see the Fihrist) were probably not uncon-
nected with the Elkesaites and Hemerobaptists, and were in
any case allied to the Mandaeans. It is not improbable that
this Babylonian sect had adopted Christian elements. The boy
accordingly became early acquainted with very different forms
of religion. even a small proportion of the narratives about
If
his father rest —
on truth the greater number being certainly
only Manichsean legends— he had already introduced his son
into the religious medley, out of which the Manichsean system
arose. Manichaean tradition tells us that Mani received revel-
ations, and took up a critical attitude towards religious instruc-
tion, even when a boy. But it is all the less trustworthy, as it
also relates that he was forbidden to ventilate publicly his new
religious knowledge. It was only when he was from 25 to 30
years of age that he began to preach his new religion at the

court of the Persian king, Sapores I.— on the day, it is stated,
of the king's coronation, A.D. 241 242. —
A Persian tradition
says that he was previously a Christian presbyter, but this, in
any case, is wrong. Mani did not remain long in Persia, but
undertook long journeys for the purpose of spreading his religion,
and he also sent out disciples. According to the Acta Archelai,
his missionary activity extended into the West, into the terri-
tory of the Christian Church; but it is certain from Oriental
MANICH.EISM 321
sourcesthat his work was rather carried on in Transoxania,

Western China, and southwards into India. His labours met
with success there as well as in Persia. Like Mohammed after
him, and the founder of the Elkesaites before him, he pro-
claimed himself the last and greatest of the prophets, whose
revelation of God surpassed all that had been given till then,
the latter being allowed only a relative value. He instituted
the absolute religion. In the last years of the reign of Sapores I.
(c. A.D. 270) Mani returned to the Persian capital, and gained
adherents even at the court. Naturally, however, the ruling priestly
caste of the Magi, on whom the king was compelled to lean,
were hostile to him, and after a few successes Mani was taken
prisoner and driven into exile. The successor of Sapores,
—
Hormuz (272 273), seems to have been favourable to him,
but Bahram I. abandoned him to the fanaticism of the Magi,
and had him crucified at the capital, A.D. 276 277. His dead —
body was skinned; and his adherents were dreadfully perse-
cuted by Bahram.
Mani's Writings.
Mani himself composed very many writings and epistles, of

which a large proportion were still known to the Mohammedan
historians, but which are now all lost. The later heads of the
Manichsean Churches also wrote religious tractates, so that the
ancient Manichaean literature must have been very extensive.
According to the Fihrist, Mani made use of the Persian and
Syriac languages; he invented, however, Uke the Oriental Mar-
cionites before him, an alphabet of his own which the Fihrist
has transmitted to us. In this alphabet the sacred works of
the Manichaeans were afterwards written. The Fihrist enumer-
ates seven principal works by Mani, six in Syriac and one in
Persian ; as to some of them we possess statements also in Titus
of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Photius, as well as in
the and the Acta Archelai. We have (i) The

oath-formula
Book of mysteries see Acta Archelai it contained discussions
: ;
with the Christian sects which were spreading in the East,

especially the Marcionites and Bardesanians, as well as with
their conception of the Old and New Testaments. (2) The

Book of Giants (demons? probably in connection with Gen. VI.).
(3) The Book of Regulations for the hearers, apparently iden- —
tical with the fundamenti" of Augustine and the
"epistula
" Book of the Chapters " of Epiphanius and the Acta Archelai.
It was the most extensively circulated and popular of Mani-
chsean works, and was also translated into Greek and Latin
being a brief summary of the whole fundamentally authoritative
doctrine. (4) The Book Schahpurakan. Fliigel was unable to
explain this title; according to Kessler, it means "Epistle to
King Sapores". This tractate contained eschatological teaching.
(5) The Book of quickening. It is identified by Kessler with

the "Thesaurus (vitas)" of the Acta Archelai, Epiphanius, Pho-
tius, and Augustine ; in that case it was also in use among the
Latin Manichaeans. (6) The Book Trpzyf/.txTsix — contents un-
known. (7) — In the Persian language; a book whose
not title is
stated in the Fihrist, as we have

but which is probably it,
identical with the "Holy Gospel" of the Manichaeans; see the

