W k-
%, ■^:, >. % ':$■ '% ■'^, ■ il: ^' %:
'^ ''' '■' ' '"\ ■$' ■%' %' ■*< - - '
' Ife, ^;' #^~ ^:' 1%.
% i^ 1^ % "■%: ;!.. 't; ri ?|^'(t
t ;f
^ • it ' ^;
:f V|, 't ;-^
t m. %
* t. # i ;^,
•K .4'
|
;|: |
t |
•'#. |
A |
|
|
f ■ f |
' k |
'^ |
iJK. |
|
|
r |
'^ |
^ |
'5; |
|
|
f' |
' ft |
^ |
p:' t^ 'fl ii^. !>■ r|i-
11
LIBRARY OF WELLESLEY COLLEGE
PRESENTED BY
Kr. A. A. Swest
THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY
Edited by the Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor OF Interpretation, Oxford; and the Rev. A. B. BRUCE, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.
VOL. VII.
HARNACK^S HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. XL
HISTORY OF DOGMA
BV
Dr. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY I'ROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. BERLIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOL. II.
BOSTON
ROBERTS BROTHERS
1897
4'-\4
X -i^ %j
CONTENTS.
Page CHAPTER I.— Historical Survey i— 18
The Old and New Elements in the formation of the Catholic Church 2
The fixing of that which is Apostolic (Rule of Faith, Collection of Writings, Organization, Cultus) .... 5
The Stages in the Genesis of the Catholic Rule of Faith, the Apologists 7
Irenaeus, TertuUian, Hippolytus 9
Clement and Origen 11
Obscurities in reference to the origin of the most import- ant Institutions 15
Difficulties in determining the importance of individual Personalities 16
Differences of development in the Churches of different countries 17
I. Fixing and gradual Secularising of Christianity as a
Church 18-168
CHAPTER II.— The setting up of the Apostolic Standards
for Ecclesiastical Christianity. The Catholic Church . . 18—93 A. The transformation of the Baptismal Confession into
the Apostohc Rule of Faith 20—38
Necessities for setting up the Apostolic Rule of Faith . 21 The Rule of Faith is the Baptismal Confession definitely
interpreted 24
Estimate of this transformation 27
Irenaeus 27
TertuUian 29
CONTENTS.
Page
Results of the transformation 31
Slower development in Alexandria : Clement and Origen. 32 B. The designation of selected writings read in the Churches
as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a
collection of Apostolic Writings 38 — 67
Plausible arguments against the statement that up to the
year 150 there was no New Testament in the Church. 38 Sudden emergence of the New Testament in the Mura-
torian Fragment, in (Melito) Irenaeus and Tertullian . 43 Conditions under which the New Testament originated. 45 Relation of the New Testament to the earlier writings
that were read in the Churches 47
Causes and motives for the formation of the Canon,
manner of using and results of the New Testament . 51 The Apostolic collection of writings can be proved at
first only in those Churches in which we find the
Apostolic Rule of Faith ; probably there was no New
Testament in Antioch about the year 200, nor in
Alexandria (Clement) 56
Probable history of the genesis of the New Testament
in Alexandria up to the time of Origen 60
Addendum. The results which the creation of the New
Testament produced in the following period .... 62 C The transformation of the Episcopal Office in the
Church into an Apostolic Office. The History of the
remodelling of the conception of the Church .... 67—94 The legitimising of the Rule of Faith by the Communities
which were founded by the Apostles 67
By the "Elders" 68
By the Bishops of Apostolic Churches (disciples of Apostles) 69 By the Bishops as such, who have received the Apostolic
Charisma ijcritatis 70
Excursus on the conceptions of the Alexandrians ... 70
The Bishops as successors of the Apostles 70
Original idea of the Church as the Holy Community
that comes from Heaven and is destined for it ... 73 The Church as the empiric Catholic Communion resting
on the Law of Faith 74
CONTENTS. Ill
Page
Obscurities in the idea of the Church as held by Irenaeus
and TertulUan 77
By Clement and Origen 80
Transition to the Hierarchical idea of the Church . . 83
The Hierarchical idea of the Church : Calixtus and Cyprian 84 Appendix I. Cyprian's idea of the Church and the actual
circumstances go
,, II. Church and Heresy 90
„ III. Uncertainties regarding the consequences
of the new idea of the Church .... 93
CHAPTER III.— Continuation.— The Old Christianity and
the New Church 94—169
Introduction 94
The Original Montanism 95
The later Montanism as the dregs of the movement
and as the product of a compromise 100
The opposition to the demands of the Montanists by the Catholic Bishops: importance of the victory for
the Church 104
History of penance : the old practice 109
The laxer practice in the days of TertulUan and Hippo-
lytus no
The abolition of the old practice in the days of Cyprian in Significance of the new kind of penance for the idea of the Church ; the Church no longer a Communion of Salvation and of Saints, but a condition of Salva- tion and a Holy Institution and thereby a corpus
pcnnixtum 113
After eftect of the old idea of the Church in Cyprian 115
Origen's idea of the Church 116
Novatian's idea of the Church and of penance, the
Church of the Catharists 118
Conclusion : the Catholic Church as capable of being a
support to society and the state 122
Addenda I. The Priesthood 128
„ II. Sacrifice ■ . . 131
„ III. Means of Grace. Baptism and the Eucharist 138 Excursus to Chapters II. and III. — Catholic and Roman . 149—169
IV CONTENTS.
Page
II. Fixing and gradual Hellenising of Christianity as A System of Doctrine.
CHAPTER IV. — Ecclesiastical Christianity and Philosophy.
The Apologists 169 — 230
1. Introduction i6g
The historical position of the Apologists 169
Apologists and Gnostics 170
Nature and importance of the Apologists' theology . 172
2. Christianity as Philosophy and as Revelation .... 177
Aristides 179
Justin 179
Athenagoras 188
Miltiades, Melito 190
Tatian 190
Pseudo-Justin, Orat. ad Or 193
Theophilus 194
Pseudo-Justin, de Resurr 195
TertuUian and Minucius 196
Pseudo-Justin, de Monarch 199
Results 199
3. The doctrines of Christianity as the revealed and
rational religion 202
Arrangement 202
The Monotheistic Cosmology 204
Theology 205
Doctrine of the Logos 206
Doctrine of the World and of Man 212
Doctrine of Freedom and Morality 214
Doctrine of Revelation (Proofs from Prophecy) . . . 215
Significance of the History of Jesus 217
Christology of Justin 220
Interpretation and Criticism, especially of Justin's
doctrines 225
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 Apolo- gists; Melito, Irenoeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian 231 — 319
CONTENTS.
Page
The theological position of Irenaeus and of the later
contemporary Church teachers 231
Characteristics of the theology of the Old Catholic
Fathers, their wavering between Reason and Tradition 231
Loose structure of their Dogmas 234
Irenaeus' attempt to construct a systematic theology and
his fundamental theological convictions 236
Gnostic and anti-Gnostic features of his theology . . 237 Christianity conceived as a real redemption by Christ
(recapitulatio) 239
His conception of a history of salvation 2z}4
His historical significance : conserving of tradition and
gradual hellenising of the Rule of Faith 244
The Old Catholic Fathers' doctrine of the Church . . 247
The Antithesis to Gnosticism 247
The "Scripture theology" as a sign of the dependence on "Gnosticism" and as a means of conserving tra- dition • 250
The Doctrine of God 253
The Logos Doctrine of Tertullian and Hippolytus . . 256
(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit) 261
Iren^us' doctrine of the Logos 262
(Conceptions regarding the Holy Spirit) 266
The views of Irenseus regarding the destination of man,
the original state, the fall and the doom of death
(the disparate series of ideas in Irenaeusi, rudiments
of the doctrine of original sin in Tertullian) . . . 267
The doctrine of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God 275
Assertion of the complete mixture and unity of the
divine and human elements 275
Significance of Mary 277
Tertullian's doctrine of the two natures and its origin. 279
Rudiments of this doctrine in Irenjeus 283
The Gnostic character of this doctrine 286
Christology of Hippolytus 286
Views as to Christ's work 288
Redemption, Perfection 289
Reconciliation 292
Categories for the fruit of Christ's work 292
VI CONTENTS.
Page
Things peculiar to Tertullian 293
Satisfacere Deo 294
The Soul as the Bride of Christ 294
The Eschatology 294
Its archaic nature, its incompatibility with speculation and the advantage of connection with that .... 297
Conflict with Chiliasm in the East 299
The doctrine of the two Testaments 300
The influence of Gnosticism on the estimate of the two Testaments, the coviplexus oppositoriwi ; the Old Test- ament a uniform Christian Book as in the Apologists 301 The Old Testament a preliminary stage of the New
Testament and a compound Book 304
The stages in the history of salvation 305
The law of freedom the climax of the revelation in Christ 309 3. Results to Ecclesiastical Christianity, chiefly in the West,
(Cyprian, Novatian) 312
CHAPTER VI. — The Transformation of the Ecclesiastical Tra- dition into a Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and Dogmatic of the Church :
Clement and Origen 319.
(i) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of
Alexandria 319
Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor, Cappadocian Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius x^fricanus, Scholars in Palestine, Rome and Carthage) .... 320 The Alexandrian Catechedcal School. Clement . . . 323, The temper of Clement and his importance in the History of Dogma; his relation to Ireneeus, to the Gnostics and to primitive Christianity ; his philosophy
of Religion 324
Clement and Origen 331
(2) The system of Origen 332
Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen 332 The Elements of Origen's theology; its Gnostic features 334
The relative view of Origen 334, 336
His temper and final aim : relation to Greek Philosophy 335
CONTENTS VII
Page Theology as a Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmo-
logical speculation 340
Porphyry on Origen 341
The neutralising of Histor}', esoteric and exoteric
Christianity - . . . . 342
Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system . . 343
Sources of truth, doctrine of Scripture 346
I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding 34g
Doctrine of God 349
Doctrine of the Logos 352
Clement's doctrine of the Logos 352
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit 357
Doctrine of Spirits 35g
II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences .... 361 Doctrine of Man 363
III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration .... 365
The notions necessary to the Psychical 367
The Christology 369
The Appropriation of Salvation 375
The Eschatology 377
Concluding Remarks : The importance of this system
to the following period 378
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL SURVEY
The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities was characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the Marcionite Church, by the gradual devel- opment of an ecclesiastical doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical association, which, forming at one and the same time a political commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm foundation of an ''apostolic" law of faith, a collection of "apostolic" writings, and finally, an "apostolic" organisation. This institution was the Catholic Church. ' In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism, the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox Christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws, and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first the innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal, character. Hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of freedom and independence in religion.
1 Aube (Histoire des Persecutions de I'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878. pp. i — 68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work are excellent, though not seldom exaggerated in particular points. See especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28 — 34. Since the appearance of RitschFs monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with the French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very one- sided manner, makes the .ndoption of the legal and constitutional arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.
