[Footnote 631: Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.): "Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universae doctrinae dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, qnae; est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo"; see Overbeck "Ueber die Auffa.s.sung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvatern," 1877, p. 8 f.

Similar remarks are frequent in Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 632: Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: "Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogarniae debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quae nos tune in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit." Here also Tertullian's Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as _new legislation_, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written doc.u.ments of revelation.]

[Footnote 633: Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen's works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Const.i.tutions, lib. I.-VI.]

[Footnote 634: Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament pa.s.sage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day.]

[Footnote 635: With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common.]

[Footnote 636: Iren. III. 12. 11.]

[Footnote 637: See III. 12. 12.]

[Footnote 638: No _commutatio agnitionis_ takes place, says Irenaeus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of G.o.d the Creator is "principium evangelli." (III. 11. 7).]

[Footnote 639: See IV. 11. 2 and other pa.s.sages, e.g., IV. 20 7: IV. 26.

1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4.]

[Footnote 640: Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. II. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned.]

[Footnote 641: This is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: "Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quae h.o.m.o iustificatur, quae etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc." IV. 15, 1.]

[Footnote 642: Irenaeus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. II. 8: "Verb.u.m dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur", and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son's having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7.

Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2).]

[Footnote 643: On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenaeus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the _agnitio filii_. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7, IV. 23, 24.

Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenaeus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the _agnitio filii_ seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, _veritas_, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of G.o.d the Creator.]

[Footnote 644: Irenaeus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: "Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem".]

[Footnote 645: As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: "his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem ... per omnes transiens verb.u.m omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens". IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenaeus still distinguishes very decidedly between the "people" and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of G.o.d and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification.

Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circ.u.mcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied "the middle times", and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenaeus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, _growth_ and _training_, instead of the religious ones, _sin_ and _grace_.]

[Footnote 646: The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of G.o.d, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12.

14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 11. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV.

16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2. Christ did not abolish the _natus alia legis_, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenaeus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV.

12. 1 ff.: "Austero dei praecepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem".

IV. 13. 1. f.: "Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit ... plenitudo et extensio ...

necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis". That is proved in the next pa.s.sage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: "Haec ergo, quae in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circ.u.mscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quae autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum ...

auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos".

IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, "propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur". IV. 28.

1 f.: under the old covenant G.o.d punished "typice et temporaliter et mediocrius", under the new, on the contrary, "vere et semper et austerius" ... as under the new covenant "fides aucta est", so also it is true that "diligentia conversationis adaucta est". The imperfections of the law, the "particularia legis", the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circ.u.mcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenaeus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.).]

[Footnote 647: See III. II. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle.]

[Footnote 648: From Irenaeus' statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance.]

[Footnote 649: No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenaeus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenaeus' view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few pa.s.sages may be quoted here. De orat. I: "Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circ.u.mcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis." (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora.

Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with G.o.d, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the _regula fidei_ (de praescr. 13): "Christus praedicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum"; see the discussions in adv. Marc.

II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: "amplianda adimplendaque lex."

Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: "Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sihi dic.u.n.t esse c.u.m lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quae volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quae nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quae vero ad iust.i.tiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata." That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenaeus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: "Quod permitt.i.tur, bonum non est," and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenaeus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his att.i.tude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Noldechen's article in the Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: "completus numerus prophetarum", Sibyll. I. 386: [Greek: kai tote de pausis estai metepeita prophetou], scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to a.s.sert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Baith "Tertullian's Auffa.s.sung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhaltnisses zu den Uraposteln" (Jahrbuch fur protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem.]

[Footnote 650: In addition to this, however, they definitely established within the Church the idea that there is a "Christian" view in all spheres of life and in all questions of knowledge. Christianity appears expanded to an immense, immeasurable breadth. This is also Gnosticism.

Thus Tertullian, after expressing various opinions about dreams, opens the 45th chapter of his work "de anima" with the words: "Tenemur hie de sommis quoque Christianam sententiam expromere". Alongside of the antignostic rule of faith as the "doctrine" we find the casuistic system of morality and penance (the Church "disciplina") with its media of almsgiving, fasting, and prayer; see Cypr, de op et eleemos., but before that Hippol., Comm. in Daniel ([Greek: Ekkl Aleth]. 1886, p. 242): [Greek: hoi eis tu onoma ton Theou pisteuontes kai di' agath.o.e.rgias to prosopon autou exilaskomenoi.]]

