History of Dogma Volume II Part 16

[Footnote 421: Cicero's proposition (de nat. deor. II. 66. 167): "nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit," which was the property of all the idealistic philosophers of the age, is found in the Apologists reproduced in the most various forms (see, e.g., Tatian 29).

That all knowledge of the truth, both among the prophets and those who follow their teaching, is derived from inspiration was in their eyes a matter of certainty. But here they were only able to frame a theory in the case of the prophets; for such a theory strictly applied to all would have threatened the spontaneous character of the knowledge of the truth.]

[Footnote 422: Justin, Apol. I. 3: [Greek: Hemeteron oun ergon kai biou kai mathematon ten episkepsin pasi parechein].]

[Footnote 423: See the exposition of the doctrine of G.o.d in Aristides with the conclusion found in all the Apologists, that G.o.d requires no offerings and presents.]

[Footnote 424: Even Tatian says in c. 19: [Greek: Kosmou men gar e kataskeue kale, to de en auto politeuma phaulon].]

[Footnote 425: Tatian 5: [Greek: Oute anarchos e hule kathaper ho Theos, oude dia to anarchon kai aute isodunamos to Theo gennete de kai ouch hupo tou allou gegonuia monon de hupo tou panton demiourgou probeblemene]. 12. Even Justin does not seem to have taught otherwise, though that is not quite certain; see Apol. I. 10, 59, 64, 67: II. 6.

Theophilus I. 4: II. 4, 10, 13 says very plainly: [Greek: ex ouk onton ta panta epoiesen.... ti de mega, ei ho theos ex hupokeimenes hules epoiei ton kosmon].]

[Footnote 426: Hence the knowledge of G.o.d and the right knowledge of the world are most closely connected; see Tatian 27: [Greek: he Theou katalepsis en echo peri ton holon].]

[Footnote 427: The beginning of the fifth chapter of Tatian's Oration is specially instructive here.]

[Footnote 428: According to what has been set forth in the text it is incorrect to a.s.sert that the Apologists adopted the Logos doctrine in order to reconcile monotheism with the divine honours paid to the crucified Christ. The truth rather is that the Logos doctrine was already part of their creed before they gave any consideration to the person of the historical Christ, and _vice versa_ Christ's right to divine honours was to them a matter of certainty independently of the Logos doctrine.]

[Footnote 429: We find the distinction of Logos (Son) and Spirit in Justin, Apol. I. 5, and in every case where he quotes formulae (if we are not to a.s.sume the existence of interpolation in the text, which seems to me not improbable; see now also Cramer in the Theologische Studien, 1893. pp. 17 ff., 138 ff.). In Tatian 13 fin. the Spirit is represented as [Greek: ho diakonos tou peponthotos Theou]. The conception in Justin, Dial. 116, is similar. Father, Word, and prophetic Spirit are spoken of in Athenag. 10. The express designation [Greek: trias] is first found in Theophilus (but see the Excerpta ex Theodoto); see II. 15: [Greek: hai treis hemerai tupoi heisin tes triados, tou Theou kai tou logou autou kai tes sophias autou]; see II. 10, 18. But it is just in Theophilus that the difficulty of deciding between Logos and Wisdom appears with special plainness (II. 10). The interposition of the host of good angels between Son and Spirit found in Justin, Apol. I. 5 (see Athenag.), is exceedingly striking. We have, however, to notice, provided the text is right, (1) that this interposition is only found in a single pa.s.sage, (2) that Justin wished to refute the reproach of [Greek: atheotes], (3) that the placing of the Spirit after the angels does not necessarily imply a position inferior to theirs, but merely a subordination to the Son and the Father common to the Spirit and the angels, (4) that the good angels were also invoked by the Christians, because they were conceived as mediators of prayer (see my remark on I. Clem, ad Corinth.

LVI. 1); they might have found a place here just for this latter reason.

On the significance of the Holy Spirit in the theology of Justin, see Zahn's Marcellus of Ancyra, p. 228: "If there be any one theologian of the early Church who might be regarded as depriving the Holy Spirit of all scientific _raison d'etre_ at least on the ground of having no distinctive activity, and the Father of all share in revelation, it is Justin." We cannot at bottom say that the Apologists possessed a doctrine of the Trinity.]

