idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human
natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of
redemption, that "_Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos
perficeret esse quod et ipse_"[608] ("Jesus Christ became what we are in
order that we might become what he himself is"). But, in accordance with
the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the "factus est quod sumus
nos" in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ,
as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive
the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he
not only regards Jesus Christ as "salvation and saviour and saving"
("salus et salvator et salutare"),[609] but he also views his whole life
as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception
and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This
is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists.
Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance
almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an
independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the
influence of "Gnosis," nay, in many places he uses the same expressions
as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand,
in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the
other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.[610] But he is
distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the
personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ's
work not to the "pneumatic" _ipso facto_, but in principle to all men,
though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour's words and
adorn themselves with works of righteousness.[611] Irenæus presented
this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as the
realisation of man's original destiny, that is, being in communion with
God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views
it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam's disobedience, and
therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the
devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all
these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the _person_ of Christ. Here,
at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical
passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these
considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him.
How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown
by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to
why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the articles that
are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith
(I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint
according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal
confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the
resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely
confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and
its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature
of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man,
thus solving the question "cur deus homo" in the highest sense.[612]
Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ's real work of
salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to
amalgamate the two propositions, "_filius dei filius hominis factus est
propter nos_" ("the Son of God became Son of man for us") and "filius
dei passus est propter nos" ("the Son of God suffered for us") as the
most vital ones. He did not, however, clearly show which of these
doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is
already involved in the same ambiguity as was destined to be the
permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ's work in
succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the
emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result
of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh,
but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already
involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus
contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors,
because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he
was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far
as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only
from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also
from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil.
For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating
counterpart of Adam's birth from the virgin earth, and as the obedience
of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve's disobedience, so the
story of Jesus' temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of
the story of Adam's temptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the
temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption
of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But,
whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no
injustice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by
which Jesus resisted Satan's temptation.[613] As yet Irenæus is quite as
free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is
from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an
act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his
teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the
_death_ of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid
to the "apostasy" for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not,
however, develop this thought any further.[614]
His idea of the _reconciliation_ of God is just as rudimentary, and
merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of
reconciliation solely in obedience and in the "righteous flesh" as such,
at other times in the "wood." Here also the recapitulation theory again
appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God,
and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.[615] But teachings
as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in
Irenæus, and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a
sacrifice offered to God.[616] According to this author the
reconciliation virtually consists in Christ's restoring man to communion
and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very
seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam's sin (V. 16. 3). But
the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the
redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an _abolition_ of sin. He
connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and
rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the
_consequences_ of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.[617]
Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ's work which
makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this
connection Irenæus employed the following categories: _restoring of the
likeness of God in humanity_; _abolition of death_; _connection and
union of man with God_; _adoption of men as sons of God and as gods_;
_imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with
men_;[618] _imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding
him_; _bestowal of everlasting life_. All these are only the different
aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order,
could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself.
But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a
reconciling but a perfecting work, his _acts_ are thrust more into the
background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man.
Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as
regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so
far as they "according to their virtue in their generation have not only
feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards
their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his
voice."[619] Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately joined by him into
a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself
is.[620] This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have
attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting
life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled.
In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis,
we again find the same aspects of Christ's work as in Irenæus, only with
them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.[621]
Nevertheless the _eschatology_ as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book
by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a
restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of
antiquity directly opposed to the speculative interpretation of
redemption, but protected by the _regula fidei_, the New Testament,
especially Revelation, and the material hopes of the great majority of
Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus
merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still
found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by
the Gnostics and guaranteed by the _regula_ and the New Testament.[622]
The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian,
Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than
did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.[623] But this is the
clearest proof that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their
theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional
faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The
Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow the
Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed
believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a
quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate God, has
already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge
and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that
the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any
other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely
hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the
old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold
conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the
Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and
the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that
the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the
oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as
we find in Irenæus and Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity
of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the
warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in
Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt
that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the
Gnostics lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis
of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers possible and necessary.
For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a
religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its
richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be
accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers
possessed--the church system itself.
As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set
forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the
returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West
during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from
Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not
seriously differ from the Gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of
Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to
refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.[624] There is no need to show in
detail that chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as
much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as
this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an
earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to
what extent the two have been blended, and how the chiliastic scheme of
history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of
theological apologetics.
But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even
in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an
earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.),
Tertullian, and Hippolytus[625] expressly argued against these. Soon
after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical
party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also
rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected
it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi.[626] But in the
second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church.
It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost
completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic
controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was
only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm
and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius.
But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops
of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and
extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII.
24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father's
struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up
chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever
philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes
were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but
were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.[627] Cultured
theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious
philosophy; but the "simplices et idiotæ" could only understand the
former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in
exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised,
so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity.
The religion they understood was taken from them, and they received in
return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith
and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the _authority_ of a
mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or
decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of
Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith
in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the
prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom.
Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless
fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to
dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained
their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there
who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved a
portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects
far beyond the time of Augustine.
Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the
Old Testament which the creation of the New produced among the
early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we
became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented
it as the Christian book of revelation and accordingly subjected it
throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new
could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed
to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old
Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to
the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics
occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished
different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to
the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent
beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old
Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the
latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception,
such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could
not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and
endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find
in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a
distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the
Old Testament--the Decalogue--and the ceremonial law; and in so far as
the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic
significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or
Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to
do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people,
and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression
to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the _new_ law
or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been
restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a
particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation,
though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial
regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel,
partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to
protect them from the worst evil, polytheism.
Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a
New Testament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the
proposition that the "Father of Jesus Christ is the creator of the world
and the God of the Old Testament" required the strictest adherence to
the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view
of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the
other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible
to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus
the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out by the
Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and
demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the
solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it
has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present
time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still
continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament
as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating
the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial
law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with
God.
With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of
the two Testaments, Irenæus and Tertullian gave a most detailed
demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,[628] and primarily indeed
with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ
that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder
who produced both Old and New Testaments.[629] Moreover, as the two have
the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early
Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a
typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from
the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the
Old Testament the watchword is: "Seek the type" ("Typum quæras").[630]
But they went a step further still. In opposition to Marcion's
antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a
petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to
show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV.
21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward
and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and
Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position
against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the
first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an
enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid
the "Jewish" conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example,
emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament
law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete
proof that they did not separate the Old Testament God from the
Christian Deity.[631] In connection with this we observe that the
radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus
and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God
and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was
justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right
doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These
thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their
works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In
the second place the Church itself had become an institution where
sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a
basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments
(see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in
its most rudimentary form;[632] but in the course of the third century
these needs grew mightily[633] and were satisfied. In this way the Old
Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the
Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than
was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists.
With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the
decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of
the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the
Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust
back by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this
consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was
henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development
in the Church ends with the _complexus oppositorum_, which nowhere
allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage
of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic
Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as
the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest
theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the
thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of
the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of
the ceremonial law and God's covenant with the Jews; and they sought to
sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of
salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of
salvation which contained the conception of a divine _accommodation and
pedagogy_, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts
of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great
result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian.
It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;[634]
and thus appears as something intermediate between the Valentinian
conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and
the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book
nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore
justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church,
as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullian
generally, as a Gnosis "toned down" and reconciled with Monotheism. This
is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines
forth from this "history of salvation" as a remnant of that bright light
which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old
Testament.[635] Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made
beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is
mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the
recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated
with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but
ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is
development and history.