[Footnote 651: In the case of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian we already find that they observe a certain order and sequence of books when advancing a detailed proof from Scripture.]

[Footnote 652: It is worthy of note that there was not a single Arian ecclesiastic of note in the Novatian churches of the 4th century, so far as we know. All Novatian's adherents, even those in the West (see Socrates' Ecclesiastical History), were of the orthodox Nicaean type.

This furnishes material for reflection.]

[Footnote 653: Owing to the importance of the matter we shall give several Christological and trinitarian disquisitions from the work "de trinitate". The archaic att.i.tude of this Christology and trinitarian doctrine is evident from the following considerations. (1) Like Tertullian, Novatian a.s.serts that the Logos was indeed always with the Father, but that he only went forth from him at a definite period of time (for the purpose of creating the world). (2) Like Tertullian, he declares that Father, Son, and Spirit have one substance (that is, are [Greek: h.o.m.oousioi], the _h.o.m.oousia_ of itself never decides as to equality in dignity); but that the Son is subordinate and obedient to the Father and the Spirit to the Son (cc. 17, 22, 24), since they derive their origin, essence, and function from the Father (the Spirit from the Son). (3) Like Tertullian, Novatian teaches that the Son, after accomplishing his work, will again become intermingled with the Father, that is, will cease to have an independent existence (c. 31); whence we understand why the West continued so long to be favourable to Marcellus of Ancyra; see also the so-called symbol of Sardika. Apart from these points and a few others of less consequence, the work, in its formulae, exhibits a type which remained pretty constant in the West down to the time of Augustine, or, till the adoption of Johannes Damascenus'

dogmatic. The sharp distinction between "deus" and "h.o.m.o" and the use that is nevertheless made of "permixtio" and synonymous words are also specially characteristic. Cap. 9: "Christus deus dominus deus noster, sed dei filius"; c. 11: "non sic de substantia corporis ipsius exprimimus, ut solum tantum hominem illum esse dicamus, sed ut divinitate sermonis in ipsa concretione permixta etiam deum illum teneamus"; c. 11 Christ has _auctoritas divina_, "tam enim scriptura etiam deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat deum, tam hominem descripsit Iesum Christum, quam etiam deum quoque descripsit Christum dominum." In c. 12 the term "Immanuel" is used to designate Christ as G.o.d in a way that reminds one of Athanasius; c. 13: "praesertim c.u.m animadvertat, scripturam evangelicam utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foedera.s.se concordiam"; c. 14: "Christus ex verbi et carnis coniunctione concretus"; c. 16: "... ut neque h.o.m.o Christo subtrahatur, neque divinitas negetur ... utrumque in Christo confoederatum est, utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est ...

pignerata in illo divinitatis et humilitatis videtur esse concordia ...