[Footnote 430: To Justin the name of the Son is the most important; see also Athenag. 10. The Logos had indeed been already called the Son of G.o.d by Philo, and Celsus expressly says (Orig., c. Cels. II. 31); "If according to your doctrine the Word is really the Son of G.o.d then we agree with you;" but the Apologists are the first to attach the name of Son to the Logos as a proper designation. If, however, the Logos is intrinsically the Son of G.o.d, then Christ is the Son of G.o.d, not because he is the begotten of G.o.d in the flesh (early Christian), but because the spiritual being existing in him is the antemundane reproduction of G.o.d (see Justin, Apol. II. 6: [Greek: ho huios tou patros kai Theou, ho monos legomenos kurios huios])--a momentous expression.]

[Footnote 431: Athenag., 10; Tatian, Orat. 5.]

[Footnote 432: The clearest expression of this is in Tatian 5, which pa.s.sage is also to be compared with the following: [Greek: Theos en en arche, ten de archen logou dunamin pareilephamen. Ho gar despotes ton holon, autos huparchon tou pantos he hupostasis, kata men ten medepo gegenemenen poiesin monos en, katho de pasa dunamis, horaton te kai aoraton autos hupostasis en, sun auto ta panta sun auto dia logikes dunameos autos kai ho logos, hos en auto, hupestese. Thelemati de tes aplotetos autou propeda logos, ho de logos, ou kata kenou ch.o.r.esas, ergon prototokon tou patros ginetai. Touton ismen tou kosmou ten archen.

Gegone de kata merismon, ou kata apokopen to gar apotmethen tou protou kechoristai, to de meriothen oikonomas ten hairesin proslabon ouk endea ton hothen eileptai pepoieken. osper gar aro mias dados anaptetai men pura polla, tes de protes dados dia ten exapsin ton pollon dadon ouk elattoutai to phos, houto kai ho logos proelthon ek tes tou patros dunameos ouk alogon pepoieke ton gegennekota]. In the identification of the divine consciousness, that is, the power of G.o.d, with the force to which the world is due the naturalistic basis of the apologetic speculations is most clearly shown. Cf. Justin, Dial. 128, 129.]

[Footnote 433: The word "beget" ([Greek: gennan]) is used by the Apologists, especially Justin, because the name "Son" was the recognised expression for the Logos. No doubt the words [Greek: exereugesthai, proballesthai, proerchesthai, propedan] and the like express the physical process more exactly in the sense of the Apologists. On the other hand, however, [Greek: gennan] appears the more appropriate word in so far as the relation of the essence of the Logos to the essence of G.o.d is most clearly shown by the name "Son."]

[Footnote 434: None of the Apologists has precisely defined the Logos idea. Zahn, l.c., p. 233, correctly remarks: "Whilst the distinction drawn between the hitherto unspoken and the spoken word of the Creator makes Christ appear as the thought of the world within the mind of G.o.d, yet he is also to be something real which only requires to enter into a new relation to G.o.d to become an active force. Then again this Word is not to be the thought that G.o.d thinks, but the thought that thinks in G.o.d. And again it is to be a something, or an Ego, in G.o.d's thinking essence, which enters into reciprocal intercourse with something else in G.o.d; occasionally also the reason of G.o.d which is in a state of active exercise and without which he would not be rational." Considering this evident uncertainty it appears to me a very dubious proceeding to differentiate the conceptions of the Logos in Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus, as is usually done. If we consider that no Apologist wrote a special treatise on the Logos, that Tatian (c. 5) is really the only one from whom we have any precise statements, and that the elements of the conception are the same in all, it appears inadvisable to lay so great stress on the difference as Zahn, for instance, has done in the book already referred to, p. 232 f. Hardly any real difference can have existed between Justin, Tatian, and Theophilus in the Logos doctrine proper. On the other hand Athenagoras certainly seems to have tried to eliminate the appearance of the Logos in time, and to emphasise the eternal nature of the divine relationships, without, however, reaching the position which Irenaeus took up here.]