Acta Archelai and many witnesses. This was the work set up
by the Manichaeans in opposition to the Gospels of the Church.
Besides these main works, Mani wrote a great number of shorter
tractates and The epistolography was then established
letters.
by his successors.These Manichaan treatises were also familiar

in the Graeco-Roman empire and existed in collections— see the
/3;/3a/o!/ sTfKTToXwv in the oath-formula and an " epistula ad vir-
;
ginem Menoch " in Augustine. Fabricius has collected the Greek

fragments of Manichsean epistles in the Bibliotheca Graeca VII. 2,
p. 3 1 1 There also existed a Manichsean Book of " memoirs "
sq.
and one of "prayers" in the Greek language, as well as many
others [e.g., the "Canticum Amatorium" cited by Augustine),
all of which, however, were destroyed by Christian Bishops in
alliance with the magistracy. A Manichaean Epistle to one

Marcellus has been preserved to us in the Acta Archelai. Zitt-
witz supposes that this letter was much fuller in its original
form, and that the author of the Acts has borrowed from it
the material for the speeches which he makes Mani deliver in
the discussion. The same scholar refers the account of Turbo
in the Acts and their historical statements (in section 4) to the
MANICHÎSM 323
writing of a Turbo of Mesopotamia, a Manichaean renegade and

Christian. But on this point it is at least possible to hold a
different opinion.
Manis Doctrine. The Manichcean System.
Clearly as the main features of the Manichaean doctrine can

be presented even at the present day, and certain as it is that
Mani himself published a complete system, yet many details
are uncertain, being differently described in different places,
and it often remains doubtful what the original doctrinal view
of the founder was.
The Manichaean system of religion was a consistent and
uncompromising dualism, in the form of a fanciful view of
nature. No distinction was drawn between the physical and
ethical in this respect the character of the system was thoroughly
:
materialistic for Mani's identification of the good with light,

;
and the bad with darkness, was not merely figurative. The
light was really the only good, and darkness the only bad.
Hence it followed, that religious knowledge could be nothing
but the knowledge of nature and its elements, and that
redemption consisted exclusively in a physical deliverance of
the fractions of light from darkness. But under such circum-
stanceSj ethics became a doctrine of abstinence from all elements
arising from the realm of darkness.
The self-contradictory character of the present world formed
for Mani the starting-point of his speculation. But the incon-
sistency appeared to him to be primarily elemental, and only
secondarily ethical, in so far as he regarded the material side
of man as an emanation from the bad parts of nature. From
the self contradictory character of the world he inferred two
beings, originally wholly separate from each other, light and —
darkness. Both were, however, to be thought of after the
analogy of a kingdom. The light appeared as the good

Primeval Spirit- God, shining in the ten (twelve) virtues of
love, faith, fidelity, magnanimity, wisdom, gentleness, know-

ledge, intelligence, mystery, and insight. It also manifested
itself in the heaven and earth of light with their guardians, the
glorious ôns. The darkness, similarly, was a spiritual realm
more correctly, it was represented in a spiritual, or feminine,
personification ; but it had no " God " at its head. Itembraced
an "earth of darkness". As the earth of light had five dis-
tinguishing features— the gentle breeze, cooling wind, bright
light, cheering fire, and clear water — so also the earth of
darkness had five — fog,burning wind, darkness, and
fiery heat,
damp. Satan with his demons was born from the realm of
darkness. From eternity the two realms stood opposed. They
came into contact on one side, but they did not mingle. Then
Satan began to storm, and made an attack on the realm, the
earth, of light. The God of light, with his Syzygos (mate) "the
spirit of his right hand", now generated the Primeval man, and
sent him, equipped with the five pure elements, to fight against
Satan. But Satan proved himself the stronger. Primeval man
was defeated for a moment. Now indeed the God of light
himself marched forth, utterly defeated Satan by the help of
— —
new .ôns the spirit of life, etc. and delivered the Primeval
man. But a part of the light of the latter had already been
robbed by darkness, the five dark elements had already min-
gled the generations of light.
with The Primeval man could
only descend into the abyss and hinder the increase of the
dark "generations" by cutting off their roots; but the elements
once mixed he could never again separate. The mixed elements
were the elements of the present visible world. This was
fashioned out at the command of the God of light
of them
the formation world was itself the first step in the
of the
redemption of the imprisoned portions of light. The world
itself was represented as an ordered chain of different heavens
and different earths, which was borne and supported by the