qui mediator dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se deum et hominem socia.s.se reperitur ... nos sermonem dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam ... lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens, ex parte suscepti hominis, pa.s.sione"; c. 17: "... nisi quoniam auctoritas divini verbi ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens nec se suis viribus exercens, deiicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert, quem suscepit"; c. 18: "... ut in semetipso concordiam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque caelestium, dum utriusque partis in se connectens pignora et deum homini et hominem deo copularet, ut merito filius dei per a.s.sumptionem carnis filius hominis et filius hominis per receptionem dei verbi filius dei effici possit"; c. 19: "hic est enim legitimus dei filius qui ex ipso deo est, qui, dum sanctum illud (Luke I. 35) a.s.sumit, sibi filium hominis annect.i.t et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, connexione sua et permixtione sociata praestat et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit (Novatian's teaching is therefore like that of the Spanish Adoptionists of the 8th century), ut princ.i.p.alitas nominis istius 'filius dei' in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et venit, ut sequela nominis istius in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter his filius dei factus sit, dum non princ.i.p.aliter filius dei est, atque ideo dispositionem istam anhelus videns et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens non sic cuncta confundens, ut nullum vestigium distinctionis collocavit, distinctionem posuit dicendo. 'Propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei'. Ne si distributionem istam c.u.m libramentis suis non dispensa.s.set, sed in confuso permixtum reliquisset, vere occasionem haereticis contulisset, ut hominis filium qua h.o.m.o est, eundum et dei et hominis filium p.r.o.nuntiare deberent.... Filius dei, dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei fecit, quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociavit et iunxit, ut, dum filius hominis adhaeret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtionem foeneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. Ac si facta est angeli voce, quod nolunt haeretici, inter filium dei hominisque c.u.m sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos, uti Christum hominis filium hominem intelligant quoque dei filium et hominem dei filium id est dei verb.u.m deum accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum ex utroque connexum, et utroque contextum atque concretum et in eadem utriusque substantiae concordia mutui ad invicem foederis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturae hoc ipsum dicentis veritate cognoscant". c. 21: "haeretici nolunt Christum secundam esse personam post patrem, sed ipsum patrem;" c. 22: "c.u.m Christus 'Ego' dicit (John X. 30), deinde patrem infert dicendo, 'Ego et pater', proprietatem personae suae id est filii a paterna auctoritate discernit atque distinguit, non tantummodo de sono nominis, sed etiam de ordine dispositae potestatis ... unum enim neutraliter positum, societatis concordiam, non unitatem personae sonat ... unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit pater et filius per concordiam et per amorem et per dilectionem. Et quoniam ex patre est, quicquid illud est, filius est, manente tamen distinctione ... denique novit hanc concordiae unitatem est apostolus Paulus c.u.m personarum tamen distinctione." (Comparison with the relationship between Paul and Apollos! "Quos personae ratio invicem dividit, eosdem rursus invicem religionis ratio conducit; et quamvis idem atque ipsi non sint, dum idem sentiunt, ipsum sunt, et c.u.m duo sint, unum sunt"); c. 23: "constat hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse; ex deo autem h.o.m.o quomodo nou processit, sic dei verb.u.m processit". In c. 24 it is argued that Christ existed before the creation of the world and that not merely "predestinatione", for then he would be subsequent and therefore inferior to Adam, Abel, Enoch etc. "Sublata ergo praedestinatione quae non est posita, in substantia fuit Christus ante mundi inst.i.tutionem"; c.

31: "Est ergo deus pater omnium inst.i.tutor et creator, solus originem nesciens(!), invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, aeternus, unus deus(!), ... ex quo quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono coactae de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatae a deo virtutis agnoscitur, cuius sacrae et divinas nativitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit ..., filio soli nota sunt, qui patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo c.u.m sit genitus a patre, semper est in patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum probem; sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse discendus est, nec enim tempus illi a.s.signari potest, qui ante tempus est; semper enim in patre, ne pater non semper sit pater: quia et pater illum etiam praecedit, quod necesse est, prior sit qua pater sit. Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum, qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem quia nascitur, et per patrem quamvis originem habet qua nascitur, vicinus in nativitate, dum ex eo patre, qui solus originem non habet, nascitur ..., substantia scilicet divina, cuius nomen est verb.u.m ..., deus utique procedens ex deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud patri quod unus est deus.... Cuius sic divinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate divinitatis duos deos reddidisse videatur.... Dum huic, qui est deus, omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta filius accepta refert patri, totam divinitatis auctoritatem rursus patri remitt.i.t, unus deus ostenditur verus et aeternus pater, a quo solo haec vis divinitatis emissa, etiam in filium tradita et directa rursus per substantiae; communionem ad patrem revolvitur."]

[Footnote 654: If I am not mistaken, the production or adaptation of Apocalypses did indeed abate in the third century, but acquired fresh vigour in the 4th, though at the same time allowing greater scope to the influence of heathen literature (including romances as well as hagiographical literature).]

[Footnote 655: I did not care to appeal more frequently to the Sibylline oracles either in this or the preceding chapter, because the literary and historical investigation of these writings has not yet made such progress as to justify one in using it for the history of dogma. It is well known that the oracles contain rich materials in regard to the doctrine of G.o.d, Christology, conceptions of the history of Jesus, and eschatology; but, apart from the old Jewish oracles, this material belongs to several centuries and has not yet been reliably sifted.]

CHAPTER VI.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION INTO A PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, OR THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY AND DOGMATIC OF THE CHURCH.

Clement and Origen.

The Alexandrian school of catechists was of inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In the third century this school overthrew polytheism by scientific means whilst at the same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture.

These Alexandrians wrote for the educated people of the whole earth; they made Christianity a part of the civilisation of the world. The saying that the Christian missionary to the Greeks must be a Greek was first completely verified within the Catholic Church in the person of Origen, who at the same time produced the only system of Christian dogma possessed by the Greek Church before John Damascenus.