[Footnote 435: This distinction is only found in Theophilus (II. 10); but the idea exists in Tatian and probably also in Justin, though it is uncertain whether Justin regarded the Logos as having any sort of being before the moment of his begetting.]

[Footnote 436: Justin, Apol. II. 6., Dial. 61. The Logos is not produced out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. Yet it is evident that the Apologists did not yet sharply and precisely distinguish between begetting and creating, as the later theologians did; though some of them certainly felt the necessity for a distinction.]

[Footnote 437: All the Apologists tacitly a.s.sume that the Logos in virtue of his origin has the capacity of entering the finite. The distinction which here exists between Father and Son is very pregnantly expressed by Tertullian (adv. Marc. II. 27): "Igitur quaec.u.mque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quaec.u.mque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro." But we ought not to charge the Apologists with the theologoumenon that it was an inward necessity for the Logos to become man. Their Logos hovers, as it were, between G.o.d and the world, so that he appears as the highest creature, in so far as he is conceived as the production of G.o.d; and again seems to be merged in G.o.d, in so far as he is looked upon as the consciousness and spiritual force of G.o.d. To Justin, however, the incarnation is irrational, and the rest of the Greek Apologists are silent about it.]

[Footnote 438: The most of the Apologists argue against the conception of the natural immortality of the human soul; see Tatian 13; Justin, Dial. 5; Theoph. II. 27.]

[Footnote 439: The first chapter of Genesis represented to them the sum of all wisdom, and therefore of all Christianity. Perhaps Justin had already written a commentary to the Hexaemeron (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 169 f.). It is certain that in the second century Rhodon (Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 8), Theophilus (see his 2nd Book ad Autol.), Candidus, and Apion (Euseb., H. E. V. 27) composed such. The Gnostics also occupied themselves a great deal with Gen. I.-III.; see, e.g., Marcus in Iren. I. 18.]

[Footnote 440: See Theophilus ad Aut. II. 27: [Greek: Ei gar ho Theos athanaton ton anthropon ap' arches pepoiekei, Theon auton pepoiekei; palin ei thneton auton pepoiekei edokei an ho Theos aitios einai tou thanatou autou. Oute oun athanaton auton epoiesen oute men thneton, alla dektikon amphoteron, hina, ei rhepse epi ta tes athanasias teresas ten entolen tou Theou, misthon komisetai par' autou ten athanasian kai genetai Theos, ei d' au trape epi ta tou thanatou pragmata parakousas tou Theou, autos eauto aitios e tou thanatou.]]

[Footnote 441: See Justin, Apol. I. 14 ff. and the parallel pa.s.sages in the other Apologists.]

[Footnote 442: See Tatian, Orat. II. and many other pa.s.sages.]

[Footnote 443: Along with this the Apologists emphasise the resurrection of the flesh in the strongest way as the specific article of Christian antic.i.p.ation, and prove the possibility of realising this irrational hope. Yet to the Apologists the ultimate ground of their trust in this early-Christian idea is their reliance on the unlimited omnipotence of G.o.d and this confidence is a proof of the vividness of their idea of him. Nevertheless this conception a.s.sumes that in the other world there will be a return of the flesh, which on this side the grave had to be overcome and regarded as non-existent. A clearly chiliastic element is found only in Justin.]

[Footnote 444: No uniform conception of this is found in the Apologists; see Wendt, Die Christliche Lehre von der menschlichen Vollkommenheit 1882, pp. 8-20. Justin speaks only of a heavenly destination for which man is naturally adapted. With Tatian and Theophilus it is different.]

[Footnote 445: The idea that the demon sovereignty has led to some change in the psychological condition and capacities of man is absolutely unknown to Justin (see Wendt, l.c., p. 11 f., who has successfully defended the correct view in Engelhardt's "Das Christenthum Justin's des Martyrers" pp. 92 f. 151. f. 266 f., against Stahlin, "Justin der Martyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler" 1880, p. 16 f.).