ôns, the angels of light. In sun and moon, which from their
nature were almost wholly pure, it possessed great reservoirs,
in which the rescued portions of light were stored. In the sun
Primeval man himself dwelt along with the holy spirits, who
pursued the work of redemption; in the moon the Mother of
life was throned. The twelve signs of the zodiac constituted
an artificialmachine, a great wheel with buckets which poured
the portions of light delivered from the world into the moon
— —
MANICHÎSM 325
and sun, the illuminating vessels swimming in space. There

they were purified anew, and finally reached God himself in
the realm of pure light. The later Manichaeans of the West
designated the portions of light scattered in the world— in
elements and organisms — and waiting for redemption, "Jesus
patibilis."
Now it is characteristic of the materialistic and unhuman
character of the system, that while the construction of the world
is regarded as the work of the good spirits, the creation of man
is referred to first man, Adam,
the princes of darkness. The
was begotten by Satan in conjunction with " sin," " greed " and
"lust." But the spirit of darkness conjured into him all the
portions of light which he had robbed, in order to make more
certain of his power to rule over them. Adam was accordingly
a divided being, created in the image of Satan, but bearing the
stronger spark of light within him. Eve was associated with him
by Satan. She was seductive sensuousness, although even she
had a tiny spark of light in her. If the first human beings thus
stood under the rule of Satan, yet from the very first the glorious
spirits took an interest in them. These sent ôns e.g., Jesus
down to them, who instructed them as to their nature, and
warned Adam But the first man
especially against the senses.
fell a victim and Abel, indeed, were not
to sexual lust. Cain
sons of Adam, but of Satan and Eve but Seth was the light- ;
possessed offspring of Adam and Eve. Thus arose mankind,

among whose individual members light was very variously dis-
tributed. It was always stronger, however, in men than women.
Now the demons sought in the course of history to bind men
to themselves through sensuality, error, and false religions, which
included above all the rehgion of Moses and the prophets, while
the spirits of light continued their process of distillation, in order
to obtain the pure light in the world. But they could only
deliver men by giving the true Gnosis as to nature and its
powers, and by recalling them from the service of darkness and

sensuousness. For this purpose prophets, preachers of the true
knowledge, were sent into the world. Mani himself appears, in
accordance with the example set by Gnostic Jewish Christians,
to have held Adam, Noah, and Abraham, and perhaps Zoroaster
and Buddha have been such prophets. Probably Jesus was

to
also by him to have been a prophet come down
considered
from the world of hght not, however, the historical Jesus, but
;
a contemporary, seemingly human, Jesus who neither suffered

nor died (Jesus impatibilis). Some Manichseans taught that Primeval
man himself, as Christ, spread the true Gnosis. But in any case
Mani was held, as he claimed, to be the last and greatest pro-
phet, having taken up the work of "Jesus impatibilis," and of Paul,
who is also and having been the first to bring
recognised,
complete knowledge. He was
the "guide," the "ambassador of
the light," the "Paraclete." Only by his labours and those of
his " imitators, the Elect," was the separation of light from
darkness accomplished. The process by which the unfettered
parts of light finally ascend to the God of light himself are
very fancifully elaborated. He who
has not succeeded in becoming
elect in his life-time, has not completely redeemed himself, has
to pass through severe purifications in the future state, until he
also is gathered to the blessedness of the light. A doctrine of
transmigration of souls has, however, been erroneously imputed
to the Manichaeans. Bodies fall naturally, like the souls of un-
redeemed men, to the powers of darkness. But those souls,
according at least to the oldest conception, contain no light at
all ; a later view, adapted to the Christian, taught that the parts
of light existing in them were really lost. Finally, when the
elements of light are delivered — completely, or as far as possible
the end of the world takes place. All glorious spirits assemble,
the God of light himself appears, accompanied by the ôns
and the perfectly righteous. The angels who uphold the world
withdraw from their burden, and everything collapses. An
enormous conflagration destroys the world once more the two :
powers are completely severed; high above is the realm of light

restored to its perfect state, low down is the darkness (now
powerless?).
Ethics, Social Constitution and Cultus of the ManichcBans.
The only possible ethics based on this doctrine of the world

were dualistic and ascetic. But as it was not only considered
MANICHÎSM 327
necessary to escape from darkness, but also to cherish, strengthen,

