Footnote 536: (return)Adv. Prax. 8: "Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολην 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 539: (return)Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between "factum esse" and "procedere".
Footnote 540: (return)Adv. Prax. 2: "Custodiatur οικονομιας 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 542: (return)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 544: (return)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 απαθης (see c. Noetum 15).
Footnote 545: (return)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: (return)See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV.
Footnote 547: (return)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 μερισμος 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: (return)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 οικονομιας 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): 'Ενα Θεον ερω, προσωπα δε δυο, οικονομια δε τριτην την χαριν του 'αγιου πνευματος; πατηρ μεν γαρ εις, προσωπα δε δυο, 'οτι και 'ο 'υιος, το δε τριτον το 'αγιον πνευμα. In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Ει γαρ Θεον σε ηθελησε ποιησαι 'ο Θεος, εδυνατο; εχεις του λογου το παραδειγμα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth "ενδιαθετος του παντος λογισμος"; he is produced εκ των οντων, 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: (return)See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenaus Christologie, 1843.
Footnote 551: (return)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: (return)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: (return)The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: "agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata"): IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: "semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus;" he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: "non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem"; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: "non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum." The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: "fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam," or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: "et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo" (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: "filius est in patre et habet in se patrem," III. 6. 1.: "utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem." He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son ("pater generis humani verbum dei", IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient "immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum." This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system.
Footnote 554: (return)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: (return)Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: εκδιηγεισθαι την πραγματειαν και οικονομιαν του Θεου την επι τη ανθρωποτητι γενομενην, 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: (return)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 τριας, 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: Και δια τουτο Παυλος Κορινθιοις φησι: γαλα 'υμας εποτισα, ου Βρωμα, ουδε γαρ ηδυνασθε βασταζειν; τουτεστι, την μεν κατα ανθρωπον παρουσιαν του κυριου εμαθητευθητε, ουδηπου δε το του πατρος πνευμα επαναπαυεται εφ' 'υμας δια την 'υμων ασθενειαν. Here one of Origen's thoughts appears.
Footnote 557: (return)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: (return)Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Ει δε λεγει τις ουκ ηδυνατο 'ο Θεος απ' αρχης τελειον αναδειξαι τον ανθρωπον, Γνωτω, 'οτι τω μεν Θεω, αει κατα τα αυτα οντι και αγεννητω 'υπαρχοντι, 'ως προς 'εαυτον, παντα δυνατα; τα δε γεγοντα, καθο μετεπειτα γενεσεως αρχην ιδιαν εσχε, κατα τουτο και 'υστερεισθαι δει αυτα του πεποιηκοτος; ου γαρ ηδυναντο αγεννητα ειναι τα νεωστι γεγεννημενα. Καθο δε μη εστιν αγεννητα, κατα τουτο και 'υστερουνται του τελειου. Καθο δε νεωτερα, κατα τουτο και νηπια, κατα τουτο και ασυνηθη και αγυμναστα προς την τελειαν αγωγην. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ανθρωπος αδυνατος λαβειν αυτο; νηπιος γαρ ην, 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.: 'υποταγη Θεου απθαρσια, και παραμονη απθαρσιας δοξα αγεννητος ... 'ορασις Θεου περιποιητικη απθαρσιας; απθαρσια δε εγγυς ειναι ποιει Θεου. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιαζειν. 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: (return)On the psychology of Irenæus see Bohringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνευμα 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 εικων is realised in the body, the 'ομοιωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The 'ομοιωσις 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 πνοη, not the πνευμα, 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: παντες της αυτης εισι φυσεως. 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: "το αυτεξουσιον του ανθρωπου και το συμβουλευτικον του Θεου μη βιαζομενου." 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: (return)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: (return)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: (return)See IV. 37. 7: "Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum." The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that he was "naturaliter similis deo." Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7.
Footnote 565: (return)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: (return)See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Επι τουτοις τον παντων αρχοντα δημιουργων εκ πασων συνθετων ουσιων εσκευασεν, ου Θεων θελων ποιειν εσφηλεν, ουδε αγγελον, αλλ' ανθρωπον. Ει γαρ Θεον σε ηθελησε ποιησαι, εδυνατο; εχεις του λογου το παραδειγμα; ανθρωπον θελων, ανθρωπον σε εποιησεν; ει δε θελεις και Θεος γενεσθαι, 'υπακουε τω πεποιηκοτι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34).
