History of Dogma Volume II Part 22

[Footnote 597: Adv. Prax. 27: "Sed enim invenimus illum diiecto et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. Lx.x.xVII. 5) ...

hic erit h.o.m.o 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 substantiae, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro pa.s.siones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo ... denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta doc.u.menta parerent utrinsque substantiae." In what follows the _actus utriusque substantiae_ are sharply demarcated: "ambae substantiae in statu suo quaeque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operae et exitus sui occurrerunt ...

neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt."

See also c. 29: "Quamquam c.u.m duae substantiae censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.]

[Footnote 598: 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 pa.s.sage where Tertullian speaks of _natures_ in reference to Christ, and this pa.s.sage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: "Itaque utriusque substantiae census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. Then: "Quae proprietas conditionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique _naturae_ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est."]

[Footnote 599: In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula "deus et h.o.m.o," or, after Tertullian's time "duae substantiae," 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 a.s.sociated 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 Patripa.s.sianism, 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 antic.i.p.ating.]

[Footnote 600: "Quare," says Irenaeus 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 quae salvaietur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"]

[Footnote 601: See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the pa.s.sage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: "Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen peric.l.i.tatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verb.u.m), factum caro, et non verb.u.m.... c.u.m scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum" etc.]

[Footnote 602: Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that G.o.d in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain G.o.d.

Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an _adunitio_.]

[Footnote 603: So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenaeus' Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually a.s.sociated with this thought (Bohringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him).]

[Footnote 604: 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 Irenaeus. 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 h.o.m.o 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: Iren. IV. 14. 2; for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenaeus' views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, l.c., 492 f., that the union of the Son of G.o.d with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea.]

[Footnote 606: "Secundum id quod verb.u.m dei h.o.m.o erat ex radice lesse et filius Abrabae, secunum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum ...

secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat." All that Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus' incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenaeus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulae about Christ: [Greek: ho Theos, ho poiesas ton ouranon k.t.l., kai ho toutou pais, on echrisen ho Theos]--"Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur." But Irenaeus only expressed himself thus because of these pa.s.sages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ [Greek: pais Theos].]

[Footnote 607: On Hippolytus' views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff.--an account to be used with caution--and Overbeck, Quaest.

Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenaeus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenaeus 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. Noet. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important pa.s.sage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: [Greek: eis gar kai ho tou Theou] (Iren.), [Greek: di'

ou kai hemeis tuchontes ten dia tou hagiou pneumatos anagennesin eis ena teleion kai epouranion anthropon hoi pantes katantesai epithumoumen]

(see Iren.) [Greek: Epeide gar ho logos tou Theou asarkos on] (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) [Greek: enedusato ten hagian sarka ek tes hagias parthenou; hos numphios himation exuphanas heauto en to stauriko pathei] (Irenaeus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the a.s.sumption of the flesh), [Greek: hopos sygkerasas to thneton hemon soma te heautou dunamei kai mixas] (Iren., Tertull.) [Greek: to aphtharto to phtharton kai to asthenes to ischuro sose ton apollumenon anthropon] (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenaeus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the [Greek: anapla.s.sein di' heutou ton Adam] l.c., c. 26, with the [Greek: anakephalaioun] of Irenaeus 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 pa.s.sages of additional importance. In the latter pa.s.sage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenaeus 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 G.o.d, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: [Greek: poion oun huion heautou ho Theos dia tes sarkos katepempsen all' he ton logon; hon huion prosegoreue dia to mellein auton genesthai, kai to koinon onoma tes eis anthropous philostorgias a.n.a.lambanei ho huios (kaitoi teleios logos on monogenes). oud' he sarx kath' heauten dicha tou logou hupostenai edunato dia to en logo ten sustasin echein houtos oun eis huios teleios Theou ephanerothe.] Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenaeus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the "divine mysteries" of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenaeus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter's confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several pa.s.sages. 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 pa.s.sage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): [Greek: ou pausetai he ekklesia gennosa ek kardias ton logon tou en kosmo hupo apiston diokomenon. "kai eteke", phesin, "huion arrena, hos mellei poimainein panta ta ethne", ton arrena kai teleios Christon, paida Theou, Theon kai anthropon katangellomenon aei tiktousa he ekklesia didaskei panta ta ethne.] If we consider how Irenaeus' pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse "doctrines," we see how the "Scripture"

theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here--"doctrinae 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: See other pa.s.sages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reechoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: "filius dei pa.s.sus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit."]