The fundamental features of Irenæus' conception are as follow: The
Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated
from one and the same God, _and were granted for the salvation of the
human race in a form appropriate to the times_.[636] The two are in part
different; but the difference must be conceived as due to causes[637]
that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.[638]
We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of
departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God;
God is always the giver, man always the receiver;[639] God leads us ever
to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is
destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step,
advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.).
This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is,
however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in
the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal
of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the
many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by
the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity,
accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing
revelations of grace.[640] The fundamental knowledge of God and the
moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to
man and placed in his heart[641] by the creator. He who preserves these,
as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenæus
leaves Adam's sin entirely out of sight). But it was God's will to bring
men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men
from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The
patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their
neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with
the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the
law in themselves.[642] But, as far as the great majority of men are
concerned, they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest
condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old
Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These are to
him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the
training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish
_nation_ that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very
decidedly from such as Barnabas.[643] When righteousness and love to God
died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again
become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the
Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature
that had fallen into oblivion.[644] But when they made to themselves a
golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word,
through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular
addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form
suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage
which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The
ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from
idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each
constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and
both of these meanings originate with God, i.e., with Christ; for "how
is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?"
("quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset") IV. 12.
4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only
entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as
Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise
itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related
of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the
state of bondage in which men had a _covenant_ with God and in which
they also possessed the right faith in the one God and were taught
before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; "lex prædocuit hominem sequi
oportere Christum"). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested
himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated
the future and prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son
of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have
fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to
enter bodily into humanity.[645] Hereupon began the last stage, in which
men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the "testamentum
libertatis" and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of
God with the flesh the _agnitio filii_ first became possible to all;
that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law
of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place
the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the
"traditio seniorum". First of all then the pure moral law had to be
restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by
expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus
unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the _particularia
legis_, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter
connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every
transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also
had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted
to the Gentile Christians. Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of
the law, but only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and
restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us
himself.
The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old
is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following manner. It consists
(1) in the _agnitio filii_ and consequent transformation of the slaves
into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a
law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with
stricter interpretation lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the
heart.[646] But in these two respects he finds a real addition, and
hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He
proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising
interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that
passage to be those of the Old Testament.[647] He therefore views the
two Testaments as of the same nature, but "greater is the legislation
which confers liberty than that which brings bondage" ("maior est
legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem"). Through
the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened
"for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man
are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few;" ("una
est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa
et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum"). A worldly king can
increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful
for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with
greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus
makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish
people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the
appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear any
further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the
Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ's earthly
kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had
represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had
been Jews, now entirely disappears.[648]
This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense
impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It
has, however, been modified by a combination with the Augustinian
doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul's conception, to
which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already
adopted it in its essential features, amplified it in some points, and,
in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth
stage (ab initio--Moses--Christ--Paraclete). But this addition was not
accepted by the Church.[649]
3. _Results to ecclesiastical Christianity._
As we have shown, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus had no strictly
systematised theology; they formulated theological propositions because
their opponents were theologians. Hence the result of their labours, so
far as this was accepted by the Western Church of the third century,
does not appear in the adoption of a systematic philosophical dogmatic,
but in theological fragments, namely, the rule of faith fixed and
interpreted in an antignostic sense[650]. As yet the rule of faith and
theology nowhere came into collision in the Western Churches of the
third century, because Irenæus and his younger contemporaries did not
themselves notice any such discrepancies, but rather imagined all their
teachings to be expositions of the faith itself, and did not trouble
their heads about inconsistencies. If we wish to form a notion as to
what ideas had become universally prevalent in the Church in the middle
of the third century let us compare Cyprian's work "Testimonia", written
for a layman, with Novatian's work "De Trinitate".
In the "Testimonia" the doctrine of the two Testaments, as developed by
Irenæus, forms the framework in which the individual dogmas are set. The
doctrine of God, which should have been placed at the beginning, has
been left out in this little book probably because the person addressed
required no instruction on the point. Some of the dogmas already belong
to philosophical theology in the strict sense of the word; in others we
have merely a precise assertion of the truth of certain facts. All
propositions are, however, supported by passages from the two Testaments
and thereby proved.[651] The theological counterpart to this is
Novatian's work "De Trinitate". This first great Latin work that
appeared in Rome is highly important. In regard to completeness, extent
of Biblical proofs, and perhaps also its influence on succeeding times,
it may in many respects be compared with Origen's work [Greek: peri
archôn]. Otherwise indeed it differs as much from that work, as the
sober, meagre theology of the West, devoid of philosophy and
speculation, differs in general from that of the East. But it sums up in
classic fashion the doctrines of Western orthodoxy, the main features of
which were sketched by Tertullian in his antignostic writings and the
work against Praxeas. The old Roman symbol forms the basis of the work.
In accordance with this the author gives a comprehensive exposition of
his doctrine of God in the first eight chapters. Chapters 9-28 form the
main portion; they establish the correct Christology in opposition to
the heretics who look on Christ as a mere man or as the Father himself;
the Holy Scriptures furnish the material for the proofs. Chapter 29
treats of the Holy Spirit. Chapters 30 and 31 contain the recapitulation
and conclusion. The whole is based on Tertullian's treatise against
Praxeas. No important argument in that work has escaped Novatian; but
everything is extended, and made more systematic and polished. No trace
of Platonism is to be found in this dogmatic; on the contrary he employs
the Stoic and Aristotelian syllogistic and dialectic method used also by
his Monarchian opponents. This plan together with its Biblical attitude
gives the work great outward completeness and certainty. We cannot help
concluding that this work must have made a deep impression wherever it
was read, although the real difficulties of the matter are not at all
touched upon, but veiled by distinctions and formulæ. It probably
contributed not least to make Tertullian's type of Christology the
universal Western one. This type, however, as will be set forth in
greater detail hereafter, already approximates closely to the
resolutions of Nicæa and Chalcedon.[652] Novatian adopted Tertullian's
formulæ "one substance, three persons" ("una substantia, tres personæ"),
"from the substance of God" ("ex substantia dei"), "always with the
Father" ("semper apud patrem"), "God and man" ("deus et homo"), "two
substances" ("duæ substantiæ"), "one person" ("una persona"), as well as
his expressions for the union and separation of the two natures adding
to them similar ones and giving them a wider extension.[653] Taking his
book in all we may see that he thereby created for the West a dogmatic
_vademecum_, which, from its copious and well-selected quotations from
Scripture, must have been of extraordinary service.