Tatian expressed a different opinion, which, however, involved him in evident contradictions (see above, p. 191 ff.). The apologetic theology necessarily adhered to the two following propositions: (1) The freedom to do what is good is not lost and cannot be. This doctrine was opposed to philosophic determinism and popular fatalism. (2) The desires of the flesh resulting from the const.i.tution of man only become evil when they destroy or endanger the sovereignty of reason. The formal _liberum arbitrium_ explains the possibility of sin, whilst its actual existence is accounted for by the desire that is excited by the demons. The Apologists acknowledge the universality of sin and death, but refused to admit the necessity of the former in order not to call its guilty character in question. On the other hand they are deeply imbued with the idea that the sovereignty of death is the most powerful factor in the perpetuation of sin. Their believing conviction of the omnipotence of G.o.d, as well as their moral conviction of the responsibility of man, protected them in theory from a strictly dualistic conception of the world. At the same time, like all who separate nature and morality in their ethical system, though in other respects they do not do so, the Apologists were obliged in practice to be dualists.]

[Footnote 446: Death is accounted the worst evil. When Theophilus (II.

26) represents it as a blessing, we must consider that he is arguing against Marcion. Polytheism is traced to the demons; they are accounted the authors of the fables about the G.o.ds; the shameful actions of the latter are partly the deeds of demons and partly lies.]

[Footnote 447: The Old Testament therefore is not primarily viewed as the book of prophecy or of preparation for Christ, but as the book of the full revelation which cannot be surpa.s.sed. In point of content the teaching of the prophets and of Christ is completely identical. The prophetical details in the Old Testament serve only to attest the _one_ truth. The Apologists confess that they were converted to Christianity by reading the Old Testament. Cf. Justin's and Tatian's confessions.

Perhaps Commodian (Instruct. I. 1) is also be understood thus.]

[Footnote 448: The _Oratio_ of Tatian is very instructive in this respect. In this book he has nowhere spoken _ex professo_ of the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; but in c. 13 fin. he calls the Holy Spirit "the servant of G.o.d who has suffered," and in c. 21 init. he says: "we are not fools and do not adduce anything stupid, when we proclaim that G.o.d has appeared in human form." Similar expressions are found in Minucius Felix. In no part of Aristides' Apology is there any mention of the pre-Christian appearance of the Logos. The writer merely speaks of the revelation of the Son of G.o.d in Jesus Christ.]

[Footnote 449: We seldom receive an answer to the question as to why this or that particular occurrence should have been prophesied.

According to the ideas of the Apologists, however, we have hardly a right to put that question; for, since the value of the historical consists in its having been predicted, its content is of no importance.

The fact that Jesus finds the she-a.s.s bound to a vine (Justin, Apol. I.

32) is virtually quite as important as his being born of a virgin. Both occurrences attest the prophetic teachings of G.o.d, freedom, etc.]

[Footnote 450: In Justin's polemical works this must have appeared in a still more striking way. Thus we find in a fragment of the treatise [Greek: pros Markiona], quoted by Irenaeus (IV. 6. 2), the sentence "unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans." So the theologoumenon of the _recapitulatio per Christum_ already appeared in Justin. (Vide also Dial. c. Tryph. 100.) If we compare Tertullian's _Apologetic.u.m_ with his Antignostic writings we easily see how impossible it is to determine from that work the extent of his Christian faith and knowledge. The same is probably the case, though to a less extent, with Justin's apologetic writings.]

[Footnote 451: Christians do not place a man alongside of G.o.d, for Christ is G.o.d, though indeed a second G.o.d. There is no question of two natures. It is not the divine nature that Justin has insufficiently emphasised--or at least this is only the case in so far as it is a second G.o.dhead--but the human nature; see Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p.

39 ff.]

[Footnote 452: We find allusions in Justin where the various incidents in the history of the incarnate Logos are conceived as a series of arrangements meant to form part of the history of salvation, to paralyse mankind's sinful history, and to regenerate humanity. He is thus a forerunner of Irenaeus and Melito.]

[Footnote 453: Even the theologoumenon of the definite number of the elect, which must be fulfilled, is found in Justin (Apol. I. 28, 45).