Footnote 567: (return)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 569: (return)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: 'υποταγη Θεου αφθαρσια.
Footnote 571: (return)See III. 18. 1. V. 16. 1 is very remarkable: Εν τοις προσθεν χρονοις ελεγετο μεν κατ' εικονα Θεου γεγονεναι τον ανθρωπον, ουκ εδεικνυτο δε, ετι γαρ αορατος ην 'ο λογος, ου κατ' εικονα 'ο ανθρωπος εγεγονει. δια τουτο δη και την 'ομοιωσιν ιαδιως απεβαλεν; 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: (return)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: (return)See V. 16. 3: εν τω πρωτω Αδαμ προσεκοψαμεν, μη ποιησαντες αυτου την εντολην. 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: (return)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: (return)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): Εν τω Αδαμ παντες αποθνησκομεν, 'οτι ψυχικοι. But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought.
Footnote 577: (return)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 581: (return)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 583: (return)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: (return)See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276.
Footnote 585: (return)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 (το αληθες και αφανταστον της ψυχης Χριστου και του σωματος, της καθ' 'ημας ανθρωπινης φυσεως 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: (return)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: (return)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 590: (return)He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. "Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos.... Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus domiuns noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semelipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio del, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo." V. 18. 1: "Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum."
Footnote 591: (return)Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula "God has suffered" and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: 'ο Θεος πεπονυεν 'υπο δεξιας Ισραηλιτιδος (p. 422): "Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert." But let us note that these are not "doctrines," but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus' divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against the "Gnostic" separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: "Iesu generatio sic erat" but "Christi generatio sic erat"), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour's person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple "filius dei filius hominis factus" and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): "Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret," but also by the "propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?" (l.c.).
Footnote 592: (return)The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, του Θεου λογου 'ενωοει τη καθ' 'υποστασιν φυσικη 'ενωθεντος τη σακρι, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: 'ινα εξ αμφοτερων το περιφανες των φυσεων παραδειχθη in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures.
Footnote 593: (return)See Apol. 21: "verbum caro figuratus ... homo deo mixtus;" adv. Marc. II. 27: "filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;" de carne 15: "homo deo mixtus;" 18: "sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei." On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff.
Footnote 594: (return)De carne 5: "Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossible est;" but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: "deus crucifixus," "nasci se voluit deus". De pat. 3: "nasci se deus in utero patitur." The formula: 'ο γεννηθεις, 'ο μεγας Θεος is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24.
Footnote 595: (return)De carne I, cf. ad nat. II. 4: "ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ."
Footnote 597: (return)Adv. Prax. 27: "Sed enim invenimus illum diiecto et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) ... hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum ... Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo ... denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utrinsque substantiæ." In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: "ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt ... neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt." See also c. 29: "Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.
Footnote 598: (return)Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves) I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: "Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. Then: "Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est."
Footnote 599: (return)In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula "deus et homo," or, after Tertullian's time "duæ substantiæ," was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian's opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian's view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating.
Footnote 600: (return)"Quare," says Irenæus III. 21. 10—"igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaietur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"
Footnote 601: (return)See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: "Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum.... Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum" etc.
Footnote 602: (return)Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.
Footnote 603: (return)So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus' Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Bohringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him).
Footnote 604: (return)See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: "Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem.... Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo." Adv. Marc. V. 8: "Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram"; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation.
Footnote 605: (return)Iren. IV. 14. 2; for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus' views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, l.c., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.
Footnote 606: (return)"Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice lesse et filius Abrabæ, secunum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum ... secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat." All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus' incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulæ about Christ: 'ο Θεος, 'ο ποιησας τον ουρανον k.t.l., και 'ο τουτου παις, ον εχρισεν 'ο Θεος—"Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur." But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παις Θεος.