The most important articles which were now fixed and transferred to the
general creed along with the necessary proofs, especially in the West,
were: (1) the unity of God, (2) the identity of the supreme God and the
creator of the world, that is, the identity of the mediators of creation
and redemption, (3) the identity of the supreme God with the God of the
Old Testament, and the declaration that the Old Testament is God's book
of revelation, (4) the creation of the world out of nothing, (5) the
unity of the human race, (6) the origin of evil from freedom, and the
inalienable nature of freedom, (7) the two Testaments, (8) Christ as God
and Man, the unity of his personality, the truth of his divinity, the
actuality of his humanity, the reality of his fate, (9) the redemption
and conclusion of a covenant through Christ as the new and crowning
manifestation of God's grace to all men, (10) the resurrection of man in
soul and body. But the transmission and interpretation of these
propositions, by means of which the Gnostic theses were overthrown,
necessarily involved the transmission of the Logos doctrine; for the
doctrine of the revelation of God and of the two Testaments could not
have prevailed without this theory. How this hypothesis gained
acceptance in the course of the third century, and how it was the means
of establishing and legitimising philosophical theology as part of the
faith, will be shown in the seventh chapter. We may remark in conclusion
that the religious hope which looked forward to an earthly kingdom of
Christ was still the more widely diffused among the Churches of the
third century;[654] but that the other hope, viz., that of being
deified, was gaining adherents more and more. The latter result was due
to men's increasing indifference to daily life and growing aspiration
after a higher one, a longing that was moreover nourished among the more
cultured by the philosophy which was steadily gaining ground. The hope
of deification is the expression of the idea that this world and human
nature do not correspond to that exalted world which man has built up
within his own mind and which he may reasonably demand to be realised,
because it is only in it that he can come to himself. The fact that
Christian teachers like Theophilus, Irenæus, and Hippolytus expressly
declared this to be a legitimate Christian hope and held out a sure
prospect of its fulfilment through Christ, must have given the greatest
impulse to the spread and adoption of this ecclesiastical Christianity.
But, when the Christian religion was represented as the belief in the
incarnation of God and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a
speculation that had originally never got beyond the fringe of religious
knowledge was made the central point of the system and the simple
content of the Gospel was obscured.[655]
Footnotes:
[Footnote 460: Authorities: The works of Irenæus (Stieren's and Harvey's
editions), Melito (Otto, Corp. Apol. IX.), Tertullian (Oehler's and
Reiflerscheid's editions), Hippolytus (Fabricius', Lagarde's, Duncker's
and Schneidewin's editions), Cyprian (Hartel's edition), Novatian
(Jackson). Biographies of Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen,
1873 ff. Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenäus, 1889. Nöldechen,
Tertullian, 1890. Döllinger, "Hippolytus und Kallistus," 1853. Many
monographs on Irenæus and Tertullian.]
[Footnote 461: The following exposition will show how much Irenæus and
the later old Catholic teachers learned from the Gnostics. As a matter
of fact the theology of Irenæus remains a riddle so long as we try to
explain it merely from the Apologists and only consider its antithetical
relations to Gnosis. Little as we can understand modern orthodox
theology from a historical point of view--if the comparison be here
allowed--without keeping in mind what it has adopted from Schleiermacher
and Hegel, we can just as little understand the theology of Irenæus
without taking into account the schools of Valentinus and Marcion.]
[Footnote 462: That Melito is to be named here follows both from
Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 5, and still more plainly from what we know of
the writings of this bishop; see Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 1, 2, p. 24 ff. The polemic
writings of Justin and the Antignostic treatise of that "ancient" quoted
by Irenæus (see Patr. App. Opp. ed. Gebhardt etc. I. 2, p. 105 sq.) may
in a certain sense be viewed as the precursors of Catholic literature.
We have no material for judging of them with certainty. The New
Testament was not yet at the disposal of their authors, and consequently
there is a gap between them and Irenæus.]
[Footnote 463: See Eusebius, H. E. V. 13.]
[Footnote 464: Tertullian does indeed say in de præscr. 14: "Ceterum
manente forma regulæ fidei in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras, et trades,
et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel
ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari"; but the preceding
exposition of the _regula_ shows that scarcely any scope remained for
the "curiositas," and the one that follows proves that Tertullian did
not mean that freedom seriously.]
[Footnote 465: The most important point was that the Pauline theology,
towards which Gnostics, Marcionites, and Encratites had already taken up
a definite attitude, could now no longer be ignored. See Overbeck's
Basler Univ.--Programm, 1877. Irenæus immediately shows the influence of
Paulinism very clearly.]
[Footnote 466: See what Rhodon says about the issue of his conversation
with Appelles in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 7: [Greek: egô de gelasas kategnôn
autou, dioti dedaskalos einai legôn oun êdei to didaskomenon hup' autou
kratunein].]
[Footnote 467: On the old "prophets and teachers" see my remarks on the
[Greek: Didachê], c. 11 ff., and the section, pp. 93-137, of the
prolegomena to my edition of this work. The [Greek: didaskaloi
apostolikoi kai prophêtikoi] (Ep. Smyrn. ap. Euseb., H. E. IV. 15. 39)
became lay-teachers who were skilful in the interpretation of the sacred
traditions.]
[Footnote 468: In the case of Irenæus, as is well known, there was
absolutely no consciousness of this, as is well remarked by Eusebius in
H. E. V. 7. In support of his own writings, however, Irenæus appealed to
no charisms.]
[Footnote 469: See the passage already quoted on p. 63, note 1.]
[Footnote 470: Irenæus and Tertullian scoffed at the Gnostic terminology
in the most bitter way.]
[Footnote 471: Tertullian, adv. Prax. 3: "Simplices enim quique, ne
dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ, quæ major semper credentium pars est,
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis sæculi ad unicum et verum
deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua [Greek:
oikonomia] esse credendum, expavescunt ad [Greek: oikonomian]." Similar
remarks often occur in Origen. See also Hippol., c. Noet 11.]
[Footnote 472: The danger of speculation and of the desire to know
everything was impressively emphasised by Irenæus, II. 25-28. As a
pronounced ecclesiastical positivist and traditionalist, he seems in
these chapters disposed to admit nothing but obedient and acquiescent
faith in the words of Holy Scripture, and even to reject speculations
like those of Tatian, Orat. 5. Cf. the disquisitions II. 25. 3: "Si
autem et aliquis non invenerit causam omnium quæ requiruntur, cogitet,
quia homo est in infinitum minor deo et qui ex parte (cf. II. 28.)
acceperit gratiam et qui nondum æqualis vel similis sit factori"; II.
26. 1: [Greek: Ameinon kai symphorôteron idiôtas kai oligomatheis
huparchein, kai dia tês agapês plêsion genesthai tou Theou ê polymatheis
kai empeirous dokountas einai, blasphêmous eis ton heautôn heuriskesthai
despotên], and in addition to this the close of the paragraph, II. 27.
1: Concerning the sphere within which we are to search (the Holy
Scriptures and "quæ ante oculos nostros occurrunt", much remains dark to
us even in the Holy Scriptures II. 28. 3); II. 28. 1 f. on the canon
which is to be observed in all investigations, namely, the confident
faith in God the creator, as the supreme and only Deity; II. 28. 2-7:
specification of the great problems whose solution is hid from us, viz.,
the elementary natural phenomena, the relation of the Son to the Father,
that is, the manner in which the Son was begotten, the way in which
matter was created, the cause of evil. In opposition to the claim to
absolute knowledge, i.e., to the complete discovery of all the processes
of causation, which Irenæus too alone regards as knowledge, he indeed
pointed out the limits of our perception, supporting his statement by
Bible passages. But the ground of these limits, "ex parte accepimus
gratiam," is not an early-Christian one, and it shows at the same time
that the bishop also viewed knowledge as the goal, though indeed he
thought it could not be attained on earth.]
[Footnote 473: The same observation applies to Tertullian, Cf. his point
blank repudiation of philosophy in de præse. 7, and the use he himself
nevertheless made of it everywhere.]