2 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
How great the innovations actually were, however, may be measured by the fact that they signified a scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and restricted the im- mediateness of religious feeHngs and ideas to the narrowest hmits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed that there were still a considerable number of Christians who valued that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to the assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of faith, hope, and discipline into a communion " eiusdem sacramenti", that is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a doc- trinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine institution. '
The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to a place in the history of Christianity to the victory
1 Sohm (p. i6o) declares: ^-The foundation of Catholicism is the divine Church law to which it lays claim." In many other passages he even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See, e.g., p. 2: "The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring legal institutions to be necessary to the Church."' Page 700: "The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church." This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: The assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or, in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this veiy attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the mark of a pseudo-Catholicism." But the thesis contains too narrow a view of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element, which Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly '• Catholic " feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety, it is self-evident that such portions become
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 3
over Gnosticism and to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition. If Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag Christianity down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its dearest possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and redemption, then Cathol- icism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the Greeks, pre- served the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early Christian writings, thereby saving — as far as documents, at least, were concerned — and proclaiming the authority of an important part of primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknow- ledeed as a conservative force born from the vigour of Christi-
legal ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and the corres- ponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found the more general con- viction that the empirical Church, as it actually exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation : its doctrine, its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. Whoever doubts that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, this conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must certainly be a strong detestation of "the divine Church law." Indeed, the inclination to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. But, on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a legal code. Sohm's distinction, that in the oldest period there was no "law ", but only a "regulation", is artificial, though possessed of a certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle of like-minded enthusiasts, and a different one in a community where all stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has thei^efore to train its members. Or should it not do so ? And, on the other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the hxTXzs'i; of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm's proposition: ^'The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church," does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but has been formed under the shadow and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The Anabaptists were also in the shadow and ban of Catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt to wreck the Church and Church history and found a new empire, or a return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! But the Gospel is above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above the question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not sin, even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the Romans, and even with the Pope, provided these are not made part of the Gospel.
4 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
anity. If we put aside abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the Synagogue and observance of the Jewish law, there could at least be no impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church. Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Cathol- icism never clearly put the question, "What is Christian?" In- stead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the intro- duction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protec- tive covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directh" disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other things. ' In ever increasing measure it invested all the forms which this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But, in Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system. Catholic Christi-
1 In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the other hand, the attempt to create a rigid oecumenical community, held together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a founder, the Catholic has none.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 5
anity discovered the formula which reconciled faith and know- ledge. This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and the blessed efit'ects which it accomplished continued to operate even after it had itself already become a fetter.
Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of developments. In the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is Christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic institutions. The baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. A collection of apostolic writings was formed from those read in the Churches, and this compilation was placed on an equal footing with the Old Testament. The episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and the attribute of successor of the Apostles was conferred on the bishop. Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a cele- bration of mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the Apostles. The result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive Church in the form of a communion of doctrine, cere- monial, and law, a confederation which more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation was pri- marily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only conceived as "law," but was also very soon supplemented by new standards. One of the most important problems to be investigated in the history of dogma, and one which unfortun- ately cannot be completely solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon of Scripture, what circum- stances required the appearance of living authorities in the communities, and what relation was established between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the apostolic ofiice. The development ended with the formation of a clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. He disposed of the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage.
But even apart from the content which Christianity here received, this process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the Church. This would be self-evident enough, even if it
6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
were not confirmed by noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent anticipated in the so-called Gnos- ticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and Tertullian, de praiscr. 35). But the element which the latter lacked, namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to Christianity. The depotentiation to which Christianity was here subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits.
But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our attention to the second series of developments that make up the history of this period. The Church did not mereh^ set up dykes and walls against Gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief and hope ; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific theolog}-. That was a necessity which did not first spring from Christianity's own internal struggles. It was already involved in the fact that the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and the world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the pressing questions which then occupied men's minds.
The beginning of a development which a century later reached its provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in the transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as we already find it before the middle of the second century. As regards its content, this system of doctrine meant the legitimis- ing of Greek philosophy within the sphere of the rule of faith. The theology of Origen bears the same relation to the New Testament as that of Philo does to the Old, What is here presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious philosophj- of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from an)-
Chap. i.J HISTORICAL SURVEY 7
connection with Greek mythology and gross polytheism. ' A motley multitude of primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both Testaments, and too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. But the majority of these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine, in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal place. -
This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do not mean the Gospel, was not a gradual process ; for the truth rather is that it was already accomplished the moment that the reflective Greek confronted the new religion which he had accepted. The Christianity of men like Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than that ofOrigen. But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is twofold. In the first place, those Apologists did not yet find themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a title to be reverenced as Christian ; they have to do with the Old Testament and the "Teachings of Christ" {'^I'^x'^'y.xrx Xsittov). In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation of Christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself demands. As they really never enquired what was meant by "Christian," or at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never claimed that their scientific presentation of Christianity was the first proper ex- pression of it that had been given. Justin and his contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and in itself requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which existed
1 The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by Grceco-Roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the influence of Catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology were swept away, spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life and the hope of an eternal one made certain. Philosophy also aimed at that, l^ut it was not able to establish a community of men on these foundations.
- Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of the distinction between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the Fathers, who followed the theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke, Vol. LXII. p. 49. quoting Proles: 'When the word of God comes to the Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were ' filtered through a coal sack, where the milk must become black and spoiled."
8 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy was only understood by a small minority in the Church, though its interests and aims were not unknown to most. Christian thinkers were therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished what was really the only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz., the assur- ance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity as a religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the Apologists made it to some extent inoperative without attacking it. The latter were not disowned, but rather laid the found- ation of Church theology, and determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the future. '
But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the task of showing that Christianity was the perfect and certain philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest scientific knowledge of God and the world, was to be rendered more difficult. To these difficulties all that primitive Christianity has up to the present transmitted to the Church of succeeding times contributes its share. The conflict with Gnosticism made it necessary to find some sort of solution to the question, "What is Christian?" and to fix this answer. But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection from tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on Christians. Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the
' They were not the first to determine this circle of interests. So far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious knowledge among the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the Apologists, which are merely expressed with precision and divested of Old Testament language.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 9
Church had henceforth to be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of New Testament Scriptures. That created an entirely new situation for Christian thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of subordinating Christianity to the Hellenic spirit. That spirit never became quite master of the situation ; it was obliged to accommodate itself to it. ' The work first began with the scientific treatment of individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying the Church's own needs. The framework in which these articles were placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this maintained a doctrine of God and the world, which seemed to correspond to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the Gnostic theses. (Melito), Irenseus, Ter- tullian and Hippolytus, aided more or less by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to the Gnostic •dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal confes- sion interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being developed into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas as propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown to exist in the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and rationally reproduced and formulated, then the men we have just mentioned were the first to set up dogmas' — dogmas but no
^ It was ouly after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the admissibility of every form of Christianity that reverenced that collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church began in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and convictions of primitive Christianity, it preserved this religion to the future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity is entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of Catholicism. On the supposition — which is indeed an academic consideration — ^^that this fixing had not taken place because of the non-appearance of the Gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all probability know next to nothing of original Christianity to-day. How much we would have known may be seen from the Shepherd of Hermas.
- So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of Christianity, and capable of being scholastically proved,
lO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. Their peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet Tertullian already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still lived in the belief that the Christianity which filled their minds required no scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest knowledge, and that it was in all respects iden- tical with the Christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. That this was an illusion is proved by man}- considerations, but most convincingly by the fact that Tertullian and Hippolytus had the main share in introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated dogma, viz., that the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the articiilits constitiitivus eaicsiiß. The effects of this undertaking can never be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek philos- ophy /';/ mice, though primitive Christian views may have been subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed of Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up of the first dogma in the Churchy meant the future conversion of the rule of faith into a philosophic system. But in yet another respect Irena^us and Hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the Apologists, which, paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of Christian Hellenism and from a deeper study of the Pauline theology, that is, emanates from the con- troversy with Gnosticism. In them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle to the Ephesians), and brought into the closest
originated with the Apologists. Even as early as Justin we find tendencies tu amalgamate historical material and natural theology.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY I I
connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son of man (fihus dei et fiHus hominis). What the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. What a message ! This conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future. A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic system of the Church. '
But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both Testaments and the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on the other, had been recognized in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given up, but as a problem. If the Church tradition contained the assurance, not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, hoped for, and prized, and if for that very reason it was re- garded as in every respect inviolable, then the absolutely in- dissoluble union of Christian tradition with the Greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all doubt. But an immense number of problems were at the .same time raised, especially when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of the Church. The task, which had been begun by Philo and carried on by Valentinus and his school, was now under- taken in the Church. Clement led the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task proved too much for him. Origen took it up under more difficult circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He, the rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wrote the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philoso- phic .systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures ot both Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus,
^ It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an old-fashioned Christian, to whom the Gospel was conscientia religionis^ disciplina viiiC and spes ßde/\ and who found no sort of edification in N'eoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on tlie ideas '•command", '•■performance'", '"error"', ''forgiveness"". In Irenreus also, moreover, the ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.
12 HISTORY OF DOGMA Chap, i.]
while keeping steadily in view a simple and highly practical aim. In this dogmatic the rule of faith is recast and that quite consciously. Origen did not conceal his conviction that Christi- anity finds its correct expression only in scientific knowledge, and that every form of Christianity that lacks theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own content. This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that the untheological Christianity of the age with which he compared his own was already permeated by Hellenic elements and in a very great measure secularised. ' But Origen, as well as Clement before him, had really a right to the con- viction that the true essence of Christianity, or, in other words, the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical speculation; for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of both Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church which identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and Origen found freedom and independence in what they recog- nized to be the essence of the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition. But was not that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given to the ideal by representing it as assured beyond all doubt, already realised in the person of Christ and incom- patible with polytheism. If, as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and in the theory of the universe connected with it. if they prepared themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they felt themselves to be perfect onh' through dependence on God, then, in spite of their Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel than Irena^us with his slavish dependence on authority.
The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which
1 On the sigaiticaiice of Clement and Origen see Overbeck. "Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur" in d. Mist. Ztschr. X. F., Vol. XII. p. 417 ff.
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 3
was still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved from the Bible, was a private undertaking of Origen, and at first only approved in limited circles. As yet, not only were certain bold changes of interpretation disputed in the Church, but the undertaking itself, as a whole, was disapproved. ' The circumstances of the several provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still very diverse. Many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them into Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the clergy — not to speak of the laity — was not high enough to enable them to appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in which Origen taught carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a number of the bishops and presbyters of the East in the last half of the third century. They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by the age, and this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. Wherever the Logos Christology had been adopted the future of Christian Hellenism was certain. At the beginning of the fourth century there was no community in Christendom which, apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system of Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine started the crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. Symbols of faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of Origen's theology with the inflexible Antignostic regiila fidei. One celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of Irenaeus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic mysticism. The developments of the following period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect.
As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of
^ Information on this point may be got not only from the writings of Origen (see especially his work against Celsus), but also and above all from his history. The controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.
14 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. i.
the blending of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity, ' so the Cathohc dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity con- ceived and formulated from the standpoint of the Greek philos- ophy of religion. "" This Christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new phase of history in the Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be la- mented in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was thereby retarded (?). But lamentations become here ill-founded assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way that neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric knowledge which we have acquired, is based up to the present moment on the discords resulting from that union.
These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify '^ the arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma. ^ A few more remarks are, however, necessary.
1 The three or (reckoning JMethodius) four steps of the development of church doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers, Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic philosophy, and complete syncretism.
2 "Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur (Tertull.. de bapt. a.^i
•* The plan of placing the apologetic theology before everything else would have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical develop- ment and the inner theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to nie to be very great. We must then of course understand the two developments as proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what was gained in the foimer passed over much more directly and swiftly into the general life of the Church, than what was reached in the latter. Decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be generally known and accepted in the Church, as is shown by the long continued conflict against Monarchianism.
■• The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly described within the framework of the histoiy of dogma, for the political situation of the Christian
Chap, i.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 5
1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the CathoUc rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and mutual intercourse, had no real forum puhliaim, though indeed, in a certain sense, each bishop was in foro publico. As a rule, therefore, we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the shape of results, without being able to state precisely the ways and means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course of things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament canon of Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a special share in the development, although we know that the Roman Church played a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting. It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the East, but later also in the West, Synods in which an under- standing was arrived at on all questions of importance to Christianity, including, e.g., the extent of the canon. '
2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics
communities in tlie Roman Empire had quite as important an influence on the development of the Catholic Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as that situation and these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development within definite limits.