Footnote 607: (return)On Hippolytus' views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff.—an account to be used with caution—and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel's untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus' treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εις γαρ και 'ο του Θεου (Iren.), δι' ου και 'ημεις τυχοντες την δια του 'αγιου πνευματος αναγεννεσιν εις ενα τελειον και επουρανιον ανθρωπον 'οι παντες καταντησαι επιθυμουμεν (see Iren.) Επειδη γαρ 'ο λογος του Θεου ασαρκος ων (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ενεδυσατο την 'αγιαν σαρκα εκ της 'αγιας παρθενου; 'ως νυμφιος 'ιματιον εξυφανας 'εαυτω ην τω σταυρικω παθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh), 'οπως συγκερασας το θνητον 'εμων σωμα τη 'εαυτου δυναμει και μιξας (Iren., Tertull.) τω αφθαρτω το φθαρτον και το ασθενες τω ισχυρω σωσε τον απολλυμενον ανθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the αναπλασσειν δι' 'ευτου τον Αδαμ l.c., c. 26, with the ανακεφαλαιουν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus' Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noet. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποιον ουν 'υιον 'εαυτου 'ο Θεος δια της σαρκος κατεπεμψεν αλλ' 'η τον λογον; 'ον 'υιον προσηγορευε δια το μελλειν αυτον γενεσθαι, και το κοινον ονομα της εις ανθρωπους φιλοστοργιας αναλαμβανει 'ο 'υιος (καιτοι τελειος λογος ων μονογενες). ουδ' 'η σαρξ καθ' 'εαυτην διχα του λογου 'υποστηναι ηδυνατο δια το εν λογω την συστασιν εχειν 'ουτως ουν εις 'υιος τελειος Θεου εφανερωθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the "divine mysteries" of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter's confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): ου παυσεται 'η εκκλησια γεννωσα εκ καρδιας τον λογον του εν κοσμω 'υπο απιστων διωκομενον. "και ετεκε", φησιν, "'υιον αρρενα, 'ος μελλει ποιμαινειν παντα τα εθνη", τον αρρενα και τελειος Χριστον, παιδα Θεου, Θεον και ανθρωπον καταγγελλομενον αει τικτουσα 'η εκκλησια διδασκει παντα τα εθνη. If we consider how Irenæus' pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse "doctrines," we see how the "Scripture" theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here—"doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum." From this standpoint Origen's undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.
Footnote 608: (return)See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: "filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit."
Footnote 610: (return)See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: 'η γνωσις του 'υιου του Θεου, 'ητις ην αφθαρσια. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus' raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): "Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus." The new thing is then defined thus: "Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius ... Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona."
Footnote 611: (return)See IV. 36. 6: "Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., μετα την κλησιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei"—we must provide ourselves with the wedding garment.
Footnote 612: (return)The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God's appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: "Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset deus et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc." That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.
Footnote 613: (return)Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei.
Footnote 614: (return)See particularly V. 1. 1: "Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt ... del verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum ilia initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret." We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edit Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus' translation in Caspari's Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τον πριωμενον εφης, ειναι τον Χριστον, 'ο πεπρακως τις εστιν; ηλθεν εις σε 'ο απλους μυθος; 'οτι 'ο πωλων και 'ο αγοραζων αδελφοι εισιν; ει κακος ων 'ο διαβολος τω αγαθω πεπρακεν, ουκ εστι κακος αλλα αγαθος; 'ο γαρ απ' αρχης φθονησας τω ανθρωπω, νυν ουκ ετι 'υπο φθονου αγεται, τω αγαθω την νομην παραδους. εσται ουν δικαιος 'ο του φθονου και παντος κακου παυσαμενος. αυτος γουν 'ο Θεος 'ευρισκεται πωλησας; μαλλον δε 'οι 'ημαρτηκοτες 'εαυτους απηλλοτριωσαν 'οι ανθρωποι δια τας 'αμαρτιας αυτων; παλιν δε ελυτρωθησαν δια την ευσπλαγχνιαν αυτου. τουτο γαρ φησιν 'ο προφητης; Ταις 'αμαρτιαις 'υμων επραθητε και ταις ανομιαις εξαπεστειλα την μητερα 'υμων. Και αλλος παλιν; Δωρεαν επραθητε, και ου μετα αργυριου λυτρωθησεσθε. το, ουδε μετα αργυριου; δηλονοτι, του 'αιματος του Χριστου. τουτο γαρ φασκει 'ο προφητης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Εικος δε 'οτι κατα σε επριατο δους 'εαυτου το 'αιμα; πως ουν και εκ νεκρων ηγειρετο; ει γαρ 'ο λαβων την τιμην των ανθρωπων, το 'αιμα, απεδωκεν, ουκετι επωλησεν. Ει δε μη απεδωκε, πως ανεστη Χριστος, ουκετι ουν το, Εξουσιαν εχω θειναι και εξουσιαν εχω λαβειν, 'ισταται; 'ο γουν διαβολος κατεχει το 'αιμα του Χριστου αντι της τιμης των ανθρωπων; πολλη βλασφημιος ανοια! Φευ των κακων! Απεθανεν, ανεστη 'ως δυνατος; εθηκεν 'ο ελαβεν; αυτη ποια πρασις; του προφητου λεγοντος; Αναστητω 'ο Θεος και διασκορπισθητωσαν 'οι εχθροι αυτου, Οπου αναστασις, εκει θανατοσ! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.