For that reason the judgment is put off by G.o.d (II. 7). The Apology of Aristides contains a short account of the history of Jesus; his conception, birth, preaching, choice of the 12 Apostles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, sending out of the 12 Apostles are mentioned.]

[Footnote 454: "To Justin faith is only an acknowledgment of the mission and Sonship of Christ and a conviction of the truth of his teaching.

Faith does not justify, but is merely a presupposition of the justification which is effected through repentance, change of mind, and sinless life. Only in so far as faith itself is already a free decision to serve G.o.d has it the value of a saving act, which is indeed of such significance that one can say, 'Abraham was justified by faith.' In reality, however, this took place through [Greek: metanoia]." The idea of the new birth is exhausted in the thought: [Greek: Theos kalei eis metanoian], that of the forgiveness of sins in the idea: "G.o.d is so good that he overlooks sins committed in a state of ignorance, if man has changed his mind." Accordingly, Christ is the Redeemer in so far as he has brought about all the conditions which make for repentance.]

[Footnote 455: This is in fact already the case in Justin here and there, but in the main there are as yet mere traces of it: the Apologists are no mystics.]

[Footnote 456: If we consider how largely the demons bulked in the ideas of the Apologists, we must rate very highly their conviction of the redeeming power of Christ and of his name, a power continuously shown in the victories over the demons. See Justin Apol. II. 6, 8; Dial. II, 30, 35, 39, 76, 85, 111, 121; Tertull., Apol. 23, 27, 32, 37 etc. Tatian also (16 fin.) confirms it, and c. 12, p. 56, line 7 ff. (ed. Otto) does not contradict this.]

[Footnote 457: Von Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, p. 432 f., has p.r.o.nounced against its genuineness; see also my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 158. In favour of its genuineness see Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1883, p. 26 f. The fragment is worded as follows: [Greek: Plasas ho Theos kat' archas ton anthropon tes gnomes autou ta tes phuseos apeoresen entole mia poiesamenos ten diapeiran. Phulaxanta men gar tauten tes athantou lexeos pepoieken esesthai, parabanta de tes enantias. Outo gegonos ho anthropos kai pros ten parabasin euthus elthon ten phthoran phusikos eisedexato. Phusei de tes phthoras prosgenomenes anankaion en hoti sosai boulomenos en ten phthoropoion ousian aphanisas. Touto de ouk en heteros genesthai, ei meper he kata phusin zoe proseplake to ten phthoran dexameno, aphanizousa men ten phthoran, athanaton de tou loipou to dexamenon diaterousa. Dia touto ton logon edeesen en somati genesthai, hina (tou thanatou) tes kata phusin hemas phthoras eleutherose. Ei gar, hos phate, neumati monon ton thanaton hemon apekolusen, ou prosei men dia ten boulesin ho thanatos, ouden de etton phthartoi palin emen phuiken en heautois ten phthoran peripherontes].]

[Footnote 458: Weizsacker, Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, p.

119, has with good reason strongly emphasised this element. See also Stahlin, Justin der Martyrer, 1880, p. 63 f., whose criticism of Von Engelhardt's book contains much that is worthy of note, though it appears to me inappropriate in the main.]

[Footnote 459: Loofs continues: "The Apologists, viewing the transference of the concept 'Son' to the preexistent Christ as a matter of course, enabled the Christological problem of the 4th century to be started. They removed the point of departure of the Christological speculation from the historical Christ back into the preexistence and depreciated the importance of Jesus' life as compared with the incarnation. They connected the Christology with the cosmology, but were not able to combine it with the scheme of salvation. Their Logos doctrine is not a 'higher' Christology than the prevailing form; it rather lags behind the genuine Christian estimate of Christ. It is not G.o.d who reveals himself in Christ, but the Logos, the depotentiated G.o.d, who _as G.o.d_ is subordinate to the supreme Deity."]

CHAPTER V.

THE BEGINNINGS OF AN ECCLESIASTICO-THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF THE RULE OF FAITH IN OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE APOLOGISTS: MELITO, IRENaeUS, TERTULLIAN, HIPPOLYTUS, NOVATIAN.[460]