[Footnote 474: In point of form this standpoint is distinguished from
the ordinary Gnostic position by its renunciation of absolute knowledge,
and by its corresponding lack of systematic completeness. That, however,
is an important distinction in favour of the Catholic Fathers. According
to what has been set forth in the text I cannot agree with Zahn's
judgment (Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 235 f.): "Irenæus is the first
ecclesiastical teacher who has grasped the idea of an independent
science of Christianity, of a theology which, in spite of its width and
magnitude, is a branch of knowledge distinguished from others; and was
also the first to mark out the paths of this science."]
[Footnote 475: Tertullian seems even to have had no great appreciation
for the degree of systematic exactness displayed in the disquisitions of
Irenæus. He did not reproduce these arguments at least, but preferred
after considering them to fall back on the proof from prescription.]
[Footnote 476: The more closely we study the writings of Tertullian, the
more frequently we meet with inconsistencies, and that in his treatment
both of dogmatic and moral questions. Such inconsistencies could not but
make their appearance, because Tertullian's dogmatising was only
incidental. As far as he himself was concerned, he did not feel the
slightest necessity for a systematic presentation of Christianity.]
[Footnote 477: With reference to certain articles of doctrine, however,
Tertullian adopted from Irenæus some guiding principles and some points
of view arising from the nature of faith; but he almost everywhere
changed them for the worse. The fact that he was capable of writing a
treatise like the de præscr. hæret., in which all proof of the intrinsic
necessity and of the connection of his dogmas is wanting, shows the
limits of his interests and of his understanding.]
[Footnote 478: Further references to Tertullian in a future volume.
Tertullian is at the same time the first Christian _individual_ after
Paul, of whose inward life and peculiarities we can form a picture to
ourselves. His writings bring us near himself, but that cannot be said
of Irenæus.]
[Footnote 479: Consequently the _spirit_ of Irenæus, though indeed
strongly modified by that of Origen, prevails in the later Church
dogmatic, whilst that of Tertullian is not to be traced there.]
[Footnote 480: The supreme God is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the
identity of the creator of the world and the supreme God also denotes
the unity of nature, morality, and revelation.]
[Footnote 481: What success the early-Christian writings of the second
century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justified in
saying that the five books "adv. hæreses" of Irenæus were successful,
for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects
it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra,
Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is
well known, we no longer possess a Greek manuscript, although it can be
proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and
was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially
the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in
later times (on the Latin Irenæus cf. the exhaustive examination of
Loof: "The Manuscripts of the Latin translation of Irenæus", in the
"Studies of Church History" dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic
works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus,
Modestus, Musanus, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others
have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this
kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of
Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian's Christology
was subjected by Arethas in the 10th century (Oratio 5; see my Texte und
Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment passed
on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect
that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted
by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of
that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible
for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the
effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work
of Irenæus.]
[Footnote 482: People are fond of speaking of the "Asia Minor" theology
of Irenæus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the
presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete,
though not without hesitation, the equation: John--Irenæus. By this
speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic
doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and
Gnosticism and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following
arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp
by no means gives countenance to the supposition that Irenæus learned
more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church
tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2)
The doctrine of Irenæus cannot be separated from the received _canon_ of
New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as
yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenæus adopted
important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the
middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric
theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenæus (and Melito?).]
[Footnote 483: Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his
depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the
redemption through Christ a pure act of grace.]
[Footnote 484: See Molwitz, De [Greek: Anakephalaiôseôs] in Irenæi
theologia potestate, Dresden, 1874.]
[Footnote 485: See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the
Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.]
[Footnote 486: But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might
without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the
preservation of Justin's chief Antignostic work.]
[Footnote 487: According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely
restores the _status quo ante_, according to that of Irenæus he first
and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity.]
[Footnote 488: According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of
the divine, i.e., the fall of _Sophia_, contains, paradoxically
expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenæus' idea the element of
redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the
Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenæus himself did so in
II. 20. 3.]
[Footnote 489: After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic
theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenæus continues § 7: "Dicemus
autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui prædicti sunt, cum quibus eadem
dicentes arguimini (Scil. "ye Gnostics with the philosophers"),
cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt,
superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege "ad") quid
enim descendebat?" It is characteristic of Irenæus not to ask what is
new in the revelations of God (through the prophets and the Logos), but
quite definitely: "Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?" See also lib.
III. præf.: "veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina", III. 10. 3: "Hæc est
salutis agnitio quæ deerat eis, quæ est filii del agnitio ... agnitio
salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare
vere et dicitur et est." III. 11. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.]
[Footnote 490: See II. 24. 3, 4: "Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra
natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur." Cf. what follows.
Irenæus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the
flesh is _capax incorruptibilitatis_, and likewise that immortality is
at once a free gift and the realisation of man's destiny.]
[Footnote 491: Book V. pref.: "Iesus Christus propter immensam suam
dilectionem factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et
ipse": III. 6. I: "Deus stetit in synagoga deorum ... de patre et filio
et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia.
Hæc enim est synagoga dei," etc.; see also what follows III. 16. 3:
"Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus
portante homine et capiente et compleciente filium dei." III. 16. 6:
"Dei verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et
consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse
est Iesus Christus dominus noster ... unus Iesus Christus, veniens per
universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus
autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum
recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis
factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo,
universa in semetipsum recapitulans ... in semetipsum primatum
assumens,.. universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore." III. 18.
1: "Quando incarnatus est filius homo et homo factus longam hominum
expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem
præstans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et
similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus." Cf. the whole
18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the
death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation;
see especially 18. 6, 7: "[Greek: Ênôsen oun ton anthrôpon tô Theô. Ei
gar mê anthrôpos enikêsen tên antipalon tou anthrôpou, ouk an dikaiôs
enikêthê ho echthros. Palin te, ei mê ho Theos edôrêsato tên sôtêrian,
ouk an bebaiôs eschomen autên. Kai ei mê sunênôthê ho anthrôpos tô Theô,
ouk an êdunêthê metaschein tês aphtharsias. Edei gar ton mesitên Theou
te kai anthrôpôn dia tês idias pros hekaterous oikeiotêtos eis philian
kai homonoian tous amphoterous sunagôgein; kai Theô men parastêsai ton
antrôpon anthrôpois de gnôrisai ton Theon.] Qua enim ratione filiorum
adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quæ est ad
ipsura recepissemus ab eo communionem, nisi verbum eius communicasset
nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit ætatem, omnibus
restituens eam quæ est ad deum communionem." The Pauline ideas about
sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenæus in what follows. The
disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea.
In cap. 19 Irenæus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man,
"perseverantes in servitute pristinæ inobedientiæ moriuntur, nondum
commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem ...
privantur munere eius, quod est vita æsterna: non recipientes autem
verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores
mortis, antidotum vitæ non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus
gratiæ? narrans: [Greek: Egô eipa, huioi hupsistou este pantes kai
theoi; humeis de hôs anthrôpoi apothnêskete. Tauta legei pros tous mê
dexamenous tên dôrean tês huiothesias, all' atimazontas tên sarkôsin tês
katharas gennêseôs tou logou tou Theou ... Eis touto gar ho logos
anthrôpos] et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, [Greek: hina
ho anthrôpos ton logon chôrêsas kai tên huiothesian labôn huios genêtai
Theou]. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem
percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelæ et immortalitati.
Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelæ et immortalitati, nisi
prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut
absorbet*etur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat
mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?" III. 21.