1 See TertulUan, de pudic. lo: '-Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, qure sola moechos amat, divine instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;" de ieiun. 13: *'Aguntur prteterea per Grrecias ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per qure et altiora quasque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprjesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur." We must also take into account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may specially remind the reader of the correspondence between Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., H.E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. Cf. generally Zahn, Weltverkehr und Kirche während der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877.
1 6 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap, u
on the development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of tradition for every innovation they intro- duced, and did in fact do so, and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish between what the\- received from tradition and what they added to it of their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great extent dependent on Irenseus. What amount of innovation these men independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenaeus pretty much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulae which are not found in Ire- nseus and which proved of the greatest importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power, vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenaeus. The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of develop- ment. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenaeus this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the question as to the position of Irenaeus in the history of the Church. To what extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he formulated already employed in the Churches, and in which of them? We cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange of Christian writings in the Church after the last quarter of the second cen- tury. ' Every important work speedily found its way into the churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diftusion was not merely from East to West, though this was the general rule. At the beginning of the fourth century there was in Cae- sarea a Greek translation of TertuUian's Apology and a collection
> See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek Apologists of the second century in the early Church in tlie Texte und Unters, z. Gesch. der alt christL Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2.
Chap, I.] HISTORICAL SURVEY 1 7
of Cyprian's epistles. ' The influence of the Roman Church extended over the greater part of Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the Churches in East and West had still in some degree a common history.
3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period extending from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our authorities are almost completely derived from those leading Churches that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. Yet the difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of development in Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved. "
4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men. Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed another new fetter.
1 See Euseb., H.E. II. 2; VI. 43.
- See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far East generally The Acta Archelai and the Homilies of Aphraates should also be specially examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and finally the remains of the Latin- Christian literature of the third century — apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian — as found partly under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. Commodian, Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the Church.
FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH.
CHAPTER II.
THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR
ECCLESIASTICAL CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH. '
We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from TertuUian's "de praescriptione haereticorum." In chap. 21 we find: "It is plain that all teaching that agrees with those apostolic Churches which are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it being certain that such doctrine contains that which the Church received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God." In chap. 36 we read: "Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the
' In itself the predicate ''Catholic"" contains no element that signifies a secularising of the Church. "Catholic" originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations. Hence the concepts "all communities"" and the ''universal Church " are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found everywhere in Christen- dom. Consequently, "entire or universal Christendom," "the Church spread over the whole earth," and "the true Church" were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept "Catholic" became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 1 9
Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resur- rection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who rejects this institution." In chap. 32 the following challenge is addressed to the heretics : " Let them unfold a series of their bishops proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this first bishop of theirs had as his authority and prede- cessor some one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with the Apostles." * From the con- sideration of these three passages it directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It will be seen that the Church always adopted these three stand- ards together, that is simultaneously. ^ As a matter of fact they originated in Rome and gradually made their way in the other Churches. That Asia Minor had a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in obscurity. The three Catho-
* Translator' s note. The following is Tertullian's Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: -'Constat omnem doctrinam qua; cum ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenen- tem quod ecclesire ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit." Cap. 36 : "Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum lesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis re- surrectionem ; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet ; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhartatur, et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit." Chap. 32:'-Evol- vant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tarnen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem.'"
1 Xone of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the God of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.
20 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
lie standards had their preparatory stages, (i) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the formless apostoHc tradition as well as in the writings read in the Churches ; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and teachers, or the "elders" and leaders of the individual communities.
A. The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic Rule of Faith.
It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the complete identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian communities with the doctrine or regulations of the twelve Apostles can already be shown in the earliest Gentile-Christian literature. In the widest sense the expression, x^vi;/ -•/,: 7rxpix,'Zo<7s:cc (canon of tradition), originally included all that was traced back to Christ himself through the medium of the Apostles and was of value for the faith and life of the Church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable possession, as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith they were the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far as this faith was to determine the essence of everything Christian, it might be termed xxvcüv rijc Trhrsccc, •a.x-jx'j t-^c xKy^sIx!: (canon of the faith, canon of the truth). ' But the very fact that the extent of what was regarded as tradition of the Apostles was quite undetermined ensured the possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still allowable to give expression to
' See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., espe- cially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the «VaS ■Kxfx- SoSslia-x Toic, xyioic; x/a-T/i;, and in v. 20 of "building yourselves up in your most holy faith." See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. i). In either case the expressions Kxvuv Tvii; 'TfiiXTSbic,, xxvuv TVji; x^itäeix^, or the like, might stand for ttio-tiz, for the faith itself is primarily the canon ; but it is the canon only in So far as it is comprehen- sible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept 0 kxvuv ri^t; x^yiSi/x^ cum synonymis (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184 — 205).
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 21
Christian inspiration and to the intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition.
We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit. ' It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 1 50. In the solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord's Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons, - fixed formulae were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus. ' We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess ; ^ and something similar must also have existed
1 In Hennas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula TTiTTSvu Sit; eva 6sbv vxvTXicpxTopos, which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.
- See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is not surprising that formulas similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession.
3 These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4.
* The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregeis. 3 Vols. 1866 — 1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article '"Apostol. Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. § 2.
22 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
in Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year 1 50, in some cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that formulae of similar plan and extent were also found in other provincial Churches about this time. ' Still it is neither probable that all the then existing communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had formulated them in such a rigid way as the Roman Church had done. The proclamation of the history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament, the •/,•/; :-jyy.x rijc x)y,^six:, also accompanied the short baptismal formula without being expressed in set terms. -
Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian life were not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. In the recently discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" (A/^Ä%vj t:c'j x77077o?.:c-^) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of Christian life as traced back to Jesus through the medium of the Apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation of Christian Churches ; but this undertaking, which could not but have led the development of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed. That the formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct, but the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoid- able necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was practically assured, •* Objection was not taken to the principles
1 This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp, I. 2. ed. 2. pp. 115—42.
- The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulae (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.
3 This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the AtSxx^' received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of moralilv become
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 23
of morality — at least this was not a primary consideration — for there were many Greeks to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as he was represented in tradition and to the Church's worship of a God, who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being, appeared to the Greeks, with their ideas of a purelyjspiritual deity, to be inter- woven with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the Jews also, seemed clearly distinct from the Supreme Being. This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion. With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. '• It was admitted on all sides that Christi- anity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings ; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities. The problem arose and pressed for an answer : What should be the basis of Christian union ? But the problem was for a time insoluble. For there was no standard and no court of appeal. " From the very beginning, when the differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity, appeal was probably made to the Apostles' doctrine, the words of the Lord, tradition, "sound doctrine", definite facts, such as the reality of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality of his death and resurrection. ' In instruction, in exhortations, and above all in opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aber-
tlie prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a pre- paration for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed fonnulce in these cases.
^ See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, I Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII.. II. I, VI. 3, Justin.
24 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
rations, this precept was inculcated from the beginning : x~c>.'t7ru[ji,£v rxc 'Asvxq y.xi iJ.xrxix: (ppovri'hx:^ y.x) f A^:ü,af> iV/ r;v svy./.sij y.xi T£[/,vh rijc xxpx^OTsooc '/i[/.oo'j zx'jo'^x ("Let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition "). But the very question was : What is sound doctrine? What is the content of tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a reality? etc. There is no doubt that Justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians, insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy. To all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his I'J'j-x.yij.x. yx-x ■77x.7^'j rxv ysys'j-.jiji.hxv xipsiTfCüi/) ; but, judging from those writings of his that have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox Christianity. '
The permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of such a standard. They were no longer held together by the conscientia religionis, the tmitas disciplinie, and the fccdiis spei. The Gnostics were not solely to blame for that.
• In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that TertuUian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy, for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings ; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to Theophilus' remarks in "•ad Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formula' and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. I ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formula; in the sense of Irenceus and TertuUian. We find him using the expression opioyvui^ovei; in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the op^oyvuiJLovs^ kxtoc xxvrct Xftttrnxvot. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are t?? xxSxfxt; xx) eva-sßovi; yvw/zi^?, though they are not fully ortiiodo.x in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenaeus aad TertuUian. They have advanced to tlie principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 25
They rather show us merely the excess of a continuous trans- formation which no community could escape. The gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority of Christians knew themselves to be such, (i) because they had the "Spirit" and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their Christian position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of Jesus (fvrcA^} ''lijTov). But when these guarantees died away, and when at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to break up the Church were preached in the name of Christianity, the fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to some extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who took the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of dogmatic formula; has always been the support of new formations. But the example set by the Gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem difficult. Where was a beginning to be made? "There is a kind of unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form." ' There could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was "apostolic", for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based on a divine , revelation which had been transmitted through the medium of the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly was not a single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms employed by the Churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in the strict sense. It must have come about by a natural process. But the confession of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the kerygvia of Jesus Christ had the most prominent place among these forms. The special emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the "common sense" of all those who clung to the belief that the Father of Jesus Christ was the creator of the world, and
^ Hatch, "Organisation of the Church ", p. 96.
26 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
that the Son of God really appeared in the flesh. But that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even admitting that about the period between 150 and 180 A.D. all the Churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the strict sense — and this cannot be proved, — the most dangerous of all Gnostic schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed, since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic creed definitely interpreted ; for it was only by the aid of a definite interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the Gnostic speculations and the Marcionite conception of Christianity.
In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which are known to us through Irenaius and Tertullian, took, with regard to the fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed to the Apostles, the following step: The Antignostic interpret- ation required by the necessities of the times was proclaimed as its self-evident content; the confession, thus explained, was designated as the "Catholic faith" ("fides catholica "), that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the-' general confederation of Christendom. Irenaius was not the author of this proceeding. How far Rome acted with the cooper- ation or under the influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a matter that is still obscure,' and will probably never be deter- mined with certainty. What the Roman community accomplished practically was theoretically established by Irenaius - and Ter- tullian. The former proclaimed the baptismal confession, defi- nitely interpreted and expressed in an Antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis), and tried
I We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporar\- with ; Irenseus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp's exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusehius. H. K. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned.
- Irenseus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. liaeres., esjiecially in tlie third book. Unfortunately his treatise, " ?^6yoi; sic S7ri2sihv rov xtovto^ikov y.v,f6y- iJiXTO^", probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved (Euseb., n. E. V. 26.)
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 2/
to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory that this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by the Apostles, and that these communities had ahvays preserved the apostoHc teaching unchanged (see under C).
Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity from complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assump- tions and on a confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from the Apostles, nor that the Churches they founded always preserved their teaching in its original form ; the creed itself, moreover, is confused with its interpret- ation. Finally, the existence of a fides catholica, in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of communities. ^ But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenaius was the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A fides apos- tolica had to be set up and declared identical with the already existing fides eatJiolica. It had to be made the standard for judging all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be deter- mined whether they were admissible or not.
The persuasive power with which Irena^us set up the principle of the apostolic " rule of truth," or of "tradition " or simply of" faith," was undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no doubt as to its interpretation. " The rule
^ Irenceus indeed asserts in several passages that all Chiuxhes — those in German'}", Iberia, among tlie Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. lO. 2; III. 3. i; III. 4. I sq. — possess the same apostolic kerygma\ but "qui nimis probat nihil probat." The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date.
- We must further point out here that Irenreus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the "elders"' in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. Tlie confidence with which he represented his antignostic inter- pretation of the ci-eed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the "-elders" in his great work. (.\ collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.)