1. _The Alexandrian Catechetical School. Clement of Alexandria._[656]

"The work of Irenaeus still leaves it undecided whether the form of the world's literature, as found in the Christian Church, is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peaceful labour within its own territory." With these words Overbeck has introduced his examination of Clement of Alexandria's great masterpiece from the standpoint of the historian of literature. They may be also applied to the history of theology. As we have shown, Irenaeus, Tertullian (and Hippolytus) made use of philosophical theology to expel heretical elements; but all the theological expositions that this interest suggested to them as necessary, were in their view part of the faith itself. At least we find in their works absolutely no clear expression of the fact that faith is one thing and theology another, though rudimentary indications of such distinctions are found. Moreover, their adherence to the early-Christian eschatology in its entirety, as well as their rejection of a qualitative distinction between simple believers and "Gnostics," proved that they themselves were deceived as to the scope of their theological speculations, and that moreover their Christian interest was virtually satisfied with subjection to the authority of tradition, with the early-Christian hopes, and with the rules for a holy life. But since about the time of Commodus, and in some cases even earlier, we can observe, even in ecclesiastical circles, the growing independence and might of the aspiration for a scientific knowledge and treatment of the Christian religion, that is of Christian tradition.[657] There is a wish to maintain this tradition in its entirety and hence the Gnostic theses are rejected. The selection from tradition, made in opposition to Gnosticism--though indeed in accordance with its methods--and declared to be apostolic, is accepted. But there is a desire to treat the given material in a strictly scientific manner, just as the Gnostics had formerly done, that is, on the one hand to establish it by a critical and historical exegesis, and on the other to give it a philosophical form and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the times. Along with this we also find the wish to incorporate the thoughts of Paul which now possessed divine authority.[658] Accordingly schools and scholastic unions now make their appearance afresh, the old schools having been expelled from the Church.[659] In Asia Minor such efforts had already begun shortly before the time when the canon of holy apostolic tradition was fixed by the ecclesiastical authorities (Alogi).

From the history of Clement of Alexandria, the life of bishop Alexander, afterwards bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently from the history of Origen (we may also mention Firmilian of Caesarea), we learn that there was in Cappadocia about the year 200 a circle of ecclesiastics who zealously applied themselves to scientific pursuits. Bardesanes, a man of high repute, laboured in the Christian kingdom of Edessa about the same time. He wrote treatises on philosophical theology, which indeed, judged by a Western standard, could not be accounted orthodox, and directed a theological school which maintained its ground in the third century and attained great importance.[660] In Palestine, during the time of Heliogabalus and Alexander (Severus), Julius Africa.n.u.s composed a series of books on scientific theology, which were specifically different from the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian; but which on the other hand show the closest relationship in point of form to the treatises of the so-called Gnostics. His inquiries into the relationship of the genealogies of Jesus and into certain parts of the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel showed that the Church's attention had been drawn to problems of historical criticism. In his chronography the apologetic interest is subordinate to the historical, and in his [Greek: Kestoi], dedicated to Alexander Severus (Hippolytus had already dedicated a treatise on the resurrection to the wife of Heliogabalus), we see fewer traces of the Christian than of the Greek scholar. Alexander of aelia and Theoktistus of Caesarea, the occupants of the two most important sees in Palestine, were, contemporaneously with him, zealous patrons of an independent science of theology. Even at that early time the former founded an important theological library; and the fragments of his letters preserved to us prove that he had caught not only the language, but also the scientific spirit of the age. In Rome, at the beginning of the third century, there was a scientific school where textual criticism of the Bible was pursued and where the works of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid, and Galen were zealously read and utilised. Finally, the works of Tertullian show us that, even among the Christians of Carthage, there was no lack of such as wished to naturalise the pursuit of science within the Church; and Eusebius (H. E. V. 27) has transmitted to us the t.i.tles of a series of scientific works dating as far back as the year 200 and ascribed to ecclesiastics of that period.

Whilst all these phenomena, which collectively belong to the close of the second and beginning of the third century, show that it was indeed possible to suppress heresy in the Church, but not the impulse from which it sprang, the most striking proof of this conclusion is the existence of the so-called school of catechists in Alexandria. We cannot now trace the origin of this school, which first comes under our notice in the year 190,[661] but we know that the struggle of the Church with heresy was concluded in Alexandria at a later period than in the West.