10: [Greek: Ei toinun ho prôtos Adam esche patera anthrôpon kai ek
spermatos egennêthê, eikos ên kai deuteron Adam legein ex Iôsêph
gegennêsthai. Ei de ekeinos ek gês elêphthê, plastês de autou ho Theos,
edei kai ton anakephalaioumenon eis auton hupo tou Theou peplasmenon
anthrôpon tên autên ekeinô tês gennêseôs echein homoiotêta. Eis ti oun
palin ouk elabe choun ho Theos, all' ek Marias enêrgêse tên plasin
genesthai. Hina mê allê plasis genêtai mêde allo to sôzomenon ê, all'
autos ekeinos anakephalaiôthê têroumenês tês homoiotêtos]; III. 23. 1:
IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought
Irenæus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see
especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to
Tatian's views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two
reasons. In the first place, as regards the history, of Jesus, he has
been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work
of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ
(See II. 20. 3: "dominus per passionem mortem destruxit et solvit
errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam
autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit";
III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other passages), that is, to regard
Christ as having performed a _work_. Secondly, alongside of the
deification of Adam's children, viewed as a mechanical result of the
incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that
Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has
restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by
which he means fellowship with God) therefore takes place only in the
case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by
Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: "Non enim
aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum
exsistens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alias poterat enarrare nobis,
quæ sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verbum ... Neque rursus nos aliter
discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum
nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores
autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso", and many
other passages). We find a combined formula in III. 5. 3: "Christus
libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelæ
hæreditatem."]
[Footnote 492: Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17
ff.]
[Footnote 493: Melito's teaching must have been similar. In a fragment
attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.)
we even find the expression "[Greek: hai duo ousiai Christou]". The
genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without
grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in
Irenæus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419)
shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ.]
[Footnote 494: The conception of the stage by stage development of the
economy of God and the corresponding idea of "several covenants" (I. 10.
3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which
the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the
example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite
plain. For details see below.]
[Footnote 495: It would seem from some passages as if faith and
theological knowledge were according to Irenæus simply related as the
"is" and the "why." As a matter of fact, he did express himself so
without being really able to maintain the relationship thus fixed; for
faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason
and aim of God's ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are
therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenæus merely
sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it
in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to
heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge,
contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a
monistic speculation.]
[Footnote 496: See 1. 10. 2: [Greek: Kai oute ho panu dunatos en logô
tôn en tais ekklêsiais proestôtôn toutôn] (scil. than the regula sidei)
[Greek: epei oudeis gar uper ton didaskalon oute ho asthenês en tô logô
elattôsei tên paradosin. Mias gar kai tês autês pisteôs ousês oute ho
polu peri autês dunamenos eipein epleonasen, oute ho to oligon
êlattonêse].]
[Footnote 497: See Bohringer's careful reviews of the theology of
Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st
section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739).]
[Footnote 498: To the proof from prescription belong the arguments
derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic
doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original
source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog.
47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus'
criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus,
Leipzig, 1891. p. 8 ff.]
[Footnote 499: See Irenæus II. 1. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc.
I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar,
nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15.]
[Footnote 500: See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very
appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as "personales substantias
extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut
sensus et affectus motus incluserat."]
[Footnote 501: See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book,
Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still
treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22
following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical
foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised
several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in
later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. "Quæritur quemadmodum
emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a
sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum
separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo ...
Aut secundum germinationem, quemabmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem
substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam
substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut
eiusdem temporis essent sibi?... Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes
et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina
emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes"? See also II. 17. 4: "Si autem
velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt... velut verbi gratia a facula
faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem;
eiusdem autem substantive cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut
omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit
passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen
habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit." Here we have already a statement
of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the
Arian doctrine.]
[Footnote 502: See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18.]
[Footnote 503: See Iren. II. 4. 2.]
[Footnote 504: Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv.
Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as
a creator. In opposition to Marcion's rejection of all natural theology,
he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In
this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same
time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of
the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections
to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how
untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The
doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge
is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created
against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the
imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational
arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable
(II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal
matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog.]
[Footnote 505: But this very method of argument was without doubt
specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone
of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end
of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII., p. 113 ff.]
[Footnote 506: See his arguments that the Gnostics merely _assert_ that
they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III.
16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 507: See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39,
adv. Valent. passim.]
[Footnote 508: See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14,
19: V. 1.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655: Comm. in
ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius,
De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817.]
[Footnote 509: For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic
disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: "Ego non ad scripturas
provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut milla
aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa."]
[Footnote 510: See Iren., III. 5. 1: III. 12. 6.]
[Footnote 511: See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr.
25: "Scripturæ quidem perfectæ sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius
dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et
spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia niysteriorum eius indigenus."]
[Footnote 512: See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus
also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was
inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the
Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of
the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The
Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these
critical principles.]
[Footnote 513: See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2.]
[Footnote 514: See Iren. II. 25. I.]
[Footnote 515: Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter
when he says (IV. 31. 1): "De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ
scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare
eis ... de quibus autem scripturæ non inciepant (scil. delictis), sed
simpliciter sunt positæ, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum
quærere."]
[Footnote 516: See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies
whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son. and Spirit.]
[Footnote 517: See Iren. IV. 22. 1.]
[Footnote 518: See Iren. III. 17. 3.]
[Footnote 519: Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the
Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian
speaks of two _proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ_ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6.
But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete
theories of inspiration.]
[Footnote 520: See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c.]
[Footnote 521: See Iren, II. 26. 1, 13. 4: "Sic et in reliquis omnibus
nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem
secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum
magnitudinem." Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as
regards his greatness, i.e. absolutely, but that he can be known as
regards his love, IV. 20. 1: "Igitur secundum magnitudem non est
cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem
dilectionem eius--hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad
deum--obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc."; in
IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God "secundum dilectionem" is more closely
defined by the words "per verbum eius Iesum Christum." The statements in
§§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart
will see God. God's omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of
man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is
revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of
perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: [Greek: hôsper hoi
blepontes to phôs entos eisi tou phôtos kai tês lamprotêtos autou
metechousin, houtôs hoi blepontes ton Theon entos eisi tou Theou,
metechontes autou tês lamprotêtos. Kai dia touto ho achôrêtos kai
akatalêptos kai aoratos horômenon heauton ... tois pistois pareschen,
hina zôopoiêsê tous chôrountas kai blepontas auton dia pisteôs]. See
also what follows down to the words: [Greek: metochê Theou esti to
ginôskein Theon kai apolauein tês chrêstotêtos autou], et homines igitur
videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes
usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised
by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain.]
[Footnote 522: See Iren., IV. 6. 4: [Greek: Edidaxen hêmas ho kurios,
hoti Theon eidenai oudeis dunatai, mê ouchi Theou didaxantos, toutestin,
aneu Theou mê ginôskesthai ton Theon; auto de to ginôskesthai ton Theon
thelêma einai tou patros, Gnôsontai gar auton hois an apokalupsê ho
huios].]
[Footnote 523: Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: "Providentiam
habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans
adest his, qui morum providentiam habent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ
providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non
sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de
providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris
ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum
coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi
sunt, ut dicererit fabricatorem huiuss universitatis patrem omnium
providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum." Tertull., de testim.
animæ; Apolog. 17.]
[Footnote 524: See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II.]
[Footnote 525: See Iren., V. 26. 2.]