and purify the parts of light, the ethics were not merely negative.
They aimed not at suicide, but at preservation. Yet in practice
they assumed a thoroughly ascetic form. The Manichiean had to
abstain above all from sensuous enjoyment. He was to deny
himself to it by means of three seals : the signaculum oris,
manus, and sinus (the seal of the mouth, hand, and breast).
The signaculum oris forbade any use of unclean food, as well
as impure talk ; unclean were all animal flesh, wine etc. ; vege-
table food was permitted, because plants contained more light;
but the destruction of plants, even the plucking of fruits or
breaking of twigs, was not allowed. The sign, manus prevented
any occupation with things, in so far as they contained elements
of darkness. Finally, the sign, sinus forbade especially any
satisfaction of sexual desire, and therefore prohibited marriage.
Besides, life was regulated by an extremely rigorous list of
fasts. Fast-days were selected in obedience to certain astronom-
ical conjunctures. Moreover, men fasted, i.e., held holiday, regu-
larly on Sunday, and generally also on Monday. The number
of fast-days amounted almost to a quarter of the year. Times
of prayer were appointed just as exactly. Four times a day .
had the Manichaean to utter prayers and these were preceded ;
by ablutions. He who prayed turned to the sun or moon, or

to the North as the seat of light. Yet the inference that the
Manichseans worshipped the sun and moon themselves is wrong.
The Fihrist has preserved some Manichaean forms of prayer.
They were directed to the God of Hght, the whole realm of
light, the glorious angels and Mani himself, who is addressed
in them as " the great tree in whom is all healing.'' According

to Kessler, these prayers are closely allied to the Mandsean
and ancient Babylonian hymns.
An asceticism so minute and strict as that demanded by
Manichseism, ' could only be practised thoroughly by a few.
The religion would, therefore, have been compelled to forego
an extensive propaganda, had it not conceded a morality of
two kinds. A distinction was accordingly drawn within the
1 It also professed imitation of tlie apostolic life ; see Raumev's note on Confess.
Aug. VI. 7 (12).
32^ HISTORY OF DOGMA
community between the "Electi" (perfecti), the perfect Mani-

chaeans, and the Catechumen! (auditores), the secular Mani-
chseans. Only the former submitted to all the demands imposed
by the rehgion; for the latter the regulations were relaxed.
They required to avoid idolatry, witchcraft, greed, lying,
fornication,etc. above all, they must kill
; no living creature
keeping Mani's ten commandments. They were to renounce
the world as far as possible; but they lived in fact very much
like their fellow-citizens of other faiths. We have here,
accordingly, substantially the same state of matters as in the
Catholic Church, where a twofold morality also prevailed, viz.,
that of the religious orders and of the secular Christians. The

only difference was that the position of the Electi was still
more distinguished than that of the monks. For the Christian
monks never wholly forgot that redemption was a gift of God
through Christ, while the Manichaean Electi were really them-
selves redeemers therefore it was the duty of the Auditores to
;
pay the deepest veneration and render the greatest services to

the Electi. These perfect beings, as they languished away in
their asceticism, were admired and cherished most devotedly.
Analogous is the reverence paid by Catholics to the saints,
and by Neoplatonists to the "philosophers," but the prestige
of the Manichaean Electi surpassed that of both. Foods were
brought to them in abundance; by using them the Electi
dehvered the parts of light from the plants. They prayed for
the Auditores, they blessed and interceded for them, thereby
abbreviating the purgatory through which the latter had to
pass after death. And the Electi alone possessed complete
—
knowledge of religious truths it was otherwise in Catholicism.
The distinction between Electi and Auditores did not, how-
ever, constitute the whole idea of the Manichaean Church it ;
possessed a hierarchy also. This fell into three grades, so that

altogether there were five in the religious constitution. In its
fivefold division the social order was conceived to be a copy
of the numbers of the realm of light. At the head stood the
Teachers ("the sons of gentleness " in Mani and his successors)
"
these were followed by the Administrators (' sons of knowledge
= the Bishops); then the Elders ("sons of understanding" = the
MANICHÎSM 329
presbyters); the Electi ("sons of mystery"); and finally the