Footnote 615: (return)See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: "Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo." It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy ("this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled"). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof.
Footnote 616: (return)See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθυμως Αβρααμ τον ιδιον μονογενη και αγαπητον παραχωρησας θυσιαν τω Θεω, 'ινα και 'ο Θεος ευδοκηση 'υπερ του σπερματος αυτου παντος τον ιδιον μονογενη και αγαπητον 'υιον θυσιαν παρασχειν εις λυτρωσιν 'ημετεραν.
Footnote 617: (return)There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam's disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul's thoughts.
Footnote 618: (return)Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic.
Footnote 619: (return)See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them.
Footnote 620: (return)See III. 16. 6: "In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercaelestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore."
Footnote 621: (return)There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ's mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: "Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat"; de bapt. II: "Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nee vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius"; adv. Marc. III. 8: "Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro... nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam iam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis suae," 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption—the constitution of Christ is the redemption—though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: "filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset." Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called "fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet." Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: "Και ταυτα μεν εκφευξη Θεον τον οντα διδαχθεις, εξεις δε αθανατον το σωμα και αφθαρτον 'αμα ψυχη, βασιλειαν ουρανων αποληψη, 'ο εν γη βιους και επουρανιον βασιλεα επιγνους, εση δε 'ομιλητης Θεου και συγκληρονομος Χριστου, ουκ επιθυμιαις η παθεσι και νοσοις δουλουμενος. Γεγονας γαρ Θεος 'οσα γαρ 'υπεμεινας παθη ανθρωπος ων, ταυτα εδιδου, 'οτι ανθρωπος εις, 'οσα δε παρακολουθει Θεω, ταυτα παρεχειν επηγγελται Θεος, 'οτι εθεοποιηθης, αθανατος γεννηθεις. Τουτεστι το Γνωθι σεαυτον, επιγνους του πεποιηκοτα Θοεν. Το γαρ επιγνωναι 'εαυτον επιγνωσθηναι συμβεβηκε τω καλουμενω 'υπ' αυτου. Μη φιλεχθρησητε τοινυν 'εαυτοις, ανθρωποι, μηδε το παλινδρομειν διστασητε. Χριστος γαρ εστιν 'ο κατα παντων Θεος, ος την 'αμαρτιαν εξ ανθρωπων αποπλυνειν προεταξε, νεον τον παλαιον ανθρωπον αποτελων, εικονα τουτον καλεσας απ' αρχης, δια τυπου την εις σε επιδεικνυμενος στοργην, ου προσταγμασιν 'υπακουσας σεμνοις, και αγαθου αγαθος γενομενος μιμητης, εση 'ομοιος 'υπ' αυτου τιμηθεις. Ου γαρ πτωχευει Θεος και σε Θεον ποιησας εις δοξαν αυτου." It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, Christ's death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression "satisfacere deo" about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequent in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find "meritum" (e.g., Scorp. 6) and "promereri deum". With them and with Novatian the idea of "culpa" is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: "quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est." Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: "Exempto reatu eximitur et poena." On the other hand he speaks of fasting as "officia humiliationis", through which we can "inlicere" God. Among these Western writers the thought that God's anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter's speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst, Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen's day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de anima 41 fin.: "Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium"; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Horn. III. 27: νυμφη γαρ εστιν 'ο πας ανθρωπος, 'οποταν του αληθους προφητου λευκω λογω αληθειας σπειρομενος φωτιζηται τον νουν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. II, and my notes on Διδαχη XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: "Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spousæ; comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro ... Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est"; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul.
Footnote 622: (return)By the regula inasmuch as the words "from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead" had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, "das Muratorische Fragment", p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish.
Footnote 623: (return)Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I, p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I, p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work "περι του διαβολου και της αποκαλυψεως Ιωαννου." Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work "de Christo et Antichristo" and Overbeck's careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter's chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus' book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus' commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., I. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodic supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory—a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology—is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 ("modicum delictum illuc luendum"). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).