[Footnote 526: See Iren., II. 1. I and the Hymn II. 30. 9.]
[Footnote 527: See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus'
utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: "Principari enim debet in omnibus
et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita
esse et in servitium dedita" ... "substantia omnium voluntas dei;" see
also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because
everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical
contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4),
which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds,
good: "ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et
prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum."]
[Footnote 528: See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2.]
[Footnote 529: Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g. adv. Marc.
II. 27); for his assertion "deum corpus esse" (adv. Prax. 7: "Quis enim
negabil, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus
sui generis in sua effigie") must be compared with his realistic
doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition
formulated in de carne 11: "omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil
est incorporale, nisi quod non est." Tertullian here followed a
principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to
teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man's
likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the
contrary _Melito_ ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type
(Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title "[Greek: ho
peri ensômatou Theou logos],") and Origen reckoned him among the teachers
who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body);
see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second
century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster
in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of
corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of
Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius
(_Instit. div._ VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.).]
[Footnote 530: See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II.
11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32.
The advance beyond the Apologists' idea of God consists not only in the
thorough discussion of God's attributes of goodness and righteousness,
but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that
the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the
salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment of Irenæus (Harvey,
II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: "Summa est voluntatis dei salus
eorum, quos adoptavit"; de paenit. 2: "Bonorum dei unus est titulus,
salus hominum"; adv. Marc. II. 27: "Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus
hominis." They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc.
I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which
Tertullian expounds the Lord's Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the
meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for him
elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen's work de orat., and,
in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord's
Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of
the deepest meaning of the Gospel.]
[Footnote 531: Apol. 21: "Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo ...
Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute
molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes [Greek: Logon], id est sermonem
et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis." (An appeal to Zeno
and Cleanthes follows). "Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque
virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam
spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit
disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus
et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate
substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the
Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol
erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separatur substantia sed
extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut
lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix,
etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo
profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu
spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit,
et a matrice non necessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro
semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro
figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur,
adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est." Tertullian adds:
"Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris." As a matter of
fact the heathen must have viewed this statement as a philosophical
speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to
ascertain that in Hippolytus' book against Noëtus "the setting forth of
the truth" (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: [Greek: Theos
eboulêthê kosmon ktisai]. The Logos whose essence and working are
described merely went forth to realise this intention.]
[Footnote 532: See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff.]
[Footnote 533: See my detailed exposition of the _orthodox_ side of
Tertullian's doctrine of the Trinity ("orthodox" in the later sense of
the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were
due to Tertullian's _juristic_ bias. The formulæ, "una _substantia_,
tres _personæ_", never alternates in his case with the others, "una
_natura_, tres _personæ_"; and so it remained for a long time in the
West; they did not speak of "natures" but of "substances" ("nature" in
this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this
remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses "substance" in the
concrete sense "individual substance" and has even expressed himself
precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: "aliud est substantia,
aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque,
natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est
lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantiæ est. Duritia
(natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ
pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant ... Et tune naturæ
similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and
animals are similar _natura_, but not _substantia_." We see that
Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one
substance expressed their _unity_ as strongly as possible. The only idea
intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz.,
that the Father, who is the _tota substantia_, sends forth officials
whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal
fiction attached to the concept "person" aided in the matter here.]
[Footnote 534: See adv. Prax. 3: "Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot
legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est:
Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia
apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse,
quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem
et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et
tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non
patitur in tot angelorum numero?" (!!) c. 4: "Videmus igitur non obesse
monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est
apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio." L.c.:
"Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit."]
[Footnote 535: See Hippol., c. Noetum II. According to these doctrines
the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one
and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole
substance, _i.e._, if everything proceeds from him. That this is a
remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed.]
[Footnote 536: Adv. Prax. 8: "Hoc si qui putaverit, me [Greek: probolên]
aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod
facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et
veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo
hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret"; cf.
also what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already: "The
economy is founded on as many names as God willed" (c. 4).]
[Footnote 537: See adv. Prax. 5.]
[Footnote 538: Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: "fuit tempus, cum ei filius non
fuit."]
[Footnote 539: Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly
between "factum esse" and "procedere".]
[Footnote 540: Adv. Prax. 2: "Custodiatur [Greek: oikonomias]
sacramentum, quæ unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres
autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate,
sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis."]
[Footnote 541: See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff.]
[Footnote 542: Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: "filius portio
plenitudinis." In another passage Tertullian has ironically remarked in
opposition to Marcion (IV. 39): "Nisi Marcion Christum non subiectum
patri infert."]
[Footnote 543: Adv. Prax. 9.]
[Footnote 544: See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words:
"I am ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis
definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem
intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium
agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis." One cannot look at the sun itself,
but, "toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram
inde porrigitur." The chapter also shows how the Old Testament
theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the
Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv.
Marc. II. 27: "Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre
invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim,
philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis,
deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et
ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in
pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit."
In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father
is by nature impassible, but the Son is capable of suffering. Hippolytus
does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise
[Greek: apathês] (see c. Noetum 15).]
[Footnote 545: According to Tertullian it is certainly an _essential
part of the Son's nature_ to appear, teach, and thus come into
connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the
incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this
view be inferred from his premises.]
[Footnote 546: See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing
this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV.]
[Footnote 547: Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the
abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with
the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead.
lib. III.-V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion [Greek: merismos]
in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus
would have agreed with Tertullian's proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15:
"Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus
divinitas vindicatur." Plotinus' idea of hypostasis is also important,
and this notion requires exact examination.]
[Footnote 548: Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely
treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine
without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this,
however, the Spirit possesses his own "numerus"--"tertium numen
divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis",--and he is a person in the
same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the
subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8:
"tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a
frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex
radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit.
Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et
monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et [Greek: oikonomias] statum protegit"; de
pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called
"vicaria vis". The element of personality in the Spirit is with
Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his
successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality
to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noet. 14): [Greek: Hena Theon erô,
prosôpa de duo, oikonomia de tritên tên charin tou hagiou pneumatos;
patêr men gar eis, prosôpa de duo, hoti kai ho huios, to de triton to
hagion pneuma]. In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he
lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: [Greek: Ei
gar Theon se êthelêse poiêsai ho Theos, edunato; echeis tou logou to
paradeigma]) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos
is called before his coming forth "[Greek: endiathetos tou pantos
logismos]"; he is produced [Greek: ek tôn ontôn], i.e., from the Father
who then alone existed; his essence is "that he bears in himself the
will of him who has begotten him" or "that he comprehends in himself the
ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father." Cyprian in no
part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a
didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: "Christus deus et homo",
and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of
divinity and preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still
quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived
the Holy Ghost not as a person but as "sanctificatio" proceeding from
the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work _de
trinitate_ reproduced Tertullian's views. For details see Dorner
Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen
Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian
still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ _dei spiritus_; see
de oral. I: "Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et
ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus." Apol. 21: adv.
Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21.]
[Footnote 549: See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des
heiligen Irenaus Christologie, 1843.]
[Footnote 550: Zahn, l.c., p. 238.]
[Footnote 551: See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2,
and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin.]
[Footnote 552: A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly
distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely
incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all
the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament
theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the
distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6.]
[Footnote 553: The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the
divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this
grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: "agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in
patre et per filium revelata"): IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been
the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16.