We know further that the school of catechists extended its labours to Palestine and Cappadocia as early as the year 200, and, to all appearance, originated or encouraged scientific pursuits there.[662]

Finally, we know that the existence of this school was threatened in the fourth decade of the third century; but Heraclas was shrewd enough to reconcile the ecclesiastical and scientific interests.[663] In the Alexandrian school of catechists the whole of Greek science was taught and made to serve the purpose of Christian apologetics. Its first teacher, who is well known to us from the writings he has left, is _Clement of Alexandria_.[664] His main work is epoch-making. "Clement's intention is nothing less than an introduction to Christianity, or, speaking more correctly and in accordance with the spirit of his work, an initiation into it. The task that Clement sets himself is an introduction to what is inmost and highest in Christianity itself. He aims, so to speak, at first making Christians perfect Christians by means of a work of literature. By means of such a work he wished not merely to repeat to the Christian what life has already done for him as it is, but to elevate him to something still higher than what has been revealed to him by the forms of initiation that the Church has created for herself in the course of a history already dating back a century and a half." To Clement therefore Gnosis, that is, the (Greek) philosophy of religion, is not only a means of refuting heathenism and heresy, but at the same time of ascertaining and setting forth what is highest and inmost in Christianity. He views it as such, however, because, apart from evangelical sayings, the Church tradition, both collectively and in its details, is something foreign to him; he has subjected himself to its authority, but he can only make it intellectually his own after subjecting it to a scientific and philosophical treatment.[665] His great work, which has rightly been called the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church,[666] is consequently the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church tradition together with the a.s.sumption that Christ as the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory of the world, and at the same time reveals to the believer the rich content of his faith. Here then is found, in form and content, the scientific Christian doctrine of religion which, while not contradicting the faith, does not merely support or explain it in a few places, but raises it to another and higher intellectual sphere, namely, out of the province of authority and obedience into that of clear knowledge and inward, intellectual a.s.sent emanating from love to G.o.d.[667] Clement cannot imagine that the Christian faith, as found in tradition, can of itself produce the union of intellectual independence and devotion to G.o.d which he regards as moral perfection. He is too much of a Greek philosopher for that, and believes that this aim is only reached through knowledge. But in so far as this is only the deciphering of the secrets revealed in the Holy Scriptures through the Logos, secrets which the believer also gains possession of by subjecting himself to them, all knowledge is a reflection of the divine revelation. The lofty ethical and religious ideal of the man made perfect in fellowship with G.o.d, which Greek philosophy had developed since the time of Plato and to which it had subordinated the whole scientific knowledge of the world, was adopted and heightened by Clement, and a.s.sociated not only with Jesus Christ but also with ecclesiastical Christianity. But, whilst connecting it with the Church tradition, he did not shrink from the boldest remodelling of the latter, because the preservation of its wording was to him a sufficient guarantee of the Christian character of the speculation.[668]

In Clement, then, ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism had attained in Philo, and no doubt the latter exercised great influence over him.[669] Moreover, Clement stands on the ground that Justin had already trodden, but he has advanced far beyond this Apologist. His superiority to Justin not only consists in the fact that he changed the apologetic task that the latter had in his mind into a systematic and positive one; but above all in the circ.u.mstance that he transformed the tradition of the Christian Church, which in his days was far more extensive and more firmly established than in Justin's time, into a real scientific dogmatic; whereas Justin neutralised the greater part of this tradition by including it in the scheme of the proof from prophecy. By elevating the idea of the Logos who is Christ into the highest principle in the religious explanation of the world and in the exposition of Christianity, Clement gave to this idea a much more concrete and copious content than Justin did. Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, training, and redemption of mankind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostics. The philosophy of the Greeks, in so far as it possessed the Logos, is declared to be a counterpart of the Old Testament law;[670] and the facts contained in the Church tradition are either subordinated to the philosophical dogmatic or receive a new interpretation expressly suited to it. The idea of the Logos has a content which is on the one hand so wide that he is found wherever man rises above the level of nature, and on the other so concrete that an authentic knowledge of him can only be obtained from historical revelation. The Logos is essentially the rational law of the world and the teacher; but in Christ he is at the same time officiating priest, and the blessings he bestows are a series of holy initiations which alone contain the possibility of man's raising himself to the divine life.[671] While this is already clear evidence of Clement's affinity to Gnostic teachers, especially the Valentinians, the same similarity may also be traced in the whole conception of the task (Christianity as theology), in the determination of the formal principle (inclusive of the recourse to esoteric tradition; see above, p. 35 f.),[672] and in the solution of the problems. But Clement's great superiority to Valentinus is shown not only in his contriving to preserve in all points his connection with the faith of the main body of Christendom, but still more in his power of mastering so many problems by the aid of a single principle, that is, in the art of giving the most comprehensive presentation with the most insignificant means. Both facts are indeed most closely connected. The rejection of all conceptions that could not be verified from Holy Scripture, or at least easily reconciled with it, as well as his optimism, opposed as this was to Gnostic pessimism, proved perhaps the most effective means of persuading the Church to recognise the Christian character of a dogmatic that was at least half inimical to ecclesiastical Christianity. Through Clement theology became the crowning stage of piety, the highest philosophy of the Greeks was placed under the protection and guarantee of the Church, and the whole h.e.l.lenic civilisation was thus at the same time legitimised within Christianity. The Logos is Christ, but the Logos is at the same time the moral and rational in all stages of development.