Auditores ("sons of msight"). The number of Electi was at all
times small. According to Augustine, there were twelve Teachers
and seventy-two Bishops. One of the Teachers appears to have
stood as president at the head of the whole Manichaean Church.
At least Augustine speaks of such an one, and the Fihrist also
knows of a supreme head over all Manichaeans. The constitution
accordingly had here also a monarchical head.
The cultus of the Manichaeans must have been very simple,
and have consisted essentially of prayers, hymns, and ceremonies
of adoration. This simple divine service promoted the secret spread
of the doctrine. Besides, the Manichseans seem, at least in the
West, to have adhered to the Church's order of festivals. The
Electi celebrated special festivals but the chief one common to
;
all was the "Bema" (Biît^^), the festival of the "doctoral chair,"
in memory of the death of Mani, in the month of March. Be-
lievers prostrated themselves before a decorated, but vacant
chair, erected on a pedestal with five steps. Long fasts accom-
panied the festival. Christian and Mohammedan writers were able
to learn little concerning the mysteries and "sacraments " of the
Manichaeans; the Christians therefore raised the charge that
obscene rites and repulsive practices were observed. But it may
be held certain that the later Manichaean mysteries were solem-
nised after the style of Christian Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
They may have been based on old rites and ceremonies instituted
by Mani himself, and descended from natural religion.
The Historical Position of Manickcsism.
In the present state of the inquiry it is made out, and the
account given above will also have shown, that Manichaeism did
not rise on the soil of Christianity. We would even be better
justified if we were to call Mohammedanism a Christian sect
for Mohammed
approaches the Jewish and Christian rehgions
incomparably more closely than Mani. Kessler has the credit of
having shown that the ancient Babylonian religion, the original
source of all the Gnosis of Western Asia, was the foundation
of the Manichaean system. The opinion formerly held is accord-
33° HISTORY OF DOGMA
ingly wrong, viz., that Manichseism was a reformation on the

ground of Parsiism, a modification of Zoroastrianism under the
influence of Christianity. It was rather a religious creation be-
longing to the circle of Semitic religions: it was the Semitic
nature-rehgion Hfted out of national limitations, modified by
Christian and Persian elements, raised to the level of Gnosis,
and transforming human life by strict rules. But when we have
perceived this, we have only obtained a very general explana-
tion of the origin of Manichaeism. The question rises, through

what means and to what extent Mani adopted Persian and
Christian elements, and further, in which form the nature-religion
of ancient Babylonia was made use of by him.
Now as regards the latter point, it is well known that the
Semitic had been taken up, centuries before
nature-religions
Mani, by isolated had been
enthusiastic or speculative heads,
philosophically deepened and remodelled into "systems", in
support of which missions were conducted by means of mysteri-
ous cults. Mani's enterprise was accordingly nothing new, but
was rather the last in a long series of similar attempts. Even
the earlier ones, from Simon Magus the Samaritan down, had
adopted Christian elements to a greater or less extent, and the
Christian Gnostic scholastic sects of Syria and Western Asia
all pointed back to ancient Semitic nature-religions, which were
transformed by them into a philosophy of the world and of life.

But in particular the doctrines of the Babylonian sect of Mogh-
tasilah, which were indeed influenced also by Christianity, seem
to have afforded Mani material for his reHgio-philosophical specu-
lation. The religion of this sect was not, however, purely Semi-
tic (see the treatise by Kessler on the Mandaeans in the Real-
Encyklopaedia fiir prot. Theol. u. Kirche, 2 Ed., Vol. IX.,

p. 205 ff. ; the Mandaeans were allied to the Moghtasilah, Brandt,
1. c). From this source sprang the rigid dualism on which Mani's
system was based ; for the ancient Persian religion was not in
principle dualistic, but in its ultimate foundation Monistic, since
Ahriman was created by Ormuzd. However, ancient Persian
theologoumena were employed by Mani. Even the designation
of the antitheses as "light" and "darkness" was hardly inde-
pendent of Parsiism, and elsewhere in Manichaeism there occur
MANICHÎSM 33 I
technical terms taken from the Persian religion. Whether Mani's

idea of redemption goes back to the ancient Babylonian religion
or to Zoroastrianism, I do not venture to decide; the idea of
the "Prophet" and the "Primeval man" is at all events Semitic.
It is very difficult to how far Mani's acquaintance
determine
with Christianity went, and how much he borrowed from it;
further, what agencies Christian knowledge reached
through
him. In any case, in those regions where Manichffiism was set-
tled and where it came more closely into contact with Christi-
anity, it was at a later stage influenced by the latter. Western
Manichseans of the fourth and fifth centuries were much more
"Christian" than those of the East. In this respect the system
passed through the same development as Neoplatonism. As
regards Mani himself, it is safest to suppose that he held Juda-
ism as well as Christianity to be entirely false religions. But
if he not only characterised himself as the Paraclete and it is —
probable that he originated this use of the title but also ad- —
mitted "Jesus" to so high a role in his system, we can hardly
explain this otherwise than by supposing that he distinguished
between Christianity and Christianity. The religion which eman-
ated from the historical Christ was to him as objectionable as
that Christ himself and as Judaism; i.e., Catholicism was to him
a diabolical religion. But he distinguished the Jesus of dark-
ness from the Jesus of light, who wrought contemporaneously
with the other. This distinction agrees as strikingly with that
of the Gnostic Basilides, as the criticism of the O. T. conducted
by Manichaeism with that of the Marcionites (see even the Acta;
Archelai inwhich Marcion's antitheses are placed in Mani's

lips). Finally, Manichsean doctrines show agreement with those
of the Christian Elkesaites; yet it is possible, nay, probable,
that the latter are be derived from the common ancient
to
Semitic source, and therefore they do not come further into
consideration. Mani's historical relation to Christianity will
therefore be as follows from Catholicism, with which in all