[Footnote 609: See III. 10. 3.]

[Footnote 610: See the remarkable pa.s.sage in IV. 36. 7: [Greek: he gnosis tou huiou tou Theou, hetis en aphtharsia.] Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenaeus' raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): "Si autem subit vos 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: "c.u.m perceperunt eam quae ab eo est libertatem et partic.i.p.ant 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 quae praedicta sunt bona."]

[Footnote 611: See IV. 36. 6: "Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos c.u.m vocatione (i.e., [Greek: meta ten klesin]) et iust.i.tiae operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei"--we must provide _ourselves_ with the wedding garment.]

[Footnote 612: 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 G.o.d; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of G.o.d'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 supera.s.set 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 G.o.d, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21.]

[Footnote 613: Irenaeus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail.

According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the _regula fidei_.]

[Footnote 614: See particularly V. 1. 1: "Verb.u.m potens et h.o.m.o verus sanguine suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt ... del verb.u.m non deficiens in sua iust.i.tia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea, non c.u.m vi, quemadmodum ilia initio dominabatur nostri, ea quae non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quae vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret." We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenaeus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, 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): [Greek: Ton priomenon ephes, einai ton Christon, ho peprakos tis estin; elthen eis se ho aplous mythos; hoti ho polon kai ho agorazon adelphoi eisin; ei kakos on ho diabolos to agatho pepraken, ouk esti kakos alla agathos; ho gar ap' arches phthonesas to anthropo, nun ouk eti hupo phthonou agetai, to agatho ten nomen paradous. estai oun dikaios ho tou phthonou kai pantos kakou pausamenos. autos goun ho Theos heurisketai polesas; mallon de hoi hemartekotes heautous apellotriosan hoi anthropoi dia tas hamartias auton; palin de elutrothesan dia ten eusplagchnian autou. touto gar phesin ho prophetes; Tais hamartiais humon eprathete kai tais anomiais exapesteila ten metera humon. Kai allos palin; Dorean eprathete, kai ou meta argyriou lutrothesesthe. to, oude meta argyriou; delonoti, tou haimatos tou Christou. touto gar phaskei ho prophetes] (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). [Greek: Eikos de hoti kata se epriato dous heautou to haima; pos oun kai ek nekron egeireto; ei gar ho labon ten timen ton anthropon, to haima, apedoken, ouketi epolesen. Ei de me apedoke, pos aneste Christos, ouketi oun to, Exousian echo theinai kai exousian echo labein, histatai; ho goun diabolos katechei to haima tou Christou anti tes times ton anthropon; polle blasphemios anoia! Pheu ton kakon! Apethanen, aneste hos dunatos; etheken ho elaben; aute poia prasis; tou prophetou legontos; Anasteto ho Theos kai diaskorpisthetosan hoi echthroi autou, Opou anastasis, ekei thanatos!] That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.]

[Footnote 615: See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: "Christus per pa.s.sionem reconciliavit nos deo." It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenaeus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy ("this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled"). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof.]

[Footnote 616: See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: [Greek: prothumos Abraam ton idion monogene kai agapeton parach.o.r.esas thusian to Theo, hina kai ho Theos eudokese huper tou spermatos autou pantos ton idion monogene kai agapeton huion thusian paraschein eis lutrosin hemeteran].]

[Footnote 617: There are not a few pa.s.sages where Irenaeus 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: Irenaeus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of G.o.d 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 G.o.d the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the G.o.d-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: See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV.

27. 2). For this, however, Irenaeus was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly a.s.serted, 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: See III. 16. 6: "In omnibus autem est et h.o.m.o plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impa.s.sibilis pa.s.sibilis, et verb.u.m h.o.m.o, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercaelestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verb.u.m dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus princ.i.p.atum habeat, in semetipsum primatum a.s.sumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiae, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore."]