28 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
of truth (also j^ utto rijg ey.yJ.yi7ix: y.'^pu77Z[Jt,aT/j x}.'/j^£ix " the truth proclaimed by the Church;" and to T'/Jc dK'/iUtx: 5-a;/zir/5v, " the body of the truth") is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4 ; O'jToo 5f y.x) 0 ro'j y.xvoyx r'/j.; x?.'^Ö£ixs xyJ.iT/j iv sxvr^: zxr^x^jy h ^ix rov ßx7rri7fj(,xroc siKyi^ps, " in like manner he also who retains immovably in his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism"); because it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable. '
By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case of Irenaeus (I. 10. 1,2) naturally follows the arrange- ment of the (Roman) baptismal confession, the most important Gnostic theses were at once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. In his apostolic rule of truth Irenaeus himself already gave prominence to the following doctrines : -
' Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the nile of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith ; but the latter were the explan- ations of the baptismal confession. Tlie full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenseus' time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in tlie same writer, and yet each is declared to be fhe rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulae and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulae but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, althougii it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma — we do not know how it was viewed by opponents — proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with tiie baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, iiowever, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fi.xed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were f(jrmulated.
3 Besides Irenceus I. lo. i, 2. cf. 9. 1—5: 22. i: 11. i. 1:9. i ; 28. i; 32. 3,
Chap, ii] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 29
the unity of God ; the identity of the supreme God with the Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of the Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the God who created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; the incarnation of the Son of God; the prediction of the entire history of Jesus through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament ; the reality of that history ; the bodily reception {h^xpxoc Jcyx/.y/-^ic) of Christ into heaven; the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh (ivi^raT/.: ttxt-zic 7xpy2s, 7rx(7y,c xyßpciTröryiTo:), the universal judgment. These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regulae, ' were consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed beyond all discussion.
Tertullian followed Irenseus in every particular. He also interpreted the (Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the regula fidei, - and transferred to the latter the attributes of the confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from Christ), as well as its fixedness and completeness. ' Like Irenaeus, though still more stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended from Christ, that is, from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his demon- stration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the faith of those Churches founded by the Apostles, that in these communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them, as could be proved, the Apostles had always had successors, and that the other Churches were in communion with them (see under C). In a more definite way than Irenaeus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a rule for the faith, ^ as the law given
4: in. I — 4; II. i; 12. 9; 15. i: 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. i: IV. i. 2; 9. 2: 20. 6; Zl- 7 sq.: V. Prxf. 12. 5; 20. i.
1 See Iren. I. 31. 3: II. Pr«f. 19. 8.
2 This expression is not found in Irenaeus, but is very common in Tertullian.
^ See de prasscr. 13: "Haec regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos qusestiones."
•* See 1. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulae in suo ordine quantumlibet quaeras et ti'actes."' See de virg. vol. i.
30 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
to faith,' also as a " regula doctrina:; " or "doctrina regulae " (here the creed itself is quite plainly the regula), and even simply as "doctrina" or " institutio". " As to the content of the regula, it was set forth by Tertullian in three passages. ' It is essentially the same as in Irenaeus. But Tertullian already gives prominence within the regula to the creation of the universe out of nothing,^ the creative instrumentality of the
1 See 1. c. 14: '-Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de obser- vatione legis," and de vir. vol. i.
- See de prsescr. 21: "Si hsec ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quit cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum . . . Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hasc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur . . . Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa."' De prrescr. 32: "Ecclesia;, quae licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tarnen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicse deputantur pro consan- guinitate doctrina;." That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identi- cal with the regula ßdei\ just as Irenreus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 (''• Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suje verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompse et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the baptismal confession is the lex. He also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; vScorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de prajscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: '-regula sacramenti"; likewise V. 20, a passage .specially insti-uctive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respon- dentes quam dominus in evangelic determinavit"; de bapt. 2: '•-homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus": de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of Tertullian. In de praescr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things "inter domesticos", but declares that they could not lie communications '-qua; aliam regulam fidei super- ducerent."
3 De prKscr. 13; de virg. vol. i; adv. I'rax. 2. The latter ])assage is thus worded: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione tpiam hiy.ovofj.ix-j dicimus, ut uuici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cugnominatum lesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc niorluum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in coelo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos: qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in ])atrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."
■* De pntscr. 13.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 3 1
Logos, ' his origin before all creatures, - a definite theory of the Incarnation, •' the preaching by Christ of a nova lex and a nova promissio regni ccelomni. ^ and finally also the Trinitarian economy of God. '" Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenaeus is already very significant, Tertullian^s regiila is in point of fact a doctrina. In attempting to bind the communities to this he represents them as schools. ^ The apostolic " lex et doctrina" is to be regarded as inviolable by every Christian. Assent to it decides the Christian character of the individual. Thus the Christian disposition and life come to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to particular conditions. In this way the essence of rehgion was split up — the most fatal turning-point in the history of Christianity.
But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third century the actual bond of union between all the Churches was a fixed confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted. This much was gained, as is clear from the treatise de prcEScriptione and from other evidence, that in the communities with which Tertullian was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made to depend on assent to formulae which virtually coincided with the Roman baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as a Christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the name of brother, and hospitality. '
1 L. c.
- L. c.
3 L. c. : '-id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spirilu patiis dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum, " etc.
4 L. c.
* Adv. Prax. 2 : •• Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tarnen dispensatione quam oty.ovoiux^ dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius," etc.
s But Tertullian also knows of a '-regula disciplinas" (according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.
' Note here the use of ••contesserare" in Tertullian. See de prasscr. 20 : "Itaque tot ac tantse ecclesise una est ilia ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes
32 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ir.
In SO far as Christians confined themselves to a doctrinal for- mula which they, however, strictly applied, the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. The scattered communities now- possessed a "lex" to bind them together, quite as certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real and practical character ' in the shape of certain briefly for- mulated doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic lex of Christians the Catholic Church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly marked off from the heretic sects. But more than this was gained, in so far as the Antignostic inter- pretation of the formula, and consequently a "doctrine", was indeed in some measure involved in the lex. The extent to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded by the wording of the confession ; and, on the other hand, every formulated faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a critical canon. What we observe in Irenzeus and Tertullian must have everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree ; that is to say, the authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to statements not found in the formula itself.
We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexan- dria that a confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith, - ostensibly comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was not set up in the different provincial Churches at one and the
prima et omnes apostolicse, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, quje iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De prtescr. 36: '"Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."
1 We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the phil- osophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7 — 11 and Didache XI. i f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.
- Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 33
same time. From this it is clearly manifest that at this period the Alexandrian Church neither possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of Rome, nor understood by " regula fidei " and synonymous expressions a collection of beliefs fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles. " Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine)
1 Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenaeus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb.. H. E. IV. 8. 2 {ev ttsmts a-vyypixiu.i/.xa-iv rifv xttäxv^ vccpx- Soo-iv rov x7roa-TO?^iy.ov KvjpvyiiXToc vTtotJ.vvi(j.xTt7X(jL€y/OQ) as well as from the fragments of this work (I.e. IV. 22.' 2, 3:0 op&oi; Aoyoi; and § 5 i(x.ipiTxv rijv svutiv tvic sKK^ija-ixg (pSopifzxioti; AoyoK; kxtx rov SsoO ; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression 0 hxvwv tvic, Trirrrsoo^ in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the y.xrce xÄ^hixv Triimt; were those belonging to the Church. The regula fidei is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by TO hHy.Ä-/j(7ixa-Tixov (^povyjizx or 0 kxvwv t^q xpxaixQ TTiiTTSWt; the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenaeus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Pr^f., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32 — 34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenceus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenjeus (ad Autol. II. 14): SsSwksv 6 ©so? Tip y.6<rfj.cc xvixxivoizsvcc y.xt Xiti/,x^oiJ.sv(i] vxb TÜv x(j.xpTii(iXTMV Txz uvvxyM-/ x(;, ?\syo(j.svx^ oe iy.K^i^Tixc; xytxq, iv xIq KxSxTrsp Knj.i(7iv sv6p(JL0tQ EV vvj<j-oii; XI '^i^xuKxhixi T^c, xKv\^six!; siaiv. . . Kx} üa-TTsp xit vi^(rot eiTtv STSpxi TrsTpoiiSsii; y.x} xvvSpot xxi XKxpTTOi hxi SyipiwSsii; y.x: xo/y.yiTOi STTi ß?Mßy, tmv x/so'yrwv . . . ouruic; sia-iv xi $iox(ry.xÄixi tvjc x/ävjjc, Ksyu ^i rüv xlpe(7i(ü'j^ xi etxTTOÄÄvcvtj-iv rciii; 7:po(7to-jrxi; xiirxlc.
- This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff. : "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not"?); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression vj Tspi rüv IJLsyia-TüJv Sfzo^oyix, .Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, 1. c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession ; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free kerygma of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig., Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. jx 155.)-
3
34 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
Scriptures, to the teaching of the Lord, ' and to the standard tradition which he designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its content, because he regards the whole of Christianity in its present condition as needing to be recon- structed by gnosis, and therefore as coming under the head of tradition. ' In one respect therefore, as compared with Irenaeus and TertuUian, he to some extent represents an earHer stand- point; he stands midway between them and Justin. From this author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes the true Gnostic quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that naive view of tradition, that is, the complete content of Christianity, which Irenaeus and TertuUian still had. As is to be expected, Clement too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles ; but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose as Irenaius and TertuUian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But as he did not extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions, so also he failed to recognise the import- ance of its publicity and catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric tradition. Although, like Irenaeus and TertuUian, his attitude is throughout determined by opposition to the Gnostics and Marcion, he supposes it possible to refute them by giving to the Holy Scriptures a scientific exposition which must not oppose the y.x'jh'j rijc £xz?.yi<7ix:, that is, the Christian common sense, but receives from it only certain guiding rules. But this attitude of Clement would be simply inconceivable if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employ- ed the fixed standard applied in those of Rome, Carthage
(
1 'H KVficcm SiSxa-KxAix, e.g., \l. 15. 124: VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90;' VII. 18. 165, etc.