:
probability he was not very accurately acquainted, Mani borrowed

nothing, rejecting it rather as a devilish error. On the other
hand, he regarded Christianity in the form which it had assumed
in the Basilidian and Marcionite sects (also among the Barde-
sanians ?) as a relatively valuable and correct religion. But from

them, as also from the Persians, he took hardly anything but
names, and perhaps, besides, what criticism he had of the O. T.
and Judaism. His lofty estimate of Paul (and his epistles?),
as well as his express rejection of the Acts of the Apostles,
also point to influences due to Marcionitism. He seems to have
recognised and to have interpreted in accordance with his own
teaching a part of the historical matter of the Gospel.
Finally, the question further rises whether Buddhistic elements
are not to be observed in Manichaeism. The majority of later
scholars since F. Chr. Baur have answered this question in the
affirmative. According to Kessler, Mani used Buddha's teaching,
at least for
his ethics. There is no doubt that he took long
journeys to India, and was familiar with Buddhism. The occur-
rence of the name of Buddha (Budda) in the legend about Mani
and perhaps in his own writings points to the fact that the
founder of this religion concerned himself with Buddhism. But
what he borrowed from it for his own doctrine must have been
very unimportant. On a closer comparison we find that the differ-
ence between the two faiths is in all their main doctrines very
great, and that the resemblances are almost always merely
accidental. This is true even as regards morality and asceticism.
There is no point in Manichaeism for whose explanation we need
have recourse to Buddhism. Under such circumstances any
relationship between the two religions remains a bare possibility
nor has the investigation of Geyler raised this possibility to a
probability (Das System des Manichaismus und sein Verhaltniss
zum Buddhismus, Jena 1875).
How are we to explain the fact that Manichaeism spread so
rapidly and became a world-reHgion? The answer has
really
been given that it was because it was the complete Gnosis, the
fullest, most consistent, and most artistic system based on the
ancient Babylonian religion (so Kessler). This explanation is not
sufficient, for no makes an impression mainly by its
religion
doctrinal system, however complete that may be. But it is also
incorrect, for the older Gnostic systems were' not more meagre
than the Manichaean. What rather gave Manichaeism its strength
was, above all, the combination of ancient mythology and a rigid
MANICHÎSM 333
materialistic dualism with an extremely simple, spiritual cultus,

and a strict morality ; this was supplemented by the personality
of the founder (of which indeed we know little enough). If we
compare it with the Semitic nature-religions, it is obvious that
it retained their mythologies, transformed into "doctrines," but
did away with the whole sensuous cultus, substituting a spiritual
worship as well Thus it was capable of
as a strict morality.
satisfying the new wants of an old world. It offered revelation,
redemption, moral virtue, and immortality, spiritual blessings,

on the ground of nature-religion. Further, the simple and yet
firm constitution calls for attention which Mani himself gave
to his institution. The learned and the ignorant, the enthusiast
and the man of the world, could here find a welcome, no one
had more laid upon him than he could and would bear; more-
over, each was attracted and secured by the prospect of reaching
a higher stage, while those who were gifted were besides promised
that they would require to submit to no authority, but would
be led by pure reason to God. As this religion was thus adapted,
perhaps beforehand, to individual needs, it was also capable of
continuously appropriating what was foreign. Furnished from the
first with fragments of difierent religions, it could increase or
diminish its store, without breaking its own elastic structure.
But a great capacity for adaptation was quite as necessary to
a world-religion, as a divine founder in whom men could see
and venerate the supreme revelation of God himself. While
Manichseism in fact knew of no redeemer, although it gave Mani
this title while it only recognised a physical and Gnostic process
;
of redemption; yet in Mani it possessed the chief prophet of God.