6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world,
see II. 30. 9: "semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio
semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et
virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus;" he has always existed
with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: "non tunc coepit filius dei,
exsistens semper apud patrem"; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: "non enim
infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius
verbum." The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so
far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense,
we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: "fabricator qui fecit mundum
per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam," or hymnlike
statements such as III. 16. 6: "et hominem ergo in semetipsum
recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis
factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo" (see
something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419
sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: "filius est in patre et habet in
se patrem," III. 6. 1.: "utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et
eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem." He not only
says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has
revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages
sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the
Father the creator, and in others the Son ("pater generis humani verbum
dei", IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an
ancient "immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris
filius, quoniam et capit eum." This expression is by no means intended
to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and
Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these
propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system.]
[Footnote 554: Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. 10: IV.
20): also IV. 6. 6: "Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris
filius." Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether
Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the
Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of
the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father
(on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: "verbum
naturaliter quidem invisibile"). But it ought not to have been denied
that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of
the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge
of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is
greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son _receives_ from the Father the
sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the
name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son,
and, secondly, because he gave it himself); V. 18. 21, 3 ("pater
conditionem simul et verbum suum portans"--"verbum portatum a
patre"--"et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per
omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput
Christi"--"verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre"). "This is not a
subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an
inequality that has arisen historically," says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but
it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We
have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by
Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level
with God, but, as a theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also
he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in
view of the distinction between Father and Son.]
[Footnote 555: Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the
whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: [Greek:
ekdiêgeisthai tên pragmateian kai oikonomian tou Theou tên epi tê
anthrôpotêti genomenên], IV, 20. 7: "Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ
factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas
dispositiones." God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the
beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: "Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem
hominis visio dei," or III. 20. 2: "Gloria hominis deus, operationes
vero dei et omnis sapientias eius et virtutis receptaculum homo." V. 29.
1: "Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter
hominem."]
[Footnote 556: Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous
passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit
(Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son,
prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular
significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in
the _regula_. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son
are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before
there was any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII.
22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument
and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and
Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and
particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of
the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to
Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos.
Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament
history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy,
the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the
Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of
the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V.
I. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But
not only does the function of the Spirit remain very obscure for all
that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the
canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos
doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary--where, moreover, the whole
of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful
speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him,
e.g., in III. 18. 3: "unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem,
qui est spiritus" (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the
Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been
named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are
frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula [Greek:
trias], to say nothing of the abstract formulas of Tertullian. In two
passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation,
which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he
says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the
Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show
himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for
the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers
on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old
presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the
Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will
deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is
remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor.
XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear
proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not
unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute.
Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus
were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he
inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the
Spirit: [Greek: Kai dia touto Paulos Korinthiois phêsi: gala humas
epotisa, ou Brôma, oude gar êdunasthe bastazein; toutesti, tên men kata
anthrôpon parousian tou kuriou emathêteuthête, oudêpou de to tou patros
pneuma epanapauetai eph' humas dia tên humôn astheneian]. Here one of
Origen's thoughts appears.]
[Footnote 557: The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations
of the ideas about redemption. Noldechen (Zeitschrift fur
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): "Die Lehre vom ersten
Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts."]
[Footnote 558: Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be
examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important:
[Greek: Ei de legei tis ouk êdunato ho Theos ap' archês teleion
anadeixai ton anthrôpon, Gnôtô, hoti tô men Theô, aei kata ta auta onti
kai agennêtô huparchonti, hôs pros heauton, panta dunata; ta de gegonta,
katho metepeita geneseôs archên idian esche, kata touto kai
hustereisthai dei auta tou pepoiêkotos; ou gar êdunanto agennêta einai
ta neôsti gegennêmena. Katho de mê estin agennêta, kata touto kai
husterountai tou teleiou. Katho de neôtera, kata touto kai nêpia, kata
touto kai asunêthê kai agumnasta pros tên teleian agôgên]. The mother
can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but
the child cannot stand it: [Greek: anthrôpos adunatos labein auto;
nêpios gar ên], see also § 2-4: "Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed
primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum
simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut
impræstantem." "Ego," inquit, "dixi, dii estis et filii excelsi omnes,
nobis autem potestatem divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus" ...
"Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi
mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri
hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta boni
et mali." Ibid.: [Greek: hupotagê Theou aptharsia, kai paramonê
aptharsias doxa agennêtos ... horasis Theou peripoiêtikê aptharsias;
aptharsia de eggus einai poiei Theou]. In this chapter Irenæus
contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the
point of view of a [Greek: sunnêpiazein]. His conception of the capacity
and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the
progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants
(see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that,
according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared
only as the _destination_ of man--which was finally to be reached
through divine guidance--but not as his _nature_, suggested both to
Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between "natura" and "gratia" or
between "substantia" and "fides et iustitia." In other words, they were
led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long
before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus
II. 29. 1: "Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium,
et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si
autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam
sunt iustæ ... Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur
animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc." II. 34. 3: "Non enim ex nobis
neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur," II.
34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: "Christi nomen non ex natura
veniens, sed ex dispositione." In Tertullian these ideas are not
unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship
between them has by no means been made clear.]
[Footnote 559: On the psychology of Irenæus see Bohringer, p. 466 f.,
Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the [Greek:
pneuma] in man as the latter's inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33-5),
though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is
an evident inconsistency on his part. The [Greek: eikôn] is realised in
the body, the [Greek: homoiôsis] is not given by nature, but is brought
about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V.
6. 1). The [Greek: homoiôsis] is therefore subject to growth, and was
not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes
Tatian's opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is
only the [Greek: pnoê], not the [Greek: pneuma], that is to be conceived
as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV.
45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also
views everything as ultimately dependent on man's inalienable freedom.
Alongside of this God's goodness has scope for displaying itself in
addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man's
knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks:
"veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus
fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad
utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo ... posuit in
homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli
rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes,
_datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis_." An appeal to Rome II. 4-7
(!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic
doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: [Greek: pantes tês autês
eisi physeôs]. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: "omnia licent, sed non
omnia expediunt," as referring to man's inalienable freedom and to the
way in which it is abused in order to work evil(!): "liberæ sententiæ ab
initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem
factus est." § 5: "Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum
et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis _servavit_ (that is, respected)
dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi." § 4: "deus consilium
dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia." § 3: "[Greek: to
autexousion tou anthrôpou kai to symbouleutikon tou Theou mê
biazomenou]." IV. 4. 3: "homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo
liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut
aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat."]
[Footnote 560: As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the
second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality
this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose
disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of
Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: "Quicunque erga eum custodiunt
dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et
lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem
absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab
ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis
tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum." V.
19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very clearly defined in
IV. 15. 2: "Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine
semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non
obediunt ei quoniam non obedierunt, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei,
honorentur incorruptibilitate."]
[Footnote 561: Man's sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray
(IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext
of immortality is an excuse for him; man was _infans_, (See above; hence
it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics, in IV. 38. 4:
"supergredieutes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam
volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei
et nunc facti hominis." The same idea is once more very clearly
expressed in IV. 39. 3; "quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum
factus est homo?" i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect
as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to
distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: "The fear of Adam was
the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance;
but God bestows his grace on the penitent" ... "eum odivit deus, qui
seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus
est." The "pondus peccati" in the sense of Augustine was by no means
acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings,
and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far
from sharing Paul's view.]