2 We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the ©so? xocvTOKpocTup or sli; 0. t. as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded tlie '■^ xxpxSoreti; rcSv «p%«<wv vpsurßvTspuv''^ which had been transmitted to him.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 35
and Lyons. ' Such a standard did not exist ; but Clement made no distinction in the yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipHne, because as a theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single article of it without
• Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression 0 y.xvuv tJjc vitTTSui;; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: "whatever you do, do it to the glory of God," Clement remarks oV« vtto tov xäcvövie tJJ? viaTsug ttoisIv stitstpxtttxi. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VL 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41 ; VIL 15. 90; VIL 16. 105 we find 6 Kxvuv TvJ? sKK^y^irixi; (exxAvfo-zAa-Tiw?). In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided jn contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the SiSxiricx^tx too avpiov); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1.3; VI. 15. 124; M- 15. 131; VII. 16. 94, we find the expression 0 y.xviiov tjj? x^viöiixi;. In the first passage it is said: i) yovv kxtx tov tjJ? x?^vi^sixi; y.xvovx yvwa-r/x^; 7rxpx§d<}-£ü)(; ^v/Ttohoyix, (zxÄÄov Se eTTovTStx, sk tov Trepi y.o(7(jiO'yovtxc, '^pryfTxi Koyov, svSsvSs xvxßxivov<7x sTTt TO QsoXoyixov slSog. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what TertuUian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing ^with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: TrxpxxxTxS^x^i xTroStSoi^evii @S(i i] kxtx tviv tov xvp/ov SiSxirxxf^ixv Six TÜV x7ro(rTÖÄCiiv xvtov tvh &so(3-sßovi; TrxpxSöcreciii; a-vvetriz tb y.xi trvvxaziiirtz; then lie demands that the Scriptures be interpreted hxtx tov t55? xP^yfösixi; xxvövx, or t. £y.y.Äif<7. Kxv. ; and continues (125) : xxvuv Se eKKf^i^iTtxiTTtKOZ ii a-vvuSix axi vi a-vf/.- ^wvix v6iJ.ov re xxl TrpocpifTcSv Tjj kxtx Tijv tov y.vpi'ov vxpova-ixv vxpxhiSonsvv) stx&^^Kjfi. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church : " legem et proph- etas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet.'" But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term " ecclesiastical canon." The following expressions are also found in Clement: -^ äAj^Sjj? rij? fu.xy.xpixt; St§xo-xxÄix!;vxpxSoa-ii; (I. 1. 1 1), XI xytxi TTxpxSöffSte; (VII. 18. 1 10), vi svKÄsiii; kxi as(j.voQ tvjz TxpxSoasüic^ xxvcüv (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also i\ y.xTx tjjv ^eixv TrxpxSoa-iv <pi?,oa-o<pix, I, 1. 15. I: II. 52., also the expression it Ssix TrxpxSoa-tQ (VII. 16. 103), vi skkK-/i-
TtXTTlKij TTXpxSoa-K; (VII. 16. 95), XI TOV XpilTTOV TrxpxSÖOSli; (VII. 16. 99), if TOV
Kvpiov TTxpocSoa-ii; (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), ^ äeoasßiji; TxpxSoa-i^ (VI. 15. 124). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can he gathered from the context than what Clement once calls to xoivov Tijt; Tr/o-Tew? (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. i o. 66 of the kxtx «Avjfle/izv evxyysMy.OQ xxvouv, and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15 : KXTX TOV y,xvQvx TOV svxyysKiov = y.xTX t. si/xyy.). In none of these formulae is
36 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. u.
hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true Gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian doctrine.
Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits
any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. i. ii, where he gives an account of his early teachers [oi i^ev xsjv äAjjÖjj riit; fMxy.xpict^ a-w^o'yrs; StSxa-KXÄitxi; TrxpiiSoa-iv si/ii/t; xiro TlsTpov re xxi 'Ixxaißou, ^luxvvov rs xxi nx6>.ov Twv xyi'cov xTVOtTTÖ^KUiv, TToüc, TTxfix vxTfOQ EX Je%o7''evo? yfKov Si) cTvv SsZ xxl £;'? ^//«; Tx TTfoyovr/.x skbivx kx^ xTToaTO^iKx xxTxiyi(7Öix.£voi a-TTspfzxTx). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the x770(ttoMkvi KXi ixxÄyi<T(X(TTiKii opSoTOi^ix TcSv Soyix-XTUV (VII. i6. 104). He has no doubt that : {zix vi ttxvtuv yeyovB tüv «ttoo-to'Awv wtrTrep SiSxu-kxäix ovrui; Se xxi ■it TTxpxSoG-ii; (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. i. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131 : xuTiKX SiSxixvTO(; Tov (T&iTij/JO? TOVQ xTTOiTTdÄovQ vj t5}? syypxi^ov xypxipot^ 'vj^vj y.xi sic; ij/^S; SixStSorxi TrxpxSoa-ig. VI. y . 61 : vi yvutrK; Ss xlrii vi xxtx SixSoxxt;{this i<. the only place where I find this expression) et(; oÄr/oxji; sk tmv x'^oo-töäwv xypxipu: 7rxpxSo6s7i7x xxrsÄtiÄväsv, ibid ft yvwa-rixii TrxpxSoa-ti ; VII. 10. 55 : vi yväa-i^ sk 7rxpx§6(7S(üi; $ix$iSoiu.£Vii to~ic; x^iovi; a-<px(; xvroiii; xij? $iSx(rKXÄixi TÄp£%o/.tgvo/c oio-j TTxpxHxrxStjxyj l'y%f<p/^eT«;. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the '"Old Church", for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in -Strom. VII. 15. 90 : M^ ri oi/v, si kxi rrxpxßxi'yi n; tjvvät^y.xi; KXt rijv 6(j.oAoyixv TtxpsÄ^oi rijv tt/io; yii-ix^. Six tov ^sva-xfj-Bvov rijv 6i/,o?.oyix\> x^et6fj.s^x Tv\i; xX^jösix^ y.xi •^//s;?, äAA' w? xipevSs'iv Xf^ "^^^ STTisiy.^ xxi f^yfSev wv vTrea-x^fxt xxvpovv y.xv x^?^ot Tivse; '!7xpxßxtvctii7t a-vvSiiKXC, oVtci):; xxi v^i^x^ y.xrx (/.tiSevx rpÖTTov tov hx>cÄ^(rix!rTiy.bv Trxpxßxiveiv 7rpoa-,^xei xxvövx xxi fzxÄta-Tx rifj TTspi räv iJL£yi<TTOiiv ofjio^oylxv iii/,e7i;ju.ev i^vÄxTTOfjLSv, 01 Se Tzxpxßxivovcrt. But in the other passages in Clement where oj-ioÄoyix appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15 5 IV. 9. 71 : III. i. 4: iyxpxTSix (Tui-iXTOt; vTrepo^pix xxrx Tijv %poc; fleov öi-iOÄoyixv). In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.
Chap, ii.] APOSTOLIC RULE OF FAITH 37
an attitude which is already more akin to that of Irenaeus and Tertullian than to that of Clement, In the preface to his great work, "De principiis," he prefixed the Church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching. ' It may be assumed that in the time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian Christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome and other communities. '" The Syrian Churches, or at least a part of them, followed still later. ^ There can be no doubt that, from the last decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession, identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevailed in the great confederation of Churches ex- tending from Spain to the Euphrates and from Egypt to beyond the Alps. ' It was the basis of the confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of recognition, etc., for the orthodox Chris-
1 De princip. 1. I. prcef. § 4 — 10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here?
- That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, " because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interets may be gathered from his works. (See Dollinger, "Hippolytus und Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore I.e. rightly remarks : " The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer." That there was a foi-mulated wia-Ttt; kxi 6iJ.o^oyiu in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8) He says of Novatian, xvarpeTrei tvjv vpo Äovrpov tt/Vt/v xxt Si-io^oyixv. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar tt'kttic.
^ The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.
* The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. C)n the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.
38 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
tians. The interpretation of this confession was fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced. By the end of the third century there can no longer have been any considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this pre-existent One with the divine Logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief. ' They may have first become an " aposto- lic confession of faith" through the Nicene Creed. But even this creed was not adopted all at once.
B. The designation of selected writings read in the churches as New Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collectio7i of apostolic zvritings. ^
Every word and every writing which testified of the y.vpiog (Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his spirit: "Oösy y; xopiöry/C KxÄsTnxi sxsTKüpiög i^riv. (Didache IV. i;
1 Cf. tlie epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one symbol with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Ireneeus that the con- fession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian. "de trinitate seu de regula fidei,'' as well as the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 . . . ätos-tä; rov Kxvovo:; stti K/ßSifÄx y.xi voSx SiSxyijCxrcc ix.£Te?i^ÄuSsv)^ and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more convenienll) left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin).
" See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss. Westcott. Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss ; the latter two, which to some extent .supplement each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24): Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons. 2 vols. 1888 flf.: Harnack, Das Neue Test, urn d. J- 200. 1889 ; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. I'reis- vertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Koppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff. ; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 39
see also i Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy. ^ In this sense the New Testament is a "residuary product," just as the idea of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. But on the other hand, the New Testament is a new creation of the Church, " inasmuch as it takes its place alongside of the Old — which through it has become a complicated book for Christendom, — as a Catholic and apostolic collection of Scrip- tures containing and attesting the truth.
Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new canon of Scripture, ^ which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his followers as was ascribed to the Old Test- ament in orthodox Christendom. In the Gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the Old Testament altogether or in part, Evangelic and Pauline writings were, by the middle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to confirm their theological
1 "Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority."" There are also various stages and degrees of "holy."
* I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament, (i) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the te.\t belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur\s ' tendency-criticism " has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated.
•* The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had orig- inally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.
40 HISTORY OF DOGiMA [Chap. ii.
speculations. ' On the other hand, about the year 150 the main body of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels and Epistles possess- ing equal authority with the Old Testament, and, apart from Apoca- lypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is, as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative. " Here we leave
1 It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichteans in the Byzantine age.
' Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. i6 ; Polycarp ep. 12. i; Bam. IV. 14; 2 Clem. IL 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: 'verba "his scripturis" suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit "quod dictum est'"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage {iz^ttots, uii; ysypxvrxi, tto^Xoi y.?iViToi, o^lyot Se hxÄsxToi svpeScSizs)/), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as 'ypx<pi^^ and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline Epistles). This may perhaps explain how the author — like 2 Clem. IL 4: sTepxSs ypoi(pil Keyer on oiiy. if^Sov y.x?J<7xi Sixxtovi; «AAi xiJ.xpT(ahov(; — has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Test- ament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4 : Aeys/ 0 fleo?- ol x^P'i ''/•*''■' ^' xyxTTXTS x.T.X. would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. \/^:$io Xsyir 'iysips 6 Kx^svhiO'j y.xi xvxa-TX SK räv vsKpcSv y.x) sTri^xva-si <jOi 6 XpiTTÖ^. Tliat. certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with tlie usual '•■?Jyei'\ We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XL) introduced with the words: i^ ypxipij auT'/j, 'o'ttov >.syst. These examples may l^e multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formula; of quotation ^-ypxipif, ysypxTTTXt" etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to liie following: — The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt Christian writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank witli the Old Testament. (See below on this ]ioint.)
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 4I
out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of Christian prophets. ' The memoirs of the Apostles {x7rof^v'/^f/,ovsvfji,izriZ rccv outo'jtÖXoov ^ Tx svxyysKix) owed their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and history of the Lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. There is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy writings of standard authority. ' But we learn further from Justin that the Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public worship (Apol. L 67) and that our first three Gospels were already in use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other Christian writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in Christian meetings. ^ Such writings naturally possessed a high degree of authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable, everything that edifies the Church originates with the Holy Spirit, ^ which in this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here, however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting and certifying the Christian
1 See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv. — Citate Justins. Gott., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of jHegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3 ; Stephanus Gobarus in Pliotius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the formula: ^-Libri et epistolce Pauli viri iusti" {xi nacd' -hf-i-xc; ßißf^oi y.cä at vpoa-s'Ki- TovTOi: sTTis-roÄxi TlxvÄov tov öiriov xvSpoQ), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: ^-Libri evangeliorum et epistolte Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli" or "Quattuor evv. dorn, nostrl J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."'
* It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainalile height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.
•* Rev. I. 3: Herrn. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11.
■* Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fern. I. 3) ' Legimus omnem scripturam oedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."
42 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
Kerygma iy, xaCpxAsix tc^'j /.oyccv). The ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest, not indeed in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities had already made a far larger compilation, ^ but, in the first instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through addition. We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the canon had attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century, for the fact — easily demonstrable — that the texts were still very freely dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this. "" Our first three Gospels contain pas- sages and corrections that could hardly have been fixed before about the year i 50. Moreover, Tatian's attempt to create a new Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not yet fixed. ^ We may remark that he was the first in whom we find the Gospel of John ^ alongside of the Synoptists, and these four the only ones recognised. From the assault of the *' Alogi " on the Johannine Gospel we learn that about 1 60 the whole of our four Gospels had not been definitely recognised even in Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the Gospel of the Egyp-
' The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to- the first century (i.Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of PolycaqD that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also i Peter, i John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with "e/Jotei;" (I. 3; IV. 15 V. I). Ignatius likewise shows him- self to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured.