If we notice, finally, that Manichseism presented a simple,
apparently profound; and yet easy, solution of the problem of
good and evil, which had become especially burdensome in the
second and third centuries, we have named the most important
phenomena which explain its rapid extension.
Sketch of the History of Manichcsism.
Manichseism first got a firm footing in the East, in Persia,

Mesopotamia, and Transoxania. The persecutions which it had
to endure did not hinder its extension. The seat of the Mani-
chasan Pope was for centuries in Babylon, and afterwards in

Samarcand. Even after Islam had conquered the East, Mani-
chsism held its ground it even seems to have spread still
;
further owing to the Mohammedan conquest, and it gained

secret adherents among the Mohammedans themselves. The
doctrine and discipline of the Church underwent
Manichaean
little changein the East, it especially did not there approach
much nearer the Christian religion. But it experienced attempts
at reform several times; for, as was natural, its "Auditores"
readily became secularised. These attempts also led temporarily
to schisms and the formation of sects. At the close of the
tenth century, the time when the Fihrist was written, the Mani-
chaeans had been already expelled from the cities in Mesopo-
tamia and Persia, and had withdrawn into the villages. But in
Turkestan and up to the borders of China, there existed numer-
ous Manichaean communities, nay, even whole tribes which had
adopted the religion of Mani. Probably the great Mongolian
migrations first put an end to Manichaeism in Central Asia.
But in India, on the coasts of Malabar, there were Manichaeans
even in the fifteenth century, side by side with Thomist Christ-
ians (see Germann, Die Thomaschristen, 1875). Manichaeism first
penetrated into the Graeco-Roman Empire about A.D. 280, in
the time of the Emperor Probus (see Eusebius. Chronicon). If
we may hold Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans to be
genuine, they already had a firm footing in the West at the
beginning of the fourth century; but Eusebius did not know
the sect accurately as late as about A.D. 325. It was only
after about A.D. 330 that the religion spread rapidly in the
Roman Empire. Its adherents were recruited, on the one hand,
from the ancient Gnostic sects, especially the Marcionites,
Manichaeism having, besides, strongly influenced the develop-
ment of the Marcionite Churches in the fourth century. On the
other hand, it gained followers from the great number of the
"cultured", who sought for a "rational" and yet to some ext
tent Christian, religion, and who had exalted "free inquiry"
esp. as regards the O. T. — into a battle-flag. Criticism on Catholi-
cism, and polemics, were now the strong point of Manichaeism, esp.
in the West. It admitted the stumbling-blocks which the O. T.
MANICH^.ISM 335
presented to every thinker, and gave itself out as a Christianity

without the O. T. Instead of the subtle Catholic theories about
divine predestination and human freedom, and the difficult
Theodicy, it offered an extremely simple conception of sin and
goodness. It did not preach the doctrine of the incarnation,
which was particularly repugnant to those who were passing
from the ancient cults to the Universal Religion. In its rejection
of this doctrine, it coincided with Neoplatonism. But while
the latter, with all its attempts to accommodate itself at various
points to Christianity, found no formula that would introduce
into its midst the special veneration of Christ, the Western
Manichaeans succeeded in giving their doctrine a Christian
colouring. Of the Manichaân mythology all that became
popular was the rigid physical dualism ; its barbarous portions
were prudently disguised as "mysteries"; nay, they were even
frankly disavowed here and there by the adepts. The farther
Manichaeism pushed into the West, the more Christian and
philosophical it became ; in Syria it kept itself comparatively
pure. It found most numerous adherents in North Africa,
its
where it had secret followers even among the clergy; this may
perhaps be explained by the Semitic origin of a part of the
population. Augustine was an "Auditor" for nine years, while
Faustus was at the time the most distinguished Manichsean
teacher in the West. In his later writings against Manichaeism
Augustine chiefly discusses the following problems: (i) the
relations of knowledge and faith, reason and authority; (2) the
nature of good and evil, and the origin of the latter; (3) the
existence of free-will, and its relation to divine omnipotence;
(4) the relation of evil in the world to the divine government.
The Christian Byzantine and Roman Emperors from Valens
onwards issued strict laws against the Manichaeans. But at
first these bore little fruit. The "Auditores" were difficult to
detect, and really gave slight occasion for a persecution. In
Rome itself the doctrine had a large following, especially among
the scholarsand professors, between A.D. 370 and 440, and
it made its way among the mass of the people by means of a
popular literature, in which even the Apostles played a promin-

ent part ("Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles"). Manichasism
also experienced attempts at reform in tlie West ; but we Itnow