The Logos is the teacher, not only in cases where an intelligent self-restraint, as understood by the ancients, bridles the pa.s.sions and instincts and wards off excesses of all sorts; but also, and here of course the revelation is of a higher kind, wherever love to G.o.d alone determines the whole life and exalts man above everything sensuous and finite.[673] What Gnostic moralists merely regarded as contrasts Clement, the Christian and Greek, was able to view as stages; and thus he succeeded in conceiving the motley society that already represented the Church of his time as a unity, as the humanity trained by one and the same Logos, the Pedagogue. His speculation did not drive him out of the Church; it rather enabled him to understand the multiplicity of forms she contained and to estimate their relative justification; nay, it finally led him to include the history of pre-Christian humanity in the system he regarded as a unity, and to form a theory of universal history satisfactory to his mind.[674] If we compare this theory with the rudimentary ideas of a similar kind in Irenaeus, we see clearly the meagreness and want of freedom, the uncertainty and narrowness, in the case of the latter. In the Christian faith as he understood it and as amalgamated by him with Greek culture, Clement found intellectual freedom and independence, deliverance from all external authority. We need not here directly discuss what apparatus he used for this end.

Irenaeus again remained entangled in his apparatus, and much as he speaks of the _novum testamentum libertatis_, his great work little conveys the impression that its author has really attained intellectual freedom.

Clement was the first to grasp the task of future theology. According to him this task consists in utilising the historical traditions, through which we have become what we are, and the Christian communion, which is imperative upon us as being the only moral and religious one, in order to attain freedom and independence of our own life by the aid of the Gospel; and in showing this Gospel to be the highest revelation by the Logos, who has given evidence of himself whenever man rises above the level of nature and who is consequently to be traced throughout the whole history of humanity.

But does the Christianity of Clement correspond to the Gospel? We can only give a qualified affirmation to this question. For the danger of secularisation is evident, since apostasy from the Gospel would be completely accomplished as soon as the ideal of the self-sufficient Greek sage came to supplant the feeling that man lives by the grace of G.o.d. But the danger of secularisation lies in the cramped conception of Irenaeus, who sets up authorities which have nothing to do with the Gospel, and creates facts of salvation which have a no less deadening effect though in a different way. If the Gospel is meant to give freedom and peace in G.o.d, and to accustom us to an eternal life in union with Christ Clement understood this meaning. He could justly say to his opponents: "If the things we say appear to some people diverse from the Scriptures of the Lord, let them know that they draw inspiration and life therefrom and, making these their starting-point give their meaning only, not their letter" ([Greek: kan heteroia tisi ton pollon kataphainetai ta hyph' hemon legomena ton kyriakon graphon, isteon hoti ekeithen anapnei te kai ze kai tas aphormas ap' auton echonta ton noun monon, ou ten lexin, paristan epangelletai]).[675] No doubt Clement conceives the aim of the whole traditionary material to be that of Greek philosophy, but we cannot fail to perceive that this aim is blended with the object which the Gospel puts before us, namely, to be rich in G.o.d and to receive strength and life from him. The goodness of G.o.d and the responsibility of man are the central ideas of Clement and the Alexandrians; they also occupy the foremost place in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If this is certain we must avoid that searching of the heart which undertakes to fix how far he was influenced by the Gospel and how far by philosophy.