' It should also lie pointed out that Justin most probably used the (jospel of Peter among the x7ro(j.v>JiJ.ovsv(Mxrx\ see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2.
' See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn ^Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.
* Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and u.sed it like the other Gospels.
{Chap. ii.J THE NEW TESTAMENT 45
tians, the use of which was not confined to circles outside the Church. '
From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood midway between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church as well as the Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using the Gospels as canonical writings side by side with the Old Testament, though they would have nothing to do with the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. * But Tatian, the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still sup- pUes us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament canon in orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called " Montanism " and its extreme antithesis, the " Alogi ", in Asia Minor soon after the middle of the second century proves that there was still no New Testament canon there ; for, if such an authori- itative compilation had existed, these movements could not have arisen. If we gather together all the indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be ready to expect the speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel canon comprising the four Gospels ; ^ but we are prepared neither for this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testa- iment, nor for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet I are only found in Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges 1 quite suddenly in an allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius, •* the meaning of which is, however, still dubious; lin the works of Irenasus and Tertullian ; and in the so-called iMuratorian Fragment. There is no direct account of its origin
' The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great 1 authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian antiquity. (Epiph.. H. 62. 2.)
2 Euseb., H. E. IV. 29. 5.
^ In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4).
* Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the xy.fißnx tüv ■Kxhix.tSi\ ßiß?<iuv, and of roc ßißx/x tv\q ttxäxixq hxi-^y.-^c. we may assume that he knows tx ßißÄix Tij? KXivv\^ Sixij^xyji;.
44 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ir.
and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete. ' Moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were first able to show the existence of the apostolic regiila fidei. We hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, be- cause we learn nothing at all of such persons. - And yet the collection is regarded by Irenseus and Tertullian as completed. A refusal on the part of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe reproach against them. Their Bibles are tested by the Church compilation as the older one, and the latter itself is already used exactly like the Old Testa- ment. The assumption of the inspiration of the books ; the harmonistic interpretation of them ; the idea of their absolute sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages ; the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without importance; and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately observable result of the creation of the canon. '*
1 We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before i8o. In connection with this, however, it is an important cir- cumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: 01 ol-ko tcSv xipeosajv tä? Trpog T(i/.66eov xSerova-tv sttkttoXxc;). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century.
- Vet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15. note i ; see also the •• recep- tior", de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: ''Quodsi quae Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum TheclK ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui earn scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The hypoth- esis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set u]) by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. Irenceus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.
' Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenseus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptole-
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 45
The probable conditions which brought about the formation of the New Testament canon in the Church, for in this case we are only dealing with probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated with it can only be briefly in- dicated here. '
The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writ- ings by a process of selection " was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary undertaking of the Church in her conflict with Marcion and the Gnostics, as is most plainly proved by the
niKUS whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesi> of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentiniaus. One should above all read the treatise of TertuUian " de idololatria " to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions.
1 I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article "Das Muratorische Frag- ment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften"' in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f W-issensch. Theol. 1881, part 2: Schmiedel, Art. '-Kanon"" in Ersch. u. Gruber"s Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII, p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kauongeschichte, Vol. II. p. i ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The fol- lowing sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.
- The use of the word '•canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest, of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word "canon" was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name "New Testament" (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and TertuUian. For other designations of the latter see Rönsch, Das N. T. Tertulliau's p. 47 f. The most common name is "Holy Scrip- tures". In accoi^dance with its main components the collection is designated as rb euocyye^tov xxi 0 «.tzöittoKoc, '(evangelical et apostolica; litterse); see TertuUian, de bapt. 15: "tam ex domiiii evangelic quam ex apostoli litteris."' The name "writings of the Lord" is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occa- sionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire col- lection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just 'as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of God's revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs" already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned
46 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
warnings of the Fathers not to dispute with the heretics about the Holy Scriptures, ' although the New Testament was already in existence. That conflict necessitated the formation of a new Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old Testa- ment, could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes and those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such. She was compelled to claim exclusive pos- session of everything that had a right to the name "apostolic," to deny it to the heretics, and to shew that she held it in the highest honour. Hitherto she had "contented" herself with proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and, passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the beginning of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who ener- getically pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and that all Christianity was really to be tested by the apostolic preaching, that the assumed identity of Christian common sense with apostolic Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) that the Apostles contradicted themselves. This opposition made it necessary to enter into the questions raised by their opponents. Rut, in point of content, the problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because it was endless and sub- ject to question on every particular point. The " unconscious logic," that is the logic of self-preservation, could only prescribe an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged, moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition
iiew speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with tlie old collocation of Apostles and I'rophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called "the writings of the Church" as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings.
1 Here there is a distinction between Ii-enreus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the inteqjretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Iren?eus, forbids sucli dispute. He cannot therefore have cousidei'ed Irenseus' efforts as successful.
Chap, h.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 47
from the very first. But what writings were apostoHc? From the middle of the second century great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the same writing. ' Versions which contained docetic elements and exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way into the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was necessary to determine (i) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. In making this choice, the Church limited herself to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely apostolic. The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as spurious all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained any- thing contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the rule of faith — hence admission was refused to all books in which the God of the Old Testament, his creation, etc., appeared to be depreciated, — -and to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger the Old Testament and the monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only those writings which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names, - and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox
1 The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Diouysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12).
- That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canon- ical text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anony- mously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity; but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in
48 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
creed or attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides the four Gospels there was almost nothing but Pauline epistles to dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating from the twelve Apostles, could im- mediately confirm the truth of the ecclesiastical Kerygnia. This perplexity was removed by the introduction of the Acts of the Apostles^ and in some cases also the Epistles of Peter and jfohji, though that of Peter was not recognised at Rome at first. As a collection this group is the most interesting in the new com- pilation. It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the Gospels with the Apostle (Paul), and, by subordinating his Epistles to the "Acta omnium apostolorum ", makes them witnesses to the particular tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious and insufificient. ' The Church, however, found
my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the ''Teaching of the Apostles" p. io6 ff). (i) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp. IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed inti> a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems tC' have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perliaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle "de virginitate " into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created for themselves insoluble problems Ijy misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma '•■genuine or spurious", and can prove neither,
1 As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we laio\\', its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.
" People were compelled Ijy internal and external evidence (recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept the epistles of Paul. But. from the Catholic point of view, a canon which comprised only the four Gospels and the
Chap. II.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 49
the selection facilitated by the fact that the content of the early Christian writings was for the most part unintelligible to the Christendom of the time, whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane lucidity. Thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings that for
Pauline Epistles, would liave been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure, and therefore incomplete and uninhabitaljle. The actual novelty- was the bold insertion into its midst of a bool:, which, if everything is not decep- tive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of the Apostles, which some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, and the like. There were now (i) writings of the Lord which were at the same time regarded as x77oimvvi(jlov£6ix.xtx of definite Apostles; (2) a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the explana- tion of "difficult" passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents which " in ordinatione ecclesiastics disciplinjE sanctificatK erant." The Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In tliis book the new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the Apostles found its place in the canon fatite de mieiix is clear from the extravagant terms, not at all suited to the book, in which its appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a book which should have contained the teaching and mis- sionary acts of all the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian fragment and in Irenjeus and Tertullian. There it is called ''acta omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc.'' Irenteus says (III. 14. l): "Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit Apostolorum^ maxime autem Paidi'', and makes use of the book to prove the sul^ordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, de prsescr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20: IV. 2 — 5; V. i — 3, Tertullian made a still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the .\ntimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul, and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the §iSxx*l tuv SuSbkx XTrarröKwj was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a book which contained that authority was requii^ed in the later period; and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke. ''Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nee spiritus sancti esse possunt, qui necdum spiritum sanctum po^sunt agnoscere disceutibus missum, sed nee ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent."' But the greater part of the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent they replied by setting up other histories of
4
50 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite reading in the communities, ' The new collection was already exalted to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for purposes of general edification or for theological ends. ■ But the causes and motives which led to
Apostles in opposition to it, as was done later by a fraction of tlie Ebionites and even by the Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the K^pvyiix TIstjiov, but Clement has no New Testament at all in the strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book stood where it is to-day, i.e.^ immediately after the Gospels (see Muratorian Fragment, Irengeus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., ist and 3rd) which acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a gi-oup of narratives about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles, prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the gi'oup there associated with the Acts of the Apostles. The Kpistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the uirsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side; thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different though similar fashion by Irenreus and again altered by Tertullian. The genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral ones, which in their way are also "Catholic." That is the character of the "Catholic" New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of it (in Irenieus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the Apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relative!}- to the canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.
' There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the writings that had long been read in the Church fomied the basis, in the other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore extremely practical : whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings hitherto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could neither be increased nor diminished.
' At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet found in Irenccus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters, z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch. Bd. VI. 2.
I
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 5 I
its being formed into a canon, that is, being placed on a foot- ing of complete equality with the Old Testament, may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of using the new Bible and partly from the results attending its compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utter- ances, including the written records of these, had always pos- sessed standard authority in the Church; there were therefore parts of the collection the absolute authority of which was un- doubted from the first. ' Secondly, what was called "Preaching of the Apostles," "Teaching of the Apostles," etc., was like- wise regarded from the earliest times as completely harmonious as well as authoritative. There had, however, been absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians sup- posed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this teaching authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to have recourse to zvritmgs, whether she would or not. The attributes formerly applied to the testimony of the Apostles, so long as it was not collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the written records they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the lead in forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the apostoHc writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with the Old Testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to the Acts of the Apostles. Considered by themselves these writings, especially the Pauline Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We can see even yet from Irenaeus and TertuUian that the duty of accommodating herself to these Epistles was forced upon the Church by Marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon. "
See above, p. 40, note 2. • We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenseus as to the difficulties he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles, which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such men as Marcion, Tatian, and theolo- gians of the school of Valentinus. The difficulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which foUow'ed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. i, 2.)
52 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
This shows most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the Church's effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon. But the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a sacred collection. For now the principle: "as the teaching of the Apostles was one, so also is the tradition" Qjax vi ttx-jtccj ykyc-js t:c-j xTrcjri/.x-j :c(T7rsp ^ihxny.x'/Joi ovrcc: Vs zx) •/, Tnzpx^OTicy was to be applied to all contradictory and objectionable details. ^ It was now imperative to explain one writing by another; the PauHne Ep- istles, for example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. " Now was required what Tertullian calls the "mixture" of the Old and New Testaments, ' in consequence of which the full recognition of the knowledge got from the old Bible was regarded as the first law for the interpretation of the new. The formation of the new collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These were abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, the early Christian enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century; not only did Apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but the religious mood of the majority of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit. ^ Such a piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is char- acterised by the perception that it has not the active and spon- taneous character which it ought to have, but has to prove its
1 Apolliuaris of Hierapolis already regards any contradiction between the (41 (Jospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. I. p. 150.)
- See Overbeck, "Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern,'' 1877, p. 8.
•'* See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The exjjression is alsn frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. proef. 4.
■• The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth designates her own word < as the words of God (i Clem. LIX. i) and therefore requires obedience "to7; Jsp iifjiüv yeypxiif^svoit; ^ix rov xytov xvsviiXTO^^' (LXIII. 2).