[Footnote 562: See IV. 37. 7: "Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum
bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset
desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene
valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem
tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et coeleste regnum
honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum." The main passage is III.
20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order
that man might not believe that he was "naturaliter similis deo." Hence
God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several
passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind
generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7.]
[Footnote 563: See Wendt, l.c., p. 24.]
[Footnote 564: See III. 23. 6.]
[Footnote 565: See V. I. 1: "Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ
sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset
... Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum
videntes," etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: "libertatem restauravit"; IV. 24. 1:
"reformavit humamum genus"; III. 17. 1: "spiritus sanctus in filium dei,
filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere
humano." III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt's summary, l.c., p. 24:
"By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its
appearance," formulates Irenæus' meaning correctly and excludes the
erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of
humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of
thought; only a _homo inspiratus_ is required.]
[Footnote 566: See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): [Greek: Epi
toutois ton pantôn archonta dêmiourgôn ek pasôn synthetôn ousiôn
eskeuasen, ou Theôn thelôn poiein esphêlen, oude angelon, all'
anthrôpon. Ei gar Theon se êthelêse poiêsai, edunato; echeis tou logou
to paradeigma; anthrôpon thelôn, anthrôpon se epoiêsen; ei de theleis
kai Theos genesthai, hupakoue tô pepoiêkoti.] The famous concluding
chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be
explained from this (X. 34).]
[Footnote 567: See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism
appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be
attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise
really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary
to Wendt's opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian
is _speciosior quam verior_. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to
see the first traces of the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de
anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view.]
[Footnote 568: See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4.]
[Footnote 569: See IV 14. 1: "In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in
tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare
et permanere in dei servitute." This statement, which, like the numerous
others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism,
reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus' great work, however, we can point
out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of
Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: [Greek: hupotagê Theou aphtharsia].]
[Footnote 570: See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f.]
[Footnote 571: See III. 18. 1. V. 16. 1 is very remarkable: [Greek: En
tois prosthen chronois elegeto men kat' eikona Theou gegonenai ton
anthrôpon, ouk edeiknuto de, eti gar aoratos ên ho logos, ou kat' eikona
ho anthrôpos egegonei. dia touto dê kai tên homoiôsin iadiôs apebalen];
see also what follows. In V. I. 1 Irenæus even says: "Quoniam iniuste
dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis,
alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus." Compare with this the
contradictory passage IV. 38: "oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere"
etc. (see above, p. 268), where _natura hominis_ is conceived as the
opposite of the divine nature.]
[Footnote 572: See Wendt, l.c., p. 29, who first pointed out the two
dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man's original
state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology.
Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming
contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned,
the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance
that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as
the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely
adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of
no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one.
No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because,
strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments.]
[Footnote 573: See V. 16. 3: [Greek: en tô prôtô Adam prosekopsamen, mê
poiêsantes autou tên entolên]. IV. 34. 2: "homo initio in Adam
inobediens per mortem percussus est;" III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1:
V. 17. 1 sq.]
[Footnote 574: Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and
life are the essential ideas. Bohringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly
remarked: "We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam's conduct and
suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward,
immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of
salvation founded on this." It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus
tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about
the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of
salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g. de anima 40: "ita omnis anima eo
usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur," and other
passages); but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part
developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler's
edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint of sin
propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the
doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: "per diabolum homo a primordio
circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus
exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem
fecit." Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease
of sin that is propagated "ex originis vitio" and has become a real
second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is
shown by de bapt. 18: "Quaie innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum." For
the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit,
sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed
that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but
see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure
results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important
step in the direction of secularising Christianity through "philosophy"
and of emasculating the understanding through "revelation." In regard to
the conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1
reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus ("dominus sanavit illa quæ
Adam portaverat vulnera"); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: "Recens natus
nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium
mortis antiquæ prima nativitate contraxit" is quite in the manner of
Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the
continuation: "infanti remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata."
Tertullian's proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could
have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et
eleem. 3).]
[Footnote 575: III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound ... "eam quæ est a
Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod
colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis
reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas,
secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a
secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ
solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem
novissimos futuros et novissimos primos." Irenæus expresses a Gnostic
idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): [Greek: En tô Adam
pantes apothnêskomen, hoti psychikoi.] But Paul, too, made an approach
to this thought.]
[Footnote 576: See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement.]
[Footnote 577: See, e.g., III. 9. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and
repeatedly 8. 2: "verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus
noster Jesus Christus."]
[Footnote 578: See IV. 6. 7.]
[Footnote 579: See III. 11. 3.]
[Footnote 580: See III. 6.]
[Footnote 581: See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3; see also
Tertullian against "Ebion" de carne 14, 18, 24; de præser. 10. 33.]
[Footnote 582: See III. 21, 22: V. 19-21.]
[Footnote 583: See the arguments, l.c., V. 19. 1: "Quemadmodum
adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem,
æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem
obedientiam," and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de
carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant
expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g. Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: "uti
virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis
sanctificata per Christum." Iren. III. 21. 7: "Maria cooperans
dispositioni (dei);" III. 22. 4 "Maria obediens et sibi et universo
generi humano causa facta est salutis" ... "quod alligavit virgo Eva per
incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem"). These, however, have
no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself
in a depreciatory way about Mary in _de carne_ 7. On the other hand it
is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the
parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the _virginitas
Mariæ in partu_ can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian
(de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very
decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular
conception as to the reason of Christ's birth from a virgin, in the form
still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in
Tertullian _de carne_ 18: "Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium
nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius,
nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus
erat Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset
et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis carne sumenda sine
viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen." The other
theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have
been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could
assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcely hinted at
by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ's birth was frequently
referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ's kinship to God the
Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the _regula
fidei_ received a significance from this point of view also. An
Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old
treatise _de resurr._ bearing Justin's name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p.
220.)]
[Footnote 584: See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the
passages named in note, p. 276.]
[Footnote 585: So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work
of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work _de carne Christi_.
Tertullian exclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: "Parce unicæ spei
totius orbis." Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ's assumption of
humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a
manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh.
This is particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his
earlier time had probably quite naive Docetic ideas and really looked
upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: "spiritum
Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnincis officio." Yet
Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ's human soul (III. 22. 1: V.
1. 1) as also did Melito ([Greek: to alêthes kai aphantaston tês psuchês
Christou kai tou sômatos, tês kath' hêmas anthrôpinês phuseôs] Otto,
l.c., IX., p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53).
What we possess in virtue of the creation was _assumed_ by Christ
(Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the
case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of Christ. In opposition
to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe
Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in
himself, he shows that the Saviour's flesh was without sin and that it
is not admissible to teach the annihilation of Christ's flesh (de carne
16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): "Christ by taking to himself our
flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless." It was
again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave
occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be
with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear,
Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which
dies must be born; the Son of God came to die.]
[Footnote 586: This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good
reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4.
From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of
Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the
influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very
energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of
Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is
decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw
all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ.]
[Footnote 587: See Iren. V. 31. 2: "Surgens in carne sic ascendit ad
patrem." Tertullian, de carne 24: "Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui
est passus ... et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in
quam sævierunt, sine qua nee ipse esse poterit et agnosci;" see also
what follows.]
[Footnote 588: See Iren. IV. 33. 11.]
[Footnote 589: See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1.]