[Footnote 621: There are innumerable pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sione, nee vita rest.i.tui sine resurrectione ipsius"; adv. Marc. III. 8: "Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro... nec pa.s.siones 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 const.i.tuens et salutis nostrae et praedictionis suae," 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenaeus the mystical conception of redemption--the const.i.tution 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 h.o.m.o divina agere doceretur. Ex aequo agebat deus c.u.m homine, ut h.o.m.o ex aequo agere c.u.m 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: "[Greek: Kai tauta men ekpheuxe Theon ton onta didachtheis, exeis de athanaton to soma kai aphtharton hama psyche, basileian ouranon apolepse, ho en ge bious kai epouranion basilea epignous, ese de homiletes Theou kai sygkleronomos Christou, ouk epithymiais e pathesi kai nosois douloumenos. Gegonas gar Theos hosa gar hupemeinas pathe anthropos on, tauta edidou, hoti anthropos eis, hosa de parakolouthei Theo, tauta parechein epengeltai Theos, hoti etheopoiethes, athanatos gennetheis. Toutesti to Gnothi seauton, epignous tou pepoiekota Thoen.

To gar epignonai heauton epignosthenai symbebeke to kaloumeno hup'

autou. Me philechthresete toinun heautois, anthropoi, mede to palindromein distasete. Christos gar estin ho kata panton Theos, os ten hamartian ex anthropon apoplunein proetaxe, neon ton palaion anthropon apotelon, eikona touton kalesas ap' arches, dia tupou ten eis se epideiknumenos storgen, ou prostagmasin hupakousas semnois, kai agathou agathos genomenos mimetes, ese h.o.m.oios hup' autou timetheis. Ou gar ptocheuei Theos kai se Theon poiesas eis doxan autou]." 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 c.u.m caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia d.a.m.nata est, quae 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" G.o.d.

Among these Western writers the thought that G.o.d's anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more p.r.o.nounced form than in Irenaeus. 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 Irenaeus. 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, Quaest, Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenaeus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenaeus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen's day) and in the West (after the 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: [Greek: numphe gar estin ho pas anthropos, hopotan tou alethous prophetou leuko logo aletheias speiromenos photizetai ton noun.] 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 [Greek: Didache] 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 foederavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum spousae; comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro ... Caro est sponsa, quae in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est"; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul.]

[Footnote 622: 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 pa.s.sages 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: 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 t.i.tle of his lost work "[Greek: peri tou diabolou kai tes apokalupseos Ioannou]." 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus. 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 t.i.tles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Inst.i.t. 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 Irenaeus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory--a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology--is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 ("modic.u.m delictum illuc luendum"). He speaks in several pa.s.sages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6).]

[Footnote 624: Irenaeus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of G.o.d, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of G.o.d to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenaeus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3). Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by G.o.d, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and G.o.d. He is described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom, that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world's history have elapsed; for "in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended" (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenaeus expressly argued against such "as pa.s.s for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility" (V. 31). By this he means such as a.s.sume that after death souls immediately pa.s.s to G.o.d. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ, after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored partic.i.p.ate in the Saviour's Kingdom (V. 31.

2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; "for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation"; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1) sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenaeus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenaeus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid, and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end.]

[Footnote 625: Hippolytus in the lost book [Greek: hyper tou kata Ioannen euangeliou kai apokalupseos]. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm.]

[Footnote 626: See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 627: In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoe the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an "apostasy" from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, ent.i.tled "Refutation of the allegorists"

attained the highest repute. "They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and a.s.similation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of G.o.d." So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to.

Dionysius a.s.serts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages.]

[Footnote 628: See Irenaeus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III.]

[Footnote 629: It would be superfluous to quote pa.s.sages here; two may stand for all Iren. IV. 9. 1: "Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verb.u.m dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahae et Moysi collocutus est." Both Testaments are "unius et emsdem substantiae." IV. 2. 3: "Moysis literae sunt verba Christi."]

[Footnote 630: See Iren. IV. 31. 1.]