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 53
legitimacy in an indirect and "objective" way. The breach with tradition, the deviation from the original state of things is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves with them. When matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to those who hold fast their religious independence and wish to apply the old standards. Not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its justifi- cation in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development of the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the Apostles, that is, in the records left by them. We cannot prove with certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can show that it was very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The in- fluence which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and important. That which TertuUian, as a Montanist, asserts of one of his opponents: "Prophetiam expulit, paracle- tum fugavit" ("he expelled prophecy, he drove away the Para- clete"), can be far more truly said of the New Testament which the same TertuUian as a Catholic recognised. The New Testa- ment, though not all at once, put an end to a situation where it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It like- wise prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched the history of the past, and destroyed their pre- tensions to read the future. As the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way, fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all claims of Christian prophecy to public credence. Through the canon it came to be acknow- ledged that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a standard.
54 HISTÜRV OF DOGMA [Chai-. ii.
The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completel}' and without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revel- ation, and by their word alone, which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian must be tested. '
The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative concep- tions (TertulL, de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were more and more overshadowed by the New Testament Scrip- tures ; and this was in fact an advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the Apostles? Accordingly, iis aiithors of these lun/ings, they and the Holy Spirit became correlative conceptions. This led to the assumption that the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients. ' By this assumption the Apostles, viewed as prophets, received a significance quite equal to that of Old Testament writers. ' But. though Irenseus and TertuUian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the New Testament on its apostolic origin, the concept "apostolic" being much more comprehensive than that
1 Tertull., de exhort. 4: '■Spiritum quidem del etinm hdeles habeut, sed iiou ■omnes fideles apostoli . . . Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent. qui pleue habent in operibus prophetias et efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri." Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135 : "EKX<rToi;'iSiov sx^' ;t^/="'/''^ xTTo Ssov, 6 lisv ovTCiJt;, 6 Ss ovtw^^ 6( xTrotrTO/^ot $e sv 77x<ri •^rsTTfit^pui^evot ; I^erapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3 : ■/iiu.eli; [y.xl tov nirpov xxi Toiic, xÄ?^ovi; xtto<7t6>^ovz xTToSexoi^i^x w? Xpia-Tov. The success of the canon here referred to was an un- doubted blessing, for, as the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete coiTuption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit, were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were refeiTed in legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at first completely obscured by the assuin]iticin that they were inspired and by the requirement of an "expositio legitima."
- See Tertull.. de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24. de ieiun. 15. de ))udic. 12. Suf- ficiency is aljove all included in the concept '• inspiration "" (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: ^'Negat scriptura quod non notat""), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see Iren., IV. 28. 3. Niliil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum").
3 The direct designation "prophets"" was, however, as a rule, avoided. 'I'he conflict with JNIontanism made it expedient to refrain from this name: but see TertuUian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: "Tam apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetas.""
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 55
of "prophet," These men, being Apostles, that is men chosen by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation of the Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their writ- ings are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Chris- tians the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic author- ship. ' This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot be inferior to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very reason they could, in a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was not apostolic. They even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly claimed the charac- ter of inspiration ; and this was evidently done because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic. ' The new canon of Scripture set up by Irena;us and TertuUian primarily professes to be nothing else than a collection of apostolic writ- ings, which, as such, claim absolute authority. ^ It takes its place beside the apostolic rule of faith ; and by this faithfully preserved
1 Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment says in the passage about the Shepherd of Hernias.
" This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit which belongs to the Apostles alone.
3 The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must l^e answered in the affirmative in reference ta IreniEUs and TertuUian, who conversely regarded no book as canonical unless written l^y the Apostles. On the other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can lie got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts, Kerygma, and Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App. Constit. VI. i6) that the apostolic r^^?//^? fidei is practically the final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to TertiUlian, the apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone possesses the apostolic regtila (de prsescr. 37 ff.). The regtila of course does not legitimise those writings, hwX. only proves that they ai-e authentic and do not l^elong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree that a Christian writing has no claim to lie received into the canon merely on account of its prophetic form. (-)n looking at the matter more closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the strict sense of the word.
56 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
possession, the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the Apostles.
But we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the Church about the year 200. It is indeed continually asserted that the Antiochian and Alexandrian Churches had at that date a New Testament which, in extent and authority, essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but this opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch is immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose episcopate lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius (VI. 12), clearly shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself as yet possessed no such thing as a completed New Testament. It is evident that Serapion already holds the Catholic principle that all words of Apostles possess the same value to the Church as words of the Lord ; but a completed collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal. ' Hence it is very im- probable that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as early as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, in point of fact, do the statements in the treatise "ad Autoly- cum" point to a completed New Testament. - Theophilus makes diligent use of the Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist John (C.I.I.» as one of the bearers of the Spirit. But with him the one canonical court of appeal is the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, the writings of the Prophets (bearers of the Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets, however, are continued in a further group of "bearers of the Spirit", which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the authors of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. Though he perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as " bearers of the Spirit", yet we have no indication that he looked on their Epistles as canonical. The different way he uses the Old
' The fragment of Serapion's letter given in Eusebius owes its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what still remained to be done.
■- See my essay ■• Theojiliilus v. Antiocliien und das X. T. " in tlie Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p i ft'.
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 57
Testament and the Gospels on the one hand and the Pauline Epistles on the other is rather evidence of the contrary. Theo- philus was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we have no reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he does not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as ist Peter and the Revelation of John. It is significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with the Acts of the Apostles. '
It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found in Theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a New Testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and therefore did not every- where take a similar course. It might seem hazardous to as^sume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by creating a fixed canon of apostolic writings, which was thus necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied or did not deny the notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable and ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. But the latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in Justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of Clement of Alexandria. - In the entire literature of Greeks and barbarians Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, /'. e.. inspired
1 The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22 : o^s'j SiSxa-y.ovs-iv ijf.ici<; xi xyixi ypx(pxt y.xi vccvre^ ot 7rv£vf^xTO<p6poi, e^ üv ^luxw/ft; ^^syst x.r.Ä. {foYlowsJohnl. l) III. 12: y.xi TTBpi Siy.xioa-vv/ii;, vjq 6 vaf-ioi; sipyjxsv, xy.o^ovSx svpiery.erxt Kxi roe, rcSv Trpo^vjTÖüv y.x) twv eiixyye^ucav s^Eiv, htx to tovq ttxvtxi; Trvsvf^xTO^opovQ ivi Trvsv/^xri 5scv AfAasA'^xEva« ; III. 13: 0 xyioc Äöyo^ — i] ivxyysMo^ 4''<'''"^- ; ^H- I4-- 'Hs-ä/ä; — to 3£ slxyys^io'j — 0 SfToi; ÄÖyoi;. The latter formula is -not a quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to the Old Testament it has no authority but the ^-Gospel.""
- There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the New Testament of Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner's Gesch. d. N.Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 flf., is not sufficient. The space at the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of my studies on this point. Let me at
58 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. a.
writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his view inspired. ' This opinion, however, does not exclude a distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) The Old Testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by Clement, as a whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book par excellence. (3) As Clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from those of the old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula " Gospel " {jo hjocyyb.io'j) and "Apostles" {01 xTröfyro/.oi) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that he considered and treated as completely on a level with the Old Testament. The formula : 0 -jouc: zx) ;/ rrpc^'^rxi zx) r: s-jxy/sAioy ("the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel") is frequently found, and everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this group. " He does not consider even the Pauline Epistles to be a court of appeal of equal value with the Gospels, though he occasionally describes them as ypxQxt. ^
least refer to some important passages which I have collected. .Strom. I. !j§ 28, 100: II. §§ 22. 28, 29:111. §§ II, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108: IV. §§ 2. 91, 97. 105, 130, 133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85. 86: VI. §§42,44r 54, 59, 61, 66 — 68, 88, 91, 106. 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128. 133. 161. 164: \ II. ij§ I, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, loi, 103, 104. 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement of Rome as well as of the .Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg. to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost.
1 According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicin-ean Metrodorus uttered certain words Ivflew?: but on the other liand Homer was a prophet against liis will. See Peed. I. 6. 36, also Jj 51.
2 In the Pred. the Gospels are regularly called -^ ypx^)^, but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word "Apostle" is used in quoting these.
* It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the Holy -Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other writings, i Cor. III. 2 is once cptoted thus in Psed. I. 6. 49: TO hv rii «ttos-toAw xyiov ttvsviax tv« tov xvpiov xttoxp^I-'-^'^o'^ »I'Wi'? ^sysi. We can hardly conclude from P;vd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a " prophet.''
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 59
A further class of writings stands a stage lower than the Pauline Epistles, viz., the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to say that Clement views this group as an appendix to the New Testament, or as in any sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of equal value, an assumption which cannot be proved. ' (6) As to certain books, such as the "Teaching of the Apostles," the " Kerygma of Peter," etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority Clement attributed to them. " He quotes the At'^xz>! as ypxCp-Jj. (7) In determining and estimating the sacred books of the New Testament Clement is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he recognises four Gospels and no more because that was the exact number handed down. This tradition had already applied the name "apostolic" to most Christian writings which were to be considered as ypx^xi but it had given the concept "apostolic" a far wider content than Irenseus and TertuUian, * although it had not been able to include all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea. (Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the Alexandrian CJiurcJi can neither have held the principle that all writings of the Apostles must be read in the Church and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old Testament, nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic — using this word also in its wider sense — has any claim to authority among Christians. We willingly admit the great degree of freedom
I It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pffid. II. 10.3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of ^the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle.
' In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is perhaps used like the y.-^pvyizx. It is quoted in Fred. II. 16. 56: Strom. I. 50, 89, 91. 92. 153, i54;III- 49: I^'- 97-"V. 75, 82:\T. 63, loi. 124. 165.
3 The '•'seventy disciples" were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept '■apostolic" is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache. pp. 1 1 1 — uS.
6o HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
and peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknow- ledge the serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the Church. Nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the time this author wrote, the content of the New Testament canon, or, to speak more correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes had not yet been finally settled in Alexandria.
The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may perhaps be described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority to a great number of early Christian writings without strictly defining the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the Old Testament. Whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient, or edifying was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in proportion as Christians became more incapable of producing the like themselves. Not long before Clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings embodying the early Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria also. But, while in the regions represented by Irenjeus and Tertullian the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. Here also the principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at Rome. A conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as possible the permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as inspired. In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them. This explains their judgment as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and how Barnabas and Clement were described by them as Apostles. ' Had this undertaking succeeded in the Church, a much more extensive canon would have resulted
1 The formation of the canon in Alexandria nui>t have had some connection with tile same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of
Chap. ii.J THE NEW TESTAMENT 6 1
than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether it was really the intention of those first Alexandrian collectors to place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testa- ment, side by side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately approved in this sense by the Church. In view of the difference of Clement's attitude to the various groups within this collection of ypxCpxl, we may assert that in the Alexandrian Church of that time Gospels and Apostles were indeed ranked with the Law and the Prophets, but that this position of equality with the Old Testament was not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was that the great collection of early Christian literature that was inspired and declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public worship as the Old Testament and the Gospels.
Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book ; but the process which led to it had begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the extent of "Holy Scripture" was already limited in the days of Origen. Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars
thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement's "canon of the New Testament" was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.
62 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as " x'Xntilegomena." The historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially aftect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to estab- lish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance to Church history, because they show us the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by their learned men.
AddendiiDi. — The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act of the Church, ' notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of antitheses, (i) The New Testament, or group of "'apostolic" writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature ; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished. ' (2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on Christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same
1 No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament.
' The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is insti"uctive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical. Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far prefen-ed to them.