little about them. Leo the Great, in alliance with the civil
power, was the first to adopt active measures against Mani-
chseism. Valentinian III. sentenced its adherents to banishment,
Justinian made the penalty death. It seems to have been
extinguished in North Africa by the persecution of the Vandals.
It really died out nowhere else, either in the Byzantine Empire,
or in the West; for it gave an impulse to the formation of

new which were allied to it in the early part of the
sects
Middle Ages. If it has not been proved that the Spanish
Priscillians had been already influenced by Manichasism in the
fourth century, still it is undoubted that the Paulicians and
Bogomilians, as well as the Cathari, are to be traced back to
it (and Marcionitism). Thus, if not the system of Mani the
Persian, yet Manichasism modified by Christianity accompanied
the Catholic Church of the West on into the thirteenth century.
Literature. —
Beausobre, Hist, critique de Manichee et du
Manicheisme, 2 vols. 1734 sq. Too great prominence is given
in this work to the Christian elements in Manichaeism. Baur,
Das manichaische Religionssystem, 1831. Manichaean specu-
lation is here presented speculatively. Mani, 1862; an
Fliigel,
investigation based on the Fihrist. Kessler, Unters. z. Genesis

des manich. Religionssystems, 1876; by the same author,
"Mani, Manichaer" in the R.-Encykl. f. protest Theol. u. Kirche,
2 Ed., Vol. IX., p. 223 — 259; the account given above is based
in several expositions on this article.
of its Kessler has since
published a work, " Mani, Forschungen iiber die manich. Relig.
Ein Beitrag z. vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte des Orients.
I. Bd. Voruntersuchungen und Quellen, 1889;" see on this
the acute reviews of Rahlfs (Gott Gel. Anz. 1889, No. 23),
Noldeke (Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. Vol. XLIII.,
p. 535 ff.) and August Miiller (Theol. Lit.-Ztg., 1890, No. 4).
The older accounts may be mentioned of Mosheim, Lardner,
Walch, and Schrockh, as also the monograph of Trechsel,
Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der Manichaer, 1832, and
A. Newmann's Introductory Essay on the Manichaean heresy, 1887.
fEB r;'i^09

History of Dogma V III 3rd Ed.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Dogma V III 3rd Ed.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 V III 3rd Ed.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

^mull Wimvmii^ J

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 1924 092 343 890

tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in

the United States on the use of the text.

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. III.

Dr. ADOLPH HARNACK

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN

JAMES MILLAR, B.D.

LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE

The first chapter in this vohime forms the conckiding chapter of

Dogma, and gives a uniform impress to the accounts of Protestants

the exposition which it originally demanded. In the fifth century, or

contact' with ancient science, i.e., scholasticism.

1 Vide pp. 167 ff. of this volume.

The account of these conditions demanded a more minute discussion

the present position of Protestantism, the most important discipline for

the most critical questions, helplessly at the mercy of the authorities

terestjwhich attaches to that of its genesis. When we return from the

remnant of the same conditions which belonged to those times. But

reviewed in this book more universally than I have done. My chief

as any similar problem which isolates a single object from Universal

remain more or less subjective. Thus I have limited myself to a few

would demand to be read connectedly; for a work on the history of

Marburg, 14 June, 1887.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

Significance of the Logos Doctrine 2

and his party, Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollo-

1 Vide Editor's Preface to ihLs volume.

the History of Philosophical Christology and Theo-

Irenseus with that of Origen Methodius

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA.

§ 2. Moral and Rational element in System of Doctrine.

using them; Untruthfulness and for-

Realism and Spirituahsm Obscuration ;

of idea of Judgment 186

tion and the Church 191—239

View of innovations in the Church .... 228 ...

Reasons for considering the Church: predominance of

Appendix on Manichaeism . . . . .316

THE DECISIVE SUCCESS OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION IN THE

From the great work of Irenaeus and the anti-gnostic writings

of God the Creator, the real body of Christ, the resurrection

See Domer, Entw.-Gesch. d. Lelire v. d. Person Christi, I Thl. 1845; Lange,

In the rule of faith, De virg., vel. I, there is no statement as to the pre-existence

of the Son of God.

2 By Neo-platonic philosophy we,of course, do not here mean Neo-platonism,

platonism by Philo, Valentinus, Numenius, and others.

loftiest contents of its creed in formulas which must remain

moral and they are dependent on the theologians, who,

as professors of the mysterious, alone understand and are cap-

and prescribed duties, in determining the religious life of the

matters arose, there made its appearance only an expedient of

which the steps of the long ladders constructed by theology

by the Church to this unified differentiation. It, in fact, could

th e confidence with which first the Apologists identified the