Chap, ii ] THE NEW TESTAMENT 6t,
time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.' (3) The New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the histo- rical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. Although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional system. As the standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic regiila fidei, always more and more precisely explained, and as that rcgnla, in its Antignostic and philosophico-theological inter- pretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New Testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of "facts." But at the same time its claim to be a collection of ms/^ired writings ' naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were neces-
' See oil this point Overbeck *•• Abhandluiig über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur, I.e., p. 469." Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authorship was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3 : SsStwi; y.xi
svxyys^iov y.xtvvii; SixSt^KtiQ ^oyu. We find similar remarks in other old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).
- But how diverse were the expositioias; compare the exegesis of Origeii and Tertullian, Scorp. II.
64 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
sarily followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. B}- doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of en- thusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of pre- serving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revel- ation. The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but also a theory which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and subordinated the Old to the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irena^us, TertuUian, and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences. ' It gave some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion \ An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it ; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form. Nevertheless the conception
1 On tlie extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following passage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: "Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hie semper. Ceterum ilii non ut semper in illis inesset, hie ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hie totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hie large commodatus."
Chap, ii.] THE NEW TESTAMENT 65
of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions. '
(7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church.
(8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive posses- sion of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament; but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself. ' The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretically acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a religion "of the book", because every inconvenient text could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith. ■'
' That may he shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly pei'haps in the tlieology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testa- ment had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous interpolations — tendencies in this direction were not wanting: see vol. I. p. 1 14 f. — and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity.
' The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de prsescr. passim, and de resurr. 63.
2 To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of
5
66 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics. ' On the other hand it was regarded (i) as the directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian life, " and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture passages, was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to ; and the rule TroKirsvsfjQxi zxrx ro eiix'/yb.io'j ("live according to the Gospel") held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., y.xrx t'a'j y.xiyy;y ^ixJ'/jX'/jy (" according to the New Testament"), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earher period, continued to be the chief standard of /(fe and conduct.
a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bit:)le.
1 We must not, however, ascriije that to conscious mistrust, for Irenffius and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, h\\\. to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by dififerent rules. Even the offer of several of the Fatliers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means l)e attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to lie analogous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term "divine writings" continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament tlian to certain parts of the New.
' Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: '-Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."
Chap, ii.] THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH 6/
C. TJic trmisformation of the episcopal office in the Church in- to an apostolic office. The history of the remodelling of the conception of the ChnrcJi. '
I. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostoUc origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their regulcE. and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of in- heriting the Apostles' doctrine in all its purity. - An historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by apostoHc Christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these. ^ But Irenaius as well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or "that one event among many is as good as none ; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition " (" NuUus inter multos eventus unus est . . . quod apud multos unum
1 Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Cliurch, 1 883. Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel. 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. 1892.
" Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer of ^Nlarcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles.
3 See Tertullian. de prcescr. 20, 21, 32.
68 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum") and similar ones which TertuUian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception that the ecclesia; (ox ecclesia) are the abode of the Holy Spirit, ' was incapable of making any impres- sion on the heretics, as the correct application of this theor}- was the very point in question. To make their proof more precise TertuUian and Irenaeus therefore asserted that the Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostohc inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of "elders," or, in other words, an " ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens," which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it. '^ This thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the "Elders," e.g., disciples of the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly
' This theory is maintained by Irenaeus and TertuUian, and is as old as the association of the xyix iy.y.K-ii\<7 ix and the Trvsui-ice xyiov. Just for that reason the distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in TertuUian alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its "authority" from that of Rome (de prsescr. 36).
- Tertull., de prsescr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2.2: "Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quae est ab apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc." III. 3. i : " Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ec- clesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos . . . valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes . . . traditio Romanas ecclesise, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiala hominibus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad uos." III. 3. 4, 4. i: "Si de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in anti- quissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt . , . quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt üs, quibus committebant ecclesias?" IV. ;^;^. 8: "Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quix; in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quas pervenit usque ad nos, etc." V. 20. i : "Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli ti'adiderunt ecclesias." IV. 26. 2: "Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt." IV. 26. 5: "Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quae est ab apostolis ecclesias successio." The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenasus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.
Chap, ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 69
preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and there- fore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical con- sideration, no appeal to the " Elders " was capable of affording the assurance sought for. Hence even in Irenaeus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered consti- tution of the Church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e.. the bishops, had received " cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma," that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity 2^2. char isvi. This notion of the transmis- sibility of the charism of truth became associated with the epis- copal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in all its relations ; ' and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of
1 For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As the legtila fidei has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatoiy stage in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions of these persons devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the charisma veritatis from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church's faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit on the Church, which is tlierefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared.
•JO HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
heresy. ' In Irenaeus and Tertullian, however, we only find the first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the Churches as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither Irenaeus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings, - asserted that the transmission of the cJiarisma veritatis to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenaeus, received the "locum magisterii apostolorum " ("place of government of the Apostles"), but nothing more. It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even Tertullian did not question this last mentioned attribute of the bishops. •' Cyprian found the theory already in existence. but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate ever\-
1 This theory must liave been current in the Roman Cluirch before tlie time when Irena;us wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in .Iremxuis and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic tlieory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise : " Die ältesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischöfliclien Chronographie in Rom."' in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done, whereas the Roman com- munity, as early as Soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles.
- We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian's treatise "de iJroescr."
•' Special importance attaches to 'I'enallian's treatise "de pudicitia." wliich has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate ami the pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Ca- lixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the "doctrina apostolorum" was
Chap, ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 7 1
remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception
of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation.
(2) The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian
completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking
inherent in his office, but merely questioned the ''potestas apostolorum."' It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as "apostolice" and reminded him that "ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum." What rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from Hippol. Philos.IX. 11. 12. But theinti-oductiontothePhilosophoumena proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: T«? xtpeirei^ srspot; oxjy. h^ey^st, vj to ev ey-y.Ä^aix TxpxSoüev xytov Trvevf^x, oil TuxovTSQ TT pore pot oi xxöirroÄoi izsTeSoirxv to7q dpiUQ xfTr/s-TfuxoV/v wv iiij-slc^ixooxoi Ti/y^ÄVOVTS; TJjc te xvtviq ^ap/xoi; (J-STexovreQ xpX'^P'XT£ix(; re y.xi SiSxtry-xAixi; y.xi ^povpo] Tv\i; exK^iis-txi; >^£^oyi<T(j.ivoi ovx o^p&xÄi^ci vviTTx^oix,ev, cvSs Koyov opSbv TtüJTTäJizsv, K.T.K. In these words we have an immense advance beyond tlie conception of Irenteus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the coiresponding tlieory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maxi- minus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H. E. VI. 28; see also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, JNIariani, etc., in Numidia c. 10 [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): "Nam ita inter se nostrae religionis gradus artifex stevitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis sepai-atos tentationibus sseculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros" that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in tlie Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly and gi-adually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are classed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in detennining the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Churcli was of a hi- erarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops. These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they reseml^le the Englisli orders (cf. Paed. III. 12. 97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. i. 3 ; III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons; VI. 13. 107, bishops, presbyters, deacons ; Quis dives 42, bishops aiid presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. \I. 13. 106, 107: V'Seo't/v ot/v y.xi vrJv txIq y.xipixy.xia lvxTy.vi<TxvTX(i svTOÄxit; Kxrx TO si/xyyeÄtov TsKstaii; ßi(iia-xvrxi; y.xi yvaia-Ttxaq f<? xijv ey.Äoyijv toov ÄTOiTTO/wv syypxipi^vxi. ovTOt; TrpefrßuTspÖQ e<j'Ti tm '6vri xif? skkä'/i^ixq xxt Sixxovoi; x^vjaiji; Ti5c Tov Ssov ßoxjhvjtrsoii;. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy). Strom. VII. 9, 52 says : the true Gnostic is the mediator witli God. In Strom. VI.
72 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
place from the last half of the second century. ' In order to understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day.
The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance
14. 108: VII. 12. 77 Ave find the words: 6 yv mitt mot; ovtoi; a-v^e^ovTi iiTrfiv tjjv ceTroa-ro^miiv xttovo-ixv cevTxvxTT^vipol, z.T. A. Clement could not have expressed him- self in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in other Churches of the West (see Bigg I.e. loi). According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West : and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. praef. 2 : " servetur ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: ilia sola credenda est Veritas, quse in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione" — so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2 : rov y.xvövoc, Tt}? 'I>ia-ov Xpia-Tov y.xTx SixSox^v r. xTrotrTOf^wv ovpxviov sy.x^v\a-ixi^. The state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic regulafidei and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen's time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the natural result. This idea led to the assumption — which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases— that the apostolic office, .and therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: "Manifesta est sententia lesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam per- mittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem b.iptizantes (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459).
1 See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christliclien Kirche und ilirer Verfassung, 1837. Köstlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschi, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche," 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenäus Lehre von der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868. Ilackensclimidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874. Ilatcli — Ilarnack. Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im Allerlhum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begrifts der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschi, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprian's conception of the Church). Sohm, I.e.
Chap, ii ] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 73
towards God and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope. ^ The assembly of all Christians is realised in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven ; on earth Christians and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly Christ. Christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination. " Every individual congregation is to be an image of the heav- enly Church. ' Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly hkeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of God, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an out- ward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal Christianity of the individual Christian, ' All the lofty
1 See Hatch, I.e. pp. 191, 253.
■- See s'ol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the AiSecx^-
3 This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual communit)-, and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope. Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad Ephes. V. I ; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea as is expressed in the associating of wsCiix and ey.y.^i^^ix. But every individual community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be.
4 The expression "Catholic Church" appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2) :
Ö—OV «V ipCC'ly 6 £771)7X077 01;, SKSl TO TT/tJäo? S<Trlü- ai777Bp '6770V XV Jj XfiO-TOt; ^It^uovi;,
sy.sl -^ y.xio/.iy.it eyy.Ä>i(7ix. But in this passage these words do not yet express a
74 HISTORY OF DOGMA [Chap. ii.
designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither. '
But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain respects as the main one. Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To Irenaeus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her. -" But this faith itself appeared as a laiv and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish ('' fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis").
The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in it ; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century. Christians in
new conception of the Churcli, which represents her as an empirical common- wealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e.^ the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet '' y.x^ohiy.oc'' does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church.
1 The expression '" invisible Cliurch "" is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, wliich is certainly not tlie meaning attached to it in the earliest period.
- It was thus regarded by llegesippus in whom the exjiression "w 'ivwtr/; tv,:; I«>«A>)o-/äi;" is first found. In his view the SKX?^yi<rix is founded on the dp6dt; ?.äyoi transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, but in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very plaiidy prepared for it in i 'I'im. HI. 15: cly.c: 'jicxj iv.y.Kv.TiX, (TTiiXo% y.xi iSpxieoiJ.ae tvj^ xÄyjösixt;.
Chap, ii.] IDEA OF THE CHURCH 75
all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and "heresy", and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an oecumenical and international alliance. The designation " Catholic Church " gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true Church. ' This expression corresponds to the powerful position which the "great Church" (Celsus), or the
1 The oldest predicate whicli was given to the Church and which was always associated with it, was th at of /^^/m^jj. See the New Testament ; Barn. XIV. 6 ; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4:1. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial." 119 ; Ignat. ad Trail, inscr.: Theophil., ad .\utol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, "holy churches'"); Apollon. inEuseb, H. E. V. 18. 5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. i ; Mart. Polyc. inscr. : Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex. ; Cornelius in Eus^b., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already refeiTed by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: IkäAokv tsjv I;<;<A;j5-/äv TTxpSsvo)/- ovTTM "/xp sipSxpTO ocKox'tq (/.XTXtxtQ. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55): see also Hennas; Justin; Irenreus; TertuUian, de prsescr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom. VII.